Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gardener, P F Tinmore, et al,
Some people's terrorist are another people's freedom fighter.
(COMMENT)Every country honors there heroes no matter how much they are despised by their enemies.
so the ziuonists wont cry anymore about the streets named after shaheeds????????
Just remember, only history can tell whether they were hero's or terrorists; in the long run.
Just as Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were unquestionably terrorist in the eyes of the Mandatory and Allied Powers back in the 1930s and '40s, they won the struggle and history has cleansed them.
Your "shaheeds" (martyrs) are still terrorist, base on their past history of behaviors, and by the words that have been spoken by Senior Hamas Leaders (eg Dr 'Issam 'Adwan) most recently. Maybe some day, they to will be cleansed (or not). But today, they are still terrorists, just as once Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were.
"Nothing can justify terrorism ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." UNSECGEN SG/SM/14764 SC/10883
Even The
THE ARAB CONVENTION FOR
THE SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)It's not history that "cleanses" them - it's winning the war and winning the ability to write the narrative. There is NO difference between them except for propaganda spun by the victors. In all actions - they are the same. Shame on those hypocrites who justify one while condemning the other.
Coyote, et al,
Evolution! Human evolution and civilization.
(COMMENT)It's not history that "cleanses" them - it's winning the war and winning the ability to write the narrative. There is NO difference between them except for propaganda spun by the victors. In all actions - they are the same. Shame on those hypocrites who justify one while condemning the other.
A century ago, and maybe even a half century ago, insurgencies and terrorism may have been considered acceptable. But humanity evolves.
To say that Brand "X" pursued terrorism type actions a half century ago, and therefore it must be acceptable for Brand "Y" to pursue the same barbarity more than a half-century later, is to admit that humanity will never evolve out of that endless cycle.
At some point, the community of nations has to take a stand, and were it can, improve the behaviors from war-like to peaceful settlements. Otherwise, our species is doom to commit the same mistakes, over and over again. For nearly a century, Brand "X" and Brand "Y" have been at odd, and committing some of the most heinous act imaginable, and still unable to even sit down like human being and talk it out.
Unacceptable!
At some point, evolution towards the better way must kick-in.
Most Respectfully,
R
Indeed, international law is an attempt to bring us out of the "wild west" and into a more civilized world.
Unfortunately, Israel still believes that it is acceptable to take land by force.
Originally posted by RoccoR
A century ago, and maybe even a half century ago, insurgencies and terrorism may have been considered acceptable. But humanity evolves.
Originally posted by RoccoR
At some point, the community of nations has to take a stand, and were it can, improve the behaviors from war-like to peaceful settlements. Otherwise, our species is doom to commit the same mistakes, over and over again. For nearly a century, Brand "X" and Brand "Y" have been at odd, and committing some of the most heinous act imaginable, and still unable to even sit down like human being and talk it out.
Unacceptable!
At some point, evolution towards the better way must kick-in.
Your feelings exactly concerning Hamas and Hezbollah, right, Jose?
Your feelings exactly concerning Hamas and Hezbollah, right, Jose?
José;7573439 said:Your feelings exactly concerning Hamas and Hezbollah, right, Jose?
I guess you missed all my posts (some of them directed at toastman) where I repeatedly said that the partial islamization of the once rigorously secular palestinian cause that took place in the 80's and 90's was nothing short of a tragedy, a disgrace that will surely represent a tremendous setback to Israel's evolution towards a democratic state.
I also believe the palestinian people should end the armed struggle and replace it with a peaceful movement for equal rights in their homeland.
No, Lipush, I truly consider the imposition of an islamic dictatorial state on the jewish people of Palestine to be as morally abhorrent as the imposition of a jewish supremacist state on the arab people of Palestine unlike you who condemns the former while continuously justifying the latter.
(COMMENT)José;7573359 said:Come on, Rocco... don't be shy...
Spit out in front of the whole Board what you really want to say:
"We all know Begin and Shamir were a couple of SOBs... but they were OUR SOBs."
Originally posted by Lipush
What makes you think that I want Arabs living under the Jewish law?
I want them far away from us, living their own lives and minding their own business.
Coyote, et al,
Evolution! Human evolution and civilization.
(COMMENT)It's not history that "cleanses" them - it's winning the war and winning the ability to write the narrative. There is NO difference between them except for propaganda spun by the victors. In all actions - they are the same. Shame on those hypocrites who justify one while condemning the other.
A century ago, and maybe even a half century ago, insurgencies and terrorism may have been considered acceptable. But humanity evolves.
To say that Brand "X" pursued terrorism type actions a half century ago, and therefore it must be acceptable for Brand "Y" to pursue the same barbarity more than a half-century later, is to admit that humanity will never evolve out of that endless cycle.
At some point, the community of nations has to take a stand, and were it can, improve the behaviors from war-like to peaceful settlements. Otherwise, our species is doom to commit the same mistakes, over and over again. For nearly a century, Brand "X" and Brand "Y" have been at odd, and committing some of the most heinous act imaginable, and still unable to even sit down like human being and talk it out.
Unacceptable!
At some point, evolution towards the better way must kick-in.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)While I accept that as the better way, I also feel that the folks should shut up about the Palistinians commemerating their "martyrs" when Israel has done the same thing. Were they to truly want moral improvement, they should adjust their historical narratives and commerations. Perhaps the "right" thing would be to admit that yes, their heros were terrorists, but lets learn from that and celebrate a better way of life instead of terrorists.
(COMMENT)José;7574269 said:All the human beings cited above were fully conscious that their actions were immoral, cruel and harmed innocent people despite the fact that they probably made a tremendous effort to rationalize their behavior,to portray themselves as the good guys and maybe even to avoid a burden of conscience that would be too great to bear.
But I agree with you that Palestinians should not only abandon terrorism but their entire armed struggle UNILATERALLY even though they argue it is unfair and ludicrous to demand total pacifism from them as long as the jewish state continues to deny their right to live in the western half of their homeland, as long as Israel does not agree to a long term plan that allow them to move freely in their homeland.
Coyote, et al,
Evolution! Human evolution and civilization.
(COMMENT)It's not history that "cleanses" them - it's winning the war and winning the ability to write the narrative. There is NO difference between them except for propaganda spun by the victors. In all actions - they are the same. Shame on those hypocrites who justify one while condemning the other.
A century ago, and maybe even a half century ago, insurgencies and terrorism may have been considered acceptable. But humanity evolves.
To say that Brand "X" pursued terrorism type actions a half century ago, and therefore it must be acceptable for Brand "Y" to pursue the same barbarity more than a half-century later, is to admit that humanity will never evolve out of that endless cycle.
At some point, the community of nations has to take a stand, and were it can, improve the behaviors from war-like to peaceful settlements. Otherwise, our species is doom to commit the same mistakes, over and over again. For nearly a century, Brand "X" and Brand "Y" have been at odd, and committing some of the most heinous act imaginable, and still unable to even sit down like human being and talk it out.
Unacceptable!
At some point, evolution towards the better way must kick-in.
Most Respectfully,
R
While I accept that as the better way, I also feel that the folks should shut up about the Palistinians commemerating their "martyrs" when Israel has done the same thing. Were they to truly want moral improvement, they should adjust their historical narratives and commerations. Perhaps the "right" thing would be to admit that yes, their heros were terrorists, but lets learn from that and celebrate a better way of life instead of terrorists.
José, Coyote, et al,
This all, actually, ties together; not exactly the path I was headed down, but it got there just the same.
(COMMENT)While I accept that as the better way, I also feel that the folks should shut up about the Palistinians commemerating their "martyrs" when Israel has done the same thing. Were they to truly want moral improvement, they should adjust their historical narratives and commerations. Perhaps the "right" thing would be to admit that yes, their heros were terrorists, but lets learn from that and celebrate a better way of life instead of terrorists.
There are two important concepts here that both sides (Brand "X" and "Y") need to appreciate. History and key events, are a summation of a compilation of cultural actions. (Yeah - what does that mean?)
The Analogy: In science, one of the key breakthrough that will for ever be indelibly imprinted on humanity was that of Sir Isaac Newton. His Mechanics and Mathematics are still with us today; YET, he didn't get it quite right. It wasn't until Albert Einstein that we saw a better picture. But Newton was so close, that we still venerate him today as one of the Greatest Minds ever to emerge out of humanity. Incidentally, many believe that both Newton and Einstein has something in common; they exhibited symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome (Newton more than Einstein). The trail of scientific discovery is the story of a trail of major contributors who didn't quite get it right, but we celebrate because of the contribution they made.
Politically and Militarily, history shows us that we commemorate those that successively make contributions towards some imperative; whether they were Brand "X" or "Y", moving us ever closer to some distant objective that the society under change can't quite bring into focus.
Second is that, in most cases, nations, states, cultures and societies --- which operate as a collective based on common cause and loyalty --- seldom make decisions on the basis of a moral imperative. They make most decisions based on the probability that a given course of action will have an outcome that functionally approximates the goal or objective set at the outset. I can tell you from personal experience, for most rational people, a firefight is not about some great moral issue of the day. It is about survival and winning the moment, the summation of which wins the battle, the summation of battle wins will lead you victory and the end of the conflict (ultimately peace). But the technique, whether it is a conventional air/sea/land strategy, engagement via proxy combatants, an insurgency operation, or asymmetric (4th Generation) warfare, or a nuclear strike scenario (or some combination thereof), is truly a functional decision based on any number of factors that have to be taken into consideration if there is to be a reasonable expectation of reaching the goal or objective. And this is no less true when considering the use of "terrorism as a tactic" as it is in the consideration of a "nuclear strike." And therein is the danger and the importance in the evolution of averting conflict in favor of peaceful settlements. It become a matter of functional tradecraft.
Rarely is it the case that either Brand "X" or Brand "Y" will take a seat at the conference table and negotiate for peace in good faith if either or both believe that they have a reasonable expectation of functionally defeating the other; assuming they have the will to sustain the conflict.
KEY: The paradigm is not driven by some higher moral value, but the functional ability to achieve the goal or objective. And to achieve a peaceful solution, something has to be introduced that inverts this paradigm.
In most conflicts (certainly not all) this is achieved by:
In this case, what we are suggesting is the development of a strategy that will approximate peace and cooperation between the belligerents in common cause. This is rare and requires a dramatic shift in the approach that both sides take in regards to the other. This is exceptionally difficult to accomplish.
- Breaking the will to continue the struggle; or,
- Achieving a point in which their is no expectation of success; or,
- Invalidating the original goal and objective; fruitless confrontation.
(COMMENT)José;7574269 said:All the human beings cited above were fully conscious that their actions were immoral, cruel and harmed innocent people despite the fact that they probably made a tremendous effort to rationalize their behavior,to portray themselves as the good guys and maybe even to avoid a burden of conscience that would be too great to bear.
But I agree with you that Palestinians should not only abandon terrorism but their entire armed struggle UNILATERALLY even though they argue it is unfair and ludicrous to demand total pacifism from them as long as the jewish state continues to deny their right to live in the western half of their homeland, as long as Israel does not agree to a long term plan that allow them to move freely in their homeland.
Again, rarely are major decisions made on the basis that it is: "the right thing to do." While I applaud your idea behind the abandonment of "terrorism" as a viable tactic, such a shift takes a considerable amount of coordination, popular support and time to implement. It is extremely hard to demonstrate to the opposite number and requires something dramatic to achieve the surprise and political shock value that would shift the way in which the opposite number perceives its former combatant.
The idea of inducing compromise by means of "unilateral action to disengage" is an advanced concept that bares risk and complexity in its implementation. Not saying that it cannot be done, but usually --- unilateral disengagement is done by the stronger of the two belligerents.
Rather (just an opinion), I suggest a coordinated disengagement that is executed in baby steps, given the duration of the conflict and the time it is going to take for the two concerned populations to adjust. It might start with the lifting of roadblock and travel restrictions coupled with an announce and program within the occupied population to avoid confrontations and demonstrations. This is going to require a much improved civil affair component and the soft hand of counterintelligence to maintain fingers on the pulse of the communities (both sides). In the mean time, behind the scenes, the Occupation Settlements are going to have to be gradually prepared (mentally and physically) to expect they will be dismantled. (Which requires a relocation program planned well in advance.)
There is no question that such an effort would require extraordinary tolerance on the part of the Occupation Force; as well as a strong and disciplined Palestinian Police to maintain law and order - and an internal security surveillance program to neutralize elements within the population that are slow to change and adapt. It is unreasonable to assume that in a population that has been under occupation restrictions for so long, that there will not be moments of weakness, confrontations erupt, and minor incidents escalate out of control from time to time. But a phased disengagement is preferable. And if the initial phase looks promising, external assistance will resume on a scale not attainable in the past.
(EPILOG)
Now, do I have a reasonable expectation that any of this will occur. No! At least not under the leadership current to either belligerent. While it might be said that one belligerent is more advanced than the other, it appears that both sides have been traumatized by six decades of conflict; and are both ruled by leaders that have not transitioned into the 21st Century. While Israel may have a superior advantage in commerce, industry and technology --- it is most clear that the leadership is rooted in 20th Century concepts and envision a model of Israel that has long since been overtaken by events; and they simply won't let it go and adapt. The Palestinian is simply an unknown quantity, even unto itself. While Palestine suffers similarly as Israel, being rooted in a model of Palestine that has long since been overtaken by events; it is also influence by adverse external influences that may retard its advancement even further. It is a fractured society on the mend.
Most Respectfully,
R
In this case, what we are suggesting is the development of a strategy that will approximate peace and cooperation between the belligerents in common cause. This is rare and requires a dramatic shift in the approach that both sides take in regards to the other. This is exceptionally difficult to accomplish.
