West should be more "tolerant" of holocaust deniers...

[Glorified Ape]

I thought I might go to Africa, dislocate a few thousand people off their land, and claim it as my rightful possession since my primate ancestors evolved there a few million years ago. Then, when I'm opposed, I'll garner some Western support, playing on their heartstrings by bringing up the persecution of my Scottish ancestors at the hands of the British. Once I'm secure in my possession, I'll import other Scot-Germanic Canadians and send them out to colonize what little land the displaced original residents have left. I'll justify all this by constantly referring to my ancestor's persecution in Scotland, beating that horse until it's atomized. I'll throw in a healthy, religiously backed, race-based superiority notion to inspire pride in the population and an eternal sense of entitlement to that which isn't theirs.

So who's coming with me?  :threat:

 

[48Highlander]

I thought I might go to Africa, dislocate a few thousand people off their land, and claim it as my rightful possession since my primate ancestors evolved there a few million years ago. Then, when I'm opposed, I'll garner some Western support, playing on their heartstrings by bringing up the persecution of my Scottish ancestors at the hands of the British. Once I'm secure in my possession, I'll import other Scot-Germanic Canadians and send them out to colonize what little land the displaced original residents have left. I'll justify all this by constantly referring to my ancestor's persecution in Scotland, beating that horse until it's atomized. I'll throw in a healthy, religiously backed, race-based superiority notion to inspire pride in the population and an eternal sense of entitlement to that which isn't theirs.
So who's coming with me?  :threat:

Doesn't work, you have to be a VISIBLE minority, opposing a WESTERN state.  Any other situation won't get any attention.  Case in point:  nobody seems to give a crap about Tibet any more; a peacefull country that got sacked and brutally oppressed by China.  I can't recall the last time I heard a leftie speak out against Chinese oppression of the Tibetans, nor can I seem to recall any UN resolutions against China in the last decade or two.  But just look at the uproar generated over the Israel vs Palestine situation.

So if you modify your plan, convert to Islaam, and decide to stake out your rightfull portion of Israel, you'll have all the backing you need.

 

[Glorified Ape]

Doesn't work, you have to be a VISIBLE minority, opposing a WESTERN state.  Any other situation won't get any attention.  Case in point:  nobody seems to give a crap about Tibet any more; a peacefull country that got sacked and brutally oppressed by China.  I can't recall the last time I heard a leftie speak out against Chinese oppression of the Tibetans, nor can I seem to recall any UN resolutions against China in the last decade or two.  But just look at the uproar generated over the Israel vs Palestine situation.

Lefties are always complaining about Tibet - look at all the celebrities that have spoken up about it, all the attention given the Dalai Lama in the media, etc.

So if you modify your plan, convert to Islaam, and decide to stake out your rightfull portion of Israel, you'll have all the backing you need.

I dunno - it worked for Israel and they weren't really opposing a Western state, though some groups attacked the Brits when they still held Palestine. I think you're right, though, that colonialist tripe isn't as tolerated nowadays... well, with the exception of Israel.

On the Iranian note, I'm participating in a Directed Studies class simulation of the Pacific campaign of WWII with a prof whose run a simulation of a US invasion of Iran with some Iranian expert from McGill. I haven't had a chance to pick his brain about it yet, but intend to and hopefully I can relay some of his thoughts on the whole Iranian issue. If he ever gets around to publishing the stuff, I'll see if I can't get some excerpts for here.

 

[GO!!!]

I dunno - it worked for Israel and they weren't really opposing a Western state, though some groups attacked the Brits when they still held Palestine. I think you're right, though, that colonialist tripe isn't as tolerated nowadays... well, with the exception of Israel.

I'm glad I'm not alone in my opinion of Israel as a colonist regime - where were you over the holidays?

 

[48Highlander]

Lefties are always complaining about Tibet - look at all the celebrities that have spoken up about it, all the attention given the Dalai Lama in the media, etc.

We must not be watching the same media.

Here's an experiment; Google Search results:

Free Tibet:            6,760,000
Free Palestine:    16,100,000

Tibet Occupation:            786,000
Palestine Occupation:    5,340,000

and just to compare the temperments of the two countries:

Palestinian suicide bombings:    139+
Tibetan suicide bombings:            0


I rest my case.

I dunno - it worked for Israel and they weren't really opposing a Western state, though some groups attacked the Brits when they still held Palestine. I think you're right, though, that colonialist tripe isn't as tolerated nowadays... well, with the exception of Israel.

eh?  rephrase your last, over.

 

[Infanteer]

I can't recall the last time I heard a leftie speak out against Chinese oppression of the Tibetans, nor can I seem to recall any UN resolutions against China in the last decade or two.

Just ask Britney Spears - I remember him arguing for it based on history.

 

[48Highlander]

Just ask Britney Spears - I remember him arguing for it based on history.

Awesome, I'm glad to know there's an exception to the rule.

 

[Roger]

Being a old guy and I do not know if anyone else has some memories of the past, but I was stationed in Germany in October 6, 1973 when Syria and Egypt invaded Israel with the support of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states and also the support of the Soviet Union (Airlift of equipment). Israel almost lost the war. The USA came to the aide of Israel (Airlift of equipment and new aircraft) Israel came back in a desperate counter attacks and started to win taking the Golan from Syria and all of the Gaza from Egypt.

At the time the Soviet Union and the United states where having words and the Soviets threatened to invade western Europe if Israel did not call a cease fire and cross the Suez into Egypt. And Saudi Arabia started the first oil embargo.

I was getting ready to go on leave and my leave was cancelled and everyone in Germany was called to alert, one minute your packed and one your way to Canada the next you digging a trench in the German country side wondering how long your unit will last if the Soviet Army invades.

And in 1967 I was in school and I remember our teacher had us read the newspapers to learn current events and to discuss what was going on during that war, from what I remember there was a dispute between Israel and Syria and Egypt moved there troops to the front and demanded that the UN peacekeepers withdraw, they then blockaded the gulf from Israeli shipping, with the Syrian and Egyptian army at there borders the Israeli army surprised everyone by launching an attack on both Syria and Egypt and forcing both countries to sue for peace in six days.

Yes Israel has not had the perfect past, in fact in the 1940’s the where terrorist, they even kidnapped and murdered British soldiers, but I would not say that they where the ones who started most of the wars in the area.

 

[Glorified Ape]

I'm glad I'm not alone in my opinion of Israel as a colonist regime - where were you over the holidays?

At my folk's place in Toronto, revelling in my sloth and doing little else but reading science fiction and stuffing my face with turkey. Ditto on the Israeli colonialism opinion. "Settlers" - christ, they don't even try to hide it. Maybe next they can pass out some infected blankets.

We must not be watching the same media.

Here's an experiment; Google Search results:

Free Tibet:            6,760,000
Free Palestine:     16,100,000

Tibet Occupation:            786,000
Palestine Occupation:    5,340,000

and just to compare the temperments of the two countries:

Palestinian suicide bombings:    139+
Tibetan suicide bombings:            0


I rest my case.

What case are you resting? That "lefties" never cry out about Tibet or that it never gets media attention? I believe you just provided 6 760 000 examples to the contrary.

As for suicide bombings - what's your point? That Buddhists aren't prone to suicide bombing their enemies? Point conceded. I'd expect a Buddhist to suicide bomb about as much as I'd expect a fish to walk upright. Buddhists seem to prefer self-immolation. 

eh?  rephrase your last, over.

You said that in order for a national independence/homeland handout to be made, one has to be a visible minority opposing a Western state. I countered with Israel - whereby a non-visible minority (arguably) got the handout without opposing a Western state (excepting some terrorism in Palestine against the British prior to Israel's inception). My response was a bit convoluted, apologies.

 

[48Highlander]

What case are you resting? That "lefties" never cry out about Tibet or that it never gets media attention? I believe you just provided 6 760 000 examples to the contrary.

As for suicide bombings - what's your point? That Buddhists aren't prone to suicide bombing their enemies? Point conceded. I'd expect a Buddhist to suicide bomb about as much as I'd expect a fish to walk upright. Buddhists seem to prefer self-immolation. 

:

Alright fine.  I'm sure you understood what I mean, but let me be more specific.  The "lefties" speak out much more often against "oppresion" by western states, no matter the cause or circumstances, than they do against oppression by anyone else.  They're too focused "fighting for the rights" of suicide bombers, terrorists, and oppresive regimes to bother speaking up for peacefull monks and peasants.

The point to showing the number of suicide bombings was, as you well know, to display the utter idiocy behind the choice of causes that these people select.  On the one hand you have a peaceful country occupied by an oppresive regime.  On the other, you have a semi-civilized sort-of-nation which continuously targets civilians in a country which is only "occupying" a small portion of their land, and that largely for self-defence.  Which of the two do you suppose is a more logical, and more worthwhile cause?

You said that in order for a national independence/homeland handout to be made, one has to be a visible minority opposing a Western state. I countered with Israel - whereby a non-visible minority (arguably) got the handout without opposing a Western state (excepting some terrorism in Palestine against the British prior to Israel's inception). My response was a bit convoluted, apologies.

Alright, so either be a minority opposing a western state, or be a minority in the proccess of being exterminated.  Although you could argue that Germany was a western state....or that at the time we really had no concept of west vs east or third world.  I'm talking about todays rules; as you may have noticed things have changed a bit since then 1940's.

 

[Kilo_302]

The double standard in the media pertaining to the Israeli-Palestine conflict is indicative of the way the West views that conflict. When a Palestinian blows himself up and kills Israeli civilians, he is correctly called a terrorist. But when a Jewish settler decides to even the score by shooting a few Palestinians, its called "tragic" a "horrific" event , but the settler is never referred to as a terrorist. In one case, in 1995, an active IDF Major, wearing his uniform walked into a mosque and shot 21 palestinian civilians. In the ensuing demonstrations, in which witnessing journalists say that Palestinians threw rocks, a further 25 were gunned down by IDF personnel (and dont say that rocks are lethal weapons) . Again, this event was called a "tragedy". Imagine a Palestinian walking into a synagogue and killing innocent Israelis, he would be, and again I say correctly, called a terrorist. But if an Israeli does the same thing, its tragic, comparable to the "office shooting", meaning its totally inexplicable, and unexpected. Without even getting into who owns what land, or what the UN said, there is a definite bias in the media and Western governments, which fuels misguided public opinion, which in turn prolongs the conflict. This is excluding official IDF operations which are also responsible for many more civilian deaths, and could be, in some cases, defined as terrorist acts.

 

[GO!!!]

Kilo,

You are absolutely right. Ever read an eastern paper? A few of them refuse to even say "Israel" they use the term "Zionist entity".

Settlers are referred to as "invaders", and stories start with statements like "Tensions rose to a boiling point in the Ramallah concentration camp today, when Zionist forces of occupation massacred an innocent crowd seeking the return of their political prisoner sons, brothers and fathers. Helicopter gunships returned that night, killing four elderly men in a Mercedes, and levelling a hospital."

The Israeli version would say "Israeli police in Ramallah were surrounded by an armed, rock throwing crowd who outnumbered them 3 to 1. They shot their way out, to avoid being swarmed. The head financier and spiritual leader of Hamas was finally located and killed, in an effort to stop the rocket attacks on Israeli citizens, however, the vehicle was being used to transport explosives, and the ensuing fire burned a local hospital to the ground."

The truth is probably somewhere in between.

 

[48Highlander]

The double standard in the media pertaining to the Israeli-Palestine conflict is indicative of the way the West views that conflict. When a Palestinian blows himself up and kills Israeli civilians, he is correctly called a terrorist. But when a Jewish settler decides to even the score by shooting a few Palestinians, its called "tragic" a "horrific" event , but the settler is never referred to as a terrorist. In one case, in 1995, an active IDF Major, wearing his uniform walked into a mosque and shot 21 palestinian civilians.

And I suppose, according to your definition, that the gang-bangers who wounded 7 bystanders in Toronto would also classify as terrorists eh?

Or if not, maybe the Columbine kids?  Or maybe Mark Lepine?

Don't even try answering that.  We both know that there's a difference between a criminal and a terrorist.  Acts of murder commited when individual Israelis snap and decide to fight their own personal wars are NOT terrorist acts.  And they're also extremely rare, so any questions of "bias" are irrelevant.  I'm sure the first few attacks by Palestinians were also not called terrorist attacks.  If on the other hand, Israelis formed a group called the Zionist Liberation Organization, dedicated themselves to exterminating all Palestinians, and commenced weekly attacks against civilian targets in Palestine, you'd see the same response to them in the media as you do against the PLO and Hamas sponsored attacks.

Without even getting into who owns what land, or what the UN said, there is a definite bias in the media and Western governments, which fuels misguided public opinion, which in turn prolongs the conflict.

Really.  In that case, would you care to try and explain why such a large percentage of westerners side with the Palestinians?

This is excluding official IDF operations which are also responsible for many more civilian deaths, and could be, in some cases, defined as terrorist acts.

Ah I see, you're one of those.  Ok then.

 

[Kilo_302]

Then tell me 48th, what is this "large percentage" of Westerners who "side" with the Palestinians. And do they side with those Palestinians who have committed terrorist acts, or with those who peacefully oppose the Israeli occupation? Or both? The world is not black and white.

And yes I am one of "those" who recognize that at times, some Israeli military operations, particularly in Lebanon in the early 80s, did actually target civilians. The Israelis themselves admit this latter fact. The Kahan commission inquiry into the Sabra and Chatila massacres in 1982 found Sharon "personally responsible" for aiding the Phalangist milita in killing 1700 Palestinians civilians.

Keep in mind 48th, no one here is saying that the Palestinians are absolved of all guilt just because they are legally (according to the UN and international law) in the right. Anyone here could list hundreds of terrorist attacks committed by the Palestinians, and these attacks are despicable when they target civilians. But one of the belligerents in this case has attack helos, tanks, soldiers etc, while the other has home made bombs and small arms. In total about 3-4 times more Palestinians than Israelis have died since the beginning of the latest Intifadah.

48th I do not undertand why you are so eager to dismiss facts that can be readily proven, and instead prefer to fall back on rhetoric about Palestinian terrorists. Facing the facts does not at all mean you have to come down on any one side.

 

[privatesteve]

The west always preaches freedom of speech. If people wanna try and deny it then they can go ahead.

Revisionism is hardly a crime.

 

[Glorified Ape]

:

Alright fine.  I'm sure you understood what I mean, but let me be more specific.  The "lefties" speak out much more often against "oppresion" by western states, no matter the cause or circumstances, than they do against oppression by anyone else.  They're too focused "fighting for the rights" of suicide bombers, terrorists, and oppresive regimes to bother speaking up for peacefull monks and peasants.

I agree that Western states often get a large proportion of attention, given their lesser proportion of abuses versus dictatorships/totalitarian regimes. That may or may not be a function of the fact that Western states (most) actually seem to care about abuses and change is actually possible, but I'm not a HR activist or anything so I couldn't really say. I don't think the rights of terrorists/suicide bombers are really the main concern of most activists, but rather the common folk being subjected to whatever it is that the activists are complaining about - particularly in Israel's case. By the "concerned for the rights of terrorists" thing, I assume you mean all the hooplah about the Gitmo detainees and related issues. I can see both sides - one has to recognize that many of the detainees are not innocent people but at the same time, the legal regime established in most Western countries is there for a reason and some view the recent changes to this regime and/or its circumvention through loopholes to be a disturbing development.

The point to showing the number of suicide bombings was, as you well know, to display the utter idiocy behind the choice of causes that these people select.  On the one hand you have a peaceful country occupied by an oppresive regime.  On the other, you have a semi-civilized sort-of-nation which continuously targets civilians in a country which is only "occupying" a small portion of their land, and that largely for self-defence.  Which of the two do you suppose is a more logical, and more worthwhile cause?

The standard for Western/democratic countries is always higher than for the nondemocratic ones. It's true - there's a certain degree of irony in the focus which many groups have on Western abuses. I don't see it as an either/or scenario, though, where one can only decry one groups' abuses at a time. I think the reason Western states attract so much attention is that they claim to be the beacon of light and role model for the rest of the world but have yet to clean up their own backyards in many cases. The hypocrisy of it is what sets off so many people, methinks. It's like the Western world is an officer telling the troops to run faster while he rides behind them in a jeep - it's hard to take him seriously or respect him.

As for Israel, occupying Palestinian lands and dumping settlers on them is actually injurious to Israeli security, as I see it, because it provides no shortage of impetus for attacks. There will ALWAYS be groups who'll attack Israel solely because it exists but I dare say the support for such behaviour amongst the Palestinian population would dry up substantially if Palestinians were given their rightful lands and allowed self-determination. As for civilian targeting, Israel has had no qualms about it in the past. I don't see either side as morally superior, but I do believe that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance with Israel (and Britain, the UN, the US, etc). I don't necessarily support their tactics, nor do I believe them to be morally preferable or superior to Israel's solely because they have a grievance.

Alright, so either be a minority opposing a western state, or be a minority in the proccess of being exterminated.  Although you could argue that Germany was a western state....or that at the time we really had no concept of west vs east or third world.  I'm talking about todays rules; as you may have noticed things have changed a bit since then 1940's.

You have a point, though I'm sure people thought things had changed since the British (and Canadian) and American colonial practices in North America but Israel seems to be doing its damndest to prove such people wrong.

 

[Shec]

As for Israel, occupying Palestinian lands and dumping settlers on them is actually injurious to Israeli security, as I see it, because it provides no shortage of impetus for attacks. There will ALWAYS be groups who'll attack Israel solely because it exists but I dare say the support for such behaviour amongst the Palestinian population would dry up substantially if Palestinians were given their rightful lands and allowed self-determination.

Oh yeah, and then they will all sit around the campfire singing Kumbyah.  They got Gaza given to them what do they do with it?  They start launching Qassam rockets against Ashkelon.  That is the shape of things to come and that is a compelling justification for setting up a defensive buffer on the West Bank and surveying everything beyond it and within range for IDF artillery.

 

[48Highlander]

I agree that Western states often get a large proportion of attention, given their lesser proportion of abuses versus dictatorships/totalitarian regimes. That may or may not be a function of the fact that Western states (most) actually seem to care about abuses and change is actually possible, but I'm not a HR activist or anything so I couldn't really say. I don't think the rights of terrorists/suicide bombers are really the main concern of most activists, but rather the common folk being subjected to whatever it is that the activists are complaining about - particularly in Israel's case. By the "concerned for the rights of terrorists" thing, I assume you mean all the hooplah about the Gitmo detainees and related issues. I can see both sides - one has to recognize that many of the detainees are not innocent people but at the same time, the legal regime established in most Western countries is there for a reason and some view the recent changes to this regime and/or its circumvention through loopholes to be a disturbing development.

And many view it as a good thing.  Either way, I'm glad we agree that western states get a massively disproportionate ammount of negative attention when engaged in any sort of violent behaviour.

The standard for Western/democratic countries is always higher than for the nondemocratic ones. It's true - there's a certain degree of irony in the focus which many groups have on Western abuses. I don't see it as an either/or scenario, though, where one can only decry one groups' abuses at a time. I think the reason Western states attract so much attention is that they claim to be the beacon of light and role model for the rest of the world but have yet to clean up their own backyards in many cases. The hypocrisy of it is what sets off so many people, methinks. It's like the Western world is an officer telling the troops to run faster while he rides behind them in a jeep - it's hard to take him seriously or respect him.

Not really.  It's more like an officer saying "either do PT properly on your own time, or I'm gonna come out and run you into the ground".  You're free to ignore him, disrespect him, and call him a hypocrite, but next week, when you're doing a 25km ruck-run with said officer, just remember you brought it on yourself.

Western states aren't perfect, no, but comparing the human rights record of a country like Canada, the US, or Israel, to states like Palestine, Iran, Iraq....well, you'd have to be a few rounds short of a full load to even make the comparison.  Could you imagine that sort of logic in Canada?  Some guy gets arrested for robbing a bank....and suddenly there's 200 university students protesting outside the jail because the officer who arrested him was seen jay-walking.

As for Israel, occupying Palestinian lands and dumping settlers on them is actually injurious to Israeli security, as I see it, because it provides no shortage of impetus for attacks. There will ALWAYS be groups who'll attack Israel solely because it exists but I dare say the support for such behaviour amongst the Palestinian population would dry up substantially if Palestinians were given their rightful lands and allowed self-determination.

And this would take....how long exactly?  A hundred years maybe?  In the meantime, attacks against Israel would intensify.  So what you're saying is that Israel should pull out of the "occupied" territories, thereby increasing the ammount of risk to their own citizens, on the off chance that maybe in a century or so the Palestinians might have a change of heart.  Please.  You're better than that.

Also keep in mind that a VERY large portion of the Palestinian population beleives that ALL of Israel is or should be Palestinian territory.  Giving them back the "occupied lands" won't do jack; those individuals will simply see it as a sign that the glorious PLO is defeating the heathen Zionists, and will assume that if they redouble their efforts they'll eventualy succeed in pushing Israel into the sea and getting all of "their" land back.

AND keep in mind that other Muslim states have a vested interest in maintaining the conflict between Israel and Palestine.  Even assuming that the majority of Palestinian people had a change of heart overnight, the terrorists organizations could always find funding and personnel through outher nations.

So with all those things in mind, explain to me how exactly withdrawing from the "occupied" territories will gain ANYTHING for Israel.

As for civilian targeting, Israel has had no qualms about it in the past. I don't see either side as morally superior, but I do believe that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance with Israel (and Britain, the UN, the US, etc). I don't necessarily support their tactics, nor do I believe them to be morally preferable or superior to Israel's solely because they have a grievance.

I see.  And because Canada and the US have both targeted civilians in the past as well, we also don't have any sort of moral superiority, right?

When you come right down to it, I can't think of a single nation which has never targeted civilians.  So we're all moraly equal, eh?

You have a point, though I'm sure people thought things had changed since the British (and Canadian) and American colonial practices in North America but Israel seems to be doing its damndest to prove such people wrong.

....I'm not even going to attempt to devine what aspect of Israel you're insulting with that statement.

 

[sheikyerbouti]

The relocation of settlers from Gaza to the West Bank smacks to me of a form of the colonialism he is referring to. If Israel were truly sincere, they would have prevented Gaza settlers from relocating to other disputed territories. By tacitly allowing this to occur, it certainly denotes a degree of colonialism. Another example would the posturing as of late by the Israeli government with respect  to East Jerusalem and their indixcations that they would impede voting by Palestinians. Denying individuals the right to exercise their vote is powerfully oppressive, especially when it comes to nascent rights. I must admit that permitting Palestinians to vote helps them solidify their historical claims to the area and thus impedes the Israeli's claim to the area.

Another underhanded example as of late seems to be the incremental acquisition of properties by Jewish groups in areas of concern (mainly East Jerusalem). Essentially they are conquering from within but this effort is somewhat unnecessary as the Israeli's are hesitant  to recognize the property rights of many Arabs anyways.

 

[Kilo_302]

I see.  And because Canada and the US have both targeted civilians in the past as well, we also don't have any sort of moral superiority, right?

When you come right down to it, I can't think of a single nation which has never targeted civilians.  So we're all moraly equal, eh?

No one here is saying that other Western nations have never targeted civilians. However, this board has shifted to being primarily about Israel. The US has trampled human rights in the past, as have the French in Algeria, the UK in pretty much any former colony. And of course, almost every single regime in the Middle East with the possible exception of Iran under Mossadegh. The list pretty comprises every nation that has ever existed. But that isn't the point. Israel is supposed to be the beacon of democracy in the Middle East, and it has vast support from the West particularly the United States. I think someone else already mentioned this on this thread, but you cannot point to other examples of past wrong doing to absolve a particular case. I am sure that most people on this board are aware of other human rights abuses and state terrorism committed by many other nations, but at this point, we are not discussing them. If people insist on comparisons I would argue that if there were three "tiers" of human rights abuses, nations like Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq under Hussein would be in tier 1, or the worst offenders.In this category, nations openly restrict free speech, imprison political opponents, and execute/torture dissenters. Nations such as Israel and the United States would be tier 2. Nations in this category would feature free speech domestically, have free markets, but abroad would prosecute illegal wars, carry out illegal assassinations, stage coups of democratically (and otherwise) elected governments, and generally not practice what they preach at home. Nations such as Canada, Sweden, and others would be tier 3. These nations, while definitely being guilty of past crimes, and still being guilty of current foreign/domestic policy that could be seen as morally wrong, are not overtly committing crimes that are defined as such by the UN and international law. This being said, there is a definite linkage between morally questionable policies and economic/military status in the world, at least in a Western sense. If Canada was a more powerful nation, I have no doubt that our human rights abuses would increase in a parallel manner.