[Archived] Ashamed

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

US drones TARGET civilians?

What a foolish comment.

What's foolish about it. The U.S. have targeted " bad guys " in the past knowing full well that innocent people in the near vicinity would be killed or injured. Would you walk any better after having lost both your legs knowing that you weren't the real target but just got in the way ! Look on the Internet, didn't you see the shocking film of trigger happy U.S. helicopter jockeys shooting up innocent people like it was a video game ?

If only it was as easy as right or wrong, it's much more complex than that. That's why our simplistic attempts to find a solution aren't working.

[Amo]

Human rights doesn't require us to behave stupidly or play a game of hear no evil, speak no evil and see no evil.

Qatada fled Jordan, a nominal ally, and was convicted of being a terrorist. Ergo, he's a convicted terrorist.

Qatada entered the country illegally and on forged papers. Ergo, he's a criminal.

Qatada has issued religious proclamations calling for the murder of innocent men, women and children who convert from Islam to other religions. Ergo, he's a propagandist for terrorists.

Qatada was found with hundreds of thousands of dollars, earmarked for Chechean terrorists. Ergo, he's a financier of terrorists.

Qatada has attempted to incite riots. Ergo, he's breached or attempted to breach the public peace.

I don't know much about the man, but what little I do know tells me that he's not merely an unpleasant individual but he's a criminal and a supporter of terror. In a sane society, the only question we should be discussing is whether he should be deported to Jordan or, alternatively, fitted for a hangman's noose.

Spoken like a true Republican.

[Steve Moss]

Spoken like a true Republican.

Thank you.

But do we agree on the main ennumerated data points?

If we do, what is offensive or mistaken in my conclusions?

I think its beyond reasonable debate that cultures, like all things, tend toward entropy and decay. My fear, which is of course debatable, is that we are closer to the end game as opposed to our height, and that sad state of affairs is more the result of our current generation's passivity as opposed to any inherent defect in western culture.

From my perspective, our 'civilization' is entering an era where form becomes more important than substance under the guise of law, where beaucracy controls, regulates and ultimately stifles individual creativity in the name of equality and safety, and where hesitancy and doubt trump action citing moral equivalency. I think we're handicapping ourselves near to the point of cultural suicide and we'd best wake up to that sad fact and adjust course, sooner rather than later.

The circus surrounding what to do with Qatada is but one of many symptoms of our self-destructive tendencies.

[thenodrog]

Toppers , hand on heart and be honest.. Is he a good honest hard working British Citezan and would you have him round your gaffe for a cuppa and a chin wag ? Would you trust him if he wanted to say use your computer and have his and bin ladens pals round?

Dunno about Topman Abbey but I'd rather not....... I can't say for definite but he looks to me like he might seriously pen and ink.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I see there's another election coming up in Israel. Time to stir the Middle East cauldron again. Have the Israelis learnt nothing over the past decades ?

[Steve Moss]

I see there's another election coming up in Israel. Time to stir the Middle East cauldron again. Have the Israelis learnt nothing over the past decades ?

Yes, namely that it cannot trust its neighbors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel

Rocket attacks from Palestine by year:

2012, 858 and counting

2011, 680

2010, 365

2009, 858

2008, 3,716

2007, 2,807

2006, 1,777

2005, 1,255

2004, more than 281

2003, more than 155

2002, more than 35

2001, more than 4

This does not count the rocket attacks from Lebanon or the suicide bombings.

Israel is approximately 21,000 square kilometers in size. By contrast, Lancashire, England is roughly 3,000 square kilometers in size.

Divide the number of Palestinian rocket attacks from the Gaza strip by 7 each year. Ignore the suicide bombings and the Lebanon based attacks. Is there anyone reading this who would tolerate the situation for even a moment if it were directed against their homes?

By way of comparison, my county is about 35,000 square kilometers in size. I and my fellow residents wouldn't tolerate 1% of what the Israelis have endured.

All in all, Israel has been remarkably restrained. By rights, it's response should be far more decisive, which would largely be interpreted as vicious and brutal. But when survival is the goal, vicious and brutal is perfectly appropriate.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Israel has become a cause, but originally it was a convenient move that Britain imagined might give them a little security around the Suez Canal. It became a cause largely because people felt guilty about the Holocaust, but having committed one injustice through that guilt we can't now allow our sympathy to colour our perspective as Israel now flirts with a new genocide (and if you look at the numbers it is that serious).

Israel builds settlements on land that doesn't belong to them, taking up resources that could sustain a reasonable standard of living for the surrounding areas and squandering them. There's a settlement in the West Bank that has a swimming pool, meanwhile the local Palestinians survive on two deliveries of water per week. There are roads that Palestinians cannot travel on and they can vote in elections (the elections of a state that doesn't officially exist), but the results of free and fair elections are subsequently ignored because they failed to vote for the US/Israel-approved candidate. Around Gaza a wall has been built that lies outside Israeli territory and is patrolled by military forces, and even medical supplies and food are forcefully denied entry. The West Bank is still effectively policed by the Israeli military. Houses have been destroyed with nothing built to replace them and no provision given to the people who have lost their homes.

An import-export ban has long been imposed on Gaza, crippling what economic activity might flourish there, yet when South Africa chose to label certain products as originating in "Occupied Territories" they started crying about it. I wonder why they object to consumers being informed of a simple fact? Could it be that they know that a lot of people have a moral objection to their activities?

In the 22 day incursion into Gaza in 2008-9 there were 1,417 Palestinians killed. That's more than the total number of Israelis killed by Palestinians this century, and those figures are taken from Israeli sources. In 2009 there were 314 Palestinian children killed by military strikes compared with 129 Israeli children since 2000.

Israel and it's big brother consistently block any attempt to recognise Palestine as a state or protect the rights of Palestinians at the UN, and it was Ehud Barak that walked away from talks over a two-state solution at the end of Clinton's presidency. Israel has adopted a tactic of nominally engaging in peace talks while simultaneously making a contiguous Palestinian state impossible and ensuring that conditions become so bad in Palestine that its inhabitants are condemned to poverty or forced to flee. It's almost funny that the tactics of Israel should look so much like they were lifted straight from Hitler's playbook.

Israel talks about terrorism without so much as a nod to how their own state came to be. If a Palestinian were to look through a history book then the lesson they would learn is that if you want to be granted statehood then terrorism works. Yes, a number of attacks originate in Lebanon and Syria, but it is more than possible that there's a connection between those attacks and the number of displaced Palestinians living in those countries.

Forgive me if I don't cry too much about Israel, but their behaviour is beyond the pale for a civilised country. We haven't even addressed their illegal development of a "nuclear deterrent" or their efforts to assist the South African Apartheid regime in doing likewise. If ever there was a "rogue state" then Israel seems to fit the bill nicely, except that you're only "rogue" if you don't agree with American interests, and as long as you let Washington dictate certain policies then you can pretty much do what you want without being called out for it.

And that brings us to the absolute daddy of hypocrisy: The USA. Terrorism such a big concern now? Funny how they didn't feel that way when they were turning a blind eye to the funding of the IRA. Think of Ismail Haniyah as a Middle Eastern Gerry Adams and Hassan Nasrallah as a Muslim Michael McKevitt. Where was the furore about sponsoring terrorism when NORAID was in full swing?

That's only scratching the surface, but I'll finish with the most tragic part of it all. The innocent victims, the civilians who live through this conflict every day, on both sides, mostly aren't interested in revenge. Popular opinion in Israel and Palestine is that there should be a mutual recognition of rights and borders (even to the point that most Israelis would concede territory outside the 1967 borders), and they agree that there should be a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. But when has popular opinion ever counted for anything?

[SydneyRover]

Israel has become a cause, but originally it was a convenient move that Britain imagined might give them a little security around the Suez Canal. It became a cause largely because people felt guilty about the Holocaust, but having committed one injustice through that guilt we can't now allow our sympathy to colour our perspective as Israel now flirts with a new genocide (and if you look at the numbers it is that serious).

Israel builds settlements on land that doesn't belong to them, taking up resources that could sustain a reasonable standard of living for the surrounding areas and squandering them. There's a settlement in the West Bank that has a swimming pool, meanwhile the local Palestinians survive on two deliveries of water per week. There are roads that Palestinians cannot travel on and they can vote in elections (the elections of a state that doesn't officially exist), but the results of free and fair elections are subsequently ignored because they failed to vote for the US/Israel-approved candidate. Around Gaza a wall has been built that lies outside Israeli territory and is patrolled by military forces, and even medical supplies and food are forcefully denied entry. The West Bank is still effectively policed by the Israeli military. Houses have been destroyed with nothing built to replace them and no provision given to the people who have lost their homes.

An import-export ban has long been imposed on Gaza, crippling what economic activity might flourish there, yet when South Africa chose to label certain products as originating in "Occupied Territories" they started crying about it. I wonder why they object to consumers being informed of a simple fact? Could it be that they know that a lot of people have a moral objection to their activities?

In the 22 day incursion into Gaza in 2008-9 there were 1,417 Palestinians killed. That's more than the total number of Israelis killed by Palestinians this century, and those figures are taken from Israeli sources. In 2009 there were 314 Palestinian children killed by military strikes compared with 129 Israeli children since 2000.

Israel and it's big brother consistently block any attempt to recognise Palestine as a state or protect the rights of Palestinians at the UN, and it was Ehud Barak that walked away from talks over a two-state solution at the end of Clinton's presidency. Israel has adopted a tactic of nominally engaging in peace talks while simultaneously making a contiguous Palestinian state impossible and ensuring that conditions become so bad in Palestine that its inhabitants are condemned to poverty or forced to flee. It's almost funny that the tactics of Israel should look so much like they were lifted straight from Hitler's playbook.

Israel talks about terrorism without so much as a nod to how their own state came to be. If a Palestinian were to look through a history book then the lesson they would learn is that if you want to be granted statehood then terrorism works. Yes, a number of attacks originate in Lebanon and Syria, but it is more than possible that there's a connection between those attacks and the number of displaced Palestinians living in those countries.

Forgive me if I don't cry too much about Israel, but their behaviour is beyond the pale for a civilised country. We haven't even addressed their illegal development of a "nuclear deterrent" or their efforts to assist the South African Apartheid regime in doing likewise. If ever there was a "rogue state" then Israel seems to fit the bill nicely, except that you're only "rogue" if you don't agree with American interests, and as long as you let Washington dictate certain policies then you can pretty much do what you want without being called out for it.

And that brings us to the absolute daddy of hypocrisy: The USA. Terrorism such a big concern now? Funny how they didn't feel that way when they were turning a blind eye to the funding of the IRA. Think of Ismail Haniyah as a Middle Eastern Gerry Adams and Hassan Nasrallah as a Muslim Michael McKevitt. Where was the furore about sponsoring terrorism when NORAID was in full swing?

That's only scratching the surface, but I'll finish with the most tragic part of it all. The innocent victims, the civilians who live through this conflict every day, on both sides, mostly aren't interested in revenge. Popular opinion in Israel and Palestine is that there should be a mutual recognition of rights and borders (even to the point that most Israelis would concede territory outside the 1967 borders), and they agree that there should be a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. But when has popular opinion ever counted for anything?

+ 100

Steve Moss didn't actually mention how many civilians the Israelis had killed versus the Palestinians when he called Israel's response "remarkably restrained".

I suggest you stop watching so much Fox News and start reading around other sources.

[Steve Moss]

Israel has become a cause, but originally it was a convenient move that Britain imagined might give them a little security around the Suez Canal.

If Britain created the problem, perhaps Britain should send 50,000 or so peacekeepers into the Gaza strip to maintain order and ensure that no attacks originate from Gaza into Israel or vice-versa? Perhaps these peacekeepers could keep more Palestinian innocents alive by preventing them from using women and children as human shields.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Britain sending peacekeepers didn't work so well. It ended up with both sides attacking British policemen and the Zionists blowing up the King David Hotel. British diplomats were regularly the targets of assassination attempts and the British realised that they had created a Golem. Realising the cost of trying to police its mistake, the British government pulled out of Palestine entirely and war broke out.

However, if we're going to talk about who should be policing what, then doesn't your logic dictate that America should send a large force to Baghdad to prevent the sectarian violence that keeps bubbling up there? When they've left Afghanistan and the trouble doesn't end they'll need to send people there, too, although maybe there's an argument to be had with the Russians over that one.

The "human shields" bit is garbage. The truth is that Gaza city is very densely populated and when you drop a bomb it kills most of the people in the area. "Human shields" is just a more positive spin than the rather callous "collateral damage".

Maybe it would sound more convincing if Israel made any attempt to really stand behind even basic principles of combat. But when a soldier is sentenced to a whole 45 days in prison for shooting two women who were waving a white flag, you have to wonder what's really going on. 45 days for a war crime? 45 days for double murder?

Then there's the American woman who was crushed by a bulldozer that was illegally destroying the home of a Palestinian family. Instead of blaming the driver of the bulldozer who deliberately caused her death, the Israeli courts decided it was her own fault for not moving out of the way. A policeman was cleared of wrongdoing after shooting a 10-year-old in the head on the grounds that "there was no proof that the bullet killed the boy". I guess the bullet wound to the forehead wasn't conclusive enough. Then there's the Breaking the Silence booklet, in which Israeli soldiers admit to the routine abuses of Palestinians in the IDF's daily practices.

While we're on a roll, anyone who wants Abu Qatada locked up for his rhetoric might want to check out Joshua Trevino. He doesn't have quite the same frothing-at-the-mouth style, but he does advocate the killing of anyone trying to bring aid to Gaza. He was a speech writer for George W. Bush. Isn't it strange how it's acceptable when the boot is on the other foot?

[Amo]

Britain sending peacekeepers didn't work so well. It ended up with both sides attacking British policemen and the Zionists blowing up the King David Hotel. British diplomats were regularly the targets of assassination attempts and the British realised that they had created a Golem. Realising the cost of trying to police its mistake, the British government pulled out of Palestine entirely and war broke out.

However, if we're going to talk about who should be policing what, then doesn't your logic dictate that America should send a large force to Baghdad to prevent the sectarian violence that keeps bubbling up there? When they've left Afghanistan and the trouble doesn't end they'll need to send people there, too, although maybe there's an argument to be had with the Russians over that one.

The "human shields" bit is garbage. The truth is that Gaza city is very densely populated and when you drop a bomb it kills most of the people in the area. "Human shields" is just a more positive spin than the rather callous "collateral damage".

Maybe it would sound more convincing if Israel made any attempt to really stand behind even basic principles of combat. But when a soldier is sentenced to a whole 45 days in prison for shooting two women who were waving a white flag, you have to wonder what's really going on. 45 days for a war crime? 45 days for double murder?

Then there's the American woman who was crushed by a bulldozer that was illegally destroying the home of a Palestinian family. Instead of blaming the driver of the bulldozer who deliberately caused her death, the Israeli courts decided it was her own fault for not moving out of the way. A policeman was cleared of wrongdoing after shooting a 10-year-old in the head on the grounds that "there was no proof that the bullet killed the boy". I guess the bullet wound to the forehead wasn't conclusive enough. Then there's the Breaking the Silence booklet, in which Israeli soldiers admit to the routine abuses of Palestinians in the IDF's daily practices.

While we're on a roll, anyone who wants Abu Qatada locked up for his rhetoric might want to check out Joshua Trevino. He doesn't have quite the same frothing-at-the-mouth style, but he does advocate the killing of anyone trying to bring aid to Gaza. He was a speech writer for George W. Bush. Isn't it strange how it's acceptable when the boot is on the other foot?

/THREAD

[Steve Moss]

However, if we're going to talk about who should be policing what, then doesn't your logic dictate that America should send a large force to Baghdad to prevent the sectarian violence that keeps bubbling up there?

We offered to keep an American military presence in Iraq. The Iraqis declined.

When was the last time Britain offered to police the Gaza strip? How many British soldiers were killed? How does that compare to the numbers of Israelis and Palestinians killed?

While we're on a roll, anyone who wants Abu Qatada locked up for his rhetoric might want to check out Joshua Trevino. He doesn't have quite the same frothing-at-the-mouth style, but he does advocate the killing of anyone trying to bring aid to Gaza. He was a speech writer for George W. Bush. Isn't it strange how it's acceptable when the boot is on the other foot?

Qatada's conduct has gone beyond mere rhetoric. When he entered illegally on forged documents, was that mere rhetoric? When he evaded arrest, was that mere rhetoric? When he raised money for terrorists, was that mere rhetoric? Was his terrorism conviction based on mere rhetoric?

And considering that British taxpayers have spent between 500,000 and 3 million to support him and protect his rights to you think you've gotten value for money? Shouldn't British tax money be spent to support British citizens, not Jordanian?

[Jeru tha Damaja]

You can be quite sure that if Britain offered to police Gaza they would be declined. Israel quite likes keeping its own foot firmly on the neck of Palestine because that scenario allows them to play by their own rules rather than any reasonable international standard.

I wasn't actually advocating that Americans should remain in Iraq (although the self-contained city that the US calls an embassy certainly amounts to some significant presence), in general it's a bad idea for an aggressor to try to police the mess that they've made once the war is over. It only leads to more bloodshed, especially because the only way to maintain control in that situation is divide and rule, which leads to an escalation in sectarian violence. It's a pattern that should have been obvious enough long before Iraq.

When Qatada entered Britain he did so illegally, so arrest him for that, but it's hardly the crime of the century and if the proper measures had been taken at the time then we wouldn't be in the position we are now. As I've pointed out, the US public and its government have long histories of sponsoring terrorism, so if we're going down that road I'd quite like to be present at the trials of Oliver North, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and countless US intelligence chiefs who have funded and armed terrorists.

When Qatada raised money for terrorists, as far as we can prove, it was to assist a group that were seeking self-determination from Russia, which is way less ethically questionable than, say, funding rebel groups that overthrow elected governments in Latin America, staging a coup in Iran or supporting General Pinochet's malevolent reign over Chile. And if you take a look at the facts in Chechnya it quickly becomes apparent that the people there have little historical or cultural ties to Russia, and their infrastructure has been destroyed several times by Russian forces, so it's hard to argue against their bid for independence.

Qatada's conviction for terrorism? No, that wasn't based on rhetoric, it was based on evidence obtained through torture, which makes it not only inadmissible but also unreliable. That said, rhetoric is what we're left with.

I'm sure if we returned him to the place of his birth the problem would be solved. He's from Bethlehem which is now in the West Bank, so he'd probably last a week before the IDF blow up his house. I don't like him and I don't agree with him, but that's hardly a good reason to lock him away forever or execute him.

Tax money should be spent on people who need it, regardless of where they are, but that never happens. I'd rather pay taxes to provide safe drinking water for people thousands of miles away than to resurface roads or build a tram line. But, accepting that tax money is used for political rather than humanitarian purposes, I try to pay as little of it as possible and keep enough of my own money that I don't need a handout. The money that is raised in tax they can spend however they want, I'm pretty much past caring. I pay taxes in three different countries right now, and I'm not the least bit interested in where any of it goes.

However, for the sake of those who do care about what the government spends, remember that the money lavished on Qatada is not to ensure his freedom (the bail conditions imposed on a man who has neither a safe conviction nor a pending charge put paid to that claim) but to protect the rest of us from him. The money he has received in benefits is a little sickening, but it's not really his fault that our welfare system is badly flawed.

[T.J.Newton]

US drones TARGET civilians?

What a foolish comment.

exactly,

It is disgusting(to say the least) that so many innocents are killed by american AND British attacks, but that's a different issue, Terrorists key aim is to kill as many civilians as possible to cause terror and unrest.

[Amo]

exactly,

It is disgusting(to say the least) that so many innocents are killed by american AND British attacks, but that's a different issue, Terrorists key aim is to kill as many civilians as possible to cause terror and unrest.

You mean like false flag operations?

[T.J.Newton]

... of guilty, exploiting, governments.

I know nothing much about this situation but I will say that I think it's wrong to kill people, even if they have done so themselves. I would be more ashamed of our nation if he was executed. Lead by example.

Complex problems don't generally have simple solutions.

quite the opposite usually.

[T.J.Newton]

You mean like false flag operations?

im not clued up enough to know what that means , so ill just agree .

Its all pretty effed up but one thing i can say for certain is that terrorists(especially those that hide behind religion) are completely 100% inexcusable, where as as immoral as some of the things the government has the armed forces doing there is always the reasoning that it is for the greater good and is to protect future generations(i personally dont agree with this reasoning, but i can understand it at least).

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Mm, as I see it Facism is alive and well and living in the state of of Israel. 60 years ago who would have thought it ?

[Steve Moss]

[1] You can be quite sure that if Britain offered to police Gaza they would be declined. Israel quite likes keeping its own foot firmly on the neck of Palestine because that scenario allows them to play by their own rules rather than any reasonable international standard.

. . .

[2] As I've pointed out, the US public and its government have long histories of sponsoring terrorism, so if we're going down that road I'd quite like to be present at the trials of Oliver North, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and countless US intelligence chiefs who have funded and armed terrorists.

[3] When Qatada raised money for terrorists, as far as we can prove, it was to assist a group that were seeking self-determination from Russia, . . .

[4] Qatada's conviction for terrorism? No, that wasn't based on rhetoric, it was based on evidence obtained through torture, which makes it not only inadmissible but also unreliable. That said, rhetoric is what we're left with.

. . .

[5] I don't like him and I don't agree with him, but that's hardly a good reason to lock him away forever or execute him.

. . .

[6] However, for the sake of those who do care about what the government spends, remember that the money lavished on Qatada is not to ensure his freedom (the bail conditions imposed on a man who has neither a safe conviction nor a pending charge put paid to that claim) but to protect the rest of us from him.

[7] The money he has received in benefits is a little sickening, but it's not really his fault that our welfare system is badly flawed.

1. Write your PM and make the suggestion. After all, you don't know until you've offered.

2. So the USA is a terrorist nation or are we merely lead by terrorists? Either way the contention is laughable.

3. So they're freedom fighters? The same group who slaughtered a schoolhouse full of children? Would you like me to add to the list? They're animals, nothing more.

4. As Jordan is literally the most democratic country in the Middle East (next to Israel), and an ally, I'm perfectly willing to take their word for it. Though if we need to get outraged about torture in the Middle East, perhaps we should start with Hamas? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/03/hamas-torture-detainees-gaza. And if we recognize the outrageous inhumanity and fail to take action, we'd be complicit in the crime. So perhaps the USA and Britain should partner in sending security details in to the Gaza Strip to put an end to the inhumanity and loss of life?

5. It depends on the basis for the dislike. If you dislike him as he's a murdering terrorist or an enabler of murdering terrorists, I'm perfectly content with executing him or locking him up for life.

6. If it costs millions to protect you (and the rest of the public) from Qatada that's a fairly solid indicator he's a vicious animal that needs to be put down.

7. Not his fault? He's negotiating the check, so it is entirely his responsibility.

Mm, as I see it Facism is alive and well and living in the state of of Israel. 60 years ago who would have thought it ?

I think you should check your eyes.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Hate doing it this way, but...

1. If I were to write to David Cameron about Palestine then I'm pretty certain it would be thrown away by a mail room assistant, but my suggestion wouldn't be to send peacekeepers, it would be to bring some pressure on Israel. Again, nothing would come of it, but it is time they either accepted Palestinians as part of their country or stopped dictating to them and abusing basic human rights.

2. To go right back to WWII, the US and Britain bombed Dresden in a manner that goes way beyond what is justified in a time of war, killing almost as many civilians in three days as the Germans killed in the Blitz of London. If you want to use the proper definition, that is terrorism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberate attacks on civilian populations to achieve a political goal, which once again is a pretty good measure of terrorism. Do you deny that US administrations funded the Islamic resistance in Afghanistan? Do you deny that the US government funded the Contras? Do you have some objection to the well-established story of the demise of Mossadegh? Did the US not support Pinochet? Did the US not also endorse a coup in Venezuela then backtrack? Has the US acted completely properly in Latin America for the past 60 years? Did the US stand behind Suharto? Doesn't America still have a pretty cosy relationship with the House of Saud? How long did it take for Washington to turn its back on Mubarak? How is the "revolution" in Yemen going? Who armed Saddam Hussein for the war with Iran? Why does America refuse to allow Goni to face justice in Bolivia? You say the notion of the US as a sponsor of terror is laughable, but do you find any of this remotely amusing?

All these things are matters of historical fact and the conduct of America has to be questioned. Everyone makes mistakes, but US governments don't seem to learn from them, they just plunge straight into the next one. It still amazes me that a nation can claim to spread democracy and human rights while still supporting tyrants who make a mockery of the very notion of individual liberties.

To take Iraq as an example of taking a bad situation and making it worse, America first gave Saddam weapons to fight Iran. Then they starved the Iraqi people to the brink of oblivion because Hussein was becoming a threat to "stability". Then the dictator was removed and elections were held, but no safeguards were put in to protect minorities and a vicious cycle of revenge attacks started to spiral out of control. So the US decided that it's job was done and went home.

The willingness of the US to act on its ability to destroy people's lives to protect its own economic interests is disturbingly reminiscent of the imperial powers of the past. If I'm remembering my history correctly, it was an American judge that described aggression as "the supreme international crime", and yet America (and Britain) undoubtedly initiated the war in Iraq.

It stretches beyond military activity. Economically, Romney wanted to virtually declare war on China had he been elected, sanctions on Iran are likely to cost thousands of lives (let's not ask Madeleine Albright's opinion this time) and the comically inappropriately named NAFTA has been one of the primary causes of Mexican immigration into the States because "free trade" is a long way from "fair trade", meaning that subsidised American agribusiness crushed what had previously been the staple of the Mexican economy. But, again, America is either ignorant of its own actions or simply never developed a conscience.

3. Yes, there have been atrocities committed by the rebels (once again, if you have a problem with that kind of behaviour I'd suggest you look at your own country's involvement with Nicaragua). Without trying to defend that sort of behaviour, it does happen on both sides. Look at the way the Russians slaughtered separatists during the war in 1994. That's what really caused the escalation in extremism in the area. Yeltsin's own generals didn't like the idea of going to war, one resigned on principle, 800 soldiers refused to fight and warnings were issued that it would turn into "another Afghanistan".

When the Russians did go to war in Chechnya they basically shot everything that moved. 27,000 civilians, including 5,000 children (Russian military estimates), were killed and Grozny was pretty much levelled. Then there's examples like the massacre at Samashki or the 1996 shooting by pro-Russian forces at a peaceful demonstration. But, of course, war crimes and human rights abuses have no effect on people's future behaviour.

But how could America point the finger for a massacre? It isn't as if we're talking about a country that believes in bringing murderers to justice. Cast your mind back to the events of March 1968. The entire village of My Lai was massacred, the women raped and the bodies mutilated. Of those involved in the assault only one was convicted. He was found to be responsible for the deaths of 22 of the 347 dead civilians and the sentence he eventually served was three and a half years in prison. Tell me, what's the sentence for murdering 22 American civilians?

4. De facto control of everything in "democratic" Jordan lies with the monarch and his appointed advisers, so that's one ridiculous notion out of the way. Torture is illegal there, but in practice it is pretty widespread and in the case of Abu Qatada it is beyond doubt that torture was used in order to gain the confessions that make up the only compelling evidence against him. Basically, name an international authority on human rights and look at their reports on Jordan and I'll promise you it won't have a happy ending.

We could start with Hamas, but it seems a little pointless considering that we've already gone about as far as we can in condemning them. Although they were technically elected in what independent observers called "the freest and fairest elections ever held in the Middle East" (that was prior to the revolutions of the past couple of years).

Honestly though, I feel like it is more helpful to start with the record of our allies. We might be able to influence the behaviour of those who rely on our funding and political support, but we don't really have any leverage against groups like Hamas. It just seems like if you're going to set yourself up as the moral arbiter of the world then you might want to look at the standards you're setting before you try to cure the rest of the world. If only we lived in the Great American Fairytale, the Straussian wonderland where good and evil are black and white. Instead we live in a world where we think it's that simple, but only because we've been conditioned to the point that some basic questions aren't even part of the discussion.

To make yet another example out of Iraq, a few years ago Congress was discussing the need to prevent "foreign interference" in Iraq. They were referring to Iran, because for some bizarre reason America is no longer foreign on the streets of Baghdad. But what exactly is it that gives the US the right to act in such a manner?

5. If we could prove that Qatada was a murdering terrorist or an enabler thereof, we would already have locked him up. Instead we detained him without charge for a few years, not even allowing him to see the evidence being used against him, and then released him into effective home arrest, all without having anything concrete to bring against him apart from his frequent exercise of freedom of speech.

Once again, I dislike Reagan and North on the grounds that they enabled terrorists, but I can't have them locked up either. In fact, the evidence is a lot more conclusive against them than it is against Qatada, but still they have never paid for the suffering that their actions caused.

6. This one's on me, I should have gone straight to the bottom line really. I don't honestly believe that I need protecting from Qatada, he's only a preacher and his sermons have probably incited less violence than Terry Jones', although their methods are different.

7. It isn't his fault that the government has deemed that he is entitled to benefits. He is responsible for choosing to take it, but I don't know many people who are principled enough to turn down money that is offered to them. It's not a matter of negotiation, it's just the default setting of most people to take the maximum that is available, and that stretches to a lot of less high-profile leeches, too.

On Israel, the fact is that Palestinians are denied freedom of movement, freedom to vote in elections (or at least, the results of their elections are overlooked), freedom to even live on a significant amount of their own land, freedom from having their homes blown up while they sleep, freedom from arbitrary arrest. In the instance of al-Aqsa, Muslims can't even pray without fear of being attacked on their way to or from the masjid. Their most popular political party is considered a terrorist organisation, although if Palestine were recognised as a state they might instead be viewed as a government fighting a war against an aggressor.

Should innocent Palestinians not have the right to drinking water, to work on their land and to access medical care?

Yes, Palestinian militants pose a threat to a small number of Israelis and the odd rocket causes injury or death. That is not acceptable, but nor has Israel's response to such attacks been proportional or even justifiable. Their heavy-handed tactics only serve to perpetuate the resentment that is felt towards them, and their persistent obstruction of the peace process leaves Palestinians with little option but to lash out at whatever falls within range. If Israel truly wanted a lasting agreement they would come back to the negotiating table and pick up from the point where Ehud Barak walked out over a decade ago, but instead they set ludicrous pre-conditions that they would never consider if the positions were reversed and offer no reasonable concessions of their own.

Think of it this way, if the current situation with Iran and Israel was reversed would we act the same way? Would we stand behind Iran as they threaten military action if Israel continues to develop weapons that would destabilise the region?

Another question I'd like an answer to: Why do the US and Israel reject the proposal of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East? Iran agrees to it, but despite America's commitment to work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, Washington refuses to surrender its nuclear capacity on Diego Garcia and backs Israel's refusal to even sign the non-proliferation treaty.

Don't get it twisted, I'm not just opposed to the US and Israel, I have a deep-seated loathing of most states and their governments because of the utilitarian approach they take towards human life. But I take "the West" as our starting point because you can't try to mould the rest of the world according to your values unless you have your own house in order first. To be so appalled by an extreme Salafi preacher when your country is the patron-in-chief of the Saudi regime that produces most of the world's Salafi extremists is, in itself, worth at least a little smile. And you can't cite international law when the US and Israel flagrantly ignore those same conventions any time the law contradicts their interests.

Anyway, instead of asking questions and picking up the points that suit you try answering some this time. I'm especially keen to see your version of history regarding section 2, since you probably won't be able to just dismiss the idea now that you have specific examples that are founded in indisputable facts.

[ABBEY]

His brother has been released as well but he's disappeared into thin air!!!!

ABU CADABRA

[Steve Moss]

Who bears responsibility for the IDF strike on the missile site, which likely killed civilians? The IDF or Hamas?

http://kleinonline.wnd.com/2012/11/15/photo-hamas-missile-launch-pad-near-mosque-playground-civilian-factories-gas-station-also-half-a-block-from-fajr-5-site/

[Amo]

Hate doing it this way, but...

1. If I were to write to David Cameron about Palestine then I'm pretty certain it would be thrown away by a mail room assistant, but my suggestion wouldn't be to send peacekeepers, it would be to bring some pressure on Israel. Again, nothing would come of it, but it is time they either accepted Palestinians as part of their country or stopped dictating to them and abusing basic human rights.

2. To go right back to WWII, the US and Britain bombed Dresden in a manner that goes way beyond what is justified in a time of war, killing almost as many civilians in three days as the Germans killed in the Blitz of London. If you want to use the proper definition, that is terrorism. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberate attacks on civilian populations to achieve a political goal, which once again is a pretty good measure of terrorism. Do you deny that US administrations funded the Islamic resistance in Afghanistan? Do you deny that the US government funded the Contras? Do you have some objection to the well-established story of the demise of Mossadegh? Did the US not support Pinochet? Did the US not also endorse a coup in Venezuela then backtrack? Has the US acted completely properly in Latin America for the past 60 years? Did the US stand behind Suharto? Doesn't America still have a pretty cosy relationship with the House of Saud? How long did it take for Washington to turn its back on Mubarak? How is the "revolution" in Yemen going? Who armed Saddam Hussein for the war with Iran? Why does America refuse to allow Goni to face justice in Bolivia? You say the notion of the US as a sponsor of terror is laughable, but do you find any of this remotely amusing?

All these things are matters of historical fact and the conduct of America has to be questioned. Everyone makes mistakes, but US governments don't seem to learn from them, they just plunge straight into the next one. It still amazes me that a nation can claim to spread democracy and human rights while still supporting tyrants who make a mockery of the very notion of individual liberties.

To take Iraq as an example of taking a bad situation and making it worse, America first gave Saddam weapons to fight Iran. Then they starved the Iraqi people to the brink of oblivion because Hussein was becoming a threat to "stability". Then the dictator was removed and elections were held, but no safeguards were put in to protect minorities and a vicious cycle of revenge attacks started to spiral out of control. So the US decided that it's job was done and went home.

The willingness of the US to act on its ability to destroy people's lives to protect its own economic interests is disturbingly reminiscent of the imperial powers of the past. If I'm remembering my history correctly, it was an American judge that described aggression as "the supreme international crime", and yet America (and Britain) undoubtedly initiated the war in Iraq.

It stretches beyond military activity. Economically, Romney wanted to virtually declare war on China had he been elected, sanctions on Iran are likely to cost thousands of lives (let's not ask Madeleine Albright's opinion this time) and the comically inappropriately named NAFTA has been one of the primary causes of Mexican immigration into the States because "free trade" is a long way from "fair trade", meaning that subsidised American agribusiness crushed what had previously been the staple of the Mexican economy. But, again, America is either ignorant of its own actions or simply never developed a conscience.

3. Yes, there have been atrocities committed by the rebels (once again, if you have a problem with that kind of behaviour I'd suggest you look at your own country's involvement with Nicaragua). Without trying to defend that sort of behaviour, it does happen on both sides. Look at the way the Russians slaughtered separatists during the war in 1994. That's what really caused the escalation in extremism in the area. Yeltsin's own generals didn't like the idea of going to war, one resigned on principle, 800 soldiers refused to fight and warnings were issued that it would turn into "another Afghanistan".

When the Russians did go to war in Chechnya they basically shot everything that moved. 27,000 civilians, including 5,000 children (Russian military estimates), were killed and Grozny was pretty much levelled. Then there's examples like the massacre at Samashki or the 1996 shooting by pro-Russian forces at a peaceful demonstration. But, of course, war crimes and human rights abuses have no effect on people's future behaviour.

But how could America point the finger for a massacre? It isn't as if we're talking about a country that believes in bringing murderers to justice. Cast your mind back to the events of March 1968. The entire village of My Lai was massacred, the women raped and the bodies mutilated. Of those involved in the assault only one was convicted. He was found to be responsible for the deaths of 22 of the 347 dead civilians and the sentence he eventually served was three and a half years in prison. Tell me, what's the sentence for murdering 22 American civilians?

4. De facto control of everything in "democratic" Jordan lies with the monarch and his appointed advisers, so that's one ridiculous notion out of the way. Torture is illegal there, but in practice it is pretty widespread and in the case of Abu Qatada it is beyond doubt that torture was used in order to gain the confessions that make up the only compelling evidence against him. Basically, name an international authority on human rights and look at their reports on Jordan and I'll promise you it won't have a happy ending.

We could start with Hamas, but it seems a little pointless considering that we've already gone about as far as we can in condemning them. Although they were technically elected in what independent observers called "the freest and fairest elections ever held in the Middle East" (that was prior to the revolutions of the past couple of years).

Honestly though, I feel like it is more helpful to start with the record of our allies. We might be able to influence the behaviour of those who rely on our funding and political support, but we don't really have any leverage against groups like Hamas. It just seems like if you're going to set yourself up as the moral arbiter of the world then you might want to look at the standards you're setting before you try to cure the rest of the world. If only we lived in the Great American Fairytale, the Straussian wonderland where good and evil are black and white. Instead we live in a world where we think it's that simple, but only because we've been conditioned to the point that some basic questions aren't even part of the discussion.

To make yet another example out of Iraq, a few years ago Congress was discussing the need to prevent "foreign interference" in Iraq. They were referring to Iran, because for some bizarre reason America is no longer foreign on the streets of Baghdad. But what exactly is it that gives the US the right to act in such a manner?

5. If we could prove that Qatada was a murdering terrorist or an enabler thereof, we would already have locked him up. Instead we detained him without charge for a few years, not even allowing him to see the evidence being used against him, and then released him into effective home arrest, all without having anything concrete to bring against him apart from his frequent exercise of freedom of speech.

Once again, I dislike Reagan and North on the grounds that they enabled terrorists, but I can't have them locked up either. In fact, the evidence is a lot more conclusive against them than it is against Qatada, but still they have never paid for the suffering that their actions caused.

6. This one's on me, I should have gone straight to the bottom line really. I don't honestly believe that I need protecting from Qatada, he's only a preacher and his sermons have probably incited less violence than Terry Jones', although their methods are different.

7. It isn't his fault that the government has deemed that he is entitled to benefits. He is responsible for choosing to take it, but I don't know many people who are principled enough to turn down money that is offered to them. It's not a matter of negotiation, it's just the default setting of most people to take the maximum that is available, and that stretches to a lot of less high-profile leeches, too.

On Israel, the fact is that Palestinians are denied freedom of movement, freedom to vote in elections (or at least, the results of their elections are overlooked), freedom to even live on a significant amount of their own land, freedom from having their homes blown up while they sleep, freedom from arbitrary arrest. In the instance of al-Aqsa, Muslims can't even pray without fear of being attacked on their way to or from the masjid. Their most popular political party is considered a terrorist organisation, although if Palestine were recognised as a state they might instead be viewed as a government fighting a war against an aggressor.

Should innocent Palestinians not have the right to drinking water, to work on their land and to access medical care?

Yes, Palestinian militants pose a threat to a small number of Israelis and the odd rocket causes injury or death. That is not acceptable, but nor has Israel's response to such attacks been proportional or even justifiable. Their heavy-handed tactics only serve to perpetuate the resentment that is felt towards them, and their persistent obstruction of the peace process leaves Palestinians with little option but to lash out at whatever falls within range. If Israel truly wanted a lasting agreement they would come back to the negotiating table and pick up from the point where Ehud Barak walked out over a decade ago, but instead they set ludicrous pre-conditions that they would never consider if the positions were reversed and offer no reasonable concessions of their own.

Think of it this way, if the current situation with Iran and Israel was reversed would we act the same way? Would we stand behind Iran as they threaten military action if Israel continues to develop weapons that would destabilise the region?

Another question I'd like an answer to: Why do the US and Israel reject the proposal of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East? Iran agrees to it, but despite America's commitment to work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons, Washington refuses to surrender its nuclear capacity on Diego Garcia and backs Israel's refusal to even sign the non-proliferation treaty.

Don't get it twisted, I'm not just opposed to the US and Israel, I have a deep-seated loathing of most states and their governments because of the utilitarian approach they take towards human life. But I take "the West" as our starting point because you can't try to mould the rest of the world according to your values unless you have your own house in order first. To be so appalled by an extreme Salafi preacher when your country is the patron-in-chief of the Saudi regime that produces most of the world's Salafi extremists is, in itself, worth at least a little smile. And you can't cite international law when the US and Israel flagrantly ignore those same conventions any time the law contradicts their interests.

Anyway, instead of asking questions and picking up the points that suit you try answering some this time. I'm especially keen to see your version of history regarding section 2, since you probably won't be able to just dismiss the idea now that you have specific examples that are founded in indisputable facts.

Truly quite an awesome post that exposes a lot of home truths.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Who bears responsibility for the IDF strike on the missile site, which likely killed civilians? The IDF or Hamas?

http://kleinonline.w...om-fajr-5-site/

Surely there's blame on both sides. It is irresponsible of Hamas to set up weapons there, but if I were an Israeli general I'd be inclined to eliminate such targets at night when the nearby playground won't be full of kids, thus avoiding the injuries and deaths of children to the extent possible. You can't tell me that they never thought of that, so if they happened to attack that site at a time when the playground and other local buildings would be in use then clearly there was a secondary intent there to "send a message" rather than just achieve a military objective.

Consider the situation Hamas is in. They are left with little option but to fight, but their weaponry is essentially a metal frame, a pipe and explosives packed into a thin makeshift rocket. They are difficult to aim and there is virtually no intelligence available to them to verify targets anyway. So they use their small rockets to hit whatever they can, usually cause no damage whatsoever and then suffer massive civilian casualties in response. All this against an enemy that took your land by force, has made life as uncomfortable as possible for you and refuses to engage in meaningful conditions. What are they supposed to do?

Even your article says that of the 330+ rockets launched against Israel recently there have been almost no casualties. The heavy weaponry Fajr-5 rockets are not being launched from Gaza because Israel would never let such military hardware make it over the border. In both cases the missiles are highly mobile. The Qassam rockets are simple frames and barrels that you could carry, at the most, between two men. The Fajr-5 rockets are mounted on the back of a vehicle. Would it be such a stretch for Israel to hit them as they are moved out of populated areas? Of course it wouldn't, so how pure are their motives really?

Anyway, I'm sure that's not the answer you really wanted, but once again facts don't stack up completely in favour of either side and you have to at least try to see the middle ground rather than automatically siding with those whose values more closely match your own. Now, care to address ANY of what I said earlier or are you just going to bring up something else that you mistakenly believe vindicates Israel's every action?

[RibbleValleyRover]

It's impossible for there to be no innocent civilian casualties, but at least you can say that the IDF are clearly trying to reduce the potential number. They are doing leaflet drops in Gaza warning citizens to stay away from Hamas rocket locations and are using precision strikes. Can you say the same about Hamas? They don't have a clue where these rockets are going to land, it's not like they are specifically targeting military structures as these rockets could land anywhere.

It's like they are poking a sleeping lion with a stick, it was only a matter of time before the lion would wake up and lash out. 800+ rocket attacks since the start of the year, almost on a daily basis as well. You think any nation on the planet would sit back and tolerate that? I think Israel has been pretty reserved.