What will it take...

[Gamblor]

for every single poster here to agree to the West's (and Israel, I suppose) right to self-defence, pre-emptive or otherwise, against Islamo-fascism?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Never happen. In any pluralistic society, there will be disagreement.

Besides, unanimity is boring.

[brad]

2000$

[elwoodblues]

This sure would be an interesting forum if you made a post then every response was:

Yep!
I concur!
Me too.
Sounds good.
You're right.
How smart are you---apparently just as smart as me!


/images/graemlins/grin.gifElwood

[Gamblor]

But WHAT WILL IT TAKE?

[nicky g]

LOL! Post of the millenium.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Maybe I don't get what you're asking, but let's reverse it for a second.

What would it take to get you to agree with Cyrus?

[Gamblor]

What would it take to get you to agree with Cyrus?

All Arab and Muslim nations to unanimously agree on their support of the existence of Israel as a state.

All Arab and Muslim nations to open full diplomatic and economic relations with Israel.

All Arab nations to offer either full citizenship or reparations of Mizrachi Jews who were evicted from Arab nations before, during, and after 1948 war.

All Arab and Muslim nations to accept their Palestinian brothers and show their commitment to peace by using all that Arab oil money to install transparent democratic government, round up all violent groups, and provide support for any democratic leaders with no terrorist connections. Use Arab regimes' control of all media outlets to at least try to reverse the decades of demonization of Israel.

Then I'll accept Cyrus' view that Israel is morally wrong.

Hell, then I might even accept a Palestinian state.

He will forever lay the blame on the Jewish State, and ignore the facts.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

All Arab and Muslim nations to unanimously agree on their support of the existence of Israel as a state.

Well, I could say that this in and of itself doesn't indicate that the islamists will abandon all attacks on the US, *or* deter them from a goal of establishing a world government based upon Sharia. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume it *does* mean these things.

What do you think it will take for this unprecedented change of heart to occur?

[nicky g]

"All Arab and Muslim nations to unanimously agree on their support of the existence of Israel as a state.



So peace with the Palestinians is dependent on support from Indonesia (for example)? That's absurd. Why do people see the Arab/Muslim world as homogenous? Do you see all Caucasian and Christian countrie as the same? Likewise, why can't you distinguish between al-Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, and the Iraqi Ba'ath party, to take four examples? They're all "Islamofacists" on this forum, when in fact they're completely different organisiations fighting for different, and often mutually exclusive, aims. I can't answer your question because it doesn't make any sense. So I'll say this: genuine self-defence is fine, within civilised norms. Pre-emptive attacks are dubious, especially when there's no evidence of any attack being mounted, and when large numbers of civilians are put at risk. Subjugation and occupation are wrong and counter-productive in terms of self-defence.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Why do people see the Arab/Muslim world as homogenous?

Because they *are* homogeneous on their hatred of Jews.

[Gamblor]

So peace with the Palestinians is dependent on support from Indonesia (for example)? That's absurd. Why do people see the Arab/Muslim world as homogenous?

I obviously don't, because this weekend's events notwithstanding, Turkey is a vibrant democracy and has full diplomatic relations with Israel. And a model of a relationship between church and state. And yet is Muslim. I'll rephrase this to Middle Eastern Arab/Muslim countries.

genuine self-defence is fine, within civilised norms. Pre-emptive attacks are dubious, especially when there's no evidence of any attack being mounted, and when large numbers of civilians are put at risk. Subjugation and occupation are wrong and counter-productive in terms of self-defence.

I'm not even going to bother with this. While I agree with everything you say, I don't think any of it applies to the Israeli situation.

[nicky g]

I see.

I seem to remember you describing France as a hotbed of antisemitism. Does that make it part of the same bloc? The Perso/Arab/Indo/Malay/Germo/Paki-Franco IslamoChristian alliance?

[nicky g]

Ignoring the suggestion that (human rights abusing, Kurd-repressing, military-dominated) Turkey is a vibrant democracy (does supporting Israel automatically qualify a country as a vibrant democracy?), I'm glad you agree with the statement that "Subjugation and occupation are wrong and counter-productive in terms of self-defence." Could you now tell me how occupation has nothing to do with the Israeli situation?

[Gamblor]

No.

They hate Jews for different reasons.

The Christian French hate Jews, because they, to paraphrase Nelson Muntz "Gotta hate somethin'".

The Muslim French hate Jews because well, their friends back in Baghdad and Amman and Beirut and Cairo and Riyadh and Damascus already do, and "an enemy of yours is an enemy of mine".

The Muslim Arabs hate Jews because the Jews stole 0.3 % of their land and refused to allow Shari'a law to reign.

[nicky g]

"The Muslim Arabs hate Jews because the Jews stole 0.3 % of their land and refused to allow Shari'a law to reign."

Given that Sharia only governs one Arab state (Saudi Arabia) and not any democratic Muslim state, and has never been endorsed by the Palestinians, I suspect this isn't the reason.

[Gamblor]

Could you now tell me how occupation has nothing to do with the Israeli situation?

Israel holds that land because the Jewish presence there extends back well beyond 1948. During the '48 war, the Jews there were either a) forced to leave or b) left voluntarily (depending on if you were actually one of those people, or are a third-party historical revisionist, respectively) and when Israel conquered it in '67, they wanted to rebuild the Jewish communities there. Those communities must be protected from the same terrorist attacks that forced them to be shut down in the first place.

This sounds oddly familiar... and I understand the Arab position, I really do. But the difference is this: There is nowhere else for Jews to go.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

History speaks for itself with France and Germany.

Here's how I see it. The Islamists have no qualms whatsoever about murdering innocent non-combatants. They have created a supra-national armed force that derives tacit financial support from a number of nations all under the veil of plausible deniability. Let's also say that said nations do not have anything we in the west would be able to comfortably call a "legitimate" government. So they attack us, violating our rules of engagement, and prroceed to hide behind the skirts of other non-combatants, secure in the knowledge that we willnot violate our principles to hunt them out and eradicate them. They consider our belief that each individual human life is sacrosanct to be a weakness.

The US has these choices:

a) accede to the demands of the Islamists

b) Keep doing things as we have been and accept the fact that innocent civilians in the US and in Israel will be murdered over and over again.

c) Realize we must stop trying to sanitize war, and launch a brutal, vicious counterattack that fights terror with terror. Of course, our "terror" attack will not take years and kill thousands. It will take nanoseconds and kill millions.

d) Well, this is the crux of the problem, isn't it. To me, a, b, and c are all unacceptable. So the question is - what *is* the fourth choice? because, you see, Nicky, if a, b, and c are the *only* choices, I'm afraid I vote for *c*

After all, only one nation in history has ever used nuclear weapons on people. The Islamists had better understand that we are willing to use them again.

Given the choice, I'd rather find that fourth option.

[Gamblor]

Given that Sharia only governs one Arab state (Saudi Arabia) and not any democratic Muslim state, and has never been endorsed by the Palestinians, I suspect this isn't the reason.

Jeez, nicky, it's Orwellian. It's the Eurasia of 1984. It's the common foe the dictators indoctrinate their public to take their minds of more pressing issues. Jeez, nicky, they even all refer to themselves as the Arab nation! Their united bond is Islam! So even if one group doesn't necessarily follow the law to the letter, they still all, in the end would rather have each other around than Jews, Christians, or anyone else.

[nicky g]

"So they attack us, violating our rules of engagement, and prroceed to hide behind the skirts of other non-combatants, secure in the knowledge that we willnot violate our principles to hunt them out and eradicate them."

If that's true, what was Afghanistan about? Surely there's plenty of hunting down going on.

I think the 4th option is there for the US. It goes as follows:

1. Stop supporting and financing Israel's occupation and use diplomatic pressure to force Israel to negotiate a real settlement and withdraw from the Occupied Territories. Result: huge goodwill towards the United States in the Arab world. One of al-Qaida's key propaganda pillars gone in a second. Gradual decrease in hostility towards Israel.
2. Stop supporting and financing repressive Arab and Middle Eastern governments. Make democratisation a genuine priority. Bush actually acknowledged recently the counter-productivity of US support for Arab and other dictators in the past; let's hope he meant it (I only see evidence that he meant the opposite at the moment). Result: further good will, and end to the corruption and repression that extremist groups exploit for propaganda purposes and which allows them to flourish.
3. A declared end to the various disastrous military interventions and sponsored coups that have lead to the current hatred (eg Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan) and chaos. Support for revamped, democratised international institutions that can play a real role in such situations and replace the US as the world's policeman (bully).

That should be enough to keep them busy for a while.

[Gamblor]

Sadly, those are the only choices, and even more sadly, there are plenty of people who are simply the product of the regimes in which they live and hell-bent on nothing other than living their own lives according to their own principles.

Shame the fuckers had to ruin it for them.

[Gamblor]

1. Stop supporting and financing Israel's occupation and use diplomatic pressure to force Israel to negotiate a real settlement and withdraw from the Occupied Territories. Result: huge goodwill towards the United States in the Arab world. One of al-Qaida's key propaganda pillars gone in a second. Gradual decrease in hostility towards Israel.

The opposite result.

Gradual increase. Have you ever, in your life, been satisfied with half a cookie? The first thing they'll say is: "OK, we got 'dem dere Jews plumb with their backs to the wall, let's finish 'em off once and fer all"

[nicky g]

"It's the common foe the dictators indoctrinate their public to take their minds of more pressing issues."

I largely agree with you on this. That doesn't mean though that there isn't a genuine grievance that needs to be put right, however.

[nicky g]

So, because terrorists have attacked Israel, Israel should be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants because anything else would be "rewarding terrorism."

[nicky g]

You're not serious, are you? I look forward to Jordan being allowed to occupy Israel to make sure its previous Palestinain inhabitants can resettle there.

Why not have a binational state with equal rights for all in the territory of Israel and Palestine? Then everyone, Palestinians and Jews, could live wherever they liked. Oh, I forgot, cause you need to have your cake and eat it.

[Gamblor]

You're not serious, are you? I look forward to Jordan being allowed to occupy Israel to make sure its previous Palestinain inhabitants can resettle there.

See Israeli Wars of 1948, 1967

Why not have a binational state with equal rights for all in the territory of Israel and Palestine? Then everyone, Palestinians and Jews, could live wherever they liked. Oh, I forgot, cause you need to have your cake and eat it.

Which is exactly what happened before the state was created, when everyone co-existed and the Fedayeen/Mujahedin or Haganah, Betar etc. all loved each other.

It's simple really, they tried, fair enough, but Israel won in '48. No "takebacks".

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

#2 & #3 are acceptable to me.

before #1 can even be considered as a reasonable step, *all* arab terrorist activity must stop for a minimum of 5 years. Israel only occupied those territories after being attacked. The aggressor must take the first step. Israel is not the aggressor.

If #1, and accepting the definition of Israel as aggressor is part of your alternative, than your alternative is just a restating of my option a) accede to the arab demands.

No settlement is possible without complete Palestinian surrender. They are the ones who started the war.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

and not any democratic Muslim state,

"Democratic Muslim State". Now, that's funny.

[Gamblor]

Israel should be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants because anything else would be "rewarding terrorism."

So now the question is: What does Israel want?

Israel wants exactly what I outlined, here:and a partridge and a pear tree... (EDITED) (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=409778&page=0&view=ex panded&sb=5&o=14&vc=1)

Whereas that's all that Israel wants...
and...
Whereas the Arab nations do not want that...
and...
Whereas the Palestinians are being used as a tool of those Arab nations to prevent that from occuring...
and...
Whereas the terrorists are all (with the exception of a couple Brits) Palestinian.

BIRT Israel should be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants because anything else would be "rewarding terrorism."

[dogsballs]

You start with:

All Arab and Muslim nations to unanimously agree on their support of the existence of Israel as a state...

then list a bunch of other things you would like to see occur, before finally:

...Hell, then I might even accept a Palestinian state.


Well, you list these items in your order from 1 through 6. Trouble is, others would list their priorities starting from the other direction.

[Gamblor]

How can I be expected to accept an incubating state if nobody will accept my established one?

[Cyrus]

...The country, not you.

And Indonesia. And Malaysia. And Pakistan.

I know, you're thinking that those countries have had a lot of dictatorships. Before you hit the reply button, remember that all those countries had no more military coups d'etat than most Latin (Christian) countries.

[Gamblor]

I can't believe the language in my last post got past you...

For shame.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I was assuming by "Muslim State" we meant a nation ruled by Shari'a, not simply one where the majority of citizens are Muslim. Turkey defines itself as a secular state.

One question. Are women allowed to vote in the countries you mentioned?

[nicky g]

"Muslim state" could possibly be taken to mean either. But given that you were responding to me saying that no democratic Muslim state had adopted Sharia, it doesn't really make sense to assume that, by "Muslim State", I meant a nation ruled by Sharia.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

OK, but then by your definition, are the US and the UK "Christian States""

[nicky g]

Indeed. "Muslim-majority" or "states with Muslim populations" would would have made it clearer, I'll try to use that in the future, but I think in the context it was fairly clear. Not that it matters any more.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You are what you define yourself to be:

Islamic Nations (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/04/03/ioc.summit/index.html)

[southerndog]

I guess it will take you sending your money over here and helping us pay our taxes. It will take you to send yourself or your sons and daughters over there to fight.

It will take hard core facts before we understand why it is that we are fighting.. That's what people want. We want to know, how is this going to save American lives in the future? How will this help world peace? Is that too much to ask for the answer to those questions.

[Gamblor]

I guess it will take you sending your money over here and helping us pay our taxes.

I believe the intelligence the American government recieves regarding terrorist threats in the Middle East, as well as a new market for all of Corporate America is a pretty good deal.

Remember, most, if not all, Arab governments will collaborate with the American government, but harbour mistrust of Western society and values - thus will not allow Corporate America to get its grubby hands on the Arab markets. The high-tech industry is (despite the moderate recession) a huge source of labour for American companies, and also a market for American goods. Indirectly, yes, Israelis already pay a small percentage of your taxes... though there's officially a trade deficit from your end.

It will take you to send yourself or your sons and daughters over there to fight

No sons or daughters. I have already fought terror. From the front lines.

It will take hard core facts before we understand why it is that we are fighting.

The nature of the enemy is such that it is impossible - and the facts will be denied by those who would deny them regardless of their concreteness. Language barriers are starting to fall thanks to organizations like the Middle East Media Research Institute (http://www.memri.org), check that out if you really want to see what they're all about.

We want to know, how is this going to save American lives in the future?

I think 9/11 is a pretty good start. Although, living in Canada, I never understood the significance of November 9th.

How will this help world peace?

Pipe dream. For now, there's too much disagreement on the fundamental principles that build civilization. Read up on Huntington. This who thing is simply eliminating the extreme polar opposites to American values - which, of course, intend to do the same to us. It's politicians who are elected to lead us (assuming you value democratic and republican principles - not in the political party sense but the political structure sense), who understand the necessity of these things - they are privy to so much more information than we are, that if declassified would put lives in danger - we simply have to trust them, but maintain the right to question their motives. I don't deny a potential (and often exploited) conflict of interest with selfish goals, but that's the trade off, I suppose.

I'm not sure if you were simply answering my question, or posing questions of your own. These are just my musings in response.

[hetron]

One question. Are women allowed to vote in the countries you mentioned?

Not only are they allowed to vote, I know one for sure (Pakistan) had a female prime minister.

[hetron]

With tremendous military strength and might I believe comes great responsibility. If you are going to go around pre-emptively striking and whatnot, you then have a responsibility to make sure you clean up the mess you leave behind.

[Chris Alger]

[Gamblor]

What does this have to do with the Fascism of Islam?

Are you implying that the very existence of Israel is somehow responsible for the anti-everything-that-is-not-muslim mindset that pervades the Middle East?

If so, what does the synagogue in Turkey have to do with the "Occupation"?

Those damn uppity Jews again...

[brad]

'That's what people want. We want to know, how is this going to save American lives in the future?'

itll help peace because if not then mossad will bomb the [censored] out of US same way israel bombed and shot the [censored] out of the USS Liberty.

[Gamblor]

itll help peace because if not then mossad will bomb the [censored] out of US same way israel bombed and shot the [censored] out of the USS Liberty.

Ah yes, Israel deliberately bombed and shot the [censored] out of the only supporter it has ever had in its history.

What strategic advantage is there to burn the only bridge it still has standing? Or are the Israelis just innately evil?

What knowledge do you have regarding Israeli policy and army rules of engagement? Did you know that the Israelis sit around with their hook noses fondling dollar bills and plotting the takeover of the entire world? Yep, 5 million people on a slice of land the size of Lake Erie are in control of the US government. Who, I might add, refused themselves to even blame Israel.

Another question. Do you even play poker?

[Cyrus]

Do not invoke in vain the name of U.S.S. Liberty -- as you're doing in this thread. Not even to make a justified rebuttal -- as you're doing in this thread.

Don't you see that invoking U.S.S. Liberty in any way to defend Israeli military strategy is a loser ? Don't you realize that, concerning the U.S.S. Liberty, discretion is the better part of valor ? Rhetorical questions.

[Gamblor]

Don't you see that invoking U.S.S. Liberty in any way to defend Israeli military strategy is a loser ?


I don't recall invoking anything. You can thank Bad News Brad for that one.

Furthermore, I am pointing out that the claims that Israel deliberately murdered 30-odd members of its top allied force are simply ridiculous, on basis of Israeli radio recordings, and the United States government.

Do you read anything before you respond? Rhetorical question.

It appears your positions are being adopted by others.