"...Thalif Deen Interviews U.N. Human Rights Expert Richard Falk"
by Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay last week lambasted the Israeli government for detaining and expelling a human rights expert, Richard Falk, who was on a U.N.-mandated assignment to probe the human rights situation in the occupied territories.

The top United Nations human rights official condemned Israel's refusal to admit a UN special envoy into the country and called his expulsion "unprecedented" and "deeply regrettable." Israeli authorities said they had turned back UN human rights envoy Richard Falk, seen here in 2005, upon his arrival at Ben Gurion airport, accusing him of "legitimizing Hamas terrorism." (AFP/Cem Turkel)"It is difficult to assess Israel's motives for barring my entry to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but it certainly seems to fit with a pattern of minimizing to the extent possible, reporting on the realities of the occupation, especially in Gaza," Falk told IPS.

Falk, whose official title is U.N. Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, is a Professor of International Law who has served in several U.S. academic institutions, including Princeton, Ohio State and the University of California.

The detention and expulsion were "unprecedented and regrettable," Pillay said, complaining that Falk was not only separated from two U.N. staffers accompanying him but was also held incommunicado for more than 20 hours at the Ben Gurion airport last week and denied the use of his U.N.-issued cell phone.

Pillay, whose criticism of Israel was backed by Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon, said U.N. human rights experts reporting to the Geneva-based Human Rights Council do not require a formal invitation by Israel to carry out official missions to the occupied Palestinian territories.

According to the U.N., Israel has kept the border crossings into Gaza closed for almost two months -- cutting off food supplies and humanitarian aid to Palestinians. The borders have been closed on the grounds that Palestinian militants have been firing rockets into Israeli territory.

While condemning the rocket attacks, Ban has urged Israel to lift the blockade and permit the delivery of humanitarian aid to the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza. But his appeal has fallen on deaf ears.

Asked if he was barred from the occupied territories because Israel had plenty to hide, Falk told IPS U.N. Bureau Chief Thalif Deen: "In recent months Israel has prevented credible observers from Gaza -- such as fellowship students and journalists, from leaving; and disallowing similar qualified observers to enter."

This tactic, he said, is reinforced by Israeli efforts to shift attention from the truthfulness and accuracy of what is observed to the supposed bias of the observer.

"It is a mind game that has proved very effective with the media, especially in the United States," Falk said. Falk explained that the fact that high-ranking U.N. officials have spoken out with grave concern about the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is a strong indication of how desperate the situation has become.

"Because of the strong influence of the United States within the United Nations, U.N. civil servants and officials have been reluctant in the past to criticize Israel," he added.

Excerpts from the interview:

IPS: How should the U.N. and the Human Rights Council respond to Israel's decision to keep out Special Rapporteurs, human rights organizations and journalists -- particularly from Gaza, currently under siege?

Richard Falk: It is my hope that the U.N. and the Human Rights Council will take this incident seriously. My exclusion was, after all, a slap in the face of the U.N., as well as being a clear violation of Israel's duties as a member of the U.N. to cooperate to ensure that its official undertakings are allowed to take place without interference. It would be important to protest the decision to bar the entry of the Special Rapporteur, and seek assurances that this would not happen in the future.

IPS: How futile is it to even attempt to have Israel censured or condemned when it is strongly supported by the U.S., Britain and France -- three veto- wielding members of the Security Council?

RF: Of course, the geopolitical realities of great powers unconditional support for Israel places a great obstacle in the path of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, and continues to expose the Palestinian people living under occupation to severe hardship that has been harmful to health and well-being.

But it is important also not to lose hope. The struggle against apartheid in South Africa also seemed to be decisively blocked by political obstacles and the relation of forces, but unforeseen results produced a positive outcome due, in large part, to the anti-apartheid campaign waged globally.

Often, with oppressive circumstances, the situation seems invulnerable until it collapses unexpectedly. The transformation of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the 1990s illustrated this sudden shift in circumstances.

IPS: How would you respond to the Israeli charge that you are biased and hostile toward Israel?

RF: I have never been biased or hostile toward Israel. My basic commitment is to non-violence and a just peace for both peoples. What Israel calls bias is merely the nature of my effort to tell the truth about the realities of the occupation, and the legal consequences that follow from these realities.

I would welcome a debate about the accuracy and truthfulness of my observations, but this is a controversy that Israel evidently wants to avoid. The charges of bias and hostility are intended to distract attention from matters of substance.

It is my goal to shift attention away from myself, back where it belongs, on the plight of the Palestinian people, the denial of Palestinian legal rights, and the responsibility of the U.N. and sovereign states to respond to the Palestinian catastrophe.

IPS: Is it correct that during the past three years, Israel has permitted visits to the occupied territories by seven U.N. Special Rapporteurs?

RF: What is correct is that my predecessor, John Dugard [a South African Professor of International Law], made seven visits while serving as Special Rapporteur. As his reports became more critical of the occupation, Israel mounted strong attacks on him, especially when he compared the occupation to conditions he had worked to overcome during the apartheid period in South Africa.

After Dugard's term came to end, Israel campaigned vigorously in Geneva against my selection as his successor, and seemed angered by their failure to block my appointment.

From this angle, blocking my entry was an expression of this anger, a signal to the U.N. that if Israel does not get its way, then adverse consequences will result. It is rather sad that such a relationship of tension now exists between Israel and the United Nations.

>>><<<<>>>><<<<>>>><<>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<>

 

"Study the people who took you out of history. Then you'll understand your history." -Arturo Alfonso "Arthur" Schomburg

 

"For your survival, draw on the intellectual heritage of the whole world, but always start with your own intellectual heitage".

--Dr. John Henrik Clarke

 

"The surest way to kill a race is to kill its religion and ideals. Can anybody doubt that the white race deliberately attempted to do that? This is to kill the souls of a people. And when the spirit is killed, what remains?"

--Frederick Peso, Mascalero Apache

 

"Sure there are a few good whites just as much as there are a few bad Blacks. However what we are concerned here with is group attitudes and group politics. The exception does not make a lie of the rule - it merely substantiates it."

--Steve Biko

Original Post
And naturally the MSM will ignore the fact that blockades are considered an act of war. Collective punishment is a international crime, but I guess were supposed to accept that its all Hamas fault.
Hmmmmm ... maybe that's because they knew they were planning to bomb the bloody hell out of the Palistinians! Roll Eyes


Israel in 'all out war' with Hamas

quote:
GAZA CITY(CNN) -- Israel bombed a Hamas government compound early Tuesday, leveling at least three structures, including the foreign ministry building, eyewitnesses and Hamas security sources told CNN.

A Gaza-based journalist, whose name was withheld for security reasons, told CNN he heard 18 blasts and that two fires were burning in the early morning.

Israel continues to strike Hamas targets in Gaza, an Israel Defense Forces spokesman told CNN.

Mortar fire along the Gaza border killed one Israeli soldier and wounded four others, he said.

The strike came the night after Israel's defense minister said the nation was in an "all-out war" with Hamas. For the third day, Israeli hit targets in Gaza, pushing the Palestinian death toll over 300.

"We have stretched our hand in peace many times to the Palestinian people. We have nothing against the people of Gaza," Defense Minister Ehud Barak said. "But this is an all-out war against Hamas and its branches."

Barak's remarks to parliament came as Israeli warplanes carried out a third day of strikes against Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that rules Gaza.

Most of the dead are Hamas militants, Palestinian medical sources said Monday. The attacks also have wounded about 650 people, the sources said.

Columns of smoke rose over Gaza City, while Israeli tanks cruised along the edges of Ga
I think the international communities should get together and offer to buy the Gaza strip from both groups, and put their perspective embassies and peacekeepers there. Palistine and Isreal could used the money to repair schools, hospitals, etc., and at the same time both sides would be barred from launching strikes at the other because they would have to strike through the international communities or violate their air space in order to do so.

I think that would solve this conflict once and for all-----before Isreal is the cause of world war III.
fro You know, over the years I've tried very hard to feel sorry for the Israelis....but! It's difficult. Cuz first....they TOOK the land from the Palestinians who had been there for 500 plus years....and the bible was written by whom? So they can say anything in terms of ownership...don't make it true.

And secondly, the Israeli are some ARROGANT sons-of-bitches....they stole their so-called religion from Africa....then they convinced massa who has the intelligence of pea that it is HIS responsible to protect the po' jew...cuz of this "Jesus" nonsense. It's all a smoke screen. Religious Heresy. Spiritual Propaganda. Cuz if they were right....they [Israeli] would have given the Ethiopian they so-called rescued from Ethiopia and brought over to Israel their citizenship as "jews"...but! They did not. They hold on to the racist mentality of massa that says the color of your skin determines WORTH and in this case Israeli citizenship! And so the original "jew" does not get his/her title cuz it [their identity as Jew] was SNATCHED away by massa's bastard child who is fighting with massa's other bastard child...i.e. they are BOTH semites as a result of the war between the Asian, the African and the European...folks KEEP forgetting that.

The conflict between the two is plain old sibling rivalry. Fighting over what daddy gave one and took from the other. Cuz if all this stuff which was written is as they TRUE....then either Jesus or Muhummad would have come DOWN by now and settled it..but! This war is as old and ancient as the books Talmud, Bible and Quran produced thousands of years ago. The thing is the ones to suffer in this foolish dispute are the children and women...who traditionally have no SAY SO as to what these CRAZY people are doing! They are cultural prisioners. I say let the men battle it out.....and keep the women and children OUT OF IT! But No....both groups have to be as barbaric and violent as their fathers.....who were/are COWARDS. And kill the innocents to prove bravery, ownership and so-called integrity. And who continues to die in abundance? women and children! Who these genius say are only their social chattle in which they can use as replacable disposables at any time.

Having said that, this is MY OPINION. And I know there are those who totally disagree with me....but! I say LOOK AT WORLD history. And tell me....who have SUFFERED the most. Tell me who have been victimized by the angst of sick men who in their dysfunction to control women and children lives....mulitate women's coochies and take away their babies...then brainwash the boys to believe that their mothers are beneath them. And this circular decayed sickness CONTINUES. So to me Israel have NO right to Palestine. Especially if their ownership is BASED on tales in the Bible. United Nation i.e. America was TOTALLY wrong to force the Palestines out just so they can give the Jews land cited in a document that authencity is questionable.

As a descendent of slaves who were stolen,raped and brainwashed for over 400 years and as a result of free labor/genius built the most powerful nation in the world, WE as a group struggled ALONE[no one came to our aid]....to obtain what we have NOW. Massa didn't give us no land, no infrastruture. We had to fight for EVERYTHING....even our freedom. In fact, he still says subliminally in his treatment towards us that we don't deserve what we have now. So. I'm confused. What makes the Jew better than the slave? Yeah....they will beat the holocaust issue to death....but that only last how many years compared to what we went through for CENTURIES? Apples and Oranges. I think it's more that not only does the Jew look like massa, he brought stories to uplift massa's white image to himself of supermacy.....the tale of Christianity. God is White...and the history of the missionary crusade itself was a brutal and cruel slavery conversion of a so-called religion....i.e. either you are a christian or you die....remember that?

So for me......Israel is DEAD wrong...and have been hiding behind America's skirt for too long. It's time for them to stand up on their own...just like WE did and not be a COWARD and kill women and children and then turn around and blame it on the Palestines who had been on that land for too many years to count....but! JMHO is all. fro
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by *Muhammad Cipher*:
And naturally the MSM will ignore the fact that blockades are considered an act of war. Collective punishment is a international crime, but I guess were supposed to accept that its all Hamas fault.


Published on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Israel's War Crimes
by Richard Falk

The Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip represent severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war

Even the most naive American voter cannot be expected to see the morally, legally and politically questionable death sentence given to Saddam Hussein a milestone in the Bush Administration's illegal war in Iraq. As the milestones pile up, so do the bodies.

Those violations include:
• Collective punishment: The entire 1.5 million people who live in the crowded Gaza Strip are being punished for the actions of a few militants.

• Targeting civilians: The airstrikes were aimed at civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world, certainly the most densely populated area of the Middle East.

• Disproportionate military response: The airstrikes have not only destroyed every police and security office of Gaza's elected government, but have killed and injured hundreds of civilians; at least one strike reportedly hit groups of students attempting to find transportation home from the university.

Earlier Israeli actions, specifically the complete sealing off of entry and exit to and from the Gaza Strip, have led to severe shortages of medicine and fuel (as well as food), resulting in the inability of ambulances to respond to the injured, the inability of hospitals to adequately provide medicine or necessary equipment for the injured, and the inability of Gaza's besieged doctors and other medical workers to sufficiently treat the victims.

Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right, neither as the Occupying Power nor as a sovereign state, to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response. I note that Israel's escalating military assaults have not made Israeli civilians safer; to the contrary, the one Israeli killed today after the upsurge of Israeli violence is the first in over a year.

Israel has also ignored recent Hamas diplomatic initiatives to re-establish the truce or ceasefire since its expiration on 26 December.

The Israeli airstrikes today, and the catastrophic human toll that they caused, challenge those countries that have been and remain complicit, either directly or indirectly, in Israel's violations of international law. That complicity includes those countries knowingly providing the military equipment including warplanes and missiles used in these illegal attacks, as well as those countries who have supported and participated in the siege of Gaza that itself has caused a humanitarian catastrophe.

I remind all Member States of the United Nations that the UN continues to be bound to an independent obligation to protect any civilian population facing massive violations of international humanitarian law--regardless of what country may be responsible for those violations. I call on all Member States, as well as officials and every relevant organ of the United Nations system, to move on an emergency basis not only to condemn Israel's serious violations, but to develop new approaches to providing real protection for the Palestinian people.
quote:
Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful.


This is exactly why I don't subscribe to the notion that Israel is the personification of evil while The Hamas are considered the helpless victims via their cowardess in hiding amongst Palestinian civilians.

How about The Hamas intentionally endangering Palestinian civilians in the act of attacking a neighboring country--relying on "The Geneva Convention" to protect them from retaliation? Nobody wants to talk about that because it defeats the purpose of being an activist/freedom fighter for those innocent Palestinian civilians. Roll Eyes
quote:
So for me......Israel is DEAD wrong...and have been hiding behind America's skirt for too long. It's time for them to stand up on their own...just like WE did and not be a COWARD and kill women and children and then turn around and blame it on the Palestines who had been on that land for too many years to



Israel is not dead wrong. Their hands may be bloody but they aren't dead wrong. How is it that people keep overlooking the fact that the Israelis are at war with Hamas and not the entire Palestinian population? Both the Hamas and the Israelis are wrong in this situation.
People have benn saying...

"Hamas rocket attacks against Israel started al this."

So, let me get this straight... A group of people who have been under a state of violent settler-colonialism/imperialism and oppression since 1968 actually have the nerve to defend themselves and that's 'terrorism'...

Alrighty then!

Funny thing is... The people who fought against Apartheid in South Africa were also labelled 'terrorists' by their opressors...

Native Amerikkkans who had the audacity to fight against European colonialists were 'savages'...

I see a pattern here...

Zionism = Terrorism
quote:
Originally posted by Romulus Burnett:


How about The Hamas intentionally endangering Palestinian civilians in the act of attacking a neighboring country--relying on "The Geneva Convention" to protect them from retaliation? Nobody wants to talk about that because it defeats the purpose of being an activist/freedom fighter for those innocent Palestinian civilians. Roll Eyes



You are right of course.

What Israel is doing is positively wrong and illegal, but Hamas and the Palestinian governments of the past are absolutely disgusting, in that they do not care about their people.


They will put the people they supposedly care about in danger, yet go ape-sh*t when Israel throws bombs and kills Palestinians !! Confused

Even if Gaza wants to take back Israel, it should be the last of their worries. They should be concerned of their people eating and creating an economy.

Of course Hamas and past governments DON'T give a damn, except for playing victim.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
People have benn saying...

"Hamas rocket attacks against Israel started al this."

So, let me get this straight... A group of people who have been under a state of violent settler-colonialism/imperialism and oppression since 1968 actually have the nerve to defend themselves and that's 'terrorism'...

Alrighty then!

Funny thing is... The people who fought against Apartheid in South Africa were also labelled 'terrorists' by their opressors...

Native Amerikkkans who had the audacity to fight against European colonialists were 'savages'...

I see a pattern here...

Zionism = Terrorism



No, terrorist target civilians(intentionally) rather than government officials.

So no matter how honorable the terrorist reasons for fighting he/she is STILL a terrorist, because they are targetting civilians.

Right now Israel is raiding bombs irrespective if they hit civilians, so they are engaging in terrorist activities.

However the Palestinians are equally terrorist !!
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
People have benn saying...

"Hamas rocket attacks against Israel started al this."

So, let me get this straight... A group of people who have been under a state of violent settler-colonialism/imperialism and oppression since 1968 actually have the nerve to defend themselves and that's 'terrorism'...

Alrighty then!

Funny thing is... The people who fought against Apartheid in South Africa were also labelled 'terrorists' by their opressors...

Native Amerikkkans who had the audacity to fight against European colonialists were 'savages'...

I see a pattern here...

Zionism = Terrorism


No, terrorist target civilians(intentionally) rather than government officials.

So no matter how honorable the terrorist reasons for fighting he/she is STILL a terrorist, because they are targetting civilians.


So was Nat Turner a terrorist for killing babies(civilian/non-combatants) he knew would grow up to enslave his people?

Were native Amerikkkans who fought against ANYONE occupying their land terrorists because they didn't target the cavalry?

Basically, I do not agree with your definition...

All Israelis HAVE TO serve in the occupying military. They are settler colonialists, not 'civilians' in the typical sense....

quote:
Right now Israel is raiding bombs irrespective if they hit civilians, so they are engaging in terrorist activities.


Agreed

quote:
However the Palestinians are equally terrorist !!


I don't agree with this...
quote:
So was Nat Turner a terrorist for killing babies(civilian/non-combatants) he knew would grow up to enslave his people?

Were native Amerikkkans who fought against ANYONE occupying their land terrorists because they didn't target the cavalry?




That question is very scary. You don't think killing babies for political reasons is terrorism???
quote:
Basically, I do not agree with your definition...

All Israelis HAVE TO serve in the occupying military. They are settler colonialists, not 'civilians' in the typical sense....



Stop pretending you don't know what a civilian is. We are talking about non-soldiers/police.

A teacher , lawyer, banker, plumber in Israel is a civilian.


The fact that till this day all men 18 years or older in this country must sign up for conscription doesn't mean they are part of the military. Likewise most Israelis are not in the military.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
So was Nat Turner a terrorist for killing babies(civilian/non-combatants) he knew would grow up to enslave his people?

Were native Amerikkkans who fought against ANYONE occupying their land terrorists because they didn't target the cavalry?




That question is very scary. You don't think killing babies for political reasons terrorism???


How about answering the questions I posed?

I think killing babies in liberation wars 'happen', and if the oppressors weren't doing the evil ish they are doing they wouldn't have to worry about the consequences.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
So was Nat Turner a terrorist for killing babies(civilian/non-combatants) he knew would grow up to enslave his people?

Were native Amerikkkans who fought against ANYONE occupying their land terrorists because they didn't target the cavalry?




That question is very scary. You don't think killing babies for political reasons terrorism???


How about answering the questions I posed?

I think killing babies in liberation wars 'happen', and if the oppressors weren't doing the evil ish they are doing they wouldn't have to worry about the consequences.



I answered your question with a question.

You should be ashamed with saying such nonsense. Babies??

Terrorism is a tactic to scare/intimdate the government or whoever is in power to change their laws BY KILLING CIVILIANS.

Reducing terrorism to simply being unjustified acts of violence devalues the word and subjects it to subjectiveness.

Furthermore scapegoating and attacking(bombing, killing babies as you say is legitimate) citizens/subjects because their government is doing something wrong is WRONG.

No matter you hold double standards in the Gaza crisis.
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
Basically, I do not agree with your definition...

All Israelis HAVE TO serve in the occupying military. They are settler colonialists, not 'civilians' in the typical sense....



Stop pretending you don't know what a civilian is. We are talking about non-soldiers/police.


I'm not pretending that I do not know what a civilian is. Roll Eyes I just don't agree that settler colonialists participating in illegal land occupation to the point that they ALL serve in the military at one point, to be 'civilians' whatsoever.

I see them in the same light that I do the settler colonialists of Apartheid South Africa...

quote:
A teacher , lawyer, banker, plumber in Israel is a civilian.


And they are all illegally occupying someone elses land, and have helped fascilitate and maintain an apartheid state to the point of
doing military service.

quote:
The fact that till this day all men 18 years or older in this country must sign up for conscription doesn't mean they are part of the military.


Since when were women exempt? Funny this is, the anti-Zionist Jewish youth 'peacenicks' refuse service...
quote:
Since when were women exempt? Funny this is, the anti-Zionist Jewish youth 'peacenicks' refuse service...



I am talking about the united states. The fact that all men 18 have to still sign up for conscription doesn't mean they are in the military.
quote:
I'm not pretending that I do not know what a civilian is. I just don't agree that settler colonialists participating in illegal land occupation to the point that they ALL serve in the military at one point, to be 'civilians' whatsoever.

I see them in the same light that I do the settler colonialists of Apartheid South Africa...


quote:
A teacher , lawyer, banker, plumber in Israel is a civilian.


And they are all illegally occupying someone elses land, and have helped fascilitate and maintain an apartheid state to the point of
doing military service.


How does the illegal occupation of Israel prove that all israelis are NOT civilians???

What about other illegal occuptations through out history where the people did not have mandatory military service??

Are they civilians or not??

Essentially non-legitmacy means everyone in the country is automatically no longer a civilian??

How does the legitmacy/or illegitmacy of a government create civilians and non-civilians??
quote:
How about answering the questions I posed?

I think killing babies in liberation wars 'happen', and if the oppressors weren't doing the evil ish they are doing they wouldn't have to worry about the consequences.


Yikes 18

No they don't just "happen". They are done on purpose, and they are unnecessary. If someone drops a bomb on a military building, that is understandable. But to attack anything is wrong and the actions of a terrorist. No wonder you hold disgusting double standards.

Essentially Israeli babies should suffer the consequences(death) because the [Israeli] government is illegitimate, yet Palestinian babies should not because their society deserves the land Israel is situated on.



17

giveup
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
So was Nat Turner a terrorist for killing babies(civilian/non-combatants) he knew would grow up to enslave his people?

Were native Amerikkkans who fought against ANYONE occupying their land terrorists because they didn't target the cavalry?




That question is very scary. You don't think killing babies for political reasons terrorism???


How about answering the questions I posed?

I think killing babies in liberation wars 'happen', and if the oppressors weren't doing the evil ish they are doing they wouldn't have to worry about the consequences.



I answered your question with a question.

You should be ashamed with saying such nonsense. Babies??


Just for clarifications sake, You are saying YES, you think Nat Turner and some Native Amerikkkans were terrorists for killing babies?

You should be ashamed...

quote:
Terrorism is a tactic to scare/intimdate the government or whoever is in power to change their laws BY KILLING CIVILIANS.


Settler colonialsists don't qualify as 'civilians' or 'noncombatants' IMO. Therefore, acts of violence perpetrated agsainst them in a liberation war is not 'terrorism'.

You are of course free to disagree with me, as I do with you, but you cannot impose your definition/standards of civilians or what constitutes terrorism onto mine. As Wikipedia OPENS with... "At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism."

If the Indigenous South African people rose up and killed every last European settler colonialist(or as you call them, 'civilians') during the apartheid regime to end their oppressio and occupation I would not view that as terrorism.

quote:
Reducing terrorism to simply being unjustified acts of violence devalues the word and subjects it to subjectiveness.


I agree, and as you already know, I have said or done no such thing anywhere on this thread, so please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

quote:
Furthermore scapegoating and attacking(bombing, killing babies as you say is legitimate) citizens/subjects because their government is doing something wrong is WRONG.

No matter you hold double standards in the Gaza crisis.


So Nat Turner was wrong? Like I said... You are free to have your opinion... I hold no double standard. We just do not agree on the definition of terrorism.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Nothing new...
Oshun Auset


Don't get it twisted, I recognize that Israel is and has done terrorist things,- but so is/has Hamas.

Lets keep in REAL !!
quote:
Just for clarifications sake, You are saying YES, you think Nat Turner and some Native Amerikkkans were terrorists for killing babies?

You should be ashamed...



No darling YOU should be ashamed.

Killing babies is NEVER justified! You sicko.

Attacking police/soldiers/government buildings like the white house etc are justified- as they are the real reasons that the oppressed is opressed.


Babies are NOT the oppressor. Frown
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
Since when were women exempt? Funny this is, the anti-Zionist Jewish youth 'peacenicks' refuse service...



I am talking about the united states. The fact that all men 18 have to still sign up for conscription doesn't mean they are in the military.


What are you talking about the U.S. military conscription for? We are discussing compulsary 2-3 year SERVICE in the IDF... Apples and oranges. Confused

National military service is mandatory for Jewish and Druze men and Jewish women over the age of 18, although exceptions may be made on religious, physical or psychological grounds (see Profile 21).

Men serve three years in the IDF, while women serve two. The IDF allowed women who volunteer for several combat positions to serve for three years because combat soldiers must undergo a lengthy period of training. Women in other positions, such as programmers, who require lengthy training time may also serve three years. Women in most combat positions are also required to serve as reserve for several years after their dismissal from regular service.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forces
Oshun Auset,

Hm, whether there is a definition for terrorist is actually no longer important, because this conversation has turned to whether babies and people univolved with the military/government deserve to be killed.

You took the position that "freedom fighters" have the right to kill babies- because after all the babies will grow up and oppress them.

You have exposed yourself, and hopefully others too will.

Because as long as certain civilians are "game" the situtation in the middle-east and other problem areas will never be solved- even if Israelis all pack up and leave.
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
Just for clarifications sake, You are saying YES, you think Nat Turner and some Native Amerikkkans were terrorists for killing babies?

You should be ashamed...



No darling YOU should be ashamed.

Killing babies is NEVER justified! You sicko.

Attacking police/soldiers/government buildings like the white house etc are justified- as they are the real reasons that the oppressed is opressed.


Babies are NOT the oppressor. Frown


Like I said... I'm a fan of Nat Turner, and you consider him a terrorist... I find that quite sick... and sad... You have exposed yourself... I've never waivered in what I think about liberation wars.
quote:
Like I said... I'm a fan of Nat Turner, and you consider him a terrorist... I find that quite sick... and sad...


As if all fighters against slavery all believed killing babies was okay Frown 18

Therefore I am apathetic to american slavery.


lol
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
Like I said... I'm a fan of Nat Turner, and you consider him a terrorist... I find that quite sick... and sad...


As if all fighters against slavery all believed killing babies was okay Frown 18

Therefore I am apathetic to american slavery.


lol


I didn't say anything about you being apathetic about Amerikkkan slavery. I wouldn't make such a broad statement. Once again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

I specifically said I am a fan of Nat Turner, and you specifically 'have to' think he was a terrorist if your logic is consistant... Which is sick and sad IMO. Nothing more, nothing less.
quote:
I didn't say anything about you being apathetic about Amerikkkan slavery. Once again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

I specifically said I am a fan of Nat Turner, and you specifically 'have to' think he was a terrorist if your logic is consistant... Which is sick and sad IMO. Nothing more, nothing less.



You are not stupid. You know that there is nothing sick or sad about being against "killing babies because they will grow up and become the oppressor"

You are the one who put words in MY mouth. I have not mentioned Nat Turner at ALL.
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
I didn't say anything about you being apathetic about Amerikkkan slavery. Once again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

I specifically said I am a fan of Nat Turner, and you specifically 'have to' think he was a terrorist if your logic is consistant... Which is sick and sad IMO. Nothing more, nothing less.



You are not stupid. You know that there is nothing sick or sad about being against "killing babies because they will grow up and become the oppressor"

You are the one who put words in MY mouth. I have not mentioned Nat Turner at ALL.


I know I'm not stupid, and neither are you.

I specifically asked you 2 questions about similar historical examples of violent actions towards babies in response to settler colonialism and oppression. You didn't answer. When I asked you again, you said you answered it 'with a question'. When I then asked for clarification on what your answer appeared to be(based on logical deduction and the fact that you said your answer was present in the question you responded with), you did not object to the conclusion your communication style forced me to draw. That's not putting words in your mouth...

I think there is something sick and sad about thinking Nat Turner is a Terrorist and did something 'wrong'...
Oshun,

I already said that killing babies for any cause- even slavery,Jim crow, apartheid, subjuctation(not in those exact words) is wrong, immoral, and illegal. It is the actions of a terrorist.

So that answers your question.
What I find sad is how main stream media turn a blinds eye to the dirt israel has kicked around for decades. Yet when the palestinians react, whether hamas, hesbella[sp], or palestinians who've simply had 'enough' -is when we get 'the news'.

Democracy Now! is one of a few news broadcast outlet, in this country, that will allow palestinians and israeli dissenters of the israeli state to give their side of the story as to what is going on.

For along time prior to discovering background info on israel, I was as critical of the palestinians as I am now critical of the israeli state. I didn't get, as paul harvey says, the rest of the story.

Is there two sides to every coin? Of course!

However, for israel to paint themselves as the 'can't do no wrong' state, is laughably absurd.

Whenever someone, anyone, attempts to shed light on the wrong doings of the israeli state, they are called anti-semite.

I was called anti-semite. I laughed then replied, how am I anti-semite when I'm pro-palestine? lol
quote:
I think there is something sick and sad about thinking Nat Turner is a Terrorist and did something 'wrong'...



So you believe the end justifies the means, even if the means contributes NOTHING to the end....
And also,

I opine that the reason 'terrorism' is so hard to define is because it is almost impossible to do so without keeping occupying powers such as amerikkka, israel and other global entities, from falling legally into that category.
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
Oshun,

I already said that killing babies for any cause- even slavery,Jim crow, apartheid, subjuctation(not in those exact words) is wrong, immoral, and illegal. It is the actions of a terrorist.

So that answers your question.


I know you did, so why did you just acuse me of putting words in your mouth?

quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
I think there is something sick and sad about thinking Nat Turner is a Terrorist and did something 'wrong'...


So you believe the end justifies the means, even if the means contributes NOTHING to the end....


YOU think that certain means contribute nothing to the end. I think quite differently... Like I stated... and I've been QUITE clear with my historical examples...

I just don't agree that settler colonialists participating in illegal land occupation to the point that they ALL serve in the military at one point, to be 'civilians' whatsoever.

I see them in the same light that I do the settler colonialists of Apartheid South Africa...

Settler colonialsists don't qualify as 'civilians' or 'non-combatants' IMO. Therefore, acts of violence perpetrated agsainst them in a liberation war is not 'terrorism'.

You are of course free to disagree with me, as I do with you, but you cannot impose your definition/standards of civilians or what constitutes terrorism onto mine. As Wikipedia OPENS with... "At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism."

If the Indigenous South African people rose up and killed every last European settler colonialist(or as you call them, 'civilians') during the apartheid regime to end their oppression and occupation I would not view that as terrorism.


We don't agree, that's fine... but why beat a dead horse?
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
And also,

I opine that the reason 'terrorism' is so hard to define is because it is almost impossible to do so without keeping occupying powers such as amerikkka, israel and other global entities, from falling legally into that category.


It is also hard to define, because those with an axe to grind against Israel, will turn a blind eye to what Hamas or past governments have done.

Israel and Hamas are engaging in terrorism...
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
Oshun,

I already said that killing babies for any cause- even slavery,Jim crow, apartheid, subjuctation(not in those exact words) is wrong, immoral, and illegal. It is the actions of a terrorist.

So that answers your question.


I know you did, so why did you just acuse me of putting words in your mouth?

quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
quote:
I think there is something sick and sad about thinking Nat Turner is a Terrorist and did something 'wrong'...


So you believe the end justifies the means, even if the means contributes NOTHING to the end....


YOU think that certain means contribute nothing to the end. I think quite differently... Like I stated... and I've been QUITE clear with my historical examples...

I just don't agree that settler colonialists participating in illegal land occupation to the point that they ALL serve in the military at one point, to be 'civilians' whatsoever.

I see them in the same light that I do the settler colonialists of Apartheid South Africa...

Settler colonialsists don't qualify as 'civilians' or 'non-combatants' IMO. Therefore, acts of violence perpetrated agsainst them in a liberation war is not 'terrorism'.

You are of course free to disagree with me, as I do with you, but you cannot impose your definition/standards of civilians or what constitutes terrorism onto mine. As Wikipedia OPENS with... "At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism."

If the Indigenous South African people rose up and killed every last European settler colonialist(or as you call them, 'civilians') during the apartheid regime to end their oppression and occupation I would not view that as terrorism.


We don't agree, that's fine... but why beat a dead horse?



You obviously think by virtue of being born by the "oppressor" or living "on occupied" land, makes you responsible for the gov, and therefore "game"


Anyway, I am not beating a dead horse, I just wanted to respond to all your responses.
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
You obviously think by virtue of being born by the "oppressor" or living "on occupied" land, makes you responsible for the gov, and therefore "game"


No, once again... words in mouth... watch it. I stated exactly what I 'think'. Settler colonialists work with the ruling elite to oppress. They are not 'innocent bystanders'. You may not understand the dynamics of settler colonialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism

quote:
Anyway, I am not beating a dead horse, I just wanted to respond to all your responses.


OK
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by Sweetwuzzy:
You obviously think by virtue of being born by the "oppressor" or living "on occupied" land, makes you responsible for the gov, and therefore "game"


No, once again... words in mouth... watch it. I stated exactly what I 'think'. Settler colonialists work with the ruling elite to oppress. They are not 'innocent bystanders'. You may not understand the dynamics of settler colonialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism

quote:
Anyway, I am not beating a dead horse, I just wanted to respond to all your responses.


OK


We can't quantify which settlers actively work with the government and you know it. (Some can back out of the conscription in Israel anyways.)

And the fact that babies are game, which was one of the examples you gave, just proves you don't care if the settlers are engaged with the oppressor government or not.

Because you know DAMN WELL NO baby is engaged with the government or oppressor in any shape or form.

You think everyone must suffer by virtue of simply living in the occupied land- irrespective of their dealing or lack of dealing with the government policies.

This is an accurate statment of your beliefs, don't back down now...

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×