[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by █████████

hihi, very funny and clever.

mexico and canada are exactly the same thing

and how exactly does a wall between two countries show that they support illegal immigration.

it shows the opposite actually, and it is common sense that if you build a big wall [literally or metaphorically] then you are only encouraging people to hop over it, after all doors and walls and locks only keep out "honest" folk who don't feel like breaking in. I dont understand this flood of migration to the US, I'm trying to leave myself.

[█████████]

the creation of israel was a huge mistake.

[fugazifan]

its a shame that after the holocaust we refuse entry to refugees
what can i say life's a bitch.
the lucky thing is most countries arent much better than us.
and i think its a bit much to say that israel is a terrorist country. how do the uk or US have a morla highground over israel? how is the us or uk's militarty actions any different? how many palestinians die every year compared to iraqi?
the only difference is the palestinians actualy pose a threat here compared to the iraqis.
not saying that its right, because its not and its fucked and its all because each side is more close minded than the other. but to act as if the US or UK is better is a bit ignorant

[█████████]

my point exactly.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

its a shame that after the holocaust we refuse entry to refugees
what can i say life's a bitch.
the lucky thing is most countries arent much better than us.
and i think its a bit much to say that israel is a terrorist country. how do the uk or US have a morla highground over israel? how is the us or uk's militarty actions any different? how many palestinians die every year compared to iraqi?
the only difference is the palestinians actualy pose a threat here compared to the iraqis.
not saying that its right, because its not and its fucked and its all because each side is more close minded than the other. but to act as if the US or UK is better is a bit ignorant

the US definitely does not have the moral high ground on the isrealis, but the israelis are definitely terrorists, just look at their attacks in Gaza this past week. tit-for-tat does solve anything militarily, it just kills a shit load of people. just because some disorganized palestinian militants attack israeli citizens with petty rocket attacks does not give the Israelis the right to airstrike blitzkrieg the palestinian territories and target palestinian civilians in retaliation. that is just fucked up, especially since the israelis are supposed to be the organized, centralized, legitimate and superior national power who should have better alternatives then using the same tactics as their guerrila militia enemies..

the israelis could do better, however, the popular opinion is bloodlust.

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

how do the uk or US have a morla highground over israel?

They don't. When Israel attacks Iran, I'm sure the US and the UK will inevitably help, and we'll have a new cluster fuck situation to worry about.


Every country is a guilty party and it disgusts me.

Countries that stay out of wars will just turn their other cheek to the atrocities that are commited. Countries that get in wars create atrocities. Look at the US during WW2 and the Japanese forced labor camps.

[fugazifan]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

the US definitely does not have the moral high ground on the isrealis, but the israelis are definitely terrorists, just look at their attacks in Gaza this past week. tit-for-tat does solve anything militarily, it just kills a shit load of people. just because some disorganized palestinian militants attack israeli citizens with petty rocket attacks does not give the Israelis the right to airstrike blitzkrieg the palestinian territories and target palestinian civilians in retaliation. that is just fucked up, especially since the israelis are supposed to be the organized, centralized, legitimate and superior national power who should have better alternatives then using the same tactics as their guerrila militia enemies..

the israelis could do better, however, the popular opinion is bloodlust.

the situation in gaza is a very difficult one at the moment. the people in sderot have been mercileesly bombed for the past year. the people there cant live a normal life and now it has started to reach ashkelon. i am usually against fighting, but at some point a country must defend itself. especially after it evacuated all of its people from a certain area and in exchangew they continue to bomb. i am not for the seetelers, in fact the4 excact oppisit. and i do agree that we could be handling this better, but one feels at times that we have tp do something.
and it still is not a terrorist state.alestine is a terrorist state, israel is a military state

[Everyneurotic]

dear mr pothead,

i won't debate whether is right or wrong what this thread is about, i'll just say that next time you come all self righteous about antiracism and talking about tolerance, remember you started this biggoted racist thread.

ps: general discussion: the israeli government has been a crop of shit for some ten years now, it's stupid.

[fugazifan]

probsbly ever since the country has been founded its been shit

[racehorse]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

and it still is not a terrorist state.alestine is a terrorist state, israel is a military state

terrorist states only become such as a reaction against a coercive action conducted by a military state, bearing in mind monumental economic and security differences. to get rid of the midges one must get rid of the swamp, so to speak. the israelis fire rockets down crowded streets and have a well-funded security system and cellars of U.S funded nuclear weapons, fighter planes and ammunition. the palestinians have themselves and themselves only. suicide bombing is dispicable but it does serve as a sad reminder of a people with nothing else left to fight with.
you use sderot as an example. so far 9 israelis have been killed. it's horrific that even one person was killed, let alone 9, though please bear in mind that, say, in the year 2006 820 palestinians were slaughtered compared to 19 israelis. 2007 was 194 compared to 11.
it is an issue which has let to be solved by an internet message board, but arguments for israeli agression are quite visibly very, very unstable.

[fugazifan]

im not arguing that. im just not in agreement that it is strictly a terrorist state.
would you define the US as one?
its a fucked up situation, and we are far from right and its embarassing to live here at times, but i still dont think that israel is a terrorist state

[racehorse]

well the definition of terrorist is widely recognised to be:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or
societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological
objectives.[FONT=verdana,geneva,lucida,'lucida grande',arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

it's widely recognised that israel and the united states are breaking international law. here is just one link among
many

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...6/wgaza116.xml

so yes i would regard both israel and the usa as a terrorist state.
[/font]

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

probsbly ever since the country has been founded its been shit

yes, very probable.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

im not arguing that. im just not in agreement that it is strictly a terrorist state.
would you define the US as one?
its a fucked up situation, and we are far from right and its embarassing to live here at times, but i still dont think that israel is a terrorist state

Whilst not defending Israel entirely, there's an important fact that several of its neighbours, and its neighbours benefactors, refuse to recognise Israel as a state at all. This in no way defends the recent military activities (bombing the shit out of Lebanon in return for a handful of dead), but I do get the sense that it is in no way a simple case of 'Isreal is a terrorist towards its neighbours' because of the various state- or culturally-endorsed terrorist organisations in surrounding countries. Some of these are state-franchised (Hamas), some of these are merely symptoms of a troubled government (Hezbollah) and some of whom operate as covert endorsers of pan-Islamic state denial of Israel (the revolutionary guards).

Again: I do not seek to exonerate Israel, by any means. However, it is divisive and idiotic to suggest (as a great many wet liberals will do) that Israel is some monolithic evil in that territory. How many of the countries surrounding Israel have had some bloody revolution in the last century?

I'd be interested to know what Mr Fugazifan makes of the following: from my perspective as a British person, I find it very difficult to talk about Israel without recourse to a concern over the racial element of Israel as predominantly semitic (although I understand there is a fair proportion of Arab and other races there); there's a further problem that I personally (as a non-Jew) do not believe that Judaism is equatable with Zionism; neither do I see the existence of Israel on the grounds of Zionism as a validating factor. However, I'm sure we all know why Israel was 'created', and that validates its existence well enough for me. Essentially, I'm saying there are at least three major convoluted (in a benign sense) factors to consider when talking about Israel, and that's before you get to the (tired and simplistic) 'America's puppets' argument or the 'attacked by its neighbours' bit.

It's all a bit fucked really, innit?

[Glice]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

Palestine is a terrorist state, Israel is a military state

This is a very important fact in this discussion; if you don't understand the distinction, then you really don't have any right to talk about Israel.

[racehorse]

Originally Posted by Glice

This is a very important fact in this discussion; if you don't understand the distinction, then you really don't have any right to talk about Israel.

sure, but it is israel's militarisation which turned palestine into a terrorist state.
i think, because terrorist is such an emotive word to use, it cannot help but inspire fear. "military" does not hold these same connotations. terrorism implies provocation, and the word "military" implies defence. therefore, although technically used correctly by fugazifan, the words do not really mean anything, considering the death counts and the facts (i.e. 1948). in a situation like this we must stand away from messy rhetoric, and look at solid facts.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by racehorse

sure, but it is israel's militarisation which turned palestine into a terrorist state.
i think, because terrorist is such an emotive word to use, it cannot help but inspire fear. "military" does not hold these same connotations. terrorism implies provocation, and the word "military" implies defence. therefore, although technically used correctly by fugazifan, the words do not really mean anything, considering the death counts and the facts (i.e. 1948). in a situation like this we must stand away from messy rhetoric, and look at solid facts.

All fair points; I generally avoid this whole discussion because it's alway hopeless. No-one, especially myself, can talk about this situation without an investment of emotion. There's a cloud of facts, half-truths, rumours, religious edicts, cultural impositions, ethnic divisions, military force, interested benefactors [etc] all of which come under 'facts' relating to Israel - it's one of the quickest ways to a proper argument (in fleshworld at least) to suggest that the 'facts' are x and y - case in point 'Israel's Militarisation that turned Palestine into a terrorist state'; but why, and how, does Israel have guns? Is it because of hostility from surrounding areas, or because they're America's pawn in the area? My answer is it's probably both, or neither, depending on who you talk to. You don't get to the bottom of this discussion, you just call out the anti-semite (as Mr Neurotic has deftly done).

[fugazifan]

Originally Posted by Glice

Whilst not defending Israel entirely, there's an important fact that several of its neighbours, and its neighbours benefactors, refuse to recognise Israel as a state at all. This in no way defends the recent military activities (bombing the shit out of Lebanon in return for a handful of dead), but I do get the sense that it is in no way a simple case of 'Isreal is a terrorist towards its neighbours' because of the various state- or culturally-endorsed terrorist organisations in surrounding countries. Some of these are state-franchised (Hamas), some of these are merely symptoms of a troubled government (Hezbollah) and some of whom operate as covert endorsers of pan-Islamic state denial of Israel (the revolutionary guards).

Again: I do not seek to exonerate Israel, by any means. However, it is divisive and idiotic to suggest (as a great many wet liberals will do) that Israel is some monolithic evil in that territory. How many of the countries surrounding Israel have had some bloody revolution in the last century?

I'd be interested to know what Mr Fugazifan makes of the following: from my perspective as a British person, I find it very difficult to talk about Israel without recourse to a concern over the racial element of Israel as predominantly semitic (although I understand there is a fair proportion of Arab and other races there); there's a further problem that I personally (as a non-Jew) do not believe that Judaism is equatable with Zionism; neither do I see the existence of Israel on the grounds of Zionism as a validating factor. However, I'm sure we all know why Israel was 'created', and that validates its existence well enough for me. Essentially, I'm saying there are at least three major convoluted (in a benign sense) factors to consider when talking about Israel, and that's before you get to the (tired and simplistic) 'America's puppets' argument or the 'attacked by its neighbours' bit.

It's all a bit fucked really, innit?

i basically agree with you. even though i am very much against a lot that goes on here, my first instinct is always to defend israel when people immediatly critisize. i think one has to be here to understand the complexity of the situation. but its much easier to say " terrorist state"

my basic ideals are that israel needs to excists, but not as a zionist state, because zionism can easily become racist (ie the KKL doesnt sell houses to arabs) israel definatly has racism, a lot, and it is often legitimised by parliment members and racist political parties.
the way i wish it were here is way to utopian. i wish that it were a free religeous state where freedom of religeon is constitutionalised with the emphasis on a jewish shade but without any legislation based on religeon. that way noobody can be persecuted.

i am very much for letting in refugees, and if not letting them in then sending soldiers there or somehow helping them. as a jewish state it is our responobility to help people like the sudanese, because in the 40's there were not many countries that supported us.

another interesting though is how come most minorities that are persocuted, often once they gain power they persecute. and ingeneral most minorities that have suffered from racism or whatnot are usually racist about another minority

jews against arabs
arabs against jews
middle eastern jews against arabs
a lot of the african american radicals where very antisemitic
etc...

my question is havent we, especially the persecuted, learned that hate just brings more hate?

anyhoo...

[racehorse]

far from being utopian, your suggestion is simply unrealistic. to ask a state whose sole reason for existing is faith to adandon a legislature shaped by religioun (no matter how misguided) will simply never happen. it is still essential to have ideas, though, and it is much better to try and look for solutions than to dismiss the issue entirely, on the grounds that it is "too complicated" etc etc. i would totally support a two-state settlement along the international border, a proposal which the United States has unilaterally blocked for 30 years. this could only be achieved if only the USA had backed the 2003 Geneva Accord, though, which is unlikely to happen. For this to happen both sides must also be prepared to make mutual compromises. Most settlers in the West Bank would have to leave, and Israel would leave Gaza completely. This is the best short term proposal I can think of, and of course it doesn't take into account the Palestinian right of return - another sticky issue.

[Moshe]

these are not refuges. they are just coming to see this festival in Tel-Aviv on May:

JAPANESE NEW MUSIC FESTIVAL
European Tour 2008



In 1997,1999, 2003, 2005 and 2006 a set of performances aroused a storm of frenzy and shriek in
Europe, USA, China, Mexico... and they will be back with even greater power in Europe.
This time 3 musicians (YoshidaTatsuya, Tsuyama Atsushi and Kawabata Makoto) form 7 units!!
A cappella, comic free form, progressive core, troubadour, cosmic psychedelic......
You'll be experiencing the essence of all kinds of extremes in the current new music scene in
Japan on a single night.
Never miss it.

ACID MOTHERS TEMPLE SWR :
Yoshida Tatsuya (dr,vo) + Tsuyama Atsushi (b, vo) + Kawabata Makoto (g)
Acid Mothers Temple have rapidly become acclaimed as the greatest, most extreme trip psychedelic
group in the world.
Releases have appeared on labels around the world at an amazing pace, and the magnificence of
their live performances is already being whispered of as legendary.
SWR is the AMT Family's most powerful battle-formation yet.
Featuring Tsuyama and Kawabata from the original AMT and Yoshida from Ruins.
Their crushingly acute freakout sound will pulverize the world's legions of wannabe psych groups.

RUINS ALONE :
Yoshida Tatsuya (dr, vo, sampler)
Yoshida is one of the most innovative drummer/composer/improviser in Japan's new music scene.
Pioneer of Drum & Bass duo RUINS was founded by Yoshida in '85.
Tunes are complicated and mysterious, and songs are sung in the language of their own invention.
It's high-tension, wild, heavy, speedy, acute, and powerful tremendous ensemble never sounds like
they are only two players.
Now RUINS have no bassist and currently he has been playing as RUINS ALONE. Playing RUINS songs
with sampling bass.

ZUBI ZUVA X :
Yoshida Tatsuya (vo) + Tsuyama Atsushi (vo) + Kawabata Makoto (vo)
Eccentric poly-rhythmic a cappella ensemble.
It covers from Gregorian chant to ethnic music, to do-wop to hardcore screaming, heavily using
irregular rhythms and polyrhythm.
All sorts of ideas and aberrant musicality overturn the image of a cappella.
Their totally meaningless lyrics and desperate performances throw the audiences into the abyss of
the laughter and admiration.
It makes the concept of "singing ability"nonsense.

AKATEN :
Yoshida Tatsuya (vo, etc) + Tsuyama Atsushi (vo, etc)
Formed in 1995 with the motto of "irresponsibleness" and "perfunctoriness."
They easily free themselves from the spell of the traditional seriousness of the art.
Using daily commodities like scissors, toothbrush, zipper, camera, and plastic bottle as
percussions, and shouting their brand names over and over as the "songs," the show is performed
under the concept of low cost and maximum sound effect.
AKATEN is the experimental convenience store punk band that provides the sound images of cheap
and simple daily lives.

ZOFFY :
Tsuyama Atsushi (vo, etc) + Kawabata Makoto (g, etc)
Formed in 1998.
Zoffy's music hints both at the members' deep musical knowledge via their improvised performances
of troubadour music and European
trad, and also at their deep love for rock via their destructivist covers of classic rock songs,
that no longer sounds like anything but ZOFFY.
The group believes that humor is essential in music, and their unprecedented performances stray
far from the beaten track.
Is this the Ultima Thule that rock music has long been aiming for?

TSUYAMA ATSUSHI solo
Tsuyama is best known for his monster bass in Acid Mothers Temple, but he also has amazing
technique of guitar and vocal.
He has travelled around the world and accumulated the traditional styles of guitars/vocals in
europe and asia.
He adds his own interpretations and lyrical sense to create a beautiful but odd "fake traditional"
musical world.
Recently he developed a new figure called "prog.rock > blues-ization plan".
He dismantles the masterpiece of progressive rock, and restructures it as an impromptu blues.

KAWABATA MAKOTO solo
Kawabata Makoto is best known for his speed-demon noise-fuzz guitar in Acid Mothers Temple, but
he is also widely active as an unparalleled drone guitarist.
Drawing upon a huge reservoir of original techniques including metal glissando and bow-work that
can summon up the sound of a string ensemble or orchestra, his work in this area cannot be simply
categorized as minimal, drone or experimental.
You'll find it hard to believe that a single guitar can create sonic worlds of such meditative and
elegant depth.