Simcountry: Forum

Almohad117 (White Giant)

07 Jan 2009 03:33 Link

("A great day working outdoors" - I think this is what he says when the boys in the white coats come calling. But nobody say anything... shhh....)

Hi, Jaybeeeee!! Love youuuuuu!

Johanas Bilderburg

07 Jan 2009 03:39 Link

<!-Quote-!>Quote:
The whole world denounces Hamas terror<!-/Quote-!>

Really? Lets rework that into something more truthful, less Chomsky.

The whole world denounces the response to Hamas terror

Váli (Little Upsilon)

07 Jan 2009 03:41 Link

Depleted uranium has a very low radiaoactivity al. You could surround yourself in the stuff and not suffer any radioactive damage to your body. Trust me I am a Dr ;-)

Almohad117 (White Giant)

07 Jan 2009 04:31 Link

Sure thing, JB. Everyone hates Israel. That's why no one mentions the fact that Israel maintained a crippling blockade of Gaza for almost two years - a literal act of war, as defined by international convention. Tell me where you hear the world crying about that because I'd be interested to know. And where in any major media are you going to find out that once the "truce" was established, Hamas scrupulously observed it, firing no rockets even though the Israeli blockade continued to destroy Palestinian life, and only fired rockets again once Israel itself broke the truce with an incursion into Gaza that killed several Palestinians.

You heard choruses of criticism when Israel did these things??

And now everyone, everywhere, including people who consider themselves critical thinkers, accepts as "fact" the Israeli lies that Hamas was responsible for breaking the truce. Hamas gets blamed even for crimes it doesn't commit, while Israel doesn't get blamed for the ones it does, unless the really go over the top the way they are now in Gaza. (Even now they're getting off lightly.)

Vali - maybe you're right. But the issue of cancers caused by depleted uranium was raised in the aftermath of US operations in the Balkans and Iraq, by doctors like you, it wasn't dreamed up by righto-lefto-Marxo-Nazo crazies like me (hi Jaybeeee!)

Maybe the problem was the long exposure periods that occurred when DU fragments were lying around in urban areas?

Almohad117 (White Giant)

07 Jan 2009 04:33 Link

<!-Quote-!>Quote:
A 1991 study by the UK Atomic Energy Authority predicted that if less than 10 percent of the particles released by depleted uranium weapons used in Iraq and Kuwait were inhaled it could result in as many as "300,000 probable deaths."

The British estimate assumed that the only radioactive ingredient in the bombs dropped on Iraq was depleted uranium. It wasn't. A new study of the materials inside these weapons describes them as a "nuclear cocktail," containing a mix of radioactive elements, including plutonium and the highly radioactive isotope uranium-236. These elements are 100,000 times more dangerous than depleted uranium.

...

Doug Rokke, the health physicist for the US Army who oversaw the partial clean up of depleted uranium bomb fragments in Kuwait, is now sick. His body registers 5,000 times the level of radiation considered "safe". He knows where to place the blame. "There can be no reasonable doubt about this," Rokke recently told British journalist John Pilger. "As a result of heavy metal and radiological poison of DU, people in southern Iraq are experiencing respiratory problems, kidney problems, cancers. Members of my own team have died or are dying from cancer."<!-/Quote-!>

Almohad117 (White Giant)

07 Jan 2009 04:44 Link

<!-Quote-!>Quote:
Depleted uranium (DU) is a waste product of the uranium enrichment process that fuels both our nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear power programs. In fact, over 99% of the uranium enrichment process results in this waste product, which has a half life of 4.5 billion years. DU is both a toxic heavy metal and a radiological poison. The U.S. currently has over 10 million tons of DU. As we all know, the disposal of nuclear waste is one of the unintended consequences or blowback of the development of nuclear power. A solution to the problem of DU has, however, been found. DU is now used in virtually every weapon employed by the U.S. in Iraq (and in Afghanistan and in Kosovo). To cite the most conspicuous example: every penetrator rod in the shell shot from an Abrams tank contains 10 pounds of DU. DU is selected for weapons for three reasons: it's cheap (was made available to arms manufacturers free of charge and is easy to develop); it's heavy, 1.7 times the density of lead and thus most effective at killing because it penetrates anything it hits; it's pyrophoric, igniting and burning on contact with air and breaking up on contact with its target into extremely small particles of radioactive dust dispersed into the atmosphere. The result: permanent contamination of air, water, and soil.

DU was first used by the U.S. in Desert Storm. The amount used was between 315-350 tons. Five times as much was used during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Over a third of the U.S. soldiers who served in the first Gulf War are now permanently disabled. VA reports indicate 27,571 U.S. soldiers already disabled from the current war and occupation.. The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense of course continue to deny that DU has any harmful effects. A U.N. sub-commission on Human Rights has ruled that DU, which fits the definition of a "dirty bomb," is an illegal weapon.

Huge chunks of radioactive debris full of DU now litter the cities and countryside of Iraq. Fine radioactive dust permeates the entire country. The problem of clean-up is insoluble. The entire ecosystem of Iraq is permanently contaminated. The Iraq people are the new hibakusha. Their fate, like that of the "survivors" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is a condition of death-in-life. The long term health effects of DU on the Iraqui people (and on our own troops) are incalculable. There is no mask or protective clothing that can be devised to prevent radioactive dust from entering the lungs or penetrating the skin. Moreover, DU targets the DNA and the Master Code (histone), altering the genetic future of exposed populations. Because it is the perfect weapon for delivering nanoparticles of poison, radiation, and nano-pollution directly into living cells, DU is the perfect weapon for extinguishing entire populations. The Iraqi's are not alone. Vast regions of the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Balkans have been permanently contaminated with radioactive dust and debris.<!-/Quote-!>

Source: "Weapons of Mass Destruction Found in Iraq," by Walter Davis, 2005

Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon)

07 Jan 2009 04:59 Link

Obviously from the numbers of rockets fired not crippling enough. If I were advising the Israeli government I would suggest a much harsher blockade. Nothing in or out.

And whoever said these were fireworks is an idiot.

A 42 pound warhead will take down a medium sized building.

Váli (Fearless Blue)

07 Jan 2009 05:18 Link

I prefer to obtain my information from published scientific reports rather than controversial books.
Uranium is easily removed from the body. over 90% of uranium taken into the body is excreted in urine within a day. The actual amount of DU absoped by people in the war zone is small.
Long term exposure i.e months or years to large amounts of DU dust may and I say may result in some health problems. Most of which are soon overcome. Certainly not on the grand scales above. Soldiers with DU scrapnel in the bodies have not been observed to suffer from any DU related illnesses.
Information can be presented to lead you to false conclusions.
your referal to a 1991 study is misleading 'could' and 'probable' actually turns out to be exceedingly rare.
The basic science in your above quote is flawed. 'Master code (histone)' even this basic science is wrong. histones are proteins and contain no genetic information. I would not beleive a word this writer tells you.
Illness in soldiers from the gulf war are most likely linked to the cocktail of drugs they were given not DU.

Almohad117 (White Giant)

07 Jan 2009 06:48 Link

Okay Vali - you win on the science of DU, even though what you say seems at variance with the views given by Doug Rokke in the first quote. Anyway we still have the statement that the UN has declared DU an illegal weapon. Maybe "could" and "probable" are good enough for them? Or is this statement false?

JB: I called Qassams glorified fireworks. Which they are compared to what Israel is using. Twenty Israelis have been killed by rockets fired from Gaza since 2001, or about 1/100th the number of Palestinians killed by Israel in that time. And these numbers are all from before the latest attacks by Israel.

The rockets Hamas fires are also totally unguided and inaccurate. If a Qassam had ever levelled a mid-sized building, Israel's PR machine would have had the photos splashed over the world's front pages. And the seven-year death toll would be higher than 20. Instead the photos we see show holes in walls or roofs partially blown off. Hardly comparable to the Gaza mosque that truly was levelled, or the UN school that Israel hit today - I saw no photos of that but dozens inside were killed, so even if it wasn't levelled the building obviously took near-total damage.

If I'm an idiot for calling the Qassams glorified fireworks, you're a raving genocidal lunatic for thinking a "nothing in or out" blockade would amount to anything other than a wholesale slaughter of the Gazan population, which is overwhelmingly dependent on humanitarian aid. (Yeah, yeah: their fault, I know.)

But I'll listen. Tell me how it would in fact usher in a new era of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Other than by simply eliminating all of the latter, that is.

nix001 (Kebir Blue)

07 Jan 2009 15:11 Link

Hi Almohad. The IDF have hit 3 schools now. I think 2 of them are UN schools. The IDF have the Sat Nav positions of these schools as well. I guess it's like what Vali said, 'My saying israel uses too much force, I mean the US army I hope would not target the enemy with indirect shell if they are next to a school but use more precise force such as a sniper..the isralis will however just bomb them and civilian casualites are excepted. they have become desensitised to war.'

Vali. You said, 'The actual amount of DU absoped by people in the war zone is small.'

Remember, almost 50% of the Gazan population are children. Weakened children, ill children, children with no water to pass the DU through their body by the means of urine.

You also said, 'Long term exposure i.e months or years to large amounts of DU dust may and I say may result in some health problems.'

Do you agree with the use of DU in a populated area of children? Where there will be no clean up after the slaughter? Where these children will be exposed to DU for the rest of their lives.
If you don't agree, maybe you could have a word with your fellow Dr's and set up a petition for a clean up?

Brutas. You said, 'The citizens of Gaza new that Hamas was gonna attack Israel they could of left then before the attacks dduuuhhhhhhhh!!!!!'

Israel has had a blockade enforced for months. No one is allowed to enter or leave as far as I can gather. Why did'nt the IDF open up the blockade to let the women and children out? They could have set up another refugee camp and then sent them back after the cull.

Who ever said blockade Gaza so nothing can go in or out is an idiot. Unless they like the idea of children dying, for then they are just sick and need help.

FarmerBob

07 Jan 2009 15:26 Link

Almohad. It is quite curious to me how you keep referring to my position as one of being apologetic to the Israeli position in their conflict with Palestineans. I do support Israel's right to exist and shamelessly champion their society over the other nations of the Middle East. Perhaps you unable or unwilling to grasp the difference.

Therefore, I will attempt to reiterate it and clarify it in the simplist terms possible.
Forgive my post-modern intellectualism.

Forgive me, but I must begin with two relevant quotes. They are lengthy, I apologize.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:
If, in the future, war will be waged for the souls of men, the the importance of extending territorial control will go down. Long past are the days when provinces, even entire countries, were regarded as simply as items of real estate to be exchenged among rulers by means of inheritance, agreement or force. The triumph of nationalism has brought about a situation where people do not occupy a piece of land because it valuable; on the contrary, a piece of however remote or desolate is considered valuable because it is occupied by this people or that. ...Between 1979 and 1988, Egypt spent nine years of political effort to recover Taba. Now Taba,south of Elath, is a half mile stretch of worthless desert beach whose very existence had gone unnoticed by both Egyptians and Israelis prior to the Camp David Peace Agreements; all of a sudden it became part of each side's "sacred" patrimony, and coffehouses on Cairo were named after it....
Another effect of the postulated breakdown of conventional war will probably be a greater emphasis on the interests of men at the head of organizations, as opposed to the interest, of the organization as such....
As the distinctions between combatants and noncombatants break down, the least we can expect is that such things will be tolerated to a greater extent than is supposed to be the case under the rules of so-called civilized warfare. In many of the low-intensity conflict currently being waged in developing countries this is already true, and has, indeed, always been true.
--Martin van Creveld, The Transformation of War<!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:
It will be agreed that the aim of strategy is to fulfill the objectives laid down by policy, making the best use of the resources available. Now the objective may be ofensive in nature (e.g,. conquest or the imposition of severe terms), it may be defensive (e.g,. the protection of certain areas or interests) or it may merely be the maintainence of the political staus quo. It is therefore obvious straight away that formulae such as that attributed to Clausewitz, 'decision as a result of victory in battle',are not applicable to all types of objective. There is only one general rule applicable to all: disregard the method by which the decision is to be reached and consider only the outcome which is desired to achieve. The outcome desired is to force the enemy to accept the terms we wish to impose on him.
In this dialectic of wills, a decision is achieved when a certain psychological effect has been produced on the enemy: when he becomes convinced that it is useless to start or alternatively to continue the struggle.
--General D'Armee Andre Beaufre, An Introduction to Strategy<!-/Quote-!>

The ability of Palestinean or Israeli to achieve that decision is beyond the capacities of their respective militaries to accomplish for a simple reason: both populations possess the resolve to endure any hardship to ultimately achieve their respective objectives. This was a lesson learned the hard way by the people of the United States from their teachers, the people of North Vietnam.

That the Israeli/Palestinean conflict has eluded successful settlement for so long, confirms this premise.

Therefore, without hope of military decision, short of genocide, for either party, the establishment of a lasting peace must be political.

Definition of term:
Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

The body politic of each group must be sufficiently satisfied with the terms of resolution for any hope of cessation of hostilities to transform into lasting peace, lest those dissatisfied elements, within both or either, rekindle conflict.

Given the oppositional natures of Palestinean and Israeli objectives, neither side can achieve total victory through negotiation without the other modifying their objectives. Thus far, such diplomatically negotiated modifications have failed to satisfy a sufficient part of each population to prevent the renewal of hostilities. There is little in evidence to indicate that either society is willing to stomach further such modifications.

Therefore, despite recent Israeli tactical successes on the ground, there is no prospect that this offensive will yield any more decisive results than previous such militarily successful operations of the past. Gaza may be reoccupied and governed with the brutal efficiency of der SS-Staat, but Palestinean will to resist will not break. Israeli terms will not be successfully imposed in a manner such as to prevent further violence at some future point.

The argument of moral positions or legal niceties of either side is wholly irrelevent and pointless for two reasons. At this point in time,
1. neither side acknowledges, much less respects, the opposing position.
2. no actor or combination of actors of the world community posess(es) the will or means to impose terms or either or both parties.

The time for moral and legal argument is when both parties seek permanent resolution and are genuinely willing to compromise their own objectives to secure lasting peace.

My personal belief is that there will be hope for both Israeli and Palestinean alike when they and their leaders, figuratively, cease seeking means to victory in the works of Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, and Mao and instead explore methods for peace in the philosophies of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela.

We may all play word games among each other to seek victory in argument in these forums, but real people are dying every day due their own intransigence. That is tragic. But maybe you can learn something from it.

FarmerBob

07 Jan 2009 15:56 Link

Post Script. The application of Occam's Razor to human activity most often yields a conspiracy theory.
You might factor that into your thinking.

John R

07 Jan 2009 16:41 Link

Why don't one or more of you write an article for your blogs?

Not saying to cease the conversation, but to serve as a way to make some kind of personal summary of all that was discussed here. Also, it may potentially serve as a way to attract more readers, thus more opinions on the same matter, than those in this game and/or be a way to track your on opinion on a subject through time. There may be other utilities, of course.

Just a thought.

Almohad117 (White Giant)

07 Jan 2009 16:54 Link

Farmer Bob -

Almost nothing of what you say is at any variance whatsoever with anything I believe. I'm afraid you spent a great deal of time arguing with eloquence, passion and clarity... against a straw man.

I'll ignore the comment about conspiracy theories, except to offer "I'm skeptical, you're paranoid, he's a conspiracy theorist." The label is just an avoidance tactic, offered with no supporting arguments. (I also think you've misapplied Occam's razor, but that's just me being a Google intellectual.)

The one thing I do believe that stands in stark contrast to your own position, is that the Palestinians - people and leadership alike - have shown a very real understanding of the difficulties of their situation over the years. This is perhaps to be expected from the party that is clearly getting much the worse of the engagement. Of course their approach has been marred by the use of terror! But various Palestinian factions at different times have demonstrated a realism and flexibility which A) far exceed anything shown by Israel and B) are totally under-reported and misunderstood around the world, especially here in North America. The latest events in Gaza only strengthen this position.

In my opinion Israel has, on the other hand, been unwilling to put any real proposals forward in negotiation. Every move they've made, even when ostensibly offered in the spirit of compromise and negotiation, has been undertaken with a view to maintaining their advantage. This is a rational course of action for the party that holds almost all the cards to begin with. They know full well that they hold an overwhelming superiority on the military and political fronts - which is a second point where we differ, or maybe a second aspect of the first point.

I think you approach this topic determined to find a moral, material and political symmetry between the Palestinians and Israelis (which nonetheless doesn't keep you from assigning the Palestinians the majority of the blame for their own problems, or at least assigning them a greater responsibility than Israel has for finding the way to peace).

My position is that while yes, both sides have innocent blood on their hands, it is first and foremost incumbent on the party with the overwhelming advantage to cease its attacks on a vastly weaker adversary, especially when that adversary has proven its willingness to compromise.

If peace truly is Israel's main goal, its continued attacks on the Palestinians are not simply unnecessary, but seriously counterproductive. Because I believe the Israelis are smart enough to understand this, I have to conclude that peace - a real peace, where they would have to make serious concessions - not only isn't their goal, but is what they're very much trying to prevent.

Almohad117 (White Giant)

07 Jan 2009 16:55 Link

Not a bad idea, John R.

Váli (Fearless Blue)

07 Jan 2009 18:12 Link

To what end al? Why would isreal wish to continue fighting people in a poor worthless strip of land?

FarmerBob (Little Upsilon)

07 Jan 2009 18:29 Link

Symmetry is only relevant to action or course of action or inaction or nothing at all.

From my perspective, the Question is: What to do?

The answer: Not a thing. Reasons above.

Morality cannot be quantified, only qualified.

Attempts to do so are specious and wrongheaded when applied to geopolitics.

My symmetry is "a pox on both your houses". Reasons above.

The Palestineans could have a state and world support overnight. You know exactly how. They were shown the path over 50 years ago. Thus far, they have chosen not to take it.

I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill.
Mohandas Gandhi

Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon)

07 Jan 2009 19:19 Link

Poor marksmanship does not lessen the intent or danger behind random rocket and mortar attacks on civilian population centers.

The launch sites are situated in populated areas. If they were in the open then the colateral damage would be excessive I agree.

As the situation stands. No. The losses are unavoidable and sad but by no means excessive.

Its not easy to fight terrorists who hide amongst their women and children.

Almohad117 (White Giant)

07 Jan 2009 19:46 Link

Vali - do you think there might be more at stake here than just the land itself? Does it seem wrong-headed to you to think that Israel is targeting Hamas and the Palestinians?

Farmer Bob - do you think that "a pox on both your houses" is truly an equitable response? Do you think taking such a position has no effects in the real world? Does it mean that you are simply removed from having any role at all in what is going on?

How's this for an analogy: you pass a man raping a woman in the street. He's subduing her by striking her repeatedly. She's responding by biting, kicking and scratching as much as she can, and of course isn't very likely to fight off the attacker even if she does manage to give him a few bruises and cuts. She's also yelling for help. Is the analogy flawed? How? And how is your taking a "pox on both your houses" position in this case different from your taking the same position on the Israel/Palestine conflict?

Granted, we aren't able to intervene in the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the way we can in a mugging or rape. But because we can't prevent the deaths that are occurring, does that mean that there's nothing at all that we can do? Should we shut up and make no attempt to decide for ourselves what is really going on? Why do both parties appeal to world opinion? Do they have nothing better to do, our do our views actually matter?

I think naming things by their real names is the least we can do. Is this stupid of me? Do you feel that refusing to make the attempt is a refusal to take an existing responsibility, or that we have no responsibility to begin with?

Is it contradictory or not to say "a pox on both your houses" at the same time that you tell one of the "houses" to wise up and practice non-violence? Why do you place the onus for non-violence on one side only (and the weaker side at that)? Why is non-violence a path for the Palestinians and not also for Israel? Does saying "a pox on both your houses" help to sustain a situation in which one side has a state and the other does not, or does it have no effect?

Has Hamas refrained or not from suicide bombings in Israel for a couple of years now? Did they or didn't they also refrain from Gaza rocket attacks into Israel during the ceasefire until Israel broke it?

How does their observance of the ceasefire fail to qualify as the non-violent approach you advocate for them? And what did it achieve? Was this a practical test of the value of non-violence, or is it irrelevant?

Maxwell (Little Upsilon)

07 Jan 2009 20:09 Link

I was unaware the rocket attacks into Israel had ever ceased from either Palestinian held lands or southern Lebanon.

Is this true Almohad117 that prior to the Israeli attacks the sirens in Israel have been quiet? the rockets have not been coming in daily?

Max

Almohad117 (White Giant)

07 Jan 2009 21:39 Link

According to a Nov 5 article in the UK newspaper The Guardian, the truce was broken Nov 4 by an Israeli military raid into Gaza, which they claimed was to destroy a tunnel out of Gaza. The article notes that this was the first breach of the ceasefire by either side, which was established June 19th. Hamas responded by firing rockets into southern Israel.

The Israeli peace group Gush Shalom also says that the ceasefire was breached by Israel, but they say this occurred with Israel's raid on the night of the US elections. Again, Israel said the objective was to destroy tunnels, and again, Hamas fired rockets in response.

None of this necessarily means that the sirens in Southern Israel have literally been quiet. I imagine in the two above cases, they were plenty noisy when the retaliatory rockets started to fly!

As for Southern Lebanon, I don't know. Was a ceasefire in force in Southern Lebanon? Either way, in both above cases Israel seems to have made no claim that their Gaza raids were made in response to any ceasefire breaches in Southern Lebanon.

nix001

07 Jan 2009 22:47 Link

Also about 2 years ago Hamas had stopped firing rockets. But due to the blockade that Israel imposed on Gaza during this time of calm, cutting off supplies and stopping families from leaving or entering, Hamas restarted it's offensive against Israel. Hamas said to Israel that if it lifted it's blockade they would stop, but Israel refused to do so.
There are also statements from Israelie top officials saying how they would never allow a Palistinian State.

Almohad117 (White Giant)

07 Jan 2009 22:52 Link

And the blockade itself, defined by international convention as an act of war, continued unabated throughout this entire period. In other words, there were long stretches of time when Hamas was holding fire while an act of war was maintained by the Israelis.

It's my understanding that Hamas has abandoned suicide attacks on Israel during this period as well - although now after the premeditated carnage in Gaza I'm sure all bets are off.

nix001

07 Jan 2009 23:09 Link

I agree mate. But as Hamas and the Arab states are no match against Israel or the USA I fear the Muslim people will take matters into their own hands and suicide attacks will be carried out in countries such as our own, Israel and the USA. The concequences of us and the USA not stopping Israel will be felt for years to come. And where as before the targets would have been people who play apart in the machine of power (workers, soldiers, police), I fear that now anything will go. I truly hope the British Muslims understand that most Britains are horrified at what they see in Gaza and don't class our women and children as legitimate targets.

Almohad117 (White Giant)

07 Jan 2009 23:55 Link

You're right. There is more likely to be a backlash after the Gaza slaughter - and I think that's part of Israel's plan. At least they have a vested interest in increased Palestinian/Arab militancy, since that reduces any pressure on them to negotiate. Just another reason to fight to get the truth out. The guys on here say it's "just talk" and makes no difference, but it definitely makes a difference.

Good point too about the US needing to finally start applying some pressure to Israel. This is one of the really important points that needs to be made much more frequently. I'm not holding my breath that it will happen anytime soon, since the US Congress is pretty much a branch of the IDF, but pressure has to be applied.

On the BBC James Zogby of the Arab American Institute said the Gaza "conflict" could be stopped tomorrow if the US simply told Israel to stop. The last president to have the balls to do that was Eisenhower. Since then, saying anything against Israeli policies is political suicide in the US.

JERUSALEM