Shame on Israel!!!

[bankside]

Your 'activist' mentality is dragging into ridiculous responses. He didn't ask about ghosts, he asked about people.



So it's okay for you to decide what is better for other peoples? The only way you can refer to his position as being "sick" is if you are taking the same underlying position of claiming that you can decide what is better for other peoples.

But on a more basic level, you make a huge biological error: the annihilation of the Native American population was a given the moment contact began. Nasty diseases arise where populations are more crowded, and flow to places where they aren't. That's why plagues and such have flowed from Asia to Europe for millennia, and the truly virulent strains of things such as flu still come from Asia to the rest of the world. Some 90% of the die-off in the Americas was due to nothing the Europeans did other than walk on the soil and meet the natives.

Will you deny the right to travel and explore?

Of course handing out blankets laced with smallpox might have helped...

 

[Kulindahr]

Please tell me how exactly the standard of living of Native Indians improved because of the invading thugs? What does one do with a "higher" standard of living when your entire peoplehood is decimated? What will I do with an Ipad and Ipod if you kill my father, give my sister STDs, make me homeless, and steal all I had, move me around, and then move me around some more??? How mind-boggling! Do you understand the plain fact that most of them were annihilated? The few who remain today remain at the edges of society. Do you know of the state of Native Indians in America today??? Seriously, whats wrong with you?

Do you?
I knew a half dozen at college who didn't have to worry about money, because as Native Americans they got full tuition paid by the federal government, plus they were getting nearly a thousand bucks a month just for being Native Americans. I know three here who have bought a house on the excellent terms of zero interest because they're Native Americans, and use their tribal membership payments to pay it, and automatically have full Medicare and Medicaid because they're Native Americans....
I know another who gets $800 a month for being a Native, plus a variety of federal and state benefits he can't be denied, just because he's Native. So he has better health care, eats better, etc., and has $800 a month to do with as he pleases. If he decided he wanted a place of his own to live in, he'd automatically get housing assistance, because he's a Native American, so he could rent a three-bedroom house for what anyone else would pay for a studio apartment. If he wanted to live on the reservation, he could get a two-bedroom house with a two-car garage on a half acre of property -- free.

Lots of people know that being a Native American means money and benefits and privileges. That's one big reason why there are outfits which will trace a person's lineage to see if qualifications for the definition are met.

That has nothing to do with the fact that the invading thugs took over, moved, killed, removed from their land, broke treaties, killed some more, stole children, forced their language, etc., on an entire native population. Coming from the background you and I come from, I expect you to have a better grasp on what this project was about. No hegemonic power gets to decide what is better for whom (and what genes are better for whom, which fetus to kill, which form of life to sterilise, the concept is the same, hegemonic forces trying to decide what is good for others, and in the process decimating entire populations). Genocide is never good, and trying to determine the pros and cons of it is a dangerous dangerous path.

Again, your huge blind spot: the big blow had nothing to do with invasion, oppression, killing, or any action on the part of the newcomers other than merely coming.

But beyond that, there wasn't any "project", there was just ordinary people looking to live their lives in the ordinary way, moving to new lands as humans have done since the start.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ahh yes, well-organised and mannerly desperation.

Then again, I suppose I can concede that. If they have the resources to arrange a bunch of ships, they should be able to handle a communiqué as you propose - and I'd keep the Catholic church and all its orders off the list of eligible search parties. They are hardly disinterested.

Actually, perhaps we should ask the Cree to go, or the Navajo.

There's a link to why the Founding Fathers & Framers in the U.S. believed in a trained and very especially well-organized militia; those two are the core meaning of "well-regulated". As applicable here, a well-organized militia (including, per the concept of the time, sufficiently qualified and intelligent for the troops they commanded [Hamilton once noted that no militia can be well-regulated without officers wore intelligent and better trained than the troops]) would mean they'd have had more of a plan than "go out to challenge the IDF and hit them when they show up", and well-trained would have meant they would have carried it out effectively. Now, a truly well-regulated militia would have known that there are times that fighting is not an effective weapon -- i.e., a good officer will have studied not just Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, but Ghandi and King.



As far as the Catholic Orders, the two I picked are very good at being disinterested: Dominicans because they have this attitude that everything in the world is to be studied, and study means not interfering, and Franciscans because they believe everyone in the world is to be treated kindly and cared for.

No Jesuits; NO ONE trusts the Jesuits.

 

[AnalblasT]

reported by al jazeera, this activist purpose is for killling the jews or going to gaza and ready became a martydom

​

slogan arab for jews on that video

khaybar, khaybar, ya yahud! jaish muhammad sa yahud! : khaibar, khaibar, oh jews! the army of muhammad will return!

In a modern time, khaibar become a yel for inspiration arabic demonstran for fight with israel.

 

[Kulindahr]

So if we can narrow this list of the various techniques down a bit~ Which of those methods accounts for the majority of the 12-million-plus American Indians that were exterminated in 1500?

A scholarly work I read a couple of years ago says that standard 12-to-15 million American natives is off by a factor of three, that 36-to-40 million should be regarded as correct. I don't recall the name; I read it about the same time I did one called "Germs and Steel" (or something close to that). The horrifying thing it went on to argue was that European diseases spread so far and fast ahead of the spread of Europeans that by the time the white men crossed the Appalachians, over two-thirds of the native population was already gone. So from a biological point of view, the real invasion was that of microbes, and colonists and settlers were merely vectors and side-effects.

Reading their analysis was chilling. That's about what I remember of it; page after page of passionless description of a process they'd concluded had taken place, tribe after tribe succumbing to unknown, devastating diseases, their neighbors seeing their weakness and attacking or raiding, only to become next in line of the conquest by an unseen enemy. Given the belief systems held, the implications must have been as terrifying as the diseases themselves.

Their argument concluded by showing how the populations had rebounded enough that when the Europeans themselves showed up (and often passed on new diseases), the evidence encountered suggested to those down the line who first asked the question that the population had been 12-to-15 million.

It makes me sick to think that people who were mostly innocently migrating as humans had since time immemorial inadvertently and unknowingly slaughtered over ten times their own number of people they'd never seen.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, I’ve noticed. (And thank you for the links.)

Are the Palestinians “less civilized” than the Israelis?

I think the cultural excursion was worthwhile. Both instances can be considered human migrations into places with indigenous populations -- and both can stand examination under the "less civilized" rubric.

Many of the Native Americans counted as more civilized than the colonists, though not often by much. Thomas Jefferson is said to have commented that the Iroquois were more civilized than many European nations. Some of their principles of government were used in the Constitution. The real point here is that what Jefferson was using as a measure of civilization was NOT technology, but how citizens treated their fellow man and how their rights were protected.

That's the measure we have to use, because it's the only rational one: It begins with a premise that is not just some accident of the flow of time or inventiveness. As I read in an essay in philosophy class once, inventiveness in regard for others and their dignity has to count for more than inventiveness in material things, if for no other reason than that the former contributes to the happiness of the many, while the latter in proportion to wealth,

I'll quit there for the moment.

 

[Kulindahr]

reported by al jazeera, this activist purpose is for killling the jews or going to gaza and ready became a martydom
....
slogan arab for jews on that video

khaybar, khaybar, ya yahud! jaish muhammad sa yahud! : khaibar, khaibar, oh jews! the army of muhammad will return!

In a modern time, khaibar become a yel for inspiration arabic demonstran for fight with israel.

Wasn't Khaibar were Mohammed proved himself treacherous and turned on allies?

 

[AnalblasT]

Wasn't Khaibar were Mohammed proved himself treacherous and turned on allies?

Khaibar war is when mohammed kill all the jews in khaibar, he and the gank hijack all those jews

for more info :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khaybar

 

[bankside]

There's a link to why the Founding Fathers & Framers in the U.S. believed in a trained and very especially well-organized militia; those two are the core meaning of "well-regulated". As applicable here, a well-organized militia (including, per the concept of the time, sufficiently qualified and intelligent for the troops they commanded [Hamilton once noted that no militia can be well-regulated without officers wore intelligent and better trained than the troops]) would mean they'd have had more of a plan than "go out to challenge the IDF and hit them when they show up", and well-trained would have meant they would have carried it out effectively. Now, a truly well-regulated militia would have known that there are times that fighting is not an effective weapon -- i.e., a good officer will have studied not just Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, but Ghandi and King.

What is the US wisdom with regard to a militia on it's last legs, when "well-organised" no longer holds, and "well-regulated" is a stretch? Are they just supposed to stand down and surrender, or do they fight to the last? Do they fight dirty if it will give them a clear advantage?

I'm curious because I do think those concepts of militia/guerilla/resistance, and the attendant questions of the morality of violent conflict, apply to the situation off the Gaza coast. And I have another question which I will create a thread for.

 

[Kulindahr]

What is the US wisdom with regard to a militia on it's last legs, when "well-organised" no longer holds, and "well-regulated" is a stretch? Are they just supposed to stand down and surrender, or do they fight to the last? Do they fight dirty if it will give them a clear advantage?

I'm curious because I do think those concepts of militia/guerilla/resistance, and the attendant questions of the morality of violent conflict, apply to the situation off the Gaza coast. And I have another question which I will create a thread for.

One would keep fighting.

But that is not true of the people of the flotilla -- there's no evidence they ever tried to be 'well-regulated'. So while they may have qualified as militia, by virtue of being old enough to bear arms, but they have never been a militia.

 

[JayHawk]

The one truism all can easily agree upon is if the Arabs layed down their arms there would be no more war, If the Israelis layed down their arms there would be no more israel.

 

[NotThatCreative]

By the way, the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief, which owned and operated the boat in question, is a Turkish organization that, while it does do charity work, is also affiliated with Hamas. In fact, the IHH is part of the Union of Good (aka the Charity Coalition) which operates as a virtual front for the Muslim Brotherhood and, in particular, Hamas.

The Free Gaza movement should've researched the charity they teamed up with for this mission. In this case, they worked with the IHH. Bad idea.

 

[bankside]

The one truism all can easily agree upon is if the Arabs layed down their arms there would be no more war, If the Israelis layed down their arms there would be no more israel.

I'm going to have to push the "trite" button on this one I'm afraid -it sounds nice, but we can't all agree on it.

If the Israelis laid down their arms, on their own territory, Israel would be at risk. From Syria and/or Iran, probably.

If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be a bunch of very happy millenarian crazy-town ultra-orthodox rabbis pushing to overrun a bunch of their neighbours in the name of some supposed divine promise they intend to redeem, and their would be no hope of a home for millions of displaced palestinian arabs.

The one truism we can all agree on is everybody should stick to the green line, where they should have all stuck to in the first place. People didn't stay in their corners. Bad bad bad. Now they should go back to their corners.

 

[bankside]

By the way, the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief, which owned and operated the boat in question, is a Turkish organization that, while it does do charity work, is also affiliated with Hamas. In fact, the IHH is part of the Union of Good (aka the Charity Coalition) which operates as a virtual front for the Muslim Brotherhood and, in particular, Hamas.

The Free Gaza movement should've researched the charity they teamed up with for this mission. In this case, they worked with the IHH. Bad idea.

Turkey has reasonable friends, and it has interests in maintaining reasonable friendships. Why is Europe not talking to Turkey about this aspect?

 

[NotThatCreative]

Turkey has reasonable friends, and it has interests in maintaining reasonable friendships. Why is Europe not talking to Turkey about this aspect?

Sorry, it's an organization based out of Istanbul. It's not connected to the Turkish government (so far as I'm aware).

As far as why no one talks to Turkey about it, that would be geopolitics. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. The idea of fronts and seemingly nice organizations having connections to the less savory happens with groups of many religious persuasions and lots of organized crime too. Most Islamic terrorist groups have charities that front for them or funnel money to them. So does organized crime here in America. It's been a particular problem with a couple of Chicago gangs (the Gangster Disciples and the Vice Lords, for example), as a matter of fact. The Mafia is known for using fronts across the country. The Chicago construction industry has plenty of Mafia influence, and they're connected to riverboat casinos in Illinois as well.

To tie all that into geopolitics, it should be noted that Turkey is an important state for Europe, the US, and Israel. As an ally to the West whose military will only allow it to get so extreme before overthrowing it (which they've done before, resulting in a government usually more secular than the population at large), Turkey is nigh indispensable. They aren't the only allies to do this either. Pakistan (not a strong ally, but one nevertheless) has for decades encouraged some of the Islamic fundamentalism and lawlessness that is seen in the NW of Pakistan. To their credit, they've done better fighting it in recent years (probably partially because it's gotten too bad. It's said Balochistan is so bad these days not even the ISI can safely operate there). Nevertheless, Pakistan has used its lawless (at least insofar as the country's laws are concerned. The people on the border regulate and rule themselves) border with Afghanistan when it suits them, both to affect Afghanistan and to affect India. And the House of Saud has for decades supported extremist activities outside Saudi Arabia as a method of distracting its citizens from using extremism to remove them from power, as the clerical families would no doubt like to do.

Sometimes in IR you just have to allow some problems to continue, if stopping them might come at too much of a cost. Whether or not interest should trump ideology is a discussion people can and do have. But the reality as it stands right now is that interest does strongly tend to trump ideology for most states. Neither the US nor Europe nor Israel is an exception to this rule. Turkey has the upper hand in this relationship, and they know it too.

 

[NotThatCreative]

The one truism all can easily agree upon is if the Arabs layed down their arms there would be no more war, If the Israelis layed down their arms there would be no more israel.

If the Arabs laid down their arms Israel might let them be. Or they might make the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and Sinai as part of Greater Israel. Assuming the Israelis are the only victims here will get you an extremely lopsided view of the picture.

The one truism we can all agree on is everybody should stick to the green line, where they should have all stuck to in the first place. People didn't stay in their corners. Bad bad bad. Now they should go back to their corners.

Umm, so according to your theory on the truism we apparently can all agree on, whose side of the line does East (and West, for that matter) Jerusalem fall on? Not everyone can agree on what the lines are, or even if there are lines that can or should exist to provide a two-state "solution" to the problem. Getting people to stay in their "corners" when, prior to the past 65 years, they lived together in the same corner is rather difficult, wouldn't you say?

 

[bankside]

The only reasons the green line was crossed in 67 by Israel is because of the continued attacks on the Israeli borders and because Egypt closed down the straits of Tiran and were massing an army along the south border.

And as for each side returning to their corners, Israel tried that before by leaving the south of Lebanon in 2000 and the Gaza strip in 2005 which only inlarged the range of the morter & rocket attacks from Hezbollah in the north and from Hamas in the south.

Yes, and the only reason there were attacks in the first place was the right of return being ignored by israel ....

Each side in this has about fifteen "only reasons why" bla bla bla...

The only reasonably consistent historical message one can pick out of all the ideas swirling around like so much money in a radio contest wind tunnel, is that israel belongs inside the green line, not wiped off the map, and palestine belongs outside the green line, not wiped off the map.

Both sides deny each other's existential claims with about equal portions of [STRIKE]moronistry[/STRIKE]. [STRIKE]Moronicness[/STRIKE]? [STRIKE]Moronitude[/STRIKE]. Moronism. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner: "Moronism."

 

[bankside]

Here's a really awesome article that pretty much captures it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/who-are-the-friends-of-israel/article1591587/

Israel’s claim this week that its soldiers killed nine civilians in self-defence on an aid-to-Gaza flotilla it had boarded is at best tone deaf. It strains credibility. You attack unarmed ships at sea and when people resist, shoot them and then blame them. It’s beyond Orwellian. The analogies occur to anyone: Home invaders kill residents who try to stop an assault, etc. At least there, no one would assert self-defence. I know elaborate arguments have been unfurled to justify the claim but that’s not my point. Whether the claim is right or wrong isn’t even the point. It just won’t fly with most people. To them, it’s implausible on its face. That’s where tone deafness comes in.

 

[Kulindahr]

Both sides deny each other's existential claims with about equal portions of [STRIKE]moronistry[/STRIKE]. [STRIKE]Moronicness[/STRIKE]? [STRIKE]Moronitude[/STRIKE]. Moronism. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner: "Moronism."

Not to be confused with the very similar Mormonism, based in Salt Lake City.

Here's a really awesome article that pretty much captures it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/who-are-the-friends-of-israel/article1591587/

Israel’s claim this week that its soldiers killed nine civilians in self-defence on an aid-to-Gaza flotilla it had boarded is at best tone deaf. It strains credibility. You attack unarmed ships at sea and when people resist, shoot them and then blame them. It’s beyond Orwellian. The analogies occur to anyone: Home invaders kill residents who try to stop an assault, etc. At least there, no one would assert self-defence. I know elaborate arguments have been unfurled to justify the claim but that’s not my point. Whether the claim is right or wrong isn’t even the point. It just won’t fly with most people. To them, it’s implausible on its face. That’s where tone deafness comes in.

Except Israel didn't attack anyone -- they quite legally ventured to board ships sailing with the declared intent of violating a blockade.

The self-defense was on the part of the soldiers, who did not initiate aggression.

The tone deafness is on the part of those who are automatically biased against Israel and thus can't view things objectively. If the claim of those on the ship to self-defense were to be taken seriously, their response should have been in a disciplined and organized manner ("well-regulated"), with a clear warn-off to Israel.

 

[JB3]

Here's a really awesome article that pretty much captures it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/who-are-the-friends-of-israel/article1591587/

How is boarding ships that have already said they're going to break a blockade, and ships run by an organization affiliated with terrorists, considered an attack? In what world do you consider that an 'attack'?

Get real bankside.