[quote]juninho wrote:
eic wrote:
juninho wrote:
eic wrote:
AlbertaBeef:
- Admit that you’re an anti-Semite.
AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!! I fucking HATE this shit! Criticise
Israel and immediately you are an anti-semite. Well, actually I have several Jewish friends, who are as embarrassed and disgusted by the actions of Israel as I am. Are they anti-semitic too? Israel is truely the biggest bully boy on the planet.
Interesting that the post wasn’t addressed to you, yet you felt obliged (guilty?) to step in and proclaim that you are not an anti-Semite.
There is no denying that anti-Semitism is on the rise throughout the globe. Burned down synagogues throughout Europe, statements made by foreign leaders (like Iran’s president), unconscionable statements by prominent figures in the media (e.g., Mel Gibson), and widespread, unwarranted criticism of Israel.
I don’t equate ALL criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. However, when someone simply repeats dogma and makes up outlandish accusations (such as the claim that Israeli soldiers rape Muslim women), then they are no doubt an anti-Semite.
You are welcomed to be embarrassed by Israel. They aren’t doing what they are doing for pissants like yourself, nor for those Jews who haven’t a spine. Israel is simply trying to protect itself from a menace that has been attempting to destroy Israel one way or another for decades. They don’t give a shit what some ill-informed bloke thinks about them. And THAT is the only reason why Israel still exists at all.
I should also note that you, as an Englishman, are estopped from calling another country a bully when islands acorss the globe and thousands of miles from the UK are still owned by your country. I love England and in general I think its people are marvelous, but “England” was synomous with “imperialism” for centuries. You can’t even compare sending troops into southern Lebanon with the sort of bullying propogated by your country.
Since the wars against Israel when Israel captured Gaza and the West Bank, Israel has done nothing but slowly turn more and more land over to Palestinians and Arab states. Hardly the actions of a “bully.” Why don’t you ask why the Arab countries that surround Israel have kept Palestinians in refugee camps TO THIS DAY, almost 50 years after they were displaced during regional conflicts in which Israel defended itself.
Those are the details that are so easily forgotten by individuals like yourself and “Alberta Beef” who’ve bought hook, line, and sinker into the bullshit that your media have spread to keep the militant Muslims in your ghettos fat and happy.
Unfortunately, it is currently very popular to criticise the U.S. and Israel. While the rest of the world, namely Europe, are busy talking to Iran, Israeli troops are on the ground fighting, for all intents and purposes, Iranian mercenaries. Sadly, all Europe knows how to do is talk, talk, talk. Never act until the Germans are practically strolling down the Champs-Elysees and carpet-bombing London.
OK sunshine, firstly, for starting your post with a veiled accusation of anti-semitism: fuck you, you little prick. But well done for pulling the precise shitty little trick that my post was aimed at.
Secondly, I individually bare no responsibility for the kind of antics carried out by the English a century or so ago, (FYI, I’m not actually an Englishman, and back at that time my family were a mixture of Welsh miners and French toffs, but hey I’m not quibbling). Were this going on today I would be an extremely vocal opponent of British imperialism, and as it is I, like many others feel fairly embarrassed by the British record in this area.
But if we want to go down this route, then I find it amusing that you - as an American - bring this up, when your nation has clearly taken up the baton of imperialism since the demise of the British empire.
Now to the main point of the argument; I don’t deny that anti-semitism is on the rise globally, just as anti-Muslim sentiment is too. This fact does not give either group license to act as they please. I have at no time made up comments about Israeli soldiers raping Muslim women, nor am I in the habit of repeating dogma. I merely comment on what I see in the news on a daily basis.
Specifically, to clear this up, my current anti-Israel stance comes from the belief that:
-
their current military actions are completely disproportionate to the act that sparked this conflict off.
-
announcing a 48 hour cease-fire and then continuing to attack Lebanon anyway is plain evil.
-
they - like American and Britain during the Iraq war - seem to have a complete disregard for the views of the international community.
-
Civilian casualties in the Lebanon seem to be obscenely high.
Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post though.[/quote]
I never claimed that you said Israeli soliders raped Muslim women, because my original accusation of anti-Semitism was not aimed at you. It wasn’t enough that you announced your displeasure with the fact that criticism of Israel is often labelled anti-Semitism. That would be fine. But you then went on and proclaimed, “I’m not an anti-Semite!” I never said you were; why did you feel compelled to claim you were not? I surmised that a possible explanation may be guilt.
My point in bringing up England’s past was not to hold you personally accountable. Rather it was to draw a contrast and give you a sense of perspective so that you could perhaps see the United States and Israel’s actions in a different light. I figured that no one would understand true imperialism better than you. Did you not learn as a school child that at one point the sun never set on the Union Jack?
Unfortunately, in today’s world, anytime a country deploys military forces abroad it is labeled as imperialism. However, imperialism, as I understand it, is the desire/attempt to create an empire. But the United States is not creating empires. It deploys troops to unseat an enemy, then returns the troops home when the mission is accomplished. Currently, the goal is to unseat tyrannical dictatorships that cater to terroism and have no sense of human rights and replace them with societies that reflect democratic values and a sense of civil rights and liberities. Are we imposing our sense of life on other nations? That is one way of looking at it.
Another way of looking at is that we are liberating people who appreciate basic values that are univeraslly appreciated: the ability to choose one’s government, have a job they enjoy, raise children, have a society where women have legitmate roles in government. After all, if what the US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is imperialism then we were also being imperialistic during WWII when US troops came into Europe to prevent France and your country from falling into the grips of a unwanted way of life.
Until the United States stays in a nation in an unwanted fashion and oppresses the people who live there, you cannot call it imperialism. Merely deploying military forces is not imperialism. Helping Iraqis throw off the chains of dictatorship is not imperialism. Helping Afghanis rid themselves of the Taliban is not imperialism. Note the correlation between recent examples of US military intervention and an oppressive government. Where oppression exists, the United States will likely be there. You will also note a correlation between oppressive governments and grandiose threats to international safety.
Bush’s axis of evil included North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. Those three countries all had/have oppressive dictatorships. As a result, all three countries languished in poverty and poor economic health. The leaders of all three countries pose/posed threats to the international community. What has Europe–or any other nation following heavily diplomatic policy–done to curb those threats?
Teddy Roosevelt said to “speak softly but carry a big stick” when engaging in diplomacy. The point of his remarks are that you must try to be diplomatic always, but be prepared to use force if necessary. I think that when it comes to diplomacy, no one takes England, France, Germany et al. very seriously? Why? Because your countries appear gun-shy. When you draw a line in the sand and dare someone not to cross it, you better be prepared to make them pay for crossing it. Otherwise, they will never–ever–obey another one of your lines until you do. Korea and the militant Islamic nations laugh at your threats. They scoff at your sanctions. But when Israel or the United States talk, it is different. Why? Because we (the US and Israel) have shown our capacity to back up what we say with force. That gives our words power.
Israel has caused civilian casualties and that is truly regrettable. However, imagine if you will what would happen if Hezbollah hid in civilian centers and Israel decided not to engage them out of fear that civilians would be killed by accident. Haven’t you simply encouraged terrorists to hide among civilians as a result of your hesitation?
But by attacking the centers regardless–and not being daunted by the public outcry that follows–Israel has shown that even such tactics will not prevent Israel from eliminating terrorists. Israel thus sends the message that it will stop at nothing–NOTHING–to prevent threats to its people. Tell me that a force so determined is not going to be taken seriously at the diplomatic table.
I believe that current examples of American and Israeli military action are in self-defense. I also believe that self-defense should mean something with more foresight than waiting until the enemy is knocking on your front door. You might call this being proactive and I would agree. I guess I see political and military threats the same way I see cancer: Once the problem is identified, I’d like to eliminate it as early as possible before it grows into something that is too large of a problem to handle. You might see things differently, and I suppose I have to respect that. The only problem I see with your strategy is that you won’t ever know whether you were wrong until it is too late.
-Aaron