ATTN JMS: Kosovo [off topic]
Edo Steinberg
I know that this is WAY off the topic of Babylon 5 and Crusade, but I
was just wondering what you think about the whole Kosovo situation. I'm
interested in knowing since you wrote about (fictional) wars.
Do you think the air strikes are justified?
Edo
PS: I promise never to raise depressing subjects like this again in the
future.
Jms at B5
atrocities against the Albanian population *have* to be answered, and they
*have* to be stopped, and the only voice the Serbian leaders seem to listen to
is the voice of force. (Though so far that doesn't seem to have happened.)
On the other hand...I think there's a qualitative difference between this and,
say, bombing Iraq, which is very much isolated from its neighbors, and has no
desire to piss off its neighbors (for the moment and only for as long as it's
in its own interest not to). Yugoslavia is dead center of a lot of other
countries into which this conflict could spill over into something considerably
larger and more dangerous.
Let's remember that WW1 began with a single gunshot in that region.
So bottom line...I dunno, I go back and forth on an almost hourly basis.
Basically, I think either it'll work, or it'll start a massive war in a region
noted for a resentful populace and any number of leftover nukes.
Roll the dice....
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Kurtz
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990328235131...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
I kinda feel somewhat the same way except... why aren't we in Rwanda?
In Sierra Leone? Why don't we step in and stop slaughter like this going
on the world over? Heck, how about Afghanistan? It's really terrible that
this goes on the world over, but we can't duke it out for everyone. We've
demonized Milosevic in the press, and I believe, rightly so. But he's not
the only murdering despot in the world - just the one on the news right
now in our country.
I know that those people need someone to save them, but for Pete's sake,
why does it have to be us? Why doesn't this create the same kind of
moral outrage in other nations? Someone will say it does. Fine. How many
planes and troops do they have? As many as we do? I swear, all my life,
and before, Americans have this rep of going in to save people and the
net result seems to be, even more people hate them than before. Were it
not for the utter helplessness of unarmed civilians being slaughtered, my
gut reaction would be "forget it. It's not our problem".
Tor
I dont think there is any good and reasonable explenation
about the Kosovo crisis. Thats what makes it so dangerous.
>I go back and forth on this whole thing. On the one hand, I think the
>atrocities against the Albanian population *have* to be answered, and they
>*have* to be stopped, and the only voice the Serbian leaders seem to listen to
>is the voice of force. (Though so far that doesn't seem to have happened
>
>
>
"Yeah, were walking on fire. Never feel a thing, Illusions all the time"
_____________________________________________________
**Delenn`s World at http://www.delenns-world.8m.com**
Philip R. Columbus
opinion that:
# So bottom line...I dunno, I go back and forth on an almost hourly basis.
# Basically, I think either it'll work, or it'll start a massive war in a region
# noted for a resentful populace and any number of leftover nukes.
#
# Roll the dice....
#
Sounds like that old Woody Allen quotation:
"Mankind stands at a crossroad. One path leads to death and destruction;
the other to total despair. Let's hope we have the wisdom to choose
wisely."
Philip R. Columbus
philipc...@home.com
http://members.home.com/philipcolumbus/
AOL IM: mr1492
ICQ# 4786099
Powered by OS/2 Warp Ver. 4
* Cum Dignitate Otium - Leisure With Dignity *
Gharlane of Eddore
In <19990328235131...@ng-cc1.aol.com>
jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) writes:
>
> I go back and forth on this whole thing. On the one hand, I think the
> atrocities against the Albanian population *have* to be answered, and
> they *have* to be stopped, and the only voice the Serbian leaders seem
> to listen to is the voice of force. (Though so far that doesn't seem
>
Of course not, and it never will; in hugely interpenetrated regions,
dealing with religious obsessives, bombings do nothing but unite and
validate the enemy.
>
> On the other hand...I think there's a qualitative difference between this
> and, say, bombing Iraq, which is very much isolated from its neighbors,
> and has no desire to piss off its neighbors (for the moment and only for
> as long as it's in its own interest not to).
>
Oh, right; Iraq was about oil, and this is about Herr Klinton's criminal
attempts to cover up his personal life. Not at all the same thing.
( One highly respected British commentator is referring to the situation
as "The War Of Clinton's Dick." )
Throughout the last century, whenever the economy was in trouble, or
someone needed press, it's amazing how suddenly the U.S. had to go
defend someone's personal rights in a small nation far away, at
great expense, get a bunch of Americans killed "defending the rights"
of people who'd thrown theirs away, and do more inflationary damage to
our economy in the process.
>
> Yugoslavia is dead center of a lot of other countries into which this
> conflict could spill over into something considerably larger and more
> dangerous.
>
Well, that's certainly what NATO and the U.N. are hoping, since they're
so far out of a job subsequent to the Russian breakup that they've even
been trying to get involved in the War On Some Drugs.
>
> Let's remember that WW1 began with a single gunshot in that region.
>
Let's not, since it didn't; that's a hugely simplistic interpretation
of a superficial trigger. At that point, anything would have done the
job, including spitting on the wrong dachshund; it was going to happen
no matter what, because far too many people WANTED it to happen.
>
> So bottom line...I dunno, I go back and forth on an almost hourly basis.
> Basically, I think either it'll work, or it'll start a massive war in a
> region noted for a resentful populace and any number of leftover nukes.
> Roll the dice....
> jms
>
It won't start a "massive war" since massive war is not good business for
politicians; it will rumble on, and on, and on, for as long as it can be
milked, the same way Viet Nam did, and the same way the "Hostage Crisis"
was, and the same way all the "Desert Storm" situation got wasted by
not following through and FINISHING, so it would still be there to milk
again later on when someone needed to pick another fight for Front Page
space.
Quite obviously, the *solution* is not to commit our troops and military,
but to air-drop in appropriate supplies; food, medication, and small arms,
so the residents have the capacity to defend themselves.
In World War II, one of the simplest, most effective approaches to this
sort of problem proved to be very effective; on a special contract, the
Guide Lamp Division of General Motors produced many hundreds of thousands
of a device referred to as a "flare gun," but which was actually a single-
shot .45-caliber zip gun with a few spare rounds in the handle.
These pistols, properly called "Liberators," were packaged in small
containers with no-dialog comic strips showing how to load them, sneak
up on an enemy soldier, pop him, and take his better weapons. They were
air-dropped from U.S. bombers with very small parachutes, and some
delivery trips dropped literally tens of thousands of them over each of
numerous occupied areas. They cost less than TWO DOLLARS APIECE,
delivered, and accomplished a great deal --- particularly in relation
to the investment involved.
The folks in Albania / Djugoslavia who are being victimized disarmed
themselves, made themselves vulnerable to invasion, *chose* to become
victims. I don't see why American lives need to be risked to help them,
or why we need to escalate our already incredibly stupid national debt
by sending in troops and major military capacity. We *could* give them
the wherewithal to help themselves by carpet-bombing the whole area with
classic WWII .45-caliber zip guns, which worked astoundingly well the
last time we had the good sense to do it. Medical supplies and food
are also cheap and easily delivered.
Sure, dependence on small cheap weapons makes you vulnerable; but a
society lives or fails on its CULTURE, not on individuals. Think just
how long the Nazis could have stayed in business if they lost a storm-
trooper or two at each house on "Krystalnacht." If every Jewish
house-hold had been prepared to at least *attempt* to defend itself,
the Nazi Nuts might well have been nipped in the bud by major losses
and although a great many Jews would have been killed or worse, in
the long run, a lot more of them would have been able to make it
through the war.
Losses, sure; you EXPECT losses when you're fighting a war. But levying
troops out of uninvolved nations, and making the whole place into a major
theater of war is *NOT* going to accomplish anything positive, and the only
economical, ethical approach is to equip the victims with the capacity
to look out for themselves, and then stand back and let them do it.
There's a *reason* Switzerland doesn't get invaded.
Millions for air-drops of "Liberators," NOT ONE CENT for military
involvement; that's my attitude.
========================================================================
|| ||
|| " Ever think how much more peaceful World Wars I and II would ||
|| have been if the right to keep and bear arms had been limited ||
|| to private citizens, not extended to government flunkies? " ||
|| --- Dr. Michael Hodous, 1998 ||
|| ||
========================================================================
Andrew Wendel
Kurtz <mal...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:7dpbuv$nh4$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
>
<SNIP>
>I kinda feel somewhat the same way except... why aren't we in Rwanda?
>In Sierra Leone? Why don't we step in and stop slaughter like this going
>on the world over? Heck, how about Afghanistan?
The Balkans were labled (in my opinion accurately) the powder keg of Europe
by Winston Churchill. Wars in that region have an annoying tendancy to
spread to the rest of Europe. Now, think about how many European wars ended
up here or with Americans fighting. The only ones I can think of are
Neapolian's and Otto Von Bismark's wars. Hell, the Austrian war of
Succession is know in the US as the French and Indian war. The theory is
that we will suffer fewer casualties now than later.
The reality is the groups over there have been hating and killing each other
for thousands of years. Their idiots. Otherwise, why would Yugoslavia have
broken up in the first place. Think about the US splitting into the South,
Southwest, Northeast, Midwest and North West. As a whole, we are stronger
and more diverse. Over there, it seems they only want their kind and kill
and kick out everyone else.
The only sure way to secure peace in the Balkans is a couple thermo-nuclear
warheads. Kill them all and they can't fight anymore.
Boy, I'm the pessimist.
Andy
------
Andrew Wendel
Mechanical Engineering
Kansas State University
mailto:blind...@iname.com
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~h38
-------------------------------------------
We aim above the mark to hit the mark.
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
Steve Brinich
down in the Balkans after Mussolini had the bright idea of invading the
place and Hitler felt obligated to bail out his junior partner. They
spent years attempting to pacify the region, using methods which are
obviously out of the question for civilized Western nations, without
success.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Mark Alexander
I see interesting conncections between Clark's Earth Gov and the Clinton
Administration.
Unfortunately, there is strong and compelling evidence of incredible
criminal bungling on the part of the Clinton adminsitration in dealing
with China and strategic technology. (I cannot bring myself to think
that this Administration has intentionally committed nuclear treason.)
It's unfortunate that Clinton's authority is so damaged that reasonable
people can believe that this bombing could partially be driven by a
desire to keep the soon-to-be-released Cox Committee report from being
the center of headlines.
I think that as time goes on, we will all suffer under the dawning
recognition that the corruption of this administration, and it's
willingness to unilaterally and multilaterally bomb sovereign countries,
has done longterm damage to the U.S.
We make enemies of faraway people whenever we side with their enemies.
And history shows that they have long memories.
Mark Alexander
John Steiner
John
Jms at B5 wrote in message <19990328235131...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
>I go back and forth on this whole thing. On the one hand, I think the
>atrocities against the Albanian population *have* to be answered, and they
>*have* to be stopped, and the only voice the Serbian leaders seem to listen
to
>is the voice of force. (Though so far that doesn't seem to have happened.)
>
>On the other hand...I think there's a qualitative difference between this
and,
>say, bombing Iraq, which is very much isolated from its neighbors, and has
no
>desire to piss off its neighbors (for the moment and only for as long as
it's
>in its own interest not to). Yugoslavia is dead center of a lot of other
>countries into which this conflict could spill over into something
considerably
>larger and more dangerous.
>
>Let's remember that WW1 began with a single gunshot in that region.
>
>So bottom line...I dunno, I go back and forth on an almost hourly basis.
>Basically, I think either it'll work, or it'll start a massive war in a
region
>noted for a resentful populace and any number of leftover nukes.
>
>Roll the dice....
>
> jms
>
Tammy Smith
bombing in recent days. Seeing the coverage on CNN of the Albanians
from Kosovo being forced to leave, and also hearing the stories they
have to tell...well, it has definitely made me feel that we have to do
something. The pro-Milosevic people are burning villages, separating
fathers from their families, & they are even destroying anything that
the Albanians have to identify themselves (passports, driver's licenses,
etc.). I barely remember Vietnam, so this is about the saddest thing
I've seen on the news.
Tammy
Martin Hardgrave
writes
> Fine. How many
>planes and troops do they have? As many as we do?
I am reminded about the Gulf War when the Danish udenrigsminister was
criticised for sending only two frigates to the gulf - "but that's half
our navy!" he replied.
Raw numbers prove nothing.
--
Martin Hardgrave
Tom Betz
|>
|> So bottom line...I dunno, I go back and forth on an almost hourly basis.
|> Basically, I think either it'll work, or it'll start a massive war in a
|region
|> noted for a resentful populace and any number of leftover nukes.
|>
|> Roll the dice....
|>
|
|In Sierra Leone?
Ain't no nukes floating around there. Many fewer caucasions, too,
if the sad truth be told. Much less reason for outsiders to risk
their own.
I'd personally like to see Israel join in the fray with NATO on behalf
of the Kosovars, in appreciation of how close their situation is to that
of the Jews in WWII.
--
|We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist |
|for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS PAGE: |
|it's time we tried education. | <http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.shtml> |
|<http://www.pobox.com/~tbetz> | YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |
Maia Bernstein
> Any idea how Mira is dealing with all of this???
I've been wondering the same thing.
I'd be interested to know her opinion of the NATO bombings.
Maia Bernstein
mb...@columbia.edu
********************************************************************************
"At the still point, there the dance is"
--T.S. Eliot
********************************************************************************
Space_...@yahoo.com
"Andrew Wendel" <blind...@iname.com> wrote:
<very large whack>
> The only sure way to secure peace in the Balkans is a couple thermo-nuclear
> warheads. Kill them all and they can't fight anymore.
If you use neutron bombs the new owners can move in in about a week
to bury the bones and the infrastructure won't glow in the dark.
> Boy, I'm the pessimist.
Umm... Student of Sheridan?
Jon Armstrong
The Space Ranger
Graveyard gives one a unique outlook on life.
A dark one.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
WWS
Andrew Wendel wrote:
>
> Kurtz <mal...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:7dpbuv$nh4$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> >
> <SNIP>
> >I kinda feel somewhat the same way except... why aren't we in Rwanda?
> >In Sierra Leone? Why don't we step in and stop slaughter like this going
> >on the world over? Heck, how about Afghanistan?
>
> The Balkans were labled (in my opinion accurately) the powder keg of Europe
> by Winston Churchill. Wars in that region have an annoying tendancy to
> spread to the rest of Europe. Now, think about how many European wars ended
> up here or with Americans fighting. The only ones I can think of are
> Neapolian's and Otto Von Bismark's wars. Hell, the Austrian war of
> Succession is know in the US as the French and Indian war. The theory is
> that we will suffer fewer casualties now than later.
>
> The reality is the groups over there have been hating and killing each other
> for thousands of years. Their idiots. Otherwise, why would Yugoslavia have
> broken up in the first place. Think about the US splitting into the South,
> Southwest, Northeast, Midwest and North West. As a whole, we are stronger
> and more diverse. Over there, it seems they only want their kind and kill
> and kick out everyone else.
>
> The only sure way to secure peace in the Balkans is a couple thermo-nuclear
> warheads. Kill them all and they can't fight anymore.
That is, in fact, the Serbian position. A Final Solution to the
"problem" in their view that has bedeviled them for 600 years.
The question is, do we acquiesce to their plans and sit quietly
while they are carried out? It would admittedly be far easier to
let the Kosovars all die and then pretend to each other that they
never really existed, wouldn't it? People die all the time, right?
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
It's a little known fact that the Dark Ages were caused by the
Y1K problem.
Scott Johnson
: 've just finished rewatching key episodes in S3 of B5. Very interesting.
: I see interesting conncections between Clark's Earth Gov and the Clinton
: Administration.
:
: Unfortunately, there is strong and compelling evidence of incredible
: criminal bungling on the part of the Clinton adminsitration in dealing
: with China and strategic technology. (I cannot bring myself to think
: that this Administration has intentionally committed nuclear treason.)
You know, these political flames are really getting annoying. Although
the on-topic requirements for this newsgroup are pretty loose, I think
trying to compare the Clinton administration to Clark's government is so
off-base as to be laughable. How can you compare the declaration of
martial law, the arrest and disbanding of the Senate, the wonton
dissappearances and murder of thousands of people, etc., with the
(admittedly) inept and sometimes illegal but certainly non-lethal and
(compared to Clark at least) minor crimes of the Clinton adminstration.
I don't bring up Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair every chance I get just
to try to stir the pot. I could certainly make some of the same
comparisons there that you are trying to do with Clinton.
If you want to rant about Clinton, great, but please do it in
alt.clinton-bashers or soc.politics.right-wing where it belongs.
--
Scott Johnson sco...@eecs.umich.edu
Dept. of EECS, Univ. of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~scottdj
and Merit Network, Inc. (734) 763-5363
Finger for PGP public key.
John Schilling
>Kurtz <mal...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:7dpbuv$nh4$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
>>
><SNIP>
>>I kinda feel somewhat the same way except... why aren't we in Rwanda?
>>In Sierra Leone? Why don't we step in and stop slaughter like this going
>>on the world over? Heck, how about Afghanistan?
>The Balkans were labled (in my opinion accurately) the powder keg of Europe
>by Winston Churchill. Wars in that region have an annoying tendancy to
>spread to the rest of Europe. Now, think about how many European wars ended
>up here or with Americans fighting. The only ones I can think of are
>Neapolian's and Otto Von Bismark's wars. Hell, the Austrian war of
>Succession is know in the US as the French and Indian war. The theory is
>that we will suffer fewer casualties now than later.
You've got it back-asswards. Balkan wars don't have any observable tendency
to *spread to* the rest of Europe. They *draw in* the rest of Europe, like
moths to a flame.
It isn't a matter of the mighty Balkan powers marching north to take on the
rest of Europe as their local wars get out of control, and it never has been.
The problem has always been the tendency of pompus meddling European powers
to use Balkan wars as an excuse to send in the troops in the name of Rule
of Law or Ensuring Balkan Stability or Defense of Our Allies or whatever
euphemism for expanding one's sphere of influence is currently in vogue.
With predictably catastrophic results whenever two or more powers try to
do the same thing at the same time.
And now the United States joins the club. For the supposed purpose of
preventing a Balkan war from spiraling out of control and evolving into
a repeat of World War One, our illustrious leaders are doing the *same*
damn thing that turned a pissant Balkan grudge match into World War One
in the first place. They haven't got a fucking clue.
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*661-951-9107 or 805-275-6795 * Finger for PGP public key *
Tom Betz
|
|I'd personally like to see Israel join in the fray with NATO on behalf
|of the Kosovars, in appreciation of how close their situation is to that
|of the Jews in WWII.
I was pleased to see on the teevee last night that Israel is sending
planeloads of humanitarian aid (clearly labelled "Gift from ISRAEL"
on the boxes) to the Kosavar refugee centers in Macedonia and Albania.
Nice to see Jews helping Muslims -- when they really need help.
John Schilling
>I'm going back & forth on it, too, although I have come out more for the
>bombing in recent days. Seeing the coverage on CNN of the Albanians
>from Kosovo being forced to leave, and also hearing the stories they
>have to tell...well, it has definitely made me feel that we have to do
>something. The pro-Milosevic people are burning villages, separating
>fathers from their families, & they are even destroying anything that
>the Albanians have to identify themselves (passports, driver's licenses,
>etc.).
Well, if you're in favor of the bombing because you think there is some
moral imperative to Do Something about the persecution of the Kosovar
Albanians, may I suggest an alternate course of action?
There are no shortage of Serbians living in the United States, including
sizeable concentrations in distinctly ethnic neighborhoods in a few of
our larger and more cosmopolitan cities.
I propose we round up a thousand or so of these people, and machine-gun
the lot of them to death. Then have Clinton and company go on TV and
announce to the world that we have bravely demonstrated our resolve and
commitment to the principle that ethnic cleansing must not go unanswered,
and predict confidently that Slobodan Milosovic will surely break down and
cede Kosovo under the pressure.
This would be cheaper, easier, and safer than trying to kill Serbs over
in Serbia, it would be just as morally and legally justified, and it would
be just as effective in actually stopping the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo
or ameliorating the plight of the Kosovar Albanians.
Andrew Wendel
WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:3704CCED...@tyler.net...
>
>
>> The only sure way to secure peace in the Balkans is a couple
thermo-nuclear
>> warheads. Kill them all and they can't fight anymore.
>
>That is, in fact, the Serbian position. A Final Solution to the
>"problem" in their view that has bedeviled them for 600 years.
i meant kill the Serbs too. I'm tired of hearing about them. They are like
the kid turn school yard bully. They are the biggest on the block, and are
going to do what they want.
Andy
------
Andrew Wendel
Mechanical Engineering
Kansas State University
mailto:blind...@iname.com
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~h38
-------------------------------------------
A day without sunshine is like night.
Andrew Wendel
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:7e36rc$es$1...@spock.usc.edu...
<SNIP>
>You've got it back-asswards. Balkan wars don't have any observable
tendency
>to *spread to* the rest of Europe.
>
>*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
>*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
>*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
>*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
>*661-951-9107 or 805-275-6795 * Finger for PGP public key *
Same difference.
Do you do good work and get promoted or get promoted and do good work?
Sometimes the cause and the effect are interchangable. The end result is
the same.
Either way, until enough Serbs say stop the butchery, Yugoslavia will
continue to be a trouble spot.
Andrew Wendel
Tom Betz <tb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:7e14cp$kb$1...@panix3.panix.com...<SNIP>
>I'd personally like to see Israel join in the fray with NATO on behalf
>of the Kosovars, in appreciation of how close their situation is to that
>of the Jews in WWII.
>|We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist
|
>|for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS
PAGE: |
>|it's time we tried education. |
<http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.shtml> |
>|<http://www.pobox.com/~tbetz> | YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY
SPAM-ARMORED! |
Funny thing is, the Serbs were ethnicly cleansed from Kosovo during WWII by
the Nazi's and Albanians for their support of the US.
Andrew Wendel
>gka...@webtv.net (Tammy Smith) writes:
>
<SNIP>
>Well, if you're in favor of the bombing because you think there is some
>moral imperative to Do Something about the persecution of the Kosovar
>Albanians, may I suggest an alternate course of action?
>
>There are no shortage of Serbians living in the United States, including
>sizeable concentrations in distinctly ethnic neighborhoods in a few of
>our larger and more cosmopolitan cities.
>
>I propose we round up a thousand or so of these people, and machine-gun
>the lot of them to death. Then have Clinton and company go on TV and
>announce to the world that we have bravely demonstrated our resolve and
>commitment to the principle that ethnic cleansing must not go unanswered,
>and predict confidently that Slobodan Milosovic will surely break down and
>cede Kosovo under the pressure.
>
>This would be cheaper, easier, and safer than trying to kill Serbs over
>in Serbia, it would be just as morally and legally justified, and it would
>be just as effective in actually stopping the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo
>or ameliorating the plight of the Kosovar Albanians.
>--
>*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
>*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
>*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
>*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
>*661-951-9107 or 805-275-6795 * Finger for PGP public key *
I give you a 10 for style. However, I don't think it would be legal.
Philip R. Columbus
expressed the opinion that:
<comments removed>
# I don't bring up Reagan and the Iran-Contra affair every chance I get just
# to try to stir the pot. I could certainly make some of the same
# comparisons there that you are trying to do with Clinton.
#
# If you want to rant about Clinton, great, but please do it in
# alt.clinton-bashers or soc.politics.right-wing where it belongs.
#
Good point. However, could the connection between the current
administration and the Chinese be in any way comparable to the Clarke -
Shadow connection. Transferring technology (teeps) for example.
Just a thought to bring this a _little_ more into the B5 universe.
Maia Bernstein
Moyra J. Bligh
wrote:
>There are no shortage of Serbians living in the United States, including
>sizeable concentrations in distinctly ethnic neighborhoods in a few of
>our larger and more cosmopolitan cities.
>
>I propose we round up a thousand or so of these people, and machine-gun
>the lot of them to death. Then have Clinton and company go on TV and
>announce to the world that we have bravely demonstrated our resolve and
>commitment to the principle that ethnic cleansing must not go unanswered,
>and predict confidently that Slobodan Milosovic will surely break down and
>cede Kosovo under the pressure.
May I remind you that a great number of those Serbs are in the US and
Canada and the UK precisely because they did not agree with what
Milosevic was doing as far back as 1990.
May I remind you that Goran Gajic (Mira Furlan's husband and the
director of "And All My Dreams, Torn Asunder) is ethnically a Serb.
There is no *good* solution to this - but Milosevic's mass deportation
of 90% of the population of Kosovo province, may have guaranteed the
one thing that no one wanted going into this, the further splintering
of what was Yugoslavia and the creation of an independant Kosovo. And
if that does happen, I firmly feel that Montenegro will sever its
union with Serbia as well.
--
Moyra J. Bligh - mo...@interlog.com
FAQ maintainer - alt.fan.mira-furlan, moderator mira-f mailing list
===============================================================
Proud member of: B.a.B.e. (Be active Be emancipated)
Women's Human Rights Group - http://www.interlog.com/~moyra/
Prilaz Gjure Dezelica 26/II, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
Tel/Fax: +385 1 484 6176, Tel: +385 1 484 6180
e-mail: ba...@zamir.net - New address - nova adresa!
===============================================================
Sergey Bukhman
Tom Betz wrote:
>
> Quoth tb...@pobox.com in <7e14cp$kb$1...@panix3.panix.com>:
> |
> |I'd personally like to see Israel join in the fray with NATO on behalf
> |of the Kosovars, in appreciation of how close their situation is to that
> |of the Jews in WWII.
>
> I was pleased to see on the teevee last night that Israel is sending
> planeloads of humanitarian aid (clearly labelled "Gift from ISRAEL"
> on the boxes) to the Kosavar refugee centers in Macedonia and Albania.
>
> Nice to see Jews helping Muslims -- when they really need help.
Since we have no conflict and/or war with them, why should it matter
that they are muslim?
Remember, the only real conflict is over land, and not so much over
religious principles.
--
Sergey
--
A man dressed in a Barney costume was sighted drinking in various bars
in Florida, muttering about how he planned to "fix those little shits
for good.''
Cronan
Jms at B5 wrote
>Let's remember that WW1 began with a single gunshot in that region.
Europe was a much different place in the early 1910s than it is now,
in the late 1990s; Greece and Turkey, the two nations with the weapons
to make any war really dangerous for America, have expressed a profound
disinterest in Kosovo. And the other nations around Kosovo are way to
poor to fight any kind of sustained war with the Serbian Army.
Cronan
...and Russia can't afford to feed it's people, let alone wage war
against a NATO country
Edo Steinberg
of the subject was to get an excuse to ask about this topic in this
group. Although I was interested in what JMS had to say, I was also
interested in hearing what B5 fans think of this. Now that I know your
thoughts, here are mine:
The Kosovo crisis has been bothering me ever since I heard about the
ethnic cleansing of the Albanians in Kosovo. It reminds me of the
beginning of the Holocaust. Nobody did anything then, and 6 million Jews
and 5 million others ended up dead - and those are just the civilians!
It angers me that now, when the same thing is going on in Kosovo, people
are criticizing it as intervention in internal matters. Ethnic cleansing
is not an internal matter. The German sanctions against Jews in the
1930's were also considered by the world as "internal". Look where that
got us...
Those who say that the Kosovars started the genocide by killing Serbs
or making them leave Kosovo - well, if that's true it still doesn't give
Milosovic a license to kill innocent people. Those poor Albanians you
see on TV had nothing to do with any genocide of the Serbs.
Another thing that bothers me is Israel, my country. I think we, as the
Jewish State, should be much more sensitive to this stuff, since we've
suffered from things like this for thousands of years. Netanyahu, the
idiot Prime Minister (I hope he'll lose the elections), and Sharon, the
idiot foreign minister, aren't doing enough. I think they should sever
ties with Yugoslavia. Giving military aid to NATO isn't needed, though,
since NATO has strong forces as it is, and Israel has its own problems
requiring an army. I'm glad, though, that we're giving the refugees some
aid. I've also heard that NATO offered Shimon Peres, the former prime
minister, to mediate negotiations.
I hope Milosovic will somehow lose power (preferably by death), and a
sensible leader who'll be President after him will stop the atrocities.
I'm not against Serbs, I'm just against their homicidal leader.
Edo.
Steve Brinich
> Canada and the UK precisely because they did not agree with what
> Milosevic was doing as far back as 1990.
>
> May I remind you that Goran Gajic (Mira Furlan's husband and the
> director of "And All My Dreams, Torn Asunder) is ethnically a Serb.
Sarcasm is lost on you, it seems....
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
> Cronan
> ...and Russia can't afford to feed it's people, let alone wage war
> against a NATO country
But that's what makes them Russkies so gosh-darn funny...it's like being
chased by Grampa in his motorized wheelchair...
Jacob
Moyra J. Bligh
>> May I remind you that a great number of those Serbs are in the US and
>> Canada and the UK precisely because they did not agree with what
>> Milosevic was doing as far back as 1990.
>>
>> May I remind you that Goran Gajic (Mira Furlan's husband and the
>> director of "And All My Dreams, Torn Asunder) is ethnically a Serb.
>
> Sarcasm is lost on you, it seems....
In this case, for sure.
I've been watching this situation unfold for the past year and a half,
two years.
I was aware that Milosevic was actively embarking on a campaign of
genocide against 90% of the population of Kosova, while most of this
continent was obsessed with the fact that their president couldn't
keep his pants on.
I'm fully aware that a lot of the atrocities that went on in Bosnia
can be squarely laid at Milosevic's feet.
I know what happened in the safe haven at Srebrenica.
I have heard similar suggestions about shooting Serbs from other
people who were deadly serious about it, and I lost any sense of
humour I may ever have had about this situation a long time ago.
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated Edo Steinberg
<sho...@kaye.macam98.ac.il>wrote:
>Although I asked JMS what he thought about Kosovo, the 'ATTN JMS' part
>of the subject was to get an excuse to ask about this topic in this
>group. Although I was interested in what JMS had to say, I was also
>interested in hearing what B5 fans think of this. Now that I know your
>thoughts, here are mine:
> Another thing that bothers me is Israel, my country. I think we, as the
>Jewish State, should be much more sensitive to this stuff, since we've
>suffered from things like this for thousands of years.
I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, and its really at a
tangent to what I want to say, but its a pity that Israel
didn't feel sensitive when it came to evicting Palestinians
off of their lands and introducing pass laws like those that
existed under the Apartheid regime in South Africa. You may
want to look at the history concerning General Sharon, later
a political leader, and his part in massacring civilians and
bulldozing their villages. You can dismiss this as
hysterical anti-semitism if you wish but that would be
simple denial as some of my best friends are Jews and
Charon's actions are on record plus those who know me know
that I abhor discrimination.
In fact, you may wish to join Amnesty International, an
organisation thankfully free from the spin-doctoring
politics of all our governments who somehow always make out
we personally do nothing wrong. The sad fact is that all our
governments do wrong and citizens in general either swallow
the lies and mistruths or are unwilling to stand up for what
is right.
That said, your point about standing by and doing nothing is
correct. Whether it was the Jews during wartime Germany or
the Kosovars now I think it is disgusting that in this day
and age we stand by and let people be massacred. IMO to
stand by and do nothing is to degrade us all and to diminish
our humanity. And if you think its none of your business,
just remember, there were those in Germany that thought the
same when the Jews were rounded up and only thought twice
when they heard the Gestapo's standard issue kicking in
their doors.
A point many people might not know is that "ethnic
cleansing" has actually been taking place in Kosovo since
1981 when the region's autonomy was crushed by Belgrade and
a refugee crisis, on a much smaller scale, was caused when
intellectuals, political leaders and their families were
forced to flee. This is the real origin of the current
conflict. I think that's a point worth remembering when
people today ask why should we grant Kosovo autonomy.
It is also worth remembering that the difference between a
freedom fighter and a terrorist is that a terrorist has the
right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of speech,
access to equal rights and the right to vote...a freedom
fighter does not.
--
"From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was
convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it."
Groucho Marx (1895-1977)
Bill
October, the situation was that Milosevic was running the ethnic albainians
out of their homes because they wanted to make their region an independant
nation. (i.e. seced, my nation(U.S.) had a bitter civil war over that) At
that time, the US diplomat first threatened airstrikes. He was imediately
told that if there was bombing, nothing would stop them from killing all
albainians. Up until the bombing, there had been 2000 deaths, 500 of those
were Serbs. Now that the bombing(and how airstrikes stop people from burning
down villages is beyond me) has started, the killings have increased and the
albainians have been given another reason to flee. Don't be surprised if
this conflict ends soon. I'm pretty sure there won't be any Albainians still
in Kosovo at the end of the week.
I am opposed to this war myself for a number of reasons. The first is that
this exercise is being poorly conducted. We bombed the Serbian defense
Ministry at night. Why? To kill the janitors? Why didn't we strike during
the day when the military heads would be there? And those 3 soldiers getting
caught. There aare a lot of unusual circumstances surrounding that. (Why, in
the middle of a war, are we patrolling the boarder with light, practically
unarmed, recon groups and ordering them to stay on the roads?)
I think most importantly, though, is national interests. I don't mean to be
rude, but in you're post, you said it was unnecissary for your nation to
provide military aid. Therefore(again, not intending to be rude), I don't
think you understand why national interests are so important. To be blunt,
I'm not prepared to send young men and women to die when the safety of my
nation is not threatened. A ground war would be the only way to stop this.
Taking fortified mountian positions will result in heavy casualties. My
perspective(as a person with many friends enlisted in the armed services),
is that sending friends and family to die in a 600 year old bloodfued is not
worth the tradeoff.
I do agree, though, that Milosevic should be held responsible. I say repeal
Ford's executive order and let the special forces do the job.
Edo Steinberg <sho...@kaye.macam98.ac.il> wrote in message
news:3707DC1B...@kaye.macam98.ac.il...
> Although I asked JMS what he thought about Kosovo, the 'ATTN JMS' part
> of the subject was to get an excuse to ask about this topic in this
> group. Although I was interested in what JMS had to say, I was also
> interested in hearing what B5 fans think of this. Now that I know your
> thoughts, here are mine:
> The Kosovo crisis has been bothering me ever since I heard about the
> ethnic cleansing of the Albanians in Kosovo. It reminds me of the
> beginning of the Holocaust. Nobody did anything then, and 6 million Jews
> and 5 million others ended up dead - and those are just the civilians!
> It angers me that now, when the same thing is going on in Kosovo, people
> are criticizing it as intervention in internal matters. Ethnic cleansing
> is not an internal matter. The German sanctions against Jews in the
> 1930's were also considered by the world as "internal". Look where that
> got us...
> Those who say that the Kosovars started the genocide by killing Serbs
> or making them leave Kosovo - well, if that's true it still doesn't give
> Milosovic a license to kill innocent people. Those poor Albanians you
> see on TV had nothing to do with any genocide of the Serbs.
> Another thing that bothers me is Israel, my country. I think we, as the
> Jewish State, should be much more sensitive to this stuff, since we've
The Reverend Jacob Corbin
> Good point. However, could the connection between the current
> administration and the Chinese be in any way comparable to the Clarke
> -
> Shadow connection. Transferring technology (teeps) for example.
>
> Just a thought to bring this a _little_ more into the B5 universe.
While the Clintonites have once again stamped their ineptitude onto this
particular mess, isn't it the case that quite a few of those secrets
were leaked during the Bush administration?
Jacob
Wes Struebing
<jaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
....and wars have a tendency to get started when leaders want to take the minds
of their people off their OWN troubles...
(gee, why does that sound familiar...?)
Take care; faith manages!
Wes Struebing
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
str...@americanisp.com
ph: 303-343-9006 / FAX: 303-343-9026
home page: http://users.americanisp.com/~wstruebi/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated "Cronan"
<h...@mindspring.com>wrote:
>
>Jms at B5 wrote
>>Let's remember that WW1 began with a single gunshot in that region.
>
>Europe was a much different place in the early 1910s than it is now,
>in the late 1990s;
I would agree with this. Sarajevo is not once what it was.
>Greece and Turkey, the two nations with the weapons
>to make any war really dangerous for America, have expressed a profound
>disinterest in Kosovo. And the other nations around Kosovo are way to
>poor to fight any kind of sustained war with the Serbian Army.
But I disagree with this.
Since Belgrade crushed the autonomy of Kosovo there has been
a steady slow policy of Ethnic cleansing in that region for
years now and that has accelerated during the last year. The
reason it is happening is for far greater reasons than
Kosovo alone.
Two years ago Milosevic suffered a blow when free elections
in Montenegro returned an opposition opponent by a slim
margin, thereby deposing his self appointed puppet.
Similarly the secession of Macedonia from Yugoslavia was a
blow to his nationalistic pride also.
Both Montenegro and Macedonia have been subject to
destabilisation by the actions in Kosovo over the last year.
In Montenegro Milosevic hopes to raise feelings of
nationalism and regain full control and thus prevent the
possible secession of Montenegro from Yugoslavia (NATO have
talked of the possibility of a coup during the current
campaign).
The same is true of Macedonia where ethic tensions raise the
flag of nationalism and a leaning towards renewing of bonds
with Belgrade as the native Macedonians fear that an influx
of ethnic Albanians to a country with a high proportion of
such people would shift the balance of power.
Why is that important?
It's important because Greece and Turkey are involved in the
form of Macedonia. Greece has strong historical claims on
the region and the recent relationship between the two has
not been good. At the same time the ethnic Albanians, who
are muslim, would look to Turkey in a time of crisis.
I would submit that the destabilisation of Macedonia could
lead to intervention from Greece or Turkey. I base that on
the evidence of Cyprus. Why is there a green line dividing
the island of Cyprus into two?
It's not just as cut and dried as assuming they would do
nothing as Cyprus continues to be a hotbed of controversy
between Turkey and Greece - look at Greece's attempts to
consider setting up missiles on the island, which was viewed
by Turkey as their own version of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Missiles on Cyprus could hit mainland targets in Turkey
whereas Turkey would be out of range of mainland Greece.
>...and Russia can't afford to feed it's people, let alone wage war
>against a NATO country
History shows that wars have been fought by unpopular
leaders to distract and unify an unhappy people. If anything
that's probably the scariest thing about the current events
as there are a lot of pissed off and disillusioned people in
Russia right now.
Andrew Wendel
sgwm <sg...@maitreya.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:370a44e9...@post.demon.co.uk...
> On 3 Apr 1999 16:21:07 -0700, in
> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated "Cronan"
> <h...@mindspring.com>wrote:
>
> >...and Russia can't afford to feed it's people, let alone wage war
> >against a NATO country
>
> History shows that wars have been fought by unpopular
> leaders to distract and unify an unhappy people. If anything
> that's probably the scariest thing about the current events
> as there are a lot of pissed off and disillusioned people in
> Russia right now.
So the question becomes, could Russia do it? Would the army fight?
In Iraq, the army really didn't fight. They were war weary, tired, unfed.
So, whether or not the Russian people support a fight, would the army with
it's high rate of desertion and inability to pay its soldiers be a threat?
Are they so beaten they won't do anything or will they feel they have
nothing left to loose?
It is just a matter of time before it gets really ugly. The only question
is just how bad it is going to be.
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated "Andrew Wendel"
<blind...@iname.com>wrote:
>
>sgwm <sg...@maitreya.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:370a44e9...@post.demon.co.uk...
>> On 3 Apr 1999 16:21:07 -0700, in
>> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated "Cronan"
>> <h...@mindspring.com>wrote:
>>
><SNIP>
>> >...and Russia can't afford to feed it's people, let alone wage war
>> >against a NATO country
>>
>> History shows that wars have been fought by unpopular
>> leaders to distract and unify an unhappy people. If anything
>> that's probably the scariest thing about the current events
>> as there are a lot of pissed off and disillusioned people in
>> Russia right now.
>
>So the question becomes, could Russia do it? Would the army fight?
I really don't think it will come to that. Russia will make
noises about the Balkan problem but behind the scenes they
will no doubt be expressing their concerns at what Milosevic
has orchestrated. I think their real interests lie in the
eventual solution as NATO ground troops in a region close to
Ukraine would be of concern.
>It is just a matter of time before it gets really ugly. The only question
>is just how bad it is going to be.
I don't believe it will. NATO forces are too well equipped
and they're up against a country which has had UN sanctions
in force for 6 years and against whom a successful campaign
of attrition has been under way.
I also believe that if the Serbian people could see what
Milosevic is doing in their name that they would be truly
ashamed.
Wes Struebing
>
>>
>>This would be cheaper, easier, and safer than trying to kill Serbs over
>>in Serbia, it would be just as morally and legally justified, and it would
>>be just as effective in actually stopping the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo
>>or ameliorating the plight of the Kosovar Albanians.
>>--
>>*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
>>*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
>>*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
>>*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
>>*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
>>*661-951-9107 or 805-275-6795 * Finger for PGP public key *
>
>I give you a 10 for style. However, I don't think it would be legal.
>
....and what we're doing there IS?
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated "Bill"
<Rufi...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>Well, there are a few points on this whole ethnic clensing buisness. Back in
>October, the situation was that Milosevic was running the ethnic albainians
>out of their homes because they wanted to make their region an independant
>nation.
Kosovo was an autonomous state until 1989 when Belgrade
crushed that autonomy and started a long slow process of
gradual ethnic displacement. The current conflict stems from
there. Why do you think that there are so many ethnic
Albanians in Montenegro and Macedonia and why do you think
Milosovic is doing it? The simple answer is to destabilise
these regions to try to regain power over them.
> I am opposed to this war myself for a number of reasons. The first is that
>this exercise is being poorly conducted. We bombed the Serbian defense
>Ministry at night. Why? To kill the janitors?
No, to minimise the loss in human lives. The destruction of
infrastructure and important support mechanisms is the
objective here, not human lives.
It is also much safer for NATO pilots to fly at night for
*very* obvious reasons.
>Why didn't we strike during
>the day when the military heads would be there?
A little thing called the Geneva convention.
>And those 3 soldiers getting
>caught. There aare a lot of unusual circumstances surrounding that. (Why, in
>the middle of a war, are we patrolling the boarder with light, practically
>unarmed, recon groups and ordering them to stay on the roads?)
It has been established that they were in Macedonia when
they were taken. They are displayed on teevee in a gutless
propaganda show. Go back to season 4 and watch The Illusion
Of Truth, its about the best thing you could do to
understand why this was done.
>My
>perspective(as a person with many friends enlisted in the armed services),
>is that sending friends and family to die in a 600 year old bloodfued is not
>worth the tradeoff.
I take it you would have been happy to stand by in wartime
Germany as the Intellectuals, Blacks, Communists, Trade
Unionists, Gypsies, the handicapped and the Jews were
rounded up as well, after all, there's a record of centuries
of anti-semitism and so long as they didn't come for you I
suppose it would be worth the trade off, right? In your mind
it probably would be, until they came knocking on your door
that is.
Until you're prepared to put your life on the line like your
friends or volunteer yourself to go and help the
international aid agencies your opinion is uninformed.
>I do agree, though, that Milosevic should be held responsible. I say repeal
>Ford's executive order and let the special forces do the job.
Its not a matter of Ford's executive order. International
Law forbids the direct targeting of political leaders in
this manner.
Tammy Smith
I should have said I was *reluctantly* in favor of the bombing. And you
seem to suggest that I'd want the Serbs here in the US rounded up &
killed. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Here in El Cajon,
CA., we have a large community of Chaldean Iraqis. They are Catholic,
not Muslim. I'm sure that during the Gulf War, people had something
against them because they are from Iraq. The Chaldeans are
anti-Hussein, though. The Serbs here don't like Milosevic. I would
never want *any* group here rounded up & killed! The idea just sounds
too horrible to me.
Tammy
sgwm
>Well, there are a few points on this whole ethnic clensing buisness. Back in
>October, the situation was that Milosevic was running the ethnic albainians
>out of their homes because they wanted to make their region an independant
>nation.
Kosovo was an autonomous state until 1981 when Belgrade
Edo Steinberg
> I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, and its really at a
> tangent to what I want to say, but its a pity that Israel
> didn't feel sensitive when it came to evicting Palestinians
> off of their lands and introducing pass laws like those that
> existed under the Apartheid regime in South Africa. You may
> want to look at the history concerning General Sharon, later
> a political leader, and his part in massacring civilians and
> bulldozing their villages. You can dismiss this as
> hysterical anti-semitism if you wish but that would be
> simple denial as some of my best friends are Jews and
> Charon's actions are on record plus those who know me know
> that I abhor discrimination.
I agree with you about Ariel Sharon. I'm very unhappy with the fact that
a man responsible for massacres of innocent Palestinians serves as my
foreign minister. I don't think he's got any business being in the
government, or even in the Knesset (the Israeli parliament).
> its a pity that Israel
> didn't feel sensitive when it came to evicting Palestinians
> off of their lands and introducing pass laws like those that
> existed under the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
On the other hand, I don't agree with you about the Palestinians. Here's
a bit of Middle Eastern history: When the State of Israel was formed
(1948), David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister, offered the Arab
population to stay. If I'm not mistaken, it's even in our Declaration of
Independence. The surrounding Arab countries weren't very happy with
Israel's independence and started attacking Israel just minutes after
Ben-Gurion started delivering the Declaration of Independence. And so it
began - The Israeli War of Independence, which lasted for about 2 years.
In wars, areas are conquered, and Israel conquered Arab owned lands,
too. The population of each Arab village that was taken over by Israeli
forces could stay, if they agreed to live peacefully with Israel, and
not fight them. In some places, the Arabs rebelled against Israel and
didn't accept Israeli sovereignty, so they were forced out (only in
extreme cases). But in most places, the Arabs fled, even though no harm
would have come to them if they had stayed. Some villagers fled before
the Israelis even got to their village. Things like this happen in a
war, but there wasn't anything like what's going on in Kosovo now.
Israel fought against five countries, and it still won the war.
And as for the "apartheid laws" - there aren't any laws like that here.
Israeli Arabs (Arabs who are citizens of Israel) get exactly the same
treatment by the law as Jewish citizens do.
Edo Steinberg
Michael Evans
>On 4 Apr 1999 18:52:25 -0600, in
>rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated Edo Steinberg
><sho...@kaye.macam98.ac.il>wrote:
>
>>Although I asked JMS what he thought about Kosovo, the 'ATTN JMS' part
>>of the subject was to get an excuse to ask about this topic in this
>>group. Although I was interested in what JMS had to say, I was also
>>interested in hearing what B5 fans think of this. Now that I know your
>>thoughts, here are mine:
>
>> Another thing that bothers me is Israel, my country. I think we, as the
>>Jewish State, should be much more sensitive to this stuff, since we've
>>suffered from things like this for thousands of years.
>
>I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, and its really at a
>tangent to what I want to say, but its a pity that Israel
>didn't feel sensitive when it came to evicting Palestinians
>off of their lands and introducing pass laws like those that
>existed under the Apartheid regime in South Africa. You may
>want to look at the history concerning General Sharon, later
>a political leader, and his part in massacring civilians and
>bulldozing their villages. You can dismiss this as
>hysterical anti-semitism if you wish but that would be
>simple denial as some of my best friends are Jews and
>Charon's actions are on record plus those who know me know
>that I abhor discrimination.
>
>In fact, you may wish to join Amnesty International, an
>organisation thankfully free from the spin-doctoring
>politics of all our governments who somehow always make out
>we personally do nothing wrong. The sad fact is that all our
>governments do wrong and citizens in general either swallow
>the lies and mistruths or are unwilling to stand up for what
>is right.
Of course AI has never been known to spin for their own agenda.
>That said, your point about standing by and doing nothing is
>correct. Whether it was the Jews during wartime Germany or
>the Kosovars now I think it is disgusting that in this day
>and age we stand by and let people be massacred. IMO to
>stand by and do nothing is to degrade us all and to diminish
>our humanity. And if you think its none of your business,
>just remember, there were those in Germany that thought the
>same when the Jews were rounded up and only thought twice
>when they heard the Gestapo's standard issue kicking in
>their doors.
With all due respect, if you are so concerned about stopping the
massacres, why aren't you in Kosovo as a volunteer for the KLA. Or is
it that you think that the citizens/subjects of NATO should die so
that you will feel better about matters. Talk is cheap.
Joe Schulte
: Jms at B5 wrote
: >Let's remember that WW1 began with a single gunshot in that region.
: Europe was a much different place in the early 1910s than it is now,
: in the late 1990s; Greece and Turkey, the two nations with the weapons
: to make any war really dangerous for America, have expressed a profound
: disinterest in Kosovo. And the other nations around Kosovo are way to
: poor to fight any kind of sustained war with the Serbian Army.
: Cronan
: ...and Russia can't afford to feed it's people, let alone wage war
: against a NATO country
And the best way to unite the people in a nation?
A war.
Joe Schulte
: On 6 Apr 1999 13:40:45 -0600, in
: >
: >sgwm <sg...@maitreya.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
: >news:370a44e9...@post.demon.co.uk...
: >> On 3 Apr 1999 16:21:07 -0700, in
: >> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated "Cronan"
: >> <h...@mindspring.com>wrote:
: >>
: ><SNIP>
: >> >...and Russia can't afford to feed it's people, let alone wage war
: >> >against a NATO country
: >>
: >> History shows that wars have been fought by unpopular
: >> leaders to distract and unify an unhappy people. If anything
: >> that's probably the scariest thing about the current events
: >> as there are a lot of pissed off and disillusioned people in
: >> Russia right now.
: >
: >So the question becomes, could Russia do it? Would the army fight?
: I really don't think it will come to that. Russia will make
: noises about the Balkan problem but behind the scenes they
: will no doubt be expressing their concerns at what Milosevic
: has orchestrated. I think their real interests lie in the
: eventual solution as NATO ground troops in a region close to
: Ukraine would be of concern.
Does Milosevic have money? If so, well, Russia has both economic problems
and a whole bunch of surplus weapons sitting around...
WWS
Joe Schulte wrote:
>
> sgwm (sg...@maitreya.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : On 6 Apr 1999 13:40:45 -0600, in
> : rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated "Andrew Wendel"
> : <blind...@iname.com>wrote:
>
> : >>
> : ><SNIP>
> : >> >...and Russia can't afford to feed it's people, let alone wage war
> : >> >against a NATO country
> : >>
> : >> History shows that wars have been fought by unpopular
> : >> leaders to distract and unify an unhappy people. If anything
> : >> that's probably the scariest thing about the current events
> : >> as there are a lot of pissed off and disillusioned people in
> : >> Russia right now.
> : >
> : >So the question becomes, could Russia do it? Would the army fight?
>
> : I really don't think it will come to that. Russia will make
> : noises about the Balkan problem but behind the scenes they
> : will no doubt be expressing their concerns at what Milosevic
> : has orchestrated. I think their real interests lie in the
> : eventual solution as NATO ground troops in a region close to
> : Ukraine would be of concern.
>
> Does Milosevic have money? If so, well, Russia has both economic problems
> and a whole bunch of surplus weapons sitting around...
Milosevic has no hard currency left. Remember, he's been under sanctions
for several years now. As far as Russia's military....
Forget so soon what happened in Chechnaya? A ragtag little bunch of
guerillas with hardly any weapons to speak of not only fought the Red
Army to a standstill, but drove them from the country. That if nothing
else should have been proof that Russia is finished as a military power;
especially since the military has done nothing but continue to go down
a steep hill in the years since then. The desertion rate is incredible,
and no military equipment has been replaced, or even had minimal maintenance
in several years now. Most of the Black Sea and Pacific fleets have been
sitting in dock for at least 5 years, because there are no funds to send
them to sea. Enlisted men consider themselves lucky just to get food and
water, and have little hope for any actual pay anymore. Russia's military
might consists entirely of the few nukes they still have laying around and
little else, they are almost entirely a paper tiger besides that. And a
good percentage of their nuclear forces are no longer operable as well,
although no one is completely sure how much of their capacity is left.
Anyway, their chances of interfering in this conflict are somewhere between
slim and none. They make a lot of noise because that's all they're capable
of doing anymore. But this may be the crisis that shows to the world that
Russia is no longer a serious player on the world stage, and can safely
be ignored with impunity.
If you doubt that, answer this: Could you imagine us attacking Yugoslavia
anytime during the 50's, 60's, 70's, or even 80's? It would have been
unthinkable, we wouldn't have dared. Today, Russia isn't even a factor
in our calculations. They can't do anything about it, we know it and they
know it. Russia's window of opportunity to start a war against Nato closed
about 10 years ago, and it's not going to open again in our lifetimes.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
It takes considerable knowledge to realize the extent of your
own ignorance. - Thomas Sowell
Andrew Wendel
WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote in message
news:370BC77F...@tyler.net...
>
> If you doubt that, answer this: Could you imagine us attacking Yugoslavia
> anytime during the 50's, 60's, 70's, or even 80's? It would have been
> unthinkable, we wouldn't have dared.
Keep in mind the USSR would never have let the problem there get out of
hand. They might have been the evil empire, but they never looked kindly on
internal conflict. The Serbs would not have dared what they have, and if
they had, would have been soundly crushed within 96 hours.
Andy
------
Andrew Wendel
Mechanical Engineering
Kansas State University
mailto:blind...@iname.com
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~h38
-------------------------------------------
College is a fountain of knowledge...
and the students are there to drink.
Bill
> I take it you would have been happy to stand by in wartime
> Germany as the Intellectuals, Blacks, Communists, Trade
> Unionists, Gypsies, the handicapped and the Jews were
> rounded up as well, after all, there's a record of centuries
> of anti-semitism and so long as they didn't come for you I
> suppose it would be worth the trade off, right? In your mind
> it probably would be, until they came knocking on your door
> that is.
The holocaust was dismissed as wild rumors until a concentration camp was
actually found toward the end of the war. The only reason World War 2
started was because Hitler was a threat to his neighbors. Had Japan not
bombed pearl harbor, the US would never have gotten involved. The holocaust
had nothing to do with why other nations went to war with Hitler.
>
> Its not a matter of Ford's executive order. International
> Law forbids the direct targeting of political leaders in
> this manner.
>
And how is international law enforced? In war, there is only one rule, the
winner makes the rule. If Milosevic was assasinated, it would have to be
proven that a government was involved(could easily be blamed on another
group), and someone would have to be able to punish the nation that did
that. Now, say the CIA does take Milo out. What could the UN do to us?
Impose embargo's? Fine us? It's just not enforcable.
Same deal with bombing the Def. Ministry. A guided bomb can be launched
from 82 miles away, Cruise missle from even farther. Given that radar can
track an object at night, night really doesn't help when striking from a
long range. Now, I would sooner blow the building up while the directors of
the ethnic clensing are there rather then some poor guy sweeping the floor.
WWS
Wes Struebing wrote:
>
> On 3 Apr 1999 11:04:15 -0700, "Andrew Wendel" <blind...@iname.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>
> >>This would be cheaper, easier, and safer than trying to kill Serbs over
> >>in Serbia, it would be just as morally and legally justified, and it would
> >>be just as effective in actually stopping the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo
> >>or ameliorating the plight of the Kosovar Albanians.
> >
> >I give you a 10 for style. However, I don't think it would be legal.
> >
> ....and what we're doing there IS?
Strictly speaking, it is exactly that. It is being carried out
under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
and America's involvement came about through the lawful executive
power of the President, which has been expanded by every President
since Roosevelt. If one were to argue that war should be declared,
I would point out that the entire Gulf War and the subsequent 8 years
of sustained military operations have been carried out without benefit
of that fig leaf. (There was a joint resolution supporting the action,
IIRC)
If and when ground troops become involved, I know I would feel better
if Congress would at least pass another joint resolution. However, in
a war that gets at least a modicum of popular support (as tonights polls
show this one is getting) Congress typically serves as little more than
a rubber stamp for whatever the sitting President wishes to do.
Republicans especially have difficulty claiming that Clinton is overstepping
his authority, since Reagan and Bush definitively established the precedent
that a President can commit troops and engage in military action without
needing to invoke the War Powers act.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
It's a little known fact that the Dark Ages were caused by the
Y1K problem.
Scott Johnson
would like to address, but I just wanted to preface it by saying that I
respect your point of view, and I'm very gratified to know that (at least
from your previous post) you are open to discussion about this. I have
talked to some poeple about this topic that are simply too emotional about
it to be able to discuss it at all.
A few years ago, I was very interested in the modern history of Israel,
and tried to become more educated about it. I took an intense class
at Duke University, doing quite a bit of reading from both sides of the
Israeli/Palestinian issue. This class culminated in a three-week journey
through Israel where we met with both Jewish and Palestinian groups both
in Israel proper, the West Bank, and Gaza. In the course of that time, I
got to know quite a bit more about the situation, and was able to see the
physical evidence that still remains from this tumultuous time. Based on
what I learned, I think there are a few things you might not be aware of
that I would like to address from your post.
Edo Steinberg (sho...@kaye.macam98.ac.il) wrote:
<SNIP>
: The surrounding Arab countries weren't very happy with
: Israel's independence and started attacking Israel just minutes after
: Ben-Gurion started delivering the Declaration of Independence. And so it
: began - The Israeli War of Independence, which lasted for about 2 years.
This is true. However, the Israeli government and some conservative
elements try to make the claim that because these Arab countries
attacked Israel, and because the Palestinians were Arab, they attached
Israel. In reality, they were often victims of their Arab "allies" as
well. Remember that the U.N. resolution which created Israel also
created a Palestinian state in what is now the West Bank and Gaza
Strip. Unfortunately, Jordan annexed the West bank until the '67 war,
effectively keeping the Palestinians from forming their state right
away. Those Palestinians living in the new state of Israel often
suffered another fate, which I describe below.
: In wars, areas are conquered, and Israel conquered Arab owned lands,
: too. The population of each Arab village that was taken over by Israeli
: forces could stay, if they agreed to live peacefully with Israel, and
: not fight them. In some places, the Arabs rebelled against Israel and
: didn't accept Israeli sovereignty, so they were forced out (only in
: extreme cases).
This turns out not to be the case. In most of the Palestinian
villages, the Israeli army arived, told everyone that they had to leave
for their own safety, and once they were gone bulldozed their homes or
blew them up with tank shells. Sometimes they left the homes intact,
and arriving Jewish settlers could buy them very cheaply from the
government to start their new life in Israel. They also looted
them first. They then loaded the men onto trucks and drove them away.
Their families were not told where they were being taken. It turned
out that they were driven across the border into Syria and Jordan and
dumped there with only the clothes on their backs. In that respect,
the militias were a bit better than what Milosevic is doing in Kosovo
now, but that's about the only difference between the two that I can
see. Even more damning, this was happening starting in 1947, a year
*before* the neighboring Arab states attacked, though there were
skirmishes going on at the time.
I have seen the ruins with my own eyes, and read the accounts written
by a number of eyewitnesses, most notably an Orthodox Priest named
Elias Chacour. His books, "We Belong to the Land", and "Blood
Brothers" are excellent accounts of this time. His village, Baram
(sp?) was one of the most famous of these events, but there are many
others. In fact, the army commander who told them they had to leave
gave them a written contract saying they could return after the
fighting was over. When he refused to honor it, they were forced to
find homes elsewhere. It took a long time, but eventually the
Palestinians from that village sued Israel to get the land back. The
Israeli supreme court agreed and ordered that the land be returned to
them, in about 1971. However, the military, in violation of their own
supreme court, refused to allow it, and the land is a national park in
Israel to this day. The ruins are still there, and these people have
to pay the park's admission fee to see ruins of their own homes.
There were 800,000 Palestinian refugees created by the war for
independence. That large a number of people does not become homeless
without this kind of systematic eviction.
: And as for the "apartheid laws" - there aren't any laws like that here.
: Israeli Arabs (Arabs who are citizens of Israel) get exactly the same
: treatment by the law as Jewish citizens do.
By law, yes, but in practice, no. For example, were you aware that in
Israel, per student, Palestinian students get about one third of the
funding that a Jewish student does for primary and secondary
education? Their identity cards actually have a different class of
citizenship on them than a Jewish Israeli citizen's? And there are
many other examples like this. It is not a very equitable place for
Palestinians.
Please understand that I have no anti-semitic bias in all of this. I
fully support the Jewish people in wanting to have their own state and in
trying to build normal lives for themselves just like everybody else
wants. But those in power have been guilty of some pretty bad things when
it comes to the Palestinians who were living in the land before they
arrived, because they were inconvienent to those who wanted to
form a new state in a land that wasn't really empty.
Cheers,
--
Scott Johnson sco...@eecs.umich.edu
Dept. of EECS, Univ. of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~scottdj
and Merit Network, Inc. (734) 763-5363
Finger for PGP public key.
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated mike....@pobox.com
(Michael Evans)wrote:
>With all due respect, if you are so concerned about stopping the
>massacres, why aren't you in Kosovo as a volunteer for the KLA. Or is
>it that you think that the citizens/subjects of NATO should die so
>that you will feel better about matters. Talk is cheap.
Which is why three months ago I volunteered to work for AID
agencies in Kosovo as part of a group from my workplace but
was rejected on the grounds of my health as I'd spent the
last year fighting stomach cancer and had only returned to
work full time.
As it is I am currently using my spare time working for the
Forth FM appeal here in Edinburgh helping collect clothes
and organising trucks to take aid to Albania...because its
something I can do. I give up two hours each evening to help
out.
Now remind me, just what the fuck were you saying about talk
being cheap?
sgwm
>sgwm wrote:
>
>> I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, and its really at a
>> tangent to what I want to say, but its a pity that Israel
>> didn't feel sensitive when it came to evicting Palestinians
>> off of their lands and introducing pass laws like those that
>> existed under the Apartheid regime in South Africa. You may
>> want to look at the history concerning General Sharon, later
>> a political leader, and his part in massacring civilians and
>> bulldozing their villages. You can dismiss this as
>> hysterical anti-semitism if you wish but that would be
>> simple denial as some of my best friends are Jews and
>> Charon's actions are on record plus those who know me know
>> that I abhor discrimination.
>
>I agree with you about Ariel Sharon. I'm very unhappy with the fact that
>a man responsible for massacres of innocent Palestinians serves as my
>foreign minister. I don't think he's got any business being in the
>government, or even in the Knesset (the Israeli parliament).
Thanks. It's commendable to see someone acknowledge this as
in times past when it has been raised it has been treated as
some as an urban myth. I am truly horrified whenever I see
that man being portrayed as some kind of hero never mind a
politician.
>> its a pity that Israel
>> didn't feel sensitive when it came to evicting Palestinians
>> off of their lands and introducing pass laws like those that
>> existed under the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
>
>On the other hand, I don't agree with you about the Palestinians. Here's
>a bit of Middle Eastern history: When the State of Israel was formed
>(1948), David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister, offered the Arab
>population to stay. If I'm not mistaken, it's even in our Declaration of
>Independence.
My middle Eastern history is excellent, it forms a large
part of contemporary history lessons in secondary school.
But it was their country too. Can't you see that? How can
you offer to let a people who have lived there for centuries
"an offer to stay". That is an affront to human dignity. It
says you can stay if you do as we say or you can get out.
>In wars, areas are conquered, and Israel conquered Arab owned lands,
>too. The population of each Arab village that was taken over by Israeli
>forces could stay, if they agreed to live peacefully with Israel, and
>not fight them.
People when invaded and with an army of occupation tend to
be hostile e.g. the French resistance during WW2. To expect
them not to fight for their freedom and land is to expect
capitulation. It doesn't happen.
>In some places, the Arabs rebelled against Israel and
>didn't accept Israeli sovereignty, so they were forced out
And this doesn't strike you as being similar to the Kosovo
situation in any way? Forcing an indigenous ethnic people
out of their homeland. A people, living in a traditional
homeland for centuries, become non-citizens and are expected
to remain despite being invaded by an army of occupation.
I disagree with the Arab countries attacking Israel, such as
Egypt, but I also disagree with the unilateral declaration
of independence where indigenous Palestinians were denied a
say and effectively became non-citizens with no equal
rights.
>(only in
>extreme cases). But in most places, the Arabs fled, even though no harm
>would have come to them if they had stayed. Some villagers fled before
>the Israelis even got to their village. Things like this happen in a
>war, but there wasn't anything like what's going on in Kosovo now.
It's exactly like Kosovo in terms of people being scared and
fleeing an army they fear may kill them. And before
dismissing this, although it was not all out genocide like
events in Kosovo, just recall Sharon's actions during the
war and ask yourself; if you were an arab and knew these
massacres were taking place what would you do? Would you sit
in your home waiting to see it bulldozed before being
killed?
>And as for the "apartheid laws" - there aren't any laws like that here.
>Israeli Arabs (Arabs who are citizens of Israel) get exactly the same
>treatment by the law as Jewish citizens do.
It depends on your view and definition of Palestine
Palestinian. Those working in "Israel" coming in from the
West Bank and Gaza are require to have pass cards which can
be used to prevent them entering "Israel". It all depends on
how you view the situation.
Don't get me wrong, I abhor the violence perpetrated against
Israelis, its simply wrong and indefensible, but I also
abhor the violence from Israel and the claims of being
whiter than white by some or that what was done in the past
was somehow right or defensible. There are two sides to
every story and this one, IMO, comes down to 5 questions
concerning the Palestinian people:
Do they have the right to peaceful assembly?
Do they have the right to freedom of association?
Do they have the right to free speech?
Do they have access to equal rights?
And, most importantly, do they have the right to vote in
free elections?
You tell me. The answer to all 5 should tell you about the
rightness and wrongness of the situation as I see it.
Above all, my concern would be to see both peoples make
peace with one another and let past times go.
WWS
Bill wrote:
>
> > I take it you would have been happy to stand by in wartime
> > Germany as the Intellectuals, Blacks, Communists, Trade
> > Unionists, Gypsies, the handicapped and the Jews were
> > rounded up as well, after all, there's a record of centuries
> > of anti-semitism and so long as they didn't come for you I
> > suppose it would be worth the trade off, right? In your mind
> > it probably would be, until they came knocking on your door
> > that is.
>
> The holocaust was dismissed as wild rumors until a concentration camp was
> actually found toward the end of the war. The only reason World War 2
> started was because Hitler was a threat to his neighbors. Had Japan not
> bombed pearl harbor, the US would never have gotten involved. The holocaust
> had nothing to do with why other nations went to war with Hitler.
Think about this carefully - If Hitler had been happy with the Sudetenland,
and had listened to his General Staff and put off war with England, France,
and Russia, would it have been right, moral, and ethical for the rest of the
world to stand by and do nothing while he rounded up and executed every Jew
under his control? That is not an exaggeration, that is exactly what the
situation in Kosova is. Can genocide be a justification for war? Or do
you honestly think that if only the Nazi's had honored their borders, then
the concentration camps and crematoriums should have been no one's business
but theirs?
>
> >
> > Its not a matter of Ford's executive order. International
> > Law forbids the direct targeting of political leaders in
> > this manner.
> >
> And how is international law enforced? In war, there is only one rule, the
> winner makes the rule. If Milosevic was assasinated, it would have to be
> proven that a government was involved(could easily be blamed on another
> group), and someone would have to be able to punish the nation that did
> that. Now, say the CIA does take Milo out. What could the UN do to us?
> Impose embargo's? Fine us? It's just not enforcable.
Like it or not, the US today is just like Judge Dredd.
We *are* the law.
SNM
>
> But it was their country too. Can't you see that? How can
> you offer to let a people who have lived there for centuries
> "an offer to stay". That is an affront to human dignity. It
> says you can stay if you do as we say or you can get out.
>
You might want to read your own words again. That is basically what
every new regime says (unless they kick people out), whether after a
war, a coup or even an election. You are always free to stay, but you
have to do as the rulers say. The other option is to leave.
> >In wars, areas are conquered, and Israel conquered Arab owned lands,
> >too. The population of each Arab village that was taken over by
> Israeli
> >forces could stay, if they agreed to live peacefully with Israel, and
>
> >not fight them.
>
> People when invaded and with an army of occupation tend to
> be hostile e.g. the French resistance during WW2. To expect
> them not to fight for their freedom and land is to expect
> capitulation. It doesn't happen.
>
Again, this happens everywhere.
>
>
I can't help wondering who wrote your History books. (Mine were written
by my teacher, who is left-wing, pro-arab, pro-palestinian and all
that, so don't try and turn that back on me). You might want to check
your facts. I can see from the address that you're British- British
media is known to be extremely pro-arab. The British had a large part in
creating the situation here (their main motivation-oil).
No one's claiming to be whiter than white, but we're learning.
SNM
>
>
> The holocaust was dismissed as wild rumors until a concentration camp
> was
> actually found toward the end of the war.
The Americans & the British knew about the Holocaust while it was taking
place:
1. Some people managed to escape, and reported what they had seen to the
Jewish Agency, which in turn reported this to the American and British
governments.
2. They had aerial photos.
The Jewish Agency constantly urged Britain & America to bomb the death
camps, but they claimed that the planes couldn't fly that far, claims
that were completely false ( as evidenced by the fact that they bombed
targets right outside the camps, and also by the testimony of British
pilots, after the war). The most absurd argument that was made was that
they couldn't bomb Auschwitz because they'd kill the Jews that were
there at the time. Never mind that the Jews were going to be killed
shortly in any case, and by destroying the camp they'd be saving
hundreds of thousands of lives.
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated "Bill"
<Rufi...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>sgwm wrote:
>> I take it you would have been happy to stand by in wartime
>> Germany as the Intellectuals, Blacks, Communists, Trade
>> Unionists, Gypsies, the handicapped and the Jews were
>> rounded up as well, after all, there's a record of centuries
>> of anti-semitism and so long as they didn't come for you I
>> suppose it would be worth the trade off, right? In your mind
>> it probably would be, until they came knocking on your door
>> that is.
>
>The holocaust was dismissed as wild rumors until a concentration camp was
>actually found toward the end of the war.
This is untrue. My mother is German, brought up in west
Berlin in the Charlottenburg area, and during the final year
of the war all women and children were evacuated to
Czechoslovakia during that time as Berlin was being
pummelled. There were persistent stories, treated as more
than rumours, that Jews and others were rounded up to be
taken to death camps as far back as 1943 according to my Oma
(Grandmother). They may have been treated as wild stories by
the allies who didn't have the access to the information but
going on what my Oma has told me, people knew what was
happening and anyone who started making any sort of noise
about it conveniently disappeared soon thereafter.
I would qualify this as one person's view of events and
given my Mother's family is from Berlin maybe they had
greater access to what was happening than those in other
places, I really don't know.
>The only reason World War 2
>started was because Hitler was a threat to his neighbors.
...because war reparations from WWI were so damaging and
punitive to the German economy that they bred nationalism
and feelings of isolation.
>Had Japan not
>bombed pearl harbor, the US would never have gotten involved. The holocaust
>had nothing to do with why other nations went to war with Hitler.
And wherein did I state that it did? WW2 started over the
cost of some bloody telephone poles IIRC.
>> Its not a matter of Ford's executive order. International
>> Law forbids the direct targeting of political leaders in
>> this manner.
>>
>And how is international law enforced?
By civilised governments respecting it when monsters like
Milosevic do everything against it.>
>Now, say the CIA does take Milo out. What could the UN do to us?
The CIA wouldn't allow him to be taken out while he's in
power as it makes all other foreign leaders bigger targets
for the same. They could have most likely done it years ago
if they wanted to but they haven't.
SNM
>
>
>
>
> Remember that the U.N. resolution which created Israel also
> created a Palestinian state in what is now the West Bank and Gaza
> Strip. Unfortunately, Jordan annexed the West bank until the '67 war,
>
> effectively keeping the Palestinians from forming their state right
> away.
The Palestinian Arabs REJECTED THE U.N RESOLUTION!!!
Kind of hard to believe the Israeli army did all this, since THERE WAS
NO ISRAELI ARMY until halfway through 1948. What there were were 3
different militia groups, all opposed to each other. One of them (the
smallest one) was extremely radical, and engaged in activities that were
not sanctioned by the general population.
> I have seen the ruins with my own eyes, and read the accounts written
> by a number of eyewitnesses, most notably an Orthodox Priest named
> Elias Chacour. His books, "We Belong to the Land", and "Blood
> Brothers" are excellent accounts of this time. His village, Baram
> (sp?) was one of the most famous of these events, but there are many
> others. In fact, the army commander who told them they had to leave
> gave them a written contract saying they could return after the
> fighting was over. When he refused to honor it, they were forced to
> find homes elsewhere. It took a long time, but eventually the
> Palestinians from that village sued Israel to get the land back. The
> Israeli supreme court agreed and ordered that the land be returned to
> them, in about 1971. However, the military, in violation of their own
>
> supreme court, refused to allow it, and the land is a national park in
>
> Israel to this day. The ruins are still there, and these people have
> to pay the park's admission fee to see ruins of their own homes.
>
The case of this village Biram, is not denied. It is taught in schools
and is part of the syllabus for our final exams. Admittedly, it was
handled badly, and is being debated to this day. I must clarify one
point though: The court case you mentioned took place in 1951, not 1971,
and the area was designated as a "security zone" at the time.
>
>
>
> By law, yes, but in practice, no. For example, were you aware that in
>
> Israel, per student, Palestinian students get about one third of the
> funding that a Jewish student does for primary and secondary
> education? Their identity cards actually have a different class of
> citizenship on them than a Jewish Israeli citizen's? And there are
> many other examples like this. It is not a very equitable place for
> Palestinians.
Palestinians are not Israeli citizens.
>
> Please understand that I have no anti-semitic bias in all of this. I
> fully support the Jewish people in wanting to have their own state and
> in
> trying to build normal lives for themselves just like everybody else
> wants. But those in power have been guilty of some pretty bad things
> when
> it comes to the Palestinians who were living in the land before they
> arrived, because they were inconvienent to those who wanted to
> form a new state in a land that wasn't really empty.
>
What you seem to forget is that there is a peace process going on, we
are trying to rectify our mistakes. As Jews, faced throughout History
with utter hate from some, spectacular indifference from others, we had
to learn to fend for ourselves. This was a long and difficult process.
Sure, sometimes we had to bend the rules, but in a world rules are
broken on a regular basis, if you play by the rules you tend to get
crushed.
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated sco...@eecs.umich.edu
(Scott Johnson)wrote:
>Please understand that I have no anti-semitic bias in all of this. I
>fully support the Jewish people in wanting to have their own state and in
>trying to build normal lives for themselves just like everybody else
>wants. But those in power have been guilty of some pretty bad things when
>it comes to the Palestinians who were living in the land before they
>arrived, because they were inconvienent to those who wanted to
>form a new state in a land that wasn't really empty.
I think that's a point very well made and one I share. I
think what everyone is saying find a middle way that
respects everyone.
Michael Evans
>On 6 Apr 1999 18:57:02 -0600, in
>rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated mike....@pobox.com
>(Michael Evans)wrote:
>
>>With all due respect, if you are so concerned about stopping the
>>massacres, why aren't you in Kosovo as a volunteer for the KLA. Or is
>>it that you think that the citizens/subjects of NATO should die so
>>that you will feel better about matters. Talk is cheap.
>
>Which is why three months ago I volunteered to work for AID
>agencies in Kosovo as part of a group from my workplace but
>was rejected on the grounds of my health as I'd spent the
>last year fighting stomach cancer and had only returned to
>work full time.
>
>As it is I am currently using my spare time working for the
>Forth FM appeal here in Edinburgh helping collect clothes
>and organising trucks to take aid to Albania...because its
>something I can do. I give up two hours each evening to help
>out.
>
>Now remind me, just what the fuck were you saying about talk
>being cheap?
I'm talking about someone who is calling for others whose only
involvement in the affairs of Serbia was to enlist in their nation's
armed forces with the expectation that they would be defending their
nations to be compelled to possibly sacrifice their lives in direct
military action against the Serbs while you are unwilling to engage in
the same action and take the same risks. I'm sorry, but your
sacrifices are pretty cheap in comparison. Again, why didn't you
voluntarily go alone to Kosovo to assist the KLA in military action to
defend Kosovo against the Serbs? If you expect others to risk their
lives for your cause, whether they support the cause or not, the least
you can do is to do the same.
Let me be clear, if you were not advocating that others be compelled
to use force and put their lives on the line for a cause they did not
choose, I would have a great deal of respect for your own commitment
to the cause you've chosen. You've done a great deal more than most.
Unfortunately, you are asking that members of the armed forces of
signatories to a Western mutual _defense_ treaty be compelled to
potentially sacrifice their lives for a cause they haven't chosen.
And that sacrifice far outweighs your own. Neither a belief that
something should be done to help the Kosovars nor their suffering
should give anyone the right to force others to risk their own lives
for the Kosovars.
Philip R. Columbus
<jaco...@hotmail.com> expressed the opinion that:
# Philip R. Columbus wrote:
#
# > Good point. However, could the connection between the current
# > administration and the Chinese be in any way comparable to the Clarke
# > -
# > Shadow connection. Transferring technology (teeps) for example.
# >
# > Just a thought to bring this a _little_ more into the B5 universe.
#
# While the Clintonites have once again stamped their ineptitude onto this
# particular mess, isn't it the case that quite a few of those secrets
# were leaked during the Bush administration?
#
You are absolutely correct on that. What the current imbroglio is, I
understand, the lack of aggressive action by the current administration
and whether or not that lack of aggressiveness was influenced by campaign
money.
As I said, I have no argument with you about the sequence of events.
Philip R. Columbus
philipc...@home.com
http://members.home.com/philipcolumbus/
AOL IM: mr1492
ICQ# 4786099
Powered by OS/2 Warp Ver. 4
* Cum Dignitate Otium - Leisure With Dignity *
bmol...@cableinet.co.uk
>
> On 5 Apr 1999 19:33:37 -0600, in
> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated "Bill"
> <Rufi...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> >October, the situation was that Milosevic was running the ethnic albainians
> >out of their homes because they wanted to make their region an independant
> >nation.
>
> Germany as the Intellectuals, Blacks, Communists, Trade
> Unionists, Gypsies, the handicapped and the Jews were
> rounded up as well, after all, there's a record of centuries
> of anti-semitism and so long as they didn't come for you I
> suppose it would be worth the trade off, right? In your mind
> it probably would be, until they came knocking on your door
> that is.
>
> friends or volunteer yourself to go and help the
> international aid agencies your opinion is uninformed.
>
> >I do agree, though, that Milosevic should be held responsible. I say repeal
> >Ford's executive order and let the special forces do the job.
>
> Law forbids the direct targeting of political leaders in
> this manner.
>
> "From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was
> convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it."
>
> Groucho Marx (1895-1977)
Thanks for saving me some time
Rob
Michael Hunt (FlyingFlame)
> > > Its not a matter of Ford's executive order. International
> > > Law forbids the direct targeting of political leaders in
> > > this manner.
> > >
> > winner makes the rule. If Milosevic was assasinated, it would have to be
> > proven that a government was involved(could easily be blamed on another
> > group), and someone would have to be able to punish the nation that did
> > that. Now, say the CIA does take Milo out. What could the UN do to us?
> > Impose embargo's? Fine us? It's just not enforcable.
>
> Like it or not, the US today is just like Judge Dredd.
>
> We *are* the law.
>
I haven't been following this topic at all but,
1st, The US made laws so the CIA would not be able to take Milo out. In
the cold war the CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro and other leftist
leaders. This was made by Ford in 1975.
2nd, Although many Western Developed nations would sleep easier at night
with Milo take out most would proberly not support the action defiantly
not Russia any way.
3rd, If the US believed themselves to be above the law which the so
often try to uphold a large amount of middle eastern, south asian and
central african countries are going to start screwing the US over.
Mainly by ignoring US warnings / bans / imposions which will most like
result in localized wars. One example is that Iraq might just strike
Kuwait or Israel again because of possible fears Hussein might not live
to see his long term plans work out which would normally not because of
international pressures.
Well that's my two cents. Please no flames. I an here to make a point
not take sides.
Michael Hunt
Brian Watson
> Bill wrote:
> > The holocaust was dismissed as wild rumors until a concentration camp was
> > actually found toward the end of the war. The only reason World War 2
> > started was because Hitler was a threat to his neighbors. Had Japan not
> > bombed pearl harbor, the US would never have gotten involved. The holocaust
> > had nothing to do with why other nations went to war with Hitler.
>
> Think about this carefully - If Hitler had been happy with the Sudetenland,
> and had listened to his General Staff and put off war with England, France,
> and Russia, would it have been right, moral, and ethical for the rest of the
> world to stand by and do nothing while he rounded up and executed every Jew
> under his control? That is not an exaggeration, that is exactly what the
> situation in Kosova is. Can genocide be a justification for war? Or do
> you honestly think that if only the Nazi's had honored their borders, then
> the concentration camps and crematoriums should have been no one's business
> but theirs?
Ummm.. REREAD what he said. He stated that the concentration camps were NOT
known, and that since they were not known, nor were the Nazi actions against Jews
and such, there was no reason to enter into a war with Germany. IF it had been
known to be fact, then yes, it probably wouldn't have taken the bombing of Pearl
Harbor for us to get involved. But since it was NOT known, the US, nor anyone
else had reason to go to war with Germany. Sheesh.
> > > Its not a matter of Ford's executive order. International
> > > Law forbids the direct targeting of political leaders in
> > > this manner.
> > >
> > And how is international law enforced? In war, there is only one rule, the
> > winner makes the rule. If Milosevic was assasinated, it would have to be
> > proven that a government was involved(could easily be blamed on another
> > group), and someone would have to be able to punish the nation that did
> > that. Now, say the CIA does take Milo out. What could the UN do to us?
> > Impose embargo's? Fine us? It's just not enforcable.
>
> Like it or not, the US today is just like Judge Dredd.
>
> We *are* the law.
I got no problem with that. I'm tempted to say that we should just use a few of
those handy dandy neutron bombs we've got under wraps to wipe out all life in
their country, then send the refugees back in after a few days when the rad count
is back to normal levels and tell them it's their country now. No more blood
feuds when one side is dead. That's what Milosevic wants after all, but who said
that the surviving side had to be his?
(That's sarcasm folks .. but damn if I didn't wish we could do it)
Moyra J. Bligh
>Now, say the CIA does take Milo out. What could the UN do to us?
Now there's a bad idea. As Nationalistic and ruthless as Milosevic is,
he is by Yugoslavian standards a moderate. His vice-president, who
would likely be the one who would seize power if something happened to
Milosevic is even more hard line and nationalistic than Milosevic, and
even more in love with the idea of "removing" all ethic Albanians from
Kosovo. And then there's the lovely Mrs. M. who heads one of the
"opposition" parties - she makes her husband look like a very
reasonable and caring man.
If Milosevic gets taken out, whoever replaces him is likely to be much
worse.
--
Moyra J. Bligh - mo...@interlog.com
FAQ maintainer - alt.fan.mira-furlan, moderator mira-f mailing list
===============================================================
Proud member of: B.a.B.e. (Be active Be emancipated)
Women's Human Rights Group - http://www.interlog.com/~moyra/
Prilaz Gjure Dezelica 26/II, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
Tel/Fax: +385 1 484 6176, Tel: +385 1 484 6180
e-mail: ba...@zamir.net - New address - nova adresa!
===============================================================
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated SNM
<stef...@netvision.net.il>wrote:
>You might want to read your own words again. That is basically what
>every new regime says
>Again, this happens everywhere.
In a previous post to this thread I wrote:
>The sad fact is that all our
>governments do wrong and citizens in general either swallow
>the lies and mistruths or are unwilling to stand up for what
>is right.
I read my own words again. "all our governments do wrong".
Hmmm.
Your point please?
Scott Johnson
: Scott Johnson wrote:
:
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > Remember that the U.N. resolution which created Israel also
: > created a Palestinian state in what is now the West Bank and Gaza
: > Strip. Unfortunately, Jordan annexed the West bank until the '67 war,
: >
: > effectively keeping the Palestinians from forming their state right
: > away.
:
: The Palestinian Arabs REJECTED THE U.N RESOLUTION!!!
Considering they weren't consulted or given a say in it while another
country was giving away their land, I'm not surprised.
: > blew them up with tank shells. Sometimes they left the homes intact,
: > and arriving Jewish settlers could buy them very cheaply from the
: > government to start their new life in Israel. They also looted
: > them first. They then loaded the men onto trucks and drove them away.
: >
: > Their families were not told where they were being taken. It turned
: > out that they were driven across the border into Syria and Jordan and
: > dumped there with only the clothes on their backs. In that respect,
: > the militias were a bit better than what Milosevic is doing in Kosovo
: > now, but that's about the only difference between the two that I can
: > see. Even more damning, this was happening starting in 1947, a year
: > *before* the neighboring Arab states attacked, though there were
: > skirmishes going on at the time.
: >
:
: Kind of hard to believe the Israeli army did all this, since THERE WAS
: NO ISRAELI ARMY until halfway through 1948. What there were were 3
: different militia groups, all opposed to each other. One of them (the
: smallest one) was extremely radical, and engaged in activities that were
: not sanctioned by the general population.
There was no Israeli state army, but there were well-organized zionist
militias that carried these things out. There was sporadic fighting in
the region well before the '48 war.
: The case of this village Biram, is not denied. It is taught in schools
: and is part of the syllabus for our final exams. Admittedly, it was
: handled badly, and is being debated to this day. I must clarify one
: point though: The court case you mentioned took place in 1951, not 1971,
: and the area was designated as a "security zone" at the time.
Thanks for the date correction. I got the trial confused with Elias
Chacour's meeting with Golda Meir to discuss the trial, which I believe
did take place in '71 or thereabouts. (He asked her again to uphold the
decision, and was told that "for security reasons, we cannot return Biram
to you."
: Palestinians are not Israeli citizens.
There are about 3 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel.
: What you seem to forget is that there is a peace process going on, we
: are trying to rectify our mistakes. As Jews, faced throughout History
: with utter hate from some, spectacular indifference from others, we had
: to learn to fend for ourselves. This was a long and difficult process.
: Sure, sometimes we had to bend the rules, but in a world rules are
: broken on a regular basis, if you play by the rules you tend to get
: crushed.
I haven't forgotten it, though I should have mentioned it in my message.
In the past, when we've had these discussions, I've usually ended up trying
to defend the peace process against those who don't want it to happen at
all. I apologize if I have given the impression that I don't think
anything is happening. However, it is worth pointing out that the current
government of Israel is holding the peace process back and refusing to
adhere to the agreed upon timetable. Judging by your previous comment,
I bet you aren't happy with this either.
Thanks a lot for your response, and for the civil discussion.
Sergey Bukhman
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
Scott Johnson wrote:
> In reality, they were often victims of their Arab "allies" as
> well.
Really? Like what?
> Remember that the U.N. resolution which created Israel also
> created a Palestinian state in what is now the West Bank and Gaza
> Strip.
Yes. Those very same palestinians were effectively at war with what was to
become Israel since the UN resolution. At no time have they ever expressed
willingness to comply to that resolution. They had the complete backing of a
number of large arab states and they were confident that in the ensuing war the
Israeli territories would be conquered and transferred into their possession.
Let me make it as clear as I can. The palestinians CHOSE TO GO TO WAR. They
could have taken what the UN has given them and live in peace side by side with
Israel. They decided that killing the jews off is better for them.
They chose wrong. They paid for that choice.
> Unfortunately, Jordan annexed the West bank until the '67 war,
That happened after they were beaten in the Independence war.
> effectively keeping the Palestinians from forming their state right
> away.
This is utter BS. The palestinians did not form their state because they
decided to go to war. They decided to gamble and chances were on their side.
Unfortunately for them, they lost.
> Those Palestinians living in the new state of Israel often
> suffered another fate, which I describe below.
>
I want to remind you the Israeli declaration of independence (if you've ever
taken the time to read it). It talks about living in peace with all of Israel's
arab neighbors, including the palestinians, and joining forces in making the
middle east a better place. That was written in the midst of the war.
> : In wars, areas are conquered, and Israel conquered Arab owned lands,
> : too. The population of each Arab village that was taken over by Israeli
> : forces could stay, if they agreed to live peacefully with Israel, and
> : not fight them. In some places, the Arabs rebelled against Israel and
> : didn't accept Israeli sovereignty, so they were forced out (only in
> : extreme cases).
>
> This turns out not to be the case. In most of the Palestinian
> villages, the Israeli army arived, told everyone that they had to leave
> for their own safety, and once they were gone bulldozed their homes or
> blew them up with tank shells. Sometimes they left the homes intact,
> and arriving Jewish settlers could buy them very cheaply from the
> government to start their new life in Israel. They also looted
> them first. They then loaded the men onto trucks and drove them away.
> Their families were not told where they were being taken. It turned
> out that they were driven across the border into Syria and Jordan and
> dumped there with only the clothes on their backs. In that respect,
> the militias were a bit better than what Milosevic is doing in Kosovo
> now, but that's about the only difference between the two that I can
> see.
I can show you many differences. The ongoing war in the midst of which some of
these events happened. The strategic and tactical threats these villages were
by harboring enemy troops and terrorists. The decades long Arab suppression of
the jews. The many, many pogroms that came out of these villages on then weaker
jewish population.
There are many differences. It's easy and childish to point at a few
superficial shallow similarities without understanding the situation wholly.
> Even more damning, this was happening starting in 1947, a year
> *before* the neighboring Arab states attacked, though there were
> skirmishes going on at the time.
Jews were being constantly attacked by bandit bands and small militias. Guess
what, they were all palestinian, sometimes helped by Jordanians.
> I have seen the ruins with my own eyes, and read the accounts written
> by a number of eyewitnesses, most notably an Orthodox Priest named
> Elias Chacour. His books, "We Belong to the Land", and "Blood
> Brothers" are excellent accounts of this time. His village, Baram
> (sp?) was one of the most famous of these events, but there are many
> others. In fact, the army commander who told them they had to leave
> gave them a written contract saying they could return after the
> fighting was over. When he refused to honor it, they were forced to
> find homes elsewhere. It took a long time, but eventually the
> Palestinians from that village sued Israel to get the land back. The
> Israeli supreme court agreed and ordered that the land be returned to
> them, in about 1971. However, the military, in violation of their own
> supreme court, refused to allow it, and the land is a national park in
> Israel to this day. The ruins are still there, and these people have
> to pay the park's admission fee to see ruins of their own homes.
>
I don't justify this, but you must understand the circumstances. Having arab
villages that sympathize with our enemies at strategic locations is something
we can not afford at these times.
> There were 800,000 Palestinian refugees created by the war for
> independence. That large a number of people does not become homeless
> without this kind of systematic eviction.
>
That is false. When the war broke out, the vast majority of the palestinian
higher and middle classes fled to Jordan, hoping to return when the war is over
and Israel is wiped out. When we won, we quickly passed laws that did not allow
them to return.
Why should these people be forgiven for their mistake of going to war, or
supporting war with us?
> : And as for the "apartheid laws" - there aren't any laws like that here.
> : Israeli Arabs (Arabs who are citizens of Israel) get exactly the same
> : treatment by the law as Jewish citizens do.
>
> By law, yes, but in practice, no. For example, were you aware that in
> Israel, per student, Palestinian students get about one third of the
> funding that a Jewish student does for primary and secondary
> education?
It seems you don't know what you're talking about at all. Palestinians are not
Israeli. Israeli *citizens* which are arab get exactly the same treatment. By
their request, they have a slightly different school curriculum. They can marry
and divorce all according to their laws and religion. The arab language and
religion are respected and known.
> Their identity cards actually have a different class of
> citizenship on them than a Jewish Israeli citizen's?
Again, Israeli arabs and palestinians are completely different matters. They
don't have any different class. Get your facts right, please.
> And there are
> many other examples like this. It is not a very equitable place for
> Palestinians.
See above.
> Please understand that I have no anti-semitic bias in all of this. I
> fully support the Jewish people in wanting to have their own state and in
> trying to build normal lives for themselves just like everybody else
> wants. But those in power have been guilty of some pretty bad things when
> it comes to the Palestinians who were living in the land before they
> arrived, because they were inconvienent to those who wanted to
> form a new state in a land that wasn't really empty.
You probably don't know this too, but up until after the independence war, the
arab population in then-palestine has ALWAYS been more numerous than the
jewish. The jews only bought land, never taking it by force, if only because
they didn't have any force. Most palestinians ran away when the war broke out.
They are the palestinians living in the PA now. The one's who stayed are now
Israeli citizens and live in highly superior conditions than all of their arab
neighbors.
Just a few facts, FYI. Israeli arab citizens enjoy all the rights of jewish
citizens. They don't have to serve in the army. They have their own curriculum
and can observe their religion without any interference. Hell, arab is a second
language in Israel and all street signs have arab translations on them. The
Israeli arabs have probably the highest standard of living in the arab world,
except maybe the american arabs.
The palestinian population, that in the vast majority supports the destruction
of Israel and harbors terrorists, has been given an autonomy by the same
Israel. They are funded by us. They are even *armed* by us. And all that time,
we must deal with terror, with crazed anti-semitic and anti-western propaganda
in the PA, with the heavy economic burden they create for us and with
persistent random violence in the form of rock throwing, stabbing and even fist
fights.
Yep, just your regular suppressive dictatorship, aren't we?
Sergey
Scott Johnson
:
: Really? Like what?
Like the very things I mentioned in this article -- being annexed by
Jordan, for example.
: > Remember that the U.N. resolution which created Israel also
: > created a Palestinian state in what is now the West Bank and Gaza
: > Strip.
:
: Yes. Those very same palestinians were effectively at war with what was to
: become Israel since the UN resolution.
The Palestinians never declared war because they never had a government
or entity to make that declaration. Yes I'm sure that some Palestinians
joined in fighting Israel, but most were simple farmers or tradespeople
who just wanted to be left alone. They were not at war with Israel, and
had no say in the matter when Jordan and then Israel annexed their land.
: At no time have they ever expressed
: willingness to comply to that resolution.
Um, they certainly have in recent times if not before. The peace deals
which were signed were part of that. By the way, Israel is also in
violation of that same resolution.
: They had the complete backing of a
You can't lump all Palestinians into a single entity like that. They
weren't a country, they were a large group of people with many differnent
voices who both supported and opposed the war.
: number of large arab states and they were confident that in the ensuing war the
: Israeli territories would be conquered and transferred into their possession.
:
: Let me make it as clear as I can. The palestinians CHOSE TO GO TO WAR. They
: could have taken what the UN has given them and live in peace side by side with
: Israel. They decided that killing the jews off is better for them.
:
: They chose wrong. They paid for that choice.
They did not "choose". Jordan marched right through their land on the way
to attack Israel and just stayed. They would have had to revolt and fight
against Jordan if they wanted to avoid those consequences, and they had
neither the ability nor the arms to do that.
: > effectively keeping the Palestinians from forming their state right
: > away.
:
: This is utter BS. The palestinians did not form their state because they
: decided to go to war. They decided to gamble and chances were on their side.
: Unfortunately for them, they lost.
The Palestinians as a group did not decide anything, as I've said.
: > Those Palestinians living in the new state of Israel often
: > suffered another fate, which I describe below.
: >
:
: I want to remind you the Israeli declaration of independence (if you've ever
: taken the time to read it). It talks about living in peace with all of Israel's
: arab neighbors, including the palestinians, and joining forces in making the
: middle east a better place. That was written in the midst of the war.
And I agree that the declaration is a good thing. But that doesn't mean
that they actually follow those principles in practice, and in some cases
they certainly haven't.
: I can show you many differences. The ongoing war in the midst of which some of
: these events happened. The strategic and tactical threats these villages were
: by harboring enemy troops and terrorists. The decades long Arab suppression of
: the jews. The many, many pogroms that came out of these villages on then weaker
: jewish population.
This is the same argument being made by Milosevic for his emptying of
Kosovo, and by Russia for their actions in Chechnya, and by many other
attacking forces for similar atrocities. The simple fact is, most of
these villages were simple farming villages. The people living their
spent their days in the fields tending olive orchards, etc. There are two
additional facts which give the lie to your statement:
1. Many of the villages were being emptied and demolished by zionist militias
starting in 1947, *before* the state of Israel was created. How can you
claim to be defending a state that doesn't exist from insurgency?
2. Entire villages were demolished and emptied, and the men driven out of
Israel and dumped in Jordan and Syria. They were not tried, most of them
were farmers who had never shot at another human being in their life, and
their wives and children shared in this "punishment" by losing their
homes. This is not a legal or appropriate action to take, even if a
terrorist happened to live in a paritcular village.
: There are many differences. It's easy and childish to point at a few
: superficial shallow similarities without understanding the situation wholly.
So it would appear.
: > Even more damning, this was happening starting in 1947, a year
: > *before* the neighboring Arab states attacked, though there were
: > skirmishes going on at the time.
:
: Jews were being constantly attacked by bandit bands and small militias. Guess
: what, they were all palestinian, sometimes helped by Jordanians.
Again, that doesn't justify punishing an entire *people* for the actions
of a few members of that people.
Also, don't forget that the zionists used terrorism against the british
for several years prior to this, including the bombing of the King David
hotel that killed approximately 30 foreign journalists.
: I don't justify this, but you must understand the circumstances. Having arab
: villages that sympathize with our enemies at strategic locations is something
: we can not afford at these times.
Villages don't sympathize with anyone, people do. And you can't say that
because some members of a people or residents of a village thought a
certain way, it is ok to punish the entire people for that.
: > There were 800,000 Palestinian refugees created by the war for
: > independence. That large a number of people does not become homeless
: > without this kind of systematic eviction.
: >
:
: That is false. When the war broke out, the vast majority of the palestinian
: higher and middle classes fled to Jordan, hoping to return when the war is over
: and Israel is wiped out. When we won, we quickly passed laws that did not allow
: them to return.
Millions of Palestinians, mostly those who were working class and farmers,
stayed. There were about 4 million or so Palestinians living in what is
now Israel at the time. The number that moved to Jordan or Syria was a
small minority of this population.
: It seems you don't know what you're talking about at all. Palestinians are not
: Israeli. Israeli *citizens* which are arab get exactly the same treatment. By
: their request, they have a slightly different school curriculum. They can marry
: and divorce all according to their laws and religion. The arab language and
: religion are respected and known.
I *do* know about this, actually. You call them Arabs, but *they* call
themselves Palestinians first. They consider themselves
Palestinian-Israelis. And the disparities I mentioned in my previous post
are real. They face very real discrimination in Israel, from difficulty
in getting building permits to build new homes, to poor funding for
schools, to other laws which apply different to citizens based on their
origins. For example, are Palestinian citzens of Israel allowed to own
guns? I don't believe they are, though I admit I may be misremembering
this. Jewish citizens certainly are. Yet both are citizens.
And I disagree with your assertion that the Arab language and religion are
respected and known. I met very few Jews in my time in Israel who could
speak Arabic, but most of the Palestinians had to learn Hebrew to conduct
business. They do not have a single religion either -- there are many
Palestinian Christians, Muslims, and others. I have seen old Palestinian
churches that were burned out and used to store farm animals and manure
by newer Jewish-Isreali villages. Does that show respect for their
religions?
: > Their identity cards actually have a different class of
: > citizenship on them than a Jewish Israeli citizen's?
:
: Again, Israeli arabs and palestinians are completely different matters. They
: don't have any different class. Get your facts right, please.
You apparently don't know this people as well as you think you do. There
are over 3 million citizens of Israel that you are insisting on calling
Arab, but they consider themselves Palestinian, which is a subset of Arab,
and they are Israeli citizens at the same time. And they are not treated
the same as Jewish citizens in many ways, as I've described already, even
though they are supposedly equal citizens as you claim.
: You probably don't know this too, but up until after the independence war, the
: arab population in then-palestine has ALWAYS been more numerous than the
: jewish. The jews only bought land, never taking it by force,
This is simply not true. You even admitted in the first part of your
letter that some villages were emptied and destroyed. You tried to
justify it by saying that they were harboring terrorists, but you still
admitted that they had done that. Biram was one example, but there are
hundreds more. There are 800,000 Palestinian refugees living in U.N.
camps throughout the region whose parents or grandparents owned houses,
orchards, and property all throughout what is now Israel, and who did not
voluntarily give up that property or receive a single cent in
compensation. I've visted the camps, I've visited their old villages and
seen both the ruins of their old houses and the new Jewish villages which
were built on the same land.
: if only because
: they didn't have any force. Most palestinians ran away when the war broke out.
This is simply not true. *Most* Palestinians stayed and tried to continue
living on their land. Even after all of the refugees were evicted, there
are still about 3 million of them living in Israel as citizens to this
day. So it seems clear that they did not just leave and leave the land
empty for others to come in and claim it.
: Just a few facts, FYI. Israeli arab citizens enjoy all the rights of jewish
: citizens. They don't have to serve in the army.
Nor can they own guns, unlike Jewish citizens.
: They have their own curriculum
But their schools receive 1/4 the funding of Jewish schools,
: and can observe their religion without any interference.
Except that the only full day off during the Israeli work week is the
Sabbath. Christians or Muslims who want to celebrate their religion must
do so by closing their shops during shopping hours or otherwise taking
time off on a day that is a work day.
: Hell, arab is a second
: language in Israel
That many Jewish citizens don't learn and won't speak,
: and all street signs have arab translations on them.
This is true, and I do commend them on that.
: The
: Israeli arabs have probably the highest standard of living in the arab world,
: except maybe the american arabs.
Except the ones living in abject poverty in refugee camps while land that
was in their family for over 1000 years is being farmed by someone else.
: The palestinian population, that in the vast majority supports the destruction
: of Israel and harbors terrorists,
This is a very prejudiced generalization. The majority of the Palestinian
population just wants to have a normal life and be able to raise families
and live like you do.
: has been given an autonomy by the same
: Israel.
Autonomy? Where? Do you mean the accords and treaties that were signed
and that Israel is way behind schedule in implementing, in violation of
the agreements?
: They are funded by us.
Us? Oh, you mean the state of Israel? But you just said that they were
Israeli citizens. It seems that you do draw a distinction after all. Or
are you talking about the Palestinians living in the occupied
territories? They pay taxes, they are not the recipients of your
charity.
: They are even *armed* by us.
That I just don't believe. I saw many Jews walking around carrying big
rifles throughout Israel, but I never saw a single Palestinian with a gun
anywhere.
: And all that time,
: we must deal with terror, with crazed anti-semitic and anti-western propaganda
Palestinians and Arabs are semites, too.
I do not condone the terrorism, but you can't just paint the entire people
with the same brush for the actions of a few. Any more than all Germans
are skinhead bigots or all Jews are orthodox conservatives.
: in the PA, with the heavy economic burden they create for us and with
: persistent random violence in the form of rock throwing, stabbing and even fist
: fights.
Which are responded to with tear gas, rubber bullets, and loss of work and
pay due to border closings. There is plenty of finger pointing to go
around.
Sergey Bukhman
please allow this post to pass. I tried to be as unemotional and as inflammatory as
possible, and there are a few basic facts about the situation that I felt must be
brought into the light. Thank you for your patience and understanding.]
Scott Johnson wrote:
> Sergey Bukhman (ser...@netropolis.net) wrote:
> :
> : Really? Like what?
>
> Like the very things I mentioned in this article -- being annexed by
> Jordan, for example.
>
> : > Remember that the U.N. resolution which created Israel also
> : > created a Palestinian state in what is now the West Bank and Gaza
> : > Strip.
> :
> : Yes. Those very same palestinians were effectively at war with what was to
> : become Israel since the UN resolution.
>
> The Palestinians never declared war because they never had a government
> or entity to make that declaration.
You are right. Notice I used the word "effectively", to make that clear. Sorry, if I
was misunderstood.
> Yes I'm sure that some Palestinians
> joined in fighting Israel, but most were simple farmers or tradespeople
> who just wanted to be left alone.
That, in fact, is wrong. First of all, there was still no Israel, just the
settlements. The Israeli and the palestinians settlements were of equal status at
that time because both were offered independent states. Israel has not been declared
yet, and the palestinians could declare their country if they have wished so.
Keep in mind that the palestinians of 1947 were much more relatively advanced
(economically) than today's palestinians. Most of their economy was based on farming
and trade, so you are right about that. But then, they were also organized into equal
militias to the Israeli militias. They also had more people and more economic support
from the arab states (the jewish settlements got no american support back then). So,
in fact, the only difference between the palestinians and jews of the time was that
the jews later became an official state, while the palestinians were scattered. But
they were certainly not the "underdog". In fact, there were many conflicts (one sided
pogroms, more accurately) between the palestinians and jews all over the first half
of the 20th century too. The most famous ones happened in the years 1919, 1921, 1929,
1931, 1933, 1939. The common denominator of all of them was the palestinian
aggressiveness and British restrictions that made it worse for the jews (sometimes in
the forms of the "white books"). Mind you, these are not my subjective
interpretations, but documented facts that I'm sure you can find at your local
library if you're interested.
> They were not at war with Israel, and
> had no say in the matter when Jordan and then Israel annexed their land.
>
> : At no time have they ever expressed
> : willingness to comply to that resolution.
>
> Um, they certainly have in recent times if not before.
Well, we can't turn back the clock. When I say "at no time" I mean at no time prior
to the war. Certainly, if you ask a convicted criminal if he would have done things
differently he would say yes. But it's too late for that.
> The peace deals
> which were signed were part of that. By the way, Israel is also in
> violation of that same resolution.
>
Israel is in violation of other resolutions (can't remember which, though) but I
don't think of this one. Can you point me to a source, please?
> : They had the complete backing of a
>
> You can't lump all Palestinians into a single entity like that. They
> weren't a country, they were a large group of people with many differnent
> voices who both supported and opposed the war.
They were on the verge of a country, just like the jews. The jews and palestinians
after the UN resolution were both on the brink of a very important decision, but they
had equal starting points. The palestinians were as organized as the jews. The only
thing separating them from a country status was their decision not to comply.
> : number of large arab states and they were confident that in the ensuing war the
> : Israeli territories would be conquered and transferred into their possession.
> :
> : Let me make it as clear as I can. The palestinians CHOSE TO GO TO WAR. They
> : could have taken what the UN has given them and live in peace side by side with
> : Israel. They decided that killing the jews off is better for them.
> :
> : They chose wrong. They paid for that choice.
>
> They did not "choose". Jordan marched right through their land on the way
> to attack Israel and just stayed.
If you check the records you will see that the palestinian head families and the
public as well were in complete support of the war.
> They would have had to revolt and fight
> against Jordan if they wanted to avoid those consequences, and they had
> neither the ability nor the arms to do that.
>
Actually, they showed no interest in a country (as per the UN resolution). They were
enraged over what they called "the stealing of their land". They saw it as if a
jewish parasite has settled in their land and slowly grew to engulf the whole land,
while in fact all the land in control by the jews (up to the war) was legally bought
and never stolen.
The palestinians showed their will for war in the months between the UN resolution
and the declaration of independence when they made several sporadic guerilla attacks
*each day* on the jewish settlements. These attacks were not the random lashing out
of a radical minority, but an organized assault.
> : > effectively keeping the Palestinians from forming their state right
> : > away.
> :
> : This is utter BS. The palestinians did not form their state because they
> : decided to go to war. They decided to gamble and chances were on their side.
> : Unfortunately for them, they lost.
>
> The Palestinians as a group did not decide anything, as I've said.
>
There were not even a minority that called out for peace. This is well documented
fact. No part of the palestinian society (which was larger and more developed than
the jewish at the time) called for compliance.
> : > Those Palestinians living in the new state of Israel often
> : > suffered another fate, which I describe below.
> : >
> :
> : I want to remind you the Israeli declaration of independence (if you've ever
> : taken the time to read it). It talks about living in peace with all of Israel's
> : arab neighbors, including the palestinians, and joining forces in making the
> : middle east a better place. That was written in the midst of the war.
>
> And I agree that the declaration is a good thing. But that doesn't mean
> that they actually follow those principles in practice, and in some cases
> they certainly haven't.
The declaration *offered* peace for all takers. Certainly, war after war after war
can be taken as a "No".
> : I can show you many differences. The ongoing war in the midst of which some of
> : these events happened. The strategic and tactical threats these villages were
> : by harboring enemy troops and terrorists. The decades long Arab suppression of
> : the jews. The many, many pogroms that came out of these villages on then weaker
> : jewish population.
>
> This is the same argument being made by Milosevic for his emptying of
> Kosovo, and by Russia for their actions in Chechnya, and by many other
> attacking forces for similar atrocities.
Really? Were the russians systematically attacked for scores of years by the
Chechens? Were the Serbs victims of sporadic Kosovar albanian violence?
> The simple fact is, most of
> these villages were simple farming villages. The people living their
> spent their days in the fields tending olive orchards, etc. There are two
> additional facts which give the lie to your statement:
>
> 1. Many of the villages were being emptied and demolished by zionist militias
> starting in 1947, *before* the state of Israel was created.
Can you cite a source, please?
> How can you
> claim to be defending a state that doesn't exist from insurgency?
>
> 2. Entire villages were demolished and emptied, and the men driven out of
> Israel and dumped in Jordan and Syria. They were not tried, most of them
> were farmers who had never shot at another human being in their life,
Do you have any kind of proof for that statement? I just think that after numerous
mass pogroms (the largest leaving over 600 dead and thousands injured, not to mention
property) from the arab side, that now no one remembers, the strategic evacuation of
some hostile settlements does not sound to me as horrible as it might to you. I know
it may sound very cold, and that many of these cleanings very unnesacerry, but you
must take the circumstances into account. After the jewish settlement has been
continuously "raped" by their palestinian neighbors, they lashed out.
What do you think would have happened to the jews, if the arabs would have won? I
think not many would have left to tell the tale.
> and
> their wives and children shared in this "punishment" by losing their
> homes. This is not a legal or appropriate action to take, even if a
> terrorist happened to live in a paritcular village.
>
> : There are many differences. It's easy and childish to point at a few
> : superficial shallow similarities without understanding the situation wholly.
>
> So it would appear.
>
> : > Even more damning, this was happening starting in 1947, a year
> : > *before* the neighboring Arab states attacked, though there were
> : > skirmishes going on at the time.
> :
> : Jews were being constantly attacked by bandit bands and small militias. Guess
> : what, they were all palestinian, sometimes helped by Jordanians.
>
> Again, that doesn't justify punishing an entire *people* for the actions
> of a few members of that people.
>
The whole people was not punished. They were given an ultimatum of sorts. They could
stay and become Israeli citizens or leave and be left out.
> Also, don't forget that the zionists used terrorism against the british
> for several years prior to this, including the bombing of the King David
> hotel that killed approximately 30 foreign journalists.
>
Yes, I did not forget. But that also has it's differences. For instance, not many
know that the Israeli terrorists always phoned in to warn for a bomb threat. They did
not wish for death, more of a statement and a disturbance. Also, the King David
explosion was more due to near by gas tanks that exploded. That was not expected and
it was a sort of an accident. In anyway, the jewish population was so enraged at the
incident that right after that, that organization was disbanded. Furthermore, the
less militant militias occasionally fought the radicals just to prevent them from
causing terror acts.
That still doesn't make it right, but it goes a long way inaction and silent and
sometimes vocal support for terrorists from the arab populations.
> : I don't justify this, but you must understand the circumstances. Having arab
> : villages that sympathize with our enemies at strategic locations is something
> : we can not afford at these times.
>
> Villages don't sympathize with anyone, people do.
And villages usually consist of people.
> And you can't say that
> because some members of a people or residents of a village thought a
> certain way, it is ok to punish the entire people for that.
>
What I'm saying is that the vast majority supported terrorism and attacks, not just
some people.
> : > There were 800,000 Palestinian refugees created by the war for
> : > independence. That large a number of people does not become homeless
> : > without this kind of systematic eviction.
> : >
> :
> : That is false. When the war broke out, the vast majority of the palestinian
> : higher and middle classes fled to Jordan, hoping to return when the war is over
> : and Israel is wiped out. When we won, we quickly passed laws that did not allow
> : them to return.
>
> Millions of Palestinians,
There was not more than one million total.
> mostly those who were working class and farmers,
> stayed. There were about 4 million or so Palestinians living in what is
> now Israel at the time.
When, and can you cite a source?
> The number that moved to Jordan or Syria was a
> small minority of this population.
>
Source please.
> : It seems you don't know what you're talking about at all. Palestinians are not
> : Israeli. Israeli *citizens* which are arab get exactly the same treatment. By
> : their request, they have a slightly different school curriculum. They can marry
> : and divorce all according to their laws and religion. The arab language and
> : religion are respected and known.
>
> I *do* know about this, actually. You call them Arabs, but *they* call
> themselves Palestinians first. They consider themselves
> Palestinian-Israelis. And the disparities I mentioned in my previous post
> are real. They face very real discrimination in Israel, from difficulty
> in getting building permits to build new homes, to poor funding for
> schools, to other laws which apply different to citizens based on their
> origins.
Cite some of these laws, please.
> For example, are Palestinian citzens of Israel allowed to own
> guns? I don't believe they are, though I admit I may be misremembering
> this. Jewish citizens certainly are. Yet both are citizens.
>
I believe there is no law stating explicitly that a certain regular citizen can or
cannot do something other regular citizens can't. I will check and get back to you.
> And I disagree with your assertion that the Arab language and religion are
> respected and known. I met very few Jews in my time in Israel who could
> speak Arabic, but most of the Palestinians had to learn Hebrew to conduct
> business.
Yes, and do American businessmen learn German, or do the Germans learn English?
Hebrew is the language of business, that's a business fact and there is no changing
that. Still, no democratic freedom is broken.
> They do not have a single religion either -- there are many
> Palestinian Christians, Muslims, and others. I have seen old Palestinian
> churches that were burned out and used to store farm animals and manure
> by newer Jewish-Isreali villages. Does that show respect for their
> religions?
Can you tell me when and why and under what circumstances did that happen? And how
does the action of a few radicals point to the policy of a state? I thought you were
against judging the many by the few? Was the USA anti-jewish when the KKK burned
Synagogues? No, I don't think so.
> : > Their identity cards actually have a different class of
> : > citizenship on them than a Jewish Israeli citizen's?
> :
> : Again, Israeli arabs and palestinians are completely different matters. They
> : don't have any different class. Get your facts right, please.
>
> You apparently don't know this people as well as you think you do. There
> are over 3 million citizens of Israel that you are insisting on calling
> Arab, but they consider themselves Palestinian, which is a subset of Arab,
> and they are Israeli citizens at the same time.
That is wrong. Wrong with a capital W. The whole population of Israel is under 6
million. Of these 6 million, just under 1 million are Israeli Palestinians.
> And they are not treated
> the same as Jewish citizens in many ways, as I've described already, even
> though they are supposedly equal citizens as you claim.
You've given one anecdotal case of a burned church.
What I'm giving you are facts of all public posts having arab translations, of arab
being taught (mandatory) in school, of Israeli Palestinians having all their
religious rights, of Israeli Palestinians having a special curriculum, of Israeli
Palestinians not being drafted to prevent from them fighting their own people. These
are all facts.
I stand by my argument.
> : You probably don't know this too, but up until after the independence war, the
> : arab population in then-palestine has ALWAYS been more numerous than the
> : jewish. The jews only bought land, never taking it by force,
>
> This is simply not true. You even admitted in the first part of your
> letter that some villages were emptied and destroyed.
I was talking about before the war.
> You tried to
> justify it by saying that they were harboring terrorists, but you still
> admitted that they had done that. Biram was one example, but there are
> hundreds more. There are 800,000 Palestinian refugees living in U.N.
> camps throughout the region whose parents or grandparents owned houses,
> orchards, and property all throughout what is now Israel, and who did not
> voluntarily give up that property or receive a single cent in
> compensation. I've visted the camps, I've visited their old villages and
> seen both the ruins of their old houses and the new Jewish villages which
> were built on the same land.
Again, I talked about the conditions before the war.
> : if only because
> : they didn't have any force. Most palestinians ran away when the war broke out.
>
> This is simply not true. *Most* Palestinians stayed and tried to continue
> living on their land. Even after all of the refugees were evicted, there
> are still about 3 million of them living in Israel as citizens to this
> day.
I am amazed at how you want to be taken seriously when you continue making this same
mistake. If Israel had 3 million Palestinians it would have long ago ciezed to exist.
> So it seems clear that they did not just leave and leave the land
> empty for others to come in and claim it.
>
When you get your numbers right you might change your mind.
> : Just a few facts, FYI. Israeli arab citizens enjoy all the rights of jewish
> : citizens. They don't have to serve in the army.
>
> Nor can they own guns, unlike Jewish citizens.
>
That has not been proven. I will check.
> : They have their own curriculum
>
> But their schools receive 1/4 the funding of Jewish schools,
>
Maybe because they are 1/6 of the population?
> : and can observe their religion without any interference.
>
> Except that the only full day off during the Israeli work week is the
> Sabbath. Christians or Muslims who want to celebrate their religion must
> do so by closing their shops during shopping hours or otherwise taking
> time off on a day that is a work day.
Since the vast majority of arab business are in arab neighborhoods, I don't see a
problem with that.
> : Hell, arab is a second
> : language in Israel
>
> That many Jewish citizens don't learn and won't speak,
>
They don't have to, but it's still an official language.
> : and all street signs have arab translations on them.
>
> This is true, and I do commend them on that.
>
> : The
> : Israeli arabs have probably the highest standard of living in the arab world,
> : except maybe the american arabs.
>
> Except the ones living in abject poverty in refugee camps while land that
> was in their family for over 1000 years is being farmed by someone else.
>
Those are not Israeli Palestinians. I was talking about Israeli citizens.
> : The palestinian population, that in the vast majority supports the destruction
> : of Israel and harbors terrorists,
>
> This is a very prejudiced generalization. The majority of the Palestinian
> population just wants to have a normal life and be able to raise families
> and live like you do.
Have you polled the PA populations? Recent polls show that they are definitely in
favor of what I said. Did you know that anti semitic and anti Israel material is a a
part of the PA curriculum? And I mean straight our propaganda and mind washes, not
slightly skewered historic facts.
> : has been given an autonomy by the same
> : Israel.
>
> Autonomy? Where?
You know what PA stands for, don't you? You know why Arafat is called Chairman Araft,
don't you? PA is the Palestinian Autonomy. It is in in control of palestinians.
Arafat is their elected official. Didn't you know these facts?
> Do you mean the accords and treaties that were signed
> and that Israel is way behind schedule in implementing, in violation of
> the agreements?
Like? Cite some. Then I'll cite the Palestinian violations.
> : They are funded by us.
>
> Us? Oh, you mean the state of Israel?
No, I meant the PA. You are maybe confused? I am sorry I was not clearer, then. The
PA are Palestinians that are *NOT* Israeli citizens. They are the people who lived in
the camps you visited. Israeli Palestinians are Israeli citizens who happen to be of
Palestinian origin.
> But you just said that they were
> Israeli citizens. It seems that you do draw a distinction after all. Or
> are you talking about the Palestinians living in the occupied
> territories? They pay taxes, they are not the recipients of your
> charity.
>
Yes they are. Check the facts. They get our power, our water supply and are funded.
It is not charity, it is the implementation of accords.
> : They are even *armed* by us.
>
> That I just don't believe.
That is a fact. All arms were provided by us.
> I saw many Jews walking around carrying big
> rifles throughout Israel, but I never saw a single Palestinian with a gun
> anywhere.
Again, you confuse Israel with the PA. The guns Israelis carry are personal weapons.
The guns I'm talking about are the standard issue for PA police forces (who have 3
times the policemen of the whole Israeli police force. It's more like an army).
> : And all that time,
> : we must deal with terror, with crazed anti-semitic and anti-western propaganda
>
> Palestinians and Arabs are semites, too.
>
I know, I meant anti-jewish.
> I do not condone the terrorism, but you can't just paint the entire people
> with the same brush for the actions of a few. Any more than all Germans
> are skinhead bigots or all Jews are orthodox conservatives.
>
> : in the PA, with the heavy economic burden they create for us and with
> : persistent random violence in the form of rock throwing, stabbing and even fist
> : fights.
>
> Which are responded to with tear gas, rubber bullets, and loss of work and
> pay due to border closings. There is plenty of finger pointing to go
> around.
>
There is a difference between offense and defense.
Sergey
Sergey Bukhman
Scott Johnson wrote:
>
> SNM (stef...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
> : Scott Johnson wrote:
> :
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Remember that the U.N. resolution which created Israel also
> : > created a Palestinian state in what is now the West Bank and Gaza
> : > Strip. Unfortunately, Jordan annexed the West bank until the '67 war,
> : >
> : > effectively keeping the Palestinians from forming their state right
> : > away.
> :
> : The Palestinian Arabs REJECTED THE U.N RESOLUTION!!!
>
> Considering they weren't consulted or given a say in it while another
> country was giving away their land, I'm not surprised.
>
Cite proof or retract.
> : > blew them up with tank shells. Sometimes they left the homes intact,
> : > and arriving Jewish settlers could buy them very cheaply from the
> : > government to start their new life in Israel. They also looted
> : > them first. They then loaded the men onto trucks and drove them away.
> : >
> : > Their families were not told where they were being taken. It turned
> : > out that they were driven across the border into Syria and Jordan and
> : > dumped there with only the clothes on their backs. In that respect,
> : > the militias were a bit better than what Milosevic is doing in Kosovo
> : > now, but that's about the only difference between the two that I can
> : > see. Even more damning, this was happening starting in 1947, a year
> : > *before* the neighboring Arab states attacked, though there were
> : > skirmishes going on at the time.
> : >
> :
> : Kind of hard to believe the Israeli army did all this, since THERE WAS
> : NO ISRAELI ARMY until halfway through 1948. What there were were 3
> : different militia groups, all opposed to each other. One of them (the
> : smallest one) was extremely radical, and engaged in activities that were
> : not sanctioned by the general population.
>
> There was no Israeli state army, but there were well-organized zionist
> militias that carried these things out. There was sporadic fighting in
> the region well before the '48 war.
>
Yes, the local palestinian attacks started (or should I say re-started)
right when the UN resolution passed.
> : The case of this village Biram, is not denied. It is taught in schools
> : and is part of the syllabus for our final exams. Admittedly, it was
> : handled badly, and is being debated to this day. I must clarify one
> : point though: The court case you mentioned took place in 1951, not 1971,
> : and the area was designated as a "security zone" at the time.
>
> Thanks for the date correction. I got the trial confused with Elias
> Chacour's meeting with Golda Meir to discuss the trial, which I believe
> did take place in '71 or thereabouts. (He asked her again to uphold the
> decision, and was told that "for security reasons, we cannot return Biram
> to you."
>
> : Palestinians are not Israeli citizens.
>
> There are about 3 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel.
>
That is completely and utterly wrong. The total population of Israel is
roughly under 6 million. Out those 6 million about 1 million are Israeli
arabs. That includes the Druzim, the Beduim and all other smaller
groups. The whole PA doesn't have 1 million palestinians. I have no idea
where you got that info, but it is amazingly off mark.
> : What you seem to forget is that there is a peace process going on, we
> : are trying to rectify our mistakes. As Jews, faced throughout History
> : with utter hate from some, spectacular indifference from others, we had
> : to learn to fend for ourselves. This was a long and difficult process.
> : Sure, sometimes we had to bend the rules, but in a world rules are
> : broken on a regular basis, if you play by the rules you tend to get
> : crushed.
>
> I haven't forgotten it, though I should have mentioned it in my message.
> In the past, when we've had these discussions, I've usually ended up trying
> to defend the peace process against those who don't want it to happen at
> all. I apologize if I have given the impression that I don't think
> anything is happening. However, it is worth pointing out that the current
> government of Israel is holding the peace process back and refusing to
> adhere to the agreed upon timetable.
Cite proof or retract. And "I heard it on CNN" is not proof.
--
Sergey
--
Nemo me impune lacessit!
SNM
> On 8 Apr 1999 21:20:07 -0600, in
> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated SNM
> <stef...@netvision.net.il>wrote:
>
> >You might want to read your own words again. That is basically what
> >every new regime says
>
> >Again, this happens everywhere.
>
> In a previous post to this thread I wrote:
>
> >The sad fact is that all our
> >governments do wrong and citizens in general either swallow
> >the lies and mistruths or are unwilling to stand up for what
> >is right.
>
> I read my own words again. "all our governments do wrong".
> Hmmm.
>
> Your point please?
>
Since that is not the post I was responding to, I fail to see the point
of the argument.
WWS
"Moyra J. Bligh" wrote:
>
> On 7 Apr 1999 20:48:39 -0600, "Bill" <Rufi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Now, say the CIA does take Milo out. What could the UN do to us?
>
> Now there's a bad idea. As Nationalistic and ruthless as Milosevic is,
> he is by Yugoslavian standards a moderate. His vice-president, who
> would likely be the one who would seize power if something happened to
> Milosevic is even more hard line and nationalistic than Milosevic, and
> even more in love with the idea of "removing" all ethic Albanians from
> Kosovo. And then there's the lovely Mrs. M. who heads one of the
> "opposition" parties - she makes her husband look like a very
> reasonable and caring man.
>
> If Milosevic gets taken out, whoever replaces him is likely to be much
> worse.
This points out the problem of picking one man and saying "He is the
problem!" when it is actually the responsibility of the entire country.
Best then to destroy all military and economic resources left in the
country, so that no matter who takes over their ability to cause
trouble will be eliminated for all intents and purposes. If there's
no army, no infrastructure, and no economy, it won't really matter
who runs things. The Serbians may not learn in time, but others
elsewhere in the world will realize that's the price to be paid for
the course they've chosen.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
I hope in the future Americans are thought of as a warlike,
vicious people, because I bet a lot of high schools would
pick 'Americans' as their mascot.
Philip R. Columbus
the opinion that:
<snipped>
# > I am opposed to this war myself for a number of reasons. The first is that
# >this exercise is being poorly conducted. We bombed the Serbian defense
# >Ministry at night. Why? To kill the janitors?
#
# No, to minimise the loss in human lives. The destruction of
# infrastructure and important support mechanisms is the
# objective here, not human lives.
#
# It is also much safer for NATO pilots to fly at night for
# *very* obvious reasons.
#
# >Why didn't we strike during
# >the day when the military heads would be there?
#
# A little thing called the Geneva convention.
#
The Geneva Convention does not apply as you indicate. There is nothing in
the Geneva Convention that precludes bombing or attacking a military unit
or its facilities.
The reason for night sorties is soley based on the operational
characteristics of the aircraft involved.
SNM
> SNM (stef...@netvision.net.il) wrote:
> : Scott Johnson wrote:
> :
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > Remember that the U.N. resolution which created Israel also
> : > created a Palestinian state in what is now the West Bank and Gaza
> : > Strip. Unfortunately, Jordan annexed the West bank until the '67
> war,
> : >
> : > effectively keeping the Palestinians from forming their state
> right
> : > away.
> :
> : The Palestinian Arabs REJECTED THE U.N RESOLUTION!!!
>
> Considering they weren't consulted or given a say in it while another
> country was giving away their land, I'm not surprised.
>
The "Arab High Council" (or something like that, I'm not sure of the
exact name in English), which represented the Arabs who lived in Israel
at the time (the members were the heads of the most powerful families)
were the ones who rejected the resolution. They wanted "all or nothing".
If they couldn't have the whole country, they would rather go on
fighting. For the Jews, on the other hand, the main priority was to have
somewhere to bring the hundreds-of-thousands of Jews who were still
sitting in transit camps all over Europe, three years after the
Holocaust ended.
Since we both said the exact same thing, I'm not going to argue with you
on that point. The main militia the "Haganah", was organized in order to
protect the Jews from the sporadic fighting, since the British were
either incapable or unwilling to do so. The second militia, "Etzel",
broke off from the "Haganah", and the third, "Lehi" (the radical one),
broke off from the "Etzel".
> : The case of this village Biram, is not denied. It is taught in
> schools
> : and is part of the syllabus for our final exams. Admittedly, it was
> : handled badly, and is being debated to this day. I must clarify one
> : point though: The court case you mentioned took place in 1951, not
> 1971,
> : and the area was designated as a "security zone" at the time.
>
> Thanks for the date correction. I got the trial confused with Elias
> Chacour's meeting with Golda Meir to discuss the trial, which I
> believe
> did take place in '71 or thereabouts. (He asked her again to uphold
> the
> decision, and was told that "for security reasons, we cannot return
> Biram
> to you."
>
Some of the residents were compensated for their loss.
> : Palestinians are not Israeli citizens.
> There are about 3 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel.
>
Palestinians BY DEFINITION are not Israeli citizens. There are plenty of
Arabs who are Israeli citizens, but certainly not 3 million. I'll prove
it: there are only about 6 million Israeli citizens. If half of these
were Arabs, they'd have a lot more power in the government.
> : What you seem to forget is that there is a peace process going on,
> we
> : are trying to rectify our mistakes. As Jews, faced throughout
> History
> : with utter hate from some, spectacular indifference from others, we
> had
> : to learn to fend for ourselves. This was a long and difficult
> process.
> : Sure, sometimes we had to bend the rules, but in a world rules are
> : broken on a regular basis, if you play by the rules you tend to get
> : crushed.
>
> I haven't forgotten it, though I should have mentioned it in my
> message.
> In the past, when we've had these discussions, I've usually ended up
> trying
> to defend the peace process against those who don't want it to happen
> at
> all. I apologize if I have given the impression that I don't think
> anything is happening. However, it is worth pointing out that the
> current
> government of Israel is holding the peace process back and refusing to
>
> adhere to the agreed upon timetable. Judging by your previous
> comment,
> I bet you aren't happy with this either.
>
The current government of Israel will adhere to the agreed upon
timetable when Arafat starts keeping his side of the bargain.
> Thanks a lot for your response, and for the civil discussion.
>
It's my pleasure.
> Cheers,
SNM
> Sergey Bukhman (ser...@netropolis.net) wrote:
> :
> :The Palestinians never declared war because they never had a
> government
> or entity to make that declaration.
> They did not "choose". Jordan marched right through their land on the
> way
> to attack Israel and just stayed. They would have had to revolt and
> fight
> against Jordan if they wanted to avoid those consequences, and they
> had
> neither the ability nor the arms to do that.
The Arabs in Israel started (or rather restarted) attacking Jews in
November '47 (after the UN resolution). Jordan attacked in May '48,
after the state of Israel was declared.
>
>
> : > effectively keeping the Palestinians from forming their state
> right
> : > away.
> :
> : This is utter BS. The palestinians did not form their state because
> they
> : decided to go to war. They decided to gamble and chances were on
> their side.
> : Unfortunately for them, they lost.
>
> The Palestinians as a group did not decide anything, as I've said.
>
Their leaders most certainly did. And their leaders weren't capable of
fighting on their own, they must have had support, right?
And they did have their own leadership- The Arab High Commitee (or
whatever it was called).
> For example, are Palestinian citzens of Israel allowed to own
> guns? I don't believe they are, though I admit I may be
> misremembering
> this. Jewish citizens certainly are. Yet both are citizens.
I checked this out, and yes, Arab citizens of Israel are allowed to own
guns. I know of a number who do. There is no law in Israel saying anyone
can carry a gun, you have to get a license. To get a lisence you have to
know how to use a gun. Since all Israeli Jews (men and women) serve in
the army, a lot more Jews know how to use guns. In spite of this, in the
eleven years that I have lived in Israel I have seen very
few people with guns who weren't soldiers, policemen, or security
guards.
>
>
> : Hell, arab is a second
> : language in Israel
>
> That many Jewish citizens don't learn and won't speak,
>
What is the second language in America? Can you speak it? Can "many"
English speaking Americans speak it?
>
>
>
> : They are even *armed* by us.
>
> That I just don't believe.
Believe it.
> Palestinians and Arabs are semites, too.
And so are Christians. Except that for the last 200 years or so, the
term "anti-semitism" has referred primarily to hatred of Jews.
>
>
> : in the PA, with the heavy economic burden they create for us and
> with
> : persistent random violence in the form of rock throwing, stabbing
> and even fist
> : fights.
>
> Which are responded to with tear gas, rubber bullets, and loss of work
> and
> pay due to border closings. There is plenty of finger pointing to go
> around.
TEAR gas, RUBBER bullets. What are the soldiers supposed to do, stand
there and let themselves be killed?
Your theory about most Arabs being peaceful farmers who just want to be
left alone is a little strange, since the original Jewish militia was
formed to guard Jewish settlers from Arab farmers who would attack at
night, destroying crops, stealing cattle, and looting houses. And this
was BEFORE the birth of Arab nationalism.
Starting June 1946 (the bombing of the King David hotel), the biggest
Jewish militia, the "Haganah" (which means defense) spent as much time
fighting the smaller, more radical militias as it did fighting Arabs.
All this to PREVENT terrorism. The smaller militias were disbanded after
Israel was formed, and the "Haganah" formed the basis for the IDF.
The Arabs intensified their attacks on Jews the day after the UN
resolution was passed. The Jews took a completely defensive position
until April (may have been March) '48, when they realised that they had
no choice but to fight back. One of the reasons for this was that as the
British cleared out, they handed their armed and fortified police
stations over to the Arabs, even if they were located in areas that were
in the Jewish state according to the resolution.
Scott Johnson
responses to several of the recent posts. If this goes through, I will
get in touch with the moderators to see if I can post my responses.
Thanks,
--Scott
Edo Steinberg
>There are about 3 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel.
This is not true. Israel has a bit less than 6 million citizens, and
Arabs are not close to being half of that. There are about 800,000 Arab
citizens in Israel.
Edo Steinberg
Marko Djuranovic
pressed, can destroy the whole world. Then it isn't so funny anymore.
Let's not forget that the Cold War caused a lot of Nukes to get built and
that the world has never before experienced an empire with nuclear
capability collapsing.
-Marko
The Reverend Jacob Corbin <jaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37092365...@hotmail.com...
> Cronan wrote:
>
> > Cronan
> > ...and Russia can't afford to feed it's people, let alone wage war
> > against a NATO country
>
> But that's what makes them Russkies so gosh-darn funny...it's like being
> chased by Grampa in his motorized wheelchair...
>
> Jacob
>
>