BoxRec

Posted: **18 Aug 2006, 14:00**

coneye wrote:I call it has i see it not paticular in the brightest way, but do it just the same.

You call it as you see it ... on TV. What you do, my millionaire friend, is follow some editorial line or other that has taken your fancy. The media loves to paint situations in black and white, but history tends to show that things are not often that straightforward. I'd suggest a little research before forming an opinion (research is not watching Fox News, btw) on what is a rather more complex than 'goodies v baddies' issue.

Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking.
And when they call themselves "the good and just," forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but power!

Posted: **18 Aug 2006, 14:21**

Terence wrote:
pundit wrote:
Terence wrote: No indignation Pundit merely insolence, just the fact that your arguments have gotten shorter as your ignorance has been systematically exposed. Knowledge is not a cheap trick
Instead you offer the views of some fundamentalist ultra-orthodox Jews on the topic, derived from a particular and highly contentious reading of their holy scriptures. But for all non-orthodox Jews this is as irrelevant for the assessment of the "legality" of Israel as is Hezbullah's view for all non-fundamentalist Shias. Which is: any non-Muslim state on "Muslim soil" is illegal full stop; be it in Palestine or in Al-Andalus (Spain).
Pundit, when a person is said to be orthodox do they take an interpretative, and therefore unorthodox approach, to their subject? Please explain this dichotomy. As for non-orthodox, would it be fair to say that the label unorthodox means they take a, well, an unorthodox approach to their religion. In other words an interpretative approach.

Palestinian levels dipped as Israeli levels rose and this was the result of mass migration to Palestine. Census' can be misleading in this region but the Israeli census shows a level of 156,000 Israelis in the region in 1948. Muslim and Christian Arabs numbered around 735,000. Well, they did before the mass immigration away from their own land and greater influx of Zionists to the region. Another census figure from 1922 shows around 589,000 Muslims (a number bolstered by 71,500 of the largely forgotten phenomena of Arab Christians [we ourselves in the West find it strange that there can be Arabian Christians, until one considers the shocking truth, Jesus himself was an Arab]) on the other hand there were said to be 7,600 Jews (incidentally fleeing persecution in Europe and accepted in Palestine by the local populace). Those Jews, they must breed faster than rabbits.

The Jewish population leapt from 7.5% of the total in 1914 to 29.9% in 1941. Conversely the Arab population in those years dropped from 731,000 to 111, 398. I guess they fancied a change of scene eh? Hang on a sec, all our figures are in conflict here, only the dwindling of the Arab population is a constant.

As for the claim I refuse to recognise the legality of Israel by any common denominator, did you miss my conversation with Loynesy? The Iraq war was "legal", as were the convictions of numerous IRA terrorists so-called, only for them to be overturned by history. People like you need to stop following the law like a sheep and actually question the judgements that are passed. You are the perfect modern citizen.

Orthodox Jews? You mean people of faith right? Not everyone wants to abandon faith for reason, indeed think about the word 'faith'. Then look up the standard religions and see if you find a link. A fundamentalist does not 'read' the scriptures, that is a schoolboy error there Pundit. A liberal (liberal as in a "liberal of sprinkling of error in your religious education) approach to religion is one in which scriptures are read, the difference between orthodoxy and liberalism in religion is that on the one hand you have people of faith and others who treat their own sacred works like works of literature, therefore they take a critical approach, to be critical is to lack faith and consequently a critical based approach to religion is a non-faith based one. Have you seen the way Opus Dei tried to marry faith and reason by not allowing philosophical texts to be read, only their interpretations on the texts? It did not work and made a mockery of both faith and reason so they abandoned it.

A non-orthodox Jew is not a Jew. Where is Judah? What country is it? What is the national dress? I think you do not know what diaspora is but let me enlighten you. In Diaspora your identity is faith-based. A Jew is a person who practices Judaism, the people who you seek to defend do not.

You say a 95% share was not applicable? Then you say 90% in the early part of the century. Again that supports my view that as the Zionist migration went up the Arab population dwindled.

You say that all these Arabs were rejected by Eastern states? In which case would you care to explain where they went? Such a large number of people disappearing sounds odd does it not? Where did they go if not to their neighbours?

I'll tell you what. We hit an impasse on figures, we have what, five different sets of figures, they all have one thing in common, Zionism arrived and the Palestine population changed. One of the main crux's of our discussion seems to focus on the religious legality of Israel, you say Orthodox Jews have a contentious reading of the texts? I have those texts right here on my bookcase alongside the Bible, The Koran, The Upanishads and many more. Why not throw up the contentious texts that the orthodox Jews misrepresent and show me up on here? Why not show the Torah stating explicitly that the Jewish could return from Diaspora at the time they did without having to interpret the messianic aspects of the text? I will then do with you what I did with E and the job is a good 'un.

If not then think about these words. Jew, Orthodox, Faith. Then think of these words. Liberal Jews, Zionist, Interpretative. Then tell me which division is likely to interpret the texts to suit their ends?

A 95 percent Arab population share has never been true in the 20th century, and 90 percent was at best true in the late 1910s/early 1920s, a full generation before the end of the British mandate.
Given our differing figures I'd say that +5% or -5% is a fair disrepancy. Your figure could dip to 85%, mine could rise to 95%. Making it bang-on. Maybe all your facts and figures are this wrong?

to be fair to you terry you seem to know your stuff and i dont proclaim to understand the nuances of the region but i see the situation like this, its probably an over simplified view but i reckon the arabs and israeli`s can keep on blowing each other up, keep on throwing past injustices and keep on waving biblical maps in each others faces until the proverbial cows come home but absolutely sod all will change until they realise they`ve got to learn to live together in peace.
in my mind its just a question of how many words, years and lives are wasted before the warring parties come to this conclusion.

Posted: **18 Aug 2006, 14:31**

Never underestimate mankinds inability to learn the lessons that history teaches.

Posted: **18 Aug 2006, 14:49**

Terence wrote:
pundit wrote:
Terence wrote: No indignation Pundit merely insolence, just the fact that your arguments have gotten shorter as your ignorance has been systematically exposed. Knowledge is not a cheap trick
Instead you offer the views of some fundamentalist ultra-orthodox Jews on the topic, derived from a particular and highly contentious reading of their holy scriptures. But for all non-orthodox Jews this is as irrelevant for the assessment of the "legality" of Israel as is Hezbullah's view for all non-fundamentalist Shias. Which is: any non-Muslim state on "Muslim soil" is illegal full stop; be it in Palestine or in Al-Andalus (Spain).
Pundit, when a person is said to be orthodox do they take an interpretative, and therefore unorthodox approach, to their subject? Please explain this dichotomy. As for non-orthodox, would it be fair to say that the label unorthodox means they take a, well, an unorthodox approach to their religion. In other words an interpretative approach.

Palestinian levels dipped as Israeli levels rose and this was the result of mass migration to Palestine. Census' can be misleading in this region but the Israeli census shows a level of 156,000 Israelis in the region in 1948. Muslim and Christian Arabs numbered around 735,000. Well, they did before the mass immigration away from their own land and greater influx of Zionists to the region. Another census figure from 1922 shows around 589,000 Muslims (a number bolstered by 71,500 of the largely forgotten phenomena of Arab Christians [we ourselves in the West find it strange that there can be Arabian Christians, until one considers the shocking truth, Jesus himself was an Arab]) on the other hand there were said to be 7,600 Jews (incidentally fleeing persecution in Europe and accepted in Palestine by the local populace). Those Jews, they must breed faster than rabbits.

The Jewish population leapt from 7.5% of the total in 1914 to 29.9% in 1941. Conversely the Arab population in those years dropped from 731,000 to 111, 398. I guess they fancied a change of scene eh? Hang on a sec, all our figures are in conflict here, only the dwindling of the Arab population is a constant.

As for the claim I refuse to recognise the legality of Israel by any common denominator, did you miss my conversation with Loynesy? The Iraq war was "legal", as were the convictions of numerous IRA terrorists so-called, only for them to be overturned by history. People like you need to stop following the law like a sheep and actually question the judgements that are passed. You are the perfect modern citizen.

Orthodox Jews? You mean people of faith right? Not everyone wants to abandon faith for reason, indeed think about the word 'faith'. Then look up the standard religions and see if you find a link. A fundamentalist does not 'read' the scriptures, that is a schoolboy error there Pundit. A liberal (liberal as in a "liberal of sprinkling of error in your religious education) approach to religion is one in which scriptures are read, the difference between orthodoxy and liberalism in religion is that on the one hand you have people of faith and others who treat their own sacred works like works of literature, therefore they take a critical approach, to be critical is to lack faith and consequently a critical based approach to religion is a non-faith based one. Have you seen the way Opus Dei tried to marry faith and reason by not allowing philosophical texts to be read, only their interpretations on the texts? It did not work and made a mockery of both faith and reason so they abandoned it.

A non-orthodox Jew is not a Jew. Where is Judah? What country is it? What is the national dress? I think you do not know what diaspora is but let me enlighten you. In Diaspora your identity is faith-based. A Jew is a person who practices Judaism, the people who you seek to defend do not.

You say a 95% share was not applicable? Then you say 90% in the early part of the century. Again that supports my view that as the Zionist migration went up the Arab population dwindled.

You say that all these Arabs were rejected by Eastern states? In which case would you care to explain where they went? Such a large number of people disappearing sounds odd does it not? Where did they go if not to their neighbours?

I'll tell you what. We hit an impasse on figures, we have what, five different sets of figures, they all have one thing in common, Zionism arrived and the Palestine population changed. One of the main crux's of our discussion seems to focus on the religious legality of Israel, you say Orthodox Jews have a contentious reading of the texts? I have those texts right here on my bookcase alongside the Bible, The Koran, The Upanishads and many more. Why not throw up the contentious texts that the orthodox Jews misrepresent and show me up on here? Why not show the Torah stating explicitly that the Jewish could return from Diaspora at the time they did without having to interpret the messianic aspects of the text? I will then do with you what I did with E and the job is a good 'un.

If not then think about these words. Jew, Orthodox, Faith. Then think of these words. Liberal Jews, Zionist, Interpretative. Then tell me which division is likely to interpret the texts to suit their ends?

A 95 percent Arab population share has never been true in the 20th century, and 90 percent was at best true in the late 1910s/early 1920s, a full generation before the end of the British mandate.
Given our differing figures I'd say that +5% or -5% is a fair disrepancy. Your figure could dip to 85%, mine could rise to 95%. Making it bang-on. Maybe all your facts and figures are this wrong?

Again I find rather little relevant substance in all this. What exactly, e.g., are your distinctions between non-orthodox, un-orthodox, ultra-non-orthodox etc. good for? The fact remains that religiously motivated interpretations about the legailtiy of Isreal - such as those of Hezbullah or the Jewish groups you're referring to - are irrelevant for people outside these religious groups, and can hence not serve as a general yardstick for "legality".

I am also not quite sure what exactly we discuss with respect to relative population numbers. You stated that in 1948 (!!) - i.e., when Israel came into existence - 95 percent of the population of Palestine was Arab. This is simply false and very misleading. I do not dispute that 30 years earlier population shares were different, and that the changes between then and 1947/48 were largely due to Jewish migration into British Palestine (although not due to forced Arab migration out of Palestine, as you seem to suggest). So?

In other parts you don't seem to read my text properly. I never said the Arabs that left Palestine in 1948 were "rejected" by the "Eastern States" (I presume you mean Israel's/Palestine's neighbors with this). I said the neighboring governments made false promises in 1948 about securing the Palestinian Arabs' return, and therefore encouraged their departure in the first place. But instead of keeping these promises, the neighboring states let the Palestinians rot away in refugee camps for the next 58 days. Where Palestinian Arab's decided not to heed to these promises -- such as in Nazareth or in areas around Haifa -- there are large Palestian Arab communities in Israel to this day (and they have arguably a much better life than the Palestinians in Lebanese or Syrian refugee camps).

Finally, I am not a proponent of the war in Iraq, so you cannot use this to accuse me of alleged double standards regarding "legality".

YOUR criteria for legality remain totally unclear, however, and I would be interested indeed what they consist of. In the end you have sympathy for Hezbullah's view -- according to which (as said) Spain is an illegal state too?

P

Posted: **18 Aug 2006, 22:21**

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I don't anyone here likes the idea of being blown up by terrorists any more than you do. Do you think I WANT to get my legs blown off in a tube train? Of course not.

My point is, that history shows that you do not eradicate terrorism by bombing the shit out of somewhere, or by trying to eradicate the terrorists. Look at the IRA, despite their best efforts, the British government couldn't eradicate them over a period of what, 80 years? Same with Hamas (now a political entitity), Hezbolla, Al Quaida etc. You kill one guy, he becomes a martyr, and his death becomes a call to arms, attracting more young men willing to die.

Only by converting terrorists into politicians can you succeed in bringing about a lasting peace.

As for the middle east (big area, which bit, who are you singling out or not?) being the biggest threat in the history of mankind, well, I don't know, Hitler and Napoleon would be my pick, they were both completely loonie and terrifying.

James thats my biggest fear converting terrorist to politicans, Hitler was the biggest despot of all time , but the midddle east countries have had more than there fair share they have just not been in a position to do what Hitler done , they rule with an iron fist and don't hesitate to murder there own. If and When they get to the same position god help the jews god help the westeners.

It will not happen in my lifetime but in the future who knows , and thats the thing they are becoming politicans have a look around you , have a look at the politicaly correct shite thats encroaching into our society , most of it brought on by lunatic frings grooups with there own agendas, they are becoming better educated than our own and local goverment soon to be followed by national govt is where it will begin , in years to come the god old boy englishman will become a minority or a majority with a minority say . don't give a fack what anyone says the prime root of all this evil is religion and thats the differenc we don't paticully care a lot about reigion to them its there way of life and thats why were sinners and infedels, get rid of there and our religin and the world will be a great place.

Any how thats all i'm saying on the subject .

Oh one last thing your right history does prove you cannot eradicate terroism with bombs and gunfire , but on the other hand history has proved tim and time again if a nation don't fight back it gets overun . I think 1939 -1945 proved that, cos last time i looked ,my name was'nt Werner.

Posted: **19 Aug 2006, 08:40**

Religious doctrines tend to propser in situations where there are a large number of ill edcuated and impovirished people. Religious fervour died out in the majority of western countries with the advent of education for the masses and social welfare. Nobody is that bothred about religion once they learn to question things and they have enough food to eat, clothe themselves and they have a roof over their head and they are not living in constant fear.

Despite Iran's hard line stance, it is a society where there are a large number of well educated and pretty afluent people. I was reading an interesting article yesterday about how the young generation in the country and becoming more and more frustrated by their government trying to run the country as a nation governed by Islam. They have access to the internet and do not share their government's attitudes towards the western world. The clash of political ideologies does not permeate the entire society. The bigger the gap grows between the consensus of the populous and the political establishment, the greater will be the desire for change. It's happened in China, which is no longer a communist country, but a capitalist oligarchy. In time China will be forced to become democratic, because they will have an educated and affluent population. Give it 20 years, and I guarantee china is a democracy, though what shape that will take is another matter.

One thing I think we can say about the Internet is that it a very good method of disseminating the truth about the world. It is becoming increasnigly difficult for any nation to keep their population buffered from the outside world when email allows people to communicate instantaneously and to send documents to one another.

Posted: **19 Aug 2006, 08:50**

Terence wrote:On last thing on this topic for anyone who supports Israels aggression. Ireland could have been said to be harbouring terrorists for many years, would the US-Irish population have approved if we'd have bombed the pish out of southern Ireland? We had legitimate cause, or is that reaction only applicable post-2001, terror pre-2001 was non-existent right?

Very good point I have to say... actually the past American governments used to be in the habit of having nice tea parties for members of the IRA... which makes the present situation really all the more ironic... Only in America! as Don King would say!!...

Posted: **19 Aug 2006, 12:25**

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Religious doctrines tend to propser in situations where there are a large number of ill edcuated and impovirished people. Religious fervour died out in the majority of western countries with the advent of education for the masses and social welfare. Nobody is that bothred about religion once they learn to question things and they have enough food to eat, clothe themselves and they have a roof over their head and they are not living in constant fear.

Fine. Now, what follows from that?

Posted: **19 Aug 2006, 16:47**

coneye wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:I don't anyone here likes the idea of being blown up by terrorists any more than you do. Do you think I WANT to get my legs blown off in a tube train? Of course not.

My point is, that history shows that you do not eradicate terrorism by bombing the shit out of somewhere, or by trying to eradicate the terrorists. Look at the IRA, despite their best efforts, the British government couldn't eradicate them over a period of what, 80 years? Same with Hamas (now a political entitity), Hezbolla, Al Quaida etc. You kill one guy, he becomes a martyr, and his death becomes a call to arms, attracting more young men willing to die.

Only by converting terrorists into politicians can you succeed in bringing about a lasting peace.

As for the middle east (big area, which bit, who are you singling out or not?) being the biggest threat in the history of mankind, well, I don't know, Hitler and Napoleon would be my pick, they were both completely loonie and terrifying.
James thats my biggest fear converting terrorist to politicans, Hitler was the biggest despot of all time , but the midddle east countries have had more than there fair share they have just not been in a position to do what Hitler done , they rule with an iron fist and don't hesitate to murder there own. If and When they get to the same position god help the jews god help the westeners.

It will not happen in my lifetime but in the future who knows , and thats the thing they are becoming politicans have a look around you , have a look at the politicaly correct shite thats encroaching into our society , most of it brought on by lunatic frings grooups with there own agendas, they are becoming better educated than our own and local goverment soon to be followed by national govt is where it will begin , in years to come the god old boy englishman will become a minority or a majority with a minority say . don't give a fack what anyone says the prime root of all this evil is religion and thats the differenc we don't paticully care a lot about reigion to them its there way of life and thats why were sinners and infedels, get rid of there and our religin and the world will be a great place.

Any how thats all i'm saying on the subject .

Oh one last thing your right history does prove you cannot eradicate terroism with bombs and gunfire , but on the other hand history has proved tim and time again if a nation don't fight back it gets overun . I think 1939 -1945 proved that, cos last time i looked ,my name was'nt Werner.

Er, I hate to pour cold water on your 'theory', but Hitler was more of a political radical than a religious terrorist (there is, I believe, a broad line between political and religious 'terrorism'). As for similarities between 'The war on terror' and World War 2... I personally can't think of a worse comparison.

I think you're confusing yourself in this subject: You say Englishman when you mean WASP.
As for your rant about religion being the root of evil. Close, but no cigar. Fundamentalism is the problem: Look at China, the former Soviet Union and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, all nominally atheist, and all to a lesser or greater degree pretty bloody (to use your term) 'evil'. The problem with all fundamenatalists, be they religious or political, is that they are right and everyone who thinks/acts differently is wrong... and they're quite happy to kill and be killed to show us the error of our ways.

Posted: **20 Aug 2006, 18:33**

pundit wrote:
Taki... wrote:
d1mak wrote:
You really do seem to be missing the point. Saddam was not (that's NOT) removed because of his mass-murdering despotic behaviour. He was removed for having WMD's (try not to lose sight of this), sheltering terrorists (very few terrorists in Iraq... until after the war) and, apparently, Saddam was ready to arm these non-existent terrorists with his non-existent WMD's.
This is over-simplofying. What motivation there was for the Iraq-war depends who you ask. The Neo-Cons around Wolfowitz wanted to remove Saddam because he was a mass-murdering despot. The Macchiavellians around Cheney wanted to remove Saddam because of the other alledged reasons (WMD etc.). Bush seems to have believed various reasons at different times.

The Neocons were in principle right, Cheney was very wrong; but whatever motivation, Rumsfeld & co. handled the Iraq affair so incompetently that they should never have started this.

If you want an example of how the west usually deals with despots look at what happened in the first Gulf war: Bush called on the Iraqi people to rise up and fight Saddam and promised help... they rose up... no help came... and Saddam wiped them out.
This is presenting thins a bit too simplisitc as well. Bush father was a different figure from Bush son. Bush father didn't help the Shia uprising because he had no mandate for it - neither from the UN nor from the US congress. Bush son would not have been beholden to such scruples.

Actually Pundit, invading Iraq (or any nation) for the purpose of removing its government is illegal. In fact, invading Iraq against the wishes of the UN and security council amount to an illegal war anyway. So the 'neocons' were wrong, both in principle and in law.

Bush senior should not have made promises he couldn't, and had no intention of, keeping. Sending tens of thousands of Iraqi's to their deaths for the sake of a photo opportunity and to cause Saddam a bit of a problem (which he soon gassed) hardly seems 'right'.

Posted: **20 Aug 2006, 21:48**

Taki... wrote: Actually Pundit, invading Iraq (or any nation) for the purpose of removing its government is illegal.

Well, I for my part can't see too much wrong with the principle of removing a dictator who has been torturing his people for decades, and establishing the rule of the people and the law in the dictator's place. IF you can do this, of course.

But no matter how you view this, your original statement to which I reacted was that the US government didn't have an interest in removing a dictator, but went into Iraq for other reasons. This seems only partly correct: there was a group in this government who's motivation was first and foremost to remove a dictator. The neocons.

Bush senior should not have made promises he couldn't, and had no intention of, keeping. Sending tens of thousands of Iraqi's to their deaths for the sake of a photo opportunity and to cause Saddam a bit of a problem (which he soon gassed) hardly seems 'right'.

This would not be right, but this is not how I remember it. Bush did not give the Iraqis (or more precisely: the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south) a promise of invading Iraq to support their uprising. Your line of arguing leaves me in fact a bit confused: when Bush senior does not invade Iraq to topple Saddam this is wrong; when Bush junior invades Iraq to topple Saddam this is wrong, also?

Btw, I believe one key reason why Bush junior invaded Iraq was to show himself that he was a tougher fellow than his father, hence he would finish the things his father had left half-baken...

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 07:29**

The UK should stay the fornicate out of middle east affairs.

By the same token Islamic extremists should stay the fornicate out of the UK, and not try to impose their way of life on a country that had been mainstream Christian for hundreds of years.

If they t want it here, and we aint having it want Sharia Law, fornicate off back to the middle east. We dont want it here, and we aint having it.

Also, I'm fucked off with these bleeding heart liberal w ankers who say that taking those two Muslims off the Monarch flight was racist.

Muslims are trying to blow up innocent non-muslims in the UK.

We MUST have ethnic profiling.

When the IRA where active in the 70s-90s, how many muslims were pulled over by the police searching for IRA bombers?

Answer : None, bacause they didnt fit the fornicating profile.

I come from an Irish background. In the early 90's i was with my dad in his white van driving down Victoria Street in London one afternoon. All of a sudden we are surrounded by armed police. Hauled out of the van and searched.

When they let us go, we asked them why they did it. They said they were checking all vans (after the rocket launch attack on no 10) and they followed us and radio'd for an ID on our number plate, when it came back the van was owned by someone with an irish name, that was it.

Did we complain, no. Did we claim it was racist no. If we didnt like it we should have pissed off back to ireland.

Why?

Beacuse they were doing it for the greater good. Its what went with having an irish name at the time.

Just like it goes with having a muslim or middle eastern appearnace now.
They HAVE to accept it as its for the greater good.

If they dont like it, fornicate off back to the middle east, born here or not.

Innocent people are getting blown up, kids are becoming orphans, and getting killed, for some poxy backward and pre-historic religion. All this in a christian country.

Stop pussy footing around. Wars upset people, inconvenient things happen.

We are at war.

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 07:36**

Terence wrote:Mainstream Christian? Aren't we C of E and didn't we break with the Church of any note to satisfy the whimes of a fat King (not Elvis)?

Yeah, Henry VIII. We were Catholic, then went to C of E.

Still Christian, either way.

Could do with old Henry at the moment. He'd sort it out sharpish.

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 08:02**

Terence wrote:
KO Artist wrote:
Terence wrote:Mainstream Christian? Aren't we C of E and didn't we break with the Church of any note to satisfy the whimes of a fat King (not Elvis)?
Yeah, Henry VIII. We were Catholic, then went to C of E.

Still Christian, either way.

Could do with old Henry at the moment. He'd sort it out sharpish.
I was jesting KO, I'm not too great on the UK religious scene or its history, despite hailing from Manchester, or probably because of it. I was raised a Catholic though, taught by a nun, although not corrupted by her, they left that to the priests Not to me you understand, I failed my altar boy audition. The only Henry the VIII I've studied is via Carry on Henry.

Thats the one I meant, Sid James

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 11:21**

Terence wrote:Pundit, I think what you find irrelevant are the arguments that come before 1947 ....

...... As for Spain, this is about Lebanon, I'm not the USA, I'm not stupid enough to fight a war on more than one front, stick to the question at hand. Yes I also think Hezbolla has a position, they did not break this ceasfire with covert commando raids. Spain, pretty transparent and off track, stick to what you are having difficlutly with, you are one step away from asking me what I'd do if terrorists attacked my family.]

I don't know how else to communicate this point to you. The debate about what talmudic law says about the legality of erecting a Jewish state (before the return of the Messiah) may be crucial for Jews themselves -- but it is totally irrelevant for the assessment of the legality of the state of Israel for non-Jews. And therefore irrelevant for our discussion. Religion cannot lend legitimacy to political creations. This principle is the pre-condition for any peaceful co-existence of religious groups.

And this is the only claim I am making about the talmudic debate - that it is irrelevant in this context. Not that one side or the other would commit errors in interpreting talmudic scriptures.

As for "the Brits gave something away that was not theirs" - fine, but whose was it in 1948? The Ottoman empire's that had ruled Palestine for centuries until 1918 before being defeated in WWI? Rather not, I suppose. "The local population's", as you've written earlier -- yes, this is my view too, but then you will have to come to terms with the fact that in 1948 the local population consisted of 1.2 million Arabs and 600.000 Jews. Which is why the UN devised the partition plan, approved by a vote of 33-13 in the UN general council. This plan may have been imperfect, but if there is an institution that can establish international legality it is the UN. Thus the partition plan is the best there is, and it establishes Isarel' legality beyond doubt.

As for population figures more generally, I am rather confused about what claim you are still making. Your stated that in 1947 95 percent of Palestine's population had been Arab, and this is drop dead wrong. My impression is that in your view the 1948 partition plan should have respected the Ottoman population shares of the 1910s (which reflected centuries of Ottoman discrimination against Jews, of course) -- but you cannot hope that this would appeal to me or anyone else with an impartial mind.

As for what is responsible for the population change between 1910 and 1948, it would be helpful if you would come clean with what period you are refering to with "forced migration". Pre-1948 or 1948? Pre-1948 there was very little forced migration, and the population change was largely due to Jewish immigration. 1948: yes, there was of course out-migration of Arabs as the result of the 1948 war. I've written my fingertips wound about what caused this: a war started by Israel's neighbors, acts of intimidation by Jewish underground groups, but first and foremost the encouragement by Israel's neighboring governments to leave, coupled with false promises to secure the Arab population's return. As a consequence, much of the exodus is the responsibility of the neighboring governments.

As for the fate of the decendets of these Palestinian refugees -- who are rotting in refugee camps to this day and have not even gotten Lebanese or Syrian citizenship in the third and fourth generation (in contrast to Palestinians in Israel) -- it seems to me indeed that this is a rather sad symbol for the lack of Arab solidarity with the Palestinians. How long did Germany need to integrate the refugees from its former Eastern territories arter WWII? 10 years, 15?

Finally, and most importantly, you are visibly evading my question regarding Spain. Which is why I pose it again: do you consider Spain (the former Muslim Al-Andalus) an illegal state too, just like Israel?

You portray yourself here as the smooth Brit carrying modest, perfectly reasonable views -- but your last reponse reinforces my suspicion that your views would shock most readers if you would spell them out openly.

My basic views are an open book - they are guided by respect for the individual, human rights, and the rule of law. In the interest of an open, constructive discussion, please present your basic views too.

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 12:11**

pundit wrote:
Taki... wrote: Actually Pundit, invading Iraq (or any nation) for the purpose of removing its government is illegal.
Well, I for my part can't see too much wrong with the principle of removing a dictator who has been torturing his people for decades, and establishing the rule of the people and the law in the dictator's place. IF you can do this, of course.

But no matter how you view this, your original statement to which I reacted was that the US government didn't have an interest in removing a dictator, but went into Iraq for other reasons. This seems only partly correct: there was a group in this government who's motivation was first and foremost to remove a dictator. The neocons.

Bush senior should not have made promises he couldn't, and had no intention of, keeping. Sending tens of thousands of Iraqi's to their deaths for the sake of a photo opportunity and to cause Saddam a bit of a problem (which he soon gassed) hardly seems 'right'.
This would not be right, but this is not how I remember it. Bush did not give the Iraqis (or more precisely: the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south) a promise of invading Iraq to support their uprising. Your line of arguing leaves me in fact a bit confused: when Bush senior does not invade Iraq to topple Saddam this is wrong; when Bush junior invades Iraq to topple Saddam this is wrong, also?

Btw, I believe one key reason why Bush junior invaded Iraq was to show himself that he was a tougher fellow than his father, hence he would finish the things his father had left half-baken...

Pundit, Saddam was killing thousands when the US was providing him with huge amounts of cash, weapons and equipment prior to his invasion of Kuwait. As laudable as it might seem to 'remove a dictator' the invasion of a sovereign nation, who lets not forget was not threatening the US, is deemed illegal in international law. It is not the place of the US, or any other nation, to pick and choose who should or shouldn't be governing other sovereign nations.

Bush did not promise to invade Iraq, but he did promise those invloved in any uprising help, assistance and support, which when push come to shove was not forthcoming.
The point is that Bush had an opportunity to assist the people of Iraq to remove Saddam or at least greatly reduce Saddams powerbase after the invasion of Kuwait.
Bush Jnr's invasion was based wholly on lies and went against the wishes of the UN and security council. Trying to revise history by saying the illegal removal of the Iraqi government some how discounts the fact that none of the reasons for the original invasion were valid seems more than a little hypocritical.

I agree that the Invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or the war on terror, and that Bush Jnr had a bee in his bonnet about Saddam. 911 and TWOT were a convenient excuse for invading. It's just a terrible shame that thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have had to pay the ultimate price for Bush's personal crusade.

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 12:17**

Interestingly, Bush Senior apparently advised his son not to invade Iraq in a pleasant father son bit of chit chat. From my understanding of things, the Bush Sr administration wanted to weaken Iraq and reduce it's capability, but military advisors wanted to stop short of invasion as they feared what the aftermath of a post Saddam Iraq would look like, and how right they were.

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 12:21**

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Interestingly, Bush Senior apparently advised his son not to invade Iraq in a pleasant father son bit of chit chat. From my understanding of things, the Bush Sr administration wanted to weaken Iraq and reduce it's capability, but military advisors wanted to stop short of invasion as they feared what the aftermath of a post Saddam Iraq would look like, and how right they were.

Yep, Ben Scowcroft, among others Bush sen.'s former national security adviser, warned very publicly against the Iraq war.

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 12:34**

What this also demonstrates. Is that the American government and military were not concerned with the plight of the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds and the Kuwaiti's under Saddam, but merely in Iraq's potential as a military bridgehead and strategic staging post. They were happy to have Saddam continue in power, so long as he was not a threat to their long term strategic plans in the region. Once that changed because they had decided it was time to stake further territory, bye bye Saddam.

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 12:37**

Taki... wrote: Pundit, Saddam was killing thousands when the US was providing him with huge amounts of cash, weapons and equipment prior to his invasion of Kuwait.

The thing is, I agree with you on many things, but some statements are too sweeping adn hence inaccurate. For example this one - yes, the US supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, as they were scared to death of the Mullahs in Teheran. But they gave far less support than other countries - France or Russia, e.g. - and the support had ended long before the first Gulf war.

As laudable as it might seem to 'remove a dictator' the invasion of a sovereign nation, who lets not forget was not threatening the US, is deemed illegal in international law. It is not the place of the US, or any other nation, to pick and choose who should or shouldn't be governing other sovereign nations.

See my previous response. I disagree with you in parts of the principle (or better the interpretation of it). But this wasn't my point. My point was that you disputed the US government went into Iraq to remove a dictator, and that's too sweeping again. There were different factions in the US government with different motivations, and the motivation of one group was: dictator-removal.

Bush did not promise to invade Iraq, but he did promise those invloved in any uprising help, assistance and support, which when push come to shove was not forthcoming.

Because the only effective means to provide support would have required to invade andstop the revolutionary guards. Bush sen. didn't becaue he didn't have a mandate.

The point is that Bush had an opportunity to assist the people of Iraq to remove Saddam or at least greatly reduce Saddams powerbase after the invasion of Kuwait.

But wouldn't you have condemned him outright if he had entered Iraq without a mandate? I believe you need to take a decision here. You can't have it both ways - whatever Bush sen. would have done he would have been wrong.

Bush Jnr's invasion was based wholly on lies

Too sweeping. Read "plan of attack" by Bob Woodward. The US government had very incomplete information about what was going on in Iraq, and Cheney was prepared to believe that Iraq had MWD no matter what. He massaged the evidence so long until it seemed compelling.

and went against the wishes of the UN and security council. Trying to revise history by saying the illegal removal of the Iraqi government some how discounts the fact that none of the reasons for the original invasion were valid seems more than a little hypocritical.

Sorry, but where exactly am I trying to rewrite history? I'm just trying to explain waht was going on.

I agree that the Invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or the war on terror, and that Bush Jnr had a bee in his bonnet about Saddam. 911 and TWOT were a convenient excuse for invading. It's just a terrible shame that thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have had to pay the ultimate price for Bush's personal crusade.

It surely is.
P

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 12:53**

jamesmcdonnell wrote:What this also demonstrates. Is that the American government and military were not concerned with the plight of the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds and the Kuwaiti's under Saddam, but merely in Iraq's potential as a military bridgehead and strategic staging post. They were happy to have Saddam continue in power, so long as he was not a threat to their long term strategic plans in the region. Once that changed because they had decided it was time to stake further territory, bye bye Saddam.

This is nonsense. Iraq wasn't a military bridgehead for the US after the first Gulf war.

It would do you guys well if you would recognize that "the US government" or "the Americans" consist of many different people with different motivations and views -- and that, as a consequence, conspiracy theories about "the Americans" don't carry very far. The foreign policy staff of the Bush sen. or Clinton governments consisted of different people with very different views from the Bush jun. government.

And the staff of this government is rather heterogenous too. I doubt the neocons and the group around Cheney agree on much except that it was a good idea to invade Iraq - the neocons because they thirsted for chance to apply their ideas about spreading democracy by force; and Cheney because he believed indeed in the link between Saddam-MWD-Islamic terrorism, no matter what the CIA and the State Department would tell him (he probably believes in it to this day).

Add in an incompetent technocrat like Rumsfeld keen on proving that he can run the Pentagon his way (after he failed in the 1970s); plus a President without strong views of his own but wanting to demonstrate that he's a tougher guy than his dad - and you have most ingredients of the melange that created the Iraq mess.

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 12:56**

pundit wrote:
Taki... wrote: Pundit, Saddam was killing thousands when the US was providing him with huge amounts of cash, weapons and equipment prior to his invasion of Kuwait.

The thing is, I agree with you on many things, but some statements are too sweeping adn hence inaccurate. For example this one - yes, the US supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, as they were scared to death of the Mullahs in Teheran. But they gave far less support than other countries - France or Russia, e.g. - and the support had ended long before the first Gulf war.

As laudable as it might seem to 'remove a dictator' the invasion of a sovereign nation, who lets not forget was not threatening the US, is deemed illegal in international law. It is not the place of the US, or any other nation, to pick and choose who should or shouldn't be governing other sovereign nations.
See my previous response. I disagree with you in parts of the principle (or better the interpretation of it). But this wasn't my point. My point was that you disputed the US government went into Iraq to remove a dictator, and that's too sweeping again. There were different factions in the US government with different motivations, and the motivation of one group was: dictator-removal.

Bush did not promise to invade Iraq, but he did promise those invloved in any uprising help, assistance and support, which when push come to shove was not forthcoming.
Because the only effective means to provide support would have required to invade andstop the revolutionary guards. Bush sen. didn't becaue he didn't have a mandate.

The point is that Bush had an opportunity to assist the people of Iraq to remove Saddam or at least greatly reduce Saddams powerbase after the invasion of Kuwait.
But wouldn't you have condemned him outright if he had entered Iraq without a mandate? I believe you need to take a decision here. You can't have it both ways - whatever Bush sen. would have done he would have been wrong.

Bush Jnr's invasion was based wholly on lies

Too sweeping. Read "plan of attack" by Bob Woodward. The US government had very incomplete information about what was going on in Iraq, and Cheney was prepared to believe that Iraq had MWD no matter what. He massaged the evidence so long until it seemed compelling.

and went against the wishes of the UN and security council. Trying to revise history by saying the illegal removal of the Iraqi government some how discounts the fact that none of the reasons for the original invasion were valid seems more than a little hypocritical.
Sorry, but where exactly am I trying to rewrite history? I'm just trying to explain waht was going on.

I agree that the Invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or the war on terror, and that Bush Jnr had a bee in his bonnet about Saddam. 911 and TWOT were a convenient excuse for invading. It's just a terrible shame that thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have had to pay the ultimate price for Bush's personal crusade.
It surely is.
P

The US government knew about Saddam's use of illegal weapons (chemical and biological) against Iran and his own population, and still provided Iraq with money and equipment (including helicopters with 'crop spraying' apparatus). This kind of thing jars terribly when we hear officials (some of who were involved with selling things to Saddam at the time) using rhetoric about Saddam's 'evil' and his human rights offences.

I'm just saying that the removal of the Iraqi government was illegal, so it follows that as a motivation it was far from being valid.

It's wrong to suggest the only effective means would have been invasion. The provision of logistical, intelligence and air support would have been an option, using Kuwait as a base for such. Those opposed to Saddam could have easily been organised and supported (especially in the aftermath of Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait). And even if Saddam had still managed to quash such an uprising the US would've been able to say they did follow through.

The US had incomplete information, but said they had incontravertible evidence. If that is not 'lies' then what is?

I'm not suggesting you're rewriting history, merely that many people are. One cannot escape the fact that the reasons given for invading have all proven to be utterly false.

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 13:03**

Taki... wrote: The US government knew about Saddam's use of illegal weapons (chemical and biological) against Iran and his own population, and still provided Iraq with money and equipment (including helicopters with 'crop spraying' apparatus). This kind of thing jars terribly when we hear officials (some of who were involved with selling things to Saddam at the time) using rhetoric about Saddam's 'evil' and his human rights offences.

I'm not denying nor defending this, BUT I believe it is important to emphasize that the US was neither exceptional nor even leading in this effort. As said, France, Russia, Germany gave far more military suppport to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war than the US. They all did so because they were scared the Iranian Mullah-regime could spread into Iraq (something that -- ironicaly -- is about to happen now).

It's wrong to suggest the only effective means would have been invasion.

I don't think it's wrong. Without ground support there as no way of stopping the revolutionary brigades from smothering the uprising.

Posted: **21 Aug 2006, 13:13**

pundit wrote:
Taki... wrote: The US government knew about Saddam's use of illegal weapons (chemical and biological) against Iran and his own population, and still provided Iraq with money and equipment (including helicopters with 'crop spraying' apparatus). This kind of thing jars terribly when we hear officials (some of who were involved with selling things to Saddam at the time) using rhetoric about Saddam's 'evil' and his human rights offences.
I'm not denying nor defending this, BUT I believe it is important to emphasize that the US was neither exceptional nor even leading in this effort. As said, France, Russia, Germany gave far more military suppport to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war than the US. They all did so because they were scared the Iranian Mullah-regime could spread into Iraq (something that -- ironicaly -- is about to happen now).

It's wrong to suggest the only effective means would have been invasion.
I don't think it's wrong. Without ground support there as no way of stopping the revolutionary brigades from smothering the uprising.

The difference is that France, Russia and Germany didn't invade Iraq. No-one denies that those nations didn't provide Iraq (and Iran for that matter) with weapons (though not money).
Not wanting the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the middle-east is no good reason (imo) to provide a government with the money and the means to develop weapons outlawed by the Geneva convention. Nor to look the other way when Saddam uses those weapons on his own population.

Air power was more than enough to smash Iraqs military on two occasions. Using such air cover whilst providing logistics and intelligence to resistance fighters on the ground (similar tactics were used in Afghanistan to assist those fighting against the Taliban) would have been more than enough to prevent many of the massacres carried out by Saddam after the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

Posted: **22 Aug 2006, 06:07**

Taki... wrote:
pundit wrote:
Taki... wrote: The US government knew about Saddam's use of illegal weapons (chemical and biological) against Iran and his own population, and still provided Iraq with money and equipment (including helicopters with 'crop spraying' apparatus). This kind of thing jars terribly when we hear officials (some of who were involved with selling things to Saddam at the time) using rhetoric about Saddam's 'evil' and his human rights offences.
I'm not denying nor defending this, BUT I believe it is important to emphasize that the US was neither exceptional nor even leading in this effort. As said, France, Russia, Germany gave far more military suppport to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war than the US. They all did so because they were scared the Iranian Mullah-regime could spread into Iraq (something that -- ironicaly -- is about to happen now).

It's wrong to suggest the only effective means would have been invasion.
I don't think it's wrong. Without ground support there as no way of stopping the revolutionary brigades from smothering the uprising.
The difference is that France, Russia and Germany didn't invade Iraq. No-one denies that those nations didn't provide Iraq (and Iran for that matter) with weapons (though not money).
Not wanting the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the middle-east is no good reason (imo) to provide a government with the money and the means to develop weapons outlawed by the Geneva convention. Nor to look the other way when Saddam uses those weapons on his own population.

Air power was more than enough to smash Iraqs military on two occasions. Using such air cover whilst providing logistics and intelligence to resistance fighters on the ground (similar tactics were used in Afghanistan to assist those fighting against the Taliban) would have been more than enough to prevent many of the massacres carried out by Saddam after the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.

Not wanting an islamic fundamentalist movement is certainly NO justification for invading Iraq. Bear in mind that Iraq was funded and armed by western powers precisely to PREVENT the spread of Iranian style fundamentalism as Iraq was a nominally muslim state with a largely secular administration.

BoxRec

Off-Topic: Israel-Lebanon & Terrorism in general