|
Grex > Agora41 > #37: What can be done in the middle east? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 604 responses total. |
mdw
|
|
response 400 of 604:
| 
May 15 05:44 UTC 2002 |
Jenin? The place where Israel wouldn't let in UN inspectors? The only
possible conclusion I could possibly draw from that is that Isreal has
something to hide. But truth and Jenin in the same sentence? You jest.
If there was any truth in Jenin, it's long gone.
You're right. Maybe I should believe Israel has no right to existance.
Is that what you really want me to think? [ Hmmm... ]
|
bdh3
|
|
response 401 of 604:
|
May 15 06:34 UTC 2002 |
In all fairness, the IDF had nothing to gain and lots to
lose by going along with the UN witch hunt in Jenin. It did
look like the staff of the proposed 'investigation' was set
up to find 'human rights violations' and 'war crimes'. By
refusing to cooperate with obvious opponents the IDF has forced
'the impartial press' (to the extent it exists) to back off
from claims of 'massacre' and indeed many arabs have also done
the same. All in all a bright move in the PR game. But again,
this particular discussion point is a red herring and nothing
whatsoever to do with the basic issues. Is clever and common
tactic used by lk (and even meself from time to time if I
were to admit...).
|
lk
|
|
response 402 of 604:
|
May 15 14:28 UTC 2002 |
Odd that Marcus would willingly ignore the findings of Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch -- as well as every western journalist who toured
Jenin -- who concluded that THERE WAS NO MASSACRE. Ignoring the obvious
political play, he seems to think that only the UN could have found the truth
and thus alleges that Israel had something to hide. As some commentators have
noted, it's likely that the Annan disbanded the team (rather than live up to
agreement reached with Israel regarding its compromise) is precisely because
it would have exonerated Israel. So, was there a massacre?
The death toll, in days of heavy fighting, stands at about 50. Everyone
agrees that the majority of these were fighters (illegal combatants in
American lingo). Time magazine has quoted a senior Palestinian military
officer saying that it is more likely that those who died in collapsed
buildings were victims of the bombs set off by terrorists and not of Israel.
So Marcus appears to still be getting his information exclusively from
Palestinian/Arab/Muslim sites -- many of which STILL claim that there
was a massacre, with "eyewitness" accounts (e.g. "letters from the massacre")
of mass executions and a death toll of 500, 800 even 3,000.
So of course Marcus doesn't see these LIES for what they are, he has chosen
to bury his head in the sand and beLIEve them. One can only wonder if Marcus
similarly believes that the Jewish Temple wasn't in Jerusalem and if a member
of the Protestant Church of God is really Jewish.
If anyone wants to learn more about Jenin, here are some sources:
Interview with a terrorist bomb-maker in Egyptian paper:
http://web1.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/582/6inv2.htm
Interview with a terrorist by CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/04/22/jenin.fighter/index.html
Time magazine's "Untangling Jenin's Tale" and other general articles:
http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24668-2002May2.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/comment-coh
en041602.asp
On the UN Investigation:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2065250
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/194lzmsh.asp
Pictures of limited destruction:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0204/jenin.destruction/frameset.exclude.h
tml
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ll60
www.metatronics.net/jenin.jpg
(Note that whereas 5 out of 5 sites Marcus referenced were Arab, only 1 of 10
of the above are Israeli -- and that only for photos.)
|
scott
|
|
response 403 of 604:
|
May 15 15:43 UTC 2002 |
Leeron, do you have anything to say about Eric's #398, or are you just going
to stick your fingers in your ears so you don't have to hear it?
|
other
|
|
response 404 of 604:
|
May 15 17:08 UTC 2002 |
I'm not interested in his response. I know he read it. And I know it
won't change anything.
The fact is that I feel comfortable that I can sort through all the
various claims and counterclaims, filter them through what I already
know, and arrive at some approximation of the truth, so lk's endless
blathering and desperate tactics are only frustrating in that they may
have the effect of creating opposition to the positions he thinks he is
supporting, among those who do not have more discriminating filters.
|
lk
|
|
response 405 of 604:
|
May 16 00:32 UTC 2002 |
Scott, as I said, I will continue to focus on the issues. Anyone who is
not interested in the topic can forget the item. (Or you and others can
persist with personal attacks. It doesn't phase me either way.)
|
scott
|
|
response 406 of 604:
|
May 16 01:19 UTC 2002 |
I don't see how it's a "personal" attack, Leeron. I'm making a point about
your style of argument, not something like hygiene or other "personal" things.
I think that your entire way of arguing is defective, not some specific point
or another.
|
lk
|
|
response 407 of 604:
|
May 16 01:32 UTC 2002 |
If you don't like my "style", you can forget this item or ignore what I say.
If you want to discuss the issues, now may be a good time for you to start.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 408 of 604:
|
May 16 05:21 UTC 2002 |
Its not yer item.
|
mdw
|
|
response 409 of 604:
|
May 16 06:32 UTC 2002 |
I bet Amnesty International & etc. said "there was no evidence of a
massacre"; unless they were on the spot, or able to go in *very* soon
after the actual incident, there's no way they could say anything more.
Regardless, I haven't claimed the palestinians were telling the truth --
that would be claiming that the truth was accessible. What I claimed
was that the truth was inaccessible, which means it's not possible to
tell whether the palestinians or the israelis were telling the truth,
and they may both in fact be lying; the truth may be completely
different than either claim.
Does Leeron honestly think I only visited 5 sites?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 410 of 604:
|
May 16 07:40 UTC 2002 |
Does Leeron honestly care?
|
lk
|
|
response 411 of 604:
|
May 16 19:41 UTC 2002 |
Leeron pointed out that of the 5 sites Marcus listed, all were Arab and
none were Australian.
Amnesty International and HRW conducted a week-long investigation.
You are correct that they can only conclude that they found NO EVIDENCE
of a massacre, but the fact is that the number of dead (~50, by all
accounts the majority of whom were fighters and by some independent
accounts some of the civilians were victims of terrorist bombs and
booby traps, not Israeli "brutality" or "aggression") PROVE that the
"eyewitness" accounts of HUNDREDS of civilians being executed were LIES.
Marcus, your latest response is another work of sophistry. First you are
presuming Israeli guilt, as if Israeli must prove its innocence. Thus
you don't accept the aforementioned lack of evidence to dismiss allegations
which clearly were groundless, but as insufficient to clear Israel.
Of course, the reason our legal system is based on an a presumption of
innocence is that it is impossible to prove that something didn't happen.
So you can now hide behind the intellectual fraud that the "truth is
inaccessible", but the fact of the matter is that there was no more a
massacre of Arabs by Israelis in Jenin than there was a massacre of
space aliens by Grexers in Ann Arbor last week (the latter is obviously
more likely since no international scrutiny has concluded even as much
as there being no evidence to support this).
> I haven't claimed the palestinians were telling the truth --
> that would be claiming that the truth was accessible.
So you do believe the "eyewitness" accounts that reported hundreds of dead,
even though there are not that many bodies or missing people?
So you do believe that a Protestant Church of God member is really a Jew?
So you do believe, despite archeological and historical evidence, that
the Temple Mount was not the site of the Jewish Temple?
So you do believe, as Arafat repeats, that Israel is using depleted Uranium
and infecting Arab children with HIV? That (reminiscent of medieval blood
libels) Jews are poisoning Arab wells?
So you do believe, as Saudi papers and Egyptian documentaries report, that
Jews use Muslim blood to prepare holiday foods?
Or are these truths similarly "inaccessible"?
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 412 of 604:
|
May 16 20:09 UTC 2002 |
No, truth is accessible, but it can also be spun any way you like
depending on one's own biases and perceptions.
|
lk
|
|
response 413 of 604:
|
May 16 20:21 UTC 2002 |
That may be correct, but doesn't dispute that fact that some of the "spin"
introduced by Arab propaganda is entirely detached from what the academic,
scientific and objective parties largely recognize as the truth.
"Eyewitness" accounts of the slaughter of hundreds in Jenin were LIES.
There is no "spin" required to answer this answerable question:
Was there a massacre of Arabs by Israelis at Jenin? No.
|
mdw
|
|
response 414 of 604:
|
May 20 02:07 UTC 2002 |
Do you claim to be "spin free"?
|
lk
|
|
response 415 of 604:
|
May 20 04:01 UTC 2002 |
I certainly have my take on things, who doesn't? But I also believe that
my take is very close to the objective truth (even if you choose not to
ascertain it).
Most of my time on Grex I'm unspinning the lies of others: No, Sharon
didn't enter the mosques on the Temple Mount during Friday services with
thousands of troops. No, Muhammed al-Dura was likely not killed by Israeli
soldiers (as seen on film) but by "friendly" fire. No, the man killed in a
car accident was not tortured and executed by Israel. No, the woman who had
a stillbirth was not delayed at a checkpoint. No, a child playing soccer
was not shot by Israeli troops. No, Israeli soldiers are not equipped with
silenced M16s and do not hunt Palestinian Arab children for sport. No,
there was no massacre at Jenin. No, the Palestinian Arabs are not the
descendents of the Canaanites. No, Jews did not steal "Arab land". No,
Jews do not use blood for holiday foods. No, Jews do not poison Arab wells.
No, a Jew did not try to burn down Al Aqsa in 1969. No, Israel does not
poison Palestinian Arab children with Uranium or HIV.
And no, the Jews did not destroy Al Aqsa in 1929 (as depicted in forged
pictures that sparked the 1929 "riots" and the massacre of Hebron's
ancient Jewish population).
Is it the "brutal" Israeli "occupation" that is the "root cause" of terrorism
or such lies that brainwash people to perpetrate such horrible acts?
|
mdw
|
|
response 416 of 604:
|
May 21 05:44 UTC 2002 |
It's pretty obvious that you do have a "take" on things. Generally
that's called "bias". To be objective requires a certain detachment
from things, and a willingness to look at things from all points of
view. You clearly don't feel detached, and appear to completely
identify yourself with one point of view. You seem to be completely
unwilling to admit the possibility that the Israelis might ever do
wrong, or that the palestinians have might have any legitimate gripe at
all under their thick patina of evil acts. Obviously, that seems
perfectly natural to you. It certainly looks like an extreme to me and
evidently to others as well.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 417 of 604:
|
May 21 08:55 UTC 2002 |
And he lives in A2 and isn't likely to have his home bulldozed
nor be blown up going out for pizza so he really doesn't really have
a horse in the race no how. Not to say his opinion isn't interesting
and he for sure has just as much right to type stuff as the rest
of us, but just like the rest of us he sure doesn't have a whole
lot at risk.
I just don't see how anyone looking at a map of the number and
location of 'settlements' of jews in the west bank ('defended'
by a really tactically stupid number of IDF troopers) can do anything
but conclude 'way kewl, its well and truely balkanized'. I do think
Arafat (who isn't even a 'palastinian') is truely evil and only is
alive today because of considerations of 'greater evil' unknown -
the US has legitimate reason to have taken him off the board long
ago. This doesn't mean that the ordinary people - the philistines-
don't have legitimate beefs.
What to do is obvious. Declare Jerusalem an 'autonimous
administrative region' similar to Hongkong policed by the PRC with
a separate Palestinian region policed by the JSDF - the Japanese
Army. It would also be cheap.
|
lk
|
|
response 418 of 604:
|
May 21 14:52 UTC 2002 |
Marcus, I'm sorry to see that the only way you can respond to the arguments
I have made is by attempting to dismiss me as "biased". Contrary to your
assertion that I'm not willing to look at things from all points of view,
it appears as if you are the one who would prefer to stick your head in the
sand rather than deal with facts that don't fit your view.
|
mdw
|
|
response 419 of 604:
|
May 21 20:58 UTC 2002 |
I'm just calling it as I see it--I'm sorry you feel compelled to dismiss
my opinion as mere head-in-the-sand. Judging by responses entered by
others I'm not alone in my opinion--so either there's a remarkable
conspiracy against you, or somehow you're just not being very
convincing.
|
lk
|
|
response 420 of 604:
|
May 21 23:11 UTC 2002 |
If we look at poll data across the entire population (not a handful of
Grexers), we see that only about 7-10% of the population maintains your
views while the majority seems to find my (or similar) arguments convincing.
I'm not saying that this makes my position correct, but you seemed to
suggest that it is relevant that I am outnumbered on Grex (hardly a
cross-section of the American populace) so I'm curious if you still
want to apply that faulty logic on a wider scale.
Nor have I dismissed your arguments merely as someone who wishes to stick
his head in the sand. I've pointed out exactly why this is so (for example,
your position that we can't know the truth -- despite investigations and
reports -- and moreso that a lack of evidence doesn't dismiss false
accusations against Israel, but that Israel is guilty unless proven innocent
and thus the lack of evidence fails to clear Israel.)
> Judging by responses entered by others I'm not alone in my opinion
Does anyone believe that there was a massacre of civilians in Jenin?
Does anyone agree with Marcus that lack-of-evidence of a massacre (i.e.
no dead bodies and no missing people) does not prove that the charges were
false and Israel innocent -- but only fail to clear Israel of guilt?
Of course, I wonder if you even believe what you are arguing. For example,
which of the myths that I've highlighted do you still believe?
Let me number them for your convenience:
1. There was a massacre of Arab civilians in Jenin last month.
2. Israel poisons Arab children with Uranium and HIV (Arafat).
3. Jews use Muslim blood to prepare holiday meals (as reported by a Saudi
professor in a government newspaper and by an Egyptian documentary).
4. Israeli soldiers (using non-existant "silenced M16s") hunt Palestinian
Arab children for sport.
5. The Australian protestant member of the "Church of God" who tried to burn
down Al Aqsa in 1969 was really (as Arafat and others claim, but contrary
to reports by a Muslim BBC correspondent) a Jew.
6. Jews destroyed Al-Aqsa in 1929 (as seen in forged photos that were used
at the time by the Arab leadership to trigger anti-Jewish riots.)
7. The Turks took a census of a region they did not consider a geographic
unit ("Palestine").
8. The Temple Mount (as Arafat and others claim, despite archeological and
historical evidence) was not the site of the Jewish Temple.
9. The Palestinian Arabs are descendents of the Canaanites (despite a
1500-2500 year gap between them).
|
mdw
|
|
response 421 of 604:
|
May 21 23:51 UTC 2002 |
Well, it's a good thing you aren't writing newspaper articles. I'm
surprised, though, that the majority of the population has any opinion
regarding your bias.
|
lk
|
|
response 422 of 604:
|
May 22 01:31 UTC 2002 |
In short, you don't have the guts to admit that you no longer believe
any of the above myths, despite the fact that you yourself propogated
and repeated some of them in very recent memory.
Whereas I have demonstrated that you prefer to close your eyes to facts
(presented by objective and reputable sources), you have been unable to
demonstrate that my bias is inherent in my arguments (to the contrary,
the majority of Americans accept my/similar arguments and share my beliefs).
|
scott
|
|
response 423 of 604:
|
May 22 02:04 UTC 2002 |
I suspect that if the majority of Americans were exposed to your arguments
and beliefs, they would tend to disagree. That's what happened to me, after
all.
I'll ask my periodic, but always unanswered question: Leeron, do you truly
believe that your arguments here are actually helping Israel's image?
|
lk
|
|
response 424 of 604:
|
May 22 06:18 UTC 2002 |
One could almost believe that you have an interest in helping Israel's image.
Or that the numerous anti-Israel myths that have been bandied about on Grex
were beneficial to Israel's image. Like if Grexers were misled to believe
that "Palestinians" are Arabs who are recent arrivals in the Holy Land and
of no relation to Canaanites, or that Jews stole Arab land, or that Israeli
soldiers hunt Arab children with "silenced M16s", or that there was a
massacre in Jenin are beneficial to Israel's image.
Your comments are similar to oval's slip that I will make her anti-semitic
(as if the actions of one person should be held against the group) and to
flem's revelation that he'd rather attack the messenger than the message.
What will be your next maneuvre to attempt to silence a message you don't
want to hear? A claim that my arguments cause terrorism? (Sorry, terrorists
don't need excuses to perpetrated their murderous deeds.)
The simple truth, Scott, is that if you were not interested in these items
(and there are only a handful of them in each Agora cf; it's not like I'm
spamming the rest of the cf) you could forget them. The sad truth is that
the only reason you participate in these items is for confrontation. And
you have the audacity to complain? (in lieu of discussing the subject!)
|