PDA

View Full Version : The Saudis Behavior in the U.S.


WhatsaLizad?
27th Apr 2002, 15:08
Below is an article about the Saudis during their visit to see President Bush in TX.

One of my companies pilots whose wife is an DFW enroute controller reported that the ladies were lined up sector to sector to handle the Prince's entourage which consisted of a G5, a 747 and a A340.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/politics/3147037.htm





Posted on Fri, Apr. 26, 2002

Air traffic controllers say Saudi prince wanted only men handling flights
BY JIM MORRIS
The Dallas Morning News

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah's representatives asked that women be barred from air traffic control duties when he traveled Thursday to Texas for a summit with President Bush, several Texas aviation officials say.

The request, honored on portions of the prince's flights between Houston and Waco, has angered some Texas air traffic personnel.

"I don't think his request should have even been passed on," said Mark Pallone, a regional vice president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "Our controllers are all qualified. We don't qualify people based on sex or religion."

Representatives of the Federal Aviation Administration and the State Department denied that the Saudis asked for special treatment.

"We have received no request from either the Saudis or the U.S. State Department that we provide any special services" to the prince, said FAA spokesman Roland Herwig. White House officials said they had no knowledge of any such request.

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told KHOU-TV in Houston: "I don't know where this news came from. I can say, without going back to our people, that is absolute nonsense that they would do something like that."

An FAA employee in Texas confirmed the incident, calling it "an outrage." Prince Abdullah is "in our country and should adhere to our rules," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The incident spotlights cultural differences between the United States and Saudi Arabia, where women are segregated in the workplace, banned from driving and forced to cover up from head to toe in public.

Texas aviation officials said the controversy began Thursday morning when members of the prince's entourage approached the manager of the Texas State Technical College airport in Waco, the airfield used by Bush and dignitaries visiting his ranch in nearby Crawford.

"Apparently, what happened is that an advance group of Saudi Arabians went in and talked to the airport manager and told him they did not want any females on the ramp and also said there should not be any females talking to the airplane," said Ruben Gonzalez, regional manager for RVA Inc., which operates the airport's control tower under a contract with the FAA.

The request was honored, Gonzalez said, and safety was in no way compromised. He said a male controller handled the prince's morning flight from Houston to Waco, with the female tower manager on the premises and ready to work, if necessary. Two male controllers guided the prince's afternoon flight back to Houston, he said.

"I had never had a request like this and thought it was odd," Gonzalez said. "But we did not do anything out of the ordinary. We just did our jobs."

Pallone, the union official, said the Saudis' male-only appeal made its way from the Waco airport to three FAA stations along the prince's route: the Waco approach control center and the Fort Worth and Houston en route centers.

During the morning flight to Waco, authorities in the Houston en route center "refused to comply" with the prince's request, Pallone said. The issue was moot in the Fort Worth en route center because an all-male crew already had been scheduled, he said. In the Waco center, he said, a male controller took charge of the prince's plane from a female controller.

During the return flight to Houston, only men were working in the Waco center, Pallone said. At least one woman was on duty in the Fort Worth center, he said, and Houston made no special arrangements.

Word of the Saudis' request spread quickly through FAA facilities in Texas.

"I've been a controller 24 years, and I've never heard of anything like this," said Dennis West, who works in the tower at Love Field in Dallas. "I was outraged, as were all the people I worked with, especially the females."

The FAA employee who requested anonymity was equally critical. "My understanding is that he (the prince) did not want any females to work him," the official said. "For us to accommodate that request is absolutely crazy."

The U.S. government has paid heed in the past to Saudi sensitivities, only recently jettisoning an Air Force policy requiring female American military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia to dress in traditional Muslim robes when they go off-base.

The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, noted that half the people aboard the crown prince's plane were female "hostesses."

"The role of women in Saudi Arabia is undergoing tremendous transformation," he said. "They make half the population. They are needed to bring the population to its full capacity."

The summit between Bush and the crown prince, who is Saudi Arabia's de facto leader, occurred against a backdrop of rising tensions between the two nations over U.S. policy in the Middle East and the commitment of Arab nations to rein in Islamic fundamentalists and fight terrorism.

---

© 2002, The Dallas Morning News.

Roadtrip
27th Apr 2002, 15:19
Sounds like the guy in Waco got way overcooperative. When dealing with the Saudi's, my first reaction to anything they want is to tell them to pound sand -- especially in light of recent revelations of them overtly supporting terror. If I were the guy in Waco, I'd call in every female worker on the airport and have them work every aspect of the flight. Does anybody know how to say "pound sand up your *utt" in arabic?

Wino
27th Apr 2002, 15:58
I agree,

Dealing with the Saudi's is like being a little bit of a whore. You either take money for sex or you don't. You either fight terrorism or you don't. You talk out of both sides or you don't

Its time to take all the money that we pour into that place in Military aid, pull our troops out and let em swing. Gas prices might go up, but it will certainly help the Oil producing countries of central and South America, Russia, the UK etc. Pour the Money into the Russian Oil field, help em squash the corruption and let Arabia become the backwater it was before they found oil.


Cheers
Wino

XL5
27th Apr 2002, 16:40
Better Yet. Set up a no-go-zone, take the oil fields and isolate the Saudis allowing them to stew in their own geographic slice of Islamic nirvana. They will of course object to this but so what? The first world has no use for the third, never did, never will.

nasib
27th Apr 2002, 17:46
>Below is an article about the Saudis during their visit to see >President Bush in TX.

Don't believe a word of it.

>Its time to take all the money that we pour into that place in >Military aid,...

Wino, do you ever actually consider what you write? Military aid to Saudi Arabia? They are one of the few countries in the world that actually pay for EVERYTHING they get, including the 'Gulf War'

WhatsaLizad?
27th Apr 2002, 18:21
Don't believe a word of it. nasib


nasib,

I first heard about this on 4/25. One of my companies pilots posted about the incident on our union bulletin board. He got a call from his wife who was on duty as a enroute ATC controller at the time. Notice the article published a day later.

Yes nasib, it is true.

virgin
27th Apr 2002, 18:30
Nasib
No. I don't think he does.
A look at Wino's rantings on the Bush sabre rattling thread will quickly remove any slight doubt you may have. His hatred of Arabs knows no limits.
Money for military aid which any other country gets from the US pales into insignificance compared to the fantastic sums they give to Israel. Naturally, Wino thinks that's OK. :rolleyes:

Doctor Cruces
27th Apr 2002, 18:34
If any Westerner visits Saudi, they are FORCED to adhere to the local customs. Any breach is rigorously jumped upon by the religious police etc. Can't even take books into the country that contradicts their medieval outlook.

It's time the west started to enforce OUR laws and mores on Arabs and other 3rd world dictators who visit our shores instead of trying to make it home from home for them.

Doc C.

Spelingz edit!

Old King Coal
27th Apr 2002, 20:24
Do you know that RIGHT NOW (as in RIGHT THIS SECOND) you can readily get booze, drugs, women, boys, camels, .... and basically anything you want in Saudi - it all depends on your race, your place of domicile, your wealth, and your regal position within that country.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is a closed society - as in, you need to be invited / sponsorered in order to visit it (something which not many westerners know about) - albeit that if you do indeed work there you're well reward ( because they're veritably short on people who can deliver the goods..... and they know it.

Ultimately, on a macro (e.g. inter governmental) level it's viewed very much a symbiotic relationship (e.g. the Saudi's say "You need our oil, and in return we need your skills - to say nothing of the defense of our despotic regime"), but at a micro (i.e. you against the Saudi state) level you'd better look after number one and or hope that you get away with it !

steamchicken
27th Apr 2002, 22:59
Well, they do have a number of UK citizens in a savage jail at the moment. They were accused of letting off bombs as "part of a feud between bootleggers". The bombs were almost certainly the work of Islamic extremists - especially as none of the accused had any military experience. The suspects were subjected to sleep deprivation, beatings, hunger, and were denied legal representation. Saudi TV showed their supposed confessions - however, they showed one confession before the date it was recorded:mad: and, after another bomb went off, showed a revised tape with the questions and answers edited into a different order! to make the new situation right!

One thing that stood out was the weirdness of Brits there, going to secretly-built pubs on Saturday lunchtimes to drink smuggled beer and eat a fryup of (also smuggled) bacon etc and to secretly-built churches to pray (those who do). Strangely like the position of the court-Jews in the old European empires - hated, in a precarious situation, practising their culture and national traditions in secret, but allowed to make money as being essential to a decadent ruling class. But what's the alternative? Saudi may be a dictatorial, hopeless junk-state, but all its neighbours hate it and want its oil and does anyone really think that the Royal Saudi armed forces, for all the fine weapons they get under the Al Yamamah contracts, could fight out of a wet paper bag?

unwiseowl
27th Apr 2002, 23:05
Roll on the day when they run out of oil.

Wino
28th Apr 2002, 03:00
So all those US troops deployed to Saudi Arabia are FREE? I got news for you. That forward deployment costs the US taxpayer way more than the Aid that Israel gets. Its all these foward deployments that are killing the US military. THis is as good a place as any to start pulling the horns in.

Pull all our troops out. Let Saddam have the place. If Saddam doesn't play nice than we take out Saddam and get arabia in the bonus.

Cheers
Wino

AA SLF
28th Apr 2002, 03:45
wino -

I like your basic idea very much. However, I would NOT wait for Saddam to play nice or not. As soon as he completes doing Saudi Arabia his troops will be over-extended with depleted supplies as well. That would be the time to take him out - before he can sell the Kuwait & Saudi oil to replenish his troops. Of course, when done with Saddam we could just turn our eyes EAST a few hundred miles for those fields in the Baku area. Yes - I like it very much! :)

WhatsaLizad?
28th Apr 2002, 04:30
Frankly, my own personal and somewhat savage view is this;

As a U.S. citizen I am slightly troubled with the talk of Iraq painted as a sponsor of Islamic terrorism without the public admition of the covert sponsorship and support the Saudi money had in the acts of 9/11.

I would give Saddam the green light for a road trip to Yemen with this understanding; We will make you very rich, you will control the Arabian pensinula, yet if you threaten us or our allies, you will die by any means known to man.


I may be naive, but I think this meglomainac cares more about this life than the afterlife. He should be dealt with respectively.

distaff_beancounter
28th Apr 2002, 07:53
I understand that a western women in Saudi Arabia would be arrested if found driving a car. Saudi Arabia always enforces ITS laws on westerners.

So, in this instance, why hasn't the USA taken action under the USA laws on sex descrimination? :mad:

flapsforty
28th Apr 2002, 08:38
Interesting thread, interesting country. Happily surprised to see how many of you are so bothered about discrimination against women.
Having read pprune for a bit over 2 years, I would have figured many of the males here hold views on women not very dissimilar to what the Saudi's proclaim. :D

Having said that, I personally regret the fact that we do not slip in The Kingdom any more. Bought my own black tent to be able to move around the place freely when we still did, and I have come to feel great affection for both the country and it's people.
The are a proud lot, hospitable to a fault, ever willing to show off the many beauties of their land to open-minded foreigners.

In our western eyes there is a lot wrong with the place, but if you shift your focus ever so slightly, the Saudis have come a long long way in a very short time.

So, let's see if we can discuss this thing without descending into the pits of xenophobia within 24 hours?

Tartan Gannet
28th Apr 2002, 08:46
Im 100% with Wino and most of the others here on this.

I was incandescent with rage when, during the Gulf War, UK troops in Saudi Arabia were ordered NOT to celebrate Christmas for fear of offending Saudi Islamic beliefs. (Forget the fact that Jesus is an honoured Prophet in Islam as is his Mother whom I believe they call Miriam).

Well, if feel if Thatcher had still been PM then, not the whimp John Major, a very stiff retort would have been received to the effect that our Lads would be called home for the Christmas Break and that if a certain Iraqi gentleman who is 65 today wanted to pay them a social call, then that was fine by her!

When in Rome, and if I ever went to Saudi, (a country which, like the USA, I have absolutely NO wish to visit), then I would abide by their rules even if I personally think they are stupid. No Glenmorangie, no bacon sandwiches, no chilled Lager, a very sad Gannet indeed! They could stuff the inflated salary such a job would command.

So if a Saudi Royal is flying in non Islamic airspace , he will just have to accept the gender etc of the ATCO dealing with his flight. Who knows, in the USA it may even have been a JEWISH male! Shock Horror on Saudi Flight Deck!

BTW I have heard some disgusting stories about the state that well off Saudis leave hotel rooms in London. When let off their Islamic Moral leash in the land of the Infidel, they really "go to town" with women, drink, drugs etc. Of course money cures all in commerce and more than enough funds are given to night porters, bell hops, etc, etc, to cover up any indiscretions and clean up the rooms afterwards.

nasib
28th Apr 2002, 09:02
You are all missing the point. In the UK (and I assume in the USA) ALL communications with ATC are recorded, phone calls and radio transmissions. Can we then have some proof of this request for male controllers only?

As I said before, it is not true.

virgin
28th Apr 2002, 09:21
If this story is true, I agree with the criticism.
I continue to be disgusted by Wino's unrestrained hatred of Arabs and his complete lack of respect for human life in the Middle East unless it's a Jewish life.

As for US aid, what follows is an excerpt from a post on another thread.
1. Israel $4,130,000,000.00
2. Egypt $2,060,000,000.00
3. Colombia $1,360,000,000.00
4. Africa (the lot) $1,340,000,000.00
5. Palestinian Territories $512,000,000.00
6. Jordan $428,000,000.00
7. Kosovo $216,000,000.00
8. Russia $209,000,000.00
9. Ukraine $202,000,000.00
10. Georgia $141,000,000.00

Again, figures for the year 2000, for the Israeli Army are as follows.
Israeli Army Budget $7,000,000,000.00
US contribution to budget $3,200,000,000.00

I'm glad I'm not a US taxpayer, and glad I don't know how much the UK gives Israel. I hope nothing, but you never know.

sirwa69
28th Apr 2002, 10:15
The last time I was in Saudi (about 1 hour ago) I was in a shopping mall in Khobar. Quite a few western women walking about shopping dressed in normal conservative dresses and trousers. This is becoming the norm there now. (Eastern province)
If I wanted a drink or a bacon sandwich then all I would need to do is pop in to see a mate. In fact while several thousand Saudis come across the causeway every weekend to get drunk and laid I know quite a few expats who go to Saudi because the partys are better there
:eek:

As for the guys locked up in jail for the bombings. An ex-coleauge of mine an American gentleman is currently one of the guys locked up for being involved in the booze smuggling ring. He was pretty near the top of it. There are a couple of guys here in Bahrain who have so far managed to escape the attention of the authorities. The point I am making is that this did happen and that Expats were involved. These bombs were NOT the work of Islamic fundementalists but were the work of western organised crime.
:eek:

One of my mates, who worked for Coka Cola got blown up and lost his sight. Just because something happens in Saudi does not necesarrily mean it was caused by Saudi's.
If you have never been there then Shut up you have no idea. :mad: :mad:

10W
28th Apr 2002, 10:31
Interesting concept Wino and AA SLF. Taking over other countries and grabbing their resources.

We had a guy like that in Europe once called Adolf Hitler. You should both be ashamed of yourselves. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Like Flaps, I too have found Arab people to be very warm and hospitable in my experience .... just as I have with a great many Americans. The difference being that in the Arab country I was more or less not allowed to pay for anything as I was seen very much as their guest. They are a proud people, who have their own culture and social rules. Friendship and hospitality is very high on their agenda. As with any country I visit, I respect the local rules and customs. If they are not to your liking, then should you really be travelling there ?? Everywhere has it's faults ... we have Tony Blair in the UK, the US experience starts with their Immigration staff ........... and for each country and people you can point out something that goes against your own personal views and likes.

Unfortunately, it is never the vast majority of normal people who get the headlines and the glory .... it is the bigots, the terrorists, the politicians, and all the the others who preach, incite, and carry out hatred. For some people in here, everyone is judged as one of these types simply because they have the same faith, race, or religion as those who are causing all the misery. Wouldn't it be sad if I judged all Americans by the standards of Wino and AA SLF ???

I DON'T

Flaps, can we please ban anyone in here who continues to incite violence, invasions, and racial hatred ?? There's not too many of them but they are easy to spot.

SET 18
28th Apr 2002, 11:27
On a similar vein, the Swedes do not allow the Saudis to build a mosque on the site of the Saudi embassy in Stockholm. They have told the Saudis that, until the Swedes are allowed to build a church at their place in Riyadh, the Saudis will not be allowed to worship in Sweden.

I have only heard this story second hand, but if it is true then well done the Swedes....quite a bit of backbone for such a neutral country.

Why we all do not behave in such a way towards them I will never know. Islam is making inroads into all of our societies because we seem to allow it to. Nothing wrong with that, I know, but why are we not allowed to practice our religion in their nations?

Having just returned from the Afghanistan conflict I was based in an Islamic country and was told, pre-deployment that I would not be allowed to take a bible with me. That is a terrible indictment of a supposedly tolerant religion.

Flying Lawyer
28th Apr 2002, 12:01
10W
I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Having read Wino's hate-filled contributions to another thread, I expect no better from him. Sadly, others are joining him.
The final paragraph of TG's post is racist stereo-typing which, in my view, is offensive and unacceptable.

Tartan Gannet
28th Apr 2002, 12:31
Yes good for the normally whimpy, Politically Correct, Swedes.

Now I tolerate ALL religions as to me they are all man-made and thus flawed, but contain SOME element of truth.

Tolerate does NOT mean pander to however. If we have to obey strict Islamic Laws in Saudi or other such countries and are restricted in our behaviour and the practice of our religious beliefs there then they should have to endure similar restrictions here.

If I ran a business with a canteen I would NOT provide Halal Food, if any of my employees wanted this they could bring their own grub. I cant after all have roast pork and a nice glass of white wine in Saudi or some other Islamic States can I?

Now I can only assume the Blair New Labour Administration can see an electoral advantage in they way they cowtow to Islamics in the UK. I have read that the controversial religion question in the 2001 UK Census was put in to satisfy the demands of Islamic authorities who were really upset when it was forced to be made VOLUNTARY at least this time, thanks to the sterling efforts of some Tory Backbenchers who were treated with opprobrium by the Blairite Lackeys on the Government Benches. Imagine if the RCs or the Jews had asked for this ??????

No, as far as I am concerned, if you wish to practice any belief system or ethic customs then that's fine by me as long as it doesnt breach UK Laws. Dont however ask for any special favours or facilities. Planning Permission for a Mosque should be treated no differently than that for a Church, Synagogue, Temple, Gurdwara, Friends Meeting House, Kingdom Hall, etc. Practices such as female Circumcision, even if legal in their Country of Origin, should be banned under criminal law here in the UK (if it isnt already so). If you dont like this, then I suggest you go to a country where your particular culture is in charge, be that Saudi Arabia or wherever.


The Jean Marie Le Pen result last week in France is an indicator of how a backlash can occur when the indigenous people of a country perceive themselves to be put in second place to minorities who appear to be enjoying special privileges at their expense. Some common sense is needed and all the cringeing piety needs to be swept away. Let's afford EQUAL rights to all but no special favours to any.

I work with Islamics, I respect their rights but require that they accord similar respect to mine in my native land. If I visit Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, (both highly unlikely venues for me), then I would likewise abide by their rules, like them or not.

In fine, I abhor all the special pleadings, quotas, exemptions, positive discrimination, affirmative actions, etc which the Race Relations Industry in the UK have obtained over the last 30 years. Certainly inciting race hatred or using deliberately insulting language, ( the N or W words etc), should be a crime, as should deliberately excluding people from housing, employment etc by virtue of their colour or ethnicity, but that is as far as it should go. People of ANY ethnicity should stand on their own two feet and progess or otherwise on their merits. Over the centuries the Jews, Irish, Poles, and other nationalities have made it the hard way in the UK and now occupy some of the highest and most influential positions in the Land. To have to tilt the balance and give special considerations to Black and Asian people is an insult both to them and the whites with whom they are competing.

(TG, ensures CIW system and AA Guns on the roof of his flat are active to deal with incoming fire from enraged "liberals".)

Hoverman
28th Apr 2002, 13:40
TG
Agree with your last post. Never understood why we do it. But the final para of your previous post was offensive and silly.

10W
I agree.
The only minor consolation is seeing Wino show his true colours. After pages of hypocracy and pretence in the 'sabre rattling' discussion, his expansionist views are at last clear. The leaders of his beloved Israeli government would be proud of him.

steamchicken
28th Apr 2002, 15:12
ANNOUNCEMENT: I don't agree in any way at all with Wino..

Here's a useful link: http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,706588,00.html

Wino
28th Apr 2002, 15:36
10W

I think I will go with the example of the British Empire rather than Hitler. After all the Sun never set on the British Empire. Pretty impressive statement for a relatively small Island, more recently than Hitler I might add. And while we are comparing the massacres, a little research turns up that the only massacre that ever happened in Jenin was in 1938 by the British when they got fed up by Palestinians.

As far as the Saudi's go, If 15-20 Americans went in as a colaborative group into ANY country it would AUTOMATICALLY be assumed that it was a CIA plot to overthrow the government, slaughter the civilians etc.

The FACT is that Saudi Arabia supports terrorism. They got telethons on TV right now (STATE RUN television, not free market television) raising money for terrorists. You got to know who your friends are.

Embargos are an act of war. Its one of the reason that I oppose most of the US's embargos. They rarely hurt the target of the embargo but they certainly hurt the civilian populations and indirectly the USA by building up resentment against the USA. By threatening an Oil embargo, the Saudi's are coming into our house and threatening us with war. And for this we PAY?

The cost of deploying those troops and manning the Saudi defenses are well over 10 billion a year. Forward deployment of troops is ENOURMOUSLY expensive and it eats into procurement and readiness, something which is desperately needed by the US military right now. That 10 billion is gone forever. Atleast the Israeli aid come mostly back to the US as military purchases which then lowers the Unit cost of the weapons that the US is also buying. The Saudi Aid may not appear as a neat collumn in the export of USA cash, but it is most certainly an expense picked up by the Pentagon budget, and budget very much under strain. Make no mistake it is AID.

We came to the aid of the Saudi's to protect them from Saddam. They may say nice things to us in some media outlets, but for domestic consumption they are suprisingly ungrateful (as are the Kuwaities for that matter).

I actually believe that the gulfwar was a result of a misunderstanding. (most wars probably are, the name of the game is to steal as much as you can without having to fight, I doubt Hitler thought Europe would fight over Poland after they rolled over so many times in the years leading up to the invasion of Poland.) Prior to the invasion of Kuwait Saddam was one of those "Our guy" dictators. HE got his wires crossed about Kuwait and then couldn't bring himself to backdown and the rest is history. His behavior in the aftermath has been extremely unfortunate because it precludes his being rehabbed, and indeed has lead 2 a second gulf war looming.

Cheers
Wino

Tartan Gannet
28th Apr 2002, 15:57
I mentioned the Saudi businessmen trashing hotel bedrooms, even if they DO pay to put matters right, as an example of their hypocrisy. Their Islamic beliefs condemn the use of alcohol and have strict rules regarding sexal morals. I have no problem with that, but DO have with those who apply such rules to all both their own people and non Islamic visitors at home, but waive the rules for themselves when abroad. Incidentally, I also condemn British Lager Louts when they rampage overseas.

As to this being a "racial stereotype" that smacks of the politically correct cringeing behaviour that has become all too prevalent these days and indeed is part of the problem.

If for example Black men were found to be more likely to commit certain crimes, then let that fact be know, dont hide it because they are Black. Likewise publicise the GOOD facts about a particular race, ethnicity, etc. Then we can know all the aspects, good and bad. One Afro-Carribean friend of mine once said that he will know that Blacks have really arrived when Hollywood and the BBC are willing to cast them as the Bad Guys in films and dramas. In the old days they were shown as figures of ridicule and fun, the jive dancing Blackman shown as a servant, railcar attendant, boot-black etc. Then there was the "Blacks can do no wrong" over compensation, they HAD to be shown to be the Good Guy, the heroes or the victims. In REAL life there are good and bad in all and this should be shown as such. Likewise taking the Head in the Sands approach to adverse behavior by a particular group is moral cowardice.

I have no time for Le Pen, nor the BNP nor the NF and have friends of ALL races and creeds, genders and sexual orientations. I do consider them all on their merits , weigh up their good points and their bad, and judge them accordingly as they no doubt judge me. What I DONT do is to make any special allowances for any of them because of their origins.

Let's cut the cackle on this and get down to the problems which exist. Failure to honestly address these matters will play into the hands of the Le Pens of this world and their BNP equivalents in the UK.

Paterbrat
28th Apr 2002, 16:24
Since I have the teashirt I might as well put in my two cents worth. There may well have been some comment made by a member of the Saudi delegation with regard to women. No government delegation, of any nationality, is exempt from the dimbo who has no concept of how his comments might be taken no matter how well intentioned they might have been( with his boss in mind). If there was a indeed such a request it should simply have been politely ignored
That Saudis are religously intolerant within their own country is fact. They have their own laws and foriegners are obliged to abide by them. There is no tolerance at all for opposition, dissent or other opinions. Those are their laws and if one doesn't like it don't go there. The people from there who travel outside, if they are religeous, will probably continue to behave as they do within their own borders. Those who are constrained by law and local custom to coform to the more rigid lifestyle within the kingdom than they find outside, will indeed probably relax and enjoy the freedoms that they have discovered outside, and who can blame them for doing so.
The recent bomb blasts in Riyadh were almost certainly caused by expat Brits in a turf war about booze. The facts are that the price of a case of JW Black label is about 7000 SR so at an exchange rate of 4.45 SR to the pound 131 quid a bottle. Massive returns on duty free!! The ringleader was an extremely unsavoury brit who was known to have been in the business for a long time. The Saudis had not long before released as an act of clemancy two Brit nurses who had been heavily implicated in the murder and robbery from an Australian collegue. Their reward was the two nurses going back to UK and then giving newspaper stories about their inhuman treatment. Small wonder that the Saudi's now insist that the people they hold should make full declarations of their implication to the world press. Yes they were probably questioned vigorously, probably no it was probably not out and out torture. Yes I think they probably were guilty as charged
The feeling here is if you can't face the time don't do the crime. Anyone here knows full well the consequences and it is not a namby pamby justice system that lets people off willy nilly, and yes I do think the criminal justice system in the UK is a joke. It is about as hillareous as the controls on immigration.
I have been priviliged as a consequence of my job, to travel the world. I have met, mixed with and enjoyed a multitude of nationalities and on the whole have found people everywhere to be concerned with the same general worries as all of us wherever we come from. Just getting through the day coping with life and trying to earn a crust and look after the wife and kids.
On the whole I would say that giving your neighbor a bit of room, trying to see the problem from the other guys point of view before one launches of on one's own dearly held opinion does help. Zealots and people who simply will not consider anyones viewpoint but their own do make life just a little more difficult for the rest. It's a great life when there is a bit of tolerance around, and hell for us all when there is none.

Tartan Gannet
28th Apr 2002, 16:31
Fair points Paterbrat. A sensible and non-emotive reply to the points raised from a man who has lived there. No trying to whitewash the issue.

Now if others can follow your lead, let's go for it.

I will be honest, Islam is NOT one of my favourite religions but as long as it keeps its tenets out of my life in my own country I will live and let live. Where I to go to an Islamic Country I would naturally abide by its laws and regulations, but as I have said I have absolutely NO desire whatsoever to go to most of them.

flapsforty
28th Apr 2002, 16:49
TG, if we cut down the cackle this whole thread woud not exist.
While I have personally seen some of those hotel rooms you mention, what problem is it of ours? You say hypocrisy? So what? Who are we to impose our own western mind set on others?
In the same way, we do not need to bow to their attempts at imposition, like the subject that started off this thread.

I can live fine with them trying a thing like that.
I mean, you believe in something enough, you gonna try and get it your way.
It's the westerners giving in to such demands that are to blame IMHO.
Whores, like somebody else has said.

10W with you on the hatred thing, but I'm not superwoman nor Solomon, nor am I here 24/7.
So perhaps some self-moderation from participants could help in making sure a thread like this can run in JB?
Reading Paterbrat's posts often helps to calm one's mind I find.
But.......erm..........Paterbrat?
Would "trying to earn a crust and look after the husband and kids be all-right as well? :)

Wino
28th Apr 2002, 17:01
HOVERMAN,

No hypocracy, sorry to disappoint you. Its very simple. You are either for or against Terrorism. Like Yasser Arafat, the Saudi's are talking out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing to us and raising money for suicide bombers out of the other side.

Cheers
Wino

Paterbrat
28th Apr 2002, 17:21
You know Flaps the thought did flit across my mind that that was a bit sexist, yup your absolutely right. My humble appologies. And for those who didn't realise it, although it may seem a terrible place for women here, they do enjoy quite a lot of influence behind the scenes despite the bad press.

Wino I have read your posts and I do not agree with those who have described you as passionately hating all things Arab. I have noted your vigorous defence of Israel and in a lot of cases have agreed with many of the points that you make, for you do make points that are extremely pertinant. I certainly don't believe you have much time for the Arabs, and am with you on the opposition to terrorism, but I also have to say that there are a few points where Israel has not been helped by zealotry amongst the ultra-orthodox. Let's face it fanatics of any stripe are an anathema to reasonable people anywhere, and a wise man who tempers his arguments with an appreciation of the difficulties experienced by the other side is to my mind doubly convincing.

Wino
28th Apr 2002, 17:34
Yep, I'm with you paterbrat. Zealots are a problem all around.

But for all the ISrael bashers that LEAPED to the conclusion that Israel was massacreing people in Jenin. (It reminded some people of the warsaw ghetto)

How about Apologizing and admitting that you were played by the press.

Israel is being progressively cleared. It is now almost an exclusive debate about property destruction, certainly not a massacre or attrocity.

Cheers
Wino

ORAC
28th Apr 2002, 21:54
Sorry Wino, can't agree. The statements now being printed in the Israeli press made by those who participated say otherwise.

Was it deliberatelt planned? Probably not. I can imagine the military were just given their head. Only now is it being being realised what they did. Which is why the politicians are now backing down and panicking.

Are the politicians such as Sharon who started it responsible or only the poor reservists who did it?

Depends on who, if anyone, ends up in court.

On which point it is interesting that the papers today say that the Israeli retreat from authorisation for the UN visit started when it was pointed out that any evidence would be considered admissable at any subsequent war crimes case at the International court.

Tartan Gannet
28th Apr 2002, 21:56
Wino, Im with you all the way in support of Israel!

Now just consider this. Adolf Eichmann was probably the most hated man after Hitler to all Jews. Mossad tracked him to South America. What did they do? Simply shoot him there and then? NO! he was taken to Israel and given a fair trial with due process, even to the extent of having a bullet proof screen to protect him while in Court. Only then after due process of law was he given the fate he truly deserved.

Again, Israel is a parlimentary democracy. There is an Opposition, even Arab Members of the Knesset.

Now contrast that if you will with the various Arab States which surround Israel.

Bear in mind also the pledge of the Arab States to "drive Israel into the sea!". Many wars later and they sulk licking their wounds.

No, Wino, count me in as a supporter of Israel. Its just a pity Golda Meir didnt annex and incorporate the Left Bank and the Golan after the six days war and stuff that ineffectual talking shop, the Tower of Babel in New York aka the UN, and its pious resolutions.

Send Clowns
28th Apr 2002, 22:24
ORAC the boasts made by Palestinian militants on Arab radio that the whole of Janine was packed so full of explosive traps it was basically one bomb, and that the remaining civilian population knew exactly where these were for there own 'safety' suggests that in this one thing Wino is correct, and you have been taken in by the left-leaning western media. The Israelis knew exactly what was going on, and dealt with it, with remarkably few casualties on either side. They have not lost the great military skill for which they are renowned, nor the tough, direct approach.

Janine was a UN camp. A 'refugee' camp that has been there for 50 years. The UN allowed it to be used to plan and execute a campaign of terror across Israel. Do you not see a reason that Israel will not trust the UN?

When a politician is shouted down in the House of Commons for trying to explain a reasonable view of the Palestinian/Israel problem that happens to defend Israel, I worry far more than whe some crank far-right party makes a marginal, symbolically-important gain. Too many people are trying to simplify the problems into "this side is at fault because of that" in an issue that has no simple cause nor solution.

Hoverman
28th Apr 2002, 22:25
Wino
I won't respond. I despise all terrorism, whether by a democratically elected government or by extremist groups; there we differ. Our views on what constitute terrorism, what constitutes an atrocity, the destruction of innocent people's homes etc are clearly irreconcilable.
That said, you have some support from two contributors from opposite extremes of the JetBlast intelligence spectrum. One, who gives you qualified support, thinks you've made some points that are "extremely pertinant" (so do I). The other gives you an enthusiastic unqualified "with you all the way."
I leave you to decide which is which! ;)

Send Clowns
28th Apr 2002, 22:33
P.S. and if you don't believe me or the Israelis, how about Red Cross Bomb disposal? And it seems Tony's friends have been naughty over there too :mad:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/28/nira28.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/04/28/ixnewstop.html

Wino
28th Apr 2002, 22:35
So basically Hoverman,

You hold the view that no sovereign state has the right of self defense. By your own definition you are then living in a terrorist state, or did EVERY single bomb in world war II fall on a soldier? Nobody's houses were destroyed? Hmmmmm?

It is now being released what happened at Oslo and Arafat is looking worse and worse. Enjoy your petty little dictator. People from the Clinton Administration were all over the news today. These were peoplewho were in the room with Arafat...

Furthermore, Israel's objection to the commision was about WHO was on it. The "Good Gentleman" from the red Cross was the one that kept Israel out of the redcross for 6 years because the Israeli's use the star of david, and "If they allowed the star of david they would half to use the swassticka as well" Yeah, that guy is gonna be fair. It needs to be made up of people experienced in close quarters warfare, not politicians. You don't let politicians investigate a plane crash do you? The only answer would be well, we have all these dead bodies, obviously we can't have planes flying...

But again, go and get suckered by the press. It happened to me too. If you ever bother and go overthere first hand and investigate what you are being fed by the so called free and neutral press you will get tired of being made a fool of and realize that the Israeli line, while not always pleasant, is FAR closer to the truth. I don't like being played for a fool. Sharon may be tough talking and unpleasant, but he is not a LIAR. You can't work with a liar.

Cheers
Wino

Hoverman
28th Apr 2002, 23:19
There you go again, Wino.
"So basically Hoverman, You hold the view that no sovereign state has the right of self defense."
I said nothing of the sort, I certainly don't hold that view and, if you knew anything about my career, you'd know how silly your suggestion is.
I know you consider Israel is acting solely in self defence. I do not. I am not taken in by the pro Israeli propaganda to that effect fed to us daily.

"Enjoy your petty little dictator."
Again! Like you, I have no time for Arafat whom I regard as a ruthless extremist whose claims to want peace are not to be trusted. However, unlike you, I'd apply precisely the same description to Sharon.

We could go on arguing for ever, but there's little chance of us persuading the other. I criticise both sides for this mess; you, in contrast, haven't once criticised Israel's conduct currently or historically. Nor have you once conceded that anyone who's disagreed with you has made a good point. (I'm referring to both threads.)
There's simply no basis or middle ground for intelligent debate when someone adopts that approach. Let's just agree to differ.

Send Clowns
28th Apr 2002, 23:36
Hoverman on what evidence do you suggest that Israel was acting in anything apart from self defence in Janine? I'm afraid I would have to agree with Wino that any investigationis likely to be political, and Israel has little reason to trust foreign politics. Historically any such trust has been misplaced for the Israelis ...

Did you look at my link to see a Red Cross worker's experience of Palestinian Janine?

Tartan Gannet
29th Apr 2002, 00:05
Yes SC, points well put. Now are you the intelligent one or the other end of the spectrum.

Now as I have said in the past, Im only really left of centre on Economic and Industrial Relations matters. On other points please dont count me in with the rather sad old lefties. I DONT wear a duffle coat, read the New Statesman (boring), want to Ban the Bomb, nor support the Philistines against Israel and I completely agree with Wino on how to handle terrorists, (wish WE had done that more often!).

I have never understood why British so called "informed" opinion from our Foreign Office onwards, not to mention the Arab Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), are so hostile to Israel. It was Britain after all that made the Balfour Declaration and we administered the Mandate in the then Palestine until 1948.

So again, SC we have a meeting of minds, on yet another topic.

Now that I am quitting being a wage slave for a short while what about a drink in Wokingham some time?

TG

Wino
29th Apr 2002, 02:08
I suspect that atleast some of the AntiIsrael is a cover for how badly the British behaved. View this article and ponder. And incase anyone else didn't notice. THis is 10 years before Israel existed, but it still must be the Israeli's fault. Yet another example of "Do as I say, not as I do!" brought to you by Europe, and as this article shows, the hypocracy is yours hoverman, not mine. One of my prime objections to the treatment of Israel by Europe has been the double standard to which it has been held. WHat is OK for other countries to do is not For Israel, yet it is okay for Israeli's to be indiscriminately slaughtered.





How the British Fought Arab Terror in Jenin
Dr. Rafael Medoff
21 April 2002 Email this story
Print this story




“Demolishing the homes of Arab civilians…” “Shooting handcuffed prisoners…” “Forcing local Arabs to test areas where mines may have been planted…” These sound like the sort of accusations made by British and other European officials concerning Israel´s recent actions in Jenin. In fact, they are descriptions from official British documents concerning the methods used by the British authorities to combat Palestinian Arab terrorism in Jenin and elsewhere in 1938.

The documents were declassified by London in 1989. They provide details of the British Mandatory government´s response to the assassination of a British district commissioner by a Palestinian Arab terrorist in Jenin in the summer of 1938. Even after the suspected assassin was captured (and then shot dead while allegedly trying to escape), the British authorities decided that “a large portion of the town should be blown up” as punishment. On August 25 of that year, a British convoy brought 4,200 kilos of explosives to Jenin for that purpose. In the Jenin operation and on other occasions, local Arabs were forced to drive “mine-sweeping taxis” ahead of British vehicles in areas where Palestinian Arab terrorists were believed to have planted mines, in order “to reduce [British] land mine casualties.” The British authorities frequently used these and similar methods to combat Palestinian Arab terrorism in the late 1930s. British forces responded to the presence of terrorists in the Arab village of Miar, north of Haifa, by blowing up house after house in October 1938. “When the troops left, there was little else remaining of the once busy village except a pile of mangled masonry,” the New York Times reported. The declassified documents refer to an incident in Jaffa in which a handcuffed prisoner was shot by the British police.

Under Emergency Regulation 19b, the British Mandate government could demolish any house located in a village where terrorists resided, even if that particular house had no direct connection to terrorist activity. Mandate official Hugh Foot later recalled: “When we thought that a village was harbouring rebels, we´d go there and mark one of the large houses. Then, if an incident was traced to that village, we´d blow up the house we´d marked.” The High Commissioner for Palestine, Harold MacMichael, defended the practice: “The provision is drastic, but the situation has demanded drastic powers.” MacMichael was furious over what he called the “grossly exaggerated accusations” that England´s critics were circulating concerning British anti-terror tactics in Palestine. Arab allegations that British soldiers gouged out the eyes of Arab prisoners were quoted prominently in the Nazi German press and elsewhere.

The declassified documents also record discussions among officials of the Colonial Office concerning the anti-terror methods used in Palestine. Lord Dufferin remarked: “British lives are being lost and I don´t think that we, from the security of Whitehall, can protest squeamishly about measures taken by the men in the frontline.” Sir John Shuckburgh defended the tactics on the grounds that the British were confronted “not with a chivalrous opponent playing the game according to the rules, but with gangsters and murderers.”

There were many differences between British policy in the 1930s and Israeli policy today, but two stand out. The first is that the British, faced with a level of Palestinian Arab terrorism considerably less lethal than that which Israel faces today, nevertheless utilized anti-terror methods considerably harsher than those used by Israeli forces. The second is that when the situation became unbearable, the British could go home; the Israelis, by contrast, have no other place to go.
----------------------------------

Wino
29th Apr 2002, 02:34
See, I don't just read CNN and the Post... Here is more on the subject. What is also interesting was that as it turns out the British Gov't may have egged on the Arabs in 48 so that they wouldn't lose "Influence" in the region. Aparently Downing street was worried that Israel would form a neutral block with its Arab neighbors and that by having a war with Israel, the Arab country would need Great Britain. Lovely...



BRITAIN BLOCKED PEACE BETWEEN ARAB STATES AND ISRAEL

Secret diplomatic documents show several Arab states were willing to conclude peace agreements with Israel 40 years ago, but were partly dissuaded from doing so by Britain, then the pre-eminent Western power in the Middle East. The classified British documents, each bearing the stamps Secret, Top Secret, Restricted and Confidential, show that Britain, which had military treaties with several Arab states, worked incessantly to prevent the establishment of peaceful relations between the new state of Israel and its Arab neighbours, especially Transjordan (now Jordan). British diplomats were apparently afraid that an Arab-Israeli peace might lead the Arabs to be less pro-Western, and they therefore urged Arab leaders not to make peace. King Abdullah (grandfather of Jordan's present King Hussein) was anxious to come to agreement with Israel, but was restrained by Britain.

The disclosure were made in highly secret minutes of a gathering of British Foreign Office representatives and ambassadors to the Middle East held on July 21 1949, at the time the first Arab-Israeli war ended. Sir Alec Kirkbride, the British Minister to Transjordan, whose comments were summarised in the minutes of the 1949 gathering, noted that many key members of the Transjordanian Government shared Abdullah's peaceful intentions toward Israel, but they probably could be persuaded to change their minds.

Sir Ronald Campbell, Britain's ambassador to Egypt, told the assembled diplomats that the Egyptians had no intention of renewing the quarrel (with Israel) and would probably agree to a modus vivendi (a compromise arrangement), although they were not yet prepared to accept a formal agreement. Egypt might be willing later to join other Arab states in making agreements with Israel. Sir John Troutbeck, then head of Britain's Middle East office, said certain Arab Governments wished to conclude peace with Israel but were afraid of doing so independently. He added that Britain was in a position to control the Arab Governments but not Israel, although he gave a warning that an Arab- Israeli peace might lead to the formation of a neutral block opposing British interests in the Middle East.

The minutes of the 1949 meeting were among several documents that apparently slipped through the net of official secrecy surrounding British diplomacy. From these documents, it appears that even the Arab regimes in Syria and Iraq have been willing - according to British estimates - to reach some kind of settlement with Israel even as early as 1949, but British policy makers played on the Arab-Israeli rivalry to advance British military and economic interests from Suez to the Gulf.

In another passage from the minutes, Britain's Minister to Syria is reported to have said that Marshal (Husni) Zaim (then military ruler of Syria) wished to reach a settlement but he doubted he (Zaim) would get Cabinet support. Zaim would probably follow Egypt.

The British Minister in Beirut said Lebanon would no doubt follow the other Arab states and was unlikely to conclude any agreement independently.

Britain's fear that Israel might form a neutral block with the Arab states also came to light in a nine-page memorandum - marked Secret, and dated August 25 1949 - to the British Cabinet from Mr Ernest Bevin, then Foreign Secretary. In paragraph 20 of the memorandum, Mr Bevin remarked that Britain did not oppose peaceful relations and trade between Israel and the Arab countries as long as Israel did not get to the point of dominating them (the Arabs) economically and so politically, and thus perhaps imposing its own views of neutrality on the Arab world.

The Arab League, according to several Cabinet documents and diplomatic correspondence, was used by Britain to further its own interests, while limiting the influence of the Soviet Union, France, the United States and Israel. (The Times January 1983)



Derek White

(c) Christian Friends of Israel UK 2000

Reg.Charity No. 1051316

411A
29th Apr 2002, 03:47
Well guys, take it from one that has "been there, done that"....when you go and work in Saudi Arabia, you look past all the nonsense...and smile at your bankbook each and every month...then when you have a sense of humor failure, you leave....and smile at your bankbook.
I found that many of ther older Saudi's had quite a westernized sense of humor.....and could nearly always drink you under the table. Went to a party one time hosted by the chief of Royal protocal in JED years ago....and he had the biggest liquor cabinet I have ever seen, eight feet tall and six feet wide....completely stocked with every brand known to man.
And, quite true about the Brits keeping the pot boiling in the Middle East during the late 40's early 50's....but of course they will deny this today. They have done the west no favors, thats for sure.

Caslance
29th Apr 2002, 07:29
There are two imaginary countries, State A and State B

State A:
1) has a large and well-equipped military;
2) has developed weapons of mass-destruction in violation of international treaties;
3) has invaded one or more of it's immediate neighbours in recent times;
4) consistently ignores UN resolutions, and refuses UN inspection to verify it's compliance or non-compliance with said resolutions;
5) has commissioned acts of assassination and kidnapping against it's enemies in foreign countries;
6) is in armed conflict with internal terrorists from a different "ethnic group";
7) has attempted to destabilise the governments of one or more of it's immediate neighbours.

State B:
1) has a large and well-equipped military;
2) has developed weapons of mass-destruction in violation of international treaties;
3) has invaded one or more of it's immediate neighbours in recent times;
4) consistently ignores UN resolutions, and refuses UN inspection to verify it's compliance or non-compliance with said resolutions;
5) has commissioned acts of assassination and kidnapping against it's enemies in foreign countries;
6) is in armed conflict with internal terrorists from a different "ethnic group";
7) has attempted to destabilise the governments of one or more of it's immediate neighbours.

Arguing purely on the basis of the facts above, would anyone care to explain the differences between State A and State B, and why the world's only superpower drops bombs on one and threatens it with invasion on a regular basis, while it supports the other to the hilt, often to the detriment of it's own foreign policy elsewhere?

Could they also do so without racial, religious or national stereotyping of any kind - or is that last bit asking for too much?:(

Send Clowns
29th Apr 2002, 08:11
Perhaps, Caslance, because one state has never used its weapons of mass distruction, and only has made military and violent covert moves in response to provocation, in order to gaurantee their own continued existence. The other has threatened the economic and therefore political and military stability of the world by threatening the world's oil supply in attacking a tiny neighbouring state for monetary and political gain. It has used weapons of mass destruction on its own people and those of a neighbouring state, and is currently deliberately starving its own people and denying them medical assistance for the purpose of anti-american propoganda.

No stereotyping there.

Of course we can't argue on your facts, as you leave all the important ones out!

virgin
29th Apr 2002, 08:59
No stereotyping, just a fair description of one state, and a rose tinted view of the other. Isn't 'spin' a wonderful thing? It used to be called distorting the facts.
When other states refuse to comply with UN resolutions, we think it's terrible. When Israel refuses, well that's different. Occupied territories? Israel just ignores the UN and accuses it of being anti semitic. Israel just acts unilaterally without any concern for the effects on stability in the rest of the Middle East or the worldwide repercussions.
You've got to hand it to the Israelis, they are fantastic at PR. The West has been conditioned for almost 60 years to treat Israel as a special case because of the guilt trip which flows from the horrors of the Holocaust. Of course Israel insists the world should never be allowed to forget the Holocaust. The longer they can capitalise on 'poor old Israel, we're just the victims' , the better it suits them. And, with such enormous influence in successive US adminstrations, they've got no real incentive to change, or to resolve matters through the UN. We're don't critcise them because we're so afraid of being accused of anti semitism, so Israel does just what it wants.
Of course the UN is ineffectual in many ways, but it's the best hope we've got for world peace. We should support the UN.
I agree with TG that the UN has no real teeth. If it had, it would have put Israel back to its legitimate pre 1967 borders long ago. But of course the Jewish lobby in the US administration would never allow that to happen.

Send Clowns
29th Apr 2002, 10:24
If you bother to read my post, virgin, then you will see that what I say is true. I do not deny that Israel has acted unilaterally, or that sometimes it has done the wrong thing. I do not deny that her actions may have implications for world stability.

However Israel has been provoked at each stage (you can argue about the response in proportion to the provocation, but I am not arrogant enough to feel able to do so. This is far too complicated an issue about which I know far too little). Iraq attacked Kuwait for the oil fields and in an ill-judged attempt to gain support and influence in the region. Motivation is very different.

Iraq kills people indiscriminately, and suppresses the rights of all citizens. Israel, though it separates its citizens, gave more rights to Palestinians than most countries in the region give to their own Arab citizens.

The UN has long given problems to Israel, and too much credit to her neighbours, and has never helped Israel. I agree that now Jordan, Egypt, Syria etc are unlikely to attack Israel, but unless you are a citizen there I think it is very hard to imagine the seige mentality forced upon those people that locks them into old thinking, of a time when the occupied territories were required as a buffer against aggression - remember they were taken in a war started by an attack on Israel by vastly superior numbers - yet the UN demanded Israel withdraw. Now the UN allows people to attack Israel from a UN-run refugee camp. Tell me one reason that Israel should trust the UN.

Oh - and the UN resolutions never said anything about pre-1967 borders. That is a myth brought by left-media assumptions. The requirements was for Israel to withdraw to borders that could be secured. As far as I know there has never ben any agreement as to what they would be, largely because the Arab states refused until recently to accept Israel's right to exist.

These are the facts I was thinking of when I wrote my post, not some 'rose-tinted' view, but fundamental differences between these two countries which adequately explain the different approach of the UK and US.

Caslance
29th Apr 2002, 11:54
Send Clowns....the object of my posting, as no doubt you fully appreciate, was to highlight that when someone asks us to "look at the facts" we should think very carefully about who is presenting the facts.

I cannot resist pointing out, though, that while I was very careful not to name any specific nations you have assumed that "State A" represents Israel while "State B" represents Iraq.

I have to hold my hands up and admit that these were the very nations I had in mind, but is it not interesting that you clearly ascribed the (quite unpleasant) characteristics of "State A" to Israel?

As you point out, the behaviour of Saddam Hussein is reprehensible by any civilised standards, and has placed his regime beyond the pale in most parts of the globe.

Your point about provocation is well-made (as is usually the case with your points), but Israel's opponents would level the same accusations at them. And the cycle of killing and revenge goes on.

Apologists for both sides have lost sight of the basic fundamental fact that taking the lives of innocents is just, plain, wrong!! The innocent dead are just as innocent and dead whether they have died through a Palestinian suicide bomb or an Israeli revenge attack.

It is simply not good enough to adopt a "black and white" stance on this. There is justice in the claims of both sides.

Remember that fifty-odd years ago, it was the founders of present-day Israel who were the terrorists who planted bombs and carried out assassinations. If Israel has the right to exist (as it most surely does), then only the bigoted would deny that the case for a Palestinian homeland is equally pressing.

ATRIXO
29th Apr 2002, 13:48
To suggest that mainstay and financial support of Israel is based on sympathy for the holocaust or fear of being perceived as anti semitic is absurd . Money, power and influence have more to do with it than political correctness or a guilt trip! To wipe out millions was an outrage and it should never be forgotton and there is great sypathy for the jewish people, but this is not sustaining support for the current government. The fact is that Israel and jewishness can be separated in the current political climate and to be jewish does not automatically mean supporting the current regime.

Lima Tambo
29th Apr 2002, 14:25
I don't understand. When Royals fly in the UK special airways are set up for them and no other traffic is allowed near. Could this courtesy not be extended in the USA or is their system not sophisticated enough to cope with it?

Wino
29th Apr 2002, 15:06
Your love of the UN is admirable but misguided.

The UN is now owned part and parcle by the Arab league. Western influence for justice and moderation is continueing to slip away. THE UN has perpetuated the mosted racist antisemitic legislation since Hitler's Germany (infact it was so bad if you didn't know where it came from you would assume it was nazi) when it said Zionism = Racism. Untill it apologizes for that one I think that all western powers should stop paying their dues. Virgin, right now through that resolution, the UN doesn't really acknowledge Israel's right to exist? Why should they listen to anything from that body?

Honestly, when that one came out I knew the UN's time had come and gone and it had been corrupted. When last years commision on human rights became an Israel bashing excersize and the US walked out we did the right thing. We should have walked out of the UN altogether.

The problem is that there are maybe 15-20 western normal states in there. While our weight is strong at the security council, what goes on in the general assembly is rediculous and dangerous, and a waste of all of our tax dollars.

The fact that Israel ignores UN resolutions is meaningless because the UN's own resolutions basically say that Israel has no right to exist. The UN has no moral highground. By its own demonstrated attitude it has no neutrality with Israel and so I am forced to disbelieve ANYTHING they say on the subject.

Caslance, yes the taking of innocent lives is wrong. Israel goes to great lengths to avoid it, while the other country uses chemical weapons on its own people. Israel realizes that taking innocent lives is wrong and lost many of its own soldiers in the battle of Jenin to make sure that only combatants were killed to the best of their ability. They could have easily fought the battle of Jenin as NATO fought in bosnia from 35000 feet. They would have lost no Israeli lives and they would have killed the people that they needed to. Instead they take GREATER care than NATO (which means the british and American Government) and you condemn them for it. It looks like Nato killed many more innocent people in Bosnia than the Israeli's did in this campaign. Where is your indictment of the British government, indeed the EU and Nato? It just another example of more European "Do as I say, not as I do".

How are you fair? If you are going to condemn them for doing the right thing, why should they bother? Why shouldn't Israel use chemical weapons on the Palestinians? If you are the one judging Israel the result would be the same!

Cheers,
Wino

Wino
29th Apr 2002, 15:29
For Virgin, who seams to think that the UN can do no wrong...


Ambassador/Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The UN does not hold antisemitism in contempt. On the contrary, it is notorious for its antisemitic position. It has passed hundreds of anti-Israeli resolutions. When, in 1975, it passed a criminal resolution equating Zionism with racism, the UN delegate from Costa-Rica noted that the resolution "was an invitation to genocide against the Jewish people. . . .

It would be tempting to see in this propaganda nothing more than bigotry of a quite traditional sort that can, sooner or later, be overcome. But the anti-Israel, anti-Zionist campaign is not uninformed bigotry, it is conscious politics. ...Further, this fact of world politics creates altogether new problems for those interested in the fate of democacies in the world, and of Israel in the Middle East. It is not merely that our adversaries have commenced an effort to destroy the legitimacy of a kindred democracy through the incessant repetition of the Zionist-racist lie. It is that others can come to believe it also. Americans among them. ,

--In the introduction to "The Anti-Zionist Complex", by Jacques Givet

solotk
29th Apr 2002, 15:58
Right here we go. IDF levelled Jenin Camp, in an "anti-terrorist" operation. IDF , under Sharons direction, have managed, to create another blood-feud, which will last for 10 years + .

IDF also destroyed all vestiges of government and law and order. So, creating an anarchy, is the way to peace? No, it's not.

However, it is the way to increased funding,from your biggest mate. and instilling a siege mentality in your people, especially,if you regard them, as having gone soft, with all this bothersome "peace talk".

The entire thing, was summed up eloquently and movingly by Danny Fyne. Israel does have the right to defend itself, no one, argues with that, but the destruction of Jenin, and other Palestinian targets still to be defined, is appalling. However, I have seen scenes reminiscent in Central Europe in recent years, and I mean SEEN, strange, it was religion based there as well.

Like all right-thinking and humanitarian users on this board, no one wants to see civilians suffer indiscriminately, and that is what happened in Jenin. I note with interest that SC I believe, (Forgive me if wrong) highlighted a possible link between PIRA and PLO, or branches thereof. Quelle surprise, it's been going on for years. PIRA still recives funding for itself, through the posting of "instructors" to various countries. The Sniper bit rings true as well, it sounds a lot like the B8stard, who was operational in border country with a barrat .50 some years ago.

However, to return to the point. Sharon needs to get out of Palestine now, and stop disgusting the rest of us, by saying he is part of the "September 11th" drive against terrorism. he is not, he's just on the bandwagon, looking to even a few old scores, and justifying the electorates protest-voting him to power.

Once again, when politicians talk of war, they forget who the poor sods are, climbing over the rubble with a bayonet, and walking into doorways with their hearts thumping.

:mad:

Tony

Send Clowns
29th Apr 2002, 16:04
Caslance, I entirely agree with most of your points, and yes kiling of innocents is wrong. Israelis try not to kill innocents, sometimes increasing danger to their soldiers to avoid doing so. Palestinian terrorists target innocent civilians deliberately.

However I disagree that the characteristics listed are necessarily "quite unpleasant". They are the characteristic responses of an embattled nation, one that does what has to be done to defend sovereignty and existence. Many could in fact have applied to the UK at times between 1946 and 2000 for very good reasons.

The fact that the international community has never helped Israel in its defence is a large part of the reason it has had to go to extremes, and a large part of why Israel does not trust the UN. This distrust is well-justified from an Israeli viewpoint. As I pointed out the UN often gives the Arab states far too much credit, so why should Israel heed the resolutions?

One of the facts is in fact wrong about Israel : not a criticism of you or your post, but an interesting aside. The Palestinians are not a "different ethnic group". It was recently proved genetically that Jews and Palestinians are from the same ethnic group, they are different religion and culture.

PercyUs
29th Apr 2002, 16:34
the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments

As many recent threads have established, the positions of both the Arab and Jewish side are intractable. Clearly the situation requires an impartial adjudicator to establish an enduring peace.

Suggestions?

Send Clowns
29th Apr 2002, 16:41
The only viable adjudicator I can think of would be the UN, but before that can ever happen they have to persuade Israel they are neutral. They might start with a balanced report on Janine. Israel may be due criticism, even strong criticism, but so are the Palestinians and the UN themselves.

Caslance
29th Apr 2002, 16:55
Yes, I can see your point SC.

You are, of course, correct in that many of the characteristics in my lists can be attached to most developed nations at one point or another in their history - the UK and USA being no exceptions.

I would, however, question your assertion that the international community (as distinct from the UN) has offered no assistance to Israel. Certainly France, Britain, the USA, South Africa and others (including Iran, to my utter amazement!) have offered varying degrees of support at one time or another.

I do take your final point on board. As you quite rightly point out, the indigenous Jewish population are genetically near-identical to the Palestinians - the term "Semite" does includes both groups, as you are no doubt already aware.

Perhaps we can agree, though, that in many ways the crux of the problem is the influx of Orthodox Jewish settlers from the USA and Eastern Europe, especially Russia, and their intransigent and racist attitude to those whose land they have stolen. And that IS the only word for it.

I am told by a good friend who is an Israeli by birth that these people also look down on the local Jews, so perhaps the issue isn't even as clear-cut as this.

Send Clowns
29th Apr 2002, 19:33
Yes, the US fits under "illegal weapons of mass destruction against international agreements".

I agree Caslance that the settlers should immediately move out of the occupied territory, and that this would remove a large part of the block on negociations. It would also remove a source of militant Palestinian propoganda, and drastically reduce the practical security problems for the IDF. Perhaps now plenty of free countries have been safe for Jews for decades Israel should introduce immigration controls to keep the need for land under control. I hope also that Sharron himself can be removed from office (in a democratic way, of course) as he is associated with militant Zionism.

I agree that Israel received help from individual nations, but from the international community as any block, working in the robust coherent way it has worked later against invasion of Kuwait such support has been distinctly lacking, in the similar way to the lack of support for the UK over the Falklands. Also Israel has a right to feel betrayed by some of these helpers, notably the French.

Caslance
29th Apr 2002, 20:25
Then, SC, we appear to be in more or less total agreement.

Perhaps, then, if Israel had indeed received the level of co-ordinated support that you describe in the past it would be less inclined to act unilaterally now? Another lost opportunity, then!

p.s. - I'm sorry if the final paragraph in my previous posting overstepped the mark, FlapsForty. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. :(

Send Clowns
29th Apr 2002, 20:40
So it seems - but of course it is so easy in a complicated issue to discuss agreed positions from opposite ends. Wish someone would knock these people's heads together and make them see the simple side of this - "you are all people, if you try to get along each one of you will gain in the long term far more than you lose in the short term".

Wino
29th Apr 2002, 20:51
Neutral99

Sharon doesn't have to say whether or not things are equal with 9/11. The facts are that over 500 Israeli's have been slaughtered by palestinian bombs in the last year. This is the TRUE MASSACRE. It was the INTENTIONAL TARGETING OF CIVILIANS. If the Israelis intended to kill 500 palistinian civilians you would be crying for international military action to wipe out Israel, yet others do it to Israel and not a peep out of you.

There is not a government in the world that would stand by and let 500 of its people be slaughtered on the streets of its cities by a sworn enemy. If 500 people were killed in London this year by the IRA you better believe that stepped up military action would be happening in Ireland.

They are terrorists and Israel has the right to hunt them down, anywhere on earth. The Palestinian authority by becoming a terrorist agency has no legitamacy and should be hunted down. Is it fair to ALL palestinians? Of course not, no more fair than World War II was fair to all Germans, but sometimes a people have to suffer for the decisions of its leaders.

Tell me this, What would you have Israel do if they gave back ALL the settlements and the bombings continued? Then could they nuke all of Palestine? Howmany more Israeli's would have to die before Israel was allowed to strike back? Israel has a right to security. You may not like Sharon because he is tough talking, but atleast he isn't talking peace while ordering terrorism at the same time. The Palestinian leadership is gonna have to demonstrate a true desire for peace before ANYONE should lift a finger to help them.

Sendclowns:
The current attacks spreading across France cast severe doubt on how safe the jews are. They should always have the right of return to atleast one safe place on earth. Israel is it. Every other country failed miserably (including the USA) in recent past. How the Nazi's must have laughed when the ship full of refugees finally returned to Germany.

Cheers
Wino

steamchicken
29th Apr 2002, 21:07
Concerning the possible PIRA/PLO cooperation...most stories about world terrorist conspiracy are balls, but this one has some meat to it. Robert Fisk, MidEast correspondent for The Independent and, at the time, The Times, wrote in his excellent history of the Lebanon wars that he had often heard rumours of the presence of IRA volunteers in the PLA in Beirut but had never seen any or any evidence. He was aware of all sorts of different weirdos like Burmese and Sri Lankans in the PLA, and even a Canadian, but took the IRA link for BS. Until, during the Israeli siege, he took cover from an air attack and found a gunman hiding behind the same abutment who he recognised. Fisk is an Irishman and was the Times's Northern Ireland correspondent before arriving in Beirut. He had met the man once before, during a riot in Londonderry, 1972. The IRA Volunteer was now in the PLA uniform, carrying an AK 47. Confronted by Fisk, he owned up to his identity. But what the hell happened to him?

Wino
29th Apr 2002, 21:08
Solotk just to correct a few of your statements which are part of the problem here.



IDF levelled Jenin Camp, in an "anti-terrorist" operation. IDF , under Sharons direction, have managed, to create another blood-feud, which will last for 10 years + .

The attacks and damage in Jenin were at 10 percent of the camp. They did NOT level the camp as you claim. See the following pictures if you don't believe me. aerial pictures of Jenin (http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ll60)

no one wants to see civilians suffer indiscriminately, and that is what happened in Jenin.

Again that is not what happened. The Israeli's lost dozens of their own soldiers to make sure that their was no indiscriminant killing of civilians. That Arab propaganda machine cranked out the lies of massacres and you swallowed them hook line and sinker. The evidence has been much different however.

However, to return to the point. Sharon needs to get out of Palestine now, and stop disgusting the rest of us, by saying he is part of the "September 11th" drive against terrorism

Are 500 Israeli civilians lost to suicide bombers and snipers meaningless to you? They just don't count? The only difference in the world now and before 9/11 is that most of it has now realized that all terrorism is wrong. There is no such thing as a good terrorist and they should all be hunted down.

Cheers
Wino

Paterbrat
29th Apr 2002, 21:22
Since the tread was titled "The Saudis behaviour in the US" I would suggest that the debate has perhaps strayed slightly from the origional discussion. As has been previously said, the present situation is one that rightfully concerns any and all of us. As has probably been ascertained in a previous and now cuffed debate, there are widly differing opinions as to where and how the problem arose, and how it might best be resolved.
It is an emotive subject and innocent people die daily. I sometimes wonder if it is a good thing or a bad thing to debate it here as we seem only to mirror the situation on the ground and demonstrate the intractability of the situation.
That said, and in keeping with straying from the path, I was accorded a surprising pleasure the other day. As I was about to leave on a flight I was surfing as is my wont and I passed through CNN and Larry King Live. It is not really a program that I make a point of watching however I paused long enough to see him adressing a small boy. The little fellow looked about six or seven and had round specs on. He was earnest and chatting to Larry King in a remarkably self possessed way, though there appeared to be a tube going to his throat and he gasped a bit as he spoke. The caption underneath explained that he suffered from a terminal illness. I suppose it was the fact that he was by all accounts under a sentence of imminent death which perhaps made me pause and hear what he had to say.
I was amazed at how he spoke. He seemed to demonstrate an incredibly mature matter of fact directness that rapidly persuaded me that I was witnessing something extraordinary. It was as though I was in the presence of some gifted being, for the child spoke as no child I am familiar with spoke. His mother was present. She was in a wheel chair and he was the fourth and last surviving child, the other all having died, I think of muscular dystrophy.
The boy had just displaced Harry Potter on the best seller list having written a book of poetry entiltled I think " Heartsongs"
I did not see much of the interview but of what little I did see, was left profoundly impressed with an outlook on life that seemed pure unsullied and completely free of the cynicism that we acquire with the bruising turmoil that we endure daily,that is our lives. he seemed aware that he might only have a short time, and seemed to be living life to the full.
Here it seemed was a gifted mind, unusualy eloquent, and far in advance of its years, yet retaining a freshness and innocence that only served to make me feel extremely humbled shopworn and realise how scarred we all become by the rough and tumble of our precarious existance.
He seemed to posses no hate, no preconcieved notions that I could detect in the short time I watched. He spoke of witnessing death of other children in the ward. Of how it had distubed him and how he had drawn his curtain so as not to witness it, but had had to listen. Knew that it was his lot soon and yet appeared not unduley frightened. He seemed more worried for his mother.
We are here for so short a time, such a shame that we spend so much of it in hate and discord
It was only a few minutes that I watched before it was over. It left me however with a feeling that I had seen something of great value. I do not truly understand fully it yet, but I felt rarely priviliged, it made a great impression and I will not forget it. Truly out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...

Dr. Hibbert
30th Apr 2002, 09:23
Wino,

You seem to have a rather distorted view of recent history. After Oslo and up until Sept 2000, there was real progress. The PA was established and made progress against the extremists, to the extent of locking up a fair number of actual and would be terrorists and their backers. While attacks did continue, serious efforts were being made to stop them, and given the newness of the Palestinian administration, expecting omnipotent control over militants was a trifle unrealistic.

[OK, so the rampant corruption also seems to have started pretty much immediately and helped undermine the legitimacy of the whole administration, but that's another matter]

We can argue all year about what was or wasn't said at or after Camp David, but it seems clear the parties were pretty close to getting somewhere. Barak was by no means "selling the farm" and both sides knew they'd have a tough time selling any deal to their respective people. Difficult issues such as Jerusalem were never satisfactorily resolved.

Into this atmosphere of highly charged frustration stomped Sharon and his provocative visit to the Temple Mount. Not many things could have been better calculated to outrage the Palestinians. A cynic might say it was so calculated by those involved.

Since then, the Intifada kicked off again, on the back of which Sharon got himself elected promising "security". Only as the situation deteriorated did it become harder and harder for the PA to justify imprisoning those seen by people on the streets as resistance fighters, and with the collapse/destruction of law and order and the apparatus of government it became almost impossible on a practical level.

No one has yet given a satisfactory explanation of how Arafat (or anyone else for that matter) is supposed to round up or control extremists, terrorists etc, while his security apparatus is progressively neutralised and destroyed, and his police force specifically targeted for lethal attacks. When said forces respond, they become part of the terrorists. Of course, a cynic might say that this was part of the plan.

That said, the PA's subsequent role in financing and organising attacks is disgraceful, and absolutely unjustifiable. Arafat seems to be addicted once again to the respect he gets from his people as a resistance fighter, rather than the more ambivalent response to his role as a politician at the head of a massively corrupt and inefficient administration.

There are a lot of reasons why we see today's unhappy situation, and plenty of blame on both sides. But please don't make the mistake of using subsequent events to claim that Palestinian involvement in the peace process (RIP) was a sham from the start. To do so contradicts most of the contemporary evidence and indeed the opinions of most world leaders of the time, including a former US president.

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 14:23
Dr. Hibbert.

I suspect that once clinton starts speaking out (expected to be this month sometime) you are going to be saddly dissapointed. Many of the people who were in the room during the clinton administation said the following this Sunday on the talk show circuit.

Arafat was offered East Jerusulum, all areas under Palestinian control, a swap of land (that included Land INside Israel) so that some west bank would go to Israel, some Israel would go to the west bank to shorten up the borders, and the right of unlimited return for both parties to their side of the border. (All Arabs could go to Palestine if they wanted, Jews Go to Israel) They said he said yes, then he came back with a bunch of provisions that he added to it that basically said, we want the stuff that's hard for ISrael but we won't take the stuff thats hard for us. The US negotiator said it was dead at that point. With Arafat continuing to move the goal points further talks were pointless and were simply window dressing.

As to what good Arafat was doing before that, When outside observers went to the Palestinian Jails in 97-98 with no warning to see where the prisoners were that were supposed to be locked up discovered that the prisoners were missing. When presented with a list of 10 especially violent dangerous people the Palestinians were able to produce them later in the day and claimed "they had been at the doctor." So no doctors make house calls? The revolving door in the Palestinian Jails was rediculous and made a mockery of the whole thing. If they can't keep the people they have already captured in Jail they have no hope of doing other things. But of course they didn't WANT to keep them in jail, it was only a show.

As for the people in Arafat's compound right now, they should be kept in a british jail to serve out their sentance.

The corruption destroyed the PA well before the Israeli's came in and did it. If the Palestinians are incapable of running their own affairs, why should Israel be punished? The Israeli's didn't make it corrupt. The problem here is that you have made a thug president, but all he knows how to be is a thug. Again, The Palestinians made some poor choices, and you are proposing to punish the Israeli's for another people's poor choice. How is that fair?

The more the Truth comes out the better Israel looks. The problem is that everyone swallows the massacre lies and you are then fighting upstream from their. The ONLY massacre that has happened in Israel and the occupied territories has been of Israelis. A little girl was shot in her cradle this week as a family was gunned down in their house by Palestinians.

Cheers
Wino

solotk
30th Apr 2002, 14:36
Some valid and noteworthy points and questions in your post Solotk.
Your post also skirted the edge of personal attack far too closely.

There's enough trouble and grief around an issue such as this without small-minded scoffing from either side of the fence. Any more posts along those lines will be deleted without explanation, so don't waste either your time or mine.

Carry on. On-topic, please.

--------------------



flapsforty
JB ModBod

Send Clowns
30th Apr 2002, 15:01
Solotk - "no indescriminate killing" has a completely different meaning to that you assume. It means that deadly force is targeted at those intended to be killed, a subset of targets available (in this case, militia). It does not tell you anything about the success of that targeting. However it compares favourably with the genuine indescriminate killing carried out by the Palestinian Militia.

For those backing Arafat - what about the strong evidence now available that he and his supporters were involved in the terrorism, the killing of 500 civilians without even the pretence of attacking military targets? How can he be assumed to be working against violence when groups allied to him claim suicide bombings as their own work?

Wino - a scattering of attacks in one country are not what I am talking about in terms of the Jews being safe. None of the attacks have official sanction. There are more Jews in New York than in Israel, and they are basically safe, as are British Jews and those in all Western countries. The most extremist right-wing political movement to have any elected representatives in England (so excluding Sinn Fein and the DUP) openly welcomes Jewish members (BNP spokesman, phoned wihtout warning by interviewer for Radio 4's Today programme). I think they are as safe as anyone is now.

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 15:12
Is Sharon an oldstyle warrior, yep. He's a lot like Winston Churchill.

But there were 3 or 4 Prime ministers before Sharon and Arafat rolled and abused every single one of them. Sometimes it takes a monster to deal with a monster. Britain wasn't forced to fight WWII with Neville Chamberlain running the show appeasing everyone, why the double standard?

The British had Churchill for the duration of WWII and that was it.
The Israeli's will have Sharon for the duration of this conflict. You wouldn't have Churchill and Bomber Harris in power in times of peace, but in times of war they are the right person for the job.
The Palestinians have brought this war on themselves. As this war drags out, the pointlessness of what Arafat is doing becomes more apparent to the Palestinians and Palestinian assistance to Israel is actually growing at a grass roots level(which is why you are seeing more and more Palestinians killing colaborators, they are trying to quell the rising tide of discontent with Arafat and his ways)


The IDF didn't take tanks into Jenin. They fought the battle on foot and GREAT personal risk and you give them NO credit for that. Again, you claimed that the IDF leveled the camp, and when presented with evidence to the contrary you simply sidestepped it.


Up until 9/11 I'm sure the death of 500+ British servicemen and women, and 3,000+ civilans, was meaningless to you Wino,

Nope not true. I have always been an outspoken opponent of terrorism, even before 20 of my mates died on Pan 103. (I went to the University of Rochester at that time) I have ALWAYS known that terrorism is wrong, whatever the cause. There is no such thing as a good terrorist. Its part of having a moral backbone. Does everyone in America agree? Of course not, there are people now that support terrorists and terrorism. Did the IRA raise money in the US? yep, its a big country full of Irish expats. BUT THE US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT RAISE MONEY FOR TERRORISM, no matter howmany expats we have.

I have ALWAYS said terrorism was a crime. What I find astonishing is the continueing justification for Palestinian attrocities. Everytime Israel backs off, another attrocity happens. With that being the theme, why should Israel back off? What have they to gain? The arguement boils down to basically its okay for Israeli's to die,but they have no right to strike back and defend themselves.

Terrorism is WRONG. ALL nations have the duty to fight and stop terrorism. IMO A nation that supports terrorism loses its right of existance. The PA has certainly lost its moral authority to have a state and so have the Saudi's with their telethons and state sponsor of terrorists. I wonder how much money they have raised for the 9/11 hijacker's families.



Cheers
Wino

solotk
30th Apr 2002, 15:20
OK Flaps, point taken

So, the critical points, in my opinion :)

Sharon and Arafat are evil Machevellian B-words, who would have been refused membership of the Borgia family

This conflict will not be solved, until the US steps up to the plate, and starts getting heavy-handed with all concerned.

If Sharon carries on, the whole region will meltdown, because now he's in power, I think he likes it, and he won't stop. He has despot stamped all over him.

SC I know what indescriminate killing of civilians looks like thanks, I have seen it, in Rwanda and Central Europe, and engaging a civilian-populated area, from an AH-64 , or hull-down in a Merkava MBT, looks pretty indiscriminate.

Wino, do you regard Sharon, as being good for the future of the region as a whole?

Tony
(Very very carefully stating a case):D

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 15:21
SendClowns

I will agree that they are safe In Europe in this day and age (though who knows what will happen in the future)

Eastern Europe in some of the old Soviet backwaters are a whole different animal however.

But also remember that democracy is a funny thing. A perpetual minority is always at great risk basically existing on the good will of the majority. In a nutshell that is the problem in Northern Ireland. One side will always outnumber the other, making the minority disenfranchised. In a Palimentary system without the checks and balances of the 3 legged US system the effect is even more magnified.

Eurocentric Middleclass family values are great and strong right now, but one wonders what would happen if another decade long depression rocked Europe. EVERYBODY loves a scapegoat...

Cheers
Wino

solotk
30th Apr 2002, 15:25
Sharon is NOTHING like Winston Churchill, How can you compare the two?

(EVERYTHING in reply past this point edited to save flaps the job)

Tony:mad:

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 15:32
Solotk,

Actually I do think Sharon is good for the region. Every so often it is important for the Isreali's to demonstrate backbone, resolve and military prowess. They did VERY well in close quarters city fighting, which is something that the Arabs in the wake of Israel's refusal to move into Beruit were convinced that Israel couldn't do. It is one of the reasons they were hiding their terror factories inside the camps. The Local people were convinced they could shield them with their bodies.

Furthermore, it had been widely reported that a general malaise existed throughout the IDF in the wake of Lebanon, that Israel was suffering their own vietnam syndrome and they were a paper tiger like the US in the 70s...

The folly of that has been pointed out and is probably one of the reasons that Arafat maybe losing popularity among the Palestinians. Of course the rest of the Arabs love him, but that because he isn't sitting in the same room with those lovey dovey Arabs.

Israel is not a state that is going to able to achieve peace through any other means than strength. One of the problems with that is periodically you have to test that strength. So yeah, Sharon is actually doing some good. IS it a long term thing? Of course not. Does it need to be done? You BET

If Sharon carries on, the whole region will meltdown, because now he's in power, I think he likes it, and he won't stop. He has despot stamped all over him. That's true of Arafat. Israel is a true democracy however. If Sharon goes to far the government will fall. THat is what always happens in Israel. Gov't are very unstable as the coalitions that keep em together in the knesset fall apart. Israel is the only true democracy in the region and that is the reason that they need our support, indeed all of Europe's support.

Instead what I observe is that Europe backs the real despots and leaves the democracies to twist in the wind.

Cheers
Wino

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 15:34
Solotk

What about Hamburg? Dresden? Firestorms? Dresden was of no military value, it was a city choked with refugees fleeing the soviets.

Should I get some pictures? That is what a leveled city really looks like.

Cheers
Wino

Send Clowns
30th Apr 2002, 15:38
Soltok

If you try to give coherent arguments you won't feel the frustration causing you to be unruly and have to self censor.

You have not justified the accusation that civilian-populated areas were attacked by Apaches or Merkavas (or even M1s and M60s). You have not justified your assertion that this would be indiscriminate, given that the areas targeted were known to be the source of enemy fire. On top of this if these areas did still have civilian population then I suspect that either they were assisting the militants or they were forced to stay by those terrorists. In the former case I have little sympathy, in the latter then who is culpable?

Jenin was largely emptied of civilian population before the attacks, and fortified by militants. That has been confirmed by Arabs and independent observers. There have been accusations from moderate Palestinians that those that stayed were forced to do so to die as martyrs for propoganda. Thus the attack on Jenin was not indiscriminate as it was a terrorist target and the civilians were present largely because of Palestinian militant action to gain favourable press coverage.

People like you blindly believing the Palestinian claims are the reason that this technique of propoganda is used.

Caslance
30th Apr 2002, 16:00
If we're going to drag WW2 into it (and, by the way Wino, Churchill was a great international statesman who inspired an entire nation into standing firm against the threat of invasion by an overwhelmingly more powerful opponent - Sharon is a blustering bully) then is anyone else struck by the similarity between the policy of settlement in the Occupied Territories and the infamous 1930's policy of lebensraum?

Oh, the irony, the irony!!:rolleyes:

Biggles Flies Undone
30th Apr 2002, 16:04
Wino - what about LeMay? Was that OK because he was American?

solotk
30th Apr 2002, 16:07
SC , you are serious in your belief, that the BNP wholeheartedly welcome Jewish membership are you? Please, wake up, and inhale the Java.

I think you'll find, that a certain Mr. A. Hitler courted the Jewish community in the early days, with promises of order and stability, he just needed bankrolling........

I don't believe a word, that any political party , and especially those in the ultra right or left wing says, in it's quest for election. Funny how Jean-marie promised the French electorate the same thing....

The BNP manifesto is published on their website, but I will not put the link up here, because there is enough garbage and stomach-turning rubbish in the main news, without going out and finding more of the same.

Wino, I did not sidestep the issue, you impled, that the only damage caused, was to the levelled area. I asked you, about the damage to the other 90% of the camp. Far from having no admiration for the way IDF infantry fought in their CQB operations , I admire them, because I know, how intense that sort of operation is.

I quote from my previous post......

"Once again, when politicians talk of war, they forget who the poor sods are, climbing over the rubble with a bayonet, and walking into doorways with their hearts thumping."

Tony

Nostradamus
30th Apr 2002, 16:08
WINO


You are wrong about Dresden, it was a major transportation point, a railhead if you like.

Furthermore Stalin was pressing the allies to bomb the place,to help the Russian advance.

solotk
30th Apr 2002, 16:25
SC ...... I do not "blindly believe" the propoganda put out by either side. I certainly don't believe the cr*p put out on the IDF website, and i certainly don't belive half the nonsense stuck up on Palestinian websites either. Now, tell me something, was it just me, that saw Israeli armour firing on "targets" in the jenin area? Was it just me that saw Apaches hosing the area down?

On top of this if these areas did still have civilian population then I suspect that either they were assisting the militants or they were forced to stay by those terrorists. In the former case I have little sympathy, in the latter then who is culpable?

So civilians were "forced" to stay in areas, or were actively assisting terrorists? Oh Dear. Yes some would have been helping terrorists, some may have been co-ereced, but that is supposition. Pray tell, how was Jenin cleared prior to the strikes?By the red crescent/Cross/Un , in organised convoys and evacuations? Hardly, they were denied access remember?

Why was the press and the Red crescent/cross, denied access to the areas under IDF operations? Surely, it's in your interests, to have your military seen by the world, as simply engaging in a stand up fight with terrorists? As soon as a military operation, denies access to the press, and the Red cross, there is something to hide.

Tony

Send Clowns
30th Apr 2002, 16:29
So Solotk on what do you base your belief that the BNP would turn away Jewish members? Again you are making random assertions without backing them up. I base my point on the words of a slightly bleary-sounding spokesman, who unfortunately sounded more reasonable than his interviewer who was clearly biased (and would have been far more effective if he had managed to extract statements of unacceptable views without showing his own prejudices).

I am not saying they are a nice bunch of people - though the evidence I have seen is that some of their council candidates are, if not the party leadership - or that there policies are decent. What I am saying is that as far as I have seen they show no signs of violent antisemitism. This means that there is no popular support for any antisemitic political group in this country, therefore the evidence suggests that it is safe for Jews.

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 16:36
Biggles,

I didn't say what Lemay or Harris did was wrong. I said it was war and that sort of thing happens in war. The Israeli's are at war but they are not allowed to fight, only be killed. The west has repeatedly denied Israel the luxury of unrestrained war that it reserves for itself, and that the Arab nations have repeatedly carried out on Israel.


Caslanse,

I would prefer the comparison to Chamberlian waving the piece of paper stating "Peace in our time" as he gutted the defenses of czechoslovakia, and then did nothing while then Germans then marched in and took the rest of it. That rings a lot more truth when overlayed with Israeli history and the number of times they were invaded, and how little was done to help them. The Israelis don't say they need the west bank for living room like you claim. They say they need the west Bank FOR DEFENSE LIKE THE CZECHS did before the British handed over the sudatenland, leading to the German occupation of all of Czechoslovakia.

If the British lost WWII and the German's wrote the history after WWII, Churchill would have been branded a criminal blowhard who bombed berlin and other cities, FORCING the germans to retaliate against London. The characterisations of Sharon along the same lines originate from Arab propaganda. If he wasn't a great statesman he wouldnt have become prime minister of ISrael. You Don't rise to the top of an organization without talent. And Sharon has inspired the Israeli's to stand firm against being slaughtered, after repeated attempts at appeasement failed. So I would say that the comparison to Churchill is extremely valid.

Cheers
Wino

solotk
30th Apr 2002, 16:40
SC, my flabber is well and truly gasted...........

errrrrrrr let's see, I base my arguement, on Neo-Nazism, Fascism, Brick Lane, Sir Oswald Moseley,World War 2, The British Union of Fascists, the persecution of Jews by organisations such as these, and the majority of the BNP membership, NOT being composed of such obviously fine upstanding folk, as the "bleary" gentleman interviwed this morning.

I can just see the Jewish Chronicle, urging their readership to vote for the BNP in the elections.

So because the BNP "welcome" Jewish people into their membership, that makes them safe? A party, that has already stated "England for the English, based on racial origin", will welcome Jewish people, as central to their organisation?
I think they're interested in their votes, don't you?

Tony

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 16:43
Why was the press and the Red crescent/cross, denied access to the areas under IDF operations? Surely, it's in your interests, to have your military seen by the world, as simply engaging in a stand up fight with terrorists? As soon as a military operation, denies access to the press, and the Red cross, there is something to hide.

Thats a load of crap. We did exactly the same thing in the Gulf war. It is done to save the lives of the soldiers. You can't have real time reporting during a military operation and not expose the troops to unreasonable risks. For that reason we banned the press from the Gulf war and reported to them after the fact.

Again, its another luxury taken by the west that is denied the to Israeli. Under those terms of battle a defeat would be forced on the Israelis, but maybe that is the intention. We learned that Lesson in Vietnam. We learned it again in somolia with the rediculous press watcing the marines come ashore. I guarantee you we won't make that mistake again, and it is stupid to expect another country to make the same mistake. The press was clearly hostile to the whole concept. If I was trying to sneak up on someone who was trying to kill me, I wouldn't allow more hostile people on my flank, regardless of whether they are carrying a gun or not.

Cheers
Wino

Send Clowns
30th Apr 2002, 16:52
So ... you seem to be basing it on the fact other parties were antisemitic. That is actually not a very strong argument, is it? Similar to the lefties argument that Conservatives are racist simply because they are described as right wing.

It also seems you have a list of members of the BNP, and their professed opinions of Jews. I hope that is registered for the purpose of the data protection act.

None of this justifies any assumption that the Jews are unsafe in Britain or any of Western Europe.

solotk
30th Apr 2002, 16:56
Why was the press and the Red crescent/cross, denied access to the areas under IDF operations? Surely, it's in your interests, to have your military seen by the world, as simply engaging in a stand up fight with terrorists? As soon as a military operation, denies access to the press, and the Red cross, there is something to hide.

Thats a load of crap. We did exactly the same thing in the Gulf war. It is done to save the lives of the soldiers. You can't have real time reporting during a military operation and not expose the troops to unreasonable risks. For that reason we banned the press from the Gulf war and reported to them after the fact.

errrrrrrrr Wino, The Gulf War, was the most covered in history to date, with unprecedented access being given to media crews. Except of course, for certain incidents. namely the Apaches V Bradleys ID error, and of course, the killing by an A-10, of several British callsigns, in 2 vehicles . clearly marked with an orange panel and a Union Jack.

And in some cases, it appears that IDF elements, were so concerned for the safety of the press, that on at least 2 occasions, vehicles clearly marked as TV , were engaged. There is film of one of those incidents, not mentioning of course, the threatening behaviour of some IDF personnel, towards the News boys.

Tony

Caslance
30th Apr 2002, 17:00
Wino, old bean...

Clearly there is much that you and I will never, ever, see eye-to-eye on, and argument would thus be futile.

However....:D

"I would prefer the comparison to Chamberlian waving the piece of paper stating "Peace in our time" as he gutted the defenses of czechoslovakia"

Entertaining though the vision of Neville Chamberlain in his top hat and frock coat taking a pick-axe to the Czech fortifications is, I don't recall any of my lecturers (one of whom, oddly enough, was from New Jersey) mentioning him doing that. For some reason, they all seemed to think it was the Germans.

Similarly....

"Churchill would have been branded a criminal blowhard who bombed berlin and other cities, FORCING the germans to retaliate against London."

The RAF and Luftwaffe both took extreme pains to avoid endangering civilan populations right up to the point where a German crew mistakenly bombed the suburbs of London (no GPS in those days). A historical fact, borne out by both RAF and Luftwaffe sources.

And finally.....

"If he wasn't a great statesman he wouldnt have become prime minister of ISrael."

Being elected Prime Minister of Israel does not make Ariel Sharon a great statesman any more than being elected Prime Minister of this country does the same for Dear Leader Blair.

Regards

Caslance

X-QUORK
30th Apr 2002, 17:03
Wino,

I'm not trying to be a wise-ass, I agree with much of what you're writing, but I'd be interested to know what you think Israel should do with regards to the settlements on occupied land ?

I can't help but think this is a real sticking point that the Palestinians will always fight for ? I'm not condoning their inexscusable terrorist actions against civilians, but an armed struggle against the forces of an occupying state....? :confused:

Send Clowns
30th Apr 2002, 17:13
Solotk

The ICRC was not initially denied access, and had some access offered all through, but with searches on ingress and egress. This is because two Red Crescent ambulances came out of the area of battle with militants wearing bombs hidden under the legitimate patient.

The press get in the way of any of military operations, and give away too much information. You are completely wrong about the Gulf war - no press were allowed in the battle, they were very much behind the lines. You realise why the 'first casualty of war is truth'? It's because the truth helps the enemy. The other reason for keeping them out is the bias they show, as has ben proved since. Israel knew that civilians would be killed, even though they were not the target. They knew that the international media would concentrate on that and Palestinian propoganda. This has proved to be the case, so can you blame the IDF?

Engaging media - if you are in a war against insurgents who use non-conventional tactics and you saw a vehicle that you know is banned from the area, you might fire upon it. If you were covering me, I hope you would at least consider doing so. You don't know who is in it.

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 17:22
Caslance

So the German's did it by accident, and the British did it on purpose, doesn't say nice things about the british...


The Sudetenland was a mostly mountainous region that provided a natural defense to czecheslovakia must the same as the Alps protect Switzerland, and the Jordan River now protects Israel. Once the Chamberlian gave it back to Germany, Czechsolovia was basically a big flat plain, similar to Poland and equally indefensible. So the German's then marched in, and Europe didn't do a thing. It wasn't untill Poland that Europe finally started doing the right thing, but by then it was too late and the result was a world war.

And Solotk the Pentagon provided all the footage. There were great taped briefings, but during the actual end run around the Iraqi's when swartzkopf through the heil mary pass the press were kept very far away. What the press covered were lots of jets taking off and landing, but they were NOT in the combat zone.

I don't care whether or not someone has the word "press" written on them or not. If they are assisting the enemy in a battle, I would engage them. If they were spotting Israeli troops for the Palestinian snipers then they are a valid target. They were told not to be there. Just because someone is "Press" doesn't mean that they are entitled to free and unrestricted access to the world. You wouldn't let one into a nuclear weapons facility to report on how nice modern warheads are manufactured... Oh boohoo a reporter got shot. he KNEW the risks.



X-quork- If the Palestinian's restricted their attacks to military targets (there are zilloins of them all over the west bank or Israel) they would be freedom fighters. If they kept the terrorism inside the Westbank I would atleast listen to them. But they attack Civilian targets all over Israel and the World and that makes them worthy of destruction only. Terrorism really is wrong. There can be no defense of a terrorist regiem.

The Israeli's have offered to give up the settlements and they have repeatedly done it in the past and will do it again. That is a given. everyone knows it. What Israel demands in return is security, and no one has provided that. Indeed, the more they give up, the more perilous life gets for the Israelis.



Cheers
Wino

Dr. Hibbert
30th Apr 2002, 18:31
Wino,

Would you also, as the IDF appears to have done, tell journos that they are not allowed in a specific area, launch stun grenades at said (unarmed, international) journos before they have a chance to get back in their landrovers, then fire rubber bullets at their vehicles as they are reversing away from trouble?

And if the settlements are so easily to be given up, why did the rate of construction increase dramatically under Barak, and continue under Sharon?

And no, Sharon is not an international statesman. At best, he is a clever and scheming bully, who knows exactly how much he can get away with.

X-QUORK
30th Apr 2002, 18:41
Wino,

I agree that terrorism is never right, the sooner the Palestinians realise this the better. I would argue, however, that it is far from clear that Israel will hand over the settlements. If it is 100% a definite given - why hasn't it already happened ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Arafat - but I can't give Israel my full backing as long as they continue to occupy foreign soil - period.

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 19:52
The reason that the settlements weren't given up yet is that the Israeli's have paid in blood for that land 5 times or so in major wars. They will return them in return for security as the Sinai was returned to egypt...

To return them in response to terrorism or bullying however is only to encourage more of the same.

I would guess that settlement increased in response to TERRORISM that really ramped up during Barak. The Palestinians should never be rewarded for terrorism, and frankly all peace talks should cease untill the terror attacks cease.

As to whether or not Israel is occupying territory. There was no such country as Palestine. Something that we have lost track of. The west bank was Jordan, who repeatedly invaded Israel and lost the west bank during such invasions, and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Seams to make the land Israeli to me, not that I think Israel should keep it, but to say they are occupying land, well so is every country. Similarly Gaza was Egypt.

I think that the best solution would be to return the so called occupied territories to their respective countries and hold those countries accountable for the behavior of the people in the territory, but of course neither country wants the Palestinians either.

Cheers
Wino

Slasher
30th Apr 2002, 21:17
The latest Israeli-Palistinian conflict was entirley predictable given that both countrys are now run by ex-terrorist leaders. Who forgets Sharons past?

Proof Source: modern history 1948-1972

PS my post is a comment only. I dont care a rats about either place.

CammyKhazi
30th Apr 2002, 21:29
Plenty of space for bullsh*t on JB.
But this thread isn't it.

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 21:42
Not what I am saying at all, Nor would ANYONE including Sharon in Israel advocate such a thing.

But Israel is entitled to defensible borders and it was arab action the demonstrated the genuine NEED.

And slasher, nice try, but from 48 to 72 Israel was not a terrorist state, and only fought in response to being attacked, some of which was aided and abbetted by the UN (When they stepped aside from their border protection of Israel so Egypt could invade Israel). Sharon was not sending suicide bombers into Palestinian schools and whatnot, was not hijacking or blowing up aircraft etc, didn't Kidnap and murder any Olympic teams etc.



Cheers
Wino

Send Clowns
30th Apr 2002, 22:02
I seem to remember Sharon had terrorist connections pre-'48 Wino. Hence my advocating him being voted out of office in an earlier post.

Slasher
30th Apr 2002, 22:10
Wino it wasnt a "try" but a statement. I never said nor implicated that Israel itself was a terrorist state. Im not going to go into the guts of it but examine Sharons past mate. Send Clowns alreadey cought on.

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 22:35
Yes, but slasher, You used the dates 48-72. That is AFTER Israel is in existance. That makes your statement was that Israel is a terrorist state. If Israel behaved the way the Palestinian authority behaved you would be correct. But such is not the case. Even if Sharon was a terrorist, he has not behaved as one in office, not in ANY office. Yassir Arafat turned the entire PA into one large corrupt agent of terror and in so doing removed its legitamacy and right of existance. Arafat is STILL a terrorist, Sharon might have been in the past. a VERY big difference.

If anyone has claims against any members of Israel or the gov't for terrorist actions they should submit a claim against them in a western court. They would probably be paid. Israel has certainly never acted as a terrorist state.

Libya has begun to own up to its part in terrorism, and turned over the perps in Pan AM 103 (As Arafat should do with the people that murdered the cabinate member as well as any other terrorists under his control) and is now framing the reperations that they are gonna pay to the families of Pan Am 103 and Lockerbie (3-4 billion dollars is being talked about, its a shame they can't resurrect PanAm, but take what you can get).

After they pay the reperations and swear off terrorism, they should be readmitted into the family of nations. I for one will welcome them back with open arms, even if they did kill 20 of my mates from school. At that point the war would be over.

When The Palestinians stop the terror, make restitution (and they have plenty of money for bombs, so they got money for this, just get it from the Saudis), and swear off terrorism and make GENUINE steps to curb it, the the PA can be readmitted as well. Untill then, it is only worthy of extermination as a terrorist agency just like Al-queda , and certainly should NOT be negotiated with.


Cheers
Wino

Caslance
30th Apr 2002, 22:41
Now, Wino, God's Own Football Team have just been dumped out of the European Cup, so Caslance is not a happy entity.:mad: :mad:

Still and all, it's only a game. :( :( Now, what were you saying???

"So the German's did it by accident, and the British did it on purpose, doesn't say nice things about the british... "

I do hope that you're not seriously suggesting that London, Coventry, Bristol, Manchester, Liverpool, Plymouth, etc, were all bombed by accident???

"The reason that the settlements weren't given up yet is that the Israeli's have paid in blood for that land 5 times or so in major wars."

Well, I seem to recall that quite a lot of Germans paid in blood for their conquests in WW2. Does that mean that Poland and all of Russia west of Moscow and Volgograd rightfully belong to them?

If you accept that the Occupied Territories are Israel's by right of conquest, then surely the same reasoning would see Saddam Hussein still firmly ensconced in Kuwait?

Something has to give way on both sides, and it simply isn't going to happen while either Sharon OR Arafat are still around.

The alternative is, indeed, Armageddon. And that, folks, isn't really funny at all.

solotk
30th Apr 2002, 22:44
Wow! Did Wino just dance around being forced to admit that Sharon is a thug, bully, bigot, racist, ex-terrorist again?

Wino, just answer the question, do you agree that Sharon is a provocative thug and bad for Israel and it's immediate future, or are you just going to stick your head in the sand, and dally around the question being asked. Maybe you'll go back to your old tactic of bringing World War 2 , into the conversation kicking and screaming. I for one, want to know WHAT you think of Sharon.

Tony

Send Clowns
30th Apr 2002, 22:56
Wino

Slasher used a history of Israel between those dates as a source. During this time Sharon became a military-political figure. However even you must see that no history can be taken in isolation, so any such book must also refer to times before the scope of its main focus. Sharon's terrorist past still makes it very hard for moderate Palestinians to negociate with him.

Neutral

I still haven't seen any reason that Israel should trust the UN. Perhaps the UN should first explain why it allowed its camps to be used for terrorist activity.

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 23:00
Caslance.

No the German's don't get moscow, for 2 reasons FIrst and foremost, they lost the war. The other reason was they were the agressors. But Poland France czechsolovakia and other got to keep parts of Germany. Thats the price the Germans paid for their naked agression, no different the when the Arabs invaded Israel in 48 56 67 73 etc...

So the Arabs have been the agressor, AND they are spectacularly poor soldiers, yet Israel is required to repeatedly give it back and have another Do over. Give them yet another chance to kill more Israelis.

Neutral 99, The UN has not right to meddle in the internal affairs of Israel, and once they announced they wanted to expand the scope of the investigation to beyond Jenin, Where does it end?

Solotk,

I at GREAT length answered that question. I did NOT step around the question of whether or not Sharon is good for Israel, I said he was good, and here is the whole text of the message to minimize your need to scroll back a page.


posted 30th April 2002 10:32 Solotk,

Actually I do think Sharon is good for the region. Every so often it is important for the Isreali's to demonstrate backbone, resolve and military prowess. They did VERY well in close quarters city fighting, which is something that the Arabs in the wake of Israel's refusal to move into Beruit were convinced that Israel couldn't do. It is one of the reasons they were hiding their terror factories inside the camps. The Local people were convinced they could shield them with their bodies.

Furthermore, it had been widely reported that a general malaise existed throughout the IDF in the wake of Lebanon, that Israel was suffering their own vietnam syndrome and they were a paper tiger like the US in the 70s...

The folly of that has been pointed out and is probably one of the reasons that Arafat maybe losing popularity among the Palestinians. Of course the rest of the Arabs love him, but that because he isn't sitting in the same room with those lovey dovey Arabs.

Israel is not a state that is going to able to achieve peace through any other means than strength. One of the problems with that is periodically you have to test that strength. So yeah, Sharon is actually doing some good. IS it a long term thing? Of course not. Does it need to be done? You BET

If Sharon carries on, the whole region will meltdown, because now he's in power, I think he likes it, and he won't stop. He has despot stamped all over him. That's true of Arafat. Israel is a true democracy however. If Sharon goes to far the government will fall. THat is what always happens in Israel. Gov't are very unstable as the coalitions that keep em together in the knesset fall apart. Israel is the only true democracy in the region and that is the reason that they need our support, indeed all of Europe's support.

Instead what I observe is that Europe backs the real despots and leaves the democracies to twist in the wind.

Cheers
Wino

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 23:21
Send Clowns,

I thought most of the terrorism was aimed at the British? I am not to good on that part of history, bit either way it was a long time ago.

However, Arafat is CERTAINLY a terrorist now, its pretty hypocritical of the Palestinians to complain about someone who hasn't committed a terrorist act in 55 years or so when they put forth Yassir Arafat. Furthermore, what was their complaint with Netenyaho, Peres, or Barak? They had plenty of chances, they only got Sharon because of their own Intransigence. The phrase, you reap what you sow comes to mind again.

This is just excuses.

And Caslance. Why do you keep saying Armegeddon? Even if it became a middle East Nuclear war, the amount of ordinance expended would be nothing compared to what we and the soviets blew up in the atmosphere before the atmospheric test ban. At worst it will be a violent regional war. They happen. Their is no Soviet Union anymore to turn this into Global Thermonuclear war. Its just alarmist.


Cheers
Wino

Wino
30th Apr 2002, 23:22
Neutral99

I would say a joint commission of Miltary officers from the UN/UK.

I would not recommend a UN comission.

Cheers
Wino

Techman
1st May 2002, 00:31
Once a terrorist always a terrorist

And since WW2 era seems to be such an important part of certain people's reasoning?, the actions of the 101 special commando unit, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Yisraeli must therefore be equally relevant.
But some seem to have poor memories of certain parts of that era. Deliberately?, perhaps.

Terrorism is wrong. The benefit of the doubt should NEVER go to the terrorists.

But alas it have done so already.

Wino
1st May 2002, 00:38
Okay Techman,
The Israeli's go back to Benjamin Netenyahou, and the Palestinians get Rid of Arafat, and EVERYONE in the PA.

Pretty much what I said the result would be anyway. Now how are you gonna explain it to the Palestinians so that it doesn't have to be done by force of arms?

What will happen is the fighting will continue for a while untill all the goals are achieved. Once peace and stability return to the Area Sharon will be voted out of office, and hopefully Arafat and all his minions will be dead, atleast if Europe gets out of the way. If not this will drag on forever.

I have seen no attempt by Europe to hold Arafat accountable for the VERY WELL DOCUMENTED attrocities he has comitted in the last 5 years.


SO if once a terrorist always a terrorist, what is to be done with Libya? Shall we commence bombing now?

Cheers
Wino

Techman
1st May 2002, 01:00
I dont't have to explain the Palestinians anything.

And please stop shouting, you are loud enough as it is already.

It will drag on forever until the U.S. stops talking out of both sides of its mouth, and starts taking on the responsibilities that it has. Although I do realize, that the situation is a bit more complicated than what can be resolved by sending in the cavalry.
So I don't expect great things from G.W. anytime soon.

What do you mean by "SO if once a terrorist always a terrorist"?.
It was you who said it.

Wino
1st May 2002, 01:37
Yes, but there has to be a method for redemption or no country would be possible.

The first step is to stop doing terrorism. Its a really simple first step that the Palestinian Authority was unwilling to take.

As I said, Admit your sins, turn over the terrorists, make reperations, assist in stopping terrorism, rejoin the world communitiy. Libya is a good example of how it should be done.

The problem with Arafat is that though he claims to be a statemen, he is nothing of the sort. He is still an active terrorist and actively supports terror operations. By doing so he made the Palestinian Authority a terrorist state, no different than Iraq and deserving of the full wrath of the world. That the World does not do that can only be ascribed to an unfair bias against Israel.

And that is the problem. By using the Palestinian Authority as a terrorist agency he has made the entire PA a target whether or not he is still running it, and it will be the responsibility of the PA to renounce Terror, make reperations lock up the criminals. They can no longer get rid of Arafat and say its all better. It has moved well beyond that now.

Israel the country was never a terrorist state. That is the difference. The war on terrorism is very much against state sponsered terrorism. That is why we took down Afghanistan and why the Palestinian Authority is a valid target and should be the next target, maybe before Iraq.

I do agree that the US should stop talking out of bothsides of its mouth. Since we have no consensus or bases for Iraq, we should make the PA our next target and occupy and devide them similar to what we did to Germany at the end of WWII. Total moral clarity.

Cheers
Wino

Techman
1st May 2002, 03:06
Oh, so now it's forgive and forget is it?.
Must be, don't seem to have heard of any member of the Stern Gang or IZL admit to their sins and turn anybody over to any authorities. Or make reparations.

And on the note of attacking the PA or Iraq. With what authority would the U.S. do that?.

Wino
1st May 2002, 04:22
Forgive and forget? Not exactly, but if you can knock it off you can have a country. The Palestinian Authority is a terrorist agency. They should be hunted untill the terrorism stops.

I would say the US has the same authority with which we attacked Afghanistan. Palestinian terrorists have murdered many Americans. Our ally has been ruthlessly attacked. Like Britain fighting with the US in Afghanistan, we would be doing the right thing. Terrorism is wrong, we have declared it such, you are either with us or against us. Reject terrorism or face the consequences. Sometimes it is the duty of the biggest to police the neighborhood. While I have never been a fan of world government, It is time that terrorism was stopped. Its time has come and gone, just like Facism.

As to Israel, I haven't heard anyone complaining in an official forum about the stern gang. Nor have I seen them comitting any murders lately. To the best of my knowledge they are not on any government watch lists, nor has their been an interpol request for their arrest. I know of no court judgments against them awarding compensation to the victims or their families. You are free to file the first lawsuit. I suspect you would get paid, IF you could prevail in court.

The Palestinians on the other hand have murdered 500 people in the last year alone, they are actively hiding many wanted terrorists.

You can go on about ancient history all you want, but this is the here and now. Every nation on earth has had some form of terrorism or black mark at some time in its past. But now is the time for the nations of the earth to renounce it or face the consequences. Like Slavery, it is an obsolete tool.

If Libya can renounce terrorism and provide those for whom there is a valid warrent for prosecution and punishment, as well as make reperations I think all the current terrorist nations can.

GWB was exactly right. You are either with us or you are against us. Time to stand up and be counted. The Palestinians seam to have chosen the other course. Tough luck for them. The Libyans may well have chosen the proper course. Good for them.

Terrorism is wrong. State sponsored terrorism is an act of war. I can say that with total moral clarity. The Palestinians support terrorism and refuse to renounce it. Time to pay the piper. We will get to Iraq later.

Cheers,
Wino

Caslance
1st May 2002, 06:47
"And Caslance. Why do you keep saying Armegeddon? Even if it became a middle East Nuclear war, the amount of ordinance expended would be nothing compared to what we and the soviets blew up in the atmosphere before the atmospheric test ban. At worst it will be a violent regional war."

Well, Wino, I think I actually used the term once. It is a reference to the climactic battle in the well-known Judeo/Christian mythology cycle in which "the nations of the earth" will do battle with the Chosen of God. Remember that the authors of the Old Testament didn't actually know of all that many other nations, so a regional conflict would fit the bill quite nicely.

Yes, you are right about the global effects. Mind you, a few million human beings would perish horribly, as well, and the fallout would drift across the most populous region of the planet with untold medium to long-term consequences. But Noo Joizie would be all right, so that's OK then.

Until the oil stops flowing, of course. Because you can bet your bottom dollar that "strategic economic targets" like oil production facilities would be on the target list of one or both sides. A couple of even moderately-sized groudbursts would be enough to put paid to oil production in the area.

You say that all terrorism is wrong, and that state terrorism is an act of war. I wonder whether you would include (well-documented by official US sources) US-sponsored terrorism against Cuba, Nicaragua, etc, in those categories?

ORAC
1st May 2002, 07:02
Wino. You keep on about Libya. e.g.

" As I said, Admit your sins, turn over the terrorists, make reperations, assist in stopping terrorism, rejoin the world communitiy. Libya is a good example of how it should be done".

" If Libya can renounce terrorism and provide those for whom there is a valid warrent for prosecution and punishment, as well as make reperations I think all the current terrorist nations can".

Er, excuse me, but the US is still imposing sanctions on Libya precisely because they have not done any of the above. The sanctions were extended for an additional 5 years as recently as last August. To quote GW on why they are still in force:

"Libya must address its obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. These relate to the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and require Libya to accept responsibility for the actions of Libyan officials, disclose all it knows about the bombing, renounce terrorism, and pay appropriate compensation. Cooperative action by Libya on these four issues would make it possible for us to begin to move toward a more constructive relationship".

Send Clowns
1st May 2002, 08:02
Yes, Wino, much of the terrorism was aimed at the British pre-1948, but much was also aimed at the "other side"s terrorists and population. He was still a terrorist. He has been accused of commiting terrorist acts for the state of Israel while in the army too. Whether justified or not, all these facts make it difficult for moderate arabs to deal with Sharon.

Arafat is equally difficult to deal with, I agree. I don't think he should be representative of Palestinians any more. You are right, he had his chance, and still courted miitants by supporting terror.

Neutral I didn't say there should't be an investigation, nor that the UN shouldn't carry out that investigation. I made the point that the Israeli reluctance to trust the UN is perfectly understandable. Since the UN has a lamentable record for neutrality in the area, and since their own systems must be investigated, I think that the UN are not necessarily the ones to carry out the investigations, but if they do they have to first show Israel they can be trusted.

I don't really know who should carry it out. It would have been the perfect job for the EU, had their officers not been shown to be so corrrupt towards the interests of their indivdual nations. Perhaps Scotland Yard? They helped some of the investigations in the Balkans, and in the region British police have a reasonable reputation for impartiality (Palestine was the only part of the British Empire policed by British not local people - the local could not be trusted to be impartial).

Dr. Hibbert
1st May 2002, 08:36
Wino,

I'm disturbed by your position on terrorism:

Like Slavery, it is an obsolete tool.

Its time has come and gone, just like Facism.

So when there was an end that justified terrorist means, it was ok?

By the way, Israel hardly has a blameless record itself over the last couple of years, especially re. use of excessive and lethal force against civilian rioters. The ratio of Palestinian to Israeli casualties in this intifada is around 3:1, and for a while earlier this year it looked as though Sharon was working to exactly these numbers, i.e. suicide bomber kills X Israelis - response ensures that approximately 3X Palestinians are killed.

Summary repossession and/or demolition of civilian homes is hardly something to be proud of either, and nor does the fact that Israel is a democracy (albeit one in which disturbingly right wing and racist groups can hold a government to ransom) make it ok.

SC,

Even you must admit that the way the whole fact-finding/inquiry thing has been handled leaves a strong impression that there is something to hide? This was a Security Council resolution (please distinguish between the Security Council and the General Assembly, from where some of the more wacky and less credible UN pronouncements have emanated) that even the US felt comfortable supporting.

Annan has bent over backwards to accommodate Israel's concerns, yet every time one is addressed, another is added. What is the problem in admitting the team, as reconstituted, and awaiting the report? With the US veto, there is absolutely zero chance of the security council adopting any report that is unfairly critical of Israel, or which goes beyond its fact finding mandate.

I, for one, am extremely sceptical of "massacre" claims, but surely the best way to give lie to propaganda is to subject such claims to outside scrutiny?

Hoverman
1st May 2002, 08:50
Neutral
Looks like your forecast might be right, going by this morning's headlines. Serious talk of the UN giving up if Israel won't cooperate.

First Israel won't let any international observers or Press in when they're in action because "it wasn't safe". (It's so cute how Wino keeps banging on about how honest Sharon is.)
Now, when it is safe, they've come up with another reason to block an outside investigation.

It's outrageous that in the second millemium Israel (or any other occupying force anywhere) can get away with just refusing to let outsiders in when the local people and leaders are asking the international community to come in to investigate.

It's easy to see how the militant extremists get their support. I know how I'd feel if I was an ordinary innocent Palestinian.

flapsforty
1st May 2002, 10:49
Gentlemen I am closing this thread now.

A rush of the cerebrally challenged has started to invade, and it's taking too much of my time keeping them out.

Without wanting to patronize anyone, I thank the serious participants for their efforts at keeping this thread interesting, readable, polite and at all possible.

It's been a pleasure to read such a wealth of considered opinion and intelligent argument.

--------------------

flapsforty
JB Mod Bod