[Old Man G Funk]

If this true...........
Explain the outcome of WWII and how that war was won.

I'm sorry SDH, but you will have to explain the connection to my description of Alexis's analogy and how the correctness of it has any bearing on the outcome of WWII.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Then explain the victory over Japan?

That's easy. Do you think it came from bombing civilians? Japan was looking for surrender because they had been so militarily beaten that they could not fight back (besides in small soldier to soldier skirmishes.) We had cut off their oil supplies as well. They were already looking to surrender. Of course, we just discussed this not too long ago in another thread here:

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163462

Comparisons of WWII Japan to the situation in the Middle East are not very practical, however, in that the type of conflict is different.

 

[SDH]

I'm sorry SDH, but you will have to explain the connection to my description of Alexis's analogy and how the correctness of it has any bearing on the outcome of WWII.

I believe what he is saying is bombing the enemy into submission is effective. An effective way to break the will of the enemy.

Your counter point was this does not work..........

My point is that history shows that it does work(wether right or wrong is another story).

Why do we give up? When the gains are overshowed by the losses.

 

[SDH]

That's easy. Do you think it came from bombing civilians? .

It destroyed their will to fight. They had no intention on surrendering. They were preparing to fight to the last women and child. They had suicide torpedos (1 man boats on the beach) all ready for the coming invasion. Allied estimates were up to 3 million losses in order to take the main island. This was one of the reasons to drop the bomb. To drive home the fact that not surrending will have GREAT consequences!

On the other side of the world why did we bomb the Germans? To distroy industry and break the will of the people! germans gave up b/c they had a enough and there was nothing left of their country.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I believe what he is saying is bombing the enemy into submission is effective. An effective way to break the will of the enemy.

Your counter point was this does not work..........

My point is that history shows that it does work(wether right or wrong is another story).

Why do we give up? When the gains are overshowed by the losses.

It didn't work so well in Vietnam.

Also, innocent civilians are not the enemy...at least not before you indiscriminately bomb them.

Edit: Also note how well it is working in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

It destroyed their will to fight. They had no intention on surrendering. They were preparing to fight to the last women and child. They had suicide torpedos (1 man boats on the beach) all ready for the coming invasion. Allied estimates were up to 3 million losses in order to take the main island. This was one of the reasons to drop the bomb. To drive home the fact that not surrending will have GREAT consequences!

On the other side of the world why did we bomb the Germans? To distroy industry and break the will of the people! germans gave up b/c they had a enough and there was nothing left of their country.

Once again, it's a different situation. I suggest also that you do some research on Japan, because there are quite a few sources that talk about Japan looking to surrender before we dropped the first a bomb. Invasion would have been unnecessary.

I'm less knowledgable about the German side of things, so what you say may be true, but it hardly means that this case is the same thing. I suggest you go and look at Alexis's idea as he has spelled it out in previous threads as well. He's talking about targeting civilians via terroristic means. He thinks we can bluff them. I disagree.

 

[SDH]

It didn't work so well in Vietnam.

Also, innocent civilians are not the enemy...at least not before you indiscriminately bomb them.

Edit: Also note how well it is working in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Vietnam was a limited war. We primarily carpet bombed the jungle not cities. And we only went into the North when we wanted them at the table. If we took the gloves off like in WWII, and took the fight to the North instead of trying to push them out of the South, we would have more than likely had a different ending to that story.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Vietnam was a limited war. We primarily carpet bombed the jungle not cities. And we only went into the North when we wanted them at the table. If we took the gloves off like in WWII, and took the fight to the North instead of trying to push them out of the South, we would have more than likely had a different ending to that story.

Because the insugency would have fallen apart like it did in Iraq? You have no evidence for that. Yeah, if we had wiped them completely off the face of the Earth, then we would have won, but I'm hoping that you aren't seriously proposing that.

 

[SDH]

Once again, it's a different situation. I suggest also that you do some research on Japan, because there are quite a few sources that talk about Japan looking to surrender before we dropped the first a bomb. Invasion would have been unnecessary.
.

Actually you are right they did want to surrender, but under conditions. We basically told them that it will be a unconditional surrender. Basically, you started it (well maybe not but that is another story), so you must pay! They did not go for that b/c the military leadership knew there were screwed if they surrendered under those terms (i.e. war crimes etc)

 

[golgiaparatus]

I didnt make it. What happens after the 1/2 of the Arab American populations' protest?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Carpet bombing random civilians doesn't decrease the death toll, it only increases it. Add to that the fact that more people get pissed off and want to attack back and it really leads to an escalation.

in one scenario you have sustainable violence. that kind of violence can go forever.

on the other scenario, given that violence cannot increase without limits, at some point someone´s will wil break down (usually the one with the lesser guns)... then it "only" becomes an issue on whether the buy-it-now times the chance of success (which itself is dependant on the price) price will be lower than the overall sum of installments plus interest times the chance of sustainable violence spontaneously extinguishing (virtually zero).

now, if the buy-it-now price is lower (in absolute numbers) AND taking the chance of a sustainable violence spontaneously extinguishing is likely as expensive for the israelis (who have the upper hand, although its likely sustainable violence is way more pricey to them), then its pretty naive to expect for israel, out of nothing besides peer pressure, to keep footing up the bill.
in my view, in that scenario (likely a massive russian on german or american on japanese ownage or equally convincing threat times chance of success, will leave enough fear that peace will happen by lack of war) the only incentive becomes morality for its own sake.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

in one scenario you have sustainable violence. that kind of violence can go forever.

on the other scenario, given that violence cannot increase without limits, at some point someone´s will wil break down (usually the one with the lesser guns)... then it "only" becomes an issue on whether the buy-it-now times the chance of success (which itself is dependant on the price) price will be lower than the overall sum of installments plus interest times the chance of sustainable violence spontaneously extinguishing (virtually zero).

now, if the buy-it-now price is lower (in absolute numbers) AND taking the chance of a sustainable violence spontaneously extinguishing is likely as expensive for the israelis (who have the upper hand, although its likely sustainable violence is way more pricey to them), then its pretty naive to expect for israel, out of nothing besides peer pressure, to keep footing up the bill.
in my view, in that scenario (likely a massive russian on german or american on japanese ownage or equally convincing threat times chance of success, will leave enough fear that peace will happen by lack of war) the only incentive becomes morality for its own sake.

That's a false dichotomy. In your world, it's either war forever, or genocide.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

That's a false dichotomy. In your world, it's either war forever, or genocide.

its not a dichotomy actually, there is the option of "threat" too.

and on "war forever", it may not be forever and it may end up in a bigger than ever genocide. you´d have to add that variable to the mix.
you might well be taking a bigger risk by letting things take their own course thru inaction...

 

[SDH]

That's a false dichotomy. In your world, it's either war forever, or genocide.

That is why they say "war is Hell" It sux! and should reality be considered before action b/c limited wars do not work.
There are basically 3 types of wars
Classical: You get a bunch of dudes and I get a bunch of dudes and we slug it out in the "field of honor" winner takes all and gets the girls from the town, ala Greek, Roman, Japanese, and middle age stlye
Total war: war ot total destruction, destroy war assets, capabilities, people etc. These are usually wars of attrition. Ususally the will of one side will break before the last man standing, (though it came close with the japanese) ala US Civil War, Spanish american war, WWI, WWII.
Limited war (modern war): this seems to be a product of the late 50's early 60's and has shown time and time again that it does not work. It is like a bar fight nobody wins, they just get hurt.

IMHO war is a 30 foot road gap. It is either do or not do there is no room for trying. Commit or die . Go big or go home. Same with war, either commit and open up a can of woop a$$ or DON'T DO IT!
Obviously, I would perfer the later, I think in today's age we want everthing and think there is a easy way to everything, that is what gets us in trouble.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

its not a dichotomy actually, there is the option of "threat" too.

and on "war forever", it may not be forever and it may end up in a bigger than ever genocide. you´d have to add that variable to the mix.
you might well be taking a bigger risk by letting things take their own course thru inaction...

Or, maybe lots of things.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That is why they say "war is Hell" It sux! and should reality be considered before action b/c limited wars do not work.
There are basically 3 types of wars
Classical: You get a bunch of dudes and I get a bunch of dudes and we slug it out in the "field of honor" winner takes all and gets the girls from the town, ala Greek, Roman, Japanese, and middle age stlye
Total war: war ot total destruction, destroy war assets, capabilities, people etc. These are usually wars of attrition. Ususally the will of one side will break before the last man standing, (though it came close with the japanese) ala US Civil War, Spanish american war, WWI, WWII.
Limited war (modern war): this seems to be a product of the late 50's early 60's and has shown time and time again that it does not work. It is like a bar fight nobody wins, they just get hurt.

IMHO war is a 30 foot road gap. It is either do or not do there is no room for trying. Commit or die . Go big or go home. Same with war, either commit and open up a can of woop a$$ or DON'T DO IT!
Obviously, I would perfer the later, I think in today's age we want everthing and think there is a easy way to everything, that is what gets us in trouble.

So, how would you suggest we prosecute the "war on terror" and how should Israel conduct themselves?

How should the Palestinians conduct themselves, or the Lebanese, etc.?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Or, maybe lots of things.

i think i covered every realistic outlet. (i assume israel leaving jerusalem and the temple mount are wishful thinking)

1) it stops
-because such a big smacking happens, that the cost is unsustainable for terrorists and arab nations. supporting nations and terrorists get their **** together and stop the madness in exchange of having their lives spared.
-because of a threat.
- terrorists see the light, and depose guns today. (extremely unlikely)

2) it keeps going on
- keeps going on forever and people will keep dying at a sustainable rate
- keeps going on, until you are on 1) again, although you would be worse off since a lot of people had died in the meanwhile.
and on each iteration the risk of massive war happening, and the risk for it being bigger than before war rises.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So, how would you suggest we prosecute the "war on terror" and how should Israel conduct themselves?

How should the Palestinians conduct themselves, or the Lebanese, etc.?

just like until now? why would one expect otherwise?
on your moral system grounds, they already hit rock bottom with the terrorism and civilian attacks.

 

[SDH]

So, how would you suggest we prosecute the "war on terror" and how should Israel conduct themselves?

How should the Palestinians conduct themselves, or the Lebanese, etc.?

As far as war on terror, I would fight that war covertly. Similiar to how we fight organize crime. We do not send troops to the inner citties. Use black ops to take down terror camps. Have the US accept the fact that this is a dirty job and we may have to employ less than boyscott quality employees to do the job right. Work with countries to the best of our ability to work with us to take down the terror networks. Use IT and finance to bring down the networks. work with the countries on education and foster a better way of life similiar to what we do with inner city kids and gangs. So in short, short burst of surgical violence followed but education and global economics.

The Isreal situation is sticky. On one hand, Isreal can be going around blowing the snot out towns but on the other hand Isreal can not expect to take incoming missle for very long either. If I was Isreal specific to this situation? I try to work with Lebanese to stop the cross border violence, using there forces and if need be have Isreal pony up advisors and some cash. Ultimately, I would make the Lebanese responsible for the projectiles coming from there country but offer help to make it stop. If they told me to go pound sand, I would make my offer public (world) and to the UN give a time frame for people to act. Pass that I, would begin the black ops campaign to route those responsible out.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

i think i covered every realistic outlet. (i assume israel leaving jerusalem and the temple mount are wishful thinking)

1) it stops
-because such a big smacking happens, that the cost is unsustainable for terrorists and arab nations. supporting nations and terrorists get their **** together and stop the madness in exchange of having their lives spared.
-because of a threat.
- terrorists see the light, and depose guns today. (extremely unlikely)

2) it keeps going on
- keeps going on forever and people will keep dying at a sustainable rate
- keeps going on, until you are on 1) again, although you would be worse off since a lot of people had died in the meanwhile.
and on each iteration the risk of massive war happening, and the risk for it being bigger than before war rises.

I agree that this won't stop through simply the actions of Israel and their neighbors. We need to go in there and be an honest broker for peace. IOW, we can't go in there sniffing Israel's butt like their sh*t don't stink and act like they are completely blameless. They are not. Both sides are at fault. We need to recognize the realities of that and act accordingly.

just like until now? why would one expect otherwise?
on your moral system grounds, they already hit rock bottom with the terrorism and civilian attacks.

And it's rather disheartening that you don't think it morally problematic that they deliberately target civilians. But, what has it gained them? Hezbollah are enjoying even greater support.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

As far as war on terror, I would fight that war covertly. Similiar to how we fight organize crime. We do not send troops to the inner citties. Use black ops to take down terror camps. Have the US accept the fact that this is a dirty job and we may have to employ less than boyscott quality employees to do the job right. Work with countries to the best of our ability to work with us to take down the terror networks. Use IT and finance to bring down the networks. work with the countries on education and foster a better way of life similiar to what we do with inner city kids and gangs. So in short, short burst of surgical violence followed but education and global economics.

Very similar to what I would say. Alexis disagrees with you, however. Perhaps you should be asking him your questions. He seems to think that we can bluff the terrorists into inaction by threatening to turn the Middle East into glass, innocent civilians be damned. Whether we would follow through on that threat or not is immaterial to me. I think the act of threatening and coersion through terroristic means would make us no better than those we seek to combat.

The Isreal situation is sticky. On one hand, Isreal can be going around blowing the snot out towns but on the other hand Isreal can not expect to take incoming missle for very long either. If I was Isreal specific to this situation? I try to work with Lebanese to stop the cross border violence, using there forces and if need be have Isreal pony up advisors and some cash. Ultimately, I would make the Lebanese responsible for the projectiles coming from there country but offer help to make it stop. If they told me to go pound sand, I would make my offer public (world) and to the UN give a time frame for people to act. Pass that I, would begin the black ops campaign to route those responsible out.

Would you threaten to turn Lebanon into glass? Would you go and indiscriminately bomb civilians? If you answer "no" to those questions, then I would suggest that you question Alexis.

Edit: BTW, good answer on Israel. I doubt it would happen, but it would probably be a much better direction for them to take than the one they've been on for decades.

 

[rockwool]

Vietnam was a limited war. We primarily carpet bombed the jungle not cities. And we only went into the North when we wanted them at the table. If we took the gloves off like in WWII, and took the fight to the North instead of trying to push them out of the South, we would have more than likely had a different ending to that story.

You might have had a different ending to the story but you would still not have no business in beeing there, and all that killing and suffering would still be unjustified.

IMHO war is a 30 foot road gap. It is either do or not do there is no room for trying. Commit or die . Go big or go home. Same with war, either commit and open up a can of woop a$$ or DON'T DO IT!
Obviously, I would perfer the later, I think in today's age we want everthing and think there is a easy way to everything, that is what gets us in trouble.

Going to war or not should be judged on grounds like if it is justified, righteous and just. Not as a matter of committing or not. That should only be a consideration after the otherones are made.

i think i covered every realistic outlet. (i assume israel leaving jerusalem and the temple mount are wishful thinking)

1) it stops
-because such a big smacking happens, that the cost is unsustainable for terrorists and arab nations. supporting nations and terrorists get their **** together and stop the madness in exchange of having their lives spared.
-because of a threat.
- terrorists see the light, and depose guns today. (extremely unlikely)

2) it keeps going on
- keeps going on forever and people will keep dying at a sustainable rate
- keeps going on, until you are on 1) again, although you would be worse off since a lot of people had died in the meanwhile.
and on each iteration the risk of massive war happening, and the risk for it being bigger than before war rises.

Alexis, you have a predileciton of wanting to solve disputes with violence. I think a hike up to the high lands will do you good. Go see an indian medicin man, tell him too cook up some Ayahuasca and tell you about life. You will come back as a new borne Alexis to surprise all the monkeys with a fresh way of thinking.

As far as war on terror, I would fight that war covertly. Similiar to how we fight organize crime. We do not send troops to the inner citties. Use black ops to take down terror camps. Have the US accept the fact that this is a dirty job and we may have to employ less than boyscott quality employees to do the job right. Work with countries to the best of our ability to work with us to take down the terror networks. Use IT and finance to bring down the networks. work with the countries on education and foster a better way of life similiar to what we do with inner city kids and gangs. So in short, short burst of surgical violence followed but education and global economics.

The Isreal situation is sticky. On one hand, Isreal can be going around blowing the snot out towns but on the other hand Isreal can not expect to take incoming missle for very long either. If I was Isreal specific to this situation? I try to work with Lebanese to stop the cross border violence, using there forces and if need be have Isreal pony up advisors and some cash. Ultimately, I would make the Lebanese responsible for the projectiles coming from there country but offer help to make it stop. If they told me to go pound sand, I would make my offer public (world) and to the UN give a time frame for people to act. Pass that I, would begin the black ops campaign to route those responsible out.

I dig your tactics. If you have a headache, you drink some water and rest it out. If that doesn't help you take a pill or two. You don't cut your head of!
Again, even if you limit your selfe to surgical attacks you have to be sertain that you are justified, righteous and just before you do it.
But why follow up with education and global economics? Why not start there, add some global health program and adress all basic human rights of every one, and see what changes that alone brings.
If you still have some problems after that, then you have a new posision of judging what they are and new experience of how to solve stuff.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

And it's rather disheartening that you don't think it morally problematic that they deliberately target civilians. But, what has it gained them? Hezbollah are enjoying even greater support.

i think its morally problematic to be the first to attack civilians.just like to be the first to nuke somebody out of nothing, or the first to shoot somebody out of nothing.
but i dont find very morally problematic to answer with similar meassures, if that can help stop further deaths on both sides.
the damage is so great, that at some point it becomes almost an arithmetics issue, specially when you consider the high sunk cost of "regular" operations (hundreds of death civilians will happen anyway).

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Alexis, you have a predileciton of wanting to solve disputes with violence. I think a hike up to the high lands will do you good. Go see an indian medicin man, tell him too cook up some Ayahuasca and tell you about life. You will come back as a new borne Alexis to surprise all the monkeys with a fresh way of thinking.

something tells me you think am white-ish or something..
am not. racially, am pretty native-indian myself (besides a little sephardim jewishness and tiny a asianess).

i dont have a predilection to solve disputes thru violence. in fact, for almost any other problem in the world, i´m a pretty pro-peace person.
but am realistic, in the middle east issues i believe nothing short of that will do any "improvement" in the long run.
i dont believe EVERY problem can be solver without violence.
in the ME, you got dudes blowing themselves up in order to "wipe out the zionist entity" and "push the jews to the sea" (and thats a tiny fraction of the last 100 years of the ME)... realistically, i dont think you can make much of a compromise with that, of sit down and chat it out.

 

[rockwool]

something tells me you think am white-ish or something..
am not. racially, am pretty native-indian myself (besides a little sephardim jewishness and tiny a asianess).

i dont have a predilection to solve disputes thru violence. in fact, for almost any other problem in the world, i´m a pretty pro-peace person.
but am realistic, in the middle east issues i believe nothing short of that will do any "improvement" in the long run.
i dont believe EVERY problem can be solver without violence.
in the ME, you got dudes blowing themselves up in order to "wipe out the zionist entity" and "push the jews to the sea" (and thats a tiny fraction of the last 100 years of the ME)... realistically, i dont think you can make much of a compromise with that, of sit down and chat it out.

Damn, I picured you on the fore deck of the Pinta in a funny hat and a huge nife and fork in your hands preparing to eat some darkies.

Somehting I've noticed in our societies, when we have problem we don't look at history to see if they've had the problem before and how they solved it. Jews have lived with Arabs in peace for centurys. It can happen again. Have faith in nonviolence.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

i think its morally problematic to be the first to attack civilians.just like to be the first to nuke somebody out of nothing, or the first to shoot somebody out of nothing.
but i dont find very morally problematic to answer with similar meassures, if that can help stop further deaths on both sides.
the damage is so great, that at some point it becomes almost an arithmetics issue, specially when you consider the high sunk cost of "regular" operations (hundreds of death civilians will happen anyway).

Hmmm, that sounds like the "he hit me first" argument.

I believe it was Ghandi that said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Hmmm, that sounds like the "he hit me first" argument.

there are already a lot of socially accepted arguments and responses based on "he hit me first" perfectly deemed as "moral". so those are not grounds to automatically discard and idea.

I believe it was Ghandi that said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

but the conviction the eye-popping for both sides will happen is what sometimes keep the the first eye from being popped.
nasrallah himself said a little bit ago he wouldnt have taken the soldiers if he knew israel would lay down the smack like it did.
you can tell from that, that a impression (or hope maybe) of inaction on the israel side is what prompted terrorist actions.

talking about the facts already done, had israel convingly bluffed it was going to lay down the smack hard before hand, its likely nasrallah wouldnt have acted. (they might be crazy, but they arent stupid). now in retrospective, what would have been worse, israel threatening action, and posibly no hezbollah attacks... or the 1300-1400 deaths that indeed happened, in part because of hezbollah reliance on israel inaction?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Damn, I picured you on the fore deck of the Pinta in a funny hat and a huge nife and fork in your hands preparing to eat some darkies.

Somehting I've noticed in our societies, when we have problem we don't look at history to see if they've had the problem before and how they solved it. Jews have lived with Arabs in peace for centurys. It can happen again. Have faith in nonviolence.

haha. my dad is pretty native. he is from a small fishing town in northern peru, a few miles from where Toledo, the last president was born.
he is a self-made man. went to public elementary and high schools and everything. my mom is of jewish origin, she is from a well-off family. so i dont have your average south-american social/ethnic/racial prejudices and stuff. when i went to school ( age 17 thru 21) in the states, a lot of egalite, liberte, fraternite ideas sticked to me. so forget about raising that flag with me.

jews have been living in peace with the arabs for centuries. they accepted being reduced to dhimmis and a lot of stuff... interestingly enough, when all the arab world started with nationalistic ideas to separate from colonial powers (jordan, egypt, iraq, syria, lebanon, etc, etc, etc and almost all of them are different flavors of arab nationalism within the same century) the one ethnic group within the arab sea that got harassed and attacked for its nationalism within a land where many nations were forming, were the jews...dont forget israel isnt the only country to emerge from ethnic nationalism in that huge piece of land that is the middle east.
dont loose perspective by forgetting important details like that.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

there are already a lot of socially accepted arguments and responses based on "he hit me first" perfectly deemed as "moral". so those are not grounds to automatically discard and idea.

That's true to a limited extent, and I should have more properly phrased what I meant. Your argument is more like, "He hit me first, so I'm going to go all ape-sh*t and threaten his whole entire country and probably pop a few of them while I'm at it."

but the conviction the eye-popping for both sides will happen is what sometimes keep the the first eye from being popped.
nasrallah himself said a little bit ago he wouldnt have taken the soldiers if he knew israel would lay down the smack like it did.
you can tell from that, that a impression (or hope maybe) of inaction on the israel side is what prompted terrorist actions.

talking about the facts already done, had israel convingly bluffed it was going to lay down the smack hard before hand, its likely nasrallah wouldnt have acted. (they might be crazy, but they arent stupid). now in retrospective, what would have been worse, israel threatening action, and posibly no hezbollah attacks... or the 1300-1400 deaths that indeed happened, in part because of hezbollah reliance on israel inaction?

So, Israel were crazy enough to go and bomb civilians. It just shows that you have to follow through with your threats if you want your threats to be taken seriously. Do you think that Israel threatening to bomb the hell out of Lebanon on its own would have done anything? No, they had to show that they are willing to indiscriminately kill civilians in large numbers and cripple a whole entire country. So, maybe Nasrallah is impressed with their war crimes....

Or maybe not. I really doubt that he wouldn't have done it. Hezbollah is enjoying even wider support than before the skirmish, with a pretty minimal loss to show for it. You really should stop your unquestioning devotion to Israel. They messed up. They killed how many people that weren't involved, and helped Hezbollah recruit how many to fight them in the future?

 

[DaveW]

heh heh, here's a nice bit of ownage by a former Israeli soldier.

It is now clear that as much as the Israeli Army doesn’t know how to win a war, the Israeli people do not know how to lose one. Already at the late stages of the recent wave of hostility in Lebanon the Israelis were desperately searching for a scapegoat, someone to blame, someone who would take personal responsibility for the humiliating Israeli collective defeat.

 

[rockwool]

"When we have settled the land, Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." -Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times , 14 April 1983.

Do we still have to guess if their intentions are peaceful or not?

 

[rockwool]

heh heh, here's a nice bit of ownage by a former Israeli soldier.

"Unlike Peretz, who became a mass murderer just a few days into the war for absolutely no reason, Sheikh Nasrallah has managed to defeat Israel without bringing the state to its knees, without killing many civilians. Nasrallah won a war without being a mass murderer. And the question to be asked is whether the time is ripe for the Israelis to admit that a Lebanese Shiite leader is far more advanced both intellectually and morally than their own leaders. May I tell you, this is not going to happen. The Israelis are racist to the bone. Even now after being defeated by a bold patriotic group of warriors, they are still convinced that they are fighting a fanatical bunch of sub-humans. "

Troubles with admitting once own misstakes and inferiority is unfortunately not a weakness of the Jews alone. Being a supremacist beaten by the less worthy don't make it eazier though..


Good article!

 

[rockwool]

haha. my dad is pretty native. he is from a small fishing town in northern peru, a few miles from where Toledo, the last president was born.
he is a self-made man. went to public elementary and high schools and everything. my mom is of jewish origin, she is from a well-off family. so i dont have your average south-american social/ethnic/racial prejudices and stuff. when i went to school ( age 17 thru 21) in the states, a lot of egalite, liberte, fraternite ideas sticked to me. so forget about raising that flag with me.

jews have been living in peace with the arabs for centuries. they accepted being reduced to dhimmis and a lot of stuff... interestingly enough, when all the arab world started with nationalistic ideas to separate from colonial powers (jordan, egypt, iraq, syria, lebanon, etc, etc, etc and almost all of them are different flavors of arab nationalism within the same century) the one ethnic group within the arab sea that got harassed and attacked for its nationalism within a land where many nations were forming, were the jews...dont forget israel isnt the only country to emerge from ethnic nationalism in that huge piece of land that is the middle east.
dont loose perspective by forgetting important details like that.

I had to look "dhimmi" up, but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi Greeks fell under that category aswell, and I know how Greeks had it during the 400 years of Ottoman occupation of the mainland and more in Asia Minor and the Pontus region in Turkey. The stories I was told as a kid and in Greek school has shown to be exaggerated. Surely the worst thing I can think of right now was the kidnaping of the strongest and brightest young boys (~12) to become Janizaries in the Ottoman army. Otherwise I have to admit that the Ottomans were pretty humane for an occupying power.

From the people in different Arab counties that have emerged in the area, including Palestine, I haven't seen any expression of supremacism that I have seen among zionists.
I don't know what you mean by saying that the Jews were harassed and attacked. I do know that terrorism as it is perceived today is something that was "invented" by different Jewish groups like the Haganah, Irgun and the Stern gang. They attacked and harassed Jews living all over the ME to get them to move to Palestine, while blaming it on the moslems.

On a sidenote, Menachem Begin, prime minister of Israel between 1977-83, was the leader of the Irgun gang. Another terrorist leader to become the head of state in Israel, and which helps to understand how that country has become to be soo extremist.