Posted on 09/27/2001 9:04:30 AM PDT by Illbay
Sept. 26, 2001, 8:47PM
DAMASCUS, Syria -- A morgue assistant pulls out drawers holding the mutilated corpses of Palestinians killed in clashes with Israelis. Doctors pummel the chest of a dead Palestinian in a desperate attempt to revive him. The body of an infant, swathed in bloodied blankets, is held by a grieving parent.
These raw images -- aired almost daily on Arab television since the Palestinian-Israeli clashes erupted a year ago -- haven't lost the power to touch the hearts of Arab viewers.
Indeed, they have fed a buildup of Arab anger -- not only against Israel but also against the United States, its chief ally, already resented for imposing 11 years of sanctions and carrying out repeated airstrikes on Iraq.
That anger provides a potential base of support for the militants, who can use it to keep governments from cracking down on them. The outrage has also left many Arabs grappling with conflicting emotions over the Sept. 11 suicide attacks in the United States.
Some governments -- while decrying the deaths at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania -- have echoed murmurs in the streets that the United States brought violence on itself by angering Arabs. Others have made it clear they want to be sure U.S. retaliation doesn't target nations like Iraq or groups like Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas, who are heroes to some Arabs because of their anti-Israel stance.
"We feel outraged by what happened in the United States, but we want the world to feel the same about the daily Israeli killings of Palestinians, the demolishing of houses and the humiliation of the people," said Wafa Mohammed, a shop owner in Jordan.
"If the United States had sympathized with the Arabs, the destruction that took place in the United States wouldn't have happened," said Mohammed Tohami, 22, an Egyptian frame maker.
"There's a feeling among Arabs that the United States is totally responsible for what's happening in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict," said Imad Shueibi, a Syrian political analyst.
The Palestinian-Israeli clashes began one year ago Friday. The spark, the Palestinians say -- or the pretext, according to Israel -- was a visit by then-opposition Israeli leader Ariel Sharon to the holiest and most disputed site in Jerusalem, which Jews call the Temple Mount and Palestinians Haram as-Sharif.
Since then, 642 Palestinians and 177 Israelis have been killed. Many of the Israeli casualties were civilians who died in Palestinian suicide attacks against discos, restaurants, markets and train stations or shootings with machine guns and mortars.
The resulting resentment cannot be ignored as President Bush -- who has threatened to punish Afghanistan's Islamic rulers harboring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden -- assembles U.S. forces for a retaliatory strike. Bin Laden has portrayed himself as the champion of Muslims and Palestinians.
Adding to the pressure on the mostly secular Arab governments are fatwas, or religious edicts issued by Muslim clergymen warning the governments against joining the anti-terrorism coalition.
I think you can dispense, then, with the notion that this is some sort of "aberration". It is, instead, what you are dealing with in Israel.
Israel deserves no more adulation in the way the do things, than FRANCE does, that much is clear.
And as far as "winning friends and influencing people": I don't suppose you'd consider it reasonable of me to tell you to stop putting forth your opinions since there are "plenty" here and elsewhere on FR who don't agree with you.
I have noticed that as soon as folks like you run out of arguments, the invective begins instead. Means you have nothing else useful to say, I suppose.
Oh really. Maybe you can take another look at what we did in a little thing called WWII and ask about what happened to German and Japanese cities. We as a country may not be there yet, but if we continue to lose thousands of citizens at a clip, we as a people will demand that extreme measures be taken. I just happen to believe that we could save many innocent lives if we act right now regardless of how outrageous it may seem. The choice seems fairly clear in my own mind at least. If someone is going to die, I say let it be the people of Baghdad and not the people of New York. If it takes leveling the capital of a terrorist state to stop the madness, then let's get to it.
Richard W.
200 years from now, I want what remains of their children's children's children's children to cower and cringe in fear whenever they hear the sounds of jet engines overhead because their legends tell of fire from the sky.
I want them to hide in dark caves and holes in the earth, shivering with terror whenever they hear the roar of diesel engines because the tales of their ancestors talk about metal monsters crawling over the earth, spitting death and destruction.
I want their mothers to be able to admonish them with "If you don't behave, the Pale Destroyers will come for you", and that will be enough to reduce them to quivering obesience.
I want the annihilation to be so complete that their mythology will tell them of the day of judgment when the stern gods from across the sea .. the powerful 'Mericans .. destroyed their forefathers' wickedness.
How about THAT for a solution?
I have noticed that as soon as folks like you run out of arguments, the invective begins instead. Means you have nothing else useful to say, I suppose.
The great thing about this forum is that our posts are out there for review. Folks will make their own minds up about the substance of what each of us is saying, and how we say it, and that is good enough for me.
The intention was never to kill civilians. Collateral damage occurred, of course. But the plan was NOT terror, but destruction of strategic materiél.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are notable exceptions, of course, but even then the idea was to sacrifice some lives to save many, many more. Not unlike the "shoot-down" order that has now been given for hijacked aircraft.
REPENT, for the kingdom of God is near!!!!
I agree that the kingdom of God is near. Very near. And when the judgement comes, you will be bluntly asked why you were a pacifist. You will be sternly reminded that pacifism does not deter murderers and tyrant, but rather provides aid and comfort to them. Get that? Pacifists and murderers are allies.
I see you choose to not mention Dresden, Germany which was pretty much burned to the ground after day after day of fire bombing. Is the just another exception? What was the intention there? Surely nothing more than terror I suspect.
Richard W.
I believe this is one of the commandments we must uphold.
And you don't know what's going to be asked and judgement day.
To lock the Germans out of the fine china market perhaps?
Richard W.
"Nevertheless for David's sake did the LORD his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem: Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." (1 Kings 15:4-5)
And how did Jesus refer to David? Jesus said,
"I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. (Revelation 22:16, the last book of the Bible)
So, the "killer" David was not only perfect in all his ways according to God (except, of course, in his adultery), but Jesus gave David the ultimate honor.
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.