The Norwegian security police announced today that several men of "Iranian-Iraqi appearance" were observed in April filming a railway tunnel and a train near Oslo. The sightings were of two different groups of people, on two different days, so this was no accidental stroll on the railway.

«The suspicious men were observed April 27 and 29,» Holme said. «They had to climb over a fence in order to get down to the track to check the underframe of the train. The other persons were observed at the tunnel opening.»

PST could not inform whether or not these were people with residence in Norway or if they were arrested and questioned.

Holme stressed that the actions in themselves are not a legal offence and that they may be «completely trustworthy.» But Holme said that the actions raise suspicion and stressed how important it is to check such incidents.

May be completely trustworthy? I'm sure there are benevolent reasons for doing a survey like that, but no legitimate ones. The police has no business implying that there are.

So why didn't we hear about this in April? Railway employees received a memo at the time asking them to be on extra alert, but as we know from 9/11, protection against terrorism will not come from professionals alone, but from the observations and actions of regular people. I can only assume that PST investigated this incident to the best of their ability, but who knows how much more information they would have gotten if they had gone out with a public alert that someone might be surveying railway targets for a terrorist attack?

I guess our government considers that to be fearmongering. There is a danger of overdoing such alerts, or of doing it wrong - as I suspect has happened in the US - but in Norway we're in much more danger of underdoing it. There's a feeling that we're somehow not a target for terrorism, a feeling that is good for people's sense of security, but may do us a lot harm the day an attack comes.

The question is why Norway will be the target of a terrorist attack ? do you have any Muslim blood on your hands ? if the answer is yes, then your should always be on high alert.

Yes ex Christian,

I can rest my case. It (Islamism) is what it is... and you have internalized it. To what extent you have done so, I neither know or care... for it makes little difference in the tapestry of human existence whether you will be a perpetrator of evil, or an apologist for it... it only matters if you are willing to stand against it (even if only in defense of Truth and Beauty... which I can know... rather than the strict will of God... which I cannot).

If by some measure, this question you ask is in the affirmative according to some Jihadist Leader's reckoning... will the blood that comes from the "infidels" slaughtered in that future "righteous" attack on a "justly" targeted Norway... then end up on the hands of the countries that produced these Jihadists?

Will it be their turn then to worry about a "just" response to slaughter?

Is this the world you seek in your religion of peace?

I am quite certain, without resorting to religious references of ANY faith that there is NO God, who seeks the irrational ends your smugly held positions imply. This I know, deductively, because I have observed a variety of decent, compassionate and humble people of Good will walking this Earth at various times in my life, and they would simply not exist if the world was spawned by the Divine will that you by definition, have described.

If such an attack happens Ex-Christian will it be such that the peoples of the Muslim world will have to be on "High Alert" then? And should Norway (or whoever else has been targeted for Jihad because of someone's definition of Muslim "blood on their hands") rain down as much wrath as it feels it is entitled to? Will the people of the countries who gave rise to the Jihadists accept their fate resolutely... even though the vast majority live in countries where their will is never even given expression.

It is breathtaking.

I will continue to believe for now that the vast majority of Muslims could, even after being inculcated in murderous hatred as are those who live in the areas under control of the PA for example, yet be redeemed if given the freedom to value and honor their humanity... the one that God gave them. I will continue to hope that you do not represent the end point of Muslim "reasoning".

http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=148

We are so Sorry for 9-11
September 11, 2004
By Kamal Nawash

This September 11 marks the third unforgettable anniversary of the worst mass murder in American history....

Bjørn. While I agree with you that this is scary, and that this probably isn't a legitimate case - but there certainly is legitimate cases.

First off, it is not illegal to record things with your camcorder. They _might_ have been train enthusiasts wanting to recreate the entire stretch with a model railroad.

I know at least one person that is a "trainspotter" (not in the movie sense ;) who certainly could be found doing such things, just to have fun in his basement rebuilding the entire thing with models.

And if you knew such model-freaks, you would know that they have a _great_ attention to detail, and would certainly want the underframe of the train to be exact.

But! I'm not saying that this is the case here. I don't believe it is. I'm just saying that there is perfectly legitimate reasons for wanting to know such things in detail - which you claim there isn't.

Kevin McDonnell, Bergen

You dont need to ramble about jihad and hate and blah blah blah , I made a very simple yet all telling point:

Nations with muslim blood on their hands should be always on high alert.

if you want to live in peace, stop killing and invading Muslims, otherwise you should be always on high alert.

The rambling you made is useless, you kill muslims, muslims will hit back.

This does not mean I support terrorism, far from it, but it is only ''common sense''.

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com

"you kill muslims, muslims will hit back"

So much for returning good for evil ...

I have to be frank with you Ex-Christian, you're not a very good ambassador for your religion (unless you're trying to convince us that it's the Soprano religion).

Micheal:

We are not living in utopic world, stop being unrealistic and face the facts.

Would you sit idle watching a thief breaking into your house, shooting dead your wife, your childern ( Allah forbid ) and start sitting your house on fire ????

Islam is a religion of Peace when others let us live in peace, but when others attack us, invade us, kill us, bomb us, steal our land and our wealth, then no, Islam is realistic religion:

''Fight in the Way of God against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. God does not love those who go beyond the limits. ''(The Noble Quran 2: 190)

Again, remember the GOLDERN RULE:

'' Nations with Muslim blood on their hands should be always on high alert ''.

Ex-Christian: "Nations with Muslim blood on their hands should be always on high alert."

I believe we're a target regardless of that, but since you ask, yes we probably have Islamist blood on our hands. And the Islamists have Norwegian blood on their hands. There's a Norwegian force in Afghanistan that has been involved in a few confrontations with Taliban guerillas. We're not there to oppress the Muslims, but to help them build a Muslim-friendly society, unlike the hateful and anti-Muslim Talibans. But there are probably those who see this as having "Muslim blood on our hands". Are you among them?

In any case, I believe I have you with me, then, when I say that when people with an Middle Eastern appearance are observed surveying railway lines, we have cause for concern.

Bjørn Stærk

''
I believe we're a target regardless of that,''

I am sorry but I dont accept this statement because it is very dishonest, It is rather alarmist Islamophobic statement.
Your statement is like someone who did nothing wrong and yet always say I am going to be arrested soon ???

'' but since you ask, yes we probably have Islamist blood on our hands. And the Islamists have Norwegian blood on their hands. ''

playing with words sadly wont advance any debate.
Where ( if really that the case ) did Muslims kill Norwiegans ? remind me, was it on Norwegian soil or was it on MUSLIM soil ?? and why ???

''There's a Norwegian force in Afghanistan that has been involved in a few confrontations with Taliban guerillas. We're not there to oppress the Muslims, but to help them build a Muslim-friendly society,''

Muslims did not ask you to be there, and so your presence amount to helping our enemy ( The United Stated of Death and TERRORISM )who invaded 2 Muslim lands, killing thousands of innocent muslims including women and childern and aiding another terrorist state in its terrorism against muslims ( Israel ), so certainly your illegal presence contributes in the oppression of Muslims there.

'' unlike the hateful and anti-Muslim Talibans. But there are probably those who see this as having "Muslim blood on our hands". Are you among them?''

Yes, you have no right to be there, will you accept a muslim army to be stationed in Norway to help the Norwigeans ''liberate'' themselves from their hedonistic materialsitic life style and introduce SHARIA LAWS for them ???? if the answer is NO ( and I am sure it is ) regardless of why, then your presence in any muslim land is unjustified and your help is not appreciated.

''
In any case, I believe I have you with me, then, when I say that when people with an Middle Eastern appearance are observed surveying railway lines, we have cause for concern.''

Why not become a nation obsessed with ' terrorism ' and start having a terror colour alerts like the Americans ?

no matter how you try to spin it, the Golden rule still applies:

" Nations with Muslim blood on their hands should be always on high alert."

"Muslims did not ask you to be there, and so your presence amount to helping our enemy"

Oh, the Northern Alliance was more than happy to welcome foreign troops. And I've heard people in Kabul who weren't exactly complaining.

Ex-Christians: "Muslims did not ask you to be there, and so your presence amount to helping our enemy"

Actually Muslims do want us to be in Afghanistan. Not all Muslims, but many. The Taliban are Muslims too, but the evil kind, and luckily they're an unpopular minority. They're Muslims like the Nazi's were Christians.

I respect the wishes of Afghanistan's Muslims. The moment Hamid Karzai (a respected leader and veteran of the Soviet war - hardly a puppet of the Americans) or whoever is elected to lead Afghanistan asks us to leave, I expect we will. You speak for some Muslims. You do not speak for all.

Øyvind, Bergen

''
"Muslims did not ask you to be there, and so your presence amount to helping our enemy"

Oh, the Northern Alliance was more than happy to welcome foreign troops. And I've heard people in Kabul who weren't exactly complaining. ''

Are you saying you were cooperating with the war lords of Afghanitan ? so much for you helping muslims there !

Ah... common sense it was now? I see. You were showing your "realpolitik" side?

I think not.

Having had the "benefit" of setting aside a few hours yesterday and reading through in linear time, the last five of Bjørns posts and their associated comments, I have developed an informed view in my opinion, of "where you were" when you made the post at the top of this thread. My comment regarding that was based on that place and what it means in the world. I stand by it.

An interesting side point, that may or may not be a telling one. I remember from late childhood when I first began to take an interest in the goings on of the world, noticing something in the many "debates" and discussions that would be on TV and radio with Soviet representatives. They were always well versed, and they always used words like "peace" and "tolerance" repeatedly. I think I was just beginning to discern the sometimes subtle differences in discourse that weaves image rather then substance.

Anyway, one thing I remember well. If their opponent in this "free discourse" managed to make points that spoke directly to a meaningful center, as in questions of moral purpose for example(not an easy thing to do in a deliberately nuanced argument that is as misty as a postmodern deconstructionist can keep it)... the Soviet would often get quite rattled.

Then they would VERY often use a word to describe their opponents point then. Its a fine enough word in itself I guess... and it CERTAINLY can often be used to describe my verbiage for example. But there was something about the tone of your use of it that reminded me of them.

I've often wondered if those men were ever actors of their own free will, since so much of their intellectual, emotional and spiritual resources were needed to maintain sophisticated facades around the very places that in truth, proved much the opposites of what the facades proclaimed. Nuance can be challenging! Its an end in itself so often it seems.

In any case, it was the way you used "rambling" when you described my comments, even as you recast(pardon me) "restated" yours that inspired that memory. I just thought I'd share it.

As to my way of making points, it is borne of experience. I write and even speak (yikes!) in a way that is first and foremost, focused on NOT being able to be twisted and recast. (Being quoted out of context I've discovered, can't be protected against.) In the Age of faux-Nuance in all things... even black and white ones, it is necessary to ensure that you are not subject to its contrived vagaries. If I may use a metaphor:
If youre going to try to build a bridge over a chasm permanently shrouded in thick fog, its a job that requires care... and built in redundancy. I try to sate points like NASA built the Apollo. (Side point... in their case they seem to have replaced that mission complexity with bureaucratic complexity and institutional conformity... but thats a "slight" digression.)

So, to finish up... I ask again, who is it that decides if a "nation" has Muslim blood on its hands? What is the metphysical result of an attack then on Norway for example? Does the nation that spawned the attackers have blood on ITS hands then? What is, for example Norway, "justified" in doing in response? Do the people in the countries that Norway "hits" then need to make on accounting as well then? What if they are not living in a society where they had any freedom to express their wishes as to the first attack (against Norway for example)? Are they still repsonsible? Who has more blood on whose hands then? Should Norway only hit the leaders since these people do not live in free places?

Where does free will come in?

Or is it such that infidels don't get a metaphysical consideration in the workings of Jihad. Are they in some way less than human and unjustified in any judgements as to whether revenge is called for?

Finally... I ask again of you as it seems germane: Is there virtue without freedom?

To put it differently, either in the eyes of God, or just in truth (as the two would seem inextricable anyway), can there be virtue without freedom?

I'm curious.

Kevin McDonnell

Ex Christian,

I want to point out the philosophically contorted nature of this position:
Bjørn said: "I believe we're a target regardless of that,'

And you replied: "I am sorry but I dont accept this statement because it is very dishonest, It is rather alarmist Islamophobic statement."

So, it is Islamophopic of Bjørn to look at his world and observe that there are those in it who can make use of an idea (like for example... the "idea" of who among the infidels has Muslim blood on their hands) in order to justify a mass murder in his country.

You say that to even think that way is "Islamophobic". I find that extraordinary and I note with wry bemusement, having debated at least one of the rhetorical hitmen of the PA, that this is an artful use of a bit of psychobabble in order to project a truth elsewhere.

In simplest terms, you are saying that Bjørns awareness that there are people as consumed by hatred and feigned superiority as the architects of the "Master Race" ever were, is Islamophopic because those people are in fact Muslim. According to the code of this logic it should be noted you are in MUCH greater vioation of it when you make your points about the US and Israel.

But then perhaps I'm misled? Perhaps "Islamophobic" then, is a reasonable label for anyone who is non-Muslim, who says anything in judgement, of anyone who is Muslim?

But the logic does not apply in reverse... because of the inherent difference betwen Muslims and infidels. What a postmodern spin on "tolerance"! Its no wonder that the most "activist" of leftists found instant comraderie with the most rabid of Islamists.

Things do eventually make sense. They may be insane...but they make sense.

Its interesting that you followed your accusation of Islamophobia against Bjørn with this metaphor: "Your statement is like someone who did nothing wrong and yet always say I am going to be arrested soon ???"

Ex-Christian, there is truth in that metaphor... except that in its truth, it applies exactly in reverse.

Kevin McDonnell

PS Regarding:

"Islam is a religion of Peace when others let us live in peace, but when others attack us, invade us, kill us, bomb us, steal our land and our wealth, then no, Islam is realistic religion:"

So... Its like Bees then?

I seem to remember that Spain was once muslim land. I suppose that means that muslims will be along soon to reclaim what was taken away from them.
From my perspective, it seems it is the muslims who have the most blood on their hands, as in Darfur.

"Are you saying you were cooperating with the war lords of Afghanitan ? so much for you helping muslims there!"

Yep - but that's another issue, where I suspect I agree more with you than with Bjørn. However - Just like some Islamophobes you should not use "Muslims" like you were talking about all of them when you're only talking about some.

--Would you sit idle watching a thief breaking into your house, shooting dead your wife, your childern ( Allah forbid ) and start sitting your house on fire ???? --

Isn't that the law in Britain?????

--I seem to remember that Spain was once muslim land. I suppose that means that muslims will be along soon to reclaim what was taken away from them. --

Try up to the gates of Vienna and did you know that America and Australia are also traditional muslim lands?

It's being taught in certain schoolbooks.

Seems to me some muslims are or will be happy for our help in Darfur. The USA is providing 80% of the aid.

Ex C says" do you have any Muslim blood on your hands ? if the answer is yes, then your should always be on high alert."

Well under that absurd analysis, after 9/11 it would appear that Moslems should always be in high alert. The response bu Ex C only makes clear that in fact he views Western/Moslem relationships are a war between the two. In that event it does seem that a rational response would be to get it over with as soon as possible and since the West is now far stronger militarily they should have no compunctions about exercising their power. MOrality is a two way street

Thats an interesting point that Herbie alludes to, and which I would also like to see Ex-Christian address if he ever returns. To wit:

If we have Muslim blood on our hands we must be on alert.

Granted.

What countries have the blood of 911, Bali, Madrid etc etc etc on their hands?

Answer, countries in the Muslim world, and more specifically the Arab world.

Why do their people not have to tremble when they go to the market, or take the train, or see their children drive off in the school bus?

Answer, because the United States does not operate under the same twisted moral compass that Ex Christian seems to be if not operating under, then at the very least, an apologist for.

So the question then is, which code of behavior, as a manifestation of a belief system... is superior in its affirmation of, respect for and honor of human life, the very purpose of the Supreme Beings act of creation.

It will be tempting I'm sure for both Leftists of the vitriolically "Secular Humanist" flavor, as well as (ironically) the apologists for Islamic Jihad, to resort to postmodern contrivance and moral equivalence between say, US soldiers operating in Iraq, and suicide bombers... But that is merely a manfestation of their common cause, which in my opinion, is nihilism.

The truth is the distinctions are in plain sight, as they usually are. It is only nuance and outright blind hatred that obscures the seeing.

KM

PS This also clarifies whether the idea of "Liberating" Iraq versus "Occupying" it, is of any meaningful distinction at all in the present context. If, as seems to be the main thrust of our intellectual elite, there is none... then there is accordingly, nothing meaningful for the "West" to stand for... and we will inevitably, as Ex Christian expects... fall.

A recent survey in Germany revealed the following:
"When asked what they think of in association with the word "Islam" some 93% of Germans said "oppression of women", 83% said "terror", 82% said "fanatics and radicals", 70% said "dangerous", 66% said "backward". . . . A survey before the terrorist attack on the Russian school in Beslan showed 44 % of Germans believed there was a clash of civilizations between Islam and the Christian world. But asked the same question after the Beslan attack, some 62% said there is now a clash of civilizations.
http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch

Interesting German poll, Herbie. I suspect that more and more westerners will understand the reality of the war between the civilizations as it continues to heat up.
The problem with Islam is arabs. Particularly Sunni arabs. There is nothing positive that you can say about Sunni arabs. They are barbarians.
When muslims could spread the religion by conquest, as in the early arab conquests and the later Ottoman expansion, they showed no hesitation to murder and rape their way across the land. And muslims never gave up conquered land willingly. Even Spain seems to belong to muslims, in the backward thinking of many arabs.

Herbie NY

''Ex C says" do you have any Muslim blood on your hands ? if the answer is yes, then your should always be on high alert."
Well under that absurd analysis, after 9/11 it would appear that Moslems should always be in high alert.''

History does NOT start on 9/11, what happened on 9/11 was exactly because you had and continue to have muslim blood on your hands and the same with other attacks against western targets around the world.

Just in the last 2 days, more than 100 innocent Iraqi muslims were killed by the American terrorists in Iraq, now, dont please shout muslim terrorists when some of you ( Americans and westerners ) get beheaded there.

Ex christian,

I'm in no mood to even begin to unravel the twisted perspective that allows you to say that Americans have been "murdering" 100 innocent people in Iraq in the last few days. Since in fact the various suicide bombers from Al Queda who want a Taliban state, and mortar squads from ex Baathists who want a return to Saddamesque tyranny, have killed hundreds of Iraqis who are now their primary targets... as they are "softer". The intent is to spread fear and chaos among the people they claim to represent because, as in the case of Samarra, the people have been openly co-operating with the Americans and resisting the "insurgents". Very nice victories there for the brave warriors of the religion of peace.

As for the Americans, I cannot say who among those killed as a result of military action by the Americans was an innocent who was caught in the crossfire, but even according to Reuters (surprisingly) the non combatant casualties have quite low. On the other hand, in the case of actions in the last four days in three seperate cities, and especially Fallujah, the terror mongers have been on the wrong end of what we would call in New York, a serious can of whoop ass.

As it should be.

So give it a rest.

KM

And if anyone is beheaded by ruthless murderers consumed by nihilistic hatred under the pretense of divine will (an old rationale... and tedious), they will indeed be called terrorists and hunted down like dogs accordingly, for the simple reason that that is what they are.

Kevin McDonnell, Bergen

Look at this Muslim BABY being killed just 3 days ago by the American terrorists in Iraq and ask yourself, can this murder go unpunished ?

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=3373

Ah, the baby. Yes I have had run ins with Palestinian propagandists before. One must always raise the spectre of a dead baby to make a truth clouding point by leveraging that emotive image. This is the very kind of naked hypocrisy that would be the domain of hate filled liars.

It is certainly true this baby was killed in violence. It may even be true that the child was killed by American arms.

But the truth is that the baby died as a result of action AGAINST the people I have already described in the above post, and who were no friend to that baby, or any other innocent or decent member of the human race. I wonder if the spirit of that baby would curse those who so cynically exploit the image of its body, in order to empower the poeple who care least about it.

Some months ago, I befriended a man from Israel who was here in Norway. He had an experience, and he was here to tell of it. His entire family, a wife, two sons and a daughter, the youngest only three, were blown up one day along with his brother. They were killed while they were on a bus on their way to meet him, and when the poor beast who had been indoctrinated with the anguish of murderous hatred and made to belive that the only relief would come in an act of madness... stepped on the bus and blew himself up... the bus was only a block away. He ran to it and found the shattered remains of the loves of his life.

This man, is seeking to find a path to peace and decency. He has been looking to engage any and every Muslim leader he can find,(he is repeatedly threatened and has been assaulted more than once) in a discourse to try to reach an understanding.

I wonder Ex-Christian, who is the more pleasing soul in the sight of God. The man who distorts truth and beauty with an image of innocent death whose only claim to the image is in the fact that he thinks it should inspire more of the same?

Or the man who has seen the truth of an image of innocent death, in the destruction of all that is dear to his heart, and who, in the long shadow of that invitation to the abyss, seeks instead... to affirm life.

I don't know who, if anyone, you should be calling for revenge on ex-Christian. Perhaps you should begin with the Imam who "converted" you.

KM

I have to say that I agree with Kevin (for once:p)

One cannot but see that the Palestinians are using chlidren as shields against the Israelis in this fight. I also reacted when I heard that many of the terrorists go to mosques to hide, it does not show much respect for their symbols. That also is the case when I heard that the old government of Afganisthan usually put their collection of weapons in highly populated areas, so that more people were killed if they were bombed. Thats just wrong, and shows their cynisism.

The death of a muslim terrorist is a cause for a prayer of thanks by any decent person. But when a muslim terrorist takes his women and children with him into death, because he did not create a sufficient physical separation between himself as target, and the relative innocents around him, it is a tragedy.

A Clarification:

I want to stress that the end of my last comment, admittedly sarcastic, regarding the Imam that Ex-christian would be better off directing his impulse for vengeance at, was directed at that specific Imam.

I mean this with the implication that whatever flavor of "Islam" ex-Christian subscribes to, has in my opinion revealed itself to be more closely associated with the Wahibbi influenced madrasas (which can be so even for those that "denounce" Wahibbism), rather than any flavor that I still hope makes up the bulk of mainstream Islam.

KM

And since you are talking about the oppressed palestineans ( another example of muslim blood on American hands since it is the United states of death and terrorism the one which supports Israel ) here are some pictures for what the zionist killers are doing in Palestine :

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/jenin.htm

Unless and until you stop your aggression and terrorism against muslims, muslims owns war on terrorism will continue.

Dont take that as a threat, it is just 'common sense'.

Ah Jenin,

Now you have truly crossed into self parody Ex- Christian. Unfortunately, this is a story that reveals so very much about the layers of deceit and depth of contrivance (as well as the abject nihilism) of the Palestinian "leadership"... while exposing the fundamental decency and professionalism of the IDF, that in spite of the volume of the declaration of "Massacre at Jenin", it has imploded to something not even approaching myth.

So... you waste your time. Goebbels is long dead, and while a distorted and self satisfying redefinition of words like "nuance" have cast many shadows in which deceivers thrive, this particular "BIG LIE"... remains a lie no matter how often its perverse banner is raised.

It appears that you do not seek to find justifications for your hatred Ex-christian... so much as your hatred seeks whatever justifications it can get. I'm quite sure it will find them, and irritants like truth will do nothing to impinge on that ruthless end.

The tragedy is that since you have given yourself over to it... all your magnificent humanity, infused as it once was with sentience and free will... has been reduced to mere cleverness for the artful recasting of anything at all, into whatever is necessary... to continue the hate.

I say again, it is obvious why radical leftists and Islamo-fascists seem so metaphysically bound.

They have a common enemy that must be crushed out.

The truth.

KM

Kevin McDonnell, Bergen

It seems you belong to the neo cons far right zionist fanatics who brought so much death and destruction to so many Americans and Muslims alike.

Time for the civilized world to get rid of your dangerous ideology or we are heading for great clash you certainly cant win.

"Time for the civilized world to get rid of your dangerous ideology or we are heading for great clash you certainly cant win."

I see... MY "ideology" is dangerous? It certainly sounds that way.

Yes I know you indeed. I've seen you before. Perhaps not in the specific shell you inhabit now "ex-Christian"... but you nonetheless. You're always the same once you are you.

Ruthless Hatred.

I have known you for years now and it has never been a pleasant aquaintance. But I am always more at ease when your countenance is visible... as it has become now. I despise the hypocrisy of the masks you adorn yourself in. Justice, Peace, Truth... it always depresses me the way those symbolic keys to truth and beauty when treated with humility and respect, are arrogantly wrenched and twisted like so much mud clay... and used to adorn your grotesque visage.

So alas... all things considered, I "like" you much better this way.... "ex-Christian".

KM

Hey Kevin McDonnell, were you talking to yourself ??

Nope. I'm talking to you ex-Christian.

That's just 'common sense'.

Referring to people as dogs is always such a brilliant idea. Now - isn't it?

Perhaps Øyvind,

But then depicting the specifics of this reference in general terms... as in "Referring to people as dogs" seems a bit of a spin, no?

Its certainly more of a debatable analogy when one is referring quite SPECIFICALLY, as in this case, to human beings who have sawed the heads off of clearly innocent people, for the two-fold purpose of sowing horror among decent people who would find this act repugnat and stupefying, and fanning nihilistic hatred among murderous thugs, who wouldn't.

That makes it a somewhat different thing to say that they should be hunted down like dogs.

Doesn't it?

Or... do you think its all the same.

Hehe..
"Ruthless Hatred.
I have known you for years now and it has never been a pleasant aquaintance."

You know hatred all right :p on the other hand.. so does Ex Christian, Now Muslim, I suspect even more..

Hehe..
"Ruthless Hatred.
I have known you for years now and it has never been a pleasant aquaintance."

Kevin, You know hatred all right :p on the other hand.. so does Ex Christian, Now Muslim, I suspect even more..

For neo cons far right zionists such as Kevin McDonnell, everyone who disagree with their dangerous ideology must be a hater and if you happen to be a jew but yet anti-zionist like these wonderful jews ( www.nkusa.org ) you must be self-hating jew !!

Hate is what you see on your TV Kevin, in your anti muslim hate filled zionist controled American media. hate is what you witness on your American streets ( violence, crimes, drugs, prostitution, domestic violence, rape...etc )

I would like here to quote some lines from a very powerful article written by Sasan Fayazmanesh, a professor of economics at Fresno State University- USA :

''An empire whose citizens are fed fantasy, and not facts, might be in for a very long and costly war which could destroy the fabric of its society, both economically and socially. The length of the war and its cost could become so intolerable to the citizens of the empire that they might ultimately prefer capitulation to a state of permanent war.
As time passes, the effectiveness of repeated propaganda diminishes. It becomes increasingly apparent to everyone, including the citizens of the empire, that no one has a monopoly over "barbarism" and "savagery." The Greek, Roman, and British empires, for example, all showed that they could act more savagely and barbarically than their victims. This has already become apparent in the case of the Holy Empire ( The USA ). We all witness on a daily basis what Coetzee vividly describes as the ruthless empire that sends its bloodhounds everywhere and feeds on "images of sacked cities, rape of the population, pyramid of bones, and acres of desolation." Some of these images have already made their way into the US corporate news by default: the pyramid of naked prisoners at Abu Ghraib; the torture, sadism, rape, sodomy, and hooding of prisoners; the smiling faces of the "civilized" soldiers who get satisfaction from acts of perversion; the torture and humiliation of the prisoners; the terror in the faces of the "savages" facing the bloodhounds of the "civilized"; the grins on the faces of military personnel giving thumbs up next to the rotting corpse of a prisoner, etc.

Other images are hardly ever shown on the US daily news: the invasion of houses in Baghdad or Ramallah in the early morning hours; the shattering of doors; the terrifying men with headgear and assault rifles breaking into private residences; fear in the faces of the occupants; the demolition of houses in Fallujah and Gaza; planes and helicopters attacking civilians; craters left by bombs; blood stained streets; bodies of Iraqis and Palestinians laying in waste in the streets of Najaf and Rafah; the siege of cities; lines of detainees; the cages in the sun designed for unruly prisoners; the dead animals in the zoos of Baghdad and Rafah; the tanks and bulldozers waiting to attack defenseless Palestinian refugee camps before dawn; the bullet ridden walls; giant holes in the bedroom walls; dwellings turned into rubble; Palestinian women and children sitting with dazed faces on piles of concrete, where their houses used to be; the terrified Iraqis and Palestinians carrying their belongings before the assault begins; the uprooted olive trees with grieving Palestinian women standing in front of the bulldozer, trying to save their livelihood; overflowing morgues; dead bodies wrapped in shrouds; funerals, etc. Indeed, the world has seen, in just the past few months alone, what "civilization" can do. The more time passes, the longer the war, the more we see the real face of this "civilization."

The above could not be more true.

A must read:

The Holy Empire
Who We Are and What We Do

http://www.counterpunch.org/sasan09042004.html

Ex-Christian, now Muslim:
I agree with some of the statements quoted here, but it will never stop until both parties reach the agreement of peace. There is no way the Palestinians could or should win the conflict with Israel, and there really is good things going on in Iraq and Afghanisthan as well. The problem is that you think that the whole of America, or even the whole west is guilty in such crimes. The american administration has attacked Iraq on a wrongful basis (but good might still come out of it), but that is no reason to do terrorism against the whole of the US, or the West. Its like the west should totally erradicate Afghanistan (because they could if they wanted, you know) for the simple reason that they harbored terrorists. And no, thats NOT what happened in neither Afghanistan or Iraq..
Its just not the way to go, because it is both a loosing war and because it is simply ethically evil. I heard a wise saying once, dont know who made it: "The best way you can ever have revenge on your enemy is to live well" (the americans are practicing this all the time), because your enemy would hate nothing more than for you to live well (living well requires peace right). And I (the idealist) actually think that is possible for muslims as well, without any form of terrorism. Terrorism is wrong, there is no doubt about that.

No, I do not think it is acceptable to refer to people as dogs, no matter what. To the terrorists 'we' are the dogs.

In a way it's like the saying warning that where books are thrown on bonfires sooner or later people will be thrown on them too. If terrorists are reduced to dogs, others may soon be it too, if people are reduced to dogs, many unacceptable methods become acceptable. Sadly, we've already seen examples of this.

Ex Christian,

You say:"Hate is what you see on your TV Kevin, in your anti muslim hate filled zionist controled American media. hate is what you witness on your American streets ( violence, crimes, drugs, prostitution, domestic violence, rape...etc )"

Ex-christian, I can see "images" of a broad swath of things (incidentally most of the "images" on TV that I see are via the Norwegian version... which makes your statement even more ironic than it already is with the whole "zionist controlled" thing) from the "American Streets". If they are the "hate filled" ones... compared to the hatred that is being promulgated in the places we are discussing in the Islamic world; if thats the truth ex-Christian... then the world we both live in, is upside down to my eye and I am one of its very worst haters.

But its not... and I am not.

The hate that concerns me you see, is the projected kind... the kind that supercedes and co-opts all others and causes free people to surrender their will to those who project the hatred. Thats the kind of hatred that sees a worldwide "Zionist conspiracy" as the reason that many speak of a necessary fight for freedom. Thats the kind of hatred that projects all the vile ugliness that is in truth, the result of its own disease, onto those who are its "enemies". Its why I call that thing which you are an apologist for, Islamo-fascism.

Hate filled streets are to me, the ones that are filled with the many who have been told by the few... to cheer murder, burn effigies, caricature and dehumanize whole spectrums of humaity as "others", and to let themselves be molded into tools of violence. Thats the very worst kind of hatred. Because it destroys freedom and thus is the greatest lie of all.

Because we are in truth, free.

Oddly I come back to the question for you ex-Christian which you still have never answered.

Can there be virtue without freedom?

I ask this because in the paragraph I quoted up above, you commit a fallacy that is revealing. From accusations of hate filled anti-Mulim propaganda you drift into an accusations of what I suppose we could call "social problems" that I assume you think are present because America is not Muslim and is therefore inferior. To wit: "hate is what you witness on your American streets ( violence, crimes, drugs, prostitution, domestic violence, rape...etc )"

Its tempting for me to make comparisons between the undeniable wrongs you refer to here, and those you say are rampant in the streets in America. (as in prostitution... isn't that also what a "temporary wife permits"?...and as in rape...is that a good justification for an honor killing"... and as in domestic violence... isn't the beating of a "bold mouthed wife" domestic violence?... and so forth). But I would rather consider it from this perspective:

Do you think that if the US adopted Sharia, and all the things you say are wrong there were stopped, under pain of death... that the USA would be a better place?

To put it another way: Would it be more pleasing in the sight of God when all those ugly things were either stopped completely, or at least legitimized and regulated according to the "Law"?

Because... I think that's an abomination. You would be talking about image over substance, and that is ALWAYS what a lie, at its metaphysical core, truly is ex-Christian. You would be saying that to God... this world is better as a pretty picture, where the surface of his creations "looks nice" and that he cares nothing for what is in their hearts. Ultimately then, we are nothing more than automoton players in a great big video game moving to and from in accordance with the vision imposed upon us.

Again.. I understand why Islamo fasists and utopian leftists commiserate... they are both playing God, and they both want to "see" the world as it ought to be... on the surface.

So: Is there virtue without freedom?

It seems to me that the survival and future of the world may be spinning on that question.

I hope it is not only in America that it is being asked in earnest.

I hope it is not something that the rest of the "free world" has sniffed at, and "moved on" from.

By the way, I read the whole article with interest ex-Christian... and it is perfect. It was a revelation reading that article.

Truly it was... obviously, not in the way you might have hoped, but a revelation nonetheless. It was so revealing that I was amazed you linked to it... because it is SO very much exactly what it is, that I can only imagine it is those who are far into that place from which it comes from, who would be subject to it. There are in fact, much more artful, less directly inverted pieces out there that might be more insidious to the innocent mind. Orwell's description of how to recast history for example was a more skillful one, as opposed to simply deriving the inverse from events where necessary. This in some ways was like a window into the writers soul, and allowed a peek into the mirror he sees when he looks at the world.

So thank you for that.

Cheers,

Kevin

Øyvind,

To put it bluntly, give me a break. Do you just recast things reflexively or what?

I say, once again... you are spinning. In this case you are respinning your spin. You say now "No, I do not think it is acceptable to refer to people as dogs, no matter what."

To which I say... well that is a nice moral position and I don't argue with it. Fortunately I don't have to, since what I said was that if these men do this horrendous thing, they should be "hunted down like dogs."

Do you want me to diagram that sentence? Shall I deconstruct it?

It is an analogy Øyvind where the action word is hunted. Do you perceive the difference? What will persuade you to make your objection honestly to what I said rather than your desire to make it what you would like it to be. One assumes that desire includes me being a bigoted, violence loving pseudo-redneck who feels good about dehumanizing people. (Note here Øyvind that
I am from New York City, and I have lived with, befriended and worked side by side with just about every race, creed and color the human race has ever yielded and I am quite certain that I possess a beautiful and meaningful definition of what diversity really is rather than an academic elitist and imposed one... and it is one where "tolerance" is a non-sequitur.)

So I think... I have less prejudices than you do in this... its just that in your mind, you don't see your prejudices as such, because you think that in the language you parse, the rightness is retained, as long as it is kept "proper".

Unfortunately, that is the kind of mentality that is SO prejudiced that it is meaningless, and so you are preternaturally focused on this protocol violation of your own rules of political correctness because you have been indoctrinated to do so. Look to your own house for prejudices Øyvind.

You won't find them here.

And for the record, it was not deliberate at the time that I used "dogs" as the object of the hunting analogy in deference to dogs being unclean and so forth. Its just an expression dude! But it brings up an interesting point for you. Has part of your "AhahhhhH!" moment come from that multicultural impulse?

That's too bad. You see I don't subscribe to that particular doctrine of elitist mind addling tyranny, so you'll have to be "tolerant" of the fact that I have few restrictions on the words I use to describe the images I would like to communicate.

Cheers,

KM

Btw... I love dogs. I live with one. And for the sake of literal accuracy I should note that I'm dubious that there would ever be a need to hunt down dogs... unless a whole pack had become rabid at the same time... the way these men should be.

"And if anyone is beheaded by ruthless murderers consumed by nihilistic hatred under the pretense of divine will (an old rationale... and tedious), they will indeed be called terrorists and hunted down like dogs accordingly, for the simple reason that that is what they are".

I got the impression from this sentence that you referred to them as dogs Kevin, not only hunted down as dogs, "for the simple reason that that is what they are".

Kevin:

You wrote: [...] they will indeed be called terrorists and hunted down like dogs accordingly, for the simple reason that that is what they are.

Yes, Kevin, I'm surely unfair, and I may have misunderstood you, and I certainly spin your words to make my point. It's also possible that having English as a second language does not help me. What I read in the sentence above, though, is that they are indeed dogs.

It's just an expression, an analogy, I believe you. But to be frank, Kevin, I'm rather sensitive on such expressions, not because of my "political correctness" (what a delightful way to brand ones opponents, oh, they're just politically correct, how foolish), not because I see it as a sign of prejudices, but because I've seen those words before. And I have seen what they can lead to.

Dehumanizing ones enemies was never a good idea. It has created the climate that allows Palestinian youth to be brainwashed into killing themselves and innocent civilians in the streets of the "Zionist" enemy, and it has created the athmosphere that allowed the recent torture scandals in Iraq to happen.

And that's why I react, Kevin, not because I suspect that you will be on the next plane to Iraq to torture prisoners or hunt down dogs yourself. Actually, you're probably a rather tolerant person - Americans mostly are.

But then, Kevin, there's another thing that has been bothering me. The truth. Yes, I know that I'm supposedly opposed to it - after all I'm a radical leftist (to be blunt, give me a break).

Ex-Christian is wrong about many things, and his mind seems to be clouded by conspiracy theories. While he does sometimes point out interesting facts and make valid points he was undoubtably wrong about calling Jenin a massacre (in fact, he didn't, only the website he referred to did, and added the word 'genocide' to make sure). The website he referred us to does not only talk about massacres, but also about "Satan, Dajjal, Freemasons and their conspiracies against Muslims" - it isn't exactly a trustworthy source.

Neither is the corrupt Palestine leadership.

But wait a minute? Are you a trushworthy source, Kevin? Reading about Jenin and the "fundamental decency and professionalism of the IDF" in the same post I'm beginning to have my doubts.

There was no massacre in Jenin, but there were human rights violations conducted by the Israeli Defence Forces. Check out the report from Human Rights Watch.

I'll include some interesting bits from the report:

1. Human Rights Watch documented one case in which a civilian was buried alive when IDF bulldozers collapsed his home. Jamal Fayid was a thirty-seven-year-old paralyzed man living in the Jurrat al-Dahab area of the camp, and his family could not evacuate him in time. Despite the pleas of the family, the IDF bulldozer refused to stop the demolition of the home on April 6. Jamal Fayid was killed in the collapsed building (see below for more details). It is difficult to see what military goal could have been furthered or what legitimate consideration of military necessity could be put forward to justify the crushing to death of Jamal Fayid without giving his family the opportunity to remove him from his home.

2.The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which promotes adherence to the Geneva Conventions, took the unusual step of speaking out publicly about the extent of destruction of the civilian infrastructure in Jenin camp and the inadequate safeguards taken by the IDF to protect civilian life and property in the camp. Rene Kosirnik, the head of the ICRC delegation, stated:

When we are confronted with the extent of destruction in an area of civilian concentration, it is difficult to accept that international humanitarian law has been fully respected.... If you suspect your [military] operation will cause disproportionate damage to civilians or civilian property, then you have to stop the operation.

3.During its investigation, however, Human Rights Watch documented unlawful and deliberate killings, and the killing or wounding of protected individuals as a result of excessive or disproportionate use of force. Such cases are in violation of the international humanitarian law prohibitions against "willful killing" of noncombatants. The organization also found instances of IDF soldiers deliberately impeding the work of medical personnel and preventing medical assistance to the wounded with no apparent or obvious justification of military necessity. Such cases appear to be in violation of the prohibition against "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."19

At least four persons were killed by the IDF because they were outside during curfews or walked in areas declared "closed" by the Israeli army. Such use of lethal force to enforce curfews or "closed" areas is a widespread practice by the IDF. The use of lethal force against civilians who do not abide by curfews or are found in "closed" areas is unjustified, and a violation of the international humanitarian law provisions prohibiting the targeting of civilians. International humanitarian law requires that the IDF use less lethal means to enforce its curfews and "closed" areas.

In addition, the dimensions of the destruction and the temporal sequence of the demolition of homes and property found by Human Rights Watch researchers suggest that these were carried out unlawfully and wantonly and did not meet the strict requirements of military necessity and proportionality.

There is strong prima facie evidence that in some of the cases documented grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, or war crimes, were committed. Such cases warrant specific criminal justice investigations with a view to identifying and prosecuting those responsible.

Fundamental decency? Professionalism? I'm not convinced that the truth is an irritant only to ex-Christian, Kevin.

Lastly I would like to say that I do not think you're a bigoted and violence-loving pseudo-redneck who feels good about dehumanizing people, Kevin, although I should probably add some of those terribly nice words to my Josef Göbbels-vocabulary.

No, Kevin, I'm closer to being a redneck myself, having a rural background, being Norwegian. Still, the "dehumanizing"-thing worries me, not because I think you're enjoying it, but because analogies and expressions like the one you made seem to spread like the semen of a medieval king. They're creating a dangerous climate. If combined with simplified 'truths'... oh, Kevin, that truly scares me.

Øyvind

When you read the postings by Ex Christan you really do get the flavor of Islam as it is viewed today by the majority of Moslems. Moslems are never to blame for anything least of all violence which in their view is never instigated by Moslems but is only a response to some terrible Western act. Apparently Moslem on Moslem violence is OK since there was no word of outrage or demonstrations when Assad leveled the city of JHma and killed some twenty thousand people (men women and children) and there was certainly no demonstration when Saddam killed several hundred thousand Iraqis. But the best of course is S. Rushtie. Write an otherwise poor novel that calls into question Mohamed and a fatwa is issued that he be put to death for defaming Islam. In contrast when Osama Ben Laden kills thousand innocent people in the name of Islam, we are told this act was not that of a true Moslem. Yet if that is so why no fatwa has been issued calling for his death is the subject of all sorts of convoluted explanations about why this would be improper.

The short answer to all of this is if it walks like a duck, look like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is probably a duck and no deconstruction and moral relativism much like Oyvind offers will change that fact.

I think that Kevin has it exactly right and to call him a "Jew" or a "zionist" or a "Necon" only amounts to killing themessenger and not with the logic of his argument.

As for calling terrorists dogs, why is it unacceptable? The act of deliberately attacking civilians as is now a common practice in the Islamic world should be viewed as so far beneath human standards that no amount of chatter should be able to raise them to any level of humanity. There are certain actions that are so heinous that that it should be acknowledged that the actors have left their humanity behind. A good example in that regard is the Sudan. Where are the Moslem voices to protest the slavery. There are none. Yet all now agree that slavery is bad and beyond any justification. Yet there are still some who would try and explain it. Ther must come a point where there can be no justification for certain actions yet Oyvind appears never to reach that point

You're right. I am stunned, humbled and stand corrected.

That was a foolish and discordant ending to that, and in defending myself I had no recollection of it. So I have to withdraw the sepcifics of my defense (irritatingly:-)), to Øyvind as well.

I add however, to both of you, that my critique of your fixation on the expression, as a detachment from what it is about... and that I believe it is reflexive you should be aware of in your own houses, is valid. So I would not withdraw the bulk of my post to Øyvind, offerred as an earnest attempt to get him, and you to consider that.

In any case: For going beyond the expression of "hunted down like dogs" and adding in disgust, "because that is what they are", I do indeed apologize... and anyone who did not note the innate wrongness that that last line added to the 'form' of what was said previous to it, I ask they consider it now. It smacks of irrational caricature, and I am pleased to be caught engaged in it. Its no better than the many insidious hate references I was citing in ex-Christians posts as indicative of him being enmeshed in hatred's seductions.

Hatred is like that you see. Be humble... and keep it simple... because its exactly as clever as you are, and even a wee bit more, and will sneak into you at the places you cling to for the VERY reason that you want to defend against it. (And often when you confront it directly!)

Thats just the way it is... no matter what your "philosophy". We are human and bound by its deception and seduction in exactly the way we are bound to truth and beauty because its a direct corruption of that.

So... thank you Allan.

KM

Allan, Melbourne

''Ex-Christian, now Muslim:
I agree with some of the statements quoted here, but it will never stop until both parties reach the agreement of peace. There is no way the Palestinians could or should win the conflict with Israel,''

Thank you Allan for your comments.

The Israelis will never live in peace as long as they terrorize the palestineans and deny them their freedom.

'' and there really is good things going on in Iraq and Afghanisthan as well. The problem is that you think that the whole of America, or even the whole west is guilty in such crimes. ''

No, far from it, I dont balame the whole west but yes I blame whole America for the crimes the Americans are committing against Muslims simply because in democrasy there is NO difference between the people and the government.

I dont blame Finland ( my own country ) for these crimes, I dont blame Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Argentina...etc I blame the killers and the killers in our modern times are the Americans.

''The american administration has attacked Iraq on a wrongful basis (but good might still come out of it), but that is no reason to do terrorism against the whole of the US, or the West.''

I agree with you, I dont support terrorism nor condone it at all, it is against the teaching of my religion to kill innocent civilians but how can you convince some muslims who lost loved ones to the american bombs that not all americans are guilty if for example, the war criminal, Bush was relected in Nov 2 ???

A nation that elect war criminals is criminal itself.

''I heard a wise saying once, dont know who made it: "The best way you can ever have revenge on your enemy is to live well" (the americans are practicing this all the time), because your enemy would hate nothing more than for you to live well (living well requires peace right).''

But Allan, the American terrorists dont let us live at all let alone live well.

''And I (the idealist) actually think that is possible for muslims as well, without any form of terrorism. Terrorism is wrong, there is no doubt about that.''

I agree:

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com

Øyvind, Bergen

Yes Øyvind, what happened in Jenin was indeed a Massacre:

According to Dictionary, Massacre is:

The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.

tr.v. mas·sa·cred, (-krd) mas·sa·cring, (-krng, -kr-ng) mas·sa·cres

To kill indiscriminately and wantonly; slaughter.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=massacre

EYEWITNESS JENIN: Evidence of Massacre in Jenin -Report from Friday, May 23, 2002-

http://www.iacenter.org/jenin.htm

And this source:

http://www.jeninjenin.org/massacre.htm

and this is from the BBC:

Jenin 'massacre evidence growing'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937048.stm

I guess it is only a 'massacre' when non muslims are killed and when muslims are the perpetrators, right ?

Øyvind,

MAN I do not have time for this!

I am not patronizing you but can't this be just a BIT less real time... so that we can make use of what little, ya know REAL TIME we might have.

First off regarding your parsing of my statement, I have reread it via Allan see my statement above.

But regarding the "Massacre of Jenin" thing, I offer no withdrawl of my reference which you seem to think makes me a patsy for Zionists. I have read the report you referenced before, and by the way I have read its three predeccessors which were each closer to the concept of a massacre, and indeed the original releases by Human Rights Watch (who I have become VERY leery of as a source for accurate unpoliticised assessments as a result of this and other clear distortions... which is a shame.) were outright fabrications. As were the UN pronouncments... and the Western "mainstream" media. Am I making my point here?

In the end, it appears that the IDF conducted a ground operation to root out those who were clearly repsonsible (even Amnesty accepts that they met the burden of proof for SOME kind of action... although one assumes that they should have lodged a protest somewhere so that someone would object to terrorism at a press conference somewhere so we could all nod our heads and go grap a Latte'). They could have conducted an Air-strike to take out the 17 buildings they had defined as the confirmed targets. There would have been scores of casualties that were not directly targeted, and that was not considered acceptable (to their moral standard one presusumes?) so they conducted a ground operation. The non-combatants killed in the ensuing action was absolutely astonishing in such closed quarters, and indeed, the Palestinians there became quickly so secure in the rules of engagement that (this is on film) it became an odious circus where shots would be fired by terrorists, and then crowds would appear. For my part, I am amazed that at no time there was not at least SOME cases of things like firing into crowds and so forth... even after these soldiers had taken significant casualties.

Human Rights Violations? Two of the Bulldozer workers on the ground, interviewed seperately by the IDF in its investigation of the incident you cite, independently stated in their story that the family had been dragged away by PA representatives "unwillingly" and that there were others from the PA there with cameras. They did not register that the family was screaming about anything more than the loss of their property. Nobody claims to have known there was anybody present, and the "story" was breaking within an hour of the incident. Seem odd to you?

This is typical of the way things come out of incidents within the areas controlled by the PA. It is as though the Palestinians there are much more considered fodder by their "leaders" than they are by the Israelis... who it must be said... would for the most part like the whole thing to stop and the "Palestinians" to have a country that wouldn't be launching ballistic suicide bombers at school busses twice a week.

Fundamental Decency? Professionalism? Show me where it was not that. Do you think the Norwegian Army would perform better in those conditions. Are you certain they would demonstrate the kind of restraint that the IDF did?

I'm not... and I don't think US Marines would either.

So... yes... Fundamental decency and professionalism in the face of the insanity of a place under the bane of ruthless tyranny.

Its funny Øyvind... if Europeans could address this based on some standard... any standard... (perhaps mine IS askew, I TRY to SEE what IS, but I'm just one man). Just some kind of meaningful standard of which there was even rough agreement that some perspective which captured a true one would try to be upheld. What would the impact be I wonder? Would so much of the madness be legitimized and empowered (even FINANCED!) as it is now? Would that be a good thing for the Palestinian PEOPLE!?

Instead, the standard is that there is no standard and when "bad things" happen we retreat to the "nuance". ("Its very complicated you know... yes there are bus bombings and all that unpleasantness, but then the IDF you know... when they go in to, so they say 'go after' the 'insurgents/militants/activists'.. well... sometimes people die there too... so... thats no different of you think about it with an "open mind" and... its very complicated... and the Zionist thing would be best if it all just went away... could you pass the salt dear?")

I'm sorry Øyvind... but isn't all this ACTUALLY to coin a phrase.. unhelpful?

KM

Ex Christian and all,

Regarding the Massacre at Jenin, I note that your posts are from the period of immediately after the event. Thats when the BIG LIE was still making its play:

To Wit:
BBC Jenin 'Massacre Evidence Growing'

which is date stamped Thursday, 18 April, 2002, 10:44 GMT 11:44 UK.

Yup. Would you like me to bring up the slew of articles from the BBC after that as they slowly (and slyly) extricated themselves from the oh so revealing mess they had put thesmselves in with pieces like that?

No... probably not.

I agree with Herbie,

"The short answer to all of this is if it walks like a duck, look like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is probably a duck and no deconstruction and moral relativism much like Oyvind offers will change that fact. "

Yes, thats the short answer, and its more anchored in a critically true perspective in this case than any of the convoluted and self satisfying prognostications of so many "progressive" pundits today that I have seen.

KM

This is a must watch video

Video: Hijacking Catastrophe :

Documentary featuring Noam Chomsky, Chalmers Johnson, Tariq Ali, and many more
experts speaking about the Neo-Con agenda and the cloud of fear which the
Neo-Cons have settled over America.

This is a must watch video

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6895.htm

Not to engage in a tag team match about Israel and the PLO, but I submit that Kevin has "hit the nail on the head" so to speak": a "standard".

What exactly would or should be the "standard" for both Israeli and PLO conduct? Regardless of the merits of any position, I submit that deliberately attacking civilians should be subject to unambiguous condemnation. In that regard it also seems that the PLO and its supporters cannot make any justification. Yet I hear very little in that regard.

As for Israel, on the other hand, it seems to me that they are held to a standard which verges on no standard except that they are not permitted to defend themselves: a) they cannot build a fence because that cuts done on free passage, b) they cannot target terrorist leaders because that is extra-judicial killing and c) they can't destroy homes used to hide tunnels to bring weapons in because that is the destruction of civilian property. So I ask: what exactly do you propose as an standard for an acceptable response by Israel to attacks?

Ex C I would hardly call Noam Chomsky an "expert" except among college sophomores. He is more the last survivor of all the lost causes of his generation.

Herbie:

Here is another chapter of your terrorism against Muslims:

CAUGHT ON VIDEO: U.S. Gunship Kills Iraqi Civilians And Arab Journalist

Witnesses: Apache fired on crowd

BBC Report 09/13/04

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articlee6896.htm

Deliberatly killing innocent Muslims is terrorism and the American terrorists who are doing this will cetainly pay for their crimes.

Ex C I could not agree more and to that end various commissions have been established tro investigate and punish. Now please tell me what is being done with the people who engage in the chopping off of the heads of prisoners. All Moslems seemto do us send around videos of these events. Othewise a silence greater than Yorick's skull (no pun intended) from the Moslem world.

Ex C I could not agree more and to that end various commissions have been established to investigate and punish and indeed sentences have been handed out for US abuse. Now please tell me what is being done with the Moselms who engage in the chopping off of the heads of prisoners. All Moslems seem to do us send around videos of these events and tellthe world that this may or may not be UnIslamic. Othewise a silence greater than Yorick's skull (no pun intended) from the Moslem world. In short you do have a rather singular view of the world. Any attocity real or imagined inflected on a Moselm is fodder for teeth grinding and condemnation. However when the reverse takes place nothing is condemned.

Ex C I could not agree more and to that end various commissions have been established to investigate and punish and indeed sentences have been handed out for US abuse. Now please tell me what is being done with the Moslems who engage in the chopping off of the heads of prisoners. All Moslems seem to do us send around videos of these events and tell the world that this may or may not be UnIslamic. Otherwise a silence greater than Yorick's skull (no pun intended) from the Moslem world. In short you do have a rather singular view of the world. Any atrocity real or imagined inflected on a Moslem is fodder for teeth grinding and condemnation. However when the reverse takes place nothing is condemned.

A primitive savage will behead a helpless prisoner and videotape the event to inspire other primitive savages.

That is just the way they are. There is no need to apologize for them, or to try to make them appear somehow civilized.

Tomlinson Well I do agree with you. However, it is for the Moslem world to confront this savage conduct and not avoid it. Unless that is done then all this blather about Islam being a peaceful religion is nonsense. All I hear at odd times is that such conduct is UnIslamic, but I do not see or hear of any religious rulings condemning such conduct and that, in my view is the heart of the matter.

Kevin:

It seems to be your usual technique to claim that your opponents try to brand you as things they have never tried branding you as. I have never referred to you as "a patsy for Zionists", that is if you have not been dreaming about me. In that case, I am flattered.

What I have said is that human right violations did in fact take place in Jenin. Civilians where, as HRW points out, willfully killed. Civilians were also used as human shields, something which is clearly prohibited in international law. In short, IDF screwed up.

These human right violations have also been covered by Israeli media, a source I often turn to in trying to understand the conflict.

In this way I also discovered an article talking volumes on the professionality of the IDF. Let me quote from an article called "I made them a stadium in the middle of the camp" (translated title) printed in 7 days - a magazine from Yediot Aharanot ,the number one Israeli tabloid - on May 31 2002.

This is the story of an IDF bulldozer operator:

In the Jenin refugee camp, he was called, over the military radio: "Kurdi Bear". Kurdi, because this is the name he insisted on. Bear, after the D-9 he was driving, demolishing house after house.

There was not one soldier in Jenin that did not hear this name. Kurdi Bear was considered the most devoted, brave and probably the most destructive operator. A man, that the Jenin camp inquiry committee, would want very much to have a word with. For 75 hours, with no break, he sat on the huge bulldozer, charges exploding around him, and erased house after house.

For 75 hours? With no break? Wait! It doesn't stop there:

The funny bit was, I didn't even know how to operate the D-9 (bulldozer, Ø's note). Within two hours, they taught me to drive forwards, and make a flat surface.

And this should top it off: Do you know how I held out for 75 hours? I didn't get off the bulldozer. I had no problem of fatigue, because I drank whisky all the time. I had a bottle in the bulldozer at all times. I had put them in my bag in advance. Everybody else took clothes, but I knew what was waiting for me there, so I took whisky and something to munch on.[*]

Now - let's summarize - an IDF soldier with two hours of training driving his close to 60 ton heavy vehicle, for 75 hours straight, while drinking whiskey. Sounds professional, doesn't it?

That IDF screwed up does not mean that the Norwegian would not have screwed up. Lacking both training and experience for such a situation they probably would have. I hope, however, that our friends abroad would be capable of pointing our faults out to us, and not excusing them by the atrocities of our enemies.

You see, Kevin, that's the number one problem for both pro-Palestine and pro-Israel groups and invididuals in Norway and other Western countries. They refrain from giving due critique to the people they support, and instead start excusing them, singing the old refrain: Just look at what the other side did! They're the terrible ones! They started it!

That's not a game I'm going to play. If you want to - have fun.

Øyvind

[*] Yediot Aharanot is, to my knowledge, only available in Hebrew. However, the article is translated into English and available at Gush Shaloms website - right here

Ok. What do you think should be done Øyvind?

I think the security fence will be completed, and there will be de facto state that will need to become something, and that this is something that the PA fears greatly. Why?

I think the fact of the borders of Israel made existentially real and defensible gives chills to the PA leadership, Hamas, Hizbollah and a host of other... errr "paramilitary" groups. Why?

I think that by any sane measure the level of professionalism, general decency, good faith and earnest efforts at peace on the Israeli side since the Oslo accords, have been met with almost surreal doublespeak, gruesome violence, and an institutional imposition of Western subsidized tyranny on the "Palestinian" people. This regime has engaged in every means of inculcation of hatred that has ever been practiced. This is well documented and in plain sight.

So.... whats your solution? Thats nothing to scoff at since you seem to be very clear on what you are opposed to and what you think is wrong.

I'll share mythoughts to begin our discussion.

I believe that the fence is absolutely essential and an unambiguously good thing based on what is. I think that the clarity that it forces on the issue will ultimately be as good for the Palestinain Arabs as it is for the Israelis. I think it will be very "bad" for terrorists and the "cause" of hatred generally. I think that consistently answering terrorism with measured force that directly targets those who perpetrate it is the only sane response in the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I think that putting direct pressure on Arafats apparatus is a moral imperative, and failing to do so is a moral obscenity. This falls to the West as we subsidize his machine and then turn away satisfied. Its an ugly lie.

I think if these things are done and with confidence, much of the black pus gets squeezed into the light, where it can be rightly expunged. I think that this is a good thing that will save lives, and make the children of those on both "sides" of this insanity, much more likely to go grow up in peace... and that it plants the seeds where they may be able to co-exist without strife and even in harmony.

Whats your suggestion... in accordance with the perspective I assume you hold?

KM

Oyvind: arather selective quotation. He also said the following:
* * *
"You could not tell where the charges were. They (the Palestinian fighters) dug holes in the ground and planted charges. You would just start driving, and you would hit a 3" pipe, welded on both ends. As you touch them, they go off. Everything was booby trapped. Even the walls of houses. Just touch them, and they blow up. Or, they would shoot you the moment you entered. There were charges in the roads, under the floor, between the walls. As you make an opening, something goes off. I saw a bird cage blow up in some pet shop, where we opened a track. A flying birdcage. I felt sorry for the birds. They just planted charges everywhere.
* * *
"What is 'opening a track'? You erase buildings. On both sides. There is no other choice, because the bulldozer was much wider than their alleys. But I am not looking for excuses or anything. You must 'shave' them. I didn't give a damn about demolishing their houses, because it saved the lives of our soldiers. I worked where our soldiers were slaughtered. They didn't tell all the truth about what happened. they drilled holes in the walls, holes for gun barrels. Anyone who escaped the charges, was shot through these holes.
* * *
Any house that they fired from came down. And to knock it down, I tore down some more. They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. I didn't wait.
* * *
"All the human rights organizations and the UN that messed with Jenin, and turned what we have done there into such an issue, are just bullshitting, lying. Lots of the walls in those houses just exploded by themselves, at our slightest touch. It is true, though, that during the last days we smashed the camp. And yes, it was justified. They mowed our soldiers down."

Hmmm. Thanks Herbie!

I suppose after the Weekly Standard "pamphlet" (in your world it is 'obvious' that this periodical has less virtue than Aftenposten or the Guardian I assume?) out of context quote, I should have been skeptical. I tend to think the best until it seems different.

Øyvind, are you discussing in good faith... or weaving satisfying images with no anchorage to anything we share in the real world.

I don't know if you care, but you are on the precipice of a rapid drop in credibility in my opinion.

KM

Herbie:

Selective? Oh, yes. But none of your quotes change the facts - he had two hours of training, he drove for 75 hours straight, he drank whiskey, and that's not professional.

Kevin:

First of all, Kevin, I have not said anything about whether it was wrong of Israel to go into Jenin. I have merely stated the facts. Human rights violations did happen. The conduct of IDF was not decent, not professional and should be criticized - no matter what ones views on the operation in Jenin or on the conflict in general is.

I am not opposed to the fence. Any country has the right to defend its borders. The problem is, however, that Israel does not build the fence on its borders, but often inside occupied areas. That not only makes it more provocative to many Palestinians - who regard it as further stealing of land - but also less effective if the intention is to stop terrorism. I think this is amongst the reasons that four earlier Shin Bet-chiefs spoke against it last year.

The route that was originally chosen was illegal, not only according to Haag, but also according to Israeli High Court.

Personally, I think such a fence should be built on the 1967 borders, or on borders agreed upon by the Palestinians and the Israelis. Considering popular sentiments in both countries a solution based on 1967 borders is not impossible.

Such a solution should perhaps include larger settlements - like Ariel - to Israel, while giving parts of Israel that is today mostly populated by Arabs to a future Palestine. Jerusalem should ideally be an open city, capital of both countries.

I further believe that the current Palestinian 'government' is unable of taking the first steps towards peace - it is partly supportive of terrorists and partly unable to crack down on it. I have much more confidence in the Israelis and dismantling the illegal settlements on the Gaza Strip is far from a bad beginning (although the idea is weakened by new settlements on the West Bank).

Øyvind

So, Kevin, in other words - it does not matter that he had basically no training for the bulldozer he drove, that he drove it for 75 hours straight and that he drank whiskey while doing it?
That's professional behaviour? Because the guy also said other stuff? Please.

And what's that about the Weekly Standard? Are you dreaming about me again?

Øyvind

Oyvind. You left the impression that he was in a wild drunken rampage which, as can now be seen, was not the case. Poor training and poor judgement? Perhaps, but if he did the samething with no liquor and more training what then would you say?

Sorry, mac, but I left no such impression. I merely stated the facts:

1. He had close to no training driving his D-9.
2. He did it for 75 hours straight.
3. He drank whiskey while doing it.

Furthermore, I gave a link to the English translation of the article, so that you could read it complete, instead of having to trust me.

Now, as you have read it in complete, Herbie, please do answer me:

Is it professional or not to use a bulldozer driver with next to no training in a warzone? Is it professional to let him drive for 75 hours straight? Is it professional to drink whiskey while conducting such an operation?

I'm waiting.

Øyvind

Øyvind,

Yes but... BUT... so ... we agree completely?

I mean... I could nitpick over little statements like "Human rights violations did happen." by asking, According to whose "standard" is this so?; and... Does their pronouncement make that inarguable?; and... Are "they" applying that standard to all events across the world?; and finally... So who the hell died and made them king?... but this would just be my "evil" Neo-conservative/libertarian side flashing.

But other than a few little references like that which set my spider sense a-tingling as to the presence of that odious myopic and near-ubiquitous ideological juggernaut running insidiously through the Western collective consciousness :-)... it appears we fairly well agree on every major point. Even to any GOOD FAITH criticism you express on the conduct of the IDF in the operation, and the proper placing of the fence (which you note is being addressed fairly well by the Israeli Justice System).

Reasonable people can disagree but.... well heck dude!

I'm pleasantly reassured and my faith in the possibility if a bright future for the human race is restored.

Wonderful.

Cheers,

KM

Oyvind I see no reason in fact or logic to assume that the 1967 line was a border. If a border is to mean anything it means a space that is defensible. Aside from a series of critiques, what do you propose (assuming you believe Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself). Every analysis by you results in a "problem" and never a solution. At bottom it seems to me that Israel is asked to give up concrete protections for ephemeral promises. If you want someone to take your analysis seriously then you have to offer something concrete.

Oyvind you say "please do answer me: Is it professional or not to use a bulldozer driver with next to no training in a warzone? Is it professional to let him drive for 75 hours straight? Is it professional to drink whiskey while conducting such an operation?" My answer is it makes no difference unless you can point to to anything that would change in the result. You have not based on the article. Moreover I do not see that war is yet subject to union rules or work place safty rules. I do not know hiow much training is required to drive a buldozer; do you as you seem to imply. I assume that rocket science is not required. As for 75 hours, war does not have an overtime feature. Finally I know a lot of soldiers who could only stand combat when they drank. I hope I have answered your Q. Your Q. (and I do not mean to be saracatic) really refects a very naive view of war.

Øyvind,

"And what's that about the Weekly Standard? Are you dreaming about me again?"

Holy Crap... its time to have coffee and disengage for a while, maybe get paying work done.... you're all beginning to blur in my brain. That was Anders... and on a different thread no less.

My apologies.

And to answer your question in very human terms. Having read the guys story, I am pretty much with him. Given that task, and the reulting adrenalin rush that must have, in two short days taken five years at least offhis life (and could have at any moment ended it right there), I would have been drinking whisky too. In fact... whiskey probably kept his reflexes more human as the level of gut wrenching tension and stark terror probably would have kicked in Berzerker mode in most human nervous systems.

Frankly, in spite of the legalistic "J'Accuse" moment that comes from parsing his credentials... I think this is small fries in the big story.

But if you think it proves that the IDF is all the things you said it was, I can't stop you.

I just don't think its reasonable.

KM

Herbie:

I have already answered that question. I think the best way to achieve peace is to have two viable states with borders based on the Green Line. I do not say that this will automatically result in peace, but I feel confident that chances will be higher than today.

I furthermore believe that Israel is the only part in the conflict capable of taking the necessary first steps. Actually, I think the Israeli state will soon have no other choice. Unlike many others, I am an optimist when it comes to the future in the Holy Land.

I am not willing to, however, make a complete recipe for the future of Palestine and Israel, that's hardly a task for me. Instead I want to focus on what Westerners with sympathies on either side should do - and here I mostly agree with Marc Sirois. He writes:

The best thing one can do for an ally is to be honest. The Palestinian leadership must therefore be advised, for example, to prepare its people for the fact that many of the refugees will never be allowed to return. It must be told that being coy about how much of Jerusalem it wants is a surefire way to keep any part of the Holy City beyond its grasp. It must be made to realize that tolerating and/or encouraging violence will not hasten the realization of its aspirations, only delay them.

The Jewish state needs to be told, for instance, that it cannot rule out the return of refugees while calling for the influx of 1 million Jews. It has to be advised that its own interests are best served by realistic compromises, not arcane references to scripture as justification for "eternal" claims to maximalist positions. Its allies must impress on it that its people's security is jeopardized, not enhanced, when it uses military force indiscriminately.

A Norwegian translation of Sirois' article is available on my site.

Øyvind

Hmm. What have I said about the IDF?

Well, I've said that their actions in Jenin were not decent, nor professional, and that human rights violations did happen and should be criticized. That's all. And I don't fell proved wrong.

I notice that Herbie thinks that my example "makes no difference" in regards to professionality. I happen to disagree. I also find it somewhat ironic that one the quotes Herbie chose to prove me wrong was:

Any house that they fired from came down. And to knock it down, I tore down some more. They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. I didn't wait.

Øyvind

Oyvind You say "The best thing one can do for an ally is to be honest. * * *The Jewish state needs to be told, for instance, that it cannot rule out the return of refugees while calling for the influx of 1 million Jews."

I am always bemusedc by people who are always willing to explain how something is in someone else's best interest. I have done a lot of deals in my life time and have yet to have ever done a deal by explaining to someone that it was in their interest to harm themsleves. If you want people to move to a another postion they move becase of two factors a) they see an advantage or b) through fear.

I don't disagree on two viable states, but I see no reason that the Green line is a touchstone and you have been unable to provide any. If you are going to get a deal done here, Israel must have strong comfort that they are recognized. At present, Hamas and Hizzbollah have both said that they will not negotiate and will continue their actions until Israel is destroyed. If I were an Israeli I would say that all of these fine pronoucements by you and the sources you quote are very much beside the point

The Green Line is a touchstone because such borders - as polls has proven - have significant support both in Palestine and in Israel. It also has significant international support.

Herbie wrote: Hamas and Hizzbollah have both said that they will not negotiate and will continue their actions until Israel is destroyed.

And neither of them are alone. There are also groups in the Israeli society that will not negotiate and will use violent means to try stopping a peace process (as history proves).

This doesn't mean we should listen to them.

Israel has - if I am not mistaken - the fifth largest military forces in the world. It has proven over and over again that it is fully capable of defending itself, and it will still be with borders based on the Green Line. Terrorism will remain a problem for years - but popular support for it will diminish in a viable Palestinian state.

Oyvind says "Any house that they fired from came down. And to knock it down, I tore down some more. They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. I didn't wait." So? This is not some play ground action. How long was he supposed to wait i minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes. One thing is clear you regard armed conflict as some sort of game and have never been in one. When you have faced someone with a knife and your gun is empty you have one objective which is to kill him before he kills you. You will grab the hand with the knife and with your other hand rip out eyes, use your fingers to rip apart a nose, grab and twist testicles and use your teeth to tear his flesh - you will do anything that allows you to survive and to make sure that the other does not. That is the reality and unless you have been there you will never understand and your pontificating is just that and removed from the reality on the ground

The Green Line is a touchstone because such borders - as polls has proven - have significant support both in Palestine and in Israel. It also has significant international support.

Herbie wrote: Hamas and Hizzbollah have both said that they will not negotiate and will continue their actions until Israel is destroyed.

And neither of them are alone. There are also groups in the Israeli society that will not negotiate and will use violent means to try stopping a peace process (as history proves).

This doesn't mean we should listen to them.

Israel has - if I am not mistaken - the fifth largest military forces in the world. It has proven over and over again that it is fully capable of defending itself, and it will still be with borders based on the Green Line. Terrorism will remain a problem for years - but popular support for it will diminish in a viable Palestinian state.

The Green Line is a touchstone because such borders - as polls has proven - have significant support both in Palestine and in Israel. It also has significant international support.

Herbie wrote: Hamas and Hizzbollah have both said that they will not negotiate and will continue their actions until Israel is destroyed.

And neither of them are alone. There are also groups in the Israeli society that will not negotiate and will use violent means to try stopping a peace process (as history proves).

This doesn't mean we should listen to them.

Israel has - if I am not mistaken - the fifth largest military forces in the world. It has proven over and over again that it is fully capable of defending itself, and it will still be with borders based on the Green Line. Terrorism will remain a problem for years - but popular support for it will diminish in a viable Palestinian state.

Herbie:

Maybe you should take a trip to Jenin yourself, I mean, to take a look at reality?

Oyvind I dsagree withyou as to the Greenline and who supports it. As for listening to people that is fine, but you can not seriously expect Isael to ignore Hamas et al. As for the fifth largest army in the world, they have it for good reason, don't you think given past history. Indeed givne past history a peace imposed by the outside will never work in my view.

Indeed givne past history a peace imposed by the outside will never work in my view.

Exactly. And that is why a unilateral Israeli solution will not work. The only realistic hope for reaching another solution is a solution based on the Green Line.

Oyvind, I for one am not real big on going into still another war zone. As for the reality what would I see? The battle is over and destruction tells me nothing. Does it give you some special insight

Oyvind In my view the green line has as much relevance as toilet paper. The PLO, Hamas et al and Israel will settle or ot settle on what each deems their best case and all of the B.S. propounded by outsiders will mean nothing.

Oh, there are more realities out there than the realities of battle, Herbie.

You seem to think that as long as it war "anything goes". Well, that's not true. When civilians are involved far from anything is acceptable. Willfully tearing down houses with civilians inside is illegal.

Oyvind that is Bull. When the houses are used as a base for attack or religous places they are fair game under any concept of international law that I have read.

Yes, I forgot one word, of course.

Willfully tearing down houses with only civilians in them is illegal. And that happened in Jenin.

Needles to say that appearsto be a matter of some dispute. I off now

Øyvind,

"Exactly. And that is why a unilateral Israeli solution will not work. The only realistic hope for reaching another solution is a solution based on the Green Line."

But alas, Israel is not an outside party Øyvind. Israel can and must impose borders that are reasonable fair and just, mindful of History. They seem to be engaged in doing that, while taking into consideration the needs of all parties. They can do this primarily, because they have a Western style Justice system that is being used to make adjustments, and redress bad decisions virtually in real time. They must and they will continue to do this and when they are done it will be rightly up to the Palestinian Arabs in the areas outside of what will then be a clearly defined Israeli proper, to extricate themselves from the extended self immolation in which they have been engaged.

If then, the "international community" can assist them in doing so... in a way that is conducive to that end... they should.

But there is no "international community" on this Earth that has yet proved itself even remotely capable of imposing a Just Peace on that area, and we kid ourselves to think so.

There is none. For many reasons. Many of the ones that we have discussed here for example.

KM

Regarding the "Dog" thing again... just as a matter of course, it seems germane to point out that I specifically used the word "sawed" when I described the beheading, because that is what they do... and what they did today. Eugene Armstrong, one of the hostages has been killed, a man who part of me hopes has no children and who has done nothing to earn his fate. It was videoed of course, for the EXACT reasons I described in my post above... and his head was "sawed" off with his screams slowly and agonizingly muffling to gurgles by the sounds of his blood leaking into his throat and finally to nothing. Than at last when the tendons and cartilage had been ripped, sawed and torn free (it appears that they deliberately use a dull knife), his head was held high like a trophy... and then placed on the back of his prostrate body.

I maintain the self derision for the way I used the term... but does anyone really think that these men should not, as I said originally... be hunted down like dogs?

KM

Kevin:

I do not think a just peace can be imposed. Peace in the Holy Land can only be achieved through a process where both Israelis and Palestinians are involved. If Israel does it alone they will be able to achieve much (less terrorist attacks, easier defendable borders, more security), but they will not achieve peace. Still, some of the things they are doing are good things; once more the promised pull-out from Gaza is a good example.

But - an outside part can not impose peace. And in Palestine Israel is an outside part.

Furthermore, I have my doubts that a truly "just" peace is possible. Both sides will have to accept stuff that the would consider unjust. Israelis must give up their claims on historical grounds, must accept holy places under Palestinian control and must move out settlers that have - in some cases - lived in occupied areas for decades. Palestinians must, on the other hand, accept that it is impossible to demand a return for Palestinian refugees decades back and their descendants. They must accept Israels right to exist. They must accept that holy places will be under Israeli control.

It seems like a long way to go. I think the route is shorter than it seems. There's much goodwill in in the Israeli public today, Israel needs peace, both its reputation and its economy suffers terribly. As the "old warriors" disappear out of politics on both sides hope increases.

However, if Israel does "do it" alone - and we suddenly see a situation with a Palestinian "free" area you are perfectly right that the international society should help building a viable democracy. I hope that the Israelis will get a chance to take a part in that process, because - even considering the many faults of the Israeli democracy - the country is an amazing example of successful nation-building.

By the way, Kevin, terrorists - like other criminals - should of course be hunted down when possible. Just as dogs? I know it's just an analogy - at least to you - but I prefer hunting them down as terrorists instead.

Øyvind

Israel is the only modern, democratic nation, in the middle of a savage zone. There is really no trustworthy, legitimate authority with whom Israel can make peace. For that reason, Israel must plan for eternal warfare, and not allow its enemies to hide behind civilians and civilian neighborhoods, from which to attack Israelis.

Any mosque, any house, any apartment that is used to launch an attack, no matter how brief, becomes a legitimate target for Israeli Defense Forces. There can be no softness in this approach, the IDF must be incredibly harsh. Else, the future of Israel comes in doubt.

Øyvind.

"...even considering the many faults of the Israeli democracy..."

I'm sorry Øyvind.. but for the most part, I'm pretty much with Gunnars post above. The ARROGANCE of your statement here is almost unreal!

How would your "model democracy" have performed in such conditions? Because in my opinion, it has so little faith in its own metaphysical value (or indeed anything at all) that it would have folded up like a cheap suit long long ago... unless of course it was blessed with a much maligned "ally" who would protect it while it continued to indulge itself in fatuous illusions of innate moral superiority.

Sant.

KM

Israel is the only hypocrisy in the Middle East.

A state that ban 3 million Palestineans from voting is no democratic state but rather aparthied one.

http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org

Getting a little bit silly now isn't it ex-Christian?

The only Arabs, Palestinian or othewise, who get to vote AT ALL in the Middle East, are those living in Israel. As for those under the "democratically") elected (accordong to the standards of the UN.... whcih I'm sure you wouldn't want to contradict now right?) Palestinian Authority, well if you have issues, perhaps there could be a referendum to call up a general election.

After all, the UN could supervise it again, to REALLLY make sure it was Ok. Hey... they did it in Venezuela! And Carter and the UN were there as well, making sure that the will of the people and the scales of blind justice were served and that everything was...errr...um........ Oh.

Never mind.

As I read these various responses and the dialogue as to how Israel has acted improperly or against the “rules” it does occur to me that it was attacked by other countries with the view of “driving it into the sea” a number of times. If one were to be fair, it would seem that those countries have violated the UN charter and Rules of War and a motion to condemn them at the UN would be required if the world were operating on a uniform set of rules that applied to everyone in the area.

Kevin wrote: How would your "model democracy" have performed in such conditions?

Well - first of all - my "model democracy" is not Norway, but a (as) direct (as possible) democracy that also controls the economy, something the world has yet to see in large scale. How would it work in such conditions? I have no idea. It's quite possible - even likely - that it would err in many ways.

That does not make Israel err less, Israel is not a fully democratic state and many Israelis are the first to admit this.

After all - they're also the ones that have to fix it.

Interestingly enough your reply is as good as parallell to what some socialists I have debated with say about another democracy, Venezuela:

You're so arrogant! The negative sides is a result of the conditions.

While I totally agree that one should not disregard the conditions any country live under when discussing their political system, nothing - I repeat nothing - excuses Israel or Venezuelas limits on freedom-of-press [*], use of torture, violations of human rights or limitations on the democratic system. And pointing these things out is not arrogance - it's what any friend of democracy and of Israel or Venezuela should do.

For one thing - it's on time Israel gets itself a constitution.

Gunnar is also wrong on several accords:

1. Israel is not the only modern country in the middle of a savage zone. Jordan is not savage. Lebanon is not savage. Egypt is not savage.

2. Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East.

Turkey is democratic, although there's many things I would love to criticize the Turks for. Lebanon is also partly democratic - although Syria still has an influence the country would be much better off without. Dare I mention the TRNC?

Israel is clearly the most democratic of these countries, but hardly the only one.

3. There can be no softness in this approach, the IDF must be incredibly harsh. Else, the future of Israel comes in doubt..

The correct version is of course: Thus the future of Israel comes in doubt. If the current situation continues for long Israel will soon have to make a choice: Either cease being a democracy - or cease being Jewish. A viable Palestinian state next to Israel is not just a alternative - it's the only alternative.

Øyvind

* Israel is number 44 on the press freedom index of Reporters sans frontieres - Venezuela number 96.

Oyvind
The US press is less free that of Greece or France. Give me a break.

As for your analysis: "The correct version is of course. . . ." What comes is the phrase " frerquently wrong, but never in doubt." How brilliant you are! You and you alone have managed to cut through all of cant and rhetoric and gotten a direct line on how to solve the the problems in the Middle East. Why imagine all of the world's leaders that have puzzled over this and made poor and wrong decisions. Tis a pity that the world has not had the benefit of your mind and analysis. But there is hope -- send your resume to Kofe Annan. :-)

Øyvind...

For the record. I do not, by any stretch, accept unquestioningly, the pronouncements of Reorters Sans Frontiers... as a reasonable and impartial framework through which I can determine what IS, with regard to "freedom".

I have, from the real world, derived very good reasons upon which to base this position.

If you do so accept their pronouncements as such, perhaps it may "comfort" you if I share the fact that to me, that is indeed further cause to despair as to the state of the discourse, and indeed... of freedom itself.

What it means for you, I cannot say.

KM

Mundir Badr Haloum, a lecturer at a Syrian University, wrote a column in the Lebanese daily Al-Safir stating that Muslims today are responsible for terrorism around the globe, and calling for Islamic religious reform in order to bring Muslims back onto the stage of history not through suicide attacks, but rather by other means. The following are excerpts:
* * *
"Twelve Nepalese citizens are slaughtered - Islam. A metro station is bombed - Islam. Civilian aircraft crash - Islam. A school is taken and the souls of 50 children [are lost] for the soul of [each] terrorist - Islam. A bus is bombed here, a railway train there, and before that there were hospitals and theaters, etc ... all of them Islamic acts.
* * *

"Islam is in the names of all of the organizations that decapitate using knives, all the while saying the Fatiha [the first chapter of the Koran, said as a prayer] before the slaughter. The victims are butchered in the Islamic way ... Christians, Buddhists, and Jews... After all, they are only infidels. . . . The soul has no value and the body parts are laid out and displayed on the tables of Islam ... * * * The Islamic press searches for something that will absolve 'Islam' of the crimes of the Shahada [martyrdom]... It is Islam that adorns television screens with body parts... Islam - whether those who praise its mercies like it or not - is the foul odor of the putrefaction of Islamic history and its stench, as well as [being] other things that are honorable, which some people like and others do not...
* * *

"Indeed, we as Muslims produce terrorism, succor it, and praise it. We condemn it only when forced to. Motivated by considerations of power, interests, and diplomacy, we wear a pained expression on our faces but in our hearts we rejoice at the brilliant success - a large number of casualties. Unfortunately, in this black reality it does not matter if it is an American, Israeli, or Russian mind who is responsible for certain terrorist operations ... or whether those who kill themselves are poor, ignorant, or destitute ..."

* * *
"This is a reality that must be acknowledged as a first step toward a non-terrorist Islam ... an Islam that teaches the values of truth and justice... Islam as a religious establishment is today in need ... of a precise definition of its position between earth and heaven, between this world and the next. If it chooses the earth, it must accept the laws of politics that regulate earthly affairs, and must leave the holy to those who occupy themselves with the affairs of heaven. If it chooses heaven, it must leave politics and earthly affairs to those who find interest in them. He who cleaves to both realms undoubtedly [chooses] terrorism and certain death...
* * *
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD78704

Here we go again, MEMRI ! when will you stop quoting from this Israeli lying propaganda machine ?

The truth about MEMRI

http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/cast/memri.asp

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

Ex C You call it all the names you want, but all it does is translate articles from the Arabic to English. If it does analysis it is clearly identified as such. This was not an analysis. It was a translation. If the translation is wrong then say so. If not, then, I thought the author was was quite elequent and raised an important issue. The fact that you may not agree with him abpout Islam is your problem. Let the others judge. When I showed various articles to a professor I know who speaks Arabic he told me that the translations by MEMRI were accurate.

Ex C You call it all the names you want, but all it does is translate articles from the Arabic to English. If it does analysis it is clearly identified as such. This was not an analysis. It was a translation. If the translation is wrong then say so. If not, then, I thought the author was was quite elequent and raised an important issue. The fact that you may not agree with him abpout Islam is your problem. Let the others judge. When I showed various articles to a professor I know who speaks Arabic he told me that the translations by MEMRI were accurate.

Herbie,

Indeed, on that SPECIFIC point, let us BE specific, and see where it leads us.

MEMRI has been vetted time and again for the accuracy off its translations, and it is found again and again to be accurate and even fastidious. (for example if a translated term can be taken more than one way, their policy is to reference the etymology).

Therefore, since what we are talking about here, is a group that opens the Arabic discourse to the outside world, so that we may see it for what it is, and decide as fellow human beings and free people if and when there is a disparity between what is said outwardly versus what is said inwardly... this is an unambiguously good thing... assuming one is open and honest and that there is nothing to hide.

If ex-christian objects to that, then it is strong evidence for some of the opinions regarding his roots I have expressed before.

I read the article he linked to... and that helped to further confirm that, as well as draw more historical paralells and connections that I have been wondering about.

Also... for my part I have been reading translations of Arabic publications, speeches and articles from MEMRI and a pretty broad variety of other sources for over two years now and... for enemies of Freedom and Peace, I think there is much to hide indeed.

KM

Actually, Herbie, RSF places the US and Greece on the same level (6,0) when it comes to press freedom.

Before criticizing the index - something that I'm sure is possible - you should probably take a look at how it was compiled. Instead you choose to blurt out critique based on... nothing, nada and nix (and perhaps a somewhat smug attitude; oh, the French, they must be worse than us). Well, hooray.

Note this quote from the RSF-report published together with the index: Special situation of the United States and Israel. The ranking distinguishes behaviour at home and abroad in the cases of the United States and Israel. They are ranked in 31st nd 44th positions respectively as regards respect for freedom of expression on their own territory, but they fall to the 135th and 146th positions as regards behaviour beyond their borders. The Israeli army's repeated abuses against journalists in the occupied territories and the US army's responsibility in the death of several reporters during the war in Iraq constitute unacceptable behaviour by two nations that never stop stressing their commitment to freedom of expression.

I could not agree more. From countries like Cuba, North Korea, Burma and Iran I hardly expected any better. From democracies like the US and Israel I do.

Maybe it could be worth checking out the RSF reports on the US and Israel. If you want to - please compare them with the reports on France and Greece.

Øyvind

I also agree with this, although - as mentioned - I have more confidence in the Israelis than in the Palestinians.

Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can achieve the promise of the road map to peace.

Those who would lead a new Palestinian state should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people, and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy. Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel.

Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations.

And world leaders should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause.

Who said it all? George W. Bush. Maybe he should send his resume to Kofi, as well?

Øyvind

I also agree with this, although - as mentioned - I have more confidence in the Israelis than in the Palestinians.

Even after the setbacks and frustrations of recent months, goodwill and hard effort can achieve the promise of the road map to peace.

Those who would lead a new Palestinian state should adopt peaceful means to achieve the rights of their people, and create the reformed institutions of a stable democracy. Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel.

Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people, and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations.

And world leaders should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays their cause.

Who said it all? George W. Bush. Maybe he should send his resume to Kofi, as well?

Øyvind

Kevin wrote: The only Arabs, Palestinian or othewise, who get to vote AT ALL in the Middle East, are those living in Israel.

That, my friend, is simply not true. There's elections in Bahrain[*], Jordan, Kuwait [**], Lebanon, Yemen, Egypt [***], Algeria [***] and Morocco. Although Israel is undoubtly more democratic than all of those countries - and much more democratic than several of them, there are elections.

Stick to the facts, Kevin.

Øyvind

[*] Some good things have been happening under king Hamad.

[**] according to Freedom House the elections are relatively free and fair, but you can only vote if you're male, not in the army and not naturalized within the last 14 years)

[***] Those elections are hardly even close to free, though

Yes, Memri is accurate. Without people like those in memri, the world would be ignorant of the wickedness that is destroying the heart of Islam.
Sadly, my former religion has fallen into the grips of evil men, evil mullahs and clerics. They train other people's children to go out and become human bombs, with their souls certainly damned as a result.

Øyvind,

Ok fine. There's a whole lotta votin goin on... but lets be real shall we? With the exception of Bahrain (which ain't exactly "power of the people" either my friend) the rest, including Jordan (where the impact of those who are actually elected is highly limited) are expressions of "democracy" that only a "progressive" (in the UN especially) could love.

Stick to the facts? Ok... but does a UN certification... make something True? Does a Freedom house declaration that "yes... these people went to booths and pulled levers... we saw them."... make the place free? Is it really a meaningful argument for you to be more or less contradicting the fact that the Arab world is the most repressive, regressive, despotic region on the face of the Earth? And furthermore, that Arabs living in Israel proper have by any reasonable standard, the highest level of freedom, individual protections, and quality of life in the entire region?

No... its not.

By all means... point out errors. But let us not pretend that this indicates that the essence of my point is even remotely affected by the error.

Because you see... the biggest "root cause" of this terror that has swept through the region in my opinion... is the cruel(often surreally so) tyranny that holds sway there.

KM

Ex c. Last night I thought a lot about your post in response to the MEMRI translation. At various times I have also posted Qs about how the West is to engage with Islam.

The article I posted was not meant to be a criticism of Islam per se. I posted it because I thought it was eloquent in its agony and by a man that understood the true essence of Islam and that it had and is being hijacked by terrorists. I would have thought, with all of your previous pious pronouncements that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, that you would have responded differently. You would have responded with hiow courageous and true he was. Instead you post a note that says my quotation is from an "Israeli propaganda machine."

It is you that reveal the true face of Islam: unblinking acceptance of, indeed, glory in death in the name of God; unwavering hostility to anyone that in any way dares to question your views and those of terrorists as to how you and they interpret Islam. It is these views that permit no middle ground. If it is your view that the cutting off of heads and sending children to death is a mark of religious fervor – as it appears to be – and that view is the orthodox view of Islam then I do not see what Islam has to offer to the world except an appeal to the most base and twisted instincts.

He is a man that should have been applauded and cheered. He had and has the courage to invoke the most sacred principles of human interaction and forces that a God should stand for – which is goodness. You demean Islam and if your views are what are considered correct then we are truly in a war of civilizations. Even the most ardent supporters of acceptance of Islam in the West will draw back in horror. Your views bring society to the edge of the abyss and all that one sees is a black pit of your messenger.

Oyvind I thought Bush did send his resume and it was rejected :-)

Herbie:

everyone knows who memri is, why this lying Jewish propaganda machine does not 'translate' pro muslim positive articles ???

I will let the answer to your intelligence.

Ex- Christian,

But they do. In fact they often break the stories of Arabic articles dissenting from the status quo from within the internal Arabic discussion. Sometimes these are then picked up by the likes of Reuters, the Guardian, Le Monde and a host of others either in part or in toto, if they decide its a good piece to project the mythos that there is a vibrant discourse in the Arab world.

Various apologists for tyranny and ruthlessness from among the sophisticated "Progressive" media have even on occasion, used MEMRI translated articles to argue that such are demostrative of "mainstream thought" among opinion makers on the Arab world.

So your point about "this lying Jewish propaganda machine does not 'translate' pro muslim positive articles" has no standing. The concept of supplying "Pro" Muslim articles or "Anti" Muslim articles is not in MEMRI's mandate. Their point is to show the Arab world as it is in its own words. And this they do quite well.

KM

Ex C Your silence in responding to the substance of the article I posted and instead attacking the article on the grounds that it was published by a "Jewish lying propoganda machine" exposes you as an anti-Semite and Islam to the truth that all of the concerns in the West about the nature of Islam are true. It is people with views like yours that will ultimately force a war of civilzations. I for one still remain confident that the West will not decend in to the black abyss that is the Islam you promote

Ex C. The Islam you promoote is the IOslam that justifies the killing of two Italian women who were working for peace in Iraq. The killing of these unarmed women who were not involved in politics exposes better than anything I can say about the nature of Islam. If such an act can be justified as a religous act then religon has no meaning and your view of God is a disgrace

Kevin McDonnell,

''But they do. In fact they often break the stories of Arabic articles dissenting from the status quo from within the internal Arabic discussion. Sometimes these are then picked up by the likes of Reuters, the Guardian, Le Monde and a host of others either in part or in toto, if they decide its a good piece to project the mythos that there is a vibrant discourse in the Arab world. ''

Ok then, can you please show me ONE positive ' translated' article about Islam, Muslims or Arabs translated by this ' JEWISH LYING PROPAGANDA MACHINE' ?

Herbie NY

''Ex C. The Islam you promoote is the IOslam that justifies the killing of two Italian women who were working for peace in Iraq.''

Do you have any proof that it was MUSLIMS who really killed these 2 Italians ?

And why you blame Islam for it ? shall I blame JUDAISM for the brutal sadistic terrorism practiced by the jews in Palestine against the Palestineans ?

Beside, how about your own terrorism Herbie, why you dont condemn what your terrorist country is doing against Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and indirectly in occupied Palestine ??

Oh I see, it is the western hypocrisy at work again.

Ex C “Do you have any proof that it was MUSLIMS who really killed these 2 Italians ?” What Bull**** An Islamic web site took credit for it. See http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=2&u=/ap/20040923/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_italian_hostages. Either it is true or it is a sick Moslem website that would claim such a thing. Either way it does not appear to make a difference to you.

I’ll leave Jews and the PLO alone since that is a different topic.

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, a) do you not think that going after Bin Laden was justified? or that giving women the right not to wear a Burqua or be educated is justified? I gather not. As for Iraq where were you when Saddam tortured and killed over 300,000 Iraqis and used poison gas on the Kurds. In fact where4 were any of Moslems to protest. Where are you when suicide bombers kill innocent Iraqis in Iraqi on a daily basis. Yes the religion of peace and tolerance. Talk about hypocrisy.

Ex C You ask Kevin "Ok then, can you please show me ONE positive ' translated' article about Islam, Muslims or Arabs translated by this ' JEWISH LYING PROPAGANDA MACHINE'?"

Ok just to put a stop to your absurd nonsense, here is the most current article from MEMRI the "Jewish Propaganda machine"

“The attack on a school in Ossetia, Russia in early September 2004 which killed hundreds of people, many among them children, brought on a flurry of reactions in the Arab and Muslim media. Some columnists condemned the use of terror and the harming of innocent civilians, others criticized the Russian forces' failed rescue attempt, and a few even blamed Jewish elements of being involved in the affair. In addition, many articles argued that the terrorists do not represent Islam and that Islam does not endorse violence. They also aimed sharp criticism against Muslim leaders.”

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP78004

Herbie NY

Ex C “Do you have any proof that it was MUSLIMS who really killed these 2 Italians ?” What Bull**** An Islamic web site took credit for it.''

Oh really ? do you have a proof that it was really ISLAMIC site which took credit for it ? I mean how easy to make an 'ISLAMIC' website and take credits for everything, did not you blame ISLAM yet for IVAN hurricane as well ?? maybe you need to wait for an ISLAMIC site to take credit for this terrible hurricane !!! looool

''I’ll leave Jews and the PLO alone since that is a different topic.''

No it is NOT a different topic, why you dont call what the jews are doing in Palestine against the Palestineans a JEWISH TERRORISM ? why you dont blame JUDAISM for the barbaric terrorism inflicted upon the palestineans by the jews ???

''As for Iraq and Afghanistan, a) do you not think that going after Bin Laden was justified? or that giving women the right not to wear a Burqua or be educated is justified? I gather not.''

And who the hell you are to tell muslims what they should or should not do ? after all, were not you the 'evil americans' who were working with the taliban and the mujahideen when they were fighting the Soviets ? did not Regan welcome the Mujahideen leaders into the white house in 1986 describing them as freedom fighters ? what a bunch of hypocrites !

'' As for Iraq where were you when Saddam tortured and killed over 300,000 Iraqis and used poison gas on the Kurds. ''

I was watching DONLAND RUMSFELD visiting SADDAM during this very time when he was killing his own people offering saddam a military aid and proposed to re-open the American embassy in Iraq:

HERE IS THE VIDEO:

Video Clip: "Shaking Hands with the enemy," Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm

''In fact where4 were any of Moslems to protest. Where are you when suicide bombers kill innocent Iraqis in Iraqi on a daily basis. Yes the religion of peace and tolerance. Talk about hypocrisy.''

What has Islam to do with this ? these Iraqis are fighting for their land, their cause is IRAQ not Islam, after all, it was YOU 'the evil americans' who created this mess in the first place.

You invade and bomb and kill muslims and then blame ISLAM for the consequences !!!

HYPOCRITES.

Ex Christian: "Ok then, can you please show me ONE positive ' translated' article about Islam, Muslims or Arabs translated by this ' JEWISH LYING PROPAGANDA MACHINE'"

I have a better idea. Why don't you do it. (They index quite well.)

First though, re read my post above, and note this... ALL the translated articles that you consider to be "negative" from MEMRI, are written by authors in Arabic for speakers of Arabic. I would like to know how you can define that as "Jewish Propaganda" in any meaningful sense. It is, on the contrary, Arabic Propaganda, exposed in the act of indoctrinating its own people in a society that is as closed as any that heve existed in Modern times (including Soviet society in my opinion).

Ironically (though it makes perfect sense), this fact makes publications from the Arab world that are originally written in English... appear to be Propaganda from the same Arab elite, except meant for "outsider" consumption. This practice seems based on the old Soviet model, and is intended to obscure the true nature of its own society, and to muddy the waters generally. Fortunately for the elite in the Arab world, often educated in the West... there is STILL a preponderance of useful idiots among the West's own elite, readily seduced by their own bloated arrogance and spoiled by the indulgent nature of Western society... even to fatuous solipsism.

Thus I submit to you ex-Christian, that the pieces I told you that I considered to be "positive"... are those of "dissenters" from that propagandistic line. MEMRI does this to show that respect for human life, human rights, DO indeed still exist in the Arab discourse, and that there are people brave enough to speak out occasionally, who believe that Islamism has planted seeds of madness in the Muslim world.

So we can say that there are two "idea" groups of translations from MEMRI. The first group is from mainstream Arabic writings for its own people. The second, translations of dissentors from that view.

Based on your positions and what you tend to defend... I think you will see the first set of articles I described as the "good" ones... but that it was "evil" that they have been exposed to infidels. And I think you will see the second kind of articles I described as "good", to be instead the "evil" work of Arabs who have become "Zionist Traitors" or some such colorful label.

Consequently, our impressions will probably be inverted and it all might be easier to claim it appears to be very nuanced in a relativist kind of way...

...but in Truth, its really a case of black and white.

KM

Ex christian,

And as long as I have felt obliged to mention the Soviets a few times. I feel it might as well be pointed out, that in your reply to Herbie above, you reply almost invariably to every quote of his, with rhetorical mis-direction, emotively charged icons and even complete non-sequiturs. You confront directly... nothing. Perhaps you think it is beneath you. I cite again my observation that when apologists for Islamism are confronted directly, it is usually inevitable that the "argument" will include a picture of a dead baby.

That says something very important about where the aforementioned apologist is truly anchored... in substance as opposed to image.

KM

Ex C As for Jews and the Palistenians. OK I don;t see that the Jews are having their children kill themselves. Nor I I see that the Jews are deliberately targeting women and children.

Putting to one side your rant, you ask “And who the hell you are to tell muslims what they should or should not do?”

When, under the name of Islam, homicide bombers engage kill innocent people, when heads are sawed off and videos made to celebrate these acts, when people of other faiths are not allowed to practice their faith or only under restricted circumstances, when Islam proclaims that it will seek to conquer the world by violence if necessary, I have a right and so does every other person who cares about the future of the world. Your rights stop where mine start. With rights come obligations

Ex C As for Jews and the Palistenians. OK I don;t see that the Jews are having their children kill themselves. Nor I I see that the Jews are deliberately targeting women and children.

Putting to one side your rant, you ask “And who the hell you are to tell muslims what they should or should not do?”

When, under the name of Islam, homicide bombers engage kill innocent people, when heads are sawed off and videos made to celebrate these acts, when people of other faiths are not allowed to practice their faith or only under restricted circumstances, when Islam proclaims that it will seek to conquer the world by violence if necessary, I have a right and so does every other person who cares about the future of the world. Your rights stop where mine start. With rights come obligations

Kevin:

Once more we agree. One should point out that the Arab world is repressive, regressive and despotic - and it is valid to point this out when discussing Israel, but it is necessary to do so based on facts.

That Israeli Arabs are the only ones that can vote is simply not true. That Israeli Arabs are the only ones living in a fully functional democracy - even if you consider its many faults - is.

Lebanon is not bad. Bahrain not terrible. Yemen not awful. But only Israel is good

Ex-Christian:

It is sensible to point out that MEMRI has a limited, and at times somewhat striking, choice of what articles they translate and publish. It is not sensible to deny that many terrorists are also Muslims, and it is not sensible to deny that the articles translated by MEMRI are actual articles from Arab press.

Sometimes MEMRI also let us hear sensible voices from the Arab world, for instance Dr. Sa'ad Eddin Ibrahim, the founder of the Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, who writes:

Gandhi crystallized a new strategy for the paradigm of a civil strife, and transformed it into a philosophy. This new strategy or new paradigm of civil strife, 'Satyagraha' as he called it, was successful in uniting millions of Indians against the British, by giving them a replica of forgiveness and love.

The British were surprised to see thousands of protestors on the streets, accepting their arrests and admitting that they had broken the law. At a certain stage, the [British] authorities found that this strife was reaching the British soldiers. The British public opinion was infuriated and started exerting pressure on its government in order to surrender to the demands of the Indian National Movement in achieving independence; and this is what [actually] happened.

There are similar experiences in history, such as the experience of Martin Luther King in the United States, who advocated the same policy as Gandhi; the result was the Civil Rights Act which was passed by Congress in 1964.

The Sudanese were successful in toppling two military despotic regimes by means of protests and collective strikes. The Palestinians were also successful in their first Intifada of 1988 to 1991, which resulted in the Oslo Accord. As for the second Intifada, which was based on suicide operations against civilians, it led to the Palestinian cause losing international support, as well as a great deal of what this cause had previously gained.

This is how we should understand and practice the concept of civil strife, this concept which can never be silent. Civil strife does not mean an armed strife because civil, by definition, implies peaceful means, and is contrary to a military strife.

To those opposition forces and the advocates of political reform [who ask] despotic regimes to listen to their demands, we say that they have no alternative to achieve their goal other than civil strife, civil strife, civil strife. Amen.

The comparison between the two intifadas should be particularly interesting.

Øyvind

Herbie NY

''Ex C As for Jews and the Palistenians. OK I don;t see that the Jews are having their children kill themselves. Nor I I see that the Jews are deliberately targeting women and children.''

Of course you dont see the jews deliberately targeting innocents because your media does NOT show you these jewish barbaric atrocities.

http://www.israel-state-terrorism.com

it should be:

http://www.israel-state-terrorism.org

Øyvind

I think I am more than qualified to know better about the middle east since I lived there for many years and I do speak arabic fluently.

These wrtiers that MEMRI is translating are well known ' western puppets ' a puppets that want to turn the muslim world into secular hedonesitic world to match the decay that is taking place in the west.

For example this Dr. Sa'ad Eddin Ibrahim you refered to recieves ' American ' aid to his Ibn Khaldun center, his center hosts always anti muslim secular arab writers, something which will only anger the majority muslims in the middle east. his center became a place to RANT and insults Islam and its traditions, something very very offensive to muslims there.

People there dont like the west to preach on them, THEY DONT LIKE THE WAY WE LIVE. I believe they have the right to live as they wish, who we are to preach democrasy and human rights on them when we live like animals in our own socieites ? how can you convince a muslim from the middle east to embrace the ' western ' and not the 'universal' concept of human rights when they see the pictures coming from Abu Ghuraib prison ? how can you tell them America is there for democrasy when they see thousands of their fellow muslims getting killed by the american barbarians ?

It is the time we abandon our hypocrisy and stick to our own affairs, after all, we will not like muslims preaching on us how to live according to SHARIA LAW, will we ???

Øyvind... not that I want to go out of my argument to MAKE an argument ;-), especially with a point that is not even yours... but when I read that article, some things struck me that I want to point out.

First of all, lets strike a fundamental difference in the examples of "non-violoent protest" in Sudan, as opposed to those under MLK and Gandhi. The Sudan example was part insurrection, part internal power struggle and part tenuous grip on the reins of power by the existing "regime". There was also more than enough interference by several outside forces.

That leaves the examples of MLK and Gandhi, where it is absolutely critical to point out, that the ONLY instance where non-violent protest is likely to have a desired outcome, is where injustice and strife are being addressed towards a Liberal Democratoc society. Its interesting to note that Gandhi himself may not have considered the nature of that reality, and in 1943(if I remember correctly) had penned a piece where he recommended his approach for the Jews in Nazi Germany as a means for them to achieve redress. The naivete in this proposition is almost surreal, though it is admittedly touching.

My point however is that, NVP also speaks to those who engage in it. And I agree that if the Palestinians were such that they COULD actually self-organize, exclusively in non violent protest, it WOULD be quite effective. And rightly so! For it would mean they are ready to be trusted with self determination, and have thrown off the harnesses that various ideological mayhems have hitched them to.

I fear however, that this will not be, and that the "Road to Damascus" for the Palestinians will be bloody... almost exclusively because of the ruthlessness of those who hold sway over it. (and who it should also be noted... are subsidized by the West.)

Just pointing this out... for clarity's sake.

Cheers,

KM

Ex C you say "your media does NOT show you these jewish barbaric atrocities" I assume that what you really mean to say is that my "media does NOT show you these jewish barbaric atrocities" because the media is "controlled by Zionists" and only reports "homicide bombigs" and "beheadings" because it anti-Islamic and that is also why the media "suppressed the fact that Jews were behind 9/11."

Ex-C:

As-salaam alaykum,

You wrote: How can you convince a muslim from the middle east to embrace the 'western ' and not the 'universal' concept of human rights when they see the pictures coming from Abu Ghuraib prison?

I am a bit unsure about what the 'universal' concept of human rights is, and on where it differs from the 'western' one.

Westerners are experts on hypocrisy - granted - and I think we will absolutely have problems convincing Muslims about anything when pictures like the ones from Abu Ghraib enter the scene. I never liked the war in Iraq, I don't like the American government, and I think that the American government is at least partly to blame for the torture scandals.

However, the torture in Abu Ghraib has been uncovered much because of the American press. Sure, it's commercial, and sure, it's controlled by people I wouldn't like having dinner with, at least not too often, but it's still a whole lot freer than the press in Arab countries. The American press published stories about torture conducted by Americans. Since you're fluent in Arabic - I myself know only a bit - could you perhaps tell me how often the Saudi press writes about torture in Saudi-Arabian prisons?

The number one problem in the Arab world, in my opinion, is not the Islamists. It's that as good as every country is ruled by a corrupt elite, who keeps in power by manipulating the press, don't allow truly free elections if they allow them at all, etc. The same family names keep popping up over and over again in a way that could make even the Gerhardsens and Stoltenbergs jealous.

Islamists agree with much of what I'm saying here. Of course, their alternative is often just more tyranny - a new tyranny driven by other ideas. Some voices, however, are different. There are Islamists amongst those voices, people fighting for both democracy and Islam. There are secular people amongst those voices too. Diversity is healthy.

Dr. Sa'ad Eddin Ibrahim is one of those voices, and instead of focusing on whether he receives American support or not - you should perhaps try to listen to what he is saying. What's so provoking about it? What's so good for the 'Zionist agenda'? He asks for civil strife to change Arab societies. He points to Gandhi as an example to follow. He's right to do so.

How can you tell them America is there for democrasy when they see thousands of their fellow muslims getting killed by the american barbarians?

Indeed. How can you? But then - I don't say that America is for democracy. I'm a leftist, remember? I'm one of those guys who read Robert Fisks stories and think: "Hmmm... Those are sensible points" instead of "Oh, finally, something new for me to 'fisk' on my blogsite?".

But are Americans Barbarians? Really? Aren't you just playing along with the "Clash of Civilizations"-game here? Aren't you just repeating the good old "They started it!" used by kids when adults stop their fights? "They're the bad ones". America should definitely take a good long look in the mirror. So should the Arab world. And so should absolutely the Islamists.

Kevin:

We could probably have a long discussion about this. Anyway, some of your points are valid. However, I believe in the power of peaceful civil strife, also in despotic countries. I think examples from Eastern Europe shows that the sky is the limit, not to speak of the amazing Revolução dos Cravos (Carnation Revolution) in Portugal (which, admittedly, included elements of the military).

O Povo unido, jamais será vencido,

Øyvind

Oyvind Sometimes you even sound reasonable :-)

Ex-Christian,

Its interesting that you so quickly seem to have pretty much confirmed my proposition above, that for the dissentors from the mainstream, would be the pieces where you have the most vitriol.

You see, the piece that Øyvind links to above, is a piece that one might expect from a spokesman for a religion of Peace. It is, as I said... one that is considered one of the "good" ones... as Øyvind was saying.

That is what I meant was interesting... though not surprising... while yet still disturbing.

Alas, as far as universal values, the only one we can give any credence to is Liberty... and it is for that one, whom those you are apologist for, have the most fear. In all things, is the possibility for perspective, for we are each pathetically limited, and even all of us, only somewhat less so ... but only in Liberty, do we know that all, is open to any and all to discuss and share and thus truly enrich our collective and individual grasp of the roads to Truth and Beauty. It's only when the few, whatever their rationale, define what is to be the paradigm within which we judge the world... that things go mad.

I agree with your that the moral degradation in Western Civilisation is fairly pronounced. In fact, it is giving way to nihilism borne of meaninglessness, and it is internalizing its own noxious brew of nascent ideology infused with ancient imagery.

But there are reasons for this... and they are not disconnected from that which is in the Arab world.

Thus where we differ, is that I think that the Muslim world is suffering from an even more poisonous case of the same metaphysical malaise. Again I say that it is no co-incidence that an expanding sphere of "leftish" (it does not truly capture it, and is only a rough corollary) ideologies which are becoming bound more tightly, finds itself tacitly or openly allied with radical Islam in Europe and elsewhere. Their common enemy, even if they do not articulate it, is the Classical Liberal idea.

Communists and fascists also made common cause when confronted with this "enemy"... because it is the only there that the the inherent deceipt of ALL freedom smothering ideologies are forced into the light for all to see... and where regardless of religious ideals, or ethnicity, or cultural heritage, the fundamental truths that honor the dignity of the human being and thus bind us... become clear.

Thats why the USA, whether you like it or not, rightly sees itself as fighting for Iraqis and Afghans in these countries... as well as for themselves.

A few more points:
You speak of Abu Ghraib as though what happened there before the Americans ever got there isn't worth mentioning... and you neglect to point out that the unquestionable wrongs that occurred there were revealed as such internally. I did not see, nor DO I see condemnations for the surreally cruel Abu Ghraib that was in place before, nor for the hundreds others like it across the Arab world.

As far as sticking to our "own affairs" ex-Christian, that possibitlity is long gone. Even setting aside the stated goal of radical Islam to impose Sharia on the world (it is always so with such ideologies), it is too late anyway. It was probably too late a number of years ago, but any last wisps of a chance for isolationism were blasted forever on September 11th.

The dogs have been loosed ex-Christian. And no matter what contorted view of history you might subscribe to, it was not America who cried havoc.
It will go now, where it will go.

KM

Øyvind, Bergen

''Ex-C:

As-salaam alaykum,''

Wa Alikum As-salaam wa rahmatu allah wa barakatuhu :)

''
You wrote: How can you convince a muslim from the middle east to embrace the 'western ' and not the 'universal' concept of human rights when they see the pictures coming from Abu Ghuraib prison?
I am a bit unsure about what the 'universal' concept of human rights is, and on where it differs from the 'western' one. ''

I am sorry I should have made it clearer, the universal concept of human rights does not attach any strings on its principles while the western one is not really defined or fixed, western governments dont mind working with ruthless dictators or even embracing long serving psychopaths like Qadafi of Libya for example ! do you know anything about this criminal ? do you know how many thousands are to this very day in Libyan prisons without trial ? but oh well, never mind, he will sell us cheap oil and he is no longer a threat to Israel,the Americans and most of Europe are now very happy to work with him because he is now '' our'' friend !!

''Westerners are experts on hypocrisy - granted - and I think we will absolutely have problems convincing Muslims about anything when pictures like the ones from Abu Ghraib enter the scene. I never liked the war in Iraq, I don't like the American government, and I think that the American government is at least partly to blame for the torture scandals. ''

This brutal sick torture does not stem from nothing, it comes from pervert culture, a culture that glorifies pervertion and immorality, homosexuality and sadism. A culture where men marry each others and where humans became mere numbers.

''However, the torture in Abu Ghraib has been uncovered much because of the American press. Sure, it's commercial, and sure, it's controlled by people I wouldn't like having dinner with, at least not too often, but it's still a whole lot freer than the press in Arab countries.''

Well, the torture has been uncovered not because of the sudden new found CONSCIOUSNESS of the American media but rather for political gains and points scoring ( democrats vs republicans )
After all, it was HOT story and it SELLS.

The press in America is certainly NOT free, how can a media which is controled by big cooperations and well-known zionists like Murdoch can be free ???

Here is great documentry exposing the 'shity' neo con FOX NEWS called OUTFOXED:

http://www.outfoxed.org/

The Arab world certainly has many free independent news channel, AL JAZEERA is their star and that is why the Americans are trying to shut it down, they bombed their offices in both Kabul and Baghdad killing 3 Al jazeera journalists ! is it coincidence ? I dont think so.

If you go to places like Syria for example ( I have been living there for some time ) you will find nearly every household there has Satellite TV, you can watch up to 700 different channels from around the globe including the zionists controled American stations such as Fox and the CNN...etc

Even in America, Americans dont have the same freedom to choose their news sources as many arabs do.

I think we need to ditch the typical lies promoted by the western media about the arab world and really try to find out by ourselves, believe you me, I went there and I had the shock of my life, I did not see women in veils, i did not see the type of backwardness our media here try to propogate, I did not see oppressed people, I saw so many women in Syria dressing like the French women ( short skirts, open T shirts..etc and they were STUNNING :) ) I saw women dressing the headscarf, everyone there is free to do what they want, I saw BARS selling Alcohol in this Muslim country, I saw churches and christians FREE to worship, I saw even pagan temples and people who worship FIRE there...I met athiests and Islamists, it was totally different from what our media has been LYING on us all along.

''The American press published stories about torture conducted by Americans. Since you're fluent in Arabic - I myself know only a bit - could you perhaps tell me how often the Saudi press writes about torture in Saudi-Arabian prisons? ''

They do write about it, in fact, Al jazeera ran a whole documentry about torture in arab prisons but the question is why America is supporting the royal family in Saudi Arabia knowing very well how brutal they are ? you see the hypocrisy !

''The number one problem in the Arab world, in my opinion, is not the Islamists. It's that as good as every country is ruled by a corrupt elite, who keeps in power by manipulating the press, don't allow truly free elections if they allow them at all, etc. The same family names keep popping up over and over again in a way that could make even the Gerhardsens and Stoltenbergs jealous. ''

I totally agree, in fact, Islamists there have been a force of progress and moderation:

Islamic Democrats

By Charley Reese

Somebody ought to tell President George Bush something he obviously doesn?t know. He keeps talking about wanting democracy in the Middle East and reform in general as an antidote to extremism.

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Sept_2004/0409015.html

''Islamists agree with much of what I'm saying here. Of course, their alternative is often just more tyranny - a new tyranny driven by other ideas. Some voices, however, are different. There are Islamists amongst those voices, people fighting for both democracy and Islam. There are secular people amongst those voices too.''

True, very true.

''Dr. Sa'ad Eddin Ibrahim is one of those voices, and instead of focusing on whether he receives American support or not - you should perhaps try to listen to what he is saying.''

I agree but the fact that he is financed by the US make him lose all his credibility, people there hate America so much, anything America say or do ( even if it was sincere ) is rejected and fought against so hardly.
The US has a serious credibility problem in the Middle East, on one hand they support the Israeli barbaric terrorism against the Palestineans and on the other they call for reform and human rights in the Arab world ! it does not work this way.

When the Arabs see the US veto yet another UN resolution condeming Israel, their hate will even increase and this will curtail them from any possible sincere American attempt to create any force which is working for reform.

The US has and must change its foriegn policy when it comes to the muslim world, their policy is a great tool for fostering terrorism and for bin laden to have more followers.

'' What's so provoking about it? What's so good for the 'Zionist agenda'? He asks for civil strife to change Arab societies. He points to Gandhi as an example to follow. He's right to do so. ''

He has every right to do so, but as I said, he is too happy to recieve funds from the 'great satan' something which will black list him straight away in the eyes of the people there.

''How can you tell them America is there for democrasy when they see thousands of their fellow muslims getting killed by the american barbarians?
Indeed. How can you? But then - I don't say that America is for democracy. I'm a leftist, remember? I'm one of those guys who read Robert Fisks stories and think: "Hmmm... Those are sensible points" instead of "Oh, finally, something new for me to 'fisk' on my blogsite?".''

I am leftist as well, maybe I am Islamo-leftist :) I love reading Fisk, this man is superb.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/

''But are Americans Barbarians? Really? Aren't you just playing along with the "Clash of Civilizations"-game here? ''

ok, look at this 1 min Video and tell me, arent those Americans really BARBARIANS ?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

and this article:

US whistleblower faces death threats
Tuesday 17 August 2004, 16:30 Makka Time,

Relatives of the US soldier who sounded the alarm about abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison say they are living in protective custody because of death threats against them.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/93DFEA2A-BBA2-429A-8EA1-79FEAF474CC5.htm

''Aren't you just repeating the good old "They started it!" used by kids when adults stop their fights? "They're the bad ones". America should definitely take a good long look in the mirror. So should the Arab world. And so should absolutely the Islamists. ''

Well, it is not the Muslims who are invading America bombing Washington DC and other American cities into submission, killing thousands of Americans, raping and torturing them and forcing them to accept the SHARIA LAW to be ' liberated ', it is the American barbarians who are doing just that against Muslims and yes THEY STARTED it and they are the ones who created this mess in the first place.

Ma Salama.

Ex-Christian...

"Well, it is not the Muslims who are invading America bombing Washington DC and other American cities into submission, killing thousands of Americans, raping and torturing them and forcing them to accept the..."

Huh? What happened to Osama's plans to destroy America? And didn't he bomb Washington, D.C. and NYC? And haven't Islamist terror cells been found here and there with explosives?

I also don't understand your views. First you tell us how superior Islam is and why the Koran should be followed. Then you tell us how beautiful the women of Syria are and how they're wearing the latest Paris styles. And people are drinking alcohol in bars.

What are you trying to convince us of? Please summarize. Thanks.

Sorry, above post was mine.

Ex c Your post takes my breath away. I do not think I have ever read such an illogical series of unsupported thoughts.

Herbie:

When you cant answer or refute what I wrote you run away with your usual rants.

''To be one's self, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity.''

Irving Wallace

"When you cant answer or refute what I wrote you run away with your usual rants."

Spare me ex Christian. For the record, I spent 15 minutes trying to see if there was anything at all in your post that could be considered an argument. The best that can be said of it is that it is a long rant with links to rants included. (AGAIN I note the seemingly natural affiliation between apologists of Islamo-fascism, and "hard" Leftism... its uncanny.)

A quick eview commentary:

Your first point on "Western" concepts of Universal human rights is simply wrong. Point your finger all you like at the various hypocrites and practitioners of the many flavors of realpolitik that the human race ALWAYS vomits up from ANYWHERE and who leverage the easy corruption of ideals with short term opportunism... but it says nothing about the ideals themselves... which you deliberately create strawmen around. Oil?... gimme a break.

As to ABu Ghraib... you seem ideologically incapable of answering the points I made earlier regarding the way Abu Ghraib USED to be. Here's a hint... it was much, Much, MUCH worse. You sould note also that it was NOT "uncovered" by the Western media... but by the ARMY, after some guards who had been reassigned to the block where all the abuses occurred, reported what the abuses. Inquiries and disciplinary action had been underway for three months when the story "broke". These aren't tiny little points my friend... they speak to the essence of your claim of some sort of moral superiority... and undermine it. That I assume, is why you need to reframe these events until they fit your worldview. You should also be aware that it isd not Abu Ghraib that represents the abuses... but one small block that was unfortunate enough to be staffed by a preponderance of moral sh*tbags. The rest of the prison so far exceeds the standards for humane treatment of virtually ANY such facility in the Arab world... that the opportunistic criticisms by various Arab sources of the "cruelty" of Abu Ghraib prison as "proof" of something... is quite literally breathtaking in its hypocrisy.

You then go on to parse Øyvinds quotes and insert filler that remolds the world until it fits your satisfaction... an act of solipsitic arrogance worthy of a hard leftists. You cite Fisk admiringly, and Outfoxed as though it is about truth telling, and sadly, I'm not sure that Øyvind would disagree with you... although I think he would be less likely to reflexively internalize the hate impulse that so much of that formula is actually about. Still... disturbing. In any case though, your coinage of the term Islamo-leftist may be particularly pogniant...(I'm taking that one)... although I don't know why you would assume that this distinguishes you much from an Islamo-fascist. Check history.

Finally, you end with "Well, it is not the Muslims who are invading America bombing Washington DC and other American cities into submission, killing thousands of Americans, raping and torturing them and forcing them to accept the SHARIA LAW to be ' liberated ', it is the American barbarians who are doing just that against Muslims and yes THEY STARTED it and they are the ones who created this mess in the first place."

Simply fascinating... the projection, the denials...so revealing, so disturbing.

KM

Western governments dont mind working with ruthless dictators or even embracing long serving psychopaths like Qadafi of Libya for example ! do you know anything about this criminal? Do you know how many thousands are to this very day in Libyan prisons without trial?

Due to my work in Amnesty International Norway - where I am the Libya-coordinator, I do know a bit about the human rights violations in Libya. They're quite massive, although it has gotten slightly better the last few years.

Libya is not the best example you could've dug up, but yes - there's no doubt that Western countries have been working with and still work with ruthless dictators. This is one of the things that makes the American claim of 'bringing democracy' to the Middle East (i.e. Iraq) somewhat questionable. Why are they friends with the corrupt royal family of Saudi-Arabia? Why is the Kuwaiti dictatorship okay? How come the dictator of Turkmenistan is considered to be friendly?

As I said, Westerners are experts on hypocrisy. It's not - however - because we're perverts, gays or sadists, and to claim that it is so is to enter an unholy alliance with Christian fundamentalist forces. Abu Ghraib did not come out of a vacuum. It came as a result of dehumanizing the enemy, as a result of calling them "barbarians", or "dogs", as a result of arrogance and hatred.

The press in America is certainly NOT free

Please notice, ex-Christian, that I did not say that the American press is free. I said the Arab press is less free. In the States there are ownership issues worthy of discussion, and there's also a tendency to self-censorship. In Arab countries critical journalists are routinely arrested and jailed, censorship is common and the ownership issues are still there.

They do write about it, in fact, Al jazeera ran a whole documentry about torture in arab prisons but the question is why America is supporting the royal family in Saudi Arabia knowing very well how brutal they are? you see the hypocrisy?

Of course I do.

But I also see the difference. Can I read about torture in Saudi prisons in al-Watan, in al-Yaum or in al-Riyadh? Sure - al Jazeera brings up the theme, but they're based in Qatar and have had conflicts with the Saudi authorities.

I checked out the Jidda-based and English-language Arab News and I found lots of stories on torture... in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Guantanamo Bay, by al Qa'ida, yes, and a story about a poetess who claims she was tortured by her husband. Where's the stories about torture in Saudi prisons? Do you see the hypocrisy?

I totally agree, in fact, Islamists there have been a force of progress and moderation

At times they have, yes - and many Westerners are ignorant of this. But then - there are quite a few examples of the opposite, as well.

I agree but the fact that he [Dr. Sa'ad Eddin Ibrahim] is financed by the US make him lose all his credibility, people there hate America so much, anything America say or do ( even if it was sincere ) is rejected and fought against so hardly.

Yes, in the Arab world that could absolutely make him lose credibility. However, ex-C, you are, if I am not mistaken, Finnish. So, why do you reduce your critique of dr. Ibrahim to: [he] receives American aid to his Ibn Khaldun, his center hosts always anti-Muslim secular Arab writers, something which will only anger the majority Muslims in the Middle East.

Why don't you argue against what he is saying? I thinks his points are good. Don't you? Sure, you can criticize him for having the wrong friends or for making tactical blunders, but is he wrong? And how does his ideas about civil strife help the 'Zionist agenda' you claim MEMRI has? If Palestinians listened to this guy that would help the Palestinians.

Can you imagine what kind of support the Palestinian movement would have in the world if they fought in the way Gandhi did?

Today the Israeli propaganda machine can point at terror attacks targeting civilians, and be right. They can point to virulent anti-Semitism and be right. What would the world look like if they couldn't?

Sure, ex-Christian, I can understand why Palestinians resort to terrorism, I can also point out many, many instances where the Israeli have committed atrocities. I could pull the same trick Kevin pulled to explain Israeli shortcomings, and say: But look at the conditions.

But hey - ex-C - those are just excuses. And there's no excuse good enough for deliberately targeting civilians. Not if you're American. Not if you're Israeli. Not if you're Palestinian.

There's a time for everything, and this, my friend, is the time to start criticizing both sides in that bitter conflict. Real friends would tell the truth.

The US has and must change its foriegn policy when it comes to the muslim world, their policy is a great tool for fostering terrorism and for bin laden to have more followers.

I agree with you there.

Well, it is not the Muslims who are invading America bombing Washington DC and other American cities into submission

Okay, so you are just playing the "they-started-it-game". It's fun. I should know. But what about having two thoughts at the same time for a change?

Ma salama,

Øyvind

Oyvind,

"Trick"? I don't do tricks my friend. You want to debate my point, do so. But you can't merely discount it by disdaining its validity. You have been in involved in Amnesty? I have too, though not as deeply as you.

But have you been in combat?

You are ill equipped to make sweeping statements on the actual fact of how it is. On the other hand, as far as "deliberately targeting civilians", well thats something else entirely. By all means stand athwart such things and yell STOP!

But cite them if you make the accusations rather than cite it as though it is simply policy and thats that. We both know that these citations are HIGHLY debatable. Indeed, in truth, they might be where all the debate really is. But they are obscured by competing projections of imagery from many sides.

In any case, I have been in the military, and still have many friends there, including some in Iraq.

It ain't policy Øyvind... not even an "unofficial" one. It is in fact one of the things you avoid at all costs. It is thought of as a defeat when innocents are hurt or killed. And it is not even remotely considered an excuse to say that "shit happens" in war.

BUT... when that humanity is cynically leveraged by the ruthless, to create a tactical combat advantage by deliberately embedding offensive positions in heavily populated civilian centers (in violation of the Geneva conventions)... with the result that people die...

...Who is responsible?

KM

Kevin,

"But have you been in combat?"

My first question would be, have you?
If all here should be required to have first hand experience, why not just stop writing all together.

"It ain't policy Øyvind... not even an "unofficial" one. It is in fact one of the things you avoid at all costs. It is thought of as a defeat when innocents are hurt or killed."

Are you lecturing us? Please. As an "ex-military", you should know that shit happens all the time. Official or unofficial. That no one would would use it as an excuse should not come as a surprise to us.

"...Who is responsible?"

Indeed. It's classic isn't it?

Tina,

I'm not lecturing at all. My point in fact was that lecturing is inappropriate in this area, and I thought that Øyvind was enaging in it.

I agree with you ABSOLUTELY that you need not have first hand experience in something in order to have an opinion on it. I feel perfectly qualified for example to express opinions on social policy, even though I've never been a social worker (in fact it might be an advantage in that particular case). Its up to listeners to such opinions to determine whether they are informative or not. I thought I made that clear when I qualified my position with regard to the deliberate targeting of civilians.

However I objected to the act of parsing the results of a combat action, and gleaning out "human rights violations" from the result... whether or not there truly were any. This idea of hurling accusations of "deliberate targeting of civilians" indiscriminately, is very often a canard to obscure mere opposition to miltary action by particular parties. It may not ALWAYS be so, but it is not even arguable (at least not reasonably) that it is often the case.

You objected to my point that it isn't policy, official or otherwise, but your reason for the objection is not clear to me from what you wrote. I think I already made the point that shit DOES indeed happen. My larger point though, was that if shit that would have been clearly avoidable, happens BY DESIGN because terrorists exploit the rules of engagement and the rules of war (as per the Geneva conventions) in a way that maximizes the chance for non-combatants to be caught up in the conflict... then who is repsonsible?

It seems like a good question for us all.

Particularly since this is often done (and it IS done) purely for the surreally cynical purpose of ensuring the propogation of "images" supporting the idea that aggressive tactics against innocent civilians... is prominent in the media.

That sort of shifts the terms of debate doesn't it?

No Tina, Ive never been in combat, merely trained for it. But I think my contributions towards dispelling an all too common mythos were valid. What I said was true. It is NOT done (targeting civilians) as far as I know... and that "inside" knowledge includes being pretty good friends with two memebers of special forces. The very idea burns members of the military up... because in the vast majority of their minds, the high morale they hold is based on their intention to do good. The same seems to be the case in the vast majority of cases regarding the IDF. It can be argued, but it can't be dismissed.

Cheers,

KM

It is a trick. Leftists point to "the conditions" when talking about Cuba, Venezuela or for that matter the Soviet Union. Israel-supporters point to "the conditions" when talking about Israel. Islamists point to "the conditions" when talking about Chechen terrorism. I wrote this above:

Interestingly enough your reply is as good as parallell to what some socialists I have debated with say about another democracy, Venezuela: You're so arrogant! The negative sides is a result of the conditions.

While I totally agree that one should not disregard the conditions any country live under when discussing their political system, nothing - I repeat nothing - excuses Israel or Venezuelas limits on freedom-of-press [*], use of torture, violations of human rights or limitations on the democratic system. And pointing these things out is not arrogance - it's what any friend of democracy and of Israel or Venezuela should do.

By the way, Kevin, you pointed at the condition as an argument against my claim that Israels democracy has many faults. The discussion about going to battle or not is an entire other one. The faults of the Israeli democracy aren't merely things going on in battlezones.

Øyvind

Øyvind,

Fair enough ... on thinking of Israel's defense expedients as somewhat seperate from the workings of Israel's democracy Øyvind.

I think the comparision to Venezuaela (on "conditions") is pushing it quite a bit however. It seems a bit inappropriate since in Venezualas case, the abuses are actually intended to nullify democracy while maintaining appearances, where in Israel the intent (surely you agree with this) is to preserve it, with abuses as the unfortunate (and indeed...perhaps avoidable) the result.

Still... comparing me to the ends-justifying-the-means-because-the-opposition-is-resisting-the-"inevitable" rationales of leftists... I gotta hand it to you thats clever.

Cheers,

KM

Btw, for the record, note that the concept of talking about "conditions" in the Chechen conflict is another thing entirely as well... and one where I think we would perhaps agree on more. The Islamists have definitely caused that region to explode way beyond where it ever would have, had they not made their appearance. But the Russians are reaping what they sowed in many ways by the abject cruelty and heavy handedness of their repression of previous breakaway attempts. The conditional compromises of the 90s were in effect, far too little and way too late.

On the other hand... the treatment the Israelis have shown the Palestinians in general, has been orders of magnitude better (along the humanity scale) than Russian treatment of Muslims on their turf... yet the Muslim antipathy for Israel is still that much greater... and lets not forget why.

Its because they're Jews.

And again btw... its not a "trick". I don't do them.

If my reasoning is flawed, I'm always willing to review it, but I don't, as you seem to, create quick equivalencies between events distinct in character and rife with differences of intent.

Im pretty trickless Øyvind.

KM

Kevin:

"the abuses are actually intended to nullify democracy"

I doubt that the chavistas, or Western leftists that support them, have the same notion. They consider the Venezuela of today to be more democratic than the Venezuela of the past.

Considering the nepotism and corruption of the previous ruling parties and the elites they're not completely off-target.

Øyvind

Totoro

''Ex-Christian...

"Well, it is not the Muslims who are invading America bombing Washington DC and other American cities into submission, killing thousands of Americans, raping and torturing them and forcing them to accept the..."

Huh? What happened to Osama's plans to destroy America? And didn't he bomb Washington, D.C. and NYC? And haven't Islamist terror cells been found here and there with explosives?''

Oh please, dont you realize history does NOT start on 9/11 ?

9/11 was a ''modest response'' to more than 40 years of American terrorism and oppressions against Muslims.

''I also don't understand your views. First you tell us how superior Islam is and why the Koran should be followed. Then you tell us how beautiful the women of Syria are and how they're wearing the latest Paris styles. And people are drinking alcohol in bars.

What are you trying to convince us of? Please summarize. Thanks.
''

I am trying to say that what you see in your media is not always the truth, in fact, most of it are distortions and lies.

I advice you to have a trip there to see by yourself, magnificent SYRIA will be a good start.

Øyvind, Bergen

''Libya is not the best example you could've dug up, but yes - there's no doubt that Western countries have been working with and still work with ruthless dictators. This is one of the things that makes the American claim of 'bringing democracy' to the Middle East (i.e. Iraq) somewhat questionable. Why are they friends with the corrupt royal family of Saudi-Arabia? Why is the Kuwaiti dictatorship okay? How come the dictator of Turkmenistan is considered to be friendly? ''

very well said.

''As I said, Westerners are experts on hypocrisy. It's not - however - because we're perverts, gays or sadists, and to claim that it is so is to enter an unholy alliance with Christian fundamentalist forces. Abu Ghraib did not come out of a vacuum. It came as a result of dehumanizing the enemy, as a result of calling them "barbarians", or "dogs", as a result of arrogance and hatred. ''

I agree, but what about the sexual nature of this 'American' torture, does not reflect a pervert culture with sexually obssessed animals on the rampage ?

''The press in America is certainly NOT free
Please notice, ex-Christian, that I did not say that the American press is free. I said the Arab press is less free. In the States there are ownership issues worthy of discussion, and there's also a tendency to self-censorship. In Arab countries critical journalists are routinely arrested and jailed, censorship is common and the ownership issues are still there.
But I also see the difference. Can I read about torture in Saudi prisons in al-Watan, in al-Yaum or in al-Riyadh? Sure - al Jazeera brings up the theme, but they're based in Qatar and have had conflicts with the Saudi authorities. ''

I disagree, The Arabs have MORE access to various news sources than the Americans. the arabs there know very well their 'offical' newspapers and government-controled TVs are not to be trusted, so using offical newspapers as indication to the ' less free' arab press does not hold here.

As I pointed out before, the average household in Syria for example has a satellite TV which allows them to access enormous amount of TV channels and news sources, something the Americans dont even have.

You should take that into consideration when talking about the FREEDOM of press because the freedom of press does not only include free press as such but the freedom to get as much news sources as possible.

''I totally agree, in fact, Islamists there have been a force of progress and moderation
At times they have, yes - and many Westerners are ignorant of this. But then - there are quite a few examples of the opposite, as well. ''

Sure, but thanks to the zionist-controled western media, for the western mind, the word Islamist is related with terrorism and backwardness .

''However, ex-C, you are, if I am not mistaken, Finnish. ''

Yep, Swedish speaking Finn :)

''So, why do you reduce your critique of dr. Ibrahim to: [he] receives American aid to his Ibn Khaldun, his center hosts always anti-Muslim secular Arab writers, something which will only anger the majority Muslims in the Middle East.
Why don't you argue against what he is saying? I thinks his points are good. Don't you? ''

His points are NOT good, he wants the muslims there to abandon their traditions, their culture, their religion and become morally bankrupt like most of our western societies nowadays.

He wrapps these objectives with the legitimate calls for reform and increased human rights.

He is calling for the secularization of the Muslim society, something really OXYMORON.

Muslims in general ( me including ) dont want to be ruled by man-made flawed laws, we want to be governed by ALLAH'S JUST LAWS, who the hell is he or any other westerner to tell muslims they should secularize ? I think we in the west suffer from this disease called self-rightousness in which we think what is good for us must be good for everyone else. Well, it is NOT.

We tend to put our morally corrupt ethically decayed way of life as a standard in which muslims have to follow, this is wrong and wont achieve anything. Let muslims live the way they want, we dont like anyone telling us how to live, do we ?

''Sure, you can criticize him for having the wrong friends or for making tactical blunders, but is he wrong? And how does his ideas about civil strife help the 'Zionist agenda' you claim MEMRI has? If Palestinians listened to this guy that would help the Palestinians. ''

No it wont, as I said he wrapps his real agenda ( secularization of the muslim society ) with legitimate objectives.

''Can you imagine what kind of support the Palestinian movement would have in the world if they fought in the way Gandhi did? ''

This comparssion is flawed from its basis, Great Britian then did not BOMB the hell out of Bombay or razed the homes of the national leaders of India.

The UK did not assassinate Ghandi or sent tanks to destroy a whole camps like Jenin.

The UK did not imprisson thousands of indians for refusing to accept its authority as the terrorist state of Israel is doing right now.

let us remember that the first palestinean intifada was PEACEFUL and the result was thousands of dead and injured palestineans, but look at the second Intifada, it was armed and it was a great success, the Israeli terrorists are now withdrawing from Gaza and soon they will do the same in the west bank.

''Today the Israeli propaganda machine can point at terror attacks targeting civilians, and be right. They can point to virulent anti-Semitism and be right. What would the world look like if they couldn't? ''

They are not right.

Anti semitism used to mean anyone who hate the jews, now, it means anyone who the jews hate.

occupation is the ugliest form of terrorism, they are the terrorists because they are the ones who stole the Muslim land not the other way around.

''Sure, ex-Christian, I can understand why Palestinians resort to terrorism, I can also point out many, many instances where the Israeli have committed atrocities. I could pull the same trick Kevin pulled to explain Israeli shortcomings, and say: But look at the conditions. ''

Kevin is neo con zionist, it is really a waste of time to reason with such people.

''But hey - ex-C - those are just excuses. And there's no excuse good enough for deliberately targeting civilians. Not if you're American. Not if you're Israeli. Not if you're Palestinian.''

I agree, targrting civilians is wrong, but it is certainly not wrong in the eyes of the west when the targeted are Muslims, right ?

Zionist stations like FOX JEWS for example suggests bombing Muslim Iraqis from the sky to avoid any casuality on the american ground forces !!!

''There's a time for everything, and this, my friend, is the time to start criticizing both sides in that bitter conflict. Real friends would tell the truth. ''

Well, in any conflict there is the victim and there is the aggressor, in the palestinean question, there is no doubt who is the terrorist and who is the aggressor, it is the jews who stole the palestinean land, it is the jews who came from eastern europe, russia, Germany and other parts of the world to steal the palestinean land.

WHY SHOULD THE PALESTINEANS PAY FOR EUROPEAN CRIME ( the holocaust ) ?

''The US has and must change its foriegn policy when it comes to the muslim world, their policy is a great tool for fostering terrorism and for bin laden to have more followers.
I agree with you there. ''

Great :)

''Well, it is not the Muslims who are invading America bombing Washington DC and other American cities into submission
Okay, so you are just playing the "they-started-it-game". It's fun. I should know. But what about having two thoughts at the same time for a change?''

NO, it is not fun, invading 2 muslim states and killing thousands of innocent muslims is not fun.

They, the American barbarians, started it this mess and they will pay the consequences.

Ma salama.

"A man's caharacter is best judged by those who disdain him rather than who laud him."
-George Washington

"Kevin is neo con zionist, it is really a waste of time to reason with such people."
-ex-Christian

Gosh... I'm pretty immune to flattery, and here I am blushing now.

KM

Ex C I am floored by your view that Syriua is a democracy. I would suppose that what Assad did in Hama is -- what a democratic act. I woud surmis that under your view that killing over 20,000 men women and children and leveling Hama would count as a deocratic act since after al it is just Muslems killing Muslems. http://www.2la.org/lebanon/ee/terrorsy.htm

You also say "there is no doubt who is the terrorist and who is the aggressor, it is the jews who stole the palestinean land, it is the jews who came from eastern europe, russia, Germany and other parts of the world to steal the palestinean land."

I would also gather that you beleive that Osma Bin laden is a hero.

Funny, I thought history revealed that this land was first Jewish and then in recent times it was trans Jordan and then after Israel was attacjed byJordan a peace treaty was made between Israel and Jordan.

Never a muslim, Always a Chritian.

I don't understand how if you were a Christian you convert to being a muslim. God sent his Son to die on the cross for our sins and you muslim beleivers foresake him. God gave us a chance to save our-selves and the muslim religon just turns away from the truth. I think the only reason why muslims have there own bible "the curan" is because they don't like Jews and didn't want to follow on what God has written throgh Jewish prophets. Don't get me wrong the muslim religon isn't the only religon that foresakes Jesus Christ the Son of God for dieing on the Cross at Calvary to take away our sins. The Jewish religon expells Jesus being the Son of God also. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit has been proven many times through history and science and I pray and hope that all the non beleivers of the muslim , Jewish, buhdast, pagan, heathen, ext.. religons see the truth about the Holy Bible and the good about the Holy Trinity and that they may open their eyes. I just don't understand how over time people start making their own religons and so many people follow along to a man made religon, its mind bogaling. Also any country that is a Christian nation should be careful of what islamic and muslim extreamists are capable of doing. Especially the nations where there are more Christians than any other religon. Don't underestimate what those people filming the bridge are capable of. I have lots more to say but I have to be somewhere. Goodbye and God Bless.just have faith in Jesus Christ he will show the path

the terror mongers have been on the wrong end of what we would call in New York, a serious case of whoop ass.

As it should be.

LOL! Sorry Kevin, just discovered this thread. It has some classic postings. Ok, NYC, irish name, oozing with common sense, I'm finally able to place you somewhere. I'm reminded of that great american fireman Mike Moran:

MORAN: "All I can say on behalf of my brother John and the 12 members from Ladder 3 that we've lost, the 20 members of the New York City fire department football team that we've lost, and all the people from my neighborhood, my hometown, Rockaway Beach, Queens, New York. Our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, they are not gone, because they are not forgotten. And I want to say one more thing. In the spirit of the Irish people. Osama bin Laden, you can kiss my royal Irish ass! And I live in Rockaway, and this is my face, b---h."

Btw... I love dogs. I live with one. And for the sake of literal accuracy I should note that I'm dubious that there would ever be a need to hunt down dogs... unless a whole pack had become rabid at the same time... the way these men should be.

ROFL ! Right, definitely just an expression, dude, since they are man's best friend. Good thing dogs don't understand enough language to be insulted.

>> The Jewish state needs to be told, for instance, that it cannot rule out the return of refugees while calling for the influx of 1 million Jews.

This reveals all we need to know about øyvind.

premise: Israel is someone's underling. "Needs to be told", like they aren't a sovereign state. I was mistaken before to think that Israel was created by the UN. In fact, I recently learned that Israel created itself, and the UN merely recognized it.

Israel, we support you. Sorry about that Colin Powell guy, it should get better.

Gunnar is also wrong on several accords:

1. Israel is not the only modern country in the middle of a savage zone. Jordan is not savage. Lebanon is not savage. Egypt is not savage.

2. Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East.

The other Gunnar was right (he didn't say where he was from)

Jordan is not particularly savage, but they attacked

Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent a message to King Hussein saying Israel would not attack Jordan unless he initiated hostilities. When Jordanian radar picked up a cluster of planes flying from Egypt to Israel, and the Egyptians convinced Hussein the planes were theirs, he then ordered the shelling of West Jerusalem. It turned out the planes were Israel's, and were returning from destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground.

After Jordan launched its attack on June 5, approximately 325,000 Palestinians living in the West Bank fled.(19) These were Jordanian citizens who moved from one part of what they considered their country to another, primarily to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a war.

And recently?

The parliamentary elections in Jordan on November 4 will be held in a climate of mounting restrictions on freedom of expression and association, Human Rights Watch charges in a report issued today. "A marked deterioration in respect for basic freedoms has seriously affected the ability of Jordanians to make informed choices on election day," said Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East division of Human Rights Watch. "It's worrying when individuals are afraid to engage in peaceful political activities or to even express their views -- because they may be arrested, face criminal prosecution, or lose their jobs," he added.

Lebanon: The original christian nation was not, but the current Syrian/PA puppet is.

Egypt: ex-aggressor, but it's in Africa.

Turkey: It's kind of the center of the world, not usually considered middle east. near east maybe.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/807