The Brink of Madness

[Skybird]

I agreed while reading this:



http://article.nationalreview.com/images/author/img16604323304455c44c3d39c.gif

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/spacer.gif

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/848484.gif
http://article.nationalreview.com/images/spacer.gif
August 04, 2006, 5:27 a.m.

The Brink of Madness
A familiar place.

By Victor Davis Hanson

When I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism.

Of course, the trauma of the Great War was all too fresh, and the utopian hopes for the League of Nations were not yet dashed. The Great Depression made the thought of rearmament seem absurd. The connivances of Stalin with Hitler — both satanic, yet sometimes in alliance, sometimes not — could confuse political judgments.

But nevertheless it is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the stump speeches by Charles Lindbergh (“Their [the Jews’] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government”) or Father Coughlin (“Many people are beginning to wonder whom they should fear most — the Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination.”) — and baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.

Not any longer.

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

It is now nearly five years since jihadists from the Arab world left a crater in Manhattan and ignited the Pentagon. Apart from the frontline in Iraq, the United States and NATO have troops battling the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan. European police scramble daily to avoid another London or Madrid train bombing. The French, Dutch, and Danish governments are worried that a sizable number of Muslim immigrants inside their countries are not assimilating, and, more worrisome, are starting to demand that their hosts alter their liberal values to accommodate radical Islam. It is apparently not safe for Australians in Bali, and a Jew alone in any Arab nation would have to be discreet — and perhaps now in France or Sweden as well. Canadians’ past opposition to the Iraq war, and their empathy for the Palestinians, earned no reprieve, if we can believe that Islamists were caught plotting to behead their prime minister. Russians have been blown up by Muslim Chechnyans from Moscow to Beslan. India is routinely attacked by Islamic terrorists. An elected Lebanese minister must keep in mind that a Hezbollah or Syrian terrorist — not an Israeli bomb — might kill him if he utters a wrong word. The only mystery here in the United States is which target the jihadists want to destroy first: the Holland Tunnel in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago.

In nearly all these cases there is a certain sameness: The Koran is quoted as the moral authority of the perpetrators; terrorism is the preferred method of violence; Jews are usually blamed; dozens of rambling complaints are aired, and killers are often considered stateless, at least in the sense that the countries in which they seek shelter or conduct business or find support do not accept culpability for their actions.

Yet the present Western apology to all this is often to deal piecemeal with these perceived Muslim grievances: India, after all, is in Kashmir; Russia is in Chechnya; America is in Iraq, Canada is in Afghanistan; Spain was in Iraq (or rather, still is in Al Andalus); or Israel was in Gaza and Lebanon. Therefore we are to believe that “freedom fighters” commit terror for political purposes of “liberation.” At the most extreme, some think there is absolutely no pattern to global terrorism, and the mere suggestion that there is constitutes “Islamaphobia.”

Here at home, yet another Islamic fanatic conducts an act of al Qaedism in Seattle, and the police worry immediately about the safety of the mosques from which such hatred has in the past often emanated — as if the problem of a Jew being murdered at the Los Angeles airport or a Seattle civic center arises from not protecting mosques, rather than protecting us from what sometimes goes on in mosques.

But then the world is awash with a vicious hatred that we have not seen in our generation: the most lavish film in Turkish history, “Valley of the Wolves,” depicts a Jewish-American harvesting organs at Abu Ghraib in order to sell them; the Palestinian state press regularly denigrates the race and appearance of the American Secretary of State; the U.N. secretary general calls a mistaken Israeli strike on a U.N. post “deliberate,” without a word that his own Blue Helmets have for years watched Hezbollah arm rockets in violation of U.N. resolutions, and Hezbollah’s terrorists routinely hide behind U.N. peacekeepers to ensure impunity while launching missiles.

If you think I exaggerate the bankruptcy of the West or only refer to the serial ravings on the Middle East of Pat Buchanan or Jimmy Carter, consider some of the most recent comments from Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah about Israel: “When the people of this temporary country lose their confidence in their legendary army, the end of this entity will begin [emphasis added].” Then compare Nasrallah’s remarks about the U.S: “To President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert and every other tyrannical aggressor. I want to invite you to do what you want, practice your hostilities. By God, you will not succeed in erasing our memory, our presence or eradicating our strong belief. Your masses will soon waste away, and your days are numbered [emphasis added].”

And finally examine here at home reaction to Hezbollah — which has butchered Americans in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia — from a prominent Democratic Congressman, John Dingell: “I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah.” And isn’t that the point, after all: the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any?

An Arab rights group, between denunciations of Israel and America, is suing its alma mater the United States for not evacuating Arab-Americans quickly enough from Lebanon, despite government warnings of the dangers of going there, and the explicit tactics of Hezbollah, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, of using civilians as human shields in the war it started against Israel.

Demonstrators on behalf of Hezbollah inside the United States — does anyone remember our 241 Marines slaughtered by these cowardly terrorists? — routinely carry placards with the Star of David juxtaposed with Swastikas, as voices praise terrorist killers. Few Arab-American groups these past few days have publicly explained that the sort of violence, tyranny, and lawlessness of the Middle East that drove them to the shores of a compassionate and successful America is best epitomized by the primordial creed of Hezbollah.

There is no need to mention Europe, an entire continent now returning to the cowardice of the 1930s. Its cartoonists are terrified of offending Muslim sensibilities, so they now portray the Jews as Nazis, secure that no offended Israeli terrorist might chop off their heads. The French foreign minister meets with the Iranians to show solidarity with the terrorists who promise to wipe Israel off the map (“In the region there is of course a country such as Iran — a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region”) — and manages to outdo Chamberlain at Munich. One wonders only whether the prime catalyst for such French debasement is worry over oil, terrorists, nukes, unassimilated Arab minorities at home, or the old Gallic Jew-hatred.

It is now a cliché to rant about the spread of postmodernism, cultural relativism, utopian pacifism, and moral equivalence among the affluent and leisured societies of the West. But we are seeing the insidious wages of such pernicious theories as they filter down from our media, universities, and government — and never more so than in the general public’s nonchalance since Hezbollah attacked Israel.

These past few days the inability of millions of Westerners, both here and in Europe, to condemn fascist terrorists who start wars, spread racial hatred, and despise Western democracies is the real story, not the “quarter-ton” Israeli bombs that inadvertently hit civilians in Lebanon who live among rocket launchers that send missiles into Israeli cities and suburbs.

Yes, perhaps Israel should have hit more quickly, harder, and on the ground; yes, it has run an inept public relations campaign; yes, to these criticisms and more. But what is lost sight of is the central moral issue of our times: a humane democracy mired in an asymmetrical war is trying to protect itself against terrorists from the 7th century, while under the scrutiny of a corrupt world that needs oil, is largely anti-Semitic and deathly afraid of Islamic terrorists, and finds psychic enjoyment in seeing successful Western societies under duress.

In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War (http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1400060958).


National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBhMzg5Mzk4NjQ5MjM5OTJhZjRjMWQ4OWMzNDhmMzk=

[Yahoshua]

Excellent article skybird.

[CB..]

poor old Chamberlain..he allways gets the blame..yet time and time again i read that he bought us enough time to get the country onto a war footing- and that more than likely we would have lost the battle of britain if it had started even as little as 6 months earlier..given the grave circumstances i think Chamberlain was sacrificed to give us time to prepare...

but it was a war against a country.. against an insane political regime..this is a war against terrorism..this is a war against the man next door...every shot fired and every life lost re-inforces the convictions of those on every side..there are times when die-ing for what one believes or making other die for what one believes becomes the very act of terrorism that we need to stop...it makes a mockery of everything we have been brought up to believe.....

But what is lost sight of is the central moral issue of our times: a humane democracy mired in an asymmetrical war is trying to protect itself against terrorists from the 7th century,

our technology is in the here and now...our beliefs are 7th century..
dunno how but that has got to change

[Skybird]

...our beliefs are 7th century..


Ours...?

And - war against terrorism? That's as if one is saying: "war against tanks". "War against air planes." But these are just the tools of war you fight with. WWII was fought against fascism. The enemy you fight against now is the one with the beliefs from the 7th century. If anyone still believes terrorism and the fight against it has nothing to do with religion and culture, then he is totally wrong. It is a clash of civilisations, and at least as much also a clash of ages 1500 years apart. It's about high time that we in the West finally - finally - get to realise that.

In the supermarket this afternoon, I overheared a talk between two men, who were buying the same political magazine. They mentioned that everything today (meaning the war in the ME, and the growing tensions between Islam and the West in general) would be much better if only we would apologise to Islam that after 9/11 some of us - so very few of us - dared to point fingers at it and put it under suspicion. such stupidity leaves me speechless. I makes me wanting to grab a heavy stick and wanting to beat some reason into people who obviously only carry braindead corpses through their lives. One could despair about such people and such a massive amount of naivety.

[CB..]

i agree completely...and that's my point.....it is a clash of civlisations..and religious beliefs...and of course about who is right and who is wrong...which is why what we believe to be right and wrong is absolutely central to the clash on all levels of intellect..
in order to resolve it peacefully (unlikely) some sort of debate is needed between partys...which is a nightmare when the issues are political- it is allmost inconcievable when the issues are centurys old religious convictions...but we have been avoiding the issue for allmost as long as those beliefs have existed.....now we can no longer have that luxury...either one has to wipe out the other..or all have ask the gut wrenching question...does the human race have to die because of what it believes..it won't matter a damn whose right or wrong in the end...it will come down to a simple choice...do we survive or do we die..

i dunno what the two idiots in the supermarket were on..they seem to be assuming that it is possible to deal with it in normal terms...it's far and away a much bigger issue than appeasment or aggressive attack can deal with..it is in fact an issue that adresses the very nature of our intellectual development as a species..IMO

[scandium]

...our beliefs are 7th century..

Ours...?

And - war against terrorism? That's as if one is saying: "war against tanks". "War against air planes." But these are just the tools of war you fight with. WWII was fought against fascism. No, it wasn't. It was fought against Germany, Japan, and Italy, and therefore it was a war with those three countries. And it ended when the Heads of State of each of these three countries, one by one, surrendered and signed peace treaties after their armies were defeated on the battlefield.

[Edit] Do these facts give you an inkling of why the "war" on terror can neither be fought nor won with the same tactics and mentality? Declaring war on terror is like screwing for virginity (to steal from something someone else once said).

[snowsub]

Excellent article Skybord, couldn't agree more :up:

A lot of people today are letting they're emotions cloud their judgement, allying with the enermy just because they don't like someone/country etc. Especially when the one they ally with doesn't give a damn about them anyway.

and leads to things like this happening...
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=120233

[Rockstar]

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

German Pastor Martin Niemöller - WWII

[TteFAboB]

Skybird, you are correct. The new German constitution has elements to prevent fascism from grasping power. If the battle was against the State of Germany and not against fascism, then the war would have ended just like in WWI, a peace treaty between states, and not a push for unconditional surrender and the re-foundation of the German nation under a new constitution. The Allies had more than once the oportunity to sign a cease-fire and permit the Nazi state to carry on fighting in the East while liberating Western Europe, and there were many who would've liked to do so, as there are always the virus, the parasite within, but gladly it didn't happen.

Terrorism is one stage and one strategy of an asymmetrical war. It would be easy to call things by the name otherwise you're going to have to change the name of the war everytime the strategy changes: war on terrorism, war on blitzkrieg, war on mass murder, war on nuclear devices, etc..

[Skybird]

Skybird, you are correct. The new German constitution has elements to prevent fascism from grasping power. If the battle was against the State of Germany and not against fascism, then the war would have ended just like in WWI, a peace treaty between states, and not a push for unconditional surrender and the re-foundation of the German nation under a new constitution. The Allies had more than once the oportunity to sign a cease-fire and permit the Nazi state to carry on fighting in the East while liberating Western Europe, and there were many who would've liked to do so, as there are always the virus, the parasite within, but gladly it didn't happen.

Terrorism is one stage and one strategy of an asymmetrical war. It would be easy to call things by the name otherwise you're going to have to change the name of the war every time the strategy changes: war on terrorism, war on blitzkrieg, war on mass murder, war on nuclear devices, etc..

The German constitution (we do not call it like that, because it was provisional, we call it "basic law") was demanded by the victorious allies to be designed that the power balance and relations between the central government and the federal states are such that the latter prevent for their own local and personal interests the building of a strong central government in Bonn (Berlin). they did not want to see a third time a Strong centralised power taking over all power and pushing the world into trouble. After reunification, that provisional arrangement was to be replaced by an ordinary constitution - and then it's design fully backfired in strength onto that demand. Because the local leaders (Landesfürsten we call them: regional kings!) did not have any intention to give up their local powers, therefore the provisional Grundgesetzt never was replaced with a new design for a constitution. Since the weak position of the central government has not been changed, Germany suffers from slow-going reforms and inability to act - which again shows during this time of a great coalition we have over here: they are bogged down and again, and completely messed up. We have local elections this autumn in two Eastern Federal states. Participation is expected to fall to a record low of below 50%. It even is possible that it goes as low as 30%.

Am I hijacking my own thread here? :lol:

Back to the issue, what the west has successfully achieved is to widely delete it's cultural identity, it's "historical personality", and the one who has not cultural identity - cannot defend a culture against an aggressive opponent, because he has none. the lacking knowledge of people who we are, and how we came here, and what historical events led our ancestor to perform like they did, and give us this place with these values and rights, an no others, leads to this loss of identity. In the main it was caused by the growing transfer and shifting of powers from regional/national politics to non-regional, international economical interest carriers, and the understanding of justice and equality of all men as a state were all qualitative differences and all regional cultural peculiarities are rejected and ignored, and in fact levelled to into one and the same cultural and intellectual flatland desert. Westerners do not know anything anymore they would consider to be worth fighting for and defend it against external totalitarian demands. that they are told by their left elites that they also have an obligation to consider each and every man as of equal worth and value as their own culture, does not help to learn to see the difference between the attacker and the one who should defend himself - but refuses to do so. It is a vacuum Islam flows into, and that vacuum has intentionally been created by our economies demanding cheap labour workers (while ignoring the longterm cultural cost), and the political left (dreaming the dream of all-levelled indifference between all mankind that they mistake with Justice and equal rights for all).

That, for a third point, Western state structures and constitutions are sharing a secular design (separation between state and religion), that is not shared in Islam, allows the latter to turn these secular laws against the West and push Islamic policies by hiding behind the laws that guarantee the freedom of religious practising. In principle Islam says: "it is our religion to try to rule you and overcome your culture and wipe it out, your laws prohibit you to resist us. "

And that so few people only are made to think and doubt that this is right and must be changed is the final declaration of bankruptcy of the Western culture that tries so hard to annihilate itself by refusing itself, and embracing Islam. Zum Haare-ausreißen.

[scandium]

Back to the issue, what the west has successfully achieved is to widely delete it's cultural identity, it's "historical personality", and the one who has not cultural identity - cannot defend a culture against an aggressive opponent, because he has none.
You have this so backward its astounding. I encourage you to set aside, for a change, the Islam library and devote more of your reading time to history; if you do that you may eve realize that all of these Islamic cultural assimilation theories of yours are completely bogus and refuted by historical facts.

You talk about the "West and its cultural identity" - what cultural identity is that Skybird? Begin your reading in 100 BC (and please, when I say history, I mean history, don't begin here with biblical theology) and you will discover that your Western countries and that most of Europe, including your particular part of it, had at that time very little culture that still remains today (and this mainly in the form of various superstistions that are a hold over from the various forms of paganism that was the dominant form of religion in that era).

German culture, along with most other European culture, was imported from Rome (the Greeks and their culture, and their philosophies also play a tremendous part in shaping what you call "European culture") as centuries of warfare led to the settlement of parts of these regions as land grants to Roman nobles from a succession of Roman Emperors (as an aside, even the German word "Kaiser" is derived from the latin "Caesar").

By 306 A.D. Constantine's Roman Empire included what was then Gaul, the Germanic provinces, Britain, and Spain, and it was Constantine who first founded the Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire) and who was the first Emperor to truly embrace Christianity and begin to pave the road for this religion to become the official religion of what was to become the Holy Roman Empire. And to truly appreciate the scope of the Constanine's Roman Empire, the great city that was named after him, Constantinople, which was also his capital, remains today - though its now known as Istanbul, Turkey.

Constantine also had another important influence on your "European culture" when he laid the foundations for Feudalism by introducing serfdom there, where future generations, that had in this part of Europe always been larger nomadic, would now be tied to the land they were on and where trades and other occupations would become "inherited" - and this was to be the way in your "European Culture" for more than a millenium. And it was under Constantine that the pagan Germanic hordes were civilized and, forcefully, introduced to Christianity (this process was also taking place in the ME, or those parts of it which then were part of the Byzantine Empire).

Ironically it was Germanic invaders who, in the 5th century put an end to the Roman Empire (though the Byzantine Empire survived much longer in the east) and these and other events heralded the Dark Ages that followed - though Christianity would thrive, and in tandem so would the power of the succession of Catholic popes) while remants of Roman laws and customs would live on.

Meanwhile the Eastern Roman Empire would live on much longer and fare much better (the quality of life, pace of innovation and invention, academic study and scholarship all thriving) while your proud Europe stumbled and staggered through the Dark Ages and Midieval feudal societies that were no more than constantly warring theocratic dictatorships (though that is to kind to describe the quality of life enjoyed by the serfs, who mae up the bulk of the population, for whom life was incredibly harsh, arbitrary, brutal, and short).

That about about sums up the first 16 centuries of your proud "European" civilization, taking us from Ceasar to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in the 15th century by the Ottoman Turks.

That is a brief crash course in the necessary foundation one must understand to appreciate the developments that were to follow as "European culture" was to soon come into its own with the dawning of the Enlightenment, the foundations of which again being part Roman part Greek, while in parallel what had formerly been the Byzantine Empire was to begin its own decline, 10 centuries after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, as the Ottoman empire began to exert its cultural influence over the Middle East and as the region became, increasingly a battleground between East and West.

the lacking knowledge of people who we are, and how we came here, and what historical events led our ancestor to perform like they did, and give us this place with these values and rights, an no others, leads to this loss of identity. Precisely. Though its ironic that you fear so strongly other cultures while seeming oblivious to the fact that what you claim as your own "distinct" culture had long ago been shaped by the Romans and the Greeks rather than by the Pagan, barbaric Germanic tribes who are your ancestors.

In the main it was caused by the growing transfer and shifting of powers from regional/national politics to non-regional, international economical interest carriers, and the understanding of justice and equality of all men as a state were all qualitative differences and all regional cultural peculiarities are rejected and ignored, and in fact levelled to into one and the same cultural and intellectual flatland desert. You guys had tried the former for centuries. And where did it get you? A millenium of feudal warfare and stagnation followed by 3 centuries of warfare between the great powers culminating in the two great wars. The EU and the UN may be deeply flawed institutions, but how many all out wars have you fought since the U.N. was created?

Westerners do not know anything anymore they would consider to be worth fighting for and defend it against external totalitarian demands. Not true, we're (mostly) just not interested in turning back the clock to the time of the Crusades.

that they are told by their left elites that they also have an obligation to consider each and every man as of equal worth and value as their own culture, does not help to learn to see the difference between the attacker and the one who should defend himself - but refuses to do so. What left elites? Look around you pal, the powers running the show on the international stage are hardly "leftist elites"

It is a vacuum Islam flows into, and that vacuum has intentionally been created by our economies demanding cheap labour workers (while ignoring the longterm cultural cost), and the political left (dreaming the dream of all-levelled indifference between all mankind that they mistake with Justice and equal rights for all).
Are you familiar with this phrase: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? That is from the American Declaration of Independence. Are these your leftist political elites?

That, for a third point, Western state structures and constitutions are sharing a secular design (separation between state and religion), that is not shared in Islam, allows the latter to turn these secular laws against the West and push Islamic policies by hiding behind the laws that guarantee the freedom of religious practising. In principle Islam says: "it is our religion to try to rule you and overcome your culture and wipe it out, your laws prohibit you to resist us."
I don't care what you think their theology states, because the facts say otherwise. There are no Islamic theocracies anywhere in the West, nor have they invaded or conquered any of our countries. Meanwhile, on the other hand, what was formerly Palestinia is now Israel, a state conquered, occupied, and controlled by a Jewish government via direct intervention and support from the West; Iraq, what was formerly a fairly secular Arab state was invaded and conquered by the West, which maintains a 160,000 man footprint there and who the Iraqi puppet government is beholden too; Afghanistan was also invaded and occupied by the West, and Kharzai is likewise no more than a Western puppet; and now democratic Lebanon is being invaded, and occupied, by Israel with a greenlight from the West.

So the facts contradict your assertions completely - and this says nothing of the number of ME countries who remain in power with Western support and only so long as they remain pro-Western and do what we tell them to do. One unfortunate consequence of this relationship being the absolute hold these governments hold over their people and the repression exercised to maintain this grip, causing many of them to flee to the West - and this flight from Western theocratic oppression is the root of your thesis that the West is under seiege from "Islam" and in danger of being overrun by it?

Truly this is 1984. Eurasia is at war with Eastasia. It has always been at war with Eastasia. Now back to your regularly scheduled 2 minutes hate.

[Onkel Neal]

There are no Islamic theocracies anywhere in the West, nor have they invaded or conquered any of our countries.

Let's make sure it stays that way.


Meanwhile, on the other hand, what was formerly Palestinia is now Israel, a state conquered, occupied, and controlled by a Jewish government via direct intervention and support from the West;

This is the hub, the showstopper for everything, right? Let me hear you say it; we will never have peace as long as Israel exists. Is that your position? Is that a defensible psotion for the Islamic states in the ME? If the Arabs can leave the Jews alone... I'm confident we would have peace in the ME then. Would you agree? Or would the state of Israel, left alone and not under terrorist attack, get restless and start something? That's the set of questions I want answered. Ignore them, we don't have a discussion.

Iraq, what was formerly a fairly secular Arab state was invaded and conquered by the West, which maintains a 160,000 man footprint there and who the Iraqi puppet government is beholden too;
Dictatorship that would not comply with the terms of the ceasefire of the first Gulf War.

Afghanistan was also invaded and occupied by the West, and Kharzai is likewise no more than a Western puppet;
A region that harbored terrorists, they had it coming. Be glad I wasn't President on 9/11.

and now democratic Lebanon is being invaded, and occupied, by Israel with a greenlight from the West.

Lebanon, refuge for the terrorists who kidnapped several Israeli soldiers. They would not have been invaded if their clients Hezbollah had let the soldiers go home.

[SUBMAN1]

Damn good artcle! :up: Someone who can call it like it is.

-S

[August]

Meanwhile, on the other hand, what was formerly Palestinia is now Israel, a state conquered, occupied, and controlled by a Jewish government via direct intervention and support from the West;

So now Palestine was a state? Who was its leader? What was the name of its government? What form of government did they have?

[Fish]

Who was first?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine

[CB..]

AFAIK the only terrorist who actually achieved all his desired goals was Ghandi...and you would think that other groups would be interested in his methods...methinks when you boil it right down to the final splodge of human nature....folks with grievances would rather blow stuff up than actually get what they want...
or put it another way...terrorists have decided that they will attempt to get what they want by any means neccesary.....except --of course --and here's the knub of the matter--by using Ghandi's methods and tactics...
and that to me says everything we need to know...it's just more satisfying getting all kitted out with rpg's and machine guns and poncing about the place like dime store heroes than it is to find other ways...

personally i'm past caring..kill the b*stards or talk to them either way lets just get it over with...:yep:

[Skybird]

There are no Islamic theocracies anywhere in the West, nor have they invaded or conquered any of our countries.

With the exception of Spain, Sicily, Greece, Balkan territories, and the core land of former Byzantium, and the temporary military bridgeheads in the heart of central France, Austria - all this may be considered as "our land" - European's land, that is.

Not counting the large Mohmmedan colonies in Eruopean socieities that many Mohammedan clerics on various occasionans, confernece and in various writings do not hide to think about, refer to and label as "demographic bombs", "demographic djihad" and "spearheads". Immigrants integrate and melt into their new environment, they adapt. Colonists do not integrate and adapt, but try to change their new environment instead.

Beyond that, there is not a single place in the Islamic sphere that has not been conquered by military force, and most often local cultures and religions being destroyed, subjugated, their followers systematically suppressed and made subjects for ethnically cleansing - which continues in ALL Islamic countries until today. Since 1400 years, non-Mohammedan populations in all Muslim territories are constantly - sometime slowly, sometimes fast - reduced in size. I do not know a single example beyond Muhamma's lifespan where Islam ever has been voluntarily, unmanipulated, peacefully, intentionally been wished and welcomed and embraced by a foreign peaple that it came into contact with. It never was accepted due to an inner attractiveness, but was always submitted to because of violance and force. And from the pacific region over India, along the northafrican coast and finally to Europe in the west and the East - it caused cultures to go off in flames.

No invasion, no conquest - whoever thinks so deserves some slaps in his face, just to make sure he does not spend all his life sleeping.

[tycho102]

And isn’t that the point, after all: the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any?
That's the quote that stood out to me when I read the article. In the world of moral equivalence, everyone is just as evil or just as good.

It's amazing to see people who love and use the abilities that a liberal society gives them, but will not defend that luxury with their lives.

[STEED]

Interesting article skybird.

[scandium]

There are no Islamic theocracies anywhere in the West, nor have they invaded or conquered any of our countries.
Let's make sure it stays that way.
I'd go one better and say no to any form of theocracy, be it Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or whatever, I want no part of it.

This is the hub, the showstopper for everything, right? Let me hear you say it; we will never have peace as long as Israel exists. Is that your position? Is that a defensible psotion for the Islamic states in the ME? If the Arabs can leave the Jews alone... I'm confident we would have peace in the ME then. Would you agree? Or would the state of Israel, left alone and not under terrorist attack, get restless and start something? That's the set of questions I want answered. Ignore them, we don't have a discussion.
Fair enough. Will there ever be peace in the ME as long as Israel exists? I don't know to be honest; though I could be a little disengenous (only to make a point) and ask is there peace anywhere else? I mean, what's the current homicide rate in Washington, D.C? Or in Toronton, Ontario? I believe there is only one path to peace in the region and it is this (and it would take a lot of work and require a lot of patience on both sides):

1. An honest two state solution where Israel and Palestine co-exist side by side with equal international recognition and protection under the U.N. charter. I know this has been tried before but it seems like everytime its been tried some extremist derails it and the deal's off (more on this below), or one or the other side gets impatient or offended and again the deal is off. In order for this to even have a hope of succeeding it has to be brokered by a disinterested neutral party with the support of the U.S., E.U., and the Arab community. I'm thinking of something along the lines of arbitration whereby the parties are baited/coerced to the negotiating table and forced to work it out with the arbiter.

2. The unemployment rate in the Palestinian areas is something like 70% and this is why Hamas was elected; like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas has a history of doing charitable type work for the people, isn't plagued by the corruption of the old Arafat government, and the people believe it acts in their best interests rather than in some self-serving interest - this is why they elected them. And having elected them, it doesn't help us when we promote democracy on the one hand, then punish them with the other because we don't like who they elect. Idealism is all well and good, but its pragmaticism that get results so you work with what you got. This means that just like the U.S. has always subsidized Israel, the International community - at least in the short-term - would have to put money into the new Palestinian state to create an ecomony that would reduce the unemployment rate and provide these people with something tangible to live for instead of the current situation where the opposite is true.

3. Israel has to give it a chance. It has the prosperity, the military, the economy whereas the new Palestinian state would be the fragile weak sister (no economy starting out, weak security, no military, no prosperity); just like we don't punish criminals by killing their families or blowing up their houses, Israel and the Palestinian government need to combine resources to crack down on terrorism in the same way that say our countries do (through partnerships like NORAD, intelligence sharing, etc). If/when terrorist acts happen Israel cannot continue to retaliate tit-for-tat; it hasn't worked for the last 60 years and it never will never work. Instead you find, arrest, try, and imprison/execute the perpetrators, collaborators, and planners (which is much easier in a strengthened Palestinian state with a functioning security apparatus) just as would be treated, for instance, am act of domestic terrorism or a criminal act such as mass-murder. Prosperity, hope, security, and mutual respect are the only way to go and this can never happen as long as 70% of Palestinians are unemployed, could have their house demolished (if they have one) on a moment's notice for a crime they're not even aware of, or simply die on the street by a stray missle.

If the above conditions are satisfied then the Palestinians are self-sufficient and no longer need to turn the Arab community who in the past has (elements of it at least) used them only as cannon fodder. Likewise the Arabs lose the ability to play the Palestinian card as way of scapegoating and distracting. Would they be thrilled about this? Some of them probably wouldn't be but there's nothing they can do about it. Israel is the regional partner while the Arab states with the most clout will do to them what the U.S./E.U. tells them to do because they already have strong relations with one, the other, or both (Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia I think carry the most clout and all 3 are pro-U.S., even if only by necessity, to a degree).

As to Israel getting restless and starting something, I don't think that would happen if the above process produces results or at least, over the short-term, there is good faith that it will. And especially if Israel is provided with a strong incentive not to do so. Right now it gets a $3 billion/year blank check and incentives to spend most of it on U.S. weapons. That's the wrong incentive (it might have made sense during the cold war, or when Israel was still a fledgling state).


Iraq, what was formerly a fairly secular Arab state was invaded and conquered by the West, which maintains a 160,000 man footprint there and who the Iraqi puppet government is beholden too; Dictatorship that would not comply with the terms of the ceasefire of the first Gulf War. I think we had that debate before ;) but regardless of how it got there, its there and there's no indication its leaving anytime soon; it was only an example of the footprint the West has in the M.E. rather than the other way around.

Afghanistan was also invaded and occupied by the West, and Kharzai is likewise no more than a Western puppet; A region that harbored terrorists, they had it coming. Be glad I wasn't President on 9/11. Like I said elsewhere, I believe that was a just war and have supported it everytime the issue has come up here - but I think it could have been fought a lot better(more boots on the ground in Afghanistan instead of getting sidetracked with Iraq), we should have gotten Bin Laden, and the situation there (as in Iraq but on a much smalller scale) seems to be steadily deteriorating.

and now democratic Lebanon is being invaded, and occupied, by Israel with a greenlight from the West.
Lebanon, refuge for the terrorists who kidnapped several Israeli soldiers. They would not have been invaded if their clients Hezbollah had let the soldiers go home. Hezbollah offered, when the soldiers were captured (not kidnapped - kids get kidnapped by their parents, journaists in war zones get kidnapped, armed soldiers do not get kidnapped, they get captured, killed, or wounded - "kidnapped" in this context was thought up by some PR firm to make this thing more palatable to us Westerners) to exchange them in return for prisoners that Israel has been holding. A simple prisoner exchange was not without precedent, and if they didn't want to go that route they had other options to explore first. The one they chose instead has neither served them well (it would take me a separate post to explain why I believe this) nor gotten their soldiers back.

By the way Lebanon is a good example (Iraq another) of why you need a good security apparatus if you're going to fight terrorism or dismantle guerrila groups like Hezbollah; the weak central government in Lebanon lacked the means and the manpower, with their pitiful military, to do anything (only 1 year after kicking Syria out) then try and marginalize Hezbollah over time. You could say "well its getting dismantled now", only the facts as reported by both Israeli and International media seem to contradict this while Hezbollah and its charismatic leader is becoming a hero in the Arab world (because while Israel single handedly defeated the strongest Muslim nations of their day in 6 days, during the Six Day War, the 5,000 ragtag members of Hezbollah has fought the IDF for four weeks without capitulation - this is classic David vs. Goliath and David doesn't need to win, he needs only not to lose).

[Skybird]

And isn’t that the point, after all: the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any?
That's the quote that stood out to me when I read the article.
Same for me.

[scandium]

Meanwhile, on the other hand, what was formerly Palestinia is now Israel, a state conquered, occupied, and controlled by a Jewish government via direct intervention and support from the West;
So now Palestine was a state? Who was its leader? What was the name of its government? What form of government did they have?

Do you have a point or are you just asking me questions that have nothing to do with anything I wrote for something to do?

[August]

Meanwhile, on the other hand, what was formerly Palestinia is now Israel, a state conquered, occupied, and controlled by a Jewish government via direct intervention and support from the West;
So now Palestine was a state? Who was its leader? What was the name of its government? What form of government did they have?
Do you have a point or are you just asking me questions that have nothing to do with anything I wrote for something to do?
Well you're the one claiming statehood for these people, i thought you'd welcome the opportunity to explain just what Israel "conquered, occupied and controlled".

Are these questions too hard to answer?

[Onkel Neal]

There are no Islamic theocracies anywhere in the West, nor have they invaded or conquered any of our countries.



You should be quoting Scandium on that, not me.

[Skybird]

Yes, I should have known from that sentence that it was him, not you, sorry. I'll edit it.

[Onkel Neal]

I'd go one better and say no to any form of theocracy, be it Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or whatever, I want no part of it.

I certainly agree with you there:yep:


1. An honest two state solution where Israel and Palestine co-exist side by side with equal international recognition and protection under the U.N. charter. I know this has been tried before but it seems like everytime its been tried some extremist derails it and the deal's off (more on this below), or one or the other side gets impatient or offended and again the deal is off. In order for this to even have a hope of succeeding it has to be brokered by a disinterested neutral party with the support of the U.S., E.U., and the Arab community. I'm thinking of something along the lines of arbitration whereby the parties are baited/coerced to the negotiating table and forced to work it out with the arbiter.

That's the key. All parties have to agree to a two state solution. I think Israel will do that, the question lies with the Arabs and extremists groups.

2. The unemployment rate in the Palestinian areas is something like 70% and this is why Hamas was elected; like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas has a history of doing charitable type work for the people, isn't plagued by the corruption of the old Arafat government, and the people believe it acts in their best interests rather than in some self-serving interest - this is why they elected them. And having elected them, it doesn't help us when we promote democracy on the one hand, then punish them with the other because we don't like who they elect. Idealism is all well and good, but its pragmaticism that get results so you work with what you got. This means that just like the U.S. has always subsidized Israel, the International community - at least in the short-term - would have to put money into the new Palestinian state to create an ecomony that would reduce the unemployment rate and provide these people with something tangible to live for instead of the current situation where the opposite is true.

Frankly, I'm pretty tired if funding Israel's defence, I'm not interested in spending my money on people who chronically burn our flag. But you're probably on the right track. If the Palestinans and neighboring people would stop provoking the Jews, they may be able to build their own society. But as we have seen, piss Israel off and they will destroy every bridge, road, and major part of infrastructure in sight. The ironic part--the Lebanese people know this, the Pals know this, everyone knows this, but they don't take serious steps to break the extremists. It's no secret when you have militia groups in your society. They can only exist with the overt cooperation of the police, the military, the govt. and the people. If the Arabs surrounding Israel would grow up as a society, they could end this.

I appreciate your remarks, mate. :yep:

[Onkel Neal]

Yes, I should have known from that sentence that it was him, not you, sorry. I'll edit it.

No problem, I was just hoping you noticed it was not my comment. I share your concerns about encroachment. In our country it's not so much Islam, it's reverse colonization by Mexico. People here don't seem to realize what legalizing 15 millions aliens means for the voting demographics.

[Yahoshua]

"not interested in spending my money on people who chronically burn our flag."

Ya pegged the wrong group there. Those flag burnin people would be the rowdy neighbors.....

[Onkel Neal]

Yah, that's who I am referring to. I don't want to spend my tax money on 1. Israel (let them earn it in trade) and 2. flag burning Palestine, Lebanon, etc (let the rich Saudis and Kuwaitis fund them, it's my money they earn from gasoline at $3 a gallon ;))

[Skybird]

Yes, I should have known from that sentence that it was him, not you, sorry. I'll edit it.

No problem, I was just hoping you noticed it was not my comment. I share your concerns about encroachment. In our country it's not so much Islam, it's reverse colonization by Mexico. People here don't seem to realize what legalizing 15 millions aliens means for the voting demographics.
I realized it was not you, but did not realize immediately it was Scandium.

[scandium]

Meanwhile, on the other hand, what was formerly Palestinia is now Israel, a state conquered, occupied, and controlled by a Jewish government via direct intervention and support from the West;
So now Palestine was a state? Who was its leader? What was the name of its government? What form of government did they have?
Do you have a point or are you just asking me questions that have nothing to do with anything I wrote for something to do?
Well you're the one claiming statehood for these people, i thought you'd welcome the opportunity to explain just what Israel "conquered, occupied and controlled".

Are these questions too hard to answer?
I didn't claim they already had statehood, in fact what I did claim earlier was that the only way there will ever be peace in the region is if they are granted legitimate statehood with all of the rights that go along with that.

If you were familiar with the history of the region you would understand what I said regarding Israel, but here is the condensed crash course on the region's history (and this is partly from memory, partly from Wiki, so I might be off or a little vague on the dates and details);

The region that is now Israel was at one time, back before the birth of Christ, the Kingdom of Judea/Judah and was a client state of the Persian empire (or client kingdom, more accurately, since the "concept of a state" is a modern notion that didn't exist back then) until it briefly gained its independence, which it then lost in around 100 B.C. to the expanding Roman empire (during the march of Julius Caesar through Syria and Judea), at first becoming a client-kingdom to it and later a province. What does this have to do with Palestinia? I'm getting to that.

Despite Judea coming under the Roman sphere, Roman laws and customs never took hold there like they did elsewhere in the Roman Empire, and around 70 AD there was a Jewish revolt that ended when Titus captured Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. In the aftermath, Jewish lands were confiscated by the Romans and in the 2nd century AD there was another rebellion. Again it was crushed, this time by Hadrian, and again the Jewish temple was destroyed (a fragment that survives to this day, called the "Wailing Wall", is one of the sacred landmarks in the region). Hadrian also expelled most Jews, as punishment, from Judea and once again in their history they became a landless/stateless people ("state" in this sense meaning homeland), and as further punishment the province of Judea was renamed Syria Palestinia, which was later shortened to Palestine.

Byzantium administration ended briefly when the Persians occupied the land during the 7th century, and then permanently when it was conquered by the Arabs and then later administered by the Ottomans as part of their empire (in the 16th century) who referred to these lands as well as "the Land of Palestine).

So for millenia the land, though never an independent state but always a region that changed hands many times, retained its name Palestinia that was given to it by Hadrian, and the generations of people who were born and lived there were known as Palestinians. In the 19th century the jews began to immigrate to Palestinia in numbers as they fled the various parts of Europe where they had become increasingly unwelcome, in search of a homeland of their own. By the end of the 19th century they still only numbered some 60,000 people, at the most, out of the region's 500,000 population and were thus a small minority.

In 1909 they founded their first city, Tel Aviv, and under the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 Palestine was to become, once freed from Ottoman control, an international zone; however the Balfour Declaration of 1917 envisioned the creation of a Jewish homeland within Palestine.

From 1920-1948 Palestine, as it was officially referred to, fell under the British Mandate, the British having taken control of the area by defeating the Ottomans. During this period there was considerable turmoil in the region as the British fought WWII while having to deal with attacks from Jewish paramilitary organizations that had formed; these were considered terrorist organizations by the British (and would later be folded into the newly created IDF), and when the Mandate ended in 1948 the British proposed to hand responsibility for the administration of Palestine to the U.N.

The U.N. sought to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and states, but the Palestinians rejected the partition plan while the Jews accepted it. Thus, the day after the BM ended the state of Israel was proclaimed by the Jrews anyway and the Arabs, who did not recognize its legitimacy, attacked it and there followed the Arab-Israeli war. This put an end to Palestine completely, as the 1949 Armistice carved up what remained of it to Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, though the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinians" remain today, as do their claims (whether recognized or not) to an independent Palestinian state and to the corresponding autonomy and self-determination that go along with that.

Thus the usage of the terms "conquered, occupied and controlled" are accurate, for that is what these lands are (and I use these words as descriptives), and for much of their history what they've always been - although it was only in modern times, since the 1949 Armistice, that they've been stripped completely from the Palestinians and that the term "Palestine" has come to describe more of an ideal (a Palestinian homeland) than the name of a distinctive region and its people that it was prior to 1949, even though its boundaries had shifted in those earlier days as had the various empires that administered it.

[Gorduz]

Nice going scandium, It's good to hear a voice whitch recognizes the fact that islamic terrorism, or any kind of terrorism can not be fought by guns and grenades ONLY. You need to slowy biuld trust, nomatter how difficult it is. How do you remove states/countries you don't like? How did the US remove USSR of the map, not by the use of nukes. Whats happening in China? slowly slowy its begining to liberize.

This is the way to go, after WW1 the allies made a major mistake by punishing germany, it had many of the same syndromes that libanon has to day, do we really WANT a clach of civilizations, or could we try a different approach as scandium suggested. There is a saying that no war has ever been fought by to countries with a McDonald resturant. Simply becuse once you earn more mony on trading with your neightboor that fighting with him, you just don't bother. In order to solve this conflict you need to find a way to make trading and peace more profitable than war. How? i don't know, im no economist.

[Dan D]

-Woo away Syria from Iran (that will have to go the path to self-destruction alone) and Hezbollah by offering ecomomic incentives to Syria as part of a broader diplomatic solution for the ME?

-Make Israel a Nato member?

source:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/372-Germany-wants-to-woo-Syria-away-from-Iran-and-Hezbollah.html#comments