A man of peace or not?

[treebeau]

I LOVE this statement!!

Originally posted by Shapley:
...we believe in freedom of speech, we don't just talk about it...

Except that I read it wrong. It is hilarious if you flip the words "don't" and "just".

Anyway, back to you two.
(hee hee, aren't you glad you had nothing to say Shap?)

Regards,
Tim B.

[DavidS]

Sharon has been doing what Begin and Rabin (as many others around the world) did in their time. After a career leading insurgents or belonging to the political and militaristic hawks, he decided that the time was ripe to look for civilised solutions. In the hope that he would find partners to a dialogue on the other side (like Saadat and Hussein of Jordan).
Question: What has to happen to get Arab/Iranian public opinion off the "wipe Israel off the map" trip?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
As for Sharon, I hope for his sake he has good health insurance.

...

.........oh yeah, Israel's one of them socialized countries with health care for everyone, ain't it?

Quite right. In fact the standard of medical care (even the basic package) is considered among the best in the world.
Of course in Sharon's case he would probably have the top-tier insurance plan included in his perks.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by DavidS:
Question: What has to happen to get Arab/Iranian public opinion off the "wipe Israel off the map" trip?

Answer1: Unprecedented outbreak of infectious sanity, spreading in all directions. Is there an appropriate virus in the works?

Answer2: Divine Intervention. Oh, wait, that didn't work.

Answer3: Multiple meteor strikes. Side effects hard on the neighbors, probably obviate the point of changing the public opinion, and may already be covered in A2.

[DavidS]

Selma, Answer1 seems to have worked for a while in several parts of the world, though wearing thin now & again like in France and Australia recently.
For my part, I will be happy with "And the Land was quiet for forty years" (Begin also used to quote that)...no, make that "for a hundred years".
By then:
1. We probably won't be around to worry about it.
2. Maybe new generations will have sprung up and acquired a taste for decent living, instead of the vile hatred so many are being fed with today with their mothers' milk.
Otherwise, I can only foresee the "humanity self-destruct" mechanism kicking in, n'est-ce pas?

[dai bread]

People have been fighting in the Middle East for 5000 years or so. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

I've often thought that if I were the best peacemaker in the world, and had solved the Irish problem, I still would not touch the Middle East.

Peace will come only because the locals want it. Even then it's problematical. Look at Yugoslavia. Peaceful and unified for 70 years, then strife.

[DavidS]

Yes Dai.
That's what I meant by the essentially temporary nature of many peace solutions.

[Trumpetmaster]

So - If Sharon recovers and does not die, what can we tell the Iranians who said it was gods will that he had the stroke? God changed his/her mind?

[DavidS]

I can think of several other things based on pure logic, common sense, global interests, and humanitarian equity to tell the Iranians...
Who knows how to make them LISTEN?

[Shapley]

OT,

RE: Robertson.

My question would be; "Why". What difference would it make. The only purpose it would serve would be to alienate those who listen to him from the Republican Party, which I assume to be the reason it would be considered 'necessary' to Democrats.

As I've said before, Pat Robertson does not hold any elected or appointed position within the Republican Party. He is free to express his views, and the White House has stated that they do not agree with them. It's hardly an issue worth harping about.

Who perceives Robertson to have official clout? I don't see the Democrats rushing to denounce Al Franken or Michael Moore everytime they make a gaff or tell an outright lie. I didn't see anyone on the left condemning Cindy Sheehan for her "get the U.S. out of New Orleans" comments, although, for her fifteen minutes of fame, she had been the voice of the anti-war Democrats. How many Democrats have condemned Al Sharpton's numerous gaffs? Or Al Gore's, for that matter.

Such statements only matter to those who want it to matter. To those who believe Mr. Robertson, any words of condemnation will be considered a vicious attack. To those who oppose him, no amount of apologizing will be sufficient. He made one statement, so I think one statement made expressing disagreement should be sufficient.

V/R
Shapley
____________________________

P.S., Will the Democrats rush to denounce Harry Belafonte?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181030,00.html

<small>[ 01-09-2006, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[Haggis@wk]

So, Lou Rawls died Friday. Makes you wonder what he did p**s off Robertson. Maybe God doesn't like R&B???

[ratsnake]

to : Davids
dude im one of em.... and i damn wanna listen ... here we go is there really any sense of PURE logic to put to challenge here? or the other one: are we really talkin about a common humaniterian interest whose growin more and more global every single day as we speak?? jeez get over here for a week or so.... not many in germany believe though....and im not takin about shattered nazi bastards who are seekin revenge to GI Joe , im speakin of some majority educated ones who do care about humanity and are interested about common senses of globalization......frankly do not agree with everything the American presidnt throws ....

[DavidS]

Originally posted by ratsnake:
to : Davids
dude im one of em.... and i damn wanna listen ... here we go is there really any sense of PURE logic to put to challenge here? or the other one: are we really talkin about a common humaniterian interest whose growin more and more global every single day as we speak?? jeez get over here for a week or so.... not many in germany believe though....and im not takin about shattered nazi bastards who are seekin revenge to GI Joe , im speakin of some majority educated ones who do care about humanity and are interested about common senses of globalization......frankly do not agree with everything the American presidnt throws ....

Right - the American president, whether you like him or not, is here today and gone tomorrow.
But America and all kinds of global forces will still be there, and innocent ordinary people and their descendants in every country want to be able to get on with their lives in peace.
Is there a way for humanity to survive without sections of it trying to impose their religious beliefs/political agendas on each other under dire threats of violence?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by DavidS:
Right - the American president, whether you like him or not, is here today and gone tomorrow.

Yup. It's a temp job. We like it that way.

Originally posted by DavidS:
Is there a way for humanity to survive without sections of it trying to impose their religious beliefs/political agendas on each other under dire threats of violence?

Yes. All it requires is that the huge majority of the citizens agree that violence against fellow citizens is a crime. None of the citizens can except their own little group from that principle, the greater group must receive the greater loyalty.

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Selma in Sandy Eggo:

Originally posted by DavidS:
[b] Right - the American president, whether you like him or not, is here today and gone tomorrow.

Yup. It's a temp job. We like it that way.[/b]

Didn't I once write here that politicians are like nappies (diapers): They need to be changed at regular intervals - for the same reason?

Originally posted by DavidS:
[b]Is there a way for humanity to survive without sections of it trying to impose their religious beliefs/political agendas on each other under dire threats of violence?

Yes. All it requires is that the huge majority of the citizens agree that violence against fellow citizens is a crime. None of the citizens can except their own little group from that principle, the greater group must receive the greater loyalty. [/b]

I am talking about threats of violence across international frontiers, in which the political leaders of the territory from which it emanates either are too weak or indifferent to restrain their rogues, are deliberately turning a blind eye, or themselves are the initiators and supporters of such crimes and aggression under state auspices.
Any ideas on handling such situations?

<small>[ 01-10-2006, 07:25 AM: Message edited by: DavidS ]</small>

[Haggis@wk]

From Mark Steyn's depressing commentary last week


"There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in "Palestine," Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally."

There appears to be a common thread here, I just can't put my finger on it....

[ratsnake]

"There are many trouble spots around the world, but as a general rule, it's easy to make an educated guess at one of the participants: Muslims vs. Jews in "Palestine," Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Africa, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Thailand, Muslims vs. Russians in the Caucasus, Muslims vs. backpacking tourists in Bali. Like the environmentalists, these guys think globally but act locally."

That was one of those phrases I am not afraid to put into discussion, why? Because its true and if its true then why should we talk about it under certain circumstances trying not to reveal any clear facts or meanings?? I said it since my first post on this board that I care very much for the truth behind most of the things and frankly I‘m not even a tiny little bit afraid of being discussed or reviewed whether on be half of my knowledge or ideas, but I guess that doesn‘t make any super hero outta me though, there are A LOT of people who‘re not afraid of being positively rude and critic of things they believe are not rightly performed still not many of them would dare to scratch the curtain of courtesy and say what they think is right: the Moslems are being aggressive since many thousand years and due to some native historians as well, they have had ways of cooperating with the neighbouring environment of theirs by means of force of violence and tolerance of war, hence they‘ve had even their recent reputation incinerated with the flames of those wars they flamed since Ottoman days, but do we only talk about their notorious character in the history? isn‘t that a bit unfair to measure every thing which has got some thing to do with some thing according to the Moslem history? Rising no questions on why did the Moslem stated become hostile to Europeans since late 18th century is just what is right now happening to us and there fore neither sides of the conflict can be settled with a satisfying meaning. Moslems are to my opinion some hereditary-war like nations through their Origins and their mid 9th or 10th century conquest which fairly screwed the whole reigns of the Old world like that of Persians and those of Mesopotamia; what can we do about the course of history?? They were gradually driven out of every single land they conquered leaving the tracks of their 700 year long conquest behind,, the ideology of theirs which kept significantly getting renovated through each and every of those occupied natives now claiming to be interpreting the Islam independently, but hey, that’s what happened with Christianity too, è and after all those nations now considered a part of the Moslem world set back to find their way through the international society, they faced the European imperialism. Here‘s the point I try to discuss, some of the anti-European (British/French) or European dominance, came later through religious dues of Islam and became an agenda for many governments to bust people or nations down therefore. I don’t personally think that all Moslem nations anti-western acts should be put on the shoulders of mullahs why for example that of India or even Iran,( Nationalizing the Oil industry & flitching the British Oil companies) were simply coming from social and national beliefs sprayed with stripes of Islamic ideology, as an Iranian I do insist that even the recent ISLAMIC revolution was not 100% lead to victory by hard-liner Moslems, took-over though, there fore, Islamic rhetoric not being too friendly and welcoming is a fact one should throw to the face of anyone who‘s hypocritically against it, on the other hand not compromising arrogant approaches from many in the west side…. Is another fact which shouldn’t be neglected in the discussion. There is no approval to what Moslems do around the world….. There are many voices of criticism acting on that to tell the real fanatics that the way of integration don’t go through churches or mosques or synagogues though through some other places as public as a football field, what people should do is first to stop unifying nations and ethnic groups in those respects they‘re not half a million mile close to get to agree on. And then I‘m gonna have to direct my post to Selma in San Diego whose principle suggested on no exception in crimes against humanity is sounding more or less like a possible way to sooth down the fights.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Hey, point that post at someone else. "Crimes against humanity" is another category of evil.

That principle of "mine" isn't mine at all. It's our law. It's one of the necessary foundations for a civilized society. Without it, you have clan bloodfeuds, ethnic cleansing, civil war, and holocaust. It will work in the mideast when you have Moslems willing to defend Jews and Christians and Baha'i from other Moslems. So far, we haven't seen a lot of that.

[ratsnake]

Selma
Hi Selma in Sandy Eggo, can I invite you for a beer from fresh and cool German breweries before we get into any further discussions about me pointing to your post, lady I guess I simply admired your suggestion or better say the ways of living civilized, so if I directed the post‘s finale to yours that was just a little sign of agreement on what you said. I Would love to clarify most of my post if not understood in any respects so would I for the part integration road: I believe that the hostile behaviour of Moslems isn‘t approved on any possible chances also I do believe that the western outcome of rough calculations putting all the anti-west activities in the orient in one category and that of Islamic Jihad is way too roughly estimated to be taken for granted!!!! So hell yeah that’s how we will reach peace in mideastern states , no exceptional view on crimes against humanity and hell no not all mideast states are totally and fully submerged in Islamic FANATIC values so that they wanna hammer the life outta every single westerner, particularly Americans, about Moslem-Jews, Moslem-Russians, Moslem-Hindus conflicts simply some of them are based on simple and stupid religious issues and some other are political/national issues which have taken the form of an Islamic act or simply over-sprayed by powerful Moslem organizations, and….
Do like beer??

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Sorry, son, not fond of beer. I'll take a cup of coffee, though. (I'm approaching lunchtime here, could really use some coffee.) It'll go nicely with my soup.

Fanatics, in general, are not comfortable neighbors. I'm allergic to them. Religious fanatics are less reasonable than political extremists but both make me itch.

Haggis seems to understand the roots of this whole mess more clearly than many of us - you might go back and read some of his old posts on the Barracks threads.