Discussion:
The One Terrorist They Aren't Going After -- Why Not??
(too old to reply)
NYC XYZ
2006-09-06 20:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Ah, too bad the Mongols didn't just wipe out Islam when they conquered
those Mohammedans. To think how peaceful the Afghans used to be when
they were Buddhists. Why, the Iranians themselves have for centuries
disowned their native Zoastrianism!

The one terrorist is the Prophet of Pigs Mohammad, shit be upon his
name. Truly worse than X-tians, who were and still are a pretty
fucked-up lot, too. Who should I lend my support to, Tweedle-Dee or
Tweedle-Dum?
Fred Hebert
2006-09-06 22:50:49 UTC
Permalink
As far as I know, Christians don't sit back silently while their religion is
(supposedly) hijacked by extremists. The truth is, scratch a muslim, and
there's a good chance you'll find a terrorist-sympathizer underneath. Not so
for the vast majority of Christians.
Post by NYC XYZ
Ah, too bad the Mongols didn't just wipe out Islam when they conquered
those Mohammedans. To think how peaceful the Afghans used to be when
they were Buddhists. Why, the Iranians themselves have for centuries
disowned their native Zoastrianism!
The one terrorist is the Prophet of Pigs Mohammad, shit be upon his
name. Truly worse than X-tians, who were and still are a pretty
fucked-up lot, too. Who should I lend my support to, Tweedle-Dee or
Tweedle-Dum?
zose
2006-09-07 01:20:14 UTC
Permalink
What do you call the fundies in the Republican party who are
specifically trying to bring on Armageddon in the Middle East so that
their Lord and Savior will supposedly return? Or the Zionist extremists
in Israel who are working towards a Greater Israel and won't budge an
inch on the land they stole from the Arabs?

FYI, Islam was far more religiously tolerant than Christianity during
its heyday.

Who should you lend your support to? The victims. Who are the victims?
It's surely not Israel nor the USA. Do some research and if you're at
all objective, you'll realize that the two warmongers have been
instigating crap in the Middle East for decades.

I personally don't like Judaism, Christianity nor Islam. All three are
to some degree close-minded and self-righteous religions. But it's
unfair to single out Islam as some extremists practice it today as a
fair representation of the religion. When people are driven to
irrational anger (and that's what Israel and the West have done), they
will become radicalized. Extremism in the ME did not grow endogenously.
It was nursed and fostered by decades of Western policies.

Moreover, terrorism is a method of warfare of the weak. If these guys
had modern weapons, they'd be fighting a conventional war. They're
poor. And they don't have the means to fight head-on. So naturally,
they resort to terrorism, as really any determined combantant would.
That's one reason why Bush's war on terror is a farce. You can't fight
a war against a method of warfare.

At the end of the day, Palestinian "terrorist" organizations and
Hezbollah are freedom-fighters inasmuch as Israel continues their policy
of occupation. The terrorists may be "mad", but it's Israel and the
West that drive them to insanity.
Post by Fred Hebert
As far as I know, Christians don't sit back silently while their
religion is (supposedly) hijacked by extremists. The truth is, scratch
a muslim, and there's a good chance you'll find a
terrorist-sympathizer underneath. Not so for the vast majority of
Christians.
Post by NYC XYZ
Ah, too bad the Mongols didn't just wipe out Islam when they
conquered those Mohammedans. To think how peaceful the Afghans used
to be when they were Buddhists. Why, the Iranians themselves have
for centuries disowned their native Zoastrianism!
The one terrorist is the Prophet of Pigs Mohammad, shit be upon his
name. Truly worse than X-tians, who were and still are a pretty
fucked-up lot, too. Who should I lend my support to, Tweedle-Dee or
Tweedle-Dum?
Fred Hebert
2006-09-07 01:41:56 UTC
Permalink
How absurd to say the US and Israel are to blame. If the childish arab
muslims stopped attacking the West tomorrow, this conflict would be over.

But it's always someone else's fault when it comes to arabs, isn't it? No,
the arabs/muslims did this, and it's this childish insistence that they
aren't to blame that fuels their hatred of the West, rather than looking
within.
Post by zose
What do you call the fundies in the Republican party who are
specifically trying to bring on Armageddon in the Middle East so that
their Lord and Savior will supposedly return? Or the Zionist extremists
in Israel who are working towards a Greater Israel and won't budge an
inch on the land they stole from the Arabs?
FYI, Islam was far more religiously tolerant than Christianity during
its heyday.
Who should you lend your support to? The victims. Who are the victims?
It's surely not Israel nor the USA. Do some research and if you're at
all objective, you'll realize that the two warmongers have been
instigating crap in the Middle East for decades.
I personally don't like Judaism, Christianity nor Islam. All three are
to some degree close-minded and self-righteous religions. But it's
unfair to single out Islam as some extremists practice it today as a
fair representation of the religion. When people are driven to
irrational anger (and that's what Israel and the West have done), they
will become radicalized. Extremism in the ME did not grow endogenously.
It was nursed and fostered by decades of Western policies.
Moreover, terrorism is a method of warfare of the weak. If these guys
had modern weapons, they'd be fighting a conventional war. They're
poor. And they don't have the means to fight head-on. So naturally,
they resort to terrorism, as really any determined combantant would.
That's one reason why Bush's war on terror is a farce. You can't fight
a war against a method of warfare.
At the end of the day, Palestinian "terrorist" organizations and
Hezbollah are freedom-fighters inasmuch as Israel continues their policy
of occupation. The terrorists may be "mad", but it's Israel and the
West that drive them to insanity.
Post by Fred Hebert
As far as I know, Christians don't sit back silently while their
religion is (supposedly) hijacked by extremists. The truth is, scratch
a muslim, and there's a good chance you'll find a
terrorist-sympathizer underneath. Not so for the vast majority of
Christians.
Post by NYC XYZ
Ah, too bad the Mongols didn't just wipe out Islam when they
conquered those Mohammedans. To think how peaceful the Afghans used
to be when they were Buddhists. Why, the Iranians themselves have
for centuries disowned their native Zoastrianism!
The one terrorist is the Prophet of Pigs Mohammad, shit be upon his
name. Truly worse than X-tians, who were and still are a pretty
fucked-up lot, too. Who should I lend my support to, Tweedle-Dee or
Tweedle-Dum?
zose
2006-09-07 02:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Hebert
How absurd to say the US and Israel are to blame. If the childish arab
muslims stopped attacking the West tomorrow, this conflict would be over.
But it's always someone else's fault when it comes to arabs, isn't it?
No, the arabs/muslims did this, and it's this childish insistence that
they aren't to blame that fuels their hatred of the West, rather than
looking within.
Why should the Arabs stop attacking the West tomorrow when Israel with
full support of the US continues its occupation of the W. Bank, Gaza, E.
Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms?

If Mexico stole San Diego, would Americans then be to blame for their
retaliation against them?

Who is it that is being aggressive in this instance?

Perhaps you think it would be the US? If that's so, then you'd be wrong.
Fred Hebert
2006-09-07 02:54:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by zose
Why should the Arabs stop attacking the West tomorrow when Israel with
full support of the US continues its occupation of the W. Bank, Gaza, E.
Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms?
Q: When did Israel take those lands?
A: Israel took those lands in war waged against THEM, and by rights they
don't have to give them back, at all.

That's how it works: You attack someone, you lose, you don't get to cry that
the winner won't give back the land they occupied.
Post by zose
If Mexico stole San Diego, would Americans then be to blame for their
retaliation against them?
Who is it that is being aggressive in this instance?
Perhaps you think it would be the US? If that's so, then you'd be wrong.
But your whole premise is wrong. The land wasn't stolen, it was lost to the
victors in a war started by the LOSING side.
And then you overlook the fact that the Israelis LEFT Gaza and were then
attacked FROM Gaza. How did they then "steal" it? It was in the hands of the
Palestinians, who then went into Israel and attacked them.

Now Gaza is occupied again. And, of course, the arabs are going to cry about
how unfair that is. And they can rely on the sympathy of a world full of
people who fundamentally hate Jews, and want to see Israel itself destroyed.
Joe King
2006-09-07 04:33:09 UTC
Permalink
If that doesn't say it, nothing does.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
Why should the Arabs stop attacking the West tomorrow when Israel with
full support of the US continues its occupation of the W. Bank, Gaza, E.
Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms?
Q: When did Israel take those lands?
A: Israel took those lands in war waged against THEM, and by rights they
don't have to give them back, at all.
That's how it works: You attack someone, you lose, you don't get to cry
that the winner won't give back the land they occupied.
Post by zose
If Mexico stole San Diego, would Americans then be to blame for their
retaliation against them?
Who is it that is being aggressive in this instance?
Perhaps you think it would be the US? If that's so, then you'd be wrong.
But your whole premise is wrong. The land wasn't stolen, it was lost to
the victors in a war started by the LOSING side.
And then you overlook the fact that the Israelis LEFT Gaza and were then
attacked FROM Gaza. How did they then "steal" it? It was in the hands of
the Palestinians, who then went into Israel and attacked them.
Now Gaza is occupied again. And, of course, the arabs are going to cry
about how unfair that is. And they can rely on the sympathy of a world
full of people who fundamentally hate Jews, and want to see Israel itself
destroyed.
zose
2006-09-07 04:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
Why should the Arabs stop attacking the West tomorrow when Israel
with full support of the US continues its occupation of the W. Bank,
Gaza, E. Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms?
Q: When did Israel take those lands?
A: Israel took those lands in war waged against THEM, and by rights
they don't have to give them back, at all.
That's how it works: You attack someone, you lose, you don't get to
cry that the winner won't give back the land they occupied.
So says the puffed-up victor...

UN resolutions call for Israel's withdrawal. But when did Israel ever
abide by UN resolutions?

If Israel wants to steal people's homelands, then it has chosen the path
of conflict. You can't pretend to wish for peace and go on a land-grab
campaign. People who don't want to be oppressed by outsiders will
naturally fight back.

More poignantly, if Israel wants to keep the land, then shouldn't it
embrace the people who live on the land into its own society?

Is it just and humanitarian to keep the land yet force the Palestinians
to live in oppression and as second class citizens?

If Israel wishes to keep the W. Bank, Gaza and E. Jerusalem... Okay.
But allow the Palestinians to become Israeli citizens. Don't try to
push them out. Don't force them to live in humiliation, poverty and
oppression without a state.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
If Mexico stole San Diego, would Americans then be to blame for their
retaliation against them?
Who is it that is being aggressive in this instance?
Perhaps you think it would be the US? If that's so, then you'd be wrong.
But your whole premise is wrong. The land wasn't stolen, it was lost
to the victors in a war started by the LOSING side.
If the US after defeating Germany and Japan began colonizing their
country, stealing their farmlands and treating the locals like 2nd class
citizens, would you expect the civilians to stand pat?

This isn't the 13th century. You cannot morally justify colonization
and oppression based on "winning the war."

Defenders of Israel seem to live by the perverted logic that says "to
the victor goes the spoils" and "to hell with ethics, humanity and
morality."

It doesn't work and only earns it worldwide blame.

Also, the Arabs didn't start all the wars with Israel. This is a lie
that is continually perpetuated. The 1967 war was started by Israel.
The Suez Canal war was started by the UK, France and Israel. The
invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was conducted by Israel. And this last
conflict with Lebanon? Of course, that war was started by Israel too,
despite what Bush says. The excuse about the soldiers being kidnapped
by Hezbollah is a joke. The two sides have had ongoing skirmishes for
years. The kidnapping was merely a pretext for an invasion it was
planning for a long time.

You don't start a full scale war just because a couple soldiers were
kidnapped! Kidnappings and hostages are not uncommon with the Israelis
and Arabs. They've conducted prisoner exchanges before. Israel has
been unjustly holding THOUSANDS of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners,
many underage, for years!

And, to be sure, Israel has no legitimate excuse for bombing civilian
infrastructures in Lebanon. They are correctly condemned for that.
Post by Fred Hebert
And then you overlook the fact that the Israelis LEFT Gaza and were
then attacked FROM Gaza. How did they then "steal" it? It was in the
hands of the Palestinians, who then went into Israel and attacked
them.
Israel left Gaza, technically, but encroached further in the W. Bank.
Gaza was also blockaded economically by sea and air. The people were
left as virtual prisoners with no means of livelihood.

It's no wonder the Palestinians in Gaza began to retaliate.

What's more, since the democratic election of Hamas, Israel and the West
began to financially and economically squeeze the new government and the
Palestinians too as a result. They were poor and suffering as it was.
In the wake of the financial/economic starvation, they suffered further.
Israel also began carrying out targeted assassinations and kidnappings
against Palestinian.

Is it any wonder the Palestinians retaliated with kidnappings of their
own?

If Israel was really serious about peace, it would take up the Saudi
Peace Plan offer: withdrawal to the 1967 borders and in return, get
diplomatic recognition and peace from all Arab states. Isn't this what
Israel says it really wants, ie, peace and diplomatic recognition?... to
just live in peace?

But Israel dismissed the offer from the outset. It never seriously
considered the offer.

Or continue the talks left off at Taba. They were very close to a peace
deal then, but Sharon shelved it.

When all is said and done, Israel's actions belie her words. It wants
peace but it wants land more. And the extremists and the advocates of
"Greater Israel" in that Jewish state will do its darndest to make sure
of that.
Post by Fred Hebert
Now Gaza is occupied again. And, of course, the arabs are going to cry
about how unfair that is. And they can rely on the sympathy of a world
full of people who fundamentally hate Jews, and want to see Israel
itself destroyed.
The world doesn't fundamentally hate the Jews. But by the actions that
Israel is taking, it's certainly creating resentment towards the state.

If Israel did the right thing, you'd see how quickly it's "favorability
rating" turns up.
Fred Hebert
2006-09-07 05:29:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by zose
So says the puffed-up victor...
Why does the victor have to be "puffed up"? (BTW, I am not an Israeli, or a
Jew, and personally don't give Israel a lot of thought day-today).
Post by zose
UN resolutions call for Israel's withdrawal. But when did Israel ever
abide by UN resolutions?
Or anyone else, for that matter? (Or are you only going to draw the line at
Israel?)
Post by zose
If Israel wants to steal people's homelands, then it has chosen the path
of conflict. You can't pretend to wish for peace and go on a land-grab
campaign. People who don't want to be oppressed by outsiders will
naturally fight back.
This is no "land grab." This is land taken in a war, land which was partly
given back, to no effect. But again, that's Israel's fault, right?
Post by zose
More poignantly, if Israel wants to keep the land, then shouldn't it
embrace the people who live on the land into its own society?
Is it just and humanitarian to keep the land yet force the Palestinians
to live in oppression and as second class citizens?
The oppression of the Palestinians comes from within.
Post by zose
If Israel wishes to keep the W. Bank, Gaza and E. Jerusalem... Okay.
But allow the Palestinians to become Israeli citizens. Don't try to
push them out. Don't force them to live in humiliation, poverty and
oppression without a state.
Honestly, I have no idea if they want to be citizens or not? And I have no
idea how Israel feels about it, either. Certainly, they'd be better off as
part of Israel than as part of their former arab lands or as independents.
Post by zose
If the US after defeating Germany and Japan began colonizing their
country, stealing their farmlands and treating the locals like 2nd class
citizens, would you expect the civilians to stand pat?
It doesn't matter what one EXPECTS, only whether they would be within their
rights to keep the land. My answer is "yes, of course." That doesn't mean we
would want to hold that land, and I think (or course) we did the right
thing. But Germany and Japan aren't right next door to us, and we are not a
small, narrow country that would be easy to overrun.
Post by zose
This isn't the 13th century. You cannot morally justify colonization
and oppression based on "winning the war."
Sure you can. Besides, you seem to be morally justifying terrorism..
Post by zose
Defenders of Israel seem to live by the perverted logic that says "to
the victor goes the spoils" and "to hell with ethics, humanity and
morality."
That's just a lot of nonsense rhetoric. AFA morality, as the old saying
goes, if the arabs disarmed tomorrow, there would be no more war. If the
Israelis disarmed tomorrow, there would be no more Israel. That was as true
before the occupation of arab lands as it is today.

And that is the absolute truth.
Post by zose
It doesn't work and only earns it worldwide blame.
Jew-hatred is the true source of this "righteous indignation" the world has
toward Israel.
Post by zose
Also, the Arabs didn't start all the wars with Israel. This is a lie
that is continually perpetuated. The 1967 war was started by Israel.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_whostarted.php

http://peace.heebz.com/sixdaywar.html
Post by zose
The Suez Canal war was started by the UK, France and Israel. The
invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was conducted by Israel. And this last
conflict with Lebanon? Of course, that war was started by Israel too,
despite what Bush says. The excuse about the soldiers being kidnapped
by Hezbollah is a joke. The two sides have had ongoing skirmishes for
years. The kidnapping was merely a pretext for an invasion it was
planning for a long time.
And why did Israel want to attack Lebanon? You seem to know they intended to
do that, so tell me WHY? To what end?

It's all those dirty Jews, right? How convenient to be able to continually
blame the Israelis for whatever happens. They attack, it's their fault; they
are attacked, it's their fault.
Post by zose
You don't start a full scale war just because a couple soldiers were
kidnapped! Kidnappings and hostages are not uncommon with the Israelis
and Arabs. They've conducted prisoner exchanges before. Israel has
been unjustly holding THOUSANDS of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners,
many underage, for years!
Israel had every right to attack Hezbolla, and the land that harbored them.
Who are the "unjustly" held Lebanese and Palestinians?
Post by zose
And, to be sure, Israel has no legitimate excuse for bombing civilian
infrastructures in Lebanon. They are correctly condemned for that.
Sure, and Hezbolla hiding behind civilians, storing weapons in civilian
areas and even hiding behind the UN is OK, right?
Post by zose
Israel left Gaza, technically, but encroached further in the W. Bank.
Gaza was also blockaded economically by sea and air. The people were
left as virtual prisoners with no means of livelihood.
They left them "technically"? How did they live them "technically"? You mean
they left, correct? And then they were attacked, which is one of the reasons
they held the land in the first place.
Post by zose
It's no wonder the Palestinians in Gaza began to retaliate.
Sure, because arabs are innocent victims, always.
Post by zose
What's more, since the democratic election of Hamas, Israel and the West
began to financially and economically squeeze the new government and the
Palestinians too as a result. They were poor and suffering as it was.
In the wake of the financial/economic starvation, they suffered further.
Israel also began carrying out targeted assassinations and kidnappings
against Palestinian.
As well they should. Targeted assasinations against terrorists is a good
thing. We need more assasinations in this world.
Post by zose
Is it any wonder the Palestinians retaliated with kidnappings of their
own?
But..I'm confused..I thought you said they ALWAYS do that sort of thing? Now
it was just a "retaliation"?
Post by zose
If Israel was really serious about peace, it would take up the Saudi
Peace Plan offer: withdrawal to the 1967 borders and in return, get
diplomatic recognition and peace from all Arab states. Isn't this what
Israel says it really wants, ie, peace and diplomatic recognition?... to
just live in peace?
What do you expect: that they don't? Israel would do that if they weren't
very sure that it would result in their own destruction. Can you honestly,
as a reasonable person, say that that would not be the eventual outcome?
Post by zose
But Israel dismissed the offer from the outset. It never seriously
considered the offer.
Or continue the talks left off at Taba. They were very close to a peace
deal then, but Sharon shelved it.
What about the deal offered to Yasser Arafat? What was his response?
Post by zose
When all is said and done, Israel's actions belie her words. It wants
peace but it wants land more. And the extremists and the advocates of
"Greater Israel" in that Jewish state will do its darndest to make sure
of that.
And there is NO DOUBT that the arabs would destroy Israel if they could. In
fact, I will go so far as to say that Israel WILL BE destroyed, eventually.
Post by zose
The world doesn't fundamentally hate the Jews. But by the actions that
Israel is taking, it's certainly creating resentment towards the state.
Bull_fucking_shit! The world has hated Jews forever. This isn't because of
Israel. Antisemitism has always been.
Post by zose
If Israel did the right thing, you'd see how quickly it's "favorability
rating" turns up.
People do tend to speak well of the dead..
zose
2006-09-07 17:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
So says the puffed-up victor...
Why does the victor have to be "puffed up"? (BTW, I am not an Israeli,
or a Jew, and personally don't give Israel a lot of thought
day-today).
Only an arrogant victor would claim such things. A country more humble,
rational and humane would allow the indigenous people to live in dignity
and peace, not in occupation.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
UN resolutions call for Israel's withdrawal. But when did Israel
ever abide by UN resolutions?
Or anyone else, for that matter? (Or are you only going to draw the
line at Israel?)
I'm sure nations will do what is in their interest. Sometimes that may
mean abiding by UN resolutions -- or not.

But I remember Israel whining about Lebanon failing to abide by some UN
resolution that called for the disarmament of Hezbollah... an
impossible, resolution, by the way, since Hezbollah is more powerful
than the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese government is really
quite weak. And also a resolution that was rashly pushed through by the
US on behalf of Israel years after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon.
But Israel whined and whined about this... like they were angels who
abided by all UN resolutions, when if anything, they are quite brazen
about not abiding by any of them themselves.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
If Israel wants to steal people's homelands, then it has chosen the
path of conflict. You can't pretend to wish for peace and go on a
land-grab campaign. People who don't want to be oppressed by
outsiders will naturally fight back.
This is no "land grab." This is land taken in a war, land which was
partly given back, to no effect. But again, that's Israel's fault,
right?
It seems impossible to convince folks like you but it is certainly a
land-grab in my book of morals, justice and ethics.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
More poignantly, if Israel wants to keep the land, then shouldn't it
embrace the people who live on the land into its own society?
Is it just and humanitarian to keep the land yet force the
Palestinians to live in oppression and as second class citizens?
The oppression of the Palestinians comes from within.
I strongly disagree. History says otherwise. Read up on it.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
If Israel wishes to keep the W. Bank, Gaza and E. Jerusalem... Okay.
But allow the Palestinians to become Israeli citizens. Don't try to
push them out. Don't force them to live in humiliation, poverty and
oppression without a state.
Honestly, I have no idea if they want to be citizens or not? And I
have no idea how Israel feels about it, either. Certainly, they'd be
better off as part of Israel than as part of their former arab lands
or as independents.
See, you really don't understand the politics over there, obviously.

In ~1947, the British were struck with a pang of conscience and decided
against creating a separate Jewish state for Jews only. The Zionists
wouldn't hear of it and fought the British.

The Arabs, from the beginning, wanted a single state, shared by
everyone.

Recently, even the "crazy" Iranian President said that Israel (including
the Palestinians in the occupied territories) should hold elections...
and let whatever happen, happen. Let the people (everyone) decide on
the form of government.

I'd bet that the average Palestinian would love to have a single state
in ALL of Palestine, including Israel, shared by ALL.

Arabs don't hate Jews. They hate the Zionist state. Do you know what
the difference is? The Zionist state is by nature racist and bigoted.
Yes, Arabs live and are citizens in Israel, but they are a minority --
and Zionists wish to keep it that way.

Why won't Israel allow Palestinians who were kicked out of Israel proper
to return? Why won't Israel allow all Palestinians Israeli citizenship?
Because that would mean the end of the "Jewish" state.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
If the US after defeating Germany and Japan began colonizing their
country, stealing their farmlands and treating the locals like 2nd
class citizens, would you expect the civilians to stand pat?
It doesn't matter what one EXPECTS, only whether they would be within
their rights to keep the land. My answer is "yes, of course." That
doesn't mean we would want to hold that land, and I think (or course)
we did the right thing. But Germany and Japan aren't right next door
to us, and we are not a small, narrow country that would be easy to
overrun.
No, it's not within America's "right" to occupy and oppress those it has
conquered. Can it do it? Sure. If it wants to live with animosity
from the locals.... and perhaps occasional uprising and fighting...
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
This isn't the 13th century. You cannot morally justify colonization
and oppression based on "winning the war."
Sure you can. Besides, you seem to be morally justifying terrorism..
There's no need to morally justify anything. War is cruel. Both
"terrorists" and nation-states target civlians at times... and sometimes
lots of times, in the case of Israel too.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
Defenders of Israel seem to live by the perverted logic that says "to
the victor goes the spoils" and "to hell with ethics, humanity and
morality."
That's just a lot of nonsense rhetoric. AFA morality, as the old
saying goes, if the arabs disarmed tomorrow, there would be no more
war. If the Israelis disarmed tomorrow, there would be no more Israel.
That was as true before the occupation of arab lands as it is today.
And that is the absolute truth.
How armed are the Arabs? It's ridiculous. The Palestinians have
NOTHING except their bodies to fight back with. Israel whining about
their "existential threat" is complete nonsense. Israel has the
strongest army in the Middle East. Stronger than all the Arab nations
combined, especially now with the demise of Iraq! Israel is also backed
by the only super-power in the world. Any talk of Israel's existential
threat is bunk and a farce. It's laughable.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
It doesn't work and only earns it worldwide blame.
Jew-hatred is the true source of this "righteous indignation" the
world has toward Israel.
No it isn't.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
Also, the Arabs didn't start all the wars with Israel. This is a lie
that is continually perpetuated. The 1967 war was started by Israel.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_whostarted.php
http://peace.heebz.com/sixdaywar.html
Yeah, a pro-Israeli site. And there are also pro-arab sites.

So what? Do you believe everything you hear/read in the media?

Filter out the nonsense and believe what makes sense.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
The Suez Canal war was started by the UK, France and Israel. The
invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was conducted by Israel. And this last
conflict with Lebanon? Of course, that war was started by Israel
too, despite what Bush says. The excuse about the soldiers being
kidnapped by Hezbollah is a joke. The two sides have had ongoing
skirmishes for years. The kidnapping was merely a pretext for an
invasion it was planning for a long time.
And why did Israel want to attack Lebanon? You seem to know they
intended to do that, so tell me WHY? To what end?
I don't know why Israel wanted to attack Lebanon recently. The facts
aren't all clear yet.

If you read Seymour Hersh recently, it's because the US and Israel were
colluding to go after Iran and Syria.

Others have suggested that Israel simply wanted revenge on Hezbollah.

Others suggest maybe Israel wanted to expand up to the Litani river to
get access to more water. (Water is a big reason why Israel won't give
up the W. Bank and the Golan Heights... there's a terrible shortage
there.)

Others suggest Israel wanted to bomb Lebanon back 10 years to reduce
future economic competition.

Who the hell knows right now... I guess we'll be reading about it in
the future...
Post by Fred Hebert
It's all those dirty Jews, right? How convenient to be able to
continually blame the Israelis for whatever happens. They attack, it's
their fault; they are attacked, it's their fault.
As long as Israel continues it's occupation, they're out of the gate,
the aggressor and in the wrong as a result.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
You don't start a full scale war just because a couple soldiers were
kidnapped! Kidnappings and hostages are not uncommon with the
Israelis and Arabs. They've conducted prisoner exchanges before.
Israel has been unjustly holding THOUSANDS of Lebanese and
Palestinian prisoners, many underage, for years!
Israel had every right to attack Hezbolla, and the land that harbored
them. Who are the "unjustly" held Lebanese and Palestinians?
Prisoners from previous wars or skirmishes. They're held without trial.
Just held... for the indefinite future.

If Israel has a right to attakc Hezbollah.. then Hezbollah certainly has
a right to attack Israel. Israel occupies Lebanon's Shebaa Farms.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
And, to be sure, Israel has no legitimate excuse for bombing civilian
infrastructures in Lebanon. They are correctly condemned for that.
Sure, and Hezbolla hiding behind civilians, storing weapons in
civilian areas and even hiding behind the UN is OK, right?
So because Hezbollah is in the wrong by hiding behind civilians...
Israel has a right to kill civilians wantonly?
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
Israel left Gaza, technically, but encroached further in the W. Bank.
Gaza was also blockaded economically by sea and air. The people were
left as virtual prisoners with no means of livelihood.
They left them "technically"? How did they live them "technically"?
You mean they left, correct? And then they were attacked, which is one
of the reasons they held the land in the first place.
I explained this already. Creating an economic blockade is not doing
anyone any favors.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
It's no wonder the Palestinians in Gaza began to retaliate.
Sure, because arabs are innocent victims, always.
Why don't you try to be a little more objective? Figure out who did
what.. how this mess all got started... trace history back to its
origins... and step forward to the present.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
What's more, since the democratic election of Hamas, Israel and the
West began to financially and economically squeeze the new government
and the Palestinians too as a result. They were poor and suffering
as it was. In the wake of the financial/economic starvation, they
suffered further. Israel also began carrying out targeted
assassinations and kidnappings against Palestinian.
As well they should. Targeted assasinations against terrorists is a
good thing. We need more assasinations in this world.
Targeting politicians.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
Is it any wonder the Palestinians retaliated with kidnappings of
their own?
But..I'm confused..I thought you said they ALWAYS do that sort of
thing? Now it was just a "retaliation"?
Yes. Tit for tat... back and forth... on and on... as long as Israel's
occupation continues...
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
If Israel was really serious about peace, it would take up the Saudi
Peace Plan offer: withdrawal to the 1967 borders and in return, get
diplomatic recognition and peace from all Arab states. Isn't this
what Israel says it really wants, ie, peace and diplomatic
recognition?... to just live in peace?
What do you expect: that they don't? Israel would do that if they
weren't very sure that it would result in their own destruction. Can
you honestly, as a reasonable person, say that that would not be the
eventual outcome?
Yes, knowing that US backs them... knowing that Israel has the most
powerful military in the Middle East... knowing that the world is
watching.... it's a certainty.

Why would returning to the 1967 borders result in their destruction?
Don't repeat nonsense.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
But Israel dismissed the offer from the outset. It never seriously
considered the offer.
Or continue the talks left off at Taba. They were very close to a
peace deal then, but Sharon shelved it.
What about the deal offered to Yasser Arafat? What was his response?
Obviously, you haven't a clue what was "offered" at Camp David!

The generous offer to Arafat at Camp David were four divided cantons
with no water, border or air rights! How could Arafat accept such a
ridiculous, farcical offer? How is that the basis of a "state"??!!

But the US media and the Israelis touted the offer as something generous
and ground breaking.

Don't believe everything you read and hear. THINK through it!
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
When all is said and done, Israel's actions belie her words. It
wants peace but it wants land more. And the extremists and the
advocates of "Greater Israel" in that Jewish state will do its
darndest to make sure of that.
And there is NO DOUBT that the arabs would destroy Israel if they
could. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Israel WILL BE
destroyed, eventually.
After what Israel has perpetrated since 1967... it would only be karma
if Israel were destroyed. But the destruction of Israel doesn't mean
Jews cannot stay there. It just means the destruction of the Zionist
state, which is a good thing in my book. A state based on bigotry and
racism is nothing to be proud of.

I don't blame Arabs for hating Israel. Israel, as I've said before, is
the occupying/oppressing power. Naturally, Arabs will resent them.

If Israel wants to survive as a state, it ought to do the right thing
and cede the occupied territories.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
The world doesn't fundamentally hate the Jews. But by the actions
that Israel is taking, it's certainly creating resentment towards the
state.
Bull_fucking_shit! The world has hated Jews forever. This isn't
because of Israel. Antisemitism has always been.
The world?? The world is a big place. There's some historical
animosity between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam... but why should
others have a reason to be anti-semitic without cause?
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
If Israel did the right thing, you'd see how quickly it's
"favorability rating" turns up.
People do tend to speak well of the dead..
You're so melodramatic.

Jews are no longer the victims here. It's the Arabs who are the victims
of the victims of European history.
z***@yahoo.com
2006-09-08 10:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by zose
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
So says the puffed-up victor...
Why does the victor have to be "puffed up"? (BTW, I am not an Israeli,
or a Jew, and personally don't give Israel a lot of thought
day-today).
Only an arrogant victor would claim such things. A country more humble,
rational and humane would allow the indigenous people to live in dignity
and peace, not in occupation.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
UN resolutions call for Israel's withdrawal. But when did Israel
ever abide by UN resolutions?
Or anyone else, for that matter? (Or are you only going to draw the
line at Israel?)
I'm sure nations will do what is in their interest. Sometimes that may
mean abiding by UN resolutions -- or not.
But I remember Israel whining about Lebanon failing to abide by some UN
resolution that called for the disarmament of Hezbollah... an
impossible, resolution, by the way, since Hezbollah is more powerful
than the Lebanese government, and the Lebanese government is really
quite weak. And also a resolution that was rashly pushed through by the
US on behalf of Israel years after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon.
But Israel whined and whined about this... like they were angels who
abided by all UN resolutions, when if anything, they are quite brazen
about not abiding by any of them themselves.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
If Israel wants to steal people's homelands, then it has chosen the
path of conflict. You can't pretend to wish for peace and go on a
land-grab campaign. People who don't want to be oppressed by
outsiders will naturally fight back.
This is no "land grab." This is land taken in a war, land which was
partly given back, to no effect. But again, that's Israel's fault,
right?
It seems impossible to convince folks like you but it is certainly a
land-grab in my book of morals, justice and ethics.
The ancient Jewish communities of Gaza and of Shchem/Nablus
were abandoned in 1919 and 1929
when the British decided they were too difficult to defend.
The ancient Jewish community of Hebron
was destroyed in the pogrom of 1929.
The Jewish communities of Gush Etzion
and of the Old City (E. Jerusalem)
were 'relocated' in 1948.
Kfar Darom was registered in Tabu in the 1930's

Who "grabbed" the above from whom?
Can you document similar thefts of Arab owned land
by Jews in the same time period?
Post by zose
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
More poignantly, if Israel wants to keep the land, then shouldn't it
embrace the people who live on the land into its own society?
Is it just and humanitarian to keep the land yet force the
Palestinians to live in oppression and as second class citizens?
The oppression of the Palestinians comes from within.
I strongly disagree. History says otherwise. Read up on it.
Read up on the number of universities in 'Palestine' before and after
1967.
Read up on the constantly rising standard of living in 'Palestine'
from 1967 until 1988 (the first intifada began in Dec. 1988)
Post by zose
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
If Israel wishes to keep the W. Bank, Gaza and E. Jerusalem... Okay.
But allow the Palestinians to become Israeli citizens. Don't try to
push them out. Don't force them to live in humiliation, poverty and
oppression without a state.
Honestly, I have no idea if they want to be citizens or not? And I
have no idea how Israel feels about it, either. Certainly, they'd be
better off as part of Israel than as part of their former arab lands
or as independents.
See, you really don't understand the politics over there, obviously.
In ~1947, the British were struck with a pang of conscience and decided
against creating a separate Jewish state for Jews only. The Zionists
wouldn't hear of it and fought the British.
The Arabs, from the beginning, wanted a single state, shared by
everyone.
Recently, even the "crazy" Iranian President said that Israel (including
the Palestinians in the occupied territories) should hold elections...
and let whatever happen, happen. Let the people (everyone) decide on
the form of government.
I'd bet that the average Palestinian would love to have a single state
in ALL of Palestine, including Israel, shared by ALL.
Arabs don't hate Jews. They hate the Zionist state. Do you know what
the difference is? The Zionist state is by nature racist and bigoted.
Yes, Arabs live and are citizens in Israel, but they are a minority --
and Zionists wish to keep it that way.
In the 1992 elections in Israel,
a majority of Jews voted for parties
which were to the right of Mr. Rabin's party.
Rabin's majority, through which he became Prime Minister,
depended on the support of Arab members of Knesset.

In which Arab country could that happen?
Post by zose
Why won't Israel allow Palestinians who were kicked out of Israel proper
to return? Why won't Israel allow all Palestinians Israeli citizenship?
Because that would mean the end of the "Jewish" state.
Why has PM Ulmert stopped talking about
withdrawing from the West Bank?
If you answer honestly,
you'll have the answer to your question too.
Post by zose
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
If the US after defeating Germany and Japan began colonizing their
country, stealing their farmlands and treating the locals like 2nd
class citizens, would you expect the civilians to stand pat?
It doesn't matter what one EXPECTS, only whether they would be within
their rights to keep the land. My answer is "yes, of course." That
doesn't mean we would want to hold that land, and I think (or course)
we did the right thing. But Germany and Japan aren't right next door
to us, and we are not a small, narrow country that would be easy to
overrun.
No, it's not within America's "right" to occupy and oppress those it has
conquered. Can it do it? Sure. If it wants to live with animosity
from the locals.... and perhaps occasional uprising and fighting...
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
This isn't the 13th century. You cannot morally justify colonization
and oppression based on "winning the war."
Sure you can. Besides, you seem to be morally justifying terrorism..
There's no need to morally justify anything. War is cruel. Both
"terrorists" and nation-states target civlians at times... and sometimes
lots of times, in the case of Israel too.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
Defenders of Israel seem to live by the perverted logic that says "to
the victor goes the spoils" and "to hell with ethics, humanity and
morality."
That's just a lot of nonsense rhetoric. AFA morality, as the old
saying goes, if the arabs disarmed tomorrow, there would be no more
war. If the Israelis disarmed tomorrow, there would be no more Israel.
That was as true before the occupation of arab lands as it is today.
And that is the absolute truth.
How armed are the Arabs? It's ridiculous. The Palestinians have
NOTHING except their bodies to fight back with. Israel whining about
their "existential threat" is complete nonsense. Israel has the
strongest army in the Middle East. Stronger than all the Arab nations
combined, especially now with the demise of Iraq! Israel is also backed
by the only super-power in the world. Any talk of Israel's existential
threat is bunk and a farce. It's laughable.
Israel has plenty of tanks and planes so it has no need
to worry about suicide bombers, kassams, katyushas etc!
Where do get this from?

Do Nasrallah and Ahmadinajad know something you don't?
Post by zose
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
It doesn't work and only earns it worldwide blame.
Jew-hatred is the true source of this "righteous indignation" the
world has toward Israel.
No it isn't.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
Also, the Arabs didn't start all the wars with Israel. This is a lie
that is continually perpetuated. The 1967 war was started by Israel.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_sixday_whostarted.php
http://peace.heebz.com/sixdaywar.html
Yeah, a pro-Israeli site. And there are also pro-arab sites.
So what? Do you believe everything you hear/read in the media?
Filter out the nonsense and believe what makes sense.
"Pro-Israeli", "pro-arab",.why bother with them?
Read up on 'Straits of Tiran",
learn something about 'Cassus Belli".
You complain about Israel's whining to the UN,
but that's what you would have it do in 1967!
Post by zose
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
The Suez Canal war was started by the UK, France and Israel. The
invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was conducted by Israel. And this last
conflict with Lebanon? Of course, that war was started by Israel
too, despite what Bush says. The excuse about the soldiers being
kidnapped by Hezbollah is a joke. The two sides have had ongoing
skirmishes for years. The kidnapping was merely a pretext for an
invasion it was planning for a long time.
And why did Israel want to attack Lebanon? You seem to know they
intended to do that, so tell me WHY? To what end?
I don't know why Israel wanted to attack Lebanon recently. The facts
aren't all clear yet.
If you read Seymour Hersh recently, it's because the US and Israel were
colluding to go after Iran and Syria.
Others have suggested that Israel simply wanted revenge on Hezbollah.
Others suggest maybe Israel wanted to expand up to the Litani river to
get access to more water. (Water is a big reason why Israel won't give
up the W. Bank and the Golan Heights... there's a terrible shortage
there.)
Others suggest Israel wanted to bomb Lebanon back 10 years to reduce
future economic competition.
Who the hell knows right now... I guess we'll be reading about it in
the future...
Absurd.
IDF was unprepared for this war in every way you can think of.
Even after it started, they weren't thinking in terms of a real war.

Think about it.
On the border with Gaza, 2 soldiers killed, 1 taken captive.
A few days later, a soldier is kidnapped (and killed) in the West Bank,
A few days later, the attack from Lebanon, 8 killed, 2 captives.

It was this chain of events which signaled
to a hesitant, leftist, government,
that something had to be done.
Post by zose
Post by Fred Hebert
It's all those dirty Jews, right? How convenient to be able to
continually blame the Israelis for whatever happens. They attack, it's
their fault; they are attacked, it's their fault.
As long as Israel continues it's occupation, they're out of the gate,
the aggressor and in the wrong as a result.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
You don't start a full scale war just because a couple soldiers were
kidnapped! Kidnappings and hostages are not uncommon with the
Israelis and Arabs. They've conducted prisoner exchanges before.
Israel has been unjustly holding THOUSANDS of Lebanese and
Palestinian prisoners, many underage, for years!
Israel had every right to attack Hezbolla, and the land that harbored
them. Who are the "unjustly" held Lebanese and Palestinians?
Prisoners from previous wars or skirmishes. They're held without trial.
Just held... for the indefinite future.
If Israel has a right to attakc Hezbollah.. then Hezbollah certainly has
a right to attack Israel. Israel occupies Lebanon's Shebaa Farms.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
And, to be sure, Israel has no legitimate excuse for bombing civilian
infrastructures in Lebanon. They are correctly condemned for that.
Sure, and Hezbolla hiding behind civilians, storing weapons in
civilian areas and even hiding behind the UN is OK, right?
So because Hezbollah is in the wrong by hiding behind civilians...
Israel has a right to kill civilians wantonly?
Hey, didn't you just say:
"There's no need to morally justify anything. War is cruel..."?
Post by zose
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
Israel left Gaza, technically, but encroached further in the W. Bank.
Gaza was also blockaded economically by sea and air. The people were
left as virtual prisoners with no means of livelihood.
They left them "technically"? How did they live them "technically"?
You mean they left, correct? And then they were attacked, which is one
of the reasons they held the land in the first place.
I explained this already. Creating an economic blockade is not doing
anyone any favors.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
It's no wonder the Palestinians in Gaza began to retaliate.
Sure, because arabs are innocent victims, always.
Why don't you try to be a little more objective? Figure out who did
what.. how this mess all got started... trace history back to its
origins... and step forward to the present.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
What's more, since the democratic election of Hamas, Israel and the
West began to financially and economically squeeze the new government
and the Palestinians too as a result. They were poor and suffering
as it was. In the wake of the financial/economic starvation, they
suffered further. Israel also began carrying out targeted
assassinations and kidnappings against Palestinian.
As well they should. Targeted assasinations against terrorists is a
good thing. We need more assasinations in this world.
Targeting politicians.
Sometimes the same thing.
Arafat, for instance, was both.
So is Nasrallah.
Post by zose
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
Is it any wonder the Palestinians retaliated with kidnappings of
their own?
But..I'm confused..I thought you said they ALWAYS do that sort of
thing? Now it was just a "retaliation"?
Yes. Tit for tat... back and forth... on and on... as long as Israel's
occupation continues...
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
If Israel was really serious about peace, it would take up the Saudi
Peace Plan offer: withdrawal to the 1967 borders and in return, get
diplomatic recognition and peace from all Arab states. Isn't this
what Israel says it really wants, ie, peace and diplomatic
recognition?... to just live in peace?
What do you expect: that they don't? Israel would do that if they
weren't very sure that it would result in their own destruction. Can
you honestly, as a reasonable person, say that that would not be the
eventual outcome?
Yes, knowing that US backs them... knowing that Israel has the most
powerful military in the Middle East... knowing that the world is
watching.... it's a certainty.
Why didn't the Palestinians make the offer?
Anwar Sadat talked seriously, he got everything he wanted.
Post by zose
Why would returning to the 1967 borders result in their destruction?
Don't repeat nonsense.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
But Israel dismissed the offer from the outset. It never seriously
considered the offer.
Or continue the talks left off at Taba. They were very close to a
peace deal then, but Sharon shelved it.
What about the deal offered to Yasser Arafat? What was his response?
Obviously, you haven't a clue what was "offered" at Camp David!
The generous offer to Arafat at Camp David were four divided cantons
with no water, border or air rights! How could Arafat accept such a
ridiculous, farcical offer? How is that the basis of a "state"??!!
It's more than Jordan offered him,
and he never complained.
In fact, he promised *not* to complain.
Post by zose
But the US media and the Israelis touted the offer as something generous
and ground breaking.
Don't believe everything you read and hear. THINK through it!
Arafat didn't make a counter-offer.
Think that through.
Post by zose
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
When all is said and done, Israel's actions belie her words. It
wants peace but it wants land more. And the extremists and the
advocates of "Greater Israel" in that Jewish state will do its
darndest to make sure of that.
And there is NO DOUBT that the arabs would destroy Israel if they
could. In fact, I will go so far as to say that Israel WILL BE
destroyed, eventually.
After what Israel has perpetrated since 1967... it would only be karma
if Israel were destroyed. But the destruction of Israel doesn't mean
Jews cannot stay there. It just means the destruction of the Zionist
state, which is a good thing in my book. A state based on bigotry and
racism is nothing to be proud of.
I don't blame Arabs for hating Israel. Israel, as I've said before, is
the occupying/oppressing power. Naturally, Arabs will resent them.
If Israel wants to survive as a state, it ought to do the right thing
and cede the occupied territories.
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
The world doesn't fundamentally hate the Jews. But by the actions
that Israel is taking, it's certainly creating resentment towards the
state.
Bull_fucking_shit! The world has hated Jews forever. This isn't
because of Israel. Antisemitism has always been.
The world?? The world is a big place. There's some historical
animosity between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam... but why should
others have a reason to be anti-semitic without cause?
Post by Fred Hebert
Post by zose
If Israel did the right thing, you'd see how quickly it's
"favorability rating" turns up.
People do tend to speak well of the dead..
You're so melodramatic.
Jews are no longer the victims here. It's the Arabs who are the victims
of the victims of European history.
zose
2006-09-08 23:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
It seems impossible to convince folks like you but it is certainly a
land-grab in my book of morals, justice and ethics.
The ancient Jewish communities of Gaza and of Shchem/Nablus
were abandoned in 1919 and 1929
when the British decided they were too difficult to defend.
The ancient Jewish community of Hebron
was destroyed in the pogrom of 1929.
The Jewish communities of Gush Etzion
and of the Old City (E. Jerusalem)
were 'relocated' in 1948.
Kfar Darom was registered in Tabu in the 1930's
Who "grabbed" the above from whom?
Can you document similar thefts of Arab owned land
by Jews in the same time period?
I don't know the specifics of these incidents you name above. But
moving up to the time of the creation of Israel, resentment from Arabs
towards Jews intensified and sometimes flared as a result of: 1.
increasing Jewish immigration, 2. buying up of land by Jews and eviction
of Arabs, whether done legally or not, 3. the knowledge that Jews were
coming with the intent on creating a "Jewish" state in Palestine,
although Arabs comprised the overwhelming majority, and frankly, had no
business or right of doing so in the first place.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Read up on the number of universities in 'Palestine' before and after
1967.
Read up on the constantly rising standard of living in 'Palestine'
from 1967 until 1988 (the first intifada began in Dec. 1988)
Your position is that life in the occupied territories is good and has
been getting better and better, but these ingrate, ignorant animals
don't know that they have it so good and go on whining and complaining
about how bad things are and blame the West/Israel unfairly for
something that is just in their heads?

Certainly, the increase in the # of universities since 1967 or the
purported rise in living standards as measured by trinkets or the
existence of running water and electricity are all good things. But a
prison is still a prison no matter that the cell has been installed with
a plasma tv and a Tempurpedic bed.

I'm not familiar with the statistics in the improvement in living
standards up to 1988. And it really doesn't matter as it only serves to
divert attention away from the real issue: the occupation.

What we know though is that life isn't good over there. The
unemployment rate is too high, between 20%-30% or more; and the # of
people living under the poverty line is too high, between 40%-60%. And
the Palestinian economy depends critically on foreign aid.

What's more, they continue to live in humiliation, oppression and
occupation without a state and as 2nd class citizens under Israeli
military rule.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Arabs don't hate Jews. They hate the Zionist state. Do you know
what the difference is? The Zionist state is by nature racist and
bigoted. Yes, Arabs live and are citizens in Israel, but they are a
minority -- and Zionists wish to keep it that way.
In the 1992 elections in Israel,
a majority of Jews voted for parties
which were to the right of Mr. Rabin's party.
Rabin's majority, through which he became Prime Minister,
depended on the support of Arab members of Knesset.
In which Arab country could that happen?
Do you think that the strategy of pointing out how much worse the Arabs
are compared to Israel justifies and exonerates Israel's continuing
occupation?

America is a great country. It has great institutions. The US is a
democratic republic based on the rule of law and liberty nonpareil.
Does this mean the US can do no wrong and has done no wrong and does no
wrong? Does this from the outset justify America's "war on terror",
invasion of Iraq, it's historical/current policy in the Middle East?
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Why won't Israel allow Palestinians who were kicked out of Israel
proper to return? Why won't Israel allow all Palestinians Israeli
citizenship? Because that would mean the end of the "Jewish" state.
Why has PM Ulmert stopped talking about
withdrawing from the West Bank?
If you answer honestly,
you'll have the answer to your question too.
Since I'm not very familiar with Ulmert, I can't say I know what his
thinking is on much of anything, so why don't you tell me?
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Israel has plenty of tanks and planes so it has no need
to worry about suicide bombers, kassams, katyushas etc!
Where do get this from?
Do Nasrallah and Ahmadinajad know something you don't?
No, it means its pretension of weakness and fear of existential threat
are greatly exaggerated.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
"Pro-Israeli", "pro-arab",.why bother with them?
Read up on 'Straits of Tiran",
learn something about 'Cassus Belli".
You complain about Israel's whining to the UN,
but that's what you would have it do in 1967!
The point of the argument in this instance was that it is a lie to say
the Arabs fired the first shot, launched the first rocket, and their
soldiers and tanks first set foot on Israeli soil in an act/declaration
of war.

Casus belli can be used by any aggressor to justify war and can be a
point of heated contention between pundits.

Did the UK/French/Israel forces have casus belli to justify their
aggression towards Eqypt? Did Israel have casus belli to start the 1967
war? Did Iraq have casus belli to attack Iran and Kuwait? Did the US
have casus belli to invade Iraq? Did Japan have casus belli to bomb
Pearl Harbor?...
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
I don't know why Israel wanted to attack Lebanon recently. The facts
aren't all clear yet.
If you read Seymour Hersh recently, it's because the US and Israel
were colluding to go after Iran and Syria.
Others have suggested that Israel simply wanted revenge on Hezbollah.
Others suggest maybe Israel wanted to expand up to the Litani river
to get access to more water. (Water is a big reason why Israel won't
give up the W. Bank and the Golan Heights... there's a terrible
shortage there.)
Others suggest Israel wanted to bomb Lebanon back 10 years to reduce
future economic competition.
Who the hell knows right now... I guess we'll be reading about it in
the future...
Absurd.
IDF was unprepared for this war in every way you can think of.
Even after it started, they weren't thinking in terms of a real war.
Think about it.
On the border with Gaza, 2 soldiers killed, 1 taken captive.
A few days later, a soldier is kidnapped (and killed) in the West
Bank, A few days later, the attack from Lebanon, 8 killed, 2 captives.
It was this chain of events which signaled
to a hesitant, leftist, government,
that something had to be done.
And maybe it was as simple as that in the minds of the Israeli
leadership, who knows...
Post by z***@yahoo.com
"There's no need to morally justify anything. War is cruel..."?
Yeah, sh*t happens and atrocities are committed. Israel does bad
things. Arabs do bad things.

At the end of the day, though, Israel is still the occupier and
aggressor and Palestinians live under occupation.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Obviously, you haven't a clue what was "offered" at Camp David!
The generous offer to Arafat at Camp David were four divided cantons
with no water, border or air rights! How could Arafat accept such a
ridiculous, farcical offer? How is that the basis of a "state"??!!
It's more than Jordan offered him,
and he never complained.
In fact, he promised *not* to complain.
How is this relevant to anything?

I don't care what Jordan offered in some historical point in the past.
They are both Arab states and what happens between them is their
internal business.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Why didn't the Palestinians make the offer?
Anwar Sadat talked seriously, he got everything he wanted.
Arafat didn't make a counter-offer.
Think that through.
I don't know what went back and forth during Camp David specifically, as
probably neither do you. What is clear now however is that Barak and
Clinton's offer to Arafat were disingenuous and the berth between the
two sides too large.

But encouragingly, talks continued after Camp David into Taba... all the
way up to the point of Sharon's election win.

By then it was too late and all for naught as Sharon would have nothing
to do with negotiations.
z***@yahoo.com
2006-09-10 12:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
It seems impossible to convince folks like you but it is certainly a
land-grab in my book of morals, justice and ethics.
The ancient Jewish communities of Gaza and of Shchem/Nablus
were abandoned in 1919 and 1929
when the British decided they were too difficult to defend.
The ancient Jewish community of Hebron
was destroyed in the pogrom of 1929.
The Jewish communities of Gush Etzion
and of the Old City (E. Jerusalem)
were 'relocated' in 1948.
Kfar Darom was registered in Tabu in the 1930's
Who "grabbed" the above from whom?
Can you document similar thefts of Arab owned land
by Jews in the same time period?
I don't know the specifics of these incidents you name above. But
moving up to the time of the creation of Israel, resentment from Arabs
towards Jews intensified and sometimes flared as a result of: 1.
increasing Jewish immigration, 2. buying up of land by Jews and eviction
of Arabs, whether done legally or not, 3. the knowledge that Jews were
coming with the intent on creating a "Jewish" state in Palestine,
although Arabs comprised the overwhelming majority, and frankly, had no
business or right of doing so in the first place.
My question was in response to your statement:
"It seems impossible to convince folks like you but it is certainly a
land-grab in my book of morals, justice and ethics.".
Your reply is lame, to say the least.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Read up on the number of universities in 'Palestine' before and after
1967.
Read up on the constantly rising standard of living in 'Palestine'
from 1967 until 1988 (the first intifada began in Dec. 1988)
Your position is that life in the occupied territories is good and has
been getting better and better, but these ingrate, ignorant animals
don't know that they have it so good and go on whining and complaining
about how bad things are and blame the West/Israel unfairly for
something that is just in their heads?
You wrote:
"Is it just and humanitarian to keep the land yet force the
Palestinians to live in oppression and as second class citizens?".
I responded to that.
What's the point of this gratuitous commentary on my 'position'?
Post by zose
Certainly, the increase in the # of universities since 1967 or the
purported rise in living standards as measured by trinkets or the
existence of running water and electricity are all good things. But a
prison is still a prison no matter that the cell has been installed with
a plasma tv and a Tempurpedic bed.
I'm not familiar with the statistics in the improvement in living
standards up to 1988. And it really doesn't matter as it only serves to
divert attention away from the real issue: the occupation.
Fine, but you complained about oppression,
and now you say "it really doesn't matter".
Post by zose
What we know though is that life isn't good over there. The
unemployment rate is too high, between 20%-30% or more; and the # of
people living under the poverty line is too high, between 40%-60%. And
the Palestinian economy depends critically on foreign aid.
What's more, they continue to live in humiliation, oppression and
occupation without a state and as 2nd class citizens under Israeli
military rule.
The humiliation etc. is 100% their own fault.
Try to understand why their standard of living
was constantly rising until 1988.
But isn't it strange that when the statistics are against you,
you say: "it really doesn't matter".
Is this issue important or isn't it?
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Arabs don't hate Jews. They hate the Zionist state. Do you know
what the difference is? The Zionist state is by nature racist and
bigoted. Yes, Arabs live and are citizens in Israel, but they are a
minority -- and Zionists wish to keep it that way.
In the 1992 elections in Israel,
a majority of Jews voted for parties
which were to the right of Mr. Rabin's party.
Rabin's majority, through which he became Prime Minister,
depended on the support of Arab members of Knesset.
In which Arab country could that happen?
Do you think that the strategy of pointing out how much worse the Arabs
are compared to Israel justifies and exonerates Israel's continuing
occupation?
You said: "The Zionist state is by nature racist and bigoted."
Why use a straw man 'occupation' argument
instead of admitting you were wrong,
or at least exaggerated?
Post by zose
America is a great country. It has great institutions. The US is a
democratic republic based on the rule of law and liberty nonpareil.
Does this mean the US can do no wrong and has done no wrong and does no
wrong? Does this from the outset justify America's "war on terror",
invasion of Iraq, it's historical/current policy in the Middle East?
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Why won't Israel allow Palestinians who were kicked out of Israel
proper to return? Why won't Israel allow all Palestinians Israeli
citizenship? Because that would mean the end of the "Jewish" state.
Why has PM Ulmert stopped talking about
withdrawing from the West Bank?
If you answer honestly,
you'll have the answer to your question too.
Since I'm not very familiar with Ulmert, I can't say I know what his
thinking is on much of anything, so why don't you tell me?
Before and after the last elections,
he said he would pull off a further withdrawal,
from the West Bank.
Because of the results of the withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza,
he no longer has public support for his policy.
If you can't fill in the dots,
we shouldn't be discussing the M.E..
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Israel has plenty of tanks and planes so it has no need
to worry about suicide bombers, kassams, katyushas etc!
Where do get this from?
Do Nasrallah and Ahmadinajad know something you don't?
No, it means its pretension of weakness and fear of existential threat
are greatly exaggerated.
If I'm afraid to go on a bus or sit in a restaurant,
if the mental strain of living in Sderot forces me to move out,
that's existential enough for me.
If this seems kind of quaint to you,
you're lucky and I'm happy for you,
but you should be wary of forming a negative opinion
about people who aren't as lucky as you.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
"Pro-Israeli", "pro-Arab",.why bother with them?
Read up on 'Straits of Tiran",
learn something about 'Cassus Belli".
You complain about Israel's whining to the UN,
but that's what you would have it do in 1967!
The point of the argument in this instance was that it is a lie to say
the Arabs fired the first shot, launched the first rocket, and their
soldiers and tanks first set foot on Israeli soil in an act/declaration
of war.
The argument was who started the 6 day war,
not who the liars are.
One side mined an international seaway,
mobilized its armed forces and moved them
to the borders of a neighboring state,
created a military framework for fighting
that neighboring state under unified command
along with like-minded states,
and you believe that that neighboring state
started the ensuing war!
Post by zose
Casus belli can be used by any aggressor to justify war and can be a
point of heated contention between pundits.
Did the UK/French/Israel forces have casus belli to justify their
aggression towards Eqypt? Did Israel have casus belli to start the 1967
war? Did Iraq have casus belli to attack Iran and Kuwait? Did the US
have casus belli to invade Iraq? Did Japan have casus belli to bomb
Pearl Harbor?...
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
I don't know why Israel wanted to attack Lebanon recently. The facts
aren't all clear yet.
If you read Seymour Hersh recently, it's because the US and Israel
were colluding to go after Iran and Syria.
Others have suggested that Israel simply wanted revenge on Hezbollah.
Others suggest maybe Israel wanted to expand up to the Litani river
to get access to more water. (Water is a big reason why Israel won't
give up the W. Bank and the Golan Heights... there's a terrible
shortage there.)
Others suggest Israel wanted to bomb Lebanon back 10 years to reduce
future economic competition.
Who the hell knows right now... I guess we'll be reading about it in
the future...
Absurd.
IDF was unprepared for this war in every way you can think of.
Even after it started, they weren't thinking in terms of a real war.
Think about it.
On the border with Gaza, 2 soldiers killed, 1 taken captive.
A few days later, a soldier is kidnapped (and killed) in the West
Bank, A few days later, the attack from Lebanon, 8 killed, 2 captives.
It was this chain of events which signaled
to a hesitant, leftist, government,
that something had to be done.
And maybe it was as simple as that in the minds of the Israeli
leadership, who knows...
Nah, coming from the mind of an Israeli,
it must be something sinister :-(
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
"There's no need to morally justify anything. War is cruel..."?
Yeah, sh*t happens and atrocities are committed. Israel does bad
things. Arabs do bad things.
At the end of the day, though, Israel is still the occupier and
aggressor and Palestinians live under occupation.
Yeah, nothing's worse than an uppity Jew.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Obviously, you haven't a clue what was "offered" at Camp David!
The generous offer to Arafat at Camp David were four divided cantons
with no water, border or air rights! How could Arafat accept such a
ridiculous, farcical offer? How is that the basis of a "state"??!!
It's more than Jordan offered him,
and he never complained.
In fact, he promised *not* to complain.
How is this relevant to anything?
I don't care what Jordan offered in some historical point in the past.
They are both Arab states and what happens between them is their
internal business.
You seem to have missed the point here,
but I'll let it go.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Why didn't the Palestinians make the offer?
Anwar Sadat talked seriously, he got everything he wanted.
Arafat didn't make a counter-offer.
Think that through.
I don't know what went back and forth during Camp David specifically, as
probably neither do you. What is clear now however is that Barak and
Clinton's offer to Arafat were disingenuous and the berth between the
two sides too large.
But encouragingly, talks continued after Camp David into Taba... all the
way up to the point of Sharon's election win.
By then it was too late and all for naught as Sharon would have nothing
to do with negotiations.
zose
2006-09-11 16:50:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
It seems impossible to convince folks like you but it is certainly
a land-grab in my book of morals, justice and ethics.
The ancient Jewish communities of Gaza and of Shchem/Nablus
were abandoned in 1919 and 1929
when the British decided they were too difficult to defend.
The ancient Jewish community of Hebron
was destroyed in the pogrom of 1929.
The Jewish communities of Gush Etzion
and of the Old City (E. Jerusalem)
were 'relocated' in 1948.
Kfar Darom was registered in Tabu in the 1930's
Who "grabbed" the above from whom?
Can you document similar thefts of Arab owned land
by Jews in the same time period?
I don't know the specifics of these incidents you name above. But
moving up to the time of the creation of Israel, resentment from
1. increasing Jewish immigration, 2. buying up of land by Jews and
eviction of Arabs, whether done legally or not, 3. the knowledge that
Jews were coming with the intent on creating a "Jewish" state in
Palestine, although Arabs comprised the overwhelming majority, and
frankly, had no business or right of doing so in the first place.
"It seems impossible to convince folks like you but it is certainly a
land-grab in my book of morals, justice and ethics.".
Your reply is lame, to say the least.
You cited a few examples where Arabs stole Jewish owned properties. I
gave you an explanation as to why Jews may have been pushed out of their
land, ie, it was widely known that Jews were planning on creating a state
on lands where Arabs comprised the majority.

If you think it's lame, then shame on you.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Read up on the number of universities in 'Palestine' before and
after 1967.
Read up on the constantly rising standard of living in 'Palestine'
from 1967 until 1988 (the first intifada began in Dec. 1988)
Your position is that life in the occupied territories is good and
has been getting better and better, but these ingrate, ignorant
animals don't know that they have it so good and go on whining and
complaining about how bad things are and blame the West/Israel
unfairly for something that is just in their heads?
"Is it just and humanitarian to keep the land yet force the
Palestinians to live in oppression and as second class citizens?".
I responded to that.
What's the point of this gratuitous commentary on my 'position'?
Because your position is misleading, disingenuous and irrelevant.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Certainly, the increase in the # of universities since 1967 or the
purported rise in living standards as measured by trinkets or the
existence of running water and electricity are all good things. But
a prison is still a prison no matter that the cell has been installed
with a plasma tv and a Tempurpedic bed.
I'm not familiar with the statistics in the improvement in living
standards up to 1988. And it really doesn't matter as it only serves
to divert attention away from the real issue: the occupation.
Fine, but you complained about oppression,
and now you say "it really doesn't matter".
...
Post by z***@yahoo.com
The humiliation etc. is 100% their own fault.
Try to understand why their standard of living
was constantly rising until 1988.
But isn't it strange that when the statistics are against you,
you say: "it really doesn't matter".
Is this issue important or isn't it?
The fact that the post 1967 economy of the occupied territories saw
improvement would not be surprising. The integration of the
underdeveloped and war-torn Arab W. Bank and Gaza economies with the more
modernized and prosperous Israeli economy probably lifted the living
standards of many Palestinians.

But oppression of the Palestinians is not being defined here in soley
economic terms. Oppression comes in many forms, the least of which are
perhaps captured in economic statistics.

Your argument is disingenuous. You think that by pointing out the
"improved" lives of Palestinians during occupation, that occupation isn't
so bad and Palestinians have only themselves to blame for their angst.

Did the lives of black slaves who were kidnapped and relocated to America
improve as measured by economic statistics?

Were the complaints of blacks during the 60's unfounded and "lame"
inasmuch as they were economically much better off than their brethrens in
Africa?

Was S. Africa economically better off with white leaders and the existence
of an apartheid state and does this economic statistic nullify black
grievances towards whites?

To the extent that economic statistics painted a picture of improving
living standards in Korea and Taiwan during the time of Japanese
occupation in the early 20th century, did that justify Japanese
colonization?

Are Tibetans desire for national self-determination unfounded because
Chinese hegemony offers them higher GDP per capita?

Can colonization/occupation be justified on the basis of improving
economic statistics alone?

Your arguments are diversionary and red herrings. But that's not
surprising. Those who defend Israel's occupation often resort to these
tactics. It's very disingenuous.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
You said: "The Zionist state is by nature racist and bigoted."
Why use a straw man 'occupation' argument
instead of admitting you were wrong,
or at least exaggerated?
If you want to believe that Israel is not a bigoted state, go ahead. It
doesn't matter, actually. Israel has a right be as bigoted as it wants as
far as it cedes the occupied territories and doesn't oppress others in the
process.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Before and after the last elections,
he said he would pull off a further withdrawal,
from the West Bank.
Because of the results of the withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza,
he no longer has public support for his policy.
If you can't fill in the dots,
we shouldn't be discussing the M.E..
Further "withdrawal" from the W. Bank concomitant with further
encroachment or expansion of settlements in the W. Bank?

We will "withdrawal" from Gaza, but leave Gaza economically isolated?

We want peace with the Palestinians but we are unwilling to seriously
compromise on land?

We want peace with our neighbors, but we will not consider the Saudi plan
or any other plan that calls for completely ceding captured lands?

Four separated cantons with no water, air and border rights, and this is
what Israel described as a "generous offer?"


Think twice before believing everything Israel says. Words are mere
words; deeds are reality.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Israel has plenty of tanks and planes so it has no need
to worry about suicide bombers, kassams, katyushas etc!
Where do get this from?
Do Nasrallah and Ahmadinajad know something you don't?
No, it means its pretension of weakness and fear of existential
threat are greatly exaggerated.
If I'm afraid to go on a bus or sit in a restaurant,
if the mental strain of living in Sderot forces me to move out,
that's existential enough for me.
If this seems kind of quaint to you,
you're lucky and I'm happy for you,
but you should be wary of forming a negative opinion
about people who aren't as lucky as you.
Fear is not existential threat.

If anyone has created their own hell, it's the Israelis.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
"Pro-Israeli", "pro-Arab",.why bother with them?
Read up on 'Straits of Tiran",
learn something about 'Cassus Belli".
You complain about Israel's whining to the UN,
but that's what you would have it do in 1967!
The point of the argument in this instance was that it is a lie to
say the Arabs fired the first shot, launched the first rocket, and
their soldiers and tanks first set foot on Israeli soil in an
act/declaration of war.
The argument was who started the 6 day war,
not who the liars are.
One side mined an international seaway,
mobilized its armed forces and moved them
to the borders of a neighboring state,
created a military framework for fighting
that neighboring state under unified command
along with like-minded states,
and you believe that that neighboring state
started the ensuing war!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#The_drift_to_war

Quote:

Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in his autobiography that when he
was told by U Thant of Nasser's promise not to attack Israel he found this
reassurance convincing as "...Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory
without war".

In a speech before Israeli National Defense College, Menachem Begin stated
that Israel was the one who made the decision to attack: "The Egyptian
army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to
attack him."

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

The point of the argument is about the misleading assertions made by
Israel's defenders that it never "started" any wars.

I'm not here to argue whether Israel was "justified" in its preemptive
attack.

Casus belli notwithstanding, Israel has certainly preemptively attacked
its Arab neighbors in an act of war.
z***@yahoo.com
2006-09-12 12:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
It seems impossible to convince folks like you but it is certainly
a land-grab in my book of morals, justice and ethics.
The ancient Jewish communities of Gaza and of Shchem/Nablus
were abandoned in 1919 and 1929
when the British decided they were too difficult to defend.
The ancient Jewish community of Hebron
was destroyed in the pogrom of 1929.
The Jewish communities of Gush Etzion
and of the Old City (E. Jerusalem)
were 'relocated' in 1948.
Kfar Darom was registered in Tabu in the 1930's
Who "grabbed" the above from whom?
Can you document similar thefts of Arab owned land
by Jews in the same time period?
I don't know the specifics of these incidents you name above. But
moving up to the time of the creation of Israel, resentment from
1. increasing Jewish immigration, 2. buying up of land by Jews and
eviction of Arabs, whether done legally or not, 3. the knowledge that
Jews were coming with the intent on creating a "Jewish" state in
Palestine, although Arabs comprised the overwhelming majority, and
frankly, had no business or right of doing so in the first place.
"It seems impossible to convince folks like you but it is certainly a
land-grab in my book of morals, justice and ethics.".
Your reply is lame, to say the least.
You cited a few examples where Arabs stole Jewish owned properties. I
gave you an explanation as to why Jews may have been pushed out of their
land, ie, it was widely known that Jews were planning on creating a state
on lands where Arabs comprised the majority.
If you think it's lame, then shame on you.
Why?
You started out with a Jewish 'land grab'.
Now, it turns out that the only 'land grab' was,
for whatever reasons, Arab.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Read up on the number of universities in 'Palestine' before and
after 1967.
Read up on the constantly rising standard of living in 'Palestine'
from 1967 until 1988 (the first intifada began in Dec. 1988)
Your position is that life in the occupied territories is good and
has been getting better and better, but these ingrate, ignorant
animals don't know that they have it so good and go on whining and
complaining about how bad things are and blame the West/Israel
unfairly for something that is just in their heads?
"Is it just and humanitarian to keep the land yet force the
Palestinians to live in oppression and as second class citizens?".
I responded to that.
What's the point of this gratuitous commentary on my 'position'?
Because your position is misleading, disingenuous and irrelevant.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Certainly, the increase in the # of universities since 1967 or the
purported rise in living standards as measured by trinkets or the
existence of running water and electricity are all good things. But
a prison is still a prison no matter that the cell has been installed
with a plasma tv and a Tempurpedic bed.
I'm not familiar with the statistics in the improvement in living
standards up to 1988. And it really doesn't matter as it only serves
to divert attention away from the real issue: the occupation.
Fine, but you complained about oppression,
and now you say "it really doesn't matter".
...
Post by z***@yahoo.com
The humiliation etc. is 100% their own fault.
Try to understand why their standard of living
was constantly rising until 1988.
But isn't it strange that when the statistics are against you,
you say: "it really doesn't matter".
Is this issue important or isn't it?
The fact that the post 1967 economy of the occupied territories saw
improvement would not be surprising. The integration of the
underdeveloped and war-torn Arab W. Bank and Gaza economies with the more
modernized and prosperous Israeli economy probably lifted the living
standards of many Palestinians.
Sure, today it seems so obvious.
But at the time, Moshe Dayan said that giving them jobs,
helping them advance into the 20th century,
would encourage them to turn from hate and terror,
and motivate them to concentrate on prosperity
for themselves and their children.
Others, such as Meir Kahana, spoke quite differently..
Israel made a choice, it wasn't just nature at work.
Post by zose
But oppression of the Palestinians is not being defined here in soley
economic terms. Oppression comes in many forms, the least of which are
perhaps captured in economic statistics.
Your argument is disingenuous. You think that by pointing out the
"improved" lives of Palestinians during occupation, that occupation isn't
so bad and Palestinians have only themselves to blame for their angst.
You wrote:
"Is it just and humanitarian to keep the land yet force the
Palestinians to live in oppression and as second class citizens?".
I responded to that.
What's the point of telling me what I think
instead of agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?
Post by zose
Did the lives of black slaves who were kidnapped and relocated to America
improve as measured by economic statistics?
Were the complaints of blacks during the 60's unfounded and "lame"
inasmuch as they were economically much better off than their brethrens in
Africa?
Was S. Africa economically better off with white leaders and the existence
of an apartheid state and does this economic statistic nullify black
grievances towards whites?
To the extent that economic statistics painted a picture of improving
living standards in Korea and Taiwan during the time of Japanese
occupation in the early 20th century, did that justify Japanese
colonization?
Are Tibetans desire for national self-determination unfounded because
Chinese hegemony offers them higher GDP per capita?
Can colonization/occupation be justified on the basis of improving
economic statistics alone?
Your arguments are diversionary and red herrings. But that's not
surprising. Those who defend Israel's occupation often resort to these
tactics. It's very disingenuous.
Again, I've been arguing against your accusations
of Israeli oppression.
It's a statement *you* made.

Where is the 'diversion'?
What are my 'tactics'?
Why not prove your case
or admit you were wrong, and move on?
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
You said: "The Zionist state is by nature racist and bigoted."
Why use a straw man 'occupation' argument
instead of admitting you were wrong,
or at least exaggerated?
If you want to believe that Israel is not a bigoted state, go ahead. It
doesn't matter, actually. Israel has a right be as bigoted as it wants as
far as it cedes the occupied territories and doesn't oppress others in the
process.
Here you go again.
"It doesn't matter, actually.".
Why not admit you were wrong,
or at least exaggerated?
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Before and after the last elections,
he said he would pull off a further withdrawal,
from the West Bank.
Because of the results of the withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza,
he no longer has public support for his policy.
If you can't fill in the dots,
we shouldn't be discussing the M.E..
Further "withdrawal" from the W. Bank concomitant with further
encroachment or expansion of settlements in the W. Bank?
We will "withdrawal" from Gaza, but leave Gaza economically isolated?
We want peace with the Palestinians but we are unwilling to seriously
compromise on land?
We want peace with our neighbors, but we will not consider the Saudi plan
or any other plan that calls for completely ceding captured lands?
Four separated cantons with no water, air and border rights, and this is
what Israel described as a "generous offer?"
Think twice before believing everything Israel says. Words are mere
words; deeds are reality.
Israel has agreed to "road Map".
It is moving in that direction, with deeds, not words.
Israel has never promised to give
the Palestinians *everything* they demand.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Israel has plenty of tanks and planes so it has no need
to worry about suicide bombers, kassams, katyushas etc!
Where do get this from?
Do Nasrallah and Ahmadinajad know something you don't?
No, it means its pretension of weakness and fear of existential
threat are greatly exaggerated.
If I'm afraid to go on a bus or sit in a restaurant,
if the mental strain of living in Sderot forces me to move out,
that's existential enough for me.
If this seems kind of quaint to you,
you're lucky and I'm happy for you,
but you should be wary of forming a negative opinion
about people who aren't as lucky as you.
Fear is not existential threat.
If anyone has created their own hell, it's the Israelis.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
"Pro-Israeli", "pro-Arab",.why bother with them?
Read up on 'Straits of Tiran",
learn something about 'Cassus Belli".
You complain about Israel's whining to the UN,
but that's what you would have it do in 1967!
The point of the argument in this instance was that it is a lie to
say the Arabs fired the first shot, launched the first rocket, and
their soldiers and tanks first set foot on Israeli soil in an
act/declaration of war.
The argument was who started the 6 day war,
not who the liars are.
One side mined an international seaway,
mobilized its armed forces and moved them
to the borders of a neighboring state,
created a military framework for fighting
that neighboring state under unified command
along with like-minded states,
and you believe that that neighboring state
started the ensuing war!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#The_drift_to_war
Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in his autobiography that when he
was told by U Thant of Nasser's promise not to attack Israel he found this
reassurance convincing as "...Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory
without war".
In a speech before Israeli National Defense College, Menachem Begin stated
that Israel was the one who made the decision to attack: "The Egyptian
army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was
really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to
attack him."
--------------
The point of the argument is about the misleading assertions made by
Israel's defenders that it never "started" any wars.
Please take that up with those 'defenders'.
I don't know what they mean by "started".
Post by zose
I'm not here to argue whether Israel was "justified" in its preemptive
attack.
Casus belli notwithstanding, Israel has certainly preemptively attacked
its Arab neighbors in an act of war.
See my statement above,
"One side mined an international seaway,
mobilized its armed forces and moved them....".

I wouldn't be surprised if we more or less agree on this issue,
for whatever it's worth,
but if you respond with quotes and slogans,
it's hard to be sure.

Zev
zose
2006-09-13 04:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
You cited a few examples where Arabs stole Jewish owned properties.
I gave you an explanation as to why Jews may have been pushed out of
their land, ie, it was widely known that Jews were planning on
creating a state on lands where Arabs comprised the majority.
If you think it's lame, then shame on you.
Why?
You started out with a Jewish 'land grab'.
Now, it turns out that the only 'land grab' was,
for whatever reasons, Arab.
Are we having the same conversation here?!

You said ancient Jewish communities in Hebron and Gush Etzion were
destroyed in 1929 and the Old City (E. Jerusalem) were 'relocated' in
1948.

Okay, I got that.

But why do you only look at Arab wrong-doings and refuse to see the
GIGANTIC, HUMONGUOUS, UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE injustice committed by Israel
and Zionists against Arabs?!
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
The fact that the post 1967 economy of the occupied territories saw
improvement would not be surprising. The integration of the
underdeveloped and war-torn Arab W. Bank and Gaza economies with the
more modernized and prosperous Israeli economy probably lifted the
living standards of many Palestinians.
Sure, today it seems so obvious.
But at the time, Moshe Dayan said that giving them jobs,
helping them advance into the 20th century,
would encourage them to turn from hate and terror,
and motivate them to concentrate on prosperity
for themselves and their children.
Others, such as Meir Kahana, spoke quite differently..
Israel made a choice, it wasn't just nature at work.
You're like an American who swallows hook, line and sinker all the
propaganda told by the Bush administration about Iraq and the war on
terror.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
But oppression of the Palestinians is not being defined here in soley
economic terms. Oppression comes in many forms, the least of which
are perhaps captured in economic statistics.
Your argument is disingenuous. You think that by pointing out the
"improved" lives of Palestinians during occupation, that occupation
isn't so bad and Palestinians have only themselves to blame for their
angst.
"Is it just and humanitarian to keep the land yet force the
Palestinians to live in oppression and as second class citizens?".
I responded to that.
What's the point of telling me what I think
instead of agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?
Obviously I disagreed with what you said! Your points are completely
irrelevant! Whether I agree or disagree with your point would not change
the crux of the issue!
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Did the lives of black slaves who were kidnapped and relocated to
America improve as measured by economic statistics?
Were the complaints of blacks during the 60's unfounded and "lame"
inasmuch as they were economically much better off than their
brethrens in Africa?
Was S. Africa economically better off with white leaders and the
existence of an apartheid state and does this economic statistic
nullify black grievances towards whites?
To the extent that economic statistics painted a picture of improving
living standards in Korea and Taiwan during the time of Japanese
occupation in the early 20th century, did that justify Japanese
colonization?
Are Tibetans desire for national self-determination unfounded because
Chinese hegemony offers them higher GDP per capita?
Can colonization/occupation be justified on the basis of improving
economic statistics alone?
Your arguments are diversionary and red herrings. But that's not
surprising. Those who defend Israel's occupation often resort to
these tactics. It's very disingenuous.
Again, I've been arguing against your accusations
of Israeli oppression.
It's a statement *you* made.
Where is the 'diversion'?
What are my 'tactics'?
Why not prove your case
or admit you were wrong, and move on?
It's embarrassing having this conversation with you.

From what you wrote in a previous post, you suggested that you may be
Israeli? If the average Israeli holds debates in this manner... may God
have mercy on your souls! You truly, see only your side of the situation,
and really, truly, unable to see where the other guy is coming from.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
You said: "The Zionist state is by nature racist and bigoted."
Why use a straw man 'occupation' argument
instead of admitting you were wrong,
or at least exaggerated?
If you want to believe that Israel is not a bigoted state, go ahead.
It doesn't matter, actually. Israel has a right be as bigoted as it
wants as far as it cedes the occupied territories and doesn't oppress
others in the process.
Here you go again.
"It doesn't matter, actually.".
Why not admit you were wrong,
or at least exaggerated?
I don't want to argue over minutiae... whether Israeli bigotry is 61%, or
61.1%... or 61.0001%... or 61.00000001%... who cares!... Believe what you
wish, but stop treating the Palestinians who reside WITHIN Israeli
controlled territories like 2nd class citizens, creating an environment
where terrorism is nurtured, and everyone in the world suffers because of
it.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Before and after the last elections,
he said he would pull off a further withdrawal,
from the West Bank.
Because of the results of the withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza,
he no longer has public support for his policy.
If you can't fill in the dots,
we shouldn't be discussing the M.E..
Further "withdrawal" from the W. Bank concomitant with further
encroachment or expansion of settlements in the W. Bank?
We will "withdrawal" from Gaza, but leave Gaza economically isolated?
We want peace with the Palestinians but we are unwilling to seriously
compromise on land?
We want peace with our neighbors, but we will not consider the Saudi
plan or any other plan that calls for completely ceding captured
lands?
Four separated cantons with no water, air and border rights, and this
is what Israel described as a "generous offer?"
Think twice before believing everything Israel says. Words are mere
words; deeds are reality.
Israel has agreed to "road Map".
It is moving in that direction, with deeds, not words.
Israel has never promised to give
the Palestinians *everything* they demand.
Road Map... Schmoad Map... If you're Israeli, then indeed, no one can call
you disloyal to the government.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Israel has plenty of tanks and planes so it has no need
to worry about suicide bombers, kassams, katyushas etc!
Where do get this from?
Do Nasrallah and Ahmadinajad know something you don't?
No, it means its pretension of weakness and fear of existential
threat are greatly exaggerated.
If I'm afraid to go on a bus or sit in a restaurant,
if the mental strain of living in Sderot forces me to move out,
that's existential enough for me.
If this seems kind of quaint to you,
you're lucky and I'm happy for you,
but you should be wary of forming a negative opinion
about people who aren't as lucky as you.
Fear is not existential threat.
If anyone has created their own hell, it's the Israelis.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
"Pro-Israeli", "pro-Arab",.why bother with them?
Read up on 'Straits of Tiran",
learn something about 'Cassus Belli".
You complain about Israel's whining to the UN,
but that's what you would have it do in 1967!
The point of the argument in this instance was that it is a lie to
say the Arabs fired the first shot, launched the first rocket, and
their soldiers and tanks first set foot on Israeli soil in an
act/declaration of war.
The argument was who started the 6 day war,
not who the liars are.
One side mined an international seaway,
mobilized its armed forces and moved them
to the borders of a neighboring state,
created a military framework for fighting
that neighboring state under unified command
along with like-minded states,
and you believe that that neighboring state
started the ensuing war!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#The_drift_to_war
Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in his autobiography that
when he was told by U Thant of Nasser's promise not to attack Israel
he found this reassurance convincing as "...Nasser did not want war;
he wanted victory without war".
In a speech before Israeli National Defense College, Menachem Begin
stated that Israel was the one who made the decision to attack: "The
Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove
that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with
ourselves. We decided to attack him."
--------------
The point of the argument is about the misleading assertions made by
Israel's defenders that it never "started" any wars.
Please take that up with those 'defenders'.
I don't know what they mean by "started".
Exactly. Stating that Israel never 'started' any wars is ambiguous and
often misleading, suggesting that Israel has only gone to war when
literally attacked first.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
I'm not here to argue whether Israel was "justified" in its
preemptive attack.
Casus belli notwithstanding, Israel has certainly preemptively
attacked its Arab neighbors in an act of war.
See my statement above,
"One side mined an international seaway,
mobilized its armed forces and moved them....".
I wouldn't be surprised if we more or less agree on this issue,
for whatever it's worth,
but if you respond with quotes and slogans,
it's hard to be sure.
I responded with quotes from leading Israeli's that belie Israel's claim
that an imminent threat actually existed.

You can't simply believe what the government PR department says.

You seem to be a person who believes the words of his government too much.
Little wonder. Your contentions seem to be straight out of the Israeli
government -- contentions, some of which even government officials off the
record would probably admit are fallacious!
z***@yahoo.com
2006-09-13 12:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
You cited a few examples where Arabs stole Jewish owned properties.
I gave you an explanation as to why Jews may have been pushed out of
their land, ie, it was widely known that Jews were planning on
creating a state on lands where Arabs comprised the majority.
If you think it's lame, then shame on you.
Why?
You started out with a Jewish 'land grab'.
Now, it turns out that the only 'land grab' was,
for whatever reasons, Arab.
Are we having the same conversation here?!
You said ancient Jewish communities in Hebron and Gush Etzion were
destroyed in 1929 and the Old City (E. Jerusalem) were 'relocated' in
1948.
Okay, I got that.
But why do you only look at Arab wrong-doings and refuse to see the
GIGANTIC, HUMONGUOUS, UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE injustice committed by Israel
and Zionists against Arabs?!
You mentioned a Jewish land grab,
I commented on that,
saying that the land grabbers were Arabs.
You seem to agree.
If you want to discuss something else, bring it up.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
The fact that the post 1967 economy of the occupied territories saw
improvement would not be surprising. The integration of the
underdeveloped and war-torn Arab W. Bank and Gaza economies with the
more modernized and prosperous Israeli economy probably lifted the
living standards of many Palestinians.
Sure, today it seems so obvious.
But at the time, Moshe Dayan said that giving them jobs,
helping them advance into the 20th century,
would encourage them to turn from hate and terror,
and motivate them to concentrate on prosperity
for themselves and their children.
Others, such as Meir Kahana, spoke quite differently..
Israel made a choice, it wasn't just nature at work.
You're like an American who swallows hook, line and sinker all the
propaganda told by the Bush administration about Iraq and the war on
terror.
What part of the paragraph you are commenting on
do you believe I have 'swallowed'?
I mentioned 2 opinions which were extant at the time,
and I said Israel made a choice.
If you disagree with this, disagree,
and I may be able to comment.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
But oppression of the Palestinians is not being defined here in soley
economic terms. Oppression comes in many forms, the least of which
are perhaps captured in economic statistics.
Your argument is disingenuous. You think that by pointing out the
"improved" lives of Palestinians during occupation, that occupation
isn't so bad and Palestinians have only themselves to blame for their
angst.
"Is it just and humanitarian to keep the land yet force the
Palestinians to live in oppression and as second class citizens?".
I responded to that.
What's the point of telling me what I think
instead of agreeing or disagreeing with what I said?
Obviously I disagreed with what you said! Your points are completely
irrelevant! Whether I agree or disagree with your point would not change
the crux of the issue!
Well, if you would stick to the issue,
tell me what you think, why you disagree,
it would be easier to continue the discussion.
If all you can do is tell me what *I* think,
all I can do is say, "No, that's not what I think".
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Did the lives of black slaves who were kidnapped and relocated to
America improve as measured by economic statistics?
Were the complaints of blacks during the 60's unfounded and "lame"
inasmuch as they were economically much better off than their
brethrens in Africa?
Was S. Africa economically better off with white leaders and the
existence of an apartheid state and does this economic statistic
nullify black grievances towards whites?
To the extent that economic statistics painted a picture of improving
living standards in Korea and Taiwan during the time of Japanese
occupation in the early 20th century, did that justify Japanese
colonization?
Are Tibetans desire for national self-determination unfounded because
Chinese hegemony offers them higher GDP per capita?
Can colonization/occupation be justified on the basis of improving
economic statistics alone?
Your arguments are diversionary and red herrings. But that's not
surprising. Those who defend Israel's occupation often resort to
these tactics. It's very disingenuous.
Again, I've been arguing against your accusations
of Israeli oppression.
It's a statement *you* made.
Where is the 'diversion'?
What are my 'tactics'?
Why not prove your case
or admit you were wrong, and move on?
It's embarrassing having this conversation with you.
From what you wrote in a previous post, you suggested that you may be
Israeli? If the average Israeli holds debates in this manner... may God
have mercy on your souls! You truly, see only your side of the situation,
and really, truly, unable to see where the other guy is coming from.
As I said above,
if you want to discuss something else, bring it up.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
You said: "The Zionist state is by nature racist and bigoted."
Why use a straw man 'occupation' argument
instead of admitting you were wrong,
or at least exaggerated?
If you want to believe that Israel is not a bigoted state, go ahead.
It doesn't matter, actually. Israel has a right be as bigoted as it
wants as far as it cedes the occupied territories and doesn't oppress
others in the process.
Here you go again.
"It doesn't matter, actually.".
Why not admit you were wrong,
or at least exaggerated?
I don't want to argue over minutiae... whether Israeli bigotry is 61%, or
61.1%... or 61.0001%... or 61.00000001%... who cares!... Believe what you
wish, but stop treating the Palestinians who reside WITHIN Israeli
controlled territories like 2nd class citizens, creating an environment
where terrorism is nurtured, and everyone in the world suffers because of
it.
Minutiae???
I gave you an example from 1992,
of a leftist Israeli government which was formed
only through the support of Arab members of Knesset.
Why do you scoff?

But the best part comes at the end.
He's a terrorist, and I'm to blame!
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Before and after the last elections,
he said he would pull off a further withdrawal,
from the West Bank.
Because of the results of the withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza,
he no longer has public support for his policy.
If you can't fill in the dots,
we shouldn't be discussing the M.E..
Further "withdrawal" from the W. Bank concomitant with further
encroachment or expansion of settlements in the W. Bank?
We will "withdrawal" from Gaza, but leave Gaza economically isolated?
We want peace with the Palestinians but we are unwilling to seriously
compromise on land?
We want peace with our neighbors, but we will not consider the Saudi
plan or any other plan that calls for completely ceding captured
lands?
Four separated cantons with no water, air and border rights, and this
is what Israel described as a "generous offer?"
Think twice before believing everything Israel says. Words are mere
words; deeds are reality.
Israel has agreed to "road Map".
It is moving in that direction, with deeds, not words.
Israel has never promised to give
the Palestinians *everything* they demand.
Road Map... Schmoad Map... If you're Israeli, then indeed, no one can call
you disloyal to the government.
Why scoff?
Tell me what you think, I'll comment.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Israel has plenty of tanks and planes so it has no need
to worry about suicide bombers, kassams, katyushas etc!
Where do get this from?
Do Nasrallah and Ahmadinajad know something you don't?
No, it means its pretension of weakness and fear of existential
threat are greatly exaggerated.
If I'm afraid to go on a bus or sit in a restaurant,
if the mental strain of living in Sderot forces me to move out,
that's existential enough for me.
If this seems kind of quaint to you,
you're lucky and I'm happy for you,
but you should be wary of forming a negative opinion
about people who aren't as lucky as you.
Fear is not existential threat.
If anyone has created their own hell, it's the Israelis.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
"Pro-Israeli", "pro-Arab",.why bother with them?
Read up on 'Straits of Tiran",
learn something about 'Cassus Belli".
You complain about Israel's whining to the UN,
but that's what you would have it do in 1967!
The point of the argument in this instance was that it is a lie to
say the Arabs fired the first shot, launched the first rocket, and
their soldiers and tanks first set foot on Israeli soil in an
act/declaration of war.
The argument was who started the 6 day war,
not who the liars are.
One side mined an international seaway,
mobilized its armed forces and moved them
to the borders of a neighboring state,
created a military framework for fighting
that neighboring state under unified command
along with like-minded states,
and you believe that that neighboring state
started the ensuing war!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#The_drift_to_war
Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in his autobiography that
when he was told by U Thant of Nasser's promise not to attack Israel
he found this reassurance convincing as "...Nasser did not want war;
he wanted victory without war".
In a speech before Israeli National Defense College, Menachem Begin
stated that Israel was the one who made the decision to attack: "The
Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove
that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with
ourselves. We decided to attack him."
--------------
The point of the argument is about the misleading assertions made by
Israel's defenders that it never "started" any wars.
Please take that up with those 'defenders'.
I don't know what they mean by "started".
Exactly. Stating that Israel never 'started' any wars is ambiguous and
often misleading, suggesting that Israel has only gone to war when
literally attacked first.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
I'm not here to argue whether Israel was "justified" in its
preemptive attack.
Casus belli notwithstanding, Israel has certainly preemptively
attacked its Arab neighbors in an act of war.
See my statement above,
"One side mined an international seaway,
mobilized its armed forces and moved them....".
I wouldn't be surprised if we more or less agree on this issue,
for whatever it's worth,
but if you respond with quotes and slogans,
it's hard to be sure.
I responded with quotes from leading Israeli's that belie Israel's claim
that an imminent threat actually existed.
Abba Eban said "...he wanted victory without war".
What did he mean by that?

Menachem Begin said "The Egyptian army concentrations
in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser
was really about to attack us....We decided to attack him ".

Did Begin mean to say that Israel
could have waited for more 'proof'?
Is this the advice the Israeli Government
was getting from the army?
Do you understand how these decisions are made?

After it's all over, it all seems so simple and obvious.
But when you're in the thick of it,
all you have is the risk of action vs. the risk of inaction.
When the risk of inaction seems to high, you act.
A responsible government has no choice.
Post by zose
You can't simply believe what the government PR department says.
You seem to be a person who believes the words of his government too much.
Little wonder. Your contentions seem to be straight out of the Israeli
government -- contentions, some of which even government officials off the
record would probably admit are fallacious!
What I said was:
"One side mined an international seaway,
mobilized its armed forces and moved them
to the borders of a neighboring state,
created a military framework for fighting
that neighboring state under unified command
along with like-minded states,
and you believe that that neighboring state
started the ensuing war!"

I didn't need the Israel government for any of this.
Anyone who was reading newspapers
in May-June 1967 would know all of the above.
What part of it do you disagree with?

Are you suggesting that Israel should have
depended on a promise from U Thant?
Or a threat from France that she would punish
whichever side started hostilities?
Why do you respond with 'contentions'
and where they come from?
Tell me what you think,
I'll tell you what I think.
zose
2006-09-14 21:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
You cited a few examples where Arabs stole Jewish owned properties.
I gave you an explanation as to why Jews may have been pushed out
of their land, ie, it was widely known that Jews were planning on
creating a state on lands where Arabs comprised the majority.
If you think it's lame, then shame on you.
Why?
You started out with a Jewish 'land grab'.
Now, it turns out that the only 'land grab' was,
for whatever reasons, Arab.
Are we having the same conversation here?!
You said ancient Jewish communities in Hebron and Gush Etzion were
destroyed in 1929 and the Old City (E. Jerusalem) were 'relocated' in
1948.
Okay, I got that.
But why do you only look at Arab wrong-doings and refuse to see the
GIGANTIC, HUMONGUOUS, UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE injustice committed by
Israel and Zionists against Arabs?!
You mentioned a Jewish land grab,
I commented on that,
saying that the land grabbers were Arabs.
You seem to agree.
If you want to discuss something else, bring it up.
Most pro-Israelis will attempt to justify Israel's appropriation of the
W. Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the Shebaa Farms using the "spoils
of war" argument.

But you trump them all. You refuse to admit any sort of land
appropriation at all by Israel but instead accuse Arabs of stealing
Israeli land.

You are truly amazing, but perhaps par for the course among Israel's
apologists.

To wit:

Benjamin Netanyahu said the other day that Ahmadinejad was more
dangerous than Hitler saying, "Hitler went out on a world campaign
first, and then tried to get nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to get
nuclear arms first. Therefore from that perspective, it is much more
dangerous."

So it seems that Netanyahu, a hard-right politician, and his cohorts,
will go to any length to stir up war, time and again! First, it was
Iraq that was posing Israel's existential threat... now that Iraq has
been castrated, it's Iran that is now more dangerous than Hitler!

Although jaw-dropping, it's nothing we haven't heard nor known before.
Israel has had intentions of re-making the Middle East geopolitical
landscape in its favor for a long time, beginning with war against Iraq
and then following with Iran, Syria, etc.

In another news story, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs just
announced that it had "enlisted" the help of Nobel Peace Prize laureate
Elie Wiesel and internationally renowned lawyers Irwin Cotler and Alan
Dershowitz in its campaign to "expel Iran from the UN" because it
argues, Iran has "persistently violated the principles contained in the
present charter."

Those violations, Israel says, are the "convention against genocide by
its threats to Israel and pursuit of nuclear weapons, as well as
abrogated the foundational charter's requirement that member countries
'refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state.' "

Talk about hypocricy to the nth degree, lies and exaggerations!

The President of Iran has threatened the "Zionist" state, which suggests
an hostility towards ZIONISM and its ideology. He has stated clearly
(during the interview on 60-minute) that he is not against JEWS, but
against their current FORM OF GOVERNMENT which practices discrimination
against PALESTINIANS.

Moreover, and needless to say, it is Israel who possesses (secret)
nuclear weapons and is NOT a member of the NPT. Iran, as a signatory,
has a legitimate RIGHT to nuclear power and it is the US and its allies
making a stink of it based on the SUSPICION that Iran's intentions are
not peaceful. Just today, in fact, Bloomberg reported that the IAEA
blasted a US Congressional report that claimed Iran was producing
"weapons-grade" uranium as "outrageous and dishonest," saying also that
the report contains "erroneous, misleading, and unsubstantiated
information."

Lastly, Israel is the very last that should be lecturing anyone about
respecting others' "territorial integrity" and "political independence!"

There seems to be no end to propaganda that comes out of Israel and its
supporters in order to achieve its ends and rationalize its actions.


Links to stories:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913616078&pagename=JPost%
2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3303129,00.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103
&sid=a4GhCBD7phfQ&refer=us
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Israel has agreed to "road Map".
It is moving in that direction, with deeds, not words.
Israel has never promised to give
the Palestinians *everything* they demand.
Road Map... Schmoad Map... If you're Israeli, then indeed, no one can
call you disloyal to the government.
Why scoff?
Tell me what you think, I'll comment.
It should be clear to everyone by now that Israel's words and actions do
not act in concert.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Abba Eban said "...he wanted victory without war".
What did he mean by that?
Menachem Begin said "The Egyptian army concentrations
in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser
was really about to attack us....We decided to attack him ".
Did Begin mean to say that Israel
could have waited for more 'proof'?
Is this the advice the Israeli Government
was getting from the army?
Do you understand how these decisions are made?
It means Israel chose war knowing it was not under any real immediate
threat.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
You can't simply believe what the government PR department says.
You seem to be a person who believes the words of his government too
much. Little wonder. Your contentions seem to be straight out of the
Israeli government -- contentions, some of which even government
officials off the record would probably admit are fallacious!
"One side mined an international seaway,
mobilized its armed forces and moved them
to the borders of a neighboring state,
created a military framework for fighting
that neighboring state under unified command
along with like-minded states,
and you believe that that neighboring state
started the ensuing war!"
I didn't need the Israel government for any of this.
Anyone who was reading newspapers
in May-June 1967 would know all of the above.
What part of it do you disagree with?
Reading the "newspapers" (probably the domestic ones) at the time??!!
Is this line supposed to be convincing?!

What would the typical bloke who reads the domestic "newspapers" today
think about anything?!

As I said earlier, you've swallowed Israeli PR hook, line and sinker.
z***@yahoo.com
2006-09-15 15:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
You cited a few examples where Arabs stole Jewish owned properties.
I gave you an explanation as to why Jews may have been pushed out
of their land, ie, it was widely known that Jews were planning on
creating a state on lands where Arabs comprised the majority.
If you think it's lame, then shame on you.
Why?
You started out with a Jewish 'land grab'.
Now, it turns out that the only 'land grab' was,
for whatever reasons, Arab.
Are we having the same conversation here?!
You said ancient Jewish communities in Hebron and Gush Etzion were
destroyed in 1929 and the Old City (E. Jerusalem) were 'relocated' in
1948.
Okay, I got that.
But why do you only look at Arab wrong-doings and refuse to see the
GIGANTIC, HUMONGUOUS, UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE injustice committed by
Israel and Zionists against Arabs?!
You mentioned a Jewish land grab,
I commented on that,
saying that the land grabbers were Arabs.
You seem to agree.
If you want to discuss something else, bring it up.
Most pro-Israelis will attempt to justify Israel's appropriation of the
W. Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the Shebaa Farms using the "spoils
of war" argument.
But you trump them all. You refuse to admit any sort of land
appropriation at all by Israel but instead accuse Arabs of stealing
Israeli land.
Why put words into my mouth?
Tell me who appropriated what from whom,
where the borders were, etc...
Maybe I'll agree with you.
Your belief that you can read my mind,
while being unable to present
your own ideas clearly is striking!
Post by zose
You are truly amazing, but perhaps par for the course among Israel's
apologists.
Benjamin Netanyahu said the other day that Ahmadinejad was more
dangerous than Hitler saying, "Hitler went out on a world campaign
first, and then tried to get nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to get
nuclear arms first. Therefore from that perspective, it is much more
dangerous."
So it seems that Netanyahu, a hard-right politician, and his cohorts,
will go to any length to stir up war, time and again! First, it was
Iraq that was posing Israel's existential threat... now that Iraq has
been castrated, it's Iran that is now more dangerous than Hitler!
Although jaw-dropping, it's nothing we haven't heard nor known before.
Israel has had intentions of re-making the Middle East geopolitical
landscape in its favor for a long time, beginning with war against Iraq
and then following with Iran, Syria, etc.
In another news story, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs just
announced that it had "enlisted" the help of Nobel Peace Prize laureate
Elie Wiesel and internationally renowned lawyers Irwin Cotler and Alan
Dershowitz in its campaign to "expel Iran from the UN" because it
argues, Iran has "persistently violated the principles contained in the
present charter."
Those violations, Israel says, are the "convention against genocide by
its threats to Israel and pursuit of nuclear weapons, as well as
abrogated the foundational charter's requirement that member countries
'refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state.' "
Talk about hypocricy to the nth degree, lies and exaggerations!
The President of Iran has threatened the "Zionist" state, which suggests
an hostility towards ZIONISM and its ideology. He has stated clearly
(during the interview on 60-minute) that he is not against JEWS, but
against their current FORM OF GOVERNMENT which practices discrimination
against PALESTINIANS.
Moreover, and needless to say, it is Israel who possesses (secret)
nuclear weapons and is NOT a member of the NPT. Iran, as a signatory,
has a legitimate RIGHT to nuclear power and it is the US and its allies
making a stink of it based on the SUSPICION that Iran's intentions are
not peaceful. Just today, in fact, Bloomberg reported that the IAEA
blasted a US Congressional report that claimed Iran was producing
"weapons-grade" uranium as "outrageous and dishonest," saying also that
the report contains "erroneous, misleading, and unsubstantiated
information."
Lastly, Israel is the very last that should be lecturing anyone about
respecting others' "territorial integrity" and "political independence!"
There seems to be no end to propaganda that comes out of Israel and its
supporters in order to achieve its ends and rationalize its actions.
Thanks for your assurances.
I hope you're right.
But I think the West doesn't understand how dangerous
the combination of jihad mentality and oil money is.
Weapons-grade uranium is not the only issue.
Nasrallah and a few thousand fighters,
armed to the teeth with conventional weapons,
almost set the entire M.E. on fire.
Post by zose
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913616078&pagename=JPost%
2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3303129,00.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103
&sid=a4GhCBD7phfQ&refer=us
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Israel has agreed to "road Map".
It is moving in that direction, with deeds, not words.
Israel has never promised to give
the Palestinians *everything* they demand.
Road Map... Schmoad Map... If you're Israeli, then indeed, no one can
call you disloyal to the government.
Why scoff?
Tell me what you think, I'll comment.
It should be clear to everyone by now that Israel's words and actions do
not act in concert.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Abba Eban said "...he wanted victory without war".
What did he mean by that?
Menachem Begin said "The Egyptian army concentrations
in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser
was really about to attack us....We decided to attack him ".
Did Begin mean to say that Israel
could have waited for more 'proof'?
Is this the advice the Israeli Government
was getting from the army?
Do you understand how these decisions are made?
It means Israel chose war knowing it was not under any real immediate
threat.
After it's all over, it all seems so simple and obvious.
But when you're in the thick of it,
all you have is the risk of action vs. the risk of inaction.
When the risk of inaction seems to high, you act.
A responsible government has no choice.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
You can't simply believe what the government PR department says.
You seem to be a person who believes the words of his government too
much. Little wonder. Your contentions seem to be straight out of the
Israeli government -- contentions, some of which even government
officials off the record would probably admit are fallacious!
"One side mined an international seaway,
mobilized its armed forces and moved them
to the borders of a neighboring state,
created a military framework for fighting
that neighboring state under unified command
along with like-minded states,
and you believe that that neighboring state
started the ensuing war!"
I didn't need the Israel government for any of this.
Anyone who was reading newspapers
in May-June 1967 would know all of the above.
What part of it do you disagree with?
Reading the "newspapers" (probably the domestic ones) at the time??!!
Is this line supposed to be convincing?!
What would the typical bloke who reads the domestic "newspapers" today
think about anything?!
As I said earlier, you've swallowed Israeli PR hook, line and sinker.
I don't believe any newspaper in the world
of May 1967 ran a story substantially different
from what I wrote above.
But again, what part do you think is untrue?
Where do I exaggerate?
Quit scoffing!
Present your arguments!
Prove your point!

Zev

JRT
2006-09-13 01:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Yeah. that's because the idiots over there spend all their energy and effort
on hate and debating who did what to whom. Rather than earning an honest
living, realizing that whatever wrongs were committed were committed
generations ago, were most likely mutually avenged, and that more violence
and hate and wanting for revenge will only lead to still further generations
of poverty, violence, suffering, hunger, poor quality of life and so on...

It's the same with Native Americans. Many still carry the torch of the
wrongs thus committed 200 years ago by ancestors of british and french in
North America. Well, I'm sorry, but that was then and this is now and that
is the way it happened. You could whine about it, feel sorry for yourself or
use it as an excuse for why you cannot do better for yourself but the fact
remains that none of that will change what happened, improve your life,
bring back the dead or reverse what has happened. So, we can fight about it
for 2000 more years or we can be bigger, smarter and more civilized than
that and realize that nothing will change what was, but we have the power to
change what is. More violence and more hate guarantees only that there will
be more of both of those things. It takes wiser, more civilized and more
intelligent people to question the status quo, say no to inciting
generations of hate and change the quality of life of our decendents today,
now.
Post by zose
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
It seems impossible to convince folks like you but it is certainly a
land-grab in my book of morals, justice and ethics.
The ancient Jewish communities of Gaza and of Shchem/Nablus
were abandoned in 1919 and 1929
when the British decided they were too difficult to defend.
The ancient Jewish community of Hebron
was destroyed in the pogrom of 1929.
The Jewish communities of Gush Etzion
and of the Old City (E. Jerusalem)
were 'relocated' in 1948.
Kfar Darom was registered in Tabu in the 1930's
Who "grabbed" the above from whom?
Can you document similar thefts of Arab owned land
by Jews in the same time period?
I don't know the specifics of these incidents you name above. But
moving up to the time of the creation of Israel, resentment from Arabs
towards Jews intensified and sometimes flared as a result of: 1.
increasing Jewish immigration, 2. buying up of land by Jews and eviction
of Arabs, whether done legally or not, 3. the knowledge that Jews were
coming with the intent on creating a "Jewish" state in Palestine,
although Arabs comprised the overwhelming majority, and frankly, had no
business or right of doing so in the first place.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Read up on the number of universities in 'Palestine' before and after
1967.
Read up on the constantly rising standard of living in 'Palestine'
from 1967 until 1988 (the first intifada began in Dec. 1988)
Your position is that life in the occupied territories is good and has
been getting better and better, but these ingrate, ignorant animals
don't know that they have it so good and go on whining and complaining
about how bad things are and blame the West/Israel unfairly for
something that is just in their heads?
Certainly, the increase in the # of universities since 1967 or the
purported rise in living standards as measured by trinkets or the
existence of running water and electricity are all good things. But a
prison is still a prison no matter that the cell has been installed with
a plasma tv and a Tempurpedic bed.
I'm not familiar with the statistics in the improvement in living
standards up to 1988. And it really doesn't matter as it only serves to
divert attention away from the real issue: the occupation.
What we know though is that life isn't good over there. The
unemployment rate is too high, between 20%-30% or more; and the # of
people living under the poverty line is too high, between 40%-60%. And
the Palestinian economy depends critically on foreign aid.
What's more, they continue to live in humiliation, oppression and
occupation without a state and as 2nd class citizens under Israeli
military rule.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Arabs don't hate Jews. They hate the Zionist state. Do you know
what the difference is? The Zionist state is by nature racist and
bigoted. Yes, Arabs live and are citizens in Israel, but they are a
minority -- and Zionists wish to keep it that way.
In the 1992 elections in Israel,
a majority of Jews voted for parties
which were to the right of Mr. Rabin's party.
Rabin's majority, through which he became Prime Minister,
depended on the support of Arab members of Knesset.
In which Arab country could that happen?
Do you think that the strategy of pointing out how much worse the Arabs
are compared to Israel justifies and exonerates Israel's continuing
occupation?
America is a great country. It has great institutions. The US is a
democratic republic based on the rule of law and liberty nonpareil.
Does this mean the US can do no wrong and has done no wrong and does no
wrong? Does this from the outset justify America's "war on terror",
invasion of Iraq, it's historical/current policy in the Middle East?
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Why won't Israel allow Palestinians who were kicked out of Israel
proper to return? Why won't Israel allow all Palestinians Israeli
citizenship? Because that would mean the end of the "Jewish" state.
Why has PM Ulmert stopped talking about
withdrawing from the West Bank?
If you answer honestly,
you'll have the answer to your question too.
Since I'm not very familiar with Ulmert, I can't say I know what his
thinking is on much of anything, so why don't you tell me?
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Israel has plenty of tanks and planes so it has no need
to worry about suicide bombers, kassams, katyushas etc!
Where do get this from?
Do Nasrallah and Ahmadinajad know something you don't?
No, it means its pretension of weakness and fear of existential threat
are greatly exaggerated.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
"Pro-Israeli", "pro-arab",.why bother with them?
Read up on 'Straits of Tiran",
learn something about 'Cassus Belli".
You complain about Israel's whining to the UN,
but that's what you would have it do in 1967!
The point of the argument in this instance was that it is a lie to say
the Arabs fired the first shot, launched the first rocket, and their
soldiers and tanks first set foot on Israeli soil in an act/declaration
of war.
Casus belli can be used by any aggressor to justify war and can be a
point of heated contention between pundits.
Did the UK/French/Israel forces have casus belli to justify their
aggression towards Eqypt? Did Israel have casus belli to start the 1967
war? Did Iraq have casus belli to attack Iran and Kuwait? Did the US
have casus belli to invade Iraq? Did Japan have casus belli to bomb
Pearl Harbor?...
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
I don't know why Israel wanted to attack Lebanon recently. The facts
aren't all clear yet.
If you read Seymour Hersh recently, it's because the US and Israel
were colluding to go after Iran and Syria.
Others have suggested that Israel simply wanted revenge on Hezbollah.
Others suggest maybe Israel wanted to expand up to the Litani river
to get access to more water. (Water is a big reason why Israel won't
give up the W. Bank and the Golan Heights... there's a terrible
shortage there.)
Others suggest Israel wanted to bomb Lebanon back 10 years to reduce
future economic competition.
Who the hell knows right now... I guess we'll be reading about it in
the future...
Absurd.
IDF was unprepared for this war in every way you can think of.
Even after it started, they weren't thinking in terms of a real war.
Think about it.
On the border with Gaza, 2 soldiers killed, 1 taken captive.
A few days later, a soldier is kidnapped (and killed) in the West
Bank, A few days later, the attack from Lebanon, 8 killed, 2 captives.
It was this chain of events which signaled
to a hesitant, leftist, government,
that something had to be done.
And maybe it was as simple as that in the minds of the Israeli
leadership, who knows...
Post by z***@yahoo.com
"There's no need to morally justify anything. War is cruel..."?
Yeah, sh*t happens and atrocities are committed. Israel does bad
things. Arabs do bad things.
At the end of the day, though, Israel is still the occupier and
aggressor and Palestinians live under occupation.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Post by zose
Obviously, you haven't a clue what was "offered" at Camp David!
The generous offer to Arafat at Camp David were four divided cantons
with no water, border or air rights! How could Arafat accept such a
ridiculous, farcical offer? How is that the basis of a "state"??!!
It's more than Jordan offered him,
and he never complained.
In fact, he promised *not* to complain.
How is this relevant to anything?
I don't care what Jordan offered in some historical point in the past.
They are both Arab states and what happens between them is their
internal business.
Post by z***@yahoo.com
Why didn't the Palestinians make the offer?
Anwar Sadat talked seriously, he got everything he wanted.
Arafat didn't make a counter-offer.
Think that through.
I don't know what went back and forth during Camp David specifically, as
probably neither do you. What is clear now however is that Barak and
Clinton's offer to Arafat were disingenuous and the berth between the
two sides too large.
But encouragingly, talks continued after Camp David into Taba... all the
way up to the point of Sharon's election win.
By then it was too late and all for naught as Sharon would have nothing
to do with negotiations.
zose
2006-09-13 04:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JRT
Yeah. that's because the idiots over there spend all their energy and
effort on hate and debating who did what to whom. Rather than earning
an honest living, realizing that whatever wrongs were committed were
committed generations ago, were most likely mutually avenged, and that
more violence and hate and wanting for revenge will only lead to still
further generations of poverty, violence, suffering, hunger, poor
quality of life and so on...
It's the same with Native Americans. Many still carry the torch of the
wrongs thus committed 200 years ago by ancestors of british and french
in North America. Well, I'm sorry, but that was then and this is now
and that is the way it happened. You could whine about it, feel sorry
for yourself or use it as an excuse for why you cannot do better for
yourself but the fact remains that none of that will change what
happened, improve your life, bring back the dead or reverse what has
happened. So, we can fight about it for 2000 more years or we can be
bigger, smarter and more civilized than that and realize that nothing
will change what was, but we have the power to change what is. More
violence and more hate guarantees only that there will be more of both
of those things. It takes wiser, more civilized and more intelligent
people to question the status quo, say no to inciting generations of
hate and change the quality of life of our decendents today, now.
I agree. What matters is not avenging the past but finding viable
solutions for the future.
Fred Hebert
2006-09-07 03:06:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by zose
Why should the Arabs stop attacking the West tomorrow when Israel with
full support of the US continues its occupation of the W. Bank, Gaza, E.
Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms?
Q: When did Israel take these lands?
A: They took it in a war started by the OTHER side. They don't have to give
it back.

See, that's how it works: You win land in a war you didn't start, you don't
have to give it back.

AFA the US support, that's because we remember what happened to the Jews 60
years ago, and how the world stood by and watched. And many of Europe's arab
sympathies are really based on an old, long-standing hatred for Jews.
Post by zose
If Mexico stole San Diego, would Americans then be to blame for their
retaliation against them?
Who is it that is being aggressive in this instance?
Perhaps you think it would be the US? If that's so, then you'd be wrong.
But your whole premise is wrong. Israel didn't STEAL those lands, they
occupied them in a war of aggression started by the OTHER side. The other
side lost land, and now they're crying about how unfair it is. What's next,
crying that the Israelis won't give them back the bullets they fired into
Israel?

Secondly, Israel LEFT Gaza, and then was attacked from WITHIN Gaza. So it
was no longer occupied.

The fact is, much of the world hates Jews. Always has, always will. That's
what this is really about.
Fred Hebert
2006-09-07 03:08:57 UTC
Permalink
(Sorry for the two messages. I wrote one, thought it was "lost" in the
ether, and rewrote it from memory).
NYC XYZ
2006-09-07 13:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Hebert
As far as I know, Christians don't sit back silently while their religion is
(supposedly) hijacked by extremists. The truth is, scratch a muslim, and
there's a good chance you'll find a terrorist-sympathizer underneath. Not so
for the vast majority of Christians.
True, and thanks really to the European Enlightenment, with its
reverence of the Renaissance and ancient pagan learning.

Still, most x-tian fundy-dundies seem like a "kinder, gentler" version
of muslims -- muslim lite, as it were. I think it's like the Japs and
Nazis: one's bigger and badder, but both are problems.

Really sick of hearing about muslim grievances. If there's one thing
that really grates, it's the complaints of the stupid. Seven million
years of human evolution, and people still talk to Santa Claus and the
Tooth Fairy.
Loading...