Hello There, Guest!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nobel Peace Prize
#11
MichMan Wrote:Israel is continually provoked. Fortunately, they have shown restraint. It is surrounded by Muslim nations whose stated desire is to drive Jews into the sea. The only thing that has kept that from happening is the fact that Israel has the bomb.


Something like 90% of Israel's land borders are Egypt and Jordan with whom they've had peace treaties for many years. Surrounded? I think not. Regardless, the "drive jews into the sea" line came from 50 years ago from the Palestine Liberation Army and while I've no doubt some still prescribe to it (particularly within Hamas) I personally don't see a lot of difference between that and threatening to "bomb them back to the stoneage", as the US reportedly did with one of the world's largest muslim countries only a few years ago.

And while I agree Israel has been continually provoked, I don't think they've shown much restraint at all. In my opinion the middle east crisis will only be resolved when one side or the other (or both!) decides to listen to a certain Jew and Prophet of Islam who advised people to "turn the other cheek". Until then the cycle of violence will continue.

From my perspective only one side is unified and under enough central control to ever successfully take that position, and it's not the palestinians. Alas, I frankly can't see the Israeli's ever doing it though, so I'm not hopeful for the region at all.
 Reply
#12
Nice blog, IBOFB! And I agree - I think he was being rewarded for being the "Anti-Bush"??? Because his approach is certainly more "open to new ideas" than his predecessor's. I mean, referring to Iran as one of the Axis of Evils is NOT a good way to negotiate with them if need be.....
 Reply
#13
I think if that part of the world would focus on industry and education, both sides would be better off.

Unfortunately, the seeds of fanaticism are spread among the uneducated.

[Image: the-juice.jpg]
 Reply
#14
MichMan Wrote:I think if that part of the world would focus on industry and education, both sides would be better off.

Unfortunately, the seeds of fanaticism are spread among the uneducated.


Oddly, the most fanatic (such as the 911 terrorists and Bin Laden himself) are generally from the upper middle class and above, not the poor and uneducated. The photograph by the way is no evidence of poor education, indeed it could even be to the contrary - I'd like to see you (or I!) write in Arabic!

The lessons from history are painful ones. The Arab world used to be some of the most enlightened and progressive countries in the world, and not so many years ago. The rise of militant fantacism is in no small part due to the west encouraging (and funding) it in the fight against communism. One could argue it worked and was worth it, but nevertheless today we're fighting the demons we helped create and we, and the mainstream of the middle-east, are suffering the consequences.

Personally I think the only solution to the palestinian crisis is Israel making a hard and fast committment to turn the other cheek, no matter what the provocation of those small in number who prefer chaos to peace.
 Reply
#15
ibofightback Wrote:Personally I think the only solution to the palestinian crisis is Israel making a hard and fast committment to turn the other cheek, no matter what the provocation of those small in number who prefer chaos to peace.


I agree with that point. (Edit, I didn't read your answer very closely. I DISAGREE. BOTH sides need to turn the other cheek. If Israel is the only one working towards peace they soon will be pushed into the sea.)

Regardless I still believe that if the culture focused more on education and enterprise, they would have more of a hope for the future. People who have hope for the future have less time for hate and violence. And the well educated people in that culture with money prey on the poor, uneducated to perpetuate the hate and violence.

I am reading a biography right now where a poor Arab father pulled his sons out of school to help pay the bills. Soon the author, who was 7 years old at the time, found out that he could make more money in a couple of hours working for the Imams learning to bomb, kill and terrorize, than he could working for his uncle's plumbing business for a whole day.

Unfortunately, the only "education" he got from that point forward was steeped with the phrase "kill the infidels."
 Reply
#16
MichMan Wrote:
ibofightback Wrote:Personally I think the only solution to the palestinian crisis is Israel making a hard and fast committment to turn the other cheek, no matter what the provocation of those small in number who prefer chaos to peace.


I agree with that point. (Edit, I didn't read your answer very closely. I DISAGREE. BOTH sides need to turn the other cheek. If Israel is the only one working towards peace they soon will be pushed into the sea.)


Pushed into the sea? They're not even close. It's not even David v Goliath, it's David v a small non-disease carrying flea. Now, ideally I agree both "sides" need to turn the other cheek - the reason why I said the only solution I can see is Israel turning the other cheek is because I can't see the other side ever doing it - the main reason for that being there is no single other side under one authority or control. So one group, say the Palestinian Authority under Fatah may decide to turn the other cheek, Hamas or even Hezbollah may not. There's many fractured groups on the palestinian side, and I can't see them ever coming under a single control. Israel on the other hand is ostensibly a modern state under the rule of law and can control the armed forces and reactions.

Quote:I am reading a biography right now where a poor Arab father pulled his sons out of school to help pay the bills. Soon the author, who was 7 years old at the time, found out that he could make more money in a couple of hours working for the Imams learning to bomb, kill and terrorize, than he could working for his uncle's plumbing business for a whole day.

Yes, and the educated bombers are mostly radicalised by the plight of the poor. This is where Israel's standard response simply doesn't work - they destroy the infrastructure of those who are not radical and make them radical, even if for nothing more but it's the only way to feed the family. That approach simply does not and cannot work. It's never worked before in history and there's no reason to think it will work for the Israelis either. I'm reading the book "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" at the moment and one chapter talks about how groups self-identify and how they can also be brought together with other groups and break down the barriers of "us vs them". It's pretty elementary psychology really, and the overwhelming force response *always* backfires. You can never turn an enemy into a friend through conflict. I calculated once that the cost of the first 5 years of the Iraqi war, if paid out instead to Iraqi households, would have made every Iraqi household the equivalent of millionaires. Simplistic yes, but I'd suggest it would have made a lot more friends!
 Reply
#17
ibofightback Wrote:Something like 90% of Israel's land borders are Egypt and Jordan with whom they've had peace treaties for many years. Surrounded? I think not. Regardless, the "drive jews into the sea" line came from 50 years ago from the Palestine Liberation Army and while I've no doubt some still prescribe to it (particularly within Hamas) I personally don't see a lot of difference between that and threatening to "bomb them back to the stoneage", as the US reportedly did with one of the world's largest muslim countries only a few years ago.


Yes, in recent years both Sadam Hussein, and Ahmadinejad have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. As well as proclaiming any Muslim state who recognizes Israel will be shamed forever. Just because one's borders touch certain nations versus others, is not the definition of surrounded. Having weapons that can reach and destroy (especially with nuclear proliferation) another country can also qualify as surrounded. Especially when there are threats from said country(s).

Quote:And while I agree Israel has been continually provoked, I don't think they've shown much restraint at all. In my opinion the middle east crisis will only be resolved when one side or the other (or both!) decides to listen to a certain Jew and Prophet of Islam who advised people to "turn the other cheek". Until then the cycle of violence will continue.
I do not entirely disagree with your statement here, but the question becomes,"How many cheeks does one have to turn?" To my knowledge we have two. The point being, when do we stop letting people slap us in the face as to not appear to be a door mat to always be walked over?
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#18
TB 2 IBO Wrote:Yes, in recent years both Sadam Hussein, and Ahmadinejad have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.


In recent years? Hussein made that threat nearly a decade ago! Contrary to propoganda, Ahmadinejad has never called for the destruction of Israel, and it doesn't matter if he did since he does not control Iranian foreign policy or armed forces.

Quote:As well as proclaiming any Muslim state who recognizes Israel will be shamed forever. Just because one's borders touch certain nations versus others, is not the definition of surrounded. Having weapons that can reach and destroy (especially with nuclear proliferation) another country can also qualify as surrounded. Especially when there are threats from said country(s).

Neither Iraq nor Iran had or have nuclear weapons, and in Iran's case using them in a strike on Israel has been explicitly stated by the countries leaders as both illegal and againist islam.

Why it you have utter belief that a threat against the Israeli government (not country) by a person with no authority in that area means they're planning to attack, but you ingore clear statements contrary to it by people with real authority?

Led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation's "supreme leader," Iranian clerics have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei said recently. "In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...z0ToTapkQl

Quote:I do not entirely disagree with your statement here, but the question becomes,"How many cheeks does one have to turn?" To my knowledge we have two. The point being, when do we stop letting people slap us in the face as to not appear to be a door mat to always be walked over?

You may have two cheeks, but they can be turned repeatedly. How many times? As many as it takes. As far as I can see it's the only thing that will ever lead to peace. I must say, Israel has *never* acted "like a door mat", so I don't know the relevance of that comment.
 Reply
#19
ibofightback Wrote:In recent years? Hussein made that threat nearly a decade ago! Contrary to propoganda, Ahmadinejad has never called for the destruction of Israel, and it doesn't matter if he did since he does not control Iranian foreign policy or armed forces.

Uhh, I believe your quote was "50 years". 10 years, last I looked was far less than 50 years.

Quote:Neither Iraq nor Iran had or have nuclear weapons, and in Iran's case using them in a strike on Israel has been explicitly stated by the countries leaders as both illegal and againist islam.
Then why are they enriching uranium, and establishing hidden bases to do so? Only when they get found do the Iranians acknowledge the fact. By the way, it doesn't have to be nuclear missiles either. Israel is not that big, and the majority of the population are in only several locations.

Quote:Why it you have utter belief that a threat against the Israeli government (not country) by a person with no authority in that area means they're planning to attack, but you ingore clear statements contrary to it by people with real authority?
I haven't said anyone will attack another. Only the threats that exists. In Iran's case, a prominent figure head, whether with authority or not, proposing such an act is perceived around the world as viable. If the "supreme" leader Kahmeni was so supreme and in authority...why does he allow Mahmoud to spout his mouth off in such a manner?

Quote:"The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei said recently. "In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form." [/i]
If this were really true IBOFB, why have they and continue to deny UN inspectors to visit their facilities? Why do they continue to spout "acts of war" when the UN threatens sanctions and embargoes? If they were truly after safe nuclear energy for their country, why wouldn't they appeal to the international community for help, advice and cooperation versus the push back they continually give? Also, let's be clear we are speaking about governments not the people. I believe the people of Iran, the majority, believe different than what the main stream media portrays as the country as a whole.

Quote:You may have two cheeks, but they can be turned repeatedly. How many times? As many as it takes. As far as I can see it's the only thing that will ever lead to peace. I must say, Israel has *never* acted "like a door mat", so I don't know the relevance of that comment.
First, Jesus, wasn't as passive as you believe. He would get violent on occasions. Also, I didn't say Israel was acting like a door mat, I was just proposing the question. Say they were to turn the other cheek, when would enough be enough? It would start with the Palestinians, catering to their every whim, then the Syrians, Jordanians...and so on and so on. Giving concessions to each of these countries until when?? Where do you believe the line should be drawn, when Israel is forced to find another location?
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#20
TB 2 IBO Wrote:Uhh, I believe your quote was "50 years". 10 years, last I looked was far less than 50 years.


50 years ago was in reference to the "drive them in to the sea" quote. Hussein's threat was also not "real", it was an "if I had land next to them" and even less relevant to today's world, considering he's dead and Iraq under US control.

Quote:Then why are they enriching uranium, and establishing hidden bases to do so? Only when they get found do the Iranians acknowledge the fact. By the way, it doesn't have to be nuclear missiles either. Israel is not that big, and the majority of the population are in only several locations.

Well, the "hidden" base part of it is debatable. Depending on how you interpret their agreements they weren't necessarily required to report something under construction. Frankly I think it's for the same type of game Hussein was playing. Hussein wanted his enemy - Iran - to think he had nuclear weapons so they'd be scared of him, while at the same time letting inspectors have access to know he didn't. Iran, or rather Ahmadinejad, is perhaps doing the same, probably with Israel in mind - a country that has explicitly threatened to attack Iran and has already ignored international law in developing their own nuclear weapons. Not to forget that posturing and bluff is a major part of arab culture and psyche.

You may want to read The top ten things you didn't know about Iran. It has some interesting snippets like the following -
  • Iran has not launched an aggressive war modern history (unlike the U.S. or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike."
  • Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets.
  • Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.
  • No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel ... The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.[/list:u]

    Quote:I haven't said anyone will attack another. Only the threats that exists. In Iran's case, a prominent figure head, whether with authority or not, proposing such an act is perceived around the world as viable. If the "supreme" leader Kahmeni was so supreme and in authority...why does he allow Mahmoud to spout his mouth off in such a manner?

    Apart from the "posturing" comments above, and the fact that what Ahmadinejad actually said isn't what is claimed, Israel and the US have made much more explicit threats against Iran than Iran has against anyone else. Shouldn't Iran be far more concerned about them than the reverse? Indeed, wouldn't such threats encourage someone to develop a nuclear deterrent? Both Israel and the US have launched attacks on other countries in modern history and explictly threatened Iran with attack - Iran has done neither. If you are to be true to your logic about "threats" you should be far more critical of the US and Israel than of Iran.

    Quote:If this were really true IBOFB, why have they and continue to deny UN inspectors to visit their facilities?

    Huh? They haven't. What are you talking about? UN inspectors have full access to Iran facilities, including the one still under constructions in Qum.

    Quote:Why do they continue to spout "acts of war" when the UN threatens sanctions and embargoes?

    Reference? I've been unable to find any such "spouting"

    Quote: If they were truly after safe nuclear energy for their country, why wouldn't they appeal to the international community for help, advice and cooperation versus the push back they continually give?

    Huh again? They get a lot of international help, from their allies such as China and Russia, as you would expect.

    Quote:Also, let's be clear we are speaking about governments not the people. I believe the people of Iran, the majority, believe different than what the main stream media portrays as the country as a whole.

    How many Iranians do you know TB2IBO? I have them in my downline, and they travel to Tehran regularly. You are right that they are substantially different thinking than the regime, particularly the youth. They also know how their government actually operates, understand the culture, and also actually understand what is said in Arabic and Persian! As much as they would like their government to go, and to have more freedom, they do not believe they are a threat to anyone except their own people.

    Quote:First, Jesus, wasn't as passive as you believe.

    Never said he was.


    Quote:He would get violent on occasions. Also, I didn't say Israel was acting like a door mat, I was just proposing the question. Say they were to turn the other cheek, when would enough be enough? It would start with the Palestinians, catering to their every whim, then the Syrians, Jordanians...and so on and so on. Giving concessions to each of these countries until when??

    Sorry, but that's a load of "thin edge of the wedge" illogical rubbish

    Quote:Where do you believe the line should be drawn, when Israel is forced to find another location?

    How about trying it once for a start? The current policies clearly aren't working.
 Reply

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)