You have to kick the donky out of your farm!!!

Please show who said that and what exactly was said. Thanks.

Believe it or not, he was saying that I said that. I'm still unsure how he draws that conclusion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks for the support. I have to say I'm not very optimistic either... though I fail to reach Contra's level of pessimism.It really is tough to put behind injustices just to reach a conclusion so that life can go on. I can't imagine how hard it must be for those whose family members have been killed (that's much worse than having your land stolen).But it does have to start sometime.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thank you holme's , it is obvious that our opinions will not be in adequacy with each other, I am sorry for that , you see that land is not vital , while we ( at least ones who i know) see that land is life.but the difference between us does not mean that i do not admire you.and thank you for participating in my thread.

oh my dandon please look behind you NOW.

Well don't get me wrong. I do think that land can be vital, and all land has the potential for life.My particular position is that the SPECIFIC LAND which Israel has ripped off is just not worth the price being paid to get it back. Not that you shouldn't try to in other ways, but current methods are paying way too much... and ironically raising the ultimate cost so that it may be impossible to ever get that land back.In the end it may even be a better idea to spend time and money improving existing land, than trying to regain land (even if I agree it was rightfully yours).Kind of a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush type thing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

You still appear to have no clue what I am saying, or what my actual position is. In addition, you still prove your own inabilities as a strategist by NOT UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE between a MILITARY ASSESSMENT and a Political ASSESSMENT.

---

Holmes you're just showing off your naivite again. The assesment HAS been made in both military and political terms, and not only by Palestinian organs.

quote:

---

That said, there are a number of organizations (Hamas is one) which have extremist agendas BEYOND simple liberation and use such techniques deliberately and not in a purely reactionary way. I think it is disengenuous to not admit that there are some entities co-opting the pain of the Palestinians for their own agendas.

---

Which is exactly the claim that the National Party advanced against the ANC; that they were not really interested in liberating Africa, but instead just imposing their communist agenda and carrying out terrorism into the bargain; that is why they had to be hunted down and shot.All organisations of any duration have a political narrative that goes beyond the immediate struggle, becuase such is necessary to minatain the purposefulness of the organisation. It must be ABOUT something. That does not in any way invalidate their contribution to the struggle.

quote:

---

2) None of this reduces the cause of the Palestinians. I have not said that it has. However, such acts (and groups promoting them) do reduce their moral position. Cause and moral position are two separate things. The latter is a tool and a source of pride/morale, while the first is an estimate which does not rely on how that cause is pursued.

---

And that is what we are disagreeing about. you may, if you wish, adopt that puritan position, but then you should also withdraw support from the ANC. I consdier that if you backed the one, you must back the other, as they are the same issue. I don't think that the suicide bombings do in any sense reduce their moral position, withdrawing support on that basis is still withdrawing support.

quote:

---

3) I have no understanding what argument you are making regarding leaders who use suicide missions as compared to missions that cause lots of fatalities. It does not seem to be against anything I have actually said. Especially when I broke down DDay vs Hiroshima vs 9-11, your answers seemed cryptic at best. All I gave was an analysis of what their purpose was, how they were carried out, and how they were followed up on. This did not say anything about amounts of deaths or use of suicides.

---

Well, then, from the top once again. The west is quite willing and able to send people on a mission that is going to sustain 90% casualties. But the west for some reason frowns on a mission that is expected to sustain 100% casualties. This is a grossly hypocritical position; ion both cases, we have certain knowledge that people will die. Thus, a suicide bombing is not in any sense an act in any way inferior to flying a fighter strike, except that it requires more bravery.As I see it, it is ridiculous to say that you support the palestinian cause, and believe their cause is just, and then turn your back on them becuase you find the methodology they are obliged to use unpleasant. I offer you the same challenge as I offer to anyone who advances this claim: if you want the Palestinians to fight only the IDF, then you must give them the weapons with which to fight the IDF. Tanks, anti-air missiles, helicopter gunships, fighter-bombers. Under those circumstances we could get all precious about who fought a cleaner war. but while we are subsidising an partheid state chasing civilians through the streets with tanks, then it is Malcolm X's dictum that stands: By Any Means Necessary.

You have failed to distinguish between the two every time. Agreed, or at least this is true in most cases. That is why it is important during one's political assessment of a situation, to figure out which groups will adhere most to one's ultimate cause. Unless the ultimate cause of the Palestinians is the absolute removal of jews from that area, they are not choosing wisely to go with Hamas.And before you start trying to throw out charges of being set up (like the ANC) to look bad, such comments have come right from Hamas officials. Backed both... though I do have some issues with the ANC... and I don't have any logical problems with this position. Your problem is not understanding the difference between a military and a political assessment of a situation, and so I am sure my position must look bizarre to you.Let me try and bridge this gap with a very specific analogy. Let's say I am in a War of Liberation. It is the most unquestionable war in history fighting for freedom for all time, and me and general X are two of the main generals on the same side.General X says we need to keep our planes grounded while sending in ground troops strapped with bombs to kill themselves in order to blow up the other guys planes first (in a surprise attack). Then we'll have air superiority and win the war.I call bullshit on that plan. While it is true that we might gain surprise, it would impossible to coordinate such an attack across all the airfields in such a way that we could get all planes, before some were airborne. And the very likely remainder could come right over and blow the rest of our planes up before they have a chance of mounting a defence (especially with all our men having been moved to blow up their planes). It is a total misallocation of resources and poor strategy given what we both have.Now my calling bullshit on Gen X's plan does not minimize my commitment to our mutual POLITICAL cause. What it does is give a military assessment of his MILITARY STRATEGY. Absolutely. And once again from the top. What does that have to do with MY position? Nothing I have said has backed the position you are attacking. I never said this. 1) I never advanced the claim so I guess the challenge doesn't pertain to me anyway.2) I do support giving the Palestinians weapons to take on the IDF... I'm trying to figure out where I ever said differently. In addition, and much more importantly, I try and elect officials that will no longer allow the US to arm the IDF!3) Your stock dilemma is just that: a stock dilemma. It is just like Bush claiming we must elect him or terrorists will win, or the Spanish should have voted back in his stooge or the terrorists win. Changing commanders, tactics, and strategy is the RIGHT and the DUTY of any people within a conflict. And advocating change based on assessments of a strategy's ability to succeed is equally a right. You have yet to show any evidence that the current strategy is working, or is capable of working. The irony of this is overwhelming. In the end Malcolm X rejected his political friends as well as their strategies and tactics. This included use of violent force beyond purely self-defense.The guy happens to be a hero of mine, or the closest a real human can get to being a hero to me, and I agree with that statement. The key is to figure out what is necessary. Failed strategies and tactics, and "friends" more likely to stab you in the back when you are near your goal, are not.The irony... the irony.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

You have failed to distinguish between the two every time.

---

You fail to recognise the unity of the two every time.

quote:

---

Agreed, or at least this is true in most cases. That is why it is important during one's political assessment of a situation, to figure out which groups will adhere most to one's ultimate cause.

---

Who can make that decision? Only a structured organisation. Thus...

quote:

---

Unless the ultimate cause of the Palestinians is the absolute removal of jews from that area, they are not choosing wisely to go with Hamas.

---

... you perform a logical error here, substituting the Palestinians en bloc with a stuctured organ. I think it would be safe to say that the individuals who back Hamas do so for roughly that reason; that is the political narrative that Hamas projects as an organ trying to procure members who adhere to its ultimate cause.

quote:

---

Backed both... though I do have some issues with the ANC... and I don't have any logical problems with this position. Your problem is not understanding the difference between a military and a political assessment of a situation, and so I am sure my position must look bizarre to you.

---

More specifically, it looks NAIVE. But from that paragraph, your position at least becomes more consistent; its quite possible to back the ANC or whoever and retain criticisms of individual decisions or even a particular standing policy.What is not consistent is alleging that the Palestinians have "corrupted" themselves by resort to violence.

quote:

---

Let me try and bridge this gap with a very specific analogy. Let's say I am in a War of Liberation. It is the most unquestionable war in history fighting for freedom for all time, and me and general X are two of the main generals on the same side.

---

Sorry, its not unquestionable at all except in the American national mythology. A good counterpoint toi the conventional historiography was that it was a narrrow-based revolution based on rich merchants tyrying to evade taxes and procure the rights to the exploitation of slave labour untrammelled by abolitionists.I'm afraid I do not consider the American revolution nearly as important for the cause of liberty as the French, and much more ambivalent.

quote:

---

I call bullshit on that plan. While it is true that we might gain surprise ...

---

Those are reasonable operational considerations to employ. Thats a fra cry from the claim that you would be corrupting yourselves if you did so and that the primary objection is therefore a moral one.

quote:

---

What it does is give a military assessment of his MILITARY STRATEGY.

---

Yes thats right. And given their resources, for Palestinians suicide bombing is by far the best military strategy they can employ.

quote:

---

2) I do support giving the Palestinians weapons to take on the IDF... I'm trying to figure out where I ever said differently. In addition, and much more importantly, I try and elect officials that will no longer allow the US to arm the IDF!

---

But if you recognise all these things, then I don't understand why you believe them to be "corrupting" themselves by finally discovering a reasonably effective delivery platform?

quote:

---

The irony of this is overwhelming. In the end Malcolm X rejected his political friends as well as their strategies and tactics. This included use of violent force beyond purely self-defense.

---

Malcolm was a theist, and I have no delusions as to the coherency of the theist argument. He was right the first time and wrong the second.

quote:

---

The key is to figure out what is necessary. Failed strategies and tactics, and "friends" more likely to stab you in the back when you are near your goal, are not.

---

Exactly. Right now, for the Palestinians, what is necessary is to establish a credible threat so that Israel has a motive to join negotiations. As long as the violence is so lopsided, Israel has nothing to gain through negotiation and everything to lose. Thus, the situation will have to be changed to the point that Israel considers it has more to lose militarily than through negotiations; that requires an increase in the threat that Palestinians pose to Israeli safety, just as in South Africa.

Interesting it would be if you could have an alternative history without the revolution to see how things would work out, eh?We are that alternative history. We (Canada) were born in much less upheavel and don't suffer, IMHO, from the worst excesses of what the US approach as brought. This is perhaps relevant to the gun control topic, for example.

Most of your reply was bs, being almost wholly unrelated to what I was saying, and with some brad mcfallian statements that didn't add much either.However I did note that you repeated something several times. It too addressed a strawman, but I could at least pinpoint where your error crept in... So once I used the word "corruption" your head exploded and you simply couldn't put it back together huh?I did not say they were corrupted by resorting to violence. When using the arguments they are in order to gain political ground in their struggle, the use of a specific type of violence (targeting random, purely civilian targets) weakens their position (corrupts their relative moral standing).And before you detour again, this says nothing about use of violence, nor use of suicide missions to complete a task.They could of course abandon completely their political work, but I think that is not a very wise way to go. If you have the high ground, keep the high ground. This is all I've ever been arguing against. It fails both militarily, and at the same time it disarms them in their political struggles.Other than the above assertion, you have yet to show one reason to believe suicide bombing has done or will do anything for them. To bad they waste it's effectiveness on poor targeting decisions, and overuse it in general. That is so cool. Argue from authority, and when its pointed out you misused that authority, denigrate him.Hey bud, he was WRONG the first time, and the second time, and finally discovered himself and his truth the third time. I guess you don't know jack about who you were quoting.And none of this changes anything. He still NEVER SAID: By any means. He said: By any means necessary. That necessary is a pretty big word that you seem to miss the meaning of. Even if he was right the SECOND time (which is when he said it), you would still be wrong. Israel has never lost anything militarily through the use of suicide bombings (given the nature of their targets) and indeed, have been able to use them to their advantage militarily and politically.So far the use of random suicide bombings has been an increasing liability as a so-called "military" tool for the Palestinians. One thing you might want to know... just because something blows up and people die, does NOT make it a military tool.You have still done nothing but reassert your position endlessly. Getting bored here.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Holme,s the point atbwhich you and I disagree appears to be one in which the only adjudicator is you.

quote:

---

So far the use of random suicide bombings has been an increasing liability as a so-called "military" tool for the Palestinians. One thing you might want to know... just because something blows up and people die, does NOT make it a military tool.

---

HOW has it been a liability? Because Fox news spins it in the US? As I've shown, anyone with an experience of the anti-colonial struggle - and thats a sizable part of the third world - understands the situation the Palestinians face. Why do you think suidice bombing has been a liability to the Palestinian cause? You are confusing American opinion with world opinion.[qupte] This is all I've ever been arguing against. It fails both militarily, and at the same time it disarms them in their political struggles.[/quote]Where does it harm them? In Europe? Not particularly. In Africa? Not at all. In the middle east? Not at all. So where is this harm occuring, and in whose eyes? Only, it seems to me, that state that is already funding the terrorism used against them.

quote:

---

To bad they waste it's effectiveness on poor targeting decisions, and overuse it in general.

---

Lol, poor targetting decisions? As I argued earlier, the problem they face is so severe they can barely launch a warhead at all, let alone control its path. It seems to me the best they can aspire is, and I repeat, getting a weapon toward the enemy in the first place. And I cannot and will not cast blame on them for the operational limitations they face.

quote:

---

That is so cool. Argue from authority, and when its pointed out you misused that authority, denigrate him.

---

Erm, I didn't argue from authority, I cited a reference I expected you to be familiar with. Theists never constitute an authority in my eyes, and that is not a denigration either. Once again Holmes you are resorting to the over-extention of an argument to make a rhetorical point. And as I recall I did say by any means necessary, but if I didn't it was an accidental ommission, I'll check.This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-06-2004 05:54 AM

I have already explained this. Personal incredulity is not going to get far with me. Neither is telling me I am falling for American opinion. I currently live outside the US and have been living in and out of it for years. Furthermore I have friends within that region, who also stay well informed on issues in that region from sources in that region.Indeed, as an attempt to counter the incredibly bad info coming out (especially thru US media) I helped produce a documentary on Iraq, made in Iraq, by an Iraqi. If I had the opportunity to do so on Palestine/Israel I would.Oh yeah, I myself was working on a documentary of the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Unfortunately 9-11 intervened and a whole lot of my plans, including that doc, got scrapped.You seem to confuse world opinion with your own. Yes it does. While not dimming their cause in Europe, it has kept European nations from being able to apply full political pressure on the situation. Especially when their own citizens end up as victims while trying to help out... it robs the Palestinians of a solid political position. Unless you are going to pretend like select groups and governments speak for everyone in those regions this is also false. It is clear that there have been calls from nations and peoples in both regions to reduce or renounce targeting of purely civilian targets. And you say other people have a sick sense of humor? Yes, poor targeting decisions. That's not funny, and I'm not laughing.Just getting things to blow up is not a successful attack. Not only is this NOT the case, and I am sick of your assertions that it is... give some evidence... But if it was the case then any reasonable leader and general should be seeking surrender.Clearly suicide to get nothing, when the land they are trying to get back and won't is not VITAL TO THEIR CONTINUED SURVIVAL, is just suicide. Now we're down to outright lying? You didn't just cite some reference... like I was looking for one... you QUOTED a person. You quoted that person to add legitimacy to the point you thought that quote would support. No need to check, you did say "any means necessary", but that's not what you were ARGUING.Just check above. If all we are talking about is people at best being able to put a weapon "in the direction of their enemy", we are not talking about necessity at all.... just "any means".

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

You seem to confuse world opinion with your own.

---

Not at all; I have alreasdy shown the near-universal approval of the world anti-racism conference, in which only the US and Israel itself opposed ther measure of all states. I genuinely do not think that world opinion is polarised by this issue; rather I think much of the world sees in the Palestinian struggle a reflection of their own. I am certainly confident that is the case ijn much of Africa, anyway.

quote:

---

Yes it does. While not dimming their cause in Europe, it has kept European nations from being able to apply full political pressure on the situation. Especially when their own citizens end up as victims while trying to help out... it robs the Palestinians of a solid political position.

---

Well, Israel kills European citizens too; indeed, I was just the other day reading of a case in which an Israeli soldier killed a Brit by firing a "warning shot" allegedly aimed between his ear and the side of his head. Then there was Rachel Corrie, purposefully driven over by an Israeli bulldozer. So if it would true that this causes the delegitimacy of Palestinians, it undermines Israels position just as much. And is in fact the case, and why there is a even signifcant body of European Jewish opinion supportive of the Palestinians.

quote:

---

Unless you are going to pretend like select groups and governments speak for everyone in those regions this is also false. It is clear that there have been calls from nations and peoples in both regions to reduce or renounce targeting of purely civilian targets.

---

True, but we have to look at realpolitik. Sometimes you have to out in the ritual genuflection to US pique to be alowed to speak at all. And its also the case that this opinion will vary by groups; white south africans by and large tend to support Israel more than black soth africans, for example. I certainly don't think the statements of heads of state are necessarily indicative of poublic opinion; note how many states went to war in iraq over the heads of their electorates.

quote:

---

And you say other people have a sick sense of humor? Yes, poor targeting decisions. That's not funny, and I'm not laughing.

---

Its silly when you are talking about the circumstance in which they are in. They do not have the facility to make precise targetting; its indicative of a failure to grasp the material reality, and that is why I laughed.

quote:

---

Not only is this NOT the case, and I am sick of your assertions that it is... give some evidence... But if it was the case then any reasonable leader and general should be seeking surrender.

---

And I'm sick of your baseless assertions that it is not. Furthermore, they cannot surrender - they surrendered 30 years ago, remember? They are REFUGEES. Nobody can ever be expected to simply turn their back on an enemy and expose themselves to genocide - nor is it reasonable to expect anyone to do so. No reasonable leader or general would do that.

quote:

---

Clearly suicide to get nothing, when the land they are trying to get back and won't is not VITAL TO THEIR CONTINUED SURVIVAL, is just suicide.

---

But it is abslutely vital, as they themselves will tell you. I mean, are you offering them residence in your state, or what?

quote:

---

Now we're down to outright lying? You didn't just cite some reference... like I was looking for one... you QUOTED a person. You quoted that person to add legitimacy to the point you thought that quote would support.

---

Nonsense, holmes. An appeal to authority is where someone asserts a point is correct becuase an authority gave it. I didn't say it was true BECUASE Malc said it, I merely said the situation is summed up by Malc's phrase. Lets try to be a little calmer about this, shall we? If you like, I can cite Churchill "we will fight them on the beaches..."

quote:

---

Just check above. If all we are talking about is people at best being able to put a weapon "in the direction of their enemy", we are not talking about necessity at all.... just "any means".

---

Nope, that is an absolute political and military necessity, and is the starting point of all national liberation struggles. Without establishing a credible threat, they have no bargaining power, as von Clausewitz and Machiavelli both would agree.And in fact the issue of colonial property theft is a major cassus belli in Africa (south africa, zimbabwe in particular) and latin amercia (frex the landless movement, zapatistas et al). Again it might appear unnecessary from the perspective of a rich world, but from the perpsective of the dispossesed, it is THE central, only, issue.This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-06-2004 10:31 AM

And neglected to mention that practically all members have criticized the targeting of Israeli civilian centers by Palestinian extremist groups, as well as some of those groups for hindering the Palestinian cause.This is the consistent tactic you have used in this debate. Yes, and what's more they are in the wrong to begin with. This has NOTHING to do with anything I have said. It appears you have said this just to score a point in the debate, except it is something I agree with too.Building strawmen is perhaps your biggest tactic in this debate. I have already presented at least one example of a proper targeting, what's more interesting is that it wasn't even a suicide attack. Furthermore, there have been attacks on strictly military assets.. showing they can target them if they want.Outright lies, or bold assertions contrary to facts already stated in the argument. This is yet another common weapon in your arsenal. Lie, I have given evidence for it. And what's great is all you have to show is one thing they've been able to retake, or some superiority they have come to achieve? Anything? Coming from the guy that says they've been fighting the whole time and can never give up? Good contrariness.Having it both ways, yet another tactic. Agreed, yet that is not the case before us. We are not talking about genocide, only disenfranchisement and theft of land. THEY haven't told me that at all. Ohhhhhh, you mean the extremist propagandists? Well THEY aren't all THAT. You did assert your point was correct, and then lent X's quote to make it sound like someone else agreed with the point. If not, then your later statement of he was righ the first time, wrong the second would be meaningless. You'd never have had to defend it.If you want to pretend now that you were just coming up with a quote of defiant struggle... which makes no sense given the context of where you used the first one... I'll stop arguing about it. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. I'd ask you whether this was an appeal to authority or not, but I could never trust your answer. Here's the deal... I also studied those guys and agree. You have yet to show the methods employed create a credible threat.They create a threat of blowing something up, but that is not a credible threat to the state of Israel. Israel has only grown stronger and destroyed more Palestinians in the process.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)