DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 24, 2006, 05:09:28 PM
-
Or more accurately, apply them when appropriate. It's bad enough dealing with Tee's misguided hyperbolic rants of how out of control our military is, or Lanya's op-ed parade of how Bush is a war criminal, so why not actually try applying terms appropriately.
Let's start with "Torture". There's a continued tactic of those with BDS who claim that we "torture", that the Bush administration condones "torture", that those who support our war on Terror and efforts at interrogating captured prisoners advocate "torture". All despite the continued on-the-record proclaimations that we don't. It sure does appear the left distorts the term "torture", in an effort to apply it to anything that may be considered "uncomfortable". In reality however "uncomfortable" does NOT equal "torture".
I do believe that folks like Bush or those who support the war have been very up front in NOT condoning torture. And I do beleive that term is appropriately applied to the physical personifications of torture such as the tearing of nails, breaking of bones, piercing body parts, joint dislocations, basically the stuff done to John McCain when he was a POW at the hands of the Vietcong
Sadly, it does appear that the left, in their fervor to condemn anything & everything Bush, applies "torture" to mean anything that might remotely bring discomfort or psychologocal duress to an enemy combantant. And heaven forbid if they don't get "legal representation". This is a war, not some criminal investigation. The enemy has made it clear what their intentions are. Now, you don't have to believe that, you don't have to believe Bush, you don't have to believe me. What would be a breath of fresh air however, would be in you folks honestly applying terms, where they're appropriate. Which includes refraining from knee jerk accusations that anyone that doesn't agree with your POV must be a supporter of "torture"
Can you folks do that?
Now, shall we move on to "tax cuts for the rich" & "states rights"?
-
Now, shall we move on to "tax cuts for the rich" & "states rights"?
Giving newspeak lessons are we?
-
_JS says:Giving newspeak lessons are we?
When one considers the amount of misinformation that goes along with the phrase tax cuts for the rich, perhaps newspeak is in order.
And when one considers the recent states rights movements concerning assisted suicide and medicinal marijuana one would be correct in assuming that states rights is not synomynous with racist keeping the dark folks down politics.
-
States' Rights died when its main supporters flipped sides to get George W. Bush elected in 2000. Mostly this administration has only supported States' Rights when it helped the Federal Government to dump unfunded mandates onto states, or to play states off on one another as in the case of the Katrina aftermath. A real states' rights supporter should look to Canada as a role model. Provinces there have real power over the federal government - to the point that the fed has to negotiate with them! States' rights in the United States exists only where the Federal Government allows it, and with the "War on Terror" (points to me for alluding back to the original post) I don't see that coming back anytime soon.
Seriously, medicinal marijauna is nothing. Evangelicals don't want legalized drugs, so we won't have them.
Tax cuts for the rich are what they are. Perhaps when the right-wing stops telling people how poor farmers and low income working class have had to sell everything they owned to pay off the "death taxes" (bald faced lies) then we can discuss your newspeak. Bob Corker runs an ad here that uses the above lies, right out there for all to hear.
I'll simply use the phrase, "don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."
As for "torture", and legal rights Sirs. The first word you need to define and with a real definition, not something a third grader might use, is "war."
I don't recall any declaration of war. Who are we at war against? What are we at war against? Ideas? Some nebulous group of people that you ill-define as "islamofascists?"
-
As for "torture", and legal rights Sirs. The first word you need to define and with a real definition, not something a third grader might use, is "war."
I know the definitions of both. I just wish the anti-war folks would apply them appropriately. Being made to listen to loud music isn't torture. Being made to NOT get the daily required 8 hours of sleep is not torture. Being humiliated is NOT torture. And taking prisoners during a time of war, does not translate into requiring automatic legal representation nor full geneva convention protections if the enemy has chosen not to abide by the requirements of being protected by them
If you missed the "declaration", just go back to when Congress gave Bush full authority to go after our enemy. When they decide to represent a specific country, then perhaps you'll see a formal declaration. And we're at war against an enemy that'd like to see us all dead. At leat that's what they've sayed publically.
-
Being humiliated is NOT torture.
On the contrary, a United Nations definition of torture in a 1987 treaty to which the United States is a signee (called UNCAT) the following is the formal definition of torture.
1. Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Notice that the pain or suffering can be mental and certainly humiliation can be severe enough to be considered torture. Also notice another interesting aspect of UNCAT in Article 2:
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Just something to note for later.
And taking prisoners during a time of war, does not translate into requiring automatic legal representation nor full geneva convention protections if the enemy has chosen not to abide by the requirements of being protected by them
There is no war. That's the problem. There is a policy of internment and that's nothing new or creative. It is also not very effective.
-
There is no war. That's the problem.
Well, there you have your finger precisely on the problem, and another perfect example of this thread. We are indeed at war, whether you wish to believe it or not. I suppose until Congress officially decrees it, it must not exist, right? I don't recall congress declaring that the sky is blue, but on cloudless days, I'm still acknowledging that it is. You don't? By all means though, keep the head buried in the sand Js. See no evil, hear no evil, right? :(
-
Much more accurately, the world is facing a crisis embodied in a malignant movement, part of whose tactics are using terror on an apparently growing and persistent scale. But to use the word "war" to summarize this struggle is both simple-minded and distorting. First, palpably, the use of "war" signals a primary reliance on military means, which our misadventure in Iraq (but not Afghanistan) puts to the lie there and in so many other material sites. (Consider the dilemmas with North Korea and Iran, for example, or Chavez's chauvinism.) Second, as much as this struggle is a matter of controlling behavior, it is also and first a struggle of ideas and pathways of culture. The ultimate cure for the world's present ills is an honest exchange of ideas and modes of living with an aim toward a true and stable resolution. In a sense, this could be (one of a number in our history) of turning points. As such a decidedly over-emphasized orientation to literal war is a a complicating factor of grand proportions. That is not to say military conflict will not be necessary; it will be. But as in Iraq, so elsewhere: wrong policy choices and wrong execution can aggravate the overall picture, which must be our primary focus.
-
Ridiculousness aside Sirs, you cannot even properly identify the enemy in your war.
We are at war, sure, in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not talking about Congress declaring war, obviously that is a trite notion that was abandoned long ago. Yet, entering wars on nebulous entities, that's a problem.
September 11 showed us a few things. First, it welcomed us to the world at large. We're a superpower, but the truth is that our power has severe limits. We and the Soviets liked to think that we ran the world, but in many ways we didn't control anything. It is a lesson we still have yet to learn apparently. We also needed better security and I think we're working towards that, poorly in some areas and over-zealously in others. But, the drive is there to get it right from many parts of the political spectrum.
Yet, a war on terrorism? No. It is stupid and destined to fail just on its very concept. In fact, to look at your analogy of the three monkeys - I think it is you and others who "believe" in this war that have no real concept of the world outside of the United States. You cannot declare a war on a nebulous notion. Even you and your leaders cannot define the enemy well.
-
Ridiculousness aside Sirs, you cannot even properly identify the enemy in your war.
Actually I can. They are the folks, who in the name of Islam, have pledged to kill any non-muslim who doesn't convert, to rid the region of any influence of Western Civilization, and to build a global governing body based on their mutated version of Islam
See, not so hard, is it
Domer did hit a pertinent point that the truest analogy is that of a cancer. One that continues to spread, and one that left unchecked will.......well history has taught us once. We'll have to see if we learned our lesson the 1st go around. So far, Anti-war and anti-Bush folks aside, we are doing a better job this go around of identifying the threat EARLY, vs waiting for it to become an imminent global power
Sept 11th was simply a wake up call. Seems some folks still keep wanting to hit the snooze button.
-
Apparently you ignored most of Domer's post.
So it is a "war" versus an idea. You've said so yourself. An idea that very few people have.
How exactly does one fight a war against an idea? Or, is holding the idea and espousing it OK, so long as you don't do anything about it? Or is even believing in a worldwide Islamic state a threat, even if you do nothing about it?
Is internment the proper solution?
-
Apparently you ignored most of Domer's post.
No, I picked out the pertient point to it. I'm not required to "take it or leave it"
So it is a "war" versus an idea. You've said so yourself.
Not quite, but close. It's a war vs the people that have that idea
An idea that very few people have.
Bzzzzzz, wrong again. It's a malignancy that already infects thousands upon thousands of Muslims and Islamic sympathizers. But just in case you were about to pull some hyperbolic charge, I'm not advocating concentration camps for people that think that way. I'm advocating taking out as many as possible the ones who've actually taken up arms in that cause, and actively planning attacks against our way of life, in the name of that idea. See the difference?
-
Bzzzzzz, wrong again. It's a malignancy that already infects thousands upon thousands of Muslims and Islamic sympathizers. But just in case you were about to pull some hyperbolic charge, I'm not advocating concentration camps for people that think that way. I'm advocating taking out as many as possible the ones who've actually taken up arms in that cause, and actively planning attacks against our way of life, in the name of that idea. See the difference?
People make decisions for themselves Sirs, how can an idea be a "malignancy" that is "infecting" thousands of Muslims and Islamic sympathizers (what is an Islamic sympathizer?)?
I never said anything about concentration camps, you brought that up without me ever saying a word. I asked if internment was the answer. Is internment the solution?
You're advocating killing people taking up arms in the name of that cause, but I suggest you don't even know which terrorist groups support such a cause. What if a terrorist group has no such belief, will they be left alone?
-
People make decisions for themselves Sirs, how can an idea be a "malignancy" that is "infecting" thousands of Muslims and Islamic sympathizers
When the idea is to kill anyone who isn't Muslim or happens to be an Israeli. And with a continual thought process being instilled at birth, THAT spread becomes a malignancy
what is an Islamic sympathizer?
Someone that supports the above "idea". Now you're not going to pull the dren that I'm referring to all Muslims now, are you??
I never said anything about concentration camps.
Will that's good, because it sure seemed to be getting steered in that direction, with the accusatory tone I was getting from you
You're advocating killing people taking up arms in the name of that cause, but I suggest you don't even know which terrorist groups support such a cause
Asked and answered already, Hamas, Hezbollah, AlQeada, Islamic Jihad, etc., etc., etc. They all have a foundation, spearheaded by AlQeada, of killing non-muslims, especially Israelis, with the hope of establishing an Islamic based global governing body. Albeit with their twisted form of Islam. You know, the ones who have been publically pledging such as their goal. They also appear to have no problem killing actual Muslims who don't share the same agenda.
(http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/TownHall/Car/b/PN092606.jpg)
-
I don't recall any declaration of war.
It was called "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)."
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107)
-
<<It's bad enough dealing with Tee's misguided hyperbolic rants of how out of control our military is, or Lanya's op-ed parade of how Bush is a war criminal, so why not actually try applying terms appropriately.>>
1. Your military is in fact out of control. It is committing criminal acts never seen in all of WWII on the part of Americans. It is not obeying the laws of warfare, it is torturing and murdering prisoners and it is covering up the torture and murder of prisoners. It is massacring civilians and covering up the massacre of civilians. And not just the military but its civilian "overseers" who have basically given it a blank cheque. Now whether these truths are stated in business-school numbered-point prose or in "hyperbolic rants" should not carry one one-hundredths the significance of the fact that these things are being done. It's bad enough that Lanya, and I, and other sane and normal people in this group have to deal with the continual lies and distortions of the rabid right on these topics (to say nothing of the nit-picking that goes along with them as if matters of great significance depended on it) but now we have to be faced with the asinine distraction of defining "torture" as if . . . as long as someone here can point to a worse form of torture not yet committed . . . or not yet KNOWN to have been committed . . . by Americans, then everything short of the most extreme form of torture must be OK.
I have challenged you - - sirs - - REPEATEDLY - - to simply state whether or not the forms of treatment reserved by the "President" as his prerogative to inflict on persons in American captivity - - WHETHER OR NOT YOU CALL IT TORTURE, it makes no difference - - is acceptable if inflicted on Americans captured by the other side. In your typical gutless fashion, you have so far refused to answer that simple question. You have dodged, you have evaded, you have come up with snarky little pretexts - - but you have not answered. And will not answer either because you lack the balls or the intellectual honesty or both.
Instead of answering one simple question, you now have the balls to come up with a new distraction, to define torture. Dictionaries are full of definitions of torture. Pick one and go with it. I see from further back in the thread that definitions of torture were in fact offered to you. Definitions you didn't accept as presented, you had to tweak and hammer at them until they were refashioned into new, hand-crafted (by you) definitions that, curiously enough, applied to things the (so far, according to you) the Americans have not been proven to commit. You are of course stacking the deck once again for anyone stupid enough to fall for your childish and pea-brained game. Don't waste my time or anyone else's with this kind of bullshit, you are merely insulting the intelligence of anyone who pays you the courtesy of reading that drivel.
We know now you won't answer the simple question that I have repeatedly put to you, and most of us understand why. Basically it's because even you know at some level of your hate-filled little brain that what Bush wants to do to his prisoners is just plain WRONG.
-
I have challenged you
And I've answered repeatedly what "I" would do, if I were in charge. Not sure what more you want
Your military is in fact out of control. It is committing criminal acts never seen in all of WWII on the part of Americans
I rest my case. 8)
-
<<And I've answered repeatedly what "I" would do, if I were in charge. Not sure what more you want>>
What you would do if in charge was never in issue, never asked.
The question is really simple: The "President" reserves the right to interpret, through executive orders based on Justice Department memos, (like the one that calls the Geneva Conventions "quaint and old-fashioned") the right to interpret what the Geneva Conventions mean, for the purpose of instructing troops and CIA operatives how to interrogate prisoners. Would you be content to see the same standards (which could conceivably permit waterboarding, which the "President" has recently assured the nation is not now being used,) applied to American prisoners by their captors?
-
Asked and answered already. I'd have no problem with increasing the amount of interrogative techniques, currently PULLED back by this administration. I have no porblem with non-physical means of interrogation. I have no problems with using humiliation as an interrogation technique. I'm getting tired of answering the same question
-
<<Asked and answered already. I'd have no problem with increasing the amount of interrogative techniques, currently PULLED back by this administration. I have no porblem with non-physical means of interrogation. I have no problems with using humiliation as an interrogation technique. I'm getting tired of answering the same question>>
As tactics that can be used by "Islamofascists" on AMERICAN troops, you have no problems with that? Or are you still talking about what techniques you'd authorize to be used on "Islamofascists?"
Perhaps you might THINK you have answered the question, but your answers just are not clear.
-
As tactics that can be used by "Islamofascists" on AMERICAN troops, you have no problems with that?
What planet are you typing from, Tee? You think that Islamofascist terrorists are going to use loud music? Humiliation maybe?? Try beheadings, try burning alive. I could only wish to God that they'd use the tactics we use
::)
-
There's a continued tactic of those with BDS who claim that we "torture", that the Bush administration condones "torture", that those who support our war on Terror and efforts at interrogating captured prisoners advocate "torture". All despite the continued on-the-record proclaimations that we don't.
Umm-hmm. My younger brother made continued on-the-record proclamations for years that he wasn't using drugs, either.
-
My younger brother made continued on-the-record proclamations for years that he wasn't using drugs
My compassion goes out for your brother,..............but so........................? Trying to imply that I'm lying? Trying to imply those who support our efforts at taking out terrorists, but draw the line at physical torture are lying??
-
Just pointing out that just because you, or someone else, says something, does not necessarily make it so. So relax. If I wanted to call you a liar, I would. I'm very blunt.
-
Just pointing out that just because you, or someone else, says something, does not necessarily make it so.
Well, to coin the phrase of many a valley girl........d'uh. Of course there are folks that say one thing, but are lying about it. Our former President comes to mind. Point being, so? Oh yea, you answered that, just "pointing it out" that people do lie. We thank you for that bit of updated information. Perhaps at some point, you or Tee can actually demonstrate when and where our current President is lying about not supporting torture. And one more time, I'm referring to pysical torture, such as joint dislocations, body piercings, stuff like that. I, nor many others I'd imagine, consider such things as being made to listen to loud music, or made to wear panties on their head, as "torture"
Now, being made to listen to Al Franken.........then perhaps that would be going too far
-
Get over yourself.
-
I never knew I could be under myself :D
-
Tee: As tactics that can be used by "Islamofascists" on AMERICAN troops, you have no problems with that?
sirs: What planet are you typing from, Tee? You think that Islamofascist terrorists are going to use loud music? Humiliation maybe?? Try beheadings, try burning alive. I could only wish to God that they'd use the tactics we use
STILL not answering the question, sirs? Thanks for an inadvertent demonstration of pure hypocrisy and pure intellectual dishonesty. And BTW - - do you wish to God that they'd burn the soles of American prisoners' feet? Because that's the latest atrocity that's surfaced after three years of cover-up.
-
And BTW - - do you wish to God that they'd burn the soles of American prisoners' feet? Because that's the latest atrocity that's surfaced after three years of cover-up.
As opposed to the current policy of beheadings and burning them alive? Yeah, I think it would be an improvement.
-
STILL not answering the question, sirs?
Well, I had along tome ago, just apparently not to your satisfaction, despite making it crystal clear of my position.
do you wish to God that they'd burn the soles of American prisoners' feet?
No. I condemned that one already as well. Care to keep batting .000?
-
<<Perhaps at some point, you or Tee can actually demonstrate when and where our current President is lying about not supporting torture. >>
Oh, you're making it WAY too easy for me, sirs. How about the Army covering up for three years that its Green Berets tortured prisoners to death in Afghanistan, including one guy whom they severely burned on the soles of his feet while beating him to death.
Oh, OF COURSE, the "President" knew nothing about that, either. Three years of torture scandals, and he never seems to know what's going on anywhere, does he?
(Take a look at my post "Is it torture if they only burn the soles of his feet?" for the link to the source.)
-
<<As opposed to the current policy of beheadings and burning them alive? Yeah, I think it [burning the soles of their feet] would be an improvement.>>
The victim was also beaten to death. Is that an improvement too?
-
How about the Army covering up for three years that its Green Berets tortured prisoners to death in Afghanistan
Excellent, If it's so easy, you can produce the memo from Bush authorizing the cover-up, right? Oh wait, this is going to be more of that lack of a memo actually proves the allegation, right?
-
The victim was also beaten to death. Is that an improvement too?
Don't know if beating them to death is less painful than burning. Why don't you get me some facts on that?
-
<<Excellent, If it's so easy, you can produce the memo from Bush authorizing the cover-up, right? Oh wait, this is going to be more of that lack of a memo actually proves the allegation, right?>>
No, sirs, YOU'RE right. Murder after murder, torture after torture, scandal after scandal, and yet the "President" of the United States of America and the Commander in Chief of its armed forces three years after the event knows NOTHING - - absolutely NOTHING - - about any of this. He's as surprised by each new revelation as the man on the street. How the heck would HE know any of this was going on? If there's no memo authorizing a cover up, he knew nothing about a cover up.
OH-kay.
-
So, no memo, no proof, no nothing of any kind indicating that the President of the U.S, passed on his permission & support to some abhorent Green Berets to do what they wanted to some prisoners.
Yep, more of that lack of proof is supposed proof crap again
-
<<Yep, more of that lack of proof is supposed proof crap again>>
Nope, it's more of that "absence of smoking gun" is NOT proof of innocence" thing combined with "nobody could possibly have missed seeing things as often as the "President" claims to have missed seeing them."
Basically, more of that good old, plain old, common sense that you conservatives never had and never will have.
-
it's more of that "absence of smoking gun" is NOT proof of innocence" thing combined with "nobody could possibly have missed seeing things as often as the "President" claims to have missed seeing them."
Naaa, more accurately it's the same tired lack of proof is supposed proof crap again. Good idea about that sleep. It's pretty apparent how transparently weaker your arguements keep getting
-
It was called "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502)."
Thanks Ami. But if you'll read what I said I acknowledged the war in Iraq. Despite what you might think of me and leftists in general, I'm not an idiot, nor am I blind to the outside world. My problem is with the "war on terror(ism)."
Now Sirs, you said that these children were taught this at brith and that makes it a "malignancy" and an "infection." I have a few questions that I need answers on, because I don't understand this line of reasoning and why this makes it acceptable to go to war.
1. Children grow up. Clearly not all of them become violent suicide bombers and terrorists. As adults we make our own decisions, correct? Does that not diminish this "infection?"
2. What if a terrorist group denounces any religious symbolism and makes their case strictly political? Say, to free Palestine of apartheid policies? Do they still need to be attacked under this "war on terror" or are they no longer an Islamofascist threat?
3. What if, by bombing and using other methods to attack these groups, you are only driving more individuals to this cause by causing "collateral damage?" We've seen this effect in Cambodia, Lebanon, and Northern Ireland, will tactics change or will more attacks be necessary?
-
<<Don't know if beating them to death is less painful than burning. Why don't you get me some facts on that?>>
Sure. Why don't you take off your socks and shoes and stick out your foot. Right . . . here.
-
Clearly not all of them become violent suicide bombers and terrorists. As adults we make our own decisions, correct? Does that not diminish this "infection?"
One can only hope
What if a terrorist group denounces any religious symbolism and makes their case strictly political? Say, to free Palestine of apartheid policies? Do they still need to be attacked under this "war on terror" or are they no longer an Islamofascist threat?
Depends on their actions, rhetoric, who's supporting them, and if they do or don't condemn actual militant Islam as the means to all and everything Allah
What if, by bombing and using other methods to attack these groups, you are only driving more individuals to this cause by causing "collateral damage?"
That is a legitimate "what if" concern, unlike Tee's asanine attempt. A) we're not targeting and attacking innocent civilians as they do. B) If we don't kill as many of them now, they grow in #'s regardless. C) the more we take the battle to them there, and the more we kill them there, the less we have to deal with them here, on our own soil.
-
Depends on their actions, rhetoric, who's supporting them, and if they do or don't condemn actual militant Islam as the means to all and everything Allah
So, in theory, one can wage a political battle against a state like Israel and even use terrorism as a possible weapon, so long as they don't use Islam as an aspect of their assault? In that case they should theoretically not have to worry about the United States' war on terrorism (though of course Israel will still be looking for them).
A) we're not targeting and attacking innocent civilians as they do. B) If we don't kill as many of them now, they grow in #'s regardless. C) the more we take the battle to them there, and the more we kill them there, the less we have to deal with them here, on our own soil.
True, we're not targetting civilians specifically, but if we kill them then the end result is the same. In other words, if Ahmed's home just got shelled by American artillery and he lost his wife and daughter, I don't think he's going to care if you are sent to tell him "at least we didn't specifically target your wife and daughter like Hassan over there might have." Yet, after you leave, Hassan may come over there and say, "look, now do you see why the Americans have to go? You've got nothing left to lose Ahmed. Join us. Help us to send these murderers home."
See? You make an ethical clarification which is true, but I'm not sure it makes a big difference to those who suffer from collateral damage.
If we don't kill as many of them now, they grow in #'s regardless
That is an interesting point. That raises more questions for me.
1. Why are they growing in numbers?
2. Are we just trying to break even (i.e. keep their numbers down)?
3. Is this a war that can be "won?" Can we say at the end of a certain day that the war is over? Will there be a VT Day?
-
In every society and I suppose every Army there are people with poor judgement , or people who have a lapse in judgement .
In the US Army it is very clear that if you mistreat a Prisoner you will face procicution.
In some armys this is not so clear .
-
in theory, one can wage a political battle against a state like Israel and even use terrorism as a possible weapon, so long as they don't use Islam as an aspect of their assault?
In theory, anything is conceivable. In reality, the battle against Israel is founded within the mutated interpretations of the Quran & Islam
if Ahmed's home just got shelled by American artillery and he lost his wife and daughter, I don't think he's going to care if you are sent to tell him "at least we didn't specifically target your wife and daughter like Hassan over there might have."...You make an ethical clarification which is true, but I'm not sure it makes a big difference to those who suffer from collateral damage.
Absolutely conceivable, and likely happens alot. And I'm sure it doesn't hep with the Islmaic militants, the mullahs, and the terrorists, perseverate how the U.S doesn't care, and erroneusly even accuses the U.S. of targeting women & children. and when you consider the emotional state many of these folks who have lost loved ones thru collateral damage, could join the bandwagon of believing such. War is hell, isn't it. If only Saddam had complied with the UN.
1. Why are they growing in numbers?
2. Are we just trying to break even (i.e. keep their numbers down)?
3. Is this a war that can be "won?" Can we say at the end of a certain day that the war is over? Will there be a VT Day?
1) Speculation on my part, but the combination of being indoctrinated in the movement practically out of the crib, the 24/7 media drumbeat both foreign & right here in the U.S. claiming how evil Bush and America is, the scenario of the 2nd question you posed, and likely many other factors playing along in that
2) No, the goal is in trying to kill as many of them as possible and prevent them from doing any damage to our citizenry here in the U.S.
3) Yes, but only if the Muslim community recognizes the threat growing among their ranks. Only if they take an active part (not just us) in weeding them out and killing them. It is in all practical purposes, a malignancy. It can't be appeased, it can't be placated, it can't be made to be nice, by being nice. It has to be surgically removed from the Muslim community, if the war is to be "won"
-
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060925/lester.jpg)
-
In reality, the battle against Israel is founded within the mutated interpretations of the Quran & Islam
Are you sure that Israeli political policies play no role in the backlash against their state?
-
Are you sure that Israeli political policies play no role in the backlash against their state?
"no role"? Try some role, but the "primary role"?, no. Keep in mind, there were no "political policies" in play by the Israelis, when the UN repartitioned an area for them in '47-8, and the subsequent attacks by the surrounding Arab nations. It was simply their presence that facilitated the beginning "backlash", and has been an ongoing backlash ever since
-
We're not talking about attacks by Arab nations that have militaries. We are talking about terrorism and attacks by small groups who are hostile to the nation of Israel.
Now, why would they be hostile to the state of Israel?
Let me ask you, do you feel that Israel is a true and fair democratic nation?
-
Now, why would they be hostile to the state of Israel?
Asked and answered already. The indoctrination of generation after generation of children, right out of the crib, of how evil & oppressive Israel is supposed to be. That they alone are the reason for all misery. If they no longer existed, all would be just peachy. Began largely when Israel was re-established as a sovereign country back in the late 40's early 50's incidentally
Let me ask you, do you feel that Israel is a true and fair democratic nation?
"True" nation? I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. A Democratic nation?, sure appears so. Especially compared to so many other countries around the region
-
"True" nation? I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. A Democratic nation?, sure appears so. Especially compared to so many other countries around the region
No, you skipped the operator "and."
The words "true" and "fair" should qualify "democratic."
I'll ask again more clearly.
Do you feel that Israel is a true democratic nation and a fair democratic nation? Please don't give an answer relative to their neighbors. After all, I don't think many of us argued which Warsaw Pact nation was a democracy based on relativity to the others. Clearly Israel's neighbors are not shining examples of democracy. That's not at question, nor is it my question.
-
Do you feel that Israel is a true democratic nation...
I'm still confused with this qualifier of "true". True in the sense that the citizens vote for who they want to represent their country? That they don't have a shadow dictatorship actually running things? Give me an example of a "false democratic nation", and some examples that would fit that definition, please
and a fair democratic nation?
Given that they have a plethora of parties vs our majority 2 party system, it could be argued they are exponentially more fair than even we are as a Democratic nation. So, I guess the answer would be yes.
-
Do you feel that Israel is a true democratic nation and a fair democratic nation?
Well, WE, for example, are not. We are a representative democracy, but is that a TRUE democracy? We do not, for example, directly elect our President; that is accomplished via the Electoral College.
How does Isreal do this?
-
We're not talking about attacks by Arab nations that have militaries. We are talking about terrorism and attacks by small groups who are hostile to the nation of Israel.
Now, why would they be hostile to the state of Israel?
Let me ask you, do you feel that Israel is a true and fair democratic nation?
Yes
This is an unqualified yes.
Would you consider the USA in 1831 a true and fair Democracy?
I would , but not a perfect one , just one with a means of peacefull change and lots of potential for improvement.
Didn't we get in our worst troubble ever when we gave up on our built in peacefull means for change?
-
Israel is not and has never been a democray and neither is the United State Of America. The reason in both cases is religious bias. To be a serious candidate for office in either country, one must be a professed moralist. Bigotry is a bias political state of mind as well as it is a bias religious state of mind. The idea of "separation Of Powers" has never been anything more than a concept and therefore, religious intolerance has never been subjected to the checks and balances of duly established laws. This is why we have a radical fundamentalist as president of the United States today and why Israel a radical fundamentalist nation today.
Socialism and secular laws are designed to limit the influence of religious doctrine. The Democratic Party of the United States has promoted a democratic socialist political platform since the early 1900s. The Republic Party has promoted a Capitalist Political platform over the same period. Neither party has promoted a democratic platform in truth.
The conflicts between secular government and religious government is not a battle between good and evil. It is a battle between extremist and those extremist do not represent the majority, nor do that represent the duly established secular laws of either, the U.S. or Israel. The big question is whose religious fanatics are a greater threat, Theirs our ours?
-
Israel is not and has never been a democray and neither is the United State Of America. The reason in both cases is religious bias. To be a serious candidate for office in either country, one must be a professed moralist. "
Well there you are , absolutely wrong.
A religious test for office is forbidden in our Constitution , both for elected and appointed office.
It is Democracy that garuntees that most serious canadates must please Christians because most of us are Christians and vote in our own best interest.
In some Socialist Countrys a religious test was administered to become a member of the ruleing party , so that even where most of the population was Orthodox Christian in Russia the entire leadership of the USSR was athiest , such a religious test is anti-democratic.
Most of the departures from pure democracy that are features of the US government are protections for minoritys , which is a good thing for canadates that are minoritys isn't it?
-
"A religious test for office is forbidden in our Constitution , both for elected and appointed office."
Show me an atheist that is supported by the GOP or the DNC. Actions are louder than words. Passing the religious test is vital to every candidate. This is the problem, the U.S. constitution is being ignored by both parties.
-
Actions are louder than words. Passing the religious test is vital to every candidate.
Actually, it's got nothing to do with a "religious test." A poll that included 10 major religious groups (yes, atheism is a religion) had people rate how much they liked or disliked people of that group. The atheists came out second to last (disliked by 44% and liked by only 15%) - the only group rated worse were the Scientologists.
It's not a religious test - most atheists just rub other people the wrong way. And when you piss off the voters, you don't get elected, no matter what your religion.
-
I'm still confused with this qualifier of "true". True in the sense that the citizens vote for who they want to represent their country? That they don't have a shadow dictatorship actually running things? Give me an example of a "false democratic nation", and some examples that would fit that definition, please
It is a subjective question. Would you consider the United States a true democratic nation? Many people say there is no greater nation on Earth than the Untied States. If we use the United States of 2006 as a qualifier, would Israel fit that model of freedom and democratic ideals?
OK.
Is Israel a fair democratic nation?[/i]
We have some consensus here. Plane and Sirs both agree.
Sirs says the plethora of parties and therefore the voting system of Israel perhaps makes it even more fair than the United States. Plane answers an "unqualified yes."
Now, I'm going to ask a straightforward question. Do you consider the South African Republic of the early 1980's to have been a fair democratic nation?
-
Now, I'm going to ask a straightforward question. Do you consider the South African Republic of the early 1980's to have been a fair democratic nation?
Yes
I think I am beginnng to see where you are going , so I answer yes The USA of 1860 was worse off than the South Africa of 1980 , rather than abandon the democratic process the Africans finally enfranchised their disenfranchised , if we had tried that here we might not have killed and maimed a whole generation.
Democracy is not a synonym for perfection , it is more like a means of makeing struggle peacefull.
-
Interesting reply Plane.
So Botha's government, from your point of view, qualifies as a fair democratic nation.
Do others agree? Sirs?
-
Botha was Democraticly elected by the South Africans who were enfranchised .
A few years later Enfranchisement was extended .
Untill the early twentyeth century the USA never enfranchised a majority of its citizens and untill the late 1960s it had not enfranchised important numbers of minoritys.
But the USA was Democratic from the first , it is just getting moreso as time progresses.
Shall we enfranchise citizens of Mexico to vote in US elections? One in seven Mexicans is here rather than there , why don't we just erase the border and make our flag six stars richer?
-
"A religious test for office is forbidden in our Constitution , both for elected and appointed office."
Show me an atheist that is supported by the GOP or the DNC. Actions are louder than words. Passing the religious test is vital to every candidate. This is the problem, the U.S. constitution is being ignored by both parties.
Show me mention of the DNC or GOP in the constitution of the US?
Political parties are extra-constitional, only one of our Presidents was ever elected without first joining a party , but this is not mandated by the constitution , it is just a measure of the effectiveness of the tecnique .
Athiests are not forbidden to form a party , and when they do they are not forbidden to run canadates for office.
Go on and do so , but try to appeal to Christians, few Christians want to vote anti-cristian and eighty percent of us are some sort of Christian.
-
Botha was Democraticly elected by the South Africans who were enfranchised .
True. Is it just about elections though? Does it also have to do with who may own property? Who may start a business of their own and where? What schools and what hopsitals are available to whom? Whether or not a policeman of one group can legally arrest a member of another group? Who has to carry a pass to legally walk in areas of the country and who does not?
Is that not also a part of a democratic society, or is it merely a matter of a right to vote?
-
It is just about Elections.
You may choose leaders who do all sorts of foolish or unfair things or wise unfair things , I would not think that this was uncommon in democracy at all.
Adolf Hitler won an election , on a platform of abolishing democracy , I would have voted against that.
Egalitarianism could be enforced by an enlightened Dictator, but it would hardly be democratic.
-
Adolf Hitler won an election , on a platform of abolishing democracy , I would have voted against that.
No he most certainly did not. Hitler lost the only fair election he ran in. He won an election after he had consolidated power and used his forces to ensure a victory by intimidating voters at the end of the barrel of a rifle. Or by simply murdering the competition. Let's keep our facts straight please.
So for you, a society is democratic no matter if a group of people is explicitly removed from the democratic process, forbidden to own land, forbidden to start a business, or forbidden to be in certain areas without a proper pass.
Do you agree Sirs?
-
Do you agree Sirs?
Agree to what specifically? To Plane's deductions? Yours? Again, my time for any detailed responses is limited, until this evening
-
So for you [Plane], a society is democratic no matter if a group of people is explicitly removed from the democratic process, forbidden to own land, forbidden to start a business, or forbidden to be in certain areas without a proper pass.
Do you agree Sirs?
That would indicate that the question is asking if you agree with Plane's view of a democratic society.
-
That would indicate that the question is asking if you agree with Plane's view of a democratic society.
I'll have to get back to you on that, since I'm more in agreement with my view of a "Democratic Society", and will need more time, to read in more detail, his view
-
Interesting.
Perhaps you can tell us if you think that South Africa of the 1980's was a democratic society by your criteria.
-
Interesting.
Perhaps you can tell us if you think that South Africa of the 1980's was a democratic society by your criteria.
yes it was
again without qualification
What would your criteria be that would invalidate this?
In Anchient Greece where the word and the form were used in Athens there was not 100% enfranchisement , but isn't it contrary to claim that the origionators of Democracy were not democratic?
The progress of democracy in the last two centurys has been to enfranchise more and make the earning of enfranchisement a smaller investment , well that is progress but it is not all good , the vote is like a penny on the ground ,once worth a loaf , no longer worth the stoop.
-
I'd like to read Sir's answer before I continue, but I'd be happy to answer your questions afterwards.
-
I didn't realize it was such a difficult question.
-
Difficult, not. Time requiring, yes. But if your patience is wearing then, I'll give you a quick snipet of "my" concept of a Democratic society. Then you may apply it either erroneously or accurately. It's one that's simply not mob majoity rule, it's more than just "elections". It's how the minority is allowed to voice their concerns, how they're treated, and how they're allowed work towards being part of the majority. So, a country is a "democratic society" if they happen to fit the above critieria.
Which Israel is
Now, that minority would largely part of that particular country, not of another completely foreign culture, and simply absorbed. Giving the ability for the Palestinians to become part of the Israeli governning process would undeniably wipe out the State of israel from within, as they would immediately become the majority. And as I said earlier, Israel can be argued to be even more Democratic than us, give the amount of parties that do work & make decisions for its people within the Governing process.
-
Which Israel is
Now, that minority would largely part of that particular country, not of another completely foreign culture, and simply absorbed. Giving the ability for the Palestinians to become part of the Israeli governning process would undeniably wipe out the State of israel from within, as they would immediately become the majority. And as I said earlier, Israel can be argued to be even more Democratic than us, give the amount of parties that do work & make decisions for its people within the Governing process.
Thank you.
No let's take this a little further.
For the sake of argument let's say that you Sirs were born in Southern California and lived in the same home of your birth for your entire life. In fact, you live right next to San Diego and consider yourself a part of San Diego's culture. You work there. Your family all lives there or nearby. You speak the local dialect. You've never even been to Mexico and you've got no desire to go there and live at all.
Yet, the United States has made an arrangement to where you are no longer a citizen of the United States. The house you were born in and lived your entire life in will remain a part of the United States, but you are now officially a resident of a new independent homeland called The United States Territorial Possession of Mexico (USTPM). It is shown to you on a map and you've never even been there.
Because you are no longer a United States citizen, you must pay a substantially increased amount of property taxes for your home. Residents of USTPM are required to pay more for their property, but you are not allowed to live there. Absolutely not. Every once in a while you are arrested for taking up residence illegally outside of the USTPM designated areas.
Your children once went to very good schools in San Diego, but they were immediately expelled. They are no longer citizens of the United States and must attend USTPM deisgnated schools which are generally run-down dives with decades old textbooks. Tough break for them.
The United States then sends you papers telling you that your house and land are essentially not yours. Yes, you grew up there and still live there, but by law you are absentee landholders. You are also illegal immigrants. If the United States deems the land necessary for a US citizen to develop or live there, then it will be removed from you.
Now having read this scenario, would you consider the United States in this scenario a democratic government? Would you like to live in such a state?
This very thing happens in Israel. Why is it right for them to have such discriminatory policies?
-
For the sake of argument let's say that you Sirs were born in Southern California and lived in the same home of your birth for your entire life
Am I American or am I Mexican?
the United States has made an arrangement to where you are no longer a citizen of the United States
So, I must be either Mexican or an illegal alien, correct?
The house you were born in and lived your entire life in will remain a part of the United States, but you are now officially a resident of a new independent homeland called The United States Territorial Possession of Mexico (USTPM). It is shown to you on a map and you've never even been there. Because you are no longer a United States citizen, you must pay a substantially increased amount of property taxes for your home
If I'm not an American or a legal resident, I can see why
Now having read this scenario, would you consider the United States in this scenario a democratic government? Would you like to live in such a state?
Yes, for those who are American. And living there would be dependent on if I could become a legal resident, or more so, if I wanted to
This very thing happens in Israel. Why is it right for them to have such discriminatory policies?
Simple, their existance depends on such. If these palestinian/mexicans were simply absorbed, their allegience and devotion would not be towards Israel or America. At the point where there's a majority of such folks, the literal foundation of that country would irreparably be changed, as they would make the decisions for what the country is to become. Now, you could argue, "if that's the will of the people....?". I would argue that I'm referencing the culture of the country, the founding documents, what it means to be American/Israeli, not some mish mash of every culture, with no sense of country, outside the one you came from. That's not what America is, now for that matter, Israel either.
And FYI, you do realize that most of the surrounding Arab countries won't allow Palestinians to become citizens of their country either, right?
-
Am I American or am I Mexican?
You are an American, or you were. Ethnically you are mixed.
So, I must be either Mexican or an illegal alien, correct?
Well, legally you were a citizen of the Untied States. Then they removed your citizenship and decided that based on your mixed ethnicity you would now be a citizen of a new "country" that you'd never been to.
So you are an illegal alien now, but only because your citizenship was removed.
If I'm not an American or a legal resident, I can see why
So it would not bother you that you were once a legal citizen of the United States, but now are arbitrarily made a citizen of a dubiously invented nation that you've never been to? And now they take your property that has always belonged to your family? That makes sense to you?
And FYI, you do realize that most of the surrounding Arab countries won't allow Palestinians to become citizens of their country either, right?
Yes. Did I not already say that they were not democratic nations?
That's not what America is
So democratic principles can be tossed aside in order to preserve white protestant norms. Would you agree with that statement?
-
Simple question, Js. When were the Palestinians legal citizens of Israel, with loyalties to the Israeli way of life and its existance, & for Israel to then revoke said citizenship? That's the only way your analogy can play out, as you're attempting.
-
Your hyothetical seems a little like the founding of Texas .
The people of Texas whether American or Tecano felt poorly served by the government of Mexico , but their successfull rebellion wound up being a greater benefit for the Americans .
True democracy is a lot like two wolves and a sheep voteing on what will be for dinner.
Israeli and American Democracy has a lot of departure from pure democracy , these departures either are ment to preserve the state or protect minoritys.
A state that isn't intrested in preserveing the state isn't going to last long , the protection of minoritys seems like a good idea but might not be necessacery.
-
Simple question, Js. When were the Palestinians legal citizens of Israel, with loyalties to the Israeli way of life and its existance, & for Israel to then revoke said citizenship?
There are thousands of Palestinians who have legal citizenship in Israel Sirs, as well as thousands who once had legal citizenship and were arbitrarily assigned to the West Bank - some of whom had never lived there. The case in point, for which I used as a reference for your scenario Sirs was that of Said Rhateb who is considered an illegal alien in the home in which he was born and grew up in. He has to pay extra property taxes to Jerusalem's city council for a house that technically does not belong to him. His children were removed from a quality school in Jerusalem to an underfunded school in the West Bank - all because the Israeli Government "reclassified" him.
The situation is very similar to South Africa during the apartheid era. In fact, it is so similar that Henrik Verwoerd, the architect of apartheid in South Africa once commented that, "Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state." There are even Jews from South Africa who have lived in both societies, even fought for Israel and against apartheid, who are ashamed of the similarity.
So I ask again. Is Israel a fair democratic nation? Why do you go through such great lengths to defend it? Would you defend South Africa with equal vigor?
-
If these palestinian/mexicans were simply absorbed, their allegience and devotion would not be towards Israel or America. At the point where there's a majority of such folks, the literal foundation of that country would irreparably be changed, as they would make the decisions for what the country is to become. Now, you could argue, "if that's the will of the people....?". I would argue that I'm referencing the culture of the country, the founding documents, what it means to be American/Israeli, not some mish mash of every culture, with no sense of country, outside the one you came from. That's not what America is, now for that matter, Israel either.
Are you suggesting that Israel and America are both monocultural countries?
Was that what South Africa was doing, protecting their culture?
-
There are thousands of Palestinians who have legal citizenship in Israel Sirs, as well as thousands who once had legal citizenship and were arbitrarily assigned to the West Bank - some of whom had never lived there
That didn't quite answer my question. I'll ask again..When were the Palestinians legal citizens of Israel, with loyalties to the Israeli way of life and its existance, with said citizenship abrubtly abolished? If memory serves me right, the UN resanctioned the area that Israel occupies, with Israelis being the "legal citizens" of Israel. Those in the West Bank & Gaza were not part of Israel, though perhaps some were given citizenship via whatever immigration laws were in place. Then, by defensive measures, Israel was required to take over those lands to better defend itself from its Arab neighbors. Again, not anything remotely analgus to Israel giving citizenship to Palestinians, and then callously revoking it. The point remains that those that made up the legal citizenry of Israel were those who were dedicated to supporting Israel. Just as it is in America. Or at least it used to be that way
Is Israel a fair democratic nation?
Asked and answered already. Yes, if not more so than America is
-
When were the Palestinians legal citizens of Israel, with loyalties to the Israeli way of life and its existance, with said citizenship abrubtly abolished?
1992 in the case of Sait Rhateb. Israel "reclassifies" some of her citizens often. Just as South Africa did with the homeland systems set up in the mid to late 1970's. Israel annexed the West Bank and all of Jerusalem, then took the sections they wanted for themselves, then wanted nothing to do with the populations they annexed.
So, for you it is perfectly acceptable that someone pays a higher tax simply because of their heritage? It is OK with you that individuals are "reclassified" arbitrarily on occasion and their rights change upon reclassification?
Israel destroys people's homes - literally. Moreover, there are beautiful state-owned suburbs where only Jews are allowed to live (Katzir is a good example) while Arab Muslims and Christians live in run-down slums. 80% of the poorest towns in Israel are populated by non-Jews (note this does not include the West Bank or Gaza). Less than 4% of the Government employees are Arabs, though they make up 16-18% of the total population.
Mayor Sandrov of Katzir: "It's the same in Bosnia, Serbia, the United States and Africa -- wherever there is mixing there are problems"
So I'll ask you:
Are these examples of a democratic nation? Do you consider South Africa to have been a democratic nation during apartheid?
Also I am waiting for answers to these questions:
Are you suggesting that Israel and America are both monocultural countries?
Was that what South Africa was doing, protecting their culture?
-
Israel annexed the West Bank and all of Jerusalem, then took the sections they wanted for themselves, then wanted nothing to do with the populations they annexed
AFTER they were attacked, AFTER they defended thesmelves. I do believe You're making my point that originally these were not Israeli citizens. The # of Palestinians far out #'d the Israelis. It's political & national sucide if we were to allow all of Mexic to become American Citizens, as it would be if israel were to give Israeli citizenship to all Palestinians. I understand how "unfair" it looks, and to a point, you're right. Show me a country that's perfect in how it deals with its citizenry and immigration, where there is no unfairness in some way
for you it is perfectly acceptable that someone pays a higher tax simply because of their heritage? It is OK with you that individuals are "reclassified" arbitrarily on occasion and their rights change upon reclassification?
See above clarification. And if they don't like it, they don't have to pay "higher taxes", they can move to another region of the Middle East. Oh, that's right, no other Arab nations around will allow them to become citizens. So, who's really screwing the Palestinians, of Arab desent
Israel destroys people's homes - literally.
Better that than innocent civilians blown up in a bus, or in a discotech, or in a crowded shopping area. Homes can be replaced, lives can't. And one more time, when the Israelis do it, its in RESPONSE to some terrorist act, such as those above, being perpetrated on them. You seem to be mixing immigration and response to terrorist/militant attacks to Israel
Are these examples of a democratic nation? Do you consider South Africa to have been a democratic nation during apartheid?
Once again, when has a nation acted perfectly in dealing with immigration? No, South Africa didn't act very "democratic" during aparthied. Democracy is more than elections, more than simple majority rules. It's also paramount to grasp the difference between immigration policy and Defense of one's country
Are you suggesting that Israel and America are both monocultural countries?
No, as Israel doesn't quite have as bad the PC virus as this country has. Both have very diverse cultures, but both have as their core a devotion and committement to the progress and survival of their respective countries, with citizens having unparalled freedoms, compared to so many other countries. The U.S.'s overt political correctness is slowly seeing that devotion erode, IMHO, where American Culture means squat, compared to one's own culture, and embracing that, over all else
Was that what South Africa was doing, protecting their culture?
I wouldn't know, I wasn't there. My guess is no, since they weren't being driven into the Indian Ocean, by military and terrorist forces surrounding them
-
First, there were over 150,000 Arabs in 1948 who chose not to fight against Israel but live within the new Jewish state. Their numbers have increased since that time. Are you saying it is fair that there are completely Jewish towns? You support segregation?
Oh, that's right, no other Arab nations around will allow them to become citizens. So, who's really screwing the Palestinians, of Arab desent
Ah, so democratic values are relative? As long as Israel only treats her non-Jewish Arab citizens like third rate non-humans as opposed to the non-democratic countries that surrounds it, then that is OK. I suppose a plantation owner that only beat his slaves with switches instead of a bullwhip would have received a commendation from you as well?
Better that than innocent civilians blown up in a bus, or in a discotech, or in a crowded shopping area. Homes can be replaced, lives can't. And one more time, when the Israelis do it, its in RESPONSE to some terrorist act, such as those above, being perpetrated on them. You seem to be mixing immigration and response to terrorist/militant attacks to Israel
That is exactly one of the South African arguments as well. So a non-Jewish Arab doctor who works in a hospital and treats Jewish patients is not allowed to live in a Jewish suburb of Tel Aviv. How does that "fight terrorism?" (And yes that is a true story)
Once again, when has a nation acted perfectly in dealing with immigration? No, South Africa didn't act very "democratic" during aparthied. Democracy is more than elections, more than simple majority rules. It's also paramount to grasp the difference between immigration policy and Defense of one's country
So you are defending South Africa?
Both have very diverse cultures, but both have as their core a devotion and committement to the progress and survival of their respective countries, with citizens having unparalled freedoms, compared to so many other countries. The U.S.'s overt political correctness is slowly seeing that devotion erode, IMHO, where American Culture means squat, compared to one's own culture, and embracing that, over all else
Ah, the political correctness bogeyman appears again. What is "American Culture?" If there is unparalleled freedom in America, why should anyone have to follow a single culture? The Jewish people come from very diverse backgrounds including Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Palestine, Africa, America, and other regions. Moreover, Israel contains Arab Christians, Muslims, Bedouins and other peoples (whether they like to admit it or not) - why should they be forced into a single "culture?"
My guess is no, since they weren't being driven into the Indian Ocean, by military and terrorist forces surrounding them
The National Party claimed that they were fighting terrorists, communists, and saving their cultural heritage (Boer and English). They were very concerned with preserving high standards for their people. Television was banned until 1975. Even mild pornography was banned and possession was punished with prison time. Everything in South Africa closed from Saturday afternoon until Monday morning with exceptions for the police and hospitals. Abortion was only legal in cases of rape and if a mother's life was endangered.
I'd say there was a definite attempt to establish a culture that the National Party saw fit to protect.
The question is, is it right to do so? Are democratic ideals so easily exchanged for racial, religious, or other biases?
-
Js, it does indeed appear you have been indoctrinated by the PC Police. Terms such as "alternative lifestyle" or pro-choice are nothing more than prettying-up the disgusting lifestyles they exhibit. I remember when I was an executive for the Federal Government. In a period of four years, the PC terms for those with ancestry from the Pacific rim countries changed six times from oriental to Pacific Asian to Asian Pacific to...
Why bring this up? Because many on the Left (you don't actually disclaim this, do you?) hide behind pretty terminology to make things appear not as they are. It is NOT a sense of "bogeyman". As an example, someone at work recently made a negative comment about the lifeysle of homeosexuals and they were chastized and called, and I quote, "homophobic". Crap term again. PC rules, baby!
So, let's see: whites can be called "white", but blacks cannot be called "black"? Hmm, interesting application here, don't you think.
What many of you simply refuse to believe is that Sirs has a valid point here: You have been captured by the PC police and been indcoctrinated to the point where you actually believe this muck! Too bad, so sad!
A large aprt of the cultur battle is defining terms and the Left has been much better a that than the Right. Too bad...
-
Interesting theory Professor.
Now show me where I use the terms: "alternative lifestyle," "pro-choice," or "homophobic."
I note that I use the term "black" in this very discussion.
I think if you'd bother to read this debate then you'd see this is not about being politically correct or not. This is about whether or not a nation such as South Africa or Israel that practices segregation or apartheid can truly be considered a democratic state.
See, you claim to "say it like it is" but when it comes to blatant racism or discrimination you run and hide behind the skirt of political correctness. I don't give a damn about PC. You tell it like it is all you want and I will as well. No one is holding you back.
Now, is having all Jewish towns appropriate? Was forcing blacks to live in "homelands" in South Africa appropriate?
Is having a single culture defined by the government a democratic notion?
-
You delude yourself, but that is another story altogether. I was bringing up examples of being PC. Do you deny you succumb to the PC "conspiracy"?
To address your other question, how can a nation be a democracy to all, if it is only a demoracy to a few?
-
Has there ever been a democratic nation?
I havent ever heard of one with 100% sufferage.
-
Are you saying it is fair that there are completely Jewish towns?
Fair?, no. Their right as a soverign nation?, yes. Likely necessary?, again yes
so democratic values are relative? As long as Israel only treats her non-Jewish Arab citizens like third rate non-humans as opposed to the non-democratic countries that surrounds it, then that is OK.
I didn't realize that Israel was treating Non Jewish Arabs as pigs. I seem to recall many having good jobs, access to much of what Isreal produces & sells, the freedom to choose where they want to work, live, and do business, which includes the freedom to go elsewhere. Last time I checked, Israel had no Palestinian slaves
So a non-Jewish Arab doctor who works in a hospital and treats Jewish patients is not allowed to live in a Jewish suburb of Tel Aviv
See answer to your 1st question
So you are defending South Africa?
Not that I'm aware of
What is "American Culture?"
Given that America is only a baby at a little over 230yrs old, I'd opine that it is the support, belief, devotion that America is a country founded on religious and economic freedom. A cornicopia of ideas and cultures that can come together, to better enhance what America is, and has always been. It is indeed a melting pot, but one that when all other cultures have been melted together, it forms the American culture, which includes Americans of all ethnicities & cultures who see America as their home, their country, and their committed support towards its well being & continued growth
The National Party claimed that they were fighting terrorists, communists, and saving their cultural heritage (Boer and English).
"claimed" and reality are many a time not 1 and the same
Are democratic ideals so easily exchanged for racial, religious, or other biases?
I suppose that depends on the survival of that country. I'd still opine however, that in many respects, Israel is an even greater Democratic country than ours, given the huge amount of political parties involved in the governing process. If there weren't such an overt Anti-semetic bias within the Palestinian and Arab nations, you might have a point in regards to Israel needing to involve more Palestinians who live in and around Israel to be allowed to take a greater roll in the governing process.
-
Do you deny you succumb to the PC "conspiracy"?
By all means Professor, explain how I have fallen prey to this brilliant conspiracy.
how can a nation be a democracy to all, if it is only a demoracy to a few?
Do you, Professor, regard Israel as a democratic nation?
Has there ever been a democratic nation? I havent ever heard of one with 100% sufferage.
No one here is claiming 100% suffrage to be a democratic state Plane. Yet, should a specific minority be denied rights based solely on their heritage? Should we claim Israel as a democratic state when it clearly has segregation?
Fair?, no. Their right as a soverign nation?, yes.
So, you support Israel's segregation based on religion? You still consider that democratic? At least you admit it is unfair.
I seem to recall many having good jobs, access to much of what Isreal produces & sells, the freedom to choose where they want to work, live, and do business, which includes the freedom to go elsewhere.
No, they don't have freedom to choose where they wish to live, nor where they wish to work (considerable areas are segregated). Freedom of movement is also restricted. In other words, your recollection is wrong.
Israel is an even greater Democratic country than ours, given the huge amount of political parties involved in the governing process
You keep saying that as if it were something amazing. It is a parliamentary system Sirs. We could have the same here. Why not argue for it? It is nothing miraculous, it is just not FPTP as we use (well, we use a variant of FPTP, though in Presidential elections we use our own bizarre elitist system). The ability to manipulate Parliamentary politics to favour an outcome is easily documented in history. Giving the Arabs a party is nothing spectacular. Sinn Fein has a party in Northern Ireland as well, it doesn't make segregation and disenfranchisement an impossibility.
If there weren't such an overt Anti-semetic bias within the Palestinian and Arab nations
So what? Other nations have no meaning in Israel proper. Does denying Arabs within Israel rights make them more likely to be good Israeli citizens and have more generous attitudes towards Judaism? These are, after all, descendants of Arabs who did not take up arms against the Israelis in 1948 and instead chose co-existance.
Basically, you are saying segregation and restriction are suitable answers to anti-semitic feelings. Even such non-violent attitudes. I wonder if you'd prescribe the same for the United States.
-
Quote
Do you deny you succumb to the PC "conspiracy"?
By all means Professor, explain how I have fallen prey to this brilliant conspiracy.
You change your vocabulary to change whatever is currently in vogue, so you essentially bob and weave to whatever terminology is predominant by whomever has currently changed this terminology to suit their political/cultural aims. Weak, my man, weak. Be bold. Stand up for what is true and right, using your own terms, not those used by anothers' agenda.
-
Plane, as usual, makes an interesitng point. Why are you linking democracy with 100% suffrage. So, by this logic chain, if you have 99% then you are not a democracy or 80% or 51% or ???
What defies a democracy is surely broader than this, correct?
Democracy may be a word familiar to most, but it is a concept still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships alike have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves. Yet the power of the democratic idea has also evoked some of history's most profound and moving expressions of human will and intellect: from Pericles in ancient Athens to Vaclav Havel in the modern Czech Republic, from Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence in 1776 to Andrei Sakharov's last speeches in 1989.
Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded through a long, often tortuous history. In short, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. For this reason, it is possible to identify the time-tested fundamentals of constitutional government, human rights, and equality before the law that any society must possess to be properly called democratic. Is it perfect? no, but then again, this is an evolving process.
-
You change your vocabulary to change whatever is currently in vogue, so you essentially bob and weave to whatever terminology is predominant by whomever has currently changed this terminology to suit their political/cultural aims. Weak, my man, weak. Be bold. Stand up for what is true and right, using your own terms, not those used by anothers' agenda.
Example?
Why are you linking democracy with 100% suffrage.
Not once have I done so. I am merely asking the question of whether or not segregationist or apartheid policies as carried out by Israel or formerly by South Africa truly belong to a democratic state. It is up to you as to whether or not you answer "yes" and defend said policies.
If you believe that systematic disenfranchisement of a specific group of people is acceptable in a democratic state, then let's hear you defend it. I'm not the one defining democracy, I'm just asking the question.
So, do you consider a state that enforces segregation to be a democratic state?
-
If you believe that systematic disenfranchisement of a specific group of people is acceptable in a democratic state, then let's hear you defend it. I'm not the one defining democracy, I'm just asking the question.
So, do you consider a state that enforces segregation to be a democratic state?
No, it is definitely NOT acceptable. But, that doesn't mean that the government is not a democractic one. It jsut means that the government has its flaws. It is similar to being a Chrisitna. Yo can be so, but that doesn't mean you are perfect. We all fall short of the glory of God.
Democracy is not an event...it is a process, sometimes a slow and painful one.
-
So, you don't think it is acceptable but is some part of the "growing pains" of an imperfect system.
There seems to be a disagreement then, as Sirs has said that the segregation performed by Israel is their sovereign right and that they are in fact more democratic than the United States due to their Parliamentary political system.
Should the United States support a nation that systematically disenfranchises of a specific group of people?
-
Should the United States support a nation that systematically disenfranchises of a specific group of people?
Sure, otherwise we would support NO ONE as I we can obviously find such problems in any nation as imperfections exist universally. Canada, for example, has had an "interesting" history with thier northern minorities as had/has Australia with their aboriginees. As we have in how we treated/treat native Americans here. Did we EVER actually upload a treaty we signed with them? I doubt it.
You work with what you have (other nation's governments), whether you fully endorse their actions. Otherwise, we would be talking to NO ONE.
-
The problem with your statement is that it is not parallel. We have supposedly learned from our dealings with the Native Americans. We do not systematically refuse to allow them into specific cities. We do not require them to hold a pass or restrict them from certain jobs.
That is not true of Israel.
We did not aid Ian Smith's regime in Southern Rhodesia. Eventually we even came to our senses in South Africa. Why do we support it in Israel?
-
Well, we respectfully disagree then as I feel my analogies are accurate.
Anyway, we support Isreal for a multitude of reasons, a major one being our Judeo-Christian heritage. I do not expect this to change.
-
Anyway, we support Isreal for a multitude of reasons, a major one being our Judeo-Christian heritage. I do not expect this to change.
Christianity sprang from Judaism over two millenia ago. Neither religion is very similar to what it was at the time. Though we have a shared history, it was rather brief and not altogether very appreciated by either side.
Is that honestly a reason for ignoring modern apartheid policies today?
-
Yes.
-
At least you're honest Professor.
Alarming, and sad, but honest.
-
In my view, probably unique in history, Israel is sui generis among the nations of the world. Despite historic ties and perennial aspirations, it was founded in the wake, the survivors' spasm, of the Shoah, a unique event in history where genocide of a whole "race" of people became palpably close. In any honest assessment of the situation that has now developed, that FACT must be given prominence.
The idea of the State of Israel was to establish a JEWISH STATE as a bulwark against extinction and also as the fulfillment of milennia of yearning. These TRUTHS cannot be lost, as much as they must be critically examined.
The conception of this state, and the entire West's complicity in its cause through tolerating in its civilization (virulent) anti-Semitism that metastacized into a genocidal mania, requires concessions to the very purpose of its existence: establishing a JEWISH STATE, almost as God and history have dictated.
The treatment of indigenous Arabs, indeed all non-Jews, can best be understood in the context of a "process" as Professor, I believe, mentioned. As I can attest as an active Judaeophile, Jewish values are as fine as the world has ever produced. But they are threatened with a second round of extinction. Any rationally-based, though onerous, laws and mores and practices they have to establish to pursue their goal MUST be seen against the backdrop I've just painted.
We look on and we tolerate because we know Israeli values in the pure state of their being, and allow for the excesses of a survivalist culture as much as anything caused by the West's historical enmity, speaking broadly.
-
True, they are a Jewish state and no one should deny the horrible duplicity of the holocaust. Yet, for that very reason, should we tolerate very anti-democratic policies of the Israeli state?
The English are often credited with using the first concentration camps when they fought the Boers in South Africa. Should their harsh treatment of the Boer people be used to legitimize the apartheid policies of South Africa that took place later?
-
In my honest view, JS, with the respect I always have for you, that is a callow response. There are many ways to illustrate the point I've made, but I'll select only one: the fog of war often creates its own mandates.
-
Let me respond another way then.
Why should Israel keep such policies? Why have ritzy suburbs that only have Jewish denizens? Why deny Arab citizens the right to live in those areas?
There are Israelis who clearly agree that such policies are outdated. Barak, for example, attempted to remove some of these restrictions and also invest heavily in the poor Arab regions of Israel during his very short term. So clearly, there is a sentiment there for social justice and equality.
It wouldn't take much pressure from the nation that provides most of the aid to Israel to get more done in that direction. That is my point. Why not make that extra effort? Would it not make sense to show the Arab world that there is more to Israel than segregation and restrictions?
-
Well, I can wholeheartedly agree with such an approach. But such an initiative -- yet -- has a lower priority than the main thrust of Israel's existence, which is survival in light of a genocide. Free of real threats, I have every confidence that Israel would, through a wise and benign process, develop policies which reflect the best of this great people and which honor each and every citizen within its borders.
-
So, you support Israel's segregation based on religion?
No, on their survival as a country. I thought I had made that point perfectly clear, earlier.
No, they don't have freedom to choose where they wish to live, nor where they wish to work
You mean Israel has slaves?? That sure is news to me
You keep saying that as if it were something amazing (that they have a multiple party system vs our 2 party system). It is a parliamentary system Sirs.
No and so?
Why not argue for it?
I have. It doesn't seem to be gaining any traction. Why is that?
So what? (that there is such an overt Anti-semetic bias within the Palestinian and Arab nations)
LOL. And then you sit there and condemn Israel for daring not integrate these folks into their government and social structure. Frellin, amazing
-
Let me respond another way then.
Why should Israel keep such policies? Why have ritzy suburbs that only have Jewish denizens? Why deny Arab citizens the right to live in those areas?
There are Israelis who clearly agree that such policies are outdated. Barak, for example, attempted to remove some of these restrictions and also invest heavily in the poor Arab regions of Israel during his very short term. So clearly, there is a sentiment there for social justice and equality.
It wouldn't take much pressure from the nation that provides most of the aid to Israel to get more done in that direction. That is my point. Why not make that extra effort? Would it not make sense to show the Arab world that there is more to Israel than segregation and restrictions?
Principals have to be workable.
One reason to build walls between people is that they are killing each other without the wall.
People that have agreed together on a code of conduct have an easyer time liveing as neighbors , if there is so much incompatability between two groups that there is no other practical way to keep them alive than by building a wall , what is more wrong with a wall than the fighting?
-
No, they don't have freedom to choose where they wish to live, nor where they wish to work
You mean Israel has slaves?? That sure is news to me
Wow. So anything short of slavery is freedom? You'd have made quite the sidekick to the dixiecrats of the mid 20th century Sirs. The Arabs in Israel have the same "freedom to choose where they live" as the blacks in Mississippi and Alabama in the early 1950's. You really have no understanding of segregation or racism, do you?
* By the way, as an aside (and this has nothing to do with this conversation) Israel does have slaves. According to the U.S. State Department report on Human Trafficking from June 2006 Israel's protections against human trafficking are considered "inadequate." Israel especially serves as a focal point for the trafficking in Eastern European women especially from the Ukraine and Russia. Israel is also thought to harbor 16,000 to 20,000 involuntary foreign workers through NGO's. Israel (http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Israel-2.htm)
No and so?
It doesn't get any traction because most Americans don't understand how Parliamentary political systems work.
One reason to build walls between people is that they are killing each other without the wall.
"Peace walls" were built all over Northern Ireland, especially Belfast, and did not prevent violence. They mainly became a symbol of oppression and segregation. Why would it be different in Israel?
-
* By the way, as an aside (and this has nothing to do with this conversation) Israel does have slaves. According to the U.S. State Department report on Human Trafficking from June 2006 Israel's protections against human trafficking are considered "inadequate." Israel especially serves as a focal point for the trafficking in Eastern European women especially from the Ukraine and Russia. Israel is also thought to harbor 16,000 to 20,000 involuntary foreign workers through NGO's. Israel (http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Israel-2.htm)
Using this standard, both the United States and Canada have slaves as well.
-
Using this standard, both the United States and Canada have slaves as well.
Did I suggest otherwise?
It isn't a part of this conversation though and is not (I don't think) government sanctioned.
-
Did I suggest otherwise?
Jut wanted to point out that using the standard you promulgated, there are no countries that do not have slaves.
-
Some do better jobs than others at investigation and prosecution of traffickers as well as protection of victims.
Also, some nations' NGO's do a superior job of preventing foreign workers from becoming trapped in servitude.
Israel is considered a Tier 2 country, whereas a nation like Austria or Canada are considered Tier 1 nations (meaning they do much more towards the problem).
Again, this has little to do with the discussion at hand.
-
Some do better jobs than others at investigation and prosecution of traffickers as well as protection of victims. Also, some nations' NGO's do a superior job of preventing foreign workers from becoming trapped in servitude. Israel is considered a Tier 2 country, whereas a nation like Austria or Canada are considered Tier 1 nations (meaning they do much more towards the problem).
Though it does render moot the notion that the Palestinians have no say so what-so-ever as to where they can go and where they can work. Now Israel is condemned for not doing a better job at illegal trafficking. Perhaps if you could have demonstrated that their Government does next to nothing or even condones it, you might have a leg to stand on
-
Do you not read anything? *sigh*
I said that the human slavery issue was an aside and has nothing to do with this conversation.
Now try again. This time try explaining why lack of slavery equals freedom in your definition. Surely that wasn't the case in South Africa or the Southern United States in the 1950's and 1960's.
-
Israel is considered a Tier 2 country, whereas a nation like Austria or Canada are considered Tier 1 nations (meaning they do much more towards the problem).
Canada is also listed as a Tier 2 nation (http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2003/21275.htm#canada). Very few nations make the Tier 1 list. However, the UAE did make it to that status.
-
Very few nations make the Tier 1 list. However, the UAE did make it to that status.
Would you like to start a new thread on human trafficking? It is a rather important topic. Or are you just being pedantic?
-
Would you like to start a new thread on human trafficking? It is a rather important topic.
If you feel it's that important, why did you not do so? I have no problems with allowing some divergence on the original thread.
Or are you just being pedantic?
I'd say the person wanting threads to remain narrowly focused would be the one acting "pedantic."
-
Do you not read anything? *sigh* I said that the human slavery issue was an aside and has nothing to do with this conversation.
Now try again. This time try explaining why lack of slavery equals freedom in your definition.
You appeared to bring it up as some overt example of Israel being some 3rd world Middle East Sudan, when the point I've made, is that despite how hard it is for Palestinians to seek work and life in Israel proper, they're neither prevented from doing so, nor prevented from seeking work and living elsewhere. You are the one putting all forms of qualifiers as to what real "freedom" is supposed to be, when your example can be applied to pretty much every country that happens to have illegal trafficking.
-
The thread title is pedantic and thus it is appropriate to the thread to quibble over small nuances in the use of terms , in this very appropriately titled thread.
My right to live anywhere I want has practical limits , I can't live in a house I can't afford , I can't live on a national park , and Indian reservation ,or a military base without special permission.
Israelis have no more freedom to choose to live amoungst the Palestinians than the Plaestinians have to live amoungst the Isarelis , many Palestinian real estate agents have been killed over roumors that they helped to sell some land to a Jew. There used to be Jews that lived amoung the Palestinians and there used to be more Palestinians that lived amoung the Jews , but this gets progressively harder as more such mavericks get slaughtered.
I do not know how much the "peace walls " in Ireland were not effective , but how does anyone know that they had no effect? In Israel the walls are being completed and the rates of killing are dropping where the walls are.
I can see that good attitude would be much superior to walls , but it takes two to tango and only one to build a wall.
-
Israelis have no more freedom to choose to live amoungst the Palestinians than the Plaestinians have to live amoungst the Isarelis , many Palestinian real estate agents have been killed over roumors that they helped to sell some land to a Jew. There used to be Jews that lived amoung the Palestinians and there used to be more Palestinians that lived amoung the Jews , but this gets progressively harder as more such mavericks get slaughtered. In Israel the walls are being completed and the rates of killing are dropping where the walls are. I can see that good attitude would be much superior to walls , but it takes two to tango and only one to build a wall
Well articulated Plane 8)