Iran gives $50million to Hamas, who in turn supports Islamic Jihad's killing of 9

Seeker:

W-o-r-l-d......o-p-i-n-i-o-n......b-e......d-a-m-n-e-d......I-t......o-n-l-y......m-a-t-t-e-r-s......t-o......p-e-o-p-l-e......l-i-k-e......y-o -u.

People like me? Non-Jews? Men over 30? University educated? What am I exactly, Seeker?

There is a distinct difference between me "denouncing" world opinion, which I have not done, and me saying that it simply does not matter

LOL! Let me pull up a chair while you explain how saying "I denounce world opinion" and "I believe world opinion does not matter" is different. Ahaha!

You're saying that you agree with world opinion but just think it doesn't matter? Or you DISAGREE with it AND it doesn't matter? Please explain.

Umm, no, your simply more of a "fan" and supporter of the Palestinian suicide bombers and there continued acts of terrorism upon innocent civilains than I am.

Well obviously, right? I mean, if I disagree with anything that Israel has ever done, I must be a pro-Arab brainwashed shill, right?

What, no anti-semitic insult? You're slipping.

What I believe is that RESISTANCE to ILLEGAL MILITARY OCCUPATION is a right. That's it. If the Russians invaded my country tomorrow, I would resist. With every breath in my body.

You would help them, I guess? Or just move to Israel and nevermind them?


Does this mean I support any and all means of resistance? Of course not. There's legitimate resistance and non-legitimate. Legally. According to International Law and basic human morality.

But why do I bother saying it. Everything is black and white with you. Well, I'm on the side with the white hats. Sorry you had to realize it so late in the game.


jako





[edit on 20-4-2006 by Jakomo]

Originally posted by chinawhite

War on terror is fascinating. You called it terrorism i call it guerilla warfare. The US does not have a right to tell the world what is right or wrong.

Why doesn't the US have the right to tell the world what is right or wrong? Everybody tells everyone else what's right and what's wrong. Japan yells at China, Korea yells at Japan, Mexico yells at Cuba, Cuba yells at the US, Spain yells at Morocco....on and on and on.

China stole Tibet, Russia stole most Eastern Europe, Britain, France, Germany, Italy....on and on again countries have taken other countries.

You know what the US wants. OIL! The US doesn't want Iraq, Iran, or any other country. The US is fine. The US wants OIL to run the economic dynamo it is, which in turn keeps the global economy moving.

The US had to fight communism, and now it's getting mixed up with terrorists...The US HAS TO make statements, they are global leaders. They have a responsibility to say what's right and what's wrong. The rest of the world doesn't have to listen and if they are in the right they can muster the international community to back them. Right now the US is going to have to cave to Global Warming issues, because they are wrong. But they have every right to voice concerns over Iran. Every country should voice concerns over Iran and they are including China and Russia.

I think US bashing has it's place at times, but I also think a lot of nonsense is said out of jealousy or in order to just demonize the US. The US is a mix of people and races...yelling at the US is yelling at everyone on this planet.

Originally posted by Jakomo
People like me? Non-Jews? Men over 30? University educated? What am I exactly, Seeker?

A Canadian citizen?

LOL! Let me pull up a chair while you explain how saying "I denounce world opinion" and "I believe world opinion does not matter" is different. Ahaha!

You failed to answer the last question that went along with the ones that you selectively choose to answer. I will ask it again: Do you have access to a dictionary? I have not "denounced" world opinion on the matter at hand. A better choice of word would be 'dismissed.'

You're saying that you agree with world opinion but just think it doesn't matter? Or you DISAGREE with it AND it doesn't matter? Please explain.

I have already explained myself enough in relation to what I implied and that you seem to be confusing:

Originally posted by seekerof
Does it really matter what the "whole non-Jewish" world thinks?
Anyhow, are they (the "whole non-Jewish" world) living through what the average Palestinian or Israeli has to endure day-in-day out? You place way tooooooo much credit and emphasis on 'world opinion.' When it comes to a struggle for life or death, be they Palestinians or Israeli, 'world opinion' be damned, especially when it is not your life or state on the line.

Well obviously, right? I mean, if I disagree with anything that Israel has ever done, I must be a pro-Arab brainwashed shill, right?

This is immaterial and irrelevant to what I stated.

What, no anti-semitic insult? You're slipping.

Is this the best that you can do in answering or refuting what I asked or mention? There is no one "slipping" here but you.

What I believe is that RESISTANCE to ILLEGAL MILITARY OCCUPATION is a right. That's it. If the Russians invaded my country tomorrow, I would resist. With every breath in my body.

And so, then, in resisting that so-called "illegial occupation," you support and advocate the continued use of suicide bombers on innocent civilains and acts of terrorism?

You would help them, I guess? Or just move to Israel and nevermind them?

Help who? I do not advocate nor support Palestinian acts of terrorism via suicide bombers, especially against innocent civilains. If those acting "in self-defence" wannabe martyr Palestinian suicide bombers were actual 'freedom fighters' as you so deem and claim that they are, they would not be attacking innocent civilains, they would be attacking legitimate military and political targets.

Does this mean I support any and all means of resistance? Of course not. There's legitimate resistance and non-legitimate. Legally. According to International Law and basic human morality.

Care to explain what are legitimate and non-legitimate resistances, in respect to the Palestinians?





seekerof

[edit on 20-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Atomic
Why doesn't the US have the right to tell the world what is right or wrong? Everybody tells everyone else what's right and what's wrong. Japan yells at China, Korea yells at Japan, Mexico yells at Cuba, Cuba yells at the US, Spain yells at Morocco....on and on and on.

Because the US is not a knight in shining armour. Kids are taught the difference between right or wrong. Your making a strawman accusation with comparisons to other countries.

Why isnt the US named as a terrorist country?. The US named itself the arsenal of demoracy and because other countries dont make boast like that and like one member here said before, held to a higher standard.

Yet when one forces another country its called aggression. Why not let hitler take over poland or the USSR take over eastern europe. Why must US actions be cased as freedom while other countries

China stole Tibet

Well,

Ill be waiting for edvidence on that one. But what land is the US using.?

The US had to fight communism, and now it's getting mixed up with terrorists..

Whats so bad about communism?

The US fights because its benifical for the US. Not for the world. Why did they fight communism?. Because it threatened the US. The US preaches human rights to every country it hates while it commits them itself.

I think US bashing has it's place at times. The US is a mix of people and races...yelling at the US is yelling at everyone on this planet.

US bashing?.

How many black presidents has the US ever had?

and is this the same US of A where millions of migrants were protesting againest immigration laws?

Why does the US have to be a "knight" to be able to say what they want? Other countries don't have to listen to the US and usually don't. I'd think every country in this world would have to shut up then if we go by your logic. Strawman accusation...I don't understand how that applies. Every country, every day, makes "policy" by telling other countries what they do and don't like about their country.

How does not electing a black president make the US bad? There's black people in all sorts of power in the US. Black people in the US are some of the wealthiest and most educated in the world. Most people in the US want a black president in the US: Colin Powell but he doesn't want to run.

Immigration protests? I'm not following your logic on this one...are you saying protests are wrong? The US has a right to kick out people who are there illegally...every country does this. The US has to play by different rules? The amazing thing is that legal and illegal citizens protested at those marches, no one was arrested, nobody started a riot. The US people allow this to happen because they know what its like to want a better life, but they also know that there's no way someone should get a free pass and live off the system that the legal citizens worked so hard to build.

The US fights because it's beneficial for the US? C'mon...didn't they go into Bosnia? Somalia? The US can't win, their damned if they do or damned if they don't. The US people usually demand that when they send their people into a war that it better be in the US best interest. Why would you send your people off to get killed in a war that nobody wanted you in?

China didn't steal Tibet? Whoa. How did they get it then...did Tibet sell themselves to China for free?

The US had every right to take out the Taliban in Afghanistan...

The US had little right to go into Iraq. But like I said, people can say whatever they want, the US is there for the oil. If the price of oil skyrockets or is cut off, the US and most of the world would fall apart. I'm sorry, but how is an economy going to function without oil? Iraq made that mistake and threatend the oil supply. The US has no interest in the Middle East other than oil. The US' actions are not Hitler-ish as much as they are basic superpower need to keep its appetite fed for oil. The US does not want Iraq, the US people don't want to stay in Iraq, so your comparison to Hitler I don't get. Saddam Hussein admired Hitler, so are you saying the US did the right thing by invading Iraq? Didn't Hussein invade Kuwait?


Communism sucks. First it doesn't work. Second it requires a police state. Third it demands you worship the state. Human beings don't like cages. China knows this and loosened things up. Russia loosened too much and is now reigning it in. Even the US has a degree of communism in it's union work force...but overall communism restricts the evolution of economies and people's ideas.

I think the US is the best "empire" this world has seen. Is it always right...no. But if the US wasn't there, then China would be next in line and then they would start pulling strings around the world. It never ends. I'd rather have the US than China. But don't worry the US will end someday, all empires do, people get lazy, and other countries get hungry to dethrone them. Maybe Russia makes a comeback or the EU gets it together...or maybe Australia takes in the best and the brightest from the US and the world, and it becomes a superpower.

The battle comes down to this: Choose someone like Iran or choose the US. Choose the Taliban or choose the US. Communism or the US. Sounds like you are for the non-US side. I'm not. The US is a bully, but it's the bully I like versus some of the thugs that are trying to run this world. Hopefully the EU can temper the US power and help keep a better balance. We'll see.

Atomic,

Im saying the US has not right to take the moral high ground like accusing other countries of human rights abuses while itself has a number of them. The US goes into a country like afganistan or sudan acussing them to act smart, "act american". Its not ranting the americans are doing they are forcing people to change. You think all i care about is what the US government rants about?. Sanctions, UN resolutions about human rights abuses trying to change a countries system. Afganistani people didn't want change, they want to have their muslim ideals and i respect that, The US on the other hand says they know a better way and forces them to change their culture. We could go into who has a better society or culture but its your perception of their situation that matters. You see them as a America, I see them as a Australian while they see themselves, as themselves

About black people and immigration problems. I am saing the inequality of wealth between minrioties and white americans. New immigrants in the US get the lowest paid jobs while working on the hardest ones. I am refering to a rant someone was making out of mexicans working at a subway near them. "They dont even speak english", "learn our language". "I ordered two and he gave me three" . About the problems having migrants in the US. I saw that thread to late to respond to it so i didn't there.

The people that were protesting were AMERICANS. or are there different classes or american people?

What the funny thing is, the US was founded on immigration. Isn't at the bottom of the statue of liberty something like, we'll take your hungery, we'll take your poor. Yet this country is not accepting this promise, looking down on new immigrants either legal or illegal

The US fights because it's beneficial for the US?

Since 9/11 it seems like the world has let america do anything it wanted until the invasion of iraq. Hey some muslims attacked us and now lets invade afganistan. What international law was the US attack on afganistan based on?. Or another dmoestic law that allows america to do anything it wants?. They have domestic laws that cover any american pocession. Some law the US have is a 200km no fly zone around its carriers. Why doesn't any other country have the same rights.

I had had a disscussion about the EP-3 incident with china and the americans wanted to allowed to fly in chinese airspace even though chinese planes couldn't fly in american airspace. The americans after signing a agreement with the international community made a domestic law (which created the ADIZ) which it said it needed but other countries couldn't have one. Now america gets special treatment

China didn't steal Tibet? Whoa.

Well, I could be a smart ass and refer you to the TREATY china signed with tibet in 1951 but i rather not and describe it more.

Chinese is a very vague term to describe the people that live in the PRC. Ill use china so no one gets confused. In china its not called the PRC its called the middle kingdom and always been known by chinese as the middle kingdom. China has 56 main ethnic groups with Han chinese being the dominant culture. But collectivly refered to as chinese.

The mongols actually were the ones which got tibet. But more incorprated it into the empire though a treaty signed instead of a actual battle. But one could even argue tibetians and mongolians are the same people but developed in different ways. In my opinoin look exactly the same. But was done by the mongolians instead of what the west would refer to chinese as

The Qing dynasty then conqured tibet for china again. And when they broke up china then founded the republic of china and according to the sucession of states had all the right to re-claim all the land belonging to the Qing dynasty. Then the KMT and CCP were fighting over it having succed the first ROC had right to claim tibet which the CCP got and made them sign a treaty stating that fact. There are many references to the fact that the tibetians still honured chinese rule even making the KMT give money when the new dalai lama was elected

The US does not want Iraq, the US people don't want to stay in Iraq, so your comparison to Hitler I don't get. Didn't Hussein invade Kuwait?

Hitler wanted to conquer land for resources and Lebensraum. The US is not doing it though US critzens but though a US controlled iraqi government. And no doubt in my mind that the iraqi governemnt wouldn't have some US cronies in government. The US will stay there controlling things though agents and pay-offs. I wouldn't be surprised if the US got some special prices for oil like the saudis have done

And Hussein did invade kuwait but to compare america to their level is pulling down america to their level

Communism sucks

Actually i have never met anyone which really understood communism. The communism we saw was not communism but was socialism or crazy types like stalism or maoism.But communism was never achieve but a goal to get. Karl Marx saw the situation of the workers i europe during the industrial revolution and how the workers were explioted. He came up with the idea that if the rich didn' get richer and all the wealth could be shared between workers and the masses then life would have been better.

The reason communism did so poorly was because it as for industrialized countries like britian, germany and france because the wealth was already there to share in comparison to countries like russia and china which were agricultral countries where there was less wealth and less people. Having known people which have lived in communist countries i have some idea of why it went wrong. Micro managment not enough experinece of officals. We'll bascially it was undertaken by people who knew little about running people and even less about impementing communist ideas.

Communism was a gradual process and russia and china were rushed developments. Thats why things wouldn't planned as well even though it was micro managed

Iraq made that mistake and threatend the oil supply.

The iraqis threaten american oil supplies and

The americans imposed the sanctions itself. But it was sure as hell not going to make a agreement with saddam after all the bad mouthing they did about him. So it was a natural that the americans had to form a some type of excuse to attack iraq.


Atomic, Dont take disscussion like this to personally. Im not trying to demonize americans but some americas like donald rumsfield and bush and some other policy makers. I find your post interesting but dont feel like its a attack on americans.

Seeker:

Care to explain what are legitimate and non-legitimate resistances, in respect to the Palestinians?

Well, considering the occupation is illegal, and there are very limited areas in which Palestinians can resist without getting shot at or killed, there are very few. So they do what they can. Do you protest an illegal occupation by legal means? Well, you try.

The world media mostly ignores them, they have been stripped of their dignity and pride after 30 years under the Israeli boot, so you know what, I'd have to live under that for 30 years before I could honestly say what I thought was a valid form of protest.

How do you protest your daughter getting shot in the face by an Israeli soldier? Your house being invaded and used as a sniper post for 3 days while you and your family are held in one room, not able to eat? How do you protest that?

Originally posted by Jakomo
Do you protest an illegal occupation by legal means? Well, you try.

I would say that 'yes' you can protest an illegal occupation by legal means. It takes a tremendous amount of time, patience, and Palestinian unity and willpower. For 30 odd years, the Palestinians have been using violence to end the so-deemd illegal occupation, ask yourself: Has it worked? The truth is 'no.' Thus, certainly, the Palestinians can use Gandhi, as with others, as a model and lesson?

...I'd have to live under that for 30 years before I could honestly say what I thought was a valid form of protest.

No argument from me.

How do you protest your daughter getting shot in the face by an Israeli soldier? Your house being invaded and used as a sniper post for 3 days while you and your family are held in one room, not able to eat?

As such, Jakomo, are you advocating and/or supporting the continued Palestinian, etc. acts of terrorism and suicide bombings against innocent civilains as a legal means of ending the illegal occupation? Are you advocating the very same dictum--an eye for an eye--that I said has long prevailed in the Middle East and between Palestine and Israel?

How do you protest that?

Non-violently or with as little violence as possible.

Again, Gandhi, as with others, have shown the way. Accordingly, the Palestinian people simply need the will, patience, and unity to follow it.
My reasoning for such an example, as Gandhi, is because violence only begets more violence, especially among cultures, such as the Middle Eastern cultures, were honor, blood ties, and 'an eye for an eye' are entrenched cultural dictums. I know that to you, the simple answer is for Israel to simply pack arse and get out of the Middle East or to simply abide by whatever year boundry lines. The problem is that thats not going to happen to the degree that you or the Palestinians would want.

The reality is that the best possible course of action for the Palestinians is to cease with the extreme acts of violence--suicide bombings on innocent civilains, etc. Hear me out here, Jakomo, my reasoning is thus: If the Palestinians, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. simply just stopped all violence period against Israel, and I mean completely stopped all violence, think about how much more that would lend to the Palestinian case and cause against Israel when possibly more Palestinian children are killed or maimed by an Israeli soldier or sniper or more houses are bulldozed down, etc.? Think about it, for then, world opinion could not be so easily dismissed or pushed to the side as irrelevant. In the end, it all takes time, and personally, if the Palestinians, etc. have the time (ie: 30 years+) to commit ongoing and continued acts of violence and terrorism against Israel, then they also most certainly had the time to protest the occupation through legal and peaceful means. Is it to late? IMHO, its never to late, Jakomo...







seekerof

[edit on 21-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Chinawhite...

I'll take your post for what it's worth. I don't wish to rebuttle every comment so I'll say you made sense in most of them. I think you percieve the US differently than I do. Tibet, well I think I'll just have to disagree, but I understand what you are saying.

The US is full of immigrants, but you can not allow everyone in. The funny thing is that when the US tells Mexico, Cuba, or Hati to be more US like, that everyone thinks the US is telling them how to do things. Yet people flee out of these countries to come to the US illegally. The immigrants start at the bottom? Some but others are college educated and go right to work for Microsoft. The US does not force immigrants to do hard jobs, that's how capitalism works. The skills you have or grow, says where you will end up in society. It's almost like a role playing game...the more adventures and challenges you overcome the more your hero grows. There are many powerful minorities in the US, but there will always be poor too. There are programs to get people out of being poor so people are always given 2nd,3rd, and 4th chances. You literally can become anything in the US, but being complacent is not one.

The US to me has a role to be vocal, to make statements of what is right and what is wrong. The EU, China, Russia, and the UN have a right to counter or agree with the US. I am not one that is a non-judgemental person, and if you smell a rat then you better say so. I think all of us get tired of the US govt. constant opinion on things.

The US does want governments that agree with the US. I think to what degree depends on whether there is a Democrat or Republican in control of the US government. I do not think they are anywhere close to being like Hitler, I think there is a cold war pattern of doing all they can to back a pro-US govt. in another country. Iraq will do what it wants, the US does not have the will to control that country...they just want a friend that supplies the oil and promotes human rights in that country.

As far as human rights abuse...there is some definite issues with the US. I can say almost all of it points to the CIA. They are the mafia or big stick of the US. Many people in the US distrust them and at one point there was a thought of ending it. Look who told Bush how evil Iraq was: the CIA!

Ok...too long of a post already. I think the world really is close to getting along, the US will decrease in power but must remain a pillar of the world. China is one also, as is the EU. I think Russia will come back and Australia will become one also. Iran and some other countries prefer to live in a macho era of kings and warriors. The world can't afford to shoot at each other when it comes to Nukes.

[edit on 22/4/06 by Atomic]

Interesting debate going on here.

First of all I have to say that all arguments are relative in the sense of degree so numbers do matter despite what some what to believe.

Secondly, the world opinion is a herded mentality of self delusion because when tough decisions had to be made in past and backed by even tougher actions, much of the world came up short.

While I have no sympathy for rich and powerful people and the struggles they find themselves in because they can smooth the pain with their dollars...

nobody in the world has explained why it is so important for Palestine to get everything that it wants either?

Most civilized nations in the world have some ability to control their population for the greater good but the palestinians have never been able to do this. I don't know why and I don't think that the real reasons are coming out to the light of day.

Originally posted by Atomic
Boy that didn't take long. So the West won't give Hamas anymore money. Then Iran gives $50mil and the next thing you know "Boom!" they kill 9 people in Israel. Pathetic.

I agree. Israel could have killed atleast 90 people with that amount.

Seeker:

For 30 odd years, the Palestinians have been using violence to end the so-deemd illegal occupation, ask yourself: Has it worked? The truth is 'no.'

Non-violent protest hasn't worked. The US constantly vetoes any UN resolution that even ADDRESSES the Illegal Occupation. Of course they should try harder, but Gaza and the West Bank are ENCLOSED.

How do you protest against the perpetual humiliation and gradual starvation of your people?

What's the point of a protest if nobody even sees it or pays attention to it? Unfortunately what DOES get attention is people blowing up.

Personally, I think it's indicative of what kind of choices Palestinians think they have. Live for 30 years under the boot of a foreign military, and eventually you will lose all hope and feel you've lost all dignity.

And that's what's happening.

As such, Jakomo, are you advocating and/or supporting the continued Palestinian, etc. acts of terrorism and suicide bombings against innocent civilains as a legal means of ending the illegal occupation? Are you advocating the very same dictum--an eye for an eye--that I said has long prevailed in the Middle East and between Palestine and Israel?

I am saying that they believe that it's the only option open to them. And Israel does nothing to try to convince them that ANYTHING they do will change the status quo. Of course I think it's wrong, it's murder. But tell me one other option they have to voice their protest where the world media will actually pay attention.

Hear me out here, Jakomo, my reasoning is thus: If the Palestinians, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. simply just stopped all violence period against Israel, and I mean completely stopped all violence, think about how much more that would lend to the Palestinian case and cause against Israel when possibly more Palestinian children are killed or maimed by an Israeli soldier or sniper or more houses are bulldozed down, etc.?

I agree. Many of them HAVE done that, but then one single Palestinian attacks a bus or something and Israel does what they have doing for 30 years.

COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT. Your son did this, so now we're going to bulldoze your house. We're going to arrest your husband. We're going to shell the ENTIRE AREA where the bomber came from.

The collective punishment against the Palestinians is what has made this continue for so long.

The ones who have to renounce violence are the ones with the largest capacity for violence, the Israelis. By capacity I mean the means.

One of the world's most powerful militaries has been subjugating a third world country with no army for 30 years, and you think that the onus for non-violence lies upon those who are the captives?

ALL Palestinians must renounce violence and only then can Israel negotiate? That's a crock since it's impossible. It's human nature that not all people are reasonable. So if one Palestinian decides "Eff that" an does something, the entirety of the Palestinian people are held accountable.

Does that seem fair in any way to you?


The main problem is the face that most Palestinians put on Israelis is not that of your average Israeli. It's the face of the IDF, the "Czar's Army" as they put it. And who's fault is that?





[edit on 24-4-2006 by Jakomo]

[edit on 24-4-2006 by Jakomo]