Involved in the Israeli/Palestinian Threads? All Read This!

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 7:23 am

mrywe wrote:

The islamic terrorsists who have attacked jewish holdings outside of israel seem to have forgotten that and are attempting to punish an entire (race/religous group...

...(race/religous group? What would be the proper term forthe jewish peoples?? Is there a jewish race? Is there a muslim race?

Your statement here, mrywe illustrates the propaganda of religion.
You later express questions about who's a race, what's a race? etc. but you clearly label the people attacking Jewish settlements as: Islamic terrorist.

I see them, clearly, more like 'pissed off Palestinians."

I see them as the previous inhabitants of those lands.

I see them as people who don't want more of their land taken.

I see them as people fighting to keep their land.

Your casual identification of these people as Islamic terrorist. implies religion is their cause rather than land.

I think, in contrast, that land is the source of the conflict you mention.

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 7:40 am

Citizen, you say Americans dont kill each other?? Ok, you meant for religious intolorence reasons but still...

citizenbfk said

Quote:

The view of “extreme and fundamental elements” are fascist views. These fascist want everyone to be like them, behave like them, believe like them and wish to control their lives.

Sounds like the American media to me.

Quote:

You ask if this soullessness is fertile ground for our religious and political warmongers to take over the country. IMO, no. A common meaning of “soulless,” is that a person is “dead inside.”

No, that's one literal meaning and not the one i meant here. What was meant is that when a society is as depressed and as disillusioned as what was implied here it becomes fertile ground for inscrupulous people to sway them with false promises of greatness if they support the cause. A prime example was Europe in the thirties when dictators waltzed into power with the peoples blessing and consent.

Every example you give for the US not being involved in religious wars are middle east and Muslim based. Yet you still insist it has nothing to do with religion.

Quote:

So, as I mentioned, at least we Yanks have grown up in that regard, although there are ideologies that Yanks will fight for.

Yeah, you fight and kill for greed. How very mature of you.

One last thing, the west didnt go to war in Iraq simply because there was this rumour that Saddam had WMD, it was because in his arrogance and stupidity he thought he could play games with the UN inspectors. If he had just let them do there job unhindered and wasnt such a prick we may not have invaded. (well, perhaps not!!)

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:06 am

SoDaSeeD wrote:

The USA is one of the most immature societies on the planet. Every one of you act like teenagers right up untill your 40. You are a youth orientated society.

SoDaSeed, as usual, you have a good and valid point. I agree wholeheartedly that

caters to a youth populous, very heavily, at that, too.

Quote:

As for your claim about being above mere religion i'm afraid (and i really am scared) that there are more religious fundamentalists and extremist in the US than in the ME.

This may be true. But what axeman ( citizenbfk ) is trying to say is that Yanks typically aren't so. This is true. As a matter of fact, Yanks are some of the brightest amongst us, and are typically more often than not (the smart ones), atheist. It's hard to be an atheist extremist. And when you are, I'll gladly pat you on the back.

SoDaSeed, it is the conservative south you are worried about. I know. I've lived here a grand majority of my life. It's shit. It sucks. Especially when you talk out with your views on how much it sucks. I have had bullets fly towards me. And pitchforks thrown. And backwater/holy water doused on my car.

Quote:

You cant run for office or be elected as president in your country if you stood up and said you were atheist. FFS they are even trying to ban the teaching of evolution in schools in favour of a creationist curriculum!!!

True. But you'd be surprised in retrospect how many atheists are in power who don't admit it except by in policy. A minority, granted, but steadily increasing. And rightfully so.

Quote:

Your claim that America is no big supporter of religious wars is laughable to say the least. The US is involved in just about every conflict going. Most of which are religious to some degree INCLUDING the very conflict being discussed in this thread.

Touche, don't have much to say there except that popular opinion here in the US revolves around a big thing called the collective bullshit of media. You control the media, you control the US. That simple. I know, I've witnessed it first hand, people wiped into a frenzy over some bullshit they see on TV. Even those Americans amongst us with a "fairly strong" constitution (by America's standard) do it. Hell I do it, but I usually (about 98% of the time) do it because I am speaking/ranting against the supplied message.

Thus, of course if you show scenes of big ass f**kin planes hitting known land marks and allegedly the pent, and then you say "you fuckers you killed kenny and flew a plane into bildings" (misspelled deliberately, I know

is stupid sometimes); of course a religious war will start. We are controlled by the media. Blame it, as well as religion.

Media > Religion in the

. It's sticky ground because they go hand in hand, like you say, we cater to young Christians heavily tongue in cheek.

I hate it. But I'm actively involved in changing it.

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:09 am

SoDaSeeD wrote:

Yeah, you [Americans] fight and kill for greed. How very mature of you.

One last thing, the west didnt go to war in Iraq simply because there was this rumour that Saddam had WMD, it was because in his arrogance and stupidity he thought he could play games with the UN inspectors. If he had just let them do there job unhindered and wasnt such a prick we may not have invaded. (well, perhaps not!!)

S1337Cyndic@ wrote:

you'd be surprised in retrospect how many atheists are in power who don't admit it...[RE: "differences]I have had bullets fly towards me. And pitchforks thrown. ..[war/hate] I'm actively involved in changing it.

Good for you, S1337Cyndic@

I hope I didn't mean to suggest that people don't throw pitchfolks or shoot guns.
PITCHFORKS! REALLY?]

Similar to S1337Cyndic@ I too have had guns pointed in my face; can you believe it! And I'm such a truly decent and respectful person.

But, it seems, at times I've been ID'ed as a "gringo."

At times I've been ID'ed as a Yank (while overseas).

At times I've been ID'ed as a Yank while traveling through Georgia.

There have even been times people have not liked my political views; can you imagine!?

I didn't mean to imply there were no hostlites; but no one has ever suggested violence because of my religion. That would surprise me.

But I had one guy once, over in Europe, who wanted to start a fight because of the way I ate my eggs!!

The way I ate my eggs!? Well...he later apologized...it had something to do with loving his grandmother who made him a fine egg every morinng and put it in an eggcup and he'd carefully crack it's top with a spoon, etc..

Europeans often have a different method of eating an egg. And it's a-okay with me. Pretty good, actually

Yes, SoDaSeeD I believe the current U.S. policies of war are for greed.

I didn't say it was mature.

RE: Saddam didn't like UN inspectors (and now it's the same accusations made against Iran), well...

I wouldn't want the cops coming into my house looking for drugs, or whatever, and that would be all the more hostile an act against me, especially since I don't do drugs.

I expect you wouldn't want cops coming into your house looking for drugs, guns, porn, or whatever excuse or reasons they may have.

One argument I hear frequently is: Well, if he has nothing to hide then what's the problem?

The problem is cops coming to your house. the problem is your life (home or nation) being messed around with, the problem is who gives them this right to make such demands and what are their real motives.

I'd like to see IAEA inspectors go to Israel.

And have they ever come to the USA to inspect? Or to England?

Nuclear power, BTW, is not against the law. For the USA and Israel and Western Powers to suggest they should attack Iran for building a nuclear power plant is sick and unbalanced, a prelude for war. England has nuclear power plants. The USA has nuclear power plants and some want to build more.

To speculate or suggest or to accuse anyone who's not Israel, the USA or European powers are planning to have nuclear weapons in years down the road is nothing more than fear-mongering and another prelude to war.

I'll give you odds and this is certainly a balanced and fair approach,..

Let the IAEA go to Israel AND both to Iran. Let's see where they find the nuclear weapons right now.

Anything else is warmongering, seeking war against Iran.

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:22 am

Great post citizenbfk , again man I have nothing to argue and (atm) nothing to add. I agree 100% with all of that, and proud to see another like-minded American who is actually capable of intellectualism. It's really a great feeling.

Sorry for sounding patronizing but what you said about motive struck home with me. as did

Quote:

To speculate or suggest or to accuse anyone who's not Israel, the USA or European powers are planning to have nuclear weapons in years down the road is nothing more than fear-mongering and another prelude to war.

That. I have nothing left to say, but brilliant response. Just because a nation has nuclear potential DOES NOT MEAN IT'S FOR WEAPONS. Could be a million things, most notable for energy.

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:31 am

citizenbfk wrote:

mrywe wrote:

The islamic terrorsists who have attacked jewish holdings outside of israel seem to have forgotten that and are attempting to punish an entire (race/religous group...

...(race/religous group? What would be the proper term forthe jewish peoples?? Is there a jewish race? Is there a muslim race?

Your statement here, mrywe illustrates the propaganda of religion.
You later express questions about who's a race, what's a race? etc. but you clearly label the people attacking Jewish settlements as: Islamic terrorist.

I see them, clearly, more like 'pissed off Palestinians."

I see them as the previous inhabitants of those lands.

I see them as people who don't want more of their land taken.

I see them as people fighting to keep their land.

Your casual identification of these people as Islamic terrorist. implies religion is their cause rather than land.

I think, in contrast, that land is the source of the conflict you mention.

I dont think all terrorism against jews is carried out by palestinians, there are many groups who wish harm on the jews due to religious hatred stirred up by warmongers using the non-religious land issue of Israels existence and converting that into religious hatred agains all jews, thus I speak of Islamic terrorists rather than palestinian terrorists/fredom fighters. I dont care if u are a freedom fighter in the eyes of your people. If you use weapons of terror you are a terrorist, thats if you are fighting for your freedom or not.

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 9:23 am

citizenbfk wrote:

But I had one guy once, over in Europe, who wanted to start a fight because of the way I ate my eggs!!

Wow. That is harsh . But if it's a part of the culture, I guess that there are individuals prone to be anal towards other culture's (when visiting/touring) ignorance of the culture.

In my case, I've never been threatened with active violence really so much as had people fire straight up once or twice. The pitchfork bit was over dramatization, albeit only slightly.

Holy water is true story. I was getting in my car after giving a little speech to some hard nosed and next thing I know I'm getting a car wash (with what I assume was holy water).

Quote:

Yes, SoDaSeeD I believe the current U.S. policies of war are for greed.

I didn't say it was mature.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when a Capitalistic Republic (posing as Demokery - thanks DC) is your form of government. Greed breeds.

Quote:

Let the IAEA go to Israel AND both to Iran. Let's see where they find the nuclear weapons right now.

Anything else is warmongering, seeking war against Iran.

This... is probably the best idea I've heard, given the situation.

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 9:35 am

[quote="1337Cyndic@"]

citizenbfk wrote:

Quote:

Let the IAEA go to Israel AND both to Iran. Let's see where they find the nuclear weapons right now.

Anything else is warmongering, seeking war against Iran.

This... is probably the best idea I've heard, given the situation.

Why?, we know what Israels got, besides, they would probably welcome the oportunity to show off its arsenal. Despite Israel not signing the non-use of nuclear warheads treaty they havnt used them yet. Altho it might be a good idea if only to force Iran to open its doors so good idea but maybe for the wrong reasons.....

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:39 am

citizenbfk wrote:

RE: Saddam didn't like UN inspectors (and now it's the same accusations made against Iran), well...

He didnt LIKE???????? Saddam maybe didnt want his enemies knowing exactly what he did or didnt have is more likely. The point was made earlier about fundamentalist being in control of your military. You know brown trousers and all that? WHAT DO YOU THINK IRANS GOVERNMENT IS???? It's bad enough in my opinion that anyone has got the ability to blow us all to atoms. I dont want ANYMORE extreme governments to have that ability. So if Iran are close to having nuclear bombs then yes, we should stop them.

citizenbfk wrote:

I wouldn't want the cops coming into my house looking for drugs, or whatever, and that would be all the more hostile an act against me, especially since I don't do drugs.

What??? It's the law. If the cops got a tip off you would expect them to investigate would you not? In my youth i was paid i visit by the drug squad. I was still with my parents and they made quite a thorough job of looking let me tell you. Were they right? Of course they were. They were doing their job. They didnt find anything tho' Wink

citizenbfk wrote:

Nuclear power, BTW, is not against the law. For the USA and Israel and Western Powers to suggest they should attack Iran for building a nuclear power plant is sick and unbalanced, a prelude for war. England has nuclear power plants. The USA has nuclear power plants and some want to build more.

It not simply a power plant tho is it? They dont want to produce just power do they? They want to refine radioactive materials to produce weapons grade plutonium and uranium for...guess what....BOMBS!!

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 12:44 pm

mrywe wrote:

Why?

Well... first off sanctions the use of nuclear warheads seems like a fairly major deal to me. I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea that another country is saying that it wouldn't mind dropping a nuke on my head.

Second off, religious extremists. That's all I need to say. When religious extremists live so close in proximity to each other and both are on their way/already have nuclear capabilities (whether industrial or militant), I think I'd be monitoring the situation carefully and even bring some intervention if it's in question.

Thirdly, if they were to launch a nuke... I don't think that it would have a very positive effect on diplomatic affairs and [all the collective problems Earth's environment is experiencing now]. Something has to be done, and it has to be done by a fairly neutral party. IAEA fits the bill in my book. Don't want

backing another ****ing religious or greed war.

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:33 pm

The IAEA has been utterly useless in the past. No reason to assume that they can actually get Iran to cease with their excessive uranium/plutonium enrichment when there is no justification for having so much enriched fuel, well, since Russia already shipped the last necessary fuel for their non-operational reactors almost 6 months ago.

And no, religious extremists do not command the Israeli armed forces and neither do they have their fingers on these alleged nukes. Iran, on the other hand, is all of the above.

Maybe the ME forces, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel, should join forces to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities (not all of them, the enrichment and separation facilities predominantly), as Iran and Israel did in 1981 destroying the Osirak reactor, where post-1979 Revolution Iran tried and failed weeks before Israel succeeded.

But that's only one of the possible paths.

Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 6:12 am

mrywe wrote:

There are many groups who wish harm on the jews due to religious hatred stirred up by warmongers using the non-religious land issue of Israels existence and converting that into religious hatred agains all jews, thus I speak of Islamic terrorists

mrywe wrote:

If you use weapons of terror you are a terrorist

1337Cyndic@ wrote:

Holy water is true story...I was getting in my car after giving a little speech to some hard nosed...

mrywe wrote:

-Why? [RE: let the IAEA go to Israel AND both to Iran. Let's see where they find the nuclear weapons right now. ]

SoDaSeeD wrote:

It not simply a power plant tho is it? They dont want to produce just power do they? They want to refine radioactive materials to produce weapons grade plutonium and uranium for...guess what....BOMBS!!

1337Cyndic@ wrote:

it has to be done by a fairly neutral party. IAEA fits the bill in my book

Tut1234 wrote:

The IAEA has been utterly useless in the past...no justification for [Iran]having so much enriched fuel...

And no, religious extremists do not command the Israeli armed forces and neither do they have their fingers on these alleged nukes. Iran, on the other hand, is all of the above.

Maybe the ME forces, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel, should join forces to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities...But that's only one of the possible paths.

mrywe There is also religious hatred of the Jews against Muslims, goys, etc. Perhaps it has become, as you suggest, a wider war than just a war over land in the ME.

In fact, I'd say this is true. It has become a much wider . Just two days ago and Big Times News since then, has been Jewish groups and warmongering Republicans saying that U.S. Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama is supported by Hamas and that in his willingness to talk to Iranian leaders he is as bad as those who sought to "appease," Hitler prior to the start of WWII.

Thus, what has it's roots in a land dispute and battles, started 61 years ago has indeed become much wider and issue that impacts upon the upcoming elections in the United States of America.

As far as your other idea, mrywe that "If you use weapons of terror you are a terrorist." does this imply that if you bomb people unjustly from the skies your are any better. Or if you blow them up with tanks you are any better? Israeli’s killing of more Palestinians is “nicer and cleaner,” then their methods of fighting back.

Fighting back, I realize might be a good way to describe these activities of Palestinians who are more concerned with land than religious. (despite your wishes to absolve the Israeli land grabbing from the equation.)

So we don’t have to worry about calling them Freedom Fighters or Militant Outlaws. We can call them “Fighting Backers.”

To make it clear what the “Fighting Backers.” are fighting back for it would be the lands they had 61 years ago.

1337Cyndic@, I’m glad you see some value in my suggestion of the IAEA checking out BOTH israel and Iran.

It certainly strikes me as fair and balanced. I mean, really, how could it not be seen that way by anyone? This idea of the IAEA investigation both contentious nations has a certain "justice," doesn't it.

How fair can it be, by any stretch of the imagination, to weight the scales of justice with only accusations and investigations on just one side.

The idea, though, that your neighbors are sprinkling you with Holy Water is of some concern.

And, even though it seems overwhelming fair to suggest that both nations be inspected by a neutral party, even mrywe asks 'Why?'

Why?

Why let the IAEA go to Israel AND both to Iran?

To be clear:

ANSWER: To be fair, balanced. neutral and to not be fooled once again like we, the USA, was fooled about lies of WMD's in Saddam's hands.

To be clear:

ANSWER: So we are not once against fooled by deliberate lies from our political leaders. So we are not once against fooled by deliberate lies in the media.

So we are not fooled by the lies posted in these threads. So we are not mislead by fearmongering like SoDaSeeD says

Of course SoDaSeeD you are totally certain not only about the amount of uranium Iran has but what they intend to do with it: Make BOMBS!!!

SoDaSeeD Says : It not simply a power plant tho is it?

I wonder?: No?

SoDaSeeD Says They dont want to produce just power do they?

I wonder?: No?

SoDaSeeD Says They want to refine radioactive materials to produce weapons grade plutonium and uranium for...guess what....BOMBS!!

OMG

SoDaSeeD Says is as simple a game to play as Simon Says.

Really, SoDaSeeD , you can say this for sure? I mean, is this a “slam dunk,” just like saying Saddam Hussein had nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction?

What I can say for sure is that the USA has nukes. That major powers in Europe have nukes. Russia and China have nukes. Israel has nukes.

Despite what SoDaSeeD Says anyone not brain dead or a zionist extremist would consider the suggestion of a neutral party doing the inspections and both sides being inspected as REASONABLE!

NOT ONLY REASONABLE! BUT A WAY OF DEFUSING ONE OF THE POINTS OF CONTENTIONS IN THIS SERIOUS CRISIS BECOMING A PRELUDE TO WAR IN IRAN.

SoDaSeeD Says to worry about BOMBS!!! is not enough to send nations to war, although lies about WMD (i.e. BOMBS!!!) have worked before.

Tut1234, your first expressed concern, though, about the IAEA is that it has been utterly useless in the past.

You also, like SoDaSeeD already knows Iran has nuclear power fuel, you already know it has too much fuel, and you already believe it will use this future in the future to make bombs.

Right? These are the things you already know and tell us.

So, exactly how much fuel is that, Tut1234. ? How many kilograms? How many kilograms would be okay? How many kilograms would be too much?

And did you get this information from Mossad, the CIA, or from reading Time Magazine?

Post here the links to source material you must have, since you, Tut1234.[/b, and [b]SoDaSeeD seem absolutely 100% certain on something that has no firm or agreed upon documentation.

And SoDaSeeD is absolutely certain Iran is going to makes BOMBS!!

Yes, BOMBS!! And because these BOMBS!! will absolutely 4sure be made sometime in the vague future years down the road, we should BOMB!!! them now.

With regard to the alleged lack of religious extremist in command of the Israeli armed forces , Tut1234. , and how they DON’T have their button on the nuke trigger...

...the IDA does NOT have it's button on the nuclear trigger, you say, but you say Iran is controlled by religious and they DO have their button on the nuke trigger...well...

Well, #1. Iran has no nuclear weapons.

That fact, above, seems to blow a big hole in your hole big idea.

Another point about what you said about button on the nuke trigger, iss...Although I wouldn’t necessirly ascribe to this,...

But just like some Jews think that anyone who is a non-Jew (or, certainly, a goy), that anyone of these people are alleged to be hate-filled racist...

... well, in much the same way some would think: any Jew in command of IDA in Israel is on a crusade against Arabs and Muslims.
(and who knows who else may wind up on Israel's "hit list.").

Israel is a dangerous nation.

Israel has been aggressive for 60 years. It blew the *hit out of Lebanon in 2006. It believes in collective punishment. It's embargo in the Gaza Strip is starving over a million and a half people to death. It prevents any Palestinian state from being established. It wants to go to war in Iran.

Israel is a dangerous nation.

The USA is a dangerous nation.

The biggest lies are those that say, for example, it's not torture if we do it. It's not wanton murder of civilians if we do it. It's not fascism when we do it. It's not war based on deliberate lies when we do it. It's not bad nukes if we shoot them first.

There are some wacked out Warmongering USA nutjobs

From what you wrote, quoted above, confirms to me there are ALSO some wacked out Zionist nutjobs

I can't think of any other way to say it.

...Because I don't use the term lightly

...but I was -- STUNNED!!! --

Yes, I was STUNNED!!! ...

STUNNED!!! ...as if I had been hit with BOMBS!!!

A wacked out Zionist nutjob would be anyone who even suggests maybe the ME forces, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel, should join forces to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities.

I hope such a person never gets near any nuclear buttons; even having them close to a Mouse is worrisome.

It is good to see, though, Tut1234 ..

...good to see that you see there are other possible paths

... other possible paths to ME forces, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel, should join forces to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities.

I'M SO GLAD.

THAT'S REALLY SWEET.

THAT MAKES MY DAY.

Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:19 pm

Blimey!!!

I think i'm suffering from fallout from that nuclear explosion of a post. Very Happy

Please calm down, citizen. Stop foaming at the mouth.

To reiterate, I DONT WANT ANY MORE COUNTRIES TO HAVE NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES. Especially countries to which extremism and militancy are predominant and a chance exists that they would be quite willing to use them.

As far as nuclear power is concerned the amount of energy produced by them is quite small, even in the UK, compared to other sources of power so the time and expenditure for industrialising countries to develop and build nuclear power facilities far out weights the benefits....unless you take into consideration the primary purpose.

Now, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that an extreme fundamentalist government, if they developed a nuclear arsenal, wouldnt use it against Israel. If by that statement i am an Zionist extremist then so be it.
The mirror for that, of course, is that it is also not beyond the realms of possibility that an extreme fundamentalist government in ISRAEL wouldnt use nuclear force against a neighboring state. Hopefully that wont happen what with the ties and influence the west has on Israel. (Fingers crossed)

I think Iran should be made to tow the line. No more nuclear weapons.

Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:00 am

I asked why send the arms inspectors to Israel because

WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT WEAPONS ISRAEL HAS

which kinda makes it pointless inspecting them dont you think?

I dont condone Israels extreme reactions to TERROR attacks and similarly dont want to absolve Israels land grab as you succinctly put it. As I have repeatedly said both sides need to shoulder some of the blame from this circle of hatred and violence.
BUT
The palestinians have been displaced. Thats it, end of story. right or wrong it has happened and was legally done. They should be compensated adequately for their land but they should not be firing rockets at civillian targets. (it is there attacks on civillians that makes them terrorists, if they wer going after purely millitary targets I would sympathise more) If you attack a tiger [or substitute dangerous animal of choice] you shouldnt be surpridsed if it turns round and tears your arm off. The terrorists choose to use human shields and to attack CIVILLIAN targets, Israel could wipe palestine or whats left of it off the map if it wanted maybe they should be more aware of these human shields the TERRORISTS use but before you condemm Israel llok at western actions in Afghanistan, two towers get destroyed (conspiracy or not) and the west invades and occupies afghanistan. Israeli reactions to terrorism are somewhat less extreme in my eyes. By your own arguments the USA should be abandoned and turned over to the native americans, likewise Asutralia to the aborigonees but thats not going to happen

I have the utmost sympathy for the displaced palestinians but I dont see how they can win without kickstarting WW3 into the bargain so im trying to look at the bigger picture and what is better for everyone including the palestinians

Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:16 am

SoDaSeeD wrote:

Blimey!!! Stop foaming at the mouth...I think Iran should be made to tow the line...

To reiterate, I DONT WANT ANY MORE COUNTRIES TO HAVE NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES.

is not beyond the realms of possibility that an extreme fundamentalist government, if they developed a nuclear arsenal, wouldnt use it against Israel.

mrywe wrote:

WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT WEAPONS ISRAEL HAS

The palestinians have been displaced. Thats it, end of story...[plus they do]
attacks on civillians that makes them terrorists

[Look at fact:]wo towers get destroyed (conspiracy or not) and the west invades and occupies afghanistan. Israeli reactions to terrorism are somewhat less extreme in my eyes

By your own arguments the USA should be abandoned and turned over to the native americans

I have the utmost sympathy for the displaced palestinians but I dont see how they can win without kickstarting WW3 into the bargain

Dang! SoDaSeeD, Haven't you yet learned to stop starting with the trash talk. Blimey!!! Stop with the constant dribble of diarrhea that pours out of your mouth.

AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ MY DARN POSTS, JUST SKIP THEM. What are you, a masochist who reads stuff he doesn't like?

What type of sick trip is that?

Anyhow...

RE: The actual debate points you raised: How convenient. WE can have nuke weapons and nuclear power and if you want nuke power we will accuse you of wanting nuke weapons years away in the future and thus kill you now.

As far as dangerous nations having nukes I would also suggest looking at the NOW, and not act like some prancing, prima-donna Cassandra.

The NOW is North Korea having nukes. Pakistian having nukes. And both these nations spreading this tech. So excuse me if any rational person would rather deal with the threat happening NOW that self-serving whipping up fears of the future.

Perhaps such rogue nations mentioned above, though, have no meaning to you because they are not targets for Israeli aggression.

If you or Israel want to nuke Iran, go ahead.

Just don't ask me or my country to do it for you.

I like stories , so I'd be interested in how this Israel nukes Iran story turns out. it would be some good Reality TV.

So, OK? Is that clear. Let Israel go ahead and nuke Iran. Good luck with that and all it's consequences.

____________
The overwhelming vast majority wants nothing to do with it. Bush is the most hated president in USA history. Unfortunately we have to wait to Nov. 08 to kick him out..and then later start the war crimes trials.

If he nukes Iran before he leaves office I wouldn't be surprised if he gets the death penalty after he leaves office. He would deserve it.

________
It's also a very limp non-argument, what I think you mean when you refer to the "primary purpose," of Iran's intended nuke power plant. That's your speculation. No one over here buys that argument at all. You'll have to get some other soft-soap to sell.

_
Stop with your dribble. I can also refute your empty speculation with a much more real-world scenario Refute it in it's entirety.

Here's what's happening in the USA right now. Arabs with backpacks are sneaking into the country over the vast unguarded 1,000 mile border with Mexico.

Some speculate that a nuclear 'suitcase bomb,' or Nuke Backpack
bomb would get into the USA that way, the easiest. So, SoDaSeeD run your prima-donna Cassandra. trip on that.

Of course, since it once again (like North Korea) doesn't concern Israel I'm sure it's near meaningless to you.

This Nuke Backpack trip over the border also makes far more sense then building a nuclear power plant and taking years to get such a weapon.

READ MY LIPS: If Iran wants a nuke they can just buy one from the Russians or Chinese; just like Israel got into it's nuke stuff by getting nuke stuff initially from France and England.

[NOTE: As a side note if you're worried about the spread of nuke weapons you might want to work against your own country selling nuclear weapons on the sly. Work on that; get back to me.]

To finish up Nuke Backpack fact, think some common sense: If you wanted to shoot your wife, because she cheated on you (the most common cause of killings here in the USA) would you start building a machine shop?

No, you go out and BUY a gun.

If I wanted to poison the earth with CO2 and try to hurry up Global Warming and put my neighbors to death, would I start a factory to build a car? Then I spend years building a car and when done get down to business of pumping the exhaust into their home.

NO. I don't start a factory to build a car. I BUY a car.

A last though on this is that if Israel nukes Iran, then Israel will then get nuked itself.

Maybe Israel is so use to abusing Arabs who have been whipped like dogs for so many years it has forgotten that other nations have not been so whipped for 60 years; and should be expected to react to murder more as men.

It's also in the Bible, SoDaSeeD

"An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth.

It's also in Human Nature. (It's not just like some bible law and order thing, or something; it's Universal Human Nature.

Have no doubt. IF -- IF someone nuked My Nation I would do all I could to nuke them back. Okay? No matter how long it would take.

[I really wish you wouldn't make me have to write so much, but your fallacies deserve...yea, that it's...your fallacies just deserve to be put down.]

It's of value, perhaps, that you and Israel consider this "eye for eye," idea

What goes around, comes around. Karma, whatever.

Plus, once a dog starts going around biting other people over and over again, in my country it can be "put down." Other nations may feel the same about the next nation that uses nukes.

SoDaSeeD such a retaliation if far and away NOT BEYOND THE REALMS OF POSSIBILITY.

Vengeance and revenge may be the most consistent wheels that turn most of what we think of as: History.

mrywe

What's with you? We DON'T ALREADY KNOW WHAT WEAPONS ISRAEL HAS.

But if you want to send me detailed up-to-date specs, that would be interesting

WHY..WHY DON'T WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT WEAPONS ISRAEL HAS ?

ISRAEL HAS NEVER CONFIRMED OR ADMITTED IT. (psst...it's "a secret.")

And, dig this, not only is it "a secret," but Israel lies.

Israel's official position on it's nuke weapons is both a secret and a lie.

Please don't get mad at me for saying this, BTW, 'cause that's just the truth.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/nuke.htm

If google "israel nukes' I get nearly three million hits. I didn't have time to go through 3,000,000 hits but over and over again it was said Anyone asking Israeli officials today what is Israel's nuclear policy will get the standard reply given for 45 years, namely – “Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle-East”

Thus Secret & Lie.

It's an interesting issue that the USA first noted the Dimona plant in 1958 and concluded in 1960 that it was for nukes and CIA concluded in 1968 that Israel has nuclear weapons.

Thus, for 40 years the USA (and EU nations) have been: Turning A Blind Eye To Israel's Nukes?

Someday, if you can excuse the obvious metaphore: The USA turning a blind eye to Israel's nuke weapons will blow up in it's face. [ [/i]

[img]http://www.americancitizenstogether.org/ACT/Pictures/explode9.jpg[img]

mrywe RE: The rather over simplification of saying the the palestinians have been displaced. Thats it, end of story seems not accurate.

How can I expect any of your numbers about nukes to be accurate when you can not even count the number of Palestinians who have NOT yet been displaced?

Besides, there is THE OBVIOUS UNSETTLED FACT OF JERUSALEM

Jerusalem: one-state, two-states? international city? I've heard these things discussed and although I've offered no opinion of my own I HAVE heard them discussed so the issue is NOT OVER. NOT END OF STORY.

JERUSALEM SETTLEMENT IS THE END OF THE STORY.

As I've mentioned before in more detail in another thread, all these dumb WICKED evangelical Christian preachers over here also think:

JERUSALEM SETTLEMENT IS THE END OF THE STORY.

These evangelical Christian preachers over here think the re-establishment, the rebuilding of The Temple is the last step, the last thing to happen before the end of the world!

You know this, don't you: these dumb evangelical Christian preachers over here DON'T want to HELP Israel, they have an ulterior motive...

Evangelical Christian want to see Israel nuked!

[i] The evangelical Christians want Armageddon!

They want Jesus to come back.

Christians believe JC comes back after Armageddon, after the last destruction of The Temple.

I tell you this true and straight and their numbers are large and there are such things as: Self-fulfilling prophecies [

Armageddon is a self-fulfilling prophecy

Just go scroll up and ask , prima-donna Cassandra. , him with his ME nuke this, his ME nuke that, his ME preludes to WWIII.

You know, I don't like to quote clichés, but some guy said:

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Maybe that is a good 'partial' answer to your next point: "two towers get destroyed (conspiracy or not) and the west invades and occupies afghanistan. Israeli reactions to terrorism are somewhat less extreme in my eyes."

The second part II 'partial' answer to that is: President George W. Bush is the most unpopular president in American history. He is the least liked. He is the least trusted.

His response to the Twin Towers being destroyed have bewildered and angered the American people.

The American people want to see Osama bin Laden captured or killed.

Now, eight ( Cool

years later this has not happen. In fact the dude is going around making audio and video tapes!!! I don't really like to curse too much (only when necessary response to being cursed at), especially in front of a nice person like yourself, BUT -- [really[/i] --- WTF!!

This may annoy you, but this is a good defense of the German people. It's not that these people were inherently evil but that a sicko grabbed hold of their leadership and started WWII and horrors that the world could not even conceive of before. And now WE, the USA, have a sicko who has grabbed our leadership and appears on the verge of starting WWIII, if he has not done so already.

Well..it's not like I need to even mention that, almost, cause now I read that Israel is buying a submarine from the Germans to put nuke weapons on it...so I guess Israel/Germany is getting along better now, and on the same track: subs and nukes.

The final response to your final point: You don't see how the Palestinians can win without kickstarting WW3 into the bargain.

I don't see how Israel can win without kickstarting WW3 into the bargain.

Boy oh boy. isn't your last point the BEST OF ALL!

in essence is a core question: it avoids all the slop about religion, Islamist terrorist, Zionist extremist, Muslisimsism, yada yada -- IT'S ABOUT WHO OWNS THE LAND. WHO LIVES ON THE LAND.

By my own arguments, you challenge me AND SAY... mrywe ...

...SAY BY MY OWN ARGUMENTS: the USA should be abandoned and turned over to the native americans

Well...very clever seeking to use "my own arguments against me"

I mean, like I was sitting here surround by Apaches, as I am, and I've goten on IsoHunt and posted that I should abandon my home and turn it over to the Native American Indians!?

Dang! Did I say that!

Well...I suppose that would be a reasonable extrapolation of some of my thinking but obviously I don't want to abandon my home to the Apaches.

Not that I particularily like OR BELIEVE the argument that Jews should own territory just because they would make better use of it, but turning a piece of property over to the Apaches would probably not lead to an increase in in property values.

I loaned my car to an Apache once. I can't believe I got talked into it.
ONE SHOULD NEVER LOAN YOUR CAR TO AN APACHE.

Well, when four of them were pushing it back into my driveway at 2AM that was more than clear to me, despite the fact that I did really realize this was not a good deal. I'd suggest, in fact, never loaning your car to anyone and can't believe I did this.

Don't even loan your car to your family. Unless they swear to serve you as slaves for the rest of their lives if anything goes wrong.

But...I digress..

The first Big Difference about the Apaches getting back their land & my home...a big difference from Israeli/Palestinians I believe, 4sure. is:

#1. The Apaches could BUY my home.

(I'd sell it to them, no problem, and in fact the now growing rich Native American tribes ARE BUYING BACK IMPORTANT AND VALUABLE LANDS).

They got the cash. They can just go out and buy it back.

#2. Darn growing richer every day Native American Tribes now have enough Big Bucks to hire lawyers and they are going to courts and getting legal decisions giving them land back!!!!!

Can you believe that? And they do this on big pieces of property that folks normally don't pay for out of their own pocket, like Mountains.
(um...Sacred Mountains, esp...like a mountain Moses was on or something)

So...to reiterate...these two (2) points are already a significant response to your significant question.

1. Native American Indian Tribes ARE buying back good land with money from their own pockets.

2. Native American Indian Tribes ARE GOING TO COURT, and getting settlements and decisions in the favor to get land back.

_

How could they do this court thing? you may wonder. well, two reasons

1. USA courts are fundamentally concerned with property ownership. The law is the law. If the law says it's there's, they get it.

2. Gasp! The USA made and violated 192 Treaties with Native American Tribes.

Although all treaties violated copies were kept and it appears that official signed treaties ARE LAW.

So not only are tribes getting land back from the courts based on normal real estate law but also Treaty Law.

#3. The current population of Native American Indians do NOT want all the land back. They do NOT want us gringos and white & black devils to abandon the country.

Where would they get their pizzas? Seriously. Who would run all the Wal-Mart stores? Seriously.

Now, albeit, there ARE a few Native American Indian radical extremist, part of AIM, for example, the American Indian Movement (AIM) who would be just happy as a lark, pleased as pie if all we 'immigrants,' (that's how they think of us) would, indeed pack our bags and go home.

I have had lunch with one of their most radical leaders. A guy who re-occupied traditional tribal lands at gunpoint and expressed a keen willingness to kill some white devils. (us).

I even stay at his house overnight once. I helped get his web site up and running again. When eating a cheese burger he would often look over at me and shake his head disappointedly.

Well...then he got a good part in a Hollywood movie (Last of the Mohegans...playing the big main Indian role). Made good bucks. Got a nice ranch and you know what...

...He really doesn't want ALL his lands back. He just wants the good stuff back that is currently unoccupied: Mountains & Forest, and some sacred sites.

Or if his tribe was move off their real homeland to some real bad land/ some desperate reservation, well, he wants to get the real land back and leave the stinkin' reservation behind.

Gosh... Well...he has also suggested white & black immigrants and devils also pay rent.

So, see. -- Honest Truth -- even the most radical dude in AIM doesn't want to"drive us into the sea." He wants a few pieces of prime real estate and wants us to pay rent.

The USA does, in fact, already pay Rent to Native America Tribes. No chump change either.

Russell Means, though, would like MORE RENT cash.

The current rent the USA pays is called another names: something like 'tribute,' or maybe: 'agreed upon Treaty obligations," part of the deal of the International enforcable Treaty Law, part of the deal of the US paying cash , financial parts of the treaties.

Indian tribes, BTW, from all of the Americas also have NGO status at the UN, have tried to make up their own passports, and lobby at the UN for their rights.

Chicanos also do similar stuff. They have a group called: La Raza.

ALSO BIG POINT:

Big Point A > Not all tribes have lost their land

Quick think! What's the oldest town or village in the United States of America? (NOT that any rational person in either this country or yours would know or even think about this, but...) --- Well....of course the oldest town or village in the United States of America is going to be a Native American Indian village.

Taos Pueblo in Taos, New Mexico, USA is estimated to be over 800 years on the exactly same spot; and was over 250 years at a previous village spot just 50k down the road....so, basically that 1,000 - one thousand years this village has been there, Taos Pueblo.

----AND THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN MOVED.

Where I live, too, the White Mountain Apaches have NEVER BEEN MOVED from the White Mountains.

This also hints at the more common idea that NATIVE AMERICANS TRIBES HAVE LAND....it's not like they are running around asking for it BACK. (Although, as mentioned, some of them were given a raw deal and given bad land, or land far away form their initial homelands and they are indeed more upset and activist for land reforms for Native tribes.)

On their lands, BTW, they can make many of their own laws...although they do have to abide by Federal laws they can avoid some State laws...setting up gambling casinos, which is where many tribes began to get rich, was possible because this was one of the things they could just go out and do if they wante...even there there was State laws against gambling; they could do it...and make Big Bucks off white, brown and black devils who come to play slots, craps and poker.

They can shut off roads on their lands,if they want, etc.

And talk ABOUT LAND!! More land than in your dreams; and it's not like they are overpopulated or anything. As mentioned the White Mountain Apaches, who have never been moved, OWN THE WHOLE GOSH DARN WHITE MOUNTAINS!!! Pure, pristine, beautiful, stocked with game and fish, unpolluted, stretches more than the eye can see...and all this for about 50 people who live in one common hut near the General Store and Post Office.

[joke: There are more than 50 White Mountain Apaches...but the point is they have lots of land with not many folks around.]

[Note, too, many tribes do NOT have the same concept of land ownership. They indeed have their own home, but they have communal land just like we have Government land...so the mountains and lakes are owned by the tribe and there is NO Individual Ownership of Everything...it's white devils who showed up with real estate contracts and an idea of one person owning one piece of property all by himself forever...]

Taos Pueblo also does cool thing. In center of village are no improvements of 20th century. Live without electricity, etc. -- so if the world nukes itself they will still be there and in the mode to survive without needing or depending upon electricity, water pumps, whatever.

They have their solar and wind powered ranches on the outskirts of the old village, with the air conditioning, big screen plasma TV's video games..with the kids out back playing Heavy Metal and the Old folks into their stuff.

PLUS -- FOLKS OFTEN DON'T GET THIS - BUT, Many, most, far most Native American Indians are PATRIOTIC! (Just like Chicanos are PATRIOTIC!.

Just like Blacks are PATRIOTIC. Just like I'm PATRIOTIC.

This IS our country, for *hit or worse. We fly the same flag, for better or worse. They come back from wars with medals...and although they also may come back from America's recent wars also with sickness at the ugliness, lies and curelity of USA actions...well...they served their time they paid their dues...

This is impossible to explain more but either you get it or you don't: Perhaps it's like America is a marriage to us all: for better or worse, but it's the government/ it's the marriage we're all now in together.

So ...I'm sure this is quite different with Palestinians in Israel. Are they waving Israeli's flag? Singing Israel's anthem about Zion? Can they buy any property they want? Will the courts enforce their treaties, etc.

Thank you Oh So Much, mrywe for asking such good questions, and make me come up with my best at a full and honest response.

Some issues may take years and years to settle. Some issues may take more than a few paragraphs for a reply.

I have a link to all my post (well, most of 'em) on the Home Page of my activist web site,[url=http://www. AmericanCitizensTogether.org/home.html]American Citizens Together[/url] and these IH debates provide a lot of good fresh material and current concern considerations.

A lot better, certainly, then just make up Grand Ideas and Grand Solutions all by yourself, or something like that. I enjoy the back and forth and challenges of on-the street and in the legislative halls as well as these forums; plus good to hone one's arguments and refine the focus of what needs to be said and what one believe is to be done.