What does the...

1. KKK
2. Neo-Nazis
3. The Left
4. 'liberals'
5. arabs
6. terrorists
7. dictators
8. Europeans

...ALL have in common?

Hatred for the Jewish People.

Nothing to the Jewish people, just re-learned for a new Jewish generation once again.

Get in line anti-Semite there have been plenty before you, plenty already here now, and plenty more to come in the future.

Religious tolerance

OCRT: An agency promoting religious tolerance as a human right.

A OVERVIEW OF 2000 YEARS OF JEWISH PERSECUTION

The Arabs are not anti- semetic in the same way Christianity was. But they are using all the canards against the Jews popularized in the Christian world during centuries past to vilify the Jews and gain supporters. No lie is too big. They have picked up on all the Nazi methods to dehumanize and vilify the Jews. This is a tool in their arsenal to defeat Israel and gain international support. To boot they accuse the Israelis of being Nazis and worst than Hitler. They also accuse Israel of genocide. Whatever works. Unfortunately some people buy.

This is not a new tactic on their part but it has gained a great deal of steam over the last two years.

This is a tregedy for the Jewish people all over the world. Fortunately more and more people are coming to our defence. The Christian right is foremost in defending Israel. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Unfortunately no government is taking the Arab world to task for promoting antisemetism or using hate speech or inciting to violence. Everyone tolerates it as they did with the Nazis. Too bad.

Does anyone else have a sense that, historically, the Jews are the proverbial canary in the mine? My reading of history is that every period of significantly stepped-up persecution of the Jews has heralded a BAD TIME for the rest of the world, shortly thereafter. For whatever reason, when there are forces working to push mankind into war, imperialism (NOT the so-called "imperialism" of the US, but the REAL THING), autocracy, etc., they START WITH THE JEWS. Also makes it pretty easy to figure out who the good guys and the bad guys are, doesn't it? Somebody starts blaming the Jews, do you REALLY need to know much more about their position?

I caught a talk by David Horowitz on Cspan yesterday in which he discussed his latest book, "How to Beat the Democrats and Other Subversive Ideas". One phrase he used several times succiently sums up the liberal left's concending attitude towards tyrants and bigots, "The only things the liberal left is liberal about are sex and hard drugs."

I've heard an opinion saying that the pro-communist radical fringe actually set back the anti-war protesters during the Vietnam war by several years. They so alienated so many Americans that it took longer to turn public opinion against it. If valid, it would suggest that the anti-semetic fringe in the anti-war movement may serve a similar purpose, wether they mean to or not. Of course there is a great difference between the two wars, we have been attacked in this one. Americans can feel this threat. I don't believe the anti-war movement will ever move beyond the fringe this time. 3000 dead are kind of hard to just write off. That the anti-war groups are dumb enough to embrace anyone who shares a single cause with them speaks volumes about their lack of judgement. If they can be this wrong on the moral issue of anti-semetism, how could anyone on the left accept their views at face value?

Sullivan's piece was excellent. It is a keeper for my WWIII scrapbook.

#3
Aside from WWII what other period of titanic badness was preceded by a wave of anti-semitism. I am curious.

There was a little thing called World War II. Of course, it wasn't the only Sign of Doom walking in front of that war like baton twirlers in a parade of death, but it was there and ugly.

Yokel,

Lots!

View post #1

A OVERVIEW OF 2000
YEARS OF JEWISH PERSECUTION

let's see:

1. The Egyptians enslaved them.
2. The Romans Destroyed Israel as a Jewish homeland, by destroying not one but both of their temples in Jerusalem.
3. baylonians exiled them for 2,000 years.
4. Ottoman Turks
5. The Mongols.
6. The Black Plague that wiped out a 1/3 of Europe was blamed on the Jews even though Jewish ritual meant they were the only ones at the time who regularly bathed and the plagua was due to dysentari( bad waste disposal)
6. Russian Pogroms.
7. Christian Crusades.
8. Spanish Inquistion.
9. European Blood Libels.
10. Spanish Exile of 1492 et al.

To be Jewish is to be hated.
The most recent generation just learned this lesson last year.

They are the smallest, most ancient cutlural religious group that has, is, and will be used as the scapegoat for just about everything that ails ya.

Not much else to add besides the excellet posts already here on this thread... but to list a few common anti-Semitic remarks:

"being against Israel does not mean being anti-Jewish"

"some of my best friends happen to be Jewish"

"you're Jewish? I would have never been able to guess - you're such a nice person!"

"if Jews were so persecuted, why wouldn't Israel give the Palestineans a break?"

... and the list goes on and on...

Muslim ideologues treat Israelis (read: Jews) as usurpers, because all of their conquests, rapes and plunders were "god-willed" (inshallah). I remind the French that Muslims once conquered southern France, until they were turned back at Poitiers. Last I heard, Jews had no territorial claims on France.

Those who believe that there are authentic Muslims who recognize perpetual Israeli sovereignty over any part of 'palestine' need to do some research.

A lot of this antiwar and antisemitism mix has been around for a while. However I think a lot of the hatred is based on the fact that Israel is succesful and powerful while all around it is pathetic failure. These leftist groups only see success/failure or good v evil in terms of oppression. (this is my disagreement with those here who think all "anti-Israel" is "antisemetic". I think the examples here are both)

Their Premise: the powerful are always guilty, the weak innocent. Fact 1: the west's society (in this case Israel) is far more successful and powerful than the surrounding societies. Fact 2: the palestinians are suffering Conclusion: The reason the palestians are suffering is that Israel is more powerful and is oppressing them.

Until more leftist like Hitchens realize that sometimes the more powerful group can be in the right, then it will add nothing to the debate going on now. It also needs to clear out this antisemtic junk (Jewish conspiracy theories, libels, etc.) that have come up recenty. It is wrong and it makes most people like me who might at least listen to them automatically ignore whatever they say.

Hey, maybe Israel should stop killing kids with F-16s, and then...

ANTI-SEMITE FASCIST LEFTY!!!

It's not that the Palestinians are in the right, but Israel..

NAZI!! TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER!!!

--

Anyway, the article does make a point somewhere...

There's no question that Israel's policies in that regard are ripe for criticism, and to equate criticism of that with anti-Semitism is absurd and despicable.

Of course, then it goes on a rant against assumed tenets of the left and a deep misunderstanding of at least one average lefty's impetus of action.

Ask the average leftist today what he is for, and you will not get a particularly eloquent response.

Ask away.

And a final nugget of wisdom, useful only after being extracted from a river of filthy stereotyping.

A politics of resentment is a poisonous creature that slowly embitters itself. You should not be surprised if the most poisonous form of resentment that the world has ever known springs up, unbidden, in your midst.

Wah -- invitation accepted. What are you "for"?

#12: I have to agree with you quoting that last part:

"A politics of resentment is a poisonous creature that slowly embitters itself. You should not be surprised if the most poisonous form of resentment that the world has ever known springs up, unbidden, in your midst."

How long before the anti-semites start posting here? How long before people like 'Nastification Agenda' find they have more in common with neo-Nazis then they have differences?

#12
The trolls are back in town :(

If you are throwing stones at tanks, what response do you honestly expect? Flowers?

wah.....you say

.........." river of filthy stereotyping."

vivid use of language....

one needs a "river of filthy stereotyping", to come close to descibe the zombie scum that is emerging from the cesspool of Islamofacism.....

:o)

Wah, maybe the terror kings should stop cowering behind the kids. Maybe they shouldn't populate their terror HQs with children in order to ensure telegenic casualties. Maybe the gunmen should not use stone throwing children as cover.

Maybe the Pals should ditch violence. Or is that to much to ask?

For all their shortcomings, the anti-war crowd may be winning.

WOBBLE!!!!

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said in television interviews yesterday that a disarmed Saddam could remain in power, and Mr. Powell said that is now President Bush's position.

Palestine get ready for your state, Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show is coming to a town near you.

What about regime change? What about democracy? What about all of Saddams transgressions which do not have anything to do with WMD? All is forgiven if they just agree like North Korea did, and we all know how well that worked.

Does anyone have any explanation for this? Is this a disinformation campaign?

What about the UN proving its relevance?

Look out Israel, you are the next Bush principle to go by the wayside

HoWahd Raines is back!

Wah -- invitation accepted. What are you "for"?

Umm, "good"? (quotes for quotes)

Could you ask a slightly less open-ended question, perhaps? Maybe a little context? A topic? Something? I know asking tough questions isn't a habit of the right, but I've got faith in you.

#15. Trolls are people that post what they don't believe to illicit an over the top response. Go read the last post, here, if you really think I'm a troll. Otherwise, STFU and say something useful.

#16. one needs a "river of filthy stereotyping", to come close to descibe the zombie scum that is emerging from the cesspool of Islamofacism.....

Yes, they do. But you seem to think that's a good thing. That's very strange.

Ronnie (9),

One more bogus remark:

"Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic because Arabs are Semites too!"

It's awful popular 'round these here parts.

If you are throwing stones at tanks, what response do you honestly expect? Flowers?

No, 100MM tank rounds to the face. After all, we've all seen those films where a couple of kids throwing rocks at tanks caused the tanks to blow up and kill all those inside. I always pull out my .45 when a mosquito bites me. They're hard to hit, but if you shoot into a crowd of 'em, you're sure to hit at least a couple.

#18: I don't buy it. I'm pretty sure that the U.S is going to invade Iraq this winter no matter what Saddam does, which is a good thing.

Time to polish up the warheads...

Q : Actually my name is Roy Taylor. (Roy/Wah...um..ask a Canadian). I live in Dallas. If you want a phone number I'd be glad to give it out.

Time to get this off my chest....

The Red Sox have not won the World Series since 1918 because of the Jews!

#18
Pay no attention we have seen the admin do this before
Saddam is a goner and also if China does not wring N Korea's neck i predict we will take out those reactors as well a la Orsiak
Wah
I don't consider you a troll i like and enjoy your posts and engagements
i don't agree with a damm thing you say but its obvious you THINK and thats all that matters
you cannot be happy with The Protocols being associated with the rally at Central Park a few
weeks back
I have an aquaintance who was there and was repulsed at the serious anti-semetism that was rampant
this person i know is no wont to fudge
also i did think as i usually do that sullivan's piece was quite accurate and historically accurate
HG

Could you ask a slightly less open-ended question, perhaps? Maybe a little context? A topic? Something? I know asking tough questions isn't a habit of the right, but I've got faith in you.

So, in other words you're not going to answer a question, and are just going to chime in with insults. Sorry to say it, but I don't think anyone's surprised.

#8 - GI Joe, the only thing I want to contest on your list is the Ottoman Turks. There are countless accounts of how the Ottoman empire actually shielded the Jews throughout their existance and gave them refuge from the Spainish Inquisition. Under the Ottoman empire the jews were allowed to practice there religion freely and they generally got along peacefully with their Turkish neighbors.

References:

http://...

http://...

http://...

(and many more to be found via Google of course)

I'm reminded of a delightful little article I came across in the paper this morning: Fisk's latest piece (of filth) - courtsey of the New Zealand Daily Apologist: [Link: www.nzherald.co.nz...]

Wah

The IDF in tanks do not shoot 100mm rounds at kids throwing rocks at the tanks. IDF soldiers on foot who can be hurt by rocks do fire various weapons.

Actually the whole last paragraph from Andrew Sullivan's piece was interesting:

This negativism matters. When you have a movement based on resentment, when you have a political style that is as bitter as it is angry, when your rhetoric focuses not on those who are murdering partiers in Bali or workers in Manhattan, but on those democratic powers trying to defend and protect them, then your fate is cast. A politics of resentment is a poisonous creature that slowly embitters itself. You should not be surprised if the most poisonous form of resentment that the world has ever known springs up, unbidden, in your midst.

#30 Just read Fisk's little emanation...

OK - who's going to fisk Fisk first?

Andrew Sullivan writes:

"Ask the average leftist today what he is for, and you will not get a particularly eloquent response."

Jonathan "asks":

Wah responds:

"Could you ask a slightly less open-ended question, perhaps? Maybe a little context? A topic? Something? I know asking tough questions isn't a habit of the right, but I've got faith in you."

Apparently Wah is "for" uneloquent ambiguity.

For christ's sake, people, you've got a thinking liberal in here (Wah) and you're engaging in no dialogue at all. That's riduclous.

May I have a go?

Wah, what is your stance, aside from being for "good" (quotes yours, but I get your drift) on the use of stones again?

Please comment both in context of the Intefadah _and_ the impending stoning to death, at the hands of a Sharia court, of an adulteress.

That is an interesting context. In the face of tanks, they're just stones, right? Does the size matter? Does the fact that a softball sized stone, thrown with all the force one can muster, can kill? After all, they're being used to kill the adulteress.

Comments? You face stones with a tank if the stone throwers are obdurate despite pleas for a cease fire, I would think. You face stones with a tank when the stones are backed up with mortars, guns and shoulder fired missiles. No? You put your soldiers in tanks so they don't get killed by the stones.

Wah, what is your stance, aside from being for "good" (quotes yours, but I get your drift) on the use of stones again?

Please comment both in context of the Intefadah _and_ the impending stoning to death, at the hands of a Sharia court, of an adulteress.

Shooting people with modern firearms who throw stones at you is a rather despicable act, IMHO. In reference to your comments.

You face stones with a tank when the stones are backed up with mortars, guns and shoulder fired missiles. No?

Yes, but then we aren't just talking about stones are we?

And as far as sharia law goes, it's pretty much insane for a modern society. Punishing a woman for adultery after she is raped (because even proving the rape with two witnesses in "good moral standing" is an obvious plea of guilt to adultery, natch) is an act beyond defense. As one who is no fan of the death penalty, stoning one to death is something only whacky bible freaks think is worthwhile.

However, I don't take the additional step that would require putting those whacky quran freaks to death for their actions (i.e. faith in the worthiness of shariah law to the extent of building a government around it).

gb and Robert Crawford : I'm still waiting. Make your time.

The real WAH is out of the closet. Let's see, the Israelis voluntarily allowed Yassir Arafat and friends to come back in order to create what was supposed to be a stable state but instead Yassir and friends used the areas under their control in order to stage attacks on civilians. These attacks began as soon as these lands were put under PA control. They were not initially suicide bombings but consisted of snipings, theft, rapes and just about anything you could attribute to vicious, aimless, thugs. The Barak government consistently ignored these things hoping that as the PA stabilized it would begin to crack down and form a recognizable gov't. Hmmm, doesn't seem to have happened does it? Not only that, but the Palestinians have created a death cult with which there can not be a dialogue whatsoever. Is there a specific crime the Jews are guilty of? No, they are described as infidels and that blanket statement is justification enough to kill them. You seem to agree, since your remark about F-16's and so forth can be boiled down to one word, babykillers. Vietnam vets were described that way once too but they were basically human beings caught up in a world that can be less than ideal and so are the Israelis. Will you acknowledge that fact? Of course you won't but here's a little tip from an insider. When Jews and Israelis sit down together we don't talk about how we can further American hegemonism. We really don't. We talk about our jobs, our families even the weather. I know you don't believe it but we'll have Ripley's publish it and you can judge for yourself.

Wah, have you listened to the news in the past two years? None of the Palestinians are using stones anymore, and when they were the Israelis were using rubber bullets so as not to hurt them.

The children are now being given molotov cocktails and grenades by their elders - some even have been seen using their very own guns. In fact, the last time this kind of thing happened the soldiers thought the mob of children running at them were just throwing rocks and hesitated to act...until the "rocks" blew up.

Watch the news, really.

Howard : Thanks for your comments. No, I don't particularly appreciate the action that some who are unfortunately associated with my general position have taken. But then again, most of you folks don't exactly agree with Reverend Falwell, now do you?

I think you'll see that as more people join the anti (pre-emptive) war effort, people like this will be marginalized as they should.
It's a common tactic when villifying an opposing ideology. Take an example of an extremist in a group and paint a picture with their actions considered centrist for that group.

Progaganda 101.

Yokel (#6) - I wouldn't necessarily agree with everything on GI Joe's list, but several of those are good examples. From the history I've read, there was noticeable anti-Semitic activity prior to WWI, as well as WWII. As was mentioned, the Crusades were profoundly anti-Semitic, as well as being anti-Muslim.

Wah, do you really believe that breezing in here, posting a smartass comment telling us how much SMARTER you believe you are than the rest of us, hurling a few insults and dashing off really does much to EITHER persuade us that your position has merit, OR make us more kindly disposed to your point of view? If you do, you obviously learned your interpersonal skills on a second grade playground, and your development has been arrested thereafter. You want to discuss/debate some of these issues, have at it - but your little hit and run attacks are simply chickenshit.

And, NO I don't think ALL anti-war or left-leaning people are anti-Semitic. But, if you allow blatant, poisonous anti-Semites to be prominent spokespeople for your cause, and don't condemn their filth (and, yes, I mean EXACTLY the same way that "mainstream" Muslims have been deafening in their silence in condeming terror), then you can't blame the rest of us for drawing what seems to be a pretty obvious conclusion.

Shooting people with modern firearms who throw stones at you is a rather despicable act, IMHO.

OK, so someone's throwing stones at you. How would you respond?

Keep in mind we're not talking pebbles here. We're talking chunks of brick and concrete large enough to dash in your skull.

Oh, and here's a second situation -- behind the stone throwers are a bunch of slightly older guys with automatic weapons. They're firing at you. If you fire at them, you're likely to hit the stone throwers. What do you do in that case?

Wah, no, we're not just talking about stones. But you were, and the Palestinians aren't. So I thought I'd try to draw a parallel between the two uses of stones.

You condemn the use of Sharia against the adulteress, but don't address the use of lethal force against Israelis. Comments?

Shooting people who throw stones at you is barbaric? Is throwing the stones barbaric? And if the stones are thrown from a height of several stories and intended to kill? As in the situation at the Aqsa mosque recently? Comments?

Lollia : Nothing I said was given as an assessment of the current socio/political situation in Israel. If it was, I would have used other examples. You've merely illustrated another tenet of my thinking, violence begets violence. And it escalates until people start dying, and then it gets really nasty. Then it starts to get worse. Later, the bad stuff starts to happens. Then the bad stuff seems normal and new bad stuff happens again. Finally people either come to their senses or die. War in a Nutshell, please tip your waitstaff.

And I'd rather not get into a debate about that conflict, it's rather off topic (I'm new here so don't know how you folks feel about that kind of stuff), and there's a damn near zero chance that our discussion making the smallest bit of difference for anyone.

Neil G : The conflict in Israel is obviously very close to you (I noticed the "we") so I'm not going to antagonize you about the struggle (jihad) of your people. And if you think that parenthetical aside was a barb, you've missed the more spiritual meaning of at least one word.

The strange thing about your "babykillers==Vietnam vets" metaphor is that the Vets were stopped in their actions by the will of a democratic country. And they went home and it stopped. We can't do that in this situation, since Zion is Home. And the babies that die belong to each of the sides in the conflict.

BTW, quick Vietnam anecdote I was privy to while down at Octoberfest a couple of weeks ago. One of my friends' father is a Vet. He worked in Intel. He was lucky enough to watch one of the people on his side (our allies) hold up a baby in front of a small crowd of people in a village. Then he (not the father) asked a question of the people in that village. No one answered. He cut the baby down the middle and picked up another baby. Then he asked the same question. He hadn't ever told his son this story and did to me only because I asked and he was drunk.

No real point to this story in the context of the thread, but it was rather topical (it jumped to the fore of my thought because of the previous metaphor) and perhaps will work to mediate the impassioned responses to my post. Thanks.

If pali kids were only throwing stones at tanks what could they harm? Yet the tanks have infantry on the side and behind it. So those sweet loving teenagers are throwing rocks which can cripple if not worse. I don't blame the israelis for shooting rubber bullets or regualr ammo when approbriate. I blame the adults who send those kids out for the public outcry when one of the little sweeties get wounded or killed? What kind of man sends childern out to face the enemy while he hides in the kitchen or mosque?

Wah,

Hammas, the PLFP, and the PLO all have organizational charters which call for the destruction of the State of Israel as a Jewish entitity, not just ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. All of these organizations have a military wings which are activily engaged in various forms of murder and mayhem against Israelie civillians within Israel proper.

As you stand for "good", what would be a good way for Israel to respond to these actions of the military organizations?

Wah, do you really believe that breezing in here, posting a smartass comment telling us how much SMARTER you believe you are than the rest of us, hurling a few insults and dashing off really does much to EITHER persuade us that your position has merit, OR make us more kindly disposed to your point of view?

Hey now. I have not dashed off. When you have a poster who equates liberals with the KKK and no one points out how stupid that is, it's not a tough assumption (or a correct one) to think that the rest of you folks ain't all that bright. However, in between the personal attacks and being called "chickenshit" I've endured to express my opinion here, I've noticed a couple of people here that at least think a little bit and have the ability to debate without being snarky. I can snark with the best of 'em, so...there ya go.

Upon further reflection it would seem to be a failing of this linear discussion format. Where I come from, people expounding stupid crap usually get moderated into oblivion by the committed lurkers or others who actually care what their community looks like to a passing observer.

In case you haven't guessed (and there seem to be a couple of front page articles about it) LGF looks like a bunch of war mongering racist idiot asshats. Chuck should bone up on his PHP skills and see how other onlines communities have dealt with this problem or this impression will not only continue to exist, but will become more pronounced as others realize they can come here to have their genocidal wishes endorsed by a group of people who are probably pretty nice and charming when not screaming for muslim blood.

I think the below is a response to someone else, but can't check the discussion with opening up another page, and it's just not worth the effort. PHP can fix this problem.

OK, so someone's throwing stones at you. How would you respond?

Umm, move beyond their range? Throw stones back? Put on some body armer, riot gear, and laugh at them? Teach them Hebrew and lure them over to tea with pictures of exposed ankles?

Oh, and here's a second situation -- behind the stone throwers are a bunch of slightly older guys with automatic weapons. They're firing at you. If you fire at them, you're likely to hit the stone throwers. What do you do in that case?

Hire a committed mercenary in the Wahington, D.C. area to teach me how to only shoot the people I want to?

It's not an easy situation, I don't see anybody saying it is. But making excuses for killing children who don't know how to dodge bullets doesn't really seem to help.

So, Wah, when the "good" protesters in Amerikkka caused us to bring the babykillers home, "it" (the BAD WAR, the KILLING) stopped? Jesus, I don't know which would scare me worse - if you KNEW how absurd that comment was, and made it anyway, or if you are so clueless that you don't know what a crock of crap that is! In Vietnam itself, the kindly, humanistic forces of Uncle Ho immediately embarked on a campaign of murder, confiscation, retribution and "re-education" against all who did not share their political views - DIRECTLY resulting in the deaths of thousands. In the region, I think there are few who would argue that the Khmer Rouge were not a fairly direct result of the US withdrawal from SE Asia - and the death toll from THAT little adventure may never be known precisely.

I know, I know - "War is bad for children and other living things" - except when the alternative is worse. And the one point that the folks here can't understand why you, and others of your persuasion, can't grasp is that the alternative to war is, unfortunately, OFTEN worse than war. And if you believe otherwise, you probably share and frequently discuss that belief with Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

Wah - well, I've got to give you this one. This time, in lieu of shooting and running, you DO manage to post something . . . stimulating, shall we say, faster than I can respond to the last . . . stimulus. That is, however, somewhat contrary to your usual behavior.

"OK, so someone's throwing stones at you. How would you respond?

Umm, move beyond their range? Throw stones back? Put on some body armer, riot gear, and laugh at them? Teach them Hebrew and lure them over to tea with pictures of exposed ankles?"

IMNSHO - the first and most serious failure of understanding of the anti-war left. "Sweet reason" can solve problems ONLY if both parties (i) are SINCERELY prepared to practice same, and (ii) have at least SOMEWHAT compatible definitions thereof. Charles has managed to do a pretty thorough job of posting the proof that al Qaeda, the PLA, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the clerics of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, as well as thousands of others like them, believe that NO RESULT short of the destruction of Israel is acceptable. What, pray tell, would an Israeli DISCUSS with such as that? "I say, Yasser, I think I'd like to die by gunshot, rather than carbomb"? All in the world that "discussion" will accomplish, so long as the Palis and their supporters cling to their "death to Israel" philosophy, is to dignify their position by treating it as one held by rational human beings. You show me documentary evidence (accompanied by at least SOME indication that the document is something more than propaganda) that this has happened, and we'll have something to talk about. Until then, talk about, "come, let us reason together" is just naive and silly wishful thinking.

"Oh, and here's a second situation -- behind the stone throwers are a bunch of slightly older guys with automatic weapons. They're firing at you. If you fire at them, you're likely to hit the stone throwers. What do you do in that case?

Hire a committed mercenary in the Wahington, D.C. area to teach me how to only shoot the people I want to?"

If I couldn't tell from your political persuasion, this quote would be all I'd need to prove that you know EXACTLY fuck all about shooting in combat. This sounds really good, and it works on TV, but it is so much bullshit on the battlefield. Mental exercise - how "accurate" do you think the DC sniper would be if there were, oh, say 10 or 20 guys taking potshots at HIM while he's trying to aim? Get a clue.

"It's not an easy situation, I don't see anybody saying it is. But making excuses for killing children who don't know how to dodge bullets doesn't really seem to help."

Those children know EXACTLY how to dodge those bullets - stay the fuck out of the street and don't throw rocks. And don't give me the free speech and right to dissent BS, either. First, do the Palestinians have "free speech" and the right to dissent in Jordan? How about SYria? Iraq? Egypt? No? Gee, wonder what THAT tells us? Second, do you have ANY credible evidence that the IDF has EVER fired weapons into a crowd of PEACEFUL demonstrators? No? Didn't think so.

Look, call me an asshat if you like . . . but the hat in question seems to fit you a little better.

Wah writes:

You've merely illustrated another tenet of my thinking, violence begets violence.

Wah, what would happen if Israel were to lay down its arms and say no more "violence?"

We know: They would as the Palestinians have promised, be driven into the sea.

What would happen if the Palestinians did the same thing?

They would have a state.

Here is proper tenet: Palestinian violence begets necessary defensive actions on the part of the Israelis. They stop the violence, and Israel has no reason to "beget violence."

So, Wah, when the "good" protesters in Amerikkka caused us to bring the babykillers home, "it" (the BAD WAR, the KILLING) stopped?

It stopped those babykillers. And it's now all over but for the mutations.

In the region, I think there are few who would argue that the Khmer Rouge were not a fairly direct result of the US withdrawal from SE Asia - and the death toll from THAT little adventure may never be known precisely.

So you wanted to U.S. to continue the baby killing? I'm really not sure what you are arguing was the correct course of action here? Nuke 'em all from orbit, just to be sure? Or do you just want to whine?

Oh mighty Steve Peden, please educate me as to the correct course of action that should have been taken to minimize the suffering of a conquered people. Please, I'd much appreciate it.

And the one point that the folks here can't understand why you, and others of your persuasion, can't grasp is that the alternative to war is, unfortunately, OFTEN worse than war. And if you believe otherwise, you probably share and frequently discuss that belief with Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

You are being silly. Your ENTIRE argument rests on that OFTEN up there (perhaps your entire ideology, but that's a tough one to call from so little interaction) One, you probably need to define whose suffering is more important, or if you even differentiate between various people or nationalities. Two, site some historical references where your choice of course of action, more war, has caused LESS suffering than the alternative (which I would posit as peace, but I'm guessing you have another word). Three, show me how this applies to current situations around the globe. Start giving me some examples. Lots of 'em. And I invoke Godwin's Corollary, meaning that WWII is off limits (yea, like you'll let that happen).

And if you believe otherwise, you probably share and frequently discuss that belief with Santa and the Tooth Fairy.

You obviously learned your interpersonal skills on a second grade playground, and your development has been arrested thereafter. Too bad, you showed so much promise.

Wah,

I don't perfectly agree with this, but maybe it'll help you:

[Link: www.mikesilverman.com...]

This is a list of ways to criticize Israel without being labelled an anti-Semite.

You really haven't provided a lot of information as to your stances so there's very little to be criticize. If you have a point, please feel free to make it.

If the sum total of your opinion is that paleostinians shouldn't be shot at even when they're trying to kill the soldiers shooting at them, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If rocks often include grenades and Molotov cocktails, nary a soldier wouldn't fire back, IMHO.

Do you remember what happened in Somalia? There were some riflemen shooting at American troops, but the riflemen were interspersed with civilians. The Americans shot back in the process killing civilians. While the death of civilians is unfortunate, the responsibility for their deaths lies on the force that is using them as cover (in both the Somalian and the paleostinian case). You might try a brief reading of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

J Lichty #49 - Great point. I knew there was something wrong with his argument.

Wah #50 -

I'm game. The Korean War in the 50s is a good example:
#1: The suffering of Koreans, as demonstrated by Kim Il Sung's and Kim Jong Il's preferences for starving the populace and building nuclear weapons with the proceeds. Never mind the nasty unpleasantness of a police state.
#2: The Korean War. Otherwise all of Korea would have suffered under the leadership of the "Dear Leader" and the "Great Leader"
#3: Saddam's repression of the Iraqi people. The Taliban's repression of the Afghans. They were dancing in the streets, man. How much clearer can it be? To be precise, the Taliban were executing at a merry clip of 10,000 human beings per month. In short, the US invasion of Afghanistan may have killed 1,000 innocents, thus saving about 109,000 up until now.

Wah #50,

BTW, if required I can come up with other examples. Without resorting to WWII (which is the example par excellence).

I could respond in kind, but I think you could use a lesson in decorum, so . . .

Examples (OTHER than WWII - and WHY should that OBVIOUS example be off limits? Because it weakens your case?)

The Civil War (unless you think continued, and expanded human chattel slavery was "better" than war)

The American Revolution

For the first ten years or so after it happened, the Cuban Revolution (surprised you there, didn't I?!)

What about the Afghan RESISTANCE to Soviet Invasion?

I think, given their respective governments and social structures at the time, the English defeat of the Spanish Armada would count

Had the Incas successfully repulsed the Conquistadors, given what the Spanish did to Native Americans, what would your opinion of THAT "war" been?

If the Islamofascists succeed in bringing Jihad to the US, would you think SURRENDER to Sharia law was "better" than violent resistance?

Frankly, if you seriously question the premise that war is FREQUENTLY better than the alternative, you've probably told most of the people on this board most of what they need to know about your view of reality and your judgement.

As for what I would have done about Vietnam and Laos, that's actually easy. The US was NEVER militarily defeated in Vietnam, and could not have been by the North Vietnamese. Our mistakes lay in (i) propping up corrupt South Vietnamese dictators (on the probably correct assumption that they were preferable to corrupt North Vietnamese dictators) - we should have INSISTED on real reform in SVN, and (ii) not kicking the crap out of North VIetnam, deposing Ho, and requiring ALL of Vietnam to adopt some semblance of a democractic government. Which would, BTW, have also been a helpful lesson to others in the area, such as Laos and Myanmar.

Steve Peden : That is, however, somewhat contrary to your usual behavior.

Frankly, is fairly obvious that you know fuckall about my usual behavior, and, are frankly, a hypocrite (see last paragraph of my previous post). But we'll let that slide for now. It's a failing of the left to keep hope when none should remain, so I'll stick with it.

I'm all for the destruction of Israel (and you can soundbyte that, but you better include this next sentence or I'll write a book entitled, "Slander - Sins of the Conservative") as the notion stands now. However, I'm all for creating Israel 2 that has somewhere in it's founding document the notion that all people are the same. No one is given a divine right to anything except death.

Charles has managed to do a pretty thorough job of posting the proof that al Qaeda, the PLA, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the clerics of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, as well as thousands of others like them, believe that NO RESULT short of the destruction of Israel is acceptable.

And LGF is the end all be-all of interpretation of the thoughts, prayers, and hopes of every Muslim in the world, right? Sorry, but I could convince you the Bible was the the straight up word of God if I controlled your access to alternative information. Isreal 1 should be destroyed, it's a failure. Our hope should be placed on Israel 2 : The Second Coming, although that title is still under review. Yea, it's sneaky, giving both groups what they want without pissing in the other's face, but those are the kind of solutions I look for.

Those children know EXACTLY how to dodge those bullets - stay the fuck out of the street and don't throw rocks. And don't give me the free speech and right to dissent BS, either.

Nah, I'll just throw a quote is your yammering yaw. "Give me Liberty or give me death."

J Lichty : They would have a state.

Yes, and I wish they'd take it. And I wish it would be offered in a context other than that of a conquerer, but we both know it won't be, can't be, because of the pride of a nation. But they don't want to be conquered and wll fight to the last man, woman and child to not be a conquered people. It sucks. Ah well, time to go home and get some dinner. And yes, I'll be honest in saying that the previous sentence should be used as the context in which to judge the value of my comments. Feel free to post your own plans for the evening. If they don't include dodging bullets, we're all just whistling Dixie.

the new one fancied by many in the media here in the USA is blaming the "Neo-cons" (aka the jews , for the upcoming war w Iraq. Chris Matthews and that scum bag Robert Novak are into that one.

I think others have done a good job of demolishing Wah's "war--what it is good for?" paen, so I won't jump in there. Instead I'll turn to this:

"OK, so someone's throwing stones at you. How would you respond?

Umm, move beyond their range? Throw stones back? Put on some body armer, riot gear, and laugh at them? Teach them Hebrew and lure them over to tea with pictures of exposed ankles?"

First of all; the word you're looking for is "armor", Wah, not "armer". (Also, it's "cite", not "site".)

Second: to take your sillier points--throw stones back? I would LOVE to see the reaction of the bienpensants if Israeli soldiers and cops started pitching softball-sized rocks back at Palestinian kids. Put on body armor and laugh at them? We can do a little experiment; you put on all the body armor you want, I'll get a mob of teenagers to throw rocks and gasoline bombs at you. Let's see how long you keep laughing. Teach them Hebrew and lure them to tea? Funny, Israel has more or less successfully made just that offer to about one million Israeli Arabs, granting them more citizenship rights in the process than any Arab government does.

Finally, what's really your central point; "move beyond their range?" The word for this is "retreat", and yes, it's the answer of many people to what the Israelis should do about Palestinian violence: retreat, and keep retreating, until you find yourselves in the sea. As the inestimable Victor Davis Hanson pointed out, we need not strain ourselves too hard trying to imagine the Arab reaction if Israel unilaterally withdrew to its 1967 borders; we need only look to how they acted in... oh, 1967.

#55 Wah,

I'm all for the destruction of Israel (and you can soundbyte that, but you better include this next sentence or I'll write a book entitled, "Slander - Sins of the Conservative") as the notion stands now. However, I'm all for creating Israel 2 that has somewhere in it's founding document the notion that all people are the same. No one is given a divine right to anything except death.

Really? So how about the destruction of the Saudi entity? There aren't too many Jewish princes in the Al Saud family. The Filipino population in the Saudi entity is highly underrepresented in the Al Saud family. And how 'bout the Sudanese?

How 'bout destroying Iraq? The Sudan? Iran? Rwanda? Serbia? All of these countries are ruled by unaccountable elites hardly representative of the people.

wah - after reading most of your rather disjointed, pompous postings i just want to repeat what a previous poster wrote:

what is your point?

if you really just spent about 2 minutes learning about the history of the middle east and the israeli/arab conflict i'm pretty sure you wouldn't be so flip.

f-16's killing babies; rock throwers mowed down by US supplied m-16's....please you;re embarrassing yourself.

hey i know how this problem might be solved: israel can offer just about all of the gaza and west bank to the "palestineans" for peace. say do you think arafat will put the fate of his people above his desire to steal money and kill jews? boy i do hope so.

but the article that this thread is supposed to be about has nothing to do with any of that: it's about how the far right (nazis, kkk, etc) and the far left (communists, pro-terrorists, etc) have congealed at our colleges into a mass of jew hating, anti-american rapid dogs. capeche?

Wah writes:

I'm all for the destruction of Israel (and you can soundbyte that, but you better include this next sentence or I'll write a book entitled, "Slander - Sins of the Conservative") as the notion stands now. However, I'm all for creating Israel 2 that has somewhere in it's founding document the notion that all people are the same. No one is given a divine right to anything except death.

We might as well have stopped at the parenthetical because your "Israel 2" plan appears to be nothing more than the "right of return."

(1) Israel was won as the homeland of the Jewish people so that we as Jews would be able to govern ourselves (including protecting and dying for the homeland). As recent world event have proved, our homeland is not only our right, but a necessity to the Jewish people of such a homeland. Israel is the only Jewish state, and so it must stay.

Have you read Israel's founding document? All of its citizens have basic rights, Arab and Jew alike. That cannot and will not change until every last Jew is dead. Although there is ample bilical and historical evidence that Israel does have a "divine right," it is not solely by that divine right that Israel has returned home. Israel has won many wars aimed its anihilation, and in the process obtained some territory which it did not have at its founding. As for the divine right to death, I am sure you would be happy to know, that were the Arabs to take over Israel as you seem to think is wise and just, the Jews divine right to death would be accomplished in no time.

(2) Israel does not want to govern the Palestinian arabs, but the choice between maintaining military control over the area is preferable to permitting another genocidal regime right next door. If you believe that the Palestinians, who are indistinguishable from other Arabs, have a right to their 22nd homeland, why are the Jews not entitled to a homeland? What makes the Palestinian Arabs more deserving?
----------------------------------------------

Yes, and I wish they'd take it. And I wish it would be offered in a context other than that of a conquerer, but we both know it won't be, can't be, because of the pride of a nation. But they don't want to be conquered and wll fight to the last man, woman and child to not be a conquered people.

Huh? Israel did conquer the territory, what possible other context (absent a conquering of Israel) could a state possibly be offered? It has nothing to do with Israel's pride. They swallowed that in 1993. If this is the sentence by which to judge you, I herby declare you insane. You are arguing that Israel should lose a war so that Palestinian pride of having won a state from Israel will exist.

BTW Barak's offer was more than Israel could afford. If the conqueror (in a defensive war to boot) must sue for peace, you clearly do not believe Israel to be equal to other countries. That my friend is a sickening double-standard, and is how you will be judged.

This seems to have gotten a little silly. I am far from a Conservative but a little baiting from leftist Wah has gotten everybody a little crazy.

Wah - I have read your posts and I must say that make no sence. Throw rocks back at them? Get the DC sniper to teach the Israelis how to pick off the ones with guns? Maybe you could suggest that Superman fly into the fray and freeze the wrong doers with his super cool breath (this suggestion has as much chance of happening in real life - so why not?).

I do have one question for you though - how do you justify a mother teaching her son to be a human bomb? This is what is happening in Palestine. That is the true face of evil we are up against.

Don't go away mad, Wah, just . . . well, lighten up and TRY to get through a post without telling us how much SMARTER you are than the rest of us peasants. If you can't prove it by your logic and arguments, your insults certainly aren't going to convince us.

So, the new face of anti-Semitism is to replace "Israel 1" with Isreal 2" - the defining difference being what, exactly, other than "ha[ving] somewhere in it's founding document the notion that all people are the same"? BTW, does it matter to you AT ALL that Israel gives its Arab, Palestinian and Muslim citizens (catch that little nuance, Wah? CITIZENS. Full, property-owning, voting CITIZENS.) far MORE rights than ANY of its Arab, Muslim neighbors? So "Israel 1" is a failure, eh? What does that make, say, Syria? How about Jordan? What would a "successful" (in your view) Israel look like? Will you apply the same standards to the Arab countries surrounding Israel, who actively pursue its extinction, while at the same time persecuting their own ethnic minorities, denying freedom of speech and worship to ALL their residents, etc.?

Call ME a hypocrite? Son, you need a serious dose of looking in the mirror.

uuh rabid, but you knew that.

(in my best andy rooney impression) don't you hate it when people complain about your spelling or grammar when you post on a blog. i mean, it's not like you're gonna get graded on your spelling, is it? and what's up with people who only get hits on their site by stirring up shit on someone else's site, just for the sake of getting attention, really not making any valid points. i find that annoying. dont you?

Wah #55: thanks for making my argument for me. You say:

"Yes, and I wish they'd take it [that is, the Palestinians would accept a state]. And I wish it would be offered in a context other than that of a conquerer, but we both know it won't be, can't be, because of the pride of a nation. But they don't want to be conquered and wll fight to the last man, woman and child to not be a conquered people. "

In your own, quirky way, you've hit the nail right on the head. The predominant Palestinian ideology is just as you describe it--they insist on a nation born in blood and fire, and will accept no other solution. They've been taught for three generations to believe that their "context", as you put it, can only be changed by the destruction of Israel. And no, I don't mean "destruction" in that cute rhetorical way you put it, "Israel No. 2" and all that--rather, *destruction*, as in, at the very least, Balkan-style ethnic cleansing. You don't need to take LGF's word for it--go read the charters and declarations of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and the like for yourself.

So since you've now acknowledged that the Palestinians will never accept a state in their current "context", I at least hope you'll avoid the hypocrisy of criticizing the Israelis for not "going back to the negotiating table".

Wah writes:

"violence begets violence. And it escalates until people start dying, and then it gets really nasty. Then it starts to get worse. Later, the bad stuff starts to happens."

This is false. If it were true you would axiomatically expect to see any violence cascade ineluctably toward universal violence. This is not the case. Wars end. Violence subsides.

If someone is beating me senseless, I hope that the policeman on duty that day is no adherent of Wah's principles. "Sorry, sir. Resorting to violence to apprehend your attacker would only lead to more violence. I'm afraid you're on your own".

Being against the war is not the same as being for peace. Chamberlain was against the war; Churchill brought us peace. One of these men is a hero of mine. Peace. That's the goal. One cannot make it by oneself. One must know the real from the fake. Peace may be won by force of arms. We do not have the privilege of moral preening or willful naivete. The danger is real. These are the times that try men's souls. Time will tell how we measure up.

Gee, Wah, y'all are gettin' a little EXERCISED there, aren't ya?

"Frankly, is fairly obvious that you know fuckall about my usual behavior, and, are frankly, a hypocrite (see last paragraph of my previous post). But we'll let that slide for now. It's a failing of the left to keep hope when none should remain, so I'll stick with it."

Well, if your behaviour elsewhere is DIFFERENT than your behaviour here, why are we so lucky as to be treated to your trollish, asshole side? Give us a glimpse of the sweet, reasonable Wah, why doncha?

"Charles has managed to do a pretty thorough job of posting the proof that al Qaeda, the PLA, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the clerics of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, as well as thousands of others like them, believe that NO RESULT short of the destruction of Israel is acceptable.

And LGF is the end all be-all of interpretation of the thoughts, prayers, and hopes of every Muslim in the world, right? Sorry, but I could convince you the Bible was the the straight up word of God if I controlled your access to alternative information."

Well, gee, THAT's a meaningful response! Charles has posted quote after quote, document after document, showing IN THEIR OWN WORDS how these people view the US and Israel. Your response is that we only get our news from ONE SOURCE? First, most of the people here appear to read pretty widely - check the links that they post. Second, what BETTER source than the horse's mouth? Or, in some cases, the other end.

"Isreal 1 should be destroyed, it's a failure. Our hope should be placed on Israel 2 : The Second Coming, although that title is still under review. Yea, it's sneaky, giving both groups what they want without pissing in the other's face, but THOSE ARE THE KIND OF SOLUTIONS I LOOK FOR."

Totally impractical, ambiguous and unlikely of accomplishment? With no substantive definition of what those "solutions" are? Cool. As with the Islamofascists, we heard it from your own mouth.

off topic.....from Opinion Journal...

First They Came for the Jews
A car bomb blew up a bus in northern Israel this morning, killing at least 13 people. No doubt the world will shrug again, wringing its hands over the "cycle of violence" caused by Israel's "oppression" and "humiliation" of Arabs living in the "occupied" territories. But if blowing up civilians is an acceptable tactic of the Palestinian "resistance," why not elsewhere?

And indeed, apologists for Muslim terrorism are quick to explain away attacks against America on the ground that, as the Arab News quotes the BBC's John Simpson as saying, "Osama Bin Laden is primarily motivated by wanting to remove American bases from Saudi Arabia and by the Palestinian problem."

So what about the attack in Bali? Indonesia is a Muslim country that isn't on friendly terms with Israel. Aha, but Robert Fisk has the answer! The bombers there were trying to kill Australian tourists, because "[Prime Minister] John Howard has been among President Bush's toughest supporters." So Indonesia is a mere three degrees of separation from the Zionist oppressors.

OK, so what about the Philippines? Reuters reports that "a bomb destroyed a bus in the Philippine capital late on Friday and authorities said at least three passengers were killed." Last night, the Associated Press reports, "a homemade bomb exploded . . . near a Roman Catholic church in the southern Philippine city of Zamboanga, killing one person. . . . The bomb attack in Zamboanga came three days after twin bombings tore through two department stores. Those blasts killed seven people and injured more than 150."

No doubt someone will be able to come up with a creative explanation for why the massacres of Catholics in the Philippines is actually a response to the Jews' setting up checkpoints and bulldozing the homes of terrorists. But at some point, isn't it easier and, dare we say it, more plausible to take the Islamic fanatics' word for it when they say they want to kill or convert all the world's infidels?

Wah, Wah Wah!

The Bitch is BACK!

#55 Wah,

You say
...."And LGF is the end all be-all of interpretation of the thoughts, prayers, and hopes of every Muslim in the world, right? Sorry, but I could convince you the Bible was the the straight up word of God if I controlled your access to alternative information."

Nothing posted here need be considered representative of "every Muslim in the world," but why not concentrate on the documentation and actions from the world of the Muslim Palestinians? Specific enough? Better yet, your argument about "controlled access" might fly better if you show the voices of moderates that LGF is "suppressing" regarding the feelings and thoughts of the Palestinian Muslims who aren't terrorists, or supporters of terrorists.

I've been looking at this site for several months now, and one thing I've noticed is that the detractors of this site never take the easy way out by refuting (with evidence) the reports posted here. If you believe that the Palestinians would willingly live in peace, then post the condemnations from them regarding terrorism. If you believe that if the Palestinians put down their guns, the Israelis would take to the streets and kill them all, show us the Israelis cheering when Palestinians die, and smearing their faces with blood, and mainstream rabbis calling for good Jewish mothers to send their sons on "martyr missions."

One excuse I constantly hear regarding why we support dictators in the Arab world is that if we stopped, the extremists would take over. You might build your case better by showing that it's similar with Israel, that Sharon is an awful bulwark against extremist Israelis who want to kill every Arab Palestinian--with popular support.

Wah,

Just out of curiousity, in what way is Israel a failure? In its democratic rights, such that no Arab nation can even vaguely compare? In its court system and independent judiciary, the likes of which hardly exist outside of Europe and North America? In its GDP per capita, on par with many European countries, and far superior to that of any Arab country (especially if only considerably non-oil GDP)? In its technological output per capita, far exceeding that of any country outside of Europe and North America? In its ability to win wars yet deal with the vanquished magnamimously, far exceeding the capacity of any nation outside of the US and the UK?

No, Wah, the failures are those Islamofascist dictatorships right across the Israeli borders. The bunch of illiterate people kept oppressed by their rulers. And, as a self-proclaimed lefty, you should be proud to proclaim your anti-fascistic stance! Lenin would be rolling in his grave!

#68

Joe, don't call people bitches. I get that from islamist nutballs over at href"http://wwwmotleykrew.com">uncontrolled muslim run forums

Wah, wah, wah, boy when are you going to wake up and smell the coffee? A weapon design from 10,000 years ago will kill you just as dead as the latest weapon designed by Los Alamos Labs. Those Israeli troops under attack by the rock throwers are at risk of death. You fight against folks who have guns while you only have rocks you stand a good chance of losing. You put the gunmen behind the rock throwers and the rock throwers will die.

Israel has as much of a right to exist as does Egypt. Israel has taken the moral high road when it hasn't had to do so. Israel could erase all paleostines from the face of the earth if they so wanted. All they want is for the paleostines to lay down their weapons and to live like civilized people. I don't think that will happen any time soon.

FYI the use of children as a shield is against the Geneva Convention. Putting military weapons inside a civilian occupied area turns that area into a free fire zone.

whoops,

[Link: www.motleykrew.com...]

oh sh*t, Charles, delete the link in #73. I got the URL wrong and it's a link to porn.

Wah,

So in your peculiar moral calculus it is not the end result (how many eventually die) but who does the killing? Wouldn't this suggest to you, if you were looking at it objectively, being more against some force then being a true humanitarian?

I repeat. Judging by your words your primary desire is that a certain power doesn't kill, not how many eventually die. Think about it.

"I'm all for the destruction of Israel (and you can soundbyte that, but you better include this next sentence or I'll write a book entitled, "Slander - Sins of the Conservative") as the notion stands now. However, I'm all for creating Israel 2 that has somewhere in it's founding document the notion that all people are the same."

Wah - are you in favour of allowing unlimited immigration into Canada regardless of the ethical values of the immigrants? Are you in favour of Canada barring all Canadians outside Canada from returning?

That's what you seem to be asking Israel to do if you really believe that all people are the same and I'll bet also (though I may be wrong) that the indigenous people have a right not to be swamped - except in Israel's case the Jews are also the indigenous people (if you don't think so, then please tell us where the other homeland of the Jews is). If you want equal rights for citizens which is a different concept to all people being the same have a look at the declaration of independence of Israel 1:

"THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

Does the wording really need to be improved upon? I admit it is not implemented perfectly, but which country's constitution is?

Let's face it, the conceptual dilemma for the left is that the Jews are both a culture of shared values and an ethnic group, in a world that is increasingly unable to recognise and/or admit any connection between the two. Because that would undermine a militant multiculturalism. By saying "people are all the same", you deny the right to be different. By saying "everyone should have equal rights", you beg the question: what rights and where?

Wah, you've annoyed me and embarrassed yourself. So lets get down to brass tacks, shall we?

You are obviously smart. Here, that and a $1 donation to LGF will get you $1 worth of "thank you" because it is coin of the realm. Being physically strong does not make it right to smash a person's head in and take their lunch money. Being intelligent doesn't give you the right to enter a debate and use evasion or distraction any more than it is honorable to pull out a gun in a boxing match.

I'll fill one little achingness in your being. You're from Slashdot. We get it, forgive us for not caring. Forgive the old-schoolers (I'm not one) that used to make that site cool who now lament the wretched shell (tee hee.."shell") of a community it has become.

It hurts to see just how insulting you are, proclaiming this blog as bigoted and mean when you have been treated very politely considering the "carpet slurring" you've inflicted on everyone here under a thin veil. Hint: get a thicker veil. You're out of your depth, despite your public statements to yourself proclaiming your brilliance.

By the way, I cuss like a sailor, but I don't do it at other people. Since the only thing that keeps you from deep-throating a shotgun and ending your near-constant misery is the game of playing uber-troll, I'd cut back on it. It belies the sniggering smarmy envelope you wish to push thinking no one realizes it. You simply can't afford to make it plain to even the simplier folk that the only thing you believe in is belligerence.

Wah - do you happen to know someone named Dan Sloan?

Dunno bout everybody else but I like Wah. I disagree with him but I like him. Sorta makes everybody think about what they really believe.

Wah, I just wish I could get past the "killing children" parts of your posts. I almost always dismiss posts, articles or stories that include "for the children" anymore. They are, almost without exception, cynical and disengenous.

While children have indeed died as a result of Israeli fire, I firmly believe that no Israeli soldier began a day thinking "how can I murder an ararbic youth today?" I don't think Israel would see continued American support if they, as a Democracy, opperated that way.

On the other hand you have the terminal refugees sending their children to die, whether it be by throwing rocks or by blowing themselves up in busses, nightclubs, pizzarias or hotels before holy days.

There's a difference between accidental and deliberate. As for your quote above of "give me liberty or give me death" well I guess they're getting their wish eh?

Just a question to the longer standing, more regular members of the LGF community - Am I correct in my observation that (at least on this board) Wah just flits in, throws a few gratuitous insults and pats himself on the back about his superior intelligence, and then bails out? 'Cause that is certainly what I've seen from him. Heck, even in THIS thread - where he's hung in longer than usual - he STILL just throws insults and conclusory statements, without a SHRED of proof, asks questions and then doesn't respond when we answer, etc., etc. He seems bright (although not HALF as bright as HE thinks he is); I don't want to wrongly accuse him if I just caught him on a few bad threads. If he is a substantive dissenting voice, I'd love to hear some SUBSTANCE from him.

Just thought I'd ask.

NTropy (#79) - I actually ALSO agree with Wah's "give me liberty, or give me death" quote. I HEARTILY wish the Palis would adopt that philosophy, and show the same violence to their REAL oppressors - Arafat and his goons - that they currently show to Israel. Maybe then they could take the country they've BEEN OFFERED and run it as a democracy. (Although WHY I'd think that is a mystery - no OTHER Arab country, and only ONE Muslim country I can think of, has managed that feat. Think there's something to that???????)

Wah #39,

But then again, most of you folks don't exactly agree with Reverend Falwell, now do you?

Only regarding his position on Mohammed. Mohammed was a terrorist. He makes Milosevic look like, hmmmm - Jimmy Carter? Otherwise, Falwell is an idiot.

HA (#82) - And I have heard PLENTY of center/right, conservative and pro-war commentators beat up on Falwell - but I'm still hearing that distinctive "sound of silence" from the "mainstream" Muslims when it comes to denouncing the kind of garbage Charles links to in his "Religion of Peace" posts. I've even seen posts here on LGF commenting on what a witling Falwell is. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?

By those examples, and Wah's "logic," I guess the "mainstream" Muslims really DO think it's OK for splodeydopes to try to blow up Israeli children. Wah, you wanta 'splain that one to us? You're so interested in children not getting killed, let's see you take up the cause of the killed and maimed Israeli children, INTENTIONALLY targeted and killed by the terrorists. Are they REALLY, in your eyes, the moral equivalent of ACCIDENTAL killings of rock-throwing Pali kids? Do you REALLY feel that way?

steve - i'm no oldtimer but wah recently came to a thread, covered it with sh1t, claimed he had to go to lunch or some such thing and as the thread was dying came back to put a second layer of manure down. he was so proud of his job he posted on his own site a link, proudly claiming how he batted down all the barbarians and ain't i great?

so to your question the answer is: yes. he's more of a troll then a serious contributor, imho

Wah #46,

I can snark with the best of 'em, so...there ya go.

Yeah, but do you have any other tricks? My cat can "snark" and even shit in a litter box and generally stink up a place. She also purrs real nice when I scratch her behind the ear.

So, genius, what do you suggest we do about Saddam Hussein? Can you actually pull off the neat trick of proposing a solution to a problem? Or is your schtick limited to attacking other ideas?

Wah #46,

LGF looks like a bunch of war mongering racist idiot asshats.

Maybe in whatever brain-dead echo-chamber you hang out in.

Re: #54

What about the Afghan RESISTANCE to Soviet Invasion?

I'm afraid things are more complex in that particular case.

It is absolutely beyond discussion that the invasion itself was an imbecilic and criminal death fart of the decomposing regime - a senile politbureau's crime as much against its own people as against Afghans.

However, any comparison between the Afghanistan under the pro-Soviet regime and the country after the shari'a savages seized the power in 1992 is definitely not in latter's favor.

Before 1992, there was a central government some sort of civil service, some social programs, a (more or less) universal education, some construction etc.

After 1992 - a rapid transformation of the country back into the dust-swept, fly-infested, fanatical thugs-ruled medieval shithole (that never really went away).

The US had its own reasons for backing the savages against the pro-Soviet regime. It is open to discussion whether it has been worth it. However, we should not have any illusions about the true nature of the "resistance", and who really was the lesser evil (for the Afghans) in that case.

Wah #46 (again),

Umm, move beyond their range? Throw stones back? Put on some body armer, riot gear, and laugh at them? Teach them Hebrew and lure them over to tea with pictures of exposed ankles?

There's a solution. What is "beyond range" in your esteemed opinion? The Mediteranean?

What a buffoon. What you lack in substance you make up for in swagger.

I have you give you credit though. You are a veritable breeding rabbit of assinine comments.

Andrew Sullivan (getting back to the topic) is quite possibly making the same charge about the anti-war movement that Anil, et al. have made about LGF: "They're attracting unsavoury types to their cause."

Trouble is, the racist fringe attempts to subvert most every political movement, or at least recruit therein, since they can't attract very many people just with their hate rhetoric alone.

I've certainly seen the tactic employed against the gun rights movement, with anti-Semites seizing upon the names Feinstein, Schumer, Sugarmann, Metzenbaum, etc. and forgetting about Clinton, Brady, Reno, and Gore. There's certainly a value in reminding people of who's standing at the edges of the crowd hawking "Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion," but the anti-war protesters are responsible only for their own opinions (which LGF specializes in giving the smackdown to daily).

It's one thing to criticize the book dealer at the gun show who stocks "The Turner Diaries" or the guy who sells Nazi relics, and quite another to turn the klieg lights of the TV cameras on and begin to report about the gathering of right-wing paramilitary stormtroopers your local station's intrepid investigator has uncovered. It's an easy target, and I don't think Sullivan's critique was that broad, but it'd be well to be careful. The book dealer might be a First Amendment absolutist, and the guy with the Nazi stuff might have found the trophies in Grandpa's war trunk.

Wah, you're not Ira Einhorn are you?

Q (#87) - To me, you hit it right on the head. BEFORE the Soviet invasion, what Afghanistan had was, IMHO, clearly superior to what the Soviets had in mind for them. That they armed resistance led to an effed up theocracy is unfortunate - but I kind of view that as an interim step to Afghanistan becoming a REAL country - which it seems to be trying to do, now. Granted there is a long way to go, but, assuming they keep moving in the direction they are currently pointing, and granting the horrors of what was inflicted on the innocent people of Afghanistan by the Taliban, I'd STILL venture that resistance to the Soviet invasion beat the alternative. But, even if I cede you that example, my point still stands - there are LOTS of times when war beats the alternative, and what we face today is CLEARLY one of them.

Wah--these are the "people" you believe to be morally equivalent to the Israelis? Sorry, I don't buy for a second that Israel would get anything more than dead if she stopped defending herself against these pod-people.

Any humanity they might have had has been selectively bred out of them by their Arab "brethren" in Jordan (which is the Palestinian homeland, BTW, encompassing about 78% of the original region), Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria.

A reminder of the history (which you clearly need)

And the difference between the Israelis and the Paleostinians.

Oh, and BTW--only someone who is trying to be deliberately condescending, irritating and insulting would call Charles "Chuck," as you did. Very childish.

BEFORE the Soviet invasion, what Afghanistan had was, IMHO, clearly superior to what the Soviets had in mind for them.

You're most probably right.

there are LOTS of times when war beats the alternative, and what we face today is CLEARLY one of them.

No argument here.
I just wanted to inject more realism into our understanding of how the lunatic-run asylum in Afghanistan came into being.

ISRAEL'S PECULIAR POSITION
By Eric Hoffer
Los Angeles Times
May 26, 1968

The Jews are a peculiar people: Things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.

Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people, and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchmen. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese--and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab.

Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace.

Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations when they are defeated survive and recover, but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June, he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.

No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on. There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Negroes are executed in Rhodesia. But when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him.

The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway.

The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts and Jewish resources.Yet at this moment Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.

I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us.

Eric Hoffer 1968

Eric Hoffer was a American social philosopher. Hoffer lived from 1902 until 1983. He wrote nine books, countless columns, and hundreds of essays. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

There's some merit in the argument that leftist extremism is often accompanied by anti-semitism, anti-Americanism and aplogism for dictators, but I think in general a lot of the criticism of the left here is exaggerated, unfair, and untrue.

The extremist Islamist elements in countries such as Saudi Arabia that spew out so much anti-Semitism and anti-American are usually just as hateful of atheistic communists and socialists.

Also, if you look around Western countries the mainstream left by and large is being very supportive.

In Britain, for example, the left-of-centre Labour party has been a staunch supporter of the war on terrorism, and indeed Tony Blair was even more hawkish than Clinton when it came to standing up to Europe's homegrown dictator, Slobodan Milosevic.

True, there are a few backbenchers and a few lefty (I would actually call them popuist) rags like the Guardian which do not support Bush or Blair, but facts are facts: the left in Britain is supporting America's war on terror (and, by extension Israel's).

In Australia, the conservative Howard government is in power and has been another strong backer of Bush's anti-terrorism stance. The left-leaning Australian Labour party has not taken an contrary stance (except for their insistence that action against Iraq only take place with the blessing of the UN). So again, here in Aus, the left is not "supporting Saddam" or apologising for terror.

Take a look at the one country that is doing it's level best to block America's attempt to get a strong anti-Saddam resolution through the UN: France. Chirac's government is RIGHTIST. In fact, during their presidential elections, the run-off was between the rightist candidate (Chirac) and the far-rightist candidate (Le Pen).

So how can you pin this on the left?

Chirac is HATED by the left here in Australia over the French nuke testing issue.

What really irks me is that a lot of former leftists (e.g. Hitchens) are supporting right-leaning policies at the moment because of the urgency of the war on terror. In return the right is capitalising on this to give the left a ribbing.

If you want to get onto the subject of supporting dictators, the list of brutal dictators who have been installed or tolerated by the US during the Cold War is long and well-rehearsed. is there really any need to warm up the organ-grinder and give the dancing monkey a prod and go through it all over again?

Goat Boy #96,

True, there are a few backbenchers and a few lefty (I would actually call them popuist) rags like the Guardian which do not support Bush or Blair, but facts are facts: the left in Britain is supporting America's war on terror (and, by extension Israel's).

Is this actually true? I hate to sound skeptical, but I've been looking for it and have yet to find it. With the exception of Oriana Fallaci, whose "The Rage and the Pride" has been widely attacked, I don't know of a lefty paper that has been widely supportive of America's war on terror, let alone Israel's.

If you want to get onto the subject of supporting dictators, the list of brutal dictators who have been installed or tolerated by the US during the Cold War is long and well-rehearsed.

I couldn't agree more. But that's hardly an excuse for inaction now.

Take a look at the one country that is doing it's level best to block America's attempt to get a strong anti-Saddam resolution through the UN: France. Chirac's government is RIGHTIST. In fact, during their presidential elections, the run-off was between the rightist candidate (Chirac) and the far-rightist candidate (Le Pen).

Yes, in France Chirac is considered on the right. But by the standards of the US, the UK, and (I would guess) Australia, among others, Chirac would be comfortably left-of-center. He was considerably more opposed to the American war on terror when he had to rely on Jospin, Villepin, etc. Which suggests that even for the most left of European countries (France), the more right-leaning folks tend to be less anti-American. (Of course, when one moves to Le Pen there can be no doubt that he is hardly pro-Israeli or pro-American.)

#39
wah....thanks ....I still don't agree with you and don't paint all here i truly don't think the y think as exterme of you as it seems
we all just disagree with your point and passionatly (?) so If you went to dem underground you'd be the majority.....we would be the minority...
thats that
i also do not believe that Falwell poisons our position as much as those types do yours

#43
wah
have to strongly disagree
all told here on this post consider something called ZION
my position and i'd like to hear who agrees , because in my opinion the zion clause is a complete red herring, the reason to support israel is because ....gasp .....its a democracy y'know liberty and the such
forget religion forget zion it is a pluralistic society with a free press are we the USA to turn our backs on purely that
i think not and that is the crux !
with all respect to mommydoc i will finish this post and hit the hay
east coast y'know..5 AM and all that
catch ya tomorrow
HG

#93
mommydoc
i think thats sweet but charles can handle himself
that mommy stuff can help it
i know i'm married to it

Goat man, is the case you are making that the left supports the war more than the right? Everything I've read says otherwise, but I can't claim to be an expert on the subject.

Reading the Guardian and BBC, they almost always take an anti-US anti-Israel slant. Really shameful for BBC IMO. If the Guardian is populist, then doesn't that mean they speak for and to the majority?

In Australia the left (according to Aussies) is saying their people got blown up in Bali because they support the war on terror, so it shouldn't be supported. Left opposed to it.

Canada, according to Canucks, has mainly leftists that oppose the war.

U.S., ditto. The New York Times is leftist and they and our Democrats have been the ones against fighting terrorism. Most of the Dems that voted for defending ourselves are either up for re-election in a couple of weeks or have presidential aspirations (not voting their conscience).

I think your take on France explains it. Saying Chirac is on the right makes no sense to me on a global scale. In France, sure. Socialist=right, Stalinist=left. So maybe we just differ on where the center is due to perspective. Left/Right is empirical to me on issues, in Europe it appears to be "relative". Your post got me thinking, liked it.

I am jumping in rather late here and probably what I have to say is by now irrelevant but I do want to point out one historical fact, the issue going all the way back to:

#29

The Ottoman empire treated the Jews fairly well until 1914 because they were a tiny non-threatening community and because the Zionist liberally greased the palms of the Ottoman government.

HOWEVER, when WW1 broke out the Ottomans saw the Jews as siding with the British (which they were, although there was little subversive action among the Jews of Palestine) and began a very brutal program of deportation, persecution, and consciously starved the Jewish population. Until Allenby conquered Palestine the Jews were robbed of their property, dislocated, and many were executed.

A good source for this episode is Howard Sachar's "A History of Israel" a highly recommended book.

I lost all respect when he trotted out that silly apocryphal story about the Intelligence officer murdering babies in front of their village to extract info. This kind of nonsense has been repeated in a zillion variations by the peaceniks who had no comprehension of why the war was being fought or worse thought an expansion of communism was a good thing.

And sorry, if you are irked by Hitchens etc. are embracing right-leaning policies, I'm not clear why? Are you saying their new stance is wrong? Are you saying it is right and they are "wrong" for moving to support it?

Or are you saying it is wrong for them to be taking the ribbing? Sorry, but if I say A A A A A! and my opponent says B B B B B B! and then I turn around and say "you've convinced me, B is correct", some ribbing would be expected. This is human nature and based on duration, if the earlier stance was deemed by me to be irrefutable, if I wasn't gracious in admitting my opponent was correct all along, or if I'd been personally vicious or under-handed in the previous debate. Printing a slander on the front page and a microscopic retraction later in micro-type on page 37 for instance.

BTW: David Frum (a Canadian-born journalist who was a speechwriter for Duyba- he's the guy who came up with the "Axis of Evil) is writing a 5 part series in the Daily Telegraph explaining America to the Brits, "America in the Dock." Part One is called Myth One: America is totally in hock to the Jewish Lobby

Frum sums up lefty British sentiments nicely:

Nor is the political Left immune to older prejudices: a Labour minister complained to me about the Israelis "rampaging through the Holy Land at Easter" - an unconscious hint that, while dechristianised Britain may have lost its faith that Christ ever lived, it has not quite forgotten who killed Him.

(Personally, I always thought the Romans did, but I never held it against the Italians.)

Anyway, it's a great article. The link is courtesy of Damian Penny:

[Link: www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk...]

Dear GI Joe #8, The Babylonian Captivity "only" lasted for 50-60 not 2000 years. They were held by the Chaldeans or neo-Babylonians. The Chaldeans destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem in 587 BC. They were freed by the Persian Emperor Darius. The Chaldeans where Assyrians, and they made a practiced of moving peoples around their Empire to stifle rebellion. The did not single out the Jews in this regard.

The Romans also did not single out the Jews for "special treatment." They got the standard Carthagian treatment of those who dared to oppose Rome.

Anti-Semitism as we know it grew out of the Dark Ages where it belongs.

P.S. I don't know much about the Egyptian capitivity, I'll have to read up on that.

Wah (#43)

...violence begets violence.

Aaaargh! If there is one little "catch phrase" that makes me want to throw up every time I hear it, it has to be that.

I can't even stand to read the rest of this thread. That stopped me dead in my tracks. Anyone who uses that substitute for "cycle of violence" does not even deserve the courtesy of debate.

#97

No, I am not suggesting that historical support for brutal dictatorships by the West is an excuse for inaction now. In fact, it is a compelling reason to undo the harm that has been done. The accusation that the left "always supports dictatorships", when the right has a history of doing it for years just seems unfair.

And most people on the left don't support dictators like Saddam anyway. Or else why would popularly elected left-of-centre governments like the British Labour Party be so supportive of attempts to remove him?

#101:

"Goat man, is the case you are making that the left supports the war more than the right?"

No, what I am saying is that the viewpoints of people like Tony Blair (and Simon Creen in Australia) who are elected leaders of left-of-centre political parties should be given more weight when judging the position of the "consensus left" on an issue than the editorial rants of newspapers such as the Guardian.

#104:

I am not irked by what Hitchens says at all. In fact, I agree with it wholeheartedly. You are also right about an opponent deserving a ribbing when switching sides after a long debate. However, it is the left that should be giving the right a ribbing, not the other way around. THAT'S what irks me about this leftie-bashing.

As Hitchens mentioned in his recent article, it is the right that has been convinced by the left to give up supporting dictators, not the other way around!

What he deplores is that some on the left have now switched their positions, just for the sake of remaining contrary to the right, and to America, so that they now contradict what they originally stood for. (That's my reading of it anyway). However, I don't believe this is the majority opinion of the left, as I have already mentioned.

Hitchens made mention of his opposition to previous dictator-supporting policies in East Timor and Chile etc etc and said that he would do the same again! He has not changed his tune from 'A' to 'B' at all!

"However, I don't believe this is the majority opinion of the left, as I have already mentioned."

Sorry, what I mean there is that I don't believe that the majority of left-thinking people have switched from opposing to supporting dictators.

It reads like I meant that the majority of them would not agree with Hitchens.

Damn, my written English has gotten terrible - too much time spent programming computers...

Goat Man: Thanks a ton. The majority of American voices favoring dictators (or inaction against them) are from the left, but like you say, not the majority of the left. They're just so dang vocal and it seems dang few of the "centrists" stand up and confront this, which may explain some of the tar and feathers. It crippled them politically for a while here.

I get your "Hitchens" thing too. Only recently heard of him, but your impression is the one I got. He's mad at the contrarian / anti-US camp that isn't really for the views they publically proclaim.

Read of a little of his stuff as well, deep thinker but a bit too arcane linguistically and historically intricate for me to casually read! I may wade in a bit more later on. The more informed we get as voters the better off we'll be.

Hi WAH,

I'd sincerely like to thank you. I've been wondering whether spending the time to post to this site is worth the time. I've been wondering if I'm paranoid in believing that people who call this site a hate site are garden variety anti-semites themselves. You've changed all that for me. I just have to make a little scratch and your infection of hate comes pouring out. Its kind of a virtual TB scratch test. I want you to know, that it is not for you to decide whether my religion or nationality has validity. That in itself is racism or ignorance or a healthy helping of both. You obviously have not a speck of knowledge of what Judaism is or what it stands for. It is not a racist ideology. It is not about stating that as a member of the Jewish religion you are a member of a superrace. Quite the contrary, its about accepting laws and precepts on behalf of a world that would rather not. The Left is about accepting laws whether you would like to or not. Its why I chose to follow Judaism more closely. I came to believe it was about creating a freer and more uplifting way of life for Jews and non-Jews as well. By the way our own little discussion is done. I'll be ignoring you from now on. Just so you know.

Goat Boy,

I've actually defended the left to many people here. And I do believe that some on the left have a clue. But that doesn't stop me from criticizing those who don't.

I consider myself a former leftist, but I still have many beliefs that I would consider on the leftish side (just as an FYI). I didn't mean the bit about the right supporting dictators as an attack - simply trying to point it out. And I agree about your assertion that both the left and the right support (and have supported) dictatorships. I don't think that this is right, and I hope we all learn our lesson from this.

And most people on the left don't support dictators like Saddam anyway. Or else why would popularly elected left-of-centre governments like the British Labour Party be so supportive of attempts to remove him?

While Tony Blair may well be 1000% behind Bush, my understanding is that the Labour Party is considerably less than 100% behind Blair on this issue. My guess is it's more like 50% (I seem to remember an article saying 30%, but I can't remember the source).

The left practices the politics of envy and the economics of failure.

They may have their hearts in the right place but their heads are usually in an awkward place.

The future fights will be between the libertarian right (democrats who have found their brain) and the life style right (the American Taliban).

The left has nothing further to offer. I say this as a former leftist.

#21 Evan.

Yes, I heard about that bogus argument re. anti-semite = also against the Arabs, not only the Jews. To that, I have to say the following: the origin of the word "anti-semite" comes from the Germans (and what they actually meant was the Jews - they couldn't have possibly cared about the Muslim cousins).

Also, to those anti-semites who say "some of my best friends are Jewish" I reply, "and some of my worst enemies are anti-semitic" ;-D

Ronnie,

I hear ya.

Its kinda queer to hear the same tone and repeated arguments from the 1930s about how there are anti-Jewish Jews, like all of a sudden in 2002 a self-hating Jew is a new phenomenon?

Do they really think rehashing the old crap will leave us stunned and in awe of their brilliance of repitition?

Who are they trying to fool?

Us or themselves?

Because my four year old neice is smarter and more well-educated than that.

WAKE UP LEFTIES!

This stuff isn't new to us.
It doesn't spook us.
We've heard it, seen it, and beat it before.
What makes you think your little rehash will work when all the others have failed?

Do you think you can or are really scaring anyone?

Maybe a while back these crude old-fashioned tactics may have worked but not in the USA not in 2002, and not after the call to 911 has been made.

All Americans answered that rescue call loud and clear, there is NO turning back anymore, not untill this vile EVIL is wiped off of the earth!

Goat Boy #96,

If you want to get onto the subject of supporting dictators, the list of brutal dictators who have been installed or tolerated by the US during the Cold War is long and well-rehearsed.

How is it that the leftists' chants of "nuance" and "complexity" and "shades of gray" when talking about Bush, yet utterly fail to recognize distinctions in past US policy?

Please show me ONE example where the US deposed an ELECTED liberal constitutional democracy in favor of a brutal dictator. Has the US picked the lesser of two evils in the past? Yes. When given the choice between an evil regime that opposes the US and an evil regime which supports the US, in some cases we chose a supportive regime. If you have a problem with that, blame Stalin, Krushchev and Breshnev - not the US.

In contrast, the left when given a choice between good and evil, is batting a thousand for choosing evil. They never miss a chance. Most recently this has been true with respect to N. Korea, Saddam and Arafat. At what point to you give up on the extremist left and admit that it is evil?

I do make a distinction between the fundamentalist left and liberals. The fundamentalist left sticks with its dogma regardless of the overwhelming evidence it is wrong. There are many liberals who are repudiating the rabid-leftists.

Liberalism is a good thing. It is one of the core western values we must defend against the islamofascts. However, the cloak of liberalism has been hijacked by the left. This is the real casualty of the left.

Please show me ONE example where the US deposed an ELECTED liberal constitutional democracy in favor of a brutal dictator.

I believe Chile is such an example. I happen to think it was the right thing to do, but there you have it.

Wah:

Umm, move beyond their range? Throw stones back? Put on some body armer, riot gear, and laugh at them? Teach them Hebrew and lure them over to tea with pictures of exposed ankles?

How far back do you move? Cyprus? Britain? The US? The Palestinian "leaders" and "religious authorities" have sworn to drive the Jews into the sea -- do you let them?

If you threw stones back and killed one or two, how would that be different than firing rifles at them? The Palestinians know the Israelis carry rifles -- so why do they throw stones at them?

As someone else pointed out, body armor is not protection against molotov cocktails.

Hire a committed mercenary in the Wahington, D.C. area to teach me how to only shoot the people I want to?

Stop watching movies and read some history.

In any case, you're a fool. Your "arguments" are indistinguishable from those made back in '90 or '91, the first time I argued about this. Back then, the Israelis were using rubber bullets -- and people still complained about them using too much force. Long ago I realized people don't want Israel to defend itself at all.

HA,

Please show me ONE example where the US deposed an ELECTED liberal constitutional democracy in favor of a brutal dictator.

We chose the Korean War over the prospect of a sure electoral loss - the first Prime Minister of South Korea had fought in the Japanese occupation army. This ended up being a net good thing, but it is an example.

Viet Nam is also an example, though we fought it with one hand tied behind our backs. Same deal there - an open and free election would have had Ho Chi Minh running the show and we knew it.

#36
wah - wacky koran freaks fits as well no ?
actually just noticed that you did address that
#40 steve - totally unfair
i think wah takes it and dishes he does stick around
#47 steve - excellent point it got MUCH worse
in south east asia as a whole after we left
#65 exceptionally profound
remember how churchill was villified during the early to mid thirties as a war monger and his warnings were seen as a naked attempt at political power grabbing
sound familiar
#113
well put i didn't leave the left the left left me
HG

Howard (#119), please note my post #80 - I was TRYING to be fair to Wah. And I HOPE you are right, that he isn't just a bomb-thrower; we NEED to hear legitimate, reasoned voices of opposition. If you are never confronted with reasonable opposition, you never fully develop your own position - and, heaven forbid, you MAY find out that you were wrong. I was reacting to what I had seen of Wah in two different threads - and, frankly, it looks like this thread is more of the same. Show me ONE post by Wah in this thread where he raises a SUBSTANTIVE point, responds (other than with a flip, smartass answer) to a question posed to him, or offers ANY discussion of what he would propose as an alternative to what seems to be the prevailing view on this forum? He jumped in, threw some insults, repeated (AGAIN! - he never seems to tire of the subject) how smart he is, and then bailed out. If you think he contributed in a meaningful way to the discussion, that is your right, but to my taste, he crapped all over the board, and then left because he didn't like the smell.

Morning All. I hope you had a good night's rest.

Let's see, hmm, only 20 people to respond to in this god forsaken flat discussion format. All righty then, let's get started.

We'll drop the war stuff, that is so tangential as to be useless. Maybe another time, and 3 or 4 expamples hardly support the theory. I'd also like to see some sort of logic on when it becomes necessary to get past the talkin' and get on with the shootin'. The tipping point, if you will.

h-man : but the article that this thread is supposed to be about has nothing to do with any of that: it's about how the far right (nazis, kkk, etc) and the far left (communists, pro-terrorists, etc) have congealed at our colleges into a mass of jew hating, anti-american rapid dogs.

Sorry, didn't you read the rules on how to discuss Israel without being anti-semitic? You said "jew" you anti-semite. Why is it so hard to understand that you can condemn the actions of an entity without condemning the entity itself? It takes most people at least a college level education to understand this. If you take into account a fairly thorough review of all the negative actions of either Israel or America and compare these with the rosy picture you were drawn in high school, it's quite easy to see how one could over-react. It doesn't excuse it, but it makes understanding easier and builds a better framework for a reasonable response.

J Lichty: Have a nice day. Judge all you want, it doesn't bother me.

Hearty Bacchus : I do have one question for you though - how do you justify a mother teaching her son to be a human bomb? This is what is happening in Palestine. That is the true face of evil we are up against.

It is also the true face of the evil you are perpetrating. Subjugating a native population is never an easy task, especially in this day and age of powerful explosives, billions of people, and mass communication.

Steve Peden : If you can't prove it by your logic and arguments, your insults certainly aren't going to convince us.

Your insults, on the other hand, are doing wonders to convince me of the rightness of your thinking.

You're so interested in children not getting killed, let's see you take up the cause of the killed and maimed Israeli children, INTENTIONALLY targeted and killed by the terrorists. Are they REALLY, in your eyes, the moral equivalent of ACCIDENTAL killings of rock-throwing Pali kids?

Hmm, show me two things. One, where palestinians have been blowing up nurseries and day care centers on a consistent basis. Two, show me where Israel didn't bomb children at home, in their sleep, because there was terrorist in their midst. That second one is going to be tough. Really, I don't see how anyone familiar with this conflict can claim that either side has a moral leg on which to stand. If you can't, please STFU.

Charles has posted quote after quote, document after document, showing IN THEIR OWN WORDS how these people view the US and Israel. Your response is that we only get our news from ONE SOURCE? First, most of the people here appear to read pretty widely - check the links that they post. Second, what BETTER source than the horse's mouth? Or, in some cases, the other end.,

One source. And a biased one at that. Please point me to the LFG thread that covered this statement of condemnation of terrorists attacks by a prominent Muslim scholar. I'll wait, I'm patient.

Occasional Reader :You don't need to take LGF's word for it--go read the charters and declarations of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and the like for yourself.

Propaganda 101, make the extremists looks like the centrists and it's easy to condemn the thinking of 1,200,000,000 people. We were able to achieve racial integration in the U.S. despite the charters of people like the KKK. It wasn't easy and took generations of peaceful resistance, but we've mostly made it there. When Israel institutes of policy of affirmative action, they'll be on the right course. Very little in their past has shown the desire to integrate the native population. BTW, before you asshats start to attack the notion that I think AA is a good idea, realize that I only think it's a good idea when it's painfully obvious that an ethnic group is being systematically and legislatively oppressed. After those laws and systems have been addressed, it becomes useless and harmful. Sharpton is about as big an asshat as there is in modern America.

So since you've now acknowledged that the Palestinians will never accept a state in their current "context", I at least hope you'll avoid the hypocrisy of criticizing the Israelis for not "going back to the negotiating table".

No I'll criticize them for not being able to even entertain the notion of changing that context. To wit, changing the idea from establishing a Jewish Motherland in hostile territory, to the idea of establishing a free democracy where Jews are more than welcome and their contributions to the human race can be more appreciated.

GKarp : "violence begets violence. And it escalates until people start dying, and then it gets really nasty. Then it starts to get worse. Later, the bad stuff starts to happens."

This is false. If it were true you would axiomatically expect to see any violence cascade ineluctably toward universal violence. This is not the case. Wars end. Violence subsides.

What Wah actually wrote is here. And yes, the partial thought you misquoted would be false. Keep reading until you get to the part that says, "Finally people either come to their senses or die." and then tell me how false it is.

skinut : By saying "people are all the same", you deny the right to be different. By saying "everyone should have equal rights", you beg the question: what rights and where?

That would have to be the rights as designated by the documents that define the nation. Like you said, the words sound great, but the implementation has been rather weak. For a country that has gone completely against its own founding documents in under 50 years, maybe there's a larger problem.

A number of good posts by the way, in this exchange. I just wish there was some way to wade through all the crap. Or figure out how the rest of this community felt about any of the stuff posted here. It's obvious that this is a rabid pro-Israel forum (point me to the threads that condemn Israeli violence), but it's tough to tell who is the mainstream here and who is the fringe.

Model4 : I'll fill one little achingness in your being. You're from Slashdot.

Good guess, but keep trying.

It hurts to see just how insulting you are, proclaiming this blog as bigoted and mean when you have been treated very politely considering the "carpet slurring" you've inflicted on everyone here under a thin veil. Hint: get a thicker veil. You're out of your depth, despite your public statements to yourself proclaiming your brilliance.

If you would like to track my history here, you'll see quite plainly who started slinging slurs. I have not, in any rational comprehension of the term been "treated very politely". To say so makes me question your dedication to representing reality honestly, but the rest of your comment makes me want to think otherwise. I have responded in kind, thinking that was the norm here. It probably was a mistake, since it adds so much useless noise. Ah, well, no choice but to move forward. Please note for the crowd where I have ever initiated an exchange of epithets and I will promptly apologize to those affected.

Also, you've "proclaimed" my brilliance exactly the same number of times I've explicitly referred to it, once. And it was a joke, since someone mentioned "your kind" and I simple expounded on what exactly "my kind" was. I am not even close to being out of my depth, although I have had to take a couple of deeps breaths down and again. It is refreshing to participate in a discussion where other have a different set of assumptions about what "right" and "good" are. I look for different perspectives, as it helps refine and define my own.

Now, for the record, these posts (both mine and the mob slinging mud) are hardly reflective of my best efforts, and I hope many of "yours". Pearls and swine, etc. But I am making a rather strong attempt to at least explain my position. Which only opens up new avenues of discussion to such a degree that the limitations of the software that run this discussion are painfully highlighted. This place would improve dramatically with threaded discussion and some sort of moderation system. Check out the one at kuro5hin, it works great to separate the dirt from the diamonds. Here, one has to mine by hand. A task of rather monumental proportions when participating in upwards of 10 arguments each spawning new avenues of discourse at once.

Since the only thing that keeps you from deep-throating a shotgun and ending your near-constant misery is the game of playing uber-troll, I'd cut back on it.

Man, I so love it when people condemn personal attacks and then proceed to do the thing they just condemned. You're not from Israel are you? Now that was a carpet slur. And I'd hazard a guess that I'm happier than you, but we'd have to take some biopsy samples from each of our brains to have any chance at obtaining an objective answer to that one, and I'm not sure you can afford to. Oops, I slurred you again. Seriously though, have a nice day, I plan to.

Ariel : Just out of curiousity, in what way is Israel a failure?

In its ability to create a stable venue for all the other things it has accomplished. In its treatment of the people who were there when they arrived. In its goal to treat all the people who live there in similar fashion. In its goal to prove to the world that the Jewish people are peaceful and wish only the best for humanity. And, unfortunately, in its goal to bring about the apocalypse by pissing off as many people are possible. I don't think that last one is a stated goal, but it certainly seems to be the direction Israel is headed.

Kirk :A weapon design from 10,000 years ago will kill you just as dead as the latest weapon designed by Los Alamos Labs.

Not if "you" is a million people and the rock doesn't come from outer space.

All they want is for the paleostines to lay down their weapons and to live like civilized people.

Haha, you referred to them as neanderthals. How utterly civilized. Show me a civilized country that has lain down their weapons while occupied by a hostile force and continued to exist. Anywhere, anywhen. Then show me how it works better than resisting. India would be a great example, BTW, but Israel doesn't have a world empire to worry about like the British did, so that is probably a poor one to start with.

IWuvLGF : So in your peculiar moral calculus it is not the end result (how many eventually die) but who does the killing?

You haven't even seen the basis of my "peculiar" moral calculus, only a defense against an angry mob. This is hardly objective data on which to base an opinion. Send me an email if you are really curious, as it is something I work on and enjoy discussing.

mommydoc : Putting "people" in quotes weakens your argument to the point of putty. Also, I'm surprised the people here weren't cheering when that Palestinian killed the IDF soldiers. That's not even a terrorist act (by every definition I've seen), since he targeted soldiers. Soldier attacking soldiers, a much improved situation, neh?

Also, check out some other people's take on the history, every single one of your sources was from one side. Which is great is you've already decided who is right, but horrible if you want to find out for yourself. Not that anyone is particularly right at this point in the conflict, but that would seem to be an anti-semitic statement around here.

Eric Pobirs : I lost all respect when he trotted out that silly apocryphal story about the Intelligence officer murdering babies in front of their village to extract info. This kind of nonsense has been repeated in a zillion variations by the peaceniks who had no comprehension of why the war was being fought or worse thought an expansion of communism was a good thing.

I would prefer the adjective "sad" to "silly", but to each their own. I'm curious to why you think that war was being fought? Communism was flawed enough to die on the vine, at least in most countries above a certain size and certainly when implented with a healthy dose of fascism. Sweden seems to be doing o.k. and China has realized that it won't work without some tweaking. And it certainly doesn't create the type of economy necessary to build and support an army that can blow up the world 10 times over. And no, I'm not a communist, or even close, but, who's going to believe that when I argue with people who assume it to be true?

NEIL G :Quite the contrary, [Judaism is]about accepting laws and precepts on behalf of a world that would rather not. The Left is about accepting laws whether you would like to or not.

After hardening your heart against those who question your divine right to a place where your ancestors once lived, can you explain a bit more about what you are trying to say here? That quote above doesn't really make much sense to me. Sorry.

--

Thanks again for your time, especially those that were able to rise above the shock or seeing someone who doesn't agree with them express an opinion. Later.

BTW, if LGF ever posted stories like this, maybe the myopia here would decrease, but what do I know. Enjoy the day.

he crapped all over the board, and then left because he didn't like the smell.

Wow, you couldn't get much more wrong about me, could you? I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Stick to one topic, with a more defined scope, and I'd be glad to give you as many substantive points as you would like. As I mentioned above, replying to 20 comments at once in a flat format is far from the ideal situation to address each topic point by point.

And still no one was able to ask a single, straightforward question about what I think "good".

Wah suggests "[k]eep reading until you get to the part that says, "Finally people either come to their senses or die." and then tell me how false it is.

The proposition remains false; unless by "coming to their senses" you mean "capitulation to overwhelming force." I suspect you mean something like "the conflict continues until there is a mutually acceptable peace plan" or something like that. Not so.

Peace in Germany was imposed on the nazis; there was no need for coming to one's senses. I would argue that the allies never lost their senses. Had anti-nazi Germans prevailed the war may have been shortened by a sort of rational awakening, but this was not necessary for this for violence to end. The same is true of conflict in Kosovo and Kuwait and indeed most armed conflict. Iraq and the Islamists face the same prospect.

Your misreading of history leads to an unjustified fatalism about the use of force. You seem to believe that no good can come of war. I disagree. I suspect you believe that anti-war attitudes are by definition morally superior to pro-war thinking. I disagree. You suggest we need to come to terms with our enemies. Fine, but not at the expense of real security. Victory of a sort which is neither annihilation nor reconciliation remains a viable option.

Wah writes:

And still no one was able to ask a single, straightforward question about what I think "good".

Please see post #45

gb

Wah, while Communism has an inherent self-destructive trait this is only realized when it cannot expand and must confront itself in the conditions where its dogma insists human life will be perfected.

The Soviet Empire wass halted in its expansion solely because we and our allies fought it at every turn, halting in places like Viet Nam when the only further escalation option was nuclear. This isn't to say that there weren't greivous flaws in how Viet Nam was carried out but the value in draining Soviet resources was damn well worth it. Most of the mindset that convinced American that this was a start to finish loss for us came from propagandising from the Left that was still in denial about Stalin's reign of atrocity, and in many cases actively rooting for communism to sweep the world.

So would a worldwide Soviet have collapsed in on itself? Probably, but only after laying waste to immense amounts of civilization and a sizable portion of humanity itself.

I didn't suggest you were a communist. Merely gullible to the material perpetuated by them and their sympathizers.

In other areas, you say"Show me a civilized country that has lain down their weapons while occupied by a hostile force and continued to exist. "

Palestine is not a country nor has it ever been one. From the time the Romans slapped that name on the region up until recent history that bit of geography has ever been ruled from afar by folks who couldn't care less if every inhabitant died overnight from a severe buareaucracy deficiency. The people who now call themselves Palestinians (none of them did until a few decades ago) have yet to demonstrate they care more about the land virtually the entire world says they are welcome to than killing the neighbors and having everything for approximately five minutes before bigger badder Arabs roll in to collect the prize after the dirty work is done by the patsies. The prize would be a short-lived spate of looting though, since all the value in Israel is generated by its people on land previously seen as utterly worthless except for a few sentimental antiquities.

Drawing parallels to the British Raj is just plain silly. The British were not withdrawing to just a day's walk away, and few Indians were heard to suggest that Vishnu was going to be pissed until they went to the UK and wiped out everyone there who wasn't onboard the same religion already.

This isn't about preserving a mercantile empire for Israel. It's about not allowing a self-declared mortal enemy to operate unimpeded just a short commute away.

It very hard to draw encouragement from a few Muslim clerics saying the naughty Muslims will go to Hell. The 'kill all of Dar al Harb' contingent can produce a comparable set of clerics who say they're a swell bunch of kids that Allah just loves to death and after. Now if some welknown leaders of Islam were to come out and say, "Look folks, it's time to clean house. These troublemakers gotta go," then I'll be much more impressed. Otherwise all you have is religious schism, which has never been a formula for peace. Just the opposite.

On the subject of rock throwing, tell you what. You can play dress-up in the best practical light armor for the economic and environmental conditions involved while I assemble a small collection of 1-5 pound bits of concrete. I guarantee I'll ruin your whole day and possibly leave few of those to follow.

On your comment to mommydoc: You let your sarcasm run away with you. Just because a soldier is targeted instead of a civilian why should we cheer. There is a vast gulf between reduction of lament and drawing of encouragement.

Comparing the assorted Arab terror bands to the KKK doesn't hold up. For all of the misery they caused the KKK was always limited in numbers and more importantly their willingness to risk their own lives to achieve their goals. The KKK started out as a essentially a drinking club for veterans who turned out to be mean drunks. Groups like Hamas never for a moment had good times on their agenda, just genocide. Likewise, their numbers and active support from the populace far outstrips anything the Klan enjoyed at its worst.

A substantial population of Arab Muslims in Israel enjoy citizenship, full rights, and participation in government. I've yet to hear of an Arab nation that offer the same to any Jew. There's your affirmative action for ya, bub.

One of the great myths here is that Israel is oppressing a native population. This ignores the fat that much of Israel's population is equally native and genuinely oppressed by the Muslim majority for centuries. Why would Israel do this at such great ongoing expense in lives and treasure when it is well within their power to simply annihilate or evict the 'oppressed?' It may have something to do with their lacking their neighbors genocidal intent.

The Palestinians are ever the patsy in ME politics. Long before the Zionist movement bought its first acre of land the Palestinians were treated badly by the other Arabs. At one time they were referred to as the 'Jews of the ME' as they filled a similar role as professionals in ommunities that barely tolerated their presence and murdered large numbers of them whenever tempers flared. When the Zionists becameactive inthe area they should have been natural allies but instead the Arabs successfully fooled the Pals into being their proxy cannon fodder. They continue to this day to do the bidding of wealthy Arabs such as the Saudis in some bizarre belief that some great reward awaits for them instead of their masters. Is there anything stupider than a person who keeps bashing themselves against a wall because someday that wall is going to fall down instead of them?

Wah #121,

I'm only going to take you to task for the one statement regarding my previous statements, even though almost everything you say is counter-factual and/or a-historical.

With regards to the lack of success of Israel, you say:

In its ability to create a stable venue for all the other things it has accomplished.

Right. If we simplify, and assume that there are the Israelis and the Arabs, how many of the groups does it take to make war? How many to make peace?

In its treatment of the people who were there when they arrived.

Do you mean the ones who migrated to the British Mandate of Palestine thanks to the economic situation created by the Jews? Do you mean the Arabs who fled because they were told by the advancing Arab armies that they would get to pillage Jewish homes?

Is there any speck of consideration that if the Arabs had just said in 48, "sure, no problem", that Israel would have accepted it? (As, in fact, they did?)

In its goal to treat all the people who live there in similar fashion.

You mean that the Arabs can't serve in the Israeli army? What about the Druze and the Bedouins? They know they're the first against the wall if the Islamofascists win and they're right up there with the Jews.

Except for some minor details, Jews and Arabs are treated as equals. Arabs are not required to join the army, but neither are the haredi. Arabs are not allowed to rent land owned by the Jewish Agency, but this is a quasi-governmental association. (In any case, this minor situation is clearly dwarfed by the paleostinian postulate that killing anyone selling land is appropriate.)

In its goal to prove to the world that the Jewish people are peaceful and wish only the best for humanity.

The world hardly wants to hear this message. In any case, why is the onus on the Jews to prove that we are the peaceful ones. Last I heard, it wasn't Israel attacking in 1948, 56, 67, etc...

And, unfortunately, in its goal to bring about the apocalypse by pissing off as many people are possible. I don't think that last one is a stated goal, but it certainly seems to be the direction Israel is headed.

You mean by defending itself and not gently walking into the ocean? Well, I guess so, but I hardly find this extraordinary.

Show me a civilized country that has lain down their weapons while occupied by a hostile force and continued to exist.

France. WWII. Still there last I checked.

If you want a question about what you think is good, here's one:

Why is it that Jews do not have the right to any country? Why is it that Jews only have the right to march into the ocean?

These are conjectures about your positions based on your rough explication regarding Israel 2.

If you believe that self-determination has no place for the Jews, I believe that we have nothing further to discuss. If this is the case, you have earned the label JEW-HATER.

Ariel (#126) - no, you've got it ALL wrong! Wah is NOT a Jew-hater, he's a LIBERAL, and everyone KNOWS that LIBERALS are tolerant, accepting, open-minded, etc. Just read his posts, and see how open-minded he is.

We reference Charles' posts of HUNDREDS of quotes from various GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED Muslim clerics in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Libya, etc., as well as DOZENS of similar quotes from GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED newspapers, and from professors and scholars at the universities acknowledged as being the theological centers of Islam, but we are narrow-minded twits, relying on BIASED information sources. He gives us ONE link to a relative handful of Muslim clerics, with absolutely NO information about the size of their "flock," their bona fides, or their ability to speak for ANYONE other than themselves, and he is engaging in unbiased research.

We give him a dozen plus examples of our proposition that war is OFTEN preferable to the alternative (even conceding his exclusion of WW II, which is absurd), and he dodges.

I try to engage him on the issue of his moral equivalence in comparing the accidentally killed Palestinian children with the dozens of Israeli children deliberately targeted and killed in markets and on buses - and he scoffs (apparently, in his love for the UN and the rule of international law, he ignores the Palis BLATANT violations of the Geneva Accords in deliberately placing their military facilites in civilian areas and buildings).

He is, in short, a typical idiotarian.

BTW, Wah the Troll, I have had a very good time having online discussions with several well-informed, logical and reasonable liberal posters. One of them in particular generated a re-evaluation of a variety of issues. You have done nothing other than confirm my prejudices about the idiotarian left.

Quoting Wah:

skinut : By saying "people are all the same", you deny the right to be different. By saying "everyone should have equal rights", you beg the question: what rights and where?

"That would have to be the rights as designated by the documents that define the nation. Like you said, the words sound great, but the implementation has been rather weak. For a country that has gone completely against its own founding documents in under 50 years, maybe there's a larger problem."

Wah - what I said was "I admit it is not implemented perfectly". NOT that "the implementation has been rather weak". Before you start complaining about being misquoted how about showing some respect for the words of others yourself.

As a matter of fact, if you look at the entire declaration of independence, it has been implemeted very strongly. Including of course, the right of return. There is not and never has been a country that has stuck to liberal democracy as faithfully as Israel has whilst surrounded by mortal and mainly FOREIGN enemies that actively plot another holocaust. Could THAT be the "larger problem"?

Wah, you betray your lack of knowledge of the basic historical facts:

"... a place where your ancestors once lived"

In fact, Israel is a place where Jews have always lived, continuously, as has been amply proven by archaeological evidence. The Palestinians, being Arabs, have been in Israel a considerably shorter time, many (perhaps even most) of them in fact are descended from Arabs that immigrated from other countries when the Jews began developing the land in earnest in the 1880s and paying Arab workers the best wages in the region.

One quote more than any other diplays your pre-judged and baseless bias against Israel:

Israel has failed "In its goal to prove to the world that the Jewish people are peaceful and wish only the best for humanity."

Hang on - regardless whether some Jews wanted this to be a secondary goal of Israel, you think the Jewish people SHOULD BE JUDGED BY THEIR FAILURE to PROVE these things to the Gentiles, by the mid-20th century???? You think Israel's purpose should be to disprove anti-semitic canards???

And as for your quote about Palestinians not blowing up little kiddies in nurseries, Wah, do I really have to go and find a link to the story about the Palestinian who broke into a Jewish house, found a mother and two toddlers, paused and deliberately shot them one by one? Or the countless similar stories?

Moral equivalence? Wah, have you ever heard of the difference between manslaughter and murder?

Tell me when IDF soldiers have broken into Palestinian houses and deliberately shot toddlers.

Wah, you quite like to find facts. But what you like even more, is distorting the truth to fit the world to a view that no people can be better or worse than another, in an aggregate sense.

1. One point and my two cents: Concerning France in WWII, they survived largely by collaborating if memory serves.

2. Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, concerning the comments about America's current Anti-War movement....haven't you guys noticed that most of it's leaders are people like Harry, Jessica, Baghdad Babs and even George Mcgovern was hauled out of the woodwork? Aside from Woody 'Pothead" Harrelson and Sean Penn, most of the anti-war movement here is led by a tired old bunch of activists from another time and place. Further proof the American Left has run out of ideas.

3. As for it taking on "Anti-Semitic" qualities, is anyone really surprised? Let's face it the Leftists have members such as Revs. Jesse 'Hymietown" Jackson and Al Sharpton, real enlightened guys I'll say.

Robert Crawford #117,

I believe Chile is such an example. I happen to think it was the right thing to do, but there you have it.

Wrong. This is a myth spun by the commie left. The Allende regime was a overthrown by the Chilean military in 1973 with the backing of the opposition parties in the legislature which held a majority of the seats at the time.

The simple fact is that Allende was elected with about a third of the popular vote due to a divided opposition. Once in office, he nationalized industries and seized private property. This obviously pissed off a few people. The coup was soley initiated and conducted by Allende's domestic Chilean opponents. They didn't need or want US assistance.

To suggest that the US deposed the Chilean regime is like suggesting the England and France caused the American civil war because they supported the Confederacy.

[Link: www.fas.org...]

[Link: www.cia.gov...]

Ariel #118,

We chose the Korean War over the prospect of a sure electoral loss - the first Prime Minister of South Korea had fought in the Japanese occupation army.

What are you nuts? I don't even think most lefties will agree with you on this one. Everybody knows the Korean war was started when the Stalinist regime of the North invaded the South. Heck, even the BBC knows that.

[Link: www.bbc.co.uk...]

Viet Nam is also an example, though we fought it with one hand tied behind our backs. Same deal there - an open and free election would have had Ho Chi Minh running the show and we knew it.

Ho Chi Minh never felt the need to submit his regime to a vote. Ho Chi Minh may have won in the North, but certainly not in the South. If you disagree, I know a few boat people who would dispute you. Vietnam is certainly not an instance where the US deposed an elected regime.

[Link: www.pbs.org...]

So you and Robert attempted three examples. Allow me to summarize:

Chile? Wrong.
Korea? Wrong.
Vietnam? Wrong.

Seems I'm a little late for this last round of the Fisking of Wah, and most of the work has been done most admirably by others. So I'll stick to Wah's responses to me in #121.

I said:
"Occasional Reader :You don't need to take LGF's word for it--go read the charters and declarations of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and the like for yourself."

Wah replied:

"Propaganda 101, make the extremists looks like the centrists and it's easy to condemn the thinking of 1,200,000,000 people. "

WHAT?? Only Propaganda 101? And here I thought I had a graduate degree in the subject. I guess it's back to the books for me. But as those before me have pointed out: on what do you base your peremptory conclusion that the loudly Jew-hating groups cited above represent merely an "extreme" in Palestinian political culture? (Leaving aside for the moment the broader Arab political culture, which you goalpost-moved on us via your reference to 1.2 billion people.) Do a little homework, Wah. Is every Palestinian a member of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.? No, of course not. But do these groups exercise an enormous amount of influence on Palestinian political culture? The facts speak for themselves. The glorification in Palestinian radio, press, and wall posters, of "shahids" who kill Israeli housewives, that speaks for itself. The denial of Israel's right to exist in the PLO charter, which Arafat & Co. *promised* to fix at Oslo, but they just haven't found the time in the last 8 years--that speaks for itself.

Why, if these groups were mere "extremists", there would be no problem, would there? The PA police could just round up those few, stray nutzoids--like they promised they would--and voilá, suicide bomber problem solved. But it doesn't seem to work out that way, does it?

"We were able to achieve racial integration in the U.S. despite the charters of people like the KKK."

It also took federal troops, ummm.... OCCUPYING (there's a word!) public buildings in the South. But the facile comparison you're making here has been addressed already, so I'll move along.

"When Israel institutes of policy of affirmative action, they'll be on the right course."

I'm sorry, that's why Palestinian terrorists are blowing up pizzerias? "I want my Title IX"? Funny, that's not what they SAY they want. By their words, writings, and actions, they commit themselves to killing Jews and destroying Israel. I'm inclined to take them at their word. And unfortunately that ideology permeates the Palestinian political culture (even if many Palestinians can be counted as exceptions). Until that ideology is defeated, your lovely project of Israel II (which is kind of like Israel I, only with affirmative action, kids!), is just so much happy talk.

By the way--do any of Israel's neighbors have affirmative action programs? Or for that matter, equality before the law? Or for that matter, regular, free elections?

"Sharpton is about as big an asshat as there is in modern America."

Well, thank goodness we can agree on something.

"No I'll criticize them for not being able to even entertain the notion of changing that context. To wit, changing the idea from establishing a Jewish Motherland in hostile territory, to the idea of establishing a free democracy where Jews are more than welcome and their contributions to the human race can be more appreciated. "

Wah, where in the Middle East is there a country that comes remotely closer to what you've just described, than Israel as currently constituted? I also find the idea of ethnic homelands to be troubling; but ethnic states are actually the RULE in the world, countries like the US and Canada are the exception. So why is Israel the country you pick for, as you put it, destruction (and some sort of vaguely outlined reconstitution)? Yes, it was established as a Jewish homeland--but with guarantees of freedom of religion/conscience, free speech, and equality before the law. These are precious, scarce commodities in the world in general, and in that part of the world in particular. So why is Israel the one that makes you shake your head and say, "it's gotta go"?

WAH's back. Hey, thanks for quoting me out of context, dude. How about a change of debating style WAH? You've been using the debating style of the straw man argument long enough. This is kind of what I'm referring to and why I'm sick of arguing with you. The truth is Jews have never completely left the Holy Land and the fact they returned in large numbers is a fact of history. There wasn't much too stay for in Europe was there? Boy, those were model democracies now weren't they. So here's the challenge. You defend the Palestinians. You describe a formula whereby Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad can possibly create a functional gov't. No nattering about Israel either. You just describe how Sheikh Yassin and Yassir Arafat are going to be buddy, buddy. Its not an easy case to make now is it? Now defend radical Islam. Can you come up with a way to tell the Islamicists that their religion is as much baseless junk as you seem to find mine and not cause a major uprising? Finally the answer to your question is that you can live as a religious jew under any system and not require non-jews to do likewise but socialism and communism require gov'ts which have the ability to coerce individuals who aren't with the program. Sort of like Shaaria for the Left. Its why libertarians aren't very fond of either system. I'll sit out of the debate as promised. So Canuck, you think you can handle it? Too tough for you, eh?

HA #131:

We chose the Korean War over the prospect of a sure electoral loss - the first Prime Minister of South Korea had fought in the Japanese occupation army.

What are you nuts? I don't even think most lefties will agree with you on this one. Everybody knows the Korean war was started when the Stalinist regime of the North invaded the South. Heck, even the BBC knows that.

I didn't say that the North Koreans didn't attack. However, the US supported the division of Korea at the 37th parallel, which was meant to be a short-term solution. The leader who we chose to lead South Korea was hugely unpopular and would never have won a popular election. Every South Korean PM through the 1970s had served in the Japanese occupation army - that's the only way we could get someone right-wing enough to be guaranteed to oppose the North Koreans. I'm sorry that I don't have citations, but I suppose I'll have to assert that I lived in Japan for nine years and one of my majors was in East Asian Studies.

Viet Nam is also an example, though we fought it with one hand tied behind our backs. Same deal there - an open and free election would have had Ho Chi Minh running the show and we knew it.

Ho Chi Minh never felt the need to submit his regime to a vote. Ho Chi Minh may have won in the North, but certainly not in the South. If you disagree, I know a few boat people who would dispute you. Vietnam is certainly not an instance where the US deposed an elected regime.

Actually, Ho Chi Minh would have won a vote throughout the country. Again, the history texts on this period in time are unequivocal.

We didn't depose an elected leader, but I never said that either. He wasn't elected. But he would have been. And we would have fought against him anyway.

"Please show me ONE example where the US deposed an ELECTED liberal constitutional democracy in favor of a brutal dictator."

As other posters have mentioned, Chile IS an example. The fact that Allende was not elected by an absolute majority does not change that. There have been many other cases of governments coming to power in Western democracies with less than 50% of the vote. In New Zealand for example, the National party remained in power throughout the 1990s with less than 40% of the vote (due to a fractured opposition).

"The coup was soley initiated and conducted by Allende's domestic Chilean opponents. They didn't need or want US assistance."

That is definitely a contentious statement. The CIA had involvement in the coup of 1973 under the TRACK-I and TRACK-II operations.

[Link: www.gwu.edu...]

Also, Henry Kissinger famously said that 'The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves'. What is that if not endorsement (although, obviously not admission of involvement in) the coup?

Chile at the time was a constitutional democracy. In fact, one of the victims of the coup, Rene Schneider, was a member of the Chilean military who was politically opposed to Allende. He was killed by the coup-plotters because he stubbornly upheld the consitution and insisted that the will of the people be honoured.

This is probably flame bait, but does anyone here believe that the CIA was involved at all in the recent coup attempt against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela?

Two things that I do not want to hear again, 1)
like zulubaby in #107 I do not want to hear "cycle of violence, and 2) I do not want to hear that world poverty caused the Sept. 11th Attacks! (by a bunch of sons of rich Saudis.)
Note: you might want to check out Nicholas Kristoff's column in today's NYT as a prime example of idiotarian thinking. He is outraged that Americans since Sept. 11th see Saudia Arabia as an enemy! (No Joke) Kristoff blames this not on the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers plus Osama are Saudis, but on "Richard Perle's influential Defense Policy Board ...hatchet-job hearing in July in which Saudi Arabia was described as America's 'most dangerous opponent'" In another words the JEWS are to blame! I kid you not! Read it on left hand section of today's NYT's Op-Ed page. But take time to calm down before you respond.

Ariel # 134,

Actually, Ho Chi Minh would have won a vote throughout the country. Again, the history texts on this period in time are unequivocal.

Until you can give me some reasonably objective reference, I'll view this as baseless speculation.

We didn't depose an elected leader, but I never said that either. He wasn't elected. But he would have been. And we would have fought against him anyway.

The left criticizes the US for supporting right-leaning dictatorships. The implication is that the US does so at the expense of some democratic alternative. That is FALSE! When the US has supported a dictatorship it has been at the expense of an unelected genocidal or soviet puppet regime.

Let's look at the outcomes of the 3 countries we've discussed:

Chile? Democratic today.
S. Korea? Democratic today.
N. Korea? Stalinist cess pool.
Vietnam? Stalinist cess pool.

So who's policies had the best outcomes? Any objective observer would have to admit that the US policies led to - or would have lead to - the best outcomes for the peoples of these three countries. The leftist policies have led to disaster.

So who's policies are the most moral? I would argue that the policies that lead to the best outcome were the most moral.

Goat Boy #135,

As other posters have mentioned, Chile IS an example. The fact that Allende was not elected by an absolute majority does not change that.

Chile is NOT an example. I repeat. Chile is NOT an example.

From the link I provided:

In August 1973, the rightist and centrist representatives in the Chamber of Deputies undermined the president's legitimacy by accusing him of systematically violating the constitution and by urging the armed forces to intervene.

The [Chilean] Supreme Court and the comptroller general of the republic joined Congress in criticizing the executive branch for overstepping its constitutional bounds

The fact remains that the Allende regime was overthrown by his domestic opponents. Opponents who were the elected representatives of the majority of Chileans who were having their businesses and private property seized.

Do you even allow for the possibility that a nation can rise up against a socialist government independently from US support?

There is a strong case to be made that the Allende regime violated its constitutional authority and the Pinochet regime restored constitutional authority.

Also, Henry Kissinger famously said that 'The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves'. What is that if not endorsement (although, obviously not admission of involvement in) the coup?

So what? A rooster crows (or whatever a rooster does) and the sun rises - but the rooster didn't make the sun rise. Just because Kissinger endorsed a coup doesn't mean that the US orchestrated the coup.

There have been many other cases of governments coming to power in Western democracies with less than 50% of the vote. In New Zealand for example, the National party remained in power throughout the 1990s with less than 40% of the vote (due to a fractured opposition).

And in which of these countries was the regime nationalizing corparations and seizing private property in violation of those nations constitutions? This is an apples to oranges comparison anyway. The significance of Allende's minority status was not that he was not elected legitimately - he was. The point is that he was deposed organically from within Chile, not artifically due to US intervention.

So I repeat. Chile is NOT an example.

#138 HA

Your points are well taken. The links you provide give quite a different picture to most of what I have read on the subject.

Chile was one of those events that was a kind of niggly doubt that held me back from being stronger supporter of the USA. Now I can be less unambigous in my support. Hooray!

BTW, I was not implying a causal relationship between Kissinger's quote and the coup.

HA:

I should add that Pinochet was/is still a murderous @sshole, and the things he did are unforgiveable.

But you have changed by perspective on USA culpability (or lack of) for what happened.

HA,

Back to my post #118:

We chose the Korean War over the prospect of a sure electoral loss - the first Prime Minister of South Korea had fought in the Japanese occupation army. This ended up being a net good thing, but it is an example.

South Korea wasn't democratic until very recently (the 90s), but it definitely is a net positive that we opposed the North Koreans. I would never argue otherwise.

There was a call made for examples, and the examples do exist. Even if they were not always net positives, they do exist.

Ariel,

How do you reconcile this statement from #118:

We chose the Korean War over the prospect of a sure electoral loss

With this statement from #134:

I didn't say that the North Koreans didn't attack.

You say the US CHOSE the war, but that the North Koreans attacked. Would there have been a war if the North Koreans didn't attack?

Goat Boy #138,139:

Agreed on Pinochet.

The issue is certainly more nuanced and complex than the black and white leftist propoganda. ;-)

HA #142,

You're right. Bad word choice on my part. Here's what I should have said:

By refusing to allow elections that we knew the North Koreans would win, since we were supporting a candidate who had served in the Japanese occupation army, we ineluctably moved forward the process leading to the Korean War.

Ariel #144,

By refusing to allow elections that we knew the North Koreans would win

As with the Vietnam example, the suggestion that the North Koreans would win an election is baseless speculation.

Howdy to the few folks that will still read this thread. I took the day off yesterday to work on my own site and do my real job. Oh, and some focused research. Unsurprisingly, it's done little to change my position.

So, here we go. Again, and probably for the last time in this thread. Don't worry, I'll be back.

GKarp : Your misreading of history leads to an unjustified fatalism about the use of force. You seem to believe that no good can come of war. I disagree. I suspect you believe that anti-war attitudes are by definition morally superior to pro-war thinking. I disagree. You suggest we need to come to terms with our enemies. Fine, but not at the expense of real security. Victory of a sort which is neither annihilation nor reconciliation remains a viable option.

I think that pro-peace attitudes are morally superior to pro-war attitudes. You mixing of the words "attitudes" and "thinking" exposes a slight bit of bias. The definition of "real security" is something that could be debated to no end, but I think you have something in mind, so please share it. Perhaps a certain likelihood of not have one's freedom trampled underfoot during their lifetime, or some such. In the context of the P/I (or I/P if you prefer) conflict, P has had their freedom trampled upon for a number of generations. They have not had "real security" for a couple of generations.

More on this in response to another poster.

gb : As you stand for "good", what would be a good way for Israel to respond to these actions of the military organizations?

From #45 way up there, I guess I missed it before, you have my sincere apologies.

My answer would have to be "defend themselves." A further exploration of this answer would be to address some of the causes of the hate that has been built in the hearts of these people. That is what I consider to be pro-active defense, at least much more so than bombing suspects and their families. while they sleep, or knocking over houses and building illegal settlements. There are any number of acts that Israel has taken that would difficult to construe in any but the most extreme definition of "defense". If you would like, visit my personal site and see the vehemence with which I have attacked the U.S.'s new "defense" policy, which I find offensive in at least two defintions of the word.

Eric Pobirs : There are a number of things in your post I'd like to call attention to and discuss further, but I simple don't have the time right now. If you want to do it over email, I'd be more than happy to. However, I would like to address this...

A substantial population of Arab Muslims in Israel enjoy citizenship, full rights, and participation in government.

This is not in line with other resources I have seen, nor with the history of the area. While citizenship rights are full, other rights certainly are not. Access to health care, education, water, protection from militants, and the benefits afforded to former military personnel are not universal. The resources of the country have been strained to a breaking point, largely because of the latest round of violence. To dismiss any more attempts because of what happened over two generations ago, seems to me a simple desire to ignore the fact that eventually some type of peace is possible.

To quote, "Unlike any other country in the world, Israel does not define itself as a state of its residents, or even a state of its citizens, but as a state of all the Jews in the world. Jews from anywhere in the world, like me, can travel to Israel, declare citizenship, and be granted all the privileges of being Jewish that are denied to Palestinians who have lived in the area for hundreds of years. "

This is why I think Israel in its current form is a pipe dream, and a failure. Which is why I support the idea for Israel 2.0. Or as an alternative, a combination of Israel 1.x and Palestine 1.0.

I've yet to hear of an Arab nation that offer the same to any Jew. There's your affirmative action for ya, bub.

How about Turkey? To quote, "The Constitution proclaims Turkey to be a secular state, regards all citizens as equal, and prohibits discrimination on ethnic, religious, or racial grounds. The Government officially recognizes only those religious minorities mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), which guarantees the rights of Eastern Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, and Jewish adherents. Despite constitutional provisions, discrimination remains a problem in several areas."

While in practice, like Israel, Turkey has failed in this ideal, it has made some progress. But at least it does not in its founding papers, cater to a particular race. While calling Zionism racist is a stretch (mainly because of the social associations of that word), it is certainly a race-based policy.

Also, the best way to teach is by example (the Golden Rule), and Israel has again, failed to set an example high enough to make much headway. There is some progress, and certainly the potential for much more. Again, this is not a direct defense of Palestinian actions merely a call for some moderation on the hard line this community seems to take on all matters concerning the region.

Ariel : How many to make peace?

Two.

Except for some minor details, Jews and Arabs are treated as equals.

Yea, minor details like education, health care, home loans, access to water, freedom of movement, land ownership, and employment.

France. WWII. Still there last I checked.

France had not been occupied by the Germans for over 35 years before they surrendered. Read a little more closely.

Why is it that Jews do not have the right to any country?

When have I said anything like this? I have, however, questioned the right to forcibly occupy any "country" they used to live in. Speaking of which, I've seen number of anywhere from 12,000-50,000 Jews living in what is now Israel at the turns of the last century, when Zionism as an actual movement rather than a prophecy was started. Those number vary by the bias of the source. The people who later called themselves Palestinian numbered anywhere from 550,000 to 600,000. How can you call it a "right" to take this area by force of arms?

Why is it that Jews only have the right to march into the ocean?

Everybody has the right to march into the ocean if they wish. Stop frothing at the mouth, it makes it very difficult to talk to you in a rational manner.

Steve Peden : Just read his posts, and see how open-minded he is.

It is rather obvious, actually. Thanks for pointing this out to those with blood lust in their eyes.

I try to engage him on the issue of his moral equivalence in comparing the accidentally killed Palestinian children with the dozens of Israeli children deliberately targeted and killed in markets and on buses - and he scoffs (apparently, in his love for the UN and the rule of international law, he ignores the Palis BLATANT violations of the Geneva Accords in deliberately placing their military facilites in civilian areas and buildings).

Yet somehow, despite the non-deliberate targeting of Palestinian children, the Israelis have killed more of them than the Palestinians.

Morally equate this. Or this. Or this. To quote, (and this article is even biased for Isreal), "Correcting for such distortions, we can arrive at a figure of 617 Palestinian noncombatants killed by Israel, compared to 471 Israeli noncombatants killed by Palestinians (see Graph 1.2)."

So while your assertion that Israel only "targets" terrorists, they seem to hitting more innocents than the Palestinians have even by "targetting innocents". Israel is making progress though, now only half the people they kill are civilians, "The proportion of combatants among Palestinians killed has increased significantly over time, from around 40 percent to its current value of 54 percent."

skinut : In fact, Israel is a place where Jews have always lived, continuously, as has been amply proven by archaeological evidence.

Yes, and the population figured quoted about that before they began to attempt to fulfill ancient prophecy Jews made up anywhere from 2% to 8%. Hardly a basis for a forceful re-occupation and oppression of the current native population, unless you just want to believe it is one.

But what you like even more, is distorting the truth to fit the world to a view that no people can be better or worse than another, in an aggregate sense.

My entire point about posting on this forum was to highlight the fact that despite the evidence that Israel has been restrained in its brutal occupation, they have shown to be very similar to other people in their actions when forced against a wall. The idea that they are above reproach because of past persecution is false. You can whitewash it as much as you like, but the facts remain. Israel has killed more people in their occupation of Palestine than Palestine has killed in their resistance to that occupation.

If you want to take a position of moral superiority that fine, it's your choice to make. Moral arguments in a war zone are very difficult to make, each side calls the other side evil and themselves good. The winners write the history books. I also find it difficult to defned the moral superiority of my own people as we destroyed a native population in the pursuit a grand goal. When you take it to a national level, and the moral "rightness" of a people, things are quite murky, unless you just decide that we are right, and they are wrong.

Especially when you are both 99.99% the exact same people at birth.

Occasional Reader : So why is Israel the one that makes you shake your head and say, "it's gotta go"?

Again, a number of things I'd like to explore with you further. The only Israel that's "gotta go" is the one that gives fulls rights and opportunites to its citizens based on their faith and/or race. I don't see how anyone here can expect to waltz into a hotspot that has been one of centers of religious exploration and violence since the beginning of the idea and expect it to go smoothly. And expect to do so without making major concessions.

Also, on the KKK stuff that you and others seems to glossed over. I don't really think many of you live in the South, or understand the influence the group had on the region. It is a tough analogy, but the benefits of racial integration is a fairly new concept in the world. The correlation between federal troops occupying the region (in the Israeli context) would only be accurate if those troops had been black. To make a more correct analogy, the troops would have to be from the U.N.

By the way--do any of Israel's neighbors have affirmative action programs? Or for that matter, equality before the law? Or for that matter, regular, free elections?

You are obviously intelligent enough to realize this is a poor argument. See also, comment on Turkey. Not that Turkey is a shining example, but it does seem to be an improvement. This stuff takes a long time. Probably longer than any of us will still be around to appreciate. The influence of fundamentalists fall when the people of a region do not have great burdens to bear or great injustice to endure. A strong faith is a particular religion makes these burdens lighter, making the burden lighter weakens a strong faith. This allows what I would consider progress to occur. But now I've gotten off topic.

I don't think Israel should cease to exist, I'm glad that Jews have a place they can do to avoid persecution. It just sucks they picked such a bad place to do it. And have had to oppress a people to defend themselves. They should have gone with Angola.

Anyway, I doubt I'll be back to this thread. I do have email, it's easy to find on my site.

Peace be unto you.

Turkey by definition is a Turkish nation and not Arab. It was the Turks who kept the Arabs under control for centuries before WWI. Thus the question still stands.

There are Palestinians who have lived in the area for hundreds of years. Wow, that would make them the oldest living humans in existence. What's their secret? This is even more remarkable when you consider that there was no people who identified themselves as Palestinians until after the founding of Israel. Added bonus points for the world's most famous self-proclaimed Palestianian being of Egyptian birth.

There is an old joke among Mexicans that not only did the US steal part of Mexican but worse it stole the part with the good roads. Before the Zionist began their labor the area where Israel now exists was an utter wasteland. The development wrought by the Israelis was not the product of wealth and high technology (which came later) but just plain hard work using techniques known for centuries. The native Arab population had ample opportunity in those centuries to make something of this land but they did not.

This complete lack of interest in bettering the region is one of the things that lent it appeal to the Zionists as well as the immense historical symbolic value plus the fact it was under the control of a Western government who were a bit reasonable on the sunject of what the Zionist had in mind. (Angola? You have got to be utterly insane.)

Part of the reason the Zionist sought to produce a Jewish state is the belief that this was required for Jews to ever be regarded on an equal basis in the world. Every other distinct people in the world (really a misnomer for Judaism but not the pogroms were underway) had a bit of geography they could point and call home if their current nation turned on them. Throughout the world Jews had no place to make their stand if it came to that.

The people now known as Palestinians could not make that complaint. Up until the Sixties they mostly thought of themselves as southern Syrians. Nor were they a lack of places in the world for Muslim to go to be free from persecution for the crime of mere existence. The founders of Israel did not just show and evict everybody. They bought the first land fair and square and proceeded to make something of it. The mass evacuations of Arab Muslims did not come until the first major war against Israel. There is substantial evidence that the bulk of those who left did so at the behest of the Arab nation preparing to attack with the promise they'd return in a few weeks and get to take all the goodies left behind by dead Israelis.

Didn't work out that way. It is hardly surprising that the Israelis were disinclined to welcome them back as they buried their dead. The so-called Palestinians had the chance to be part of a new nation with freedoms previously unheard of in that part of the world. All they had to do was be nice to the new neighbors. They voted with their feet and the rest is history.

The body count among Palestinians does not move me in the least. If you throw rocks at an enemy with vastly superior armaments and organization or stand next to a fool doing so and cheer him on, then your side is going to be the worse for wear at day's end.

The Palestinians owe their survival not to their idiotic continuance of an unwinnable war but rather to their enemies unwillingness to sink to their level. It is within Israel's capability to kill more Pals in a single day than have died under force of Israeli arms since 1948. Until that day when their tolerance finally snaps it is the Palestinian's fellow Arabs in Jordan who hold the record for slaughtering their kind.

Wah (#146)

I understand you're not coming back to this thread (how convenient), but I'll post this anyway.

I was actually reading your snoozer of a post, and was going to respond to certain, shall we say, manipulations of the truth that you snuck in there, but then I came across this:

I don't think Israel should cease to exist, I'm glad that Jews have a place they can do to avoid persecution. It just sucks they picked such a bad place to do it. And have had to oppress a people to defend themselves. They should have gone with Angola.

Fuck you Wah. You're a loudmouth with a not-so-hidden agenda.

That's the only response you deserve.

Eric Pobirs : Turkey by definition is a Turkish nation and not Arab.

Oh, and I was also mistaken about not coming back, conveniently enough.

Wah (#150)

I'm a loud typer, for sure, but am generally soft-spoken.

I'm so pleased I know that about you. While I have little love for people who speak in forked tongues, I prefer it if they do so in soft, gentle tones. So much easier to take.

I appreciate your well thought out rebuttal.

As I said, it's the only type of response you deserve. You have turned side-stepping into a rare art, so I thought I'd save myself the bother. At least you responded to it, which is unusual for you when asked direct questions.

Hopefully we can build on this exchange in the future.

Hopefully you won't have a future on LGF.

#151 is obviously in response to #149, not #150.

In response to #150, yeah, like you could have stayed away huh?