|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#1 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
|
Al Qaeda, ISIS, Western imperialism
This is historically ignorant twaddle.
First, do you know the first war that the United States engaged in, after our war of independence? It wasn't an expansionist one. Look it up, it's interesting. Second, you've got to be kidding me with the censorship angle. The West is so vastly less censorious than the Islamic world that it's not even funny. Unless you're claiming that we're insuficiently censorious, but they can **** off and die on that topic. Third, in case you haven't noticed, Islam itself is fundamentally expansionist. And it frequently expands at swordpoint. The Islamists aren't opposed to violent conquest, they only object if they're not the ones doing it. The Islamic world has bloody borders, even today, and not just in the west. Fourth, have you ever heard of a man by the name of Sayyid Qutb? He's one of the founders of modern radical Islam. You know what his grievances against the West were? He got his panties in a bunch about decadent westerners because of stuff like a church dance. Our basic culture (and not even the current one, 1950's American culture) was offensively hedonistic and sinful to him. Political Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western liberalism. Violent conflict is inevitable. Not because of what we do, but because of who we are. Our very existence serves as a corrupting force, from their viewpoint. And they aren't wrong, in the sense that our prosperity and freedom can seduce people away from strict adherence to Islam. Unless you give up that prosperity and freedom, you cannot ever hope to appease them. |
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,286
|
Or it is governed by a government forced on it by the foreign invading forces that overthrew the Taliban government in an unprovoked attack (the Taliban government had nothing to do with the planning or implementation of 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US). A government that is only maintained in power by the foreign forces because it does not have the support of the people. I understand that resisting US invaders is regarded by the US as terrorism, but as liberation forces if the invading force or the elected government is left of centre.
The taliban do participate in terrorism, some detainees may have participated in terrorism before and have done since, or they may have been radicalised because though previously 'innocent' they were kidnapped, tortured, and in the mean time their families have been killed by collateral bombing, and now they have little left other than seeking revenge. If we are being honest, the success of deradicalising terrorists is likely well below 100%, one thing we knows that tends to deradicalise people is time and age. Terrorism tends to be young mans game. Keeping people in prison until after they are 40 is another way of reducing risk. Unfortunately as has been said above it is likely some people will go back to their old bad ways and maybe we have to accept a certain level of risk if we are not going to detain people for life. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
|
Oh please. The Taliban sheltered and protected Al Qaeda. That's pretty damned significant provocation.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,286
|
Some strains of political Islam are fundamentally incompatible, others not. The problem is that this is not political islam but fundamental religious islam. You might as well say because of facism that Political Europeanism is fundamentally incompatible with Western liberalism. Western liberalism in the McCarthy era was fundamentally incompatible with modern western liberalism. Segregation, abortion was illegal, homosexuality was illegal, no equality.
It is worth remembering the caliphate was far more religiously tolerant than Europe. There was a widespread Jewish population under the caliphate (and christian), pogroms and the holocaust were a European / Christian / liberal democratic phenomenon. The problem with Israel for Islamic fundamentalists is not the Jewish population, the problem is that it is a Jewish state ruling muslims. From a religious point of view this is unacceptable. If there was a Muslim palestinian state from the religious view point the Jewish population could remain in situ. When Islamic organisations talk about destroying Israel it is the political / religious nature of the government that is objected to not the people on the ground. Though there is a feeling that Europe dumped its problem as a result of its war and its bigotry on the people of the middle east. Now to emphasise because I am putting contrary points of view this does not mean I agree with them. I am putting up an argument, you should not assume that these represent my personal beliefs, just that these are arguments that are made and need to be addressed. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,286
|
I agree with the above. But there are people who do see the US forces as an occupying power and those participating in the attacks on foreign forces as participating in a war of liberation. There is not a single monolithic Taliban, it is as alliance of disparate forces, some are more committed to the anti-US struggle some to what would be standard terrorist political actions to overthrow the current government.
I do not know the extent to which the Taliban sheltered Al Quaeda, nor do I know the extent of the Taliban's knowledge of the actions of Al Quaeda outside of Afghanistan. It seems generally accepted that the Taliban new nothing of 9/11 until after the event. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
|
No. There are strains of nonpolitical Islam that are compatible, but all strains of political Islam are incompatible.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,286
|
I think you may not realise the caliphate ceased to exist in the 1920s just 100 years ago.
European anti semitism did not stop with the Reformation / Enlightenment. You persist in seeing the issue through the European lens of the holocaust; this was a product of European liberal democracy, and the guilt for this is projected on to muslims. Because Europeans committed a holocaust you try to project that onto Islamic culture. I am sure you can find extremist terrorists who argue for killing Jews (the classical examples were PLO an organisation that was influenced by European Marxist concepts rather than Islamic). This is not the same as the European concept of racial guilt and genocide. I may not understand what you mean by political Islam. Islam is a way of life, similar to Judaism and different from Christianity. There is not an easy split between secular and religious in Islam. There are many Islamic political parties that are liberal. There are a wide range of interpretations of Islam. From Sufi through Wahabi. There are different views just as there are in Judaism between ultra-orthodox and liberal Jews. Just as there are between the Amish, Quakers, Episcopalians and Catholics (accepting that the catholic church no longer burns heretics, jews or wages crusades).Many of the fundamental Islamic groups are primarily religious driven, their attacks are far more strenuous against those they see as heretical, (which would include my own family), than against any political opponents. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
|
Meaning that they believe religion must dominate political life, not just personal life.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
|
Sorry, I don't know which one you are talking about (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States).
Quote:
.
Quote:
![]()
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When ISIS claimed responsibility for the London bridge attack, they did not say "Make no mistake about it, we are not killing you because of what you do, we are killing you because of what YOU ARE". They said:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
|
Taliban were never the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan, they were de facto a rebel group at war with Northern Alliance. Taliban were never anything but usurpers, supported by Pakistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_A...ntial_election The government (with foreign backers) is trying to create a functional democracy but is hampered at every turn by threats of violence from the Taliban. Bombing campaign rallies and threatning to kill people who dare cast their ballots are not legitimate ways to fight anyone, let alone foreign forces who do not participate in the election at all.
Quote:
Quote:
McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
|
It is worth remembring the Caliphate allowed the Jews and Christians to live under their yoke primarily as a way to extract additional taxes for its own coffers. It was more profitable for Caliphs to collect the Jitzya tax than it was to convert the unbelievers to Islam. That's why conversion to Islam was discouraged for much of the Caliphate, not some inherent tolerance to non-believers built into Islam.
Modern wannabe liberals fail at basic fact checking and use this as evidence of Islamic tolerance. It is not, it is evidence of Islamic convenience. This is best seen in India, where Hindus were treated in a similar fashion - even though their faith is not Abrahamic and they worship multiple gods. It is also worth remembering the West is not what it was in 1600. Neither is Islamic caliphate I suppose but that went the other way. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
|
It is also generally accepted the Taliban shielded Osama bin Laden and gave him shelter for about five years prior to 9/11, even though he was sought after by the US for the 1993 WTC bombing. OBL was also implicated in 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, yet the Taliban still sheltered him.
The Taliban knew full well who OBL was, who was he attacking and how. They knew all of this and still gave him shelter even after 9/11. They didn't even arrest him or anything. It's not like OBL first became notorious with 9/11, that was just the point where the USA finally said "enough". Now somehow wannabe liberals pretend the chase for OBL was all about 9/11 and nothing else. That's just nonsense. He was a known international terrorist for eight years at that point. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,286
|
OBL only arrived in Afghanistan in 1996/7. The Taliban only came to power in 1996. The first criminal charges against OBL were raised in 1998. I am not sure how long after 1998 attempts were made to 'extradite' OBL. But if there was insufficient evidence for the US with its huge intelligence services to indict OBL before 1998 it is unreasonable to suspect a poorly organised revolutionary government in a third world country to know this. It is worth remembering that OBL denied any participation in 9/11 initially, and there are many postings on this site from people who still do not believe OBL was responsible. The US never provided the Taliban with any evidence of OBL involvement. The Taliban did offer to put OBL on trial if the US had evidence of his involvement.
From Wikipedia; '
Quote:
We all know extradition cases take years. The US wanted to cut short due process. The reality is the US entirely understandably wanted to lash out and kill people in revenge. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan just happened to be the victims of that anger. A little more patience and OBL could have been in US hands before the end of 2001. Trillions of dollars and thousands of lives would be saved. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,574
|
This makes some huge assumptions:
- that the taliban were making an honest offer, rather than just trying to string the USA along until either US anger had cooled or the world had moved on, making direct action impossible. - that the talibans hardline court would have considered what he did a crime, or that it was permissible to extradite him |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
|
It was more of "provide all the evidence and expose all your informants and we'll see what we can do". Taliban also offered to try OBL before an Islamic 'court' that would be a spectacle to further fan the flames of a clash of civilizations.
To think someone could take the offer seriously is beyond me.a
Quote:
If Taliban had honest intentions and good faith they would have arrested OBL immediately and asked for US investigators to come to Kabul and meet with theirs to work things out. This was just BS for the weak minded. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,672
|
The US had already launched Tomahawk cruise missiles against Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan years before this, as a response to the 1998 Embassy bombings. After that attack UN sanctions were placed on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, specifically ordering declaring that:
Quote:
|
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,131
|
|
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,131
|
|
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
|
Then why the hell did you list freedom of speech as one of their grievances against us?
Quote:
And as for Israel, they're just a scapegoat for the middle east's problems. Muslim-on-muslim violence kills and displaces far more people than anything going on in the West Bank.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
|
I don't think the Islamic State is blaming the U.S. or the West because of its lack of freedom of speech, but I do. For example, I recently wrote, on this Western forum, several posts criticizing Western policy, which were summarily sent to the Abandon All Hope section of this forum. No explanation or warning were given ("ModBox" or anything). If I recollect correctly, at the beginning of my time on this forum, somebody compared me to Jesus in a thread devoted to a telepathy test. This post was deemed so ridiculous by the so-called moderators that it was also sent to AAH. Censorship ... . In April 1999, Nato (probably the U.S., the missile was found to be American) bombed the headquarters of Radio Television of Serbia. No less than 16 people died, and 16 were injured. Of course, for the U.S., this is basically business as usual.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you were a Muslim living in Syria or Iraq, would you find that normal? Not sure about that.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
|
Do cite what the court said please.
Insofar as the attack actually was aimed at disrupting the communications network, it was legally acceptable ... NATO’s targeting of the RTS building for propaganda purposes was an incidental (albeit complementary) aim of its primary goal of disabling the Serbian military command and control system and to destroy the nerve system and apparatus that keeps Milošević in power. (from your link) Chomsky considers anything the West does as terrorism or equivalent and has a credibility score of zero. Amnesty International also has their own share of problems and should not always be taken at face value. Furthermore this had nothing to do with censorship. It was an attack on an enemy communications structure during wartime, that also broadcast war propaganda to civilians.
Quote:
Probably not. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
|
|
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
|
|
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
|
Not quite, I think, the situation in Eastern Ukraine is rather different. First of all, there are officially no Russian troops in Ukraine. Secondly, many people in Donbass speak Russian, like and feel close to Russia, and, in this case, democracy and right to self-determination should be considered and play an important role, in my opinion (these people feel oppressed and persecuted by the central government in Kiev, I think).
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
|
Well, not carrying your definition openly IS different, just not in the way you might want to see it. Such troops are not protected by the Geneva convention, for one.
Quote:
I guess. How do you feel about Russian presence in Chechnya? There's a reason why I'm asking these questions as a progerssion ![]() McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
|
Zelensky speaks Russian, but not as his first language, I think. He is a Jew, nothing wrong about that, freedom of religion, respect for all.
I would be a little bit more critical about Russia's actions in Chechnya, although this might be a difficult situation for them, I suspect a lack of democracy and too much cult of personality for the Chechen leader. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
|
Just about all Ukrainians speak Russian, Zelensky speaks it as his mother tongue and Ukrainian as second.
I'm asking because the Donbass rebels supposedly fight against the Nazis that took over Ukraine and will kill all Russians in the country. I mean, the coutnry elected a Russian Jew as their president, I daresay he might not be a Russians-hating Nazi.
Quote:
TL,DR of your viewpoints: Russia good, others bad. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 46,131
|
|
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
|
Yup. Nothing fancy, TBH.
Also nothing that could be solved by putting OBL on trial, regardless of the outcome. The Taliban opted to fight the entire western world and left a trail of corpses in their wake. Now wannabe liberals scold the western world for fighting back. It reminds me of Flat Earth conspiratards. McHrozni |
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
|
CNBC reported in November 2018 that the U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan had cost American taxpayers $5.9 trillion since they began in 2001.
Quote:
In Afghanistan, there is a long-running and deadly Taliban insurgency against the perceived invaders. The democratic, NATO supported government controls only about 56% of Afghan districts: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/in...083528213.html . Iraq has been partly destroyed and impoverished by the war (after the sanctions), particularly Mosul, people are protesting and getting killed. Iran too is impoverished by U.S. sanctions. There too, people are protesting and getting killed. In Palestine, nothing is solved, many people are unhappy, they feel they are being treated unfairly. After 9/11, it would have been possible to make and keep U.S. citizens safe by ordering Israel to stay within its legal borders, and by lifting sanctions on Afghanistan and Iraq (and possibly other countries). Putting Osama bin Laden on trial before an "Islamic Court" in Afghanistan could have been useful to reassure the American public. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 496
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,103
|
I don’t see how the US had much choice but to go to Afghanistan. The subsequent nation building was probability doomed to fail though. The US military is bad at working with locals to begin with, but even if they were better at it I think the local tribal leaders would have taken the more pragmatic approach and sided with the Taliban as soon as US/Nato troops went home.
At the end of the day tribal leaders side with the Taliban because the Taliban is there and the US/NATO is not. It has little to do with who they prefer, it’s about who is the immanent threat they need to appease. The Iraq war was a stupid. From the US perspective, the optimal strategic situation in Iraq was always a mostly secular dictatorship. Overthrowing just such a dictatorship and trying to bring freedom and democracy to people with very different underlying beliefs that tend strongly towards religious fanaticism was never going to end well from a US perspective. This does not imply that the underlying religious fanaticism was created by the US. Iran is more complicated then Iraq IMO but targeting it post 9/11 was still a huge strategic blunder. Iran, however was actively at war with Al Qaida and the Taliban and there was a growing grass roots movement towards more western style thought on many issues. Heating up the rhetoric and trying to force political change gave conservative elements the opportunity to snuff out the positive changes that were already in progress. Not a chance. To the vast majority of Muslims Israel making annexing small amounts of land is maternal and makes no difference at all to their own lives. It’s an excuse for hatred not the cause of it. Even for Palestinians themselves, a little bit of land most have never seen in person isn’t what they really want. Wrt Israel I find it highly unlikely that anything short of genocide would suffice for either group and Israel “behaving differently” isn’t going to change this. Israel needs to stop expanding settlements and needs to treat Palestinians on It’s border MUCH better than it currently does but it’s naïve to the point of stupid to think this will change anything wrt Palestinian attacks against Israel |
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
|
As far as I know, appeasement works better than demonizing your opponents.
In September 1939, the British government said that it had seen enough of Adolf Hitler's expansionist policies, and decided to declare war, even though Germany had not attacked Britain, and was actually seeking peace with the British. Hitler had (brutally) attacked Poland two days before mostly to unify Germany, because East Prussia was then separated from the rest of Germany by the Polish Corridor, see (if necessary) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor , https://www.britannica.com/place/Polish-Corridor. Six years later, had this war policy "worked"? Of course, Hitler was dead. But about 60 million had died too, many millions were injured, economies were devastated, still nowadays there are still unexploded ordnances from this conflict, and I am not convinced the world has really learnt and drawn the right conclusions from this war (and this is perhaps the most terrible thing of all: not having learnt from your mistakes). If you study American psychology, it is clear to me they are constantly trying to repeat Word War II, perceived as a great and major success from their point of view. However, I don't view 60 million deaths as a great success. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
|
If Israel decides, perhaps with a new government supported by Arab parties, to freeze all settlements, this will probably make Palestinians less angry, and reduce the risk of Palestinian attacks. However, for a true and final solution, Israel would need to evacuate all illegally occupied land, in my opinion (unless it manages to buy some land legally, and to sign a new peace treaty changing borders). I don't know how (un)likely this is though. The about 700,000 settlers, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, could, however, remain where they live now, and even retain their Israeli citizenship while getting Palestinian residency. When you look at the problem in this way, it doesn't seem that hard.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 496
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 496
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
|
It is indeed quite possible that many Jews would have survived if the UK and France had not declared war to Germany in 1939. In January 1939, Hitler said before the German Reichstag:
Quote:
This is a video of that speech: https://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...people-applaud. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,737
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|