Postmaster
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,312
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
How have these wars benefited us? Since them, we have had Madrid and London bombings also do you think New York is immune? Have we created a greater threat?
Where the West is wrong
- Thread starter Devadatta
- Start date
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
There may be a greater threat now, but it is not our creation. Recent events have been twisted by unscrupulous individuals into recruitment propoganda.
But no, I do not believe these wars have benefitted us (with the exception of certain major oil companies) but the wars have benefitted the people of Iraq who are rid of Hussain and will soon be a democratic nation with their own fairly elected government and as much peace as can be hoped for in such a troubled world.
They would have it already if not for the terrorist activity in the area.
But no, I do not believe these wars have benefitted us (with the exception of certain major oil companies) but the wars have benefitted the people of Iraq who are rid of Hussain and will soon be a democratic nation with their own fairly elected government and as much peace as can be hoped for in such a troubled world.
They would have it already if not for the terrorist activity in the area.
Postmaster
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,312
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 0
The US and UK have stired up some civil conflicts that will last for a very very long time in that area now regardless of democracy.
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
Undoubtably true, but is it wrong to start conflict when faced with evil men.
We all know that old, old line about what it takes for evil men to succeed now, don't we?
We all know that old, old line about what it takes for evil men to succeed now, don't we?
Quahom1
Peace
You have been to guantanomo bay and spoken to the prisioners?
Is it not fact that people were kept there for over 2 years who where innocent?
I see you serve in the military and stand by the US. And that I...
And am glad. But I believe an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
No one has reported about Iraq in England for ages that is because no one is allowed to see what is going on there. What kind of justice is this? I bet there having a brilliant democratic time over there.
And i think the west is wrong. I think Capitalism is wrong. People have mentioned before that it only works fairly between equal partners but capitalism works so that it quickly divides people making them unequal it benefits the rich and bumps the poor.
The wealth of the west is directly proportional to the suffering and exploitation of the rest of the world.
Someone said that it is the easts fault that they are poor and corrupt but this isn't true. Our unfair trade rules and free trade between unequal partners is making them poor.
We are hypocrits we advise small countries to open their markets and let us have free trade but the truth is that the wealth of Britian for a fact and the US was made by making the tightest, strictest trade laws not letting any competition happen between us and any partner which may be better.
That is the fault of the west.
I believe when judging a society look at the realistic effects not the ideological principals. So the UK might have lots of debates about something but how does that show itself in reality. We might stand for good but do we make good things happen? The US might have good intentions in Iraq but are they making a good effect? Personally i will have to see a pretty amazing thing happen to justify the bombing of Falluja which is a ruin city.
What is the point of communication if it has no effect? Why does the world bother talking if no-one does what they say they will do?
I believe in more action and less propoganda.
Take a quick look at Cuba. It is a military dictatorship. Yes it has all the hallmarks of a corrupt and evil society. Yet look at it. There is something like a doctor for each 15 people. when a huge tornado sweapt right through the heart of the Island 9 people were injured. This is the amazing organisation and care taken by the government to look after its people.
I think this is proof that alternatives to capitalism can work even if they have their own bad side effects. Still the US uses Cuba "Guantanomo Bay" which is in Cuba to do their dirty work. Outside of the US Guantanomo Bay bears no need to comply with US Law. It is a loophole in the supposable magnificant US system.
You can argue against prisions and against justifications for human rights abuses but you can't argue with holding innocent people and not giving them a fair trial.
I want an end to supporting anything that the government does just because they are our government. Question them to either be consolidated or unimpressed. If we all blindly follow our government with patriotism we will become machines and get exploited.
for freedom to disagreement
Kaspar
Peace
You have been to guantanomo bay and spoken to the prisioners?
Is it not fact that people were kept there for over 2 years who where innocent?
I see you serve in the military and stand by the US. And that I...
And am glad. But I believe an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
No one has reported about Iraq in England for ages that is because no one is allowed to see what is going on there. What kind of justice is this? I bet there having a brilliant democratic time over there.
And i think the west is wrong. I think Capitalism is wrong. People have mentioned before that it only works fairly between equal partners but capitalism works so that it quickly divides people making them unequal it benefits the rich and bumps the poor.
The wealth of the west is directly proportional to the suffering and exploitation of the rest of the world.
Someone said that it is the easts fault that they are poor and corrupt but this isn't true. Our unfair trade rules and free trade between unequal partners is making them poor.
We are hypocrits we advise small countries to open their markets and let us have free trade but the truth is that the wealth of Britian for a fact and the US was made by making the tightest, strictest trade laws not letting any competition happen between us and any partner which may be better.
That is the fault of the west.
I believe when judging a society look at the realistic effects not the ideological principals. So the UK might have lots of debates about something but how does that show itself in reality. We might stand for good but do we make good things happen? The US might have good intentions in Iraq but are they making a good effect? Personally i will have to see a pretty amazing thing happen to justify the bombing of Falluja which is a ruin city.
What is the point of communication if it has no effect? Why does the world bother talking if no-one does what they say they will do?
I believe in more action and less propoganda.
Take a quick look at Cuba. It is a military dictatorship. Yes it has all the hallmarks of a corrupt and evil society. Yet look at it. There is something like a doctor for each 15 people. when a huge tornado sweapt right through the heart of the Island 9 people were injured. This is the amazing organisation and care taken by the government to look after its people.
I think this is proof that alternatives to capitalism can work even if they have their own bad side effects. Still the US uses Cuba "Guantanomo Bay" which is in Cuba to do their dirty work. Outside of the US Guantanomo Bay bears no need to comply with US Law. It is a loophole in the supposable magnificant US system.
You can argue against prisions and against justifications for human rights abuses but you can't argue with holding innocent people and not giving them a fair trial.
I want an end to supporting anything that the government does just because they are our government. Question them to either be consolidated or unimpressed. If we all blindly follow our government with patriotism we will become machines and get exploited.
for freedom to disagreement
Kaspar
Quahom1 said:
I still don't agree with the rage part, anger yes but not rage. Don't get me wrong I'm not some tree hugging hippie that closes my eyes and hopes it all goes away, I got no problem with the troops their just doing what their told and what they believe is right, nothing wrong with that......it's the ones pulling the strings that I got a problem with. Here's an interesting fact to show just how wrapped up the american public is in this war, people say the troops are our heros and the put american flags on their suv's and buy yellow ribbons at gas stations, yet with everyone showing their undying support then why is the recruitment rate for the armed forces so low? We got the reserves and the national guard over there serving multiple tours. People ask me why don't I join, I say to those same people why don't you join, you really think buying a cheap ass magnet ribbon is doing your part. The only way you'll catch me over there is if they reinstate the draft. So like I said don't get me wrong Q I'm trying not to demonize anyone I'm just looking for clarification.
Satanist
Well-Known Member
Well. It think that western culture is better than arabic culture.
But it doesn't matter that millions of persons are by free will reactionary and wants to live in another kind of soceity.
To me it's obvious that (symbolically) two different person have mental capacity to choose opposite things
with equal and random reasons.
These will exclude each other and one person will win.
Does it matter if the opponent is an violent enemy or a gentle demostrant?
Does it matter if it is war or civil politic?
I care about hedonism and nilihilsm which I think is what offends these arabic reactionaries.
I don't care so much about what happens in their society or if USA manage to get their oil.
But I know that they are affecting my country becouse if we tolerate them,
then our Europan equivalents will explot this.
We have Christian moralists and European conservativies.
I will not accept a society were I antiquated customs and religion rules
becouse it would destroy the life I want.
What do you Arabs know about west?
Western culture is not universaly hedonistic but there are hedonistic persons and many different voices here. We are not uniform but I have an will and it says no.
I don't want a conservative or moralistic society here.
To achieve this other cultures must be destroyed or converted.
How can religion co exist or compromise with my ideals.
But it doesn't matter that millions of persons are by free will reactionary and wants to live in another kind of soceity.
To me it's obvious that (symbolically) two different person have mental capacity to choose opposite things
with equal and random reasons.
These will exclude each other and one person will win.
Does it matter if the opponent is an violent enemy or a gentle demostrant?
Does it matter if it is war or civil politic?
I care about hedonism and nilihilsm which I think is what offends these arabic reactionaries.
I don't care so much about what happens in their society or if USA manage to get their oil.
But I know that they are affecting my country becouse if we tolerate them,
then our Europan equivalents will explot this.
We have Christian moralists and European conservativies.
I will not accept a society were I antiquated customs and religion rules
becouse it would destroy the life I want.
What do you Arabs know about west?
Western culture is not universaly hedonistic but there are hedonistic persons and many different voices here. We are not uniform but I have an will and it says no.
I don't want a conservative or moralistic society here.
To achieve this other cultures must be destroyed or converted.
How can religion co exist or compromise with my ideals.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
this is an interesting and very important discussion.
first of all, i would like to suggest that, like the arab world and everywhere else, the "west" is not one amorphous mass. the midwest of america is not new york is not rio de janeiro, is not london, is not paris - and so on. these labels do nobody any favours.
thipps makes a very good point about labels, too - that "jihadi" is perhaps a mislabelling that ties jihad to the nutters, which is, as i am well aware, a misleading use of it. i'd aim that back though and say that it is a label that is not only used by such people to describe themselves but i have heard it commonly used by mainstream muslims. it is hardly surprising that other people have started using it and, actually, i think it contributes to the moderates seeming ambivalent, as obviously jihad in and of itself is something muslims (and the rest of us, as i understand it) ought to approve of. actually, the same point about negative labelling has been made in terms of "wahhabi". what i guess i'd like to ask is - what *ought* we to call these guys. "nutter" isn't specific enough. neither is "terrorist". what do you call them?
i've even seen muslims say "these guys who blew up the trains weren't muslims" - i understand the point i hope they're trying to make (that the bombers weren't ACTING like proper muslims) but it's still very, very confusing and WAY open to interpretation - which, of course allows the nutters to happily go on suggesting either tacitly, or even explicitly, that actually the 9/11 hijackers and 7/7 bombers were israelis or something equally offensive and daft. you'd think that the intent/responsibility video recently aired on al-jazeera ought to make it pretty plain who did it and why and that they considered themselves a muslim, doing what a muslim should - the fact that the rest of us might not agree with that is unfortunately after the fact.
the other thing that i want to address is, obviously, this:
ok - that is all very well, but aren't the arab (and islamic) nations members of the international community? why aren't they leading in a productive way? why, 50 years later, are the palestinians in lebanon, egypt, syria and many places in jordan STILL in REFUGEE CAMPS? that's not down to the israelis - it's down to those nations, who find it far more convenient to keep the palestinians as their "gimps" - a stick to beat europe, america and the israelis with. they could have offered their "brothers" integration into their societies, - as was done in europe, america and even israel, whatever one may think of the status of the israeli arabs. there are palestinian americans and europeans. what is noticeably absent is any serious attempt to engage with the actual problem and the reason that appears to be, is that the *STARTING POINT* of any discussion often appears to be "admit you're wrong and hand back the gains of the 48, 67 and 73 wars (that the arab nations started, incidentally) - and *then* we can talk peace". this while the new iraqi constitution is denounced as a "jewish document" - because "jewish" is a term of abuse to these people. the palestinians i know are *far* more realistic. as it has been told to me, they are fed up of acting as the poor relation to their rich brothers and waiting for the handouts that NEVER COME - they are going to determine their own destiny from now on. that's what the first intifada was about - and it actually succeeded in its ends. what the palestinians in their diaspora realise (even if the likes of the hamasniks at home don't) is that their future in international politics depends on the goodwill of both the international community and the israelis. the problem is, of course, the "nut-heads", their backers and the rejectionist nations like syria and iran (to say nothing of the extremists in israel and the christian nut-heads in the US that are trying to start the apocalypse). the sensible palestinians know these guys are just using them and they're fed up of it. they want to make a deal on their OWN terms, not on the iranians' or on saddam's or on assad's.
all i can say is the whole thing is bloody complicated. "the west" is not wrong. peace marches can only stop things, not bring peace - unless there's a gandhi in the offing. and i just don't see a gandhi coming out of the islamic world at the moment. only a war (even one ten years late and after ten years of bloody sanctions and further saddamite oppression and murder) could have removed the regime in iraq. ok, it's been really screwed up in various ways, but i still believe history will judge the decision to be "better late and cockeyed than never". and who else but the USA could have done it half as well? you don't see the french and the russians sticking their necks out, do you? not even to save the muslims in bosnia and kosovo. that was the US and the UK, wasn't it? a fat lot of good the UN and the "peacekeepers" did at srebrenica.
in the mean time, i am out here on the front line every fecking day making links in cyberspace and the real world so that we know each other - it's a lot harder to demonise people you have actually talked to. when somebody talks to me about "those saudi nutters" i can say right back - hey, i talk to a saudi on a regular basis and he's clearly not a nutter. hopefully thipps says the same of me as do the other muslims here with any luck. only with grass-roots contact can we fix this bloody situation.
b'shalom
bananabrain
first of all, i would like to suggest that, like the arab world and everywhere else, the "west" is not one amorphous mass. the midwest of america is not new york is not rio de janeiro, is not london, is not paris - and so on. these labels do nobody any favours.
thipps makes a very good point about labels, too - that "jihadi" is perhaps a mislabelling that ties jihad to the nutters, which is, as i am well aware, a misleading use of it. i'd aim that back though and say that it is a label that is not only used by such people to describe themselves but i have heard it commonly used by mainstream muslims. it is hardly surprising that other people have started using it and, actually, i think it contributes to the moderates seeming ambivalent, as obviously jihad in and of itself is something muslims (and the rest of us, as i understand it) ought to approve of. actually, the same point about negative labelling has been made in terms of "wahhabi". what i guess i'd like to ask is - what *ought* we to call these guys. "nutter" isn't specific enough. neither is "terrorist". what do you call them?
i've even seen muslims say "these guys who blew up the trains weren't muslims" - i understand the point i hope they're trying to make (that the bombers weren't ACTING like proper muslims) but it's still very, very confusing and WAY open to interpretation - which, of course allows the nutters to happily go on suggesting either tacitly, or even explicitly, that actually the 9/11 hijackers and 7/7 bombers were israelis or something equally offensive and daft. you'd think that the intent/responsibility video recently aired on al-jazeera ought to make it pretty plain who did it and why and that they considered themselves a muslim, doing what a muslim should - the fact that the rest of us might not agree with that is unfortunately after the fact.
the other thing that i want to address is, obviously, this:
ok - that is all very well, but aren't the arab (and islamic) nations members of the international community? why aren't they leading in a productive way? why, 50 years later, are the palestinians in lebanon, egypt, syria and many places in jordan STILL in REFUGEE CAMPS? that's not down to the israelis - it's down to those nations, who find it far more convenient to keep the palestinians as their "gimps" - a stick to beat europe, america and the israelis with. they could have offered their "brothers" integration into their societies, - as was done in europe, america and even israel, whatever one may think of the status of the israeli arabs. there are palestinian americans and europeans. what is noticeably absent is any serious attempt to engage with the actual problem and the reason that appears to be, is that the *STARTING POINT* of any discussion often appears to be "admit you're wrong and hand back the gains of the 48, 67 and 73 wars (that the arab nations started, incidentally) - and *then* we can talk peace". this while the new iraqi constitution is denounced as a "jewish document" - because "jewish" is a term of abuse to these people. the palestinians i know are *far* more realistic. as it has been told to me, they are fed up of acting as the poor relation to their rich brothers and waiting for the handouts that NEVER COME - they are going to determine their own destiny from now on. that's what the first intifada was about - and it actually succeeded in its ends. what the palestinians in their diaspora realise (even if the likes of the hamasniks at home don't) is that their future in international politics depends on the goodwill of both the international community and the israelis. the problem is, of course, the "nut-heads", their backers and the rejectionist nations like syria and iran (to say nothing of the extremists in israel and the christian nut-heads in the US that are trying to start the apocalypse). the sensible palestinians know these guys are just using them and they're fed up of it. they want to make a deal on their OWN terms, not on the iranians' or on saddam's or on assad's.
all i can say is the whole thing is bloody complicated. "the west" is not wrong. peace marches can only stop things, not bring peace - unless there's a gandhi in the offing. and i just don't see a gandhi coming out of the islamic world at the moment. only a war (even one ten years late and after ten years of bloody sanctions and further saddamite oppression and murder) could have removed the regime in iraq. ok, it's been really screwed up in various ways, but i still believe history will judge the decision to be "better late and cockeyed than never". and who else but the USA could have done it half as well? you don't see the french and the russians sticking their necks out, do you? not even to save the muslims in bosnia and kosovo. that was the US and the UK, wasn't it? a fat lot of good the UN and the "peacekeepers" did at srebrenica.
in the mean time, i am out here on the front line every fecking day making links in cyberspace and the real world so that we know each other - it's a lot harder to demonise people you have actually talked to. when somebody talks to me about "those saudi nutters" i can say right back - hey, i talk to a saudi on a regular basis and he's clearly not a nutter. hopefully thipps says the same of me as do the other muslims here with any luck. only with grass-roots contact can we fix this bloody situation.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Vajradhara
One of Many
i would have said what Bananabrain said if i could have... but i can't..
great post, BB
Namaste!
~v
great post, BB
Namaste!
~v
Excuse me.....But from Day one since 9/11.....
why do i have problem believing that there is any such thing called " Al-qaeeda "
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD97405
why do i have problem believing that there is any such thing called " Al-qaeeda "
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD97405
Vajradhara
One of Many
aquaris said:
honestly... how much credibility are you giving to this person? JFK?? seriously?
~v
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
sheesh, aquaris. the thing you're quoting is some nutty turkish professor who says the whole thing is a conspiracy theory, which is precisely why it's on MEMRI - they are an organisation who exist to point out what idiots in the middle east are saying in their own languages while saying completely contradictory things in english-language media. i suppose all the people who are carrying out terrorist acts all over the world and sending their tapes to al-jazeera, saying "we belong to al-qaeda" and "this was done by al-qaeda" could be a start. as a daily user of the tube in london i can certainly point to their existence.
b'shalom
bananabrain
b'shalom
bananabrain
No bananbrain....
I admit, there is very little introspection, self-criticism and self-scrutiny going on in muslim world, and most of them are in a state of denial,....trying to find justifications, and causes , rather then eliminating the discrepencies , and finding the raison d'etre
For muslim Mindset to come out of this deep centuries Old slumber , re examination and new angles of prespective are neccessary, no matter how bitter, shocking and
seemingly repulive they may be...
..But ...... I still have problem accepting 9/11......... I still can not figure out....how two small planes even filled with all the explosives can demolish two buildings , in a free fall fashion, ..... ... especially when the building were specifically constructed to withhold .... a collision impact of a very powerfull flying object like a 747......!!!
....... I have watched the horror movie ( 9/11 crash movie ) again and again........all it shows is a controlled demolition excercise......... I have read the official version.....and have found too many questions unanswered..... infact for every answered question..... more questions needed to answered.......and they have not been answered.....
..... I knew of experiments done elsewhere to simulate the 9/11 , and none of them have achieved similiar or even closer to similiar results........and these ARE perplexing question....
On OBL..... the only source of Info on this guy ....... ends up at CIA's and Pentagon's door........ or maybe Saudi Royal Family....
What ever is happening is reality...... people are loosing lives,.........and that is the most unfortunate part...... But still..... accepting the official versions.........!!!!
Naah......... there are too many questions Unanswered....... and I won't accept the face value........and slowly but surely ...... am getting convinced ..that we are Not told the truth.... and there are too many skeletons, .....
We are getting only the half-truths, distorted views on Reality.....and a Lot and Lot of emplty spaces in the explanations....
I admit, there is very little introspection, self-criticism and self-scrutiny going on in muslim world, and most of them are in a state of denial,....trying to find justifications, and causes , rather then eliminating the discrepencies , and finding the raison d'etre
For muslim Mindset to come out of this deep centuries Old slumber , re examination and new angles of prespective are neccessary, no matter how bitter, shocking and
seemingly repulive they may be...
..But ...... I still have problem accepting 9/11......... I still can not figure out....how two small planes even filled with all the explosives can demolish two buildings , in a free fall fashion, ..... ... especially when the building were specifically constructed to withhold .... a collision impact of a very powerfull flying object like a 747......!!!
....... I have watched the horror movie ( 9/11 crash movie ) again and again........all it shows is a controlled demolition excercise......... I have read the official version.....and have found too many questions unanswered..... infact for every answered question..... more questions needed to answered.......and they have not been answered.....
..... I knew of experiments done elsewhere to simulate the 9/11 , and none of them have achieved similiar or even closer to similiar results........and these ARE perplexing question....
On OBL..... the only source of Info on this guy ....... ends up at CIA's and Pentagon's door........ or maybe Saudi Royal Family....
What ever is happening is reality...... people are loosing lives,.........and that is the most unfortunate part...... But still..... accepting the official versions.........!!!!
Naah......... there are too many questions Unanswered....... and I won't accept the face value........and slowly but surely ...... am getting convinced ..that we are Not told the truth.... and there are too many skeletons, .....
We are getting only the half-truths, distorted views on Reality.....and a Lot and Lot of emplty spaces in the explanations....
aquaris said:
Jet fuel, when vaporized burns at over 3000*F. If there is forced air within the area of the burning fuel (World trade Centers had positive pressure environmental systems), then the temperature can reach from 4000 - 8000*F. Steel melts at 2358*F and vaporizes at 3000*F. (I work and weld steel on a regular basis). When the Twin towers were built, they were built to withstand the impact of a 707, not a 747. They were not designed to deal with vaporized JP-5 fuel in full ignition (1976). The planes flew into the Twin towers at over 250 knots and were 1/3rd again the size of a 707. Now, what happens when a 45 caliber slug hits the human body at 750 feet per second? It makes a dime size hole going in, and a cup saucer size hole going out. What is left inside the body cavity is jelly. If the bullet could explode while in the body...nothing of the structure support is left. The epidermus of the human body can withstand 7 PSI, before breaching. Glass and facade concrete is much stronger at 250 to 500 PSI, but not as resiliant, or elastic as skin. The Oak versus the Reed syndrome...
Second, the moment the jet fuel ignited, three things happened in rapid sequence. One, the atmospheric pressure within the towers increased 100 fold or more. an instant later, the atmospheric pressure within the towers decreased to zero bars of mercury, and an istant after that the atmospheric pressure stabilized at 14.7 PSI. The "shear strength" of mild steel is anywhere from 60,000 to 80,000 PSI. However the elasticity of steel is much less, and molecular memory is nearly non-existent.
So not only did you have a "Bull running through a china shop", but the "Bull" brought the "China" to melting and vaporizing point. The fact that the twin towers lasted as long as they did after the impacts, is nothing short of a miracle.
I do not dispute your concerns about what may or may not be. I am pointing out the laws of physics and chemistry, pertaining to the demolition of a building by a ballistic object with explosive material.
But consider this. Do you really think the US Government would deliberately cripple its own economy, just to get back at the Middle East? Is that logical? For what gain? We only import 20 percent of the oil we use from the Middle East. What is ironic is that we export 20 percent of the oil we produce...
No, I'm not saying consumption and production are barrel for barrel (we use alot of oil, but we make alot of things that the whole world uses as a result of that oil consumption).
I'll stop here.
But consider the two little planes, at towers a 1/4 mile in the sky, with two little 45 caliber slugs with exploding tips against two human bodies...then tell me what you think.
v/r
Q
Bananabrain I have grown to respect you alot from your posts. I agree with much of what you say but i would like to question when you said that peace marches can not bring peace unless there in a Gandhi in the offing. This point i disagree with. You cannot put all of the success of the Indian independance movement that Gandhi was a part of all on to Gandhi.bananabrain said:
It isn't the straw that breaks the camels back, but all the other straws beneath it.
I believe that Peaceful protest is a possible route to peace in Israel and that a Leader will appear when a Leader is needed. The situation in Israel is complicated and unpredicable. I heard there were two solutions.
1.The two state solution of Palestine with two seperate territories conexisting beside Israel with a seperate recognised government. I see this as not direct because of the continuing expansion of the west bank which logically will lead to a huge group of small isolated islands of "palestine" within Israel not permitted to move regulated etc. This leads to my other solution...
2. Of a one state solution where Palestine and Israel combine to form one country. This seems realistic that if Israel keeps expanding there will no longer be a palestine but increadibly unrealistic because one of Israels main concerns is to make the demographics of Israel mainly Jewish. They would never want a huge burst of Muslim and Arab people inside their country. Something like south africa with an Apartheid system.
I forsee a mixture of the two solutions which is now present. Bananabrain please educate me in this situation but It seems as where the wall in the west bank goes it closes off a huge proportion of palestine within its walls like little pockets of palestine surrounded by Israel seperating it from the main bulk of Palestine. Also I have heard the wall covers the main water souces around the west bank which gives palestine no independant economic power if it was to become a recognised state and makes it incredibly dependant on its neighbouring countries.
http://www.palestine-pmc.com/maps/apwall.jpg
I don't want to give biased information but correct me if this map is false.
Bananabrain i would much appreciate if you could voice your thoughts on this subject and inform me on the future of palestine from an insiders perspective.
Much respect
Kaspar
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
q - thanks for stepping in with a voice of reason. however, i fear that all the reason in the world will not prevail against the sort of paranoia which requires everything to be a conspiracy, the US and bush in particular to be responsible for all the evil in the world and, naturally - for jews and zionists to be complicit in this. hurrah for the new world order. sheesh.
he? gandhi's grandson arun has even been to the west bank to talk about satyagraha - but it's just not catching on (except possibly at the fence protests in bil'in, i dunno) because the palestinians have been educated to throw stones and fire kalashnikovs, as if that has ever helped anyone, as opposed to provide iconic media. imagine a non-violent non-cooperative intifada (as abu mazen, to his credit, has mentioned once or twice) - how fast would that embarrass the israelis into making changes? well, it's hard to know when it's never been tried, but it certainly beaten military superiority before - in india.
as for the solution, i'm pretty sure only a two-state solution is possible. it will, as everyone sane already agrees, be based on somewhere between the 1948 cease-fire lines and the current "green line", possibly with some territory exchange to keep major jewish blocs within it. there can be no en-masse return of the palestinian 1948 refugees to what will be israel proper, although they should be able to come back to what will be palestine.
however, the only solution that will work in the long-term, as an endgame, of course, is an open border and a federation, so arabs will be able to live wherever they like within israel, but jews will also be able to live wherever they like within palestine - hebron, for example. this, of course, requires a secure, law-abiding, peaceful, prosperous palestinian state. and because of this endgame, the palestine i describe doesn't suit a lot of the people who purport to be on their side. in short, it's a long way off.
the water question is also not irrelevant - it has long been an axiom that "the next war in the middle east will be fought over water" and, while hizbollah and syria control the headwaters of the jordan, i dare say it will continue. however, this is a technology problem which can easily be fixed in the longer term, despite the attractions of making short-term political capital out of it, which organisations such as the impressively one-sided pmc are well aware of.
however, i'd not consider myself an insider!
b'shalom
bananabrain
er.. i'm not. gandhi provided *leadership* and a vision that his supporters could get behind and support. arafat did as well (up to a point) but it was a fantasy which has wasted the time, blood and life of two generations and is still not yet superseded. it is leadership, vision, a willingness to face down one's external AND internal critics and even prepared to die for what is right (as opposed to what looks good on TV) that the palestinians have lacked. contrast arafat's shilly-shallying, double-talk and failure to deliver with sharon's willingness to risk assassination and the tragedy of yitzhak rabin. when it comes down to it, gesture politics doesn't deliver. this is why arafat - and netanyahu - failed. abu mazen will go the same way if he's not careful.
blimey kaspar, if one isn't needed now, when would
as for the solution, i'm pretty sure only a two-state solution is possible. it will, as everyone sane already agrees, be based on somewhere between the 1948 cease-fire lines and the current "green line", possibly with some territory exchange to keep major jewish blocs within it. there can be no en-masse return of the palestinian 1948 refugees to what will be israel proper, although they should be able to come back to what will be palestine.
however, the only solution that will work in the long-term, as an endgame, of course, is an open border and a federation, so arabs will be able to live wherever they like within israel, but jews will also be able to live wherever they like within palestine - hebron, for example. this, of course, requires a secure, law-abiding, peaceful, prosperous palestinian state. and because of this endgame, the palestine i describe doesn't suit a lot of the people who purport to be on their side. in short, it's a long way off.
certainly the israeli right appears to be treating the wall as a "land-grab", which is causing unnecessary friction, suffering and creating problems that will only have to be resolved - probably in much the same way that the "facts on the ground" in gaza have been resolved. they're fools to try it. on the other hand, wherever there's a wall, it has demonstrably prevented terrorist infiltrations - and that's hard to argue with. what i object to is the route, not the idea of a wall. don't forget, walls can be knocked down. there's nothing to say the route of the wall can't be changed now or in future - and, indeed, many petitions to the israeli supreme court have been lodged and successfully prosecuted.
the water question is also not irrelevant - it has long been an axiom that "the next war in the middle east will be fought over water" and, while hizbollah and syria control the headwaters of the jordan, i dare say it will continue. however, this is a technology problem which can easily be fixed in the longer term, despite the attractions of making short-term political capital out of it, which organisations such as the impressively one-sided pmc are well aware of.
as i said, the pmc has a clear agenda and bias of its own. if you want to be properly informed, you need to be prepared to read a variety of sources and make your own mind up. personally, i recommend a combination of the UK papers (mine's the times, although i'm not averse to reading the guardian at times), the bbc (who are blamed by both sides for being biased in favour of the others, so they must be more or less in the middle, dispite an undeniable preference for the soft-left and media "goodies vs baddies") and, in particular, the left-wing israeli paper haaretz (http://www.haaretzdaily.com) which is published daily in english as well as hebrew and is not afraid to publish viewpoints from both left and right as well as having at least one arab correspondent and regular contributors. my palestinian friends all seem very keen on al-jazeera, although i find it a bit too close to the extremists. i'd recommend the london-based pan-arab daily asharq al-awsat (http://aawsat.com/english/default.asp) also published in english, which is, i'd say, fairly well respected and also seems to avoid israel-bashing for the sake of it, unlike al-jazeera, al-arabiya and so on.
however, i'd not consider myself an insider!
b'shalom
bananabrain
17th Angel
לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות
- Messages
- 9,437
- Reaction score
- 9
- Points
- 0
capthowdy said:
I am an ex-Soldier, Only a few have truly what it takes to face a war.... Many may believe what a soldier is doing is right, yet they themselves cannot gather inside them what it truly takes to go to war. They doesn't make them bad or cowards... They are just plain and simply not soliders. Majority of soldiers at times worry when war is the path they lead down. I am not sure for American soldiers, but here you take an oath and you swear by it, and you do what you have to do, because your a soldier and you are the best and you are the protector of innocence and you are the sheild for the people that cannot fight for themselves. You do not think about yourself, you get your head down and get stuck in, and that is why even now I admire soldiers with respect. If it came to a point again where I was needed I would not think twice, I would take my uniform and rifle and get ready to lay my life on the line for my Queen, for my country and its countrymen. That is all....
Bananabrain thank you for your time. I will read the Israeli paper you recomended. Add it as a favourite.
I think there is nothing honourable about getting your head down and taking orders. I think if you bow down to this level you are no longer a human but a machine. What is the purpose of your mind or heart if you are just going to use it to Kill and hate?
What is so amazing about your Queen? what has she done good for her country? She is just one rich aristocrat who sits on her wealth.
Violence is never a solution. It doesn't find peace or build bridges. It doesn't build intellect or allow creativity.
All it does is give people mental health disorders, make them scared, frightened, and freeze their heart.
You say that you will pick up your rifle. Why? Would you shoot your brother down? What gives you the right to take peoples lives? Playing life and death like you were God. What reason is there ever to take someone elses life?
I believe by the act of killing someone you are killing your self. You are splitting your soul up. There is nothing alright about murder just because they are wearing a different uniform.
I know you (17th angel) will almost definately dissagree with my objection to War and violence but I find it hard not to voice my opinion.
May you live in Peace
I like the passion you show but i can't help but dissagree with your position.17th Angel said:
I think there is nothing honourable about getting your head down and taking orders. I think if you bow down to this level you are no longer a human but a machine. What is the purpose of your mind or heart if you are just going to use it to Kill and hate?
What is so amazing about your Queen? what has she done good for her country? She is just one rich aristocrat who sits on her wealth.
Violence is never a solution. It doesn't find peace or build bridges. It doesn't build intellect or allow creativity.
All it does is give people mental health disorders, make them scared, frightened, and freeze their heart.
You say that you will pick up your rifle. Why? Would you shoot your brother down? What gives you the right to take peoples lives? Playing life and death like you were God. What reason is there ever to take someone elses life?
I believe by the act of killing someone you are killing your self. You are splitting your soul up. There is nothing alright about murder just because they are wearing a different uniform.
I know you (17th angel) will almost definately dissagree with my objection to War and violence but I find it hard not to voice my opinion.
May you live in Peace
Kaspar said:
i stand behind soldiers & support troops & i give them a lot of respect for defending there country. i dont stand behind 'starting' war but do believe in self defense.
soldiers do what they are commanded to do.
blame the warlords & politicians Kaspar, not the soldier.
if it was not for the soldier, YOU would be on the front lines whether you like it or not.
Interesting point.Bandit said:
Correct me if im wrong but I don't think at the age of 16 I would be on the front lines.
Anyway I think that of course the politians and warlords are to blame but I think that power corrupts so it is difficult to persuade them to do good.
If the whole US army refused to fight a war. Of course completely unrealistic they would hold big negotiating power.
I have heard that in some dicatorships around the world the armys have refused to commit genocide or other inhumane acts and managed to replace people in power. In the french revolution wasn't Napoelon a general in the army? and he came to power.
my point is that the army shouldn't forget that they are still people and they are still entitled to human rights including the right to think and disagree. (Im not sure if that exists but im sure some equivilent exists.)