So he said that Syria has to get the Hezballoh/Hizballoh/Jew-hating bášŧárdš to “knock this šhìŧ off.” So what? Syria SHOULD get them to knock this šhìŧ off. Leaders of terrorist countries and organizations use vile and hateful speech to denounce Israel and describe their intentions, and the media is making a cause celebre because the president of the United States said they should knock this šhìŧ off? I can just see the presidential apology: “I’m sorry for saying that Syria should get Hezballoh to knock this šhìŧ off. That could possibly have been misinterpreted since they treat the Israelis and human lives like šhìŧ, so they might have thought that I was encouraging them to kill Jews. What I should have said is that Syria should get Hezballoh to knock it the fûçk off.”
PAD
(Edited 12:16 PM to get the quote right)
• 
I’d definitely like a President who swears appropriately.
The question is: How can Lebanon army take on Hezbolah succesfuly if the IDF couldnt do that in 20 years of ocupation. They drove the syrian back so far, but you cant possibly expect them to disarm Hezbolah when much better armed and trained IDF couldnt do the job.
Actually, I think he said Syria needs to get Hezbollah to knock this šhìŧ off.
And btw
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060718/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel
How the hëll targeting Lebanon army help undermining hezbolah grip over the country?
Yeah, I think Bush said Syria needs to do it, not Lebanon.
So, I was good with this comment from Bush until I found out he said Syria.
Then I just scratched my head like I always do when Bush opens his mouth.
I actually was sort of impressed with Bush, mostly because he was actually talking policy with someone. We non-conservatives tend to get the impression that Dubya doesn’t know his ášš from a hole in the ground, so for him to have an actual lucid conversation about policy was startling and impressive.
(Then again, I guess this is an example of why some people think the President won the debates…)
I also think there was nothing wrong with what he said. If people get upset, it’s because they’re a bunch of hypersensitive a-holes who are also quite likely hypocritical, since I’m quite certain that many of these people have said far worse about the US.
This is what he said:
“”See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s— and it’s over,”
-basically, as many believe, he thinks Syria has great influence over them, and could get this over with quickly.
-From a newspaper article-Buthaina Shaaban, one of Assad’s aides, has hinted that, if allowed to return to Lebanon, the Syrians are prepared to disarm the Hezbollah and make sure that the Lebanese border with Israel is as calm as the ceasefire line between Israel and Syria has been for decades.
i have lived in Belfast pretty much my whole life and grew up through the Troubles. i was talking to a friend from the other side of the religious divide and was surprised he felt Israel were justified in their on-going attacks. you see in Northern Ireland Protestants are supposed to support Israel and Catholics are supposed to side with Palestine. Politics in NI is a curious thing. Like i said i was surprised by my Catholic friends comments and he refused to back down. the only way i could try and reason with him was by asking if he felt Britain would be justified in launching missile attacks on Ireland or Republican areas of NI after bomb attacks on mainland Britain. he wouldnt respond to this question but tried to turn it into a debate about the last 300 years of British occupation and the justification of the IRA and the “struggle”. like i said politics and religion are strange bedfellows here
i have stated in a previous thread that Bush and cronies want to destabilise the whole middle east and it seems to be happening. in my opinion this is leading towards a new global war with religion as its foundation. i truly hope i’m wrong but as i’ve witnessed here the past is a hard thing to forget and nearly impossible to forgive, religion and politics again in my opinion mix as well as oil and water
While listening to NPR on the way home last week, A Lebanese citizen was found to be saying “We have nothing to do with Hezballah, Why are we being hit?” or something to that effect. I found myself yelling to nobody,
“THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THEM!”
It sure looks to me like they don’t care enough, and they must somewhere, deep down, agree with what Hezballah is doing. (I never heard ONE Lebanese citizen placing any blame on Hezballah. As we all know, it takes two to tango.)
If you can’t revolt and/or reign them in, or DO SOMETHING-ANYTHING for pity sake, It’s hard to muster the proper amount of outrage I should be feeling.
(Oh and it’s widely reported Iran / Syria are supplying Hezbollah.)
Presidents that curse in a time of war are A-OK in my book. Well, other than the whole “blood-for-oil”, “manipulate-the-American-public-into-a-Iraqi-quagmire” thing. But still, he said šhìŧ! Woo hoo! I am so on this story!
AT any rate, Iran’s nukes suddenly were not the topic of conversation at the G-8 summit, which I am sure suited them just fine.
Agreed. I dislike Bush for many things, but I’d actually be more worried about a President that never swore. And c’mon, calling terrorist activities šhìŧ is justified, it’s not like he called any individual a šhìŧ-hëád or directed curses at the UN (as the initial CNN.com headline made it appear). It’s a classic non-news filler story that makes mw want to smack the media with a 2×4.
The media reaction has been kinda weird. Headlines have implied Bush cursed out the UN, Bush cursed out Syria, Bush cursed out Lebanon, or Hezbollah.
But he didn’t do any of the sort. He said “šhìŧ” as in the activities Hezbollah is engaged in, and he said it pretty casually.
Hardly this earth shaking news, yet the drudgereport has been running with this since it happened, changing the headline every few hours
Zeek:
Lebanese revolted and forced a pro-Syrian goverment out and got rid of Syrian troops…They were doing something. Disarming Hezbolah must not be an easy task since Israel occupied Lebanon for 20 years and didnt manage to do it.
It is funny-this will be seen as provincial, but I read “The U.S. currently has 25,000 passportholders in Lebanon” and I think what could the bulk of them possibly be doing there.
An incredibly sophisticated analysis from your Commander-in-Chief.
Who are the “they” in “…what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this šhìŧ and it’s over”?
El Hombre Malo, please stop using this demagogic argument. I think you know it is not true. It’s like saying that the US never conquered North Vietnam, and therefore it is impossible to conquer countries.
Israel did not try to disarm the Hizballa while they were in Lebanon. They did try to disarm the PLO in Lebanon and were partially successful. Israel fought for 20 years a pointless and wrong war to defend its soldiers who should never have been there from hizballa, but it never made an all out assault to disarm it. the Lebanese army never tried to disarm the Hizballa, and they had good reasons not too. They didn’t want to fight the Hizballa (it’s not that they tried but couldn’t). But unfortunatly that meant that the Hizballa remained part of Lebanon, sanctioned by the state, and that it continued to attack Israel. So it was Lebanon that attacked Israel, despite the double talk. I find it strange that Palestinians and lebanese assert their right to attack Israel but are offended when Israel attacks back.
Did Ireland ever attack Britain after independence?
I think criticizing some off the cuff comments made in casual cobversation while they were eating is a bit much. I don’t think the moment is meant to call for “an incredibly sophisticated analysis.”
I agree with this article I guess:
With that apercu, the President joined a long line of gaffe-making chief executives that includes Ronald Reagan (“[I have signed legislation that will outlaw the Soviet Union.] We begin bombing in five minutes”) and Jimmy Carter (who told congressmen that, if Sen. Edward Kennedy were to run against him, “I’ll whip his ášš”). What was maybe as jarring as the blunt remark was that CNN ran the profanity, unbleeped and unexpurgated, in audio, in the on-screen caption and in its ticker. (Though, oddly, it blanked out the curse word on its website.) I expect the denunciation of the President from The Parents Television Council at any moment.
Of course, Bush and his administration are no strangers to the semi-public off-color remark. Candidate Bush described a New York Times reporter to running mate Ðìçk Cheney as a “major-league áššhølë” and had his remarks picked up on a microphone; as Vice President, Cheney told Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont “Go f___ yourself” on the Senate floor. (I’ll leave it to the pottymouths at CNN to spell out the whole expletive.)
And like those earlier vulgarities–like, in fact, pretty much everything the Bush administration does–it will probably cut both ways with the public. The President’s detractors will see another cringe-worthy example of the cretin we elected, bumbling boorishly through diplomacy, dropping an s-bomb into a situation with enough real bombs already falling, while popping gobbets of food into his face and chewing open-mouthed. His fans will see a straight-shooter, a man without airs, someone who has remained himself even in the prissy confines of a diplomatic luncheon and has the honesty to call a turd a turd, no matter what the world’s elites think.
Personally, I could care less that a grown man used a swear word when speaking to another grown man. I’m more disturbed that the President used “irony” to describe what seemed to be an entirely unironic situation. Have we learned nothing from Alanis Morrisette?
You can watch it here:
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2006/07/17/sot.bush.expletive.affl
It is funny-this will be seen as provincial, but I read “The U.S. currently has 25,000 passportholders in Lebanon” and I think what could the bulk of them possibly be doing there.
No, the really funny part is that any American who wants to be evacuated out of Lebanon will have to pay the US Government for the privilege.
And, no, this is not a joke.
1Who are the “they” in “…what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this šhìŧ and it’s over”?
*****
From comments he makes at the end, though some reporters seem unsure who the they is, it is pretty clear to me he is talking about the UN/Kofi Annan. Since it starts in the middle of the conversation it is not entirely clear, but the context seems to me to be that.
spiderrob8:
Lebanon is a big touristic destination, it was before the civil war and these last years of peace were helping them become again. Beirut have great hotels, beaches, casinos, and there is an important cultural heritage. That without having in mind that during the civil war, many lebanese left the country and became Americans, french, spaniards… and have since go back there to help build a better Lebanon.
(Oh and it’s widely reported Iran / Syria are supplying Hezbollah.)
Yes, it has been widely reported, and I don’t doubt it in the least.
However, Hezbollah is located in Lebanon. Not Syria, or Iran. Lebanon.
It is Lebanon’s responsibility to deal with him, and if they can’t handle it, then they need to outright say so, and they might as well be absorbed into Syria and cease to exist as a country if they want Syria to take of the problem for them.
Micha:
PLO was out of Lebanon long before the IDF left the country. Hezbolah waged a gerrilla war against IDF for all those years and you try to tell me Israel didnt do anything about it?
Of course the Lebanese army could do more about hezbollah, but they have a status as heroes, since they are seen as the only ones who standed against Israel during the invasion. Moreso, Hezbollah created a social welfare network in the parts of Lebanon where no other goverment could reach during that time,making civilians dependant on them. So the political cost of violently bringing them down would make any goverment colapse.
If you also take account of Lebanese army situation, after 20+ years of ocupation from two diferent countries, I think its not demagogic to mention it is near impossible for the lebanese goverment-army to dispose of Hezbolah.
Craig J. Ries
So the Lebanese, who revolted some months ago to stop the syrian influence in their affairs, who have democracy and different ethnic background, should be annexed by a dictatorship or face the bombs because they are not able to cope with Hezbolah.
Right.
Right.
I’ll tell you right now that you completely misinterpreted my comments.
Actually Sasha, from what I’ve been hearing, the US military will evacuate US passport holders from Lebannon to Cyprus. From there it’s up to the individuals to find transport home (or where ever else they want to go).
> I think its not demagogic to mention it is near impossible for the lebanese goverment-army to dispose of Hezbolah.
Well, that’s the thing. As we get the news in Canada, it seems clear that much of the Lebanese armed forces would side with the Hezbolah and the reason the government hasn’t sent the army in to clear them out is that they KNOW it would result in full-blown civil war. No if ands or buts.
Now being the raving loon that I am, I’d be tempted to cut the south loose. “You do not wish to obey the legitimate government? Fine. You are no longer part of Lebanon. Have fun.” And then watch as Israel takes over for real and solves the problem for me.
Yah, I know. But it’d be awfully tempting.
Okay, let’s start the clock: How long before a future post in which Peter criticizes Bush or the Republicans, and visitors knee-jerck accuse PAD of hating everything they do, never praising them, and never criticizing the Dems, and just plain forgetting that this blog entry took place? 🙂
I might.
But I think you simplify the repercusions of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
They are holding the whole lebanese people hostage to do as they please. But police dont shoot the hostage to get to the murderer.
Or at least, shouldnt.
Yeah but he’s praising him for something he really didn’t say…:)
But what he DID say was apparently valid. If Syria would stop using Hezballoh as their Lebanese army of occupation by proxy they would be in little condition to cause Israel much damage. As it is, they have seen their capabilities reduced by half, if some accounts are to be belived (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886032979&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
Yeah, I think Bush said Syria needs to do it, not Lebanon.
So, I was good with this comment from Bush until I found out he said Syria.
Then I just scratched my head like I always do when Bush opens his mouth.
Why? It make perfect sense. The Lebanese are not going to be able to do much is the Syrians continue to supply the terrorists. Syria can take over Lebanon and execute its leaders at any time they desire. It’s unlikelythe Lebanese can do much about that. Which may well be entirely their own fault but if we want to see something accomplished we have to focus on the real players in this situation.
But I think you simplify the repercusions of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
I don’t believe I am.
What is the most likely outcome of the Lebanese army putting down Hezbollah? Civil war. That’s pretty obvious.
Buf if they’re not willing to do it, then somebody else, like Israel, just may.
Syria isn’t going to do it – they’d probably be more than welcome to take over the country again, but they’re certainly not going to stop Hezbollah, and I don’t see how anybody thinks we can make them do it either.
So, no, Bill, it makes no sense whatsoever: Bush said he wants Syria to stop Hezbollah.
That’s nonsense to think that Syria would stop Hezbollah, because they have no interest in doing so when, as you say, they are the ones supplying the terrorists.
It really comes down to whether Lebanon wants to do it themselves, or Israel to do it for them. They’re finding out the hard way that I don’t think they want Israel doing it.
Also, there was another comment about the shared border between Israel and Syria (at the Golan Heights), and how there isn’t much, if any, violence there.
But that makes perfect sense – Syria supplies Hezbollah to cause problems elsewhere, mostly Lebanon, whom Syria controlled until just recently. Why cause problems at their own border when it’s so easy to do it elsewhere?
Lebanon got Israel out of their country, and then Syria. If they really expect to exist as an independent nation, they they’re going to have to fight for it, and that means fighting Hezbollah.
Oh, I think the Israelis can easily convince the Syrians that it is indeed in their interests to stop suplyying Hebollah. Their leadership is not so beloved by the military that a humiliating defeat would not likely lead to a coup. Israel could take out their airforce in a weekend. I suspect the only reason it hasn’t been done is the possibility of dragging Iran into the conflict.
As long as Syria continues to supply Hezbollah or whatever replaces it, the situation will continue. Imagine if Mexico supplied some US terror groups with high tech arms. We could knock them off one by one but there will always be new crazies willing to take military aid (especially if the aid is given to anyone who will cause trouble–the KKK one week, the Symbionese Liberation Army the next). Until the Mexican government was stopped the situation would never end. (Note to the literal minded: I don’t seriously think Mexico will do anything of the sort, it was just either them or Canada. And, I mean, Canada, c’mon).
I suspect the only reason it hasn’t been done is the possibility of dragging Iran into the conflict.
I think I agree with this as well, but I’m honestly not sure how much of a threat Iran would be.
It’s not like they’d have it easy going over or through Iraq, thanks to the US presence there (nor would it have been if Saddam was still in power). But they cannot be discounted, either.
I’m just not convinced that Israel’s leadership has the kind of clout with Syria needed to get Syria to genuinely try and stop Hezbollah.
So, I’m not sure Syria would be doing anything even if they didn’t have Iran’s support.
Aggrieved parties aren’t just going to “cut that šhìŧ out” when their homeland has been invaded and stolen from them. The creation of the state of Israel at the expense of Palestine has been the SOLE cause of trouble in the Middle East for the last 60 years. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending otherwise just perpetuates the crime against the Palestinian people.
The “SOLE” cause of trouble? Are you kidding?
Too many Bills…
Sticking your head in the sand and pretending otherwise just perpetuates the crime against the Palestinian people.
Uhuh.
The only people sticking their head in the sand are those who act like the Palestinians are the only ones who have ever been aggrieved in that part of the world over the last, oh, 2500 years or so.
But, as I said, you don’t see Jewish terrorists in Germany…
Aggrieved parties aren’t just going to “cut that šhìŧ out” when their homeland has been invaded and stolen from them. The creation of the state of Israel at the expense of Palestine has been the SOLE cause of trouble in the Middle East for the last 60 years. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending otherwise just perpetuates the crime against the Palestinian people.
Cough “Iran/Iraq War” Cough.
“Too many Bills”
It’s relatively easy to figure out which is which. If it sounds reasonable and well thought out it’s probably Bill Myers.
If it sounds like it was written under the effects of white wine and cough syrup, it’s probably me.
Posted by: Bill Maxwell at July 18, 2006 12:48 PM
Aggrieved parties aren’t just going to “cut that šhìŧ out” when their homeland has been invaded and stolen from them.
Actually, when Jews began immigrating en masse to Palestine in the late 1800s, many of them bought their land. With money. In fair transactions.
In 1947, in response to mounting violence, the U.N. General Assembly proposed dividing Palestine roughly in half, into one Jewish state and one Arab state. The Palestinians rejected the offer, and Israel declared itself a nation in 1948.
Had the Palestinians been willing to accept a compromise, and had they been willing to accept the moral justification for a Jewish state in an area from which Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before, we might not be in this mess today.
Posted by: Bill Maxwell at July 18, 2006 12:48 PM
The creation of the state of Israel at the expense of Palestine has been the SOLE cause of trouble in the Middle East for the last 60 years.
While Israel may make a convenient scapegoat for all of the problems in the region, all such problems cannot be reasonably traced to Israel. The various Arab factions in the Middle East can’t get along with each other in many instances. Or are you going to try to pin the Iran-Iraq war on the Israelis?
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 18, 2006 01:23 PM
“Too many Bills”
I say that a lot when I look at the mail.
It’s relatively easy to figure out which is which. If it sounds reasonable and well thought out it’s probably Bill Myers.
Bill, I appreciate the compliment, but your commitment to logic, willingness to assess the facts before forming a conclusion, and civility towards people with whom you disagree has helped me to elevate my own debating style. So, y’know, enough with the modesty and šhìŧ.
(Beavis voice) Huh-huh, huh-huh, I said “šhìŧ.” Bush said “šhìŧ.” Huh-huh, huh-huh, his name is “Bush.”
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 18, 2006 01:23 PM
If it sounds like it was written under the effects of white wine and cough syrup, it’s probably me.
I’m at work right now, and boy could I go for some white wine and cough syrup.
Although I’m sorry if you’re feeling ill. Be well soon.
“PLO was out of Lebanon long before the IDF left the country. Hezbolah waged a gerrilla war against IDF for all those years and you try to tell me Israel didnt do anything about it?”
PLO was out of Lebanon after Israel entered the country. I didn’t say Israel didn’t do anything. They didn’t invade the rest of Lebanon in order to disarm the Hizballa, although its army could and had done it in the past.
“Of course the Lebanese army could do more about hezbollah, but they have a status as heroes, since they are seen as the only ones who standed against Israel during the invasion. Moreso, Hezbollah created a social welfare network in the parts of Lebanon where no other goverment could reach during that time,making civilians dependant on them. So the political cost of violently bringing them down would make any goverment colapse.
If you also take account of Lebanese army situation, after 20+ years of ocupation from two diferent countries, I think its not demagogic to mention it is near impossible for the lebanese goverment-army to dispose of Hezbolah.”
It is demagogic to claim that they couldn’t do it because Israel couldn’t. The other reasons are partially correct. But I believe if the Lebanese people at large decide that it is better for them not to have the Hizballa in the south they could do it. They just thought that it was better to have it there. What do they care about Israel’s problems. I hope they reconsider now that the Hizballa will be weaker, and its presence obviously harmful.
Israel cannot attack Syria and Iran for the very simple reason that they did not attack us. They supply weapons and manuver, but the attack came from Lebanon. If Israel is blamed so much for attacking a country that attacked it, how much trouble would we get for attacking Syria or Iran. And what about the inocent Syrians and Irani who would be killed inevitably. Are they not important?
If you can’t revolt and/or reign them in, or DO SOMETHING-ANYTHING for pity sake, It’s hard to muster the proper amount of outrage I should be feeling.
Mmm. Is it equally hard to muster it when someone says that if we don’t like what our administration is doing, we should revolt, or reign them in, or just DO SOMETHING ANYTHING for pities sake? Just… do something!
I mean, after all, it’s what an awful lot of people in other countries have been saying to Americans who bìŧçh about being associated with the current American government, and who think saying “I didn’t vote for them” is a good enough pass.
“Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before”
MILLENNIA is the operative word there. No one has a legal claim to land lost thousands of years ago. The poor Native Americans lost their land unjustly hundreds of years ago and have zero chance of ever reclaiming it.
“The various Arab factions in the Middle East can’t get along with each other”
When the Arabs fight amongst themselves, it doesn’t affect us in the US. When we give Israel bombs to drop on the Arabs, we get 9/11.
Posted by: Bill Maxwell at July 18, 2006 02:18 PM
“Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before”
MILLENNIA is the operative word there. No one has a legal claim to land lost thousands of years ago. The poor Native Americans lost their land unjustly hundreds of years ago and have zero chance of ever reclaiming it.
What is the precise statute of limitations, then, for an injustice of these propotions? A month? A year? Five years, 10 days, three hours? A thousand years?
I personally believe my countrymen’s attitude towards the injustice we committed against Native Americans to be unconscionable, by the way. The United States is here to stay — there’s nowhere else that could accommodate all of us, anyway — but that doesn’t mean we can’t deal with the Native Americans more justly.
By the way, there has been an uninterrupted Jewish presence in the Middle East for the last three thousand years. The Jews formed a nation to protect themselves against Arab attacks.
But I take it from some of the posts in this thread that only Arabs can be victims, never Jews.
Posted by: Bill Maxwell at July 18, 2006 02:18 PM
When the Arabs fight amongst themselves, it doesn’t affect us in the US. When we give Israel bombs to drop on the Arabs, we get 9/11.
Ah, it seems you have been drinking the Kool Aid of Arab propaganda. Al Qaeda has never really given a dámņ about the Palestinian cause, and only took up its banner because it was convenient.
Al Qaeda began as the Maktab al-Khadamat, of which Osama bin Laden was a founding member. The Maktab al-Khadamat was formed to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and received U.S. assistance.
After the Soviets were driven from Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden returned to his homeland of Saudi Arabia. When Iraq invaded Kuwait and put the rulers of Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud, at risk, Osama bin Laden offered the services of his organization. Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd rejected this offer in favor of letting the U.S. establish a military presence in that country. This outraged bin Laden, who soon thereafter formed al Qaeda to oppose our presence in the “land of the two Mosques.”
There were also more subtle sociological forces at work. In order to fight the Soviets, Maktab al-Khadamat warriors had to do some nasty things. Much like when our own troops came home from Vietnam, the Maktab al-Khadamat didn’t receive a heroes welcome when they returned to their home countries and many were shunned. Having an enemy — any enemy — against which to rally gave them a sense of belonging. I’m not trying to justify the evil of Al Qaeda by talking about their wounded inner children, mind you — there is no excuse in the world for their evil — merely trying to help explain how it came to be.
I do not believe any rational person can look at the facts surrounding the formation of Al Qaeda and conclude that our support for Israel is the root cause.
I do not believe any rational person can look at the facts
There’s your key phrase right there.
Bill Myers, I’m constantly amazed at the depth of your knowledge…what are you doing at a funnybook writer’s site:)
I’m no Bush supporter, and I do honestly think that we only invaded Iraq out of the greed of our current leaders. But I think even Bush is smart enough to know that an all out war breaking out in a region that has people with that have major wmd’s and some that have nukes is a very bad thing. Considering many of those terror groups are more then willing to die for their cause, or atleast get someone else to do a suicide attack for them, I’m sure not a single one of them would have any problem with using a nuclear bomb if it came down to it.
Posted by: Scavenger at July 18, 2006 03:35 PM
There’s your key phrase right there.
Bill Myers, I’m constantly amazed at the depth of your knowledge…what are you doing at a funnybook writer’s site:)
I aspire to be a funnybook writer and wish I was half as good today as Peter David was 10 years ago. So, y’know, I’m at his site because, well, Peter’s one of the best.
And I really like a lot of the other people who frequent this board, as well.
My knowledge, however, is not as deep as you might believe. Often, my facts are culled from sources like Wikipedia while I’m composing my posts.
My rule of thumb: if I believe something to be true, I nevertheless check it out using an external source (Wikipedia gets a bad rap but a recent study showed that they are no more inaccurate than more “traditional” encyclopedias). If the facts contradict my beliefs, I scrap the post and think about my own point-of-view. Sometimes that means looking for more facts and, ultimately, changing my mind if that’s what the facts warrant.
I also try to be open to other points of view like I find here. Often people here will point out facts of which I had been unaware.
There are those of you who may question my open-mindedness, given my responses to your posts. My mind is indeed rather unapologetically closed to hyperbolic arguments that are long on sentiment and short on logic and facts. And frankly, when I offer such emotions-based arguments (I’m human, I slip up) I am always grateful when someone calls me on it. So I try to return the favor. Although not everyone is equally grateful.
“Actually, when Jews began immigrating en masse to Palestine in the late 1800s, many of them bought their land. With money. In fair transactions”
“fair transactions” and “offers thy couldn’t refuse” supervised by the British, well if you call extortion fair, that aside most of the land was taken by force and forcibly kept.
“In 1947, in response to mounting violence, the U.N. General Assembly proposed dividing Palestine roughly in half, into one Jewish state and one Arab state. The Palestinians rejected the offer, and Israel declared itself a nation in 1948.
Had the Palestinians been willing to accept a compromise, and had they been willing to accept the moral justification for a Jewish state in an area from which Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before, we might not be in this mess today”
you can understand they’re shock if somebody suddenly declares a nation in most of your country.
“While Israel may make a convenient scapegoat for all of the problems in the region, all such problems cannot be reasonably traced to Israel. The various Arab factions in the Middle East can’t get along with each other in many instances. Or are you going to try to pin the Iran-Iraq war on the Israelis?”
No the last one is on the USA , but between the 2 you cant go wrong.
and while many wars have come and gone in the region this conflict keeps freshening up.
“an area from which Jews were unjustly expelled millennia before”
next you will say Palestinians where justly expelled.
Bill, your post of Al-Quaida is very interesting. I didn’t know that. thanks.
I don’t know if you read Fallen Angel but i’m starting to think Israel is like Bete Noir, it is like a reflection of the rest of the world. Why else are people so obsessed about it?
well if you call extortion fair
A spade is a spade, and, well, I’m calling you a spade, lorshas.
You’ve only made a handful of posts here, yet I don’t believe you’re here with the intent of gaining a greater understanding of what’s going on in your part of the world. Nor do I get the impression that you are going to give the rest of us a better understanding of your point of view in a way that is rationale and fair to everyone else.
Or rather, if there’s any understanding to be gained, it’s very much coming across, imo, as nothing more than the sterotypical kinds of things that are causing so many problems in the Middle East to begin with – such as your more or less advocating violence against Israel, never accepting the fact that your ancestors are just as guilty of forcing a group of people to flee as everyone elses, and so forth.
Quite honestly, you make it sound like the Palestinians are the only group to ever suffer from such hardships in human history. And you back that up with a “darn those Jews” type attitude instead of asking why the hëll the Arab world isn’t helping Palestinians recover from their misery (and by that I don’t mean invading Israel to take the land back).