Israel Lobby Too Powerful?

[José]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Only the Palis have done so in modern times.

I see... after WWII the US underwent an almost religous experience through which it recognised that targetting civilians in wars is morally wrong.

Yeah right.

This has nothing to do with ancient, modern or pre historic times, this has to do with the fact that the US, having the most powerful army in the history of mankind, can choose between a wide variety of means to conduct a military confrontation.

Contrast this with the situation palestinian arabs find themselves in.

Palestinian arabs are a pathetically weak third world people facing one of the biggest military machines ever created.

But allow me to be consistent here:

From a philosophical standpoint, nothing can be used to justify the targetting of civilians, not even poverty.

I’m just pointing out that their choices on how to conduct their armed struggle is much more limited than those available to the US.

NATO and yourself have already conceded the point that, given the right circumstances, the US might resort to this tactic again.

Originally posted by NATO AIR
Disgusting as he is, he makes a point worth bearing in mind. We are far too kind in this war on terrorism, and our enemies know it. I don't think this will be a problem for much longer, because after the next terror attacks on US soil, I don't think there will be anybody listening to the mantra of human rights and avoiding collateral damage. It will become a true war against the terrrorists, their supporters and those who aid and abet them, as well as the innocent caught in the middle. Much more like Dresden than Baghdad.

Moussaoui Mocks Sailor/9/11 Suffering

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30959

And there’s another thing Kathianne.

I remember perfectly well that you created a thread a long time ago containing an op piece stating more or less the same thing Nato said:

Future attacks against America might provoke, not a devastating response with conventional weapons as NATO said, but a nuclear retaliation.

You can say all you want this is the opinion of the author but the fact you posted the article clearly shows you agree with him/her.

I couldn’t find the thread cuz it is too old, but maybe old timers like Dillo and Avenger remember this thread.

According to NATO and Kathianne it will take only another large scale terrorist attack to make the US abandon their present policy regarding civilians.

If carpet bombing and nuclear retaliation are always on the table as options for the US to achieve its political goals and has in fact been used in the past, I can hardly see how anyone can establish a sharp demarcation between the methods used by the US and palestinians.

And this is true indeed, the protection of civilians is not an “inherent” characteristic of any country in the world, it is a calculated political decision made by the leaders of a given country who judge that this course of action is in their country’s best interest.

See, what I mean, members of the US Message Board??

This is the standard behaviour of a S.P.A.C.:

Instead of recognising the obvious fact that their own country displays the same basic characteristics of all other tribes, kingdoms and countries in the history of mankind (for example, a certain degree of dehumanisation of the enemy, both soldiers and civilians) they come up with a million excuses and subterfuges to shield the US from valid criticism.

Never did this in modern times, a necessary act to quickly end the war, the soviets would invade Japan, blah, blah, blah, blah...

Let’s stop with all these pathetic excuses and recognise the obvious:

1) In philosophical terms civilians should be spared in all military confrontations.

2) But in practical terms, as far as the real world is concerned, all tribes, even the most powerful ones who could afford the cost of fighting only soldiers, choose not to, given the appropriate circumstances and national interests.

The first statement refers to how all tribes SHOULD be, the second one refers to how tribes REALLY are.

 

[José]

This is the main difference between super patriotic american clowns, the anti US crowd and serious political thinkers:

A super patriotic american clown has two set of standards by which they judge political entities and their actions: an extremely lenient set of standards by which they judge the US and a much more strict one by which they judge the rest of the world.

The anti-US crowd also uses two set of standards: one for the US (extremely tough) and another one to the rest of the world (much more accommodating).

And this is exactly what separates a serious political thinker from these two groups of clowns:

A serious thinker does not discuss international affairs like he discuss sports, his team’s results, when he is under no obligation to be objetive being tottally free to be as partial and biased as he wants.

Before he makes any judgment on the values and conduct of any political entity he always asks himself:

“Am I judging this particular country or people by the same standards I judge all the others?

Or am I raising or lowering the bar unjustifiably?”

Let me explain this in greater detail using the example I gave in a previous post:

When America uses terrorist methods to win a conflict, he recognises these methods as such, but he does not use them as a pretext to invalidate America’s goal in Germany and Japan, for instance.

On the contrary, he is the first one to admit that America broke with a fairly consistent tradition of victorious countries: to install a puppet government and exploit the defeated countries.

He recognises the fact that America turned a racial and a military dictatorship into two democratic, free countries.

He recognises that in this moment in history he saw America at its finest.

Similarly, when he sees the use of terrorist tactics by Palestinians, a serious political thinker does not deny the fact they are targeting non-combatants, innocent people but he also affirms that these tactics does not invalidate their fight against the racial dictatorship created on their land.

He recognises the fact that no group of human beings in the world has the right to deny another group their right to live in their own homeland.

He recognises the morally depraved nature of the principles of ethnic supremacism upon which Israel, like all racial dictatorships, are built and sustained.

He vigorously state that in democratic countries, the safety of a given ethnic group is maintained, not through racial supremacism, but through a series of protective measures to prevent any ethnic group from seizing absolute, uncontrolled political power and start discriminating the other.

To make a long story short, being a serious political thinker is basically an attempt to judge all countries and peoples by the same standards and paramenters, in a fair manner, including the US.

 

[José]

Originally posted by bush lover
A further question Jose: Does Tibet have a right to be independent, or do the Commie Chinese have a right to own it just because they took it over in 1949?

Excellent question, bush lover, excellent...

You know... I always wanted to create a thread about the chinese occupation of Tibet and now you gave me the opportunity to discuss it here.

I strongly support the right of the tibetan people to self determination and the end of the illegal chinese occupation.

But look... this does not mean I support a return to the pre 49 regime.

The western media likes to romanticise pre 49 Tibet, describing it as a utopian shangri-la, ruled by gentle monks.

The fact is that Tibet was a medieval buddhist theocracy where people had to pay taxes to the buddhist hierarchy.

I support the end of the chinese occupation and its replacement by a democratic, secular state where buddhism is just another religion in terms of rights and duties.

You know...

A part of me admires the tibetan people for their peaceful ways.

But another part of me tells me: the tibetan people should discard the advice of pacifist leaders like the Dalai Lama and start an armed struggle to free their country from chinese occupation.

Before I get spanked by no1tovotefor and the other buddhist members, let me say, I know full well how ridiculous it is to ask the tibetan people to fight for their land.

I know violent struggle seems to be absent in their national character. And I have a great deal of respect for that.

But China is a brutal dictatorship that cares little about the civil rights of Han chinese themselves, let alone Tibetans, so it is highly unlikely that Tibetans will succeed in liberating their country by peaceful means.

The message sent by the palestinian people to the tibetan people is clear and true, bush lover:

“Tibetans, if you don’t fight for your land, the only thing you get is a thankful invader.”

 

[Annie]

I see... after WWII the US underwent an almost religous experience through which it recognised that targetting civilians in wars is morally wrong.

Yeah right.

This has nothing to do with ancient, modern or pre historic times, this has to do with the fact that the US, having the most powerful army in the history of mankind, can choose between a wide variety of means to conduct a military confrontation.

Contrast this with the situation palestinian arabs find themselves in.

Palestinian arabs are a pathetically weak third world people facing one of the biggest military machines ever created.

But allow me to be consistent here:

From a philosophical standpoint, nothing can be used to justify the targetting of civilians, not even poverty.

I’m just pointing out that their choices on how to conduct their armed struggle is much more limited than those available to the US.

NATO and yourself have already conceded the point that, given the right circumstances, the US might resort to this tactic again.



And there’s another thing Kathianne.

I remember perfectly well that you created a thread a long time ago containing an op piece stating more or less the same thing Nato said:

Future attacks against America might provoke, not a devastating response with conventional weapons as NATO said, but a nuclear retaliation.

You can say all you want this is the opinion of the author but the fact you posted the article clearly shows you agree with him/her.

I couldn’t find the thread cuz it is too old, but maybe old timers like Dillo and Avenger remember this thread.

According to NATO and Kathianne it will take only another large scale terrorist attack to make the US abandon their present policy regarding civilians.

If carpet bombing and nuclear retaliation are always on the table as options for the US to achieve its political goals and has in fact been used in the past, I can hardly see how anyone can establish a sharp demarcation between the methods used by the US and palestinians.

And this is true indeed, the protection of civilians is not an “inherent” characteristic of any country in the world, it is a calculated political decision made by the leaders of a given country who judge that this course of action is in their country’s best interest.

See, what I mean, members of the US Message Board??

This is the standard behaviour of a S.P.A.C.:

Instead of recognising the obvious fact that their own country displays the same basic characteristics of all other tribes, kingdoms and countries in the history of mankind (for example, a certain degree of dehumanisation of the enemy, both soldiers and civilians) they come up with a million excuses and subterfuges to shield the US from valid criticism.

Never did this in modern times, a necessary act to quickly end the war, the soviets would invade Japan, blah, blah, blah, blah...

Let’s stop with all these pathetic excuses and recognise the obvious:

1) In philosophical terms civilians should be spared in all military confrontations.

2) But in practical terms, as far as the real world is concerned, all tribes, even the most powerful ones who could afford the cost of fighting only soldiers, choose not to, given the appropriate circumstances and national interests.

The first statement refers to how all tribes SHOULD be, the second one refers to how tribes REALLY are.

José, I'm assuming you want all to bow down before you and the Mexicans and Palis. Sorry not going to happen. I guess this is another for you to add to your future portfolio. Pound sand, I figure that will help you on your quest to show the hate mongering.

 

[José]

Originally posted by bush lover
Jews were there first, and always were there Jose...

Hebrew is related to Arabic, some words are interchangeable. Jews and Arabs are Semitic cousins. Most Israelis also speak Arabic. Hebrew and Arabic are written right to left. There are massive palaces built by the Jews thousands of years ago in Israel, which you call Western Palestine. I would call Jordan Eastern Palestine. A thousand Jews on a mountain in Israel held off an army of Roman soldiers for more than a year. And that was a a couple of thousand years (give or take a few hundred) before the Arabs invaded the region from the east. Look at your history.

Look bush lover... I already discussed this question with old timers like ajwps and Datroof ad nauseum here.

The fact is ashkenazi jews (european jews), the founders of Israel, are not a semitic people.

After almost 2000 years of mixed marriages and conversions of gentiles to Judaism, ashkenazi jews are now just another modern european people like the french, british etc. Ashkenazis didn’t speak a single world of hebrew when they arrived in Palestine in 48.

At best, ashkenazis have an extremely dilluted jewish genetic heritage.

If I’m not mistaken, Kathianne herself is an Irish american who married an american (ashkenazi) jew, right? (Correct me if I’m wrong Kathianne.)

So I don’t have to go far to prove my point.

But, just for the sake of the discussion, lets assume for a moment that ashkenazi jews are direct descendants from ancient ethnic jews...

Jews were kicked out of Palestine by romans and settled in Europe. For almost 2000 years they lived there without shedding a drop of blood trying to reconquest their lost homeland.

According to the laws of mankind that regulate land grabs in the absence of a democratic state, if you do not fight for your land you forfeit your land claim.

So in the 20th century we had the following situation:

1) – Jews got tossed.
2) – They never tried to get the land back.
3) – New people came in.
4) – Jews lose the right to the land.

After 2000 years of exile in Europe and other parts of the Middle East without fighting for their land, jews cannot be considered natives of the land anymore.

The only exception would be the palestinian jews, most of them descendants from the jews who never left Palestine and constituted a token minority of the local population. The fact that these jews are used today to justify Israel is an irony of History, since they fiercely opposed the mass immigration of european jews to Palestine because it would upset the arab majority (just like americans are upset with the mass immigrantion of mexicans today).

Now back to european jews, the only ones who conceived and founded Israel.

According to those unwritten rules regarding land grabs, you cannot wait around for 2000 years and then come redeem your land claim, as if you were the native of the land.

The same rules apply to palestinian arabs as well.

In Israel, the mass transfer of Palestinians is often debated openly. So let’s imagine the israeli government finally decides to transfer all Palestinians living in the West Bank, Lebannon and Gaza to, let’s say, Indonesia.

Palestinian arabs will have to choose between two options:

1) Return immediatelly to the closest place possible to Palestine and resume the fight for their land,

or

2) Settle in Indonesia and forfeit their land claim.

Now imagine they decided to stay in Asia.

2000 years from now, palestinians do not look like arabs anymore, they look like indonesians from head to toe, they don’t even speak arabic anymore only the indonesian dialects.

But in 4006 a palestinian leader rises to prominence exorting their people:

“Let’s return to our homeland in Palestine and resume our fight against the zionists.”

In this hypothetical situation there would be no homeland for them to return to and no armed struggle to be resumed.

After 2000 years in exile not fighting for their land, palestinian arabs would be the invaders of Palestine, just like the european jews were in the XX century. It doesn’t even matter if there are still a token palestinian minority living in Palestine.

If you don’t wannna lose your right to live in your land, you must never leave it or never stop fighting for it.

So, in this moment in history, according to the rules of mankind regarding land grabs, palestinian arabs are the natives of the land and european jews are the invaders, regardless of whether european jews are the descendents of the ancient semitic jews or not.

 

[José]

I will repeat this for the umpteenth time:

The laws of humanity regarding land grabs only come into effect when the invader (and its allies) rejects democracy.

Israel, the West in general and super patriotic american clowns in particular keep saying to the palestinian people:

“You must end you armed struggle AND recognise Israel”

instead of:

“You must end your armed struggle AND, AT THE SAME TIME, Israel must accept your right to live in western Palestine after a long process of healing and reconciliation between the two communities.”

Since Israel and its allies dehumanises them by rejecting their right to live in the western half of their homeland, palestinians arabs have no choice other than make use of the laws of mankind and fight for their land.

These laws are based on brutality, ethnic cleansings, armed struggles, murder, dehumanization of another ethnic group.

The whole world witnesses the ugly face of this laws in action everyday in Palestine.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. There is an alternative to these laws. A much more moral, humane, civilized alternative.

It’s called the modern democratic state.

A democratic state turns all the questions that define the laws of mankind regarding land grabs into irrelevancies:

Who are the natives?

Who are the invaders?

If a displaced people do not fight for their land by an amount of time x and in the meantime other people occupy the land, do they lose their right over the land?

All these questions that are vital to the laws regarding land grabs become absolutely irrelevant whe you replace them by a democratic state.

According to the laws of democratic states there is no natives nor invaders in Palestine.

A democratic state is based on the principle that all ethnic groups who have a historical presence in Palestine are entitled to live in their homeland.

Democratic states are not “owned” by a specific ethnic group, they respect the rights of all ethnicities who have a historical claim over the land (the US is a good example).

A democratic state affirms that whether european jews are direct descendants of ancient jews or not is absolutely irrelevant because most israelis are now natives of Palestine by birth (jus soli = right of birth).

A democratic state upholds the right of all palestinians living in exile to move freely and live anywhere they want in Palestine, no matter if they are the original refugees, their children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren etc (jus sanguinis = right of blood).

According to the laws that regulate land grabs, european jews are indeed the invaders of the land, but since I’m a firm believer in the democratic alternative to these brutal laws I do not consider them as such.

My suggestion is: lets discard all this garbage called the customary laws regarding land grabs and all the attempts to delegitimise the rights of a given ethnic group to live in their homeland, be they jews or arabs.

Let’s throw all these PRE HISTORIC laws where they belong: the dustbin of history.

They are a shameful reminder of our tribalistic past.

A democratic state is, at least, a civilized tribe : )

And since palestinian arabs can’t give up their right to live in western Palestine without renouncing to their own national identity and Israel is not willing to exterminate them, the establiment of a binational, unitary state in Palestine is the only long term solution to this conflict.

If only David could understand this point, he would stop making his highly detailed plans for a state that will never exist... : )

 

[José]

Originally posted by bush lover
Do the Jews have a right to live in their homeland? If not, why not Jose?

Jews have a right to live in a democratic homeland, bush lover, that is, a homeland whose government do not deny this same right to other ethnic groups who have a historical presence in the region.

They have a right to live in a homeland based on the principles of democratic liberalism, not on the principles of the laws of makind that deals with land grabs.

Assuming you are an American, you live in a homeland like that, a homeland that allows you to move freely and live anywhere you want with full civil rights, without denying these same rights to the other ethnic groups who have a historical presence in the US (indians, blacks, hispanics).

As RWA likes to say: what is good for America is good for the rest of the world too : )

 

[bush lover]

Your replies are very intellectual and engaging, but ultimately they fall totally flat if one believes in the right of small countries to exist. Even Native Americans have a right to their reservations (the Navahos have one bigger than most countries in the world). While what the Spanish and later European immigrants did to Native Americans is despicable and a blight on our history, their descendants still have sovereign territory. How about Ireland and Armenia, Jose? You figure Tibetans have a right to be independent if they abandon their way of life and government that managed to last for centuries without the help of Commies.
Ireland had managed to exist for centuries before the English came in and slaughtered them.
Armenians managed to exist for centuries as a Christian nation, with their own language and culture, until the Muslims went in and killed a million and a half of them on one side and the Commie athiests nearly finished them off on the other. Because the Armenians fought but lost because they were hopelessly outmanned and outgunned, they lose the right to their ancestral homeland? Or because they were expelled by the hundreds of thousands from their own country, successive generations have no right to return?
How about the Irish? England expelled millions from Ireland, but Ireland granted diaspora Irish citizenship once Ireland regained its independence. Do these overseas Irish have no right to return, but because England conquered their homeland?

Jose, the bottom line seems to be that your line of thinking accepts independence for small and distinct populations if they renounce their heritage and submit to your vision of the perfect society.

I thnk small countries and peoples have a right to exist and flourish on their own terms. Your attempt to justify the oppression of aboriginal peoples in the end fails, I'm afraid.

 

[jillian]

Jews have a right to live in a democratic homeland, bush lover, that is, a homeland whose government do not deny this same right to other ethnic groups who have a historical presence in the region.

You mean like Iran did to the Persian Jews? And like every other Arab state did to their indiginous Jewish populations?

 

[José]

Originally posted by bush lover
Armenians managed to exist for centuries as a Christian nation, with their own language and culture, until the Muslims went in and killed a million and a half of them on one side and the Commie athiests nearly finished them off on the other. Because the Armenians fought but lost because they were hopelessly outmanned and outgunned, they lose the right to their ancestral homeland? Or because they were expelled by the hundreds of thousands from their own country, successive generations have no right to return?

According to the rules of democratic states Armenians and Jews have a right to return to their ancestral homelands as long as they don’t deny this same right to anyone who arrived during their absence.

 

[José]

Originally posted by bush lover
Jose, the bottom line seems to be that your line of thinking accepts independence for small and distinct populations if they renounce their heritage and submit to your vision of the perfect society.

Let’s define precisely what we are discussing here, bush lover:

We are talking about my mild version of ethnocentrism (not the idea that the white race is superior to others only the idea the western democratic state is the best form of socio-political organization).

I’m not afraid to say unambiguously that the values of western society are far superior than those of any other society.

As I said, I always do my best to judge all countries in a fair manner, but I’m not willing to compromise the parameters by which I judge them.

Are the values of liberal democracies way superior than those of racial dictatorships like Nazi Germany, South Africa and Israel?

Yes, they are.

Would the tibetan and saudi people be better served by a democratic state than they would by a buddhist or muslim theocracy?

Yes, they would.

Cultural relativists argue that my belief in the superiority of democratic states is just a subjective perception with no objective validity.

They say this is an unproved assumption that I take for granted because being a westener I’m biased towards it.

They say tibetan style theocracy is as good for tibetans as democracies are for westerners.

If cultural relativism had its way, India would still be a medieval society of castes today, not a democratic country where caste-based social stratification is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Cultural relativism is the last desperate refuge/excuse of the worst kind of african/arab dictators, chinese authocrats, tibetan and saudi theocrats, monarchs, to justify their opressive societies...

 

[José]

Originally posted by bush lover
You figure Tibetans have a right to be independent if they abandon their way of life and government that managed to last for centuries without the help of Commies.

Bush lover, you seem to have a big problem with communism but not with buddhist theocracies.

Well, I have a problem with both.

If you accuse me of being ethnocentric and a cultural imperialist because I would like to see the tibetan buddhist theocracy replaced by a democratic, secular state then I will plead guilty as charged.

Religious homogeneity is falling apart all over the world. With each passing day, theocratic governments become more and more anachronic (as if they weren’t medieval enough already).

As you probably know, Tibet has already a sizeable han chinese minority.

If someday the country is liberated from chinese rule the new government would have a moral obligation to give citizenship to those who wish to stay in Tibet (I have to be consistent here, if I support the right of european jews who arrived during the 40’s to remain in Palestine after the dismantlement of the jewish racial dictatorship, I have to support the same right for the han chinese population of Tibet).

A return to the pre 49 theocratic regime would mean that the Dalai Lama would be the head of state again and the monks would run the country (collecting taxes etc...).

The majority of han chinese are secular. Why should they pay taxes to maintain a religion they don’t even believe?

Buddhist monasteries and monks must be sustained by practicing buddhists and no one else.

If I was a han chinese citizen of Tibet I would be upset with my country and if my grievances were not properly addressed I would probably start thinking about overthrowing this despotic theocratic government.

And I didn’t even mention the new generations of Tibetans who are less and less interested in religion.

I saw a documentary that said that when the tibetan youth think about Tibet they imagine the past: ancient religious traditions, Lamas etc...

When they think about China they imagine the future: internet, cable tv with 500 channels, videogames (they are in fact thinking about America through China : )

So I believe that if someday in the future this nation regains its independence a secular government would be the best choice, much more in tune with Tibet heterogeneous ethnic make up and secularised youth.

Tibet getting rid of chinese rule to become a buddhist theocracy reminds me of Eastern Europe being liberated from nazism just to have communism shoved down their throats.

 

[José]

Originally posted by jillian
You mean like Iran did to the Persian Jews? And like every other Arab state did to their indiginous Jewish populations?

Ethnic germans expelled from Poland are not reivindicating and fighting for their right to live in their ancestral land in Poland. They are living happy peaceful lives in Germany. So Poland is not a supremacist state.

Pakistanis who left India in 48 are not reivindicating and fighting for their right to return to their place of origin. Therefore India is not a supremacist state either.

Persian jews are not reivindicating and fighting for their right to return to Iran. So Iran is not a supremacist state.

Palestinian arabs are reivindicating and fighting for their right to live in western Palestine. Therefore Israel is a jewish supremacist state.

If the displaced people are not reivindicating and fighting for their right to live in their ancestral homeland there is no ethnic supremacism to speak of.

And I fail to understand why the palestinian people should renounce to their right to live in their homeland just because persian jews renounced to theirs.

 

[Hobbit]

Jose, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with how the Jews treat anybody in their country. Indeed, released Arabic felons in Israel have more rights than your average citizen in any other country in the Middle East (except Iraq ). The problem, as far as the psychotic Arabs are concerned, is that Israel is there. When Israel first got there, they tried to be nice and get along with their neighbors. What did that get them? Try attacked from all sides with fanatical fervor. Well, they won their right to exist in that war, and since then, every Arab nation anywhere near them has sent in their homicide bombers non-stop in an effort to end Israel. They won't stop becuase Israel gives them their own nation. They won't stop because Israel gives them more rights. In fact, they have fewer rights now due to their actions. Put yourself in Israel's shoes. The more rights you give to Arabs, the more of your innocent children get blown up by bombers. Which one would you do? No, any time Israel throws the 'Palestinians' (the idea of Palestine as an actual country didn't emerge until Yassur Arafat came into the picture) a bone, the Palestinians beat them with it. The conflict can only end with the destruction of either the Arabs or the Jews.

 

[Working Man]

There's a difference. Israel never professes to be anything but a "Jewish State". IMO, the appropriate measure isn't what a heterogeneous society like the U.S. does in its governmental system. The proper measure is what do the States around Israel do? In Israel, unlike the Islamic states surrounding it, non-Jews are allowed not only to live in peace, but to participate in the governmental process.

The question I always ask is why people are so quick to object to a little teeny Jewish State when it's surrounded by countries in which a Jew can't even set foot?

********************************************************
Jilly, don't be silly!!! But, you hit a hot spot with the definition of Israel as resonable person might interpet that which defines the "State of Israel", and that being a "Jewish State". It is what it is. And for that it has a consequence.

Another test.

That holiday, in the US, where Christians share gifts with one another,, the holiday that brings oodles and ooodles of "Holiday Sales Events",,, you know,,, the one where the people of the US are encouraged to buy lots of crap, rack up lots of debt,, and see all of the same crap get blown out on 12/26 for 50%, or more... You know that day????


Well, I guess because the Americans are so F'ing politically correct,,, and don't want to offend anyone else because they truly believe in the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE,,,,, Americans have allowed Christmas to become sort of a low key event.. Many towns, if not most, in the US no longer sponsor nativity scenes on public land, nor allow CHRISTMAS to appear on the walls of public schools just because it may offend, and draw law suits by non Christians.. I can sort of deal with this, but it has to be all or nothing.

OK,, with all that crap being said,, why do we,, people of the United States support a RELIGIOUS STATE,, that was set up specifically for, and by,, JEWS???

This is ludicrous. Two sets of standards. One for Jews, and the other for Jews. Neither does me any good.


As far as the teeney weenie state BS.. that little "state" posseses Nuclear WEAPONS.. aka Weapons of Mass Distruction.

Now, India, Pakistan, Iran,, every other GD little TEENIE WEENIE state is saving up their milk money to get them too.. And in a round about way, the Jews are responisble for selling the technology that has now made it possible for many more countries to enjoy an Nuclear arsenal, with some birds probably aimed at Tel Aviv...(Actually, it the US people's fault for giving the technology to Israel. Or, at least, for allowing Israel to develop the tech unchecked.)

The United States has been good to Israel for over Fifty years. Time for the teenie weeners to go get a job and support themselves. :finger:

 

[Working Man]

Freedom fighters form an army and fight like men. They don't blow themselves up with women and children. So I'd call them cowards.

Both Jews and Arabs have blown up , the others, women and children. But both have women and children that have blown up, the others men. So,,, are they ALL cowards in the Middle East???

I don't live there. I won't pass too much judgment. We will get ours someday as the repressed come to our crib to shed some blood. Remember 9/11???

Now,, all kidding aside, we too, as a country have killed women and children. I would hope, that it was never intentional. (I guess a more than a few times it may have been.) But, colateral damage does happen in war, and in war- like conditions. This isn't a reason to do it, but it does happen. However, it too may have a bad consequence because those who have lost loved ones may not differentiate between the result, and the intent of our strike.. Why? The action speaks louder than the word, "sorry".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Both Jews and Arabs have blown up , the others, women and children. But both have women and children that have blown up, the others men. So,,, are they ALL cowards in the Middle East???

I don't live there. I won't pass too much judgment. We will get ours someday as the repressed come to our crib to shed some blood. Remember 9/11???

Now,, all kidding aside, we too, as a country have killed women and children. I would hope, that it was never intentional. (I guess a more than a few times it may have been.) But, colateral damage does happen in war, and in war- like conditions. This isn't a reason to do it, but it does happen. However, it too may have a bad consequence because those who have lost loved ones may not differentiate between the result, and the intent of our strike.. Why? The action speaks louder than the word, "sorry".

But people must ask "why". Some answers are better than others. Judgement is good. Unless you have poor judgement.

 

[Denton]

Why is it that we discuss inadvertant killing of innocent as if it were the same thing as the intentional targeting of the innocent? Jewish refugees streamed in from neighboring countries, most allowed to carry with them sparse belonging and clothing, having to leave any money or other wealth behind, yet we seem to only focus on the Arab Palestinian refugee. Furthermore, we forget why they are refugees. Doing this is closely akin to forgetting why a lifer is in prison and demanding that he be allowed to walk freely and live in the house of his victim. We are also forgeting that the same nations that convinced the Arab Palestinians to either help them or at least stand aside while the Arab world destroyed Israel have done NOTHING to assimilate these people. As a matter of fact, Israel's Arab neighbors work to keep the Palestinian refugees as refugees so that they can use them aas political leverage and have them as ignorant homicide bombing fodder.

Want to talk about a strong lobby? Look at the lobby that has not only infiltrated our education system, making it possible to teach an askewed version of the religion the enemy uses against Israel and the U.S., but also blinded our leaders to the real threat and thereby allowing the 2001 attacks to occur, not to mention the numerous ones beforehand. After each attack we were warned that the best response was little to no response - simply ignore them lest you incite and provoke them. This is the same lobby that has been exherting incredible pressure on our foreign policy ever since they found their political clout in the form of oil.

And y'all are worried about a little country that has less people than one of our major cities and no natural resources to use as leverage over us? Abraham wandered for 40 years until he found the only spot in that region that does NOT have oil, and you think these people have control over us?

Israel has something more important than oil, it shares our basic cultural beliefs, the beliefs upon which our great nation was founded, and it is also the only free democracy in that area, an area that is defined by tyranny and cruelty on any given day, even the good days. When it comes to a lobby using both money and extortion in order to achieve its goals, you are looking in the wrong part of that region, my friends.

 

[dilloduck]

We have our own group of people who want thier land back in America. America is going to let them have it. There may be some comparisons to be made. Don't everyone freak out at once now---I know that violence is the difference. You think Israel would let them return if they promised to be peaceful?

 

[Denton]

Let them back in where? Into Israel? If that is what you mean, that would be suicide. Hatred has been taught in Arab Palestinians schools like our schools used to teach history and math. They would be nothing more than the fifth column for those who want to destroy Israel. Any "promise would only be good for a set period of time until they were strengthened enough to where they could continue their attack on their enemy. A cursory study of Islam makes that clear, and considering the Islamic Resistance Movement is even their elected government now....
The interesting thing about it is that the Arab Palestinians could have easily been just that, the fifth column, but the Arab invaders coaxed them to leave until the Jews were forced to swim or die. Seemed that the Jews just wouldn't politely roll over and die, though.

Edited due to ignorant typos.