You can't defend yourself if you are occupying another country
RolandTD20Kdrummer
Posts: 13,066
I like how the media spins that the US and Israel are "defending" themselves in Iraq and Palestine.
You know what? The word "defend" or "retaliate" is total impossibility when you're occupying someone else's country. There is no such thing as defending yourself when you yourself are the aggressor.
And people are shocked when these poor uneducated farmers do crazy things.
Even if they could afford a gun, they wouldn't get within 100 feet of trying to address the US or Israeli military in combat and survive.
This is why we see the guerrilla tactics as suicide bombers, and cheap home made roadside bombs. Their lives are so fucking miserable that they have to resort to taking their own lives to fight back. However completely sick in the head this may be. You have to put on the other guy's shoe for a second.
Try having your family killed and you house bulldozed (Palestine) then not be able to go anywhere and have 1/3rd - 1/2 the year as imposed curfews...IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY....mind you....by foreigners, people that beat you, and shoot at your house for kicks. Oh and they won't give you the permit to let you build a new house after they bulldoze your old one, so you actually have to get permission to build otherwise it's illegal and you're punished. Which they deny you of course, so you have to live in some refugee slums/ghetto scenario.
Oh yeah, all your best friends, uncles, grandparents, etc... get the same lovely treatment. In your own country by some foreigners.
Electricity,water...essentially non existent most of the time.
Let me know how calm you remain, and where your sanity lies after years of that going on all around you.
The UN says both occupations are illegal. The Iraq war was illegal. Both occupations violate essentially every law imaginable and daily....for many years now.
A little something to think about, and go hmmm
You know what? The word "defend" or "retaliate" is total impossibility when you're occupying someone else's country. There is no such thing as defending yourself when you yourself are the aggressor.
And people are shocked when these poor uneducated farmers do crazy things.
Even if they could afford a gun, they wouldn't get within 100 feet of trying to address the US or Israeli military in combat and survive.
This is why we see the guerrilla tactics as suicide bombers, and cheap home made roadside bombs. Their lives are so fucking miserable that they have to resort to taking their own lives to fight back. However completely sick in the head this may be. You have to put on the other guy's shoe for a second.
Try having your family killed and you house bulldozed (Palestine) then not be able to go anywhere and have 1/3rd - 1/2 the year as imposed curfews...IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY....mind you....by foreigners, people that beat you, and shoot at your house for kicks. Oh and they won't give you the permit to let you build a new house after they bulldoze your old one, so you actually have to get permission to build otherwise it's illegal and you're punished. Which they deny you of course, so you have to live in some refugee slums/ghetto scenario.
Oh yeah, all your best friends, uncles, grandparents, etc... get the same lovely treatment. In your own country by some foreigners.
Electricity,water...essentially non existent most of the time.
Let me know how calm you remain, and where your sanity lies after years of that going on all around you.
The UN says both occupations are illegal. The Iraq war was illegal. Both occupations violate essentially every law imaginable and daily....for many years now.
A little something to think about, and go hmmm
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
If I was a Palestinian, I'd be no different.
Suddenly the term martyr takes on the proper context.
sad...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Yea, they are victims in their minds, just as the Jews are victims in their minds and the Americans in their's.
meaning what? you would strap a bomb to yourself and blow yourself on a bus?
or maybe fire rockets into Israeli neighborhoods?
some might be surprised to hear this (Byrzine) but I can understand why they do the latter.
but intentionally killing unarmed civilians? no good. from either side.
You're right, however, on one side it's to be expected as a natural response to invasion...the other side just doesn't belong there and is imposing.
It's all hauntingly similar to Iraq now (regardless of how each occupation started).
It's like a sure fire recipe for conflict. Take a big army....go hang out in some country, make the situation intolerable to live in by blowing everything up, place restrictions on everything, return fire, and have the media call it defending yourself from crazy people that you must now scrub from the planet.
It took a lot of reading and digging through the smokescreens for me to finally see it.
The one fact remains regardless of he said/ she said propaganda viewpoints.
One side is a foreign combatant occupying another country that doesn't belong there.
Having the war, making the point, and leaving is one thing. Having the war and sticking around for years to create endless perpetual war is something very much different altogether.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
we left Iraq and Iraq was able to sustain itself as a country, preferable a free one, with no more bloodshed
Israel and Palastine come to a peace agreement . basically a land agreement, that meets with both sides making concessions. those borders have been changing since the beginning of mankind. drawing a line in the sand is not that easy. every country has borders, lets all agree on something and move on. build a fucking fence for all I care. as it stands now, from what I can see on a map, Israel is occupying far too much land.
osama bin laden and his top deput are killed. and al queda falls apart. hell, i'll even throw in a taliban country in the tribal areas of pakistan. if you promise to stay in the mountains and mind your business, we'll go back to american and get on with building skyscrapers.
Very true.
I think everyone needs to take inventory of the situation. The US has driven the message home 100 times over. Ok, everybody gets it...attack the US and they will get very upset figure out vaguely who did it, invade somebody, and proceed to blow everything up. There was a hint of sarcasm in there, but you know what I mean. They will figure it out and rain a hellstorm down on you.
Israel needs to establish realistic borders that can provide some kind of security and not be greedy over setting up settlements all over the place by snapping up all the choice spots. Also give Palestine the right to privacy, the most basic of human rights, and an overall sense of security. All in all, the Palestinians were living there first regardless. Otherwise it will go on forever, or until the genocide is complete.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
yea, situation sucks.
They chose all the closest spots to water, strategic military highlands, and best agricultural areas, and kicked all the Palestinians out by force. Then they handed out free machine guns all the Jewish settlers.
I figure they have tons of bulldozers, they can either build new ones in larger segregated zones, and give up some of their homes to Palestinians that they bulldozed. Which would be completely proper. They get billons in aid anyway. IT's not like they can't restructure. Sell back a few f-16 and a few tanks if necessary.
A house for a house sounds good to me, and the Palestinians who lost their houses should really be compensated on top for all the shit they had to go through. Seems common sense, as their houses used to be on the exact same land as the newly built Jewish settlement before it was demolished anyway. Unless, of course,they're all dead, then it should follow blood lines.
The foreign combatants will have to concede, but they won't, which also shows more of who is really at fault in this scenario.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
About 2 months ago I posted an article that showed Israeli settlemnts were on private Palestinian land. Apparently 4/10 of the land used for Israeli settlements was this private land, which the top Israeli court said was unlawful. It forbade new settlements to be built on this land.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1953702,00.html
I just can't imagine what that would be like. Going to see your old neighborhood and seeing some new house sitting on your plot of land for which you still hold the title/deed and you would be risking your life just to knock on the door and ask what's up, or protest.
It's no wonder these guys are seriously pissed.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Look, you make some fine points for sure, but you have to at least admit that a good portion of the suicide bombers and guerilla attackers are NOT actually Iraqi's who are rebelling. I think I even read you wrote in another post that Al Qaeda in Iraq are only there because we invaded. I mean, true, but you can't have it both ways. There are Iraqis who are doing this, for sure, but there are also outside elements who have lost nothing from the invasion of Iraq, but are only attacking, and killing, and destroying because of anti-US sentiment and the hope that they will prevent this from ever being a truly free country.
Just a point worth "hmmmmmming" about
Untill their will grows tired
But who is occupying who and where? I think they are looking down the road seeing the bigger picture. Crossing the world's 2nd largest ocean to occupy another country can polarize an entire region of people. they are probably thinking, We have what they want (oil). If we don't help get rid of the big foreign superpower...were probably going to be next on the chopping block.
Alternative energy...I wish there was more going on with this in the media.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Yes, and all of this was predicted by top U.S advisors prior to the invasion. The Bush administration knew that invading Iraq would increase the risk of terrorism in the world, and they invaded anyway. The arms dealers are being well looked after.
There have been countless offers of a two-state settlement over the past 40 years and every single one has been vetoed by the U.S, in opposition to world opinion.
America's latest contribution to the 'peace process' has been to provide a 25% increase in funding to Israel - amounting to $30 Billion.
Yeah and Bush's argument to that is " I'm the first president that ever suggested to actually have a state called Palestine!.....see? I'm awesome...I'm doing it! So it's just so obvious I want peace...isn;t that just so awesome of me?"...
What he forgets to mention in the same breath how many times he's vetoed positive action.. I think he's vetoed constructive UN peace processes in Israel around 30 times.
Uhhh...ooops!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
ok lets talk about it. the last 40 years? I remember clinton giving it a go at camp david and Arafat rejecting it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords
and bush's road map to peace? is that doable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace
I am not defending those plans but merely stating them. I will have to read through those links again. they are just what I remember off the top of my head.
lets talk about these "countless offers" you speak off.
Not me. Killing is wrong.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
last 40 years..... over 30 vetos......
lets see it? and talk about it.
Jlew, I say this with respect, but please, stop bringing up Camp David as something that could or should have been adopted. It was a sham. Arafat, or WHOEVER would have represented the Palestinians at that time, was correct to turn it down. Its offensive that such a plan was even floated. When are the Israelis going to get it - that beyond the wishes of one party or the other, there has to be an objective and VIABLE new state, one capable of functioning in every way, and into the forseeable future. Otherwise, whats the point ? What the Israelis have offered is far, far short of that. One wonders if they make these paltry concessions as an excuse to then go grab more Palestinian land under the pretext of the Palestinians "never wanting peace". Its not right, and its Israel, not the Palestinians, who are looking like idiots.
that was the first time I mentioned camp david. and as I said, I wasn't defending it, it was happen to come off the top of my head.
why was the deal such a sham? i'm asking seriously because I dont know much about the deal.
I posted the wrong link before...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit
B/c, inter alia, it would have seen the WB diced up by Israeli controlled roads, virtually from one end to the other. Colin Powell said of CD that there's no use "having a place cut up into a thousand pieces". I have doubts that Israel EVER wants a viable, contiguous, sovereign Palestinian state living next ot it.
from the wiki...
Ehud Barak offered Arafat an eventual 91% (after many years - see section on territory) of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries. But before any gradual Israeli withdrawal, all Palestinian terrorist infrastructure must be dismantled. Arafat, however, refused.
I think this would have been a good start. I also believe as time went on and both sides lived peacefully, Israel would have made more concessions as (peaceful) time went on.
Truthmonger's right. Camp David was a sham. I've commented in detail on it before on the M.T. The Israelis proposed cutting the West bank up into a number of Apartheid style bantustans, separated from one another, and guarded by Israeli checkpoints. The Israelis also would have had control of all air space and sea space. It wasn't a peace offer, it was an attempt to strangle the Palestinians and to steal more of their land.
http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/wbgs_campdavid.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14120.htm
'What Barak put on the table, the population doesn't know this, because people like the Western media in Canada in the United States don't tell them. Like, you can check and see how often, you for example, and others, have reported what I just said. Don't bother checking. The answer is zero.
The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal, in the United States, I didn't check the Canadian media, in the United States you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing of course, check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map, you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.
So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.
This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.'
http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/znet_chomsky.html
http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/194
Any discussion of what is called a "peace process" -- whether the one underway at Camp David or any other -- should keep in mind the operative meaning of the phrase: by definition, the "peace process" is whatever the US government happens to be pursuing.
Having grasped that essential principle, one can understand that a peace process can be advanced by Washington's clearly-proclaimed efforts to undermine peace. To illustrate, in January 1988 the press reported Secretary of State George Shultz's "peace trip" to Central America under the headline "Latin Peace Trip by Shultz Planned." The subheading explained the goal: "Mission Would Be Last-Ditch Effort to Defuse Opposition on Contra Aid." Administration officials elaborated that the "peace mission" was "the only way to save" aid to the contras in the face of "growing congressional opposition."
The timing is important. In August 1987, over strong US objections, the Central American presidents had reached a peace agreement for the bitter Central American conflicts: the Esquipulas Accords. The US acted at once to undermine them, and by January, had largely succeeded. It had effectively excluded the sole "indispensable element" cited in the Accords: an end to US support for the contras (CIA supply flights instantly tripled, and contra terror increased). Washington had also eliminated the second basic principle of the Accords: that the human rights provisions should apply to US clients as well as to Nicaragua (by US fiat, they were to apply to Nicaragua alone). Washington had also managed to terminate the despised international monitoring mission, which had committed the crime of describing truthfully what had been happening since the adoption of the plan in August. To the consternation of the Reagan Administration, Nicaragua nevertheless accepted the version of the accords crafted by US power, leading to the Shultz "peace mission," undertaken to advance the "peace process" by ensuring that there would be no backsliding from the demolition operation.
In brief, the "peace mission" was a "last-ditch effort" to block peace and mobilize Congress to support the "unlawful use of force" for which the US had recently been condemned by the World Court.
The record of the "peace process" in the Middle East has been similar, though even more extreme....
...After the Gulf War, the US was finally in a position to impose its own unilateral rejectionist stand and did so, first at Madrid in late 1991, then in the successive Israel-PLO agreements from 1993. With these measures, the "peace process" has advanced towards the Bantustan-style arrangements that the US and Israel intended, as should have been obvious to anyone with eyes open, and is entirely clear in the documentary record and, more important, the record on the ground. That brings us to the present stage: Camp David, July 2000...
..The intended result is that an eventual Palestinian state would consist of four cantons on the West Bank: (1) Jericho, (2) the southern canton extending as far as Abu Dis (the new Arab "Jerusalem"), (3) a northern canton including the Palestinian cities of Nablus, Jenin, and Tulkarm, and (4) a central canton including Ramallah. The cantons are completely surrounded by territory to be annexed to Israel. The areas of Palestinian population concentration are to be under Palestinian administration, an adaptation of the traditional colonial pattern that is the only sensible outcome as far as Israel and the US are concerned. The plans for the Gaza Strip, a fifth canton, are uncertain: Israel might relinquish it, or might maintain the southern coastal region and another salient virtually dividing the Strip below Gaza City.
30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes.
How the U.S. has Voted // Vetoed- See any bias - See any pattern ?
by rp 3:38pm Sat Mar 8 '03
1972-2002 Vetoes from the USA
---
Year
Resolution Vetoed by the USA
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa.
1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement.
1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement.
1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries.
1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament.
1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies.
1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions.
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.
I see nothing in there opposing a 2 state solution with borders drawn up.