Israel/hamas - Whos Gonna Break First?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Sorry, no 'journo's' were allowed access to the occupied territories the MOC forbade ( you've got to have your carefully managed war)... The reason Israel isn't getting 'its' message out us is because bushsh!t as usual - Its amazing where as once Israel could count on strong left support it now has to rely on right-wing religious nutters. Sky viewers and chicken-hawk gun porn enthusiasts to whore is case.

 

what I can't understand is why my tax pounds are being funneled to prop a morally corrupt naziesque state?

 

Come on then put ya money where yer mouth is get that NPT signed!

 

Israel used to rely on left-wing support? How so?

 

Well your taxes are going to support the regime in Israel. Why? Foreign policy and internatonal relations are not primarily conducted for humanitarian reasons and humanitarianism is almost always a cover for some other motivation.

 

But Israel is not the morally corrupt state. What about the U.S. or Britain. Do you represent moral states? If you think so you look at their foreign policy and how these states serve their interests and business interests. Israel is mre open about its terrorism, it can afford to be when it has so much background and has so much power relative to poorer Arab nations. But Britain and America are terrorist states too.

[Sebrof]

But Britain and America are terrorist states too.

 

Explain, please, in three short sentences if possible.

 

Thanks.

 

S

[P.K.]

how many Israeli politicians have been voted into power without a military background?

How many Israelis in general do not have a military background you dork?

 

Military service in the IDF is compulsory with few exceptions. You then stay on the reserve list until you are in your fifties!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But Britain and America are terrorist states too.

 

Explain, please, in three short sentences if possible.

 

Thanks.

 

S

 

Your are intelligent enough to not need it, will give examples. Airstrikes in Iraq before the war; the Iraq War; the Afghanistan bombings and war; Kosovo bombing campaign; support for Israel in its terrorism; support for regimes in Africa that conduct terorism against their own people; support for the former Suharton regime in Indonesia; the bullying of Iran over nuclear weapons; support for the Saudi regime; long-term American support of repressive Latin American countries; support for Russian in its conflict in Chechnya. And then the long history of open British and American imperialism prior to WW2.

 

I should be able to think of more.

 

Britain is one of the worst terrorist states.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

how many Israeli politicians have been voted into power without a military background?

 

P.K. already answered, but what does that have to do with where really lies in a state?

[Sebrof]

But Britain and America are terrorist states too.

 

Explain, please, in three short sentences if possible.

 

Thanks.

 

S

 

Your are intelligent enough to not need it, will give examples. Airstrikes in Iraq before the war; the Iraq War; the Afghanistan bombings and war; Kosovo bombing campaign; support for Israel in its terrorism; support for regimes in Africa that conduct terorism against their own people; support for the former Suharton regime in Indonesia; the bullying of Iran over nuclear weapons; support for the Saudi regime; long-term American support of repressive Latin American countries; support for Russian in its conflict in Chechnya. And then the long history of open British and American imperialism prior to WW2.

 

I should be able to think of more.

 

Britain is one of the worst terrorist states.

 

I don't think any of those are examples of British terrorism, though I accept that we have sometimes been uncritical of American activities in Central and South America that do amount to terrorism. Also Israel.

 

For example: the airstrikes in Iraq were, if I recall, approved by the UN in response to Saddam's repeated transgressions. The Iraq War was war, not terrorism.

 

I think the problem many of us have with you LDV, is the fact that you keep redefining the commonly accepted meanings of everyday words. Terrorism and war are not the same thing.

 

But thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for a short answer.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I don't think any of those are examples of British terrorism, though I accept that we have sometimes been uncritical of American activities in Central and South America that do amount to terrorism. Also Israel.

 

For example: the airstrikes in Iraq were, if I recall, approved by the UN in response to Saddam's repeated transgressions. The Iraq War was war, not terrorism.

 

I think the problem many of us have with you LDV, is the fact that you keep redefining the commonly accepted meanings of everyday words. Terrorism and war are not the same thing.

 

But thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for a short answer.

 

S

 

You won't be so happy now.

 

Your problem is that you constantly reproduce the commonly held views, i.e. the propaganda line of business, government, and the media. It is just a shame you seem so convinced by the stuff you are 'suposed' to believe.

 

I haven't altered definitions. State terrorism is the threat or use of violence by a state against civilians. State terrorism has a longer history than individual terrorism. Yet because of media attention to Al Qaeda and the ruling elites desires to move attention away from the reality of state terrorism the public has a slightly different perception of what terrorism is. Yet state terrorism can be said to be more common.

 

Terrorism and war are not the same thing, rather terrorism can occur in war, and is common feature. Many of these instances have been called war or are wars, but in tactics and strategy you can see terrrorism. It is not about neatly placing things in boxes. Going back to your blind adherence to government propaganda, they want the public to perceive conflicts as wars with humanitarian goals. They would not dare call their behaviour terrorist, it would make no sense to selling their wars to the public.

 

You can look at things the other way. In individual terrorism those fighting claim to be part of a war. But does this mean that they are no longer terrorists because in this war they kill civilians? No.

[Sebrof]

Your problem is that you constantly reproduce the commonly held views, i.e. the propaganda line of business, government, and the media. It is just a shame you seem so convinced by the stuff you are 'suposed' to believe.

 

One possible reason for a view to be commonly held is that it makes sense.

 

If you define state terrorism as a war on civilians, then you can't call the Iraq War a terrorist action. There was no intention to target civilians, though of course there were civilian casualities.

 

You will find that there are a number of views promoted by the media, not just one. The task of the media consumer is to judge which organs of the media are (relatively) trustworthy when reporting facts, and to form judgements on the views expressed.

 

I don't automatically side with Britain when it goes to war. I thought the Iraq War was very wrong, but I supported the action taken against Serbia over Kosova because it averted a much greater evil.

 

Your position is that Britain is always wrong, which is a gross over-simplification of Britain's role in history.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

One possible reason for a view to be commonly held is that it makes sense.

 

If you define state terrorism as a war on civilians, then you can't call the Iraq War a terrorist action. There was no intention to target civilians, though of course there were civilian casualities.

 

Intention, well the purpose is to attack the opponents military forces, however, as I am sure you can accept the civilian casualties are almost a certainly. Furthermore, the threat of violence or use of it is what terrorism hinges on, not necessarily simply an intention to kill them.

 

You will find that there are a number of views promoted by the media, not just one. The task of the media consumer is to judge which organs of the media are (relatively) trustworthy when reporting facts, and to form judgements on the views expressed.

 

And you are completely correct, however, the media is a tool that is used to create consensus. The ruling elites and power structures in society are the ones that have the most ability to push their views and perspectives into the media. Therefore, when it comes to the media that is most readily available, and which is by extension the most commonly read the bias that is created is almost wholly in favour of the powerful, i.e. business. Journalists, who are of course independently minded, have their journalism and reportage screened. Those that are judged to fit into the consensus political opinion and which have a certain interest will be those found in the papers. It is the job of the reader to make further efforts to locate sources of alternate views.

 

I don't automatically side with Britain when it goes to war. I thought the Iraq War was very wrong, but I supported the action taken against Serbia over Kosova because it averted a much greater evil.

 

Your position is that Britain is always wrong, which is a gross over-simplification of Britain's role in history.

 

You are aware of the impact that the NATO bombing campaign had in Kosovo?

 

No, it is not about Britain being wrong, it is not even about just Britain, I could make the same comments about France or Russia. That is a simplistic view to take of what I am saying. My point is that British foreign policy is conducted in the interests of those who have power. It is conducted for the benefit of the ruling elite and for business. My views are not limited to Britain in any case.

 

As for being 'wrong', well this is largely subjective. It depends on who you are and where your interests lie. You know my understanding of what motivates foreign policy. I would love to debate it but I don't want to derail the topic.

[Sebrof]

LDV, do you not realise that you are yourself filtering the information you receive so that it fits in with your view of history as a vast conspiracy against the common man? You are so convinced by your ideology that you reject any opposing view on principle, and accept uncritically everything that supports it.

 

Incidentally, I am aware that bombing inevitably causes civilian casualties. However, those in Kosovo/Serbia were, in the context of strategic bombing, extremely small (300 - 600).

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV, do you not realise that you are yourself filtering the information you receive so that it fits in with your view of history as a vast conspiracy against the common man? You are so convinced by your ideology that you reject any opposing view on principle, and accept uncritically everything that supports it.

 

Incidentally, I am aware that bombing inevitably causes civilian casualties. However, those in Kosovo/Serbia were, in the context of strategic bombing, extremely small (300 - 600).

 

S

 

There is no vast conspiracy. The facts are there for anyone to see or find out about. The only reason why someone would ignorantly perceive my arguments to be conspiracy is because their priorities and understanding of issues are the product of indoctrination.

 

You are so convinced by your ideology that you automatically reproduce capitalist propaganda and government spin whenever you argue against me. We are both in the same position but different ideologies.

 

Things I watch and read are analysed from the perspective of rightly recognising that the government is not there to serve the people, it is there to control them. It serves other interests. And there is so much evidence of this. My analysis of foreign policy naturally follows from this. It is important to look at things from a case by case basis, but even so, whether you are a liberal or a socialist your analysis will be undertaken on the basis of your understanding of the world from those political ideologies.

 

Kosovo - I am not talking about deaths. When I referred to the impact, I was talking about the ethnic cleansing that really begun in earnest once the bombing began. There would have been logisitical difficulties, but the primary reasons for rejecting invasion of Kosovo were mainly do with limiting Briitsh casualties. But this would have prevented the type of cleansing that occurred.

[Sebrof]

LDV, do you not realise that you are yourself filtering the information you receive so that it fits in with your view of history as a vast conspiracy against the common man? You are so convinced by your ideology that you reject any opposing view on principle, and accept uncritically everything that supports it.

 

Incidentally, I am aware that bombing inevitably causes civilian casualties. However, those in Kosovo/Serbia were, in the context of strategic bombing, extremely small (300 - 600).

 

S

 

There is no vast conspiracy. The facts are there for anyone to see or find out about. The only reason why someone would ignorantly perceive my arguments to be conspiracy is because their priorities and understanding of issues are the product of indoctrination.

 

You are so convinced by your ideology that you automatically reproduce capitalist propaganda and government spin whenever you argue against me. We are both in the same position but different ideologies.

 

Things I watch and read are analysed from the perspective of rightly recognising that the government is not there to serve the people, it is there to control them. It serves other interests. And there is so much evidence of this. My analysis of foreign policy naturally follows from this. It is important to look at things from a case by case basis, but even so, whether you are a liberal or a socialist your analysis will be undertaken on the basis of your understanding of the world from those political ideologies.

 

Kosovo - I am not talking about deaths. When I referred to the impact, I was talking about the ethnic cleansing that really begun in earnest once the bombing began. There would have been logisitical difficulties, but the primary reasons for rejecting invasion of Kosovo were mainly do with limiting Briitsh casualties. But this would have prevented the type of cleansing that occurred.

 

So everybody else is indoctrinated, but not our Dolch?

 

Mother, back from watching her son marching with the dragoons:

 

"They was all out of step, except our Albert."

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

So everybody else is indoctrinated, but not our Dolch?

 

Mother, back from watching her son marching with the dragoons:

 

"They was all out of step, except our Albert."

 

S

 

Everyone has been indoctrinated to accept liberal democratic values and the values of the form of capitalism we have. It is indoctrination because it constantly reproduced in society and begins from when you are young and carries on throughout you life. When you taught that government is necessary, police are necessary, that you have to accept laws, have to recognise the legal systems own understanding of crime, have to accept that war will occur, etc.... All of this is indoctrinated. People form an understanding of the world based upon this value system. It is a method of control.

 

The difference with me, and a lot of people I will add, is that I recognised that nobody should have authority over another UNLESS it can be adequetly jusitified. Taking into account that having authority over someone amounts to control. And being who we are, we want control over our lives and over our minds. And so we should. Therefore, those who recognise this place the burden of proof on institutions and people who want to have control over us. However, this perspective stands in complete opposition to liberal democracy and to capitalism. But many just accept authority in society because they are given justifications, but don't fully appreciate the significance of what control is and its effects.

 

I mean I don't accept that most people in society would really be happy being effectively ruled and told what to do by a ruling class. I don't think they would be happy being slaves in society because of their employment. But people are not taught to think that way even though the implications of the authority over them makes it the case.

 

But I will finish by saying your perception of there being a difference between war and state terrorism, is not a division of socialism and liberalism but simply the use of language. One of those being the term used by those who perpetrade terrorism but understandably give it a differently name for acceptability. But by all means look at the definitions and then analyse British foreign policy. See what conclusions you come to.

[macmannin]

You should get out more sonny,try to enjoy the simpler things in life

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If anyone is interested in listening to interviews with Noam Chomsky about Gaza, here is a link:

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wlHg-K55PCQ