• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Sheridan and the WTC

G

giffy

Member
I have a feeling this thread will generate some heat so here goes. I think that there are a few parralles between sheridan destroying the city on zahadum and the terrorist stike against New York.
First both the United States and the Shadows bring chaos to the world and support governements that further there control. ie. Us support or military dictators and Shadow support for the Centary
Second, both attack with a plane of sorts and both expected to die as a result.
Third, they both struck non military targets and killed non combatants, assuming the shadows make a distinction.
Forth, both thought the attac would bring the conflict home and stop the actions of the attacked.
Fifth, both were guests of the country attacked. The terrorists were here legaly and working in this country and sheridan was invited to join the shadows.
Sixth, both felt the actions of the other justified the ends.

I know that there are some diffrences namly that one is real and the other is created. But I think that sheridans attack seems better because we agree with what he was trying to do, namly bring peace to the galxy. The terrorists seem to be trying to not only stop imperialism but also bring there totalitarian brand of Islam in to more areas. However if we justify attacking civilians with WMD for our own ends then it becomes just another tool of war and the only tagety is that we lost a battle, not that a crime against humanity was commited. Pardon my rambling and let me know what you think.

------------------
Scott Gifford

Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures
 
Finding differences in two seemingly similar things can be a good excercise:

---------

1. The terrorists went to die. Sheridan went to peace negotiations. He took the fusion bombs in case his suspicion about the Shadows' attitude would turn out to be true. It turned out to be true.

The Shadows gave him no other way. They would not let him leave. Thus he would fight them with everything he had -- and when he had no other way to fight, he chose to die in a most devastating way.

He would not let them use his mind or body against his purpose. If Sheridan would have been given a choice of leaving (unaltered and in peace) he would have done so.

-------

2. Secondly, Sheridan and the Shadows were already at war. A war that had brought millions of victims, both dead and refugees. A war that he had not started, one that he knew would kill whole civilisations and species.

The Shadows had shown that they did not care for life, no matter if civilian or military. Therefore, under exreme circumstances, striking back unselectively might not seem a wrong choice.

All other ways had proved incapable of stopping the Shadows. They had used similar or even worse weapons. And it could be suspected that they hadn't used even a fraction of their full strength.

-------

3. Thirdly the Shadows have inherent differences if compared to the US. The Shadows as a society had no respect for other people's lives or opinion. There may have been a few peace-loving Shadows, but they made no visible/detectable attempt to resist others and stop the war.

So we may say that they had no respect for life. They were not just pursuing their interests -- they were pursuing their interest with no regard to other people's well-being.

They had no respect for other sentients' right do choose their own destiny -- neither as individuals nor as societies. The Shadow approach was "you will die because we tell you to die". That is different. Very different.

----------

To sum it up, Sheridan saw no other way -- even after trying to find other ways. Perhaps there was no other way. His goal was not to force the Shadows do what he wanted -- simply to stop them from fueling war and destroying countless lives.

There is a profound difference between attacking somone who won't let you opress and kill freely (Taliban attacking the US) and attacking someone to make them stop killing (Sheridan attacking the Shadows).

But your question is a good excercise of thought -- as inherently different things may appear similar on surface. It is good to take a look inside and find the differences.

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited October 19, 2001).]
 
Ok, here's what's gonna happen: people will start posting stuff about how cruel and insensitive giffy is, and how ridiculous it is to say that "The terrorists seem to be trying to not only stop imperialism ..." and that "the only tagety is that we lost a battle, not that a crime against humanity was commited." People will get personal and vicious, whiney and bitchy.

Then Anthony will close this thread, either because it will be too political or too personal.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
 
In response to your comments lennier I have a few more thoughts. First thanks for responding in a discussion framework and not simply attacking the thead. On your points,
1. Even if sheridan had no way out, does that justify the destuction of millions of lives. Also the terrorist most likly would not attack the US if the US would leave them and there people alon, more on this later

2. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Secondly, Sheridan and the Shadows were already at war. A war that had brought millions of victims, both dead and refugees. A war that he had not started, one that he knew would kill whole civilisations and species. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The terrorists had already declared war on the United States and oth sides had engaged in acts of war.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> The Shadows had shown that they did not care for life, no matter if civilian or military. Therefore, under exreme circumstances, striking back unselectively might not seem a wrong choice.

All other ways had proved incapable of stopping the Shadows. They had used similar or even worse weapons. And it could be suspected that they hadn't used even a fraction of their full strength.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that this can apply to the United States as well. Take for example the sanctions on Iraq. According to the UN they have killed at least 500,000 civilians. No distinction is made between harming Saddam and harming the people of Iraq.

3. While the United States has good protections of Human rights at home, abroad is a diffrent story. In the name of free enterprise the Us and US companies ahve brough terror and suffering to many in the world. The same is true at least in aperance for the Shadows. While they appear to live good lives they bring suffering to the world.

While the US is certanly not as harmful as the shadows they are far from an innocent crusador for Human Rights. I see the conflict between the taliban and the United States as more of a turf war. Both want power and control and both will attack people to do it. The diffrence is in the means. The US creates an illusion of democracy at home and maintains at least a sufficency level of prosperity for most of its citizens. This allows them to attac kabroad while keeping the ramble at home in line. The Taliban uses terror both at home and abroad.
Certanly the United States is prefrable to the Taliban but both are two sides of the same coin. I find it intersting that two sieds that hate each other often do it in the same way.
Mass murder is always wrong wether it be the US or the Taliban. The Shadows or Sheridan. Becoming your enemy to defeate your enemy is no vistory at all.

------------------
Scott Gifford

Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures
 
To a certain degree, I agree, but...

1. The Shadows of Babylon 5, even if possibly divided in their ideas, were not *seen* as divided in their actions. Sheridan had neither seen nor heard of a peaceful Shadow, so for him they may have been all combatants.

This is radically different from our comparison scenario of September 11. The attackers knew full well that they were attacking defenseless civilians, most of who would wish no war with their people.

2. The Shadows were not open to negotiating or re-examining their views. They were fanatical. Not open to any kinds of peaceful solutions -- for them, war was a purpose in itself. This makes the Shadows more similar to terrorists -- with the difference that for Taliban, war has a purpose.

This purpose is freeing their hands to establish (and expand) an extreme islamic state, one not tolerant of other ways of life. A state where other religions are illegal, women have next to no rights -- and a state which wishes to force its ways on others by sponsoring terrorism.

Therefore I would say that no adequate political comparisons can be drawn in this case. The two situations look similar in form, but radically differ in essence.

------------

In reply to:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Also the terrorist most likely would not attack the US if the US would leave them and there people alone, more on this later<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of the few points where I believe you are completely in error. They would simply gather influence and "deal with" their own people first (who would not resist much longer). They would come knocking on your and my front door later -- when they are powerful enough.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>The terrorists had already declared war on the United States and other sides had engaged in acts of war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Regardless of that, Sheridan did not choose to start the Shadow war. The war threatened not only him, not only others, but all and any life that would get in its way. I would describe this is a sufficient reason for counterattack. His means were dubious, but I find that I can't condemn it.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Take for example the sanctions on Iraq. According to the UN they have killed at least 500,000 civilians. No distinction is made between harming Saddam and harming the people of Iraq.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As we all know, people have different views in this matter -- and these would be better suited to a thread completely dedicated to foreign policy. In my opinion lifting the sanctions would indeed help Iraqi civilians -- until their leaders consider Iraq powerful enough to drag them into another war.

In my opinion the war should have ended with Saddam's replacement -- but fearing that the state of Iraq would disintegrate, the coalition was too timid. No guts to do what was necessary. Now the necessary can no longer be done. In case of Iraq, the international community is facing bad and less bad options. I'm not sure which one is right.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>While the US is certanly not as harmful as the shadows they are far from an innocent crusador for Human Rights. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but a majority of people in the US are truly interested in supporting human rights. In fact, they have a lot of influence. Surely there are others who also have significant influence, but they are not in total control of the country (like in Afghanistan). On the other hand, some of the Afghani people support Taliban, most simply fear for their lives and a few have stayed alive through opposing Taliban.

Neither of the compared is similar to the unified, undivided Shadows. Neither one can be compared to Sheridan -- as a comparison between an individual and a generalisation is unacceptable.

-----------

I will end my part of this discussion by admitting that I am not qualified to discuss it further without slipping. It seems to me that we are comparing things which are not suitable for comparison.

This topic could be better discussed in two different threads. Otherwise there is the threat that it (as political discussions often do) will lead to some pointless arguing and personal misunderstandings.

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited October 19, 2001).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lennier:
Finding differences in two seemingly similar things can be a good excercise:

---------

The Shadow approach was "you will die because we tell you to die".
----------
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that was the Vorlon approach:

"You will die for us when we tell you to die for us, because the others know no other way." http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/di4ustlu.wav

The Shadows tried to con other species into fighting one another, with the lure of gaining power through having a super-strong ally in the Shadows. The Shadow goal was promotion of evolution through conflict.

The Vorlons treated the other species as recruits who have joined an army to fight the chaos, and promote cooperation and order. That's where the "You will die for us when we tell you to die for us, because the others know no other way." quote comes from. The Vorlons see themselves as big wigs in that army.


------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

"To Live and Die in Starlight"
pilot movie for "Babylon 5 - The Legend of the Rangers"
January 2002 on The Sci-Fi Channel.
http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> "It's really simple. You bring two sides together. They fight. A lot of them die, but those who survive are stronger, smarter and better."
"It's like knocking over an ant-hill. Every new generation gets stronger, the ant-hill gets redesigned, made better."
Justin and Morden in Babylon 5:"Z'ha'dum"


"Flesh is transitory, flesh is a prison, flesh is .. an instrument. Flesh can be replaced.
And flesh does as it's told. Or they will become most annoyed."
Morden to Londo in Babylon 5:"The Hour of the Wolf"


"The Vorlons.."
"Will never attack Centauri Prime. Small colonies, deep range planets, sure. But to destroy a world as big as this, no. They don't have the will."
Morden and Londo in Babylon 5:"Falling Toward Apotheosis"


"There are three billion people here. The Vorlons would never attack a civilian population that big. The ships stay."
Morden and Londo in Babylon 5:"Into the Fire"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



------------------
The 3 most common elements in the Universe:
Hydrogen, Greed, Stupidity!
 
Lifting the sanctions on Iraq is easy simply kill Saddam and tell his replacement to claim to want friendship with the USA. The sanctions will be gone within days.

------------------
Andrew Swallow
 
I'd like to think that it's that easy. It's not.

------------------
Channe, the next JMS, who lives for the One and dies for the chocolate cheesecake
--
OnlineDude: I suppose now would not be the time to bring up the old one about the starlet who was so new to Hollywood she slept with the writer...
JMS: But that was only because she heard that in Hollywood, *everyone* screws the writer.
 
Giffy, there seem to be two different larger questions here. One, Is what Sheridan did at Z'Ha'Dum morally equivalent to what the Taliban did at the WTC? and Two, have past US actions justified the Taliban's actions?

To One, I would say no. To the best of his knowledge, there are in effect, no civilians in Shadow civilization. It is a declared war, started by the Shadows. They threaten the destruction of billions of lives. This is their capitol city and military HQ. Agreement with them is impossible. Sheridan has no choice. He is much more clearly justified than we were in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII, which can be seen as ambiguous. The Taliban, on the other hand, although they have declared war on us, and like to think we have declared war on them, prior to 9/11, have never tried to negotiate with us, or peacefully get us to address their greivances. And although the WTC did have some government offices, I don't think it is a legitimate military target, or that they saw it as one. Their purpose was to humble us and terrorize us, with no regard for innocent life, not limit our ability to make war on them, at least at the WTC. The Pentagon, anyone would have to admit, is a legitimate military target. So on to Q. Two, which involves our actions V the Taliban, politically and morally.

Here we are on much more ambiguous ground. As you point out, the foreign policy of the US has often done unconscionable things. We burnt two barrios to the ground trying to get Noriega, in our invasion of Panama, resulting in the loss of 10-15,000 innocent Panamanian lives, and denied it and covered it up. We have long supported Israel to the tune of 3-4 billion dollars a year. Their human rights policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians, and even their own Arab citizens, are comparable to South African aparthied, and some ways worse. In their 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Israel killed 15-20,000 people, bombing houses, apartment buildings, schools, and hospitals with the avowed goal of driving the Palestinians into the sea. Of course, since the Palestinians use violence, many believe this is justified. I don't believe this is justified, nor do I believe what the Taliban did was justified, for the same reasons. It pains me greatly that my country has committed evil acts in my name, and it also pains me greatly that my country has suffered this great evil. If ever there was proof of the old saw that two wrongs don't make a right, this is it. And probably the worst thing about it all, is that it makes justice for everyone that much harded to attain.

------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood

Palindromes of the month: Lager, sir, is regal. Do geese see god?
 
I envy you people. You live in a world where war is the anomaly, no the norm; where anyone involved with war is the Bad Man, unless he's on TV, of course.

Unfortunately, some of us have to take the responsibility of living in the real world.

The Taliban want to kill Americans. Do you truly comprehend what that means? Let me clue you in: even if we were to everything they ask (remove all troops from Saudi Arabia, stop supporting Israel, etc), they would still try to destroy. The only thing they know and want is war.

They cannot be reasoned with, unless some major socio-political changes happen in Afghanistan, Irag, and most of the Arab world. Violence is sometimes necessary.

Palestinians feel the same about Israelis as the Taliban's supporter feel about us. Yes, Israel and the US have committed war; sometimes justifiably, sometimes with horrid consequences. I'm not defending that, but it's unfair to expect perfect execution when dealing with every situation all the time. The US supports Israel because it's the only democracy in that area. When Iraq becomes a democracy with somewhat equal opportunity, willing to trade and cooperate, we'll support them, too.

Flying a plane into a building is starting a war. War leads to death. It's that simple. Everyone tries to figure out who was responsible for the September 11 attacks: the US, Israel, policies, etc. Hello! The people responsible are the motherf*** who hijacked the planes.

This is why it's absurd to compare it to a TV show. Sheridan was the "good guy," the Shadows were the "bad guys." I'm sure everyone cheered him on when we saw the Whitestar slam into Z'ha Dum.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GKarsEye:

Let me clue you in: even if we were to do everything they ask (remove all troops from Saudi Arabia, stop supporting Israel, etc), they would still try to destroy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the few topics where I fully agree with GKarsEye.

It is an irony of the universe that some wars are inevitable. Negotiating with terrorists is a waste of time. There are situations where peace means the loss of innocent lives.

While the terrorists are fought, negotiations must be held with all moderate groups -- in Afghanistan and all neighbouring countries. In addition, everything possible must be done to make it clear -- this has nothing to do with Islam. This has everything to do with these particular extremists who have twisted religious and national ideas to justify what can not be justified. It must be understood that unless stopped now, they will continue to do so.

Let us imagine a worst-case scenario where all countries suddenly decide that "it is not our business".

---------

1. Taliban would destroy internal opposition. The Afghani people would not resist them much longer. Afghanistan would have less and less people who remember the times before famine, illiteracy, oppression and violence became a standard.

2. Taliban would extend itself to Pakistan, fuel religious violence, perhaps organize a coup or civil war. President Musharraf would become a new Anwar Sadat -- with the difference that after his assassination, extremists would take control.

4. Al-Quaeda would extend its influence to Palestine, take control of local extremists, provoke a full-scale war with Israel. Admit it, Palestinian moderates would be too weak to stop it - as Israel has in many cases undermined their position.

3. Taliban would extend itself to southern parts of the CIS. Russia would decide that "it is not our business" and let fellow members fall one-by-one. Or it would lead to numerous bloody conflicts in which Russia would, lacking precise weapons and highly trained soldiers, level whole countries with unselective warfare (which it more-or-less did in Chechnia).

5. Taliban, now in control of Afghanistan, Pakistan and southern CIS, would declare shi-ite muslims heretical and go to war with Iran. Iraqi leaders might consider it benefcial to supprt them. Iran would not last long.

6. Al-Quaeda would try out every way to destabilize and manipulate muslim minorities in China and India. They would either be crushed or produce numerous Kashmir-style conflicts.

7. And so on -- until someone would gather the determination to stop it. Waiting would only guarantee a larger war, a greater loss of life.

------------

The alternative:

The coalition holds, its members will consider it everybody's business. Taliban will be overthrown, Al-Quaeda destroyed. Kabul will be taken by *all* opposition forces, there will be a balance between the Northern Alliance and others.

A council of representatives will successfully create plans for rebuilding a new Afghanistan -- one tolerant of ethnical and religious minorities. An Afghanistan where health-care and education are available, one which can actually use its numerous natural resources. This can only succeed with *heavy* diplomatic involvement from the UN, US, EU, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and all other influential neighbours.

Pakistan, having been forced to choose between religious and secular control, will become selective and moderate in its support to Kashmir. It will no longer fund extremists, leading to a reconciliation with India. The influence of Pakistan, Iran and the Northern Alliance will be balanced in future Afghani governments.

---------

War is hell, but sometimes peace can be worse. I would not like my peace to be bought by surrendering millions of people to be ruled by the worst kind of extremists.

It is much preferable that the extremists be fought now -- when it is still relatively easy. Otherwise they will have to be fought later, after they have done the damage to their own people, in a war that may be too much for this planet.

Sorry for taking this completely off-topic.

------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited October 22, 2001).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> One, Is what Sheridan did at Z'Ha'Dum morally equivalent to what the Taliban did at the WTC? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Taliban didn't do anything to the WTC as far as I am aware... the evidence points towards Al-Quaeda network being responsible. I think that this is a reasonable distinction to make especially since the plan to replace the Afghan government involves incorporating moderate Taliban.

Regards

------------------
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again..."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> incorporating moderate Taliban. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oxymoron.
There is no such thing as a Moderate religious fanatic.

There is only a "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" stalling for time.

To get this back on a SF track, anyone else here ever read Heinlein's story about Nehemiah Scudder?? A religious Fanatic who manages to make HIS version of Christianity the Official religion of the United States??

It's a rather frightening vision of the future. Particularly when you see Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell involved in national politics.



------------------
The 3 most common elements in the Universe:
Hydrogen, Greed, Stupidity!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>The Taliban didn't do anything to the WTC as far as I am aware...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aside from being a generous host to Al-Quaeda, completely supporting their ideas, helping to arm and train them, providing a whole country to "practise" with... What else could you wish?

Taliban is essentially the political face of Al-Quaeda. The ones who fight conventional wars, support the drug/weapons trade, terrorize and brainwash in the regions already "secured" while Al-Quaeda does the same worldwide.

You can't stop one without stopping the other. Remove Taliban and Al-Quaeda will move elsewhere (in addition to destroying any version of future Afghanistan that gets built). Remove Al-Quaeda and Taliban will still ruin millions of lives in Afghanistan (and its neighbourhood). They would simply provide/invite new terrorists to fill the void.

-------

I agree that one should negotiate with and help all moderate Afghani factions. Unfortunately, if Taliban once had a moderate faction, their heads may be quite far from their bodies.

If there are any people fitting the description of "moderate" inside Taliban, we may safely presume that they are unable to do anything -- not before the regime as a whole crumbles (or is sufficiently weakened).

There have been some defections to the side of the Northern Alliance and other opposition groups... but so far there has been no sign of significant internal rift within Taliban. Given their methods of "handling" opposition, this should not be a surprise...

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited October 21, 2001).]
 
Nukemall, others have pretty much made my case, but to put it in my own words, I don't buy the fiction that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are really separate entities, any more than our gov and the CIA are separate entities, in the sense that one is responsible for the other. An Al Qaeda official, on trial in Europe testified in open court that everything Bin Laden and Al Qaeda do must be preapproved by the Taliban. And saying moderate Taliban is like saying moderate Nazis. An oxymoron.

G'Kar's Eye, I didn't mean by my two wrongs don't make a right statement that we shouldn't oppose the Taliban. Regardless of what we have done in the past, they have declared war on us and committed an act of war, and we must respond militarily, and very forcefully. I will believe we are trying to minimize civilian casualties, until and unless we see believable evidence to the contrary. And I do realize their ideology is to wipe us out and spread Islam, or at least their perverted version of it, over the world, so conflict was inevitable. But you are wrong in thinking that all Palestinians want to destroy Israel. If in the peace negotiations Arrafat had been offered Palestinian control over the arab quarter in Jerusalem, they would have had a deal. But instead, Ariel Sharon went to the Al Haqsa mosque with 1,000 armed followers purposefully to incite Palestinian rioting, and end the peace negotiations. You see, just as there are many Palestinians who want peace, there are also Israelis who would like to exterminate all the Palestinians, and Sharon is one. He has just given Arrafat and the Palestinian authority one week to end all anti Israeli violence, or he vows to destroy Arrafat and the Palestinian Authority. The problem is that Arrafat has no control over Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, who don't want peace any more than Sharon does. Arrafat's only control over these terrorist orgs, who have tried to assassinate him, is the PA's police powers, and the Israelis have bombed most of the PA police stations and jails into oblivion. So Sharon knows his demand is impossible. And the reason that Israel is the only democracy in the area is that we have supported corrupt despotic regimes, and sabotaged any elected govs for decades. This is one reason so many in that part of the world hate us. But on the other hand, if we stopped supporting say, Egypt and Saudi Arabia now, they would probably be taken over by Taliban-like govs. So we've really made a mess of it. After we get Bin Laden and his bunch, we must work, behind the scenes, to press Israel to deal justly with the Palestinians, and forge a lasting peace. That would just be a first step to righting some of our wrongs, but we can't continue the way we have, or more and more Bin Ladens will keep popping up .

------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood

Palindromes of the month: Lager, sir, is regal. Do geese see god?
 
First, let me apologize for the horrible spelling and grammatical errors in my last post. It was late and I was sleepy and/or high, and I don't want to go back and fix them all.

Jaguar,
You'll get no argument from me about Sharon. I don't want to get into a whole Israel / Palestine thing, but just as Sharon's demands from the PLO are absurd, so are the PLO's demands. Barak offered them a great deal, but Arafat refused because he is under pressure from extremists.

That's the whole point. Extremists hold too much power in the Mid-East and Arab world. They hinder peace, prosperity, and progress because these things render them useless; like soapt to dirt.

My objection was to the "all war is wrong" sentiment that I got at the beginning of the thread, which since seems to have gone away.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."
 
OK, point taken... I've kinda had my head partially buried in the sand for the past couple of weeks.

Regards

------------------
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again..."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> They have been murdering Israelis wholesale for decades now, going back to before WWII, WAY before 1967. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the "truth is a casualty" arena, we might take note that There WAS NO Israel prior to WW2.

For that matter, there were no Palestinains prior to Israel. The various people displaced when Israel was carved out of the area were from more than a dozen different family/clan/tribal groups who happened to live in that part of the world.

They became "Palestinians" because it was easier than listing all the different antecedents and because most of them Had lived in Palestine at least part of the time.

The British chose that particular spot to "create" Israel because there was No effective government in the area to oppose them or to protect the people already living there.

They were casualties of a Lack of "National Identity".

If Israel has done noting else, they united a group (the Palestinians) that previously lived in a state close to anarchy.



------------------
The 3 most common elements in the Universe:
Hydrogen, Greed, Stupidity!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>In the "truth is a casualty" arena, we might take note that There WAS NO Israel prior to WW2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Israel wasn't founded till 1948, true, but a large Jewish population was already there and had been steadily growing since the beginning of the Zionist movement in the late 1800s. If you'd ask them, they'd probably refer to themsleves as "Israelis" even then. Does the fact that a State of Palestine does not exist (yet) means that Palestinians do not exist?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>For that matter, there were no Palestinains prior to Israel. The various people displaced when Israel was carved out of the area were from more than a dozen different family/clan/tribal groups who happened to live in that part of the world.

They were casualties of a Lack of "National Identity".

If Israel has done noting else, they united a group (the Palestinians) that previously lived in a state close to anarchy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I'll bite. What's your beef with Israel, then?

------------------
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 357 (members: 0, guests: 357)

Share this page

Back
Top