Post #15,338
10/26/01 9:00:23 PM
|
Is the Middle East asking for U.S.-led help?
After listening to both sides of the Israel-Palestine debate I am getting the impression that both sides are more than ready to find a solution to the problem. Palestine will get their long-overdue state and Israel will hopefully gain increased peace.
What surprises me is that it appears that both sides wanted the US to help them solve the problem, yet the outward appearance is that we only wanted to help Israel. (partly because they were under attack and the U.S. helps those under attack).
This is just an off-the-top concept since I am not particularly well versed in Palestine's problems.
|
Post #15,404
10/27/01 8:19:59 AM
|
Re: Is the Middle East asking for U.S.-led help?
The problems are too deep rooted for that.
A culture that teaches their children that it is honorable to go on suicide bombings (I'm not talking about WTC, I'm talking about the suicide bombing of night clubs in Israel), which teaches its children to hate Jews (and has done so for years), is not going to be resolved by land grants or the establishment of a Palestinian state. At least not now.
I read an interesting article (which, dammit, I can't find) that suggests that if in 1948 they had named Israel "Palestine" instead, all this bloodshed could have been avoided.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #15,422
10/27/01 11:54:25 AM
|
Is there anyway that will get them to stop fighting?
I agree this is a difficult problem to solve. Don't you think Palestine must be recognized as a state as a first step? Where we go from there will be dependent on how both sides respond.
How do fueds end? How did the Hatfields and the McCalls end their vicious cycle of violence? How do most civil wars end? Do you see what I am getting at? I refuse to believe that any human conflict is unsolvable! I believe that people can grow up, and that they often need guidance from their compassionate brothers and sisters who have achieved success in the areas they are currently having problems with.
In my view, both Palestine and Israel are dying for attention and assistance, as well as most of the Middle East. The U.S. and others have been perceived as turning their back to the problem and hoping it would go away. Well it didn't go away and instead it came to America on September 11th. Now the sleeping giant has awoken and decided that it is time to confront the problem. First stop, pay a visit to Osama bin Laden, Al-Queda and the Taliban. Next, go after other terrorist networks that threaten humanity. Concurrently, help Palestine and Israel find a peaceful solution to their war. Perhaps last, establish International Law that aims to thwart these types of terrorist attacks and bring justice to the demonic criminals that commit such horrific crimes against humanity.
Are their any history buffs out there who can throw me a bone in regards to solving fueds and tribal wars?
|
Post #15,458
10/27/01 9:39:21 PM
|
turning out backs?
>> The U.S. and others have been perceived as turning their back to the problem and hoping it would go away. <<
Clintion spent much of his time in his last months in office trying to resolve the problem. (It is said that he wanted to acheive peace there so that he would be known in the history books for more than just hosing around with interns.)
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #15,485
10/28/01 9:39:17 AM
|
We went after key people, not the root of the problem.
Since September 11th, our focus has changed. Now all terrorist networks will get the attention they seem to demand. Maybe it's not the type of attention they wanted, (all out war against them from the entire civilized world), but it's attention none the less.
I guess it's true what they say, be careful what you ask for. You might just reap what you sow.
|
Post #15,460
10/27/01 10:06:13 PM
|
read Bruce Catton extensively
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #15,412
10/27/01 8:59:30 AM
|
A cry for help?
Well, that's one way to interpret Arab/Muslim behavior.
What we have here is an entire culture caught in a troubled - and endlessly prolonged - adolescence, and in need of some tough love. Or, failing that, prison.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #15,423
10/27/01 12:06:04 PM
|
As seen on a CNN interview yesterday.
... and the Palestinian spokeswomen wasn't actually crying during the interview but she was passionate.
I was sorta dumbfounded by her words when she suggested that the U.S. should help the Palestinian people, not just the Israelis. I never really thought they wanted our help, rather they just wanted us not to help Israel. Now I have to re-think my position.
In regards to terrorism being a "call for help", isn't terrorism often used to call attention to political or social agendas, as history has repeatedly recorded.
Maybe we need a discussion that analyzes the typical goals of terrorism?
|
Post #15,437
10/27/01 5:14:36 PM
|
No. No need to analyze terrorism.
In regards to terrorism being a "call for help", isn't terrorism often used to call attention to political or social agendas, as history has repeatedly recorded. I don't care *why*, if you use terrorism (personal definition: undeclared acts of war, attacks on non-military targets), you must be ruthlessly weeded out. In Bush's words, terrorists and any nation willingly harboring and aiding them should be eliminated. Reagan didn't state it that baldly, but when he bombed Libya, Quaddafi sure got the message. (No, I am not absolving the U.S. of responsibility - bombing asprin factories to distract the public from Monica is in the same class as terrorism.) "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #15,450
10/27/01 8:51:55 PM
|
Terrorism definition and goals.
You may be right but here are a couple definitions, just in case anyone else is interested.
Webster's: Terrorism: use of violence, intimidation to achieve ends.
[link|http://www.terrorism.com/terrorism/bpart1.html|
The Basics of Terrorism: Part 1
TERRORISM DEFINED ]
The DOD definition of terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
This definition was carefully crafted to distinguish between terrorism and other kinds of violence. The act of terrorism is defined independent of the cause that motivates it. People employ terrorist violence in the name of many causes. The tendency to label as terrorism any violent act of which we do not approve is erroneous. Terrorism is a specific kind of violence.
The official definition says that terrorism is calculated. Terrorists generally know what they are doing. Their selection of a target is planned and rational. They know the effect they seek. Terrorist violence is neither spontaneous nor random. Terrorism is intended to produce fear; by implication, that fear is engendered in someone other than the victim. In other words, terrorism is a psychological act conducted for its impact on an audience.
Finally, the definition addresses goals. Terrorism may be motivated by political, religious, or ideological objectives. In a sense, terrorist goals are always political, as extremists driven by religious or ideological beliefs usually seek political power to compel society to conform to their views. The objectives of terrorism distinguish it from other violent acts aimed at personal gain, such as criminal violence. However, the definition permits including violence by organized crime when it seeks to influence government policy. Some drug cartels and other international criminal organizations engage in political action when their activities influence governmental functioning. The essence of terrorism is the intent to induce fear in someone other than its victims to make a government or other audience change its political behavior.
|
