I asked you if you thought it was ok for van Gogh to be assassinated by this individual. All you did was give me the reasoning behind it. ie van Gogh insulted Bouyeri’s religion, the Prophet, ect…I understand all of that, I understand no fatwas were issued, all about terrorism, and that Bouyeri does not represent all muslims.
Was he or was he not a muslim extremist and does the assassination promote the extremist cause by spreading fear? Maybe the next time someone wants to make a film critisizing islam, he will think twice. I believe that was the objective of the execution. Is this or is this not correct?
Was Bouyeri right or wrong doing what he did?
You give me an example of Michael Moore being assassinated by a catholic extremist. One needs to look no further to the Oklahoma City bombings to see how christians deal with christian extremist violence. The perp. was executed.
You say that van Gogh’s film violated article 147 of the Netherlands penal code. If that is true, why didn’t the muslims of europe, Bouyeri included protest against this film. Why the need to kill this man?
Maybe muslims do not hate the west for their freedoms, but the muslim extremists do indeed hate the west and seek to end most of their freedoms if they had their way.
Which statement is nearer to my opinion? I would say statement 2, though, because I am american, you would assume I would say statement 1.
How can I make a statement that the US is arming the Sudanese rebels as an inference that you condone the atrocities of the Sudanese government? Simple, because when I asked the question, you immediately used it as a means to bash america and it’s policies instead of critisizing the atrocities.
About the heads, I was speaking about Emir Timur, he was after all a muslim.
There are plenty of decapitations on ogrish.com, ones dating back at least 10 years from the Chechen conflict so beheading is nothing new to the muslim extremists of old and modern times.
If you aren’t privy to Turkish intelligence, how would you know that the weapons were even used. You have no documentation to prove that they were? Maybe someone should write a page about it in Wikipedia for future reference, then it would be true.
And lastly, it is sad what the British did empowering the wahabbis. Funny, you never miss a chance to blame the US for the muslim’s problems.
Later (that means “I will be talking to you at a later time period.”
[quote]lixy wrote:
karva wrote:
I understood, that in your opinion lixy “directly” condones terrorism. I just wanted to point out, that that is a false statement, at least in the light of what he has written so far.
You don’t get it.
“If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.”
What part of that don’t you understand?[/quote]
I understand the sentence and I know something about dichotomies, thank you for asking. Have I broken the holy rule of dichotomies or something? What is it that you want me to understand?
[quote]lixy wrote:
hedo wrote:
Your idiotic attempted correction of grammar, on an informal website, speaks more to your lack of skills in forming an opinion and discussing issues then your questionable grasp of grammar.
Hedo, you are too easy.
Listen here. I must have pointed out the Your/You’re distinction about a dozen times around here. I particularly like picking on you because all you ever did on this forum, was call me names and question my motives for daring to voice an opinion different from yours.
I never claimed to master English. I believe that my vocabulary is limited, and that I have a lot to learn in that area. But in my defense, no non-native speaker can ever correct my French or Arabic. And for the record, I also speak Spanish and Swedish but wouldn’t dare to make the same claim about those.[/quote]
Learn to spell better. You frequently make rather common errors, it’s just silly and redundant pointing it out. You are too easy, still boring and tiresome however in any language.
Are you simply unable to stick to the point, even in threads you start. Perhaps when you grow up this will improve.
I’m not Varqanir, but allow me to take a shot at your point.
I believe it was the act of a mentally deranged individual.
Is that a serious question?
Maybe because they respect freedom of speech.
Good! Allow me to add that the extremists are also after the freedoms in Arab/Muslim countries as well.
The plot thickens.
One wonders what country do you assume Varq is from.
You have absolutely no idea how the Wiki works, now do you?
One of the fundamental precepts is “No Original Research” (shortcut [[WP:OR]]). Go do some reading on it before bashing a brilliant tool.
It was a pragmatic move. Who cares about how barbaric a regime is when they allow foreign oil companies to exploit the land’s riches? I guess we found out a few generations down the road.
Why did you feel the need to include such pejorative statement? Did Varq ever demonstrate
a shaky understanding of colloquialisms?
[quote]karva wrote:
I understand the sentence and I know something about dichotomies, thank you for asking. Have I broken the holy rule of dichotomies or something? What is it that you want me to understand?[/quote]
It’s a figurative expression. It was a joke to show the Manichean simple mind of some right-wingers, but I understand your confusion. I should have been more careful as tone isn’t easily conveyed in writings.
[quote]lixy wrote:
david dunne wrote:
lixy wrote:
You don’t get it.
“If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.”
What part of that don’t you understand?
Nobody said any of that except you genius.
The president of the USA did. I’m guessing you’re one of his compatriots.[/quote]
I’m guessing you are a college kid who thrives on internet discussion to help you feel like you are smarter than everyone else. You are very selective in what you respond to and comment on.
It makes many of your posts kind of boring and repetitive in my opinion.
The other poster and I were discussing things. I respected him enough to ASK him if he could understand my point about the muslim world causing ITSELF to be viewed as less human by having kids tv shows glorify terrorism and murder and having kids wear fake (for now) bomb vests in parades… and he respected me enough to honestly respond to it.
As for the original excuse for the thread-the marine shooting unarmed civilians…thats a crime. And he is going to suffer the consequence of it.
As for the part about “hands in the air” well, I have some real world experience in that area and I will say-I personally doubt that. I say that bc I have personally seen shooting incidents where later the “witnesses” claim the victims had their hands in the air-and I could clearly see for myself they didn’t at all.
Not saying that it couldn’t possibly have happened-but in MY experience 98% of the time-those claims are not true.
Even if I accept your claim as is - so what? I mean, IF he did shoot them down like that he is going to get tried, likely convicted and sentenced.
By the way, in case you hadn’t noticed-in the US there were NOT any joyful street celebrations that a “blessed soldier of rightousness today killed 5 unbelievers in a mighty victory for God”.
No my friend-here we call that exactly what the fuck it is- a crime - and he gets punished for it.
THAT is the difference people have been trying to point out to you.
Clean up Islam’s weak submitting to the violent fringe elements and Islam will get respect.
Many people in the world may disagree with US foreign policies. That makes sense in a way-those policies are primarily to protect American interests not theirs.
But Islam is being increasingly viewed around the globe as an irrational, violent and backwards thing - and only muslims have the ability to change that growing perception of themselves by speaking out and taking action against…but instead there is constant blaming of the US or Israel or the EU or the middle eastern governments etc etc etc.
And please save the lame argument that the “Us media screens those type of muslims out-there are plenty of them against terrorisim etc”. I see the news in other countries when I travel and I don’t see any protests against terrorism by rational sensible muslims…I dont see imams on camera saying slaughtering innocents is wrong.
No,I see exactly what you provide as well - excuses.
Sorry. I figured that reason would count for more in the discussion than personal opinion. My personal opinion is that it was not, in fact, okay for Theo van Gogh to be murdered by that individual.
He was. The extremity of his actions would seem to indicate this.
Yes, to an extent, but I think you may be mistaking motive for consequence: it is my opinion that Bouyeri murdered a man he considered to be foul, racist, and anti-Islamic. The consequences of his actions were indeed fear and distrust of the Muslim community on the part of the non-Muslims, as well as further divisiveness within the community.
Whether or not this was the intended consequence of the assassination is simply speculation on both of our parts.
Mohammad Bouyeri broke the laws of the Netherlands, of Islam, and of nature when he murdered Theo van Gogh. You don’t get much more wrong than that. I have never defended his actions, here or elsewhere.
Apples and oranges. Tim McVeigh’s attack of the Murrah building specifically targeted federal agents, as retribution for the murders of Vickie and Sam Weaver, and for the massacre at the Branch Davidian compound. Christianity didn’t enter into the equation, neither on the part of McVeigh, or his prosecutors, judge and executioners.
But no matter. I’ll see your orange and raise you one banana. Your point seems to be that Muslims worldwide should take responsibility for the misdeeds of the extremists that share their faith, like most Christians do.
That being the case, and assuming you are Christian, then I presume that you joined the majority of Christians worldwide in publicly expressing your collective sorrow and condemnation of the mosque-burnings and massacre of over a hundred Hausa Muslims by Ibo Christians in Onitsha, Nigeria last year, right?
Nah, probably not.
I’m sure they did protest, at least the ones that saw or heard about the film. As I mentioned earlier, many Dutch imams denounced van Gogh from the pulpit. Many of those same imams, as I also mentioned, denounced the assassination afterwards as well.
I think that although most Dutch Muslims were united in their acrimony toward van Gogh, I seriously doubt that they all shared Bouyeri’s need to commit murder.
Okay, that’s a fair statement. At least as fair as stating that certain extremists in the West do indeed hate Islam, and would seek to end most freedoms of the Muslims… or their lives… if they had their way.
I would have assumed so, not based on your nationality, but based on your previous posts. Pete made the point that if it were true that Muslims hate America for its freedom, then they would be better served hating the Netherlands, which is freer than the United States in many respects.
You countered by implying that in fact they do hate the Netherlands for its freedom, citing by way of evidence the story of Theo van Gogh’s murder. Statement 1 was a summary of your position, and statement 2 was a summary of mine. Now I find that you agree with my position. Huzzah huzzah. So what were we arguing about?
Let’s have a look the actual exchange, shall we?
You:[quote] As far as the Turkish atrocities go, what is your opinion of the situation in Sudan? Are there also US weapons going to the government there? [/quote]
Me:[quote] It’s the Nicaragua of Africa. We’re sending weapons to the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army, and they are the ones that are committing the atrocities with them. [/quote]
Two questions, two answers. The first was my opinion, the second was a factual statement. If you are so sensitive as to be able to distill any “America-bashing” from that, then perhaps you need to grow a thicker skin, my friend.
Just to make you happy, though, I hereby state that I strongly condemn “Arabs riding camels with AK-47s picking off villagers.” Arming camels with assault rifles is a despicable act in and of itself.
Yeah, that was my first guess. Timur-e-Lang, also known as Tamarlane.
But surely you are aware that beheading enemies is not a practice exclusive to the Muslims. The devout Christian Vlad Drakulya, prince of Wallachia, was as fond of the practice as of his better-known favored method of execution (impalement), and I suspect that the French Republican atheists beheaded at least as many people as your friend Timur.
A trip to Indonesia, furthermore, will confirm for you that modern-day Christians are doing their fair share of separating Muslims from their heads.
I wish you could see me wringing my hands in anguish at the fact that you discovered a sarcastic statement of mine that I was not able to back up with documentation. You win. I take it all back.
Although the Turks have used American-made weapons, including chemical weapons, on Kurdish civilians, this fact is completely invalidated by your astute observation that I have no documentation proving that they also used missile-delivered cluster bombs on fleeing villagers.
I would mention another country whose use of cluster bombs on civilian populations is well-documented, but it is irrelevant to the situation in Turkey, and you would just accuse me of “America-bashing” again.
On the contrary. I have missed many chances. But Lixy or Lifticus usually cover for me in this regard.
Seriously, though, you and others like you need to learn that criticism of a nation’s government or policies does not equate to antipathy toward that nation.
I don’t hate America, as you seem to think. I love it. I was born in America, am an American citizen, and was a soldier in the US Army, at a time when the United States was, as now, posturing against Iran (nearly 20 years ago), and the rumors were that the US was going to invade.
Even though I have lived in Japan for over half my life, I am still very patriotic, but old enough to understand that uncritical acceptance of all that one’s government does and has ever done is a somewhat moronic form of patriotism.
Were I a Roman citizen 2000 years ago, I would likely be just as critical of the actions of the Senate, while still loving Rome with all my heart.
And anyway, if you had read any of the other threads to which I have contributed, you would know that I primarily blame the British for the current situation in the Middle East.
The creation of the Hashemite Arab States and the creation of the State of Israel are, in my estimation, the two biggest fountainheads of strife in the Muslim world, and Britain is responsible for both. The United States was merely complicit.
Sorry, my eyes must be going. I’ll get it right next time.
"That being the case, and assuming you are Christian, then I presume that you joined the majority of Christians worldwide in publicly expressing your collective sorrow and condemnation of the mosque-burnings and massacre of over a hundred Hausa Muslims by Ibo Christians in Onitsha, Nigeria last year, right?
Nah, probably not."[/quote]
Didn’t know about it.[quote]
“Just to make you happy, though, I hereby state that I strongly condemn “Arabs riding camels with AK-47s picking off villagers.” Arming camels with assault rifles is a despicable act in and of itself.”[/quote]
I would agree. But seriously, I saw video of the arabs doing this.
[quote]
“I would mention another country whose use of cluster bombs on civilian populations is well-documented, but it is irrelevant to the situation in Turkey, and you would just accuse me of “America-bashing” again.”[/quote]
I know, Israel against Lebanon last summer. America condemned Israel about the use of the cluster bombs. They did not condemn them about trying to take out Hezbollah.
Way to set back a progressive government that was forming!
My take on the whole Lebanon situation, in light of 9-11, is this: Directly after the attack in New York, the leader of Hezbollah condmened al qaeda. Israel said it wanted no part of America’s war on terror. In my eyes, time to bury the hatchet as far as Hezbollah goes and see if they could aid us in eradicating al qaeda.
Unfortunately, the State Department sees things differently than I do.
[quote]
“The creation of the Hashemite Arab States and the creation of the State of Israel are, in my estimation, the two biggest fountainheads of strife in the Muslim world.[/quote]”
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
agreed. Now, how do we fix up this mess?
[/quote]
Now we’re getting somewhere. Praise the Lord and al hamdulillah.
Before I answer your question, think about this for a minute or two:
Imagine you have five children who share a room, and are fighting all the time. You have four options:
ignore them and hope that their fight doesn’t spill out into the hall or the living room;
chastise them for their squabbling, and implore them to “play nice;”
storm in there, holler at them at the top of your lungs, and give them a hell of a good whoopin’; or
separate them by giving each of them his own room.
Which is the wisest course of action, in your estimation?
Are there any other, better options?
My pick is option four: creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, with a divided Jerusalem, and partitioning of Iraq and Afghanistan into smaller sovereign states along ethnic, linguistic and sectarian lines.
The creation of an independent Kurdistan, by the way, would have the added benefit of allowing the Kurds in Iran and Turkey to emigrate if they so choose, which would likely make the Iranians and Turkish very happy indeed. Ditto for an independent Palestine making the Jordanians, the Syrians, the Egyptians and the Lebanese very happy.
It would not be cheap, it would not be easy and it could not be unilateral: the United States would have to work in concert with Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Germany and Japan (and Russia and China, too, if they expect to benefit from the anticipated new era of prosperity and peace) to assist each new nation build its infrastructure, secure its borders and grow its economy.
The coalition, naturally, would assist only to the degree that each nation wanted assistance, and would not dictate the fiscal or political policies of any nation. All funding for the coalition’s assistance would come directly from the nations assisted, in the form of non-interest bearing promissory notes on the future proceeds from oil and gas production and refining.
The coalition would stay and assist each nation until their assistance was no longer required, or no longer wanted, whichever came first.
Yeah, its a long shot, but it seems to have worked in Yugoslavia and, to a limited degree, with India and Pakistan. It couldn’t work much worse, in any case, than options 2 and 3, which is what we’ve been doing for the last twenty years or so.
There. That is my opinion as to how we might “fix up this mess.” Please save your criticisms for until after you have presented your own, better plan.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
agreed. Now, how do we fix up this mess?
Now we’re getting somewhere. Praise the Lord and al hamdulillah.
Before I answer your question, think about this for a minute or two:
Imagine you have five children who share a room, and are fighting all the time. You have four options:
ignore them and hope that their fight doesn’t spill out into the hall or the living room;
chastise them for their squabbling, and implore them to “play nice;”
storm in there, holler at them at the top of your lungs, and give them a hell of a good whoopin’; or
separate them by giving each of them his own room.
Which is the wisest course of action, in your estimation?
Are there any other, better options?
My pick is option four: creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, with a divided Jerusalem, and partitioning of Iraq and Afghanistan into smaller sovereign states along ethnic, linguistic and sectarian lines.
The creation of an independent Kurdistan, by the way, would have the added benefit of allowing the Kurds in Iran and Turkey to emigrate if they so choose, which would likely make the Iranians and Turkish very happy indeed. Ditto for an independent Palestine making the Jordanians, the Syrians, the Egyptians and the Lebanese very happy.
It would not be cheap, it would not be easy and it could not be unilateral: the United States would have to work in concert with Britain, France, Canada, Australia, Germany and Japan (and Russia and China, too, if they expect to benefit from the anticipated new era of prosperity and peace) to assist each new nation build its infrastructure, secure its borders and grow its economy.
The coalition, naturally, would assist only to the degree that each nation wanted assistance, and would not dictate the fiscal or political policies of any nation. All funding for the coalition’s assistance would come directly from the nations assisted, in the form of non-interest bearing promissory notes on the future proceeds from oil and gas production and refining.
The coalition would stay and assist each nation until their assistance was no longer required, or no longer wanted, whichever came first.
Yeah, its a long shot, but it seems to have worked in Yugoslavia and, to a limited degree, with India and Pakistan. It couldn’t work much worse, in any case, than options 2 and 3, which is what we’ve been doing for the last twenty years or so.
There. That is my opinion as to how we might “fix up this mess.” Please save your criticisms for until after you have presented your own, better plan.[/quote]
Just so I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting military intervention to divide Jerusalem and set up a Palestinian state? I could be completely misunderstanding you, just want to be clear.
“4) separate them by giving each of them his own room.”
It’s just that the quote above sounds like you mean to separate them against their will.
Just so I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting military intervention to divide Jerusalem and set up a Palestinian state? I could be completely misunderstanding you, just want to be clear. [/quote]
You have understood me perfectly.
I am not totally against military intervention. I am, after all, an ex-soldier and ardent student of military history. What I am against is launching a unilateral intervention (also somewhat less kindly referred to as an “invasion” or “war of aggression”) without a clear and realistic objective.
Had the coalition forces, back in 1991, when they kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait, embarked on a campaign to support the native Iraqi opposition in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and building a new Iraq, you would not have heard a peep from me. In fact, I likely would have been over there myself, M14 in hand.
Unfortunately, that’s not what happened. The coalition lost its momentum, and Saddam had another 15 years of power.
Let’s define the present situation in terms of football. After a successful blitz and a marvelous end run, we dropped the ball on the five yard line, and are continuing to fumble. Most of our team is now booing us from the stands, we don’t really know who is on the other team, and we have no idea where the end zone is. Adding insult to injury, we are constantly getting called for unnecessary roughness.
Not a game I particularly want to play.
[quote]“4) separate them by giving each of them his own room.”
It’s just that the quote above sounds like you mean to separate them against their will.
[/quote]
Jerusalem would be a sticky issue, it’s true, especially because it is a holy city to all three of the major religions of its citizens. Now that I think about it, allowing the city to be sliced up is perhaps not such a good idea, but making it a neutral zone might require a permanent coalition occupation force to keep the peace.
As for Palestine, however, the only will we would be acting against is that of the Zionists. The Palestinians would likely not oppose the idea, unless it became obvious that they were going to get a raw deal… again.
[quote]david dunne wrote:
The other poster and I were discussing things. I respected him enough to ASK him if he could understand my point about the muslim world causing ITSELF to be viewed as less human by having kids tv shows glorify terrorism and murder and having kids wear fake (for now) bomb vests in parades… and he respected me enough to honestly respond to it. [/quote]
Like I said, my post was supposed to be a joke.
I’m relatively new around here and you don’t post often, so I have no idea what your positions are. But, judging from the few lines you’ve put down so far, I’d put you somewhere with HH and JeffR ideology-wise. That is, you view the Islamic culture through whatever venom Murdoch, Spencer, Coulter, Ashcroft and the MEMRI spews. The points you raised have been discussed ad nauseaum. Of course, it would have been more constructive to answer your questions, but for some reason, I perceived them as rhetorical. I apologize for cracking a joke instead of taking them seriously.
[quote]As for the part about “hands in the air” well, I have some real world experience in that area and I will say-I personally doubt that. I say that bc I have personally seen shooting incidents where later the “witnesses” claim the victims had their hands in the air-and I could clearly see for myself they didn’t at all.
Not saying that it couldn’t possibly have happened-but in MY experience 98% of the time-those claims are not true. [/quote]
The “witness” in this case is a marine. Read the story more carefully:
My concern is that only a tiny portion of these crimes come to light. My other concern is that the thousands of private contractors (Blackwater, etc…) don’t fall under any jurisdiction and are de facto, above the law in Iraq.
No. Let’s settle this “street celebrations” once and for all.
People under occupation are expected to rejoice when the enemy is hurt. The only video I have seen of Arabs celebrating were in Iraq or Palestine. Both of which are under occupation. Someone pointed out that Hezbollah also took the streets on 9/11, but I won’t buy it until I have proof.
By no means am I trying to say that it’s OK to delight at other’s people pain, but when you invade a country and kill several thousands of its inhabitants, you can’t really expect them to forgive you the next morning and to make friends with you. That’s for Iraq.
Palestinians have been oppressed and terrorized for many decades now. They live in open air prisons with virtually no future. When you give billions of dollars of aid in weapons to Israel, the message the Palestinians get is that unambiguous as to your position on their plight. If you provide the weapons, you might as well be using them directly. Don’t make much difference to them. Therefore, it’s only natural that they’d rejoice when Americans lose their lives. It’s sick but you can’t expect displays of humanity from people living under their conditions; constant fear of being abducted, regular incursions into their lands, house demolitions, civilians used as human shields, refusal to accept their democratic electorate…
Again, I’m not justifying their actions. I’m merely putting them into context.
South Lebanon isn’t any different from Palestine. YOU gave Israel the cluster bombs that ravage Lebanese kids as we speak.
And for a good reason. This particular situation is an unambiguous case of a criminal act.
Going into Iraq without international consent makes killings of American soldiers harder to categorize under the “crime” column directly. Technically, you invaded them and it’s their right to resist your forceful occupation.
I harshly condemn violence of any sort, but try to tell that to the guy who lost his whole family in a US airstrike on Bagdad, whose friends were tortured in Abu Ghraib and whose 14 years old neighbour was gang-raped by American soldiers…
You can’t reform a society overnight. Change takes time and judging by the advances in the last decade, it’s well on its way. But you hamper everything the feminists, youth, seculars, intellectuals achieve by bombing countries.
So now you’re acknowledging and justifying the US’s bully stance on the international scene.
Knowing that America is an unchallenged military power and can obliterate the planet many times if it so wishes, the only reason it wages war would be for economical benefit and control over strategic areas. Can you claim that a country/group represents a threat to US sovereignty?
I personally attended many protests condemning violence in the name of Islam, NONE of which was ever relayed by a US media outlet despite the thousands of participants. Such behavior is EXPECTED and therefore does not is not news-worthy in the eyes of editors.
Do you honestly think that the local populations of Muslim countries don’t condemn violence done in the name of their faith? Every single act of terror has been harshly condemned by Muslims. Yes, some Paletinians rejoiced but, just because they got too much media attention doesn’t mean they are a majority, or even close for that matter. The Muslim community is actively fighting the extremist tumor that attached itself to it.
A quick and dirty Google search reveals on the 1st page the number of protests, fatwas and Muslims speaking out against terrorism.
You know, it’s funny that the opposite poles of an argument often sound indistinguishable from one another.
david dunne, I’ve not had the pleasure of reading many of your posts before, but you seem to be an intelligent enough person. You wrote:
[quote]Killing innocents is never going to convert the Western world to Islam or scare the West into behaving differently on the world’s stage. Killing innocents is never going to sway the world’s opinion to their side.
… Islam is being increasingly viewed around the globe as an irrational, violent and backwards thing - and only muslims have the ability to change that growing perception of themselves by speaking out and taking action against…but instead there is constant blaming of the US or Israel or the EU or the middle eastern governments etc etc etc. [/quote]
Now change only a few proper nouns and you have the essence of the opposing viewpoint, and the point of this thread:
[quote]Killing innocents is never going to convert the Islamic world to American values or scare the Muslims into behaving differently on the world’s stage. Killing innocents is never going to sway the world’s opinion to the American side.
… the United States is being increasingly viewed around the globe as an irrational, violent and backwards thing - and only Americans have the ability to change that growing perception of themselves by speaking out and taking action against…but instead there is constant blaming of the Iranians or the Palestinians or the Lebanese etc etc etc. [/quote]
Neither argument is entirely true… yet neither is entirely false, either. Being able to see the truth in both sides of the argument will, I think, serve the advocates of each side well in the long run.
The only problem I have with it is that it mirrors the situation which happened in Lebanon when we tried to stop the Israeli aggression against the PLO, and stop the civil war during the 1980’s.
It resulted in many years of hell and terrorism against UN and US forces. Bombings, kidnappings, killings, the same stuff we are currently facing in Iraq (which we should have forseen.)
The only saving grace (but not for Israel) was when Syria went in and took control.
If your plan could succeed, I think you would need Muslim troops to do most of the work (if this plan was agreed upon by them and all of the nations you mentioned in your post).
That way, they could impose order without looking like “infidels” intruding on muslim lands.
Otherwise, I think the area would settle into more chaos.
On a side note: just this week Pakistan offered to send a peace keeping force to Iraq if the US leaves.
Do you think this is merely to counter Iranian influence in the country, (strictly killing Shia, in league with al-qaeda, ect) or will it be a real peace keeping force not in league with one sect?
Neither argument is entirely true… yet neither is entirely false, either. Being able to see the truth in both sides of the argument will, I think, serve the advocates of each side well in the long run.[/quote]
I guess that’s how we’ll have the very best threads possible: Let Varq argue both sides of them.
If your plan could succeed, I think you would need Muslim troops to do most of the work (if this plan was agreed upon by them and all of the nations you mentioned in your post). [/quote]
I agree wholeheartedly, and was thinking about that when I wrote my last post in response to Sloth. One of the reasons the coalition was initially so successful and enjoyed such widespread support was precisely because of its inclusion of Islamic troops.
So yes, I think the coalition this time should include the Pakistanis, the Moroccans, the Jordanians, the Turks, the Saudis, hell, why not, even the Iranians and Syrans. They certainly would like to have a say in what happens next door: the Syrians can help out in Ba’athistan, while the Iranians can lend a hand in Shi’astan.
Let’s keep the Turks out of Kurdistan, though, shall we?
[quote]On a side note: just this week Pakistan offered to send a peace keeping force to Iraq if the US leaves.
Do you think this is merely to counter Iranian influence in the country, (strictly killing Shia, in league with al-qaeda, ect) or will it be a real peace keeping force not in league with one sect?
[/quote]
Hmmm. If I were choosing a peacekeeping force, I think I would want somebody who at least spoke Arabic fluently, who was from a bit less controversial country, and who didn’t have a particular axe to grind against the Iraqis, nor a vested interest in Iraqi oil.
My picks would be a peacekeeping force from Morocco, Dubai and Oman.
And if these coalition troops are deployed, Jerusalem wrestled from the Israels, and Palestine realized, what then? What about Hamas?
Will coalition troops pursue them if they, let’s say, fire Kassam rockets into Israel? If so, will the coalition troops get caught in the same situation as the IDF? An occupying force battling groups hiding behind civilians?
And, will the occupying force make sure jewish refugees have a “right to return?” Or, at least compensated? People tend to forget about Jewish refugees who fled Arab lands.
Ok, since I’ve asked some critical questions, I suppose I should offer a plan. For the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I offer…
Drop “right of return,” and the notion of dividing Jerusalem again. Turn over the rest of the occupied land to the Palestinians. Then Arabs can feel free to help rebuild a peaceful Palestine. That is, if Hamas will let them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And if these coalition troops are deployed, Jerusalem wrestled from the Israels, and Palestine realized, what then? What about Hamas? [/quote]
What about them? “Hamas” is an acronym meaning “The Islamic Resistance Movement.” They are resisting Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. When there are no longer any Israelis in the Palestinian lands for them to resist, they will no longer be necessary, at least in their present form. Neither, one hopes, will suicide bombers, Kassam rockets and Mighty Muslim Martyr Mouse cartoon shows.
One of the shortcomings of the present US campaign in Iraq is that as much as we assure the Iraqis and the rest of the world that we are neither invading nor occupying their country, the Iraqis feel invaded and occupied.
If the coalition does its job correctly, it will not be an occupying force in name or in fact. For one thing, an occupying force doesn’t leave when it is asked to. This coalition, probably also comprising civilian civil engineers, agricultural planners and other advisors, is there at the behest of the nation itself, with clearly stated objectives, timelines and budgets, and must leave when its work is done, or when it is deemed no longer necessary by the government of that nation.
Hamas would have no reason to launch rockets against troops (many of whom are fellow Muslims) who are there by permission of the PNA (of which Hamas constitutes the majority), assisting the Palestinians in creating a nation of their own.[quote]
And, will the occupying force make sure jewish refugees have a “right to return?” Or, at least compensated? People tend to forget about Jewish refugees who fled Arab lands.[/quote]
I believe that under the Hok ha-Shvut (laws of return), most Jews have the right to “return”, that is immigrate, to Israel. Jewish refugees need only make their way to the Israeli border, where (provided they are not deemed a threat to the state, and can prove their Jewishness, one presumes), they can become Israelis.
Ideally, each of these new nations would have similar Laws of Return, by which Palestinian refugees would have the right to immigrate to Palestine, Kurds to Kurdistan, Shi’ites to Shi’astan, and so forth. AND by which the refugees would be granted safe passage through the neighboring countries enroute to their own new nation.
Compensation is another somewhat sticky point, in that the Palestinian lands from which the Jews would be displaced are lands from which Palestinian peasants were displaced in the first place, certainly without compensation.
Ideally (I don’t want to overuse this word, for fear of being labeled an idealist), one of the first institutions the coalition and the new national governments would set up would be a national land brokerage, whereby any emigrant who so desired could sell his land and other real property to a land pool, from which the new immigrants would be allowed to buy small farms, assisted perhaps by interest-free loans provided by the government. Everybody wins.
I’ve already dropped the notion of a divided Jerusalem, in favor of a neutral zone policed by a multinational coalition. As for the right of return, I’ve given my views above. Do you still think that right of return is an unnecessary complication?
That’s essentially my view. I think we’re on the same page, if not perhaps on the exact same paragraph.
Now, try saying “Mighty Muslim Martyr Mouse” ten times fast.
