Why are the Palestinians upset that Israel blew up the Hamas guy?
He was parapalegic. He wasn’t getting any healthier. I suspect women weren’t flocking to him.
And Israel martyred him.
So if they really believe the line they’re feeding to gullible 14 year old boys, why aren’t they holding celebrations saying, “Thanks to Israel, the founder of Hamas is now cavorting in a land of milk and honey with 72 virgins! Bless you, Israel! You could have let him have a slow, lingering unmartyred death, but no! You were thoughtful and dropped bombs!”
But instead they’re all upset. Doesn’t make sense. Not if they really believe in the glories of the hereafter, instead of just using it to sending credulous and insecure teens to their deaths.
And the UN wants to condemn Israel for blowing up a man complicit in the murders of hundreds of Israelis. I’m curious: Was there a condemnation of Palestinians for cynically manipulating a 14 year old? A ten year old? Just wondering.
PAD
• 
The fact is that the Middle-East is so covered in blood that nothing will ever bring an end to the situation, except the total nuking of the whole area. No more Middle-East, no more problem. As a matter of fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the whole human race should be exterminated. After all, what other animal plunder the planet as if there was no tomorrow? What other animal fight over ideas? What other animal takes revenge for crimes committed millenia ago? Even attempts to better things have led to tragedies (think of the French Revolution). Frankly, if the will to survive wasn’t so ingrained in our minds and souls, it would be enough to just call it quits.
Why does Palestine care? Well…So what if my car is old and busted, I don’t want you jumping around on the hood.
Maybe they should’ve just tried to scare him to death… induce a heart attack or something.
“As a matter of fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the whole human race should be exterminated.”
Blah blah blah. Please don’t have children.
“Hate to burst your bubble, but it’s a fact that female rodents often have been known to eat their own offspring when other food sources are scarce. Also, a fact that many lion cubs are killed and eaten by a new male taking over the pride–and the females do nothing about it.
Then, too, female turtles lay their eggs on beaches all around the world and just go off (no protection there), and female crocodilians often only protect their offspring until they hatch–depending on the species, the hatchlings may never actually know their “parents”.
Even among primates, I’ve seen enough nature programs to know that protecting one’s offspring doesn’t always trump the idea of saving one’s own skin first.”
This isn’t “saving one’s own skin”. This is using children as a weapon of terrorism and it’s several magnitudes of evil beyond anything a rodent could conceive.
It’s not just the sacrifice of the child–you don’t see animals other than human CELEBRATING the death’s of one’s children. How screwed up is that?
Eisenhower certainly didn’t think so.
Second, an unprovoked war with North Korea may ultimately draw China in against us. That would be BAD.
Ahh, I see. We can play big badass country to anybody that we can step on with our big toe.
But heaven-farking forbid we actually do something against somebody that might be able to stand up against us.
And we gave Iraq 12 years to work things out with the UN, so we can probably wait another eight for North Korea.
Eight years for N Korea to build the nukes that Iraq never had…
It isn’t, and has never been, a religious conflict. It is a conflict over territory, national identity, and cultural division.
And you don’t think religion fits anywhere in there?
What were the Crusades about then?
That blasted piece of land currently known as Israel has been fought over for two thousand years by any and every religious zealot around.
To suddenly think you can just take religion out of the discussion is laughable.
Sure, all those other things factor into it, but I don’t think a Palestinian suicide bomber lights the fuse going “dámņ our cultural differences.”
No, they’re saying “dámņ those Jews”.
I’m not sure why the Europeans seem to find it worse when Israel attacks Palestinians than they do when the Palestinians attack Israelis. I suspect it’s just good old fashioned European anti-semitism (as the French would say “Il y a des juifs se cachant dans le grenier, mon ami allemand” (“There are Jews hiding in the attic, my German friend.”))
Well we keep being told it’s anti-semitism. Personally I don’t think so, but then again, maybe I’m just too close to see the big picture. Frith knows the Israelis are.
I think one of the main problems Europeans have with the current Israeli policies is disappointment. Let’s face it, we all know that Yassin was a šçûmfûçk. His behaviour was indefensible. Can we get that out of the way first? I don’t want you thinking that I approve of bombing residential neighbourhoods in an attempt to scare innocents into submission.
The problem is that attitude cuts both ways. I see the IDF blowing up people’s homes, and I don’t see there being any kind of brainwashing going on. This is the product of democracy, justice, rule of law. Slamming missiles into innocent people’s homes hoping to snag a šçûmfûçk in the collatoral.
I see the IDF herding Palestinians into ghettos and sending tanks in whenever their political masters demand a pogrom. But they’re not bandits, they’re educated men from a free and open society.
I could go on, but you’ve got the point by now.
The Palestinians are living in filth and sqalor, rules by thugs and bandits, and they do terrible things. The Israelis are part of a rich democracy, governed by rule of law. And they do terrible things. For some reason it seems a lot worse when the terrible things are done by the people who should know better.
Alas, as far as I can see both sides are convinced that if only they can stoop to some final act of extreme brutality the others will sit up, take note and realise that they should say ‘uncle’. They won’t. Pray God they find another way first.
Thank you Peter. I check your Blog regularly because you don’t just dogmatically pick one side of the arguments of life and then try and make the other side look stupid. I really enjoy your books (I buy them and borrow all the other things that I read) and have always found your POV to be refreshing.
I’m trying to find Yassar and Ariel’s e-mail addresses so that I can forward them your take on this issue. Wish me luck.
Jack
Ok here we go.First let me say the killing on both sides is a bunch of bûllšhìŧ.My problem is more that by assassinating the man,your making things worse.As far as why the palestinians are upset ,Hamas in a lot of cases feeds,clothes and educates the people with money.Its the same reason that in afghanistan the locals are still under the influence of the warlords.They provide food and money to the people not us ,not the israelis.As far as they are concerned america and the israelis are the enemiesand just killed one of their leaders.Are they brainwashed ??Yeah,misguided ?Definitely.But if all you know is what you are told by the guy giving you food and in your eyes fighting the enemies of your state ,religion and way of life you would be upset too.This is an old tactic also used by the Taliban,Nazis ,KKK and several other hate groups.I dont support the assasination or the response by Hamas and the palestininans and believe me a greater response is coming .
There are really days i wish i was a moron who was happy watching AMERICAN IDOL and THE SIMPLE LIFE instead of reading a paper and watching the news.
Or, perhaps, Nick Eden… it’s that the Israelis have a lot more retaliation options open to them than Palestinians. They have the (relative “luxury”) of deciding on a response that either minimizes or maximizes the safety of their soldiers, and on the other side of the scale either minimizes or… well, not minimizes… the possible collateral damage among Palestianians.
Palestianians have the luxury of … ah… bombing or not bombing. Such a varied amount of responses open to them.
And, I’ll point out… NO I don’t approve of Palestinians bombing, before y’all go calling me antisemitic. They shouldn’t be doing that, for as much as my censure does (absolutely nothing).
I really don’t think it’s unreasonable to point out that, whatever the ethics of the situation, pragmatically, Israel has far more options for dealing with their Palestinian enemies than the Palestinians have for dealing with the Israelis.
F’r instance, I don’t read too much about Palestinian helicopter gunships firing missiles into Israeli neighborhoods. Shelling with mortars or personal rocket launchers or attacking with guns or bombs, yeah (I certainly acknowledge that Palestinians attack Israel and settlers etc etc)… but not helicopter gunships or tanks.
I’m just saying, Israel has bigger and better guns, better trained personnel, etc etc.
And is it too much to hope for, as an outside observer, that the side that HAS more options might consider using some of their options to try to minimize (in theory uninvolved) casualties?
That’s been Israel’s policy at some times in the past.
Perhaps it is too much to hope for. Perhaps even saying that is antisemitic in some of y’alls view.
Ack. I thought I’d edited correctly.
Really, I do know how to spell “Palestinian”.
Dean, the killing on both sides is not the same. Hamas, al-Fat’ah, and others of their ilk go for random slaughter, with no point other than to attempt to shock a populace apparently inured to their brand of obscenity. The Israeli army at least attempts to target their killings, aiming at those who have been attempting to destroy their nation.
My only problem is the rather disproportionate use of force, in general and especially in this case. It has been suggested that they used missiles in order to make sure everyone knew who did it. However, had they gone for the neat, precise head-shot with the high-powered sniper rifle, I doubt anyone would have thought immediately of a rival terrorist group – as mentioned above, they like things to be a bit showier than that. Who else could be blamed for the bullet? A Mob hit? [/sarcasm] No, I think Sharon’s government is allowing its vision to be blinded by its justifiable hatred and rage for those who want nothing more than to see them dead.
I’m not familiar with the Jewish Scriptures – is the book listed in the Bible as Proverbs included therein? If so, perhaps Ariel should go reread the parts about the dangers of unbridled wrath…
Mr. David, your post hidden inside these long lists of comments is extremely valuable. For those too lazy to look for it, it begins…
“Once upon a time, I was a 14 year old boy who was convinced he’d never have a girlfriend. I couldn’t get a date. I couldn’t get a girl even to look my way without derision, ’cause I was this, y’know, fat kid who liked comic books. So I can totally wrap myself around the mindset of that kid from a couple days ago. It’s a bad, sad, depressing place to be. It pervades you, gets into you, colors how you view the world and yourself.”
That is the heart of fanatacism, its source. You convince your recruit that his present life is hopeless, and you offer a chance for him to become impressive and memorable. It worked that way for Hitler, Stalin and the rest. I just feel it’s a shame that this post of yours, Mr. D, may be overlooked in the middle of the responses. You put a human face on a phenomenon that most of us can’t consider human at all.
It is odd, though. You almost suggest that comic book fans could become fanatical enough to do deadly things. I haven’t seen that. Perhaps because comics hold out hope, and often contain a sense of ethics and morality that other geek media don’t have. The Columbine killers played Doom and Quake, and the “Vampire: The Masquerade” killers here in Florida played a particular RPG full of violence and despair. But I haven’t heard of anyone who went out and killed after reading “The Punisher” or “Fallen Angel” or even “Spawn.” (Now watch someone come up with an obscure case and prove me wrong.)
Mr. Reed, I believe you may be drawing a false inference. The Columbine killers did indeed play Doom and Quake – however, they did not commit their crimes because of their taste in video games, any more than my own weakness for “Carmageddon II: Carpocalypse Now” predisposes me to commit random acts of vehicular mayhem. Rather, they played those games in an attempt to get some sense of power and control in their own lives – a sense regularly stripped from them in the school environment. I’m sure many of us here can empathize, although I’d like to think we all have more self-control than to actually play out the final sections of “Heathers” in real life…
I’d also like to note that “Vampire: the Masquerade” isn’t supposed to be all that violent, really. The game the designers were aiming for was one of interpersonal manipulation, not random slaughter. Also, the hopelessness is a matter of individual style, as well. Remember, the game does hold out the hope of achieving Golconda, and mastering the Beast within. (There’s also my Malkavian character, the Nightwatch, who believes he was granted his vampiric powers of Potence and Celerity in order to become – dah dah DAAAHH! – a SUPERHERO!!)
This is not to denigrate your main point, which is correct – the best way to recruit a fanatical killer is to find a young person whose life seems nothing but despair and emptiness, and convince him/her that this view is correct, but you can direct them to the One Way to Freedom – violent self-immolation while destroying the Designated Enemy! (As opposed to proper military style, as described by Gen. Patton: “Your job, soldiers, isn’t to go out and die for your country – it’s to make some other poor bášŧárd die for his.”)
Peter, the Palestinians are upset for the same reason some Christians blame the Jews for Christ’s crucifixion: They ignore the fact that Jesus was supposed to die, that he wanted to die, and that his death made their redemption possible.
Posted by Bladestar at March 29, 2004 09:32 AM
Where dod I say I’m mad if America quits intefering in other countries?
C’mon, Clark, I’m really interested!
When you spouted off about how America has not gone into North Korea. You sounded mad to me.
Posted by Bladestar at March 29, 2004 09:34 AM
Clark, if that’s how you interpreted my jibs at Herr Bush not invading N. Korea, you’re dead wrong, I think we should leave them alone too.
Fine, but at least you recognize that it could be interpreted that way.
Same with Iran and Lebanon too, until they actually present a credible threat.
So what does that mean? That we SHOULD attack N. Korea? You said yourself that they’ve threatened us and you admit they’re a credible threat. So, as President, would you go in now, or would you wait until we get attacked first? Is there a certain number of deaths that you’d used to gauge your response, or would the attack alone be enough?
I hate the idea of America as the sole superpower in the world. I hate the idea of any one country having that much power actually.
Would you care to expound upon that statement? I mean, you seem to imply that America, as the sole superpower, can’t be trusted. Is there a country you think would be a BETTER lone superpower? How would having more than one superpower that can’t be trusted be better? When Russia was a superpower, the world seemed to always be on the brink of World War 3. You think those were better times? I’m assuming that you believe another superpower would balance the power, but what if the other Superpower was Great Britain or some country with good relations to the US? What if they conspired to share control ?
I think it’s easy for everyone on this board to Monday Morning Quarterback, especially with 20/20 hindsight. But what would YOU do to stop any or all of the war and death? Would you even try? Would you ignore Israel’s right to exist and abandon them to stand alone?
Bladestar: “I hate the idea of America as the sole superpower in the world. I hate the idea of any one country having that much power actually.”
EClark1849: “Would you care to expound upon that statement? I mean, you seem to imply that America, as the sole superpower, can’t be trusted. Is there a country you think would be a BETTER lone superpower? How would having more than one superpower that can’t be trusted be better? When Russia was a superpower, the world seemed to always be on the brink of World War 3. You think those were better times? I’m assuming that you believe another superpower would balance the power, but what if the other Superpower was Great Britain or some country with good relations to the US? What if they conspired to share control ?”
Er, much as I disagree with some of Bladestar’s politics, he clearly states that he distrusts *any* nation to act responsibly as a sole superpower. ANY nation. You may reasonably disagree, but don’t set up a strawman.
> What were the Crusades about then?
Lead pots. Europeans had stopped using them, more children were growing to adulthood, which meant more heirs… so the Pope and the leaders hatched a big land-grab scheme and sent second, third and fourth sons off to war, hopefully to snag new land for themselves…
(Gotta go to a meeting, or I’d elaborate more… one of my degrees is in medieval history though, it’s amazing the things you pick up!)
Victor Davis Hansen:
When should we stop supporting Israel?
The recent assassination of Sheik Saruman raises among some Americans the question
You beat me to it Dave, thanks.
I’d rather there be three of more “Superpowers” in the world. A governments natural tendencies to look out for it’s own interests would preclude too much of a two getting too bubby-buddy scenario.
WWIII never happened as a result of the “Cold War”, it was a boogeyman, it wasn’t going to happen. There was a balance of power that doesn’t really exist any more. Lebanon was never a threat to America, nor was Iran or Iraq, neither is North Korea. They all know that if they were to use a weapon of mass destruction (at least the countries that had them) would mean they’d be anhilated by America and the other outraged nations of the world.
The fact that no one nation could go it alone and survive was a very important balancing factor.
When should we stop supporting Isreal?
Maybe when they stop stealing water from land that does not belong to them? Maybe when they leave land that doesn’t belong to them? Maybe when the Isreali army stops using bullets against Palestinian kids throwing rocks? Maybe when they say they are devoted to a two state solution and then build a wall that cuts the West Bank in half?
We give 3 billion dollars to Israel every year. Those helicopters and missles that blew up the Hamas leaders are paid for by Americans. 3 BILLION dollars. EVERY YEAR. Perhaps thatis why some observes say the United STates is a teensy bit biased when it comes to the whole Middle EAstern situation.
And incidently, it is not just about Jews;its about the land. The Arabs historically treated Jews much better than the Christians of the same period ever did. Many Palestinians ARE Jews. Not everyone who denounces Isreal is an anti-semite. Noam Chomsky for example.
Sigh. If only the Zionists had settled for Kenya, or took Ho up on his offer to come to Viet Nam.
Ben Hunt
I really dislike Victor Davis Hanson’s writing.
Heh…as a comedian once put it… why couldn’t we situate Israel in, say, Idaho? Lots of land, not many people… not surrounded by enemies…
Er, much as I disagree with some of Bladestar’s politics, he clearly states that he distrusts *any* nation to act responsibly as a sole superpower. ANY nation. You may reasonably disagree, but don’t set up a strawman.
I didn’t. I asked him if there were a country BETTER suited to be a superpower than America. I think America has a lot of problems. Doesn’t mean I think there’s someplace better.
When should we stop supporting Israel?
I’ve long held the belief that we should’ve stopped supporting Israel a while ago, when the last peace talks broke down. I think Israel is the biggest abuser of American aid right now. Not even Saudi Arabia is abusing the money given to them by the U.S. like Israel is.
Now, that’s not to say we should suddenly support Palestine. Unfortunately, a lot of people will say “If you stop supporting Israel, you support terrorism.” Which is, of course, pure bûllšhìŧ. I’d rather we get out of that area of the world ENTIRELY. Pull out of Israel, lend no quarter to either combatant, and leave them to their affairs.
Unfortunately, that’s not the precedent any American president since Reagan has set. Every single one has manipulated things to get their way, and alienated millions of people in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, Nicaragua, and, yes, Israel and Palestine. The government can’t take any leader that doesn’t fit in their plan (see the American denouncement of the Spanish elections, if you don’t believe me). They still have fits over Fidel Castro, who hasn’t been a direct threat in over 20 years and even leases us Gitmo. They go so far as to suspend democratic elections and appoint who they want to lead. Hëll, they basically built Al-Qaeda with their bare hands, then turned their backs on them. Knowing that, they could never do what I proposed, because it wouldn’t fit their plan. Things may turn out beneficial to them in the long run…but then again, they may not. And the American government can’t take that chance. So they’ll alienate even more terrorists (more U.S. buildings blown up for Allah) to make certain that this is beneficial to them. THAT supports terrorism far more than just pulling out and letting them duke it out…
What would PDA think if the US or the UN just went into Israel and Palestine, destroyed the terrorist groups, tore down the barriers, established the previously agreed upon boundaries, destroyed all Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, then kept troops there until peace finally came or a new generation of peace-loving Israelis and Palestinians grew up? We’d take out part of the reason for Mideast terror right there!
Stavner
To Jess from way back up there
It’s not really just a religious thing. It’s both a land thing and a point of perspective. The religious thing just gets used as a way to fight the battle. The land thing is, as pointed out above, the Brit’s fault. Also the French. Most of the “Kingdoms” of the middle east didn’t exist until the Britt’s and the French gave up their empires. Before they left they made promises to everybody that they never meant to keep. Some of this was promising the same land to different people. Problem 1. Other problems were created by the departing Britts when they carved up the country and created the new countries. Many of the countries in the middle east didn’t exist 100 years ago or, if they did, don’t look like they did then. The creation of new lands created the seats of power for new rulers. The Britts created Royal families to rule the new lands. They made the leaders, not the people. That’s one of the reason that so many in the middle east don’t respect say, the Saudis’ royal family. They’re not a long line of kings from the old days. They’re a new line that sprung from the “puppets” of the Britts. You’ve also got the little problem of lands with great holy sights on them. The Israelis don’t want to give up their bit of land because it was the sight of one of the great temples. There is a sight there that, some claim, held the Lost Ark that Indiana Jones went through such trouble to keep from the Nazi bad guys. Problem is that it’s now the spot where the most holy sight for the Musilums now stands. They want to get back in to claim that spot. That’s also one of the big beefs that they have with us. The Saudis let us set up bases in their country and keep men there. Guess where one of the other great holy spots is. Yep. And they don’t like our having bases and people (nonbelievers at that) all over one of their most holy spots. Not quite the FOX News line of “The just hate freedom so they hate us” but much closer to reality. The whole thing is a mess from the word go. Drop into the mix the poverty and the human desire to feel that “I’ve been wronged and they’re causing all my problems” and you’ve got a breeding ground for wackos who have the gift of gab to put together devoted “armies of god” to do really stupid things and believe it’s for a greater cause. Throw the religious aspect in and it gets really messed up. There is no way to think in the mind of some of these people. Think about this. You’ve got Bin Laden, who is richer then any of us will ever be, turning his back on the comforts of a rich life to live in caves, eat bugs and run for his life to fight those he believes to be against his religious ideals. ????????????. You’ve got people who will die in order to take as many other people with them and are happy to do it. Except those who are, and I’m not just using this as a turn of phrase, brainwashed into it.
Then there’s that perspective thing. Israel has fought this fight almost as dirty as the Palestinians. Not always and not as low but they have had their moments. Hëll, one of the first acts of the Israelis to claim ownership of the land they now have was to blow up a hotel where the Britts were staying in order to get them out of the country. An act that we would call an act of terror. But the western world sides with Isreal and doesn’t get on their case like it does the Palestinians. Thus, the Palestinians get ticked at all of us for jumping them for stuff we give Isreal a pass for (one of those things is not kids strpping bombs to themselves. Isreal hasn’t sunk that low and I don’t think ever will). And that’s just the cliff notes version. It would take me hours to type all the pages it would take to explain the roots of this mess. Go hit your history books and read up on it. Won’t clear things up much but it might help a little.
And PAD wants to know why they’re upset? Because that’s what they need for this moment. No other reason. No logic to it. They need to be upset about his death to rally people to the cause. And so the faithful will rally. Most of them won’t even know why they need to other then it’s what they must do. And because they’re being raised to hate. The BBC had home vids from Palistinian households of three year olds holding daddy’s gun and talking in baby talk about killing “them” and how it’s good to die for the cause. You don’t need a real reason for anger with that. You just need something to claim as a cause. His death would have been that something no matter how it went down. I’m willing to bet that if he died in his bed that the followers would have claimed that it was so bad that he died without seeing the cause finished that now they had to do it to honor him. No reason and no logic. Just death and hate.
And the UN really sucks at this point. They make even less sense then the Palestine vs Isreal thing. I don’t even try to figure them out any more.
Oh, by the by
I’m not slagging on the Israelis with that above post. I’m just pointing out that the “one person’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist” mindset is reall alive and well over there and in some other parts of the world. Please don’t take that bit wrong and jump on me about siding with the Palistinians because I’m not.
“Right now we have a ton of finger pointing going on in Washington as to who was at fault for letting Bin Laden go when we had him in our cross-hairs, a tumor removal that might have prevented 9/11.”
I do have to say, in fairness, that not only am I not at ALL convinced that the action alone of killing bin Laden would have prevented 9/11, but if we had killed bin Laden and 9/11 had happened (as I suspect it would), al Qaeda would be saying that 9/11 was done specifically *because* the US killed bin Laden and lots of people (including, quite possibly, me) would be finger pointing at Bush (presuming it happened under his watch) and saying, “Ðámņ you, Bush! It’s all your fault for provoking them!”
PAD
“Bill Mulligan posted:
The basest animal on earth protects its children. Only humans could sink this low.
“Hate to burst your bubble, but it’s a fact that female rodents often have been known to eat their own offspring when other food sources are scarce.”
Actually, I’d say that association goes a long way toward explaining what types of animals are running Hamas. I think “rodents” is a fair description. Vermin. Yeah. That works for me.
PAD
PAD says:
“I do have to say, in fairness, that not only am I not at ALL convinced that the action alone of killing bin Laden would have prevented 9/11, but if we had killed bin Laden and 9/11 had happened (as I suspect it would), al Qaeda would be saying that 9/11 was done specifically *because* the US killed bin Laden and lots of people (including, quite possibly, me) would be finger pointing at Bush (presuming it happened under his watch) and saying, “Ðámņ you, Bush! It’s all your fault for provoking them!”
PAD, right now I’d vote for you for president. That’s one of the most honest bits of nonpartisan logic I’ve heard in ages. kudos.
“Maybe when the Isreali army stops using bullets against Palestinian kids throwing rocks?”
The same argument was made after the Kent State debacle. People seem to forget that you don’t need to be a major league pitcher to kill someone with a thrown rock. Just lucky on where you hit. I agree that rubber bullets might have been a better response, but people die from those, too, sometimes. There are no happy ways out when things get that unpleasant. If you just leave, it only encourages them to keep on doing it. But, if they find out there are serious consequences, some may think twice about doing it again. It’s a start.
Bill Mulligan posted:
“This isn’t “saving one’s own skin”. This is using children as a weapon of terrorism and it’s several magnitudes of evil beyond anything a rodent could conceive.
It’s not just the sacrifice of the child–you don’t see animals other than human CELEBRATING the death’s of one’s children. How screwed up is that?”
Unfortunately none of the above has any bearing on your initial posting which stated simply “the basest animal on earth protects its children”. Your statement was simply inaccurate.
As for “evil” that’s a purely HUMAN notion which has been used by HUMANS to annihilate not only other humans, but also a wide number of animal species including sharks and wolves and snakes (snakes have it even worse in the “evil” department because of millenia of Western–i.e., Jewish and Christian–religious teachings). Animals recognize neither “good” nor “evil” so that makes your above comments even less relevant to the topic.
I would also point out I don’t see any other animals celebrating the birth of their young (as humans so often do), nor do other animals choose to be fixed to prevent unwanted births (as humans can do, unless their religious tenets view that as “unnatural” or “against God’s will”). Some animals do seem to mourn stillborn young, but there’s very seldom any elaborate ritual practiced nor any apparent long-term depression.
It’s also fair to remind you of human infanticide practices–the Spartans were well-known for exposing children perceived to be “weak”, and many societies deliberately killed infant girls. I also don’t recall any animals deliberately mutilating their young to satisfy bizarre religious practices (circumcision) or cultural notions of beauty (binding feet, flattening foreheads), and humans will treat animals in the same manner (breeding cats and dogs to serve some human sense of aesthetics, regardless of the harm that may be done to the animal–many Persian cats suffer from vision and breathing problems because of humans who want the cats to look a certain way).
Bill Wrote: “I’m not sure why the Europeans seem to find it worse when Israel attacks Palestinians than they do when the Palestinians attack Israelis. I suspect it’s just good old fashioned European anti-semitism (as the French would say “Il y a des juifs se cachant dans le grenier, mon ami allemand” (“There are Jews hiding in the attic, my German friend.”))”
I guess you have never come to Europe and you konow nothing about us. That’s a complete nonsense. Would you say that you were anti-Spanish if you were against Franco’s dictatorship? Or would you say you are anti-German if you were against the government of Hitler? So, why do you mean European peoples are anti-semitics because they are against Sharon’s government? As a Spaniard, I’m proud of my country’s tradicional international policy: the muslims are friends of us and also the jews.
That’s a common American comment, always thinking you are the good guys and all the others are wrong, and that hurts me. I’m not anti-semitic, absolutely not, no way. The question is: are you anti-Palestinian?
In my opinion, Sharon wants to blow the peace process up by encouraging Palestinians to do violent acts. Sharon wants to make a Palestinian State trapped by a great wall and that requires to break any peace accord that may exist. Sharon knows tha violence brings more violence, that death causes more death. The monsters on the other side(who don’t want the peace eather), the leaders of Palestinian people, are very happy, and I’m sure they’re looking forward to killing more jews. There is no good side in this war.
Peter David, don’t you understand that your reality, the reality you suffered when you were 14, is completely different? Palestinian youngters can’t find a job, they have great problems to eat everyday, they can’t study, they feel the jew presence as an humiliation because they can’t live in the land of their parents… They are desperate. You can’t compare with them, Americans and Europeans can’t compare with them because we live in different worlds. Reality is much more complicated than it seems.
I don’t want to hurt with my words but, I repeat, facts seem completely different when you see them from outside the USA. Sorry about my English.
I haven`t read any of the comments yet, but I already want to say something now:
I am sure you didn`t mean it that way, PAD, but also people who are parapalegic and have health problems deserve to live and can also have a love life. What you wrote there was really not in best taste. Being disabled, it rubbed me the wrong way.
Another question is, was it right that Israel blew this man up? I am sure, he is guilty of more than enough so that every US state that is willing to punish murderers with the death penalty would execute him if he would be a US citizen. Therefore a much more important question is not if he deserved it but if it was doing anything good.
Israel indeed martyred him with the consequences that should be obvious: More revenge and counter-revenge. More tit for tat murdering of innocent people.
I think what Israel should be condemned for is narrow mindedness and stupidity. I don`t know what the answer is but what Israel did was only making things worse. That the Palestinians do dreadful things as well is obvious but unfortunately I often think nowadays, maybe both sides deserve each other. Nobody seems to be willing to break this insane cycle of violence and move forward. Instead both sides are busy at making things worse.
Victor, you failed to get PAD’s point.
Sure, the problems he had growing up were very different, but feeling desperate and/or lonely and/or unwanted/unloved and therefore being modelling clay in a manipulative bášŧárdš hands is still very accurate.
Just because the circumstances leading to those feelings are different doesn’t change the end results of those feelings.
And your English seems pretty dámņ good.
I am sure you didn`t mean it that way, PAD, but also people who are parapalegic and have health problems deserve to live and can also have a love life. What you wrote there was really not in best taste. Being disabled, it rubbed me the wrong way.>>
I’m sorry but is everyone being deliberately obtuse? It’s obvious that PAD wasn’t advocating a Brave New World scenario. He was simply pointing out the flaw in the thinking of fundamentalists like the Hammas leader or the suicide bombers on 9/11. If these people believe that they are bound for better things, then why are they upset that their enemies sent them there? They obviously have no problem with dying because they send children to die for the cause.
But since I’m just repeating what PAD said already (and most people made a point to misunderstand), I feel I’m just wasting everyone’s time. Sorry.
Victor says,in response to my little jibe against the French:
“I guess you have never come to Europe and you konow nothing about us. That’s a complete nonsense. Would you say that you were anti-Spanish if you were against Franco’s dictatorship? Or would you say you are anti-German if you were against the government of Hitler? So, why do you mean European peoples are anti-semitics because they are against Sharon’s government? As a Spaniard, I’m proud of my country’s tradicional international policy: the muslims are friends of us and also the jews.”
Obviously this is just my own personal take on the matter and as such should not cost anyone any sleep, but frankly the weird European double standard as regards to Israel makes one highly suspicious that anti-semitism has something to do with it.
And let’s face it, while I’m not trying to put the blame on you for the possible crimes of your grandparents or anything, it’s not like European anti-semitism is something we have to reach into the distant past to find. Maybe one of the reasons why Americans seem to be more sympathetic to Jews than other countries is becase we, well, didn’t KILL all of ours! Go talk to a few Polish Jews. Of course, you’ll need a Ouiji board to do it…
When the Palestinian Authorit condemened some people to death for collaborating with Israelis I didn’t see nay of the marches in Europe that convicted cop-killers in the USA get. One suspects that being pro-Israel is, at last, sufficiant grounds for state sponsored killing to our gentle allies.
Victor, I suspect that if the Basque terrorists were as effective and scored as many kills as the PLO and Hamas, the reaction of the Spanish people would be every bit as harsh as the Israelis have been. The same is true for the rest of Europe, as well as the USA. Only Israel is expected to try to work with fanatical murderers. Reach a compromise (be less fanatical while killing? Spare girls under 12? What?)
“Palestinian youngters can’t find a job, they have great problems to eat everyday, they can’t study, they feel the jew presence as an humiliation because they can’t live in the land of their parents… They are desperate.”
Look around the world. You’ll find people in desperate situations, people who would envy what the Palestinians have. Yet they don’t seem to have embraced using their children as walking hand grenades. What’s the difference? Probably the lack of indoctrination. It’s not the Israeli’s fault that a Palestinian kid is fed a constant barrage of vile propaganda straight out of the pages of Der Strummer, taught that Jews are vermin or that salvation and family honor will come from blowing as many of them as possible into small bite sized chunks.
I’d jump in front of a paint truck to push one of my kids out of the way and die happily (if not with a smile) Wouldn’t any of us? (If you don’t have kids, you will one day know what I mean–their lives are more important than your own. It’s not like the love you have for a girlfriend, it’s primal and overwhelming and almost scary). To encourage and celebrate the death of a child…of one’s OWN child…I’m trying to imagine a degradation of the human soul that could compare to this. As bad as things are for the Palestinians it doesn’t come close to explaining or justifying this. Not even close.
A Victor
Gracias por su opinion y su ingles es mas mejor que mi espanol. Espero que tu no perdiste alguien en Madrid.
PAD stated something about the leaders of Hamas being Vermin and rodents. Hmmm…that strikes me as so familiar. Where have I heard it before? Oh, yeah, from Maus, only in connection with the Jews.
Do I defend Hamas or the Martyr’s Brigade? No, I do not. I think all terrorism is wrong, and most types of military violence is wrong. That being said, Isreal is also wrong, on a lot of things, and we in the States have a hard time acknowledging it.
And why do we hold Israel up to a higher standard? Because when Ben-Gurion and others founded Isreal, he wanted the nation to be a beacon of hope and civilization to the rest of the world. Isreal was to be the city on the Hill the way america was going to be for the PUritans. These are laudable goals, and goals that all too often seem to have been forgotten in the interim.
Ben Hunt
Bad taste warning*************
Limericks on Yassins death!
http://asmallvictory.net/archives/006334.html#006334
There once was a fighter for Palestine
who encouraged the kids in the martyr line
But Israelis grew tired
On his wheelchair they fired
Now he’s roasting in hëll like a spitted swine
There once was a fighter for Palestine,
who preached Anti-Jew stuff all the time,
it’s a shame his wheelchair
was in the crosshair
and now we can see his intestine..
There Once Was a Fighter for Palestine
Who was blinded by fierce sunshine
But along with the light
Came an explosive fright
As it turned out that sunshine was 3 missiles full of God’s own fury that scattered his worthless terrorist bits and pieces farther than he could have crawled his paralyzed ášš in a week.
“PAD stated something about the leaders of Hamas being Vermin and rodents. Hmmm…that strikes me as so familiar. Where have I heard it before? Oh, yeah, from Maus, only in connection with the Jews.”
For different reasons. The nazis made the comparison because they hated Jews. PAD made the comparison because of the way Hamas acts.
My only problem is that it seems terribly unfair to the rats.
**What were the Crusades about then?**
About a thousand years ago (rimshot)…
I was addressing the present conflict, between a primarily secular Jewish state and a primarily secular Palestinian nationalist movement. There are religious elements involved, but the meat of the issue is national and cultural. Remember, more than a few of the Palestinian Arabs in the occupied territories are Christians.
As for the Crusades as a religious issue, well, they were given a religious JUSTIFICATION, but there were an awful lot of economic and political motivations. Remember, the crusaders were more than willing to slaughter Jews, and even Christians (the sack of Constantinople), when they couldn’t find Muslims.
Ben Hunt,
Why does Hamas exist???
Jusr asking.
Ben Hunt,
Why does Hamas exist???
Jusr asking.
**Dean, the killing on both sides is not the same. Hamas, al-Fat’ah, and others of their ilk go for random slaughter, with no point other than to attempt to shock a populace apparently inured to their brand of obscenity. The Israeli army at least attempts to target their killings, aiming at those who have been attempting to destroy their nation.**
This is true, and from a moral standpoint, it is a point that should not be minimized. However, from a practical standpoint, Israel is SO much more powerful, militarily and economically, that it kills far more innocent Palestinians ACCIDENTALLY, than the Palestinian terrorist kill innocent Israelis ON PURPOSE. It is like watching a fight between a heavyweight boxer and a homicidal 9-year-old with a knife. The 9-year-old is certainly dangerous, and not acting morally, but he’s obviously going to get the crap beat out of him.
I think I’ve said this before, but Israel has been the target of so much aggression in its 50-odd years that it can’t accurately gauge threats. You can’t respond to impoverished suicide bombers the same way you respond to simultaneous attacks from half a dozen Arab nations.
“many Persian cats suffer from vision and breathing problems because of humans who want the cats to look a certain way).”-jonathan
Not to get on a tangent or spark a totally unrelated debate, but that simply isn’t true. My wife and I do breed persians, so I figure we would have some experience on that matter.
I liked your other points, though, and to a certain extent I agree with what you think about animal breeding, but I’m more concerned with how the animals get treated by most breeders (not myself, obviously) rather than the fact that they are bread to look a certain way.
Monkeys.
Oh, and if particular trait is detrimental to the animal’s health, it usually doesn’t last because of the various organizations that regulate breeding (at least in the cat world). There are always exceptions to everything, though.
Monkeys
**I am sure, he is guilty of more than enough so that every US state that is willing to punish murderers with the death penalty would execute him if he would be a US citizen.**
Perhaps, but they wouldn’t execute the people standing next to him, especially without bothering with a trial…
“Perhaps, but they wouldn’t execute the people standing next to him, especially without bothering with a trial..”
WHen someone has done the equivalent of pleading “Guilty” in public, not much of a trial is required. Just sentencing. As for the others, it is a dangerous concept, but there is such a thing as “guilt by association.”