Why the inferences that Syria requested help from the US against the IS? I keep hearing this, but it isn't true...Unless something has changed since I last had this discussion... The statement issued by the Syrian govt was that they were willing to cooperate with other countries "as long as the cooperation is approached in a serious manner, without double standards, and does not weaken Syria"...“Being serious in combating terrorism isn’t achieved by transgressing against others’ sovereignty. It is a achieved through serious political work to dry up its sources and cooperating with the Syrian government, because we know better than anyone else what is happening on our land.” They know full well the US is directly involved in the civil war there, trying to overthrow them...and judging by this comment, they know that US intervention against the IS is a foot in the door for the US to attempt imposition of a no-fly zone and go all Libya on them. The inference that they requested help gives credence to the bullshit humanitarian mission angle the west is hyping in Syria.
For a thread attempting to show that Israel is not a monolithic society with supremacist views, throwing this in there is a bit ironic: "For those who need a reminder not to blindly accept the received wisdom on this forum". Because people have gravitated to the Palestinian side after reviewing years of posts and information on this board, information you have countered as eloquently as any supporter of the occupation I've seen - we are blind? Also (skeeter) : not sure who in this forum thinks the Palestinians have done nothing wrong. Stop trying to portray Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. How condescending and belittling these comments are! I thought that was supposed to be Byrnzie's thing? Anyway, welcome back yosi. July/august was a helluva time for the board's most strident Zionist/Israeli nationalist to take a break from the forum.
Syria has its hands tied, and I would venture to guess that their request for assistance is out of nothing but the most dire of necessity, and an existential crisis within its political boundaries. The responsible thing to do, in my opinion, would be for the US to deny that request for assistance initially, and suggest that this is a topic for the UN to decide. Your military's strength does not dictate the necessity for hasty and thoughtless intervention.
And no, the US aren't hijacking planes or beheading innocent people. But how can you honestly say that dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the dissemination of spray dioxin in Vietnam, even consider the weight of their actions in regards to loss of innocent life? That to me is unequivocally terrorism. In fact, it's terrorism done in such a cowardice way so as to prevent any feelings of guilt or remorse: from that distance, you don't see the faces of the men, women, children, babies, that you've melted, maimed, and deformed.
As for your last paragraph, I actually agree with you about your later sentences. I know I can get preachy on this topic, but universal empathy must be practiced in order for any tangible change to occur. Empathize with all parties involved in a conflict, learn about why they feel and act the way they do, and then encourage those involved to do the same thing. Sometimes I forget how few Israeli perspectives are around here, and that's largely because back in the real world, I'm very much living within a Jewish community which is notoriously pushy when presenting Israeli opinion pieces.
Actually, I was referring to the Syrian people, not the government. Anyway, although I wasn't alive when it happened, but I am a big proponent of the Monroe Doctrine. Unfortunately, World War 1 screwed that up despite the US being extremely reluctant to go to war. Since then, the shit hit the fan with the US being involved with everyone's affairs, especially after World War 2.
In regard to the atomic bombs, the US gave very fair warning to Japan about the atomic bomb. The Japanese did not believe the US had an atomic bomb. What the US didn't know was how much devastation it would cause. They knew it was going to be bad, but not as bad as what occurred. The US told the Japanese they had a second bomb and told them to unconditionally surrender or else. Again, the Japanese did not believe the US and refused to surrender unconditionally. The US dropped the second bomb. The Japanese finally surrendered, conditionally of course. The bottom line is that I define terrorists as those who conceal their plans to do harm to the civilians. In this case, the Japanese knew what was coming and ignored the warning. I do agree that those in power could give two shits about the repercussions of humanity. In regard to Vietnam and Agent Orange, well, as we all know, the US should never have gone there in the first place. Agent Orange was completely wrong but the US was clueless as it was the first time they were ever losing a war. So, they went to some awful tactics.
Why the inferences that Syria requested help from the US against the IS? I keep hearing this, but it isn't true...Unless something has changed since I last had this discussion... The statement issued by the Syrian govt was that they were willing to cooperate with other countries "as long as the cooperation is approached in a serious manner, without double standards, and does not weaken Syria"...“Being serious in combating terrorism isn’t achieved by transgressing against others’ sovereignty. It is a achieved through serious political work to dry up its sources and cooperating with the Syrian government, because we know better than anyone else what is happening on our land.” They know full well the US is directly involved in the civil war there, trying to overthrow them...and judging by this comment, they know that US intervention against the IS is a foot in the door for the US to attempt imposition of a no-fly zone and go all Libya on them. The inference that they requested help gives credence to the bullshit humanitarian mission angle the west is hyping in Syria.
Also (skeeter) : not sure who in this forum thinks the Palestinians have done nothing wrong. Stop trying to portray Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. How condescending and belittling these comments are! I thought that was supposed to be Byrnzie's thing?
I guess that someone is no longer here, but he was one of them and it seemed he was very biased and did not allow for a civil discussion. I wasn't involved in every discussion nor read every post, so if he was inclusive of both sides, then sorry.
I never said anything about Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. I just am asking for people to look at both sides. If that's belittling to you, I apologize.
Why the inferences that Syria requested help from the US against the IS? I keep hearing this, but it isn't true...Unless something has changed since I last had this discussion... The statement issued by the Syrian govt was that they were willing to cooperate with other countries "as long as the cooperation is approached in a serious manner, without double standards, and does not weaken Syria"...“Being serious in combating terrorism isn’t achieved by transgressing against others’ sovereignty. It is a achieved through serious political work to dry up its sources and cooperating with the Syrian government, because we know better than anyone else what is happening on our land.” They know full well the US is directly involved in the civil war there, trying to overthrow them...and judging by this comment, they know that US intervention against the IS is a foot in the door for the US to attempt imposition of a no-fly zone and go all Libya on them. The inference that they requested help gives credence to the bullshit humanitarian mission angle the west is hyping in Syria.
Also (skeeter) : not sure who in this forum thinks the Palestinians have done nothing wrong. Stop trying to portray Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. How condescending and belittling these comments are! I thought that was supposed to be Byrnzie's thing?
I guess that someone is no longer here, but he was one of them and it seemed he was very biased and did not allow for a civil discussion. I wasn't involved in every discussion nor read every post, so if he was inclusive of both sides, then sorry.
I never said anything about Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. I just am asking for people to look at both sides. If that's belittling to you, I apologize.
No need to apologize, I didn't feel belittled....was just making the point that it was fairly common from all sides on any heated topic, this one in particular...that was the criticism often levelled at Byrnzie. But for the most part there are only 5 maybe 7-8 tops, regular contributors on this board who like to give the palestinian side, so critizing 'some' of us sounds like a generalization of our overall views as a collective....if that makes any sense.
Thanks so much for sharing this. I'll admit I didn't read it in as much detail as I plan on during non-working hours, but there were some very interesting insights in here. My favourite lines: "Isolation is intellectually impoverishing. It is better to be confused daily by speaking with people who see the world differently."
It reminds me of the critical distinction people have come to accept when referring to the city of Toronto: it's not a melting pot, it's a salad bowl - pockets of individuals who maintain their integrity and do not assimilate and share cultures with each other - they remain discrete entities. It was so mind-blowing to me, in Malaysia, to see the way the different cultural and religious identities truly mingled. I found it to be incredibly beautiful and inspiring. Even in as multi-cultural of a city as Toronto, I don't get the sense of that being the case here - we don't inspire or borrow or learn from each other, we just live in our respective communities.
So now that we've talked about the necessity of understanding each others' cultures and religious backgrounds within Israel and the Palestinian regions, what's the next actionable step? We've recognized a necessity for empathetic training. So who does the responsibility fall upon to implement programs like this in either of Israel or the Palestinian regions? This is an open question for anyone who has suggestions, but Yosi, I'd love to hear your response to this in particular, since you are immersed within the societies that we outside of Israel and the Palestinian regions can only make suppositions about.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Anyway, welcome back yosi. July/august was a helluva time for the board's most strident Zionist/Israeli nationalist to take a break from the forum.
You can thank the bar exam for my absence in July. August I just didn't have the energy to argue in circles. Plus, I realized that I'm no longer interested in doing so. And I'm not sure how I feel about being described as "strident." Somehow I feel like that makes me out to be a Likudnik when that couldn't be further from the truth. I'd describe myself as an ardent liberal-Zionist, though I suppose that for some people anyone espousing a Zionist position is strident.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Syria has its hands tied, and I would venture to guess that their request for assistance is out of nothing but the most dire of necessity, and an existential crisis within its political boundaries. The responsible thing to do, in my opinion, would be for the US to deny that request for assistance initially, and suggest that this is a topic for the UN to decide. Your military's strength does not dictate the necessity for hasty and thoughtless intervention.
And no, the US aren't hijacking planes or beheading innocent people. But how can you honestly say that dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the dissemination of spray dioxin in Vietnam, even consider the weight of their actions in regards to loss of innocent life? That to me is unequivocally terrorism. In fact, it's terrorism done in such a cowardice way so as to prevent any feelings of guilt or remorse: from that distance, you don't see the faces of the men, women, children, babies, that you've melted, maimed, and deformed.
As for your last paragraph, I actually agree with you about your later sentences. I know I can get preachy on this topic, but universal empathy must be practiced in order for any tangible change to occur. Empathize with all parties involved in a conflict, learn about why they feel and act the way they do, and then encourage those involved to do the same thing. Sometimes I forget how few Israeli perspectives are around here, and that's largely because back in the real world, I'm very much living within a Jewish community which is notoriously pushy when presenting Israeli opinion pieces.
That being said, to your last point, is the US hijacking planes, beheading innocent people, etc? I consider acts of terrorism those that the people have to hide their plans and purposefully go only after innocent civilians. The US clearly doesn't do that. They announce everything they're doing, whether it's right or wrong and normally, the intent is not to kill innocent civilians.
In regard to the atomic bombs, the US gave very fair warning to Japan about the atomic bomb. The Japanese did not believe the US had an atomic bomb. What the US didn't know was how much devastation it would cause. They knew it was going to be bad, but not as bad as what occurred. The US told the Japanese they had a second bomb and told them to unconditionally surrender or else. Again, the Japanese did not believe the US and refused to surrender unconditionally. The US dropped the second bomb. The Japanese finally surrendered, conditionally of course. The bottom line is that I define terrorists as those who conceal their plans to do harm to the civilians. In this case, the Japanese knew what was coming and ignored the warning. I do agree that those in power could give two shits about the repercussions of humanity. In regard to Vietnam and Agent Orange, well, as we all know, the US should never have gone there in the first place. Agent Orange was completely wrong but the US was clueless as it was the first time they were ever losing a war. So, they went to some awful tactics.
You say,They (U.S) announce everything they're doing, ...Sorry, That is just incorrect.
But so what if the U.S. does announce it's plans? It may make you/us sleep better at night, knowing/thinking that because we announced our plans to destroy an entire village, it's 'alright' because we so generously announced it before hand.
So then, what If ISIS started to give 'advanced' warnings (which they kinda do), then what, they are not terrorists anymore?
The U.S. drops a 5-ton bomb on towns, villages, markets...Knowing full well innocent people will die, and that is not terrorism? 'Shock' and 'awe' (Iraq 2003)...Terrorism? No(according to your logic) , cause they announced it before.
and Agent Orange was not the first (or last) time the U.S. dropped chemicals over people.
The U.S. dropping Depleted Uranium over Iraq causing a sharp rise in Cancer/birth defects...For a 1000 YEARS...babies (Generation after generation) will be born with horrific mutations, due to our dropping of chemicals on the population.
and whats this, the Japanese did not believe the U.S. had a second bomb?
Syria has its hands tied, and I would venture to guess that their request for assistance is out of nothing but the most dire of necessity, and an existential crisis within its political boundaries. The responsible thing to do, in my opinion, would be for the US to deny that request for assistance initially, and suggest that this is a topic for the UN to decide. Your military's strength does not dictate the necessity for hasty and thoughtless intervention.
And no, the US aren't hijacking planes or beheading innocent people. But how can you honestly say that dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the dissemination of spray dioxin in Vietnam, even consider the weight of their actions in regards to loss of innocent life? That to me is unequivocally terrorism. In fact, it's terrorism done in such a cowardice way so as to prevent any feelings of guilt or remorse: from that distance, you don't see the faces of the men, women, children, babies, that you've melted, maimed, and deformed.
As for your last paragraph, I actually agree with you about your later sentences. I know I can get preachy on this topic, but universal empathy must be practiced in order for any tangible change to occur. Empathize with all parties involved in a conflict, learn about why they feel and act the way they do, and then encourage those involved to do the same thing. Sometimes I forget how few Israeli perspectives are around here, and that's largely because back in the real world, I'm very much living within a Jewish community which is notoriously pushy when presenting Israeli opinion pieces.
That being said, to your last point, is the US hijacking planes, beheading innocent people, etc? I consider acts of terrorism those that the people have to hide their plans and purposefully go only after innocent civilians. The US clearly doesn't do that. They announce everything they're doing, whether it's right or wrong and normally, the intent is not to kill innocent civilians.
In regard to the atomic bombs, the US gave very fair warning to Japan about the atomic bomb. The Japanese did not believe the US had an atomic bomb. What the US didn't know was how much devastation it would cause. They knew it was going to be bad, but not as bad as what occurred. The US told the Japanese they had a second bomb and told them to unconditionally surrender or else. Again, the Japanese did not believe the US and refused to surrender unconditionally. The US dropped the second bomb. The Japanese finally surrendered, conditionally of course. The bottom line is that I define terrorists as those who conceal their plans to do harm to the civilians. In this case, the Japanese knew what was coming and ignored the warning. I do agree that those in power could give two shits about the repercussions of humanity. In regard to Vietnam and Agent Orange, well, as we all know, the US should never have gone there in the first place. Agent Orange was completely wrong but the US was clueless as it was the first time they were ever losing a war. So, they went to some awful tactics.
You say,They (U.S) announce everything they're doing, ...Sorry, That is just incorrect.
But so what if the U.S. does announce it's plans? It may make you/us sleep better at night, knowing/thinking that because we announced our plans to destroy an entire village, it's 'alright' because we so generously announced it before hand.
So then, what If ISIS started to give 'advanced' warnings (which they kinda do), then what, they are not terrorists anymore?
The U.S. drops a 5-ton bomb on towns, villages, markets...Knowing full well innocent people will die, and that is not terrorism? 'Shock' and 'awe' (Iraq 2003)...Terrorism? No(according to your logic) , cause they announced it before.
and Agent Orange was not the first (or last) time the U.S. dropped chemicals over people.
The U.S. dropping Depleted Uranium over Iraq causing a sharp rise in Cancer/birth defects...For a 1000 YEARS...babies (Generation after generation) will be born with horrific mutations, due to our dropping of chemicals on the population.
and whats this, the Japanese did not believe the U.S. had a second bomb?
Comments
The statement issued by the Syrian govt was that they were willing to cooperate with other countries "as long as the cooperation is approached in a serious manner, without double standards, and does not weaken Syria"...“Being serious in combating terrorism isn’t achieved by transgressing against others’ sovereignty. It is a achieved through serious political work to dry up its sources and cooperating with the Syrian government, because we know better than anyone else what is happening on our land.” They know full well the US is directly involved in the civil war there, trying to overthrow them...and judging by this comment, they know that US intervention against the IS is a foot in the door for the US to attempt imposition of a no-fly zone and go all Libya on them. The inference that they requested help gives credence to the bullshit humanitarian mission angle the west is hyping in Syria.
For a thread attempting to show that Israel is not a monolithic society with supremacist views, throwing this in there is a bit ironic:
"For those who need a reminder not to blindly accept the received wisdom on this forum". Because people have gravitated to the Palestinian side after reviewing years of posts and information on this board, information you have countered as eloquently as any supporter of the occupation I've seen - we are blind? Also (skeeter) : not sure who in this forum thinks the Palestinians have done nothing wrong. Stop trying to portray Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. How condescending and belittling these comments are! I thought that was supposed to be Byrnzie's thing?
Anyway, welcome back yosi. July/august was a helluva time for the board's most strident Zionist/Israeli nationalist to take a break from the forum.
In regard to the atomic bombs, the US gave very fair warning to Japan about the atomic bomb. The Japanese did not believe the US had an atomic bomb. What the US didn't know was how much devastation it would cause. They knew it was going to be bad, but not as bad as what occurred. The US told the Japanese they had a second bomb and told them to unconditionally surrender or else. Again, the Japanese did not believe the US and refused to surrender unconditionally. The US dropped the second bomb. The Japanese finally surrendered, conditionally of course. The bottom line is that I define terrorists as those who conceal their plans to do harm to the civilians. In this case, the Japanese knew what was coming and ignored the warning. I do agree that those in power could give two shits about the repercussions of humanity. In regard to Vietnam and Agent Orange, well, as we all know, the US should never have gone there in the first place. Agent Orange was completely wrong but the US was clueless as it was the first time they were ever losing a war. So, they went to some awful tactics.
www.amazingathletes.com/northchi
I never said anything about Israel's critics as unreasonable or extremist. I just am asking for people to look at both sides. If that's belittling to you, I apologize.
www.amazingathletes.com/northchi
Thanks so much for sharing this. I'll admit I didn't read it in as much detail as I plan on during non-working hours, but there were some very interesting insights in here. My favourite lines: "Isolation is intellectually impoverishing. It is better to be confused daily by speaking with people who see the world differently."
It reminds me of the critical distinction people have come to accept when referring to the city of Toronto: it's not a melting pot, it's a salad bowl - pockets of individuals who maintain their integrity and do not assimilate and share cultures with each other - they remain discrete entities. It was so mind-blowing to me, in Malaysia, to see the way the different cultural and religious identities truly mingled. I found it to be incredibly beautiful and inspiring. Even in as multi-cultural of a city as Toronto, I don't get the sense of that being the case here - we don't inspire or borrow or learn from each other, we just live in our respective communities.
So now that we've talked about the necessity of understanding each others' cultures and religious backgrounds within Israel and the Palestinian regions, what's the next actionable step? We've recognized a necessity for empathetic training. So who does the responsibility fall upon to implement programs like this in either of Israel or the Palestinian regions? This is an open question for anyone who has suggestions, but Yosi, I'd love to hear your response to this in particular, since you are immersed within the societies that we outside of Israel and the Palestinian regions can only make suppositions about.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
But so what if the U.S. does announce it's plans? It may make you/us sleep better at night, knowing/thinking that because we announced our plans to destroy an entire village, it's 'alright' because we so generously announced it before hand.
So then, what If ISIS started to give 'advanced' warnings (which they kinda do), then what, they are not terrorists anymore?
The U.S. drops a 5-ton bomb on towns, villages, markets...Knowing full well innocent people will die, and that is not terrorism? 'Shock' and 'awe' (Iraq 2003)...Terrorism? No(according to your logic) , cause they announced it before.
and Agent Orange was not the first (or last) time the U.S. dropped chemicals over people.
The U.S. dropping Depleted Uranium over Iraq causing a sharp rise in Cancer/birth defects...For a 1000 YEARS...babies (Generation after generation) will be born with horrific mutations, due to our dropping of chemicals on the population.
and whats this, the Japanese did not believe the U.S. had a second bomb?