This, by the way, is why the Arabs continue to attack Israel, and to speak of it with loathing. It is a
secular state in a fundamentalist world. [snip] It is not the religion that bothers them. It is
the lack of religion.
Your friend seems to have missed some television and radio broadcasts within Palestine and also other parts of the Arab world. Here are some notable quotes. Note that this isn't Joe Schmoe off the street venting, but these are people in positions of leadership, with tremendous public responsibilities. Much of their anger isn't directed merely at the political state of Israel, but all Jews indiscriminantly. That certainly sounds like a religious issue to me.
After the lynching of two Israeli army soldiers who made a wrong turn into Palestinian-controlled territory, Dr. Ahmad Abu-Halabia, member of the "Fatwa Council", appointed by the Palestinian Authority, said this, live on Palestinian television. "The Jews are Jews, whether Labour or Likud, the Jews are Jews. They do not have any
moderates or any advocates of peace. They are all liars. They are the ones who must be
butchered and killed. As Allah the Almighty said: 'Fight them'. Allah will torture them by
your hands and will humiliate them and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve
the minds of the believers.... Our people must unite in one trench, and receive armaments
from the Palestinian leadership to confront the Jews.... Have no mercy on the Jews, no
matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Whenever you meet
them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them
- and those who stand with them - they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the
Muslims - because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in
Palestine. They created it in order that it be the outpost of their civilisation - and the
vanguard of their army, and to be the sword of the West and the Crusaders, hanging over
the necks of the Muslim monotheists, the Muslims in this land. They wanted the Jews to be
the spearhead for them..."
Bashar Assad, the President of Syria, referring to the Arab-Israeli conflict, has this to say as he welcomed the Pope to Syria on May 6, 2001.
"They [the Jews] try to kill the principle of religions with the same mentality that they
betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet
Mohammed."
Here's a sermon broadcast on Palestinian Authority television on August 3, 2001. I don't know the name of the speaker. "All weapons must be aimed at the Jews, at the enemies of Allah...whom the Koran
describes as monkeys and pigs, worshippers of the calf and idol worshippers. Allah shall
make the Moslem rule over the Jew, we will blow them up in Hadera, we will blow them
up in Tel Aviv and in Netanya in the righteousness of Allah against this rif-raff.....We will
enter Jerusalem as conquerors, and Jaffa as conquereors, and Haifa as conquerors and
Ashekelon as conquerors...we bless all those who educate their children to jihad and to
Martyrdom, blessing be he who shot a bullet into the head of a Jew."
After Arafat's cease-fire declaration, Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi had some nice words on Palestinian Authority television, broadcast June 8, 2001.
"...Allah willing, this unjust state...Israel will be erased; this unjust state, the United States
will be erased; this unjust state, Britain will be erased...Blessings to whoever waged Jihad
for the sake of Allah...Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his
sons' and plunged into the midst of the Jews..."
So, you might believe that events of the Arab-Israeli conflict aren't religiously motivated, but I completely disagree. What I find apalling, though, is that not only is violence encouraged, but it's directed not at the political enemy of Israel, but at all Jews. Luckily, here in the USA, our political and religious leaders have the responsibilities of being civilized, and publicly renounced not only violence, but racial and religious discrimination and persecution.
It is sad and ironic that the only people involved in WW2 that didn't learn that fascism is bad are the Jewish/Israelis.
It's a pity that they should be now considered to be Hitler's best students
Please explain where said people are practicing fascism. You've missed my point which was that by ignoring what has occured and is occuring against Israel in neighboring countries, and merely looking at Israeli actions, one might get that illusion you allude to. But this isn't a vacuum. It's a complicated twisted serious of affairs.
So if you really believe it, please explain how, as you have said, Jewish/Israelis are fascist. And please clarify if you are referring to Jewish Israelis or both Israelis and Jewish people of other countries.
nd I agree with your point that neither 'side' is blameless
Thanks, this seems to be a rarer point to hear recently. And I agree with your point about Sharon being a war hawk. I can only hope that a more peaceful Prime Minister will get elected.
You settle in a land that isnt yours, and start off the whole shmoozle by murdering 250 arabs in April 1948 then
proceed to assasinate a UN mediator attempting to mediate a treaty between yourselves and your hated
neighbours.
Nonsense, I haven't done anything, I wasn't even around back then. And I'm not even Israeli. Be careful who you attribute historical acts to.
Now as far as the early Zionists and Arabs are concerned, that's a different story. and for your information, the whole "schmoozle" started long before 1948, as the anonymous email letter alluded to massacres of the Jews in the area in the 1920's.
Then you displace hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their homes. "The early Zionist settlers--particularly
those of the Second Aliyah--adopted a rigid policy that land purchased or in any way acquired by a Jewish
organization or individual could never again be sold, leased, or rented to a nonJew . The policy went so far as to
preclude the use of non-Jewish labor on the land"
Once again, I haven't displaced anybody, so please stop accusing me of such things. Do you have a person to attribute your quote to? Keep in mind that discrimination wasn't limited to the Zionists. When Palestine was divided, 80% went to Transjordan, 17% went to the formation of Israel. Part of the stipulation was that Jordan was entitled to let no Jews settle or live there. Yet in fact, Israel had about 50% population of Israeli Arabs.
After gaining a foothold you proceeded to enlarge your territories at the expense of the Arabs whos homes you
took over. Payin no attention to the UN. "By January 1949, Jewish forces held the area that was to define Israel's
territory until June 1967, an area that was significantly larger than the area designated by the UN partition plan"
The Palestinians cut off their nose to spite their face during the partition plan. Twice. Firstly, they rejected proposals for a Palestinian state, that would have included much of modern Israel. Secondly, the Arab attacks against newfound Israel in 1948 resulted in the Israelis acquiring more territory than was initially given them. It's like gambling - you don't get angry at the casino if you bet and lose your wedding ring. The Palestinians chose to gamble at conquering the Israelis through war. The Israelis won, and hence also took more land as the spoils of war. That doesn't give the Palestinians the right to complain about their foiled attack afterwards. If you play with fire, you get burned, as the old adage goes.
As far as Israel ignoring the UN, the Arabs were severely chastised by the UN during 1948. Here's what the UN Palestine Commission had to say on Feb. 16, 1948. "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the
General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement
envisaged therein." Here's what Jamal Husseini, the spokesman for the Arab Higher Committee, had to say on April 16, 1948, admitting that the Arabs initiated the attacks. "The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the
attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole
world that we were going to fight." Also of interest is what Azzam Pasha, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, had to declare about Israel through the impending Arab invasion.
"This will
be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre
which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and
the Crusades."
Im not sure how a nation who has suffered from such persecution could act as your people have towards the
Palestinians.
Once again, I haven't acted in any way against Palestinians. When looking at the current Israeli treatment of Palestinians, look throughout history in unbiased reports, books, and articles. Then judge. If you search carefully, you'll find that Israel's actions didn't happen in a vacuum, but are a consequence of consistence torment and aggravation. Read your history, and I'm sure you'll gain a new perspective on the situation.
Thank you for your level-headed and factual response. It's a nice change of pace. I appreciate your comments, and please correct me if you find any factual errors. I don't want to resort to the level of the pieces of journalism I disagree with.
Who initiated the Suez war? I believe it was Israel that declared, after being aggravated by Egypt for several years.
Yes, Israel struck, after, as you say, Egyptian aggravation, acquisition of nuclear weaponry, and capture of the Suez Canal. Israel was joined by Britain and France. Here's what President Eisenhower said on Oct. 31, 1956.
This situation recently was aggravated by Egyptian policy including rearmament with Communist
weapons. We felt this to be a misguided policy on the part of the Government of Egypt. The State of
Israel, at the same time, felt increasing anxiety for its safety. And Great Britain and France feared more
and more that Egyptian policies threatened their "life line" of the Suez Canal.
These matters came to a crisis on July 26th of this year, when the Egyptian Government seized the
Universal Suez Canal Company. For ninety years-ever since the inauguration of the Canal-that
Company has operated the Canal, largely under British and French technical supervision. [snip]
But the direct relations of Egypt with both Israel and France kept worsening to a point at which first
Israel-then France-and Great Britain also-determined that, in their judgment, there could be no
protection of their vital interests, without resort to force.
Upon this decision, events followed swiftly. On Sunday [October 29] the Israeli Government ordered
total mobilization. On Monday, their armed forces penetrated deeply into Egypt and to the vicinity of the
Suez Canal, nearly one hundred miles away. And on Tuesday, the British and French Governments
delivered a 12-hour ultimatum to Israel and Egypt-now followed up by armed attack against Egypt.
In regards to the Six Day War, Israel intelligence knew of the mobilization of 250,000 troops (nearly half inSinai peninsula), 700 aircraft, and 2000 tanks. Situated along Israeli borders. Not to mention surrounding countries calling for complete destruction of Israel. For instance, the President of Iraw, Abdur Rahman Aref, said, "The existence of Israel is an error which 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."
Israel had to pre-emptively strike, or they would have faced catastrophic losses against the impending offensive. AFAIK, the attackers did not deny they had an attack planned.
In regards to the Lebanon War, you are correct that the PLO was iniating terrorist attacks from there. They were also smuggling in large quantities of weaponry used in other terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel invaded because it had no real choice. And yet again, Israel was not unprovoked in this war. Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State) said, "No sovereign state can
tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and
implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids" (Washington Post, June 16, 1982).
[proceeds with heavily-biased black-and-white depiction]
True. But I am responding to a post of a biased newspaper article. And I'm responding on Slashdot, where I can be moderated by others, and where all others have an equal chance to voice their own opinion and response.
I'm not writing said article under the guise of a journalist, seemingly trying to sway public opinion against another country. I was trying to point out that the accusations in the original article didn't occur in a vacuum. However, alot of journalists and subsequently their readers seem to believe this was the case.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't support Israel's continued use of aggression. But Israel isn't the only aggressor in this situation, yet alot of people don't seem to acknowledge that.
That was due in part to the fact that there were far fewer of them.
True. Do you have numbers for the actual populations? Or, even better, areas of land owned by each group?
Either way, both groups were living under British rule. It brings up an interesting question regarding sovereign powers, though. If Britain wants to let another group rule that area, can she? That is, is it necessarily wrong, for example, for the US to say "To make up for past atrocities, we are forming a Native American nation in the state of Oklahoma. Anyone that stays there will become a resident of the new country of the 5 Civilized Tribes. At your option you may remain a US citizen and move to another state." Okay, it's a ridiculous scenario as it is, but that's kind of what happened back in the 1940's. Would that make the newfound Native American country necessarily bad? Would it justify attacks against it by Americans both within and outside of Oklahoma?
The other side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The original parent of this thread was a Jordanian account of Palestinian life. People might be interested in the life of an Israeli.
You seem to ignore that Israel is territory forcefully taken from the Palestinians. If I gave someone else your home,
would you be happy living in a closet in the basement?
Remember, Palestine was a British colony, with both Jews and Arabs living there.
The following was taken from the American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise Page on Myths and Facts of the Partition.
MYTH
"Israel usurped all of Palestine in 1948."
FACT
Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the
League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1922 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish
settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20 percent of Palestine into two states. With
Jordan's annexation of the West Bank in 1950, Arabs controlled approximately 80 percent of the territory of
the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent (Gaza, occupied by Egypt, was the remainder).
MYTH
"The Palestinian Arabs were never offered a state and therefore have been denied the right to self-determination."
FACT
The Peel Commission in 1937 concluded the only logical solution to resolving the contradictory
aspirations of the Jews and Arabs was to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab
states. The Arabs rejected the plan because it forced them to accept the creation of a Jewish
state, and required some Palestinians to live under "Jewish domination." The Zionists opposed
the Peel Plan's boundaries because they would have been confined to little more than a ghetto
of 1,900 out of the 10,310 square miles remaining in Palestine. Nevertheless, the Zionists
decided to negotiate with the British, while the Arabs refused to consider any compromises.
Again, in 1939, the British White Paper called for the establishment of an Arab state in
Palestine within 10 years, and for limiting Jewish immigration to no more than 75,000 over the
following five years. Afterward, no one would be allowed in without the consent of the Arab
population. Though the Arabs had been granted a concession on Jewish immigration, and been
offered independence - the goal of Arab nationalists - they repudiated the White Paper.
With partition, the Palestinians were given a state and the opportunity for self-determination. This too was
rejected.
This is how I interpret the article, in a nutshell: Now you know how it feels, now, will you finally start to care about the
oppression and violence
Good point, and it works both ways too. For anyone interested in the view of a guy on the other side, here is an anonymous letter circulating the internet a month or two ago. It's anonymous, so take it with a grain of salt. But it helps show how some common folks living in Israel might be feeling.
Before anyone flames me, I'm just posting it so the other side can be heard to. I don't necessarily agree or endorse any opinions expressed in this letter. But there are (at least) two sides to every story, right?
Subject: A Letter From An Israeli Jew to the World
Please, we understand that you are upset over us, here in Israel. It appears that
you are quite upset, even angry and outraged. Indeed, every few years you seem
to become upset over us. Today, it is the brutal repression of the Palestinians;
yesterday, it was Lebanon; before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in
Baghdad and the Yom Kippur War campaign.
It appears that Jews who triumph and who, therefore, live, upset you most. Of
course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we, the Jewish people, upset
you. We upset a German people who elected a Hitler and we upset an Austrian
people who cheered his entry into Vienna and we upset a whole slew of Slavic
nations, Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians,
Romanians. We go back a long, long way in the history of world upset. We upset
the Cossacks of Chmielnicki who massacred tens of thousands of us in 1648-49;
we upset the Crusaders who, on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so
upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us. We upset, for centuries,
a Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through
Inquisitions. And we upset the arch-enemy of the Church, Martin Luther, who, in
his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them, showed an admirable
Christian ecumenical spirit.
It is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided
to leave you - in a manner of speaking, and establish a Jewish State. The
reasoning was that living in close contact with you, as resident-strangers in the
various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you, disturb you. What
better notion, then, than to leave you and thus love you - and have you love us?
And so we decided to come home - to the same homeland from which we were
driven out 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that, apparently, we also upset.
Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please. Having left you and your
Pogroms and Inquisitions and Crusades and Holocausts, having taken our leave of
the general world to live alone in our own little state - we continue to upset you.
You are upset that we repress the poor Palestinians. You are deeply angered over
the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to
peace in the Middle East. Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The Arabs
are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset.
Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel. In 1920, 1921
and 1929, there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and
Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish State to upset anybody. Nevertheless, the
same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered hundreds of Jews in
Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered one day in
Hebron - in 1929. Dear world, why did the Arabs - the Palestinians - massacre
67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli aggression
in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in Arab
riots in 1936-39? Was it because of Arab upset over 1967? And when you, World,
proposed a U.N. Partition Plan in 1947 that would have created a Palestinian State
alongside a tiny Israel and the Arabs cried and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews
- was that upset stomach caused by the aggression of 1967? And, by the way,
dear world, why did we not hear your cry of upset, then? The poor Palestinians
who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same
people who - when they had all the territories they now demand be given to them
for their state - attempted to drive the Jewish State into the sea. The same twisted
faces, the same hate, the same cry of "idbakh-al-yahud" - "Slaughter the Jews!"
that we hear and see today, were seen and heard then. The same people, the same
dream - destroy Israel. What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of today -
but we should not "repress" them..............
Dear world, you stood by the Holocaust and you stood by in 1948 as seven states
launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol
massacres. You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every
Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea. And you would
stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction. And since we know that the
Arabs-Palestinians daily dream of that extinction, we will do everything possible
to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world? Well - think of
how many times in the past you bothered us. In any event, dear world, if you are
bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less.
While Israeli bulldozers continue to destroy Palestinian homes in the Beit Hanina district of Arab East Jerusalem and
while 2 Palestinians in Nablus were killed and 20 injured as Israeli tanks shelled a refugee camp in the West Bank city of
Jenin, Tuesday [snip] Yet, America's blind and unconditional support for Israeli atrocities and crimes against the Palestinian people, plus the
ongoing American assault against the Iraqis was bound to boomerang sooner or later.
I'm getting tired of these heavily-biased black-and-white depictions of the conflicts in the Middle East.
Why do people not have any understanding of history when looking at the Arab-Israeli conflicts? Ask yourself, looking way back through history to the 1920's even before the state of Israel existed - who initiated the violence? In every instance it was the Palestinians or neighboring Arab countries (other than the pre-emptive strike in the Six Day War, please correct me if I'm wrong). Look through history, and examine how often Israel asked for peace, and how often it's neighbors did.
Who really brought the misery upon the Palestinians? Themselves or the Israelis? If the Israelis have presented the Palestinians with no option but violence, likewise who presented the Israelis with a kill or be killed environment?
For 50 years, there have been consistent attacks against Israel, for no reason other than its existence in the Middle East. The Palestinian Authority's charter actually calls for the complete destruction of Israel. They also refuse to recognize it, and along with other Arab countries, typically refer to it as the Zionist entity. And of course, there have been attacks after attacks. Attacks both before and after the creation of Israel, attacks both before and after the "occupation", and attacks before and after many attempted peace treaties.
At what point is a country entitled to say "enough is enough" and actively defend themselves? And how can one do it successfully without being portrayed as an aggressor, such as the biased article you quoted?
On another note,
I'm surprised to see Jordan portraying Israel as the primary oppressors, and the Palestinians as the completely innocent victims. They seem to have absolutely no memory of Black September, when 5,000 Palestinians were murdered and 20,000 wounded at the hands of the Jordanians themselves. In fact, Jordan asked for Israel's help, which was ultimately never needed, as the Jordanian army eventually took care of the Palestinian guerrillas themselves.
Yet this is one of the many facts that's ignored in today's Middle East crisis. Why are all Arab countries immediately siding against Israel during this intifada, when most of them are guilty of similar or worse tactics?
Read more about Black September here from BBC, and here from Geocities, and
a very interesting collection of declassified British state department papers here.
And finally, I'm not happy about Israel's actions either, but articles such as the quoted one here are very biased, and don't paint the full picture of the conflicts tormenting the Middle East. I hope the Israelis eventually get Sharon out of power and put someone like Shimon Peres, who strongly advocates peace and non-violence whenever possible, as Prime Minister.
Re:CNN is lying
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Where's the proof, just one indy media article? How did this person find out that this is old footage, specifically from 1991 invasion of Kuwait? Why has no other news organization (big or small) caught this fact? Salon had pictures of Palestinians cheering, were they lying too?
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
Having said that, perhaps the U.S. should think twice about supporting and funding Israel's occupation and methodical
elimination of the Palestinian homeland.
It's clear that you've been raised on either propaganda or have no knowledge of events before the last few months.
Ask yourself:
Who started the intifada, Israel or Palestine? (Either recently or back many times throughout history)
Who repeated tried putting peace offers on the table?
Who's official charter calls for the complete destruction of the other's country?
Who rejoices and who mourns when casualties occur on the other side?
Which group can walk on the other's soil without being indiscriminatly attacked?
Which country's people lynch those they suspect have been helping the other?
What Arab country wouldn't respond with equal or more force if their police and soldiers are attacked by rock throwers, much less machine guns?
Which country allows all its citizens (regardless of religion) to vote?
Which country attacks only those which it views as specific threats and directly attack it?
Which country attacks random civilians and rejoices if those civilians die?
Which country teaches it's children to HATE the other?
Which country distributes blatantly false propaganda against the other?
It's no surprise that the Middle East region all refers to Israel as the 51st state of
the USA.
If Israel is the 51st state, then Palestine is the Nth state of the Arab world. They get money boatloads of money and munitions from their surrounding Arab countries, why is that any different?
I wish influential American Jews would do more to push for moderation in Israel and for US separation from the
issue.
And I wish influential Arabs and Muslims would do more to push for moderation in Palestine, and Arab separation from the issue.
Just recently the UN discussions used some 'heated' words to describe Israel's policies (racist, etc) and both Israel and
the US walked out of the talks. Why is condemnation of Israeli policy an insult to the US?
It was an insult because Israel was singled out from all other countries. EVERY Arab country was against Israel, while nearly all of them are just as guilty of the same racist tactics they accuse Israel of.
The US and much of the EU was insulted by seeing a conference aimed to prevent racism and hatred become dominated by those very qualities.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
I'm getting tired of these one-sided accounts portraying Palestinians as completely innocent victims. Especially these accounts that ignore all facts prior to the last year. Israel isn't innocent either, but they're not the sole aggressor here.
They died when they were born in the West Ghaza bank, in an encampament where they were herded after the Israeli
took their land.
Much like the Jews that were born in the surrounding Arab countries. The Jewish population in those countries has been nearly eradicated, through either massacres or forced expulsion.
Those countries completed their ethnic cleansing, yet the world seems to forget this in light of Israel's recent actions.
The Palestinians are dying as a _group_. They are fighing a lost war: light guns against tanks, gunships, jet fighters... Israel
and US together against those people.
You're also forgetting that Israel tried making peace with the Palestinians. Many times. Palestinians were offered the option of living in Israel after it's formation. Many
refused and left as attacks were initiated on Israel. After Israel successfully defended itself, it didn't let it's previous attackers back in its borders. That was the first peace attempt.
Israel also endured constant attacks against it from it's neighbors for 20 years. Finally it said enough is enough and occupied some of the surrounding territory, including Jerusalem. This brings up a question - If your neighbor is trying to kill you, are you entitled to occupy their land as you drive off their attacks?
Israel also tried giving the Palestinians their own country, and even equipped and trained their police forces. You can see how well this attempt turned out.
Not to mention that the official charter of the Palestians has called for the complete destruction of Israel. Most other Arab countries refuse to recognize Israel as a legitimate country, and call it the Zionist entity.
One of Palestine's biggest problems is their leader is a terrorist, manipulating them for his own gain. Much aid money for Palestine is used for weapons and attacks against Israel, instead of internal humanitarian efforts. Arafat lets his fellow Palestinians down, as his wife is shops in fancy stores in Paris. Their children are trained to hate Israel since birth, and are encouraged to join their fellow children that were killed in Paradise.
Israel has been far more conciliatory to the Palestinians than any Arab country has been with the Israelis. If you disagree, name one Arab country that has surpassed Israel in peace and concialitory attempts.
And finally, I don't agree with Israel's war tactics, and I think Sharon has got to go. Peres, IMHO, is a much better candidate for peace, and should be the Prime Minister. However, painting the Israelis as the sole aggressor in these recent events is nowhere near an accurate portrayal of events.
While you're at it, why not also blame the Lichtensteinians, as they clearly have the most to gain, if the major European powers and Americans team up against the Middle East. They'll be able to increase their land size significantly in the ensueing chaos.
Why don't you stop the conspiracy theories for a short while and let the facts of the disaster unfold, instead of trying to incite more hysteria No attack this big can go unnoticed without leaving behind enough fingerprints to point to those responsible.
I'd like to be angry at the people dancing in the streets over this tragedy, but I can easily see Americans doing the same
thing if something like this had happened to Afghanistan or Iraq.
You're forgetting it was innocent people that died in the World Trade Center attack. Most Americans that I know of dislike the Taliban, the rogue government of Afghanistan, but also have pity and sympathy of the actual Afghani residents, who have been forced to scrape a semblence of a life in tattered tents in the desert. If a bunch of them were wiped out, I don't know of anyone that would rejoice.
There's (usually) a difference between the government and the civilians. Especially when you're talking about tightly-controlled iron-fist regimes.
Yeah, Trenton Computer Festival used to be THE sh*t. I remember going there with my Dad back in the early 80's, and you'd find all kinds of crazy stuff. Alot of home-brewed computers too, which was pretty cool.
I remember we bought a cool CGA monitor for $50 (good price at that time) and it didn't even have a case, it came surrounded in stryofoam, plus we had to install some isolation transformers for it, as well as hack it a bit to get the intensity-bit of the CGA graphics working. (CGA was 16 color, only 8 color without intensity bit settable).
There was also some guy named Laser Dan who was probably one of the first laser-pen dealers. Back in the 80's it was cool as hell having a mini-laser. Of course they cost a pretty penny in them days.
You'd find lots of old computer/radio/electronic stuff there, it was kind of like a big hamfest. I remember being psyched when some people claimed we were the 100th people to pass by their table, so we won a "prize", which was a MOSTLY broken dumb vt100 terminal. I had to beg my father for us to take it home (I was 10 then and couldn't carry it). Actually, we were the 101th people, the 100th guy was eating a hotdog, and didn't want to waste his time with a clunky piece-of-crap that was free.
That was also where I got my first color computer (I was stuck on the monochrome TRS-80 until 1987). We risked $20 for a slightly-hacked version of a Tandy CoCo I, sold "as-is". It had ilke a 40-conductor ribbon cable coming out the side of it, probably hacked directly into the data/address bus or something. It worked great for a few weeks, until somehow the ribbon-cable shorted itself and the computer got fried.
I haven't been back to the TCF in 10+ years, but in the 80's and earlier it definitely kicked ass as far as computer festivals.
I think a far more interesting 'battle of the brains' tournement between computer and human would involve something that as quite, but not entirely unlike, chess. I've spoken with some friends about this idea, and they agree.
Chess players have spent nearly their entire lives studying the way pieces move around the board, whether they realize it or not. They can see several moves into the future more easily than a chess novice with equal intuition. That said, I would be far more curious to see how a chess player would handle playing a different game.
What I mean by this is change the rules of chess slightly, then allow 3 days for both computer programmers and human challenger to learn/recode the new rules and strategies.
Sample rules changes could involve knights moving orthogonally 2:2 instead of 2:1, or having a borderless board, where if you move off the left you come in on the right side (like Pacman), or marking a few squares as off-limits for the whole game, etc.
I think that some of these rather simple alterations of the rules would drastically alter subsequent gameplay. I also think that a chess novice would do roughly equally well in the various scenarios (albeit rather crappy in 'classical' chess). But more interestingly, how would the chess expert do? Would these new rules to him be like learning an entirely new game? Suddenly he wouldn't have the benefit of 20+ years of practice, and would have to 'see' things as they were for the first time.
I would be very interested to see how the great chess masters would do against computers in these situations. People often hype the human/AI chess games as battles to see whether computers are smarter than people. I think 'modified' chess would be a more interesting study. Do the great chess players really possess that much more wisdom and foresight, or is it some experience acquired by 20+ years of watching the pieces move.
I posted this idea on/. a few years ago, and I got some angry replies from chess players indicating that chess is all intuition and that rules changes wouldn't matter. Well, anybody care to find out?
The thing that bothers me about this whole story is that as far as I've noticed, it was never mentioned on LinuxToday. (Someone please give a link if I've missed it).
I was a big fan of LinuxToday for a few years now, because it was a smaller weblog with far less trolls than our beloved/. (even with their astroturfing) They do moderate the posts, though, which may help account for that. But it always struck me as strange that a bunch of blatantly anti-Linux seemingly blindly-in-love-with-MS posts would consistently make it through.
Since Slashdot first reported on the astroturfing, and especially because I haven't noticed a response from LinuxToday admitting to this, I have lost a good deal of respect for them. It's a shame that Linuxtoday had to resort to posting flames in order to get more visitors to come to their site. It's the same tactic that's often attributed to eWeek and others. If they would at least publically admit on their site that they were astroturfing, then maybe I can respect them again...
Other than these philosophical issues, it is a decent news site if you're interested in some of the noteworthy linux headlines.
You might find it easy, but I find it a pain in the ass to reboot every time I change the gateway or DNS server in win9x. Don't know if it's still a problem in win2k or xp.
Because then the sister (who has obviously studied up on Linux) just hits ctrl-alt-F7 and gets
to brother's windows, closes his transfers, signs him up for porno lists, etc:)
That's why brother xlocks his session before leaving.
The phyiscs department building is brand
new (it's this crazy fortess), but nonetheless I get the feeling there are tens of thousands of
strange artifacts waiting to be discovered in the rooms in the basement.
Yeah, that's pretty much true here in Bloomberg. one of the Condensed-Matter physicists retired recently, and a bunch of his stuff is still lying around. We're (C.L.Chien's group) contemplating assimilating his old MBE for our group, but there's alot of other unused stuff. Actually, one guy from our group is salvaging a good LHe dewar from an old Mossbauer Spectroscopy setup, which should save us some cash.
There's also some crazy old electronics around the building. In the undergrad lounge/lab, there's one of the oldest oscilloscopes I've ever seen (and I've seen my share of REALLY old scopes). It's the size of a large desk, takes banana-plug-like inputs (not coax). I don't even think it could generate the horizontal sawtooth waveform, and that you had to do that externally. This thing was definitely ANCIENT, maybe one of the first commercially-produced CRT screens.
My old school (U.Penn) had alot of old/random devices around, especially in some obscure storage closets that appeared like they hadn't been disturbed in decades. Although it gets kind of scary when you're exploring a closet and you see barrels filled with random chemicals you've never heard of.
A terribly cool hack that I've always
wanted to do is to take an old, original Bell, black and heavy and ugly, rotary phone, and turn it
into a cellphone and carry it around.
Well, you could get your amateur radio operator's license, build your own radio with DTMF capabilities. Then join a local repeater club that maintains an operable phone-patch.
HAM's used to be hot-sh*t back in the day, before cell phones, when they could call people from nearly anywhere with their radios.
Also cool is using HF to communicate up to thousands of miles, and sometimes you can find someone willing to phone-patch you (a collect call, of course) so you can keep-in-touch even if you're in the middle of nowhere. My uncle used to do this from his sailboat when he was going between Hawaii and San Diego. He'd be able to contact some guy in California and get him to patch the transmission and call us collect to update us on his status. Pretty cool stuff.
Sorry to be harbinger of bad news, but Marble Madness has been mentioned at least twice on slashdot. Vintage video and computer games tend to be a recurring topic.
You can see mentions of your favorite game on this/. story and this one too .
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V.V / _` (_-<_-< .\_/\_/\__,_/__/__/
Slashdot Mirror
Your friend seems to have missed some television and radio broadcasts within Palestine and also other parts of the Arab world. Here are some notable quotes. Note that this isn't Joe Schmoe off the street venting, but these are people in positions of leadership, with tremendous public responsibilities. Much of their anger isn't directed merely at the political state of Israel, but all Jews indiscriminantly. That certainly sounds like a religious issue to me.
After the lynching of two Israeli army soldiers who made a wrong turn into Palestinian-controlled territory, Dr. Ahmad Abu-Halabia, member of the "Fatwa Council", appointed by the Palestinian Authority, said this, live on Palestinian television. ... Our people must unite in one trench, and receive armaments
from the Palestinian leadership to confront the Jews. ... Have no mercy on the Jews, no
matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Whenever you meet
them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them
- and those who stand with them - they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the
Muslims - because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in
Palestine. They created it in order that it be the outpost of their civilisation - and the
vanguard of their army, and to be the sword of the West and the Crusaders, hanging over
the necks of the Muslim monotheists, the Muslims in this land. They wanted the Jews to be
the spearhead for them..."
"The Jews are Jews, whether Labour or Likud, the Jews are Jews. They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace. They are all liars. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed. As Allah the Almighty said: 'Fight them'. Allah will torture them by your hands and will humiliate them and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers.
Bashar Assad, the President of Syria, referring to the Arab-Israeli conflict, has this to say as he welcomed the Pope to Syria on May 6, 2001.
"They [the Jews] try to kill the principle of religions with the same mentality that they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet Mohammed."
Here's a sermon broadcast on Palestinian Authority television on August 3, 2001. I don't know the name of the speaker.
"All weapons must be aimed at the Jews, at the enemies of Allah...whom the Koran describes as monkeys and pigs, worshippers of the calf and idol worshippers. Allah shall make the Moslem rule over the Jew, we will blow them up in Hadera, we will blow them up in Tel Aviv and in Netanya in the righteousness of Allah against this rif-raff.....We will enter Jerusalem as conquerors, and Jaffa as conquereors, and Haifa as conquerors and Ashekelon as conquerors...we bless all those who educate their children to jihad and to Martyrdom, blessing be he who shot a bullet into the head of a Jew."
After Arafat's cease-fire declaration, Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi had some nice words on Palestinian Authority television, broadcast June 8, 2001.
"...Allah willing, this unjust state...Israel will be erased; this unjust state, the United States will be erased; this unjust state, Britain will be erased...Blessings to whoever waged Jihad for the sake of Allah...Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons' and plunged into the midst of the Jews..."
So, you might believe that events of the Arab-Israeli conflict aren't religiously motivated, but I completely disagree. What I find apalling, though, is that not only is violence encouraged, but it's directed not at the political enemy of Israel, but at all Jews. Luckily, here in the USA, our political and religious leaders have the responsibilities of being civilized, and publicly renounced not only violence, but racial and religious discrimination and persecution.
Please explain where said people are practicing fascism. You've missed my point which was that by ignoring what has occured and is occuring against Israel in neighboring countries, and merely looking at Israeli actions, one might get that illusion you allude to. But this isn't a vacuum. It's a complicated twisted serious of affairs.
So if you really believe it, please explain how, as you have said, Jewish/Israelis are fascist. And please clarify if you are referring to Jewish Israelis or both Israelis and Jewish people of other countries.
Thanks, this seems to be a rarer point to hear recently. And I agree with your point about Sharon being a war hawk. I can only hope that a more peaceful Prime Minister will get elected.
Nonsense, I haven't done anything, I wasn't even around back then. And I'm not even Israeli. Be careful who you attribute historical acts to.
Now as far as the early Zionists and Arabs are concerned, that's a different story. and for your information, the whole "schmoozle" started long before 1948, as the anonymous email letter alluded to massacres of the Jews in the area in the 1920's.
Then you displace hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their homes. "The early Zionist settlers--particularly those of the Second Aliyah--adopted a rigid policy that land purchased or in any way acquired by a Jewish organization or individual could never again be sold, leased, or rented to a nonJew . The policy went so far as to preclude the use of non-Jewish labor on the land"
Once again, I haven't displaced anybody, so please stop accusing me of such things. Do you have a person to attribute your quote to? Keep in mind that discrimination wasn't limited to the Zionists. When Palestine was divided, 80% went to Transjordan, 17% went to the formation of Israel. Part of the stipulation was that Jordan was entitled to let no Jews settle or live there. Yet in fact, Israel had about 50% population of Israeli Arabs.
After gaining a foothold you proceeded to enlarge your territories at the expense of the Arabs whos homes you took over. Payin no attention to the UN. "By January 1949, Jewish forces held the area that was to define Israel's territory until June 1967, an area that was significantly larger than the area designated by the UN partition plan"
The Palestinians cut off their nose to spite their face during the partition plan. Twice. Firstly, they rejected proposals for a Palestinian state, that would have included much of modern Israel. Secondly, the Arab attacks against newfound Israel in 1948 resulted in the Israelis acquiring more territory than was initially given them. It's like gambling - you don't get angry at the casino if you bet and lose your wedding ring. The Palestinians chose to gamble at conquering the Israelis through war. The Israelis won, and hence also took more land as the spoils of war. That doesn't give the Palestinians the right to complain about their foiled attack afterwards. If you play with fire, you get burned, as the old adage goes.
As far as Israel ignoring the UN, the Arabs were severely chastised by the UN during 1948. Here's what the UN Palestine Commission had to say on Feb. 16, 1948. "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein." Here's what Jamal Husseini, the spokesman for the Arab Higher Committee, had to say on April 16, 1948, admitting that the Arabs initiated the attacks. "The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight." Also of interest is what Azzam Pasha, the Secretary-General of the Arab League, had to declare about Israel through the impending Arab invasion. "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
Im not sure how a nation who has suffered from such persecution could act as your people have towards the Palestinians.
Once again, I haven't acted in any way against Palestinians. When looking at the current Israeli treatment of Palestinians, look throughout history in unbiased reports, books, and articles. Then judge. If you search carefully, you'll find that Israel's actions didn't happen in a vacuum, but are a consequence of consistence torment and aggravation. Read your history, and I'm sure you'll gain a new perspective on the situation.
Who initiated the Suez war? I believe it was Israel that declared, after being aggravated by Egypt for several years.
Yes, Israel struck, after, as you say, Egyptian aggravation, acquisition of nuclear weaponry, and capture of the Suez Canal. Israel was joined by Britain and France. Here's what President Eisenhower said on Oct. 31, 1956.
This situation recently was aggravated by Egyptian policy including rearmament with Communist weapons. We felt this to be a misguided policy on the part of the Government of Egypt. The State of Israel, at the same time, felt increasing anxiety for its safety. And Great Britain and France feared more and more that Egyptian policies threatened their "life line" of the Suez Canal. These matters came to a crisis on July 26th of this year, when the Egyptian Government seized the Universal Suez Canal Company. For ninety years-ever since the inauguration of the Canal-that Company has operated the Canal, largely under British and French technical supervision.
[snip]
But the direct relations of Egypt with both Israel and France kept worsening to a point at which first Israel-then France-and Great Britain also-determined that, in their judgment, there could be no protection of their vital interests, without resort to force. Upon this decision, events followed swiftly. On Sunday [October 29] the Israeli Government ordered total mobilization. On Monday, their armed forces penetrated deeply into Egypt and to the vicinity of the Suez Canal, nearly one hundred miles away. And on Tuesday, the British and French Governments delivered a 12-hour ultimatum to Israel and Egypt-now followed up by armed attack against Egypt.
In regards to the Six Day War, Israel intelligence knew of the mobilization of 250,000 troops (nearly half inSinai peninsula), 700 aircraft, and 2000 tanks. Situated along Israeli borders. Not to mention surrounding countries calling for complete destruction of Israel. For instance, the President of Iraw, Abdur Rahman Aref, said, "The existence of Israel is an error which 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." Israel had to pre-emptively strike, or they would have faced catastrophic losses against the impending offensive. AFAIK, the attackers did not deny they had an attack planned.
In regards to the Lebanon War, you are correct that the PLO was iniating terrorist attacks from there. They were also smuggling in large quantities of weaponry used in other terrorist attacks against Israel. Israel invaded because it had no real choice. And yet again, Israel was not unprovoked in this war. Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State) said, "No sovereign state can tolerate indefinitely the buildup along its borders of a military force dedicated to its destruction and implementing its objectives by periodic shellings and raids" (Washington Post, June 16, 1982).
True. But I am responding to a post of a biased newspaper article. And I'm responding on Slashdot, where I can be moderated by others, and where all others have an equal chance to voice their own opinion and response.
I'm not writing said article under the guise of a journalist, seemingly trying to sway public opinion against another country. I was trying to point out that the accusations in the original article didn't occur in a vacuum. However, alot of journalists and subsequently their readers seem to believe this was the case.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't support Israel's continued use of aggression. But Israel isn't the only aggressor in this situation, yet alot of people don't seem to acknowledge that.
True. Do you have numbers for the actual populations? Or, even better, areas of land owned by each group?
Either way, both groups were living under British rule. It brings up an interesting question regarding sovereign powers, though. If Britain wants to let another group rule that area, can she? That is, is it necessarily wrong, for example, for the US to say "To make up for past atrocities, we are forming a Native American nation in the state of Oklahoma. Anyone that stays there will become a resident of the new country of the 5 Civilized Tribes. At your option you may remain a US citizen and move to another state." Okay, it's a ridiculous scenario as it is, but that's kind of what happened back in the 1940's. Would that make the newfound Native American country necessarily bad? Would it justify attacks against it by Americans both within and outside of Oklahoma?
The other side of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The original parent of this thread was a Jordanian account of Palestinian life. People might be interested in the life of an Israeli.
Remember, Palestine was a British colony, with both Jews and Arabs living there. The following was taken from the American Israeli Cooperative Enterprise Page on Myths and Facts of the Partition.
MYTH
"Israel usurped all of Palestine in 1948."
FACT
Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1922 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20 percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan's annexation of the West Bank in 1950, Arabs controlled approximately 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent (Gaza, occupied by Egypt, was the remainder).
MYTH
"The Palestinian Arabs were never offered a state and therefore have been denied the right to self-determination."
FACT
The Peel Commission in 1937 concluded the only logical solution to resolving the contradictory aspirations of the Jews and Arabs was to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs rejected the plan because it forced them to accept the creation of a Jewish state, and required some Palestinians to live under "Jewish domination." The Zionists opposed the Peel Plan's boundaries because they would have been confined to little more than a ghetto of 1,900 out of the 10,310 square miles remaining in Palestine. Nevertheless, the Zionists decided to negotiate with the British, while the Arabs refused to consider any compromises. Again, in 1939, the British White Paper called for the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine within 10 years, and for limiting Jewish immigration to no more than 75,000 over the following five years. Afterward, no one would be allowed in without the consent of the Arab population. Though the Arabs had been granted a concession on Jewish immigration, and been offered independence - the goal of Arab nationalists - they repudiated the White Paper. With partition, the Palestinians were given a state and the opportunity for self-determination. This too was rejected.
Good point, and it works both ways too. For anyone interested in the view of a guy on the other side, here is an anonymous letter circulating the internet a month or two ago. It's anonymous, so take it with a grain of salt. But it helps show how some common folks living in Israel might be feeling.
Before anyone flames me, I'm just posting it so the other side can be heard to. I don't necessarily agree or endorse any opinions expressed in this letter. But there are (at least) two sides to every story, right?
Subject: A Letter From An Israeli Jew to the World
Please, we understand that you are upset over us, here in Israel. It appears that you are quite upset, even angry and outraged. Indeed, every few years you seem to become upset over us. Today, it is the brutal repression of the Palestinians; yesterday, it was Lebanon; before that it was the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Baghdad and the Yom Kippur War campaign.
It appears that Jews who triumph and who, therefore, live, upset you most. Of course, dear world, long before there was an Israel, we, the Jewish people, upset you. We upset a German people who elected a Hitler and we upset an Austrian people who cheered his entry into Vienna and we upset a whole slew of Slavic nations, Poles, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Hungarians, Romanians. We go back a long, long way in the history of world upset. We upset the Cossacks of Chmielnicki who massacred tens of thousands of us in 1648-49; we upset the Crusaders who, on their way to liberate the Holy Land, were so upset at Jews that they slaughtered untold numbers of us. We upset, for centuries, a Roman Catholic Church that did its best to define our relationship through Inquisitions. And we upset the arch-enemy of the Church, Martin Luther, who, in his call to burn the synagogues and the Jews within them, showed an admirable Christian ecumenical spirit.
It is because we became so upset over upsetting you, dear world, that we decided to leave you - in a manner of speaking, and establish a Jewish State. The reasoning was that living in close contact with you, as resident-strangers in the various countries that comprise you, we upset you, irritate you, disturb you. What better notion, then, than to leave you and thus love you - and have you love us? And so we decided to come home - to the same homeland from which we were driven out 1,900 years earlier by a Roman world that, apparently, we also upset.
Alas, dear world, it appears that you are hard to please. Having left you and your Pogroms and Inquisitions and Crusades and Holocausts, having taken our leave of the general world to live alone in our own little state - we continue to upset you. You are upset that we repress the poor Palestinians. You are deeply angered over the fact that we do not give up the lands of 1967, which are clearly the obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Moscow is upset and Washington is upset. The Arabs are upset and the gentle Egyptian moderates are upset.
Well, dear world, consider the reaction of a normal Jew from Israel. In 1920, 1921 and 1929, there were no territories of 1967 to impede peace between Jews and Arabs. Indeed, there was no Jewish State to upset anybody. Nevertheless, the same oppressed and repressed Palestinians slaughtered hundreds of Jews in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Safed and Hebron. Indeed, 67 Jews were slaughtered one day in Hebron - in 1929. Dear world, why did the Arabs - the Palestinians - massacre 67 Jews in one day in 1929? Could it have been their anger over Israeli aggression in 1967? And why were 510 Jewish men, women and children slaughtered in Arab riots in 1936-39? Was it because of Arab upset over 1967? And when you, World, proposed a U.N. Partition Plan in 1947 that would have created a Palestinian State alongside a tiny Israel and the Arabs cried and went to war and killed 6,000 Jews - was that upset stomach caused by the aggression of 1967? And, by the way, dear world, why did we not hear your cry of upset, then? The poor Palestinians who today kill Jews with explosives and firebombs and stones are part of the same people who - when they had all the territories they now demand be given to them for their state - attempted to drive the Jewish State into the sea. The same twisted faces, the same hate, the same cry of "idbakh-al-yahud" - "Slaughter the Jews!" that we hear and see today, were seen and heard then. The same people, the same dream - destroy Israel. What they failed to do yesterday, they dream of today - but we should not "repress" them..............
Dear world, you stood by the Holocaust and you stood by in 1948 as seven states launched a war that the Arab League proudly compared to the Mongol massacres. You stood by in 1967 as Nasser, wildly cheered by wild mobs in every Arab capital in the world, vowed to drive the Jews into the sea. And you would stand by tomorrow if Israel were facing extinction. And since we know that the Arabs-Palestinians daily dream of that extinction, we will do everything possible to remain alive in our own land. If that bothers you, dear world? Well - think of how many times in the past you bothered us. In any event, dear world, if you are bothered by us, here is one Jew in Israel who could not care less.
[snip]
Yet, America's blind and unconditional support for Israeli atrocities and crimes against the Palestinian people, plus the ongoing American assault against the Iraqis was bound to boomerang sooner or later.
I'm getting tired of these heavily-biased black-and-white depictions of the conflicts in the Middle East. Why do people not have any understanding of history when looking at the Arab-Israeli conflicts? Ask yourself, looking way back through history to the 1920's even before the state of Israel existed - who initiated the violence? In every instance it was the Palestinians or neighboring Arab countries (other than the pre-emptive strike in the Six Day War, please correct me if I'm wrong). Look through history, and examine how often Israel asked for peace, and how often it's neighbors did.
Who really brought the misery upon the Palestinians? Themselves or the Israelis? If the Israelis have presented the Palestinians with no option but violence, likewise who presented the Israelis with a kill or be killed environment?
For 50 years, there have been consistent attacks against Israel, for no reason other than its existence in the Middle East. The Palestinian Authority's charter actually calls for the complete destruction of Israel. They also refuse to recognize it, and along with other Arab countries, typically refer to it as the Zionist entity. And of course, there have been attacks after attacks. Attacks both before and after the creation of Israel, attacks both before and after the "occupation", and attacks before and after many attempted peace treaties. At what point is a country entitled to say "enough is enough" and actively defend themselves? And how can one do it successfully without being portrayed as an aggressor, such as the biased article you quoted?
On another note, I'm surprised to see Jordan portraying Israel as the primary oppressors, and the Palestinians as the completely innocent victims. They seem to have absolutely no memory of Black September, when 5,000 Palestinians were murdered and 20,000 wounded at the hands of the Jordanians themselves. In fact, Jordan asked for Israel's help, which was ultimately never needed, as the Jordanian army eventually took care of the Palestinian guerrillas themselves.
Yet this is one of the many facts that's ignored in today's Middle East crisis. Why are all Arab countries immediately siding against Israel during this intifada, when most of them are guilty of similar or worse tactics?
Read more about Black September here from BBC, and here from Geocities, and a very interesting collection of declassified British state department papers here.
And finally, I'm not happy about Israel's actions either, but articles such as the quoted one here are very biased, and don't paint the full picture of the conflicts tormenting the Middle East. I hope the Israelis eventually get Sharon out of power and put someone like Shimon Peres, who strongly advocates peace and non-violence whenever possible, as Prime Minister.
Where's the proof, just one indy media article? How did this person find out that this is old footage, specifically from 1991 invasion of Kuwait? Why has no other news organization (big or small) caught this fact? Salon had pictures of Palestinians cheering, were they lying too?
It's clear that you've been raised on either propaganda or have no knowledge of events before the last few months. Ask yourself:
It's no surprise that the Middle East region all refers to Israel as the 51st state of the USA.
If Israel is the 51st state, then Palestine is the Nth state of the Arab world. They get money boatloads of money and munitions from their surrounding Arab countries, why is that any different?
I wish influential American Jews would do more to push for moderation in Israel and for US separation from the issue.
And I wish influential Arabs and Muslims would do more to push for moderation in Palestine, and Arab separation from the issue.
Just recently the UN discussions used some 'heated' words to describe Israel's policies (racist, etc) and both Israel and the US walked out of the talks. Why is condemnation of Israeli policy an insult to the US?
It was an insult because Israel was singled out from all other countries. EVERY Arab country was against Israel, while nearly all of them are just as guilty of the same racist tactics they accuse Israel of. The US and much of the EU was insulted by seeing a conference aimed to prevent racism and hatred become dominated by those very qualities.
They died when they were born in the West Ghaza bank, in an encampament where they were herded after the Israeli took their land.
Much like the Jews that were born in the surrounding Arab countries. The Jewish population in those countries has been nearly eradicated, through either massacres or forced expulsion. Those countries completed their ethnic cleansing, yet the world seems to forget this in light of Israel's recent actions.
The Palestinians are dying as a _group_. They are fighing a lost war: light guns against tanks, gunships, jet fighters... Israel and US together against those people.
You're also forgetting that Israel tried making peace with the Palestinians. Many times. Palestinians were offered the option of living in Israel after it's formation. Many refused and left as attacks were initiated on Israel. After Israel successfully defended itself, it didn't let it's previous attackers back in its borders. That was the first peace attempt.
Israel also endured constant attacks against it from it's neighbors for 20 years. Finally it said enough is enough and occupied some of the surrounding territory, including Jerusalem. This brings up a question - If your neighbor is trying to kill you, are you entitled to occupy their land as you drive off their attacks?
Israel also tried giving the Palestinians their own country, and even equipped and trained their police forces. You can see how well this attempt turned out.
Not to mention that the official charter of the Palestians has called for the complete destruction of Israel. Most other Arab countries refuse to recognize Israel as a legitimate country, and call it the Zionist entity.
One of Palestine's biggest problems is their leader is a terrorist, manipulating them for his own gain. Much aid money for Palestine is used for weapons and attacks against Israel, instead of internal humanitarian efforts. Arafat lets his fellow Palestinians down, as his wife is shops in fancy stores in Paris. Their children are trained to hate Israel since birth, and are encouraged to join their fellow children that were killed in Paradise.
Israel has been far more conciliatory to the Palestinians than any Arab country has been with the Israelis. If you disagree, name one Arab country that has surpassed Israel in peace and concialitory attempts.
And finally, I don't agree with Israel's war tactics, and I think Sharon has got to go. Peres, IMHO, is a much better candidate for peace, and should be the Prime Minister. However, painting the Israelis as the sole aggressor in these recent events is nowhere near an accurate portrayal of events.
Why don't you stop the conspiracy theories for a short while and let the facts of the disaster unfold, instead of trying to incite more hysteria No attack this big can go unnoticed without leaving behind enough fingerprints to point to those responsible.
thing if something like this had happened to Afghanistan or Iraq.
You're forgetting it was innocent people that died in the World Trade Center attack. Most Americans that I know of dislike the Taliban, the rogue government of Afghanistan, but also have pity and sympathy of the actual Afghani residents, who have been forced to scrape a semblence of a life in tattered tents in the desert. If a bunch of them were wiped out, I don't know of anyone that would rejoice.
There's (usually) a difference between the government and the civilians. Especially when you're talking about tightly-controlled iron-fist regimes.
Nope, it's 4-color in 320x200 mode. In lower resolutions (at least on the Tandy), and in text modes, it supports 16 colors.
I remember we bought a cool CGA monitor for $50 (good price at that time) and it didn't even have a case, it came surrounded in stryofoam, plus we had to install some isolation transformers for it, as well as hack it a bit to get the intensity-bit of the CGA graphics working. (CGA was 16 color, only 8 color without intensity bit settable).
There was also some guy named Laser Dan who was probably one of the first laser-pen dealers. Back in the 80's it was cool as hell having a mini-laser. Of course they cost a pretty penny in them days.
You'd find lots of old computer/radio/electronic stuff there, it was kind of like a big hamfest. I remember being psyched when some people claimed we were the 100th people to pass by their table, so we won a "prize", which was a MOSTLY broken dumb vt100 terminal. I had to beg my father for us to take it home (I was 10 then and couldn't carry it). Actually, we were the 101th people, the 100th guy was eating a hotdog, and didn't want to waste his time with a clunky piece-of-crap that was free.
That was also where I got my first color computer (I was stuck on the monochrome TRS-80 until 1987). We risked $20 for a slightly-hacked version of a Tandy CoCo I, sold "as-is". It had ilke a 40-conductor ribbon cable coming out the side of it, probably hacked directly into the data/address bus or something. It worked great for a few weeks, until somehow the ribbon-cable shorted itself and the computer got fried.
I haven't been back to the TCF in 10+ years, but in the 80's and earlier it definitely kicked ass as far as computer festivals.
Chess players have spent nearly their entire lives studying the way pieces move around the board, whether they realize it or not. They can see several moves into the future more easily than a chess novice with equal intuition. That said, I would be far more curious to see how a chess player would handle playing a different game. What I mean by this is change the rules of chess slightly, then allow 3 days for both computer programmers and human challenger to learn/recode the new rules and strategies.
Sample rules changes could involve knights moving orthogonally 2:2 instead of 2:1, or having a borderless board, where if you move off the left you come in on the right side (like Pacman), or marking a few squares as off-limits for the whole game, etc.
I think that some of these rather simple alterations of the rules would drastically alter subsequent gameplay. I also think that a chess novice would do roughly equally well in the various scenarios (albeit rather crappy in 'classical' chess). But more interestingly, how would the chess expert do? Would these new rules to him be like learning an entirely new game? Suddenly he wouldn't have the benefit of 20+ years of practice, and would have to 'see' things as they were for the first time.
I would be very interested to see how the great chess masters would do against computers in these situations. People often hype the human/AI chess games as battles to see whether computers are smarter than people. I think 'modified' chess would be a more interesting study. Do the great chess players really possess that much more wisdom and foresight, or is it some experience acquired by 20+ years of watching the pieces move.
I posted this idea on /. a few years ago, and I got some angry replies from chess players indicating that chess is all intuition and that rules changes wouldn't matter. Well, anybody care to find out?
I was a big fan of LinuxToday for a few years now, because it was a smaller weblog with far less trolls than our beloved /. (even with their astroturfing) They do moderate the posts, though, which may help account for that. But it always struck me as strange that a bunch of blatantly anti-Linux seemingly blindly-in-love-with-MS posts would consistently make it through.
Since Slashdot first reported on the astroturfing, and especially because I haven't noticed a response from LinuxToday admitting to this, I have lost a good deal of respect for them. It's a shame that Linuxtoday had to resort to posting flames in order to get more visitors to come to their site. It's the same tactic that's often attributed to eWeek and others. If they would at least publically admit on their site that they were astroturfing, then maybe I can respect them again...
Other than these philosophical issues, it is a decent news site if you're interested in some of the noteworthy linux headlines.
You might find it easy, but I find it a pain in the ass to reboot every time I change the gateway or DNS server in win9x. Don't know if it's still a problem in win2k or xp.
That's why brother xlocks his session before leaving.
Yeah, that's pretty much true here in Bloomberg. one of the Condensed-Matter physicists retired recently, and a bunch of his stuff is still lying around. We're (C.L.Chien's group) contemplating assimilating his old MBE for our group, but there's alot of other unused stuff. Actually, one guy from our group is salvaging a good LHe dewar from an old Mossbauer Spectroscopy setup, which should save us some cash.
There's also some crazy old electronics around the building. In the undergrad lounge/lab, there's one of the oldest oscilloscopes I've ever seen (and I've seen my share of REALLY old scopes). It's the size of a large desk, takes banana-plug-like inputs (not coax). I don't even think it could generate the horizontal sawtooth waveform, and that you had to do that externally. This thing was definitely ANCIENT, maybe one of the first commercially-produced CRT screens.
My old school (U.Penn) had alot of old/random devices around, especially in some obscure storage closets that appeared like they hadn't been disturbed in decades. Although it gets kind of scary when you're exploring a closet and you see barrels filled with random chemicals you've never heard of.
Well, you could get your amateur radio operator's license, build your own radio with DTMF capabilities. Then join a local repeater club that maintains an operable phone-patch.
HAM's used to be hot-sh*t back in the day, before cell phones, when they could call people from nearly anywhere with their radios.
Also cool is using HF to communicate up to thousands of miles, and sometimes you can find someone willing to phone-patch you (a collect call, of course) so you can keep-in-touch even if you're in the middle of nowhere. My uncle used to do this from his sailboat when he was going between Hawaii and San Diego. He'd be able to contact some guy in California and get him to patch the transmission and call us collect to update us on his status. Pretty cool stuff.
Sorry to be harbinger of bad news, but Marble Madness has been mentioned at least twice on slashdot. Vintage video and computer games tend to be a recurring topic. You can see mentions of your favorite game on this /. story and this one too .
.V / _` (_-<_-<
.\_/\_/\__,_/__/__/
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V