|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| he intentions of Israel or Hezbollah in regards to ideology are different things and a different topic, and I suggest we start another thread to deal with that, or, perhaps, I am just being too anal retentive and believe that subject of terrorism and the ideology of organisations are different matters. However, you and Gopher want to deal with that. That is fair, but it doesn't deal directly whether an action is wanton destruction of civilian instructure and the taking of lives |
I agree with many of your points or a least understand why you see things as you do as same goes for Gang Ah Jee.
However, intentions always count. During the Korean war the US did a lot of bad things. Wrong yes. Does it make the US like the North Koreans no. |
I am sure I agreed with yours, and I said so. I said on the point of committing war crimes against civilians both sides have done it. I think many agree with that.
If you are saying that Israel agrees with the right of a Palestinian state to exist whatever that means and Hezbollah does not even believe in negotiations with Israel unlike Hamas, then you are right. Hezbollah in its somewhat isolation with dealing with Israelis on a day to day basis doesn't have to deal with the pressures from Palestinians who are used to Israelis.
As far as who counts, it is the Israelis and the Arabs. Both the Arabs and Israelis see that both have committed evils against them. Israel has lived under seige fighting its enemies and its enemies have been under seige. You would be hard pressed to convince Lebanese people whether Christian or Muslim that Israel is the equivalent of the U.S. in the Korean War and Hezbollah is the equivalent of the communist North Koreans.
It is relative to whether you are Israeli or Lebanese. Even the Lebanese who really detest Hezbollah do not like Israel at all. It is not that clear cut of good guy versus bad guy. It is easier to say they both killed civilians, but once you start arguing on board on which group is more moral than the other we end up in Byzantine discussions.
We can agree that Syria needs to be pressured to abide by the UN Resolution especially if they want the Golan according to a UN resolution.
Hezbollah needs to be restrained, and Hamas must restrain itself and Israel needs to try to reach out as well. Finger pointing between Arabs and Jews doesn't solve anything. The Saudis know it, the Israelis know it.
Some of us know it, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
| he intentions of Israel or Hezbollah in regards to ideology are different things and a different topic, and I suggest we start another thread to deal with that, or, perhaps, I am just being too anal retentive and believe that subject of terrorism and the ideology of organisations are different matters. However, you and Gopher want to deal with that. That is fair, but it doesn't deal directly whether an action is wanton destruction of civilian instructure and the taking of lives |
I agree with many of your points or a least understand why you see things as you do as same goes for Gang Ah Jee.
However, intentions always count. During the Korean war the US did a lot of bad things. Wrong yes. Does it make the US like the North Koreans no. |
I am sure I agreed with yours, and I said so. I said on the point of committing war crimes against civilians both sides have done it. I think many agree with that.
If you are saying that Israel agrees with the right of a Palestinian state to exist whatever that means and Hezbollah does not even believe in negotiations with Israel unlike Hamas, then you are right. Hezbollah in its somewhat isolation with dealing with Israelis on a day to day basis doesn't have to deal with the pressures from Palestinians who are used to Israelis.
As far as who counts, it is the Israelis and the Arabs. Both the Arabs and Israelis see that both have committed evils against them. Israel has lived under seige fighting its enemies and its enemies have been under seige. You would be hard pressed to convince Lebanese people whether Christian or Muslim that Israel is the equivalent of the U.S. in the Korean War and Hezbollah is the equivalent of the communist North Koreans.
It is relative to whether you are Israeli or Lebanese. Even the Lebanese who really detest Hezbollah do not like Israel at all. It is not that clear cut of good guy versus bad guy. It is easier to say they both killed civilians, but once you start arguing on board on which group is more moral than the other we end up in Byzantine discussions.
We can agree that Syria needs to be pressured to abide by the UN Resolution especially if they want the Golan according to a UN resolution.
Hezbollah needs to be restrained, and Hamas must restrain itself and Israel needs to try to reach out as well. Finger pointing between Arabs and Jews doesn't solve anything. The Saudis know it, the Israelis know it.
Some of us know it, too.
I will start a thread to deal with this issue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
And you have crossed the line between criticism and antisemitism before. And I caught you, and the whole thread got deleted. |
Frankly that is utter bollocks. I have never written anything anti-semitic, except in your silly subjective little mind. I have no idea why that thread was deleted - I was away for a few days and suddenly it was gone - possibly nambucaveman practising his novel ideas of moderating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, no. Let me help you.
You said that the poor of Israel were legit targets, or deserved death or 'what they got' or similar because they were the ones supporting Likud or the IDF (I can't remember the specifics).
What you did was advocated collective ethnic responsibility. The poor Jews, you figure, support "X", and as "X" is bad (in your subjective mind) the poor Jews get what they deserve. This is like me saying that poor ethnic Koreans in NK deserve to die because they support KJI. It is ethnic and class responsibility, which though not racism strictly (Jews aren't a race) is ethnic essentialism. I don't think you are able to really understand this, though. You made two bigoted statements. First, poor Jews are dominantly who support "x". Second, that these Jews are deserving of collective punishment.
The thread got deleted because your comments constituted hate filled crap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Well, no. Let me help you.
You said that the poor of Israel were legit targets, or deserved death or 'what they got' or similar because they were the ones supporting Likud or the IDF (I can't remember the specifics).
What you did was advocated collective ethnic responsibility. The poor Jews, you figure, support "X", and as "X" is bad (in your subjective mind) the poor Jews get what they deserve. This is like me saying that poor ethnic Koreans in NK deserve to die because they support KJI. It is ethnic and class responsibility, which though not racism strictly (Jews aren't a race) is ethnic essentialism. I don't think you are able to really understand this, though. You made two bigoted statements. First, poor Jews are dominantly who support "x". Second, that these Jews are deserving of collective punishment.
The thread got deleted because your comments constituted hate filled crap. |
I don't actually remember writing that. If I did write anything remotely like that you have surely twisted it and interpreted it in the most ugly way.
I do remember however that around that time, someone was hacking into my posts and changing them. A thread I started about a child's hospital treatment was changed to "Who is the biggest jerk on this Forum" aand I had to explain to the mods that it had nothing to do with me. They told me to change my password because of it and it stopped. Therefore, if there was a genuinely nasty anti-semitic post around that time seemingly written by Big_Bird, I would not be entirely surprised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough.
To be honest, I don't tend to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism but I am sensitive when a line is crossed. You are obviously well within your rights to criticize Israel provided you don't allude to a characteristic inherent in the Jew that leads to a certain outcome or behavior. If you didn't cross that line, then I have no beef with you, other than thinking you are a blow-hard lefty Euro-sissy. But that is just politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Fair enough.
To be honest, I don't tend to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism but I am sensitive when a line is crossed. You are obviously well within your rights to criticize Israel provided you don't allude to a characteristic inherent in the Jew that leads to a certain outcome or behavior. If you didn't cross that line, then I have no beef with you, other than thinking you are a blow-hard lefty Euro-sissy. But that is just politics. |
Good. I'm glad that's settled then. I don't see that Israel is unusually bad as far as nations go (and have gone throughout history). What interests me is the extraordinary double standard that is applied to that conflict. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I fail to see how that constitutes a double standard. Firstly since trade unions boycotted South African apartheid, surely a double standard would be practiced if they did not boycot Israeli apartheid. Secondly, since there is an currently economic blockade targetting Palestinians (assisted by the EU), why would a boycott of Israeli goods by a (Europe based) trade union be considered the result of a double standard.
Now if the Palestinians were occupying part of Israel (lets not forget Israel is occupying all of Palestine) and the trade union boycotted Israel but not the Palestinians, now that would be a double standard wouldn't it. But since the Palestinians are not doing any such thing, the double standard can't be tested can it?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Big_Bird"]
| Quote: |
| I fail to see how that constitutes a double standard. Firstly since trade unions boycotted South African apartheid, surely a double standard would be practiced if they did not boycot Israeli apartheid. Secondly, since there is an currently economic blockade targetting Palestinians (assisted by the EU), why would a boycott of Israeli goods by a (Europe based) trade union be considered the result of a double standard. |
why not boycott the products of nations with a worse human rights record?
| Quote: |
| Now if the Palestinians were occupying part of Israel (lets not forget Israel is occupying all of Palestine) and the trade union boycotted Israel but not the Palestinians, now that would be a double standard wouldn't it. But since the Palestinians are not doing any such thing, the double standard can't be tested can it? |
What are the borders of Palestine. Why is Jordon not occupying Palestine.
By the way the Israels enemies in 1948 tried to expel or kill the Jews of the area. IF they did that why ought arab jews trust them not to do so again?
I am not against a Palestinian nation but why is Jordan not included in the borders? Besides
Didn't Arab nations persecute their jewish populations. Why not sancitons against them.?
Also why is their no call by the trade union for the Palestinian side to guarantee that they won't attack Israel if they withdraw?
Both sides are enaged in a war so why only sanctions on one side? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This article (currently doing the rounds) is quite pertinent to this thread:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=12514
| Quote: |
| In the so-called war on �terror� the most powerful weapon being deployed is the word itself. In the post-9/11 geo-political climate, throwing in the word �terrorist� automatically mutes coherent and critical debate. Any valid and necessary criticisms of North American governments and their foreign policy are silenced and demonized with the use of that one word, while opposition to foreign invasion and imperialist plundering can be at once quelled and criminalized by deeming it terrorist. |
| Quote: |
| Professor Mordechai Gordon, who served in the Israeli Defense Force in the 1980s, stresses that we must always be cognizant that the word "terrorism"/"terrorist" is itself defined in such a way as to serve the interests of those who hold power. |
| Quote: |
Hezbollah fights imperialism rather than assisting it. This is part of the reason it is demonized and officially labeled terrorist. It is interesting to note that three of the four countries that have officially listed both Hezbollah�s military and political wing as terrorist, Canada, Israel and the USA, (Netherlands is the fourth) also have the most to gain in the Western oil-grab and destabilization of the region. If Hezbollah assisted the imperialist project like so many paramilitary groups in Latin America and elsewhere, trained by the (former) School of the Americas in the US, then they would be the allies of North America not its enemy. Let us not forget than in the Middle East and elsewhere today�s villains and terrorists were once the allies and lackeys of the US and the west. These include Manuel Noriega of Panama, Chile�s Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, and the ultimate bogeyman--Osama Bin Laden. All were at one time strategic allies of the US and on the CIA payroll. When they served their purpose or turned on their master, they were all hunted, tried or killed as villains and terrorists. The Israeli government originally funded even Hamas in a backfire attempt to split the Palestinians. And the opposite is also true: yesterday�s �terrorists� are today�s beacons of justice and resistance. At one time Canada considered Nelson Mandela and the ANC terrorists for their armed resistance against Apartheid in South Africa. But in 2001 Mandela became the first person ever to be awarded honorary Canadian citizenship. Canadians must not succumb to historical amnesia and forget the contradictions of the past!
This is not to suggest that Hezbollah is not engaged in violence, it is. But if the terrorist list were actually about the cessation of violence, then Israel and its state terrorism of the last 60 years would clearly be at the top, so would the US for that matter. In truth, imperialist states like Canada are not opposed to violence. Indeed no state or government is, or else they would not enter or fund wars. What they are opposed to, is any form of violence that threatens their interests rather than supporting them. In the end �terrorism� as employed today is but a lofty word applied to discredit your enemy. Indeed to Hezbollah, the Arab/Muslim world, and many critics in the west, Israel and the US (and increasingly Canada)--the oppressors and occupiers-- are considered to be terrorists. But the former has little power so their perspective is meaningless in a world run on realpolitik. Until we are ready to apply the word to all those who perpetrate violence, and until we are willing to differentiate honestly and justly between those who oppress and those who resist, then the word �terrorist� or �terrorism� is a meaningless and self-serving trap and diversion.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fine, let's not call Hezbollah terrorists, lest we upset Big Bird.
Here we have a paramilitary organization funded and armed by hostile foreign powers which has destabilized the nascent independent Lebanese democracy. I say hostile foreign powers because one of the foreign powers was involved in the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, and the other one uses proxy warfare in order to protect its illegal nuclear weapons program and menace the Western world.
This paramilitary organization launched a unilateral attack (well, I think its sponsors may have approved) on Israeli civilian territory following a border raid.
In addition, Lebanon has asked Hezbollah to disarm. They claim their armaments should not be in civilian hands, and they are not a registered government body. Their act is deemed 'criminal.'
-----------------------
But in fact, what does the word 'criminal' really mean? I find it is often used to stifle debate. All too often in many governments around the world, an arcane ceremony is held and a group of 12 or so people decide on behalf of the nation whether or not someone is guilty of contrevening certain 'laws.' Here's the kicker: these laws are dictated by a body of a few people who claim to act on the interests of the entire nation!
In this case, we don't even have the arcane ceremony. This body of a few people decided, and its a minor point that many Lebanese agree, that Hezbollah should disarm. They view Hezbollah's right to carry arms as a violation of these 'laws.' Isn't that a conflict of interest that this body of people can decide who is criminal and who is not? I think it stifles debate, particularly the kind of debate at which Hezbollah excels, and in which it engaged Israel last Summer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cosmo
Joined: 09 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fine, let's not call Hezbollah terrorists, lest we upset Big Bird. |
When in denial, create euphemisms  employ revisionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_denial
Terrorism denial From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Denying terrorism is not necessarily the act of denying that terrorism exists, but rather the kind of revisionism which partially suggests that acts of terrorism may be justified, or through euphemism conceals the atrocity of those acts. It is a very widely used de facto prejudice.
Such recognized terrorist [1] organizations as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, ETA, Irgun, Kach, Provisional Irish Republican Army etc. are commonly labeled by their supporters as a political organization or militant group. The denial has roots in prejudice, or at least in severely biased coverage.
Designations as a terrorist group
Numerous governments and non-governmental organizations, specifically the media, have different standards which define what groups or organizations are considered terrorist groups. For example, the US air force has one list with discrepancies from the US state department list, and the Israeli ICT maintains a separate list. There is no uniform consensus on how to label an individual group, or whether or not the actions of a state qualify the state as a "terrorist state".
Methods of revisionism
When seeking to revise the narrative about a particular group, members or sympathizers of a group will campaign to:
Equate the actions of the enemies of the terrorists as terroristic too (in many cases this may be true).
Have references about the group labeled in a specific euphemistic way
Have items of historical fact removed from the narrative about the group
Insert additional information to distract from being labelled as solely a terrorist organization
Exaggerate accidental civilian casualties in order to increase sympathy for terrorist organizations.
In one particular case in the New York Times, Tuvia Grossman, an American Jew or tzabar, who was visiting Israel, was portrayed covered in blood by a photograph in the main section where a caption read that he was a Palestinian.
As expressed verbatim by this letter to the editor:
Letter from Aaron Grossman to New-York Times editor:
Regarding your picture on page A5 (Sept. 30) of the Israeli soldier and the Palestinian on the Temple Mount - that Palestinian is actually my son, Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish student from Chicago. He, and two of his friends, were pulled from their taxicab while travelling in Jerusalem, by a mob of Palestinian Arabs and were severely beaten and stabbed.
That picture could not have been taken on the Temple Mount because there are no gas stations on the Temple Mount and certainly none with Hebrew lettering, like the one clearly seen behind the Israeli soldier attempting to protect my son from the mob.
Aaron Grossman, M.D. [2]
In the recent 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict several such cases were highlighted in a Adobe Flash video: [3] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cosmo
Joined: 09 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
PHOTO FRAUD IN LEBANON
http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp 
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed.
If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."
Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cosmo
Joined: 09 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Q ~ Why does Big_Bird have an extremely wide avatar?
A ~ To compensate for her narrow mind.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
