Sickeningstory

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

It's hard to say what would happen if the U.S did pull out completely from the Middle East. We could hope that might be the first step towards ending the cycle of violence, but then again, it's this cycle of violence that makes the rich rich and the poor poor in this world.  I think we can both agree this is a far more complicated issue with no quick and easy answers. Maybe if that asteroid would've hit the other day....

[Guest TheMikeSC]

It's hard to say what would happen if the U.S did pull out completely from the Middle East. We could hope that might be the first step towards ending the cycle of violence

 

 

It won't.

 

 

but then again, it's this cycle of violence that makes the rich rich and the poor poor in this world.

 

 

No, the poor are poor because their governments are inept. Why have the state-run economies of the Muslim countries in the Middle East done nothing in terms of laying infrastructure for an economy not based solely upon oil? Ever wonder why Israel is the only country that is doing well economically over there? It isn't our aid.

 

In the past twenty years, while their population has doubled, their share of the world's economy has dropped like a rock---largely because ALL they have is oil. They don't develop ANTHING to either replace oil or supplement it. You can find few countries that export LESS (if one takes oil out of the equation) than do the Muslim oil fiefdoms.

 

 

I think we can both agree this is a far more complicated issue with no quick and easy answers. Maybe if that asteroid would've hit the other day....

 

 

 

Until the governments stop their inept controlling of the economy, they will be dirt poor for eternity.

                        -=Mike

[Guest]

Time for another history lesson, Mikey.  This time let's take a peek at Ramsey Clarks' The Fire This Time and look at how the Gulf War started.  It all began back in the late '70s when Bush Seinor organized the October suprise and traded arms and money to the Shah of Iran to initiate the hostage crisis that got Regan elected.  The Regan/Bush team, worried about the degree to which economic development is allowing Iraq and Iran to compete with American interests in the Gulf (both militarily and economically), decides to back Saddam Hussein's military faction in Iraq.  This decision is based primarily on Hussein's hard-line stance on the long-simmering border conflict between Iraq and Iran.  With America's blessing and support, Iraq fires the first salvos of a war that lasts over a decade and costs over a million lives.  By the war's end, Iran is devestated and Iraq is little better off (hardly the military powerhouse the Bush government made it out to be when the "crisis"  came to a head), and Bush sees a clear opportunity to consolidate the power of U.S. private oil interests in the region once and for all (Bush's background in oil speaks for itself as to his own obvious personal economic motivation here).  Having quietly built up U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia (where they were primarily engaged in quashing anti-Saud demonstrations), Bush encourages Kuwait to make dozens of border incursions into Iraqui soverign territory, seizing Iraqui oil wells and displacing thousands of Iraqui citizens.  Thus goaded, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Bush's military swung into action.  Compare: 300 Kuwaiti citizens were killed in the Iraqui invastion, 150,000 Iraqui civilians were killed by the U.S. bombing campaign and subsequent sanctions.  However, Bush does not topple Saddam (despite the fact that the U.S. government has overthrown plenty of governments in the past) so that he can retain his foil in the Gulf, not only to maintain the sense of terror in the region but to justify an enormous and costly American military presence (a presence which hugely benefits many of his close personal friends in the defense contracting industry, including the current Vice President).

  So, why do the Saudis hate us?  Because we prop up an corrupt, repressive, fundamentalist government in their nation.  Why do the Kuwaitis hate us?  Because we used them as bait against Saddam and now we treat the whole country like a fiefdom because we "saved" them in a war we provoked.  I know you're hung up on the us vs. them thing because got to admit that it's America's foreign policy in the Gulf that has by and large provoked a LOT of these negative feelings.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Time for another history lesson, Mikey.  This time let's take a peek at Ramsey Clarks' The Fire This Time and look at how the Gulf War started.  It all began back in the late '70s when Bush Seinor organized the October suprise and traded arms and money to the Shah of Iran to initiate the hostage crisis that got Regan elected.

 

 

Oh please. You actually BUY that bilge about Bush Sr. and Reagan having ANYTHING to do with the October Surprise?

 

And you have the gall to call ME naive?

 

There is NOTHING to tie Bush to it. The Dems in Congress tried in the early 90's and came up with absolutely nothing.

 

 

The Regan/Bush team, worried about the degree to which economic development is allowing Iraq and Iran to compete with American interests in the Gulf (both militarily and economically), decides to back Saddam Hussein's military faction in Iraq.

 

 

We back Iraq because we dislike Iran more. It's more of a "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.

 

 

This decision is based primarily on Hussein's hard-line stance on the long-simmering border conflict between Iraq and Iran.  With America's blessing and support, Iraq fires the first salvos of a war that lasts over a decade and costs over a million lives.

 

 

Yup, it did. Since both sides were equally wrong, it's hard to really feel bad. It's like when the Nazis attacked Soviet Russia---the only bad side is that MORE didn't die.

 

 

By the war's end, Iran is devestated and Iraq is little better off (hardly the military powerhouse the Bush government made it out to be when the "crisis"  came to a head), and Bush sees a clear opportunity to consolidate the power of U.S. private oil interests in the region once and for all (Bush's background in oil speaks for itself as to his own obvious personal economic motivation here).

 

 

Did oil have anything to do with the U.S fighting for Kuwait? Yes.

 

Yet you seem to miss Kuwaiti officials BEGGING us to help them. BEGGING us. We decided to do it.

 

 

Having quietly built up U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia (where they were primarily engaged in quashing anti-Saud demonstrations), Bush encourages Kuwait to make dozens of border incursions into Iraqui soverign territory, seizing Iraqui oil wells and displacing thousands of Iraqui citizens.

 

 

Good lord, can you fabricate a few more things?

 

I love this whole "The world is innocent save for whomever gets U.S support" line of thinking. It's absurd, but it's humorous.

 

 

Thus goaded, Iraq invaded Kuwait and Bush's military swung into action.  Compare: 300 Kuwaiti citizens were killed in the Iraqui invastion, 150,000 Iraqui civilians were killed by the U.S. bombing campaign and subsequent sanctions.

 

 

WRONG! 100% wrong.

 

The Iraqi civilian deaths are SOLELY due to Saddam hoarding money and not giving ANY to the people. Funny that he can still afford to buy progressively more palaces for himself while the state-run economy can't supply food for the citizenry.

 

You're so misguided here it almost is stunning.

 

 

However, Bush does not topple Saddam (despite the fact that the U.S. government has overthrown plenty of governments in the past) so that he can retain his foil in the Gulf, not only to maintain the sense of terror in the region but to justify an enormous and costly American military presence (a presence which hugely benefits many of his close personal friends in the defense contracting industry, including the current Vice President).

 

 

Good lord, combining paranoia AND an incredible lack of actual factual knowledge. We didn't topple Saddam because we worried about losing the coalition we had.

 

 

So, why do the Saudis hate us?  Because we prop up an corrupt, repressive, fundamentalist government in their nation.

 

 

Yet the government hates us. Odd.

 

 

Why do the Kuwaitis hate us?  Because we used them as bait against Saddam and now we treat the whole country like a fiefdom because we "saved" them in a war we provoked.

 

 

What a load o' crap. Saddam attacked Kuwait because he felt they were a province of Iraq.

 

Kuwait BEGGED us to save them and we, stupidly, did so.

 

Hopefully, we've learned a lesson and will, in the future, allow the conquered country to rot.

 

 

I know you're hung up on the us vs. them thing because got to admit that it's America's foreign policy in the Gulf that has by and large provoked a LOT of these negative feelings.

 

 

No, you're clutching at ANY straw that might be used to make the U.S look like the bad guy, no matter how spurious (or downright FALSE) your "information" is.

                                    -=Mike

[Guest DrTom]

Chris, for the sake of consistency, I'm going to reproduce here the reply I posted to you on my own forum earlier this evening:

 

More moral relativism, Chris?

 

You can't just "replace Islam with Judaism." Know why? Because they're *nothing alike!* Maybe trite substitutions like that work when you're trying to paint someone with ridiculously broad strokes ("you sound exactly like a Nazi."), but I can't see an actually constructive use for them. When the Jews start flying planes into American skyscrapers, sponsoring campaigns of terror around the world, and clinging to a horribly outmoded, inflexible form of religion that fails in every way when applied to a government, be sure to let me know.

 

Does the crime "belong to the entire Islamic world?" No, but it certainly belongs to a group of countries who routinely carry out atrocities like the one described in the article (and worse ones, in many cases), all in the name of religion. Or at least, the way they choose to interpret a religion that doesn't necessarily force women to be third-class citizens, doesn't put its followers at war with the world, and doesn't make killing nonbelievers dogma. See, Chris, it's their *choice* to interpret Islam the way they do. The fact that it seems to be the most common interpretation simply means that disparate people will arrive at the same stupid, revolting conclusion sometimes.

 

It's pretty obvious they don't care about their people, or at least half their people. They choose to interpret Islam strictly, which leads to barbarism, murder, torture, and all kinds of fun things in the name of praising god. That culture knows nothing else. There are no crusaders for human rights. There are no Martin Luther Kings; there are no voices for change; there is nothing but the ironclad law passed down by a strict, blind interpretation of a religion.

 

Islam inevitably leads to oppression, strife, and gloom. While Judaism (or Judeo-Christianity, if you prefer) isn't perfect, the same conclusion can't be reached in its case.

 

As for the second half of what I said? I thought it was a fairly obvious exaggeration, but I'm never suprised when a liberal runs the Olympic Mile with someone else's offhand remark.

 

To clarify: No, I don't think we should bomb Muslim countries into oblivion. At least not for the shoddy way they treat their own people.

[Guest DrTom]

Ok, now for your second reply.

 

"Well, he should specify that the govt's are the evil ones, an not call for yet another mass bombing campaign against innocent people.  Mike, do not read between the lines there.  I thought Doc was one of the most intelligent people here, so he's the last one I would expect to say something like that.  If you want to excuse any word of his statement, then shame on you and shame on anyone else in this country who wants to bomb anyone into oblivion...."

 

I thought the fact I was referring to the governments was a rather simple conclusion to reach.  The religion and the culture and intertwined (much to the detriment of the citizenry), and both propagate the brutal regimes in those countries.  

 

The fact that anyone is surprised, shocked, angered, offended, or otherwise put upon by another person expressing outrage over a completely preventable atrocity is unsettling.  These wackos let young girls BURN TO DEATH because they might have been showing an inch or two of flesh had they tried to save themselves.  I've never burned to death, but I've gotten a couple nasty burns in my day, and I know I didn't enjoy them.  I can't imagine being caught in a fire until your flesh bursts, your blood boils, the fat in your body liquefies and pours out like wax... not a pretty picture.  But that's what the government inflicted upon young girls, because their blind, stupid, strict interpretation of their useless and inflexible religion demanded it.

 

Let THEM burn, says I.  No, I don't think we should go around bombing countries for things like that (again, I thought that statement was a fairly obvious hyperbole borne of frustration nd outrage).  But we SHOULD sever all political and monetary ties to them, let them twist in the wind, and keep a close eye on them in the future.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Chris, for the sake of consistency, I'm going to reproduce here the reply I posted to you on my own forum earlier this evening:

 

More moral relativism, Chris?

 

You can't just "replace Islam with Judaism." Know why? Because they're *nothing alike!*

 

 

Thank you. Judaism and Christianity have proven to be religions that don't require an entire country to live by their religious dogma. Israel may be a Jewish state, but the government is NOT a Jewish theocracy. The U.S my be a Christian state, but we are not a Christian theocracy.

 

Christianity AND Judaism have had movements to discuss problems with the religious teachings while th Islamic religion STILL demands death to ANYBODY who simply tries to figure out WHEN the Koran was written.

 

 

Maybe trite substitutions like that work when you're trying to paint someone with ridiculously broad strokes ("you sound exactly like a Nazi."), but I can't see an actually constructive use for them.

 

 

Would Chris be stunned to learn that "Mein Kampf" is a best-seller in Palestine presently? The Nazi references are FAR more apropos for the Islamic states.

 

 

When the Jews start flying planes into American skyscrapers, sponsoring campaigns of terror around the world, and clinging to a horribly outmoded, inflexible form of religion that fails in every way when applied to a government, be sure to let me know.

 

 

Hmmm, I notice that Israel has suffered, I think, two suicide bombings AT THE OUTSET OF THE "PEACE PROCESS".

 

Yet, as always, Israel is the bad guy.

 

Heck, I don't deny that Christianity didn't handle running a government terribly well---but I hesitate to think that the Christian-run states of the Medieval world were as backwards as the Islamic states are.

 

 

Does the crime "belong to the entire Islamic world?" No, but it certainly belongs to a group of countries who routinely carry out atrocities like the one described in the article (and worse ones, in many cases), all in the name of religion.

 

 

It's not even like the story I posted was THAT shocking for that part of the world. Let's not forget that one of these countries planned on KILLING a woman for getting raped (the rapist, of course, got nothing). Their treatment of women is misogyny of a mind-boggling level.

 

 

Or at least, the way they choose to interpret a religion that doesn't necessarily force women to be third-class citizens

 

 

Women aren't high enough in the eyes of the radical Islam to be viewed as being "third-class citizens". ANIMALS are held in higher regard than women---which begs the question of why any woman would want to be a Muslim.

 

 

doesn't put its followers at war with the world, and doesn't make killing nonbelievers dogma. See, Chris, it's their *choice* to interpret Islam the way they do. The fact that it seems to be the most common interpretation simply means that disparate people will arrive at the same stupid, revolting conclusion sometimes.

 

 

Well, since the governments tightly control what the people see (even Iran's "reformist" President is exceptionally pro-censorship), the people don't have a choice.

 

Again, it's no different than the Medieval era. Why did people blindly follow the Church's teachings? Because they were unable to read the Bible themselves.

 

 

It's pretty obvious they don't care about their people, or at least half their people. They choose to interpret Islam strictly, which leads to barbarism, murder, torture, and all kinds of fun things in the name of praising god. That culture knows nothing else. There are no crusaders for human rights. There are no Martin Luther Kings; there are no voices for change; there is nothing but the ironclad law passed down by a strict, blind interpretation of a religion.

 

 

Well, people have TRIED to change Islam---they just tend to have death sentences passed unto them by the Islamic church.

 

 

Islam inevitably leads to oppression, strife, and gloom. While Judaism (or Judeo-Christianity, if you prefer) isn't perfect, the same conclusion can't be reached in its case.

 

 

Absolutely not. As somebody once pointed out, there is not a Muslim-run country out there that has shown an ability to live peacefully with non-Muslim countries.

 

I'll guarantee that if Israel wasn't attacked, they wouldn't attack a single Muslim country around them.

 

 

As for the second half of what I said? I thought it was a fairly obvious exaggeration, but I'm never suprised when a liberal runs the Olympic Mile with someone else's offhand remark.

 

To clarify: No, I don't think we should bomb Muslim countries into oblivion. At least not for the shoddy way they treat their own people.

 

 

No--but when they treat the world in a similar fashion, I say we unleash misery upon them that they've only read about.

                      -=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Ok, now for your second reply.

 

"Well, he should specify that the govt's are the evil ones, an not call for yet another mass bombing campaign against innocent people.  Mike, do not read between the lines there.  I thought Doc was one of the most intelligent people here, so he's the last one I would expect to say something like that.  If you want to excuse any word of his statement, then shame on you and shame on anyone else in this country who wants to bomb anyone into oblivion...."

 

I thought the fact I was referring to the governments was a rather simple conclusion to reach.  The religion and the culture and intertwined (much to the detriment of the citizenry), and both propagate the brutal regimes in those countries.  

 

 

In those countries, the Islamic church IS the culture.

 

 

The fact that anyone is surprised, shocked, angered, offended, or otherwise put upon by another person expressing outrage over a completely preventable atrocity is unsettling.  These wackos let young girls BURN TO DEATH because they might have been showing an inch or two of flesh had they tried to save themselves.

 

 

Not only that, they warned others against helping them, calling the YOUNG GIRLS, if memory serves, "sinful" (or saving them would be "sinful"---God only knows).

 

 

I've never burned to death, but I've gotten a couple nasty burns in my day, and I know I didn't enjoy them.  I can't imagine being caught in a fire until your flesh bursts, your blood boils, the fat in your body liquefies and pours out like wax... not a pretty picture.  But that's what the government inflicted upon young girls, because their blind, stupid, strict interpretation of their useless and inflexible religion demanded it.

 

 

These police beat people who don't do their daily prayers (and, rest assured, their beatings make the Rodney King beating look like a day in the park). They harass people who don't subscribe to THEIR Muslim philosophy.

 

 

Let THEM burn, says I.  No, I don't think we should go around bombing countries for things like that (again, I thought that statement was a fairly obvious hyperbole borne of frustration nd outrage).  But we SHOULD sever all political and monetary ties to them, let them twist in the wind, and keep a close eye on them in the future.

 

 

Absolutely. These countries are dirt-poor because their government and the imams of the church refuse to accept even the mildest reforms to make the lives of their citizenry better.

 

I feel for the citizens, I really do---but don't expect me to be sympathetic to any country that will condemn little girls to death by fire.

                    -=Mike

[Guest]

As if we needed more evidence that Islamic countries have a corrupt, morally repugnant, and just plain stupid religion and culture.  There are times I regret saying we shouldn't just bomb them all into oblivion, and this is one of those times.

You jackass. You don't like there religion so we should bomb them to fuck? Not all of them are like that.

[Guest]

Why does Kuwait hate us? Can you explain THAT one away? We only, you know, SAVED THEM. They support Palestine when Arafat, you know, SUPPORTED SADDAM IN THE INVASION OF KUWAIT.

 

Why does Egypt hate us, considering that we give them a ton of money every friggin' year?

 

Why does Saudi Arabia hate us when we're the ones who keep the inept, corrupt Saud family in power?

 

You said there reasons make no sense but what are they anyway?

[Guest DrTom]

"You jackass. You don't like there [sic] religion so we should bomb them to fuck? Not all of them are like that."

 

Maybe you should try reading more carefully next time, slugger.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

Tom, I see your point, and if I came off as being callous and uncaring towards what happened to those school-children, then I apologize, because their is no justification for what they did, and there is no justification for any government, Islamic or not, to act in a fascist manner towards its people.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

You jackass. You don't like there religion so we should bomb them to fuck? Not all of them are like that.

Sigh, go back to the WWF forum unless you actually have something to contribute.  One line posts calling one of the smartest posters at thesmarks a jackass (when it was you that misinterpretted what he was saying) aren't going to go over well here.  You should also get the there/their thing straight, you messed it up in both your posts.

[Guest El Satanico]

Ok just to keep with the original topic yes that is a horrible story. Ok with that out of the way

 

I fail to see how many of you can justify Israel attacking and fighting back but then condemn Palestine for doing the same. It's just silly to act like one side or the other is fully responsible for their war.

 

Israel was moved into Palestine land and they weren't pleased with that and didn't welcome the "invasion". So they did what you do when you believe you're being invaded and attacked. Then Israel answered back thus starting a war. Palestine didn't get Israel out of their land but they still want them out so to this day they attack them and get attacked back. I don't see how one side or the other can be considered the good guys while the other side is considered vile evil animals. Seeing as how one side(Palestine) had a good reason(there's truly never a good reason) to wage a war, then the other side(Israel) of course "had" to fight back.

 

War's hell and neither side should be justified in their attacks even if they were attacked originally. A country SHOULDN'T be condemned for attacking in answer for being attacked but they shouldn't be justified either. Trading attacks back and forth for long enough will make who started it meaningless and the only thing that comes from it is alot of dead people. So honestly who cares who attacks who first neither side should do it or be justified.

 

Is either side right for continuing it instead of actually trying to end it peacefully after so many years, of course not. Both sides are wrong and neither side is a bigger monster then the other. Sure Palestine may have fired the first shot so many years ago but Israel moving in(even if they had no say in where they went) is why they attacked thus causing the war. The fact that it started a long time and that most who were directly affected by the "invasion" are dead, doesn't automatically mean that neither side(and/or both sides) should still be angry over it enough to kill and die in its name.

 

Lets say Mexico and Canada got an Army together and with the backing of many countries actually led a successful non-violent Invasion of the United States(not exactly like Israel's "invasion" of Palestine but it's as close as you can get concerning the US). Wouldn't you EXPECT to witness a large portion of the US attacking this "Invading" force thus starting a war? Since Canada/Mexico took over without violence does that mean America would be totally responsible for starting this? If this happened and Canada/Mexico ended up winning the war don't you fully believe that People who still consider themselves American and not whatever Canada/Mexico becomes would still be attacking and waging war on the enemy 50 years after it all started.

 

Sure you may claim my comparison is absurd but it is basically the same situation.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Again, it's no different than the Medieval era. Why did people blindly follow the Church's teachings? Because they were unable to read the Bible themselves.

 

Actually, they didn't for the most part, at least from the late 11th Century on, which is really considered the beginning of the Middle Ages.  And there is one key difference, with rare exceptions, the Governments and the Church NEVER got along.  The Reformation of the 16th Century didn't happen overnight.  People were pissed off for about the past 400-500 years with the way the Church was run.  That said, the Catholic Church was far more leniant than the governments of the modern Middle Eastern nations.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Ok just to keep with the original topic yes that is a horrible story. Ok with that out of the way

 

I fail to see how many of you can justify Israel attacking and fighting back but then condemn Palestine for doing the same. It's just silly to act like one side or the other is fully responsible for their war.

 

 

It's the line between self-defense and cold-blooded murder. When did the Israeli army begin going after Palestinians---when Israel got sick of the never-ending wave of suicide bombers. They didn't INITIATE this and, say what you will about Sharon, they were ATTEMPTING TO NEGOTIATE PEACE and have been hit by THREE suicide bombers.

 

I'm amazed that anybody can attempt to use moral relativism to excuse Arafat's evil in this regard.

 

 

Israel was moved into Palestine land and they weren't pleased with that and didn't welcome the "invasion". So they did what you do when you believe you're being invaded and attacked. Then Israel answered back thus starting a war.

 

 

If Palestine ATTACKED Israel first (your words here), then how did Israel's response START the war?

 

It's like saying Poland's attempt to fight back against Hitler is what caused World War II to erupt.

 

When a country INITIATES an attack, they START the war.

 

And, keep in mind, Palestine has not existed since 1948. It's no different than if a bunch of drunken rednecks down here decided to attack Ft. Jackson because it's "invading" on the sovereign ground of the Confederate States of America. If the army ended up killing them after they initiated an attack, would ANYBODY say that the army was even MODERATELY responsible for the incident?

 

 

Palestine didn't get Israel out of their land but they still want them out so to this day they attack them and get attacked back. I don't see how one side or the other can be considered the good guys while the other side is considered vile evil animals.

 

 

One side attacks. One side RESPONDS. Big difference.

 

 

Seeing as how one side(Palestine) had a good reason(there's truly never a good reason) to wage a war, then the other side(Israel) of course "had" to fight back.

 

 

I think protection of your citizens from terrorists sponsored by a terrorist organization (the PLO) is a pretty darned good reason to fight.

 

 

War's hell and neither side should be justified in their attacks even if they were attacked originally. A country SHOULDN'T be condemned for attacking in answer for being attacked but they shouldn't be justified either.

 

 

They ABSOLUTELY should be justified. If a country attacks you, you have two options---capitulate or fight back. If Israel capitulates, its citizenry is looking at another Holocaust (and don't for a moment think the Muslim states wouldn't do it).

 

Thus, the choice is remarkably easy.

 

 

Trading attacks back and forth for long enough will make who started it meaningless and the only thing that comes from it is alot of dead people.

 

 

Is ANYTHING worth fighting for? Has there EVER been a justified war? Should the North have just LET the South secede and give up all of the military installations just because the South attacked Ft. Sumter?

 

Should the Allies have just not fought Hitler and let him kill however many millions he would've ended up killing?

 

There are JUSTIFIABLE wars. There are times when taking another person's life is justifiable and correct.

 

 

So honestly who cares who attacks who first neither side should do it or be justified.

 

Is either side right for continuing it instead of actually trying to end it peacefully after so many years, of course not. Both sides are wrong and neither side is a bigger monster then the other.

 

 

Israel was trying to negotiate peace. Palestinians STILL attacked them. How can Israel hope to live in the same world as people like this?

 

 

Sure Palestine may have fired the first shot so many years ago but Israel moving in(even if they had no say in where they went) is why they attacked thus causing the war.

 

 

Well, gee, then I guess the Palestinians aren't bad after all. Palestine has NO claim to statehood presently. They are just a group of militant thugs who hate Jews.

 

That's about it.

 

 

The fact that it started a long time and that most who were directly affected by the "invasion" are dead, doesn't automatically mean that neither side(and/or both sides) should still be angry over it enough to kill and die in its name.

 

 

If Israel doesn't fight back, their citizenry will be killed in a manner that would make Stalin blush.

 

 

Lets say Mexico and Canada got an Army together and with the backing of many countries actually led a successful non-violent Invasion of the United States(not exactly like Israel's "invasion" of Palestine but it's as close as you can get concerning the US). Wouldn't you EXPECT to witness a large portion of the US attacking this "Invading" force thus starting a war?

 

 

Except that Palestine's existence in 1948 was questionable. Britain didn't want to deal with it any longer.

 

 

Since Canada/Mexico took over without violence does that mean America would be totally responsible for starting this?

 

 

If America starts killing innocents, yes, then we would be.

 

 

If this happened and Canada/Mexico ended up winning the war don't you fully believe that People who still consider themselves American and not whatever Canada/Mexico becomes would still be attacking and waging war on the enemy 50 years after it all started.

 

 

Yes.

 

And they'd be wrong.

 

 

Sure you may claim my comparison is absurd but it is basically the same situation.

 

 

Except that, well, it's not close to being the same.

 

Time for an exercise:

 

Do you think Jews in Palestine would have NEARLY as many rights as Palestinians in Israel?

 

No, of course not.

                           -=Mike

[Guest]

Mike, for Chrissakes, will you please set off your quotes? Your posts are damn near unreadable.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

I can't figure out which comments are yours.

[Guest]

First of all, I have to agree with these last two guys, Mike.  Your method of posting is so irritating (and really, so demonstrative of a complete lack of creativity or intellectual initiative) that I've more or less stopped reading them all the way through.  You still have a very weak grasp of the exact nature of the founding of Israel and the colonial history of Palestine, but I don't expect anything but the conventional line from you anyway.  And as a matter of fact, the Jews in Palestine before Zionism WERE treated better and afforded more legal rights than the Palestinians in Israel today.  Oh, and I love how you assume that all Palestinians are anti-Semetic but you won't hear of the converse (for example, that much of the Zionist literature is quite racially charged and expressly anti-Arab).  Face it, you hate Arabs and your prejudice won't let you see two sides to this story.  Maybe you should work for an airline...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<First of all, I have to agree with these last two guys, Mike.>>>

 

 

Sniff. Gee, that hurts. Honestly.

 

 

<<<Your method of posting is so irritating (and really, so demonstrative of a complete lack of creativity or intellectual initiative) that I've more or less stopped reading them all the way through.>>>

 

 

Well, it explains the lack of intellect in your replies.

 

Then again, your replies have always been less than intelligent, so this probably isn't a good defense for that problem.

 

 

<<<You still have a very weak grasp of the exact nature of the founding of Israel and the colonial history of Palestine>>>

 

 

Yup, the problem is all with me. Suuure. As always, anybody who has a differing viewpoint from the left just doesn't understand the problem. Got it.

 

You, young sir, are a walking cliche of American liberalism.

 

 

<<, but I don't expect anything but the conventional line from you anyway.>>>

 

 

Man, taking this all kind of personally, aren't ya?

 

Oh, but I guess only you know all of the facts, huh?

 

 

<<<And as a matter of fact, the Jews in Palestine before Zionism WERE treated better and afforded more legal rights than the Palestinians in Israel today.>>>

 

 

Wrong---but thanks for playing. You are so completely wrong that it's either intentional or you're just blinded by your liberal irrationality.

 

 

<<<Oh, and I love how you assume that all Palestinians are anti-Semetic but you won't hear of the converse (for example, that much of the Zionist literature is quite racially charged and expressly anti-Arab).>>>

 

 

Did I say they weren't anti-Arab? I said that they didn't INITIATE this fight---something YOU have said more than once.

 

But, again, I expect this from you.

 

If you have no point to make, at least say it.

 

 

<<<Face it, you hate Arabs and your prejudice won't let you see two sides to this story.  Maybe you should work for an airline... >>>

 

 

Ah, the liberal has his feelings hurt and is lashing out.

 

Gee, who'd have guessed that a left-winger would be so immature?

 

When you grow up, maybe you should try educating yourself a little better.

                       -=Mike