[cnimbus]

To most people the term 'occupied territories' means the West Bank and Gaza. To the Palestinians, 'occupied territories' means any land controlled by the Israelis, including Israel itself. To some Jews, both Israelis and others, 'occupied territories' means any land comprising ancient Israel. This covers a large swath of the Mideast.

If all parties involved accepted the first definition of occupied territories, your proposals would be quite logical and reasonable. Before the impasse over the location of the status of Jerusalem, Arab-Israeli peace was almost achieved doing exactly that.

The problem comes from the adherents of the last two definitions. The Palestinian government, such as it exists, is unable to fully control the terrorists, even if it wanted to do so. The Israelis have a similar problem with Jewish religious extremists, albeit to a much smaller degree. These folks are not beyond attacking the Arabs, and sometimes establish illegal settlements in Palestinian territory.

It is probable that a substantial deployment of peacekeeping troops would be needed, at least initially. That is if the status of Jerusalem can be worked out. Half of Jerusalem is in the West Bank according to the Palestinians. Jews claim the entire city is part of Israel and the Israeli capital.

[ComputerFix]

Still playing catch up with all of the posts, but there were two replies to my last post that warrant immediate reply.....


Columbo,

I wasn't indicting you at all, or anyone else for that matter. Was simply pointing out the astuteness of your observation, and when I made that mental connection, suddenly I understood a bit better what some had been trying to say.

It was, in fact, a compliment at your boiling it all down to an A goes to B goes to C goes to D statement. I only changed some words for illustrative purposes.


Stoner,

What do you have, some sort of martyr complex or something?

You were not even on my mind when I wrote that, in any way, shape, or form. Sorry to disappoint ya. Actually, I was considering more those who tried to say as much, either quite direct (Mulder) or not so direct. (those who understood what he was trying to say, I wasn't one of them till well after the fact)

At the risk of overstepping some bounds, I am well aware that you are the subject of "side mouth" statements, but climb off the cross bud, your politics drive me nuts but all in all we are not dissimilar in goals, just in methods and perceptions. Besides, I never have a problem addressing you directly and on specific comments/posts of yours, so please give me a little credit.

As I said to Columbo, I was not trying to "zing" anyone, including him.

[Stoner]

Originally posted by ComputerFix:
Still playing catch up with all of the posts, but there were two replies to my last post that warrant immediate reply.....


Columbo,

I wasn't indicting you at all, or anyone else for that matter. Was simply pointing out the astuteness of your observation, and when I made that mental connection, suddenly I understood a bit better what some had been trying to say.

It was, in fact, a compliment at your boiling it all down to an A goes to B goes to C goes to D statement. I only changed some words for illustrative purposes.


Stoner,

What do you have, some sort of martyr complex or something?

You were not even on my mind when I wrote that, in any way, shape, or form. Sorry to disappoint ya. Actually, I was considering more those who tried to say as much, either quite direct (Mulder) or not so direct. (those who understood what he was trying to say, I wasn't one of them till well after the fact)

At the risk of overstepping some bounds, I am well aware that you are the subject of "side mouth" statements, but climb off the cross bud, your politics drive me nuts but all in all we are not dissimilar in goals, just in methods and perceptions. Besides, I never have a problem addressing you directly and on specific comments/posts of yours, so please give me a little credit.

As I said to Columbo, I was not trying to "zing" anyone, including him.

Hi CF

It's too far back to look up what you're talking about, so .....what are you referring to


martyr Jack

[bandit429]

Claiming someones death and using the excuses he is a jew or black or female and pregnant white muslim or christian dishonorable sounds a bit like the person who did the killing is guilty and looking for excuses to me. There a lots of words,,,,,not lots of life in the persons killed.

Daughter raped by brothers, murdered by mother

[ComputerFix]

Originally posted by cnimbus:


Umm...yeah, right. It is society's fault. That implies that individuals are incapable of telling right from wrong. Re the initial post in this thread, does anyone seriously believe those involved did not know rape, incest and murder are wrong? If society is at fault, then noone can rightfully be held accountable for any murder in any society.

The cold-blooded murder of thousands of women is a great evil, and needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, these killings are being used to bash an entire people, including those who have never harmed anyone.

There seems to be some confusion in this thread over ethnicity and religion. The terms 'Arab' and 'Muslim' are used interchangeably, but are not always synonymous. There are many Arabs who are Christian or other non-Muslim religions. There are also many Muslims who are not Arabs.

So why are the Arabs/Muslims the only ones mentioned here? The same type of savagery also takes place countries that are neither Arabic or Muslim. Maybe some Arab bashing is going on? And how on earth did the Jews get dragged into this thread?

cnimbus,

You may have misunderstood what I was trying to say.

"right from wrong", has two different implications. Morally and legally. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes not (usually legal lags moral).

I fault these societies for not changing their laws/practices. (some have, as I said, there is forward movement, but "official" condemnation is just now coming about, so there is a long way to go). This does not in any way remove responsibility from the person (stating it's "society's fault") but that is only morally, since the legal responsibility, imposed by society, is less. That is, in fact, what I will fault about society.

You call it "bashing" an entire society, but it is in fact only describing one that permits such action. In the world community, particularly the EU, America is known and labeled for capital punishment. Does this describe every American? Of course not, and everyone knows it, but as a society, we collectively allow the life of a person to be taken for certain crimes. It is a fact that is unavoidable, no matter how much an anti-capital punishment American may not like it. In turn, these societies allow for minimal, if any, punishment for an "honor killing". Does it describe every person in that society? Of course not, there may be some (I mentioned, in fact) that are completely against it, but it is unavoidable that this is a facet of that/those society(ies).

...does anyone seriously believe those involved did not know rape, incest and murder are wrong?

Apparently not as wrong as being the victim. I seriously question the person who feels that it is more important to kill the rape victim than the rapist. While I condone neither, the latter I can certainly understand the emotional motivation to do so. Furthermore, I extend that questioning when an entire group (such as a governing body, legislative or judicial) condones, or places special leniency for, such a practice.


Again I find myself at a loss. What I see here (in this thread, and the other) is like a sleezy defense lawyer tactic. Rather than address the issue, we will address everything except the issue, from the person who started the thread to the political climate in one specific area (to which I ask, if Israel is somehow responsible for the Palistinians, what is the Pakistani, for example, excuse?).

Is the need to debate around here so strong that someone posting an article about killing sexual assult victims (or simply those who are unmarried and have sex) being a "just" form of murder comes under fire?

I pose one last question on the subject........

If an American man had killed his teenage daughter because she was raped would anyone even bother to try to "explain" a darn thing, or would we all be singing in unison to string him up in front of the courthouse?

[ComputerFix]

Originally posted by Stoner:
CF said to Columbo:




Ha ha ha ha! and there I was! Thought I was as specific as I could get naming names. Sorry for the effort, CF. Perhaps I should shoot my posts of to you for editing and censorship ?

Especially amusing: "(also never mention or speak against them, only the US)
I'll try harder in defining my acusations in the future Ha!

and:"Disagree with Bush being President"

Really, CF......now don't you think most critism is about the policies of Bush and his handlers?


I think, perhaps your complaint is generated by your defending(Bush policy in general) what appears to be indefenseable(the obligatory 'IMO')



Jack


( or were you just stickin' it to Columbo )

But am glad you forgot about it.

I only addressed it because I have been gone and certainly didn't want you holding this perception of my words.

Hope ya had a good holiday....off to work for me!

[bandit429]

What happened to the brothers?

[columbo]

Columbo,

I wasn't indicting you at all, or anyone else for that matter. Was simply pointing out the astuteness of your observation, and when I made that mental connection, suddenly I understood a bit better what some had been trying to say.

It was, in fact, a compliment at your boiling it all down to an A goes to B goes to C goes to D statement. I only changed some words for illustrative purposes.

That's what I figured....Just wanted to explain myself a bit in case you were hinting that this was something that I do...

Columbo

[columbo]

Originally posted by bandit429:
What happened to the brothers?

From the bottom of LAN's original article (Post #1)

"The two brothers are serving minimum 10-year jail sentences for raping their sister."

As I remarked previously, it does seem ridiculous that the murderer in this case will receive a lesser sentence than the brothers.

That being the case however, the point of the thread should've been the lax punishments associated with these "honour" killings in various countries throughout the world.

Columbo

[LANMaster]

That's sorta what I meant by the thread.
In hindsight, I should have given this thread a more moderate and less inflamatory title.
But at the time, I was a bit peeved.

Live & learn.

[columbo]

Is the need to debate around here so strong that someone posting an article about killing sexual assult victims (or simply those who are unmarried and have sex) being a "just" form of murder comes under fire?

In fairness, it was the thread starter (ol' Lanny ) who associated these killings with Palestinians as a whole (see his statements above)...

[LANMaster]

Yup .... twas me.

Thread conclusions; (at least concluded for me)

1. Allowing these murders to go unpunished (or too lightly punished) is wrong, but who am I to point out any wrong-doing.
2. It is happening in many other countries throughout the world, so why should we pick on the Palestinians. Criticize one, and not all the others, just takes it all out of context.
3. Right and wrong are irrelivant if you have a "cause" of any kind, or if you suffer any persecution of any kind.
4. How dare I point my finger at anyone when I'm obviously an arrogant, gluttonous, hedonistic, decadent, religious, right-wing, imperialistic, American, politically incorrect pig-dog.

Did I get that just about right?

[plschwartz]

LAN
It is always to me impressive when a man has a firm understanding of who he is

[LANMaster]

LOL Thanks Paul.

[columbo]

4. How dare I point my finger at anyone when I'm obviously an arrogant, gluttonous, hedonistic, decadent, religious, right-wing, imperialistic, American, politically incorrect pig-dog

You left out a few....but I'm far too kind to point them out