Israel used depleted uranium in airstrike on Syria: Report

I do not consider non-state actors capable of declaring war. If that was the case, why wouldn't every murderer on the planet "declare war" on their victims.

And as a pre-emption - I consider the PLO and Hamas to be state actors.

 

So prior to them being the governments of the Palestinians they were not state actors yet carried out war and that to you was fine?

 

But AQ IS a state actor, didn't you know?

 

Everyone knows Al Queda is a town in Afganistania.

 

I agree that terrorism cannot be defeated. One cannot defeat a tactic.

Your thesis that AQ et.al are fueled by "western state terrorism" in Muslim lands is interesting. Why do so many of these groups kill innocent muslims every day? Why are their principle targets Muslim?

Turn on the television and any muslim should be radicalized against muslims killing their fellow muslims. Its in the news EVERY day. No, the "west" and in particular the "Great Satan" are appropriate "others' who are responsible for "attacking and persecuting" the muslim religion and are the direct cause of the radicals lousy lives.

Islamic intra-faith violence has been going on for 700 years, ever since the shia decided Ali inherited the position of muhammed.
Fact of the matter is until there is some kind of reformation within Islam, it shall simply go on and on and on, no matter what the west does or doesnt do.

As far the zionist occupation is concerned, to most muslims it is just further proof of the jew's malfeasance. A ready made excuse that leverages wide spread and deep anti-semitism within Islam. Only one god can prevail and all that crap.

 

That'll be close to the capital city of Ljubljana in Slovenia. Shouldn't be too hard to spot them.

 

Again, no.

The situation in Palestine is unique in history. After the initial armistice in 48, most "terrorism" was carried out by the surrounding arab states. The palestinian people were pawns in a broaderand bigger realpolitik, as ol Gamel exploited the situation in hopes of realizing his dream of a pan arabic "republic". It wasn't until 1963/4 when the PLO was officially recognized as the sole representative of the palestinian people by the arab high council, did the palestinians begin to have meaningful representation.

Nassar's dreams were dashed in 1967 and to further exacerbate the situation, Jordan gave up its claims and annexation plans for the WEst Bank, and Egypt rather wisely in hindsight let gaza become Israel's problem.

The struggle between Israel and the palestinians has been on-going since 1948 and has never been resolved. If you recall, the original plan was a two state (albeit a screwed up two state) solution. The place has not yet recovered from the incompetant and utterly stupid partition resolution. Further proof that colonialism had reached its termination date.

 

Only today, I saw millions of Muslamic rape gangs.

RAPE.

GANGS.

 

Good. So we are n agreement then that the PLO and Hamas were not state actors prior to forming governments and therefore, their acts of terrorism were just that, nothing more and certainly illegal. So, the only thing that has changed from them being the same thing as Al Qaeda is they bullied their way into being elected. The tactics are the same, the terrorist leaders are the same and, the goals are the same yet you feel this is now justified and the same as a legal war of defense like ...... Britain defending itself from the Nazis or ... Finland fighting the Russians?

They had no state and therefore were not a state actor at that time.

 

I think it's always a dangerous thing to attribute a terrorist motivational trait generically to any culture/religion. I'm not saying you do, but certainly the same cannot be said to many others on both sides of the debate, as it were. So in that sense, the assumption that it is strictly AQ, and the concept of Jihad that springs from that, which is fuelled by Western state terrorism, is not a true reflection of the total picture.

What I mean by this, is although it's true that this group represent a specific (although not necessarily representative) religious 'Salafist' obscurantist form of terrorism, it is nevertheless in a reality a complex mixture of the political and religious.

If you analyse Bin Laden's justification for 9-11, for example, you will discover a strange mixture of religious rhetoric and political pragmatism as the motivating factor. I think almost certainly there is a significant proportion of terrorist fanatics strictly motivated by this kind of Wahabist-based religious obscurantism and are thus inspired by the likes of Bin Laden.

But I also think that in the main, Muslims are motivated by injustice and Western foreign policy hypocrisy and double standards. Bin Laden articulated this aspect in terms of his post-9-11 rhetoric and was thus able to tap into the religious aspects as well as the more overt political aspects. This was his 'skill' in that regard.

We must remember that 9-11 arose out of something. It wasn't the beginning of something as many people wrongly assume. Where people go wrong is that they blindly attribute counter-terrorist actions by Muslims as being representative of the Jihadist notion in the Salafist sense, failing to take on board the concept as understood as a form of resistance.

 

It is impossible in any muslim country to seperate religion culture and politics. The muslim scriptures form a totally "complete" approach to living one's life (no matter how incomplete and contradictory it may actually be). With the extremely orthodox and literalist Salafists, it reaches a pinnicle of integration. Most suitable for the 7th century, but ridiculous in many aspects today.

 

Same could fairly be said of 'Israel'.

 

I agree with that. But the point is, the Salafist strand is not representative of the way the vast majority of Muslims lead their day-to-day lives. It's everyday Muslims who have no truck with Salafism, but nevertheless are motivated to go out a place bombs on buses as was the case in London on the July 7, 2005, for example.

We need to recognise and address what the underlying reasons are that motivates mainly young Muslim men to do this kind of thing and then do something positive by way of policy in an attempt to stop it in the future. That would be the sensible approach. Being friends with brutal dictatorships in places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that supply mercenaries with weapons in places like Syria is not the answer, rather it has the opposite effect by fuelling terrorism. This ain't brain surgery.

 

When one is a stranger in a strange land, one who considers themselves "different" and discriminated against (real or imagined), one who's identity is completely entwined in his religion, one with no power, its not brain surgery to subvert weaker minded individuals.

I don't believe the solution is as simple as merely abandoning brutal dictatorships. Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq are examples of that policy not turning out exactly as planned. so much so that many who were bitter opponents of support for those regimes now lament the good ol' days of "stability".
Any solution would have to be far more multidimensional and it will be guaranteed to be messy and painful along the way.

 

Well, certainly within the orthodox hassidim that could be said. They are as nutty as any taliban, if not quite as violent.

But overall governance, I don't think it is a valid comparison. Israel supports many cultures and as far as politics is concerned they dozens of political parties ranging from far right to far left certainly provide a huge political choice outwith of religion. It even has a large minority of other religions (25% or so).

 

You can make the conditions where it flourishes less common or obsolete though and thereby lessen or eliminate it through behavioral changes.

The target of their actions is the Muslim masses. The idea of their terrorism is to separate the people from the government by showing the government as in effective and unable to carry out it's prime purpose which is to protect and enable the tax base. As well, Al Qaeda by showing themselves as powerful and able to iinflict damage in a crafty and spectacular fashion against the US they prove themselves as more powerful than any other entity as they also take credit for destroying the USSR as a superpower breed what they hope is infectious admiration from any who's life is difficult and oppressive. In this way, they garner new recruits and support throughout the Muslim world.

The actual hard target of radicals is the corrupt regimes of the former Caliphate as they hope to topple just one and then, with an oil based economy acting as a cash funnel and their political arm as government they can then take the Jihad to an entirely new level to continue the toppling of adjacent nations until the dream of a pan Arab Caliphate is realized. At this pont, Europe will be more than willing to trade anything to have access to the oil whcih they would stifle to ruin economies and control markets.

Not really as the Sunni outnumber the Shia by about a billion and two hundred million to three hundred million. In any reality the Shias will always be underrepresented except for large blocks of them as in Iran and Iraq.

From the Arabs and Muslims I've met they are not too worried about Israel and just get on with their life however, the Palestinians I have met range from they're not too bad to outright hatred and swearing when the word Jew or Israel is mentioned. I myself believe it is normal in a society like Palestinians to have a large group who hate but further believe Qutbist groups use Israel to whip an otherwise docile population into a common enemy sort of frenzy. Regime officials tolerate this as it takes a lot of heat off of them.

 

Have to agree to disagree then.

It's somewhat subjective anyway, therefore, it is not like either of us can prove one is right + the other not.

With that being said, I have read one of Israel Shahak's books, and having done so, it is apparent to me that when Israel calls itself 'secular', it is not in the sense that most may expect, were they to look closer. He is obviously a Jew, an academic, and would therefore be well placed to speak. On a different level, much the same was said by the Israeli scientist, Vanunu, and he is probably better placed than most here, and better educated, to speak. Both were clear about one thing...it is very dangerous, perhaps the most dangerous thing that there is today.

I would imagine neither man goes down well among Zionist Jews. Why not? Because they tell/told the truth.

 

I'm not claiming that abandoning dictatorships would be a solution in and of itself. However, I think it would send out positive signals and would therefore be a step in the right direction. The stick approach doesn't work without an element of the carrot to accompany it.

I think young Muslims who want to hurt us, do so to a large extent, because they understand the hypocrisy and double standards of Western foreign policy directed against their Muslim brothers. Its us who have effectively created many of the Frankenstein monsters in the past that ironically we have/are fighting both alongside and against.

It amazes me when otherwise intelligent people cannot apparently grasp why an uncontrollable monster that has been betrayed would want to seek revenge on its creator. That this often takes the form of young Muslim guys planting bombs in London and elsewhere is a direct consequence of the swamp of hatred we have created in much of the Muslim world.

That's not to say I'm condoning terrorism of course. I actually detest it, not least because those victims affected are always the innocent. But also because it's totally futile and counterproductive.

I agree we are never going to stop it completely. For every, say, thousandth Muslim terrorist justifying their actions because of Western imperialism, there will always be one who will attempt to justify it in the name of the prophet Mohammad.

But we have to try to break the cycle somehow and the ball is firmly in our court.

 

Why fight and kill?

All over the World, over and over.

I don't go through my life murdering, lying, stealing and occupying, so how is it suddenly just when men in fancy suits with big bank accounts do it, spark it, fund it, and profit from it, to a grand scale?

Why are we all held to a different standard of expected pacifism?

 

It saddens me greatly when I see the families of dead servicemen (boys) on television grieving over their loss. I met Rose Gentle once, looked in her eyes and saw such emptiness I cannot even begin to describe. It pains me greatly and I think to myself, somebody like Cameron will have forgotten the name of the soldier he has just mentioned with all the fake sincerity of Bob Monkhouse within the space of a minute of first mentioning it. These politicians like Cameron who send our boys and girls in harms way on a pack of lies for a bunch of gangsters make me sick to my stomach. They would never send their own children but expect others to fight the fight on their behalf. That is the kind of scum they are.

 

What's the answer though?

Get people not to sign up for the armed forces?

Even were that possible, what would happen? The Gov would likely bring in national service. I fear there well be more Rose's to come. Sadly.

Perhaps young lads and their families need look no further than men like this, for a lead..

[video=youtube;cb50-ouA-IA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cb50-ouA-IA[/video]


Israeli or Jew?

Be this..

[video=youtube;ZFsw_VvdJlA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZFsw_VvdJlA[/video]

 

But the very fact you can read these perspective from jews of varying piety and political persuasion argues that it is far far more secular and tolerant. That their secularism is different than western secularism is a given. One is based on judaism and the other is based on christianity.

You seem to have this recurring theme about Israeli/jewish tolerance to criticism that is almost a mantra with you.
But as you have pointed out so often, a lot of your sources are Israeli for stories that are harshly critical of government policy etc. You do not get that in ANY islamic country - none - zero - nada - zip.

Your very own arguments and practices negate your premise of the danger secular dissent.

 

They should be banned completely, actually. Nothing that can irradiate the environment should be used, period. It's the height of irresponsibility to do so.

 

But that is exactly what has happened. with not very good results. why are these moves not seen as positive steps? Because Islam and democracy are very uncomfortable bedfellows?

I dont' disagree. But then they have to look outward, so they do not have to confront the hypocrisies of their own nation, politics and religion, that have essentially stifled them. They also create their own frankenstein monsters without any outside help.

Now here is where we are going to differ. this so called "swamp of hatred" has been around for over almost 1300 years. It has never, ever gone away. Bubbling under the surface it doesn't take much for it to erupt and some very smart players have taken advantage of this Islamic cultural phenomenon.

When you are raised within the home and the mosque to hate the infidel and particularly the jews it doesn't take much to point the fingers at them and proclaim the evil infidels are attacking Allah and the muslim identity. It is a "target rich" environment for those how wish to divert resentment and hatred into political activism which then creates a much smaller step to violent action.

There is a very very good reason that mohammed ensured that all those that die in defence of Islam, are shahid and go directly to paradise without further judgement of their lieves and upon arrival are to be richly rewarded. The guy was a genius amongst the sheep.

You said it "justify their actions because of western imperialism". It is an excuse, it is a way of placing the blame for the consequence of their hateful murderous actions on the victims themselves. The only difference between western imperialism and Islamic imperialism, is that the western version is far more successful and far reaching because its based on MONEY, where as Islamic imperialism is based on a flying spaghetti monster - and that is a much harder sell.

 

I was posted to Damascus during the Gulf War and we used to use the weight room at the Sham PAlace downtown, an international hotel akin to the Sheraton and those like it. After we'd go down to the bar to replace some salt with some of those pistachios with rock salt on them and salted cucumber in lemonand vinagar juice. Being a stressful time I'd go over to the newspaper stand and look it over, Newsweek and Time were sold there but they had entire articles cut out of them so the pages were mutilated and then, by the front desk thhere was the teleprinter news of the day and it was so blacked out that you could barely find anything to read.

Our fellow soldiers stationed in Quinatra by the Israeli zone would tell us of the CNN coverage and the cameras on missiles or aircraft carriers with all the excitment of a grade a action movie but on our tv, it was reruns of Dallas and some pretty mundane news n Arabic. I remember the day Hafaz Assad gave an open address to Saddam Hussien of Iraq, the entire city stood still for half an hour while he went on telling him to get the heck out and they would together figure it all out. Then the 16th of January in Damascus, a very lively city to say the least, it was like Tombstone on a Sunday night with nothing moving. Well, if they had tumbleweeds in the city they would have been the only thing but it was so eerie. The airport shut down, all foreigners long gone and just us and our escape plan if things went south - through Syria to Lebanon and then make our way to Turkey.

That would have worked like azz and we knew it so we just got loaded instead.