Afghanistan’s #1 Humanitarian Donor: USA Government

[OT]

Afghanistan’s #1 Humanitarian Donor: USA Government

I thought you may find this excerpt from an article I read interesting.

“This year, the US continued a Clinton-era policy and committed more than $100 million in foreign aid to Afghanistan – making us the country’s largest humanitarian donor. In May, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced an additional $43 million in relief, which includes 65,000 tons of wheat, vegetable oil, blended foods, health programs and shelter.”

Why is it that the Afghanistan people seem to hate the US so much? Or is the US haters just a minority? Perhaps we should pull back some support if the Taliban does not cooperate.

[The Mad Hatter]

You presume they give a rats ass about their own people. Like all fanatics, they do not.

[Anonymous]

The biggest reason they hate the US is Isreal's antagonization of arabs with American weapons.

Also, why do we give Afghanistan $100 million in aid, while we give a wealthy country like Israel billions?

[Anonymous]

We give Israel billions in part to defend themselves against their neighbors, as well as b/c they advance US interests in the region.

If we gave the Afghanistan govt billions, they would just attack us with it. I love the irony - give a country a hundred million dollars, they support our attackers, and people question why we didn't give them as much as Israel. I hope all the food aid ends. Then maybe they can eat each other.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-22 15:34, Humbert wrote:
We give Israel billions ... b/c they advance US interests in the region.



A general rule in political matters is that if you hear the same thing asserted three times with no evidence, it is not true.

Humbert, can you say why you think Israel advances US interests in the Middle East? I suspect that some people might think that US interests are advanced by having Israel beat up on groups that are hostile to the US, but I think most of those groups would not be hostile to the US except that we help Israel beat up on them.

What do you say, Humbert? Can you make an argument for why Israel advances US interests in the Middle East, or is it just something that has been repeated often enought that naïve people accept it as true?

[No'ocoal]

"A general rule in political matters is that if you hear the same thing asserted three times with no evidence, it is not true."

And a general rule in this forum is if you hear anything asserted by Lao, with or without evidence, then it is not true.

For example: The Middle East hates us because we support Israel.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: No'ocoal on 2001-09-23 10:09 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

"For example: The Middle East hates us because we support Israel."

Everytime they attack us, or proclaim their hatred, they say it's because we support Israel. What more evidence do you want?

"U.S. support for these regimes and for Israel, as well as the presence of "infidel" American forces in Saudi Arabia, are the reasons he offers for his jihad against the U.S. "

If Israel were a good ally, they would stop getting the US involved in their wars. They're like the girlfriend who'se always asking you to beat people up for them.

[Anonymous]

More proof

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1552000/1552900.stm

Although there are many other issues, Washington's enabling alliance with Israel may be the biggest element in the Arab and Muslim anger, hatred and despair which are focused on America.

For them, Israel is a terrorist, gangster state which has usurped Palestinian land and water, demolished Palestinian homes, and stopped at nothing in pursuit of its interests and enemies, including torture, murder and pioneering the use of the car bomb in the region.

[No'ocoal]

"Everytime they attack us, or proclaim their hatred, they say it's because we support Israel. What more evidence do you want?"

If that's what they said, then I guess we have to believe them.

Seriously though, they would hate the West with or without Israel.

[Laocoön]

More: http://www.msnbc.com/news/481141.asp

"Seriously though, they would hate the West with or without Israel."

I think that's the third time I've heard that asserted with no evidence. The truth is that our support of Israel is part of a larger program, which we inherited from the British, in the Middle East, but this whole program is immoral and ill-conceived (typical of British foreign policy).

The cultural centers of the Arabs are Cairo, Baghdad, and Damascus. These are where the more sophistocated Arabs live and have lived. The British wanted to be able to extract oil from the region at favorable terms, so they set up monarchies, dependent upon Western support, in the areas with most oil: Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. These areas were populated by unorganized tribes beforehand, and the British just found tribal leaders that they could work with and helped them assume control of the newly formed kingdoms, acquiring in the process the oil rights to the lands. Also, the nations containing Baghdad and Damascus (Cairo didn't much matter because there was little oil in and around Egypt), Iraq and Syria, respectively, were kept almost entirely land-locked, to ensure that they would never become too powerful. Israel has served to keep Syria land-locked, and it now serves to keep all of its neighbors' governments afraid of their own citizens, and therefore weakened for having to keep their own people down. The US has had a hand in putting down most of the populist efforts in the region that have seemed to have a chance for success.

But what would happen if the Arabs were allowed to develop politically without Western interference? They might from time to time raise oil prices on us, but we have seen that doing that has ultimately hurt them more than us, we being free to lessen our dependence upon oil in the face of higher prices. And the area would probably become much more powerful, which, given that their values are different from ours, might tend to diminish our abilities to meddle in the affairs of other regions. But we could survive that as well for the same reason: the free market works, and states (today) tend toward peace-favoring democracies.

[Jowler Nojsen]

"I think that's the third time I've heard that asserted with no evidence."

It's a pretty common idea. I'm not sure how one would "prove" it or the opposite idea (the Middle East only hates us because of Israel).

[Huki]

No: "Seriously though, they would hate the West with or without Israel."

Lao: "I think that's the third time I've heard that asserted with no evidence."

I have no evidence of the assertion, but is seems to be reasonable. If they mainly hate us because of Israel, then why go to all the trouble of the attacks two weeks ago? Why not spend the time and energy mounting a big attack against Israel? Now they have not only Israel, but a fired-up US to contend with. If it is Israel they hate, then they have really compounded their troubles without much benefit for them. But if is the US they hate, then at least they have something for their troubles.

[Anonymous]

This is so frustrating from a purely logical standpoint. Huki, listen, I think the point is that they wouldn't have attacked the buildings if the US didn't support Israel.

[Huki]

What's wrong with the logic? I am saying that if it is Israel the mostly hate, then they wouldn't have attacked the buildings in the US. It is logical that they attack that which they hate the most. Think about it. If they really just hate Israel, then attacking the US gives them a lot of trouble with little benefit. If they had instead attacked Israel, then they would gain a little trouble for a lot of benefit.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure they would have if they could. But Isreali airlines prepare a huge intelligence file, and interrogate any arab for 4 hours before letting him on a flight (understandably so). So they attacked the next best thing they could. Besides, let's drop this discussion. The Taliban are a million times worst than Israel could ever be, and they need to get carpet bombed, maybe even nuked, regardless of why they did what they did.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anon on 2001-09-23 20:17 ]</font>

[Huki]

If you want to drop it, then just stop replying.

This discussion goes to why the US was attacked. Do these people hate the US because we support Israel, or is it for some other reason? I think it would be a good thing to know. If you don't, then fine.

"I'm sure they would have if they could. But Isreali airlines prepare a huge intelligence file, and interrogate any arab for 4 hours before letting him on a flight "

Well, that, and Israel's lack of 110 story buildings. But guess what? Flying a commercial jet into a tall building is not the only way to mount an attack. I'm sure that bin Laden and his people could have thought of a good way to attack Israel if that is who they primarily hate.

[Anonymous]

Huki my friend, so you're saying Islamic terrorists hate Americans more than they hate Israelis because they hit America with a far more devastating attack than they ever hit Israel with.

Well, your amazing command of logic has forced me to acknowledge you as the winner. d*mn you're good Huki.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anon on 2001-09-23 21:44 ]</font>

[Huki]

Okay, now I am convinced that your position is correct.

[E. Blackadder]

Pop quiz!

For 10 points, who is "The Great Satan?"

a) Israel
b) Uzbekistan
c) E. Blackadder
d) The United States of America

For 5 points, who is "The Little Satan?"

a) Israel
b) Paraguay
c) Laocoön
d) The United States of America

for 20 points, if you were confronted with "The Great Satan" and "The Little Satan" which would you consider your ultimate target?

a) Israel
b) The Great Satan
c) The Little Satan
d) Anon

for 30 points, if you had declared Jihad upon The Great Satan and The Little Satan, and The Great Satan offered to give up The Little Satan, whould would be your reaction?

a) Let's make nice with The Great Satan
b) Great, we'll kill The Little Satan and then refocus on The Great Satan
c) How about a great, BIG hug!
d) We want Europe, too!

For 40 points,

Prayers in Iran had, until 5/12 included "Death to America", and "Death to Israel." Which phrase was immediately struck from the daily liturgy, and why?

a) Death to America, because they didn't want that any more.

b) Death to America, because the prayer had already been answered.

c) Death to America, because now they cower in fear.

d) Death to Israel, because this is a trick answer.

The Taliban's response to the Bush ultimatum was:

a) We won't hand him over until we convene a meeting of great scholars who will decide what is Islamic

b) We shall have to have proof that Bin Laden actually did this

c) We won't hand Bin Laden over because that would be un-Islamic

d) We seem to have misplaced him

e) all of the above

[Huki]

anon, why don't you read all the messages in the discussion and try to understand the context of what people are saying?

My argument is that it is reasonable to believe that the terrorists' hatred of the US is not caused by US support for Israel.

By the way, it is bad form to edit a message (let alone completely re-write it) after someone has responded to it.

[Griffin 1]

1) b (but only because there is a "z" in the name)
2) c (give-away question)
3) d (another give-away question)
4) a (almost went for d until I realized that would include France)
5) d (if you fold your hands upside-down, do you get the opposite of what you pray for?)
6) e (although I don't know in what order they used these responses)

[Anonymous]

I can't believe I get pulled into these absurd debates.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anon on 2001-09-24 00:12 ]</font>

[Jowler Nojsen]

On 2001-09-23 23:34, anon wrote:
I can't believe I get pulled into these absurd debates.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anon on 2001-09-24 00:12 ]</font>



I wonder the same thing, anon. Why do you participate in these debates when you have nothing to say?

[Laocoön]

Huki:

Israel has been attacked, but Israel accepts that it is effectively at war, and so is willing to accept casualties. The Israelis also believe emphatically in their cause (to them, the survival of Israel), and are willing to pay any price for it.

But the Israelis are HEAVILY funded and supplied by the US, and the US does not accept that it is effectively at war, and so is not willing to accept casualties. More importantly, US citizens do not believe in the cause (most of them probably don't realize there is a cause; most of the rest don't realize the extent to which we support it), and would not be willing to pay any price for it. In fact, support for ANY US AID AT ALL to Israel is consistently less than 50%: if US citizens were aware of their role in the Israel situation, we would probably never have supported them with the $4-6 billion per year that we have.

In short, in the line of supply that allows Israel to conduct its half-war with the Arabs, the US is the easiest target.

[Laocoön]

Grasshopper:

All of your quiz comes from Iranian propaganda. Iranians are not Arabs, and their concern with Palestine is much less than that of the Arabs. As a predominantly Christian society, the US might be upset at mistreatment of Christians in some part of the world, but we would be much more upset at the mistreatment of US citizens. The Iranian concern with Palestine is probably slightly higher than the level of US concern would be with the mistreatment of Christians somewhere in the world. The reason Iran hates us is that we imposed the Shah on them for 24 years, and he tortured and killed them.

[E. Blackadder]

On 2001-09-24 09:31, Laocoön wrote:
Grasshopper:

All of your quiz comes from Iranian propaganda. Iranians are not Arabs, and their concern with Palestine is much less than that of the Arabs. As a predominantly Christian society, the US might be upset at mistreatment of Christians in some part of the world, but we would be much more upset at the mistreatment of US citizens. The Iranian concern with Palestine is probably slightly higher than the level of US concern would be with the mistreatment of Christians somewhere in the world. The reason Iran hates us is that we imposed the Shah on them for 24 years, and he tortured and killed them.


Were it so easy, master to impose leaders upon a people.

Please note, I am, and have been well aware of the non-arabic nature of the Iranians. And as for repeating Iranian propoganda, I don't even speak Farsi. How is it that YOU are so famaliar with Iranian propoganda? Do you get royalties from them? :smile:

[Huki]

Lao: I do not mean to imply that the terrorists do not hate Israel. It is clear they do. My position is that their hatred of us would be just as strong with or without Israel in the picture.


"All of your quiz comes from Iranian propaganda."

The Iranians consider you to be a choice for the Little Satan?

[Laocoön]

Grasshopper, it is not so much your understanding of the non-Arabic nature of the Iranians that concerns me as the fact that your comments might have mislead other people regarding that situation. Fair?

My familiarity with Iranian propaganda probably stems from my having paid attention to the news for longer than you more than anything else. Also, my "Politics and Governments of the Middle East" professor's primary expertise was with Iran.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 09:58, Huki wrote:
Lao: I do not mean to imply that the terrorists do not hate Israel. It is clear they do. My position is that their hatred of us would be just as strong with or without Israel in the picture.


I think the evidence points very strongly in the other direction. Remember, the Arabs have fought several wars with Israel in addition to the ongoing half-war; they continually propose UN resolutions (which we continually block) condemning Israeli actions; and the leaders of moderate Arab states (these leaders are not popularly chosen, and the extent to which their people are offended by Israeli conduct makes it more difficult to maintain control) continually press us to rein Israel in. Also, the Arab media has article after article about how awful Israel is -- you can check this yourself on the internet -- but barely any negative mention of the US other than for its support of Israel.


The Iranians consider you to be a choice for the Little Satan?


I'm an atheist. The Iranians, if they had me in their control, would probably give me the opportunity to accept Allah before putting me to death, which has made it pretty ridiculous that some people have tried to convince me how awful radical Islam would be for me: I already know. The difficult thing about believing in rights and the rule of law, however, is that you have to believe that they have to protect equally people you don't like. For a lot of people, that is apparently an unacceptable notion.

[Huki]

You don't have to post any more evidence that the terrorists hate Israel. I believe you. I don't know how to make it more clear that I believe you on this point.

As to the other point (the terrorists' hatred for the US and the attacks on the US result directly from US support for Israel), I have to disagree. I makes no sense to rile up the US in the way they did unless they hate us for who we are (and not just who we support).

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 10:31, Huki wrote:
As to the other point (the terrorists' hatred for the US and the attacks on the US result directly from US support for Israel), I have to disagree. I makes no sense to rile up the US in the way they did unless they hate us for who we are (and not just who we support).


I think it makes perfect sense. Except that I am morally very strongly opposed to taking lives, I would have tried to do something similar long ago if I were in the position of a typical Arab. I have been waiting for 15 years for something like this to happen.

Consider: what is lost? The US is not blaming any Arab state, and in fact there is no Arab state that can be correctly blamed: the Arab states go out of their way not to offend us because they can't afford to. We have basically gone down there and shook everyone's hand and expressed our sympathy with their polite complaints about Israel, all the while pissing on their legs with our unwavering support of Israel. Now someone has pissed on our leg, but it's not anyone that we've been shaking hands with. So, we'll all continue to shake hands and this attack will be put on the same shelf as US support for Israel: the "gosh we feel bad about it, but there's nothing to do" shelf. And the Arabs only benefit from the US becoming more concerned with the Middle East, because it puts our support of Israel under more scrutiny.

[Huki]

So are you saying that if the US stopped supporting Israel, the terrorists would like us?

[Laocoön]

I think that if the US stopped supporting Israel, the sentiment of Arabs to the US would be something like the sentiment of most of the rest of the world to us: they would find us obnoxious and annoying, and they would resent us for some things, but they would not be plotting violence against us.

[Anonymous]

Laoco'on drop this. EB and "Huki" have taken on the "I'm just going to be stubborn and disagree with all logic" mindset, and so there's nothing gained in talking with them. It's like negotiating with the Taliban.

[Huki]

The Arabs are not plotting violence against the US. The terrorists are.

[Huki]

On 2001-09-24 11:19, anon wrote:
Laoco'on drop this. EB and "Huki" have taken on the "I'm just going to be stubborn and disagree with all logic" mindset, and so there's nothing gained in talking with them. It's like negotiating with the Taliban.


anon: I thought you decided to drop this several posts ago.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 11:20, Huki wrote:
The Arabs are not plotting violence against the US. The terrorists are.


The terrorists are recruited from among the Arabs, and they undoubtably get financial support from "non-terrorist" Arabs. If Osama bin Laden is viewed as a looney by most Arabs, his ability to conduct terrorism dries up. If, as is the case, he is viewed as someone who has finally stood up to the West for its transgressions, his terrorist movement will easily outlive him.

[Huki]

If the Arab world is in on the plot against America (as I gather from your post), then how can we just throw Israel to the wolves?

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 11:46, Huki wrote:
If the Arab world is in on the plot against America (as I gather from your post), then how can we just throw Israel to the wolves?


I don't think we should throw Israel to the wolves, but not for the reason that apparently gives rise to your question. My reasons are (a) we have a moral obligation to help Israel get out of a situation we helped get them into, and (b) we cannot allow the appearance that we respond to terrorism.

As to our need for Israel to help us against plotting Arabs, that would be something like Afghanistan keeping bin Laden in their country to help defend against an expected US attack. If we could erase history, then by dropping our support of Israel the level of Arab plotting against us would drop probably to the level of, say, French plotting against us. Obviously, we're stuck with the past, and we can't expect it to be completely forgotten that we bankrolled Israel's conflicts against the Arabs. But we could work toward that point.

[Huki]

As to our need for Israel to help us against plotting Arabs, that would be something like Afghanistan keeping bin Laden in their country to help defend against an expected US attack.


Did we have a conversation about Israel helping us against plotting Arabs?


You're a funny guy, Lao. According to you, the Arab world plots against us, and we should respond by giving in to their demands. What a great way to handle a region full of terrorists.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 12:14, Huki wrote:

Did we have a conversation about Israel helping us against plotting Arabs?


That would be "the reason that apparently gives rise to your question." If not for that reason, then why did you ask "If the Arab world is in on the plot against America (as I gather from your post), then how can we just throw Israel to the wolves?"


You're a funny guy, Lao. According to you, the Arab world plots against us, and we should respond by giving in to their demands. What a great way to handle a region full of terrorists.


You have failed to understand, Huki. I think we should do much of what the Arabs want of us because it is the right thing to do. I have been quite consistent in this belief both before and after the events of September 11. That doing so at this point would be difficult without appearing to be rewarding terrorism is a definite problem, but not a good reason to continue to do wrong.

How do you think we should respond, Huki? Do you think that what you think we should do would reduce the future occurance of terrorist attacks against the US? Does what you think we should do involve killing a lot of civilians?

[Huki]

On 2001-09-24 12:45, Laocoön wrote:
If not for that reason, then why did you ask "If the Arab world is in on the plot against America (as I gather from your post), then how can we just throw Israel to the wolves?"


If the Arab countries (according to you) are willing to do to us what they did, then what will they do to Israel if given the chance?



You have failed to understand, Huki. I think we should do much of what the Arabs want of us because it is the right thing to do.


Since all of these Arab countries are so willing to commit terrorism on the scale of 9/11, it would seem that anything they would think is right should be approached carefully.



How do you think we should respond, Huki? Do you think that what you think we should do would reduce the future occurance of terrorist attacks against the US? Does what you think we should do involve killing a lot of civilians?


Answer to 1: By letting our political and military leaders do their jobs.

Answer to 2: What a ridiculous question.

Answer to 3: Is this what drives your passion to oppose Israel?

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 13:11, Huki wrote:

If the Arab countries (according to you) are willing to do to us what they did, then what will they do to Israel if given the chance?


They would try to destroy Israel. But is it the US's obligation to maintain Israel if Israel cannot make it on its own? I don't think it is.


Since all of these Arab countries are so willing to commit terrorism on the scale of 9/11, it would seem that anything they would think is right should be approached carefully.


Anything that anyone thinks is right should be approached carefully. Including Israel. And it is not these Arab countries that are so willing to commit terrorism; it is a fringe element within them that has enough of a sense of justice behind it that the rest of the population does not entirely oppose them.


Answer to 1: By letting our political and military leaders do their jobs.


And what is it their job to do in the situation?


Answer to 2: What a ridiculous question.


What do you think would be the most effective way to reduce the future occurance of terrorist attacks against the US, Huki?


Answer to 3: Is this what drives your passion to oppose Israel?


I have no passion to oppose Israel; I only have a passion not to support Israel, and that passion is driven by my belief that their moral transgressions are as bad or worse than those of the Palestinians. What drives your passion to support Israel? Are you willing to see a lot of civilians killed over it?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-09-24 13:34 ]</font>

[Huki]

So, they will destroy Israel. What is the significant difference between innocent civilians being destroyed by our bombs and innocent civilians being destroyed by our abandonment?

There are a lot of ways to interpret your next statement, and I can't think of any that are good. Let's just say that I disagree that the bombing of the WTC was justice.

As to the most effective way to reduce the future occurance of terrorist attacks against the US, I would leave that up to our political and military leaders.

Finally, concerning my support for Israel, I have no opinion regarding the existence of Israel. I do believe, however, that it would be wrong to appease the terrorists by withdrawing support for Israel, because I do not believe that Israel is the source of their hatred for us.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 14:15, Huki wrote:
So, they will destroy Israel. What is the significant difference between innocent civilians being destroyed by our bombs and innocent civilians being destroyed by our abandonment?


Well, to be perfectly selfish about it, bombing people would COST us bombs, aircraft, fuel, military lives, etc.; abandonning Israel would SAVE us $4-6 billion a year. And this is to say nothing of the effects on our foreign relations. But more to the point, people have an a priori right not to be bombed; Israel does not have an a priori right to receive $4-6 billion a year from the US, nor to have the US guarantee its survival.


There are a lot of ways to interpret your next statement, and I can't think of any that are good. Let's just say that I disagree that the bombing of the WTC was justice.


Let's also just say that if you were an Arab who had watched Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine over the last 53 years and the US's direct support of it as well as the US's blocking of all legal actions against it, you would probably not see the matter as being so black and white.


As to the most effective way to reduce the future occurance of terrorist attacks against the US, I would leave that up to our political and military leaders.


So if they decided that it would be necessary to kill 10,000,000 Arabs, you'd be fine with that?



Finally, concerning my support for Israel, I have no opinion regarding the existence of Israel. I do believe, however, that it would be wrong to appease the terrorists by withdrawing support for Israel, because I do not believe that Israel is the source of their hatred for us.


What do you think is the source of their hatred for us? Be sure you can explain both why other groups who might have the same complaints against us don't hate us so much, and why they don't hate other nations against whom they might have the same complaint. Or do you think that the terrorists are just totally irrational people for whom there can be no explanation? I'd have to say that I don't think that totally irrational people would have had the discipline to have carried off the September 11 attacks, but if that's what it takes to help you sleep at night then maybe you're right to let political and military leaders decide what the rest of your life will be like without your comment or scrutiny.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-09-24 15:45 ]</font>

[Guerilla poster]

My view is that the terrorist leaders are extremely smart men with a diabolical plan to create a 'holy war'. They are using American support of Israel and promises of matrydom as additional fuel to inspire young men to join their ranks.

If we did not support Israel, this fuel would be reduced but I think these diabolical men would find other fuel in an attempt to ignite this war.

[Huki]

Let me change one word then. What is the moral difference between innocent civilians being destroyed by our bombs and innocent civilians being destroyed by our abandonment?

As to the killing of 10,000,000 Arabs, I don't think that is what they have decided to do. But if they thought that was the best way to accomplish to goal, I would assume it is necessary, although unfortunate. On the other hand, why does the total elimination of the population of Israel seem to be okay to you, but not the deaths of 10,000,000 Arabs?

Source of hatred? What about the others? First tell me which groups view the West as a scourge that needs to be eliminated from the face of the Earth, then I'll tell you why they haven't bombed the Trade Center yet.

As for your comments about irrational people, let me caution you that you are starting to assume too much about my argument. This is a problem of yours that I have noticed in the past. After 5-6 posts, you start to assume that you know why your "opponent" thinks the way he does, and it is this assumption you attack.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 16:08, Huki wrote:
Let me change one word then. What is the moral difference between innocent civilians being destroyed by our bombs and innocent civilians being destroyed by our abandonment?


Again, people have an a priori right not to be bombed, but Israel has no a priori right to our support. Note also that, as I have written before, I think we have a moral obligation to help Israel get out of the situation it is in because we helped them get into it. At present, however, Israel seems bent on further ethnic cleansing and on forcing the issue to being one of destroying or being destroyed. I don't think any moral purpose is served by the US supporting that.


As to the killing of 10,000,000 Arabs, I don't think that is what they have decided to do. But if they thought that was the best way to accomplish to goal, I would assume it is necessary, although unfortunate. On the other hand, why does the total elimination of the population of Israel seem to be okay to you, but not the deaths of 10,000,000 Arabs?


I'm sorry, but isn't yours rather a "Good German" attitude? And the total elimination of the population of Israel is not okay to me.


Source of hatred? What about the others? First tell me which groups view the West as a scourge that needs to be eliminated from the face of the Earth, then I'll tell you why they haven't bombed the Trade Center yet.


I'm not following you. It is clear that the terrorists hate us enough to have bombed the World Trade Center. What we disagree upon is why they hate us so much. For me it is quite clear: it is our support of Israel, it is our support of Israel, it is our support of Israel. But you say: "Oh no! It is not because of our support of Israel." So I'd like to know why you think they hate us so much. I have a hard time believing that that level of hate just appears spontaneously. Is that unreasonable?


As for your comments about irrational people, let me caution you that you are starting to assume too much about my argument. This is a problem of yours that I have noticed in the past. After 5-6 posts, you start to assume that you know why your "opponent" thinks the way he does, and it is this assumption you attack.


Oh. You mean sort of like when you assumed that I was willing to see the destruction of the entire population of Israel? Or when you assumed that I thought -- contrary to what I had directly written at another point -- that we should respond to terrorism by giving in to the terrorists demands? Huki, this is conversation: I'm trying to understand your thoughts. Have I kept you from correcting me when I have misunderstood you? No.

I think I have been quite direct about my opinions, and they are out there for anyone who wants to criticize or condemn them or to just decline to accept them. Can you say the same thing? I think that some of what you have written is wrong, and I'm trying to demonstrate that to you: I'm not going to respond "Oh, that's nice" when you cop-out and say that you'll leave it to political and military leaders to decide what we should do. Sorry if you don't like it. If the sport's too rough for you, no one is forcing you to play.

[E. Blackadder]

Ethnic cleansing? Lao, that's awfully harsh.
Of course, if your point is that that is the point of view of the average Islamic guy-on-the-streets, then I can accept that that is his worldview. I would think he's being misled.

[Laocoön]

Gotta go with "ethnic cleansing," Grasshopper. Sorry. Bulldozing Palestinian houses in the occupied territories and growing Israeli settlements in the same is ethnic cleansing. Sure, individually they can say this building was bulldozed for this reason, not related to ethnic cleansing, and that building was bulldozed for that reason, not related to ethnic cleansing. But after a few years, another couple thousand Palestinians are homeless, and another couple thousand Israeli settlers are in the occupied territories. Did you think the Serbians weren't worried about having potentially subversive Bosnians in their midst when we were calling what the Serbians were doing "ethnic cleansing?"

I also understand that Israel has decided that Jeruselum will be 80% Israeli and 20% Palestinian; how do you think that ratio is maintained? And, looking to the future, you have acknowledge that fertility rates will eventually make Arabs a majority in Israel itself. Do you think the Jewish Israelis, who have in the past been so adamant about having a JEWISH state, as opposed to just being part of a mixed state, will allow that? How will they prevent it?

[Huki]

I'm sorry, Laocoon. I thought that you wrote that we should not support Israel, and that if we stopped supporting Israel, then they would be destroyed.

Abnd how is it a cop-out to admit I am not equipped to decide how many Arabs are enough to kill, and how many are too many? If I was allowed to sit in on Defense Department meetings, I could probably answer your question.

Please explain the "Good German" comment. Has GWB assumed the role of dictator? No one told me.

As to the terrorists hatred of the West, I can't explain it any more than I can explain why anyone hates.

[No'ocoal]

On 2001-09-24 11:19, anon wrote:
Laoco'on drop this. EB and "Huki" have taken on the "I'm just going to be stubborn and disagree with all logic" mindset, and so there's nothing gained in talking with them. It's like negotiating with the Taliban.


So, anon agrees with Laoco'on. Not exactly a positive endorsement, is it Laoco'on?

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 18:33, Huki wrote:
I'm sorry, Laocoon. I thought that you wrote that we should not support Israel, and that if we stopped supporting Israel, then they would be destroyed.


I think even a cursory reading of my comments would make it clear that I think that we should not support Israel, except that we have a moral obligation to help them get out of the situation that they are in. I don't think I could have been much more clear about that.


And how is it a cop-out to admit I am not equipped to decide how many Arabs are enough to kill, and how many are too many? If I was allowed to sit in on Defense Department meetings, I could probably answer your question.


How is it that you think you ARE equipped to decide that the terrorists would hate us no less if we did not support Israel?


Please explain the "Good German" comment. Has GWB assumed the role of dictator? No one told me.


After World War II, German citizens were asked why they hadn't done anything to stop the atrocities, and many of them claimed not to have known what was going on and not to have thought to question why, for example, so many Jews were being taken off to concentration camps and none were ever coming out. They claimed that they had just not wanted to cause any trouble and had assumed that their government would not be doing anything wrong. Can you understand why I think your attitude that you would accept a decision by our political and military leaders' that 10,000,000 Arabs must be killed makes you like one of these "Good Germans?"


As to the terrorists hatred of the West, I can't explain it any more than I can explain why anyone hates.


Then how are you so absolutely sure that it is not because of our support for Israel?!

[G. Ringo]

The projections of an Arab majority deal with the entire Land of Israel or Palestine. They were developed to explain why the State of Israel cannot extend its civilian government to the entire land. There is no way that Arabs will become the majority in the State of Israel itself except by massacring Jews.

[Huki]

Tell you what, Lao, you decide how many Arabs can be killed, and we'll go with that number.

As to believing that they would hate us just as much if Israel did not exist, you don't need a Defense Depatment clearance to see that it makes sense. If they hate the US only because they hate Israel, then they would concentrate on destroying Israel instead of the US. Attacking the US brings too much trouble when compared to the how little it brings them to the goal of eliminating Israel.

[Anonymous]

Laocoon: - you were wondering how Israel supports US interests? Here are a couple items that come to mind immediately:

When the US needs to test missile defense components without violating the treat with Russia, the Israelis not only help test it, but have a realistic chance to use it against their foes in the region, like they did in the Gulf War.

Also, the US is not allowed to assassinate individuals. The Mossad are. Newspapers since the attack have mentioned how the Mossad carries out missions for the US when the need arises.

The Israelis also share their intelligence with us. Since they are in the middle of things over there, they have an interest in maintaining good intelligence without any liberals whining that they should play nice with their enemies. We lost a lot of our intelligence gathering capabilities under Clinton, which has increased our dependence on the Israelis in this area.

Finally, they have endured attacks without retaliating during crises (like with the Scud Missile attacks from Iraq in the Gulf War), in order to further US goals.

My friend from Israel had a saying, "Thank God our enemies are Arabs". I guess I should thank God that my opponent in this argument is Laocoon. It makes my point of view that much easier to defend. The next time you want to engage in a debate, a) try to be a little less patronizing, and b), try to at least have a valid point.

[No'ocoal]

On 2001-09-24 19:32, Humbert wrote:

My friend from Israel had a saying, "Thank God our enemies are Arabs". I guess I should thank God that my opponent in this argument is Laocoon. It makes my point of view that much easier to defend. The next time you want to engage in a debate, a) try to be a little less patronizing, and b), try to at least have a valid point.



But if he was less patronizing or had a valid point, then he wouldn't be Laoco'on.

[Anonymous]

On 2001-09-24 22:14, No'ocoal wrote:

On 2001-09-24 19:32, Humbert wrote:

My friend from Israel had a saying, "Thank God our enemies are Arabs". I guess I should thank God that my opponent in this argument is Laocoon. It makes my point of view that much easier to defend. The next time you want to engage in a debate, a) try to be a little less patronizing, and b), try to at least have a valid point.



But if he was less patronizing or had a valid point, then he wouldn't be Laoco'on.


Warned you Laoco'on. Just leave this alone. The Israelis and Arabs hate each other as much as anyone has ever hated another person. Just leave it alone.

As far as the US dropping support for Israel, it's already starting because we have to do it. Frankly we have no choice and everyone knows it. We can't push the arabs any more. Bush talks tough, but all he's done the last few weeks is comply with arab demands and build relationships with visciously anti-semitic arab and Muslim countries.

This is clearly coming at the expense of Israel, and our benefit. It will help prevent more terrorism here.

There's too much hatred there for us to be involved. Frankly, let them kill eachother.

Speaking of which, EB, Huki and Humbert, when are you planning on going to Israel to fight the arabs yourself? Your homeland needs you. I say you strap on guns, go there and massacre your enemy. Post your kills on this forum, and have your family post if you yourself get killed.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anon on 2001-09-24 22:55 ]</font>

[No'ocoal]

Hey Laoco'on, what do you think of your new buddy, anon? If only you had more people like anon on your side.

[Anonymous]

On 2001-09-24 22:38, No'ocoal wrote:
Hey Laoco'on, what do you think of your new buddy, anon? If only you had more people like anon on your side.


I think honesty is the best policy when discussing things. From what I hear, Israel has nukes off-site enough to wipe out that whole are if they're nuked. I'm just waiting for Pakistan to transfer some of that Nuke technology to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, GUARANTEE it happens within the next 10-20 years. As much hatred as there is there, I'm sure they'll use it. The rest of the world will smartly sit aside and let them, and then that whole problem will be settled.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anon on 2001-09-24 22:48 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

Anon - Israel is not my homeland. I am not sure why you think it would be, but I am sure you have your reasons.

[Anonymous]

Lao:

"When the best student hears about the way, he practices it assiduously;
When the average student hears about the way, it seems to him one moment there and gone the next;
When the worst student hears about the way, he laughs out loud.
If he did not laugh
It would be unworthy of being the way."

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 19:14, Gregor Grub wrote:
The projections of an Arab majority deal with the entire Land of Israel or Palestine. They were developed to explain why the State of Israel cannot extend its civilian government to the entire land. There is no way that Arabs will become the majority in the State of Israel itself except by massacring Jews.


Gregor, Israel proper is currently about 80% Jewish and 20% Arab. The growth rate of the Jewish population has been about 3.5% annually, including 1.5% due to immigration, which is not likely to continue indefinitely. So the underlying rate is about 2.0%. The growth rate of the Arab population is about 4.0% annually. My figures are probably not exactly right, but I think the point is made.

Gregor, what limits the growth of the Arab population such that there is no way, as you claim, that Arabs will become the majority in the State of Israel itself except by massacring Jews?

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 19:18, Huki wrote:
Tell you what, Lao, you decide how many Arabs can be killed, and we'll go with that number.


I think the ones who have declared war against us can be killed.


As to believing that they would hate us just as much if Israel did not exist, you don't need a Defense Depatment clearance to see that it makes sense. If they hate the US only because they hate Israel, then they would concentrate on destroying Israel instead of the US. Attacking the US brings too much trouble when compared to the how little it brings them to the goal of eliminating Israel.


As I have written before, the US is an essential part of Israel's ability to wage war, and it is the most vulnerable target in destroying Israel's ability to wage war.

[Guerilla poster]

I have not heard any mention of the foreign aid that the US provides to Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries - not significantly less than Israel. Link below:

http://www.medea.be/en/index010.htm

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-24 19:32, Humbert wrote:
Laocoon: - you were wondering how Israel supports US interests? Here are a couple items that come to mind immediately:


Thanks for taking the time to respond, Humbert.


When the US needs to test missile defense components without violating the treat with Russia, the Israelis not only help test it, but have a realistic chance to use it against their foes in the region, like they did in the Gulf War.

Also, the US is not allowed to assassinate individuals. The Mossad are. Newspapers since the attack have mentioned how the Mossad carries out missions for the US when the need arises.


All you are saying with these two remarks is that our laws/treaties are not in line with our needs. I think it would be better to just align our laws and treaties with our needs rather than to make them meaningless.

I do think, though, that live testing of war toys is a true benefit that we get from Israel, albeit a benefit probably not worth the cost of being involved in wars with the Arabs.


The Israelis also share their intelligence with us. Since they are in the middle of things over there, they have an interest in maintaining good intelligence without any liberals whining that they should play nice with their enemies. We lost a lot of our intelligence gathering capabilities under Clinton, which has increased our dependence on the Israelis in this area.


I submit that we would have little need for their intelligence except that by supporting them so heavily we have made their enemies our own enemies.


Finally, they have endured attacks without retaliating during crises (like with the Scud Missile attacks from Iraq in the Gulf War), in order to further US goals.


Again, I submit that we would not care what they did except that, because we support them so heavily, anyone who becomes enraged with Israel will become enraged with the US as well, limiting our ability to maintain relations in the region.

I note that all of the reasons you give are based on US national interests. Do you think there are moral reasons that we should support Israel as well?


My friend from Israel had a saying, "Thank God our enemies are Arabs". I guess I should thank God that my opponent in this argument is Laocoon. It makes my point of view that much easier to defend. The next time you want to engage in a debate, a) try to be a little less patronizing, and b), try to at least have a valid point.


Right.

Now, how does our connection with Israel hurt us?

I think the main thing is that it forces us to deal with unstable governments everywhere else in the region. We cannot support democratic reforms in any of the Arab countries in the Middle East. We even declined to support democratic forces in Iraq after the Gulf War, resulting in the eradication of those forces for probably a generation. Why can't we support democracy in the Middle East? Because a popular Arab government would have as one of its very top priorities the destruction of Israel. The UAR under Nasser fairly clearly demonstrated this.

Okay. But the destruction of Israel is, on its face, a bad thing. By what moral right should the Israelis be deprived of that which they want most? Well, the thing is, the way the Israelis acquired that which they want most was by taking it from the Palestinians -- by what moral right did they do that?

So which moral rights should prevail? It is something open to debate, except that it has been closed to debate in international law because the US, using its permanent Security Council member veto powers, has quashed virtually every effort to scrutinize Israel's behavior.

I do not know whether Israeli or Palestinian moral rights should prevail on any of the myriad issues between them. However, it is quite clear to me that it is categorically immoral to refuse to consider someone's argument that his moral rights have been violated, and that is exactly what the US has done in support of Israel.

Back to our support of unstable regimes. Again, we are forced to oppose democracy in Arab states, which by most reckonings is contrary to our national values. But also, our most important international trade good comes from these states: our very economy depends upon a shakey coalition of monarchs and dictators, where we might, except that it would hurt Israel, work toward getting stable democracies as our trading partners there. Democracy would probably also curtail the growth of radical Islam, which is right now essentially a protest movement.

Oh. And there's more. Someone has finally figured out what has for a long time seemed to me fairly obvious: the way to get at Israel is to get at the US. No longer can we bankroll Israel's antagonism of the Arabs, secure that our indirect involvement and distance keeps us above the fray. We lost our innocence long ago; now, hopefully, we are losing our naïvité.

I hope you don't find this all too patronizing, Humbert.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-09-25 10:24 ]</font>

[Huki]

Lao, in a previous post, you said or indicated that you do not believe the terrorists to be irrational. Yet you persist with your belief that they felt an attack on the US was a good way to indirectly attack Israel. If this is what they really believe, then there is no way you can believe that they are thinking rationally. Even if the US now wanted to withdraw support for Israel, they could not, because to do so would show that for a foreign government to get its way, all it has to do is attack the US.

[Laocoön]

Huki, the hijackers were all apparently from Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. Do you think that the US is going to attack anyone in Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates in retaliation for the September 11 attacks? Do you think US relations with Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates, or even with the citizens of these countries as opposed to their governments, have been damaged due to the attack?

You seem (correct me if I'm incorrectly portraying your position here, Huki) to think that the terrorists' cause is going to suffer because they have antagonized the US. I don't think it is. Yes, there would difficulties in withdrawing support for Israel after the attacks, but before the attacks our support for Israel was only questioned among a very, very small part of the US population.

[Huki]

If it is decided that Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates is providing a safe haven to the terrorists, then I expect the US will attack them. And if the governments there are supporting the terrorists, then I expect relations will be damaged.

And yes, you are correct that I think the terrorists' cause will suffer because of the attacks. You are incorrect if you think that believe their cause (which motivated the attack) was to weaken US support for Israel (although I think that cause will suffer, too).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Huki on 2001-09-25 11:12 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

More evidence, from the Jeruselam Post:

Sharon to meet British FM, after all
By Herb Keinon, The Jerusalem Post Internet Staff


JERUSALEM (September 25) - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will meet tomorrow with British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, reversing an earlier decision.

The original cancelation was apparently in reaction to a comment reported in an Iranian newspaper seemingly blaming Israel for terrorism because of its treatment of Palestinians.

A spokesman for Sharon, however, said the first meeting was canceled because of "scheduling problems."

Yet the Prime Minister's Office felt it necessary to issue a statement admitting that it was only at the intervention of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, that Sharon would agree to meet Straw.

Sharon acceded to Prime Minister Blair's personal request to meet Foreign Secretary Straw.

In the statement, Sharon emphasized that, "There is no difference between terrorism and terrorism, and murder is murder.

"There are no terrorists who are good guys and every act of terror is horrific."

Sharon added, that "as a state which has been struggling with terrorism for many years, Israel will unequivocally stand up and assist in the global fight against terrorism."

Sharon made the comments because Straw in recent days has suggested there is a difference between terrorism against Israel and against other Western countries.

The right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu Party staged a demonstration outside the British Embassy in Tel Aviv this afternoon, from where it's deputy minister Yuri Stern spoke to Jerusalem Post Radio.

Click here to listen.

President Moshe Katsav also canceled a meeting with Straw.

Straw, who is arriving this evening from a groundbreaking visit to Teheran, was quoted in an Iranian paper saying: "One of the factors that helps breed terror is the anger that many people in the region feel at events over the years in the Palestinian territories."

Transportation Minister Ephraim Sneh called Straw's comment an "obscenity."

"The journey of that foreign minister who made these statements and is making the trip with the concurrence of the United States, to Teheran, the capital of Iran, is a stab in the back for Israel," he told Israel Radio.

Peres was more diplomatic, saying that he "does not accept these words."

He said that Palestinians were given two opportunities for a state - in 1947 and again at Camp David last year -and turned it down each time. If they have complaints about their plight, they should be turned inwards, he said, adding that there is no justification for terror.

Foreign Ministry Director-General Avi Gil expressed Israel's concern to British Ambassador Sherard Cowper-Coles, saying that Straw's words could be interpreted both as blaming Israel and as showing understanding for terror against Israelis.

"This approach is likely to bring about an increase in terror, not wipe it out, especially when published in Iran, a state that supports terror, whose official policy calls for the destruction of the State of Israel, and which actively supports terrorists," Gil said.

Straw's statement, taken together with a statement two weeks ago by French Ambassador Jacques Huntzinger differentiating between terror in Israel and the US, reflects a very disturbing trend in Europe, an Israeli diplomat said.

An official at the Foreign Office in London denied that the article represents justification for terrorism, and quoted from a statement Straw issued prior to his trip to Iran.

"There is never any excuse for terrorism," Straw said after "unreservedly" condemning yesterday's murder of Salit Sheetrit. "At the same time, there is an obvious need to understand the environment in which terrorism breeds. That is why the whole of the international community is so concerned to see a lasting peace in the Middle East."

[Huki]

anon, I thought you said you were going to drop out of this discussion.

[G. Ringo]

The total Jewish growth rate is a misleading statistic because the population is not homogeneous. Religious Jews have a birth rate at least as high as that of Arabs. Religious Jews outnumber Arabs in the State of Israel but not in the entire Land of Israel.

I am interested in moving to the Land of Israel, although a man my age and in my state of health will not be used for more than civil defense. Do you know of any actuarial opportunities there?

I am deeply concerned that supporters of the State of Israel in this country are not speaking up, while the President is seeking to build an alliance with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the countries that produced the terrorists, rather than with the State of Israel. The rabbi of my synagogue, who usually quotes sources and encourages questions and discussion, made a brief announcement against rallying in support of the State of Israel, allowing no discussion. Why are Jewish leaders against showing public opinion for our side at this critical time? What can be done?

[Anonymous]

They are. Your media figures and politicians are on their own crusade. Unfortunately for you, we're not listening, because we have no incentive to. The ideal situation (other than both sides using nukes on eachother) is for us to be viewed as an impartial, irrelevant foreign land, like Japan, China, France and other neutral countries are viewed.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anon on 2001-09-25 13:24 ]</font>

[Guerilla poster]

Does anyone know of a link where I can learn the history of Israel? For example, who's idea was it to put a Jewish state in the middle of a bunch of Arab states?

I understand the issues of the Holocaust and homeland for the Jewish people. But I just want to understand the Western states reasons for this. I am sure they were legitimate at the time.

[Guerilla poster]

Also, would prefer something with a neutral bias or that equally covers both sides of the story (Arab and Jewish)

[Oak Glaister]

On 2001-09-25 13:51, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Does anyone know of a link where I can learn the history of Israel? For example, who's idea was it to put a Jewish state in the middle of a bunch of Arab states?


I believe it was God.

[Guerilla poster]

Ok, besides God. What is the history of Western support for Israel?

Is that better?

[Extreme Extremist]

I believe it was God.


God has a vote in the UN?

[Oak Glaister]

I believe the question was, "Whose idea was it?", not "Who voted for it?".

[Extreme Extremist]

On 2001-09-24 15:59, Guerilla Poster wrote:
My view is that the terrorist leaders are extremely smart men with a diabolical plan to create a 'holy war'. They are using American support of Israel and promises of matrydom as additional fuel to inspire young men to join their ranks.

If we did not support Israel, this fuel would be reduced but I think these diabolical men would find other fuel in an attempt to ignite this war.



You may be right that certain "Muslim Clerics" want a holy war with America. Similarly, some Americans want to overthrow the US government. The difference is that the first group has many followers due to our pro-Zionism-at-any-costs policy and the latter are three guys in a shed in Montana.

[Extreme Extremist]

On 2001-09-25 14:22, Oak Glaister wrote:
I believe the question was, "Whose idea was it?", not "Who voted for it?".


I'm not sure that God supports Israeli return to the promise land before the coming of the Messiah. Are you saying David Ben-Gurion is the Messiah?

I'm sure the Arabs and Christians can claim the land for themselves as well using their holy scriptures. Considering this the real question becomes: does it make it right? Obviously the answer is no.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-25 13:51, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Does anyone know of a link where I can learn the history of Israel? For example, who's idea was it to put a Jewish state in the middle of a bunch of Arab states?


Here is a site that has a Palestinian bias, but that seems to attempt even-handedness and that has a lot of links:

http://www.toptown.com/hp/jaber/palest.htm

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-25 12:57, Gregor Grub wrote:
The total Jewish growth rate is a misleading statistic because the population is not homogeneous. Religious Jews have a birth rate at least as high as that of Arabs. Religious Jews outnumber Arabs in the State of Israel but not in the entire Land of Israel.


That makes sense. Moderation would seem to have no chance in either case.

[G. Ringo]

I have not heard Jewish media leaders and politicians speaking up. Who has been speaking up, and how?

[Quincy Braquton]

Laocoon:
You called Huki's answer to your "How many Arabs to kill" question a cop-out. (Huki's answer was that he has confidence in those responsible for making these decisions - BTW, your Good German comment was rather silly.)

Yet when Huki put the question back to you, you said the ones who have declared war against us can be killed. Since you were trying to pin Huki down to a number, isn't this a cop-out, too? And who are the ones who have declared war against us? You have said that you believe the terrorists get financial support from non-terrorist Arabs. Are these non-terrorists part of the group you would be willing to see killed? You have also said that most of the Arab world does not oppose OBL - his ability to contuct terror would dry up if they viewed him as looney. Is most of the Arab world part of this group that has declared war on us?

I have also noticed that, although you want details from others, you have not provided any details on how to help Israel out of their present situation. How do we do this? What do you have in mind?

You have also stated that Israel does not have a right to guaranteed survival. Does this non-right extend to other states?

Finally, when Huki mentioned that after a while, you start to assume too much about the other guy's argument, I believe he was refering to comments such as "do you think that the terrorists are just totally irrational people" and "Does the fact that the Palestinians tend to have darker skin than the Israelis have something to do with it?"

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-25 17:45, Gregor Grub wrote:
I have not heard Jewish media leaders and politicians speaking up. Who has been speaking up, and how?


Gregor, what would you expect them to say?

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-25 17:57, Quincy Braquton wrote:
Yet when Huki put the question back to you, you said the ones who have declared war against us can be killed. Since you were trying to pin Huki down to a number, isn't this a cop-out, too?


I don't think so. Let me make myself more clear: among those Arabs (or anyone else) who has declared war against us, we should kill whatever number we can that do not surrender to us; among those Arabs (or anyone else) who have not declared war or committed any other crime against us, we should kill as few as possible, and those only when we believe that we can save as many innocent lives as we take by simultaneously killing those at war with us.


And who are the ones who have declared war against us?


All that have accepted bin Laden's declaration of jihad against us.


You have said that you believe the terrorists get financial support from non-terrorist Arabs. Are these non-terrorists part of the group you would be willing to see killed?


I think that much of the financial support the terrorists get would be unwitting, and much of the rest would be personal wealth brought by people turning to terrorism. For those that wittingly finance terrorists, we should give them the choice of ending that support, and if they don't then I'd be willing to see them killed. Note, however, that this makes it somewhat difficult to find moral fault with someone who, for example, finds Israel's behavior to the Palestinians terroristic and who decides to attack the US after it declines to end its support for Israel.


You have also said that most of the Arab world does not oppose OBL - his ability to contuct terror would dry up if they viewed him as looney. Is most of the Arab world part of this group that has declared war on us?


No.


I have also noticed that, although you want details from others, you have not provided any details on how to help Israel out of their present situation. How do we do this? What do you have in mind?


All matters, going back to Ottoman policies on imigration into Palestine, should be adjudicated, and fair hearing given to all reasonable complaints toward the end of a settlement that most of the world can view as equitable. How would you get Israel out of its present situation?


You have also stated that Israel does not have a right to guaranteed survival. Does this non-right extend to other states?


Yes. Just as I may not kill you, but I have no obligation to keep you alive, so the US has no obligation to guarantee the survival of any other state. Do you think otherwise?


Finally, when Huki mentioned that after a while, you start to assume too much about the other guy's argument, I believe he was refering to comments such as "do you think that the terrorists are just totally irrational people" and "Does the fact that the Palestinians tend to have darker skin than the Israelis have something to do with it?"


I don't think the latter would be accurate. I think that the Palestinians' darker skin has quite a bit to do with our policy in the region, but I hardly expected that what's-his-name that I made this comment to felt that way. Did you think I did?

[G. Ringo]

Humbert has listed examples of Israel's support of United States interest. I am sure that media leaders and politicians know more information on the subject. Why do I not hear them saying anything?

And it is not only or primarily a matter of providing information. The White House and the State Department have the information. It is a matter of showing enough public support to make a pro-Israel policy politically feasible. Before the terrorist attack on the United States, large pro-Israel rallies were planned in major American cities. Prominent media and political figures were involved. They did not represent a fringe element. In our polls in our temporary forum, a large majority was pro-Israel, even though I did not vote in most of the inane polls. Now, in this time of urgency, instead of expanding the rallies to mourning the victims of terrorism in both countries and promoting the aligned interests of both countries, Jewish leaders themselves issued orders not to rally. Why? What do they want us to do?

[Anonymous]

Another reason why we don't want to be involved. This is some seriously sick stuff.

(21:50) Arafat orders exhibition of suicide bombing closed
By The Associated Press


NABLUS, Samaria (AP) – An exhibition showing the scene of a bloody suicide bombing attack closed today, a day earlier than planned, after an order from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, organizers said.

The exhibition was built by the militant Hamas at An-Najah University in Nablus to mark a year since the current Palestinian-Israeli fighting began. It included a booth where the entrance to the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem was recreated. A Hamas bomber entered the restaurant on Aug. 9 and blew himself up, killing himself and 15 other people.

Visitors at the exhibition walked through the entrance and saw a recreation of the wrecked restaurant, with slices of pizza alongside body parts.

In a statement, the Palestinian Authority said Arafat ordered the exhibition closed. Hamas organizers, requesting anonymity, said they had closed the exhibit a day early because of pressure from the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian Authority statement charged that Israel had taken advantage of the exhibition for propaganda purposes. During a speech in Washington yesterday, former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu showed pictures of the restaurant exhibit and charged that Arafat is not stopping terror attacks against Israel.

[Laocoön]

Gregor, the extent of the US's involvement with Israel is not widely known by American citizens. The Jewish leaders you mention probably don't think it would serve the interests of the Jewish community to have that involvement scrutinized right now.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-09-25 19:27 ]</font>

[G. Ringo]

What little-known United States involvement with Israel should not be scutinized right now? What result of an expression of pro-Israel opinion could be worse than the status quo?

[Laocoön]

Gregor, I suspect that if a majority of Americans were aware that $4-6 billion a year in US aid goes to Israel, amounting to about $1,000 per man, woman, and child there, and consituting about 25% of all US foreign aid, that $4-6 billion would decline pretty rapidly, only due to most Americans not wanting to do be much involved in foreign affairs at all and not wanting to spend $4-6 billion dollars ever if at all avoidable.

George Washington said, in his farewell address:


Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens,), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intriegues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause & confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.


I don't think that the terrorist threat is the only one we have been asleep to, and to which we might now awaken.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-09-25 20:01 ]</font>

[Quincy Braquton]

Lao:
You said that the terrorist get financial support from non-terrorists in response to the statement that the Arab world is not plotting against us. This implies witting support, not unwitting support. Which is it?

What does it mean to accept bin Laden's declaration of jihad against us?

Do you think the attacks against the US on 9/11 were moral or immoral?

If 10,000,000 Arabs are plotting against us or are wittingly financing terrorists, and none of them are doing so because they find Israel's actions terroristic, are you okay with killing them all?

If all of the world, except a majority with the Arab world, find an acceptable settlement to Israel's situation, would that settlement be okay with you? (Nice cop-out on your answer, by the way.)

As to one's obligation to keeping others alive, if I see a situation where you are about to be killed, and I can prevent it, then yes, I do have an obligation to do what I can.

And yes, I believe that you thought that Type O+ was prejudice against dark-skinned people, although I don't think you expected him to admit it.

[Anonymous]

Lao, you evidence your nature, which is lack of wisdom, which prevented you from ever entering the temple as a student.

Although the Arab world is pleased to revile the U.S. and Israel for the plight of the Palestinians, they (the Arabs) show little or no charity or hospitality to the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, the Israeli's clearly do not need $4 billion or $6 billion in aid to deal with the Palestinians, nor is that why we provide them with such aid. The aid is to allow the Israeli's to be strong enough to pre-empt any thoughts of being attacked by their Arab neighbors. Israel is both outnumbered and dwarfed in territory by the neighboring states, all of whom could readily convince their people to go to war against Israel.


Meanwhile, the U.S. federal budget is about $7,000 per capita. That the Israeli military support might reach $1,000 per capita is not surprising, given the disproportionate size and importance to that country.

Remember, as well, that much or all of the aid is returned to the U.S. as the purchase of military equipment, thus providing jobs in the U.S., as well as defraying the developmental costs of the defense industry to our own military budget.

[Anonymous]

What a sad country, for all.

The Jewish community in Afghanistan was once a proud one, with 40,000 people, flourishing businesses and a distinctive Torah design.
But the population eroded through the last century, and recent decades have seen the Soviet invasion, civil war and the rise of the radical Islamic Taliban movement to power.

Now, as far as anyone knows, the community has dwindled to just two men - and they dislike each other. What's worse, their sole remaining Torah has been confiscated.

Afghanistan's last two Jews - Ishaq Levin and Zebulon Simentov - live at separate ends of the same decaying synagogue in the Afghan capital and are feuding, each claiming to be the rightful owner of the synagogue and its paraphernalia.

"Sometimes he tries to talk to me but I don't like him. I turn my head," Simentov said.

The men are reluctant to say much about their relationship with the Taliban or to comment on a recent Taliban ruling, so far not implemented, requiring Hindus to wear a yellow cloth on their shirt pockets to distinguish them from Muslims.

The ruling doesn't apply to other religions and is intended, the Taliban says, to exempt Hindus from the stern rules imposed by the religious police. But it has been strongly condemned abroad as reminiscent of how the Nazis treated Jews.

Simentov said no ruling could sway his faith.

"Even if they try to kill me," he said, "I will remain a Jew."

Simentov is 42, Levin a good 30 years older though unsure of his age.

After Israel came into being in 1948, most of the 5,000 Jews still in Afghanistan emigrated there, but Levin stayed. He was the synagogue's shamash, or caretaker, before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, when most of the remaining Jews left.

Levin rides a bicycle around Kabul and is known to his friendly Muslim neighbors as "mullah," or "rabbi," even though he is not one.

Between 1992 and 1996, a civil war during the time that ousted defence chief Ahmed Shah Massood ruled killed nearly 50,000 people in the capital.

"I was in the synagogue alone when Kabul came under rocket fire," Levin said. "But God is great," he added, in Hebrew.

Standing on a tattered carpet in his darkened room near the synagogue's sanctuary, Levin lit sabbath candles one recent Friday night but could remember only about half the blessing.

In the past, he earned a living by telling Muslim women their fortunes and prescribing medicine and love potions for them - a practice that once landed him in a Taliban jail.

Despite the harsh brand of Islam they impose on Muslims, Afghanistan's Taliban rulers have allowed the country's minority religions - Sikhs, Hindus and these remaining Jews - to practise their faith largely unhindered.

Yet both Levin and Simentov have been jailed after being reported by the other for alleged offences ranging from religious harassment to running a brothel.

Simentov produced photos of bruises on his body which he said were inflicted by the Taliban after Levin went to the authorities, claimed to be a Muslim and insisted Simentov wouldn't let him practice his religion.

Each denies the other's accusations.

Two years ago the Torah scroll, the holiest object in the synagogue, was confiscated. It's not clear exactly why or by whom, and no one at the Taliban's Interior Ministry or police would comment.

Simentov accused Levin of wanting to sell the Torah. Levin said Simentov asked the Taliban to take it for safekeeping.

The Jews of Afghanistan and eastern Persia - today's Iran - have their own Torah design that uses one flat and two round finials to wrap the holy scrolls. The rest of the world's Jews use just one pair.

Born in Herat, the other Afghan city where Judaism once flourished, Simentov spent much of his life outside of Afghanistan but returned three years ago to set up a carpet business.

He also brought money donated by Afghan Jews in Israel for a guardhouse and wall around Kabul's Jewish cemetery, where dry weeds and rocks cover tombstones destroyed by civil war.

Simentov said he faithfully executed the mission. Both men say they have wives and children living in Israel, but stay in Afghanistan because they are owed money here.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anon on 2001-09-26 01:47 ]</font>

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-25 20:58, Quincy Braquton wrote:
Lao:
You said that the terrorist get financial support from non-terrorists in response to the statement that the Arab world is not plotting against us. This implies witting support, not unwitting support. Which is it?


I would guess that it is both. Wouldn't you? Some people probably know pretty well that the money they give to "Mohammed's Save the Children Fund" ends up supplying terrorists groups; others probably have no idea. The former group, many of them, would probably discontinue support of MSCF if it were made public that it funded terrorism. But what can you do about them? How can you prove that they were not actually duped? It is sort of similar to support by US citizens for the IRA. Is that clear?


What does it mean to accept bin Laden's declaration of jihad against us?


I guess that it means that you accept that it is Allah's will that believers should attack American citizens and Jews. However you get to the point that you think you have a right and obligation to attack US citizens, that makes you at war with the US, and we have the right to kill you in self-defense.


Do you think the attacks against the US on 9/11 were moral or immoral?


Immoral, according to my moral code. But quite understandable, and I can easily see how a consistent moral code could have led the hijackers to their deeds.


If 10,000,000 Arabs are plotting against us or are wittingly financing terrorists, and none of them are doing so because they find Israel's actions terroristic, are you okay with killing them all?


I'd like to be more convinced than I am that we are without sin before we start casting stones. I could understand the US's actions if it killed 10,000,000 Arabs for terrorism after essentially leaving them no other alternative but to resort to terrorism, but I would not approve if there were any other alternative that would end terrorism without taking so many lives.


If all of the world, except a majority with(in) the Arab world, find an acceptable settlement to Israel's situation, would that settlement be okay with you? (Nice cop-out on your answer, by the way.)


If it were based on an understanding of rights and duties that does not show preference for some people as opposed to others, then, yes, it would be okay with me. Why do you call my earlier answer a cop-out?


As to one's obligation to keeping others alive, if I see a situation where you are about to be killed, and I can prevent it, then yes, I do have an obligation to do what I can.


So if I choose to fly in a balloon across the Pacific, having prepared poorly and knowing that I'm likely to be forced down in the middle of the ocean, then if I am forced down and if you captain the nearest ship and can probably get to me before I die, you must come to my rescue? Do you believe that everyone has a right to health care? Is your moral code consistent?


And yes, I believe that you thought that Type O+ was prejudice against dark-skinned people, although I don't think you expected him to admit it.


Well, you're mistaken. I think O+ is pretty poor at expressing himself, so I thought I'd give him some incentive to make his thoughts clear to me. I think he doesn't really want to express himself, though.

How would you get Israel out of its present situation? Do you think that the US has an obligation to guarantee Israel's survival while they antagonize all of their neighbors?

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-26 00:07, Master Po wrote:
Lao, you evidence your nature, which is lack of wisdom, which prevented you from ever entering the temple as a student.


Receiving no answer, he left the Master's door, and the music of a softly played lyre emanated from the windows behind him.


Although the Arab world is pleased to revile the U.S. and Israel for the plight of the Palestinians, they (the Arabs) show little or no charity or hospitality to the Palestinians.


You mean sort of like the European regard for the Jews after World War II? Recognizing their sins against the Jews, the Europeans assuaged their guilt by giving them something that belonged to neither of them. I guess the metaphor isn't that good, though, because the rest of the Arabs had committed no particular sin against the Palestinians, huh?


Meanwhile, the Israeli's clearly do not need $4 billion or $6 billion in aid to deal with the Palestinians, nor is that why we provide them with such aid. The aid is to allow the Israeli's to be strong enough to pre-empt any thoughts of being attacked by their Arab neighbors. Israel is both outnumbered and dwarfed in territory by the neighboring states, all of whom could readily convince their people to go to war against Israel.


And why is that our business? The Israelis chose to move into the neighborhood they live in; why can they not accept the costs of having done so? Do you also think that we should pay ad infinitum to rebuild houses that people choose to build in flood plains?


Meanwhile, the U.S. federal budget is about $7,000 per capita. That the Israeli military support might reach $1,000 per capita is not surprising, given the disproportionate size and importance to that country.


Are you in favor of increasing welfare payments to US citizens, many of whom are much less well-off than the average Israeli?


Remember, as well, that much or all of the aid is returned to the U.S. as the purchase of military equipment, thus providing jobs in the U.S., as well as defraying the developmental costs of the defense industry to our own military budget.


So we are donating people's time and resources to them rather than just cash. However we are subsidizing them, I think we could get a lot better use out of the resources otherwise. Do you support other federal make-work projects?

[Guerilla poster]

Lao,

I will admit my neophyte understanding of the Middle East though I am now doing some research. However, I have never seen you mention the $3 billion plus annually we give to Egypt in support (as a counter to $4 to $6 billion we give to Israel).

[Quincy Braquton]

I would guess that it is both. Wouldn't you?


I would guess that most Arabs would not fund terrorists. But that was not the question. The question was what do you think? Does the Arab world plot against us?


How can you prove that they were not actually duped?


Regardless of what can be proven or what actions the US will actually take, do those who were not duped deserve death?


I guess that it means that you accept that it is Allah's will that believers should attack American citizens and Jews.


I know what a jihad is. What do you mean by "accept"?


Immoral, according to my moral code.


If it was moral according to their moral code, then what?


I'd like to be more convinced than I am that we are without sin before we start casting stones.


If that is to be the criteria, then we are at an impasse as a nation and as a world. Who among us is without sin?


but I would not approve if there were any other alternative that would end terrorism without taking so many lives.


What if there was only 1 Arab plotting against us?


If it were based on an understanding of rights and duties that does not show preference for some people as opposed to others, then, yes, it would be okay with me.


Rights and duties according to whose moral code?


Why do you call my earlier answer a cop-out?


How many times has someone "found a way to ease the tension in the Middle East"?


So if I choose to fly ..., you must come to my rescue?


Yes.


I think O+ is pretty poor at expressing himself, so I thought I'd give him some incentive to make his thoughts clear to me. I think he doesn't really want to express himself, though.


Interesting. When I re-read that thread, it looks like Type O+ expressed an opinion that you disagree with. You asked for details, and when he didn't respond fast enough to suit you, you all but accused him of being prejudiced against people based on skin color.


How would you get Israel out of its present situation?


If I thought Israel needed to get out of its present situation, then my solution would be to move the entire country to North Dakota.


Do you think that the US has an obligation to guarantee Israel's survival while they antagonize all of their neighbors?


For now I'll use your "cast the first stone" comment.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Quincy Braquton on 2001-09-26 11:51 ]</font>

[Oliver Klozov]

I do not mean any disrespect, I am just curious about American's feelings. It is my understanding that Saddam Hussein was supported by the U.S. at one point in the Iran/Iraq war. Also, the U.S. supported and trained bin Laden's men in the Afghan war.

One man's freedom fighters are another man's terrorists.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-26 10:10, Guerilla Poster wrote:
I will admit my neophyte understanding of the Middle East though I am now doing some research.


Good for you. As much weight as the US throws around in the world, I think its citizens (the US being a democracy) have an obligation to understand the effects of their government's actions, and to oppose them when they are wrong.


However, I have never seen you mention the $3 billion plus annually we give to Egypt in support (as a counter to $4 to $6 billion we give to Israel).


I think it is incorrect to describe the aid to Egypt as a "counter" to the aid to Israel. As someone else wrote, the payments to Egypt are contingent upon their remaining at peace with Israel, so in that sense they are part of our aid to Israel. I think that's an oversimplification, but it is not entirely incorrect.

For myself, I think the aid to Egypt is misguided. We are essentially supporting an undemocratic government there, and we are not winning the favor of the people there, nor are we particularly improving their lot.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-26 11:18, Quincy Braquton wrote:
I would guess that most Arabs would not fund terrorists. But that was not the question. The question was what do you think? Does the Arab world plot against us?


At a low level, I'd say that yes they do. They probably think that, ideally, their governments would have forced the issue long ago, but could not only because they lacked the military might to do so. They probably regret that innocents are being targeted, but otherwise believe in the cause and are willing to look not very hard at where some of their charitable contributions go, and will not immediately condemn their neighbors who openly support the terrorism.

I would guess that most Israelis plot for the ethnic cleansing of parts of the occupied territories at a higher level than this.


Regardless of what can be proven or what actions the US will actually take, do those who were not duped deserve death?


I don't think so. They don't deserve death any more than Americans who were aware of what our "School of the Americas" was involved with and who did nothing to oppose it.


I know what a jihad is. What do you mean by "accept"?


???

What do you mean by "mean?"


If it was moral according to their moral code, then what?


Then I guess the biggest dog rules, doesn't he?



I'd like to be more convinced than I am that we are without sin before we start casting stones.


If that is to be the criteria, then we are at an impasse as a nation and as a world. Who among us is without sin?


With regard to particular matters, some are pretty much without sin.


What if there was only 1 Arab plotting against us?


Capture him and toss him in jail.



If it were based on an understanding of rights and duties that does not show preference for some people as opposed to others, then, yes, it would be okay with me.


Rights and duties according to whose moral code?


The world's, as applied in the adjudication of the matters considered.


How many times has someone "found a way to ease the tension in the Middle East"?


Myriad times.



So if I choose to fly ..., you must come to my rescue?


Yes.


What do you think are our obligations to the Palestinians who were displaced by the 1948 and 1967 wars? Do you believe that everyone has a right to health care? Is your moral code consistent?


If I thought Israel needed to get out of its present situation, then my solution would be to move the entire country to North Dakota.


And who do you think would have an obligation to pay for this? And what about the displaced North Dakotans? What compensation would they receive, and who should supply it?



Do you think that the US has an obligation to guarantee Israel's survival while they antagonize all of their neighbors?


For now I'll use your "cast the first stone" comment.


I don't see how my "cast the first stone" comment applies. Please explain.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-09-26 12:31 ]</font>

[Laocoön]

Oliver:

The US's foreign policy is plagued with intellectual dishonesty: we do not support what we believe in, but rather we support almost anyone who is opposed to people who have opposed us (whether or not the latter opposed us for good reason). It is not surprising, given this, that some of our foreign policy endeavors have been pathological.

[Intents]

Lao: I think there is a remarkable consistency in our foreign policy. For a particular country, it seems to be set by the parties with the most financial interest.

[Don Quijote]

"Immoral, according to my moral code. But quite understandable, and I can easily see how a consistent moral code could have led the hijackers to their deeds."

Is this where we start the debate about whether or not there exists a transcendent moral code applicable to everyone, and the consequences of saying yes or no to that question? Where´s Thought anyway?

[Quincy Braquton]

At a low level, I'd say that yes they do.

I don't think so. They don't deserve death ...

Capture him and toss him in jail.


In earlier posts, you said you were fine with killing those who are committing terror. Which is it?


What do you mean by "mean?"


I'm not going to play that game with you. What do you mean by "accept"?


Then I guess the biggest dog rules, doesn't he?


Is "Might makes right" what you want to live by?


With regard to particular matters, some are pretty much without sin.


Only if you want to justify a predetermination of who you think is right.


Myriad times.


Yeah, right.


Do you believe that everyone has a right to health care? Is your moral code consistent?


I'm not going to play this game, either. So stop asking.


And who do you think would have an obligation to pay for this? And what about the displaced North Dakotans? What compensation would they receive, and who should supply it?


I'll work out the details when I decide Israel needs to get out of its present situation. Until then, why bother?


I don't see how my "cast the first stone" comment applies. Please explain.


I don't think Palestinians are completely without fault.

[Anonymous]

Cherry blooms open,
As pipa strings are plucked;
Lao awaits the first snow.

1. Not a metaphor - just noting the Arabs really don't care about the Palestinians.

2. Yes, it is unfortunate the Israeli's chose to move into their neighborhood some 4,000 years ago.

3. As to floods, please see notes elsewhere on the distinction between tragedy and atrocity.

4. This is not a discussion about welfare.

[Laocoön]

Quincy, let me know if you decide that this is not a game after all.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-09-26 18:16 ]</font>

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-26 17:14, Master Po wrote:

1. Not a metaphor - just noting the Arabs really don't care about the Palestinians.


The metaphor was mine, but I decided that it was denigrating to the Arabs to equate their treatment of the Palestinians with Europeans' treatment of the Jews. In any case, it is all kind of irrelevant -- if it matters that the Arabs don't really care about the Palestinians, does it also matter that no one cared about boatloads of Jewish refugees in World War II? Can we conclude that it's okay not to care about these people because other people don't?


2. Yes, it is unfortunate the Israeli's chose to move into their neighborhood some 4,000 years ago.


...and unfortunate for them that they moved out later on. I note that some of the Serbians' most important historical sites are in what is now Kosovo: were we wrong to oppose Serbian repatriation of those lands lost only 500 some years ago?

For Grasshopper:


MANNA, n. A food miraculously given to the Israelites in the wilderness. When it was no longer supplied to them they settled down and tilled the soil, fertilizing it, as a rule, with the bodies of the original occupants.

-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"



3. As to floods, please see notes elsewhere on the distinction between tragedy and atrocity.


So, when Palestinians were driven from their homes by Israeli forces, would that qualify as a tragedy or an atrocity? What distinction were you making between how tragedies and atrocities should be dealt with?


4. This is not a discussion about welfare.


Am I the only person here who is not afraid to answer simple questions?! This IS a discussion about US government expenditures, which ARE subject to the economic effect of scarcity, which DOES mean that A GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE such as aid to Israel potentially comes at the expense of ANOTHER GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE such as welfare. If you like, you can substitute SOME OTHER GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE, such as a tax cut, for welfare. So the question is, how do you justify to people on welfare, or to low income taxpayers, that money that could be used to help them, US citizens that they are, is instead going to help non-US citizens in Israel who have a higher standard of living than they do? Would you please answer the question?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-09-26 18:58 ]</font>

[Quincy Braquton]

On 2001-09-26 18:15, Laocoön wrote:
Quincy, let me know if you decide that this is not a game after all.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-09-26 18:16 ]</font>


Obviously, this is a game. I'll play this one, but not the "What does 'mean' mean?" and the "Oh yeah? What's your view on health care?" games.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Quincy Braquton on 2001-09-26 18:43 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

Lao, please stop shouting.

Our aid to Israel is an expenditure, but it is not "welfare." The Israeli's pretty much feed themselves. Unfortunately, they would be overrun and destroyed if they were not able to defend themselves - which they could not do without our aid.

Also, I think there are a great many receiving welfare in this country to whom I owe no explanations at all. If I owe them an explanation, it is an apology to them and their children for not cutting them off a long time ago and having them face up to the accepting responsibility for their own lives.

You conveniently confuse the "European" with the "Nazi Germany" treatment of the Jews. Then, you confuse the treatment of the Jews (genocide) with how the Israelis treat the Palestinians. European Jews were not granted refuge, but it was not clear that Germany was undertaking a great genocide. In contrast, it is clear that the Israelis are not engaging in a mass genocide of the Palestinians.

The importance of Israel as a Jewish homeland, beyond the historical selection of location, is that they found they could not rely on other countries to provide refuge when needed.

The Palestinians are committed to the outright destruction of Israel; I don't think Arafat has been able even to change that statement as a pretense of peace.

Finally, much of the Arab world would be intent on the destruction of Israel - which would probably mean genocide for the Jews. So, your comment about comparisons being "denigrating" to the Arabs is laughable at best, and filled with dark irony.

[Intents]

Master Po: Has the following ever been pondered? : God promised the return of Israel to the Jews. Is the way current Israel was established a fulfillment of that promise or an intermittent result?

[Laocoön]

Quincy, why are you unwilling to state your views on people's right (or lack thereof) to health care? I'm starting to think that you are either being completely ingenuous here, or that you are a naif, without your own moral identity. In either case, I would be doing you a disservice to continue a discussion with you about people's rights and obligations. Do you think that people have a right to health care or not? I can't believe that an actuary would not have at least some opinion on the matter, particularly one who thinks that a ship should have to alter its course to rescue someone in a situation of his own choosing.

If you don't want to continue the discussion, that's fine.

[Quincy Braquton]

Lao, I am not interested in discussing everything under the sun with you. If you want to start a discussion about health care, welfare, or anything else, start a new thread, and those who are interested may join in. Better yet, start a thread in the Surveys section, and you can ask yes/no questions to a whole host of topics. I am interested in continuing the discussion. I m not interested in starting a new one.

However, if you wish to continue to be insulting, I am not interested in continuing any discussion.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-26 20:52, Master Po wrote:

Our aid to Israel is an expenditure, but it is not "welfare." The Israeli's pretty much feed themselves. Unfortunately, they would be overrun and destroyed if they were not able to defend themselves - which they could not do without our aid.



Main Entry: wel·fare Pronunciation: 'wel-"far, -"fer
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from the phrase wel faren to fare well
Date: 14th century

...

2 a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need


Our aid to Israel clearly meets this definition.


Also, I think there are a great many receiving welfare in this country to whom I owe no explanations at all. If I owe them an explanation, it is an apology to them and their children for not cutting them off a long time ago and having them face up to the accepting responsibility for their own lives.


Your display of mental gymnastics is intriguing, but not particularly impressive.


You conveniently confuse the "European" with the "Nazi Germany" treatment of the Jews. Then, you confuse the treatment of the Jews (genocide) with how the Israelis treat the Palestinians. European Jews were not granted refuge, but it was not clear that Germany was undertaking a great genocide. In contrast, it is clear that the Israelis are not engaging in a mass genocide of the Palestinians.


At your convenience, you should read a little European history, which in the doing of you will likely discover that the actions of the Nazis against the Jews were but a continuation of actions and policies against the Jews that were ubiquitous in Europe.


The importance of Israel as a Jewish homeland, beyond the historical selection of location, is that they found they could not rely on other countries to provide refuge when needed.


That's completely true. However, how does their need make it okay for them to take from one other particular group to meet that need? If the world owed them something, then should not the world have provided it equitably, rather than just forcing the Palestinians to provide it?


The Palestinians are committed to the outright destruction of Israel; I don't think Arafat has been able even to change that statement as a pretense of peace.


Actually, the section of the Palestinian Covenant that calls for the elimination of Israel was, I believe, removed as part of the Camp David Accords, and Arafat has acknowledged the existence of the State of Israel.


Finally, much of the Arab world would be intent on the destruction of Israel - which would probably mean genocide for the Jews. So, your comment about comparisons being "denigrating" to the Arabs is laughable at best, and filled with dark irony.


You should work on your reading comprehension. My comparison was between the European treatment of the Jews and the Arab treatment of the Palestinians, and I found the comparison denigrating to the Arabs because the Arabs had committed no sins against the Palestinians that they ought to have atoned for, while the Europeans had committed sins agains the Jews.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-27 04:47, Type O+ wrote:

I hope I have expressed my self clearly enough for you.


Yes, you have. Thank you.

I think that both our value for democracy and our system of alliances would be better served in the Middle East if we pursued a strategy that did not include immense support for Israel, but the point is arguable. I think most Middle East experts agree with me, but my evidence is only annecdotal.

I agree with you that we cannot let any of our actions that are responsive to the source of the terrorist motivations appear to be predicated upon the attacks, but I think we could get around that concern. Also, concern for not appearing to appease the terrorists should not completely trump doing right by our allies and potential allies.

[Hierophant]

Lao, let's concede the point for now that Israel should not belong to the Jews. Let's give it to the Palestinians, since you seem to think that is the just thing to do.

1. Where do you propose for the Israeli Jews to relocate?

2. Do you really think the Arab and Muslim world will hate us any less? OK, maybe less, but won't there still be the same extremists intent on killing us, and won't the same "moderates" be on the sidelines cheering?

3. At what point are you willing to pack up and leave the U.S. and give the country back to the Native Americans, and exactly where are you going to move back to? If your 4 grandparents are, respectively, Chinese, African, German, and British, which country/continent, if any, would be obligated to accept you?

4. How do you determine, other than through the traditional means of war, who "owns" which country?

5. Given the difficulties implicit in all these questions, shouldn't the status quo be upheld? (Pending the next war.)

[No'ocoal]

Hierophant:

Yes, but how do you feel about homelss shelters? Health care for all? The Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Are your views consistent? If you don't answer, Laoco'on has no use for you.

[Laocoön]

Hierophant, I feel I should warn you: I will attempt to determine whether or not there are logical inconsistencies in your morality. Some people find this to be an unfair debating tactic.

Just for the record, can you see how one's opinion on people's rights to health care might be germaine to a discussion of the US's obligation to defend Israel?


Lao, let's concede the point for now that Israel should not belong to the Jews. Let's give it to the Palestinians, since you seem to think that is the just thing to do.


It is not what I think is the just thing to do. I think the just thing to do is to at least hear and consider Palestinian claims that their rights have been violated. That has not really been done in the past 85 years.


1. Where do you propose for the Israeli Jews to relocate?


That would depend upon how it is decided that Palestine should be returned to the Palestinians. If, for example, it is decided that the Israelis openly stole it, then really no more obligation is owed to the Israeli Jews than would be owed to someone removed from a house in which he was illegally squatting: if we generally house homeless people, then we should house him somehow; but if we feel no obligation to homeless people at all, the fact that one has illegally squatted should not create superior rights for him. If it is decided that "the world" illegally stole it, and the Israelis only accepted stolen property under the assumption that it was given free and clear of any other claim to it, then perhaps "the world" ought to have to provide for their relocation. I would hope that a lot of them would be able to stay pretty much where they are, by one means or another.


2. Do you really think the Arab and Muslim world will hate us any less? OK, maybe less, but won't there still be the same extremists intent on killing us, and won't the same "moderates" be on the sidelines cheering?


Absolutely. It would not be a magical, overnight thing, but it would allow normal relationships to develop. Suppose you moved into a new neighborhood, and about the first thing that happens is your son steals a neighbor's car and wrecks it. If you deny that you or your son have any obligation to your neighbor for this event, then you could expect that your neighbor will pretty much despise you. But if you try to indemnify your neighbor, and -- who knows -- even apologize to him, then he is likely to still regard you as the guy who can't control his kid, but he will not loathe you and he might even interact with you enough to find out that there is a lot more to you, and that a lot of it is good.


3. At what point are you willing to pack up and leave the U.S. and give the country back to the Native Americans, and exactly where are you going to move back to? If your 4 grandparents are, respectively, Chinese, African, German, and British, which country/continent, if any, would be obligated to accept you?


I'm not. The Native Americans were wronged, there can be little question of that. But the passage of time has convoluted any realistic possibility of a broad settlement. I think we have an obligation to help Native Americans incorporate into our society, and perhaps even to accord them unusual priviledges, but I don't think we should do much more than that.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, often have pretty good records of exactly which persons owned exactly which pieces of land, and can make claims as individuals (part of the reason the Israelis may have destroyed Orient House was that the Palestinians were organizing these individual claims there). One of the atrocities of which the Israelis are accused is that they confiscated lands that were abandonned by civilians fleeing a war zone -- is this the sort of thing that distinguishes the "civilized" world from the terrorists (I think it is recognized as a war crime in the UN charter)?

I guess if I were Jewish, I'd have a place to go if the US were returned to the Native Americans, huh?


4. How do you determine, other than through the traditional means of war, who "owns" which country?


By rule of law.


5. Given the difficulties implicit in all these questions, shouldn't the status quo be upheld? (Pending the next war.)


Of course not. If your bank made an error that cost your account $1,000, would you think it acceptable to leave everything as it was just because it would be difficult to correct? The corrections do not have to be made by moving and removing people; if "correct" property rights can be determined, then reparations for violations of those rights do not necessarily mean restoring the property to its rightful owners. Instead, a cash settlement (or some other exchange) could be arranged between those who now hold the property and those whose rights to it were violated. This could be done individual-by-individual or en banc.

[Matoro]

"The Native Americans were wronged, there can be little question of that."

Get real. The Indians had the home field advantage, and they still lost.

[Hierophant]

Let me summarize:

1. I don't know.
2. I don't care.
3. Hell, no! Nonetheless, I am willing to draw an analogy between health care and genocide, but not between the Israeli's and my own corrupt occupation of Native American lands. Moral consistency, Lao? Give me a break!
4. The Humpty-Dumpty version of the law: it means what I want it to mean.
5. Finally, you want to trade with cash on an account where only blood will be taken as payment.

[Laocoön]

Well, you've had your fun, little boy! Now run along and play. But remember, what is cute the first time is usually obnoxious the second time.

[The Mister]

On 2001-09-28 07:56, Laocoön wrote:
Well, you've had your fun, little boy! Now run along and play. But remember, what is cute the first time is usually obnoxious the second time.I guess that would make you the pot and Hierophant the kettle? :lol:

[Laocoön]

...and you the chamber pot.

[Grits N Gravy]

Lao,

You state that we should not reverse the state of affairs with the Native Americans because it is impractical, yet you say we should not let the difficulty of resolving the Palestinian situation stand in the way of correcting that wrong. Which is it? How difficult is too difficult? And do you think for a minute that monetary reparations will be deemed acceptable by the Palestinians?

Heirophant's summary is right on target. Your response if filled with long winded cop-outs, and the consistency that you test everyone else on is lacking in your arguments.

[Laocoön]

Slacker, the American way (when we have gotten it right) with the Native Americans has been assimilation; the Israeli way with the Palestinians has been apartheid. When we finally came to our senses with the Native Americans, they became citizens, with full rights and priviledges. The Israelis just exiled the Palestinians, without even a pretense of providing for them. And the few Palestinians that stayed are third-class citizens in Israel.

And, for the record, I would have no objection to Native Americans seeking an adjudication to any complaints they have. I just think they have a much worse case than the Palestinians.

And I think that a lot of Palestinians would accept monetary reparations.

Anything else bothering you today, Slacker?

[Guerilla poster]

Are you sure you would be happy with the Native American treatment for Palestinians?

- Kill as many as possible

- herd them on to the some of the worst lands

- Give them welfare money

- Let them open casinos to feed off the greed of America

[Laocoön]

Did I say I thought our treatment of the Native Americans was right?

What have you learned about the history of the Middle East? Who do you think the villains there are?

[Guerilla poster]

I have not yet come to a conclusion and will continue to read up on the issue as I feel I do not yet know enough about the Mideast.

My belief before sept. 11, was that the pro-Israeli crowd in this country had too much power due to the campaign contribution system.

I have backed off this position somewhat when I realized how f**** up the Mideast really is.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-09-28 11:51, Guerilla Poster wrote:

My belief before sept. 11, was that the pro-Israeli crowd in this country had too much power due to the campaign contribution system.


I think the pro-Israeli crowd has too much power, but it's much more basic the campaign contribution system. Israel and its supporters understand very well the importance of public relations, and work them very well. Whenever there is anything bad to say about the Palestinians, Israel makes sure that no journalist in America who might write something about it has any trouble getting the d*mning facts. But whenever a journalist produces something critical of the Israelis or non-negative about the Palestinians, he catches hell, mostly from American Jews who need no encouragement. Israel has also been extremely effective in promoting its favored state-formation myths: one poster here even believes that Palestine was deserted wasteland before the Zionist migrations; and the image that I certainly got of Israel when I was young was of hard-working pioneers, making something out of nothing. The simultaneous expulsion of the Palestinians is almost unknown.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, are clueless about PR. Just look at Arafat -- he looks like a toad trying to disguise himself as an ancient sofa. He does not look in the least like the people that we in the West are used to getting our information from. If the Palestinians would just get a good-looking, articulate in English spokesman who had a clue about dressing himself, they would do their cause an infinite amount of good. Of course, the Israelis would probably hunt down and kill such a spokesman, but that's no reason not to try.

[Hierophant]

Lao, I don't understand your response, since it is pointless - literally.

The great difficulty is this: We have a natural aversion to the notion that "might makes right" since even we in the mighty United States know how perilous and tenuous the position of strength can be. Perhaps we are just God-fearing. In any event, we don't believe that might makes right.

At the same time, virtually every nation on the planet is the beneficiary of the last war to occupy that land, and virtually every political system is the beneficiary of the last civil war to control the political system of that nation.

[Matoro]

Gee, Laocoon, talk about being a Good German. You would have been popular in Germany during the 1930's.

[Anonymous]

I love the Zionist mentality. On the one hand they want racial profiling, mass expulsion of and in their hearts mass genocide of all arabs, on the other hand they shamelessly call others Nazis.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anon4 on 2001-09-29 23:58 ]</font>

[Anonymous]

Here are some more facts about life in Afghanistan. Regardless of the immorality of Israel, the Taliban are a hundred times worst.

"YOU must become so notorious for bad things that when you come into
an area people will tremble in their sandals. Anyone can do beatings
and starve people. I want your unit to find new ways of torture so
terrible that the screams will frighten even crows from their nests
and if the person survives he will never again have a night's sleep."

These were the instructions of the commandant of the Afghan secret
police to his new recruits. For more than three years one of those
recruits, Hafiz Sadiqulla Hassani, ruthlessly carried out his orders.
But sickened by the atrocities that he was forced to commit, last week
he defected to Pakistan, joining a growing number of Taliban officials
who are escaping across the border.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, he reveals for the first
time the full horror of what has been happening in the name of
religion in Afghanistan. Mr Hassani has the pinched face and restless
hands of a man whose night hours are as haunted as any of his victims.
Now aged 30, he does not, however, fit the militant Islamic stereotype
usually associated with the Taliban.

Married with a wife and one-year-old daughter, he holds a degree in
business studies, having been educated in Pakistan, where he grew up
as a refugee while his father and elder brothers fought in the jihad
against the Russians. His family was well off, owning land and
property in Kandahar to which they returned after the war.

"Like many people, I did not become a Talib by choice," he explained.
"In early 1998 I was working as an accountant here in Quetta when I
heard that my grandfather - who was 85 - had been arrested by the
Taliban in Kandahar and was being badly beaten. They would only
release him if he provided a member of his family as a conscript, so I
had to go."

Mr Hassani at first was impressed by the Taliban. "It had been a crazy
situation after the Russians left, the country was divided by warring
groups all fighting each other. In Kandahar warlords were selling
everything, kidnapping young girls and boys, robbing people, and the
Taliban seemed like good people who brought law and order."

So he became a Taliban "volunteer", assigned to the secret police.
Many of his friends also joined up as land owners in Kandahar were
threatened that they must either ally themselves with the Taliban or
lose their property. Others were bribed to join with money given to
the Taliban by drug smugglers, as Afghanistan became the world's
largest producer of heroin.

At first, Mr Hassani's job was to patrol the streets at night looking
for thieves and signs of subversion. However, as the Taliban
leadership began issuing more and more extreme edicts, his duties
changed.

Instead of just searching for criminals, the night patrols were
instructed to seek out people watching videos, playing cards or,
bizarrely, keeping caged birds. Men without long enough beards were to
be arrested, as was any woman who dared venture outside her house.
Even owning a kite became a criminal offence.

The state of terror spread by the Taliban was so pervasive that it
began to seem as if the whole country was spying on each other. "As we
drove around at night with our guns, local people would come to us and
say there's someone watching a video in this house or some men playing
cards in that house," he said.

"Basically any form of pleasure was outlawed," Mr Hassani said, "and
if we found people doing any of these things we would beat them with
staves soaked in water - like a knife cutting through meat - until the
room ran with their blood or their spines snapped. Then we would leave
them with no food or water in rooms filled with insects until they
died.

"We always tried to do different things: we would put some of them
standing on their heads to sleep, hang others upside down with their
legs tied together. We would stretch the arms out of others and nail
them to posts like crucifixions.

"Sometimes we would throw bread to them to make them crawl. Then I
would write the report to our commanding officer so he could see how
innovative we had been."

Here, sitting in the stillness of an orchard in Quetta sipping tea as
the sun goes down, he finds it hard to explain how he could have done
such things. "We Afghans have grown too used to violence," is all he
can offer. "We have lost 1.5 million people. All of us have brothers
and fathers up there."

After Kandahar, he was put in charge of secret police cells in the
towns of Ghazni and then Herat, a beautiful Persian city in western
Afghanistan that had suffered greatly during the Soviet occupation and
had been one of the last places to fall to the Taliban.

Herat had always been a relatively liberal place where women would
dance at weddings and many girls went to school - but the Taliban were
determined to put an end to all that. Mr Hassani and his men were told
to be particularly cruel to Heratis.

It was his experience of that cruelty that made Mr Hassani determined
to let the world know what was happening in Afghanistan. "Maybe the
worst thing I saw," he said, "was a man beaten so much, such a pulp of
skin and blood, that it was impossible to tell whether he had clothes
on or not. Every time he fell unconscious, we rubbed salt into his
wounds to make him scream.

"Nowhere else in the world has such barbarity and cruelty as in
Afghanistan. At that time I swore an oath that I will devote myself to
the Afghan people and telling the world what is happening."

Before he could escape, however, because he comes from the same tribe,
he spent time as a bodyguard for Mullah Omar, the reclusive spiritual
leader of the Taliban.

"He's medium height, slightly fat, with an artificial green eye which
doesn't move, and he would sit on a bed issuing instructions and
giving people dollars from a tin trunk," said Mr Hassani. "He doesn't
say much, which is just as well as he's a very stupid man. He knows
only how to write his name `Omar' and sign it.

"It is the first time in Afghanistan's history that the lower classes
are governing and by force. There are no educated people in this
administration - they are all totally backward and illiterate.

"They have no idea of the history of the country and although they
call themselves mullahs they have no idea of Islam. Nowhere does it
say men must have beards or women cannot be educated; in fact, the
Koran says people must seek education."

He became convinced that the Taliban were not really in control. "We
laughed when we heard the Americans asking Mullah Omar to hand over
Osama bin Laden," he said. "The Americans are crazy. It is Osama bin
Laden who can hand over Mullah Omar - not the other way round."

While stationed in Kandahar, he often saw bin Laden in a convoy of
Toyota Land Cruisers all with darkened windows and festooned with
radio antennae. "They would whizz through the town, seven or eight
cars at a time. His guards were all Arabs and very tall people, or
Sudanese with curly hair."

He was also on guard once when bin Laden joined Mullah Omar for a bird
shoot on his estate. "They seemed to get on well," he said. "They
would go fishing together, too - with hand grenades."

The Arabs, according to Mr Hassani, have taken de facto control of his
country. "All the important places of Kandahar are now under Arab
control - the airport, the military courts, the tank command."

Twice he attended Taliban training camps and on both occasions they
were run by Arabs as well as Pakistanis. "The first one I went to
lasted 10 days in the Yellow Desert in Helmand province, a place where
the Saudi princes used to hunt, so it has its own airport.

It was incredibly well guarded and there were many Pakistanis there,
both students from religious schools and military instructors. The
Taliban is full of Pakistanis."

He was told that if he died while fighting under the white flag of the
Taliban, he and his family would go to paradise. The soldiers were
given blank marriage certificates signed by a mullah and were
encouraged to "take wives" during battle, basically a licence to rape.

When Mr Hassani was sent to the front line in Bagram, north of Kabul,
a few months ago, he saw a chance to escape. "Our line was attacked by
the Northern Alliance and they almost defeated us. Many of my friends
were killed and we didn't know who was fighting who; there was killing
from behind and in front. Our commanders fled in cars leaving us
behind.

"We left, running all night but then came to a line of Arabs who
arrested us and took us back to the front line. One night last month I
was on watch and saw a truck full of sheep and goats, so I jumped in
and escaped.

"I got back to Kandahar but Taliban spies saw me and I was arrested
and interrogated. Luckily I have relatives who are high ranking
Taliban members so they helped me get out and eventually I escaped to
Quetta to my wife and daughter.

"I think many in the Taliban would like to escape. The country is
starving and joining is the only way to get food and keep your land.
Otherwise there is a lot of hatred. I hate both what it does and what
it turned me into."


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anon4 on 2001-09-30 16:46 ]</font>

[Hierophant]

anon4 - Please edit your line breaks - and do not edit the page width. Thanks!

[The Drunken Actuary]

Lao:
You said that the terrorist get financial support from non-terrorists in response to the statement that the Arab world is not plotting against us. This implies witting support, not unwitting support. Which is it?

What does it mean to accept bin Laden's declaration of jihad against us?

Do you think the attacks against the US on 9/11 were moral or immoral?

If 10,000,000 Arabs are plotting against us or are wittingly financing terrorists, and none of them are doing so because they find Israel's actions terroristic, are you okay with killing them all?

If all of the world, except a majority with the Arab world, find an acceptable settlement to Israel's situation, would that settlement be okay with you? (Nice cop-out on your answer, by the way.)

As to one's obligation to keeping others alive, if I see a situation where you are about to be killed, and I can prevent it, then yes, I do have an obligation to do what I can.

And yes, I believe that you thought that Type O+ was prejudice against dark-skinned people, although I don't think you expected him to admit it.This guy doesn't quite fit the mold, but better safe than sorry, you know?

[The Drunken Actuary]

WTF?

Slow day at the office?I think you figured it out by now.