Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DrGrabow who wrote (22947)	4/1/2002 1:00:41 AM
From: Rollcast...	Respond to of 281500

Yes, and we're sure that you're sure who is to blame for all current conflict, oppression, starvation etc... Are you reading Chomsky or Moore tonight?

To: DrGrabow who wrote (22947)	4/1/2002 9:16:25 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

I have no idea whether any of our founding fathers advocated targeted attacks against civilian Tory sympathizers, and neither do you... But the result was that Tories fled to Canada, abandoning their property and essentially becoming refugees... Thus, SOMEONE advocated forcing them to flee for their lives. That's just what happens when they find themselves on the wrong (losing) side of ANY conflict. Do I suspect that officers and officials on both sides attempted to intimidate the civilian population?? Certainly... The British did it all throughout the southern colonies, as did the patriot forces. But the real point here is whether Israel has engaged in an official national policy of targeting civilians.. I say no.. I have no evidence of it of such a national strategy, nor do I believe the Israeli Labor party would have permitted it.. However, there is evidence that civilians have died as a result of Israel retaliating against locations (in civilian areas) from where gunfire has been directed against them. In such cases we have to ask ourselves who's truly to blame... The Israelis for returning fire into what are supposed to be Palestinian controlled (patrolled by Palestinian police) areas rather than invading and occupying them (as they have been compelled to do recently)?? Or should the Palestinian police and government officials be blamed for not preventing these attacks and thus, placing their own civilians at risk?? I don't see Israelis sending their children out into the streets to provide human shields for their soldiers.. I don't see Israelis sending young teen suicide bombers into Palestinian restaurants and marketplaces, to blow up civilians... I don't see Israelis teaching their children that martyrdom by becoming a suicide bomber is glorious, and that they will receive 72 virgins... What we have here is a very sick social disease... religious extremism where human life is cheapened to the point where children are sent to their deaths instead of the older men. And as I stated, I believe the Palestinians have EVERY RIGHT to resist the Israeli occupation. But that right only extends to engaging IDF soldiers, not to targeting civilians. The minute the Palestinians permitted such a military policy to occur, they essentially made their own civilian populations "fair game".. The fact that Arafat's OWN FORCES (Fatah) has engaged in targeted attacks against civilians (buses, restaurants.. etc) means that he is either advocating these attacks, or has no power to prevent them, and is thus merely a figurehead behind which even more extremist elements are seeking political cover. If Arafat is politically impotent to prevent these attacks, then a state of political chaos exists and order must be restored, either by the Israelis, or some other group. Personally, I think Jordan and Israel both have a vital interest in forcing the PA to remain demilitarized. And Jordan holds a great degree of responsibility here, by virtue of having annexed and occupied the West Bank for several decades, and then continuing to claim it through 1989. Therefore, both nations should cooperate in establishing a Palestinian state that does not threaten either of their national interests. Hawk