I found this very interesting article on the net. With only a few days before the anniversary of 9/11, the article posts a very interesting perspective. I am not being stereotypical, but I think this needs to be discussed.
[ September 07, 2002, 12:36: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I think the key here is Muslim politics vs. Muslim ideology. Despite the claims of the Islamic establishment, they are not one and the same.
I took a class that spent an entire semester studying Islam about two years ago, and so I know a bit more than the average American about this religion. (Or so I'd like to think, anyway. I don't claim to be an expert.) I believe that the majority of "common" Muslims are not of the sort that are widely publicized these days; however, I'm starting to think that the majority of the Muslim leadership IS of the violent stereotype that pervades these days.
It's sad, really, that such extremists ended up taking over that Malaysia conference. I hadn't heard of anything like that happening before today. It's all the more evidence that most of the Islamic leadership is corrupt and willing to support violence.
The idea that the Muslim world is collapsing is an interesting one. Although the upheaval and violence that would undoubtedly ensue would certainly be a bad thing, I don't think that it would be worse than the upheaval and violence that is present today -- in the long run. The world can either allow the status quo to continue, or hope for change.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
An interesting thing that I have read in the newspaper before this article was from a Muslim in North America comparing the Palestinian Struggle to the struggles of Black Slavery in the United States. I have heard that some blacks committed criminal acts to achieve their means. He said it was folly "to allow this horrendous double standard to exist, one group is forgiven while the other is looked upon in anger".
Are they the same? Different? Or what?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...suicide bombings were permissible because 'victims are considered to have died a martyr's death.' They go straight to paradise, cleansed of all sin."
Most. Dangerous. Belief. Ever.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
*shrug* Islam is hardly the only religion with extremists and would-be martyrs.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The Palestinians are, as the Blacks were, in pursuit of an arguably just cause... freedom of oppression. But justice is in the eye of the beholder, who usually does not have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Do the ends excuse the means? Do two wrongs make one right? In this instance, I'm forced to agree on both counts.
"The failure of fundamentalism to attract broad support suggests that, at the limit, radical Islam has reached a dead end. And that 9/11 was an act of desperation by a dying movement, not the sign of a clash of civilizations."
Thing is, fundamentalism does not depend on widespread support to survive. Niven's 16th law comes to mind, but it goes much deeper. Both sides are trapped in a vicious circle of hatred, intolerance and violence. Breaking the cycle can only be accomplished by mutual effort, and a shared willingness to put the past behind. Decades of bad blood don't flow away overnight, but if neither party is prepared to make concessions, escaping the loop is impossible. In that regard, 9/11 presented a golden opportunity towards rapprochement... regrettably, nobody took it.
[ September 07, 2002, 14:09: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
As a rule, there aren't a whole lot of things that I'm exceedingly certain about.
But I am certain that Joe Squarejaw from Liberty City Texas (who grew up playing up football in his perfectly green yard with his WWII vet uncle, went to church every sunday, doesn't drink, smoke or do drugs, and has wanted to be a marine ever since he was four) would strap explosives to his body and die a "hero" for truth, justice and the American Way if America were ever occupied by a swarm of dirty mangey Mexicans armed by those Russkie bastards, who killed momma and banned his daddy from working at the family service station.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Nice race-baiting.
Posted by Thoughtcancer (Member # 480) on :
I happen to know Joe Squarejaw, and asked him if he would indeed do these things.
Joe Squarejaw looked me square in the eye, and said: "Son, all hypotheticals aside, We here would never let Commies in the country in the first place. I happen to watch "Red Dawn" every Sunday night, after church, just to remember the reasons why I am loaded for bear at all times. So you see, it would never be necessary for me to strap dyno-mite (sic) on my person. I'd just shoot 'em dead with some double-ought buck, and have a Bud."
Joe Squarejaw's wife Mary Jane had a similar opinion. "We ain't here because our great-granddaddies were nice people, man. We're here because they were some mean sons of bitches." She then thoughtfully spit a wad of chaw out into the spitoon before proceeding. "I reckon they'd have a fight on their hands, that's for sure."
Anyway, seeing as how neither one of them actually answered the question, I decided to talk to their son, Buck. Buck, who was All-State Quarterback two years in a row until his knee was blown out in a game against Tulsa, had this to say.
"Dude. If it got that bad, I'd do it. Hell. I've got nothin' to live for now, anyway. My knee done gone bad."
There you have it folks.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The Palestinians are, as the Blacks were, in pursuit of an arguably just cause... freedom of oppression.
So they claim. But the catch is, they're not BEING oppressed, at least not by Israel, and CERTAINLY not by us. The PLO's (and similar groups') battle with Israel has become one of those darned annoying conflicts where the legitimate issue is long over, and yet people continue to fight anyway. It's somewhat similar to slavery reparations, in that way. "Sure, we'd be happy to make up for things, except for one small problem: the people we'd have to make it up to are DEAD! YOU, sir, have no claim."
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Up until just recently Palistinians had jobs in Israeli work areas, there extremist faction did see to their un-employment. I don't know if they were making as much as their Israeli counterparts, but, they still had jobs. Well, till the suicide bombers stepped up their operations...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I'm going to have to ask for Omega's definition of oppression.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Off the top of my head, I'd define it as an official institution designed for the specific purpose of preventing members of a group from exercizing what would otherwise be their legal rights, for no reason other than the fact that they are part of said group.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
So the slaves weren't being oppressed, then? I mean, they had very few - if any - legal rights.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Okay, Omega-stinian, what are your legal rights, and who bestowed said rights to you??? In your case, since the law gave black people the right to be, legally, nothing but property, then they were not being oppressed, since this was their legal right.
If you mean that a person should have the right to live in peace with the people around him/her, instead of being bothered with anything from financial to physical attacks because that person belongs to some group or another. Then yes, we are all oppressed.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
There are two basic rights, as I see them. Those are: the right to life, and the right to liberty. Any law which interferes with these rights, or the rights that you have under those rights (i.e. -- freedom of speech coming under the general category 'right to liberty'), need to be stricken or overthrown.
I don't understand Omega's definition. I don't know why someone who claims to profess believe in a higher power thinks that slaves aren't oppressed. But that's Omega, and he's a good example of the flaws of modern conservatism.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Off the top of my head, I'd define it as an official institution designed for the specific purpose of preventing members of a group from exercizing what would otherwise be their legal rights, for no reason other than the fact that they are part of said group.
Maybe official oppression is like having tanks parked outside your door to enforce a nobody-goes-outside-till-we-say curfew because you're a Palestinian and live in a certain area.
Or maybe it having soldiers smash through the walls to the house to your left then smashing your walls so they can then move through your house and smash the walls of the house to your right because you're a Palestinian and live in a certain area.
Or heck, maybe bulldozing the house alltogether because you're a Palestinian and live in a certain area is some form of oppression.
Or maybe government sponsored settlements is a kind of oppression.
All I know is the Palestinian people aren't being oppressed, especially by Isreal. Omega said so.
[ September 09, 2002, 14:56: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I don't know why someone who claims to profess believe in a higher power thinks that slaves aren't oppressed."
You're joking, right? Omega's god is all about slavery, under all but one condition.
"[Israelites] shall not be sold as slaves. You shall not rule over [an Israelite servant] with harshness, but shall fear your god. As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession for ever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." -Yahweh, Leviticus 25:42-46
The Hebrews weren't allowed to take slaves from among themselves, but everybody else in the world was up for grabs.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Surely he was just having a bit of a laugh then?
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
didn't God create sarcasm? when he created everything?
I once had a great conversation where i proved government and oppression doesn't exist. it might apply here but I'm not sure which side i would be supporting.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Why do I get the feeling that your definition of "prove" in this case is about as watertight at those who "prove" that evolution is all a bit silly?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Isn't it, though? I mean fish with feet? C'mon. What's next? Externally-sponsored displacement of an indigenous population (who had occupied the land for centuries), rigid segregation funded and politically supported by foreign states which purportedly hold the ideals of 'freedom and justice for all' in high esteem, and brutal police-state tactics liberally applied in an on-going effort to undermine every attempt by said people to reconstruct their ever-lessening cultural infrastructure with the delusional expectation that these people will take it all in stride and not be upset? I mean that'd be really silly.
Posted by Captain-class, Mike-variant (Member # 709) on :
nobody can prove anything. the universe is a fluid series of uncertainties.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
So the slaves weren't being oppressed, then? I mean, they had very few - if any - legal rights.
Of course they were being oppressed. The right in question was their right to freedom as a law-abiding citizen. Thus, I would modify my top-of-the-head definition to include any institution, not necessarily official ones, that violate people's rights. Of course, if they're widespread enough to qualify as a decent-sized oppression, the government has to ALLOW them, so they're, say, "passively official". I would also modify legal rights to extend to the general God-given rights, since as Jeff pointed out, some people don't have legal rights and are still oppressed.
Maybe official oppression is like having tanks parked outside your door to enforce a nobody-goes-outside-till-we-say curfew because you're a Palestinian and live in a certain area.
Or maybe it having soldiers smash through the walls to the house to your left then smashing your walls so they can then move through your house and smash the walls of the house to your right because you're a Palestinian and live in a certain area.
Or heck, maybe bulldozing the house alltogether because you're a Palestinian and live in a certain area is some form of oppression.
Or maybe government sponsored settlements is a kind of oppression.
Put quite simply: they started it. Israel was taking hit after hit after hit and doing NOTHING for quite some time. Some of their techniques are questionable, but then, you don't know what intelligence they have about the houses they demolish, and the international press has an annoying tendency to overreport anything Israel does that could be considered questionable.
Omega's god is all about slavery, under all but one condition.
For varying definitions of slavery. POWs and criminals? Heck, I'd STILL consider them fair game. You wanna punish someone in such a way that they actually CONTRIBUTE, that's the way to do it: make 'em work, don't let 'em leave, i.e. slavery. Then there are people in debt, in which case such a concept is more or less the same as garnishing wages. But also remember, slaves were released every... seven or fourty-nine years, I'm not quite sure which.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Which slaves?? Debtors/Indentured Servents were, but slaves????
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
They started it.
It's such a good argument because it ignores a whole ton of history.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
It's even better because his invocation of the term "they" indicates an acceptance of the principle of collective punishment along ethnic lines.
Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
grouping along any lines is a misperception of the concept of the individual.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
But it's easier boy!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:It's such a good argument because it ignores a whole ton of history.
It's such a good generalization that it begs to be backed up.
When Joe opens your door and invites the local thugs in to ransack your house, you don't up and give him the key again.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Well, that's a simplistic distilation of the Israeli-Palestinian confict.
As far as the history goes, its available for you go read at most libraries and fine bookstores. Please avail yourself of the appropriate material without hesitation. The many and varied social and cultural issues of the conflict await you in abundance.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
They DID start it. Israel did nothing, and they were still attacked. So they did something. People in territory that they validly captured in a war are the ones attacking them, and they're doing what they have to do to defend themselves. No, I don't agree with ALL of their tactics. But the strategy is sound and reasonable.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Yes, they did start it by sitting there and wanting someone to come appropriate their land to begin a state.
Meanwhile, we wait for the international community to come to grips with the fact that he Palestinian people need a home state as the Jewish people did.
And I think that actions on both sides are far from reasonable. Not the least of which is the failure of the Palestinian people to address their needs by using nonviolent means and the failure of the Israeli government to institute policies with an eye to other people in the region.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
The Palestinians had a home. Not a very comfortable one, but a home nonetheless. Then somebody came up with the bright idea to allow the Jews to settle in their decrepit basement, as compensation for the demolishing of the Jew's old apartment block. And for a time, the two inhabitants got along just fine. Until the new residents decided to stop paying rent and declare their floor independent, that is. Nobody had thought it possible, but the Jews, having great talent for interior decoration and wonderful artistic taste, miraculously managed to transform their dirty little corner into an oasis, complete with the very latest in trendy Ikea furniture. Needless to say, this not only drew the attention of other house owners in the street, who were none too pleased with the massive influx of state of the art garnishment their new neighbour seemed to be receiving, but it also inspired feelings of jealousy and regret among the original occupants. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Hmm. Which side am I arguing for, again? The one certainty I have, is that the Israelis have made an extremely disturbing transition from oppressed and persecuted to sponsored oppressor and persecuter in a space of merely fifty years. How much longer?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Another query for Omega: "territory validly-captured in war?"
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
That may be a reference terrority captured in the 6-Day War or the Yom Kippur War.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Yeah, I understand that's where he's alluding to. It's the concept of "valid territory" emerging from an act of invasion and occupation that perplexes me.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The basic thought behind "validly captured in war" is that if you are attacked first, or if you catch your enemy with his pants down while he's preparing to attack you, you're morally entitled to all of your enemy's lands you can capture and hold.
I HAVE read the history, Jay, and I suggest you haven't, unless you're going to start citing actual historical events like the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the subsequent League of Nations and UN actions.
quote:Yes, they did start it by sitting there and wanting someone to come appropriate their land to begin a state.
Then they should have been bitching at the Brits, and before them, the Turks, and everybody ELSE who'd ever occupied that land.
Who are "THEY anyway?" You can't say "Palestinians," as Palestine, as anything more than a region (Like Asia Minor and Patagonia - and when have you ever heard anybody reffered to as an "Asia Minoran" or a "Patagonian"?) didn't EXIST until 1947.
And in any case, if you still manage to believe that, I'll have to ask you to please leave California immediately, and see to it that it is returned to Mexico, or failing that, the various native tribes of the coast.
IIRC, the appropriate tribe would be the Gabrielino/Tongva http://www.tongva.com/. Posted by Capped In Mic (Member # 709) on :
Sweet merciful crap! Its easier to decode the W359 caps than it is to decipher what the hell that charming bastard meant.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I find your claim to have read the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict refreshing and I congratulate you on your citation to the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
With all of your reading on the subject, you must then know that the �they [the Palestinian people] started it� argument is simplistic and does nothing to help either understand the roots of the problem or find a solution. That argument places the events of the recent past in a historical vacuum and fails to grasp the social and cultural problems that underlie the current round of violence. In short, it fails to ask or address why these things are happening and as a result it ignores a whole ton of history.
I need not cite to a White Paper or United Nations Resolution 181 to point that out.
I think the Palestinian people have legitimate grievances. They are of course expressing them entirely in the wrong way as factions support suicide bombers and killing civilians. Moreover, I think that the state of Israel has legitimate grievances that it often expresses in the wrong way with assassinations, continued support of settlements in the occupied territories and killing of civilians.
There are complex social, cultural and historical issues going on here which have been far ignored by Omega and, to the extent you�re actually addressing the issues in the debate, you as well.
Regarding the apple to oranges argument about California, this is another odd tangent you have a habit of taking. I clearly referenced the Palestinian people and not the area of Palestine.
However, back to at least part of the debate at hand, reassessing my opinion regarding the oppression of the Palestinian people, I have come to think that they feel, or at least a portion of them feel, that they are at war. As a result and they feel that they are occupied people. War and occupation has its own set of problems not unlike oppression and many Israeli actions smack of some of the unsavory parts of occupation. But the Palestinian people are not wholly blameless in all the problems afflicting the area.
[ September 11, 2002, 16:54: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It is true that there are enormous social, economical, and cultural problems tied up in the situation, which render it a virtual Gordian Knot.
However, since untying every loop to everyone's satisfaction would appear most likely to take us until the sun turns into a red giant, the Alexandrian solution seems a more feasable one.
quote:I clearly referenced the Palestinian people and not the area of Palestine.
My point was that you cannot have a "Palestinian people" until and unless you have a "Palestine" as a legitimate political entity, which had never happened up to the referenced point, any more than you can have an "Appalachian People." They were Arabs who happened to live in and around a region called Palestine, just as we have Kentuckians who live in a region known as Appalachia.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So there are no Gypsies on this planet? Or Kurds?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's a very good point. I hadn't thought of them.
Hmm.
The Gypsies don't claim a homeland, AFAIK. They are nomadic wanderers, travelling from place to place.
The Kurds and the Palesinians, however, may be more similar. I'll have to research Kurds and Kurdistan and get back to you.
However, off the top of my head, the Kurds, in reference to being considered a distinct society and culture, existed before 1947. The Palestinians do not seem to have.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:if you catch your enemy with his pants down while he's preparing to attack you, you're morally entitled to all of your enemy's lands you can capture and hold.
So, uh, let me get this straight. With a stroke of a keyboard, you can declare invasion and occupation to be a moral action full stop. You can define Palestinians as not posessing any historical identity beyond that of being generic towelheads within a set boxy area. And then you expect those who disagree with you (which could also be phrased as the vast majority of the world excluding one Rob Farquhar) to recant their foolish lies and believe you.
Well, I suppose that confirms my earlier suspicions.
I'd like a model train and some new boots for Christmas. I hope you'll like the milk and cookies.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
It's interesting that you had to delete the first fifteen words from my statement to make it say what you wanted it to say, dolt.
quote:With a stroke of a keyboard, you can declare invasion and occupation to be a moral action full stop
It can be. Occupied Germany and Occupied Japan ring a bell? Or are you TOTALLY ignorant of historical precedent? Occupation of a hostile power by an aggrieved nation or nations is nothing new, and there's nothing particularly immoral about the act in and of itself, but there is in how it's carried out.
It is my contention that the Israelites set fair and reasonable conditions for their withdrawal from the occupied areas, which have not been met by the Palestinian "government." If you contend otherwise, present your supporting data. Keep in mind that references to the treaty in which Israel returned the Siani, and the Oslo Accords, will probably be made. References to the Israelis being mean to the Palestinians should only be made if you can show how other occupying forces have treated a continuously hostile population in a different manner.
quote:And then you expect those who disagree with you (which could also be phrased as the vast majority of the world excluding one Rob Farquhar) to recant their foolish lies and believe you.
You know how I feel about the vast majority. The vast majority believes in sky-beings that run the universe.
However, no, I don't expect them to do that. They also have the option of presenting their argument in a form other than the puerile way you just have, -- as Sol has done. He made very good points with his examples, enough so to require the reevaluation of position that I mentioned (that's what 'further research' and 'get back to you' mean.)
If they fail to do that, however, they are merely blowing rancid fartsmoke, as you are.
Have a nice Christmas vacation on Planet ASS.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Well, its good to see the fiesta of love rolls on.
Regarding the Palestinian people / Palestine debate and the implied lack of legitimacy, this is a red herring. Even the Balfour Declaration acknowledged way back in 1917 that the area had "non-Jewish" communities that had rights.
quote:His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
*emphasis added
The 24 July 1922 Mandate for Palestine from the The League of Nations The League of Nations reads:
quote: Article 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
quote:Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem, as well as Arabs and Jews who, not holding Palestinian citizenship, reside in Palestine outside the City of Jerusalem shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.
*emphasis added
Part III, Section C, Sub-Section 1, Part b reads:
quote:To foster co-operation among all the inhabitants of the city in their own interests as well as in order to encourage and support the peaceful development of the mutual relations between the two Palestinian peoples throughout the Holy Land; to promote the security, well-being and any constructive measures of development of the residents, having regard to the special circumstances and customs of the various peoples and communities.
*emphasis added
These documents appear to make it clear that the Palestinian people existed as a social and cultural entity before 1947.
quote: It is my contention that the Israelites set fair and reasonable conditions for their withdrawal from the occupied areas�
Care to list these fair and reasonable conditions so we can all see.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:mutual relations between the two Palestinian peoples throughout the Holy Land
Q: How can there be TWO "Palistinean peoples?"
A: There are two peoples, (Jews and Arabs) living in the region called Palestine.
If you can think up another answer to that question, I'd like to hear it.
I would presume that the Arab state-to-be was also to be called Palestine. Since the rest of thequotes above presuppose its existence, they are not entirely relevant, since that event
quote:upon the recognition of independence
never came to pass due to the attacks upon Israel.