6/24/2002: Another Palestinian child

It's so unfair for me to post this here when the conversation about the mideast is going on in the Current Events forum. Folks who stay mainly in Image of the Day might enjoy checking that discussion out. There's more Cellar here than just IotD!

But anyway, I said at one point that any time I see a kid being indoctrinated in violence and war I would post it, and so I do.

This girl is participating in a celebration of the anniversary of the lynching described in "Proud Murderer" from a few days ago. From an article describing what's happening:

The article describes a "graduation exercise": The kids burned an Israeli flag and recited: "in the name of the martyr Muhamad Al-Dura and the infant martyr Iman Haju, we pledge to continue the Jihad in resistance and in intifada." A girl raised her "bloody hands," then a child dressed as Hamas leader Hassan Nasrallah recited a few lines about how the Hizbullah fought the Israelis and were rewarded from above. The kids carry toy rifles.

"Bloody hands" is in quotes because she doesn't really have bloody hands; she has had her hands dipped in red paint. (Phew!)

The original lynching is described here by a British photographer who was on the scene. He says he thought was the only photographer there (before they stole and destroyed his camera and he had to run for his life) but it seems someone else was there to get that proud murderer photo.

But it's <b>okay</b> because some Jewish guy went to some mounted temple or something and that's what's caused all this. He should be more thoughtful before he travels.

I think he was very thoughtful before he travelled and that is half the problem. He had a good idea of the consequences and his actions since have indicated he wanted to reverse every gain since Oslo and marginalize the Palestinians to the point that a policy of confinement, transfer and occupation becomes practical.

How should we respond to such images, should we conclude that the Palestinian people and their culture are inherently “Evil”, “Alien to our understanding”? that makes them truely a "Them" as in "Us vs Them" or our we to say that an external pressure has been applied for so long as to twist and distort the view of the rest of the world for some Palestinians. How would your nation react to occupation? I am Irish, I know that history made some of my people bitter evil murderers, but and even when the majority of Irish culture supported them in the 70's and 80's, there was hope, clearly (I hope) the Irish were/are not evil. Was Palestinian known for suicide, terrorism and desperation before 1948?

So, of course it is not ok, it is sick, The West Bank and Gaza Strip are pressure cookers for hate, blame the scheming idiot stoking the flames as much disparate idiot blowing himself up.

How our nations would react to occupation: that's an awesome question. I'm certain that the US would react with resolute and deadly violence to such a condition. After we killed the invaders, we would probably go kill their friends, and then their friends' friends.

Nationalism is serious stuff and if you're the nation that is invaded and violated, you're irate, period.

Which makes the current situation more curious because there has never been a Palestinian state.

And because most of the people of Israel are castoffs or family of castoffs from Arabic countries. There are more Jewish refugees than Palestinian refugees. (They just don't live in camps.) "Get out of our country, you Jewish scum. Go to your own country. And now, get out of your own country, you Jewish scum."

And because the West Bank has been the source of invasions of Israel quite consistently since its creation. At this point, who are the invaders and who the invadees? Who has a nationalistic claim? The cards moved so fast that we haven't been able to follow the queen.

Its so depressing seeing this stuff. It makes you wonder if there are really enough folks tired enough of the violence to take the potentially fatal step of reaching out to the other side. Maybe Yelof could write a little about the transition in Northern Ireland? Was the IRA generally more underground than Hamas and was the anti-British sentiment less direct than this?

Hmmm, Syc, I'm not sure. The source I had said that a million Jews moved away from Arabic countries and I *think* they were suggesting that the bulk of this happened soon after statehood.

kudos

I've got to say - the sheer clarity of opinion posted both by undertoad and Dhamsaic are precisely why this is my favorite discussion forum to read through (even if i don't have much time to participate).

I'm going to be encouraging Worth1000 members to visit here in a big way in the coming days.

Re: kudos

You guys are a microcosm of sorts.

We have a few people that seem to be pro-Israeli, from the US. We have a few folks from outside the US that seem to be pro-Palestinian. (And my apologies to all if I am mistaking your views here).

But this seems to be the case in the world as a whole. The US are staunch supporters of the State of Israel, while most of the world seems to favor the Palestinians.

So...what are we not connecting on here? Are we just seeing it through different eyes? Are we affected by our media sources (on both sides)? To me, it just seems that there is more to it than our own personal statements (even if loaded with facts).

not quite

I'm a liberal American who has spent time in Israel and Palestine. I saw life on both sides first hand. I have both Arab and Israeli friends. My posts are based on my experience - not media bias.

And as for the idiotic "Israel hasn't nuked b/c there are settlements" statement, not quite. They don't need to use an actual nuclear weapon to destroy all of Palestine. They can drop a single missile on Ramallah and kill everyone without harming a single Jewish settlement.

So it's not that they are afraid for the settlements. It's that they have respect for innocent life.

Don't start that "humiliating checkpoint" garbage either. If you had terrorists attending your school you'd install metal detectors and armed guards at the entrances too.

As I mentioned in another thread ... David Grossman writes this insightful piece:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six months ago the journal Nature published a study about a dangerous mechanism in the human visual system. The study sought to explain why the brain sometimes refuses to see what the eyes convey to it. The scientists, from Israel's Weizmann Institute, suggested that the explanation for this phenomenon is that the brain is flooded with a multitude of interpretations of every reality it faces and that it must, in the end, decide in favour of one of them and act accordingly. The fascinating part of this explanation is the hypothesis that, from the moment the brain decides in favour of a given interpretation of the images it is receiving, all stimuli that support any other interpretation simply "disappear". The brain, as it were, refuses to relate to them.

In the impossible relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, both sides have for years suffered from almost complete blindness to reality's complexity. Each is certain that the other side is ceaselessly deceiving it; that the other side does not want peace at all; that any compromise move by the other side is camouflage for an intrigue designed to bring the other side's victory and the elimination of its own existence.

There's no need for scientific research to understand how easy it is to paint reality this way.

Nic, I must have missed that originally. Do you have a link to the article or to a story about it? It sounds very interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...620762,00.html

where Grossman also writes:

Very good read...thanks.

This little flash history is an interesting backgrounder to this discussion: http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,720353,00.html

as is this weblog on the conflict: http://www.guardian.co.uk/weblog/spe...533512,00.html

I am neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestinian. I am pro-let's stop killing the fucking civilians and find some peace so I don't have to read about dead 3 year olds on MSNBC. And the first step... the very first step... is cutting out the suicide attacks. Who's directly responsible for those? Palestinian extremists. So the ball is in their court, and they refuse to move.

Well, who could make them move then? A true leader of the Palestinian people. One whom would crack down on militants, make it known that hatred toward the others would not be tolerated, and lead peaceful protests to the occupation.

Arafat is none of that. He hates Israel as much as the extremists do. He just has to be diplomatic about it.

So the public needs to force change. They need to install a government that will suit them in their quest for an end to the occupation.

In the mean time, Israel has to continue to defend its citizens by eliminating threats when they appear. It is a shitty reality, but it is the reality.

The ball is in the Palestinians' court. They need to make the move.

And the Israeli viewpoint is that it's their ball, their court and they make the rules. Now if the Palestinians would just start playing by Israel's rules everything would be kosher.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but it seems to me like what Israel should do is just prevent any Palestinians from getting to where Israelis live. It's always some Palestinian going into some Israeli neighborhood and blowing themselves up. Why not change to checkpoints to prevent anybody who doesn't have a beard and is wearing a black hat from coming through? I doubt that would take any more resources than they're already committing, and it would require a lot more effort on the suicide bomber's part to get to a target. (The settlements are a problem in this scheme, but they too can be isolated.)

Dhamsaic: congratulations for the most shallow analysis or a series of facts i've seen in a long time.

Ill say only one thing, its hard to move wood when i chop off your arms.

Talking of dead kids, 4 of the 5 victims of the currant occupation of the west bank so far have ben under 10.

dham, you are pro-Israel or at least pro-state when given the choice of which style of violence to support.


There is a difference between fencing off Americas blacks and fencing off the Palestinians. Most of Black America doesn't claim a separate national identity. The Israelis and Palestinians should be separated to at least stop the violence until cooler heads can provide leadership. If the Palestinians are ever going to have an economy, after getting their state, they need to have a relationship with Israel. There is little that the US can do to help the situation other than eliminate our financial and military comittment to Israel. Propping up their controlled economy isolates them from the reallity that they need trade with their neighbors.

Griff - your analysis is incorrect.

When we look at the violence, we need to look at it factually. What are the facts of the current situation?

These are the facts, and they are indisputable:

1) Palestinian extremists such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are <b>targeting</b> innocent citizens in their attacks.

2) The IDF is <b>targeting</b> those which target Israel.

Neither side is perfect, obviously. Israel has made some mistakes, such as firing into a market. This is absolutely unacceptable and should be investigated. But this is the exception, not the rule.

I'm still chewing on this idea that Ut and yourself posit, that there can be an accidental death in war. War is waged intentionaly. In war there will be casualties among the innocent. Where is the accident in that? To me, its like the drunk driving 80 mph on a back road, its no accident.

Well then your view is, in my opinion, very short sighted. Here's an example of an accidental death:

Israel knows that a militant is going to be leaving his house at about 10:30 AM to go to a Hamas meeting. This man is responsibile, directly, for the deaths of a number of Israelis. They see his car pull out and wait for it to be in a remote-enough area for a "targeted killing". Then, when the time is right, Israeli helicopters appear and fire missiles on the vehicle.

The man is dead. This was intentional. Goal accomplished.

Unfortunately, his young daughter was in a car seat in the back. Her death was not an objective. Accidental killing.

This has happened before and, unfortunately, it will happen again. It doesn't change the fact that she's dead, and that sucks. But it's not intentional.

I've said it before, and I will say it again: Palestinian militants <b>target</b> civilians. Israel targets those who target Israelis. Whereas the goal of Palestinian militant groups is to kill as many civilians as possible (and Hamas has their "glory record" on their homepage, listing their most successful attacks - I know, I have seen this for myself), Israel does not target civilians. Do civilian casualties still occur? Yes, and it's awful, as death generally is. But there is a big difference between intentionally killing the innocent and unintentionally killing the innocent.

By your logic, there should be just one sentence for any type of death-related crime, because they're all the time. The guy that accidentally backs over his son with his truck and kills him (this happened to a kid I knew in elementary school) is guilty of the same crime as Ted Bundy? Absolutely not, and I don't think that even you would try to argue so. There is intentional killing and unintentional killing, and there's a world of difference between them.

Or this example... the IDF goes into the West Bank intending to go after terrrorists and deliberately fires a tank shell into a market because the folks there are shopping during an Israeli imposed curfew. You might say that's an accident. It sucks. But the Israeli government can't be criticized for that ... it wasn't intentional. That's an assumption.

It is also possible that some Israeli soldiers are taking an eye for an eye and kill Palestinian civilians, including children, as an act of revenge against the terrorists' killing of Israeli civilians, including children.

It is possible that many Palestinians have that perception of the IDF incursions into the West Bank, and view Palestinian terrorist acts as a militant response to Israeli aggression.

None of these actions are justifiable, nor can they be exculpated by a denial of intention, when the acts are deliberate, not accidental.

There is no reality, just perceptions of reality.

btw, David, your facts are just your statements of fact, and they may be disputable even if you say they're indisputable.

Can you handle the truth?

Tony, Dave, and all others who continue emphasizing the vast numbers of innocent Israeli children murdered by the Palestinians: why not look at the actual numbers of minors killed in the occupied terrirories between December 1987 and January 2002?

Shall we take the numbers published by an Israeli group (which includes members of the Knesset), as to not be fooled by anti-Jewish propaganda? Sure.

Total number of Palestinian minors in the occupied territories killed by both Israeli security forces and civilians:

433 (115 of whom were 13yrs or younger)


Total number of Israeli minors killed in BOTH THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES and Israel:

50 (10 of whom were 13yrs or younger)


Although things may have got even more violent since that data was compiled (January), the trend continues. Some crimes, however, are publicized and used as propaganda much more efficiently than others.

Yes, both sides are wrong to propagate violence against innocents. The manner in which the Palestinians are portrayed as the sole bloodthirsty murderers, however, is stomach-churning - if you know the truth.

Pity USA Today, Fox News, and the NYT won't spell it out for you. When Ted Turner correctly pointed out that Israel was engaging in state-sponsored terroristm (which is factually accurate from the point of view of political science, by the way), the uproar immediately forced him to retract and clarify.

And if the disproportionate number of children killed doesn't persuade you, how about this: Between September 2000 and April 2002, 300 Israelis, and 1200 Palestinians were killed in the Second Intifada. Where are the headlines?

Before answering, please read the two sources listed below; the first especially is outstanding in its description and analysis of reporting.

X.


Sources:
http://www.fair.org/activism/network-retaliation.html
http://www.btselem.org/English/Stati...ors_Killed.asp

Xug -

Firstly, I was not "emphasizing the vast numbers of innocent Israeli children murdered by the Palestinians". Maybe you should go back and re-read what I've said. Tony also has not emphasized numbers. Probably because we both know that they are unimportant.

Now... as far as your numbers go... we all know this. You, as well as many others, are missing the point. The numbers are awful. The death is awful. That's not what this is about.

I will say it again. <b>Hamas, Islamic Jihad an the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which are the three most active Palestinian extremists groups that are carrying out attacks against Israel, are specifically targeting *****CITIZENS*****</b>.

If they were attacking military personnel and bases and the occasional innocent got killed, it would be <b>entirely different</b>. However, they are <b>not</b>. Fuck those numbers, because they hardly paint an accurate portrait. Show me the Israeli soldier that stormed a Palestinian house and shot 3 kids and their mother. That would be deliberately targetting citzens. Fortunately, it hasn't yet happened. You know, at least most of the time when Israel launches an attack, they can say "Yeah, that was a fuckup in the sense that we killed 25 civilians, but we got a good number of militants too." How often can the Palestinian extremist groups say that? "Well, we decided to blow up a supermarket this time, to eradicate the... uh... diabolical shopping nature of the Israelis. We didn't get any activists or anything, but we sure blew the shit out of a 17 year old girl and a security guard!" Give me a break.

You've stated before that you're pro-peace. So where are your posts condemning Arafat's refusal to do anything other than sit on his ass and look ugly? He is certainly not pro-peace, as you have proclaimed yourself to be. You're quick to attack Israel, and that's fine - so long as you apply that same logic to the Palestinian Authority and its direct and/or indirect support of Palestinian extremist groups such as al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas.

X-man,

If body counts matter, how about one broken down correctly?

You know, the majority of suicide bombings don't work. The bombers are trained to blow themselves up if they are detected, and a lot of them do, offing only themselves. Some are shot at checkpoints. Some are shot by private security forces. Some are just misses.

Palestinian teenagers are the most militant, the most likely to become suicide bombers. And I've documented a trend here before, wherein Palestinian youngsters are deciding to take matters into their own hands, excited by the new culture of death. I noted the three teenagers who wandered into a settlement with guns in hand, intent on doing harm, shot before they can do any damage.

Your numbers include those deaths. But clearly you don't want to blame Israel for killing a suicide bomber, right? (Well unless your initials are tw.) What if we took those numbers out? What if we listed the numbers of Palestinian deaths <b>minus</b> the ones that died as militants? If you can find those numbers, I would be really interested.

Hmmm. How about if we compare the <b>ages</b> of the children who were killed? That would tell us whether those big death numbers were not indicative of the shooting of militants, but evidence of heartless/racist summary executions and poorly-executed military operations. If as many 5-year-olds were killed as 15-year-olds, we would know that Israeli killing is indiscriminate, intentional... it would be quite the open-and-shut case.

According to your source, here's that breakdown from Sept. 29 2000- June 22, 2002. Please excuse my lousy formatting.

Age # killed
17&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 45
16&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 35
15&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 39
14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 32
13&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 25
12&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 10
11&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 7
10&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 9
9&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 5
8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 6
7&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3
6&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 3
5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1
4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2
3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 2
2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0
1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1
<1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1

Statistics, while informative, are easily manipulated.

I was just having some random thoughts, in conjunction with my microcosm post last night.

We're having a big ol' testosterone fest here...I haven't seen a woman (that I know of) post yet.

For that matter (I think someone mentioned this before), we haven't had a Palestinian or Israeli (that I know of) post yet. We know everything and yet nothing. Although, if we did have either or both, I think it would be a refreshing perspective.

We're trying to use facts and logic here, yet being humans, we can't help but be emotional about things. You see it in the posts. It's a good and bad thing IMO.

USA Today, Fox News, and the NY Times? Them's fighting words. Seriously though, you think people in the US are nuts now...give 'em just those three and we're ALL in trouble. (Though the Times and Fox actually contradict each other to a degree.)

Ellen Siegel, a Jewish nurse, tells her story ...

http://www.mepc.org/journal/0112/0112_siegel.html

What? No "dichead?"

OK, i'm back here now.
Dham, lets go though this. I posted what i posted because you choose the simplest possible conclusion of the facts rather than putting them in context.

Why would he?

You meant to add, "besides the fact that it's morally reprehensible", of course. "Besides the fact that it's creating a deeply broken culture that worships death and promotes hate and violence in its six-year-olds." I'm sure you meant to add.

Remember how a few weeks ago Arafat suddenly said OK, that Clinton plan was good, we'll accept that now. He didn't get anywhere with that idea, because after 20 months of Intifada it was way off the table.

So suicide bombing has been more than ineffective at promoting the cause of statehood; it has, in effect, polarized the diplomatic atmosphere against Arafat, especially in a post-9/11 world.

The question should be "why WOULDN'T he?" The reason: because it's only while he is the center of Islamic rage against the world that he has any power whatsoever. The Arabic leaders are all like "We must help the cause of our brothers in Palestine!" because they have a wet dream of defeating the West, somewhere, anywhere. So they send him money, and they send him weapons, and a while back there was an unverified report that $5.1 million of Arabic assistance money found its way to Arafat's personal bank account.

When Bush says the Palestinians must choose a new leader, does he mean in the American sense of whoever gets the most popular votes loses?

When Sharon says the Palestinians need a new leader, does he mean in the Israeli sense that the elected leader is assassinated so someone else can rise to power?

Or, do they mean it in the Kofi Annan sense that if the Palestinians re-elect Arafat, the world leaders will have to recognize him as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians?

Really, I don't think Arafat will live to see the next election, if he pursues re-election. So, I guess I'm saying that the proposal is for an Israeli-style election.

If they knocked him off the result would be............it'd involve allot of red stuff. Everywhere. But yes, democratic in bushepak means the person we want.

The image of the kid is beyond politics. It is a growing, dynamic culture of hate and death. I'd like to think there is some instinctive survival element that regulates violent behavior, finds balance, but its short circuited here with the justification of death/violence for survival. And the problem I have with Arabic culture keeps going back to sexism and the oppression of women. Not just extremists, but the majority. Now, I tend to think that gender differences/ rationales can be too simplistic and too quickly tossed down, but we need some powerful maternal life-affirming love to rise up against this self destructive patriarchy. It has to be a leader from within. Sexism is the main reason why my sympathies align more with Israel, although I am not blind to their atrocities.

Our differences are obvious. But, is there anything we can agree on? Israel and Palestine both deserve their own states? Innocents are being killed on both sides?

Anyone, anyone?

Its pretty fucking horrible however you look at it?
Christan nutters (see other thread) are bad?
Fish on pizza is just plain wrong?

I don't at all think you should give up. I'd just strongly prefer if you'd attack my argument without throwing in insults.

from reading this afternoon, i have discovered some major flaws in this whole discussion.

1) too many people have already formed strong opinions, and are looking for "proof" to back them up. a quote here or a statistic there doesnt strengthen an argument based in opinion and emotion. too many of you are positive that you are right, that the situation is cut and dry, and that any one who disagrees with you is a total idiot, because of "this article"...unfortunately, a "debate," lets call it, where there are many sides and many opinons, can not be handled that way. if you used "yea, well youre a poopy-head, so there" as your argument, no one would take you seriously. focus of hard facts.

2) too many of you are using single isolated incidents to back up your entire argument. this goes along with my first point. just because something happened does not make it the norm for an entire society. this is why people in other countries see americans as lazy, americans often classify the french as rude, etc. you simply can not stereotype an entire group of people based on a few events. this is about as stupid as my showing a photo of our cat, shadow to someone to "prove" to them that all cats are black. you have to look at the whole picture, especially with something as complex as this.

3) i have seen a few people using sources over and over again to back up their argument. some of these sources, i believe, and you may too, are biased in themselves. obviously no one is so stupid as to use "www.thepalestinianextremistsareright.com" to back their support of this particular group of people, but you cant base your entire argument based on ONE persons opinion or ONE website, especially not a well known and reputable one. this is why our teachers forced us to use "three or more sources" in our research papers. you simply can not form a well rounded opinion of a situation when you have only read one viewpoint.

4) people are *looking* for a fight. damn, people. if i remember correctly, this whole thread began with a photo of a little girl who was being trained to hate. to not learn to understand other people, but to celebrate the lack of understanding and compassion around her. we are no better if we can not learn to sit down and *calmly* read a discussion and say to ourselves, "you know, i might not agree with what this person is saying, but thats their opinion and i respect that." instead, we look for any phrase which we can tear apart and throw back in their face. this is not intelligent discussion. stop using emotion as your argument.

note i did not name names, i know that i am going to have this replied to with at least one defensive post whining at me about how i dont understand, and they are not doing this, and that i am a moron. dont bother. i dont care. if you dont fit into the above categories, great. if you do, dont get defensive and try to start a fight, i wont reply and youll be wasting your time. just think about what i said and try to understand where this is coming from. if you cant sit down and have a mature, intelligent conversation, dont bother.

this being said, i am certainly no expert on the situation in the middle east. i actually know very little. what i do know, however, is that any government/orginization/whatever, that is encouraging the teaching of hatred to children is despicable. there is NO excuse for it. i dont know about any other countries, but if this was going on in the united states, an end would be put to it immediately. this leads me to believe that the leadership in these countries needs to be changed. if the leaders are not strong enough to look at their people and say to them "this is wrong," then they should be replaced with someone who is able to face up to the challenge. putting personal feelings aside for the good of the people. no matter whose feelings have been hurt in the past, or who went to which holy site, or whatever. that doesnt matter. that is the past. obviously something needs to change. since i am not educateed at all on this subject, i wont say that this leader or that leader needs to go, but there is a definate problem in the way that an entire society is running if children are being lead in praises of murderers.

I'd submit to you that "knob" has many different meanings, and in my usage, it meant "someone who is ignorant of my argument"... sort of like... a dunce. Which he was, and still is. It wasn't at all in an inflammatory manner.

All I'm looking for is intelligent discussion and debate, and if his arguments are going to totally ignore mine and culminate with "You're insane", then he is obviously perfectly happy in continuing to sound like a knob (a term we use around work to describe someone who complains about something without having done the required work to understand it).

I have very much toned down my arguments in the past months so as to not incite flamewars. I don't think it's too much to ask that other people argue without making a personal attack. So whereas my saying he sounds like a knob means "you are largely ignorant of what I am speaking" and is not an ad hominem attack, his "You're insane" is both false and designed to degenerate the discussion on to his level. There is a very big difference between the two, and the parallel you draw is not one at all.

knob Noun. 1. The penis.
2. An idiot, an objectionable person. Derog.

If you don't see the parallel between one person calling someone an idiot and another calling the other insane, then, if you're not one then you're the other.

I'd be curious to see the dictionary from which you extracted that definition, because it certainly isn't in mine.

3. What I already said above.

I am not aware of any meaning of the word "insane" which indicates that one is largely ignorant of an issue. It's my contention that the word is very rarely (if ever) used to mean that. Furthermore, that would not at all fit within the context of his post, which was quoting me. My usage of "knob" fits in the context with which I have said it was used, mostly because <b>that is exactly what I meant by it</b>. I have heard <b>many</b> people use it to describe someone as an ignoramus - possibly a shortening of "dumb as a doorknob" - and it is used very commonly in this area (or at least with the people I work with, many of whom are from a military background) to mean "that guy doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about."

I feel that this explains it enough. You guys believe what you want; I will believe what I know.

Also, Nic, two of your reference pages are decidedly British (and I am decidedly not) and the other is simply a listing of euphemisms for "penis" - which has probably been euphemistically referred to more than any other term in our language.

It should also be pointed out that the correct English (as in "from England") spelling is <i>nob</i>, and is not what I wrote.

Tony, can we get a new forum for this topic:

http://pub120.ezboard.com/ffreeforal...icID=126.topic

knob Pronunciation Key (nb)
n.

1. A rounded protuberance.
2.
1. A rounded handle, as on a drawer or door.
2. A rounded control switch or dial.
3. A prominent rounded hill or mountain.

knob

\Knob\, n. [A modification of knop. Cf. Nob.] 1. A hard protuberance; a hard swelling or rising; a bunch; a lump; as, a knob in the flesh, or on a bone.

2. A knoblike ornament or handle; as, the knob of a lock, door, or drawer. --Chaucer.

3. A rounded hill or mountain; as, the Pilot Knob. [U. S.] --Bartlett.

4. (Arch.) See Knop.

... and now back to our scheduled programming ...

Photo of 'baby bomber' ignites Mideast anger

An Israeli soldier holds up a purported picture of a Palestinian infant dressed as a suicide bomber with a headband bearing the name of Islamic militant group Hamas.

Your link is not working at the moment, but apparently the photo hasn't been authenticated yet...it could be photoshopped for all we know.

A picture released by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) June 27, 2002 shows what they allege to be a photo of a Palestinian baby dressed like a suicide bomber. The IDF said they found the photo during a search in a house of a wanted Palestinian man from Hebron, where Israeli army tanks and helicopter gunships have been poundeding a Palestinan police building. REUTERS/HO/Israel Defence Forces

Wonder what else the IDF found that thier propaganda department thought would not be so good to release?

sycamore - the photo <b>has</b> been authenticated - by the family of the child. Check MSNBC for details.

jennofay is right, this discussion is becoming more and more focussed on microsocms of a central issue almsot at the expense of the issue itself. As you can probably tell i've pretty much given up argueing on this.

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore Americans ARE lazy. The French ARE rude. All Arabs ARE terrorists. All African-Americans ARE inferior to Caucasians. You don't understand. You're a moron.

I'd argue with dhamsaic but he left planet earth an dearshot long, long ago..

Clearly the concept of need for armed struggle is just someone how lacking from your vocab. The long and short of it isreal will give them sweet fuck all for as long as they can get away with it.

Comparatively speaking, Americans took up arms against their government in the Revolutionary War because of a repressive tax.

...And I believe that tax was like 1%.

Bet a few kids were killed too, just noone was taking photos. Media really has revolutinaised war.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/29/165832/336

a must read for this discussion. .

The last guy from the region who honestly preached non-violence got crucified.

... or, assassinated, if you want to count Rabin.

Arafat has said that he would rather be made a martyr than give in to Israel...

regardless, it's the <b>right</b> thing to do - lead the people whom you've been elected to lead. If you can't do it, step down.

Palestinian hatred training

The Palestinian bombing campaign is superbly designed to do one thing, and one thing only: it prevents the growth or development of any sympathy for the Palestinians whatsoever.

What the Palestinians, or certain abscess-brains among them, must do is to stop giving the rest of the world the idea that genocide, either of the Palestinians or of the Israelis, might be a good solution to this chronic fever of the body politic. It's a lousy idea, but one which nonetheless has some fed-up people imagining that a final solution is the only solution.

Certain Arab-world publications have pushed for genocide upon Israel. To those people, I would say, "Do not push for genocide; that has a way of coming back to kill you, too."