# Another Israel/Palestine debate that started as something else - Carpe Diem



## babicma (12 May 2005)

*Israeli air force to take part in Alberta war games; Palestinians opposed *
JOHN WARD 
Thu May 12,11:09 AM ET

OTTAWA (CP) - The Israeli air force is sending 10 F-16 fighter jets and about 150 air crew to participate in major war games in Alberta later this month. 







It's the first time the Israelis have joined the annual Maple Flag exercises over the sprawling Cold Lake weapons range. About 5,000 air personnel from 11 countries and        NATO are to take part. Palestinian-Canadian groups expressed disappointment that Israel was invited.

"We don't support this Canadian initiative," said Issam Alyamani of Palestine House, an educational and cultural centre in Toronto. "I think that Canada should be more sensitive to the Arab-Palestinian community in Canada.

"The Israeli air force was used to destroy Palestinian houses and it was used against civilians in Gaza and the West Bank.

"I don't think this will help Canada to have a balanced position vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict."

The military said security will be extra tight this year, but refused to link that to Israeli participation, saying that given the volatile state of the world, close security is natural.

Canadian pilots will join fliers from Belgium, Germany, France, Israel, Britain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden and the United States in the exercises, which stretch over three two-week periods through May and June.

A number of other countries, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, are sending observers.

David Ruff, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies said that may help deflect criticism over inviting the Israelis.

"You're inviting the Israelis and also Arab states," he said.

During each of the three exercises, groups of planes will attack targets scattered across the air range, with American pilots acting as defenders.

"The exercise provides critically important air combat training for Canadians and our allied partners, says Col. Duff Sullivan, commander of 4 Wing Cold Lake.

The Cold Lake range spreads across more than 11,000 square kilometres of northern Alberta bush land, an area half the size of Israel. With civilian traffic banned from the area, military pilots have free rein to practise combat skills.

The range contains dozens of mock targets for planes to attack, including airfields, industrial complexes and military installations.

Among aircraft expected to participate are French Mirage F-1s and Mirage 2000Ns, American F-15 Eagles and F-15E Strike Eagles, F-16 Falcons and B-1B Lancers, as well as Canadian CF-18s, and British and German Tornado GR4s.

The Maple Flag concept grew out of the American Vietnam war experience, when it was found that combat training needed to be far more realistic than normal peacetime routine. The Americans began running a series of simulated aerial war games called Red Flag in 1975 and the Canadian military set up the first Maple Flag two years later.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050512/ca_pr_on_na/israeli_air_force_1[/url


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2005)

They want balance? We'll invite the Palestinian air foce to participate next year....


----------



## babicma (12 May 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> They want balance? We'll invite the Palestinian air foce to participate next year....



Thats mean!


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

It's not mean, it's great!  I had a good chuckle picturing two guys holding a stick of dynamite taped under the wings of a cesna.


----------



## Marauder (12 May 2005)

> "We don't support this Canadian initiative," said Issam Alyamani of Palestine House, an educational and cultural centre in Toronto. "I think that Canada should be more sensitive to the Arab-Palestinian community in Canada.



I've got his sensitviity, hanging riiiight here....


----------



## 1feral1 (12 May 2005)

Being Canadian is more than just a piece of paper for those naturalised. As much as it's great to have an opinion, if these people want to cause problems bringing forth their ethnic culture hatred, violence and murder, plus all the other bad news that goes with it, they should bloody well go home and do it.

I don't remember any complaints about the Canadians of jewish faith going off when GATES was in Shilo (1970-2000), or Canadians of an Irish catholic background whinging about BATUS and BATUW (these ventures are both ongoing) either.

I have no problems with the IDF participating in the exercise, but I have a problem with bitter, twisted and angry muslims (or anyone else) promoting and exercising their seething hatred they have carried with them and brought to Canada.

No political correctness in this post - my question is are these people Canadian or simply Palestinians living in Canada? My answer is the latter, and any trouble makers should be frogmarched out of the country.

Canada, love it or leave it. Plain anda simple.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## kincanucks (12 May 2005)

Well stated Wes. And seconded.


----------



## Prariedawg (12 May 2005)

Palestine,where is that again?Oh thats right,it doesnt exist!!!Just a bunch of bitter ex-bediouns who want to export thier hate here and the left are more than happy to accomedate them.The next time you see a rally for ANY socialist political cause look and see how many palestinaian flags are around.Who do you think hands them out?Why?Isreal has 11000km and the arabs have7million,the palestinians could have thier own country tomorrow if the arab world wanted to give them one.Sounds like more islamo-facist crap.


----------



## aesop081 (12 May 2005)

I personaly welcome the IAF to maple flag.  They bring with them a wealth of experience aquired not in virtual combat ( nellis, cold lake....) but in actual combat.  I feel we have much to learn from them and thus it makes their participation invaluable.


----------



## P-Free (12 May 2005)

People need to get over it and stop living 2000 years in the past.


----------



## 1feral1 (12 May 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> People need to get over it and stop living 2000 years in the past.


Agreed P, and only if it was that easy, but when you have a 13th century mentality mixed now with 21st century technology, we really gotta be careful, as there are many of these 'believers' of the extreme faith, who reside in Canada hiding behind a visa, or landed immigrant status, who would jump at the chance to destroy everything we have, and don't think I am kidding either.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

you know I was in Cold lake for about ten years. I never met any palestinians. Just the lebanese, they were my freinds and neighbours and I hope the Israelites get haircuts before flag or not shop in the mall. haha or go to Canex, or go to.... anyways it wouild be nice to have the IAF in YOD for MF


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

Maybe next year, we can invit Palestinians to participate in an exercise where we strap 100lbs of forcite to our asses and drive a car into a building full of children.  I'm sure the Isrealis wouldn't object, train for what you know and all that.  Flame away, drinking and posting again.....
  
CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## aesop081 (12 May 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Maybe next year, we can invit Palestinians to participate in an exercise where we strap 100lbs of forcite to our asses and drive a car into a building full of children.   I'm sure the Isrealis wouldn't object, train for what you know and all that.   Flame away, drinking and posting again.....
> 
> CHIMO,   Kat




 ;D

Kat.....as always.....

i love ya man.....that was nice


----------



## Polish Possy (12 May 2005)

Why can't we all just get along ....maybe they should just draw names from a hat to see who comes that way it is fair and People can't mad about being sensitive ....besides why does every one need to take everything soooooo personal nowadays .....Stupid Politically correctness ...taken all the fun out of everything

I think pulling names out of a hat can solve all of the worlds problems


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

Polish Possy said:
			
		

> I think pulling names out of a hat can solve all of the worlds problems



Hah!  The UN tried that.  How do you think Lybia got to head the human rights comission?


----------



## winchable (12 May 2005)

> People need to get over it and stop living 2000 years in the past.



Actually it's what happened about 50 years in the past that pisses off Palestinians but that argument makes me retch.

Of course the Palestinians are opposed, why wouldn't they be?
Most of them aren't going to strap anything to themselves but they're allowed to oppose it, some people simply do not agree with Israel and its policies and many choose to deal with it through peaceful protests and by drawing media attention to it and complaining, hey I'm nont saying their right. 
Though I'm sure many would love them to strap more bombs to their children so there'd be a viable excuse to turn the middle east into a glass parking lot (I've seen it said here before)
The fact that 90% of you here crack jokes about suicide bombers only furthers the image of the crazy A-rab with his 'Koran' and his AK.

Who are we to tell people that they can't protest certain things because they live in Canada now, perhaps they have family there, personally I don't know any of them so I can't say for certain.

"Hey democracies a bitch if you have to listen to all these other people."
"Fucking liberals want us to live in a facist country where no one else is allowed to have an opinion."

You guys'll be the first to complain if I start an argument of this ilk, and as such I've avoided it for months, yet you bring it up and I will no doubt get a barrage of lovely comments.

Personally I think any opportunity to train with Israeli anything is a good one but the utter hipocrisy I've witnessed in this thread with regards to allowing other people to have differing opinions is ridiculous.


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

Wait a second....the germans will be there!!!
They hated the Jews once and that was the Catylist of the Jewish state...

But the Dutch are going to be there too and they were invaded by the germans


And the British and Americans.....whoa like 1776 all over again


What will the focus groups in toronto think about all of this multi culturalism playing at war with each other and going to Edmonton on the weekend to pick up good made in China or Japan at the mall that once held the dolphins for hostage.....

its pandemonium


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

Never mind.....

Kat


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

Actually,   people need to quit living 2000 years in the past is a pretty good take on the issue.   Extremist zionists need to quit thinking that they have some sort of Ancient right to the entire Holy Land - this attitude is what underlines much of the settlements that are really torquing the Palestinians off.  As well, the Palestinans need to distance themselves from terror and from the rabid anti-semitism that caused them to lose all the credibility the gained in the original Intifada.

The most balanced account of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict I've read to date is Col. Thomas Hammes overview in his book The Sling and the Stone, where he covers both the original Intifada and the Al-Aqsa Intifada (which continues to this day).   Definitely points to the bad guys on both sides of the fence - Sharon, Netenyahu, and Arafat.

My take on it now is that Sharon has changed his M.O. and Arafat has died (good riddance) - now we must hope that the pain and suffering of the Al-Aqsa Intifada that was brought on from extremism from both sides can be put aside in the effort of peace.   The Palestinians need to drop the "push them into the sea" approach and the Israeli's need to quit running an essential system of Apartheid in the Occupied Territories.   Until they do this, a pox on both their houses.

Anyways, for some reason I knew this would spawn into an Israeli/Palestinian debate....


----------



## winchable (12 May 2005)

Because they can, a childish argument perhaps but the most important one in Western Democracy from what I can see.

I'm not going to be the one to deny someone their freedom to protest and assemble, will you?




> Wait a second....the germans will be there!!!
> They hated the Jews once and that was the Catylist of the Jewish state...
> 
> But the Dutch are going to be there too and they were invaded by the germans
> ...



And if modern notions of freedom of assembly and a parasitic news media were present then you'd see protests and demonstrations there too.



> If these persons from varying ethnic groups feel so strongly about conditions in their homelands, go the F*ck home and do something about it



If they do, the majority of them would get to throw rocks at Israeli tanks and would be shot.
Or they would be pressured in to suicide bombing.

So I ask you again, would you rather they go "home" and do the above, or gather on parliament hill and excersize their democratic right in attempt to lobby the politicians, once again, because they can.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 May 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> Of course the Palestinians are opposed, why wouldn't they be?
> Most of them aren't going to strap anything to themselves but they're allowed to oppose it, some people simply do not agree with Israel and its policies and many choose to deal with it through peaceful protests and by drawing media attention to it and complaining, hey I'm nont saying their right.
> Though I'm sure many would love them to strap more bombs to their children so there'd be a viable excuse to turn the middle east into a glass parking lot (I've seen it said here before)



Sure there's two sides to every story, but whoa-boy!



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> go the **** home and do something about it. Che Guevara did.


And that's why Cubans call him Carnicerito de la CabaÃƒÂ±a (the Butcher of La CabaÃƒÂ±a).


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

Let's face it, Palestine would be opposed to Isreal doing anything other than disappearing in a radioactive cloud.

Kat


----------



## Britney Spears (12 May 2005)

Hey Che, Infanteer, maybe there should be a rule against strawmen around here?

Aside frm that, I assume that the Israelis have never been invited to train in Canada before, if not, then it would seem to send a contradictory political signal, would it not? Seeing as how our foreign policy is not generally pro-Israeli.


----------



## Gramps (12 May 2005)

Wait a minute.... Didnt Cat Stevens change his name to Yousuf Islam? I smell a conspiracy here.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

Bwaahahahaha!

Kat


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> I'm not going to be the one to deny someone their freedom to protest and assemble, will you?



I don't think anyone suggested that we should start bashing in the heads and breaking the kneecaps of Palestinians who protest, no.   However, if they want to act like idiots, I also have the right to voice my opinion.   If that means cracking suicide bomber jokes, so be it.   I'm exercising the same freedom of speech that they are, so why are you getting all wound up?


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Let's face it, Palestine would be opposed to Isreal doing anything other than disappearing in a radioactive cloud.



I refuse to paint with a broad brush - this is like tagging every insurgent in the Islamic Insurgency as a Koran-toting Wahabi.

Read about the first Intifada.   There are people with genuine beef against Israeli behaviour in the Occupied Territories - these folks abhorred terrorists like the Hamas (who deserve nothing but the Hellfire they will get) and did their best to keep Arafat at arms length along with the rest of the "Tunisian" gangsters.

The problem is that Arafat took control during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (which broke out due to posturing on both sides), and these people above were drowned out by the terrorists.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 May 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Canada, love it or leave it. Plain anda simple.



LOL. I do agree with some of the inferences that one might draw from your post, but if you would indulge me for a second I would like to point out that you left us for shrimp on the barbie,   bad beer and shark infested waters.

And Che, why did you check your fire? 

"The fact that 90% of you here crack jokes about suicide bombers only furthers the image of the crazy A-rab with his 'Koran' and his AK."

"You guys'll be the first to complain if I start an argument of this ilk, and as such I've avoided it for months, yet you bring it up and I will no doubt get a barrage of lovely comments."

A brilliant synopsis, IMO. I miss California already.

Cheers,


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

Che, I understand your point, but I ask again;  what would they like us to do, invade? I'm afraid they need to get in line behind Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and a buzillion others...

Kat


----------



## Polish Possy (12 May 2005)

Wow Che .....you should write speeches for politicians that was beautifully said

I just don't understand how bad this world is ****ed up I know we have no right to tell countries how to be run and what type of government they should have ....It makes me sick that the only way that people get the message across is by sending people to kill or blow each other up... then us In Canada or the U.S.
only hear about it through the news and media , then we say thats not right, but for them in the Middle east it is because of the culture, In some parts of the world men can kill women for not marrying them ....yes that is screwed up by our standards but like   I said it is part of their life .... I know for a fact that every one will never see eye to eye on every thing but attacking innocent civilians that is crossing the line ... I hate the fact that sooo many countries have Nuclear weapons in fact it scares me and many people don't realize it but if a dispute does start between America and North Korea we are automatically brought into the whole mess I know I am ranting but thinking that years and years of hatered can fuel these out bursts   just makes me sad that this is the real world we live in.


and that is quite off topic but I feel it is important


* took me like 10 minutes too get this posted to many replys being made ***


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 May 2005)

"Buddy", the point is that the Palestinians do not want peace: they want the Jews dead.  Have a look at some of those "peaceful protests" some time.


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

Guys have you lost the plot.   And are being way too PC. No one cares about who the participants at Maple Flag are going to be. Except the local population who are going to make mega bucks. The local Bars who are going to make mega bucks, the local girls who are going to go guy crazy, the local guys who might as well go into the woods and not be seen for 6- 8 weeks, and that fat guy who takes pictures of all the pretty airplanes at the end of runway 31. The Palestinians don't care on who is at Flag. The Canadian government want different countries in Flag and lets face it Operation Allied Force was Maple Flag over Bosnia in fact there were patches going on about it. And after that is all done, all the participants go to Nellis for Red Flag....And no one get car bombed no one gets hurt. Just a few pregnancies and some cases of the clap are all thats left and will be left.


----------



## winchable (12 May 2005)

> so why are you getting all wound up?



Becuase I've got about 40 minutes before work and felt like playing devils advocate with a serious subject rather then cruising the "Radio Chatter" board for threads about the banana phone.


My working theory is that an 8 armed man, Che Guevara, Kat Stevens, Muhammad, Jesus and Aries are at the centre of the earth controlling us like puppets.


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Aside frm that, I assume that the Israelis have never been invited to train in Canada before, if not, then it would seem to send a contradictory political signal, would it not? Seeing as how our foreign policy is not generally pro-Israeli.



I actually would support this measure of support to the Israeli government right now, for 2 reasons:

1) It should send a message to the Palestinians that we will not stay neutral if they continue to utilize terrorism and "push them to the sea" as their rallying cry.   As I said above, the Palestians earned legitimate cred in the first Intifada by abstaining from terrorism and anti-Semitism but they've forsaken that.   They need to be shunned until they drop that.

2) It should send the message to the Israelis and to Sharon that we think that they're unilateral efforts to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza are good moves on their part.   They are making a constructive effort in the right direction (something in the lines of Oslo); the the Palestinians are going to continue with their current tactics, then a Wall and Hellfires is what they'll get until they figure it out.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

High praise indeed, Che, thank you.... ;D


----------



## Polish Possy (12 May 2005)

That would be over 6 billion puppets ....they must be really really skilled
or have like thousands or arms .....

LoL just thought of Team America: world police   ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

Threads like this are the reason I love this site.. 

Kat


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

Polish Possy said:
			
		

> Wow Che .....you should write speeches for politicians that was beautifully said
> 
> I just don't understand how bad this world is ****ed up I know we have no right to tell countries how to be run and what type of government they should have ....It makes me sick that the only way that people get the message across is by sending people to kill or blow each other up... then us In Canada or the U.S.
> only hear about it through the news and media , then we say thats not right, but for them in the Middle east it is because of the culture, In some parts of the world men can kill women for not marrying them ....yes that is screwed up by our standards but like   I said it is part of their life .... I know for a fact that every one will never see eye to eye on every thing but attacking innocent civilians that is crossing the line ... I hate the fact that sooo many countries have Nuclear weapons in fact it scares me and many people don't realize it but if a dispute does start between America and North Korea we are automatically brought into the whole mess I know I am ranting but thinking that years and years of hatered can fuel these out bursts   just makes me sad that this is the real world we live in.
> ...



edit:  aw, forget it, I'm not taking this thread into another pointless off topic debate


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> "Buddy", the point is that the Palestinians do not want peace: they want the Jews dead.   Have a look at some of those "peaceful protests" some time.



Bullshit - I'll simply reprint what I wrote above:

I refuse to paint with a broad brush - this is like tagging every insurgent in the Islamic Insurgency as a Koran-toting Wahabi.

Read about the first Intifada.   There are people with genuine beef against Israeli behaviour in the Occupied Territories - these folks abhorred terrorists like the Hamas (who deserve nothing but the Hellfire they will get) and did their best to keep Arafat at arms length along with the rest of the "Tunisian" gangsters.

The problem is that Arafat took control during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (which broke out due to posturing on both sides), and these people above were drowned out by the terrorists.

---

The biggest challenge, as I alluded to before, is defusing all the pent up rage on both sides.   We have people clashing with eachother who've lost too much in the fighting to consider stepping down from extremist demands.   Hopefully, the first step back by Israel is a step and the right direction.   How Abbas responds will be important.


----------



## winchable (12 May 2005)

> "Buddy", the point is that the Palestinians do not want peace: they want the Jews dead.   Have a look at some of those "peaceful protests" some time.



And you need to A)Put aside any personal problems you have with my beliefs or choice of screen name like an adult and not sneak your little passive agressive jabs into every post responding to me   and B) Be less selective when choosing which protests you look at.

The majority of Palestinians want peace unfortunately the area is not as homogenus as we'd like to believe so a number of factors affect the realisation of said peace.
The statement that "Palestinians do not want peace:they want the Jew dead." holds as much water as "The Majority of Cubans are good socialists and would put the needs of the people before their own needs."


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

Personally I was glad I chose the 2000 year old carpenter from the dead sea as my Holy Spirit......You know some of Canadas greatest Fighter pilots flrw for the IAF when they were just a fledgling state, in fact Buzz Beurling died ferrying fighters to them in the forties. That and they used surplus gear that we supplied them. so this having them come to flag is just carrying on that tradition.



GO ISRAIEL!!!!!!!!!

As well I bet half of you guys when you complain about kit or tactics or wish to be like any military I bet you look up to and see Israel   like gods


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> As well I bet half of you guys when you complain about kit or tactics or wish to be like any military I bet you look up to and see Israel  like gods


No, because that would be worshiping false idols...

Kat


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> GO ISRAIEL!!!!!!!!!



I see the maturity level of this debate is going down.



> As well I bet half of you guys when you complain about kit or tactics or wish to be like any military I bet you look up to and see Israel   like gods



Not really - they're good, but everything I've read has pointed to a real loss of edge since they invaded Lebanon and lost a 4th Generation Conflict in the first Intifada.   It is a unique military, just like ours, but it is not something to slober over....


----------



## Polish Possy (12 May 2005)

I didn't say it like that I am just stating that is a screwy world out there and we are along for the ride I am offended that you would even state that I think it is ok to kill Women   I am stating that it happens and it just gets over looked in those parts of the world ....of course here it is barbaric 
I am not sure what your saying about soldiers crossing the line but I was pointing out the huge differences
jeez.... 

I was pointing out that our views and views of other cultures are very diffenrent. Also women and children die everyday because of wars and cultures And you can't jump up and say hey thats wrong and do some thing about it ....yes I know it seems horrible but that is real life !   

And I never said it was ok to kill people be it individuals, terrorist groups, or a government organizations
etc.   Look at Iraq ...mass graves .....Vietnam....mass graves ...   like I said I am sick at the thought but it does 
happen !


** I agree this is going way off topic .....you can delete this post if need be


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

OK Mr. ISLAM enough is enough, I see you have the badger on your avitar, which is a German designed vehicle which has a mercedes engine and is baised off the leopard chassis, designed by Krauss Maffi. Well the original drawing for the Leopard were done by Porsche......a JEW



And for the rest of you who think the level of debate is going down hill are obviously getting to heated in a debate that is not the topic of this thread........which is the IAF is going to YOD for MF so they can go against the USAF in the CLAWR and be debriefed at the AFTTC in 4 WG.

Oh yeah the mine rollers and plows we use are the iraeli copies of the russian gear.


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

WTF are you rambling about now?


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

Ummm, was that aimed at me? If so, my avatar is an AVLB, but thanks for playing... incidentally, I drove then for 12 years..does this make me a NAZI? If you think so, say it outright


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

as gramps and i wait for a reply ,.,,,,,,,,,,, someone is typing a big speech to counter something silly I said


IAF + Israilie Air Force
YOD = the airport code for cold lake
MF = maple flag   
USAF = United States Air Force
CLAWR= Cold Lake Air Weapons Range (duh)
AFTTC= Air Force Tactical Training Center
4 WG + 4 Wing Cold Lake ALberta T9M 2C5


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> WTF are you rambling about now?



Thank god, I thought there was something wrong with my eyes for a second...


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

Something stinks....


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

sorry I didn't see the bridge..................
I used to look at them in awe and think I bet they are dry at night.....
And If you were a NAZI I would be one too. I did 5 years as an 8th Hussar in Germany and at the school


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 May 2005)

Quotes,
_"We don't support this Canadian initiative,"said Issam Alyamani of Palestine House, an educational and cultural centre in Toronto."I think that Canada should be more sensitive to the Arab-Palestinian community in Canada.

A number of other countries, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, are sending observers._

...are some of you people mentally unbalanced? You turn to the same old "hate this, hate that" at the quote of one person.
What, did you all think this guy was the mouthpiece for the whole Arab world or something?      Sad, really,.... sure hope you give back the reporter his hook, line and sinker.

MODERATOR NOTE>>> BACK ON TOPIC OR ITS GONE


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

Bruce, I think this may have gone off track with my attempt at humour over the drive a car into a building thing... sorry...

Kat


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

Regardless of who is participating or observing the local execise in Cold lake. I am sure the real winners will be the local economy, Canada as a whole and hopefully the participants who through working together as a team will get a better understanding of each other both personally and culturally. And to the people in Toronto, we hope that you will bring down some of your misconceptions...yaddda yadda yaddaa....no one cares


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

WHO ratted us out and told dad we were fighting...........its OK he is gone now....continue the debate ......please.......


----------



## Gramps (12 May 2005)

It was just getting interesting too.


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

hey gramps I think the pax are gone and we can lock the terminal and go home now.......


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...are some of you people mentally unbalanced? You turn to the same old "hate this, hate that" at the quote of one person.
> What, did you all think this guy was the mouthpiece for the whole Arab world or something?      Sad, really,.... sure hope you give back the reporter his hook, line and sinker.



Yeah some of the comments are a wee bit excessive, but the guy obviously IS a mouthpiece for a chunk of the "Palestinian Community" in Canada if nothing else.   And I'm thinking he's the one who's mentaly unbalanced    Suggesting that we should intentionaly snub/piss-off one of the few democracies in the middle east just so we won't hurt Palestinian sensiblities....well you gotta expect that to generate a few guffaws and some raised pulses.


----------



## Gramps (12 May 2005)

Sounds good to me.


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

So, what are we arguing about now?


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

It's a conspiracy... I tip a few (okay, quite a few) whiskey's, and a near and dear topic pops up...

Kat


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

Alright, I'm deffinitely way too sober to figure out what the hell is going on here, so, if this thread isn't going to get locked, I'm gonna go find my bottle of whiskey.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

It all boils down to this: Our base, our airspace, our fuel and rations.  Who gives a flying rodents rectum what Palestine, or anyone else for that matter, has to say about it?

Kat


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

Alright, if you've noticed that your post has been taken down, that's because you're goofing off and wasting bandwidth - take it to the PM's.

I don't want to lock it because half the membership is browsing it and may have something to add.   If you're going to screw around on this thread, we'll just remove it.

Infanteer


----------



## mover1 (12 May 2005)

well I was removed. You know to go Back on the topic, there was a controversy when the South Africans came to maple flag too


----------



## Dare (12 May 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> And you need to A)Put aside any personal problems you have with my beliefs or choice of screen name like an adult and not sneak your little passive agressive jabs into every post responding to me  and B) Be less selective when choosing which protests you look at.
> 
> The majority of Palestinians want peace unfortunately the area is not as homogenus as we'd like to believe so a number of factors affect the realisation of said peace.
> The statement that "Palestinians do not want peace:they want the Jew dead." holds as much water as "The Majority of Cubans are good socialists and would put the needs of the people before their own needs."


We'll see how much water your position holds considering those "peaceful Palestinians" democratically elect known terrorists and terrorist supporters.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> We'll see how much water your position holds considering those "peaceful Palestinians" democratically elect known terrorists and terrorist supporters.



Which known terrorists and terrorist supporters are you alluding to?


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> We'll see how much water your position holds considering those "peaceful Palestinians" democratically elect known terrorists and terrorist supporters.



You're painting with a broad brush again - something you've proven to be quite good at.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Abbas.html

Looks like a terrorist to me.... :

As I said, look at the first Intifada and tell me that those folks, who stripped their fellow Palestinians of rifles and molotov cocktails, were terrorists bent on destroying Israel.


----------



## Gramps (12 May 2005)

Regardless of who elects who, both sides have blood on their hands. Nobody is innocent in either government in this argument.


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

Gramps said:
			
		

> Regardless of who elects who, both sides have blood on their hands. Nobody is innocent in either government in this argument.



Yup.


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

Gramps said:
			
		

> Regardless of who elects who, both sides have blood on their hands. Nobody is innocent in either government in this argument.



Absolutely.  Which is why the comment about letting go of ancient history is bang on.  Right now Israel is working on a unilateral solution to the problem.  The Palestines have a choice to make:  either negotiate and work out a plan which is acceptable to both sides, or sit by and let Israel do it their way.  The next few years are going to change everything.

Now can we get back to the original topic?


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

Well, in order to be fair, next year we should invite the palestinians to scrape up enough gas money for the 3 or 4 Sopwith Camels they can duct tape together, and come on over.    :warstory:


----------



## Dare (12 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You're painting with a broad brush again - something you've proven to be quite good at.
> 
> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Abbas.html
> 
> ...


I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
I'll continue under the presumtion you are not.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20050404.shtml
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42598
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/shibli_plf.html

Arafat in more appealing packaging is still Arafat.

As for your continued comments about the Intifada, let's have a look into that using the site you quoted above. 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19a.html

But maybe I'm painting with too broad a brush. Perhaps I should be hopeful that Abbas is what everyone says he is. Unfortunately, I'm a realist.

EDIT: A few more perspectives on Abbas:

http://www.muslimworldtoday.com/change21.htm
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/4772.htm


----------



## Dare (12 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/shibli_plf.html


I apologize, wrong Mahmoud Abbas here.


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
> I'll continue under the presumtion you are not.



No, I'm not.

Sorry, but if you expect me to believe that every Palestinian has dedicated themselves to immolating the Jewish State, then you better try harder to convince me then a little cheap shot at Che.   I guess they are all rabid fundamentalists as well, aren't they?   :



> As for your continued comments about the Intifada, let's have a look into that using the site you quoted above.



Wrong Intifada - I was referring to the original one in 1987, not the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

I don't dispute much of the info in the link - but to assume that it is "All the Palestinian's Fault" is being pretty biased.   I said Col. Hammes has presented the best overview to date:



> _"The obvious question is, What happened? How did the Palestinians squander their 4GW victory over the Israelis?   How did the Israelis arrive at a point where they essentially have no security in their own homes?
> 
> It required major efforts by peacemakers on both sides to achieve the level of confidence necessary to sign the accords.   It also required major efforts by hardliners on both sides to reverse conditions to what confronts us today.   In fact, it took almost seven years to go from Oslo to al-Aqsa.   Over that time, hardline Palestinians took control of the Intifada and restated their goal of destroying Israel.   For their part, hardline Israelis took, and continue to take, aggressive, bloody action against the Palestinians.   Essentially, Israeli hardliners, in conjunction with hardline, centralized, entrenched, and out-of-touch Palestinian leadership, led their peoples to this place.   They were actively assisted by radical fundamentalists on both sides.
> 
> ...



As I said, a pox on both their houses....



> But maybe I'm painting with too broad a brush. Perhaps I should be hopeful that Abbas is what everyone says he is. Unfortunately, I'm a realist.



Well, I place much more faith in Abbas to turn things around then I do in Arafat - the fact that he walked out on the offer Barak gave him indicates that he was only interested in conflict - I remain convinced that he was the biggest roadblock to a solution.

Sure, Abbas may have skeletons in the closet - but who in the region doesn't?   I'm sure we were all shocked when Sharon, invader of Lebanon and architect of the colonial expansion into the Occupied Terrorities, would pull an about face, leave the hardliners of the Likud in the dust, and unilaterally attempt to move towards a resolution by evacuating the Settlements - I'm sure Abbas is capable of doing the same.

I am a realist as well, but I'm not going to sit in the corner and paint "terrorist" with my big brush.  Here's an idea, instead of being Mr Pessimist and basically deriding everybody who doesn't see things at your level as a terrorist sympathiser, why don't you tell us what needs to be done.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 May 2005)

Sheesh!  I leave for half an hour and I'm two pages behind!  I brought my good buddy Mr. Keith to help me out now ...

The Palestinians (and yes, I realize not _every single_ Palestinian, but I _am_ talking about an unfortunately large proportion of the population) support the use of terrorist tactics against the Jews.  I don't know how many of you have experienced life over there (I was in Israel "proper" as well as the Golan and the West Bank for about a month), but from my admittedly limited experience, it is nuts:

Israelis (including Arabs and Christians) try to live a peaceful life, going to work, paying their taxes, loving their families, etc., but then every few weeks some Palestinian A$$hole decides it's a good idea to blow himself up in a pizza parlour full of teenagers (who are as concerned about American Idol as they are about politics or religion).  It ain't right.  The "Refugee Camps" are nothing of the sort: they are cities and towns (albeit very poor ones), but nothing like a "Camp" (that ever existed in my imagination, anyway), let alone a _Refugee_ Camp!  The entire economy based upon extorting cash from outside governments: there is very little interest in establishing anything resembling an economy ... waging war on Israel (by which I mean using terrorist tactics to kill Jews) _is_ their economy.

The older generations had some hope: the younger generation (having grown up in these "refugee camps") know nothing but hate and war (actually terrorism).  It just ain't right.



Che, I have to admit I do have a problem with someone that would choose to "honour" the name of a mass-murdering psychopath like Che Guevara ... I only hope you do so out of ignorance, but that is a WAY different tangent.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 May 2005)

Whoah... gonna take one giant step backwards and don poo protection equipment...

Kat


----------



## 48Highlander (12 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Sorry, but if you expect me to believe that every Palestinian has dedicated themselves to immolating the Jewish State, then you better try harder to convince me then a little cheap shot at Che.   I guess they are all rabid fundamentalists as well, aren't they?   :



Infanteer, did you get a chance to do a tour in Yugoslavia?   If you haven't ask some of the boys here about the kind of hatred that even average Bosnians or Croats showed towards Serbs, or vice versa.   I myself am half croat and half serb, yet if you do a search for one of my grandfahers, you'll find his name linked to war-crimes against serbs.   When people are engaged in a religious, cultural, or ethnic conflict, even the reasonable ones tend to develop extreemist tendancies.   In Yugoslavia, it took only a few years before people reached that point.   Imagine what it would be like after 50-60 years.   I'm not agreeng with "Dare" here, because there are certainly SOME Palestinians who can still view the whole conflict reasonably and who wants a civilized solution to it.   However, they are very few and far between.   Even in Canada I have yet to meet a single Palestinian who actually wants a reasonable negotiated settlement of the conflict.   I did meet a couple who agreed that Israel had a right to exist, but even they wanted all the settled territories given to palestine.   On the other hand, I also had the dubious pleasure of instructing a Palestinian on his QL2/3 course who beleived that all Jews deserved to die.   By the end of the course I had him negotiated down to "they don't desrve to die, but they have no right to their own state".
I know you're basing your opinions on the fact that there are always reasonable people on both sides of every conflict, however, in the case of Palstinians, I seriously doubt that there's more than 1 in 10 who'd agree to any sort of reasonable compromise.   60 years of warfare and poverty have seen to that.


----------



## Infanteer (13 May 2005)

Yup, BTDT.   I remember seeing local Muslims push a returning Serb's building supplies into the river because they didn't want him moving back.
I'm willing to bet you're on the money, 48th.   You know, I'm beginning to wonder if the situation is akin to the German/Soviet one on the Eastern Front - all reason out the window due to the actions of both sides.   Essentially, any chance for "decompressing" the conflict through mediation has went out the door with the heavy casualties both sides have taken in the Al-Aqsa Intifada.   

Why I am playing Devil's Advocate here is because there is alot of rage in the Palestinian community and it has really been amplified by the Al-Aqsa Intifada (your examples clearly indicate this), and I don't think it is fair to write it all off as terrorist extremism - anyone with cursory knowledge of the area knows that it is a tit-for-tat relationship there.   It is like the Balkans - I refused to go in pointing fingers at the Serbs (or the Croats or the Muslims) - they were all equal players in the game.

This is why I said earlier that I do support the current action of the Israeli government - basically cutting themselves off from the Palestinians, most who are probably done with talking, with a wall and pulling away from Gaza and the West Bank.

Before you guys get any ideas that I'm some Palestinian-flag waving freak from a college campus, I'll state very clearly that I support Israel as a modern, liberal democratic state.   You can look at past discussions on the issue and see that I'm quite consistent in supporting Israelis as the "Right Flank" against the Islamic Insurgency that is targetting the west (ie: I think knocking out ringleaders with Hellfires is a perfectly acceptable solution).

However, there is no black/white in this conflict and as a 4th Generation one, the solution lies with engagement.   Whether this engagement be by talking or a unilateral withdrawl to "put the ball in the Palestinian court" WRT World Opinion (remember, War of Perception), so be it - but nothing will get solved as long as we dwell on what the other guy did/is doing.


----------



## 48Highlander (13 May 2005)

Well I'm glad we got that sorted out.  I didn't thing you were picking sides; everything I've seen from you in past threads has indicated that you're impartial when it comes to the Palestine-Israel situation.  I just wanted to point out that there's probably very few palestinians who can say the same.


----------



## Dare (13 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> No, I'm not.
> 
> Sorry, but if you expect me to believe that every Palestinian has dedicated themselves to immolating the Jewish State, then you better try harder to convince me then a little cheap shot at Che.  I guess they are all rabid fundamentalists as well, aren't they?  :


Alright, Palestinian public opinion then.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/palpo.html


> Wrong Intifada - I was referring to the original one in 1987, not the Al-Aqsa Intifada.


Alright, all intifadas then.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19.html
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_intifada_nature.php


> I don't dispute much of the info in the link - but to assume that it is "All the Palestinian's Fault" is being pretty biased.  I said Col. Hammes has presented the best overview to date:


Biased indeed. I never claimed impartiality. 


> "Similarly, if Likud were to achieve their goal of annexation of key parts of the occupied territories, they had to convince the Israeli people that the Palestinians could never be trusted.  They had to convince them that despite Likud's failed policy of invading Lebanon and their failed policy in dealing with Hamas in South Lebanon, Likud still had the correct vision of the future.  In short, the right-wing party had to portray the Palestinians as seeking the annihilation of Israel; that "land for peace" was a false and dangerous dream.  They had to return Israeli opinion to that which existed before Intifada I."
> 
> As I said, a pox on both their houses....


There is a reasion "land for peace" is a false and dangerous dream. Perhaps you can recall they already tried that with Egypt and the Sinai with very limited success.


> Well, I place much more faith in Abbas to turn things around then I do in Arafat - the fact that he walked out on the offer Barak gave him indicates that he was only interested in conflict - I remain convinced that he was the biggest roadblock to a solution.


The fact you place more in Abbas has me wondering as they are only different in tactics.


> Sure, Abbas may have skeletons in the closet - but who in the region doesn't?  I'm sure we were all shocked when Sharon, invader of Lebanon and architect of the colonial expansion into the Occupied Terrorities, would pull an about face, leave the hardliners of the Likud in the dust, and unilaterally attempt to move towards a resolution by evacuating the Settlements - I'm sure Abbas is capable of doing the same.


Abbas has more than "skeletons". His "political party" Fatah, is a terrorist group. His words have spoken volumes as to the kind of man he is and the kind he pretends to be. Sharons strategy of evacuating some settlements in Gaza is not as much of an about face as you might think it is. It is a concession to the U.S. 


> I am a realist as well, but I'm not going to sit in the corner and paint "terrorist" with my big brush.  Here's an idea, instead of being Mr Pessimist and basically deriding everybody who doesn't see things at your level as a terrorist sympathiser, why don't you tell us what needs to be done.


I don't recall deriding you as a terrorist sympathiser, Infanteer, nor do I appreciate your tone. I respect you. I simply disagree with your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, it's not far fetch to call a man who praises suicide bombers, is a member of a terrorist group and who denies the holocaust, a Bad Guy. I think it's fair game. As for being a Pessimist. I'm actually very much an optimist. I believe Sharon is doing exactly what needs to be done. I also believe that western grand strategies are making positive effect. Withdrawing from Gaza, solidifying parts of the West bank and building a giant wall is exactly what needs to be done. 

http://www.pmw.org.il/
Abbas could put a stop to this... if he wanted.


----------



## 48Highlander (13 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, it's not far fetch to call a man who praises suicide bombers, is a member of a terrorist group and who denies the holocaust, a Bad Guy. I think it's fair game. As for being a Pessimist. I'm actually very much an optimist. I believe Sharon is doing exactly what needs to be done. I also believe that western grand strategies are making positive effect. Withdrawing from Gaza, solidifying parts of the West bank and building a giant wall is exactly what needs to be done.



I can agree with all of that, however, at this point I don't think it really matters wether the leader of the Palestinian "state" is a "bad guy".  Rather, the question is how reasonable he's willing to be.  I don't care if Abas thinks that the entire holocaust was faked, and that Iraels intends to own the whole world.  If he's willing to negotiate - and I mean REALLY negotiaite, not Arafats version of it - then he's a hell of a lot better than anything we've had so far.  Change in that region isn't going to happen overnight - one small miracle at a time is all we can hope for.


----------



## Infanteer (13 May 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Well I'm glad we got that sorted out.   I didn't thing you were picking sides; everything I've seen from you in past threads has indicated that you're impartial when it comes to the Palestine-Israel situation.



Hey, when it comes to this specific situation, I guess that is a compliment - thanks!  



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> Alright, Palestinian public opinion then.
> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/palpo.html
> 
> Alright, all intifadas then.
> ...



Interesting source.  As I've said, Col Hammes, with over 2 decades of military experience and acclaimed scholarship in the field of insurgency warfare, presents a different view - I'm inclined to take it (from his published book) over an internet "Fact List" - I guess that's my pick and my fault if it is proven false; _c'est la vie_.



> There is a reasion "land for peace" is a false and dangerous dream. Perhaps you can recall they already tried that with Egypt and the Sinai with very limited success.



Apples and Oranges - is Palestine going to lumber over the border with tanks?



> The fact you place more in Abbas has me wondering as they are only different in tactics.
> 
> Abbas has more than "skeletons". His "political party" Fatah, is a terrorist group. His words have spoken volumes as to the kind of man he is and the kind he pretends to be.



Well, you have to look somewhere - and I sure ain't waiting for Jesus to return to Earth and sort it out.



> Sharons strategy of evacuating some settlements in Gaza is not as much of an about face as you might think it is.  It is a concession to the U.S.



I'd believe that - I'm pretty sure (or at least I hope) that some in the US have figured out that solving the Palestinian/Israeli issue is a key component to undermining the Islamic Insurgeny.



> As far as I'm concerned, it's not far fetch to call a man who praises suicide bombers, is a member of a terrorist group and who denies the holocaust, a Bad Guy. I think it's fair game.



Put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian looking at the Likud party and some of the statements the hardliners there have made - two sides to every story.



> I'm actually very much an optimist. I believe Sharon is doing exactly what needs to be done. I also believe that western grand strategies are making positive effect. Withdrawing from Gaza, solidifying parts of the West bank and building a giant wall is exactly what needs to be done.



Well, we may disagree on the background, but at least we agree on the solution.  I guess it is like a Ref stepping between the fight at the next Vancouver Canucks/Colorado Avalanche game.... 



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> I can agree with all of that, however, at this point I don't think it really matters wether the leader of the Palestinian "state" is a "bad guy".   Rather, the question is how reasonable he's willing to be.   I don't care if Abas thinks that the entire holocaust was faked, and that Iraels intends to own the whole world.   If he's willing to negotiate - and I mean REALLY negotiaite, not Arafats version of it - then he's a hell of a lot better than anything we've had so far.   Change in that region isn't going to happen overnight - one small miracle at a time is all we can hope for.



+1 from me.


----------



## Dare (13 May 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I can agree with all of that, however, at this point I don't think it really matters wether the leader of the Palestinian "state" is a "bad guy".  Rather, the question is how reasonable he's willing to be.  I don't care if Abas thinks that the entire holocaust was faked, and that Iraels intends to own the whole world.  If he's willing to negotiate - and I mean REALLY negotiaite, not Arafats version of it - then he's a heck of a lot better than anything we've had so far.  Change in that region isn't going to happen overnight - one small miracle at a time is all we can hope for.


I agree with your last sentence. 
Reasonable in actuality or in perception? That's the key point. What do you suppose he meant by this statement "the little jihad has ended, and now the big jihad's beginning." Or how about "cracking down on Hamas, Jihad, and the Palestinian organizations is not an option at all"? Abbas still supports the "right of return". What have we properly negotiated with him without the threat of force? What concessions have been made? I'm not talking about the much praised "crack down" on terrorists that he promises. Where are the arrests?

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/4497359.stm

Take note, the militants are members of *his* terrorist group. I guess that's a Palestinian "crack down"? Or is it an example of "moderation"?


----------



## 48Highlander (13 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> I agree with your last sentence.
> Reasonable in actuality or in perception? That's the key point. What do you suppose he meant by this statement "the little jihad has ended, and now the big jihad's beginning." Or how about "cracking down on Hamas, Jihad, and the Palestinian organizations is not an option at all"? Abbas still supports the "right of return". What have we properly negotiated with him without the threat of force? What concessions have been made? I'm not talking about the much praised "crack down" on terrorists that he promises. Where are the arrests?
> 
> http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/4497359.stm
> ...



I'm not going to agree or disagree with you.  It's too early to make any judgements on Abas.  If you have a problem with what he's saying...well, look at the liberals and their "we promise, no more tax raises".  The man is in a very dificult position.  He can't alienate his own people, otherwise he's doomed.  On the other hand, I think he's intelligent enough to realize that continuing Arafats policies will be suicide for his state.  I'm waiting to see what his actions are, rather than his words.


----------



## winchable (13 May 2005)

Ah hell lets hang him now and put in a wal-mart.

Much like the US invasion of Iraq, Abass's legacy will best be judged by history and as such it is impossible for us to condemn or applaude him for anything right now.
The best any of us can do is go on the assumption that the majority of world leaders have taken and that is that he wants peace as much as any Israeli does.

And before we cast any judgement on the man he's in far more difficult position than most politicians are, as 48 put it best:



> The man is in a very dificult position.  He can't alienate his own people, otherwise he's doomed.  On the other hand, I think he's intelligent enough to realize that continuing Arafats policies will be suicide for his state.


----------



## Dare (13 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Hey, when it comes to this specific situation, I guess that is a compliment - thanks!
> 
> Interesting source.  As I've said, Col Hammes, with over 2 decades of military experience and acclaimed scholarship in the field of insurgency warfare, presents a different view - I'm inclined to take it (from his published book) over an internet "Fact List" - I guess that's my pick and my fault if it is proven false; _c'est la vie_.


I'm afraid I don't know who Col Hammes is but I do believe that the two lists provided are sourced.


> Apples and Oranges - is Palestine going to lumber over the border with tanks?


Well that is another misconception, in that this is Palestine vs Israel. It is actually the greater middle east vs Israel. The Sinai (twice as large as current day Israel, yet part of traditional Israel proper) was given to Egypt for "peace". Of course, Egypt only accepted it as a "cease-fire", and have been found many times to be helping the insurgency with tunneled weaponry and supplies. So when people say "land grab" in relation to Israel, it disregards some major facts. In order to properly understand this conflict we have to think broader than just country and religion.


> Well, you have to look somewhere - and I sure ain't waiting for Jesus to return to Earth and sort it out.


While I am not awaiting celestial omniscients to fix things, I also am not going to get my hopes up on one man.


> I'd believe that - I'm pretty sure (or at least I hope) that some in the US have figured out that solving the Palestinian/Israeli issue is a key component to undermining the Islamic Insurgeny.


Of course, many know this conflict is a major source of propaghanda for terrorists worldwide, unfortunately, I think people put too much stock into it as being the key to solving other conflicts. The West is indeed quite active, on both sides of the issue, in the region as are many world wide. 


> Put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinian looking at the Likud party and some of the statements the hardliners there have made - two sides to every story.


I am afraid I still can't wrap my head around accepting suicide bombings targetting innocent civilians. Even in a geostrategic sense, it's bad policy. If I was a Palestinian, I would support complete disengagement from Israel and disarm. Once that is done, Israel would not have a leg to stand on in any sense of expansion nor world support. And frankly, I believe a large volume of Israelies would support that and disengage as well. There would be no support in the IDF for raking down pacifists. I believe most anti-Arab or anti-Muslim sentements in Israel are due to the actions of the Palestinians and are not out of contempt but rather despair in the conclusion that many can see no other alternative than genocide of one side or the other. I certainly do not believe that, but we must foster a more conclusively moderate Palestine and not prop up someone who is just "moderate.. for Palestine". Israel is a democracy, and a democracy faced with no (visible) threat tends to organicly recoil and pacify itself. There are already protesters inside the current day IDF. If Israel is presented with no danger, it would not commit genocide against the Palestinians. It's not democratically feasable. It's only the Palestinian Authority that hold back any progress towards peace.


----------



## Dare (13 May 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I'm not going to agree or disagree with you.  It's too early to make any judgements on Abas.  If you have a problem with what he's saying...well, look at the liberals and their "we promise, no more tax raises".  The man is in a very dificult position.  He can't alienate his own people, otherwise he's doomed.  On the other hand, I think he's intelligent enough to realize that continuing Arafats policies will be suicide for his state.  I'm waiting to see what his actions are, rather than his words.


I'll agree with the sentement that Abbas is in a difficult place, but 2 arrests.. from his own group? I think Abbas should not only be judged for his actions but also his visible lack of action. I do not think it is too soon to judge him, as on that front, he seems quite consistant. He wants Israeli arrested terrorists set free. It's â Å“confidence buildingâ ?. Under pressure they have released many hundreds. Can you imagine being in a war and being asked to release your prisoners to "build confidence" with the one who sent them in the first place? I searched for a while to find anymore arrests than that but it's interesting there are so many articles talking about Abbas "cracking down" and "ordering arrests", yet just the one of him actually arresting any terrorists. Of course, all of the other hits mentioning the arresting of Palestininan terrorists have the Israeli's doing the arresting.

http://www.yoni4knesset.com/mt/archives/000370.html


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (13 May 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> The man is in a very dificult position.  He can't alienate his own people, otherwise he's doomed.  On the other hand, I think he's intelligent enough to realize that continuing Arafats policies will be suicide for his state.


  It's popular sentiment that is driving hatred of Israel, not a few wackos!



> I'm waiting to see what his actions are, rather than his words.


 There needs to be a fundamental change in how Palestinians view Israel: we haven't really seen it happen so far ...


----------



## Polish Possy (13 May 2005)

I saw a documentary about the Gaza strip And you would figure that the people that hate each other would eventually die and a new generation would be born with this conflicts as old stories but It seems that both sides (although it focused on the Palestinians  more ) showed that the parents teach the kids hatered for each other they interviewed a family and every the 4 year old daughter said she would want to kill Israelis with a A-Kalashnikov I was surprised at her age she knew what a AK was and the proper name they also showed young teen boys playing with toy guns called attack the Israeli convoy again I was shocked but the thing that was horrible was one of the young boys already had his  suicide letter for his family after he blows him self up. I believe that parents are part of fuel of hatered they teach the kids to fight insed of forgetting old conflicts 


....What was the Original topic ?


----------



## 1feral1 (13 May 2005)

I have been sitting back and reading the posts since I posted when this thread was in its early stages.

You know, when mothers   (At Gaza a recent Australian 60 Minutes programme) dress their toddler aged kids up in toy explosive belts and AK47 rifles (actually praising that they want these kids when they get older to kill themselves to kill Jews), then to grow up and be martyrs, by strapping on real HE, and then to walk into a shopping centre or board a bus, something SERIOUSLY has to be wrong, and quite frankly I don't want anyone with this mentality in my neighbourhood, yet alone in my country.

Excercising one's democratic rights is one thing, but when this changes into outright plans of violence (PLO and related cowardly criminal murdering outlawed gangs) or other kinds of disruption with an agenda backed by pure unadulterated hatred, thats a complete different story.

I would be sitting back and seeing what plans these transplanted Palestinians have up their sleeves. In short I trust them as about as far as I can spit. Sorry, but thats just the reality of today. Any of them who go one step beyond, should be deported outright.

I have seen PLO demonstrations first hand, and not in the ME either, right in Sydney, and they caused well over a million dollars damage to inner city cafes and businesses, etc. This was to be a peaceful anti-Israeli rally. 

Go figure? Their inbread milddle east hatred backed by sheer violence was transplanted into Sydney, and the hate packed behind it was unreal, and quite diffucult for mainstream Aussies to comprehend, and did nothing but create more bad feelings between us and them.

Don't get me wrong, ther is an 'us' and 'them', and they are the ones who created this problem. The idea of immigrants coming here, adopting the culture and lifestyle of Australia is long gone. Seems these days the only thing established has been satellite countries from whence they came. Nothing more, with the exception of bringing in all that excess baggage of hatred towards others.

They can all take their Zam-Zam colas and shove them up their arses.

No race cards here, and no political correctness either. If these people want to wash their centuries old dirty laundry, go HOME and do it. I am sick of the whole lot causing problems.

Not in my country, and I am sure my beloved Canada is having the same problems, if not it will be soon enough.

For the ones that tow the line and live a life of happinesss, adopting their new country (of course never forgetting where they come from) , good on ya's, but sadly I think this is a small number.

Another dose of the reality tablet, and if anyone does not like it, just put your head in the sand, and it will go away.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 May 2005)

Pretty much where I was headed Wes, but you nailed it down better than I did.

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## P-Free (13 May 2005)

I agree with Wes as well. 

A society that allows proud mothers to dress their children up in fake explosives and carry plastic guns and then sends young men and women off to blows themselves into bits has more wrong with it than it's neighbors.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 May 2005)

Quote,
_A society _ 

...to quote Infanteer yesterday, painting a broad brush, aren't we?
Just who do you think gets shown on those images?  I guess "Jerry Springer type" shows give a good cross section of North Americans also. :


----------



## Britney Spears (13 May 2005)

We (and Australia too) should do what the Israelis do and introduce mandatory military service as part of the immigration proccess. Nothing like 6 month of being shot at in the West Bank to prove one's loyalty to the new country.  ;D


----------



## Britney Spears (14 May 2005)

> You need only go to a city high school these days to see this (albeit on a smaller scale). "Wheres my Somali brothers, lets go fight those white boys". Or "F-Israel and F the Jews, they ruining my country and killing my people" (Palestinian kid who was born here in Canada). "I hate this country, you and your white christian values, I'm only here because its better living for my people, we'll take over someday". Or my personal favorite after Sept. 11th "yeah, we got those american bastar*s good, I hope they all burn in heck for a thousand years, lets get the jews and this country next".



Well, to be fair, high schoolers/teenagers are one step below pondscum in EVERY civilized country, so that's pretty much par for the course.


----------



## jmacleod (14 May 2005)

Pleased to see the IDF Air Force invited to Cold Lake, but IAF aircraft have been in Canada before.
We had IAF "KFIR's" (Lions) at the well known Shearwater International Air Show some years
back - they came from USN Air Station Mirimar CA, and were flying as the "enemy" in the Top
Gun program. Trip was arranged courtesy of the Northrop Corporation, Aircraft Group, Hawthorne
CA, which provided technical support for the Northrop F-5's flying in Top Gun, simulating a variety
of Soviet fighters of the era, and the IDF aircraft. I don't care about the attempt to make foreign
political statement by the Palestinian focus group in Canada (courtesy of the CBC) - what exactly
do they contribute to Canada? - the F-16's will put on quite a show I would think, and welcome
from us, we need closer links with Israel in any event. MacLeod


----------



## MysticLies (14 May 2005)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> There needs to be a fundamental change in how Palestinians view Israel: we haven't really seen it happen so far ...



correction: There needs to be a fundamental change in how Palestinians view Israel, and how Israelis view Palestine: we haven't really seen it happen so far


----------



## Rebel_RN (15 May 2005)

I think it's great that they were invited. What I find utterly nauseating is the fact that Immigrations allows the different cultures to come to Canada and create a mini-where ever they were from in the first place. I have no problems with someone remembering where they came from but it seems to me that once on Canadian soil they ( not all mind you ) tend to forget why they left. When emigrating to a western culture there are some western ideals that I feel should be imposed. maybe I'm way out in left field here but I don't want centuries old drama, issues, problems,and fighting being readily flaunted in my face or felt as though i am inconsiderate because i don't feel that I should have to Kow tow to demands or opinions such as the one made about Cold Lake, and I don't feel that my Country should have to either. There is a huge difference between freedom of speech and propagating what could be future violence and a very fine line between the two and in my,what I'm sure is politically incorrect, opinion I feel that the line is crossed all too frequently. Continued ignorance breeds continued problems and perhaps Canada should take a long hard look at what is sometimes going on right under it's nose.

Note: I don't intend for this to be as generalized as it may seem, there are the good and bad of every situation, country, society and race.
This is just my personal opinion.


----------



## larry Strong (15 May 2005)

I have to agree with Wes also.


----------



## 1feral1 (15 May 2005)

Thanks Larry, I believe my feelings are wide spread, and there is nothing PC about it. Its just based on fact, and personal experience, and I don't care if the truth offends the do-gooders and snivel libertarians out there. Seems we pander to their every whim anyways. Well enough is enough.

Its just after 0500 here Monday in the tropics, and I gotta get into the Unit a bit early today, and living 70km out doesn't help. I am sure you all are enjoying your Sunday afternoons accross Canada.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## larry Strong (15 May 2005)

Oh Ya  It's 20 Deg C out and the sun is shining here


----------



## 1feral1 (15 May 2005)

Seems the ADF now has allowed access to this site again!

Well just got back from a 1.5hr PT session, up 'hearbreak hill' at the back of Enoggera, but at least this time in plain PT gear. Today's weather was 17C before dawn, and it will top off at about 25-27C, the palm trees are gently blowing in the breeze  ;D. Not bad for late autumn, but wait for it, the summers here are shockers. 

Have a good day,

Wes


----------



## Acorn (16 May 2005)

Rebel_RN said:
			
		

> Continued ignorance breeds continued problems



Thanks for demonstrating that so well.

Acorn


----------



## Rebel_RN (16 May 2005)

I don't believe that my view is ignorant in the least. I believe that there is a reason for emmigration and have no problems with that, as I stated earlier I have a big problem with re-hashing all of the centuries old issues once on Canadian soil, or trying to make Canada feel bad for inviting a particular group to Cold Lake. If they don't approve, TOUGH.


----------



## spenco (16 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Well, to be fair, high schoolers/teenagers are one step below pondscum in EVERY civilized country, so that's pretty much par for the course.



I have to agree with this statement, in my school there are several clubs that under the mask of "human rights violations" bash the US and Israel at every opportunity, one girl i talked to who is in these clubs believes that Bush planned 9/11 and that Bin Laden is working for the CIA.  It shocked me when I learned that this sentiment is actually pretty common in my school.  They bash Israel for bulldozing "innocent Palestinians homes" while ignoring the fact that the same people go and blow themselves up and kill children about my age or younger.  What really bothers me is if I try to say something about it or try to argue their positions I am branded a racist fascist who would make Hitler look communist. 



> I think it's great that they were invited. What I find utterly nauseating is the fact that Immigrations allows the different cultures to come to Canada and create a mini-where ever they were from in the first place.



Yeah, Canada is going to become a mini-India or China in a few years at this rate but that debate is for another time.



> I have no problems with someone remembering where they came from but it seems to me that once on Canadian soil they ( not all mind you ) tend to forget why they left. When emigrating to a western culture there are some western ideals that I feel should be imposed. maybe I'm way out in left field here but I don't want centuries old drama, issues, problems,and fighting being readily flaunted in my face or felt as though i am inconsiderate



Exactly.  I think it was Don Cherry who said "if an Italian goes to the USA, hes there for 5 mins and hes an American, but if an Italian comes to Canada, 25 years later hes still Italian.  Another problem brought to you by our lovely "cultural mosaic" bullshit we have here in Canada, people bring their politics from the homeland here, example: the anti-Japanese protests we had here in Vancouver from the Chinese community.

Back on topic:

As people Infanteer said, you cant paint with a broad brush; we know that not all Palestinians are brainwashed Jew-hating psycho-paths but unfortunately there are many who are, so the problem is how is this going to change?  As someone pointed out it isn't going to happen anytime soon while people train their 4 year old kids to hate like that.  I'm going to sound like a pacifist hippy saying this but I don't think that violence will solve this problem, there has to be a more long term solution than blowing the other guy up.  IMHO the wall that Israel is building/has built sounds like the best solution, physically separate the two peoples so Palestinian suicide bombers can come in, nor can Israeli tanks, although I think that Israel should have built the wall along the 1967 borders.  So, I know it wont be as simple as this but if both sides stayed off eachothers back for a while without any major incident to give fuel to the fire maybe tempers will cool and the two sides will be able to get a long term peace solution.  (This is the part where I get my head out of the clouds.)  Will that work?  Probably not, there is too much hatred on both sides for anything like that to work.  The UN should theoretically be doing something about this but it is hardly un-biased and fair, it has repeatedly shows it's pro-Palestine orientation, so Israel wouldn't agree to a UN brokered agreement. Perhaps another Camp David meeting would be appropriate in a few years, with Arafat gone who knows, maybe something good will come out of it and there will be something concrete and long term that could help to solve the regions problems.  I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

Well I think thats the longest post I've ever typed.  ;D


----------



## Polish Possy (16 May 2005)

Thats a good point

That reminds me of Grade 9 geography with melting pots and tossed salads 

America is like a melting pot because ur your like a ice cube that is put in boiling water and then u melt into an American , here in Canada it is like a salad because there is a little bit of every thing and not all the same


Also, alot of high school students are stupid and immature but there are still some that are responsible 
just like not all middle eastern people are terrorists and not all Asians are great at math these are stereotypes brought on by the media ? parents ? friends ? like I said before it is a screwy world and we are hanging on for dear life.

Here in Canada we get our kicks from whoopie couchons and bowling in Iraq some people get their kicks of gunning down police and children , Now I know that this doesn't happen with all people in Iraq but that crap doesn't happen here in Canada every day but Why ? because of the government , more important problems , common sense, rules involing weapons  I really don't know crap like that is even considered ....but because of recent events you can't say anything with out some one getting offened , for example you can't wear trench coats , bandanna's , Camo pants with out one person saying jeez don't shoot up the school now or you should talk to a guidance teacher , I am sick of all this crap , even when I tell people I want to become a soldier to defend and protect this country I live in they still insist there must be some thing wrong with me. But is it some thing wrong with me or them ?


----------



## Acorn (16 May 2005)

Rebel_RN said:
			
		

> I don't believe that my view is ignorant in the least. I believe that there is a reason for emmigration and have no problems with that, as I stated earlier I have a big problem with re-hashing all of the centuries old issues once on Canadian soil, or trying to make Canada feel bad for inviting a particular group to Cold Lake. If they don't approve, TOUGH.



"Centuries old issues" will be "re-hashed" on Canadian soil no matter how much you'd like to prevent it: Aboriginal issues, Anglo-Franco issues, name it. The FACT is we have relatively free speech here in Canada, and if YOU don't like that there are many places you can go to (emigrate from Canada). So long as they don't cross the line of protesting violently or incitement to violence I invite immigrants to use their presence in Canada to benefit from the freedom that brought them here in the first place. Like it or not, the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians have a beef with Israel. Sure, their some of anger might be better directed towards their Arab neighbours (for various reasons, that you must know since you aren't ignorant of the conflict), but currently they are occupied by Israel, not Jordan, Egypt or Syria. What do you expect?

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer (17 May 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> "Centuries old issues" will be "re-hashed" on Canadian soil no matter how much you'd like to prevent it: Aboriginal issues, Anglo-Franco issues, name it. The FACT is we have relatively free speech here in Canada, and if YOU don't like that there are many places you can go to (emigrate from Canada). So long as they don't cross the line of protesting violently or incitement to violence I invite immigrants to use their presence in Canada to benefit from the freedom that brought them here in the first place. Like it or not, the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians have a beef with Israel. Sure, their some of anger might be better directed towards their Arab neighbours (for various reasons, that you must know since you aren't ignorant of the conflict), but currently they are occupied by Israel, not Jordan, Egypt or Syria. What do you expect?
> 
> Acorn



Thank you, Acorn, for again bringing some sense into the "lynch-mob" that tends to form around here at times.

This whole debate is a see-saw one, and is really going into spin-cycle mode.  However, I wish to add a further comment to the moral indignation against the "suicide bomber babies" and the parading of children in Palestinian protests.  Dressing up a child to resemble the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is like us throwing our children into Cadet Uniforms and watching them march around the street:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Moreover, I believe that cultural conceptions of war determine our social outlook on "styles" of fighting.  Look at the way suicide bombers are treated in the society from which the came from; they are celebrated as heros.  The cultural mechanism that supports this is the enormously strong undertow of Islam; of which many of its interpretations define suicide bombing as martyrdom and entry to heaven.  They are looked upon as true "warriors" of their society.
> 
> This isn't unique to Islamic cultures and sub-cultures either; just look at the Japanese Kamikaze of WWII and the ceremonial significance of their sacrifice.
> 
> ...


----------



## larry Strong (17 May 2005)

_*Dressing up a child to resemble the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is like us throwing our children into Cadet Uniforms and watching them march around the street:*_

To imply that Cadets are along the same lines as suicide bombers is ridiculous.


----------



## Polish Possy (17 May 2005)

I didn't want to touch that with a 20 ft pole but ....

I guess in some ways you could say cadets and sucidebombers are the same but there are huge differences ....I can see both sides of this but I think the people running cadets don't have revenge and anger towards other people in this country ...as I said there are some simulaities but I wouldn't say they are the same, Main reason is that cadet leaders don't tell the kids to go out and kill a certain race of people for their homework....


----------



## Infanteer (17 May 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> To imply that Cadets are along the same lines as suicide bombers is ridiculous.



You obviously didn't read my statement.

As I said above, many within the Palestinian movement are angry (for reasons that may or may not be legitimate) and see the suicide attackers such as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in a heroic and patriotic light - in the Middle East, religion and poltics are one, thus those that sacrifice themselves against perceived injustices against Islam are seen as defenders of Islamic society and lauded for their piety and their self-sacrifice.

Western social and cultural thought simply has no mechanisms to process suicide attacks - we are apt to write it off as bizarre and barbaric; consider what would happen if someone ordered Bloggins to ram his Iltis full of C4 into an enemy position.   However, with Islamic cultures (among others, see the reference to the Japanese _Kamikaze_ I made above) there is a very real importance attached to the demonstration of the resolve by displaying youth hardened to resist a perceived threat.   If we fail to heed this we may blind ourselves to important facts and aspects of those who would oppose us - remember what Sun Tzu said about know your enemy.   *What I'm cautioning against is letting the baby pictures lead us to denigrating the will or the will to conflict of the enemy.*

We are no different with dressing our children up as soldiers and marching them around in formations - in times when we faced a bigger threat (as anyone who was a cadet 10-30 years ago can attest to), we actually trained them, took them out on training exercises with soldiers and considered them to be "soldiers in waiting" - ready to heed the call to arms when they came of age.

It is conceivable, if we step outside of our cultural bubble of right and wrong, that someone who sees Western soldiers marching through their community would be angered by the image of 14 year old cadets being prepared for disciplined Western military service - just as many here are angered by the youth being taken to demonstrations dressed up as suicide bombers.


----------



## larry Strong (17 May 2005)

Thats ok, The worst they can do is take away some of my birthdays......an I have a few score I would trade off . To equate dressing up your children in a fashion that represents, a segment of society that condones going out and indiscriminatly blowing up what ever they can find, to a youth group that tries to teach responsibility and self discipline borders on the inane if not totaly incredulous.

This was posted after the last three post's but I still stand by it.


----------



## Infanteer (17 May 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> To equate dressing up your children in a fashion that represents, a segment of society that condones going out and indiscriminatly blowing up what ever they can find, to a youth group that tries to teach responsibility and self discipline borders on the inane if not totaly incredulous.



Again, you are failing to read my posts.

They are dressing their children up as the defenders of their Islamic society - martyrdom against those perceived to be occupying their native soil is seen as pious "responsibility" and "self discipline" in supporting what is most likely the central influence in their lives, Islam.   It is their social and individual interpretation; who am I to say they are wrong?   The only thing I can go on is my conviction to my own cause and means (disciplined and principled military force directed by an secular, lawful state entity), but this does not necessarily invalidate theirs.

Just trying to deflate this notion of "Well, I send my kid to Cadets and they hold theirs up dressed like Suicide Bombers - fucking rag-head terrorists....someone pass the KFC!"


----------



## Acorn (18 May 2005)

Some of the sentiments expressed here are the reasons why we seem to never get anywhere when dealing with Islamic or Arabic culture (for those who aren't aware, many of you I suspect, Arab Christians feel more solidarity with Arab Muslims than with Western Christians). I often see sentiments here scoffing at "cultural awareness" training, but ultimately it's that trg that gives us much of the success we can claim on our deployments.

The fact is, we don't get it. We don't even try. I'm pleased that the Int Branch has introduced a great deal on bias, identifying it and setting it aside, in the past years. Cultural projection has been one of our greatest input errors - we tend to view the actions of our enemies through our own cultural lenses. I think Infanteer has made some good points, and those of you who are unable to see the similarity between kids in HAMAS suicide bomber kit and Cadet uniforms are looking through a microscope viewer. There are those in our own society who despise the notion of Cadets, and even para-militaristic Boy Scouts, for much the same reasons we despise those who would encourage their kids to "martyrdom." After all, is not Cadets mainly instilling in our children the value of defending our Nation, even to the possible cost of their own lives? It may be difficult to imagine, but try to imagine our country under occupation of a foreign power, 2 to 3 generations being denied decent education, and a "Canadian Authority" pseudo-government that has no interest in our welfare as a people, and which is concerned with it's own hold on power and distribution of wealth within it's own ranks (OK, the latter part isn't so hard to imagine.)

Acorn


----------



## Rebel_RN (18 May 2005)

I have to say that after reading the varied views of other members on here My eyes have been opened to certain issues, I do that there is a great injustice going on and that we as canadians are only seeing a small, this isn't because we don't want to see the big picture but rather because we aren't able to simply because we are Canadian. We can only(for the majority) specualate on what the big picture is. In reading these posts I do think that there is aome truths to what other's (Acorn and Infanteer) have said.


----------



## larry Strong (18 May 2005)

No Infanteer *I am *  reading your posts, but I still stand by what I say. I don't care what you use for logic or show as picture's of "boy soldiers', your   equating cadets to suicide bombers flies in the face of reason. Don't like it? to bad! thats my opinion, and I think you will find there are more people who will agree with me than you.


----------



## Acorn (18 May 2005)

Larry, you are choosing to look at the surface, not the substance. I think you may be right that more will agree with you, than with Infanteer. But then more people vote Liberal in Canada than don't (or that was the case for the past few elections). 

Acorn


----------



## larry Strong (18 May 2005)

Well 7% more of the electorate voted for the Liberals than the Conservatives in the last election, so I guess you are right there. Not that, that is a great achievement. But substance or not, to equate Cadets to suicide bombers is like saying Conservatives are Nazi's. And I am sure there are a few people out here who think exactly that.


----------



## Infanteer (18 May 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> I don't care what you use for logic or show as picture's of "boy soldiers', your equating cadets to suicide bombers flies in the face of reason. Don't like it? to bad! thats my opinion, and I think you will find there are more people who will agree with me than you.



Well, that's the open mind we need....

Perhaps a different approach is needed.   The best way to start understanding how others are different is to first get the impression of our own "will to war" - Keegan's History of Warfare is a good general read.   Better is Victor Davis Hanson's books (Carnage and Culture) and John Lynn's Battle.   They approach the topic from different viewpoints, but they both point to the importance of cultural input on the way to people fight.   We've talked about this on these forums:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30147.new.html#new

Once you get an idea of Western inputs on war and conflict (which we see embodied in things like Cadet movements) start to look at the cultural inputs of other societies.   In this specific issue, look at macro-cultural inputs (Palestinian adherence to Islam) and micro-cultural inputs (genuine and perceived Palestinian grievances against the Israelis).   Their is alot of material on this.

Acorn is bang on when he says that: 



			
				Acorn said:
			
		

> I often see sentiments here scoffing at "cultural awareness" training, but ultimately it's that trg that gives us much of the success we can claim on our deployments.



"4th Generation Warfare", or asymmetric warfare, is one of perception, and we cannot learn how to affect the perception of our opponents if we do not understand them.   If we scoff them (as I've seen in this thread) we do so at our own peril.

You can choose to take off the "Western glasses" if you wish - they've fallen off my head a few times and it is surprising what you see.   Conversely, you can refuse to hear me out, refuse to refute what I've said here and shove cotton in your ears if you want - that's your decision.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## larry Strong (18 May 2005)

Never really been accused of having an open mind-sarcasm taken. and I am not scoffing at my enemies.

Have read Kegans "History of Warfare', haven't seen the other 2 books.

As for the "Western Glasses" I was not born in this country and have probably lived in and seen a lot more of the third world than most people!

It's not a question of not hearing you "out", I just don't accept your logic of trying to equate two different type's of cultural activities as the same. And if you were to look at the "National" bent on the cadet movements, you will find that they are going more awya from the military side of their skill, and going more towards the PC side of life. I.E. No camming up, little or no mention of military tactics, excetera


You can sit on your pedestal and quote whoever you want, and I will give you credit in that you probably have a better education than i do, and are more eloquent at saying what you wish to express, but I have been around for 50 years (and that is by no means the end all and be all), and from my perspective on the world, I still see your statement as irresponsible.


----------



## Infanteer (18 May 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> I just don't accept your logic of trying to equate two different type's of cultural activities as the same. And if you were to look at the "National" bent on the cadet movements, you will find that they are going more awya from the military side of their skill, and going more towards the PC side of life. I.E. No camming up, little or no mention of military tactics, excetera



I'm not trying to get you to accept my logic, I'm trying to point out the logic that Palestinian protesters may ascribe to follows the same thought process as Westerners have - only it is informed through separate and unique cultural inputs (hence the difference between 3542 Cadet Squadron and Junior Hamas).

Let me put it in as simple terms as possible:

Cadets = youth emulating military qualities of self-sacrifice, pride of service, and discipline (whether their parents put them there or not) which is seen as admirable; consider the fact that these traits are ascribed to by Western Soldiers who are fighting Muslims.

Bomber Babies at protests = youth emulating traits of piety and martyrdom essential to religious defence (whether their parents put them there or not) which is seen as admirable; consider the fact that these traits are ascribed to by Muslims who fight us.

Of course they are not the same, but kids as icons of defence of society is a strong theme in both.   Irregardless of the current policies of the Cadet Movement, it still remains an organization tied to the Canadian Forces (in image, bearing, norms, and outlook).



> You can sit on your pedestal and quote whoever you want, and I will give you credit in that you probably have a better education than i do, and are more eloquent at saying what you wish to express, but I have been around for 50 years (and that is by no means the end all and be all), and from my perspective on the world, I still see your statement as irresponsible.



Drawing distinction of age or education is irrelevant - either the argument is good or it is lacking in substance.   I've always been willing to defer to experience if someone has Been There and Done That (implying that first hand experience - usually accrued with age - gives people an "unfiltered" viewpoint) and presents their experience in an objective manner.

You've only said that I've been irresponsible and off the mark, while at the same time failing to refute the explanation I put forth.   Either point out where I'm wrong (without using a straw-man "out" like "I'm 50") or say "In the words of Ron Burgundy, Agree to Disagree...."


----------



## Dare (18 May 2005)

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=669
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=60227&ak=null

Official PA TV.

http://www.memritv.org/ for more.


----------



## larry Strong (18 May 2005)

Not using any cop outs, all I am saying is I don't agree with you. I don't have and am not going to look for info to "refute" you. C U all in 2 weeks, time to go back to work.


----------



## Andyboy (18 May 2005)

I have to disagree with you Infanteer. 

I see your point that the kids (or their parents) are just emulating their "defence" forces but I think that drawing any equivalence between the the CF and Hamas is repugnant. While the people of Palestine may believe that Hamas is defending them against the Israelies they should by any reasonable standard find their methods unacceptable. Those children are being raised to beleive that suicide and murder are reasonable ways to achieve their goals. In order for a society to advance their children need to be valued as the precious commoddity they are. Parents should not be raising their children to murder others much less themselves, to shrug our shoulders and say "it's just their way" is not helpful to anyone, espesciallly the children.


----------



## Infanteer (18 May 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> While the people of Palestine may believe that Hamas is defending them against the Israelies they should by any reasonable standard find their methods unacceptable. Those children are being raised to beleive that suicide and murder are reasonable ways to achieve their goals.



Seeing it through Western glasses - you find it unacceptable that they don't pursue conflict through the accepted construct of Western ways and means (Westphalian state, Geneva Convention, combatant/bystander, war as a political tool, etc).  What you see as suicide and murder may be sacrifice for the defence of Islam against a perceived foreign occupier. 



> In order for a society to advance their children need to be valued as the precious commoddity they are.



Advance?  Perhaps they feel that if Dar-al-Islam is threatened, there will be no "advancement" - this is where we have to fight the war of perception that I alluded to earlier.  We can't assume that we know what advancement is for others or that we can show them the way to do it.



> Parents should not be raising their children to murder others much less themselves, to shrug our shoulders and say "it's just their way" is not helpful to anyone, espesciallly the children.



I never said to "shrug our shoulders" - I'm trying to point out that these people have genuine rational for doing what they do and that it may not make sense within our own cultural construct, there is a valid reason for why they are doing - whether it is right or wrong depends on who writes the history books


----------



## Andyboy (18 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Seeing it through Western glasses - you find it unacceptable that they don't pursue conflict through the accepted construct of Western ways and means (Westphalian state, Geneva Convention, combatant/bystander, war as a political tool, etc).   What you see as suicide and murder may be sacrifice for the defence of Islam against a perceived foreign occupier.
> 
> No, but thanks for telling me what I think. I find it unacceptable that parents want their children dead. I would hazard a guess that western or not most parents love their children and don't want to see them harmed.
> 
> ...



You may not have said to "shrug your shoulders" but that seems to be the gist of your argument. Are you saying that because their culture glorifies  deliberately killing your own children we are supposed to accept it? I guess we should just accept child prostitution in Thailand, or the rape of infants in Africa because their cultures find it acceptable. How about the mass slaughter in Europe during WW2, seemed to be in vogue then. The Nazis had plenty of rational arguments for rounding up humans and putting them to death. I suppose the only thing that made that wrong was that we won? Poppycock.


----------



## MysticLies (18 May 2005)

my terrorist is your freedom fighter, and my freedom fighter is your terrorist.

Palestine unlike Israel does not have a top notch weapon system nor does it have anything close to it. from what I know Palestine and Israeli's don't like each other, maybe a couple of years ago you would ask why, but nowadays everyone knows. Both groups of people have made each others life more miserable then Hell. Suicide Bomber's are people who were taught at some age to differenagate between black and white...meaning no gray. So basically what they do they believe is right, and thats how their freedom fighter becomes my terrorist. While other groups of people are most advanced, and have weapons of their own. Palestins aren't very wealth and neither do they have any weapons. So thats why they mostly refer to suicide attacks because there options aren't so wide, they don't have much choice. While others countries are more advanced and don't require the need to perform suicide attacks. They still instill some of the same thinking process. I have never been to cadets and haven't even been to BMQ yet, But if Cadets were taught to kill those who bring harm to themselves and their society, then they are no different then Suicide Bombers. Meaning not all suicide Bombers are bad, its just the cause that is sometimes bad. 

Politics is hypocritical...what can I say. I wrote this reply fairly fast, so it is missing more explanation.


----------



## -rb (18 May 2005)

MysticLies said:
			
		

> my terrorist is your freedom fighter, and my freedom fighter is your terrorist.
> Palestins aren't very wealth and *neither do they have any weapons*. So thats why they mostly refer to suicide attacks because there options aren't so wide, they don't have much choice.


No weapons??...and the countless, mortars, rocket attacks and massive bombs dug under Israeli checkpoints constitutes no weapons?   : 



			
				MysticLies said:
			
		

> While others countries are more advanced and don't require the need to perform suicide attacks. They still instill some of the same thinking process.


The only difference being that Western Nation Armies are by law required to follow their ROE, please tell me what code of conduct a suicide bomber follows when targetting innocent civilians.

Fair enough, your freedom fighter is anothers terrorist and vice versa, just make sure before you head off to BMQ you know which side you're on.


----------



## Britney Spears (18 May 2005)

What would you guys do if you were in the Palestinian's shoes?


----------



## Infanteer (18 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> What would you guys do if you were in the Palestinian's shoes?



Thank you Britney.

What I've been alluding to is that events that take place combined with cultural inputs may lead to Palestinians viewing things differently.   For some (if not many) Palestinians, the situation in the Middle East, especially after the Al-Aqsa Intifada, may be one of Total War to them.   Certainly, the language resembles that of past total wars (German-Soviet, US-Japanese).

Since they don't have bombers to flatten Haifa, Tel Aviv, and the Settlements they use a method (suicide bombing) that is acceptable to them culturally (it jives with Islam).   You call it murder, but they may see the inhabitants of these cities, just as 8th Airforce did, as legitimate targets.

Again, not that I agree with it, but trying to put myself in their shoes to gain a better understanding of their *will to war*.


----------



## MysticLies (18 May 2005)

*Words fail me. You have earned my instant and complete disgust. Congratulations. *
-the feeling is mutual seeing as how you can judge people just by a single paragraph.

*There is a difference between fighting between soldiers and sneaking onto a school bus and blowing up a bunch of kiddies. NO cause and NO technological inequities justify that. * 
-yes I will admit there is a difference, like I said I was in haste writing my paragraph, and I apologize . But what I was trying to say is that in the Palestine and Israel fighting is different then one can expect in some different place. In that war the casualties are not the soldiers, but the people the population. Meaning if you look at both sides, itss the mostly the innocent people who are killed rather then some army force.

*There is no question that they do what they think they have to do, but to do as you seem to have done and try to justify it, thats inexcusable. I admit my glasses a tinted a little too red-white-and blue sometimes, but this comment goes too far. *
-Like I said before I agree, my statement was not properly worded and seemed to have poorly shown what I was trying to say.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (18 May 2005)

This definitely brings up a morality issue.  What key differences are there between a suicide bomber blowing up civilians, and an aircraft deliberately dropping bombs on civilian targets?  (ie firebombing of Dresden, atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) - I am in no way supportive of the "methods" that Palestinian millitant groups use, but is it the fact that the scale of destruction can be narrowed down to (relatively) fewer faces, that change our moral outlook, compared to the larger, more anonymously accomplished acts of other "total" wars? (pilots couldnt see nor choose their individual targets, as a suicide bomber could, though undoubtedly aircraft bombers killed innocent women and children in exponentially larger numbers each attack).  Using the oft quoted phrase from Stalin, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

As Infanteer pointed out, suicide is culturally accepted in Islam, if it is seen as martyrdom.  Are the bombers' acts more "wrong" because of the motives of the militant groups themselves?  (Anti-Semitism preventing them from accepting a Jewish State).  And where can we draw the line between what is the "wrong" method of total war, and what is "right"?


----------



## Infanteer (18 May 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> If we want to debate the very basic facts, yes, the Palestinians are using weapons as they see fit, for all we know they may view bombing from the sky as cowardly and immoral just as we view suicide bombers.



They do, this is what I argued in my original post on the matter.   We call someone a coward for running at us dressed in civilian clothes and immolating themselves to inflict casualties upon us - it is completely conceivable that others may say the same about dropping bombs on buildings from 10,000ft without coming out to stand up and fight, is it not?



> Who is to say they are justified? To them they are, to us they are not. Who is right? To them, they have the right answer and vice versa with us. So if you want to argue like that, thats good. But you will not get anywhere, you have to apply some sort of moral standard (theirs or ours, or someone else's) to it to make a final decision. Because in the end, it depends on how you look at it. And my stance is, suicide bombing is cowardly and immoral.   Eventually you have to apply some sort of moral/social/cultural standard to the situation to make a decision, unless you want to sit on the fence.



I've never stated that you can't form an opinion on that - what I am stating is that you have to understand why other people are willing to do what they do if you want to truly understand the human dynamic of the conflict (beyond the lame good/evil one that Crusaders love to chuck around).   The whole incident that sparked this debate was that people were stating *"I can't believe people would hold their kids up like suicide bombers - fucking savages".*   This is a mentality that won't get us anywhere in understanding the problem - I've tried to point out that:

A) The Palestinians may have a legitimate reason(s) for the outpouring of rage.

B) Their actions, rather then being cowardly and immoral, are actually what is to be expected.   As I said earlier, challenging a Muslim people on both short-term (Palestinian/Israeli issues) and long-term (civilizational friction with Islam) issues is going to draw a response (suicide attacks) from that society.

Nowhere in this does it say one cannot make a moral judgement; I've done it already in this thread.  However, Palestinians are reacting because there is a legitimate, 4GW conflict and suicide bombings have become the accepted COA, especially after the desperation triggered by the Al-Aqsa Intifada.   You don't have to like it - but you have to accept that, in their own eyes, they are not sneaky, immoral and cowardly figures (I still fail to understand how the ability to immolate yourself for your cause is cowardly?).  Recognize that this is the opponent and his tactics and beliefs are genuine and his conviction in his cause is as strong as yours.   Respect him and do your best to defeat him.  Disrespecting the foe is a good way to end up on the last chopper out of Saigon, and that is the mentality that I am seeing in some of the posts.


----------



## MysticLies (18 May 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30574.0.HTML



-ah just forget about it :-\...


----------



## Acorn (19 May 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> It is obvious what drives these people to do what they do, and I can understand why mother's would want their child to be a martyr to a cause (although I still disagree with your comparison of it to cadets, I just can't). Thats just how a culture works.



Your issue with the Cadets comparison is due to your inability to set aside your bias. That may be due to your close association with the movement. So be it. I don't think you truly understand why a mother may want her child to be a "martyr" though.



> We know why they do it, now we need to figure out how to stop it.



Believe it or not, understanding why they do it, without condemning it out of had (regardless of how repugnant it is to our culture) goes a long way towards figuring out how to stop it. If I were to take the views of the posters to this thread into account for an "how to stop it" decision, using the majority views expressed, my only solution would be to immolate the region. 

Let's introduce another set of variables:

Our perception of Palestinian mothers seeking martyrdom for thier kids is based on what the media has shown us. My questions for you to consider are:

1. Why are you so ready to believe those media reports as truth, while you slag the media for bias and lack of professionalism in other threads?
2. Have any of you seen kids in faux soldier uniforms on various parades here in Canada? I have, including as kid in CFs with MWO rank - that of his dad.
2.a. Is this so far different from kids in the Middle East, at a parade/event, wearing the uniform of that society's heros (however misguided we think those "heros" are)?
3. Whether you're 15 or 50 it's experience of the events of a culture that count. A 50 year old Canadian soldier generally has much less experience of cultural motivators than someone who lives in that culture - even a soldier who serves in the same environment. We have difficulty discarding our cultural armour.

Finally, I'd like to point out the following tidbit gleaned from a university website on Islam (my emphasis added):
"Today, technology is helping bring Islam into the homes of millions of people, Muslim and otherwise. There is a blessing in all this of course, but *there is a real danger that Muslims will fall under the impression that owning a book or having a database is equivalent to being a scholar of Islam*. This is a great fallacy. Therefore, we would like to warn you that this database is merely a tool, and not a substitute for learning, much less scholarship in Islam."

Think critically about the effects of making the Christian doctrine accessable to all, through translation and increased education. That began to happen in the 14thC in Europe. Just take a few moments and think about where things stand in Islam.

By the way: suicide is as much a sin in Islam as in Catholicism.

Acorn


----------



## winchable (19 May 2005)

Go away for a few days and you miss alot, swear we've been down this road before..

Acorn and Infanteer good to see someone out to make this interesting, lest it becomes a quiet thread ;D



> 1. Why are you so ready to believe those media reports as truth, while you slag the media for bias and lack of professionalism in other threads?
> 2. Have any of you seen kids in faux soldier uniforms on various parades here in Canada? I have, including as kid in CFs with MWO rank - that of his dad.
> 2.a. Is this so far different from kids in the Middle East, at a parade/event, wearing the uniform of that society's heros (however misguided we think those "heros" are)?
> 3. Whether you're 15 or 50 it's experience of the events of a culture that count. A 50 year old Canadian soldier generally has much less experience of cultural motivators than someone who lives in that culture - even a soldier who serves in the same environment. We have difficulty discarding our cultural armour.



1.Becuase that would mean that there are certain within Western culture that are fallible. Western culture has been raised to believe that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and that most, if not all, views contrary to it are inherently wrong. In order to support this infallibility hypocrisy is often needed.

2. & 2, A.) Absolutely, conversely if we went on a Palestinian forum and tried to convince them that the Israeli Pilot or Tankcrewman or Israeli Army/Air Force Cadet looks "Brave and Smart in their Dress uniform" we'd be meeting the same resistance. Objectivity is something we pride ourselves on at times but when it comes down to it, many are as objective as an angry Palestinian.

3. BTDT that does not always mean "Been there experienced that" which is understandable, how can one let down cultural armour when one can't even remove their body armour?
I find just as often it can mean "Been there watched my ass"  as I said, understandable, but if we're using these views to shape our own because we've never 'BTDT' than we are not getting the full picture, and objectivity is shot.
I'd be just as willing if not more willing to listen to a bohemian backpacker tell me their experiences and understanding of the Arab peoples, or TE Lawrence who fooled himself into thinking that he was one, than I would be a grizzled vet with a patch over his eye telling  me about his experiences.



> Quote from: 2332Piper on Yesterday at 21:44:19
> If we want to debate the very basic facts, yes, the Palestinians are using weapons as they see fit, for all we know they may view bombing from the sky as cowardly and immoral just as we view suicide bombers.



Precisely and if you're objective you can see that the two are not as far apart as we would like to believe to make us feel warm and fuzzy about what we do, to make us feel like some war is great and heroic. Word to the wise, no war is great and heroic, but we've managed to fool ourselves into thinking ti is. When man is in war he is as debased and vile as an animal, we (western society) have just found ways of removing ourselves from the killing so we can glorify things. Which is great if you're trying to combat PTSD, what better way really? Condition us to believe that we are different because we kill from a plane and that's different from shooting or bombing from the ground.

A great scene from Lawrence of Arabia (A good movie if you want to look at the schism between the cultures) the Turks are bombing the Arabs at their camp from planes and Prince Feisal is chasing the planes with his sword on horseback yelling "Cowards"
I've also read anecdotal accounts of Arab defences at Baghdad where they could nothing against american planes yelling the exact same thing.
I'm certain my grandfather felt the same way about the Germans during the blitz which prompted him to enlist, I'm also certain that people felt the same way in Dresden.

Rest assured the person being bombed from the air is just as vulnerable and defenceless by many accounts as the person being bombed from the ground.
Children will continue to die on both sides until people are _truly_ objective and not just half objective about things that they want to be objective about, I concede that I'm not entirely there but I've made leaps and bounds but many (here, there and everywhere) are as muddled as the next.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 May 2005)

> Respect*/understand* him and do your best to defeat him.  Disrespecting the foe* and ignoring the reason that he fights* is a good way to end up on the last chopper out of Saigon, and that is the mentality that I am seeing in some of the posts.



Since no one has yet offered a more acceptable (to us) course of action for the Palestinians to take, I must conclude that we are all equally filthy savages. Remember what I said about teenagers.....


----------



## Infanteer (19 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Since no one has yet offered a more acceptable (to us) course of action for the Palestinians to take, I must conclude that we are all equally filthy savages. Remember what I said about teenagers.....



Quite so - until we have understood the Force and undertake the Principles of the Jedi Order, I have no faith in Mankind.... :warstory:


----------



## Andyboy (19 May 2005)

1. I have to assume that those of you going to such great lengths to justify parents murdering their children have no children of your own. Infanteer? Britney? Che? Anyone of you have the experience to speak on being a parent? If your answer is to say that "it's just their way" then you can keep it. If their "way" is to murder their children then they need to change their way. 


2."What would you do if you were the Palestinians?" Excellent question Britney, except that you haven't answered it yourself. I don't know what I would do if I were in their shoes and neither do you. As you have all gone to great pains to explain (ad nauseum I might add) no one here can really understand them or their circumstances. Here is a question for you: do you believe that hey are justified in using their children as suicide bombers? Would you? Seeing as you haven't offered any alternatives yourself I must conclude that you agree with them actions and would do the same yourself and yet somehow I doubt it. More importantly does it not pain you to see parents acting with such disregard towards their children? Does it not make you want to act?  

To answer your question though I have but one suggestion for what I'd like to see them do. Nothing. See Ghandi.  

3.As fo the comparison to cadets, it is apt on one very basic level but deeply flawed otherwise. I understand the link between children emulating their military. Here we have the CF-cadet link and there they have the Hamas-baby suicide bomer link. Makes sense but that is about where it ends. The fundamental differences between parent organisations in terms of goals, methods and results is so vast that the comparison really has no point. Like the saying goes, you are comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit and that is about where it ends. Personally I don't appreciate being compared to Hamas as a former cadet and a serving member of the CF.

4.I think the one thing we are all overlooking here is the level of support that we assume Hamas (and and others, the PA included) have amongst the populace there. I don't think anyone here would argue that there is any real evidence showing that the PA has the support of the population. In other words I think that the percentage of parents eager to kill their own children is very low. In every society there are parents who don't care about the well being of their children and I suspect that the percentages are similar between here and there although I have no proof of that. I think the difference is in the atmosphere created by the leadership. Here parents who harm their children are vilified, there they are raised to hero status. It seems to me what is in order is a change of leadership. 

At any rate enjoy your discussion gents, I'm obviously not going to change any minds here and frankly it doesn't really matter to me. REpeating the same input and expecting different results is a sign of insanity (no matter how many times you repost something you've already posted) My opinion on right and wrong is something I have cultivated, examined, reworked and studied over the years. You guys seem to believe that if someone doesn't agree with you it is because they haven't thought enough about it.


----------



## jmacleod (19 May 2005)

For a perspective of the situation in the Middle East, go to DEBKAfile, and Honest Reporting.
DEBKAfile, based in Israel is staffed by former Mossad personnel, and in my opinion is the most
accurate source of information in the Region - Honest Reporting is focused on assessing news
emanating from world's media, which is slanted and/or biased against Israel. One of the most
anti Israeli sources of news is the CBC, often taken to task for distortions, lack of credibility and
outright lies. I am pleased to welcome the IDF F-16's to Maple Flag, but would extend the
same welcome to the Royal Jordanian Falcons, the official aerobatic team of Jordan. The late
King Huessien of Jordan, a graduate of the RAF College Cranwell, was up until his death, Honorary
Chairman of the famed Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT), RAF Fairford, Glocs., UK an enterprise
of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund (RAFBF), well known to CF personnel, especially F-104 
Squadrons of the period. MacLeod


----------



## Infanteer (19 May 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> 1. I have to assume that those of you going to such great lengths to justify parents murdering their children have no children of your own. Infanteer? Britney? Che? Anyone of you have the experience to speak on being a parent? If your answer is to say that "it's just their way" then you can keep it. If their "way" is to murder their children then they need to change their way.



Where did "murdering your children" come into play?  The debate was about Palestinians dressing their children up like Martyrs.

I have been a parent for the last 2 years, if it means anything.



> 2."What would you do if you were the Palestinians?" Excellent question Britney, except that you haven't answered it yourself. I don't know what I would do if I were in their shoes and neither do you. As you have all gone to great pains to explain (ad nauseum I might add) no one here can really understand them or their circumstances. Here is a question for you: do you believe that hey are justified in using their children as suicide bombers? Would you? Seeing as you haven't offered any alternatives yourself I must conclude that you agree with them actions and would do the same yourself and yet somehow I doubt it. More importantly does it not pain you to see parents acting with such disregard towards their children? Does it not make you want to act?
> 
> To answer your question though I have but one suggestion for what I'd like to see them do. Nothing. See Ghandi.



You are right, I guess answering the question is the next step.  The Palestinians "won" the first 4GW conflict (the original Intifada) because they, for the most part, abandoned violence and justified the underdog appearence.  They distanced themselves from two-bit terrorists (the PLO), justified their cause to the international community, renounced the destruction of Israel and moved to Oslo.

They've since moved back - Ehud Barak gave the Palestinians everything they needed, but by then Arafat had hijacked the movement (again) and walked out.  They have resorted to terrorist bombing and calling for the destruction of the Jews - they are taking the wrong approach.

If the Palestinians wish to gain any support from the international community (myself included) they need to dump much of the PLO and get back to the principles that brought them initial success leading up to Oslo.



> 3.As fo the comparison to cadets, it is apt on one very basic level but deeply flawed otherwise. I understand the link between children emulating their military. Here we have the CF-cadet link and there they have the Hamas-baby suicide bomer link. Makes sense but that is about where it ends. The fundamental differences between parent organisations in terms of goals, methods and results is so vast that the comparison really has no point. Like the saying goes, you are comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit and that is about where it ends. Personally I don't appreciate being compared to Hamas as a former cadet and a serving member of the CF.



You are right - that's all I claimed, that both images were representative of those who defend society (two fruits).

As a serving member of the CF, our tactics and our ideals are far different then those of the Hamas, but we are both fighters for our cause (again, two fruits of a different variety).



> 4.I think the one thing we are all overlooking here is the level of support that we assume Hamas (and and others, the PA included) have amongst the populace there. I don't think anyone here would argue that there is any real evidence showing that the PA has the support of the population. In other words I think that the percentage of parents eager to kill their own children is very low. In every society there are parents who don't care about the well being of their children and I suspect that the percentages are similar between here and there although I have no proof of that. I think the difference is in the atmosphere created by the leadership. Here parents who harm their children are vilified, there they are raised to hero status. It seems to me what is in order is a change of leadership.



I think its desperation following the high casualties of both sides from the Al Aqsa Intifada that was triggered by extremists pushing from both sides.  Decompression and a step back are needed to disengage both sides, where the intensity of the rage is obviously high - this is why the Wall is probably the best thing right now.



> At any rate enjoy your discussion gents, I'm obviously not going to change any minds here and frankly it doesn't really matter to me. REpeating the same input and expecting different results is a sign of insanity (no matter how many times you repost something you've already posted) My opinion on right and wrong is something I have cultivated, examined, reworked and studied over the years. You guys seem to believe that if someone doesn't agree with you it is because they haven't thought enough about it.



Not so Andy, I'm happy that you've contributed - you are the first one to actually challenge the statements I've made with a logical argument rather than simply closing your ears and saying I'm an idiot.  As you can see, there is more agreement between our viewpoints than may be apparent - it just may take a little bit to hammer that out.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Andyboy (19 May 2005)

Where did "murdering your children" come into play?   The debate was about Palestinians dressing their children up like Martyrs.

What else would you call inciting a child to kill himself?


----------



## Britney Spears (19 May 2005)

> 2."What would you do if you were the Palestinians?" Excellent question Britney, except that you haven't answered it yourself. I don't know what I would do if I were in their shoes and neither do you.



It wasn't a rhetorical question, if anyone truly has a better idea I'm all ears. The Ghandi idea sounds like a pretty reasonable one, as far as a starting premesis goes.



> What else would you call inciting a child to kill himself?



Well the parents themselves obviously don't think it's murder.


----------



## MysticLies (19 May 2005)

I think one misconception, is that the majority of the mothers want their kids to become suicide bombers. While infact more then the majority encourage their children to hate the Israelis, but only a rare number of mother actually encourage their children to go on a suicide mission. Wile the majority of mothers do not want their kids to perform these suicide missions, a some what large number of those come to terms to what their children did.


----------



## Andyboy (19 May 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Well the parents themselves obviously don't think it's murder.



First of all that the question wasn't what the parents consider it, the question was what do you consider it? ANd it isn't a rhetorical question.

Second of all how do you know what the parents consider it, ever heard from one? Ever discuss it with one? I haven't. Either way I don't think it really matters what they think any more than it matters what any criminal thinks about their crime. For example does Karla Homolka's opinion of killing her sister (among others) make it any less of a crime? 

The way I see it anyone (parents or otherwise) encouraging children to kill themselves are guilty of child abuse at a minimum, if a governing body is doing it that govenring body should be removed.

edited for content and clarity


----------



## Infanteer (19 May 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> What else would you call inciting a child to kill himself?



Are you sure that is how they view it?   I'm sure to a Muslim who's belief system sees Paradise, this is no different than sending a child off to war.   It is not so much the actual parent, but the society in general.

I'm sure there are many who see this as unjust, but there are also mothers who see George W. Bush as a murderer for sending their kids to Iraq where they were killed in the line of duty.  Just as our society generally accepts that professional soldiers may have to give their lives in the service of the country, many within their society may understand this as necessary for the defence of theirs - this is the impression I get from seeing interviews of the families of Martyrs.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Well, it has been asked a number of times by Britney and Infanteer, what would you do if you were in the Palestinian's shoes. Well, what would you do? Better yet, how best to go about ending this conflict?
> 
> ....The real issue is, the Palestinians who are fighting Israel are basically anti-semetic while many Israelies (especially their extreme fringe elements) are scared of anything arab and want to re-create the jewish holy land.



I don't think that is the real issue - I think the real issue is that the violence following th Al-Aqsa Intifada has spiralled out of control, basically putting moderates from both sides into the corner.   The solution for the 10% is easy (Hellfire), but getting the other 80% to disengage is the challenge.



> So what is the solution? I'm curious, because I don't have it. We can talk all we want about why they are doing it (kinda like pointing out the obvious again and again) and how we the west aren't so different, but no real 'solution' has been devised.



I gave my answer in the last post, so you can take it for what it was worth - the Oslo Accords seemed reasonable and were to be respected by both sides and recognized by the international community; both sides recognized that the other was here to stay.   Since then, both sides failed to live up to the agreement, so now we need disengagement.   The Israelis have done their part in pulling back and building a wall.   The way I see it, the ball is now in the Palestinian court, and since the Palestinians have been caught up in the whole Islamic Insurgency, it may be a little harder to get them to back down - but at least Arafat is gone (although the credibility of his successor has been debated here).


----------



## Andyboy (19 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Are you sure that is how they view it?   I'm sure to a Muslim who's belief system sees Paradise, this is no different than sending a child off to war.



You're sure? How? That sure doesn't square with what Acorn said earlier.


----------



## Infanteer (19 May 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> You're sure? How? That sure doesn't square with what Acorn said earlier.



I edited my comments to answer your edited statement - but, in answer to the question above, obviously many do see this as a reasonable way to conduct themselves in battle; it has been a fairly widespread occurence in many cultures (different areas of the Middle East, India, Japan).


----------



## Britney Spears (19 May 2005)

> That wasn't the question, the question was what do you consider it?



But what does that matter? You and I are not the ones sending out the suicide bombers, so the REAL answer still lies within the minds of the Palestinian parents. 

I don't think I am well versed enough in the situation to debate the specifics, jut trying to spread the open-mindedness a little is all. Infanteer seems to have the specifics down fairly pat, so that's good enough for me.


----------



## Andyboy (19 May 2005)

It matters because we (in the west) are the ones capable of making a change. Personally I think the Pals need our help in the same way the Germans and Japanese needed our help. There are without a doubt many more parents there who want their children to grow up, we should be supporting them, not making excuses for their misguided neighbors.


----------



## Britney Spears (19 May 2005)

I see, and I am in agreemnent then.


----------



## MysticLies (19 May 2005)

the only clear solution I see to this is that Palestine becomes a country. So then both Israel and Palestine have their own sovereignty, instead of both people fighting over the same land. The only problem with that is the land division, which is the main reason that no peace deal has actually worked till this day. because the terms are close to ridiculous *palestine says: I want 90% and you get 10% of the land, Israel says: I want 99% and you get 10%*...and so on and so on.

Its obvious that this problem can no way be solved between these 2 countries, and only by the intervention of an outside body


----------



## Acorn (20 May 2005)

The solution is one that the current Isareli administration seems to be adopting, despite opposition from within - separation. As Infanteer said, Oslo would have been a better solution for all concerned, but Arafat derailed that, and the result of his foolishness (or selfishness) was the rise of HAMAS. Unless HAMAS moderates, highly unlikely, the best course for Israel is withdrawal from the occupied territories and the barrier. It will then be wholly up to the Palestinians to get their house in order.

A couple of things: DEBKAfile is highly suspect. I wouldn't necessarily disregard it, but I certainly wouldn't regard it as a primary open source. Honest Reporting is similar. They are both likely PSYOPS tools of the Israeli government, so tread with care. If you want relatively honest Israeli reporting read the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz - contrasting views (kind of like reading both the National Post and The Globe and mail, or even the Toronto Star).

Next, something that constantly annoys me, is the use of "anti-semitism" when referring to Arab attitude towards the population of Israel. The Arabs are a Semetic people, and a significant part of the Israeli population is not. There is certainly strong anti-Jewish sentiment in the Arab world, but consider how highly propagandized the population is. More on this later.

Finally, I hope AndyBoy doesn't really believe anyone has truly tried to justify suicide bombing and encouraging one's children for that. What I'm trying to do, and I think Infanteer and Che are on the same page, is to try to get people here to think a little differently, and try to understand what could cause a parent to consider suicide bombing as an honorable choice. It certainly isn't as simple as "Islam encourages it" because for most Muslims that's not part of Islam at all. In fact, if anyone here has truly been exposed to Arabs, you'd realize a few things: they value their kids as much as we do (with some cultural differences), and Levantine Arabs are probably closer to Christian Mediterranean cultures in outlook than they are to the outlook of Gulf Arabs. So what makes the Palestinians different (Lebanese and Syrians don't have a prediliction to suicide bombing, nor do Egyptians - Palestinians are the same cultural stock as Lebanese and Syrians), why are Palestinians more likely to be suicide bombers? If, in fact, they are more likely to be so. 

Sidebar- I hope the Israelis benefit from their trg in Cold Lake. 

Acorn


----------



## 48Highlander (20 May 2005)

Infanteer, I understand what you're trying to say with your comparisons, however I must also disagree.  You think that palestinians dressing up babies in suicide-bomber outfits is like parents here allowing their children to join cadets.  However, the cadet movement generaly doesn't represent warfare or "heroes" to Canadian parents.  While the Palestinian mother might dress up her baby as a suicide bomber in order to show her support for their idea of liberators, the Canadian parent generaly just sees an organization which will teach their child some discipline, social skills, and provide a free source of entertainment.  How many parents force their children to join cadets because they want them to become "martyrs" or "freedom fighters" or even just soldiers?

So your comparison is flawed from the get go, but to add to that, you're also suggesting (probably unintentionaly) that cadets and pretend-suicide-bomber babies are somehow the same.  You may as well suggest that cadets have the same values as the Hitler Youth, or that the cadet movement is somehow similar to, for instance, KKK members dressing their kids up in white sheets, or shirts with racist slogans.  So you're taking a youth organization which happens to have ties to a disciplined proffesional force dedicated to doing "good", and comparing it to the actions of parents who are using their children to showcase their own misguided beleifs.  Even if you assume that somehow the Paelstinian suicide bombers have the same moral standing as the CF, it's STILL an invalid comparison.  Since I'm not willing to make that assumption...well, I think your comparison is right out to lunch.  I understand the importance of looking at their point of view if we want to find real solutions to the conflict, however, that doesn't mean we should be grasping at straws to try and make comparisons between their society and our own.


----------



## Andyboy (20 May 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Finally, I hope AndyBoy doesn't really believe anyone has truly tried to justify suicide bombing and encouraging one's children for that.



I've reread the thread and I haven't found anything to suggest otherwise. Silence can be seen as tacit approval. Infanteer is a father, ask him what happens if you don't tell a child no when they do something wrong. 

The gist of your arguments seem to ask us to see it through the Pals eyes. Fair enough, think of the effect you are having by not condemning their actions. If the world doesn't let the Pals know that what they are doing is wrong (no matter what the Pals themselves think) how is it going to end? You can condemn without taking a side.

 The question still stands: Do you think using children as suicide bombers is legitimate?


----------



## CBH99 (20 May 2005)

I've got a question for you now Andyboy...

Do the Palestinians actually use children as suicide bombers?

I know the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been going on for a long, long time now...and that each side has resorted to rather barbaric methods of inflicting casualties on the opposite side.  But, are you embellishing anything by saying they use children as suicide bombers?

I agree with everything else you said, Andyboy.  You can condemn the actions of one side without taking sides.  Just curious about the child/suicide bomber comment.


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> I've reread the thread and I haven't found anything to suggest otherwise. Silence can be seen as tacit approval.



Well, that's how you are chosing to interpret things than - if you read my posts, you'll see that I've gave my own opinion on the matter on various occasions, including here:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> You are right, I guess answering the question is the next step.   The Palestinians "won" the first 4GW conflict (the original Intifada) because they, for the most part, abandoned violence and justified the underdog appearence.   They distanced themselves from two-bit terrorists (the PLO), justified their cause to the international community, renounced the destruction of Israel and moved to Oslo.
> 
> They've since moved back - Ehud Barak gave the Palestinians everything they needed, *but by then Arafat had hijacked the movement (again) and walked out.   They have resorted to terrorist bombing and calling for the destruction of the Jews - they are taking the wrong approach.*
> 
> If the Palestinians wish to gain any support from the international community (myself included) they need to dump much of the PLO and get back to the principles that brought them initial success leading up to Oslo.



I don't think Palestinian tactics are conducive to ending the conflict or winning points with the international community; especially considering the atmosphere of the post 9/11 world.



> Infanteer is a father, ask him what happens if you don't tell a child no when they do something wrong.



Step - just to clarify (I don't want to be labelled a poser here.... ).



> The gist of your arguments seem to ask us to see it through the Pals eyes. Fair enough, think of the effect you are having by not condemning their actions. If the world doesn't let the Pals know that what they are doing is wrong (no matter what the Pals themselves think) how is it going to end? You can condemn without taking a side.



Again, this is how you are chosing to read arguements by Acorn and myself - but it is clearly not the case.   I posted my opinion in response to the following statements:



			
				Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> You know, when mothers   (At Gaza a recent Australian 60 Minutes programme) dress their toddler aged kids up in toy explosive belts and AK47 rifles (actually praising that they want these kids when they get older to kill themselves to kill Jews), then to grow up and be martyrs, by strapping on real HE, and then to walk into a shopping centre or board a bus, something SERIOUSLY has to be wrong,





			
				P-Free said:
			
		

> A society that allows proud mothers to dress their children up in fake explosives and carry plastic guns and then sends young men and women off to blows themselves into bits has more wrong with it than it's neighbors.





			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> That has to be one of the truest and best posts I have read in a while.



I've responded by attempting to show that there are legitimate reasons within Palestinian culture that would lead them to do this - human beings and societies are complex things, and the whole line of the ignorant savage was getting a little old.



> The question still stands: Do you think using children as suicide bombers is legitimate?



I'm not sure that was the issue; you seem to be setting up a straw man here.   The arguement was dressing up a kid up like one.   I don't recall babies or children actually being used as suicide bombers - but if you have a documented case, I'd be interested to see the details.


----------



## Infanteer (20 May 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Infanteer, I understand what you're trying to say with your comparisons, however I must also disagree.   You think that palestinians dressing up babies in suicide-bomber outfits is like parents here allowing their children to join cadets.   However, the cadet movement generaly doesn't represent warfare or "heroes" to Canadian parents.   While the Palestinian mother might dress up her baby as a suicide bomber in order to show her support for their idea of liberators, the Canadian parent generaly just sees an organization which will teach their child some discipline, social skills, and provide a free source of entertainment.   How many parents force their children to join cadets because they want them to become "martyrs" or "freedom fighters" or even just soldiers?
> 
> So your comparison is flawed from the get go, but to add to that, you're also suggesting (probably unintentionaly) that cadets and pretend-suicide-bomber babies are somehow the same.   You may as well suggest that cadets have the same values as the Hitler Youth, or that the cadet movement is somehow similar to, for instance, KKK members dressing their kids up in white sheets, or shirts with racist slogans.   So you're taking a youth organization which happens to have ties to a disciplined proffesional force dedicated to doing "good", and comparing it to the actions of parents who are using their children to showcase their own misguided beleifs.   Even if you assume that somehow the Paelstinian suicide bombers have the same moral standing as the CF, it's STILL an invalid comparison.   Since I'm not willing to make that assumption...well, I think your comparison is right out to lunch.   I understand the importance of looking at their point of view if we want to find real solutions to the conflict, however, that doesn't mean we should be grasping at straws to try and make comparisons between their society and our own.



<Sigh> - Rather than typing up a new spiel, I'll simply dredge up my easy explanation (which no one touches up when they tell me they are out to lunch).



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Let me put it in as simple terms as possible:
> 
> Cadets = youth emulating military qualities of self-sacrifice, pride of service, and discipline (whether their parents put them there or not) which is seen as admirable; consider the fact that these traits are ascribed to by Western Soldiers who are fighting Muslims.
> 
> ...



As I said, they are not the same, one is a youth group and the other is a costume at a demonstration - as I said though, there are strong themes that both share, and these themes are something we should recognize when we try to understand the way culture affects the *will to war* for another society.

Anyways, this thread is getting convoluted (as any discussion of the topic tends to) and crosses many themes.   I'll attempt to sum them up here so we can perhaps move on:

1) Suicide bombing:   Some label the tactic cowardly - but is it?   I think alot of the emotion comes from the current GWOT - try changing gears and considering the Japanese _Kamikaze_ instead; were they cowards?   Attacking military targets though, you say?   As I alluded to, perhaps the events in the Mid-East have led many to believe that they are in a Total War situation, meaning that the civilians of the other side are legitimate targets - just as we did when we torched Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo.   Who has the moral authority to declare total war (or is this possible)?

2) Young Children in Suicide Bomber outfits:   As alluded to above, I don't think this should get confused with a discussion of suicide bombing - unless someone can prove that there is a systematic use of young children as bombers.   The only way this factors into the argument is that I have stated that Palestinians do this not because they are bloodthirsty, cowardly murderers but rather as they (individuals who do this - not their society as a whole) see it as an emulation of service to the Nation - just as many do when they put their children in the military uniforms of the State and watch them march around.   This is the connection I've been trying to make, but others have been bringing in outside arguments which really have no bearing in the discussion (regarding the above).


----------



## Acorn (21 May 2005)

I think we're seeing why Internet "discussions" tend to be unproductive.

First off, Andyboy, I think it might be instructive for you (and others) to re-think what Infanteer and I are trying to say. If you've concluded we somehow, actively or tacitly, support tactics such as suicide bombing, you are failing comprehension 101. Silence, indeed. 

This is the reason why we fail to understand our enemy. Understanding is a key component to defeating that enemy. Sitting in the comfort of our living rooms, with our access to relatively free media, combined with our social/cultural upbringing, leaves us baffled by what we see in the Middle East. Hell, we call it the "Middle East," which is a perceptual bias in itself.

I don't see why you can conclude that I don't condemn the tactics under discussion. I also don't see why you think simple condemnation of their tactics would have a desireable effect. Do you have any understanding of the Arab world?

The principle problem I see here is a classic "mirror imaging" error. 

So long as we fail to even try to understand the motivation of our enemy, we will fail to win. 

Acorn


----------



## 48Highlander (21 May 2005)

You're taking an issue of morality and turning it into a we're-all-equal-let's-look-at-their-point-of-view hug-fest.  Sure, every side has their motivations for doing what they do.  As was pointed out, I'm sure Hitler had a very well thought out reason for killing Jews, and I'm sure Sadam had plenty of reasons for gassing the Kurds.  I'm also quite sure that Osama felt perfectly justified in crashing aircraft into the World Trade Center.  Understanding what makes them tick is important because it can make it easier to defeat them.  However, approaching the situation from an entirely impartial position without making any moral judgement, is pretty pointless, and only confuses the issue while providing ammunition for those who are opposed to our goals.

Also, if you don't think Cadets and "junior suicide bombers" are the same thing (and I don't beleive you do), why make the comparison?  Why even mention them in the same paragraph?  There were probably much better ways to illustrate the point you were trying to make.  Obviously making the comparison is going to raise some pulses and confuse the issue.  What do you suppose would be the response if someone tried to draw paralels between Al Qaeda and the CF?


----------



## Andyboy (21 May 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> I think we're seeing why Internet "discussions" tend to be unproductive.
> 
> First off, Andyboy, I think it might be instructive for you (and others) to re-think what Infanteer and I are trying to say. If you've concluded we somehow, actively or tacitly, support tactics such as suicide bombing, you are failing comprehension 101. Silence, indeed.
> 
> ...




Well thanks for setting me straight Professor Acorn, where would I be without your infinate wisdom. I mean after all, if someone doesn't agree with you the best way to get the to agree is to belittle them right? 

I'm not sure why I bothered...


----------



## Infanteer (21 May 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> You're taking an issue of morality and turning it into a we're-all-equal-let's-look-at-their-point-of-view hug-fest.   Sure, every side has their motivations for doing what they do.   As was pointed out, I'm sure Hitler had a very well thought out reason for killing Jews, and I'm sure Sadam had plenty of reasons for gassing the Kurds.   I'm also quite sure that Osama felt perfectly justified in crashing aircraft into the World Trade Center.   Understanding what makes them tick is important because it can make it easier to defeat them.   However, approaching the situation from an entirely impartial position without making any moral judgement, is pretty pointless, and only confuses the issue while providing ammunition for those who are opposed to our goals.



The morality of what?   Suicide bombings?   Israel/Palestine?   Dressing Children up and taking them to the Demonstration?   This is why the argument is getting convoluted - use the quote function and point out where I'm promoting a _"we're-all-equal-let's-look-at-their-point-of-view hug-fest"_ instead of just lobbing accusations of moral turpitude.

I've stated that Palestinians, in deciding their COA (both individually and as a group), are probably not concluding that "we need to act like slimy cowards, but we will subject everyone to our hidden agenda" - I am saying that to them, their actions and motivations are informed by many cultural inputs and are probably just as strong as ours.   I've said that I don't think their current tactics are any good because they don't seem to indicate a desire for peace.   If there is something wrong with my line of thought then please, by all means, point it out.

Anyways, morality is a matter of opinion and perspective - what half a billion North Americans think may not be what half a billion Muslims (from various Nations) feel - where is the ultimate moral authority?   I'm serious in this question.   To me, it seems that the only thing that validates our system of morality is our ability to fight for it - this is something that I believe in and I will support by putting the uniform on; but how this makes our outlook superior or invalidates that of others is beyond me.



> Also, if you don't think Cadets and "junior suicide bombers" are the same thing (and I don't beleive you do), why make the comparison?   Why even mention them in the same paragraph?   There were probably much better ways to illustrate the point you were trying to make.   Obviously making the comparison is going to raise some pulses and confuse the issue.   What do you suppose would be the response if someone tried to draw paralels between Al Qaeda and the CF?



It's called being provocative for the purpose of discussion.   As I said, I responding to the "ignorant savage" line and thought I'd play Devil's Advocate by showing that perhaps the motive for doing something like this (dressing up children to emulate the defenders) is something that is a shared amongst other societies (ours included) and that perhaps the Palestinians aren't the "cavemen" some would like to believe.

This doesn't mean that one can not make a moral judgement on the issue, it is only trying to point out that all societies are complex and that this complex system has a big effect on informing their decision making.   You brought up the Balkans before; sure I was there, and my moral judgement was that these rednecks were only going to tear their own country up again - I could probably tell them that and it wouldn't make a difference as my opinion was informed from my unique Western culture; the history that imprints itself upon the mind of those there (including your Grandfather, if I recall your earlier statement) is simply non-existent for me.   I can rationalize it by educating myself on the issue, but I can't experience the emotion of it, and in these conflicts, emotions often override any rational discourse.

This is why I am going to be a Jedi - emotion is the Path to the Dark Side.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			









			
				Andyboy said:
			
		

> Well thanks for setting me straight Professor Acorn, where would I be without your infinate wisdom. I mean after all, if someone doesn't agree with you the best way to get the to agree is to belittle them right?



Well, he answered your question of supporting suicide bombing with the reason why he was arguing his point of view - what did you expect when you accused both him and I of it twice and have been told otherwise.   As I said above, instead of lobbing general accusations around, use the quote function and point out the specifics of the argument that you are trying to counter.

Other than that, there is no point in being rude - if you don't want to take part in the discussion, then simply ignore it.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Andyboy (21 May 2005)

Me oh my, where to begin. 

Acorn,

I apologize for my sarcasm, maybe lack of respect for other posters is why these discussions never go anywhere. I trust your feelings weren't hurt, mine was an off the cuff reaction to your post. Perhaps you should reread your post and think about how I might interpret it taking into account my socialization, current situation, background and societal inputs. Then again you could have just answered the question (as Infanteer somehow managed to). Is it so hard to believe that there are some people who are reading this thread who may take your comments as a defence of the tactics the Pals employ? If you don't state it unequivocally the option is left up to the reader. By tap dancing around the answer and deflecting to me all you are doing is raising more doubt/reinforcing the belief that they are justified. But I don't know anything about the middle east so I guess that point is moot.

Next, if you or Infanteer take the question as an accusation that is how you choose to take it (to paraphrase Infanteer). I was hoping to hear from a paragon of Middle East studies such as yourself as to whether you feel they are justified in their actions; I guess a straight answer is too much to ask.  At any rate it really doesn't matter, the bluster covers it. I and pretty much everyone here have repeatedly agreed that the Pals have justification in their own minds for what they do and that we need to understand them to defeat them. Please, there is no need to restate your point, we get it and agree. The problem is ayone who ever did anything has some sort of justification for what they do. I'm morally opposed to using the quote function or else I'd point out the examples of when people or groups had justification in their own minds for what they did, but that does not mean that that justification is valid. I'd like to hear from your experience if you think the Pals justifications are valid. If it isn't too much trouble that is.




Infanteer,

1. Although the comment was directed towards Acorn thanks for showing me where you stand, it is far easier for you to refer to something you've already said than for me to sift through 12 pages of voluminous posts in order to clarify who said what and when.  

2. I'm pretty sure Acorn is capable of defending himself; if he is offended by my comments then let him speak for himself. You may be directing staff here but I don't believe it gives you license to speak for someone else.

3. What was that you said about lobbing accusations around? 

 â Å“It's called being provocative for the purpose of discussion.  As I said, I responding to the *"ignorant savage"* line and thought I'd play Devil's Advocate by showing that perhaps the motive for doing something like this (dressing up children to emulate the defenders) is something that is a shared amongst other societies (ours included) and that perhaps the Palestinians aren't the *"cavemen"* some would like to believe.â ?

Who exactly believes the Pals to be cavemen or ignorant savages? You've said it now back it up.

4. â Å“Well, he answered your question of supporting suicide bombing with the reason why he was arguing his point of view - what did you expect when you accused both him and I of it twice and have been told otherwise.â ?

Actually he never answered the question, but I guess I can assume from his (and your) indignation at the *interpretation of my remarks as an accusation * that he does not. 

To recap:
Me-â Å“do you believe that hey are justified in using their children as suicide bombers?â ?

Acorn- â Å“... I hope AndyBoy doesn't really believe anyone has truly tried to justify suicide bombing and encouraging one's children for that.â ?

Me-â Å“I've reread the thread and I haven't found anything to suggest otherwise.â ?

Acorn-â Å“You are a stupid moron who hates chocolate and speeds in school zones.â ?

Me-Witty reply

You-Don't be rude he answered your question.

Me-Not quite but I get it, I hope everyone esle does.




CBH99,

You might be right in saying I'm exaggerating, I don't know for sure. I've googled it but finding any reliable information on the conflict is difficult. It seems like everyone has some sort of iron in the fire and uses what they can for their own cause. I don't know what the age dispersion is but I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that young Pals are blowing themselves up with the encouragement of their society, including their parents. If a parent incites their child to kill themselves what does it matter if he (or she) carries it out when they are 9 or 19? In my opinion the single biggest influence on a person's life are the parents and parents should be encouraging their children to live, not die. Even from a practical standpoint a society cannot continue if the parents kill off the children.


----------



## Infanteer (21 May 2005)

> 1. Although the comment was directed towards Acorn thanks for showing me where you stand, it is far easier for you to refer to something you've already said than for me to sift through 12 pages of voluminous posts in order to clarify who said what and when.



No problem.



> 2. I'm pretty sure Acorn is capable of defending himself; if he is offended by my comments then let him speak for himself. You may be directing staff here but I don't believe it gives you license to speak for someone else.



Well, I'm sure he is as well; I was only stepping in because the debate took a downturn with your "Professor Acorn" comments - not as Mod but as another participant in the discussion.   You've sinced apologized for the statement, so there isn't really an issue.   This debate has been relatively well done - I haven't seen these topics get to 12 pages without going to shit, so I'm reasonably pleased with the decorum.   Let's keep it this way.



> 3. What was that you said about lobbing accusations around?
> 
> â Å“It's called being provocative for the purpose of discussion.   As I said, I responding to the *"ignorant savage"* line and thought I'd play Devil's Advocate by showing that perhaps the motive for doing something like this (dressing up children to emulate the defenders) is something that is a shared amongst other societies (ours included) and that perhaps the Palestinians aren't the *"cavemen"* some would like to believe.â ?
> 
> Who exactly believes the Pals to be cavemen or ignorant savages? You've said it now back it up.



Again, I highlighted them above a few posts ago.   The exact statements were by Mr Allan, Mr P-Free, and Mr 2332Piper.   Although Wes's other theme of his post (Palestinian/Muslim violence in Western cities) was a valid one that I agreed with, I had different ideas on the comments referring to the motives of the Palestinians.



> Actually he never answered the question, but I guess I can assume from his (and your) indignation at the *interpretation of my remarks as an accusation * that he does not.



There was no interpretation here, you said it clear as day:



			
				Andyboy said:
			
		

> I've reread the thread and I haven't found anything to suggest otherwise. Silence can be seen as tacit approval.



I'm unsure of the answer you are seeking?   For us to say "Yes, Palestinian actions are bad"?   Will that really get anywhere?   It is kind of irrelevent to the discussion, as we were attempting to explore Palestinian motivations for their COA, not our own opinions on Palestinian COA (as I'm sure we all know what they are).

So, do you wish to debate the justification of suicide bombing tactics or the justification of the Palestinian Initifada in general?   Other than that, if you want to start a thread on "Your Opinions on the Suicide Bombers" than go ahead, but it probably wouldn't be very interesting.



> Me-â Å“do you believe that hey are justified in using their children as suicide bombers?â ?



Again, where is the argument of child-bombers; are you mixing up the children in protests with actual suicide bombers?   I thought we establshed that those were two seperate topics.



> Acorn- â Å“... I hope AndyBoy doesn't really believe anyone has truly tried to justify suicide bombing and encouraging one's children for that.â ?
> 
> Me-â Å“I've reread the thread and I haven't found anything to suggest otherwise.â ?



Sounds like an answer to me (hint: no, we do not personally approve of Palestinian COA)



> Acorn-â Å“You are a stupid moron who hates chocolate and speeds in school zones.â ?



He never said that.


----------



## 48Highlander (22 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The morality of what?   Suicide bombings?   Israel/Palestine?   Dressing Children up and taking them to the Demonstration?   This is why the argument is getting convoluted - use the quote function and point out where I'm promoting a _"we're-all-equal-let's-look-at-their-point-of-view hug-fest"_ instead of just lobbing accusations of moral turpitude.
> 
> I've stated that Palestinians, in deciding their COA (both individually and as a group), are probably not concluding that "we need to act like slimy cowards, but we will subject everyone to our hidden agenda" - I am saying that to them, their actions and motivations are informed by many cultural inputs and are probably just as strong as ours.   I've said that I don't think their current tactics are any good because they don't seem to indicate a desire for peace.   If there is something wrong with my line of thought then please, by all means, point it out.



    Ok, this far I'm with you.




			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> ,
> Anyways, morality is a matter of opinion and perspective - what half a billion North Americans think may not be what half a billion Muslims (from various Nations) feel - where is the ultimate moral authority?   I'm serious in this question.   To me, it seems that the only thing that validates our system of morality is our ability to fight for it - this is something that I believe in and I will support by putting the uniform on; but how this makes our outlook superior or invalidates that of others is beyond me.



easy:  if you beleive in your system and are willing to die for it, you obviously beleive that it's superior.  those systems which are almost the exact opposite of your own are obviously invalid.  now obviously we can't talk about morals from any absolute viewpoint; even people within our own society disagree on what constitutes moral behaviour, however, we generaly agree that blowing up busses full of kids is wrong, and that any society which allows or encourages it is wrong.  So what makes our system superior and others invalid is our own beleifs, and our ability to enforce them.  That's how it always works.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's called being provocative for the purpose of discussion.   As I said, I responding to the "ignorant savage" line and thought I'd play Devil's Advocate by showing that perhaps the motive for doing something like this (dressing up children to emulate the defenders) is something that is a shared amongst other societies (ours included) and that perhaps the Palestinians aren't the "cavemen" some would like to believe.



I didn't see anyone implying or stating that dressing up kids as suicide bombers makes Palestinians "savages".  If that's how this discussion got started then I suppose I understand what you're trying to do and can't realy criticize.  I think what makes them "savages" is the fact that they encourage suicide bombings, religious wars, and genocide.  "western" society outrgrew that sort of behaviour a couple hundred years ago, so by our standards they certainly are "savages".  Glorifying their wariors is nothing exceptional - many societies either do that to this day or have done so in the past - but it's the identity/method of those wariors which makes them seem like savages to us.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> This is why I am going to be a Jedi - emotion is the Path to the Dark Side....



I've officialy adopted the Jedi faith, and my PEN form reflects that   We would be pleased to count you amongst our ranks


----------



## Infanteer (22 May 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> So what makes our system superior and others invalid is our own beleifs, and our ability to enforce them.   That's how it always works.



Right - morality is relevent to the society that holds it to be true and the only thing that substantiates it is the ability to fight for it - I've argued this many times before.  I guess the crux of what I've been getting at is that others (Palestinians, Japanese, Mongol Hordes, Fantasians) don't fight us because they are wrong (evil) but because in their mind they are right.  It may seem like semantics, but to me there is an important difference.



> I didn't see anyone implying or stating that dressing up kids as suicide bombers makes Palestinians "savages".   If that's how this discussion got started then I suppose I understand what you're trying to do and can't realy criticize.



That was the message I was getting from the few posts I linked to above - it may have not been prevalent here, but I have for sure seen it elsewhere and decided to let a response go here.



> I think what makes them "savages" is the fact that they encourage suicide bombings, religious wars, and genocide.   "western" society outrgrew that sort of behaviour a couple hundred years ago, so by our standards they certainly are "savages".



Pfft...look at WWII - or how about the Balkans, right on the cusp of the West.  Northern Ireland?  Vietnam?  What about 60,000 nuclear warheads with a hair trigger for Armageddon - you think suicide bombing is nasty, how about preparing and rationalizing the destruction of entire societies?  The list goes on - I don't think the West has "outgrew" anything; we just have our own unique ways of destroying other human beings.



> I've officialy adopted the Jedi faith, and my PEN form reflects that    We would be pleased to count you amongst our ranks



Ahh, to be a Padewan; when to I get my Lightsaber?

May the Force be With You,
Infanteer


----------



## Andyboy (24 May 2005)

Infanteer,

Instead of continuing with fracturing the thread into a he-said she-said argument I'll address the main points that I feel sum up my position. The posters on this thread seem to have been divided and my points are directed to the "opposition" rather than you in particular. It seems you have become the voice of the "opposition" so don't take this as an attack, accusation, or some kind of trick to dick you around.  

I'm going to address two questions you asked and one point and then I'll be gone and you can continue with however you want your thread to go.

1.What did I expect? I expected that my words would be taken at face value and replied to as such. Instead I got condescension and dismissal and reacted. I can understand how my words might be taken as an accusation but I am at a loss as to why you would choose to do so. The question, ("do you believe using children as suicide bombers is justified...") and subsequent statement ("I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise...") were intended to help clarify and UNIFY the various positions here in the board and to remind those of you arguing for empathy that empathy can sometimes be mistaken for sympathy. As you said yourself we arel a lot closer in our positions than we think and it was an attempt to illustrate that. I see now that I was wrong to assume that my words wouldn't be taken for anything other than what they were intended, or failing that, be given the benefit of the doubt. 

2.What do I want to hear? You, amongst others, have been pushing for empathy for the Pals (which I don't disagree with), what I disagree with is not extending that same empathy to people (on this thread and elsewhere) who react with revulsion towards an act that they find revolting. It isn't unreasonable to feel disgust and anger at seeing images of Pals dressing their children up as suicide bombers, that is generally how our society has been constructed to react. Perhaps an acknowledgement of your own feelings (not neccessarily yours, but the "oppositions") on the matter would go a long way in creating common ground which in turn would allow for a more open and constructive dialogue. 

As an example of what I was hoping for I will give you my feelings on the matter and I'll let you decide whether it would be pertinant to the discussion.

I find the images of Pals dressing their children up as suicide bombers to be disgusting. I think that by dressing a child up as a suicide bomber encourages that child, and possibly others, to act as a suicide bomber and as such I think it is a betrayal of a parent's responsability to their children's health and welfare. That being said I understand that there are a lot of influences in the Pal society that do not necessarily have the best interests of the Pals at heart and as such are misleading parents and children to carry out acts that are not in keeping with Arab society, Islam or even human nature. I do not believe that every Pal agrees with the practice, I don't even think a majority of Pals agree with the practice but that doesn nothing to diminish my disgust for the people who do. In other words I do not believe that Pals are necessarily savages but some Pals are acting as such (in our eyes) under the misguided notion that doing so is the right thing to do. 

Do you not see how this could help unify the discussion? Do you not see that by leaving it unsaid that some people might take it in a way that was not intended? There are people reading this right now who are formong their opinion based on what is being written here. Acorn himself said that he "hopes" no one thinks he support suicide bombing and left it at that. That implies he thinks that someone might and yet he did nothing to dispel the idea. 

3. Dressing children up as suicide bombers vs. suicide bombing. I cannot see how you can possibly separate a parent encouraging a certain behaviour from their child carrying out that behaviour then or at a later date. For example if a parent were to encourage their child to play at smoking would it be a separate issue if that child were to take up smoking? Are we to assume that Arab parents have no influence on their children? In my opinion the single biggest influence in a person's life is their parents, maybe it is different for an Arab family but I doubt it. In other owrds if a parent says suicide bombing is something to be admired then there is a very good chance the child will agree.

If there is any question as to whether or not children are acting as suicide bombers here is an instance of at least one child acting as such.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050522/ts_nm/mideast_bomber_dc&printer=1


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 May 2005)

Don't have time to read the whole thread, but here are a couple of comments.

The hero worship of suicide bombers both the celebration of their acts and imitation by children is the result of two basic issues. The legimate frustration f the average Palestinian and the exploitation of that frustration by groups within and without the Palestinian political movement. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used suicide bombing as a political tool dressed up to be a patriotic act to further their belief.

There is a growing concern within the Palestinian and Arab world about this â Å“death cultâ ? that is forming and it's potential impact of resolving issues and creating a viable society. Arabs are beginning to see that it is a double edge sword, this tactic has cost them support and the moral high ground. It also strengthens the Israeli position. As a result the 2nd Infadita has been a dismal failure, costing the Palestinian all the gains they achieved in the 1st. The use of suicide bomber is a tool for groups that can not offer anything in the real world and therefore promises rewards in the afterlife. The Israelis realize this and have made the consequences for the family of the bombers high, this policy of collective punishment, isolation and assassination has broken the back of the Palestinian revolt. With the loss of money from Saddam and Europe, the PLA could no longer buy off people, now the average Palestinian just wants some peace and a job. 

So a comparison between boy scouts and the suicide bombers is flawed, as the scouts have always been about promoting positive virtues and values, the suicide bombers do not offer anything other than the possibility of killing some more Jews (or anyone else with the misfortune to be in the wrong place)

A comparison between the suicide bombers and the Hitler youth of 1942 and on would be fairly accurate.


----------



## Acorn (25 May 2005)

My last post to this thread was condescending and pompous. I apologize.

I didn't think it necessary to voice outright opposition to suicide bombing because, in my mind, I thought it should be obvious as I certainly didn't voice outright support. I made the mistake of thinking my comments were clear enough in opposition to it. 

I also reacted off the cuff. The "accusation" that I (or others) support such acts infuriated me, and I failed to follow my own usual advice to calm down before posting.

Andyboy,
I don't think you're a stupid moron, but you have yet to answer whether you hate chocolate or not. If you don't state unequivocally your position, the option is left up to the reader.  

That being said, I do not think the Palestinians are justified, however, I haven't been in the same position, so I don't know how I would think if I were subject to the same pressures. I'd like to think I would continue to find the idea of suicide bombing repugnant, but I'm not so sure. Regarding the grooming of children for suicide bombing, as opposed to actually using children for that (even Palestinians balk at that - though their definition of "child" vs "man" is also different from ours a 15 year old is pretty close to manhood, and may be regarded as a man in some parts of Arab society), I see a fine line between that and the culture of heroism and sacrifice we (or some of us) favour in Western society. To give you a cultural example: a few weeks ago the final episode of Third Watch was broadcast, in which one of the police officers (a female sergeant, which may or may not have had some bearing on what the writers were trying to convey) blew herself and a major crime figure up with grenades she had concealed. What was the producer/director/writer trying to convey? That suicide can be acceptable in some circumstances - for the greater good?

As well, consider how we favour servicemembers who perform suicidal acts in battle. The pilot, wounded and his aircraft on fire, chooses to crash it into the target. I can see the distinction, but can a Palestinian, who has been directly subject to massive military superiority, is propagandized by his own "government," and is relatively uneducated in the first place (a product of the occupation and propagandization)?

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer (25 May 2005)

Most of these debates seem to revolve around the words that everybody is looking to find - I think Andyboy nailed it with differentiating between *empathy* and *sympathy.*

It is clear that none of us sympathize with those who conduct terrorist attacks against civilians (nor those who condone it).  I'm convinced that some of the hardline elements of the Palestinian movement have been hijacked by the Islamic Insurgency (Which is discussed on this thread), so you would find me in the trench with you ready to waste these guys if we ever ended up there.

Empathy was the word I was looking for - I was a little dismayed that some appeared to write Palestinian COA off to being a pack of unenlightened savages.  I'm sure we can all also agree that their current actions will not win the approval (or sympathy) from us, but it is undoubtedly a very real one to them.  I was also trying to empathize with what would motivate them to dress their children up in bomber suits - again, I am sure it is not for being unenlightened savages, and that the motivations for doing so were as strong as us Western parents putting our children in cadets.

No sympathy from here (at least not while they insist on taking such a hardline stance), but empathy in understanding what drives them to take the actions that they do.

Sound good?

Infanteer


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 May 2005)

>morality is relevent to the society that holds it to be true and the only thing that substantiates it is the ability to fight for it

Translation: anything goes.  Unfortunately, not all societies are uniformly composed of willing participants.


----------



## Dare (29 May 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Most of these debates seem to revolve around the words that everybody is looking to find - I think Andyboy nailed it with differentiating between *empathy* and *sympathy.*
> 
> It is clear that none of us sympathize with those who conduct terrorist attacks against civilians (nor those who condone it).  I'm convinced that some of the hardline elements of the Palestinian movement have been hijacked by the Islamic Insurgency (Which is discussed on this thread), so you would find me in the trench with you ready to waste these guys if we ever ended up there.
> 
> ...


I am pleased that this distinction has been made, but to comment on wording, if people who dress their children up as suicide bombers are not defined as unenlightened savages, to you. What would you describe as an unenlightened savage? As for a hijack of the Palestinian movement.. they're virtually all Islamic or Marxist "political" parties. Their founding charters have not changed much nor have their goals.


----------



## 48Highlander (30 May 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> I am pleased that this distinction has been made, but to comment on wording, if people who dress their children up as suicide bombers are not defined as unenlightened savages, to you. What would you describe as an unenlightened savage?



Good point.  By that logic, a neanderthal whose idea of dating is clubbing a woman over the head and dragging her to his cave is also not an "unenlightened savage".  He's just doing what is acceptable by the standards of his society.

The term "unenlightened" is applied by those who consider themselves more advanced in one way or another.  Certainly, if we consider our moral code to be superior to those of the Palestinians, then we can accurately say that they are unenlightened.  Wether we can apply the term "savage" to them depends on which meaning of the word you want to go with, and what your opinion of them is.  Do we mean savage as in not civilized?  Well, I don't think that applies to Palestinians, they're civilized, their civilization just doesn't hold the same beleifs as ours.  Do we mean "savage" as in "ferocious"?  Well, their fighters probably are ferocious, so you could call them "unenlightened savages", but it probably wouldn't apply to mothers who dress their kids up as suicide bombers.  The word "savage" can also mean "rude", and I guess dressing your kid up in sticks of fake TNT while yelling something like "death to jews" can be considered rude


----------



## Acorn (31 May 2005)

While I consider the idea of encouraging one's kids to strap on explosives and take a few infidels with them to be repugnant, I have to wonder how the Palestinian who sees a kid blown up as "collateral damage" in an assassination by Hellfire perceives Israelis. 

In the West we've come to regard close combat as "savage." In the Middle East avoiding close combat is "cowardly." I say that as a gross generalisation, since, as soldiers, we are more inclined than the average Westerner to admire the skill of the soldier in close combat. And, clearly, some factions in the Middle East are inclined to accept the murder by AK-47 of a woman and her children as somehow an admirable act of "resistance."

I would suggest that war is savagery, regardless of the perpetrator. What separates civilized from savage is the ability to regulate the savagery. Democracies certainly try to do this (I say try, as we are not always successful). Middle Easters societies, generally, do so as well, believe it or not. Where it breaks down is when state structure fails.

Acorn


----------

