Posted on 05/29/2002 5:04:18 AM PDT by Israel Insider
This is either a misunderstanding or a straw man. I never claimed any of the nations to which Roosevelts letter was addressed bombed civilians before 1939, nor is such a claim necessary to support my position.
Post number 25:
"The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity. If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism.. ..hundreds of thousands.. will lose their lives. "
- Franklin D. Roosevelt criticzing the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, on September 1, 1939, 6 years before the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You explicitly stated that Roosevelt criticized the govts. of Poland, Britain and France. For what? The quoted text only refers to the bombing of civilians.
Now, shall I interpret your denial you ever said it as a retraction? After all, around here we're used to translating a liberal's 'I never said that' as "I wish I hadn't said that".
Was this a bit rough on the Moslems and Christians who lived in Palestine? Possibly. But remember that the UN tried to partition Palestine between Jews and Arabs, with Jewish trerritory even less extensive than the pre-1967 borders of Israel, and it was the Arabs who rejected the partition and tried to annihilate Israel. Even after 1948, the Arabs who rejected Israel could easily have been resettled elsewhere in the Arab world. After all, Arabs had spent the period 635 AD through the late 18th century fighting wars of conquest in which they took vast swathes of Christian land in Europe, as well as indigenous lands in North Africa and Asia. They were hardly in a positon to question the morality of relocating a couple of million of their own.
I don't completely agree, but historical justification is no longer even operative anymore. It is the methods of the palestinians that demand that they must lose. If they had a valid claim for justice, and had they pursued a course more akin to Ghandi than Ghengis they would have had the entire world's support. Instead they chose, THEY CHOSE to be barbarians. They have given the world no alternative. They have proven that they cannot negotiate a resolution in good faith. They have defined the path and now must live with its destination. They are demanding by their methods to be utterly defeated and are giving the civilized world no choice.
I would not give them a state on the moon.
I'd like to see them get one in hell.
It's time for the Israelis to begin turning *Palestine* into a hog farm. We can give them some unneeded illegal Mexican emmigrants to run the place for them; there seems to be no shortage of willing applicants.... -archy-/-
Thank you for speaking the truth. I wholeheartedly agree.
After all, 'Palestinian'; is such a nebulous term that Egyptians like Muhammadu Cabdi r-Ra'ûfi l-Qudwahi l-Husaynî can claim it as a nationality, and get away with it!
So you're saying that Roosevelt was criticizing Britain, France and Poland for actions they might possibly take in the future.
The language I'm writing is called English. You seem to be using some superficially similar tongue in which one can be criticized for things one hasn't done yet, and which one may never do. In which case I must most strongly upbraid you for abusing your children, murdering thousands of innocent Kurds, and purchasing Britney Spears CDs. For shame!
(I hope you realize I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here)
It was never, ever, an independent nation. Yes, some Arabs lived there, but they never made it into a "distinct Arab nation" as you claim.
| EsotericLucidity | snot-nose liberal poseur since May 29th, 2002 |
Are they justified in killing innocent civilians or not? Is that question perhaps too deep for you or is it not trivial enough for you to respond to? Here, I will make it simple so that even a liberal can understand: Yes__ No__
Logical in that millions of Jews already lived there; a commitment had already been made by Britain under the mandate, and that many of the others still held a two-thousand year long attachment to the place.
Bullshit translator output: Hello! I'm Mr. UN. I'm here to come into your home, kick out a few of your brothers, sisters, and whatnot, and replace them with members of that family down the road you were always fighting with back in High School. What do you mean WHY? Someone else was nasty to this family, so isn't it logical that we should give them your stuff? No no, stop complaining now! Some of your distant relatives went on a rampage several centuries ago, so believe me, you deserve this. In fact, you'd better be damn glad we let you keep as much of your house as we did. And let me tell you something else: We will be shocked, just SHOCKED, if you do anything but spread 'em and take it willingly. Now shut up and bend over!
The family of a former student of mine was machine-gunned out of Istria in 1946. Another student's family fled Latvia ahead of the Russians. Millions of Germans were moved out of Bohemia and Silesia about the same time. More recently, under international auspices, Serbs have been kicked out of Croatia and Kosovo, and the Serbs have done a little kicking of their own. My own lot were kicked around the British Isles for 300 years or so, depending on how anti-Catholic the locals decided they felt. The large scale translocation of populations, while unsavory, has been a frequently used, and usually successful, last resort for separating peoples who can't or won't live together. Remember that in 1948 the partition gave the Jews less than half of what is currently Israel; the less than half of the non-Jewish families, if they had been displaced, could have been resettled with far less trauma than, say, caused by the population movements in Europe post 1945.
I'm honestly surprised the Moslems have been as modest in their response as they have.
You mean, modest compared with the Sudeten Germans or the Istrian Italians? I can't imagine how the soi-disant Palestinians could have been less modest: they strike me as a people who will be content in their own self-annihilation, as long as they take some small fraction of that number of Jews with them. And I say, full speed ahead with part I, and let's keep part II as small as possible.
Man, if I had a cool name like Muhammadu Cabdi r-Ra'ûfi l-Qudwahi l-Husaynî , no way I'd go about under an ugly handle like Yasser Arafat.
"Yes, ma'am, that is my real name, and I'll thank you to provide me with a form that has enough spaces to write it down in full. "
If I had a cool name like Muhammadu Cabdi r-Ra'ûfi l-Qudwahi l-Husaynî, I bet I'd cut-and-paste it a whole lot more than I'd type it out one-at-a-time....
-archy-/-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.