posted on April 6, 2002 11:00:15 AM new"I'll raise my hand in support of the US going to Afghanistan"
That's because, as you're stated before, you're pro-corporation/big oil, and it evidently does not bother you that our soldiers and service people dying for Bush Oil and the energy corporations.
posted on April 6, 2002 11:07:52 AM new
No, actually they were there to remove a sanctuary for murderers, and it doesn't matter if other sanctuaries exist.
Podhoretz: Bush must face truth about Arab terror against Israel
By Norman Podhoretz April, 05 2002
(April 5) - More than half a century ago, the British writer George Orwell made a famous statement that can still serve as the beginning of wisdom for anyone trying to unravel the tangled relation between the war against terrorism being waged by the United States and the attitude of the Bush administration toward the war against terrorism being waged by Israel. What Orwell said was that political speech and writing had largely turned into the defense of the indefensible.
In singling out the Bush administration here, I should simultaneously assert in the strongest possible terms that it is less guilty than any government on earth of using speech and writing to defend the indefensible - less surely than a member of Israel's own government like Shimon Peres, or former ministers like Yossi Beilin, the man Yitzhak Rabin once derided as Peres's "poodle." And within the Bush administration, the least guilty of all for the most part has been the president himself.
But this is putting it too mildly. For Bush, after a bit of hesitation following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, achieved a greater degree of moral and intellectual clarity about terrorism than any Western leader before him. Indeed, many of his former detractors were amazed by the acumen and agility he showed in cutting through the poisonous cant on this subject pervading the journalistic and academic communities.
Never, for instance, did he permit himself to be bamboozled by the idea so dear to so many denizens of those communities that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Taking the opposite position, he declared repeatedly that terrorism was itself evil, under any and all circumstances. From which it followed that there could be no such thing as a good terrorist.
Nor, so far as I can recall, did Bush ever adopt the media's unregenerate practice of referring to Palestinian or any other terrorists as "militants" - a term that, in painting murderers as zealous strugglers for a cause they considered righteous (and who was to say they were wrong?), nicely illustrates how language is still used to defend the indefensible.
Finally, never did Bush go along with that other trick of language favored by defenders of the indefensible: that the "root cause" of terrorism is poverty or political oppression; or where Israel and the Palestinians are concerned, the "occupation." To Bush (who may not even have realized that 98 percent of the Palestinians were already living under the Palestinian Authority), the root cause of terrorism anywhere and everywhere was, quite simply, the will to do evil. Period; end of discussion.
Admittedly, in discussing the Middle East, Bush was less vigilant in avoiding the term "cycle of violence," which is probably the most common example of how political discourse can become a defense of the indefensible. Conversely, the same term also embodies a failure to defend what deserves to be defended.
A linguistic child of the concept of moral equivalence, the words "cycle of violence" allow of no distinction between terrorist attacks and retaliation against them. They allow of no distinction between the deliberate murder of civilians and the inadvertent harm done to civilians in a military action. And in the context of the "Arab-Israeli conflict" (itself a deceptive label for what should actually be called "the Arab war against Israel", to speak of a "cycle of violence" is to conjure up a Hatfield-McCoy type of feud between equally irrational parties.
This maneuver is calculated to conceal the crucial fact that Palestinian terrorism is neither a random nor an uncontrollable nor a "senseless" phenomenon. On the contrary: it is a tactic carefully designed to advance a precise objective. And that objective is to wipe the Jewish state physically off the map, just as Israel is erased from the maps of the region printed in the textbooks given to Palestinian and other Arab schoolchildren.
Bush's occasional surrender to the "cycle of violence" clichZ has, in short, marked the limit of his power to resist political speech that defends the indefensible, and befogged the incandescent clarity about terrorism he began to achieve after September 11.
Moreover, the war against Israel has also marked the limit of Bush's fidelity to another of George Orwell's famous dicta: that there comes a point when the primary duty of an honest man is to restate the obvious. Bush admirably fulfilled that duty when he insisted that terrorism was evil, no matter what, and when he appended the codicil that regimes harboring or sponsoring terrorists were terrorists themselves.
But last month, after he had dispatched Vice President Richard Cheney on a quixotic, unnecessary, and humiliating quest for Arab approval of his determination to topple Saddam Hussein, he suddenly lost his ability to see the obvious, let alone to restate it.
He could not see that the goal of the Arab world has always been, and still is, to destroy the state of Israel.
He could not see that Crown Prince Abdullah's "peace initiative" did not represent a renunciation of that goal, but was only a cynical public-relations ploy to counter the bad press the Saudis had been getting in the United States since September 11.
He could not see that in making the "right of return" of the Palestinian refugees a condition of any settlement, the Saudi "vision" amounted to nothing more than the assurance that if Israel were to cease being a Jewish state, the Arab world would graciously cease objecting to its existence.
Blinded by the Saudi mirage - and no doubt with a little additional wool pulled over his eyes by his secretary of state, Colin Powell - Bush lost his way to the extent of characterizing the actions taken against terrorism by Israel under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as "unhelpful."
Fortunately, the president got back on track after the series of suicide bombings in March that culminated in the Passover massacre in Netanya. Reversing himself once more, Bush now dropped his reproaches of Sharon, and instead expressed sympathy for the efforts the prime minister was making to root out the terrorist infrastructure in Ramallah and elsewhere.
At the very moment Bush was voicing approval of these efforts, however, his representative at the UN was voting for a resolution condemning them, and the State Department was happily going back into the old business of cautioning Sharon to exercise "restraint." Meanwhile, Bush called for "a united front" in the region against terrorism.
Behind this call lay the evidently unshakable delusion that Arafat himself, not to mention the Saudis, who had been inciting and harboring and financing suicide bombing all along, were actually opposed to it and to terrorism in general. Thus, Bush kept asking Arafat to do "a better job" of cracking down on and denouncing terrorism, as though this was what Arafat dearly wished to do. What was even more startling, the president seemed to think that Syria and Iran could be persuaded to participate in a regional "united front" against terrorism.
Yet just as the American vote for the UN resolution contradicted Bush's endorsement of Sharon's latest and most forceful military move against the terrorist infrastructure in the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority, the president now contradicted himself from the other direction. That is, he authorized Donald Rumsfeld, his Secretary of Defense, to denounce Iran, Iraq, and Syria for aiding and abetting the terrorists operating out of the Arafat's own regime.
Sounding like Bush when he had been at his best, Rumsfeld declared: "Murderers are not martyrs. Targeting civilians is immoral, whatever the excuse. Terrorists have declared war on civilization, and states like Iran, Iraq, and Syria are inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing."
Rumsfeld went on "to make it clear to sponsors and supporters of terrorists that being a friend to terrorists, and by implication an adversary of the United States, is not in their best interest." And he specifically stressed the arms that Iran and Syria were sending to Palestinian terrorists through Lebanon, as well as the stipends of $25,000 that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of suicide bombers.
It was also left to Rumsfeld to restate the obvious at a moment when Bush himself was coming close to defending an indefensible position. Asked by a reporter why he persistently refused to denounce Arafat as a terrorist and the PA as a terrorist regime when they qualified fully under his own definition, Bush answered that, unlike the others, "Arafat has agreed to a peace process," and that "he has negotiated with parties as to how to achieve peace."
Then, a few hours later, Rumsfeld, without explicitly naming Israel, and again sounding like Bush at his best, answered a similar question by in effect likening Sharon's current military moves to those of the United States: "When the United States is hit by terrorist attacks, you have a choice. You can say, 'Gee, that's too bad,' or you can go try to find the terrorists and do something about itÉ We cannot afford as a country to not seek out the terrorists and the countries that harbor terrorists."
As a Jew, I tremble for the harm that may come to Israel through President Bush's loss of clarity - and with it his ability to restate the obvious. But as an American who believes with all his heart and soul in the necessity of my country's war against terrorism, and in the justice of our cause, I also worry about the moral and intellectual and strategic damage done to that cause by the refusal to face the plain truth that the despots who tyrannize over most of the Muslim world hate the United States, "the Great Satan," even more than they hate Israel, "the Little Satan."
One can only hope and pray that Bush's recent confusions will turn out to be a temporary "bad patch" (as Robert L. Bartley of The Wall Street Journal has called it), and that he will set himself firmly back onto the course he so bravely took in the wake of September 11.
If he does, he will recognize that there is no moral difference between the terrorists operating out of the PA and the al-Qaida network.
He will recognize that to sponsor the establishment of a state run by the thugs and murderers of the PA would be tantamount to putting the Taliban back into power in Afghanistan.
He will recognize that the PA is another one of the regimes that will have to be toppled if the war against terrorism is to be won, and he will encourage Israel to do this job in our mutual interest.
He will recognize that only if a space is thereby cleared can decent alternatives to such regimes get a chance to emerge (including among the Palestinians, who might then indeed form a state that would be willing to coexist peacefully with Israel).
And he will recognize that only under such circumstances will it become possible for a corresponding process of reform and modernization to take hold within the realm of Islam, which would in consequence no longer serve as a breeding ground of terrorism.
Once he comes to recognize all this, Bush will understand that Israel is involved in the same war he himself is waging, and against the same enemy. He will understand that negotiating with Arafat or his henchmen can no more result in security for Israel than the United States can protect itself against future attacks by negotiating with Osama bin Laden or any other anti-American terrorists.
Recognizing and understanding these things, Bush will be granted an even greater power than he had before to resist any forms of political speech that defend the indefensible, together with a wonderfully enhanced ability to restate the obvious.
Accordingly, the ghost of George Orwell will smile down upon him, and he will bask in the assurance reinforced by that smile that he is helping to create the conditions out of which a better and a safer life will almost certainly emerge for millions upon millions of people.
posted on April 6, 2002 06:16:53 PM new
DeSquirrel, who wrote that article? Man, that was boring! It was so poorly written that it never clearly made its point. It mentioned the topic, an Orwellian quote, but then went on to never explain anything. Instead, as it came close to something salient, it would then bounce away, chasing some other obtuse point. Sorta like how your thoughts flow into yer posts on here, ya know? Is this really the sort of nonsense that you like to read?
posted on April 6, 2002 06:26:50 PM new
Thank you Borillar. I just got home from the flea market, and I thought I wasn't grasping that article because I'm so tired.
posted on April 6, 2002 06:34:04 PM new
Whatever Borillar
I do support Israel. The are defending themselves against terrorists, who are Palestinians.
And the media shouldn't show those pre suicide videos the suicide bombers make right before they go strap a bomb on themselves.
Should the US be involved? Israel didn't ask us, they dont' need our help, its the Palestinians begging for help, because they know they'll get their butts kicked.
posted on April 6, 2002 06:41:34 PM new
I feel strongly the Palestinians think the help they will get will be from the Arab states. If they are being wiped out I think they are counting on armies coming to their rescue from across the border - from Eygpt, Jordan, and Lebanon.
I am not sure that will happen.
They may get help from Iraq first - in the form of missile strikes on Israel.
That could easily result in missile strikes back at Iraq.
It could get ugly in a matter of hours.
posted on April 6, 2002 09:38:14 PM new
NearTheSea, you haven't been around here for a while, and so, you may not be aware of what the rest of us know on here about Bush + Taliban = Bush Oil. Let me give a link to another RT thread and take your coffee break time to read it. I think you'll be glad that you did.
posted on April 7, 2002 08:54:22 AM new Welcome to Bethlehem ...Photographs of War....A Palestinian man sits beside the dead bodies of his brother, mother.
posted on April 7, 2002 09:01:48 AM new
One part of going into Afghanistan that I liked was being the Knight in Shining Armor pummelling those Buddha-busters and Burka-enforcers. I really hated the Taliban regime way before 9-11.
posted on April 7, 2002 09:19:41 AM new
Yes ok I read it. A commentary. With a lot of ifs
If these are true
If this proves to be true
If these allegations carry even the faintest whiff of credibility
So that is knowledge? Sounds like opinions.
If I read all your opinions, and you call this fact, then isn't that what you were telling me- being told what to think and to believe.
I support Israel, which was what this topic started as.
posted on April 7, 2002 09:19:50 AM new
Helen- doesn't that photo of the dead mother and brother look a little strange?
It looks like the "dead" bodies were grafted onto the picture. The size porportion of the brother looks too large next to the live brother, and the "mother" looks even larger.
It could also be the case that both were shot by the PLO as collaborators.
The PLO has murdered more of their own people as "collaborators" since the IDF action than the IDF has killed accidentally.
[ edited by REAMOND on Apr 7, 2002 09:29 AM ]
posted on April 7, 2002 10:19:42 AM new
Most of the other pics that I looked at looked legit. Maybe this was the only way he could show the scene in a frame; e.g. it was a very small room and he couldn't get far enough back, as an example. I'm not speculating on a scene of what tho'.
posted on April 7, 2002 10:37:06 AM new
Yes, nycyn
I think that his intended message was honorable. But, after lightening and enlarging the photo, it does appear as REAMOND said, "strange". I suppose the scene was intended to portray the horror of war and especially collateral damage.
posted on April 7, 2002 10:45:14 AM new
Agreed the flash shadows are not consistant in the pic and the lighting looks strange.
The man looks like he is floating at an angle. If he is not an electronic cut and paste then I think he was dragged into the scene physically and dumped after rigor mortis had set in in a different position than he had previously.
The courtyard damage looks funny also - there is a lack of randomness to the way everything is set. I can see stage hand setting everything down and withdrawing. Nothing is quite touching or overlapped like it was set down so there had to be room for the people carrying it to stand around it. There is an unconcience aligning of the items like you place furniture in a room or set tools on a bench. Look how the debris just goes right up to the hall or ally opening on the far side and ends in a perfect neat line. It does not extend into the sheltered floor a little the way it would if the pieces were fluttering down through the air. The debris looks dumped on top of that furniture by the car. It is concentrated in the middle instead of being drifted against one side or the other.
[ edited by gravid on Apr 7, 2002 10:58 AM ]
posted on April 7, 2002 11:10:31 AM new
I don't doubt that the people in the picture are dead- no matter how they got there.
But judging by their wounds, I believe they are some of the people executed by the PLO as collaborators.
The PLO dragged dozens out into the street and shot them in the face/head. No trial, no evidence, no mercy. These are the same folks some what to allow to form a state right next to Israel.
At this satge, it would be like giving the Mafia a homeland in New york.
posted on April 7, 2002 11:25:30 AM new
I do this kind of imagery for a living; touch-ups, corrections, etc. Some customers want a series of images from different photos to go into one photo for their product line, that sort of thing.
In the photo of the man next to his dead "brother and mother", brother and mother belong in the picture. However, it is very liekly that the living man has been cut and pasted into the picture.
I can tell, because the dead man and woman blend in normally with the surrounding room and other objects. However, the live man shows artificial feathering - blending done by software on a cut and paste, and it didn't do a great job at that (probably an amature using Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro).
Of the picture where the man is looking over his slain family, that seems to be all in order.
posted on April 7, 2002 11:45:29 AM new
If the living guy was pasted in, these folks are not only dishonest, but stupid. There is no reason to paste a living person into the picture.
For that matter, the photographer could just grab anyone and have him/her sit in for the picture with the dead bodies.
posted on April 7, 2002 01:04:59 PM new
NearTheSea, the events in that book have been independantly verified by many reliable sources since it came out -- not just another RT fantasy.
posted on April 7, 2002 01:07:29 PM new" There is no reason to paste a living person into the picture."
If it is a cut and paste, the reason would be to evoke sympathy for the living man grieving over his dead brother and mother. The picture was taken previously by a photographer and only later, the "Wag the Dog" planners decided to "heighten" the photo. That would be my guess.
posted on April 7, 2002 04:07:38 PM new
ok so I read it.
I watch Fox as TV news, and love the O'Reilly Factor. Before you cringe this guy has blasted Bush on his show, and shows no mercy, to either 'side' if they are wrong.
I see a lot of former CNN reporters going to Fox.
But no, I don't rely on the TV for my news, but mostly radio. I have always been a radio junkie
posted on April 7, 2002 08:00:08 PM new
No my feelings have not changed. I support Israel 100%. When I was of military age I served in the IDF (Golani unit). Unlike the armchair generals here who base their opinions on Internet web sites, I got my information firsthand.
What would happen if you lived in LA and woke up one day to find a group of militant Mexicans had declared war on LA? That fundamentalist extremists believed the only way to right the wrongs of the Mexican-American war were to strap explosives to themselves and blow themselves up in the middle of Hollywood? Would you feel that negotiations - trading part of LA for a guarantee of peace - was the correct response? Somehow I doubt it.
If you don't believe Israel has a fundamental right to exist, then there's nothing to talk about. Yes, a small minority of ultra-orthodox Zionists have built settlements in disputed territories. That can be negotiated. Note that these territories are only disputed because Israel has agreed to give land for a Palestinian state. But is that any excuse for the decades of war and murderous terrorism that Israel has endured? No.
I spoke with an Israeli woman the other day who told me that a suicide bomber struck five minutes from her home in Jerusalem, followed by another suicide bomber five minutes in another direction. Face it, if this happened in the U.S. you armchair generals would be screaming for blood.
Arafat is a murderer and always has been. His attempt to "go political" isn't fooling anyone. Bush & Co. know exactly who is behind the money and the attacks. As I posted long ago when Bush started bragging, his war on terrorism extends only to America's borders. To quote Mr. T, "I pity the fool." America isn't helping Israel, it is holding Israel's arms while the Arabs do the beating. No one in their right mind would fault Israel for its response to daily terrorist attacks.
The idea that Israel would give up the Golan Heights for a promise of peace from the Arabs is ludicrous. The Golan is and has been the perfect place to launch mortar attacks on northern Jewish settlements. Suggesting a so-called peace on those terms is a joke.
Thanks for the article. It wasn't boring, but perhaps it is too challenging for folks who base their opinions on ignorance. I do feel sympathy for Palestinians, especially the children who are being raised by their "government" to be suicide bombers.
posted on April 7, 2002 08:23:54 PM new
NearTheSea, I'm not trying to beat you over the head. I wanted to bring you up to date a bit. Thank you for looking at those articles. I was going to give you one more right now, but I won't, seeing as how your good nature is showing through. It was just a link to a book review on the guy who was the GOP's Golden Boy in writing books that bashed Clinton and now, has written a book, confessing how they (the Republican Party) outright lied about Clinton in order to smear him. Interesting reading.
posted on April 7, 2002 08:57:05 PM new
Twin- Do you agree that if the right conditions existed that the only solution for lasting peace is a homeland for the Palestinians ?
I can't see a lasting peace unless a homeland is established, or better put, there must be peace before a homeland is established. It would seem that a Palestinian homeland has to be on the agenda at some point.
The alternative seems to be to push the all the Palestinians out of Israel into Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Would this be a better solution ? It seems that this would cause more problems than it would solve.
Can Israel's economy work without Palestinian laborers ?
posted on April 7, 2002 11:21:38 PM new
Say what you will about this military operation - there have been no suicide bombings sonce it started - and I bet the Israeli population has noticed that also.
posted on April 8, 2002 03:32:16 AM new
The entire situation is Israel's own fault.
Instead of annihilating the Palestinians when they had the chance and they were relatively few in number they allowed them to procreate and prosper until they number in the millions.
Israel made them, now Israel can just give them a home; or Israel can simply kill all of them. Either way there will be peace in the region.
posted on April 8, 2002 09:14:46 AM newDo you agree that if the right conditions existed that the only solution for lasting peace is a homeland for the Palestinians ?
From a strictly humanitarian viewpoint, Palestinians "deserve" a homeland as much as anyone. Problem is, can peace be achieved by trading land? Dividing Jerusalem in two would put a knife at the throat of Israel, as we saw in the 1967 war. Giving the Golan to Hezbollah wouldn't create peace; in fact, it would guarantee more terror. The logical, defensible borders are the Negev desert in the south, Jordan river in the east and Golan Heights in the north.
Forget about the Palestinians. They are merely a political tool for Syria and the other Arab nations. As you observe, Israeli Arabs live better than any other Arab nationals. Unfortunately, the rest of the Arab world sees them only as pawns on a chess board.
Would this be a better solution ?
Before there can be unilateral peace, the Arab nations must accept and demonstrate support for Israel's right to exist. Right now the Arab nations are attempting to gain politically what they have failed to do militarily. Without that clear demonstration, what does Israel have to gain by giving up land?
As long as America is dependent on Arab oil, we lack the strength to enforce a real peace.
Can Israel's economy work without Palestinian laborers ?
Israel's economy is based heavily on Palestinian laborers. Just like California's economy is based on Mexican workers. Many of the poorest, including Palestinians and many immigrants, are uneducated. Although Palestinians enjoy political freedoms (in comparison to other Arab states) it's not surprising they are jealous of what educated European Jews have accomplished. Culturally, the Palestinians trail Israel by a thousand years.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
, to speak of a "cycle of violence" is to conjure up a Hatfield-McCoy type of feud between equally irrational parties.
this guy has blasted Bush on his show, and shows no mercy, to either 'side' if they are wrong.