So who's the terrorist again? [Archive]

davereid

4th July 2008, 19:57

The yanks will meekly show up later.

http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/?p=445

Israel will deal to the Iranians well before the US or UN even understand the issue.

And with good reason.

7 million people in Israel.

Invaded by 200 million arabs... in:

1948 Invaded by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq - who lost.

1949-1950 Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip.

1950-1956 continuous war with Egyptian fedayeen from Gaza strip

1948-1952 In Libya, Jews were deprived citizenship, and in Iraq, their property was seized.

1956, Egypt, in an act of war, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of the Constantinople Convention. Israel responded on October 29, 1956, by invading the Sinai Peninsula with British and French support. During the Suez Canal Crisis, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula.

1967, Egypt deployed 100,000 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula. It again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, returning the region to the way it was in 1956 when Israel was blockaded.

1967, Jordan entered into the mutual defense pact between Egypt and Syria intending to destroy Israel. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) destroyed most of the surprised Egyptian Air Force, then turned east to pulverize the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.

Unsurprisingly, given history, Israel didnt give them back this time.

1967, Arab leaders met in Khartoum in response to the war, to discuss the Arab position toward Israel. They reached consensus that there should be:
No recognition of the State of Israel.
No peace with Israel.
No negotiations with Israel.

1969, Egypt initiated the War of Attrition, with the goal of exhausting Israel into surrendering the Sinai Peninsula.

1973, Syria and Egypt attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, initially overwhelming the surprised Israeli military. When Israel had turned the tide of war, the USSR threatened military intervention. The United States, wary of nuclear war, secured a ceasefire on October 25

After this date, Israel stopped waiting to be attacked.

1981, Israel successfully attacked and destroyed newly built Iraqi nuclear facilities.

1981,Iraq fired 39 missiles into Israel, in the hopes of uniting the Arab world. At the behest of the United States, Israel did not respond to this attack in order to prevent a greater outbreak of war.

The bad guys here all wear turbans.

tri boy

4th July 2008, 19:57

Finn

4th July 2008, 20:02

Idle, either you've taken too many drugs in your life time or perhaps you need to.

Flatcap

4th July 2008, 20:04

And this is what the National Party wants us to become, a little cheerleader for amerikan capitalism

I don't recall National releasing that policy...

Could it be that III is pushing some left-wing propoganda?

idleidolidyll

4th July 2008, 20:12

ahh, screeching zionistsa

youze guys are so funny

idleidolidyll

4th July 2008, 20:15

Trillions of big business dollars??
Were you talking about the USA?:rofl:
News flash. They are broke!
Morally, financially, and emotionally.
There will be no war with Iran.

That little Roman empire is down the gurgler mate. Soon as the rest of the world unhedge from the US dollar the better. (has lost 85% of it's value in 90yrs)

the country might be broke but the rich and powerful are richer and powerfuller

"That little Roman empire is down the gurgler mate."

I hope you're right

but i hope you're right:

idleidolidyll

4th July 2008, 20:18

I don't recall National releasing that policy...

Could it be that III is pushing some left-wing propoganda?

of course not, what policy HAVE they released?

so far it's all bullshit and jellybeans.

the funniest moment in politics this week was National getting all pissy about Labour poking shit instead of providing policy.

Payback is such a bitch

idleidolidyll

4th July 2008, 20:19

Idle, either you've taken too many drugs in your life time or perhaps you need to.

i've heard people say you can never take too many drugs: usually they own massive pharmaceutical companies or breweries

alanzs

4th July 2008, 20:19

So should we all just pretend that the world is a peaceful place, inhabited by friendly people who want nothing more than to live in peace with everyone? Pass the bowl there bro, you be smoking some mean shit if you believe that.

While it may not be what people want to remember, if it wasn't for the US, New Zealand would be a part of Japan. :eek5:

Ah, the naivety, idealism and ignorance of youth. I do remember it well. :doh:

idleidolidyll

4th July 2008, 20:22

worst thing nz ever did internationally was giving zionists someone elses land through the UN

'surprisingly' it was in the strategically important enrergy producing region of the ME

gosh, doesn't that mean the UN should kick 280 million yanks out and give their land back to the indians?

doesn't that mean the UN should tell all us pakeha to fuck off and let Maori have their country back?

oops, i forgot about the double standards....................

idleidolidyll

4th July 2008, 20:27

"if it wasn't for the US, New Zealand would be a part of Japan."

yawn, we slaughtered innocent people for them in several subsequent wars; when does the arse kissing end?

BTW: didn't the French save yank arse from the Brits? shouldn't they be grateful forever too?

continued terrorism leads to continued terrorism which leads to continued terrorism etc etc etc etc

the very word was coined to describe the actions of states

98tls

4th July 2008, 20:29

alanzs

4th July 2008, 20:30

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
What do you want to be?
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."

"Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always, even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? "

William J. Bennett (in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997)

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this: "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people, who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep. I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep.
To me, it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful. For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators."

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy. Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial."

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf." If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed.

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

Continued on next post...

Flatcap

4th July 2008, 20:30

the funniest moment in politics this week was National getting all pissy about Labour poking shit instead of providing policy.

Payback is such a bitch

You think?

There was a bunch of Truckers telling some Labour retard to get fucked that made me giggle

alanzs

4th July 2008, 20:31

Continued from above:

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

During the training of a group of police officers in Texas, during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
So, what do you want to be?

awayatc

4th July 2008, 20:32

That little Roman empire is down the gurgler mate. Soon as the rest of the world unhedge from the US dollar the better. (has lost 85% of it's value in 90yrs)

Variety of theories floating about as to why the US of A wants their dollar to desintegrate into insignificance...........Interesting little truth is that Israel does get huge amounts of American financial aid.....But does get it paid in Euro's.

alanzs

4th July 2008, 20:35

davereid

4th July 2008, 20:38

Yeah we should just have given them Germany.

Or at least the bit the Union of Socialists wasn't raping and burning.

Flatcap

4th July 2008, 20:42

gosh, doesn't that mean the UN should kick 280 million yanks out and give their land back to the indians?

That's "Native Americans" thanks

Indians have their own plot to the right of the Pakis

Pussy

4th July 2008, 20:44

Idle, either you've taken too many drugs in your life time or perhaps you need to.

Best post on this thread, Finn. Another pearl of wisdom! Love your work :D

speedpro

4th July 2008, 21:05

Wasn't there some guy in Iraq murdering people all the time, you know, Kurds and the like. I think his whole familly was in on the beating, shooting, torturing, raping thing. It's a shame that the Yanks didn't have the balls to just tell it like it was - There's a total bastard running the place and he needs to be sorted out. Gets a bit confusing when you consider the oil though. Wouldn't be a problem in Zimbabwe but there is a general lack of balls from the politicians (surprise surprise) regarding that little issue, them being black and all.

tri boy

4th July 2008, 21:09

Variety of theories floating about as to why the US of A wants their dollar to desintegrate into insignificance...........Interesting little truth is that Israel does get huge amounts of American financial aid.....But does get it paid in Euro's.

Maybe Uncle Sam is trying to buy a conscious, and the easy elevator to paradise.(might even have McDonalds up there)

Euro's, Kroner, Ruppee's, they will beg for it very shortly.

awayatc

4th July 2008, 21:29

alanzs

4th July 2008, 21:33

If any country would invade lets say New Zealand, to save us from lets say Helenstein.....And I would start popping of a few of those invaders......
Would I be a a terrorist or a freedom fighter.......

None of the above. You'd be a sheepdog. ;)

peasea

4th July 2008, 21:35

of course not, what policy HAVE they released?

so far it's all bullshit and jellybeans.

the funniest moment in politics this week was National getting all pissy about Labour poking shit instead of providing policy.

Payback is such a bitch

Bullshit and Jellybeans; now THERE was a book.

Forest

4th July 2008, 21:44

worst thing nz ever did internationally was giving zionists someone elses land through the UN

'surprisingly' it was in the strategically important enrergy producing region of the ME

gosh, doesn't that mean the UN should kick 280 million yanks out and give their land back to the indians?

doesn't that mean the UN should tell all us pakeha to fuck off and let Maori have their country back?

oops, i forgot about the double standards....................

When Israel was founded in 1948, the middle east was not producing a significant amount of crude oil.

speedpro

4th July 2008, 21:46

Street Gerbil

4th July 2008, 21:46

Off to spread some green bling around before some more can be awarded to davereid...

CDFloss

4th July 2008, 22:11

Depends on how many of your family had been imprisoned, tortured, murdered, displaced, or raped at Helenstein's instigation or with her approval.

Depends who wins and rewrites the history books...

alanzs

5th July 2008, 08:51

When Israel was founded in 1948, the middle east was not producing a significant amount of crude oil.

Very true. When peak oil happens, if it hasn't already, it'll be interesting to see how the middle east (and the world for that matter) changes. :clap:

davereid

5th July 2008, 10:27

worst thing nz ever did internationally was giving zionists someone elses land through the UN

'surprisingly' it was in the strategically important enrergy producing region of the ME
...

It wasn't someone elses land though was it.

Until WW1 it was part of the Ottoman empire.

You know, the lot that make the uncomfortable sofas, rugs that curl at the ends, and dodgy takeaways.

The arabs and the the jews BOTH lived there in complete disharmony. When WW1 arrived, both the arabs and the jews saw a prospect for liberation, and sided with the west.

Who in spite of our best efforts at Gallipoli triumphed.

So at the end of WW1 the brits were the last man standing, and were left holding two very ugly and grumpy babies.

10 years later, arabs started openly butchering jews in Hebron, and over the next 15 years (delayed only by WW2) the brits started separating the two tribes.

At the end of WW2 the brits had had enough, and had run out of money anyway, so invited the UN to sort it out.

The UN did nothing - it DIDNT create Israel, it just pissed around, leaving the area partitioned.

In 1948 the brits sold the remainder of their war machinery, spitfires, etc to arab states outside of the partitioned area, and booked a ship home. It would appear the idea was to let them sort it out among themselves, and as the jews were not in possession of spitfires or tanks, the outcome seemed sorted.

The Jews then proclaimed Israel, the day before the brits left.

The predicted war came, and to everyones surprise the jews won.

mowgli

5th July 2008, 10:35

Preparing the Battlefield (July 7, 2008)
According to the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, ......

... and in an attempt to stay one step ahead of Iran the US armed forces have all put their clocks forward. That'll work eh :)

Flatcap

5th July 2008, 10:36

The predicted war came, and to everyones surprise the jews won.

You forgot to end with "And everyone lived happily ever after"

awayatc

5th July 2008, 11:04

You forgot to end with "And everyone lived happily ever after"

Peace is only a stonethrow away.........:innocent:

FJRider

5th July 2008, 11:30

You forgot to end with "And everyone lived happily ever after"

Because it didn't end... maybe never will. :brick:

Robert Taylor

5th July 2008, 11:37

Peace is only a stonethrow away.........:innocent:

And the ultimate form of diplomacy is war. Idlecommy and all those who sing ''the peoples flag is brightest red'' are going to be suffering their own inconvenient truth come Novemberish, an electoral drubbing of the left. And why? Because people at large in this country have awoken to what a corrupt, conniving and downright nasty piece of work Frankensteins sister is, and all her pygmies.

FJRider

5th July 2008, 11:57

Depends who wins and rewrites the history books...

Someones WIN... is someones LOSS. History can not be rewritten... just the truth understood.

dipshit

5th July 2008, 12:02

All the Christians, Muslims and Jews can all go and kill each other for all I care. :yawn:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JzejeRIxS0Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JzejeRIxS0Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

portokiwi

5th July 2008, 12:49

I got a very nice Christmas letter from Mr Bush in 2006.....
Allmost made me feel importent:clap:

FJRider

5th July 2008, 13:00

All the Christians, Muslims and Jews can all go and kill each other for all I care. :yawn:

You believe what you want...as do they :whistle:

CDFloss

5th July 2008, 17:36

Someones WIN... is someones LOSS. History can not be rewritten... just the truth understood.

Correct, HISTORY can't be rewritten, but HISTORY BOOKS sure as hell can (and they have a habit of being taken pretty seriously, rightly or wrongly). :niceone:

Damantis

5th July 2008, 18:11

once the oil supply reaches the tipping point, i.e it's no longer viable to extract it, refine it or sell it cos the masses cant afford it and HAVE to use alternate forms of energy, that is when the real fun will start. The massive fortunes accumulated by the oil controllers will have to be used to develop and distribute the alternatives or they will lose control of us all.
The israellis are just another bunch of religious zealots as bad as the friggin rag-heads they were stupid enough to move in next door too (not by invitation either - the british said "here you go, have your religious homeland surrounded by people who consider you all as subhuman and demonic. Enjoy, tally ho!" ... and the region has been twice as fucked ever since.
religion and the lust for money and power is the source of the middle easts problems, If there was no oil, they would find something else to kill eachother over. America has been world policeman since they dropped a couple of bombs on japan, who ironically are now their best friend! If they'd just been consistent and kept dropping bombs on technologically inferior and religiously extremist states that could pose a future threat to them, the world would be a far happier place and gas would be 8 cents a litre.

idleidolidyll

7th July 2008, 13:21

Ok the suspense is killing me,whats the answer?:whistle:This is interrupting my knitting.

what's the answer?

the answer is simple and very hard all at the same time:

act morally and apply those morals equally whether toward yanks, brits, iraqis, koreans, africans or any country or people. Too many here, usually the conservatives, apply their morals discriminatorially; they allow Yanks to slaughter without question but complain when Palestinians, whose very lands were stolen by the UN to give to the Zionists, attack their oppressors (for example).

yes, it may cost a few dollars to act morally. The lead capitalists don't believe in anything really except greed. Authoritarians only worship power. They will spend money to cajole and brutalise if they think they can profit in the long term.
If you support them in any way that corrupts your moral base, you have more than given in; you've handed them victory on a platter, you've accepted their bullshit.
Similarly, if you apply morality based on nationality or ethnicity on this forum, some like me will challenge it. You too should be challenging it when you see it.

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing" Ed Burke

MisterD

7th July 2008, 13:33

Wow. It's such a shame you weren't around in 1945-48...:rolleyes:

firefighter

7th July 2008, 13:38

I belive that al-Qaeda, shiites, and muslims in general are the terrorists.....yanks aren't that bad they just want some cheap gas :hitcher:

Finn

7th July 2008, 13:40

Wow. It's such a shame you weren't around in 1945-48...:rolleyes:

I think he was.

Pwalo

7th July 2008, 13:45

what's the answer?

the answer is simple and very hard all at the same time:

act morally and apply those morals equally whether toward yanks, brits, iraqis, koreans, africans or any country or people. Too many here, usually the conservatives, apply their morals discriminatorially; they allow Yanks to slaughter without question but complain when Palestinians, whose very lands were stolen by the UN to give to the Zionists, attack their oppressors (for example).

yes, it may cost a few dollars to act morally. The lead capitalists don't believe in anything really except greed. Authoritarians only worship power. They will spend money to cajole and brutalise if they think they can profit in the long term.
If you support them in any way that corrupts your moral base, you have more than given in; you've handed them victory on a platter, you've accepted their bullshit.
Similarly, if you apply morality based on nationality or ethnicity on this forum, some like me will challenge it. You too should be challenging it when you see it.

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing" Ed Burke

I'm not sure that that's an answer.

It expresses admirable sentiments, but sounds more like an angry rant over capitalism, rather than a solution. Yelling loudly about your own moral stance is just going to make you the same as those who you despise so much.

mstriumph

7th July 2008, 13:51

ahh, screeching zionistsa

youze guys are so funny

it sounded reasonable to me ..... :msn-wink:

Swoop

7th July 2008, 13:56

In 1948 the brits sold the remainder of their war machinery, spitfires, etc to arab states outside of the partitioned area, and booked a ship home. It would appear the idea was to let them sort it out among themselves, and as the jews were not in possession of spitfires or tanks, the outcome seemed sorted.

The predicted war came, and to everyones surprise the jews won.
A nice little story.
The Jews bought some "pre-loved" B-17's that would become part of the new Israeli Air Force. On the way home to Israel, the pilots decided that they might as well make the most of the flight, so bombed Egypt.
Have bomber, will travel!

The wall that is being built around the country. This has had a dramatic effect on the amount of terrorist bombings. Arabs cannot easily infiltrate into Israel and blow themselves up any more. I wonder how many people have noticed this?

The talitubby menace. Over 20,000 talitubby fighters have been hunted down and killed during the "war on terror". The tide has turned for them. Repeated calls go out from their leadership to "do (attack) something", but their ranks are getting thinner.
Unfortunately it is like killing a cockroach, unless you get every last piece, the problem will grow again.

ManDownUnder

7th July 2008, 14:04

'tis an interesting point to ponder over all....

Both side of any war will generally believe they are "right". Both sides will prey for God's vengeance on their enemy (in the past - both sides often prayed to the very same God... thereby asking Him to smite his own...!).

What's right for one country might also be right for the other to defend. Iran wants to assert it's position in the world as a nuclear power, and the US wants to protect it's own interests.

Both use various guises to validate their claims, I'm guessing religious dogma and national protection on both sides... and there will be a "loser" no matter which way the axe swings. This was the very reason the UN was formed way back when. It was recognised that nukes are force multipliers beyond normal measure back then (and still to this day I would suggest) so the UN had a mandate to restrict the amount of force a single national could wield on the global stage.

Sadly we're now looking at a global economy where energy (and in time to come - water) are becoming valuable resources triggering nations to secure sources for their own benefit - invoking a reaction by the nationas naturally in posession of that resource to protect it through whatever means.

Ironically - to me that all points to a key problem of runaway population growth as being a key driving force... suggesting China's policy of controlling birth rates might not be a bad one.

Anyone else in here read "Ishmael (http://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-Adventure-Spirit-Daniel-Quinn/dp/0553375407)" - the story about a guy talking to a gorilla? It's a strange pretext, but there's some pretty cool thinking in that book, examining all manner of arguments like this one.

MisterD

7th July 2008, 14:13

The talitubby menace. Over 20,000 talitubby fighters have been hunted down and killed during the "war on terror". The tide has turned for them. Repeated calls go out from their leadership to "do (attack) something", but their ranks are getting thinner.
Unfortunately it is like killing a cockroach, unless you get every last piece, the problem will grow again.

I personally believe that the Iraq situation actually suits the US from a tactical (if not political) point of view...on the basis it's better to have all the loony muslim extremists from all over the world sucked into that vortex trying to kill trained americans with guns, body armour and tanks, than trying to blow themselves up in American cities...but I digress.

mstriumph

7th July 2008, 14:15

mstriumph

7th July 2008, 14:26

.........................The israellis are just another bunch of religious zealots as bad as the friggin rag-heads they were stupid enough to move in next door too .............

as an aside, i understand there is a distinct difference between strict jews [who form a very small part of the population] and israelies [which term includes everyone there, including israeli arabs] ...... also, jews and arabs had lived together in that area for many hundreds of years, so it's not really a case of 'moving in next door to ...... ?

on the other hand, gotta agree with you that the region is definately fucked ...

alanzs

7th July 2008, 14:41

what's the answer?

the answer is simple and very hard all at the same time:

act morally and apply those morals equally whether toward yanks, brits, iraqis, koreans, africans or any country or people. Too many here, usually the conservatives, apply their morals discriminatorially; they allow Yanks to slaughter without question but complain when Palestinians, whose very lands were stolen by the UN to give to the Zionists, attack their oppressors (for example).

yes, it may cost a few dollars to act morally. The lead capitalists don't believe in anything really except greed. Authoritarians only worship power. They will spend money to cajole and brutalise if they think they can profit in the long term.
If you support them in any way that corrupts your moral base, you have more than given in; you've handed them victory on a platter, you've accepted their bullshit.
Similarly, if you apply morality based on nationality or ethnicity on this forum, some like me will challenge it. You too should be challenging it when you see it.

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing" Ed Burke

This isn't an answer to the rant you brought up. What would you do? Your philosophical stance doesn't provide actions, just a base premise from which to self righteously pontificate and attacks others who are forced to act because they don't have the enviable luxury of being a small, isolated country of no strategic value to the rest of the world.

Some people have to really solve extremely complex issues that require action in an amazingly complex world, not just rant in chat rooms on motorcycle boards.
Again, what would you do? I think everyone would welcome your thoughts on actions to successfully solve the issue you brought up.

:soon:

alanzs

7th July 2008, 14:43

as an aside, i understand there is a distinct difference between strict jews [who form a very small part of the population] and israelies [which term includes everyone there, including israeli arabs] ...... also, jews and arabs had lived together in that area for many hundreds of years, so it's not really a case of 'moving in next door to ...... ?

on the other hand, gotta agree with you that the region is definately fucked ...

You are correct. Most Israelis want peace and abhor what the small, fundamentalist right wing have done to the peace and stability of the region.

Robert Taylor

7th July 2008, 19:45

Wow. It's such a shame you weren't around in 1945-48...:rolleyes:

Well it might have beaten some sense into him....Appeasement doesnt work so well with dictators, just ask Neville Chamberlain from his grave.

Bikernereid

7th July 2008, 19:50

if it wasn't for the US screwing the UK out of its gold reserves a couple of rather nice islands and the fookin Jews getting handed Palestine then NZ would be part of Japan!! What crap history have you been taught at school?

So should we all just pretend that the world is a peaceful place, inhabited by friendly people who want nothing more than to live in peace with everyone? Pass the bowl there bro, you be smoking some mean shit if you believe that.

While it may not be what people want to remember, if it wasn't for the US, New Zealand would be a part of Japan. :eek5:

Ah, the naivety, idealism and ignorance of youth. I do remember it well. :doh:

Bikernereid

7th July 2008, 20:02

The Sykes-Picot Agreement saw the start of the Arabs (including the Palestinians) getting had for assistaing the Brits in the war. What happened was that the US Jewsih lobby pressurised the Brits into giving the Jews a honmeland and guess what out of the three that were suggested it was Palestine that was chosen. So those 'rag-heads' that died so that Germans and co did not win the war got screwed over for our 'freedom'.

As for moving next door, if you new anything about history at all (maybe not as you have probably spent all your life in your little southern cocoon) they did not. The Palestinians had let a great deal of Jews move into Paletine after being persecuted in Spain. Jews, Muslims and Christians lived in harmony for years until the Palestinians lost thier home!

Strange that when it is the Polish and other nationalities home being threatened all hell breaks lose but when a few 'rag-heads' lose thier home and try to defend it (with some help from thier neighbours) people get offended. Hypocricy ring any bells!!!

Trisiting the Gaza Strip you might learn something!

The israellis are just another bunch of religious zealots as bad as the friggin rag-heads they were stupid enough to move in next door too (not by invitation either - the british said "here you go, have your religious homeland surrounded by people who consider you all as subhuman and demonic. Enjoy, tally ho!" ... and the region has been twice as fucked ever since.

davereid

7th July 2008, 20:12

A nice little story.
The Jews bought some "pre-loved" B-17's that would become part of the new Israeli Air Force. On the way home to Israel, the pilots decided that they might as well make the most of the flight, so bombed Egypt.
Have bomber, will travel!

Neglects the important fact that this bombing occured a full month AFTER Egypt declared war on Israel.

alanzs

7th July 2008, 20:35

if it wasn't for the US screwing the UK out of its gold reserves a couple of rather nice islands and the fookin Jews getting handed Palestine then NZ would be part of Japan!! What crap history have you been taught at school?

Please enlighten me, as I never said that the Jews getting handed Palestine and then NZ would be part of Japan. Never said that at all.

What I did make reference to was that during the war in the pacific, in WW2, the US was engaging Japan throughout the Pacific. IF the US was to have lost in the Pacific, Japan would have taken NZ, therefore, NZ would be part of Japan. Most historical scholars agree on this.

I am not an expert though, but I do know a little bit about the challenges of the region and the implication actions there have on the wider global community.

As I asked the original poster, what would you do? Please, state the action that you would do to resolve this conflict.

Swoop

7th July 2008, 20:37

Neglects the important fact that this bombing occured a full month AFTER Egypt declared war on Israel.
Also the difficulties involved in acquiring the aircraft (http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2848/bomber1.htm).

Street Gerbil

7th July 2008, 21:05

a understand there is a distinct difference between strict jews [who form a very small part of the population] and israelies [which term includes everyone there, including israeli arabs]
Not entirely accurate. According to the 2008 census conducted by Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il),
Israelis i.e. citizens of the state of Israel have the following ethnic makeup:
<table style="text-align: left;" border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2">
<tr>
<td>Ethnic group</td>
<td>Population</td>
<td>% of total (7282000)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Jewish</td>
<td>5499000</td>
<td>75.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Arab</td>
<td>1461000</td>
<td>20%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Other</td>
<td>309900</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
</tr>
</table>

awayatc

7th July 2008, 21:06

The Sykes-Picot Agreement saw the start of the Arabs (including the Palestinians) getting had for assistaing the Brits in the war. What happened was that the US Jewsih lobby pressurised the Brits into giving the Jews a honmeland and guess what out of the three that were suggested it was Palestine that was chosen. So those 'rag-heads' that died so that Germans and co did not win the war got screwed over for our 'freedom'.

As for moving next door, if you new anything about history at all (maybe not as you have probably spent all your life in your little southern cocoon) they did not. The Palestinians had let a great deal of Jews move into Paletine after being persecuted in Spain. Jews, Muslims and Christians lived in harmony for years until the Palestinians lost thier home!

Strange that when it is the Polish and other nationalities home being threatened all hell breaks lose but when a few 'rag-heads' lose thier home and try to defend it (with some help from thier neighbours) people get offended. Hypocricy ring any bells!!!

Trisiting the Gaza Strip you might learn something!

When te UN peacekeepers went to Lebanon in the late seventies, most soldiers sympathised with Israel......
When the same soldiers came back 6 months later however their sympathy had shifted towards the Palestinians....

Palestinians/Arabs and Jews lived together peacefully for many years in what is now Israel.
Sad truth is that very same land is also the homeland for Palestinians.....

Unfortunately There is more money in conflict then in Peace....
Israel is a very large international arms dealer, and can sell American "combat proven" military hardware to anybody the USA officially can't trade with.

Palestinians are very nice people, and I am sure most Jews are as well, :hug:as is any other race/ creed/ breed and Nationality (apart from Aussies....:whistle: )

People are not the problem....politics are:buggerd:

alanzs

7th July 2008, 21:11

Palestinians are nice people, so are Jews, Arabs etc......etc

People are not the problem....politics are

Very well put. I think everyone wants the same thing regardless of "what" or "who" they are; to live in peace, safety and security. :calm:

alanzs

7th July 2008, 21:51

Bikernereid

7th July 2008, 21:59

I wish that this was true but some peope don't. I spoke to some Isralis when Netanyahu first got elected and they were so pleased and that they didn't want peace with the Palestinians. When I asked in amazement why, they stated that the blood bath that would ensue between the Ultra orthodox Jews and secular jews after peace with the Palestinians would be far worse than anything that had been seen before. This was because the Ultra's saw secular Jews as scum the same as the Palestinians.

And here was me always thinkiing that peace was good.

Very well put. I think everyone wants the same thing regardless of "what" or "who" they are; to live in peace, safety and security. :calm:

puppykicker

8th July 2008, 06:41

Unfortunately it is like killing a cockroach, unless you get every last piece, the problem will grow again.

right, kill em all and problem solved. not like kids whos parents were killed as martyrs might go on to follow in their footsteps, but thats fine, we can kill the kids. so all we have to do is kill absolutely anyone that may one day decide they want to blow something up. ethenic cleansing is a small price to pay for safety.

does anyone seriously think that you can fight (let alone kill) an idea?
:rolleyes:

mowgli

8th July 2008, 08:10

alanzs

8th July 2008, 08:12

I wish that this was true but some peope don't. I spoke to some Isralis when Netanyahu first got elected and they were so pleased and that they didn't want peace with the Palestinians. When I asked in amazement why, they stated that the blood bath that would ensue between the Ultra orthodox Jews and secular jews after peace with the Palestinians would be far worse than anything that had been seen before. This was because the Ultra's saw secular Jews as scum the same as the Palestinians.

And here was me always thinkiing that peace was good.

There's always people that want to push their agenda, no matter the cost. A few names for these people come to mind; extremists and fundamentalist. :mellow:

awayatc

8th July 2008, 08:30

Extremists anywhere are a minority that cause the majority of all conflicts.
Not a single extremist ever has been or will be right....

alanzs

8th July 2008, 15:49

Extremists anywhere are a minority that cause the majority of all conflicts.
Not a single extremist ever has been or will be right....

Hallelujah, can I get a witness? Amen Brother Awayatc!...

Oooppps, I meant, you are right...

mstriumph

8th July 2008, 19:13

Not entirely accurate. According to the 2008 census conducted by Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (http://www.cbs.gov.il),
Israelis i.e. citizens of the state of Israel have the following ethnic makeup:
<table style="text-align: left;" border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2">
<tr>
<td>Ethnic group</td>
<td>Population</td>
<td>% of total (7282000)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Jewish</td>
<td>5499000</td>
<td>75.5%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Arab</td>
<td>1461000</td>
<td>20%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Other</td>
<td>309900</td>
<td>4.4%</td>
</tr>
</table>

mmmmmm - ok, given that a jew is anyone born of a jewish mother or acceptably converted, that still leaves us with several divisions and degrees of observance

the post i was responding to concerned the lumping of everyone into the same barrel
...... when i said 'strict jews' in [I]my post, i was talking about the super-frum, the kosher of the kosherest ..... not your average jew-in-the-street, secular jews, reform jews, traditional jews or whatever - just the ones that get REALLY cross and barricade streets before the Sabbath and suchlike ...... so, if you can re-make your statistics on that basis, i'd like to see it....... but, as you aren't allowed to count them how DO they perform the census?..:rolleyes:

mstriumph

8th July 2008, 19:28

.....................
Strange that when it is the Polish and other nationalities home being threatened all hell breaks lose but when a few 'rag-heads' lose thier home and try to defend it (with some help from thier neighbours) people get offended.

'rag-heads' is an offensive term to many, me included
but, that aside, i scarcely think that an all-round arab attack swearing to push the new state into the sea can be dismissed as people 'trying to defend their home with some help from their neighbours' ........

there's a lot wrong on both sides..... name-calling and emotive language don't help anything

idleidolidyll

8th July 2008, 20:04

Quotes of Value

“The greatest crime since World War II has been U.S. foreign policy.”

— Ramsey Clark
former U.S. Attorney General

idleidolidyll

8th July 2008, 20:06

Quotes of Value

“If ‘terrorism’ means ‘intimidation by violence or the threat of violence,’ and if we allow the definition to include violence by states and agents of states, then it is these, not isolated individuals or small groups, that are the important terrorists in the world.
“If terrorist violence is measured by the extent of politically motivated torture and murder, ...it is in the U.S.-sponsored and protected ‘authoritarian’ states — the real terror network — that these forms of violence have reached a high crescendo in recent decades.”

— Edward S. Herman
The Real Terror Network (http://www.ghostchild.com/media_archive/files/Genocide%20Related/books/RealTerrorNetwork.html)

idleidolidyll

8th July 2008, 20:06

Quotes of Value

“I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.”

— General Smedley Butler
USMC (Ret.)

idleidolidyll

8th July 2008, 20:09

Quotes of Value

“If they turn on the radars we’re going to blow up their goddamn SAMs [surface-to-air missiles]. They know we own their country. We own their airspace... We dictate the way they live and talk. And that’s what’s great about America right now. It’s a good thing, especially when there’s a lot of oil out there we need.”

— U.S. Brig. General William Looney
Washington Post, August 30, 1999
referring, in reality, to the brutal mass-murder
of hundreds of civilian Iraqi men, women and children
during 10,000 sorties by American/British war criminals
in the first eight months of 1999

idleidolidyll

8th July 2008, 20:11

Quotes of Value

“The trouble is that when American dollars earn only six percent over here, they get restless and go overseas to get 100 percent. The flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
“I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to defend some lousy investment of the bankers. We should fight only for the defense of our home and the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
“There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It had its ‘finger men’ to point out enemies, its ‘muscle men’ to destroy enemies, its ‘brain men’ to plan war preparations and a ‘Big Boss’ — supernationalistic capitalism.
“I spent 33 years in the Marines. Most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.
“I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.
“War is a racket.”

— General Smedley D. Butler
former U.S. Marine Commandant
in Common Sense
November 1935

idleidolidyll

8th July 2008, 20:15

Quotes of Value

“The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist — McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnel Douglas, the designer of the F-15.”

— Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times columnist
“A Manifesto for the Fast World”
New York Times Magazine
March 28, 1999

“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

— George Orwell
author of 1984

“... the United States has given frequent and enthusiastic support to the overthrow of democracy in favor of ‘investor friendly’ regimes.
“The World Bank, IMF, and private banks have consistently lavished huge sums on terror regimes, following their displacement of democratic governments, and a number of quantitative studies have shown a systematic positive relationship between U.S. and IMF/World Bank aid to countries and their violations of human rights.”

— Edward S. Herman
economist, U.S. media and foreign policy critic
author of The Real Terror Network (http://www.ghostchild.com/media_archive/files/Genocide%20Related/books/RealTerrorNetwork.html)

idleidolidyll

8th July 2008, 20:20

American state terrorism is an old tradition

“The use of terror is deeply ingrained in our [national] character. Back in 1818, John Quincy Adams hailed the ‘salutary efficacy’ of terror in dealing with ‘mingled hordes of lawless Indians and negroes.’ He wrote that to justify Andrew Jackson’s rampages in Florida which virtually annihilated the native population and left the Spanish province under US control, much impressing Thomas Jefferson and others with his wisdom.”

— Noam Chomsky
What Uncle Sam Really Wants (http://www.ghostchild.com/media_archive/files/Genocide%20Related/books/UncleSham.html)

“I did not know how much was ended. When I look back now from this high hill of my old age, I can see the butchered women and children lying heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as I saw them with eyes still young. And I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud, and was buried in the blizzard. A people’s dream died there. It was a beautiful dream...”

— Black Elk
Oglala Holy Man
on the aftermath of the Massacre at Wounded Knee

The massacre at Wounded Knee, South Dakota took place in December, 1890. Soldiers of the United States Army Seventh Cavalry used gattling guns to slaughter 300 helpless Lakota children, men and women.

“...I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone to conquer, not to redeem... And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the [American] eagle put its talons on any other land.”

— Mark Twain
October 15, 1900
The New York Herald
condemning the genocide of the Philippine people (http://www.ghostchild.com/media_archive/files/Genocide%20Related/usgenocide/Philippines.html)
which began in 1899 and lasted to 1902

“We have pacified some thousands of the [Philippine] islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag.
“And so, by these Providences of God — and the phrase is the government’s, not mine — we are a World Power.”

— Mark Twain

“America was born in blood. America suckled on blood. America gorged on blood and grew into a giant, and America will drown in blood.”

— Thomas W. Chittum
Vietnam veteran
in his book Civil War Two

idleidolidyll

8th July 2008, 20:32

Some people have to really solve extremely complex issues that require action in an amazingly complex world, not just rant in chat rooms on motorcycle boards.
Again, what would you do? I think everyone would welcome your thoughts on actions to successfully solve the issue you brought up.

:soon:

you want me to solve all the problems of the world on the internet?
please, don't be ridiculous

i'm no deity, i don't have super powers; i only see hypocrisy, injustice and lies and ask people to open their eyes and their minds.
we are all small indeed compared to those who create the terror. we can make a small difference by identifying lies, propaganda and amorality and trying ourselves not to accept it. That's what I try to do and my posts here are just a part of that culture.

To sit back and allow lies and abuse to go unchallenged is tantamount to supporting the same.

What can we do? We can all speak out and reject the wholesale terrorism of states and corporations; terrorism far greater than any of puny groups like AQ, Red Brigade, ETA, IRA et al

Nobody is expected to lay down their life in some tragidrama in order to prove they have done something to combat the evils of the world. Some will of course but the real strength we little people have is the mass of our collective voices. If we say nothing, do nothing and allow the abuse to continue without question; we are fulfilling the 200+ year old expectations of Edmund Burke:
"For evil to prevail, all it takes is for good men to do nothing"

Flatcap

8th July 2008, 20:34

Quotes of Value

Old people don't need companionship. They need to be isolated and studied so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use.

Homer J Simpson

Flatcap

8th July 2008, 20:35

Quotes of Value

Remember that postcard Grandpa sent us from Florida of that Alligator biting that woman's bottom? That's right, we all thought it was hilarious. But, it turns out we were wrong. That alligator was sexually harrassing that woman.

Homer J Simpson

Flatcap

8th July 2008, 20:36

Quotes of Value

I'm not a bad guy! I work hard, and I love my kids. So why should I spend half my Sunday hearing about how I'm going to Hell?

Homer J Simpson

idleidolidyll

8th July 2008, 20:39

Well it might have beaten some sense into him....Appeasement doesnt work so well with dictators, just ask Neville Chamberlain from his grave.

tell me more about those right wing dictators during the late 30's and 40's
while you're at it, tell us all about all those leading capitalists from the US who helped Hitler rise to power and who continued helping him while he slaughtered Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals etc and laid waste to Europe....

you're always hilarious

fascism: extreme right wing authoritarian capitalism

Mussolini and Hitler were both massively supported by capitalists whom they in turn supported. Not only that, the Catholic mongrel Church even signed a concordat supporting Hitlers murders.

During WW2 the zionists were given the opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of Jews from the concentration camps. They refused because the propaganda value of dead Jews was essential for the post war formation of Israel and they knew it.

idleidolidyll

8th July 2008, 20:45

yes,
us people are just poems
we're 90metaphor
with a leanness of meaning
approaching hyper-distillation
and once upon a time
we were moonshine
rushing down the throat of a giraffe
yes, rushing down the long hallway
despite what the p.a. announcement says
yes, rushing down the long stairs
with the whiskey of eternity
fermented and distilled
to eighteen minutes
burning down our throats
down the hall
down the stairs
in a building so tall
that it will always be there
yes, it's part of a pair
there on the bow of noah's ark
the most prestigious couple
just kickin back parked
against a perfectly blue sky
on a morning beatific
in its indian summer breeze
on the day that america
fell to its knees
after strutting around for a century
without saying thank you
or please
and the shock was subsonic
and the smoke was deafening
between the setup and the punch line
cuz we were all on time for work that day
we all boarded that plane for to fly
and then while the fires were raging
we all climbed up on the windowsill
and then we all held hands
and jumped into the sky
and every borough looked up when it heard the first blast
and then every dumb action movie was summarily surpassed
and the exodus uptown by foot and motorcar
looked more like war than anything i've seen so far
so far
so far
so fierce and ingenious
a poetic specter so far gone
that every jackass newscaster was struck
dumb and stumbling
over 'oh my god' and 'this is unbelievable' and on and on
and i'll tell you what, while we're at it
you can keep the pentagon
keep the propaganda
keep each and every tv
that's been trying to convince me
to participate
in some prep school punk's plan to perpetuate retribution
perpetuate retribution
even as the blue toxic smoke of our lesson in retribution
is still hanging in the air
and there's ash on our shoes
and there's ash in our hair
and there's a fine silt on every mantle
from hell's kitchen to brooklyn
and the streets are full of stories
sudden twists and near misses
and soon every open bar is crammed to the rafters
with tales of narrowly averted disasters
and the whiskey is flowin
like never before
as all over the country
folks just shake their heads
and pour
so here's a toast to all the folks who live in palestine
Afghanistan
iraq
el salvador
here's a toast to the folks living on the pine ridge reservation
under the stone cold gaze of mt. rushmore
here's a toast to all those nurses and doctors
who daily provide women with a choice
who stand down a threat the size of oklahoma city
just to listen to a young woman's voice
here's a toast to all the folks on death row right now
awaiting the executioner's guillotine
who are shackled there with dread
and can only escape into their heads
to find peace in the form of a dream
cuz take away our playstations
and we are a third world nation
under the thumb of some blue blood royal son
who stole the oval office and that phony election
i mean
it don't take a weatherman
to look around and see the weather
jeb said he'd deliver florida, folks
and boy did he ever
and we hold these truths to be self evident:
#1 george w. bush is not president
#2 america is not a true democracy
#3 the media is not fooling me
cuz i am a poem heeding hyper-distillation
i've got no room for a lie so verbose
i'm looking out over my whole human family
and i'm raising my glass in a toast
here's to our last drink of fossil fuels
let us vow to get off of this sauce
shoo away the swarms of commuter planes
and find that train ticket we lost
cuz once upon a time the line followed the river
and peeked into all the backyards
and the laundry was waving
the graffiti was teasing us
from brick walls and bridges
we were rolling over ridges
through valleys
under stars
i dream of touring like duke ellington
in my own railroad car
i dream of waiting on the tall blonde wooden benches
in a grand station aglow with grace
and then standing out on the platform
and feeling the air on my face
give back the night its distant whistle
give the darkness back its soul
give the big oil companies the finger finally
and relearn how to rock-n-roll
yes, the lessons are all around us
and a change is waiting there
so it's time to pick through the rubble, clean the streets
and clear the air
get our government to pull its big dick out of the sand
of someone else's desert
put it back in its pants
and quit the hypocritical chants of
freedom forever
cuz when one lone phone rang
in two thousand and one
at ten after nine
on nine one one
which is the number we all called
when that lone phone rang right off the wall
right off our desk and down the long hall
down the long stairs
in a building so tall
that the whole world turned
just to watch it fall
and while we're at it
remember the first time around?
the bomb?
the ryder truck?
the parking garage?
the princess that didn't even feel the pea?
remember joking around in our apartment on avenue D?
can you imagine how many paper coffee cups
would have to change their design
following a fantastical reversal of the new york skyline?!
it was a joke, of course
it was a joke
at the time
and that was just a few years ago
so let the record show
that the FBI was all over that case
that the plot was obvious and in everybody's face
and scoping that scene
religiously
the CIA
or is it KGB?
committing countless crimes against humanity
with this kind of eventuality
as its excuse
for abuse after expensive abuse
and it didn't have a clue
look, another window to see through
way up here
on the 104th floor
look
another key
another door
10literal
90metaphor
3000 some poems disguised as people
on an almost too perfect day
should be more than pawns
in some asshole's passion play
so now it's your job
and it's my job
to make it that way
to make sure they didn't die in vain
sshhhhhh....
baby listen
hear the train?

SELF EVIDENT
Written, performed and produced by Ani DiFranco
From the album "So much shouting, so much laughter

Street Gerbil

8th July 2008, 21:38

There was a sharp ringing rap on the door.
- Then who is it? - said Arthur.
- Well, - said Ford, - if we're lucky it's just the Vogons come to
throw us in to space.
- And if we're unlucky?
- If we're unlucky, - said Ford grimly, - the captain might be
serious in his threat that he's going to read us some of his poetry
first...

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

cowpoos

8th July 2008, 21:41

tell me more about those right wing dictators during the late 30's and 40's
while you're at it, tell us all about all those leading capitalists from the US who helped Hitler rise to power and who continued helping him while he slaughtered Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals etc and laid waste to Europe....

you're always hilarious

fascism: extreme right wing authoritarian capitalism

Mussolini and Hitler were both massively supported by capitalists whom they in turn supported. Not only that, the Catholic mongrel Church even signed a concordat supporting Hitlers murders.

During WW2 the zionists were given the opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of Jews from the concentration camps. They refused because the propaganda value of dead Jews was essential for the post war formation of Israel and they knew it.
why are you so angry? can you not deal with people disagreeing with your opinions? because they are only opinions!! well thats all they seem to be at any rate!

Robert Taylor

8th July 2008, 21:48

tell me more about those right wing dictators during the late 30's and 40's
while you're at it, tell us all about all those leading capitalists from the US who helped Hitler rise to power and who continued helping him while he slaughtered Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals etc and laid waste to Europe....

you're always hilarious

fascism: extreme right wing authoritarian capitalism

Mussolini and Hitler were both massively supported by capitalists whom they in turn supported. Not only that, the Catholic mongrel Church even signed a concordat supporting Hitlers murders.

During WW2 the zionists were given the opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of Jews from the concentration camps. They refused because the propaganda value of dead Jews was essential for the post war formation of Israel and they knew it.

Shame on you for not including Josef Stalin in that little list of delightful dictators. His crimes were far worse than the capitalists you always choose to pigeon hole into one corner.
It always amazes me how your posts always set out to be deliberately obnoxious, nothing to be proud about.

jrandom

8th July 2008, 21:54

During WW2 the zionists were given the opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of Jews from the concentration camps. They refused because the propaganda value of dead Jews was essential for the post war formation of Israel and they knew it.

Seriously. What the fuck?

You do realise that you sound like a driveling lunatic, don't you?

Pussy

8th July 2008, 21:56

The funny man sat on the wall
Playing with his willy
With such a long shake
His trouser snake
was getting rather chilly
"Blow, you buggers, blow... stop the thing from freezing"
"Blow yourself" the actress said
Teasing, teasing, teasing

There you go, another nice little poem :niceone:

idleidolidyll

9th July 2008, 06:40

Strange, that's just what the Yanks let Saddam get away with when he was their buddy and just before the invasion of Kuwait when Don Rumsfeld gave his permission for Saddam to invade (just before the Yanks decided to stage their own ME coup):

From the Herald online:
"The American colonel, troubled by what he was hearing, tried to stall at first. But the declassified record shows he finally told his South Korean counterpart it "would be permitted" to machine-gun 3500 political prisoners to keep them from joining approaching enemy forces."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10520607
and a follow up:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10520608

apparently we are supposed to think the Sth Koreans and Yanks were the good guys...........................until the truth comes out decades later. Think to yourself, "If this was sanctioned, what else was sanctioned and is it possible that the US in places like Vietnam, Cambodia, Sth America, Indonesia etc both actively participated in war crimes and supported thier buddies in their war crimes".
Why? It was for capitalism as usual.

Why do they hate you? The answer is as obvious as the lies in your voice.

idleidolidyll

9th July 2008, 06:41

Seriously. What the fuck?

You do realise that you sound like a driveling lunatic, don't you?

I see, rather than asking for more info you post a straight personal attack.
That's an indication of one of two things: a simple mind or a heartless prick.

idleidolidyll

9th July 2008, 06:49

Shame on you for not including Josef Stalin in that little list of delightful dictators. His crimes were far worse than the capitalists you always choose to pigeon hole into one corner.
It always amazes me how your posts always set out to be deliberately obnoxious, nothing to be proud about.

I've condemned Joe Stalin before. Yes, he became a dictator and was as evil as many western leaders and their puppets.

Greed and lust for power are the prime movers in abuse and one system, capitalism, is actually based on greed. The other systems can be taken over by it and changed into something different bt capitalism is essentially the pursuit of ultimate power and wealth: dictatorship and oligarchy.

Any intelligent examination of the worst despots in history will confirm that. It isn't the Ghandis and Mandelas who create the worst abuse (those a long way from the authoritarian scale), its the Stalins, Mao's, Bush's, Nixon's, Pol Pot, Pinochet's, Suharto's, Hitler's, Mussolini's etc.
Overwhelmingly, these people have been motivated by lust for money and lust for power and overwhelmingly they have been capitalists or funded by capitalists.

Yes, the authoritarians whether assigned left or right wing leanings have always been the worst abusers. That's the conservative way: "We know what's best and we will tell you what that is" arrogance and greed.

idleidolidyll

9th July 2008, 06:52

why are you so angry? can you not deal with people disagreeing with your opinions? because they are only opinions!! well thats all they seem to be at any rate!

i'm not angry per se, i'm more disgusted

as for opinions, once you air them, they are fair game for anyone who can see the bullshit behind them.
those who can see the bullshit will be able to attack your arguments. those simpletons who are merewly outraged but can't make a good argument will attack the messenger personally with no attempt at examining the argument.

idleidolidyll

9th July 2008, 07:22

Shame on you for not including Josef Stalin in that little list of delightful dictators. His crimes were far worse than the capitalists you always choose to pigeon hole into one corner.
It always amazes me how your posts always set out to be deliberately obnoxious, nothing to be proud about.

Thanks Bob,

Those with agendas are often easy to take to task by examining the dissonance between what they expect of others and what they do themselves. When identified this is called"hung by your own petard".

I've never seen Bobby boy condemn ANY right wing dictator let alone the worst abusers of present times (Bush, Blair, Howard etc). For Bobby to attack me even though I HAVE condemned Mao, Stalin etc along with right wingers previously and again today, is for him to hang himself by his own petard.
Thanks for an example of the 'lesson' i offered a number of posts ago: people who assign morality based on nationality, ethnicity etc should be exposed for the hypocrites they are: you have just exposed yourself, pull your trousers back on.

jrandom

9th July 2008, 07:24

I see, rather than asking for more info you post a straight personal attack.
That's an indication of one of two things: a simple mind or a heartless prick.

I suppose I'd be silly to let myself get annoyed at this.

G'wan, tell us about the 'Zionists' who could have saved 'hundreds of thousands' of Jews from the Holocaust, but didn't.

Tell us all about it, Mr Idle Sir.

:corn:

peasea

9th July 2008, 07:27

If you want to talk tyranny and corruption what about Howard Broad?

MisterD

9th July 2008, 08:56

Yeah right all capitalists are evil..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Salt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rowntree_%28philanthropist%29

Robert Taylor

9th July 2008, 09:29

I suppose I'd be silly to let myself get annoyed at this.

G'wan, tell us about the 'Zionists' who could have saved 'hundreds of thousands' of Jews from the Holocaust, but didn't.

Tell us all about it, Mr Idle Sir.

:corn:

Im of the same opinion, no need to get annoyed at the ( obnoxious ) rantings. My local MP is Harry Duynhoven. I told him I have never voted for his party and never will do so but was still able to have a very long and cordial conversation with him. Its possible to disagree and still be nice....

mstriumph

9th July 2008, 14:45

.............Mussolini and Hitler were both massively supported by capitalists whom they in turn supported. Not only that, the Catholic mongrel Church even signed a concordat supporting Hitlers murders.

yep - right on all counts

.............During WW2 the zionists were given the opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of Jews from the concentration camps. ...........

erm, British Government i think you'll find ..... but a thoroughly good rant otherwise :laugh:

Street Gerbil

9th July 2008, 15:17

mmmmmm - ok, given that a jew is anyone born of a jewish mother or acceptably converted, that still leaves us with several divisions and degrees of observance

the post i was responding to concerned the lumping of everyone into the same barrel
...... when i said 'strict jews' in [I]my post, i was talking about the super-frum, the kosher of the kosherest ..... not your average jew-in-the-street, secular jews, reform jews, traditional jews or whatever - just the ones that get REALLY cross and barricade streets before the Sabbath and suchlike ...... so, if you can re-make your statistics on that basis, i'd like to see it.......

Quoting from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Jews):

Official figures do not exist as to the number of atheists or otherwise non-affiliated individuals, who may comprise up to a quarter of the population referred to as Jewish. According to a 2004 Israel Central Bureau of Statistics Study on Israelis aged over 8% of Israeli Jews define themselves as haredim (or Ultra-Orthodox); an additional 9% are "religious" (predominantly orthodox, also known in Israel as: Zionist-religious, national-religious and kippot srugot); 12% consider themselves "religious-traditionalists" (mostly adhering to Jewish Halakha); 27% are "non-religious traditionalists" (only partly respecting the Jewish Halakha), and 43% are "secular". Among the seculars, 53% say they believe in God. Due to the higher natality rate of religious and traditionalists over seculars, the share of religious and traditionalists among the overall population is even higher.

but, as you aren't allowed to count them how DO they perform the census?..:rolleyes:

Read about it here (http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=odqG9uWwdcMC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=israeli+census+haredi+&source=web&ots=AwoYugT2B3&sig=SpHbHT2FJT7eVCEdazvYltGPSqg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result) (page 40). Unfortunately, text from Google books cannot be copied and pasted.

svr

10th July 2008, 18:46

Extremists anywhere are a minority that cause the majority of all conflicts.
Not a single extremist ever has been or will be right....

Er, if history shows us anything it is that the majority is always WRONG, and those marginals speaking the truth have consistently been ridiculed (normally worse) by the tyranic majority.

As long as we have extreme inequality and an uncritical majority we will have violent regimes ruling the world and running our lives - no matter what you want to call our particular form of socio-political organization.
And those of you who think that there is any substantial difference between `national' and `labour', or any small `democratically' elected government have no grasp of global capitalism - corporations now rule our lives - we have no actual say.
We certainly have a right to be angry - but not at Idyll - he's not the reason 30,000 kids starve to death every day while Americans eat themselves to death.

Bikernereid

10th July 2008, 18:58

Street Gerbil

10th July 2008, 23:08

The arabs did not threaten to push the jews or israleis into the sea, this is what is known as propoganda!

So all those wars since 1948 when arabs tried to make good of their non-promise never happened and they are propaganda too? Pray tell, the inquiring minds want to know!

idleidolidyll

12th July 2008, 11:59

yep - right on all counts

erm, British Government i think you'll find ..... but a thoroughly good rant otherwise :laugh:

Yep, Brit and Spanish governments too I believe.
The offer was made by the Nazis. Zionist leaders refused. They said that they would not pay any 'ransom' (actually a rather small figure).
Here's what a leading zionist of the time said:

"One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland"
....Izaak Greenbaum

There are many similar quotes from heartless zionists of the time. The upshot is that zionism was more important to them than the lives of millions of Jews. Important to note at this point that zionists are not necessarily Jews, nor are Jews necessarily zionists. In fact it is said that there are more Christian zionists in the US alone than there are Jews in the whole world. Additionally, it is not the 'Jews' who are to blame for the violence of Israel, it is the zionists.

Decades of zionist propaganda has convinced people too lazy too research for themselves that zionism IS Judaism or that Israel represents the views of all Jews.
In fact many Jews, notably the more religious Jews rather than the Jews by name alone, totally reject Israel and zionism.

Now, when I say Jews by name alone, I equate that to my own supposed religion. I was christened into catholicism as a baby. I had no choice in the matter and I reject the religion completely. The Catholic church however, still counts me as a catholic even though I'm an atheist. The same goes for non religious 'Jews'.

One of the most racist propaganda campaigns of the zionists is to convince the world that 'Jew' is a unique race of people when in fact they were just another part of the gene pool of the middle east and later from eastern europe (yes, many Jews don't trace much or any of their blood to the ME). The conversion of the Khazars to Judaism in the middle ages for instance is a pointer to a large core of modern Jews who do not trace their history back to Palestine but to Asia. Of course there has been subsequant intermarriage but the fact remains; these people were not born ethnic Jews in the ME, they converted to Judaism at the behest of their ruler. http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-quotes.html

The claim that Judaism is 5000 years old is also a misnomer. The ROOTS of Judaism are certainly that old and since Christianity and Islam are from the same base religions, we can say the same of them. However, the defining religious book of modern Jews is from Mesopatamia AFTER the Hebrews left Israel. The religion prior to the Torah was Hebrewism and after it Judaism; they are not the same.

How do zionists counter this kind of argument? Well they don't address the issues at all. Instead they attack any who dare speak this was as antisemites even tghough it is not a criticicm of Jews or Judaism but of zionism and its political agenda and propaganda.

Do yourselves a favour and read what Jews opposed to Israeli violence have to say about zionism:

Here's a start, there are many more:

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/holocaust-zionism.htm
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm

I say again, if you support the state of Israel, why would you not support the eviction of all pakeha from NZ, the eviction of all non native people from the USA etc?
The issue is not that simple of course, the Native Americans and Maori were unarguably the original people in their lands; people of Jewish religion may have developd from the Hebrews of the ME but so did Muslims, Christians and many other peoples who lived in the ME and specifically Israel at the same time.
Unlike NZ and the US, there was no unique blood link that could have legitimised the zionist agenda in Palestine.

idleidolidyll

12th July 2008, 12:06

So all those wars since 1948 when arabs tried to make good of their non-promise never happened and they are propaganda too? Pray tell, the inquiring minds want to know!

sure they happened but the western media controlled by capitalists with major interests in the ME have convinced little minds that all were the fault of the Arabs and other peoples of the region.

In fact research has shown that for the most part that is propaganda. Reports of attacks against Israel are repeated many many times in the western media while reports of attacks by Israel against their neighbors are largely buried, rarely repeated and even when shown, incorerectly blamed on 'terrorists'.

without yank support, israel would have fallen in no time at all. Why is that Yank support there at all? Yank leaders do nothing for humanitarian reasons, it's all for economic or political gain.

If Yanks has militarised NZ to the tune of close to $100 billion, we too would be a nuclear state with more power than any nation in our region.

Of course the Yanks add together all money given to Israel (including never pay back loans) and call it 'aid'.

Aid for a highly developed nation like Israel as they withold aid for many other more needy nations? What a joke, it's quasi colonialism no less.

Flatcap

12th July 2008, 12:19

If Yanks has militarised NZ to the tune of close to $100 billion, we too would be a nuclear state with more power than any nation in our region.

Huh? Does Fiji have more power in our region than NZ then?

idleidolidyll

12th July 2008, 12:48

BTW; screeching anti semite only makes you ridiculous.

a semite is any one of the many cultural groups from the ME whose language comes from the Hebrew. Jews are just one of those religious/cultural groups.

This too is zionist propaganda. It attempts once more to intrinsically link 'Jews' with zionist authority so that any condemnation of Israel or zionism can conveniently be attacked with the halfwitted word 'antisemite'. Zionists have done this for a century and more strongly following WW2. They prey on the deserved sympathy many feel toward the Jews slaughtered in WW2 but this is just political propaganda. Zionists do not speak for Jews, they merely speak for zionists.
BTW: Muslim Palestinians are also semites, so are Christians from Lebanon, so are many others in the area.

please, call me antisemite; you label yourself more than you label me

idleidolidyll

12th July 2008, 12:52

Huh? Does Fiji have more power in our region than NZ then?

why don't you answer your own ridiculous fallacy

better still, here's a list of fallacies of which yours is one. See if you can identify exactly what fallacy it is:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html

MisterD

12th July 2008, 15:35

Methinks we need a "Commie Ravings" thread in PD...

Robert Taylor

13th July 2008, 14:46

Methinks we need a "Commie Ravings" thread in PD...

How about just sterilising them so they cant breed any more? Now that would be a useful by-product of totalitarianism.

davereid

13th July 2008, 18:04

sure they happened but the western media controlled by capitalists with major interests in the ME have convinced little minds that all were the fault of the Arabs and other peoples of the region...

Arabs declared war, and went to war first every time. Its not propaganda, its history.

without yank support, israel would have fallen in no time at all. Why is that Yank support there at all? Yank leaders do nothing for humanitarian reasons, it's all for economic or political gain.
If Yanks has militarised NZ to the tune of close to $100 billion, we too would be a nuclear state with more power than any nation in our region.
Of course the Yanks add together all money given to Israel (including never pay back loans) and call it 'aid'.

Nope. Lets just look at the facts again, as inconvenient as you may find them.

1948 Israel formed.
1948 Invaded by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq - who lost.
The Arabs were well armed. The Brits had sold them spitfires, and the balance of the British war equipment used in the middle east.

They didnt sell anything to Israel.

In fact the US and the Brits embargoed aircraft and war equipment sales to Israel. Hardly sounds like "support".

1949-1950 Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip.
Israel still embargoed by US and Brits.

1950-1956 continuous war with Egyptian fedayeen from Gaza strip
Israel still embargoed by US and Brits.

1948-1952 In Libya, Jews were deprived citizenship, and in Iraq, their property was seized.
Israel still embargoed by US and Brits.

1956, Egypt, in an act of war, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of the Constantinople Convention. Israel responded on October 29, 1956, by invading the Sinai Peninsula with British and French support. During the Suez Canal Crisis, Israel captured the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula.

Yep, before this event, and after, the US and Britisn stopped arms sales to Israel.

1967, Egypt deployed 100,000 soldiers in the Sinai Peninsula. It again closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, returning the region to the way it was in 1956 when Israel was blockaded.

1967, Arab leaders met in Khartoum in response to the war, to discuss the Arab position toward Israel. They reached consensus that there should be:
No recognition of the State of Israel.
No peace with Israel.
No negotiations with Israel.

1967, Jordan entered into the mutual defense pact between Egypt and Syria intending to destroy Israel. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) destroyed most of the surprised Egyptian Air Force, then turned east to pulverize the Jordanian, Syrian and Iraqi air forces. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.

Israel still couldnt reliably buy US or British equipment. And the French, who had been paid for Mirage jets and patrol boats kept the money, but never delivered the kit. Hardly sounds like support

1969, Egypt initiated the War of Attrition, with the goal of exhausting Israel into surrendering the Sinai Peninsula.

1973, Syria and Egypt attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, initially overwhelming the surprised Israeli military.

When Israel had turned the tide of war The United States,secured a ceasefire on October 25

Doesnt sound much like yank, or even western support to me !

Jez

13th July 2008, 18:19

Forest;

yes, but given the rise in oil prices and the massive profit they're making, it seems they really don't give a damn about the shit hitting the fan: control of energy is their ace

after all, the poor and middle class do the dying for the rich not the reverse.

the only limit to their power is their fear the populace will overthrow them.
at the moment it's hard to see that happening; big brother, well constructed fear, a highly reactive military and govt, all backed by trillions of big business dollars make it pretty hard for ordinary people to organise any credible uprising.

you referring to Iran or the USA there?

Jez

13th July 2008, 18:29

Nope. Lets just look at the facts again, as inconvenient as you may find them.

1948 Israel formed.

1948 Everything turns to custard in the middle east ...

seems to me to be a correlation between the forming of Israel and the decline in stability within that region ...

Street Gerbil

13th July 2008, 20:16

1948 Everything turns to custard in the middle east ...

seems to me to be a correlation between the forming of Israel and the decline in stability within that region ...

Except you are confusing cause and effect. The region started deteriorating a long time before that (look up 1929 massacre for example). In 1948 brits decided that the mandate territory is becoming too hot for their comfort and pulled out, which, among other things, led to establishment of the Jewish state.

Biggles41

13th July 2008, 20:18

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to
whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is
indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood,
just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have
reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the
mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the
rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear
and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto
the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have
done. And I am Caesar. " ~ Julius Caesar"

Sanx

14th July 2008, 23:53

Ladies and gentlemen,

Click on the User CP link at the top of the page. When the control panel appears, click on Edit Ignore List in the left-hand menu.

Then, type in the first few letter of iiimbecile's name (hint: it's not spelled delusional fuckwit), and then click Okay.

Once done, you'll never have to read the torrents of textual effluent he produces on a regular basis. I think he's like a small child whose mother doesn't love him - he feeds on attention. If you deprive him of that attention, he might just go away and find some other unsuspecting bunch to dribble on.

So, try adding him to your ignore list. It's cathartic.

Flatcap

15th July 2008, 08:27

Jez

15th July 2008, 17:30

Except you are confusing cause and effect. The region started deteriorating a long time before that (look up 1929 massacre for example). In 1948 brits decided that the mandate territory is becoming too hot for their comfort and pulled out, which, among other things, led to establishment of the Jewish state.

So a de-stabilising region was given a focal point for their - struggling to find the right word here - need for blood? I don't think the Israeli state are really the victims they claim to be. Their policies since 1948 have more than likely antagonised the surrounding states rather than pacifing the situation.

Their effective control and persecution of the Palestinian people is the most noticable reason for the attacks they have faced from many quarters in the last 3 decades. There are two labels minorities or the poor receive when they decide to stand-up and fight back, terrorists or revolutionaries, it all depends what side of the fence you sit on.

Che Guevara is possibly one of the most famous modern revolutionaries due to his assistance of Fidel Castro in the Cuban Revolution, yet the US (who were at the time backing the Batista dictatorship) labelled him a terrorist because he attempting to overthrow their regime.

So back to the OP original statement "So who's the terrorist again?" - it all depends which side you want to win. :2guns:

SPman

15th July 2008, 17:40

you referring to Iran or the USA there?
Both, I'd say! Ahmadinejad and his Guard are loonies, just like the US heirachy.
I'd trust neither as far as I could spit!

Street Gerbil

15th July 2008, 18:40

So a de-stabilising region was given a focal point for their - struggling to find the right word here - need for blood? I don't think the Israeli state are really the victims they claim to be. Their policies since 1948 have more than likely antagonised the surrounding states rather than pacifing the situation.

You are right. Cemeteries rarely breach peace and Israel has done very little in the "roll over and play dead" department. Or as someone expressed it rather colorfully, "If Arab countries will lay down their arms, there will be no more war. If Israel is to lay down its arms, there will be no more Israel".

Their effective control and persecution of the Palestinian people is the most noticable reason
Yes, fetching Arafart from Tunisia and forcing him upon PA Arabs was cruel and unusual punishment.

So back to the OP original statement "So who's the terrorist again?" - it all depends which side you want to win. :2guns:
No, that depends solely on which side chooses to employ terrorism as a part of their military strategy.

SPman

15th July 2008, 18:49

No, that depends solely on which side chooses to employ terrorism as a part of their military strategy.
They all employ, what is loosely referred to as Terrorism as part of their military strategy!
"Two weeks ago, I presented a young Palestinian, Mohammed Omer, with the 2008 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. Awarded in memory of the great American war correspondent, the prize goes to journalists who expose establishment propaganda, or “official drivel”, as Martha called it. Mohammed shares the prize of £5,000 with the fine war reporter Dahr Jamail. At 24, Mohammed is the youngest ever winner. His citation reads: “Every day, he reports from a war zone, where he is also a prisoner. His homeland, Gaza, is surrounded, starved, attacked, forgotten. He is a profoundly humane witness to one of the great injustices of our time. He is the voice of the voiceless.” The eldest of eight children, Mohammed has seen most of his siblings killed or wounded or maimed. An Israeli bulldozer crushed his home while the family were inside, seriously injuring his mother. And yet, says a former Dutch ambassador, Jan Wijenberg, “he is a moderating voice, urging Palestinian youth not to court hatred but seek peace with Israel.”
Getting Mohammed to London to receive his prize was a major diplomatic operation. Israel has perfidious control over Gaza’s borders, and only with a Dutch embassy escort was he allowed out. Last Thursday, on his return journey, he was met at the Allenby Bridge crossing from Jordan by a Dutch official, who waited outside the Israeli building, unaware that Mohammed had been seized by Shin Bet, Israel’s infamous security organisation. Mohammed was told to turn off his cell phone and remove the battery. He asked if he could call his Dutch embassy escort and was told forcefully he could not. A man referred to as Avi stood over his luggage, picking through his documents. “Where’s the money?” he demanded. Mohammed produced some US dollars.
“Where’s is the English pound you have?”
“I realised,” said Mohammed, “he was after the award stipend for the Martha Gellhorn Prize. I told him I didn’t have it with me. ‘You are lying’, he said. I was now surrounded by eight Shin Bet officers, all armed. The man called Avi ordered me to take off my clothes. I had already been through an x-ray machine. I stripped down to my underwear and was told to take off everything. When I refused, Avi put his hand on his gun. I began to cry: ‘Why are you treating me this way? I am human being’. He said, ‘This is nothing compared with what you will see now’. He took his gun out, pressing it to my head and with his full body weight pinning me on my side, he forcibly removed my underwear. He then made me do a concocted sort of dance. Another man, who was laughing, said, ‘Why are you bringing perfumes?’ I replied, ‘They are gifts for the people I love’. He said, ‘Oh, do you have love in your culture?’
“As they ridiculed me, they took delight most in mocking letters I had received from readers in England. I had now been without food and water and the toilet for twelve hours, and having been made to stand, my legs buckled. I vomited and passed out. All I remember is one of them gouging, scraping and clawing with his nails at the tender flesh beneath my eyes. He scooped my head and dug his fingers in near the auditory nerves between my head and eardrum. The pain became sharper as he dug in two fingers at a time. Another man had his combat boot on my neck, pressing into the hard floor. I lay there for over an hour. The room became a menagerie of pain, sound and terror.”
An ambulance was called and told to take Mohammed to a hospital, but only after he had signed a statement indemnifying the Israelis from his suffering in their custody. The Palestinian medic refused, courageously, and said he would contact the Dutch embassy escort. Alarmed, the Israelis let the ambulance go. The Israeli line, as reported by Reuters, is familiar; it is that Mohammed was “suspected” of smuggling and “lost his balance” during a “fair” interrogation.
Israeli human rights groups have documented the routine torture of Palestinians by Shin Bet agents with “beatings, painful binding, back bending, body stretching and prolonged sleep deprivation”. Amnesty has long reported the widespread use of torture by Israel, whose victims emerge as mere shadows of their former selves. Some never return. Israel is high in an international league table for its intimidation and murder of journalists, especially Palestinian journalists who receive barely a fraction of the kind of coverage given to the hostage-taking of the BBC’s Alan Johnston.
The Dutch government says it is shocked by Mohammed Omer’s treatment. Former ambassador Jan Wijenberg said, “This is by no means an isolated incident, but part of a long term strategy to demolish Palestinian social, economic and cultural life... I am aware of the possibility that Mohammed Omer might be murdered by Israeli snipers or bomb attack in the near future.”
While Mohammed was receiving his prize in London, the new Israeli ambassador to Britain, Ron Proser, was publicly complaining that many Britons no longer appreciated the uniqueness of Israel’s democracy. Perhaps they do now."

Street Gerbil

15th July 2008, 19:07

They all employ, what is loosely referred to as Terrorism as part of their military strategy!
"[I]Two weeks ago, I presented a young Palestinian, Mohammed Omer, with the 2008 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.
Yawn. Google "Muhammed al-Durrah". Google "Jeningrad". Google "fauxtography". Google "green helmet guy". Google "red cross ambulance incident". Sorry, I guess excessive wolfcrying has left me a bit sceptical.

pete376403

15th July 2008, 19:07

Jez

15th July 2008, 19:08

"If Arab countries will lay down their arms, there will be no more war. If Israel is to lay down its arms, there will be no more Israel".

yet if they ALL laid down their arms there would be peace ... i am by no means suggesting that the arabs are innocents in this, but i am very tired of israels continual "we are the victim here" line.

Israelis arent starving, they arent getting their houses bulldozed, they arent being cut off from family by walls, they arent getting stopped from international travel (or made to jump thru hoops to do so as illustrated above let alone what happens when they get back).

but i guess starvation doesnt count as terrorism
i guess bulldozing family homes doesnt count as terrorism either
illegal detention and "interrorgation" surely wouldn't be classed as terror
building a giant wall and controlling freedom of movement
shooting at crowds of youths with high velocity firearms for throwing stones at tanks? ... well i guess a stone could cause a bruise, that deserves to be shot in the head i guess
helicopter strikes causing considerable "collateral" damage/deaths ...

yes they do justify all this by the occasional suicide bombing, or poorly directed rocket attack ... so surely their replies are not terroristic ...

mstriumph

15th July 2008, 19:32

If you had followed the thread you would have seen that I was responding to someone elses post and used the terminology that they did. I do not think of arabs as 'ragheads' and I was purely responding in a language that person would understand e.g., 'ragheads' and not ragheads..................If you look at what I have written elsewhere on this thread you may come to understand why I would not use the term raghead in my everyday writing or spoken language

It is true, neither of us knows the other - and posts on a website are not a reliable remedy to that ...... which is why i told you directly that i found a term you used offensive and, so there could be no misunderstanding, specified what that term is

- on the other hand, from what you say [above] YOU use it as a means of communication [with or without inverted commas] both in your original post and, as a justification for that use, in your response to me

so i say again - to me that term is offensive -
if you really find it offensive too, i wonder that you keep right on repeating it. However, I have registered my protest and you have the right to use whatever terms you choose on here ........ that's freedom of expression ......

while we are on the subject and for what it's worth, i also find phrases like
you might learn something! offensive in that, to me, they appear arrogant and unhelpful to the discussion ..... but, once again, that's freedom of expression and i respect your right to use whatever expressions you choose :sunny:

Try reading the whole thread in future before jumping on someone about thier terminology and look at the way something is written i did
- but found it a bit heavy going when you got to the part about "Arabs ....... getting had for assistaing the Brits" and the " Jewsih lobby pressurised the Brits into giving the Jews a honmeland"
.... and lost it entirely when you had Jews moving into "Paletine"and suggesting we "Trisiting the Gaza Strip" ........

perhaps i'm being too picky [spelling isn't my strong point, either]
but it helps to pay attention to these things if you want to avoid being misunderstood...

The arabs did not threaten to push the jews or israleis into the sea, this is what is known as propoganda! You might want to look at the UN meeting at which Yaser Afarat spoke and see what he had to say or try reading some 'non-propoganda' literature about the region, the politics there and the culture.
Are we supposed to infer from this that anything WITNESSED by Arab action since 1946 is 'propaganda' and that every word that proceeds out of the mouth of Mr Afarat ['Afarat'??] is pure and unblemished truth? ...... and, by implication, that the 'non-propaganda' literature you refer to proceeds from similar source? in short, 'jewish = bad, arab = good'??

At the risk of being boring, I'll repeat myself
"there's a lot wrong on both sides..... name-calling and emotive language don't help anything" ........ but i'd defend your right to disagree with that as it's my PERSONAL opinion - and you are entitled to your own ....

And as for name calling you might want to take on all those people who use anti-semetic incorrectly!
nah - idleidolidyll has already done that better than I could ....... :sunny:

mstriumph

15th July 2008, 19:50

yet if they ALL laid down their arms there would be peace ... i am by no means suggesting that the arabs are innocents in this, but i am very tired of israels continual "we are the victim here" line.

......................yes they do justify all this by the occasional suicide bombing, or poorly directed rocket attack ... so surely their replies are not terroristic ...

found this research http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-7130591/Tactical-prevention-of-suicide-bombings.html#abstract and http://www.som.yale.edu/faculty/ehk1/Terror_Stock_SB_SCT_color.pdf to suggest that preventative arrests are more effective in lowering the suicide bombing rate than killings ...... so israel's tactics don't seem at all appropriate ...

------ however, I scarcely think that 85 suicide bombings 2001-2003 can be termed "the occasional suicide bombing"?

mstriumph

15th July 2008, 19:57

...................
There are two labels minorities or the poor receive when they decide to stand-up and fight back, terrorists or revolutionaries, it all depends what side of the fence you sit on............ yes - except i'm not sure that the majority of ordinary people on EITHER side of the border we are talking about actually WANT to be at war with each other in a struggle that seems both futile and endless ......... i think the 'terrorists' on either side are NOT the mass of those ordinary people

Street Gerbil

15th July 2008, 20:16

yet if they ALL laid down their arms there would be peace ... i am by no means suggesting that the arabs are innocents in this, but i am very tired of israels continual "we are the victim here" line.

Israelis arent starving,
I apologize for that.

they arent getting their houses bulldozed,
We need to distinguish two reasons of house demolitions in Israel:
1) Illegally built structures are torn down regardless of who owns them. Try building something without a permit in Auckland and you will see that this policy is not Israel specific.

2) As a deterrence against terrorism. It is unpleasant, but, Arabs do love their dwellings. You have absolutely no idea how many lives were saved because residents turned in a would be suicide bomber to protect their houses. Sorry, but human lives are more valuable than houses.

i guess starvation doesnt count as terrorism
Arafat died a rich man. Ever considered his business strategy?

i guess bulldozing family homes doesnt count as terrorism either
See above.

illegal detention and "interrorgation" surely wouldn't be classed as terror
I am not sure to what y are you referring to as "illegal detention", but as for interrogations, let us theoretise for a moment: you have an information that terrorist group such and such has successfully transferred a suicide terrorist inside the country and he intends to attack a crowded area within an hour. You have one of the accomplices under arrest and he knows what the target is. Asking nicely does not help. Your action?

building a giant wall and controlling freedom of movement
Wall sucks, except for the fact that terrorist attacks dropped 95% since its erection.

shooting at crowds of youths with high velocity firearms for throwing stones at tanks? ... well i guess a stone could cause a bruise, that deserves to be shot in the head i guess
Unfortunately, correspondents who publish in the Independent (and whose articles are being reprinted in NZ Herald) tend to wear eyeglasses of very unusual construction - they allow seeing everything in the room except the elephant. The crowds you are referring to are more typically comprised of a mixture of stone-throwing youths paid approx 1 dollar for participation in the show (and apparently threatened with unpleasant things if they refuse), young activists armed with molotov cocktails, and quite a few sharpshooters.

helicopter strikes causing considerable "collateral" damage/deaths
Using human shields and launching missiles from densely populated areas tend to cause collateral damage and tragically Israel's adversaries see the value in civilian deaths and force inhabitants to remain in the vicinity of their rocket launchers. Thank goodness it starts to backfire and people are actively resisting launch crews.

yes they do justify all this by the occasional suicide bombing
It has become occasional because of all those things you are condemning. Such as good intel, effective army and police, tight borders etc.

or poorly directed rocket attack ... so surely their replies are not terroristic ...
So it is their fault that PA Arabs cannot manufacture more precise missiles? Death is death, regardless of precision.

Jez

15th July 2008, 23:08

yes all of those points you make are quite understandable ...

however i still stand by my statement that Israel are not the innocents they make themselves out to be ... the articles mstriumph linked make for very interesting reading (although they are very long :rolleyes:)

Basically Israels targeted killings of suspected terrorists have the side-effect of creating more terrorists, as well as killing civilians (80 civs to 119 terrorists), thus making it a futile excercise.

If every action has an opposite an equal reaction, then it would stand true that every violent action has an opposite and equal violent reaction.

Neither side is innocent in this conflict by any stretch of the imagination. The Israelis do what they feel they have to do to retain their security, unfortunately this includes the collective punishment of the entire Gaza Strip by witholding electrical supply, one of humanities basic needs (without electricity our motorcycles wouldn't have been built). The Palestinians do what they feel they have to do to get back what has been taken from them, unfortunately this includes suicide bombers hitting soft targets (they dont have any helicopters or laser guided missles).

It would be nice if both sides stopped blaming the other side for starting it, it's a bit past that, and started making serious concessions on BOTH sides. Actions such as the Israeli blockade of Gaza and statements like those made by Hamas who refuse to recognise Israel, will never assist the peace process.

SPman

16th July 2008, 20:35

Unfortunately, correspondents who publish in the Independent (and whose articles are being reprinted in NZ Herald) tend to wear eyeglasses of very unusual construction - they allow seeing everything in the room except the elephant.
.
Would this be referring to Robert Fisk, who has lived much of his life in Lebanon and has an intimate and first hand knowledge of "the other side" ie not a fly in, fly out embedded with the troops type journalist!
So - how are their eyeglasses different from the hacks who churn out copy for "our","non partisan, non biased, truth seeking" media outlets?

Street Gerbil

16th July 2008, 20:52

preventative arrests are more effective in lowering the suicide bombing rate than killings ...... so israel's tactics don't seem at all appropriate
Unfortunately, the events of the last few hours (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/FrontPage&cid=1123495333303) perfectly illustrate why keeping unrepentant (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3549774,00.html) terrorists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A2740-2003May17&notFound=true)alive is a bad idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar#Hezbollah_abducts_Israeli_soldiers).
A travesty of justice was committed today and for Israel there will be a hell to pay for it.

mstriumph

16th July 2008, 20:59

................It would be nice if both sides stopped blaming the other side for starting it, it's a bit past that, and started making serious concessions on BOTH sides. Actions such as the Israeli blockade of Gaza and statements like those made by Hamas who refuse to recognise Israel, will never assist the peace process.

yes, yes and YES!!!!

jonbuoy

17th July 2008, 06:56

the country might be broke but the rich and powerful are richer and powerfuller

"That little Roman empire is down the gurgler mate."

I hope you're right

but i hope you're right:

Great news - so who will take over? China, Russia, Africa? I'd rather have the US of A as the world police and overall superpower. The US don't want Muslim fundamentalists having access to nuclear or biological weapons because they are crazy enough to actually use them. Even Hitler was reluctant to use WOMD. They try not to get involved in other skirmishes or civil wars - like Rwanda for example, a million or so killed but it had no affect on any other country or global stabilisation.

Street Gerbil

17th July 2008, 08:53

Here is just a little sample of how the public opinion of Israel is formed by media. This is what happened (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Kuntar#Murder_of_Haran_family) and this is how AP (and NZ Herald) have reported it (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10521982).
Here are some quotes of particular interest:

...Israel was to turn over five Lebanese prisoners to Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrilla group - including a militant convicted in an attack perceived in Israel as particularly monstrous.
...burst into the apartment of Danny Haran, herding him and his 4-year-old daughter out of the house at gunpoint to the beach below, where they were killed.
Note the gentle and sanitized treatment. And surprisingly not a word on a hero welcome (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330979803&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) in Lebanon... Of course, it may make them look bad.
Even the name was mutated from "Kuntar" sounding like you-know-what to neutral-sounding "Kantar"
This is the account of the survivor (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A2740-2003May17&notFound=true) of what really happened. Even some lebanese are disgusted (http://forabetterlebanon.blogspot.com/2008/06/return-of-samir-kuntar-child-killer.html).
Now take a moment to think that this treatment is applied to every piece of news published about the region. Please answer honestly: can it be that one's opinion as to what really goes on may be just a bit skewed?

Jez

17th July 2008, 11:42

a bit skewed??? coming from a person that links directly to israeli newspapers???

i havent bought a paper in NZ for over 12 years, and I tend to only watch the sports news.

I am not advocating the terrorists in any way what-so-ever ... all I am saying is that many actions Israel have taken over the past 30 years + have done about as much to improve peace and stability in the region as a suicide bombing at a bus station in Israel which killed 40 people and injured 130+ ...

Street Gerbil

17th July 2008, 12:49

a bit skewed??? coming from a person that links directly to israeli newspapers???
You are right. I should have emphasized "a bit skewed" as an ironic note. "Extremely distorted" would be a lot more precise description. Sorry for the link to the Israeli newspaper. Here is the link to the similar article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/world/middleeast/16kuntar.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) published elsewhere.
But think of it. Your opinion is formed by events such as killing of al-Durrah (falsified), Jenin massacre (never happened), UN ambulance incident (faked). Don't you see the pattern here???

As for your charge, yes, Israel is guilty of many things, but not those that you refer to. At least criticize where criticism is due.
The real trouble started with so called "peace process" in 1991, when a newly elected radical left Israeli government (Rabin-Peres) decided that the time is ripe for a "peace settlement" and decided to crown a person who from one side will be authoritative enough to unite all the factions within the territories, but on the other hand will be docile and grateful for helping him out of oblivion and to the top of pecking order. You guessed who was their man of choice. Except they miscalculated the docile and grateful part. The morons even thought that they can solve the problem of Jerusalem by renaming Abu-Dis to "el-Kuds". As the first order of business, Arafat ordered execution of all "traitors to the palestinian cause" i.e. pro-peace-with-Israel mukhtars (community leaders). Some of the deaths were actually blamed on Israelis. That's Middle East for fuck's sake! Why show weakness by gibber-jabbering, making concessions, and making agreements with the enemy, when he could have it all??? An unprecedented wave of terror attacks unseated the government (the "victims of Peace" was a particularly unhelpful remark), but it was too late to pull the plug. It was a betrayal of those sensible souls who could have actually signed and enforced a sensible peace agreement. Israel is paying a huge price for this betrayal, and will keep paying in blood for that cruel and unusual punishment for many years to come.

Now that Israel has badly fucked over all friendly or at least relatively non-hostile palestinians, it was the turn to screw the pooch on a different front. In 2000, if memory serves me right, another freshly elected well-meaning amateur cowboy politician Mr. Yehud Barak decided to solve the gordian knot in Lebanon. Widely advertised graceful withdrawal under his command turned into uncontrolled flight with infrastructure, equipment, arms, and classified documents being left behind. Nature abhors vacuum and Hezb took over. This time it was SLA, the friendlies in Lebanon, who paid in blood for Israel's backstabbing. Some were given refuge in Israel but most were rounded up by Hezb. Their fate was unpleasant.
As a result of those two abominable acts, there isn't many sympathetic souls left in Lebanon, and certainly none in PA.

Jez

17th July 2008, 18:33

My main point of argument against Israeli tactics is the collective punishment they use in the blockade of Gaza which was increased in January 2008. Collective Punishment is classed as a war crime within the Fourth Geneva Convention. 1.5million people live in Gaza, 1million of which are refugees ... Israel allow 60-100 lorries per day to supply all of these people with the basics, the list of goods is strictly limited by Israel to absolute basics.

Independant Paper on the Gaza Blockade 2008 (http://www.igloo.org/terrorism/gazabloc)

Some signs of it easing after 6 months (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/06/20086225810631208.html)

Collective punishments

Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33. is the one more commonly quoted.

I don't think we will see Israel taken to task over this though in all honesty.

Street Gerbil

17th July 2008, 19:32

Mon ami, if you don't like me using Israeli sources, why do you offer me links to al-Jazeerah?

My main point of argument against Israeli tactics is the collective punishment...
[I]Collective punishments

Article 33.

Sorry, mate, does not apply. Your main argument is flawed.
First off you are greatly exaggerating an extent of the blockade. At all stages Israel allowed enough supplies to avert the humanitarian crisis. As for alleged collective punishment, you are confusing a refusal to supply aid with criminal harm.
Collective punishment, as detailed in the Convention, forbids imposition of a criminal or military punishment on some people for the crimes committed by others. Which means hostage taking, decimations, and suchlike. Refusal to trade does not fall under the category. It is neither criminal nor military action. Furthermore, prevention of access to goods is not a collective punishment either. It is a non-violent act of self-defense against daily missile attacks, and Israel, like every other state, whether you like it or not, has the right to defend itself against acts of war perpetrated daily from Gaza. Many countries have practiced such sanctions against their adversaries, but for some reason it was ok as long as Israel was not involved. Example: blockade of Cuba.

Withholding of electricity falls under the category allowed under article 52 of 1977 Amendment. It explicitly allows attacks on strategic resources. The idea behind this rationing is to force the Hamas government to decide over priorities of electricity supply to hospitals vs. missile manufacturing plants. Same goes for limiting the supply of gasoline.

Israel allow 60-100 lorries per day to supply all of these people with the basics, the list of goods is strictly limited by Israel to absolute basics.
...in strict adherence to rules and provisions of the Geneva Convention, requiring Israel only to permit passage of food, clothing, and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers, and maternity cases (Article 23).

If there is collective punishment it on the other side of the fence. Tell me, do daily missile attacks on civilian population of Sderot (and government sponsored celebrations when they kill and maim) constitute collective punishment. Yes or no?

Jez

17th July 2008, 20:17

the al-jazeerah source was showing that Israel are easing the blockade, which in turn i thought was showing the positive side of Israels actions, i felt they could have twisted the words to suit any agendas they may have had ... i didnt see a "due to Hamas' decision to not bow to Israeli pressure" line in that article.

the other article was an independantly researched paper which i felt was more biased than the al-jazeera article

Again i will say the terror tactics used by various Palestinian factions over time have been abhorrent, however tactics used by the Israelis have also been terrible, developing a hatred amongst the youth making them want to grow up to be martyrs, i doubt the recruitment teams employed by the terrorists have to do much to convince them when the Israelis bulldozed their house when they were 7 for example.

I doubt we are going to convince each other of our own arguments, you believe Israel are justified in every action they take, I feel the Palestinians got the short end of the stick 60 years ago when Israel was formed and have been marginalised since, they fight back with whatever means they have at their disposal, just like the Israelis. If either side want to blame anyone for the events unfolding today, perhaps they should look at the British government, and the League of Nations who made the decision to give the Israelis that land in 1948.

Street Gerbil

17th July 2008, 22:34

I am not denying that there isn't much fun being a palestinian, but whose fault is that? First of, have you ever thought as to how did it happen that there are two types of Arabs in the area: israeli arabs and palestinian arabs? Hint: in 1948 arab military command has instructed the local population to get out of the way so not to interfere with the slaughter of the Jews and return for the spoils of war after the victory. Israeli government begged them to stay. Some stayed, some left. Guess who was who? The unlucky 600000 who left for Syria and Jordan found themselves behind the locked gates. A decision was made not to let them back in. Was it inhumane? Probably, but would any other country act differently? Would New Zealand let me re-enter if I were to prove myself disloyal? At the same time roughly the same number of Jews from diaspora in various arab countries was purged. Mughrabi Jews were relieved of possessions and thrown out. Israel took them all in. What happened to "palestinians"? (I use the term loosely because until 1967 the term "palestinian" referred to the older generation of Israelis born in the mandate territories) They were not welcome anywhere. Their neighbors who tried to outspeak each other as the greatest champions of palestinian rights intentionally kept them in misery to use as human weapons against Israel. Gaza and West bank were under control of Egypt and Jordan for quite a while. Have you ever considered, why the conquerors never let palestinians establish their own state while those territories were under their control? Moreover, when Israel won those territories back, and offered to return them together with all inhabitants, in exchange for a peace treaty, why the answer from both parties was "thanks, but, no thanks!"? If arab countries were truly concerned with the wellbeing of palestinians, they would have considered expelled Jews and Arabs not allowed to return as a population exchange, and would have let palestinians settle on their territories and become legitimate members of society. Except they knew better than to do that.
To summarize all that, yes palestinians paid a heavy price for relying on their brethren across the border but I do not believe that under the circumstances, Israel could have done anything differently. If anything, it is a fault of those arab leaders who refused them citizenship, thus turning them into refugees, and of the UN that perpetuated their refugee status by creating a special concept of a "palestinian refugee". Did you know that according to UN definition, a "refugee" is a person displaced from a zone of military conflict, whereas "palestinian refugee" is a person claiming to being a resident of mandate territories between 1946 and 1948 and all of his descendants?

An argument is made, that one does not make peace with friends, but rather with enemies. Well, there are different kinds of enemies. Until recently, Israel has dealt with the kind of reasonable enemies who could be reasoned with. Both sides disliked each other intensely, but each side realized that their adversary is not going anywhere. Things have dramatically changed starting from early nineties. Present generation is being brainwashed from earliest childhood. They are being taught that their purpose in life is to be one of the "million martyrs marching on el-Kuds" ("holy" in Arabic, i.e. Jerusalem). They are taught that Israelis are not humans but "sons of apes and pigs". They are subjected to propaganda TV programs such as this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_Pioneers).
Judge for yourself
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TrieBhaGgHM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TrieBhaGgHM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eeii225G-HM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eeii225G-HM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tneSE6nJiLw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tneSE6nJiLw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

If a teacher was to tell you in the kindergarten that your neighbor is not human and your purpose in life is to murder him and to take over his property, would you have reason to doubt it? I know at age 5 I would have bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Look at the celebrations taking place in Gaza. Does the celebration in honor of a person who drowned a father in front of a 4 year old kid and then killed a 4 year old girl with his bare hands tell you something?

Can one make peace with a neighbor who are mad at him? By all means!
Can one make peace with a neighbor who was brainwashed into firm belief that you have no right to exist and that he has a god-given right to everything you've earned? Tsk tsk tsk...

I am all for peace and a fair settlement between palestinians and Israel, but realistically, if today's government (the one that celebrated release of Kuntar) were to repudiate their indoctrination (pass the Tui, will you), Israel can start sensible peace talks when today's 5 years olds will die of good old age.

davereid

18th July 2008, 16:02

Here a few pictures of some peace loving people going for a walk in London recently.

davereid

18th July 2008, 16:07

Nice to see الله provided nice weather, it often be so unpleasant in England in spring.

avgas

18th July 2008, 16:27

And this is what the National Party wants us to become, a little cheerleader for amerikan capitalism
Oh hell yes - have you seen their weapons?????
Or should i remind you www.invadenewzealand.com

Robert Taylor

18th July 2008, 19:46

Here a few pictures of some peace loving people going for a walk in London recently.

And England would have been a better place today had they taken heed of Enoch Powells prophetic warnings.

slowpoke

19th July 2008, 03:44

Street Gerbil

19th July 2008, 11:00

Isn't it funny how the Israeli's carry on about the "terrorists this and the terrorists that" after voting in Menachem Begin (sp) as their Prime Minister even though he was involved, as leader of the Irgun, in the bombing of the King David Hotel, killing 91 people.
Except you forget to mention that
a) The attack was against the military installations (British military headquarters) and the building was not used used as a hotel at the moment.
b) Irgun gave a clear warning well in advance to the british authorities, french consulate, and a local newspaper.
Do palestinian "freedom fighters" attack military installations or so called "soft targets", an euphemism for women and children? Huh? Do they give advance warnings to clear the area? Yes or no? Can you really draw the parallels?

Ariel Sharon should have been charged with crimes against humanity and genocide but instead was also elected Prime Minister.

The Israeli's do the very things to the Palestinians that the Nazi's did to the Jews,
Try to find out who the phalangists were and why were they so upset at palestinians (Google is your friend) as well as what was the role of Israel in it.

"the term genocide (…) had obviously been chosen to embarrass Israel rather than out of any concern with legal precision” --- William Schabas, Genocide in International Law. The Crimes of Crimes, p. 455.

"Characteristic features were the suspension of critical thinking by journalists who normally exercise a salutary skepticism; unhesitating acceptance and publication of what soon proved to be self-evident propaganda from partisan sources. Most striking and revealing, was the frequent usage of language evocative of the Nazis... Such words as "blitzkrieg", "lebensraum", "genocide", and "final solution" were freely used to reinforce the comparison, sometimes stated and often implied, between Israelis in Lebanon and the Nazis in conquered and occupied Europe... Most reports concentrated their whole attack on the Israelis who, as was known from the start, had not actually participated in the massacre and whose negligence or complicity had not yet been established, and almost failed to mention the Lebanese Christian militias who actually did the deed. The careless reader or viewer could have got the impression that this was a massacre unique in the modern history of the Middle East, and that it was perpetrated directly by the Israelis. Neither was true." --- Lewis, Bernard (1999). Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice. pp 13-14

with the difference being that the Palestinians are still fighting their atrocious treatment by the worlds 5th largest military power with the only thing they have available to them: crude weapons, explosives and their bodies.
No, they are fighting themselves. And they are winning. No people in the history of humankind have shot themselves in the foot as precisely and as repeatedly. And if Israelis are doing "the same things that Nazis did to the Jews" (which is slaughter of two thirds of the entire population), they are doing a piss-poor job since palestinians have the world highest rate of population growth. But should really facts stand in a way of a good yarn, n'est ces pas?

Unfortunately we only ever get to hear one side of the story as the powerful Jewish/Zionist community stridently spruiks(sic) propaganda whilst the Palestinian community has virtually no voice whatsoever.
In light of everything said above and in previous posts, I am puzzled as to whether to reply to that as "LOL" or "Pot calls kettle African American." You choose.

alanzs

19th July 2008, 20:32

"Pot calls kettle African American." You choose.

I used to have a lawn jockey on the front yard when I was a kid. :shit:

Indiana_Jones

19th July 2008, 21:22

Here a few pictures of some peace loving people going for a walk in London recently.

Fuck this pricks make me angry, look at half of the dickless shits with their faces covered up. They love to enjoy the benefits of a western nation but don't wanna change for it.

It's because of those sort of pricks is why I don't/can't move back to the UK.

C*nts.

-Indy

Sanx

20th July 2008, 01:05

Fuck this pricks make me angry, look at half of the dickless shits with their faces covered up. They love to enjoy the benefits of a western nation but don't wanna change for it.

The problem is that half of these aforementioned islamist fuckwits were born in the UK and have every legal right to remain. What was a fucking travesty is that the majority of these fuckwits weren't prosecuted for inciting racial hatred. 'Cos of course, you can only have racial hatred against people who aren't white, protestant anglo-saxons...

slowpoke

20th July 2008, 02:08

Except you forget to mention that
a) The attack was against the military installations (British military headquarters) and the building was not used used as a hotel at the moment.
b) Irgun gave a clear warning well in advance to the british authorities, french consulate, and a local newspaper.
Do palestinian "freedom fighters" attack military installations or so called "soft targets", an euphemism for women and children? Huh? Do they give advance warnings to clear the area? Yes or no? Can you really draw the parallels?

So the Iraqi/Afghani civilian's fighting the Coalition troops aren't terrorists anymore? Thats' not what every media/government organisation would have us believe....not to mention that most of those killed in the King David Hotel bombing were civilian hotel staff etc rather than British military staff.

Try to find out who the phalangists were and why were they so upset at palestinians (Google is your friend) as well as what was the role of Israel in it.

"the term genocide (…) had obviously been chosen to embarrass Israel rather than out of any concern with legal precision” --- William Schabas, Genocide in International Law. The Crimes of Crimes, p. 455.

(From www.thirdworldtraveller.com):...the overall Sharon operation, both in working details and strategic conception, very clearly fits the "genocide" category of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2 (c) identifying as genocide the "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." Articles 2 (a) and (b) refer to killing (a) and "causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group." The fit of the word genocide to the Sharon "war" is far better than to Kosovo where, before the period of joint NATO-KLA warfare with the Serbs (March 24-June 10, 1999), the Serbs were fighting an ugly civil war, but were not trying to degrade the conditions of life of Albanians and push them out to make way for settlements by a Serb "chosen people."

"Characteristic features were the suspension of critical thinking by journalists who normally exercise a salutary skepticism; unhesitating acceptance and publication of what soon proved to be self-evident propaganda from partisan sources. Most striking and revealing, was the frequent usage of language evocative of the Nazis... Such words as "blitzkrieg", "lebensraum", "genocide", and "final solution" were freely used to reinforce the comparison, sometimes stated and often implied, between Israelis in Lebanon and the Nazis in conquered and occupied Europe... Most reports concentrated their whole attack on the Israelis who, as was known from the start, had not actually participated in the massacre and whose negligence or complicity had not yet been established, and almost failed to mention the Lebanese Christian militias who actually did the deed. The careless reader or viewer could have got the impression that this was a massacre unique in the modern history of the Middle East, and that it was perpetrated directly by the Israelis. Neither was true." --- Lewis, Bernard (1999). Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice. pp 13-14

Regarding the Israeli Defence Forces attack on Jenin "Whatever is ultimately discovered about the carnage committed by Israel's forces, enough is known to implicate Sharon for a form of ethnic cleansing" Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times, April 16, 2002

On April 15, the United Nations human rights commission condemned "mass killings" of Palestinians and demanded the end of "acts of mass killings perpetrated by the Israeli occupying authorities." The Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights ruled that the Israelis were guilty of "gross violations" of humanitarian law and the commission upheld the "legitimate right of Palestinian people to resist." The Commission on Human Rights expressed grave concern at "the killing of men, women and children" in West Bank refugee camps, among them Jenin, where Israeli troops of massacred Palestinian women and children.

"A United Nations vehicle with supplies of flour and sugar had been denied access to the (Jenin) camp, as well as the Red Cross. 'For over a week now,' one senior UN official said, 'the Red Cross and the UN have made strenuous efforts to receive permission to enter the camp. Especially for the Red Cross, this is an unheard-of situation for a government to refuse access in this way. The only assumption that we are making, regrettably, is that someone had something abominable to hide.' An Israeli soldier told a journalist that the Red Cross had been granted access to the camp but had refused. The UN official responded: 'This is a blatant lie." Source: "The Times" (London), April 15.

"The nation founded on exploitation of a martyr complex over war crimes, now blocks investigation of its own crimes against humanity

Compiled by Michael A. Hoffman II

Worried that a UN investigation could form the basis for war crimes prosecutions against Israeli soldiers, the Israeli government announced April 30, 2002 that it wouldn't allow a U.N. investigation in Jenin, a Palestinian refugee camp that is overseen by UN agencies, within occupied territory that by treaty is controlled by the governing Palestinian Authority. Nonetheless, the Israeli security Cabinet--led by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon--voted against letting the investigation proceed.

The UN investigators were to be led by former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari. The 20-member UN commission was charged with assessing the civilian death toll from the April 2002 Israeli attack on Jenin, where hundreds of civilians were killed during three weeks of assaults by jets, helicopters and bulldozers in a "zone" closed to the media by the Israeli army."

Jenin, Nablus, Shatila, Sabra etc the instances of Israeli Army atrocities perpetuated against almost exclusively civilian populated refugee camps (any other "war" they'd be called concentration camps), and under Sharon's direction, are inexcusable.

No, they are fighting themselves. And they are winning. No people in the history of humankind have shot themselves in the foot as precisely and as repeatedly.

From www.worldtraveller.com: "As with the U.S. approval and protection of Israeli aggression, the Sharon method of fending off peace options is a rerun of 1982 Lebanon, where, contrary to establishment mythology, the Israeli invasion was precipitated, not by Palestinian violence but by its very absence, which impelled a violent Israeli response to prevent negotiations and any kind of compromise settlement. The problem, according to Israeli analyst Yehoshua Porath, writing in Ha'aretz on June 25, 1982, was "that the cease fire had been observed," and Begin and Sharon invaded Lebanon anticipating and desiring that a PLO under military attack "would return to its earlier terrorism" and "lose part of the political legitimacy it has gained." Sharon is still playing that game and with the success that comes from the fact that an Israeli leader, even a world class genocidist, is under the full protection of the U.S. government and media."

And if Israelis are doing "the same things that Nazis did to the Jews" (which is slaughter of two thirds of the entire population), they are doing a piss-poor job since palestinians have the world highest rate of population growth. But should really facts stand in a way of a good yarn, n'est ces pas?

Facts eh? Just think about the conditions they live under, does that really sound "kosher"? From www.israelinsider.com " Study shows Palestinian "baby boom" has been grossly overstated
By israelinsider staff January 16, 2005

A landmark demographic study presented last week at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation in Washington contends that the Palestinian population has been tendentiously overstated by as much as 1.5 million and that dire predictions of the Jewish population majority west of the Jordan River being overtaken in the near future has no merit."

Speaking on the same report, from www.worldaffairs.com: "The entire 117-page report can be accessed on-line at www.pademographics.com. Given that it shows that the government's current policies are based in large part on an uncritical acceptance of fraudulent data whose purpose was to demoralize us into capitulating to our post-modern foe, hopefully Olmert and Sharon will take a look at it."
From www.thirdworld traveller.com "In a recent article in the New York Times, however, reporter James Bennet notes that the ratio of killings during the first Intifada, 25 Palestinians to 1 Israeli, has fallen in the current Intifada to 3 to I ("Mideast Turmoil: News Analysis: Mideast Balance Sheet," March 12, 2002). Neither Bennet nor the editors explain how the party victimized at a 25-1 ratio could be said to be the terrorists rather than the victims."

In light of everything said above and in previous posts, I am puzzled as to whether to reply to that as "LOL" or "Pot calls kettle African American." You choose.

Looking at the mounting evidence from unbiased sources (multi award winning Aussie John Pilger is a good read on a variety of the worlds troublespots, or Amnesty International, or the Israeli censures by the UN ) the truth is inescapable if you are prepared to see it.

slowpoke

20th July 2008, 03:07

Here a few pictures of some peace loving people going for a walk in London recently.

Oh yeah, those pictures don't look doctored at all do they, nah......(tui ad)

Fuck this pricks make me angry, look at half of the dickless shits with their faces covered up. They love to enjoy the benefits of a western nation but don't wanna change for it.

It's because of those sort of pricks is why I don't/can't move back to the UK.

C*nts.

-Indy

And of course you'd be quite prepared to show your face on national/international media saying exactly what you've just said.........

....and have a closer look at some of the pic's that have got you so riled up.

The problem is that half of these aforementioned islamist fuckwits were born in the UK and have every legal right to remain. What was a fucking travesty is that the majority of these fuckwits weren't prosecuted for inciting racial hatred. 'Cos of course, you can only have racial hatred against people who aren't white, protestant anglo-saxons...

Last time I checked race and religion were unrelated.

Sanx

20th July 2008, 05:22

Oh yeah, those pictures don't look doctored at all do they, nah......(tui ad)

The photos are entirely genuine. Given the scale of the protest staged in London, it was covered by just about every UK new organisation, and quite a few international ones as well. They all show the same thing.

Or are you embarking on an iiimbecile-like conspiracy theory?

And of course you'd be quite prepared to show your face on national/international media saying exactly what you've just said.........

No - I wouldn't, 'cos then I could be identified and arrested.

Last time I checked race and religion were unrelated.

You're right - they are unrelated. Now even if the UK law on 'inciting racial hatred' didn't cover inciting hatred based on race or religion, how did what I said have anything to do with religion? The fuckwit islamists were threatening pretty much everyone who wasn't a similar fuckwit islamist. In quite a few of those 'doctored' photos, they threaten Europe and therefore by implication, anyone who's European. And that IS a race.

terbang

20th July 2008, 05:59

Islamic fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists. Yup we have em. Just pends on which side of the fence you were born as to who looks the craziest. Looking at the tags on this thread also confirms that there are a lot of dumb kiwis out there too.

davereid

20th July 2008, 07:07

And of course you'd be quite prepared to show your face on national/international media saying exactly what you've just said.........

The great thing about those photos is that there is nothing I could say that they don't say better themselves.

slowpoke

20th July 2008, 08:26

The photos are entirely genuine. Given the scale of the protest staged in London, it was covered by just about every UK new organisation, and quite a few international ones as well. They all show the same thing.

Or are you embarking on an iiimbecile-like conspiracy theory?

Nup, no conspiracy theories. I remember the flap at the time but but don't recall these particular photo's. Some of them don't look quite right....but if they are then that's cool, I'm happy(sic) to admit there are freaks/easily lead people of every persuasion out there.

No - I wouldn't, 'cos then I could be identified and arrested.

This comment was more for Indiana_Jones but given the anti-terror legislation and pro-christian govt's in place in the western countries I can see why they'd want to cover their faces. You can't even wear the wrong football shirt to a match without risking a beating in the UK so why would they do otherwise? Why is it important that their faces be seen?

You're right - they are unrelated. Now even if the UK law on 'inciting racial hatred' didn't cover inciting hatred based on race or religion, how did what I said have anything to do with religion? The fuckwit islamists were threatening pretty much everyone who wasn't a similar fuckwit islamist. In quite a few of those 'doctored' photos, they threaten Europe and therefore by implication, anyone who's European. And that IS a race.

There's a world of difference (excuse the pun) between targeting Europe the locale, and Europeans generally. And don't think all Muslims have the same goals as their outer fringe dwellers, that would be like thinking all Christians think like George Dubya.

From www.islamicity.com: "Islam is not a new religion, but the same truth that God revealed through all His prophets to every people. For a fifth of the world's population, Islam is both a religion and a complete way of life. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the majority have nothing to do with the extremely grave events which have come to be associated with their faith."

alanzs

20th July 2008, 10:11

A lawn jockey:

Street Gerbil

20th July 2008, 10:34

Looking at the mounting evidence from unbiased sources (multi award winning Aussie John Pilger is a good read on a variety of the worlds troublespots,

Pilger is unbiased?!! As in pants-on-fire-Pilger? Tui moment. (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Pilger_Pilfers_the_Truth.asp)

or Amnesty International, or the Israeli censures by the UN ) the truth is inescapable if you are prepared to see it.
I can see the "truth" you are referring to only if I choose to believe Pilger and pilgers, rather than my very own lying eyes. But please tell me how do you know with such a certainty that I am wrong and Pilgers and Dwyers' are right? I lived in the region for many years. Have you been to the region and witnessed what really happened happening? I know I have.

Jez

20th July 2008, 12:30

the problem with this entire discussion is that to take one side or the other requires such hard headed devotion to their respective cause that it completely closes their eyes to any countering arguments.

much like the conflict itself:

you were put her in my neck of the woods
im gonna fire some missles at you
im gonna bulldoze your house
im gonna send some suicide bombers into your busstops
im gonna use helicopters to blow you up
im gonna fire more missles
im gonna blockade a city
so on and so forth

Both sides in the conflict in question have very strong propaganda machines, Israel use money and power within the US to sway many publication and television companies to their point of view, while the Palestinians play up to the camera in front of independent journalists very well.

the net result of this discussion will be that everyone retains their point of view, but will feel agrieved at someone else questioning that point of view.

Beef Soup is great for helping you get over a cold btw :2thumbsup

Street Gerbil

20th July 2008, 13:03

the net result of this discussion will be that everyone retains their point of view, but will feel agrieved at someone else questioning that point of view.

The sad truth is that opinion about Israel is formed by media organizations who know that reporting any newspiece sympathetic to Israel or critical to its adversaries may cost them accreditation in Arab countries. Whoever said that stick and carrot approach does not work.
As far as I know, myself and Terbang are the only ones on the forum who actually have been there (however we do hold opposite opinions in regards to the conflict), but everyone seems to know for certain what's going on. Unfortunately, with NZ Herald using such notorious organizations as AFP and the Independent as sole sources for ME coverage, I am not surprised...

Beef Soup is great for helping you get over a cold btw :2thumbsup
I daresay chicken soup is even better.

Jez

20th July 2008, 15:19

I daresay chicken soup is even better.

i really am not a fan of chicken ... im sticking with beef!!! :argue: :bleh:

pete376403

20th July 2008, 17:05

Pilger is unbiased?!! As in pants-on-fire-Pilger? Tui moment. (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Pilger_Pilfers_the_Truth.asp) I .
Go to http://www.honestreporting.com/a/team.asp - I would suggest that the people listed there are as biased as they claim John Pilger is, in their own way

terbang

20th July 2008, 19:35

As far as I know, myself and Terbang are the only ones on the forum who actually have been there (however we do hold opposite opinions in regards to the conflict).
Sir I do respect that. I´m sitting on the sideline on this one.

slowpoke

20th July 2008, 23:33

Pilger is unbiased?!! As in pants-on-fire-Pilger? Tui moment. (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Pilger_Pilfers_the_Truth.asp)

I can see the "truth" you are referring to only if I choose to believe Pilger and pilgers, rather than my very own lying eyes. But please tell me how do you know with such a certainty that I am wrong and Pilgers and Dwyers' are right? I lived in the region for many years. Have you been to the region and witnessed what really happened happening? I know I have.

(Deleted)

Edit: following Terbang's extremely appropriate post below I've modified some of the "spruiking" that I'd previously written. Hopefully it's more talking to you rather than at you....no this isn't a Tui ad! My apologies for the previously written codswallop......

(deleted)

No I haven't lived in the area, but not many of us had to go to Apartheid South Africa to know that that was also a travesty, the same goes for events in Zimbabwe etc, and so it seems with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. While I have no doubt that you have perfectly valid first hand impressions of the situation I wonder how truly balanced your experience there was.

To my mind it just seems blatantly wrong that the IDF wade in with their armoured bulldozers, tanks, attack helicopters, F16's etc against...against...well I'm not sure really 'cos the Palestinian's seem to have fuck all. There is no policing involved in the raids, it's not a war....it's just a slaughter. That's not even taking into account the displacing of an indigenous people from their ancestral lands and the ensuing harrassment and humiliation.......

How do I "know" Pilger, Chomsky and co are right? I don't "know" anything...but once you start looking, weighing the evidence from first hand accounts, and independent sources, the conclusion seems obvious. Even Israeli's are speaking out against their government's policy's despite the obvious risk that accompanies such a stance.

Go to http://www.honestreporting.com/a/team.asp - I would suggest that the people listed there are as biased as they claim John Pilger is, in their own way

Exactly. Following the airing of the above mentioned documentary ("Palestine is still the issue") an investigation was carried out by the Independent Television Commission due to the pro-Israeli lobby screaming it's condemnation......and Pilger's work was not only vindicated but praised by this independent body:

From: MediaLens Media Alerts (Edited for brevity, full article here: http://theconversation.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=33&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:16 AM

Subject: Pilger Film Vindicated

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

Following a three-month enquiry, the Independent Television Commission (ITC) has published (January 14, 2003) its adjudication, rejecting complaints against Pilger's documentary. The report praises the film's journalistic integrity and refers to the "care and thoroughness with which [the film] was researched", adding:

"The ITC raised with Carlton all the significant areas of inaccuracy critics of the programme alleged and the broadcaster answered them by reference to a range of historical texts. The ITC is not a tribunal of fact and is particularly aware of the difficulties of verifying 'historical fact' but the comprehensiveness and authority of Carlton's sources were persuasive, not least because many appeared to be of Israeli origin." (ITC Report: Palestine is Still the Issue: a Special Report by John Pilger, Monday 16 September. 11.05pm. ITV, Carlton, January 14, 2003)

In the Guardian, Tim Llewellyn, formerly BBC Middle East correspondent, writes:

"Pilger is known as an opinionated journalist with an appetite for upsetting authority. But this programme was not 'campaigning' journalism. It was a painstaking portrayal of the humiliation Israel's soldiers and politicians visit daily on the Palestinians: not just the deaths, injuries and arrests, but the intrusions of the military into every aspect of a Palestinian's life." (Llewellyn, 'False witnesses - ITC approval of John Pilger's documentary is a shot across the bows of mainstream Middle East coverage', The Guardian, January 16, 2003)"

terbang

21st July 2008, 00:29

I think what street gerbil is trying to say, hence part the reason I am staying away as well, is there are some here informed by media, pub talk or whatever, who jump in here and aggressively push their semi informed opinions clearly displaying little knowledge of the real situation and it´s history. Why use all the strong opinionated language if you haven´t been there? Just join the debate and you may learn.
To me that indicates that they are the ones who have already had their heads stuck in the sand for some time.
However there are also some here that seem to want to find out more about what the middle east issues are all about, and believe me, its complex and I3 is closer than you think with some of his views, he is intelligent and also has the balls to stand up and have his say. Which is more than what can be said for the morons who posted the tags on this thread. Those who hurl abuse as their only form of debate also speak volumes about their IQ and how informed they are on the subject.
Behind all the chest beating there also seems to be some semblance of informed debate keeping the thread alive.
Remember, some of the biggest lessons in life can be learned whilst in the hands of those you would not call your friends.

slowpoke

21st July 2008, 02:08

Sanx

21st July 2008, 18:35

I'm going to address the paragraphs back-to-front:

From www.islamicity.com: (http://www.islamicity.com/) "Islam is not a new religion, but the same truth that God revealed through all His prophets to every people. For a fifth of the world's population, Islam is both a religion and a complete way of life. Muslims follow a religion of peace, mercy, and forgiveness, and the majority have nothing to do with the extremely grave events which have come to be associated with their faith."

Truth? Nope, just some people's version of it. Although it's certainly one of the larger religions (and more worryingly, the fastest growing of all the major religions), you'll notice that the majority of its adherents are in third world countries, or countries that up until relatively recently were third-world. In countries where the standard of education is poor, or universal education isn't available, having religious schools - Madrassahs - provide free education is a very attractive proposition for many parents, even if the education does revolve around by-rote learning of the entire koran and religious hate-filled indoctrination by the mad mullahs in charge.

Whilst many muslims do live their lives peacefully and in harmony with the community they live in (as I should know; I'm married to one) there are disproportionally far more when compared to other religions, that don't. (The exception is probably orthodox jews, but they tend to be insular rather than militant.) For many, islam is not a religion of peace and tolerance, but a religion that revolves around the venomous hatred of anyone who isn't muslim, or doesn't follow their particular interpretation of islam. Tolerance of others, especially if they attack islam (or are perceived to be attacking it), is woefully lacking.

Salman Rushdie was placed into protective custody after Ayotollah Khomeni issued a death sentence against him (after due process, of course!) for the crime of writing a novel that happened to feature an unsavoury character called Mohammad. The UK's self-styled Muslim Parliament, stated that it was the duty of every British muslim to kill Rushdie if he was found. You can also look at the number of honour killings that are carried out each year in the UK by fathers or brothers seeking to cleanse their family's honour by killing their own daughter for such heinous sins as kissing a non-Muslim.

And in those countries where islam is predominant and relgious law reigns, the application of forgiveness and mercy is rarely seen. Just look up Amnesty International's archives of crimes against young girls in places like Saudi, where the death penalty (by stoning) exists for adultery, even if the girl is raped.

Can you imagine what would have happened in a muslim country if a bunch of white europeans had marched on the capital carrying slogans threatening muslims and their way of life? Such countries suppress dissent with quite ruthless authority, and that's just on fellow muslims. Other groups are regularly just silenced by more permanent means.

Tolerance? Forgiveness? Mercy? Fuck off.

There's a world of difference (excuse the pun) between targeting Europe the locale, and Europeans generally. And don't think all Muslims have the same goals as their outer fringe dwellers, that would be like thinking all Christians think like George Dubya.

What is the difference exactly? The majority of the population of Europe are ... oh look! ... Europeans. Attacking Europe necessarily means an attack on its citizens. Or weren't the July 7th bombings in London or Madrid train bombs aimed at hurting people?

I'm sure many muslims don't share the same viewpoint as their deranged islamist cousins, but in countries that are predominantly muslim, sharia law generally ends up on the statute books. That is the problem with islam; it's not just a religion, it's regarded by its adherents as an all-pervading way of life. And they expect others to adhere to it as well, no matter if they happen to follow islam too. It's when a group start to impose their belief on me that I get really pissed off. Islamists telling everyone that we must respect their religion (and by implication, the illiterate paedophile merchant who started it) under threat of death is taking that to an extreme, and any self-respecting person should fight very hard against that.

terbang

21st July 2008, 20:03

I And they expect others to adhere to it as well, no matter if they happen to follow islam too.
Not entirely true there mate. I am a full resident of Saudi Arabia, probably the most strict enforcers of the islamic law. Whilst it is wise for me to be respectful of their ways, as I should in any other country, they do not expect me to speak Arabic (how many times do you hear the old kiwi cry ´if the wanna come over here then learn english´), become a muslim or even dress like them. They are very mindful of our different ways, especially with regard to our day to day interaction with our women and show a lot of tolerance and respect to our ways. Give and take really. Living in Saudi Arabia as a western, christian is quite a pleasant experience with a nice and easy lifestyle.

alanzs

22nd July 2008, 15:46

Sanx

22nd July 2008, 17:17

Not entirely true there mate. I am a full resident of Saudi Arabia, probably the most strict enforcers of the islamic law. Whilst it is wise for me to be respectful of their ways, as I should in any other country, they do not expect me to speak Arabic (how many times do you hear the old kiwi cry ´if the wanna come over here then learn english´), become a muslim or even dress like them. They are very mindful of our different ways, especially with regard to our day to day interaction with our women and show a lot of tolerance and respect to our ways. Give and take really. Living in Saudi Arabia as a western, christian is quite a pleasant experience with a nice and easy lifestyle.

Are you living in a western compound, or in one of the cities? And are you in Jeddah, by any chance?

Whilst I certainly can't question the authenticity of what you say, it is very different from what I've heard from others, including my father when he worked there not so long ago.

But, perhaps you can tell me this; in NZ, or any other western country, can you be:

Arrested, tried and executed for persuading a muslim to be baptised as a christian?
Arrested, tried and executed for stating that Mohammad was, for instance, an illiterate paedophile?
If you're female, arrested for lewd behaviour and sentenced to lashes for not wearing a head-scarf when outside one's house?
If you're female, arrested for the mere act of driving?
Sentenced to lashes (at best) for talking to an unmarried woman who is not a relative? (Obviously, this would be an unmarried Saudi muslim woman, who was not a relative, and it would have to be outside of a compound.)
Sentenced to death by stoning for talking to an unmarried man who is not a relative?
Arrested and sentenced to lashes for the possession of alcohol (outside of a compound)?
Sentenced to death for being raped, as the religious police count it as adultery?

I don't know what you do in Saudi or in what circumstances you live, but it is far from a tolerant place. They might tolerate you not speaking Arabic, not dressing like them and not believing in the same religion, but that's nothing compared to the tolerance automatically afforded to immigrants in western countries. The Saudis will accept your culture and beliefs, provided it does not inconvenience them in the slightest and that those beliefs do not conflict with their own.

SPman

23rd July 2008, 17:21

For many, islam is not a religion of peace and tolerance, but a religion that revolves around the venomous hatred of anyone who isn't muslim, or doesn't follow their particular interpretation of islam. Tolerance of others, especially if they attack islam (or are perceived to be attacking it), is woefully lacking.
Sort of like Christianity was, not that long ago...........

svr

23rd July 2008, 17:47

Sort of like Christianity was, not that long ago...........

I thought Bush was STILL president?

svr

23rd July 2008, 17:53

terbang

24th July 2008, 05:38

Answers in CAPITALS

Are you living in a western compound, or in one of the cities? And are you in Jeddah, by any chance?

HAVE A FLAT IN JEDDAH. THOUGH SPEND A FAIR BIT OF TIME ALL OVER THE PLACE.

Whilst I certainly can't question the authenticity of what you say SO DON´T, it is very different from what I've heard THATS THE OPERATIVE WORD, HEARD from others, including my father when he worked there not so long ago. AND SIR I LIVE THERE
RIGHT NOW

But, perhaps you can tell me this; in NZ, or any other western country, can you be:

Arrested, tried and executed for persuading a muslim to be baptised as a christian?
Arrested, tried and executed for stating that Mohammad was, for instance, an illiterate paedophile?
If you're female, arrested for lewd behaviour and sentenced to lashes for not wearing a head-scarf when outside one's house?
If you're female, arrested for the mere act of driving?
Sentenced to lashes (at best) for talking to an unmarried woman who is not a relative? (Obviously, this would be an unmarried Saudi muslim woman, who was not a relative, and it would have to be outside of a compound.)
Sentenced to death by stoning for talking to an unmarried man who is not a relative?
Arrested and sentenced to lashes for the possession of alcohol (outside of a compound)?
Sentenced to death for being raped, as the religious police count it as adultery?

NO NOT AT ALL, DOH, THIS IS SAUDI ARABIA AND THEIR LAWS ARE DIFFERENT, THOUGH YOU DO EXAGGERATE A FAIR BIT THERE TOO. ESPECIALLY ON TH LAST ONE.
WHO AM I, OR YOU TO BE THEIR JUDGE..?

I don't know what you do in Saudi or in what circumstances you live, but it is far from a tolerant place ARE YOU SURE AND BY WHAT MEASURE?. They might tolerate you not speaking Arabic, not dressing like them and not believing in the same religion, but that's nothing compared to the tolerance automatically afforded to immigrants in western countries. The Saudis will accept your culture and beliefs, provided it does not inconvenience them in the slightest and that those beliefs do not conflict with their own.

Sanx

24th July 2008, 11:01

HAVE A FLAT IN JEDDAH. THOUGH SPEND A FAIR BIT OF TIME ALL OVER THE PLACE.

I did actually hear something (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7462238.stm) on the BBC a couple of weeks back about a new wave of liberalism that seems to have started in Jeddah. The correspondent didn't attribute it to any one cause, but mentioned that there are now shopping malls owned by people of enough power and influence to arrange that the religious police do not have access. But he did state that Jeddah is, because of its history as a trading port and commercial centre, often more libera than other parts of Saudi.

THATS THE OPERATIVE WORD, HEARD ... AND SIR I LIVE THERE RIGHT NOW

And aren't you the know-it all prick. Well, how about asking a group that does know what they're talking about:

The government continued with reform initiatives but these had little impact in improving human rights. There were new violations linked to the "war on terror" and further clashes between security forces and members of armed groups. Scores of people suspected of belonging to or supporting such armed groups were reported to have been arrested but the authorities did not divulge their identities or other information about them, and it was unclear whether any were charged and brought to trial. Peaceful critics of the government were subjected to prolonged detention without charge or trial. There were allegations of torture, and floggings continued to be imposed by the courts. Violence against women was prevalent and migrant workers suffered discrimination and abuse. At least 39 people were executed.

That's the summary. The rest of the report's here (http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/middle-east-and-north-africa/west-gulf/saudi-arabia#report). Read the bits about torture, enforced mutilation and death penalty for children. It's all enlightening reading. Such a tolerant place.

NO NOT AT ALL, DOH, THIS IS SAUDI ARABIA AND THEIR LAWS ARE DIFFERENT, THOUGH YOU DO EXAGGERATE A FAIR BIT THERE TOO. ESPECIALLY ON TH LAST ONE.

So is it a tolerant place or isn't it? Or are you saying that provided you fit in with their extremely restrictive rules on what you can do, wear and say, the Saudi authorities leave you alone?

SPman

24th July 2008, 15:46

So is it a tolerant place or isn't it? Or are you saying that provided you fit in with their extremely restrictive rules on what you can do, wear and say, the Saudi authorities leave you alone?
Is it not so with most countries, particularly "as a stranger in a strange land"?

Mr Terbang flies Airliners......a bit like all those Saudi "Terrorists" who flew into the WTC. One of those is (still) a pilot for Saudi Air.....

Sanx

24th July 2008, 17:24

Is it not so with most countries, particularly "as a stranger in a strange land"?

Mr Terbang flies Airliners......a bit like all those Saudi "Terrorists" who flew into the WTC. One of those is (still) a pilot for Saudi Air.....

It is the same for most countries; provided you obey their rules, fit in with their culture and do nothing to antagonise the ruling elite, you'll be fine.

But that was exactly the point I was trying to make way back in an earlier post. This rule applies in most countries, except in various PC western nations where the rule is reversed. If you're an immigrant, you can demand that everyone respects your culture and does nothing to upset you. No demand can be made of you to learn the language or obey local laws and customs; it's the host country's responsibility to adapt to how you wish to do things.

The problem in the UK with muslim extremists demanding death for anyone that insults (according to them) their pet paedophile prophet is a good example. They feel that they get freedom of speech, but no-one else has it when it comes to matters concerning their religion.

idleidolidyll

24th July 2008, 18:33

No, i haven't read back to where i left off last time; i doubt there's anything I haven't seen before.

just glancing at this page, it seems race hate and religious hate is alive and well.

if we're using amnesty international for 'muslims' perhaps we should check it out for 'jews' 'baptists' 'mormons' 'hindus' etc?

i know, since some think it's a really useful source, lets check out what it says about the US, Britain and Israel.

I forget, how many UN resolutions in the Security Council has the US vetoed to save Israel from sanction again?

It's in the fukkin hundreds aint it?

idleidolidyll

24th July 2008, 18:35

Good grief!

I can't count how many bars I've been in in Britain where local pommes threatened to kill or assault paki's, wops and dago's.

the fallacy is to suggest it's one sided

idleidolidyll

24th July 2008, 18:36

Is interesting how right and wrong changes with time. Us christians did our imperial land grabbing / genocidal colonization / crusades etc when it was historically acceptable huh?
Bad luck anyone who missed that window of opportunity!

you think it finished?

no way! it's merely morphed into IMF, World Bank, Free Trade ransacking of economies and resources OBO the usual suspects

idleidolidyll

24th July 2008, 18:42

ahh, "poisoning the well" eh?

another of those good ol fallacies.

use generalisations from unrepresentative data to paint a whole group with the actions of a few in order to suggest that whole group is a bad' as the few.

the plot backfires when it is turned around on the user.
it's relatively easy to identify a group THEY belong to and assign similar traits based on minority actions.

frankly i'm amazed people think this shit will fly.

plenty of whacko christian groups have been attacking islamic practice since the religions split from each other

idleidolidyll

24th July 2008, 18:50

Q: Now, the United States government says that you are still funding military training camps here in Afghanistan for militant, Islamic fighters and that you're a sponsor of international terrorism.… Are these accusations true? …

Osama Bin Laden: …At the time that they condemn any Muslim who calls for his right, they receive the highest top official of the Irish Republican Army at the White House as a political leader, while woe, all woe is the Muslims if they cry out for their rights. Wherever we look, we find the US as the leader of terrorism and crime in the world. The US does not consider it a terrorist act to throw atomic bombs at nations thousands of miles away, when it would not be possible for those bombs to hit military troops only. These bombs were rather thrown at entire nations, including women, children and elderly people and up to this day the traces of those bombs remain in Japan. The US does not consider it terrorism when hundreds of thousands of our sons and brothers in Iraq died for lack of food or medicine. So, there is no base for what the US says and this saying does not affect us.…
Source: "CNN March 1997 Interview with Osama bin Laden" (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/binladen/binladenintvw-cnn.pdf) (PDF)

MisterD

24th July 2008, 19:36

Cancers of the mind: Islam, Christianity and Socialism.

terbang

24th July 2008, 20:15

And aren't you the know-it all prick. Well, how about asking a group that does know what they're talking about:

No not know it all, but I suspect that I may know a little more than you about the way the Saudis are. I also suspect that you only see the world with one eye and don´t like to be told anything. BTW lets leave the name calling to the children eh.
I read all the same articles as you and many more as I am well on into learning Arabic (voluntarily of course) and also have the added bonus of living here, working here and socializing with them. I talk to Saudi women every day, they are intelligent, well educated and quite a cheerful bunch. A conversation I recently had went like this. ¨jees isn´t it a demeaning and oppressive thing for you to have to cover up all the time with those abayas and all that¨
¨Funny you say that, when I go to your world I see half naked women parading on posters, just so that you can sell beer and cigarettes, surely using a wonmans body to sell things is more oppressive and demeaning than covering it up. I prefer to be judged by what I have to say¨
No argument from me there.

mstriumph

24th July 2008, 20:25

Good grief!

I can't count how many bars I've been in in Britain where local pommes threatened to kill or assault paki's, wops and dago's.

the fallacy is to suggest it's one sided

:calm: people SAY things like that when they feel threatened

- there are parts of Britain in which i have felt very threatened indeed .....

mstriumph

24th July 2008, 20:27

............, surely using a wonmans body to sell things is more oppressive and demeaning than covering it up. I prefer to be judged by what I have to say¨
.........

no disrespect intended but i think that maybe the point is that HERE i have a choice ..... THERE i wouldn't?

mstriumph

24th July 2008, 20:29

................

plenty of whacko christian groups have been attacking islamic practice since the religions split from each other
.... and vice-versa, of course ..... :whistle:

mstriumph

24th July 2008, 20:38

Sort of like Christianity was, not that long ago...........

mmmmm the crusades... the pogroms.... Kristallnacht ... the Spanish inquisition ....

and ANY reference to Monty Python will be severely dealt with!! :spanking:

scumdog

24th July 2008, 20:44

mmmmm the crusades... the pogroms.... Kristallnacht ... the Spanish inquisition ....

and ANY reference to Monty Python will be severely dealt with!! :spanking:

"Nonsense, - it's just a flesh wound"

mstriumph

24th July 2008, 20:52

..............No I haven't lived in the area, but not many of us had to go to Apartheid South Africa to know that that was also a travesty,................... i was there .... suprising how wrong most of the long-distance commentators got it ........:no:

terbang

25th July 2008, 01:31

Interestng to hear you say that. Long time ago as a much younger and hot headed lad, I protested against the springbok tour. Damn near destroyed my career and all over an ideal that I scantily understood. Time has passed and I have gained some awesome South african friends who have given me their perspective. My views are certainly different now of course.

On a slightly differnt note, though sort of relevant to this thread. The Co-pilot that I am assigned on this rotation is a Saudi, he is 50 years old, a bit of a cruiser and is happy to see his career out in the right seat. Likes to be called Sam and is a top bloke. Anyway, pre 9/11, he flew some of the Bin Laden brothers to Sudan to meet with their brother Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden had moved there after his earlier denouncing of the Saudi Kingdom. Sam heard some of the conversation on their departure where one of the brothers basicly said ¨what the fuck are you up to¨ and ¨please, stop all this, come back to Saudi and keep our names clean¨. The reply was ¨too late, I´ll see you all in heaven¨. They left under a dark cloud and the rest is history.

Boob Johnson

25th July 2008, 01:58

I lost you there...

That words sounds like a disease around the anus.
The theory that the subconscious mind cannot hold two conflicting thoughts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Extremely powerful, I used it to give up smoking over 8 1/2 years ago.

slowpoke

25th July 2008, 04:05

i was there .... suprising how wrong most of the long-distance commentators got it ........:no:

South Africa is another interesting conflict. It's gone off the radar a bit but there are still serious problems in that country.

In what way do you think the commentators got it wrong? Depending on who you read it's either a continuing mess or the promised land....

The Truth and Reconciliataion Commission was a joke: basically only the actual perpetrators of human rights violations could be brought to task, not the power brokers behind the policies. This is basically like saying the Auschwitz guards could be charged but Hitler couldn't.

mstriumph

25th July 2008, 12:39

South Africa is another interesting conflict. It's gone off the radar a bit but there are still serious problems in that country.

In what way do you think the commentators got it wrong? Depending on who you read it's either a continuing mess or the promised land....

The Truth and Reconciliataion Commission was a joke: basically only the actual perpetrators of human rights violations could be brought to task, not the power brokers behind the policies. This is basically like saying the Auschwitz guards could be charged but Hitler couldn't. my only comment on south africa now probably doesn't bear repeating - and anyway i, too, am now a 'long distance commentator'

i was in and around soweto during the time of the riots ...... it was that to which i was referring.

peasea

25th July 2008, 21:05

The theory that the subconscious mind cannot hold two conflicting thoughts

Yes it can.
No it can't.
Yes it can.
No it can't.

Winston001

25th July 2008, 21:53

Is interesting how right and wrong changes with time. Us Christians did our imperial land grabbing / genocidal colonization / crusades etc when it was historically acceptable huh?
Bad luck anyone who missed that window of opportunity!

You are right in that history is written by the winners, and perceptions of right and wrong do change. That's progress and liberalism. Lucky us.

However it is historically wrong to characterise Christian wars and the spread of the religion as the same as the current Islamic jihads. The Crusades were fought by Kings and were economic and political actions aimed at stemming the advance of Islamic Kings and warlords into Europe. The average citizen on both sides took no part.

Again, the Inquisition was a tool of the power elite in the Church to crush the Knights Templar and uppity priests. It was laughed out of England. Nasty business certainly but it focused on Christians, not other religions.

There is no comparison between extreme Islam, and any of the other major religions. Everything pales before the hatred and anger of the mullahs.

It is a shame. Moslems whom I know are gentle people and I've enjoyed Islamic countries. Why this faith is able to stir up so much much anguish among certain adherents is a mystery to me.

svr

27th July 2008, 14:11

you think it finished?

no way! it's merely morphed into IMF, World Bank, Free Trade ransacking of economies and resources OBO the usual suspects

True, and through cultural imperialism, the relocation of polluting, dangerous industries to the South, etc. etc.

svr

27th July 2008, 14:17

Winston001

27th July 2008, 17:44

How many people have Muslim terrorists killed?
Since WW2 the US alone has bombed 42 countries, Christian Bush killing at least 1 million innocent (yes) Iraqi in the current killing spree.
Islamic terrorism is a red-herring.

Mmmm.....the red herring is the belief that the United States invades peaceful countries, kills lots of locals, and leaves. It isn't like that and given that it is all recent history, I'm surprised at your post.

Lets take some examples. Beruit 1983 - 241 Marines killed in a single bombing. They were there as peacekeepers, not fighting.

Mogadishu 1993 - The Black Hawk Down story - 18 US soldiers died, again peacekeeping. There is no oil, no possible benefit to the USA for their soldiers dying in Somalia. But they were there with other UN forces just the same.

The Balkans - or the Ballsup as it should be known by the incompetent European Union armed forces. For 6 years the French, Germans, Dutch, and British dithered around while genocide was committed in Serbia. Kosovo looked like it was going to be a bloodbath. Finally the US got sick of watching this and moved. Tens of thousands of lives were saved and the new nations there today only exist because US soldiers and pilots risked their lives. Again, no benefit to the US and Clinton was not popular at home for this.

And then there was the bombing of the US embassy in Kenya......so it goes on.

slowpoke

28th July 2008, 00:58

Mmmm.....the red herring is the belief that the United States invades peaceful countries, kills lots of locals, and leaves. It isn't like that and given that it is all recent history, I'm surprised at your post.

Lets take some examples. Beruit 1983 - 241 Marines killed in a single bombing. They were there as peacekeepers, not fighting.

Mogadishu 1993 - The Black Hawk Down story - 18 US soldiers died, again peacekeeping. There is no oil, no possible benefit to the USA for their soldiers dying in Somalia. But they were there with other UN forces just the same.

The Balkans - or the Ballsup as it should be known by the incompetent European Union armed forces. For 6 years the French, Germans, Dutch, and British dithered around while genocide was committed in Serbia. Kosovo looked like it was going to be a bloodbath. Finally the US got sick of watching this and moved. Tens of thousands of lives were saved and the new nations there today only exist because US soldiers and pilots risked their lives. Again, no benefit to the US and Clinton was not popular at home for this.

And then there was the bombing of the US embassy in Kenya......so it goes on.

Not forgetting of course the US involvement in such things as the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Chile (Chile) and the support of murdering dictator Pinochet.

Or their efforts to overthrow the Sandanaista government in Nicaragua and their support of the Contra's. They were subsequently brought to task in the the International Court of Justice and were convicted for their actions.

Or vetoing countless UN resolutions against Israel, it's support of the atrocious Saudi monarchy (ever wonder why the 9/11 terorrists were mostly Saudi's?), it's creation and empowerment of Saddam Hussein etc etc etc.

I'm sure the US have gone into some troublespots with good intentions but they have much to answer for with regards to the current world political climate.

scumdog

28th July 2008, 09:45

Hmm, I think Winston001 is just trying to point out that the USA is not 100% "Invade-and-kill-everybody-elses-country-in-the-name-of-oil" as some would have us think..Not saying the USA is perfect but it's an easy target.

Of course ranting on KB will change the world eh? eh?

Sanx

28th July 2008, 11:06

How many people have Muslim terrorists killed?
Since WW2 the US alone has bombed 42 countries, Christian Bush killing at least 1 million innocent (yes) Iraqi in the current killing spree.
Islamic terrorism is a red-herring.

One million? US bombing is responsible for killing one million Iraqis? BULLSHIT! Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/) gives the total documented figure of Iraqi civilian casualties (those that died a violent death, not those that died from starvation / disease resulting from military action) as between 86,000 and 94,000. The IBC is hardly a US-government propoganda tool either; it's about as independent as any NGO can be.

A large proportion of those killed in violent (i.e. killed by bombs, bullets or other physical acts) have been killed by Shia or Sunni militant groups. Car bombs, suicide attacks, mass-killings and abductions have all featured in the litany of atrocities carried out by one side of the islamic sectarian divide or the other.

During Allied (it wasn't just the yanks) military action, people were killed. Of course they were. More people were actually killed by starvation and sanitation-related illnesses than by physical means. I'm not saying that's any better, but it's an interesting fact nevertheless. There's also very little documented evidence to indicate exactly how many people died this way. The US erred on the side of caution (i.e. under-reported by a considerable margin) and the Iraqi authorities (and later, their apologists) massively exaggerated the deaths.

But these figures need to be compared to the deaths attributable to Hussein's regime. Iraqi authorities claimed 500,000 Iraqis were killed during the Iran / Iraq war (which Hussein triggered) and the Iranians claim that 300,000 of their own were killed too. (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html) The number of people killed in Iraqi gulags is harder to tell, as the numbers were hardly published. Accounts collected by Western-based human rights groups from Iraqi emigres and defectors suggest the figure could be as high as 200,000.

Perhaps that's where your figure of one million comes from, svr. Not casualties as the result of allied military action, but casualties directly attributable to Hussein's rule.

scumdog

28th July 2008, 11:54

How many people have Muslim terrorists killed?
Since WW2 the US alone has bombed 42 countries, Christian Bush killing at least 1 million innocent (yes) Iraqi in the current killing spree.
Islamic terrorism is a red-herring.

Pffft!, and I have this large structure for sale in Auckland handy for crossing water - buy it from me and charge others for crossing it and make a fortune.

Send purchase price to this Nigerian bank account.....

mstriumph

28th July 2008, 12:03

..............
Of course ranting on KB will change the world eh? eh?

no
but it allows people to vent / let off steam and FEEL that they've done something .......... much less likely to THEN feel the need to go out and bomb whomsoever that way?

kb - the universal solution to what-ails-you!!!! :2thumbsup

svr

28th July 2008, 12:40

Whats the acceptable body-count measure? A dead mother, son, sister etc. is still dead.
1 million Iraqi deaths as a result (direct, indirect, whats the difference) of the current invasion.
If you want to talk numbers how many were killed in the 9/11 attacks? 10 x that number of under 5yr olds starve to death every day due to poverty. My point was that the actual scale of threat to Western citizens presented by Islamic terrorism is insignificant i.e. A red herring.

scumdog

28th July 2008, 12:57

Winston001

28th July 2008, 13:35

Not forgetting of course the US involvement in such things as the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Chile (Chile) and the support of murdering dictator Pinochet.

Or their efforts to overthrow the Sandanaista government in Nicaragua and their support of the Contra's. They were subsequently brought to task in the the International Court of Justice and were convicted for their actions.

Or vetoing countless UN resolutions against Israel, it's support of the atrocious Saudi monarchy (ever wonder why the 9/11 terorrists were mostly Saudi's?), it's creation and empowerment of Saddam Hussein etc etc etc.

I'm sure the US have gone into some troublespots with good intentions but they have much to answer for with regards to the current world political climate.

The US is big and easy to pick on. Yes, they have made some appalling foreign policy blunders, the support of the corrupt South Vietnam government being the worst by far.

In more recent times, Saddam Hussein was a "friend" in the 70s and 80s because Iraq provided a bulwark in the region against the Islamic regime of Iran.

Today the US is friendly with Uzbekistan which is a quasi-dictatorship (although nominally democratic) as well as Pakistan which is a malestrom of corruption as well as having nuclear weapons.

Politics makes strange bedfellows......

Incidentally China supports the Sudanese government, a nation where its President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir has just been indicted by the International Court of Justice.

China also supports Zimbabwe - remember the ship-load of munitions discovered off the coast of East Africa?

Funny - don't see any frothing at the mouth about China here........ :headbang:

Usual double standards. Face up to it - in China political commentary in this forum would disappear and you'd be tracked down for "re-education".

Winston001

28th July 2008, 13:47

If you want to talk numbers how many were killed in the 9/11 attacks? 10 x that number of under 5yr olds starve to death every day due to poverty. My point was that the actual scale of threat to Western citizens presented by Islamic terrorism is insignificant i.e. A red herring.

Yessss.........but dead is dead - and we don't like that in the West. We tend to get stroppy and launch massive counter-attacks.....because we can.

Lets imagine your mother/child dies in an Islamic inspired bombing in Wellington. Are you going to take the moral high-ground and recognise this was a political act brought about by the perceived oppression of the Third World? That it was a valid guerilla action by impoverished Moslems to bring world attention to their plight?? That the death was a martyrdom which your loved one was fortunate to contribute to a just cause.......??

SPman

28th July 2008, 13:47

Today the US is friendly with Uzbekistan which is a quasi-dictatorship (although nominally democratic) as well as Pakistan which is a malestrom of corruption as well as having nuclear weapons.

Politics makes strange bedfellows......

Aaah - Uzbekistan, where boiling in oil of political opponents, is still a favoured pastime.

Pakistan - who see themselves as leaders of the Islamic world.....

Indeed

Sanx

28th July 2008, 13:53

1 million Iraqi deaths as a result (direct, indirect, whats the difference) of the current invasion.

Sorry - but the figure of one million has been pulled out of your arse. It has no similarity to anything approaching reality. One million people may have died in Iraq since the initial invasion, but that figure would have to include deaths by natural causes, old age, disease, vehicle accidents, bombings, shootings, drugs, lightning strikes and running with scissors.

To blame every single death, no matter the cause, on the Allied invasion is simply ridiculous.

As I said, independent organisations estimate the number dead as a result of military activities (and this includes the people killed by Islamic insurgents - are they the US's fault too) at just under 100,000. That's a far cry from the figure of one million you're bandying about with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever.

svr

28th July 2008, 18:14

Sorry - but the figure of one million has been pulled out of your arse.

Well spotted that man! Actually, not from my arse, from some commentator on `Alt TV' actually... (I used to use more reliable sources).

If only 100,000 have been killed thats ok then.

scumdog

28th July 2008, 19:02

speedpro

28th July 2008, 19:32

I've told you guys a million times not to exagerate, or was it only 100,000 times?

peasea

28th July 2008, 22:44

no
but it allows people to vent / let off steam and FEEL that they've done something .......... much less likely to THEN feel the need to go out and bomb whomsoever that way?

Not me; I'm surfing the net for bombs right now.

peasea

28th July 2008, 22:45

I've told you guys a million times not to exagerate, or was it only 100,000 times?

Where are the Comma Cops when you need them?

peasea

28th July 2008, 22:46

If only 100,000 have been killed thats ok then.

Only if they're Muslims..........

Robert Taylor

28th July 2008, 23:40

The US is big and easy to pick on. Yes, they have made some appalling foreign policy blunders, the support of the corrupt South Vietnam government being the worst by far.

In more recent times, Saddam Hussein was a "friend" in the 70s and 80s because Iraq provided a bulwark in the region against the Islamic regime of Iran.

Today the US is friendly with Uzbekistan which is a quasi-dictatorship (although nominally democratic) as well as Pakistan which is a malestrom of corruption as well as having nuclear weapons.

Politics makes strange bedfellows......

Incidentally China supports the Sudanese government, a nation where its President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir has just been indicted by the International Court of Justice.

China also supports Zimbabwe - remember the ship-load of munitions discovered off the coast of East Africa?

Funny - don't see any frothing at the mouth about China here........ :headbang:

Usual double standards. Face up to it - in China political commentary in this forum would disappear and you'd be tracked down for "re-education".

Give this quasi communist ''Government'' another 3 years and we will be allowed less freedom of speech.

peasea

28th July 2008, 23:48

Give this quasi communist ''Government'' another 3 years and we will be allowed less freedom of speech.

Do you really believe umpfh ugghh ummppfpf ypmmph?

scumdog

28th July 2008, 23:54

Do you really believe umpfh ugghh ummppfpf ypmmph?

Soooo.... what are YOU drinking???

(I'm on the Aberlour the noo..)

peasea

29th July 2008, 00:04

Soooo.... what are YOU drinking???

(I'm on the Aberlour the noo..)

Nothing officer, nothing at all.

scumdog

29th July 2008, 00:12

Nothing officer, nothing at all.

Yeahh...riiigght!!
They ALL say that - as they fall puking out of their car..."I only had two, honest, only two"

(Must have been two jugs of straight bourbon)

Sanx

29th July 2008, 10:51

Well spotted that man! Actually, not from my arse, from some commentator on `Alt TV' actually... (I used to use more reliable sources).

If only 100,000 have been killed thats ok then.

Of course it's not OK. Though it does remind me of that old Nazi-era quote: "Killing one thousand people requires evil. Killing one million people requires logistics."

But if you're going to spout rhetoric about the evil Americans and how Islamic terrorism is no threat, get the figures right.

svr

29th July 2008, 13:11

Or Stalin :"One dead is a tragedy, One thousand dead is a statistic"
Actually I don't agree with simple US bashing - it is easy to imagine a worse superpower.
But if people are really concerned about actual threat from Islamic terrorists they might want to get the figures right too.

svr

29th July 2008, 13:29

Give this quasi communist ''Government'' another 3 years and we will be allowed less freedom of speech.

Large central government (e.g. ours) is the opposite of communism. You mean quasi Socialism. I agree that there is excessive state intervention / centralised decision making etc. (unnecesary with todays IT if you think about it) - all antidemocratic.
My question is, exactly what, if anything of actual substance, will the incomming National government actually change?

Winston001

29th July 2008, 13:42

My question is, exactly what, if anything of actual substance, will the incomming National government actually change?

Good question and realistically, not a lot. Governments lose elections, the public are sick of Labour's arrogance so time for a change. National previously became equally arrogant under Jim Bolger/Jenny Shipley.

So - what could they change? As a small nation, we are becoming completely bogged down by red tape. Partly this is the price of democracy - we demand accountability so hospitals now have to have managers to check on the managers..... Times that by 100 and you have the civil service in the 21st century.

A quick example - an insane man killed his mother after being released from Southland Hospital. Including Court cases, there were 8 separate enquiries - count them - 8!!!! - over 5 years into this tragedy. Thousands of hours of investigation, millions of dollars of mostly taxpayer dollars.......and every part of it justifiable in the public interest.

So maybe we should take a step back and harden up. The blame game is totally out of control.

terbang

3rd August 2008, 21:04

A quick example - an insane man killed his mother after being released from Southland Hospital. Including Court cases, there were 8 separate enquiries - count them - 8!!!! - over 5 years into this tragedy. Thousands of hours of investigation, millions of dollars of mostly taxpayer dollars.......and every part of it justifiable in the public interest.

So maybe we should take a step back and harden up. The blame game is totally out of control.

Rapists, murderers, thieves, boi racers, drunk drivers and many others here just wind up in chop chop square. But I forget, they are just crazy muslims.. Right..?
I live in two countries, both on each end of the spectrum of human rights and justice. One has chop chop square and the other has prisons with tv´s and heated floors. Both could do with a step back and could learn a trick from each other.

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 13:11

Give this quasi communist ''Government'' another 3 years and we will be allowed less freedom of speech.

quasi communist?
what forced labour camps do you know of in NZ?
how many people are 'assigned' jobs based on what the government thinks they should do in NZ?
Just how many cummunal work organisations has the government set up during its time in office?

what a load of tripe.
the labour govt is centrist.
do you even KNOW what communism is?
I only ask because you express such ignorance on the subject.......or is it just fascist propaganda? ie; "anything left of fascism must be commie"

communist.................fukkin hilarious nonsense!

now please explain:
the Labour govt has been fiscally very conservative and has reduced debt to 17% from the lofty heights of the 80 percentile region where that National asswipe piggy muldoon borrowed us to.
national today is promising to out borrow labour by a massive amount.....$3 billion bucks so far in order to spend on 'infrastructure'. you know, think big crap like piggy did and big projects for the corporates whose dicks they suck.
you and your fellow fascists have whined on and on about government spending being out of control:
why are you prepared to put up with worse from national?

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 13:13

rubbish winston

there will be massive change as the fascists set up the next sell off of state assets and our jobs to foreign capitalists AGAIN!

MisterD

5th August 2008, 13:39

Oh look, it's the loony left scaremongering again.....:yawn:

Lets see, how was the major infrastructure of this country financed again? Oh, that's right, long term debt.

Klerk and Kullen's political games over a patch of reclaimed swap in Mangere (that just happens to have a runway on it) has scared all the foreign investors away. We should see an announcement today that we're officially in a recession which will be worse because of our least favourite history professor's spending and all Liarbore have got is "Slippery John" as an argument.

alanzs

5th August 2008, 16:51

why are you prepared to put up with worse from national?

I am not prepared to put up with it. I will vote and encourage others to do the same. I have lived in a country where only 40% of the eligible voters vote and it sucked. Democracy is a potent form of action, but people must vote, or we are sheep and deserve what we get. Oh yeah, I'm from the Great Satan, the US. I voted with my feet. :devil2:
People don't know how good we have it here in NZ. It ain't perfect, but it's pretty damn good. IMHO....

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 18:42

Of course it's not OK. Though it does remind me of that old Nazi-era quote: "Killing one thousand people requires evil. Killing one million people requires logistics."

But if you're going to spout rhetoric about the evil Americans and how Islamic terrorism is no threat, get the figures right.

"Islamic Terrorism"

Fuck me there's some suckers around!

Compare and contrast: How many people have Islamic Terrorists killed and terrorised over the last few decades?

How many people have Western Governments killed and terrorised in the same period?

"Islamic Terrorism" is a beat up for shallow thinkers. It's fucking TINY compared to Western Terrorism.

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 18:47

Oh look, it's the loony left scaremongering again.....:yawn:

reduced to dumb ad hominems again?

yawn

hey I know, lets destroy the social system of NZ and hand our entire economy to the greedy few by destroying government with debt: that's the National Way

Want the most inaccessible and expensive medical system on the planet? Look to the Capitalists.

Want massive litigation forcing costs through the roof? Look to Capitalism.

Want to vote once a term and have the politicians ignore you for the next 3 years? Vote for Capitalists.

svr

5th August 2008, 19:12

What's the alternative to Capitalism, Idyll? Thats an honest question - not a setup.

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 19:30

Mate,
I've said it many times

SOCIALISM

Not the propaganda version as described by the fascists but socialism as it should be: a system where the PEOPLE hold the power over their own fate not individuals, mega corporations or small groups.

But to understand the answer you have to define the terminology and that's where the propaganda starts.

I always like to go back to the roots of the words.

Socialism: A system in which the people control the means of production.

Capitalism: A system in which capitalists control the means of production (Capitalists are the wealthy few who control the capital; money)

Conservative: (political) A term used to describe a political ideology that espouses lack of change and the status quo (always favouring the wealthy few or religious domination by one or two 'churches)

Liberal: (political) A term used to describe a political ideology that accepts that people can have valid cultures different from the status quo and which embraces change in order to create equanimity.

Communism: A system in which people are treated as parts of a machine and assigned work for the 'good of the whole' based on their designated skills.

Fascist: Extreme right wing authoritarian capitalism.

Little bits of almost all work quite well. Generally the worst abuses happen when any of these systems are taken over by dictators, corporations or oligarchies. These can be in the form of Mussolinis, Stalins, Bush's, Pol Pots, Thatchers, Pinochets, Mao's, Hitler's etc.

You'll note that the only real commonality is the extereme authoritarianism not the general political ideology.

IMO the most open to the abuse of authoritarianism are the capitalist leaders: those who grasp personal gain.
After all, capitalsim is government for the good of the few with the rest scrambling for scraps.
Those who think trade and industry are 'capitalism' are extremely deluded. Trade and industry are present in all systems and a function of humanity.

You've got to be able to sift the propaganda from the policy.

BTW: Almost all social progress on this planet has been forced from the 'left'.

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 19:42

In the end it's about power:
control over production essentially means control over people.

do you really want corporations, cliques and individuals controlling your life or would you rather trust a democracy of the people?

Democracy BTW is a left wing idea. Conservatives and capitalists often rail against it and prefer 'strong government' (euphemism for dictatorships)

Monarchies are perhaps the ultimate in capitalism: one person in absolute control holding almost all the wealth.
That system was overcome by the left wing notion called democracy.

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 19:51

BTW: seen the latest National fuck up?

Well known National politicians taped talking about duping Kiwis during the elections and doing what they want through the back door after they've won the election.

MisterD

5th August 2008, 20:21

reduced to dumb ad hominems again?

yawn

hey I know, lets destroy the social system of NZ and hand our entire economy to the greedy few by destroying government with debt: that's the National Way

Want the most inaccessible and expensive medical system on the planet? Look to the Capitalists.

Want massive litigation forcing costs through the roof? Look to Capitalism.

Want to vote once a term and have the politicians ignore you for the next 3 years? Vote for Capitalists.

Want most of our GDP sucked into a massive inefficient government machine? Look to the lefties.

BTW did you see the look on Alan Clark's face when National wheeled out the quotes from her first term? First thing he did was raise borrowing from 25% to 30% of GDP - and now he's bleating about 22%.

Hmm. Who voted to privatise Telecom? Clark.
Who voted to create private airport companies? Yep Clark again.
Which parties have contravened the EFA? All the lefties, plus Winston 1st that voted it in.

Do you really want to talk about Right-wing hypocrisy?

MisterD

5th August 2008, 20:25

Monarchies are perhaps the ultimate in capitalism: one person in absolute control holding almost all the wealth.
That system was overcome by the left wing notion called democracy.

That's utter back-to-front bollocks. If capitalism is defined (as you choose to do) by the power all being vested in those with money, then monarchy is the exact opposite.

Monarch is the money all being vested in those with power, usually because their ancestors were handy with a sword.

SPman

5th August 2008, 20:25

Selling Kiwibank,slashing Working For Families, borrowing to pay for tax cuts.......but of course - all this was meant to be for the Party faithful, only. Not for the ears of mere common voters! It shows the vast gap between what National is telling us, and what it's telling its supporters and funders.

These are cuts which will have a significant effect on people's lives - and Key has an obligation in a democracy to front up and tell us what they will be, so we can make an informed choice. His refusal to do so speaks volumes, about both his plans, and the contempt he has for us, the voters.

The Chicago School of economics is alive and well in the National party! The economic theory that has laid waste to societies throughout the world, to the benefit of the wealthy few.

And now, it appears, that the IMF is bad for your health!
"This week comes news that tuberculosis deaths, a sensitive indicator of the quality of public health services, climbed in 21 countries during IMF programmes. In addition, the deaths correlate with the length of IMF involvement and the amount loaned. The effect did not appear to be a statistical anomaly, nor the result of other factors affecting TB: the IMF is clearly in the frame." - the IMF - another arm of (mainly) American power and influence!

SPman

5th August 2008, 20:29

The full articles
THE International Monetary Fund seemed like such a good idea. That idea, in the hopeful post-war days of the 1940s, was to have a bank that would rescue countries in financial difficulties and put them back on track. Like a wise uncle, it would loan them cash to tide them over, on the condition that they balanced their budgets by making "structural adjustments". Unfortunately, this uncle has proved not to be as wise as was hoped. To achieve structural adjustments, governments have been forced to slash their spending on services needed for long-term economic health: education, agriculture and healthcare.
Plenty of anecdotal evidence exists for the negative impact of IMF loans. A decade ago, frustrated African doctors were calling it the Infant Mortality Fund (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14819983.900-the-shock-of-the-real.html) because of what happened to child survival rates when it started guiding government spending.
This week comes news that tuberculosis deaths, a sensitive indicator of the quality of public health services, climbed in 21 countries during IMF programmes ("IMF loans 'drive TB deaths'") (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19926663.100-imf-loans-lead-to-tb-deaths.html). In addition, the deaths correlate with the length of IMF involvement and the amount loaned. The effect did not appear to be a statistical anomaly, nor the result of other factors affecting TB: the IMF is clearly in the frame.
The main problems here are ideology and evidence - lots of the former and a lack of the latter. Since the 1970s, the IMF has followed the Chicago school of economists, who insist on "small government". That means cutting expenditure, privatising state-owned services, removing government subsidies and so forth. The IMF's measures of success (or otherwise) are almost exclusively economic. It seems to be in denial over growing evidence that achieving these goals damages things like people's health and levels of schooling, even though these are essential to the long-term development of a nation.
It is time to treat IMF programmes like the experiments they are, and measure outcomes using more than just economic indicators. There seems little point in restoring short-term economic stability to a nation if its well-being and prospects for future prosperity are seriously damaged in the process.
We can argue all day about political and economic ideologies, but what really matters is what is happening on the ground, where ideology becomes a matter of life or death. The TB study shows there is more than one way to measure the impact of economic policies. Such real, empirical measures must become a requirement for any effort to manage economies for the benefit of the people they serve.
and
The global organisation charged with securing financial stability and reducing poverty could be bad for your health.
The International Monetary Fund lends money to countries with financial problems and in return requires them to cut spending to control inflation. Critics have long charged (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14819983.900-the-shock-of-the-real.html) that this in fact reduces spending on healthcare and so promotes the spread of disease.
Now David Stuckler (http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/ds450/) and colleagues at the University of Cambridge have analysed the spread of tuberculosis in 21 countries in central and eastern Europe that received IMF loans after 1989. The countries started with a TB mortality rate of 6 per 100,000 people, on average. The researchers found that the loans were linked with a 13 per cent increase in cases of TB, and 16 per cent more deaths (PLoS Medicine, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050143 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050143)). The team also discovered that the countries spent less on TB control and had fewer doctors per person after receiving IMF loans. What's more, the bigger the loan, the bigger the increase in TB that followed.
The effect was not because countries with worsening TB simply attracted more IMF attention, says Stuckler, as the TB rates were falling or at least steady before the IMF loans. The team also found that for each year of a country's involvement with the IMF, the TB death rate increased by 4 per cent, on average.
William Murray, a spokesman for the IMF, says that the organisation advises countries to spend on healthcare, and that the increases in TB and mortality are due to something else.
Yeah, right!

idleidolidyll

5th August 2008, 20:34

Want most of our GDP sucked into a massive inefficient government machine? Look to the lefties.

BTW did you see the look on Alan Clark's face when National wheeled out the quotes from her first term? First thing he did was raise borrowing from 25% to 30% of GDP - and now he's bleating about 22%.

Hmm. Who voted to privatise Telecom? Clark.
Who voted to create private airport companies? Yep Clark again.
Which parties have contravened the EFA? All the lefties, plus Winston 1st that voted it in.

Do you really want to talk about Right-wing hypocrisy?

Yep, that money goes mainly into social programs
designed to improve the living standards of those who are less able to survive the abuses of capitalism.
On the other hand, the massive spending of National goes to make the rich richer.
Of thew two over the last 30 years, which has created the most debt and borrowed the most? That's right, National has by far.

When the Lange government took over from National NZ had a debt level that was almost bankrupting us. Labour tried to correct that but was hijacked by a stoolie called Roger Douglas who went on to form NZ's most fascist right wing party: ACT.

Again after the next National govt gave our jobs to foreigners through the Employment Contracts Act and sold our assets and state enterprises down the river, Labour had to bail the country out again and over their term has reduced debt to 17%.

So Clark had to borrow money after the National party screwed NZ over again? Yep, that's the usual way of things. National bankrupts government and Labour has to rescue it again.

Indeed, Labour did sell of assets. They didn't want to but Piggy Muldoon, yes the National Leader, had almost bankrupted the country and there was no choice. Effectively, even though Labour sold some of the assets, National forced that position with outrageous borrowing..............the same kind that Key has just signalled!