Palestine & Israel

[coheneran]

I know there've been lots of threads on this, but I didn't want to go grave-digging so I made a new one. I want to discuss mostly the repression of Palestinian protests and IDF violence against unarmed civilian demonstrators, both Israelis and Palestinians. Here's a video of a demo against the wall about two years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz8x2NqInsk

It's got Israeli, Palestinian and international demonstrators who are being shot at with live ammunition. Just to translate a few things in there, about four minutes through an Israeli protestor is shouting in Hebrew "Nobody is threatening you! Put down your weapons! Stop shooting! There are international cameras here! You have no reason to shoot! Nobody is being violent and you are shooting!" These protests happen every week, organised by Palestinians and a group called Anarchists Against the Wall. I've been to one, it wasn't pleasant.

I'm sure you all know about the current situation, but for those who don't (ie. those who are blind, deaf and stupid), I'll give you some information:

Since about 2001 (I think it was) the Israeli government has been building a wall, about thirty feet high and five feet thick, to surround the whole Western border of the West Bank, that's the side facing Israel, the other side is facing the River Jordan (its Western bank, hence the name), beyond which is Jordan proper. Originally Sharon promised that this is a temporary defence measure, but just recently our newly elected Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, announced that the Apartheid Wall will mark the new Israeli-Palestinian West Bank border, excepting a few minor changes to the map (the annexation of a few more miles of Palestinian land). In effect, this wall is putting Palestinians in a ghetto, surrounded by a wall and barbed wire on the West and North, the Jordanian border in the East, and the rapidly drying Dead Sea in the South. This wall is being built on Palestinian land, through Palestinian villages. In many cases it is cutting off farmers from their fields and villages from their market towns. Of course, those are just the obvious economic implications.

I think that's enough for now.

Discuss.

[PepsiMetal]

I'm not sure how this wall will actually work. Palestinians are basically living in poverty, and this wall will take them further away from a normal society, which could even worsen their conditions. Fatah are trying to convince Hamas to change their mind and accept Israel as existence.

But apperently (http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties.asp), more Palestinians have been killed than vice versa. I'm really undecided and split on this case. They both have valid and invalid points.

[WhoDidTheElf]

According to the video they weren't shooting the live rounds, they were shooting rubber bullets. But that there were snipers with live rounds.

[Squirrel]

I don't really know where to stand on the issue.

It's two sided and I don't believe i hold enough facts to decide.

Currently though I am an Israeli sympathizer, based on the medias portrayal of Palestinians in the Western media.

[coheneran]

The logic behind the wall is so basic it's childlike. The reasoning is that if there's a big fuckoff wall between Israel and Palestine, suicide bombers won't get in. This is, of course, bullcrap. Israeli forces let suicide bombers in. They don't hold their hand and walk them through the border, but the checkpoints are opened and the soldiers in the area are called off-duty, so the roads are unguarded, which is literally unheard of. This happened the last time there was an attack on Israel, a couple of months ago.

[-1up!-]

I'm really pro-Palestinian :)

[coheneran]

Currently though I am an Israeli sympathizer, based on the medias portrayal of Palestinians in the Western media.

I know, sometimes watching the news reports on Palestine is just incredible. They are the stuff of fantasy. Due to bad media portrayal, the whole world thinks that Israel is poor little David with his sling and stone and that Palestine is mighty and cruel Goliath with a mechanized army. In fact it's the other way around, but only in the military view. The reality is that only a tiny fraction of Palestinians want to keep fighting Israel, and that tiny fraction stays alive because they corrupt young, naive and impressionable boys who are angry with Israel, they spout religious dogma at them and they strap bombs on their chests. And all that the boys back in Israel wanna do is party and go to university, but they have to give two years of the end of their childhood to military service, in which they get shown how Palestinians all wanna kill the Jews and how Arabs are comparable to Nazis, then they get sent out into the refugee camps and Palestinian neighbourhoods and villages with guns and told to patrol.

If you can, get hold of a movie called Paradise Now, it's about two Palestinian men (no more than 23 or 24 years old) who have been selected to be suicide bombers.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Coheneran, you are completely and utterly full of shit

[coheneran]

How concise of you, wanna expand on that for me?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

This is rubbish:
I know, sometimes watching the news reports on Palestine is just incredible. They are the stuff of fantasy. Due to bad media portrayal, the whole world thinks that Israel is poor little David with his sling and stone and that Palestine is mighty and cruel Goliath with a mechanized army. In fact it's the other way around, but only in the military view.Seriously, you're just inventing this stuff.

[coheneran]

It's pretty much true, apart from a report now and then about some BIG thing that Israel did to the Palestinians. Trust me dude, most people in the world won't ever even hear a rumour about the stuff that Israel does. Man, Israel's (supposed-to-be) secret prisons make Guantanamo Bay look like a nice day on a Carribbean beach. There was one I remember in particular, in a place called Prison 6, about interrogators making a nude Palestinian prison sit on an upright truncheon. There's also stuff about electric torture, psychological torture etc.. Stuff people don't want to think about.

[coheneran]

Except David actually won.

Don't get cheeky boy.:mad:

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

no, the bbc is hardly pro-israeli, nor are the other channels.

[coheneran]

Seriously, you're just inventing this stuff.

Yeah, I am spouting bollocks. Everyone knows Israel's army is tiny and weak and has no real firepower, but every Palestinian home is equipped with AK47s, a secret helicopter pad for their private Cobra attack choppers, and dirty uranium bombs in the basement where they say they keep the "olive oil."

[BassRevelation1029]

LoL at ridiculous thread

Except David actually won.
:lol:

[coheneran]

no, the bbc is hardly pro-israeli, nor are the other channels.

The international media doesn't show anything. They don't tell you Palestinians die every day, that they're shot at every day, that they can't go out for milk without a permit. All they tell you about is when an international journalist gets shot by the IDF, when a bomb goes off in central Tel-Aviv, or when Israel slaughters a thousand people. Anything below a thousand isn't newsworthy, apparantly.

[coheneran]

Do you have any sources for this beyond your grandmother telling you that that's what happened or whatever it was? Because I haven't seen that allegation made anywhere else at all.

I can try to find some, but I doubt I'll find any. As for my zionist racist grandmother, no, she wouldn't step foot within ten meters of an Arab if she could help it. I was with my family in Israel on that day, and my parents drove to Ramalla to see a friend of theirs, when they came back they told me they didn't see a soldier coming and going and that the checkpoints were all open.


The international media doesn't tell us all sorts of things, since the Israel/Palestine conflict doesn't itself actually directly impact most people in the West. As for saying that "anything below a thousand isn't newsworthy", it's simply nonsense. Jenin in 2002 was huge news here in the UK, as have been crimes committed by Israeli soldiers. The media here in the UK is constantly attacked from both sides when the fact is that both Israeli and Palestinian crimes are reported.

Read the Israeli indymedia and compare it with what we hear from mainstream media about Israel, the number of facts we get from one against the number we get from another.

[coheneran]

It's pointless for us to argue how much the international media shows, because I've grown up with direct involvement in what's happening, and saw it through Israeli media (both right and left wing), international media and independent media. I don't know what you guys watch/read for news, but I assume the mainstream media newspapers and TV stations, but correct me if I'm wrong.

EDIT: Can't find any sources on the roads being cleared that day, absolutely nothing apart from how many people he killed. Feel free to disregard what I said, however I don't think my parents lied.

[BassRevelation1029]

EDIT: Can't find any sources on the roads being cleared that day, absolutely nothing apart from how many people he killed. Feel free to disregard what I said, however I don't think my parents lied.
ive heard of times when Palestinian media reported Israel demolishing an entire compound of Palestinian civilians. Some people laughed at that, seeing how they were there that day and the houses were still standing. Hows that for no-witness news?

[coheneran]

ive heard of times when Palestinian media reported Israel demolishing an entire compound of Palestinian civilians. Some people laughed at that, seeing how they were there that day and the houses were still standing. Hows that for no-witness news?

Hey man, I'm not telling you to take everything I say as truth, because from where you're standing I could easily be lying. All I can tell you is that I'm as sure as I can be that the day before that attack no one was guarding the road into Israel from Ramalla, but I won't think any less of you for not believing me, because I can't source it.

[BassRevelation1029]

I didnt say you were lying. Im just saying the media isnt always telling the truth. In this case, they werent

[Hababi]

Hey another Israel thread for me to comment in :p

Anyway, heres' the BDR doctrine:
Israel is in a war with Islamic radicals that have come to lead the Palestinian people. The only way to ever make things better is to treat it like a war, completely crush Fatah, the PLO, Hamas, and ever other radical Islamic group. Complete a security wall around the entire state of Israel. That's the solution. Their war, like our war, is one against radical Islam.

[-1up!-]

...no use argumenting.

[coheneran]

Hey another Israel thread for me to comment in :p

Anyway, heres' the BDR doctrine:
Israel is in a war with Islamic radicals that have come to lead the Palestinian people. The only way to ever make things better is to treat it like a war, completely crush Fatah, the PLO, Hamas, and ever other radical Islamic group. Complete a security wall around the entire state of Israel. That's the solution. Their war, like our war, is one against radical Islam.

Fatah is the PLO gone political party. The PLO doesn't exist anymore, and even when it did, it was never about Islam, it was about liberation. Hamas, on the other hand, was backed by Israel from it's small beginnings to create division in Palestinian fighters' ranks and to oppose the PLO. Hamas wouldn't be here as it is were it not for short-sighted Israeli policies. Hizaballah is backed by Iran, and Islamic Jihad, as far as I know, is an unorganised network of Islamic-based resistance. Their struggle isn't about Palestine, it's about the Ummah. They are the ones responsible for the last five or six attacks on Israel, as there seems to be a consensual cease-fire between Israel and the other Palestinian militant organisations.

Hamas is no longer a terrorist organisation, they have too much to lose. The problem is "miscommunication", one could say. I believe Hamas was voted in not because they refuse to recognize Israel, but because they seemed to be the only ones who would sort out the basic and emergency services, as well as the infastructure. I believe the great irony is that the Hamas elite don't think this is the only reason, and so they think if they officially recognise Israel as a legal country, they will lose popular support. Just a theory of course, based on the fact that most Palestinians just want peace and self-dependency.

War is not the solution because Israel will be the obvious winner and there will be no such people as the Palestinians any more. We cannot let that happen, ever, not to the Jews and not to the Palestinians. It saddens me to say it, but the only solution for the Palestinians now is to get media attention and lie down in front of the tanks, Gandhi-style; "We will not move from you, we will not move against you."

[Hababi]

It saddens me to say it, but the only solution for the Palestinians now is to get media attention and lie down in front of the tanks, Gandhi-style; "We will not move from you, we will not move against you."


If the Palestinians were peaceful, there'd be no tanks. There are tanks because of the violence of the Palestinians, because of their terrorism, because of that rat scumbag Arafat and his legacy of bloodshed. If the Palestinians would stop killing Jews, assaulting soldiers, etc. all the trouble would stop and the two sides would coexist. But they won't. The Palestinians want to kill Jews, they want to eliminate the Jews. The radicals that are their voices are NOT interested in peace, they are only interested in bloodshed.

[coheneran]

If the Palestinians were peaceful, there'd be no tanks. There are tanks because of the violence of the Palestinians, because of their terrorism, because of that rat scumbag Arafat and his legacy of bloodshed. If the Palestinians would stop killing Jews, assaulting soldiers, etc. all the trouble would stop and the two sides would coexist. But they won't. The Palestinians want to kill Jews, they want to eliminate the Jews. The radicals that are their voices are NOT interested in peace, they are only interested in bloodshed.

Lol @ blind prejudice.

Shall we take a look at some of the Israeli leaders' voices?

Ben Gurion, Founder of the Israeli State and first Prime Minister:

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."


"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

Yitzhak Shamir, Prime Minister and professional Bastard Murderer:

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."

As for Ehud Barak, when he was asked what he would have done had he been born a Palestinian, he answered "I would have joined a terrorist organization."

Didn't Hitler say things like "The Jews don't want peace! They want to control Germany and steal the working people's money! They hate us!" Kind of similar to what you are saying.

[dislocated214]

I was born under an apparatus
that downgraded my class status
from citizen to subhuman savage,
it's hard to fathom but even harder to manage
I'm a second class citizen in the land of my origin
forced to forage in a brutal reality
that's devoid of humanity
for some semblance of sanity, where truth is profanity,
and in all actuality my right to life is
con-sidered a travesty,

we can't even bury friends
without the threat of their military showing up to carry out their vendetta,
a policy of extermination against an indigenous population
that's been fighting for emancipation

you want to end the violence?
Then end the occupation
you want to see defiance?
Then deny us liberation.
This is Apartheid Palestine
where sniper fire gets showered from Israeli watchtowers.


http://sonofnun.net/lyrics-freepalestine.shtml

Local rapper, Son of Nun of Baltimore, MD.

[coheneran]

On the subject of good Palestine Solidarity lyrics:


They're building a wall
Between water and land
So we can eat fruit
And they can eat sand
A wall to make sure
That our orchards will grow
And our kids can get fat
And not need to know
Of the cities in ruins
And the children in fear
That your fathers and brothers
In tanks might be near
A wall to keep quiet
That which you fear most
So you don't have to listen
To your grandfather's ghost

That's just one verse from a kickarse song. The rest of the lyrics are here (http://www.davidrovics.com/) (on the album Songs For Mahmoud) and you can download the song from the same link.

[coheneran]

You know what would promote peace in the middle east? A free concert!

Roger Waters just had a concert in Neve Shalom (a village with a mixed Israeli and Arab population, a role model for how Israel and Palestine should be. It means Fountain of Peace).

[dislocated214]

George Michael.

CORRECTION:

David Hasselhoff...and then send in Bush to be like "Mr. Prime Minister, tear down this wall!"

[coheneran]

Stop spamming my thread!:p

[Surgicalgod]

I've so many Palestine-related threads and my posts are always something like this.

I understand that suicide bombing and killing innocent Israeli civilians is wrong, but this would have never happened if Israel didn't 'start it'. Israel committed various massacres in both Lebanon and Palestine. Such actions fuel the vunerable, got-nothing-to-lose Muslims and turns them to extremists.

Also, if you go back to history, the land belongs to Palestinians.

[coheneran]

My view on the property rights and land ownership is anarchist and humanist. Neither can lay claim to the land, because it all depends on how far back in history you choose to look. I would prefer no countries there to two countries.

[Zesty Mordant]

seriously, is this issue is a black-and-white as its often made out to be? not that I'm stereotyping but I've never met a Palestinian who sympathizes or understands the Israeli side and vice-versa. How come there aren't any major joint oppositions to the issue?

At this point, I, along with I'm sure are the rest of the Western population have no sympathy for either side any more.

[-1up!-]

Fundamentally, Israel exists because the land was taken away from Palestinians. it is theft under every way you examine it -- Israel has no legitimacy whatsoever. Given that, my sympathies remain with Palestinians.

[lfantwister]

Fatah is the PLO gone political party. The PLO doesn't exist anymore, and even when it did, it was never about Islam, it was about liberation. Hamas, on the other hand, was backed by Israel from it's small beginnings to create division in Palestinian fighters' ranks and to oppose the PLO. Hamas wouldn't be here as it is were it not for short-sighted Israeli policies. Hizaballah is backed by Iran, and Islamic Jihad, as far as I know, is an unorganised network of Islamic-based resistance. Their struggle isn't about Palestine, it's about the Ummah. They are the ones responsible for the last five or six attacks on Israel, as there seems to be a consensual cease-fire between Israel and the other Palestinian militant organisations. Islamic Jihad is separate from Hamas, even though they are very similar in that they came from the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is much more politically-savvy and doesnt' crack under interrogation. But as for the truce that Hamas has called, it has only been broken once, and that was in August 05. It should be good for a few more years (its a ten year hudna signed in Jan 04)

Hamas is no longer a terrorist organisation, they have too much to lose. The problem is "miscommunication", one could say. I believe Hamas was voted in not because they refuse to recognize Israel, but because they seemed to be the only ones who would sort out the basic and emergency services, as well as the infastructure. I believe the great irony is that the Hamas elite don't think this is the only reason, and so they think if they officially recognise Israel as a legal country, they will lose popular support. Just a theory of course, based on the fact that most Palestinians just want peace and self-dependency. And social services. Hamas is reknowned throughout the region as a sort of supercharity. Since it was inextricably intertwined with the muslim brotherhood, it just built on the existing powerful Islamic infrastructure of that group and made it more poilitically savvy. It created orphanages, infirmaries, libraries, and seminaries at a rapid pace, spreading fundamentalist Sunni Islam along the way. It allocated welfare, loans, and scholarships, and helped needy people locate and pay for lawyers if circumstance required. The Brotherhood took over the Islamic University and very successfully spread religious passion—between 1967 and 1987 the number of worshippers in Gaza doubled.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Fundamentally, Israel exists because the land was taken away from Palestinians. it is theft under every way you examine it -- Israel has no legitimacy whatsoever. Given that, my sympathies remain with Palestinians.

Before Israel was formed, the land belonged to Britain. Before that, it belonged to the Ottomans. The land hasn't been in control of native peoples since the 1400s

As for the West Bank, Gaza Strip, etc., that land belongs to the countries from whom it was taken, not some Palestinian pseudo-state. Of course, those countries don't want the land back because the people inhabiting them are the trailer trash of the Middle East. That's why all other countries in the region have turned down Palestinian "refugees".

You can't be a refugee for 30 years. Eventually, the land just ceases to be yours

And social services. Hamas is reknowned throughout the region as a sort of supercharity. Since it was inextricably intertwined with the muslim brotherhood, it just built on the existing powerful Islamic infrastructure of that group and made it more poilitically savvy. It created orphanages, infirmaries, libraries, and seminaries at a rapid pace, spreading fundamentalist Sunni Islam along the way. It allocated welfare, loans, and scholarships, and helped needy people locate and pay for lawyers if circumstance required. The Brotherhood took over the Islamic University and very successfully spread religious passion—between 1967 and 1987 the number of worshippers in Gaza doubled.

Yes. And Latin American drug lords do marvelous things for their communities. It doesn't take away from the fact that they kill people achieve what ever they want

[Rats!]

And social services. Hamas is reknowned throughout the region as a sort of supercharity. Since it was inextricably intertwined with the muslim brotherhood, it just built on the existing powerful Islamic infrastructure of that group and made it more poilitically savvy. It created orphanages, infirmaries, libraries, and seminaries at a rapid pace, spreading fundamentalist Sunni Islam along the way. It allocated welfare, loans, and scholarships, and helped needy people locate and pay for lawyers if circumstance required. The Brotherhood took over the Islamic University and very successfully spread religious passion—between 1967 and 1987 the number of worshippers in Gaza doubled.
If you're talking about those orphanages that raise kids to be suicide bombers; infirmaries which deliberately turn away the wounded so they die and become another statistic, so Palestinians can further advertise the high number of Palestinian deaths compared to Israelis in order to get world sympathy; libraries which stock nothing but anti-Semitic and radical Islamic propaganda; and schools and seminaries which use that same material for the curriculum, then you're right.

[PepsiMetal]

That's why all other countries in the region have turned down Palestinian "refugees".

I don't think that's really their reason. They probably just don't want to accept immigrants just like no one else wants to. It's not easy for any country to accept millions of immigrants, refugees, etc...

Biggest palestinian mistake was that they refused UN's offer to split the land after WWII. It was kind of a cheap play by Britain to give any portion of the land to the natives. That's really not fair at all, as most native people don't like on their native land today. Palestinians were the occupants there, and even though UN didn't recognize it, they probably thought they would get that land as they were a majority there then. Oh well, UN fucking something up and not fixing it. So what else is new?

[coheneran]

Fundamentally, Israel exists because the land was taken away from Palestinians. it is theft under every way you examine it -- Israel has no legitimacy whatsoever. Given that, my sympathies remain with Palestinians.

But do you recognize the right for Israelis to live there? We cannot throw out someone because we want to live there, it is their home, and on the same logic, we cannot be thrown out because our grandparents were terrorists and murderers (that's right, who was wanted by the Brits for terrorism with a £5000 DoA price on his head? You got it, former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who blew up brits in a hotel in Jerusalem), we have grown up there and it is equally our home as it is the Palestinian childrens' home.

Of course, those countries don't want the land back because the people inhabiting them are the trailer trash of the Middle East. That's why all other countries in the region have turned down Palestinian "refugees".

That's racist and ignorant. The Palestinians were farmers and shepherds and were living pretty well off the land before the Jews came and "reclaimed" it. Under Ottoman rule, under Arabian rule, under Byzantine rule, they never cared because no one ever tried to move them. What does it matter who's ruling if all you wanna do is farm? Nobody was gonna stop them. Countries turn down Palestinian refugees because Israel gets on their case otherwise. Like that Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, what was it called? Oh yes, Sabra and Shatilla, where the IDF and Chrtistian militants slaughtered women, children and men, 2000 of them. Countries in the area won't take refugees because they don't want a Sabra and Shatilla in their borders! By calling the Palestinian people trailer trash, you're saying that they're all the same, that they're all stupid, that they're all anti-Jewish, and that is just plain racist.

FYI: Palestine was never under British rule, it was under a British mandate. That means the Brits just had an army there and kept the peace, they didn't govern it.

If you're talking about those orphanages that raise kids to be suicide bombers; infirmaries which deliberately turn away the wounded so they die and become another statistic, so Palestinians can further advertise the high number of Palestinian deaths compared to Israelis in order to get world sympathy; libraries which stock nothing but anti-Semitic and radical Islamic propaganda; and schools and seminaries which use that same material for the curriculum, then you're right.

Can you prove any of that? I've never heard any of those accusations apart from schools teaching to hate Jews, that was a news story in Israel a long time ago and it turned out to be bollocks too.

Another FYI: The Palestinians are Semites too, and the Syrians. Not a lot of people know this.

Biggest palestinian mistake was that they refused UN's offer to split the land after WWII. It was kind of a cheap play by Britain to give any portion of the land to the natives. That's really not fair at all, as most native people don't like on their native land today. Palestinians were the occupants there, and even though UN didn't recognize it, they probably thought they would get that land as they were a majority there then. Oh well, UN ****ing something up and not fixing it. So what else is new?

But you can understand why they refused right? I mean, put yourself in their shoes: You were born in Palestine, you're a Palestinian, there're some Brits here, and every year, more Jews. But you don't mind, they're not really doing anything much to you. So you keep on farming and shepherding, and then one day, a man comes on the radio and says that some committee far away has decided that the land you live on, and which your ancestors have been living on for literally uncountable generations, is suddenly not your country anymore. How could anyone accept that straight away!? I don't know what I would have done had I been a Palestinian then, but pack up my bags and leave is one thing I would rather die than do.

[Danish]

My view on the property rights and land ownership is anarchist and humanist. Neither can lay claim to the land, because it all depends on how far back in history you choose to look. I would prefer no countries there to two countries.

Are you an Israeli Jew?

I only ask because I'm curious as to weather or not you've ever lived on a kibbutz.

[coheneran]

Are you an Israeli Jew?

I only ask because I'm curious as to weather or not you've ever lived on a kibbutz.

Whether*

Yeah, Israeli Jew. Back in the hayday of my anti-Zionism I referred to myself as Palestinian. Not anymore.

I've been on a kibbutz a few times, never actively lived there, there aren't many around anymore, and the ones that are left have had their self-dependency and autonomy taken away by a capitalist government, so what we have left now is a bunch of tourist kibbutzes where people pay to have a farming holiday. It's incredibly stupid.

[Danish]

Whether*

Yeah, Israeli Jew. Back in the hayday of my anti-Zionism I referred to myself as Palestinian. Not anymore.

I've been on a kibbutz a few times, never actively lived there, there aren't many around anymore, and the ones that are left have had their self-dependency and autonomy taken away by a capitalist government, so what we have left now is a bunch of tourist kibbutzes where people pay to have a farming holiday. It's incredibly stupid.

Bah! Such a stupid spelling mistake...

A farming holiday? That is... hilarious.

[coheneran]

Just think; we could have been the first Middle Eastern communism. Marx was Jewish y'know...

[lfantwister]

Yes. And Latin American drug lords do marvelous things for their communities. It doesn't take away from the fact that they kill people achieve what ever they want

But Hamas has signed a ten-year truce, a hudna. Besides, they don't even achieve whatever they want when they kill people. I think they've basically cut back on violence if not for the pragmatic political reasons then at least for the degree of practicality that suicide bombings entail
If you're talking about those orphanages that raise kids to be suicide bombers; infirmaries which deliberately turn away the wounded so they die and become another statistic, so Palestinians can further advertise the high number of Palestinian deaths compared to Israelis in order to get world sympathy; libraries which stock nothing but anti-Semitic and radical Islamic propaganda; and schools and seminaries which use that same material for the curriculum, then you're right. uh can you source some of that? I haven't heard any of that and I've done a bit of research about Hamas. The only thing that is barely applicable is the schools and seminaries bit--since Hamas and the Muslim Bortherhood are fundamentalist Sunni reactionaries there is definitely anti-Zionist propaganda and pro-Islam stuff. BUt anti-Semetic is drawing a fine line; some people say that if you're anti-Zionist you're automatically anti-Semetic, but I don't think that's the case. Hamas tolerates Christianity and Judaism (religions of the book) within society as long as it is a predominantly Muslim nation. They just hate the Zionists, not necessarily all Jews

[coheneran]

Also, semitism isn't just for Jews, it's also for Palestinians and most of Southern Syria.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Again, in a vain attempt to look smart, you're wrong. Arabs are also semitic peoples, but anti-semitism is widely regarded as only applying to Jews.

[Danish]

Just think; we could have been the first Middle Eastern communism. Marx was Jewish y'know...

So are lots of awesome leftists. There is a long history of working-class politics in Jewish culture.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Um, that is not being smart at all, the fact that he lives in the area, his interpretation of anti-semitism will reflect its true meaning, not its meaning to the global society.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+anti-semitism&meta=

Yeah, that's just rubbish. Anti-semitism almost always refers to Jews.

And a brief moment of critical thought would tell you that whether he lives in the area is irrelevant to this discussion. gj

That's racist and ignorant. The Palestinians were farmers and shepherds and were living pretty well off the land before the Jews came and "reclaimed" it. Under Ottoman rule, under Arabian rule, under Byzantine rule, they never cared because no one ever tried to move them. What does it matter who's ruling if all you wanna do is farm? Nobody was gonna stop them. Countries turn down Palestinian refugees because Israel gets on their case otherwise. Like that Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon, what was it called? Oh yes, Sabra and Shatilla, where the IDF and Chrtistian militants slaughtered women, children and men, 2000 of them. Countries in the area won't take refugees because they don't want a Sabra and Shatilla in their borders! By calling the Palestinian people trailer trash, you're saying that they're all the same, that they're all stupid, that they're all anti-Jewish, and that is just plain racist.
Although fo' Shizzle's point about the sovereignty of Palestine is off the mark, I don't think you quite understand what he said. I think he was pointing out the status of Palestinians to the rest of the Arab world. It's doubtful that he has deep racist feelings against Palestinians.

But don't worry, I understand that it's far easier to throw around over-used epithets than to respond intelligently.

[coheneran]

Yeah, that's just rubbish. Anti-semitism almost always refers to Jews.

I wasn't meaning to say anti-Semitism is anti-Arab AND anti-Jewish, but I can see the implication. I just wanted to point it out, seeing as most people have no idea, and it's an interesting fact (well, when I first heard it I was very interested).

Although fo' Shizzle's point about the sovereignty of Palestine is off the mark, I don't think you quite understand what he said. I think he was pointing out the status of Palestinians to the rest of the Arab world. It's doubtful that he has deep racist feelings against Palestinians.

Those countries don't want the land back because the people inhabiting them are the trailer trash of the Middle East.

If he wanted to make it clear that these are the Arabic world's views, not his, surely he would have said something like "The view of those countries is that the Palestinian people are the trailer trash of the Mid-East." Of course, he can always correct himself, meanwhile that remark was racist.

But don't worry, I understand that it's far easier to throw around over-used epithets than to respond intelligently.

Yeah, you seem to be doing that often yourself. Are you going to argue the subject or are you going to lash out at the form and language of my posts?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Of course, he can always correct himself, meanwhile that remark was racist.That's not racist at all. When he says 'trailer trash' it is a figurative description of their place in the Arab world. Are you going to argue the subject or are you going to lash out at the form and language of my posts?Well, that's good because I do respond to the subject of your posts.

[coheneran]

That's not racist at all. When he says 'trailer trash' it is a figurative description of their place in the Arab world. Well, that's good because I do respond to the subject of your posts.

Face it, calling a whole ethinicity "trailer trash of the Middle-East" is racist, unless clearly stated that it was meant to show another person's view, which it wasn't, in this case. Stop defending Chrizzle, he's perfectly capable of correcting a miscommunication if that's what it was.

I meant discuss the subject of this thread, not the subject of my replies to your posts about technicalities and colloquial meanings.:rolleyes:

[italic zero]

It's not racist because he's reflecting on a nationality rather than an ethnicity.

[coheneran]

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

My statement was not racist because I'm not saying that all Arabs are trailer trash. I'm saying that the Palestinians, who happen to be Arabs, are :p

If they're such a fine people, why is it that they have been consistantly rejected by every neighboring country? Refugee camps don't count, because they're not meant to be permanent. They're the cause that every Middle Eastern leader will support, but will ultimately refuse to let them come into their own country permanently.

It's a nationalist cause for a group of people who aren't really a nation


But Hamas has signed a ten-year truce, a hudna. Besides, they don't even achieve whatever they want when they kill people. I think they've basically cut back on violence if not for the pragmatic political reasons then at least for the degree of practicality that suicide bombings entail

But they've still refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Not the best mindset for peace negotiations

[coheneran]

My statement was not racist because I'm not saying that all Arabs are trailer trash. I'm saying that the Palestinians, who happen to be Arabs, are.

That is racist.

If they're such a fine people, why is it that they have been consistantly rejected by every neighboring country? Refugee camps don't count, because they're not meant to be permanent. They're the cause that every Middle Eastern leader will support, but will ultimately refuse to let them come into their own country permanently.

I already gave you a theory about why:

"Countries in the area won't take Palestinian refugees because they don't want a Sabra and Shatilla on their hands!"

It's a nationalist cause for a group of people who aren't really a nation

The Indians didn't have a nation, they were part of the Empire, but Gandhi's nationalist struggles got them a nation. What's the difference between their situation and this one? They're both to do with imperialism and displacement.

But they've still refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Not the best mindset for peace negotiations

How many Israeli leaders refused to acknowledge the Palestinian right to a nation? What about the Prime Minister (her name completely escapes me, tip of the tongue) who refused to acknowledge that such a people as the Palestinians even exist?! The Palestinian leaderships have always been the same as the Israeli leaderships, except the Israeli leaderships have had a better position the whole time.

[lfantwister]

If they're such a fine people, why is it that they have been consistantly rejected by every neighboring country? Refugee camps don't count, because they're not meant to be permanent. They're the cause that every Middle Eastern leader will support, but will ultimately refuse to let them come into their own country permanently.


um what about Jordan, which has a Palestinian majority? And I'm pretty sure Egypt has taken in quite a ew. But theres those annoying constraints with regards to the influx the economy or the land can support


But they've still refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Not the best mindset for peace negotiations one step at a time buddy

How many Israeli leaders refused to acknowledge the Palestinian right to a nation? What about the Prime Minister (her name completely escapes me, tip of the tongue) who refused to acknowledge that such a people as the Palestinians even exist?! The Palestinian leaderships have always been the same as the Israeli leaderships, except the Israeli leaderships have had a better position the whole time.

you're thinking of golda meir. She said that the Palestinians don't exist; there is no palestinian problem. This was in the early 70s. Then terrorism started in 88 and they sure as hell know that theres a "Palestinian problem"

[StreetlightRock]

why is it that they have been consistantly rejected by every neighboring country?

The same reasons that many countries closed off their boders to the Jews of Hiter's Germany, unfortunately. Not because they were horrable, nasty people, but because there were too many of them.

[lfantwister]

The same reasons that many countries closed off their boders to the Jews of Hiter's Germany, unfortunately. Not because they were horrable, nasty people, but because there were too many of them. Which is of course why Israel was created in the first place...

Funny how history repeats itself like that

[PepsiMetal]

But you can understand why they refused right? I mean, put yourself in their shoes: You were born in Palestine, you're a Palestinian, there're some Brits here, and every year, more Jews. But you don't mind, they're not really doing anything much to you. So you keep on farming and shepherding, and then one day, a man comes on the radio and says that some committee far away has decided that the land you live on, and which your ancestors have been living on for literally uncountable generations, is suddenly not your country anymore. How could anyone accept that straight away!? I don't know what I would have done had I been a Palestinian then, but pack up my bags and leave is one thing I would rather die than do.

What the British and UN overall did was very selfish and cowardly, they should have help Palestinians establish their country there as they were the majority, not give the land to the people who supposedly lived there 6000 years ago or so.

Which is of course why Israel was created in the first place...

Funny how history repeats itself like that

Yea it would have been a good idea if the land was actually unoccupied.

[PepsiMetal]

I was wrong, it's like 3,000 years or so. Doesn't matter though, it's really really long time.

[PepsiMetal]

I don't know. Nobody really knows that, but somewhere in the early 0-5 B.C. probably.

[PepsiMetal]

Judaism? Not that I really know or care about any religion much.

[Hababi]

Shall we take a look at some of the Israeli leaders' voices?

Ben Gurion, Founder of the Israeli State and first Prime Minister:

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."


"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

Yitzhak Shamir, Prime Minister and professional Bastard Murderer:

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."

As for Ehud Barak, when he was asked what he would have done had he been born a Palestinian, he answered "I would have joined a terrorist organization."

Didn't Hitler say things like "The Jews don't want peace! They want to control Germany and steal the working people's money! They hate us!" Kind of similar to what you are saying.


Ummm I call BS on those quotes. And using stupid quotes (which, even if they were true, would not represent the state of Israel as it always has been) to equate Israel with homicide bombers is ridiculous.

The Palestinians elected people who are openly pledged to the destruction of Israel. They elected leaders who glorify, fund and organize homicide bombings. These are facts. Please don't come back with dumb quotes.

[hafez]

http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties.asp

this was the most important thing posted in the thread in my opinion.look at the number of palestinians killed by israelis and then look at the number of israelis killed by palestinians and then look at the source.

[hafez]

Ummm I call BS on those quotes. And using stupid quotes (which, even if they were true, would not represent the state of Israel as it always has been) to equate Israel with homicide bombers is ridiculous.

The Palestinians elected people who are openly pledged to the destruction of Israel. They elected leaders who glorify, fund and organize homicide bombings. These are facts. Please don't come back with dumb quotes.

calling the quotes "dumb" or "stupid" doesn't validate your argument

and to the guy who said he's never seen jews supporting palestine or vice versa. i have never seen palestinians supporting israel but
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

[Hababi]

calling the quotes "dumb" or "stupid" doesn't validate your argument


No, calling them BS does. Spurious quotes have a way of popping up, whether it be Jane Fonda singing the praises of Ho Chi Men or some Jewish leader saying "grrr kill arabs!" That's why it's ridiculous to try to make a point using them.


this was the most important thing posted in the thread in my opinion.look at the number of palestinians killed by israelis and then look at the number of israelis killed by palestinians and then look at the source.


More Germans were killed during WW2 than Americans. Does that mean the Germans were good? No, it means the Americans executed the war better. And Israel has handled the conflict better. You win wars by killing your enemy. More Palestinians have died because more Palestinians engage in terrorism. Also because Palestinians kill other Palestinians then blame Jews.

Let's face it: Palestinians are actually better off today than they were before there was an Israel. Back then they were a third world cess pool, a bunch of vagabonds. Now they're vagabonds who are given free education, free electricity etc. by Israel. Without Israel, they'd be worse off. Israel is better off to the Palestinians than they are to themselves. The Palestinians, as a culture, are worthless. They don't produce great artists or scientists. They produce murderers. They produce people who think it noble to run up to a group of Jewish children at a mall and go kaboom. Their number one export is bloodshed, their number one industry: terrorism.

[Danish]

The Palestinians, as a culture, are worthless. They don't produce great artists or scientists. They produce murderers. They produce people who think it noble to run up to a group of Jewish children at a mall and go kaboom. Their number one export is bloodshed, their number one industry: terrorism.

I am so sick of your bullshit, Zero. You are so clearly a racist. Stop posting in threads on Israel. You don't have anything worthwhile to add to this thread or any other on the subject. You're a hypocrit and I have absolutely no respect for you.

Did I mention you're blatantly violating the forum rules?

[PepsiMetal]

More Germans were killed during WW2 than Americans. Does that mean the Germans were good? No, it means the Americans executed the war better. And Israel has handled the conflict better. You win wars by killing your enemy. More Palestinians have died because more Palestinians engage in terrorism. Also because Palestinians kill other Palestinians then blame Jews.

"Mamduh Muhammad Khalil 'Abeid
15 year-old resident of Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, killed on 17.04.2006 in Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, by gunfire from a tank. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed while playing soccer with friends, 300 meters from his house."

Hadil Muhammad Rabi' Ghiben
7 year-old resident of Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, killed on 10.04.2006 in Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, by gunfire from a tank. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed while in her house. 12 other member of the family were injured In the incident, most of them children.

Bilal Iyad Muhammad Abu al-'Anin
6 year-old resident of Rafah, killed on 07.04.2006 in Rafah by gunfire from a helicopter during the course of an assasination. Additional information: Killed while was in the car with his father few meters away from a training center belonging to the Popular Resistance Committees.

Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces 692

http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=13

Oh wow, Israel sure has a fucking good war strategy here. :rolleyes:

Let's face it: Palestinians are actually better off today than they were before there was an Israel.

Wow, you must be crazy. How are they better off with some foreigners controlling the land they occupied? And yes, most of those Israeli's in charge right now are all foreigners. There is more violence against Jews in the middle east now than it has ever been. Why's that? Did people just start hating jews even though jews and muslims have lived together for thousands of years if not even more.

The Palestinians, as a culture, are worthless.

As Danish said, stop being a racist fuck.

They don't produce great artists or scientists.

Considering most of medicine and mathematics was developed by Arabs...

They produce murderers. They produce people who think it noble to run up to a group of Jewish children at a mall and go kaboom. Their number one export is bloodshed, their number one industry: terrorism.

Maybe if you stop generalizing you could make a decent point, but right now all that you say is mostly BS.

[Hababi]

I am so sick of your bull****, Zero. You are so clearly a racist.


It's not racism to point out facts, and those are facts. Other Arab societies have put out many great scientists, mathmeticians and humanitarians. The Palestinians have not. FC was dead on when he labeled them the trailer trash of the middle east. They were vagabonds before Israel, and if it wasn't for Israel, they'd still be vagabonds living in squalor. Their culture is worthless.

[Danish]

"Mamduh Muhammad Khalil 'Abeid
15 year-old resident of Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, killed on 17.04.2006 in Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, by gunfire from a tank. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed while playing soccer with friends, 300 meters from his house."

Hadil Muhammad Rabi' Ghiben
7 year-old resident of Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, killed on 10.04.2006 in Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, by gunfire from a tank. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed while in her house. 12 other member of the family were injured In the incident, most of them children.

Bilal Iyad Muhammad Abu al-'Anin
6 year-old resident of Rafah, killed on 07.04.2006 in Rafah by gunfire from a helicopter during the course of an assasination. Additional information: Killed while was in the car with his father few meters away from a training center belonging to the Popular Resistance Committees.

Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces 692

http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=13

Oh wow, Israel sure has a fucking good war strategy here. :rolleyes:



Wow, you must be crazy. How are they better off with some foreigners controlling the land they occupied? And yes, most of those Israeli's in charge right now are all foreigners. There is more violence against Jews in the middle east now than it has ever been. Why's that? Did people just start hating jews even though jews and muslims have lived together for thousands of years if not even more.

As Danish said, stop being a racist fuck.

Considering most of medicine and mathematics was developed by Arabs...

Maybe if you stop generalizing you could make a decent point, but right now all that you say is mostly BS.

You'd be better off arguing about this with a brick wall than Zero.

[Hababi]

Considering most of medicine and mathematics was developed by Arabs...


I'm not stereotyping all Arabs, as my previous post elucidates. Arab cultures have brought many great things to the world and continue to do so, in spite of the repressive radical Islamic dictarships that invariably govern them.

But with the Palestinians, it's a different story. They contribute nothing to the world. In fact, the world would be better off if they'd go back to Jordan, blend in and everyone could forget the term "Palestinian" and all the bloodshed that they brought with them.


How are they better off with some foreigners controlling the land they occupied?


Umm, free electricity, free education, etc. If the Palestinians would stop blowing up Israeli school children, they'd realize how generous and humane Israel has been. Trust me, if I was in charge, then you'd really have something to whine about.

As for your second insipid remark, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion spread rampantly through the middle east long before Israel existed. Anti Jewish sentiment has been ubiqitous there for a long time, predating zionism. They hate the Jews for who they are, not anything that they do. Writing it up to anything less is distorting the facts and implicitly defending, or at least justifying it.


"Mamduh Muhammad Khalil 'Abeid
15 year-old resident of Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, killed on 17.04.2006 in Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, by gunfire from a tank. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed while playing soccer with friends, 300 meters from his house."

Hadil Muhammad Rabi' Ghiben
7 year-old resident of Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, killed on 10.04.2006 in Beit Lahiya, North Gaza district, by gunfire from a tank. Did not participate in hostilities when killed. Additional information: Killed while in her house. 12 other member of the family were injured In the incident, most of them children.

Bilal Iyad Muhammad Abu al-'Anin
6 year-old resident of Rafah, killed on 07.04.2006 in Rafah by gunfire from a helicopter during the course of an assasination. Additional information: Killed while was in the car with his father few meters away from a training center belonging to the Popular Resistance Committees.

Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces 692

http://www.btselem.org/english/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=13

Oh wow, Israel sure has a ****ing good war strategy here.


In war, innocent civilians die. Deal with it. If Palestinians weren't blowing up school children, none of that would've happened. The Palestinians brought the war on themselves.

[Danish]

It's not racism to point out facts, and those are facts. Other Arab societies have put out many great scientists, mathmeticians and humanitarians. The Palestinians have not. FC was dead on when he labeled them the trailer trash of the middle east. They were vagabonds before Israel, and if it wasn't for Israel, they'd still be vagabonds living in squalor. Their culture is worthless.

NO, they aren't trailor trash. They're people, just like you and me. No culture is worthless.

And it's pretty FUCKING hard to become skilled at science and math when you don't have enough FUCKING money to EAT and you're constantly worried you're going to get FUCKING SHOT on the walk to school!

[Hababi]

No culture is worthless.


Any culture that glorifies killing innocent civilians and prides itself on the intended annihilation of another people is.


And it's pretty ****ING hard to become skilled at science and math when you don't have enough ****ING money to EAT and you're constantly worried you're going to get ****ING SHOT on the walk to school!


Oh boo hoo. Historically, the Jewish people have put up with far worse and perservered. The Palestinians have it much better off than a lot of other people who are producing a lot more significant people.

Of course, it's kind of hard to grow up into a great scientist when your mother sends you off to blow up Jewish children. But whose fault is that? In part, the parents. But children must rise above that. No one is to blame for their actions except themselves. They choose to be murderers. They choose to snub Israel and all that Israel tries to do for them. Israel would LOVE to see a Palestinian cultural reformation, that is unless you're illogical enough to think that Israel likes seeing their children be blown up by crazies.

Then again you did defend Hugo Chavez's anti semitic "Jewish power structure" remarks.

[Danish]

Any culture that glorifies killing innocent civilians and prides itself on the intended annihilation of another people is.

Oh boo hoo. Historically, the Jewish people have put up with far worse and perservered. The Palestinians have it much better off than a lot of other people who are producing a lot more significant people.

Of course, it's kind of hard to grow up into a great scientist when your mother sends you off to blow up Jewish children.

Have you ever been to Palestine? No? Then what the fuck do you know?

You have no idea what you're talking about. You are easily the most ignorant person in this forum. I really don't feel comfortable having a bigot and a racist that tosses about slurs toward Palestinians and homosexuals like it was confetti as a moderator of this forum.

This forum is for democratic discussion and mutual learning, not spreading ignorance and hatred.

Then again you did defend Hugo Chavez's anti semitic "Jewish power structure" remarks.

What? Are you calling me anti-semetic? Go fuck yourself. A racist like you has no business making such outlandish claims.

[PepsiMetal]

As for your second insipid remark, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion spread rampantly through the middle east long before Israel existed. Anti Jewish sentiment has been ubiqitous there for a long time, predating zionism. They hate the Jews for who they are, not anything that they do. Writing it up to anything less is distorting the facts and implicitly defending, or at least justifying it.

Do you not realize that just about every time terrorists mention the terms Zionists instead of Jews? Just about every islamic governed country has jews that live fine.

The Palestinians brought the war on themselves.

By living on the land where they're a majority and having the land stolen from them by the foreigners? :confused: I wouldn't call that bringing a war on themselves.

But with the Palestinians, it's a different story. They contribute nothing to the world. In fact, the world would be better off if they'd go back to Jordan, blend in and everyone could forget the term "Palestinian" and all the bloodshed that they brought with them.

THEY LIVED IN THAT AREA BEFORE ISRAEL EXISTED. THEY DIDN'T MIGRATE TO THAT REGION AFTER ISRAEL WAS FORMED. So they didn't bring anything with them. They lived there longer than current zionists have.

Do you live in Israel?

[Hababi]

Have you ever been to Palestine? No? Then what the **** do you know?


I know that polls show that popular support for homicide bombings regularly ranges from 50 to 60 percent amongst the Palestinian population. I know that they just elected Hamas, and while you can talk all you want about Hamas' social programs and the such, their cornerstone is the stated goal of the elimination of the state of Israel and all Jews in it.


You have no idea what you're talking about. You are easily the most ignorant person in this forum. I really don't feel comfortable having a bigot and a racist that tosses about slurs toward Palestinians and homosexuals like it was confetti as a moderator of this forum.


:lol: You forget that I'm one of the most moderate people on the forum. It's just that when dealing with ultra left wingers like yourself, I look quite conservative.


This forum is for democratic discussion


:confused: What's undemocratic about the discussion? It sounds more like you're intolerant of views not in the same quadrant as your own. Hey, I don't care when you spout off your crazy Chomskey rhetoric (or when you don't reply to my questions about the feasability of the economic model you promulgate). That's democratic discussion.


What? Are you calling me anti-semetic? Go **** yourself. A racist like you has no business making such outlandish claims.


I'm saying that you defended Chavez for making textbook anti Jewish slurs. Make of it what you will.


Do you not realize that just about every time terrorists mention the terms Zionists instead of Jews? Just about every islamic governed country has jews that live fine.


zionist is just a codeword for Jew. They hate Jews. Ahmedinejad denies that the Holocaust happens, and the sentiment is shared by the other crazies in power. Once again, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion spread like wildfire in the middle east before Israel. Anti Jewish cartoons circulated before Israel. Anti Jewish sentiment did not spring forth with the creation of Israel, it just became tainted with blood.


THEY LIVED IN THAT AREA BEFORE ISRAEL EXISTED. THEY DIDN'T MIGRATE TO THAT REGION AFTER ISRAEL WAS FORMED. So they didn't bring anything with them. They lived there longer than current zionists have.


So? They lived there like a bunch of vagabonds, on land that was stolen from the Jews. They had no right to the land, and did nothing to warrent being on it. They stunk up the joint.

Oh, and no, I don't live in Israel. And to my knowledge, I don't have Jewish heritage.

[PepsiMetal]

zionist is just a codeword for Jew. They hate Jews.

That there alone means that you don't know what you're talking about.

From dictionary.com:

Zi·on·ism Audio pronunciation of "zionist" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (z-nzm)
n.

A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.

In other words, it's people who think Israel should exist. Not a synonym for jew.

EDIT: If it means jew = zionist, then how come so many jews are against zionism.
As posted on previous page:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

Once again, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion spread like wildfire in the middle east before Israel. Anti Jewish cartoons circulated before Israel. Anti Jewish sentiment did not spring forth with the creation of Israel, it just became tainted with blood.

Go find total jews killed before Israel's existence in Middle East (excluding WWII/holocaust of course) and find jews killed in Middle East since WWII. Compare the numbers, see it for yourself. Why is there more hatred of jews in today's world? Did people just magically all discover jews are these bad evil? No. It's because many jews support zionism which in reality, is stealing of the land.



So? They lived there like a bunch of vagabonds, on land that was stolen from the Jews. They had no right to the land, and did nothing to warrent being on it. They stunk up the joint.

How in the fuck did they bring this war up on themselves? THEY LIVED IN THE AREA BEFORE ISRAEL. They didn't migrate. The correct wording is "The war came to them and was brought by the foreigners." How did they have no right to the land? They were a majority there, they did want to get approved by UN, but UN didn't want to give them their land, instead they wanted to invite some millions of jews from all over the world to share their land without their permission.

Oh, and no, I don't live in Israel. And to my knowledge, I don't have Jewish heritage.

So in other words, all your hatred of palestinian people, land, and their culture is BS brought to you by your news agencies? Stop being so ignorant. Just because you see a palestinian terrorist kill 10 people doesn't mean all of their culture and people are based on it.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/arabs/palpoptotal.html

How come all those palestinians living in so many of those countries aren't blowing up my neighbor's house who is a jew? Maybe, just maybe it's because he didn't steal their land?

[Danish]

I know that polls show that popular support for homicide bombings regularly ranges from 50 to 60 percent amongst the Palestinian population. I know that they just elected Hamas, and while you can talk all you want about Hamas' social programs and the such, their cornerstone is the stated goal of the elimination of the state of Israel and all Jews in it.

Wow, you really have a commanding knowledge of Palestinian culture... :rolleyes:

:lol: You forget that I'm one of the most moderate people on the forum. It's just that when dealing with ultra left wingers like yourself, I look quite conservative.

I didn't say you were an extremist. I said you were an ignorant racist.

:confused: What's undemocratic about the discussion? It sounds more like you're intolerant of views not in the same quadrant as your own. Hey, I don't care when you spout off your crazy Chomskey rhetoric (or when you don't reply to my questions about the feasability of the economic model you promulgate). That's democratic discussion.

Yes, racism and intolerance are the hallmarks of any democratic discourse...

If I don't reply specifically to you, it's because I don't like you.

I'm saying that you defended Chavez for making textbook anti Jewish slurs. Make of it what you will.

All I said in that discussion was that you took the comment way out of context.

Every time you make intolerant or racist comments, I'm going to report you.

[Hababi]

In other words, it's people who think Israel should exist. Not a synonym for jew.


You don't seem to understand what I'm saying: they use "zionist" when they really mean "Jew." Just like some on the far right use "illegal alien" when they really mean "Mexican." "I hate zionists" is almost exclusively a code term for "I hate Jews," just as "I hate illegals" is almost exclusively a code term for "I hate Mexicans."


Go find total jews killed before Israel's existence in Middle East (excluding WWII/holocaust of course) and find jews killed in Middle East since WWII. Compare the numbers, see it for yourself. Why is there more hatred of jews in today's world? Did people just magically all discover jews are these bad evil?


There isn't more hatred; there's more bloodshed. The hatred has materalized itself in guns, bombs, and Palestinian crazies.


It's because many jews support zionism which in reality, is stealing of the land.


From the nation of Palestine! Err, there was no nation of Palestine. They had no claim to the land. They were vagabonds, living in squalor and doing nothing with the land. And they still would be today, too. That land isn't theirs.


THEY LIVED IN THE AREA BEFORE ISRAEL.


And the Jews lived there before them.


How come all those palestinians living in so many of those countries aren't blowing up my neighbor's house who is a jew? Maybe, just maybe it's because he didn't steal their land?


Maybe it's because he has disassociated himself from the Palestinian culture?


If I don't reply specifically to you, it's because I don't like you.


Here I thought it was just because you had no answer, just like with nowhe's point about Chomskey's defense of the Khmar Rouge.


I didn't say you were an extremist. I said you were an ignorant racist.


That's just a cheap way of trying to eliminate discourse.


All I said in that discussion was that you took the comment way out of context.


As I said, you defended CHavez's textbook anti Jewish slurs.


Every time you make intolerant or racist comments, I'm going to report you.


Report me to whom?? Myself?? :p

[Danish]

Here I thought it was just because you had no answer, just like with nowhe's point about Chomskey's defense of the Khmar Rouge.

Like I told him, I'm not going to defend a third-party in a mud-slinging contest.

That's just a cheap way of trying to eliminate discourse.

So is generalizing all Palestinians as "trailer trash" and calling their culture "worthless."

As I said, you defended CHavez's textbook anti Jewish slurs.

Asking for context and providing a defense are completely different, genius.

Report me to whom?? Myself?? :p

No, Egotistical, you aren't the only mod on MX. Hate to pop that giant head of yours...

[Hababi]

Like I told him, I'm not going to defend a third-party in a mud-slinging contest.


It's not "third party mudslinging." It's obvserving Chomskey's direct quotes. The man is a long time defender of Marxist dictatorships and genocide.


So is generalizing all Palestinians as "trailer trash" and calling their culture "worthless."


Saying their culture is worthless (which it is) is no different than saying that America's culture is "violent", something which some people (errantly) believe and which would be a perfectly fine discussion topic.


Asking for context and providing a defense are completely different, genius.


The context was clear. Just like every other radical leftist, Chavez is rabidly anti Jewish.


No, Egotistical, you aren't the only mod on MX. Hate to pop that giant head of yours...


You really should lay off the ad hominem's.

[Danish]

Saying their culture is worthless (which it is) is no different than saying that America's culture is "violent", something which some people (errantly) believe and which would be a perfectly fine discussion topic.

We've already established that you know jack shit about Palestinian culture.

And denouncing an entire culture as "worthless," especially when you know absolutely nothing about it, is completely different than observing that American culture has violent elements to it.

The context was clear. Just like every other radical leftist, Chavez is rabidly anti Jewish.

Right. Like me.

You really should lay off the ad hominem's.

You should really lay off the racist horseshit.

[PepsiMetal]

I know that polls show that popular support for homicide bombings regularly ranges from 50 to 60 percent amongst the Palestinian population. I know that they just elected Hamas, and while you can talk all you want about Hamas' social programs and the such, their cornerstone is the stated goal of the elimination of the state of Israel and all Jews in it.

WRONG. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

He also "didn't rule out the possibility of having Jews, Muslims and Christians living under the sovereignty of an Islamic state, adding that the Palestinians never hated the Jews and that only the Israeli occupation was their enemy"

Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in force) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamist state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

Grrr, they always say destruction of ISRAEL not jews.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying: they use "zionist" when they really mean "Jew." Just like some on the far right use "illegal alien" when they really mean "Mexican." "I hate zionists" is almost exclusively a code term for "I hate Jews," just as "I hate illegals" is almost exclusively a code term for "I hate Mexicans."

If almadinejad meant destruction of jews whenever he said israel or zionism, then why isn't he killing those thousands of jews in Iran? :confused: There are about 20,000 jews in turkey too which is mostly islamic. How can muslims and jews live together when by your definition that's not possible? :confused:

There isn't more hatred; there's more bloodshed. The hatred has materalized itself in guns, bombs, and Palestinian crazies.

Well if there isn't hatred, there wouldn't be bloodshed. Why would a palestinian blow himself up to kill Israelis if he doesn't hate them?

From the nation of Palestine! Err, there was no nation of Palestine. They had no claim to the land. They were vagabonds, living in squalor and doing nothing with the land. And they still would be today, too. That land isn't theirs.

They wanted UN to approve their land after WWII, not invite millions of jewish foreigners from all parts of the world to take their land. BTW There are christian palestinians also, and have lived there without any problems until Israel was formed. There was no nation of palestine because before World Wars it was part of Ottoman just as about every other middle east country too.

And the Jews lived there before them.

Jews =/= Zionists.

Like I quoted the words of a Hamas leader, they have no problems with jews living on their land with palestinian law. But that doesn't mean they have to have their own country there.

Indians lived in USA before Europeans came over here, should Indians form their own country here now also?

Should aboriginees form their own country in Australia now?

Should Maorii form their own country in New Zealand now?

Maybe it's because he has disassociated himself from the Palestinian culture?

Or it could be because he has no reason to hate a jewish person who hasn't done anything wrong? :confused: Do you think the reason Palestinians hate Zionists is because they're jewish? Cause it's probably not.

[Hababi]

We've already established that you know jack **** about Palestinian culture.

And denouncing an entire culture as "worthless," especially when you know absolutely nothing about it, is completely different than observing that American culture has violent elements to it.


Before you said that it's racist to make any blanket assesement about a culture. Now you reverse yourself and defend doing so, so long as it's about America. It's a textbook example of white liberal guilt and hate America first rationale. It is not racist to discuss cultures or to make assesements of them.

I do know about the Palestinian culture, and apparently more than you, unless you remain intentionally blithe to their worship of homicide bombings. Do you?


Right. Like me.


Stalin
Allende
Sandinista's
Chavez
Mugabe

The list goes on. All radical leftists who have come to power have been viciously anti Jewish.


Hamas' charter (written in 1988 and still in force) calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamist state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

Grrr, they always say destruction of ISRAEL not jews.


And how do you accomplish that? Well, for those dirtbags, you blow up Jewish civilians. Destruction of Israel through the murder of the Jews.


If almadinejad meant destruction of jews whenever he said israel or zionism, then why isn't he killing those thousands of jews in Iran?

Just wait. You do realize the guy openly flaunts his Holocaust denial?


There are about 20,000 jews in turkey too which is mostly islamic. How can muslims and jews live together when by your definition that's not possible?


I never said they can't live together. I said anti Jewish sentiment predates Israel. And that is fact.


Indians lived in USA before Europeans came over here, should Indians form their own country here now also?

Should aboriginees form their own country in Australia now?

Should Maorii form their own country in New Zealand now?


If other people came in, crapped on their land and did nothing with it, the yes. But that wasn't the case. Guess what? America, NZ, Australia were established as nations. Palestine wasn't. It was a third world crap hole for castoffs to waste their lives. And that's what it'd still be if it wasn't for Israel.


Or it could be because he has no reason to hate a jewish person who hasn't done nothing wrong? Do you think the reason Palestinians hate Zionists is because they're jewish? Cause it's probably not.


So why did the Protocols of the Elders of Zion spread rampantly through the Middle East long before Israel existed?

[Danish]

Before you said that it's racist to make any blanket assesement about a culture. Now you reverse yourself and defend doing so, so long as it's about America. It's a textbook example of white liberal guilt and hate America first rationale. It is not racist to discuss cultures or to make assesements of them.

I said it was racist to make a blanket statement about a culture? Quote me then.

I wasn't making a blanket statement about American culture. I said "it has violent elements." You know what comes after that? An analysis of what I mean and, hopefully, a discussion about the nature of our culture. Besides, calling a culture "worthless" is blatantly ethnocentric and saying a culture has violent elements clearly isn't (it's not a judgement of value).

I do know about the Palestinian culture, and apparently more than you, unless you remain intentionally blithe to their worship of homicide bombings. Do you?

I know Palestinian culture is about more than one thing (seeing as all cultures have various elements).

I'm not an expert on Palestinian culture but, then again, I didn't call it worthless.

Stalin
Allende
Sandinista's
Chavez
Mugabe

The list goes on. All radical leftists who have come to power have been viciously anti Jewish.

Yep. You're right. We're all the same.

(Marx was a Jew and Jewish politics have a long history of radical leftism)

ps: I'm not going to respond to your next post. It doesn't mean anything other than I have homework to do and sleep to catch.

[PepsiMetal]

And how do you accomplish that? Well, for those dirtbags, you blow up Jewish civilians. Destruction of Israel through the murder of the Jews.

Anyone that supports the Zionist State is the better wording. I don't agree that their suicide bombings are humane, but compare Israel's technology (One of the best) to Palestinian (One of the worst), if they fougth a military based war, Palestine would have no chance. And USA didn't give Palestine billions of dollars to make up their military, as it has given Israel.

Just wait. You do realize the guy openly flaunts his Holocaust denial?

Holocaust is history.

I don't care what he thinks of anything, and I couldn't care less who he likes or hates, but majority of Terrorist oragizations hate Zionists not Jews. I don't personally know him, so we honestly can't know whether he actually hates jews or zionists. I'm pretty sure it's zionists just like most middle-easterners.

I never said they can't live together. I said anti Jewish sentiment predates Israel. And that is fact.

Maybe in little amounts like every other race and religion has to go through. That has always happened everywhere, and will always happen everywhere.

If other people came in, crapped on their land and did nothing with it, the yes. But that wasn't the case. Guess what? America, NZ, Australia were established as nations. Palestine wasn't. It was a third world crap hole for castoffs to waste their lives. And that's what it'd still be if it wasn't for Israel.

Go research Ottoman Empire, and then come back and tell me it wasn't an established nation/country/empire compared to the rest of the world at that time. Palestine was part of Ottoman Empire.

So why did the Protocols of the Elders of Zion spread rampantly through the Middle East long before Israel existed?

Well do Zionists not dominate Middle East now? :confused:

[StreetlightRock]

Stalin
Allende
Sandinista's
Chavez
Mugabe

You forgot that Hitler dude.

[coheneran]

Ummm I call BS on those quotes. And using stupid quotes (which, even if they were true, would not represent the state of Israel as it always has been) to equate Israel with homicide bombers is ridiculous.

The Palestinians elected people who are openly pledged to the destruction of Israel. They elected leaders who glorify, fund and organize homicide bombings. These are facts. Please don't come back with dumb quotes.

Those quotes are famous, man, they're everywhere on the internet, in newspaper articles, in documentaries. You can't choose to ignore Israeli brutality and blame a Palestinian radical and violent minority on the problems.

The Palestinians elected a government that will fix social services, emergency services, education, corruption. I already explained my theory on this. Your accusations make the assumption that all Palestinians want to kill Israelis. This is (racist) bullcrap. I know dozens of Palestinians, I've protested along them, been in class with them, danced with them, I live with them, I've got Palestinian friends, and buddy, there hasn't been one time that I caught one of them trying to stick a knife in my back or pour poison in my tea.:rolleyes:

[coheneran]

More Germans were killed during WW2 than Americans. Does that mean the Germans were good? No, it means the Americans executed the war better. And Israel has handled the conflict better. You win wars by killing your enemy. More Palestinians have died because more Palestinians engage in terrorism. Also because Palestinians kill other Palestinians then blame Jews.

Let's face it: Palestinians are actually better off today than they were before there was an Israel. Back then they were a third world cess pool, a bunch of vagabonds. Now they're vagabonds who are given free education, free electricity etc. by Israel. Without Israel, they'd be worse off. Israel is better off to the Palestinians than they are to themselves. The Palestinians, as a culture, are worthless. They don't produce great artists or scientists. They produce murderers. They produce people who think it noble to run up to a group of Jewish children at a mall and go kaboom. Their number one export is bloodshed, their number one industry: terrorism.

Source everything that's bolded. Oh wait, you can't, because it's BS (there, I beat your post!).

But seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about. Right now I have a Palestinian man living with me who is studying advanced mathematics in London University, he's on a scholarship from the Ford Foundation, he's a peace activist, and more than that, he's a pretty damn nice guy, so your generalisations or wrong.

Palestinians are not better off. There's more Palestinians living abroad because they were forced out of the country by Israel than there are living withing Israel and Palestine.

As for Palestinian culture, I take it you've never heard of Edward Sa'id, famous Palestinian literary theorist, critic, peace activist and occasional classical musician? Ismael Al-Farouqi? Mahmoud Darwish? Ghassan Kanafani? How about a form of dancing called Dabke? It's one of the most complicated dancing styles to come out of the Middle-East. The fact is you don't know any Palestinian culture because you've never taken the time to study Palestine.

If everyone only talked about what they know, this would be a very quiet world.

[coheneran]

Umm, free electricity, free education, etc. If the Palestinians would stop blowing up Israeli school children, they'd realize how generous and humane Israel has been. Trust me, if I was in charge, then you'd really have something to whine about.

Are you kidding?! There're villages and towns to which Israel controls the water supply, and they get flowing water once a week! I've been to one, it was called Bil'ein, and lucky for me we came on the day that they did have flowing water, so I could wash the teargas out of my eyes and throat (that the Israeli army shot at me).

As for your second insipid remark, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion spread rampantly through the middle east long before Israel existed. Anti Jewish sentiment has been ubiqitous there for a long time, predating zionism. They hate the Jews for who they are, not anything that they do. Writing it up to anything less is distorting the facts and implicitly defending, or at least justifying it.

There's racism towards Jews in every country they inhabit you dumbarse, and Palestine is no different. Of course, just like there's a racist minority, there's an indifferent majority, who don't care what they were born as, but care for who they are. I met a man who's father was a respected rabbi in Hebron way before Zionism came to Israel, back in the late 1800s. He was a Jewish Arab, of course, and he gave advice to everyone, doesn't matter if they were Jewish or Muslims. On the day Ben Gurion (who, incidentally, once said "One Ashkenaz Jew [White Euro Jew] is worth ten Arabic Jews.") declared independence, this rabbi was sitting drinking tea with many of his Palestinian friends in a shisha cafe in Hebron. He was anti-Zionist.

[Danish]

Mmmmm shisha...

[coheneran]

Mmmmm shisha...

In Israel and Palestine, it's called a nargilla. Pronounce the G properly, not like a J.

[hafez]

Back then they were a third world cess pool, a bunch of vagabonds. Now they're vagabonds who are given free education, free electricity etc. by Israel. Without Israel, they'd be worse off. Israel is better off to the Palestinians than they are to themselves. The Palestinians, as a culture, are worthless. They don't produce great artists or scientists. They produce murderers. They produce people who think it noble to run up to a group of Jewish children at a mall and go kaboom. Their number one export is bloodshed, their number one industry: terrorism.

isn't that exactly the kind of opinion that made the situation what it is today? if you're giving a population a free education, then why would they be unable to produce great mathematicians, scientists,etc? you're making the same argument that neo-nazis make about the hispanic and black population of the US. if you were to state facts with sources it'd be fine but so far all i've seen from you is bigoted nonsense. it's pretty sad to see you ignore the sources that people post and go on about how all palestinians want to blow themselves up in a jewish elementary school.

[coheneran]

isn't that exactly the kind of opinion that made the situation what it is today? if you're giving a population a free education, then why would they be unable to produce great mathematicians, scientists,etc? you're making the same argument that neo-nazis make about the hispanic and black population of the US. if you were to state facts with sources it'd be fine but so far all i've seen from you is bigoted nonsense. it's pretty sad to see you ignore the sources that people post and go on about how all palestinians want to blow themselves up in a jewish elementary school.

You killed my thread!:mad:

[what]

um I don't see why Israel shouldve became a country with its own land at all

there was no israel, and just because of the nazis the world decided to close its eyes on the obvious facts

that way there shouldve been a gypsyland or something, but I guess the gypsies werent aggresive and mobile enough to make their own country

[italic zero]

umm.. aren't you forgetting that they're gypsies?

[what]

so.

[coheneran]

umm.. aren't you forgetting that they're gypsies?

You do realise that the early Zionist claim to a Jewish homeland was based on a Literalist take of the Torah. But if you read into the Torah like you're supposed to (ie. consider it as an extended metaphor) you'll see that in fact the Jewish people are quite nomadic, but not in such small groups as gypsies or Bedouins. Historically, the Jews migrated en masse, not in little groups that slowly spread over a continent (like the gypsies). It's about the journey, not about the destination. Like the Ancient Greek philosophers' never-ending Quest for Truth, the Jewish search for a homeland is a never-ending journey of enlightenment, as a mass community. The current social and economic trends are in fact killing the Jewish community, stealing its character and sense of identity.

Lol, I don't know where that last line came from. I'd never looked at it like that until now. Spontaneous thought.

[Hababi]

Are you kidding?! There're villages and towns to which Israel controls the water supply, and they get flowing water once a week! I've been to one, it was called Bil'ein, and lucky for me we came on the day that they did have flowing water, so I could wash the teargas out of my eyes and throat (that the Israeli army shot at me).


I'm sorry but I just don't believe you.

And as to the service, of course it sometimes has to be interrupted when Israel is trying to root out criminals. Once again, keep in mind: they are fighting a war, a war for their very own existence. They're giving water and electricity to the very people they're at war with. All I'd give them is a first class (actually coach) ticket back to Jordan.


Palestinians are not better off. There's more Palestinians living abroad because they were forced out of the country by Israel than there are living withing Israel and Palestine.


That means they're terrorists or terrorist enablers.


As for Palestinian culture, I take it you've never heard of Edward Sa'id, famous Palestinian literary theorist, critic, peace activist and occasional classical musician? Ismael Al-Farouqi? Mahmoud Darwish? Ghassan Kanafani? How about a form of dancing called Dabke? It's one of the most complicated dancing styles to come out of the Middle-East. The fact is you don't know any Palestinian culture because you've never taken the time to study Palestine.

Too bad those isolated cases of people rejecting the mainstream Palestinian culture and becoming something are far outweighed by this:
http://www.jafi.org.il/agenda/9-1c.jpg

THAT is the mainstream palestinian culture. Masks and gunmen, terrorism and murder.

[coheneran]

And as to the service, of course it sometimes has to be interrupted when Israel is trying to root out criminals. Once again, keep in mind: they are fighting a war, a war for their very own existence. They're giving water and electricity to the very people they're at war with. All I'd give them is a first class (actually coach) ticket back to Jordan.

I don't think Israel is in any danger of losing their "war". A war is when two armies fight, not when a top-of-the-line mechanized army fights a bunch of extremists with ancient Soviet machine guns and a bag of fertilizer, which is the reality. I don't know what they call it in the loco ignorance you call a world, but in my world they call it oppression and militant resistance. The militant resistance is bad, but the oppression is just as bad, if not worse.



That means they're terrorists or terrorist enablers.

Yeah, all refugees are terrorists. How un-xenophobic of you.

Too bad those isolated cases of people rejecting the mainstream Palestinian culture and becoming something are far outweighed by this:
http://www.jafi.org.il/agenda/9-1c.jpg

THAT'S your argument? A kid holding a gun? Oh noes, run away, there's a picture of a kid holding a gun, and it comes from a website called International Jewish Agenda! I wonder what's on their agenda. Surely not Zionism!

THAT is the mainstream palestinian culture. Masks and gunmen, terrorism and murder.

Really? Prove it. If Palestinian culture is about guns, terrorism, masks and murder, then it stands to reason there'd be a multitude of films, books, poems, plays, songs, etc. about this culture. The only Palestinian-made movies I've ever seen are about the nastiness and pettiness of the suicide bombers, and how young men are exploited by power-hungry leaders.



All in all, this post was typical of a racist bigot. If I tell a fact you don't like, it's plain "I don't believe you", but you bring up the same points over and over again, even if they have already been logically countered and defeated.

[Hababi]

Yeah, all refugees are terrorists. How un-xenophobic of you.


Anyone who Israel forces out is.

How about this: Israel constructs a complete security wall around the length of their country and completely stops ALL relations with the Palestinian region? No more water or electricity, nothing. The Palestinians are left to themselves and no Palestinian is allowed in Israel.


I don't think Israel is in any danger of losing their "war". A war is when two armies fight, not when a top-of-the-line mechanized army fights a bunch of extremists with ancient Soviet machine guns and a bag of fertilizer, which is the reality.


Umm it's called a guerilla war and in those types of situations they're more effective. Wars aren't always won by those with the biggest guns (see: Vietnam).


The militant resistance is bad, but the oppression is just as bad, if not worse.


Resistance? That "resistance" is blowing up Israeli children. Call it for what it is. And if you equate Israel going after terrorists with Palestinians blowing up school children, then you are absolutely insane.


THAT'S your argument? A kid holding a gun? Oh noes, run away, there's a picture of a kid holding a gun, and it comes from a website called International Jewish Agenda! I wonder what's on their agenda. Surely not Zionism!


Well it's from a google image search so I have no clue what the site itself is :p

Anyway, that's the mainstream culture. That's their heroes, that's their elected officials, that's their leaders. That's it.

[coheneran]

Anyone who Israel forces out is.

So whatever Israel does is right and shouldn't be second-guessed?

How about this: Israel constructs a complete security wall around the length of their country and completely stops ALL relations with the Palestinian region? No more water or electricity, nothing. The Palestinians are left to themselves and no Palestinian is allowed in Israel.

That is the current plan, unfortunately.

Umm it's called a guerilla war and in those types of situations they're more effective. Wars aren't always won by those with the biggest guns (see: Vietnam).

Fair point.

Resistance? That "resistance" is blowing up Israeli children. Call it for what it is. And if you equate Israel going after terrorists with Palestinians blowing up school children, then you are absolutely insane.

Remind me again the difference between an Israeli helicopter blowing up a Palestinian school and a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up a school? And none of that crap about anti-Jewish education, because if you can't source it you can't use it, and you obviously can't source it.

Well it's from a google image search so I have no clue what the site itself is :p

You googled something like "armed Palestinian child" and then you claim that's the extent of Palestinian culture? Why don't I google "redneck shooting out of pick-up truck" and then claim that's the extent of American culture?

Anyway, that's the mainstream culture. That's their heroes, that's their elected officials, that's their leaders. That's it.

If you think that's so, then you don't know anything about Palestinian culture, excepting what you see on CNN.

[what]

What's funny is that even though the history of that land has been researched, the main point is the Bible, so it would be really illogical for all atheists to support Israel.

[PepsiMetal]

How about this: Israel constructs a complete security wall around the length of their country and completely stops ALL relations with the Palestinian region?

For billionth time, how is it Zionists' country? Because jews were killed by a german so they decided let's place all of them in the middle east? :rolleyes:

Palestinians were the majority of occupants at the time. Really, Israel itself is the biggest problem in that whole area. If jews lived in a palestine, like they have for years and years, there wouldn't be nowhere as many problems as there are now.

You're a generalizing racist anyways. It's like if I said All jews are making massacres cause Israeli's have massacred palestinians many times. In other words, stop generalizing. There are good and bad people on both sides, and most zionists could live fine without terrorist attacks if it was palestine. Again, see other islamic countries. How many times did you see a terrorist attack against a jewish person in Iran or Turkey? Now compare that to Palestine/Israel. Yup.

[Hababi]

For billionth time, how is it Zionists' country? Because jews were killed by a german so they decided let's place all of them in the middle east?


It wasn't the Palestinians' country, because there was no Palestinian country. There was a wasteland gypsy land, but that was it. No established country. The Palestinians don't have the original ownership land; that belongs to the Israelis. The Israeli's did more with that land within their first ten years of having it than the Palestinians did in all their time having it.

You do realize that Israel is the only middle eastern democracy, right? That Israel is by far the highest rated middle eastern country on the HDI chart? So why is it that you want to destroy a flourishing democracy and hand over the land to radical Muslims?


How many times did you see a terrorist attack against a jewish person in Iran or Turkey?

How about that Turkish movie about the evil Jewish doctor harvesting Muslim organs at Abu Ghirab? What was it, Triumph of the Iman?


So whatever Israel does is right and shouldn't be second-guessed?


First part, most all the time.


That is the current plan, unfortunately.


No it's not. Israel stopped the security wall far short of what it should have been; they've been giving away land like it's hot potatoe, and they're bending over backwards to accomodate the radical Muslim regime intent on destroying them.


Remind me again the difference between an Israeli helicopter blowing up a Palestinian school and a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up a school?


Well that's pretty easy:
1) The first one doesn't happen.
2) If the first one happends, it's a school for jihad.
3) If the first one happens, Israel orchestrates it to minimize civilian casualties.
4) When the second one happens, the Palestinians scheme to maximize civilian casualties.


You googled something like "armed Palestinian child" and then you claim that's the extent of Palestinian culture? Why don't I google "redneck shooting out of pick-up truck" and then claim that's the extent of American culture?


Actually I just googled 'Palestinian'.

As for your last point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2072851.stm


The June 2002 poll by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre showed that a large majority - nearly seven out of 10 people - supported the suicide operations, about 60% of those expressing their "strong" support.

So, 6 in 10 Palestinians are supporting the murder of Israeli school children. Those 6 out of 10 should either be shipped to Jordan or shot.

[PepsiMetal]

It wasn't the Palestinians' country, because there was no Palestinian country. There was a wasteland gypsy land, but that was it. No established country. The Palestinians don't have the original ownership land; that belongs to the Israelis. The Israeli's did more with that land within their first ten years of having it than the Palestinians did in all their time having it.

There is no such thing as original ownership. Do Indians/hispanics have original ownership of USA? No, they have no ownership in US land today. It wasn't a wasteland as you said. You obviously aren't knowledgable in this area. Palestine was under control of Ottoman Empire, which was later British Mandate of Palestine until they decided to invite millions of jews from all over the world to share the Palestinian occupied territory.

It has nothing to do with who did more to the land. Yes Israel is now more technologically advanced than Palestine would have been, but that's because it basically has unlimited budget.

You do realize that Israel is the only middle eastern democracy, right? That Israel is by far the highest rated middle eastern country on the HDI chart? So why is it that you want to destroy a flourishing democracy and hand over the land to radical Muslims?

It has nothing to do with democracy. Get a freaking grip.

Saudi arabia is US's biggest allie in middle east except Israel, yet it is farther from democracy than Iran. It's about money. It's not like US gives two shits whether Israel (or any other country for that matter) is ruled by the majority vote or by a dictator.

I want to be fair. It has nothing to do with politics. I have nothing against Jewish people, and religions for me are all the same. But when majority of people are Palestinians, and because jews were mistreated in WWII, UN decides to give them Palestinian Occupied land? I mean, if Hitler was a palestinian then fine, ok, it's a payback, but Palestinians had nothing to do with Holocaust. Why do palestinians have to share their own occupied land because some european lunatic felt the need to kill millions of people?

How about that Turkish movie about the evil Jewish doctor harvesting Muslim organs at Abu Ghirab? What was it, Triumph of the Iman?

I don't know or care. I'm talking about reality. Now tell me, did you compare number of attacks on jewish people in Iran/Turkey to number of attacks on jewish people in Palestine/Israel? Hamas, who the west considers a terrorist organization, themselves said they have no problems with jewish people living under a palestine rule. Just as Almadinejad hasn't said anything bad to the jews living in his country.


So , 6 in 10 Palestinians are supporting the murder of Israeli school children. Those 6 out of 10 should either be shipped to Jordan or shot.

I hate when you generalize like this. You always associate suicide attacks with school attacks. Majority of suicide attacks aren't school attacks.

And a Jerusalem Media did this polling, it's quite possible it's biased. Just like if I showed you an Al-Jazeera source right now you would dismiss it without even looking at it.

[Hababi]

There is no such thing as original ownership. Do Indians/hispanics have original ownership of USA? No, they have no ownership in US land today.

One of the points you used was "they were there first." Well, they weren't. They were there illegitimately. They did not have a nation. They had no legal right to the land.



It wasn't a wasteland as you said. You obviously aren't knowledgable in this area.

Oh really? Why don't you research what the quality of life was. Then check the HDI. Israel is 23rd. Qatar is next at 40. Then check the political situation. Israel is the only democracy. So, you wish to destroy a highly developed democracy to give the land to a bunch of gypsies with oozies.




It has nothing to do with who did more to the land. Yes Israel is now more technologically advanced than Palestine would have been, but that's because it basically has unlimited budget.


Budget doesn't really matter, what matters is how you spend it. Why don't you look up Arafat's net worth? He was filthy rich, and he was recieving lots of money from middle eastern countries in return for the homicide bombings. Only he didn't give it back to his people, he kept it for himself. But then his people didn't care too much either, they're much more intent on killing Jews than improving their situation. And before that, they were more intent on doing nothing. The fact that Israel is incredibely farther developed than the Palestinians would've ever been with or without Israel is a statement to the strength of the Israeli culture vs. the weakness of the Palestinian culture.




It has nothing to do with democracy. Get a freaking grip.


It has a lot to do with democracy. You're opposing a democratic nation and supporting radical jihadists.



Saudi arabia is US's biggest allie in middle east except Israel, yet it is farther from democracy than Iran. It's about money. It's not like US gives two shits whether Israel (or any other country for that matter) is ruled by the majority vote or by a dictator.


We have no need top support Israel. We support the Saudi's for the oil interests, but we support Israel because they are a democracy, because they value freedom, and because they're under assault by anti Jewish forces in Europe and the middle east.



I want to be fair. It has nothing to do with politics. I have nothing against Jewish people, and religions for me are all the same. But when majority of people are Palestinians, and because jews were mistreated in WWII, UN decides to give them Palestinian Occupied land? I mean, if Hitler was a palestinian then fine, ok, it's a payback, but Palestinians had nothing to do with Holocaust. Why do palestinians have to share their own occupied land because some european lunatic felt the need to kill millions of people?


Once again, the Palestinians are better off today because of Israel, and would be much better off if they weren't led by bloodthirsty barbarians, and if the majority of them weren't bloodthirsty. And, it's not their land. Just because you sit down and crap on a piece of land doesn't make it your land. There was no Palestine. They're Jordanians.


I don't know or care. I'm talking about reality.


That movie was made, in reality. That stereotype is ubiqitous there, that's reality.



Hamas, who the west considers a terrorist organization, themselves said they have no problems with jewish people living under a palestine rule. Just as Almadinejad hasn't said anything bad to the jews living in his country.


Oh he only said that the Holocaust didn't happen and that Jews rule the world. Yeah, no anti Jewish vibe there :rolleyes: Come on man, if you're not willing to admit that they're anti Jewish, not "Anti zionist", then you're the biggest ostrich I've ever encountered. "Anti zionism" is a front for anti Jewish, it's the new face of Hitler.




I hate when you generalize like this. You always associate suicide attacks with school attacks. Majority of suicide attacks aren't school attacks.


Oh no, there's mall attacks, park attacks, restaurant attacks, and so on. They're assaults on civilians. Cowardly, despicable acts of brutality. And they have the support of the Palestinian people. These people are at war with Israel, they are enemy combatants. Anyone who morally supports homicide bombings is an enemy combatants and in war you defeat your enemy, you kill your enemy. That's how you win wars, you kill the bad guy. You don't play nice.



And a Jerusalem Media did this polling, it's quite possible it's biased. Just like if I showed you an Al-Jazeera source right now you would dismiss it without even looking at it.

I would think that if the BBC printed it, they have reason to accept the validity of the poll.

[PepsiMetal]

One of the points you used was "they were there first." Well, they weren't. They were there illegitimately. They did not have a nation. They had no legal right to the land.

http://www.jerusalemites.org/jerusalem/ottoman/index.htm

"In 1516 the Ottoman Turks conquered Palestine"

How did they have no right to the land? They were conquered by Turks, which later collapsed, and Palestinians got their land again? :confused:

Oh really? Why don't you research what the quality of life was. Then check the HDI. Israel is 23rd. Qatar is next at 40. Then check the political situation. Israel is the only democracy. So, you wish to destroy a highly developed democracy to give the land to a bunch of gypsies with oozies.

They were in an empire which later collapsed. They had no economy. That doesn't mean it was a wasteland. All the countries except North and South America were wastelands after WWII by your definition.

It doesn't matter how established a country or a democracy is. It was basically a stolen land. And the land wasn't german, so I don't know how UN connected it to giving jews sympathy for holocaust by taking palestinian occupied land.

Budget doesn't really matter, what matters is how you spend it. Why don't you look up Arafat's net worth? He was filthy rich, and he was recieving lots of money from middle eastern countries in return for the homicide bombings. Only he didn't give it back to his people, he kept it for himself. But then his people didn't care too much either, they're much more intent on killing Jews than improving their situation. And before that, they were more intent on doing nothing. The fact that Israel is incredibely farther developed than the Palestinians would've ever been with or without Israel is a statement to the strength of the Israeli culture vs. the weakness of the Palestinian culture.

Umm, Arafat was a disgrace to palestinian people. He didn't really help them in any way, he took the money, and lived a good life in Paris.

Google search goes to say arafat had 300 million to 1.3 billion net worth. Compare that to about $105 billion total money US donated to Israel. And that's just US. I'm not even talking about EU donated money, Israel's economy, etc...

It has a lot to do with democracy. You're opposing a democratic nation and supporting radical jihadists.

Then why does US support Saudi's King? Why did US help Iraqi dictator in Iranian war? :confused: No, it's not about democracy. They probably want you to believe that as it's a bit more legit reason than pure greed for money.

That part of my post doesn't support any side.

We have no need top support Israel. We support the Saudi's for the oil interests, but we support Israel because they are a democracy, because they value freedom, and because they're under assault by anti Jewish forces in Europe and the middle east.

Umm, so you admit US supports a monarchy based government ruled by an islamic law because of OIL? So it's ok for US to support any government they want and destroy any others they want? Do you know how selfish and pathetic that sounds? They'll go ahead and destroy a dictator government and go ahead and support a monarchy government, while admitting it's for pure oil? :rolleyes: Hmm, that doesn't make US look any good.

Once again, the Palestinians are better off today because of Israel, and would be much better off if they weren't led by bloodthirsty barbarians, and if the majority of them weren't bloodthirsty. And, it's not their land. Just because you sit down and crap on a piece of land doesn't make it your land. There was no Palestine. They're Jordanians.

Umm, read article above. Research into this issue more. You can say how many times you want that Palestinians are better off, but they're not. Nobody is better off having their land stolen from them by foreigners.

That movie was made, in reality. That stereotype is ubiqitous there, that's reality.

I dont know what you mean. What I meant anyways is there's no comparison in hatred against jews in turkey/iran to Palestine. Difference is ridiculously big.

Oh he only said that the Holocaust didn't happen and that Jews rule the world. Yeah, no anti Jewish vibe there :rolleyes: Come on man, if you're not willing to admit that they're anti Jewish, not "Anti zionist", then you're the biggest ostrich I've ever encountered. "Anti zionism" is a front for anti Jewish, it's the new face of Hitler.

Bush said God told him to attack Iraq. So what? They're people, they'll say stupid things sooner or later. The fact that he's not complaining about jews living in his country is enough of proof that he doesn't just hate jews.

How is he a new face of hitler for denying holocaust? So denying history, and killing 6 million people is same thing? Ok sure whatever.

Oh no, there's mall attacks, park attacks, restaurant attacks, and so on. They're assaults on civilians. Cowardly, despicable acts of brutality. And they have the support of the Palestinian people. These people are at war with Israel, they are enemy combatants. Anyone who morally supports homicide bombings is an enemy combatants and in war you defeat your enemy, you kill your enemy. That's how you win wars, you kill the bad guy. You don't play nice.

Majority of Israeli's are foreigners. Majority of Palestinians aren't. The fact that their military sizes and budgets aren't even comparable is why they're using terrorist attacks. In 60s, Israel's government said Palestine doesn't exist. After all the wars and terrorist attacks, Israel is actually getting sense today and they do recognize Palestinian people.

They see it this way. Zionists stole their land, and all civlians support the stealing of their land meaning they're all bad guys to them. Hence why you see terrorist attacks against jews in Israel and not in Iran and Turkey. Cause those jews in those countries don't give two shits about Israel and they're not going to leave their homelands and move to Israel because their Prime Minister keeps saying they'll have better life, etc... France itself warned Israel for stealing thousands of its people by promising them a better life. Majority of jews who aren't zionists know the Israel land should today be ruled by Palestinian law.

I would think that if the BBC printed it, they have reason to accept the validity of the poll.

All major news agencies have been wrong many times. Them printing or posting the news article online doesn't insure its validity.

[coheneran]

It wasn't the Palestinians' country, because there was no Palestinian country. There was a wasteland gypsy land, but that was it. No established country. The Palestinians don't have the original ownership land; that belongs to the Israelis. The Israeli's did more with that land within their first ten years of having it than the Palestinians did in all their time having it.

You do realize that Israel is the only middle eastern democracy, right? That Israel is by far the highest rated middle eastern country on the HDI chart? So why is it that you want to destroy a flourishing democracy and hand over the land to radical Muslims?



How about that Turkish movie about the evil Jewish doctor harvesting Muslim organs at Abu Ghirab? What was it, Triumph of the Iman?



First part, most all the time.



No it's not. Israel stopped the security wall far short of what it should have been; they've been giving away land like it's hot potatoe, and they're bending over backwards to accomodate the radical Muslim regime intent on destroying them.



Well that's pretty easy:
1) The first one doesn't happen.
2) If the first one happends, it's a school for jihad.
3) If the first one happens, Israel orchestrates it to minimize civilian casualties.
4) When the second one happens, the Palestinians scheme to maximize civilian casualties.



Actually I just googled 'Palestinian'.

As for your last point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2072851.stm



So, 6 in 10 Palestinians are supporting the murder of Israeli school children. Those 6 out of 10 should either be shipped to Jordan or shot.

I know you love debating, and I enjoy debating you, but unless you learn your facts, I don't want to, because I can't keep correcting you every time you generalise. You keep bringing up the same old points, and even your new points can be boiled down to "They are all terrorists" or "The Israeli government are saints." These are beliefs, not facts. I don't know how many Palestinians you know, but I know a lot, and even though they are angry about what is happening to their home and their people, they would never go as far as to kill Israelis, so your generalisations are plain wrong.

Please please please learn your facts, because otherwise it's like trying to argue against a brick wall with some graffiti on it. No matter what you say, the graffiti is still there.

[coheneran]

"Come on man, if you're not willing to admit that they're anti Jewish, not "Anti zionist", then you're the biggest ostrich I've ever encountered. "Anti zionism" is a front for anti Jewish, it's the new face of Hitler."

That's the stupidest thing you've ever said, hands down. I'm Jewish AND I'm anti-Zionist. Zionism is a nationalist movement that teaches jingoism and is intolerant of all Arabs and Arabic entities that aren't working directly towards helping the Zionist cause.

[The End]

No, calling them BS does. Spurious quotes have a way of popping up, whether it be Jane Fonda singing the praises of Ho Chi Men or some Jewish leader saying "grrr kill arabs!" That's why it's ridiculous to try to make a point using them.



More Germans were killed during WW2 than Americans. Does that mean the Germans were good? No, it means the Americans executed the war better. And Israel has handled the conflict better. You win wars by killing your enemy. More Palestinians have died because more Palestinians engage in terrorism. Also because Palestinians kill other Palestinians then blame Jews.

Let's face it: Palestinians are actually better off today than they were before there was an Israel. Back then they were a third world cess pool, a bunch of vagabonds. Now they're vagabonds who are given free education, free electricity etc. by Israel. Without Israel, they'd be worse off. Israel is better off to the Palestinians than they are to themselves. The Palestinians, as a culture, are worthless. They don't produce great artists or scientists. They produce murderers. They produce people who think it noble to run up to a group of Jewish children at a mall and go kaboom. Their number one export is bloodshed, their number one industry: terrorism.


Here's an idea: shut the fuck up.

[The End]

Before you said that it's racist to make any blanket assesement about a culture. Now you reverse yourself and defend doing so, so long as it's about America. It's a textbook example of white liberal guilt and hate America first rationale. It is not racist to discuss cultures or to make assesements of them.

I do know about the Palestinian culture, and apparently more than you, unless you remain intentionally blithe to their worship of homicide bombings. Do you?



Stalin
Allende
Sandinista's
Chavez
Mugabe

The list goes on. All radical leftists who have come to power have been viciously anti Jewish.



And how do you accomplish that? Well, for those dirtbags, you blow up Jewish civilians. Destruction of Israel through the murder of the Jews.



Just wait. You do realize the guy openly flaunts his Holocaust denial?



I never said they can't live together. I said anti Jewish sentiment predates Israel. And that is fact.



If other people came in, crapped on their land and did nothing with it, the yes. But that wasn't the case. Guess what? America, NZ, Australia were established as nations. Palestine wasn't. It was a third world crap hole for castoffs to waste their lives. And that's what it'd still be if it wasn't for Israel.



So why did the Protocols of the Elders of Zion spread rampantly through the Middle East long before Israel existed?


Seriously, kill yourself. You're worthless trash, fucking excess baggage in a world you know nothing about and don't care to know about. You're openly racist, ignorant, and insulting to me, as well as many others on these boards. I'd love to take you to Palestine and let you spout off such remarks to the population there. I'm sure they'd tie you up and light you up faster than your ever-so-brave and heroic IDF gets there to shoot some innocent child by-standers and save the day. Oh wait...

[The End]

At least he's eloquent about it =]

I don't care, i've put up with his shit for so long without ever saying anything really, while he just sits there and insults me, my family, and everything that we stand for. Fuck being eloquent about it.

[Hababi]

[url]How did they have no right to the land? They were conquered by Turks, which later collapsed, and Palestinians got their land again? :confused:

There was no established state of Palestine.



They were in an empire which later collapsed. They had no economy. That doesn't mean it was a wasteland. All the countries except North and South America were wastelands after WWII by your definition.


The difference is that those were established states.


It doesn't matter how established a country or a democracy is. It was basically a stolen land.

Once again, you can't steal land from those that have no land. They did not own the land, there was no state of Palestine. They were an illegitimate occupying force on land that was rightfully the Israeli's. If you think Israel doesn't belong there, then you must also think that all the Australians, New Zealanders, Americans, Canadians and Spanish descendents should leave their respective continents. Unless you're willing to press for that, you shouldn't attempt to claim that Israel has no "right" to the land.

And again, you're opposing a free, democratic society and the only first world country in the middle East. I'm going to keep on saying this, hoping that it sinks in: you're opposing freedom and democracy, and supporting radical Islam. You're supporting the same people (radical Sunni's) who attacked America on 9/11 and are in active war against the West.


And the land wasn't german, so I don't know how UN connected it to giving jews sympathy for holocaust by taking palestinian occupied land.


Not just Germany persecuted the Jews. All of Europe has a dark history of anti Semitism and persecution of Jews.



The US does like to support democracies in land that is otherwise backwards democracies.

[QUOTE]
Then why does US support Saudi's King?


Oil.

Why did US help Iraqi dictator in Iranian war? :confused: No, it's not about democracy.
Lesser of two evils.

All of that ignores the fact that in this instance, the US is supporting a democracy, and you are opposing it. The US is supporting a free society, and you are opposing it. You're siding with the terrorists.


Umm, so you admit US supports a monarchy based government ruled by an islamic law because of OIL? So it's ok for US to support any government they want and destroy any others they want? Do you know how selfish and pathetic that sounds? They'll go ahead and destroy a dictator government and go ahead and support a monarchy government, while admitting it's for pure oil? :rolleyes: Hmm, that doesn't make US look any good.


It's called pragmatism. Support freedom when you can (Israel), accept lesser of evils when you must (Saudi Arabia). Guess what? the US doesn't support the Saudi royal family over pro democracy forces. They support them over Taliban inspired nutjobs. Apparently you'd rather see the Taliban.


Umm, read article above. Research into this issue more. You can say how many times you want that Palestinians are better off, but they're not. Nobody is better off having their land stolen from them by foreigners.


Their quality of life disagrees with you. What do you think would happen if the Palestinians would stop killing the Israeli's? Do you think Israel would continue current policies? No. They would help the Palestinians build their region into a strong one.




I dont know what you mean. What I meant anyways is there's no comparison in hatred against jews in turkey/iran to Palestine. Difference is ridiculously big.


Anti Jewish sentiment is a part of both mainstream cultures, as the movie shows.




Bush said God told him to attack Iraq. So what? They're people, they'll say stupid things sooner or later. The fact that he's not complaining about jews living in his country is enough of proof that he doesn't just hate jews.


:rolleyes: Right, what's in his heart is actually different than the words coming out of his mouth. And you know what's in his heart. And it's right and pure unlike the evil Jews and Americans.





How is he a new face of hitler for denying holocaust? So denying history, and killing 6 million people is same thing? Ok sure whatever.


He wishes for a Holocaust.



All major news agencies have been wrong many times. Them printing or posting the news article online doesn't insure its validity.

Then prove it wrong. Don't just say, "Oh the BBC is wrong because they posted something I disagree with." The news article is fact. It's from a nonbiased source. Palestinians strongly support homicide bombing. They strongly support killing Israeli children. They are war criminals.

[Reaganista]

That's the stupidest thing you've ever said, hands down. I'm Jewish AND I'm anti-Zionist. Zionism is a nationalist movement that teaches jingoism and is intolerant of all Arabs and Arabic entities that aren't working directly towards helping the Zionist cause.
a jew who hates jews?
oh wow that's novel

You're openly racist
I'd love to take you to Palestine... I'm sure they'd tie you up and light you up

insulting
Seriously, kill yourself. You're worthless trash, ****ing excess baggage

lol

[what]

There was no established state of Palestine.

It's still the land of the Palestinians land, established by someone or not.

Israel became an established state but it's not Israel's land.

[Matt?]

maybe so, but if that's how things worked i don't think we'd have so many mohegan sun's across the US.

[Atomic Rain]

I struggle to see why the state of israel was formed, but since it's here, I can't see palestine getting the lands being to anyone's advantage.

The two are like two bickering children, and their people are caught in the middle.

[PepsiMetal]

a jew who hates jews?
oh wow that's novel

Tway, you obviously do not know difference between judaism and zionism also. Ahh, why dont you go marry BDR, you two have lots of in common, even if it's wrong most of the time.

There was no established state of Palestine.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/16/Southeastern_Roman_Empire.PNG

Even Roman Empire had a Palestina state, so how was it not established. Do you mean it wasn't established after WWII? That's because they wanted to but UN decided it would be better to invite millions of foreigners to share their land. You don't know your history. Palestine was a state and it was recognized as one during both Roman Empire and Ottom Empire rulings. In case you didn't know, UN was established after WWII, which is why they didn't recognize Palestine.

The difference is that those were established states.

Are you denying that Palestine state never existed? Cause that's denying history, and you're just as bad as Almadinejad by your own definition. I just showed you pics above, and you can find many more on google about Palestine being recognized in Roman Empire and later on in Ottoman Empire.

Once again, you can't steal land from those that have no land. They did not own the land, there was no state of Palestine. They were an illegitimate occupying force on land that was rightfully the Israeli's. If you think Israel doesn't belong there, then you must also think that all the Australians, New Zealanders, Americans, Canadians and Spanish descendents should leave their respective continents. Unless you're willing to press for that, you shouldn't attempt to claim that Israel has no "right" to the land.

Again, research your history. I can't keep replying they were recognized as a state if you're not going to accept history. You might as well follow Almadinejad and deny Holocaust with him. Right, I mean who cares about history? :rolleyes:

BTW Comparing American and Israel is exactly what I want you do to. Did American's give their occupied land to the hispanics or mexicans? NO.


And again, you're opposing a free, democratic society and the only first world country in the middle East. I'm going to keep on saying this, hoping that it sinks in: you're opposing freedom and democracy, and supporting radical Islam. You're supporting the same people (radical Sunni's) who attacked America on 9/11 and are in active war against the West.

Prove that Palestinians were involved in 9/11. I'll tell you right now don't search cause you'll never prove that.

I'm opposing a government that steals other people's land. It has nothing to do with their political system. Are you saying US can steal any land right now as long as they form democracy there? That's stupid. People don't live for a political system.

Not just Germany persecuted the Jews. All of Europe has a dark history of anti Semitism and persecution of Jews.

Again, What the fuck do palestinians have to do with any European country?

Even if every single European country murdered jews, that doesn't mean they can take a land of middle easterners, and give it to those foreigners who were mistreated. They should have given european land. You don't pay the price by stealing someone else's land, and trying to pay off your debts with it.

The US does like to support democracies in land that is otherwise backwards democracies.

And support monarchy, disctatorship, etc... governments as long as US has something to gain from it.

Oil.

In other words, Greedy bastards?

Lesser of two evils.

All of that ignores the fact that in this instance, the US is supporting a democracy, and you are opposing it. The US is supporting a free society, and you are opposing it. You're siding with the terrorists.

You're a fool if you think Tehran government was lesser of an evil than saddam who used GASES AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS against Iranians and Kurds, and all of it with support of US at the time. The fact is, Tehran's newest government overthrew Shah because he was a disgrace to Iran. He was placed in rule by US/UK just so these two countries could get cheap oil which was to disadvantage of Iran. Yea, a government who wants best for their country is more evil than Saddam Hussein. :rolleyes: That itself shows how much BS you type.

Saddam Hussein was a bigger terrorist than Tehran's government in the 80s. Again, research a little it'll help.

It's called pragmatism. Support freedom when you can (Israel), accept lesser of evils when you must (Saudi Arabia). Guess what? the US doesn't support the Saudi royal family over pro democracy forces. They support them over Taliban inspired nutjobs. Apparently you'd rather see the Taliban.

Saudi Arabia is lesser of an Evil? Are you fucking out of your mind?

Go research into Saudi Arabia and you'll learn how nice they are.

Their quality of life disagrees with you. What do you think would happen if the Palestinians would stop killing the Israeli's? Do you think Israel would continue current policies? No. They would help the Palestinians build their region into a strong one.

How is Israel going to help build regions they stole? Palestinians do not even have their own land anymore. What are they going to rebuild? Is Israel going to steal chunks of Egypt's, Syria's, and Lebannon's land to give Palestinians now? Yea, whatever.

Anti Jewish sentiment is a part of both mainstream cultures, as the movie shows.

So you're basing your facts on a movie? Ok, whatever.


:rolleyes: Right, what's in his heart is actually different than the words coming out of his mouth. And you know what's in his heart. And it's right and pure unlike the evil Jews and Americans.

So you know what's in his heart? You magically know his Anti-Zionism means Anti-Jewish. OH NOES, you're a mind reader.


He wishes for a Holocaust.

How does he wish for a holocaust? If he wished for a holocaust, he could easily kill thousands of jews in Iran. Denying holocaust has nothing to do with wishing it, in case if that was what you meant.


Then prove it wrong. Don't just say, "Oh the BBC is wrong because they posted something I disagree with." The news article is fact. It's from a nonbiased source. Palestinians strongly support homicide bombing. They strongly support killing Israeli children. They are war criminals.

I never said it was wrong, what are you talking about? I said, I could quote Al-Jazeera's article, and you wouldn't dismiss it immediately since it's arabic. well I can just as easily dismiss an Israeli article. It would be same if BBC wrong an article composed of testing/polling Al-Jazeera did. It doesn't mean the actual polling isn't biased just because BBC did it. And besides, my facts aren't made up of one source. I don't think we should point out who war criminals are. But to your of course, Israel can't do anything wrong regardless of many massacres and intentional village bombings they did.

[Reaganista]

Tway, you obviously do not know difference between judaism and zionism also. Ahh, why dont you go marry BDR, you two have lots of in common, even if it's wrong most of the time.

what?
Israel is like one of the only things we sort of agree on.
and hating commies

Palestinians strongly support homicide bombing. They strongly support killing Israeli children. They are war criminals.
there's a big jump between thinking it's a good idea to blow people up and actually being guilty of 'war crimes'

[Hababi]

there's a big jump between thinking it's a good idea to blow people up and actually being guilty of 'war crimes'


I see what you're saying, but when you openly declare your allegiance with those who do so, you are effectively declaring war on Israel. You are saying that you want to see Jews blown up in the streets, and really, that's no different than any German who openly supported the Holocaust.

[Reaganista]

I see what you're saying, but when you openly declare your allegiance with those who do so, you are effectively declaring war on Israel. You are saying that you want to see Jews blown up in the streets, and really, that's no different than any German who openly supported the Holocaust.
I agree that it's wrong and inexcusable, but I don't know if I'd call it a war crime. I don't like that phrase in general though.

[Hababi]

I agree that it's wrong and inexcusable, but I don't know if I'd call it a war crime. I don't like that phrase in general though.


That's just because it's used far too frequently by the Chomskey crowd to describe Bush, Reagan, Kissinger etc. ;)

[PepsiMetal]

I see what you're saying, but when you openly declare your allegiance with those who do so, you are effectively declaring war on Israel. You are saying that you want to see Jews blown up in the streets, and really, that's no different than any German who openly supported the Holocaust.

Those Zionists aren't from there. Their ancestors were probably born in germany, france, UK, austria, etc... While most Palestinians' ancestors were either arab, or some possibly being turkish.

There's a difference in killing jews in general, and killing Zionists. Zionists are those who support Israel's existence despire if the land was initially stolen, and then there are those normal jews, who want to have normal lives and aren't going to steal someone's land because their holy book says to do so. Jews who rejected Israel's call of migration aren't Zionists. Because they love their homeland, wherever they're born, more than some Middle Eastern country that is trying to steal all of jews population from all other countries. That'll never happen though, there are millions of jews who are smarter and aren't going to believe what Israel's government says.

[Iskandar]

That's just because it's used far too frequently by the Chomskey crowd to describe Bush, Reagan, Kissinger etc. ;)
The term "war crimes" describes actions, not persons.

[lfantwister]

And again, you're opposing a free, democratic society and the only first world country in the middle East. I'm going to keep on saying this, hoping that it sinks in: you're opposing freedom and democracy, and supporting radical Islam. You're supporting the same people (radical Sunni's) who attacked America on 9/11 and are in active war against the West.

Um. Tell me how Hamas does not represent freedom and democracy in the middle east and tell me why we're not supporting it. It's their choice who they want to rule them. By the way, religious fundamentalism =/= terrorism. At all.

All of that ignores the fact that in this instance, the US is supporting a democracy, and you are opposing it. The US is supporting a free society, and you are opposing it. You're siding with the terrorists.

Are you crazy? The Palestinians are trying to have a free soceity and the US and EU are blocking it. Cmon man. Saudis are not terrorists. That's like your catchphrase for everything.

Their quality of life disagrees with you. What do you think would happen if the Palestinians would stop killing the Israeli's? Do you think Israel would continue current policies? No. They would help the Palestinians build their region into a strong one.

google "hudna"

[Reaganista]

Um. Tell me how Hamas does not represent freedom
you should have at least elementary knowledge about a current event before you go about debating it

[lfantwister]

you should have at least elementary knowledge about a current event before you go about debating it

it is a surprisingly tolerant party. and it represents the peoples' freedom since they elected it.

[Reaganista]

nope sorry the palestinian authority is nowhere near free.

not being as bad as saudi arabia doesn't make post-election hamas agents of freedom

[PepsiMetal]

"Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the January 2006 Palestinian legislative election and is now the majority party of the Palestinian Legislative Council. Its popularity among Palestinians is in part explained by the extensive network of welfare programs it has set up throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

"It is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia, Canada, the European Union[4], Israel, and the United States, [3] (but notably not by Russia)"

"Hamas views the Arab-Israeli conflict as "a religious struggle between Islam and Judaism that can only be resolved by the destruction of the State of Israel"

[Reaganista]

PA has nothing to do with Hamas.
um
hamas was elected to run the palestinian authority
damn you're stupid

[PepsiMetal]

um
hamas was elected to run the palestinian authority
damn you're stupid

I removed that part of my post before you posted yours. :rolleyes:

The reason west, and Israel hate this is because Hamas opposes Israel and USA. They thought someone like Shah would be elected in Palestine too so he can play as an American Puppet which Hamas refuses to do.

[Reaganista]

well the rest of your post makes a pretty strong case against your argument so... ok.

[PepsiMetal]

No it doesn't.

[Reaganista]

yeah it actually does.

[coheneran]

The two are like two bickering children, and their people are caught in the middle.

That's a summation of every war. Wars are fought for the interest of the powerful, and they are fought by the poor. The poor have never gained anything decent from conventional war, but only from class war and labour struggles.

[Iskandar]

class war
Isn't every war a class war in some way?

[coheneran]

I see what you're saying, but when you openly declare your allegiance with those who do so, you are effectively declaring war on Israel. You are saying that you want to see Jews blown up in the streets, and really, that's no different than any German who openly supported the Holocaust.

So, by saying "I support our troops" you are in fact declaring you support the marines who slaughtered Iraqi families (http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/8918924.html) and every Coalition soldier that ever shot an innocent man, woman and child. And by being against the war in Iraq, you are declaring your allegiance to Saddam Hussein. And, by saing "communism has its good points" you are actually saying "Stalin was a man who knew how to get things done".

So, to recap, not only are you pulling statistics out of your arse, you're also pulling logic out of your arse.

[coheneran]

Isn't every war a class war in some way?

Only if the poor starving soldiers from Country X manage to find their way to the mansions of the rich leaders of Country Y.

Apart from that unlikely situation (what with all the Y soldiers guarding the Y leaders), war is a tool (along with prejudice such as racism and sexism) used to divide the working class and cause disunity. Just before WWI and WWII, the unions in the States and in the UK (and in the rest of Europe, though not as much in Nazi countries) were slowly growing powerful, workers were winning more battles, quality of life for even the poorest folk was slowly improving, and the governments found themselves faced with something that could potentially turn into a revolution within a decade. I'm not suggesting this was the only reason for the WWs, but I think it's definitley one factor.

Checkit: http://libcom.org/library/concentration-camps-in-england-1929-39

[Iskandar]

Only if the poor starving soldiers from Country X manage to find their way to the mansions of the rich leaders of Country Y.
So, the French Revolution? :p

What I meant is that any war exacerbates class conflict both domestically and internationally.

Those were some very interesting points about the WWs, by the way. :)

Except the ones that are about real things.
Are you suggesting class warfare doesn't exist? If so, explain the existence of socialism.

[Reaganista]

socialism is when a would-be dictator tells the poor masses some stories about their inherent superiority and then they start killing everybody else

[-1up!-]

socialism is when a would-be dictator tells the poor masses some stories about their inherent superiority and then they start killing everybody else
Actually not.


Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. [1] As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control, according to socialists, may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

The modern socialist movement had its origin largely in the working class movement of the late-19th century. In this period, the term "socialism" was first used in connection with European social critics who condemned capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism implied the abolition of markets, capital, and labor as a commodity.

It is difficult to make generalizations about the diverse array of doctrines and movements that have been referred to as "socialist." The various adherents of contemporary socialist movements do not agree on a common doctrine or program. As a result, the movement has split into different and sometimes opposing branches, particularly between moderate socialists and communists. Since the 19th century, socialists have differed in their vision of socialism as a system of economic organization. Some socialists have championed the complete nationalization of the means of production to implement their aims. Others have proposed selective nationalization of key industries within the framework of mixed economies. Stalinists (-1up!- says: idiots) insisted on the creation of Soviet-style command economies under strong central state direction. Others advocate "market socialism" in which social control of property exists within the framework of market economics and private property.

[coheneran]

Pwned.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

uh yeah, lets take joke posts seriously

[coheneran]

That's what happens when you don't add a :p at the end of a joke post.

[Atomic Rain]

That's what happens when you don't add a :p at the end of a joke post.

Tway doesn't smile, and if you saw his tongue, you'd never open your mouth again out of inadequacy.

[Reaganista]

that much is true

[Hababi]

So, by saying "I support our troops" you are in fact declaring you support the marines who slaughtered Iraqi families


Difference: That is not the mission of the US. Supporting the troops means supporting those that follow orders, not who flip out and circumvent them. Palestinians explicitly support grave atrocities.

[lfantwister]

"Hamas views the Arab-Israeli conflict as "a religious struggle between Islam and Judaism that can only be resolved by the destruction of the State of Israel"
where did you get this?


Difference: That is not the mission of the US. Supporting the troops means supporting those that follow orders, not who flip out and circumvent them. Palestinians explicitly support grave atrocities.

At least they don't join the army and actually commit such grave atrocities

[coheneran]

Difference: That is not the mission of the US. Supporting the troops means supporting those that follow orders, not who flip out and circumvent them. Palestinians explicitly support grave atrocities.

I have two points:

> By your logic, if the suicide bomber did it of his own volition, he is evil, but if he took orders to do it, he is good for being obedient. What did you think of the Nazis at Nuremberg who said they were only following orders?

> Don't say "Palestinians all support X" unless you can prove it, which you can't. I personally know at least ten Palestinians who are pacifists and/or are against violence as a way to solve their situations, and I must have seen at least two hundred others who are the same (at protests), and seeing as there were other protests in other places and that Palestinians don't get to travel around very much (what with all the road blocks), I think it is safe to assume there's a good couple of thousand Palestinians out there who are commited to peace.

[Hababi]

At least they don't join the army and actually commit such grave atrocities


It's just as bad. They're not stupid enough to go blow themselves up but they agree morally with the action, so that's no different than the Germans who for whatever reason didn't actively participate in the Holocaust but knew full well about it and morally supported it. Those people were the enemy and these people are the enemy.




> By your logic, if the suicide bomber did it of his own volition, he is evil, but if he took orders to do it, he is good for being obedient. What did you think of the Nazis at Nuremberg who said they were only following orders?


If the US government were ordering such massacres, then you'd have a point. I said 'following orders' because the US government doesn't order such actions.


> Don't say "Palestinians all support X" unless you can prove it, which you can't.


Not all Palestinians, just 6 in 10, per the BBC.

[coheneran]

If the US government were ordering such massacres, then you'd have a point. I said 'following orders' because the US government doesn't order such actions.

In the case of the IDF, then I do have a point, according to you. Cases and said points, Dir Yassin, Sabra and Shatilla, Jenin. In the case of the US government, I still have a point: You've said yourself that all wars have casualties, and I think we can both agree that a damn big lot (if not most) of Iraqis killed in Iraq (or any other US war) by the US forces were innocent, and since the American government was the one to declare the war...

Not all Palestinians, just 6 in 10, per the BBC.

Source please. And if this doesn't say "Six out of ten Palestinians support murderous acts against Jewish civilians", I'll be, err, angry.

[coheneran]

Listening to Propagandhi, had to quote this:

"Take a look at your Promise Land/Your deed is that gun in your hand/Mount Zion's a mine field, the West Bank/The Gaza Strip, the West Bank/The Gaza Strip, the West Bank/The Gaza Strip, the West Bank/The Gaza Strip, soon to be parking lots/For American tourists, and fascist cops yeah.

Chorus:

Fuck Zionism! Fuck militarism! Fuck Americanism, fuck nationalism! Fuck religion!"

[BassRevelation1029]

In the case of the IDF, then I do have a point, according to you. Cases and said points, Dir Yassin, Sabra and Shatilla, Jenin. In the case of the US government, I still have a point: You've said yourself that all wars have casualties, and I think we can both agree that a damn big lot (if not most) of Iraqis killed in Iraq (or any other US war) by the US forces were innocent, and since the American government was the one to declare the war...

thats not the point. These men and women signed up to be in the armed forces to serve and protect their country. It just so happens it's in the midst of an unjust war. Had there been a real conflict, the same men and women would be fighting.

[coheneran]

thats not the point. These men and women signed up to be in the armed forces to serve and protect their country. It just so happens it's in the midst of an unjust war. Had there been a real conflict, the same men and women would be fighting.

No such thing as a just war (apart from class war :p). What does it matter if they signed up? That's besides the original point, and what you are doing is trying to change that point and confuse me. The original point was about following orders you thought were wrong, and the difference between following a wrong order and doing something wrong out of your own volition.

If you ordered me to kill someone (and you were in a position to command me) and I did it, well, what's the difference if I did the exact same thing out of my own volition? Murder is murder, doesn't matter who told you to do it.

[BassRevelation1029]

No such thing as a just war (apart from class war :p). What does it matter if they signed up? That's besides the original point, and what you are doing is trying to change that point and confuse me. The original point was about following orders you thought were wrong, and the difference between following a wrong order and doing something wrong out of your own volition.

im referring to the "dont support the troops" comment from someone earlier.

If you ordered me to kill someone (and you were in a position to command me) and I did it, well, what's the difference if I did the exact same thing out of my own volition? Murder is murder, doesn't matter who told you to do it.
Yet, these people arent taught to think-they're taught to react. It doesnt surprise me that one would do that after seeing how they're formed in training.

[coheneran]

im referring to the "dont support the troops" comment from someone earlier.

Yet, these people arent taught to think-they're taught to react. It doesnt surprise me that one would do that after seeing how they're formed in training.

That's still not really part of the discussion we (BDR and me) were having earlier.

[Reaganista]

there was nothing unjust about the US invasion of Iraq stop being stupid

so that's no different than the Germans who for whatever reason didn't actively participate in the Holocaust but knew full well about it and morally supported it
the germans were going to work everyday to build bullets
the only palestinian non-combatants who are comparable to them are the terrorists who provide for suicide bombers and their families.

still, being a cheerleader for terrorists isn't good.

[coheneran]

there was nothing unjust about the US invasion of Iraq stop being stupid

Lol @ naivety.

still, being a cheerleader for terrorists isn't good.

Which is why America never supported terrorist organisations like the Contras or trained wanted terrorists like Bin Laden.

[BassRevelation1029]

there was nothing unjust about the US invasion of Iraq stop being stupid
.
:lol:
I guess its safe to just not take you seriously anymore

[Reaganista]

Lol @ naivety.

yeah your naivety is kinda funny

I guess its safe to just not take you seriously anymore
I guess that's what I'd do if I was holding completely untenable postitions like you


Which is why America never supported terrorist organisations like the Contras or trained wanted terrorists like Bin Laden.
when you've got a choice between terrorists and communists, terrorists are always the better option.

[Hababi]

In the case of the IDF, then I do have a point, according to you. Cases and said points, Dir Yassin, Sabra and Shatilla, Jenin.


We've already been through those anti Jewish frauds.



In the case of the US government, I still have a point: You've said yourself that all wars have casualties, and I think we can both agree that a damn big lot (if not most) of Iraqis killed in Iraq (or any other US war) by the US forces were innocent, and since the American government was the one to declare the war...


None of the deaths were the intentional policy of the American government, so again, you don't have a point.


Source please.


I already posted the link.

[PepsiMetal]

where did you get this?

Hamas page in wikipedia.

there was nothing unjust about the US invasion of Iraq stop being stupid

3/5 primary UN countries rejected the war which makes this war illegal. You can be blinded by the media as long as you choose to, your choice I guess.

[Reaganista]

3/5 primary UN countries rejected the war which makes this war illegal. You can be blinded by the media as long as you choose to, your choice I guess.
what course of action is just and what russia, china and france think have absolutely nothing to do with one another, funnily enough

[PepsiMetal]

there was nothing unjust about the US invasion of Iraq stop being stupid

what course of action is just

...

what russia, china and france think have absolutely nothing to do with one another, funnily enough

Umm, they just thought it's not worth risking their soldiers for US and its invalid reasons for the attack.

[Reaganista]

dividing one sentence into two isn't a valid response

[coheneran]

We've already been through those anti Jewish frauds.

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot, all those massacres were in fact mass suicides to make the Israeli generals look bad. It all makes perfect sense. If you want justice and your own piece of land, what better way to get it than to SLAUGHTER 2000 OF YOUR OWN COMMUNITY! You're an idiot if you think the IDF didn't pull the trigger.

None of the deaths were the intentional policy of the American government, so again, you don't have a point.

Doesn't matter if they intended to kill someone or not, they knew they were entering a war and they knew what that entailed, so the deaths are their responsibility. What would people have said if Kaiser Bill said he didn't intend to kill anyone in the first World War?

I already posted the link.

I don't remember that. I wanna see a linky, or that source is bullcrap.

[-1up!-]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2072851.stm

"The Palestinian view appears to be that, if their people - whether involved in the uprising or not - are being killed by Israeli forces, there is no reason why Israeli civilians should be exempt from the suffering."

Their view is based on a reasonable reaction of self-defense. Hmm.

[coheneran]

If BDR was in a similar situation, he would have gotten nukes by now, and used them too.

[davser]

what course of action is just and what russia, china and france think have absolutely nothing to do with one another, funnily enough

In the case of invading Iraq what France,Russia and China do think has everything to do with it being just as they are permanent members of the security council who passed the resolutions under which the US went to war, illegaly or not depending on whose legal advice you take, funnily enough.

[-1up!-]

What makes this war just, exactly?

[coheneran]

He said just, not legal. Christ, it's not a difficult concept.

Since when is international law (which the USA government seems to treasure so) unjust?

[davser]

Just in whose eyes?

[davser]

Ugh.

Sorry, not au fait with neanderthal. Translate?

[-1up!-]

No, you're still not getting this.
Well, elaborate?

[davser]

You're an idiot.

That highly original, cutting and witty remark instantly sets you apart from the rest of us mere mortals when it comes to undimmed, rapier sharp intelligence.
Congratulations sir, consider yourself a scholar.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

go away you're not fit for discussion

[davser]

It was a rather obvious call, actually. I wouldn't consider it a prime example of my intelligence, to be completely and truly honest.

Neither would I as I guess that in your case instances of intelligence are rather few and far between.

[davser]

go away you're not fit for discussion

stfu n00b

[coheneran]

Defending somebody in need is just, whether or not Hu Jintao agrees with me.

I wouldn't have defended Hitler or his regime in their final days, so it's not always the case.

But in the case of Iraq, even if it was a just cause (which is arguable, usually defending an oppressed minority is considered an act of solidarity, not justice), the war was illegal, and those laws exist for a rule. What would happen if everyone started dealing out justice in purposeful ignorance of the law? Justice isn't always a good thing; I can justify murdering Bush and Blair, but it still wouldn't be right if I or anyone else did it. I can justify declaring war on Israel, or Palestine, or both, but it still wouldn't be right.

In the case of overthrowing a dictator, it should to be done by the oppressed people, not by an invading/liberating army.

[coheneran]

We'd get better laws.

No, because what is justice in a nation should be decided by the people of that nation, and what is justice globally should be decided by the people of the globe, not by a world power and its lapdog.

Stop.

Oooh, you like that? It turns you on? Justice is unjust (ohhh)! Logic is illogical (ahhhhhh)! Modesty is arrogance (oh baby)!

No.

If there is a person responsible for a large bit of violence in the world, and killing that person would end that violence, then it follows logically that even a pacifist would support that murder, since it would end a bigger number of murders.

read: unjust

You can read what you want, I meant what I said, not what you want me to have said.

Ideally.

Agreed.

[coheneran]

That's very democratic of you.

Good, I'm glad we agree.

It doesn't follow logically that killing that person would end the violence.

Yes it does. If I am going to paint every door on my street blue, then locking my in the car would ensure that none of the doors get painted blue. If one person is behind a lot of violence in the world, then killing that person would end that violent. It's a simple equation.

What's the difference between righteousness and justice, apart from the fact the People's Republic of China has a 20% say in what the latter means at any one time?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

[Reaganista]

whenever the law commands you to take an immoral course of action, that law is unjust.

ex. fugitive slave laws, anti-jewish laws passed by the nazis and international laws that protect the reign of dictators

[Atomic Rain]

Sorry, not au fait with neanderthal. Translate?

You're an idiot.


:lol: It's mean to antagonise, davser.


whenever the law commands you to take an immoral course of action, that law is unjust.

ex. fugitive slave laws, anti-jewish laws passed by the nazis and international laws that protect the reign of dictators
When individuals decide laws they don't like are unjust and they follow their own moral judgement instead, that's called anarchy. If the UKs BNP decided (as is their official policy) that gun laws are unjust and that every white male or whatever is obliged to own a rifle, does that mean that since they consider it unjust to be denied the right to go to arms against immigrants, non-whites and the like, that they should pull an america and do it anyway?

Uh, no. They campaign in legitimate elections.
The parallel for America would be to go via the UN.

[Hababi]

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot, all those massacres were in fact mass suicides to make the Israeli generals look bad. It all makes perfect sense. If you want justice and your own piece of land, what better way to get it than to SLAUGHTER 2000 OF YOUR OWN COMMUNITY! You're an idiot if you think the IDF didn't pull the trigger.


The problem is that those actions were not by Israel, as independent courts determined.


Doesn't matter if they intended to kill someone or not, they knew they were entering a war and they knew what that entailed, so the deaths are their responsibility. What would people have said if Kaiser Bill said he didn't intend to kill anyone in the first World War?


They knew that innocent deaths were inevitable in the quest to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq.

In WW2, we knew that innocent deaths were inevitable in the course of defeating Hitler. A Neo Nazi could use the same rhetoric as you're using to frame the US as being evil for invading Germany. That doesn't make the action wrong.

[Hababi]

When individuals decide laws they don't like are unjust and they follow their own moral judgement instead, that's called anarchy.


So you think the underground railroad was a bad thing?

[italic zero]

I'm thinking some people haven't read MLK's Letter From Birmingham Jail

[coheneran]

So the violence in Iraq would have ended if we'd just killed Saddam?

Only if he was responsible for the violence in the first place. It's more of a theoretical, err, theory. In reality, the violence caused in the world is to blame on a group of people, not an individual (for example, the War on Terror isn't Bush or Blair's fault exclusively, there's also the oil lobby and the corporations profitting from these wars).

whenever the law commands you to take an immoral course of action, that law is unjust.

Who Atomic Rain said.

...they follow their own moral judgement instead, that's called anarchy.

Hey, come on now, let's not give anarchy a bad name here.

[coheneran]

The problem is that those actions were not by Israel, as independent courts determined.

No, Israeli courts found Sharon guilty and that he should be held responsible.

They knew that innocent deaths were inevitable in the quest to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq.

The problem with that is that Iraq is not very free or democratic right now. An Iraqi president out of controllable choices is not very democratic. The other problem with that is that anyone can use that excuse to start just about any war they want. Hell, by your logic, Egypt could invade Sudan, kill lots of people and then say it was a price they were willing to pay in order to bring "freedom and democracy" to the Sudan. There are laws for a reason, and that reason is to regulate justice so that every average Joe can't shoot someone and say he was just dispensing justice.

In WW2, we knew that innocent deaths were inevitable in the course of defeating Hitler. A Neo Nazi could use the same rhetoric as you're using to frame the US as being evil for invading Germany. That doesn't make the action wrong.

Hitler knew death was inevitable in order to create a European fortress populated with the most masterful race in history. But unless Bush or Hitler or Sharon (or any other leader who chooses to declare war) are/were willing to put down their own life or their children's life for the war they're running, then they have no right sending the workers to their deaths so they can gain more power. It all comes back to the upper class exploiting the working class.

[Reaganista]

When individuals decide laws they don't like are unjust and they follow their own moral judgement instead, that's called anarchy.


I never said people should declare laws they don't like unjust.

I said they should disobey laws that are in fact unjust.

[Hababi]

No, Israeli courts found Sharon guilty and that he should be held responsible.


Independent investigations found that he was in no way guilty of causing it. Israel made a move to try to appease neo nazi Europeans who were going after them.


The problem with that is that Iraq is not very free or democratic right now.


:confused: So they didn't have an election?

Freedom and democracy is the goal of the American intervention. Whether Iraq keeps it or not, is up to them.


Hell, by your logic, Egypt could invade Sudan, kill lots of people and then say it was a price they were willing to pay in order to bring "freedom and democracy" to the Sudan.


#1 Egypt isn't a democracy
#2 The US didn't go in trying to "kill a bunch of people." Measures were taken to minimize civilian casualties.
#3 It'd be great if a democratic nation (or nations) invaded the Sudan and overthrew the government and set up a free government. Or do you support those who are waging genocide in Darfur?


But unless Bush or Hitler or Sharon (or any other leader who chooses to declare war) are/were willing to put down their own life or their children's life for the war they're running, then they have no right sending the workers to their deaths so they can gain more power.


If FDR had a son, he wouldn't have had him sent to WW2. That doesn't make the action wrong.

[coheneran]

I never said people should declare laws they don't like unjust.

I said they should disobey laws that are in fact unjust.

What exactly qualifies a law as unjust? Who gets to decide?

[Reaganista]

What exactly qualifies a law as unjust? Who gets to decide?

whenever the law commands you to take an immoral course of action, that law is unjust.

qft

[coheneran]

Independent investigations found that he was in no way guilty of causing it. Israel made a move to try to appease neo nazi Europeans who were going after them.

From the Kahan Commission, via a Zionist website:
(http://www.jafi.org.il/education/actual/sabra-shatilla/#3)
"But the Commission asserted that Israel had indirect responsibility for the massacre since the I.D.F. held the area, Mr. Begin was found responsible for not exercising greater involvement and awareness in the matter of introducing the Phalangists into the camps. Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed. Mr. Shamir erred by not taking action after being alerted by communications Minister Zippori. Chief of Staff Eitan did not give the appropriate orders to prevent the massacre."

Roughly the same paragraph from what I think is a Pro-Palestinian website (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_sabra_shatila.php):

"In our view, the minister of defense made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps ... It is our view that responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population of the refugee camps, and having failed to take this danger into account when he decided to move the Phalangists into the camps.
In addition, responsibility is to be imputed to the minister of defense for not ordering appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre as a condition for the Phalangists' entry into the camps. These blunders constitute the non-fulfillment of a duty with which the defense minister was charged."

By your own logic, if a German did not oppose the Nazis then he was as every bit responsible is Hitler. Well, same for Sharon and the rest of them. They knew what was happening (and in fact ordered these terrorists into the camps) but they chose to ignore it, they are just as responsible as the soldiers who raped and slaughtered.

:confused: So they didn't have an election?

Next time, address the whole part of the comment, not just the bit you feel you could exploit.

Freedom and democracy is the goal of the American intervention. Whether Iraq keeps it or not, is up to them.

Hah! Their goal is to install a capitalist ally that will sell them oil cheap, not democracy and freedom. I remind you that back in the 80's when Hussien was selling them cheap oil they seemed fine and dandy with the way he ran his murderous regime, and in fact gave/sold him WMDs to use on Iran.

#1 Egypt isn't a democracy
#2 The US didn't go in trying to "kill a bunch of people." Measures were taken to minimize civilian casualties.
#3 It'd be great if a democratic nation (or nations) invaded the Sudan and overthrew the government and set up a free government. Or do you support those who are waging genocide in Darfur?

I support neither this nor that, because it is not just black and white, there is a lot of grey. I support the people's revolt, not the intervention of a greedy superpower.

Not enough measures were taken to minimise casualties apparantly, the body count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) (just for Iraqis) is between 38,000 and 42,500.

If FDR had a son, he wouldn't have had him sent to WW2. That doesn't make the action wrong.

It adds to my claim that all wars are just a means by which the ruling class can exploit the working class.

qft

So justice is dictated by morality, and morality is dictated by society. There, point won. A majority of the world said they were against the war in Iraq, and so the common morality says the war in Iraq was unjust.

[Reaganista]

So justice is dictated by morality, and morality is dictated by society. There, point won. A majority of the world said they were against the war in Iraq, and so the common morality says the war in Iraq was unjust.

majority opinion and morality have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. dictatorships are wrong no matter what anyone says about it, especially other dicators

[coheneran]

majority opinion and morality have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. dictatorships are wrong no matter what anyone says about it, especially other dicators

So what is morality?

I'm spotting a pattern here: You make a statement relying on a vague definition. Someone reasons out the real definition, so you hide it behind a new word of vaguer definition.

[Hababi]

indirect responsibility


Translation: "You didn't act perfectly."

Well yeah, no one acts perfectly. Everyone makes innocent mistakes. Not handling things the best possible way, out of no malice but rather simply not being perfect, is NOT the same thing as intentionally killing people. And that you're trying to equate that to homicide bombings is insulting and immoral.


if a German did not oppose the Nazis then he was as every bit responsible is Hitler.


No, if they actively voiced support for the Holocaust, but didn't directly and overtly participate in it, they're still guilty Nazi scum.


Next time, address the whole part of the comment, not just the bit you feel you could exploit.


That bit destroyed your point. You're so intent on hating America that it blinds you.


Their goal is to install a capitalist ally that will sell them oil cheap, not democracy and freedom.


The people will decide on that.


I remind you that back in the 80's when Hussien was selling them cheap oil they seemed fine and dandy with the way he ran his murderous regime, and in fact gave/sold him WMDs to use on Iran.


No we didn't. Individual American companies sold Hussein material that could be used in the process of making weapons, most of them unknowingly.


I support neither this nor that, because it is not just black and white, there is a lot of grey. I support the people's revolt, not the intervention of a greedy superpower.


That's a cop out. Would you oppose an operation by South Africa, Spain and France to overthrow Al Bashir's government and install democracy? If not, then you implicitly support the dictator and the genocide.


Not enough measures were taken to minimise casualties apparantly, the body count (just for Iraqis) is between 38,000 and 42,500.


Wildly overstated anti American site.


It adds to my claim that all wars are just a means by which the ruling class can exploit the working class.


So you think we shouldn't have fought the Germans in WW2?

[coheneran]

Translation: "You didn't act perfectly."

Well yeah, no one acts perfectly. Everyone makes innocent mistakes. Not handling things the best possible way, out of no malice but rather simply not being perfect, is NOT the same thing as intentionally killing people. And that you're trying to equate that to homicide bombings is insulting and immoral.

Except there's a sharply contrasting difference between making a mistake and giving bloody mercenaries whose leader had just been assassinated (they believed by the PLO) orders to enter a Palestinian refugee camp and root out 200 PLO fighters out of the 10,000 or so innocent Palestinian refugees. The tactic here was simple; how do retrieve the needle from the haystack? Burn the haystack.

No, if they actively voiced support for the Holocaust, but didn't directly and overtly participate in it, they're still guilty Nazi scum.

So Sharon knowingly did something he knew would get hundreds of innocent Palestinians killed, to me, that one action is more a show of support for the genocide than any number of words Sharon can say in support of Zionism. "One action is worth a thousand words", ever heard that one before?

That bit destroyed your point. You're so intent on hating America that it blinds you.

What, the bit when I called you on not addressing the main point in my comment: "The problem with that is that Iraq is not very free or democratic right now. An Iraqi president out of controllable choices is not very democratic."

I bolded the bit which you didn't address, just in case you didn't notice it, again.

The people will decide on that.

Not if we keep repressing them.

No we didn't. Individual American companies sold Hussein material that could be used in the process of making weapons, most of them unknowingly.

Except than the government has to licence sales like that, especially when they involve weapons, and even more so when the country in question is under a UN embargo:

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governments. In 1985–90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.

From this site (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp)

That's a cop out. Would you oppose an operation by South Africa, Spain and France to overthrow Al Bashir's government and install democracy? If not, then you implicitly support the dictator and the genocide.

Like I said, it's not simple black and white. I oppose all wars because wars are a tool for the ruling class to exploit the working class and keep it under its thumb, as I keep repeating, and as you seem to be ignoring.

Wildly overstated anti American site.

If you don't like my sources, counter-source them, don't dismiss them because you don't like them without trying to prove me wrong with your own sources.

So you think we shouldn't have fought the Germans in WW2?

Again, it's not a question of we versus them. It's Our leaders versus Their leaders with us as the pawns and us suffering all the damage. WE should have teamed up with the German soldiers in WWII and turned on our leaders. That is my ideall outcome, since you ask.

[Reaganista]

So what is morality?
the reasons why something is right or wrong damn you're dumb

[coheneran]

the reasons why something is right or wrong damn you're dumb

Who decides what is right or wrong?

[Reaganista]

Who decides what is right or wrong?
it doesn't need to decided in matters such as this, it's self evident that dictatorships are immoral

[Hababi]

Except there's a sharply contrasting difference between making a mistake and giving bloody mercenaries whose leader had just been assassinated (they believed by the PLO) orders to enter a Palestinian refugee camp and root out 200 PLO fighters out of the 10,000 or so innocent Palestinian refugees. The tactic here was simple; how do retrieve the needle from the haystack? Burn the haystack.

If they were harboring the terrorists, which they were, then they weren't innocent. Anyone who supports Palestinian terrorists in any way is part of the enemy.

And again, you exagerrate the situation. Israel's number one obligation is to protect its people and its soldiers. Palestinians, being the enemy, come second. Sharon did his job.

What, the bit when I called you on not addressing the main point in my comment: "The problem with that is that Iraq is not very free or democratic right now. An Iraqi president out of controllable choices is not very democratic."

The people made their choice. That's democracy. You're conflating the truth.



Not if we keep repressing them.


We're not repressing them. We are trying to fight a war, and we're not doing so very effectively. Because of ultra leftist whiners, partially. We should've bombed Falujah to the ground, completely destroyed it. But we didn't. Because we're trying our hardest to be nice.


Except than the government has to licence sales like that, especially when they involve weapons, and even more so when the country in question is under a UN embargo:

Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governments. In 1985–90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.

We did not sale weapons to Iraq. That was your original claim, and that was false. We marginally supported Iraq, because they were the lesser of the two evils.


Like I said, it's not simple black and white. I oppose all wars because wars are a tool for the ruling class to exploit the working class and keep it under its thumb, as I keep repeating, and as you seem to be ignoring.


You're not answering my question.


If you don't like my sources, counter-source them, don't dismiss them because you don't like them without trying to prove me wrong with your own sources.


http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:mg-TMSE2F7sJ:www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf+brookings+institute+civilian+death+iraq&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Total May 2003 through May 23, 2006: 14,530 – 25,431

Say we take roughly the middle of that, which would be 19,000. Exactly half of the bottom of your widly exaggerated anti American BS website.

And guess what? Many, many more people would've died in the long run from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule, followed by the rule of his brutal sons.


Again, it's not a question of we versus them. It's Our leaders versus Their leaders with us as the pawns and us suffering all the damage. WE should have teamed up with the German soldiers in WWII and turned on our leaders. That is my ideall outcome, since you ask.

:rolleyes:

The real world is calling. It wants you back.

[Reaganista]

It wants you back.
no it doesn't

[coheneran]

it doesn't need to decided in matters such as this, it's self evident that dictatorships are immoral

If every country was a dictatorship and every dictator was benevolent and good to his people and there was equality and plenty for all, is it still immoral?

And even then, morality is relative. What we perceive as moral and right is different in other countries and in other eras, so who decides what morality is?

[Reaganista]

If every country was a dictatorship and there was equality
stupid ****er

And even then, morality is relative. What we perceive as moral and right is different in other countries and in other eras, so who decides what morality is?
any rational person would come to certain obvious moral conclusions
the opinions of irrational people do not matter

[Iskandar]

That's a cop out. Would you oppose an operation by South Africa, Spain and France to overthrow Al Bashir's government and install democracy? If not, then you implicitly support the dictator and the genocide.
What if I support a revolution from within? It's purely hypothetical of course.

[PepsiMetal]

We should've bombed Falujah to the ground, completely destroyed it. But we didn't. Because we're trying our hardest to be nice.

So bombing a whole city of 200K + people is a good idea to you? Those are the words of a dictator, and you know you're nothing better than Saddam Hussein himself if you believe that's what US should have done.

We did not sale weapons to Iraq. That was your original claim, and that was false. We marginally supported Iraq, because they were the lesser of the two evils.

US supported Saddam Hussein and his use of chemical weapons. So again, since you failed to answer the question a couple pages ago, how is a dictator who uses gas and chemical weapons worse than those who overthrew Shah which wanted a republic country, and today it is that. Shah was put in place by US and UK and was selling them cheap oil, the reason US encouraged Saddam to attack was because they knew if Iran ever had a republic government they would want to put Iran's priority over US' which means higher oil prices. US supported an evil dictator over a group of people who wanted a republic government.

And guess what? Many, many more people would've died in the long run from Saddam Hussein's brutal rule, followed by the rule of his brutal sons.

Why should you care 20 years after supporting Saddam that he is killing people? Why didn't USA warn Saddam not to use chemical weapons in the Iranian war? :rolleyes: But now 20 years after, all of a sudden, oh noo, Saddam is evil, and we just realized that. BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

That says it all for US/UK's goals.

The people will decide on that.

Like they let Iranians decide up there? ^^^

Haha, yea sure.

[Hababi]

So bombing a whole city of 200K + people is a good idea to you?


Absolutely.


Those are the words of a dictator,


No, those are the words of someone who recognizes that we're in a war. In a war, your aim is to defeat the enemy. We bombed the heck out of German and Japanese cities. Was that wrong? Should we have just marched in, asked nicely for them to give up Nazism and surrender? Were FDR and Truman dictators?

I hope you see the silliness of your statements.




US supported Saddam Hussein and his use of chemical weapons.


No, we marginally supported Saddam against Iran, when he was the lesser of the two evils. We did not support his use of chemical weapons.



how is a dictator who uses gas and chemical weapons worse than those who overthrew Shah which wanted a republic country, and today it is that.


No it's not. It's a repressive dictatorship that enforces radical Islamic law and funds global jihad movements. And that's why they're the worse of the two evils. To claim that they're a republic is absolutely ridiculous.


Shah was put in place by US and UK


Because the alternative was an illegitimate Soviet hack. Better a hack for us than a hack for them.




Why should you care 20 years after supporting Saddam that he is killing people?


Why not? What's wrong with caring now? Why do you not care now? And why do you defend radical repressive regimes?


What if I support a revolution from within? It's purely hypothetical of course.


So long as it was in the name of democracy, it'd be fine and even preferable to outside intervention, provided it would succeed.

[Reaganista]

zero that's the craziest ****ing thing you've ever said why do you keep doing that

But now 20 years after, all of a sudden, oh noo, Saddam is evil, and we just realized that
maybe you forgot the first war against iraq?
or maybe you're just an idiot

[PepsiMetal]

maybe you forgot the first war against iraq?
or maybe you're just an idiot

Why dont you learn history for once? The war was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It had nothing to do with his Chemical Weapons, or Weapons of Mass Destruction... Seriously, stop replying with foolish posts. Either research the topic or don't blindly post on a topic you have no idea what you're talking about.

Absolutely.

So you want to bomb a town of 200K+ people because there is a thousand or so insurgents? Do you know how fucking stupid that sounds?

No, those are the words of someone who recognizes that we're in a war. In a war, your aim is to defeat the enemy. We bombed the heck out of German and Japanese cities. Was that wrong? Should we have just marched in, asked nicely for them to give up Nazism and surrender? Were FDR and Truman dictators?

Umm, Japanese attacked US. Iraq didn't. Don't try to say Iraq was involved in 9/11 because that's been proven false already. The reason US bombed japanese cities was because that way Japan would surrender. But in Iraq, government has already surrendered. Insurgents are the ones that are fighting. Get it? Insurgents. Meaning that iraqi town for them is probably a foreign place anyways.

I hope you see the silliness of your statements.

In every one of your posts, you seem to be wanting more wars, more violence, and more killing of innocent civlians. While in my posts, I want less of that. Damn, I am so silly that way. :rolleyes:

No, we marginally supported Saddam against Iran, when he was the lesser of the two evils. We did not support his use of chemical weapons.

Well US didn't tell Saddam not to use chemical weapons on Iran.

Also, US was involved in selling/helping Saddam many chemicals needed to make those bombs he used on Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

And again, Saddam was a bigger evil than Iranians who overthrew a dictator (Shah). They wanted to form a republic government like they had in the 50s, which US overthrew and put a dictator Shah there. You obviously didn't research on this issue enough.

No it's not. It's a repressive dictatorship that enforces radical Islamic law and funds global jihad movements. And that's why they're the worse of the two evils. To claim that they're a republic is absolutely ridiculous.

How did Ahmadinejad get elected? How did Saddam get to power? Compare the two. How many wars did Iran start in this whole century? ZERO. What about Iraq? Alot. Sorry but you don't know shit.

Because the alternative was an illegitimate Soviet hack. Better a hack for us than a hack for them.

That proves you don't know WTF you're talking about. Read this, and then reply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

Why not? What's wrong with caring now? Why do you not care now? And why do you defend radical repressive regimes?

Who said I don't care now? Why are you assuming such things?
But that doesn't mean I wouldn't have cared 20 years ago. Just research this issue, or stop posting nonsense. You obviously have no idea about Iranian-Iraqi war, Iranian presidents, or current Iranian government.

[Reaganista]

Why dont you learn history for once? The war was a response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It had nothing to do with his Chemical Weapons, or Weapons of Mass Destruction... Seriously, stop replying with foolish posts. Either research the topic or don't blindly post on a topic you have no idea what you're talking about.

this is really funny to me

and anyway, you were making it seem as though the US did this

all of a sudden, oh noo, Saddam is evil, and we just realized that

and I just pointed out that was absolute bull**** and that we'd been in armed combat with them for a decade before we went in to overthrow saddam.
so then you started going on about chemical weapons, makes sense, that's what I'd do if I were a ****ing idiot

[PepsiMetal]

and I just pointed out that was absolute bull**** and that we'd been in armed combat with them for a decade before we went in to overthrow saddam.
so then you started going on about chemical weapons, makes sense, that's what I'd do if I were a ****ing idiot

You're such a ****tard you make no sense. Are you saying US wasn't capable of destroying Saddam's regime in the first gulf war? Because they were capable. Easily actually, because they trampled Iraqi's tanks like they were made of paper. Why didn't they destroy Saddam's regime then? There are no excuses for that at all. It could have been done, and Saddam could have been taken care of a while ago instead they let him rule, torture, murder, etc... people for another 11 years or so.

And again, Iranian government was better than saddam hussein. If you think Saddam was less of an evil, then you're an idiot. You obviously need to research on Mossadegh's case. The people who overthrew Shah in Iran are those who supported Mossadegh, and they supported a republic Iran, not one ruled by a dictator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh

[Reaganista]

You're such a ****tard you make no sense. Are you saying US wasn't capable of destroying Saddam's regime in the first gulf war?

can you not read? because I didn't say anything like that

Because they were capable. Easily actually, because they trampled Iraqi's tanks like they were made of paper. Why didn't they destroy Saddam's regime then?
the UN mandate didn't authorize it. I can't figure out why you would disscuss things like this when you don't even know the basics

There are no excuses for that at all. It could have been done, and Saddam could have been taken care of a while ago instead they let him rule, torture, murder, etc... people for another 11 years or so.

In accordance with the maximum the UN would authorize us to do, we had US troops patrol no-fly zones that prevented Saddam from making further attacks on his perceived enemies in northern and southern Iraq


And again, Iranian government was better than saddam hussein. If you think Saddam was less of an evil, then you're an idiot. You obviously need to research on Mossadegh's case. The people who overthrew Shah in Iran are those who supported Mossadegh, and they supported a republic Iran, not one ruled by a dictator.

Iran was allied with the Soviet Union.

that's ALL that mattered

[PepsiMetal]

the UN mandate didn't authorize it. I can't figure out why you would disscuss things like this when you don't even know the basics

UN didn't approve this iraqi war either. What's your point?

In accordance with the maximum the UN would authorize us to do, we had US troops patrol no-fly zones that prevented Saddam from making further attacks on his perceived enemies in northern and southern Iraq

Stop being an idiot. UN is basically US. There is no way in hell US can get in trouble by attacking Iraq then. 3/5 UN primary countries and Germany all rejected the iraqi war. US went against all of them, and so what? Did anything happen to US? No.

Iran was allied with the Soviet Union.

Cause USA refused to be an ally to Iran? The one way US would be an ally to Iran is by placing its own government like Shah. They weren't really allies as Soviet Union never helped Iran with action, rather they just sold them weapons which they needed as USA wouldn't do it.

[Reaganista]

UN didn't approve this iraqi war either. What's your point?

the UN did approve of the first Iraq war you unbelievable imbecile.
the international coalition involved in that one was massive compared to the the second.

Stop being an idiot. UN is basically US. There is no way in hell US can get in trouble by attacking Iraq then. 3/5 UN primary countries and Germany all rejected the iraqi war. US went against all of them, and so what? Did anything happen to US? No.

there would've been consequences had the US lied about their mission objectives in Iraq, waited for 33 countries to send 420,000 troops and then started doing things which they hadn't been authorized to do.

there's a huge difference between defrauding all of your allies and asking for help and not getting much.


Cause USA refused to be an ally to Iran?

yeah we try not to ally with countries that take us hostage and all that

I'm not even sure why you think this is meaningful. If you're on the side of the USSR, you're our enemy, period.

[-1up!-]

The debate is pointless. History shows how the US is bent on serving its own interests primarily. Thinking Americans are in Iraq out of pure kindness and to protect the Iraqis from evil Saddam is bull.

[The End]

Translation: "You didn't act perfectly."

Well yeah, no one acts perfectly. Everyone makes innocent mistakes. Not handling things the best possible way, out of no malice but rather simply not being perfect, is NOT the same thing as intentionally killing people. And that you're trying to equate that to homicide bombings is insulting and immoral.



No, if they actively voiced support for the Holocaust, but didn't directly and overtly participate in it, they're still guilty Nazi scum.



That bit destroyed your point. You're so intent on hating America that it blinds you.



The people will decide on that.



No we didn't. Individual American companies sold Hussein material that could be used in the process of making weapons, most of them unknowingly.



That's a cop out. Would you oppose an operation by South Africa, Spain and France to overthrow Al Bashir's government and install democracy? If not, then you implicitly support the dictator and the genocide.



Wildly overstated anti American site.



So you think we shouldn't have fought the Germans in WW2?


oh yeh, and referring to Palestinian culture as worthless, and saying they are all castoffs who waste their lives isn't? how fucking retarded are you?

[-1up!-]

Interests overlap.
Of course. That doesn't mean they share the same priority.

[-1up!-]

I never denied that. I'm implying that Americans would not be in Iraq if it weren't for other interests other than the obvious democracy/peace etc. Nothing new if I mention oil.

[PepsiMetal]

yeah we try not to ally with countries that take us hostage and all that

They took US hostages cause US put a stupid dictator in the rule in Iran when they were starting up a decent republic government. If someone invaded US, replaced democrcy with a dictator who gives all money to that other country, you wouldn't be mad? :rolleyes:

[Reaganista]

none of that matters

all that's relevant is that they aligned with the USSR
it doesn't matter how good or bad their reasons for doing so were

and you skipped the rest of the my owning of you in that post
just admit that you're ignorant

[PepsiMetal]

You're an idiot. So it doesn't matter because US did something horrible? How does it matter that Iran was an ally to the Soviet Union? Who cares?

I didn't respond to the rest of your post cause it was pure garbage and I already explained to your idiotic mind that US could have attacked without UN's permission. You'll never understand that though.:rolleyes:

[Reaganista]

You're an idiot. So it doesn't matter because US did something horrible? How does it matter that Iran was an ally to the Soviet Union? Who cares?
ever hear of the cold war?

I didn't respond to the rest of your post cause it was pure garbage and I already explained to your idiotic mind that US could have attacked without UN's permission. You'll never understand that though
No I have an inability to understand things that are obviously pure bull****
I think it's genetic

[PepsiMetal]

ever hear of the cold war?

Iran had nothing/very little to do with it, so cold war is irrelevant.

No I have an inability to understand things that are obviously pure bull****
I think it's genetic

US can go against UN and won't get in trouble. It's the truth, there's no reason to question it. Sure if they started killing millions of random people like Hitler, then EU, russia, china, etc... would do something about it, but in attacking small countries, other UN countries most likely will not do anything about it.

[Hababi]

So you want to bomb a town of 200K+ people because there is a thousand or so insurgents? Do you know how fucking stupid that sounds?

It's much more widespread than you say, and yes. That's how you win wars. You annihilate the enemy.



Umm, Japanese attacked US. Iraq didn't.


The insurgents are.


But in Iraq, government has already surrendered. Insurgents are the ones that are fighting. Get it? Insurgents. Meaning that iraqi town for them is probably a foreign place anyways.

So you kill them. You bomb their strongholds. You wipe them out.



In every one of your posts, you seem to be wanting more wars, more violence, and more killing of innocent civlians. While in my posts, I want less of that. Damn, I am so silly that way. :rolleyes:


No, I want more guilty people to die.



And again, Saddam was a bigger evil than Iranians who overthrew a dictator (Shah).


To install a worse leader, radical Islamic whackjobs.



They wanted to form a republic government like they had in the 50s, which US overthrew and put a dictator Shah there. You obviously didn't research on this issue enough.



Iran is not a democratic society. It is a dictatorship. The religious leaders dictate who runs, and prevent any non radical nutjob from running.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

This may be an inane point, but, for a pro-life guy you really don't seem to have much concern for civilian lives.

[PepsiMetal]

It's much more widespread than you say, and yes. That's how you win wars. You annihilate the enemy.

So now innocent people are your enemy? :rolleyes:

The insurgents are.

Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein, not insurgents. Saddam was an enemy to Al-Qaida, and now Al-Qaida are the major organization responsible for suicide attacks. So you want to bomb an innocent city because there are some foreigner terrorists that came there at the same time as US did? Yeh, sure whatever.

So you kill them. You bomb their strongholds. You wipe them out.

So you're saying all insurgents are living in Fallujah together? :rolleyes: The only ones you would wipe out are innocent civlians, not insurgents. You can't beat terrorism via military force. Period.

No, I want more guilty people to die.

So how are innocent civlians in Fallujah guilty? Because they live there?

To install a worse leader, radical Islamic whackjobs.

Again, you don't know the history. You claim Iran had these whacky leaders, yet it hasn't started ONE war. How many jews live in Iraq? Less than 500. (compared to 150k in 1950s) How many jews live in Iran? More than 25,000. Oh damn, how dare that whacky islamic government allows more jewish people to live in their country than Saddam Hussein. :rolleyes: You don't know history, and that's the truth. You wouldn't be making posts like these if you actually knew Iran is a much better nation with much better government in its history than Iraq.

Iran is not a democratic society. It is a dictatorship. The religious leaders dictate who runs, and prevent any non radical nutjob from running.

It's not a dictatorship. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Dictators do not get elected.

Iran is a republic theocracy. President serves on 4 year terms. Dictators have no set terms or years to serve, they serve for as long as they want to. You obviously don't know shit about Iran's politics.

If you have an open-mind to learn the truth about how their political system works, you may, otherwise, don't foolishly compare it to dictatorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Politics

Compare to dictatorship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship

If you think those two things are the same, then I'm sorry but you're completely wrong.

This may be an inane point, but, for a pro-life guy you really don't seem to have much concern for civilian lives.

He's not a pro-life guy. He wishes death upon as many innocent people as possible as long as they're not americans. In other words, Selfish Pro-American life guy.

[Hababi]

This may be an inane point, but, for a pro-life guy you really don't seem to have much concern for civilian lives.


It's a matter of priorities. I don't want to see civilians die, but I most want to defeat the enemy. As such, I'm only interested in pursuing measures that maximize this goal. Civilian casualties should be kept as low as feasable, but in the end, better their civilians than your soldiers.

Ex: I can either bomb the heck out of their city and invade, or just invade. I'll conquer them both ways. But if I bomb, I'll severly weaken them to start with, and only 10 soldiers will die. A few hundred civilians will die. If I don't bomb, a couple hundred soldiers will die in the course of invading. I take the bombing option.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

and yes. That's how you win wars. You annihilate the enemy.
Well, comments like this really do make it seem like civilian casualties are an afterthought for you
Iran is a republic theocracy. President serves on 4 year terms. Dictators have no set terms or years to serve, they serve for as long as they want to. You obviously don't know **** about Iran's politics.
Haven't you picked up yet that it is not the president who is dictator?

[Hababi]

So now innocent people are your enemy? :rolleyes:


Insurgents are not innocent. Those who help them are not innocent.



Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein, not insurgents. Saddam was an enemy to Al-Qaida, and now Al-Qaida are the major organization responsible for suicide attacks.

He wasn't really an enemy of theirs. He was neither an active enemy nor ally.


So you want to bomb an innocent city because there are some foreigner terrorists that came there at the same time as US did? Yeh, sure whatever.


The people who killed those contractors were natives of Fallujah.



[QUOE]
So you're saying all insurgents are living in Fallujah together? :rolleyes: The only ones you would wipe out are innocent civlians, not insurgents. You can't beat terrorism via military force. Period.
[/QUOTE]

When you kill all the terrorists you will.


So how are innocent civlians in Fallujah guilty? Because they live there?


In war, innocent civilians die. If you're against that, then you must believe we should've never fought Germany.



Again, you don't know the history. You claim Iran had these whacky leaders, yet it hasn't started ONE war.


It just runs a radical regime and funds global jihadist movements.


It's not a dictatorship. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Dictators do not get elected.


Saddam was elected. The election was BS. So was the Iranian election.



Well, comments like this really do make it seem like civilian casualties are an afterthought for you


It's not so much that they're an afterthought, so much as it is that I'm more intent on winning the war. In WW2, we cared about winning the war, and that's why we won. Now we're trying to fight holding back, and we're losing.

[Reaganista]

Iran had nothing/very little to do with it, so cold war is irrelevant.

apart from being an ally of the soviet union
but you're really ill-informed if you think the cold war was irrelevant to any action that the US took during the cold war. it was all-comsuming


US can go against UN and won't get in trouble. It's the truth, there's no reason to question it. Sure if they started killing millions of random people like Hitler, then EU, russia, china, etc... would do something about it, but in attacking small countries, other UN countries most likely will not do anything about it.
you idiot
there would've been massive backlash if the US had assembled 420,000 thousand soldiers from 33 countries to achieve a specific mission with them and then had started doing things which none of those countries had approved of. you don't just go around betraying all of your allies and experience no consequences

[PepsiMetal]

Insurgents are not innocent. Those who help them are not innocent.

So you're saying all 200,000 of people in Fallujah are insurgents? :rolleyes:

He wasn't really an enemy of theirs. He was neither an active enemy nor ally.

Yes he was an enemy. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama asked Saudi's King if they wanted help, because Osama had a huge army after defeating Russians in Afghanistan, but Saudi King refused their "unofficial" military, so they got US' help. So yes, Osama pretty much wanted to kill Saddam and his military but was never given a chance to.

The people who killed those contractors were natives of Fallujah.

So you're going to blame 200,000 people on actions of 10-20 people? Wow, how nice of you. So we should blame all 300 million Americans because Eric Ruddolph bombed clinics and olympics right? :rolleyes:

When you kill all the terrorists you will.

By bombing Fallujah, you will kill 200,000 innocent civlians and 1000 insurgents. Even if you nuked whole middle east, you wouldn't kill all terrorists. Terrorism has always existed, and will always exist. There's no way to stop it.

In war, innocent civilians die. If you're against that, then you must believe we should've never fought Germany.

You want to purposely kill innocent people. I dont. I have no problems making peace, but YOU CAN'T MAKE PEACE BY KILLING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. It will only form more terrorists and opposition groups.

It just runs a radical regime and funds global jihadist movements.

Again, you don't know what jihad is. I can have a jihad of learning Qu'ran. Do you know what that means? Funding jihad movements can mean a million things, and it can be good. Your problem is you associate jihad with terrorists, which is very false.

Radical regime was much worse in Iran in 80s, and 90s, then it is now. It is improving every year though. It takes long time to establish a decent political system in your country.

Saddam was elected. The election was BS. So was the Iranian election.

No. Saddam was basically a military general who just took over the presidential/top ruler position. When Saddam was in charge, there weren't elections to give other candidates a chance to be elected. Whereas in Iran, there will be.

apart from being an ally of the soviet union
but you're really ill-informed if you think the cold war was irrelevant to any action that the US took during the cold war. it was all-comsuming

We've established before you don't know history at all. US convincing Iraq to attack Iran had nothing to do with its russian relations. US didn't want Iran to have its own driven government in which they'll raise prices in oil, and US would have to fork over more money. Do you know how many allies Soviet Union had? And you think US attacked Iran over all of its other enemies because of that foolish reason? Yea, sure.

there would've been massive backlash if the US had assembled 420,000 thousand soldiers from 33 countries to achieve a specific mission with them and then had started doing things which none of those countries had approved of. you don't just go around betraying all of your allies and experience no consequences

I meant US could have used its own troops to finish Iraq off. Damn you're an idiot. And again, I say this, US didn't need anyone's help to finish Iraq in the first gulf war.

[Hababi]

So you're saying all 200,000 of people in Fallujah are insurgents? :rolleyes:

Were all the citizens of Berlin Nazi's? No. We still bombed it. Because that's what you do in war.





So yes, Osama pretty much wanted to kill Saddam and his military but was never given a chance to.


That's why, according to the 9/11 Comission, Saddam had brief, loose, informal discussions with members of Al Quada? It never went anywhere, and they never worked together, but if Bin Ladin remained so hateful of Saddam, why did that happen at all?



So you're going to blame 200,000 people on actions of 10-20 people?

Did you see the video? There were a whole lot more than 10-20.



By bombing Fallujah, you will kill 200,000 innocent civlians and 1000 insurgents.


There aren't 200,000 innocent civilians in Fallujah, many if not most are insurgent supporters. And, we wouldn't kill them all.



You want to purposely kill innocent people. I dont.


No, I want to kill guilty people.



Again, you don't know what jihad is. I can have a jihad of learning Qu'ran. Do you know what that means? Funding jihad movements can mean a million things, and it can be good. Your problem is you associate jihad with terrorists, which is very false.


:rolleyes: Once again you conflate the issue. The Iranian government is a state sponsor of terrorism.


Radical regime was much worse in Iran in 80s, and 90s, then it is now. It is improving every year though. It takes long time to establish a decent political system in your country.


Oh right that's why they're trying to develope nuclear weapons while talking about destroying Israel. And funding terrorist groups, including insurgents in Iraq.




No. Saddam was basically a military general who just took over the presidential/top ruler position. When Saddam was in charge, there weren't elections to give other candidates a chance to be elected.


Nor were there in Iran. The ruling whacko's selected two candidates who were comfortably whacko enough to please them, and then let the people choose which whacko would be president, a position which is ultimately subservant to grand ruler Al DeathtoAmerica.


Whereas in Iran, there will be.


:lol: Yeah, when the people of Iran overthrow the government.


We've established before you don't know history at all. US convincing Iraq to attack Iran had nothing to do with its russian relations.


The United States did not "convince" Iraq to attack Iran. In fact, they didn't even want to see the war happen. According to Richard Clarke, they only reluctantly provided any support to Saddam, and tried hard to minimize their involvement in the war.

[Atomic Rain]

The United States did not "convince" Iraq to attack Iran. In fact, they didn't even want to see the war happen. According to Richard Clarke, they only reluctantly provided any support to Saddam, and tried hard to minimize their involvement in the war.

I think if they'd tried extra-specially hard they'd've managed to not sell them weapons.

[PepsiMetal]

Were all the citizens of Berlin Nazi's? No. We still bombed it. Because that's what you do in war.

Why do you compare a country who started a world domination with a country that hasn't started one war?

That's why, according to the 9/11 Comission, Saddam had brief, loose, informal discussions with members of Al Quada? It never went anywhere, and they never worked together, but if Bin Ladin remained so hateful of Saddam, why did that happen at all?

9/11 Comission is BS. It has gotten bunch of things wrong. Bin Laden is a freedom fighter for his people, Saddam was a worthless dictator for his people.

Did you see the video? There were a whole lot more than 10-20.

It doesn't matter. Even if it's 1000 insurgents, that's still a minority when you look at 200K+ city population.


There aren't 200,000 innocent civilians in Fallujah, many if not most are insurgent supporters. And, we wouldn't kill them all.


The population estimation of Fallujah is at least 200,000. It could be as high as 350,000. And yes, most are innocent. If all people in Fallujah support insurgents, than that means all people in Iraq most likely do too, which means they don't want democracy plain and simple. So if that's true, US should just get out.


No, I want to kill guilty people.

Yea, damn those thousands of young kids and babies in Fallujah.


:rolleyes: Once again you conflate the issue. The Iranian government is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Sponsoring terrorism has nothing to do with the word jihad you seem to overuse.


Oh right that's why they're trying to develope nuclear weapons while talking about destroying Israel. And funding terrorist groups, including insurgents in Iraq.

You can't prove they're developing nuclear weapons, so that's false for now.

Wanting to replace Israel's rule with Palestinian is a common thing in the Middle East. That doesn't mean they'll take any action for that.


Nor were there in Iran. The ruling whacko's selected two candidates who were comfortably whacko enough to please them, and then let the people choose which whacko would be president, a position which is ultimately subservant to grand ruler Al DeathtoAmerica.

Umm, again, you don't know anything about Iranian politics. Everyone is whacko to you if it wasn't put in place by USA. Was shah a good ruler? lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Politics

:lol: Yeah, when the people of Iran overthrow the government.

No. Again you show in there how misinformed and uneducation about this topic you are. They overthrew Shah which US and UK had placed in rule. This today's government was the result of them overthrowing the government. Most people in Iran support Ahmadinejad, unlike Shah.

The United States did not "convince" Iraq to attack Iran. In fact, they didn't even want to see the war happen. According to Richard Clarke, they only reluctantly provided any support to Saddam, and tried hard to minimize their involvement in the war.

He worked for the government, what did you expect him to say? Do you really think he would say "Well we gave Saddam chemical weapons and helped speed his program faster so that they can use the weapons on Kurds and Iranians". No. US did in fact convince Saddam, and Donald Rumsfeld was having meetings with Saddam Hussein while he was constantly using chemical weapons.

[The End]

It's much more widespread than you say, and yes. That's how you win wars. You annihilate the enemy.




The insurgents are.



So you kill them. You bomb their strongholds. You wipe them out.




No, I want more guilty people to die.




To install a worse leader, radical Islamic whackjobs.





Iran is not a democratic society. It is a dictatorship. The religious leaders dictate who runs, and prevent any non radical nutjob from running.


YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IRAN. SHUT UP.

[Hababi]

Why do you compare a country who started a world domination with a country that hasn't started one war?

:confused: I'm talking about war tactics in WW2 against war tactics in Iraq.



9/11 Comission is BS.


:rolleyes: Ok, that officially puts you in the "ignorant extremist" camp. Only idiots on each side have attempted to slur the 9/11 Comission Report, which was a thorough, bipartisan effort.



Bin Laden is a freedom fighter for his people



:lol: FREEDOM fighter? Bin Ladin wants a global radical Islamic regime. He wants his people (and all other people) to be under a government like that of the Taliban. Do you know what that's like? If you're not a Muslim, you're executed. If you are a Muslim, but aren't practicing the same type of loopy interpretation, you are executed. If you listen to western music, you are executed. If you are a woman, and you go out without your husband, you are executed. If you go out and aren't mummified in Islamic dress, you are executed. If you steal, your hand is chopped off.

Yeah, that's real freedom fighting. Like flying planes into buildings.




, Saddam was a worthless dictator for his people.


:confused: According to some people here, he had a stable, peaceful government.



It doesn't matter. Even if it's 1000 insurgents

Ok so first we had 10-20, now we're up to 1,000. Keep going.



The population estimation of Fallujah is at least 200,000. It could be as high as 350,000. And yes, most are innocent. If all people in Fallujah support insurgents, than that means all people in Iraq most likely do too, which means they don't want democracy plain and simple. So if that's true, US should just get out.


No, support varies by city. The Kurds overwhelmingly support us. Some Shia do, some don't. Fallujah is an insurgent stronghold.

Once again, since you're not really addressing this point, in war, you bomb enemy cities. In WW2, we bombed Berlin. Was that wrong? Should we instead have marched soldiers in without first weakening enemy enforcements, thus getting many more allied forces killed than necessary?






Sponsoring terrorism has nothing to do with the word jihad you seem to overuse.


For them it does.




You can't prove they're developing nuclear weapons, so that's false for now.


They're openly flaunting their nuclear development, and flat denying all offers for the supply of peaceful nuclear energy. Why? Because they want weapons.


Wanting to replace Israel's rule with Palestinian is a common thing in the Middle East.

Developing nuclear weapons to do so is not.



Umm, again, you don't know anything about Iranian politics. Everyone is whacko to you if it wasn't put in place by USA. Was shah a good ruler? lol


Iran disqualified all non whacko candidates from running in the last election. You're a traitor.




This today's government was the result of them overthrowing the government. Most people in Iran support Ahmadinejad, unlike Shah.


Fact: revolutions are almost always the work of a dedicated minority. Lenin. Mao. Castro. Heck, even the good ones, such as the American revolution, were the work of a dedicated minority. And so was the Iranian revolution.

Fact 2: Revolutions are against weak leaders, not despotic ones. Sometimes the leaders are also despotic, but the worst rulers are almost ALWAYS never overthrown by their people.

Fact 3: Tyranny is often the result of revolutions, not the cause of it. Iran. China. Soviet Union. Cuba.

I suggest you read Brinton's Anatomy of a Revolution.


He worked for the government, what did you expect him to say? Do you really think he would say "Well we gave Saddam chemical weapons and helped speed his program faster so that they can use the weapons on Kurds and Iranians".


Right everyone who disagrees with you is lying, and those isolated few whacko's who agree with you, none of whom were in any position to know what they're talking about, are right.

[coheneran]

Ex: I can either bomb the heck out of their city and invade, or just invade. I'll conquer them both ways. But if I bomb, I'll severly weaken them to start with, and only 10 soldiers will die. A few hundred civilians will die. If I don't bomb, a couple hundred soldiers will die in the course of invading. I take the bombing option.

If you're so intent how no one dying, why don't you just not invade? Our countries have not been involved in a war that wasn't solvable by diplomacy since WWII. In fact, every single war we've been involved in was started by us. WE are the oppressors, don't fool yourself by telling yourself that the world needs to learn democracy. How do parents justify beating up their children? The usual answer is "They need to learn."

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IRAN. SHUT UP.do you actually think it's a democracy?

[coheneran]

They're openly flaunting their nuclear development, and flat denying all offers for the supply of peaceful nuclear energy. Why? Because they want weapons.

That's a lie and I can prove you wrong right now:

"On March 2 [2006], an Associated Press report made it clear that the IAEA's multi-year investigation has not shown "any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." This verdict sharply contradicts the February 4th resolution of the Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which reports Iran to the UN Security Council, and strongly challenges the US deceptive propaganda war on Iran."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060325&articleId=2171

According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (of which Iran is a signatory), any country has a right to peaceful nuclear technology for production of civilian energy.

From wiki:

"Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactions for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons."

And, just in case you haven't got the message, even the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is against nuclear weapons, and we all know he calls the shots, not Ahmadinejad:

"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna."

So you are plain wrong, fooled by the American media.

PS: The last two quotes are from wiki, just search wiki for Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[Hababi]

EDIT: On a side note, could we try and have some basic civility around these parts? I know that everyone knows that they're right and that the other guy is wrong, but it's getting kind of boring. :-/


I try :p It's much easier when I'm debating you or Smokey D ;)


It's more of a democracy than Iraq was, and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are, to give 2 examples, but I don't see how it can accurately be called a democracy.


With Saudi Arabia moving to some local elections, I'd say they're essentially on par with one another.

[what]

What exactly makes you think that the elections in Iran are false, and the elections in Iraq aren't? Just one fact that the US took part in Iraq's elections? Is that enough for you?

[coheneran]

What exactly makes you think that the elections in Iran are false, and the elections in Iraq aren't? Just one fact that the US took part in Iraq's elections? Is that enough for you?

He's a jingoistic patriot, anything is enough for him if it involves the words America, United States, Uncle Sam or Stop Communism:p.

Just a little friendly fire BDR.

[what]

hahhaa more like blind, along with tway but that ones aggresiev and spits a lot

[Reaganista]

We've established before you don't know history at all. US convincing Iraq to attack Iran had nothing to do with its russian relations. US didn't want Iran to have its own driven government in which they'll raise prices in oil, and US would have to fork over more money. Do you know how many allies Soviet Union had? And you think US attacked Iran over all of its other enemies because of that foolish reason? Yea, sure.

if selling weapons to an enemy of a country constitutes an attack, then the US 'attacked' every ally of the soviet union who was involved in a war with a Us ally or potential US ally during the cold war


I meant US could have used its own troops to finish Iraq off. Damn you're an idiot. And again, I say this, US didn't need anyone's help to finish Iraq in the first gulf war.
It doesn't matter what the US needed, what they had was 420,000 foreign troops in Iraq on a mission to stop the invasion of kuwait
I'm not even sure what it is you think this line of disscussion will serve to do, besides demonstrate your ignorance

[PepsiMetal]

do you actually think it's a democracy?

Nobody said it's a democracy. But it is a republic theocracy, if you can't accept that, then yes, you don't know nothing about Iranian politics. Which is what BDR is doing.

Ok so first we had 10-20, now we're up to 1,000. Keep going.

You still fail to see the point. Insurgents in Fallujah are a minority, not a majority. Bombing the whole city will not eliminate insurgents. Period. If you don't understand that, then I can't explain it any easier.

It doesn't matter what the US needed, what they had was 420,000 foreign troops in Iraq on a mission to stop the invasion of kuwait
I'm not even sure what it is you think this line of disscussion will serve to do, besides demonstrate your ignorance

You still don't get it. USA DIDN'T HAVE TO USE FOREIGN TROOPS. They had thousands of its own troops in the middle east. What don't you understand about that?

What exactly makes you think that the elections in Iran are false, and the elections in Iraq aren't? Just one fact that the US took part in Iraq's elections? Is that enough for you?

Him + Tway = Ultimate Ignorance

If Iran made it's own FULLY working democracy, they would still complain and will keep complaining unless US puts their democracy in. Iran hasn't started one war in the whole century, yet they still think Iran's the bigger evil than Iraq. That is ignorance at it's worst.

[coheneran]

Did BDR fail to reply to my post because it pwned him good?

[The End]

I try :p It's much easier when I'm debating you or Smokey D ;)



With Saudi Arabia moving to some local elections, I'd say they're essentially on par with one another.

no you don't actually

[Reaganista]

You still don't get it. USA DIDN'T HAVE TO USE FOREIGN TROOPS. They had thousands of its own troops in the middle east. What don't you understand about that?

why should the US act unilaterally when 33 countries were willing to help out?