Discussion:
OT - The Truth - Like it or not
(too old to reply)
Cliff
2006-07-28 14:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked
every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush
has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has
told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice.
Told the Saudis to go pi** up a rope too.
Bush is
very proud of his firmness. He is enjoying Israel's rampage and wishes
he could do the same thing in Iraq.
Plans seem to be in the works to invade Baghdad and try to
place it under Imperial neocon control.

OTOH Global warming in a few years might flood Washington DC but
probably not the palace to be near Wakko, TX.
--
Cliff
Cliff
2006-07-28 14:10:30 UTC
Permalink
The Shame of Being an American
"Do you know that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing in southern
Lebanon? Israel has ordered all the villagers to clear out. Israel
then destroys their homes and murders the fleeing villagers. That way
there is no one to come back and nothing to which to return, making it
easier for Israel to grab the territory, just as Israel has been
stealing Palestine from the Palestinians.
Do you know that one-third of the Lebanese civilians murdered by
Israel's attacks on civilian residential districts are children? That
is the report from Jan Egeland, the emergency relief coordinator for
the UN. He says it is impossible for help to reach the wounded and
those buried in rubble, because Israeli air strikes have blown up all
the bridges and roads. Considering how often (almost always) Israel
misses Hezbollah targets and hits civilian ones, one might think that
Israeli fire is being guided by US satellites and US military GPS.
Don't be surprised at US complicity. Why would the puppet be any less
evil than the puppet master?
Of course, you don't know these things, because the US print and TV
media do not report them.
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked
every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush
has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has
told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice. Bush is
very proud of his firmness. He is enjoying Israel's rampage and wishes
he could do the same thing in Iraq.
Does it make you a Proud American that "your" president gave Israel
the green light to drop bombs on convoys of villagers fleeing from
Israeli shelling, on residential neighborhoods in the capital of
Beirut and throughout Lebanon, on hospitals, on power plants, on food
production and storage, on ports, on civilian airports, on bridges, on
roads, on every piece of infrastructure on which civilized life
depends? Are you a Proud American? Or are you an Israeli puppet?
On July 20, "your" House of Representatives voted 410-8 in favor of
Israel's massive war crimes in Lebanon. Not content with making every
American complicit in war crimes, "your" House of Representatives,
according to the Associated Press, also "condemns enemies of the
Jewish state."
Who are the "enemies of the Jewish state"?
They are the Palestinians whose land has been stolen by the Jewish
state, whose homes and olive groves have been destroyed by the Jewish
state, whose children have been shot down in the streets by the Jewish
state, whose women have been abused by the Jewish state. They are
Palestinians who have been walled off into ghettos, who cannot reach
their farm lands or medical care or schools, who cannot drive on roads
through Palestine that have been constructed for Israelis only. They
are Palestinians whose ancient towns have been invaded by militant
Zionist "settlers" under the protection of the Israeli army who beat
and persecute the Palestinians and drive them out of their towns. They
are Palestinians who cannot allow their children outside their homes
because they will be murdered by Israeli "settlers."
The Palestinians who confront Israeli evil are called "terrorists."
When Bush forced free elections on Palestine, the people voted for
Hamas. Hamas is the organization that has stood up to Israel. This
means, of course, that Hamas is evil, anti-Semitic, un-American and
terrorist. The US and Israel responded by cutting off all funds to the
new government. Democracy is permitted only if it produces the results
Bush and Israel want.
Israelis never practice terror. Only those who are in Israel's way are
terrorists.
Another enemy of the Jewish state is Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a militia
of Shi'ite Muslims created in 1982 when Israel first invaded Lebanon.
During this invasion the great moral Jewish state arranged for the
murder of refugees in refugee camps. The result of Israel's atrocities
was Hezbollah, which fought the Israeli Army, defeated it, and drove
it out of Lebanon. Today Hezbollah not only defends southern Lebanon
but also provides social services such as orphanages and medical care.
To cut to the chase, the enemies of the Jewish state are any Muslim
country not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel. Egypt,
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the oil emirates have sided with Israel
against their own kind, because they are dependent either on American
money or on American protection from their own people. Sooner or later
these totally corrupt governments that do not represent the people
they rule will be overthrown. It is only a matter of time.
Indeed Bush and Israel may be hastening the process in their frantic
effort to overthrow the governments of Syria and Iran. Both
governments have more popular support than Bush has, but the White
House Moron doesn't know this. The Moron thinks Syria and Iran will be
"cakewalks" like Iraq, where ten proud divisions of the US military
are tied down by a few lightly armed insurgents.
If you are still a Proud American, consider that your pride is doing
nothing good for Israel or for America.
On July 20 when "your" House of Representatives, following "your" US
Senate, passed the resolution in support of Israel's war crimes, the
most powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israeli Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC), quickly got out a press release proclaiming "The
American people overwhelming support Israel's war on terrorism and
understand that we must stand by our closest ally in this time of
crisis."
The truth is that Israel created the crisis by invading a country with
a pro-American government. The truth is that the American people do
not support Israel's war crimes, as the CNN quick poll results make
clear and as was made clear by callers into C-Span.
Despite the Israeli spin on news provided by US "reporting," a
majority of Americans do not approve of Israeli atrocities against
Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah is located in southern Lebanon. If
Israel is targeting Hezbollah, why are Israeli bombs falling on
northern Lebanon? Why are they falling on Beirut? Why are they falling
on civilian airports? On schools and hospitals?
Now we arrive at the main point. When the US Senate and House of
Representatives pass resolutions in support of Israeli war crimes and
condemn those who resist Israeli aggression, the Senate and House
confirm Osama bin Laden's propaganda that America stands with Israel
against the Arab and Muslim world.
Indeed, Israel, which has one of the world's largest per capita
incomes, is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. Many believe that
much of this "aid" comes back to AIPAC, which uses it to elect "our"
representatives in Congress.
This perception is no favor to Israel, whose population is declining,
as the smart ones have seen the writing on the wall and have been
leaving. Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslims who
are being turned into enemies of Israel by Israel's actions and
inhumane policies.
The hope in the Muslim world has always been that the United States
would intervene in behalf of compromise and make Israel realize that
Israel cannot steal Palestine and turn every Palestinian into a
refugee.
This has been the hope of the Arab world. This is the reason our
puppets have not been overthrown. This hope is the reason America
still had some prestige in the Arab world.
The House of Representatives resolution, bought and paid for by AIPAC
money, is the final nail in the coffin of American prestige in the
Middle East. It shows that America is, indeed, Israel's puppet, just
as Osama bin Laden says, and as a majority of Muslims believe.
With hope and diplomacy dead, henceforth America and Israel have only
tooth and claw. The vaunted Israeli army could not defeat a rag tag
militia in southern Lebanon. The vaunted US military cannot defeat a
rag tag, lightly armed insurgency drawn from a minority of the
population in Iraq, insurgents, moreover, who are mainly engaged in
civil war against the Shi'ite majority.
What will the US and its puppet master do? Both are too full of hubris
and paranoia to admit their terrible mistakes. Israel and the US will
either destroy from the air the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon,
Palestine, Syria, and Iran so that civilized life becomes impossible
for Muslims, or the US and Israel will use nuclear weapons to
intimidate Muslims into acquiescence to Israel's desires.
Muslim genocide in one form or another is the professed goal of the
neoconservatives who have total control over the Bush administration.
Neocon godfather Norman Podhoretz has called for World War IV (in
neocon thinking WW III was the Cold War) to overthrow Islam in the
Middle East, deracinate the Islamic religion and turn it into a
formalized, secular ritual.
Rumsfeld's neocon Pentagon has drafted new US war doctrine that
permits pre-emptive nuclear attack on non-nuclear states.
Neocon David Horowitz says that by slaughtering Palestinian and
Lebanese civilians, "Israel is doing the work of the rest of the
civilized world," thus equating war criminals with civilized men.
Neocon Larry Kudlow says that "Israel is doing the Lord's work" by
murdering Lebanese, a claim that should give pause to Israel's
Christian evangelical supporters. Where does the Lord Jesus say, "go
forth and murder your neighbors so that you may steal their lands"?
The complicity of the American public in these heinous crimes will
damn America for all time in history."
For wider ...
--
Cliff
Gus
2006-07-30 19:43:03 UTC
Permalink
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked
every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush
has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has
told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice.
<snipped mumbo jumbo>

Lebanese civillians are in the crossfire which is a shame but Israeli
civillians are the "targets" of terrorists. I don't hear you having any
sympathy for them.
GW
Geno1234
2006-07-30 20:09:19 UTC
Permalink
But the tide is changing. And now it has become zionazi jews turn to die.
Mark my words.
Zionazi jews can't forever be leeches on the American tax payers hide to
fund their genocide.
Post by Gus
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked
every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush
has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has
told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice.
<snipped mumbo jumbo>
Lebanese civillians are in the crossfire which is a shame but Israeli
civillians are the "targets" of terrorists. I don't hear you having any
sympathy for them.
GW
Cliff
2006-07-31 08:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked
every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush
has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has
told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice.
<snipped mumbo jumbo>
Lebanese civillians are in the crossfire which is a shame but Israeli
civillians are the "targets" of terrorists. I don't hear you having any
sympathy for them.
Israel's been bombing many for decades & taking hostages
as well as much else that the UN has very strongly frowned on.

Now somebody did some neocon-style-approved rendition and
they started bombing Lebanon ... FIRST.
--
Cliff
Gus
2006-07-31 18:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Gus
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked
every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush
has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has
told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice.
<snipped mumbo jumbo>
Lebanese civillians are in the crossfire which is a shame but Israeli
civillians are the "targets" of terrorists. I don't hear you having any
sympathy for them.
Israel's been bombing many for decades & taking hostages
as well as much else that the UN has very strongly frowned on.
Now somebody did some neocon-style-approved rendition and
they started bombing Lebanon ... FIRST.
--
Cliff
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them. I guess the
difference I see is that Israel targets terrorists while terrorists
target innocent civillians. Israel might shoot a missile at some
terrorists in a car but the terrorists like to climb aboard city busses
and blow everyone up. I see a big difference, can't you?
GW
Stuart Wheaton
2006-07-31 22:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them. I guess the
difference I see is that Israel targets terrorists while terrorists
target innocent civillians. Israel might shoot a missile at some
terrorists in a car but the terrorists like to climb aboard city busses
and blow everyone up. I see a big difference, can't you?
GW
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
Gunner
2006-07-31 22:58:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Post by Gus
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them. I guess the
difference I see is that Israel targets terrorists while terrorists
target innocent civillians. Israel might shoot a missile at some
terrorists in a car but the terrorists like to climb aboard city busses
and blow everyone up. I see a big difference, can't you?
GW
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
If their parents didnt allow or encourage military targets to be placed
in among the range of those children..when those targets were
destroyed..it wouldnt harm the kids.

So at the very least..the parents are guilty of child endangerment.

I see here, a host of those who logically would allow their children to
play on the freeway.

Gunner

"I think this is because of your belief in biological Marxism.
As a genetic communist you feel that noticing behavioural
patterns relating to race would cause a conflict with your belief
in biological Marxism." Big Pete, famous Usenet Racist
Cliff
2006-08-01 10:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
If their parents didnt allow or encourage military targets to be placed
in among the range of those children..when those targets were
destroyed..it wouldnt harm the kids.
Dang stupid people in Israel. Almost everyone there is well armed
& thus a target.
--
Cliff
F. George McDuffee
2006-08-01 00:08:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:27:24 -0400, Stuart Wheaton
Post by Gus
I see a big difference, can't you?
In one case it is done low-tech, "up close and personal." In the
other case it is done high-tech, like a video game, with no
physical blood on the [perps] hands or clothing. All the
difference in the world...

The taxpayers and citizens of the many countries around the world
involved in this madness are paying the price with their (and
their children's) blood and treasure. Who is making the money?

The US taxpayers are funding *BOTH* sides --- WTF???



If you look at history you'll find that no state
has been so plagued by its rulers
as when power has fallen into the hands
of some dabbler in philosophy or literary addict.

Desiderius Erasmus (c. 1466-1536), Dutch humanist.
Praise of Folly, ch. 24 (1509).
Gus
2006-08-01 03:56:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Wheaton
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
That is a very good thought provoking response.

What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.

GW
Gunner
2006-08-01 06:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by Stuart Wheaton
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
GW
They are. They are indeed. Its part and parcel of the terrorist modus
operandi.

Gunner

"I think this is because of your belief in biological Marxism.
As a genetic communist you feel that noticing behavioural
patterns relating to race would cause a conflict with your belief
in biological Marxism." Big Pete, famous Usenet Racist
Cliff
2006-08-02 11:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Gus
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
GW
They are. They are indeed. Its part and parcel of the terrorist modus
operandi.
Being dead?
Then you have little to worry about in your bunker.
--
Cliff
Mysterion
2006-08-01 12:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by Stuart Wheaton
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
1)Don't believe everything - or anything - you see on Faux News.

2)In a desert, the only cover available is in the built up areas.

3)Israel routinely attacks civilians fleeing the combat zone so they tend to
hunker down.

4)Invited or not, tragedies serve a political purpose.
RM v2.0
2006-08-01 15:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mysterion
Post by Gus
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
1)Don't believe everything - or anything - you see on Faux News.
2)In a desert, the only cover available is in the built up areas.
3)Israel routinely attacks civilians fleeing the combat zone so they tend
to hunker down.
4)Invited or not, tragedies serve a political purpose.
How about CNN, NY Times, etc? They are deliberately using civilians as
cover and then parading the dead around. It is an extremely old tactic used
in the Middle East. Even in GW1 they were using hospitals and schools for
manufacturing and hiding out.
Mysterion
2006-08-01 22:31:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by RM v2.0
Post by Mysterion
Post by Gus
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
1)Don't believe everything - or anything - you see on Faux News.
2)In a desert, the only cover available is in the built up areas.
3)Israel routinely attacks civilians fleeing the combat zone so they tend
to hunker down.
4)Invited or not, tragedies serve a political purpose.
How about CNN, NY Times, etc? They are deliberately using civilians as
cover and then parading the dead around. It is an extremely old tactic
used in the Middle East. Even in GW1 they were using hospitals and schools
for manufacturing and hiding out.
So they should set up in the middle of a wide open area?
That wouldn't be obvious at all.
Cliff
2006-08-02 13:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by RM v2.0
using hospitals
Like the ones Israel attacked?
--
Cliff
Stuart Wheaton
2006-08-01 21:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by Stuart Wheaton
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
So then the question becomes, does Israel want to play into the hands of
the terrorists? Would they be better off by not relying on bombing and
missile launches, and even artillery targeted at launching sites, when
it is known that the fuses are lit and the culprits are long gone before
the incoming fire blasts civilian houses to rubble.

Invest the manpower in infantry, use trained, careful snipers that do
not shoot kids and women and old folks. Put predators in the air and
hit the launchers before the people setting them up are done, that at
least makes the collateral damage worthwhile. But blasting an area
because missiles came from there yesterday is like beating your dog for
barking at the neighbor last night, it just pisses off the dog and he
won't change his behavior.

To 'win' this conflict, Israel must be prepared to take moderate losses
of infantry personnel. They must go into the Hezbolla held territory,
and draw the actual enemy, the armed fighter, into face to face combat.
Dropping bombs is the lazy and indiscriminate way to perpetuate this
conflict for many more years.

Furthermore, when this conflict is over, Lebanon will have to be a
viable state. Israel has already done so much damage to the
infrastructure of that country, that it will be very difficult and very
expensive to meet the needs of the population. Roads, bridges, power,
water, sanitation, and communications facilities have been blown to bits
already in this campaign of bombing. Massive and swift aid will have to
come in from many countries to repair this damage, otherwise the people
who are denied basic services will become easy prey for extremist
politicos and the lebanese government will be pulled toward hardliners
who promise to retaliate rather than repair. Anything that minimizes
the damage done to non-combatants is a step in the right direction.
Cliff
2006-08-02 13:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Furthermore, when this conflict is over, Lebanon will have to be a
viable state.
That's not at all in the neocon gameplan.
--
Cliff
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-02 14:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Post by Gus
Post by Stuart Wheaton
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
So then the question becomes, does Israel want to play into the hands of
the terrorists? Would they be better off by not relying on bombing and
missile launches, and even artillery targeted at launching sites, when
it is known that the fuses are lit and the culprits are long gone before
the incoming fire blasts civilian houses to rubble.
First, one must understand the enemy.
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and, secondly, the submission or
extermination of all other non-muslims.
So long as the general population supports, aids and abets the tactics
of the terrorists (including voting them into political positions,
allowing them to place military equipment among civilian populations,
and parading dead bodies that frequently are unrelated to whatever news
event is being filmed) they are de facto participants in the terror and
are themselves viable targets.
If they don't want to be targets, they need to leave the combat zone,
stop supporting the terrorists, and vote out the politicians that are a
part of the terrorist organization.

As can be seen by the muslim on muslim violence in Iraq, the terrorists
don't care about their own any more than they care about the women,
children and non-combatants of Isreal.
The Isrealis, on the other hand, at least attempt to target
terrorists rather than indiscriminantly sending bombs into bona-fide
civilian areas; they warn the populace in advance of attacks, and
target the places that Hezbollah uses to launch it's rockets.
Isreal uses professional military, in professional dress, and
military equipment.
Hezbollah uses professional terrorists (or "guerillas" if you
prefer) who dress and live and travel in civilian clothes, civilian
areas and have no identifiable "military" bases or targets.
Hezbollah fires rockets into civilian areas rather than the easily
identifiable military areas or targets.
The terrorists routinely bring truckloads of frozen dead,
especially children, to areas and bring out the bodies for western
cameras. It's world class propoganda intended to engender sympathy for
the locals and anger at Isreal.
And it works.

Isreal's hands are tied in that if they do not respond to the
terrorists, the terrorists have a free hand to keep killing Isrealis.
If Isreal responds to the terrorists, as they have a right and
responsibility to do, then the world is shown con artist propoganda of
dead children, civilians, pregnant women, etc and gets blamed for
causing so much human suffering.

The existence of "palestinian arabs" is a fraud. There is no such
thing. The arabic folk who lived in the area when Isreal was formed had
no self-identity as "palestinians". That was dreamed up by the radicals
whose sole purpose was to marginalize and eventually destroy Isreal,
but over the years the term has become so normative that most people in
the west think that "Palestine" was actually a people and culture for
ages.
"Palestine" is derived from "Philistine"... those folk who
disappeared over 2000 years ago and were not ever Arabic, but
descendants of Greek and Macedonian seamen. The modern Arabs in
palestine are descendants of the Arabs who raged out of the desert
behind Mohammed 1300 years ago, killing and destroying everyone who did
not submit to Islam.
Islam's goal has not changed. The Islamic goal is world domination
with all others either killed or submitted.
Theirs is the culture that continues human slavery, female
mutilation, and religious persecution beyond what anyone else can
imagine. On every front, the Islamic goal is domination and the
imposition of Sharia law.
Theirs is the culture that arrests or kills people for proselytizing
any religion but Islam. Christians are arrested and jailed, at best,
for handing out christian literature. Moslems who convert are condemned
to death.

The fundamental question boils down to the basic idea of human
existence, which can be summarized by the U.S. Declaration of
Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness." Coupled with the preamble to the US Constitution: "..in
order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity," we can see that Isreal has no option but to continue it's
efforts to secure it's existence and defend it's populace from both
internal and external terrorists. As a free people invoking those
statements regarding ourselves and our world view, we do well to choose
aid to Isreal against the terrorists rather than submission to a world
view that expressly wishes us dead or enslaved.
I know full well that the US Declaration and Constitution do not
apply to or in Isreal; however, if we Americans fully believe these
principles, then to stand up for those principles as they apply to
others can only strengthen them as we apply them to ourselves.

Isreal is under seige from many sides. Yet, even so, they allow
people to worship as they will. They agreed long ago to allow the
Temple Mount to continue to be administered by the Islamic presence
there, in spite of the fact that it is the place where history places
Isreal's Temple, and faith says is the place where God would reside on
earth.
Isreal allows all citizens to vote. Isreal allows diversity of
language, culture, faith and politics. Isreal encourages the free
exchange of ideas and the openness of business.
Contrast that behavior, even under seige, with the world view of
Iran, the Taliban, and even our friend Saudi Arabia.

Before we condemn Isreal for it's actions toward it's enemies, let's
look carefully at what the enemy is, what it stands for, and how it
behaves.

Regards,
mark evins
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Invest the manpower in infantry, use trained, careful snipers that do
not shoot kids and women and old folks. Put predators in the air and
hit the launchers before the people setting them up are done, that at
least makes the collateral damage worthwhile. But blasting an area
because missiles came from there yesterday is like beating your dog for
barking at the neighbor last night, it just pisses off the dog and he
won't change his behavior.
To 'win' this conflict, Israel must be prepared to take moderate losses
of infantry personnel. They must go into the Hezbolla held territory,
and draw the actual enemy, the armed fighter, into face to face combat.
Dropping bombs is the lazy and indiscriminate way to perpetuate this
conflict for many more years.
Furthermore, when this conflict is over, Lebanon will have to be a
viable state. Israel has already done so much damage to the
infrastructure of that country, that it will be very difficult and very
expensive to meet the needs of the population. Roads, bridges, power,
water, sanitation, and communications facilities have been blown to bits
already in this campaign of bombing. Massive and swift aid will have to
come in from many countries to repair this damage, otherwise the people
who are denied basic services will become easy prey for extremist
politicos and the lebanese government will be pulled toward hardliners
who promise to retaliate rather than repair. Anything that minimizes
the damage done to non-combatants is a step in the right direction.
Guido
2006-08-02 14:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and,
What has a matlab function got to do with this?
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-02 14:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guido
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and,
What has a matlab function got to do with this?
I know you're trying to communicate 'cause there are words on the
screen.....
Cliff
2006-08-03 12:45:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Guido
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and,
What has a matlab function got to do with this?
I know you're trying to communicate 'cause there are words on the
screen.....
They must just be too big.
--
Cliff
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-03 17:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Guido
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and,
What has a matlab function got to do with this?
I know you're trying to communicate 'cause there are words on the
screen.....
They must just be too big.
They're unrelated to the subject of the thread.
Post by Cliff
--
Cliff
Cliff
2006-08-03 19:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Guido
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and,
What has a matlab function got to do with this?
I know you're trying to communicate 'cause there are words on the
screen.....
They must just be too big.
They're unrelated to the subject of the thread.
http://www.mathworks.com/

HTH
--
Cliff
Guido
2006-08-04 10:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Guido
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and,
What has a matlab function got to do with this?
I know you're trying to communicate 'cause there are words on the
screen.....
They must just be too big.
They're unrelated to the subject of the thread.
http://www.mathworks.com/
I thought I'd deal with the first error in his screed before addressing
the 4856th. I notice Gunner wet himself over it though.
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-04 10:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Guido
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and,
What has a matlab function got to do with this?
I know you're trying to communicate 'cause there are words on the
screen.....
They must just be too big.
They're unrelated to the subject of the thread.
http://www.mathworks.com/
What has that to do with the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah?
Post by Cliff
HTH
--
Cliff
Gus
2006-08-02 14:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Post by Gus
Post by Stuart Wheaton
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
So then the question becomes, does Israel want to play into the hands of
the terrorists? Would they be better off by not relying on bombing and
missile launches, and even artillery targeted at launching sites, when
it is known that the fuses are lit and the culprits are long gone before
the incoming fire blasts civilian houses to rubble.
First, one must understand the enemy.
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and, secondly, the submission or
extermination of all other non-muslims.
So long as the general population supports, aids and abets the tactics
of the terrorists (including voting them into political positions,
allowing them to place military equipment among civilian populations,
and parading dead bodies that frequently are unrelated to whatever news
event is being filmed) they are de facto participants in the terror and
are themselves viable targets.
If they don't want to be targets, they need to leave the combat zone,
stop supporting the terrorists, and vote out the politicians that are a
part of the terrorist organization.
As can be seen by the muslim on muslim violence in Iraq, the terrorists
don't care about their own any more than they care about the women,
children and non-combatants of Isreal.
The Isrealis, on the other hand, at least attempt to target
terrorists rather than indiscriminantly sending bombs into bona-fide
civilian areas; they warn the populace in advance of attacks, and
target the places that Hezbollah uses to launch it's rockets.
Isreal uses professional military, in professional dress, and
military equipment.
Hezbollah uses professional terrorists (or "guerillas" if you
prefer) who dress and live and travel in civilian clothes, civilian
areas and have no identifiable "military" bases or targets.
Hezbollah fires rockets into civilian areas rather than the easily
identifiable military areas or targets.
The terrorists routinely bring truckloads of frozen dead,
especially children, to areas and bring out the bodies for western
cameras. It's world class propoganda intended to engender sympathy for
the locals and anger at Isreal.
And it works.
Isreal's hands are tied in that if they do not respond to the
terrorists, the terrorists have a free hand to keep killing Isrealis.
If Isreal responds to the terrorists, as they have a right and
responsibility to do, then the world is shown con artist propoganda of
dead children, civilians, pregnant women, etc and gets blamed for
causing so much human suffering.
The existence of "palestinian arabs" is a fraud. There is no such
thing. The arabic folk who lived in the area when Isreal was formed had
no self-identity as "palestinians". That was dreamed up by the radicals
whose sole purpose was to marginalize and eventually destroy Isreal,
but over the years the term has become so normative that most people in
the west think that "Palestine" was actually a people and culture for
ages.
"Palestine" is derived from "Philistine"... those folk who
disappeared over 2000 years ago and were not ever Arabic, but
descendants of Greek and Macedonian seamen. The modern Arabs in
palestine are descendants of the Arabs who raged out of the desert
behind Mohammed 1300 years ago, killing and destroying everyone who did
not submit to Islam.
Islam's goal has not changed. The Islamic goal is world domination
with all others either killed or submitted.
Theirs is the culture that continues human slavery, female
mutilation, and religious persecution beyond what anyone else can
imagine. On every front, the Islamic goal is domination and the
imposition of Sharia law.
Theirs is the culture that arrests or kills people for proselytizing
any religion but Islam. Christians are arrested and jailed, at best,
for handing out christian literature. Moslems who convert are condemned
to death.
The fundamental question boils down to the basic idea of human
existence, which can be summarized by the U.S. Declaration of
Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness." Coupled with the preamble to the US Constitution: "..in
order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity," we can see that Isreal has no option but to continue it's
efforts to secure it's existence and defend it's populace from both
internal and external terrorists. As a free people invoking those
statements regarding ourselves and our world view, we do well to choose
aid to Isreal against the terrorists rather than submission to a world
view that expressly wishes us dead or enslaved.
I know full well that the US Declaration and Constitution do not
apply to or in Isreal; however, if we Americans fully believe these
principles, then to stand up for those principles as they apply to
others can only strengthen them as we apply them to ourselves.
Isreal is under seige from many sides. Yet, even so, they allow
people to worship as they will. They agreed long ago to allow the
Temple Mount to continue to be administered by the Islamic presence
there, in spite of the fact that it is the place where history places
Isreal's Temple, and faith says is the place where God would reside on
earth.
Isreal allows all citizens to vote. Isreal allows diversity of
language, culture, faith and politics. Isreal encourages the free
exchange of ideas and the openness of business.
Contrast that behavior, even under seige, with the world view of
Iran, the Taliban, and even our friend Saudi Arabia.
Before we condemn Isreal for it's actions toward it's enemies, let's
look carefully at what the enemy is, what it stands for, and how it
behaves.
Regards,
mark evins
Thank you for a very good description of what's actually going on in
the middle east.
GW
Cliff
2006-08-03 12:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
First, one must understand the enemy.
Neocons are pretty simple once you get past the lies.
Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-04 10:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
First, one must understand the enemy.
Neocons are pretty simple once you get past the lies.
Found those "WMDs" yet?
Are there supposed to be WMDs in Lebanon? Hadn't heard that.....
Post by Cliff
--
Cliff
Gunner
2006-08-03 16:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Post by Gus
Post by Stuart Wheaton
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
So then the question becomes, does Israel want to play into the hands of
the terrorists? Would they be better off by not relying on bombing and
missile launches, and even artillery targeted at launching sites, when
it is known that the fuses are lit and the culprits are long gone before
the incoming fire blasts civilian houses to rubble.
First, one must understand the enemy.
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and, secondly, the submission or
extermination of all other non-muslims.
So long as the general population supports, aids and abets the tactics
of the terrorists (including voting them into political positions,
allowing them to place military equipment among civilian populations,
and parading dead bodies that frequently are unrelated to whatever news
event is being filmed) they are de facto participants in the terror and
are themselves viable targets.
If they don't want to be targets, they need to leave the combat zone,
stop supporting the terrorists, and vote out the politicians that are a
part of the terrorist organization.
As can be seen by the muslim on muslim violence in Iraq, the terrorists
don't care about their own any more than they care about the women,
children and non-combatants of Isreal.
The Isrealis, on the other hand, at least attempt to target
terrorists rather than indiscriminantly sending bombs into bona-fide
civilian areas; they warn the populace in advance of attacks, and
target the places that Hezbollah uses to launch it's rockets.
Isreal uses professional military, in professional dress, and
military equipment.
Hezbollah uses professional terrorists (or "guerillas" if you
prefer) who dress and live and travel in civilian clothes, civilian
areas and have no identifiable "military" bases or targets.
Hezbollah fires rockets into civilian areas rather than the easily
identifiable military areas or targets.
The terrorists routinely bring truckloads of frozen dead,
especially children, to areas and bring out the bodies for western
cameras. It's world class propoganda intended to engender sympathy for
the locals and anger at Isreal.
And it works.
Isreal's hands are tied in that if they do not respond to the
terrorists, the terrorists have a free hand to keep killing Isrealis.
If Isreal responds to the terrorists, as they have a right and
responsibility to do, then the world is shown con artist propoganda of
dead children, civilians, pregnant women, etc and gets blamed for
causing so much human suffering.
The existence of "palestinian arabs" is a fraud. There is no such
thing. The arabic folk who lived in the area when Isreal was formed had
no self-identity as "palestinians". That was dreamed up by the radicals
whose sole purpose was to marginalize and eventually destroy Isreal,
but over the years the term has become so normative that most people in
the west think that "Palestine" was actually a people and culture for
ages.
"Palestine" is derived from "Philistine"... those folk who
disappeared over 2000 years ago and were not ever Arabic, but
descendants of Greek and Macedonian seamen. The modern Arabs in
palestine are descendants of the Arabs who raged out of the desert
behind Mohammed 1300 years ago, killing and destroying everyone who did
not submit to Islam.
Islam's goal has not changed. The Islamic goal is world domination
with all others either killed or submitted.
Theirs is the culture that continues human slavery, female
mutilation, and religious persecution beyond what anyone else can
imagine. On every front, the Islamic goal is domination and the
imposition of Sharia law.
Theirs is the culture that arrests or kills people for proselytizing
any religion but Islam. Christians are arrested and jailed, at best,
for handing out christian literature. Moslems who convert are condemned
to death.
The fundamental question boils down to the basic idea of human
existence, which can be summarized by the U.S. Declaration of
Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness." Coupled with the preamble to the US Constitution: "..in
order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity," we can see that Isreal has no option but to continue it's
efforts to secure it's existence and defend it's populace from both
internal and external terrorists. As a free people invoking those
statements regarding ourselves and our world view, we do well to choose
aid to Isreal against the terrorists rather than submission to a world
view that expressly wishes us dead or enslaved.
I know full well that the US Declaration and Constitution do not
apply to or in Isreal; however, if we Americans fully believe these
principles, then to stand up for those principles as they apply to
others can only strengthen them as we apply them to ourselves.
Isreal is under seige from many sides. Yet, even so, they allow
people to worship as they will. They agreed long ago to allow the
Temple Mount to continue to be administered by the Islamic presence
there, in spite of the fact that it is the place where history places
Isreal's Temple, and faith says is the place where God would reside on
earth.
Isreal allows all citizens to vote. Isreal allows diversity of
language, culture, faith and politics. Isreal encourages the free
exchange of ideas and the openness of business.
Contrast that behavior, even under seige, with the world view of
Iran, the Taliban, and even our friend Saudi Arabia.
Before we condemn Isreal for it's actions toward it's enemies, let's
look carefully at what the enemy is, what it stands for, and how it
behaves.
Regards,
mark evins
Bravo Sir..Bravo!!!!


Gunner
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Invest the manpower in infantry, use trained, careful snipers that do
not shoot kids and women and old folks. Put predators in the air and
hit the launchers before the people setting them up are done, that at
least makes the collateral damage worthwhile. But blasting an area
because missiles came from there yesterday is like beating your dog for
barking at the neighbor last night, it just pisses off the dog and he
won't change his behavior.
To 'win' this conflict, Israel must be prepared to take moderate losses
of infantry personnel. They must go into the Hezbolla held territory,
and draw the actual enemy, the armed fighter, into face to face combat.
Dropping bombs is the lazy and indiscriminate way to perpetuate this
conflict for many more years.
Furthermore, when this conflict is over, Lebanon will have to be a
viable state. Israel has already done so much damage to the
infrastructure of that country, that it will be very difficult and very
expensive to meet the needs of the population. Roads, bridges, power,
water, sanitation, and communications facilities have been blown to bits
already in this campaign of bombing. Massive and swift aid will have to
come in from many countries to repair this damage, otherwise the people
who are denied basic services will become easy prey for extremist
politicos and the lebanese government will be pulled toward hardliners
who promise to retaliate rather than repair. Anything that minimizes
the damage done to non-combatants is a step in the right direction.
"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Cliff
2006-08-03 19:28:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Bravo Sir..Bravo!!!!
Drooling on keyboards is not a good sign.
--
Cliff
S***@flashlight.net
2006-08-04 08:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Post by Gus
Post by Stuart Wheaton
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
So then the question becomes, does Israel want to play into the hands of
the terrorists? Would they be better off by not relying on bombing and
missile launches, and even artillery targeted at launching sites, when
it is known that the fuses are lit and the culprits are long gone before
the incoming fire blasts civilian houses to rubble.
First, one must understand the enemy.
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and, secondly, the submission or
extermination of all other non-muslims.
So long as the general population supports, aids and abets the tactics
of the terrorists (including voting them into political positions,
allowing them to place military equipment among civilian populations,
and parading dead bodies that frequently are unrelated to whatever news
event is being filmed) they are de facto participants in the terror and
are themselves viable targets.
Hmmm, I think I need to expand this diatribe a bit.

This is not a European game played by the numbers; a clockwork of
18th century strategems and tactics. This is a proxy war between two
ancient tribes manipulated by globalist Neocons and supplied by the
US, Britain, Russia, North Korea and China.

At the fundamental level, the Arabs are pissed because their land was
stolen from them, first by the British and more recently in 1947 by
European Zionists under the guise of Jewish settlers who were backed
by the US government. Prior to that, there was no conflict between
Jews and Arabs, nor between Muslims and Jews.

Until that slight is remedied there can't possibly be peace.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
If they don't want to be targets, they need to leave the combat zone,
stop supporting the terrorists, and vote out the politicians that are a
part of the terrorist organization.
The people whose ancestors inhabited the area we call the Middle East
for the past 10,000 years, will live and die on their land. They are
all in this togther - men, women and children. Their homes are the
villages, farms and cities where they work.

Where they can protect their families they do so but because
of their lifestyle, the terrain and that they must posses their
land in order to protect it, it is ludicrious to assume or complain
that some are used as "human shields".
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
As can be seen by the muslim on muslim violence in Iraq, the terrorists
don't care about their own any more than they care about the women,
children and non-combatants of Isreal.
The Isrealis, on the other hand, at least attempt to target
terrorists rather than indiscriminantly sending bombs into bona-fide
civilian areas; they warn the populace in advance of attacks, and
target the places that Hezbollah uses to launch it's rockets.
Isreal uses professional military, in professional dress, and
military equipment.
Hezbollah uses professional terrorists (or "guerillas" if you
prefer) who dress and live and travel in civilian clothes, civilian
areas and have no identifiable "military" bases or targets.
Hezbollah fires rockets into civilian areas rather than the easily
identifiable military areas or targets.
The terrorists routinely bring truckloads of frozen dead,
especially children, to areas and bring out the bodies for western
cameras. It's world class propoganda intended to engender sympathy for
the locals and anger at Isreal.
And it works.
Get used to it. If you want Israel to kill "hezbollah" you will
need to kill all the women and children as well.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Isreal's hands are tied in that if they do not respond to the
terrorists, the terrorists have a free hand to keep killing Isrealis.
If Isreal responds to the terrorists, as they have a right and
responsibility to do, then the world is shown con artist propoganda of
dead children, civilians, pregnant women, etc and gets blamed for
causing so much human suffering.
Israel's hands are not tied. The Israelis know full well why they
are neither trusted or welcome. The religious Jews claim that their
god has said they are better than others and are therefore entitled
to take what they want. I wasn't there so I don't know if this is
true or not but I do know that there are others who reject this
claim and are prepared to die for their beliefs.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The existence of "palestinian arabs" is a fraud. There is no such
thing. The arabic folk who lived in the area when Isreal was formed had
no self-identity as "palestinians". That was dreamed up by the radicals
whose sole purpose was to marginalize and eventually destroy Isreal,
but over the years the term has become so normative that most people in
the west think that "Palestine" was actually a people and culture for
ages.
A fraud?

Documents show that about 600,000 Arabs (Muslim and Christian) and
Jews lived in the area of Palestine as had their ancestors for at
least 4 centuries before the European Jews invaded in 1947.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
"Palestine" is derived from "Philistine"... those folk who
disappeared over 2000 years ago and were not ever Arabic, but
descendants of Greek and Macedonian seamen. The modern Arabs in
palestine are descendants of the Arabs who raged out of the desert
behind Mohammed 1300 years ago, killing and destroying everyone who did
not submit to Islam.
That's not quite the whole story.

The modern Arabs are the blood cousins of the ancient Jews of
the Middle East.

Few modern Jews in the US, Europe or Israel are directly related to
those of the Middle East, most being Ashkenazi from Europe.

1. The people of the Old Testament 3,000 to 4,000 years ago,
were the ancestors of the Jews and Arabs of the New Testament
period. They were of the same bloodline.

2. Following a Jewish revolt, Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and
killed all the Jews and Christians they could find. Those they
missed were a relative few families had left the area some years
earlier.

3. After the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, documents describe
the Christian religion as already devisive and distinct from it's
origins, and the rebanded Jewish religion was a copy of the
corrupt version that had led to the Christian split.

Mohammed created Islam during the early 600s AD with the help of
sympathetic Jewish rabbis as an improved Judaism, a replacement
for Arab tribesmen who would not accept either Christianity or
Judaism. The religion did catch on and it was quickly
perverted, as are all religions, to suit local politics.

Islam has essentially the same history, the same prophets, the
same tribal codes as Judaism. The perspective of god is
different as are some of the dietary laws and code of social
behavior.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Islam's goal has not changed. The Islamic goal is world domination
with all others either killed or submitted.
The Koran speaks of retaining ancestoral lands, not traveling the
seven seas in search of conquests. Within their lands, non-Muslims
must be welcomed and protected, but cannot be full citizens.

As for killing non-Muslims outright just because they are not
Muslims, that of course is not true.

However, that does emphasize another difference between the two
religions and societies. One can officially become a Muslim whereas
one cannot become a Jew. The Jewish lineage is passed through
a Jewish mother. Its a closed shop. The Jewish convert is in name
only.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Theirs is the culture that continues human slavery, female
mutilation, and religious persecution beyond what anyone else can
imagine. On every front, the Islamic goal is domination and the
imposition of Sharia law.
Theirs is the culture that arrests or kills people for proselytizing
any religion but Islam. Christians are arrested and jailed, at best,
for handing out christian literature. Moslems who convert are condemned
to death.
Shall I post again some of the jucier Jewish laws? Shall I note the
obsessive social posturing and exclusivity practiced by even modern
Jews.

Islam can't hold a candle to the carnage and misanthropic history
of Judaism. Talk about your desert war god pointing out the next
bloody conquest - now, those were the days!


Theocratic states, such as the one the Taliban created in Afghanistan,
are dictatorships run by religious zealots. Israel, offically a
secular state, has battled its own orthodox element for sixty some
years for fear that it would come to power. You ain't seen nothing
till you've seen the Sanhedrin at work. Just ask the Christians.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The fundamental question boils down to the basic idea of human
existence, which can be summarized by the U.S. Declaration of
Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness."
Coupled with the preamble to the US Constitution: "..in
order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity,"
we can see that Isreal has no option but to continue it's
efforts to secure it's existence and defend it's populace from both
internal and external terrorists. As a free people invoking those
statements regarding ourselves and our world view, we do well to choose
aid to Isreal against the terrorists rather than submission to a world
view that expressly wishes us dead or enslaved.
Fine. That's a nice thought. Now just have Israel resolve the
issue of stolen land and its threats of expansion and we can go to
lunch.

Oh, and you'd better do something about the Zionists and Neocons,
largely Jewish, because they don't give a damn about the Constitution
or the Preamble.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
I know full well that the US Declaration and Constitution do not
apply to or in Isreal; however, if we Americans fully believe these
principles, then to stand up for those principles as they apply to
others can only strengthen them as we apply them to ourselves.
You're right, they don't apply and to even use them in the same
context is a bad joke.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Isreal is under seige from many sides. Yet, even so, they allow
people to worship as they will. They agreed long ago to allow the
Temple Mount to continue to be administered by the Islamic presence
there, in spite of the fact that it is the place where history places
Isreal's Temple, and faith says is the place where God would reside on
earth.
Isreal allows all citizens to vote. Isreal allows diversity of
language, culture, faith and politics. Isreal encourages the free
exchange of ideas and the openness of business.
Contrast that behavior, even under seige, with the world view of
Iran, the Taliban, and even our friend Saudi Arabia.
Before we condemn Isreal for it's actions toward it's enemies, let's
look carefully at what the enemy is, what it stands for, and how it
behaves.
Regards,
mark evins
Nice speech Mark. But do try to keep a balanced perspective and
realize that underneath the layers of religious rhetoric lies some
real complaints by real people, that must be resolved.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Guido
2006-08-04 10:27:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Documents show that about 600,000 Arabs (Muslim and Christian) and
Jews lived in the area of Palestine as had their ancestors for at
least 4 centuries before the European Jews invaded in 1947.
But did they have a flag?

"I claim this terroritory of Virginia for Queen Elizabeth and England!"

"Hey you can't do that we live here!"

"Where is your flag? No flag no country! That's the rules!"

"I claim this land Australia for Great Britain!"

"Wait on a minute Bruce we live here!"

"Where's yer flag then Cobber?"

"Darth Vader sire, rebels are attacking!"

"What do they want?"

"I don't know, but they've brought a flag!"

"The bastards!"

Eddie Izzard
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-04 14:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Post by Gus
Post by Stuart Wheaton
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
So then the question becomes, does Israel want to play into the hands of
the terrorists? Would they be better off by not relying on bombing and
missile launches, and even artillery targeted at launching sites, when
it is known that the fuses are lit and the culprits are long gone before
the incoming fire blasts civilian houses to rubble.
First, one must understand the enemy.
In this case, the enemy is a populace at large that expressly desires
the extermination of Isreal and, secondly, the submission or
extermination of all other non-muslims.
So long as the general population supports, aids and abets the tactics
of the terrorists (including voting them into political positions,
allowing them to place military equipment among civilian populations,
and parading dead bodies that frequently are unrelated to whatever news
event is being filmed) they are de facto participants in the terror and
are themselves viable targets.
Hmmm, I think I need to expand this diatribe a bit.
This is not a European game played by the numbers; a clockwork of
18th century strategems and tactics. This is a proxy war between two
ancient tribes manipulated by globalist Neocons and supplied by the
US, Britain, Russia, North Korea and China.
No sir. It's a direct war between a modern nation and various groups of
religious zealots whose express desire is the destruction of that
modern nation.
Tho you are correct in saying that it is supplied by every major power
in global politics.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
At the fundamental level, the Arabs are pissed because their land was
stolen from them, first by the British and more recently in 1947 by
European Zionists under the guise of Jewish settlers who were backed
by the US government. Prior to that, there was no conflict between
Jews and Arabs, nor between Muslims and Jews.
Their land was not "stolen" from them by anyone. The Brits reached an
agreement with those who wanted to break loose from the oppression of
the Ottomans, and part of that was the British protectorate.
There are *always* dissenters.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Until that slight is remedied there can't possibly be peace.
The sole slight is the existence of Israel as a modern state, and it's
only a slight to those rabid muslims who specifically hate Israel, the
jews in general, and the perceived trespass on land that had been
muslim since it was conquered by the muslims centuries before.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
If they don't want to be targets, they need to leave the combat zone,
stop supporting the terrorists, and vote out the politicians that are a
part of the terrorist organization.
The people whose ancestors inhabited the area we call the Middle East
for the past 10,000 years, will live and die on their land. They are
all in this togther - men, women and children. Their homes are the
villages, farms and cities where they work.
Yup. Jews, christians, coptics, zoroastrians, muslims....
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Where they can protect their families they do so but because
of their lifestyle, the terrain and that they must posses their
land in order to protect it, it is ludicrious to assume or complain
that some are used as "human shields".
True. They are willing participants and lend support to the terrorists.
They make their bed and can lay in it.
Good point.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
As can be seen by the muslim on muslim violence in Iraq, the terrorists
don't care about their own any more than they care about the women,
children and non-combatants of Isreal.
The Isrealis, on the other hand, at least attempt to target
terrorists rather than indiscriminantly sending bombs into bona-fide
civilian areas; they warn the populace in advance of attacks, and
target the places that Hezbollah uses to launch it's rockets.
Isreal uses professional military, in professional dress, and
military equipment.
Hezbollah uses professional terrorists (or "guerillas" if you
prefer) who dress and live and travel in civilian clothes, civilian
areas and have no identifiable "military" bases or targets.
Hezbollah fires rockets into civilian areas rather than the easily
identifiable military areas or targets.
The terrorists routinely bring truckloads of frozen dead,
especially children, to areas and bring out the bodies for western
cameras. It's world class propoganda intended to engender sympathy for
the locals and anger at Isreal.
And it works.
Get used to it. If you want Israel to kill "hezbollah" you will
need to kill all the women and children as well.
If this is your view, don't complain when Israel does just that. After
all, that is exactly what hezbollah and hamas and others do to Israel.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Isreal's hands are tied in that if they do not respond to the
terrorists, the terrorists have a free hand to keep killing Isrealis.
If Isreal responds to the terrorists, as they have a right and
responsibility to do, then the world is shown con artist propoganda of
dead children, civilians, pregnant women, etc and gets blamed for
causing so much human suffering.
Israel's hands are not tied. The Israelis know full well why they
are neither trusted or welcome. The religious Jews claim that their
god has said they are better than others and are therefore entitled
to take what they want. I wasn't there so I don't know if this is
true or not but I do know that there are others who reject this
claim and are prepared to die for their beliefs.
Oh, please.
The question is whether a recognised nation/state has the
duty/responsibility/right to protect it's citizens from aggression by
folk who want to kill them and destroy their country.
Every ethnic/religious group has every reason to believe that they are
their god's "chosen" people. It's a fundamental principle of group
identity to believe one's own group is "best". It's no different for
the muslims (or christians) who insist that infidels are unworthy or
unfit or must be going to hell because they don't believe the same way
as group X.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The existence of "palestinian arabs" is a fraud. There is no such
thing. The arabic folk who lived in the area when Isreal was formed had
no self-identity as "palestinians". That was dreamed up by the radicals
whose sole purpose was to marginalize and eventually destroy Isreal,
but over the years the term has become so normative that most people in
the west think that "Palestine" was actually a people and culture for
ages.
A fraud?
Documents show that about 600,000 Arabs (Muslim and Christian) and
Jews lived in the area of Palestine as had their ancestors for at
least 4 centuries before the European Jews invaded in 1947.
They did not self identify as "palestinian". They were arabs and
persians, and leftover europeans and those of mixed ethnicity. There
has not been a self identified palestinian until the PLO came about to
give themselves some sort of identity and victim status.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
"Palestine" is derived from "Philistine"... those folk who
disappeared over 2000 years ago and were not ever Arabic, but
descendants of Greek and Macedonian seamen. The modern Arabs in
palestine are descendants of the Arabs who raged out of the desert
behind Mohammed 1300 years ago, killing and destroying everyone who did
not submit to Islam.
That's not quite the whole story.
The modern Arabs are the blood cousins of the ancient Jews of
the Middle East.
Yep.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Few modern Jews in the US, Europe or Israel are directly related to
those of the Middle East, most being Ashkenazi from Europe.
1. The people of the Old Testament 3,000 to 4,000 years ago,
were the ancestors of the Jews and Arabs of the New Testament
period. They were of the same bloodline.
Yup.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
2. Following a Jewish revolt, Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and
killed all the Jews and Christians they could find. Those they
missed were a relative few families had left the area some years
earlier.
No sir. Judeah was primarily (tho not exclusively) a jewish client
state. Their capital was Jerusalem, and their sole temple was there.
During the various jewish holidays, Jerusalem was routinely swollen
with visitors from near and far who came specifically for those
celebrations, and judaism was widespread throughout the empire.
The Romans killed those Jews who revolted, those who got in their
way, and put down the rebellion; but it took several years to do so.
Jerusalem was declared off limits to jews, but religious centers and
schools were allowed to operate in various smaller cities in the area,
and synogogues throughout the empire continued to operate.
Further rebellion in the early decades of the 2nd century continued
the strife for some years.
To suggest that the Romans "missed" a relative few jews who "had left
the area some years earlier" is grossly inaccurate.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
3. After the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, documents describe
the Christian religion as already devisive and distinct from it's
origins, and the rebanded Jewish religion was a copy of the
corrupt version that had led to the Christian split.
No, sir. The Council of Nicea showed a remarkable homogeniety
among the bishops of the mainstream church. It's purpose was to examine
charges against one Arius who was propogating views that the mainstream
church viewed as inaccurate. The result was the excommunication of
Arius, and the established creed that Jesus was one with the Father.
There was no "rebanded" jewish religion; it had never been
"disbanded". Schools and synogogues had continued to operate throughout
the empire from before, during and after the Roman-Jewish wars. The
primary difference was that the jewish religious became rabbinic due to
the destruction of the temple; there was no way to hold the sacrifices
and some means of remaining "pure" had to be found. Those means were an
outgrowth of the pharisaic model of judaism which predated christianity
and the destruction of Jerusalem.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Mohammed created Islam during the early 600s AD with the help of
sympathetic Jewish rabbis as an improved Judaism, a replacement
for Arab tribesmen who would not accept either Christianity or
Judaism. The religion did catch on and it was quickly
perverted, as are all religions, to suit local politics.
Sure, to an extent. Judaism was long respected for it's high moral
character, and the monotheistic bent suited Mohammed. He learned about
Judaism, and succeeded in appropriated some of the legends, some of the
prophets and some of the customs, but he didn't get it all or get it
all "right".
Any help from jews was more in teaching him about god rather than
forming an "improved" judaism.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Islam has essentially the same history, the same prophets, the
same tribal codes as Judaism. The perspective of god is
different as are some of the dietary laws and code of social
behavior.
Some of islam is similar to some of judaism. Some of christianity is
similar to some of Greek hero worship, and some of christian ritual is
similar to some of Roman Mithraic ritual.
Saying that Islam and Judaism have "essentially the same history" is
like saying that christianity and mithraism have essentially the same
history.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Islam's goal has not changed. The Islamic goal is world domination
with all others either killed or submitted.
The Koran speaks of retaining ancestoral lands, not traveling the
seven seas in search of conquests. Within their lands, non-Muslims
must be welcomed and protected, but cannot be full citizens.
The Koran speaks of submitting the world to god. It calls the muslim to
subdue and subject non muslims, and speaks of destroying all infidels.
It has spread by sword from its inception, across Arabia, Syria, Egypt,
etc.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
As for killing non-Muslims outright just because they are not
Muslims, that of course is not true.
It is true. It's also true that the sharia imposes a death penalty for
muslims who convert to other faiths.
Muslim prisons do not provide food for inmates; that must be brought by
relatives or friends. If the relatives and/or friends are also
non-muslims, they risk being arrested and jailed themselves for support
of apostates.
Muslim culture deems appropriate any action taken against jews,
specifically. Rape of jewish women, theft of jewish property, the
general and absolute subservience to muslims in general, the
proscription against selling (as opposed to "giving") to muslims, the
utter absence of legal recourse for a jew against a muslim....
Let's get the truth out, shall we?
Post by S***@flashlight.net
However, that does emphasize another difference between the two
religions and societies. One can officially become a Muslim whereas
one cannot become a Jew. The Jewish lineage is passed through
a Jewish mother. Its a closed shop. The Jewish convert is in name
only.
This is false. Conversion to judaism is allowed and has been for
millenia. Judaism was popular in the Roman Empire prior to the
Roman-Jewish wars, and synogogues enjoyed a fair amount of interest and
conversion throughout the empire.
Christian history shows the conflict between the influence of Paul
and his acceptance of gentile converts without significant application
of law and his opponents who argued specifically in favor of the
application of law regarding gentile converts. The Paulist version was
the easier of the two for gentiles, and thus attracted more. After all,
if a grown man doesn't have to be circumcised and no one has to obey
food laws, it's much easier to commit to the "club" as it were.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Theirs is the culture that continues human slavery, female
mutilation, and religious persecution beyond what anyone else can
imagine. On every front, the Islamic goal is domination and the
imposition of Sharia law.
Theirs is the culture that arrests or kills people for proselytizing
any religion but Islam. Christians are arrested and jailed, at best,
for handing out christian literature. Moslems who convert are condemned
to death.
Shall I post again some of the jucier Jewish laws? Shall I note the
obsessive social posturing and exclusivity practiced by even modern
Jews.
Knock yourself out. Whatever silliness you imagine on the part of jews
doesn't speak to or approach the acts of slavery, mutilation, torture
and inhumanity of muslim culture and law.
If you like, you might also post the laws requiring fairness to all
creatures, things and property, the law requiring the forgiveness of
debt and the return of property.
If you like, you can post the NT admonishments against debt, interest
and divorce.
Few of those are practiced by modern jews or christians; that you want
to compare ancient practices to modern inhumanity is rather odd, but go
ahead.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Islam can't hold a candle to the carnage and misanthropic history
of Judaism. Talk about your desert war god pointing out the next
bloody conquest - now, those were the days!
Oh? You wish to compare the conquering of Canaan and the small states
of Israel (destroyed around 500 bce) and Judeah (destroyed around 135
ce) to the Ottoman Empire, with borders ranging from the Persian Gulf
to the Alps near Vienna, to Algiers; encompassing all of Greece,
Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and more, which finally drew its
last breath in 1923?
Or do you want to compare modern Israel standing up to and defeating
multiple muslim nations who launched a war of aggression before the ink
was dry on the UN resolution creating Israel?
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Theocratic states, such as the one the Taliban created in Afghanistan,
are dictatorships run by religious zealots. Israel, offically a
secular state, has battled its own orthodox element for sixty some
years for fear that it would come to power. You ain't seen nothing
till you've seen the Sanhedrin at work. Just ask the Christians.
You seem to be alluding to the "trial of Jesus" here, and that would
seem to be an effort to antagonize christians.
The Sanhedrin had no power to invoke a death sentence on anyone. The
Sanhedrin never, ever met at night, nor during a Sabbath, and certainly
not during Passover.
The Romans, on the other hand, crucified bandits and troublemakers by
the thousands. Causing a riot in Jerusalem during Passover would be
ample cause to crucify the offender.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The fundamental question boils down to the basic idea of human
existence, which can be summarized by the U.S. Declaration of
Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness."
Coupled with the preamble to the US Constitution: "..in
order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity,"
we can see that Isreal has no option but to continue it's
efforts to secure it's existence and defend it's populace from both
internal and external terrorists. As a free people invoking those
statements regarding ourselves and our world view, we do well to choose
aid to Isreal against the terrorists rather than submission to a world
view that expressly wishes us dead or enslaved.
Fine. That's a nice thought. Now just have Israel resolve the
issue of stolen land and its threats of expansion and we can go to
lunch.
What stolen land?
Are you any more willing to discuss your own land as being stolen, and
the repatriation of it's previous occupants, than Cliff?
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Oh, and you'd better do something about the Zionists and Neocons,
largely Jewish, because they don't give a damn about the Constitution
or the Preamble.
Which has what to do with the notion that Israelis, as do we Americans,
have the right to live peacefully in their country and to expect their
government to defend them against aggressors who are actively and
specifically trying to kill them?
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
I know full well that the US Declaration and Constitution do not
apply to or in Isreal; however, if we Americans fully believe these
principles, then to stand up for those principles as they apply to
others can only strengthen them as we apply them to ourselves.
You're right, they don't apply and to even use them in the same
context is a bad joke.
No, it's actually not. It's simply an effort to put into context our
own ideas of human rights and the responsibility of government with
what Israel is doing. In light of our own national ideal, Israel is
acting correctly if unpleasantly.
War is hell.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Isreal is under seige from many sides. Yet, even so, they allow
people to worship as they will. They agreed long ago to allow the
Temple Mount to continue to be administered by the Islamic presence
there, in spite of the fact that it is the place where history places
Isreal's Temple, and faith says is the place where God would reside on
earth.
Isreal allows all citizens to vote. Isreal allows diversity of
language, culture, faith and politics. Isreal encourages the free
exchange of ideas and the openness of business.
Contrast that behavior, even under seige, with the world view of
Iran, the Taliban, and even our friend Saudi Arabia.
Before we condemn Isreal for it's actions toward it's enemies, let's
look carefully at what the enemy is, what it stands for, and how it
behaves.
Regards,
mark evins
Nice speech Mark. But do try to keep a balanced perspective and
realize that underneath the layers of religious rhetoric lies some
real complaints by real people, that must be resolved.
Sure enough. And the opposing view that the muslims who want to destroy
Israel do so out of their own ideal of what "should" be reality is
perfectly valid. The goal of conquest by the muslim extremists is
distasteful, but it is a common enough approach to the world with a
long history among nearly all humans of every ethnic/religious/cultural
background.
Turning the clock back 60 years is hardly an answer in the middle east
just as it is no answer to problems in any other area of the world or
any distance in time. By approaching the middle east difficulties in
terms of "group a" stealing from "group b", we might as well talk
about Cypress and who it "should' belong to, who it is that "should"
occupy Scotland, or England or North or South America, or whether to
round up everyone of african descent (which would be all of humanity)
and ship 'em back to africa and let 'em fight it out there.
It's not workable.
What we have to work with is the reality that faces us, which is that
Israel is a nation state recognised on the world stage. It's being
attacked by non-nation state guerillas who target civilians, civilian
enterprises and seek as much death and destruction among the population
of Israel as possible in their effort to destroy the country and
conquer it in the name of Allah.
It's a difficult concept to internalize; we in the US haven't had to
face constant bombardment of our civillians from our neighbors, nor do
we have immediate neighbors who express open and official desire for
the complete destruction of our country. But it's the reality of life
in Israel, and has been since it's inception in 1948.

Best Regards,
mark evins
Post by S***@flashlight.net
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
r***@yahoo.co.uk
2006-08-04 21:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
At the fundamental level, the Arabs are pissed because their land was
stolen from them, first by the British and more recently in 1947 by
European Zionists under the guise of Jewish settlers who were backed
by the US government. Prior to that, there was no conflict between
Jews and Arabs, nor between Muslims and Jews.
Their land was not "stolen" from them by anyone. The Brits reached an
agreement with those who wanted to break loose from the oppression of
the Ottomans, and part of that was the British protectorate.
There are *always* dissenters.
But surely...

* Arab = inhabitant of Arab-ia?
* Jews lived in Palestine in 1 AD?
* Romans stole Palestine from them and evicted large numbers?
* In the 7th century the Arabs stole Palestine from the Romans?
* During the middle ages, the Turks stole it from the Arabs?
* After the Turks were defeated by the British, a League of Nations
mandate awarded the territories to the British and French (who didn't
need or want them, being short of cash at the time).
* During the last 2 Jews were returning to Palestine.

At what point did the Arabs own the land, in the last millenium?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Until that slight is remedied there can't possibly be peace.
What sort of person is willing to shed oceans of blood over 'slights'
based on events before anyone now living there was born?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The sole slight is the existence of Israel as a modern state, and it's
only a slight to those rabid muslims who specifically hate Israel,
But which moslems do not? Look at how they act, what they say.
Don't they hate everyone who isn't a moslem, which is most of the
world?

It looks very much as if it's just that they start with Israel. If
Israel didn't exist, they'd start in on whoever was next. If this is
so -- and it looks a lot like it -- then as it stands, Israel is doing
every non-Moslem in the world a huge favour by diverting these
blood-crazed moslems from attacking the rest of us.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
If they don't want to be targets, they need to leave the combat zone,
stop supporting the terrorists, and vote out the politicians that are a
part of the terrorist organization.
The people whose ancestors inhabited the area we call the Middle East
for the past 10,000 years, will live and die on their land. They are
all in this togther - men, women and children.
Thus they are combatants, then, not "innocent civilians". Under the
Geneva convention, then, Israel would be perfectly justified to kill
the lot. In both Syria and Iraq, Arab governments have done just this.
Are they wrong?

There is a simple moral principle here: do not do to others what you
would not like done to yourself. Every day it feels as if Moslems
break it, to express their Moslemness. Isn't it the case that, in the
Arab world, where Israel is concerned, every Arab feels that "what's
mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable"?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
3. After the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, documents describe
the Christian religion as already devisive and distinct from it's
origins, and the rebanded Jewish religion was a copy of the
corrupt version that had led to the Christian split.
No, sir. The Council of Nicea showed a remarkable homogeniety
among the bishops of the mainstream church. It's purpose was to examine
charges against one Arius who was propogating views that the mainstream
church viewed as inaccurate. The result was the excommunication of
Arius, and the established creed that Jesus was one with the Father.
Indeed.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Islam's goal has not changed. The Islamic goal is world domination
with all others either killed or submitted.
The Koran speaks of retaining ancestoral lands, not traveling the
seven seas in search of conquests.
Then how did all those Arabs get into Palestine? Into Egypt? Into
Syria, and Iraq, and Turkey, and Morocco, and Persia, and India? It
certainly wasn't by peaceful immigration!
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Within their lands, non-Muslims must be welcomed and protected, but cannot
be full citizens.
I presume that you would have no objections, then, in non-Moslem
countries, for Moslems to be "welcomed and protected" but treated as
second-class citizens? Yet here in England I hear endless Moslem
demands for privileges. Please explain.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
As for killing non-Muslims outright just because they are not
Muslims, that of course is not true.
Curious. What about Moslems who convert to Christianity?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Theirs is the culture that continues human slavery, female
mutilation, and religious persecution beyond what anyone else can
imagine. On every front, the Islamic goal is domination and the
imposition of Sharia law.
Theirs is the culture that arrests or kills people for proselytizing
any religion but Islam. Christians are arrested and jailed, at best,
for handing out christian literature. Moslems who convert are condemned
to death.
Shall I post again some of the jucier Jewish laws? Shall I note the
obsessive social posturing and exclusivity practiced by even modern
Jews.
Knock yourself out.
Indeed. As someone who is neither a Jew nor a Moslem, I can tell you
which stands closer to the common moral standard of mankind. Every
accusation you make against the Jews is equally true against the
Moslems, including "exclusivity". But the reverse is not true.

Of course part of this is that Moslems have lived under Turkish rule,
and been dehumanised by it, while Jews have largely lived in Western
states and learned civilised ways. Both being human, both are affected
by their environment.

That Jews are as willing to persecute as Moslems is surely
indisputable, such behaviour, again, being common to all mankind. They
have merely had fewer opportunities, although I get the impression that
some of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel -- honest ones -- might
have a tale or two to tell.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Islam can't hold a candle to the carnage and misanthropic history
of Judaism.
When did the Jews fly airplanes into skyscrapers last?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Theocratic states, such as the one the Taliban created in Afghanistan,
are dictatorships run by religious zealots.
They are also typical states produced by a revival of Islam. The
Taliban were by no means the worst of these.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Fine. That's a nice thought. Now just have Israel resolve the
issue of stolen land and its threats of expansion and we can go to
lunch.
What stolen land?
It's just an excuse. Anyone can claim this sort of nonsense; the key
thing is that they *want* to fight.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Turning the clock back 60 years is hardly an answer in the middle east
Actually I think it is. Place the whole region under colonial rule,
with puppet Arab rulers and soldiers who don't have to answer to
dishonest western "human rights" campaigners (who are always, somehow,
willing to turn a country into a desert so long as they injure their
own country), and enforce peace that way. The period between 1918 and
1940 was the sole period of decent rule that the middle east has ever
known.

Of course someone would have to find a way to get rid of all the modern
weaponry in the region... (a small technical difficulty).

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Gary H. Lucas
2006-08-02 01:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by Stuart Wheaton
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
GW
It wouldn't be terrorism if they weren't any innocent women and children
involved. It would just be a bunch of dead terrorists.

How about if terrorism had a price? What if the people you were terrorizing
decided that the correct punishment for you terrorizing their family was for
the victims survivors to hunt down and kill every relative of yours? They
could start with those video tapes made by the suicide bombers. Look up
their family and kill them all, and advertise the fact that for every
suicide bomber there will be a whole trail of dead family members. Does it
make a difference if the dead women and children are yours?

Gary H. Lucas
Day Brown
2006-08-02 09:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary H. Lucas
How about if terrorism had a price? What if the people you were terrorizing
decided that the correct punishment for you terrorizing their family was for
the victims survivors to hunt down and kill every relative of yours? They
could start with those video tapes made by the suicide bombers. Look up
their family and kill them all, and advertise the fact that for every
suicide bomber there will be a whole trail of dead family members. Does it
make a difference if the dead women and children are yours?
That's crude, but cute. But factor in the latest data from FMRI brain
scans, brain biochemistry and blood hormones, and you realize that
terrorists are like junkyard dogs; born not made.

So- all you gotta do, is kill the *boys*, or capture them and castrate
them. That'll adjust their attitudes without testosterone.

But there's another tactic that would really throw terror into the
hearts of the.... *terrorists*.

Use the new lie detection techniques outlined by Dr. Paul Ekman, or the
EEG, or FMRI brain scans to sort out terrorists from innocent suspects.
Then, when you are sure that he is known by his comrades in arms, dose
him with a few hundred micrograms of LSD 25.

It will do the same to him that it did to good Christian kids back in
the 1960's. It'll make them have a direct experience of the divine, and
realize that it is *NOT* Allah. Just as American kids realized it was
not Jesus or Jehovah. Which was why LSD was made illegal.

And then, while the Jihadim is having this experience, get him to talk
about it and *get the video*. Broadcast it on TV, and the Jihadim will
see a fate worse than death; their comrade is no longer a Moslem, and he
wont be joining them in Mohammed's wholy whorehouse fucking 12 year old
virgins. Acid kinda does that, lets a person sort thru bullschitt.
Cliff
2006-08-02 13:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Just as American kids realized it was
not Jesus or Jehovah.
Loading Image...
--
Cliff
Day Brown
2006-08-02 23:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Day Brown
Just as American kids realized it was
not Jesus or Jehovah.
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a181/scratchpad/1143pe.jpg
That poor sorry muthafuker. http://anzi.biz/machveli.htm
we are not at the stage where, having done what the kingmakers wanted,
it is time to discover his faults before sending him away, he taking the
guilt for the fiat accompli with him.
S***@flashlight.net
2006-08-02 08:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by Stuart Wheaton
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
That is a very good thought provoking response.
What bothers me is that the terrorists seem to be inviting civillian
casualties by using human shields, conducting their rocket launches
from civillian neighborhoods, and when children are killed in the
crossfire, parading their dead bodies in front of media cameras for
hours. One could almost think they're inviting these tragedies.
When its your turn to be shelled in your home, with
your family and neigbors being killed, and with no place to go,
maybe you'll come up with the correct procedure. Then you
can write a book and call it, "The Proper Etiquette For Terrorists
Under Fire".
Post by Gus
GW
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Cliff
2006-08-01 10:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Wheaton
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics.
They just need billions of dollars worth of free US arms
so as to be able to do far more damage with little risk
to themselves & all will be well.
--
Cliff
Hawke
2006-08-02 06:42:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Post by Gus
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them. I guess the
difference I see is that Israel targets terrorists while terrorists
target innocent civillians. Israel might shoot a missile at some
terrorists in a car but the terrorists like to climb aboard city busses
and blow everyone up. I see a big difference, can't you?
GW
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics. The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
With WWII warfare changed. Before that wars were almost exclusively fought
between opposing armies and civilians were left out of it for the most part.
Since WWII civilians have become legitimate targets of opportunity just the
same as the military forces. Breaking the will of the people who support a
nation is now part of warfare. Since the Lebanese people are solidly behind
Hezbollah, in the modern style of war that makes them fair game. If they
suffer enough they will stop believing that supporting Hezbollah is such a
good idea, at least that is the thinking behind the tactics. Kill the
enemy's soldiers and kill the rest of the population too as punishment for
backing the military. That is war in today's world. The civilians pay the
price just the same as their soldiers do. It doesn't matter if it's Iraq or
Lebanon that is how it goes. And that is one more reason why it should
always be the last resort to choose to start a war. Nowadays everyone
involved pays a high price. I guess the Lebanese didn't think supporting
terrorists would cost them anything. They were wrong.

Hawke
Day Brown
2006-08-02 09:41:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
With WWII warfare changed. Before that wars were almost exclusively fought
between opposing armies and civilians were left out of it for the most part.
Since WWII civilians have become legitimate targets of opportunity just the
same as the military forces. Breaking the will of the people who support a
nation is now part of warfare. Since the Lebanese people are solidly behind
Hezbollah, in the modern style of war that makes them fair game. If they
suffer enough they will stop believing that supporting Hezbollah is such a
good idea, at least that is the thinking behind the tactics. Kill the
enemy's soldiers and kill the rest of the population too as punishment for
backing the military. That is war in today's world. The civilians pay the
price just the same as their soldiers do. It doesn't matter if it's Iraq or
Lebanon that is how it goes. And that is one more reason why it should
always be the last resort to choose to start a war. Nowadays everyone
involved pays a high price. I guess the Lebanese didn't think supporting
terrorists would cost them anything. They were wrong.
Well put. Gen Sherman sent the same message going thru Georgia.

However, as I discuss in other posts, so I wont repeat it here, there
are other newer modern tools that would be even more effective without
having to kill nearly so many people.
Guido
2006-08-02 09:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Since the Lebanese people are solidly behind
Hezbollah, in the modern style of war that makes them fair game.
Blink! Blink! The Maronite christians, and the Druze and Sunni muslims
support Hezbollah? What could possibly have turned these traditional
enemies of Hezbollah into supporters?
Post by Hawke
If they
suffer enough they will stop believing that supporting Hezbollah is such a
good idea, at least that is the thinking behind the tactics.
So is it an act of terrorism on the part of Israel or an attempt to
plunge the country back into a state of civil war?
Lawrence Glickman
2006-08-02 10:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guido
Post by Hawke
Since the Lebanese people are solidly behind
Hezbollah, in the modern style of war that makes them fair game.
Blink! Blink! The Maronite christians, and the Druze and Sunni muslims
support Hezbollah? What could possibly have turned these traditional
enemies of Hezbollah into supporters?
Post by Hawke
If they
suffer enough they will stop believing that supporting Hezbollah is such a
good idea, at least that is the thinking behind the tactics.
So is it an act of terrorism on the part of Israel or an attempt to
plunge the country back into a state of civil war?
Neither. it is called self-defense
Guido
2006-08-02 10:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Guido
So is it an act of terrorism on the part of Israel or an attempt to
plunge the country back into a state of civil war?
Neither. it is called self-defense
Try again!

Self defence is when you defend yourself against a person who would is
intent on harming you. What we have here is a situation similar to
where, having been mugged, you return, some hours later to the general
area where the mugging occurred, and shoot everyone in the area.

You'd be hard pressed, even in texas, to find a jury that thought that
was an act of self defense.
Lawrence Glickman
2006-08-02 11:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guido
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Guido
So is it an act of terrorism on the part of Israel or an attempt to
plunge the country back into a state of civil war?
Neither. it is called self-defense
Try again!
Self defence is when you defend yourself against a person who would is
intent on harming you. What we have here is a situation similar to
where, having been mugged, you return, some hours later to the general
area where the mugging occurred, and shoot everyone in the area.
You'd be hard pressed, even in texas, to find a jury that thought that
was an act of self defense.
you obviously are missing something. either information, or the tool
to process that information with. which is it?
Guido
2006-08-02 12:58:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Guido
You'd be hard pressed, even in texas, to find a jury that thought that
was an act of self defense.
you obviously are missing something. either information, or the tool
to process that information with. which is it?
So you don't believe that a Texan jury would categorize Israel's bombing
of civilian areas some hours after terrorists fired rockets from within
a 100 miles of the area as self-defense either.

Good perhaps we are getting somewhere. Call it what it undoubtedly is:
collective punishment, reprisal killings, terrorism.

Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz warned the Lebanese
government that the military will target infrastructure and
"turn back the clock in Lebanon by 20 years" unless the
soldiers were freed. In the past, Israel hit power stations
feeding electricity the Lebanese capital, where one third
of the country's 3.5 million residents live.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203076,00.html
Cliff
2006-08-02 13:09:59 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 06:10:11 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Guido
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Post by Guido
So is it an act of terrorism on the part of Israel or an attempt to
plunge the country back into a state of civil war?
Neither. it is called self-defense
Try again!
Self defence is when you defend yourself against a person who would is
intent on harming you. What we have here is a situation similar to
where, having been mugged, you return, some hours later to the general
area where the mugging occurred, and shoot everyone in the area.
You'd be hard pressed, even in texas, to find a jury that thought that
was an act of self defense.
you obviously are missing something. either information, or the tool
to process that information with. which is it?
Faux "news"?
--
Cliff
Hawke
2006-08-03 05:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guido
Post by Lawrence Glickman
Neither. it is called self-defense
Try again!
Self defence is when you defend yourself against a person who would is
intent on harming you. What we have here is a situation similar to
where, having been mugged, you return, some hours later to the general
area where the mugging occurred, and shoot everyone in the area.
You'd be hard pressed, even in texas, to find a jury that thought that
was an act of self defense.
Your analogy doesn't work. Hezbollah has an important place at the table in
Lebanon. They are accepted by large numbers of the public. They don't
consider them terrorists. Even though not all the factions in Lebanon like
Hezbollah there is a large segment of the population that does. By
supporting Hezbollah they have aligned themselves with this group. Now that
this group has roused the ire of the Israeli army it's bad for all the
Lebanese. It's a shame that some of them are paying for something they had
nothing to do with but as they say, life ain't fair. Look at it like the
teacher making the whole class stay late because a couple of kids were
acting up. It's kind of like that. The thing is this though, if the Lebanese
had decided they were not going to tolerate having a private militia sit on
their border and taunt the Israelis until they finally responded this would
never have happened. So, in a way this is the fault of the Lebanese and they
are getting what they deserve. All they had to do is kick out the Hezbollah
and none of this would have happened. They chose to let them stay and do as
they please and this is what came of it.

Hawke
S***@flashlight.net
2006-08-02 08:00:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:27:24 -0400, Stuart Wheaton
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Post by Gus
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them. I guess the
difference I see is that Israel targets terrorists while terrorists
target innocent civillians. Israel might shoot a missile at some
terrorists in a car but the terrorists like to climb aboard city busses
and blow everyone up. I see a big difference, can't you?
GW
If over 1/3 of the victims of Israel's bombs were not children, this
case would be FAR stronger.
It is axiomatic that a terrorist will use terror tactics.
The question
is whether a state actor, using precision munitions, is right to cause
such massive collateral damage, and whether the relatives of those 100+
children will resort to terrorism to avenge their losses.
So, to you one is a terrorist while the other is a "state actor".

Since in 1948 the people that established Israel forcibly took
the land from the people living there, why aren't Israelis called
terrorists?



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Day Brown
2006-08-02 09:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Since in 1948 the people that established Israel forcibly took
the land from the people living there, why aren't Israelis called
terrorists?
Cause that's the way things have been done there for 5000 years. Can you
show me any land in that region which was *not* stolen from peaceful
inhabitants?

Why stop at 1948? Why not go back to the Armenian genocide which not
only took the land but *murdered* 3 million Christians? Where is your
self righteousness with that example?
S***@flashlight.net
2006-08-05 07:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Since in 1948 the people that established Israel forcibly took
the land from the people living there, why aren't Israelis called
terrorists?
Cause that's the way things have been done there for 5000 years. Can you
show me any land in that region which was *not* stolen from peaceful
inhabitants?
The ultimate pragmatist, or simply you have nothing else to do and
don't give a shit.

By analogy your position is that one may do anything one wishes
because another has done it before. Brilliant.

Anything goes; might makes right; there is no moral, ethical or
legal distinction between events in any era. So much for lucidity.
Post by Day Brown
Why stop at 1948? Why not go back to the Armenian genocide which not
only took the land but *murdered* 3 million Christians? Where is your
self righteousness with that example?
Not my self-rightousness. I have no dog in that fight. My job is to
hack my way through immensely dense thickets of denial and
break open psychological barriers and make you think. A virtual
lobotomy, as it were.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
RonB
2006-07-31 22:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them. I guess the
difference I see is that Israel targets terrorists while terrorists
target innocent civillians. Israel might shoot a missile at some
terrorists in a car but the terrorists like to climb aboard city
busses and blow everyone up. I see a big difference, can't you?
Gosh, and during that time Israel *never* attacked and killed civilians
in Palestine or Lebanon. (Hint, many, many more Palestinians have died
than have Israelis). Of course, firing missiles into Gaza and killing
kids is *not* an act of terror -- it's only an act of terror if an
Israeli dies. You might want to see if there is anything they can do
about that tunnel vision of yours.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Cliff
2006-08-01 10:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by Cliff
Post by Gus
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked
every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush
has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has
told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice.
<snipped mumbo jumbo>
Lebanese civillians are in the crossfire which is a shame but Israeli
civillians are the "targets" of terrorists. I don't hear you having any
sympathy for them.
Israel's been bombing many for decades & taking hostages
as well as much else that the UN has very strongly frowned on.
Now somebody did some neocon-style-approved rendition and
they started bombing Lebanon ... FIRST.
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them.
For longer than that they have been keeping people in refugee camps,
ignoring the UN, stealing people's homes & property, removing their
rights, keeping hostages & political prisoners, practicing assassination, ...
Post by Gus
I guess the
difference I see is that Israel targets terrorists while terrorists
target innocent civillians.
Bombs from 40,000 feet are pretty selective when fired
at refugee camps, right?
The kill ratio is far, far in Israel's favor as nobody else
has ao many arms from the US.
Post by Gus
Israel might shoot a missile at some
terrorists in a car but the terrorists like to climb aboard city busses
and blow everyone up. I see a big difference, can't you?
Dead seems to be dead.
Everybody gets to call everyone else a "terrorist" if
it makes them feel better. They can wave flags too.
Post by Gus
GW
--
Cliff
Mysterion
2006-08-01 12:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them. I guess the
difference I see is that Israel targets terrorists while terrorists
target innocent civillians. Israel might shoot a missile at some
terrorists in a car but the terrorists like to climb aboard city busses
and blow everyone up. I see a big difference, can't you?
Yet another shill for Israel is heard from.
Hannity would give you a kiss.
Gus
2006-08-01 22:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mysterion
Yet another shill for Israel is heard from.
Hannity would give you a kiss.
When you don't have an adequate reasoned response, go ahead and use the
standard Liberal tactic of personal attack and name-calling. (Hannity
is kinda cute, though.)

GW
Mysterion
2006-08-01 22:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by Mysterion
Yet another shill for Israel is heard from.
Hannity would give you a kiss.
When you don't have an adequate reasoned response, go ahead and use the
standard Liberal tactic of personal attack and name-calling. (Hannity
is kinda cute, though.)
First, "liberal" and "conservative" are simply bullshit labels used to
distract. Is it "liberal" to object to the deliberate murder of children?
Is it "conservative" to give our most advanced weapons systems to an "ally"
that has been caught selling them to the Chinese?

Second, there is nothing I could say that would change your little
programmed mind.
Here's an idea - why don't you look into the history of Israel for yourself
and use more than one source.
Try typing "Deir Yassin" into your favorite search engine.
Or "King David Hotel".
Or "USS Liberty".
Or "Lavon Affair".

Israel was founded in terrorism and murder and those are still its favorite
tactics.
Israel is NOT our friend anymore than a tick is friend to a dog.
Don't believe me, check for yourself.
Gus
2006-08-02 00:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mysterion
First, "liberal" and "conservative" are simply bullshit labels used to
distract. Is it "liberal" to object to the deliberate murder of children?
Is it "conservative" to give our most advanced weapons systems to an "ally"
that has been caught selling them to the Chinese?
Second, there is nothing I could say that would change your little
programmed mind.
Here's an idea - why don't you look into the history of Israel for yourself
and use more than one source.
Try typing "Deir Yassin" into your favorite search engine.
Or "King David Hotel".
Or "USS Liberty".
Or "Lavon Affair".
Israel was founded in terrorism and murder and those are still its favorite
tactics.
Israel is NOT our friend anymore than a tick is friend to a dog.
Don't believe me, check for yourself.
Ok, I looked them up and thought about it with my "little programmed
mind" The newest one is about 40 years old. Your point is that Israel
has what we would call terrorism in it's past. Maybe so but today they
are still our best friend in the Middle East or maybe you'd like to
point out a better friend.
GW
Mysterion
2006-08-02 02:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by Mysterion
First, "liberal" and "conservative" are simply bullshit labels used to
distract. Is it "liberal" to object to the deliberate murder of children?
Is it "conservative" to give our most advanced weapons systems to an "ally"
that has been caught selling them to the Chinese?
Second, there is nothing I could say that would change your little
programmed mind.
Here's an idea - why don't you look into the history of Israel for yourself
and use more than one source.
Try typing "Deir Yassin" into your favorite search engine.
Or "King David Hotel".
Or "USS Liberty".
Or "Lavon Affair".
Israel was founded in terrorism and murder and those are still its favorite
tactics.
Israel is NOT our friend anymore than a tick is friend to a dog.
Don't believe me, check for yourself.
Ok, I looked them up and thought about it with my "little programmed
mind" The newest one is about 40 years old. Your point is that Israel
has what we would call terrorism in it's past. Maybe so but today they
are still our best friend in the Middle East or maybe you'd like to
point out a better friend.
I'm beginning to think that you are quite possibly an idiot and beyond all
hope of educating.
No, Israel is NOT our friend.
They never have been.
They are parasitic murderers. And the USA is an accessory before and after
the fact because we continue to provide them with weapons and ammunition,
paid for with US tax dollars, and block all international attempts to rein
them in.
And zionist dupes like you have seen to it that we have no friends in the
Mid-east through your slavish, dog-like support of the murderers.

But you, of course, will continue to believe the propaganda on the TV and
ignore the evidence of history.
I hope you enjoy the hell your stupidity will bring to America.
You certainly seem to deserve it.
Gus
2006-08-02 02:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mysterion
Post by Gus
Post by Mysterion
First, "liberal" and "conservative" are simply bullshit labels used to
distract. Is it "liberal" to object to the deliberate murder of children?
Is it "conservative" to give our most advanced weapons systems to an "ally"
that has been caught selling them to the Chinese?
Second, there is nothing I could say that would change your little
programmed mind.
Here's an idea - why don't you look into the history of Israel for yourself
and use more than one source.
Try typing "Deir Yassin" into your favorite search engine.
Or "King David Hotel".
Or "USS Liberty".
Or "Lavon Affair".
Israel was founded in terrorism and murder and those are still its favorite
tactics.
Israel is NOT our friend anymore than a tick is friend to a dog.
Don't believe me, check for yourself.
Ok, I looked them up and thought about it with my "little programmed
mind" The newest one is about 40 years old. Your point is that Israel
has what we would call terrorism in it's past. Maybe so but today they
are still our best friend in the Middle East or maybe you'd like to
point out a better friend.
I'm beginning to think that you are quite possibly an idiot and beyond all
hope of educating.
No, Israel is NOT our friend.
They never have been.
They are parasitic murderers. And the USA is an accessory before and after
the fact because we continue to provide them with weapons and ammunition,
paid for with US tax dollars, and block all international attempts to rein
them in.
And zionist dupes like you have seen to it that we have no friends in the
Mid-east through your slavish, dog-like support of the murderers.
But you, of course, will continue to believe the propaganda on the TV and
ignore the evidence of history.
I hope you enjoy the hell your stupidity will bring to America.
You certainly seem to deserve it.
Well, there you go again.
Why waste your time on a hopelessly idiotic stupid zionist dupe like
me? Someone with an expanded mind like yours should have much better
things to do. Take care.
GW
Hawke
2006-08-02 07:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mysterion
Post by Gus
Post by Mysterion
First, "liberal" and "conservative" are simply bullshit labels used to
distract. Is it "liberal" to object to the deliberate murder of children?
Is it "conservative" to give our most advanced weapons systems to an "ally"
that has been caught selling them to the Chinese?
Second, there is nothing I could say that would change your little
programmed mind.
Here's an idea - why don't you look into the history of Israel for yourself
and use more than one source.
Try typing "Deir Yassin" into your favorite search engine.
Or "King David Hotel".
Or "USS Liberty".
Or "Lavon Affair".
Israel was founded in terrorism and murder and those are still its favorite
tactics.
Israel is NOT our friend anymore than a tick is friend to a dog.
Don't believe me, check for yourself.
Ok, I looked them up and thought about it with my "little programmed
mind" The newest one is about 40 years old. Your point is that Israel
has what we would call terrorism in it's past. Maybe so but today they
are still our best friend in the Middle East or maybe you'd like to
point out a better friend.
I'm beginning to think that you are quite possibly an idiot and beyond all
hope of educating.
No, Israel is NOT our friend.
They never have been.
They are parasitic murderers. And the USA is an accessory before and after
the fact because we continue to provide them with weapons and ammunition,
paid for with US tax dollars, and block all international attempts to rein
them in.
And zionist dupes like you have seen to it that we have no friends in the
Mid-east through your slavish, dog-like support of the murderers.
But you, of course, will continue to believe the propaganda on the TV and
ignore the evidence of history.
I hope you enjoy the hell your stupidity will bring to America.
You certainly seem to deserve it.
First of all you don't know what you are talking about. The Arabs have been
attacking the Israelis almost continually for going on 60 years. If they
would just leave the Jews alone the violence in the area would be gone
overnight. But they just keep at it without letup. As far as I'm concerned
they are getting what they deserve.

Besides that the Arabs are just darn lucky they are dealing with the
Israelis instead of us. I guarantee if we were the Israelis we would have
destroyed the Arabs once and for all a long time ago. We would have carpet
bombed them with B52s until there wasn't an Arab within a hundred miles of
our border. The Arabs should consider themselves lucky they are dealing with
a people as decent as the Jews are. If they did to us what they have done to
the Israelis they wouldn't exist anymore. They're just darn lucky the
Israelis are so nice. We wouldn't be so understanding and kind as they are.

Hawke
Day Brown
2006-08-02 09:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Besides that the Arabs are just darn lucky they are dealing with the
Israelis instead of us. I guarantee if we were the Israelis we would have
destroyed the Arabs once and for all a long time ago. We would have carpet
bombed them with B52s until there wasn't an Arab within a hundred miles of
our border. The Arabs should consider themselves lucky they are dealing with
a people as decent as the Jews are. If they did to us what they have done to
the Israelis they wouldn't exist anymore. They're just darn lucky the
Israelis are so nice. We wouldn't be so understanding and kind as they are.
Well put. If the missiles were coming over the border and landing in San
Diego, we'd be bombing the schitt out of Mexico. And while nobody talks
about it, we all know that the central government dont have control of a
region run by druglords. Has everyone forgotten Lebanese hash?

I agree that the Jews could handle this more adroitly, but dont blame
them for sending the same message Gen Sherman sent to Georgia.
Mysterion
2006-08-04 06:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Post by Mysterion
Post by Gus
Post by Mysterion
First, "liberal" and "conservative" are simply bullshit labels used to
distract. Is it "liberal" to object to the deliberate murder of children?
Is it "conservative" to give our most advanced weapons systems to an "ally"
that has been caught selling them to the Chinese?
Second, there is nothing I could say that would change your little
programmed mind.
Here's an idea - why don't you look into the history of Israel for yourself
and use more than one source.
Try typing "Deir Yassin" into your favorite search engine.
Or "King David Hotel".
Or "USS Liberty".
Or "Lavon Affair".
Israel was founded in terrorism and murder and those are still its favorite
tactics.
Israel is NOT our friend anymore than a tick is friend to a dog.
Don't believe me, check for yourself.
Ok, I looked them up and thought about it with my "little programmed
mind" The newest one is about 40 years old. Your point is that Israel
has what we would call terrorism in it's past. Maybe so but today they
are still our best friend in the Middle East or maybe you'd like to
point out a better friend.
I'm beginning to think that you are quite possibly an idiot and beyond all
hope of educating.
No, Israel is NOT our friend.
They never have been.
They are parasitic murderers. And the USA is an accessory before and
after
Post by Mysterion
the fact because we continue to provide them with weapons and ammunition,
paid for with US tax dollars, and block all international attempts to rein
them in.
And zionist dupes like you have seen to it that we have no friends in the
Mid-east through your slavish, dog-like support of the murderers.
But you, of course, will continue to believe the propaganda on the TV and
ignore the evidence of history.
I hope you enjoy the hell your stupidity will bring to America.
You certainly seem to deserve it.
First of all you don't know what you are talking about. The Arabs have been
attacking the Israelis almost continually for going on 60 years. If they
would just leave the Jews alone the violence in the area would be gone
overnight. But they just keep at it without letup. As far as I'm concerned
they are getting what they deserve.
Besides that the Arabs are just darn lucky they are dealing with the
Israelis instead of us. I guarantee if we were the Israelis we would have
destroyed the Arabs once and for all a long time ago. We would have carpet
bombed them with B52s until there wasn't an Arab within a hundred miles of
our border. The Arabs should consider themselves lucky they are dealing with
a people as decent as the Jews are. If they did to us what they have done to
the Israelis they wouldn't exist anymore. They're just darn lucky the
Israelis are so nice. We wouldn't be so understanding and kind as they are.
First of all, you're a fucking idiot who believes the bullshit that the
zionists spew.

And if the "we" you keep referring to is "Americans", don't include me, or
any of the other sane Americans, in your stupid bloodthirsty chest-pounding
bullshit.
You're a damned disgrace to this country, its founders and its Constitution.

Like "Gus", you're a waste of my time.
Now fuck off and die in pain, little kisser of jew ass.
S***@flashlight.net
2006-08-05 01:40:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hawke
Post by Mysterion
Post by Gus
Post by Mysterion
First, "liberal" and "conservative" are simply bullshit labels used to
distract. Is it "liberal" to object to the deliberate murder of children?
Is it "conservative" to give our most advanced weapons systems to an "ally"
that has been caught selling them to the Chinese?
Second, there is nothing I could say that would change your little
programmed mind.
Here's an idea - why don't you look into the history of Israel for yourself
and use more than one source.
Try typing "Deir Yassin" into your favorite search engine.
Or "King David Hotel".
Or "USS Liberty".
Or "Lavon Affair".
Israel was founded in terrorism and murder and those are still its favorite
tactics.
Israel is NOT our friend anymore than a tick is friend to a dog.
Don't believe me, check for yourself.
Ok, I looked them up and thought about it with my "little programmed
mind" The newest one is about 40 years old. Your point is that Israel
has what we would call terrorism in it's past. Maybe so but today they
are still our best friend in the Middle East or maybe you'd like to
point out a better friend.
I'm beginning to think that you are quite possibly an idiot and beyond all
hope of educating.
No, Israel is NOT our friend.
They never have been.
They are parasitic murderers. And the USA is an accessory before and
after
Post by Mysterion
the fact because we continue to provide them with weapons and ammunition,
paid for with US tax dollars, and block all international attempts to rein
them in.
And zionist dupes like you have seen to it that we have no friends in the
Mid-east through your slavish, dog-like support of the murderers.
But you, of course, will continue to believe the propaganda on the TV and
ignore the evidence of history.
I hope you enjoy the hell your stupidity will bring to America.
You certainly seem to deserve it.
First of all you don't know what you are talking about. The Arabs have been
attacking the Israelis almost continually for going on 60 years. If they
would just leave the Jews alone the violence in the area would be gone
overnight. But they just keep at it without letup. As far as I'm concerned
they are getting what they deserve.
That's what certain people want you to think. There's more to
it than that.

The 600,000 Arabs (Muslims and Christians) and the Jews who
inhabited the Palestine in 1947 have the initial claim. It was their
land that was stolen by European Jews under false pretenses.

That has to be resolved.

Long before the state of Israel was formed, plans were made
by a group of Jews, self-called, Zionists, that called for a Jewish
state that would encompass most of the then land of Arabia.
This would eliminate most all Arab lands.

The Arabs, having been screwed by the British for years, were
naturally concerned. After WWII Britain agreed to allow some European
Jews to settle in Palestine. The British agreement did not agree to a
"state of Israel" as the Zionists wanted, but rather to allow some
displaced European Jews to settle among the existing inhabitants in
Palestine.

That is not the way it went down.

TSHTF in 1948 when these *settlers* landed as an army and began
systematically coercing sales of land (a phoney pitch) and when
refused, the property owners were driven off at gunpoint. Those that
resisted were killed. It was then announced that the invaders planned
to set up a Jewish state within which non-Jews were not welcome.

The conflict escalated into a war which the Arabs were not prepared
to fight, so they lost people and land. This and other grievances
are what led to the 6 Day War.

It seems that the Zionists, known also in those days known as
terrorists, had secretly planned to fool the British into an agreement
which the Zionists didn't intend to keep. Instead, through bombings,
assassinations and personal threats, they forced key leaders In
Britain and the US to join them in a nefarious plot.

Since WWII, the Zionists and their alter egos, the JDL and ADL, worked
with the now well known Israeli lobby, to stifle criticism,
propagate a public relations campaign to put a Americans on a
guilt trip, and to threaten and bribe American politicans to support
Israel in all ways. This was so successful that today it is
impossible to find a politician critical of any aspect of America's
support.

The recent "war on terror" is a plan concocted in 1996 by Zionists
and their hybrid political arm, the Neocons, to take make the final
push to take over the Middle East. 9/11 was the catalyst.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast.htm

So the Middle East is not a cut and dried issue of the Arabs
picking on the Jews. In fact, the Jews and Arabs were not
at odds until 1948. As the Arabs have not benefitted from the
events of 9/11, it remains to be seen who was actually behind
this plot.
Post by Hawke
Besides that the Arabs are just darn lucky they are dealing with the
Israelis instead of us. I guarantee if we were the Israelis we would have
destroyed the Arabs once and for all a long time ago. We would have carpet
bombed them with B52s until there wasn't an Arab within a hundred miles of
our border. The Arabs should consider themselves lucky they are dealing with
a people as decent as the Jews are. If they did to us what they have done to
the Israelis they wouldn't exist anymore. They're just darn lucky the
Israelis are so nice. We wouldn't be so understanding and kind as they are.
The US supplies Israel with munitions, technology, intelligence and
billions of dollars each year. Israel is not only dependent on the
US, it is now acting as a puppet of American Neocons. Whatever the
current excuse for this war, the Neocons and Zionists are attacking
the Middle East.
Post by Hawke
Hawke
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
John
2006-08-02 02:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by Mysterion
Yet another shill for Israel is heard from.
Hannity would give you a kiss.
When you don't have an adequate reasoned response, go ahead and use the
standard Liberal tactic of personal attack and name-calling. (Hannity
is kinda cute, though.)
GW
Are you calling gunner a liberal?


John
Gunner
2006-08-03 16:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by Mysterion
Yet another shill for Israel is heard from.
Hannity would give you a kiss.
When you don't have an adequate reasoned response, go ahead and use the
standard Liberal tactic of personal attack and name-calling. (Hannity
is kinda cute, though.)
GW
Mystery Meat is not a liberal, unfortunately. He is a white
supremacist and neo-nazi. He is a shill for the Aryan Brotherhood.

He was a Klanner before going to prison for raping and sodomizing a 5
yr old black girl. In prison, he became an AB member (as well as the
bitch of the leader of the AB pod)

Pay him no attention. His parole officer is aware of his activities
and will likely violate him

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Cliff
2006-08-03 19:29:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Mystery Meat is not a liberal, unfortunately. He is a white
supremacist and neo-nazi. He is a shill for the Aryan Brotherhood.
He was a Klanner before going to prison for raping and sodomizing a 5
yr old black girl. In prison, he became an AB member (as well as the
bitch of the leader of the AB pod)
Pay him no attention. His parole officer is aware of his activities
and will likely violate him
Famous Republican saying: "Everything is fine in politics as long as you
don't get caught in bed with a live man, or a dead woman.”

HTH
--
Cliff
Mysterion
2006-08-04 03:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Gus
Post by Mysterion
Yet another shill for Israel is heard from.
Hannity would give you a kiss.
When you don't have an adequate reasoned response, go ahead and use the
standard Liberal tactic of personal attack and name-calling. (Hannity
is kinda cute, though.)
GW
Mystery Meat is not a liberal, unfortunately. He is a white
supremacist and neo-nazi. He is a shill for the Aryan Brotherhood.
You're a lying sack of shit.
Post by Gunner
He was a Klanner before going to prison for raping and sodomizing a 5
yr old black girl. In prison, he became an AB member (as well as the
bitch of the leader of the AB pod)
Sorry, little shitstain, but I've never even been arrested. Just a couple of
traffic tickets.
The only rapist here is YOU, Goofer.
Or did you think no one knew about those little Vietnamese boys and girls?
Post by Gunner
Pay him no attention. His parole officer is aware of his activities
and will likely violate him
Scum like you would be happy to murder or imprison anyone who says things
you don't like.
Next time you get to thinking you might be a man instead of a gutless sucker
of jew cocks, feel free to come to Pennsylvania and throw down, you pathetic
facist faggot.
Of course, being the slimy coward you are, you'd probably go after my family
rather than me.
That's okay since even my daughter is more of a man than you'll ever be and
it would be more fitting for my wife or kids to remove a piece of filth like
you from the ecosystem than for me to stain a blade or waste a bullet on
garbage.
Gus
2006-08-04 05:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mysterion
Scum like you would be happy to murder or imprison anyone who says things
you don't like.
Next time you get to thinking you might be a man instead of a gutless sucker
of jew cocks, feel free to come to Pennsylvania and throw down, you pathetic
facist faggot.
Of course, being the slimy coward you are, you'd probably go after my family
rather than me.
That's okay since even my daughter is more of a man than you'll ever be and
it would be more fitting for my wife or kids to remove a piece of filth like
you from the ecosystem than for me to stain a blade or waste a bullet on
garbage.
They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!
Cliff
2006-08-04 05:56:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
They're coming to take me away, HA HA
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000G9XWHS/sr=8-3/qid=1154670751/ref=sr_1_3/104-5474146-4025547?ie=UTF8
--
Cliff
S***@flashlight.net
2006-08-02 07:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Post by Cliff
Post by Gus
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked
every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush
has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has
told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice.
<snipped mumbo jumbo>
Lebanese civillians are in the crossfire which is a shame but Israeli
civillians are the "targets" of terrorists. I don't hear you having any
sympathy for them.
Israel's been bombing many for decades & taking hostages
as well as much else that the UN has very strongly frowned on.
Now somebody did some neocon-style-approved rendition and
they started bombing Lebanon ... FIRST.
--
Cliff
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them.
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Post by Gus
I guess the
difference I see is that Israel targets terrorists while terrorists
target innocent civillians. Israel might shoot a missile at some
terrorists in a car but the terrorists like to climb aboard city busses
and blow everyone up. I see a big difference, can't you?
Yeah, a big difference between blowing up a car of people vs a bus of
people.

A difference of no distinction.
Post by Gus
GW
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Day Brown
2006-08-02 10:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it? Seems like it was in the hands of the
Brits, who had it as part of the spoils of war from the Ottomans, who
stole it from the Sultan, who stole it from the Byzantines, who stole it
from the Romans, who stole it from.... the Jews.

Who are back.
Protagonist
2006-08-02 11:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it? Seems like it was in the hands of the
Brits, who had it as part of the spoils of war from the Ottomans, who
stole it from the Sultan, who stole it from the Byzantines, who stole it
from the Romans, who stole it from.... the Jews.
Who are back.
If every tribe on this earth would start claiming back to 3000 years
what they owned, WW3 can start!
JS
Cliff
2006-08-02 13:12:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it?
Who farmed the land & lived in the homes?
--
Cliff
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-02 14:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it?
Who farmed the land & lived in the homes?
Muslims, Jews, Christians, Coptics, and others, all of various ethnic
derivation. There was no self identity as "palestinian".
Post by Cliff
--
Cliff
Cliff
2006-08-03 12:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it?
Who farmed the land & lived in the homes?
Muslims, Jews, Christians, Coptics, and others, all of various ethnic
derivation. There was no self identity as "palestinian".
There is now that they were run off their land (stolen) & out of their
(stolen) homes & businesses ...
--
Cliff
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-03 17:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it?
Who farmed the land & lived in the homes?
Muslims, Jews, Christians, Coptics, and others, all of various ethnic
derivation. There was no self identity as "palestinian".
There is now that they were run off their land (stolen) & out of their
(stolen) homes & businesses ...
Funny thing, that.
The United Nations created the modern state of Israel out of area in
which jewish folk were living alongside arabs. The world powers decided
that, with the withdrawal of Britain and in view of the holocaust of
WWII Germany, it was a good and decent thing to allow the reformation
of a jewish homeland.
The land was not stolen from anyone.
The entire area, including modern Syria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine,
Jordan, Egypt... all had been a part of the Ottoman empire. In 1919,
Palestine and other areas were taken under protection by the British;
there was no state called "Palestine", and Syria and Iraq both were
created after the 1919 Versailles treaty.
So, the area in question belonged by treaty to Britain, not any
"palestinian state".
Britain withdrew from the protectorate after WWII and in the process
aided the UN in creating a homeland for the jews who had been sorely
mistreated.

So now, as you point out for some reason, after the fact, after decades
of benefiting from Israeli rule (where they choose to) and trying to
destroy the very country that has tried to be fair and open with them,
these Arab muslims pick up the notion that the land was "Palestine"
and that they are "Palestinians"; a claim that has no basis in
historical fact, but is the name of a nation that they would create
were they successful in "stealing" Israel from the non-Arab, non-muslim
Israelis.

Were these folk content to live in peace with their neighbors, they
could do so as Israelis, right alongside all the other Israelis of
various ethnic and religious identity. But they don't.
Instead, the overarching muslim creed which insists that the jews MUST
be destroyed and that ALL others must submit and/or convert or DIE is
what they bring to the table.
Slavery, submission, death, destruction, and the imposition of
sharia law is their goal, over every person in every place, but
particularly and primarily, Israel.

Perhaps you'd like to return YOUR land to the folk it was stolen from,
eh Cliff?
Why not talk about that, and see where that logic takes you?

Regards,
mark evins
Post by Cliff
--
Cliff
Cliff
2006-08-03 19:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it?
Who farmed the land & lived in the homes?
Muslims, Jews, Christians, Coptics, and others, all of various ethnic
derivation. There was no self identity as "palestinian".
There is now that they were run off their land (stolen) & out of their
(stolen) homes & businesses ...
Funny thing, that.
The United Nations created the modern state of Israel
Whichin retrospect may not have been such a great idea.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
out of area in
which jewish folk were living alongside arabs.
And had been doing so for thousands of years, much of it in peace.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The world powers decided
that, with the withdrawal of Britain and in view of the holocaust of
WWII Germany, it was a good and decent thing to allow the reformation
of a jewish homeland.
Looks like they missed a few things.
People already lived there for one.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The land was not stolen from anyone.
DANG!! Nobody lived there? WHY?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The entire area, including modern Syria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine,
Jordan, Egypt... all had been a part of the Ottoman empire. In 1919,
Palestine and other areas were taken under protection by the British;
there was no state called "Palestine", and Syria and Iraq both were
created after the 1919 Versailles treaty.
Who moved in, booted out the natives & imposed a religion?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
So, the area in question belonged by treaty to Britain, not any
"palestinian state".
I suppose none of the dumb natives objected to the spoils of war.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Britain withdrew from the protectorate after WWII and in the process
aided the UN in creating a homeland for the jews who had been sorely
mistreated.
And everyone else that was already there went where?
Refugee camps? Relocation camps? Prison camps? Jails?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
So now, as you point out for some reason, after the fact, after decades
of benefiting from Israeli rule
By having their land, homes & businesses stolen .. and living in
luxury camps .. and following the laws of an imposed religion ...
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
(where they choose to)
Sort of like speaking if tortured enough in Cuba?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
and trying to
destroy the very country that has tried to be fair and open with them,
They paid for it fair & square, right?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
these Arab muslims pick up the notion that the land was "Palestine"
and that they are "Palestinians";
What else do you want them to be? Jews?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
a claim that has no basis in
historical fact,
[
The term Palestine is derived from the name of the Philistines, a people of
uncertain origins, possibly Aegean, who, in the 12th century BCE, settled along
the southern Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel and the Gaza
Strip ..
]
[
In historical contexts, especially predating the establishment of the State of
Israel, Palestine was mostly a geographical term, particularly used in Greek,
Latin, Arabic, and other languages taking their geographical vocabulary from
them; it comprised the Roman sub-province of Syria Palaestina, roughly
equivalent to ancient Canaan (including the Biblical kingdoms of Israel, Judah,
Moab, Ammon, and Philistia) and thus included much of the land on either side of
the Jordan River although with further political sub-divisions along the River
Jordan valley
]
[
Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose
normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, ..
]

Looks like some history there to me.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
but is the name of a nation that they would create
were they successful in "stealing" Israel from the non-Arab, non-muslim
Israelis.
And the UN said what? Oops ..... wingers don't like the UN any more
than Israel does ....
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Were these folk content to live in peace with their neighbors, they
could do so as Israelis, right alongside all the other Israelis of
various ethnic and religious identity.
You mean just as they were before?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
But they don't.
Instead, the overarching muslim creed which insists that the jews MUST
be destroyed and that ALL others must submit and/or convert or DIE is
what they bring to the table.
BS. HTH.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Slavery, submission, death, destruction,
All from the bible. right?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
and the imposition of
sharia law is their goal,
Actually, only one sect uses that much.
Are they Southern Baptists?
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
over every person in every place, but
particularly and primarily, Israel.
Perhaps you'd like to return YOUR land to the folk it was stolen from,
eh Cliff?
Why not talk about that, and see where that logic takes you?
Regards,
mark evins
HTH
--
Cliff
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-03 20:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it?
Who farmed the land & lived in the homes?
Muslims, Jews, Christians, Coptics, and others, all of various ethnic
derivation. There was no self identity as "palestinian".
There is now that they were run off their land (stolen) & out of their
(stolen) homes & businesses ...
Funny thing, that.
The United Nations created the modern state of Israel
Whichin retrospect may not have been such a great idea.
In retrospect, it might not have been a good idea to let any of the
people of the area have their own countries; Syria, Jordan, Lebanon,
Egypt, Iraq.....
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
out of area in
which jewish folk were living alongside arabs.
And had been doing so for thousands of years, much of it in peace.
So long as they abided by Islamic law, which is terribly oppressive to
everyone, or so long as the Islamics didn't come knocking at the
border...
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The world powers decided
that, with the withdrawal of Britain and in view of the holocaust of
WWII Germany, it was a good and decent thing to allow the reformation
of a jewish homeland.
Looks like they missed a few things.
People already lived there for one.
Um hmm. Still did after the fact, too.
Know what? Many still do.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The land was not stolen from anyone.
DANG!! Nobody lived there? WHY?
Those that lived there continued to live there.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The entire area, including modern Syria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine,
Jordan, Egypt... all had been a part of the Ottoman empire. In 1919,
Palestine and other areas were taken under protection by the British;
there was no state called "Palestine", and Syria and Iraq both were
created after the 1919 Versailles treaty.
Who moved in, booted out the natives & imposed a religion?
Nope.
They did get to have new dictators, tho.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
So, the area in question belonged by treaty to Britain, not any
"palestinian state".
I suppose none of the dumb natives objected to the spoils of war.
Nope. They aided the Brits and Allied forces during WWI so that they
could throw off the oppression of the Ottomans. That was the deal, and
they got it.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Britain withdrew from the protectorate after WWII and in the process
aided the UN in creating a homeland for the jews who had been sorely
mistreated.
And everyone else that was already there went where?
Refugee camps? Relocation camps? Prison camps? Jails?
Nope. They didn't go anywhere. They stayed, lived, worked.
Then, of course, there was the war of aggression from the various Arab
states that tried to wipe out Israel.
They failed.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
So now, as you point out for some reason, after the fact, after decades
of benefiting from Israeli rule
By having their land, homes & businesses stolen .. and living in
luxury camps .. and following the laws of an imposed religion ...
Nope. If they choose to, they can live as citizens of Israel. The
temple mount is still administered by Arab muslims, and freedom of
religion is practiced....
By the Israelis, not the muslims.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
(where they choose to)
Sort of like speaking if tortured enough in Cuba?
No, more like being peaceful citizens of their country as opposed to
being terrorists who want to kill everyone that isn't muslim.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
and trying to
destroy the very country that has tried to be fair and open with them,
They paid for it fair & square, right?
Yup.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
these Arab muslims pick up the notion that the land was "Palestine"
and that they are "Palestinians";
What else do you want them to be? Jews?
Are you suggesting that "Jew" is a nationality? Or an ethnic group?
The "Jews" have as much a claim to the title "Palestinian" as the arabs
that have lived there do.More so, because their ancestors lived there
"first".
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
a claim that has no basis in
historical fact,
[
The term Palestine is derived from the name of the Philistines, a people of
uncertain origins, possibly Aegean, who, in the 12th century BCE, settled along
the southern Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel and the Gaza
Strip ..
]
[
In historical contexts, especially predating the establishment of the State of
Israel, Palestine was mostly a geographical term, particularly used in Greek,
Latin, Arabic, and other languages taking their geographical vocabulary from
them; it comprised the Roman sub-province of Syria Palaestina, roughly
equivalent to ancient Canaan (including the Biblical kingdoms of Israel, Judah,
Moab, Ammon, and Philistia) and thus included much of the land on either side of
the Jordan River although with further political sub-divisions along the River
Jordan valley
]
[
Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose
normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, ..
]
Looks like some history there to me.
No, that is a definition of term in modern usage by a specific group,
that group being UNRWA.
A different definition is used by current arabs who claim to be
palestinian, but who DID NOT live in the area between June of '46 and
May of '48.
Unless you suggest that all those 20-something arab suicide bombers are
actually 60 year olds.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
but is the name of a nation that they would create
were they successful in "stealing" Israel from the non-Arab, non-muslim
Israelis.
And the UN said what? Oops ..... wingers don't like the UN any more
than Israel does ....
The UN says lots of things. It said that Israel should be there, has a
right to exist and imposed sanctions on those who attack it.
If you're a lefty, and support the UN, then do so.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Were these folk content to live in peace with their neighbors, they
could do so as Israelis, right alongside all the other Israelis of
various ethnic and religious identity.
You mean just as they were before?
Before opting for terrorism? Sure. Peaceful citizens of a productive
country.
Got a problem with that?
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
But they don't.
Instead, the overarching muslim creed which insists that the jews MUST
be destroyed and that ALL others must submit and/or convert or DIE is
what they bring to the table.
BS. HTH.
Oh? Check history.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Slavery, submission, death, destruction,
All from the bible. right?
Nope. From the Q'ran.
You do know that muslims still practice slavery, right?
You do know that it's common practice to mutilate their women, right?
You do realize that non-muslims get jailed or killed for spreading the
word about their religion in muslim lands, right?
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
and the imposition of
sharia law is their goal,
Actually, only one sect uses that much.
Are they Southern Baptists?
Funny.
They are the sect that has control of Iran, wants control of Iraq and
had control of Afghanistan.
But the tenents of sharia law are common to all of Islam, as are the
goals of the culture.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
over every person in every place, but
particularly and primarily, Israel.
Perhaps you'd like to return YOUR land to the folk it was stolen from,
eh Cliff?
Why not talk about that, and see where that logic takes you?
Regards,
mark evins
HTH
Why won't you address the question of giving your land back to those it
was stolen from, Cliff?
Since you seem to want others to do so, why don't you lead the way and
show us how it's done??
Post by Cliff
Cliff
Gus
2006-08-04 01:26:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it?
Who farmed the land & lived in the homes?
Muslims, Jews, Christians, Coptics, and others, all of various ethnic
derivation. There was no self identity as "palestinian".
There is now that they were run off their land (stolen) & out of their
(stolen) homes & businesses ...
Funny thing, that.
The United Nations created the modern state of Israel
Whichin retrospect may not have been such a great idea.
In retrospect, it might not have been a good idea to let any of the
people of the area have their own countries; Syria, Jordan, Lebanon,
Egypt, Iraq.....
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
out of area in
which jewish folk were living alongside arabs.
And had been doing so for thousands of years, much of it in peace.
So long as they abided by Islamic law, which is terribly oppressive to
everyone, or so long as the Islamics didn't come knocking at the
border...
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The world powers decided
that, with the withdrawal of Britain and in view of the holocaust of
WWII Germany, it was a good and decent thing to allow the reformation
of a jewish homeland.
Looks like they missed a few things.
People already lived there for one.
Um hmm. Still did after the fact, too.
Know what? Many still do.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The land was not stolen from anyone.
DANG!! Nobody lived there? WHY?
Those that lived there continued to live there.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The entire area, including modern Syria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine,
Jordan, Egypt... all had been a part of the Ottoman empire. In 1919,
Palestine and other areas were taken under protection by the British;
there was no state called "Palestine", and Syria and Iraq both were
created after the 1919 Versailles treaty.
Who moved in, booted out the natives & imposed a religion?
Nope.
They did get to have new dictators, tho.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
So, the area in question belonged by treaty to Britain, not any
"palestinian state".
I suppose none of the dumb natives objected to the spoils of war.
Nope. They aided the Brits and Allied forces during WWI so that they
could throw off the oppression of the Ottomans. That was the deal, and
they got it.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Britain withdrew from the protectorate after WWII and in the process
aided the UN in creating a homeland for the jews who had been sorely
mistreated.
And everyone else that was already there went where?
Refugee camps? Relocation camps? Prison camps? Jails?
Nope. They didn't go anywhere. They stayed, lived, worked.
Then, of course, there was the war of aggression from the various Arab
states that tried to wipe out Israel.
They failed.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
So now, as you point out for some reason, after the fact, after decades
of benefiting from Israeli rule
By having their land, homes & businesses stolen .. and living in
luxury camps .. and following the laws of an imposed religion ...
Nope. If they choose to, they can live as citizens of Israel. The
temple mount is still administered by Arab muslims, and freedom of
religion is practiced....
By the Israelis, not the muslims.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
(where they choose to)
Sort of like speaking if tortured enough in Cuba?
No, more like being peaceful citizens of their country as opposed to
being terrorists who want to kill everyone that isn't muslim.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
and trying to
destroy the very country that has tried to be fair and open with them,
They paid for it fair & square, right?
Yup.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
these Arab muslims pick up the notion that the land was "Palestine"
and that they are "Palestinians";
What else do you want them to be? Jews?
Are you suggesting that "Jew" is a nationality? Or an ethnic group?
The "Jews" have as much a claim to the title "Palestinian" as the arabs
that have lived there do.More so, because their ancestors lived there
"first".
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
a claim that has no basis in
historical fact,
[
The term Palestine is derived from the name of the Philistines, a people of
uncertain origins, possibly Aegean, who, in the 12th century BCE, settled along
the southern Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel and the Gaza
Strip ..
]
[
In historical contexts, especially predating the establishment of the State of
Israel, Palestine was mostly a geographical term, particularly used in Greek,
Latin, Arabic, and other languages taking their geographical vocabulary from
them; it comprised the Roman sub-province of Syria Palaestina, roughly
equivalent to ancient Canaan (including the Biblical kingdoms of Israel, Judah,
Moab, Ammon, and Philistia) and thus included much of the land on either side of
the Jordan River although with further political sub-divisions along the River
Jordan valley
]
[
Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose
normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, ..
]
Looks like some history there to me.
No, that is a definition of term in modern usage by a specific group,
that group being UNRWA.
A different definition is used by current arabs who claim to be
palestinian, but who DID NOT live in the area between June of '46 and
May of '48.
Unless you suggest that all those 20-something arab suicide bombers are
actually 60 year olds.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
but is the name of a nation that they would create
were they successful in "stealing" Israel from the non-Arab, non-muslim
Israelis.
And the UN said what? Oops ..... wingers don't like the UN any more
than Israel does ....
The UN says lots of things. It said that Israel should be there, has a
right to exist and imposed sanctions on those who attack it.
If you're a lefty, and support the UN, then do so.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Were these folk content to live in peace with their neighbors, they
could do so as Israelis, right alongside all the other Israelis of
various ethnic and religious identity.
You mean just as they were before?
Before opting for terrorism? Sure. Peaceful citizens of a productive
country.
Got a problem with that?
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
But they don't.
Instead, the overarching muslim creed which insists that the jews MUST
be destroyed and that ALL others must submit and/or convert or DIE is
what they bring to the table.
BS. HTH.
Oh? Check history.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Slavery, submission, death, destruction,
All from the bible. right?
Nope. From the Q'ran.
You do know that muslims still practice slavery, right?
You do know that it's common practice to mutilate their women, right?
You do realize that non-muslims get jailed or killed for spreading the
word about their religion in muslim lands, right?
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
and the imposition of
sharia law is their goal,
Actually, only one sect uses that much.
Are they Southern Baptists?
Funny.
They are the sect that has control of Iran, wants control of Iraq and
had control of Afghanistan.
But the tenents of sharia law are common to all of Islam, as are the
goals of the culture.
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
over every person in every place, but
particularly and primarily, Israel.
Perhaps you'd like to return YOUR land to the folk it was stolen from,
eh Cliff?
Why not talk about that, and see where that logic takes you?
Regards,
mark evins
HTH
Why won't you address the question of giving your land back to those it
was stolen from, Cliff?
Since you seem to want others to do so, why don't you lead the way and
show us how it's done??
Post by Cliff
Cliff
Score:
Mark - 10
Cliff - 0
Cliff
2006-08-04 05:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Mark - 10
How can he afford to lose so much?
--
Cliff
Cliff
2006-08-04 05:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
You do know that muslims still practice slavery, right?
Republicans & wingers might consider converting as they miss it so
then.

Famous Republican saying: "Everything is fine in politics as long as you
don't get caught in bed with a live man, or a dead woman.”
--
Cliff
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-04 09:50:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
You do know that muslims still practice slavery, right?
Republicans & wingers might consider converting as they miss it so
then.
Hmmmm....
They do? Curious....
Glad I'm not a republican or a winger, then.
Post by Cliff
Famous Republican saying: "Everything is fine in politics as long as you
don't get caught in bed with a live man, or a dead woman."
--
Cliff
Gunner
2006-08-04 15:39:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
You do know that muslims still practice slavery, right?
Republicans & wingers might consider converting as they miss it so
then.
Hmmmm....
They do? Curious....
Glad I'm not a republican or a winger, then.
Post by Cliff
Famous Republican saying: "Everything is fine in politics as long as you
don't get caught in bed with a live man, or a dead woman."
--
Cliff
Sadly enough..the fucktard always forgets it was the Republicans who
ended slavery and foughth for full civil rights, while it was the
Democrats who were the slave owners and resisted civil rights

Gunner



"If I'm going to reach out to the the Democrats then I need a third
hand.There's no way I'm letting go of my wallet or my gun while they're
around."

"Democrat. In the dictionary it's right after demobilize and right
before demode` (out of fashion).
-Buddy Jordan 2001
Stuart Wheaton
2006-08-05 04:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Sadly enough..the fucktard always forgets it was the Republicans who
ended slavery and foughth for full civil rights, while it was the
Democrats who were the slave owners and resisted civil rights
Yep, those good 'ole democrats like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and
Phil Graham. Solid Democrats all, fit in so well with the northern,
anti-slavery and pro-integration members of the party.

Maybe Strom and Jesse voted for the voting rights act before they voted
against it?
Gunner
2006-08-05 08:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Post by Gunner
Sadly enough..the fucktard always forgets it was the Republicans who
ended slavery and foughth for full civil rights, while it was the
Democrats who were the slave owners and resisted civil rights
Yep, those good 'ole democrats like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and
Phil Graham. Solid Democrats all, fit in so well with the northern,
anti-slavery and pro-integration members of the party.
Maybe Strom and Jesse voted for the voting rights act before they voted
against it?
Good old Democrats like Lester "pick handle" Maddox,

Gov. George Wallace
"I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of
tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation
forever."

Good old Robert Byrd..Grand Klegal of the KKK

Bull Connors (turn the dogs loose on those goddam niggers)

Lets look further at the Democrats racism, shall we???

http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/democratrecord.html

The Democrat Party's Long and Shameful History of Bigotry and Racism

A common attack upon conservatives and republicans by the ultra left is
to engage in what has come to be known as "playing the race card" but is
more accurately described as racial McCarthyism. Hardly a day goes by
without a member of the far left wing falsely accusing conservatives of
racism, bigotry, and a wide array of similar nasty things. They are not
only dishonest, but they often border on the absurd, as in NAACP leader
and hyper bigot Julian Bond's recent implication to his organization
that Bush administration officials supported confederate slavery.
Amazingly, Bond's statements went without condemnation from the radical
Democrat party or others in his organization.

Not surprisingly, in all the lies and accusations of racism by the
radical left wing, the truth becomes distorted not only about the
Republicans but also the Democrats who make these accusations
themselves. For instance, you may or may not have heard Democrat Senator
Robert Byrd's outburst of racist bigoted slurs, more specifically the
"n-word," on national television in March of 2001. Amazingly, this
incident of blatant racism on national television drew barely a peep
from the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Mary Frances Berry, or any
of the other ambulance chasers who purport themselves to be the leaders
of the civil rights movement. In contrast, the main source of well
deserved criticism for Byrd's racist outburst came not from any of the
so called leaders of the civil rights movement but from from Republican
Majority Leader Dick Armey (source). The race hustlers Jackson, Mfume et
al turned a blind eye towards this act of racism by one of their own
party, at most issuing an unpublicized slap on the wrist, or, as was
more often the case, making not a peep. But where the race hustlers turn
a blind eye and spew their lies, it is up to conservatives to set the
record straight with the truth.

In response to the growing practice of racial McCarthyism by prominent
left wing Democrats, it is necessary to expose the truth about the
Democrat Party's record on Civil Rights:

I. Acts of Bigotry by Prominent Democrats and Leftists:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Franklin Roosevelt, the long time hero and
standard bearer of the Democrat Party, headed up and implemented one of
the most horrible racist policies of the 20th Century – the Japanese
Internment Camps during World War II. Roosevelt unilaterally and
knowingly enacted Japanese Internment through the use of presidential
Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 during the early years of the war. These
orders single-handedly led to the imprisonment of an estimated 120,000
law abiding Americans of Japanese ancestry, the overwhelming majority of
them natural born second and third generation American citizens.
Countless innocents lost their property, fortunes, and, in the case of
an unfortunate few, even their lives as a result of Roosevelt's
internment camps, camps that have been accurately described as America's
concentration camps. Perhaps most telling about the racist nature of
Roosevelt's order was his clearly expressed intention to apply it almost
entirely to Japanese Americans, even though America was also at war with
Germany and Italy. In 1943, Roosevelt wrote regarding concerns of German
and Italian Americans that they t0o would share in the fate of the
interned Japanese Americans, noting that "no collective evacuation of
German and Italian aliens is contemplated at this time." Despite this
assertion, Roosevelt did exhibit his personal fears about Italian and
German Americans, and in his typical racist form he used an ethnic
stereotype to make his point. Expressing about his position on German
and Italian Americans during World War II, Roosevelt stated “I don’t
care so much about the Italians, they are a lot of opera singers, but
the Germans are different. They may be dangerous.”

Roosevelt also appointed two notorious segregationists to the United
States Supreme Court. Roosevelt appointed South Carolina segregationist
Democrat Jimmy Byrnes to the court. Roosevelt later made Byrnes a top
advisor, where the segregationist earned the nickname “assistant
president.” Byrnes was Roosevelt’s second choice behind Harry Truman for
the VP nod in his 1944 reelection bid. Roosevelt also appointed
segregationist Democrat Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the court.
Black was a former member of the Ku Klux Klan with a notorious record of
racism himself.

Hugo Black: A former Democrat Senator from Alabama and liberal U.S.
Supreme Court Justice appointed by FDR, Hugo Black had a lengthy history
of hate group activism. Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan in the
1920's and gained his legal fame defending Klansmen under prosecution
for racial murders. In one prominent case, Black provided legal
representation to Klansman Edwin Stephenson for the hate-induced murder
of a Catholic priest in Birmingham. A jury composed of several Klan
members acquited Stephenson of the murder, reportedly after Black
expressed Klan gestures to the jury during the trial. In 1926 Black
sought and won election as a Democrat to the United States Senate after
campaigning heavily to Klan membership. He is said to have told one Klan
audience "I desire to impress upon you as representatives of the real
Anglo-Saxon sentiment that must and will control the destinies of the
stars and stripes, that I want your counsel." In the Senate Black became
a stauch supporter of the liberal New Deal initiatives of FDR and a
solid opponent of civil rights legislation, including a filibuster of an
anti-lynching measure. Black led the push for several New Deal programs
and was a key participant in FDR's court packing scandal. Roosevelt
appointed Black, a loyal ally, to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the
Senate confirmation of Black's nomination, the issue of his strong Klan
affiliations caused a public controversy over his appointment. Following
the confirmation Roosevelt claimed ignorance of Black's Klan past,
though this claim was dubious at best. Black's first Senate election,
which occurred with Klan support, had been covered nationally a decade
earlier in 1926. Black's Klan affiliations were a well known part of his
political background and recieved heavy coverage in the newspapers at
the time of his appointment. On the court, Black became a liberal
stalwart. He also continued his career of supporting racism by authoring
the opinion in favor of FDR's Japanese internment program in the
infamous Korematsu ruling.

Senator Robert Byrd, D-WV: Byrd is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan
and is currently the only national elected official with a history in
the Klan, a well known hate group. Byrd was extremely active in the Klan
and rose to the rank of “Kleagle,” an official Klan membership
recruiter. Byrd once stated that he joined the Klan because it was
effective in "promoting traditional American values" (Source). Byrd's
choice of words speak volumes about his bigotry considering the fact
that the Klan is a notorious hate group, and the racist "values" it
promotes are anything but American. One of the earliest criticisms of
Byrd's Klan ties came in 1952 when he was running for Congress. Byrd
responded by claiming that he had left the Klan in 1943 while noting
that "(d)uring the nine years that have followed, I have never been
interested in the Klan." Byrd was lying, however, as he engaged in
correspondence with a Klan Imperial Wizard long after he claims to have
ended his ties with the hate group.

In a letter to the Klan leadership (Source) dated 3 years after he
purported to have ended his ties with them, Byrd wrote "I am a former
kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties
of the state. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious
to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." Byrd continued his racist
diatribe "It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in
every state of the Union" and followed with a request for assistance
from the hate group's leadership in "rebuilding the Klan in the realm"
of West Virginia.

Byrd's racism extends far beyond his Klan membership. In a letter he
wrote on the subject of desegregating the armed forces, Byrd escalated
his racist rhetoric to an appalling level. In the letter, Byrd vowed
that he would never fight in an integrated armed services noting
"(r)ather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in
the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours
become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen
from the wilds" (Source).

Byrd's racist opinions have shown their ugly face in his behavior in the
Senate. Byrd led the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and,
according to the United States Senate's own website, filibustered the
legislation to the bitter end appearing as one of the last opponents to
the act before a coalition of civil rights proponents led by Republican
Minority Leader Everett Dirksen invoked cloture so that the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 could pass. At the time, Byrd was in the the midst of a 14
hour and 13 minute filibuster diatribe against the key civil rights
measure (Source). Throughout the 1960's, Byrd was was one of the
staunchest opponents to civil rights in the U.S. Senate. Byrd’s racist
history drew attention recently when he went on national television and
repeatedly used the n-word, one of the most vicious racial slurs in
existence, in an appearance on national television. Byrd uttered the
slur on Fox News Sunday with Tony Snow on March 5, 2001. Despite the
appalling nature of the remark, it went largely ignored by the
mainstream media and the self appointed "civil rights" leadership.
Whereas a similar remark by anyone other than a leading Democrat Senator
would assuredly prompt the likes of Jesse Jackson to assemble protest
rallies demanding resignations, the Jackson crowd was eerily quiet
following Byrd's remarks, issuing only low key suggestions that Byrd
should avoid making such bigoted remarks.

In a sickening recognition of Byrd's appalling political career, the
national Democrat party has done nothing but embrace the West Virginia
senator with leadership roles and practically every honor imaginable. To
this very day the Democrats call former Klansman turned U.S. Senator
Robert Byrd the "conscience of the Senate." They have embraced him as
their party's central pillar in all ways possible. Byrd has been
reelected more times than any other Democrat senator, has served as a
Democrat in Congress, a Democrat State Senator in West Virginia, and a
Democrat State Delegate in West Virginia. Democrats have made repeatedly
elected Byrd into their national party leadership and into the U.S.
Senate leadership. He became secretary of the Senate Democrat Caucus in
1967, and Senate Democrat Whip in 1971. The Democrats elected former
Klansman Byrd as their Senate Majority Leader from 1977-1980 and as
their Senate Minority Leader from 1981-1986. Byrd was again elected
Democrat Majority Leader from 1987-1988. Democrats made Byrd the
chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee and President Pro
Tempore of the Senate from 1989 until the Republicans won control of the
Senate in November 1994. Following the defection of Jim Jeffords in June
2001, the Democrats again made Byrd the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee and elected him to the highest ranking office in the Senate:
the President Pro Tempore, a position which also put this former
Klansman 4th in line for the presidency. Byrd lost his position when
Republicans retook the Senate in late 2002, but continues to serve as
one of the highest ranking members of the Democrat Senate leadership
today.

Senator Ernest Hollings, D-SC: Hollings is liberal Democrat Senator from
South Carolina who is also notorious for his use of racial slurs. He
rose out of the Democrat Party's segregationist wing in the 1960's as
governor of South Carolina. While in office as governor, Hollings
personally led the opposition to lunch counter integration in his state.
The New York Times reported on March 17, 1960 that then-governor
Hollings "warned today that South Carolina would not permit 'explosive'
manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter
services." According to the article, Hollings gave a speech in which he
"challenged President Eisenhower's contention that minorities had the
right to engage in certain types of demonstrations" against segregation.
In the speech Hollings described the Republican president as "confused"
and asserted that Eisenhower had done "great damage to peace and good
order" by supporting the rights of minorities to protest segregation at
the lunch counters.

Governor Hollings' support for segregation continued throughout his term
and included his attendance at a July 23, 1961 meeting of segregationist
Democrats to organize their opposition to the civil rights movement.
Hollings was one of four governors in attendence, all of them Democrats.
The others included rabid segregationists Orval Faubus of Arkansas and
Ross Barnett of Mississippi. The New York Times reported on the meeting,
noting that among the strategies discussed were using the segregationist
White Citizens Council organization to mobilize political opposition to
desegregation.

In more recent years Hollings, a senior Democrat senator, has made
disparaging racial remarks and slurs against minorities. Senator
Hollings, who was a contender for his party's presidential nomination in
1984, blamed his defeat in the primaries by using a racial slur against
Hispanics. After losing the Iowa Straw Poll, Hollings stated "You had
wetbacks from California that came in here for Cranston," referring to
one of his opponents, Alan Cranston. A few years later Hollings
reportedly used the slur "darkies" to derogatorily refer to blacks. He
also once disparagingly referred to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition as the
"Blackbow Coalition," and called former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who
is Jewish, "the Senator from B'nai B'rith." Hollings gained
international criticism for his remarks about the African Delegation to
the 1993 Geneva GATT conference, where he crudely remarked "you'd find
these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each
other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."
Hollings was also the Governor of South Carolina who raised the
confederate flag over the state capitol in the early 1960's in what was
considered at the time to be an act of defiance to civil rights. The
press ignored Hollings and his role in the flag issue at the same time
the political correctness police were smearing George W. Bush during his
campaign after Bush correctly remarked that the flag was a state issue
to be decided upon by South Carolina and not the national government.

Jesse Jackson: Jackson was the featured prime time speaker at the 2000
Democrat Convention. Jackson has a history of using anti-Semitic slurs
and derogatorily calling New York City “Hymietown.” Jackson, a prominent
self proclaimed "civil rights leader," is himself guilty of the same
bigotry he dishonestly purports to oppose.

Dan Rather: Rather, the well known television anchor for CBS, is also a
liberal Democrat who has spoken at fundraisers for the Democrat party in
the past. The notoriously left wing reporter appeared on the Don Imus
radio show on July 19, 2001 where he was interviewed about his long term
refusal to cover the Gary Condit (D-CA) scandal involving an affair with
a missing intern despite the scandal's national prominence. Rather noted
on the air that CBS had basically forced him to cover the story that was
on every other network and on the front page of all the major
newspapers, all this after Rather avoided it for months. Rather stated
on the air, refering to CBS, that "they got the Buckwheats" and made him
cover the Condit scandal. The term "Buckwheat" is considered an
offensive racial stereotype that stems from an easily frightened black
character named "Buckwheat" on the Little Rascals comedies. It is
widely regarded as a racial epithet and has long been condemned as an
offensive stereotype by several civil rights organizations. In several
past incidents (see here and here) the use of the epithet "Buckwheat"
has recieved condemnation by the NAACP, Al Sharpton and other left wing
organizations. These left wing organizations and personalities have
demanded that other media personalities be fired over using the epithet,
and even staged a protest at a school over the mere allegation that the
racist stereotype had been used by a teacher. Yet these same liberal
groups have, to date, remained completely silent now that one of their
own, Dan Rather, is guilty of using the same offensive racial stereotype
they have condemned elsewhere on a national radio show. It's just more
proof of how the left wingers who cry the loudest with accusations of
racism against others turn a blind eye when somebody of their own left
wing ideology is the undeniable culprit of a blatantly racist act or
statement!

Cragg Hines: Hines is one of the most rabidly partisan DC based Democrat
editorial columnists to work for a major newspaper, and he makes no
attempts to hide it. To Hines, pro-lifers are "neanderthals," as is
often the case with those who differ in opinion with him. Ironically,
Hines, a columnist who regularly touts himself as an enlightened
progressive, is also known for racial remarks and religious intolerance.
He attacked Senator Jesse Helms in an August 26, 2001 editorial with not
only the usual liberal name calling, but also with a racial epithet.
Hines used the racial slur "cracker" to attack Helms. He used the
epithet not only within the article's text, but he even included it in
the piece's title. In a sense of heavy irony, Hines' article accused
Helms of bigotry for, among other things, opposing liberal policies like
affirmative action. He didn't seem to object to himself for his own
bigotted language in the same article. Hines has also drawn heavy
criticism from Catholics including a letter to the editor from the
former President of the U.S. Catholic Bishop's Conference for his
seemingly agenda-driven criticisms of Catholicism and its religious
leaders, often based on little or no historical evidence, which he has
expressed in numerous editorial columns.

Al Sharpton: Sharpton, a perrenial Democrat candidate and one of the
rumored candidates for the Democrat's 2004 presidential nomination, has
a notorious racist past. Sharpton was a central figure who fanned the
1991 Crown Heights race riot, where a mob shouting anti-semetic slurs
murdered an innocent Jewish man. Sharpton also incited a 1995 protest of
a Jewish owned store in Harlem where protesters used several
anti-semetic slurs. During the protests, a Sharpton lieutenant called
the store's owner a "bloodsucker" and declared an intent to "loot the
Jews." A member of the protest mob later set fire to the store,
resulting in the death of seven (source).

Representative Dick Gephardt, D-MO: Gephardt, the former Democrat
Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, gave several
speeches to a St. Louis area hate group during his early years as a
representative. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Gephardt spoke
before the Metro South Citizens Council, a now defunct white supremacist
organization, during his early years as a congressman. Newsmax.com
further reported that Gephardt had openly asked the group for an
endorsement of his candidacy during one of his many visits with the
organization. Gephardt has long avoided questions about his past
affiliation with this group.

Andrew Cuomo: Cuomo, Bill Clinton's former Housing Secretary and a
prominent Democrat political player in New York, was tape recorded using
racially inflamatory rhetoric to build opposition to a potential
Democrat primary opponent while speaking to a Democrat group. Cuomo
stated that voting for his rival for the New York Democrat gubernatorial
nomination Carl McCall, who is black, would create a "racial contract"
between Black and Hispanic Democrats "and that can't happen." Upon
initial reports, Cuomo denied the statement but later a tape recording
surfaced. Cuomo later dropped out of the race for governor (source).

Lee P. Brown: Brown, Bill Clinton's former drug czar and Democrat mayor
of Houston, engaged in racist campaigning designed to suppress Hispanic
voter turnout during his 2001 reelection bid. Brown faced challenger
Orlando Sanchez, a Hispanic Republican who drew heavy support from the
Hispanic community during the general election. Two weeks prior to the
runoff, Brown's campaign printed racist signs designed to intimidate
Hispanic voters. The signs featured a photograph of Sanchez and the
words "Anti-Hispanic." The signs drew harsh criticism from Hispanic
leaders as their message was designed to intimidate and confuse Hispanic
voters. Around the same time the signs were being used, Brown supporter
and city councilman Carol Alvarado made a series of racially charged
attacks on Sanchez, implying a desire to see the supression of Hispanic
voter turnout in the runoff. Brown staffers also went on record claiming
that Sanchez was not a true Hispanic. The racist anti-Hispanic
undertones of Brown's reelection bid were so great that liberal Democrat
city councilman John Castillo, himself Hispanic, retracted his
endorsement of Brown in disgust and became a Sanchez supporter in the
final week of the campaign. Following the harsh condemnation of the
racist signs and tactics, Brown purported that his campaign was removing
them even though many still lingered around Houston up until the
election. When election day came along, Brown placed more of the racist
signs at polling places, despite his claim to have stopped using them.
The large campaign billboard style election day signs featured, in
Spanish, the word "Danger!" on them followed by Sanchez's name with a
large red circle and slash through it. The signs identified the Brown
campaign as their owner on the bottom. Brown's racially charged
reelection effort barely squeeked by Sanchez on election day, winning
51% to 49% following a series of racially motivated advertisements in
which the Brown campaign appealed to the fear of black voters by
invoking images of the gruesome lynching death of James Byrd, Jr. and by
attempting to pit them against Hispanics. While Brown had the audacity
to declare himself a mayor for all people and all ethnicities at his
victory party, many in Houston fear the racial wounds inflicted by his
campaign will take years to heal.

Mary Frances Berry: Berry is the Democrat chair of the US Commission on
Civil Rights (USCCR). She purports herself to be an "independent" in her
political affiliation in order to hold her job on the civil rights
commission where partisan membership may not exceed 4 for either party,
but is in fact a dedicated liberal Democrat who openly supported Al Gore
for president and has given a total of $20,000 in personal contributions
to the Democrat Party, Al Gore for President, and other Democrat
candidates over the last decade. Berry is an open racist who is
affiliated with the far-left Pacifica radio network, a group with ties
to black nationalist causes. Berry once stated "Civil rights laws were
not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them,"
indicating that she believes the USCCR should only look out for civil
rights violations against persons of certain select skin colors.

Billy McKinney: Former Democrat State Representative Billy McKinney of
Georgia, who is also the father of former Democrat congresswoman Cynthia
McKinney of the same state. During his daughter's failed 2002 reelection
bid, McKinney appeared on television where he blamed his daughter's
difficulties on a Jewish conspiracy. McKinney unleashed a string of
anti-semitic sentiments, stating "This is all about the Jews" and
spelling out "J-E-W-S." McKinney lost his own seat in a runoff a few
weeks later.

The Democrat Party and the Ku Klux Klan: Aside from the multiple Klan
members who have served in elected capacity within the high ranks of the
Democrat Party, the political party itself has a lengthy but often
overlooked history of involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. Though it has
been all but forgotten by the media, the Democrat National Convention of
1924 was host to one of the largest Klan gatherings in American history.
Dubbed the "Klanbake convention" at the time, the 1924 Democrat National
Convention in New York was dominated by a platform dispute surrounding
the Ku Klux Klan. A minority of the delegates to the convention
attempted to condemn the hate group in the party's platform, but found
their proposal shot down by Klan supporters within the party. As
delegates inside the convention voted in the Klan's favor, the Klan
itself mobilized a celebratory rally outside. On July 4, 1924 one of the
largest Klan gatherings ever occurred outside the convention on a field
in nearby New Jersey. The event was marked by speakers spewing racial
hatred, celebrations of their platform victory in the Democrat
Convention, and ended in a cross burning.
II. Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Movement:

A little known fact of history involves the heavy opposition to the
civil rights movement by several prominent Democrats. Similar historical
neglect is given to the important role Republicans played in supporting
the civil rights movement. A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes
from 1933 through the 1960's civil rights era shows that Republicans
favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the
Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often
intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons.
In some cases, the Democrats have told flat out lies about their
shameful record during the civil rights movement.

Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent
and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:
- Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
- J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill
Clinton
- Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al
Gore. Gore Jr. has been known to lie about his father's opposition to
the Civil Rights Act.
- Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator of Watergate hearings fame
- Richard Russell, famed Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore

The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 includes Senators:

- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia

Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to
literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats
VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED
it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends
occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82%
of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat
standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with
Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.

It took the hard work of Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett
Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act
(Dirksen was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year
by the head of the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Upon breaking
the Democrat filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Republican Dirksen
took to the Senate floor and exclaimed "The time has come for equality
of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in
employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!" (Full text of
speech). Sadly, Democrats and revisionist historians have all but
forgotten (and intentionally so) that it was Republican Dirksen, not the
divided Democrats, who made the Civil Rights Act a reality. Dirksen also
broke the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was
signed by Republican President Eisenhower.

Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school
integration were all Democrats:
- Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton's
political heroes
- George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama
- Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia

The most famous of the school desegregation standoffs involved Governor
Faubus. Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the
integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was
settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of
Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Even the Democrat Party organization resisted integration and refused to
allow minority participation for decades. Exclusion of minorities was
the general rule of the Democrat Party of many states for decades,
especially in Texas. This racist policy reached its peak under the New
Deal in the southern and western states, often known as the New Deal
Coalition region of FDR. The Supreme Court in Nixon v. Herndon declared
the practice of "white primaries" unconstitutional in 1927 after states
had passed laws barring Blacks from participating in Democrat primaries.
But the Democrat Parties did not yield to the Court’s order. After Nixon
v. Herndon, Democrats simply made rules within the party's individual
executive committees to bar minorities from participating, which were
struck down in Nixon v. Condon in 1932. The Democrats, in typical racist
fashion, responded by using state parties to pass rules barring blacks
from participation. This decision was upheld in Grovey v. Townsend,
which was not overturned until 1944 by Smith v. Allwright. The Texas
Democrats responded with their usual ploys and turned to what was known
as the "Jaybird system" which used private Democrat clubs to hold
white-only votes on a slate of candidates, which were then transferred
to the Democrat party itself and put on their primary ballot as the only
choices. Terry v. Adams overturned the Jaybird system, prompting the
Democrats to institute blocks of unit rule voting procedures as well as
the infamous literacy tests and other Jim Crow regulations to
specifically block minorities from participating in their primaries. In
the end, it took 4 direct Supreme Court orders to end the Democrat's
"white primary" system, and after that it took countless additional
orders, several acts of Congress, and a constitutional amendment to tear
down the Jim Crow codes that preserved the Democrat's white primary for
decades beyond the final Supreme Court order ruling it officially
unconstitutional.

Hispanics in South Texas were treated especially poorly by the Democrat
Party, which relied heavily on a system of political bosses to coerce
and intimidate Hispanics into voting for Democrat primary candidates of
choice. Though coercion is illegal, this system, known as the Patron
system, is still in use to this day by local Democrat parties in some
heavy Hispanic communities of the southwest.

The next time Democrats take to the national airwaves to dishonestly
accuse Republicans of racial hatred, remember who the historical record
up until this very day points to as the real bigots: The Democrat Party.
In all possible ways, the Democrat Party is built around the pillars of
ultra leftists, many of whom are known participants in racism and/or
affiliates of racist hate groups. Consider the Democrat Party of today's
heroes and leaders:

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat icon and orchestrator of Japanese
Internment
- Ex-House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, former affiliate of a St.
Louis area racist group
- Ex-Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman
known for making bigoted slurs on national television
- Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat keynote speaker and race hustler known
for making anti-Semitic slurs
- Rev. Al Sharpten, Democrat activist and perennial candidate and race
hustler known inciting anti-Semitic violence in New York City
- Sen. Ernest Hollings, leading Democrat Senator known for use of racial
slurs against several minority groups
- Lee P. Brown, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat mayor of
Houston who won reelection using racial intimidation against Hispanic
voters
- Andrew Cuomo, former Clinton cabinet official and Democrat candidate
for NY Governor who made racist statements about a black opponent.
- Dan Rather, Democrat CBS news anchor and editorialist known for using
anti-black racial epithets on a national radio broadcast
- Donna Brazile, former Gore campaign manager known for making
anti-white racial attacks. Brazile has also worked for Jackson,
Gephardt, and Michael Dukakis

The simple truth is that the Democrat Party's history during this
century is one closely aligned to bigotry in a record stemming largely
out of the liberal New Deal era up until the modern day. Bigots are at
the center of the Democrat party's current leadership and role models.
And in a striking display of hypocrisy, many of the same Democrats who
dishonestly shout accusations of "bigotry" at conservatives are
practicing bigots of the most disgusting and disreputable kind
themselves.
"I think this is because of your belief in biological Marxism.
As a genetic communist you feel that noticing behavioural
patterns relating to race would cause a conflict with your belief
in biological Marxism." Big Pete, famous Usenet Racist
pyotr filipivich
2006-08-05 10:54:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gunner
Post by Stuart Wheaton
Post by Gunner
Sadly enough..the fucktard always forgets it was the Republicans who
ended slavery and foughth for full civil rights, while it was the
Democrats who were the slave owners and resisted civil rights
Yep, those good 'ole democrats like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and
Phil Graham. Solid Democrats all, fit in so well with the northern,
anti-slavery and pro-integration members of the party.
Maybe Strom and Jesse voted for the voting rights act before they voted
against it?
Good old Democrats like Lester "pick handle" Maddox,
Gov. George Wallace
"I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of
tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation
forever."
Now, to be fair, George Wallace did repent of his segregationist ways,
and did repudiate it. Which, IMHO, gives him more credibility than all the
northern liberals who found his cause so distasteful.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Can you trust the party of Senator Holling, Bull Conner, and Nathan
Bedford Forest to really be concerned about the rights of people not like them?
Cliff
2006-08-04 05:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Actually, only one sect uses that much.
Are they Southern Baptists?
Funny.
They are the sect that has control of Iran, wants control of Iraq
But Saddam kept the peace.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
and had control of Afghanistan.
Supported by the US.

Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Gus
2006-08-04 05:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Found those "WMDs" yet?
Is there an echo?
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-04 10:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Actually, only one sect uses that much.
Are they Southern Baptists?
Funny.
They are the sect that has control of Iran, wants control of Iraq
But Saddam kept the peace.
Um..... what about all those terrorist bombings and rocket attacks over
the lest few decades?
I don't think Saddam kept the peace very well in Israel.

Oh! Wait! That's a non-sequitur!
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
and had control of Afghanistan.
Supported by the US.
And Iran was aided by Israel during the Iran- Iraq war... what has that
to do with "now"?
Post by Cliff
Found those "WMDs" yet?
Someone in Lebanon has WMDs?
Post by Cliff
--
Cliff
S***@flashlight.net
2006-08-05 02:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it?
Who farmed the land & lived in the homes?
Muslims, Jews, Christians, Coptics, and others, all of various ethnic
derivation. There was no self identity as "palestinian".
There is now that they were run off their land (stolen) & out of their
(stolen) homes & businesses ...
Funny thing, that.
The United Nations created the modern state of Israel out of area in
which jewish folk were living alongside arabs. The world powers decided
that, with the withdrawal of Britain and in view of the holocaust of
WWII Germany, it was a good and decent thing to allow the reformation
of a jewish homeland.
The land was not stolen from anyone.
The entire area, including modern Syria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine,
Jordan, Egypt... all had been a part of the Ottoman empire. In 1919,
Palestine and other areas were taken under protection by the British;
there was no state called "Palestine", and Syria and Iraq both were
created after the 1919 Versailles treaty.
So, the area in question belonged by treaty to Britain, not any
"palestinian state".
Britain withdrew from the protectorate after WWII and in the process
aided the UN in creating a homeland for the jews who had been sorely
mistreated.
That's not the way it happened. You missed a few bombings and
assassinations.

But even if it were it was not the UN's, or Britain's, to give away.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
So now, as you point out for some reason, after the fact, after decades
of benefiting from Israeli rule (where they choose to) and trying to
destroy the very country that has tried to be fair and open with them,
these Arab muslims pick up the notion that the land was "Palestine"
and that they are "Palestinians"; a claim that has no basis in
historical fact, but is the name of a nation that they would create
were they successful in "stealing" Israel from the non-Arab, non-muslim
Israelis.
Nope. The Arabs revolted from the first day. By the late
1950s desperation led to the first airplane hijackings.

"benefitting from Israeli rule" is an insult to anyone familiar
witrh the facts.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Were these folk content to live in peace with their neighbors, they
could do so as Israelis, right alongside all the other Israelis of
various ethnic and religious identity. But they don't.
Instead, the overarching muslim creed which insists that the jews MUST
be destroyed and that ALL others must submit and/or convert or DIE is
what they bring to the table.
Slavery, submission, death, destruction, and the imposition of
sharia law is their goal, over every person in every place, but
particularly and primarily, Israel.
Perhaps you'd like to return YOUR land to the folk it was stolen from,
eh Cliff?
People already lived there. The Brits, the US nor the UN had
any jurisdiction.

Life is short but memory is long. Either do the right thing or pay the
piper.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Why not talk about that, and see where that logic takes you?
Regards,
mark evins
Post by Cliff
--
Cliff
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-05 11:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by Cliff
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it?
Who farmed the land & lived in the homes?
Muslims, Jews, Christians, Coptics, and others, all of various ethnic
derivation. There was no self identity as "palestinian".
There is now that they were run off their land (stolen) & out of their
(stolen) homes & businesses ...
Funny thing, that.
The United Nations created the modern state of Israel out of area in
which jewish folk were living alongside arabs. The world powers decided
that, with the withdrawal of Britain and in view of the holocaust of
WWII Germany, it was a good and decent thing to allow the reformation
of a jewish homeland.
The land was not stolen from anyone.
The entire area, including modern Syria, Iraq, Iran, Palestine,
Jordan, Egypt... all had been a part of the Ottoman empire. In 1919,
Palestine and other areas were taken under protection by the British;
there was no state called "Palestine", and Syria and Iraq both were
created after the 1919 Versailles treaty.
So, the area in question belonged by treaty to Britain, not any
"palestinian state".
Britain withdrew from the protectorate after WWII and in the process
aided the UN in creating a homeland for the jews who had been sorely
mistreated.
That's not the way it happened. You missed a few bombings and
assassinations.
True enough; there was a fair amount of fighting going on between those
who wanted the land to be Israel and those who didn't, and everyone
against the Brits.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
But even if it were it was not the UN's, or Britain's, to give away.
If it wasn't proper for the UN to act as it did then, then it is
equally improper for the UN to make any attempt at influencing the
action now.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
So now, as you point out for some reason, after the fact, after decades
of benefiting from Israeli rule (where they choose to) and trying to
destroy the very country that has tried to be fair and open with them,
these Arab muslims pick up the notion that the land was "Palestine"
and that they are "Palestinians"; a claim that has no basis in
historical fact, but is the name of a nation that they would create
were they successful in "stealing" Israel from the non-Arab, non-muslim
Israelis.
Nope. The Arabs revolted from the first day. By the late
1950s desperation led to the first airplane hijackings.
Yup. They did, with Israel being attacked almost immediately by her
neighbors. Israel won that war, too.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
"benefitting from Israeli rule" is an insult to anyone familiar
witrh the facts.
Lessee....
Freedom of religion, stable economy, open, secular society, equally
applicable law. Even after Israel took Jerusalem and the temple mount,
the Dome of the Rock Mosque was left in place with muslim's in charge
and free access to the mosque.

Keep that bit in mind. The Temple Mount; the most holy place of
judaism, the place where God would dwell on earth were there a proper
Temple there, was _left in the hands of the muslims with a mosque on
it_.
If Israel is so focused on eliminating the arab population, why not
take the mount from them, pull down the mosque and re-build and
re-dedicate the temple?
What would the Arabs do? Attack them? *They are ALREADY DOING THAT!*
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Were these folk content to live in peace with their neighbors, they
could do so as Israelis, right alongside all the other Israelis of
various ethnic and religious identity. But they don't.
Instead, the overarching muslim creed which insists that the jews MUST
be destroyed and that ALL others must submit and/or convert or DIE is
what they bring to the table.
Slavery, submission, death, destruction, and the imposition of
sharia law is their goal, over every person in every place, but
particularly and primarily, Israel.
Perhaps you'd like to return YOUR land to the folk it was stolen from,
eh Cliff?
People already lived there. The Brits, the US nor the UN had
any jurisdiction.
Don't be coy, Cliff. Who did the land belong to before your people got
there?
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Life is short but memory is long. Either do the right thing or pay the
piper.
Yup. And hezbollah and their supporters are paying the piper, aren't
they?
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Why not talk about that, and see where that logic takes you?
Regards,
mark evins
Post by Cliff
--
Cliff
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
S***@flashlight.net
2006-08-05 02:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Day Brown
Post by S***@flashlight.net
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Scuze me? Just who do you think they stole the land from? Did the
"Palestinians" really own it? Seems like it was in the hands of the
Brits, who had it as part of the spoils of war from the Ottomans, who
stole it from the Sultan, who stole it from the Byzantines, who stole it
from the Romans, who stole it from.... the Jews.
You sound like the US War Department rationalizing the massacre
of American Indians and the theft of their lands.

Don't act like an idiot. You know better.

Palestine as a nation is a recent notion.

Palestine as a British protectorate was studied and documented.
Censuses were taken. It was well known who lived there and
how long. Their names were registered with their property.

The area was known then and now as Palestine. The inhabitants
were usually identified by name as living in Palestine. People lived
on those lands for centuries and had title to the land through Arab
law.

The Jewish settlers of 1948 were invaders who took land from
people who physically and legally in possessed their land.

The Jewish settlers of 1948 were invaders who assaulted and
killed inhabitants of Palestine.

Its as simple as that.
Post by Day Brown
Who are back.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Cliff
2006-08-02 13:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by Gus
Post by Cliff
Now somebody did some neocon-style-approved rendition and
they started bombing Lebanon ... FIRST.
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them.
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Kind of like organixed crime ....
Did they ever find those "WMDs"?
--
Cliff
m***@sbcglobal.net
2006-08-02 14:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by Gus
Post by Cliff
Post by Gus
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked
every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush
has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has
told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice.
<snipped mumbo jumbo>
Lebanese civillians are in the crossfire which is a shame but Israeli
civillians are the "targets" of terrorists. I don't hear you having any
sympathy for them.
Israel's been bombing many for decades & taking hostages
as well as much else that the UN has very strongly frowned on.
Now somebody did some neocon-style-approved rendition and
they started bombing Lebanon ... FIRST.
--
Cliff
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them.
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Do keep in mind that it was British mandate territory, not Arabic, and
that the establishment of Israel was a product of the UN.
"Following World War II, the British withdrew from their mandate of
Palestine, and the UN partitioned the area into Arab and Jewish states,
an arrangement rejected by the Arabs. Subsequently, the Israelis
defeated the Arabs in a series of wars without ending the deep tensions
between the two sides."

The establishment of Israel was not done by "Israelis stealing other
people's land", rather, it was established by British withdrawal and
United Nations plan.
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by Gus
I guess the
difference I see is that Israel targets terrorists while terrorists
target innocent civillians. Israel might shoot a missile at some
terrorists in a car but the terrorists like to climb aboard city busses
and blow everyone up. I see a big difference, can't you?
Yeah, a big difference between blowing up a car of people vs a bus of
people.
A difference of no distinction.
Post by Gus
GW
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
S***@flashlight.net
2006-08-05 04:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by Gus
Post by Cliff
Post by Gus
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked
every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush
has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has
told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice.
<snipped mumbo jumbo>
Lebanese civillians are in the crossfire which is a shame but Israeli
civillians are the "targets" of terrorists. I don't hear you having any
sympathy for them.
Israel's been bombing many for decades & taking hostages
as well as much else that the UN has very strongly frowned on.
Now somebody did some neocon-style-approved rendition and
they started bombing Lebanon ... FIRST.
--
Cliff
For 50 years Israel's neighbors have been attacking them.
I think you missed the part about Israelis stealing other people's
land in 1948 as being the reason for the conflict.
Do keep in mind that it was British mandate territory, not Arabic, and
that the establishment of Israel was a product of the UN.
Odd. The Arabs lived there. Have since history began. Guess
the British knocked but no one answered the door.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
"Following World War II, the British withdrew from their mandate of
Palestine, and the UN partitioned the area into Arab and Jewish states,
an arrangement rejected by the Arabs. Subsequently, the Israelis
defeated the Arabs in a series of wars without ending the deep tensions
between the two sides."
A "product of the UN"? Now there's a great euphemism.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
The establishment of Israel was not done by "Israelis stealing other
people's land", rather, it was established by British withdrawal and
United Nations plan.
SOP, legalistic razzle-dazzle.
Post by m***@sbcglobal.net
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Post by Gus
I guess the
difference I see is that Israel targets terrorists while terrorists
target innocent civillians. Israel might shoot a missile at some
terrorists in a car but the terrorists like to climb aboard city busses
and blow everyone up. I see a big difference, can't you?
Yeah, a big difference between blowing up a car of people vs a bus of
people.
A difference of no distinction.
Post by Gus
GW
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
S***@flashlight.net
2006-08-02 07:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gus
Because Bush is so proud of himself, you do know that he has blocked
every effort to stop the Israeli slaughter of Lebanese civilians. Bush
has told the UN "NO." Bush has told the European Union "NO." Bush has
told the pro-American Lebanese prime minister "NO." Twice.
<snipped mumbo jumbo>
Lebanese civillians are in the crossfire which is a shame but Israeli
civillians are the "targets" of terrorists. I don't hear you having any
sympathy for them.
GW
By another perspective, the American Republican party sent an army
to Iraq, which it destroyed. The Republican party has also
kidnapped Arabs and imprisoned them indefinitely. That makes
the Republican party members terrorists.

Hezbollah is a political party founded in 1982 and has popular
support in Lebanon.

If you can't come up with a suitable substitute for "terrorist"
you should just call lawbreakers what they are, criminals,
or perps since they've not yet been tried.
.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Gus
2006-08-02 11:58:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by S***@flashlight.net
By another perspective, the American Republican party sent an army
to Iraq, which it destroyed. The Republican party has also
kidnapped Arabs and imprisoned them indefinitely. That makes
the Republican party members terrorists.
Only by your definition. By mine, terrorists are people who get their
children to strap on suicide belts in order to go blow up a bus full of
people, all with the promise of "virgins in heaven".
Post by S***@flashlight.net
Hezbollah is a political party founded in 1982 and has popular
support in Lebanon.
If you can't come up with a suitable substitute for "terrorist"
you should just call lawbreakers what they are, criminals,
or perps since they've not yet been tried.
.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...