http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040420.shtml


Along with Michael Moore, here's another guy that I don't usually agree with (then again, I find that there are very few people in the media that I actually do agree with for a majority of the time, so I shouldn't be too surprised). I imagine that this will stir up a bit of a hornet's nest, but it's worth reading his views. In this case, I tend to agree with him.

With little opposition, Europe murdered nearly every Jewish man, woman and child in its midst, and a half-century later provides cover for those in the Middle East who seek to do to the Middle East's Jews exactly what the Nazis did to the European Jews First of all the jews were not murdered by Europe but by nazis and this is a huge difference. As far as the "little opposition" is concerned let him tell this to the thousands Europeans who were executed or died in the the death camps because they were helping jews.

For Germany and France (who, unlike America, have almost never shed blood for the liberty of others) to do everything they can to undermine America's attempt to liberate Iraq is similarly repugnant. Nobody sheds his blood for the liberty of others unless he has something to gain. Also, iirc it was the fleet of those damned french,which helped the Americans during their war of independence, it was the fleet of those damned french, which along with the russian and british fleet destroyed the ottoman fleet and saved the greek revolution. And these damned Prussians have never fought in Waterloo, right? I think that this guy has to open an history book.
As for the "liberation of Iraq", well just let me laugh.

Finally I'm saved! somebody more deluded than I am! :roll:

I might sgree that taking out a palestinian terrorist wasn't a bad thing but Israel is no saint. The fact that America's government supports their stealing of palestinian land is outrageous. Imagine how different the world might have been if nobody objected or cared about the Nazis invading Poland?

As for the U.S or Israel not being on the human rights commision? HAH! I might agree that the people who are, can hardly talk about human rights, but these two can? please! Has everyone forgotton camp X-ray at Guantanomo Bay? One of the shining examples of human rights violations in the world today. And as for Israel, Imprisoning a guy for 18 years and torturing him(allegedly) because he exposed Israel's nuclear program. Yeah that's really humane.

I dont quite understand whats worthwile about 'Mr. Prager's thoughts'. All I see is a 'we are pure & shining good, you, however, are selfserving & corrupting evil' rant. Seems like he cant be bothered with details of any kind.
And I thought I was a bit simple.

It must be real cozy and reassuring to live in such a stainless, perfect society that is convinced it acts only to benefit others. Too bad very few on the outside share this opinion.

All Mr. Prager does is teaching me once again how some utterly ignore their own flaws. Nothing more.

Excuse my American, but that dude can suck my dick. That's the only thing that racist piece of **** seems to be suited for.

World leaders and the world organization have said almost nothing about Communist China's ongoing destruction of one of the world's oldest civilizations, Tibet. Great, and why don't the Americanos volunteer and libarete them ? Aren't you hard enough, aren't you rough enough and aren't the Tibetans rich enough ?

I have contempt for "the world."... In sum, I feel that I am living in a world that is morally sick. Good is called bad, and bad is called "militant," "victimized," "misunderstood" and "the product of hopelessness," but rarely bad. Only those who fight the bad are called bad.
So, he feels like me when I think about him. I have contempt for a bunch of rotten and filthy liars, invading other nations for obscure and arcane reasons and are so hurt in their vanity when they don't get neither applause nor support.

And the Israel part... staying away from a bloody topic like that is the best one can do. But anyway, Israel will have to use a lot of its resources in the coming years to rebuild what Sharon has destroyed on his rampage.

That dude is imo ten thousand times worse than Moore or anyone else. Anyone so convinced of their own goodness and righteousness cannot be anything but a paragon of vileness.

The main reason Israel (and the US) for example is getting so much more flak than other countries for doing stuff no worse than many others is just that they are supposed to be better than that. Israel is supposed to be a democratic state respecting international treaties and standing above acts committed by obvious tyrannical regimes like the in the article mentioned China. Israel claims to be an enlightened and respectful member of the free international community but all too often they act like the worst of the tyrannical "rogue" states. The same to a little lesser degree is true for the US. If you claim the moral highground then you damn better make sure that you deserve it or you will diminish the atrocities committed by those who are "officially bad".

My, my! Looks like dmc was right in that this would stir up a hornet's nest.

It seems some of you think this is another "America is great, the rest of the world sucks" rant, but I didn't see it that way. To me, he was saying the whole world sucks, and that individuals are good.

Iago, when you say Great, and why don't the Americanos volunteer and libarete them ? Aren't you hard enough, aren't you rough enough and aren't the Tibetans rich enough ? you act as though he didn't say "World leaders" and "world organization"; the US and Israel are not being exempted from his accusations.

True, he does call out the EU, France and Germany for special consideration, but he is not saying the US is a sparkling clean exemption. He is saying he has contempt for the whole "world" including the US.

dmc, when did you become such a troublemaker? :p

BTA, maybe Prager didn't come right out and say "the U.S. is great, everyone else sucks", but that's sure the impression I got. Any time he mentioned the U.S., it was with the general tone that the world has "done it wrong".

I can't say I really agreed with much Prager said.

BTA, maybe Prager didn't come right out and say "the U.S. is great, everyone else sucks", but that's sure the impression I got. Any time he mentioned the U.S., it was with the general tone that the world has "done it wrong".I think you and others are perhaps reading it through a certain antagonistic bias. Yes, he does mention some of the things he doesn't like about what has been done to Israel and the US by other countries, but he is certainly not exempting the US from his contempt. He doesn't say "I have contempt for the UN, except of course for the US". He doesn't say "I have contempt for the world, except for the US and Israel".

Agreed, he did point a finger directly at the EU, France and Germany, but he also pointed the finger at American journalists.

He is not (IMO) saying the US is great and the rest of you suck; he is including the US in his contempt of "the world".

I think you and others are perhaps reading it through a certain antagonistic bias I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, I don't think so. Aside from the war on Iraq, I like the U.S., and don't really have any reason to be antagonistic. And again, I agree that he didn't come right out and say that he doesn't hate the U.S. as much as he hates everyone else, but I would think that, if he did, then he would have been able to come up with better examples than American journalists who represent their employers more than their country.

Then again, maybe I am biased, and just can't see it. Of course, that could be true of anyone, yourself included.

BTA wrote:

I think you and others are perhaps reading it through a certain antagonistic bias. Yes, he does mention some of the things he doesn't like about what has been done to Israel and the US by other countries, but he is certainly not exempting the US from his contempt. He doesn't say "I have contempt for the UN, except of course for the US". He doesn't say "I have contempt for the world, except for the US and Israel".
I do have the strong feeling from reading that text, that he actually does. At least, Israel and the US seem to be according to him "decent societies". He seems to me like a xenophobic rant. Of course, as I am myself are xenophobic I don't see too much bad about that alone. But xenophobes don't work well together with xenophobes from other countries.

I have contempt for "the world." I cherish and admire countless individuals, but I have contempt for "the world" and "world opinion." And isn't "world opinion" not to good about your commander and chief and his recent deeds. Questioned are thoses deeds even. My understanding of the usage of "world opinion" in the US is, that it usually refers to what it said outside of the border of the US. I therefore conclude that "world opinions" and with it "world" means the rest of the world contrasted to his home country. Therefore anyone else, except the US (and his excepting Israel explicitly too in other paragraphs).

I have contempt for the United Nations... It is dominated by the most morally backward governments in the world -- those from the Arab and Muslim worlds, the Communists during their heyday and African despots... Neither the United States nor Israel sits on the Commission.
That's always interesting, as a lot of people I speak to usually see the UN as US dominated. That's just a sidenote, but fore me, always an interesting contrast.

To the point, dominated by the "bad" of Asia and Africa, that's why Israel and the US don't hold the place that's rightly theirs. The US and Israel obviously aren't hated by him as Asia and Africa.

I regard the European Union with similar revulsion... Europe murdered...
I noted that first. Europe sucks, like Africa and Asia. Europa is a very bad girl, she never should have come down from that bull.

As for the international news media and journalists, I regard most of them as aides to evil. Why has he to add "international" ? Wouldn't be I hate them all better and clearly also include all the Americans too ?

The vast majority of professors who take positions on social issues are moral fools. They teach millions of students that America and Israel are villains and that the enemies of those decent societies are merely misunderstood victims who are often justified in their hatred. Here, he clearly talks about Americans. Corruption at home, oh my. But note "decent societies" refers to the US and Israel. I live in the indecent rest of the world. What he holds against them, is that they are domestic corruption. No word about his beloved goverment.

And they loathe the American Judeo-Christian value system that has made the United States the world's land of opportunity and beacon of liberty.
Yes, there are Americans that loathe the Judeo-Christian value system too, according to this writer-dude. But the US is exempted from the "corrupt world" as a"decent society" . But now, at least, I am clearer about the meaning of "Christliches Abendland", it's the US. (~christian occident)

And I believe this God will judge Osama bin Laden and Jacques Chirac appropriately.Yes, equating the President of France with a known mass-murderer. Do you remember my theory about a view, that France is the incarnation of everything that is bad about Europe in the eyes of some specific group ?

So, the only continents that haven't had the luck of being mentioned where Latin-America and Australia. Yet, when I am browsing the side, the writer seems to have the strange illusion, that Bush is a decent human-being. I think the context of that all speaks loud. Except for the obvious hit on "professors" that seed hate and contempt for "das Christliche Abendland", the US seems to be a shingin beacon of liberty. Those professors must be some rats in the cellar.

.... Still editing

[ April 26, 2004, 21:29: Message edited by: Iago ]

Heh. I've said all I need to about bias I think.

How about for the sake of argument, everyone interprets what he says through my own apparently rose-colored glasses, and discusses what he says in that light, rather than an "America great! You bad!" light. I suspect it might be more productive.

Naw, he points fingers and he points them not at the U.S.

Just a thought: Why should dmc be "worried" about stirring up trouble if that bigot fellow only intended to express his worries and disgust in general? (I would agree with him in that case)
No one would have a reason to be displeased.

Its quite clear what Mr. Prager wants to tell us.

No one would have had a reason to be displeased.Well, let's see.

How about someone like BOC who disagrees with some of his assertions?

How about someone (someone similar to joacqin) who thinks it IS fair to come down on Israel for assassinations of Hamas leaders, but ignore other problems because Israel should be BETTER than that?

How about someone who thinks that having Libya, China, Saudi Arabia and Sudan on the human rights commission may encourage them to improve human rights in their own countries, so as to not appear hypocritical to the world?

How about those that think it's better to have some censored news from hotspot areas than no news at all?

There are many ways this discussion can go besides assuming he is espousing an "America great - you SUCK!" sentiment.

This is off-topic :yot: but this Dennis Prager article reminded me of a funny article from the Daily Howler: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082503.shtml

I think BOC & Co. made their statements to disprove Mr. Prager's claim that the U.S. and Israel are more honourable than the rest of us. To give an example why his 'thoughts' are not valid and whats wrong with the whole picture painted by him. I might be wrong about their intention though.

There are many ways this discussion can go besides assuming he is espousing an "America great - you SUCK!" sentiment. Makes me wonder why we are all 'assuming' the same thing.

There are many ways this discussion can go besides assuming he is espousing an "America great - you SUCK!" sentiment. Then what does he mean when he says that Europeans are nazis? Also, the fact, that he twists/ignores history, shows something about his intentions and his credability.

I think BOC & Co. made their statements Finally I managed to create my own multinational company :D .

Look, this road is any easy one to follow, and one that far too many threads in the AoDA go down. Pardon me for trying to have a more interesting discussion.

Finally I managed to create my own multinational company . :p :D

@ BTA
There is enough criticism of the U.S. in the Alley already. You are right. But I hope its okay if some here dont agree when we (Europe) are attacked like that. What did you expect would happen when something like this is presented to us?

I dont want to bash the U.S., only to defend my nick of the woods. Its not the same.
(and I make it a point not to agitate higher beings, like moderators or admins!) ;)

edit - typos

[ April 26, 2004, 23:47: Message edited by: Dendri ]

How about for the sake of argument, everyone interprets what he says through my own apparently rose-colored glasses, and discusses what he says in that light

Well, I did not notice that he mad any points of any interesting value. Only a summation of already known things.

For the Israel thing. I do not see Israel as anything better then most countries. I think the situation in Israel is similar to Albania/Serbia. It just a complex thing and solutions aren't easy. But if someone came up with a plan that would seem to work, I think the European countries should put their economical weight on a region that's dependend on trading with Europe, to force all sides to comply. And if necessary, go against the will of the Americans, who seem to have become a part of the problem and can't be part of a solution. Yet, that won't happen. That means the situation in Israel will go on and on and on. But I am sure that Sharon is a failure and doing a lot of harm to Israel. Israel will be weakend because of him a long time. It is getting more and more reliant on welfare as its economy suffers while Sharon seems to be keen on growing Hdyra-heads by chopping one head off after another, not noticing that the multiply through this process. Or noticing it and that's actually a plan ?

The point about the countries in the human rights commission. Well, they are a part of the world too and entitled to have their place in international organizations. Of any use ? No, I do not think so. But having them not there wouldn't make any difference. In cases of human rights, there are non-govermental organizations doing a much better job. I think the ones with reputation among them are much more suited for that task as any govermental institution anyway. It's more about the cause their serving and less about daily politics. The UN-Commission in the end comes only out with two kind of statements. Either it's we heard about bad things going on in that particular country and are quite sure it won't cost us too much to state that or it's an agreed consens among the members with weight, that they don't like that particular country.

The world-health organization is much more interesting. As indeed, it's a collition of values, which also happen to be held by some christians. Is it good or evil to prevent the spread of AIDS ? I think it is good to try to prevent it. In some countries, the human costs are already disastrous. And that situation is worsening with every day that goes by. I've seen an outlook for South-Africa and it's a catastrophe. Yet, some think that the prevention of AIDS is evil, as it implies the use and distribution of condoms and some teaching about reproduction. Of course, if condoms are evil, better have orphans. If they didn't catch AIDS at birth, at least they have survived their parents until they get 18 and catch the desease and spread it further. The WHO is truly evil trying to prevent that.

Was there anything else ? Tibet ? That's complicated. Who dares messing with China ? China is in a similar situation as the US, their huge. Putting pressure on China and not being careful can cause severe economical damage. Why not start with correcting Birma ? That would be a good cause, doable and if someone would come up with a plan that looked as it if indeed would work, I'd be all for it.

Reports from Iraq, not reported, don't know much about that, as I deem that a US-domestic thing I am not too acquainted with.

[ April 26, 2004, 23:54: Message edited by: Iago ]

this road is any easy one to follow Well, I’m not so sure it’s that easy, but I’ll try. I guess in a way I've been trying to discredit the messenger rather than the message.
I have contempt for the United Nations. It is one of the great obstacles to goodness and decency on this planet. Is the U.N. perfect? No, of course not. But IMO it’s better than nothing. If the world as a whole wants to see the U.N. changed, then let the world as a whole, and by consensus, change it.
It appointed Libya, a despotic, primitive state, to head its Human Rights Commission, whose members include China, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Neither the United States nor Israel sits on the Commission. Well, from what I understand, the U.S. lost it’s seat in 2002, but regained it in 2003. So either Prager or I have our facts mixed up.
I regard the European Union with similar revulsion
This paragraph has already been addressed by BOC in his first post. I won’t bother restating it.
I love learning and revere the title of "professor," but with few exceptions, universities, too, merit contempt...They teach millions of students that America and Israel are villains and that the enemies of those decent societies are merely misunderstood victims who are often justified in their hatred Has Prager never heard of the "two sides to every story" argument? Just because professors don’t sing regular praise to the U.S. or Israel, that doesn’t make them worthy of contempt.

Actually, I do agree with his comments about the media. They all have their agendas and biases, I tend to be skeptical of them all. (But not Prager; he’s too transparent.)

Well, I tried. :D

But I hope its okay if some here dont agree when we (Europe) are attacked like that.Of course it's OK, but what I would hope for is a discussion of why his thoughts are incorrect without simply dismissing them all because of the way he presents them.

and I make it a point not to agitate higher beings, like moderators or adminsI am not agitated, and you are free to bash the messenger (Mr. Prager) if you like, but I get disappointed when I think there are interesting things that can be discussed, and all that happens is a character assassination and dismissal.

Well, I did not notice that he mad any points of any interesting value. Only a summation of already known things.Fair enough. I found a few things/assertions interesting:
1)Israel's assassination of leaders who are intent on its destruction is widely condemned but other atrocities are ignored.
2)Humanity in general is more absorbed by Miss World and Olympic contests than mass atrocities.
3)The UN's moral record is almost entirely supportive of "evil" and condemns "good".
4)The appointment of countries with poor human rights records to the human rights commission.
5)Deliberate self-censoring by journalists so that they can remain in-country.
6)The vast majority of professors teach that the US and Israel are villains, and that their enemies are the victims, justified in their hatred.


Some of this was addressed above, so I'm still hopeful of interesting discusssions.

The point about the countries in the human rights commission. Well, they are a part of the world too and entitled to have their place in international organizations. Of any use ? No, I do not think so. But having them not there wouldn't make any difference. In cases of human rights, there are non-govermental organizations doing a much better job. I think the ones with reputation among them are much more suited for that task as any govermental institution anyway. It's more about the cause their serving and less about daily politics.But then what is the reason behind the appointments? What kind of message does it send?

Just because professors don’t sing regular praise to the U.S. or Israel, that doesn’t make them worthy of contempt.But that isn't what he asserted. His assertion is that the US and Israel are portrayed as the villains, not that both sides are presented and the students can make up their own minds.

Is the U.N. perfect? No, of course not. But IMO it’s better than nothing.Even if his assertion that "It is one of the great obstacles to goodness and decency on this planet." is true? Or do you believe his assertion is NOT true/ is ridiculous?

BTA - Thanks for taking up the gauntlet while I was taking a deposition. 'Preciate it.

Folks, BTA hit the nail on the head, and the point is to look at the points made, rather than the messenger, especially in light of the Moore quote I also posted.

Some critical things are said that should not be dismissed simply because you don't like them or the messenger. Let's have a rational debate.

On that note, I must go back into my deposition.

For Germany and France (who, unlike America, have almost never shed blood for the liberty of others) to do everything they can to undermine America's attempt to liberate Iraq is similarly repugnant. Well, some people either ignore history, or are just plain ignorant. But more than likey it is that when someone makes a statement like this, he/she is hoping that the reader has no grasp of history. Without the help of France it is unlikey that America would be enjoying the freedom and liberty that it does today.

I love learning and revere the title of "professor," but with few exceptions, universities, too, merit contempt. I'm glad that this individual has had an opportunity to visit all the universities across this large nation and engage with all the thousands of "professors" and faculties in them, so that he can comment on what they all think and feel about Isreal. He is an amazing man if he can attend all the classes of "millions of students" in our college system. And then report on all the lectures that are given in them. Maybe he has the Cliff Notes.

And I believe this God will judge Osama bin Laden and Jacques Chirac appropriately.
Why should God bother, since He has Prager to do all the judging of others for Him? I mean, who else can judge "the world?"

If you love goodness and hate evil, this is a tough time to stay sane. Perhaps someone should hand Prager a mirror. Sometimes "evil" is where one least expects to find it.

[ April 27, 2004, 06:19: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

I read the article twice, and even held off from responding as I watched with awe as people frothed at the mouth in rage over Prager's comments.

First off, look at the last word above... comments ...this was a political commentary and all of you who have vociferously disagreed with it had better realize it is commentary. Take a deep breath and offer a quick thanks that he is free to express himself...for it insures that you are likewise.

I would take objection with Prager on two things...if Israel was able to kill Rantisi...they could have captured him and brought him to justice, and his blanket statement of Europe murdering the Jews.

Prager makes valid comments...and raises issues that you had better learn how to deal with and live with...he has simply expressed biases which you don't have...and your vocal disagreement doesn't make them any less a real perspective for those who hold them...this editorial was no more inflammatory than some I have seen linked to that were critical of the US and our Imperialism , and your reactions are far more vehement when you are the ones offended.

Look down...on your chest...there is a big, red button that Prager has just pushed.

I nominate DMC for "Troublemaker of the Week"

OK, Let's see a couple of his assertion.

I have contempt for the United Nations. It is one of the great obstacles to goodness and decency on this planet. Its moral record -- outside of a few specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization -- is almost entirely supportive of evil and condemnatory of good. It is dominated by the most morally backward governments in the world -- those from the Arab and Muslim worlds, the Communists during their heyday and African despots. Well I agree with him that UN is dominated by the most brutal governments in the world since the last time I checked the UN Security Council's permanent members were USA, UK, France, Russia and China :evil: . Really, what is his alternative, with what would he replace UN?

And not one international news organization calls Hamas or any of the other Palestinian terror organizations "terrorists." Obviously he doesn't read international press.

From BBC:
Hamas opposes Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority and any other body that engages in peace talks with the Israelis. A major player in the Middle East crisis, it is a terrorist organisation that's been responsible for countless deaths and which will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel and the founding of a fundamentalist Islamic state in its place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/news/7oclocknews/features/palestine_100903.shtml

and from CNN:
Hamas is a Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization whose military wing has admitted responsibility for terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. The United States and Israel consider it a terrorist group.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/18/rantisi.funeral/index.html

Although, I agree with him (seriously, I'm not kidding :D )that every press agency has its own agentas and biases and that this has an effect in the way they present the news.

First off, look at the last word above... comments ...this was a political commentary and all of you who have vociferously disagreed with it had better realize it is commentary Well, yes, but don't worry on that account because very little of the content of this commentary could be mistaken for factual, except by perhaps those on Fox News.

Take a deep breath and offer a quick thanks that he is free to express himself...for it insures that you are likewise.
This is an old argument, and one which is used often by those who suppport the KKK, for example. The Constitution allows them to also run around our streets with sheets over their heads, advocating the overthrow of the US government and preach the hatred of Jewish people and other ethnic groups. In Prager's instance, just substitute Muslim, or European, for Jewish.

Of course, there will always be those who preach hatred. As has been pointed out, they are free to do so by the Constitution. And much like the Klan it is done under the disguise of "noblity." They have in common with Prager a hatred of the academic community because it is not "morally pure" enough to suit their own dogma. It follows that those who, are in some cases, thought to be the brightest (professors) are really hard at work corrupting the young people of society. For the uneducated this kind of rhetoric holds great promise. Why bother with learning or knowledge when they can subsititute it for rhetoric and political ideology grounded in their own brand of "moral" purity? The religious right has been engaged in the same kind of rhetoric for years.

Why bother to learn of how relieved Washington was when he saw the first French ships appear in the Hudson? Or after many of his own generals turned against him - Conway, Lee, and of course, Benedict Arnold, how he knew he could rely on a young Frenchman named Lafayette? Washington knew that the Revolution had a fighting chance with French help.

But that was long ago. Men like Washington, Adams and Jefferson are mere fossils. We can just lump them all together and tag them as the "Founding Fathers," and as such, ignore what they believed as individuals and assign to them our own brand of modern political ideology. Perhaps the sum of them is greater than the individual parts. Besides, now we have Shrub and Cheney to lead us through the "dark times" of today's world, which Prager has demonstrated is full of hostiles and the "morally corrupt." Now, if Prager could only find a mirror....

[ April 27, 2004, 17:54: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

...this editorial was no more inflammatory than some I have seen linked to that were critical of the US and our Imperialism , and your reactions are far more vehement when you are the ones offended. I'd like to have a scientific test on that. Which red buttons get what people on each side on the pond to what reactions. And do they really differ in intensity ?

and raises issues that you had better learn how to deal with and live with I live with those issues anyway, so I learned that and I fancy myself to be able to deal with them, thanks. As I mentioned above, besides is flames, Pager doesn't have anything to valuable to say, except for a summation of old things. Obviously, BTA thinks (at least I think he thinks, which is... äh) it's worth to take the chance, when presented with a list and ignore the indignities around it. But a person that obviously hasn't the faintest clue about WW2 history like Prager, doesn't seem to me like an interesting read anyway. Only the repeater of things in the air anyway. And a good orator maybe. Bother commenting about the WHO ?


But I do not like being called a Nazi. That is the biggest red button I can think of, as statistically, the chance of an European having relatives that where somehow victimized by the Nazis is dam high. And then, don't you remember that "hmhmhm"-law (Ok, I've forgotten the name), that every discussion has automaticly to end, when Nazis are mentioned ?

To go topicly astray, as member of the German-speakers, I always played with the thought to start a topic on usage of fascist history by German speakers. There is a quote from the current German foreign minister, something like "there is nothing that is not stained". Goethe, Shakespeare, God, the christian churches... everything. Care to translate "a truly great leader" into German ? Tricky. Mephistopheles is everywhere. Would someone care for such a topic ?

BTA worte:

But then what is the reason behind the appointments? What kind of message does it send?
It's the reflection of a difficult world. I think that commission came into being in other times, more idealistic and more full of hope. I think a very famous lady from your country was the first to sign that underlying charta. While the similar commision of European Human Rights (not EU-related) is a very succesfull project, as the project for European Development and Cooperation.

Libya, China, Saudi Arabia and Sudan For one, all those countries where former colonies. An organization dominated by former colonial empires that weren't not so true to the ideals that they hold so dear now in their former colonies sticks the finger in the air and says:" no, no, we did that to you yesterday but you are not allowed to do it yourself today !". I think particularly China is known for its grudge against the countries that once assulted it. For one, I think every so-called "occidental country" lacks the ability to really claim to lead by example.

Then I think that plenty of those countries use some argumentation to avoid the universality of human rights. For one, they claim, that those rights are not part of their culture. That they're culture is different and those rights have no meaning for them. I think they even have a "charta of duties of the individual". I think that's humbug.

But I think, before a country can really approach the question of human rights in a meaningful way, it has to get some domestic questions and problems out of its way. Like who leads and how to get food on the table. South-Korea I think has made a great leap from a 3rd-world nation to an economically strong and powerful 1st world nation. With that, they also changed from dictatorship to a democracy. I personally think, that liberalism (original meaning) is more or less a sideeffect of economical progress.

So, I think that the UN-Human-Righs commission is planted in a world worried far more with other, more urging problems and therefore has to adopt a policy of a thousand little steps. And I'd call that adapting to reality.

I also think that many comments about the UN that Prager made are based on a important misjudgment of the world, in my view. The "Occidental Nation" don't have that much impact on the world. I mean, the don't wield that much political influence to force things on others. As I said before, China and a lot of other countries are much to big and powerful to be forced to something. So, in the end, at some point, those appointments have to be given to continents that want also to participate. For whatever reason.

Wow. I don't always agree with Dennis Prager, either. But all I can say is I've never seen him write or heard him say anything approaching this. What is going on with him? Saying that he is "revolted" by the EU and that "Europe" had murdered most all of it Jews?

I regard him as a generally enjoyable and often wise commentator, with whom I disagree on some issues like Europe. I do think that he is fearful of what he sees as a rise of new anti-semitism in the world (he is Jewish). I don't mean to make excuses for talk of revulsion and generalized accusations of murder. But I do mean to say he is not usually so extreme, in my exerience.

Btw, his thoughts on the contrasts between the US and Europe are interesting in several respects. Centrally, he feels that between "liberty and equality", there are times when they conflict. He believes the EU most often values equality at such times, and that the US most often values liberty.

I am not a fan of Michael Moore OR Dennis Prager. I have never heard Prager say much of anything that was insightful or interesting and Moore is OUR(I am a liberal) version of Rush Limbaugh, much of the time.

I also never opposed the war in Iraq(hope I don't get my liberal jersey stripped!) adn what's more I think there is no BETTER reason than control of oil to go to war(I am like that Vanity Fair writer...(what's his name...? Chris Hutchens or somesuch?)... in this regard.

I also think there is a VAST difference between Israel and the Palestinians.

The Israelies don't strap grenades to children and send them amongst other children and innocent civilians to fulfill the cowardly plans of the terrorist leadership.

My problem with this whole issue? That we have perhaps the dumbest(collectively) administration in US history in charge of this whole gig. As one general recently remarked, we have ALREADY FAILED! it is time to get out of there QUICKLY! America is going to have it's share of "Viet Nam's" and this is one of them. If it were up to me, as a liberal, I would pull out all troops and drop a very large bomb on the entire region and then invite the surviving muslim fanatics to a rational discussion about how we can resolve our differences. I am sure they would be much more receptive to such an invitation after such a large bomb were dropped and the end result would be much LESS loss of lives.

If the Japanese had been dealt with in the way that some are suggesting we deal ith the terrorists then there would be ten times the number of casualties adn who knows how things would have turned out.

Large bombs have a way of jarring people back to reality. "God is greatest" becomes less potent when your entire country was just leveled by a single bomb.

*Dons the asbestos*

[ Don't lump every Muslim or every Palestinian into the same boat. In this context, your solution reeks of genocide. ] - Beren

[ May 01, 2004, 06:40: Message edited by: Beren ]

RuneQuester:

The Israelies don't strap grenades to children and send them amongst other children and innocent civilians to fulfill the cowardly plans of the terrorist leadership They dont have to do this. The Isrealis have helicopters and tanks to kill palestinian civillians. The palestinians dont, so they are fighting back the only way they can.

If it were up to me, as a liberal, I would pull out all troops and drop a very large bomb on the entire region Sorry mate, but this comment is what strips you of your liberal shirt. Not being anti-war.

Takara - Do you have any backup for your inference that the Israelis target civilians for death with their helicopters and tanks? Everything I have seen, heard or read, including eyewitness reports from my wife's family members who live in Israel, indicates quite to the contrary.

O.K, those words were a little poorly considered. Apologies. The point I was striving for, was that the Israelis have lots of high tech equipment with which they constantly cause death of palestinian civillians. When they use a helicopter to target a millitant on the street, they kill numerous civillians too. Whether or not they are deliberately targeting civillians is not something I can judge, but they ARE guilty of this by continuing in doing this, knowing they will kill civillians by accident.

Sorry Takar but "liberal" does not mean "Anti-war". In addition to being liberal I am also a skeptic/rationalist. I do not buy into JFK conspiracy theories or "Bush orchestrated 9/11!" conspiracies even though many(MOST in the case of JFK)liberals DO believe these things.


Now here is the kicker...I am also a PACIFIST! I do not believe there is ANY GOOD reason for violence. I will NEVER personally own a gun, watch boxing matches etc.

But I also am a REALIST and I know that with an increasing population on a single planet, atrocities such as war MUST occur(unless evolution acts to somehow slow down our capacity for reproduction or somesuch which doesn't seem likely at this time). Having said that if there are going to be large numbers of people dying violently then the best I can hope for is that the people we can really do without(terrorists, fundementalists, serial killers and boy bands) are amongst those doing the dying.

Therefore as a liberal ADN a realist I must support Israel in their efforts to exterminate Palestinian terrorists. IF these terrorists hide behind children and civilians while pointing there RPGs then it is unfortunate that the occasional innocent get caught in the crossfire but this is hardly the fault of Israel(or America). It is the fault of those who feel that using children as bombs and women as shields is their "only means of fighting".

When the white man conquered the native Americans it was not something we should ever be proud of but I think all native Americans CAN be proud that NO Apache, Sioux or Cherokee EVER sent a child with a keg of gunpowder or stick of dynamite into a fort or camp and they did not hide behind their women when firing arrows at their enemies.

Firstly I didnt say that being pro-wwar makes you non-liberal. I said saying "Nuke iraq" was what made you a non-liberal.

Secondly, I was watching a news report today. It showed a palestinian woman walking down the street, minding her own buisness. She was doing nothing out of the ordinary, nor waving her arms about....just walking. All of a sudden, she was shot by israeli troops. The question is why? There were no militants about, no RPGs. What did she do? I suppose that's a rhetorical question.
When Israel uses helicopters to attack militants, it's not people hunkered in a crowd, waving an RPG about. It's a man walking down the road, or in a car, doing his normal thing. He is targeted because he's a militant. He isnt shooting, or causing havoc, or using people as shield. The Israelis then fire missiles at him. When he dies, so do civillians around him. These civillians are not human shields. They are passers by. That is why it is murder.

Firstly I didnt say that being pro-wwar makes you non-liberal. I said saying "Nuke iraq" was what made you a non-liberal.EDIT- Here is what you wrote:

Sorry mate, but this comment is what strips you of your liberal shirt. Not being anti-war. Edit again. I realize after re-reading the quote several times that it can be read several ways and you probably intended it to read as you have said...that being pro-war was not what made me "unliberal"(in your estimation) but rather my being "pro-bombing".


I still don't follow your reasoning but then again...how do you define "liberal"? ;)


Your comment was ambiguous enough that it could have been interpreted in different ways but in any case what is more "liberal" to your ears...1)Nuking a region full of terrorists resulting in the deaths of perhaps MOST of the terrosits adn severely crippling the whole faction(understandably many innocents will persish as well which I am not happy about) OR 2) Allow the terrorists to continue...perhaps delivering us a Nick Berg style beheading or a 9/11 type atrocity every year or so indefinitely? IF we had not dropped those two bombs on Japan to end WWII the number of civilian AND military casualties would have been astronomical in comparison.

Secondly, I was watching a news report today. It showed a palestinian woman walking down the street, minding her own buisness. She was doing nothing out of the ordinary, nor waving her arms about....just walking. All of a sudden, she was shot by israeli troops. The question is why? There were no militants about, no RPGs. What did she do? I suppose that's a rhetorical question.I have no idea what ACTUALLY took place and you will have to forgive that YOUR interpretation of an alleged news report from who-knows what station with who knows what agenda/bias which I have no way of scrutinizing will not be very helpful to me here.

I truly wish with all my heart that there were some way to magically remove innocent people and isolate them from those mindless zealots who would take advantage of them, abuse them and hide behind them before attacking those savages.

But alas...


When Israel uses helicopters to attack militants, it's not people hunkered in a crowd, waving an RPG about. It's a man walking down the road, or in a car, doing his normal thing. He is targeted because he's a militant. He isnt shooting, or causing havoc, or using people as shield.Groundless assertion. You would have a different opinion if YOU were an israeli who had watched these "innocents" run into your daycares adn marketplaces shouting "God is great!" before blowing themselves up killing everyone around them. people whose only crime was to be enjoying a meal at the wrong resteurant or riding the wrong bus to work. I am sure the israelis do the best they can with what intelligence they have adn I am also sure they have made mistakes. Terrorists are not enemy soldiers. They are notoriously difficult to fight because they DO hide amongst women, children and the innocent. They discuise themselves as a "simple man walking down the street with no weapons adn minding his own business" adn then dive into a hospital or elementary school and detonate themselves. Israelis do their best to seperate the real innocvetns from the cowardly murderers. I think most of the time they succede.

If you have evidence to the contrary...?


The Israelis then fire missiles at him. When he dies, so do civillians around him. These civillians are not human shields. They are passers by. That is why it is murder.You need to turn off that Al Jezeera station. We have as similar propaganda station here in the US...it is called "FOX News Network".

DOn't believe everything you read or see on TV.

If you have evidence to the contrary...? How about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3650791.stm) ?

Runequester, I have no idea how to reply to your post as you've clearly not even tried to address my points. I'm not trying to argue who's right and who's wrong in the middle east. I'm just putting things in perspective, since all that seems to happen is the pro-Israelis fill these boards with their opinions.

Discrediting the news station is a poor attempt to dismiss my point. The report showed camera footage of a harmless woman being shot for no reason. If the station was showing it as properganda, instead of reporting the tragedy of the conflict, then we might as well ban all forms of journalism. Why is highlighting Israeli brutality such a no-no on these boards? people seem to like labelling all palestinians as terrorists.
You say that I'd feel differently if a palestinian blew up a cafe near me. I doubt it. I can seperate a group from a race. Can you? Maybe if you look beyond your hatred of palestinians you'd be able to see that they aren't all out to get Israel, and that they just want their freedom. Freedom from occupation, and freedom from terror at the hands of the Israeli army.

I dont have a problem with Israel targeting militants. I think it is a legitamate form of warfare. My problem is with their methods. Wilfully killing innocent bystanders is never acceptable, no matter what the provocation. These people didnt shoot any Israelis, they were just trying to live their lives. Being killed because they happened to be near a suspected militant is disgusting. It is state sanctioned murder. If the palestinians did this to Israel, the world would be howling for blood. You included no doubt.

BOC now that was a funny link. My favorite was

Palestinian activists in Bidou, a focal point of recent protests against the West Bank barrier, say that the Israeli authorities are increasingly using excessive force to disperse stone throwers. Would it be excessive force if the Israeli's threw stones back? I've always thought that would work better. Put the soldiers in body armor and teach them how to properly throw stones. This way they could save the bullets, grenades, cannon shells, and helicopter rockets for when they really need them.

Takara - you may want to do a quick search on "Israel" to see how pro-Israeli the average board member is. I think you'd be surprised.

I'm all for the body armor and return of rocks concept. One thing to consider is that I saw footage once of what was described as "rock throwing" by, I think, the BBC. The footage was from an Israeli station covering the same incident. The BBC showed no pictures of the "rock throwing" but the Israeli station did. Seems the poor oppressed Palestinians were lurking in the second floor of a building chucking out cinder blocks on Israeli soldiers. You get hit with one of those, you don't get an "owie" you get a broken bone or, if you're unlucky enough to get hit in the head, you get dead.

@Great Snook

Would you still find it funny if you were the 13year old who was used as human shield by the soldiers?

I find it incredibly idiotic that people would be stupid enough to throw stones at soldiers. I have always felt that the soldiers show remarkable restraint. I think they would be perfectly justified in killing anyone holding a rock or blowing up any building that people were throwing rocks from. But that is just me.

Soldiers are required to show restraint; it's called disicpline. And it is a virtue that is supposed to be instilled, because of the life and death situations for which soldiers are trained.

One of the historical centerpieces of the Vietnam War is the shooting and killing of four students at Kent State University. According to historical accounts, national guardsmen fired on a crowd of students demonstrating and throwing rocks. But this situation was Americans killing Americans.

It became somewhat of a turning point in the politics of the war. I can only imagine the shock of Americans if such an incident happened over the War in Iraq. The war in Iraq would probably suffer the same politcal fate as the one in Vietnam.

Turning to Isreal, Americans would rather not think about the bloodshed between the people in that region. No American lives are apparently lost over the conflict between Isreal and Palestine. As a result, the cycle of violence is now commonplace there, and most Americans seem at a loss on what to make of it.


Any real supporter of Isreal, as I am, would want to see a greater effort to ending the violence toward Isreal. America and Isreal share the same commitment to democratic institutions, which in that part of the world are hardly commonplace. But any reasonable person can see that the cycle of one-upsmanship in the bloody dance of violence has led to only more of the same.

I fear that this is the situation that some are attempting to lead America into with the Muslim world also. The same cycle of one-upsmanship has not worked during decades of violence in the Arab-Isreali conflict, so is there any reason that we should expect a better outcome between America and the Muslim world? especially in Iraq?

In Vietnam, the question became: What is the end game? When there was no answer, most Americans no longer wanted any part of it. It seems we may be reaching the point where that is the crucial question in the same ongoing debate over Iraq.

[ May 16, 2004, 03:07: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

Well said Chandos.

I also am a supporter of Israel, but I do acknowledge that Israel is in a very dangerous position.

I fear that one day the terrorists will do something so horrific that Israel's response will be shock even the die-hard American supporters.

If that were to happen and Israel was left to fend for themselves, while surrounded by enemies... Well I really don't want to even think about it.

To continue to be a bit off-topic I saw on the news yesterday thousands of people in Tel Aviv demonstrated for Israeli withdrawal in Gaza. Then we have had that alternative peace talk which was going marvelously between Israelis och Palestinians. Anyone thinking they are in any way supporting Israel would want an end to the violence and that means an end to the current regime. However, the sad part is that, in Israel as among the Palestinians it is the extremist and lunatics who makes the policy, and they dont want peace. We all know that Hamas and their ilk want to drive all jews into the sea, but you should also know by now that Sharon and his ilk want to drive every palestinian into the desert or exterminate all of them as the vermin Sharon sees them as.

Takara:


I DID respond to your points. Dmc gave a good example of why you cannot make such a statement as "The newscast showed an innocent person being targeted by Israelis for no reason...". It is like someone showing you, oh I don't know...let's say 7 seconds of video of cops beating a black motorist with their batons and whatnot. 7 Seconds of an encounter that lasted several minutes for example. That seven seconds will do a great job of showing the (re)reactions of officers toward the unarmed motorist but that segment cannot possibly tell you that the motorist was hopped up on pcp, came at the officers numerous times even AFTER being "tazed" and pepper-sprayed. The seven second video will not tell you what a person on pcp is capable of adn how frightening such an encounter can be. It will not tell you that a person high on pcp is capable of breaking police handcuffs and punching through windshields or taking several bullets adn STILL managing to snap someone's neck.
The video will not tell you what sorts of movements, actions, words etc. the motorist engaged in to elicit such a response by officers.

What if the Israeli police SAW the "innocent woman" sticking a grenade in her shirt before heading towards the daycare? The newscast would not tell you that.

Tune in to FOX News sometime for some good examples of how political bias affects the presentation of a story.

Tune in to FOX News sometime for some good examples of how political bias affects the presentation of a story. Oh, it certainly will, but not in the way I think you intended this statement to be interpreted.