From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Oct 21 19:49:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net (robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B76537B405; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:49:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dialup-209.245.142.241.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net ([209.245.142.241] helo=mindspring.com) by robin.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 15vV9H-0003IA-00; Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:49:08 -0700 Message-ID: <3BD3893E.84367A3B@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:49:34 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Reply-To: tlambert2@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Lehey Cc: Stephen McKay , Brett Glass , chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Islam (was: Religions (was Re: helping victims of terror)) References: <1003617187.3bd1fba3d31ff@webmail.neomedia.it> <1003617187.3bd1fba3d31ff@webmail.neomedia.it> <4.3.2.7.2.20011020213927.048a1780@localhost> <200110211547.f9LFlIB27704@dungeon.home> <3BD32635.EC54F003@mindspring.com> <20011022105743.B18153@wantadilla.lemis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Greg Lehey wrote: > >> Or are you suggesting they do this purely secularly, without religious > >> connotations? That's a subtle point in these times. > > > > After the celebrations in the streets of the West bank following the > > events of September 11th, I think you will find this a hard sell. > > You mean the stunt put on for the press? What makes you think that > that's the general opinion in the Middle East? Of course not. I also recognized some file footage of an unrelated holiday celebration being foiseted off by CNN as a "celebration of the bombing of the U.S.". I'm just telling you that it's going to be a hard sell, to get the U.S. to be sympathetic to the Palestinians. > > Before September 11th, it was possible to have sympathy for these > > people; now it is no longer possible. > > Because now the Americans have been hurt, and not only lots of people > over there who don't count because they believe in a different > religion? A lot of people who it was none of the U.S.'s business to correct their behaviour, since it was largely internal matters (or we would have attacked Afghanistan over the treatment of women, or Pol Pot over the murder of anyone who wore glasses). It's a fine line, what's internal vs. external. Crashing planes into U.S. targets makes it no longer internal. > > Looking at the Israeli/Palestinian situation from outside, it's > > really hard to understand what it is the Palestinians hope to > > achieve. > > For a certain definition of "outside", you're obviously correct. I'd > like to know that definition, though. These people lived in this > country for over a thousand years. The British occupied the country > and then gave part of it to immigrants. They fought and lost. Does > that make them vermin? No, it makes them displaced. Attacking Israel was just plain stupid, and now they are not only displaced, they're disposessed. That happens in war; I might have some sympathy, if they hadn't been the aggressors, and lost what they had trying to get away with something. > > It's clear they want self rule. I don't think anyone objects to > > that -- the problem is _where_ they want it: in land lost to them in > > war. > > Wasn't that what the Israelis wanted when they returned to Palestine? > Why should their cause be right and that of the Palestinians be wrong? > (Wrong answer: "because God said they should"). Because the state of Israel was formed as reparations for World War II... "because the rest of the world said they should". > > If the complaint is that the Israelis punish the group when an > > individual transgresses... I completely understand that policy: the > > U.S. might have been able to avoid the September 11th events, had it > > adopted a similar policy earlier. > > But isn't this what the Palestinians are trying too, with what methods > are available to them? Again, you're being very selective in your > allowance of this behaviour. Which individual are you claiming has transgressed? Realize, also, that The Social Contract only applies to the society of which you are a member, and not to all the world. > > If the complaint is that they react to stone-throwing by children > > with deadly force... I completely understand that policy, too: > > Of course, because they're Palestinian children. No. Because their parents should fully expect the response to such attacks to be the use of deadly force, and by tacitly approving the childrens attacks the soldiers anyway, they invite a response. If the Palestinians didn't want that response, in general, then they would better control the actions of their children. Such responses are probably condoned by the Palestinians, since the reprisals serve their cause in the formation of negative public opinion over the actions of the Israelis, so they don't control their children, and thus spend their lives in trade for the political capital they want. > > I think most people in the West see the correct reaction to > > Palestinians is to say "you lost; get over it, quit whining, and go > > on with your lives; if you don't like it, as Israeli citizens, you > > get to elect representatives, so elect people who will do what you > > want". > > That may be correct, but what right have people in the West to dictate > what happens to the Palestinians? People in the West do _not_ dictate what happens. It is the Palestinians who are courting the Western public opinion, in an attempt to remove support for Israel, so that they can repeat their past mistakes (attacking Israel), unhindered by the Wests support for Israel. But it is the Wests support for Israel that prevents an all-out blood bath, and it would not be the Israelis who would lose. > If you had been born in 1910, would you have written something > similar in 1938 about how these horrible Jews were being treated > in Germany? I would have condemned (and do condemn) the actions taken against the Jewish populations in Europe. The Palestinian situation is hardly comparable to the situation of the Jewish situation prior and during World War II. > I'm sure you'll come out and say "but that's nothing like the same > thing". Explain the principles (not the details) why not. The Jews were citizens of Germany, not of a foreign power which had attacked Germany, lost land to Germany, and then resorted to terrorist acts to try and get that land back. The Palestinians engaged in the terrorist acts are not citizens of Israel, but of a foreign power (Palestine), they attacked Isreal, they lost land to Israelm and they are now resorting to terrorist attacks to try and get the land back. If you want, we can also discuss sufferage, ownership of property, naturalization and deportation vs. death camps, etc.. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message