CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › If there was no massacre at Jenin...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If there was no massacre at Jenin...

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
Then why has Israel now KILLED the investigation?

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- The United Nations announced Wednesday evening that it is disbanding its investigative team formed to look into the Israeli military operation in the West Bank town of Jenin.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan made that decision one day after the Israeli Cabinet decided not to cooperate with the probe because of the team's makeup and mandate. (More on the sticking points)

Without Israel's cooperation, the U.N. team members could not get visas to enter the country.

The Palestinians, who originally accused Israel of massacring hundreds at the refugee camp, said the United Nations needs to investigate war crimes committed at the camp.

"It is not the numbers that count; it is the methods used by Israel in dealing with a civilian population," said Hasan Abdel Rahman, the chief Palestinian representative in the United States.

"To use Apache helicopters to fire missiles at civilian quarters, that's a violation of international law. To destroy homes over its inhabitants, that's a violation of international law. Not to allow humanitarian aid for 14 days to arrive to wounded people, that is a violation of international humanitarian law," Rahman said.

But Yehuda Lancry, the Israeli ambassador to the U.N., said the Palestinians continue to make wild claims. "There was no massacre. There are no atrocities in this camp. And, Israel intended to cooperate with the international community, but based upon a fair fact-finding inquiry and not judgmental conclusions."

The Palestine Red Crescent Society said Wednesday that 53 bodies had been recovered from the wreckage of the camp and buried.

Israel says "dozens, not hundreds" were killed in intense fighting as its forces attempted to clear out what it called "the fountainhead of suicide bombers."

Figures compiled by aid agencies show 140 of the camp's 1,896 homes were destroyed and another 200 damaged. One-quarter of the camp's population of 13,000 was made homeless, according to the agencies.

Annan said Tuesday he has "done everything" to meet Israeli concerns about the fact-finding mission.

But after four postponements, meetings, telephone calls and letters, Israel still questioned the fairness of the probe.

Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres later said he feared the U.N. Security Council could vote for an inquiry even more unfavorable to Israel and that the United States would not be willing to block it.

Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo said Tuesday the United Nations would soon have to decide whether to implement its own resolutions or give in to the Israeli government -- a move that would damage the U.N.'s credibility, he said.

In Brussels Tuesday, European Union President Romano Prodi rejected Israel's decision and said he would use this weekend's U.S.-EU summit in Washington to ask President Bush to "use his influence to persuade [Israeli] Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon to pull out of all occupied territories and give full cooperation to the international community." (Full story)

"[Israel's] continuing refusal to allow the U.N. fact-finding mission to go ahead in Jenin is unacceptable," Prodi said during a news conference outlining his agenda for the summit.

"If the army has nothing to hide, there is no reason to delay from going forward. For Israel, this is a chance to show the world that it has nothing to hide."
post #2 of 46
I was wondering that myself, they have nothing to fear if they are inocent.

It happend, no way around it.
post #3 of 46
Because there's no way Israel will get a fair shake from the U.N. They have precious little political currency in that organization, and there's a lynch mob mentality prevailing at the moment.

I used to be a big defender of the U.N., but I think it's quickly turning into the joke many have claimed it to be over the last ten years, and the hands-off approach taken by the Bush administration has only accelerated this deterioration. It's a sad state of foreign affairs, indeed.
post #4 of 46
Quote:
Tony Ryan:
I was wondering that myself, they have nothing to fear if they are inocent.

It happend, no way around it.
By G*d, if Tony Ryan says it happend (sp), it must have happend (sp). Thank goodness we have Tony Ryan around to let us poor saps know what's going on in the world.
post #5 of 46
That's more than a little mean spirited. I'd love to see a thread that doesn't collapse into mud-slinging and pedantic retorts.
post #6 of 46
I'd love to see a thread in which people talk from a position of knowledge, rather than just blithely assume that their own ignorance should be a guide for all of us.

I'll admit it: I don't know what happened in Jenin. I can make assumptions but I wasn't there and there are currently two versions of the truth. Saying "It happened" is the worst kind of non-thinking. How about "I think it happened" or "The evidence points to it occurring?"

(I teased Tony on his spelling because I perceived his post as lacking thought. His typos were just a means to an end...

... and my typo-tease was not meant in a mean-spirited way.)

Edited for typos.

post #7 of 46
Ahh, I see, sorry.
post #8 of 46
Thread Starter 
Burke, how could it not be abundantly clear that what Tony wrote was his opinion? How exactly was that not obvious?
post #9 of 46
I could see when I said, face it, that he might of taken it that way.
post #10 of 46
Thread Starter 
Also, I think that the denial of the UN is only making Israel look worse. If they won't let the UN in, they MUST let some third party in IMMEDIATELY.
post #11 of 46
Thread Starter 
By the way, that is my opinion. I am not ordering Israel to do anything.

In case there was confusion.
post #12 of 46
Quote:
devilf:
Burke, how could it not be abundantly clear that what Tony wrote was his opinion? How exactly was that not obvious?
You must have been a real terror in history class.
post #13 of 46
The U.N. is hardly an unbiased third party. Israel getting a fair shake from the United Nations is bloody unlikely. Seems like a smart move to me.
post #14 of 46
Thread Starter 
Yeah, let the truth be unknown!

People love a mystery!
post #15 of 46
Or find a better way to get the truth discovered then a one sided political attack from people who really have something going for Isreal.
post #16 of 46
Thread Starter 
I don't think I understand what you are saying.
post #17 of 46
Quote:
Call:
The U.N. is hardly an unbiased third party. Israel getting a fair shake from the United Nations is bloody unlikely. Seems like a smart move to me.
I agree, but shouldnt Israel arrange someone to go in? Like the US? I mean Im with the majority of the conservatives on the board when it comes to Israel (personal reasons) but this whole Jenin incident makes me nervous. I would hate to see a Jewish state go back on its history and commitd mass murder, but I dont think anyone knows for sure what has happened at this point.
post #18 of 46
Thread Starter 
I think a massacre at Jenin is just another example that military mindset = bad.
post #19 of 46
Well, there've been reporters combing the camp for stories that would point to a massacre, and aside from some typically overheated claims, they've found precious little evidence that anything other than a military offensive on a densely populated refugee camp where innocent civilians were callously put in harms way took place.

Now, I'm sure Israel would be more than happy to let the U.S. for an inquiry, but the rest of the world would cry foul, since we're one of the few countries that still seems to have an active interest in seeing Israel showing up on a map in five years.

I guess the problem, depending on who you're talking to, is that there are no impartial third parties left in the world; ergo, nobody's ever going to be satisfied with how this Jenin issue gets resolved.
post #20 of 46
<a href="http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020501-5587072.htm" target="_blank">http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020501-5587072.htm</a>

Quote:
Jenin 'massacre' reduced to death toll of 56
By Paul Martin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

JENIN, West Bank — Palestinian officials yesterday put the death toll at 56 in the two-week Israeli assault on Jenin, dropping claims of a massacre of 500 that had sparked demands for a U.N. investigation.
The official Palestinian body count, which is not disproportionate to the 33 Israeli soldiers killed in the incursion, was disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement for the northern West Bank, after a team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reported to him in his Jenin office.
[Two weeks ago, when European and particularly London newspapers were reporting estimates of "hundreds" massacred, Israeli sources in Washington said they expected the Palestinian toll to reach "45 to 55."]
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan suggested yesterday, in the wake of the Palestinian body count, that he may disband a U.N. fact-finding team that was to visit the camp to determine whether a massacre had taken place.
Mr. Annan was responding to a decision by the Israeli security Cabinet earlier in the day not to cooperate with the U.N. team.
The U.N.-Israeli dispute appeared unrelated to the Palestinian admission there had been no massacre.
The Palestinians had suggested that most of the bodies were buried beneath the rubble of houses bulldozed by Israeli troops. No digging for bodies was taking place here, and there was no stench that could have come from decaying human flesh.
The earlier Palestinian claims had sparked international outrage and prompted the Bush administration to press Israel to accept a fact-finding mission by the United Nations, an organization that the Jewish state regards as having a pro-Palestinian bias.
Mr. Kadoura yesterday showed a reporter for The Washington Times the official Palestinian list of those who died. It contained 50 names. Six additional bodies, he said, had not been identified.
He no longer used the ubiquitous Palestinian charge of "massacre" and instead portrayed the battle as a "victory" for Palestinians in resisting Israeli forces. "Here the Israelis, who tried to break the Palestinian willpower, have been taught a lesson," Mr. Kadoura said.
He insisted that Israel had tried but failed, thanks to the heavy fighting, to destroy the entire warren of homes in the camp that had housed 11,000 people.
The destruction, pictured graphically on television, appeared linked to Israeli bulldozing of the houses from which the remnant of the resistance forces were firing.
In fact, it covers the size of a large football field and constitutes only about 10 percent of the housing in the camp, and a far smaller proportion of the housing in the city, which was largely left untouched by the Israeli incursion.
The figures shown to The Times included 233 injured persons, mainly men. The figures revealed that 18 persons had been injured and one had died after the fighting had ended, the result of accidentally detonating either shells left after the fighting, or booby traps that were set by Palestinian gunmen throughout the camp.
A British expert attached to the International Red Cross said these booby traps were almost identical to those used by the Irish Republican Army.
The British claim suggested to analysts that IRA guerrillas were schooled in terrorist weaponry and irregular warfare, as were many radical guerrilla movements, in Palestinian, Syrian and Iranian training camps in Lebanon.
From behind a desk bedecked by portraits of Mr. Arafat, a string of past "martyrs" and of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Palestinian chief official in the city, who is also the Fatah leader, portrayed in an interview the events as another chapter in a long saga of resistance to foreign invaders — from Crusader times onward — that, he said, had made Jenin "the heart of Palestine" for centuries.
The propaganda war continues, meanwhile, in the refugee camp itself. Families whose homes had been destroyed were ordered to sit and lie inside tents pitched near the destruction, to be available for interviews and filming with foreign reporters and photographers. At dusk, with the press opportunities concluded, they returned to houses offered to them in the undamaged city or in the rest of the refugee camp.
Other young men, members of various factions, have been on duty in the camp's narrow streets, eager to conduct foreign correspondents to places where they say Israelis killed militants after they surrendered or had been captured.
Others in the city say the resistance to the Israeli incursion had been carried out by only about 10 percent of the militants who had originally been in the area. Most had retreated into the hills or into city back streets as the Israelis entered the area, they said.
Families living in houses directly opposite the destroyed area have told The Washington Times that Israeli soldiers, who temporarily occupied their houses just before the final battle began, treated them without violence and assured them: "You will not be harmed."
They confined the 36 members of the Abu Khalil family to two rooms, allowing them out one by one, and set up a snipers' point upstairs through two holes in the wall — under a family framed message in Arabic: "There is No God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger."
They confiscated identity cards but left them on the table before slipping out during the night.
At the United Nations in New York, Undersecretary-General Kieran Prendergast said "a thorough, credible and balanced report on recent events in Jenin refugee camp would not be possible without the cooperation of the government of Israel."
"Since it appears from today's Cabinet statement by Israel that the difficulties in the way of deployment of the fact-finding team will not be resolved anytime soon, the secretary-general is minded to disband the team," he told reporters after briefing the U.N. Security Council.
Diplomats said Mr. Prendergast told council members that Mr. Annan was leaning toward disbanding the three-member team, which has been joined by numerous advisers. The team, which was to have arrived in Jenin on Saturday, remained in Geneva yesterday.
The Security Council is to take up the issue of whether or not to disband the mission at a meeting today.
The United States put forward the resolution adopted by the Security Council welcoming the dispatch of a U.N. team to find out what happened in Jenin during the Israeli military's attacks.
Israel initially agreed to the idea, but subsequently raised questions over the composition of the team, its scope of inquiry, who could be called as a witness and what documents would be presented to the panel.
Mr. Prendergast said that "with every passing day, it becomes more difficult to determine what happened" in Jenin. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Mr. Annan was considering whether to let the fact-finding team begin its work in Geneva or "simply abandoning the mission on the assumption that satisfactory terms of reference could not be worked out."
• This article is based in part on wire service reports.
post #21 of 46
Quote:
devilf:
I think a massacre at Jenin is just another example that military mindset = bad.
So is the terrorist mindset. How else do you combat the terrorist mindset? [which is far more destructive in that it purposely targets innocents to further political or idealogical agendas.]
post #22 of 46
Quote:
devilf:
I think a massacre at Jenin is just another example that military mindset = bad.
I agree with you that an over-reliance on military force is awful, and I'm still not sure about the long-term effectiveness of this offensive, but Israel is dealing with some nasty, indoctrinated killers with whom there is no negotiating. Even if the Israeli government shares a part of the blame in kicking off this latest spate of terror, its citizens do not, and that's why they must, unfortunately, act militarily.
post #23 of 46
Thread Starter 
I don't see a huge difference in the military and terrorist mindset. Both use force to get a goal accomplished, often against innocent targets. Neither mindset rewards individualistic thought.
post #24 of 46
Quote:
devilf:
I don't see a huge difference in the military and terrorist mindset. Both use force to get a goal accomplished, often against innocent targets. Neither mindset rewards individualistic thought.
Big difference: terrorism preys solely on the innocent, while in war, the military is aimed squarely at an armed opponent (at least, in theory, and certainly in our most recent offensive(s) in Afghanistan, friendly fire notwithstanding). That innocent civilians are killed in war is, at present, unavoidable, but I hold the Taliban/Al Queda responsible for these losses in our most recent conflict, and Hamas/Hezbollah/etc. for Jenin.

The problem here is that we're dealing with a firmly entrenched, aggressively violent ideology that leaves no wriggle room for negotiation, so force becomes the only option. These are grim times; even worse, until Islam embraces modernization, and the Israelis halt the expansion of their settlements, the bloodshed will continue.
post #25 of 46
Dev, if you honestly can't see the difference between the military mindset & the terrorist mindset, between targeting specificly known terrorists & targeting innocent civilians, between self-defense and pre-emptive strikes & the deliberate murder of dozens of innocents in the middle of a Passover seder, then I can understand why you see the situation the way you do.
post #26 of 46
Quote:
Adam Price:
Dev, if you honestly can't see the difference between the military mindset & the terrorist mindset, between targeting specificly known terrorists & targeting innocent civilians, between self-defense and pre-emptive strikes & the deliberate murder of dozens of innocents in the middle of a Passover seder, then I can understand why you see the situation the way you do.
Well said. Im really enjoying just agreeing with people, makes my life a lot easier.
post #27 of 46
Thread Starter 
I would like to know how the atom bombing of a civilian target like Hiroshima is not a terrorist act.

Or the destruction of a baby formula factory in the Sudan.

And let's be honest, at the School of the Americas we teach terrorism.

The difference is that when someone wears a uniform we somehow feel ok about it.
post #28 of 46
Terrorism and the military one and the same? That's ridiculous, and such an oversimplification and exaggeration that it should be obvious to everyone here. Our military does not teach, and in fact teaches against, the killing of civilians. The fact that mistakes and problems happen as a result of a few bad apples doesn't make the whole barrel bad. But naturally, people will this warm fuzzy view that the military is evil will no doubt see it that way.

Devin, you said that a third party should be let in IMMEDIATELY. That's the problem. Israel doesn't care what you think, or what really anyone else thinks. Its their survival, their war, and all the naysayers on the sidelines mean dick to them. Until their population says to, they probably won't. Especially not an organization that would just as soon see them not exist as a nation.
post #29 of 46
Quote:
devilf:

The difference is that when someone wears a uniform we somehow feel ok about it.
Ok, so every soldier who ever fought and died was, in essence, a terrorist?
post #30 of 46
Aspirin factory in Sudan = probably could be considered a terrorist act considering the motivation behind it.

Hiroshima bomb = I thought no comparisons to WWII could be made to any modern situations!

But I'll address it for the historically inept: It ended a war that was begun by a sneaky vicious attack. They say a million men would have died in order to overtake the Japanese homeland should an all-out invasion have been carried out. Therefore the bomb expedited the end of an already costly war which was going to become even costlier. We'll never know if this had been the way things would have happened and it's hard to defend the use of the bomb...but it did bring to an end a very long and costly war.
post #31 of 46
Hey devilf, I'd say you have a valid point with the Japan bombings. I wonder if we'd do something like that today? Things were a lot different then, and I'd hope that we wouldn't. I don't think that we could do that today.

As to that baby formula factory, I still take that with a grain of salt. Has it ever been definitively proven that was a factory? Even if it was, it was thought to be a weapons plant, so it was bombed. That's a big difference from bombing a school just to make a point.
post #32 of 46
The sign the Iraqis were holding up that said "baby milk factory" was simply there for CNN's consumption. There was no baby milk factory.

Now in Sudan there actually was an aspirin factory which was bombed...for reasons of which we are all now fully cognizant.
post #33 of 46
Yeah, that Sudan plant is a big red flag; our intelligence may have fucked that one up (big surprise), but we certainly wouldn't have bombed anything intentionally like that. Despots generally like to place weapons building plants right next to baby-formula factories, or day schools. It's a canny strategic move.

Taken out of context, Hiroshima is unconscionable. Viewed through the prism of WWII..... well, it's still hard to swallow, and it's debatable as to whether or not the Japanese were close to surrender, but at the time, it felt as though they would only respond to something drastic. Dropping the A-Bomb is nothing I want to support, but if it was the only option that prevented sending our troops into a meat grinder for another five years, then, sadly, it's justifiable. Remember, we were not the aggressors in this conflict.

But the aim of the terrorists is not to save lives; they seek only to scare into submission a people who value life more than they do (I've seen this sentiment invoked a thousand times by members of Hamas and the like), which is a ludicrous goal because they'll never get the upper hand by nickel-and-diming with suicide bombers. Say they use a dirty bomb..... well, that'll most likely be the end of a Palestinian state and its people.

Terrorism is state-sponsored homicide, and its vastly different from the aim of our military (notice I say "aim", since war crimes are another matter, and something members of our forces have certainly been guilty of in the past).
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Clarence Beaks:
Remember, we were not the aggressors in this conflict.
.
As with every thought in this thread, this "fact" is not as clear either. The Japanese population was exploding and thier economic expansion was moving at a rate unheard of at the time. Only 80 years had past since Japan was forced to open her borders and she had already won a war against a major world power (Russia) The Japanese adapted quick to the modern world but many still resented the fact that the US forced them into it. They were happy in their isolationism. They felt that the US found it in their interest to open and exploit Japan (which we did) but that they would not allow themselves to be carved up and completely raped like the poor Chinese did.

Now they were forced to compete in the modern world and what happens? The US puts rules in place that did not allow them function. (Naval accord that limited Japanese military expansion but allowed the US and her allies free reign) Is this right? It's what we're doing right now with the missile shield. When we say defense, others see agression. Is it fair that the US was allowed to build carriers unabated but the Japanese limited to a certain tonnage and number? Is it fair that they were not allowed to build a military necessary to defend themselves? Difficult questions to answer.

The US dictates policy around the world for our good. It is not always right. Even that which may seem absolutely clear may not be from a foreign perspective. It was wrong for the Japanese (terrorists) to attack the US, but what was their alternative? They were running out of oil. Their economy would've imploded in 18 months causing millions to suffer. Now we as Americans could've cared less, but from their perpective, it was war or slow starvation. Once again, such a clear cut situatition was not so when more perspectives are examained.

Even when all facts about Jenin are out, the different perspectives here will see it as they see fit. In essence, there will be no right and wrong. Each side in any conflict does what they have to for the good of their group. In the end, even Hitler was working towards what he thought was a better world, just like all the opinions presented here.

In my own opinion, seeing as how vigorant some people here are, I have no doubt that if alot of the people here, no matter what side they were on, would commit atrocities if given the chance. Everyone feels they know what should be done and this is often used as justification for history's worst events.
post #35 of 46
[quote]Imperator GAC:
Quote:
The US puts rules in place that did not allow them function. (Naval accord that limited Japanese military expansion but allowed the US and her allies free reign) Is this right?
<img src="http://www.worldwar2-pictures.com/images/Pearl%20Harbor%20Damages.jpg" alt="" />

Can't possibly imagine why the U.S. was wary of Japanese military expansion......
post #36 of 46
Did you read the rest of my post? What you have there is the result of American policy, not the cause of it.

From my signature, you can infer two things. One, I'm a historian and two, I support the maintenance of a hegemony. I can see that we agree on a lot, but I go about analysing things much differently, that's all.

If America is to continue maintaining its hegemony and wants to the dominate the world for at least the foreseeable century, it must understand such history. Make no mistakes, our policies oppress the world and this in turn creates many enemies. In order to retain our strength, we cannot simply say that the Japanese or Arab terrorists are just expansionist animals that need to be confined by treaties and destroyed by missiles. We must be smarter in the way we take things and the way we kill our enemies so that new enemies do not arise.

I believe our government has been doing this brilliantly for years. As mentioned, the school of the Americas is one such covert way we do this. We keep our puppet governments in power through the covert use of force, but you must understand that innocents suffer for our wealth.

Also, please don't infer the I'm un-american. Most people here are even if they do disagree with you. Learn about what is going on. Accept the fact that we kill people so that we stay rich. God does not bless this country. God does not bless Bin Laden. What blesses this country is cruise missiles. People throughout the ages have prayed to god to bless their people or nation but in the end, it is the sword that decides the course of human history. Understand our sword and what it cuts through. Like some here have said, it's definitely not pretty. In fact, from many foreign perperspectives, we are the savages. I agree, but at least we're savages with TVs and cars and that's what's important.
post #37 of 46
Our policy caused the Japanese to sail thousands of miles to bomb Pearl Harbor?

If that's the case it was Japan's policies that caused our bomber to fly over and drop Fat Man and Little Boy.
post #38 of 46
That's true and can be argued as such. Our response, I believe was justified in this regard. As I've said, military power is what determines the course of history. Oppressive western policy caused the Japanese to attack us creating an oppressive military environment for us which we responded to by killing many of them. In the end, it doesn't matter whether the US was right or not, we have the nukes and that's what determines what happens. All the gods in the world couldn't save the Japanese from us and as long as we prosper, the same can be said for our enemies.

The question is, is this right? Should we not consider what we did to the japanese in the first place? I'm not even saying that they had a right to attack us. I'm saying we should examine their reasons for doing so in order to better understand how to continue maintaining American strength into the future. It's never as simple as just saying they were bad guys and decided to slap us good guys around.

post #39 of 46
That's all well and good to examine history using whatever paradigm you want.

What does that have to do with the false accusation by the New York Times, Hezballah, and the UN that Isreal killed 500 or more people in Jenin? -the origin of this particular comic strip we're reading.

post #40 of 46
GAC,

you are posting some interesting stuff. Sorry that you are getting one-line questions and google image searches as responses.

And to think - you went to all that effort...
post #41 of 46
It has plenty to do with it. The thread ended up at WWII but we were discussing the different perspectives applied to a situation.

What is the American goal in the Middle East. We want stability and peace if that can also be acheived. Now let's examine how we can bring different perspectives together. One side maintains there was no massacre. The other maintains there was. This is before any facts are actually presented. And when they finally are, whatever they may be, each side will find a way to twist it to meet their political ends. That is why I went into the Japanese/American perspective for Pearl Harbor. Something that seems black and white but is not when fully examined.

Saying the Israeli committed a massacre does not help solve the issue. Saying they didn't commit a masscre does not help solve the issue. All this does is help encourage more war. Therefore, what I was saying is that people on both sides really need to examine their enemy and try to understand where they are coming from. If then you still decide to kill them, then it would be fine. But too many times, people make decisions with too much emotions involved and it tends to hurt peace processes that should lead to peace or incite war when one isn't yet necessary.

I wonder, how do I come off with this? Do I seem ignorant, naive, sadistic, or pragmatic, or what?
post #42 of 46
First, it was one of Arafat's own people who released the real casualty numbers. 56 is far less than 500. Does 56 constitute a massacre? Yes, if it's in a movie theatre. If there were 38 Isrealis killed in the same action it's called a battle.

As for our motivation in the region...that discussion is as far varied as is whose God is the best.

But here's the fundamental disagreement you and I currently have: Our policies are not "responsible" for the attack upon us by the Japanese. They chose that course of action. They are wholly responsible for committing men and machine to destroying our Pacific Fleet. Destroying our Pacific Fleet was essential for the ongoing island-hopping expansionist campaign of the Empire Of Japan...at the time.
post #43 of 46
Thanks, Kevin. I spend alot time analyzing socio-history and current events so the efforts are there already.

Kro, I didn't disputed whether or not a massacre did or did not occur. You're right, our disagreement is how history should be view. Which perpectives are correct and why societies are moved to do things. Now to be clear, I did not justify the Japanese attack, merely brought up perspectives for discussion.

Also to be clear, I'm not pro-Israili or Palestinian. Merely an advocate of peace perhaps with the US being the winner. As much as I try to explain my questions, I still get the feeling that you think I'm un-american for posing such questions. I think I've been clear on this. I support the American hegemony.

I had moved the discussion to WWII cause I thought it'd be easier to discuss and then slowly talk about the parallels of that war and the current situation. I did not wish for emotions to enter the conversation. Here though, I think we still have a disagreement as you don't believe people repeat history and that a study of socio-history does not help guide us into the future. Well, that's fine too. I guess in that case. I have little more to argue as that is where I find my facts and base my arguements.

whew! I'm going back to the gossip board and staying there!
post #44 of 46
There's actually very little emotion here...at least from my own point on this discussion, and from yours I would imagine.

Support for American hegemony? Actually, if we didn't have to project our power anywhere in the World again I'd be a happy puppy.

And while it is true that to not recognize past events is to be without current perspective. And that aggression has on its surface an air of continuity in any conflict -the bombs all go boom in much the same way then as now- but the difference is that you cannot persuade me that U.S. policy can ever be held the responsible for an unprovoked attack, be it straight up military or covert terrorist.

Yes, there are threads of commonality in most conflict, but each conflict creates and is involved with different elements each time.

I'd love to be able to say that intense study of events surrounding the attack on Pearl Harbor would be profoundly applicable to the present day conflicts. Unfortunately the sheer act of sneak attack -such as the Twin Towers attack- is about the only common thread. It would be really nice to be able to apply past lessons...but much like learning itself, constantly changing paradigms and events dictate a much more on-the-fly method of learning.

Knowing DOS, and the events surrounding its creation, doesn't mean that lesson is at all applicable to knowledge of WinXP.
post #45 of 46
Quote:
Clarence Beaks:
Because there's no way Israel will get a fair shake from the U.N. They have precious little political currency in that organization, and there's a lynch mob mentality prevailing at the moment.

I used to be a big defender of the U.N., but I think it's quickly turning into the joke many have claimed it to be over the last ten years, and the hands-off approach taken by the Bush administration has only accelerated this deterioration. It's a sad state of foreign affairs, indeed.
I agree with Beaks! Oh my God! What's going on here? All the blood is rushing from my head, no wait, there is a sex scene on TV, whoa, I was getting worried there for a second.

Wierd as it is, I agree with Beaks on this one.
post #46 of 46
I understand what is being discussed and the various viewpoints. However, the moment someone says that one country is responsible for making another country attack them, unless the one country already attacked the other, is just sillyness in the extreme and the copout of somebody looking for an excuse.

It is the ultimate in nonresponsibility. It has been par for the course throughout history. After all, It was the Jews who made Hilter do what he did. It was the Chinese who made the Jaganese do what they did. It was the Ethiopians who forced Musolini to attack them.

It was Sam the dog that told David Berkowitz o shoot those people, it was the Beatles that told Charles Manson to commit the murders. iI was captain Howdy that told Regan to use that cross on her self and nobody is responsible for their actions. I don't except many here to understand the concept that nobody but the person themself is responsible for whatever condition that person is in. They themselves. It seems this whine of "I wasn't responsible" just keeps getting worse and worse. It is the same for countries. Another thing, If it happen more than ten years ago, stop using it to justify the actions of someone else. Its the past. It happened, its over. Let it go&gt; Otherwise, "We are bad, because we practiced slavery" will be used to stop us, that were not alive then, everytime someone can't use reason to achieve their desired result. Fuck being responsible for Americans from 300 years ago, we should maybe just work on being responsible for ourselves today.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › If there was no massacre at Jenin...