Assad: Israelis Helping Terrorists

[meryt-tetisheri]

I agree that Mr Walker's analysis seems pretty cold and void of compassion for the results of this crisis but in his defense I doubt he actually feels that way. Truth is that being dispassionate is all that can be done as far as I can see. When the "leader" of the free (for now) world is willing to casually sell so many into bondage and his party are sycophantic and spineless enough to uphold him in this crime then there isn't much that average Americans (or any other westerners) can do. I agree that this whole situation across the M.E. is going from bad to worse and it will hit minorities the hardest in the not so distant future. God help the Copts and any other minority group once the dust settles and an MB government is finally solidified. Indeed, God help us all.

I do not blame, or hold citizens in the West responsible for the foreign policies of their governments (though I hope they would more rigorously question these policies when it becomes obvious that there is a very high price attached, to be paid by hapless others). Syrians are being victimized by rebels as well as their government. It is enough to consider the recent incident of the rebel leader who - unremorsely- ate a human organ to get an idea of the extent they value human life, the 'majority' as well as minorities. Backing such groups is simply sowing the seed of a future long term problem. These regimes always aim to control and indoctrinate future generations and the effects will last for long. Remember that the anti-American attitude and rhetoric did not exist before Nasser's relentless campaign of indoctrination. A worse campaign (politics mingled with religious extremism) will for sure follow the installation of a pan Arab MB government. Ultimately they will turn on their present backers. The cost of geopolitical transparency in this case will end up being paid by the West as well as ME citizens.

Though I married a European, my children will never live in my country of birth, I have but few family members and friends living there; I admit I still fail to be dispassionate about the suffering there. Recently I went to visit Egypt, it was shocking to be in a country where the state is rapidly disintegrating while a government is in place. It is not just the Copts or women who are suffering, the majority of people are restless, disillusioned, and weighed down by loss of jobs, increasing poverty and the totally inept governance of the MB....yet there are those who insist on backing their hold on power! I do not think that politics should be divorced from morality.

[Mr Walker]

take a deep breath and step a little closer Mr Walker .... I promise you won't fall over the edge ...

Of course. I am an optimistic realist. I dont worry about that which I cannot change, but I am optimistic that I can change almost anything. ANd my life vindicates that belief. Then i put my energies into productive change; but as an optimist, rather than adjust my sails, I invent a steam ship.

I am fortunate to have been empowered by my parent's love, trust and respect for me, and their education of me as a person; but also, by my scholarship funded education at a govt school and university, by my own intelligence, discipline, skills and knowledge and (for the last 4 decades) by the power of god within me and around me. All of those things allow me more ability, and more responsibilty, to change "the world" than some others have.

[Mr Walker]

Goodness Mr. Walker! These short term political goals are counter-productive, leading to long-term crisis and conflict for everybody. I am stunned by the view that sacrificing millions of people and condemning them to decades of oppression as mere collateral damage; or that their guaranteed misery and hardship under the yolk of extremists are acceptable price for "geopolitical transparency".

I am giving a geopolitical analysis here. (My university qualifications include geography, international politics, history, sociology and psychology, among other areas)

My wife and i donate about 25 percent of our income each year (now reaching in total about a million dollars over nearly 40 years) to the sorts of people you express concern about.

However the problems of the middle east which cause this despair are complex and connected to the past and present demographics of the area and colonial influences. (The same is/was true for much of the conflict in the continent of Africa last century) Only transparency/honesty in this, and a true understanding of those forces, will enable any lasting solution.

Solutions will not come from war or wishful thinking, only through an accurate understanding of cause and effect and the application of workable solutions Also required is an accurate extrapolation of probable future consequences of any present actions, based on those accurate understandings.

Ps. After the overthrow of assad what sort of government, and hence life, do you expect for the people of syria. One under an al qaeda islamist state? One under a liberal democratic islamist state, or something else? How will the religious and ethnic divisions be reconciled, and what will stop ongoing civil guerrilla war like we see in iraq, between separate islamic faiths. Do you think such countries require a dictatorial govt (either secular or islamist) in order to maintain peace, and how does that reconcile with people's rights to individual freedoms?

Ps in my personal opinion the middle east is like the balkans at the end of the twentieth century but on a much larger scale/ As in that case, a full resolution will require international military and political intervention, and a redefining of national boundaries in the whole region, along more traditional/historic ethnic and religious lines.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Mr Walker

[ciriuslea]

I think we are going to hear more and more propaganda until the Zionists facilitate regime change in Syria, then all attention will focus on Iran. We heard Hague telling parliament recently that British (lol) Jihadists have joined the fighting in Syria and that we (the UK) should support the 'moderates' who are fighting Assads regime...The UK and US have flip flopped over the labelling of these rebels from terrorists to Syrians to insurgents to now moderates...its comical, they keep trying to convince the world Assad is using Chem weapons but the WMD of the 90s has left the world cynical and mistrusting.

[meryt-tetisheri]

I am giving a geopolitical analysis here. (My university qualifications include geography, international politics, history, sociology and psychology, among other areas)

My wife and i donate about 25 percent of our income each year (now reaching in total about a million dollars over nearly 40 years) to the sorts of people you express concern about.

However the problems of the middle east which cause this despair are complex and connected to the past and present demographics of the area and colonial influences. (The same is/was true for much of the conflict in the continent of Africa last century) Only transparency/honesty in this, and a true understanding of those forces, will enable any lasting solution.

Solutions will not come from war or wishful thinking, only through an accurate understanding of cause and effect and the application of workable solutions Also required is an accurate extrapolation of probable future consequences of any present actions, based on those accurate understandings.

Ps. After the overthrow of assad what sort of government, and hence life, do you expect for the people of syria. One under an al qaeda islamist state? One under a liberal democratic islamist state, or something else? How will the religious and ethnic divisions be reconciled, and what will stop ongoing civil guerrilla war like we see in iraq, between separate islamic faiths. Do you think such countries require a dictatorial govt (either secular or islamist) in order to maintain peace, and how does that reconcile with people's rights to individual freedoms?

Ps in my personal opinion the middle east is like the balkans at the end of the twentieth century but on a much larger scale/ As in that case, a full resolution will require international military and political intervention, and a redefining of national boundaries in the whole region, along more traditional/historic ethnic and religious lines.

The bolded part is exactly what is needed but is deplorably absent in the present approach to the ME.

No, I do not think that dictatorial govt is required to maintain peace. The fact that successful democracy existed in the area until 1950s belies this assumption.

[+and-then]

I think we are going to hear more and more propaganda until the Zionists facilitate regime change in Syria, then all attention will focus on Iran. We heard Hague telling parliament recently that British (lol) Jihadists have joined the fighting in Syria and that we (the UK) should support the 'moderates' who are fighting Assads regime...The UK and US have flip flopped over the labelling of these rebels from terrorists to Syrians to insurgents to now moderates...its comical, they keep trying to convince the world Assad is using Chem weapons but the WMD of the 90s has left the world cynical and mistrusting.

I hope that skepticism is well founded. Because if you're wrong and some group sets off some sarin or VX in a crowded public venue in London, Paris or NYC the result is not going to leave any more non believers. Except for those who soothe their own ego's with CT's about everything under the sun. The sickening thing is that the dead will not be collected and counted before people start blaming the west for what is done to us.

[SHaYap]

~snip

.............. and more responsibilty, to change "the world" than some others have.

The world doesn't need you to 'change' it nor are you 'given such responsibilities' for any such change that you seems to think is up to you to decide as 'for the good of all mankind'

The world needs healing ... and what does 'healing' entails Mr Walker ?

think about it .... 'healing' in the most optimistically realistic sense ...

Build me your 'steam ship'

.

[ciriuslea]

I hope that skepticism is well founded. Because if you're wrong and some group sets off some sarin or VX in a crowded public venue in London, Paris or NYC the result is not going to leave any more non believers. Except for those who soothe their own ego's with CT's about everything under the sun. The sickening thing is that the dead will not be collected and counted before people start blaming the west for what is done to us.

Lol you graced my comment with some of your fearmongery in repost, I suspect then that you found some truth in what it said

Please elaborate on just what group do you imagine setting off some Sarin or VX in a major city ? and lets see how you link them to Syria or Iran with any real credibility

But any group could be responsible for an attack like that from anywhere in the world as demonstrated by the Boston attacks.

The facts are plain to see concerning Syria and my comment, its beyond scepticism but when you have the rhetoric YOU display in your comment which is ambiguous at best in its focus, it doesn't actually say anything or serve any real purpose other than to enforce your own agenda which has been played out on this forum time and time and time again to the point that Id have been more shocked if you hadn't smelt the word zionist from the other side of the world

[Mr Walker]

The bolded part is exactly what is needed but is deplorably absent in the present approach to the ME.

No, I do not think that dictatorial govt is required to maintain peace. The fact that successful democracy existed in the area until 1950s belies this assumption.

True, but it is interesting HOW democarcy came to most states in this region

Colonial powers had drawn national boundaries, set up local governments

and introduced electoral systems of political representation in the post-

Ottoman Middle East, including in the monarchies of Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. This

step, in turn, promoted the emergence of modern conceptions of citizenship and

reinforced perceptions of the state as an agent of public welfare. It established new

domains of rights and new forms of political competition for control of mechanisms of mass mobilization including political parties, trade unions and professional associations.

http://faculty.nps.e...ey/JEP_ME_3.pdf

Democracy was an institution introduced from outside, and unfortunately was connected to the "arbitrary' political divison of states and territories, which ignored natural ethnic and religious divides

Prior to the fifties the middle east had one of the lowest levels of socio economic development in the world. Much of the trouble there today grows from the revolutions in social and economic development imposed over a basically religious, patrichal, feudal, and agricultural society, in less than a couple of decades. It took europe centuries to manage this change.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

The world doesn't need you to 'change' it nor are you 'given such responsibilities' for any such change that you seems to think is up to you to decide as 'for the good of all mankind'

The world needs healing ... and what does 'healing' entails Mr Walker ?

think about it .... 'healing' in the most optimistically realistic sense ...

Build me your 'steam ship'

.

Indeed the world needs changing, The first step in changing the world is to change yourself to become all tha toyu can be in every aspect of yourself. Once empowered you can facilitate more change than if you are powerless.

The changes i bring include education for dozens, sanitation and good water supplies for hundreds, food for thousands, a number of small business for for women, shelter for many abused women, as well as protection for animals. EVERY human being, just by being human, has a duty and obligation to make the world a better place than when they entered it. There are many ways an individual can do that, depending on their own abilities skills talents and interests.

Ps i do not act on emotion, but on logic, philosophy, ethics and morality. For me emotions are intelllctual properties which we chose, in order to create the most productive outcomes. No human is bound by their emotions, and anyone can learn to control and use their emotional states for productive purposes. No human has to fear hate envy etc another human being They are choices we learn to make, and we can be educated to remake, so as to love share and feel compassion and empathy for any other human being.

Healing is to make well, to restore to an entity the properties and qualities which it should naturally enjoy, if it was not hurt or damaged or incomplete in some way.

Human needs are clearly identified and known. All humans need many things ,including love, self esteem, purpose, a sense of place space and community, food, water, shelter etc

I can heal others both by meeting their physical needs, then aiding them to meet their own, and by showing them how them to heal and meet their own emotional needs. Once empowered, and free, they can become self sufficient and complete/ healed human beings, no matter where they are.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Black Red Devil]

Well duh! Read some real history for a change and find out. I am coming to the conclusion that you can not possibly be as ignorant as you seem to be about the real world and its real history.

This has to be some really clever propaganda campaign

To your first question only. Israel holds territory larger than the original territory of partition because it was continually and unsuccesfully attacked and invaded by arab forces.

If they had not attacked it Israel would not occupy that territory True or false?

Are you sort of suggesting that, after each attack, major or minor, Israel should turn around and say, " Here bro. I dont want this land and it dont need it to secure my borders. Lets put all the pieces back on the chess piece how they were, so that next time you attack we can start from the same place? I mean it only seems fair to give you this bit of land so your rockets are in range of our major cities and this bit to let your fighters infiltrate our border from it."

Oh yea that's really sensible. And would really contribute to the likelihood of peace. Israel has tried trading back land, won in defending itself, for peace. It gave the land back but the attacks continued . Gee, maybe the israelis dont trust those nice little arab guys. What can you expect from those evil devious jews.They never play fair.

Ps You never spent any time in gitmo did you?

First of all Israel WASN'T ATTACKED FIRST. They conducted a pre-emptive attack and as, I've already provided you with the information in another thread, Israel was under no danger. So unless you're obtuse or a troll, then for the sake of the argument, you need to provide evidence that 1) what I've provided is false and 2) Israel was under danger of an attack. Continuously given your personal opinions as facts by rambling on like a broken record with lengthy posts that mean absolutely NOTHING, isn't contributing to the debate and also, is making you look like a fool.

Second, I see that you've avoided answering my other two questions.

[Mr.United_Nations]

I think we are going to hear more and more propaganda until the Zionists facilitate regime change in Syria, then all attention will focus on Iran. We heard Hague telling parliament recently that British (lol) Jihadists have joined the fighting in Syria and that we (the UK) should support the 'moderates' who are fighting Assads regime...The UK and US have flip flopped over the labelling of these rebels from terrorists to Syrians to insurgents to now moderates...its comical, they keep trying to convince the world Assad is using Chem weapons but the WMD of the 90s has left the world cynical and mistrusting.

Problem is though the Syrians do have Chemical weapons and was confirmed by them last summer

they said they do have them but wont use them against Syrians

[Black Red Devil]

1. 368 examples of hezbollah attacks alone documented by homeland security. link previously supplied

2. In part but there are also internationally recognised acts of terrorism that define terrorism In general defence of a nation state is not, by definition, terrorism. Terrorism Is an act designed mostly to create terror in tha citizens of a population for a politiacl end Rather than a military one Acts of war do NOT have that primary design.

3 We disagree just why those million people died and who is to blame for their deaths.

4. The american people, as a whole, only accept american military intervention where it is justified within their ethical and moral beliefs The american govt cannot act very far beyond its constituents beliefs. So yes. When america goes to war, despite every thing its detractors say it is almost always for altruistic purposes America is one of the worlds great "good guys". if anything it is a bit slow to act and intervene, because its people are generally conservative, isolationist, and non interventionist in foreign policy. It took a lot to get them involved in world war 1 and 2., for example

5. No its not ignorance.

Is it up to a local population to overthrow oppressors, to end child slavery, to stop the sexual enslavement of women ?

Not any more. It is a global and international responsibilty. Countries no longer have the moral or ethicla right to treat their citizens as they wish or to indulge in desrtructive and harmful policies.

The only practical problem is what can efectively be done about it. Bu,t for example a country can ban chocolates made from child labour or garments made by women in sweat shop conditions. Of COURSE we have a right and an obligation to do something to end slavery and oppression, and even animal cruelty How can we not, when we know how much hurt and harm it does?

Despite its flaws my comments about america remain. I live in one of the free-est, most equal, most socially supportive and prosperous countries in the world. I am lucky but i also have an obligation to help all other humans to achieve the same life as i have. Make up your mind. Are you on the side of freedom or oppression.

No. One cant force liberation on people, but one can remove the conditions of oppression and allow them the opportunity to grab freedom.

If you are so naive and gullible as to think that america is an Oppresive force in this world you are on the wrong, and the losing, side in this ongoing battle betwen freedom and oppression.

Do you ever read any books by women from some of those islamic countries who have managed to escape from them?

Ps A negro in america in the 1960s was almost certainly freer than any citizen of the soviet union/bloc, at the same time.

Yes america is not perfect, but like australia it is among the "best" of humanity. It is interesting I find that people who do not honour or like their own countries also tend to lack self esteem and respect and honour for themselves. After all, if you are the citizen of a democracy, then by default you are a part of its system of govt society etc.

"2. In part but there are also internationally recognised acts of terrorism that define terrorism In general defence of a nation state is not, by definition, terrorism. Terrorism Is an act designed mostly to create terror in tha citizens of a population for a politiacl end Rather than a military one Acts of war do NOT have that primary design." The question is simple. Why is Israel supporting "recognised" terrorists??

"3 We disagree just why those million people died and who is to blame for their deaths." Oh really!!?? Please explain why and who's to blame.

"4. The american people, as a whole, only accept american military intervention where it is justified within their ethical and moral beliefs The american govt cannot act very far beyond its constituents beliefs. So yes. When america goes to war, despite every thing its detractors say it is almost always for altruistic purposes America is one of the worlds great "good guys". if anything it is a bit slow to act and intervene, because its people are generally conservative, isolationist, and non interventionist in foreign policy. It took a lot to get them involved in world war 1 and 2., for example"

They accept military intervention where its is justified within their etical and moral beliefs!!! WOW, I say WOW. Obviously you MUST be talking about the Govt, not the people. Secondly, the fact the american people accept or don't accept intervention doesn't justify the act of an intervention. Are you aware there is a thing called International Law? Are you aware the UN has 193 member countries of which, 5 permanent members with vetoeing powers and a further 10 non permanent members chosen from regional groups for a 2 year stint? You are aware of UN resolutions and the Security Council?

5. No its not ignorance.

Is it up to a local population to overthrow oppressors, to end child slavery, to stop the sexual enslavement of women ?

Not any more. It is a global and international responsibilty. Countries no longer have the moral or ethicla right to treat their citizens as they wish or to indulge in desrtructive and harmful policies.

So by your definition above, countries around the world should invade Australia for their Human Rights violation against Aborigines?

My Link

Despite its flaws my comments about america remain. I live in one of the free-est, most equal, most socially supportive and prosperous countries in the world. I am lucky but i also have an obligation to help all other humans to achieve the same life as i have. Make up your mind. Are you on the side of freedom or oppression.

By supporting the Israeli injustices against the Palestinians YOU are supporting oppression. Every Human Rights Organisation in the world recognises their oppression.

No. One cant force liberation on people, but one can remove the conditions of oppression and allow them the opportunity to grab freedom.

If you are so naive and gullible as to think that america is an Oppresive force in this world you are on the wrong, and the losing, side in this ongoing battle betwen freedom and oppression.

Do you ever read any books by women from some of those islamic countries who have managed to escape from them?

So, why isn't America invading Saudi Arabia?

Ps A negro in america in the 1960s was almost certainly freer than any citizen of the soviet union/bloc, at the same time.

Apart from the fact your comparison has NOTHING to do with what you were initially claiming, this statement in itself is disgraceful and shows you are truly an ignorant person.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Black Red Devil

[Mr Walker]

First of all Israel WASN'T ATTACKED FIRST. They conducted a pre-emptive attack and as, I've already provided you with the information in another thread, Israel was under no danger. So unless you're obtuse or a troll, then for the sake of the argument, you need to provide evidence that 1) what I've provided is false and 2) Israel was under danger of an attack. Continuously given your personal opinions as facts by rambling on like a broken record with lengthy posts that mean absolutely NOTHING, isn't contributing to the debate and also, is making you look like a fool.

Second, I see that you've avoided answering my other two questions.

I have come to the conclusion you dont carefully read my responses.

Since its inception, Israel has gained more territory every time it is atacked The six day war is arguably the only time it was not directly atacked and even at that time. It was experiencing ongoing guerrilla and terrorist atacks, and was about to be attacked (as everyone at the time knew) I do not need to give you evidence of what is historically known. I mean do i need to give you evidence that japan attacked america in 1941?

But I did give evidences from history, such as the captured documents outlining jordanian strategic plans for the invasion of israel, and you just ignored them or twisted them to fit your own world view; so what would be the point?

How i look to you is up to you. It isn't my problem it is yours. I KNOW I am not a fool (rather the reverse in factual/statistical terms ) and that is all that matters. lol. I dont give a damn what anyone else thinks of me, but I suspect that given the nature of my posts and arguments, an unbiased person would not consider me a fool. I suspect you think anyone who disagrees with you is a fool. Again that is your problem not mine.

Israel was, and remains, under threat of extermination, based on both the ongoing actions of arab states and groups, and on their declared intentions. Take the mission statement of hezbollah for example, which explicitly says its aim is the elimination of Israel. Your statement makes YOU look foolish, because it is so evidently and obviously factually untrue. I've not answered your other questions because they are so ridiculous as to be unworthy of answering. They again represent a completely biased and rather foolish view of history

Ps responding to "silly" statements to try and set the record straight isnt trolling; but presenting such statements when they are so obviously untrue and biased might be construed as such. Many of your comments appear to have a purpose of disinformation and propaganda, and because they are untrue, that can be the only purpose for propagating them.

Your other two questions

• If the US isn't militarily aggressive as you claim, how come they've invaded Vietnam and Iraq through lies and they've illegally invaded and occupied countries such as Panama and Grenada all in the last 50 years, just to name a few. The CIA has been involved in all sorts of illegal activities since WWII. Answer....
  
• They want to secure the integrity of their borders? I thought their borders were with Mexico and Canada? What are they doing in the ME? Who made the US the police of the world? Answer....
  
• 
  
• Again i honestly dont know if you are naive, ignorant or deiberately deceptive. AMerica went into south vietnam to defend the south against communism. Communism is an evil form of govt and this was demonstrated clearly and historically before vietnam. America (and many other democracies) did the right thing in trying to defend south vietnam (as it did the right thing in succesfully defending the southern half of Korea) but was eventually constrained in wining the war by public opinion and propaganda. Australia still has as citizens many vietnamese who fled vietnam to esape concetration camps or death.
  
• 
  
• And WHY did america invade those countries?
  
• 
  
• The cia is not representative of american governance nor its people. Personally i accept the need for such an organisation to fight enemies of a country. The antecedents go back to the "great game" in the 1800s; and to intelligence agencies during world war 1 and 2, whose efforts went a long way to winning those wars.
  
• 
  
• Read up on modern interational strategic objectives. To defend the borders of a modern state, such defence must extend well beyond those borders. It has been known for centuries that trade routes must be defended, as must allies, but today there are many other threats, such as terrorism and migration which must be acted on well outside national boundaries.
  
• 9/11 should have taught that to any american previously unaware of it. If you begin your strategic defence at your borders, you cannot succesfuly defend them.
  

Edited May 21, 2013 by Mr Walker

[SHaYap]

Indeed the world needs changing, The first step in changing the world is to change yourself to become all tha toyu can be in every aspect of yourself. Once empowered you can facilitate more change than if you are powerless.

~snip

How does one change something that is unhealed ? Does this change heals as it changes things ?

Does healing comes first is what I'm curious of here .... because if it is not healed, the changes means for naught ... it is just superficial, much alike you in many instances of your desire for changes towards a 'better world for all'.

This Steam Ship of yours flounders on the waves ....

~edit : tiredness

Edited May 21, 2013 by third_eye

[Mr Walker]

"2. In part but there are also internationally recognised acts of terrorism that define terrorism In general defence of a nation state is not, by definition, terrorism. Terrorism Is an act designed mostly to create terror in tha citizens of a population for a politiacl end Rather than a military one Acts of war do NOT have that primary design." The question is simple. Why is Israel supporting "recognised" terrorists??

"3 We disagree just why those million people died and who is to blame for their deaths." Oh really!!?? Please explain why and who's to blame.

They accept military intervention where its is justified within their etical and moral beliefs!!! WOW, I say WOW. Obviously you MUST be talking about the Govt, not the people. Secondly, the fact the american people accept or don't accept intervention doesn't justify the act of an intervention. Are you aware there is a thing called International Law? Are you aware the UN has 193 member countries of which, 5 permanent members with vetoeing powers and a further 10 non permanent members chosen from regional groups for a 2 year stint? You are aware of UN resolutions and the Security Council?

So by your definition above, countries around the world should invade Australia for their Human Rights violation against Aborigines?

My Link

By supporting the Israeli injustices against the Palestinians YOU are supporting oppression. Every Human Rights Organisation in the world recognises their oppression.

So, why isn't America invading Saudi Arabia?

Apart from the fact your comparison has NOTHING to do with what you were initially claiming, this statement in itself is disgraceful and shows you are truly an ignorant person.

First I cant respond to the post as you set it out Second it isnt worth responding to

One thing. Today aborigines are not subject to human rights violations.

In the past they were and it was an evil thing; but one can't apply the conditions or values of the past to today In the past no one would have suggested international intervention because our treatment of aboriginal peole was the human norm.

Today yes the UN would be justified to apply sanctions, and if the need was bad enough to intervene militarily. Unfortunately the UN has no armed forces of its own and is subject to veto on its actions by permanent members of the security council. That prevents it from being an effective world policeman. Sovereign countries and alliances of sovereign countries do not suffer from such limitations. The oppression of palestinians is a direct logical consequence of historical and present arab actions and threats against Israel.

I oppose those actions and threats. If they ceased, so would most of the oppression of the Palestinian people.

Please explain howa factually correct statement can be disgraceful or display ignorance.

Do you have the slightest clue about living conditions and oppression in the stalinist states after ww11. How many people were executed or died in giulags/work camps? How many people were forcibly relocated within countries and across countries? How many people were tortured by the secret police? You could not move or do anything in a communist state without govt consent. I stand by the accuracy of my statement.

A negro could move around the country, work in a place he chose, own his own land etc A citizen of the soviet union could do none of those things. Even today a chinese person cannot marry or have a child without a permit and they are prevented from marrying into different ethnic groups.

Oh and ps the arabs are to blame for those deaths and the refugees, because they instigated each phase of the arab israeli conflict. Their motivations (good or bad) are irrelevant to this fact. It was they who caused the casualties and the refugees. Without constant and ongoing arab aggression there would be no casualties and far far fewer refugees because there would be no conflict..

If you feel the casualties and refugees are justifiable "collateral damage" in the struggle to "free palestine then have the guts to come out and say so. The arabs go one worse. They describe such innocent arab victims of their own aggression as "martyrs" That is truly obscene but it explains a bit about the psychology behind the arab mindset, and why, to them, conflict is a good thing rather than an evil thing..

Its a bit "last millenia" for my taste but oh well.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Black Red Devil]

I have come to the conclusion you dont carefully read my responses.

Since its inception, Israel has gained more territory every time it is atacked The six day war is arguably the only time it was not directly atacked and even at that time. It was experiencing ongoing guerrilla and terrorist atacks, and was about to be attacked (as everyone at the time knew) I do not need to give you evidence of what is historically known. I mean do i need to give you evidence that japan attacked america in 1941?

But I did give evidences from history, such as the captured documents outlining jordanian strategic plans for the invasion of israel, and you just ignored them or twisted them to fit your own world view; so what would be the point?

I'm not interested in your comparisons with Pearl Harbor. You need to contravene my statements by showing evidence that Israel was attacked first and all you've done is go around in circles, rambled on like you usually do, and showed me nothing.

Your claim there was ongoing guerrilla and terrorist attacks had nothing to do with Egypt.

So, in summary, you have no evidence to your claims!!

How i look to you is up to you. It isn't my problem it is yours. I KNOW I am not a fool (rather the reverse in factual/statistical terms ) and that is all that matters. lol. I dont give a damn what anyone else thinks of me, but I suspect that given the nature of my posts and arguments, an unbiased person would not consider me a fool. I suspect you think anyone who disagrees with you is a fool. Again that is your problem not mine.

You're problem is you don't know enough, although you like to keep on reminding us of your qualifications. You NEVER can provide evidence to your claims, as just proven above. Despite this, you continue on with your barrage of useless and biased posts.

Here's something for you to contemplate on:

• Under their partition plan, more than half of the territory went to the minority Jews, who owned just seven percent of the land (while 85 percent was owned by Arabs).
  
• Contrary to popular myth, Israel was not created by the U.N. Israel was born in 1948, when the Zionist leadership unilaterally declared its existence. The neighboring Arab states took up arms against the newly declared state in the war known to Israelis as the “War of Independence”.
  
• During the war, 700,000 Arabs were either driven from their homes or fled out of fear of further massacres such as had occurred at the village of Deir Yassin shortly prior to the Zionist declaration.
  
• Although their right of return is guaranteed under international law, Israel has refused to allow those who fled and their descendents to return to what is rightfully their own land.
  
• Since WWII there is a thing called Territorial integrity. Look it up on Wiki. Border changes and annexing territory such as the West Bank (building of settlements), Golan Hts post six day war is illegal under international law.
  

Since you've declared yourself to be a humanitarian, do you see anything wrong in this humanitarian injustice?

Israel was, and remains, under threat of extermination, based on both the ongoing actions of arab states and groups, and on their declared intentions. Take the mission statement of hezbollah for example, which explicitly says its aim is the elimination of Israel. Your statement makes YOU look foolish, because it is so evidently and obviously factually untrue. I've not answered your other questions because they are so ridiculous as to be unworthy of answering. They again represent a completely biased and rather foolish view of history

This is a typical example of what I'm talking about. You can't provide answers or evidence.

Ps responding to "silly" statements to try and set the record straight isnt trolling; but presenting such statements when they are so obviously untrue and biased might be construed as such. Many of your comments appear to have a purpose of disinformation and propaganda, and because they are untrue, that can be the only purpose for propagating them.

Disinformation and propaganda? Well prove me wrong then. Not interested in your personal opinions or pedigree. Provide evidence that my five bullit points above are wrong!!!

[Mr Walker]

How does one change something that is unhealed ? Does this change heals as it changes things ?

Does healing comes first is what I'm curious of here .... because if it is not healed, the changes means for naught ... it is just superficial, much alike you in many instances of your desire for changes towards a 'better world for all'.

This Steam Ship of yours flounders on the waves ....

~edit : tiredness

Plese try to be more specific in your questions. I have already (i believe) answered this question.

Healing of course can only occur if change occurs. Something ill or incomplete can only be cured by changing its existing state.

One heals by first identifying the wrongness or incompleteness in an entity. ie one determines how a "perfect" or optimally functioning specimen would be. Then one takes action to restore the entity which requires healing to its complete and full potential, so that it is all it can be. After that it is up to the entity to do with its now fully functioning body as it will.

The only way to create a better world is to heal humans so that they are as they are meant to be, and able to fulfill all the potential within them.

A fully healed human does not hate, or fear, or envy, or despise. These are illnesss of e human body and spirit/mind.

A fully healed human does not put self above others, or see others as enemies and competitors. They learn to fully utilise their minds and to put aside primitive, evolved emotional responses, and biological imperatives, and utilise logic and rational thought.

No such a person would force another being to have sex with it, or harm another being without good cause. No such a being would consume so much of a society's or planet's resources that they endangered the lives of others who could not share those resources. .

No such a person would seek or act on personal advantage which harmed another.

It is complex but we have to make a start, or the human race will not survive.

[SHaYap]

~snip

It is complex but we have to make a start, or the human race will not survive.

With or without you ?

note :

YOu have too much on your plate now ... you're drooling all over the place ... I'll catch up with you when you have the time to set your thoughts in order.

Now you're just painting by filling in the numbered spots. Its not a picture I care to see.

~cheers~

[Mr Walker]

I'm not interested in your comparisons with Pearl Harbor. You need to contravene my statements by showing evidence that Israel was attacked first and all you've done is go around in circles, rambled on like you usually do, and showed me nothing.

Your claim there was ongoing guerrilla and terrorist attacks had nothing to do with Egypt.

So, in summary, you have no evidence to your claims!!

You're problem is you don't know enough, although you like to keep on reminding us of your qualifications. You NEVER can provide evidence to your claims, as just proven above. Despite this, you continue on with your barrage of useless and biased posts.

Here's something for you to contemplate on:

• Under their partition plan, more than half of the territory went to the minority Jews, who owned just seven percent of the land (while 85 percent was owned by Arabs).
  
• Contrary to popular myth, Israel was not created by the U.N. Israel was born in 1948, when the Zionist leadership unilaterally declared its existence. The neighboring Arab states took up arms against the newly declared state in the war known to Israelis as the “War of Independence”.
  
• During the war, 700,000 Arabs were either driven from their homes or fled out of fear of further massacres such as had occurred at the village of Deir Yassin shortly prior to the Zionist declaration.
  
• Although their right of return is guaranteed under international law, Israel has refused to allow those who fled and their descendents to return to what is rightfully their own land.
  
• Since WWII there is a thing called Territorial integrity. Look it up on Wiki. Border changes and annexing territory such as the West Bank (building of settlements), Golan Hts post six day war is illegal under international law.
  

Since you've declared yourself to be a humanitarian, do you see anything wrong in this humanitarian injustice?

This is a typical example of what I'm talking about. You can't provide answers or evidence.

Disinformation and propaganda? Well prove me wrong then. Not interested in your personal opinions or pedigree. Provide evidence that my five bullit points above are wrong!!!

Pointless. I already gave you a link to the "mission statement" of hezbollah, yet you claim I gave no evidence. You are playing a game where you want to set the rules to your advantage.

But i do not need to play by your rules. "The game" is already won in factual historical terms. All i need to do is make sure that other readers are aware of your bias, misinformation, and propagandist attempts to change the score and comentary, after the game has long finished

Each of the points you make is either only partly true or actually incomplet and untrue or irrelevant

take the first point

• Under their partition plan, more than half of the territory went to the minority Jews, who owned just seven percent of the land (while 85 percent was owned by Arabs).
  

Yup About the only thing youve got right. And if arabs and jews had both accepted that international arrangement that is ALL the land Israel would now ocupy. The problem is you (like the arabs) do not accpet that arrangement. Well tough. It was the result of international agreement and the jews did accepet it (despitete some mutterings by some)

All the consequent conflict has directly flowed from that arab refusal, and each conflict has lost them more land and territory.

Shoud israel give most of that land back? Sure but only in return for ironclad guarntees, enorced by miltary power that ALL attacks on its territory and people around the world will cease. Withot such guarantees a defacto state of war continues and the territory remains a bargaining chip until a peace is negotiated.

[ciriuslea]

Problem is though the Syrians do have Chemical weapons and was confirmed by them last summer

they said they do have them but wont use them against Syrians

2+2=7

[Mr Walker]

With or without you ?

note :

YOu have too much on your plate now ... you're drooling all over the place ... I'll catch up with you when you have the time to set your thoughts in order.

Now you're just painting by filling in the numbered spots. Its not a picture I care to see.

~cheers~

I'm doing my best to answer some pretty esoteric questions. For what ever reason you are not giving me any intelligible feed back to work with.

No; i wont be here much longer, but I've already done more than my bit to make the world a better place. My conscience is clear.

I am still evolving growing, inreasing my potential and my ability to help others. My thoughts are among the most ordered known to man. I work had to make them so, and to keep them so. And I do not drool at all, except sometimes while asleep and dreaming of my wife.

Lastly, any problem you have with art appreciation is yours, not mine.

Sleep tight and dont let the bed bugs bite.

[Black Red Devil]

First I cant respond to the post as you set it out Second it isnt worth responding to

So what are you even doing commenting in this thread? The thread is about Israel helping terrorists and you don't have an answer or evidence this is untrue?

One thing. Today aborigines are not subject to human rights violations.

In the past they were and it was an evil thing; but one can't apply the conditions or values of the past to today In the past no one would have suggested international intervention because our treatment of aboriginal peole was the human norm.

So you just ignored the HR link I provided and give your personal opinion again!!

Today yes the UN would be justified to apply sanctions, and if the need was bad enough to intervene militarily. Unfortunately the UN has no armed forces of its own and is subject to veto on its actions by permanent members of the security council. That prevents it from being an effective world policeman. Sovereign countries and alliances of sovereign countries do not suffer from such limitations. The oppression of palestinians is a direct logical consequence of historical and present arab actions and threats against Israel.

The UN has no armed forces? There goes your theory "that it is a global and international responsibilty to stop oppression."!! So WHO is it up to?

I oppose those actions and threats. If they ceased, so would most of the oppression of the Palestinian people.

Now YOU ARE justifying oppression. Which is it Mr Walker???

Please explain howa factually correct statement can be disgraceful or display ignorance.

You are comparing racial discrimination and segregation of a minority group against the acts of a ruling party ideology against all it's population. Try using some of your grey matter. Whats worst, to be considered an inferior human being by the governing laws of a country or state you were born in or to be an equal citizen of a country who's lost certain democratic freedom by an extreme ideology?

Do you have the slightest clue about living conditions and oppression in the stalinist states after ww11. How many people were executed or died in giulags/work camps? How many people were forcibly relocated within countries and across countries? How many people were tortured by the secret police? You could not move or do anything in a communist state without govt consent. I stand by the accuracy of my statement.

A negro could move around the country, work in a place he chose, own his own land etc A citizen of the soviet union could do none of those things. Even today a chinese person cannot marry or have a child without a permit and they are prevented from marrying into different ethnic groups.

You stand by your statement? Disgraceful!! Go and re-read your civil war statement and then explain what any of the above has to do with it. What are you trying to compare, that discrimination against blacks didn't occur because your rule of judgement is the Stailinist treatment of Russians? ARE YOU FOR REAL!!

Oh and ps the arabs are to blame for those deaths and the refugees, because they instigated each phase of the arab israeli conflict. Their motivations (good or bad) are irrelevant to this fact. It was they who caused the casualties and the refugees. Without constant and ongoing arab aggression there would be no casualties and far far fewer refugees because there would be no conflict..

If you feel the casualties and refugees are justifiable "collateral damage" in the struggle to "free palestine then have the guts to come out and say so. The arabs go one worse. They describe such innocent arab victims of their own aggression as "martyrs" That is truly obscene but it explains a bit about the psychology behind the arab mindset, and why, to them, conflict is a good thing rather than an evil thing..

Its a bit "last millenia" for my taste but oh well.

[sIGH] Mr Walker, Mr Walker..

[Black Red Devil]

Pointless. I already gave you a link to the "mission statement" of hezbollah, yet you claim I gave no evidence. You are playing a game where you want to set the rules to your advantage.

But i do not need to play by your rules. "The game" is already won in factual historical terms. All i need to do is make sure that other readers are aware of your bias, misinformation, and propagandist attempts to change the score and comentary, after the game has long finished

Each of the points you make is either only partly true or actually incomplet and untrue or irrelevant

take the first point

• Under their partition plan, more than half of the territory went to the minority Jews, who owned just seven percent of the land (while 85 percent was owned by Arabs).
  

Yup About the only thing youve got right. And if arabs and jews had both accepted that international arrangement that is ALL the land Israel would now ocupy. The problem is you (like the arabs) do not accpet that arrangement. Well tough. It was the result of international agreement and the jews did accepet it (despitete some mutterings by some)

All the consequent conflict has directly flowed from that arab refusal, and each conflict has lost them more land and territory.

Shoud israel give most of that land back? Sure but only in return for ironclad guarntees, enorced by miltary power that ALL attacks on its territory and people around the world will cease. Withot such guarantees a defacto state of war continues and the territory remains a bargaining chip until a peace is negotiated.

Wow, you've given me a mission statement from Hezbolah. This, in your opinion, has justified all the aggression and oppression of Palestinians. LOL

What are you trying to do, show who that I'm misinforming what? HAHAHA. You haven't provided an ounce of evidence or been able to counter-reply to anything I've provided you with. Like A little wind up toy you just keep on repeating the same senseless gibberish hogwash.

But how about this:

About the only thing youve got right. And if arabs and jews had both accepted that international arrangement that is ALL the land Israel would now ocupy.

Did you miss my bullet point above?

• During the war, 700,000 Arabs were either driven from their homes or fled out of fear of further massacres such as had occurred at the village of Deir Yassin shortly prior to the Zionist declaration.
  

How about the breaches of international law?

Whats wrong Mr Walker, aren't you the big expert professor with multiple Degrees. Can't you answer the questions?

Edited May 21, 2013 by Black Red Devil

[+and-then]

Lol you graced my comment with some of your fearmongery in repost, I suspect then that you found some truth in what it said

Please elaborate on just what group do you imagine setting off some Sarin or VX in a major city ? and lets see how you link them to Syria or Iran with any real credibility

But any group could be responsible for an attack like that from anywhere in the world as demonstrated by the Boston attacks.

The facts are plain to see concerning Syria and my comment, its beyond scepticism but when you have the rhetoric YOU display in your comment which is ambiguous at best in its focus, it doesn't actually say anything or serve any real purpose other than to enforce your own agenda which has been played out on this forum time and time and time again to the point that Id have been more shocked if you hadn't smelt the word zionist from the other side of the world

The Boston attack was with simple chemical explosives in a pressure cooker. Simple but deadly, as we saw. Governments build much more elaborate toys. If ANY group gets them due to the government of Syria falling and they are used against a western city will it matter who did it at that point? Are you so wrapped in the defense of whatever your beliefs are that you cannot see the truth of what I said? Or do you simply believe that everything is some conspiracy and there is never any real danger from the people who have vowed to destroy us? If that is true then you are foolish at best. For my concerns to be valid I must be able to write chapter and verse on the identities of any group of individuals who might be able to obtain (buy, steal, find lying in rubble) a chemical artillery shell or bomb or missile? Or do you imagine that in the chaos of this war, there is some chain of control for these weapons that is unbreakable?