If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Jeremy wrote:
Alan Pollock wrote in message ... Miguel Cruz wrote: Alan Pollock wrote: The destruction of civilian homes harboring terrorists, or the homes of suicide bombers? Fully in favor of that as long as they destroy the right homes. Again, a mistake doesn't invalidate the policy. At what point does a pattern of mistakes start to undermine it? When it becomes obvious that mistakes are policy, or when those making the mistakes are obviously badly-trained and/or stupid, or are running wild. I think we reached that point a long time ago. Too bad that one of the stupid wild people is Ariel Sharon. What's particularly stupid is that Sharon is sacrificing Israeli lives in the cause of a battle he cannot win. Eventually someone will have to sit down and negotiate. It would be better for Israel if they could negotiate with someone who represents a unified Palestinian position with the support of the people. As long as Sharon insists on creating misery and bitterness in the hearts of the Palestinians, and division within their political circles, the killings will go on on both sides. Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed to so much, but was still rejected. Until there's a civilian government with balls on the Palestinian side, nothing meaningful will be achieved imho. Hysteria, shrill cries of victimhood and gross hyperbole don't equate strength. Nor does terrorism and the ridiculous attemps to justify it. Nex |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Alan Pollock wrote:
Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed to so much, but was still rejected. Until there's a civilian government with balls on the Palestinian side, nothing meaningful will be achieved imho. Hysteria, shrill cries of victimhood and gross hyperbole don't equate strength. Nor does terrorism and the ridiculous attemps to justify it. There seems to be no historical basis to believe the current approach will ever stop the terrorists. So pressing forward in this vein seems basically tantamount to gratuitous violence. miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Following up to Alan Pollock
Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed to so much, but was still rejected. but the methods used to stop the terrorism are counter productive, why keep escalating the violence? -- Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso UK walking "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
The Reid wrote:
Following up to Alan Pollock Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed to so much, but was still rejected. but the methods used to stop the terrorism are counter productive, why keep escalating the violence? Which implicitly means accepting terrorism first? I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're terrorists, and they're the ones doing the escalating. Going after groups that continually target and kill innocent civilians is a good thing. The old tired phrase 'cycle of violence' tends to validate the idea that the Israelis and the terrorists are somehow morally equal. But if you mean escalation in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Palestinian public, then pandering to them might temporarily forestall violence, sure, for a few microseconds as a strategic posture until the next time somthing irks them and all of a sudden terrorism again becomes the 'answer'. Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult for them is the logical, pragmatic response. Palestinians are going to have to change their own society themselves. Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help, especially when Palestinian society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of money. Rewarding terrorism is no help at all. Nex |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
On 11/9/03 7:32 pm, in article , "Alan
Pollock" wrote: The Reid wrote: Following up to Alan Pollock Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed to so much, but was still rejected. but the methods used to stop the terrorism are counter productive, why keep escalating the violence? Which implicitly means accepting terrorism first? Define "terrorist". Please refer to Irgun adn LEHI, the French Resistance, the IRA, the Contras, the ANC and the American revolutionaries in your answer. Then re-read what you wrote below and see if it makes any sense. I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're terrorists, and they're the ones doing the escalating. Going after groups that continually target and kill innocent civilians is a good thing. The old tired phrase 'cycle of violence' tends to validate the idea that the Israelis and the terrorists are somehow morally equal. But if you mean escalation in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Palestinian public, then pandering to them might temporarily forestall violence, sure, for a few microseconds as a strategic posture until the next time somthing irks them and all of a sudden terrorism again becomes the 'answer'. Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult for them is the logical, pragmatic response. Palestinians are going to have to change their own society themselves. Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help, especially when Palestinian society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of money. Rewarding terrorism is no help at all. Nex |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Alan Pollock wrote: The Reid wrote: Following up to Alan Pollock Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed to so much, but was still rejected. but the methods used to stop the terrorism are counter productive, why keep escalating the violence? Which implicitly means accepting terrorism first? I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're terrorists, and they're the ones doing the escalating. Going after groups that continually target and kill innocent civilians is a good thing. The old tired phrase 'cycle of violence' tends to validate the idea that the Israelis and the terrorists are somehow morally equal. But if you mean escalation in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Palestinian public, then pandering to them might temporarily forestall violence, sure, for a few microseconds as a strategic posture until the next time somthing irks them and all of a sudden terrorism again becomes the 'answer'. Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult for them is the logical, pragmatic response. Palestinians are going to have to change their own society themselves. Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help, especially when Palestinian society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of money. Rewarding terrorism is no help at all. Nex Thank you - splendidly said. Couldn't snip a word! -- Best Greg |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
On 11/9/03 5:23 pm, in article , "Alan
Pollock" wrote: Jeremy wrote: Alan Pollock wrote in message ... Miguel Cruz wrote: Alan Pollock wrote: The destruction of civilian homes harboring terrorists, or the homes of suicide bombers? Fully in favor of that as long as they destroy the right homes. Again, a mistake doesn't invalidate the policy. At what point does a pattern of mistakes start to undermine it? When it becomes obvious that mistakes are policy, or when those making the mistakes are obviously badly-trained and/or stupid, or are running wild. I think we reached that point a long time ago. Too bad that one of the stupid wild people is Ariel Sharon. What's particularly stupid is that Sharon is sacrificing Israeli lives in the cause of a battle he cannot win. Eventually someone will have to sit down and negotiate. It would be better for Israel if they could negotiate with someone who represents a unified Palestinian position with the support of the people. As long as Sharon insists on creating misery and bitterness in the hearts of the Palestinians, and division within their political circles, the killings will go on on both sides. Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed to so much, but was still rejected. Like what? If you're referring to Camp David, I suggest you read some more about it. If you're referring to Taba, look at what was actually offered, then remember that nothing was actually ratified by the Israeli parliament. On the other hand, the Palestinian side offered to give up 78% of historic Palestine and were rejected Until there's a civilian government with balls on the Palestinian side, nothing meaningful will be achieved imho. Hysteria, shrill cries of victimhood and gross hyperbole don't equate strength. Nor does terrorism and the ridiculous attemps to justify it. Nex Are you talking about the Israelis here? J |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Following up to Alan Pollock
Which implicitly means accepting terrorism first? I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're terrorists, and they're the ones doing the escalating. The Palestinians see it the other way round. It makes no difference saying that they are terrorists, a strategy has to see the issues from the mindset of the enemy too. Going after groups that continually target and kill innocent civilians is a good thing. only if the outcome is less violence, currently it produces more violence. The old tired phrase 'cycle of violence' tends to validate the idea that the Israelis and the terrorists are somehow morally equal. It might be tired but it *is* a cycle of violence. Moral equality is irrelevant, your fighting a war, you need strategy that will get the desired results. Where is the Isreali endgame? Whatever you think, the Palestinians think they are right, so bulldozing houses and tank assaults only throw more into the arms of the extremists. How bad would northern Ireland have got if UK had used Israeli tactics? But if you mean escalation in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Palestinian public, then pandering to them might temporarily forestall violence, sure, for a few microseconds as a strategic posture until the next time somthing irks them and all of a sudden terrorism again becomes the 'answer'. Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult for them is the logical, pragmatic response. How can it be logical if it does not work? Palestinians are going to have to change their own society themselves. Or with help. We only made progress in NI by fighting terrorism with policing methods with military backup AND addressing the grievances. Against a far less ruthless and less widely supported enemy with a weaker grievance (although backed with some US money from noraid) the IRA were very effective in the mainland bombing campaign. Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help Hitting them with rockets, hinders. , especially when Palestinian society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of money. Agreed, these are the areas where eventually the problems must be unraveled and addressed, every tank round, bulldozer or rocket just puts it further out of reach. Rewarding terrorism is no help at all. Rewarding terrorism seems to be working in NI. Some of the terrorists are ministers now. -- Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso UK walking "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Alan Pollock wrote:
I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're terrorists, and they're the ones doing the escalating. Everyone who uses more violence than they did last time is escalating. Going after groups that continually target and kill innocent civilians is a good thing. The old tired phrase 'cycle of violence' tends to validate the idea that the Israelis and the terrorists are somehow morally equal. This situation is not going to be solved through assignations of moral quality. It's going to be solved one day when there exist some leaders that are strong and pragmatic to throw that sort of talk out the window and come up with a solution based on the needs of the two communities in that space. Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult for them is the logical, pragmatic response. What is logical about this? It doesn't work. It has never worked in any other similar situation, except very temporarily. There is no reason to think it would work here. After many years it is demonstrably a failure and there is no evidence of a positive trend. Palestinians are going to have to change their own society themselves. The current setup rewards violence by Palestinians with moral superiority. The Israelis have cast themselves as the oppressors, and play the part with glee, and so any strike against them is a blow for justice in the eyes of those who feel themselves downtrodden by a superior power. As long as this persists, there will be no change. Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help, especially when Palestinian society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of money. Those things would be great, however every time some developed-world money goes into a school or road or airport it gets blown up by the Israeli army. miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Miguel Cruz wrote:
Alan Pollock wrote: I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're terrorists, and they're the ones doing the escalating. Everyone who uses more violence than they did last time is escalating. Then the term 'escalation' is meaningless. Give it some value and we'll talk. Going after groups that continually target and kill innocent civilians is a good thing. The old tired phrase 'cycle of violence' tends to validate the idea that the Israelis and the terrorists are somehow morally equal. This situation is not going to be solved through assignations of moral quality. It's going to be solved one day when there exist some leaders that are strong and pragmatic to throw that sort of talk out the window and come up with a solution based on the needs of the two communities in that space. They're only assigned because some here don't seem to understand the difference between targeting civilians and going after those who do. As for solutions based on the needs of both communities who could disagree with that? Unless the need of one community is the complete annihilation of the other. Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult for them is the logical, pragmatic response. What is logical about this? It doesn't work. It has never worked in any other similar situation, except very temporarily. There is no reason to think it would work here. After many years it is demonstrably a failure and there is no evidence of a positive trend. How do you know there wouldn't be ten times more acts of terrorism if it was all made more easy for them? If Israel did nothing, would there be less terrorism? Do the terrorists say there would be less? Don't they say they want to wipe Israel off the map? Palestinians are going to have to change their own society themselves. The current setup rewards violence by Palestinians with moral superiority. The Israelis have cast themselves as the oppressors, and play the part with glee, and so any strike against them is a blow for justice in the eyes of those who feel themselves downtrodden by a superior power. As long as this persists, there will be no change. Bu there is moral superiority when you compare a group that kills innocent civilians on purpose and those who try to eliminate those who do. The 'glee' part is frivolous, Miguel, and it's irrelevant. Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help, especially when Palestinian society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of money. Those things would be great, however every time some developed-world money goes into a school or road or airport it gets blown up by the Israeli army. Read my paragraph again. Nex |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|