BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 08:50 PM

Hate to bring up the dreaded "Saudi Proposal" but seems that the framework within it will one day look very much like the settlement of the current fiasco...

The basis would have provided Isreal with "security" while also providing some mechanisms for dealing with the secritarian feuds if only becuase of it's regionalistic approcah...

Too bad that Bush thought he needed yet another shiney wars to keep his redneck base happy and thus... his redneck administration in power...

But lets get real here... Yeah, Bush would love to have yet another stupid shiney war to keep the NASCAR dads happy but guess what... Even the NASCAR dads ain't impressed with new and shiney wars any more... I'll tell ya what, folks... When you can't ven get the NASCAR dads to support a new and shiney war then you hav some serious problems and...

...Bush has some serious problems but...

...it is encouragin' that Bush has finally seen that NASCAR dads have lost their appitite for war and has now changed course an' looks as if he's now willin' (it's about time...) to try some diplomacy in agreein' to meet with the Iranians and the Syrians...

Hey, it beats the SOS, thank you...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:32 PM

Pssshhhhh! (rolling my eyes) It doesn't flippin' MATTER who refused what in 1948. I am not into settling old grudges here, Bearded Bruce, or proving who is nastier than whom, I'm into respecting the originally established borders of sovereign nations. Israel officially became a sovereign nation in 1948, was recognized as such by the U.N., and I believe that all sides should recognize those borders, and stick to them.

To do otherwise, to allow anyone to go past those original borders and sieze land, is to encourage whoever happens to be stronger at any given time in history to take land that isn't his by force. And you notice that's what they've all been trying to do ever since?

That cannot be allowed as an acceptable principle if you want enduring peace between nations...or the strong nations will always use that principle to beat up on the weak ones.

It's not okay when Saddam does it. It's not okay when Germany does it. Neither is it okay when Israel or China or anyone else does it. I don't care what their excuse is for doing it, either.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Feb 07 - 11:41 PM

"Israel officially became a sovereign nation in 1948, was recognized as such by the U.N., and I believe that all sides should recognize those borders, and stick to them."

On the 5th of Iyar, 5708, Israel declared itself a State. They were immediately invaded by Iraq, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Egypt. Dream on, LH, dream on. The shit has been happening again and again ever since.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM

I believe that for a starter as a negotiating ploy the Palestinian Authority has used the pre-Six Day War Borders (1967).

This, however, is only as a temporary settlement, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran ultimately want the "stain" of Israel erradicated and washed from Arab Lands.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 01:00 PM

Feb. 27, Guardian Unlimited -

"Hamas has pledged to end missile attacks and violence against Israel, Russia's foreign minister said Tuesday, but the radical Palestinian group's spiritual leader struck a less conciliatory note, saying it was not ready to recognize Israel."

Its a start. Lets hope there will be another step, and another and another.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:04 PM

Everything in politics, life, and existence as we know it is only a temporary settlement. A temporary settlement is far preferable to no settlement at all.

Those who scoff at "temporary settlements" are those who in their hearts want no settlement. Instead, they want nothing less than total victory...or perhaps they just want to keep fighting forever and ever, because it satisfies some emotional need.

This, unfortunately, is a failing of the more extreme zealots on both sides of the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

But...it's great for keeping up arms sales! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:53 PM

"Only a Canadian would think that Cuba has a high quality of life.   When the NBA played some exhibition games over there, the universal remarks from players were about proverty and gruesome conditions.   This from people who for the most part grew up in the low income areas, and gettos in the USA. The NBA players couldn't believe how bad the poverty was in Cuba compared to USA"


Nothing to do with a ridiculous set of US sanctions and boycotts over the last 40 years on Cuba, of course. There might have been some reason for them back during the Bay of Pigs era, but the Cold War is over and the rest of the world has moved on, excpet the USA of course, and Cuba, because the USA won't let it. What threat does Fidel pose to the USA now? Answer, in case you didn't know = none (except that lifting sanctions might hurt the ex-pat Miami Cuban vote of any politician who was brave enough to try reconciliation). I guess the other main reason why the sanctions remain in place is that the USA NEEDS Cuba to be poor, to be a disaster. If it was otherwise, it might prove that socialism can sometimes work and that naked unbridled capitalism isn't the only way forward.

[BTW I'm not saying Cuba isn't tightly controlled by an ageing autocrat, but it would be a lot better off if the sanctions were lifted. If anyone out there really professes to be concerned about Cuba and its poor, you might start by lobbying your politicians to lift the sanctions]

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 03:23 PM

Teribus: " Hezbollah and Iran ultimately want the "stain" of Israel erradicated and washed from Arab Lands"

Mmmm. It seems the Israelis are currently doing their best to eradicate 'the stain of the Palestinians' from the West Bank, seize their homes and farms and set themselves up in colonies there having displaced the natives. They've even gone as far as building a wall deep into the West Bank in order to mark out their newly acquired land. They build roads all through this annexed country which Palestinians are not allowed to use in any way. Now when the Palestinians try and resist all this disposession, they are called 'terrorists'. In doing so the Israelis have completely ignored two UN security council resolutions: 242 and 338, both of which insist that Israel must withdraw from Arab land seized during the 1967 war, and that continued occupation of that land and transferral of its civilian population into that land, constitues a war crime. Israel would also be currently sitting on a large chunk of southern Lebanon if Hizbullah hadn't stopped them in their tracks. Once again, the Israeli invasion is known as a 'security operation' while the Hizbullah attempt to stop it is known as 'terrorism'. Normally in war, the first casualty they say, is the truth, but in this so-called war on terror, the first casulaty has been the English language. The Israelis are especially adept at dressing their murder, vandalism (as when they bulldoze Palestinian farms and villages) and racism in euphemistic terms, but the truth will always out.

Once again, I'm not saying Iranian, Syrian etc., society is perfect, but let's call a spade a spade here.

This link gives an interesting snippet of life in the West Bank - these were a British film crew, can you imagine what Palestinians have to put up with? Incidentally, I don't agree with many of the comments posted below the film clip - quite a few display a frightening and disturbing level of anti-semitism (in spite of what you pro-Israeli apologists believe, I quite understand the difference between being opposed to the policies of the government of a state and its supporters when they are in flagrant breach of human rights, and being biased against a whole race of people).

British film crew threatened

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: autolycus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 03:32 PM

Cuba,not to mention Iran and North Korea, are certainly taking their time hitting us with their bats. Eh,beardedbruce?

   I wonder if there's any correspondence between the arguing here and those at top diplomatic and political levels.

   I mean,can we expect them to reach humane accords when we have difficulty while not having weapons,power or vast wealth.





      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 04:11 PM

" I quite understand the difference between being opposed to the policies of the government of a state and its supporters when they are in flagrant breach of human rights, and being biased against a whole race of people."

I totally agree with you on that. Unfortunately, there are many who believe that you cannot criticize the Israeli government or the evolution of Zionism. At one time, the U.N. actually equated Zionism with racism. That has changed, however. Here's the latest:

http://www.nysun.com/article/49080

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 04:14 PM

I've seen the terrible poverty in Cuba. I've seen it also in Mexico and Trinidad. It exists throughout Latin America. The reason Cuba's dire poverty is quoted by conservatives as a proof that Cuba is "bad" while poverty elsewhere in corporate-run Latin America is not even mentioned or spoken of in the same breath, is this: Cuba did not cooperate with grand corporate policy. The other countries did.

Period.

Meanwhile, Cuba has far less crime than those other countries, and far better educational systems for all its citizens and free medical care for all as well.

That's why I like Cuba. They stood up and fought for their rights, just like the American revolutionaries did back in 1776. And they won. So far.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:05 PM

Sure thing, Dinavan. Unfortunately many Zionists seem to believe that two wrongs make a right. Since Jews were persecuted by the Nazis, many Zionists seem to think that gives them the right to treat the Palestinians etc., in a similar way. Ok, so not the gas chambers etc., but remember that Jews were subject to hundreds of petty restrictions and harassments by the Third Reich long before the Nazis got as far as gas chambers. Palestinians suffer many similar harassments today - having to have different colour licence plates on the cars, permits to go anywhere, not allowed to go some places at all: places that were often their homes until a short time ago, their property seized, attacks on the person by Israeli Jewish colonists and the Israeli army, death squads etc., etc.,

You'd think suffering such persecution themselves would make people more sensitive to the trauma of others, but the reverse seems to be the case with many zionists. All criticism of Israeli policy is deflected by the smokescreen of accusations of being a nazi / fascist. A lot of people also make the mistake of assuming that being Jewish automatically means being zionist. This is not the case, and there are many Jews around the world uneasy about, or critical of the Israeli government and its policies. There are Jews within Israel who conduct a far more robust debate about the rights and wrongs of their state than is often permitted outside of it. "Haaretz" is an excellent Israeli paper which gives a lot of space to these discussions.

Haaretz

What is interesting is the regularity with which the Palestine / Israel debate (if you want to call it that) crops up on this and other forums, reagrdless of the original thread topic (in this case Iran / N.Korea) - I think it demonstrates people's conscious or unconscious awareness of the critical importance of the Israel - Palestine question and its centrality in finding a peaceful solution to many of the world's current problems. If an amicable and accepatble solution (to both sides, and therein lies the difficulty) were to be found to this question, many of the other turbulences in the region - and thus the rest of the world, thanks to the ripple effect - would subside. This is one of the reasons the topic interests me so much, apart from a sense of indignation at injustice and human rights abuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 08:10 PM

Until such time as people are willing to talk about the 'human rights abuses' of Israel AND its surrounding neighbours, there really isn't much to talk about, Nickhere. That's been a problem here as well as other sites. And singling out Israel as the BIGGEST bad guy become counter productive real fast. Your post is an example of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:09 PM

No Peace, I don't completely agree with you there. Sure, there are human rights abuses in other Middle Eastern countries too. But -

1) the discussion in the media is largely restricted to abuses which occur in those countries unfriendly or unaligned with US interests,e.g Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. We do not hear so much about human rights abuses perpetrated in e.g Egypt, Turkey or Uzbekistan - all currently US allies, and places where the CIA has flown 'terror suspects' to be tortured, since they can't quite get away with it on US soil. The Arab world is not as stupid or 'backward' as were are all led to believe, and they know about these things.

2) Israel is heavily supported and bankrolled by the West, America and Britain in particular. That makes it a kind of ambassador for the West in the whole region. Not much point in Western countries coming in to lecture the Arabs on human rights and democracy if they can see our hypocrisy in turning a blind eye to what goes on in Palestine. You must also bear in mind that Israel, while having the smallest population and being one of the smallest countries in the region, has one of the biggest and best equipped armies. This army is frequently used to harass and shoot Palestinians (shooting ducks in a barrel) to which the West turns a blind eye. Arab countries are not stupid, and they see all this. They see Condi say 'not yet, not yet' about a ceasefire while Lebanon is being slowly flattened. It is this gross hypocrisy which is so counter-productive and incesnses Arabs, making them suspicious (with good cause) of any western intervention in the region. It also is counter productive in that our double standards, making them reluctant to accept direction from us on how to run their societies. Would you accept being lectured on your drinking by a guy who shoots up every evening? A more fair, honest and just approach to the Palestinians would produce great peace dividends, not just in Palestine, but across the whole Arab world. That, by definition, will involve some heavy censure of Israel as it stands, a step no politican has been really braveenough to take so far.

While the Arab world is routinely demonised in the Western media - which delivers all kinds of skewed stories in skewed langauge to the public - it is virtually impossible to get any criticism of Israel past the net. If it weren't for forums like this and a few brave journalists, no criticsim of Israel would probably be heard at all. Far from being counter-productive as you claim, threads like this bring some balance to an otherwise badly skewed topic. It is essential if we are to move towards a just and peaceful solution in the Middle East, currently impossible given the level of bias and misinformation in most of our media. Posts like mine are only 'counter-productive' to current Israeli policy, which if it were healthy, would be open to some constructive criticism.

And I might add, I don't remember you ever criticising Israel's human rights record, surely 'not singling out Israel as the biggest bad guy in the region' doesn't equate with maintaining a total silence on their defects? But, my apologies in advance if I wrong you in saying that, as I haven't read all your posts to mudcat obviously, and I'm willing to stand corrected.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:23 PM

Nickhere,

We have Little Hawk wittering on about a return to the UN stipulated 1948 boundaries - Not going to happen, even the Arabs acknowledge that.

By the bye, Nickhere, If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly - "Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran ultimately want the "stain" of Israel erradicated and washed from Arab Lands."

"It seems the Israelis are currently doing their best to eradicate 'the stain of the Palestinians' from the West Bank" - Well Nickhere, history goes against your assertion. Israel has offered deal after deal - all have been rejected. Tell you what Nickhere, you show me where Israel has ever voiced officially, or unofficially, thyeir intent to "eradicate" anything. I, on the otherhand can give you countless examples of publically declared Arab ill intent towards the State of Israel and her population.

As far as the "Wall" goes - Damned effective isn't it?

As far as UN resolutions go Nickhere, there are a few that pre-date those examples you quote that guarantee the right of Israel's existence. Now in order of precedence once those earlier ones have been adhered to I am totally convinced that Israel would return to the 1967 boundaries - It's not going to happen of course, you know that, I know that, the Israeli's know that and the Palestinians know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:26 PM

Nickhere, you have just articulated precisely why I often criticize Israel. I feel that I am living in a society where the government and media are grossly prejudicial in their favoritism toward Israel and their failure to bring to bear on Israel the same standards of criticism which they would bring to bear on any other nation doing what Israel does. Israel is allowed to get away with actions that would simply not be tolerated if a Muslim nation did them...such as the 2 invasions of Lebanon...such as the unannounced, undeclared building of a large number of atomic weapons...and such as the occuping and steady colonization of lands outside their own borders...and such as sudden pre-emptive attacks on their neighbours' strategic facilities (I am referring to their attack on Iraq's nuclear research facility).

No other nation is allowed to get away with such aggression...except for one: the USA.

That is the double standard I object to. Israel and the USA apparently have carte blanche to attack any nation they want to, any time they want to, just because they want to. In other words...they're completely above the law. NOBODY else is.

That's what I don't agree with, and that's why I criticize the USA and Israel.

I'm trying to provide a counterbalance to a way out of balance situation that is morally and legally unjustifiable.

I am NOT trying to say that I support or agree with militant Islamic groups who attack Israel. I do NOT support or agree with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:33 PM

If that were true, then you would spend as much time talking about the bad stuff done by the various terrorist organizations supported by various Muslim countries as y'all do about Israel's bad stuff. This "I want to balance the record" stuff looks and sounds like bullshit to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:59 PM

"I'm trying to provide a counterbalance to a way out of balance situation that is morally and legally unjustifiable.

I am NOT trying to say that I support or agree with militant Islamic groups who attack Israel. I do NOT support or agree with them." - Little Hawk.

First paragraph quoted above is laughable.

As for the second, not once has LH critised them, he has always found some half-assed excuse to justify their conduct.

OK LH, a question for you, in the face of the threats and statements made, what would you, as Israel do?

Just to remind you here are some of those threats and statements:

Gamal Abul Nasser - March 8, 1965:
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

Gamal Abul Nasser, a few months later:
"... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, June 4, 1967:
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

Now who else quite recently voiced their desire that "Israel should be wiped off the map"?

What are the stated long term goals of both Hamas and Hezbollah with regard to the State of Israel?

OK Little Hawk, that is what you have been faced with, that is reality with which you have lived since 1948, what do you regard as your basis for negotiation?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:00 PM

Agreed, LittleHawk.

Teribus - I'm off to bed now (it's well after 2am here and I have to sleep sometime) so I can only give you the briefest of responses.

You say a return to the 1948 boundaries is not going to happen. Of course this raises an obvious question: why not?
We all know the answer I think. Firstly, only western powers like the USA and Britain are going to have any leverage in getting Israel to do anything, and so far they have shown themselves to be spineless hypocrites. As long as the West gives carte blanche to Isrel, of course there won't be any return to 1948 UN-agreed borders.

The second reason is of course, that Israel, during government after government since 1967 has pursued a policy of transplanting its population into colonies in the West Bank seized from Jordan after the latter annexed it first. The West bank was not an orginal part of UN-mandated Israel, it is in effect, land grabbed during war, and as I have only just pointed out a few posts back, Israel is comitting a war crime in colonising it. The land belongs to the Palestinians who lived there in 1967. It is their houses and farms that Israeli colonists are now taking possession of. So if Israel had to withdraw to its 1948 borders, these colonists would either have to leave the land they illegally colonised or accept being part of a Palestinain statelet. Of course there;s not much chance of that happening, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. According to your logic, if you're big and strong and fast enough you can grab what you like and it becomes yours if you can hold on to it. Morality doesn't even come into the frame. Kinda like the 'injuns' I suppose.


As for quoting you correctly, pardon me - I clicked and dragged your line into my text, and missed the word 'Hamas' by mistake. Sorry once again. Now, for the part about Israel never decalring its intention to 'eradicate the stain of etc.,' I'm not so sure about that: I remember seeing such a quote somewhere, though not inexactly those terms. But since I can't lay my hand to it at the moment, I'll give the actual words the benefit of doubt. But do you really need an actual quote? The facts on the ground speak for themselves. In the West Bank Israel is fact driving Palestinians out of their homes, off their farms, destroying their economy etc., etc., Palestinians married to foreigners find their spouses unable to get further permits from the Israelis to stay in the West Bank - effectively forcing the Palestinian partner to leave either the West Bank or their husband / wife. Just about everything Israel can do is being done to get the Palestinians to leave or accept 3rd class citizenship in their own land while their homes and farms all around them are taken over by Jewish Israeli settlers. If Palestinains or lebanese were doing this in Israel, what would you have to say about it? But I'm blue in the face from repeating all this. It seems all thsi violence isn't enough proof for you, you would like someone to say it in an official phrase as well. Whenever did the European colonists of America actually say "we intend to wipe out as many indians as we can and take all their land and shove the few who survive into the poorest parcels of land we can find where they can live as minors unde our regime" (apart from the one who said 'the only good injun is a dead injun)? But isn't that what happened?
Yes, the wall is dammned effective - at breaking up the West Bank into Israeli colonies and fencing Palestinians into the largest open-air prison in the world.

www.theironwall.ps

'Israel offered one peace settlement after another'....hmmmmm. That's not what I've heard. Any 'peace' offered by Israel did no favours to the Palestinians. The Oslo agreement was a swindle on the Palestinians if ever there was one. An ageing, decrepit old man (Arafat) was hooked in on his dream of being the leader of a Palestinian statelet in his lifetime, and so he 'sold his birthright for a mess of pottage' (see the story about Easu and Jacob in the Old Testament for the reference). He got his wish, and the former 'arch-terrorist / Dr.Evil' became the darling of Israeli political society as he turned policeman for them 'controlling his own people' in ways that would make even Shin Bet blush with embarrasment. Small wonder then, that the Palestinians soon saw through this charade and voted for Hamas to represent them.

But like I said, it's late, I have to get to sleep sometime and I've given you enough food for thought. We can come back to it later.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:08 PM

So Peace, when are we going to hear you say a few solemn words about Shin Bet etc.,??

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:27 PM

So, a thread whose opening premise is speculation on whether Iran or Korea is to be the next target of the US morphs into yet another anti-Israeli crusade by the usual suspects.

Is anyone else beginning to detect a pattern here?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:40 PM

Nickhere, I would likely have more to say about Shin Bet than you have any right to know. I am beginning to think you get your info from a Frank Weltner website.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM

I am aware that Shin Bet has committed murders. I am also aware that the Muslims you so proudly speak on behalf of have committed murders too. You tend to want to gloss over that, and you were impolite enough not to respond the message I sent you leading me to figure you just play to the crowd. I have nothing more to say to you.

However, I will address your anti-Isreal crap on this thread at any and every opportunity. Until such time as you understand that there are very few innocents left in the middle-East. Not Israel and certainly not any of the organizations you seem to speak for. Regardless how you phrase it all, you have a thinly-disguised hatred of Israel that masquerades as a love of your fellow man, and if you meant any of it you would extend that hatred for Israel to all the killers in the middle-East, including the countries whose stated policies of genocide you seem to be so comfortable with.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 07 - 10:57 PM

It's obvious that we are experiencing a difference in perception as to who is getting the short end of the stick, Peace and Teribus and bobad. That is the only reason we disagree about Israel. I think the Muslims are getting the short end of the stick. Therefore I defend them. You think Israel is getting the short end of the stick. Therefore you defend Israel.

End of story.

It is simply not possible to resolve such a difference in perception. My viewpoint will always seem unfair to you guys, and your viewpoint will always seem unfair to me. It's like trying to resolve a debate in 1876 between people who see Indians as victims of the army and people who see Indians as murdering savages who must be brought to heel by the army. Those arguments were likewise impossible to resolve...and there WERE such arguments at the time. They were very hotly debated in the Eastern press. It was all a matter of perception as to who were the "bad guys" in what was a collision between 2 ways of life. Wrongs happened on both sides.

And that's just the way it is. We perceive different subjective worlds through our deeply subjective beliefs about "who the victims are" and "who the perpetrators are" in the Middle Eastern situation.

And we always will, in all probability. Expect to disagree from here until eternity, guys.

Bobad, remember...one who is paranoid sees enemies everywhere. Correct? But he can always counter that by saying, "Ah, yes! But even paranoids can have REAL enemies!!!"

No doubt they can. But I am not one of them. Your objection to my criticism of Israel reminds me of Black people who raise a ruckus and want someone fired because he used the word "niggardly" (although the word niggardly has absolutely nothing to do with what they think it does...it does not refer to black people in any way whatsoever). "Racism!" they cry. "Anti-semitism!", someone else cries...when Israel is criticized for doing what ANY other country on Earth(except the USA?) would be criticized for doing.

Same deal. It's a kneejerk reaction by someone who has a great big chip on his shoulder...due to past emotional trauma which arose out of past historical events.

I'm afraid that the Muslims have gotten very much like that too in the last few decades...and for quite similar reasons. Like the Jews were in the past many centuries up to the end of WWII, the Muslims since WWII have been stigmatized, robbed, beaten, and kicked around the block for quite some time now...simply for being who they are.

So they're similarly unreasonable about it now, and they are similarly inclined to take violent offence. It makes for a bloody dangerous situation when you have 2 groups of people like that fighting each other. Almost hopeless, I'd say.

I belong to neither group. I consider neither group to be above criticism, just because they...or their grandparents...have suffered.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:34 AM

"It's obvious that we are experiencing a difference in perception as to who is getting the short end of the stick, Peace and Teribus and bobad. That is the only reason we disagree about Israel. I think the Muslims are getting the short end of the stick. Therefore I defend them. You think Israel is getting the short end of the stick. Therefore you defend Israel.

End of story."

End of the story from you. I happen to agree with what you wrote to that point, but just saying that does not mean that remarks which question the legal right of Israel to exist as a country will pass unrebuked. Or remarks that single out Israel as if it was the only cause of wrong-doing in the mid-East. Maybe you DO support the underdog, but the underdog you presently support has rabies, and they have shown that time and time again.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:05 AM

bobad - I believe the first post to mention Israel was 28 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Old grudges die hard and 'poor me' just doesn't work anymore. Ancestral pain contributes nothing to finding a useful solution. How long are you gonna use that as an excuse to inflict suffering on others?

Lets face it. Zionism just aint what it used to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:25 AM

LH and dianavan,


I feel that I am living in a society where the government and media are grossly prejudicial in their favoritism toward Canada and their failure to bring to bear on Canada the same standards of criticism which they would bring to bear on any other nation doing what Canada does. Canada is allowed to get away with actions that would simply not be tolerated if the US did them...such as the exportation to SE Asia, in violation of international law, of asbestos that is predicted to cause at least 3 million deaths over the next 30 years.

So from now on, ANY mention of the US will be balanced by pointing out the crimes of Canada, and ignoring any admission of any other country's fault.


Or do YOU think that Canada is some kind of special case?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:50 AM

"bobad - I believe the first post to mention Israel was 28 Feb 07 - 10:10 AM. Correct me if I'm wrong."

Take a look at LH's first post to the thread on 03 Nov 04 - 10:24 PM .

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:15 AM

So I guess no one wants to talk about Iran or Korea. Tjis thread is gonna go to shit in a New York minute.

Asbestos? Fuckin' right.
Indians? Fuckin' right.
Patronage in the Prime Minister's office? Fuckin' right.

I have it on good authority that the Canadian Navy sunk the British ship Hood. AND we invaded Grenada. Slag away. Ya can't tell us anything we don't already know. Now, to balance THAT, let me mention a few things about the USA . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:21 AM

Canada's involvement with the slaughter at My Lai has come to light. It gets worse. When we dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and then another on Nagasaki, it became evident to the world that a new force had come upon the scene. Our involvement with Oliver North and the weapons for hostages program was--hell, have to go. But I will be back with more history to help BB slag the Canadians.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:35 AM

Peace,

Your willingness to have Canada take responsibility for the actions of OTHER countries is admirable. MY point was that if LH HAS to blame Israel, even in a thread discussing Iran and Korea as threats to the US, I fell justified in bringing up the faults of Canada when the faults of the US are being discussed.

Should the thread drift back to the point, I doubt if there would be any mention of Canada OR Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 10:50 AM

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_british_mandate.php
http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp

"In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan," meaning "across the Jordan River." The Palestinian Arabs now had THEIR homeland... the remaining 25% of the original Palestinian territory (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:46 AM

I get so fuckin' fed up with the Israeli bashing that takes place on Mudcat and the 'some of my best friends are Jewish' bullshit that is used to llok good after expressing oneself as a Jew hater. Many people in Shin Bet deserve to be tried, convicetd and shot for their actions. About that there is no question. So do some members of the IRA, people from Nickhere's country. And some members of SAS, GSG9, your country's military and mine. But the people here who think that the Muslim countries who have sworn themselves to eradicate/exterminate the Israelis are on the side of right have their heads so far up their asses they should fuckin' choke. I have lost a few friends over this issue. I expect I will lose a few more. Such is life.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:53 AM

You're right, bobad, I didn't realize this thread went so far back. I suppose its difficult to discuss Iran and the U.S. without discussing Israel. I know that Israel is a nation onto itself but lets face it, the U.S. and Israel have been hand in glove since its inception. Now that I think about it, its as if the U.S. has a colony in the Middle East.

Don't get me wrong, I think a Jewish homeland is not such a bad idea but I do think that the process of creating it was ass-backwards. It could have been established by the Sephardic Jews (at least those that were familiar with the customs and traditions of the Middle East). Part of the problem has been the large influx of European Jews and the push toward 'modernization' and a way of life stronly influenced by the West. It would probably have gone more smoothly if the immigrants had to adjust to a Middle Eastern way of life instead of the other way around. I know I'm sticking my neck out by saying this but at least I can't be accused of being an anti-Semite.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:14 PM

"if the immigrants had to adjust to a Middle Eastern way of life instead of the other way around"

Just as the Europeans did when they came to North America.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:31 PM

I have never objected to your criticisms of Canada, BB. Why do you object to my criticims of the USA and Israel? ;-) I think your assertion that Canada gets a bigger break in the international media than the USA is an interesting one, and probably true. If so, that is primarily because Canada has a much smaller effect on most of the world than the USA does or than Israel does.

Canada, thus, doesn't get noticed all that much, and it gets away with things like its horrible asbestos wrongdoings! Well, I'll try to see what I can do about that, but I think it's a situation beyond my control or influence, frankly... ;-)

By all means, BB, feel free to mention Canadian international wrongdoings all you want. It doesn't upset me if you do. I do not believe in the old adage: "my country, right or wrong".

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:42 PM

Look at it this way...

I'm white!

I'm male!

I belong to no historically persecuted or visible minority!

I'm reasonably well off financially!

I'm Canadian!!! Oh, the horror. The horror.

Imagine the incredible burden of collective guilt by association that I must carry and live with every day.........!

It ain't easy, but I somehow carry on regardless. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 12:43 PM

No, bobad, not exactly.

You see, there were no Europeans in N.A. but there were Jews in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:23 PM

LH,

And Canada gave us ... Shatner!

The world can never forgive you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM

Ok Peace, let's get to grips with some of your quotes.

1:" Nickhere, I would likely have more to say about Shin Bet than you have any right to know. I am beginning to think you get your info from a Frank Weltner website".

Peace, are you implying you are / were a member of Shin Bet? That's what it sounds like. At least it would explain your blind faith in Israeli good intentions. As for Frank wots-his-name, never heard of him or his website.
I see you do get some of your information from the < palestinefacts website >.... the website set up by the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs to give their spin to things. But that's ok, everyone's voice is entitled to be heard, isn't it?

2: "I am aware that Shin Bet has committed murders. I am also aware that the Muslims you so proudly speak on behalf of have committed murders too. You tend to want to gloss over that, and you were impolite enough not to respond the message I sent you leading me to figure you just play to the crowd"

Maybe you're backpedalling now, maybe you're with Mossad? Well, only you know, for the moment. Anyway, yes there are members of the IRA who should be put on trial, but in the end the people north and south voted and decided to let bygones by bygones and all crimes deemed to have been poliutical - which includes a large number of crimes by pro-British loyalists - go untried in the name of peace and progress. The difference is that unlike Palestine, there is an attempt to build a self-governing entity at least. Also interesting is that you always seem to qualify Israeli violence with either "Yes, but it's justified self-defence" or "yes, but what about MUSLIM violence?"

You are also mistaken in your belief that I speak 'proudly' for Arabs. Maybe you don't fully understand what I wrote in earlier posts - that in order to lecture Muslims on how to behave, we - the west - needs to be above fault itself. Israel is the main representative of the West in the Middle East.

I am impolite?? What message did you post that I did not respond to (not that there's much point in answering it now that you've gone into your room in sulk and refuse to speak to me)? Bear in mind also that I can't reply to everything, though as I'm sure you all know, I do my best. I have been slagged by Slag in the past for not being brief enough!


3: "If that were true, then you would spend as much time talking about the bad stuff done by the various terrorist organizations supported by various Muslim countries as y'all do about Israel's bad stuff. This "I want to balance the record" stuff looks and sounds like bullshit to me"

I was going to ask you what you meant by that. If you don't believe that LH or I or others criticise Israeli policy for the reasons we gave, then what do you believe our motivations to be? But i think you answered that already:

"However, I will address your anti-Isreal crap on this thread at any and every opportunity. Until such time as you understand that there are very few innocents left in the middle-East. Not Israel and certainly not any of the organizations you seem to speak for. Regardless how you phrase it all, you have a thinly-disguised hatred of Israel that masquerades as a love of your fellow man, and if you meant any of it you would extend that hatred for Israel to all the killers in the middle-East, including the countries whose stated policies of genocide you seem to be so comfortable with"

Anti-Israeli crap. Hatred of Israel. Ahhh, so now we get down to the nub of it. You think I am anti-semitic, don't you? You think, in spite of all I said about the need to have our own house in order first, that I'm simply anti-Israel, presumably because Jews live there.

That raises another question - even assuming what you think is true (and it isn't) where does that leave Jews who are critical of Israel (and there are quite a few)? Are they anti-semitic too? And where does that leave you? Since you have never been able to bring yourself to criticise Israel much without offering (to borrow from Teribus) 'lame-assed excuses' for their behaviour, and have rarely had a good word to say about the Arabs, then according to your own own criteria you are an anti-Arab racist, aren't you?

"But the people here who think that the Muslim countries who have sworn themselves to eradicate/exterminate the Israelis are on the side of right have their heads so far up their asses they should fuckin' choke"

OK, I think I've said this before, but just to be clear I'll write it in big letters to make it easier to read and understand:

I DO NOT THINK THAT IT'S ALRIGHT FOR MUSLIM COUNTRIES TO SWEAR TO EXTERMINATE THE ISRAELIS. I ABSOLUTELY DISGAREE WITH IT. NOR DO I BELIEVE IT'S OK TO BLOW YOURSELF UP ON A BUS FULL OF CIVILIANS OR FIRE A ROCKET INTO A CIVILIAN HOUSE. SO THAT'S THE MUSLIM SIDE. BUT I AM NOT A MUSLIM OR AN ARAB. I AM A 'WESTERNER' - ARE ONLY ARABS TO BE CONDEMNED?

Now, in smaller letters - Peace, when are you going to bring yourself to condemn what Israel is doing in the West Bank that's in contravention of the 4th Geneva Convention, Article 49, Hague Resolutions, UN Resolutions 242, 338 etc., etc., and please spare me the bulls**t of saying "Yes, but the OTHER side must respect theire resolutions first!"

And if you don't understand that, let's put it another way:

Q: Do you think that Israel's policies in colonising the West Bank in contravention of International Law and with the resulting disposession and murder of the the native Palestinian people is acceptable?

Q2: Do you think that this policy has any effect on the levels of violence and tension in the middle east?

Q3: Since you believe (as I do) in the right of the Jewish people to have a place to call home and lay their hat, do you also believe in the right of the West Bank and Gazan Palestinians to a Palestinian state?
(Israel was created by drawing a pen around a map. The same can be done for the Palestinians)

So you say we have nothing to talk about and you won't talk to me anymore, but you'll respond to any of my posts that don't say the sun shines out of Israel's ass. That sounds like we'll be doing a lot more talking so in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:43 PM

I no longer have anything to say to you, Nickhere. Piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:45 PM

"Peace, are you implying you are / were a member of Shin Bet? That's what it sounds like." Your inferences are yours; that was not my implication. Simply put, I find you to be a prig. Kindly talk with someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:48 PM

Nickhere,


"I see you do get some of your information from the < palestinefacts website >."

Point of information- I was the one who posted that address.

I looked for maps of Israel on the Palestinian sites, but they do not acknowledge that it exists.


And what would you say about the Jews who were removed c.1948 to 1967 from the West Bank? (When it was under the control of Jordan, who made NO effort to provide a state for their Palestinian brothers.
Jordan agreed that the border was basically the Jordan river ( with minor exceptions ) between Israel and Jordan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:31 PM

"In a stunning reversal of hardline foreign policy, the Bush administration has announced it will engage in diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria in an effort to stabilize Iraq.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the policy back flip at a hearing of the US Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, which is considering the Bush administration's request for $100 billion to continue its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 05:57 PM

BB - Yes! I am only too keenly aware that it was Canada which inflicted William Shatner on an unsuspecting world. (sob!) The humiliation and deeply suppressed guilt feelings that I and most other Canadians feel over this...this almost unspeakable fact...in time drove me to conceal my true feelings by pretending to admire the man...if not worship him. This was the sort of emotional reversal that can take place when a person is under extreme stress. It was only later that I discovered that Shatner is Jewish, and so too is Leonard Nimoy. Then too, my musical hero Bob Dylan is Jewish. Could it be that my negative assessment of Israeli policies is connected somehow to my denial of the fact that Shatner is...well...less than perfect?????

Disturbing questions to ponder indeed. I fear that only a number of lengthy sessions on the couch of Herr Doktor Liebenscheiss will suffice to put these contradictions to rest.

In the meantime, I will attempt to get back to discussing Iran and Korea and the USA on this thread...and try, by hook or by crook, to avoid the thorny subject of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 06:57 PM

Beardedbruce: "And what would you say about the Jews who were removed c.1948 to 1967 from the West Bank? (When it was under the control of Jordan, who made NO effort to provide a state for their Palestinian brothers.
Jordan agreed that the border was basically the Jordan river ( with minor exceptions ) between Israel and Jordan"

Absolutely - I quite agree with you. Jordan did nothing for the Palestinians either. I believe they simply wanted to annex the West Bank for themselves. But it's not Jordan that the Palestinians have to deal with now.

Peace: no, I won't piss off.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:04 PM

Seems evident in terms of the thread's title that Iran is more likely to be next. But it also seems that Bush needs cooperation from many other countries before he can do anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:05 PM

I don't give a rat's ass what you do, N, just don't address me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 07 - 07:30 PM

The Security Council of the UN is talking about a second round of sanctions, but the talk coming from Ahmadinejad indicates it won't matter squat anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Mar 07 - 04:49 AM

LH, a question for you, in the face of the threats and statements made, what would you, as Israel do?

Just to remind you here are some of those threats and statements:

Gamal Abul Nasser - March 8, 1965:
"We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood."

Gamal Abul Nasser, a few months later:
"... the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the State of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel."

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq, June 4, 1967:
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map."

Now who else quite recently voiced their desire that "Israel should be wiped off the map"?

What are the stated long term goals of both Hamas and Hezbollah with regard to the State of Israel?

OK Little Hawk, that is what you have been faced with, that is reality with which you have lived since 1948, what do you regard as your basis for negotiation?