I link you to this because it had other interesting news inside it which astounded me

[Jester]

<racism, fear and ignorance>

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Zar

but laws do constrain everyone no matter what country you are in. I can't walk around the USA smoking weed on the streets (in full public) and expect to get away with it. You always have to assume societys perception of the extremities of the law.

It is wrong that that is so and it is an infringement on your freedoms. However the US infringes on less freedoms than a society which bans pornography or divorce or <otherthingsidontwanttowastemytimelisting>.

For example: I find it abhorrent that americans are allowed to carry firearms. They consider it to be a denial of freedoms that we europeans can't. No one has moral supremacy here.

No, this is a question which can be resolved by reasoned debate, assuming our basic premises are in agreement. Frankly if you don't think freedom is an objectively good thing for human beings I'm not going to talk to you though so our opportunities for disagreeing will probably decrease.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This has nothing to do with what I said. I'm claiming that a rational system of justice is a "good" thing and that having the death penalty as a punishment for theft is not part of a rational system of justice, ergo a "bad" thing. So far you have not shown that the death penalty for theft is

And I argue that this "theft" isnt just theft, is murder, harassment, terrorism and theft.
According the the geneva convention, your allowed to kill those who invade your country.
Its called self-defence. Its legal, just, fair, and morally right.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Don't be obtuse. Something like 92% of the population in the six counties in 1921 were born there. The British state did not bring those people over.

Dont be childish. Of the british(or loyalists or unionists) part of the population in the six counties, they were ofcourse brought over from Britian. Most of them were brought over long before 1921.
Ive taken Ireland as a subject in history, so Im perfectly aware of British strategy to keep Ireland.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What do you mean rule over the Irish? I'm opposed to discriminatory laws based on race or religion or national background. I'm also opposed to gerrymandering (which was invented in northern ireland after all). The option to "behave and integrate" really confuses me. Clearly I'm not arguing for the rights of the UVF to indiscriminately slaughter catholics. If by behave you mean "obey the law" then yes I wholeheartedly agree. What does integrate mean though? That they should start attending roman catholic mass every sunday morning? I'd really like this concept to be explained more please.

As the "reformed" RUC still is british and the security services still hang around doing what they always have been doing (like the recent finding of bugs at a Sinn Fein employee), there is just one thing who can guaranty the civil and legal rights for the irish/rebublicans/catholics. That's an all united Ireland, and a final end to British rule. Since this will be posible in 10-20 years due to the demographics, Im gonna list up a few things that can improve the situation in NI before that.
1) An offensive to destroy groups like UDF.
2) The whole of NI to be one electoral district, and that one person > one vote.
3) Withdrawal of "security" services. Demolishing of the old RUC, making a new police force of 50/50 ethnic distrubtion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2956659.stm
4) A end to the Orange Order marches.

By behaving: No more trowing stones at irish school children. No more sectarian killings. No more giving UDF info about when your irish co-worker goes home from work. Not belive your superiour couse your british.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Okay this is a point I understand. However I fundamentally disagree with your premises.

• The Protestant, British-descended, people living in Northern Ireland were not invaders or settlers. They had been born in that land. The original transgression (and do not imagine I support the actual plantations in the first place) took place three hundred years before the Free State came into existence. Nobody alive in 1921 even had grandparents who saw the plantations come into being.

• Its not the Irish who asked the British to send over settlers is it? Its not the africans who asked for british settlers in Kenya, Zimbabwe or South-Africa either. If they who call themselfs british/unionists/loyalists in NI really think they are so british, they do have the option of moving "home".
  
  

  Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

  Those people do not belong in Great Britain anymore than they belong in Northern Ireland. They were born in Northern Ireland, as were their parents, their grandparents, their great-grandparents..... How far back do you want to go exactly? Should we remove the American Indians from the USA because they weren't the original inhabitants? We need some degree of practicality to be involved here.

  I think I covered that over.
  
  

  Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

  The concept of the nation-state is fundamentally flawed. The nation-state by virtue of it's existence as a sovereign entity directly implies that human rights are not supreme and are subject to the dictates of the government. This I find absolutely repellent, and I'd sincerely hope you would as well. Every country currently in existence could be broken down further to better represent a particular group of people. Why should I be a minority in your country when you can be a minority in mine? If we support a single set of basic laws, my "rational system of justice", then there is no need for nations to exist based on ethnic homogeneity

I dont get what you mean with human rights and the national state. English isnt my first language, I just dont understand 100% what you try to tell me. So unless you clearify what you mean, you wont get an answer
The national state is a creation by man. Its weakness are many, but lets just go into detail in a few of them. I dont think that me and you disagree with each other in most of it, but I think I view it in a different light perhaps. First of all I belive nationalism can have to faces, a progressive and a reactionary. When a small, supressed people are fighting for the right to self-determination and a state for themselfs (Norway in the 1800's, the Irish struggle, the Tamils fight for a freedom, or when a people are fighting for their state to be independent from the big powers (Mao's struggle to make China independent of warlords and the british, portuguese, japanese etc, Eritreas fight against Ethiopia) is the progressive side.

Nationalism negative sides are repression of minorities, what one could call Empire or Big Power nationalism (USA's patriotism, British WE RULE THE WAVES, or German Lebensraum)

Its the Irish who are the minority in NI. Ireland would have been a perfect nation state without british settlers and influence, becouse there was basicly just one people or "volk". The british nationalism in NI and the Jewish/Iraeli one share alot. Its becouse they are both settler-nations, and therefor they are very afraid of changes in demographics (The israelis have now banned marriage between palestinians outside Israel and palestinians inside Israel).

British-nationalism in NI and Israeli nationalism are reactionary, negative version of nattionlism.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I would tend to agree. However arguing for the extermination or expulsion of every non-native american now is just ridiculous. As I pointed out above it should be noted that according to the most recent research the American Indians were not the very first settlers. Invasions and "property" theft have been present throughout nearly all of human history. I do not think this was right but retroactively righting every wrong when all participants are long dead will solve nothing.

My point is not that we should trow out all the 260million or so of non-native americans. My point is that settlerism is unjust, and that its a planned land-grabbing tecnique. The Jews should have gotten Bayern instead atleast, not Palestine (lets those who do injustice, instead of someone who hasnt done anything).

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Stop ignoring the difference between settlers and israeli soldiers. Very few settlers go out and bulldoze palestinian homes to the ground or shoot missiles at crowds. For the death penalty to be a justified punishment they'd have to actually commit these offences themselves.

1) Every man in Israeli has to do 3 years of time in the army. He can also be called up for one month every year. For woman its 1 year. Who do you think they draw these forces from? The settlers or "civilianp population" ofcourse.
2) Most settlers have guns, often the same guns as the army has.
3) Settlers are known to be harrasing their palestinian nabours, destroying their property and trying to force them to move.
4) Settlers serve as a exuse for demolishing palestinian houses. They also require their own roads > more palestinian houses destroyed.
5) Settlers serve as a exuse to change borders and to build the "security barrier".
6) Settlers kills palestinian civilians regularly.
7) Settlers use up the water that the palestinian farmers need in order to make a living.

Settlers and soldiers go hand in hand. Should you stop shoting at one, just becouse they one day happen not to be in uniform?

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Indeed the individuals present in Palestine in 1948 should not have had their land taken from them and if any of these people still wish to get their homes back I would argue for their right of return.

So have the UN said too. But the West doesnt do anything to help the palestinians survive or come back, do they?

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Israeli soldiers are not the same thing as the settlers.
I do not support this
Or this
Or this
Or this

None of that justifies killing settlers though.


PS I'm not responding to your five points, I'm responding to your statement that killing "settlers" is a legal and just thing.

However because you're so keen I'd like to point out that torture was outlawed in 1999 (or 2000, the internet seems rather confused on this issue) by the Israeli Supreme Court. So point 2) is objectively wrong.

Most of this is answered above.
Last time I heard about the "legal debate" in Israel conserning this was in 2001, and then it was still legal with "medium forced punishment". Anyways, do you have a link?

(not that any "laws" stop the israeli soldiers from using children as living shields on their armour though )

Generally I find your belif in the law alone to be a bit out of touch with reality, both in NI and Israel, see also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3656966.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2278426.stm.. and her: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2997525.stm

[Ninja_spammer]

There is so much idiocy and ignorance in this thread that it hurts me.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Ninja_spammer

There is so much idiocy and ignorance in this thread that it hurts me.

I'd just go completely for broke and say that there was a massive surplus of retardation and a general unwillingness to debate sensibly.

[Ninja_spammer]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I'd just go completely for broke and say that there was a massive surplus of retardation and a general unwillingness to debate sensibly.

I see your retard surplus and raise you a 'their all just **** wits, except john' .

[Sunday8pm]

I'll go over both of you with, Tony just whines and never contributes anything that shows any signs of deep thought beyond trying to narrate from a cynical standpoint and that MM never ever tries and stamps home a point with cold hard fact and hence arguments with him are never worth it cause he believes his word is strong enough.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

And I argue that this "theft" isnt just theft, is murder, harassment, terrorism and theft.

As I pointed out the settlers are not the same as the soldiers and are therefore clearly not subject to the same penalties and punishments.

According the the geneva convention, your allowed to kill those who invade your country.
Its called self-defence. Its legal, just, fair, and morally right.

Huge numbers in the West Bank, and pretty much everyone in Northern Ireland, are not invaders though. They're innocent just as much as the descendants of those expelled from their land are. If you want a solution based on pure practicality you can probably divide up the land but slaughtering everyone is not a valid solution. As an aside I don't support the construction of any new settlements, nor would I support maintaining the more recently built ones.

Dont be childish. Of the british(or loyalists or unionists) part of the population in the six counties, they were ofcourse brought over from Britian. Most of them were brought over long before 1921.

No, most of them were born in Northern Ireland. Denying this is an exercise in pure idiocy.

As the "reformed" RUC still is british and the security services still hang around doing what they always have been doing (like the recent finding of bugs at a Sinn Fein employee), there is just one thing who can guaranty the civil and legal rights for the irish/rebublicans/catholics.

The reformed RUC is still British in the sense that the whole of Northern Ireland is technically British. As I'm personally aware of a number of catholics in the PSNI perhaps you'd like to justify that statement a bit. The bugging of sinn fein party offices is unacceptable, but there's nothing intrinsic which requires the current NI administration to bug SF offices so there's no reason why that particular action can't be halted separately.

That's an all united Ireland, and a final end to British rule. Since this will be posible in 10-20 years due to the demographics, Im gonna list up a few things that can improve the situation in NI before that.

Actually it'll also depend on whether or the ROI also desires to be united with NI. Personally I'll be voting against that.

1) An offensive to destroy groups like UDF.

This would be a fair enough plan. The existence of any and all terrorist organisations is not acceptable.

2) The whole of NI to be one electoral district, and that one person > one vote.

I'm always in favour of electoral systems which better reflect the wishes of the electorate.

3) Withdrawal of "security" services. Demolishing of the old RUC, making a new police force of 50/50 ethnic distrubtion. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2956659.stm

The RUC has been reformed, perhaps you missed that. As for your suggestion of creating a police-force of 50/50 ethnic distribution I'd seriously hope you're not suggesting rating "ethnic background" ahead of competence?

4) A end to the Orange Order marches.

Revoking the universal human right of peaceful assembly are we? Article 20 (1) of the UN declaration of human rights would disagree with you.

By behaving: No more trowing stones at irish school children. No more sectarian killings. No more giving UDF info about when your irish co-worker goes home from work. Not belive your superiour couse your british.

All actions which break the law can be dealt with separately. I don't think we can ban people from holding beliefs though.

Its not the Irish who asked the British to send over settlers is it? Its not the africans who asked for british settlers in Kenya, Zimbabwe or South-Africa either. If they who call themselfs british/unionists/loyalists in NI really think they are so british, they do have the option of moving "home".

Everyone who took part in those actions is dead though. What is it about this you don't grasp? If they want to be part of Britain they can hold a free and democratic election over it. If the state decides it does not wish to be part of Britain then that is it.

I think I covered that over.

No you didn't. Those people did nothing wrong. Original sin is not passed down from generation to generation.

I dont get what you mean with human rights and the national state. English isnt my first language, I just dont understand 100% what you try to tell me. So unless you clearify what you mean, you wont get an answer

Okay. The concept of the nation-state rests on the fact that it is a separate, sovereign entity. No other state has control over it or the right to interfer in it's internal events. It, and only it, can decide what happens to it's citizens. This contradicts the idea that human rights are the supreme authority. The state is free to ignore these if it wishes because it is a sovereign entity. The confusion over this issue can be seen in the question of whether or not people can vote to implement slavery, or abolish freedom of religion. You can respond that these areas are covered by the constitution, however this implies that there is a higher set of standards, that no the majority cannot vote to abolish religion for the minority. The quintessential problem with unfettered democracy is that it is the "tyranny of the majority".

You seem to view removing all British-descended people from NI as the solution to everyone's problems. Would they be free to take all of their possessions with them? Who would receive the land (and possibly possessions) you take from them? Finding the descendants of the original inhabitants would be incredibly difficult. In some cases there might well be far too many people claiming (truthfully or otherwise) a certain area of land. Is it feasible to divide up a few acres into room size allotments in the interest of fairness? The exodus of such a large number of skilled workers from Northern Ireland would be economically catastrophic for the entire region. Perhaps the land should be given to the Irish government? Although frankly I severely doubt the wisdom of giving any more responsibility to a government that couldn't build a ****ing motorway around the capital city. Did you know there's a reclamation project in Cork (south-west of Ireland) that ran 4500% over-budget?

The national state is a creation by man. Its weakness are many, but lets just go into detail in a few of them. I dont think that me and you disagree with each other in most of it, but I think I view it in a different light perhaps. First of all I belive nationalism can have to faces, a progressive and a reactionary. When a small, supressed people are fighting for the right to self-determination and a state for themselfs (Norway in the 1800's, the Irish struggle, the Tamils fight for a freedom, or when a people are fighting for their state to be independent from the big powers (Mao's struggle to make China independent of warlords and the british, portuguese, japanese etc, Eritreas fight against Ethiopia) is the progressive side.

If people are struggling to free themselves from oppression I fully support their struggle. But who is in overall control of the state is a fairly irrelevant distinction most of the time. If they acknowledge the concept of basic human rights and pursue a non-aggressive foreign policy it won't matter whether they are Chinese or Canadian or Colombian.

Nationalism negative sides are repression of minorities, what one could call Empire or Big Power nationalism (USA's patriotism, British WE RULE THE WAVES, or German Lebensraum)

Repressing a minority is always a bad thing. That's why we have the concept of human rights so tyranny cannot be justified.

Its the Irish who are the minority in NI. Ireland would have been a perfect nation state without british settlers and influence, becouse there was basicly just one people or "volk". The british nationalism in NI and the Jewish/Iraeli one share alot. Its becouse they are both settler-nations, and therefor they are very afraid of changes in demographics (The israelis have now banned marriage between palestinians outside Israel and palestinians inside Israel).

I'm unsure what you mean by perfect. I severely doubt all of our social and economic problems would have vanished into thin air without British influence. First of all it was the Normans who invaded at Co. Wexford initially so I guess we can blame the French and the Norwegians on this one as well. Would all of our problems and failings failed to occur in the absence of this event? Was an earthly nirvana snatched away from us by the evil English?

My point is not that we should trow out all the 260million or so of non-native americans. My point is that settlerism is unjust, and that its a planned land-grabbing tecnique. The Jews should have gotten Bayern instead atleast, not Palestine (lets those who do injustice, instead of someone who hasnt done anything).

1) Every man in Israeli has to do 3 years of time in the army. He can also be called up for one month every year. For woman its 1 year. Who do you think they draw these forces from? The settlers or "civilianp population" ofcourse.

When they are not soldiers they are not soldiers. This is not that difficult a concept.

2) Most settlers have guns, often the same guns as the army has.

Okay. Can I ask where you get your facts from? I'd imagine you're probably right on this point but the internet cannot help me on israeli gun-ownership rates, and it certainly doesn't have a rate solely for "settlers".

3) Settlers are known to be harrasing their palestinian nabours, destroying their property and trying to force them to move.

I'm dubious of whether this is an adequate representation of the majority, or even a substantial minority. There is definitely nothing intrinsic about being a settler which logically implies they are harassing their Palestinian neighbours.

4) Settlers serve as a exuse for demolishing palestinian houses. They also require their own roads > more palestinian houses destroyed.

This is a separate issue. Palestinian homes should not be demolished so israeli roads can be built, especially if they're not adequately compensated (I don't know whether this occurs or not). Even so this does not justify killing settlers.

5) Settlers serve as a exuse to change borders and to build the "security barrier".

The security barrier should not be built on non-Israeli territory. However, yet again, this is a separate issue.

6) Settlers kills palestinian civilians regularly.

I'd like a statistic as to how many settlers have killed Palestinians. You can decide the time period involved. I'm severely doubtful that enough murders have occurred to justify the indiscriminate slaughter of Israelis (let's not forget in the area of greater moral supremacy that it's not only the settlers that are targetted by the suicide bombers).

7) Settlers use up the water that the palestinian farmers need in order to make a living.

Actually water has been one of the very few areas of joint co-operation in recent years. In January 2001 the PA and the Israeli goverment issued a joint statement urging both sides to refrain from damaging the water supplies. This is one of the few areas under negotiation which did not collapse during the second intifada. I would agree that the water problem needs to be looked at from a more balanced point of view, israelis having 5 times as much water allocated as the Palestinians do is clearly not an equitable state of affairs. Once again this is not a problem intrinsic to the fact there are settlements on the West Bank, nor does it justify killing any and all settlers. (After all up until five years ago Dublin county had access to water supplies in the county where I lived, they did not have to pay for using this water, whereas people living where I did had to pay. This hardly entitled us to assemble a bloodthirsty mob and go on a rampage through the city centre though, did it?)

Settlers and soldiers go hand in hand. Should you stop shoting at one, just becouse they one day happen not to be in uniform?

Settlers are self-evidently not the same as soldiers. This is utter madness.

So have the UN said too. But the West doesnt do anything to help the palestinians survive or come back, do they?

Last time I heard about the "legal debate" in Israel conserning this was in 2001, and then it was still legal with "medium forced punishment". Anyways, do you have a link?

Nine Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled today that the interrogation methods of the General Security Service which involve the use of physical force are not legal. The GSS does not have the authority, for example, to shake a suspect, to hold him in painful positions for a lengthy period, or to deprive him of sleep. Supreme Court President Barak noted that this decision does not ease the task of coping with the difficult security reality prevailing in Israel. This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it.

(not that any "laws" stop the israeli soldiers from using children as living shields on their armour though )

Torture is used by every country. Please do not pretend Israel is somehow different on this issue. Your point that Israel's laws allow torture has quite clearly been answered. Unless you desire me to personally obtain a written assurance of this from the Supreme Court before you accept the veracity of the link I cannot see how you can pretend that Israel is somehow different to any other country in this area.

Generally I find your belif in the law alone to be a bit out of touch with reality, both in NI and Israel, see also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3656966.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2278426.stm.. and her: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2997525.stm

Then surely we should work to ensure that the law is more closely followed, and that transgressions are adequately punished?

PS Sigh


PPS

Eritreas fight against Ethiopia

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3663654.stm]lol[/quote] This was my point you see. It's better to have a good, in the sense of fair and just, rather than a specifically nationally determined government. So if you have a problem with the government it's better to fix the government rather than overthrow democracy, kill thousands, expel millions and destablise the international progression towards globalisation


PPPS I never asked, are you "merely" opposed to the settlements or do you find the existence of Israel per se to be a reprehensible affair?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The concept of the nation-state rests on the fact that it is a separate, sovereign entity. No other state has control over it or the right to interfer in it's internal events. It, and only it, can decide what happens to it's citizens. This contradicts the idea that human rights are the supreme authority.

Why on earth do the two have to be mutually incompatible? I'm working on the basis that the upholding of human rights is a process that is enforced by some sort of state aparatus. Most Western states are so structured that soverignty is largely in place as a means by which to protect human rights of the citizen from potential attack from other states or actors. Equally, much of current Western international relations is founded on the basis that massive human rights failings in other states should be stopped by collective action.

The problem is not the concept of a state itself, but rather, the ethos which guides it. Clearly the ethos behind the Chinese state is not one which lends itself to the upholding of human rights.

Although I am willing to hear a philsophical counter-argument.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Why on earth do the two have to be mutually incompatible? I'm working on the basis that the upholding of human rights is a process that is enforced by some sort of state aparatus. Most Western states are so structured that soverignty is largely in place as a means by which to protect human rights of the citizen from potential attack from other states or actors. Equally, much of Western international relations is founded on the basis that human rights abuses in other states should be stopped by collective action.

A nation-state is the state belonging to a single nation (ideally). This is where the trouble originates, at what point does a nation deserve a state? Did the Jewish nation deserve a state? Land had to be taken from someone if they were to have a state, was this morally right? Let's face it most Western states aren't really nation-states anymore. It's the acknowledgement that certain theories are no longer, nor were in fact ever, acceptable that I'm after not the complete destruction of modern society in an orgy of blood-letting and commie-hating.

The problem is not the concept of a state itself, but rather, the ethos which guides it. Clearly the ethos behind the Chinese state is not one which lends itself to the upholding of human rights.

However the ethos that guides it is one of independence. Remember than the Peace of Paris stated that

In accordance with our obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and commitments under the Helsinki Final Act, we renew our pledge to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State

If the nation (represented by the nation-state) is not the supreme arbiter of it's own existence then what is the point of it? It's no longer the state representing that nation as it's subject to outside influences, ie human rights considerations. I'm not proposing we all go live in the street or float around in the ocean once we realise the nation-state is a sorely dated concept but we should at least reject the ridiculous pretense that the kurds, palestinians, israelis or whatever all "deserve" a state by virtue of having some similar beliefs and ancestry.

Although I am willing to hear a philsophical counter-argument.

There's a really good book called the shield of achilles which I recommend to pretty much everyone I meet at the minute. You should read it

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Equally, much of Western international relations is founded on the basis that human rights abuses in other states should be stopped by collective action.

Most intervention is self-serving from countries with a capitalist structure. I cannot think of a single war in which Britain/America have participated, save perhaps WW2, in the last century which hasn't been (or meant to have been) in some way beneficial to their cause - and there have been a few.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

A nation-state is the state belonging to a single nation (ideally). This is where the trouble originates, at what point does a nation deserve a state?

This is a bit of a divergent criticsm from the one you posted above, but anyway.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Did the Jewish nation deserve a state? Land had to be taken from someone if they were to have a state, was this morally right? Let's face it most Western states aren't really nation-states anymore. It's the acknowledgement that certain theories are no longer, nor were in fact ever, acceptable that I'm after not the complete destruction of modern society in an orgy of blood-letting and commie-hating.

Well, I would actually agree with you on this point, in the main. The fundamental intellectual basis for Nationalism has always seemed shaky to me.

As you say, one of the big problems is when mutually exclusive Nationalisms collide. (Lo Northern Ireland.)

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

However the ethos that guides it is one of independence.

I don't disagree.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Remember than the Peace of Paris stated

The Peace of Paris was fifty years ago in a radically different international political climate. I wouldn't base any assesment of the pros and cons of the current system of international relations on the Peace of Paris, anymore than I would the Peace of Westphalia.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

If the nation (represented by the nation-state) is not the supreme arbiter of it's own existence then what is the point of it?

On a day-to-day basis, it will be the supreme arbiter. Intervention is almost always predicated on the understanding that a state has failed in it's fundamental obligations towards it's citizenry, and thus needs outside assistance.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's no longer the state representing that nation as it's subject to outside influences, ie human rights considerations.

It always has been subject to outside influences. In any case, international norms are dictated by nations themselves, in concert. It's not a case of some detached philsophy being forced onto a given situation.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm not proposing we all go live in the street or float around in the ocean once we realise the nation-state is a sorely dated concept but we should at least reject the ridiculous pretense that the kurds, palestinians, israelis or whatever all "deserve" a state by virtue of having some similar beliefs and ancestry.

Oh, I would agree.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

There's a really good book called the shield of achilles which I recommend to pretty much everyone I meet at the minute. You should read it

I'll take a look at it.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Most intervention is self-serving from countries with a capitalist structure. I cannot think of a single war in which Britain/America have participated, save perhaps WW2, in the last century which hasn't been (or meant to have been) in some way beneficial to their cause - and there have been a few.

I'm talking about now, rather than the last fifty years, comrade.

In any case, it's a matter of perspective. I can't think of how Yugoslavia (For example.) hugely benefited the West economically.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

The Peace of Paris was fifty years ago in a radically different international political climate. I wouldn't base any assesment of the pros and cons of the current system of international relations on the Peace of Paris, anymore than I would the Peace of Westphalia.

I mean this.

On a day-to-day basis, it will be the supreme arbiter. Intervention is almost always predicated on the understanding that a state has failed in it's fundamental obligations towards it's citizenry, and thus needs outside assistance.

However if it has fundamental obligations this means it's not independent and the citizenry of the state cannot decide by themselves what is acceptable and desired. Herein lies the problem (actually I just wanted to use the word herein there )

It always has been subject to outside influences. In any case, international norms are dictated by nations themselves, in concert. It's not a case of some detached philsophy being forced onto a given situation.

Often human rights interests were used retroactively to justify certain actions but I don't think they were ever the sole reason for any action taken. Certainly Nazi Germany had to invade other countries before any action was taken, Iraq had to invade Kuwait etc etc. I don't know how you see international norms being dictated by nations themselves. If there is no force backing up these norms they're just vague ideas. If force is backing up these norms then they're certainly not democratically decided upon (re the number of UN security council vetoes by one of the permanent members over the past ~60 years).

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I mean this.

Ah.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

However if it has fundamental obligations this means it's not independent and the citizenry of the state cannot decide by themselves what is acceptable and desired. Herein lies the problem (actually I just wanted to use the word herein there )

But states are part of a system. As I say, international behaviour is agreed in concert. It seems to me a bit odd to lambast a system for creating limitations, when those limitations can only actually come about through, essentially, everyone participating agreeing to them.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Often human rights interests were used retroactively to justify certain actions but I don't think they were ever the sole reason for any action taken.

I don't believe that human rights form the entire basis for international action - you have to weigh in simple pragmatism as well;I don't see anyone clamouring for war agaisnt China. But to dismiss them entirely as something which is unimportant is silly.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Certainly Nazi Germany had to invade other countries before any action was taken, Iraq had to invade Kuwait etc etc.

Again, as I said above, I'm principally talking about the current times rather than the past.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't know how you see international norms being dictated by nations themselves.

Because states themselves are, logically, the fundamnetal basis for the international system. If I used the word 'nation', it may have been a tad misleading.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

If force is backing up these norms then they're certainly not democratically decided upon (re the number of UN security council vetoes by one of the permanent members over the past ~60 years).

I would say that force does not 'back-up' the system, but it is often used correctively when the system fails.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

In any case, it's a matter of perspective. I can't think of how Yugoslavia (For example.) hugely benefited the West economically.

These things are rarely direct and almost never as crude as some people make out. There is a quote from Gramsci about vulgar Marxists who think that every foriegn policy decision can be traced to commodity prices.

This is a long way from saying that US (or UK) foriegn policy has suddenly been transformed into ignoring self-interest when conducting overseas military campaigns.

[G.K Zhukov]

To JonnyBGood:
As I have been busy with rl (and getting hooked on Blitzkrieg ) for some time, I havent had the time to answer.
Specially since this debate among us have evolved to touch on a number of subjects, and it takes more than a minute to answer.

The main difference as I see it between you and me, is how we see the world. This is reflected troughout the whole discussion.
While I find you a far to much of an idealist, Im sure you see me as a cynical and harsh.

Its true that Im cynical. I dont see the world as a place where people just happen to mistreat others, steal or kill.
I care about the function of events and persons, not what they say or their papers say.
I also totally disagree with you that torture and killings exist in a seperate space, seperated from the rest of sociaty, as you write over and over again.
A and B is connected. I know it sucks, but thats how the real world works.

Northern-Ireland, South-Africa, Austrialia and Israel are all settler-nations.
What can we say about these countries, that applies to most or all of them?

1) Rascism. Weather its catholic-bashing, ******-hating, lets-give-the-stupid-natives-more-booze or we-are-ubermensch-and palestinians-are-worthless.
When you take someone elses land (With settlers and arms), you need to justify your actions. Rascism is the natural answer for it, weather its trading blacks on the world market as slaves,
killings million of slavs and jews (WWII) or forcing people to live in refugee camps/ghettoes and using them for cheap labour (Israel).
Why is rascism needed? Its needed becouse the settler-nations need to downgrade the human-worth of those they are killing, forcing to flee, beat up etc, in order to get the human beeing to inflict such pains on another human beeing.
The best exampel is how the Third Reich raised its children, specially the boys.

2) Demographics. Both NI, S-A and Israel has been or is worried about it. Becouse they fear they might be "outgrown" in therms of people.
As a Settler-nation needs a certain level compared to those its oppressing, its of consern to them.
Take a look at Kenya. The white settlers found out they were simply to few to still be masters.
While the settlers in Zimbambwe (then Rhodesia) tried to stay in power, even theyr small numbers and relative declining rate, trough a "civil war" (read: killing blacks).
Israel has recently banned mariages between palestinians inside israel (with passports) and those who live in the occupied territories.
Germany banned mariages between jews and non-jews in 1935..

3) Not all are included in the democracy, not all are equal to the law.
South-Africa was a democracy for the white (untill -94). NI was a democracy for the "protestants" (Im not sure how much have changed in the election system since "the peace process" started). Israel is a democracy for those with an israeli passport, and since they dont allow the majority of palestinians to get one, they will ofcourse be in controll anyways.
When it comes to the law, its not only the letters. In Israel you got several laws witch state that its a jewish state, and so fourth.
But thats just half the story. The other story is how you get treated IN REAL SITUATIONS.
See also this report by Amnesty International: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...UNTRIES/ISRAEL
This also means little punishment for those of their own who acts outside the law, weather its israeli soldiers beating up palestinians or british-goverment backed unionist terrorgroups.
Im not saying its not happening (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3692838.stm), but in most cases they get away with it, as its silently accepted by the state.

The biggest flaw in your whole argument, is that Israel is a democracy. It makes me wonder if its worth debating with you at all.
Or is it natural for a democracy to have prime ministers with a past of terrorism (like Begin) or mass killings of civilians (like Sharon)?

Then there is the "competence" question regarding the police force. A police force without the trust of the community they serve, will never suceed in making the areas safe, prevent crime and solve crime. Becouse nobody will tell them, they will go to the IRA instead. (A report from BBC tells this still goes on today).
Now competence is a word we often hear. The blacks arent competent to rule themselfs, Iraq cannot govern itselfs, so it just have to be occupied by either US or UN-troops.
Its not really a good argument, though its often used to hide the truth.

How do you expect the irish population in NI to trust the police and "security services", when they in the past have been blatently involved in the secterial killings of irish people, and still hasnt changed their ways?
And its still the same state who backs them.
How can you expect a state to suddenly punish those it supported or still supports? Its not realistic.

They might have said that things have changed, but to find out whats true, you gotta look at whats happening.
Back to the definition of settler-soldier question.

In april 1940 Nazi-Germany invaded Norway. They invaded Norway with soldiers. Now lets say that those soldiers in 1942 had brought their families with them, and taken their uniform off.
But still kept their guns. In your definintion, they would then be civilians, innocent and they would deserve to live in Norway.
But the Norwegian population would see no difference. They would see people who occupied their land, who took away their freedowm and chance to prosper.
The "ex-soldiers" and families would be targeted. Nobody would let themselfs fool by the change on the surface.

The settlers on the Westbank are not innocent. They are occupants (illegal after the geneva convention, art. 49, it is illegal to move your own population into occupied territory)
They have certainly not lived there for many generations. Alot of them still have dual-passports and have arrived in the last 10 years.
The settlers on Gaza occupy about 1/3 of the land, while the remaining million of palestinians must share the 2/3 of the small gaza-area.
They have ofcourse taken the best land and uses up the water.
Many of them are from the US, so fresh you can still hear their New York-accent. Many are relgious hardlines and extreme-right in therms of politics.

About settler attacks on palestinians, its hard to get a clear number on it.
This article in a israeli newspaper suggest its not a new problem: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...203&sw=settler
You can also do a google search on "settler attacks on palestinians".
How many of them who owns a gun seems to be non-existing info about, but it seems most are.
Take a look here: http://www.bobmay.info/oct122002farming.htm
It clearly helps having a m-16 when you harass your nabour.

Torture is not used by every country.

Im not going to answer your idealistic rants.

Israel is a phony state. Its created by europeans and backed by Western states, to solve a european problem.
If there had not been living people in Palestine, there would have been no problems. Sadly thats not the truth.
The Palestinians have paid the bill for solving europes problems, just like native americans in North-America paid for solving the problem of demographics in Europe.

I would favour a one-state solution, where everyone is equal and everyone has one vote.
This applies for palestinians, jews without dual-passports, druze and others.
I do favour that jews who are member of nazi- or other extreme organisastions to be expelled, together with isrealis coming later than a set date (for instace 1985).

When it comes to NI, I would think that those who vote for Ian Paisley might not be ready to "behave" if you know what I mean.

Time to watch footie.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

To JonnyBGood:
As I have been busy with rl (and getting hooked on Blitzkrieg ) for some time, I havent had the time to answer.
Specially since this debate among us have evolved to touch on a number of subjects, and it takes more than a minute to answer.

k

The main difference as I see it between you and me, is how we see the world.

Clearly. This is what separates the views of nearly everyone.

While I find you a far to much of an idealist, Im sure you see me as a cynical and harsh.

Not at all. I find your unwillingness to consider people as individuals and avoid the unnecessary damage done by mass stereotyping and generalisations quite idealistic in it's own way.

Its true that Im cynical. I dont see the world as a place where people just happen to mistreat others, steal or kill.

Nor do I. However cases should be considered individually and then extrapolated to form a pattern, if one so exists. Imposing a pattern on individual cases is, as I said above, over-generalising.

I care about the function of events and persons, not what they say or their papers say.
I also totally disagree with you that torture and killings exist in a seperate space, seperated from the rest of sociaty, as you write over and over again.
A and B is connected. I know it sucks, but thats how the real world works.

This is just insane. What the hell are you trying to say here? Are you accusing me of refusing to see connections? I've acknowledged that some settlers or soldiers or whatever commit crimes for xyz ridiculous reasons. My point is that this does not mean we should treat all settlers as the same.

Northern-Ireland, South-Africa, Austrialia and Israel are all settler-nations.
What can we say about these countries, that applies to most or all of them?

Probably not much about south africa seeing as they got rid of apartheid but okay.

1) Rascism. Weather its catholic-bashing, ******-hating, lets-give-the-stupid-natives-more-booze or we-are-ubermensch-and palestinians-are-worthless.
When you take someone elses land (With settlers and arms), you need to justify your actions. Rascism is the natural answer for it, weather its trading blacks on the world market as slaves,
killings million of slavs and jews (WWII) or forcing people to live in refugee camps/ghettoes and using them for cheap labour (Israel).
Why is rascism needed? Its needed becouse the settler-nations need to downgrade the human-worth of those they are killing, forcing to flee, beat up etc, in order to get the human beeing to inflict such pains on another human beeing.
The best exampel is how the Third Reich raised its children, specially the boys.

I don't support racist ideas or racist laws so hoo-ray.

As an aside you're overstating the amount of racism in NI over the past fifty years on behalf of the British soldiers. I personally know someone, an Irish catholic, who served in the north during the worst of the troubles. His entire battalion was Irish (predominately catholic) so the amount of anti-catholic racism (by the way it's not racism unless it's against a race dude) in that scenario was fairly minimal.

2) Demographics. Both NI, S-A and Israel has been or is worried about it. Becouse they fear they might be "outgrown" in therms of people.
As a Settler-nation needs a certain level compared to those its oppressing, its of consern to them.
Take a look at Kenya. The white settlers found out they were simply to few to still be masters.
While the settlers in Zimbambwe (then Rhodesia) tried to stay in power, even theyr small numbers and relative declining rate, trough a "civil war" (read: killing blacks).
Israel has recently banned mariages between palestinians inside israel (with passports) and those who live in the occupied territories.
Germany banned mariages between jews and non-jews in 1935..

This is a big problem that modern society faces. Basically I can think it can be well put that shit people shouldn't get to make shit laws just because they're in the majority. Enabling the majority to tyrannise the minority is a bad idea, regardless of whether or not this is run along national lines.

3) Not all are included in the democracy, not all are equal to the law.
South-Africa was a democracy for the white (untill -94). NI was a democracy for the "protestants" (Im not sure how much have changed in the election system since "the peace process" started). Israel is a democracy for those with an israeli passport, and since they dont allow the majority of palestinians to get one, they will ofcourse be in controll anyways.
When it comes to the law, its not only the letters. In Israel you got several laws witch state that its a jewish state, and so fourth.

All should be equal before the law and I would support any and all attempts to achieve this.

But thats just half the story. The other story is how you get treated IN REAL SITUATIONS.
See also this report by Amnesty International: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...UNTRIES/ISRAEL
This also means little punishment for those of their own who acts outside the law, weather its israeli soldiers beating up palestinians or british-goverment backed unionist terrorgroups.
Im not saying its not happening (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3692838.stm), but in most cases they get away with it, as its silently accepted by the state.

Change that then. As well as this there's not that much British government backed terrorism in NI at the minute so I'm unsure where you're coming from here, unless you've some secret information about the UVF being funded by Tony Blair personally or something.

The biggest flaw in your whole argument, is that Israel is a democracy. It makes me wonder if its worth debating with you at all.
Or is it natural for a democracy to have prime ministers with a past of terrorism (like Begin) or mass killings of civilians (like Sharon)?

I don't support the current model of democracy, especially not as it is in Israel. And I would have thought of you, mistakenly or not, as the first to point out that one man's terrorist is another man's revolutionary.

Then there is the "competence" question regarding the police force. A police force without the trust of the community they serve, will never suceed in making the areas safe, prevent crime and solve crime. Becouse nobody will tell them, they will go to the IRA instead. (A report from BBC tells this still goes on today).

This has been seriously overstated to you then. I have many catholic relations in Northern Ireland all of whom use the actual police force instead of the paramilitaries. Trust has to come from people themselves, ignoring the idea that competence should be the measure of who qualifies as a policeman purely to cater to the whims of the population will, in the long run, be less effective at preventing crime.

Now competence is a word we often hear. The blacks arent competent to rule themselfs, Iraq cannot govern itselfs, so it just have to be occupied by either US or UN-troops.
Its not really a good argument, though its often used to hide the truth.

I'm unsure of what news channels you listen to but I don't really hear political leaders claiming that "blacks aren't competent enough to rule themselves". Also I heard this rumour there's going to be elections in Iraq soon. Confirm/deny?

How do you expect the irish population in NI to trust the police and "security services", when they in the past have been blatently involved in the secterial killings of irish people, and still hasnt changed their ways?

I think you better back this claim up.

It should be noted at this point that the element that don't trust the police are generally utter scum and don't trust the police because they're out committing crimes at night.

And its still the same state who backs them.

I think comparing the UK of 1921 to the UK of 2004 is about as realistic as comparing the IFS of 1921 to the ROI of 2004.

How can you expect a state to suddenly punish those it supported or still supports? Its not realistic.

Pretty easily in the "once supported" sense, especially seeing as it's not the same people who were alive in the 1920s or the 60s. Imagining the British government still supports the UVF or whatever is fairly delusional I must say.

In april 1940 Nazi-Germany invaded Norway. They invaded Norway with soldiers. Now lets say that those soldiers in 1942 had brought their families with them, and taken their uniform off.
But still kept their guns. In your definintion, they would then be civilians, innocent and they would deserve to live in Norway.
But the Norwegian population would see no difference. They would see people who occupied their land, who took away their freedowm and chance to prosper.
The "ex-soldiers" and families would be targeted. Nobody would let themselfs fool by the change on the surface.

Yeah sure. By all means target whoever had a choice and decided to steal someone else's land. Call me a deluded idealist but I just don't see why their children should pay the price for their parents' mistakes. I was never really big into original sin. As you would understand if you'd bothered to read my replies properly I don't really have much against someone attacking someone who steals their land. It's just assaulting children or people who were born there that I don't support.

The settlers on the Westbank are not innocent. They are occupants (illegal after the geneva convention, art. 49, it is illegal to move your own population into occupied territory)
They have certainly not lived there for many generations. Alot of them still have dual-passports and have arrived in the last 10 years.

Those people should be removed from the land they have stolen then. Also technically Jordan renounced any claim to the west bank in 1988 so it's not actually another country they're occupying so the geneva convention doesn't apply. Oh lawyering

The settlers on Gaza occupy about 1/3 of the land, while the remaining million of palestinians must share the 2/3 of the small gaza-area.
They have ofcourse taken the best land and uses up the water.
Many of them are from the US, so fresh you can still hear their New York-accent. Many are relgious hardlines and extreme-right in therms of politics.

I hear extreme right people aren't human.

About settler attacks on palestinians, its hard to get a clear number on it.
This article in a israeli newspaper suggest its not a new problem: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/S...203&sw=settler
You can also do a google search on "settler attacks on palestinians".
How many of them who owns a gun seems to be non-existing info about, but it seems most are.
Take a look here: http://www.bobmay.info/oct122002farming.htm
It clearly helps having a m-16 when you harass your nabour.

How widespread is this? I've never heard anything solid along these lines before to be perfectly honest.

Torture is not used by every country.

Every country that confronts any sort of difficult problem. Of course it's not used that much (I hesitate to say at all) by my government or yours but I don't recall the last terrorist to blow himself up in the centre of Oslo or Dublin taking a dozen passers-by with him.

Im not going to answer your idealistic rants.

This appears to be a fairly random line chucked in for no real reason but okay.

Israel is a phony state. Its created by europeans and backed by Western states, to solve a european problem.
If there had not been living people in Palestine, there would have been no problems. Sadly thats not the truth.
The Palestinians have paid the bill for solving europes problems, just like native americans in North-America paid for solving the problem of demographics in Europe.

Yeah it was a pretty shit idea due to the fact we were all caught up in the "one nation, one state" concept which has proved fairly pants if attempted in the real world. Most of the current Israeli population aren't to blame for that though.

I would favour a one-state solution, where everyone is equal and everyone has one vote.
This applies for palestinians, jews without dual-passports, druze and others.

Me three.

I do favour that jews who are member of nazi- or other extreme organisastions to be expelled, together with isrealis coming later than a set date (for instace 1985).

Do you support that idea in general or just for Israel? Should we also expel people who believe all Jews have an urgent appointment in the after life? 1985 seems fairly arbitrary, do you have any plans to deal with the children who were born by people who immigrated after 1985? Also do you mean people who live in settlements on the west bank or those who live in Israel in general?

When it comes to NI, I would think that those who vote for Ian Paisley might not be ready to "behave" if you know what I mean.

That's right, let's restrict peoples' democratic choice.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Probably not much about south africa seeing as they got rid of apartheid but okay.

Erm...?

If you think South Africa ceased to be a racist society the day apartheid ended then there's not much really can be said. Hell, it's still a racist state in any meaningful sense you'd hope to discuss it. And I say that as someone who has in-laws in the South African police department...

Imagining the British government still supports the UVF or whatever is fairly delusional I must say.

The state != government. The British government probably don't like the UVF very much. The attitude of the government in the 80's may have been different of course, but I still doubt they were particularly enamoured with the UVF/UDA. But that's not the only thing being discussed here. I mean, there have been allegations of collusion with the UVF as late as 1994 (e.g. the murder of Rose Anne Mallon). The Steven's report claimed collusion with the UDA in the 1980's by the RUC/security services. What Tony Blair or Margarat Thatcher (or even their cabinets) may individually think about an issue is pretty important of course, but they are not the state.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Erm...?

If you think South Africa ceased to be a racist society the day apartheid ended then there's not much really can be said. Hell, it's still a racist state in any meaningful sense you'd hope to discuss it. And I say that as someone who has in-laws in the South African police department...

Nah dude we were talking about settler nations. South Africa ceased to be that when the "original inhabitants" got "their man" into power. Obviously there's still some shit left over but I'd imagine it's decreasing in intensity.

The state != government. The British government probably don't like the UVF very much. The attitude of the government in the 80's may have been different of course, but I still doubt they were particularly enamoured with the UVF/UDA. But that's not the only thing being discussed here. I mean, there have been allegations of collusion with the UVF as late as 1994 (e.g. the murder of Rose Anne Mallon). The Steven's report claimed collusion with the UDA in the 1980's by the RUC/security services. What Tony Blair or Margarat Thatcher (or even their cabinets) may individually think about an issue is pretty important of course, but they are not the state.

1994 was before the good friday agreement and before the RUC changed to the PSNI which are both pretty major events in terms of drawing a line as to when support (tacit or otherwise) ended. Obviously I can't prove that the UVF or whatever aren't supported by the british state (here's the document which conclusively demonstrates that no co-operation occurs at the moment!) but I don't see that much evidence that this is an insurmountable problem caused by deep-seated religious prejudice which can only be solved by sending the prods home.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Nah dude we were talking about settler nations. South Africa ceased to be that when the "original inhabitants" got "their man" into power.

I think that's a pretty silly assertion I'm afraid. The head of the South African government may be black, but large portions of power (e.g. heads of business, ownership of land, parts of civil service) are still in the hands of "settlers" (officially objecting to this term). In terms of economics (arguably the single most important aspect of power) this is still disproportionately in the hands of whites.

Do you think that when Nelson Mandela got into power he got some sort of mega-super-crystal which meant that blacks suddenly had "the power" or something?

994 was before the good friday agreement and before the RUC changed to the PSNI which are both pretty major events in terms of drawing a line as to when support (tacit or otherwise) ended.

OK, that's fair enough. But it's an entirely different thing to say "I think the British Government/State is still fundamentally the same in nature as the one in the 1980's/90's" and "I think comparing the UK of 1921 to the UK of 2004 is about as realistic as[...]" which is what you were acussing Zhukov of originally.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I think that's a pretty silly assertion I'm afraid. The head of the South African government may be black, but large portions of power (e.g. heads of business, ownership of land, parts of civil service) are still in the hands of "settlers" (officially objecting to this term). In terms of economics (arguably the single most important aspect of power) this is still disproportionately in the hands of whites.

Do you think that when Nelson Mandela got into power he got some sort of mega-super-crystal which meant that blacks suddenly had "the power" or something?

Obviously there's still a certain element of racism in the South African state but this would best be classified as "diminishing" rather than "stable" or "increasing". In so far as I'm aware there are no black south africans still having their land taken from them and given to white south africans. I think the land redistribution campaign over there is behind schedule but from quick googling it seems that about 2.3% of agricultural land there had been transferred by mid-2003 as well as an 18 million hectare transferral in march of this year. To compare this to Israel where some new camps are still being built is slightly silly.

[G.K Zhukov]

Im away, reply on monday or so.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

In so far as I'm aware there are no black south africans still having their land taken from them and given to white south africans.

True, but the black South Africans don't actually have much (good) land which can be taken. Not that I'm suggesting that the South African government would take land from blacks to give to whites in today's political climate, but I don't think you can simply look at changes and not the context they exist in. If the Israeli's went for a massive land grap and took x million acres of Arab lands, and then waited 20 years before returning 5% of them, we would hardly hail them as moral guardians of our age.

[G.K Zhukov]

I prefer my generalisation over your "I know one of those rasist dudes and he isnt that bad" approach.

Im perfectly aware there are Israelis who go to great extent to protect palestinian kids when they go to school from the settlers,
who face prision for protesting against the wall, and so on.
But I dont let that fact hinder me from seeing the big picture.
Im not that interested in what a few people are doing or thinking, but what the overwelming majority does.

Yes, I belive you are "refusing to see connections".
Im sure there was a atleast one not-to-bad person in SS, but that doesnt make me think that "oh no, the russians were so mean to the SS-folks".
SS was an organisation of warcriminals. And they knew perfectly well what they had done, thats why they ran towords the americans in the last stage of the war.
To get that cudly treatment, instead of some real punishment that they deserved.

"This is just insane. What the hell are you trying to say here? Are you accusing me of refusing to see connections? I've acknowledged that some settlers or soldiers or whatever commit crimes for xyz ridiculous reasons. My point is that this does not mean we should treat all settlers as the same."

Ive been trying to point out this a few times, but let me give you a small summary yet again.
a) Settlers goes a country b) Settlers terrorize the local inhabitans c) settlers establish themselfs as a new ruler class and develop theories about why they are superiour (aka rascism) d) the settlers are worried about demographics, and tries to limit the growth of the original population (forcing them to flee, killing all males, sterliziation etc)

You will find most settlers follow these steps, becouse of the dynamics in a settler-project.

Many soldiers who are sent to occupy tends to a) kill civilians b)plunder c) mistreat civilians
This is nothing new, if you go back in history you will find it just the same in 1650 as today.
This is also connected to the dynamics of occupation, and not something that just "happens by accident" as you like to think.

Im describing South-Africa before 1994. One could perfectly well argument that there is now a economic apartheid of some sort, as the money/properties have not been divided.
Thats a different debate though.

British Inteligence has been giving weapons and intel to loyalist terrororganisations, one of those most involved was Brian Nelson..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ma/2052087.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries...938181,00.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/INAC/brian.nelson (biased ofc, but the main things seems to be backed up by the Guardian Arcticle and others)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...944507,00.html

Guilty of this: RUC Special Branch, Military Inteligence, MI5, amongst others.
but just a small search can get you plenty more on that subject.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3685740.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2955941.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2956337.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_I...939089,00.html (its a rather long article, so you can search on "passing" for the key elements I belive)
And now they tap Sinn Fein employees..
Notice that Nelsons chief in crime is now a military attache in Beijing.
Atleast its nice to know that such a criminal isnt in jail.. *sic*
Nelson got 10 years, witch is laughable considering his crimes.

wouldnt you be slightly conserned too? Old habits doesnt die easily. Funnily, it seems like Im more up to date on NI-politics than yourself.
If I had kids and a convicted child rapists moved in next door, I would be a bit conserned. You could blame me for that, or just say Im in touch with the real world.

Okey, Im calling you a deluded idealist
Now lets say I took a mortar and fire some rounds against the barracks of those "former german soldiers" with familes. Lets say one of the mortars landed besides a child, and the child died.
Would I be the one to blame? No, I dont think so. It wasnt me who brought the kid in the front line. It was the kids parents. Thats why you dont see kids beeing brought up to the front line. They arent suppose to be there.

Its quite widespread. Talk to people who have been down there, from aid agencies for instance.
Like one said it: "It takes 3 days on the West Bank for you to get sympatetic to the palestianian people, in Gaza it just takes 1 day".
Even people who have been hardcore pro-israel people in the past, have now started to distance themself from the worst.
Even they are admiting what the settlers do. (Yes, we got some of these people in norway, most of the pro-israel people are conservative, christian fundamentalists).

Have you asked yourself why people dont bomb Oslo or Dublin, could it be becouse we (atleast untill recently) bothred nobody?
Its not like someone is going to bomb Dublin becouse the irish loves guiness or bomb Oslo becouse Norway got fjords and we do well at skiing..
There is a cost of trying to have your empire, people gets pissed at you.

Territory doesnt need to be a "country". According to UN, Israel occupies all non-48 territory.
Everything else than the 1948 borders arent Israel, its that easy.

The whole of Israel. This was just an exampel of how one could do it.
Yes, the kids too.
Or one could take a different softer approach. All those imigrated from 2000 is sent back to wherever they came from. All those who have been guilty of crimies based on etnisity against palestinians are sent to away, this includes also those who do it in the future.
All Gaza-settlers are beeing deported. (would ofcourse be hard, couse I dont see many people want to take them).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

I prefer my generalisation over your "I know one of those rasist dudes and he isnt that bad" approach.

Im perfectly aware there are Israelis who go to great extent to protect palestinian kids when they go to school from the settlers,
who face prision for protesting against the wall, and so on.
But I dont let that fact hinder me from seeing the big picture.
Im not that interested in what a few people are doing or thinking, but what the overwelming majority does.

I suppose treating people as individuals is well out of the question?

Yes, I belive you are "refusing to see connections".
Im sure there was a atleast one not-to-bad person in SS, but that doesnt make me think that "oh no, the russians were so mean to the SS-folks".
SS was an organisation of warcriminals. And they knew perfectly well what they had done, thats why they ran towords the americans in the last stage of the war.
To get that cudly treatment, instead of some real punishment that they deserved.

The SS was an organisation. The Israeli army is an organisation. Being someone of non-Palestinian ethnicity who lives outside the 1948 determined borders of Israel is not. I'm not too sure why you're talking about the SS, I can assure you I do not support them.

Ive been trying to point out this a few times, but let me give you a small summary yet again.
a) Settlers goes a country b) Settlers terrorize the local inhabitans c) settlers establish themselfs as a new ruler class and develop theories about why they are superiour (aka rascism) d) the settlers are worried about demographics, and tries to limit the growth of the original population (forcing them to flee, killing all males, sterliziation etc)

THIS IS BEING WRITTEN IN CAPS LOCK BECAUSE IF I DON'T GET MY POINT ACROSS THIS TIME I MIGHT JUST BAN MY OWN ACCOUNT TO AVOID HAVING TO READ THIS.

YOU CANNOT BLAME PEOPLE FOR THE SINS OF THEIR ANCESTORS. I DO NOT SUPPORT NEW OR RECENT SETTLEMENTS OUTSIDE OF ISRAEL. HOWEVER THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR DECADES HAVE A RIGHT TO THAT LAND WHICH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN ANY "FINAL SOLUTION" (lol).

Also I'm really not too sure if a majority, or even a sizeable minority of "settlers" believe themselves to be genetically superior to anyone of Palestinian ethnicity.

Many soldiers who are sent to occupy tends to a) kill civilians b)plunder c) mistreat civilians
This is nothing new, if you go back in history you will find it just the same in 1650 as today.
This is also connected to the dynamics of occupation, and not something that just "happens by accident" as you like to think.

I don't support the presence of the Israeli army outside of Israel's borders.

British Inteligence has been giving weapons and intel to loyalist terrororganisations, one of those most involved was Brian Nelson..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ma/2052087.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries...938181,00.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/INAC/brian.nelson (biased ofc, but the main things seems to be backed up by the Guardian Arcticle and others)
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...944507,00.html

This would all be fantastic if any of it had occured after the RUC had been changed or even after the Good Friday agreement in 1995.

Guilty of this: RUC Special Branch, Military Inteligence, MI5, amongst others.
but just a small search can get you plenty more on that subject.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3685740.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2955941.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2956337.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_I...939089,00.html (its a rather long article, so you can search on "passing" for the key elements I belive)

That happened in the late 80s as well.

And now they tap Sinn Fein employees.

Yeah that's pretty gay but it's hardly anything fantastically different to what every government does. If collusion was still occuring nowadays that'd definitely be a matter for concern but there's no real evidence of that at all.

If I had kids and a convicted child rapists moved in next door, I would be a bit conserned. You could blame me for that, or just say Im in touch with the real world.

Of course you should be concerned. However you should not go and beat the shit out of the guy with a baseball bat. Not to mention the fact that one individual is clearly not the same as a government.

Now lets say I took a mortar and fire some rounds against the barracks of those "former german soldiers" with familes. Lets say one of the mortars landed besides a child, and the child died.

Why are they living in barracks if they're not soldiers?

Would I be the one to blame? No, I dont think so. It wasnt me who brought the kid in the front line. It was the kids parents. Thats why you dont see kids beeing brought up to the front line. They arent suppose to be there.

Well firstly blame isn't an either/or scenario. Secondly it depends on how you went about it. If they were all living in Oslo and you nuked Oslo I don't think that'd be perfectly acceptable. Then you should consider the government of the country. I'm assuming the Third Reich still reigns supreme in your hypothetical so rebelling against them, and anyone who supports them (which would include any "settlers") would be acceptable. When I said children I was talking about forty years down the line when the war was long over. Sorry if I didn't convey this properly.

Its quite widespread. Talk to people who have been down there, from aid agencies for instance.
Like one said it: "It takes 3 days on the West Bank for you to get sympatetic to the palestianian people, in Gaza it just takes 1 day".
Even people who have been hardcore pro-israel people in the past, have now started to distance themself from the worst.
Even they are admiting what the settlers do. (Yes, we got some of these people in norway, most of the pro-israel people are conservative, christian fundamentalists).

I have talked to people who have been aid workers in Palestine. And yes I think most of can feel sympathy for many Palestinians. The state of Israel has carried out some appalling crimes in the past and continues to do so today. But this still doesn't mean every single person of non-Palestinian ethnicity living outside Israeli borders deserves to die. If you can't accept this please say so because otherwise this argument is an utterly futile waste of time for both of us.

Have you asked yourself why people dont bomb Oslo or Dublin, could it be becouse we (atleast untill recently) bothred nobody?
Its not like someone is going to bomb Dublin becouse the irish loves guiness or bomb Oslo becouse Norway got fjords and we do well at skiing..
There is a cost of trying to have your empire, people gets pissed at you.

Dublin was bombed dude. It was the dastardly British! On a different note I think ignoring everything that happens outside your own country is a pretty bad idea. I'm in favour of attempting to help people who are having their human rights infringed, plus isolationism and appeasement can often lead to a fairly ****ed up state of affairs.

Territory doesnt need to be a "country". According to UN, Israel occupies all non-48 territory.
Everything else than the 1948 borders arent Israel, its that easy.

I was joking. Note the use of smilies. This also refers back to my "isn't the nation state a pretty shit idea now" point.

Yes, the kids too.

Do you not feel that punishing these children is slight overkill? This is not a situation similar to the one you outlined above where children were killed by accident due to the fact their parents placed them in the wrong location. There have not necessarily done anything wrong. I don't believe in inherited guilt, do you?

[Summanus]

The only thing that can stop the violence is a secular, fully democratic state in Israel. Why didn't the Americans finish the job there before taking 'democracy' to Iraq?