Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby cynic » Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:49 am

FrankChurch wrote:The Cold War was World War 3, the fake War on Terror is World War 4. World War 4--that's when the aliens come.

I'm stating a fact not making any moral point. I did notice you backtrack. Player Haidter. lol
meh, "wwiii" has yet to be assigned even colloquially.
that's why you called it the cold war.
if by "backtrack", you mean "elaborate" yes,

never hate the player kid, only their destructive, counterproductive games.
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:37 pm

I'm not the first one to say that. Best to be more offended at Barry's evil kill list. Makes me love Jill Stein, to be sure.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Jun 08, 2012 1:44 pm

Israel is building more settlements in the West Bank. What in fucks name! Argggggggg.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:06 pm

Holy shit, watch this Sixty Minutes episode about the Holy Land and the clash with Israel about Palestinian Christians. Watch near the eleven minute mark when the asshole Michael Oren does something amazing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf1z4oHygPo

Now you know why our side is so strident on this issue.

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Fri Jun 08, 2012 2:57 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Israel is building more settlements in the West Bank. What in fucks name! Argggggggg.


You know, I'm no fan of Israel or its policies, but I have to say, I don't quite get why everyone is so nonplussed about their settlements. They're operating on a very old, very established principle that, while it sort of went by the wayside in the 20th Century, still shouldn't be that hard for people to understand. It's the "We won the damn war, we're keeping the damn territory" principle.

In this case there were a few of them. I'm surprised they keep Sinai.

Just sayin'

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby cynic » Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:47 pm

turn back the clock frank, everyone go back where they started, isrealites go back to europe where they didn't come from and...
wait...nevermind.
make all the americans go back to ... wait...nevermind.
i wanna do over! :x

more on... oooo; haidt and sowell in the same paragraph!!!
gather round robofrank !
burn the witches, yaaaaay!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/scien ... .html?_r=1
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Ezra Lb. » Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:01 pm

What is truly evil is the entire concept of the "Holy Land" descended through Judaism to Christianity and Islam from Ancient Near East religions. These mindless, barbaric little parochialisms should have died with the advent of the space age.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1G ... re=related
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Steve Evil » Sat Jun 09, 2012 4:21 am

Mark Tiedemann wrote:"We won the damn war, we're keeping the damn territory" principle.



Yeah, but we're supposed to have moved beyond that. . .

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:41 am

Steve Evil wrote:
Mark Tiedemann wrote:"We won the damn war, we're keeping the damn territory" principle.



Yeah, but we're supposed to have moved beyond that. . .



By what international treaty or agreement? I agree with you emotionally and it would be better without it, but Israel decided to ignore that, and not without cause. We should not forget a couple of things: one, in all those wars, Israel was attacked, not the other way around, and two, the stated goal of those doing the attacking was the total destruction of Israel.

They have existed since 1948 in a world surrounded by states who made no bones about the fact that they wanted to eliminate Israel from existence. It's hard not to be paranoid. We forget that it wasn't till the Seventies that a Muslim state----Egypt---got over itself long enough to sign an agreement with Israel that included recognition of Israel's right to exist. There is still not consensus in the Middle East for that simple guarantee.

So it becomes a chicken-and-egg question. In response to all that, Israel took territory as buffer. The Soviet Union did it after WWII and for the same reasons. I'm merely suggesting that the stakes are not simply diplomatic where Israel is concerned. They give up territory, their enemies move closer.

Do I think they should give up that territory? Sure, with certain agreements, internationally enforced, in place. Such agreements have yet to be made. Should Israel stop treating the Palestinians like vermin? Absolutely. They should also stop hoarding the water. (Part of the snag on the Palestinian side of all this has been the fact that the territory Israel took and is keeping contains most of the major aquifers in the region---but that is something you almost never see discussed in Western media, left or right.) It's a tangled mess.

All I'm suggesting is that Israel's behavior is not totally demonic here. They have reasons which we tend to ignore or discount.

User avatar
Ezra Lb.
Posts: 4547
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:02 am
Location: Washington, DC

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Ezra Lb. » Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:11 am

Mark I don't disagree with what you're saying. But if it does come down to realpolitik, survival, as the ambassador says in Frank's clip, then why the need for this constant claim of moral superiority on the part of the Israelis? They are the ones who deny that they're not just conquerors.

What the Israelis wish everyone to forget is that their state was imposed on the region by force. And given the ideology of the Arabs dominated as they are by the most reactionary forms of religion, why is anyone shocked at their response?
“We must not always talk in the marketplace,” Hester Prynne said, “of what happens to us in the forest.”
-Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter

DanielBarron
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 8:41 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby DanielBarron » Sat Jun 09, 2012 8:27 am

Israel did offer to return ALL of the territories captured in 1967 immediately after the war. The response was the Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967: "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it." That continues to be the position of the majority of Israel's enemies until this day.

Their state was not entirely imposed on the region by force, unlike 99% of the countries on earth (the U.S. included), unless you discount UN General Assembly Resolution 181. Perhaps you can point to another country any country whose creation has more legitimacy.

"Never in the history of warfare did the victor sue for peace -- and the vanquished refuse."
Abba Eban

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Sat Jun 09, 2012 11:23 am

Ezra Lb. wrote:What the Israelis wish everyone to forget is that their state was imposed on the region by force. And given the ideology of the Arabs dominated as they are by the most reactionary forms of religion, why is anyone shocked at their response?


Just taking your formulation at face value, then so would a Palestinian state, as one did not exist in any recognizable form. It was all part of the Mandate that was in place between WWI and WWII. For that matter, almost none of the Middle Eastern "states" existed in their current form until statehood was "imposed" on them in the wake of the Versaille Treaty. It was all "Arabia" or "Persia." There was a Lebanon and a Syria of sorts, the Arab Emirates didn't exist, they were created out of whole cloth. Israel was carved out of territory that was under British and French caretakership---I use that term loosely---as the entire colonial structure of the Middle East (and several other places around the world) was coming undone.

For that matter, there was never an "India" in any kind of uniform political entity until the 20th century, nor an Indonesia. And many of these post-colonial entities contained transplanted populations.

The problem we have now is a relatively modern one. Israel has been acting the fascist in suppressing non-Israeli populations. A better way could have been found. Partly, just legitimizing the Palestinians in the first place---making them de facto Israelis---would have solved many of these problems, but it would have made Israeli Jews a minority population in their own state. That has obvious problems. The rest of the Arab world could have found territory to grant the Palestinians for their own state, but frankly none of them wanted those people in their neck of the woods, either. The solution for them was to have the Palestinians stay where they are and become the dominant political entity, which Israel wasn't about to tolerate. The Palestinians have been the football in a protracted political game for 60 years and it hasn't all been Israel that's been intransigent.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:00 pm

You do know that states cannot take land by force in a war? There's a word for it--ah, I think it's called colonialism.

When we talk about Israel, we should always mention the fact that the US props up Israel with funding and arms. When Israel does things we sign off on them, even when are technically critical. We condemned the Goldstone Report, knowing nobody here read it. We sided with Israel during Operation Cast Lead, during the illegal seige of the Gaza Flotilla. Money from here funds the settlements. We won't even stop that.

What should happen is Israel/The US should negociate with the Palestinians and the rest of the world, who support two states on the 67 borders. Israel wants expansion, so they risk destruction for land. Until they get sane or are pressured there will be stalemate.

--------

Mark, you're new, so you may have not seen me say this: states are never legitimate. States are power centers and centers of violence. Nation states have to live by rules, this is why we have a UN Charter. Until Israel lives by the charter they remain a criminal state.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:08 pm

This is a biggie: Obama did collude with drug companies. So much for the socialist-in-chief:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47745646/ns ... ork_times/

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Frank Church's news corner, the sequel.

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Sat Jun 09, 2012 1:31 pm

FrankChurch wrote: Mark, you're new, so you may have not seen me say this: states are never legitimate. States are power centers and centers of violence. Nation states have to live by rules, this is why we have a UN Charter. Until Israel lives by the charter they remain a criminal state.


I don't even know where to begin with that.

Well, why not with this: states are never legitimate? Then there is no basis for negotiation between population groups, because for that to happen, a state must come into existence to represent them. Anything less is chaos.

Superlatives are always wrong, Frank.

States are legitimate once a substantial number of other states recognize them as such. That's pretty much a principle going back to neolithic times. So that part of the statement is gobbledygook.

Yes, states are power centers and part of that power is the capacity to project violence. Again, always has been the case. Any state that rejects violence won't last long, unless it has allies who will use violence on its behalf. This is reality.

Force of law is based on violence, real and theoretical. Law is coercive.

You're living in a house and all your neighbors hate you. From time to time they try to evict you, occasionally shoot at you, and you find yourself forced to shoot back because no one apparently will stop them. Then one day, someone does and he comes to your door and says, "They won't bother you anymore, so would kindly surrender your weapons so we can have peace in the neighborhood?" "Why?" you ask. "Well, they say they won't surrender theirs' till you surrender yours." You look at this guy and ask "So, where do you live?" "On the other side of the country."

I would be inclined to say "Fuck you" as well.

This is what Israel has been living with since its creation. They have become unpleasant, brutal people, and now pre-emptively shoot at, burn down, and trash their neighbors. As a nation, they've been traumatized, which is tough because they began as a nation of traumatized people.

This is the like saying that Russia shouldn't be paranoid just because it has a thousand year history of being invaded. Repeatedly. It was legitimate to condemn what they became, because they heaped the same crap right back out the door that they'd been on the receiving end of. But it's irresponsible to forget that history.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests