- This topic has 8 voices and 44 replies.
-
Posts
-
This may be the next step of the discussion, once we have labeled someone (or group) terrorists, what is the best way to deal with them? The military works, to a point. Education–on both sides. Isolating them. I'm sure there are a lot of avenues that could be pursued.
This may be the next step of the discussion, once we have labeled someone (or group) terrorists, what is the best way to deal with them? The military works, to a point. Education--on both sides. Isolating them. I'm sure there are a lot of avenues that could be pursued.
All and none. Dealing with terrorism must be done on a case by case basis. Some of the issues that the terrorists claim as their own are patently insoluble. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict for one, compromise is impossible given the stated demands of both sides. Hence, the refusal of Hezbollah and others to even acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. Most Jihadist ideology is the same, to give in to their demands means the surrender of everything in the west we hold dear. This, despite what some on the left say. I, for one, will never agree to abide by Sharia law or accept what I consider to be the false religion of Islam. Some issues can only be solved by the sword. To think otherwise, is to delude ourselves. Education will work, up to a point, but some will never be reconciled to a free and open society.
Here is a further question in regards to terrorism and ways of dealing with it. What is to be gained by negotiating with terrorists? This is one question I simply cannot divine a good answer to. Negotiation implies a willingness to compromise, from everything I understand, terrorists, especially the Jihadists, are not willing to compromise. What then is the point of talking to them? The same thing goes for talking to Iran, I do not see how talking helps anything. We (the West) are willing to compromise to a point, but if our enemies are not then isn't compromise on our part tantamount to surrender since we will be giving something up but they wont?It reminds me of California and minimum wage a few years ago. Arnold opposed any increase the dems wanted a $2 increase. They settled on a $1 increase, in that scenario the dems got some of what they wanted and Arnold got nothing, hence the dems won, they got at least some of what they wanted. Where is the compromise there? The same thing applies in Palestine, the Palestinians want their demands met while refusing to countenance any of the wants or needs of the Israelis, this also brings checkmate, yet the Israelis are excoriated for for their actions despite the fact that they are the ones making concessions.
yet the Israelis are excoriated for for their actions despite the fact that they are the ones making concessions.
They are? Give examples, please. How's that apartheid wall going?About Iran, isn't sanctions negotiating? Isn't isolating them negotiating? In that aspect, negotiating isn't so bad. Sometimes diplomacy doesn't always turn out like we want it to or maybe sometimes we don't understand why a certain decision was made. Containment is the key for terrorism. Negotiating with would-be terrorist candidates is necessary so that they don't become terrorists.What about Sadr? Should we negotiate? The only reason I say WE shouldn't negotiate with him, is because that's Maliki's decision and if Maliki chooses to negotiate, that shouldn't be our business. Speaking of Iraq, what about them negotiating with Iran? They're neighbors, they (both countries) have to do whatever it takes to get along. That may require compromise.
Sanctions are not negotiation. Sanctions are consequences for actions deemed undesirable by the world community. Negotiation is two or more parties sitting down across the table and trying to find a solution to mutual problems that both can live with. Negotiations with Iran can begin once they agree to meet the reasonable demands from the world community. Or would you say that Iran's president calling for the destruction of Israel is negotiating as well? Sanctions are indeed an example of diplomacy but not of negotiation. Negotiation implies a two-way conversation. With Iran, the west has expressed a willingness to negotiate, all we have gotten from Iran is bombast and rhetoric.
yet the Israelis are excoriated for for their actions despite the fact that they are the ones making concessions.
They are? Give examples, please. How's that apartheid wall going?
The Israeli's are regularly blasted by Palestinian organizations and bleeding heart liberals for their policies. They have consistently made concessions in the search for peace. They ceded control of Gaza and the West Bank, they have allowed Palestinian self-rule in the so-called occupied territories. Yet your own emotionally charged language condemns them for taking measures to safeguard their own population. The problem people have with the wall is that it works, if Israel was not threatened by Palestinian suicide bombers there would be no need for the wall. Why don't the Palestinians stop sending the bombers into Israel. Or is it simply more convenient to blame the Israelis because they are a successful country despite the 60 years of Arab attempts to push them into the sea. I challenge you to name one substantive concession made by the Palestinians or their self-appointed leadership to Israeli requests for security guarantees. I can think of none. Hell, many Palestinian groups won't even acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Their continued survival speaks to them having established that right, at a minimum. So far, the state of Israel has withstood the test of time, and they don't look like quitting or going away any time soon.As to negotiations between Sadr and Iraq and Iran and Iraq, you are entirely correct, those are decisions best made by the Iraqi authorities. My post was more about why the we in the west or more specifically, our leadership, should not negotiate with terrorists. I reiterate, what is to be gained by the west sitting down and negotiating with those (Iran, Al Quaeda, Jihadists) that are not willing to concede anything if we did talk to them. You don't negotiate with the guy threatening your family, you do what it takes to ensure he is not a threat.
Yes, the wall has been successful at thwarting attacks, but the problem with the wall is it makes a border that no one has negotiated yet and it seperates based on race (that's apartheid). And to play up to pro-Israel sentiment, it forced thousands of Jews to move. Israel did not give the Palestinians full authority or self-rule because every Palestinian needs an ID card authorized by Israel's government. I think the ones who say this is purely "leftist" or "liberal" thinking need to take a few steps away from the right-wing talking points. "Oh, it's Israel, we can just make excuses for them. Bombing a US spy ship? No problem, it's Israel."
The wall is a response to the Palestinian refusal to seriously negotiate not a cause. The Palestinians are not even willing to meet the Israelis half-way. Can you seriously claim that the Israeli's have not tried to negotiate with the Palestinians, talking to them is like talking to a wall, with about as much effect.
What has Israel compromised? They've taken land unlawfully (based on international law and treaties) and they're confined a huge population from getting to work or school. When the Germans did this in Warsaw it was evil, why is it not evil when Israel does it? When South Africa practiced apartheid it was evil, why is it OK for Israel to do it? If they are such an ally, then how many IDF troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan helping us? Zero. This perplexes me because the president is calling on international help, except Israel. Why? Because they're allegedly the chosen ones of God? I think that's the only reason. They bombed one of our spy ships and killed 34 of our men and wounded 173, and we didn't do anything about it except bury it or make excuses for it. Excuse my rant, but I'm just sick of this country giving unconditional support to another country who has back stabbed us many times. If China or any Arab nation did to us what Israel did, we'd be at war with them or slap some crippling sanctions on them. Does AIPAC have THAT much influence over our politicians? That should not be! We gave Israel what they wanted, if the Zionists wanted more and decided to go to war with Egypt and Syria, then that's their own problem, not ours.
Now you are comparing the Israeli's to the Nazis? How rich. How, I wonder, is the Israeli conquest of Israel in 1948 equivalent to the Nazi attempt to conquer all of Europe? I think you forget your history here. The Jewish people did not suddenly appear in the Holy Land, they have a continuous presence going back almost 3,000 years. What is a Palestinian anyway? I will tell you, A Palestinian is an ethnic construct of the so-called Palestinian people themselves. They are nothing more than the descendants of those Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula that conquered the Middle East during Islam's first great wave of expansion in the eighth century. The Palestinian's have no more than squatter's rights; if anyone has a claim to the territory of Israel, it is the Jews.
If they are such an ally, then how many IDF troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan helping us? Zero. This perplexes me because the president is calling on international help, except Israel. Why? Because they're allegedly the chosen ones of God? I think that's the only reason.
You know as well as I that if the IDF were to contribute troops to Iraq and Afghanistan their presence would only inflame the terrorists and non-terrorists alike. If any people in the world has a monopoly on anti-Semitism today, it is the Muslims. Your complaint on that point is disingenuous at best.What I detect in you is an irrational hatred of Israel, who, the Liberty incident notwithstanding, has been America's one staunch ally in the Middle East since its founding. I find some people's visceral dislike, even hatred of Israel, confusing. You use emotionally charged language and make outrageous claims about how evil they are. I guess the Arab nations surrounding Israel are absolved of any and all responsibility vis-?-vis the Palestinians? What about Jordan and Black October? Syria? Egypt? They support their Palestinian brothers so much? I guess you have not heard about Egypt closing the border between Sinai and the Gaza Strip? Or the fact that Egyptian policy this spring was to machine gun civilians who were attempting to break into Sinai?I cannot believe that you are so na?ve as to believe all the anti-Israeli rhetoric. They are easy to demonize because they seemingly hold all the cards. It is the Palestinians who indiscriminately target civilians, not the Israelis.
Sorry, didn't thinking being a Nationalist was so offensive. I critisize our policies with Israel because it brings us harm. That's not being naive, that's reality. I'm not exonerating anyone. I'm angry that our foreign policy is so heavily influenced by another country (unless you deny that) AND HAS GRAVE AFFECTS ON OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY. I made comparisons with the Nazis because it CAN be compared. The Nazis placed the Jews in a ghetto because they were a percieved threat. Instead of using intelligence to find the Palestinian criminals, the Israeli government just found it easier to lock up and ghetto-ize 2,000,000 people. I thought MOSSAD and the IDF were first rate warriors? If so, then why don't they just go after the terrorists instead of the whole population? The Israelites like to soften their stance by comparing their barrier wall to Northern Ireland's wall. There's no comparison because NI allows freedom of movement and doesn't lock the citizens within the walls.
I think you forget your history here. The Jewish people did not suddenly appear in the Holy Land, they have a continuous presence going back almost 3,000 years...They are nothing more than the descendants of those Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula that conquered the Middle East during Islam's first great wave of expansion in the eighth century
I don't think it's me forgetting history, Arabs were around well before Islam came around. The Israelites and Arabs got along quite well, even after Islam came about until about the 19th century. How times have changed. In Spain, the Jews even sought protection by the Muslims from the Conquistadors. That's just one example, there's plenty more.The following should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in Middle East politics:
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ?democracy? throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ?Israel Lobby?. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country ? in this case, Israel ? are essentially identical.
83 page pdf at linkTHE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICYAnd I'll keep bringing up the Liberty until it's investigated and someone is charged with a war crime.
I see that you are absolving the Arabs of all responsibility for the plight of the Palestinians. Israel only controls one side of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. You have completely ignored the actions of the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, and Lebanese in the wretched conditions in which the Palestinians live.If the Israelis have to give back the land they conquered in 1948 why doesn't the US do the same for all the Native Americans whose land was stolen in North America? That is not confusing the issue either. The concept is one and the same. Right of conquest has a history going back thousands of years, it is only in the last hundred that peoples have taken to manipulating public opinion to attempt to reverse the decision on the battlefield. Palestinian terrorism and terrorism of any stripe is a policy of the weak. I happen to belong to a nation that is currently strong. Therefore, I abhor terrorism, I would probably think differently if I were in different shoes. Happily, I am not. How does the US relationship with Israel harm American interests? Face it, the only reason we care about the middle east is the oil. Without that we would care as much about the Arabs as we do about most of sub-Saharan Africa, which is not much. Our national interests are at stake in ensuring the free flow of oil. Our support for Israel is the support of one democracy for another. Never mind the horror of the Holocaust.As for the Liberty, what about the Pueblo? Do you want to see the North Koreans punished for that? The Liberty is a good stick to wave but there is little substance to the conspiracy theories surrounding that incident. I spare little thought for it, that incident is pure fodder for conspiracy theorists.The Israelis have always been open about their demands. They seek peace and the right to exist. The Palestinians seek an illusional right of return, and the destruction of the state of Israel. Both sides tend to be irrational. But I see no attempt on the part of Israel to ghetto-ize the Palestinians. In my opinion, they have only enacted reasonable security measures, given the demonstrated thereat they face. We will no doubt continue to disagree. I think the US is right to support Israel, you don't. That is fine, it is in the nature of a free society that we will not agree on everything. I did not insult your nationalism, I said exactly
"What I detect in you is an irrational hatred of Israel, who, the Liberty incident notwithstanding, has been America's one staunch ally in the Middle East since its founding"
I dont see where that impugns your national feeling.To sum my feelings up, Israel won, the Palestinians lost. Israel has spent the past 50 years defending, and even expanding their conquests. Something Europeans did in America. Why is it wrong there now, but we are not wrong for our conquests in the New World? Conquest is Conquest, the test of history is whether you can maintain those conquests, so far the Israeli's have. Lastly, I ask myself one question. Given the choice to have either an Israeli or a Palestinian by my side in combat, which would I choose. The answer is easy, an Israeli. Not because he is a better fighter, though they undoubtedly are, but because the Israeli's are more trustworthy. I have not met an Arab yet I will trust farther than I can throw him, but the few Israeli's I have met are all men of their word.We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I am not going to change your mind and you wont change mine. I have too much experience of the Arab man on the street to ever change it.
Agreed. I don't think either of us (and the other members) want this to get any more heated than it already is. But justa few comments: N.Korea is considered an enemy of the US, so it's not like we swept it under the rug.Palestinians (or Arabs or whatever you want to call them) and Jews have been living together relatively peacefully for a long, long time. As far as who lives where or who was there first, I don't care WHO it is, when a population is forcibly made to move, that in my opinion, is a blatant violation of human rights and freedom. Whatever happened happened, but I hope we (Man) would not allow it to happen anymore anywhere. I'm not a naive idiot, I know it will and does continue to happen, but if it can be stopped it should be stopped.For the record, I exonerate no one. Everyone, including Arab countries, are at fault in one way or another. I just think this current attitude (not just you, scout) of not being "allowed" to critisize Israel. Or if you do critisize, you're immediately label an anti-Semite, Leftist, or Liberal. That's just ridiculous and wrong. Would I have been jumped on if I critisized any of the present policies of Great Britain, Ireland, or Germany? Great Britain is our greatest ally in the WOT, but I think they were horrible in their handling of Northern Ireland.The national security issue is a hot button with me, especially after learning about all the treasonous activities the Isaelis have done to us in the past few decades. (and it's not just the Liberty or Pollard). For what it's worth, check out this article. I don't trust them, they are not looking out for our best interests, yet many people seem to think they are. I mentioned earlier, I am interested in knowing the "why" of terrorism. There is no doubt in my mind that U.S. unconditional support for Israel is one of the major reasons why. Some of the Arabs' reasons are invalid, some are not. However, concerning the war on terror and the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, I do not think it is in the U.S.'s best interest to support Israel like we do now.
Just for fun, what about the white van with the 4 Jews the morning of 9-11? I'm not getting all “conspiracy theory” here, but something is wrong with this picture. A 9-11 Commission report found that those 4 Jews were agents trailing the hijackers (I have it in PDF if interested, can't find the link, but I could email it. Very interesting what was mentioned in it). I'm not at all implying these Jews knew what was going to happen, but something is very strange about it. The report mentions that they didn't share this information with our FBI or intelligence agencies. I also remember Brit Hume talking about it on FOX that same morning...but it was never ever mentioned again anywhere. (well, except on those moonbat conspiracy websites)
I dont expect Israel to look out for our best interests except where those interests intersect. I expect them to look out for themselves, which is what they and WE do. Like I said previously, we give Israel the support of a fellow democracy. There are no Arab democracies except maybe for Iraq, and we are supporting the hell out of them too. Israeli and American interests coincide much more than they diverge. That cannot be said for most of the countries in that region of the world. That is another reason we support them. Our support is also not unconditional either. I like to think I take a realists approach to foreign policy, the Israeli's are not ideal but they are what we have and the best of the available alternatives.I just think you are too quick to throw Israel under the bus. They have done and are doing some things that even I the hardliner, think are despicable. The caveat is that there is no other viable ally of the US in the region, period. therefore, we are stuck with supporting Israel, like it or not.
The caveat is that there is no other viable ally of the US in the region, period. therefore, we are stuck with supporting Israel, like it or not.
I don't agree with that at all. We have many allies there, and those allies could help us out with our current situation a lot better than Israel can. They may be Islam, so we have to deal with that, like it or not. ;D
