So, Turkeys erstwhile Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has done what no one else and especially the US, has the balls to do.

He's taken a stand on Gaza (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pF-yOAODw) and he's sticking to it (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/14/the_price_of_occupation). In the now almost ridiculous drama surrounding the Goldstone Report, there appears to be a role of serendipity [or karma, if you like]. After the US veto prevented an investigation into the Gaza massacre the UNHRC took it up, surprisingly headed by Richard Goldstone, South African jurist with impeccable credentials.

With Turkey holding the rotating presidency for the Security Council this month and the Secretary-General of the UN Ban ki Moon as well as the President of the UN General Assembly [Libya] all insisting on adopting the resolution [a combination unlikely to occur ever again], the decision to hold a session in Geneva to discuss the Goldstone report has been passed :yay:

Regardless of whatever happens after [the US will do its best to ensure the buck dies in Geneva] this is a tremendous tremendous moment for all the little people out there.

Thank you, Erdogan [hope those impotent Arab leaders are squirming in their seats]. A Real President!!!! :D

Sources:

1. UN agrees to 'Goldstone session' (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/20091013163035586460.html)

2. The price of occupation (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/14/the_price_of_occupation)

3. A Profile In Courage: Turkey Takes A Stand For Justice (http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2009/10/15/a-profile-in-courage-turkey-takes-a-stand-for-justice/#more-4679) <---- awesome article! see Netanyahu's combover!

4. One minute in Davos: Erdogan walks out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pF-yOAODw)

I am sure he will be a target pretty soon. Quite recently attempts to assasinate him and UN members have been carried out. Begs a question is US is related to these attempts...
coincidence right.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,567021,00.html

I don't know, how is that going to work out. It's a weird situation for me. Don't like the man a bit.
He lacks political rhetoric Sam. We are America's ally, guess who is America's beloved one. I am having difficulty to believe it's not a political show. What's been said in prime time is often not the thing done in the end.

The media is going to slap the anti-semitism card on the South African jurist. Then they're going to find something he said 25 years ago disparaging other races. Then he'll be completely ignored by the US media.

The media is going to slap the anti-semitism card on the South African jurist. Then they're going to find something he said 25 years ago disparaging other races. Then he'll be completely ignored by the US media.

Thats last week's (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=96421) news. Obviously it was not headlines in the US



Israel Finance Minister: Goldstone Is 'Anti-Semite' (http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c40_a16771/News/Israel.html)

Richard Goldstone, the head of a United Nations commission that accused Israel of war crimes during last winter's Gaza operation, is a Jewish "anti-Semite," according to Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz.

"Not all Jews are perfect," Steinitz told The Jewish Week Wednesday when asked about Goldstone, a prominent South African judge. "Some people can be unfair, unjust, unbalanced and even of bad character. So it is with Jews. Just as a non-Jew can be anti-Semitic, a Jew can also be anti-Semitic and discriminate against our people and despise and hate our people."

"It has nothing to do with the origin of the investigator," Steinitz continued during an interview here after a visit to NASDAQ market site in Midtown. "Evidently this person committed some kind of crime because he used double standards against the Jewish state, which he would not use - and nobody would order him to use - against the United States, Britain, France or Russia in similar circumstances."

Steinitz's assessment is in sharp contrast to Goldstone's daughter Nicole, who told Israel Army Radio Wednesday from her home in Toronto that her father is a "Zionist and loves Israel."

I don't know, how is that going to work out. It's a weird situation for me. Don't like the man a bit. He lacks political rhetoric Sam. We are America's ally, guess who is America's beloved one. I am having difficulty to believe it's not a political show. What's been said in prime time is often not the thing done in the end.

I don't have a lot of warm feelings for Erdogan, either, but his opposition to this seems legit. The Turks have not participated with Israel in a recent military exercises. But they still buy weapons from Israel and they have extremely close intelligence ties.

This is getting too funny

Turkey: We won't cancel TV show depicting Israelis as killers (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121602.html)

Apparently a love story set during Operation Cast Lead has the IDF being depicted doing what they did there

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M596Ga8-rmU

Obviously the Israelis don't like it. Maybe everyone should start making movies with the IDF as the bad guys. :D

oh, you've seen it. I was watching the news. LOL, I just signed into tell you the TV show crisis, Sam. Did you see the segments?

Yeah, but they weren't half as bad as the live telecast of the war I saw on Al Jazeera last January. Those were awful. Real people, real blood, real kids clutching their mothers corpses, dizzy with hunger. With the IDF standing by, watching on. No one will ever convince me of the "morality" of those assholes.

Yeah, but they weren't half as bad as the live telecast of the war I saw on Al Jazeera last January. Those were awful. Real people, real blood, real kids clutching their mothers corpses, dizzy with hunger. With the IDF standing by, watching on. No one will ever convince me of the "morality" of those assholes.

I know. You know. They know. Everyone knows. And they are creating a crisis over a tv show. Reflecting a fact. Morality. It makes me laugh.

I refuse to participate in those 'discussions'. I can't handle it. I don't know you, but sometimes I find you too humanly stubborn even to discuss it Sam. I mean, I feel like saying 'come on, girl, you really think he gets you?!" to you. Lol. Then I am so full of hopelessness and tired of it maybe.

The stakes are too high don't you think, to give up on something that has the potential to escalate into a world war? Israel is full of radicals and the US full of fools. But these radical fools are killing people every single day without accountability and dragging the world down with them. Over what? SUVs and tin huts?

Did you see how the rest of "NATO" also backed out of the military execises to protest on behalf of lil ole Israel? How they tried to delay the human rights commission, veto the report?

At the end of the day, this is who they are. They don't want to set a precedent, all their hands are blood soaked

The stakes are too high don't you think, to give up on something that has the potential to escalate into a world war? Israel is full of radicals and the US full of fools. But these radical fools are killing people every single day without accountability and dragging the world down with them. Over what? SUVs and tin huts?

Did you see how the rest of "NATO" also backed out of the military execises to protest on behalf of lil ole Israel? How they tried to delay the human rights commission, veto the report?

At the end of the day, this is who they are. They don't want to set a precedent, all their hands are blood soaked

OK.
I don't believe that anything could be done. It's as is simple as this.
I gave up snuggling into that warm feeling of belief in humanity years ago, Sam. And not that fools nor those fanatics will stop being what they are. The maintanance of their current existance is set up on this as far as I see.

Yeah, but they weren't half as bad as the live telecast of the war I saw on Al Jazeera last January. Those were awful. Real people, real blood, real kids clutching their mothers corpses, dizzy with hunger. With the IDF standing by, watching on. No one will ever convince me of the "morality" of those assholes.

Or the morality of Hama bombing innocent Israeli children. No one forced them to do that. Such acts should be stopped by any means necessary.

Is that before or after the occupation? Israel should stop filling the war zone with civilian shields. If anyone was doing to the US what Israel is ding to Palestine, they'd see a lot more than rockets that kill 10 civilians in as many years

Or the morality of Hama bombing innocent Israeli children. No one forced them to do that. Such acts should be stopped by any means necessary.

You seem like a reasonable person. Don't act like you don't know how far everything passed that.

I wonder if the Armenians and Kurds have considered hiring Goldstone for their own causes? This guy is damn good and worth every penny, just give him a mandate to find evidence of whatever it is and he'll make it happen. Turkey would probably accuse such a report of being biased, one-sided, and based on uncorroborated partisan sources, but Goldstone's been in the business long enough to know how to keep these kinds of claims off the radar screen. In one ear and out the other, worry about objectivity later because right now we got us some pigs to roast!

The times, they are-a-changin'. In the future the way to win wars will not be through cunning, courage, or tact, you just need to make sure you take vastly higher casualties than your enemy, and hold out long enough for the world to forget who started the fighting in the first place. Israel will be the first of many sacrificial lambs in this glorious tribunal Jihad. The sentence will be 10 years of UN-mandated rocketing in Sderot and Ashkelon, with more serious punishments to follow if Israel commits the crime of hitting back.

P.S. No, I'm not saying Israel is innocent, I know many of you wish it were that easy to write me off. If you're going to investigate war crimes, do it properly. Guess I'm just not a big fan of railroad trials and hearsay.

I guess you missed the Turkey-Armenia accord last week. And Erdogans gesture to the Kurds

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33253825/ns/world_news-europe/

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-190064-102-kurdish-leader-sees-spring-atmosphere-in-ties-with-ankara.html

You seem like a reasonable person. Don't act like you don't know how far everything passed that.

I'm not even sure what you mean. If Hamas does not stop their terrorism, next time it will be worse. They brought this on themselves and the world knows it, that is why there isn't more sympathy for them. That's what happens when Palestinians elect such terrorists.

Armenians and Kurds don't need to hire anyone for their cause. It's perfectly getting to where it's planned by the same players of this current issue.

I don't get the scene you are picturing though. Change is not sudden, over in one night. And without that, it will come to the same conclusion civilians will die. So it's the same. For me it's ugly to think 'now their turn to die'. It's disgusting.

I'm not even sure what you mean. If Hamas does not stop their terrorism, next time it will be worse. They brought this on themselves and the world knows it, that is why there isn't more sympathy for them. That's what happens when Palestinians elect such terrorists.

Evidently, you don't.

I guess you missed the Turkey-Armenia accord last week. And Erdogans gesture to the Kurds

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33253825/ns/world_news-europe/

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-190064-102-kurdish-leader-sees-spring-atmosphere-in-ties-with-ankara.html

Yes, I'm sure the 1 million dead Armenians and their non-existent would-be descendants are absolutely thrilled. Maybe if Israel and Palestine play a soccer match, everything else will just be water under the bridge.

1 million dead Kurds? What bollocks. Are you from Europe?Lol, I can't keep track of this, where is this from again?

It's funny you know,when people bombs your cities and kill your children, it's terrorism. When it happens in our countries, we are killers. I don't deny the conflict and people killed. But I recommend getting facts right.

My bad. I meant to refer to the Armenians, not the Kurds. Fixed now. As far as Kurds go, the Turks don't even recognize them as their own people, so whatever casualties they take will get merged in with Turkey's figures and probably bring the Ottoman wannabes more sympathy than hate.

What do you think about the Goldstone report? Have you read it?

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm

Evidently, you don't.


Don't act like you don't know how far everything passed that.

Can you clarify this?

I haven't read the report yet but I do intend to do so, or at least parts of it. I didn't challenge anything in the report itself, and I'm sure there are plenty of legitimate claims being made. Those Palestinian homes didn't just deface themselves, after all. The problem begins with the mandate itself (how the heck do you expect to conduct a fair trial when the judge has already pronounced someone's guilt?). Also troubling are that most of the countries backing the report aren't exactly champions of human rights themselves, and in terms of scale you can find an endless pile of more worthy crimes to investigate. And finally, I keep hearing Goldstone and his fellow commission members parroting Hamas' own casualty count. I haven't heard about any efforts to corroborate this account, and Hamas didn't even cooperate with the probe, so I don't know if they really did investigate this or if they just decided it's ok to make up their own figure and stick with it. Will read the report, but I don't expect to see any of these issues addressed, because the UN is a partisan organization and has always operated as such. Do correct me if I'm wrong and you can point to an appropriate source or section of the report.

Will be very interested in seeing what happens if Israel proves the claims about Abbas and his men urging them on and encouraging an even larger scale war. A revelation like that would be Earth-shattering, would probably crush Palestinian hopes of anything other than a compromise with Israel, although it would probably also leave Israel without a partner to accept such a compromise.

Can you clarify this?

I don't think it's going to change anything in your part as you defined the 'events' as necessary actions to be taken.
What Israel did and will probably do again is a part of a genocide. It's not a fair self defense. How the 'war' started or by whom is a matter of politics. And no, don't bother asking me any links or resources, simply, I will not get into that. Because as I observed it's a worn out toy about this subject.

It's very simple. It happened to your people spidergoat. And to Armenians in my country. And to others in other countries. There is always a war at the back ground when a genocide happens. There is always one side too strong and slaughters the other. This time you are the one slaughtering. That's it.

I believe we feel the same thing about the nine year old girl being stoned to death. The reason why we don't on this one is, because you are a Jew. But I learned to see my own nation's disgusting doings, I advice any fellow human to do the same.

My bad. I meant to refer to the Armenians, not the Kurds. Fixed now. As far as Kurds go, the Turks don't even recognize them as their own people, so whatever casualties they take will get merged in with Turkey's figures and probably bring the Ottoman wannabes more sympathy than hate.

The Turkish govt. shoulders a lot of blame for how it treated the Kurds, but to be fair, the Kurds also have a history of terrorism and violence and they make claims for a country that has never existed at any point in history (a fact which should remind people of another group that continually claims "victim-hood").

Many Kurds have never really wanted to be part of Turkey, but I think that's slowly changing, as numerous Kurds have migrated to Western Turkey and have adopted different attitudes. Still, last week saw violence between Turks and Kurds at the very same stadium in Bursa where the Armenian accord was shown off.

Ejdera, I am not taking up for the Israelis by any stretch, but I think it's ridiculous to accuse them of "genocide," which is a term that has a very specific meaning. The term gets thrown around way too much these days. And remember, it is Hamas that has the destruction of Israel as a part of its stated political platform.

I never deny Hamas. Nor their terrorism. Why would I do that? It's open. I have grown up with terrorism countezero, I've gone to work by hearing bombings. Hearing horrible news about people I know. Hizbullah, PKK...

On the Israeli-Palestinian 'war' I don't agree with you. I am not a Muslim, I am not defending grounds. I also never say it's justified in any way. NO, never. I've been watching it since I was a child. My opinion is not based on anti-semitism, which is so popular with the subject. It's open to see. If you can see it.
I can't believe that I found myself in the thread though. I swore not to get into any discussion about it. Go figure. Never mind. Lol.

I don't think it's going to change anything in your part as you defined the 'events' as necessary actions to be taken.
What Israel did and will probably do again is a part of a genocide. It's not a fair self defense. How the 'war' started or by whom is a matter of politics. And no, don't bother asking me any links or resources, simply, I will not get into that. Because as I observed it's a worn out toy about this subject.

It's very simple. It happened to your people spidergoat. And to Armenians in my country. And to others in other countries. There is always a war at the back ground when a genocide happens. There is always one side too strong and slaughters the other. This time you are the one slaughtering. That's it.

I believe we feel the same thing about the nine year old girl being stoned to death. The reason why we don't on this one is, because you are a Jew. But I learned to see my own nation's disgusting doings, I advice any fellow human to do the same.

It is absolutely not a genocide. It was at least an attempt at self-defense. So they went too far, it's not like Hamas has any restraint whatsoever. For 8 years, Hamas has rained missiles down on Israelis (and many fellow Arabs). 5 Arab nations attacked Israel, I would call that one-sided. Now the Palestinians do not have such widespread support, so they resport to simply hurting Israelis by killing innocent people. A people can only take that for so long before they explode in violence as we have seen.

The Palestinians have been engaged in a propaganda war, and they want to be seen as innocent victims when they most certainly are not. Their policies are causing their own citizens to die, and it's not even self-defense, but defense of the myth of Palestinian nationhood.

It is absolutely not a genocide.
OK. I won't use the term again if not provoked.


It was at least an attempt at self-defense.

No, it's not.

I don't get the this:


So they went too far,

Yes, and what is the too far called?


it's not like Hamas has any restraint whatsoever.

Agreed.


Now the Palestinians do not have such widespread support, so they resport to simply hurting Israelis by killing innocent people. A people can only take that for so long before they explode in violence as we have seen.

But you didn't kill innocent people?

The violence you have seen? Are you suggesting that you have a right to do show that measure of agression because what's been done to your nation in the past? Are you listening to yourself? The horrible genocide your people had to endure justifies your measure of agression?


Their policies are causing their own citizens to die, and it's not even self-defense, but defense of the myth of Palestinian nationhood.

Yes, they believe they have nothing more to do. And it's horrible. Their circumstances are not same as yours, is it?

Today I read a headline so alternate-universe-upside-down, that even after reading such headlines for 7 years it made me cringe and wonder if I was dreaming or maybe hallucinating. "Hamas hopes war criminals will be prosecuted."
:wtf:

My opinion of the UN has been downgraded even further. I didn't realize it was possible.

As for the atrocities against the Armenians and the Kurds, it's high time Turkey's feet were held to the fire over the genocide during the Ottoman days of the Armenians. Also their (and Syrian, Iranian and Iraqi) disgusting theft of Kurdish lands and the massacres of Kurds by all 4 of the above "countries". I hope the Peshmerga / PKK kick butt.

During 2003 I befriended a Muslim Kurdish refugee from Iraq here in Toronto who told me all about his people's plight and his feelings towards Saddam, Iran/Syria/Turkey, and the so-called "Palestinians". His politics were identical to mine, only more extreme.

The systematic deficiencies of the way the UN is set up perpetrate great injustices. Criminals policing themselves and persecuting whoever they wish, the human rights loving world losing its power/representation other than the stupid VETO [though China / Russia aren't fans of human rights], and other things. In such environment the favourite whipping boy continues to be whipped unjustly, and the UN and its agencies continue to lose their stature, effectiveness, and reason to exist.

Did your friend also tell you about thousands of people PKK killed with suicide bombers. No? why not, I wonder?

What imaginary Kurdish land is that?

“ It was at least an attempt at self-defense. ”


No, it's not.

When the aggressors are hiding among the population, the population will suffer when military action is used to eliminate the aggressors.


“ So they went too far, ”


Yes, and what is the too far called?

Collective punishment.



“ Now the Palestinians do not have such widespread support, so they resport to simply hurting Israelis by killing innocent people. A people can only take that for so long before they explode in violence as we have seen. ”


But you didn't kill innocent people?
Hamas has been engaging in attempted murder for at least 8 years. That justifies measures to stop them, even if it means that innocent people might die.



The violence you have seen? Are you suggesting that you have a right to do show that measure of agression because what's been done to your nation in the past? Are you listening to yourself? The horrible genocide your people had to endure justifies your measure of agression?
Not at all, you misunderstand. The attacks on Israel by Hamas for years justify retaliation.



“ Their policies are causing their own citizens to die, and it's not even self-defense, but defense of the myth of Palestinian nationhood. ”


Yes, they believe they have nothing more to do. And it's horrible. Their circumstances are not same as yours, is it?
Nothing more to do for what? It's not self defense, Hamas wants to recapture land, and for that they kill innocent people. Israel wants to defend the lives of their people. One is justified, the other not. Hamas could negotiate peace and nationhood, that is an option they do not expore, and it is the cause of their suffering.

OK, spidergoat, We are not just seeing it the same. No point in arguing. Thanks.

If the report is true, both sides could be prosecuted. In fact, I think it shows Hamas in a much worse light. Their willingness to practice brutal torture is particularly damning.

Did your friend also tell you about thousands of people PKK killed with suicide bombers. No? why not, I wonder?

What imaginary Kurdish land is that?

I've read about some of PKK's terrorism. Not too much, I admit. As for the "imaginary Kurdish land", if you refer to it as such then I suspect you are a Turk (or Syrian / Iraqi / Iranian).

The Kurds are a unique and real easily identifiable ethnicity (as opposed to the "Palestinians"), and they had a real country in which there was an uninterrupted, undisputed ancient Kurdish presence, up until a few decades ago when it was usurped by 4 countries (Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq). Over the decades Kurds have been brutally suppressed in all 4 countries. The Iraqi Kurd I referred to earlier was tortured by Saddam's people (electrocution with car cables, whipping, arrest without trial for many days at a time, beatings) because Saddam outlawed the use of the Kurdish language, and he, as a university student, refused to abide by the law. He hates Turks with a passion, and his happiest day on earth was March 17, 2003.

Agreed. I wish Hamas every bad luck.

spidergoat, are you a mod? If you are, how do you delete a post?

I still don't understand what's wrong with the world on this one, why they can't understand why it's an anti-Semitic document.

Nobody questioned the accuracy of the Goldstone Report.

People questioned why it was ever initiated.

Why was a report on Gaza created and why have more special sessions been called for Israel than the rest of the world combined?

Where's the report for the following genocides that are currently happening?http://independence.net/genocide/

And how come countries like Sudan are allowed to vote on them?

I MEAN!! For Heavens Sake....

UGANDA was allowed to vote on the condemnation of Israel for killing 2000 people in a war, despite the fact that it has killed over 200,000 citizens! However...no UGANDA Report has been made and acted upon. Where are their hundreds of special sessions?

I've read about some of PKK's terrorism. Not too much, I admit. As for the "imaginary Kurdish land", if you refer to it as such then I suspect you are a Turk (or Syrian / Iraqi / Iranian).

The Kurds are a unique and real easily identifiable ethnicity (as opposed to the "Palestinians"), and they had a real country in which there was an uninterrupted, undisputed ancient Kurdish presence, up until a few decades ago when it was usurped by 4 countries (Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq). Over the decades Kurds have been brutally suppressed in all 4 countries. The Iraqi Kurd I referred to earlier was tortured by Saddam's people (electrocution with car cables, whipping, arrest without trial for many days at a time, beatings) because Saddam outlawed the use of the Kurdish language, and he, as a university student, refused to abide by the law. He hates Turks with a passion, and his happiest day on earth was March 17, 2003.

Hate. everyone hates each other. What you are stating is simply what you hear from a militant person. Kurds had/have political stand in Türkiye. I know about it, because I voted for it. The language issues and all other things are being resolved. On the imaginary land issue, nobody invaded anywhere. They lived under the rule of Ottoman Empire before us, as many nations did. Like many other did under Roman Empire and Egypt long ago.
I've listened many people oppressed, tortured, survived a genocide... You are just taking a stand based on a convenient target. That's all. If you had an perfectly organised terrorist group ,in action with heavy weapons in your country, you wouldn't even bother to post to explain anything, but scream 'war', wouldn't you?

That's it I am out of this thread. Don't expect me to answer if you quote me. :wave:

thats just great
another sweet innocent girl brutalized by zionist militants

Agreed. I wish Hamas every bad luck.

spidergoat, are you a mod? If you are, how do you delete a post?

No, but if you edit your post, there is a place to delete it completely towards the bottom.

That's it I am out of this thread. Don't expect me to answer if you quote me. wave:

Don't worry about it, it is hard to hear the hasbara and not respond to it. Even Jews who go to Gaza change their minds about what the occupation really means :)


The Goldstone report is not an abstraction for me. My delegation was in Gaza at the same time as Judge Richard Goldstone was last June. We saw things that he also saw. I used the word "persecution" at the time; so has he now. One day human-rights-worker Fares Akram brought my group to a house in Beit Lahiya in the north of Gaza. He wanted to show us the hole in the roof made by a white phosphorus shell. It was smaller than a manhole, and throughout the apartment building the walls were still blackened and the studs charred.

The matriarch in that house was Sabah Abu Halima, 45. Today she is a psychological wreck. In the few instants in which the long tentacles of white phosphorus were trapped in her house, she lost her husband, three sons, and her only daughter. Relief workers from the Palestinian Children’s Relief Fund say that Sabah is plagued by "nightmares and deep feelings of sadness."

Sabah also lost a daughter-in-law. The woman, whose name I don’t know, died in Egypt, being treated for her burns after the war. When this woman whose name I don’t know died, her badly-burned daughter was alongside her: 3-year-old Farah Abu Halima. The Egyptian hospital sent the girl back to Gaza before long, not fully treated. Her picture is below. An uncle is holding her. Farah is also psychologically damaged. She can’t remove her fingers from her mouth when people come to visit, and she clings to her uncle.

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/treatment-is-sought-in-u-s-for-3-year-old-victim-of-white-phosphorus-attack-in-gaza.html

Graphic image:
http://mondoweiss.net/images/farah.jpeg

Now this 3 year old will be brought to the US to recover from burns inflicted by white phosphorus shells that the US gives to Israel
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13149)
Bittersweet irony. :(

There are also another 352 children for whom there is no treatment and another 75% of the 700,000 children who suffer deeply from the trauma of Gaza. I would not be allowed to put up the pictures of what they saw done to their families, friends and neighbours.

VERY GRAPHIC PHOTOS
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7942)

So yes, thank you Erdogan, because at least, you did not let their trauma go unrecognised.


I still don't understand what's wrong with [B]the world on this one, why they can't understand why it's an anti-Semitic document.

Why was a report on Gaza created and why have more special sessions been called for Israel than the rest of the world combined?

Where's the report for the following genocides that are currently happening?http://independence.net/genocide/

And how come countries like Sudan are allowed to vote on them?

I MEAN!! For Heavens Sake....

UGANDA was allowed to vote on the condemnation of Israel for killing 2000 people in a war, despite the fact that it has killed over 200,000 citizens! However...no UGANDA Report has been made and acted upon. Where are their hundreds of special sessions?

Thats hasbara #4 :Everything sucks.

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-make-case-for-israel-and-win.html

The Turkish govt. shoulders a lot of blame for how it treated the Kurds, but to be fair, the Kurds also have a history of terrorism and violence and they make claims for a country that has never existed at any point in history (a fact which should remind people of another group that continually claims "victim-hood"). untrue kurdistan existed much the way italy or germany did prior to their unification. Shaddadid, Rawadid, Hasanwayhid, Annazid, and Marwanid.the Kurds terrorism is much the same as Palestinians'. violence against oppressive outsiders who denied them the ability to control their own lives.

It is absolutely not a genocide. It was at least an attempt at self-defense. So they went too far, it's not like Hamas has any restraint whatsoever. For 8 years, Hamas has rained missiles down on Israelis (and many fellow Arabs). 5 Arab nations attacked Israel, I would call that one-sided. Now the Palestinians do not have such widespread support, so they resport to simply hurting Israelis by killing innocent people. A people can only take that for so long before they explode in violence as we have seen.

The Palestinians have been engaged in a propaganda war, and they want to be seen as innocent victims when they most certainly are not. Their policies are causing their own citizens to die, and it's not even self-defense, but defense of the myth of Palestinian nationhood.

No 2 arab countries attacked Israel. Israel brought the other five into buy atticking their armies in palestine.

I still don't understand what's wrong with the world on this one, why they can't understand why it's an anti-Semitic document.

Nobody questioned the accuracy of the Goldstone Report.

People questioned why it was ever initiated.

Why was a report on Gaza created and why have more special sessions been called for Israel than the rest of the world combined?

Where's the report for the following genocides that are currently happening?http://independence.net/genocide/

And how come countries like Sudan are allowed to vote on them?

I MEAN!! For Heavens Sake....

UGANDA was allowed to vote on the condemnation of Israel for killing 2000 people in a war, despite the fact that it has killed over 200,000 citizens! However...no UGANDA Report has been made and acted upon. Where are their hundreds of special sessions?
sameold sameold. its antisemitism to hold Israel responsilble for its actions. bunch a crybabies who want special treatment.

Now Goldstone's complaining because the Human Rights Council took his report and ignored all the allegations against Hamas (which he already watered down to begin with). Was the guy so distracted sitting on his high horse that he couldn't see this coming? The man was a pawn from the start- take a famous jewish man who helped end the apartheid, give him a one-sided mandate to do whatever's necessary to prove Israel's guilt, and you end up where we are now. The tragedy is that the Palestinians and Israelis deserve a proper investigation, there's no reason the allegations shouldn't be addressed in a fair and unbiased setting. The Human Rights council, stacked with douchebag backwaters like Libya, doesn't care about seeing justice done. If they had a choice between preventing the Gaza war or seeing it repeated, they would rather see it repeated just so they'd have yet another reason to go after Israel. I'm disappointed Russia and China backed the Human Rights Council's resolution, the only appropriate response is to go after them next and hold them accountable to their own standards, once the current beef with Israel washes over.

I've read about some of PKK's terrorism. Not too much, I admit. As for the "imaginary Kurdish land", if you refer to it as such then I suspect you are a Turk (or Syrian / Iraqi / Iranian).

I am an American and I refer to it as an imaginary land because it does not exist, and so far as my knowledge of history goes, has never existed.


The Kurds are a unique and real easily identifiable ethnicity (as opposed to the "Palestinians"), and they had a real country in which there was an uninterrupted, undisputed ancient Kurdish presence, up until a few decades ago when it was usurped by 4 countries (Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq).

That's bullshit.

I mean, so the Ottoman Empire never existed? The Persian empire? The Kurds have never had their own country. They have been subjugated by great powers for hundreds, if not thousands, of years -- long before the notion of states even existed. You need to do some more reading on this issue. It appears you've been taken in by propaganda.


untrue kurdistan existed much the way italy or germany did prior to their unification.

Even if I accept this notion, I'm unsure how a lose federation of duchies constitutes a state.


Shaddadid, Rawadid, Hasanwayhid, Annazid, and Marwanid.the Kurds terrorism is much the same as Palestinians'. violence against oppressive outsiders who denied them the ability to control their own lives.

Turks are not outsiders. It's their country and their land.

Somebody's gone native!

~String

Somebody's gone native!

~String
I guess he has, String, lol.
But, if I said all those things, I'd be obviously defending my own ground with a bias and all readers of this thread would think, 'what a bullshit'.
Thanks for the objectivity, man. :)

I am not even supposed to be in this thread and now I have to buy him a dinner when he gets back. :p

I am an American and I refer to it as an imaginary land because it does not exist, and so far as my knowledge of history goes, has never existed. if kurdish states never existed how come i named 5?




That's bullshit.

I mean, so the Ottoman Empire never existed? The Persian empire? The Kurds have never had their own country. They have been subjugated by great powers for hundreds, if not thousands, of years -- long before the notion of states even existed. You need to do some more reading on this issue. It appears you've been taken in by propaganda. You have been taken in with idoicy. I NAMED 5 KURDISH STATES




Even if I accept this notion, I'm unsure how a lose federation of duchies constitutes a state. 5 states that comprise the lands of one people




Turks are not outsiders. It's their country and their land.

The turks are outsiders. they came from central asia. You need a history lesson.

Right. The guy who's getting his masters in the subject, just spent the summer there interning with the US government and who's learning the language directly from the people, needs a history lesson in the area. . . from you.

Enjoyable. Do go on.

~String

crush much, string? :p

Now, it's getting ridiculous.

pjdude, we came to Anatolia in 1071. We founded other states before Ottoman Empire.
And I am not sure if you know what 'empire' means exactly.

Outsider? What's an outsider? Are Americans are outsiders for example?

And I won't even get into that, what's that again, 'Kurdish States'? States? Whistles*

I am open every kind of criticism. None of you could criticise the whole issue harsher than me. But please, don't claim idiotic non existant stuff, just because you heard something from somebody who told you that actually... . As a nation we have many haters. As many as the next one.
As a researcher, of course countezero knows more than us. I am a researcher -completely different area- so I know how it's like. By the way, I am sure if talked face to face, countezero and I could perfectly disagree with each other. But I would give him the ear, no matter how much it saddens me, as the guy's working on it.

Sam is right it's hard to stay away when blood surges up in your brain,lol.

Right. The guy who's getting his masters in the subject, just spent the summer there interning with the US government and who's learning the language directly from the people, needs a history lesson in the area. . . from you.

Enjoyable. Do go on.

~String

nice trolling but that's par for the course with you. and if he is getting his masters why didn't he know about the five kurdish princepalities in the region?

Now, it's getting ridiculous.

pjdude, we came to Anatolia in 1071. We founded other states before Ottoman Empire.
And I am not sure if you know what 'empire' means exactly. I know exactly what it means


Outsider? What's an outsider? Are Americans are outsiders for example? someone who came from someplace else.


And I won't even get into that, what's that again, 'Kurdish States'? States? Whistles* yeah kurdish states they lasted from the 900's to the 1100's


I am open every kind of criticism. None of you could criticise the whole issue harsher than me. But please, don't claim idiotic non existant stuff, just because you heard something from somebody who told you that actually... . make shit up. Godf 5 states that existed for 200 years is me making shit up
As a nation we have many haters. As many as the next one. true and count's one of them.

As a researcher, of course countezero knows more than us. obviously not if a quick internet search brings up states he never heard about.
I am a researcher -completely different area- so I know how it's like. By the way, I am sure if talked face to face, countezero and I could perfectly disagree with each other. But I would give him the ear, no matter how much it saddens me, as the guy's working on it. what ever.

nice trolling but that's par for the course with you. and if he is getting his masters why didn't he know about the five kurdish princepalities in the region?

There is NO such thing. It's something they desire to have. It's propaganda pjdude. There are many maps like that. Everyone interested in the area has one of their own. The whole issue has become 'an issue' in 80s, because they organised a terrorist group and sent suicide bombers out to cities killing innocent civilians.

You seem like a sensitive person to react to any subject in violent nature, you are introduced to. That's a good thing. But now, you are only against to bash something you don't know in detail.

Do you know when Ottoman Empire was founded?

Would you like to look it up with a quick link you mentioned before?

There is NO such thing. It's something they desire to have. It's propaganda pjdude. the only propaganda is coming from you and count. from 5 kurdishish principalities came about in the mid to late 900's with the last falling in 1190's I belive. They existed.
There are many maps like that. Everyone interested in the area has one of their own. The whole issue has become 'an issue' in 80s, because they organised a terrorist group and sent suicide bombers out to cities killing innocent civilians. your clearly turkish and not willing to admit to the crimes you people have done.


You seem like a sensitive person to react to any subject in violent nature, you are introduced to. I react badly to being called a liar for stating historical fact
But now, you are only against to bash something you don't know in detail.
Well sorry your offended a casual internet search disproves your propaganda. maybe instead of believing what your favored governnmet tells you you could try researching the topic. go look up the names I mentioned and tell me they didn't exist

do you know when ottoman empire was founded?

Would you like to look it up with a quick link you mentioned before?

1299

Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299. Wiki takes it as 1302. What's before that is simply war between Beyliks. YOu don't even know, what that is do you? Which are taken under rule by an empire. This is why I thought and now I am sure that you have no idea what an empire is.
I wonder if you have the same approach to the other empires?

Bias is a bad thing, isn't it?

You clearly have no intention for any discussion. Just to state what you 'believe'.

=> And don't state anything about me and my circumstances as if you have any idea.

Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299. Wiki takes it as 1302. What's before that is simply war between Beyliks. and what abot before them in the 950's to late 1100's. typical of a fanitic doesn'ty even bother to research.
YOu don't even know, what that is do you?[QUOTE] ITs quite frankly irrelevant to if the kurds had states or not. [QUOTE]Which are taken under rule by an empire. This is why I thought and now I am sure that you have no idea what an empire is. So you thought I didn't know what an empire is because I don't buy into your biases?

I wonder if you have the same approach to the other empires? what reconizing the people they conquered


Bias is a bad thing, isn't it? yes it is


You clearly have no intention for any discussion. Just to state what you 'believe'. unfuckingbeliable I'm will to have a discussion. Its hard when you ignore facts. ITs not what I belive that their were kurdish states its historical fact.


=> And don't state anything about me and my circumstances as if you have any idea. Well forgive me for echo your own claims about your self. I'm breaking this off as you like count have interest in facts just ideaology.

to count and ejderha it should be easy to find the information to refute the existence of these states if you two are right. all you need to do is show they either didn't exist or weren't kurdish

crush much, string? :p

I only have eyes for you Gustav.

~String

Somebody's gone native!

~String

Perhaps. But facts are facts.


if kurdish states never existed how come i named 5?

Shaddadid, Rawadid, Hasanwayhid, Annazid, and Marwanid all date to around the tenth century and were small regions that BROKE away from larger empires in between the periods of Arab and Ottoman rule. They didn't last long and they were not nation-states in any modern sense of the term.

Now, I suppose, on some level, you can claim they were "states," in that they resembled Greek city-states, but your attempt to portray theses fiefdoms as foundation for some larger state today is ridiculous. Such a state never existed. Heck, even Kurdish is considered a sub-language split from other Iranian tongues. The simple fact is Kurds are a rebellious minority and have always been such. They never, not at any time in history, had a "state" that they are "owed" today.


You have been taken in with idoicy. I NAMED 5 KURDISH STATES

See the above.


5 states that comprise the lands of one people

They were never one people. The Kurdish "states" you mentioned were not joined together, and by and large, the Kurds remained peopled in other countries (much like the Jews or any other ethnic minority). The simple fact they briefly managed to carve niches of territory out does not mean they have a historical claim to a land or nation. At some point in history, all peoples and ethnic groups held territory. This does not mean they all had a nation and should have one today. I mean, at what point do you reset the "board" to, PJ? It was forever changing...


The turks are outsiders. they came from central asia.

No, shit.

But they were in Anatolia by the time your Kurdish fiefdoms spring up and they possessed most of it by the time Osman comes to power in the late 1200s. So, in other words, Turkiye has been Turkish for more than 800 years. I would say it's theirs.


You need a history lesson.

Roll the dice, PJ. I am pretty certain I can intellectually body slam you on anything having to do with Turkish or Ottoman history, Kurds included. You're doing your usual here. Throwing out some facts to prove an unwarranted conclusion you probably came to from whatever victim-ology based tripe you read. The fact is the Turkish people have controlled that part of the world for a LONG time. The only country, off the top of my head, that has existed, in similar form, for as long is probably something like England, which goes back to 1066.

And it wasn't long after the founding of the Turkish Republic that a bunch of Kurds rebelled (for the first time). Heck, the Europeans tried to include a Kurdistan in the treaty after WW 1 (and they did so to weaken the Turks). The Turks, rightfully so, thought they were all mad. The Ottomans had possessed, maintained and ruled over SE Turkey for hundreds of years. It did not "belong" to the Kurds.

Perhaps. But facts are facts. yes they are. now only if you would use them.




Shaddadid, Rawadid, Hasanwayhid, Annazid, and Marwanid all date to around the tenth century and were small regions that BROKE away from larger empires in between the periods of Arab and Ottoman rule. They didn't last long and they were not nation-states in any modern sense of the term. I never claimed they were nation states but they were steates.


Now, I suppose, on some level, you can claim they were "states," in that they resembled Greek city-states, but your attempt to portray theses fiefdoms as foundation for some larger state today is ridiculous. Such a state never existed. Heck, even Kurdish is considered a sub-language split from other Iranian tongues. The simple fact is Kurds are a rebellious minority and have always been such. They never, not at any time in history, had a "state" that they are "owed" today. I don't believe in such a state. I was merely refuting your claim that there never was a kurdish state.




See the above. see above.




They were never one people. yeah they were. their were divisions of that people but they were one people much in the same way as to take your example the greeks were
The Kurdish "states" you mentioned were not joined together, and by and large, the Kurds remained peopled in other countries (much like the Jews or any other ethnic minority). The simple fact they briefly managed to carve niches of territory out does not mean they have a historical claim to a land but I'm not claiming that at all.
or nation. a nation is a people
At some point in history, all peoples and ethnic groups held territory. This does not mean they all had a nation and should have one today. I mean, at what point do you reset the "board" to, PJ? It was forever changing... first off nation refers to the people you cannot create a nation it either exists or doesn't. secondly I'm not talking about creating a kurdistan




No, shit.

But they were in Anatolia by the time your Kurdish fiefdoms spring up and they possessed most of it by the time Osman comes to power in the late 1200s. So, in other words, Turkiye has been Turkish for more than 800 years. I would say it's theirs. please refrain from attributing mu posts to others




Roll the dice, PJ. I am pretty certain I can intellectually body slam you on anything having to do with Turkish or Ottoman history, Kurds included. well considering you ignore the argument being made and go on a strawman i doubt that but what ever.
You're doing your usual here. Throwing out some facts to prove an unwarranted conclusion you probably came to from whatever victim-ology based tripe you read. Wrong as usual. My usual is to provide facts that history bears out. secondly nice try to claim IU was making an argument I wasn't.
The fact is the Turkish people have controlled that part of the world for a LONG time. The only country, off the top of my head, that has existed, in similar form, for as long is probably something like England, which goes back to 1066. france japan


And it wasn't long after the founding of the Turkish Republic that a bunch of Kurds rebelled (for the first time). Heck, the Europeans tried to include a Kurdistan in the treaty after WW 1 (and they did so to weaken the Turks). The Turks, rightfully so, thought they were all mad. The Ottomans had possessed, maintained and ruled over SE Turkey for hundreds of years. It did not "belong" to the Kurds.

That's a rather bad argument considering what happened to the rest of the ottamon empire. native peoples have rights.

Thats hasbara #4 :Everything sucks.

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-make-case-for-israel-and-win.html

So when I make a valid point, you claim I'm using an Israeli programmed defense...but when you make a point you're using what?
That's the argument for why it's an invalid document, it's a good one too. Disproportionate attention to a single country because they're Jewish in a Muslim region IS anti-Semitism.

So when I make a valid point, you claim I'm using an Israeli programmed defense...but when you make a point you're using what?
That's the argument for why it's an invalid document, it's a good one too. Disproportionate attention to a single country because they're Jewish in a Muslim region IS anti-Semitism.

Its not disproportionate attention when its the only remaining settler colonial state that is still discriminating against natives because of an anachronistic concept of ethnic nationalism, which has been unpopular since the last guy who wanted to enforce it [lebensraum (http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/aa110899.htm) anyone?]

Its not disproportionate attention when its the only remaining settler colonial state that is still discriminating against natives because of an anachronistic concept of ethnic nationalism, which has been unpopular since the last guy who wanted to enforce it [lebensraum anyone?]

Most "colonial states" didn't have GDP/(land area) ratios higher than their hosts whose wealth was INTERNAL. Most "colonial states" didn't have the most extensive intelligence communities, militaries and fully functioning independent governments. Most "colonial states" haven't won 7 wars against 10+ countries.

The very fact you call it a "colonial" state proves you're part of the anti-Semitism displayed by the UN (OPEC).

Most "colonial states" didn't have GDP/(land area) ratios higher than their hosts whose wealth was INTERNAL. Most "colonial states" didn't have the most extensive intelligence communities, militaries and fully functioning independent governments. Most "colonial states" haven't won 7 wars against 10+ countries.

The very fact you call it a "colonial" state proves you're part of the anti-Semitism displayed by the UN (OPEC).

When Europeans use religion or ethnicity to displace the native population its a colonial state, when they form settler colonies that persecute the natives and steal their lands, its a settler colonial state. Ironically, even Jews living in other countries would not accept this state of affairs where they live. Or rather, they didn't, back when the German Volk wanted their own ethnically pure nation state.

When Europeans use religion or ethnicity to displace the native population its a colonial state, when they form settler colonies that persecute the natives and steal their lands, its a settler colonial state. Ironically, even Jews living in other countries would not accept this state of affairs where they live. Or rather, they didn't, back when the German Volk wanted their own nation.

More than 50% of Israel has been living in Iran, Morocco, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern states. The remainder is Ashkenazim, who aren't European, and even if they are...so? They're a minority.

SAM, don't you have a job and a library? You're a miserable human being, and you're unstudied on the middle east...at least compared to me. :rolleyes:

More than 50% of Israel has been living in Iran, Morocco, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern states. The remainder is Ashkenazim, who aren't European, and even if they are...so? They're a minority.

SAM, don't you have a job and a library? You're a miserable human being, and you're unstudied on the middle east...at least compared to me. :rolleyes:


That makes no difference. Many Americans come from around the world, but no one thinks that the USA is a Latin country or an Asian country, its a well known fact that the Ashkenazi despise the Mizrahi and only accepted them to make up the numbers. The driving force behind the colonialism and the settler movements has ALWAYS been European or American.

You're about 500 years too late for anyone to support your ethnic nationalism.

That makes no difference. Many Americans come from around the world, but no one thinks that the USA is a Latin country or an Asian country, its a well known fact that the Ashkenazi despise the Mizrahi and only accepted them to make up the numbers. The driving force behind the colonialism and the settler movements has ALWAYS been European or American.

You're about 500 years too late for anyone to support your ethnic nationalism.

It's a well known fact that Ashkenazim despite Mizrahi? I'm Ashkenzim SAM, I don't - no one I know does. No one I know living in Israel does, no one I have ever met does. :rolleyes:

Actually the nusach of the country is Mizrahi, the dialect of even Ashkenazim is Mizrahi...hmm... :o

If the main driving force is Europe...how come historians coined the phrase "Jewish Exodus from Arab Lands"? You continue to demonstrate, you've no education on the Middle East nor Jews...but you continue to spend your time with it.... :shrug: It's embaressing.

Read some history Cheski, especially of those Jews who brought the Mizrahim over in boats.
Also, this is all just btw, the fact remains that even if Hitler thought some kinds of white were better than others and being German [native] was better than everything else, and blood and land was a superior philosophy, at the end, neither the whites, nor the Germans nor the land of Germany accepts it. Its out of step with what the world believes in, including many Jews who died for that rotten philosophy.

Read some history Cheski, especially of those Jews who brought the Mizrahim over in boats.
Also, this is all just btw, the fact remains that even if Hitler thought some kinds of white were better than others and being German [native] was better than everything else, and blood and land was a superior philosophy, at the end, neither the whites, nor the Germans nor the land of Germany accepts it.

History is written by those who weren't there, text can be misunderstood. I've spoken with people who've fought in every single war in Israeli history.

And what's your point? The majority of the land of Israel is Jewish, identifies with "Israeli", it also has amongst the most advanced infrastructures in the world. They're not a colony, that's not going to change. :D Goldstone Report is anti-Semitic...so are you. :bawl:

The majority of the land of Israel is Jewish

Only in your mind and the mind of other similarly blinded Israelis. People like us see demolished Palestinian villages and refugees who want to return home. Especially all the parts of the world that used to be under colonial rule.

Only in your mind and the mind of other similarly blinded Israelis. People like us see demolished Palestinian villages and refugees who want to return home. Especially all the parts of the world that used to be under colonial rule.

I would like to see them go back under colonial rule, they behave savagely.

I would like to see them go back under colonial rule, they behave savagely.

Of course you would. :)

I never claimed they were nation states but they were steates.

And as I've shown, that's debatable.

And the more important question is how does several decades of "statehood" hundreds of years ago justify a state today?


I don't believe in such a state. I was merely refuting your claim that there never was a kurdish state.

So, in other words, you don't have a point, you're just picking a fight?


please refrain from attributing mu posts to others

Huh? My point is that Turkey has been Turkish for almost 1,000 years.


well considering you ignore the argument being made and go on a strawman i doubt that but what ever.

Go for it, buddy. But please, before you try, clean up your grammar. It feels like I am talking to a child.


Wrong as usual. My usual is to provide facts that history bears out. secondly nice try to claim IU was making an argument I wasn't.

Where are your facts? You jumped in a macro discussion and threw out five names. How does that support the statements that have been made in this thread?


That's a rather bad argument considering what happened to the rest of the ottamon empire. native peoples have rights.

I never said they didn't have rights. I'm saying they never really had the type of state that they can claim, hundreds of years later, to want to reconstitute. If you're talking about rights to land, I would be interested to see what your standard is of said right, as there are very few ethnic groups who are today where they have always been.

I am an American and I refer to it as an imaginary land because it does not exist, and so far as my knowledge of history goes, has never existed.



That's bullshit.

I mean, so the Ottoman Empire never existed? The Persian empire? The Kurds have never had their own country. They have been subjugated by great powers for hundreds, if not thousands, of years -- long before the notion of states even existed. You need to do some more reading on this issue. It appears you've been taken in by propaganda.


If this logic was applied evenly, many of today's "countries" wouldn't exist. Especially "Palestine".

At least Kurds have an easily identifiable ethnicity and specific coordinates on the map. "Peoples" like Syrians or Libyans or Egyptians or Jordanians or Saudis (the list goes on) they aren't identifiable single ethnicity. How come they deserve a state but Kurds don't? Total bullshit.

And as I've shown, that's debatable. You did where?


And the more important question is how does several decades of "statehood" hundreds of years ago justify a state today? I fail to see the relevence of the kurds current fight for a state to the existence of kurdish states in the past.




So, in other words, you don't have a point, you're just picking a fight? if you view correcting a blatent falsehood picking a fight than yes I was.




Huh? My point is that Turkey has been Turkish for almost 1,000 years. well 700. and it still doesn't excuse you of attributing my post to string




Go for it, buddy. But please, before you try, clean up your grammar. It feels like I am talking to a child. my sentence was grammatically correct baring the possible typo of a missing letter.




Where are your facts? You jumped in a macro discussion and threw out five names. that they exist are all the fact I need.
How does that support the statements that have been made in this thread? it wasn't mean to support an argument but to refute yours. You made a bad analogy I disproved and than you went on a bender against the refutation.




I never said they didn't have rights. actually by denying that they are a people you did. by deny a people are a people you are also denying them all the rights that go along with being a people
I'm saying they never really had the type of state that they can claim, hundreds of years later, to want to reconstitute. that's nice but that's never what this was about.
If you're talking about rights to land, I would be interested to see what your standard is of said right, I would be interested in yours but that is not at least solely the rights I am talking about.
as there are very few ethnic groups who are today where they have always been.true but in most places don't have people declaring an inherent right to dominate the resident population before them.

If this logic was applied evenly, many of today's "countries" wouldn't exist. Especially "Palestine".

At least Kurds have an easily identifiable ethnicity and specific coordinates on the map. "Peoples" like Syrians or Libyans or Egyptians or Jordanians or Saudis (the list goes on) they aren't identifiable single ethnicity. How come they deserve a state but Kurds don't? Total bullshit.

No one deserves a state because of their ethnicity. Where the frack do YOU live?

If this logic was applied evenly, many of today's "countries" wouldn't exist. Especially "Palestine".

At least Kurds have an easily identifiable ethnicity and specific coordinates on the map. "Peoples" like Syrians or Libyans or Egyptians or Jordanians or Saudis (the list goes on) they aren't identifiable single ethnicity. How come they deserve a state but Kurds don't? Total bullshit.

I'm not here to argue about who deserves a state, and as your speech points out, the only true criteria is the ability of state to take and hold territory, something the Kurds have never done.

What I am saying is that the Kurds have never had a proper state, and thus, their claims for carving one out of countries and powers that have been there and dominated the region for hundreds and thousands of years is utterly ridiculous. There was never a "Kurdish" nation or "Kurdish" state.

I guess you can say it sucks for them, as they have been subjugated throughout history, but then so have a lot of other people. The push, in contemporary times, to segregate every single ethnic group and give them all states based on some claim to historical ownership is an impossible task, and oftentimes it has little or no real merit. Everyone has moved and conquered each other. So "resetting" the map is pretty damn impossible.


You did where?

I made an argument that addressed the merits of your "states." If you chose not to find it convincing, that's not my concern.


I fail to see the relevence of the kurds current fight for a state to the existence of kurdish states in the past.

I don't see any relevance, either. Which is exactly the point I was suggesting when you barged in the conversation.


if you view correcting a blatent falsehood picking a fight than yes I was.

It was not a blatant falsehood. There has never been a Kurdish "state." Rather there have been various areas where Kurds briefly were autonomous. Again, it all gets back to how you define a state. I granted that your Kurdish "states" were essentially like Greek city states, to which the relative point becomes, nobody runs around talking about Spartans -- or the like -- having their own state today.


well 700. and it still doesn't excuse you of attributing my post to string

Not aware I did so. I apologize if I did.


my sentence was grammatically correct baring the possible typo of a missing letter.

The above is not even correct.

Your prose sucks, generally speaking. And you continuously fail to punctuate or capitalize or take even the slightest bit of time or attention to make it presentable to others. Now I am not demanding prose excellence. But some care would be nice.


that they exist are all the fact I need. it wasn't mean to support an argument but to refute yours. You made a bad analogy I disproved and than you went on a bender against the refutation.

Context is important, little guy.

You can't just throw out five names, then shout you won. You actually have to fit those facts within an argument, which essentially you DID not do. And now we find that you do not even have an argument. You just wanted to offer the intellectual equivalent of shouting "bingo," all as a part of some lame attempt to embarrass me?


actually by denying that they are a people you did. by deny a people are a people you are also denying them all the rights that go along with being a people

Wrong and wrong. I never denied they were a people. Never. I said they did not have a state and are an ethnic minority. So quit making shit up.


that's nice but that's never what this was about.

Yes, it was. And that's what I mean about context. There was a context to this conversation, and that was and has always been the line of argument I was engaged in here.


true but in most places don't have people declaring an inherent right to dominate the resident population before them.

To be sure, the powers in the region have shat on the Kurds. But in fairness, that is not what I was speaking to. I was speaking to the Kurdish claim of nationhood. Additionally, I think it's worth noting that people might be more willing to relax their attitude toward Kurds if they could do so safely without the Kurds immediately trying to formulate their own state.

I'm not here to argue about who deserves a state, and as your speech points out, the only true criteria is the ability of state to take and hold territory, something the Kurds have never done.

What I am saying is that the Kurds have never had a proper state, and thus, their claims for carving one out of countries and powers that have been there and dominated the region for hundreds and thousands of years is utterly ridiculous. There was never a "Kurdish" nation or "Kurdish" state.

I guess you can say it sucks for them, as they have been subjugated throughout history, but then so have a lot of other people. The push, in contemporary times, to segregate every single ethnic group and give them all states based on some claim to historical ownership is an impossible task, and oftentimes it has little or no real merit. Everyone has moved and conquered each other. So "resetting" the map is pretty damn impossible.


An interesting argument. The only 2 things I'll say are that (1) the Kurds are a people (an easily identifiable ethnicity), and (2) they never had a proper modern state with passports and such. But there is an area called Kurdistan, and that's not just a made up name.

I do like the rest of your arguments though. As I said, I just wish it was applied evenly in all cases. I think you know what I'm getting at.

An interesting argument. The only 2 things I'll say are that (1) the Kurds are a people (an easily identifiable ethnicity), and (2) they never had a proper modern state with passports and such. But there is an area called Kurdistan, and that's not just a made up name.

Yes, I acknowledge the Kurds are a people, and as such, have tended to stay where they are. Claiming that where they are is somehow "Kurdistan" is problematic. It was never, historically, known as that. Essentially, Kurds have claimed several other classifications and names are earlier versions of their "country." Then we get city-states or areas of independence or whatever you want to call them. It's all rather confusing, as you can see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan

I think the first time "Kurdistan" is mentioned, it is as an Ottoman province, and thus, ruled by the Turks. So it's not even a country then. Compare that to other provinces the Turks gave up, such as Thrace or Bulgaria, and you can see the difference I am arguing. These have a historical legacy of being states peopled by a particular ethnicity. The Kurds, on the other hand, have little autonomy anywhere in their history.


I do like the rest of your arguments though. As I said, I just wish it was applied evenly in all cases. I think you know what I'm getting at.

I do.

Yes, I acknowledge the Kurds are a people, and as such, have tended to stay where they are. Claiming that where they are is somehow "Kurdistan" is problematic. It was never, historically, known as that. Essentially, Kurds have claimed several other classifications and names are earlier versions of their "country." Then we get city-states or areas of independence or whatever you want to call them. It's all rather confusing, as you can see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan

I think the first time "Kurdistan" is mentioned, it is as an Ottoman province, and thus, ruled by the Turks. So it's not even a country then. Compare that to other provinces the Turks gave up, such as Thrace or Bulgaria, and you can see the difference I am arguing. These have a historical legacy of being states peopled by a particular ethnicity. The Kurds, on the other hand, have little autonomy anywhere in their history.



I do.
do you have a problem with the in the 1700's and 1800's of calling the collective German and Italian states Germany and Italy repectively?

Yes, I do.

Germany was largely Prussian and Italy was fractured into several different powerful duchies. But none of this matches up the way you think it does. Those areas were all populated by the same people and been under their influence and control, in various political guises, for centuries, if not millennium.

Look, "Greece" was not a state until the mid-19th century either, but Greece has been Greek and under Greek control for thousands of years. You cannot say the same for the Kurds. They have no historical control over what they now call Kurdistan, politically or otherwise. Even their language is little more than an amalgamation of other languages.

Yes, I do.

Germany was largely Prussian and Italy was fractured into several different powerful duchies. But none of this matches up the way you think it does. Those areas were all populated by the same people and been under their influence and control, in various political guises, for centuries, if not millennium. So you reject the naming of them as Germany or Italy even as a region descriptor?


Look, "Greece" was not a state until the mid-19th century either, but Greece has been Greek and under Greek control for thousands of years. Rome turkey
You cannot say the same for the Kurds. They have no historical control over what they now call Kurdistan, politically or otherwise. Even their language is little more than an amalgamation of other languages.actually Kurdish is a heavily dialect language kinda like chinese in that regard.

So you reject the naming of them as Germany or Italy even as a region descriptor?

I'm not rejecting things or accepting them, I'm waiting for you to make some kind of argument. Several posts on, you have not.

My argument is that in places like Germany and Italy you have the same group of people on the land, controlling it, politically and otherwise, for as long as human history exists. That's not the case with "Kurdistan." The case there is you have an ethnic minority that is subjugated, throughout history, except in the brief moments when there was a power vacuum. Thus, they have no real claim to restore a "state." They never really had one.


actually Kurdish is a heavily dialect language kinda like chinese in that regard.

It is heavy on dialect, but it's also kind of a bastard language, just as one would expect from an ethnic minority.

...but it's also kind of a bastard language, just as one would expect from an ethnic minority.

What does "bastard language" mean?

If it means having words, grammar rules, and other linguistic elements from other languages, I can list many other languages as such. Are they "bastard languages" too?

What does "bastard language" mean?

It means that there is no, one, clear parent. That it's an amalgam of many linguistic parts. English is a Bastard language. German, for example, is not.

Fraggle would be a much better contributor to this subject.


If it means having words, grammar rules, and other linguistic elements from other languages, I can list many other languages as such. Are they "bastard languages" too?

There are, undoubtedly, many hundreds if not thousands of them.

~String

Yes, I do.

Germany was largely Prussian and Italy was fractured into several different powerful duchies. But none of this matches up the way you think it does. Those areas were all populated by the same people and been under their influence and control, in various political guises, for centuries, if not millennium.

Look, "Greece" was not a state until the mid-19th century either, but Greece has been Greek and under Greek control for thousands of years. You cannot say the same for the Kurds. They have no historical control over what they now call Kurdistan, politically or otherwise. Even their language is little more than an amalgamation of other languages.


I'm not rejecting things or accepting them, I'm waiting for you to make some kind of argument. Several posts on, you have not.

My argument is that in places like Germany and Italy you have the same group of people on the land, controlling it, politically and otherwise, for as long as human history exists. That's not the case with "Kurdistan." The case there is you have an ethnic minority that is subjugated, throughout history, except in the brief moments when there was a power vacuum. Thus, they have no real claim to restore a "state." They never really had one.



It is heavy on dialect, but it's also kind of a bastard language, just as one would expect from an ethnic minority.

All you're saying is cold and heartless and true. Yet all these fake "peoples" were arbitrarily given weapons, and therefore the ability to hold territory, a fake identity and nationality, and some unfortunate ones who have a real nationality, real identifiable language (even if you call it 'bastard') rather than a local dialect of Arabic, were left behind to be subjugated. It's not fair that terrorist backwards countries get to arise, and helpless minorities don't get theirs. (Though this makes me wonder how friendly a Kurdistan be had they gotten their state in the 19th or mid 20th century...)

OK, so fuck the Tibetans, and fuck the Basques and the Uighurs (which is pronounced "ooy-GOOR", not "wigger", btw), and fuck the Chechens, but most of all, fuck the "palestinians".

Let naked force determine everything, right?

Let naked force determine everything, right?

Naked force is not necessary. Regionalism is just as dangerous. Spain, for example, shouldn't have to be subjected to dissection just because a regional minority wants to split away. And, to the credit of Spain, it hasn't waived a white flag either. They've preserved the Kingdom and kept the peace and prosperity of their nation. Much the same with a number of other nations.

~String

Yet all these fake "peoples" were arbitrarily given weapons, and therefore the ability to hold territory, a fake identity and nationality, and some unfortunate ones who have a real nationality, real identifiable language (even if you call it 'bastard') rather than a local dialect of Arabic, were left behind to be subjugated.

Again, I've never called the Kurds a fake people.

They are a very real ethnic group. All ethnic groups do not have countries. The Kurds are one of the largest ethnic groups that do not have a country. Not having one and being a large group does not somehow qualify them for one, because as I've said, they never had one to begin with. How can you call them a nationality? They have a culture, to be sure, but a nationality? I'm not so sure.


(Though this makes me wonder how friendly a Kurdistan be had they gotten their state in the 19th or mid 20th century...)


Who knows? The only people interested in freeing them wanted to do so for their own political reasons. That is, the British -- and indeed Woodrow Wilson -- suggested a Kurdistan for no other reason than the fact they wanted to destroy the Ottoman empire and prevent the rise of a Turkish state (and people wonder why the Turks are so suspicious of the Kurds). Nowadays, the rationale is not much different. You have a bunch of European Leftists who ignore Kurdish terrorism and berate the Turks, all because it furthers their agenda and helps weaken a state they abhor (and don't want in their Union).


OK, so fuck the Tibetans, and fuck the Basques and the Uighurs (which is pronounced "ooy-GOOR", not "wigger", btw), and fuck the Chechens, but most of all, fuck the "palestinians".

I'm not talking about them, nor do I claim to know enough to do so. But one can easily ask you what you propose? Give states to every ethnic group that ever existed? What does that do to the state system? To International relations?


Let naked force determine everything, right?

That's not what I said at all, but if your little speech made you feel better, then congrats.

Naked force is not necessary. Regionalism is just as dangerous. Spain, for example, shouldn't have to be subjected to dissection just because a regional minority wants to split away. And, to the credit of Spain, it hasn't waived a white flag either. They've preserved the Kingdom and kept the peace and prosperity of their nation. Much the same with a number of other nations.

~String

I dunno. The Basques are kind of different...

I dunno. The Basques are kind of different...

Everybody's different.

~String

Well their culture is a little different to Spain, wisenheimer.

Well their culture is a little different to Spain, wisenheimer.

And the culture of Spain (whatever it is) should be different to them. If apple is different than banana, so banana is necessarily different than apple according to the same basis. Otherwise, they are same under the title of "fruit".

If you take one of them into the centre, other one would look like marginal. If you say Spain is apple and Bask is banana, and if you accept round things normal, legal or desired, so Bask banana will look like extreme. Yet if you take long and yellow things into the centre, in this case Spain apple will be an anomaly.

Perspective.

Well their culture is a little different to Spain, wisenheimer.

And this matters how? Do you think states should be defined by ethnicity and culture? What happens to children of mixed marriages? Should they be deported to the moon or forced to choose one ethnicity and culture over another?

The amount of small mindedness on these issues is amazing. I think the concept of nation-state itself is detrimental to progressive values

I think the concept of nation-state itself is detrimental to progressive values

In the long run, yes. But are people in general really prepared to undertake such ventures? Obviously, observably not. We're human beings. Especially in the collective, we seem to need to learn things the hard way. The long way. The slow, painful, oft-gory way.

Nature will render the nation-state useless long before people stop inventing justifications. Wouldn't it be ironic, then, if our Darwinian limitation, our Achilles' heel, turned out to be our innate greed and the neuroses it demands?

And this matters how? Do you think states should be defined by ethnicity and culture? What happens to children of mixed marriages? Should they be deported to the moon or forced to choose one ethnicity and culture over another?

The tiger pounces!

In the wrong direction, of course.

The moon? That sounds hideously expensive. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? :shrug:

Anyway: the Basques desire a separate nation. Perhaps they think their state should be defined by ethnicity and culture. Can you say that they should be denied their claim of self-determination? In an optimal world, possibly.

The tiger pounces!

In the wrong direction, of course.

The moon? That sounds hideously expensive. Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? :shrug:

Anyway: the Basques desire a separate nation. Perhaps they think their state should be defined by ethnicity and culture. Can you say that they should be denied their claim of self-determination? In an optimal world, possibly.

Yeah I most definitely think it can be denied; I think it is wrong to encourage racism. In such ethnicity based states, the "others" don't end up in prison, they get gassed and thrown away or locked in a ghetto and bombed with white phosphorus. One would think once would be enough to learn a lesson

Or perhaps they need a state because they've been gassed and bombed and locked in a ghetto.

Or we could export them to the moon. I'm just thinking out loud here.

And your response to this is more racism? How has that worked out for them? I predict as long as they see themselves as separate and more than equal they will find that while there are periods when people will indulge their tribalism, eventually such tribalism becomes more trouble than its worth and historically meets with violence.

What about when the violence from one side won't stop? You're postulating a fine utopian scenario, but it would have to already exist to work.

There is always violence with an imbalance of power. Creating an exclusionary status can only lead to the guillotine.

Or the moon.

I'm not talking about them, nor do I claim to know enough to do so. But one can easily ask you what you propose? Give states to every ethnic group that ever existed? What does that do to the state system? To International relations?


"Giving" states? What does that even mean? By whose authority? By what means? At whose expense?

There is no set criteria by which people "deserve" a state. The good ol' method of force - being able to hold land and fight off invaders - is the best bet. But in today's world where everything is so interconnected there are all these players that manipulate regional conflicts to their own advantages. No minority earns a right to a state until it pays its due in dead soldiers (and non soldiers). It's kinda tricky in today's world though, isn't it.

But you've got idiot leftists who keep whining about some peoples 'deserving' a state without having fought for it. Then you've got the First Nations who are strangers in their own lands... they bring the discussion into morality. "We feel sorry for them because they've suffered. Therefore they deserve a state". When the discussion is like that, then the Kurds absolutely deserve a state. But I guess they haven't really earned it, have they.

We live in a post-colonial world. Some of us find it easier to adjust to than others [who would themselves never want to live under colonialism]

Though its odd that you would refute the lack of suffrage of Palestinian residents dispossessed from their homes by a foreign entity.

I think a Kurdish independent state wouldn't be so much a matter of seeking ethnic superiority. You could just as easily argue the opposite, that it's a defense against Turks, Iranians and Iraqis who think their own ethnicities are superior and seek to impose them on the Kurds.

Yeah I most definitely think it can be denied; I think it is wrong to encourage racism.

Ethnic nationalism is not the same thing as racism.

Sometimes, dividing people up into ethnic nation-states can reduce racial tensions, since everyone gets to feel secure in their own space. Good fences make good neighbors, and all that.



In such ethnicity based states, the "others" don't end up in prison, they get gassed and thrown away or locked in a ghetto and bombed with white phosphorus.

More often they simply get swapped over to a neighboring nation-state(s) that matches their ethnicity, in a swap for co-ethnics from those territories. That's mostly what happened in Europe and with Israel, for example.

Ethnic nationalism is not the same thing as racism.

Sometimes, dividing people up into ethnic nation-states can reduce racial tensions, since everyone gets to feel secure in their own space. Good fences make good neighbors, and all that.

Thats what I call encouraging racism. Segregation by race should not be a requirement for "peace"




More often they simply get swapped over to a neighboring nation-state(s) that matches their ethnicity, in a swap for co-ethnics from those territories. That's mostly what happened in Europe and with Israel, for example.

Not really, unless you think Polish Jews are the same "ethnicity" as Palestinian Jews. Jewish ethnic nationalism itself shows how ridiculous the notion of such race based states is. When its an embarassment to speak Arabic or Yiddish which has been your language of choice for centuries in favour of an even more ancient liturgical language which is also borrowed, race becomes an artificial adopted identity which people are dying to defend. So silly.

It reminds me of all the Marathi Manus campaigns of the Shiv Sena. The leaders all sent their own kids to international schools and western unis, and they took second languages German or French. But they want the Marathi Manus to insist on speaking Marathi. Political pawns make for good ignorant populace

Thats what I call encouraging racism.

I know. But if ethnic nation-states lower racial tensions, how has that "encouraged" racism?



Segregation by race should not be a requirement for "peace"

"Should?"

Who cares about "should," if peace can be attained that way?



race becomes an artificial adopted identity which people are dying to defend.

"Becomes?" Race has never been anything other than that. Likewise, nationality, class, sect, caste, religion, etc.

So what? The question isn't which constructs are "artificial," but how to organize them so everyone can live in peace and dignity.

Also, this is all pretty rich coming from someone who spends so much of her time and energy dividing people up into artificial identities and encouraging tension between them.

I know. But if ethnic nation-states lower racial tensions, how has that "encouraged" racism?

By maintaining the fiction of "racial tensions" being reduced by segregation. One might as well say, keeping the men and women in separate rooms reduces sexual tensions. Doesn't work like that.




"Should?"

Who cares about "should," if peace can be attained that way?


Peace can also be attained by genocide, but its not a strong enough argument for me to support it


"Becomes?" Race has never been anything other than that. Likewise, nationality, class, sect, caste, religion, etc.

So what? The question isn't which constructs are "artificial," but how to organize them so everyone can live in peace and dignity.

I don't think that qualifies as peace or dignity. Just continued cycles of violence.


Also, this is all pretty rich coming from someone who spends so much of her time and energy dividing people up into artificial identities and encouraging tension between them.



Maybe its because I come from a culture where we don't pretend that these artificial identities are not important and blow them over by pretending we are peaceful when we are killing people over them. And are able to see their effects for what they are. All the problems in present day India can be traced back to this ideology of separating states by language and culture. Its a notion I think detestable because it has created islands of separatism and one I will point out when I see it.

One might as well say, keeping the men and women in separate rooms reduces sexual tensions. Doesn't work like that.
It does in Muslim countries.

By maintaining the fiction of "racial tensions" being reduced by segregation.

"fiction?"

No racial contact implies no racial tension. That's a fact.

Not the best way to deal with racism, probably, but there it is.



One might as well say, keeping the men and women in separate rooms reduces sexual tensions.

You really think that different races are comparable to different sexes? That they have a biological imperative to mate, for example?



Peace can also be attained by genocide, but its not a strong enough argument for me to support it

What if the alternative - war - would cost more lives and dignity than the genocide in question?

Would you wipe out all the Jews, if that would lead to world peace?



I don't think that qualifies as peace or dignity. Just continued cycles of violence.

Non-sequitur. The premise was that whatever system of organization maximizes peace and dignity (and minimizes violence) is preferable, irrespective of how "artificial" (or not) it might be.



Maybe its because I come from a culture where we don't pretend that these artificial identities are not important and blow them over by pretending we are peaceful when we are killing people over them.

Strawman.

And cultural chauvinism to boot. Sort of ironic, that, right in the middle of a call for an end to cultural divisions. But then I've made that point already...

"fiction?"

No racial contact implies no racial tension. That's a fact.

Not the best way to deal with racism, probably, but there it is.

You really think that different races are comparable to different sexes? That they have a biological imperative to mate, for example?

No I think its an illusion that segregation fosters reduced tension. It never has.




What if the alternative - war - would cost more lives and dignity than the genocide in question?

Would you wipe out all the Jews, if that would lead to world peace?


What if we wiped out all humanity instead? That would make for permanent peace. Would you opt for it? The idea that wiping out the Jews would foster world peace is a false construct.


Non-sequitur. The premise was that whatever system of organization maximizes peace and dignity (and minimizes violence) is preferable, irrespective of how "artificial" (or not) it might be.


Sorry I do not agree to peace under ANY circumstances.


Strawman.

And cultural chauvinism to boot. Sort of ironic, that, right in the middle of a call for an end to cultural divisions. But then I've made that point already...
Not at all, its called recognising a problem, its not chauvinistic to see how social manipulation works. We just have more examples, being a more diverse community. And we are a politically incorrect culture, so we talk (http://connect.in.com/ndtv-india/play-video-ndtv-we-the-people-debate-on-indias-religious-scenario-341562-f0fe10af2b542a7cb4afecb96f71a7467b420173.html)abou t it.

One of the interesting points I noticed, for example, in the debate over whether migrant workers to Mumbai should have to get work permits to move there [a false discussion by the Shiv Sena, since it was unconstitutional, but its not like people actually know anything about the Indian constitution] was the way it divided the population between who agreed with the premise [illegal though it was] and those who did not. Overwhelmingly, those who thought it was ridiculous that Indians should need a work permit to live in Mumbai, were hardcore Bombayites. Overwhelmingly, those who thought they should, were migrants who were unused to the adjustments one makes in cosmopolitan societies where many cultures meet [and clash]. People reflect the "culture" they are used to. This is a fact. The main point is not to advocate or encourage those elements that promote separatism.

No I think its an illusion that segregation fosters reduced tension.

Not segregation. Separation. Each ethnicity in its own state, able to exercise self-determination.

Segregation implies one society that treats different races differently. The issue on the table is separation of ethnic groups into distinct societies.



What if we wiped out all humanity instead? That would make for permanent peace.

No. The concept of peace is undefined, absent human polities.



Would you opt for it?

Probably. Why not? End war for ever, for the cost of a few million lives? Think of the untold human misery and injustice that would be prevented. What's one genocide compared to that?



The idea that wiping out the Jews would foster world peace is a false construct.

It was a hypothetical question, not a "construct."

If you don't want to respond to it, why are you responding? It just makes you look insecure.



Sorry I do not agree to peace under ANY circumstances.

? Interesting...



Not at all, its called recognising a problem, its not chauvinistic to see how social manipulation works.

The chauvinism is in suggesting that your culture conveys privileged insight to its members.


And we are a politically incorrect culture,

No. You simply have different rules of political correctness.


People reflect the "culture" they are used to. This is a fact. The main point is not to advocate or encourage those elements that promote separatism.

Since when do you avoid such advocacy?

Not segregation. Separation. Each ethnicity in its own state, able to exercise self-determination.

Segregation implies one society that treats different races differently. The issue on the table is separation of ethnic groups into distinct societies.

Can you give me an example of a separated society where segregation has not been involved?




No. The concept of peace is undefined, absent human polities.

Exactly. Perhaps the Jews would prefer to wipe out everyone else instead. Would you opt for that?




Probably. Why not? End war for ever, for the cost of a few million lives? Think of the untold human misery and injustice that would be prevented. What's one genocide compared to that?


And another, and another, and another? When your basic premise is wrong your results reflect the absurdity of continuing it.


The chauvinism is in suggesting that your culture conveys privileged insight to its members.
No. You simply have different rules of political correctness.


Thats my personal insight into the differences I see between our societies, why we have so many languages and cultures dating right back to the original one still existing in India while you are exporting democracy by the bombload, perhaps you can offer your own?


Since when do you avoid such advocacy?
Since always. You are free to point out where I didn't.

Can you give me an example of a separated society where segregation has not been involved?

Non sequitur. As I just said, if they're separate, it's no longer "a" society.


Exactly. Perhaps the Jews would prefer to wipe out everyone else instead. Would you opt for that?

No.



And another, and another, and another? When your basic premise is wrong your results reflect the absurdity of continuing it.

It's not possible for a hypothetical situation to be "wrong." And the hypothetical in question was "suppose one genocide would result in world peace." Hence your reply makes little sense.

Are you really this dense, or are you just shot-gunning thoughtless ad-hoc evasions at me in the hopes that I'll get tired and leave you alone?


Thats my personal insight into the differences I see between our societies, why we have so many languages and cultures dating right back to the original one still existing in India while you are exporting democracy by the bombload, perhaps you can offer your own?

I'll repeat my insight into your personality, which is distinguished by rabid chauvinism and intolerance. Even as you preach about peace through mutual acceptance and integration.



Since always. You are free to point out where I didn't.

Just about every post you've ever made on the topics of Israel or the United States encourages separatism by portraying them as evil interlopers who cannot be abided or compromised with.

Non sequitur. As I just said, if they're separate, it's no longer "a" society.

Are there any such separate societies? Could you point one out so I know what you are speaking of?




No.


Why not, in the interest of world peace?


It's not possible for a hypothetical situation to be "wrong." And the hypothetical in question was "suppose one genocide would result in world peace." Hence your reply makes little sense.

But you disagreed with this hypothetical situation when it was Jews wiping out everyone else. Why?


Are you really this dense, or are you just shot-gunning thoughtless ad-hoc evasions at me in the hopes that I'll get tired and leave you alone?


No I am wondering what is justifiable genocide for you? I presume its not one where you would be eliminated?


I'll repeat my insight into your personality, which is distinguished by rabid chauvinism and intolerance. Even as you preach about peace through mutual acceptance and integration.

Yeah I notice that intolerance to being bombed into democracy and occupied into western freedoms seems to raise hackles around here.



Just about every post you've ever made on the topics of Israel or the United States encourages separatism by portraying them as evil interlopers who cannot be abided or compromised with.

That would be quite surprising since the views I presented were from Americans and Israelis. Or are you seeing criticism of policy by natives as somehow self hating, like James does?

I admit I have a liberal bias, but its surely unreasonable to expect me to agree with opinions that go against my values. If you think that any of the opinions I posted are unjustified, you are free to tell me why.

Are there any such separate societies? Could you point one out so I know what you are speaking of?

What, really?

How about France and Germany?


Why not, in the interest of world peace?

Becuase I would be killed in the process.


But you disagreed with this hypothetical situation when it was Jews wiping out everyone else. Why?

Because I would be killed in the process.

Likewise, I don't expect the Jews to sign up for mass extermination in the interest of world peace.



No I am wondering what is justifiable genocide for you?

One where the resulting goods outweigh the evil of the genocide.



I presume its not one where you would be eliminated?

Not necessarily. But the fact that I wouldn't volunteer to die for world peace doesn't mean that it would be unjust for someone to kill me for world peace. It just means my self-interest exceeds my interest in abstract justice for others. Exactly like every other human being that has ever lived.



Yeah I notice that intolerance to being bombed into democracy and occupied into western freedoms seems to raise hackles around here.

Nobody is bombing or occupying you, nor or most of the people in the groups you throw slurs at supportive of such programs. This sort of bigotry is directly at odds with your platitudes about peaceful unity.

Likewise, you show a marked tolerance for bombing and occupying people into Indian freedoms.

It's pretty rich to see someone who spends her days stridently reinforcing a racist, violent worldview go on about the evils of segregation and the need for unity.


That would be quite surprising since the views I presented were from Americans and Israelis.

Adults own their own sentiments. Only children pretend to speak for others. And only fools think that their hack declarations on behalf of others carry any weight with me.



Or are you seeing criticism of policy by natives as somehow self hating, like James does?

I don't see any such criticism, here. You have a demonstrated incapacity for honesty evaluating (let alone, summarizing) other people's positions, so what you say some "native" thinks doesn't impress me.

First, you should try to get enough of a handle on your own positions to avoid constantly contradicting yourself. Then you can start worrying about what other people think.



I admit I have a liberal bias,

News to me.



but its surely unreasonable to expect me to agree with opinions that go against my values.

And what is it when you express opinions that go against your stated values? Unreason? Lying?



If you think that any of the opinions I posted are unjustified, you are free to tell me why.

No shit. If you'd like your opinions to impress me, you are free to come up with consistent, reasoned positions and argue them honestly.

No shit. If you'd like your opinions to impress me, you are free to come up with consistent, reasoned positions and argue them honestly.

When I come up with consistent reasoned positions like those that justify genocide-based peace, I'll let you know.

Meanwhile rest assured that I do not desire to impress you in any way whatsoever.

When I come up with consistent reasoned positions like those that justify genocide-based peace, I'll let you know.

More weak-suck evasion and misconstrual. You'd be better of just foregoing any response at all (as usual).



Meanwhile rest assured that I do not desire to impress you in any way whatsoever.

Sure you do. Look at all the time and effort you spend responding to my criticism, trying to provoke me, etc. If you didn't care what I thought you'd simply ignore me.

"Giving" states? What does that even mean? By whose authority? By what means? At whose expense?

Well, the Israelis were given a state. More recently, we've seen European countries carved up along ethnic lines. Some have proposed doing that in Afghanistan and Iraq.


It's kinda tricky in today's world though, isn't it.

Yes, it is. And in most cases, it's not truly in the minority's best interest.


But you've got idiot leftists who keep whining about some peoples 'deserving' a state without having fought for it. Then you've got the First Nations who are strangers in their own lands... they bring the discussion into morality. "We feel sorry for them because they've suffered. Therefore they deserve a state". When the discussion is like that, then the Kurds absolutely deserve a state. But I guess they haven't really earned it, have they.

The PKK would argue they have. So would the regular, run of the mill Kurds. But, as I've said, they never had a state and can't really fashion one for themselves now. They need to realize this and move along.

Well, the Israelis were given a state. More recently, we've seen European countries carved up along ethnic lines. Some have proposed doing that in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes, it is. And in most cases, it's not truly in the minority's best interest.

The PKK would argue they have. So would the regular, run of the mill Kurds. But, as I've said, they never had a state and can't really fashion one for themselves now. They need to realize this and move along.

I would agree with this. There are no real benefits to being transient minority monocultural states, over a more diverse and assimilated one. The monocultural state will be a battle ground later if not sooner, simply due to the way political ethics [or lack of it] function.

In fact, thinking beyond enabling your immediate community is how we need to progress now.


If you didn't care what I thought you'd simply ignore me.

Okay. :shrug:

Richard Goldstone: Israel's missed opportunity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/21/goldstone-report-israel-gaza-war-crimes-un)


Five weeks after the release of the report of the fact-finding mission on Gaza, there has been no attempt by any of its critics to come to grips with its substance. It has been fulsomely approved by those whose interests it is thought to serve and rejected by those of the opposite view. Those who attack it do so too often by making personal attacks on its authors' motives and those who approve it rely on its authors' reputations.

Israeli government spokesmen and those who support them have attacked it in the harshest terms and, in particular my participation, in a most personal and hurtful way. The time has now come for more sober reflection on what the report means and appropriate Israeli reactions to it.

I begin with my own motivation, as a Jew who has supported Israel and its people all my life, for having agreed to head the Gaza mission. Over the past 20 years, I have investigated serious violations of international law in my own country, South Africa, in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and the alleged fraud and theft by governments and political leaders in a number of countries in connection with the United Nations Iraq oil-for-food programme.

In all of these, allegations reached the highest political echelons. In every instance, I spoke out strongly in favour of full investigations and, where appropriate, criminal prosecutions. I have spoken out over the years on behalf of the International Bar Association against human rights violations in many countries, including Sri Lanka, China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe and Pakistan.

I would have been acting against those principles and my own convictions and conscience if I had refused a request from the United Nations to investigate serious allegations of war crimes against both Israel and Hamas in the context of Operation Cast Lead.

As a Jew, I felt a greater and not a lesser obligation to do so. It is well documented that as a condition of my participation I insisted upon and received an even-handed mandate to investigate all sides, and that is what we sought to do.

I sincerely believed that because of my own record and the terms of the mission's mandate we would receive the co-operation of the Israeli government. Its refusal to co-operate was a grave error. My plea for co-operation was repeated before and during the investigation, and it sits, plain as day, in the appendices of the Gaza report for those who actually bother to read it.

Our mission obviously could only consider and report on what it saw, heard and read. If the government of Israel failed to bring facts and analyses to our attention, we cannot fairly be blamed for the consequences. Those who feel that our report failed to give adequate attention to specific incidents or issues should be asking the Israeli government why it failed to argue its cause.

Israel missed a golden opportunity to actually have a fair hearing from a UN-sponsored inquiry. Of course, I was aware of and have frequently spoken out against the unfair and exceptional treatment of Israel by the UN and especially by the human rights council.

I did so again last week. Israel could have seized the opportunity provided by the even-handed mandate of our mission and used it as a precedent for a new direction by the United Nations in the Middle East. Instead, we were shut out.

As I stated in response to a recent letter from the mayor of Sderot, I believed strongly that our mission should have been allowed to visit Sderot and other parts of southern Israel that have been at the receiving end of unlawful attacks by many thousands of rockets and mortars fired at civilian targets by Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza. We were prevented from doing so by, what I believe, was a misguided decision by the Israeli government.

In Gaza, I was surprised and shocked by the destruction and misery there. I had not expected it. I did not anticipate that the IDF would have targeted civilians and civilian objects. I did not anticipate seeing the vast destruction of the economic infrastructure of Gaza including its agricultural lands, industrial factories, water supply and sanitation works. These are not military targets. I have not heard or read any government justification for this destruction.

Of course the children of Sderot and the children of Gaza have the same rights to protection under international law, and that is why, notwithstanding the decision of the government of Israel, we took whatever steps were open to us to obtain information from victims and experts in southern Israel about the effects on their lives of sustained rocket and mortar attacks over a period of years. It was on the strength of those investigations that we held those attacks to constitute serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.

The refusal of co-operation by the government of Israel did not prevent us from reacting positively to a request from Gilad Shalit's father to speak personally to our mission at its public session in Geneva. No one who heard his evidence could fail to have been moved by the unspeakable pain of a parent whose young son was being held for over three years in unlawful circumstances without any contact with the outside world and not even allowed visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross. The mission called for his release.

Israel and its courts have always recognised that they are bound by norms of international law that it has formally ratified or that have become binding as customary international law upon all nations. The fact that the United Nations and too many members of the international community have unfairly singled out Israel for condemnation and failed to investigate horrible human rights violations in other countries cannot make Israel immune from the very standards it has accepted as binding upon it.

Israel has a strong history of investigating allegations made against its own officials reaching to the highest levels of government: the inquiries into the Yom Kippur war, Sabra and Shatila, Bus 300 and the second Lebanon war.

Israel has an internationally renowned and respected judiciary that should be envy of many other countries in the region. It has the means and ability to investigate itself. Has it the will?

I would agree with this. There are no real benefits to being transient minority monocultural states, over a more diverse and assimilated one. The monocultural state will be a battle ground later if not sooner, simply due to the way political ethics [or lack of it] function.

So you'll support the transition of the monocultural islamic world into a more diverse cultural entity? Have you written to anyone in this regard? Reformers are badly needed.

So you'll support the transition of the monocultural islamic world into a more diverse cultural entity? Have you written to anyone in this regard? Reformers are badly needed.

Which "monocultural" Islamic world? The one you have no clue about?:rolleyes:



Amazing isn't it, how you can ignore war crimes to make snide remarks on culture?

Which "monocultural" Islamic world?

The one in which non-Islamic minorities make up almost 0% of the population? :shrug:


Amazing isn't it, how you can ignore war crimes to make snide remarks on culture?

I learned from the greatest. This person, for example, veered off about monoculturalism and I followed suit.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2392000&postcount=127

The one in which non-Islamic minorities make up almost 0% of the population? :shrug:



I learned from the greatest. This person, for example, veered off about monoculturalism and I followed suit.

So, any opinion on the war crimes at all? What did you think of the Goldstone report? Did you read it?

I recommend you refer to Fraggle's posts on Muslim populations around the world, if you can be bothered to actually reference facts rather than those websites where muslim with a small m is common usage. It may be a shocking change in perspective to actually look at facts for a change, I know, rather than soak your brains in hasbara.

So, any opinion on the war crimes at all? What did you think of the Goldstone report? Did you read it?

I'm still in the process thereof, actually. I consider much of it deplorable, of course.

Did you have any sensible comment on my post above? What about monoculturalism in 'your' world also?


I recommend you refer to Fraggle's posts on Muslim populations around the world, if you can be bothered to actually reference facts rather than those websites where muslim with a small m is common usage. It may be a shocking change in perspective to actually look at facts for a change, I know, rather than soak your brains in hasbara.

Yes, I've read it: please accept my apologies for the apparently incorrect usage. It isn't used with a large 'M' or 'I' everywhere. I notice that you seem to be getting incredibly angry about it, though. Is this really such a point of importance? I seem to recall you using "Jewish" and "Christian" with small letters. That's fine, I suppose: one encounters all writing styles and preferences herein. :) Am I the only person you single out for this kind of attention? If so, why?

I'm still in the process thereof, actually. I consider much of it deplorable, of course.


Which part did you consider most deplorable in what you read so far?


Did you have any sensible comment on my post above? What about monoculturalism in 'your' world also?
Which world is that? Bombay?:rolleyes:




Yes, I've read it: please accept my apologies for the apparently incorrect usage. It isn't used with a large 'M' or 'I' everywhere. I notice that you seem to be getting incredibly angry about it, though. Is this really such a point of importance? I seem to recall you using "Jewish" and "Christian" with small letters. That's fine, I suppose: one encounters all writing styles and preferences herein. :) Am I the only person you single out for this kind of attention? If so, why?


No I just think its interesting what passes for education these days. :)

No I just think its interesting what passes for education these days.

Me too. Although, it does appear I'm the only one singled out. So: why is that?


Which world is that? Bombay?

Well, I'm sure I've seen you describe your affiliation with the Palestinian cause using the pronoun "we". But let that aside, then: what about the Islamic world, in which non-Islamic minorities make up almost 0% of the population? Should these be transitioned to fully-functioning and equal-population democracies?


Which part did you consider most deplorable in what you read so far?

Part XI, naturally.

Also, another question: what is a "transient minority monocultural state"? Could you give an example and explain why it corresponds to that definition?

Me too. Although, it does appear I'm the only one singled out. So: why is that?

Because you act like you know the difference between a proper noun and a common noun and make assertions of common usage without consulting a dictionary. Its called lack of credibility.




Part XI, naturally.

Congratulations! Got any questions about intent?


Also, another question: what is a "transient minority monocultural state"? Could you give an example and explain why it corresponds to that definition?

Sure, just look up Jharkand Mukti Morcha or the Maoist movement, currently going on in India. Or Chapter XI of the Goldstone report. You could read Shlomo Sand's book [just released in English in the United States] for an understanding of why racial ethnocentrism is such a joke [its pretty hard to keep up the racial paradigm in a bigger progressive society, ever noticed that?]. I've included an article by Michael Neumann in the I-P thread, for why the "Arabs" are a British creation, just like the "Hindus". But only if you're truly interested.

Because you act like you know the difference between a proper noun and a common noun and make assertions of common usage without consulting a dictionary. Its called lack of credibility.

Well, actually it isn't. But carry on.


Congratulations! Got any questions about intent?

As a matter of fact, I do! So: what is your intent in singling out my posts for comments on proper and common nouns, without any similar intention being paid to any other poster, including those among your far more intent detractors? It's a recent issue of interest to me.


Sure, just look up Jharkand Mukti Morcha or the Maoist movement, currently going on in India. Or Chapter XI of the Goldstone report. You could read Shlomo Sand's book [just released in English in the United States] for an understanding of why racial ethnocentrism is such a joke. But only if you're truly interested.

Fascinating. I surely shall look them up.

Now: does your dismissal apply equally to the islamic world, which - it must be admitted - is quite monocultural compared to the examples you've listed? Should they also transition to a multicultural ethic? What sort of multiculturalism is it you prefer to be called truly multicultural? Is Ireland multicultural? Britain? The United States? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Iran? From a religious sense?

I think I'll wait till you tour the Islamic countries before we discuss your notions of culture, which probably are educated by the same websites where capitalisation of islam and muslim is an issue of lowered status. We can compare it with, say, native American culture in your neighborhood.

Why so resistant, Sam? Everyone knows full well that there's not much Native American influence in American culture. But why so resistant about, say, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Do they not apply to your generalized notion about monoculture? If not, why not?

Here: I even brought a quote for you.


For this reason, Saudi culture lacks the diversity of religious expression, buildings, annual festivals and public events that is seen in countries where religious freedom is permitted.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108492.htm

Why so resistant, Sam? Everyone knows full well that there's not much Native American influence in American culture. But why so resistant about, say, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia? Do they not apply to your generalized notion about monoculture? If not, why not?

Why don't you tell me what you see as monocultural in Pakistan? The fact that they speak at least four languages? Have four distinct cultural groups? Food, music, clothing, language from various cultural influences? People who are not recognised by race or ethnicity?

The problem with being seen as resisting your premise is that you are an ignoramus pretending to make a point. Its like you asking for intent before reading the Goldstone report. How am I to address so much ignorance in a post?

And another:


Pakistan is the second-most populous Muslim-majority country[17][18] and also has the second-largest Shi'a population in the world.[19] About 95% of the Pakistanis are Muslim, of which nearly 75% are Sunni and 20% are Shi'a.[28] Although the two groups of Muslims usually coexist peacefully, sectarian violence occurs sporadically.[75]

The religious breakdown of the country is as follows[28]:

* Islam 173,000,000 (96%) (nearly 70% are Sunni Muslims and 20% are Shi'a Muslims).
* Hinduism 3,200,000 (1.85%)
* Christianity 2,800,000 (1.6%)
* Sikhs Around 20,000 (0.001%)
* The remaining are Parsis, Ahmadis, Buddhists, Jews, Bahá'ís, and Animists (mainly the Kalasha of Chitral).[76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan#Religions

So: do your notions about diversity apply to the citizenry of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia or not? If not - as they seem not to - why not?

People who are not recognised by race or ethnicity?

But very strongly by religion. Is this area also open to your notions of multiculturalism? Would you welcome a significant minority - let us say 30% - of the country becoming Hindu, Bhuddist, or even Christian? Jewish?

And? How many Muslims, Jews, Bahais in the US? In England? Like I said, your definitions of minority transient monocultures are baffling in the extreme.

But very strongly by religion. Is this area also open to your notions of multiculturalism? Would you welcome a significant minority - let us say 30% - of the country becoming Hindu, Bhuddist, or even Christian? Jewish?

I live in a society where Muslims are less than 11% of the population. Do you fathom at all what I am saying? What is your POINT???:confused:

The problem with being seen as resisting your premise is that you are an ignoramus pretending to make a point. Its like you asking for intent before reading the Goldstone report. How am I to address so much ignorance in a post?

Well, first you have to clarify your accusation of ignorance. I have asked - repeatedly - whether there is evidence of intent, which is part of the definition that you cited. Seemingly a small matter, you have done everything but provided intent. Is it intent? Possibly. But, frankly, most of your posts concern personal attacks and trivialities. It's difficult to reconcile your absence of critical thought with a rational viewpoint.

I live in a society where Muslims are less than 11% of the population. Do you fathom at all what I am saying? What is your POINT???:confused:

Has it been unclear? Let's restate it again:

Do your notions about diversity apply to the citizenry of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia or not? If not - as they seem not to - why not?

I fail to see how it could be more clear. I suppose that you'll now ignore this point - again - and shoot for an attack. Why so much avoidance?

Well, first you have to clarify your accusation of ignorance. I have asked - repeatedly - whether there is evidence of intent, which is part of the definition that you cited. Seemingly a small matter, you have done everything but provided intent. Is it intent? Possibly. But, frankly, most of your posts concern personal attacks and trivialities. It's difficult to reconcile your absence of critical thought with a rational viewpoint.

If you're still questioning intent after reading the Goldstone report, I have to dismiss you as an intellectually dishonest person. Sorry, but I refuse to waste my time on you any further. Happy ethnic cleansing. :wave:

Has it been unclear? Let's restate it again:

Do your notions about diversity apply to the citizenry of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia or not? If not - as they seem not to - why not?

I fail to see how it could be more clear. I suppose that you'll now ignore this point - again - and shoot for an attack. Why so much avoidance?

Avoidance??? Which minority transient monocultures in the above countries worry you?

And? How many Muslims, Jews, Bahais in the US? In England? Like I said, your definitions of minority transient monocultures are baffling in the extreme.

What can this possibly have to do with my point? At which stage did I say they were or were not examples of your case?? Rather, I even asked you whether they were examples. Your style of argumentation is bizarre in the extreme.

Avoidance??? Which minority transient monocultures in the above countries worry you?

?? I didn't say anything of the kind. Rather, I asked you - for the I-don't-knowth time whether or not Saudi Arabia and Pakistan fit into your examples of monoculture with respect to religion. Now: do they or do they not?

And where, exactly, have I asked for ethnic cleansing? Enough, please. Thanks.

If you're still questioning intent after reading the Goldstone report, I have to dismiss you as an intellectually dishonest person. Sorry, but I refuse to waste my time on you any further. Happy ethnic cleansing. :wave:

Again: your styles are fantastic - which is to say that they contain a vast amount of fantasy. I suppose they would be suited to something or other. But no amount of pretension is going to help, Sam.

Your style of argumentation is bizarre in the extreme.

You're fracking kidding me. You seem to lack all English comprehension and veer off into your bigoted brainwashing, addressing points that have not even been made.

Anyway, if you're still spouting hasbara after Godlstone, its obvious that you're blind deaf and dumb to any and all atrocities committed on Palestinians. I doubt any facts could get through the fog of cognitive dissonance you call your brain.

Not that its a surprise, after two years of reading your rubbish, it should be evident. However, I guess its still disappointing to see how blind prejudice overrules rationality

Bigoted brainwashing? Exactly what about all that was either? I asked you to confirm or deny that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - two of the more extreme examples of religious monoculture, IMHO - would also fit your definition of monoculture. I didn't ask WRT language, food, music or clothing - I commend Pakistan for its diversity in this respect, naturally, and I wish that more Western countries would emulate such diversity of verbal and physical culture. Canada in particular is embarrassing WRT it's split semi-monoculture. But can you not simply answer the question? Or perhaps illustrate my "blind prejudice", if you aren't too blind? :)

Ok l must be extremely stupid but lets try this:

What is a "religious monoculture"? And what relation does it have to any discussion in this thread? What does Saudi Arabia or Pakistan have to do with minority ethnic groups demanding separate states based on ethnicity?

?? I can't believe that you could possibly misunderstand the concept. Is religion not part of culture? By what definition do you say this, if this is what you're saying?

What does religion have to do with minority ethnic groups demanding separate states based on ethnicity?

You understand that Kurds and Baluchis are majority Muslims? And want separate states based on ethnicity? You understand that JMM are Hindus? And want separate states based on ethnicity? What does anything you said have any relation to this point? Do you think the religion of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or India is relevant to these people?

Er, I imagine the religion of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and even India is quite relevant to themselves.

But no matter: I think you have answered my question in full. The next question is: are you really content with such hypocrisy? How do you reconcile it?

I think you have answered my question in full

Thats awesome, since I have no idea what point you were making, except that it was completely not relevant to the ongoing discussion. However, I deduce that you were having a private conversation in which the thread and other posters were incidental and their discussion not relevant, so I am glad that at least you managed to find some solace in discussing Saudi Arabia and Pakistans "monoculture" rather than Israeli war crimes in Gaza. And its obvious which one weighs more heavily in consideration for you.

Then you have, again, misunderstood.

Richard Goldstone: Israel's missed opportunity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/21/goldstone-report-israel-gaza-war-crimes-un)


Five weeks after the release of the report of the fact-finding mission on Gaza, there has been no attempt by any of its critics to come to grips with its substance. It has been fulsomely approved by those whose interests it is thought to serve and rejected by those of the opposite view. Those who attack it do so too often by making personal attacks on its authors' motives and those who approve it rely on its authors' reputations.

Israeli government spokesmen and those who support them have attacked it in the harshest terms and, in particular my participation, in a most personal and hurtful way. The time has now come for more sober reflection on what the report means and appropriate Israeli reactions to it.

I begin with my own motivation, as a Jew who has supported Israel and its people all my life, for having agreed to head the Gaza mission. Over the past 20 years, I have investigated serious violations of international law in my own country, South Africa, in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and the alleged fraud and theft by governments and political leaders in a number of countries in connection with the United Nations Iraq oil-for-food programme.

In all of these, allegations reached the highest political echelons. In every instance, I spoke out strongly in favour of full investigations and, where appropriate, criminal prosecutions. I have spoken out over the years on behalf of the International Bar Association against human rights violations in many countries, including Sri Lanka, China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe and Pakistan.

I would have been acting against those principles and my own convictions and conscience if I had refused a request from the United Nations to investigate serious allegations of war crimes against both Israel and Hamas in the context of Operation Cast Lead.

As a Jew, I felt a greater and not a lesser obligation to do so. It is well documented that as a condition of my participation I insisted upon and received an even-handed mandate to investigate all sides, and that is what we sought to do.

I sincerely believed that because of my own record and the terms of the mission's mandate we would receive the co-operation of the Israeli government. Its refusal to co-operate was a grave error. My plea for co-operation was repeated before and during the investigation, and it sits, plain as day, in the appendices of the Gaza report for those who actually bother to read it.

Our mission obviously could only consider and report on what it saw, heard and read. If the government of Israel failed to bring facts and analyses to our attention, we cannot fairly be blamed for the consequences. Those who feel that our report failed to give adequate attention to specific incidents or issues should be asking the Israeli government why it failed to argue its cause.

Israel missed a golden opportunity to actually have a fair hearing from a UN-sponsored inquiry. Of course, I was aware of and have frequently spoken out against the unfair and exceptional treatment of Israel by the UN and especially by the human rights council.

I did so again last week. Israel could have seized the opportunity provided by the even-handed mandate of our mission and used it as a precedent for a new direction by the United Nations in the Middle East. Instead, we were shut out.

As I stated in response to a recent letter from the mayor of Sderot, I believed strongly that our mission should have been allowed to visit Sderot and other parts of southern Israel that have been at the receiving end of unlawful attacks by many thousands of rockets and mortars fired at civilian targets by Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza. We were prevented from doing so by, what I believe, was a misguided decision by the Israeli government.

In Gaza, I was surprised and shocked by the destruction and misery there. I had not expected it. I did not anticipate that the IDF would have targeted civilians and civilian objects. I did not anticipate seeing the vast destruction of the economic infrastructure of Gaza including its agricultural lands, industrial factories, water supply and sanitation works. These are not military targets. I have not heard or read any government justification for this destruction.

Of course the children of Sderot and the children of Gaza have the same rights to protection under international law, and that is why, notwithstanding the decision of the government of Israel, we took whatever steps were open to us to obtain information from victims and experts in southern Israel about the effects on their lives of sustained rocket and mortar attacks over a period of years. It was on the strength of those investigations that we held those attacks to constitute serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.

The refusal of co-operation by the government of Israel did not prevent us from reacting positively to a request from Gilad Shalit's father to speak personally to our mission at its public session in Geneva. No one who heard his evidence could fail to have been moved by the unspeakable pain of a parent whose young son was being held for over three years in unlawful circumstances without any contact with the outside world and not even allowed visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross. The mission called for his release.

Israel and its courts have always recognised that they are bound by norms of international law that it has formally ratified or that have become binding as customary international law upon all nations. The fact that the United Nations and too many members of the international community have unfairly singled out Israel for condemnation and failed to investigate horrible human rights violations in other countries cannot make Israel immune from the very standards it has accepted as binding upon it.

Israel has a strong history of investigating allegations made against its own officials reaching to the highest levels of government: the inquiries into the Yom Kippur war, Sabra and Shatila, Bus 300 and the second Lebanon war.

Israel has an internationally renowned and respected judiciary that should be envy of many other countries in the region. It has the means and ability to investigate itself. Has it the will?

A Jew who makes me proud.


UN human rights investigator Richard Goldstone has rejected Israel's claim that the peace process would be harmed by his report on the offensive in Gaza.

Judge Goldstone said there was no peace process at present and Israel's foreign minister did not want there to be one.


The Goldstone report, which has been endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council, accuses both Israel and Hamas militants of committing war crimes.

Mr Goldstone's remarks came in a conference call with American rabbis.

"It's a shallow, utterly false allegation," Mr Goldstone said of Israel's attempt to brand his report as an obstacle to peace.

"What peace process are they talking about? There isn't one. The Israeli foreign minister doesn't want one," Mr Goldstone said.

"If the Israeli government set up an appropriate, open investigation, it will really be the end of the matter. That's where the report would end as far as Israel is concerned," he added.

He was speaking days after Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman spoke of his belief that the Arab-Israeli conflict would not be resolved in the coming years, and people should "learn to live with it". link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8316770.stm)

Fascinating. I surely shall look them up.

Intro for you.


At NYU, devilish Shlomo Sand predicts the Jewish past and pastes the Zionists - by Philip Weiss on October 17, 2009


Of all the events I’ve covered surrounding Jewish identity and Israel in the last year, none has given me so much pleasure as the lecture last night by Shlomo Sand at NYU on the Invention of the Jewish People. Most events I go to are grinding, awful, heartrending, often with lamentations and pictures of mutilated children. This one was pure intellectual deviltry of the highest order by a Pavarotti of the lecture hall. And while it was fiercely anti-Zionist and included references to the mutilated children, it left me in just an incredibly elated mood. For I saw real light at the end of the tunnel, and not the horrifying dimness that surrounds almost all other events that deal with Israel politics here– for instance with the neoconservative Weekly Standard’s disgusting pursuit of J Street. devilish (http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/at-nyu-devilish-shlomo-sand-predicts-the-jewish-past-and-pastes-the-zionists.html)

Phil is right about the personal vanity

http://chatharamathara2009.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/shlomo-sand2.jpg

A Jew who makes me proud.



link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8316770.stm)

He overstepped his mandate by getting into Israeli politics. What I learned from his comments above is that he was not an independent unbiased investigator who agreed to take on this thankless and controversial project, but in fact a guy driven by a specific political agenda of his own.

Keep digging Richard. You've made plenty of new friends in Iran and Syria. Maybe you can invite THEM to your next year's Seder.

How low do you have to go to smear the name of a good Jewish jurist just to defend maniacs who bulldoze chickens and corpses?

Did you read Chapter XI of the Goldstone report?

He overstepped his mandate by getting into Israeli politics. What I learned from his comments above is that he was not an independent unbiased investigator who agreed to take on this thankless and controversial project, but in fact a guy driven by a specific political agenda of his own.
After being attacked by rabid Israeli politicians who were clearly overstepping the boundaries of morality (not that we are surprised) by refusing to take responsibility for the obvious. Richard Goldstone has a proven track record, he remains independent, unbiased and a remarkably decent human being, who just happens to be Jewish.

What in your opinion, is his agenda?


Keep digging Richard. You've made plenty of new friends in Iran and Syria. Maybe you can invite THEM to your next year's Seder.
That sounds like a good idea, engaging in friendship rather than animosity. Are Jews not supposed to associate with Goyim?

What in your opinion, is his agenda?

Presumably it's the one he lays out in the material you quoted in post #161 of this thread.

Presumably it's the one he lays out in the material you quoted in post #161 of this thread.
Ah. Stating the predictable and the obvious. Saying it like it is. OK.


"If the Israeli government set up an appropriate, open investigation, it will really be the end of the matter. That's where the report would end as far as Israel is concerned," he added.

Goldstone challenges US criticism of report


South African judge Richard Goldstone, challenges the United States to justify its objections over his report about the three-week Israeli war on the Gaza Strip.


He said he was waiting for the Obama administration to announce what they deem as flaws in the report. "I'd be happy to respond to them, if and when I know what they are," he added.


Asked if, in the absence of a domestic investigation, Israel could be brought to court internationally, Goldstone said, "I think that's where it's going. If they don't have a good faith internal investigation this thing is not going to lay down and die, it's going to continue. link (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=109368&sectionid=351020202)

That`s my boy.

My personal prediction: Israel will conduct a systematic investigation. Some soldiers will be punished in cases where they clearly and obviously violated Israeli law and general rules of war, like defacing a house or (if 99% solid proof can be obtained) using human shields. Most perpetrators of the actual crimes will go unpunished due to lack of hard physical evidence and lack of reliable testimony, and that's perfectly fair. Recommendations will be made to change the protocols of war to reduce the number of accidents and change the usage of tools like white phosphorus, but no evidence will be found that anyone deliberately intended to attack UN facilities and Palestinian civilians, not in the upper echelons at least. Thus none of the Israeli higher-ups are likely to be incriminated, since their orders were most likely nothing other than to take out Hamas' military and political infrastructure. The UNHRC will condemn Israel for the investigation and consider it as having been conducted in bad faith, since for political reasons they already have a pre-determined conclusion. Hence Israel's investigation will be dismissed out of hand by the UNHRC just as Israel has done to them, but neither side will have adequate evidence to rule out the other's claims.

In the meantime, Israel is now proposing new rules of war to account for the change in how terrorists and guerrillas now operate. The old rules assume fighting in the same style as was conducted in the 60's and before that, in which the guerrillas seek to do everything they can to minimize casualties to their own civilian population. With the media and political benefits that come from sustaining a high level of civilian casualties, guerrillas no longer operate in this fashion, at least not in the middle east where many consider it cool to become a stinky martyred carcass. The rules of war must be changed to allow us to crush terrorists rather than watching them spread like a cancer on our own food aid and Russian weapons. The motivation is just, but since Israel is leading the charge, it's simply not going to happen.

My personal prediction...

Israel is now proposing new rules of war to account for the change in how terrorists and guerrillas now operate

You mean the Israelis will redefine the Nuremberg laws and the Warsaw ghetto revolt? We already know that.

You think it would be better if all criminals investigated themselves?

You mean the Israelis will redefine the Nuremberg laws and the Warsaw ghetto revolt? We already know that.

You think it would be better if all criminals investigated themselves?

It seems they already are.


Virtually all of Israel is now speaking in one voice against the Goldstone report, against any attempt to blame us over the war in Gaza. We've honed our message to a sharp point and, inspired by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's performance at the UN, we're delivering it with just the right tone of outrage:

How dare anyone deny us the right to self-defense! How dare anyone deny us the right to fight back against terrorism!

Very nice. Puts everyone else on the defensive. The right to self-defense is up there with motherhood and apple pie - who's going to come out against it, especially for us, for Israel, for the Jews, for the people of the Holocaust?

The right to self-defense - perfect.

But I'd like to ask: Do the Palestinians also have the right to self-defense?

We probably wouldn't admit it out loud, but in our heads we would say - again, in one voice - "No!"

This is the Israeli notion of a fair deal: We're entitled to do whatever the hell we want to the Palestinians because, by definition, whatever we do to them is self-defense. They, however, are not entitled to lift a finger against us because, by definition, whatever they do to us is terrorism. hypocrisy (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1254861893834&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull)

Interesting report about why Turkey and Israel can`t be friends anymore. Incredible. :peace:


Israel planned to kill Erdogan: Report

Turkish media sources detail information implicating the Israeli Mossad in a plot to assassinate Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

An e-mail found on a personal computer belonging to one of the members of the underground Ergenekon organization exposed Mossad's role in the failed assassination efforts against Erdogan, Turkish media outlets reported on Friday.

The organization has been accused of orchestrating a coup plot against the current Turkish administration.

The indictment list tabled by the Turkish prosecution against the organization says that an Israeli journalist had sent the e-mail to a number of Ergenekon figures to inform them of Israeli readiness to assassinate the Turkish premier.

According to sources in the Turkish press, the e-mail promised support for Mr. Dugo -- whose identity has not been revealed -- against Erdogan after coordination with Mossad chief Meir Dagan. link (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=89918&sectionid=351020204)

That's ridiculous.

Why do you continue to post nonsense and pretend it's even remotely plausible?

Clearly, you know nothing of Ergenenkon and are ignorant of the longstanding ties between Mossad and MIT.

Interesting report about why Turkey and Israel can`t be friends anymore. Incredible. :peace:


link (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=89918&sectionid=351020204)

Nice propaganda from Tehran. Very reputable considering Iran's history of openness, liberty and freedom of the press!

~String

Straw is either incapable or unwilling to find objective news. That story is only the latest example. The sheer ignorance it takes to accept its premise is staggering.

Nice propaganda from Tehran. Very reputable considering Iran's history of openness, liberty and freedom of the press!

~String
Which is of course on par, or better, than Saudi Arabia and other select client states. :m:

But more to the point, this "propaganda" source is indicating Turkish sources.

Straw is either incapable or unwilling to find objective news. That story is only the latest example. The sheer ignorance it takes to accept its premise is staggering.
I did not indicate a particular stance other than a clear break in Israeli/Turkish relations. Is this subjective? :m:

Which is of course on par, or better, than Saudi Arabia and other select client states. :m:

But more to the point, this "propaganda" source is indicating Turkish sources.

Which sources are those? Saying that they have sources is one thing, identifying them is another. You're a total moron if you think that the propaganda arm of a dictatorship wouldn't just make shit up to serve their own political interests. Sort of like quoting Pravda during the cold war. Not really reliable.

~String

Which sources are those? Saying that they have sources is one thing, identifying them is another. You're a total moron if you think that the propaganda arm of a dictatorship wouldn't just make shit up to serve their own political interests. Sort of like quoting Pravda during the cold war. Not really reliable.

~String

Exactly.

And Turkish news sources can be totally unreliable. Their media is largely and very openly "controlled" by either a party or ideology.


I did not indicate a particular stance other than a clear break in Israeli/Turkish relations. Is this subjective? :m:

You indicated, through your source, that one had tried to kill the leader of the other. That's a little stronger than a "break" in relations, wouldn't you say? And your source, as has been noted, is utter bunk.

But like a lot of people, you find something on the internet that confirms your worldview, and so there we go. Actually trying to educate yourself on the issue and learning something before you speak are not, apparently, priorities. No one who watches Turkey can deny they are having a falling out with Israel, but rather than really try to assess that, you post garbage about assassination plots based on a dubious investigation you know nothing about?

Which sources are those?
Perhaps similar sources that keep insisting Iran has a nuclear weapons program.:m:

Saying that they have sources is one thing, identifying them is another.
Yes, clearly.

You're a total moron if you think that the propaganda arm of a dictatorship wouldn't just make shit up to serve their own political interests. Sort of like quoting Pravda during the cold war. Not really reliable.
And the US has no history of propaganda/fabrication when it comes to foreign policy that serves in their political interests? Whats the difference? Does the term "democracy" denote a "get out of jail free" card these days?

Straw, you're attempting to switch topics now that you have been confronted. You posted a dog shit link alleging something, now you're just spinning.


Of Israelis assasinating leaders? :roflmao:

Where would you like to start? Count Folke Bernadette?

So then posting something substantive should not be hard, right?

Perhaps similar sources that keep insisting Iran has a nuclear weapons program.:m:

See what you're doing? Rather than deal with the question at hand, you are distracting away from the question by lobbing insults and accusations at another target.


Example:
Girl 1: "Suzy, I saw your mother slapping a little boy at a park yesterday.
Girl 2: "Whatever. You're mother is a whore and everybody knows it."

In the world of lying, this is a common tactic, and one which does not substantiate your claims.


And the US has no history of propaganda/fabrication when it comes to foreign policy that serves in their political interests? Whats the difference?

Straw, you're about three seconds from receiving a warning and having your posts deleted. This is the rule: substantiate your posts in good faith. We aren't discussing the USA.

But, to make you happy, I'll play your game. YES, the USA is evil. Should be wiped off the Earth. Americans are horrible, genocidal maniacs.

Now that we have established this, and removed this bitch of yours off the table. Can you please talk to the point you were making and address the reliability of your Iranian source and their history of truthful reporting.


Does the term "democracy" denote a "get out of jail free" card these days?

No. But we aren't discussing the USA.

You, however, are desperately distracting attention away from your own bullshit to hide your own errors.

This is the point where I give you time to either back up your claims or have your posts deleted and receive an infraction for trolling.

Put up or shut up.

~String

Mod Note: SAM, if you can't contribute, go away. StrawDog, either back up your claim or leave the discussion.

And Turkish news sources can be totally unreliable. Their media is largely and very openly "controlled" by either a party or ideology.
:D What does one say to this?

You indicated, through your source, that one had tried to kill the leader of the other. That's a little stronger than a "break" in relations, wouldn't you say? And your source, as has been noted, is utter bunk.
Hardly. A news source like any other.

No one who watches Turkey can deny they are having a falling out with Israel,
It seems the circus around Israel`s denunciation of the Goldstone report has gathered a decent momentum...

but rather than really try to assess that, you post garbage about assassination plots based on a dubious investigation you know nothing about?
Consider it assessed, this being the latest item under consideration.

Hey, its my thread! I'm the one extolling the virtues of Erdogan the Islamist here!

Of course, Mossad would try to kill him, just look at all the "enemy" leaders Israel has targeted over the years since before its inception.

Hey, its my thread! I'm the one extolling the virtues of Erdogan the Islamist here!

Of course, Mossad would try to kill him, just look at all the "enemy" leaders Israel has targeted.

Sorry. Your thread is in my forum. Deal with the rules or go somewhere else.

You're still required to back up your claims. What proof (hear that word) do you have that Erdogan was targeted, is targeted, may one day be targeted, beyond your speculation.

~String

Since it was a news source, linking the news source was proof that such a claim exists. Now if you think the news source is false or wrong, you should be able to find an Israeli source rejecting it.

The "proof" here is all the assassinations, including the latest attempts on Meshal, which are standard SOP in Israeli foreign policy.

Since it was a news source, linking the news source was proof that such a claim exists. Now if you think the news source is false or wrong, you should be able to find an Israeli source rejecting it.

Wrong. YOU and everybody else are required to post from a reputable source. One news source, from tyrannical dictatorship does not count as proof. Generally news sources from reputable organizations that are subject to peer review and who can post critical stories about the host government are generally acceptable.


The "proof" here is all the assassinations, including the latest attempts on Meshal, which are standard SOP in Israeli foreign policy.

No. It's not proof. It's proof that Israel has assassinated leaders, NOT that they will assassinate any leader that your Ouija board tells you. You and your buddy are required to show proof that something is afoot.

~String

See what you're doing? Rather than deal with the question at hand, you are distracting away from the question by lobbing insults and accusations at another target.


Example:
Girl 1: "Suzy, I saw your mother slapping a little boy at a park yesterday.
Girl 2: "Whatever. You're mother is a whore and everybody knows it."

In the world of lying, this is a common tactic, and one which does not substantiate your claims.
I see your point.

Can you please talk to the point you were making and address the reliability of your Iranian source and their history of truthful reporting.
This is a little rough. I am quoting a credible foreign news source "Press TV" who are quoting a Turkish source. Now you want me to prove that this news source is credible to your satisfaction. Perhaps everyone should then qualify the validity of their sources eh?

You, however, are desperately distracting attention away from your own bullshit to hide your own errors.
And it seems, you are having a hissy fit. (sources undisclosed)

This is the point where I give you time to either back up your claims or have your posts deleted and receive an infraction for trolling.
State explicitly what my claim/s is. I posted an article for comment -
Interesting report about why Turkey and Israel can`t be friends anymore.

Put up or shut up.
That`s not helpful.

One news source, from tyrannical dictatorship does not count as proof.

Really? Turkey is a tyrannical dictatorship? Its the Turkish media that discovered the emails




Turkish media revealed on Friday that an electronic mail was found at the personal computer of one of the members of the secret Ergenekon organization exposing an Israeli Mossad scheme to kill Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

According to the indictment list tabled by the Turkish prosecution against the organization, an Israeli journalist sent an e-mail to a number of the organization's figures accused in the (thwarted) coup attempt against the Erdogan government, informing them that the Israeli Mosaad was prepared to assassinate Erdogan.

Turkish press sources said that the journalist informed the Ergenekon members that they were supporting Mr. Dugo against the "Islamist terrorist" Erdogan, and that he informed them of the Mossad chief Meir Dagan's coordination with Mr. Dugo in this regard. He also said that a Mossad team was awaiting the green light from Mr. Dugo to carry out the mission.

The Turkish sources added that Mr. Dugo, whose name was mentioned in the e-mail, could be Turkish Labor Party head Dugo Prinitchek, who is suspected of leading the secret organization.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2009/March/28%20n/Turkish%20media%20expose%20Israeli%20Mossad%20plan %20to%20assassinate%20Prime%20Minister%20Erdogan.h tm

As usual, idiots flock together.

Is this type of flaming allowed? From what I can gather, the implication is that I (and others) are idiots. My sensitivities are severely affronted. I am outraged. :m:

Can you moderators help out here please?

Is this type of flaming allowed? From what I can gather, the implication is that I (and others) are idiots. My sensitivities are severely affronted. I am outraged. :m:

Can you moderators help out here please?

Post deleted.

~String

You mean the Israelis will redefine the Nuremberg laws and the Warsaw ghetto revolt? We already know that.

Were the jews shooting rockets at the Germans when they got confined to that camp? If Hamas didn't fire rockets at Israel, would the Palestinians all be shipped off to work camps and gas chambers? You're better off comparing what the Germans did in Warsaw to what your friends in Darfur have been pulling off, and even then it would be a stretch.


You think it would be better if all criminals investigated themselves?

I don't see how it's any better or worse than criminals being investigated by other criminals, as is being pushed in the UNHRC. Really, when did Libya suddenly become the world's moral bedrock? How hard is it to form a credibly independent team to go in there with no pre-determined conclusions, and focus on nothing but hard physical facts? Why does the UN keep shooting itself in the foot with these useless political games?

Were the jews shooting rockets at the Germans when they got confined to that camp? If Hamas didn't fire rockets at Israel, would the Palestinians all be shipped off to work camps and gas chambers? You're better off comparing what the Germans did in Warsaw to what your friends in Darfur have been pulling off, and even then it would be a stretch.

No but they were getting weapons from the Poles and using them.

See?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/36/Pomnik_Malego_Powstanca.JPG/200px-Pomnik_Malego_Powstanca.JPG

If they knew about rockets then, wouldn't they have used them?


I don't see how it's any better or worse than criminals being investigated by other criminals, as is being pushed in the UNHRC. Really, when did Libya suddenly become the world's moral bedrock? How hard is it to form a credibly independent team to go in there with no pre-determined conclusions, and focus on nothing but hard physical facts? Why does the UN keep shooting itself in the foot with these useless political games?

Are you suggesting that investigating war crimes is a mistake? The UN should never have given Palestine to the Europeans. But then, as the recent election fiasco in Afghanistan shows its nothing more than a shill to the power players that run it.

:D What does one say to this?

If this remark is a lame attempt to compare your bullshit appreciation of American media to your ignorant perception of Turkish Media, which you know even less about, I hardly see the point of pursuing it.


Hardly. A news source like any other.

And that's your problem. You have an inability to distinguish between genuine information and bullshit. Either you are not so bright and you can't pick up on the difference or you are choosing to ignore it when it comes to finding things that back you viewpoint. Either way, you are displaying absolute ignorance.


Consider it assessed, this being the latest item under consideration.

Then assess it. I've dismissed it, as it comes through a questionable filter, quoting a notoriously disreputable indictment -- Ergenenkon -- that you know nothing about. So far, in other words, you've posted internet chum and are now expecting their to be a debate about it. To which I reply, why bother? Get your head out of your ass and bring something worthwhile to the table.


t's proof that Israel has assassinated leaders, NOT that they will assassinate any leader that your Ouija board tells you. You and your buddy are required to show proof that something is afoot.

~String

Now, wait a second String. She hasn't even proved Israel assassinates leaders, unless of course, she means terrorist leaders. I'd love for her to talk about the Mossad killing govt. officials, as that is really they claim on the table.

Meanwhile, you have a lot of people claiming things based on Ergenenkon and they have no idea what it is. I've probably read more about it than anyone on this site. It does not surprise me there is a claim in the indictment and so-called evidence about Mossad trying to kill Erdogan. There is all kinds of crap in there. There is, for example, a claim the Dick Cheney met with the Turkish military about a coup to remove AKP. No evidence is given for that claim.

For the record, this is from an 80-plus page paper prepared for John Hopkins and SAIS:

"Ergenekon case has become the largest and most controversial judicial investigation in recent Turkish history. Hundreds of suspects have been detained, mostly in multiple simultaneous dawn raids by members of the Counterterrorism Department of the Turkish National Police (TNP). By May 2009, 142 people had been formally charged with membership of the “Ergenekon armed terrorist organization” in two massive indictments totaling 2,455 and 1,909 pages respectively. In mid-June 2009, a third indictment containing charges against yet more alleged members of Ergenekon was expected to be announced later in the year. The trial currently appears likely to continue for several years."

"even the most cursory objective examination of the investigation raises deeply disturbing questions, which multiply and intensify the more closely the
alleged evidence in the case is examined."

"The Ergenekon organization as portrayed in the investigation is the product of a conspiracy theorist’s imagination."

Meanwhile, look at the source of the claim from Sam's article:

"According to the indictment list tabled by the Turkish prosecution against the organization, an Israeli journalist sent an e-mail to a number of the organization's figures accused in the (thwarted) coup attempt against the Erdogan government, informing them that the Israeli Mosaad was prepared to assassinate Erdogan."

Wow. One journalist emailed somebody. Talk about a smoking gun...

Back in the real world, the MIT (look it up people) and Mossad are thick as thieves. And common sense demands you don't kill the leader of the nation who is the ONLY Muslim country who makes nice with Israel. Oh, and Turkey buys millions of dollars of weapons from Israel, too. So yeah, offing him makes a whole lot of sense...

It's proof that Israel has assassinated leaders,


i did not know that. who had israel assassinated and why?
thanks

No but they were getting weapons from the Poles and using them.

...

If they knew about rockets then, wouldn't they have used them?

They did know about rockets back then. That's how sad Hamas and its Iranian backers are, they're still using the scraps of technology we tossed them from 60 years ago. Which war do you think saw the introduction of the Katyusha?


Are you suggesting that investigating war crimes is a mistake? The UN should never have given Palestine to the Europeans.

The arabs should have negotiated with the UN instead of ganging up on the jews and trying to settle things the old-fashioned way. Why complain, when the arabs confiscated 4X the amount of land contained in Israel and kicked out nearly 1 million sephardis? In terms of who got more from whom, the arabs won the War of Independence 60 years ago, they should provide the spoils to the Palestinians. I didn't say investigating war crimes is a mistake- you asked whether it made any sense for criminals to investigate themselves, and I responded that having other criminals with their own twisted agendas do it wouldn't constitute an improvement. If the UN finds aspects of Israel's investigation bogus, they can present their own physical, video and photographic proof as contrary evidence.

Are you suggesting that investigating war crimes is a mistake? The UN should never have given Palestine to the Europeans.

"The Europeans"? I thought it was to Jewish people, without respect of their country of origin.

I am quoting a credible foreign news source "Press TV" who are quoting a Turkish source.

I wish I could see if your face turned red when you wrote that "Press TV" is a "credible foreign news source".

PressTV is IRI's external propaganda arm. They put on people dressed in western clothes, speaking western jargon, using western-style TV production/writing, but the substance and slant are so in your face you can't help but laugh. I'm talking about IRI's propaganda.

The funny thing is, the people who would say exactly what I'm saying live in Iran, and the people who think PressTV has the same credibility as CNN or even the leftist-infested BBC, live in the west.

They did know about rockets back then. That's how sad Hamas and its Iranian backers are, they're still using the scraps of technology we tossed them from 60 years ago. Which war do you think saw the introduction of the Katyusha?

So maybe they couldn't get/use the rockets because the Jewish collaborators were more strict than Hamas, like the PA is.




The arabs should have negotiated with the UN instead of ganging up on the jews and trying to settle things the old-fashioned way. Why complain, when the arabs confiscated 4X the amount of land contained in Israel and kicked out nearly 1 million sephardis? In terms of who got more from whom, the arabs won the War of Independence 60 years ago, they should provide the spoils to the Palestinians. I didn't say investigating war crimes is a mistake- you asked whether it made any sense for criminals to investigate themselves, and I responded that having other criminals with their own twisted agendas do it wouldn't constitute an improvement. If the UN finds aspects of Israel's investigation bogus, they can present their own physical, video and photographic proof as contrary evidence.

Is that what your country would do if foreign immigrants wanted to establish a religious state, of a religion practised by less than 10% of the natives? What the Arabs did has as much connection to what the European Jews did as 9/11 to Saddam


"The Europeans"? I thought it was to Jewish people, without respect of their country of origin.

The fact that they were Europeans is more significant. Arab Jews were not foreign to Palestinians.

Maybe this will help:


Hey by the way, I’m here in sunny bunny Beirut conducting research for a couple of weeks and last night at a lively cafe I told some Lebanese about Mondoweiss and J-Street. I’m sorry to say but everyone laughed at the idea that a left-leaning zionist is any better than a right-leaning zionist. I encouraged them to go to the websites and explore just for the sake of education and peace. ” What peace?”, one lady said, “we don’t make peace with child-killers and hospital bombers – we make peace with our equals only”. Another teen said: “peace with Israel is a stupid idea”. ‘Stupid’, me said, “but why”? He said: ” because the ‘peace’ they’ve been talking about all my life is a scam that’s killed thousands of people in its name. War is the only answer”. But wars kill too, I said. He finished: ” yeah but at least you get forward movement out of it cause right now we’re all up to our noses stuck in quicksand”.



And:




What can I tell you, Nolan, my friend? This is a truly beautiful country with very good looking and hospitable people. Their infrastructure is chaotic and within this chaos a peculiar order thrives – i mean pretty much everything is broken but somehow the lebanese make it work! There is construction of homes and businesses EVERYWHERE. A very industrious and hyper active people (could be all the turkish coffee they consume). They see the next approaching war as the big and final one that will end with the Euro Jews going back to Europe – the end of the state of Isreal and the welcoming back of Arab Jews back into the Arab lands to live amongst them as equal citizens.

comments from here (http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/impressions-from-1st-full-day-at-j-street-conference.html#comments)

The problem is not Jews living in Palestine or Arab lands. The problem is a European settler colonial state that discriminates against native non-Jews in the Middle East

The problem is not Jews living in Palestine or Arab lands. The problem is a European settler colonial state that discriminates against native non-Jews in the Middle East

The problem is with people defining the "conflict" in the above terms.

The problem is the denial of Jews' history and rightful claim by these people to the historical attachment of Jews to the land. If you listen to official "palestinian" diatribes, be they from the PA or from Hamastan, there never was a single Jewish temple in Jerusalem. It's all faked archeological findings, in line with their belief that Jews are sons of monkeys and pigs, are vile, bloodthirsty, lying, manipulating causers of all revolutions and wars (this is verbatim quote, btw), killers of all prophets (Mo and Jesus and others), and other beautiful things. So then it's no wonder that they (Jews) would "lie" about their "fake history" just in order to "steal some land".

As for discrimination, it's as follows: those who try to kill Israeli kids get their asses handed to them. Those who don't, don't.

The problem is with people defining the "conflict" in the above terms.

The problem is the denial of Jews' history and rightful claim by these people to the historical attachment of Jews to the land..

When European Jews decide they have a right to Palestinian lands because they are Jews, thats called denial of rightful claim. Palestine doesn't belong to European Jews simply by virtue of religion.

Especially when Jews living outside Israel do not follow the same ideology, and think they deserve equal rights.

Show me a Zionist who thinks Jews should have no right to land outside Israel. Who will agree to natives owning his property.

Zionists fighting for money or property in Europe or Arab lands should take a long hard look in the mirror of Zionism, because the path they are going down will not only lose them Israel, but will lose Jews far more than that.

Palestine doesn't belong to European Jews simply by virtue of religion.
Palestine doesn't belong to Arabs just because they are Arab.

Palestine doesn't belong to Arabs just because they are Arab.

No it doesn't. Which is why Arabs do not claim it. Palestinian refugees do. :rolleyes:

Then Europeans don't claim Israel, Jewish refugees do.

When European Jews decide they have a right to Palestinian lands because they are Jews, thats called denial of rightful claim.

And these rightful claims: where do they come from?

As for discrimination, it's as follows: those who try to kill Israeli kids get their asses handed to them. Those who don't, don't. That is not true, of course. Plenty of Palestinians have had their asses - and their children's asses, their grandparent's asses, their wive's asses - handed to them for no such reason.


And these rightful claims: where do they come from? What in the US is called "common law". Say: They farmed for three generations, everybody in the community accepted them as the owners of the land, they payed no rent or acknowledged no authority over their possession, they have a rightful claim.

What in the US is called "common law". Say: They farmed for three generations, everybody in the community accepted them as the owners of the land, they payed no rent or acknowledged no authority over their possession, they have a rightful claim.

Sounds reasonable enough. But I was asking specifically what S.A.M.'s theory of rightful property claims was, and I'm not so sure that this is it. In particular, the term "native" seems to figure in heavily.

More generally, there seems to be a conflation between two different questions: individual property rights as discussed here, as opposed to national homelands (i.e., what "the European Jews" claim).

I wish I could see if your face turned red when you wrote that "Press TV" is a "credible foreign news source".

PressTV is IRI's external propaganda arm. They put on people dressed in western clothes, speaking western jargon, using western-style TV production/writing, but the substance and slant are so in your face you can't help but laugh. I'm talking about IRI's propaganda.
That is your opinion. No problem. But none of the above in any way diminishes the viability or validity of Press TV as a credible news source with decent commentary and news of the ME. One amongst many.
Regarding language and presentation, you don`t expect Westerners to understand Farsi eh? :D

The funny thing is, the people who would say exactly what I'm saying live in Iran, and the people who think PressTV has the same credibility as CNN or even the leftist-infested BBC, live in the west.
Of course there is a healthy opposition movement/s in Iran that would consider Press TV propagandist just as Obama and the Democrats see FOX as a propagandist Republican voice.

We all know (or we should) that getting to the actual truth nuggets one has to cover numerous news sources and jigsaw together a clearer picture.

The problem is the denial of Jews' history and rightful claim by these people to the historical attachment of Jews to the land.
As opposed to the indisputable fact that Palestinians have inhabited these same lands for generations, right up until recently, when they got squeezed out and into the ghettos. All irrevocably documented by recent (yes, film, photos, etc) history. 100 years as opposed to a 2000 year old claim that crumbles on closer scrutiny. :m: (scrutiny) (http://inventionofthejewishpeople.com/)

What's a Palestinian? Does anyone who looks Arab get to claim to be Palestinian?

What's a Palestinian? Does anyone who looks Arab get to claim to be Palestinian?
You do know that the word "Arab" is itself a Western invention, created by the British to categorize all swarthy looking types even though they comprise many distinct tribes and groupings?

I guess they weren't all that distinct, and besides, many people that call themselves Palestinian are from somewhere else.

I guess they weren't all that distinct, and besides, many people that call themselves Palestinian are from somewhere else.
Are you missing the obvious irony of this? Israelis are from where?

SThe fact that they were Europeans is more significant. Arab Jews were not foreign to Palestinians.

So why were Arab Jews singled out for pogram and oppression for thousands of years? It seems their neighbours found them very foreign indeed.


Maybe this will help:

It does, if to frame your state of mind. These sentiments are no different than right-wing Israelis dismissing peace with Arabs because of rocket attacks, the indiscriminate killing of civilians, the promises of Hamas and the rest - stretching immensely back to the 1940s - to exterminate all Israelis Jews, and so on. Why are these voices particularly special to you? Is it because of the speakers?


The problem is not Jews living in Palestine or Arab lands.

That certainly seemed to be the "problem" of the last thousand years or so. What happened to your dedication to multiculturalism and equality? Does it wither in the face of religious prejudice or preference? It certainly seems to. Suppression is not equality, Sam.


No it doesn't. Which is why Arabs do not claim it. Palestinian refugees do.

Ah, but Arabs did claim it, back in the 1919-1948 period. It wasn't any issue of a nation, but of Jews immigrating altogether. Before that, it was religious only.


That is not true, of course. Plenty of Palestinians have had their asses - and their children's asses, their grandparent's asses, their wive's asses - handed to them for no such reason.

Also true. I hate to see claims of common law applied to the case, of course; I would rather a single state with legal protections for all, or a pair of states with a respectable distance. Neither of those is probably going to happen, of course.


As opposed to the indisputable fact that Palestinians have inhabited these same lands for generations, right up until recently, when they got squeezed out and into the ghettos. All irrevocably documented by recent (yes, film, photos, etc) history. 100 years as opposed to a 2000 year old claim that crumbles on closer scrutiny. :m: (scrutiny) (http://inventionofthejewishpeople.com/)

The very name of the website is atrocious, to say nothing of the absurd pleading to the old and unloved "Khazarene KKKontroversy".

The very name of the website is atrocious, to say nothing of the absurd pleading to the old and unloved "Khazarene KKKontroversy".

Hm. Kinda in your face. Nevertheless, that is the website that supports his thesis and his book. The URL is the book title. The book is here. (http://inventionofthejewishpeople.com/about/)
Amazon link here (http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Jewish-People-Shlomo-Sand/dp/1844674223/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249058187&sr=1-1).

Ah, but Arabs did claim it, back in the 1919-1948 period.

And others continued to claim portions of it up until 1967. Certain of them still retain portions of historical Palestine, complete with large percentages of the world Palestinian population.

Then Europeans don't claim Israel, Jewish refugees do.

who were European

Not all were from Europe. In fact, weren't only half from Europe?

The problem is the denial of Jews' history and rightful claim by these people to the historical attachment of Jews to the land. see and there is the problem pro-Israel people like to speak of the historical attachment of the jews to palestine but when you use any sort of normal metric to gauge attachment they don't meet it. They didn't comprise the majority of the population for any great length of time. They didn't try and move back there when when they could. They for the most part abandoned it. For 1700 hundred years they did nothing to stake a claim to palestine let alone try and regain it. The whole historical attachment argument falls flat on its face because as history shows the jews made almost no effort for it.

There was never a unifying influence that forced emmigration to Israel.

There was never a unifying influence that forced emmigration to Israel.

You mean palestine. The term Israel is bullshit, ahistorical, and used to diminish the legal resident population. And I'm not talking of being forced to I am talking of having the choice to move to palestine and try and push the jewish claim to it and not doing so.

The claim was just to live there, not to take over. That part happened out of necessity.

see and there is the problem pro-Israel people like to speak of the historical attachment of the jews to palestine but when you use any sort of normal metric to gauge attachment they don't meet it. They didn't comprise the majority of the population for any great length of time.

In ancient history, they apparently did.


They didn't try and move back there when when they could.

I think you're confusing modern mobility and the ease of long-distance travel with the old world. Sam likes to make light of this, but it would have been extraordinarily difficult for a given Jewish family to pull up stakes and move back. And to what? A better life, oppressed only by different people? To what end? If they had gone then, would the argument then be that they should have come earlier? :D


They for the most part abandoned it.

Demonstrate your claim, either from demography, ability, or economic advantage. To which I toss in: illustrate how they religiously abandoned it. Most Muslims have probably never visited Mecca, nor Christians Bethlehem, nor Communists Stalin's Tomb. Have they then similarly abandoned their rights to such places?


For 1700 hundred years they did nothing to stake a claim to palestine let alone try and regain it. The whole historical attachment argument falls flat on its face because as history shows the jews made almost no effort for it.

See above; it is rather the objection to this claim that falls flat.


The claim was just to live there, not to take over. That part happened out of necessity.

True, and regrettable.

The claim was just to live there, not to take over. That part happened out of necessity.

No it wasn't necessary it was a choice. The resident arab population would have been happy to have them if they wouldn't have tried to take over.

To which I toss in: illustrate how they religiously abandoned it. Most Muslims have probably never visited Mecca, nor Christians Bethlehem, nor Communists Stalin's Tomb. Have they then similarly abandoned their rights to such places?
You are aware that all Muslims are expected, in their lifetime, to make at least one Pilgrimage to Mecca - the Hajj? And that an absolutely surprising number of Muslims from all corners of the globe do?

In ancient history, they apparently did.but history is more than anciet history.




I think you're confusing modern mobility and the ease of long-distance travel with the old world. Sam likes to make light of this, but it would have been extraordinarily difficult for a given Jewish family to pull up stakes and move back. And to what? A better life, oppressed only by different people? To what end? If they had gone then, would the argument then be that they should have come earlier? :D They managed to get europe and I'm not saying make the entire move all at once.




Demonstrate your claim, either from demography, ability, or economic advantage. um demography is obvious, ability the jews rose to prominace as p[art of the merchant class. they had the money to get there as for the last i never said anything about that.
To which I toss in: illustrate how they religiously abandoned it. Irrelevant if they did or didn't. religion doesn't give you any claim to land.
Most Muslims have probably never visited Mecca, Most muslims who could afford to have.
nor Christians Bethlehem, nor Communists Stalin's Tomb. Have they then similarly abandoned their rights to such places? To visit no to control yes.




See above; it is rather the objection to this claim that falls flat. See what rambling that in no way refuted my claim?




True, and regrettable.

False and evil

You are aware that all Muslims are expected, in their lifetime, to make at least one Pilgrimage to Mecca - the Hajj? And that an absolutely surprising number of Muslims from all corners of the globe do?

How do you know "most" have? Who keeps track?


but history is more than anciet history.

Your comment was


They didn't comprise the majority of the population for any great length of time.

Ancient or not, it was still a great length of time.


They managed to get europe and I'm not saying make the entire move all at once.

This seems a bit quibbling. The process of migration took a long time. And again: return to what? Exploitation by different people? Well, sign me up!


um demography is obvious, ability the jews rose to prominace as p[art of the merchant class. they had the money to get there as for the last i never said anything about that.

"They had the money" is kind of unqualified...and offensive, sort of.


Irrelevant if they did or didn't. religion doesn't give you any claim to land.

It certainly does, if it's your cultural home, and as I've said many times. Would I deny the claim of Muslims (so nice to have a confirmed rule for capitalization here; my thanks to Samrage) to visit or occupy Mecca after any length of time if the islamic faith fell into disuse? Of course not.


To visit no to control yes.

Then here we differ again: those places belong to their respective philosophies, which are of long (or not so long, perhaps, in the case of Communism) history.


See what rambling that in no way refuted my claim?

PJ, I'm not trying to be cruel here, but it did.


False and evil

Then we differ. You will find my view difficult to change, although I am open to reason.

How do you know "most" have? Who keeps track?

Pardon? Those Muslims who can afford it, are obligated. Its not a random choice. Ask your Muslim friends if they have gone on a Haj.

Pardon? "Obligated" doesn't mean they fulfill such obligation. I'm "obligated" not to eat red meat on Fridays, but I do, because the spiritual value of such a dictum is nil. I know Muslims who have gone on Haj, and those who have not, even though they could afford it. Do you consider it an absolute?

Pardon? "Obligated" doesn't mean they fulfill such obligation. I'm "obligated" not to eat red meat on Fridays, but I do, because the spiritual value of such a dictum is nil. I know Muslims who have gone on Haj, and those who have not, even though they could afford it. Do you consider it an absolute?
Ah. Here`s the rub. The average Muslim today, takes their faith way more seriously than the average Christian. They will happily work a lifetime to eventually be able to afford going on a Haj. Secularization of Islam is way behind secularization of Christianity, and I don`t believe comparable.

South Africans taking part in Gaza Massacre should be investigated:



News Middle East
South Africans 'fought in Gaza war'

Efforts to prosecute those who may have committed war crimes in Israel's war on Gaza have spread beyond the Middle East.

A lawyer in South Africa has identified 75 South African nationals who he says were fighting with the Israeli army in the war earlier this year.

Feroze Boda, based in Johannesburg and working on behalf of two local pro-Palestinian organisations, says the soldiers should face court action for their involvement.

Imran Garda reports from Johannesburg.

Video report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlyV-tUr3sw&feature=player_embedded

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/200911113297855257.html

Apparently there is a South African law against its citizens engaging in foreign wars? Maybe someone else could clarify.

South Africans taking part in Gaza Massacre should be investigated:



Video report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlyV-tUr3sw&feature=player_embedded

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/11/200911113297855257.html

Apparently there is a South African law against its citizens engaging in foreign wars? Maybe someone else could clarify.
Yes, the Foreign Military Assistance Act of 1998 prohibits any SA citizen from rendering foreign military assistance to any state, person or entity, unless officially authorized to. This Act also prohibits any SA citizen to train, finance or engage in any mercenary activity.

The reason this has been legislated, is the glut of highly trained ex SADF soldiers, particularly in leadership roles, from the apartheid era, and the lure of huge earnings as mercenaries.

Sorry; wasn't the Goldstone Report initiated by the OIC?