Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

As Glenn Greenwald reports. A better headline might be "The FBI successfully thwarts its own Terrorist plot"

If I understand correctly, there never was a car bomb. The whole incident was a staged as part of a sting operation against some kid who was put up to it by the FBI in the first place.

At 11/4/10 03:39 PM, poxpower wrote: Except... it... is...

Except you're not understanding their are different definitions of anarchy. As a political definition, Anarchy means the abolition of coercive hierarchy, not government.

>like governments of a certain size are definitely TOTALLY AWESOME but you just can't have them be any bigger than this random arbitrary undefinable number at which point they become EVIL AND CORRUPT!!

Ok, but there's some truth to that. Smaller, more localized democracies tend to represent their populations better. The reasons are logistical. You can't have a daily assembly of 300 million people. So decision making has to be outsourced to officials through massive elections, and the media that provides information surrounding politics has to be massive as well, which makes the system more detached from it's populous and easier to corrupt.

Anarchy isn't meant to be interpreted as no government. Unless you're talking about anarcho-primitivism., It's meant to be interpreted as the dismantlement of the nation state. The most popular form of anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, calls for individuals to group themselves into small, federated, directly democratic city states ("syndicates"). There they'd voluntarily participate in democratic assemblies, directly set the policy of their society, and work at democratically run businesses, and trade with other syndicates for needed resources.

At least, that is my understanding of it.

At 11/4/10 02:47 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: In this particularly dreadful example, the "profit" (more like consumer surplus) means not dying.

Could you clarify this? I don't understand what you're trying to say

lapis, I appreciate your input. It is excellent as usual

At 11/2/10 03:41 PM, lapis wrote: Well, those CEOs and stockholders probably won't feel the pain of Global Warming anyway. Poor people in India or Bangladesh will feel the pain. So even when you take the long term into account it's also good for them to keep making money on the short term.

Picture: Climate Change Vulnerability Index 2011. Green is good, blue is bad.

Well just look at that picture. Look at the countries in blue. First of all, I can see at least 3 nuclear powers that face massive economic destabilization from climate change. India and Pakistan are two of them. You can draw your own conclusions about the worst case scenario there. Second of all, most of the world's centers of production are at risk. Indo-China, Eastern Asia, and Africa. There have already been riots across the Western Coast of Africa due to the rising costs of food. What happens when an entire crops yields are lost?

The rich stand to lose their supply of slave labor, possibly their tangible assets in foreign countries if it sparks a new wave of nationalism, which all the evidence suggests it probably will. And if there's nuclear war? Well, I'm sure you know. That alone threatens the very survival of our species. Even the crooks on wall street can't buy their way out of an irradiated wasteland.

I'll read the article later tonight, since it sounds interesting. But generally, the broad opposition to climate change can be traced back to misinformation. Most American's don't understand how the scientific community functions. They don't recognize how incredibly decentralized it is. They must believe it's some sort of highly centralized institution that can be hijacked in order to promote a political agenda, but it really can't.

I mean, somewhat similar things have happened in the past, with bad research making it into Journals, etc. But it's incredibly obvious when it's happening. An example would be the tobacco institute, and the "does smoking cause cancer?" fiasco of the 80's. Well, of course we know now that it does, as did anyone savvy back in the day. But there used to be "serious" debate. Is there really cancer causing agents inside of cigarrettes? Or is it simply a liberal big government conspiracy to take away our personal freedoms? Lets not be dogmatic here. We should give both sides of this debate equal amounts of confidence!

As for where the misinformation comes from. Mostly, it comes from the people who have the most to lose. Large oil companies, manufacturing industries, etc. They've lead a massive misinformation campaign to try and make the scientific community look more fragmented than it actually is.

I've always wondered why they do it. Why do these CEOs, and stockholders work so hard to prevent reform that may very prevent massive destabilization throughout the world? The ultimate answer I think is: they're shortsighted. They don't care whether or not the world gets destroyed 20 years from now, because they're focused on making higher profits at the end of the next fiscal year. This is a repeating theme throughout human history. Ignore the large problems for temporary gain. That's what the arms race with the Russians was all about for example.

In the end though, they may not be able to prevent reform. There are different elements of the American regime that are beginning to see global warming as a serious threat. Mainly up until now it's been America's high tech industries, but you're seeing the imperialists jump on board as well. Even the pentagon is releasing studies on Global Warming now. Predicting massive damage to "American interests" abroad, etc.

We'll see how this all ends.

At 10/31/10 11:11 PM, adrshepard wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/weekin review/11bronner.html?ex=1307678400&
en=efa2bd266224e880&ei=5088&partner=rssn yt&emc=rss

Undoubtedly, the first time you've read the column. As if it wasn't, you wouldn't have butchered his words in the first place.

Incidentally, it was Iran's own official press that translated it, not the Western media.

Incidentally, I never claimed otherwise. I said that it's been perpetuated mostly by western media, which is the truth. Yes, it was the Iranian press agency that mistranslated it. It was a rough translation, and they likely didn't recognize that the phrase "wiped off the map" had an alternative (non-literal) meaning in English. Ahmadinejad himself, doesn't seem to care about how he's portrayed in the US media, and doesn't make any attempt to retract the translation, though other Iranian sources have.

Regardless, it's an apparent mistranslation, and restating it to a western audience, especially without clarifying the euphemism, is nothing short of propaganda.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

I was referring to the statement I had just quoted, as you are perfectly aware. Not that I would expect an ethical response from you.

I never said anything about military force, I said he is hostile to Israel and wants it (it being its government and a nation, if not it's population, to be destroyed.

Fine. So he wants a bi-national state. So what? That's not a bad thing. It's not a bad thing for human rights to be respected. It's not a bad thing for an egregious crime to be undone. It's not a bad thing for the Arab citizens of Israel to finally have the same rights as Jewish citizens. How is calling for an end to a racist Zionist movement the same as calling for the collapse of the government of Israel? How is it the same as calling for the extermination (destruction?) of Israel's citizens?

Frankly, he's on the right side of this issue. And you're on the wrong side. Sorry.

At 10/31/10 07:44 PM, adrshepard wrote: Lol @ link to antiwar.org.

I don't get the joke. It apparently has better reporting than whatever you read.

When he says he wants the "Zionist regime" to fall, he's referring to the Israeli government, which is pretty much interchangeable with "Israel."

I'm really not sure where you get this interpretation. the statement was: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Note: the imam said, so you know it was a quote of Khomeini, and not his own words. He never even said that he "wants" the Zionist regime to fall, he said that the imam foretold the fall of the Zionist regime in Israel. As in it's something that's destined to happen, one way or another.

Whether or not you agree with that statement, it's clear that the western media has grossly misrepresented his remarks. I mean, lets compare his actual statements, to what you were saying just several posts ago. Which was that Ahmadinejad is proactively calling for the destruction of Israel via military force. I wonder if you even recognize how badly you misrepresented what he said. You could potentially be sued for libel if you made a similar claim about the remarks of an American politician

He wants there to be an entirely new government in which all Palestinian refugees return after decades and vote.

Why should I care what he wants? If that really is his position, then I agree with him. The Ethnic cleansing of Palestine after the first war was a horrific war crime. And the Palestinians should have the right to return to their historic homeland, and have democratic rights to participate in a bi national Israeli/Palestinian state. Whether or not this is a politically feasible solution is another matter.

Still not seeing how these positions are the same as calling for Israel to be nuked, or driven into the sea, or whatever the Israelis are pretending Iran wants to do to them these days.

How you can condemn me as a propagandist and then lap up the drivel of the Iranian leadership, especially its commitment to democracy, should give you an idea of which of us is falling for propaganda.

Actually, I never said anything about what I believe about the situation. I'm just introducing a little bit of reality into this thread. You claim that the Iranian government has called, openly, for the destruction of Israel. Which is a false a claim. Their official position towards the Israel/Palestine conflict is well known.

At 10/31/10 06:03 PM, Musician wrote: Malcolm X was a great man. A principled muslim, socialist

Whoops. Ignore that last part. I had my trollface on

At 10/30/10 04:47 PM, Drakim wrote: Malcolm X taught that black people were the original people of the world, and that white people were a race of devils who were created by an evil scientist named Yakub. The Nation of Islam believed that black people were superior to white people, and that the demise of the white race was imminent.

I don't agree with most of what adrsheperd has said in this thread, but this bothers me. When you're fighting a revolution you don't always get to choose who you associate yourself with. The Nation of Islam was crazy, but it was a unifying force. And Malcolm X agreed to be a part of it, and to become a mouthpiece for Elijah Muhammad because of this. And he left it when the organization proved itself to be a catalyst for division among the black nationalist movement.

Great leaders have great faults. If you want to dig deep enough, you can make anyone look like an asshole. George Washington was an adultering, slave-owning, war criminal and terrorist. Does that anull all of his accomplishments? Sniping Malcolm X's affiliations is weak, to say the least.

Malcolm X was a great man. A principled muslim, socialist

At 10/31/10 04:49 PM, adrshepard wrote: Not that I agree with the OP 100%, but I'm tired of hearing this crap from everyone. Ahmedinejad is a politician, he knows what people will think when he uses the phrase, "wipe off the map", he hasn't attempted to clarify that statement as far as I know, and since then he has consistently reaffirmed his hostility to Israel. He clearly wants Israel, as the nation it is now, to be destroyed, which is a bad thing however you wish to interpret the metaphor. What Iran will actually do about it is another question.

Except he's never used the phrase "wipe off the map"(the persian word for "map" never even appeared in his speech) and besides that it's an english euphemism, not an international one. He's never "reaffirmed" hostility towards Israel, or even affirmed it in the first place. he, along with other Iranian politicans, have put their support towards the Palestinian resistance movement. But opposing a violent and illegal Israeli occupation isn't the same thing as calling for the destruction of Israel.

And even if Ahmedenijad was calling for the destruction of Israel, even if these claims you are making were anything more than tacit lies, it assumes more power than he has, since he can't perform any military action without the consent of Khamenei. You and your fellow propagandists would be better served scrutinizing the words of Iran's supreme leader, who holds most power in Iranian politics. Furthermore, Iran's (and Ahmadinejad's) official position has always been that it will respect an settlement between Israel and Palestine so long as the settlement is democratically ratified by the Palestinians, contrary to you're ill informed claims.

Stupid post. Ridiculous premise. Comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler is sloppy at best, outright disingenuous at worst. Unsurprising given the poster. I'll only take a moment to contest some of points that especially bother me:

Iran wants power. It's on its way to getting nuclear weapons, and it has said before that with them, they will destroy Israel

I have no idea what Ranger2's source is for that last part. Iran has never claimed that it will destroy Israel. Presumably he's referring the Ahmadinejad's supposed remarks of "wiping Israel off the map". Which is a misquote perpetuated mostly by Western media outlets.

There's no way Iran would help Iraq become a free republic, especially because...
a: Iran isn't a republic

Iran is an Islamic Republic, and there's no reason to believe Iran would care what form of government Iraq has, so long as it's regime is friendly. Which isn't inconceivable given the Shia majority of Iraq.

b: they want to keep Iraq weak and occupied.

Is this a joke? No, sorry, Iran doesn't want US military bases in Iraq. Having them there poses a serious threat to their national security. Especially given the US's common policy of aggressively invading countries, bombing them back into the stone age, and installing repressive governments that support US interests.

And, of course, anti-Semitism

Does anyone care? We have Republican politicians in the US making hateful, bigoted statements towards Muslims. How is that any different from racism against the Jews? Ahmedinejad's statements aren't even particularly inflammatory if you take the time to read them. Which I doubt you have.

At 10/25/10 06:37 PM, adrshepard wrote: Iraq is struggling to form a coalition precisely because there is no centralized, strong power in control.

Not within the legislative branch. There are, however, centralized powers present within the Iraqi security forces. For example: the ministry of interior, and the ministry of defense. Two rigid, heirarchical organizations, responsible for the policing and military defense of iraq respectively. These are the organizations that have been most correlated with the recent abuse, as the torture occurs at their facilities, and hundreds of their members have been accused of conducting/authorizing torture. They also happen to be the groups the US is funneling tons of weapons and training resources into. Yay

Are they the result of a deliberate, organized strategy of oppression, or do they stem more from general corruption, poor discipline, weak central authority and law enforcement? I think it's the latter

The evidence doesn't support that narrative. Take for example, the incident at Al Rusafa Detention Center. Secret torture prison, being run in a highly organized fashion, with a clear intent, and tons of allegations being made towards high ranking officials, including the prime minister. It makes no sense for that situation to be the result of a few rogue officers. Such incidents indicate high level involvement. Which is why comprehensive independent investigation, is so important to clarifying the situation.

Given the evidence that's available, which you clearly haven't researched, I can't imagine that this isn't a systemic issue. comprehensive denial of basic rights under international law isn't something that happens because 2 guards get a little too drunk and obnoxious. It's, generally speaking, the result of policy set right from the top of the chain.

So even though sanctions (because talk without threats does nothing in these cases) would directly work against what we have spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions to achieve, you think our "moral obligation" trumps all other considerations.

There's no reason to believe that taking steps to address corruption within the government threaten's Iraq's stability. So you're being needlessly dramatic.

And it's more a legal obligation (though it is also a moral obligation) to address these issues. Since it's illegal for the US to continue turning over prisoners to the Iraqi government if there's reason to believe doing so will put them at risk of torture. As Amnesty International notes:

"Under international law, the USA is barred from transferring detainees to where they face torture or other serious human rights violations. The absolute prohibition on transferring detainees to a situation where they risk such abuses is part and parcel of the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment itself. States' obligation not to torture or ill-treat detainees extends to the conditions to which detainees are released or transferred. A state cannot claim to be treating detainees humanely while knowingly handing them over to torturers, anymore than it can knowingly "release" detainees in a minefield and claim that their safety is no longer its responsibility."

At 10/25/10 02:50 PM, adrshepard wrote: What choice does the US have? Each report is communicated to the relevant Iraqi office and that's all we can really do. The US doesn't have the authority to prosecute Iraqis for violations of their own country's procedures, and Iraqis want it that way.

Well, for one thing the US needs to be conducting investigations into these claims of abuse. As for what you do after that, it's too soon to really say. I'm not a policy expert (and you certainly aren't either), so I couldn't tell you specifically how the US proceeds afterwards. I would guess that policies like human rights would be enforced the way they're traditionally enforced in international law. Through diplomatic measures, withholding of military aid, etc.

But whatever the path is it's clear that the current policies are completely unacceptable (not to mention tremendously hypocritical), and that any future solution begins with gathering information. Something that the US military has systematically blocked through Frago 242, presumably because the US doesn't care about human rights, as long as there's an authoritarian government in place that can guarantee the safety of their oil assets (and the US's permanent military presence).

They want to manage their own country, the US wants the same thing, and making a stink over prisoner abuse is counter-productive to that goal.

No, I don't think you understand the situation. Diplomatic action against a government that violates human rights isn't an infringement on Iraqi sovereignty. It's a policy that the US is obligated to follow (under international law), as the occupying power, exerting effective control over Iraq. Nobody is forcing us to provide guns and training to government death squads, and the fact that we continue to do so, despite the well known abuses that said supplies are used for, is immoral, illegal, and unjust.

I'd like to call you back to a statement you made in our last discussion, since it demonstrates your outstanding hypocrisy:

Hamas is a group that has deliberately and proudly killed innocent people, and yet the strengthening of their organization doesn't bother you? Do you stand for anything or is it just "nonviolence and peace at any price?

This is precisely the stance you've taken in this argument. That we shouldn't stick our nose into allegations of Iraqi abuse, because that might threaten the "stability" of the country or something stupid like that. Well, ok. But recognize that you're not just condoning a group that has actively tortured and murdered people without charge (probably innocents, or those guilty of petty crimes like theft): you're proactively seeking to strengthen their abuses, through continuing to provide said group with financial, political, and military support.

So the stance you are taking (the one you always take), is the preservation of abstract US interests, at any cost. And of course this policy has horrifying consequences, which you obviously don't recognize as a result of your profound moral failings.

So a zionist, neocon think tank pooped out a study that supports aggressive foreign policy?

Shocker.

Al Jazeera has been doing some excellent reporting on this issue. They now have a section of their site dedicated to analyzing the files and reporting the more relevant parts.

At 10/22/10 07:51 PM, Sekhem wrote: irrational rioting in countries like France (due largely to their misunderstanding of even basic economics).

I was actually watching an interview with Joseph Stiglitz on Democracy Now the other day, and he said it was basically the opposite. Namely, that those who believe that a recession is a good time for austerity cuts don't understand economics. I'll just post a bit of the interview here:

My view is we cannot afford not to stimulate the economy. So, you know, anybody that says we should go back to austerity or we should not have a second-round stimulus just doesn't understand economics. And let me be very clear about this. If we don't stimulate the economy, the economy is going to get weaker. When the economy gets weaker, tax revenues go down and expenditures go up. Already, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps. Number of people on Medicaid is reaching record levels. So, revenues go down, expenditures go up, deficits get worse. If you stimulate the economy, then people get jobs, they spend money, tax revenues go up. Now, if we spend the money on investments-investments in education, technology, infrastructure-you grow the economy in the short run from the stimulus, you grow the economy in the long term because of the returns that you get on these investments.

I mean, just think about this from the point of view of a firm. If you are a firm and you could borrow at zero to two-and-a-half percent, which is what the government can borrow, and you have investment opportunities that you owe ten, 15, 20 percent, you would be irresponsible, you would be foolish, not to undertake those investments. So, anybody that says, "I'm going to only look at one side of the balance sheet, the liabilities; I'm not going to look at the other side, the assets," is really not understanding economics. It's that kind of reasoning that got our country in the trouble in the first place, the people who didn't-you know, shortsighted behavior of the banks that got our country in trouble in the first place. And to me, I just view those kinds of statements as totally irresponsible.

US combat forces are still in Iraq. The pentagon's (and Obama's) words are that they've been "rem missioned". So now instead of engaging in combat they're supposed to be engaged in training and assistance for the Iraqi army. But they are combat forces and they remain ready to re-engage in combat if need be. Obama did draw it down to 50,000 (IIRC) troops. But, the "drawn down" force is being supplemented with thousands of contracted mercenaries. So yeah

So I don't have much to say about this right now, but theres no topic so far when there should be, since this is possibly the largest leak in US history (in terms of sheer amount of data). Wikileaks has released the Iraq War Diaries. Apparently, the hawks are shitting themselves, and had already pre-emptively assembled a 120 man team to try and control the media fallout of the event, even before the documents were released.

The biggest information to be coming out of this, seems to be the revelation that the US has actively ignored reports of prisoner abuse by the Iraqi forces (which we arm and train). Those of you that have been following the Iraq war may be aware that gross violations of human rights have been occuring in Iraqi prisons for some time now. A few weeks back Amnesty International released a report detailing how around 30,000 iraqi prisoners are currently being held without trial, and at risk of torture. Many of them are tortured and brutalized until they sign confessions saying they're members of Al Qaeda, upon which they're convicted in front of an Iraqi Kangaroo Court and summarily executed. The torture methods include: "breaking of limbs, removal of finger and toenails, asphyxiation and piercing of the body with drills". The techniques are so physically strenuous that many times they lead to incidental deaths among the victims.

It will also be interesting to see if the documents mention anything about contingency or withdrawal plans. If it doesn't, it's pretty much proof positive that Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq.

At 10/18/10 11:35 AM, BezFriend wrote: I really like Ranger2's signature showing a Palestinian soldier (who did not know better that he is behind a child's cart) and an Israelite soldier who is willing to shoot even though he knew full well that a child's cart will get involved in the cross fire.

I think the more entertaining observation is that there is no documentation of Hamas using human shields, besides official mfa statements from Israel (which are worthless). On the other hand, the documentation of Israel using human shields has been provided by multiple human rights groups, and independent news agencies. So basically if you switched to two flags around the signature would be much more factually accurate.

Cue everyone reading up on the Roman elite: Marcus Licinius Crassus

The rest of Crassus' wealth was acquired more conventionally, through traffic in slaves, the working of silver mines, and judicious purchases of land and houses, especially those of proscribed citizens. Most notorious was his acquisition of burning houses: when Crassus received word that a house was on fire, he would arrive and purchase the doomed property along with surrounding buildings for a modest sum, and then employ his army of 500 clients to put the fire out before much damage had been done. Crassus' clients employed the Roman method of firefighting-destroying the burning building to curtail the spread of the flames.

Privatized Fire Departments have a colorful history.

At 10/3/10 02:18 AM, adrshepard wrote: Did you ever stop to think that the prohibition against fresh food had more to do with preservation and preventing spoilage than denying the Gazans that special flavor?

What. the. fuck? I don't even know if you're serious.

You know what, take your victory. I don't even care. My main objective in this discussion was to get you to expose yourself as the sick, racist, apologist for violence that you are. Which you have done. So I have nothing vested in the conversation, and I'm certainly not going to sit here and waste any more of my precious time tutoring you in International Law 101, no matter how fun it is to watch you squirm. Later sucka!

So to you, a suicide bombing in a marketplace that kills 50 people is equivalent to 10 airstrikes on military targets that result in 5 collateral civilian deaths each. After all, 50=50, right?

They're exactly the same. Bombs are the terrorist weapons of the rich. Suicide bombs are the terrorist weapons of the poor. And Israel doesn't target "military targets". It uses indiscriminate weapons including cluster bombs and white phosphorous against civilian complexes. Israel claims that these complexes hold militants, but most of their individual claims are never verified and many are probably falsified to whitewash their wholesale slaughter of civilians. Anyways there have been many documented testimonies from IDF soldiers that contradict IDF claims of 'military targets'.

You can check it out at "Breaking the Silence" under the Categorie "Bombardments". The one consitent thing you'll find about the testimonies is that there were no Hamas militants in Operation Cast Lead. Many of the soldiers expressed frustration, because they had no enemy encounters. here's part of one of the testimonies from the website:

Nearly no one ran into the enemy. I know of two encounters during the whole operation. The soldiers, too, were disappointed for not having had any encounters with terrorists. The defined situation was that sparing our forces was of primary importance. This means that if we detect anyone, we disconnect, summon a helicopter and take down the house. That was the clear definition and that is how it was done. As soon as we detect anyone, our forces improve their position and get into defense layout, and a helicopter takes down the house. No direct contact unless it happens at the first moment of the encounter. At least in the paratroopers' designated area, there were hardly any encounters at all.

Here is the "torture" Israel is accused of committing

I don't care which form of torture you would prefer to be placed under. They're all forms of torture, they're all a violation of international law. Israel's is far more widespread, and common, and their prisoners include children, and non-violent protestors that have done nothing wrong. They throw people in jail for "incitement", which is a euphamism for "talking bad about Israel". Protesters are hit with tear gas, beaten, arrested, and tortured. These are all gross violations of international law, as I have stated and proven many times before.

See my above comments on comparative reliability of democratic governments and civilian testimony.

Well, that claim is clearly false. Democratic governments lie just as much authoritarian ones. During world war I, our democratically elected government had government sponsored propaganda operations that made claims later proven to be totally false, or exaggerated. And protestors who questioned the war or called for it to end were thrown in jail under the Sedition act. As for the Israeli government, they've been exposed lying multiple times. Denying that White Phosphorus was being used in Gaza, before ammending their statements in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a great example of this.

I get it. The Israeli army decides to invade Gaza and seize people it knows to be civilians for no reason other than becaues its so much fun.

They do it to harrass the Palestinians, so they'll surrender and accept a "peace agreement" in which they forfeit even more of their land. There's little evidence to support the idea that these people are actually terrorists, and many are held without charge or the ability to question their imprisonment. International Human Rights Watchdogs have repeatedly called for the release of the Palestinian prisoners, especially in respect to the rights of the children who are held illegally in Israel, some of which are tortured. The clear intent of all of this blatant violation of international law is to demoralize the Palestinians and make them more receptive to the theft and annexation of their land.

Gaza doesn't easily fit any definition of a state, you know that. I don't see the relevance of international law, here, either. Is Israel not allowed to fight to retrieve him?

Well since you don't recognize Gaza as a state, Hamas is not liable for the people and Israel is the occupying force responsible for the well being of the Palestinian people. It's not illegal for Israel to fight to retrieve him, but it is illegal for them to impose collective punishment on the Palestinians as a response for his capture, which is what Israel has been doing.

No, because in most states, eventual capture or death is a near certainty. The individual criminal WILL lose, eventually.

Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about. 40% of murders go unsolved according to the FBI. Only 25% of reported rapes lead to arrests. Note that both of those former statistics don't include crimes that are never reported. Criminals can and do get away with crimes every day, and many of them are not 'eventually' caught. So you're just completely and totally wrong here.

As for powerful nation states, I've already told you the comparison. Which is the mob. The mob still exists in this country. It doesn't matter if one of them was eventually caught. Germany was 'eventually caught' as well. That doesn't mean new powers don't emerge over time.

At 10/2/10 09:47 PM, adrshepard wrote: If Israel wanted the complete destruction of Gaza and the enslavement of its people, you would be right. However, all it wants is Hamas to renounce violence, release Shalit, and recognize the Israeli state as it exists now. Sooner or later, pride will give way to the reality of economic stagnation.

You're basing this on nothing except your own self serving bias, and I've shown several examples that clearly prove you wrong. Most notably the sanctions against Saddamn Hussein which were murderous, resulting in the deaths of over 500,000 iraqi children. People despised Saddam Hussein before the sanctions. By the end of the US invasion (and the start of the long term occupation), many people viewed him as a hero. Your doctrine is provably false, and even if it wasn't, it's barbaric and a gross violation of international law. Collective punishment is strictly prohibited under the geneva conventions, and there is absolutely no moral justification for it.

With the exception of Shalit, Israel's demands are nonsensical and pointless. As I've pointed out before and you've tacitly ignored. If Israel wants, a peaceful, long term settlement among internationally recognized boundaries, then they can have it. But accepting the legitimacy of Israel is a pointless and dogmatic demand, and is clearly just a red herring to provide a paper thin cover for Israel's continued murder of the Palestinian people. The same is true when calling for a 'renunciation of violence"

Bullshit. Taxes are not humanitarian aid. Asking foreign countries to stop paying the Palestinian Authority is not blocking humanitarian aid. It makes no difference what the money was used for.

Let me explain this for you. The taxes and funds were withheld; frozen. Because of this, the PNA could not pay it's workers, or purchase the supplies it needed to continue reconstruction, or humanitarian efforts. In other words, the hold on funds had a direct impact on the amount of material aid entering Palestine, and therefore had a direct impact on the civilian population. You can throw up smokescreens and lie through your teeth all you want, but the basic fact remains that the sanctions were an attack on the people of Palestine. A direct result of them voting the wrong way in a free election.

Do you think you put enough derogatory adjectives in that response to disguise the fact you have no idea how to rebutt my position?

Actually I did rebut your position when I showed you exactly where the violation of the geneva conventions is at, namely article 33 of the fourth geneva conventions. The links that you've posted that supposedly 'verify' your claims do nothing of the sort. The article from reuters that you linked to say nothing about the geneva conventions or Israel's responsibilities as an occupier, and the wall street journal article holds the title "The Gaza Blockade and International Law", so while I cannot read it, I presume it similarly fails to address Israels responsibility as an occupier. Furthermore, neither of them address the illegality of collective punishment, which is a gross violation of international law committed by Israel as I have made you aware many times in this thread.

I'll repeat myself, too. It's not suffering to be deprived of electricity. It's not suffering to be deprived of coriander. It's not suffering to be deprived of washing machines, fabrics, or fishing hooks.

Whether or not you believe it's suffering is irrelevant. It constitutes collective punishment and this analysis is support by a vast international consensus which you are outside of. You are a dipshit nobody who thinks he's a legal scholar and you can cry about how you don't consider the situation in Gaza to be suffering all you want; but that doesn't mean anybody is going to agree with you.

Let me remind you that these people are incredibly poor. A working refridgerator is the difference between having a reliable, accessible source of food or not. A working water pump is the difference between being able to drink or not. A functional water treatment plant is the difference between contracting sickness or not.

12% of child deaths in Gaza are attributable to diahrea, a condition caused by the build up of chlorine in their water. You don't think that's suffering? You're a demented little man.

Show me the essential foodstuffs being blocked. Saying that such and such a percent are malnourished is not enough, because for all we know dis a problem of inefficient distribution and not lack of supply. Show me how Israel is blocking the aid.

I already showed you John Gings testimony. But I'll repost it because you're clearly illiterate.

"We were not allowed to reconstitute our stocks during the ceasefire... That belies the Israeli argument about security. They didn't allow stocks in when the ceasefire was on."

"The Israelis were fully informed of the situation. For five months we were not allowed to reconstitute our reserves. So when the ceasefire broke down we ran out of food for the 750,000 who depend on us. Access for food and medicine is problematic "

So the Israeli's blocked UNRWA from refilling it's stores of food. Clear cut enough? As for an actual list of the items blocked: it's been posted in this thread before. Gisha compiled a comprehensive list, and you'll note they block fresh meat from entering the Gaza strip, which is one of the main causes of malnourishment, along with actual starvation.

Not true

Well seeing as I've previously shown evidence proving that the IDF prevent UNRWA from replenishing its food stores, and maintained a blockage of fresh meat, I don't see how shipments of clothes and shoes disprove anything I've said. The agreement was free and open passage of aid, and the Israelis clearly violated that. A token shipment of shoes and clothes means nothing.

Lol. Right where? None of the articles I've read say anything about the tunnel being finished or Israel knowing where the exit was.

So how is your ignorance my fault? Zvi Bar'el of Haaretz writes:

Last week's "ticking tunnel," dug ostensibly to facilitate the abduction of Israeli soldiers, was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm's way.

It is impossible to claim that those who decided to blow up the tunnel were simply being thoughtless. The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of "controlled entry" into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy - not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground.

Of course; they were getting their asses handed to them.

Haha, that's so funny. Yeah, Israel sure showed them by slaughtering a whole bunch of innocent civilians. Except as I noted most of these attempts to re-establish the cease fire were long before the more violent hostilities began taking place. Good job for again failing to read. As the previous article notes. It wasn't a clear and present threat, and as such was no justification for such a gross violation of the cease fire. Especially, considering the predictable consequences of the violation.

Some facts from that link, for those of you too lazy to read:

- L.A. controller: Two L.A. departments have thus far "created or retained 54.46 jobs" from "$111 million in federal stimulus funds" but expects to create 264.14 jobs total
- LADOT spent has only spent $1.8 million of its $40.8 million; expects to create 26 jobs total.
- L.A.'s DPW has only spent $5.24 million of its $70.65 million; expects to create 238.14 jobs total
- LADOT did not include jobs that were created on "contracted out" projects.

Thank you for clarifying that GumOnShoe. I am very interested to hearing SadisticMonkey's response and/or apology

Which means jack shit without knowing the exact terms. Show me some and explain how they were unreasonably rejected by Israel.

Alright then, a quick recap for the historically impaired. In 2008 Israel accepted a truce with Hamas, the conditions of which were withdrawal from Gaza, in addition to a lifting of the seige. BBC:

According to a breakdown of the truce released by Hamas, Israel will ease its restrictions for the trade of certain goods between Gaza and Israel on Friday morning, and open up the crossings for all commercial goods next week

After agreeing to the truce, Israel immediately violated it's terms and refused to open the borders at all until the release of Gilad Shalit. So Israel continued it's seige, in violation of an agreement which it had just made. No serious attempts were made to lift or alleviate the seige either. John Ging, leader of UNRWA made a statements that perfectly illustrates Israel violations of it's previous agreement:

"We were not allowed to reconstitute our stocks during the ceasefire... That belies the Israeli argument about security. They didn't allow stocks in when the ceasefire was on."

"The Israelis were fully informed of the situation. For five months we were not allowed to reconstitute our reserves. So when the ceasefire broke down we ran out of food for the 750,000 who depend on us. Access for food and medicine is problematic "

Despite this, Hamas upheld it's side of the bargain. The Israeli government has formally aknowledged that during the cease fire the rocket attacks were greatly reduced, and that hamas had launched no rockets. In November 2008, when the US populous was occupied with the upcoming elections Israel violated the cease fire in a bombing run that killed 6 hamas activists.

Israels justifaction was that Hamas was digging a tunnel under the Israeli border. Of course this justification is absurd. Even if such a tunnel existed and it reached the Israel border, Israel could have easily barred it right there (As several Israeli commentators noted).

After the blatant violation of the ceasefire by Israel, Hamas returned to firing rockets, but made multiple attempts to re-establish the cease fire. On Dec 14, Carter officials met with Hamas. Hamas expressed it's willingness to re-establish the cease fire. Robert Pastor, a former Carter administration official passed this information to an Israeli official who said they would return with a yea or nay. The Israeli's never returned contact on the cease fire.

Don't be confused though. The Israeli's were fully aware of Hamas' offer. As one Israeli official said to ynet: "Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce." Unfortunately, Israel wasn't and repeatedly turned down offers made by Hamas, including one the day before the beginning of the muderous Operation Cast Lead. The offer as reported by Hareetz senior diplomatic correspondent Akiva Eldar:

on Saturday, a few hours before the Israel Defense Forces stormed the Gaza Strip. Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal announced on the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Web site that he was prepared not only for a "cessation of aggression" - he proposed going back to the arrangement at the Rafah crrossing as of 2005, before Hamas won the elections and later took over the region. That arrangement was for the crossing to be managed jointly by Egypt, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority presidency and Hamas.

Given this evidence it should be clear that the Israeli government's actions were not only reckless and disproportionate, but completely unneccesarry. The government of Israel repeatedly ignored offers from Hamas to establish a cease fire, and instead decided to launch another murderous campaign in Gaza. This shows not only a complete disregard for palestinian life, but a reckless disregard for Israeli life as well, seeing as this escalation has put Israeli's at an even greater danger of terror and rocket attacks.

I cannot believe you would be so obtuse not to understand that the greatest asset for terrorist organizations is propaganda, rather than weaponry or money. Hamas is a group that has deliberately and proudly killed innocent people, and yet the strengthening of their organization doesn't bother you? Do you stand for anything or is it just "nonviolence and peace at any price?"

The strengthening of their organization does trouble me, but I, unlike you, manage to put that into perspective. There are literally, hundreds if not thousands of oppressive, violent governments and NGOs in the world, including the United States and Israel who are probably the world's two worst offendors.

I follow a basic moral principle: that we are responsible for our own actions, and not the actions of other governments that we cannot control. Pushing the blame onto other organizations is childish and counterproductive, and furthermore is only used because it plays right into the hands of powerful interests. What I'm promoting isn't "peace at any price" it's a perspective of consistency and justice.

Now you note that Hamas has "deliberately and proudly killed innocent people". I don't understand the emphasis on "proudly", because that's a notion that's completely irrelevant. Intent isn't magic. Being proud of a war crime doesn't increase or decrease it's illegality. You ignore that Israel has itself "deliberately and proudly killed innocent people" with it's constant bombings and it's economic seige against gaza, on a much larger scale than Hamas ever has. Furthermore, Israel has been the sole actor (with the backing of the united states), blocking a comprehensive peace settlement, against a vast international consensus. They won't even agree to a cease fire. Putting things into perspective, the Israeli's are far worse violators of human rights, and of international law.

"Monitoring" didn't help in this case.

And I never said that it would never happen. What I said was that it would be unlikely and rare, and that furthermore the risks of such things happening didn't justify the collective punishment of the Gazan people. Especially with a cease fire agreement on the table.

Are you fucking serious? Do you not understand how the Palestinian movement works? The only weapon it has is propaganda, in this case, portraying the Israelis as the most vicious, inhuman savages ever to walk the earth.

I'm curious as to where you think this propaganda comes from. People in Gaza literally walk through the ruins of Israeli military action every day. The strongest opponents of a positive image of the Israeli's are the Israeli's themselves. And the reason that a potrayal of Israeli's as "the most vicious, inhuman savages ever to walk the earth" is successful is because thats exactly the way they act. Torturing and detaining children, women, innocents, etc, while at the same time demanding in the name of HUMANITY that an enemy combatant in uniform captured legally under international law be turned over.

Every accusation that depends even slightly on Palestinian testimony is therefore unreliable.

And here we see your the depths of your bigotry and closed-mindedness come to flourish. So you're telling me that multiple, consistant testimonies from various prisoners that likely never came into contact with one another are all telling the same lie? But wait it gets better. Anything released by the Israeli MFA, a highly structured organization that openly admits it's status as a defender of Israeli policy is to be completely trusted without question? I really don't know what to say. We just crossed the line from selectivity to self-enforced ignorance. Congratulations.

Except Hamas and Israel were not actively fighting at the time. It was a kidnapping intended for one-sided prisoner swaps.

Says who? Israel was actively kidnapping civilians from Gaza during the time Shalit was captured. In fact, in an amazing display of hypocrisy, Israel kidnapped 2 Gazan civilians (Osama and Mustafa Muamar) from Gaza literally the day before Shalit was captured. By the way, lets again re-iterate the difference between abducting civilians and military personel in uniform. It is impossible to "kidnap" uniformed soldiers belonging to a hostile military force, and Israels crimes are far worse than Hamas' "crime" by any legal standard.

Don't even try to compare it to the typical taking of prisoners in armed conflict.

So is Hamas the legitimate government of Gaza or isn't it? You need to make up your mind on this. Because if they are, and Israel is really 'declaring war' on their country. Then they have every right to capture Israel's soldiers. It is not a violation of international law.

First of all, renouncing violence is not surrendering the right to self defense.

In this context, that's exactly what it means. Sovereignty demands the right to use violence to enforce law. So if there are Israeli troops inside of Gaza, they have a right to use violence against them. If there are Israeli bombers or spy planes flying within their airspace, they have a right to shoot them down. If there are Israeli destroyers in their territorial waters they have a right to sink them. It doesn't mean they have to or should, but renouncing violence is an illogical and irrelevant demand. If the Israeli's are demanded a cessation of violence directed at their territories, such as missiles launched at Israeli cities, then Hamas has already made that offer on the terms that Israel will do the same.

Second, Israel doesn't give a damn what other countries determine to be "legitimate boundaries." That is for Israel to decide for itself.

No, it's not. Annexation is a severe violation of international law. Furthermore I didn't say "legitimate boundaries", I said "internationally recognized boundaries", which would be based on the 1967 borders, perhaps with minor and mutual adjustments.

No, my doctrine is that you do what you believe is right, not to what others point to as some universal moral code.

Who decides what's right? Who? Some elites in Washington? People who have no personal stake in this conflict? Who? I'm not calling for adherence to some universal moral code. I'm calling for consistency, and consensus. What's "right" and "moral" isn't to be decided by a small group of autocrats. It's to be decided by consensus and mutual agreement. Remember, nobody forced the US and Israel to enter these treaties. They did so of their own free will.

Nations operate in a global anarchy with factions and alliances. This is reality. The UN is not an end-all organization to dictate the one true law of national behavior.

Domestic conflicts operate this way as well. In absolute realist terms, the government of the US is abstract. You could rob a liquor store and blow somebodies head off and no magical force would prevent you from doing so. In America marijuana is illegal but it's available and use is widespread. By your standards all states operate in anarchy.

When you go back to the real world though, you find that like domestic law, international law is widely upheld. There are notable exceptions to the rules, but this doesn't mean international law is non-binding or as you imply: non-existant. It simply means that some factions violate it.

The best example I can make for a powerful player like the US is the mob. In domestic law, there's not always a lot the government can to to exterminate the mob. They're powerful, politically influential, and they've got a lot of economic and military power. Like the US and Israel on the international stage, the mob plunders an otherwise sound framework within domestic laws, and makes itself the exception to the rule. This doesn't mean that domestic law is completely unenforceable or illigitimate, merely that there are exceptions to the rules.

At 10/2/10 01:18 AM, adrshepard wrote: I need to provide evidence to you that people think positively of their governments during periods of econonmic growth? Have you ever seen a pre-election poll?

No, you need to provide evidence that the blockade has significantly threatened Hamas' power in Gaza. It has nothing to do with popularity. If people are desperate, they become dependant on the existing structure, no matter who controls it. You can find examples of this as far back as the treaty of versailles in 1918 all the way up to the murderous sanctions placed on iraq from 1990-2003. When people are desperate, truly desperate, they flock to whatever system is available, and largely won't challenge the existing power system because of this.

The qualifier for this usually is that suffering is imposed by an external or foreign power, as it has been in Gaza. The Palestinians aren't stupid, they know exactly why their lives are miserable. The recent blockade is just an extreme of what they've been experiencing for dozens of years at the hands of the israelis. These people have suffered constant attacks, destruction of their homes, and the theft of their land. They're perfectly aware who's responsible for this situation, and they view Hamas and other resistance groups as forces fighting on their behalf. They don't blame Hamas for the misery. The misery existed long before Hamas did.

Where are you getting this from? I never said they would manipulate UN convoys to carry weapons. I'm saying that in the abscence of a blockade, Hamas is much more likely to get such shipments, and in greater quantity and reliability than can be supplied by tunnels, I would imagine. I think common sense is the deciding factor, here, unless you can somehow provide the exact logistical capabilities of the tunnels compared to the ports.

"I would imagine" and 'I think" are the key phrases here. You've yet to show any evidence that this is anything but a construction of yours. A cease fire doesn't mean that ships are completely free to leave and enter Gaza unchecked. A final two state solution would, but not a cease fire. So ships entering Gaza would be checked for weapons, as they always have been, even pre-seige.

As for after a final two state solution. Israel will have to tolerate imports of weapons. Every state has the right to pursue their own self defense, and a newly formed palestinian state would be no exception.

A blockade does not compromise the territorial integrity or political independence of a state. By definition, it only keeps things from entering and leaving the target area.

Well see, you're completely wrong. It very much does compromise the political indepedence of a state by restricting the national authority from freely practicing it's right to negotiate and trade with other countries. Israel has no right to unilaterally prevent that. It has to acquire permission from the security council. It's worth noting that this argument is only relevant if Hamas really is the authority of Gaza as an independent state, which most international opinion rejects since Israel is the effective occupier of the territory. So legal arguments against Israel can be split into two categories. One recognizes Hamas as the sovereign government of Gaza, and another that doesn't. This fits into the former.

Prepare to amend your statements again, because according to this article, no "essential aid" was blocked.

I'm not sure where in that article it says that. There's a quote from Ehmud Olmert where he says that "Israel [will] allow humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinians", but that's not what has actually happened. It actually says right in the article: "Withholding monthly tax payments to the PA", and "Asking foreign donors to stop all payments to the PA". Right, well that's newspeak for saying that they blocked the aid from coming in. Most of which was going towards reconstruction of homes and humanitarian assistance projects. The sanctions were brutal, and directly affected the Palestinians.

So to reiterate: the sanctions were a direct result of the Palestinians voting the wrong way in a free election, the terms of the lifting of the sanctions were capricious and unecessary, and furthermore they portrayed an aggressive attitude that antagonized later hostilities.

look at the fourth geneva convention, presumably article 23:

Look, you need to stop trying to independently interpret international law. Your interpretations are stupid, completely biased, and not based on precedent or any of the other numerous factors that go into interpreting international law. I'm not a legal scholar either, but I base my arguments on independent legal analysis, and not some hairbrained semantics centric interpretation of an uneducated reading of international law. Most independant legal organizations recognize Israel as an occupying force in Gaza, and as such as an actor responsible for the wellbeing of it's people. As an actual legal scholar, George Bisharat puts it:

Israel has authority to halt arms imports into the Gaza Strip. But it also owes a general duty of protection to civilians under its control, and has specific duties to allow them access to adequate food and medical supplies, and to maintain public health standards - duties it has deliberately violated in imposing the siege on Gaza. Currently 77.2 percent of Gaza Palestinians either face or are vulnerable to hunger; of these, 65 percent are children younger than 18. According to UNICEF, 10 percent of Gaza children show signs of stunting, while the World Health Organization maintains that another 10 percent face chronic malnutrition.

Moreover, collective punishment is specifically barred under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that the objective of the blockade is to weaken the Gaza economy and undermine support for Hamas. That is a political, not a military, objective, and it is impermissible under international law to target innocent civilians to achieve nonmilitary goals.

What punishment? I see nothing in any international law that specifies lost economic potential as punishment.

Nobody cares about how you see it. And furthermore you continue to purposefully ignore the point that I have repeatedly made to you that lost economic potential is not the problem. The problem is the humanitarian crisis that arises from it. Got it? Will I have to repeat it to you again? It's illegal to impose indiscriminate suffering on a population. It doesn't matter if that suffering is posed militarily, or economically.