Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
quote:
Originally posted by shamrock_uk:
Don't insult the intelligence of all the people in the UN from across the world by branding them with an inaccurate label. Calling people who criticise Israel's actions anti-semitic is the last resort of the desperate apologist.
|
Bringing up Israel in a thread about Iraq is another "last resort" of a desparate apologist. When they can't counter a particular point, they just say "Oh yeah? Well what about Israel?" 
[/QUOTE]1) An apologist is he who defends the indefensible regardless of the crimes committed. In this thread, I fully agree with Skunks original post and am firmly in the 'attack' camp and therefore cannot be an apologist.
2) Israel had already been brought up in this thread by Skunk when I came to read it
3) What makes bringing up Israel in this thread any different from your post which brought up the UN in a thread devoted to America and Britain's delusions about WMD
4) I agree with most of your original post I quoted from. However by using the 'other reasons' to go to war as justification, comparisons must be drawn with other countries who have done much worse. The question you should be asking is "if the justification for war wasn't about WMD but the other resolutions Saddam broke, then why didn't the US invade the countless other countries that are guilty of the same thing?" The worst offender of course is Israel, so its only natural to use it as an example. The reason for the invasion - both America's middle-east agenda and of course the anti-saddam clique in the Bush dynasty.
5) My post was in response to your critcising the United Nations' inability to enforce resolutions - I simply explained why. If painting the US and Israel in a bad light re. UN activities touches a nerve, then good, it should. Sit back and look at the facts and just consider the possibility that such criticism is justified.
6) I notice that your post doesn't actually contain any response to my argument? Perhaps because it's a valid one? I believe you've just managed to do exactly what I was criticising and dodged the real issues raised by objecting to me using Israel as an example in the first place.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
And no matter how the law is enforced, there will be some who felt it was not enforced "equally" - and they will become disenfranchised and resort to illegal methods.
|
Quite possibly. However, it seems very plausible that the
number of people would be vastly diminished. I agree that there's "always someone" who is going to feel disenfranchised. But surely only a fool would argue that removing actual and legitimate causes for disenfranchisement wouldn't lead to a reduction in this number. Its plain common-sense.
Also, contrary to popular American myth, Islamists don't ulutate (i do like that word TL by the way
) just for the sake of it. The majority of the Islamist movement is young, educated and disollusioned youth. These people aren't stupid just because they're Arabic or Muslim.
Ask a Muslim why they're protesting against America and they will tell you that they hate America because of its double standards. They believe its anti-arabic and anti-muslim because of its unwavering support for Israel. I won't even bother going into what Iraq did to the state of US-Arab relations. Many have to live, or have lived, under brutal dictators that are only there because of American support / military assistance. It claims to be the bastion of liberty and freedom, but in fact, this only applies if you're liked by the current administration.
Theirs is not an irrational hatred, and that is why the public in practically every civilised and educated country around the world agrees with their position in principle. The only two exceptions, of course, being Israel and America. We should ask what makes these two countries different from all the others in the world.
Israel's media reporting with regard to current events is quite commendable, full details of palestinians shot and killed etc are usually given. The siege mentality that exists however makes these things excusable and not politically damaging. But it's certainly often accurate with the facts, if extremely one sided and crude in tackling the underlying causes and reasoning.
The American media has no excuse on the other hand - you get the news you want to hear. Even clips from Israeli news channels are censored by the time they hit US screens. At least if I was Syrian I
know the media is state controlled - in America, the self-censorship that goes on is far more insidious, because if that's all you're exposed to, you don't realise.
I wonder if you were typing your IW replies on the front line in Palestine rather than behind your desk in N. Carolina you might alter your opinions a little...
[edits for clarity and additional content]
[ 06-08-2004, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]