Gaza no-fly zone?

[VenomUSMC]

http://www.france24.com/en/20110410-arab-league-amr-mussa-appeal-no-fly-zone-gaza-israel-air-strikes-libya-un-palestine
So after Palestinian militants did this: an anti-tank missile fired from Gaza hit an Israeli school bus on Thursday
So the Arab League wants to impose a no-fly zone... because Israel is bombing Gaza now... (killing "atleast" 18 people reported which means it's far from indiscriminate bombing).
So if you believe that Israel should be it's own nation or not how can be honestly believe that they are in the wrong for retaliating against people targeting school buses.....

[randir14]

From what I've read in the news the UN can barely keep up the flights in Libya without U.S. help. What makes the Arabs think the UN could create a second no-fly zone, and the U.S. sure as hell wouldn't enforce it against Israel.

[VenomUSMC]

From what I've read in the news the UN can barely keep up the flights in Libya without U.S. help. What makes the Arabs think the UN could create a second no-fly zone, and the U.S. sure as hell wouldn't enforce it against Israel.
The no-fly zone's don't seem to be a problem because I haven't heard much about Libya's planes flying recently.. however the UN has turned a no-fly zone into let's bomb some tanks and other ground targets as well.

[Anenome]

Who is the aggressor in the Palestinian conflict?

The Arabs / Palestinians.

No chance on getting a no fly zone. Screw you guys.

If the Arabs laid down their arms tomorrow there'd be peace in the middle east.

If Israel laid down their arms tomorrow, there'd be a bloodbath, of Israeli blood.

Key difference.

[VenomUSMC]

Who is the aggressor in the Palestinian conflict?

The Arabs / Palestinians.

No chance on getting a no fly zone. Screw you guys.

If the Arabs laid down their arms tomorrow there'd be peace in the middle east.

If Israel laid down their arms tomorrow, there'd be a bloodbath, of Israeli blood.

Key difference.
That's how it should work... however with the levels of anti-Israeli feelings in the world today and even the US being far less supportive than in the past I wouldn't be shocked. It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe the Israelis are the aggressors and the terrorists...

[score]

Who is the aggressor in the Palestinian conflict?

The Arabs / Palestinians.



Really...? After having read the history of the conflict, I dont understand how people come up with this conclusion.

[Anenome]

Really...? After having read the history of the conflict, I dont understand how people come up with this conclusion.
Simple, stop reading the Palestianian / Arab version of history and start reading the independent factual ones.

[asimplehero]

Really...? After having read the history of the conflict, I dont understand how people come up with this conclusion.

Uhh, this. The Israeli's are occupiers. Sure, they owned the land 2000 years ago, but statute of limitations anyone?

Imagine if Native Americans all of a sudden showed up with papers from the British saying they owned the land, and we all need to move into reservations.

[asimplehero]

Simple, stop reading the Palestianian / Arab version of history and start reading the independent factual ones.

Please do tell, as I must be under the influence of the massive Palestinian PR machine.

[Anenome]

The Israelis did not simply invade Palestinian territory and remove the population extra-legally. That would make them occupiers.

For one thing, the Jews bought land from Arabs.

"Tensions began after the first Zionist settlers arrived in the 1880s. Quarrels broke out between the new settlers and neighboring villages over grazing, crop and other land issues. Disputes also arose when Jewish settlers purchased land from absentee Arab owners, leading to dispossession of the peasants who cultivated it. As the number of Jewish settlements increased and as Arabs became aware of the Zionist intention to establish a Jewish homeland, opposition to the movement spread among the fellahin [peasants], urban notables, intellectuals and the merchant class. (SRC (http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000500))

Who are the aggressors in that situation? Arabs that wrongly opposed the free market transfer of land to those who freely bought it from willing Arab land owners.

After WWI, Palestine moved from Ottoman control to British control. Following the Balfour declaration, Jews took the land they'd purchased, along with even your admission that the land is historically theirs, and rightly declared a homeland.

Were the Palestinians simply left twisting in the wind? No. A large amount of land the Brits controlled was split off and turned into what's now known as Jordan. This was to be the Palestinian homeland.

Instead, Jordan's king took over and kicked out the Palestinians, and every nation around them has similarly refused to accept them, and instead uses the Palestinians as a political football to irritate and attack Israel by proxy.

And what happened mere moments after Israel declared itself a nation? Surprise, surprise: Arab aggression.

The Six Day War in 1948 saw five Arab nations jointly attempt to wipe Israel off the map. Their failure is legendary now, naturally.

If the declaration, their own land purchases, and their historical ownership of the land wasn't enough, this establishes them as a rightful owner, but it shouldn't take that even. Any one of those, especially the historical right to the land, establishes a right to it.

Where is occupation? They owned the land historically. They purchased land from willing Arab owners. They were the subject of a British declaration, the current legal controllers, that gave them the territory in a legal sense.

Was this declaration used to oppress Palestinians? Let's see:
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Do Palestinians and Arabs live peacefully in Israel right now? Yeah, they do. Do Jews live equally well in Arab countries. Not so much.

There's no religious tradition in Judaism urging them to destroy Arabs and kill them. There is a Muslim religious tradition urging them to kill and murder Jews. Beyond that, Islam is sometimes a violent religion in the hands of extremists.

From the same previous non-partisan source:
"Under the stress of the [First] World War the British Government made promises to Arabs and Jews in order to obtain their support. On the strength of those promises both parties formed certain expectations... An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible. The Arabs desire to revive the traditions of the Arab golden age. The Jews desire to show what they can achieve when restored to the land in which the Jewish nation was born. Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the service of a single State.

The conflict has grown steadily more bitter since 1920 and the process will continue. Conditions inside Palestine especially the systems of education, are strengthening the national sentiment of the two peoples. The bigger and more prosperous they grow the greater will be their political ambitions, and the conflict is aggravated by the uncertainty of the future. Who in the end will govern Palestine?"

Clearly, again, if the Arabs stop attacking then peace results. If the Jews stop defending themselves, the Arabs would wipe them off the map.

Here the Jews have had nuclear weapons for decades and no one's been nuked. Meanwhile, the Iranians regularly speak of "wiping Israel off the map" and other such inflammatory and murderous statements.

All I ever, ever hear about is Arabs shelling Jews and Jews retaliating to secure their own safety from the murderous bastards shelling and bombing and shooting them.

Simple fact is, the "occupation" routine is the only line they could come up with to excuse aggression against Israel, and it's a baseless assertion.

[Anenome]

Aesop puts it rightly...

Once upon a time a Wolf was lapping at a spring on a hillside, when, looking up, what should he see but a Lamb just beginning to drink a little lower down. "There's my supper," thought he, "if only I can find some excuse to seize it." Then he called out to the Lamb, "How dare you muddle the water from which I am drinking?"

"Nay, master, nay," said Lambikin; "if the water be muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me."

"Well, then," said the Wolf, "why did you call me bad names this time last year?"

"That cannot be," said the Lamb; "I am only six months old."

"I don't care," snarled the Wolf; "if it was not you it was your father;" and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up. But before she died she gasped out:

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant."

[Agnostic Pope]

Still Americans are occupiers as well regardless of how they tricked other people into buying land/stealing it. It was a good thing we killed most of the natives they can never get their land back! /sarcasm.

I wonder if Jewish people think the same way? Mercenaries will never run out of work because of issues like this.

[Kreigmstr]

Historically it should be part of Egypt as it was their's before Isreal was originally founded. If we ignore that then it should be owned by Turkey as the Ottoman's were the last to own it before Europeon colonialism took over.

[Dag-Sabot]

That's how it should work... however with the levels of anti-Israeli feelings in the world today and even the US being far less supportive than in the past I wouldn't be shocked. It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe the Israelis are the aggressors and the terrorists......or even running a quasi apartheid state for those they kicked off their land.

[lockwoodx]

The gaza strip makes for a nice thesis about Nurture over Nature. No matter how much the world tries to snap them out of it, some people were just raised to hate others.

[VenomUSMC]

Uhh, this. The Israeli's are occupiers. Sure, they owned the land 2000 years ago, but statute of limitations anyone?

Imagine if Native Americans all of a sudden showed up with papers from the British saying they owned the land, and we all need to move into reservations.

Statute of limitations? Sure let's tell people to quit whining about Israel "occupying" this land then.
Yeah imagine if the Native Americans did that. I hardly think anyone would take it very seriously...
The sad part is that Palestinians are just simply pawns of other Arab nations wishing to strike out against Israel.
Palestine cannot honor a cease fire. They openly target non combatants, they are indeed the terrorists.
Now I do not believe in "hey such and such group owned this land at this time so it's their's". However whom created the Israeli state? Well with the help of the League of Nations and the UN Israel came to be what it is today. What was the Arab response to this? Why let's kill some Jews! The day following Israel declaring it's independence Arab nations launched an attack.
Every nation in the history of man has done some pretty stupid, messed up things, however with the continuing attacks against Israel of targeting civilians it shows a lot of these people's ideals. Furthermore imagine if in the US a little country was constantly committing terrorist attacks against us to include shooting anti tank rockets at school buses.. Terrorists blew up two of our countries and we invaded two Arab countries in return.
Israel isn't nearly as heavy handed as it could be or as most nations of the world would be.

[asimplehero]

The Israelis did not simply invade Palestinian territory and remove the population extra-legally. That would make them occupiers.

For one thing, the Jews bought land from Arabs.


I think you're wrong here, but I could see if this was true why you would have your feelings. As I have always read it, most Palestinians were forceably removed from their homes during the war of 1948. They didn't simply sell it and get rich. No one sells their home to move into a refugee camp, ok? And the very fact that they are called refugees means that they fled from violence/war.

Some may have sold their land prior to that, but you don't end up with a million people selling their familial lands in the same year so they can all go kick it in the desert.

You could argue that they lost the war, and they should just suck it up, but those people didn't start the war. They were just regular people like you and me when leaders from different countries decided to start a war. It wasn't their fault, and because of that war they lost their homeland and now have to live in a hellhole. Also, many of them were massacred simply because they were arabian.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee

During the 1948 Palestine War, around 750,000 out of 900,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the territories that became the State of Israel.[2] The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict.[7] Whereas historians now agree on most of the events of that period, there remains disagreement as to whether the exodus was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Zionist leaders or was an unintended consequence of the war.[8]

Between December 1947 and March 1948, around 100,000 Palestinian Arabs fled. Among them were many from the higher and middle classes from the cities, who left voluntarily, expecting to return when the Arab states took control of the country.[9] When the Haganah went on the offensive, between April and July, a further 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinian Arabs left or were expelled, mainly from the towns of Haifa, Tiberias, Beit-Shean, Safed, Jaffa and Acre, which lost more than 90 percent of their Arab inhabitants.[10] Expulsions took place in many towns and villages, particularly along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road[11] and in Eastern Galilee.[12]

About 50,000-70,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle were expelled towards Ramallah by the Israel Defence Force during Operation Danny,[13] and most others during operations of the IDF in its rear areas.[14] During Operation Dekel, the Arabs of Nazareth and South Galilee were allowed to remain in their homes.[15] Today they form the core of the Arab Israeli population. From October to November 1948, the IDF launched Operation Yoav to remove Egyptian forces from the Negev and Operation Hiram to remove the Arab Liberation Army from North Galilee during which at least nine massacres of Arabs were carried out by IDF soldiers.[16] These events generated an exodus of 200,000 to 220,000 Palestinian Arabs. Here, Arabs fled fearing atrocities or were expelled if they had not fled.[17] After the war, from 1948 to 1950, the IDF expelled around 30,000 to 40,000 Arabs from the borderlands of the new Israeli state.[18]

[Orphiuchus]

TrieBhaGgHM

If Israel were the good guys, would they have murdered Mickey Mouse? I think not.


I do not get how people can so readily condemn Israel while forgiving the monsters who neighbor them. Yes, the Palestinians live in a shit-hole, but it is a shit-hole of their own making and Israel can not make things better for them so long as the population is so indoctrinated with hate.

We all know god-damned well what will happen if Israel opens the proverbial gates, so what else would you have them do? Are you saying they should die because the land belonged to someone else at some point? The same could be said for every other piece of land on earth.

[Orphiuchus]

...
Some may have sold their land prior to that, but you don't end up with a million people selling their familial lands in the same year so they can all go kick it in the desert.
...

They were basically surfs, the land owners who got rich didn't live there.

[VenomUSMC]

It wasn't their fault, and because of that war they lost their homeland and now have to live in a hellhole. Also, many of them were massacred simply because they were arabian.
It wasn't their fault. Sure it's not like every single Palestinian is out to get Jews... however when you have Palestinians blowing up civilian buses any chance they get... how is it the fault of those children? They aren't caught in the crossfire... they are simply targeted directly by Palestinians.

[Anenome]

I think you're wrong here, but I could see if this was true why you would have your feelings. As I have always read it, most Palestinians were forceably removed from their homes during the war of 1948. They didn't simply sell it and get rich. No one sells their home to move into a refugee camp, ok? And the very fact that they are called refugees means that they fled from violence/war.
You're right, they were moved off land by Israelis. And the reason was because the arabs being moved off the land simply didn't own the land, the Jews owned it. You'd be okay letting arabs live free of charge in your backyard? There were Arab absentee landlords that sold the land to the Jews, who then showed up and move Palestinian squatters off their new land. That actually makes it perfectly legal and moral.

Did some Arab farmers get upset about this? Sure, but they had no right to the land, neither legally nor contractually nor historically.


because of that war they lost their homeland
The "palestinians" are not even a "people" historically. How can you call that a "homeland" for them? It's the Jewish homeland plain and simple. That actually is a people, is a cultural identity. The "Palestinians" were created as a people the minute the Jewish state came into existence in order to justify attacks to reclaim a false and nonexistant homeland for a nonexistant people, a people whose only connection to each other was just that they were living there. A year before they were just arabs, ruled by Turks, all of a sudden they're palestinians.


and now have to live in a hellhole.
They should move to Jordan. Or they should be absorbed by the arab nations around them. Why doesn't that happen? Clearly so the other arab nations can attack Israel by proxy.

The arabs have tons of land all around the world. The jews do not. They have one place, a place that's historically theirs. It's not righ what these palestinians are doing.

And latching on to things like Jerusalem and the Gaza strip are merely attempts to hurt Israel.

The Gaza strip is nothing more than an important strategic point militarily from which you can shell all of Israel. Israel must control that point of else cede to being shelled at will.

Do you people even realize that Israel at its widest point is 70 miles wide! It has 8,000 square miles only. You could fit 8 Israel's into Florida.

What sorts of land do the arabs have. Gigantic portions. It's just bullcrap man.

Beyond that, before the Israelis showed up, the arabs selling land to them were laughing their asses off. They considered it useless swamp land. Until the Israelies drained the swamps and turned them into fertile farmland. Now suddenly it's a palestinian homeland. Funny how that term never shows up in history prior to the Jews trying to restore their own homeland to the territory.

[Anenome]

So hundreds of thousands of Palestinians leave Israel because they know the 6-day war is about to break and they expect to move back in as soon as Israel is defeated. But Israel wins and they're left twisting in the wind? You know who's responsible for these people? Those 5 Arab countries. They should have absorbed all these refugees which they created.

[VenomUSMC]

Also it's again worth saying. Palestinians TARGET children, civilians. By and large the children/civilians killed by Israelis are because their target has used them as human shields. If they wanted to target Israeli military they could do so... instead they shoot anti-tank missiles at school buses and complain to the world that they are the ones being wronged?

[Agnostic Pope]

They are basically a "more physical" anonymous. They target kids too and they have supporters lulz!

[Anenome]

The media, and others, seem to support Palestinians purely because they're the underdogs in the situation, without question of moral or legal culpability. Just because the Jews have rifles and tanks doesn't make them aggressors.

Also, there are those like Helen Thomas who are just too close to the situation emotionally to be considered objective in any sense.

[Agnostic Pope]

Everybody here supports the jews. (but like 2 posters?) Really though it is none of our damn business. Cute how everybody here has an opinion on the subject and all but who are we to decide/argue over it? If people would have just minded their own business 60+ years ago NONE of this shit would have happened.

[score]

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”

David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israeli

That pretty much sums up the root of the conflict. Some of you guys should look up the Irgun and the Stern gang. Maybe the bombing of the Hotel King David. As I see it, this was how Israel was founded, on a bed of terrorism.

[Anenome]

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israeli

That pretty much sums up the root of the conflict. Some of you guys should look up the Irgun and the Stern gang. Maybe the bombing of the Hotel King David. As I see it, this was how Israel was founded, on a bed of terrorism.
Out of context quote is out of context. This is not an admission of guilt or a characterization of what happened, this is Ben Gurion recounting the Arab point of view and talking points.

"...this "quote" is from page 99 of a book called "The Jewish Paradox," by Nahum Goldmann (Weidenfel­d and Nicolson, 1978), in which Goldmann is recounting a conversati­on he had with Ben Gurion a couple of decades earlier.

If you continue reading down the page, not just two cherry-pic­ked sentences, you will read that Ben Gurion was explaining what he believed to be Arab leaders' point of view. He spoke as though he was one of them to illustrate his point.

What was his point? On the same page, Goldmann continues, "That was Ben Gurion all over. He had told me that so as to show me how well he knew in his heart that Israel could not exist without peace with the Arabs."

If you prefer to call this an out-of-con­text quote rather than a fake quote, that's fine. But you need to stop repeating garbage lifted from anti-Israe­l sites.


As I see it, this was how Israel was founded, on a bed of terrorism.
You would've called the Boston Tea Party a terrorist act, wouldn't you :P One extreme Jewish terrorist organization, which was not part of the Israeli government and which was actually declared a terrorist organization by the state of Israel hardly balances against the dozens of terrorist organizations currently trying to murder the entire people of Israel.

[Agnostic Pope]

You would've called the Boston Tea Party a terrorist act, wouldn't you

It was, didn't know you went over to the right...

[VenomUSMC]

If people would have just minded their own business 60+ years ago NONE of this shit would have happened.

Didn't people try that approach with Hitler at first? I don't think it turned out too well.

[Agnostic Pope]

Didn't people try that approach with Hitler at first? I don't think it turned out too well.

WW1 would have never had happened if people (countries) kept to themselves. All the bad shit post WW1 basically created Hitler.

[VenomUSMC]

WW1 would have never had happened if people (countries) kept to themselves. All the bad shit post WW1 basically created Hitler.
Yes if every country in the world minded their own business the world wouldn't be so full of hatred, wars, etc. However reality states that people will never mind their own business. Some group is always going to declare this land or that land is rightfully theirs, some religious reasoning, etc.
Looking at the problems Israel has and Palestinians I find it easy to see that Palestinians are just tools to whatever Arab country which wants to harm Israel. If other Arab nations really were concerned with the "plight" of the Palestinians they have the means to help them. Instead the only thing they are concerned with is using them to get at Israel because of their own failed attempts at conventional war against them.

[Agnostic Pope]

It sounds like we need a goddamn "Squid" (http://watchmen.wikia.com/wiki/Alien_Monster)IRL.

[Anenome]

It [Boston Tea Party] was [a terrorist act], didn't know you went over to the right...
Yes, the British from that point on were mortally afraid for their tea. Entire towns died in fright at the mere prospect of Darjeeling flavored seawater :P Buy our tea, or give us death, the British tea merchants shouted in protest.

The BTP was a violent protest against the unjust British aggression known as "taxation without representation." It was illegal, it destroyed property, but it does not rise to the level of "terror," as no one died nor were lives threatened :P

[Agnostic Pope]

The BTP was a violent protest against the unjust British aggression known as "taxation without representation." It was illegal, it destroyed property, but it does not rise to the level of "terror," as no one died nor were lives threatened :P

There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.

:p

[Anenome]

There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians), and are committed by non-government agencies.

:p
Clearly the generation of terror has to be an aim, as that's essential to the concept :P Fear is intrinsic to the act, and specifically fear of bodily harm. BTP had zero bodily harm or threat thereof for anyone.

[Agnostic Pope]

Causing/starting fear of a revolution was a threat to people as it started a war. Terrorism.

[Anenome]

Nah, that's a major stretch of the facts of history :P

[Agnostic Pope]

Why Anenome with all the evil events around our countries founding and history would such a small thing as terrorism leave you in teenial? :P Hell we have put people in camps, stolen land from Natives and Mexicans, started wars over land and we have committed acts of genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_genocide). We shouldn't forget our origins or it might happen again. History repeats itself. Ironically other countries that do these types of things these days are so quickly judged by us! 100 years ago we were no better than anybody when did we get our records cleaned?

It is time we stopped playing cowboys and let nature take its course. We need to stop helping other countries and let them either grow or die but let us NOT forget that our proud nation was founded by blood just like everybody any other country!

[Orphiuchus]

Why Anenome with all the evil events around our countries founding and history would such a small thing as terrorism leave you in teenial? :P Hell we have put people in camps, stolen land from Natives and Mexicans, started wars over land and we have committed acts of genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_genocide). We shouldn't forget our origins or it might happen again. History repeats itself. Ironically other countries that do these types of things these days are so quickly judged by us! 100 years ago we were no better than anybody when did we get our records cleaned?

It is time we stopped playing cowboys and let nature take its course. We need to stop helping other countries and let them either grow or die but let us NOT forget that our proud nation was founded by blood just like everybody any other country!

The people who did these things 100+ years ago are all dead, the people doing them now are alive. If we have the ability and the means to stop these acts of horror then it isn't unreasonable to say that we should do so.

Also, just because some guy who lived in the US while my ancestors were still in Ireland and Scotland oppressed the native Americans doesn't mean I'm culpable in any way. This genetic guilt that has invaded our society needs to be scaled back, its unfair and usually inaccurate.

[Agnostic Pope]

If we have the ability and the means to stop these acts of horror then it isn't unreasonable to say that we should do so.

Also, just because some guy who lived in the US while my ancestors were still in Ireland and Scotland oppressed the native Americans doesn't mean I'm culpable in any way. This genetic guilt that has invaded our society needs to be scaled back, its unfair and usually inaccurate.

Did people stop us?


I wasn't blaming my/your ancestors. I was just telling our countries history without bias.

[Anenome]

I'm fully willing to call a spade a spade, Agpope, it's just that that incident is not a spade, err, not terrorism, not by any stretch of the definition. I'm not saying we're lily white historically, what nation is. What I am concerned with is that words mean things. I'm not pushing an agenda on the BTP, that's what I think is objectively true. To my mind, non-violent property destruction (of tea) isn't terrorism. They didn't dynamite the whole ship or anything like that. No lives were ever at risk in that action.

I would consider spiking trees to be terrorism, because it's aim is to jam logger's chainsaws, causing the chains to break which have resulted in the deaths of the loggers from the chain whipping around and hitting them. That makes ELF and others that have done that environmental terrorists.

But, on a case by case basis, not everything is terrorism. Putting popcorn kernels in the radiators of tractors--I don't think ever put anyone at risk of death. I'd call that plain property destruction, even if done by the same terrorist organization.

(I still like the thought of Darjeeling flavored seawater... though I doubt they had that flavor back then. Makes you wonder what they did have... mint perhaps?)

[Orphiuchus]

Did people stop us?


I wasn't blaming my/your ancestors. I was just telling our countries history without bias.

You're giving a historically accurate account of our national history through the lens of modern morality without serious pragmatic consideration of what these things would have meant at the time, and you're giving it in a thread about a complex modern morality issue as though it were relevant.

Now, I'm not saying what happened to the Native Americans wasn't wrong. I was born in a town called Butte Montana. It features an open pit mine, multiple Superfund sites(one of which I was born less than 100 meters from), zero trashcans, and hundreds of casinos housed in trailers parked on the side of the road. I wasn't there to see it, but my father told me that into the 70s if Native Americans came into town they were spit at. This happened because of ignorance and hate, but the it should be remembered that the bigots in this case were miners born in 1880s who's older brothers may have been killed at the Little Bighorn. All they knew about the different looking folks coming into town was that their 'kind' had killed someone they cared about a long time ago. These people were the product of their environment, and the people in the area didn't change until unbiased education was able to penetrate their traditions and bring their children out of the darkness, as it were.

There have been a lot of things done by Americans over the years which were totally inexcusable, but without being able to properly contextualize events we fail to understand the history, and therefor are perhaps doomed to repeat it. I'm often confused at how one sided the Native American debate is. We always assume that a people living in the Neolithic era are somehow better off if left there. We forget that there were societies on the American continents who had begun advancing, and that these societies had been harassed and perhaps even destroyed by warfare with more primitive peoples.

There are very few places in the world where untouched tribes still exist, but a story I recall is about one in Brazil. Its that one that was photographed from the air a few years back. There was a very illuminating documentary on the national geographic channel some time ago about the interaction between this untouched tribe and the neighboring tribes who have been partially "civilized". The overwhelming position of the neighbors was that members of the untouched tribe should be kidnapped by the Brazilian government, taught Portuguese and "civilized", then re-introduced so they could "civilize" the rest of their tribe. The reason the neighboring tribes believe this is twofold, first, it made their lives better when it happened to them, and second because the untouched tribe likes to raid their villages, kidnap children, and fire arrows at anyone who comes to close to their area of the jungle. It is the position of the Brazilian government that untouched tribes should be left untouched, perhaps to preserve something for those of us in the modern world to study and admire as somehow more holy. My contention is that it is a supremely selfish act on the part of modern society to allow these people to live in the darkness while we bask in the light.

Naturally, giving people disease ridden blankets wasn't an attempt to bring them into the modern era, but this particular genocide is near the end of a very long series of events that started with the simple fact that there wasn't enough land or food for both peoples to live, and when the choice is "Half of both of our peoples starve, or all of one of them" there is going to be war. Once the wars had been started, and all that either side knew of the other was that someone they cared about had been killed by the enemy's 'kind', a horrible end was inescapable.

Thankfully, it is a kind of war who's genesis has been ended by modern farming and genetically modified crops. We would be remiss to forget that prior to the purely ideological and financial conflicts of the 20th century and beyond most warfare was fought on some level for survival. This actually leads me into an optimistic assertion; we have ended at least the beginning of one kind of war, this bodes well for the future of humanity as a whole.

[Dag-Sabot]

Okay, now explain Vietnam.

[Orphiuchus]

Okay, now explain Vietnam.

It was ideological clearly, and it went poorly because 1 year tours pretty much meant the bulk of the US fighting force had no idea what they were doing. We fought Vietnam 12 times for 1 year at a time, and the enemy fought it once for 20+ years. Every time we sent a new batch of troops with minimal training into combat the enemy they faced was more deadly than the one their predecessor had faced. It was a budget war pushed by politicians who didn't understand warfare.

[VenomUSMC]

Okay, now explain Vietnam.
The idea behind the US intervention in Vietnam was to prevent the spread of Communism... the USSR.. the people that the Western world was in a "Cold War" with. A poorly run war and looks to be the model, in my opinion, to modern wars as far as political heads running them instead of the military.
Vietnam man have been extremely poorly run however I do understand the reasoning behind the initial intervention. The fear of allowing that area of the world to succumb completely to communism and having a domino effect going across the globe.

[Agnostic Pope]

Mojopinned version
People didn't know any better and this doesn't have anything to do with today's ideals.

Uhuh it doesn't make it any less...wrong. I speak the truth not excuses.


Truth is I would have done the same thing in that era because really I wouldn't know any better like Columbus and his killing/raping natives across the land. Or catching people like animals and shipping them to another continent. Shit I would have killed all those women and children as well for some land! Those were just the times. Totally justified! /sarcasm.

[Anenome]

This is a fascinating idea actually. But disease is a major factor for them, from what I've heard the Brazilian gov say about it. I wonder if they could be immunized tho... probably. The overwhelming position of the neighbors was that members of the untouched tribe should be kidnapped by the Brazilian government, taught Portuguese and "civilized", then re-introduced so they could "civilize" the rest of their tribe.

As for the "genocide" of American Indians via disease, I love that argument because it's so historically ignorant. Sure, the American Indians faced disease. Disease, btw, wasn't well understood back then either. But it's not something they could've escaped even if the issue wasn't forced on them. And beyond that, few seem to remember that Europe itself lost about 1/3 to 1/2 of its population when the Huns from Asia brought the black death with them. The reason we were immune to the same diseases was because we'd already gone through our own disease-born holocaust.

As for Vietnam, the Red Vietnamese "won", and their people are the ones who really lost. Look at them compared to South Korea now. Communism is a horrible curse on a people.

[Orphiuchus]

Uhuh it doesn't make it any less...wrong. I speak the truth not excuses.


Truth is I would have done the same thing in that era because really I wouldn't know any better like Columbus and his killing/raping natives across the land. Or catching people like animals and shipping them to another continent. Shit I would have killed all those women and children as well for some land! Those were just the times. Totally justified! /sarcasm.

That's just it, as repulsive as it is that was the way things were. The day to day lives of all but the elite were a living hell by today's standards for all of history, everywhere. Pretending that in the position of some colonist farmer who's family was going to starve to death over the winter you wouldn't have killed for some native's corn doesn't change the fact that your ancestors probably did, hence you're existence. My ancestors in Ireland probably hoarded potatoes while the neighbors starved to death. Survival of the fittest is an ugly thing.

Modern morality belongs in the present, once we start applying it to history we lose sight of why things actually happened, and the lessons are wasted.

The past sucked. If you want something to be outraged about there are plenty of atrocities being committed today which are well within our power to prevent.

[Dag-Sabot]

The idea behind the US intervention in Vietnam was to prevent the spread of Communism... the USSR.. the people that the Western world was in a "Cold War" with. A poorly run war and looks to be the model, in my opinion, to modern wars as far as political heads running them instead of the military.
Vietnam man have been extremely poorly run however I do understand the reasoning behind the initial intervention. The fear of allowing that area of the world to succumb completely to communism and having a domino effect going across the globe.To be fair the domino theory has been refuted for the simple fact after the US left, no other countries toppled. In fact Vietnam fought a border war with its communist benefactor after that war and shortly after it invaded the communist backed Cambodia. Ho Chi Minh, as a young man went to Paris to consult with Woodrow Wilson regarding the 10 points he had proposed at the end of the WW1, he was instead shown to the door. Despite all this he cooperated with the OSS against the Japanese during WW2. For this support he received the reinstatement of french colonial rule, and after kicking out the french had to deal with a US supported puppet Diem and rigged elections. Diem was later assassinated with the tacit agreement of the CIA. The widely disproved domino theory was just a boogie man for the naive public in order to obtain support for the police action in Viet-Nam.

[Agnostic Pope]

As for the "genocide" of American Indians via disease, I love that argument because it's so historically ignorant.

Actually you are being (http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/native-americans) ignorant (http://www.wicocomico-indian-nation.com/pages/genocide.html). I'm not just talking about the disease that the immigrants carried over. But the actual act of genocide committed against the natives. You know acts that made them snap and attack the invaders on site?

[VenomUSMC]

To be fair the domino theory has been refuted for the simple fact after the US left, no other countries toppled.
Yes the US left after a decade of being there fighting. Which may have been enough to get Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Nicaragua changing over to communist style governments.
The widely disproved domino theory was just a boogie man for the naive public in order to obtain support for the police action in Viet-Nam.
It may have been or it may have been a real fear at the time. Obviously Vietnam didn't lead to that part of the world becoming completely red however that doesn't mean the US didn't feel that was a very strong possibility and reasoning to get into the war.

[Agnostic Pope]

http://i.imgur.com/mWRe5.jpg

[VenomUSMC]

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/2008/12/01/pal_boy_yawns.jpg

[Anenome]

Don't get me started on Palestianian history books and what they're teaching their own youth in schools.

"Palestinian children's graduation ceremony
You don't have to ask these cute little children what they want to be & what they want to do when they grow up. You can ask why CNN cut out the climax -- the cute innocent children dragging, beating & "killing" an Israeli soldier."
f3WSb56Uq_w

This shit does not happen in Israel.

gi-c6lbFGC4
Notice how past cultural glory has driven the Arabs to envy here, this desire to rule the world. The Arabs once led the world in mathematics, sciences, astronomy, and had a grand culture, and now feel slighted that the West is ascendant.

[score]

http://i.imgur.com/PvVut.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/81WaN.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Khl7C.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/gGCcX.jpg

[Anenome]

*images*
Aggression is still the question. US troops signed bombs meant for its enemies, does that mean those bomb drops were evil? No. Jews signing bombs destined for retaliatory action says nothing about who's at fault in this conflict.

[Agnostic Pope]

Aggression is still the question. US troops signed bombs meant for its enemies, does that mean those bomb drops were evil?

Fuck yes. Specially when the current war is as meaningless as Vietnam. Those poor bastards. (Both sides)

[Dag-Sabot]

It may have been or it may have been a real fear at the time.History is there to be learned from. It's a bit of a cop out to say "well that was a real fear back then" while you make the same mistakes again and again.

[Orphiuchus]

History is there to be learned from. It's a bit of a cop out to say "well that was a real fear back then" while you make the same mistakes again and again.

Refusing to understand the cause of historical events is just as bad as not remembering them. If we pretend that all the tragedies of the past happened because the US is evil, then the next time we have a legitimate fear about something we may just react the same way, thinking "When we did that last thing it was wrong, but this new thing is an actual threat so we better deal with it!".

In fact, I think you could make the argument that this happens all the time.

[Dag-Sabot]

If we pretend that all the tragedies of the past happened because the US is evilNo one but extremists proport this. The US "fears" terrorism, but it chooses to invade third world countries while with the other hand it supports through monetary and military means genuine terrorism.

[Anenome]

The US doesn't actively support "genuine terrorism", rather we pick and choose among local leaders to keep regions quiet. We've occasionally chosen peace in a region by supporting a dictator over civil wars or communist take-over of the same region.

It's not an exaggeration to say that many places in the world simply cannot handle democracy (yet). They can't make it work. Even Liberia failed. Some countries have taken our constitution as their own, word for word, and descended into anarchy and despotism as well. You need certain values inculcated into society and a certain level of prosperity before a democracy really works out.

Also, look at the Japanese for an example of a society completely ready for Democracy. China would do well with one too, but they've got some red hangers on and a historical tradition of strong central rule, unfortunately for them.

[Agnostic Pope]

Refusing to understand the cause of historical events is just as bad as not remembering them. If we pretend that all the tragedies of the past happened because the US is evil, then the next time we have a legitimate fear about something we may just react the same way, thinking "When we did that last thing it was wrong, but this new thing is an actual threat so we better deal with it!".

In fact, I think you could make the argument that this happens all the time.

You got to stop excusing what people did in the past. The US itself of "old" wasn't evil but most people were.

[Glolokids]

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5664440914_30f1568a60_o.jpg

[Agnostic Pope]

What are you smoking?

[Dag-Sabot]

Spam-bot ( too short)

[Agnostic Pope]

Knowing that I posted. Meh.