Iraqi Invasion Implications

[surplus1]

TWA Dude - Part 3 of 3 - THE END

In my book, murder is murder. How you did it makes little difference. It is no less "savage" to kill a man by cutting off his head with a sword, chopping it off with a guillotine, hanging him from a carefully constructed platform or frying him in an electric chair. One method may require less "clean-up" than the other, but all are equally effective. The end result is unchanged.

I assure you that the true "extremests" wear many different hats and are not easily spotted. Many of the "black-hatters" are so religious that they don't even recognize the State of Israel because the Messiah hasn't come to oversee its creation.

I concede the point. Then I ask, how does one identify an Arab extremist. Is he a "towel head", is he a Mullah or is she a misguided girl of 16? The "wolf in sheep's clothing" comes to mind. Interesting mention of those Jews who don't recognize Israel because the Messiah hasn't come. The Christians argue that the plight of the Jew is a product of his failure to acknowledge the coming of the Messiah, i.e., Jesus Christ. The Islamic recognizes neither and foresees no coming of a Messiah. In the perspective of our discussion (I have my own beliefs which are not relevant) I wonder who is right? What if we're all wrong?

As I tried to say earlier, this is a man-made problem and it requires a man-made solution.

That make Jews Palestinians as well. In fact, before 1948 the Jews were in fact referred to as "Palestinians" by the British. The Arabs were referred to as "Arabs". The PLO has done a masterful propaganda job of making the world believe that there is an ethnicity called "Palestinian". Arafat was born in Egypt.

Interesting point and well made. Here's an observation of my own. Aren't Jews and Arabs alike both Semites? The Mandate of the League of Nations appears to have indeed intended that the immigrant Jews returning to Zion would assimilate into and become citizens of what was then "Palestine". It makes no reference to the establishment of an "Israeli State" and addresses only a Jewish return to the homeland. Granted the "Arabs" weren't mentioned, but "who" then were the Palestinians living in the region? Even the British must have known they weren't Jews. Were they "foreigners"?

Some say Arafat was born in Gaza others that he was born in Cairo, Egypt. So was Moses. Where were David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin, Golda Meir and Shimon Peres born (to name only a few)? Are you implying that Arafat's place of birth somehow makes him less than a Palestinian (as now identified)? Careful, you could be giving credence to my thought in a previous post that most of the Israelis are Jews yes, but "foreigners" as well.

"Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force." - Vladimir Jabotinsky, Zionist leader whose picture hangs above the desk of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

Whoa, nelly! Sharon is defending his country from attackers. Arafat has targeted women, children and other non-combatants. Sharon is a ruthless military man, to be sure, but I claim for him the moral high ground.

That bothers me and appears to be more partisan than the rest of your posts. I would venture to say that claiming "moral high ground" for any of the combatant's leaders is somewhat of an oxymoron. There is nothing moral about any of the killing that's taking place in the region.

After the cessation of hostilities, (in the 1948 war) the United Nations Human Rights Commission declared that "Israel's grave breaches of the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in the time of war of 12 August, 1949, are war crimes and an affront against humanity."

"I am a black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, could describe events in South Africa." Archbishop Desmond Tuto - Speech in Israel,1989.

"Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived." - Moshe Dyan, speaking at the funeral of a Jewish farmer killed by a Palestinian (1956). Has anything changed? If so tell me what. The only thing I see different is change the "eight years" to thirty-four years and we're back to today. If Moshe Dyan could recognize that, who am I to argue with thim.

Terrorists have a territorial goal they've yet to attain.

This is a dangerous definition of "terrorism". It could make Sharon a terrorist and Bin Laden a freedom fighter? I don't think that's what you meant. Part of the problem with terrorism is that the world hasn't even agreed on a definition.

I have enjoyed the discussion. Thanks for responding. Shalom!

Surplus1

 

[Boeingman]

OK, the first guy (or gal) who can twist this Muslim vs. Jewish and terrorism argument (discussion) into an RJDC battle, wins a free gift.

 

[surplus1]

For Boeingman

Well, the mainline ya see is just like the Israelis. The land is theirs just like the flying is ours. ALL of it and I don't care how long those camel drivers (RJ pilots) been living there (doing it) Those d*mn*d RJDC guys are a bunch of terrorrists and their leader is the Arafat of the airline industry. They just keep screwing everything up. They think we're not gonna take all the land (flying) from them? Well they'd better think again. They thik they're gonna get Israeli (mainline) land (flying). That'll be a cold day in the Sinai.

Imagine them thinking they have rights in Israel (Delta) Those dam*ed Arab (regional) dudes are trying to put us out of existence and replace the Israeli (Mainline). They must think ALPO is the UN. Well it ain't. We run ALPO, we're the strongest, we have the most guns (money) and we're gonna bury those RJ towel heads.

If they think they're gonna intimidate us with some suicide bombing (lawsuit) they're wasting their time. They'd best pay attention to what Sharon (Woerth) did in Lebanon (USAirGroup) 'cause that's exactly what he's gonna do to them. The Israeli (mainline) Defense Force (U mainline pilots) took care of the Lebanese (WO's) terrorists with one swift massacre (TA) and we (Big D and ALPO) are gonna do the same thing to the PLO (ComAsa) dudes and kick their @ss out.

How's that for starters Mr. B. Do I get the prize?

 

[~~~^~~~]

Surplus,

Not only do you not get the prize, but I am surprised you were goaded into comparing Arafat and Ford. One wields a Sabre, the other, Mike Haber. One is popular in Beruit, the other is popular due to a lawsuit. (Can I win the Rev. Jessie Jackson award for silly rhymes?)

A more accurate portrayal would be to compare Woerth to Slobodan Milosevic with all of the ethnic & identity cleansing going on over at Allegheny and CC Air. Those poor guys are feeling a lot like Kosovo Albanians right now.

Or, why not ALPA Apartied, "One Level of Discrimination." Someone needs to make a flight bag sticker!

 

[surplus1]

Shalom, shalom. I conceed. YOU da man!

Do notice I was trying to be a mainliner. Guess I just don't have the right stuff.

BTW, been enjoying your posts. Nice work.

 

[DaveGriffin]

I wouldn't worry too much about our interventionist foreign policy Surplus. If your AFL/CIO supported slate of politicos, such as US Representative Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga is elected this Nov, we will indeed achieve Neville Chamberlain’s dream of "peace for our time".

 

[TWA Dude]

My longwinded response, part 1

Originally posted by surplus1: I do not covet my neighbor's goods nor his wife and I have no right, God-given or man-given, to take another man's life other than in direct defense of my own or that of another human. Under very limited circumstance, I can see some military action as justifiable but to me, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not one of those circumstances.

First, I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to have an unemotional discussion like this with someone as well-informed as you. As you said, those who get all their info from CNN or USA Today are far from well-informed.
Is military action really not justifiable in the Israeli/Arab conflict? Once in a while we need to step back from the day-to-day fighting in the M.E. and look at the Big Picture. The average Arab is no different from you or I; they just want to live out their lives in peace and prosperity. The Arab governments OTOH are generally totally corrupt and the well-being of their own citizens is not a priority. The situation the Palestinians are in is mostly about the Big Arab Governments and their desire to destroy Israel. Make no mistake, they want Israel gone! That is their goal and if it takes some territorial concessions or “peace” treaties in the meantime then it’s still a step towards their goal. Time is on the side of the Arabs. The Arabs of Israel proper are growing at a rate that will make them the majority within one hundred years time. So even the status quo works to their favor.
A Palestinian State. Why is anyone in Israel against it? (And BTW the Peace Now movement in Israel is very much in favor of it.) If anyone believed that Israel and her neighbors could co-exist like the USA and Canada do then I believe it would be a fantastic idea. But because they wouldn’t be getting all the land they desire a future war is inevitable. INEVITABLE. An awful lot of countries are very eager to help supply the Palestinians with weapons and money.
No country in history has been forced to commit national suicide. As ruthless as any action Israel takes might be viewed must keep in mind that they view things as purely existential. I’m not saying that they’re vulnerable to military conquest. We know her military is strong. But to allow a hostile power to emerge practically within her own borders is something no country would tolerate.
In South Africa the power was finally democratically turned over to the majority, in that case the Blacks. Of course the country did not implode and life goes on. So what if the Arabs become the majority in Israel? Remember the Ultimate Goal. It’s well-established that people would rather be governed by a corrupt government of their own kind instead of benevolent outsiders. Before 1987 (the “Intifada”) the standard of living within the Israeli controlled Arab territories far exceeded all other Arab countries especially in terms of literacy. Does this matter? An educated constituency is difficult to control. The current violence, curfews, and shut-down of the educational institutions actually plays into the P.A.’s hands because it facilitates their own power (and corruption).
Enough rambling. On to some of your points.

The Exodus of Jews from Europe to Palestine was hardly "normal". The whole scheme was created by powerful and influential Zionists and their political allies in European governments none of whom gave the Arabs who lived there since the seventh century, A. D., as much as a second thought.

Of course it wasn’t “normal” immigration. The Jews were fleeing oppression.

The fact is that this mass immigration and the eventual creation of the Israeli State in Palestine were not an act that simply happened. It was forced by military and political power of Europeans with the support of the United States and even the Soviet Union, and championed by the Zionist movement.

Yes. The Peel Commission of 1947 explored the area and subsequently drew the meandering borders of the Partition Plan to allow a separation of Jews and Arabs. Without a doubt the individual Arab land owners lost out on the plan. But recall that since the Ottomans lost Palestine it was just the British Mandatory government there. There were no borders. Countries are normally formed by war so the U.N. was very progressively trying to build a few peacefully. It was a nice try but it was the surrounding Arab governments that made the war. There was no “Palestinian” national identity as the PLO has subsequently invented.

If Canadians of French ancestry eventually separate Quebec from the Dominion of Canada by the ballot (unlikely), it will not cause a civil war in Canada. However, if the government of France, sanctioned by the UN, were to invent the country of Quebec, impose it on the peoples of that region, and 5 million French immigrants move there forcing the "Anglos" from their homes by the hundreds of thousands and demolishing their buildings in the process, I doubt seriously that you would have a "peaceful solution" or end.

Do the Quebec’ers have territorial claims on the rest of Canada? Does France wish to conquer the rest of Canada? I’m sorry but the analogy doesn’t work.

There would be civil war in Canada, just as there is in Palestine.

A “civil war” in Palestine would be if the Israeli Arabs rose up in arms. What’s happening now is not a civil war because the Arab territories were never part of Israel proper. (The Golan Heights were officially annexed by Israel. The Druze there are peaceful. Syria wants it back. I wonder why? Think militarily.)

British colonialism actually led to Israeli colonialism.

Well, it led to the Israeli State but Israel isn’t colonial. She has no territorial goals outside of Palestine.

Strangely, we did not develop a "plan" to remove Nikita Kruschev by force, notwithstanding that the Soviet Union was indeed a very real threat to our national security. Neither did we take-out Saddam when we had the chance and were already at war with him. Please don't tell me that we fought that war for the freedom of Kuwait.

I won’t. It was all about oil. If the Arabs didn’t have oil they’d still be as irrelevant on the globe as they were before the Industrial Revolution.

These aren't "popular" questions and I know that. I'll soon be branded as a left wing liberal.

I’m a card-carrying member of the ACLU and I’ve been “branded” on these boards many times.

Applying all of that altruism to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not easy, but if the United States is to mediate this dispute successfully, it may not choose sides. I fear that our government has, despite its denials. We must be unbiased and impartial or we will fail. We cannot dictate a settlement nor can we facilitate a settlement if we clearly favor one side of the conflict over the other. A broker of peace that is prejudiced will not achieve peace.

I agree that the U.S. is partial, as am I. I want peace in the region yet I want it with a State of Israel there. Most of the planet wouldn’t miss it if it were to disappear. Judaism will survive regardless, as will Islam and the Arabs.

If the objective is in fact peace, both the Jews and the Arabs must make concessions. Neither one can have it his way in the entirety. The Jews cannot unilaterally determine what part of the territory is "theirs" by virtue of their "sacred right" or the opinions of Sharon. The Palestinians can't have all the land and remove Israel by any decree from Allah or Arafat either. Each of the two must have a "country" that he can call his own and they must agree as to where it will be. There is no other way to settle this.

Why “must” the Palestinians have their own country? Who on this Earth has the “right” to their own country? How many peoples are without? Hundreds! I submit that the Jews don’t have a right to their own country either. Neither does the U.S. Peace can be attained without the formation of new countries. It can be forced. The former Yugoslavia forced peace within it’s diverse ethnicities. After that force was removed war broke out and peace still eludes them. I don’t’ see any peace in the M.E. just because the Palestinians are given their own country. Only if the surrounding Arab countries are also at peace with Israel would there be any chance.

"Jews came and took, by means of uprooting and expulsion, a land that was Arab. We wanted to be a colonialist occupier, and yet to come across as moral at the same time." - Israeli historian Ilan Pappe (a Jew).

And before the Jews came the Brits, the Ottomans, Salah-a-din, the Crusaders, the Romans, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, et al. We Americans are above the fracas. The sins of the past are not to be repeated, right? That’s fine and dandy except the Arabs don’t subscribe to it. Israel doesn’t exist in Europe or America. “When in Rome, do as the Romans…” I know it sounds like I’m saying that the Zionists had the right to usurp Arab lands. They didn’t and don’t. But neither do the “Palestinians” have the right to their own country. They may well get one but since it’ll be given to them and not from conquest it’ll be doomed.

The fact that WE like the way Sharon was chosen and don't like the way Arafat was chosen does not mean that Arafat is not the accepted leader of the Palestinian people.

You’re right. If we don’t make peace with our enemies, with whom do we make peace? But that doesn’t mean Arafat can be trusted. He speaks “Peace” to the world in English and “Jihad, Jihad!” to his constituents in Arabic.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: My longwinded response, part 2

You and others have claimed that Mr. Arafat should have accepted the offer of settlement made by Barak at Camp David. Well based on what I know about that "offer" and the history of this whole debacle, I probably would not have accepted either had I been the leader of the Palestinian peoples.

Well of course he shouldn’t have accepted it. He knows full well that all he has to do is instigate more children to throw rocks at soldiers with guns and the world will get him a better deal. I despise Arafat but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some good tricks up his sleeve.

Just look at the history of the Israelis and what they have done since they began the immigration to Palestine after the Balfour declaration and particularly after the creation of the Israeli State in 1948.

Tried to live in peace with defendable borders. (remember, I’m partial)

For twenty years, the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza protested peacefully against Israeli rule. During this latent period the only "terrorism" against Israel came from militants in Jordan and Lebanon.

Yes, they used Hizb’allah and the PLO to do their dirty work. Then they decided in 1987 to use their children. To paraphrase Golda Meir, there won’t be peace in the M.E. until the Palestinians start loving their children more than they hate the Israelis.

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed an agreement with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1979. That agreement called for Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza.. Interestingly, Israel never kept that part of the agreement. Instead, Prime Minister Begin chose to embark on a program of increasing Jewish settlements on Palestinian land in the occupied territories.

You’re right. Begin waffled on the autonomy and the new Jewish communities in the Territories didn’t help.

Then came the now infamous Oslo Accords. In this "agreement", accepted by Arafat and the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian people, the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist on 78% of historic Palestine. That's 23% more than the U. N. gave Israel. Ariel Sharon, current Prime Minister of Israel, denounced the agreement from its inception and Israel has never complied with it.

The Palestinians didn’t comply either. Renewed attacks from Palestinians shattered any trust.

The so-called "visionary peace maker", Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, increased settlements more than any other Israeli prime minister. This is the same man that made the "offer at Camp David" that so many declare Arafat should have accepted. What no one seems to remember or repeat in public, is that this Israeli proposal called for 80% of the Jewish settlers remain in Palestinian territory. Mr. Barak insisted on this provision at Camp David and Arafat refused.

Like Sharon Barak was a military man. He thinks in terms of defending his country. During the pre 1948 days the kibbutzes were isolated power-houses for the Jews’ defense. That strategy still holds true.

Given Israel's frequent reneging on agreements … I am reminded of the dozens of treaties signed with the American Indians, all of which were broken.

I disagree with that characterization. Israel reneged in response to it’s citizens being attacked. It’s a double standard to deny Israel the right to take necessary defensive measures. I know you’ve spoken against American policies and hypocrisies as well but consider what any “civilized” country would do if they had such bitter enemies on their doorstep and within.

The Israelis appear bent on removing the Palestinians from Palestine, one way or another. Once cleansed, the Jewish state will have no more Arabs to deal with, at least no Arabs that call themselves Palestinians.

That’s a very bold statement. Please substantiate it.

Israel has had thirty-four years to give Palestinians their rights, to allow them participation in the democratic process, to improve their miserable conditions." - M. Bydon - DFP (emphasis supplied).

And how many years have the Arab governments had to try to make peace -- those governments that kept promising the Palestinians that they’d throw the Zionists into the Sea and give them all the land? The Palestinians are pawns. The Arab governments care very little of what happens to them. Witness the squalid refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt (Gaza). They could easily have been absorbed into the general population but instead they were kept there to keep world pressure against Israel. The Palestinian people deserve peace and freedom. Unfortunately few Arab countries are interested in such things.

It is argued that Arafat must "stop the terrorists". Just how is Arafat supposed to do that? Maybe he doesn't want to, but if he did, just how would he do it? Does he really have a magic wand that he can wave at will? The answer is NO and everyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that. Arafat alone does not have the power to do that and neither will any "replacement".

Good point and quite the dilemma. Exactly what does it take to stop terrorism? Give them what they want -- or kill them. Do you believe terrorism will stop with the formation of a Palestinian State? Recall that Israel has about the land area of New Jersey and the P.A. State Rhode Island. Let’s give a try, shall we. Let’s see how the Palestinians conduct their new state. Any predictions?

Likewise, Mr. Sharon's, helicopter assaults, tank blasts, F-16 bomb drops and bulldozer demolitions, individually or collectively, no matter how long they are carried out, are not going to stop the suicide bombings. Nothing short of a negotiated settlement that the peoples (not just the leaders) of both sides truly accept will do that.

True. Perhaps I’m too cynical but I have doubts about a people that are willing to send their young to die while killing other young. That’s not war; it’s barbarianism. And Saddam Hussein rewards them while Syria and the Saudis cluck their tongues and say “see what you get?”

Once the enemy is dead, does it really matter if he was killed by a suicide bomber or a rocket fired by a helicopter? It sure doesn't matter to the dead person, whether he/she is a civilian, a soldier, a man, a woman, an adult, a child, a Jew or an Arab. How does the life of an Arab child become less valuable than the life of a Jewish child?

The life of an Arab child becomes less valuable when a mother proudly sends him or her to die uselessly.

You might argue that all wars are useless and I can’t disagree, however, Arafat has convinced his followers that violence is the path to victory. Israeli violence is reactionary and defensive.

Then I ask, how does one identify an Arab extremist. Is he a "towel head", is he a Mullah or is she a misguided girl of 16?

Arab/Muslim extremists also wear many different hats.

Interesting mention of those Jews who don't recognize Israel because the Messiah hasn't come. The Christians argue that the plight of the Jew is a product of his failure to acknowledge the coming of the Messiah, i.e., Jesus Christ. The Islamic recognizes neither and foresees no coming of a Messiah. In the perspective of our discussion (I have my own beliefs which are not relevant) I wonder who is right? What if we're all wrong?

Notice how careful I’ve been to not mention the Bible or religion in the context of “justifying” the Israeli position. Israel is a secular country although the religious have powers in some areas. Almost all Arab and Muslim countries are secular as well. Most are surprised to learn that most Israelis attend synagogue less frequently then even non-observant American Jews. Only about 15 percent of Israelis are observant, although their segment of the population is growing due to birth rates.

.

Here's an observation of my own. Aren't Jews and Arabs alike both Semites?

Yes. Just look at their noses.

 

[TWA Dude]

My longwinded response, part 3

The Mandate of the League of Nations appears to have indeed intended that the immigrant Jews returning to Zion would assimilate into and become citizens of what was then "Palestine". It makes no reference to the establishment of an "Israeli State" and addresses only a Jewish return to the homeland. Granted the "Arabs" weren't mentioned, but "who" then were the Palestinians living in the region? Even the British must have known they weren't Jews. Were they "foreigners"?

They were a combination of locals and foreigners who came for economic reasons. Most “Palestinians” speak a Syrian dialect of Arabic. BTW, Jordan is ruled by the Hashemites, who are Beduin. Most Beduin in Israel serve in her army and are peaceful.

Where were David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin, Golda Meir and Shimon Peres born (to name only a few)?

Slavic countries. Barak, Sharon, and Netanyahu were born in Israel/Palestine.

Are you implying that Arafat's place of birth somehow makes him less than a Palestinian (as now identified)? Careful, you could be giving credence to my thought in a previous post that most of the Israelis are Jews yes, but "foreigners" as well.

I liked how you mentioned that Moses was born in Egypt. Touche.
My point was that the Arabs of Palestine share no ethnicity indigenous to Palestine. The movie Lawrence of Arabia showed how they were primarily tribal. I am a third-generation American, and before that Eastern Europe, and before that who knows. Am I a foreigner in my own country? Countries are artificial concoctions. The “Palestinians” are merely the Arabs who currently reside there. They have no shared history or culture or language (they speak Syrian dialect Arabic). The Jews have all three. At one point it was argued that “Palestine” already exists and it’s name is Jordan. Guess what? King Hussein didn’t want the West Bank anymore.

"Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force." - Vladimir Jabotinsky, Zionist leader whose picture hangs above the desk of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

The same could be said for any other country.

I would venture to say that claiming "moral high ground" for any of the combatant's leaders is somewhat of an oxymoron. There is nothing moral about any of the killing that's taking place in the region.

Are any wars moral? Killing is bad. My point is that Israel is responding to Palestinian violence. Recall that the PLO was formed in the early Sixties, before the West Bank and Gaza came under Israeli control. They may settle for less than all of Palestine for now because regardless of what PR ploy they may put out about “accepting” the existence of Israel their goal is unchanged.
You may ask, is Palestinian violence justified because they’re a subjugated people who are fighting for freedom? Well, if the American Indians were to band together and begin a war to reclaim America how do you think the world would react? Our enemies would rejoice whilst our allies would recoil. I believe they are entitled to peace but not necessarily to their own country. Autonomy we can all live with as well.

After the cessation of hostilities, (in the 1948 war) the United Nations Human Rights Commission declared that "Israel's grave breaches of the Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in the time of war of 12 August, 1949, are war crimes and an affront against humanity."

I’m gonna walk a tightrope here. While I sincerely wish all countries of the planet could observe the Geneva Conventions the fact is the Arabs do not. Israel is surrounded by Arab countries and was in a literal war for existence. Care to guess what was in store for the Jews had the Arabs won the war in 1948? I’ll stop short of condoning any Israeli violations but at the same time sometimes one must do what’s necessary for survival. This ain’t the U.S. Israel mimics Western ideas as much as possible. Do the Arabs?

"I am a black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, could describe events in South Africa." Archbishop Desmond Tuto - Speech in Israel,1989.

I beg to differ with the Archbishop. The Palestinians haven’t been very good at non-violent protest.

"Let us not today fling accussation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain , in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived." - Moshe Dyan, speaking at the funeral of a Jewish farmer killed by a Palestinian (1956). Has anything changed?

Yes: the level of barbarity.
“Terrorists have a territorial goal they've yet to attain.”

This is a dangerous definition of "terrorism". It could make Sharon a terrorist and Bin Laden a freedom fighter? I don't think that's what you meant. Part of the problem with terrorism is that the world hasn't even agreed on a definition.

I wasn’t trying to fully define the word. You were calling the Nazis terrorists and I was just differentiating between spreading terror for terror’s sake and the modern day terrorists who do in fact have territorial aspirations, be they justified or not.
I don’t deny that the Arabs of Palestine have been mistreated and that it wasn’t “fair” how the Zionists saw to it that Israel came into being. But it didn’t have to happen the way it did. There’s room for everyone to peacefully coexist. The formation of an Arab Palestine won’t solve the problems in the region. There will still be more wars and I argue that Israel won’t be the instigators.
Take care. Salaam Aleicoom.

 

[surplus1]

Re: My longwinded response, part 1

First, I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to have an unemotional discussion like this with someone as well-informed as you.

Thank you so much for the kind words and for your detailed reply. I am enjoying our discussion immensely, perhaps more so than any other exchange that I've had to date in this forum. It is not just the subject matter for I have many intellectual interests and the situation in the Middle East is but one of them. What I'm realy enjoying is that I seem to have found someone with whom I can exchange views, often divergent, on a complex and controversial subject, without creating personal animosity or generating emotional responses removed from the issues. It's been refreshing indeed.

I do however have one regret and several concerns. My regret is that I have not had the pleasure of meeting you and quite probably never will. I wish that I had the opportunity to know you. The concerns are these:

1) We are using a lot of bandwith on a subject that is not aviation related. I try hard to be brief, but complex issues do not lend themselves to brevity and I am very poor at speaking in sound bites.

2) I'm really not sure that others have any interest in this discussion and it has crept far from the original post that created this thread. In my experience, most pilots have short spans of attention and are quickly bored by lengthy discussion of anything that does not somehow revolve around schedules, money or sex (not necessarily in that order).

3) The problem I mentioned in #1 bothers me enough to bring to mind, with respect to my own posts, an exchange that allegedly took place between Messrs. Lincoln and Douglas during their famous debate. Reportedly, after listening quietly and intently to a very long dessertation of his views from Mr. Douglas, Lincoln remarked "Never have I met a man who could put such a small idea into so many words." In spite of my best efforts, I often find myself emulating Douglas. I have little doubt that others think of me as Lincoln did of him.

So, I would very much like to continue our discussion with you and perhaps begin others in which we might have mutual interest. In an effort to find a better way to do that without bothering others, I'm sending you a PM with my email address. If you would like to continue the discussion or any other, you can respond with yours and we'll go on privately. I'm working on a response to your last post now.

If for some reason you would prefer not to continue privately or at all, just let me know and it will not cause offense. We've already said a great deal and I'm not trying to "convince" you of anything nor do I see you as attempting that with me.

Again, it has really been a pleasure and I do hope you will decide to carry on. Thank you.

Best regards,
Surplus1

PS. Wherever you were educated, it was not a waste of time or money.