The War in Iraq is already a success

[Gamblor]

Talking point #1:

Muammar Qhaddafi, in the months leading up to, during, and after the War, disavows a nuclear weapons program, bringing Libya into the Western world and securing a peaceful partner in a hostile region.

Talking point #2:

Iraqis are now the first Arabs in modern history who do not fear their government. Terrorism in the Middle East is a direct outgrowth of Arab tyranny. If Arabs lived - like their Western counterparts - in open, prosperous, and democratic societies, then there would be no need on the part of their corrupt leaders to scapegoat Israel and the United States as the source of all Arab problems, and Muslims wouldn't be signing up by the truckload to attack Western targets.

Talking point #3:

Syrian citizens were brazen enough to hold public demonstrations in Damascus for the first time, a fact that even the New York Times conceded would have been unthinkable prior to the toppling of Saddam.

The domino effect seems to be working. The people of the Arab world soon will no longer be tormented by dictatorial regimes and self-serving leaders bent on remaining in power and wealth. The new Arab history started 1 year ago last week.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Gamblor,
Keep your eye on Iran as well. I think things will look different over there in a year or so as well. IMO, Iran is the key over there. Their people are tired of the oppresive religous leadership they have lived under for the past 25 years.

[adios]

Bush was wrong about Iraqi WMD though /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Good points, too bad the anti Bush faction can't see past the nose on their face.

[Chris Alger]

Too bad that the war supporters are willing to swallow the most preposterous lies to excuse their support for the war. Like the howler about public demonstrations in Syria being unprecedented. In fact, <ul type="square"> In Syria, individuals interested in politics ... seized upon the most direct means available of registering opposition: strikes, demonstrations, personal conflicts with politicians, and even, at times, violence and assassination. The method used most frequently is the demonstration, which has often led to rioting.

Industrial workers, merchants, farmers, and other groups have all used demonstrations to demand or protest government actions. Although demonstrations have not always been successful in achieving the aims of the instigators, they have served as useful barometers of public opinion. The skill of the Baath Party in initiating demonstrations was an important factor in the party's rise to power. The government has tolerated spontaneous public demonstrations .... [/list] Allrefer.com (http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/syria/syria92.html), April 1987

As for Ghadaffi, you might want to inquire about why the chief anti-WMD warrior agreed let Pakistan issue a full pardon to the guy who sold Libya the technology.

[Gamblor]

Successive governments attempted to bolster this process with a constant barrage of propaganda aimed at creating trust and building loyalty, not only to the government as a social institution but to the particular regime in Damascus. The regimes appealed to citizens on the basis of economic selfinterest , as well as on the broader and more emotional grounds of Arab and Syrian nationalism. The appeals found a wide and enthusiastic response, although the individual citizen incurred few obligations or duties that would test the sincerity of the response.

Most Syrians have a strong libertarian streak and are wary of any government.

Although distrust of the government has been less intense in urban centers, it has existed there as well.

If everyone hates the government there so much, then why was the same man been in power since 1970, and magically his son takes over in 2001?

[ACPlayer]

Talking point 1, Libya gave up a failed nuke program to become a model citizen. They could not develop the stuff and could not develop a delivery system (harder than the bomb itself).

Talking point 2. They have been replaced by a puppet government maybe. And will be under occupation for years. See Palestine for what happens to occupied territories where the public is far from pleased by occupiers. Too early to say whether or not a theocratic country will come into existence.

Talking point 3. May be interesting, we shall see.

[ACPlayer]

Actually in my opinion we in the west are missing a golden opportunity with Iran. The administration should open up dialogue with Iran and encourage as much trade as possible. This is the only place where an experiment with democracy within a Islamic state is taking place (the two are NOT mutually exclusive). Trade will help speed up the process (see China and its MFN status and the impact over the last couple of decades).

The problem is (and this is true for Iraq as well) that within a rural agrarian ecomony, the ability for true democracy to take place is very hard as there is very little upward mobility in wealth possible. The industrial revolution brought the ability to leverage resources into wealth.

Without free trade with coutries like Iran and Iraq and Syria the possibility of democracy (other than the sham democratic experiment underway in Iraq presently) is very limited. In short order people become disaffected as it does not benefit them directly.

[ThaSaltCracka]

AC thanks for the reply.
I have been reading a new book called All the Shah's men , and I have been incredibly intrigued. I think the man problem with Iran is that they have been bombarded by foreign influence and occupation for thousands of years. In many ways this is an eye opening book. It really talks about why many in Iran think the way they do, and also why their political situation is so unstable. According to this book, it is the obligation of whatever government i in control of Iran at any time to provide a just and right government. If that does not happen, then it is the obligation of the people to rebel. This is a reflection of an early form of religion in Iran called Zoroastrian which holds that the sacred responsiblity of every human being is to work torward establishing social justice on earth.

You combine this with the constant foreign influence on the country from Alexander the Great, to Genghis Kahn, to the British, the people in Iran greatly hate and distrust foreigners. I think if we sit back and let Iran sort this out, things will work out.

Remember, the U.S. had a huge role in the shaping of Iran after 1950, with disastrous results.

[andyfox]

All the Shah's Men is indeed a good book, written by one of the co-authors of Bitter Fruit, which was about the CIA coup in Guatemala in 1954. Ansari's Modern Iran Since 1921 is also good for history.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Yeah I am only half way through it, this should be a mandatory book for high school students. Very informative and interesting.
Author is Stephen Kinzer incase anyone is interested.

this books get a high rating from this cracka

[ACPlayer]

I also just finished short history of Islam by Karen Armstrong. I am a fan of hers from my reading of "The battle for God" and "The History of God". She herself is more of a theologian (is an ex-nun and teaches in Rabbinical Schools) rather than an historian and describes herself as a "freelance monotheist".

This book is not as good as the others and has been panned in some of the liberal press (which may mean it is good for some!). It is a short book.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism in the Middle East is a direct outgrowth of Arab tyranny

[/ QUOTE ]
what is the cause of this arab tyranny... that is the main question. You also don't credit the poor economy in many arab countries. In many of these countries, uneployment is high, party because many of the men in these counties study islam, which is a major there, however once they graduate what are they suppose to do.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The new Arab history started 1 year ago last week.

[/ QUOTE ]

In an ocean of silliness this may well be the silliest comment yet. Good going Gamblor!

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism in the Middle East is a direct outgrowth of Arab tyranny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tyranny yes, I fully agree that this is a root cause of the terrorism.

Of all the Tyranny by govts in the middle east the ranking may well be:

a. The occupiers
b. The Saudi's
c. The Egyptians

All friends of the US. No wonder we, in the US, are under attack by those subject to said tyranny's by the economically and religiously disaffected in that region.

[jokerswild]

This is ridiculous. You can't accuse me of being soft on anti-Semitism, either. As a direct descendant of German Jews, I suggest that you reevaluate the instablility created by this foolish war. The people in Iraq most definitely do fear their current government: US Armed Forces. Once the US leaves, the government will revert to a hardline Iranian backed regime.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
They could not develop the stuff and could not develop a delivery system (harder than the bomb itself).


[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think this is correct. An atomic weapon can be delivered by any of a number of conventional means at the disposal of just about any country or organization.

-Zeno

[ACPlayer]

Perhaps a weapons expert can clarify this.

My understanding is that an effective weapon requires a weapon deliver system to deliver it properly. A nuclear device also requires a nuclear capable delivery mechanism. Which is why countries are always testing their nuclear capable missiles for example. In any, case it is not that easy to build a nuclear bomb as some make out, it appears that it may be easy to build a dirty bomb -- but note that even the fanatical morons in the middle east have not yet delivered one strapped onto a person (their only weapon delivery system).

I am pretty sure that Qaddafi would not have given up his program if he believed he had the capability to get there from where he is in a few short years. I believe he decided that he could not build a nuclear weapon and that he could meet his objectives better by paying off the Lockerbie damages and saying that he is dropping the weapons program.

[nicky g]

"Muammar Qhaddafi, in the months leading up to, during, and after the War, disavows a nuclear weapons program, bringing Libya into the Western world and securing a peaceful partner in a hostile region. "

In case you missed it, several people have pointed out that Ghaddafi had been trying to enter negotiations with the US to resume normal relations in return for similar concessions for years before the Iraq invasion. I notice now that Ghadaffi, a man who the US and UK claim ordered the murder of over 200 innocent travellers over Lockerbie and who openly armed the IRA, and is as undemocratic a leader as any in the Middle East, seems to have become Tony Blair's best pal in return for renouncing a virtually non-existent weapons prgramme. It seems that who gets deposed and who gets a slap on the back and a couple of oil deals depends not on democratic credentials (well we knew that), nor on a history of funding terrorism (neither had al-Qaeda links, and how many flights did Saddam have blown up?) and nor on possession of WMD programmes (Saddam had scrapped his, Ghadaffi never had much of a serious one) but on to what extent you;re willing to make Bush and Blair look good.

[Gamblor]

As hard as you try, you are no Cyrus.

Would you not agree that the new Russian history began when communism fell?

What of the despotic tyrannical regimes?

[Gamblor]

Of all the Tyranny by govts in the middle east the ranking may well be:

a. The occupiers
b. The Saudi's
c. The Egyptians

All friends of the US.


That's ridiculous - Saddam, the Iranian theocracy, and Taliban blows those three out of the water, and two are gone directly because of the Americans. As far as the Saudis and Egyptians, that is a cold peace at best. At worst, it's "We have business to do with you, and you have business to do with us, so let's push ideological differences under the carpet until we decide we don't need each other. Then prepare for democracy/Islam"

Palestinian terrorism against Jews began long before "occupation". 1929 in Hevron is only a watershed.

[ComedyLimp]

Qaddafi renouncing of WMD is significant becuase, although he had no credible delivery capability, he did have had stockpiles of exactly the sort of chemical, biological and low/medium grade nuclear material we didn't want to fall into the hands of terrorists. The very same terrorists he has also stopped sponsoring and supporting in fact.

Where Gamblor is wrong is linking this to Iraq and Bush. Libya has changed its ways as a result of diplomatic and economic pressure in a process that has been going on for years -- indeed it really started with Libya giving up the Lockerbie suspects which has been going on for at leat 5 years.

In fact the process that has occured in Libiya is much closer to the European model for dealing with state sponsored terrorism. Whcih was also Clinton's approach (which did include bobmbing them of course) so by extension you can argue that if anything Libiya supports Kerry's policy approach rather than Bush's.

[ACPlayer]

To say that Iraq "History" began a year ago is just nuts. The culture and history of the people is what it is and will continue to influence the way Iraq is shaped for the lifetime through those of your son's sons and more.

This is the shallow thinking of some who think that they can wipe out the memories and heritage of a people by one event. This is idiotic. Unfortunately some of our present leaders have bought into this idiotic thinking.

[ACPlayer]

OK, perhaps you will agree that the three culprits I pointed out are the one that are directly the causes of the anti-US terrorism.

I dont believe that the Iranian Theocracy should be feared by the US, unless we continue the immoral one sided support of Israel and even then they are a tangential threat at best.

I dont believe that Saddam was a threat to us.

I dont believe the Taliban would have been an issue for us if the US was not consistently supporting the Tyranical groups I have pointed at. The Taliban was created by US because we continue to believe that History begins and ends in moments like the defeat of the Russians by the Afghans. Stupid!

[nicky g]

"Qaddafi renouncing of WMD is significant becuase, although he had no credible delivery capability, he did have had stockpiles of exactly the sort of chemical, biological and low/medium grade nuclear material we didn't want to fall into the hands of terrorists. The very same terrorists he has also stopped sponsoring and supporting in fact. "

I am not aware of Gaddafi having any biological stockpiles. As far as chemical weapons, the BBC reported he had stockpiles of mustard gas from a factory that closed ten years ago and little else. I doubt that even in the hands of terrorists that would have posed a serious threat to anyone; short of setting up artillery positions and firing dozens of shells at a major city I can't imagine they could have used them to kill much more people than a conventional bomb would. I also would not be surprised, although I don't know, if ten year old mustard gas would have degraded to the point of uselessness. Certainly that was what many scientists and inspectors said about Saddam's unaccounted for remaining chems, though I forget which ones they were.

As for nuclear materials, I don't know what he had in terms of radioactive materials. It doesn't appear he was close to being able to make a nuclear bomb. If I'm misinformed about his capabilities let me know.

Finally, the terrorist groups Gaddafi supported and was alleged to support did not to my knowledge include anyone who would have benfited from or wanted to launch major WMD attacks on major western targets. Even if al-Qa'ida now poses such a threat (let's hope it doesn't), there was never any suggestion Gaddafi supported them.

Certainly it is better to have as many people as possible committed to anti-proliferation and Gaddafi's decision to stop pursuing nuclear technology is a positive development. But to claim this as a victory for the Iraq war or a major step forward in protecting us from rogue WMDs or terrorists is really quite absurd. (I'm not suggesting you claimed either of those things; several others have).

[Gamblor]

I dont believe that the Iranian Theocracy should be feared by the US, unless we continue the immoral one sided support of Israel and even then they are a tangential threat at best.

The immoral one sided support of Israel? How hypocritical can you get?

Who would you have the US support? Despotic Arab regimes? The PA, who sits in the corner and laughs every time 20 more Israelis are murdered? Hamas? Until Joe Palestinian gets his act together and gets a reasonable political alternative in office, there's nobody to support. You're a fucking joke. Wait til you Americans turn tail and hide when a 9/11 is happening every day in New York, Dallas, LA. Dean will be in office and you'll be begging Allah for mercy.

OK, perhaps you will agree that the three culprits I pointed out are the one that are directly the causes of the anti-US terrorism.

Who cares? It's terrorism, and any way of rationalizing the murder of innocents for political gain is ludicrous. If Rodney King planted a bomb in the LAPD headquarters, it would still be an abominable act, you would tell the LAPD to show restraint and not arrest him.

[Gamblor]

I said nothing about wiping out history, and I'll thank you to stop imposing your opinions on me.

I said the NEW history. Everything before May 2003 may be viewed as the OLD history, a history everyone acknowledges but would just as soon forget if they could.

[nicky g]

"Who would you have the US support"

Everything's balck and white to people like you. It's prefectly possible to support a compromise between two positions without supporting any "side". I certianly support neither the Israeli government nor Arafat nor the Palestinian terrorist; they are all disgusting people. The US should be pushing for a fair resolution rather than supporting any of them outright.

"Despotic Arab regimes?"
You seem to miss the point that it supportts many of those. And you need look no further than the ISraeli state for support of disgusting regimes worldwide: Pinochet Chile and apartheid South Africa spring to mind. Quel surprise.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush was wrong about Iraqi WMD though /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Good points, too bad the anti Bush faction can't see past the nose on their face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because much of the anti-Bush crowd knows that even if democracy comes to Iraq, the reason behind our invasion of Iraq had more to do with establishing a presence in the region and oil than making sure Iraq has a vibrant democracy.

[Gamblor]

The US should be pushing for a fair resolution rather than supporting any of them outright.

Are you implying that handing over vast tracts of strategically invaluable land to people who advocate the outright destruction of the state as it exists today is a "fair resolution"? Then here, give me your house and home, and I'll stop sending my friends to kill you.

Zionist Lobby! Jews control the government! Quel suprise.

you need look no further than the ISraeli state for support of disgusting regimes worldwide:

If you're insinuating that the democratically elected government of Israel is a disgusting "regime", you're now telling the people that they are incapable of choosing their own leadership. "I know whats best for you better than you do".

Quel Suprise.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You're a [censored] joke. Wait til you Americans turn tail and hide when a 9/11 is happening every day in New York, Dallas, LA. Dean will be in office and you'll be begging Allah for mercy.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO this is a good point you make. What surprised me about the thread regarding targeted assassanation is how blase apparently most were to the years and years Israel has endured suicide terrorism. If this happened in the USA on a consistent and regular basis as it does in Israel, there are many in the USA that would be ready to bring out the nukes. IMO people in the USA for the most part way underrate the menace of this scourge.

[mosch]

The war in iraq has killed between eight and ten thousand Iraqi civilians. Yes, that's right, three times more civilian deaths than occurred on 9/11 have occurred during the Iraq war.

Terrorism is not simply a result of tyrrany. It's the result of deep hatred of a power that is too large to battle symmetrically. If this war creates more people who hate America, it is likely to create more terrorism than it could ever solve. It seems likely that this wave of anti-americanism will assist terrorist groups in their recruiting efforts, and result in increased insecurity for Aericans.

The neoconservatives view America as the policeman of the entire world. They believe that the United States should use it's power, both military and economic, to promote it's values around the world. They could then prevent attacks against America, by creating an American empire, which controls the regions which are likely to be hostile against us.

I sincerely hope that the Bush administration's radical theories are correct, but I believe they are not. I believe the end result of this invasion will be the further radicalization of extremists, increased insecurity for the peoples of the lands we occupy and increased insecurity for ourselves.

If you want to read about the neoconservative agenda, in their own words, read the articles at New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), where you can find their theories on the Middle East (including this war in Iraq) being publicly stated since 1997. Other major neoconservative thinktanks are the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for Security Policy. Major neoconservative publications are The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, National Review, and Commentary. In these publications, you'll read passionate support for the overthrow of numerous countries and the creation of a worldwide American empire.

To how things change, but they always stay the same, you could take a look at the 1992 draft "defense planning guidance" (http://http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html), and then compare it to this 2002 national security strategy document (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/nss-020920.pdf).

The only conservative idea you'll find in these neoconservative doctrines is that we tax rates should be reduced. The rest of it is filled with incredibly radical concepts of hegemony disguised as liberation, and a view that the United States must become the new Rome.

[hetron]

The immoral one sided support of Israel? How hypocritical can you get?

Who would you have the US support? Despotic Arab regimes? The PA, who sits in the corner and laughs every time 20 more Israelis are murdered? Hamas? Until Joe Palestinian gets his act together and gets a reasonable political alternative in office, there's nobody to support. You're a fucking joke. Wait til you Americans turn tail and hide when a 9/11 is happening every day in New York, Dallas, LA. Dean will be in office and you'll be begging Allah for mercy.




Again, I think this all goes back to international law. The whole reason the UN was set up was to prevent wars and occupations in the first place.

I have seen you argue this both ways. On the one hand, you lump in the Palestinians with the Jordanians, stating that their cultural similarities make obsolete the need for an independent Palestinian state. On the other, you state the Israelis will only negotiate with them "when they get their act together". But if you state that they do not have the right to self-determination, what exactly is going to be negotiated?

[Gamblor]

Theoretically, there is no need to distinguish between Palestinians and Jordanians, as they are the 100% the same ethnically and culturally.

In reality, the Palestinians are those who define themselves as one of the recent national construct "Palestinian". That's it. So if you want to define yourself as a Palestinian, that's yours. But to exercise their's right to self determination, one must expect that they choose leadership, either peacefully or by force, that furthers goals conducive to peace while the established states (namely, Israel), are not compromised in their security. Which a terrorist state in the Yehuda/Shomron region would most certainly be, given the past Arab belligerence that led to the Israeli presence there to begin with.

[Gamblor]

As in other quasi-totalitarian dictatorships, the press in Saudi Arabia must express views approved by the government.

Arab News, "Assassination of Yassin: Who is to Blame? (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&amp;section=0&amp;article=41871&amp;d=25&amp;m=3&amp;y=2004)" by Muhammad Salahuddin has to make Bush wonder.

Select excerpts:

"The people who are slaughtering the Palestinians on a daily basis are not Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister and his Zionist aides. The actual killers are the government of President George Bush who still insists that the Zionist terror and the war of genocide waged by Sharon is an act of legitimate self-defense while the Palestinian resistance to the occupation is terrorism."

"The assassination of Sheikh Yassin, for all his status, history, personal qualities and the high place he occupies among the people inside and outside Palestine, is no bigger an outrage than the murder of tens of Palestinians who are being knocked down day and night by American bullets and rockets,"

Salahuddin ends by calling for the complete destruction of Israel, stating that

"the Muslim Ummah will never find the burden of steadfastness and jihad unbearable. It is capable of, with the help of the Almighty Allah, facing the challenge and prevailing over the enemy, and it will never give up even one inch of Palestine land, whatever may be the brutality of the occupiers and their supporters."

I wonder how apologists for the U.S.-Saudi "friendship" are going to explain this particular state-sanctioned piece.

[hetron]

So the Israelis are occupants of the territories in order to keep themselves safe? I bet they have had more civilian/army casualties since they took over that territory than they had before. Let me look it up. I'll get back to you.

[Jim Kuhn]

Too bad it was not 80 billion of Canadian tax dollars paying for this war. I wish we would clean up our neighborhoods first before attempting to clean up the world. I think the negatives outwiegh the positives even if we would have found wmd!

[ACPlayer]

Nothing hypocritical in what I said. You can disagree with it if you like, my statements are not hypocritical. Your defense of IDF's actions, given your avowed support of the history of the Jewish people is hypocritical.

The US already support of despotical regimes (as has been pointed our repeatedly) in the middle east and that support has helped turn the terrorist against us and brought the battle to these shores. As has been pointed out before, our support for all the regimes in the region that target those without power has led us to this position. I listed those regimes earlier.

Israel's constant thirst to grab land from the people who have lived there for thousands of years is a direct cause of terrorism againt the Israeli population. Our support that has contributed to the land grab has turned their attention on the US. Claiming that we should continue to support Israel begause the other side is terrorist, forgets the reason that the terrorists were created in the first place.

If the US ever becomes awash (which I dont believe by the way) in terrorist acts, the reasons are the same as I have stated before.

If Rodney King plants a bomb in LAPD HQ, I would expect the rule of law to prevail in a court room and not with extra-judicial actions.

[ACPlayer]

There you again! Forgeting the old history is NOT possible. You have to more than acknowledge past history you have to put the present action in the total history.

[andyfox]

Talking point #1:

Muammar Qhaddafi, in the months leading up to, during, and after the War, disavows a nuclear weapons program, bringing Libya into the Western world and securing a peaceful partner in a hostile region.

This is hogwash. In point of fact Kadafi was willing to give up his WMD probram in 1999. It was not the Bush administration's "nine months of intense negotiations" or the invasion of Iraq that made Kadafi see the light. Rather, as his representatives told our at secret meetings in Geneva in 1999, Kadafi realized that Libya and the U.S. faced a common threat from Islamic fundamentalism. Thus Libya agreed to cooperate in our campaign against Oasma bin Laden.

So Bush, to his credit, completed a diplomatic plan started by Clinton in 1999. But Kadafi did not give up his WMD programs because of the war in Iraq.

More distortions from the masters in the Bush administration.

[nicky g]

"If you're insinuating that the democratically elected government of Israel is a disgusting "regime", you're now telling the people that they are incapable of choosing their own leadership. "I know whats best for you better than you do". "

Not elected by the millions of Palestinians it represses daily, and yes, a disgusting regime, led by a vile war criminal who will hopefully be in the dock very soon, albeit for the least of his crimes. But you obviously dind't read what I wrote. You descried the idea of the US supporting repressive Arab states (ignoring the fact that it does do exactly that, in two cases as a bribe for peaceful relations with Israel), and I pointed out that Israel is probably unsurpassed in its history of proud support for odious regimes, the South African apartheid state being the most glaring example. Still, no doubt those vicious blacks were evil terrorists or somesuch.

[Gamblor]

Not elected by the millions of Palestinians it represses daily, and yes, a disgusting regime, led by a vile war criminal who will hopefully be in the dock very soon, albeit for the least of his crimes.

Not a word, of course, of constant brainwashing of the thousands of Palestinian Arabs into commiting violent suicidal terrorism by Arafat, Yassin, Rantisi, and the rest of that crew. Not a word about those thousands of lives lost due to kangaroo court executions for collaboration with Israel. But the one guy who stands up and doesn't acquiesce to this tactic you have on the dock. Good show.

Here's the fact: The Palestinians have turned this into an ethnic war. Arabs vs. Jews. Case in point: George Khoury, living in East Jerusalem, was murdered while jogging in the early morning last week. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility, proudly announcing that they had committed the murder. Yet, the next morning, when news broke that Khoury was not a Jew, but a Christian Arab, AAMB issued an apology! But wait, he's still a citizen of Israel, why isn't he a fair target like all of the others? I thought AAMB were secular, fighting against only military occupation!

Israel is probably unsurpassed in its history of proud support for odious regimes, the South African apartheid state being the most glaring example. Still, no doubt those vicious blacks were evil terrorists or somesuch.

Okay, so now you're comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa, which is not only a canard of epic proportions, but also a common tactic among those seeking to delegitimize the state as a whole.

Nonetheless, let's analyze this ridiculous, uninformed challenge, shall we?

<ul type="square">
Issue:Goal of separation (i.e. security fence)
- The explicit goal of bantustans was the elimination of rights of the majority South African black population, to ensure white hegemoney.
- The explicit goal of the security fence is preventing surreptitious terrorist entry to Israel, which has caused the murder of hundreds of Israeli civilians.
Issue:Citizenship
- A central goal of official apartheid "separate development" was to strip black South Africans of their citizenship.
- West Bank Palestinians were never citizens of Israel. On the other hand, 15% of Israeli citizenry is Arab, and laws that distinguish between the ethnicities are designed to ensure Israel lives up to original UN mandate as a haven for persecuted Jews.

Issue: Forced Transfer
- Between 1950 and 1986, about 1.5 million Africans were forcibly removed from "white" cities to rural reservations.
- Transfer has only occured in times war, or as a direct result of war, for purposes outlined next:

Issue: Opposition to nation
- South African blacks, cordoned into bantustans, did not seek the destruction of South Africa, but rather the removal of the apartheid regime.
- The majority of Palestinians in the territories dispute Israel's very right to exist; organizations that commit terror as a political tool to this end enjoy widespread public support.

Issue: Security Fence Permanence
- South African bantustans were an effort to force a permanent international status on lands, and the black population living there.

- The Israeli security fence is chain-link (with the exception of about 2 km to protect against sniper fire on city highways) a temporary defensive measure, not a border. Inconveniences caused by the fence are reversible.

Issue: Colonialism
- South African "separate development" was an outgrowth of imperialist, colonial policy.
- Israel is "colonial" neither with regard to the source of its population (mostly refugees), nor their deep historical relationship to the land.
[/list]

It amazes me how far anti-Israel ideologues will go to distort and negatively portray the issue, drawing absurd comparisons and bashing leadership. To that end, the most atrocious is the Mandela/Arafat comparison. It turns Mandela into a murderer.

How do you even bother with this crap?

[Chris Alger]

This is almost all nonsense, especially about "The Palestinians" having created their ethnic cleansing and oppression at the hands of an ethnic state into "an ethnic war."

But I'll respond only to this silliness:

[ QUOTE ]
The explicit goal of bantustans was the elimination of rights of the majority South African black population, to ensure white hegemoney.

[/ QUOTE ]
Israel's propaganda neeeds and dependency on its superpower patron probably require it to be less candid regarding official racism than was the case with South Africa. Still, the "explicit" justifications for the bantustans were usually grounded in even more lofty rhtetoric that what Israel uses to justify its land and water stealing wall. For example: <ul type="square">After the 1948 National Party election victory and the formal implementation of apartheid in South Africa, the South African government viewed the creation of 'self-governing' states based on the boundaries of the major ethnic groups - both within the borders of South Africa and in South West Africa - as a means of fulfilling the political aspirations of the indigenous population. The evolution of these self-governing areas (or Bantustans) was seen as South Africa's answer to decolonisation. [/list] link (http://flagspot.net/flags/na_bantu.html)
So it was about empowering indigenous tribes and fulfilling their aspirations, not "white hegemony." Someone should do a comparative IQ study of those that believed this and those that beleive that the wall is about self-defense.

[Gamblor]

As for my "Arab propaganda," most of my sources...you dismiss out of hand simply because the facts they cite can't be reconciled with your sick worldview.

"Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=593124&amp;page=1&amp;view=co llapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1)"

This is almost all nonsense, especially about "The Palestinians" having created their ethnic cleansing and oppression at the hands of an ethnic state into "an ethnic war."

You had nothing to say about the Khoury incident?

dismiss out of hand simply because the facts they cite can't be reconciled with your sick worldview.

[nicky g]

Are you deliberatlye missing the point? I'm not comparing it to South Africa, although a partial comparison is certainly warranted (it isn't by any means an identical situation though). I'm pointing to apartheid South Africa as one of the many odious regimes and factions Israel has been historically delighted to have close ties to, arm etc, in response to your implied criticism of supporting dictatorships. Or is that only bad if they're Arab ones?

[nicky g]

"Not a word, of course, of constant brainwashing of the thousands of Palestinian Arabs into commiting violent suicidal terrorism by Arafat, Yassin, Rantisi, and the rest of that crew. Not a word about those thousands of lives lost due to kangaroo court executions for collaboration with Israel. But the one guy who stands up and doesn't acquiesce to this tactic you have on the dock. Good show. "

I've condemned the PA, Arafat, Hamas et al and resistance that targets civilians at least a dozen times on this forum. You remind me of the time when you had teh gall to criticise Edward Said just after he died for not criticising teh PA, despite the fact that he was probably their most vocal critic in the known universe. Again, more black and white garbage. There is no need to keep repeating such criticisms because noone here fundamentally disagrees with them. And I condemn more forcefully a regime that not only kills civilians on the opposing side, at a rate of more than twice what terrorists deliberately targetting civilians manage to achieve, and more than FIVE TIMES when it comes to children (and much much more than that per head of population), but also incarcerates all the people it hasn't killed (yet) in a series of vast open air prisons while openly stealing their land and resources.

Your characterisation of Sharon is your most absurd effort yet.

[hetron]

Approximately 20,000 Israeli soldiers have died in armed conflict up until 1997. Of those, approximately more than half have died since the Six Day War. That's not even counting the greater than 1000 civilians who have died due to terrorist attacks. So, please tell me, how exactly is the occupation of the west bank and gaza strip helping to secure Israel?

[Gamblor]

Approximately 20,000 Israeli soldiers have died in armed conflict up until 1997. Of those, approximately more than half have died since the Six Day War. That's not even counting the greater than 1000 civilians who have died due to terrorist attacks. So, please tell me, how exactly is the occupation of the west bank and gaza strip helping to secure Israel?

Without that, 5 million more would be at the bottom of the Mediterranean, as per the words of various Arab leaders over the past 55 years.

[Gamblor]

And I condemn more forcefully a regime that not only kills civilians on the opposing side, at a rate of more than twice what terrorists deliberately targetting civilians manage to achieve, and more than FIVE TIMES when it comes to children (and much much more than that per head of population), but also incarcerates all the people it hasn't killed (yet) in a series of vast open air prisons while openly stealing their land and resources.

Perhaps if the terrorists didn't go out and murder, then run and hide inside family homes, the civilian numbers would be way way down.

You just don't get it.

They aren't resisting anything other than a Jew on their land, because to them, Jews are monkeys and are the tool of the devil.

Doesn't it make any sense to you that these terrorists are hiding out in civilian population centres so that they can watch their next-door-neighours hang out on the street and get shot, and then shout out to the world that the evil Israelis are massacring civilians, garnering world sympathy and international support, while at home celebrating them as "martyrs" and parading them through the streets like heros, hoping that the next 12 year old will walkin begging to blow himself up for "the cause"?

[Gamblor]

When your state is in its first few decades of existence, surrounded by 22 nations who refuse to recognize and refuse any diplomatic relations, while planning the day when they finally have the firepower to eliminate your existence, you accept any partnerships you can find.

I thought that would have been plainly obvious.

[hetron]

C'mon Gamblor, surely you can do better than this. We aren't arguing about "crazy things Arab dictators might say". We were arguing if the occupied territories help make Israel safer. I have detailed already that there have been an equal number, if not more, Israeli casualties since the occupation of the territories began than there were prior to it, and that is including the war for Israeli independence, by far the bloodiest conflict. The fact that even the Golan Heights, the most strategic piece of land in terms of being a lookout for a northern Syrian invasion, proved to be almost useless in the Yom Kippur War (it was overrun by the Syrians in a sneak attack before they were pushed back by the IDF), also puts a serious dent in your argument. The Arab dictators have come closer to driving the Israelis into the sea while they were occupying the territories than they ever did before (Yom Kippur War). So if the argument is that occupying the territories makes the people of Israel more secure, it seems like a pretty weak argument to me.

[Gamblor]

That a surprise attack on in October 1973 was delayed by the Mt. Hermon base is a testament to the strategic necessity of the Golan.

Most of the problems with the Yom Kippur war were because the IDF was unprepared. Imagine how long the war in Iraq would have lasted if Baghdad were a Persian Gulf City. Mt Hermon is not the centre of the country, but Tel Aviv and Jerusalem sure are, and I doubt a surprise attack could have been repelled if Mt Hermon were in Syrian hands in 1972.

What Mt Hermon does is act as an early warning system for the major population centres, as we all know the Syrian forces had no intention of taking prisoners of war. It is not valuable in and of itself. Israel releases 400 prisoners, and in exchange it receives 3 dead bodies and a drug-trafficker. Big shocker that Ron Arad hasn't been heard from.