A Human Face to a Barbaric Slaughter

[jbg]

The purpose of this post is to give a human face to what is often considered an abstract political issue. Many dress up terror as justifiable revenge against an intolerant, dominating and oppressive world. Sometimes, the impact on real people needs to be brought home.

My son is mildly autistic and goes to a camp for disabled children. Last night's newsletter contained the following entry (a link is deliberately not included):

Before I sign off this evening, I want to give you all advance notice that I will not be able to update the site with photos or news tomorrow evening and Saturday’s report will most likely go up late Saturday night. As some of you might know, I am actively involved in the creation of the Flight 93 National Memorial in Somerset, PA and as a Federal Commissioner overseeing the progress of this project I am required to attend quarterly meetings. This commitment will require me to travel to Pennsylvania tomorrow for meetings on Saturday after which I will be returning directly back to camp….If you are interested in learning more about the Flight 93 story, please feel free to visit our website at: www.honorflight93.org

The camp director's brother was an accomplished engineer, devoted husband and father of two teenage girls. He was butchered by mindless terrorists on Flight 93 on September 11, 2001.

Edited August 1, 2009 by jbg

[Cato]

I gather from the above post, that you will be surprized to learn: the impact of violence on real people is almost always moving, not only on those with whom you happen to sympathise.

It is a sure sign of hypocrisy when you are trying to make the impression, that only those actions, which you qualify as terror are causing horrendeous effects. The "intolerant, dominating and oppressive world" is performing acts, which can be declared as terroristic; it's simply the question of definition (and you and alike believe to be appointed to make the definition). When looking up-close, those actions, which you don't see as terroristic have identical consequences; the only relevant difference is, that you are not sympathising with those victims.

It is like your intelligence agent is a spy, while my spy is only an intelligence agent.

[WestViking]

I gather from the above post, that you will be surprized to learn: the impact of violence on real people is almost always moving, not only on those with whom you happen to sympathise.

It is a sure sign of hypocrisy when you are trying to make the impression, that only those actions, which you qualify as terror are causing horrendeous effects. The "intolerant, dominating and oppressive world" is performing acts, which can be declared as terroristic; it's simply the question of definition (and you and alike believe to be appointed to make the definition). When looking up-close, those actions, which you don't see as terroristic have identical consequences; the only relevant difference is, that you are not sympathising with those victims.

It is like your intelligence agent is a spy, while my spy is only an intelligence agent.

Like any politician, you sound profund but have said nothing of substance or value.

[jbg]

It is a sure sign of hypocrisy when you are trying to make the impression, that only those actions, which you qualify as terror are causing horrendeous effects.The "intolerant, dominating and oppressive world" is performing acts, which can be declared as terroristic; it's simply the question of definition (and you and alike believe to be appointed to make the definition). When looking up-close, those actions, which you don't see as terroristic have identical consequences; the only relevant difference is, that you are not sympathising with those victims.

To quote Joseph N. Welch, "(h)ave you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" (link)

It is like your intelligence agent is a spy, while my spy is only an intelligence agent.

Huh?

[Cato]

Like any politician, you sound profund but have said nothing of substance or value.

If you have difficulties with comprehension, you better ask.

[jbg]

If you have difficulties with comprehension, you better ask.

Ask who? You? I mindless, anti-Western bigot?

[WestViking]

If you have difficulties with comprehension, you better ask.

You speak in gibberish which is unworthy of translation. Try simple English.

[M.Dancer]

I gather from the above post, that you will be surprized to learn: the impact of violence on real people is almost always moving, not only on those with whom you happen to sympathise.

It is a sure sign of hypocrisy when you are trying to make the impression, that only those actions, which you qualify as terror are causing horrendeous effects. The "intolerant, dominating and oppressive world" is performing acts, which can be declared as terroristic; it's simply the question of definition (and you and alike believe to be appointed to make the definition). When looking up-close, those actions, which you don't see as terroristic have identical consequences; the only relevant difference is, that you are not sympathising with those victims.

It is like your intelligence agent is a spy, while my spy is only an intelligence agent.

I think Benny found some real competition for the covetted Word Salad award....

[jbg]

I think Benny found some real competition for the covetted Word Salad award....

I thought you were the high-class, educated originator of the "Benny" concept and he just wrecked it by overuse, poor execution and poor imitation.

[wulf42]

Islamis extremist are the enemy and always were...................anyone who would feel sorry for a Islamic terrorist should not live in Western countries, these filthy maggots must be dealt with with extreme force and without mercy!!

[dub]

you want to put a face onto a guy who was killed 8 years ago while, at the same time, you try to justify over 300 children who were killed by the israelis, a few months ago?

oh you big hearted, cuddly humanitarian, you.

[dub]

Islamis extremist are the enemy and always were...................anyone who would feel sorry for a Islamic terrorist should not live in Western countries, these filthy maggots must be dealt with with extreme force and without mercy!!

i agree with you about the islamic extremists. they're bad for this world.

but they're nothing compared to the main tumor in this world, the zionist ideology, which has enabled these other tumors to grow. extremism fans the flames of extremism.

[Sabre Rider]

Like any politician, you sound profund but have said nothing of substance or value.

Bullshit, he hit the nail square on the head and drove it home in one blow.

[Oleg Bach]

Most ambitious politicals are not concerend about barbarity - genocide or individual slights against human rights..whether it be a member of the UN - who like to sit about with a calculator and punch in the numbers for the latest body count in some poor African nation..and then have a study on WHY there is barbarity in the world - BUT they are not interested in arresting barbarity. Maybe they are blind - or maybe they are secretive haters of humanity ---- or maybe those that climb to the highest offices in the land are just plain stupid!

[jbg]

you want to put a face onto a guy who was killed 8 years ago while, at the same time, you try to justify over 300 children who were killed by the israelis, a few months ago? Oh you big hearted, cuddly humanitarian, you.

If indeed your numbers are right, the Israelis were not tryingto kill children; the attackers shamelessly took cover amid the children so the media could cover the fish-wife wails of the "mothers".

but they're nothing compared to the main tumor in this world, the zionist ideology, which has enabled these other tumors to grow. extremism fans the flames of extremism.

The "Zionists" want an area the size of PEI for the peoples that gave birth to the Christian and Muslim religions. From this they are a "tumor" fanning "the flames of extremism"?

[Cato]

The "Zionists" want an area the size of PEI for the peoples that gave birth to the Christian and Muslim religions. From this they are a "tumor" fanning "the flames of extremism"?

Gimme the tissue please, I can't choke back my tears. Thank you. Now, think of this:

1. I guess the Zionists could have a many times larger region, for example in the middle of Sahara.

2. If I were Christian, I would say they did not give birth to the Christian religions; just the opposite, they killed the Saviour. However, I am not, therefor I say you contributed to the rise of that nonsense, which is still robbing hundreds of millions their tiny brain.

3. Whatever, we (the other people of the earth) don't have the right to give Zionists something, what we don't possess. Already the League and later the UN committed the grave error to give away something, what was not theirs.

4. Let's talk clear text: the Zionists never planned to be satisfied with what the UN has stolen from the Palestinians. They had instigated several wars (not that the Arabs would have been totally innocent), they had provoked the Arabs and patrticularly the Palestinians with the aim of avoiding negotiations and fulfillment of obligations, in order to gain time and steal more and more from them.

If you don't agree with this, we can conduct a discussion about that in a separate thread, assumed that you are prepared to stick to facts and accept black and white proofs.

[wulf42]

i agree with you about the islamic extremists. they're bad for this world.

but they're nothing compared to the main tumor in this world, the zionist ideology, which has enabled these other tumors to grow. extremism fans the flames of extremism.

Dub how can you possibly believe that??? I didn't see Israeli's run 3 aircraft into targets and hijack a forth on 9/11..i don't see Israeli's

trying to force their religion down others throats unlike the Muslims........Israel tries to exist but Muslim extremist

keep attacking it and then hide behind women and children because they are to cowardly to face Israeli troops head-

on............Islamic extremist are the true enemy always have been!! kill those filthy rats and there will be peace in the world!!!

[tango]

Dub how can you possibly believe that??? I didn't see Israeli's run 3 aircraft into targets and hijack a forth on 9/11..i don't see Israeli's

trying to force their religion down others throats unlike the Muslims........Israel tries to exist but Muslim extremist

keep attacking it and then hide behind women and children because they are to cowardly to face Israeli troops head-

on............Islamic extremist are the true enemy always have been!! kill those filthy rats and there will be peace in the world!!!

extremism is bad ... wherever.

[jbg]

Dub how can you possibly believe that??? I didn't see Israeli's run 3 aircraft into targets and hijack a forth on 9/11..i don't see Israeli's

trying to force their religion down others throats unlike the Muslims........Israel tries to exist but Muslim extremist

keep attacking it and then hide behind women and children because they are to cowardly to face Israeli troops head-

on............Islamic extremist are the true enemy always have been!! kill those filthy rats and there will be peace in the world!!!

This sounds perhaps sarcasm or a parody of some sorts. Even though I've been known to be a mite bit sarcastic myself (link).

[M.Dancer]

3. Whatever, we (the other people of the earth) don't have the right to give Zionists something, what we don't possess. Already the League and later the UN committed the grave error to give away something, what was not theirs.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption the land, apart from the legal private ownership, belonged to someone other than the legal governiog authority. Clearly the only contenders prior to the UN entitled to dispose the authority to govern were Syria, Jordan the UK and France with Turkey in the wings.

While the UN mandated sovereignty over part of the land to the Jews they also did the same for the Arabs. The opportunity for a partenership was shattered by the Arab Legions whose leadership also didn't like the plan....seeing that they wanted all....

Given that the legal authority that had rule over the land okayed the UN plan, your point is quite off.

Edited August 4, 2009 by M.Dancer

[Army Guy]

It is a sure sign of hypocrisy when you are trying to make the impression, that only those actions, which you qualify as terror are causing horrendeous effects. The "intolerant, dominating and oppressive world" is performing acts, which can be declared as terroristic; it's simply the question of definition (and you and alike believe to be appointed to make the definition). When looking up-close, those actions, which you don't see as terroristic have identical consequences; the only relevant difference is, that you are not sympathising with those victims.

It is like your intelligence agent is a spy, while my spy is only an intelligence agent.

While true, we don't often consider our actions as terroristic, nor see the results as terroristic, human nature i guess but i am curious to find out your opinion on Why or what action the US was single out for, to deserve or warrent the 911 attack. while the rest of the world has it's share of players in what is considered terroristic activities....

[wulf42]

extremism is bad ... wherever.

Very True!! However most terrorist's act's commited today are in the name of Islam........what does that tell you

about this supposedly "religion of Peace"?

[Cato]

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption the land, apart from the legal private ownership, belonged to someone other than the legal governiog authority

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption the land belongs to a government (governing authority). The land belongs to the people (legal private ownership plays no role here).

However, this is irrelevant here. England and France had started the horse trading over the then Turk areas even before the Turks lost control of those areas, i.e. already when the French and the Brits were neither legally not physically in control of those areas. They concluded a secret treaty in 1916 (see "Sykes-Picot agreement"), in which Palestine was designated for "international administration". (Russia has been involved in those negotiations.)

Anyway, the "right" of England and France to dispose over those areas was nil. The victorious power in 1919 declared those controls "mandates" (in contrast to "colonies"), which was meant that France and England are acting on behalf, in the interest of the people there. This happened to Syria, Lebanon and Transjordan, but the English made dirty dealings, which were neither co-ordinated with, not in the interest of the people of Palestinia.

Let's refresh the memory:

1. the Balfour declaration was not about a Jewish state but about a Jewish home. Furthermore, the declaration contained

nothing shall be done that may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine

2. the English and French declared, that the Arabs will have full independence, the complete and definite emancipation of the Arab peoples and the establishment of national government and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations, despite their secret dealings to the opposite,

3. in Paris, 1919, Lord Curson warned that trouble was coming and the Jews wanted to have a state, in which the Arab population would naturally become second rate citizens, but the deal went ahead. Balfour himself said

so far as Palestine is concerned, the powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy they have not always intended to violate

In other words, the English were continuously lying the Arabs in order to gain their support in the Great War.

That is the background the conflict has to be seen with.

While the UN mandated sovereignty over part of the land to the Jews they also did the same for the Arabs

1. The UN did not have any rights to mandate over people's land. Palestinians and other Arab countries did not accept the right of the UN to make this resolution.

2. Not only the lack of legality but the proportion of the division of Palestine posed a great injustice: the Jewish state had been assigned a much larger part, though its population was much smaller than the envisioned Palestinian state.

Btw, the UN did not mandate but partitioned Palestine. Mandate is an euphemism here.

[M.Dancer]

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption the land belongs to a government (governing authority). The land belongs to the people (legal private ownership plays no role here).

That statement has no basis in fact

Let's refresh the memory:

1. the Balfour declaration was not about a Jewish state but about a Jewish home. Furthermore, the declaration contained

The Balfour Declaration did not create the state of israel. It's goal are moot.

1. The UN did not have any rights to mandate over people's land. Palestinians and other Arab countries did not accept the right of the UN to make this resolution.

Reality begs to differ.

2. Not only the lack of legality but the proportion of the division of Palestine posed a great injustice: the Jewish state had been assigned a much larger part, though its population was much smaller than the envisioned Palestinian state.

Yes, the arabs got the good farmland and the jews got a lot of sand.

Btw, the UN did not mandate but partitioned Palestine. Mandate is an euphemism here.

The mandate was the creation of a sovereign state. One the arabs would alos have had if they hadn't chosen war.

[DogOnPorch]

Good post Cato...I don't agree with all of it...but the majority...yes. The UN may or may not have had the 'right' to divi-up the remainder of the Mandate...that's kind of subjective considering the Mufti's role in WW2 and the fact the bugger was back in the area causing trouble.

It should be noted that in WW2, the Jews of the Palestinian Mandate formed their own infantry brigade that served with honours in the Italian campaign. This was naturally to gain British support as much as to get at the Hun. The Mufti took ther opposite route...and in 1941, it indeed looked like he was joining the winning side.