“That’s not going to happen”
Bookworm on May 20 2011 at 1:11 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama, Hamas, Israel, Palestinians
If you haven’t watched it already, please see Bibi’s remarks, which very, very politely explain to Obama that his speech yesterday was horse poop.
Related posts:
- Can it happen here? *UPDATED*
- It could happen here
- Health care may well pass, and what will happen if it does
Email This Post To A Friend
137 Responses to ““That’s not going to happen””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Horse poop. You scamp, you!
Bibi was splendid. He (verbally) took our idiot by the hand and led him – like a little kid – explaining as he went, for a stroll through history. President Twerp’s body language as he sat there and got spanked was a sight lovely to behold, too.
I like the phrase about the difference between the borders of peace and the borders of war, too. Every inch of territory Israel has ever taken post-1948 has been as a result of some of their really swell neighbors attacking them, not once have they ever agressed, anywhere. Evidently Occidental doesn’t spend any more time on history than do Harvard, and Columbia.
It ought to be noted, too, that if the border were to go back to where Knothead wants it, there would be a great deal of the religio/cultural artifacts of other people that would simply vanish from the earth. I don’t expend a great deal of energy on ancient sites in that sense – but other people do. They are important to billions of other people. That alone means: you damn well preserve them. But, put that border back to where it was, and the Joffa Gate; the garden tomb; the Western Wall of the Temple Mount; the Garden of Gethsemane; the room supposedly the site of the Last Supper; the Mount of Olives – all that stuff, of importance just as many people on the planet as any of Muslim stuff is to them, would be locked away beyond the enemy lines, and would vanish. If the Looney-Toonians were in charge, they’d destroy all of it as surely as the Taliban clowns destroyed the Hindu statues. And the smelly little bastards don’t get to do that. They have zero respect for anyone else’s opinions, beliefs, or feelings, and they will not care for anyone else’s artifacts. (For which reason alone they all belong in whatever hell would stoop to accept them onto the premises.)
An eloquent up yours!
I’m sorry, folks, but Zach has linked to a series of compelling URLs that prove that the Six Day War was a war of nekkid aggression on the part of the Jooooos. You are only allowed to defend yourself after the thugs in the alley have directly attacked you. If you overhear them saying, “Let’s attack him in 10 seconds,” or you see them pulling knives and brass knuckles from their pockets, you must assume that it is bluster. You may not pre-empt them with a full-tilt Yamarsakar-style hiyaaaaaaaaa!
Yet, here I am trying to decide which has greater merit: Zach’s thefts of Wiki talking points or an explanation of Israel’s wars offered by a woman far superior to him in intellect and orginality. Her name was Golda Meir and I think she had the better insight: “We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon – no alternative.”
Wonderful! Perfect!
Obama knifed Netanjahu in the back with the comments in yesterday’s speech, and then expected Netanyahu to offer the standard pablum, meaningless political deadspeak at today’s side-by-side press event, and get away with the vicious mugging. I am ashamed for our nation at the behavior of this man. Chicago thuggery on the world stage. In a year and a half,or at worst 5 1/2 years, this travesty will finally be over.
So today Obama and Bibi have the press event, sitting side-by-side in chairs. Netanyahu delivers a quiet, measured response – perfect for this venue – outlining his and his nation’s positions. Positions that are pure poison to Obama. You just don’t DO that at one of these press events!!! But you don’t do what Obama did to him one day before the event either. A man must stand up for himself, and the leader of a nation must stand up for his nation.
Perfectly done!
These two men are never going to have themselves a friendly two-hour beerfest together, you can be sure of that!
At that same site, you can get to Rush Limbaugh’s take on Bibi’s speech. Just started it. Fun stuff!
http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-on-bibis-remarks-this-is-orgasmic/
Charles, I’m no expert on Middle East history, but you don’t really expect us to take this seriously do you?
“…here I am trying to decide which has greater merit: Zach’s thefts of Wiki talking points or an explanation of Israel’s wars offered by a woman far superior to him in intellect and orginality. Her name was Golda Meir…”
I wonder whether you think George Washington could give an unbiased account of the Revolutionary War, or whether Ho Chi Minh could give one of the Vietnam War… You implicitly complain about bias on Wikipedia, but then cite an Israeli leader for an objective account of an Israeli-Arab conflict. Get serious.
The pro-Israel bias in some circles has caused at least some American Jews and Zionists to become disgusted (see: http://www.samefacts.com/2011/05/international-affairs/israel/note-from-a-former-zionist/). I’d like to see at least a little objectivity, as a non-expert and outsider to these discussions. Your citing Meir doesn’t seem to fit the bill, IMHO.
It’s not necessary that they provide an unbiased view of anything. As students of history and data analyzers, our job is to determine for ourselves, by ourselves, what is and isn’t true. It is not up to Golda Meir to determine anything right now. What she has done, she has done and that is irreversible. The work that comes up next and the one in which we are engaged in is to properly analyze actions, motivations, and (yes) biases.
Biases are just as much data and just as much worthy as historical events, policy decisions, and the consequences of war.
Are you so naive that you can’t think any other way, A? Ir your wisdom attribute approaching the limit of zero?
Martel never complained about Wiki’s bias. You’re wrong, again as usual.
If he doesn’t think that Wiki is a bad source, then why would he object to z citing it?? Can’t wait to hear your response.
abc, this is the first time I have ever seen your name and IMHO mentioned in the same solar system, let alone on this blog.
And yes, I agree that, unlike Golda Meir, you are no expert on Middle East history.
Given your notorious difficulty with reading comprehension, you might note that I compared Meir’s take on things with Zach’s gratutitous pasting of an excerpt from the Nuremberg Trials that he apparently thought was enough to cement the argument that the Six Day War was a war of (Nazi-like) aggression. I would have to say, IMHO, that Meir had the better take on things. I don’t remember claiming objectivity for either view, simply my preference for one.
One thing I hope you will finally accept, perfesser, is that you don’t call the shots here. We’re not impressed with your bona fides, your name dropping, your frantic Wiki-ing, your wife’s C.V., your kids’ toney prep school and all the other elitist folderol that you assume impresses us knucklewalkers. It’s an effin’ salon for troglodytes, not a pissing contest or basement plaything for wannabe/has-been academics.
Charles, it sounds like your feelings were hurt when I asserted more expertise than you in a given area. At least I admit where I have deep knowledge and where I do not. And I’ve already deferred to others with more knowledge elsewhere, although you lack the civility (and perhaps the honesty) to admit as much (e.g., to BrianE on the Log Cabin Republicans). In contrast, you apparently are an expert everywhere, since you comment on all of my comments on all topics, although you rarely add any data or important information to the discussion. Just a lot of unsupported opinion, in support of your fact-free ideological narrative.
Also, I don’t rely on wiki at all, contrary to your false assertion, but please do continue to make mistatements such as this to feel better about your inability to debate me on issues I know well. And keep honing those ad hominem arguments to hide your inability to lay a glove on the arguments I’ve left elsewhere. Notwithstanding the rhetoric tossed around here, it is true of many conservatives here that they confuse facts with their unsupported conclusions–that is, when they are not ignoring the facts entirely.
You do give yourself away, however, when you say that you have a preference for a particular subjective account of history rather than a neutral one. You apparently prefer fact-free analysis and propandist history to reality. Thanks for the admission, although it comes as no surprise given the long paper trail you’ve already left. I’m sure your like-minded buddies will come to your aid, but remember that full sacks stand on their own, while empty ones need to be held up by others.
Rachel Maddow just stopped by for lunch today. (I have the strangest friends, I know.) So we were sitting there, eating foie-de-gras, sipping Mai Tais, talking about news cycles and spin. At one point she sat up straight and protested.
Rachel: “I am not biased! I am objective and unbiased. My comments are always based on fact.”
Me after a double-take. “Rachel…”
She, wide-eyed: “It’s TRUE. And besides, I have expertise and deep knowledge of a level of sophistication that beats 99 out of the 100 people I deign to correct when they’re fortunate enough for me to speak with them. Everyone else is so biased and they cling to ideologies. I offer them clear-sighted, objective, unbiased truth, and they’re just so blinded, they can never see it. Never! They’re all such worthless scum.”
Me: “Hmm. Really?”
She: “Yes, absolutely. Let me tell you what they are, all these people I keep talking to and talkling to. They are worthless, empty sacks. Where as, I am a FULL SACK. They lack civility. They think they are experts everywhere, whereas I am actually a true expert, albeit only *almost* everywhere. They add no data or *important* information. My own important information – truly truly truly *important*! – is just competely disregarded.”
Me:”Wow.”
She: “All those unsupported opinions. All that fact-free ideological narrative. Unsupported conculsions. Ignoring my stellar facts! All those subjective accounts of history, instead of my own neutral ones.”
Me: “Neutral?”
She: “Absolutely perfectly neutral. Totally objective! I am perfectly unbiased!”
Me: “Well, OK then. But I have to wonder: If you despise them so much, why do you keep going back to them, talking to them at such length? When you are filled with such loathing for them and the way they conduct themselves?”
Mike, unfortunately, after my similar riff over on another thread, our Hahvahd guy is really going to think we call each other every morning to see what we’re going to wear that day.
Anyway, bro, one of the better takedowns of Rach that I’ve seen in awhile.
Oddly enough, I find myself in agreement with Maddow: she is indeed a full sack. The interesting thing is that she recognized it. (Well… no. That would imply introspection. Somebody probably told her.)
JJ, unless you just out-subtled me, I’d better make sure I wasn’t too subtle and thus accidentally making a false shoulders-rubbing claim: I don’t know Rachel Maddow, nor anyone else with name recognition. That was just a semi-carefully-constructed riff. (see ad-hominem assault #10)
Although it is true, my Mom in the far past was invited into Debby Reynolds’ house once; had a drink (tea I think) with some servants, and spoke with one of Debby’s relatives for a few seconds. This is true. Any other name dropping I do is guaranteed to be just a riff – but one hopefully with a point.
Mike – Guessed…
Z’s problem with wiki and not being able to write in complete sentences and produce paragraphs with one thesis, is already known here. The problem isn’t wiki or people’s use of it. The people’s with Z, specifically, using wiki. It’s about nuance and not simplification.
You do give yourself away, however, when you say that you have a preference for a particular subjective account of history rather than a neutral one.
We all have such preferences. If you are unwise enough to attempt to claim that out of all people, you are different, you may just be laughed out of here. And not just by our resident satirist, Martel.
Every human has a subjective account of history particular to their benefit and their likes. There is no such thing as a neutral history with humans in it.
If you overhear them saying, “Let’s attack him in 10 seconds,” or you see them pulling knives and brass knuckles from their pockets, you must assume that it is bluster. You may not pre-empt them with a full-tilt Yamarsakar-style hiyaaaaaaaaa!
HOld on, I got to put on my violence hat for a moment.
Pre-emption is what is normally called first strike. The utilization of initiative in conducting the first attack before the enemy’s attack is even begun: ideally. In practical matters, so long as you get the first strike in, even if the enemy’s blow is .1 seconds away from connecting with you, you have conducted a first strike and have lessened the enemy’s offensive power. Even should their hit strike you .1 second after yours hit them, they will either be
1. dead and powerless or ,
2. so busy dealing with the damage from your attack that their strike will be like a baby’s breath upon your nation’s body: harmless.
Most of what happens here when it comes to self-defense laws is a matter of personal judgment and evidence. A person is ruled as having acted in self defense if they have reasonable belief that the person they attacked was going to become a threat to the life or limb of the defender. The defender utilizes the method of attack, yet it is still a measure of defense.
The primary issue I see is that people cannot articulate why they attacked or why they decided to do the things they did. Whether it was foolish or wise, in the eyes of the law, if you can’t get your story straight, you are going to have issues. Especially if the other side decides you are on flaky enough ground that they can try to sue you. It doesn’t matter if they are dead either, for the family can sue for wrongful death as in the case of that black golf guy who killed his white wife.
It is certainly possible or even probable that individuals receive the danger instinct in a situation which they will act upon, yet be unable to rationally explain their actions to the police afterwards. A person can win the fight by striking first, yet place themselves, strategically, in a legal vice afterwards. Winning the battle, yet losing the war, why does that sound familiar.
And now comes the thing I wanted to mention. Most people do not understand the components required for a successful attack. So they don’t know ahead of time when an attack is being planned out. They can’t see the signs. The people approaching you while talking to you, while his buddies are circling to your side or seeking to hammer and anvil you from the back. People don’t see that until it’s too late. At that point in time, you have to strike first because they are already attacking when you notice “something is wrong”. Their attack profile has been completed and they will not withdraw since if you a person that allowed them to setup their ambush correctly, then it is likely they can overpower you. So they will make the attempt rather than do what is to them the more riskier option: retreating. However, if you were able to detect their attack methods and profile far, far ahead of time, you could interrupt their plans and prevent them from acquiring the resources to attack. Say, if Israel’s PM prevented the Palestinians from utilizing political and propaganda methods to inundate Israel with a bunch of Palestinian suicide bombers, then you have avoided a security problem without having to find and strike first at said Palestinians before they blew themselves and a school full of children up in fire and ashes. In such a case, by totally interrupting an enemy’s attack by changing your behavioral variables before the enemy is ready to attack you, you prevent the enemy from attacking you. This is deterrence on a pure level.
What the Palestinian terrorists and their political supporters wish to do is to get close enough to Israel that Israel can no longer defend themselves utilizing their current laid back, limited war, let’s go along to get along with Palestinians by giving them land for peace, deal. If a person wishes to defend Israel, they cannot allow that. It is true that you can win a fight by utilizing first strike methods, but that’s because you’re in a desperate situation which requires you to destroy the enemy before he destroys you. It is not optimum to say the least.
So it’s simple. I tell a person approaching me to stop, and I get into a position where they can’t sandwich me or approach my blind spot. If they do not stop, that is, legally, a clear sign of hostile and criminal intent. Which automatically justifies me to use (reasonable) force in retaliation on the basis that I believe they are approaching me in order to harm me. And this belief is reasonable because all melee weapons require range to work. Criminals will even get close to you with their gun because they need to intimidate you more than they need to snipe you from a distance.
Do any of you ever hit the post button, and then soon afterward wish like hell you hadn’t? I screwed up so badly with #11 I’m still sitting here terribly embarrassed. I was trying out something new and fell flat on my face.
I like #11. I wouldn’t change it. Don’t writhe in agony. Appreciate the fact that you amused me and, no doubt, many others.
Mike, I have no idea what you’re talking about. The Mr. Maddow (and whomever the shoe fits) takedown was perfect. You do mock dialogues better than anybody here.
Ymar, concerning your #18′s discussion of actions in self-defense:
After finishing your comment, I remembered a story from a ways back. It made me wonder what your opinion would be about what this woman faced, as it relates to the law in her nation (Great Britain).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242040/Myleene-Klass-warned-police-waving-illegal-kitchen-knife-intruders-garden.html
What should she have done? Especially in light of this part of what you wrote:
> It is certainly possible or even probable that individuals receive the danger instinct in a situation which they will act upon, yet be unable to rationally explain their actions to the police afterwards. A person can win the fight by striking first, yet place themselves, strategically, in a legal vice afterwards. Winning the battle, yet losing the war, why does that sound familiar.
Minor compared to cases where actual deadly force had to be used, I know, but the trap law-abiding people appear to be in in England these days shocked me so much I’ll never get that article out of my head.
My sentence “the people’s with Z” is not far off given the “we” nature of Z in the end.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: ‘This incident just shows why things are still very confused on this issue and why we need a change in the law.’
No, no, no. What you need is to build an execution stand, take around 80% of the Leftists and bureaucrats in government, and execute them. That’ll solve the problem soon enough.
The are more criminals in Britain’s political class than there ever were on the streets raping and killing British citizens. Get your priorities straight.
My suggestion would be,
1. Never call the police.
2. Hire goons to find the thugs and break both their knee caps, first at a warning and a second time when they try to file lawsuits.
3. Get many guard dogs.
4. Cover up the lines of sight that can be used to observe your house, openings, windows, and property.
5. Get reinforced iron doors.
6. Move to a different country like Japan, Singapore, or America. Japan and Singapore’s police are based upon the centralized authority model, but they actually work and are efficient, more or less. In Singapore, theft is punished by cutting off the thief’s hands. That’s why you can leave your doors unlocked in Singapore. If you like living in a police state, sure.
Okay, I’m kidding on two. Well, kind of. It does work, since violent people tend to fear other violent people and you can pay them to solve your problems with enough money. And neither will go to the police, because. Violent people are the first ones to understand the efficacy and terror of violence, be assured of that. They may not be afraid of police or being in jail. They do fear their fellow crims. And in America, most citizens in armed counties are more dangerous than their violent criminal buddies in jail.
In these situations, celebs usually hire security specialists, contractors, consultants, or bodyguards.
Be assured, plenty of Hollywood rich fracks hire former bouncers, security specialists, ex military and retired police peeps. They just love talking about violence is never the solution politically, when they have their own personal “goon” squad sitting in back. They pay them no mind. They don’t exist. They are servants, invisible, literally. Bus boys. Hotel boys. Cleaning maids in hotels.
If they have the money, they need to use it. Money isn’t going to protect them. They got to do that by making choices and being proactive.
In these situations, the more money you have, the more options you have. But the best security decisions are often the most life changing ones, as well as the most destabilizing ones. Such as moving to a different country. It lets you avoid your nation’s laws entirely, yes, but there’s a cost to that.
So if you want to simply avoid your nation’s laws while living in your nation, learn to game the system. Like any insurgent living under an occupation and tyranny. Which is what Britain today is. Whether your master is the bureaucrats or the Islamic criminal networks, they both have more firepower than you do.
Target Focus Training has had a couple of live training sessions in Britain itself.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/26/tim-larking-training-markets-equities-defense.html
As expected, there’s many legal challenges and propaganda attacks from the media and the local community’s bought and paid for corruptocrat politicians. Don’t rock the boat, basically. People getting stabbed to death in Slough is A okay, so long as nothing like ‘violence training’ comes to Slough. Spoken like a true Aristo. Don’t matter how many peasants live from draught, famine, and bandit attacks, teaching peasants to shoot crossbows will kill a noble worth a 1000 peasants.
Two brief comments.
Mike Devx – Put me in the amused column. You’ve been absolutely sparkling. Speaking of buttons …. I particularly enjoy hitting the delete button whenever I see a post from our resident-in-chief -wiki mastermind in my ‘in’ box.
Second comment for abc:
Who is Mark Kleiman and why would his opinion matter or be relevant to the discussion here or anywhere for that matter. Might as well tell us that he was the former president of the Hair Club of America, but is currently bald.
Ah heck, thx to all. At the risk of beating-a-dead-horse, one last comment on #11: I was just trying to say, if you happened to see in it what I saw what was wrong, I wanted to let you know with the proper amount of chagrin, “Hey, I see it too.” ’Nuff said.
On far more relevant topics, things are *really* getting interesting (scary?) out there right now, aren’t they?
I wonder if when Netanyahu sat down with Obama and looked him in the eye, he was still wondering “Am I looking at an implacable foe, or am I looking at merely a profoundly stupid man?”
It’s appearing that the last two days of diplomatic-speak might actually be earthshaking in their implications. I plan to watch what the pro-Israeli Democrats are going to be saying over the next few days. After reading all the talk of active vs passive voice in diplomatic-speak and what Obama’s speech and Netanyahu’s comments really mean, and reading the dismay of Democrats Ed Kock and Dershowitz… if more of those Democrats speak out, I think it means that Obama has made it crystal clear to all concerned that he is in fact an implacable foe of Israel, and not merely incredibly stupid.
How does this relate to Obama’s apparent involvement in the computer worm attack on Iran that set back their nuclear program a number of years? Or what if his Admin *was not* involved in that after all? What does it mean?
And you might start to then wonder about all of those grotesque diplomatic blunders in 2009, including dissings of so many of our traditional allies. What if those were *not* merely stupid diplomatic missteps? What if they were deliberate, diplomatic shorthand signals? Given the subtlety of diplomat-speak I’m learning about, that would be like shouting through a loudspeaker.
In Europe, you’ve got the formation of the Visegrad Battle Group (further evidence of the accelerating irrelevance of NATO), those (Visegrad) countries increasing coolness towards joining the Eurozone. Throw in Obama’s diplomatic insults towards them… also you’ve got “Arab Spring” and Muslim Brotherhood… economic turmoil across the West…
Just a lot of unconnected transformations, or increasingly wild instability? And who knows what this Admin is really up to, or does it even know what it is up to? Interesting and scary.
I think that I may have Z figured out.
Let’s take a simple issue, like peace in the Middle East, and see how the discussion might unfold.
Danny Lemieux: there will never be peace as long as the Arabs remain committed to Israel’s destruction.
Z: the United Nations was founded on the idea of world peace.
Danny Lemieux: Israel has never attacked its Arab enemies except in self defense.
Z: the Nuremberg trials revealed that it is criminal for nations to attack other nations.
Danny Lemieux: It’s up to the Palestinians to make peace with Israel, not the other way around.
Z: Wikipedia tells us that the universe is a very complicated place. Here are my cites/sites…
There, did I get it right?
MikeD – I share your worldview.
We are deep, deep in Black Swan territory and I think we will be in for quite a ride over the next year. The world is about to experience huge realignments and I don’t think that it will be for the better.
Sadie, this is Mark’s bio: http://publicaffairs.ucla.edu/mark-ar-kleiman. As you can see from the picture, he needs hair club, but only on the top of his head. He attended the event at which Peter Beinart, a journalist, was shouted at by Jewish Americans upset with his ideas concerning the growing gulf among American and Israeli Jews on how best to protect Israel. Kleiman’s remarks on the uncivil nature of the discussion, which I’ve seen commented on elsewhere, is unprecedented and suggests that groups have entered silos of irreconcilable facts on Israeli matters–kind of like what appears to happen on the discussion here. Hence, I thought it apropos.
Mike Devx, nice story. Very entertaining, and obviously false. You gave yourself away in the first sentence, since Maddow is reportedly a vegetarian. Would love you to repond to my facts, moreso on other topics and pages, with facts, not made-up stories. It tends to make for more productive discussion, but perhaps you lack the facts to rebut mine… Just speculating.
Netanyahu: “While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace … it cannot go back to 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible,”
The 1967 borders have been the tacit starting point for all negotiations, and have always been U.S. policy. It has always been assumed that the borders would be changed through negotiation, though, to account for Israeli security concerns, and to accommodate the Palestinian population.
Charles Martel: I’m sorry, folks, but Zach has linked to a series of compelling URLs that prove that the Six Day War was a war of nekkid aggression on the part of the Jooooos.
Israel had every right to defend itself, in 1948 and in 1967. With enemy forces massing on its borders, and with diplomatic means exhausted, a first-strike by Israel in 1967 was reasonable.
This is a different issue than the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was based on a possible future threat.
Charles Martel (quoting Meir): “We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon – no alternative.”
Yes, from the Israeli position, they had “no alternative.”
Charles Martel: … Zach{riel}’s gratutitous pasting of an excerpt from the Nuremberg Trials that he apparently thought was enough to cement the argument that the Six Day War was a war of (Nazi-like) aggression.
No, it was in response to your statement that conquest gives one the right to the spoils. The Nazis were criminally convicted of the crime of aggressive war. If you stand by your statement, then you would agree that the Nazis were wrongfully convicted, and should have their records expunged.
It may be too subtle for you, but the 1967 war can be justifiable, without justifying the annexation of the West Bank, which many Israelis want to do.
Danny Lemieux: there will never be peace as long as the Arabs remain committed to Israel’s destruction.
That is certainly true.
Danny Lemieux: Israel has never attacked its Arab enemies except in self defense.
If you mean by war, then yes. However, many aspects of the occupation are considered extreme and unnecessary by the Palestinians, including those who want peace. Many Israelis would disagree.
Danny Lemieux: It’s up to the Palestinians to make peace with Israel, not the other way around.
It takes two to tango.
Danny Lemieux: There, did I get it right?
We weren’t participating in this thread, but happened to wander in. Try to answer your own question, then when you do, you might try to come to grips with why you and Charles Martel were so far from the mark.
Ymarsakar: What you need is to build an execution stand, take around 80% of the Leftists and bureaucrats in government, and execute them.
Look, Look! Marty. Z’s using me like his wiki source now. That means I am AN AUTHORITY, hehe.
My authority commands Z to bow down to the Gods of Palestine and Islam, by the way.
The thing is, if I’m going to hire a person and trust in his judgment, I need to at least meet him face to face and interview him.
Reading his bio does squat. It’s a good starting place for amateurs to end up at, but it’s not nearly enough for professionals looking to ascertain true capability.
If you stand by your statement, then you would agree that the Nazis were wrongfully convicted, and should have their records expunged.
Not necessarily. It’s perfectly compatible to have a person convicted based upon wrong jurisprudence and de jure factors, while being in fact guilty as sin de facto in reality.
The Allies would never have been able to try the Nazis if they had lost. Thus the trial itself is a product of victory. The Nazi’s guilt or innocent are a totally different subject matter. It does not matter at all what the court says about their guilt. Reality has its own rules and judges separate from human ones.
Danny, spot-on riff on Zach. It really is like talking to one of those museum displays that detects a key phrase in your sentence and responds to it with canned chatter. It conducts the entire “conversation” that way. Very frustrating to deal with an intelligence so utterly lacking in spontaneity or originality.
Mike, I think you’re just going to have to accept the fact that one of our new visitors here hasn’t a shred of a sense of humor, thus the “gotcha!” at you having Mr. Maddow eating foie gras. He plainly did not see himself in your dialogue. You can then understand the Margaret Dumont appellation I have bestowed upon him.
It conducts the entire “conversation” that way. Very frustrating to deal with an intelligence so utterly lacking in spontaneity or originality.
You mean a computer AI that can’t pass the Turing Test.
abc
Kleiman’s remarks on the uncivil nature of the discussion, which I’ve seen commented on elsewhere, is unprecedented and suggests that groups have entered silos of irreconcilable facts on Israeli matters–kind of like what appears to happen on the discussion here.
Unprecedented incivility has had a foothold in the public arena for sometime. Walid Shobat travels with an armed guards and Israeli politicians have been threatened with arrest in Europe. I am sure you are aware of David Horowitz’s speaking engagements are always accompanied with armed guards and incensed and crazed students shouting him off the podium. I wonder if these facts get the same/equal coverage and dismay.
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/15/the-anti-semitic-jihad-on-campus-my-night-at-usc/
All the Democrats and Leftie babies that said “violence never solved anything” should be required to fire all their bodyguards and never cooperate in the security rules of any events they are part of.
Put their body where their idealism is.
SADIE, not to mention that the question not asked, and very likely not even considered, is whether “silos of irreconcilable facts” are inevitable considering that in a showdown between two opposing “facts,” it is usually likely that one of them is not a fact.
Ymar, I’ll list of some of violence’s failures:
—Kept the Germans beyond the Rhine and away from Rome for several hundred years.
—Stopped the Germans from murdering even more Jews.
—Stopped Islam at Tours (ahem), which would have been a disaster for humanity if it had succeeded. Also stopped Islam at Lepanto and Vienna, two more calamities in the making had Islam won.
—Stopped slavery in the United States.
—Stopped the Barbary pirates from blackmailing American merchants.
—Stopped the Japanese from raping, torturing and murdering Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and Americans.
—Stopped the takeover of Grenada by murderous Marxist thugs.
—Stopped the attempted takeover of the entire Korean Peninsula by murderous Marxist thugs.
—Stopped the impending dismemberment of Israel and slaughter of the Jews in the Six Day War.
There are so many more. But you can see the wretched record that proves how futile violence is.
Personal experiences, while superior on the net than second hand information, is still not equivalent to the truth. Analysis and judgment is still required. A person that has a hard working relative in the State Department or a feudal union in California, knows only the truth about that person, at best. That does not translate to the Department or anyone else there.
Personal experiences are data that is more reliable than second hand information or data.
If a person wishes to utilize second hand or third hand information sources such as wiki or “expert testimony”, they must make up for the lack of authenticity of their sources with superior logic, arguments, and consistency.
This is why I don’t accept any claim on its face, just because somebody knew some big honcha in government or has an expert witness on the stand. I and I alone decide what is true or false, even if society decides for me what is wrong and right.
But you can see the wretched record that proves how futile violence is.
It’s almost as futile as making Michael Moore stop filling his large belly with babies.
I say facts.
You say fax.
We all say FAQ.
Indeed, my dear Charles Martel. Point over looked, because it is Saturday and I simply must pack for the Rapture trip. Oh, I can’t. I am once again, a damned Jew. Geez…this is getting tiresome.
Z responds to Charles by giving us a perfect example of the type of deliberate rhetorical omission for which Z and the NYT (and so many other Lefty news organs) are so famous, when they posit:
“No, it was in response to your statement that conquest gives one the right to the spoils. The Nazis were criminally convicted of the crime of aggressive war. If you stand by your statement, then you would agree that the Nazis were wrongfully convicted, and should have their records expunged. “
This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Nuremberg war crime charges. There were four charges made against the defendants, which were:
1) Crimes against peace (e.g., unprovoked war)
2) Crimes against humanity (e.g., genocide)
3) Crimes against the laws of war (for e.g., shooting prisoners and collective punishment of civilians).
…and, finally:
4) Conspiring to engage in 1-3.
Obviously, if Nuremberg had prosecuted based only #1, the large majority of the German population would still be working itself through the trial dockets today, not to mention quite a few governments around the world (including Saddam Hussein, for invading Iran and Kuwait). Instead, the Nuremberg jurists prosecuted only those responsible for collectively committing all four types of crimes.
Z, however, uses only a selective part of the Nuremberg charges, a “quarter truth” in the form of #1, to draw moral equivalence between Israel and Nazi Germany, which was Charles M’s point.
A quarter truth is the maximum they are allowed until they buy more pay to play privileges from Obama, Danny.
Danny Lemieux: This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Nuremberg war crime charges.
The centrality of aggression is one of the fundamental principles established by the Tribunal at Nuremberg.
“The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive war are charges of the utmost gravity. War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Danny Lemieux: Obviously, if Nuremberg had prosecuted based only #1, the large majority of the German population would still be working itself through the trial dockets today, …
Individual soldiers are not held responsible for initiating wars of aggression. However, they can be held responsible for crimes against humanity.
Danny Lemieux: not to mention quite a few governments around the world (including Saddam Hussein, for invading Iran and Kuwait).
Saddam Hussein was guilty of a number of crimes, including initiating wars of aggression.
Danny Lemieux: Instead, the Nuremberg jurists prosecuted only those responsible for collectively committing all four types of crimes.
That is incorrect. Franz von Papen and Hjalmar Schacht were only charged with crimes against peace and wars of aggression, though later found innocent. Rudolf Hess was charged with all four crimes, but found guilty only of crimes against peace and wars of aggression. Nevertheless, that was sufficient for a life sentence.
Charles Martel #40:
> Ymar, I’ll list of some of violence’s failures:
> [...]
> —Stopped Islam at Tours (ahem),
Quit patting yourself on the back! It’s so unseemly! ;-)
The “ahem” was worth many chuckles.
From Zachriel 46:
> Danny Lemieux: This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Nuremberg war crime charges.
> Zachriel: The centrality of aggression is one of the fundamental principles established by the Tribunal at Nuremberg.
> Zachriel quotes: “The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive war are charges of the utmost gravity [...]
Zach, your quote is from a speech given in 2004, not during the Nuremburg Trials 1945. As such, isn’t the quote therefore entirely tangential to the Trials? What’s the relevance to the argument of any speech given 60 years after the fact?
(Yes, I know the author of the speech was one of the prosecutors at the Trials. But that still leaves him as just one man with an opinion, 60 years after the fact.)
2004 Speech link:
http://www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/speeches/speeches-related-to-robert-h-jackson/the-crime-of-waging-aggressive-war/
I was completely wrong in #48. Crap, a total mistake on my part. You try to be way more careful, and you *still* screw it up?
Zach’s quote *was* from the Trials after all – embedded in the 2004 speech by reference.
Humans are full of mistakes.
Some people say too much. Others too little.
Humans are full of mistakes.
Some people say too much. Others too little.
It was worth repeating. If you don’t mind, Ymarsakar, I am going to cut and paste and keep that in my favorite quotes folder.
Be my guest, Sadie.
Sadie, following the old adage that “dog bites man” is not news, while “man bites dog” clearly is, I will repeat the observation that it was not pro-Palestinian demonstrators but fellow pro-Israeli Zionists that shouted at one of their own. You are comparing appleas and oranges. And my interest is not emotional or political, but factual. This is a relatively new development.
““The charges in the indictment that the defendants planned and waged aggressive war are charges of the utmost gravity.”
The question is on “aggressive war” versus, I suppose, “war of self-defense”.
I’ve never seen *any* nation go to war saying “We’re attacking our neighboring country because… well, because we want to. We just feel like kicking their ass, taking everything that belongs to them, and killing their people. So there, take that.”
Hitler is the 20th Century’s prime example of an “aggressive war” perpetrator. Yet even when he rolled into Poland, he presented a list of grievances justifying it. Ludicrous! Yet even he was compelled to present the invasion as justified, as occurring in defense of Germany’s interests that Poland was, ahem, egregiously violating.
Some might say that the winner writes history, so a country or movement is labelled as starting an “aggressive war” only because they lost. But that’s far too simplistic for me: I can identify any number of winners who, when I look at them, I label as engaging in an aggressive (unjust) war. The Rwandan genociders – they won. The hard-line Islamist government in Sudan murdering the Christians across its south, and then its Darfur genocide.
So back to Israel and the Palestians: Which side is engaging in a “war of aggression”?
Good luck convincing anyone on the other side of your argument!
But one of my key, “First Principles” ideas on this focuses on two thought questions that lead me to my answer.
Thought Question 1:
Suppose the Israelis laid down their weapons, never fired another shot, never sent another incursion into the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. What would happen next? Describe the likely events.
Thought Question #2:
Suppose the Palestinians laid down their weapons, never fired another shot, stopped sending thousands of missiles into Israeli towns, villages, cities. What would happen next? Describe the likely events.
As a result of your answers to these thought questions:
Who is engaging in the evil concept of “war of aggression”: The Israelis? Or the Palestinians?
First principles also has connections to epistemology. One of the things epistemology requires is correct a priori premises. Incorrect premises will result in a completely erroneous theory or claim. Thus epistemology utilizes most of its time and resources on correcting premises that are erroneous and polishing almost correct premises until they are entirely true.
By investing work there, much time is saved from arguing the 6.023 X 10^23 things that would inevitably result from false premises. Instead of arguing that huge number of policies and details, instead we just argue 12 basic premises.
Sounds much simpler, yet people seek to make it more complicated than is required for truth.
For complication allows the Left to elevate their false conceit into intellectual heights. It allows them to cloud the truth and deceive humans. When you have 3 options, finding what is false and what is true is relatively simple a problem set. Give a person 5,000 decisions and he can only choose one, guess how many choices he will fully understand before he is forced to make the choice?
We have to pass the bill before you’ll know what is in it.
That makes perfect sense when you understand that they don’t know what kind of shameful and painful things they will do to a slave, until they have the slave.
You see. They don’t know what everyone is going to choose, until they do it. It would be so much simpler for rulers to be able to control what their serfs are able to do, don’t you think.
Mike Devx: I can identify any number of winners who, when I look at them, I label as engaging in an aggressive (unjust) war. The Rwandan genociders – they won. The hard-line Islamist government in Sudan murdering the Christians across its south, and then its Darfur genocide.
The many wars across the globe during the Colonial Period, Indian Wars in North America, Spanish American War, Mexican American War, and of course, the fascists leading up to WWII. Hitler’s well-publicized justification was lebensraum, or living space. (The staged Gleiwitz incident was primarily for internal propaganda.)
Has anyone noticed that Z doesn’t write in complete sentences? Seriously, look at that more closely.
Public education sure has fallen these days.
Ymar, when you are hastily cherrypicking or rewriting Wiki passages, you sometimes create incomplete sentences.
Ymar: First principles also has connections to epistemology. One of the things epistemology requires is correct a priori premises. Incorrect premises will result in a completely erroneous theory or claim.
Yes, and that is where debates over first principles are fought.
Most people who would answer my two thought questions would admit the Palestinians are engaging in “aggressive war”. And that they would never stop. If the Palestinians were to stop their endless assaults, suddenly peace breaks out: Where did all the missiles, the bullets, the tanks go? But if Israel began never defending themselves, the Palestinians would redouble the efforts and rain even more missiles down upon the Israelis.
But then they will offer up excuses for why the Palestinians are justified in doing so. Even though, in the spirit of Zach’s argument, they have just identified “aggressive war” as evil, and unjustified under any circumstances.
They’ll make the argument that aggressive war is unjustified and evil as a first principle – then they’ll at first opportunity justify or excuse Palestinian aggressive war.
abc
pro-Israeli Zionists
Odd thing about stringing those words together. One is either pro-Israel and thereby acknowledges that Jerusalem (City of David/Zion) is the capital of Israel or does not. There really isn’t any middle ground. The Palestinians insist on wanting to divide the city and claim east Jerusalem for their capital. Jerusalem, since 1967 is a whole and complete city. Prior to 1967 no Jews or Israelis could enter the Old City.
And now for a short Sadie story.
My mother was born in Jerusalem in 1926 and therefore her birth certificate noted that she was born in Palestine (thanks to the Brits). Anyway, as some of you may remember my mother emigrated to the US. Sometime in the 1970′s she applied for a US passport and had to present her birth certificate. Someone at the passport office asked her where she was born and mom said Palestine (that’s what her BC said). The fella in the office told her “there’s no such place” and she would have to choose between Jordan and Israel. My mother knew she wasn’t a Jordanian and the passport office knew there was no Palestine.
My oh my, how the times have changed the facts.
There still isn’t a Palestine. But the illogic of the left is predictable:
1. We know there is no such an entity as “Palestine.”
2. In the interest of justice and anti-Zionism there ought to be an entity called “Palestine.”
3. Therefore, there is a place called “Palestine” and we will insist on referring to it hereafter.
The Brits messed up a lot of things. Of course, getting their arse handed to them in the US Revolution tends to have such effects.
Z weighs in with weighty thoughts about “unjust war”, intoning “The many wars across the globe during the Colonial Period, Indian Wars in North America, Spanish American War, Mexican American War, and of course, the fascists leading up to WWII. Hitler’s well-publicized justification was lebensraum, or living space. (The staged Gleiwitz incident was primarily for internal propaganda.), thereby once again drawing moral equivalence between Americans and the Nazis (I’m beginning to think Z must be German).
I suppose that when one’s knowledge of the Indian Wars, Mexican and Spanish Wars is premised on Hollywood caricatures such as “Dances with Wolves” and “Zorro”, it is easy to be confused.
Ah, the Brits rhymes with (fill in the blank)
I am sure you all know Obama is off today for another tour this week. It’s a busy agenda including talks about Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, IMF and oh yeah …. Israel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/21/obama-cameron-pre-1967-palestinian-borders?CMP=twt_fd
I am sure this tete a tete (not sure about that French spelling) will be very productive. After all, the Brits have proven themselves to be steadfast supporters of (fill in more blanks). I mean, who wouldn’t forget or forgive the return of the Lockerbie bomber to the land of intermittent-kinetic engagement other than the anyone who subscribes to the axiom “enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
A reminder from 2010
Late last year a UK court issued a warrant for Tzipi Livni, sparking a diplomatic row. Ms Livni was foreign minister during Israel’s Gaza campaign last winter. It was the first time a UK court had issued a warrant for the arrest of a former Israeli minister.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8441572.stm
If this is how Obama operates while running for election, just imagine what he would do if he wasn’t!
This is exactly the question that every voter needs to ask themselves, whether we’re talking about ME policy, a kinetic war in Libya that does not require Congressional approval, cash for clunkers, solar panels, light bulbs – such a long list.
Danny, please stop closing ranks on Zach.
Thank you.
Danny: only if you can call a list of places something that has “weight”.
Ymarsakar: Has anyone noticed that Z doesn’t write in complete sentences? Seriously, look at that more closely.
If you look more closely, you see that we continued a list started by Mike Devx, a list composed of sentence fragments separated by periods. Not a response.
Mike Devx: Most people who would answer my two thought questions would admit the Palestinians are engaging in “aggressive war”.
The Palestinians have legitimate territorial grievances. However, they should still find non-violent means to achieve their goals, but that’s not always possible.
Mike Devx: If the Palestinians were to stop their endless assaults, suddenly peace breaks out:
Mike Devx: If the Palestinians were to stop their endless assaults, suddenly peace breaks out:
That’s not correct, as the Israelis would continue to use their military and industrial power to force people off their land in the West Bank. That’s not peace.
Mike Devx: Even though, in the spirit of Zach’s argument, they have just identified “aggressive war” as evil, and unjustified under any circumstances.
War is often justifiable. Wars of aggression are wars fought solely for the purpose of gaining territory at the expense of another country. The Palestinians consider that they have been forced off their own land, continue to be forced off their own land, hence they believe they have legitimate reasons to wage war against Israel. Peace is not possible by ignoring the causes of the conflict.
Charles Martel: 1. We know there is no such an entity as “Palestine.”
The same U.N. resolution that established Israel as a legal entity, also established Palestine.
Danny Lemieux: thereby once again drawing moral equivalence between Americans and the Nazis (I’m beginning to think Z must be German).
We merely added to the list of aggressive wars provided by Mike Devx.
Danny Lemieux: I suppose that when one’s knowledge of the Indian Wars, Mexican and Spanish Wars is premised on Hollywood caricatures such as “Dances with Wolves” and “Zorro”, it is easy to be confused.
Not an argument as to whether they qualify as “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.”
If you look more closely, you see that we continued a list started by Mike Devx, a list composed of sentence fragments separated by periods. Not a response.
So Z is claiming that he can quote Mike D and continue Mike D’s sentences. That’s interesting. Does Z have supernatural powers like A claims to have? It must be really useful to be able to continue other people’s sentences and paragraphs.
No wonder the Left likes authoritarian systems where they get to make puppets out of people.
The Palestinians consider that they have been forced off their own land, continue to be forced off their own land, hence they believe they have legitimate reasons to wage war against Israel.
Well, that certainly explains Gaza’s continued rockets and missiles into Israel.
The same U.N. resolution that established Israel as a legal entity, also established Palestine.
The resolution worked out swimmingly. What makes you think the another one would.
“The Palestinians have legitimate territorial grievances. However, they should still find non-violent means to achieve their goals, but that’s not always possible.”
Judge: “You couldn’t find a way to avoid slitting those children’s throats or blowing up that school bus?”
Palestinian: “That’s not always possible.”
SADIE: The resolution worked out swimmingly.
No. Just as the Palestinians.
Charles Martel: “You couldn’t find a way to avoid slitting those children’s throats or blowing up that school bus?”
Terrorism and torture are never legally justified.
The z-group obviously suffers from saddle sores and a sprained groin from riding high horses and only getting off long enough to straddle the fence. I sure hope they have a decent medical plan – although I am not sure how to treat strained credulity other than to ignore it in the hopes it goes away.
“Terrorism and torture are never legally justified.”
Judge: “You know that terrorism can never be legally justified.”
Palestinian: “Screw legality. We want the Jews out. What are you going to do, send a bunch of child-raping UN soldiers to punish us? Pass a Security Council resolution? Get the New York Times to condemn us?”
Mike Devx: If the Palestinians were to stop their endless assaults, suddenly peace breaks out:
Z: That’s not correct, as the Israelis would continue to use their military and industrial power to force people off their land in the West Bank. That’s not peace.
Lemieux: That is, on its face, an expressed Palestinian concern but a false issue – the Israeli’s have always been willing to give up land for REAL peace. The Clinton Plan would have taken care of that, but Arafat spit in his face, thereby revealing that the Palestinians had no real interest in any peace treaty with Israel.
Regarding the war with Mexico, Z replies: “Not an argument as to whether they qualify as “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation,” thereby taking the argument of one disgruntled Mexican diplomat as history etched in stone.
Show us that you have a better understanding of that war and its circumstances, Z…go ahead, do some homework instead of spouting bumper sticker cliches. You’re better than that, we know it. Start with a look at the fact that the Mexicans had just kicked out the Spaniards and how long they had been a country, you might also want to look into what kind of government they imposed on the border states.
From Zach 69:
Mike Devx: If the Palestinians were to stop their endless assaults, suddenly peace breaks out:
Zachriel: That’s not correct, as the Israelis would continue to use their military and industrial power to force people off their land in the West Bank. That’s not peace.
Zach, we are talking about “peace” versus “war”. Then you claim “military and industrial power to force people off their land ” means, “not peace”.
Really? Your example is an example of a sovereign nation developing its lands. Though you demonize it as “using their military and industrial power to [do so]“. This is nothing different than what any other country does. We do it in the U.S.A. all the time. And you’re going to equate this with WAR?
Or more likely, you’re applying the double standard again to Israel. That’s the double standard I refer to over and over: A vicious double standard condemning Israeli actions in ways that no other country, on the face of this Earth, ever has to face. Breaking news: U.N. condemnations are sure to soon follow.
More from Zach 69:
Mike Devx: Even though, in the spirit of Zach’s argument, they have just identified “aggressive war” as evil, and unjustified under any circumstances.
Zachriel: War is often justifiable. Wars of aggression are wars fought solely for the purpose of gaining territory at the expense of another country. The Palestinians consider that they have been forced off their own land, continue to be forced off their own land, hence they believe they have legitimate reasons to wage war against Israel. Peace is not possible by ignoring the causes of the conflict.
This particular thread concerns Zach’s argument in #46:
> The centrality of aggression is one of the fundamental principles established by the Tribunal at Nuremberg.
That, and its supporting quote immediately following: ”The centrality of agression” and the supporting quote’s conclusion: “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
This is a statement of First Principle, comprising Zach’s argument.
Now go back again, at the start of this comment, and reread what Zach wrote.
As I said earlier – perhaps in another thread – commenters supporting a position on the left will use a First Principle, and then immediately violate it in certain cases by offering up sudden “complexities” and excuses and explanations – that negate the very argument of a First Principle itself.
At least, that’s what occurs in the case of Israel, and the usual vicious double standard applied only to Israel. You can see it all the time.
Danny Lemieux: That is, on its face, an expressed Palestinian concern but a false issue – the Israeli’s have always been willing to give up land for REAL peace.
You do realize that Israel continues to move settlers into contested territory, while walling off Palestinian neighborhoods.
Danny Lemieux: Z replies: “Not an argument as to whether they qualify as “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation,” thereby taking the argument of one disgruntled Mexican diplomat as history etched in stone.
That was U.S. Grant. It’s not etched in stone, but notably, you just waved your hands.
Mike Devx: Your example is an example of a sovereign nation developing its lands.
You are presupposing that Israel has a right to settle the West Bank in the midst of already populated areas, essentially building forts in the middle of disputed territory.
Mike Devx: As I said earlier – perhaps in another thread – commenters supporting a position on the left will use a First Principle, and then immediately violate it in certain cases by offering up sudden “complexities” and excuses and explanations – that negate the very argument of a First Principle itself.
The Palestinians believe they have legitimate territorial grievances, hence it’s not a war of aggression. You’re not making much sense.
OK, Z…very good. One person’s opinion. Now, how much did the U.S. pay the brand new and totally indebted nation of Mexico for those territories annexed by the U.S.?
When I look on a Earth satellite map, I don’t see forts. I see farmland that has been developed on the Israeli owned areas. The Palestinian owned areas look much like Mexico. Run down shacks, no green in sight, with no discernible pattern. It’s like a hobo village.
Hey Mike, is Z your ghost writer? He seems to have said that his excuse for writing in incomplete and incomprehensible fashions is because of you.
Danny Lemieux: OK, Z…very good. One person’s opinion. Now, how much did the U.S. pay the brand new and totally indebted nation of Mexico for those territories annexed by the U.S.?
The U.S. offered to buy the land, but Mexico refused. So they went to war. With the U.S. occupying Mexico City, the U.S. bought the land for half what they had previously offered. It was a land grab, pure and simple. It was important to Slave state who needed to expand west to survive.
It’s okay. No one’s going to arrest the United States or make them give the land back. The U.S. and Mexico are now friends.
(Interesting sidenote. American philosopher and poet, Henry David Thoreau, wrote his essay Civil Disobedience, due in part to his opposition to the Mexican American War.)
It was a land grab, pure and simple.
This comes from the “caring” Palestinian pro-bono guy. Judging by his behavior towards Americans here and now, which he claims to care just as much as he does Palis, that’s not worth much.
You have no idea whether it was a land grab or not, Z. Just as you have no idea which side is up and which is down.
No one’s going to arrest the United States or make them give the land back.
Why would anyone have the spine to win a war against the US and arrest anybody. YOu have to win a war to get a trial of the losers. Who are you going to get to defeat the US on our soil, Z? Your little Palestinian buddies?
“You are presupposing that Israel has a right to settle the West Bank in the midst of already populated areas, essentially building forts in the middle of disputed territory.”
I thought Israel owns the West Bank? What happened to make it not?
Also, the clumsy attempt to equate township settlements with forts is just that: clumsy. Zach, when you’re reworking your Wiki notes, take care to avoid crappy metaphors.
With the U.S. occupying Mexico City, the U.S. bought the land for half what they had previously offered.
I think Z read that in some Howard Zinn history book. Which means, where exactly are Z’s biased views of history coming from? Z wasn’t alive back then, so how does he know what the US offered or didn’t offer?
Obama freaking nationalized US companies worth more than the Mexican wannabe territories combined, in triplicate. But Z wants to support aggression in the US economy, but waves his hands at some made up history of his in the past that doesn’t concern him in the least. Why does this benefit Leftism?
(This has nothing to do with the exchange here, it’s just an observation: I suspect the Zach leader is not an American. Nobody has called the United States a them or a they since the Civil War. It’s simply not Yank usage.)
People aren’t entitled to rule over lands they can’t protect or serve.
This aristocrat idea that you can own land and the people on them, and dictate to them what they can or cannot do, is a Leftist fetish. Israel settlers move in of their own volition, not because the government forces them to. Although they force them out in order to “make room” for Palis rampages which destroy irrigation and agriculture.
Given people like Z and Obama full reign and all you’ll have is some territory with a bunch of famines and droughts. Happy living with that.
But you overlooked somethings, Z. There was the issue of newly independent Texas, which Mexico continued to threaten and in fact threatened to invade. There was the fact that Mexico was ruled by a military junta that abused its people. Finally, Mexico may not have liked the price, but it accepted the terms. It may have been hardball, but it was hardly out of character for the times, including with regard to the Mexican character toward its own people. You can’t make such judgments in a historical vacuum.
Hardly like Germany in Sudetenland, don’t you agree?
Two questions:
1. Who, who, who wrote the Book of Love?
2. Who, who, who will claim 100?
Zachriel: The Palestinians believe they have legitimate territorial grievances, hence it’s not a war of aggression. You’re not making much sense.
I will offer one last rebuttal on this particular issue. I’ve been through this in email and personal arguments with a liberal friend of mine for years, and at some point you just agree to disagree and move on. So here goes.
You offered precisely a First Principle argument in your first two paragraphs of #46, concerning a war of aggression. To wit, wars of aggression are *never* justified.
I made my case that the Palestinians are engaging in a war of aggression. I then noted that no country or force that engages in a war of aggression says it is just acting aggressively, warring because it wants to. They always offer grievances that have “forced them” to take action. Always.
You then claim that the Palestinians have grievances that have “forced them” to take action.
That hardly justifies your closing argument: You’re not making much sense.
I actually expected better than you than a statement such as: You’re not making much sense.
I expect that from a certain other commentator out here, but not you. I have never claimed that *you* are not making much sense.
But if you truly find my chain of reasoning to be nonsense, rather than based on premises that you find flawed or secondary; or you find it nonsense rather than too simplistic, that’s your right.
I’m sure you’ll agree, though, calling an argument nonsense means it’s time to just agree that we disagree.
Whenever I hear about wars of aggression and how people “own” property they never earned, I am reminded of this.
http://neoneocon.com/2005/03/28/one-more-thought-about-schiavo-case/
The Left has no credibility here.
Mike, I think you hit on what’s known as a mental defense. People have certain triggers that are activated when certain stimuli threatens their inner mental safety. Literally, it makes no sense to them because they are blocking it and preventing it from connecting together. As a form of self-preservation of one’s identity. Doublethink is alive and well amongst the so called intellects of the Left.
I do believe that Herr Doktors Ymarsaker, MDevx and Charles M are making breakthrough progress in their diagnoses of Z’s logical disconnects. Clogged synapses, perhaps? Something that a high intensity illumination could clear up? Very interesting.
But, respected Herr Doktors, do not forget to address this phenomenon of deliberate omission of detail. Perhaps this is part of the same syndrome, perhaps not. But it does require a valid theory, does it not?
Charles M…I have given you your opportunity!
Who knows?
ENDNOTE
Above silence, the illuminating storms–dying storms– illuminate the silence above.
The above sample is noteworthy as it is a ketek, a complex form of holy Vorin poem. The ketek not only reads the same forward and backward (al lowing for alteration of verb forms) but is also divisible into five distinct smaller sections, each of which makes a complete thought.
The complete poem must form a sentence that is grammatically correct and (theoretically) poignant in meaning. Because of the difficulty in constructing a ketek, the structure was once considered the highest and most impressive form of all Vorin poetry -Brandon Sanderson’s Way of Kings
This is why sentence fragments with no rhyme, reason, or thesis is such a hardship on all of us here. There is so much greater literature out there for man to dine on stale bread alone.
This is the genius of Brandon Sanderson by the by. He also has a great flair for, if he was Japanese, kanji puns. Since he is English language based, it would be pun pairs like Hamlet being a baby pig.
Sadie does
Charles Martel (post #91)
Not Yanks, they just enjoy yanking.
Danny, I’m going to pass on this splendid opportunity. Engaging Zach is like being a knife that has been presented with a great sharpening surface. Eventually, as you reach optimum sharpness, you realize that the thing you honed yourself on just can’t give you anything more.
“Conversing” with Zach is like talking to a dog whose bark isn’t “Arf! Arf!,” it’s “Wiki! Wiki!” or “Dukakis! Dukakis!” You may have some affection for the beast, but you sigh because you know the damned thing is never going to advance beyond its present mental limitations.
Ah, Charles M…I gave you the gift of (100) and you declined.
My bad, Danny, I thought you were gifting me with an open shot at Zach after you had so ably softened him up.
Truth is, thanks to you, Mike Devx and Ymarsakar, they happen so often now that they’ve become a lot like watching Oprah trot her latest weight loss. I promise to be more aware next time we close in on a 100 mark.
Danny, Charles is endowed with so many gifts and the Israeli in me, just seized the moment. I couldn’t have z/code pink/wiki mastermind believing he/it/they had a chance. We would run the risk of dividing contiguous comments and good Lawd, the next thing you know there would be a suggested resolution, UN troops and condemnations.
Old Marty McFryed here is going to go back into the past with his Delorean time machine and remake history so he can get the HUNDRED.
Ymarsakar: When I look on a Earth satellite map, I don’t see forts.
http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/the-west-bank-archipelago/
Ymarsakar:You have no idea whether it was a land grab or not, Z.
Not an argument. Not even a clearly stated position.
Charles Martel: I thought Israel owns the West Bank?
Most of the world, including the majority of the inhabitants of the West Bank, disagree.
Ymarsakar: I think Z read that in some Howard Zinn history book.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=26
Ymarsakar: People aren’t entitled to rule over lands they can’t protect or serve.
People have the right to self-determination.
Danny Lemieux: There was the issue of newly independent Texas, which Mexico continued to threaten and in fact threatened to invade.
Yes, the Mexicans tried to outlaw slavery. If the issue was the protection of Texas, it wouldn’t have required signing over most of Mexican territory.
Danny Lemieux: Finally, Mexico may not have liked the price, but it accepted the terms.
They didn’t have a choice, of course. The U.S. occupied Mexico City.
Mike Devx: To wit, wars of aggression are *never* justified. I made my case that the Palestinians are engaging in a war of aggression.
They sincerely believe they have legitimate territorial grievances. Based on the evidence, they do. Most of the world agrees. In particular, Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and build walls and settlements there.
Mike Devx: I then noted that no country or force that engages in a war of aggression says it is just acting aggressively, warring because it wants to.
Of course. Outlawing aggressive war means people have to justify their wars. Indeed, that’s why most wars since WWII have been either internal strife, or limited proxy wars posing as internal strife. When Saddam violated this basic international principle with the invasion of Kuwait, the entire world, including Arab nations, rose up against him.
Mike Devx: That hardly justifies your closing argument: You’re not making much sense.
It wasn’t an argument. Presumably, you think you’re making sense, so you can read it as a request for clarification. Let’s look again.
Mike Devx: As I said earlier – perhaps in another thread – commenters supporting a position on the left will use a First Principle, and then immediately violate it in certain cases by offering up sudden “complexities” and excuses and explanations – that negate the very argument of a First Principle itself.
Zachriel: The Palestinians believe they have legitimate territorial grievances, hence it’s not a war of aggression. You’re not making much sense.
The Palestinians think they have been wrongly ejected from their own land. Certainly, for thousands, this is true. Many Palestinians were forced out in 1948, never to be allowed to return. Since the 1967 war, Israel has occupied the West Bank. Occupation is inherently unstable and undemocratic, and is unsustainable over the long run. Israel has attempted to settle the West Bank, setting up a series of walls that protect the settlements, with the effect of dividing up long-standing Palestinian communities. The Palestinians have legitimate territorial grievances.
Israel is a U.N. recognized nation within the 1967 borders. The radicals who attempt to overthrow Israel can be considered to be making aggressive war. Israel is attempting to use their military and industrial might to coopt Palestinian lands in the West Bank. This can be considered aggression, too.
However, for people to want to return to their homes is not aggression. For Palestinians to fight for a Palestinian state, or to resist the occupation in the West Bank is not aggression. They are the indigenous people there.
Your point seems to be that the Palestinians are the aggressors, have no legitimate grievances, and others have stated that the West Bank belongs to Israel anyway. Of course, that would only work if you either expel millions of Palestinians, or refuse them their democratic rights within Israel.
Ymarsakar: When I look on a Earth satellite map, I don’t see forts.
http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/the-west-bank-archipelago/
Ymarsakar:You have no idea whether it was a land grab or not, Z.
Not an argument. Not even a clearly stated position.
Charles Martel: I thought Israel owns the West Bank?
Most of the world, including the majority of the inhabitants of the West Bank, disagree.
Ymarsakar: I think Z read that in some Howard Zinn history book.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=26
Ymarsakar: People aren’t entitled to rule over lands they can’t protect or serve.
People have the right to self-determination.
Danny Lemieux: There was the issue of newly independent Texas, which Mexico continued to threaten and in fact threatened to invade.
Yes, the Mexicans tried to outlaw slavery. If the issue was the protection of Texas, it wouldn’t have required signing over most of Mexican territory.
Danny Lemieux: Finally, Mexico may not have liked the price, but it accepted the terms.
They didn’t have a choice, of course. The U.S. occupied Mexico City.
Mike Devx: To wit, wars of aggression are *never* justified. I made my case that the Palestinians are engaging in a war of aggression.
They sincerely believe they have legitimate territorial grievances. Based on the evidence, they do. Most of the world agrees. In particular, Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and build walls and settlements there.
Mike Devx: I then noted that no country or force that engages in a war of aggression says it is just acting aggressively, warring because it wants to.
Of course. Outlawing aggressive war means people have to justify their wars. Indeed, that’s why most wars since WWII have been either internal strife, or limited proxy wars posing as internal strife. When Saddam violated this basic international principle with the invasion of Kuwait, the entire world, including Arab nations, rose up against him.
Ymarsakar: When I look on a Earth satellite map, I don’t see forts.
http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm
Ymarsakar: When I look on a Earth satellite map, I don’t see forts.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/the-west-bank-archipelago/
Danny Lemieux: There was the issue of newly independent Texas, which Mexico continued to threaten and in fact threatened to invade.
Z: Yes, the Mexicans tried to outlaw slavery. If the issue was the protection of Texas, it wouldn’t have required signing over most of Mexican territory.
Huh? Slavery? The Mexicans were actively practicing (de facto if not de jure) slavery with indigenous Indian tribes…give me a break! Also, it was Mexico that was the original aggressor with Texas. The U.S. stepped in. Mexico lost. Too bad! Actions have consequences. For the Mexicans/Spanish included in the new U.S. territories, it was probably the best thing that happened to them, even if the U.S. did claim the territories with the relatively clean government, good highway system, shopping malls, 1st-world economy, etc.
Mike Devx: To wit, wars of aggression are *never* justified. I made my case that the Palestinians are engaging in a war of aggression.
Z: They sincerely believe they have legitimate territorial grievances. Based on the evidence, they do. Most of the world agrees. In particular, Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and build walls and settlements there.
The Palestinian “territorial grievances” don’t matter squat. Fact is, they have been the aggressors against the Jews since before 1900 when many Palestinians themselves were new to the area. During WWII, when it was the British Mandate, the Palestinians aligned themselves with Hitler and his genocidal policies agains the Jews. This isn’t about territory and human rights (to claim that anything emanating from the Palestinians can in any way be an issue of human rights is ludicrous – have you followed the human rights that Palestinians inflict upon each other, by any chance?). Finally, there are people all over the world with territorial grievances (Irish, Basques, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, etc.). When they start blowing up children and women in a strategy of terror or voicing genocidal aims, they lose legitimacy. But not with you, apparently.
When you commit aggression against others like the Palestinians have and lose, there are consequences. As with Mexico in the Mexican-American War. Too bad!
People have the right to self-determination.
Slavery isn’t self-determination.
When I say Z reads things in a Howard Zinn history book, I don’t mean that he just recounts some factual data wrong about a momentous historical event. I’m referring to how Zinn interprets, incorrectly, such events for political gain. It may be incorrect to boot for the facts on the ground, but that’s not required.
History is only one part fact and most of the other parts are based upon human interpretations.
Given Z’s evidence here, how good is Z at interpreting things he never experienced?
So Z considers the wall the Israelis have to be a fort.
Forts are used to defend territory. So what’s the justification for the war of aggression the Palestinians are waging to conquer other people’s territory?
Danny, SoldierMom wrote an account of the War of Independence as waged by Texas and how the Alamo played its part in Texas history.
The historical setting in question is very interesting since Texas was not the US and after they won their war, joined the US of their own free will.
That’s how the US became powerful. People joined of their own free will to form a greater union. Regardless of how many disagreed in the process.
I think it is patently ridiculous for the Spanish, the Mexicans, or the Palestinians to start claiming that they deserve territory and the lives of the people on it, just because. Just because what? They can’t defend that territory if it was invaded. They can’t provide services to that territory or its people. When the people cry out for justice, they cannot and will not provide relief. Just how the hell do such wannabe totalitarians “deserve” territory there?
Z gets in a huff: “People have the right to self-determination.”
Ymarsaker hits the nail on the head: “Slavery isn’t self-determination.”
Why is it that people on the Left always consider Leftwing dictatorships (Cuba, Gaza, Soviet Union, East Germany etc.) as legitimate expressions of “self determination”?
Whoops….rhetorical question! Of course we know why!
Danny Lemieux: Huh? Slavery?
Not only did Mexico outlaw slavery, but slavery was the central political issue in the U.S. Congress, with abolitionists, such as John Quincy Adams, opposing the war on the grounds that it was an attempt to expand slavery west.
Danny Lemieux: Also, it was Mexico that was the original aggressor with Texas. The U.S. stepped in.
“Show me the spot… Let us put a check upon this lust of dominion.”
Danny Lemieux: Actions have consequences.
Yes, the U.S. invaded and took what they wanted.
Freedom is slavery, as it was once said, Danny.
Danny Lemieux: Actions have consequences.
Yes, the U.S. invaded and took what they wanted.
Are you trying to stand on your moral high horse and lecture people about what the US should or shouldn’t have done?
Btw, given Z’s love of Obama like policies, I bring up the question because Z has loved his state authoritarians invading our peace and taking what they want. So when Z wants to start lecturing us about what the US did or didn’t do, let’s be very clear about just what exactly is going on.
Danny Lemieux: The Palestinian “territorial grievances” don’t matter squat.
Well, at least you are straightforward.
But for most people, self-determination is a fundamental principle of modern governance. Palestinian grievances matter to the Palestinians. And it matters to anyone who wants to see a just resolution of the conflict. All-in-all, it seems as if justice is not a consideration.
Since WWII, nations have found that justice is an essential principle, and nations that step far outside acceptable behavior may be subject to retribution by the other nations. As powerful as the U.S. or Soviet Union may have been, the support of other nations was still essential. Consider the role of the U.N. during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Danny Lemieux: Finally, there are people all over the world with territorial grievances (Irish, Basques, Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, etc.).
Many groups, including the Israelis, have had links to terrorism. The actions of radicals doesn’t undo the right of a people to self-determination. Even the Germans and Japanese have that right. Your dictum actually undercuts moderates and empowers radicals.
Ymarsakar: So what’s the justification for the war of aggression the Palestinians are waging to conquer other people’s territory?
You must have missed or simply ignored our previous comments on the fragmentation of Palestinians territory.
Ymarsakar: They can’t defend that territory if it was invaded.
By that criteron, wars of conquest by the Germans was not a crime.
Danny Lemieux: Why is it that people on the Left always consider Leftwing dictatorships (Cuba, Gaza, Soviet Union, East Germany etc.) as legitimate expressions of “self determination”?
Don’t know who these “people on the Left” are. (Perhaps being specific would be helpful, instead of broad generalizations.) However, Cuba is a homegrown authoritarian regime. Gaza is essentially a prison. The Soviet Union was the last empire. Germany was divided by WWII, a buffer between the superpowers.
Are you trying to stand on your moral high horse and lecture people about what the US should or shouldn’t have done?
It’s the very reason why the z-group exists. It doesn’t matter if anyone counters the discussion with facts, reasoning or reality on the ground – America or Israel will always be wrong. They just practice a form of verbal jihad – no threats, but the constant pounding of the same old same old, never moving forward and always stuck in their muddled mentality. So very very 7th century.
But for most people, self-determination is a fundamental principle of modern governance.
Self-determination isn’t the same as slavery. Or, for that matter, being entitled to own other people’s land and control their lives.
You keep mistaking one for the other, Z. Why is that.
Wars of conquest are not legal trials. War is not the same as a legal system nor does a legal system have jurisdiction over a war. This fantasy land where words can create military realities, is too much like a Leftist cult fanatic, Z. It’s not realistic.
Nuremburg would never have existed if the allies had lost. Thus, de facto, those war crime trials only exist because the victors won the war. If Germany had won their war, they would have had ‘war crimes tribunals’ as well.
What is with this reality of A causes B, that you don’t get, Z. It’s like you can’t connect the dots between the logical connection between event A and consequence C. Like you’re thinking in sentence fragments, not just writing them. Like you have a whole theory of knowledge in the form of paragraphs lacking a thesis, subject, or even conclusion.
Sadie, he never answers such questions because he’s more afraid of the answers than anyone else.
Wow, Zach has provided some of the most egregious abuses of language I’ve ever seen here:
“The Palestinians think they have been wrongly ejected from their own land. Certainly, for thousands, this is true.”
Notice the sly shift from thinking something happened it it now being true. Classic misdirection.
“Since the 1967 war, Israel has occupied the West Bank.”
No, since 1967 Israel has owned the West Bank by right of conquest in a defensive war. The so-called “world community” doesn’t get to vote on it. Zach has utterly failed to refute the defensive nature of that conflict. Again, the sly change in terms is designed to misdirect.
“Occupation is inherently unstable and undemocratic, and is unsustainable over the long run.”
No proof; pure assertion. Even if Zach could prove it—highly unlikely—what alternative would he suggest Israel try?
“Israel has attempted to settle the West Bank, setting up a series of walls that protect the settlements.”
What are the walls designed to protect the settlers from?
“Israel is a U.N. recognized nation within the 1967 borders.
”
Which 1967 borders? Nice evasion! (So the key to legitimate existence is recognition by a world body composed mostly of dictators, kleptomaniacs and Jew haters. This is what passes for moral seriousness in Zachdom?)
“The radicals who attempt to overthrow Israel can be considered to be making aggressive war.”
Oh, it’s only radicals. No overwhelming popular support for the destruction of Israel from the poor, oppressed Palestinian people themselves?
“Israel is attempting to use their military and industrial might to coopt Palestinian lands in the West Bank. This can be considered aggression, too.”
Too clever by half. The West Bank never belong to the Palestinians, it belonged to the sovereign state of Jordan, which was forced to cede the land after Israel gave it some whup ass in 1967. Also, “since this can be considered aggression,” perhaps Zach could tell us if he’s among that august group that considers it so.”
“However, for people to want to return to their homes is not aggression. For Palestinians to fight for a Palestinian state, or to resist the occupation in the West Bank is not aggression. They are the indigenous people there.”
Strawman—Nobody is arguing that a desire constitutes aggression. Also, notice the clever evasion of how Palestinians fight and resist—blowing up school children, murdering families in their beds, directing rocket attacks on Israel proper. Nope, not aggressive at all! As far as the indigenous people argument, others here have kicked that sorry piece of nonsense to pieces time and again. Perhaps Zach can retire the assertion?
Ymar – Y bother. They wouldn’t hear the answers, because they do not listen. Maybe a proctologist and a crow bar are what’s needed
SADIE: It doesn’t matter if anyone counters the discussion with facts, reasoning or reality on the ground …
You might try it sometime.
SADIE: – America or Israel will always be wrong.
That is not the case, and we’ve even listed many of the things that they have done right, such as America’s role in fighting fascism, or Israel’s legitimate right to self-defense. However, we do object to the claim that they are never wrong. It’s not hard to understand that the U.S., for instance, saw an opportunity to take land from Mexico, and took it. It often happens when there is such a disparity in power. What’s wrong is pretending it didn’t happen.
So very very 7th century.
Ymarsakar: Self-determination isn’t the same as slavery.
That’s right.
Ymarsakar: Wars of conquest are not legal trials.
Should the Nazis have been tried for crimes against peace, or should they have just been hanged as losers? What was all that hurumphing about at Nuremberg?
Ymarsakar: If Germany had won their war, they would have had ‘war crimes tribunals’ as well.
No doubt. Would such trials have been just? Or isn’t justice a consideration?
Zachriel: The Palestinians think they have been wrongly ejected from their own land. Certainly, for thousands, this is true.
Charles Martel: Notice the sly shift from thinking something happened it it now being true. Classic misdirection.
It’s not misdirection, but two related facts.
Charles Martel: No, since 1967 Israel has owned the West Bank by right of conquest in a defensive war.
Well, that seems to be the consensus on this board, but it contrary to international law. Israel can occupy the territory only as required for security, but the people retain a right to self-determination. In any case, the situation is inherently unstable because people will insist on their right for a say in their own affairs.
Charles Martel: what alternative would he suggest Israel try?
The conflict will eventually be resolved by negotiation. Many of the Israeli settlers will be forced to leave the West Bank, though some communities will remain near the 1967 borders.
Charles Martel: What are the walls designed to protect the settlers from?
From Palestinian attacks. Israel builds a community on a hilltop, fortifies it with a wall. This results in a fragmentation of existing communities, and makes a negotiated settlement much harder. It empowers the radicals and undercuts the moderates. According to your previous statement, it is Israeli land, and the Palestinians have no say in the matter.
Charles Martel: Also, notice the clever evasion of how Palestinians fight and resist—blowing up school children, murdering families in their beds, directing rocket attacks on Israel proper.
Not all Palestinians are terrorists, but the vast majority reject continued occupation.
You might try it sometime.
To be clear, you are not worthy…
However, we do object to the claim that they are never wrong.
…. nor have you ever identified yourself, although you have identified America as ‘they‘. No. What’s wrong is pretending you really have a vested interest in America’s interests when you’re here only to serve your own needs to pontificate and use this blog, rather than one of your own to do so.
Please tell us, plainly, Zach, what you (not Wiki) think would be the demands and concessions that both sides would make that in your opinion (not Wiki’s), if negotiated over and agreed to, would lead to a lasting peace. In other words, instead of waving vaguely in the direction of “will have to be negotiated,” offer an actual scenario and suggestions.
I’m dying to see you venture an opinion that is not written in Evasionese and depends on your own thought processes, not the thoughts of others.
Feel up to it? Everybody here is been waiting for you to come out of hiding for months.
SADIE, Zach’s incorrect use of they indicates an unfamiliarity with American English. Either that or an overeliance on the often badly edited pieces he expropriates on Wiki. When you are hurriedly mining material from there, you don’t always have time to refine. Thus you inadvertently pick up an original writer’s ungrammatical prose style.
I find it interesting that Z keeps returning time and time again to Nuremberg Trials, as if there is an unrequited personal wound there.
Charles Martel: In other words, instead of waving vaguely in the direction of “will have to be negotiated,” offer an actual scenario and suggestions.
Any final deal will be a two-state solution with mutually recognized borders. Israel will need security guarantees, while Palestinians will require some compensation in exchange for giving up the right of return. The problem is in the details. Some Israeli settlements will have to be dismantled, but the Palestinians will have to accede to others. Israel will insist upon the whole of Jerusalem, but some accommodation for Muslim sentiments will be required. Whatever the final agreement, the sooner it is accomplished, the better it is for all the parties, excepting those that have no wish for reasonable compromise; Israelis who insist upon annexing the entire West Bank, and Palestinians who insist upon all of Palestine.
Danny Lemieux: I find it interesting that Z keeps returning time and time again to Nuremberg Trials, as if there is an unrequited personal wound there.
The Principles of Nuremberg, the Geneva Convention and the Charter of the United Nations form the basis of international law. In particular, aggressive wars are outlawed and borders existing at the end of WWII were considered sovereign, and that any border dispute should be resolved through negotiation. This left a number of problems, though, including the partition of Germany, Korea and Vietnam, which led to limited conflicts, but larger clashes were largely avoided.
Sadie, I will don the mantle of Wiki and save the world with my World Justice Lea**e!!!!