Bush calls Sharon a "man of peace" - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-02-2002, 01:33 PM   #106
The Fly
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Stow, MA, USA
Posts: 256
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Sting, what do u call a man (and governement) who is willing to kill over 3000 innocent lives within Sabra and Shatilla camps? During a Peace accord treaty him and his army invade the mount temple? A man who is willing to continue opressing people who are trying to build a state? A man who knows that if he withdraws the IDF from the West Bank it might eliminate terrorists acts just like when they moved out of the Gaza Strip (the latest terrorists act have come from the West Bank (not the Gaza))? This is a man of peace? Did all those lives have to be taken? And don't tell me that sometimes lives have to be taken in situations like that...... When one life is taken from one side, it is going to stir up more anger.... Its definently not a good strategy in finding peace. Defending one self is one thing.... But what is the IDF defending itself from, they are in the West Bank, stirring tension up..... Of course people are going to react to that..... In ways that I don't agree with.... But when the IDF is going to choke the West Bank, its not an act of defense.... Also, throwing bombs at kids while they are playing on the streets is not necessarily PEACEFUL.... Where did I get that proof... Well I got that proof from a video shown at WPI, but can not be put in public because the man snuck that video into the country... If he didn't sneack it in, the whole video would have been censored.... Because America wouldn't like the US seeing the whole picture....
Any innocent life taken is not justifiable..... (I think Arafat is almost just as bad)Especially if its from a "Government of peace".... I swear, you ask for proof, well, the proof is right infront of you... It's your character that will judge another character.... So, if you think Sharon is a man of peace, well, honestly, thats your oppinion, and so your oppinion really does judge your character.....

Sharon is def. like the devil in disguise.... If he has the odasity in killing over 3k lives in Lebanon.... Why the hell visit 911 site.... For support of the US? And why go on "Prime Time" and say that you don't hate anybody..... When really, we all know that u and Arafat hate eachothers guts.....
All I'm saying is that I think it was irresponsible of Bush to label Sharon as "a man of peace" , when really he is def. not......


Amna is offline  
Old 05-02-2002, 04:00 PM   #107
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:13 AM
No one thus far has proved beyond any resonable doubt that Sharon was responsible for the massacre that occured in 1982. There for unlike you, I decline to judge someone without knowing all the facts.

You have not produced any evidence to prove your claim of IDF murder and abuse. I'm not saying that individual cases have never happened in the past 35 years, but there is no state directed terrorism from Israel. The Palestinians said that 3,000 innocent civilians were killed at Jenin, so far the investigation has revealed only 21 civilians have died, and while human rights abuses are suspected, none have been proven to have happened.

This is not about occupation but the security of Israel. The West Bank and Gaza were occupied and continue to be occupied because of the regional invasions by Israels Arab neighbors and the constant risk of being overrun.

In the 1990s Israely troops left most of the Occupied terrotories and local security became the job of the Palestinians. The Palestinians in turn, starting in 2000, have supplied and aided a terrorist bombing campaign, with proven aid from countries like Iran.

What the IDF has done over the past month is what the Palestinians themselves have failed to do. The Israely's had no choice but to go back into the West Bank to root out the terrorist infrastructure that had grown in their absence.

Violence from Gaza has occured in the not to recent past, and their may be an IDF operation in Gaza in the coming weeks. Hezbolah continues to fire rockets and threaten Israel long after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon. So just simply withdrawing from an area is not neccessarily going to produce a peaceful situation.

The IDF has done an effective operation in the West Bank which has reduced nearly to 0 the number of suicide bomb attacks targeting innocent civilians in Israel. They are withdrawing now from several areas, but will certainly return if there are more terrorist acts. The way to peace is for Palestinians to reject terrorism, which is the targeting of innocent civilians. Only through non-violent action and outside mediation will they secure the opportunity to have an independent State on the West Bank and Gaza. In 50 years of attempting to destroy Israel, while rejecting nearly all peace attempts, the Palestinians and Arab states have continued to make the situation of Palestinians worse. War and Terrorist action by them have not succeeded in achieving any of their goals. Only through non-violent action and outside mediation will the Palestinains ever achieve an independent state.

STING2 is offline  
Old 05-02-2002, 05:22 PM   #108
love, blood, life
melon's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Originally posted by STING2:
I think you might fail to understand some of the history that is behind this area. Of course I could be wrong. But let me explain some things. There has been a Jewish community, however small on a continuas basis in Palistine since 1900 BC. Since the time of Christ the area has been controled by Romans, Christians, then Muslims, Then Turks, then Egyptians, and then in 1517 the Ottoman Empire which controled the region until 1918 and its defeat by British forces and Muslim and Jewish rebels in the region. For the first time in over a thousand years, the people in the region had an oportunity for Independence from any foreign power. From 1918 to 1947, the british tried to resolve the question of statehood for this region. Again there had never been an Independent State in this region in over a thousand years. The arabs rejected the proposal by the British for Arab and Jewish sectors. They then handed the problem of the area over to the UN. The UN proposed in 1947, an Arab State and a Jewish state. The Arabs rejected it but the Jews accepted and formed the independent State of Israel. The next day after their independnce they were attacked by 5 Arab states. The population in all of Palistine and Israel at this time was 600,000 Jews, and 1,300,000 Muslims.
The bottom line is that Jews living in this area have just as much right to a state as the muslims do to have theirs. A state or states suddenly had to be created because Empires that had controlled the region for over a thousand years no longer existed. A state or states had to be created. Why would muslim claims to have a state for the first time in over a thousand years, defeat any Jewish attempt to have a state there as well?
I'm going to rewrite this passage in a *hypothetical* situation that would be more applicable to America.

Let's imagine that an American Indian nation is established in America, right around where Washington, D.C. is. The U.N. established this small nation to make up for the fact that the U.S. massacred them during the 19th century. All occupants, including the government seat, is evicted without compensation. The United States resists this, and attacks, occupying 1/2 of the city. The Indian nation, however, is quite powerful, and, quickly, the "war" deadlocks.

If such a situation occurred, should the U.S. defy the U.N. and attack the new nation, plopped right on top one of our most important cities? You can argue that there has been a continuous community of American Indians in America for probably 10,000 years. The area, starting with the arrival of Christopher Columbus, was occupied primarily by the Spanish, the French, and the English, before being won by the Americans only a mere 225 years ago.

Now, tell me, what would you think of such a situation? Would we be any more "grown up" than the Arab states in regards to Israel?


"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy
melon is offline  
Old 05-02-2002, 07:27 PM   #109
what a bomb!'s Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Winchester, England
Posts: 1,101
Local Time: 01:13 AM
Hey! I got a idea! let the whole world nuke itself! No more arguments! No more fighting! No more humans! The world for once in its life will be....peaceful?
what a bomb! is offline  
Old 05-02-2002, 09:28 PM   #110
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:13 AM
You missed a very key point in my post. There had not been an independent state called Palestine when Israel was established for well over a thousand years and there still is not because the Palestinians reject every offer to have one, although they claim they want one. Remember for the past 300 years, this area of land had belonged to the Ottoman Empire or essentially the Turks. Other foreign empires owned the area before that. The Ottoman Empire was defeated, with the help of the Jews and Muslims living in the area of Palestine by the British during World War I. For the first time in over a thousand years, the British and the allies would help to create Independent states in the area that used to belong to the Ottoman Empire and before that other Empires.

With all this land no longer in the control of the Ottoman Empire, or any Empire for that matter, the British and allies had to form structure or essentially states out of a very large area because they had no plans of governing or controlling this area. 6 states that had either never existed before or not existed in over thousand years had to be created. These brand new states were Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, and the 6th, the area of Palestine was held back because of the difficulty of talks between muslims and Jews living in the Area. After 30 years of having a mandate to create a new state or states in the area of Palestine, the British gave up and handed the problem to the UN.

The UN plan in 1947 was for two states, one Israel, the other Palestine. Jerusalem would become a UN city. Israel was given land they were already living on, the Palestinians were given the land they were living on. But the Palestinians rejected the plan and with the Arabs attacked Israel when they declared their independence. Coming close to being overrun, Israel threw back 5 Arab armies and the Palestinians and in the course of battle took one half of Jerusalem. It is only at this point that you have the creation of Palestinian refugees. But that would never of happened if they had a agreed to the UN plan.

Your example with the Indians and the United States is not a good example for several reasons. First of course is the fact that NO state existed at the time the British took control of the area from the Ottoman Empire. In the area of what would become Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jews made up 1/3 of the Population already! The UN plan did not take land from anyone except Jerusalem which it took for itself because the sides it seemed would never agree to share it. The Jews would get the land they were living on while the Muslims would recieve the land they were living on. The Muslim area was half the land but more importanly completely connected. The State the Jews recieved was divided into three parts. But the Jews accepted this. Then they were attacked by the Palestinians and Arab armies from 5 countries.

To sum up, there was no Palestinian state when the need to create a state in the aftermath of the Ottoman Empire happened. Suddenly, the british are in control of an area that is 1/3 Jews, 2/3 Muslim, and each wants to have its own state for the first time ever except the Muslims do not want the Jews to have their own state. The UN took on the problem and suggested the fairest compromise to the problem. If the Muslim population had agreed, they would be in far better position today than they could ever dream of, and Israel would be an Independent state divided into 3 parts. But they chose war instead of the opportunity to have their state and peace with an Israely state.

STING2 is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com