If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ArabNews)   Arab countries: "So using the Palestinians as a distraction for our own problems wasn't a good idea after all"   (arabnews.com) divider line 65
    More: Sad, Arab-Israeli, Palestinians, Arab Spring, Arab countries, major wars, Israeli presidents, Sinai, Israel Defense Forces  
•       •       •

16004 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Oct 2012 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-08 08:44:54 AM
7 votes:

jenlen: It would be great to see more introspective people in the Middle East raising questions like this man has.


I'd say we need that everywhere, not just certain regions.
2012-10-08 09:14:01 AM
6 votes:
Excellent article, arab reporter actually acknowledging reality and also published by an arab news site ? in public ? This is extremely rare.
This guy has balls of steel. I hope he won't get hurt for speaking the truth.
2012-10-08 09:23:44 AM
5 votes:
"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are." - T.E. Lawrence
2012-10-08 09:37:02 AM
4 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.


Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.
2012-10-08 04:50:32 AM
4 votes:
It would be great to see more introspective people in the Middle East raising questions like this man has.
2012-10-08 11:27:22 AM
3 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: You are truly a moron. I have repeatedly said that all three examples of "pre-emptive" war gave are utter bullshiat and completely unjustified.


Reduced to ad homninem attack. You lose, I win.

Wicked Chinchilla: you missed the point by a mile clambam. He is making a direct comparison between the claims of Japan in '41 to the claims of Israel in '67. He is not using them to justify anything, he is using it as an example of "This is unjust for the same reasons"


Israel did not pre-emptively attack the Arabs in 1967 to grab territory. Israel pre-emptively attacked the Arabs to prevent the Arab attack that was blatantly in the works given the scope and location of their military build-up. As far as the '67 War being an excuse for territorial aggrandizement, um, does "the Sinai peninsula" ring a bell with you? You know, that enormous piece of territory, complete with actual oil deposits, that Israel willingly gave back to Egypt in return for a peace treaty? The West Bank and Gaza weren't conquered by Israel; they were abandoned by the Jordanians and Egyptians, who frankly were no more interested in dealing with the Palestinians than the Israelis are (the Jordanians are already 60% Palestinian, so the royal family probably gave a huge sigh of relief when they were able to shuck off a chunk of territory filled with extremist kooks).

Mouser: Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.

Why should they? Palestinians are more Jewish than Arab.

The dirty secret of the Middle East is that despite claims to the contrary, Palestinians are not Arab. They're Jewish converts to Islam. The story of the Jewish Diaspora in the 1st-2nd Centuries AD is only half-true; not all Jews were expelled. Some remained behind, and many had converted to Christianity by that time. When the armies of Islam marched in during the 7th Century AD, these quasi-Jewish/Christian Palestinians, wanting to get in good with their conquerors, started converting over to their religion.

Seriously, the whole Palestinian mess could be solved overnight if the Palestinians would convert back to the faith of their ancestors and re-adopt Judaism. The Israeli authorities could hardly discriminate against one of their own, now could they?


What the... I don't even...

Actually, while it is true that the Jews have maintained a small presence in Israel since the Diaspora and of course for 1800 years before that, the vast majority of the inhabitants of Palestine at the time of the Arab Conquest were Christians. Jews tend to cling to their religion no matter what, which is why there are still Jews... and why there aren't more of them. However, I totally agree with you. Were the Palestinians to convert en masse to Judaism the Israelis would have no choice but to accept them as citizens. You have to understand though, it's not a matter of "I want to be a Jew." There is a lot of study and reading involved, there's a test, and spelling counts. Generally it takes about two years to convert to Orthodox Judaism if you devote yourself to it full time. The Palestinians are of course welcome to undertake this onerous task, as is anyone else sincerely interested in converting. By comparison:

Two Jews are walking past a Catholic church with a sign outside: "Convert and Get a Thousand Dollars." One of the Jews says "I'm going to check it out." An hour later he comes back and his friend says "Well? Did you get the thousand dollars?" and the other one says "Is that all you people think about?"
2012-10-08 10:12:04 AM
3 votes:

Magruda: s2s2s2: Magruda: Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Yeah, bummer how Israel did what everyone else was trying to do to them. Fark em. Tough shiat. Seriously.

Pretty sure Israel was ready to live and let live. Should have just let them live.

Wonderful justification.



"If somebody tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back."
-- Malcolm Reynolds
2012-10-08 09:15:56 AM
3 votes:

Alonjar: Why is it that Israel was given Jerusalem anyhow? Was it just a big middle finger from the catholic church in the power vacuum after WW2?

"Haha told you dirty arabs we'd take that shiat back one way or another!"


Had nothing to do with the catholic church and you might want to see a therapist if you see a catholic conspiracy everywhere.

But the reason Israel now has Jerusalem is because of the Palestinians and Arabs themselves. The initial Jewish boundary state of Israel was much smaller and Jerusalem was squarely in Palestine. However, the war of 1948 with the Arabs changed all that since the Israelis won and they decided to say "to the victors, spoils" and claimed virtually everything that is Israel today. Below is a good map showing the change in territory coverage from 1947-pre war to post-war and how Jerusalem became Israeli property.

www.israpundit.com
2012-10-08 09:00:40 AM
3 votes:
Shouldn't there be an angry mob burning this guys house down about right now?
2012-10-08 11:19:08 AM
2 votes:

Joe Blowme: Mouser: Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.

Why should they? Palestinians are more Jewish Jordanian than Arab.

The dirty secret of the Middle East is that despite claims to the contrary, Palestinians are not Arab. They're Jewish converts to IslamJordanian. The story of the Jewish Diaspora in the 1st-2nd Centuries AD is only half-true; not all Jews were expelled. Some remained behind, and many had converted to Christianity by that time. When the armies of Islam marched in during the 7th Century AD, these quasi-Jewish/Christian Palestinians, wanting to get in good with their conquerors, started converting over to their religion.

Seriously, the whole Palestinian mess could be solved overnight if the Palestinians would convert back to the faith of their ancestors and re-adopt Judaism. The Israeli authorities could hardly discriminate against one of their own, now could they? go back to Jordan or leave islam


That's the other dirty secret of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Arab nations don't want the Palestinians.
2012-10-08 10:19:15 AM
2 votes:

Magruda: Wonderful justification.


Actually, it is. If my neighbor plans to take my house, and I end up winning his. That is 100% his problem.
2012-10-08 09:55:37 AM
2 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.


a total force of less than 40 bombers does not a build-up make. Especially considering the Japanese already had a significant fighter presence on Formosa to counter it. And Formosa is not considered one of the home islands.

Less than 40 bombers is as tactical problem that was already countered. If you are referring to the Rainbow Plan that was a long-term defense white paper which was years and years from completion.

The war was started for the strategic reasons:
1) They absolutely needed the oil to continue operations throughout the pacific theater and for their economy
2) They absolutely needed the scrap metal to continue operations throughout the pacific theater and for their economy
2012-10-08 09:41:06 AM
2 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?


No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.
2012-10-08 09:15:11 AM
2 votes:

Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!


yea USA!!!!!
2012-10-08 08:58:58 AM
2 votes:
I am sure no one in the arab world will over react to this... cooler heads will surely prevail...

/just kidding
//car bomb
2012-10-08 08:58:15 AM
2 votes:
Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?
2012-10-08 08:56:31 AM
2 votes:
Hero tag out banging your mom? The author has some giant balls to write this.
2012-10-08 08:52:05 AM
2 votes:

Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.


Why would one attempt to rescue the cannon fodder? As long as they can keep them oppressed and use them for photo ops, it's all good, no? Allah Akbar.
2012-10-08 08:51:07 AM
2 votes:
ABDULATEEF AL-MULHIM this is an example of courage and honesty.

Now if we could only get Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton, to stop playing my princess pony with American lives and show the same integrity.
2012-10-08 08:43:59 AM
2 votes:
Well said, of course the people who need to read this are being oppressed enough that they'll never see it.
2012-10-08 08:03:01 AM
2 votes:
+1

(darned no-voting phone app)
2012-10-09 06:30:45 PM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: You simply cannot comprehend that nationality is not at all part of my view on this argument.


If that were the case you wouldn't find it impossible, some 15 posts in to admit that Israel's stance toward human shields is better than the Palestinians.

Nationality doesn't have to be part of your view, if you can't recognize how i is part of other peoples view you are a farking moron.


Philip Francis Queeg: Nationalism is the very water you swim in. You simple do not have the intellectual abilities to have this discussion.


How many times are you going to lie about that?

I never said the value of a child's life is dependent on their nationality.

Just because I don't have my head firmly up my ass and realize that even if I call borders "imaginary lines" and flags "bits of cloth" that they still have meaning to others. I won't refuse to accept the reality that how a group treats their kids matters, and can tell you something about that group that how they treat other kids doesn't.


Philip Francis Queeg: All you see are Palestinians and Israelis. I see children.


No you see Palestinians and Israelis, which is why you can't judge them on the same scale.

I see people who put their kids at risk and people who go out of their way to protect their kids.


Philip Francis Queeg:If we aren't even seeing the same reality, we cannot fruitfully discuss it.

We are seeing the same thing, you are just lying about how you filter it.
2012-10-09 02:48:04 PM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: Holding a child, any child, as human shield is utterly and completely despicable.

How many times you going to lie about this one?

It's a lie to say that Holding a child, any child, as human shield is utterly and completely despicable?


No. However the context you used it in (and earleir flat out said) where it was phrased as something I was disagreed with is a lie.

Philip Francis Queeg: Holding a human shield of the other side shows no less that you are only concerned about killing the other guy, even if that other guy is a small child. Holding a child of the enemy as a shield doesn't show anything noble about your motivation. It just shows that you are a cowardly monster.


If someone comes to my house to shoot me and I use my kids as a shield while screaming I am trying to protect my family you know I am full of shiat.

If I use some other family's kid as a shield and make that claim you don't know if it is BS.

I never said anything about "nobility".

Philip Francis Queeg: Through all your twists here, the very core of your argument is that the nationality of the human shield is of great moral and ethical impact.


No. The core of my argument is that it makes a difference. You have pretended it is of "of great moral and ethical impact". You have pretended this distinction is unique to me even though it is shared by every nation on earth.

You can't reason with a guy who would rather sacrifice his kids to hurt you, and that is the position of the Palestenians.

Philip Francis Queeg: That somehow your motivation to protect life is enhanced if you are cowering behind one child and not another.


Never said anything remotely like that. I said it proves you aren't trying to protect the people you are using as a shield.

Philip Francis Queeg: You cannot conceive of viewing a child without the filter of political boundaries.


You can't have a grown up conversation about the implications of using your own peopel as human shields vice using sombody elses. You can pretend all you want you are above political boundaries, and they don't really matter but all your petty wishing does nothing for those kids and does nothing to help you understand the conversation.

Philip Francis Queeg: It's sad


What is sad is 10 posts on about how messed up it is to put value on a flag (which I didn't) and you are still having a different standard when we are talking about the Israeli and Palestenain flag.
2012-10-09 12:54:46 PM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: Only a person of your monumental levels of intellectual dishonesty could claim a condemnation of the use of civilians as human shields in all cases is a double standard.


You are pretending a group that punishes people for doing it (Israel) is as bad as a group that encourages it (Palestine).

That is the dishonesty. Actually that is one of many exampels of your dishonesty in this thread.

Here is another one. Pretending that since I think using your own kids as human shields is worse than using somebody elses means I am ok with using somebody elses (even after being corrected numerous times) is dishonest.
2012-10-09 08:00:34 AM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: I apologize for stating that you were incensed at policy of using Palestinian civilians including children by the IDF.

So now you are pretending you don't understand sarcasm?


Philip Francis Queeg: In the future I will be clear that you are only incensed by such actions when they are done by groups other than the IDF

No. I am incensed by such actions when anyone does it, however I recognize it is worse when people do it to their own people, when the people make it standard procedure, and when there is no punishment. Distinctions you refuse to recognize because you like things to be black and white whenever you try and demonize Israel.Vi/>



Nice to see you gloss over those points, again.



So in your amazing sliding scale of morality t's more evil to use a child as a human shiled when they are of your own demographic or geopolitical group?

How the fark is that a "sliding scale" I am not putting a different moral "penalty" based on who is doing it.


That's just amazing. Is an American murdering a Mexican child less evil, then if they murder an American child?

We aren't talking about "murder" in a vaccuum. We are talking about war and the tactics a group will tolerate or endorse. An individual murder doesn't become more or less "evil" based on nationality, and I never said that (once again you never fail to let truth get in the way of your made up arguments). It a society or group decides they are A-ok using their kids as human shields I find that far more repulsive than a group saying they will use their enemies children as human shields. I am sure you are going to chirp back with soem BS about the two actions being the same, and once again display your ignorance of what goes on in war and your inability to see anything other than black and white when it comes to demonizing Israel.


Congratulations. You have succinctly expressed the type of ultra-nationalism that leads to atrocities.

Using your enemies children as human shields is terrible, using your own children is worse, yeah that totally leads to atrocities. I would say what leads to atrocities is people who care less for their kids then their enemies do (looking at you palestine).
2012-10-09 02:38:06 AM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: A trial at which they get slapped firmly on the wrist and are returned to duty.


So you don't understand the difference. Big surprise there i can tell you.
How many such incidents took place since then ? and for the palestinians it's a warfare tactic, used specifically for a reason.
2012-10-08 06:46:04 PM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: Too bad the IDF uses Palestinian children as human shields as well. I guess neither side thinks Palestinian children's lives are worth very much, do they?


If an israeli soldier does it there is an investigation and a trial and the israeli public like myself think he's a piece of shiat, the israeli court itself forbids it (nohal shachen). The palestinians do it as part of their training and warfare, it's their tactic. Do you understand the difference ?
2012-10-08 06:26:21 PM
1 votes:

Magruda: I'm pretty sure WAY more Palestinian children have been blown up in the past decade.


This logic always astounds me. How dare Israel build fortified bomb shelters and sophisticated alarm systems in the towns and cities bombed by the palestinians! they should march the israelis to the street so they can die and even up the numbers. The palestinians do the opposite: march their children to be human shields for the courageous mujaheddin. This is propaganda gold, you see.
2012-10-08 04:00:06 PM
1 votes:
And basically say that preemptive war (6 day war by most accounts or by my account) is justifiable. Preventive war (strike on Pearl Harbor by most accounts or by my account) is not.


You're missing a slight detail here.

1967 was not a preemptive war.

In May, weeks beforehand, Egypt placed Israel's port of Eilat under a blockade.

That's an act of war. Ergo, Egypt had started the war weeks beforehand.

Egypt wanted a simmering war.

Israel decided on a boiling hot war.

Once you decide to make war, you don't get to set the terms under which the war will be fought.
2012-10-08 01:12:31 PM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?


What they 'felt' would have been the exact same if Pearl harbor was on Japans border. But why I mix up facts with your Japanese propaganda.
2012-10-08 12:08:31 PM
1 votes:

HeartBurnKid: Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!

Yeah, we have the same problem with our local death cult in the States.


HHAHAHA yea, thats why we are a retarded 3rd world country living like its the 7th century.
2012-10-08 11:48:15 AM
1 votes:

Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.


"Palestinians" are their own people, abandoned by their home nations when those nations who went after Israel were crushed. They abandoned their own citizens and Israel had to establish refugee camps to try and handle this vast human disaster created by Arab adventures.

But then, most people know nothing of Yuri Andropov's sworn Cause. What he lived for every day.

From Pavel Stroilov's Behind Desert Storm to Yuri Andropv's Incandescent Hatred of Jews to the Mitrokhin Archives the real truth is Red Russia's bloody hands all over the Middle East with intrigues, assassinations, political corruption, propaganda piled upon propaganda saturating our American MSM and it's willing sycophants who tout the Party line. 

To defeat America Andropov like his predecessors and his antecedents in the new, sanitized version of Russian Evil chose a course of deploying the massive, intractable, easily stirred up and mostly illiterate Muslim mob to conduct a proxy war for Russia. Tie hatred of Jews to America as the Great Satan and let nature take it's course. Andropov had 4,000 agents in Egypt alone spewing propaganda and manipulating Muslim sentiments behind the lines.

Then there's Iran. And Syria, both client states. The tussle between the US and Russia over Turkey and Pakistan. Wherever you look the red hands of Russia are at work, or as Gorbachev said just this past week, the Arab Spring is the last act of our Cold War.

Or, we could just read Laura Logan's speech in Chicago Link October 07, 2012 

Meanwhile, me and my house say ...

i1.cpcache.com

It will always be Six Days, no matter what they try.
2012-10-08 11:28:47 AM
1 votes:

Wicked Chinchilla: Joe Blowme: Mouser: Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.

Why should they? Palestinians are more Jewish Jordanian than Arab.

The dirty secret of the Middle East is that despite claims to the contrary, Palestinians are not Arab. They're Jewish converts to IslamJordanian. The story of the Jewish Diaspora in the 1st-2nd Centuries AD is only half-true; not all Jews were expelled. Some remained behind, and many had converted to Christianity by that time. When the armies of Islam marched in during the 7th Century AD, these quasi-Jewish/Christian Palestinians, wanting to get in good with their conquerors, started converting over to their religion.

Seriously, the whole Palestinian mess could be solved overnight if the Palestinians would convert back to the faith of their ancestors and re-adopt Judaism. The Israeli authorities could hardly discriminate against one of their own, now could they? go back to Jordan or leave islam

That's the other dirty secret of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. The Arab nations don't want the Palestinians.


Look at how the UN defines and treats refugees everywhere else (UNHCR), and then look at how they define and treat "Palestinian" refugees (UNRWA).
2012-10-08 10:44:04 AM
1 votes:
I love how this guys pens a thoughtful and thought-provoking column that even translated into English gets people talking, and still the pedants on Fark have to waste their time picking apart the grammar flubs and translational errors.

theteacher: This sentence is well said? "And, isn't the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country?"


Notice your poor use of grammar as well. Teacher: educate thyself.
2012-10-08 10:38:32 AM
1 votes:

theteacher: This sentence is well said? "And, isn't the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country?"

C'mon.


I have this crazy feeling that English isn't his first language, since it's on an Arab news site.....
2012-10-08 10:22:58 AM
1 votes:

Magruda: Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Did you ever wonder how the United States was built from all that land occupied by native Americans?

/hint - it was mostly land grabs after hostilities

So they did it makes it ok?


Nope, but you don't get to criticize others for doing the exact same thing that made you powerful.
2012-10-08 10:20:06 AM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: That's not the case. The build up was going on. A flight of B-17s in transit to the Philippines happened to arrive in Hawaii on the morning of December 7, 1941. It did not go so well for them. 2 squadrons had already preceded them. There had been a significant build up of aircraft in the Philippines through the fall of 1941.


DO YOU HEAR ME SIR? SIGNIFICANT!!!
2012-10-08 10:16:48 AM
1 votes:
Much of the history of the world is writ through conquest and displacement. Damned Romans, how did they not realize that it's self-evidently wrong and acknowledge that it's only fair that the world stays in complete geopolitical stasis. I'm still worried about the Tibet. Did we free it yet? Fait accompli is obviously the best way to take land in the modern era. Demographic warfare is the new battlefront I suppose. If you can't outfight 'em, outbreed 'em (at some point in the nearish future we'll realize that expanding populations beyond replacement rates is an equally immoral form of resource theft).
2012-10-08 10:02:52 AM
1 votes:

madgonad: Magruda: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.

Did you ever wonder how the United States was built from all that land occupied by native Americans?

/hint - it was mostly land grabs after hostilities


Since about 90% of the pre-Columbian population of North America was dead by 1600, it was mostly land-grab of de-populated territory with some minor hostilities scattered about.
If it weren't for virgin-field epidemics, colonizing North America would have been like trying to invade and colonize Europe (with minor differences in technology).
2012-10-08 09:57:08 AM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

We were rapidly building up forces in the Philippines, including long range bombers which could strike at Japaneses bases in Formosa, which had been under Japanese sovereignty since 1895.


This build-up never really got past the planning stages. Alternative plans were also drawn up for a complete abandonment of the Phillipines.
2012-10-08 09:53:41 AM
1 votes:

Magruda: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.


Did you ever wonder how the United States was built from all that land occupied by native Americans?

/hint - it was mostly land grabs after hostilities
2012-10-08 09:52:44 AM
1 votes:

Magruda: Except the land grab that happend afterward.


Yeah, bummer how Israel did what everyone else was trying to do to them. Fark em. Tough shiat. Seriously.

Pretty sure Israel was ready to live and let live. Should have just let them live.
2012-10-08 09:52:15 AM
1 votes:

Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?


Well, whaddaya know... Actually, I'd say that may be the exact justification the Japanese used to attack Pearl Harbor, it but it was not the jusitification they had. In point of fact they had no justification beyond imperial ambitions they saw slipping away as the Chinese and Koreans increasingly tried to free themselves from Japanese domination and the precariousness of the Japanese position--large population, resource-hungry industrial base, resource-poor home territory--became ever more apparent.
2012-10-08 09:43:44 AM
1 votes:

Magruda: Wicked Chinchilla: Philip Francis Queeg: s2s2s2: Philip Francis Queeg: Uhh, no. Sorry, but Israel was the aggressor in 1967. "Preemptive war" is bullshiat whether it is 1941, 1967 or 2003.

Pre-emptive in this case actually meant "Attacking a force that is preparing to attack us, and is currently at our door, not hiding their intentions at all."

If you see a guy coming at you with clinched fists about to punch your face, and you get the first/best hit in, few are going to whine about your hitting first.

You understand that was the exact justification that the Japanese felt they had for the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you?

No, their justification was over the the US stopping scrap metal and oil shipments. We did not have a massive military build up a dozen miles from the Home Islands.

Pre-emptive war is bullshiat, no matter which way you slice it but I think the case for 1967 is about as close as you get for being a morally defensible operation.

Except the land grab that happend afterward.


No doubt. I was just referring to the start. The after part was a blatant land grab. You can't launch a pre-emptive strike claiming self-defense and then not give anything back. Sort of undoes any justification you had previously.
2012-10-08 09:42:23 AM
1 votes:
It's enheartening to see in print what many of my Arab buddies have told me in private.
2012-10-08 09:39:07 AM
1 votes:

Joe Blowme: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.

Instead we gave 39+million people a chance at freedom and self determination Why do you hate brown people?


So you think the only way Iraq and Afghanistan could have freed themselves from tyrannical governments and directed the course of their countries' future was by begging white people for help?

You racist.
2012-10-08 09:32:55 AM
1 votes:

Joe Blowme: FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!


Agrees...

blogs.e-rockford.com
TWX
2012-10-08 09:30:48 AM
1 votes:

Muta: Giltric: They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....

When was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel?
I don't think arab leaders are that keen on rescuing the land any more.


Europeans held the land between the Jordan river and the Med for more than 200 years before the Arabs drove them into the sea. Israel has 140 years to go before even matching that record.
2012-10-08 09:30:41 AM
1 votes:
Yes, the Middle East has violent oppressive dictators. Yes, these dictators commit horrible human rights violations. Yes, the Holy Land was violently taken away from the Arabs (which, if the tables were turned, Christians and Jews would react with the same righteous indignation).
Lets not pretend though these dictators maintain power through their hatred of Israel. The countries with oppressive dictators also contain the world's most precious commodity.....oil. The rest of the world tolerates the actions of these dictators because oil drives the global economy, and the rest of the world refuses to move beyond fossil fuels. As long as we continue to purchase fossil fuels from countries with oppressive regimes, the oppressive regimes will continue to exist. Oil is power. Money is power. Yeah, we like to run around saying, "Look how horrible these leaders treat their people", but it's just lip service. These countries turn off the spigot and life as we know it is much harder. We all have our cross to bear regarding Middle Eastern dictators.
2012-10-08 09:28:52 AM
1 votes:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Girion47: Think about the money we've spent on wars outside our borders, what could it have gone to?

For the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars the US could have fitted every house in the country with either solar power or a geothermal heating/cooling system and had a few hundred billion dollars left over for hookers and blow.


The other major tragedy of war: Opportunity Cost
In reality if we didn't go to war that money would probably not have been spent. But, if we wound back the clock and were told we absolutely HAD to spend the money, major infrastructure improvements would have been the way to go.

/I always thought the criticism that solar is not a good power source because of the space requirements and transmission difficulty was a ridiculous argument when there are vast amounts of surface area on the roofs of millions of homes... Sure, it can't be your only power source, but who the hell was saying that?
2012-10-08 09:25:02 AM
1 votes:

Giltric: On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians Jordanians.


FTFY
2012-10-08 09:18:29 AM
1 votes:

mauricecano: Alonjar: Why is it that Israel was given Jerusalem anyhow? Was it just a big middle finger from the catholic church in the power vacuum after WW2?

"Haha told you dirty arabs we'd take that shiat back one way or another!"

Had nothing to do with the catholic church and you might want to see a therapist if you see a catholic conspiracy everywhere.

But the reason Israel now has Jerusalem is because of the Palestinians and Arabs themselves. The initial Jewish boundary state of Israel was much smaller and Jerusalem was squarely in Palestine. However, the war of 1948 with the Arabs changed all that since the Israelis won and they decided to say "to the victors, spoils" and claimed virtually everything that is Israel today. Below is a good map showing the change in territory coverage from 1947-pre war to post-war and how Jerusalem became Israeli property.

[www.israpundit.com image 600x602]


So it's their own bloody fault.
2012-10-08 09:13:44 AM
1 votes:
FTA: "why didn't the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?"

Death cults tend to have that effect on people, yea islam!!!
2012-10-08 09:12:01 AM
1 votes:
this article raises some good questions... then again, it raised some "huh?" questions:

In Syria, the atrocities are beyond anybody's imaginations? And, isn't the Iraqis are the ones who are destroying their own country?

Then again i hate reading an article that is composed 75% or more of rhetorical questions...

Dear Journalists,

Please stop asking rhetorical questions of your readers unless you plan on answering them with your own insight.

Then again, we will be discussing these questions on Fark, but I don't think Abdulateef Al-Mulhim had us in mind when he wrote his column.
2012-10-08 09:07:32 AM
1 votes:
It's the Israelis' fault the Arabs are self-destructive idiots. Somehow.
2012-10-08 09:06:37 AM
1 votes:

Muta: Giltric: They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....

When was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel?
I don't think arab leaders are that keen on rescuing the land any more.


Israel has served as a convenient distraction for the various leaders of the region and their mismanagement. It should be telling exactly how unstable the region is by the fact that Israel isn't enough anymore, and the various nations are collapsing on themselves.
2012-10-08 09:04:55 AM
1 votes:

Giltric: Muta: Giltric: They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....

When was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel?
I don't think arab leaders are that keen on rescuing the land any more.

I forgot that invasions/war were like bankruptcies and after a certain number of years they are not on your record anymore.


The United States better hope that is true.
2012-10-08 09:03:17 AM
1 votes:

LL316: Hero tag out banging your mom? The author has some giant balls to write this.


The hero tag is tired of this subject and went home.
2012-10-08 09:01:38 AM
1 votes:

Muta: Giltric: They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....

When was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel?
I don't think arab leaders are that keen on rescuing the land any more.


I forgot that invasions/war were like bankruptcies and after a certain number of years they are not on your record anymore.
2012-10-08 08:59:14 AM
1 votes:
FTA: Finally, if many of the Arab states are in such disarray, then what happened to the Arabs' sworn enemy (Israel)? Israel now has the most advanced research facilities, top universities and advanced infrastructure. Many Arabs don't know that the life expectancy of the Palestinians living in Israel is far longer than many Arab states and they enjoy far better political and social freedom than many of their Arab brothers. Even the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip enjoy more political and social rights than some places in the Arab World. Wasn't one of the judges who sent a former Israeli president to jail is an Israeli-Palestinian?

I did not know that.

/Also, truth is a very bitter pill to swallow, especially if you've been living with the lie for more than half a century.
2012-10-08 08:56:43 AM
1 votes:
*golf-clap*
2012-10-08 08:56:24 AM
1 votes:

Giltric: They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....


When was the last time an Arab country invaded Israel?
I don't think arab leaders are that keen on rescuing the land any more.
2012-10-08 08:49:35 AM
1 votes:
On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was declared. And just one day after that, on May 15, 1948 the Arabs declared war on Israel to get back Palestine.

They arabs were always keen on rescuing the land from the jews....but never keen on rescuing the Palestinians.
2012-10-08 08:48:19 AM
1 votes:
Sooner or later, the oil money is going to run out. Once that happens they won't be able to sell enough rugs. 90% of all exports from Saudi Arabia are petroleum products.

For starters, I can't think of one university in the Arab would that I would want to attend.
2012-10-08 08:29:24 AM
1 votes:

Therion: +1

(darned no-voting phone app)


I gotcha. Good article.
 
Displayed 65 of 65 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report