It's over - Taliban and Osama won [Archive]

an2001on

10-22-2001, 03:20 PM

It seems like if we worry too much about the comfort of the opponent (read enemy) we will turn to Israel shortly. Did they worry about those they killed on Sept.11? Why should we? Wait for another month and then we have to wait for extra 6 months (Afghan winter). That will give them only more time to recover and plan more attacks on us. It would seem better to finish them faster and apply all the tools we have (as they do, for example, the current bio-attack).

Also, one of the strengths of their fighters is that they are willing to die and believe their God would only appreciate it. I think that was one of the reasons that for a while Israel did not have a death penalty for Palestinian terrorists. Is there something that destroys that image of the Holy Warriors and sends them straight to hell by Koran standard (like getting pork fat before death or something)? I don't remember the details but I heard on the radio that there was some trouble in Singapore a while ago done by some Muslim terrorists. After they were caught (something like several dozens), they were forced to do something (I don’t remember what exactly) which is considered a great sin by Koran. After that they were all executed but three who were let go to tell their “brothers” about the punishment. Singapore had no problems since. Did anybody else hear the story? I heard it on the radio a week or two ago. I don’t know if it’s true but it seems to fit the military tradition of ancient China and Japan to get rid of the enemy completely to avoid any future trouble (and not to worry about their feelings!).

Patience

10-22-2001, 03:34 PM

an2001on:

I agree with most of what you are saying. & Arabs seemed to have no problem starting a war on Yom Kippur.

The issue is more how things will be perceived by those whose support we want rather than what the enemy thinks.

_________________
Patience is a virtue

[ This Message was edited by: Patience on 2001-10-22 15:35 ]

Mr. Grim

10-22-2001, 03:41 PM

My prediction is Osama and the Taliban are dead before the start of Ramadan. Don't believe the Taliban hype - VOR.

Anonymous

10-22-2001, 03:47 PM

I wonder if Vegas has odds on that. What do you think they would be?

Hierophant

10-23-2001, 02:42 AM

"Tet offensive" probably doesn't mean anything to many of you, either.

Rules of engagement? Yeah, right! Like, flying airplanes into buildings and releasing anthrax.

Abducens

10-23-2001, 08:13 AM

>>I wonder if Vegas has odds on that. What do you think they would be?

Congrats on making it through a post without saying "hard questions"!

Laocoön

10-23-2001, 09:43 AM

The battles in Afghanistan are almost inconsequential, and we lose merely by being involved.

an2001on

10-23-2001, 10:10 AM

"The battles in Afghanistan are almost inconsequential, and we lose merely by being involved"

We lose to much greater extent if we are not involved. Try to imagine the mentality of killers who are not punished. Could you name one lesson in history when it was proven better not to completely destroy the agressor but "stay not involved" (assuming you have resources to fight)?

Laocoön

10-23-2001, 10:20 AM

Well, there's the liberation of India from British rule.

Do you think we have the ability to completely destroy the aggressor? As a practical matter, maybe we do, but I have a problem with killing 100 million people, most of them innocent.

G. Ringo

10-23-2001, 12:01 PM

We didn't completely destroy Germany and Japan in World War II, but we destroyed their ability to attack us. Why can't we pursue a similar goal against the Arabs now?

Aaron Brachowitz

10-23-2001, 12:36 PM

On 2001-10-23 12:01, Gregor Grub wrote:
We didn't completely destroy Germany and Japan in World War II, but we destroyed their ability to attack us. Why can't we pursue a similar goal against the Arabs now?

Maybe because political correctness hadn't yet been invented in 1941? People weren't quite so muddle-headed back then.

an2001on

10-23-2001, 01:16 PM

How many more deaths among the innocent civilians around the world from these terrorist attacks do we have to suffer to say that we need to win this war if we can? As a practical matter, we need to survive and, therefore, destroy the enemy completely. So that the next time anybody would not even think of trying anything like this ever. Not only destroy the enemy physically, but also make sure that they all realize they will go to hell when they die by whatever standard their teachers impose on them. I don’t see any other way to make sure this will never come back to our children and us.

As to innocent 100 million, the refugees started fleeing Afghanistan big time. Their “brothers” from Taliban are trying to stop them - another sin. If they are real fighters they should not try to hide among the civilians like Palestinian terrorists, they are only hurting their own people. Their “brothers” from Pakistan sealed the border (reasonable security measure) - we need to find a reasonable way to keep them in the camps until the war is over and then investigate individually. It’s not the first time ever a situation like this happened. Nazis were trying the same tricks, tried to hide among the civilians. We weeded them out and punished. The WWII is over for over 55 years. Have you heard about their children planning anything in retaliation?

Many nations were crystal clear that Nazis had to be eliminated so that the future generations can live. If we have the same attitude I have no doubt we will win this war. If we try to slow ourselves with “oh, maybe it our fault, let’s not hurt their feelings, we’re not sure they’d approve”, we would suffer many more losses until the great majority will stop tolerate this way of thinking, and then we will win.

Oliver Klozov

10-23-2001, 01:28 PM

Does anybody consider the dropping of atomic weapons upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki an act of terror?

The Japanese government was given full disclosure, and I believe that pamphlets warning of the bombing were dropped in the days before. But in the end, tens of thousands of innocent civilians were injured and killed.

I am interested in how this is significantly different from the tragedy of 9/11.

Guerilla poster

10-23-2001, 01:41 PM

Let me count the ways:

- It ended a war, such that there was no need to invade Japan and have many more deaths (civilian and military)

- It had a logical military purpose

- Japan would have done the same to us if they had the weapon

Any others.

Patience

10-23-2001, 01:47 PM

It was during a declared war

They were dropped by marked military planes

The concept of the time was fewer would die than if the war continued.

Hierophant

10-23-2001, 02:55 PM

On 2001-10-23 10:20, Laocoön wrote:
Well, there's the liberation of India from British rule.

The difference, Lao, is that the British had at least a minimal sense of moral decency. The terrorists have demonstrated that they are evil. There is a difference between sinning and the all-out embrace of evil.

We are fortunate that these ********'s couldn't or haven't got their hands on Ebola virus, or else I am pretty sure they would have used that as well.

Laocoön

10-23-2001, 04:12 PM

On 2001-10-23 12:01, Gregor Grub wrote:
We didn't completely destroy Germany and Japan in World War II, but we destroyed their ability to attack us. Why can't we pursue a similar goal against the Arabs now?

What would we have to do to be sure that no Arabs would be able to buy airline tickets and box cutters?

Laocoön

10-23-2001, 04:16 PM

On 2001-10-23 13:16, an2001on wrote:
It’s not the first time ever a situation like this happened. Nazis were trying the same tricks, tried to hide among the civilians. We weeded them out and punished. The WWII is over for over 55 years. Have you heard about their children planning anything in retaliation?

Maybe a couple hundred people were individually punished for war crimes after World War II. The rest -- the soldiers, submariners, pilots, concentration camp guards -- were left to go on with their lives. The reason their children haven't attacked us is that we were so generous in victory that we were above any reasonable criticism. It was not so after World War I, and the children of that generation DID attack.

Laocoön

10-23-2001, 04:23 PM

Even if we assume that all of the terrorists are pure evil, which almost certainly is not true (is that a traitorous statement?), they are only a few people. What is more important is demonstrating to the vast majorities of Arabs and Moslems that we are not as evil as we have been made out to be. Right now, we are utterly failing in that. We are relying on Pakistan's government keeping down the 80% of their population that supports Osama bin Laden in order to conduct our military campaign, as just one example -- how many of those people do you think will have their opinions of the US improved by the experience?

The Mister

10-23-2001, 04:49 PM

On 2001-10-23 16:23, Laocoön wrote:
We are relying on Pakistan's government keeping down the 80% of their population that supports Osama bin Laden in order to conduct our military campaign..I guess you didn't see 60 Minutes last Sunday...

They interviewed a number of Pakistanis (yes, in Pakistan), most of whom say that they don't understand the American media's focus on the protesters, who are a very vocal but very small minority. (at least, according to those interviewed...)

G. Ringo

10-23-2001, 05:25 PM

We can easily restrict access to airline tickets in our country.

In any case, the terrorists could not do much with airline tickets and box cutters without the ability to fly the planes. What I'd like to see the United States do is invade the countries that produced the terrorists (which include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt), disable (e.g., blind) everyone who has had any flight training, then leave. No killing except as necessary to overcome resistance. Disability is a stronger deterrent. No overthrowing governments. No direct impact on the majority of the population. Without the capability of aviation, those countries cannot deliver any kind of attack against the United States. With that capability, they will continue to attack, with the tolerance if not the overt sponsorship of their governments.

At the very least, we should not believe that those countries are our allies against terrorism.

Against Afghanistan I see no objective beyond capturing Usama bib Ladin and his band. I do not care what happens between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. An impoverished country in the middle of Asia poses no threat to the rest of the world.

alex

10-23-2001, 09:15 PM

On 2001-10-22 13:39, Guerilla Poster wrote:
All actions are morally ambigious. What do you feel should be the US approach? Bomb Israel as well.

I don't know if I'd support bombing israel, but I'd support killing all the big wigs, sharon, etc. who have no compunction about killing palestinian bigwigs and potential bigwigs, and no qualms about repressing arabs. Isn't it funny what kind of respose killing a minor bigot in sharon's cabinet got. And maybe the soldiers who help support these policies.

Laocoön

10-24-2001, 12:13 PM

On 2001-10-23 16:49, The Mister wrote:
On 2001-10-23 16:23, Laocoön wrote:
We are relying on Pakistan's government keeping down the 80% of their population that supports Osama bin Laden in order to conduct our military campaign..I guess you didn't see 60 Minutes last Sunday...

They interviewed a number of Pakistanis (yes, in Pakistan), most of whom say that they don't understand the American media's focus on the protesters, who are a very vocal but very small minority. (at least, according to those interviewed...)

I'm guessing that from 20% of the population of Pakistan, 60 Minutes would be able to fill in a segment with people willing to say that the protestors represent a very small minority. However, a poll has shown that 80% of Pakistanis support Osama bin Laden. I think FoxNews was the one that had that result.

Laocoön

10-24-2001, 12:23 PM

On 2001-10-23 17:25, Gregor Grub wrote:
What I'd like to see the United States do is invade the countries that produced the terrorists (which include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt), disable (e.g., blind) everyone who has had any flight training, then leave. No killing except as necessary to overcome resistance. Disability is a stronger deterrent. No overthrowing governments. No direct impact on the majority of the population. Without the capability of aviation, those countries cannot deliver any kind of attack against the United States. With that capability, they will continue to attack, with the tolerance if not the overt sponsorship of their governments.

I have a better idea: cut off funding for Israel, and let the Israelis and the Arabs straighten out their differences while we remain an objective bystander.

Why is it that people think it is okay to suggest atrocities against the Arabs, such as Gregor suggesting blinding all Arabs with flight skills and Aaron Brachowitz saying that the only problem with killing 100 million Arabs would be that it might require harming the Pyramids or the oil fields? And probably a large percentage of the Isreali population actually believe such evil. What would the reaction be to suggestions that all Jewish pilots should have their eyes put out, or that all of Israel should be exterminated, except that that might require damaging historical sites? I think that if Rabbi Hillel could see what is passing for "Israel" today, he would disembowel himself.

Rockhound

10-24-2001, 12:30 PM

So now Lao claims that 80% of Pakastani's support the Bin-baby, therefore the Pakistan people are "right" and their government (which supports the US by a score of 100%) is wrong.

But when it's the U.S. at issue and 97% of the people support the war, somehow they are "wrong". Sorry Lao, as always you are hopelessly lost in your own self doubt about your worth as an American.

Laocoön

10-24-2001, 12:37 PM

On 2001-10-24 12:30, Rockhound wrote:
So now Lao claims that 80% of Pakastani's support the Bin-baby, therefore the Pakistan people are "right" and their government (which supports the US by a score of 100%) is wrong.

But when it's the U.S. at issue and 97% of the people support the war, somehow they are "wrong". Sorry Lao, as always you are hopelessly lost in your own self doubt about your worth as an American.

Sorry, dumbass, but I never said or inferred that 80% support of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan meant that it was right.

Maybe you should stick to stoning Moslem children, and leave policy debates to more capable people.

Rockhound

10-24-2001, 03:45 PM

Sorry, dumbass...Maybe you should ...leave policy debates to more capable people.

So now I'm a "dumbass". Before I was a "worthless piece of excrement". Obviously YOU are not capable of holding a reasoned policy debate, skippy.

The only value that you bring to this forum is purely comic relief, as you are a caricature of the hand-wringing "oh my, oh my, America is so strong, we must be evil, somehow, somewhere" pabulum fed to and eaten up by the morally and intellectually bankrupt liberal community. Perhaps when you've grown up, you will see the folly of your ways.

Oh, and by the way, skippy, I win. You said before I wasn't responding to. Your last post proved you wrong again.

Anonymous

10-24-2001, 03:57 PM

Hectoring Lao does not make an interesting post.

Rockhound

10-24-2001, 04:06 PM

Does too.

Weatherman

10-24-2001, 04:08 PM

On 2001-10-24 12:23, Laocoön wrote:
I have a better idea: cut off funding for Israel, and let the Israelis and the Arabs straighten out their differences while we remain an objective bystander.

I must have misunderstood. It seems like you're saying that this should be our response to the terrorist attacks on the WTC?

Would you cut off all foreign aid? All foreign aid to countries that don't meet certain requirements?

Laocoön

10-24-2001, 04:52 PM

On 2001-10-24 15:45, Rockhound wrote:
Sorry, dumbass...Maybe you should ...leave policy debates to more capable people.

So now I'm a "dumbass". Before I was a "worthless piece of excrement". Obviously YOU are not capable of holding a reasoned policy debate, skippy.

The only value that you bring to this forum is purely comic relief, as you are a caricature of the hand-wringing "oh my, oh my, America is so strong, we must be evil, somehow, somewhere" pabulum fed to and eaten up by the morally and intellectually bankrupt liberal community. Perhaps when you've grown up, you will see the folly of your ways.

Oh, and by the way, skippy, I win. You said before I wasn't responding to. Your last post proved you wrong again.

Yawn.

G. Ringo

10-24-2001, 05:28 PM

Lao,

I really do not understand. What defensive measures do you think the US should take after the terrorist attack that would be less offensive than what I suggested? Or do you just want to appease the terrorists? You may be able to appease Usama bin Laden and his band by total US disengagement from the Middle East (abandoning support for the State of Israel, US bases in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq). Is that what you propose? Are you not afraid that, besides abandoning all US interests in the Middle East, such action will show the US as a pushover for the next terrorist organization, whatever its cause? Or are you just using the terrorist attack as an excuse for stopping US aid to the State of Israel because you want to see Jews pushed into the sea? You did not propose stopping US aid to both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, only to the State of Israel.

You advocate Gandhi tactics by the Arabs, but you demonize a Jew nicknamed Gandhi. You want to make pariahs out of Jews for their religious beliefs, not for any violent tactics. You are upset by Jews buying and developing land in their Holy Land.

I have not seen any proposal by AB to kill 100 million Arabs. Did you infer that from a sarcastic exchange between AB and GP? Are you looking for someone to propose mass murder of Arabs so that you can counterpropose mass murder of Jews? You want to turn against Jews the response that I proposed to the terrorist attack on the US. Why? Jews have not attacked the uS.

G. Ringo

10-24-2001, 07:25 PM

Lao,

No, the Arab complaint is not confined to forceful occupation or victimization. Arabs have been massacring Jews in the Land of Israel since the 1920s. There was no forceful occupation or victimization then, and no one is advocating such tactics now beyond what is necessary for self-defense. The issue is conflicting religious claims to the same land. And on that issue you are applying different standards to Arabs and Jews.

Beliefs are not evil. They are true or false. They can be debated. I can debate politely against you and even against people holding Nazi beliefs. The evil consists in violent behavior that goes beyond self-defense.

Laocoön

10-24-2001, 07:54 PM

(This message originally appeared before Gregor Grub's 19:25 message, but somehow got duplicated twice and then completely erased as I tried to delete the duplicates.)

On 2001-10-24 18:36, Laocoön wrote:

On 2001-10-24 17:28, Gregor Grub wrote:
I really do not understand. What defensive measures do you think the US should take after the terrorist attack that would be less offensive than what I suggested? Or do you just want to appease the terrorists? You may be able to appease Usama bin Laden and his band by total US disengagement from the Middle East (abandoning support for the State of Israel, US bases in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq). Is that what you propose? Are you not afraid that, besides abandoning all US interests in the Middle East, such action will show the US as a pushover for the next terrorist organization, whatever its cause? Or are you just using the terrorist attack as an excuse for stopping US aid to the State of Israel because you want to see Jews pushed into the sea? You did not propose stopping US aid to both sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, only to the State of Israel.

Gregor, I think that we should bring to justice (and note that that is justice, and not the vengeance that we are currently pursuing) the people who were directly involved in the attacks against us, and we should insist upon scrutiny of groups and individuals who have advocated similar attacks against us. For the innocent people who maybe someday might attempt such attacks against us, I think that we should be sure that if there is something that we do that is likely to provoke them to do so, we believe most emphatically in what it is we do that is so provocative.

Moreover, it is generally ridiculous to worry about being seen as pushovers to terrorism of the sort of September 11. If there had been a demand of some sort attached to the attacks, and we had acceded to the demand, that would be one thing. But there was no demand; this was traditional war: policy by other means. It is only because we are not pushovers that the September 11 attackers targetted civilians: if they had a military comparable to ours, they would have attacked our military (no, that's not true -- they would have demanded that we remove our military from the territories they considered their own, and they would have demanded the dissolution of the State of Israel, and they would have attacked our forces in their territories if we insisted on leaving them there and they would have attacked the military of Israel).

So what do we prove by spanking them unmercifully with our military? That they cannot oppose our military? Obviously, they already know that or they would have attacked our military to begin with. Do we think that they will just wimper and cower like slaves out of fear of us? These people who are willing to conduct suicide attacks?! There is barely any reason to worry about "appeasing" terrorists of this sort.

You are right as a practical matter (though I think you are incredibly wrong as a moral matter) in proposing gouging out the eyes of all Arab pilots -- that is the sort of thing that would be required to end this sort of terrorism by force: wholesale attacks on innocent civilians.

Some of us have a problem with wholesale attacks on innocent civilians, Gregor. For myself, I think that much of what we do that is likely to provoke future terrorist attacks from people who are as of yet innocent civilians are things that we shouldn't be doing anyway. Among these things are two of bin Laden's complaints against us: our embargo of Iraq and our blind support of Israel.

If I did not directly propose ending US support to both sides before, I do so now.

You advocate Gandhi tactics by the Arabs, but you demonize a Jew nicknamed Gandhi. You want to make pariahs out of Jews for their religious beliefs, not for any violent tactics. You are upset by Jews buying and developing land in their Holy Land.

Gregor, I think that the people who followed the Nazis beliefs but did not advocate any violent tactics would properly have been made pariahs. Why should I be any more accomodating for someone disgustingly nicknamed "Gandhi" whose views, even if he didn't directly act violently upon them, were almost perfectly parallel to those of the Nazis? That your religious beliefs instruct you to do evil means that your religious beliefs are evil; it does not mean that the evil that your religious beliefs instruct you to do is not evil. Some people's religious beliefs instruct them to support the killing of Jews and Americans, and those people's religious beliefs are evil, too. Are you willing to make pariahs out of such people just for their beliefs, not for any violent tactics? I am.

Note also that, contrary to you and Ze'evi, the Moslems whose religious beliefs instruct them to support the killing of Jews and Americans name as the justification for such attacks the forceful occupation of lands taken from Moslems and other victimization of Moslems. What justification does Deuteronomy 20:16-18 give for the genocide that it prescribed in ancient history, and for the ethnic cleansing that it now apparently prescribes? What offense did the Palestinians commit that justifies forcefully removing them? I hope you can do better than "resisting an invading force."

I have not seen any proposal by AB to kill 100 million Arabs. Did you infer that from a sarcastic exchange between AB and GP? Are you looking for someone to propose mass murder of Arabs so that you can counterpropose mass murder of Jews? You want to turn against Jews the response that I proposed to the terrorist attack on the US. Why? Jews have not attacked the uS.

I have already seen people propose mass murder (or mass blinding, Gregor) of Arabs; there is no need for me to look for it. And what I want is for you and for AB to see that such proposals are simply evil, as would be parallel proposals for Jews. Do you find humor in sarcastic exchanges about mass killings of Arabs? Should I look up some Holocaust jokes so that I can join in the fun?

If you want to accuse me of anti-Semitism, you should be more direct about it. I don't think that's a crime I'm guilty of.

Laocoön

10-24-2001, 08:09 PM

On 2001-10-24 19:25, Gregor Grub wrote:
Lao,

No, the Arab complaint is not confined to forceful occupation or victimization. Arabs have been massacring Jews in the Land of Israel since the 1920s. There was no forceful occupation or victimization then, and no one is advocating such tactics now beyond what is necessary for self-defense.

Yes there was, Gregor! The Palestinians objected to the British policy of promoting Jewish immigration into Palestine, for the purpose of eventually forming a state. What nation does not insist on controlling its own immigration policies?

The issue is conflicting religious claims to the same land. And on that issue you are applying different standards to Arabs and Jews.

No, Gregor, the issue for me is that the Arabs were there first. (If you want to go back to biblical times, the Canaanites were there first!) If the Israelis had been there for centuries and the Arabs had moved in and forced the Israelis out in order to form an Arab state, I would say that the Arabs were in the wrong. I am not applying different standards. You, however, seem to be applying different standards: you think that your religious beliefs should prevail over both the Arab's religious beliefs and the fact that your beliefs required forceably removing a lot of the Palestinians.

Beliefs are not evil. They are true or false. They can be debated. I can debate politely against you and even against people holding Nazi beliefs. The evil consists in violent behavior that goes beyond self-defense.

Fine, then: the violent Israeli behavior that forced the Palestinians from the land that they had occupied in relative peace for centuries was and is evil. If Ze'evi were just some kook publishing hateful material out of Idaho or somewhere, you might have a point. But the evil b****** was a respected member of the Israeli government, and he actively supported the evil violence that forced the Palestinians from their land. How can a nation call itself civilized when it would have such a man in its government?

Weatherman

10-24-2001, 08:59 PM

On 2001-10-24 19:54, Laocoön wrote:
(If I did not directly propose ending US support to both sides before, I do so now.

Wouldn't that hurt our influence in the region? Or are you proposing that we should have none? If we gave no aid to Israel or Egypt or any other Middle Eastern governments, we wouldn't have nearly as much clout in attempting to restrain them.

You've mentioned that you thought that if the various Arab governments were democratic, they'd happily swarm over Israel...if this is true, isn't it a good thing that we strive to maintain ties with those in charge through aid in order to prevent this?

Huki

10-24-2001, 09:32 PM

On 2001-10-24 12:37, Laocoön wrote:
Sorry, dumbass, ...

And you question my debating skills?

Indep

10-25-2001, 09:47 AM

"Oh, and by the way, skippy, I win."

RH, sounds like every arguement you make. Claim victory, and call names. "All liberals are dumb, morally bankrupt...." We've all heard it before. Along with "All Republicans are greedy, bible thumpering..." It adds nothing. You could even go to the "All americans are evil and must be killed" extent. It's approximately the same quality arguement.

Rockhound

10-25-2001, 11:22 AM

RH, sounds like every arguement you make. Claim victory, and call names.

I believe if you check the facts, you'll find that the only poster on this forum whom I've had to resort to name-calling with is Lao. And you'll also note that in that case, I did not respond in kind to "worthless piece of excrement".

Unfortunately, Lao uses the same debating skills I also used when I was also 16. I had to fall back to those long ago skills to respond in a manner that he understood.

G. Ringo

10-25-2001, 12:45 PM

Very few Arabs were in the Land of Israel before modern Jewish immigration began. We are dealing with two immigrant peoples who had conquered the land at different times in the past. And there never was an independent Palestinian Arab state. Singling out the Arabs as having superior rights is arbitrary at best.

No Arabs have been forcibly removed, and neither Minister Ze'evi nor I have advocated forcibly removing anyone. What Minister Ze'evi did advocate was extending the civilian government of the State of Israel to the entire Land of Israel, giving Arab residents full civil and political rights, but encouraging those who are uncomfortable with being in the minority to sell their land and move to any of the 20-some-odd countries where they are in the majority. In case my opinion is worth anything, I agree with that program, but I think that its success will require a large increase in the Jewish population of the Land of Israel. I think that the State of Israel should embark immediately on an ambitious program to repatriate the 10 million Jewish exiles.

Indep

10-25-2001, 01:44 PM

"I did not respond in kind to "worthless piece of excrement"

Sorry, I missed that part. Well, not sorry to miss it really, but I suppose I may have missed the beginning of the name calling.

Rockhound

10-25-2001, 02:07 PM

Apology accepted.

Huki

10-25-2001, 04:43 PM

On 2001-10-25 13:44, Indep wrote:
"I did not respond in kind to "worthless piece of excrement"

Sorry, I missed that part. Well, not sorry to miss it really, but I suppose I may have missed the beginning of the name calling.

It is one of Laocoon's long standing traditions to call people names such as excrement, dumbass, and racist.

Indep

10-25-2001, 06:12 PM

I suspect he get's frustrated because RH sees things so very different. That's probably why RH can be baited into responding by name calling too. Oh well. Sorry to change the subject. What were we talking about? The taliban already won the war or something.

My two cents, since you didn't ask, is somewhere in the middle I think. I don't want to see all of the Afghan's killed, but I'd really like to see the Taliban out of power. If they were a gov that helped their own people, I'd say we were interfering, but they seem to make no effort to help the economy and living conditions develop to a humane level. Maybe we can send Andy over to set up a new gov!

Anonymous

10-25-2001, 06:59 PM

I'm all for that last part.

As for the rest, the fundamentalists seem to believe that anything remotely "western" is evil. This means individual wealth and prosperity. Education seems the most effective, but impossible, way of getting to the people. Mayhaps with the food, we can direct the people to certain passages of the Quran that contradict the Taliban position.

Laocoön

10-25-2001, 08:20 PM

On 2001-10-25 12:45, Gregor Grub wrote:
Very few Arabs were in the Land of Israel before modern Jewish immigration began.

I'm quite certain that that is false.

We are dealing with two immigrant peoples who had conquered the land at different times in the past.

Again, I disagree: the Arabs were there first. I'll find some stats for you later.

And there never was an independent Palestinian Arab state.

I disagree with your implication that people living outside of an organized state structure are entitled to fewer rights than those who live within a state. If I haven't misunderstood you, are you sure that this is what you believe? What is so special about a state that people who live within one should be accorded superior rights?

Singling out the Arabs as having superior rights is arbitrary at best.

It's not arbitrary at all: I think the Arabs' claim was superior because they were there first. To the extent that I can demonstrate that the Arabs were there first, and not in insignificant numbers, would you agree that -- religious beliefs aside -- it would be reasonable to recognize their superior right to the land?

No Arabs have been forcibly removed, and neither Minister Ze'evi nor I have advocated forcibly removing anyone.

That's simply factually untrue. I can even find you a UN resolution demanding that Israel allow Arabs who were unceremoniously dumped in Lebanon the right to return. And I have seen a lot of annectdotal evidence that the evil Ze'evi has in fact advocated removing Palestinians; I'll see if I can't find a direct quote on that. And you have written that Palestinians have no right to self-determination in the "Land of Israel" and that the Israelis have the right to remove them if they resist Israeli rule. Do I need to quote you to yourself?

What Minister Ze'evi did advocate was extending the civilian government of the State of Israel to the entire Land of Israel, giving Arab residents full civil and political rights, but encouraging those who are uncomfortable with being in the minority to sell their land and move to any of the 20-some-odd countries where they are in the majority.

I shall look for myself. Where did his reference to Arabs in Israel as "lice" and "vermin" come into this position? Was that part of encouraging those who are uncomfortable with being in the minority to leave, or was it part of encouraging those who are in the minority to be uncomfortable?

In case my opinion is worth anything, I agree with that program, but I think that its success will require a large increase in the Jewish population of the Land of Israel. I think that the State of Israel should embark immediately on an ambitious program to repatriate the 10 million Jewish exiles.

It is becoming abundantly clear that Israel will never allow a Palestinian state in the West Bank. The US should recognize their posturing on that matter for the sham it is.

Laocoön

10-25-2001, 10:00 PM

On the alleged lack of population of Palestine prior to Zionism:

Moshe Sharrett: "We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture."

Moshe Dayan: "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

A link to a webpage on Palestinian censuses:

http://www.pcbs.org/english/phc_97/phc_hist.htm

More:

Estimated Population of Palestine 1870-1946*

Arabs (%) Jews (%) Total

1870 367,224 (98%) 7,000 (2%) 375,000
1893 469,000 (98%) 10,000 (2%) 497,000
1912 525,000 (93%) 40,000 (6%) 565,000
1920 542,000 (90%) 61,000 (10%) 603,000
1925 598,000 (83%) 120,000 (17%) 719,000
1930 763,000 (82%) 165,000 (18%) 928,000
1935 886,000 (71%) 355,000 (29%) 1,241,000
1940 1,014,000 (69%) 463,000 (31%) 1,478,000
1946 1,237,000 (65%) 608,000 (35%) 1,845,000

* Figures are rounded.
Sources: The numbers in this table are estimates constructed from the following: Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, "The Population of the Large Towns in Palestine During the First Eighty Years of the Nineteenth Century, According to Western Sources" in Moshe Ma'oz, ed. Studies on Palestine during the Ottoman Period, Magnus, 1975; Alexander Scholch, "The Demographic Development of Palestine 1850-1882", International Journal of Middle East Studies, XII, 4, November 1985, pp. 485-505; "Palestine", Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edn, 1911; "Palestine", Encyclopedia of Islam, 1964; UN Document A/AC 14/32, 11 November 1947, p.304; Justin McCarthy, "The Population of Ottoman Syria and Iraq, 1878-1914", Asian and African Studies, XV, 1 March 1981; Kemal Karpat, "Ottoman Population Records and the Census of 1881/82-1893", International Journal of Middle East Studies, XCI, 2, 1978; Bill Farell, "Review of Joan Peters", 'From Time Immemorial', Journal of Palestine Studies, 53, Fall 1984, pp. 126-34; Walid Khalidi, From Heaven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the Palestine Problem until 1948, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1971 appendix I; Janet L. Abu Lughod, "The Demographic Transformation of Palestine", in Ibrahim Abu Lughod, ed., The Transformation of Palestine: Essays on the Origin and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Northwestern University Press, 1971 pp. 139-63.

Table from webpage http://electronicintifada.net/historicalmyths/nosuchthing.html

(I don't endorse the webpage in its entirity, but the table doesn't look too outlandish.)

On the notion that the evil Ze'evi never advocated deportation, and that no Palestinian was ever forcefully removed from Israel:

Rahavan Ze'evi: "The Israelis have realized that it is impossible to live in a country with two nationalities. The solution for that is their separation, or deportation."

(I also understand that Ze'evi was forced to moderate his public statements when his party, Modelet, was threatened with expulsion from the Knesset.)

David Ben-Gurion: "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it."

A link to UN Resolution 799, which condemns Israel's deportation of "hundreds of Palestinian civilians":

http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1992/s92r799e.pdf

Note that this is a Security Council resolution, so the US concurred with it.

Laocoön

10-25-2001, 10:18 PM

Maybe people would find it more acceptable if I just threw rocks at those whom I find objectionable, or, better yet, if I threw rocks at their children.

[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-25 22:19 ]

Griffin 1

10-25-2001, 10:31 PM

On 2001-10-25 20:20, Laocoön wrote:

We are dealing with two immigrant peoples who had conquered the land at different times in the past.

Again, I disagree: the Arabs were there first. I'll find some stats for you later.

You don't think the Arabs ever conquered the land?

And there never was an independent Palestinian Arab state.

I disagree with your implication that people living outside of an organized state structure are entitled to fewer rights than those who live within a state. If I haven't misunderstood you, are you sure that this is what you believe? What is so special about a state that people who live within one should be accorded superior rights?

It's relevent if one of the arguments against Israel is that they took over part of an existing state (e.g., How would Americans feel if someone came in and gave North Dakota to the Palestinians?).

Singling out the Arabs as having superior rights is arbitrary at best.

It's not arbitrary at all: I think the Arabs' claim was superior because they were there first.

Only if we accept your argument that that the Arabs never conquered the land and that the lack of a pre-Israel state is irrelevent.

Where did his reference to Arabs in Israel as "lice" and "vermin" come into this position? Was that part of encouraging those who are uncomfortable with being in the minority to leave, or was it part of encouraging those who are in the minority to be uncomfortable?

Interesting complaint coming from a guy who likes to call his opponents names.

A link to a webpage on Palestinian censuses:

http://www.pcbs.org/english/phc_97/phc_hist.htm

Table from webpage http://electronicintifada.net/historicalmyths/nosuchthing.html

(I don't endorse the webpage in its entirity, but the table doesn't look too outlandish.)

You couldn't find this information from a website that at least gives the impression of being unbiased?

Griffin 1

10-25-2001, 10:33 PM

On 2001-10-25 22:18, Laocoön wrote:
Maybe people would find it more acceptable if I just threw rocks at those whom I find objectionable, or, better yet, if I threw rocks at their children.

[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-25 22:19 ]

Isn't this what you already do? ("worthless piece of excrement", "dumbass", etc.)

alex

10-25-2001, 11:41 PM

Laoc, my friend, you are on a roll! You're plowing through grubs arguments like a bulldozer plowing through a palestininan residence!

There is a black and a white to everything. Some zionists got a zionist colony. And palestinians got colonized. And history teaches that colonialism doesn't work, unless you crush the colonized. So, if you want israel to work, support continued subjagation of palestinians, heck why not nuke 'em for the normal cause of israel. After all it is the homeland to all the jews whose ancestors have not lived there for centuries and millenia. Isn't it?

E. Blackadder

10-26-2001, 01:20 AM

EVERYBODY SING!
:smile: :smile: :cool: :razz: :oops: :wink:

(With mucho apologies to Woodie Guthrie)

This land ain't your land --
This land is my land
From the Gaza Beachhead
To the Golan Highland

From the Med nude Beaches
To the River Jordan
This land ain't big enough for we.

Laocoön

10-26-2001, 08:34 AM

Do you find contentment in playing the fool, Grasshopper?

Huki

10-26-2001, 08:44 AM

On 2001-10-26 08:34, Laocoön wrote:
Do you find contentment in playing the fool, Grasshopper?

The irony to be found in Laocoon's statements is priceless.

Laocoön

10-26-2001, 09:10 AM

On 2001-10-25 12:45, Gregor Grub wrote:
We are dealing with two immigrant peoples who had conquered the land at different times in the past.

I had mis-read this sentence of yours earlier, Gregor. Rather than disagreeing, I ought to have pointed out that this is irrelevant: there is probably almost no land anywhere in the world that was not conquered at some point by its current occupants. There can be barely any claim on any land anywhere if having ages ago conquered it negates the claim. Israel, on the other hand, occupies land conquered during very recent history.

Griffin 1

10-26-2001, 09:28 AM

On 2001-10-26 09:10, Laocoön wrote:
Rather than disagreeing, I ought to have pointed out that this is irrelevant: there is probably almost no land anywhere in the world that was not conquered at some point by its current occupants. There can be barely any claim on any land anywhere if having ages ago conquered it negates the claim. Israel, on the other hand, occupies land conquered during very recent history.

You are begging the question. You are trying to show that having conquered land negates the claim to it by assuming the conquering had to take place recently (otherwise, having conquered land would not negate the claim).

Guerilla poster

10-26-2001, 10:05 AM

Are the Palestinians so distinctive from the other Arabs in the Mid East? Why don't the other Arab states simply allow the Palestinians to move there - just to be over the mess? How much land are we talking about here anyway?

I never understand why countries fight over small pieces of land - be it Kashmir (which just seems like a bunch of mountainous unwanted terrain.

If the Canadians took over Alaska ( or a portion of Alaska)would anyone here be willing to die to get it back. Albeit, there is no hatred between Canadians and America. Point being - this issue is not about land, it is mostly about cultural hatred - and religion being used to justify it.

E. Blackadder

10-26-2001, 11:07 AM

On 2001-10-26 08:34, Laocoön wrote:
Do you find contentment in playing the fool, Grasshopper?

No. It's an occasional necessity; a release of that which flows through my conciousness unbidden. It is my art, poor though it may be.

mikey

10-26-2001, 11:38 AM

Yes, what is the statute of limitations on conquered land?

G. Ringo

10-26-2001, 01:10 PM

I know what I have posted and in what context. I said that I do not believe that Arabs have a right to self-determination (i.e., establishing their own government) in the Land of Israel. That has nothing to do with the right to remain on their individual property and to be accorded basic civil rights. The only reference I made to resisting Israeli rule had to do with the conditions for killing pagan Canaanites. I have not dealt with the difficult problem of what to do with dissident Arabs if they have been brought under Israeli civilian government. If they have been granted citizenship, they cannot be deported. They can be tried for any criminal acts against the state.

I do not know in what context David Ben-Gurion discussed compulsory transfer. I suspect that it was in the context of a UN partition plan that was rejected by the Arabs. When the State of Israel declared its independence, its declaration of independence asked all its people to stay.

There are secularist politicians in the State of Israel who agree with many of Lao's views. The strength of the State of Israel is that many differing factions can work out conditions for peaceful coexistence within a parliamentary system. Lao would prefer to exclude religious Jews.

You know who passes UN resolutions. The US does not bother to veto resolutions that have no practical effect.

How many residents of the Land of Israel today are descended from the 375,000 who were there in 1870? The vast majority of both Jews and Arabs are descended from recent immigrants. And whom does Lao seek to throw out, all immigrants after a certain date or all Jews? I have not advocated forcibly evicting anyone.

Laocoön

10-26-2001, 06:11 PM

On 2001-10-26 13:10, Gregor Grub wrote:
I said that I do not believe that Arabs have a right to self-determination (i.e., establishing their own government) in the Land of Israel. That has nothing to do with the right to remain on their individual property and to be accorded basic civil rights. The only reference I made to resisting Israeli rule had to do with the conditions for killing pagan Canaanites. I have not dealt with the difficult problem of what to do with dissident Arabs if they have been brought under Israeli civilian government. If they have been granted citizenship, they cannot be deported. They can be tried for any criminal acts against the state.

If the Arabs who were the overwhelming majority of the population in Palestine had no right to self-determination, does it not follow that they had no right (in your thinking) to resist rule by the Israelis? Would you not think the minority Israelis justified to have expelled them if they resisted Israeli rule?

Lao would prefer to exclude religious Jews.

I guess I'm American in that regard: it is wrong for anyone to insist on denying another person's rights, and religion neither provides any excuse nor deserves any closer scrutiny. Anyway, I don't think it's particularly my business who is excluded in Israel, except that my country is bankrolling a big chunk of the whole affair. I want to end my country's support of Israel.

You know who passes UN resolutions. The US does not bother to veto resolutions that have no practical effect.

The practical effect of this resolution was that Israel was shamed into readmitting most of the people whom it had expelled.

How many residents of the Land of Israel today are descended from the 375,000 who were there in 1870? The vast majority of both Jews and Arabs are descended from recent immigrants.

Well, let's see, Gregor -- with a 2% annual growth rate (which I think is conservative for the time period and the population considered), those 375,000 people should have about 5,000,000 descendents, almost all of them Arab. Probably at least 1,000,000 Arabs were forced from Palestine between 1945 and 1970. It is probably quite likely that most of the Arabs living in Palestine today, as well as most of those forced out between 1945 and 1970, were descendents of the 1870 population.

Are you switching your argument from "there was no one there" to "the people who were there were transient, and their descendents scattered before Israel was founded?"

And whom does Lao seek to throw out, all immigrants after a certain date or all Jews?

I don't seek to throw anyone out. I seek to end my government's support of Israel. I think that the US should insist on justice for the Palestinians before it supports a state that has fairly clearly done them a long series of grave injustices.

Gregor, is it even possible for you to believe that the early Zionists might have have been less-than-ethical in their endeavors to create a state for the Jewish people in an area where the overwhelming majority of the population was non-Jewish?

Laocoön

10-27-2001, 10:34 AM

On 2001-10-26 21:10, Brinson Kosmo wrote:
This is all very interesting. Before this thread began, I was very unsure of how I felt about the Israel/Palestine/US Support issue. But after reading the comments between GG, Lao, and others, I have decided that I am in favor of US support of Israel, and that I would favor an increase in that support. In fact, I just sent an e-mail to my Congressman telling him so.

Hmmm... this suggests two possibilities: either US support of Israel is a good thing that should be supported, or Brinson Kosmo is either an idiot or a rotten person. In the absence of any explanation for your reasoning, Brinson, the latter seems the obvious conclusion.

Laocoön

10-27-2001, 11:17 AM

On 2001-10-26 10:05, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Are the Palestinians so distinctive from the other Arabs in the Mid East?

Probably not much more than citizens of one state within the US are distinctive from citizens of other states in the US.

Why don't the other Arab states simply allow the Palestinians to move there - just to be over the mess?

Most of the Palestinians are already there in long-standing refugee camps. However, having other Arab states absorb the Palestinians wouldn't exactly be justice, would it? Also, I'm sure that the many people on this forum who are fantastically concerned about not appeasing the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks will agree that, if the Israeli expulsion of the Palestinians was wrong, then it should not be rewarded.

How much land are we talking about here anyway?

It's not so much how much land, but the qualtity of the land and the access to water. There is not much arable land in the Middle East: along the Nile, Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan rivers, and some coastal areas. Palestine is one of the bigger areas of arable land. To get an idea of the importance of water, while the "reason" given for Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights was that they were being shelled from there, probably a better explanation is that the Golan Heights encompasses many of the tributaries to the Jordan River, and Israel wanted to secure these.

Point being - this issue is not about land, it is mostly about cultural hatred - and religion being used to justify it.

The cultural hatred is mostly about which group will govern a particular area of land. Jews in Arab lands have not historically been particularly oppressed (well, not more than the general population) -- they probably had the same relative status as non-citizens in the US. The oldest and possibly the most influential Jewish community in the world up until the 1950's was in Baghdad, and apparently many members of this community had little interest in going to Palestine when Israel was founded.

Laocoön

10-27-2001, 11:56 AM

Brinson, if I can't even trust your judgement on whether or not the reasons for your conclusion are worth disclosing, why would I care what about those reasons at all?

Hierophant

10-27-2001, 12:13 PM

On 2001-10-26 01:20, E. Blackadder wrote:
EVERYBODY SING!
:smile: :smile: :cool: :razz: :oops: :wink:

(With mucho apologies to Woodie Guthrie)

This land is my land
This land ain't your land
I got a shotgun
And you ain't got one
So you better get off
Before I blow your head off
This land was made for me not you.

Laocoön

10-27-2001, 12:19 PM

Brinson, "In logic, process and result are equivalent." (Wittgenstein) What good is declaring your conclusion without your reasoning? Do you think that "Brinson Kosmo" has such an ardent following here that merely by stating your position, others will decide that you must be correct, and spare themselves the time of researching and reaching their own conclusions?

I think your statement of your conclusion is correctly classified with such statements as, "My back hurts," or, "I like strawberry better than chocolate": it tells us something pretty trivial about you, but almost nothing about the subject. Maybe you should turn the keyboard over to your 5-year old.

Laocoön

10-27-2001, 12:48 PM

Brinson, I was JOKING when I wrote that you should hand the keyboard over to your 5-year old!

Laocoon, what good is calling people names just because they disagree with you? I stated my conclusion, and I stated which discussion lead me to that conclusion. You were then left with two directions to follow:

1) GG is making better points that you, so maybe you should see if there is a better way to state your case.

What?!! If Gregor is making better points than me -- and (sorry Gregor) I don't think he is -- I should abandon my case and quite possibly agree with Gregor! An argument consists of evidence and a conclusion: when the evidence is demonstrated to be wrong, the logical thing to do is to replace the conclusion, not to replace the evidence!

2) You could call me names.

You choose the second direction. I think your argument is correctly classified as "You are a poopie-head for disagreeing with me".

I think my reasoning for deciding that you are either an idiot or a rotten person was made quite clear, and nothing that you (or your 5-year old) has written since has given me any cause to abandon that conclusion.

[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-27 12:48 ]

Laocoön

10-28-2001, 10:27 AM

Maybe you're thinking "false dilemma," but you'd be mistaken if you were.

Do you have anything constructive to say, Brinson? I'm about to add you to my "Twit" list...

E. Blackadder

10-28-2001, 12:19 PM

Lao's "Twit" list has an unusual property:

When he adds a name to the list, the number of names on that list does not change. :smile:

Griffin 1

10-29-2001, 06:59 AM

Lao: Why is KB an "idiot", a "rotten person", and a "twit"? For posting an opinion without stating all of his reasons? What do you find so lacking in your own arguments that you must rely on this type of strategy?

Laocoön

10-29-2001, 11:09 AM

If anyone thinks I'm tough on Israel, check out this guy:

http://www.ummah.net/unity/palestine/history/iraqi_jew.htm

No'ocoal

10-29-2001, 11:20 AM

On 2001-10-29 11:09, Laocoön wrote:
If anyone thinks I'm tough on Israel, check out this guy:

http://www.ummah.net/unity/palestine/history/iraqi_jew.htm

No one thinks you're tough on Israel, just stupid woth your opinions.

Laocoön

10-29-2001, 11:31 AM

Guerrilla Poster:

Here is a website that deals with the water issue:

http://www.bintjbeil.com/water/david_paul.html

No'ocoal

10-29-2001, 02:06 PM

Thanks, Laoco'on, for yet another website with a bias.

Laocoön

10-29-2001, 02:44 PM

Congratulations, Mini Me, on recognizing the bias. It is doubtful that there is any website on the matter that has no bias: anyone who was indifferent about perceptions on the matter would in all likelihood also be indifferent about creating a website on the matter. But I think that intelligent viewers might be interested in seeing a perspective other than the "Israel only ever defends itself from the evil Arabs" position, not that that would concern you.

No'ocoal

10-29-2001, 02:48 PM

So there is nothing on the web to support your view that does not come from a pro-Arab site? Wow, you must be right.

Laocoön

10-29-2001, 04:23 PM

On 2001-10-29 14:48, No'ocoal wrote:
So there is nothing on the web to support your view that does not come from a pro-Arab site?

That's surely not the case. However, a pro-Arab site would tend to collect a lot of it together, making my life easier. The fact that a site is pro-Arab does not make it completely disreputable (does it, Mini?) except in the eyes the most thoroughly biased of readers.

Which assertions from the site do you think are incorrect, Mini?

No'ocoal

10-29-2001, 06:39 PM

If information to support your argument exists elsewhere, then post it. Don't use such obviously biased sites to "prove" your point.

alex

10-29-2001, 11:09 PM

On 2001-10-29 18:39, No'ocoal wrote:
If information to support your argument exists elsewhere, then post it. Don't use such obviously biased sites to "prove" your point.

http://www.btselem.org/Files/site/e_publications/Summaries/Disputed_Waters.asp

Here's a link from an israeli organization. And I was reading Chomsky the other day, and he says that water is a huge goal of israel's strategy to keep the palestinian man down.

No'ocoal

10-30-2001, 06:51 AM

See Laoco'on, even alex can find a non-Arab (yet still biased) site.

Jala

10-30-2001, 07:53 AM

In just one thread, Lao has used the following fallacies:

1) Begging the Question
2) Ad hominem
3) Argument from Ignorance

I'm sure there are many more.

alex

10-30-2001, 08:29 AM

He might have done all those things, but in general, he's winning the arguments.

Jala

10-30-2001, 09:24 AM

On 2001-10-30 08:29, alex wrote:
He might have done all those things, but in general, he's winning the arguments.

I'm unconvinced.

H&R

10-30-2001, 09:28 AM

On 2001-10-30 08:29, alex wrote:
He might have done all those things, but in general, he's winning the arguments.

only in Alex' & Lao's sick little minds

_________________

[ This Message was edited by: H&R on 2001-10-30 09:29 ]

Guerilla poster

10-30-2001, 09:50 AM

I generally feel that Lao's arguments are tinged with less inherent bias than the anti-Lao crowd. I haven't seen many arguments for US support from the anti-Lao crowd other than the belief that Israel has the right to exist (for mostly religious reasons).

Laocoön

10-30-2001, 10:01 AM

On 2001-10-30 06:51, No'ocoal wrote:
See Laoco'on, even alex can find a non-Arab (yet still biased) site.

It would seem that Alex is more concerned about your opinion than I am.

No'ocoal

10-30-2001, 10:12 AM

On 2001-10-30 10:01, Laocoön wrote:
It would seem that Alex is more concerned about your opinion than I am.

Because if you admitted concern about my opinion, you would have to find unbiased sources to support your view.

Hierophant

10-30-2001, 10:32 AM

I will weigh in with a few points. I will direct these to Lao, as he seems to be the focus, he seems to be working at this a bit harder than others, and as he has left a few points open.

As to Lao's "process and result are equivalent" point: this thread has drifted, veered into ad hominem, and finally fallen into a debate on debating techniques. This is a poor result as to addressing the topic, so one must fault the process. Lao is neither blameless nor alone in his blame; no matter, I am hoping Lao and the rest of you can get back on track, then shut it down.

Lao's original response was perhaps his most reasonable:
The battles in Afghanistan are almost inconsequential, and we lose merely by being involved.
Still, why devote so much energy to a thread on an inconsequential topic? (Don't answer.)

Another assertion by Lao:
What is more important is demonstrating to the vast majorities of Arabs and Moslems that we are not as evil as we have been made out to be. Right now, we are utterly failing in that.
I and many others disagree with Lao's priorities. It is most important to let terrorists and their would-be sponsors and supporters know that we are not going to tolerate terroristic acts of war against our country.

In this regard, I would shift the topic only slightly, and suggest that we are succeeding in demonstrating that point. To that extent, Osama and the Taliban are losing, given that their objective was to demonstrate impunity in attacking the U.S.

Other nations are free to follow the example of the Taliban, providing they have the caves to hide in, and that they are willing to hide in those caves.

Even then, we may prevail. In Vietnam, there was a special team called the "Tunnel Rats" who went into the tunnels to hunt down V.C. One of the commanders was proud to note that in this group, every man had been wounded (including himself) and no man had been killed.

Finally, at the risk of re-opening the debate on the debate, there is the point of righteousness. As a preface, does Lao believe in right or wrong? If not, then he should stop pursuing the following points, since they presume that right and wrong are valid concepts.

Is the U.S. right to pursue the Taliban and Osama? If not, then the 80% in Pakistan are correct; if we are right, then the Pakistani leadership and the 20% (assuming that is the split of public opinion) is right to support us.

However, I would suggest that if we are not right to pursue the Taliban and Osama, then the 90%+ in the U.S. are wrong; and this can only be because the 9/11 attacks against the U.S. were justified. From which point I can understand how the righteousness of Israel plays into the argument, but I and many or most others (in the U.S.) simply are not going to buy into the notion that the attack against the U.S. was justified. (Which is why the Israel issue is thread drift.)

Laocoön

10-30-2001, 10:50 AM

On 2001-10-30 07:53, Jala wrote:
In just one thread, Lao has used the following fallacies:

1) Begging the Question
2) Ad hominem
3) Argument from Ignorance

I'm sure there are many more.

My goodness.

I think I've dealt with everyone here in pretty much the manner they've deserved. Jala, you shall be no exception.

Begging the question: I'm guessing (and I have to guess, because my detractors prefer to try to smear my entire argument by generalizations rather than to address points -- "appeal to ridicule" is what that logical fallacy tends to be called, Jala) that what is meant by this is that -- well, I can't even tell. Maybe it's my belief that the September 11 attacks were an understandable response to our Israel policy? But I've argued that elsewhere. Where do you think I have been begging the question, Jala?

Ad hominen: Calling Rockhound "dumbass." Well, (a) he did say something stupid, and (b) he has consistently proven himself to unwilling to moderate his statements regardless of how obviously stupid they are. This was not debate, but rather it was just putting a heckler in his place.

Concluding that Brinson Kozmo is either an idiot or a rotten person: (a) if the argument was over whether I or Gregor were more correct in our discussion, then Brinson's contribution was, "Gregor is more correct because I think he is more correct." If Brinson is arguing by appealing to the authority of his own opinion, then the worth of his opinion is, I think, a fair target. (b) I clearly noted that my conclusion was made in the absence of an explanation from him, which would presumably have removed his position's reliance on his own authority. He never provided an explanation.

Argument from ignorance: I'm guessing (as again I must) that what you are referring to here is my challenge to Mini Me that he indicate which assertions from my Arab-leaning water issue website were false. Because I am the only person in this thread (other than recently Alex) who has made any serious effort to provide any factual evidence, I think it is pretty specious to criticize me for asking someone who has dismissed essentially all of my evidence as "biased" to tell me what in particular he thinks is in error. Yes, the site I linked to was biased, and there was at least one thing on it that I would say was flat out wrong. But I think it was pretty much on target with the water issue. And yes, there can be no negative proof about Israel's territorial motives, but this does not render them beyond reasonable criticism.

While I am repelled by Gregor's disdain for the rights of the Arabs, he at least believes enough in his position to argue it rather than slinking around in the eaves taking potshots. You should look for something in which you can believe as much, Jala.

Jala

10-30-2001, 11:01 AM

1) Begging the Question

Your length-of-time argument wrt the validity of claims on land gained through conquest.

2) Ad Hominem

Are you kidding?

3) Argument from Ignorance

BK didn't offer reasons for his opinion up front (prefering, as he said later, to wait until asked). You took that as proof that he had no reasons, or no reasons of consequence.

Laocoön

10-30-2001, 11:04 AM

Hierophant, the last time I endeavored to have a conversation with you, this was the result:

On 2001-09-28 02:03, Hierophant wrote:
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.

How do you imagine a conversation might continue through a message such as the one that I've copied here?

No'ocoal

10-30-2001, 11:27 AM

On 2001-10-30 11:04, Laocoön wrote:
Hierophant, the last time I endeavored to have a conversation with you, this was the result:

When have you ever "endeavored to have a conversation"?

Laocoön

10-30-2001, 11:30 AM

On 2001-10-30 11:01, Jala wrote:
1) Begging the Question

Your length-of-time argument wrt the validity of claims on land gained through conquest.

Okay. I think that everyone has to draw a line somewhere; where is open to debate, but I don't think there can be no line. Was Iraq's conquest of Kuwait wrong? Was Britain's separation of Kuwait from Iraq wrong? Was the European conquest of America wrong? Was the Turkish conqest of Bosnia wrong? Well, yes, they were all probably wrong, but how far back should we reach today to correct these past wrongs? I think my criteria would be whether or not there are individuals alive who can point to particular results of conquest that directly affected them. There clearly are such with regard to Palestine. There may be such with regard to some issues of US confiscation of lands from Native Americans. There were such with regard to Iraq's conquest of Kuwait. There probably are not such with regard to Britain's separation of Kuwait from Iraq, though that more for the British being only line drawers rather than territory takers. And so on.

If anyone doesn't think this is a good basis for a standard, I'd be willing to hear of other bases. If anyone thinks there should be no standard, I'd find that hard to accept.

2) Ad Hominem

Are you kidding?

No.

3) Argument from Ignorance

BK didn't offer reasons for his opinion up front (prefering, as he said later, to wait until asked). You took that as proof that he had no reasons, or no reasons of consequence.

(Are you still discussing ad hominen here?)

Why should Brinson need to be asked? That's silly, Jala. Consider: "I have an irrefutable argument against your position. Therefore you are wrong, and you must ask me specifically about the irrefutable matter in order for me to disclose it, and, until you do, you must accept that you are wrong." Isn't that in all likelihood Brinson's game? He has this secret "argument," and all he has to do to "prove" it is to truthfully answer any specific question I ask. What a joke!

BK: "I can prove that white is black."
L: "Is your proof just a deconstruction of thought, equating opposite concepts?"
BK: "No! See, my proof stands, impervious in its truth to all challenges."

I haven't the strength to deal with such tedium.

[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-30 11:31 ]

Jala

10-30-2001, 11:52 AM

On 2001-10-30 11:30, Laocoön wrote:
Why should Brinson need to be asked? That's silly, Jala. Consider: "I have an irrefutable argument against your position. Therefore you are wrong, and you must ask me specifically about the irrefutable matter in order for me to disclose it, and, until you do, you must accept that you are wrong." Isn't that in all likelihood Brinson's game? He has this secret "argument," and all he has to do to "prove" it is to truthfully answer any specific question I ask. What a joke!

BK: "I can prove that white is black."
L: "Is your proof just a deconstruction of thought, equating opposite concepts?"
BK: "No! See, my proof stands, impervious in its truth to all challenges."

I haven't the strength to deal with such tedium.

[ This Message was edited by: Laocoön on 2001-10-30 11:31 ]

That's all wonderful. It's also irrelevent. BK made his statement, and later he explained why no reasons were offered at that time. You still based conclusions on the fact you had no evidence to the contrary.

G. Ringo

10-30-2001, 12:21 PM

Lao,
I don't understand what you mean by "directly affected". I think that people alive today are directly affected by all the conquests that you have listed. Jews are certainly directly affected by the Roman conquest of the Land of Israel and the destruction of the Temple.

Laocoön

10-30-2001, 12:37 PM

On 2001-10-30 11:52, Jala wrote:
That's all wonderful. It's also irrelevent. BK made his statement, and later he explained why no reasons were offered at that time. You still based conclusions on the fact you had no evidence to the contrary.

Jala, I have no reason to want to know BK's reasons. He has already emailed his congressman: there is no convincing him that he might be in error. Should I want to know why "Brinson Kozmo" thinks I'm wrong? Who the hell is "Brinson Kozmo?" I haven't seen anything to suggest that his opinion is worth a d*mn, and the very fact that he would post his conclusion (and email it to his congressman) without making sure that he well-understood the position (mine) that he was rejecting suggests that he's an idiot or a rotten person. He obviously doesn't care that I think he's probably an idiot or a rotten person, so we may as well both go on our separate ways, which I intend to do.

Laocoön

10-30-2001, 12:39 PM

On 2001-10-30 12:21, Gregor Grub wrote:
Lao,
I don't understand what you mean by "directly affected". I think that people alive today are directly affected by all the conquests that you have listed. Jews are certainly directly affected by the Roman conquest of the Land of Israel and the destruction of the Temple.

How are they affected?

Jala

10-30-2001, 01:04 PM

On 2001-10-30 12:37, Laocoön wrote:
Jala, I have no reason to want to know BK's reasons. He has already emailed his congressman: there is no convincing him that he might be in error. Should I want to know why "Brinson Kozmo" thinks I'm wrong? Who the hell is "Brinson Kozmo?" I haven't seen anything to suggest that his opinion is worth a d*mn, and the very fact that he would post his conclusion (and email it to his congressman) without making sure that he well-understood the position (mine) that he was rejecting suggests that he's an idiot or a rotten person. He obviously doesn't care that I think he's probably an idiot or a rotten person, so we may as well both go on our separate ways, which I intend to do.

Once again, that's all wonderful, but it doesn't negate your fallacy of argument from ignorance.

G. Ringo

10-30-2001, 02:15 PM

We do not have the Temple with the opprtunity to fulfill the many commandments involved in it, the related purity and discipline guiding our lives, the manifest Divine presence that made secularism an untenable world view, and whatever instruction and rewards God gave to the Jewish people and the world through the Temple.

We do not have a government of Jewish law anywhere. Only part of our Land is under even a multifactional arrangement that accommodates religious Jews. Most of our population is in countries where we are a minority, where our beliefs are not considered admissible in a discussion forum like this one and its predecessors, while calling us children of the devil and advocating killing us meets with no stronger rebuke than, "Your sources didn't mean all Jews," and is blamed on us just for being visible. And that is in a free country where we have full citizenship.

What more is required to be "directly affected"?

Guerilla poster

10-30-2001, 02:40 PM

GG,

I am still not sure how that justifies US support for a Jewish homeland. Why should the US support a Jewish homeland anymore than a Palestinian homeland?

Jowler Nojsen

10-30-2001, 03:18 PM

On 2001-10-30 14:40, Guerilla Poster wrote:
GG,

I am still not sure how that justifies US support for a Jewish homeland. Why should the US support a Jewish homeland anymore than a Palestinian homeland?

He explained how Jews are directly affected, which was Lao's criteria for being allowed to keep conquested land.

Guerilla poster

10-30-2001, 03:23 PM

I have followed this argument for a week now but I have yet to hear any good reasons for why the US should provide support to Israel - other than a) because it is their religious right to hold Israel b) the Jewish people are a special people so they deserve a special place c)because it it too late to take away support now.

Can someone please give me some good reasons?

Anonymous

10-30-2001, 03:32 PM

Israel is an outpost of civilization and democracy in a region that has seen precious little of either in the past century.

Guerilla poster

10-30-2001, 03:43 PM

Ok, we should support Israel because they are better at running their country than the Arabs. What is the long term goal of this approach? Will Israel's approach take hold in the other country's in the region thereby making the Mideast a bastion of freedom and democracy? Let us say Israel did not exist (god forbid), would the world be inherently less stable? less democratic? less free?

Patience

10-30-2001, 04:08 PM

On 2001-10-30 15:43, Guerilla Poster wrote:
Let us say Israel did not exist (god forbid), would the world be inherently less stable? less democratic? less free?

But couldn't the same be said of any small democratic country and its impact on "world democracy". Now turn it around. If the Palestinians/Arabs did not exist (God forbid) world the world be more stable, more democratic, more free.

I get a scary conclusion.

Guerilla poster

10-30-2001, 04:19 PM

Ok, once again the argument made is that we should financially support Israel because they are better than Arabs.

Is any other small democracy to which we give such a large amount of financial backing? If not, why is so much support for Israel justified?

Laocoön

10-30-2001, 05:32 PM

On 2001-10-30 13:04, Jala wrote:

On 2001-10-30 12:37, Laocoön wrote:
He obviously doesn't care that I think he's probably an idiot or a rotten person, so we may as well both go on our separate ways, which I intend to do.

Once again, that's all wonderful, but it doesn't negate your fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Doesn't it render it moot?

And what about you, Jala? Why are you appealing to ridicule rather than addressing actual points?

alex

10-30-2001, 05:50 PM

Laocoön

10-30-2001, 06:05 PM

On 2001-10-30 14:15, Gregor Grub wrote:
We do not have the Temple with the opprtunity to fulfill the many commandments involved in it, the related purity and discipline guiding our lives, the manifest Divine presence that made secularism an untenable world view, and whatever instruction and rewards God gave to the Jewish people and the world through the Temple.

We do not have a government of Jewish law anywhere. Only part of our Land is under even a multifactional arrangement that accommodates religious Jews. Most of our population is in countries where we are a minority, where our beliefs are not considered admissible in a discussion forum like this one and its predecessors, while calling us children of the devil and advocating killing us meets with no stronger rebuke than, "Your sources didn't mean all Jews," and is blamed on us just for being visible. And that is in a free country where we have full citizenship.

What more is required to be "directly affected"?

What more is required is that you believed that, in the absence of an actionable offense by a person or group of people identifiable today, you would have all of these things. Have Jews been consistently pursuing recovery of the Temple for 2000 years? No. Did the Jews protest the transfer of control of the Temple grounds to the Turks, Arabs, Crusaders, Arabs again, Turks again? No. Herzl himself was secular, opposed, if I can believe half of what I read, by most of the rabbis of his time.

Further, whenever the notion that they would like to recover the Temple possessed whatever group of the Jewish people that it possessed, did they peacefully petition the Turks/Arabs who then controlled it, and who had acquired it through no offense to the Jews, did they peacefully petition the Turks/Arabs for recovery of the Temple, or otherwise for the availability in peace of the Temple grounds for their use? I think the answer is "no," but I will hear your instruction.

I am affected by the fact that I cannot fly by flapping my arms, Gregor, but this does not mean that I can demand recompense from anyone for how I have thus been so cruelly handicapped.

And your beliefs are admissable in this discussion, and I hereby rebuke anyone who has called you or any Jew a child of the devil or who has advocated the killing of any Jew, and I call such a person "evil." Only do not expect that I will accept your beliefs as unquestionable truth, and do not expect that I won't call anyone who calls an Arab a child of the devil or who advocates killing (or blinding, Gregor) any Arab, do not expect that I will not call that person "evil" as well.

And, while I have not heretofore said anything about it, prefering to ignore the idiots and hope that they will go away, I have been pretty disgusted with some of the insults that have been thrown at the Zionists here, questioning their loyalty to America and accusing them of illicitly controlling the media. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with an American being more loyal to Israel, the Kiwanis Club, Britney Spears, Rock and Roll, or anything else, than to America, as long as they obey the laws. And, while I think that American media is choked with Zionist propaganda, it is through no fault of Zionists, who have every right to try to get their views promoted. If there is fault, it is of the rest of American, who have unskeptically consumed whatever information was laid before them, and of the proponents of Arab causes, who have done such a pitiful job of getting their views promoted.

Hierophant

10-30-2001, 06:47 PM

Lao, first let me say thanks for not quoting out my most recent post: quoting is overused here (by you and others) and takes up unnecessary space, since the context of the response is often sufficiently clear.

Second, I stand by the points you quoted. You provide no solution to the Israeli problem, while abandoning our support of Israel would provide little or no benefit to us. Your reference to "the law" is not helpful, since international law does not exist; treaties do exist, but war generally abrogates treaties. Do you think the Israeli's can buy off the Palestinians? Perhaps you do, but I think it is a blood issue, as I noted.

Which only leaves the third quoted item, i.e. the comparison between the Palestinians and the American Indians. Interestingly, this suggests a very simple solution to the Palestinian issue: The U.S. should support Israel for another 30 to 50 years, at which time there will be no living Palestinians to make claim of direct loss. This solution has some moral grounding to the extent that you can provide no other solution to the Israeli problem if the Palestinians were to retake Palestine.

Third, and finally, I have stayed largely out of this thread; so how the "conversation might continue" is moot. My point on thread drift is valid (even though it is not my place to dictate the direction of the thread.) The point which you have left hanging is whether YOU think our attack on the Taliban and Osama is right or wrong. I might infer that you think so, but I think you generally object to people infering your opinions on specific points. (For which reason, I DON'T infer, and thus provide no supporting evidence.)

Jala

10-30-2001, 09:18 PM

On 2001-10-30 17:32, Laocoön wrote:
And what about you, Jala? Why are you appealing to ridicule rather than addressing actual points?

The point was raised that you use a lot of logical fallacies to support your opinion. I pointed out three of them. Those are actual points.

Hierophant

10-31-2001, 08:32 AM

I figured out the start of the ad hominem in this thread. You might think it was Lao, when he said:
Sorry, dumbass
Actually, though, he was just responding in kind to Rockhound, who said:
Sorry, Lao
:razz:

Laocoön

10-31-2001, 11:08 AM

On 2001-10-30 18:47, Hierophant wrote:
You provide no solution to the Israeli problem, while abandoning our support of Israel would provide little or no benefit to us. Your reference to "the law" is not helpful, since international law does not exist; treaties do exist, but war generally abrogates treaties. Do you think the Israeli's can buy off the Palestinians? Perhaps you do, but I think it is a blood issue, as I noted.

Which only leaves the third quoted item, i.e. the comparison between the Palestinians and the American Indians. Interestingly, this suggests a very simple solution to the Palestinian issue: The U.S. should support Israel for another 30 to 50 years, at which time there will be no living Palestinians to make claim of direct loss. This solution has some moral grounding to the extent that you can provide no other solution to the Israeli problem if the Palestinians were to retake Palestine.

Third, and finally, I have stayed largely out of this thread; so how the "conversation might continue" is moot. My point on thread drift is valid (even though it is not my place to dictate the direction of the thread.) The point which you have left hanging is whether YOU think our attack on the Taliban and Osama is right or wrong. I might infer that you think so, but I think you generally object to people infering your opinions on specific points. (For which reason, I DON'T infer, and thus provide no supporting evidence.)

Let me summarize:

1. Laocoön has to come up with a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem; Hierophant has only to come up with some marginal complaint about any solution that Laocoön proposes.
2. Hierophant is unaware of international law; therefore it does not exist.
3. Hierophant sees no possibility for a reasonable solution to the Israel-Palestine problem; therefore unreasonable solutions are reasonable.
4. Hierophant thinks that time will excuse how evil he is.
5. Hierophant stays on Laocoön's "Twit" list, where clearly he belongs.

I guess that settles that! At least our conversations can be ended more efficiently now that I understand you, Hiero.

Laocoön

10-31-2001, 11:12 AM

On 2001-10-30 21:18, Jala wrote:

On 2001-10-30 17:32, Laocoön wrote:
And what about you, Jala? Why are you appealing to ridicule rather than addressing actual points?

The point was raised that you use a lot of logical fallacies to support your opinion. I pointed out three of them. Those are actual points.

And you have moved forward discussion on the Taliban/Osama/terrorism/the Middle East how exactly?

Hierophant

10-31-2001, 04:27 PM

On 2001-10-31 11:08, Laocoön wrote:

Let me summarize:

1. Laocoön has to come up with a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem; Hierophant has only to come up with some marginal complaint about any solution that Laocoön proposes.

Well, let's be clear what we are disagreeing about. Israel was formed to create a Jewish state, to give the Jews self-determination following WWII. I believe that the Palestinians will never accept the Israeli state - do we disagree on this point? Returning Israel to the Palestinians will leave the Jews without a homeland - I don't believe you have proposed a solution to that problem - did you?

2. Hierophant is unaware of international law; therefore it does not exist.
Treaties exist, and are valid as long as all parties are willing to abide. International maritime law exists, I guess, through years of custom. Boundaries, borders, and territorial waters are recognized and respected through custom, with the implicit understanding that local authority must be respected - and that authority is enforced through the military (i.e. threat of war).

But international law, per se? The UN does not create, pass, or enforce laws - e.g. the Kyoto Accord would have required the usual treaty approval process in the U.S. Who writes international law? Who enforces that law? How do they have jurisdiction over the U.S.?

For the case in point, which is your assertion that territories should be determined by (international) law rather than through war. However, essentially all current boundaries have been determined through war. Thus, international law requires that we respect boundaries that were established by means that violate international law?

My assertion that international law does not exist is simply an observation that the world is a harsh place. Countries respect international law, or treaties, while it is expedient to do so, or while compelled through the superior power of other nations.

3. Hierophant sees no possibility for a reasonable solution to the Israel-Palestine problem; therefore unreasonable solutions are reasonable.
Maybe; maybe, though, abandoning our support of Israel is not a reasonable solution to the problem, since that would result in the fall of Israel. This is not a "marginal complaint" about your proposed solution. Rather it is a serious deficiency about which you seem to be unconcerned.

4. Hierophant thinks that time will excuse how evil he is.
There are Native Americans who are only 5 or so generations from the U.S. conquest of the West. Colonial America is only about 10 or 12 generations back. There are 2 million Native Americans where once there were an estimated 5 million, reduced to a quarter million by 1900 or so. Perhaps Ben Gurion was evil; but what about the newborn Israeli with an expectation of a homeland and self-determination?

5. Hierophant stays on Laocoön's "Twit" list, where clearly he belongs.
A proud member!

I guess that settles that! At least our conversations can be ended more efficiently now that I understand you, Hiero.