UN and six EU countries pass resolution supporting Palestinian violence

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

exp

Platinum Member
May 9, 2001
2,150
0
0


<< Every man for himself, no doubt the best way to go about achieving world peace. >>

Of course not. Everyone knows the best way to go about achieving world peace is to pass resolutions endorsing "armed struggle" while simultaneously avoiding a condemnation of terrorism.
 

WyteRyce

Member
Apr 16, 2000
80
0
0


<< It looks like that act of American Barbarism saved about 1.25 MILLION people.

According to what, just estimates?
Who said it was barbaric?
Did we still not knowingly kill 240,000 civilians and wipe out two cities?
Do the ends justify the means? Isn't believing that basically a free pass to do whatever the heck you want?
>>



Ask over a million Americans and countless Japanese to die in a long bloody fight, just so future generations can live without a feeling of guilt. Yeah, makes sense to me.

 

Odoacer

Senior member
Jun 30, 2001
809
0
0
That thing is BS. know why? By condoning the homicide bomgings, they're putting their stamp of approval on terrorism. We might as well roll out the red carpet for Bin Laden.

Europeans piss me off... really, they do, sometimes. Call it typical Americanism, or whatever you want, but some of the things they've done and stances they've taken recently are just aggravating.

I'm not gonna get into this hiroshima or UN shiznit, but remeber that more lives were saved by the bombing of hiroshima than would have been taken had we launched a full-scale invassion of Japan. It all boils down to numbers - and the value of human life.
 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76


<< There's nothing to revise, it's all just interpretation to begin with. There is the default patriotic party line interpretation that points to the end result as justification and says that's what we intended all along. Taking into account the geo-political climate of the times, and the general objectifying disdain people hold for their enemies will yield somewhat of a different picture. >>



WOW! That is quite a paragraph you have there. It also looks like you copied it out of a recent issue of "The Revolutionary Worker". I have only seen such blatant idiocy come from an enrolled college student. Are you really attending Berkeley or do you just live there?

There's nothing to revise, it's all just interpretation to begin with. So loss ratios compiled from all previous Pacific Theatre of Operation encounters with The Imperial Japanese Army and Navy are worthless? Your stats professor would be disappointed.
The thing to do would be to just sail into Tokyo Bay and wave at them and they would have spontaneously surrendered.

There is the default patriotic party line interpretation that points to the end result as justification and says that's what we intended all along. If you mean end WWII with the least amount of American causilities, as soon as possible, you would be correct.

Taking into account the geo-political climate of the times, and the general objectifying disdain people hold for their enemies will yield somewhat of a different picture. An impressive sounding sentence that says nothing, is pathetic.
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0


<< Here is America, we don't yeild authority to the UN. We are our own country and don't take crap from anyone. If the UN says jump, I'll punch them in the nuts and tell them to jump. Also, perhaps if you took a class and learned about sound, you would realize that black helecopters are real and very possible. I'm not giving up my land to some stupid World Heritage Site. I don't care what the UN says, they don't have authority to do that. The UN is a joke that is filled with corruption. >>



Few points:

1. What harm does it do to USA to have some place declared as "world heritage site"? It's not like the place becomes UN property or anything. I can freely visit the fortress outside Helsinki (I did just that last summer in fact), and there are people living there (it's an island). And guess what? Grand Canyon is a World Heritage Site! So is Redwood national park, Everglades, Statue of Liberty, Yosemite park, Yellowstone etc. etc. And that fact doesn't seem to harm USA in any possible way.

2. Sure there are black helicopters. Just like there are white, red and blue helicopters. Black helicopters in this case usually refer to the helicopters used by the massive worldwide conspiracy that wants to create New World Order. Those black helicopters live only in the daydreams of paranoid conspiracy-freaks.

FYI: the fortress I talked about is here

The World Heritage website is here
 

WarCon

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2001
3,920
0
0
I honestly don't think Isreal can get a fair deal no matter what they are doing, whether now or anytime in the future. It just can't happen in a world filled with hate for the Jew. I don't think any single people in the entire world are more hated with little or no cause.

I don't think mankind is mature enough to put that wonderful little side effect of self doubt (bigotry) away. I am sorry to have strayed from the topic, but until the majority of the seats in the U.N. are filled with people with conscience and a sense of justice, it is just going to be a theatre from which injustice is being dispensed and justified (humans are really good at that). I don't know why it is so hard to say wrong is wrong. What I don't understand is when crimes against civilians were being commited and there was no reprisal from the offended party, why the U.N. didn't sanction palestine (since there isn't a country, the elected representative Arafat needs to feel the brunt) until they stopped. Has the U.N. ever issued a sanction in this case? I have also heard alot of reference to palestine as a country, when did that happen? Why is a sovereign member of the U.N. facing reprisal for responding to criminals with military action.

IF some of the soldiers did wantonly commit "war" crimes then they should be punished. IF those orders were from the top (Sharon) then he should be punished. I don't think I have seen any real evidence produced yet, but it sure seems like the "world" is ready to find any excuse to condemn all of Isreal (who has women and children and even innocent men who are being terrorized by abominable actions). If the U.N. doesn't immediately condemn those actions as criminal and host/sponser proper peace proceedings for the creation of the nation of Palestine then ask yourself why. I personally have to question admission into the U.N. of any country that treats half of its population as property. What has the U.N. done about that? I kind of thought it was suppose to be monitoring injustice or has it simply gone the way politics seem to always go now. And just because something has been condoned for a long time, doesn't make it right. Thats where relativism blinds justice with the cold eye of indifference.

As you can see I am pro Isreal in this dispute and not ashamed of it. First off they are an ally of the country I live in (I thought allies did that for each other, I am pretty sure if you were my friend I would publicly stand behind you and then behind closed doors I would scold you if you had done wrong). Secondly, I would have to disagree completely with what America is doing by hunting criminals in other countries (sure looks like our military is doing the work) and I don't. I think that these brainwashed bombers that are killing innocents are simply criminals (I don't and can't see heros in these actions - but that may be my bias) and hunting down every associate of these criminals should be job #1.

When the criminal activity ceases, then Isreal needs to consider the desires of the palestinian people and make a proper peace agreement and then Isreal should give back the land it wasn't given in the formation of it as a sovereign nation. I would do it with one strick guideline. If any attacks from other nations are staged from these lands with the willing cooperation of the new nation of Palestine then after the dust settles those lands will forever become part of Isreal and all non-Isreali occupants must leave. If those terms are not acceptable to the palestinian refugees then they should seek a homeland elsewhere. Isreal would be foolish to accept any less. It has to be fair to "both" peoples and needs to be done.

Those are some of my thoughts on the matter.

P.S. Anyone ever hear of a pig-kissing contest? Think its funny? You should do a little research into where that started.
 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
Doesn't it getting boring to be such a relativist?

As horrible a thing to say as it is, it's still great to "wake up" and realize that you have most of the concious world to yourself. Once you stop taking all the self-imposed misery and bitterness to heart, life is anything but boring. Seems like, from when I was completely of that mindset, absolutists are people who are hurting. The need to define and control, spewing out hatred (thx Jimbo :b) at all the things that we don't to hear that might reshape our view and vaporize the security blanket, is a hard thing to escape for anyone.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
if only more people where like these two


Published on Thursday, April 18, 2002 in the New York Times
Only Label for American in Ramallah Is 'Human Being'
by Joel Greenberg

JERUSALEM, April 17 - After more than two weeks under curfew in Ramallah, Adam Shapiro and his fianc&eacute;e came here this week for a brief respite and some organizational work before returning to the battered West Bank city that is still occupied by Israeli troops.

At an East Jerusalem hotel, the couple was fielding calls on three cellphones from fellow activists in West Bank cities that have been invaded by the Israelis. Later, they helped arrange shipments of food and medical supplies to Palestinians confined to their homes.

Mr. Shapiro, an American Jew from Brooklyn living in Ramallah, gained attention when he entered Yasir Arafat's compound with an ambulance shortly after Israel tanks broke through its walls last month.

His account of events inside the besieged offices of the Palestinian leader were widely reported, earning him harsh criticism from right-wing Jewish groups who labeled him a traitor. His parents moved out of their home in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn, after receiving death threats, and the police still keep an eye on their house.

Arriving for an interview in a bandana, earrings and a stubbly beard, Mr. Shapiro, 30, seemed unfazed by the criticism, and intent on pursuing his work in Ramallah with his fianc&Agrave;ee, Huwaida Arraf, a Palestinian-American from Detroit.

They plan to marry in Detroit next month, passing through New York on the way. Police officers will be at the airport to deter possible violence, Mr. Shapiro said. ``I'm not as scared of a sniper outside my house in Ramallah as I am of some crazy in New York City,'' he added, half-jokingly.

Since leaving Mr. Arafat's compound, Mr. Shapiro and Ms. Arraf have been busy challenging the Israeli curfew, defying Israeli snipers by walking the streets and delivering food and medicine.

The couple say they want to provide humanitarian aid while nonviolently resisting the Israelis. Those are the goals of a group of Palestinians and foreigners that Ms. Arraf helped found, the International Solidarity Movement. It has been active since the start of the current Palestinian uprising, planning marches, rebuilding demolished Palestinian homes and planting trees to replace those uprooted by the Israelis.

After Israeli forces smashed into Mr. Arafat's compound on March 29, several members of the movement marched by Israeli tanks into the Palestinian leader's office.

Such activities have been anathema to Mr. Shapiro's Jewish critics, who say he is betraying his people. He says he wants to end an occupation he considers harmful to Israelis and Palestinians.

``I think there's an incorrect supposition that someone who is Jewish necessarily has to stand with Israel, or that someone who is Arab or Muslim has to stand with everything the Palestinians or the Arab countries do,'' Mr. Shapiro said. ``My philosophy is that we're all human beings, and I don't buy into ethnicity and sectarianism. I do what I think is right, and there are plenty of Israelis out there standing with me.''

``Allowing the Palestinians to live in freedom is good for Israel and good for the Jews,'' he said.

The International Solidarity Movement incorporates Palestinians and foreigners in its actions, a method the group believes softens what would be a more violent response by Israeli troops confronting only Palestinians. Yet the group has often been met with tear gas and stun grenades, and once with gunfire.

Mr. Shapiro, who was raised Jewish but says he is an atheist, says he is acting ``as a human being, as an American who has grown up with freedom - seeing what's happening, the injustice, and wanting to do something about it.''

That has also included contacts with the press to counter what he says is ``a tremendous amount of misinformation'' in America.

In comments that have outraged his critics, he has compared some instances of Israeli behavior toward Palestinians to that of the Nazis.

Mr. Shapiro wrote in an article that the demolition of Palestinian homes, the seizure of the Palestinian political headquarters in East Jerusalem and the closure of other offices serving Palestinians reminded him of Kristallnacht, a night of anti-Jewish rioting in Nazi Germany in 1938 that destroyed hundreds of Jewish shops, homes and synagogues and claimed 36 Jewish lives.

Mr. Shapiro insists that the comparisons are valid, and that he chose them deliberately to resonate with Israelis and Jews.

He argues that Palestinian suicide bombers are products of the Israeli occupation and that when occupation ends so will the suicide attacks.

Mr. Shapiro and Ms. Arraf met while working at the Jerusalem center of Seeds of Peace, an American group that promotes dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian youth.

Both had developed an interest in each other's culture and politics. Mr. Shapiro had completed a master's degree in Arab studies at Georgetown University, and had worked at a language school in Yemen.

Ms. Arraf, who is Christian, is the daughter of an Israeli Arab father and a Palestinian mother. She majored in Arabic and Judaic studies and political science at the University of Michigan. She spent a year at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and studied Hebrew on a kibbutz. She was a founder of an Arab-Jewish group on the Michigan campus.

``I wanted to be involved in diplomacy between Israel and the Palestinians,'' she said. ``I really wanted to understand the Jewish mentality and history, Israeli culture and society, and the language, so I would have the legitimacy on both sides that is needed to be a negotiator.''

Mr. Shapiro and Ms. Arraf seem focused now on helping Palestinians cope with the Israeli occupation.

``I don't think I'm crossing any line,'' Mr. Shapiro said. ``The cause is justice and freedom - these are human causes.''

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
FrancesBeansRevenge


<< Translation: I am a pussy. >>

Yeah right, anmd if you ever took an independant stand you'd wet yourself out of fear that you'd be critisized by those you try (albeit unsuccessfully) to emulate.
 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
An impressive sounding sentence that says nothing, is pathetic.

It said something to me when I wrote it, I guess it had a leak somewhere and all the meaning spilled out. International politics have always be sleazy and competitive, especially between the US and the Soviets, I think we certainly wanted to maintain a very strong front.

Truman and his boys, who openly thought of the "Japs" as "beasts", are not necessarily people who one would imagine to hold the lives of enemy civilians in very high regard.

 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< As horrible a thing to say as it is, it's still great to "wake up" and realize that you have most of the concious world to yourself. Once you stop taking all the self-imposed misery and bitterness to heart, life is anything but boring. Seems like, from when I was completely of that mindset, absolutists are people who are hurting. The need to define and control, spewing out hatred (thx Jimbo :b) at all the things that we don't to hear that might reshape our view and vaporize the security blanket, is a hard thing to escape for anyone. >>



Perhaps my English skills are slipping, but could someone translate/explain this for me please?

 

Jimbo

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 1999
2,641
0
76


<< Truman and his boys, who openly thought of the "Japs" as "beasts", are not necessarily people who one would imagine to hold the lives of enemy civilians in very high regard. >>


Perhaps this can be explained by the FACT that the Japanese WERE BEASTS during that period. Read up on the Rape of Nanjing; Unit 731 biochemical experiments; the Korean ?comfort women?; The Bataan Death March; the mass extermination of civilian internees. The list is endless. The Japanese routinely committed atrocities that would have made the SS queasy. If any civilization fit the lable of an "Evil Empire", Imperial Japan did.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Both the Japanese and the Germans were trying to develop nuclear weapons during WWII. Does anyone condemning the U.S. for dropping the bombs think for one second that either of those countries would have hesitated to drop them if they would have had them?
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
The UN needs to be dismantled. I think it's beginning to stand for the United Nazis.
 

Nemesis77

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2001
7,329
0
0


<< The UN needs to be dismantled. I think it's beginning to stand for the United Nazis. >>



Oh please
rolleye.gif
! Or do you have evidence of UN concentration-camps and ghettos?

Here's a dollar, go buy yourself a clue.
 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
All of which were perpetrated by the military under the direction of a dictator. There were any number of ways to possibly make clear our incredible nuclear capacity without wiping out two cities and two hundred thousand civilians, I only wonder how much consideration they were given.

To begin with I haven't been condemning the US, I'm just pointing out the relativity of war, how justification depends upon perspective.
 

Spagina

Senior member
Dec 31, 2000
565
0
0


<< If the rest of the world wants to continue wasting time and money on a pipe dream then they are free to do so.

Every man for himself, no doubt the best way to go about achieving world peace.
>>


Obviously we missed the fact that the world has been rosey and peaceful ever since the UN's inception.

BTW, that was sarcasm.

Oh, one more question... when did suicide bombers become homicide bombers? I've been in a news vacuum for the last couple of days and I recently turned on the TV and came on here to hear that new term being used.
 

Migroo

Diamond Member
Jul 14, 2001
4,488
9
81


<<

<< Did we still not knowingly kill 240,000 civilians and wipe out two cities? >>



Did Japan not knowingly attack Pearl Harbor without warning, killing 2,395 people? Cause and effect ring a bell?
>>



Two wrongs dont make a right...
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
EngineNr9

It was a simple equation. Drop the bombs and hope they cause Japan and the Emperor to finally accept the futility of their position vs. an invasion with many more deaths on both sides.

It all boils down to that, nothing more.

Personally I'm sick and tired of the many times that a I/P thread gets turned back into a debate of dropping the bombs on Japan so many years ago. To me it only proves the lack of substance of the argument of some people.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
balichi

Fisk?, no thanks, I've read his tripe before. He has been anti-American for years and his so-called reports so it every time.

". If you don't use phrases like "peace process", "back on track" or "Israel under siege", there's a kind of computerised blackout on the faces of the audience. Total Disk Failure. Why should my latest bout of Americana have been any different?"

His facts are wrong.
" how Ariel Sharon ? the man held "personally responsible" by Israel's own commissioner's inquiry for the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre of 1,700 Palestinians "
Sharon was found indirectly responsible. He didn't have the prescience to see what the Phalangists would do.


A question. What do you call a Palestinian that disagrees with the violance and suicide bombers?


The answer.

Dead. The other Palestinians will kill them and hang them upside down in the town center.


You'll have to do better than that balichi.
 

balichi

Junior Member
Apr 19, 2002
9
0
0
Etech,

What did you think about the second article?

What do you call an Israeli that disagrees with Sharon's plans to completely wipe out the Palestinians and take over the rest of their land?

Imprisoned. Hushed. Tucked away so the war hawks can get their hands bloody.

There are good people on both sides that are not quite able to push the peace agenda because of those in power.

I would appreciate an honest discussion on the ideas and facts presented rather than biased bashing of the authors.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
balichi

The second article starts on a false premise.

"What do you call Israeli men, whose devotion to their nation and their faith leads them to volunteer for years of service in defense of their country?
Treasonous anti-semites is what the current Israeli government calls them. "

One, military service of two years is compulsary in Israel. It is only a small fraction of the Israeli services that are protesting.

You obviously do not understand military service or you would not be pointing to that article. When you are under military command you do not refuse an order. If you do you will be court-martialed. There are other ways for them to protest actions that they personally do not agree with.

Can you find me reports of Palestinians protesting the suicide bombers?


"What do you call an Israeli that disagrees with Sharon's plans to completely wipe out the Palestinians and take over the rest of their land"

A figment of your imagination. Sharon's plan is not to completely wipe out the Palestinians and take over the rest of their land therefore how could anyone be protesting that? Besides, there will be elections in Israel fairly soon and it is likely that Sharon will not be reelected. Do you think that will end the violence? Arafat has been in control of the Palestinians since what 1967? . Has the violence ever ceased under his control?
Don't try and put all of this on Sharon.