Sanctions and Genocide

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:25 pm

Genocide came up in another thread and it returned me to thoughts about economic sanctions as a legitimate political tool. I would like to hear the arguments favouring sanctions as a humane alternative to war.

I believe it is the specific targeting of civilians with little political effectiveness.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:07 pm

koan wrote: Genocide came up in another thread and it returned me to thoughts about economic sanctions as a legitimate political tool. I would like to hear the arguments favouring sanctions as a humane alternative to war.

I believe it is the specific targeting of civilians with little political effectiveness.

In a nutshell it doesnt seem to work very well. How long have sanctions been in place in Cuba ? 30 yrs ?

Sanctions in Iraq only hurt the population but they sidestepped that and the black market flourished. It also made sodamn insane even wealthier by allowing him total control over items that were being shipped like medicines and food to be sold in his own black market trade

Id like to see an example of sanctions being effective

I cant think of one

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:06 pm

Sanctions continue to be considered a useful tool.

Of the UNs decisions, Lydia Randrianarivony of Madagascar said the following on March 17, 2005

The sanctions on Angola, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Haiti, Libya, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Sudan and the former Yugoslavia have been fully lifted. In the case of Iraq, economic sanctions have been removed but a military embargo is still in force. The Security Council's power to impose sanctions should be exercised in accordance with the U.N. charter and international law, Randrianarivony told delegates Monday. Sanctions should be considered only after all means of peaceful settlement of disputes under chapter VI of the charter had been exhausted -- and a thorough consideration of the effects of sanctions -- undertaken, she added.

The sanctions against Cuba have gone on for four decades. With Castro reaching 80 there is hope that democracy will take hold in Cuba when he is gone. There is little reason to believe that the status quo will change.

The Iraq sanctions are criticised as being a genocide and resulted in the resignation of Denis Halliday from the UN in 1998 so he could speak out against the horrors of economic sanctions.

The US currently seeks UN sanctioning of Iran, N Korea.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:59 pm

koan wrote:

The US currently seeks UN sanctioning of Iran, N Korea.

ah, of course. there's the angle. what good would the topic be, if not to bring it around to the US doing something you have described as genocide.

bravo.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:54 pm

There are some people who should be killed/eliminated from the eath.

Those are the mentally "crippled" who are only ionterested in children

Of course...those millions should be sent to another "abandoned island"

are waiting for cerebral thought!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:13 pm

Diuretic wrote: Well that was a discussion-stopper. Why not just rebut instead of attack anastrophe? If the US is advocating sanctions of Iran and North Korea then why not defend and explain or if you think it's not a good idea explain why?

i'm merely sharing my opinion. the poster's motives are transparent, thankfully, so it's not like it's a head scratcher to understand why i mention it.

Sorry to sound so prescriptive but this reflexive defensiveness is getting old.

let me put it this way. this contingent does not believe in sanctions, which are a non-violent means of applying pressure to rogue states. this contingent does not believe in the use of military force on rogue states. this contingent is the first to condemn the united states if we do *not* employ military force to intercede in other nation's affairs, when it suits them for us be the world police (translation: darfur). this contingent exculpates aggressors and blames their victims. this contingent believes that the world trade center towers attacked the jetliners piloted by the oppressed islamofascists, by being in their way.

this contingent is the first to remind americans of our history of slavery, and genocide of indigenous populations, while never ever mentioning their own shameful history of same. if someone does mention it, they're described as just being childish and spiteful.

this contingent condemns us for our greed and penury if we do not feed the starving masses of the world, because then they just begin breeding again. this same contingent condemns us for our meddling and shortsightedness if we feed the starving masses of the world rather than teaching them how to farm. this contingent will then condemn us as evil corporo-fascists if we offer farming equipment, fertilizer, and seed, as we are then 'enslaving' them to the goods offered by said corporofascists. in all three cases, we are enabling genocide.

i'm sick to death of it, frankly. and i'm tired being told that i should lighten up when people act like jackals towards us. they act like jackals, i'll act like one right back, thank you very much. it is definitely not beneath me to lower myself to their level.

i haven't looked into it, but i'd just bet there are a number of other nation members of the UN who are calling for sanctions on various other nations. but what would be the point of mentioning that? it serves no purpose for their agenda.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:59 pm

pah

go start a thread called "the unauthorized biography of koan" anastrophe. It'll make you feel better. I promise not to post in it.

back on topic (which began with the UN approved sanctions)

of the 16 sanctions imposed by the world body so far, 12 were in Africa: Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Liberia, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Libya, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and Sudan. The four non-African countries that have also come under U.N. sanctions include Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia.

one of the problems with sanctions is that they are not uniformly imposed. One country gets away with the same thing another country is sanctioned for.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:06 pm

anastrophe wrote: i'm merely sharing my opinion. the poster's motives are transparent, thankfully, so it's not like it's a head scratcher to understand why i mention it.

let me put it this way. this contingent does not believe in sanctions, which are a non-violent means of applying pressure to rogue states. this contingent does not believe in the use of military force on rogue states. this contingent is the first to condemn the united states if we do *not* employ military force to intercede in other nation's affairs, when it suits them for us be the world police (translation: darfur). this contingent exculpates aggressors and blames their victims. this contingent believes that the world trade center towers attacked the jetliners piloted by the oppressed islamofascists, by being in their way.

this contingent is the first to remind americans of our history of slavery, and genocide of indigenous populations, while never ever mentioning their own shameful history of same. if someone does mention it, they're described as just being childish and spiteful.

this contingent condemns us for our greed and penury if we do not feed the starving masses of the world, because then they just begin breeding again. this same contingent condemns us for our meddling and shortsightedness if we feed the starving masses of the world rather than teaching them how to farm. this contingent will then condemn us as evil corporo-fascists if we offer farming equipment, fertilizer, and seed, as we are then 'enslaving' them to the goods offered by said corporofascists. in all three cases, we are enabling genocide.

i'm sick to death of it, frankly. and i'm tired being told that i should lighten up when people act like jackals towards us. they act like jackals, i'll act like one right back, thank you very much. it is definitely not beneath me to lower myself to their level.

i haven't looked into it, but i'd just bet there are a number of other nation members of the UN who are calling for sanctions on various other nations. but what would be the point of mentioning that? it serves no purpose for their agenda.
:yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap :yh_clap

Damn, but I wish I could use words like that!! But, then again anastrophe doesn't need my help. I'll just say "bravo" one more time and go back to reading...

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:10 pm

koan wrote: pah

go start a thread called "the unauthorized biography of koan" anastrophe. It'll make you feel better. I promise not to post in it.

thanks, but i'll post in any thread i care to share my opinions. or would it make you feel better to stifle opinions you don't care for?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:54 pm

anastrophe wrote: thanks, but i'll post in any thread i care to share my opinions. or would it make you feel better to stifle opinions you don't care for?Quite what BR was applauding I'm not sure, but here's your tiff, let's look at it:

"this contingent" - what's a contingent? You're implying a more-than-one-person, I expect. Perhaps a faction? A "representative group", according to Webster. I wonder who we represent? I'm unaware of either my figurehead or my stand-in status, let's put it that way.

"does not believe in sanctions, which are a non-violent means of applying pressure to rogue states." Well, a first point I suppose is to ask by whose standards is Iran a rogue state? Rather circularly, it's by US criteria. Round and round we go. Leave Iran alone, I quite like Iran, they're the other side of the world to you, they're not your business, they just happen to have all those juicy natural resources that you stole - excuse me, took into US ownership - in the 1950s. It's not your oil, anastrophe, it's theirs, if you want it queue and pay for it like anyone else. As for the North Koreans, I don't much mind but I suspect they'd be more sensibly dealt with by their neighbours.

"this contingent does not believe in the use of military force on rogue states. this contingent is the first to condemn the united states if we do *not* employ military force to intercede in other nation's affairs, when it suits them for us be the world police (translation: darfur)." No, never, not once. Not a single instance will you find where "this contingent" has condemned US isolationism, darfur ot otherwise. They're the other side of the world to you, they're not your business.

"this contingent exculpates aggressors and blames their victims. this contingent believes that the world trade center towers attacked the jetliners piloted by the oppressed islamofascists, by being in their way." - you're being plain stupid, obviously. Cite me an instance, stop trying to amuse anyone, you'll turn into Jives at this rate. The subject is more important than humour will defuse.

"this contingent is the first to remind americans of our history of slavery, and genocide of indigenous populations, while never ever mentioning their own shameful history of same. if someone does mention it, they're described as just being childish and spiteful." - far from describing people as as childish and spiteful for raising the local history of the slave trade, I quite often bring up Bristol's culpability and continued financial wellbeing which results from the slave trade myself. What you say here is an inversion of the truth.

"this contingent condemns us for our greed and penury if we do not feed the starving masses of the world, because then they just begin breeding again." "Breeding again"? What? These are people we're talking about, not farm animals. I've said before that nationalism engenders this attitude of "one of ours is worth more than one of theirs", it's a good reason to detest nationalism, I recommend detesting nationalism, it's good for the soul. I have many many times said don't send your excess government-subsidized food abroad since it undercuts local markets wherever it arrives. I have never ever said "feed the starving masses of the world".

this same contingent condemns us for our meddling and shortsightedness if we feed the starving masses of the world rather than teaching them how to farm.You have nothing to teach, you need only stay the hell away for local markets to thrive. Stop interfering. Your "teaching" is on a par with your exported evangelism. Stop thinking you know enough to "teach" in the context of local farming half-way across the world. Stop, more than anything else, trying to make a profit, honest or dishonest, off the backs of people poorer than your own laborers.

this contingent will then condemn us as evil corporo-fascists if we offer farming equipment, fertilizer, and seed, as we are then 'enslaving' them to the goods offered by said corporofascists." Sell (don't offer, just sell) equipment by all means - though please, if you can bring a bit of restraint, stop selling all that loathesome weaponry, it's not productive and it kills people. The fertilizer and seed bit though, we do have a problem with the Monsanto formula, the "buy it every year" seed that you can't grow without the bolt-on extras and you can't save seed from each year to replant in the following season but instead you have to re-buy annually. The "we designed this to increase our profit" seed that your "corporofascists" force into markets at cut rates until the local seed isn't available any longer - the stranglehold approach to business relations. I'm glad you remembered to bring that bit up, yes, we do have a problem with US-GM profiteering.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:01 pm

curious. i made no mention of you spot. but apparently the shoe fits.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:06 pm

anastrophe wrote: curious. i made no mention of you spot. but apparently the shoe fits.Indeed you didn't, and but for the repititious reference to a "contingent" I'd have stayed away. I thought I probably qualified, me and her being muckers of some standing.

i'm merely sharing my opinion. your motives were transparent, thankfully, so it's not like it's a head scratcher to understand why i joined in.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:09 pm

anastrophe wrote: thanks, but i'll post in any thread i care to share my opinions. or would it make you feel better to stifle opinions you don't care for?

show me where I tell you not to post your opinions on the topic? I merely suggest you create a separate thread to satisfy your ad hominem needs. It suprises me that one so experienced on forums is so sure of his ability to read another poster's mind.

If you are a supporter of sanctions, which may be read between the oh-so-wonderful lines of your detailed post about my intentions, then I await your reasons.

So far I see that you find it "non-violent". That supposes that slowly starving people to death is less violent than blowing them up.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:12 pm

spot wrote: Indeed you didn't, and but for the repititious reference to a "contingent" I'd have stayed away. I thought I probably qualified, me and her being muckers of some standing.

i'm merely sharing my opinion. your motives were transparent, thankfully, so it's not like it's a head scratcher to understand why i joined in.

welcome aboard. have anything to say about this topic that doesn't pathologically return to the united states, and it's being the wellspring of all that is wrong in the world?

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:16 pm

anastrophe wrote: welcome aboard. have anything to say about this topic that doesn't pathologically return to the united states, and it's being the wellspring of all that is wrong in the world?I replied to your post, clause by clause - I introduced no fresh subject matter, I merely dissected and analysed. If that post is US-centered, you need to ask yourself who pathologically focused it there.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:19 pm

koan wrote: show me where I tell you not to post your opinions on the topic? I merely suggest you create a separate thread to satisfy your ad hominem needs. It suprises me that one so experienced on forums is so sure of his ability to read another poster's mind.

If you are a supporter of sanctions, which may be read between the oh-so-wonderful lines of your detailed post about my intentions, then I await your reasons.

So far I see that you find it "non-violent". That supposes that slowly starving people to death is less violent than blowing them up.

wow! three whole paragraphs, and you didn't mention the united states a single time! i think i'm getting the vapors.

funny, you bluster about how i'm 'read[ing] another poster's mind' when i point out your pathological focus on the US, then you "read between the [...] lines" to deduce mine.

no, i'm against sanctions. i'd much rather the bad guys be dispatched as quickly as possible, through violent use of force. let me guess - you're backing hezbollah in the current conflict with israel, am i right? the genocide against the palestinians and all that happy-horseshit.

oh there i go reading your mind again, drat. so, do you want UN sanctions on hezbollah? would you prefer that to israel kicking the **** out of the islamofascists?

most advanced societies respect self-defense. they also generally don't call the aggressor the victim. or at least, that used to be how it was. before the orwellian leftists decided to turn everything on its head.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:20 pm

spot wrote: I replied to your post, clause by clause - I introduced no fresh subject matter, I merely dissected and analysed. If that post is US-centered, you need to ask yourself who pathologically focused it there.

i have. it's you. trust me on this.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:25 pm

ok. Is there any reason to believe that a) the US is not seeking UN sanctions against Iran and N Korea and/or that b) economic sanctions have become a favored foreign policy tool in the US

I fail to see how either of those situations would be *my* fault. They just happen to be part of an issue that concerns me. Nowhere do I claim that the US is the only country to employ this method. It is impossible to discuss the history of sanctions without the US entering the discussion.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:27 pm

anastrophe wrote: [QUOTE=spot]I replied to your post, clause by clause - I introduced no fresh subject matter, I merely dissected and analysed. If that post is US-centered, you need to ask yourself who pathologically focused it there.i have. it's you. trust me on this.[/QUOTE]Curious. I thought until I posted that you'd made no mention of me, as in "i made no mention of you spot". I replied to your post, clause by clause - I introduced no fresh subject matter, I merely dissected and analysed. If that post is US-centered, in what possible way is it I who pathologically focused it there?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:27 pm

anastrophe wrote: wow! three whole paragraphs, and you didn't mention the united states a single time! i think i'm getting the vapors.

funny, you bluster about how i'm 'read[ing] another poster's mind' when i point out your pathological focus on the US, then you "read between the [...] lines" to deduce mine.

no, i'm against sanctions. i'd much rather the bad guys be dispatched as quickly as possible, through violent use of force. let me guess - you're backing hezbollah in the current conflict with israel, am i right? the genocide against the palestinians and all that happy-horseshit.

oh there i go reading your mind again, drat. so, do you want UN sanctions on hezbollah? would you prefer that to israel kicking the **** out of the islamofascists?

most advanced societies respect self-defense. they also generally don't call the aggressor the victim. or at least, that used to be how it was. before the orwellian leftists decided to turn everything on its head.

then you've answered with your opinion. you are against sanctions. I'm glad we agree, though for not the same reasons.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:32 pm

koan wrote: ok. Is there any reason to believe that a) the US is not seeking UN sanctions against Iran and N Korea and/or that b) economic sanctions have become a favored foreign policy tool in the US

I fail to see how either of those situations would be *my* fault. They just happen to be part of an issue that concerns me. Nowhere do I claim that the US is the only country to employ this method. It is impossible to discuss the history of sanctions without the US entering the discussion.

i knew it was too good to be true. "US", four times. have you bothered, at all, to look into *other* countries that may be calling for sanctions? or are you suggesting that the united states - the bully of the world of course, and which controls the UN like a puppetmaster - is the only nation on earth that has ever called for sanctions?

no, i'm quite sure that any academic research you've done could not possibly omit the string "US" from the investigations. why bother?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:34 pm

anastrophe wrote: i knew it was too good to be true. "US", four times. have you bothered, at all, to look into *other* countries that may be calling for sanctions? or are you suggesting that the united states - the bully of the world of course, and which controls the UN like a puppetmaster - is the only nation on earth that has ever called for sanctions?

no, i'm quite sure that any academic research you've done could not possibly omit the string "US" from the investigations. why bother?

Your logic astounds me. (yes. I'm being sarcastic this time)

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:34 pm

spot wrote: Curious. I thought until I posted that you'd made no mention of me, as in "i made no mention of you spot". I replied to your post, clause by clause - I introduced no fresh subject matter, I merely dissected and analysed. If that post is US-centered, in what possible way is it I who pathologically focused it there?

look into your heart. there you'll find the answer.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:37 pm

koan wrote: Your logic astounds me. (yes. I'm being sarcastic this time)

so, hezbollah. would you support sanctions against lebanon and syria for supporting hezbollah, in order to protect them from having the living **** kicked out of them by israel, which is what israel's righteously doing right now?

in case anyone hasn't noticed, i'm frankly more pro-israel than i am pro-US. i absolutely adore israel. they don't take **** from anybody. ever.

nor should they.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:45 pm

I have found no reason to support economic sanctions as a political tool. I am asking for reasons it should be considered effective. Do you offer any?

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:57 pm

Here's an interesting study: Global Policy Forum

I've linked to the case studies. Scroll up and you find the whole report.

59. The sanctions against Iraq are the most comprehensive, total sanctions that have ever been imposed on a country.

...

63. As has been documented by United Nations agencies, NGOs, humanitarian and human rights organizations, researchers and political leaders, the sanctions upon Iraq have produced a humanitarian disaster comparable to the worst catastrophes of the past decades.

...

68. The outcry against the sanctions on Iraq has come from all sides. From within the United Nations, the Secretary-General himself has been at the forefront of the criticism, levelling serious charges against the sanctions regime in his report to the Security Council of 10 March 2000 (S/2000/208) and stating two weeks later that “the Council should seek every opportunity to alleviate the suffering of the population, who after all are not the intended targets of sanctions.

...

71. The sanctions regime against Iraq is unequivocally illegal under existing international humanitarian law and human rights law. Some would go as far as making a charge of genocide. (58) Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which entered into force on 12 January 1951, defines genocide as follows:

“Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

It may be that limited sanctions could be effective but general sanctions reach the level of genocide if maintained. That is the topic of this thread.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:20 am

koan wrote: I have found no reason to support economic sanctions as a political tool. I am asking for reasons it should be considered effective. Do you offer any?

no. you asked the question, you've answered your own question, so clearly discussion of piffle like *why* sanctions are imposed seems to be met with silence, which is certainly your privilege.

sanctions are nothing but appeasement - appeasement of the pacifist elites in the UN who believe that there are better resolutions to disputes than war, so came up with the cockamamie notion of starving the nation to death instead.

i blame the pacifist elites for the genocide of sanctions.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:26 am

anastrophe wrote: i blame the pacifist elites for the genocide of sanctions.Then let us agree, by all means, to forego them. What a delightful if surprising coming together of opinion. Nothing could please me more.

Should we now dust off those quaint but still practicable notions of "Just War" that went astray a while ago?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:29 am

anastrophe wrote: no. you asked the question, you've answered your own question, so clearly discussion of piffle like *why* sanctions are imposed seems to be met with silence, which is certainly your privilege.

You give me far more credit than I give myself. I am expecting an opposing point of view exists or the method would not be in practice.

I, like spot, am pleased that we can agree on something. Even if for the wrong reasons.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 11:35 am

koan wrote: I have found no reason to support economic sanctions as a political tool. I am asking for reasons it should be considered effective. Do you offer any?

if nobody can offer circumstances under which they are considered effective, and we are in agreement that they are harmful at times to the point of genocide in practice....and if you reject direct military intervention....then what alternative do you offer?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:10 pm

I do see a reason for sanctions preventing weapon sales to hostile countries. That is the limit of my support for sanctions on an international level.

Outside of not providing killing machines to killers. There should be more education in Nonviolence.

In 1989, thirteen nations comprising 1,695,000,000 people experienced nonviolent revolutions that succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations ... If we add all the countries touched by major nonviolent actions in our century (the Philippines, South Africa ... the independence movement in India ...) the figure reaches 3,337,400,000, a staggering 65% of humanity! All this in the teeth of the assertion, endlessly repeated, that nonviolence doesn't work in the 'real' world.

(Walter Wink, as quoted by Susan Ives in a 2001 talk)

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:23 pm

koan wrote: I do see a reason for sanctions preventing weapon sales to hostile countries. That is the limit of my support for sanctions on an international level.

Outside of not providing killing machines to killers. There should be more education in Nonviolence.

that's fine and i concur. but i'm asking what alternatives you offer when the utopia of a weapon-free world does not exist?

i return to my inquiry earlier regarding hesbollah.

what alternative do you offer in that situation? hesbollah attacked israel unprovoked. in the name of nonviolence, are the israelis simply to 'turn the other cheek' and allow hesbollah to attack them with impugnity? what is to be done when sanctions fail, diplomacy fails, peace agreements fail? do you continue to propose non-violence, never to engage in military action in defense, ever?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:12 pm

anastrophe wrote: that's fine and i concur. but i'm asking what alternatives you offer when the utopia of a weapon-free world does not exist?

i return to my inquiry earlier regarding hesbollah.

what alternative do you offer in that situation? hesbollah attacked israel unprovoked. in the name of nonviolence, are the israelis simply to 'turn the other cheek' and allow hesbollah to attack them with impugnity? what is to be done when sanctions fail, diplomacy fails, peace agreements fail? do you continue to propose non-violence, never to engage in military action in defense, ever?

Gandhi proposed it and did quite well. I question the use of the word "unprovoked".

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:18 pm

koan wrote: Gandhi proposed it and did quite well. I question the use of the word "unprovoked".

please, do expand.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:26 pm

koan wrote: Gandhi proposed it and did quite well. I question the use of the word "unprovoked".

on gandhi, perhaps he's not the best example to use in this context:

When his biographer, Louis Fischer, asked him in June 1946 if, in light of the Holocaust, he regretted the words he had addressed to Germany's Jews, Gandhi said: "Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

Fischer asked: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?" Gandhi answered: "Yes, that would have been heroism."

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:35 pm

anastrophe wrote: on gandhi, perhaps he's not the best example to use in this context:

When his biographer, Louis Fischer, asked him in June 1946 if, in light of the Holocaust, he regretted the words he had addressed to Germany's Jews, Gandhi said: "Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."

Fischer asked: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?" Gandhi answered: "Yes, that would have been heroism."

If you don't get it, you don't get it.

What really saddens me is that the Palestinians haven't recognised the power of this approach. I'm convinced that it would bring them a just settlement if they adopted it.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 1:49 pm

spot wrote: If you don't get it, you don't get it.

What really saddens me is that the Palestinians haven't recognised the power of this approach. I'm convinced that it would bring them a just settlement if they adopted it.

that's a lovely sentiment. but what about dealing with reality, perhaps? the palestinians, and the islamofascists in general, will not be content until the last jew is wiped off the face of the earth.

how do you propose dealing with that?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:01 pm

Pick on Gandhi as you will. He has a pretty good reputation as a good man to back him up.

As to Palestine and Israel. How we decide the starting point? The problem of retaliating with violence is that it muddies the waters as to who did what to whom. The first reference (that I could see) on the UN site regarding the UN having issues with treatment towards each other is:

In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

Outside of the original resolution of dividing the country:

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.

Can we say this was the start of the war between who owns what? There has been war there for thousands of years, so we need to pick a starting point if we want to talk about who started what.

The muddy waters of war.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:12 pm

anastrophe wrote: that's a lovely sentiment. but what about dealing with reality, perhaps? the palestinians, and the islamofascists in general, will not be content until the last jew is wiped off the face of the earth.

how do you propose dealing with that?If you can't recognise that for propaganda then there really is very little hope of communication here. I talk to Palestinians whom I believe, with cause, to be honest. They tell me that what you say does not reflect their wish, much less what they'd be content with. I've already spent ages on here undoing that deliberate mistranslation into "sweep Israel into the sea" which was foisted onto the Iranian President earlier this year. If you seriously think that an entire nationality wants to see the forced extinction of another entire nationality then yoiu've swallowed the Party Line, but it has nothing to do with the people concerned. It's a media-fed lie. Palestinians are individuals. Iranians are individuals. Americans are individuals.

What do you think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projects_w ... _and_Arabs is about?

What, more particularly, do you make of "In the early 1990s, a chance meeting between Mr. Barenboim and the late Palestinian-born writer and Columbia University professor Edward Said in a London hotel lobby led to an intensive friendship that has had both political and musical repercussions. These two men, who should have been poles apart politically, discovered in that first meeting, which lasted for hours, that they had similar visions of Israeli/Palestinian possible future cooperation."?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:26 pm

koan wrote: Pick on Gandhi as you will. He has a pretty good reputation as a good man to back him up.

i'm sorry you see that as "pick[ing] on Gandhi". he was a truly great man, but he was not perfect. i'm not very good at revering fellow humans. i reserve my reverence for that beyond human.

As to Palestine and Israel. How we decide the starting point? The problem of retaliating with violence is that it muddies the waters as to who did what to whom. The first reference (that I could see) on the UN site regarding the UN having issues with treatment towards each other is:

Outside of the original resolution of dividing the country:

Can we say this was the start of the war between who owns what? There has been war there for thousands of years, so we need to pick a starting point if we want to talk about who started what.

The muddy waters of war.

why must we pick a starting point?

israel has been working relentlessly towards peace. going so far as to forcibly withdraw their own settlers in gaza. this recent trade of 'land for peace' in the gaza has been met with hezbollah lobbing rockets into israel from lebanon. there had been no hostile actions between lebanon and israel in a very long time, that's why this is such a 'big deal'. if you wish to excuse hezbollah launching rockets at civilians in israel on the basis of who started what three thousand years ago, then feel free. i see that as evasive. the fact is quite clear - the palestinians and arabs of the region want *all of israel gone*. that is their clear and publicly expressed desire. israel at one time included all of the sinai peninsula, which they took, then gave up in the name of peace (then took again, and again gave back in the name of peace).

look at a map of the region. israel is but a tiny, tiny sliver of land, surrounded on all sides by hostile arab territories. said territories which are devoted to the ultimate destruction of the nation. said territories will not yield even this tiny sliver of land to a people with historical roots reaching back as far as those of any other arab nation there.

i support their right to defend themselves. sanctions won't stop hesbollah. sanction on israel won't stop them from defending themselves. any UN "peacekeeping" intervention would implicitly be a military action to stop hostilities between the combatants. it would also implicitly involve loss of life, in my opinion.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:40 pm

spot wrote: If you can't recognise that for propaganda then there really is very little hope of communication here. I talk to Palestinians whom I believe, with cause, to be honest. They tell me that what you say does not reflect their wish, much less what they'd be content with. I've already spent ages on here undoing that deliberate mistranslation into "sweep Israel into the sea" which was foisted onto the Iranian President earlier this year. If you seriously think that an entire nationality wants to see the forced extinction of another entire nationality then yoiu've swallowed the Party Line, but it has nothing to do with the people concerned. It's a media-fed lie. Palestinians are individuals. Iranians are individuals. Americans are individuals.

What do you think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projects_w ... _and_Arabs is about?

What, more particularly, do you make of "In the early 1990s, a chance meeting between Mr. Barenboim and the late Palestinian-born writer and Columbia University professor Edward Said in a London hotel lobby led to an intensive friendship that has had both political and musical repercussions. These two men, who should have been poles apart politically, discovered in that first meeting, which lasted for hours, that they had similar visions of Israeli/Palestinian possible future cooperation."?

so you're an apologist for genocidal policies when they fit your predisposition. i'm glad to see such candor. if you can excuse this unbridled call for the elimination of israel as a pack of lies by mistranslation, then sleep well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weeki ... ed&ei=5070

OF COURSE there are individuals in all of said regions who do not share a common hatred of the israelis. i cannot say what proportion do not, as it's certainly widely varied from place to place. OF COURSE there are friendships, and even love, between peoples of the region - a wedding between an israeli and lebanese was reported shortly after the start of hostilities recently.

the lebanese and syrian governments covertly back hesbollah, and hesbollah is willing to take any measure to kill israelis. this isn't far fetched or dramatic, they have stated this as their imperative.

but excuse away.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 2:53 pm

anastrophe wrote: so you're an apologist for genocidal policies when they fit your predisposition. i'm glad to see such candor. if you can excuse this unbridled call for the elimination of israel as a pack of lies by mistranslation, then sleep well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weeki ... ed&ei=5070

OF COURSE there are individuals in all of said regions who do not share a common hatred of the israelis. i cannot say what proportion do not, as it's certainly widely varied from place to place. OF COURSE there are friendships, and even love, between peoples of the region - a wedding between an israeli and lebanese was reported shortly after the start of hostilities recently.

the lebanese and syrian governments covertly back hesbollah, and hesbollah is willing to take any measure to kill israelis. this isn't far fetched or dramatic, they have stated this as their imperative.

but excuse away.Yes, that's the speech. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jon ... t_155.html relates to it. Again, readers of this thread rather than contributors will have to check both to make their minds up.

Similarly, you're back-pedaling from "the palestinians, and the islamofascists in general, will not be content until the last jew is wiped off the face of the earth" - I'm pleased you should be, I do wish I didn't have to talk you into it in the first place.

It has often occurred to me - and, of course, to others - that a man's perceived nightmare enemy is a projection of the way he himself feels about those he hates. Remove his hatred and his perceived nightmare enemy evaporates from his fevered imagination. The American propaganda machine is doing dreadful damage to the psyche of those among its citizens who go along with all this fear-mongering. Meanwhile, its militaristic interference abroad is generating genuine and reasonable fury where previously none existed. Winding down this state of affairs is going to take a long time, and the sooner we start at it the better.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 3:52 pm

anastrophe wrote:

why must we pick a starting point?

because you haven't retracted your use of the word "unprovoked". It implies that Israel didn't strike first. It's been ongoing so where does the provocation start and who poked?

The case for nonviolence is that when both are provoking each other no one can agree who the poker and pokee is anymore.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:01 pm

koan wrote: because you haven't retracted your use of the word "unprovoked". It implies that Israel didn't strike first. It's been ongoing so where does the provocation start and who poked?

The case for nonviolence is that when both are provoking each other no one can agree who the poker and pokee is anymore.

again, utopianism is pretty useless when we're talking about current affairs.

what would your actual practical solution be to this situation. spare me the theoretical posturing.

i still maintain that israel is defending itself against an unprovoked attack. if we're going to winnow down to "israel exists, and that's provocation enough", well then by all means, come right out and state your position. anti-semitism comes in many, many stripes.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:19 pm

spot wrote: Yes, that's the speech. http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jon ... t_155.html relates to it. Again, readers of this thread rather than contributors will have to check both to make their minds up.

what a load of unbridled backpedaling yourself. an entire article parsing one phrase, while ignoring the outright text of the rest of the speech. tell me, dear friend, what is iran's beef with israel? why, they're clear across three borders from iran, why is it any of their concern? (as you so eloquently expressed earlier as to why the US should not have any concern for darfur).

why? because as with all islamofascists, the obliteration of the stain of israel upon their land is their stated goal. this isn't propoganda, all i had to do was read the entire speech. but do ignore the thousand other words in the speech, since they don't support your biased interpretation.

Similarly, you're back-pedaling from "the palestinians, and the islamofascists in general, will not be content until the last jew is wiped off the face of the earth" - I'm pleased you should be, I do wish I didn't have to talk you into it in the first place.

spare me this gamesmanship. please. we are speaking in general terms, and it is commonly understood that when doing so one is not singling out each and every individual. frankly, your comment is offensive. you are making the same generalized comments below when you say " The American propaganda machine is doing dreadful damage to the psyche of those among its citizens who go along with all this fear-mongering. Meanwhile, its militaristic interference abroad is generating genuine and reasonable fury where previously none existed. " who constitutes this american propoganda machine? are they not americans also? so why are you attacking individual americans as propagandists?

Meanwhile, its militaristic interference abroad is generating genuine and reasonable fury where previously none existed. Winding down this state of affairs is going to take a long time, and the sooner we start at it the better.

what a load. although, this from a fellow who believes military action against hitler was immoral, i guess it fits. no matter how many innocent civilians are being killed, spot will grant no quarter to any military action. ever.

this is why i state openly my contempt for Pacifism. it is morally bankrupt.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:40 pm

here is more from Ahmadinejad, in his own words.

the man doubts whether the holocaust happened - but insists that if it did happen, then the jews should 'go back where they came from' rather than punishing the palestinians by being in israel. never mind that israel is the birthplace of judaism.

but do continue to suggest that poor mr. Ahmadinejad is a victim of propaganda. particularly when the propaganda spews from his own vile mouth.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/interna ... 60,00.html

Post by **spot** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:16 pm

anastrophe wrote: who constitutes this american propoganda machine? are they not americans also? so why are you attacking individual americans as propagandists?I'm distinguishing between your wholesale condemnation of peoples, which is racist, and my selective condemnation of categories of people, which is reasonable since only that part of the whole who are of that category are being criticized. Words count. I stand by what I wrote, I have no need to stand by what you interpret me as saying. People can see the effect of your filters. Of course some individual americans are propagandists, how can you think that's untrue? "Not all americans are propagandist" is equally true. The American propaganda machine is primarily wherever you find US media outlets, the direction is political, the activists are full-time paid commentators, the direction is provided by a subset of politicians. All, as you say, individuals.

We have at least agreed that sanctions can be genocidal and shouldn't be employed, all we're left with is the question of how to stop destroying so many civilian lives.

The Imperial Adventure has cost how many already this decade, would you guess? A quarter million, give or take, dead people who wouldn't be dead if the dogs of war hadn't been let slip? How many excess deaths was Saddam clocking up each year during this century, that got stopped as a result? Tens? Hundreds? No more than that. He was never in the same league. You want to know why I'm pacifist? Because armies kill so many people, that's why. Freedoms are Death. Liberations are Slavery. Soundbites are Lies. There, three new Orwellian slogans to replace Arbeit Macht Frei, on which I'm sure he based his originals.

No State or organization is capable of killing Israel's population. Israel has 400 or so warheads that guarantee that won't happen. No State or organization is capable of killing America's population. America has 14000 or so warheads that guarantee that won't happen.

So why are the Armed Forces unleashed? This isn't self-defense, not in either case. This is disproportionate aggression. No "Just War" is involved. The main casualties, as always, are these huge numbers of excess civilian deaths, and any amount of "we don't intend their deaths" makes no difference to the fact that they predictably die, and that if the Armed Forces hadn't been unleashed the deaths would not have occurred. Re-bottling the Genie is in order. Apologies are in order. Putting up with a radicalized non-secular Iraq for the next generation is an unavoidable cost however long matters are now spun out. Get this over with, take the Angels of Death back to their hangars, preferably burn the damned things before they get used again by the next bunch of nutters to think they have a God-given right to World Supremacy.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:31 pm

anastrophe wrote: again, utopianism is pretty useless when we're talking about current affairs.

what would your actual practical solution be to this situation. spare me the theoretical posturing.

i still maintain that israel is defending itself against an unprovoked attack. if we're going to winnow down to "israel exists, and that's provocation enough", well then by all means, come right out and state your position. anti-semitism comes in many, many stripes.

I've got a Monday deadline to meet.

Your charge of anti-semitism...that is directed at me, is it not? is a pretty hefty charge considering I posted a history of the conflict from the UN site. I would appreciate some just cause shown for your slander of me...if it was directed at me. Perhaps you think the UN is the guilty party.

I consider them to be a good source in the matter. Please show me the reasons you don't.

If I don't respond quickly it is just that little deadline issue.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jul 22, 2006 6:21 pm

spot wrote: I'm distinguishing between your wholesale condemnation of peoples, which is racist,

perhaps you misspoke here. i think you meant 'which is bigoted'. the palestinians are not a 'race'. for that matter, i reject most matters of designation of race, since they have no scientific basis whatsoever.

regardless, you're playing a rhetorical game, which i've come to expect. in another thread, just today, you wrote " I think most people here believe me when I say that I like Americans.". by this same absurd measure, that comment is 'racist' or more properly bigotted. bigotry is not merely the expression of contempt or hatred, it is any expression of opinion of a whole people by some arbitrary basis. so when you say "i like americans", do you mean you like charles manson, specifically? i suppose this means you are charmed by pat robertson as well. no, of course not, you were speaking generally, just as i was.

so drop the game, spot.

The Imperial Adventure has cost how many already this decade, would you guess? A quarter million, give or take, dead people who wouldn't be dead if the dogs of war hadn't been let slip? How many excess deaths was Saddam clocking up each year during this century, that got stopped as a result? Tens? Hundreds? No more than that. He was never in the same league.

nonsense. the al anfal campaign cost the lives of some 182,000 kurdish civilians. attempting to minimize the gravity of saddam hussein's atrocities is despicable.

You want to know why I'm pacifist? Because armies kill so many people, that's why.

and armies can save people as well. the west has been thoroughly condemned for not interceding in rwanda. a million civilians died in genocide there, while the west sat idly by. how would you have prevented those million deaths? marching with placards at piccadily? and what would the placards have said? "please stop the genocide in rwanda". delightful! i'm sure the killing would have stopped upon such a polite request.

what means other than military intercession do you think could have *stopped* that genocide? spare me utopian pleas - i'm interested in pragmatic responses.

Freedoms are Death. Liberations are Slavery. Soundbites are Lies. There, three new Orwellian slogans to replace Arbeit Macht Frei, on which I'm sure he based his originals.

No State or organization is capable of killing Israel's population. Israel has 400 or so warheads that guarantee that won't happen.

ah. so the use of suicide bombers to kill as many israeli civilians as possible through attrition is....meaningless. tell me, how many suicide bombers have the israelis sent into gaza to kill innocent palestinian civilians?

have palestinian civilians died at the hands of the israeli military? most certainly. would you prefer the former - israeli suicide bombers - to military?

No State or organization is capable of killing America's population. America has 14000 or so warheads that guarantee that won't happen.

an interesting comment. i'm a little unclear. "capable of killing america's population". if you mean every last living american, probably not. but al qaeda certainly did an excellent job on 9/11 of killing americans, inside our borders, and i dare say that our nuclear capabilities would not have been able to rout them.

So why are the Armed Forces unleashed? This isn't self-defense, not in either case. This is disproportionate aggression. No "Just War" is involved.
you've determined the response is disproportionate exactly how? just in the last 24 hours, hezbollah has lobbed more than 100 rockets into israel.

oh - of course. *that's* self-defense, is it? and since hezbollah isn't military, it's okey dokey, is it? they aren't dogs of war. they're just cuddly islamofascists who want to kill as many israeli civilians as possible.

note - their rockets have been aimed at small towns and villages, even as the israeli forces have massed at the border - they are not defending themselves, they're trying to get in as many killings of israeli civilians as they possibly can before the israeli army - defending israel righteously in this case - obliterates these true aggressors.

your doublespeak is as bad the orwellian slogans. you label israel the aggressor, and the hezbollah cutthroats the victims.

The main casualties, as always, are these huge numbers of excess civilian deaths, and any amount of "we don't intend their deaths" makes no difference to the fact that they predictably die, and that if the Armed Forces hadn't been unleashed the deaths would not have occurred. Re-bottling the Genie is in order. Apologies are in order. Putting up with a radicalized non-secular Iraq for the next generation is an unavoidable cost however long matters are now spun out. Get this over with, take the Angels of Death back to their hangars, preferably burn the damned things before they get used again by the next bunch of nutters to think they have a God-given right to World Supremacy.

lovely turns of phrase. now, would you support the elimination of the israeli state, since you've made it clear you see them as the aggressors?