Why Muslims Hate U.S. (Split from "Just War" and N

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I'm starting a new thread at Spoonist's request, as the discussion had gotten off the original topic.

The original position you presented seemed, to me, that Arabs were anti-Western for reason that were solely Western fault...

Not solely, but mostly. Granted that most of the Middle Eastern population are fundies, and granted that part of their hatred is irrational, but if the U.S. had acted responsibly and not supported an anti-Arab expansionist empire with arms and shielded it from having to obey the U.N., those fundies' attention would be turned toward secularism in their own countries, and the U.S. would be a distant irrelevance.

They were a different kind of Fundie. But as the country grew we got leaders who were more Deists and Calvinists, and the Constitution forbade the establishment of one religion over another. Regardless of the original truths, it has now been translated by contemporary society as a doctrine of tolerance. Despite the Fundies in the US today-- their views, their influence-- we are still a fairly liberal and tolerant nation compared to many.

Our Constitution, written by people who were not religious, is the only thing that kept the Bible Belt from flushing our rights and liberties down the toilet during the McCarthy era and during the post-9/11 fervor. Our tolerance and liberalism is due to the vision of our founding fathers. That does not mean that our fundies are any better than theirs. Again I point to the use of violence and terrorism to intimidate abortion doctors, not to mention isolated incidents like the guy who showed up at a Jewish day care with a gun a few years back.

This is where I wonder what you mean, and where we seem to miss each other. I primarily wonder if you realize how much a lot of the MidEast's anger at the West was a self-fulfilling prophecy on their own part.

Why would I realize such a thing? I haven't seen any compelling evidence to suggest it.

So the next time a nation is threatened with invasion or actually invaded, they should just bend over and let themselves get buttfucked? Are you aware that the Arabs actually invaded Israel, unprovoked, in 1973? That the Israelis counter-attacked while defending their own land? The Arabs started those wars, and lost. Tough for them. Maybe they shouldn't have started a war, then, huh?

I could spend a bunch of time I don't have refuting that (I have a final tomorrow), but Mike Wong already did it. This is from his Israel essay (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantM ... East.shtml):

1967 (Israel occupies 100% of Palestinian territory, attacks and annexes parts of neighbouring countries)

The Six Day War. Israel attacks Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, swiftly conquering large regions of new territory. They seize the Golan Heights from Syria, the Sinai from Egypt, and the West Bank from Jordan. They also seize all of Jerusalem, and begin a military occupation of the remaining portions of the former Palestinian territory. They claim that this is a strictly "defensive" operation (until then, the world had been blissfully unaware of the fact that a "defensive" operation could involve annexing huge regions of neighbouring territory, as opposed to simply defending your territory and/or destroying hostile military forces).

1973 (Egypt and Syria try to retake their land)

The Yom Kippur War. As expected, Egypt and Syria tried to take the Sinai and the Golan Heights back from Israel. Both were repulsed, thanks to a combination of American military aid and Israeli military prowess. Again, Israeli propaganda describes this as a "defensive" war. Think about it: Egypt and Syria were trying to take their own land back. Who's really on the defensive here?

Have you read the Declaration of Independence for the State of Israel? Where David Ben Gurion specifically asks for peace and cooperation and 'extends the hand of friendship to the Arab neighbors'? Were you aware of the UN Resolution which divided the land between the Arabs and Jews-- roughly half for both parties? The Jews accepted it, and the Arabs REJECTED it, REJECTED peaceful relations and declared war instead. So tell me again, who the fuck started that?

Why the hell would they accept a resolution that gives 55% of the land to 30% of the population and 6% percent of the landowners? What if you were being asked to give up your land to someone because their holy book tells them it's theirs?

And you want to ask about racism, ask why Hezbollah leader Sheikh Yassin refers to the dead Jews from the Jerusalm Sbarro Pizzeria blast as "pigs and monkeys" that should go unmourned?

When have I ever defended the murder of innocent Jews?

How about the amount of aid that the world gave to the Palestinian refugees? Did the Arabs help their "poor bretheren?" Or the "fascist" Israelis?:

"Between 1950 and 1974, the total of Israel's annual contributions to the Arab refugees through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, was higher than that of an Arab or Muslim state, with the exceptions of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, both of whom gave amounts similar to that of Israel. Algeria made no contribution"

Bear in mind that Saudi Arabia had oil revenues in excess of $75 billion dollars, yet contributed only $5,393,000.00 and Egypt $5,483,000.00. Israel, without any oil reserves, paid $5,015,000.00 dollars to the Palestinian refugees.

You mean the refugees whose homes they bulldozed? The refugees fleeing from them? Israel won't even pay as much as Saudi Arabia, an outside country that has been maligned for being cheap toward Palestinians, to help people that should be considered its own citizens, and you see that as generosity? I see it as a travesty.

The same Palestinians who then go and blow up civilians in terrorist attacks as a matter of policy. They seek out civilian targets . Such darlings!

Even during the most intense waves of suicide bombings, numbers of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians paled compared to Palestinian civilians killed by Israelis. Before you say they were all terrorists, they weren't. Israel routinely fires rockets into residential neighborhoods containing women and children to get at so-called terrorists who were never proven in a court of law to have done anything wrong. A year ago, I would have said that people in this country would be shocked and appalled if our government killed a suspected terrorist inside our borders without a trial, but that's sadly no longer the case. Nevertheless, it's arbitrary and it's wrong.

Oh, yes, we should never come to the aid of a country under attack and threat extermination. That's unjust.

It's unjust if the country came into being by stealing land that did not belong to them and that they had no legitimate claim to.

You're right. Saddam Hussein never signed a UN treaty stating that he would comply with weapons inspectors as a condition to peace in 1991; and after all, why should he? He has only shown time and time and time again in the past that he has no qualms whatosever about gassing people within and without his own borders.

What are you talking about? What does that have to do with invading Iraq?

After 9/11, people were asking, "where were our intelligence and security services? Why wasn't something done before it came to this?" So, should we kick back and wait till a gas bomb goes off somewhere and then worry about what we 'should' have done?

First of all, no one has produced the slightest shred of evidence that Saddam has WMD, and not even Rumsfeld thinks he has WMD that can target the U.S. Secondly, Saddam would be suicidal to even think about attacking the U.S., and he's driven by money and power, not principal like bin-Laden. He has neither the means nor the motive to attack the U.S. That claim is pure propaganda.

No, what I am seeing is a lot of arguements from the liberalist camp these days that mirror your own observation, which seems to be that if we leave Iraq alone, then all will be well. That is the hide-your-head-in-the-sand argument. We left Afghanistan alone back in the '80's, look what happened.

What are you talking about? We created the fucking Taliban in the '80s! If your definition of "left alone" is to supply aid and arms to fundamentalist wackos so they could kick out the Russians, then I guess that's what we did.

What they talk about and what they are going to do are usually two different things. Think about it: it is pretty obvious that Saddam is an evil goatfucker, but look at the difficulty we have in getting the world to go along with an attack on Iraq.

That's because the world isn't eating up Rumsfeld and Co.'s bullshit as eagerly as the American people.

What do you think the world will do if we start after Saudi Arabia? Attacking the land of Mohommed himself? Where the Qur'An is published?

Not to mention where Mecca is located. It would be lunacy.

It's posturing. We're trying to browbreat the House of Fahd to crack down, or get the citizens themselves so panicked that they press for reforms themselves.

Maybe you're right. Time will tell. If Saudi Arabia's not next, someone will be. Rumsfeld said that this war in Iraq will be "the first of many regime changes," last night on 60 Minutes.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

->Coyote & Arthur_Tuxedo
By the way my personal opinion is that you are both buying too much of the biased propaganda from both sides.
Both sides have committed unethical and unhuman acts against each-other. You are just pointing the finger at the other side.

What propaganda am I buying? When have I ever claimed that the Palestinians, or the Arab world in general is beyond reproach?

[Nixon]

Coyote wrote:
The original position you presented seemed, to me, that Arabs were anti-Western for reason that were solely Western fault...

Not solely, but mostly. Granted that most of the Middle Eastern population are fundies, and granted that part of their hatred is irrational, but if the U.S. had acted responsibly and not supported an anti-Arab expansionist empire with arms and shielded it from having to obey the U.N., those fundies' attention would be turned toward secularism in their own countries, and the U.S. would be a distant irrelevance.

Perhaps you should take a look at this link:

http://www.aynrand.org/israel/

Now if you can spend some time and read some of the op-eds and articles (please do so before you respond) you may change your mind in respect to Israel being Anti-Arab expansionists. Perhaps if you take some time and look at the history of aggression committed against Israel, you would understand Israel has a right to act the way it does to defend its existence. There's an infamous quote by Egyptian President Gamal Nasser's about "Driving the Jews into the Sea." Israel, although not the perfect model for liberty and individual rights, is light years better than the surrounding despots, murderous dictators, and intolerant theocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Also, the UN has no moral authority to strip Israel's right to defend itself. No one has that moral authority, you can't do that to the US, and you can't do that to any other country. The UN is not the bastion for liberty and freedom. It is quite simply a joke.

[Nixon]

The Six Day War. Israel attacks Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, swiftly conquering large regions of new territory. They seize the Golan Heights from Syria, the Sinai from Egypt, and the West Bank from Jordan. They also seize all of Jerusalem, and begin a military occupation of the remaining portions of the former Palestinian territory. They claim that this is a strictly "defensive" operation (until then, the world had been blissfully unaware of the fact that a "defensive" operation could involve annexing huge regions of neighbouring territory, as opposed to simply defending your territory and/or destroying hostile military forces).

Of course you forgot to mention Egypt, Jordan, and Syria initiated an unprovoked attack against Israel that lead to all that land Israel captured in that war. It's called self-defense, and when terrorists attack, you have every right to respond in retaliation. You must understand the difference between aggression and self-defense. Israel took those lands after the Arabs colluded to drive the Jews into the sea. Israel was in possesion of no Arab land before 1967. They were in possession after 1967, after they were ATTACKED. A small country can't just stand its ground to effectively defend itself, otherwise it would be annihilated easily. As a tactic to self-defense, and especially in that war, the Israelis had to take territory to stand its ground and weaken Arab attacks. Israel did not have the power to just simply destroy hostile military forces. The United States has the luxury of being surrounded by two large oceans, countries like Israel, that have been hated by their racist Arab neighbors from day one, don't have that luxury of geographic defense. They are on the front-line in the war on terror.

[Coyote]

Regarding Israel and the 1967 War...

I could spend a bunch of time I don't have refuting that (I have a final tomorrow), but Mike Wong already did it.

All due respect to Lord Wong, but he has accepted one side of the situation without looking at all the details. I suggest you may have done the same. This is not a shame, who has time to go digging for all the details in every news story?

I assure you and Mike both that the Israelis did not just wake up with a bug in their ass one day and decide to go fuck the neighbors. 1967 was preceeded by several events:

"Between 1949 and 1967 (when Israel was not threatening any borders or calling for any invasion and had, in fact, made clear their desire to live within safe and secure borders) the Arab leaders in Egypt and Syria repeated refused to make peace with Israel, or to accept her as a sovereign state.

"This refusal of the Arab states to accept even the existance of Israel was accompanied by the encouragement of continual terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and by a series of bellicose statements:"

"The Arab national aim is the elimination of Israel"
--President Nasser of Egypt to President Aref of Iraw, 25 May 1965

"The day of Realization of the Arab hope for the return of the refugees to Palestine means the liquidation of Israel"
--Abd' Allah al'Yafi, Lebanese Prime Minister, 19 April 1966

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight... the [Egyptian] mining of Sharm el-Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel"
-- President Nasser of Egypt, 27 May 1967

"With the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba, Israel is faced with two alternatives, either of which will destroy it; it will either be strangled to death by the Arab military and economic boycott, or it will perish by the fire of Arab forces encompassing it from the South and from the North and from the East"
-- Cairo Radio, 30 May 1967

"The existance of Israel iss an error that must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear-- to wipe Israel off the map"
--President Aref of Iraq, 31 May 1967

(on 25 May, 1967, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia moved their troops to Israel's borders. This was the first time since the armistace agreements in 1949 that Arab armies had gathered in such large numbers).

And the Golan Heights:

February-October 1966:
6 September: 7 land reclamation officers killed by Syrian land mine.
30 April: 4 Israeli farm workers wounded by Syrian machinegn fire.
5 June: Syrian atillery shell workers in fields
6 June: Syrian shells set Israeli farms ablaze
13 February: Syrians shoot as Israeli tractors with mortars.
12 July: Tractor driver wounded by Syrian mine.
26 September: Syrians fire on a fishing boat in Sea of Galilee.
21 February: Syrians fire mortar shells at patrol escorting fishermen on lake shore.
15 August: Syrians open fire on Israeli patrol boat, Israelis retaliate, 5 Israeli troops wounded.
22 February: Syrians fire on tactor.
29 March: Farmer wounded by Syrian machinegun fire.
30 March: Tractor driver wounded by Syrian artillery.
22 October: Tractor driver fired at.
9 October: 4 border policemen killed by Syrian mine.

January-April 1967:

8 January: Syrians machinegun settlements in Israeli land.
4 March: Tractor driver injured by Syrian mine.
14 January: Syrian mine kills Israeli soldier watching a footbal match.
3 January: Syrians fire on Israeli patrol.
8 April: 200 heavy mortar shells from Syria level the settlement of Gadot (in Israeli territory).
2 January: Syrian artillery shells the settleemnt of Korazim.
15 January: Syrians shell lake patrol boat.
14 April: Farmer seriously wounded by Syrian shell fire.
8 January: Syrians shell town of Notera.
15 February: Syrians fire at tractor.
4 January: Syrians shoot at a farmer at the town of Ein Gev
8 April: Cowshed hit by Syrian artillery, 8 cows killed.
7 January: Tractor driver in Tel Katzir shot at.

This is but a portion of the attacks that Israelis endured leading up to the 1967 war. The Syrians used the Golan Heights as a artillery station for the constant harassment of Israeli civilians. Most of their taregets, as you can see, were civilians and farms.

Would any sovereign nation be expected to it on their hands and do nothing during all this harassment and butcher of civilians? Israel had done nothing to provoke this. Then in 25 May 1967 the military movements to the border; the war-incitement statements of the leaders and press... are you still going to insist that the Israelis were the aggressors here?

Israel took land that had been used as nothing more than a giant sniping platform. They took it to secure their strategic positions and to protect their people. They withdrew from positions they'd taken beyond that need-- they were at the outskirts of Damascus itself.

Yes, it is inexcusable that the Israelis should do something to protect their people from attacks like this.

Why the hell would they accept a resolution that gives 55% of the land to 30% of the population and 6% percent of the landowners?

They got to vote, they got a chance, they refused. They started a war, and they lost. What other emergent nation allowed the natives to vote on their fate? If you're living in America, I have shocking news for you: you're on conquered imperial territory, extolling the virtues of tolerance and respect for the natives! How ironic is that? Did the Indians get to vote before a world body on the fate of their lands?

What if you were being asked to give up your land to someone because their holy book tells them it's theirs?

That's not the issue here. Besides, the Islamic doctrine states that the Jews were there first as well-- they base their legitimacy on the descent of Ishmael, Abraham's son through Hagar. Why could they not have pondered these words:

"We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement... We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome here... We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East, and our two movemnts compliment one another. The movement is national and not imperialistic. There is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be successful without the other."
-- The Emir Faisal to Felix Frankfurter, 3 March 1919

When have I ever defended the murder of innocent Jews?

Depends-- do people have the right to defend themselves from attack or not? If not, why not? How many times has Israel been attacked by Arab national forces or terrorists? Why is Israel chastised so much for defending its people?

You mean the refugees whose homes they bulldozed?

The bulldozing hadn't started then.

The refugees fleeing from them?

The Arab governments instructed the Palestinians to flee their homes because it would be unsafe to remain during the fighting, after the Arabs had crushed Israel they were expected to return. The Arabs that satyed were absorbed into Israel and now are Israeli citizens and have a higher standard of living and freedom than in any Arab government.

Israel won't even pay as much as Saudi Arabia, an outside country that has been maligned for being cheap toward Palestinians,

The Saudi governemnt contributed money and soldiers to the effort to destroy Israel and issued commands to the refugees to flee; they bear responsibility for turning those people into refugees as much as any Israeli.

... to help people that should be considered its own citizens, and you see that as generosity? I see it as a travesty.

The argument was that the Israelis were 'fascists'. Fascists would not give money to the relief agencies working to assist the people they were trying to destroy. Meanwhile, the Saudis who helped enflame the situation in the first place gave paltry amounts.

Even during the most intense waves of suicide bombings, numbers of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians paled compared to Palestinian civilians killed by Israelis.

What about the morality of a terrorist that runs into a crowd of civilians to use them as human shields after committing an act of terrorism? What magical formula is Israel supposed to use to go after terrorists in such a perfect way that only the terrorist is harmed? Is it Israel's fault that the terrorists use their own families and neighbors as 'meat armor'? Does it bother you that they do it?

As for terrorists not being given trials, many times they are when they are caught but they don't just lay down and let themselves be led off. They're terrorists, it's not a Hollywood police bust. And in a war, generally, soldiers don't arrest each other-- they shoot.

You're right. Saddam Hussein never signed a UN treaty ...

What are you talking about? What does that have to do with invading Iraq?

Why, everything. The reason we stopped fighting him in 1991 was because part of the treaty he signed with the United Nations stated that he would allow inspectors to enter his land and ascertain whether he was stockpiling WMDs, which he has used in the past. He has stonewalled us for 10 years-- we've shown restraint, actually.

First of all, no one has produced the slightest shred of evidence that Saddam has WMD, and not even Rumsfeld thinks he has WMD that can target the U.S.

The inspectors found mustard gas artillery shells last week.

He doesn't need a missile to reach the US, he only needs to give it to OBL or someone like him who'll have a martyr gleefully bring it to our shores himself. Besides, he'd probably use it on other countries nearby: Iran, Israel, etc... That is just as inescusable as attacking us.

What are you talking about? We created the fucking Taliban in the '80s!

We armed the mujahiddin, a collection of anti-Soviet tribes. The Taliban as an organization formed afterwards in the chaos and anarchy that followed. The Afghanis just fought to get rid of the Soviets because they did not want foreigners intervening in their affairs.

Had we stepped in to 'guide' Afghanistan after the USSR left, we would have been 'imperialists' in they eyes of them and everyone else. We would have been accused of setting up yet another 'puppet regime' so again, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[Coyote]

Regarding Islam and anti-Western bias:

... I point to the use of violence and terrorism to intimidate abortion doctors, not to mention isolated incidents like the guy who showed up at a Jewish day care with a gun a few years back.

But those fundamentalists are rare-- the exception, not the preached rule in every church. Most of the Muslim madrassah school system is geared towards an anti-Western way of thought.

The guy at the Jewsih day care was a Nazi type, they have their own problems with Jews, not always (although frequently) in sympathy with Fundamentalist Chiristianity.

I primarily wonder if you realize how much a lot of the MidEast's anger at the West was a self-fulfilling prophecy on their own part.

Why would I realize such a thing? I haven't seen any compelling evidence to suggest it.

Okay, the post where I explained the salafiyah movement-- basically, Islam feels that it is the most advanced form of religious devotion, aftre building on the primitive foundation of Judaism and the reformations introduced by Christianity.

During the lifetime of Mohommed and in the few years after his death, Islam made great military gains and was guided by the "Rashidun" or the "four Righteous Caliphs" or religious leaders: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali'. This was considerde the time of purity and enlightenment of Islam, when the 'umma (Body of believers) were guided by people who knew Mohommed in life and the influence in the air was still Divine.

Islam seeks to return to this purified time, and that movement is called the salfiyyah. The sayings of the Prophet Mohommed (and in the case of the Shia'a, his daughter Fatima as well) that were not part of the Qur'an are called the Hadith, and up until the 1400's or so it was allowable to question or interpret these sayings.

But this was seen as incompatible to salafiyyah, and the practice was officially discontinued. Now, to question or re-interpret the Hadith or the Qur'an itself is considered apostasy, and a person who does this is considered among the class of khufr, or refuters of Islam. They can be put to death; in fact it was under this mindset that Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death by fatwa (religious decree, like a holy law) of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

So-- as the years went by, and Islam no longer represented all that was advanced and superior (by clinging rigidly to Medieval philosophies and the desire for salfiyyah) they had to blame someone. They caught themselves in a bind:

The religious authorities couldn't admit that they were wrong without being apostates by their own definition; and they couldn't admit that Islam had failed them. Yet they were faced with the fact that the West, by becoming largely secular, had outdeveloped them.

The answer: Blame the West and continue to insist that Islam can 'have it all' yet still remain within the bounds of their Medival philosophy and social conditions. Any attempt to reform or modernize Islam is 'criticism' and by definition, apostasy. And this is entirely their own damn fault.

[Spoonist]

->Coyote & Arthur_Tuxedo
By the way my personal opinion is that you are both buying too much of the biased propaganda from both sides.
Both sides have committed unethical and unhuman acts against each-other. You are just pointing the finger at the other side.

What propaganda am I buying? When have I ever claimed that the Palestinians, or the Arab world in general is beyond reproach?

Never. Read my post again.
Since both of you are debating the issue as if one side is right you will never get anywhere.
In real life it's not that simple, the truth lies closer to neither side being right/just. They are both up to their chin in bullshit.

Now why I said that you are both buying the propaganda is because neither of you is showing the flaws of the side that you are advocating for.
You are both forgetting the important question WHY.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Btw, it's finals week, that's why I haven't read or responded yet, just so you don't think I chickened out

[Coyote]

No prob. I just finished finals, so you have my sympathy. I still have PTSD from Math..

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Regarding Israel and the 1967 War...

I could spend a bunch of time I don't have refuting that (I have a final tomorrow), but Mike Wong already did it.

All due respect to Lord Wong, but he has accepted one side of the situation without looking at all the details. I suggest you may have done the same. This is not a shame, who has time to go digging for all the details in every news story?

I assure you and Mike both that the Israelis did not just wake up with a bug in their ass one day and decide to go fuck the neighbors. 1967 was preceeded by several events:

"Between 1949 and 1967 (when Israel was not threatening any borders or calling for any invasion and had, in fact, made clear their desire to live within safe and secure borders) the Arab leaders in Egypt and Syria repeated refused to make peace with Israel, or to accept her as a sovereign state.

"This refusal of the Arab states to accept even the existance of Israel was accompanied by the encouragement of continual terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and by a series of bellicose statements:"

"The Arab national aim is the elimination of Israel"
--President Nasser of Egypt to President Aref of Iraw, 25 May 1965

"The day of Realization of the Arab hope for the return of the refugees to Palestine means the liquidation of Israel"
--Abd' Allah al'Yafi, Lebanese Prime Minister, 19 April 1966

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight... the [Egyptian] mining of Sharm el-Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel"
-- President Nasser of Egypt, 27 May 1967

"With the closing of the Gulf of Aqaba, Israel is faced with two alternatives, either of which will destroy it; it will either be strangled to death by the Arab military and economic boycott, or it will perish by the fire of Arab forces encompassing it from the South and from the North and from the East"
-- Cairo Radio, 30 May 1967

"The existance of Israel iss an error that must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear-- to wipe Israel off the map"
--President Aref of Iraq, 31 May 1967

(on 25 May, 1967, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia moved their troops to Israel's borders. This was the first time since the armistace agreements in 1949 that Arab armies had gathered in such large numbers).

And the Golan Heights:

February-October 1966:
6 September: 7 land reclamation officers killed by Syrian land mine.
30 April: 4 Israeli farm workers wounded by Syrian machinegn fire.
5 June: Syrian atillery shell workers in fields
6 June: Syrian shells set Israeli farms ablaze
13 February: Syrians shoot as Israeli tractors with mortars.
12 July: Tractor driver wounded by Syrian mine.
26 September: Syrians fire on a fishing boat in Sea of Galilee.
21 February: Syrians fire mortar shells at patrol escorting fishermen on lake shore.
15 August: Syrians open fire on Israeli patrol boat, Israelis retaliate, 5 Israeli troops wounded.
22 February: Syrians fire on tactor.
29 March: Farmer wounded by Syrian machinegun fire.
30 March: Tractor driver wounded by Syrian artillery.
22 October: Tractor driver fired at.
9 October: 4 border policemen killed by Syrian mine.

January-April 1967:

8 January: Syrians machinegun settlements in Israeli land.
4 March: Tractor driver injured by Syrian mine.
14 January: Syrian mine kills Israeli soldier watching a footbal match.
3 January: Syrians fire on Israeli patrol.
8 April: 200 heavy mortar shells from Syria level the settlement of Gadot (in Israeli territory).
2 January: Syrian artillery shells the settleemnt of Korazim.
15 January: Syrians shell lake patrol boat.
14 April: Farmer seriously wounded by Syrian shell fire.
8 January: Syrians shell town of Notera.
15 February: Syrians fire at tractor.
4 January: Syrians shoot at a farmer at the town of Ein Gev
8 April: Cowshed hit by Syrian artillery, 8 cows killed.
7 January: Tractor driver in Tel Katzir shot at.

This is but a portion of the attacks that Israelis endured leading up to the 1967 war. The Syrians used the Golan Heights as a artillery station for the constant harassment of Israeli civilians. Most of their taregets, as you can see, were civilians and farms.

Would any sovereign nation be expected to it on their hands and do nothing during all this harassment and butcher of civilians? Israel had done nothing to provoke this. Then in 25 May 1967 the military movements to the border; the war-incitement statements of the leaders and press... are you still going to insist that the Israelis were the aggressors here?

Israel, through acts of terrorism, took land that wasn't theirs and that they had no legitimate claim to for religious purposes. Of course they were the aggressors.

Israel took land that had been used as nothing more than a giant sniping platform. They took it to secure their strategic positions and to protect their people. They withdrew from positions they'd taken beyond that need-- they were at the outskirts of Damascus itself.

Yes, it is inexcusable that the Israelis should do something to protect their people from attacks like this.

Fine, take the land. That's not what bothers me. But when you take the land, you make it part of Israel and treat the occupants like citizens of Israel. Don't refer to it as the Occupied Terrotories, build Settlements and roads that go around Palestinian towns and cut them off, indiscriminately kill civilians and bulldoze homes, etc.

They got to vote, they got a chance, they refused. They started a war, and they lost. What other emergent nation allowed the natives to vote on their fate? If you're living in America, I have shocking news for you: you're on conquered imperial territory, extolling the virtues of tolerance and respect for the natives! How ironic is that? Did the Indians get to vote before a world body on the fate of their lands?

Native Americans have greater rights than you and me, not fewer! Wong has pointed this out numerous times before. Don't tell me you didn't see it.

That's not the issue here. Besides, the Islamic doctrine states that the Jews were there first as well-- they base their legitimacy on the descent of Ishmael, Abraham's son through Hagar. Why could they not have pondered these words:

"We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement... We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome here... We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East, and our two movemnts compliment one another. The movement is national and not imperialistic. There is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be successful without the other."
-- The Emir Faisal to Felix Frankfurter, 3 March 1919

It doesn't matter who was there first! The Jews left a long time ago. Ever heard of Squatter's rights? Again, Wong pointed this out. Why do you insist on trotting out arguments that have already been knocked down?

Depends-- do people have the right to defend themselves from attack or not? If not, why not? How many times has Israel been attacked by Arab national forces or terrorists? Why is Israel chastised so much for defending its people?

Let's flip this around. How many times have Arab civilians been attacked by the IDF? Why are the Arabs chastised so much for defending their people? Furthermore, "defending yourself from attack" is a far cry from bulldozing homes, firing rockets into residential zones, planting bombs in neighborhoods, firing on rock-throwing 10 year olds, and violating more treaties and conventions, most of which they signed, than in other nation in history.

The bulldozing hadn't started then.

Maybe not, but the killing had. When you have refugees that should be full citizens, that's saying a lot.

The Arab governments instructed the Palestinians to flee their homes because it would be unsafe to remain during the fighting, after the Arabs had crushed Israel they were expected to return. The Arabs that satyed were absorbed into Israel and now are Israeli citizens and have a higher standard of living and freedom than in any Arab government.

Yet the ones in the Occupied Territories can't vote, have free access to water, or get up each day without fearing that they may be gunned down by the IDF or have their home bulldozed without compensation. You're pointing to the minority living within Israel and shouting "See! Israel treats Arabs great," when the oppression has always been in the Occupied Territoes.

The Saudi governemnt contributed money and soldiers to the effort to destroy Israel and issued commands to the refugees to flee; they bear responsibility for turning those people into refugees as much as any Israeli.

When the attack failed, why didn't these refugees go back to their homes if the only reason they left was because the Saudis told them to?

The argument was that the Israelis were 'fascists'. Fascists would not give money to the relief agencies working to assist the people they were trying to destroy. Meanwhile, the Saudis who helped enflame the situation in the first place gave paltry amounts.

Fascists who are good at political spin-doctoring certainly would. And you're ignoring the point, those refugees should have been full citizens, and yet Israel gave even less than the no-good, stingy Saudis.

What about the morality of a terrorist that runs into a crowd of civilians to use them as human shields after committing an act of terrorism? What magical formula is Israel supposed to use to go after terrorists in such a perfect way that only the terrorist is harmed? Is it Israel's fault that the terrorists use their own families and neighbors as 'meat armor'? Does it bother you that they do it?

You're acting like the IDF even tries to minimize civilian casualties. Why isn't anyone ever punished for these "accidents"?

As for terrorists not being given trials, many times they are when they are caught but they don't just lay down and let themselves be led off. They're terrorists, it's not a Hollywood police bust. And in a war, generally, soldiers don't arrest each other-- they shoot.

A war, eh? So that means the Occupied Territories are sovereign nations, then? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Either the Territories are sovereign and Israel needs to get the fuck out, or they're part of Israel and the people there are full citizens. This isn't a war, and the terrorists aren't soldiers. The U.S. Army didn't come in and shoot McVeigh, and the IDF has no business shooting people with no trial.

Why, everything. The reason we stopped fighting him in 1991 was because part of the treaty he signed with the United Nations stated that he would allow inspectors to enter his land and ascertain whether he was stockpiling WMDs, which he has used in the past. He has stonewalled us for 10 years-- we've shown restraint, actually.

If the airstrike during the Clinton administration is your idea of restraint, I'd hate to see what you consider aggression. And I still don't know why we are talking about this. What's it got to do with this discussion?

The inspectors found mustard gas artillery shells last week.

Great. Now all he needs is a big ass railgun and he can start shelling the U.S. in no time .

He doesn't need a missile to reach the US, he only needs to give it to OBL or someone like him who'll have a martyr gleefully bring it to our shores himself. Besides, he'd probably use it on other countries nearby: Iran, Israel, etc... That is just as inescusable as attacking us.

But it's none of our business, unlike an attack on us. Furthermore, Saddam hasn't done shit and he's not going to do shit. He's the most visible target, and we're now about to go into his country and kill him without even waiting for an excuse. Under that kind of scrunity, why would he have ever wanted to give us one?

We armed the mujahiddin, a collection of anti-Soviet tribes. The Taliban as an organization formed afterwards in the chaos and anarchy that followed. The Afghanis just fought to get rid of the Soviets because they did not want foreigners intervening in their affairs.

In other words, we created the Taliban to get rid of the Soviets.

Had we stepped in to 'guide' Afghanistan after the USSR left, we would have been 'imperialists' in they eyes of them and everyone else. We would have been accused of setting up yet another 'puppet regime' so again, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

If you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, then you might as well do the right thing. Turning around and leaving is never the right thing.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Regarding Islam and anti-Western bias:

But those fundamentalists are rare-- the exception, not the preached rule in every church. Most of the Muslim madrassah school system is geared towards an anti-Western way of thought.

The guy at the Jewsih day care was a Nazi type, they have their own problems with Jews, not always (although frequently) in sympathy with Fundamentalist Chiristianity.

The religious school system should definitely be eradicated, as should any other trace of church and state cooperation. I'm with you there. Hopefully, the tides of progress will sweep them away.

Okay, the post where I explained the salafiyah movement-- basically, Islam feels that it is the most advanced form of religious devotion, aftre building on the primitive foundation of Judaism and the reformations introduced by Christianity.

During the lifetime of Mohommed and in the few years after his death, Islam made great military gains and was guided by the "Rashidun" or the "four Righteous Caliphs" or religious leaders: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali'. This was considerde the time of purity and enlightenment of Islam, when the 'umma (Body of believers) were guided by people who knew Mohommed in life and the influence in the air was still Divine.

Islam seeks to return to this purified time, and that movement is called the salfiyyah. The sayings of the Prophet Mohommed (and in the case of the Shia'a, his daughter Fatima as well) that were not part of the Qur'an are called the Hadith, and up until the 1400's or so it was allowable to question or interpret these sayings.

But this was seen as incompatible to salafiyyah, and the practice was officially discontinued. Now, to question or re-interpret the Hadith or the Qur'an itself is considered apostasy, and a person who does this is considered among the class of khufr, or refuters of Islam. They can be put to death; in fact it was under this mindset that Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death by fatwa (religious decree, like a holy law) of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

So-- as the years went by, and Islam no longer represented all that was advanced and superior (by clinging rigidly to Medieval philosophies and the desire for salfiyyah) they had to blame someone. They caught themselves in a bind:

The religious authorities couldn't admit that they were wrong without being apostates by their own definition; and they couldn't admit that Islam had failed them. Yet they were faced with the fact that the West, by becoming largely secular, had outdeveloped them.

The answer: Blame the West and continue to insist that Islam can 'have it all' yet still remain within the bounds of their Medival philosophy and social conditions. Any attempt to reform or modernize Islam is 'criticism' and by definition, apostasy. And this is entirely their own damn fault.

If this were true to the extent that you claim, there would not have been any progress at all in Islamic countries.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Of course you forgot to mention Egypt, Jordan, and Syria initiated an unprovoked attack against Israel that lead to all that land Israel captured in that war. It's called self-defense, and when terrorists attack, you have every right to respond in retaliation. You must understand the difference between aggression and self-defense. Israel took those lands after the Arabs colluded to drive the Jews into the sea. Israel was in possesion of no Arab land before 1967. They were in possession after 1967, after they were ATTACKED. A small country can't just stand its ground to effectively defend itself, otherwise it would be annihilated easily. As a tactic to self-defense, and especially in that war, the Israelis had to take territory to stand its ground and weaken Arab attacks. Israel did not have the power to just simply destroy hostile military forces. The United States has the luxury of being surrounded by two large oceans, countries like Israel, that have been hated by their racist Arab neighbors from day one, don't have that luxury of geographic defense. They are on the front-line in the war on terror.

Take it up with Wong. It's his article. I'm already involved in one debate, I don't need to start another one.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Perhaps you should take a look at this link:

http://www.aynrand.org/israel/

Now if you can spend some time and read some of the op-eds and articles (please do so before you respond) you may change your mind in respect to Israel being Anti-Arab expansionists. Perhaps if you take some time and look at the history of aggression committed against Israel, you would understand Israel has a right to act the way it does to defend its existence. There's an infamous quote by Egyptian President Gamal Nasser's about "Driving the Jews into the Sea." Israel, although not the perfect model for liberty and individual rights, is light years better than the surrounding despots, murderous dictators, and intolerant theocracies such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Also, the UN has no moral authority to strip Israel's right to defend itself. No one has that moral authority, you can't do that to the US, and you can't do that to any other country. The UN is not the bastion for liberty and freedom. It is quite simply a joke.

You may see this as an ad-hominem attack, and it is, but I'm not going to waste my time looking at something written by Ayn Rand supporters. Anyone who buys into ethical sociopathy is incapable of telling right from wrong or being honest.

[Admiral Piett]

"We Are Either With Israel, Or We Are With the Terrorists."

Wow,I am so impressed by this example of flawless argumentation.
I awaiting for Bush starting to go around proclaiming:"who is not for me,is for the terrorists".

[Admiral Piett]

For the chronicle, the USA have not created the talibans.The taliban movement is the brainchild of the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, the pakistan secret service.THEY created the talibans.This does not meant that the US did not have problems about helping Bin Laden style fundamentalists when they were so handy for the war in Afghanistan.

[Vympel]

Of course you forgot to mention Egypt, Jordan, and Syria initiated an unprovoked attack against Israel that lead to all that land Israel captured in that war. It's called self-defense, and when terrorists attack, you have every right to respond in retaliation. You must understand the difference between aggression and self-defense. Israel took those lands after the Arabs colluded to drive the Jews into the sea. Israel was in possesion of no Arab land before 1967. They were in possession after 1967, after they were ATTACKED. A small country can't just stand its ground to effectively defend itself, otherwise it would be annihilated easily. As a tactic to self-defense, and especially in that war, the Israelis had to take territory to stand its ground and weaken Arab attacks. Israel did not have the power to just simply destroy hostile military forces. The United States has the luxury of being surrounded by two large oceans, countries like Israel, that have been hated by their racist Arab neighbors from day one, don't have that luxury of geographic defense. They are on the front-line in the war on terror.

You're full of shit-

Attacked? Here's some reference quotes to enlighten you.

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Menahem Begin (New York Times, August 21, 1982)

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it."- Yitzhak Rabin (Israel's Chief of Staff during the Six Day War), Le Monde, February 28, 1968

General Mattitiahu Peled, Chief Quartermaster-General's Branch, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:

"All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded towards the full mobilization of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our defence against the Egyptian threat. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army."
(Le Monde, June 3, 1972)

General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:

"There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting."
(Ha' aretz, March 29, 1972)

General Yeshayahu Gavish, Commanding General Southern Command:

"The danger of Israel's extermination was hardly present before the Six-day war."
(Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection , New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, p. 558)

General Mordechai Hod, Commanding General, Israeli Air Force:

"Sixteen years planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we ate the plan. Constantly we perfected it."
(New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, pp. 558-559)

General Haim Barlev, Chief of General Staff Branch, Israeli Defence Forces:

"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."
(Ma' ariv, April 4, 1972)

General Chaim Herzog, Commanding General and first Military Govemor, Israeli Occupied West Bank:

"There was no danger of annihilation. Israeli headquarters never believed in this danger. "
(Ma' ariv, April 4, 1972)

Mordechai Bentov, Minister of Housing:

"The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory."
(Al-Hamishmar, April 14, 1971)

Yigal Allon, Minister of Labor and Member of Prime Minister Eshkol's Military Advisory Committee:

"Begin and I want Jerusalem."
(Eitan Haber, Menahem Begin: The Legend and the Man , New York: Delacorte Press, 1978 , p. 271)

General Meir Amit, the former head of Military Intelligence who was head of Mossad in 1967:

"There is going to be a war. Our army is now fully mobilized. But we cannot remain in that condition for long. Because we have a civilian army our economy is shuddering to a stop. We don't have the manpower right now even to bring in the crops. Sugar beets are rotting in the earth. We have to make quick decisions... If we can get the first blow in our casualties will be comparatively light..."
( Dennis Eisenberg, Uri Dan and Eli Landau, The Mossad: Israel's Secret Intelligence Service , New York: New American Library, 1978 , pp. 160-161.)

I fully expect you to run away screaming now, and post more bullshit later and hope nobody notices. Maybe you can give us some more brainless Fox News catch phrases like "front line in the war on terror".

[Falcon]

As I recall the total arab force that was threatening at the time was about 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft. Getting quotes from people later, who may have self serving interests, is hardly 'proof' When several nations who are known hostiles begin massing troops on your border you get a little worried.

[Vympel]

Excuse me?

Self-serving quotes later? Do you even KNOW who those people are?

Two divisions. From Israel's Chief of Staff DURING the war.

Try again.

[Falcon]

Excuse me?

Self-serving quotes later? Do you even KNOW who those people are?

Two divisions. From Israel's Chief of Staff DURING the war.

Try again.

I know who they are, but just because someone says something doesn't mean its a fact, it is their interpertation of events, their opinion, or maybe their spin on the issue. Why should we accept these quotes as the truth, and the whole truth?

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Of course you forgot to mention Egypt, Jordan, and Syria initiated an unprovoked attack against Israel that lead to all that land Israel captured in that war. It's called self-defense, and when terrorists attack, you have every right to respond in retaliation. You must understand the difference between aggression and self-defense. Israel took those lands after the Arabs colluded to drive the Jews into the sea. Israel was in possesion of no Arab land before 1967. They were in possession after 1967, after they were ATTACKED. A small country can't just stand its ground to effectively defend itself, otherwise it would be annihilated easily. As a tactic to self-defense, and especially in that war, the Israelis had to take territory to stand its ground and weaken Arab attacks. Israel did not have the power to just simply destroy hostile military forces. The United States has the luxury of being surrounded by two large oceans, countries like Israel, that have been hated by their racist Arab neighbors from day one, don't have that luxury of geographic defense. They are on the front-line in the war on terror.

You're full of shit-

Attacked? Here's some reference quotes to enlighten you.

<SNIP!>

I fully expect you to run away screaming now, and post more bullshit later and hope nobody notices. Maybe you can give us some more brainless Fox News catch phrases like "front line in the war on terror".

There were troop movements outside Israeli borders, that is undeniable. And while they didn't have the power to destroy Israel, they had the ability to inflict casualties.

A war was coming, maybe not right then, but soon. And yes, the Israelis had planned their response for a long time, probably since the end of the last Arab - Israeli war. And that's the smart thing to do. They saw they had an openning to eliminate their neighbours ability to attack them, and they took it. If you can't see why that was the right thing to do you are blinded by emotions.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

For the chronicle, the USA have not created the talibans.The taliban movement is the brainchild of the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, the pakistan secret service.THEY created the talibans.This does not meant that the US did not have problems about helping Bin Laden style fundamentalists when they were so handy for the war in Afghanistan.

OK, to be more accurate, the U.S. armed and supported fundies, setting in motion a chain of events that led to the creation of the Taliban. Not a big difference in my book.

[Sir Sirius]

I know who they are, but just because someone says something doesn't mean its a fact, it is their interpertation of events, their opinion, or maybe their spin on the issue.

???

OK, so if Menahem Begin the Prime Minister of Israel from 1977 to 1983, Yitzhak Rabin I.D.F.'s Chief of Staff during the Six Day War and the Prime Minister of Israel 1974-1977 and 1992-1995, General Mattitiahu Peled, General Ezer Weizman, General Yeshayahu Gavish, General Mordechai Hod, General Haim Barlev, General Chaim Herzog aren't authorities on the Six Day War who the fuck is?

I dare find someone more qualified to "interprete" the Six Day War then the men who were actualy in charge back then.

And are you now seriously accusing two former Prime Ministers of Israel and 6 Israeli generals of being a part of some kind of a anti-Israel conspiracy and lying about the Six Day War and their own thoughts and actions during the war?

Why should we accept these quotes as the truth, and the whole truth?

Because these are the men that DO KNOW the truth, and the whole truth, if anyone does.

Jesus, what will it take to convince an Israeli apologist? I'm willing to bet that even if Yahveh himself decended from the heaveans and explaned it to Falcon, he'd just stick his fingers in his ears and start singing: "I don't belief you,LALAA,I don't belief you,LALAA,I don't belief you,LALAA Etc.".

[HemlockGrey]

Nixon, if Israel was defending herself, why the fuck did she ride out like Alexander and annex everything in sight?

[Falcon]

Nixon, if Israel was defending herself, why the fuck did she ride out like Alexander and annex everything in sight?

to create a buffer zone between herself and invasion armies? granted this purpose has been defeated over the years by settlements, but having a region between your cities and the enemy definately has military defense merits

[Vympel]

Falcon, I have provided evidence from authorative sources (referenced) that indicates the nature of the 1967 war. Now that I have provided it, if you wish to challenge it, the burden is on you to challenge their veracity. Simply repeating the common 'Israel was about to be annihilated so they defended themselves' myth isn't going to cut it.