[quote]dannyrat wrote:
Do you know how frustrating it is to know something for sure, and not want to preach, but just discuss this like civilised, intelligent people, then everyone starts kicking in with denial and stuff. If Berardi did all his homework, then people were like 'But Ronald McDonald told me a hamburder with cheese is really the perfect meal, it even has lettuce in it…He’d get pissed off. Imagine if the other guy also said Berardi was actually a negative influence for saying that no, this wasn’t the perfect meal… And called him names, and just tried to wind him up, and used his youth as a criticism.
The truth will out one day, until then i’ll be a silent cassandra[/quote]
I think if you reread this and see how preposterous that analogy is, you’ll do yourself a lot of good.
Try and write more concise posts. Be very explicit; say exactly what you mean.
My experience has been that English courses and the more liberal arts inspired history courses are high on style and obfuscation while ignoring proper argumenation and valid logic.
[quote]hedo wrote:
hspder wrote:
Well, I’m not going down the mud-slinging path, but this thread reminded me of something a very good psychologist friend of mine once said, that I’d like to share:
The key to diplomacy, and specifically to resolving conflict, is not paying attention to what the other thinks, but rather to what the other needs.
So, what does the Islamic world need? And, whatever it is, who can give it to them? Can we (the USA), or Europe?
Answer those questions and you will have the solution. It’s as simple as that.
Why should we offer anything Hspder?
What will they give to us should be the question? Why should the US or Israel seek terms?
How about they offer a rejection of terrorism? Stop attacking US and Israeli interests? Turn over all wanted terrorists…then we will consider mutually beneficial pacts?
[/quote]
I think it is in our best interest to act benevolently towards the arab world. The more modernized they become, the less power militant Islam will hold over them.
Now, I’m not saying that Israel should seek an immediate peace agreement and accept terror as part of life. Rather, I think bringing modernity and industrialization to the middle east is in our best interest. The means for bringing about this change is up for debate.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Why should we offer anything Hspder?[/quote]
If it’s something they need and we can offer, why NOT?
[quote]hedo wrote:
What will they give to us should be the question? Why should the US or Israel seek terms?
How about they offer a rejection of terrorism? Stop attacking US and Israeli interests? Turn over all wanted terrorists…then we will consider mutually beneficial pacts?[/quote]
That is not a solution – it might be an action, it might be even the moral thing to do, but it has no long term effects. I’m not saying I disagree with that action, I’m just saying that it is not, in itself, a solution.
[quote]vroom wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Shariv and Meir said that Israel was winning the international battle for public opinion.
LOL!
There is nothing sinister here. The public can listen to Israel or the toad from Syria who was clearly spewing propaganda during the first days and avoiding all questions.
People aren’t totally stupid, and the facts of the issue were pretty clear when not viewed through the lens of hatred.
Maybe instead of trying to shape nothing into something you can actually question the output from both sides of the issue.
What about Hezbollah staging demonstrations involving empty ambulances racing off with lights flashing for photo ops?
If you want to play the game, then play both sides, then you’ll have a chance at being taken seriously.[/quote]
Empty ambulances?
Red Cross ambulances destroyed in Israeli air strike on rescue mission
The Guardian
July 25, 2006
Six ambulance workers were wounded and three generations of the Fawaz family, being transported to hospital from Tibnin with what were originally minor injuries, were left fighting for their lives. Two ambulances were entirely destroyed, their roofs pierced by missiles.
As far as taking up sides, I’m merely trying to point out that everything happening at this very moment is not the result of random circumstance. This is the result of an organized plan years in the making.
When this escalates to a nuclear confrontation, are you going to blame the terrorists? Like the guy that beats his wife – “You brought that shit on yourself woman, don’t make me hit you again!”
‘Janes’: US gearing for showdown with Syria
Jerusalem Post
Jan 23, 2004
LONDON - US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is considering provoking a military confrontation with Syria by attacking Hizbullah bases near the Syrian border in Lebanon, according to the authoritative London-based Jane’s Intelligence Digest…
“Targeting Syria via Lebanon, the only concrete political influence Damascus has to show following decades of radical diplomacy could prove to be a means to that end.” http://tinyurl.com/h6p23
You can refuse to believe it but I can tell you where this is going - they’ve telegraphed their punches years in advance.
Is it any surprise then when the “terrorists” show up on que to give them the green light for the next phase of their plan?
If only Hizbullah would have read the Jerusalem Post…
[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
Why should we offer anything Hspder?
If it’s something they need and we can offer, why NOT?
hedo wrote:
What will they give to us should be the question? Why should the US or Israel seek terms?
How about they offer a rejection of terrorism? Stop attacking US and Israeli interests? Turn over all wanted terrorists…then we will consider mutually beneficial pacts?
That is not a solution – it might be an action, it might be even the moral thing to do, but it has no long term effects. I’m not saying I disagree with that action, I’m just saying that it is not, in itself, a solution.
[/quote]
I would argue that the world would trip over itself trying to help them if the nations of the Middle East would agree to terms such as these.
I’d also point out that until they agree in principal to do so, peace is not possible. We are under no obligation to help them until they agree to renounce terrorism. To help them before they do so is counter productive and only prolongs the conflict.
[quote]hspder wrote:
That is not a solution – it might be an action, it might be even the moral thing to do, but it has no long term effects. I’m not saying I disagree with that action, I’m just saying that it is not, in itself, a solution.
[/quote]
My contention is - based on more than a quarter century of constant fighting (give or take a month here and there) - diplomacy has proven to be a dismal failure.
I am affriad that war is the only means that has not been exhausted. And it is the only means that will clearly define a winner and a loser.
That carries far more weight than most of the “let’s understand their anger” crowd will ever admit to.
I am leery. As long as the engines of anger, hatred and war are purring away over there, tied in tightly to the fundamentalist sectarian system, I don’t think it matters much what we offer.
They will simply take advantage of anything offered and continue to hone their hatred and look for ways to strike out.
What they need is an ability to view the actions of the world without having to see it through a biased lens of propaganda geared towards hatred. However, it’s not like they think this is a need or would value it.
Seriously, there is an effective “engine of war” within much of the Middle East. It feeds propaganda and generates recruits willing to throw away their lives for someone elses causes. This engine of war exists behind the scenes and within the moderate populace in the region. It is hard to argue is doesn’t exist considering events in the last few years.
If we want to stop enduring the effects, such as terrorism, we have to dismantle this terrorist production factory. Prior to the creation of such a thing I would imagine that improved relations may have been an idea, but it is far too late for that.
This is where the right and left clash. The left certainly used to think we could just walk away and be safe. The right thinks that the left still think that, whereas they see what I am describing and see conflict as inevitable because it is being actively sought by a well organized enemy.
Things are already in place. The wheels are turning and a fanatical element has created a self perpetuating environment. If we pulled away from the Middle East and left them to their own devices, now, as some might still suggest, it would only be a a short delay, simply a matter of time, before they expanded to battle us elsewhere, such as Africa, Indonesia, Russia and perhaps Europe.
Because we are dealing with fanatical terrorists it may not be about anything we do or offer at all, in any traditional sense. Not anymore.
Dude, it’s immaterial what you think of me. I will never again discuss politics with a stranger. My knowledge of the mideast… You can only guess. My youth and arrogance, are very important to me and not for discussion at all
I have the common sense etc to not care what people who have not proven their worth or intelligence think of me.
I just noticed a sand-tank in your icon. No more explanation neccessary man. Salute!
" agiprop " etc- read my first post in ‘mideast ceasefire’- this is an expression of my benevolence and hope for the mideast. I hope it’s not biased. this is what i really wanted to talk about, but people said i had my head in the clouds.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
My contention is - based on more than a quarter century of constant fighting (give or take a month here and there) - diplomacy has proven to be a dismal failure. [/quote]
So what is Condi the Pitbull doing there? Seriously.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I am affriad that war is the only means that has not been exhausted. And it is the only means that will clearly define a winner and a loser. [/quote]
And my point is that war will only end when one of the sides either renegates their fundamental beliefs (hardly likely) or is exterminated.
Yes, empty ambulances, as a photo op, to ensure that everybody was getting good pictures and that it would cover the papers nice and fast throughout the Arab world.
There is a serious game of chess taking place, but neither side is able to control the moves of everyone else. Contingencies are surely in place for everything. This is the natural state of international affairs.
However, look at the botch up of the handling of Iraq. You can’t be seriously thinking anybody is able to plan and control world affairs to any serious level.
I guess it would depend on who it was that launched the nuclear weapons. For example, if it was Iran, then I’d think you might have got things reversed. In any case, your shoddy characterizations aside, international relations are not the same as family relations.
I don’t know why I’m even discussing this with you. You are way the hell out there, seeing conspiracies in the swirls of your coffee cup.
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
Dude, it’s immaterial what you think of me. I will never again discuss politics with a stranger. My knowledge of the mideast… You can only guess. My youth and arrogance, are very important to me and not for discussion at all
I have the common sense etc to not care what people who have not proven their worth or intelligence think of me.
I just noticed a sand-tank in your icon. No more explanation neccessary man. Salute!
" agiprop " etc- read my first post in ‘mideast ceasefire’- this is an expression of my benevolence and hope for the mideast. I hope it’s not biased. this is what i really wanted to talk about, but people said i had my head in the clouds. [/quote]
No boy, you have your head up your ass.
I “guess” your knowledge of the ME based on what you have written. You have embarrased yourself. You remind me of “Al Shades”. You get your ass kicked endlessly but are too dumb to realize it. You’ve threatened to leave but you persist in arguing with men who are clearly your better. Not marginally…clearly.
Finally, what the fuck is a “sand tank”. Is that what they are calling the M1-A1 at Tehran University these days? And by the way it’s an “avatar” not an “icon”. Would that be an example of you not proving yourself when you boast of your command of the English language?
Your a 21 year old kid. Benevolence is something granted to you. Not something you are in a position to give. Your overestimation of you worth and abilities is comical. When you get past that maybe someone will take you seriously.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I am leery. As long as the engines of anger, hatred and war are purring away over there, tied in tightly to the fundamentalist sectarian system, I don’t think it matters much what we offer.[/quote]
As I said, I really don’t know if we should really offer anything either. That is the question, and I really do not have an answer for it. Just more questions.
[quote]vroom wrote:
They will simply take advantage of anything offered and continue to hone their hatred and look for ways to strike out.[/quote]
That just means we haven’t really figured out what they really need – remember that what they say they need is not necessarily what they really need.
[quote]vroom wrote:
What they need is an ability to view the actions of the world without having to see it through a biased lens of propaganda geared towards hatred.[/quote]
We (the US) are guilty of the same. So is France, for example. In fact, I’d argue it’s human nature to do so.
[quote]vroom wrote:
However, it’s not like they think this is a need or would value it.[/quote]
Again, what they think is irrelevant. What they truly need is the key here.
Maybe they need to be educated. Maybe they need to be exterminated. I really do not know.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Seriously, there is an effective “engine of war” within much of the Middle East. It feeds propaganda and generates recruits willing to throw away their lives for someone elses causes. This engine of war exists behind the scenes and within the moderate populace in the region. It is hard to argue is doesn’t exist considering events in the last few years.[/quote]
Is the Western Media that different? Of course, the ideas they defend are obviously different, but aren’t they basically feeding propaganda, for the most part?
And no, I am not pointing my finger at just Fox News – almost every single journalist out there is guilty of this. Watching the news today is indeed an exercise of propaganda filtering, and requires the time, the effort and inclination to look at 10 different sources and hope that is enough to separate the fact from propaganda.
The question is: what is the need that is being filled, in the Middle East, with that specific propaganda?
[quote]vroom wrote:
If we want to stop enduring the effects, such as terrorism, we have to dismantle this terrorist production factory.[/quote]
Absolutely. And my assertion is that the way to do that MIGHT be to get them to fill the void with something else than religious fundamentalism. With what? I don’t know. How? I do not know either… Those are the questions.
[quote]vroom wrote:
If we pulled away from the Middle East and left them to their own devices, now, as some might still suggest, it would only be a a short delay, simply a matter of time, before they expanded to battle us elsewhere, such as Africa, Indonesia, Russia and perhaps Europe.[/quote]
You are completely forgetting the Sunni/Shiite conflicts that would at least delay that expansionary process. But I get your point – the question then becomes: is it too late too to do anything non-violent to prevent the battle from expanding to outside the Middle East?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Because we are dealing with fanatical terrorists it may not be about anything we do or offer at all, in any traditional sense. Not anymore.[/quote]
As I told rainjack, I’ll willing to accept that – but you have to be aware that means genocide. Pure and simple.
The sad part is that you might actually be right and we might indeed have to resort to genocide (of a part of the human population) in order to protect the rest.
[quote]hspder wrote:
We (the US) is guilty of the same. So is France, for example. In fact, I’d argue it’s human nature to do so.[/quote]
Well, yes and no. In our system, where there is competing news and discussion of the reporting of other news, without the ability to supress viewpoints, we are able to get a better look at reality, if we wish to work for it.
I do not think that the extremists in the region will allow a pro-American viewpoint to be presented without blowing up the people and facilities used to present that news. This may be a bit silly, but you get my drift.
Well, I’m hoping that the terrorists are a small minority of the population. I’m hoping that if the blatent system of hatred was lifted that the growth in numbers might slow and then eventually decline.
The pen is mightier than the sword, and I’ve argued before that we don’t appear to be using it to much effect…
[quote]vroom wrote:
I do not think that the extremists in the region will allow a pro-American viewpoint to be presented without blowing up the people and facilities used to present that news. This may be a bit silly, but you get my drift.
Well, I’m hoping that the terrorists are a small minority of the population. I’m hoping that if the blatent system of hatred was lifted that the growth in numbers might slow and then eventually decline.
The pen is mightier than the sword, and I’ve argued before that we don’t appear to be using it to much effect…[/quote]
So, what you’re saying is that the solution is to provide counter-propaganda that is not pro-American?
I can buy that.
Basically, my belief is that the way to fight propaganda is to remove the need that it is filling – any counter-propaganda will not be effective if it is simply counter- rather than worrying about filling the same need.
Do bear in might that the “need” might simply be of a common enemy, or hope, or… you get the idea.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Do bear in might that the “need” might simply be of a common enemy, or hope, or… you get the idea.[/quote]
Bingo.
Something you hear a lot is how the region was the center of civilization and how it is the rest of the world that has been holding them back.
They need hope. They need pride. They need to see a positive future that has them be players on the world level again.
I still think that finding something to talk about instead of western repression and so forth would not be hard to do… as I think my original post was outlining.
How we get beyond the worries that Doogie expressed earlier, I do not know - fear from leaders tends to lead towards extreme solutions. I think as long as the region wasn’t nuclear that we could afford to be patient?
[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
My contention is - based on more than a quarter century of constant fighting (give or take a month here and there) - diplomacy has proven to be a dismal failure.
So what is Condi the Pitbull doing there? Seriously.[/quote]
Good question. Have there been any serious movements toward an agreement? Even if they eventually reach one - it is as doomed as all of the prior attempts proved to be.
Peace is never won at the bargaining table. It is won on the battle field. Just ask the Japanese.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I am affriad that war is the only means that has not been exhausted. And it is the only means that will clearly define a winner and a loser.
And my point is that war will only end when one of the sides either renegates their fundamental beliefs (hardly likely) or is exterminated. [/quote]
I disagree. There does need to be a dominant force over there as a deterrent, but total extermination sounds like the ultimate battle plan of Iran, Syria, and most of the rest of the area.
I also think that if the U.S. had acted more forcefully during the infancy of the modern islamo-nazi-terrorist movement back in the '70’s, things would be much much different today, but we were too worried about exploring diplomatic means.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I don’t know why I’m even discussing this with you. You are way the hell out there, seeing conspiracies in the swirls of your coffee cup.[/quote]
This article appeared in the Washington Times, ironically, on Sept 10, 2001
U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study
The Washington Times
September 10, 2001
The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed “Jedi Knights,” as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed.
The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.
It calls Israel’s armed forces a “500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management.”
Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." http://www.public-action.com/911/sams.html
How did they draw that conclusion?
The following is the complete text of a letter from General Robert H. Barrow, Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and copied to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
This is what he had to say about the Israelis the last time the Marines were in Beirut…
March 14, 1983
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I must formally register my deep concern over the two unprovoked incidents in Beirut of this past weekend involving Marines of the Multinational Force and members of the Israeli Defense Forces. I had considered commenting on earlier incidents between Marines and the IDF but corrective measures, which were rapidly implemented in February 1983, appeared to defuse the situation. I can no longer remain silent on this continual problem of provocation from the IDF.
In addition to the U.S. MNF incidents, I have received information concerning serious harassing incidents by the IDF of U.S. officers attached to the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization (UNTSO). These particular incidents involved USMC and USA officers in life-threatening situations, replete with verbal degradation of the officers, their uniform and country. Unfortunately, and of greater concern to me, incidents of this nature are the rule, rather than the exception.
It is evident to me, and the opinion of the U.S. Commanders afloat and ashore, that the incidents between the Marines and the IDF are timed, orchestrated, and executed for obtuse Israeli political purposes. The U.S. has been prompt and forthcoming in defusing previous problems and has established a viable communications procedure between the Marines and IDF. The IDF, however, persist in creating serious incidents.
I am distinctly proud to have Marines participating both as members of the Multinational Force and with UNTSO under the auspices of the United Nations. It is inconceivable to me why Americans -serving in peacekeeping roles-must be harassed, endangered, and degraded by an ally.
Previous demarches and diplomatic initiatives have not eliminated difficulties between our Marines and the IDF. Additionally, the expansion of communications links and the use of Liaison Officers will not preclude additional problems, unless the attitude and actions of the Israelis are altered. It is time for firm and strong action, to demonstrate to the Israelis that a role as a peacekeeper does not presume weakness. If anything, the Israelis should respect our efforts in this region.
Warm personal regards,
Sincerely,
R. H. Barrow
The Commandant of the United States Marine Corps is the highest ranking officer of the United States Marine Corps and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Israel Charged with Systematic Harassment of U.S. Marines
Despite the bad taste left from the clashes with the Israelis, in fact no Marines had been killed in the incidents and their lines had been secure up to the end of winter in 1983. Then Islamic guerrillas, backed by Iran, became active. On the night of April 17, 1983, an unknown sniper fired a shot that went through the trousers of a Marine sentry but did not harm him. For the first time, the Marines returned fire.
The next day, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was blown up by a massive bomb, with the loss of 63 lives. Among the 17 Americans killed were CIA Mideast specialists, including Robert C. Ames, the agency’s top Middle East expert. Disaffected former Israeli Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky later claimed that Israel had advance information about the bombing plan but had decided not to inform the United States, a claim denied by Israel.
Conspiracy theories? Israel does have a history of this sort of thing, Vroom… and these people actually have an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Navy Crew Remembers 1967 Israeli Attack
AP
May 23, 2004
NEBRASKA CITY, Neb. - For nearly 20 surviving crew members of the USS Liberty, a gathering after 37 years was as much about the future as it was about the past.
The Liberty, an intelligence-gathering vessel, was attacked by Israel in June 1967 while cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast during the Six Day War. Israel was the war’s victor, defeating the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, Jordan.
The attack was ruled accidental by U.S. officials. Emerging reports, including disclosures in the last year from some military officials, state the attack appeared to be deliberate - something that the crew members have suspected all along.
“We all believe we’re finally getting to the point where the truth may be told and the world is ready to listen,” said Cmdr. David Lewis, who oversaw intelligence on the ship and remembers most of the attack that left him with superficial burns and destroyed his eardrums…
Crew member Moe Shafer, 57, said the attack was one of the largest cover-ups in history. He said Israel targeted the ship, hoping the United States would conclude the Arabs were responsible. The Americans then would have retaliated and ensured Israel’s victory, he said.
Navy attorney alleges cover-up
Shreveport Times
October 27, 2003
A former Navy attorney who helped lead the military investigation of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 American servicemen - including a former Shreveporter - says former President Lyndon Johnson and his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, ordered that the inquiry conclude the incident was an accident.
Dude - the conflict has been going on since at least 1967 and the 6 day war. SOme of the greates diplomats the world has known have tried, and failed, to broker peace in that region. And you think we need to try and talk some more?
War is the last and only resort in this region.
[/quote]
The war between the Irish and English went on for a millenia, and the term, “The Troubles” only refers to the 1970s. THe same was said about them.
It’s actually a pretty similar situation, except for the world’s interest in the oil. Fighting over religion, a war that’s gone on forever…and yet now, through diplomacy, the IRA is disarmed, and the English will deal with Sinn Fein again. Peace is near there.
It’s possible. It’s just how many children have to die for the hierarchy to realize that it isn’t worth it.
vroom wrote:
Because we are dealing with fanatical terrorists it may not be about anything we do or offer at all, in any traditional sense. Not anymore.
As I told rainjack, I’ll willing to accept that – but you have to be aware that means genocide. Pure and simple.
The sad part is that you might actually be right and we might indeed have to resort to genocide (of a part of the human population) in order to protect the rest.[/quote]
I’m unclear about this statement.
Are you suggesting a “genocide” against terrorists, or a genocide against Muslims?
Because if you mean a genocide against Muslims, then you’re talking about some Armageddon “Book of Revelations” type shit.
vroom wrote:
Because we are dealing with fanatical terrorists it may not be about anything we do or offer at all, in any traditional sense. Not anymore.
As I told rainjack, I’ll willing to accept that – but you have to be aware that means genocide. Pure and simple.
The sad part is that you might actually be right and we might indeed have to resort to genocide (of a part of the human population) in order to protect the rest.
I’m unclear about this statement.
Are you suggesting a “genocide” against terrorists, or a genocide against Muslims?
Because if you mean a genocide against Muslims, then you’re talking about some Armageddon “Book of Revelations” type shit. [/quote]
