posted on August 20, 2005 04:48:05 AM new
1) Not paid any attention to anything that I have said
or
2) Simply dismissed it as something that strays to far from your comfort zone.
Or how about,
3) We are just not swayed to your point of view?
Youre such an expert at psychoanalyzing people of what their comfort zone is!! You've had way too many therapy sessions!
Your whole argument is the Palestinians can do whatever they find is necessary to win this 'war', and that is acceptable and even somehow passable/forgivable by your 'standards'. (Fn' robin hood syndrome you've got going on that you apply to illegals, terrorists, taxes, duties, on and on..) But somehow the other party involved, which happens to be the reigning authority, (the Israeli Government) should sit back and do nothing while their innocent people get blown up on buses, in the middle of shopping centers, at their schools - wherever.
I have often thought Israel should give them Gaza. Now they've done that - and your comfort zone, dear robin hood, is still trying to incite anger, further lament over past fighting they've BOTH done by still trying to paint Israel out to be the bad guys just so you can foster your complex.
posted on August 20, 2005 06:32:32 AM new
::Your whole argument is the Palestinians can do whatever they find is necessary to win this 'war', and that is acceptable and even somehow passable/forgivable by your 'standards'.::
Please find ANYWHERE in this post where I have stated that acts of terrorism are justifiable.
I have said NOTHING about the Palestinian actions and certainly have made no attempts to justify them. That has not only has not been "whole arguement", it's not even been part of the discussion.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 20, 2005 06:39:02 AM new
Supporters of Israel are quick to point out that suicide bombers kill civilians. What in the hell do you think Israel has been doing for the last 35 years? Killing Palestinian Civilians with U.S. billions and arms.
posted on August 20, 2005 07:06:54 AM new
LOL!! fenixm you VERY clearly state your 'feelings' about it right here:
It's only natural that when you have two goups that both bahaving badly but only one ever catches hell that eventually people are going to start feeling for them.,,
Then you swirl it around to try to attach some reason to it:
Look... the Paestinians are not without blame but trying to hand it all to them is like saying that the Hatfield and the McCoys was a one sided issue. There are two countries behaving badly but for some reason, we seem to be blind to one sides actions.
Wtf is blind to one side's actions? It's YOU! By your own true admission of your unbiased and 'naturally' evolving robin hood feelings.
And by what definition do you see the Palestinians as the only ones catching hell?
Your sympathy lies with the palestinians and your FULL OF IT to try to pass off now that it doesnt.
.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Aug 20, 2005 07:09 AM ]
posted on August 20, 2005 07:34:41 AM new
Although I sympathize with the poor people who are now losing their homes, I can also appreciate the plight of the Palestinians who lost theirs 35 years ago. Why should Palestinians concede territory which was originally theirs to accommodate the Israelis.
posted on August 20, 2005 08:42:36 AM new
Dbl - Isreal killed 15 people, injured 150 more and left all of those injured and more homeless and the world response was a milding scolding so you can believe what ever you want but the only country that pays a heavy price for their actions is Palestine and those are the actions of individuals. Apparently in you mind it's ok to act like a terrorist as long as you won an election.
The big difference that I see in our opinions as stated here is that I have comdemned the actions of both sides and you only see one as being wrong so here is my question... a couple weeks ago a single Israeli AWOL soldier opened fire and killed Palestinians on the street, this past week an Israeli bus driver grabbed a gun from a security guard and started shooting Palestinian riders on his bus killing 3 or 4. Do you feel that Palestinian government would be justified in taking action against Israel in response to these actions or is that something that you excuse only Israel for doing?
Is what is good for the goose, good for the gander or have does Israel somehow have special rights that other do not. If you can excuse Isreal for doing something that you would not excuse another country for then you are holding Israel to seperate standard which has been my entire point here.
No matter how much you guys want to right my opinion off as just being pro arab, that's much too simplistic and not even close to being accurate. My point is that both countries must be held to THE SAME standards.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Aug 20, 2005 08:46 AM ]
posted on August 20, 2005 09:08:05 AM new
fenix - Again, for me, I see that while you point out the Human Rights group and the 'world' as you call it were against the Israel actions in July 2002....what I believe you FAIL to realize is that attack was against the second in control/command of the Hamas terror group.
Israeli soldiers were going after HIM in that strike....[b]a terrorist who was KNOWN to be the instigator behind SEVERAL of the attacks on innocent Israeli citizens. So....they took him out. That's what war is all about....taking out your enemies. And he was quite a catch.
Yes, he, his wife, his children and his body guard were taken out. TOO BAD. They're terrorists. No sympathy from me. Terrorist just keep killing. Now at at least, he was eliminated. The fact that a total of 15 were killed and close to a hundred were injured is just part of war. Hanging around/living around known terrorists isn't a safe thing to do. It's stupid.
The Human Rights groups you mention are ALWAYS against anything the US or Israel do. That's a fact. But rarely do we hear them putting down the terrorists who START this crap. Only when their actions receive retaliation do we hear them whining. The liberals need to look to who started the fighting....not who fought back.
Yes, it's said IF there are innocents that are killed. But the terrorist the Israel army was going after in 7-02 sure as heck didn't care one tiny bit about all the innocents his planning and actions that murdered innocent Israel citizens caused. And they were just riding a bus...or going about their daily activites...or sitting at a cafe have a cup of coffee...whatever.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 20, 2005 09:28:17 AM new
Now dblfogger9 is upset because I showed once again how she/he,he/she and Linda_K always fail and get caught at lies and twisted truths.
A much better heading for Linda_K post would be
HOW MUCH MORE CAN BUSH/CHENEY/ROVE HURT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY YES!!!
posted on August 20, 2005 09:29:08 AM new
::what I believe you FAIL to realize is that attack was against the second in control/command of the Hamas terror group.::
You two really don't read so you? I have REPEATEDLY said that this type of action is taken to remove a single individual so I don't understand why you thin might not realize that. I've relized that from the beginning and stated it many times. I've also stated, I think trhis will be the third time in this thread. that I do not believe that the Isreali military lacks the training or ability to have made a more targeted attack that would not have resulted in so much death injury and homelessness.
As for the car attack - are you telling me that you don't believe that car could have been destroyed with a single missile and that SEVEN was completely justified? You seem to be ignoring that I didn't disagree with the bombing of the car, I disagreed with the overkill involved which killed innocent people.
Also, I didn't "mention" a human rights group Linda. That article from one was just the first one I came upon that was in regards to that bombing, the next one I found was from a Shia website, should I have posted that one instead?
BTW - can you answer the same question I posed to Dbl? Would Palestine be justified in point making attack on Isreal in repsponse to the killing of their citizens that were simply shopping or riding a bus or is that a right that you give only to Israel? Do you hold both countries to the same standards of behavior?
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Aug 20, 2005 09:30 AM ]
posted on August 20, 2005 10:05:25 AM new
fenix - The part that you copied and pasted was FROM the Human Rights website.
It has been a long held observation for me that those who get so upset about casualities happening to those around these terrorists who are being hunted down is just part of what happens. Some expect a group of armed soldiers to walk right into the middle of a terrorist section of town and take the man by himself. Most of the time in war that's just not possible. It not only costs more lives on the part of the Israeli's but they'd be fighting the whole darn neighborhood too. So, attacking by air spares more of their own lives....I agree with doing whatever they HAVE to do to get Hama's terrorist leaders like that one, while not losing any more of their own soldiers. Again....not a drop of sympathy coming from me.
On those who the Israeli shot. No, of course I don't agree nor support those actions. But I also didn't read that the Israeli who shot them was some 2nd in command leader of the Israeli troops either. Sounded to me like just an angry person period. Not one planning and carrying out terrorists attacks against their enemies....like the Hamas leader was doing/had been doing for a very long time. Not just one incident is what I'm saying.
We certainly can understand, at this point in time why it happens from both sides.
But I do believe that Israel has tried MUCH harder to work out some sort of piece than have the Palestinians.
bbl
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on August 20, 2005 10:27:05 AM new
Fenix, I think you've done a terrific job of explaining yourself.
"Although I sympathize with the poor people who are now losing their homes, I can also appreciate the plight of the Palestinians who lost theirs 35 years ago. Why should Palestinians concede territory which was originally theirs to accommodate the Israelis."
That's what I feel too, Helen.
Double, quit leaving me in limbo, you game-playing blockhead!
posted on August 20, 2005 10:36:38 AM new
::fenix - The part that you copied and pasted was FROM the Human Rights website.::
Isn't that what I said? That the first link I could find was from that group but since the second was off a Shi'a site I went with option A. The point was not reaction of the group, the point to give you a recollection of the type of attack I was referring to when I talked about airstrikes on apartment buildings.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on August 20, 2005 10:49:51 AM new
Thanks Krafty
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
Human Rights Watch is dedicated to protecting the human rights of people around the world.
We stand with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice.
We investigate and expose human rights violations and hold abusers accountable.
We challenge governments and those who hold power to end abusive practices and respect international human rights law.
We enlist the public and the international community to support the cause of human rights for all.
Human Rights Watch is an independent, nongovernmental organization, supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly.
WHO - More than 150 dedicated professionals work for Human Rights Watch around the world. We are lawyers, journalists, academics, and country experts of many nationalities and diverse backgrounds. We often join forces with human rights groups from other countries to further our common goals. A growing cadre of volunteers supports us.
WHAT - Human Rights Watch is the largest human rights organization based in the United States. Human Rights Watch researchers conduct fact-finding investigations into human rights abuses in all regions of the world. Human Rights Watch then publishes those findings in dozens of books and reports every year, generating extensive coverage in local and international media. This publicity helps to embarrass abusive governments in the eyes of their citizens and the world. Human Rights Watch then meets with government officials to urge changes in policy and practice -- at the United Nations, the European Union, in Washington and in capitals around the world. In extreme circumstances, Human Rights Watch presses for the withdrawal of military and economic support from governments that egregiously violate the rights of their people. In moments of crisis, Human Rights Watch provides up-to-the-minute information about conflicts while they are underway. Refugee accounts, which were collected, synthesized and cross-corroborated by our researchers, helped shape the response of the international community to recent wars in Kosovo and Chechnya.
WHEN - Human Rights Watch started in 1978 as Helsinki Watch, to monitor the compliance of Soviet bloc countries with the human rights provisions of the landmark Helsinki Accords. In the 1980's, Americas Watch was set up to counter the notion that human rights abuses by one side in the war in Central America were somehow more tolerable than abuses by the other side. The organization grew to cover other regions of the world, until all the "Watch" committees were united in 1988 to form Human Rights Watch.
WHERE - Human Rights Watch is based in New York, with offices in Brussels, London, Moscow, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tashkent, Toronto, and Washington. We often set up temporary offices in regions where we're conducting intensive investigations, and our researchers regularly travel to the countries they cover, unless security concerns prevent it. In cyberspace, Human Rights Watch is located at www.hrw.org. Human Rights Watch tracks developments in more than 70 countries around the world. We also follow issues in women's rights, children's rights, and the flow of arms to abusive forces. Other special projects include academic freedom, the human rights responsibilities of corporations, international justice, prisons, drugs, and refugees. Any and all parties to conflict may find themselves the target of Human Rights Watch. We have exposed abuses by governments and rebels; by Hutu and Tutsi; by Serb, Croat, Bosniak Muslim, and Kosovar Albanian; by Israelis and Palestinians; by Christians and Muslims in the islands of Indonesia and the sands of the Sudan. We frequently call on the United States to support human rights in its foreign policy -- but we also report on human rights abuse inside the United States, such as prison conditions, police abuse, the detention of immigrants, and the death penalty.
WHY - Human Rights Watch believes that international standards of human rights apply to all people equally, and that sharp vigilance and timely protest can prevent the tragedies of the twentieth century from recurring. At Human Rights Watch, we remain convinced that progress can be made when people of good will organize themselves to make it happen.
Some examples:
We successfully led an international coalition to press for the adoption of a treaty banning the use of child soldiers. Currently, as many as 300,000 children are serving in armies and rebel forces around the world. The treaty raises the minimum age for participation in armed conflict to eighteen.
We and our partner organizations in the International Campaign to Ban Landmines won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for our work campaigning against this indiscriminate weapon. The mine-ban treaty was approved more quickly than any big multilateral treaty in history.
We were among the first to call for an international war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and have worked extensively with the tribunal's investigators and prosecutors. Six of the seven counts on which the tribunal finally indicted Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in 1999 were cases that Human Rights Watch had documented in Kosovo.
We have provided extensive evidence of human rights abuses to the war crimes tribunal for Rwanda, where the genocide in 1994 killed more than half a million people. Our expert testimony and legal analysis have helped convict several genocidaires.
We played an active role in the legal action against former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in London and helped to buttress the important principle that even former heads of state can be held accountable for the most heinous human rights crimes. The "Pinochet precedent" has established that dictators who block their prosecution at home can be tried anywhere in the world. Human Rights Watch is also leading a global campaign so that all countries ratify the treaty for a permanent international criminal court, to prosecute those accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
We began reporting on human rights abuses in Kosovo in 1990. As Yugoslav stepped up their campaign of terror there, our up-to-the-minute reports helped to shape opinion and mobilize a response.
HOW - The hallmark and pride of Human Rights Watch is the even-handedness and accuracy of our reporting. To maintain our independence, we do not accept financial support from any government or government-funded agency. We depend entirely on contributions from private foundations and from individuals like you. Please join thousands of other concerned global citizens in supporting the work of Human Rights Watch.
Together, we can make a difference.
So, linda...How can you object to this human rights organization????
posted on August 20, 2005 01:55:26 PM new
Yes, helen....I already understand that if ANY International group, of ANY kind, accuses the US of ANY thing...you agree with them...not your own country. That's LONG been understood.
-------------------
This op-ed piece is written by a man I've had very high regard for, for many years.
Here's how HE sees this situation now.
---
townhall.com
Israeli withdrawal is correct and necessary.
Charles Krauthammer August 19, 2005
WASHINGTON --
The Israeli abandonment of Gaza is a withdrawal of despair. Unlike the Oslo concessions of 1993, there is not even the pretense of getting anything in return from the Palestinians.
Nonetheless, unilateralism is both correct and necessary. Israel has no peace partner -- Mahmoud Abbas has nothing to offer and has offered nothing -- and in the absence of a partner, there is only one logical policy: rationalize your defensive lines and prepare for a long wait.
Gaza was simply a bridge too far: settlements too far-flung and small to justify the huge psychological and material cost of defending them. Pulling out of Gaza leaves behind the first truly independent Palestinian state -- uncontrolled and highly militant -- but one from which Israel is fenced off.
If Israel can complete its West Bank fence, it will have established a stable equilibrium and essentially abolished terrorism as a regular and reliable means of attack -- i.e., as a usable strategic weapon. That will leave the Palestinians a stark choice: remain in their state of miserable militancy with no prospects of victory, or finally accept the Jewish state and make a deal.
That is Israel's strategy. There are two problems with it: What about the rockets? What about the world?
The first problem is that while the fences do prevent terrorist infiltration, they do nothing about rockets. For months, Palestinians have been firing rockets from Gaza into towns within Israel proper. The attacks are momentarily in suspension, but with the enhanced ability to smuggle in weapons from Egypt and with no Israeli patrols looking for them, the attacks will resume and get far worse.
What to do? Something Israel should have done long ago: active and relentless deterrence. Israel should announce that henceforth, any rocket launched from Palestinian territory will immediately trigger a mechanically automatic response in which five Israeli rockets will be fired back. There will be no human intervention in the loop. Every Palestinian rocket landing in Israel will instantly trigger sensors and preset counter-launchers. Any Palestinian terrorist firing up a rocket will know that he is triggering six: one Palestinian and five Israeli.
Israel would decide how these five would be preprogrammed to respond. Perhaps three aimed at the launch site and vicinity, and two at a list of predetermined military and strategic assets of the Palestinian militias.
This new policy would echo, though in far more benign form, America's Cold War deterrence policy of ``massive retaliation." That was all somewhat theoretical, but the Soviets apparently thought otherwise when they backed down during the Cuban missile crisis. In Gaza, the issue is not theoretical. Once Israel leaves, there is no way to dismantle the rockets. Deterrence is all there is. After but a few Israeli demonstrations of ``non-massive retaliation,΄΄ the Palestinians themselves will shut down their terrorist rocketeers.
The second problem is world reaction to the Gaza withdrawal. Far from Israel getting any credit for this deeply wrenching action, the demand now is for yet more concessions -- from Israel. The New York Times called the Gaza withdrawal ``only the beginning΄΄ and declared sonorously that Ariel Sharon ``must also be forewarned΄΄ that giving up the West Bank must be next.
This is a counsel of folly. The idea that if only Israel made more concessions and more withdrawals, the Palestinians will be enticed into making peace is flatly contradicted by history.
We are not talking ancient history here; we are talking the last 12 years. Under Oslo, Israel made massive, near-suicidal concessions: bringing the PLO back to life, installing Yasser Arafat in power in the West Bank and Gaza, permitting him to arm militia after militia, and ultimately offering him (at Camp David 2000) the first Palestinian state in history, with a shared Jerusalem and total Israeli withdrawal from 95 percent of the formerly occupied territories (with Israel giving up some of its own territory to make the Palestinians whole).
How were these concessions met? With a savage terror war that killed 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more.
The Gaza withdrawal is not the beginning but the end. Apart from perhaps some evacuations of outlying settlements on the West Bank, it is the end of the concession road for Israel. And it is the beginning of the new era of self-sufficiency and separation in which Israel ensures its security not by concessions, but by fortification, barrier creation, realism and patient waiting.
Waiting for the first-ever genuine Palestinian concessions. Waiting for the Palestinians to honor the promises -- to recognize Israel and renounce terrorism -- they solemnly made at Oslo and brazenly betrayed.
That's the next step. Without it, nothing happens.
Washington Post Writers Group
Contact Charles Krauthammer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Aug 20, 2005 02:00 PM ]
posted on August 20, 2005 04:40:04 PM new
The Who, What, Where, When and Why sounds great, the How part doesn't say HOW they are going to enforce all these humanitarian things,if the gov't is corrupt, then how are they going to enforce the age of military engagement, on countries that USE children in war?
posted on August 20, 2005 04:42:14 PM new
No Linda - I did read what you said, I was just a bit incredulous after reading some of his concepts and wanted to confirm it.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
and the 'world' as you call it were against the Israel actions in July 2002....what I believe you FAIL to realize is that attack was against the second in control/command of the Hamas terror group.
