ISRAEL DOES NOT DESERVE ANY SUPPORT WHILE SHE HAS LOADED NUKES CONTINUALLY POINTED AT IRAN, A COUNTRY WHICH HAS NEVER ATTACKED ANOTHER COUNTRT IN THE LAST 1000 YEARS.

Danielle, reading your arguments, one can easily see you are well-educated or well read.

But to call John Locke, who is one of the most admired philosophers of Western history, a twit, tells me your educational background could be of an exclusive nature, and certainly not truly Western.

Fact is, if you were Western educated, you would also know that apart from the mistake of the present Presidential prerogative, the US Constitution also is based on Lockean political theory, as also the American settlers' revolution against the home country was based on Lockean law.

So just be careful, Dannielle, especially about calling any Western philosopher a twit, whatever your obvious ability to press a point?

Regards, BB, WA.

Bushbred,

I never called Locke a "twit";

In fact, I recommended to Keith that he read Locke and Rousseau ... the "twit" was returned in a muddled response from Keith.

Lev,

Is it not possible to condemn the British for heavy handedness and at the same time suggest that terrorism got worse after colonial rule ended? Surely you are aware of the millions who perished during the partition of India.

“Modern terrorism pales in comparison to the Rhodesian war’? that’s ABSURD. There is no 9/11 in the history of Zimbabwe, there is no Karachi.
I was not neglecting that war at all; I was merely refuting your fanciful claim that the end of colonialism meant the end of terrorism.

The typical leftist myth that suicide bombers are the product of western oppression has also been shattered forever. Middle class Arab/Muslim boys who have never been poor or oppressed make up the majority of suicide bombers today. Militant Islam is at war the westernised or western supporting Muslim nations and it is only incidentally about us, much to the chagrin of the black armband gang.

I absolutely agree states can commit acts of terrorism. Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is a great exponent. Iran and Syria are also well represented.

If you cannot compare Hamas/PLO with the ANC then your apartheid argument falls over. The Israelis face a legitimate threat to their security every day from Hamas etc. Until the question of security is resolved Israel is right to refuse to pull back from their defensive positions.

Once the Palestinians can provide a real guarantee of peace, Israel must withdraw. But Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza shows why security must come first. Hamas moved in and used it as a forward base to better attack Israeli. Unilateral withdrawal is a lose-lose situation for Israel. Meanwhile Israel still bears the primary responsibility of protecting its own citizens.

By the way, Hamas’s public statements that all of Palestine belongs to the Muslims and that they intend to drive out all the Jews, makes it unclear who is actually South Africa in this morality play.

What is risible, lev, is your unwillingness to hold the other nations of the middle east to the same standards you insist Israel must abide by. You could start with the Palestinians

Bushbred,

Considering the blood curdling rhetoric coming from the Iranians, your pretence that the Iranians have never attacked another country rings rather hollow.

Iran’s numerous threats to destroy Israel give the Israelis every right to make the Iranians aware of the likely consequences of any attack. Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons serves only to underline the true intentions of the theocratic regime.

In any case, Iran is currently engaged in proxy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no one can suggest that they were attacked first in those conflicts.

Your continued support for dictatorships and tyrants mark you as an anti-democrat. Clearly the ends justify the means for you. Your hope that Putin and Hu Jintao will conspire to challenge the US for global supremacy, show you are willing to accept the aggrandisement of these dictatorial powers. There is little doubt that this will inevitably lead to the consolidation of these dictatorships and the consequent oppression of billions of people.

PS. If you read the posts more closely you would note that Danielle was paraphrasing an earlier post regarding Locke to point out its absurdity.

Bushbred,

I refered to Namier as an elitist twit. Not Locke.

This was in response to Danielle suggesting I should base my understanding of Western Liberal traditions on a reading of him.

Danielle could have cleared up this minor misunderstanding without the need for attempting a deception or personal attack.

However her usual behaviour is to launch underhand personal attacks when her ideas or positions are challengered or when she is simply shown to be wrong.

A reading of my posts at the time show these quite clearly