goatland is a binary world

[iain]

carrotTOP should be banned from the airwaves

[MtnGoat]

"as far as what you'd do we have a pretty good idea by now "

 

Do we? Why don't you spell it out for "us" so we can see what you *think* you know?

 

"yeah, charges of apartheid would dent anybody's 'perfect' democratic armor"

 

Of course they do, as I've maintained Israel is hardly perfect and this is why.

 

I'm curious how a region in which not one jew is permitted to live, and which it's dissidents stupid enough to protest are slaughtered by Hamas and others, is considered more defensible than one that at least maintains open public debate *and* allows some, if not all, rights.

 

"I suspect pre-1993 south africa was also 'a flawed nation, as all are'"

 

Of course it was. What would you call it?

 

"this is terror by definition, a method used by both sides."

 

Is it? Does every Israeli military action use the same tactics? Nope.

 

Even if it can be shown some Israeli actions target innocents by design and full intent to this day as primary targets, the fact remains that *all* palestinians actions do so and they continue to do so. This is why I draw distinctions between bad, and worse.

 

Wether or not we call both sides tactics terror, the fact remains that one side repeatably, and consistently, and to this very day uses targeting of innocents as their single chief method and goal of attacks, and claiming "everybody does it" without attending to the specifics of the differences in tactics does not mean I intend to ignore same.

 

"6 billion aid package a year is a sure way to express disagreement"

 

So we should express disagreement by allowing Israel to be weakened, which is the goal of those slaughtering Jews? My disagreement with some of their actions will not extend to allowing those to hate them to gain in parity by weakening those they kill.

 

"yes, using bulldozers to collapse buildings on top of their inhabitants,"

Ignoring the warnings to leave again, are we? Ignore what you wish about the specifics of these examples, do Pals give warnings to Kibbutzes before executing mothers and kids?

 

"everything is black and white, isn't it goat?"

 

Only some things. Bad is better than worse, some rights are better than none, free dissent is better than none, that's all black and white. How to deal with it is far less so.

 

I note *you* find a lot of black and white in your opposition to Israel but when I make distinctions and defend them I'm the one being unreasonable somehow. Actually making a decision means one has decided something,yes, and this inherently means that will set you on one course rather than another.

[AlpineK]

Mtn Goatfuck.

 

Can't you post like a normal human, or are you an auto respose program.

[MtnGoat]

Don't consider profanity directed towards my opponents normal, sorry. Nor soundbite responses to complex issues. If you don't like 'em, don't read 'em.

[Peter_Puget]

quote:

---

Originally posted by j_b:

quote:

---

I dont think it proves much

---

I'd expect nothing different from you.

 

Ouch!

 

quote:

---

I am not sure what point you're making

---

that israeli policy toward arabs has a large responsability in this bloody mess. I am not surprised you can't see it even after reading the pieces I linked, those with a more open mind should think differently.

---

You state the obvious. That the past actions of one of the major participants in a conflict can have had an impact on the structure of current conditions hardly needs your links.

[Peter_Puget]

For those who have "clicked" and read some of J-B's links here is a link to Daniel Pipes.

 

Daniel Pipes

 

Here are some great gems from some of the "news" sources J-B seems to prefer. They all refer to the Israeli incursion in to Jenin several months ago.

 

Israel's actions in Jenin were "every bit as repellent" as Osama bin Laden's attack on New York on September 11", Guardian in its lead editorial of April 17.

 

"We are talking here of massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide," said a leading columnist for the Evening Standard, April 15.

 

"Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life," reported Janine di Giovanni, the London Times's correspondent in Jenin, on April 16.

 

"Amid the ruins, the grisly evidence of a war crime," the Jerusalem correspondent for the London Independent, Phil Reeves, began his dispatch from Jenin: "A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight has finally been exposed." He continued: "The sweet and ghastly reek of rotting human bodies is everywhere, evidence that it is a human tomb. The people say there are hundreds of corpses, entombed beneath the dust." (April 16th)

 

Reeves yet again: "atrocities committed in the Jenin refugee camp, where its army has killed and injured hundreds of Palestinians."

 

On April 17, the Guardian's lead editorial compared the Israeli incursion in Jenin with the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11. "Jenin," wrote the Guardian was "every bit as repellent in its particulars, no less distressing, and every bit as man-made."

 

"Jenin camp looks like the scene of a crime… Jenin already has that aura of infamy that attaches to a crime of especial notoriety,"

 

Writing on April 15, A. N. Wilson, one of the Evening Standard's leading columnists wrote "we are talking here of massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide."

 

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a leading columnist for the Independent wrote (April 15): "I would suggest that Ariel Sharon should be tried for crimes against humanity … and be damned for so debasing the profoundly important legacy of the Holocaust, which was meant to stop forever nations turning themselves into ethnic killing machines."

 

Some US reports contradicting the above reports:

 

Boston Globe: Following extensive interviews with "civilians and fighters" in Jenin "none reported seeing large numbers of civilians killed." On the other hand, referring to the deaths of Israeli soldiers in Jenin, Abdel Rahman Sa'adi, an "Islamic Jihad grenade-thrower," told the Globe "This was a massacre of the Jews, not of us."

 

On April 16, Newsday's reporter in Jenin, Edward Gargan, wrote: "There is little evidence to suggest that Israeli troops conducted a massacre of the dimensions alleged by Palestinian officials."

 

Molly Moore of the Washington Post reported: "No evidence has yet surfaced to support allegations by Palestinian groups and aid organizations of large-scale massacres or executions."

 

Some additional facts:

The Palestinian Authority now claims that 56 Palestinians died in Jenin.,

Human Rights Watch report said 52 Palestinians died.

Israel says 46 Palestinians died.

 

Note the absurd use of the terms genocide and crime in the J_B favored sources. What makes the use of such terms repellent and contemptible is that they are based in purposefully spread lies. As such they are not part of a vigorous debate but rather are mere propaganda points to be used by those who either uncritically accept such drivel or believe if you repeat a lie with vigor and volume you can will it into becoming the truth.

 

PP

[j_b]

quote:

---

"as far as what you'd do we have a pretty good idea by now "

 

Do we? Why don't you spell it out for "us" so we can see what you *think* you know?

---

I don't need to. Come on, the 1948 declaration of human rights and the geneva convention? This should leave you in pretty good company.

 

quote:

---

but when I make distinctions and defend them I'm the one being unreasonable somehow

---

because there is nothing black and white about letting israel pursue its long-standing predatorial policy toward arabs and their land. You use euphemism such as 'defect','imperfection' to describe one type of terror and systematic policy of expulsion (millions of refugees, 10k's of killed individual, 1000's destroyed houses, countless pulled olive trees, no right to own 93% of the land, no acknowledged citizenship, etc...) and in the same sentence graphically demonize arabs as a whole at every turn. You refuse to acknowledge that whether horror is committed with a gun, a jet, a bomb or by refusing pregnant arab women last minute access to a hospital, the results eventually and intent are the same. All these things are not errors or defects, they are the systematic genocidal policy that usually accompany land grabbing.

[AlpineK]

I don't read most of your posts for just that reason, but I do scroll by them. Thus none of your arguements ever reach me. If you want to win your audience (not that you can win me) you have to work with them.

[j_b]

quote:

---

Note the absurd use of the terms genocide and crime in the J_B favored sources. What makes the use of such terms repellent and contemptible is that they are based in purposefully spread lies. As such they are not part of a vigorous debate but rather are mere propaganda points to be used by those who either uncritically accept such drivel or believe if you repeat a lie with vigor and volume you can will it into becoming the truth

---

[sarcasm] yeah dude, you're right. 22 confirmed-civilians dead and 100's of injured in one event in one city is nothing, it's not even genocide [/sarcasm]

 

you seem so dim-witted sometimes.

 

http://hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/

[E-rock]

I can already hear Mtngoat and Puget's responses:

 

22 people dead is not genocide, even if they are members of one race or culture being targeted for extermination by another. If you can demonstrate that smaller massacres like this example contribute over time to a net decrease in the population of that race or culture, then THAT's genocide, and I'm not saying that it's not... just that anecdotes as evidence of racial extermination are much like people in the Mid-West basing their opinion of Global Warming on one unseasonably hot summer.

 

[ 11-12-2002, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: E-rock ]

[j_b]

I am not picking out Jenin, PP is. I place Jenin within the context of israeli policy toward arabs and palestininans. If they need more examples than I have given them so far, I'll be glad to oblige.

 

Webster

Main Entry: geno·cide

Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId

Function: noun

Date: 1944

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

[Fairweather]

I'm glad to see that J-B is equally outraged re the occupation of Lebanon by the Syrians.

 

Like America, Israel has a form of government that tolerates internal dissent. They are the only democracy in the region. We share common values much more so than with the Arab world. Israel is a friend of the USA. You stand by your friends. ...A difficult concept for some here, apparently.

 

I suspect that even if Israel pulled it's settlements out of the West Bank, and moved their capital back to Tel Aviv tomorrow, they would continue to be the target of ongoing terrorist attacks. I suspect that folks like J-B would continue their anti-Israel tyrades.

 

[ 11-12-2002, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[E-rock]

Muchas Gracias

 

[ 11-12-2002, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: E-rock ]

[Fairweather]

E-Rock,

 

Upon reviewing the thread......My apologies.

 

I have revised the offending post.

 

Brian

[j_b]

quote:

---

They are the only democracy in the region. We share common values much more so than with the Arab world. Israel is a friend of the USA. You stand by your friends. ...A difficult concept for some here, apparently

---

oh I see what you mean:

 

Top Stories - Reuters

 

U.S. Loses New Bid to Block U.N. Anti-Torture Pact

Thu Nov 7, 6:44 AM ET

By Irwin Arieff

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - A U.N. committee dealt the United States a heavy defeat on Thursday in its bid to block or cripple a draft anti-torture treaty that has been a decade in the making, paving the way for the pact's final approval next month.

 

Overriding opposition from Washington, the U.N. General Assembly's Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee approved the draft treaty by a vote of 104 to eight, with 37 abstentions.

 

Joining Washington were China, Cuba, Israel, Japan, Nigeria, Syria and Vietnam."

 

I am sure you'll be glad to have friends in such good company.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021107/ts_nm/rights_torture_usa_dc_2

[Fairweather]

If we (USA) had a known terrorist/enemy combatant in custody and could prevent another 9/11 by learning what this individual had to say....even if that meant torturing the bastard....then yes, I say a necessary evil in rare situations. (Even liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz [sp] agrees)

[MtnGoat]

"because there is nothing black and white about letting israel pursue its long-standing predatorial policy toward arabs and their land."

 

I never ever claimed there was, but you seem to think I have.

 

What is black and white is one party is bad, and another is worse, supporting the one that acts in a worse fashion does not support those who do not.

 

"and in the same sentence graphically demonize arabs as a whole at every turn."

 

I'd be interested to see one instance where I demonize all arabs, and if I had made such a grave error I will apologize and retract it. I purposefully and repeatedly use language indicating the beef is with those who seek to slaughter israeli civilians by design and continue to do so, as well as those who provide aid and support for these actions, and Islamic fascism as well. That my words condemn these individuals or groups but seem to you to include *all* a

 

rabs is not something I can do anything about. Wether or not individual arabs do or do not support such actions, the stated goal of many groups and the wars in the past is the elimination of Israel, and that is who I am addressing, just so we are clear.

 

"You refuse to acknowledge that whether horror is committed with a gun, a jet, a bomb or by refusing pregnant arab women last minute access to a hospital, the results eventually and intent are the same."

 

Again we see the assumptions made about what I do or do not acknowledge and what it means. While the results can indeed be the same in some cases, the intent is not necessarily the same nor come from the same level in organizations opposing each other.

 

Israel to date makes many efforts to avoid causing casualties such as in Jenin with troops in the streets and warnings to evacuate buildings. While the Pals who commit attacks on Israel do no such thing, their tactics are consistently without mercy or warning of any kind, any avoidance of non combatant casualties, and in fact these casualties are the sum total of their tactics.

[MtnGoat]

"A U.N. committee dealt the United States a heavy defeat on Thursday in its bid to block or cripple a draft anti-torture treaty that has been a decade in the making, paving the way for the pact's final approval next month."

 

Shall we discuss what is actually in the treaty, or just debate it based on it's nice name?

 

Consensus doesn't mean crap, what is important is content and if the content is not acceptable, no name makes it so either.

 

This is the same reason we correctly refused to sign the treaty establishing a world wide criminal tribunal, and the same reason we should not sign onto the UN declaration of human rights.

 

"I am sure you'll be glad to have friends in such good company."

 

So how do you feel about the nations on the human rights commission? I understand there are some real luminaries there too. But then, it seems names of treaties and commissions are more important than their content.

[MtnGoat]

"I place Jenin within the context of israeli policy toward arabs and palestininans."

 

You mean the policy of attacking terrorist infrastructure in the form of a known center of training and bombmaking?

 

Or could it be the policy whereby they risk their troops in the streets and issue warnings before demolishing buildings known to house bomb factories, instead of just leveling the whole area from the air?

[j_b]

anyhow, it's not like we are here to convince one another.

 

I only hope whoever cared took the time to read some of the links provided in spite of the usual attempts to shoot the messenger. I am confident that an objective reader would agree that the case for apartheid can be made. Not only is it recognizable in the field but law and policy clearly provide the official framework.

 

quote:

---

mtngoat: the UN declaration of Human rights [...] [is] a document I find severely flawed and I am not bound to consider it deterministic or applicable by my standards

---

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

mtngoat: the UN declaration of Human rights [...] [is] a document I find severely flawed and I am not bound to consider it deterministic or applicable by my standards[/QB]

---

I would go one further and state that UN "declarations" and attempts to control the lives of people have no relevance or power in the U.S. It would be unconstitutional for the U.S. to submit to "laws", "guidelines", or other measures that would restrict our freedom and override the laws created by our congress.

 

Greg W

[Peter_Puget]

quote:

---

Originally posted by j_b:

 

Webster

Main Entry: geno·cide

Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId

Function: noun

Date: 1944

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

---

Ah so given this we (ie western culture and the US in particular) is the victim of genocide by Al Qaeda. Now even I will say that is ridiculus but so is J_B's genocide assertion it is merely the corruption of the language for crass poilitical purposes. One Mafia crime family wiping out another could be genocide.

 

Note herr dimwitted one (J_B) that my post showed several things.

 

1. the unreliabilty of your favorite press.

2. it implied that the gross misrepresentation of event by your press must be purposeful

3. illustrated how lies are part of your and the Palestinian process

 

For an example of genocide I think a far better example would be in the Sudan or in Indonesia. Come on J_B how many Christians have been killed in those locations precisely because they are Christian? How many have been forcefully circumsized? I bet you don't know. I know it is greater than the Palestinians killed in Israeli conflict. And yet the financial supporters of the Jihadists there are the same supporters if the Palestinians.

 

Arafat called the Jenin incident "Jeningrad" bringing up a WW2 reference which also brings up German oppression and genocide (ie war crimes)yet during the seige of Leningrad Russians were falling at a rate of about 1,000/per day. About 1.5 million Russians died in Stalingrad. The fighting was a quantum leap greater than Jenin to the point where any comparison is simply goofy. I would say look at the numbers of Vietnamise killed during the Tet offensive. American's had a staggering kill to loss ratio. Yet the Iraelis killed Palestinians at a 2:1 ratio to their losses. I am sure we'd all agree that the Israelis are some of the best trained soldiers on the planet and the "general" population of Jenin not rigorously trained. The only rational conclusion one can make regarding the high number of Israeli casualties is that they tried like hell notto cause indiscriminant carnage - too the point where they lost soldiers because of it. How many were killed in the LA riots after the Rodney King verdict?

 

Checkout this link and read a much better example of a desired genocide.

Real Genocide

 

Note also how J_B continuously ridicules in his responses. Sad. Especially given the low level of his argumentation. The use of dimwitted earlier was stolen from him.

 

PP

 

[ 11-14-2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Peter Puget ]

[MtnGoat]

"...in spite of the usual attempts to shoot the messenger."

 

Is someone trying to shoot the messenger, or is disagreement with the message now the same as shooting the messenger?

 

"I am confident that an objective reader would agree that the case for apartheid can be made. Not only is it recognizable in the field but law and policy clearly provide the official framework."

 

A very good case for apartheid can be made, I'm glad to see I am now considered objective.

 

The point remains that those minorities who are held to have some rights encoded in law in Israel, however unfair or unequal, are way ahead of minorities in most nations who oppose Israel, where they have fewer, or mostly, none.

 

Such as Palestinian controlled ground, where your "right" to public disagreement or dissent is also your death warrant. Perhaps someone can show us some Syrian or Iranian websites where dissidents from their nations stances post their thoughts and views....and are not arrested or sentenced to death.

 

As always, ad nauseum, the point is not that Israel is perfect, it's that it's agressors are much less so.

 

"quote:

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

mtngoat: the UN declaration of Human rights [...] [is] a document I find severely flawed and I am not bound to consider it deterministic or applicable by my standards

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"

 

I must have missed where socialist standards for human "rights" became the defacto standard by which all views of rights are judged.

 

You may repeat this quote as often as you like, and each time I will agree I said it, agree that I stand against the UN's view of human rights, and repeat why... there is no "right" to make people hire you, no "right" to make other people labor to feed you, etc.

 

And most certainly no right to use the lives of peaceful individuals to meet the secular religous goals held by other individuals. Their religious assumption that only their ideas constrain all other humans because they say so, is no different from the pope in the 13th century deciding all humans are under his power for his goals because he says so. One group worshipped an arbitrary god, the other group worships an arbitrary "good" of society, and both decide their "good" is more important than good as seen by individuals. Sorry, don't buy it.

 

The UN's socialist view of rights is that they are granted by govt, not inherently owned by birth, and I will never agree that anyone but an individual owns their body, their labor, and their minds.

 

[ 11-14-2002, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[Peter_Puget]

quote:

---

Originally posted by j_b:

quote:

---

MtnGoat:

 

Israel: Constition, laws, rights, religous freedom.

Palestinians and their islamic supporters: none of these

---

MtnGoat is poorly informed:

 

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/return.html

 

[url=

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/VictimGroups/Palestinans/palestinans02.htm

]http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/VictimGroups/Palestinans/palestinans02.htm[/uR L]

 

in other words, it's not much different than what we did to the American Indians except times have changed and a little powder in the eye (barely) is needed to maintain appearances.

 

sorry about the new thread but the original one does not take replies

---

Mtngoat, I think J_B's initial post to this thread needs a rethink in view of later posts:

 

It seems that he has in fact affirmed your Israel claim. He has indicated that he doesn't like Israeli law but that does not negate the fact that there are in fact laws and that Israelis are held to them. He has one glaring omission: he does not provide support for the Palestinians and their Islamic supporters having these. He can't because they don't. Not only do the majorities in these societies not have these rights, but the minorities are even worse off. He is merely a propagandist. He also never responded to my question regarding how many "Palestinians" were killed by the Jordanian government. He never addresses the Arab countries at all despite the fact that your and my claims being comparative in nature. Here is a great quote by that honorable man Abu Abbas, you know the guy that organized the Achille Laurel hijacking during which Leon Klinghoffer (age 69 and in a wheelchair) was shot and thrown into the sea concerning Iraq:"Iraq continues to affirm, through President Saddam Hussein, our legitimate rights as Arabs to freedom, independence, and use of our own resources." Ah freedom, Independence use of own resources can you believe he actually said that. Amazing! By the way didn't he just have an unfortunate illness in Bagdad?

 

It would be interesting to review public declarations and written comment to see just when the genocide type of comment became the buzzword de jour. But it is consistently used and like Saddam's recent reply to the UN (which I recommend everyone read) sounds strikingly like the NAZI's of old. This is not surprising when the popularity of Mein Kampf and Protocol of the Elders of Zion in Arabs countries are considered.

 

J-B brings a North American reference into the mix with his "what we did to the Indians" comment. I would think the comparison fitting if the US was in the size and location of the state of Rhode Island and the Indians (occupying the surrounding territory) openly declared on several occasions that their intended goal was to wipe all settlers and push the survivors into the Atlantic Ocean. Then after the Indians tried and failed to do so several times the citizens of Rhode Island ended up occupying a few square miles of Connecticut which they were willing to give back 97% of to achieve a peace settlement. But alas that is simply not the case. The reference is simply absurd serving a political rather than a analytical purpose.

 

PP

[j_b]

I just want to remind everyone interested in understanding where this flurry of attacks comes from that they should read the links provided. These texts are not from anyone's press in particular, they are opinions and witness accounts by people with a good knowledge of the israeli state, often israeli citizens themselves.

 

I am always surprised when someone's wrong doing are justified by someone else's. it is really this kind of logic that allowed the situation to deterorates to what it is today. I really don't feel I have anything to add, rants of dubious logic won't take us very far (for those interested in getting somewhere).

 

oh yeah! check out for yourself the "socialistic" nature of the 1948 declaration of human rights.

 

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

 

I suspect the offending sections are the following:

 

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

 

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

 

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

 

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

 

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

 

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

 

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

 

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

 

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

 

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

 

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

 

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

 

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

 

it sounds like MtnGoat wants us to return to 19th century liberalism (the historical kind not the progressive type).