ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: Before I start, I want you to know that I have told myself to not be um.. uncivil in responding... so hopefully I pulled that off.

ScanIAm wrote:  pacelvi wrote:  ScanIAm wrote:  Larsenal wrote: The IDF cannot stop what it did not start.  The whole argument of Israeli "occupation" is, as one has put it, "a mere excuse to persuade gullible and historically ignorant Westerners to support the Arab cause against Israel." As long as Israel is a nation exists, there will be agression against them.  Your comments fall right in line with this since you clearly don't think they have a right to exist. Technically, they don't.  65 years ago, they didn't. You are so right.  The whole area should be given back to Turkey, the last soverign there.  The Palestinian Arab colonists should be sent back to Saudi Arabia. That would be impossible, but please don't imply that it doesn't matter.  It matters quite a bit.

In the same way , wishing Israel away or approving those who want to engage in Genocide against the Hebrews is also impossible.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  Larsenal wrote: The IDF cannot establish world peace or stop international terrorism.  They are a defense force.  All they can do is defend the state of Israel.  Israel has not occupied Lebanon for some time, yet rockets rain down upon Israeli civilians.  Israel pulled out of Gaza, yet the rockets continue.  Hezbollah and Hamas will not be content until Israel disappears.  Israel pulling out of "occupied" land will not bring peace, it will only expose the fact that the real problem wasn't the occupation of specific areas of Palestine.  Their grudge against Israel is their mere existance. The Lebanese government has existed for about...er...1 year.  And they do so because Syria bent to world pressure and allowed it.  Syria is quite happy to also 'allow' terrorist groups to party in Lebanon so that there won't be any direct link between said groups and Syria. Please , every world leader knows Syria is directly linked to those groups. It's not a secret. Which is what I said, but not is so few words. pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  Israel is NOT attacking Lebanon, they are attacking terrorist groups in Lebanon.  The problem is, their methods are killing civilians.  I'm well aware that true targets are hiding amongst regular civilians, but in this case, Israel is choosing to shoot anyway.  Israels existence is artificially propped up for some very well meaning reasons, but that does not change the fact that people who lived on that land 60 years ago had it forcefully taken away. Yeah, we should return the land to the Ottoman Empire who stole it from the Romans/Byanthiums, who stole it from the Maccabean Israelis. ...who probably stole it from some other people.  That isn't the point.  Israel exists because it has backing from the US.  The assertion you made there is incomplete I believe.  While it's certainly unquestionable that the US has come to be the backbone of Israel's foreign support it wasn't always that way. Other than voting in favor of the partion in 1948, the US wasn't involved much in supporting Israel.  The Zionist movement was primarily one of atheist socialist Jews.  It was the Communist bloc (particularly Ch'slovakia) and the UK/France  that was Israel's lifeline in the 40s and 50s. The Soviet Union also gave limited support hoping to see where the socialists might take the country.. though the Cold War made it so that the SU support didnt last long. It was the Suez Crisis in the 50s where Europe started to get detached from Israel and then it was in the aftermath of the 6 Days War that the US started to get more and more involved with Israel, partically because of the Cold War. I forgot where I read this, but the SU and the US were almsot about to go to war with each other during the Yom Kippur war. As far my opinion goes.. the US and Israel are two sides of a coin in that whoever hates Israel because it's Israel usually hates America because it's America.  it seems every political force on earth which has irrational hositily toward Israel or Jews in general has turned out to be nothing but a nightmare .  Israel is the canary in the coalmine. I'm glad we stand side by side with her.

I'm glad we stand by Israelis, not Israel.  It is an artificially created country that is no different than east berlin was. 

ScanIAm wrote:



It exists solely due to the backing of the US.  Regardless of how it worked its way through history, if we removed that backing, they would be gone within 20 years. 

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  I didn't say it was good OR bad, I'm just reminding you that 60 years ago, it didn't exist. 60 years ago Germany didn't exist. Im not sure what i'm supposed to take from that.

60 years ago, the country of Germany wasn't invented by the UN.  You know exactly what I meant.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  If you can't understand why that would annoy the previous occupants, then you should have a long chat with a few native americans. Again. history is glossed over.  The only people who have to vacate areas to make room for others are the Jews.

er...ok.  So the Jews that lived in europe for hundreds of years can lay as much claim to the homeland of their ancestors as the Arabs who currently live there.

Again, I ask you to have a long chat with some native americans.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: Arabs who were displaced in 1948 have only thier cousins to blame for basically launching a war on the same geographical area they lived.  And dont you find it beyond abusive that there are still refugee camps being maintained to purpetuate the misery (intentionally?) by the UN and Arab states? What other war-displaced people live in refugee camps for this long?

Are you blaming them for living in refugee camps? 

ScanIAm wrote:



Their elected government was not recognized for at least 30 years and the only people who offered them any kind of social programs (schools/medical) were Hamas. 

ScanIAm wrote:




 

pacelvi wrote: Yes Israel took advantage of the war to clean out some areas of some cities but there was no overall purge of Arabs and thus you have the so-called Israeli Arab. Too bad the Jews in teh West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza weren't able to stay were they were after Jordan and Egypt annexed those areas.  yes, annexe. Look at any atlas from early 80s or earlier and you'll that the WB and G are politically labelled as being occupied Jordianian or Egyptian lands. Those two countires didnt' give up thier claims until the 80s.

So Jordan and Egypt are wrong for annexing the territory, but Israel is not.

ScanIAm wrote:



Jordan and Egypt have much more claim to that area than the UN or Israel ever did. 

ScanIAm wrote:



I'll state it again:  Israel didn't exist 60 years ago.  It is a wholly invented country.  And, it isn't made up of people who previously lived there and decided to form their own country.  It is made up of people who decided to leave Europe and the US.

ScanIAm wrote:





It is essentially a country made up of people who weren't invited and who crashed the party.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: And just like America, who couldn't have a nicer enemy to deal with than Israel.  Israel didn't kill or expell every Arab from its midst.. but the Arab countries sure did with the Jews that were there.  Another historical fact that goes seldom mentioned.

Because it's irrelavant.  It's as if you should thank a man for not committing murder.  He should not have done so in the first place.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: I think it's long past obvious that the overall Palestinian goal is the genocide of Israel.

Obvious to you.  It is the goal of the people who used to live there that they get their land back. 

ScanIAm wrote:


 Palestinians aren't in a position to carry out genocide so using that word is purely theatrical.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  This wasn't some uncontested island out in the south pacific, it was a previously occupied territory that contained....er....Syrians. You conveniently ignore the fact that Jews have had continious prescense in the land since Roman times despite the best efforts of various parties.  Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem as far back as the 1800s in modern times. Continuous presence doesn't mean they ruled all of the land.  There was ALSO continuous presence of arabs, and <gasp> europeans.  If presence implies right of occupation (i.e. squatters rights) then I'd suggest that you never, ever complain about illegal immigrants in the US. Presence implies historical claims and culture.  You deny these forces play an important role in all international politics?

where did I deny that.  I'm actually aguing that that since they lived there previous to the establishment of Israel, they have both.

pacelvi wrote: If the Palestians wanted thier state and live in peace they would have had it by now.  The fact that there are Israeli Arab citizens refutes any notion that the two couldn't accomodate one another.

The fact that some slaves worked in the house and others worked in the field didn't change the fact that they were slaves.



Do you own a house?  Do you own land?  If I come and take your house, do you think it would make you happy if I gave you half of the house while keeping the other half? 

If I told you that you should accomodate me, would that solve the problem?  You obviously spend a lot of time looking in to this issue, do you not put yourself into the place of people who actually live there?

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  Larsenal wrote: Tell me how raining rockets upon Israeli civilians will establish world peace?  What makes you think they want world peace?  They want Israel the hell out of there. Larsenal wrote: (It won't.)  You don't have to answer this particular dumb question since I didn't directly answer yours. Here's an interesting piece that you may like to interact with: Why They Fight.  The Arab wold has rejected Israel's right to exist before they came into posession of the West Bank and Gaza in '67.  When Israel exits "occupied" lands such as Gaza and southern Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah do not start a peaceful relationship.  They use the new territory as a base to launch more attacks on Israel.  These are the facts.  These concessions of diplomacy have not resulted in peace. The arab world is allowed to reject it. Um no they aren't allowed to reject the existance of a UN Member State while also maintaining treaty obligations to the UN. Sure they are.  This is politics, and to be honest, their opinion matters much more than most of the other countries on the security council.  Whose opinions? The Arab states?  Actually their opinion means very little (in the power poltics sense) in the one place where it matters.. the Security Council.

And so, the issue was thrust upon them.  "We decree that there will be an Israel and it will exists....er....here".

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: They can only impede, they can not lead.

Why not?

ScanIAm wrote:



pacevli wrote: And the US will veto their irrationality.

Oh, that's why.  Even though they live there, their opinion will be vetoed by a country that is 5000 miles away.  I can't understand why there are so many people who hate us.

oh yeah, now I do.

...Well, what do you think of our country now? And what do you think of the figure she is cutting before the eyes of the world? For one, I am ashamed. [Extract from a long and heated letter from a Voluntary Exile, Member of the American Colony, Paris.]

His Response


And so you are ashamed. I am trying to think out what it can have been that has produced this large attitude of mind and this fine flow of sarcasm. Apparently you are ashamed to look Europe in the face; ashamed of the American name; temporarily ashamed of your nationality. By the light of remarks made to me by an American here in Vienna, I judge that you are ashamed because:

     1. We are meddling where we have no business and no right; meddling with the private family matters of a sister nation; intruding upon her sacred right to do as she pleases with her own, unquestioned by anybody.
     2. We are doing this under a sham humanitarian pretext.
     3. Doing it in order to filch Cuba, the formal and distinct disclaimer in the ultimatum being very, very thin humbug, and easily detectable by you and virtuous Europe.
     4. And finally you are ashamed of all this because it is new, and base, and brutal, and dishonest; and because Europe, having had no previous experience of such things, is horrified by it and can never respect us nor associate with us any more.

Brutal, base, dishonest? We? Land Thieves? Shedders of innocent blood? We? Traitors to our official word? We? Are we going to lose Europe's respect because of this new and dreadful conduct?


So I say, let the rest of the world hate us, what else is new. 

Let the people who reside in places that people have fled from to come here simmer in thier resentment of the US..  the way I see the US is that it's the place where all the people of Earth have come to escape the misery of thier old worlds.. the ones that hate us are those who stayed behind.

If the old world hates the US , it's only because they hate themselves.

Listen to the way Europeans speak when it comes defending their own heritage , it's utterly depressing.  Read between the lines of their attacks on patriotic Americans.  It's like they expect everyone to hate thier home countries as much as the EUtopians hate thier own.  A lot of people dont perceive this.. but I it's something I pieced together since the late 90s when I lived overseas.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: in any case, the arab states aren't exactly rushing to punish Israel for this latest conflict other than the typical pro forma cliches. it's clear to all that Hamas and Hezbollah initiated it and I think all rational thinkers are pretty much sick of it. ScanIAm wrote:  It's also convenient that you bring up the UN when it helps you.  The UN is not a government, it is a body that attempts to resolve issues, but it has no power at all.  It is meant to bring unsolvable problems to hopefully unbiased parties, but do not kid yourself that it is not political. I only bring up the UN to highlight the committments that Arab States made. that's all. It was about the Arabs living up their word.. not anything to do with what the UN does/doesn't do.

Whatever.  You'll complain about how the UN is useless and then complain further that some country ignores the UN.

ScanIAm wrote:


Unless that country is the US.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: And of course it's political... it's sum expression of its members.. and a majority of the countries in the world have no place as equals with , say, the modern industrial/post industrial republics.

And now we know why you consider the UN useless.

Your life.  In fact your entire existence happened solely because there was (and still is) a 3rd world to exploit.  You produce nothing of tangible value and you consume excessively. 

And still you look at the rest of the world like they aren't equals.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: And that's why the organization is corrupt and useless as a forum to make tough international decisions.  That Sudan is given the same weight as Sweden is a joke. I loved when Sudan was head of some anti-genocide agency.. what's more perfect than that.

That would be the entire point.  We already have plenty of organizations that consist solely of people we agree with.  The UN is meant to be full of both the good and the bad. 

Until we run the world, we'd better work with them.  The recruitment age for the US military just got moved up to 42...care to guess why?

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:     It would be akin to China deciding that South Beach Miami is where they wish to establish a country.  And then telling the the US to suck it when the US complains. *giggle* ScanIAm wrote:  Larsenal wrote: Edit:  A year ago, you probably would have urged for Israel to pull out of Gaza, saying that sort of diplomacy would have helped the peace process.  So far, so bad.  Hamas has so far responded to this obvious concession very poorly. If I steal $100 from you, and then give you $50 back, are we even? If you come in my house to rob me and I chop off your arm in self-defense is it my fault for not letting you kill me and I should therefore cut off both my arms to make it easier for you the next time? huh?  I thought my analogy was clear, but I don't get yours. If you (Arabs) come in my house (pre-1948 partition plan borders) and I chop off your arm in self-defense (post 1948 border , and then 1967 gains), is it my fault for not lettign you kill me (push me in the sea),and I should therefore cut off both my arms (just give all your loses back to you as if you didn't start the wars and then prostate myself at your feet) , to make it easier for you (to push me in the sea) the next time?

It still makes no sense.  It was a bad analogy at first, and it is still a bad analogy.

Steve411 wrote:

What the (I need to watch my language) is your guy's problem? The man made a mistake in a god damned thread and youre bitching about it like its the end of the world.STFU and get over it.0- Steve

ScanIAm wrote:



http://harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html wrote: Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies.

Pacelvi, you must stop your accusations of anti-americanism every time you speak to someone who thinks you are wrong.  It is the inalienable right of every citizen in our coutry to question our government. 

ScanIAm wrote:


Doing so does not imply lack of faith in our country, but instead, implies an expectation of a certain level of ethics and morality.  It is this right and the expectation that comes along with it that the rest of the world should strive for.  You do us all a disservice through your accusations.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote:  ScanIAm wrote:  Larsenal wrote: The IDF cannot stop what it did not start.  The whole argument of Israeli "occupation" is, as one has put it, "a mere excuse to persuade gullible and historically ignorant Westerners to support the Arab cause against Israel." As long as Israel is a nation exists, there will be agression against them.  Your comments fall right in line with this since you clearly don't think they have a right to exist. Technically, they don't.  65 years ago, they didn't. You are so right.  The whole area should be given back to Turkey, the last soverign there.  The Palestinian Arab colonists should be sent back to Saudi Arabia.

That would be impossible, but please don't imply that it doesn't matter.  It matters quite a bit. 

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  Larsenal wrote: The IDF cannot establish world peace or stop international terrorism.  They are a defense force.  All they can do is defend the state of Israel.  Israel has not occupied Lebanon for some time, yet rockets rain down upon Israeli civilians.  Israel pulled out of Gaza, yet the rockets continue.  Hezbollah and Hamas will not be content until Israel disappears.  Israel pulling out of "occupied" land will not bring peace, it will only expose the fact that the real problem wasn't the occupation of specific areas of Palestine.  Their grudge against Israel is their mere existance. The Lebanese government has existed for about...er...1 year.  And they do so because Syria bent to world pressure and allowed it.  Syria is quite happy to also 'allow' terrorist groups to party in Lebanon so that there won't be any direct link between said groups and Syria. Please , every world leader knows Syria is directly linked to those groups. It's not a secret.

Which is what I said, but not is so few words.

pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  Israel is NOT attacking Lebanon, they are attacking terrorist groups in Lebanon.  The problem is, their methods are killing civilians.  I'm well aware that true targets are hiding amongst regular civilians, but in this case, Israel is choosing to shoot anyway.  Israels existence is artificially propped up for some very well meaning reasons, but that does not change the fact that people who lived on that land 60 years ago had it forcefully taken away. Yeah, we should return the land to the Ottoman Empire who stole it from the Romans/Byanthiums, who stole it from the Maccabean Israelis.

...who probably stole it from some other people.  That isn't the point.  Israel exists because it has backing from the US. 

ScanIAm wrote:



I didn't say it was good OR bad, I'm just reminding you that 60 years ago, it didn't exist.

ScanIAm wrote:




If you can't understand why that would annoy the previous occupants, then you should have a long chat with a few native americans.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  This wasn't some uncontested island out in the south pacific, it was a previously occupied territory that contained....er....Syrians. You conveniently ignore the fact that Jews have had continious prescense in the land since Roman times despite the best efforts of various parties.  Jews have been the majority in Jerusalem as far back as the 1800s in modern times.

Continuous presence doesn't mean they ruled all of the land.  There was ALSO continuous presence of arabs, and <gasp> europeans.  If presence implies right of occupation (i.e. squatters rights) then I'd suggest that you never, ever complain about illegal immigrants in the US.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:  Larsenal wrote: Tell me how raining rockets upon Israeli civilians will establish world peace?  What makes you think they want world peace?  They want Israel the hell out of there. Larsenal wrote: (It won't.)  You don't have to answer this particular dumb question since I didn't directly answer yours. Here's an interesting piece that you may like to interact with: Why They Fight.  The Arab wold has rejected Israel's right to exist before they came into posession of the West Bank and Gaza in '67.  When Israel exits "occupied" lands such as Gaza and southern Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah do not start a peaceful relationship.  They use the new territory as a base to launch more attacks on Israel.  These are the facts.  These concessions of diplomacy have not resulted in peace. The arab world is allowed to reject it. Um no they aren't allowed to reject the existance of a UN Member State while also maintaining treaty obligations to the UN.

Sure they are.  This is politics, and to be honest, their opinion matters much more than most of the other countries on the security council. 

ScanIAm wrote:



It's also convenient that you bring up the UN when it helps you.  The UN is not a government, it is a body that attempts to resolve issues, but it has no power at all.  It is meant to bring unsolvable problems to hopefully unbiased parties, but do not kid yourself that it is not political.

ScanIAm wrote:



pacelvi wrote: ScanIAm wrote:     It would be akin to China deciding that South Beach Miami is where they wish to establish a country.  And then telling the the US to suck it when the US complains. *giggle* ScanIAm wrote:  Larsenal wrote: Edit:  A year ago, you probably would have urged for Israel to pull out of Gaza, saying that sort of diplomacy would have helped the peace process.  So far, so bad.  Hamas has so far responded to this obvious concession very poorly. If I steal $100 from you, and then give you $50 back, are we even? If you come in my house to rob me and I chop off your arm in self-defense is it my fault for not letting you kill me and I should therefore cut off both my arms to make it easier for you the next time?

huh?  I thought my analogy was clear, but I don't get yours.

UnoriginalGuy wrote:



pacelvi wrote:  jsampsonPC wrote: I'm glad none of you are actually heading up our intelligence program I mean, really. You are basing all of your judgment, and all of your opinions off your neighborhood news channel, no?Suffice it to say, nobody here really can be sure they know what they think they "know".There's enough reasonable doubt in my mind that says it's probable that some quantity of wmd was sent to Syria.   Par for the course really.  I assume that Syria probably had/has chemical wmd anyway.  A scan of the google headlines is interesting .. not that it's conclusive of anything .http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iraq+syria+wmd

You can't use "reasonable doubt" to prove a positive, only disprove a negative. There is no actual evidence of any WMD, unless you have some to present? Plus, assuming there are WMD in Syria, what exactly has that got to do with the Israeli situation? Not a whole lot. It is just the US justifying its future actions though its two favourite demons, terrorism and WMD... The US could kill millions more and it would all be ok to the American public because they had "teh WMDs." The only difference between the US and (I need to watch my language) Germany is that one of them left more evidence.

jsampsonPC wrote:

I'm glad none of you are actually heading up our intelligence program I mean, really. You are basing all of your judgment, and all of your opinions off your neighborhood news channel, no?

Suffice it to say, nobody here really can be sure they know what they think they "know".

UnoriginalGuy wrote:



Larsenal wrote: Israel has had WMDs for a very long time, but so far they have not nuked any of their enemies.  I would say this is responsible "use" of  WMDs so far. How long do you think it would take for Hezbollah or Hamas to nuke Israel if they had them?  Would they be "responsible" with them (ie, not use them except for intimidation)?

Hypocrite.

How can a rhetorical question be evidence of hypocrisy

ScanIAm wrote:



Larsenal wrote: The IDF cannot stop what it did not start.  The whole argument of Israeli "occupation" is, as one has put it, "a mere excuse to persuade gullible and historically ignorant Westerners to support the Arab cause against Israel." As long as Israel is a nation exists, there will be agression against them.  Your comments fall right in line with this since you clearly don't think they have a right to exist.

Technically, they don't.  65 years ago, they didn't.

ScanIAm wrote:



Larsenal wrote: The IDF cannot establish world peace or stop international terrorism.  They are a defense force.  All they can do is defend the state of Israel.  Israel has not occupied Lebanon for some time, yet rockets rain down upon Israeli civilians.  Israel pulled out of Gaza, yet the rockets continue.  Hezbollah and Hamas will not be content until Israel disappears.  Israel pulling out of "occupied" land will not bring peace, it will only expose the fact that the real problem wasn't the occupation of specific areas of Palestine.  Their grudge against Israel is their mere existance.

The Lebanese government has existed for about...er...1 year.  And they do so because Syria bent to world pressure and allowed it.  Syria is quite happy to also 'allow' terrorist groups to party in Lebanon so that there won't be any direct link between said groups and Syria.

ScanIAm wrote:




Israel is NOT attacking Lebanon, they are attacking terrorist groups in Lebanon.  The problem is, their methods are killing civilians.  I'm well aware that true targets are hiding amongst regular civilians, but in this case, Israel is choosing to shoot anyway. 

Israels existence is artificially propped up for some very well meaning reasons, but that does not change the fact that people who lived on that land 60 years ago had it forcefully taken away.

ScanIAm wrote:




This wasn't some uncontested island out in the south pacific, it was a previously occupied territory that contained....er....Syrians.

ScanIAm wrote:



Larsenal wrote: Tell me how raining rockets upon Israeli civilians will establish world peace?

What makes you think they want world peace?  They want Israel the hell out of there.

Larsenal wrote: (It won't.)  You don't have to answer this particular dumb question since I didn't directly answer yours. Here's an interesting piece that you may like to interact with: Why They Fight.  The Arab wold has rejected Israel's right to exist before they came into posession of the West Bank and Gaza in '67.  When Israel exits "occupied" lands such as Gaza and southern Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbollah do not start a peaceful relationship.  They use the new territory as a base to launch more attacks on Israel.  These are the facts.  These concessions of diplomacy have not resulted in peace.

The arab world is allowed to reject it.

ScanIAm wrote:

 

  It would be akin to China deciding that South Beach Miami is where they wish to establish a country.  And then telling the the US to suck it when the US complains.

ScanIAm wrote:



Larsenal wrote: Edit:  A year ago, you probably would have urged for Israel to pull out of Gaza, saying that sort of diplomacy would have helped the peace process.  So far, so bad.  Hamas has so far responded to this obvious concession very poorly.

If I steal $100 from you, and then give you $50 back, are we even?

jamie wrote:

dont worry about it - youve been here since 2004!

2 posts - then gone - then back in 2006

where did you go?

jamie wrote:



i dont think there is yet

pacelvi - you do post good stuff (yes i checked ) - just sometimes this war, politics, etc stuff starts even more wars  (here)

anyway - dont take any offence - but ya - to me this is tagged "Politics/Religion"  *wheres my ie7 spell checker!

DoomBringer wrote:

pacelvi, please do not repost entire articles.  It is plagiarism.  The most you're realistically allowed to do is an excerpt and a link.

Unless of course, you're writing a critical analysis.  Then it is more acceptable to excerpt liberally and add your own comments.

rjdohnert wrote:

And you dont think standard oil is a monopoly?  You dont think the bells are still a monopoly?

Tensor wrote: Wow. Anyone would think that Microsoft were the first company in the history of the world ever to be taken to task like this. What about Bell? What about Standard Oil?

Tensor wrote:

Wow.

Anyone would think that Microsoft were the first company in the history of the world ever to be taken to task like this. What about Bell? What about Standard Oil?

Microsoft does not operate in a vacuum. It operates in a market that is sbject to regulation. Why are people taking the application of those regulations so personally?

None of this is arbritrary - its all gone through the courts. I trust there judgement more than that of a bunch of fellow geeks who have scim-read the very scantest details of the case and decided the whole thing is politicaly motivated. How many lawyers are involed in this case? What makes you guys more qualified than them to make these weeping statements?

If a lawayer had read a two-page document entitled "why linux is better than windows" and then started trying to tell you your job, how would you feel? What would you think of there opinion?

UnoriginalGuy wrote:



Jason Cox wrote:  UnoriginalGuy wrote: At least Microsoft knows that the EU isn't as toothless as the US was. Now they might take some action to fix it, before they start loosing money on every copy of Windows XP sold in Europe. Toothless? The EU has no teeth, it's trying to get them by abusing Microsoft. And they are already losing money on certain copies of Windows in Europe, dont you remember the EU's bright idea known as XP N?

How do you justify calling this action abuse?
 
Windows XP N was a good idea for OEMs that would like to supply their choice of media players, which isn't an option they had before.

pacelvi wrote:



jamie wrote:  ..so a small button that says: "Move to Politics/Religion Forum" if 3 people click it - thats where it goes.  (no dundgeon or "pit" or other deragatory terms.  There is a new place for that stuff is all - and in 3 user clicks - it goes there. ?

If there is a new forum, I didn't know about it and will move it there.

I'll look for messages i might have missed

jamie wrote:



..so a small button that says: "Move to Politics/Religion Forum"

if 3 people click it - thats where it goes.  (no dundgeon or "pit" or other deragatory terms.  There is a new place for that stuff is all - and in 3 user clicks - it goes there.

?

The Lebanese government doesn’t control it and cannot police it. The army is not allowed to go down there. Soldiers I’ve talked to refer to the southern-most checkpoint before the Hezbollah-occupied zone as “the border." Psychotic road-side propaganda shows severed heads, explosions from suicide-bombs, and murderous tyrants from Iran and Syria.

Lisa Goldman and I decided to drive up there and take a look from the Israeli side.

“I should warn you,” I said in the car. “Something is wrong on the border. Something bad is going to happen.”

“Why do you say that?” she said.

I told her what I knew, what had recently happened when I tried to visit the border again from the Lebanese side just two weeks before.

*

My British friend Andrew flew out to Beirut from Washington. He wanted to visit the border. I wanted to go back to the border. So we rented a car and drove down to Saida where foreigners are required to get permission from the Lebanese army before being allowed beyond the last official checkpoint.

We found our way to the office of the ranking military intelligence officer.

“What is your nationality?” he said.

“He’s British,” I said, referring to Andrew. “And I’m American.”

The officer clasped his hands loudly together. “You are not going down there today,” he said.

“Why not?” I said.

He made an I-don’t-know face that was terrifically, intentionally, and even comically insincere.

“Is it for security reasons?” I said.

“Of course,” he said. “You can go,” he said to Andrew. “But you,” he said, meaning me, “can’t go anywhere near the border right now.”

“Why not?” I said. “What’s going on?”

He laughed.

“Oh, come on,” I said. “You can tell me. Who am I going to tell?” (Har har.)

He shook his head. “No,” he said. He was deadly serious about keeping me away from that border.

“Are you worried I will do something?” I said. “Or are you worried something will happen to me?”

“Something might happen to you,” he said.

“Is it Hezbollah? The Israelis? What?”

He made his goofy what-do-I-know face once again. “I am sorry,” he said. “It’s too dangerous. You aren’t going.”

*

That was all I could get out of the Lebanese army. The Israeli army was a little more willing to talk.

Lisa and I met Israeli Defense Forces Spokesman Zvika Golan at a base in the north near the border. He told us to follow him in his jeep as he drove to a lookout point next to an IDF watch tower that opened up over Lebanon.

“You aren’t safe here right now,” he said.

“I know,” I said. “The Lebanese army wouldn’t let me anywhere near the border two weeks ago. What’s going on?”

“Hezbollah is planning an operation,” he said.

“How do you know?” I said.

“We know,” he said and nodded.

I knew he was right. The Lebanese intelligence officer more or less told me the same thing. He didn’t say the threat was from Hezbollah, but he didn’t have to.

“What do you think about all this?” I said.

“We really want the Lebanese army on this border,” he said.

Lebanon and Israel technically have been at war for many decades. But Israel and Lebanon have never actually fought any battles. Israel has been involved in plenty of fighting in Lebanon, but none of it ever involved the Lebanese army or government. Neither side has ever actually fired on the other. Neither side wants to. All Israel’s Lebanon battles were waged against the PLO and Hezbollah.

“Are you in contact with the Lebanese government?” I said.

“We pass messages to the Lebanese army through the UN,” he said.

“How well are they received?” I said.

“Oh, they’re received very well,” he said. “The only problem is the Lebanese army can’t act against Hezbollah.”

He introduced me to a young bearded lieutenant in the IDF (left, below) on border patrol duty.

“I have worked on the Jordanian and Egyptian borders,” he said. “This is the worst. The strangest feeling here is that the other side is a no-man’s land. There is no authority that you’re working against. It is extremely out of the ordinary to see any Lebanese police or army. Only Hezbollah is armed.”

“What do you see when you look at Lebanon?” I asked the lieutenant.

“I see poverty and difficult circumstances,” he said. “I see poor farmers who work hard. After so many years of war, the last thing they probably want is more war.”

“Do you know what you’re looking at when you look into the towns?” I said.

“We track movement on the other side,” he said. “I can tell you exactly what each of those buildings are for.”

“What about people?” I said. “Can you tell who belongs to Hezbollah and who just happens to live there?”

“99 percent of the time I know who I’m looking at by their face,” he said. Hezbollah will love learning that if they’re still reading my blog.

The lieutenant was easily ten years younger than me. But he was so ground down from world-weariness he sounded like a man 30 years older who hadn't slept for three days.

“Any minute now something huge could break out," he said. "I am afraid to go home and leave my soldiers. When Hezbollah decides to do something, they do it. And they’re pretty good at it.”

"What do you think they'll do next?" I said.

“I have no idea," he said. "They could do anything. Kidnapping. Sniper.”

"How do you feel about that?" I said.

“Well,” he said. “You get pretty cynical about it after a while.”

“Do you think they’re watching us?” Lisa said.

“They are watching you right at this second,” the lieutenant said. “You are definitely being photographed. It’s possible you’re being watched through a sniper rifle.”

To say I felt naked and exposed at that moment would be a real understatement. I felt like my skin was invisible, that psychopaths were boring holes with their eyes straight to the core of my being. At the same time, I knew they did not see me as a person. They saw me as a potential massacre target.

I know Hezbollah wouldn’t hurt me in Lebanon, even though they did call me on my cell phone and threaten me with physical violence. All bets are off while standing next to IDF soldiers in Israel, though. Whoever was watching me surely dehumanized me as a Jew (even though I'm a non-religious "Christian") who belonged to the little Satanic fit-for-destruction Zionist Entity.

I wouldn’t say I felt scared. But I certainly didn’t feel comfortable. The earth seemed slightly tilted. Lebanon feels unhinged and psychotic from the Israeli side of the line. At least it did on that day. I kept having to remind myself that the country I love and lived in is not at all represented by the nutcases with guns in the hills who like to pick off Jews on the border.

“How dangerous is it here, really?” I asked the lieutenant.

“I say this to my guys every morning: Everything could explode at any moment. Just after I said it this morning a bus load of pensioners showed up on a field trip. An old woman brought us some food. It’s crazy. They shouldn’t be here. You shouldn’t be here.”

“What’s happening here is very unusual," Zvika, the Israeli Defense Forces Spokesman, said. But he wouldn't tell me what, exactly, was so unusual. Shortly after I left the country, a story broke in the Daily Telegraph that explained it.

Iran has moved into South Lebanon. Intelligence agents are helping Hezbollah construct watch towers fitted with one-way bullet-proof windows right next to Israeli army positions.

Here's what one officer said:
This is now Iran's front line with Israel. The Iranians are using Hizbollah to spy on us so that they can collect information for future attacks. And there is very little we can do about it.
More powerful weapons, including missiles with a range of 30 miles, are also being brought in.

I asked Zvika about the last time Hezbollah and Israel got into a hot war.

“It was last November,” he said. “Hezbollah invaded the village of Ghajar in white jeeps that looked like they belonged to the UN. We bombed their positions with air strikes. After a while, the Lebanese army asked us to stop. So we stopped right away.”

"Why did you stop?" I said. "You stopped just because the Lebanese army asked you to stop?"

He looked surprised by my question.

“Of course we stopped because they asked," he said. "We have very good relations with them. We're working with them and trying to help make them relevant.”

Lebanon never admits anything like this in public.

The rhetoric that comes out of Beirut in Arabic rarely has anything to do with reality. The Lebanese government regularly affirms its "brotherhood" with Syria, its former murderous master that still knocks off elected officials and journalists. Undying loyalty to the Palestinian cause is constantly trumpeted, even while Lebanon treats its hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees worse than neglected zoo animals. Arab Nationalism is another regular theme, even though Arab Nationalism is more dead in Lebanon than in any other country around.

"The UN says Hezbollah started the last fight," I said to the lieutenant. "Do you ever start any fights?"

“They always initiate," he said. "We never do. I want to go home. I want to read the newspaper and get more than three hours of sleep every night. We have no business here.”

"Are you scared?" I said.

“I am scared," he said. "As an officer I want my men to be scared.”

"Are they?" I said.

“Not enough," he said. "Not enough.”

ktr wrote:

That’s a shame. It’s very sad that the country of Lebanon would have to pay for Hezbollah’s doings. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist group, and confusing terrorist groups with nations can be dangerous.

billh wrote:



Shark_M wrote:  Why would my point of view on things spark or flame wars? This is my personal openion on things. There are those who agree , and those who disagree. Common we are not kids in some kindergarten. Why not act like an adult for a change and grow up.

Nice try. I think the evidence in this thread clearly indicates that I already am thinking about "grown up" things. You know that.

Shark_M wrote:



pacelvi wrote:  jsampsonPC wrote: True! When you're a skeptic, you're not accountable for a single thing. Aside from that, you are making some pretty bold claims, and then refusing to debate them. You want to tell me that the Bible is nothing more than myth, and there is no truth to it - and then around and protect your rear-end by refusing to debate your nonsense? Pretty secure position. But this goes beyond skepticism doesn't it? I'll state something about the Koran I don't like, and what these guys do is instead of sticking to the point is to bring up the Bible (which they dont't even know that well) in order to make a diversion and the result is this. Now I promise you, in some future thread, they're going to bring up all the things they said today as if this discussion never occured. I contend that one doesn't have to be a believer in any particular religion and yet still recognize what the religion is trying to say in this or that text.  In other words, you can still think the Bible is myth , yet understand within its own terms what the Exodus meant.

Who do you refer to by these guys? In case you never had the intelliegence to figure it out, I am not a muslim. I am atheist.

Seconly, I brought these here as support to the claim that the Torah and the Bible is not that different from the Koran. So be fair to all. If you claim otherwise your being hypocritical at best.

BenZilla wrote:

I am having a hard time understanding some of the Islamaphobia coming out some of your mouths.

jsampsonPC wrote:

True! When you're a skeptic, you're not accountable for a single thing. Aside from that, you are making some pretty bold claims, and then refusing to debate them.

You want to tell me that the Bible is nothing more than myth, and there is no truth to it - and then around and protect your rear-end by refusing to debate your nonsense?

Pretty secure position.

billh wrote:



pacelvi wrote: Islam also considers Christians to be polytheists.  They dont view polytheism very positively.

Wait...back up here...how is Christianity "polytheistic"? Are you saying they view the Trinity as being polytheistic?

"Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah ['Isa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary)", But the Messiah ['Isa (Jesus)] said; "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, My Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever set up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Polytheist and wrongdoers there are no helpers."

"Surely, disbelievers are those who said: "Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)", But there is no Ilah (God) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilah (God - Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them."

"Will they not repent to Allah and ask His forgiveness? For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

"The Messiah ['Isa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary), was no more than a Messenger; Many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother [Maryam (Mary)] was a Siddiqah [i.e. she believed in the words of Allah and His Books]. They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allah does not eat). Look how We make the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lesson, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)."

(Qur'an, Al-Maidah 5:72-75)