> From: Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Iran, Libya, and Syria call the US and Israel racist countries
> > that abuse human rights?
>
> According to Amnesty International, the US and Israel *do* abuse human
> rights. It is not just countries like Iran, Libya and Syria that make
that
> claim.
That wasn't the point. He was talking about the parallel U.N. convention
on racism and the NGO (non-governmental-organization) convention that
supplemented it (which ended Sept. 10th). In the NGO forum, some NGO
entities got this statement worked into the resolution: 'Zionism is
Racism. Israel commits Genocide.' Every single Human-rights
Organization who participated (Amnesty international etc.) CONDEMNED the
resolution (the Irony being that the declaration on Racism was decidedly
RACIST). At the Same time Every single Arab state Tried to get the exact
same statement into the U.N. declaration on Racism. The U.S. and Israel
delegations left the convention because of this.
A. Israel probably commits human rights violations.
B. Israel does NOT commit Genocide.
C. 'Zionism' means the existence of the state of Israel.
Saying Zionism is racist is saying that the existence of the state of
Israel is by its very nature is racist.
This is equivalent to saying that the Existence of say 'The Netherlands'
makes 'The Netherlands' a Racist state.
The U.S. Has not, and will not ever support anything like this.
> > Under Arafat's rule, these Palestinian Islamic terrorist groups
> > made repeated use of the technique of suicide bombing, going so far
as
> > to run summer camps in Gaza that teach Palestinian children how to
> > become suicide martyrs.
>
> Can Netanyahu (or anyone else) provide evidence for the existence of
those
> summer camps, or is this just more Israeli rhetoric to "prove" their
> "superiority" over Arabs?
Yep. Palestinian TV/propaganda. You should read some of the propaganda
that comes out of these Islamic countries/Palestine.
>
>
> > Though its separate parts may have local objectives and take
part
> > in local conflicts, the main motivation driving the terror network is
> > an anti-Western hostility that seeks to achieve nothing less than a
> > reversal of history.
> > It seeks to roll back the West and install an extremist form of
> > Islam as the dominant power in the world.
> > It seeks to do this not by means of its own advancement and
> > progress, but by destroying the enemy.
>
> Whereas the US only seeks to roll back Islam in the Middle East and
install
> their own system and believes as the dominant power in the region, and
seeks
> to do this by destroying its enemies.
Nope. We were willing to let these countries alone to rot in their own
fundamentalist garbage. It is really quite stupid to attack the US.
>
> > And Israel, the Middle East's only democracy and its purest
> > manifestation of Western progress and freedom, must be wiped off the
> > face of the earth.
>
> Does Netanyahu know that "Western freedom" includes freedom to freely
cross
> the borders of the land where you live, and includes the freedom to
publicly
> protest when you disagree with those who rule your land, without being
shot
> at?
That freedom to protest does not in any case in any western country allow
violent protests.
So you are saying that anyone should have the _right_ to strap a bomb to
themselves and go blow up crowded pizza parlor?
>
> > But reestablishing a resurgent Islam requires not just rolling
> > back the West; it requires destroying its main engine, the United
> > States. And if the US cannot be destroyed just now, it can be first
> > humiliated -- as in the Teheran hostage crisis two decades ago -- and
> > then ferociously attacked again and again, until it is brought to its
> > knees.
>
> I will remember that when I see the footage of the US Armed Forces
> ferociously attacking US-unfriendly Islamic countries in the Middle
East
> until those countries are brought to their knees.
As they will be. We were content to let them be, but they weren't
content to let us be. They _Will_ be brought to their knees.
>
> > Well, they did not use a nuclear bomb. They used two 150 ton
fully
> > fueled jetliners to wipe out the Twin Towers. But does anyone doubt
> > that given the chance, they will throw atom bombs at America and its
> > allies?
>
> If the US does indeed start a major war in the Middle East, I do not
give it
> ten years before the first nuclear bomb goes off in the US.
And that country will then become glass.
>
> > When the British bombed a Gestapo headquarters in 1944, and one
of
> > their bombs unintentionally struck a children's hospital that was a
> > tragedy, but it was not terrorism.
> > When Israel fired a missile that killed two Hamas arch-
> > terrorists, and two Palestinians children who were playing nearby
were
> > tragically struck down, that is not terrorism.
>
> Yet, if Islamic fundamentalists would fire a missile that kills an
Israeli
> government official or some Israeli soldiers, and two Israeli civilians
who
> just happened to be there also get killed, it *will* be considered an
act of
> terrorism.
>
> Whether an act is an act of terrorism is not only defined by the nature
of
> the action, but also by who was attacked.
There is a difference. The Israeli actions are defensive measures, taken
to prevent those groups from further acts of terrorism. Those groups
almost never attack military targets. They go to crowded civilian
centers and blow themselves up. In other words, the terrorists attack
innocent people, whereas the operations of the Israeli military are
always taken against those who plan/carry out these attacks. You are
wrong.
>
> > These regimes, like all terrorist states, must be given a
> > forthright demand: Stop terrorism, permanently, or you will face the
> > wrath of the free world - through harsh and sustained political,
> > economic and military sanctions.
>
> Ah yes, economic sanctions. A method Western governments love, but also
a
> method that usually only hurts the population of a country, not its
leaders.
>
Good. And when those people see their leaders living it up while they
are starving, they should revolt against those leaders--And if they don't
that is their problem.
> > Israel's policy of preemptively striking at those who seek to murder
> > its people is, I believe, better understood today and requires no
> > further elaboration.
>
> Oh, we understand alright. Only problem is, Israel believes it is
justified
> in their "preemptive strikes" but will play the poor, oppressed nation
if
> one of its neighbours would do the same against Israel.
Your statement here condones the use of terrorism.
