Simple Question: Does Israel have a right to subjugate another people?

[Popol Vuh]

.

[Sparkly]

1. Of course not.

But do they have a right to defend themselves?

[Popol Vuh]

2. Yes

Of course they do as does anybody, but the key word is "defense" not "offense" and certainly not subjugation of another people.


Does Palestine have a right to exists? And when I say exist, I mean have its sovereignty respected?

[Sparkly]

3. So you say "yes."

Simple question.

Simple answer.

(As opposed to, cynical question in "copycat" post because somehow a direct discussion was too difficult.)

Yes, "defense" and "offense" are different things.

Yes, "subjugation" is something else.

Yes, Palestine has a right to exist, sovereign and respected.

Any other obvious questions?

Oh yes, one: Does Israel have a right to defend itself? (WHY is that one so difficult?)

[Popol Vuh]

4. My answer

was pretty straight forward and pretty simple.

Why do you attempt to place restraints on people's answers? Is it maybe because you know that Israel is in the wrong in the manner in which they are conducting themselves and you don't wish to admit it?

Just asking because that what it appears to be to me at least.



I am just sayin..

[Sparkly]

5. No

Your answer was, "Of course they do as does anybody, but" ....

In the thread you had a hard time with, I said nothing about the "manner in which they are conducting themselves" -- instead, I wanted to get one issue off the table (or not), because it's not as "of course" obvious as you may think.

As I described in that thread...

The one you couldn't respond to directly, but instead felt a need to create a cynical "copycat" poll as a response.

I think if you read what I wrote in the thread, you wouldn't have these questions.

I'm just sayin'. :eyes:

[Popol Vuh]

8. Cynical?

Why do you feel it was cynical? It isn't any different than a simple question as was your poll question.

And as I already said, my answer to you was simple. I mean is it difficult to understand that my answer was a simple "yes" with an inclusion that their right is no different than anybody else's right to defend themselves? Or is that you have a difficult time with that answer because you feel that Israel has more rights than others do?

Sorry if I sound confrontational with you, but I don't takes sides with anybody. I just simply go by what is right Vs what is wrong and call'em how I see 'em. And the way I see Israel's actions, are plain and simply.......wrong!

[Sparkly]

9. Yeah, kay, fine.

I've written enough for you to read back and consider.

You either choose not to understand, or you're really not able to, or you just find it amusing to pretend you don't.

This is just ridiculous to the point of frustrating. "you feel that Israel has more rights than others do?" Good GOD. This is so much more difficult than teaching children.

[Popol Vuh]

10. whatever

n/t

[IndianaGreen]

6. Israel is not an immoral country, but her war on Lebanon is wrong!

Bombing of hospitals, grain storage facilities, milk production facilities, and water supply infrastructures are war crimes.

Bombing of Lebanese army bases exposes as lies Israel's claims that it wants the Lebanese to disarm Hezbollah. With what army, one is forced to ask?

What Israel is doing in Beirut and in Lebanon is a small-scale version of what the US has done in Irag: the obliteration of the fabric of Lebanese society!

And we still have a few more weeks of this "freedom and democracy" spectacle!

Yes, everyone is upset! Angry words are exchanged. But I remind everyone on this board, that the vitriol and rage will only increase in this country if the neocon/neolib alliance that got us into the Iraq debacle success in getting us into a war against Iran and/or Syria.

We are living through very dangerous times, and we are being led by a very evil and foolish ideological cabal that will be the ruin of us all, Jew and Gentile.

[Erika]

7. It won't be our troops who get into these wars

unless W institutes a draft. We have neither the troops nor the will to keep on fighting religious wars.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

12. FUCK YOU!!!

After all I've written explaining my point of view, you have to be WORKING HARD at being an Ignorant Asshole to say something that outrageous to me.

"Exterminate Jews??!?!?!!"

Let me give you the first FUCK YOU I ever said on DU:

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Sorry Mods, I tried to be patient....)

[Czolgosz]

13. How can you deny that your poll question is a false strawman dispute? No

one disputes any democracy's right to defend itself to the very same extent that no one disputes the impropriety of genocide.

You ask a false question to achieve a false answer. The discomfort with Israel's disproportionate response has nothing to do with Israel's right to defend itself and you promote injustice to imply otherwise.

[Sparkly]

14. I didn't "IMPLY" ANYTHING

YOU read into it, for whatever stupid-ass reason came up in your OWN narrow thinking.

There was NO false question.

There was one SIMPLE question, only it's not so simple, is it?

I SAID NOTHING promoting injustice, NOTHING disputing the "impropriety of genocide," I just prompted some idiotic automatic unthinking assumptions from people like YOU.

THE ANSWER to the simple question, in my mind, is a simple: YES.

To others, it's really not so clear.

So you can take your stupid fucking attacks and shove them up your stupid fucking ASS!!!!

[Czolgosz]

16. If I ask "Does Lebanon have a right to promote genocide?" would I not be

implying that the debate over the conflict in Lebanon is properly understood as Israel's defense against genocide? I course I would be. To the same degree your question frames the debate as a question of whether or not Israel has a right to defend itself, which is not seriously disputed. Your flamebait poll draws only 13% rejection of your biased premise and if you read the posts, it is amply clear that this 13% is a response to the inherent bias in your question and not a response to whether or not any democracy has the right to defend itself.

[Sparkly]

18. I'm not even reading your post.

"Does Lebanon have a right to promote genocide?"

SIMPLE QUESTION.

SIMPLE ANSWER: NO.

[Czolgosz]

21. Your poll question is hardly less biased. Stupid question. Factious debate

[Sparkly]

22. There was NO bias, except the bias YOU applied to it. nt

[Popol Vuh]

15. C'mon dude

There's no reason to get all bent out of shape. Just relax man..

I think the point he's trying to make is similar to the reason why I posted this in the first place. And that simply is: People can see what you're trying to do when you constrain them to answering with only a yes or no.

People can see that your question and it being constrained to only a yes or no answer from your other thread is nothing more than an attempt by you to get people to say that what Israel is doing is justified. In that respect, its a dishonest way to ask a question.

That's why I asked the simple question that I did. Because I knew persons such as yourself wouldn't be able to give just a simple yes or no. And of course when you did answer (and I do appreciate all your responses), I noticed that you didn't just give a simple yes or no answer. I noticed that you gave your answer with the addition of another point.

[Czolgosz]

17. Agreed. Sparkly's poll is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question

[Sparkly]

20. No, it's a "Does Israel have a right to defend itself" question.

Like a "Do gays deserve equal rights" question.

Like a "Have you actually stopped to think about what you're saying and why" question.

Like "Can we separate out the possibility of bias from discussions of right/wrong actions" question.

But you're obviously TRYING to miss the point.

[Czolgosz]

25. Have you failed to note that the majority of the debate is about the bias

inherent in your poll question and not the issue you ask about?

Whether or not you missed this point, no one else missed it.

[Sparkly]

26. No, I've noticed it full well. It's AMAZING

that ANYone on DU wouldn't answer a simple "yes" and put the question to rest.

It's AMAZING that ANYone would apply so much BS to a simple question, read "BIAS" into it, assume all sort of motives, and liken it to a question about "EXTERMINATING JEWS!!!"

[Czolgosz]

27. If it is "ANYone on DU wouldn't answer a simple 'yes'" as you say, why did

poll on a question where anything less that a 100% agreement rate would "amaze" you?

Your question was a blatant attempt the unfairly frame the debate and that is why your thread has generated the response it has.

People don't need to poll on a question where everyone "on DU" would "answer a simple yes" unless they have an ulterior motive. Your's is showing.

[Sparkly]

28. I've given that answer, many times over.

Can you READ? Do you bother to?

I let the thread go to get responses, and then posted my rationale.

DID YOU READ IT?!?

"Ulterior motives" my ass. "Blatant attempt" my ass. "Unfair" my ass.

"Mine is showing?" Yeah. I'm showing you MY ASS.

[Czolgosz]

29. It's not your answer that's objectionable; it's your question

[Sparkly]

30. OBVIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!! nt

[Czolgosz]

32. If you have asked an "OBVIOUSLY!!!" objectionable question, why do you act

surprised by the objections?

What special capacity do you have that causes you to believe that you can ask an "OBVIOUSLY!!!" objectionable question without having people question your motives for asking such a question?

[Sparkly]

33. Wow, you are SO working at this....

I said, "OBVIOUSLY" some people found the very question "objectionable."

Do you perform special incantations and rituals to remain blind?

[Czolgosz]

35. Do the objections to your poll cause you to question your objectivity?

[Sparkly]

36. No. They cause me to question your intelligence.

And when I assume you're intelligent, they cause me to question your objectivity.

[Czolgosz]

37. Fair enough. My intelligence is not a given. Is your objectivity?

[Sparkly]

39. "My intelligence is not a given." (Oh REALLY?)

This is ridiculous.

I wrote words you either didn't read, or didn't understand.

For whatever reasons, you've read all SORTS of bullshit into one simple question.

And now you seem to be intent on some stupid rhetorical pissing match that has NOTHING to do with the points I took time to make, the issues I raised, the rationale behind my question, the questions I posed about subtext, the reasons I gave for posing my question -- primarily within the thread this OP couldn't handle without creating a "copycat."

To you, these thoughts are all equivalent to a question of "exterminating the Jews." Same thing. Same logic. Same level. Same thought process.

You're the very "knee-jerk" reactionist I posted about elsewhere. You make assumptions without actually reading, thinking, questioning, or considering.

So you'll casually toss out phrases like "Exterminating the Jews" without a fucking THOUGHT.

You're a disgrace to my party. And you can kiss my ass.

[Czolgosz]

42. I don't expect you to presume I'm intelligent. Do you expect me to presume

you're objective?

We can debate whether or not I'm intelligent and you can offer whatever proof you like to dispute my intelligence.

Likewise, I can point to specific posts which demonstrate your bias on this issue.

I (and a couple dozen other people) have noted the bias inherent in your poll question. When I compare your question to a question whether or not we favor genocide is because both questions are obviously calculated to achieve a preordained response (obviously we disfavor genocide and we favor a democracy's right to defend itself). But the point is: we need not poll on preordained questions unless we have an ulterior motive. Your ulterior motive is clearly an attempt to misframe the Israel-Lebanon dispute as a debate whether or not Israel has a right to defend itself.

I've read your words. I have also read the words of many people who see through your biased question. I agree with those who see you as initiating a false debate to misframe any question about the Israel-Lebanon dispute.

What's "knee-jerk" about reading your question and also reading the objections of a couple of dozen of people who have criticized your question and based on what I've read agreeing with the great majority of people who question your objectivity and motives?

When you say I'm a disgrace to your party, I don't necessarily assume we share a party. Do you?

[Sparkly]

44. "I don't necessarily assume we share a party."

You assumed everything else under the sun.

You assumed I had a "bias" (which you'd realize wasn't true, if you READ MY POSTS).

You assumed I posted a question "calculated to achieve a preordained reponse" (which you'd realize wasn't true, if you READ MY POSTS).

You assumed an "ulterior motive" (which you'd realize wasn't true, if you READ MY POSTS).

Let's get back to the question: "DOES ISRAEL HAVE A RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF?"

It's a legitimate question. I posted elsewhere WHY it is, and WHY I asked it, WHAT prompted it, and WHAT makes it important.

It's a NO-BRAINER!!! (Or so I thought.)

GET IT OFF THE TABLE.

You really have to WORK at remaining so dense.

"Exterminate Jews"....

This is part of the problem with "copycat" threads, with not reading, with knee-jerk reactions, with assumptions, with not participating in actual discussions, and with insisting on inane pissing matches.

KISS MY ASS, and if we ever meet again, I'll remember what an idiot you are.

[Czolgosz]

47. An assumption is a conclusion you reach without the benefit of evidence.

Each thing you say I "assumed" is something I concluded based on your posts (and, by the way, they are conclusion I shared with a majority of the people who posted in your poll thread).

I don't assume you have a bias -- I see it based on my observation of the very words you type.

I don't assume you posted a question calculated to achieve a preordained response -- I concluded that from reading your posts on the topic (and I am not alone in my conclusion -- as you well know).

I'm going to get out of this thread. Perhaps there are some other non-war-related issues where we would not disagree so vehemently; perhaps not. In either event, it has become apparent that this is a debate where you are not likely to understand my point and I am unlikely to agree with yours. If we "ever meet again" I'll be glad to kiss your ass if that's the price for being able to say my peace. You are welcome to conclude I'm an idiot; I'm sure you won't be the only one. I'll remember that you're the person who figured out that the Israel-Lebanon dispute is really all about whether or not Israel has a right to defend itself.

Good night.

[Sparkly]

48. "I'll remember that you're the person who....

...figured out that the Israel-Lebanon dispute is really all about whether or not Israel has a right to defend itself."

As I said, I'll remember you're an idiot.

Good night.

[Sparkly]

19. "Just relax, man."

I'm not a man, and FUCK YOU, TOO!!!

Yes or no: Does Israel have a right to defend itself? Why is that so difficult a question for you? (If you look on other threads, you'll see my own point of view on the matter.)

"Nothing more than an attempt." FUCK YOU.

"Persons such as yourself..." FUCK YOU.

Yes, there's another point. I said that. If you read what I wrote, you'd see what I said about other points, but you either didn't, or you chose to pretend you didn't.

SO FUCK YOU.

"Does Israel have a right to defend itself" = "Should we exterminate Jews?"

Fuck BOTH of you, upside down and sideways.

[Popol Vuh]

50. What a display

Have you taken the time to look at yourself in the mirror? Because your display is that of someone who has no discipline.

And my apologies if you took my "man" remark the wrong way. It wasn't used in the gender sense, it was used just as a figure of speech.

Also, I don't appreciate your last comment of "BOTH of you". It gives the appearance that I posted something that I did not.

Seriously, I think you need to calm down. Smoke a joint or something before you have a heart attack.

[MarkDevin]

24. Self-deleted

[JI7]

45. i second that

FUCK YOU

seriously, i don't understand his reply to what you posted. but you are totally justified in your reply.

[question everything]

23. A simple question: should DUers post idiotic demagogic polls

that show their ignorance?

When the UN voted, in 1947, to divide the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state, the Jews accepted it, the arabs did not, and attacked Israel. The tiny inexperienced Israeli army won over the strong armies of Egypt, Trans Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and new cease fires line were drawn. The final borders were going to be determined after peace treaties.

When Trans Jordan took over the West Bank and Egypt took over Gaza in 1950, only two countries recognized this annexation: Pakistan and Britain. But no one was crying then about the disenfranchising of the Palestinians.

When Egypt kicked the UN observers and then blockaded the straits of Tiran in 1967 - an internationally recognizable sign of declaration of war - Israel waited three weeks for diplomatic results and then attacked Egypt. Jordan and Syria decided to join the festivities and lost.

Once Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, the Sinai was returned. And last year Israel withdrew from Gaza, only to have this "free state" shelling Israel, digging tunnels and kidnapping, and killing Israeli soldiers.

Israel has been ready to sing a peace treaty with the Palestinian authority and was very close to it at Camp David in 2000, but Arafat could not handle the prospect of peace. Life of terror and of corruption was what he craved.

Israel has been willing to withdraw from the West Bank for a real peace but it appears that the Palestinians and other jihadists, and too many DUers cannot or would not accept Israel as a sovereign state.

Why not study a bit about the topic before you post an idiotic poll that shows your ignorance?

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. thank you -- The Myth of the Generous Offer by By Seth Ackerman

Distorting the Camp David negotiations

And this is the offer Israel made to the Palestinian at Camp David in 2000:

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

"The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel"

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."

read full article:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113
________________

There is an offer for peace between Arab countries and Israel:

This specific offer was introduced by then Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, unanimously affirmed by the Arab League, and immediately endorsed by the Palestinian Authority in March 2002. However, more or less the same plan has been offered by the Arab League and endorsed by the Palestinian leadership going back many, many years

link:

http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

"The Arab Peace Initiative
(translation by Reuters).

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session, reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government.

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel.

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union."
___________

link:

http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

[Popol Vuh]

34. "Israel was also to have kept "security control""

Thank you Douglas Carpenter. You made a point that I was going to make by posting This Video and asking question everything to advance it to time index 46:15 and listen to what the senior adviser to Israel's Prime Minister had to say about a Palestinian sovereign state.

[oberliner]

38. self-delete

unnessarily inflammatory question, apologies

[Douglas Carpenter]

40. a very civil debate between former Israeli Foreign Minister Ben-Ami and Dr

Norman Finkelstein

link to listen online or download or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml


Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and Professor Norman Finkelstein Debate - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml
_________________

I would also like to recommend a book by former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami:
http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0195181581.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195181581/sr=1-1/qid=1153546420/ref=sr_1_1/104-2240026-0639147?ie=UTF8&s=books
___________________

_____________

Then I would like to STONGLY recommend:



A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples

by Ilan Pappe of Haifa University in Israel.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521683157/104-2240026-0639147?v=glance&n=283155

.

[Popol Vuh]

41. Thanks for the links Douglas Carpenter

I will certainly check them out.

:hi:

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. thank you another point is the State siege in the Gaza -

"For the past four and a half years, Israel has severely restricted freedom of movement to and from the Gaza Strip. These restrictions further strangled the Gaza Strip, so much so that the area resembles one gigantic prison. Israel’s policies have reduced many human rights – among them the right to freedom of movement, family life, health, education, and work – to “humanitarian gestures” that Israel sparingly provides."

this from the wonderful, wonderful people at:

- The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was established in 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. It endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.

B'Tselem in Hebrew literally means "in the image of," and is also used as a synonym for human dignity. The word is taken from Genesis 1:27 "And God created humans in his image. In the image of God did He create him." It is in this spirit that the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born equal in dignity and rights."

As an Israeli human rights organization, B'Tselem acts primarily to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and ensure that its government, which rules the Occupied Territories, protects the human rights of residents there and complies with its obligations under international law.

B'Tselem is independent and is funded by contributions from foundations in Israel, Europe, and North America that support human rights activity worldwide, and by private individuals in Israel and abroad.

B'Tselem has attained a prominent place among human rights organizations. In December, 1989 it received the Carter-Menil Award for Human Rights. Its reports have gained B'Tselem a reputation for accuracy, and the Israeli authorities relate to them seriously. B'Tselem ensures the reliability of information it publishes by conducting its own fieldwork and research, whose results are thoroughly cross-checked with relevant documents, official government sources, and information from other sources, among them Israeli, Palestinian, and other human rights organizations."

link:

http://www.btselem.org/english/Maps/Index.asp

[oberliner]

43. self-delete

[niyad]

49. since one of the more commonly accepted meanings of the word

"subjugate" is to enslave, I find that question offensive:

sub·ju·gate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sbj-gt)
tr.v. sub·ju·gat·ed, sub·ju·gat·ing, sub·ju·gates
To bring under control; conquer. See Synonyms at defeat.

*******To make SUBSERVIENT; ENSLAVE. *******


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
subju·gation n.
subju·gator n.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


subjugate

v 1: put down by force or intimidation; "The government quashes any attempt of an uprising"; "China keeps down her dissidents very efficiently"; "The rich landowners subjugated the peasants working the land" 2: make subservient; force to submit or subdue


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

[The Magistrate]

51. Locking

Flame-Bait.