From the material I have read, they wanted pre-67 borders which is I believe agreed upon or accepted in the UN as fair, but that Israel having more military might thought it should have more.
The "moderates", when talking to the Western media, say they want the pre-1967 borders, including all of Jerusalem, PLUS the "right of return." Basically, they want Palestinians to claim they were driven from their houses inside Israel (no actual proof necessary that they were, you know, FROM there), and given back whatever land they say was theirs. This is a complete non-starter, as the purpose is to move as many Arabs into Israel, and vote the Jewish state out of existance.
Hamas, Jihad, and Hizbollah all openly claim that they want to drive the Jews into the sea. At the very least, they're honest. Meanwhile, Arafat and his thugs tell their people in Arabic that they want to drive the Jews into the sea, but they have to pretend to go along for now.
If you'd like to read some translations of this hate speech, read www.memri.org. It provides translations from Arabic and Farsi of what the Arabs and the Iranians say when stupid liberals from Europe and the US aren't paying attention.
the Palistinians interviewed usually point to the Israeli government and dont say anything about Jews or even use that word.
Clearly, you aren't paying attention. Read memri. Remember, that's just straight translation, not opinion, or even reporting. Just translation.
You also aren't noticing the vicious rise in anti-semitic attacks in Europe. These are attacks against Jewish (not Israeli) targets, like synagogues and people who are wearing yarmulkes. The attacks are primarily being done by Arabs. France has been particularly bad, as it has a large Arab population and a proud tradition of anti-semitism, but the UK has also had its share of attacks.
And, as I quoted from MLK, when people say "anti-Zionist" they really mean "anti-semite". Thing is that Hitler made overt anti-semitism unacceptable, so anti-Zionist is the substitute. Like I said, pay attention.
Why do you think Daniel Pearl's last words were "I am a Jew and my mother is a Jew"? Notice the important thing to his captors was his Jewishness. Calling it "Jew Hatred" rather than "anti-semitism" is intended to avoid hiding beind pretty phrases. Recognize what's going on and stop trying to justify it or rationalize it. These people hate Jews, hate what Jews represent to them, hate the idea that Jews have formed a successful, thriving, rich country on what is arguably the most worthless land in the Middle East (Israel has NO oil or natural gas reserves, not much in the way of natural resources, and 2/3 of the land is desert). Meanwhile, most of the Muslim world is stuck in squallor and poverty, despite having 2/3 of the oil reserves on the planet. Muslims could engage in serious introspection and try to figure out why their culture is failing. Or they could blame it all on the Jews. Guess which is easier? I'll give you a hint: it's the same path that Europe followed for the last 2,000 years.
As for Chomsky, I'd say that he hates the US because of actions of his, like going to Pakistan and giving a speech that was anti-American and filled with lies. He claimed that the US goal in bombing Afghanistan was to starve the people. Read Horowitz's analysis of that speech and try to come to any other conculsion other than Chomsky hates America. Or you can read http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/horowitz/20 01/dh09-26-01.htm, which was written before the Pakistan speech.
No, that's got nothing to do with relativity. I take it you have never taken Modern Physics.
There is also an issue of whether the ball really exists or if it only exists when you are there to observe it. It sounds kind of funny and even self centered but that doesnt make it any less possible, for example if we are in a computer generated world sort of like the movies the matrix or 13th floor, nothing really exists although since they can die in it, it makes you think about what reality really is, if I exist in a computer generated environment and I can really die or be altered in that environment does that make it a reality? I would say it does.
That's solipsism, which is a pointless conjecture, as it isn't provable (the technical term is that it isn't falsifiable, as you cannot test if it is NOT true). Trust me, this teacher was just an idiot.
I'm not familiar with the "zionist invasion".
That's what Arabs claim happened in Israel. They were "invaded" by people from Europe settling in Palestine for no good reason.
Although I do see that the palistinians are losing their right to self-determination, at least it appears as though Israel wants to root out the PA and replace it with Israels own government. Maybe you have a diffrent perspective on that?
No, Israel wants to find someone who wants to convince the Palestinians to accept their right to exist. In fact, Israel has been trying to get rid of the West Bank and Gaza ever since they captured it. In August 1967, right after capturing it, Israel offered to return the land in exchange for peace. There were no takers. In 1974, right after the Yom Kippur war, Israel made the same offer. Again, no takers. So Israel started the settlements.
In 1999, Israel offered to give the Palestinians their own country, with all of Gaza, 90-something percent of the West Bank, with land taken from Israel to make up the remaining percent. Jerusalem would be shared. This was turned down, too. As was later admitted by one of the PLO's top officials, the current uprising was started not because of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, but in order to extract even more concessions from the Jews.
The simple problem is that the Palestinians and their supporters don't recognize the right of Jews to self-determination. Jews have been willing to recognize the Palestinians' right all along; they just won't be fools and not get the same sort of recognition in exchange.
there is still time to prevent the palistinians from losing their rights.
The Palestinians keep on turning down their rights. They'd rather send their children to die than live in freedom alongside Jews.
True, but so is the word terrorism.
No, terrorism has an exact definition. It is the explicit targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political aims. This is why Al Qeida practices terrorism (hitting skyscrapers, embassies, airplanes, etc), while the US military doesn't (there are civilian casualties in US strikes, but they aren't the target; the terrorists who use civilians as shields are targets).
It's also the difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians try to attack civilians. The Israeli responses do occasionally, regretably, hit civilians. But the targets are the bombers, the leaders who send children strapped with explosives off to kill people for eating pizza, and empty buildings.
Noam Chomsky left me with nothing to respond with.
That's because Chomsky is a self-hating fraud. He will support anything he views as anti-American, yet he lives in Boston. Heck, he was even in favor of the Khmer Rouge, who killed over a million Cambodians for being too "Western". Some things which would qualify you as being "western" were wearing eyeglasses or being able to speak English. Chomsky loved these guys. What a fucker. He parades around the world, saying the US media is complicit in covering up mass crimes by the government. Funny thing is, his rantings are able to get out, and he's got no proof of any of these crimes. He just makes it up because he hates the US. Yet he wants to live here. Go figure.
You are so right; it was during the Republican Clinton administration that the DMCA was passed, and COPA was passed, and...oh, wait. Clinton was a Democrat.
Well I work for a living (dont know about you), and my work is not as a college professor, I dont have the time to keep up with a lot of current events, or to get a lot of information on a certain things.
Ah. You're right I did misjudge you. But your diction and, quite frankly, the immaturity of your ideas made me think you were young and spoiled. My mistake.
I'm not a college professor, and do indeed work for a living. Most college professors aren't well-versed outside their subject areas. This is a real problem in humanities, when professors try to opine on science issues and clearly know nothing about science or scientific methods. A lit professor I once had stated that physics taught people that "the observer interacts with the observed," which is almost true on the quantum level, but is nonsense in general (watching a baseball roll off a table doesn't affect it one way or the other). This is not my idea of an educated person.
Well I may be mistaken on the details, but I read most of this here..
Sheesh. No citations. No evidence. That's not exactly a reputable historical research web site, just a bunch of cranks posting without sources.
you never hear about a society invading another land, thats military
What about the "Zionist invasion?" It was an "invasion" of farmers and factory owners, not soldiers.
How am I denying them? Am I sitting on a document to sign that will some how ALLOW them to the land? No so I am not denying them anything.
To call me a Jew hater, is just you making excuses for the reason someone would disagree with you about Israels actions. No one can disagree with you about Israel and not be a Jew hater, right? No one can be wrong or mistaken, they HAVE to be a Jew hater.
You don't believe that Jews have a right to self-determination in their homeland. You are fixated on the actions of Jews, yet are willing to write off other "imperialist" actions as bygones. Why is that? What is it that bugs you about Israeli "crimes" that doesn't bug you about the far worse actions of other peoples? What makes it even more amazing is that you feel this outrage without knowing much of anything about the issues surrounding the conflict. So answer the question: what is it about Jews that bugs you so much?
Are you suggesting that imperialism is a good thing?
Not to be glib, but imperialism is in the eye of the beholder. It's usually used to described the actions of someone else, and not in an objective sense. In short, it's a meaningless word that tells more about the person using it that about the topic the person is discussing.
What makes you think I am socialist, because I agree with some of their material?
Well, yeah, I would think that agreeing with socialist theory would make you a socialist. People who cite Chomsky and use the poverty of Palestinians as proof of their virtue tend to be either socialists or communists. Talking about Western "imperialism" kinda strengthens your socialist credentials.
I think I've figured you out: you're a high school kid, aren't you? Public high school, in a rich, almost 100% white district. You know nothing about the world, and your piss-poor education has taught you absolutely nothing about the world, least of all how to think or research topics you know nothing about. I'll show you what I mean.
I'm against imperialism and so far Zionism is proving itself to be imperialistic.
Yet you live in a society that is "imperialistic" and take advantage of the fruits of that society. Why not go back where you came from?
I would not be surprised if many have roman ancestory, a large portion of Rome had even converted to that religion.
False, and stupid. If you were at least partially well-versed in origins of Christianity, you'd know that very FEW Romans converted to Judaism, because of two very important Jewish customs (circumcision and dietary laws). Paul, when founding the Gentile church, dropped those two customs in order to attract converts.
Secondly, it doesn't matter whether someone is "genetically" Jewish or not. Judaism is a tribal religion; converting to Judaism means joining the tribe, in effect being adopted. Do you think adopted children can't inherit?
number of African Americans that I know of personaly, see the Palestinians as being opressed.
And a number I know don't. What does that prove?
as a matter of a fact most of what happened back then IS history.
So what EXACTLY is the statute of limitations for how long the Palestinians have claim to their land? 50 years? 100 years? You are aware that the Indians were kicked out of the Seattle area about 100 years ago. Is Bill Gates a settler, deserving of rocket attacks and suicide bombs?
Right, and placing settlments, demolition buildings, killing innocent people is all part of them "defending" themselves, has nothing to do with expansion. Oh and of course this doesnt matter because Palestine belongs to Israel anyway so they are just occupying their own land, right????
No, the West Bank and Gaza are Israeli territory now, captured in war that Israel didn't even start. They can do what they want with it, just as every other country does with its own land.
Horowitz (the guy you mentioned early) is ironicly against reperations for African American
That's because trying to implement reparations is a fucking nightmare. First of all, who gets paid? Everyone with skin color darker than some Pantone level? Presumably, we'd want to restrict this to the descendants of slaves, and not everyone who belongs to an ethnic group that has been discriminated against, because virtually EVERYONE in America belongs to an ethnic group that has been discriminated against. (easy example: Catholics, who make up about 30% of the US population, used to face terrible discrimination. When Kennedy was running for President, there were charges leveled against him that he would be running the US on the behalf of the Pope. Neighborhoods all across the US had restrictions on selling to "Jews, Papists, and Blackamoors." Do Catholics get reparations?)
So, now we need to find out which American Blacks have slave ancestors. Guess what? There are no records. This is unlike, say, the insurance policies of Jews sent to death camps, where the names and addresses of the people were clearly written out. The same applies for stolen Jewish art. All fine art has a provance that indicates the chain of ownership. Otherwise, it becomes hard to tell the real pieces from the fakes.
So, now we have to basically take the word of people that they know exactly which anscestors were slaves, 140 years ago. I don't know about you, but I don't know anything about my anscestors from 140 years ago. I bet that most American Blacks are in even worse shape, what with being driven out of communities in race riots and the slave owner's practice of intentionally breaking up families of slaves. It's a freaking mess that should have been handled 140 years ago. The plantations should have been turned over to the slaves at that time (when Russia freed its serfs, they were given the land they used to farm for their lord). But at this point? How do you do it fairly?
BTW, your "free speech" comrades on college campuses have been destroying newspapers containing ads placed by David Horowitz. Guess they believe in free speech, as long as the speaker agrees with them. Fascists.
Trying to give land back to Palestinians runs into similar problems. As I mentioned earlier, most of them were recent migrants to the land. The ones who weren't didn't have deeds, by and large. Some have as "proof" of ownership the key to their front door. Even if the house is still standing, only a loony would consider the key as evidence of ownership. You also have the issue of 100 descendants claiming the exact same house; who gets it? They all can't live there.
I never said the US going in afganistan is OK
Well that just proves that you're an idiot. The people dancing in the streets of Kabul are pretty happy the US liberated them. But the issue isn't the US going into Afghanistan. The issue is the US going into, say, Ohio or Texas or California, or, well, Washington, DC. That's all Indian land. Where are the Indians? Why are you OK with living out your life as a settler, but condemn Israelis for returning to the land of their anscestors? Did your anscestors pray to return to Chicago?
Yes at the cost of the Arabs who migrated and lived there for the thousands of years that the Jews were gone, with Jerusalem as their capital.
Pay attention, slappy. First of all, I've already discussed the fact that most of the Arab residents of Palestine were recent immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. And 20% of the population of Israel are Arab citizens, so you can't really say they've been kicked out (the ones who ran away in 1948 are non-citizens.). Secondly, Jerusalem has NEVER been the capital of anything besides Jewish (and Crusader) countries. Never. Jordan had control of Jerusalem from 1948 until 1967. They never moved the capital from Amman. The Turks ruled Palestine from 1516 until 1918. Jerusalem wasn't the capital; Constantinople was. Jerusalem was mostly a backwater city in whatever kingdom was currently ruling the land. About the only Muslim leader who paid any attention to Jerusalem was Suliman. I can keep on going back in history, or you can do your own research. Maybe you can learn something besides this socialist drivel that you've been spoon-fed.
Thats not entirely correct, not when you have rational nations that is.
You don't get it. People aren't rational; only fools make up systems that expect people to be angels for the rules to work. Deal with the world the way it is, not the way you wish it to be. And learn some goddamn history; you're embarassing yourself.
The fact is, you continue to deny Jews the right to their homeland. You deny Jews the right to settle in land they captured in war, just as you do. Sounds like a bias against Jews to me. Makes you a Jew Hater in my book, and in MLK's book. Just cause you don't want to admit it to yourself, doesn't make it untrue. Come out of the closet, and you'll feel better about yourself.
I hate to admit, as a very proud american, that we every supported the khemer rouge...the truth is that for several years, after they lost power in vietnam, we kept them alive to protect Thailand's border. Thailand is an old, old ally and so...
I just did some Internet-based research on this topic, and as far as I can tell, there's exactly one source document that claims that the US aided the Khmer Rouge: John Pilger in Covert Action Quarterly (I don't have a date for the article, but it's some time before 1998). Someone scanned the article in and you can find it at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=us+support+khmer +rouge&hl=en&selm=v02130500b0e4411beba0%40%5B131.2 36.2.193%5D&rnum=1. You'd think there'd be more evidence that someone could unearth, but so far as I can find, that's it.
Now there is zero evidence that the US aided them before they were thrown out of power in Cambodia. And it sounds like all of Pilger's evidence is circumstantial. You'd think there'd be more proof; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For the US to support a genocidal Communist group (with the aid of China, no less) in order to defend Thailand is a pretty extraordinary claim. Of course, those who are anti-American in the first place are going to latch on to this sort of stuff, just as those who believe in UFOs will latch on to anything and call it proof.
Do you have any other sources that aren't derived from Pilger and his research?
While this barbaric form of punishment is indeed enforced in some places, it is not the case in modern Muslim nations.
Well, let's go through the nations that practice strict Islamic law and whether or not they cut off the hands of theives. Saudi Arabia cuts off hands (http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/issues/ torture.html). The Taleban did practice it (http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/handcut.htm). Iran does it (http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/boi/08490304_9 8.html). I don't know of any other nations that claim to practice strict Islamic law, but I'm noticing a pattern here. Where is the slander exactly?
But the point was contrasting the "cruel" Jewish law with a far crueler law from another culture. The difference is that your citation was figurative speech that was never implemented while the Muslim penalty is still practiced to this day in the land where Islam was founded.
I was thinking of the period when the US (with support from bumboys UK and Australia) backed Pol Pot after the Vietnamese army had liberated the country from one of the ugliest governments in history.
The US never backed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, you idiot. They were Communists, and rabid anti-Western ones at that.
As for Cuba, sounds like yer typical Central American banana republic from what you are saying.
No, most of those banana republics are now democracies, with the Soviet-backed rebels (or ruling thugs, depending on the country) now without funding. Funny, that. Cuba is still a prison.
From where I sit (.au) there are only a very small proportion of actual terrorists; the rest are genuine POWs.
Really? How did you determine this? Did you use your tin-foil hat to magically interview the 300 people in custody in Cuba and determine that they were in fact obeying the rules for lawful combatants? Are you even aware of what the laws are, as stipulated by the Geneva Convention?
And you particularly dislike anyone who successfully stands up to you (Cuba, Vietnam...).
Eh? The US established diplomatic relations with Vietnam about 10 years ago. Pay attention, skippy.
As for Cuba, it would take about 2 hours to overthrow Castro. But we don't. He has "stood up" to the US by bankrupting what used to be the richest country in Central America. And all he had to do was steal all the foreign aid given to the country, confiscate private property, lock up any political dissident he could find, lock up any homosexuals he could find, lock up any AIDS patients he could find, and generally run his country like a thugocracy. This is the country that you think is the moral superior to the US. Go Castro!
Are you sure? I checked a couple of citations on this, and all of them agreed that the amount of time that an area is very small and uninhabitable is only a matter of months, at most years.
But I'm not a nuclear bomb designer; I could be wrong. Got any sources I can check?
If we could mount conventional warheads with the explosive power of a tacnuke, but without the radioactive fallout, we'd use them in a second.
What you're describing is the Neutron Bomb. Kills people, leaves buildings, area isn't radioactive afterwards. As far as I know, they aren't in use, which is a shame. A few neutron bombs in the Tora Bora cave complex would have removed any terrorists and left behind all the information on their plans. Instead, we had to put thousands of soldiers in danger. Bah.
The U.S. likes to see itself as a Christian nation, but it appears to me it is much more closer to the spirit of the Old Testament ("An eye of an eye") than that of the New.
You completely misunderstand "An eye for an eye" (and are slandering Jews, who consider the Old Testament the Only Testament). It's poetic language meant to indicate equivalent punishment for the crime, no matter the caste of the victim and attacker. The punishment should also fit the crime, so the Muslim practice of chopping the hand off of a thief would be considered excessive.
There is actually only one "crime" in the Torah that has mutilation as the punishment: if two men are fighting and the wife of one of the men tries to break them up and accidently grabs the "secrets" of other man, her hand is supposed to be cut off. Very odd, I know. As far as I know, this punishment was never implemented. In fact, in the annals of the only people to live by the "Old" Testament (the Jews), there are exactly zero recorded cases of any sort of mutilation punishment, such as someone having their eye poked out for blinding someone else. A fine would almost certainly have been imposed, to compensate the person for the loss of their eye.
Jewish law is in fact highly progressive, considering it dates from about 3500 years ago (and, granted, there are some parts that will make you scratch your head, like the hand-cutting off bit I mentioned earlier). You should read it and commentaries on it to avoid slandering it.
We can ignore it, but if we do, we declare ourselves to be uncivilised, and should expect to be put down like barbaric rabid dogs. If that sounds like harsh rhetoric, it's pretty much the language that's coming out of Washington right now. "They started it," is a pretty poor schoolyard grade excuse for acting like animals, and if anyone is any doubt that the US government is bothering to conform with the Geneva Convention, they should really do some reading [amnesty.org].
First of all, the US is fighting people who consider civilians not only fair game, but the main target. Somehow, I don't think anyone should be wondering if Al Qeida (or Iraq or Iran or the Taliban) will follow the Geneva Conventions; we know they don't. We could be placing captured terrorists into penthouses at Trump Plaza; Al Qeida will still treat any captured Americans as cruely as they can imagine.
Secondly, only an anti-American troll would think that terrorists are anything but illegal combatants. They don't wear insignia, they target civilains, and they don't respond to a chain of command. FOLLOWING THE GENEVA CONVENTION, the US has ruled them illegal combatants and not prisoners of war. The US could legally shoot them on sight; it's a damn bit kinder than how any US troops would be treated, and a hell of a lot better than the people working at the WTC were treated.
"Many of the children who were killed were not involved in clashes
Notice that "many" means "less than 50%". That means that MOST of the children killed WERE involved in clashes. I don't think that Palestinian women don't love their children and send them off to die. I do think that Arafat and the rest of the terrorists don't love these kids, except as cannon fodder and publicity.
You're against Zionism? Then you hate Jews. Plain and simple. See below.
Does he call himself an Zionist or is he labeled a Zionist, is he Jewish (religion not race)? As I understood it, Zionism was a part of the jewish religion, is that right?
Yes, he calls himself a Zionist. He's a Christian, not a Jew. Zionism is not a part of the Jewish religion. It is a political movement that claims that Jews, like every other ethnic group in the world, are entitled to the right of self-determiniation in their homeland. The Jewish homeland is what you keep calling Palestine. Just because the majority of Jews were forced into exile from their homeland, doesn't take it away from them.
Another Zionist you might have heard of is Martin Luther King. Here's what he said (http://www.likud.nl/ref27.html): "And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-Semitism.
The anti-Semite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the anti-Semite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!"
You want to know what MLK thought Zionism was? "All men of good will exult in the fulfillment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land. This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less."
So yeah, you hate Jews and non-Jews are Zionists.
Think about this, is Israel occupying Palestine because of these quassams or is it the opposite?
Israel is "occupying" because Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria invaded in 1967, with weapons far larger than those Hamas rockets. Why is this so hard for you to understand? And why is what Israel doing "occupation" and what the US did OK?
and palestine is not just under occupation
Correct. It's not occupied at all, according to the definition the rest of the world uses for "occupation." The rules are different for Jews, apparently.
Rather then have the US bombing Afganistan, it should be the UN going in and trying to apprehend terrorist, it should be UN that steps up and investigates and prosecutes terrorists
Of course it shouldn't be the UN. The UN is useless. It has no power, except what it can beg from member nations. Power to establish rule of law comes from physical power, not whining. Whether or not you think conquering is a good way to establish your rule, it's the ONLY way that has ever worked. If you think I'm wrong, please cite one counter-example in the course of history. You're delusional if you think otherwise.
any one who is thought to be not jewish, is quickly labeled anti-semetic, jew hating, holocaust denying neo-nazi if they dont agree with Israels actions.
No, but people who deny the right of Israel to exist are Jew Haters. Plain and simple.
I forget there are Arab Zionist. Lame.
There sure are Arab Zionists. For example, Joseph Farah, who has gotten death threats for his very public statements in favor of Israel. Read www.worldnetdaily.com for his daily columns and look through the archives for his columns on Israel.
Israel has invaded Palistine, Israel is destroying their homes and buildings, Israel is killing more Palistinian civilians then Palistinian terrorist are killing Israeli civilians, Israel is placing settlements in palistine.
Israel never invaded "Palestine." There never has been a country called "Palestine." Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon in 1967, and won, capturing territory. Unlike every other country that wins wars, Israel immediately offered to return the territory in return for peace treaties. There were no takers. Under what definition of "invade" is this behavior an invasion?
If you want to keep track of body counts, they're roughly even since the Palestinians stopped their policy of using children as cover for snipers. Schools were bussing children to areas with Israeli soldiers, and having the kids throw rocks. Meanwhile, terrorists would stand behind the kids and shoot at the Israeli soldiers. Real heroes, those Palestinians. As soon as the Palestinians stop bombing and killing Jews, attacks against Palestinians by the Israeli army will stop. Plain and simple.
Launching rockets, is not even close to what happening in Israel.
Funny, Hamas and Hizbollah would care to differ. You might want to read http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/16/qassam.f acts/index.html or http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/hizballah.htm (this is a pro-Hizballah site, BTW).
And what part of "to ensure a more perfect union", doesnt sink in?
You really know nothing about history, do you? "A more perfect union" is a reference to the Articles of Confederation, which was a highly crappy form of central governance. Read a damn book.
we dont have any more civil wars between states, or is that to much to acknowledge?
We haven't had a civil war in 140 years primarily because the primacy of the federal government was established by the North conquering the South. Some Southerners still refer to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Agression."
Who exactly should start the conquering of the rest of the world in order to establish the New World Order you so desire?
And US using this as a reason to invade mexico and occupy its land, destroying their houses schools and buildings and replacing them with settlements.
The US DID do that. It's called Westward Expansion or Manifest Destiny. Americans wiped out every Mexican and Indian who stood in their way. If you're an American (or a Canadian), you're living on conquered land; you're a settler. Why don't you kill yourself in shame?
Another example of freedom in Israel, is Jerusalem, it is often touted how jews were banned from the east part when the arabs controled it, and they say now Israel lets arabs go there, but that is not accurate at all, it takes a long time before they are allowed to travel there, when they do go there they must be strip searched, and this is so humiliating to them that they dont ever want to go there again.
This is fiction. There is no separation between the various parts of Jerusalem. There is separation between the West Bank and Israel and Gaza and Israel. There have been recent proposals to wall off parts of Jerusalem, but that probably won't happen, as that would basically reward terrorists.
And Jews weren't just "banned" from Jerusalem by Arabs. Their cemeteries were descecrated (tombstones were used to pave the streets; you can still read the inscriptions on the roads), synagogues were destroyed, and the area by the Western Wall was turned into a garbage dump. Contrast this to what Israel did when it captured Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967: they turned administration of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Asqua to the Waqf, the Islamic religious authority and barred Jews from going on the Temple Mount. The Arabs were dumbfounded. Of course, you still think Jews are the bad guys, but that's because you hate Jews. So be it.
Wrong. The US government gave money to the Taliban as a "bribe" to encourage them to reduce opium production as Afghanistan is/was the world's biggest producer of opium. The US government indirectly funded (by way of Pakistan) the Muslim fighters that would eventually become the Taliban.
Wrong. I already quoted the CNN story from May, 2001 that lays out how the US provided $43Mil in aid to Afghanistan. It was given to aid groups, and most (if not all of it) was food. The Taliban was created by Pakistani intelligence. Since 1998, the US had been imposing sanctions on Pakistan for its nuclear tests (these sanctions have since been lifted due to Pakistani help since 9/11). So far your batting.000.
By your obtuse reasons, the Nazis were perfectly justified in killing Jews because they were "defending their homeland".
I could cite Goodwin's law, but that'd be too easy. But the Nazis scapegoated the Jews, blaming them for all of Germany's problems, just as Arab countries do today. Jews in Germany were integrated, productive members of German society; in fact, German Jews looked down on Jews from the rest of Eastern Europe as poor bumpkins, stuck in shtetyls and ghettos. Look what it got them.
Meanwhile, there would be ZERO violence against the Palestinians by the Israeli army if the Palestinians would stop blowing up little girls in pizza places.
Heck, Israel has been trying to give back the West Bank, Gaza, Golan, and Sinai (except for Jerusalem) since August 1967. Right after Israel WON the 6 day war, they offered to return all captured land (except Jerusalem, as it is the historic capitol of the Jewish people) if the Arab countries would sign peace treaties. There were no takers. After Israel won the Yom Kippur war of 1973-1974 (when those brave Arabs attacked on the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, during Ramadan of all times. Puts all that bitching during the Afghanistan war into context, eh?), Israel made the offer again. Still no takers. At that point, the settlements began and the Arabs started bitching. When Egypt made peace with Israel, the settlements in the Sinai were removed, and Israel gave back the land (along with Israel's only supply of oil). When Jordan made peace with Israel, it got back land captured in 1967. When the Syrians and the Palestinians want peace, they'll get their land back. Until then, nothing.
Palestinians are not citizens, cannot vote or hold public office, etc. Palestinians have been specifically denied any sort of representation in the Israeli government (because for a long time they outnumbered the Jews, and we can't have a "Jewish homeland" that isn't run by Jews). The Israelis provide no services (police, power, water, etc.) to the Palestinians.
Palestinians don't WANT to be citizens of Israel, so lack of representation isn't much of an issue. There most certainly is water and power service from Israel in the Territories; who do you think provides it? As for police, 95% of Palestinians live under the PA; if the PA wanted to police its citizens instead of launching suicide attacks, it could. But it doesn't.
Arabs have been in Palestine for thousands of years
And so have Jews. Hebron, for example, had a continuous Jewish population from about 1500BC until 1929AD, when Arabs killed many of the Jews in Hebron (they dared to actually fight back during an Arab pogrom, and the Arabs decided to really torture them for daring to stand up). In 1967, decendants of the people driven out of their homes 40 years earlier returned. You call these people "settlers", and think the Egyptian-born Arafat is a native. What kind of idiot are you?
Other cities in Israel had Jewish populations for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Sfad, Jerusalem (which has had a majority Jewish population since at least the 1850's), Tiberias, all had sizable numbers of Jews. But by and large, the land was barren and empty, with Bedouin nomads covering much of the countryside. Jews from Europe returned to the homeland of their ancestors, the land they'd been praying to return to for 2000 years, bought the land at obscene prices, and raised crops in places everyone else thought were worthless. For this, Arabs hated them, as do liberals who hate anyone who creates anything of value.
if the Zionists hadn't invaded.
If by invaded, you mean "bought the land at outrageous prices from the previous tenants," then yes, Zionists invaded. The Jewish National Fund was founded so that Jews worldwide could buy back the land of their anscestors. Arabs that fled their homes in the 1948 war lost their land, just as Jews who fled persecution in Arab countries lost their land. Are you proposing restitution for the Jews of Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, and Egypt? Or don't Jews qualify for restitution?
The commonsense thing would be a straight swap of Jewish property for Arab property. This was done throughout Europe after WW II, and the population transfers on Cyprus and with India and Pakistan worked in similar ways. The guy in charge of the Cyprus population transfer won the Nobel Prize. But you won't accord Jews the same behavior that everyone else has engaged in. Why is that, exactly?
British who were specifically trying to please the Zionists.
Bullshit. Please provide a source for this claim. The British did everything they could to stand in the way of Jewish settlements in Palestine. The Balfour declaration was issued by a relatively low-level official, and other British declarations and actions afterwards showed that they never meant it. Ever heard of the movie "Exodus?" I'd recommend the book, but I wonder if you're capable of reading something and actually understanding it.
Don't even try to argue with me on this topic. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and I'll cite chapter and verse from reputable historians to back me up. All you've got is Jew Hatred on your side. Bring it on.
It's not enough for a state to just write a memo and declare itself to be following the UN charter, anymore than it is for you to declare yourself with a memo to be a law abiding citizen.
So, if the UN opposes the US action, where is the vast UN army to stand up and attack the US? Oh, that's right. It doesn't have one.
Well, what does the UN have, besides some extra cushy real estate in New York, tax free? You got it: a really big mouth. Heard any complaints against the US for its actions? How about trade sanctions? Yeah, didn't think so.
The UN has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop the US action, hasn't even condemned the US, and hasn't raised an army to stop the US attacks. Seems to me that the UN accepts the US' reasoning.
If the UN doesn't accept the US' reasoning, then it's a worthless organization whose opinion doesn't matter, so why would the US ask for permission from it first?
Democracy, maybe, but that doesnt change the fact that they are arresting people for protesting their war, and arresting arab politicians who agree that the occupation is wrong.
It's good to distort the truth and/or outright like. It's the sign of a good Jew Hater. First of all, arresting protesters is done in EVERY democracy, usually for some petty crime like disturbing the peace. They're fined and released. MLK was arrested scores of times as were many anti-Vietnam activists. Doesn't make the US not a democracy. In fact, peaceful demonstration against polticial decisions you disagree with is a civic duty in a democracy. In China (and in every Arab country), it gets you shot.
Secondly, Bishara didn't just say that "occupation was wrong." He went to Syria, a country which has sworn to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, and gave a speech supporting those goals. Imagine a sitting member of a country's parliment appearing with an enemy who has a proxy army shooting rockets at you and supporting its goals. It's like a US Senator appearing with bin Laden in one of his videos. Sane people call that treason. Jew Haters call that proper.
How would it sound if Texas was invading and occupying Lousiana? Isnt this why we have a federal government? There is no justice in acting unilaterally, that is the same as Iraq acting unilaterally against Kuwait because they think Kuwait is stealing oil.
No, you ninny. The federal government isn't what keeps Texas from attacking Louisiana. As the Constitution says, the goal of the federal government is "to ensure a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." It's mostly for money and defending against enemies. Heck, considering there was this little thing called the Civil War, it sure didn't stop states from attacking each other.
To fix your completely broken example, it's more like what would the US do if there was a band of Mexican terrorists who thought that Texas should be Mexican territory and the Anglos should be driven out into the Gulf. These terrorists would launch rockets at Dallas and Houston and Galveston, blow up shopping malls and restaurants and children on Halloween, and the Mexican government would shrug its shoulders and blame the US government for the terrorist attacks.
Would Americans (a) As the UN to properly condemn Mexico or (b) invade Mexico? I figure that after about a week or so, a large portion of Northern Mexico would be pretty much cleared of terrorists. You see, Americans don't like being attacked, and don't much care what the rest of the world thinks. Why should Israel?
Heck, why use Mexico? Any American who isn't a full-blooded American Indian is a settler on someone else's land. The only reason every American city doesn't have American Indian terrorists planting car bombs and launching rocket attacks is that the US Army, with the willing help of American settlers, killed all the Indians they could, and forced the remainder onto shitty land, far away from American cities.
I know, the argument is that this all happened long ago, so it OK. The real answer is that stupid American liberals hold themselves blameless.
Right, and how easy it is for people to ignore that many Jew Zionist believe that even Palistine belongs to the Jews, and Jordan is the true Arab state. They claim stake to the land because it says so in their religion and because they lived their thousands of years prior to the arabs who "occupy" their land.
Ah, the "Jew Zionist." The surest sign of a Jew Hater is one who uses the word "Jew" as a pejorative. They also tend to interject absurd claims of Israeli "crimes" into completely off-topic conversations. Glad I could call you on it so easily. Sometimes you Jew Haters are harder to smoke out.
Anyway, back to topic. The last time "Palestine" was an independant country was when the Crusaders set up their states. Before that it was (shock of all shocks) when the Hasmonean dynasty of Jewish kings reigned. Do you konw the proper name for the West Bank (the name "West Bank" was invented in the 1950s)? It's Judea, i.e., the land of the Jews. Funny, that. "Palestine" is a name the Romans gave the place, referring to the Philistines. There is no relationship between the Philistines and the current residents of Palestine, despite Yasser Arafat's claims to the contrary (he also once claimed that Jesus wasn't a Jew, but a Palestinian, and that the Jewish Holy Temple in Jerusalem, described by several ancient sources (and whose sacking the Arch of Titus in Rome commemorates), never existed. Reliable man, that Yasser).
The current people calling themselves "Palestinians" are mainly immigrants from Egypt and Jordan who arrived about the same time as many Jews arrived from Europe. Heck, good old Yasser himself was born in Cairo.
Until the founding of the state of Israel, "Palestinians" referred to JEWS who lived in the land of Palestine. Now it refers to the Arabs who fled their homes at the request of the foolish leaders of the Arab countries that invaded Israel in 1948. After the Arabs lost the 1948 war, the same Arab leaders, who told the "Palestinians" to evacuate so the coming Arab armies could more efficiently exterminate Jews, just abandoned the refugees and now use them as a political device to refocus discontent against them in their own countries. Stupid saps (and Jew Haters looking for an excuse) have fallen for this trick for over 50 years. So are you a sap or a hate monger? Or both?
Yup, I knew about that grant. The money did NOT go to the Taliban. In fact, it mostly wasn't money (from how I read the article, it was either $10mil in cash or $0mil). Read http://asia.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.a id/. Here's what the US did give (from the CNN article):
"The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development."
Didn't know about the Moslem/Muslim thing. I thought it was like po-tay-to/po-tah-to. Learn a new thing every day, I guess.
I agree with everything you said; hard to argue when that's true;-)
But virtually everyone who calls themselves an anarchist isn't thinking about Rouseau and Locke; they're thinking it'd be cool to blow shit up and steal stuff, and if they can get some rape in along the way, all the better. This is true with the morons protesting the WTO and it's true with this idiot. Giving them the status of political prisoners like many slashdot posters are is insulting to real political prisoners.
In short, this guy is a thug. Treat him how he wants to treat other people.
No, I'm a realist. I am stating a historical fact: might makes right. Some people have rephrased this to "God fights on the side of heavy artillery." If you think I'm wrong cite ONE counter example.
I'm not an anarchist. I agree to the rule of law established by my country, as long as it obeys its social contract. I am not making bombs and intending to force my political positions thorugh violence.
I don't have to like the fact that might makes right to acknowledge that it is true. But people who think that wishing something makes it true are called crazy.
Shouting aside, that's just not true. The US made no such appeal to the UN charter.
Wrong. The US has invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A28565-2001Oct8 Sorry to inconvenience you with the truth.
your intellectual brethren in Al-quaeda use to support the killing of civilians.
People who tell others to rise up in violent revolt, provide descriptions of how to rise up in violent revolt, and are caught with instruments to engage in violent revolt aren't civilians. People working at trading bonds at Cantor Fitzgerald are. Learn the difference and stop trying to be clever. You aren't.
Slashdot Mirror
REDUCE FOSSIL FUEL USE TO SAVE THE NORTH POLE!
-jon
The "moderates", when talking to the Western media, say they want the pre-1967 borders, including all of Jerusalem, PLUS the "right of return." Basically, they want Palestinians to claim they were driven from their houses inside Israel (no actual proof necessary that they were, you know, FROM there), and given back whatever land they say was theirs. This is a complete non-starter, as the purpose is to move as many Arabs into Israel, and vote the Jewish state out of existance.
Hamas, Jihad, and Hizbollah all openly claim that they want to drive the Jews into the sea. At the very least, they're honest. Meanwhile, Arafat and his thugs tell their people in Arabic that they want to drive the Jews into the sea, but they have to pretend to go along for now.
If you'd like to read some translations of this hate speech, read www.memri.org. It provides translations from Arabic and Farsi of what the Arabs and the Iranians say when stupid liberals from Europe and the US aren't paying attention.
the Palistinians interviewed usually point to the Israeli government and dont say anything about Jews or even use that word.
Clearly, you aren't paying attention. Read memri. Remember, that's just straight translation, not opinion, or even reporting. Just translation.
You also aren't noticing the vicious rise in anti-semitic attacks in Europe. These are attacks against Jewish (not Israeli) targets, like synagogues and people who are wearing yarmulkes. The attacks are primarily being done by Arabs. France has been particularly bad, as it has a large Arab population and a proud tradition of anti-semitism, but the UK has also had its share of attacks.
And, as I quoted from MLK, when people say "anti-Zionist" they really mean "anti-semite". Thing is that Hitler made overt anti-semitism unacceptable, so anti-Zionist is the substitute. Like I said, pay attention.
Why do you think Daniel Pearl's last words were "I am a Jew and my mother is a Jew"? Notice the important thing to his captors was his Jewishness. Calling it "Jew Hatred" rather than "anti-semitism" is intended to avoid hiding beind pretty phrases. Recognize what's going on and stop trying to justify it or rationalize it. These people hate Jews, hate what Jews represent to them, hate the idea that Jews have formed a successful, thriving, rich country on what is arguably the most worthless land in the Middle East (Israel has NO oil or natural gas reserves, not much in the way of natural resources, and 2/3 of the land is desert). Meanwhile, most of the Muslim world is stuck in squallor and poverty, despite having 2/3 of the oil reserves on the planet. Muslims could engage in serious introspection and try to figure out why their culture is failing. Or they could blame it all on the Jews. Guess which is easier? I'll give you a hint: it's the same path that Europe followed for the last 2,000 years.
As for Chomsky, I'd say that he hates the US because of actions of his, like going to Pakistan and giving a speech that was anti-American and filled with lies. He claimed that the US goal in bombing Afghanistan was to starve the people. Read Horowitz's analysis of that speech and try to come to any other conculsion other than Chomsky hates America. Or you can read http://www.frontpagemag.com/columnists/horowitz/20 01/dh09-26-01.htm, which was written before the Pakistan speech.
-jon
No, that's got nothing to do with relativity. I take it you have never taken Modern Physics.
There is also an issue of whether the ball really exists or if it only exists when you are there to observe it. It sounds kind of funny and even self centered but that doesnt make it any less possible, for example if we are in a computer generated world sort of like the movies the matrix or 13th floor, nothing really exists although since they can die in it, it makes you think about what reality really is, if I exist in a computer generated environment and I can really die or be altered in that environment does that make it a reality? I would say it does.
That's solipsism, which is a pointless conjecture, as it isn't provable (the technical term is that it isn't falsifiable, as you cannot test if it is NOT true). Trust me, this teacher was just an idiot.
I'm not familiar with the "zionist invasion".
That's what Arabs claim happened in Israel. They were "invaded" by people from Europe settling in Palestine for no good reason.
Although I do see that the palistinians are losing their right to self-determination, at least it appears as though Israel wants to root out the PA and replace it with Israels own government. Maybe you have a diffrent perspective on that?
No, Israel wants to find someone who wants to convince the Palestinians to accept their right to exist. In fact, Israel has been trying to get rid of the West Bank and Gaza ever since they captured it. In August 1967, right after capturing it, Israel offered to return the land in exchange for peace. There were no takers. In 1974, right after the Yom Kippur war, Israel made the same offer. Again, no takers. So Israel started the settlements.
In 1999, Israel offered to give the Palestinians their own country, with all of Gaza, 90-something percent of the West Bank, with land taken from Israel to make up the remaining percent. Jerusalem would be shared. This was turned down, too. As was later admitted by one of the PLO's top officials, the current uprising was started not because of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, but in order to extract even more concessions from the Jews.
The simple problem is that the Palestinians and their supporters don't recognize the right of Jews to self-determination. Jews have been willing to recognize the Palestinians' right all along; they just won't be fools and not get the same sort of recognition in exchange.
there is still time to prevent the palistinians from losing their rights.
The Palestinians keep on turning down their rights. They'd rather send their children to die than live in freedom alongside Jews.
True, but so is the word terrorism.
No, terrorism has an exact definition. It is the explicit targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political aims. This is why Al Qeida practices terrorism (hitting skyscrapers, embassies, airplanes, etc), while the US military doesn't (there are civilian casualties in US strikes, but they aren't the target; the terrorists who use civilians as shields are targets).
It's also the difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians try to attack civilians. The Israeli responses do occasionally, regretably, hit civilians. But the targets are the bombers, the leaders who send children strapped with explosives off to kill people for eating pizza, and empty buildings.
Noam Chomsky left me with nothing to respond with.
That's because Chomsky is a self-hating fraud. He will support anything he views as anti-American, yet he lives in Boston. Heck, he was even in favor of the Khmer Rouge, who killed over a million Cambodians for being too "Western". Some things which would qualify you as being "western" were wearing eyeglasses or being able to speak English. Chomsky loved these guys. What a fucker. He parades around the world, saying the US media is complicit in covering up mass crimes by the government. Funny thing is, his rantings are able to get out, and he's got no proof of any of these crimes. He just makes it up because he hates the US. Yet he wants to live here. Go figure.
-jon
-jon
-jon
Ah. You're right I did misjudge you. But your diction and, quite frankly, the immaturity of your ideas made me think you were young and spoiled. My mistake.
I'm not a college professor, and do indeed work for a living. Most college professors aren't well-versed outside their subject areas. This is a real problem in humanities, when professors try to opine on science issues and clearly know nothing about science or scientific methods. A lit professor I once had stated that physics taught people that "the observer interacts with the observed," which is almost true on the quantum level, but is nonsense in general (watching a baseball roll off a table doesn't affect it one way or the other). This is not my idea of an educated person.
Well I may be mistaken on the details, but I read most of this here..
Sheesh. No citations. No evidence. That's not exactly a reputable historical research web site, just a bunch of cranks posting without sources.
you never hear about a society invading another land, thats military
What about the "Zionist invasion?" It was an "invasion" of farmers and factory owners, not soldiers.
How am I denying them? Am I sitting on a document to sign that will some how ALLOW them to the land? No so I am not denying them anything.
To call me a Jew hater, is just you making excuses for the reason someone would disagree with you about Israels actions. No one can disagree with you about Israel and not be a Jew hater, right? No one can be wrong or mistaken, they HAVE to be a Jew hater.
You don't believe that Jews have a right to self-determination in their homeland. You are fixated on the actions of Jews, yet are willing to write off other "imperialist" actions as bygones. Why is that? What is it that bugs you about Israeli "crimes" that doesn't bug you about the far worse actions of other peoples? What makes it even more amazing is that you feel this outrage without knowing much of anything about the issues surrounding the conflict. So answer the question: what is it about Jews that bugs you so much?
Are you suggesting that imperialism is a good thing?
Not to be glib, but imperialism is in the eye of the beholder. It's usually used to described the actions of someone else, and not in an objective sense. In short, it's a meaningless word that tells more about the person using it that about the topic the person is discussing.
What makes you think I am socialist, because I agree with some of their material?
Well, yeah, I would think that agreeing with socialist theory would make you a socialist. People who cite Chomsky and use the poverty of Palestinians as proof of their virtue tend to be either socialists or communists. Talking about Western "imperialism" kinda strengthens your socialist credentials.
-jon
I'm against imperialism and so far Zionism is proving itself to be imperialistic.
Yet you live in a society that is "imperialistic" and take advantage of the fruits of that society. Why not go back where you came from?
I would not be surprised if many have roman ancestory, a large portion of Rome had even converted to that religion.
False, and stupid. If you were at least partially well-versed in origins of Christianity, you'd know that very FEW Romans converted to Judaism, because of two very important Jewish customs (circumcision and dietary laws). Paul, when founding the Gentile church, dropped those two customs in order to attract converts.
Secondly, it doesn't matter whether someone is "genetically" Jewish or not. Judaism is a tribal religion; converting to Judaism means joining the tribe, in effect being adopted. Do you think adopted children can't inherit?
number of African Americans that I know of personaly, see the Palestinians as being opressed.
And a number I know don't. What does that prove?
as a matter of a fact most of what happened back then IS history.
So what EXACTLY is the statute of limitations for how long the Palestinians have claim to their land? 50 years? 100 years? You are aware that the Indians were kicked out of the Seattle area about 100 years ago. Is Bill Gates a settler, deserving of rocket attacks and suicide bombs?
Right, and placing settlments, demolition buildings, killing innocent people is all part of them "defending" themselves, has nothing to do with expansion. Oh and of course this doesnt matter because Palestine belongs to Israel anyway so they are just occupying their own land, right????
No, the West Bank and Gaza are Israeli territory now, captured in war that Israel didn't even start. They can do what they want with it, just as every other country does with its own land.
Horowitz (the guy you mentioned early) is ironicly against reperations for African American
That's because trying to implement reparations is a fucking nightmare. First of all, who gets paid? Everyone with skin color darker than some Pantone level? Presumably, we'd want to restrict this to the descendants of slaves, and not everyone who belongs to an ethnic group that has been discriminated against, because virtually EVERYONE in America belongs to an ethnic group that has been discriminated against. (easy example: Catholics, who make up about 30% of the US population, used to face terrible discrimination. When Kennedy was running for President, there were charges leveled against him that he would be running the US on the behalf of the Pope. Neighborhoods all across the US had restrictions on selling to "Jews, Papists, and Blackamoors." Do Catholics get reparations?)
So, now we need to find out which American Blacks have slave ancestors. Guess what? There are no records. This is unlike, say, the insurance policies of Jews sent to death camps, where the names and addresses of the people were clearly written out. The same applies for stolen Jewish art. All fine art has a provance that indicates the chain of ownership. Otherwise, it becomes hard to tell the real pieces from the fakes.
So, now we have to basically take the word of people that they know exactly which anscestors were slaves, 140 years ago. I don't know about you, but I don't know anything about my anscestors from 140 years ago. I bet that most American Blacks are in even worse shape, what with being driven out of communities in race riots and the slave owner's practice of intentionally breaking up families of slaves. It's a freaking mess that should have been handled 140 years ago. The plantations should have been turned over to the slaves at that time (when Russia freed its serfs, they were given the land they used to farm for their lord). But at this point? How do you do it fairly?
BTW, your "free speech" comrades on college campuses have been destroying newspapers containing ads placed by David Horowitz. Guess they believe in free speech, as long as the speaker agrees with them. Fascists.
Trying to give land back to Palestinians runs into similar problems. As I mentioned earlier, most of them were recent migrants to the land. The ones who weren't didn't have deeds, by and large. Some have as "proof" of ownership the key to their front door. Even if the house is still standing, only a loony would consider the key as evidence of ownership. You also have the issue of 100 descendants claiming the exact same house; who gets it? They all can't live there.
I never said the US going in afganistan is OK
Well that just proves that you're an idiot. The people dancing in the streets of Kabul are pretty happy the US liberated them. But the issue isn't the US going into Afghanistan. The issue is the US going into, say, Ohio or Texas or California, or, well, Washington, DC. That's all Indian land. Where are the Indians? Why are you OK with living out your life as a settler, but condemn Israelis for returning to the land of their anscestors? Did your anscestors pray to return to Chicago?
Yes at the cost of the Arabs who migrated and lived there for the thousands of years that the Jews were gone, with Jerusalem as their capital.
Pay attention, slappy. First of all, I've already discussed the fact that most of the Arab residents of Palestine were recent immigrants or descendants of recent immigrants. And 20% of the population of Israel are Arab citizens, so you can't really say they've been kicked out (the ones who ran away in 1948 are non-citizens.). Secondly, Jerusalem has NEVER been the capital of anything besides Jewish (and Crusader) countries. Never. Jordan had control of Jerusalem from 1948 until 1967. They never moved the capital from Amman. The Turks ruled Palestine from 1516 until 1918. Jerusalem wasn't the capital; Constantinople was. Jerusalem was mostly a backwater city in whatever kingdom was currently ruling the land. About the only Muslim leader who paid any attention to Jerusalem was Suliman. I can keep on going back in history, or you can do your own research. Maybe you can learn something besides this socialist drivel that you've been spoon-fed.
Thats not entirely correct, not when you have rational nations that is.
You don't get it. People aren't rational; only fools make up systems that expect people to be angels for the rules to work. Deal with the world the way it is, not the way you wish it to be. And learn some goddamn history; you're embarassing yourself.
The fact is, you continue to deny Jews the right to their homeland. You deny Jews the right to settle in land they captured in war, just as you do. Sounds like a bias against Jews to me. Makes you a Jew Hater in my book, and in MLK's book. Just cause you don't want to admit it to yourself, doesn't make it untrue. Come out of the closet, and you'll feel better about yourself.
-jon
I just did some Internet-based research on this topic, and as far as I can tell, there's exactly one source document that claims that the US aided the Khmer Rouge: John Pilger in Covert Action Quarterly (I don't have a date for the article, but it's some time before 1998). Someone scanned the article in and you can find it at http://groups.google.com/groups?q=us+support+khmer +rouge&hl=en&selm=v02130500b0e4411beba0%40%5B131.2 36.2.193%5D&rnum=1. You'd think there'd be more evidence that someone could unearth, but so far as I can find, that's it.
Now there is zero evidence that the US aided them before they were thrown out of power in Cambodia. And it sounds like all of Pilger's evidence is circumstantial. You'd think there'd be more proof; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For the US to support a genocidal Communist group (with the aid of China, no less) in order to defend Thailand is a pretty extraordinary claim. Of course, those who are anti-American in the first place are going to latch on to this sort of stuff, just as those who believe in UFOs will latch on to anything and call it proof.
Do you have any other sources that aren't derived from Pilger and his research?
-jon
Well, let's go through the nations that practice strict Islamic law and whether or not they cut off the hands of theives. Saudi Arabia cuts off hands (http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/issues/ torture.html). The Taleban did practice it (http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/handcut.htm). Iran does it (http://www.iran-e-azad.org/english/boi/08490304_9 8.html). I don't know of any other nations that claim to practice strict Islamic law, but I'm noticing a pattern here. Where is the slander exactly?
But the point was contrasting the "cruel" Jewish law with a far crueler law from another culture. The difference is that your citation was figurative speech that was never implemented while the Muslim penalty is still practiced to this day in the land where Islam was founded.
-jon
The US never backed Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, you idiot. They were Communists, and rabid anti-Western ones at that.
As for Cuba, sounds like yer typical Central American banana republic from what you are saying.
No, most of those banana republics are now democracies, with the Soviet-backed rebels (or ruling thugs, depending on the country) now without funding. Funny, that. Cuba is still a prison.
Do you get anything right?
-jon
Really? How did you determine this? Did you use your tin-foil hat to magically interview the 300 people in custody in Cuba and determine that they were in fact obeying the rules for lawful combatants? Are you even aware of what the laws are, as stipulated by the Geneva Convention?
And you particularly dislike anyone who successfully stands up to you (Cuba, Vietnam...).
Eh? The US established diplomatic relations with Vietnam about 10 years ago. Pay attention, skippy.
As for Cuba, it would take about 2 hours to overthrow Castro. But we don't. He has "stood up" to the US by bankrupting what used to be the richest country in Central America. And all he had to do was steal all the foreign aid given to the country, confiscate private property, lock up any political dissident he could find, lock up any homosexuals he could find, lock up any AIDS patients he could find, and generally run his country like a thugocracy. This is the country that you think is the moral superior to the US. Go Castro!
-jon
But I'm not a nuclear bomb designer; I could be wrong. Got any sources I can check?
-jon
What you're describing is the Neutron Bomb. Kills people, leaves buildings, area isn't radioactive afterwards. As far as I know, they aren't in use, which is a shame. A few neutron bombs in the Tora Bora cave complex would have removed any terrorists and left behind all the information on their plans. Instead, we had to put thousands of soldiers in danger. Bah.
-jon
You completely misunderstand "An eye for an eye" (and are slandering Jews, who consider the Old Testament the Only Testament). It's poetic language meant to indicate equivalent punishment for the crime, no matter the caste of the victim and attacker. The punishment should also fit the crime, so the Muslim practice of chopping the hand off of a thief would be considered excessive.
There is actually only one "crime" in the Torah that has mutilation as the punishment: if two men are fighting and the wife of one of the men tries to break them up and accidently grabs the "secrets" of other man, her hand is supposed to be cut off. Very odd, I know. As far as I know, this punishment was never implemented. In fact, in the annals of the only people to live by the "Old" Testament (the Jews), there are exactly zero recorded cases of any sort of mutilation punishment, such as someone having their eye poked out for blinding someone else. A fine would almost certainly have been imposed, to compensate the person for the loss of their eye.
Jewish law is in fact highly progressive, considering it dates from about 3500 years ago (and, granted, there are some parts that will make you scratch your head, like the hand-cutting off bit I mentioned earlier). You should read it and commentaries on it to avoid slandering it.
-jon
First of all, the US is fighting people who consider civilians not only fair game, but the main target. Somehow, I don't think anyone should be wondering if Al Qeida (or Iraq or Iran or the Taliban) will follow the Geneva Conventions; we know they don't. We could be placing captured terrorists into penthouses at Trump Plaza; Al Qeida will still treat any captured Americans as cruely as they can imagine.
Secondly, only an anti-American troll would think that terrorists are anything but illegal combatants. They don't wear insignia, they target civilains, and they don't respond to a chain of command. FOLLOWING THE GENEVA CONVENTION, the US has ruled them illegal combatants and not prisoners of war. The US could legally shoot them on sight; it's a damn bit kinder than how any US troops would be treated, and a hell of a lot better than the people working at the WTC were treated.
-jon
Children being used for cover... that is not accurate at all...
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1200/0 012011.html
"Many of the children who were killed were not involved in clashes
Notice that "many" means "less than 50%". That means that MOST of the children killed WERE involved in clashes. I don't think that Palestinian women don't love their children and send them off to die. I do think that Arafat and the rest of the terrorists don't love these kids, except as cannon fodder and publicity.
-jon
You're against Zionism? Then you hate Jews. Plain and simple. See below.
Does he call himself an Zionist or is he labeled a Zionist, is he Jewish (religion not race)? As I understood it, Zionism was a part of the jewish religion, is that right?
Yes, he calls himself a Zionist. He's a Christian, not a Jew. Zionism is not a part of the Jewish religion. It is a political movement that claims that Jews, like every other ethnic group in the world, are entitled to the right of self-determiniation in their homeland. The Jewish homeland is what you keep calling Palestine. Just because the majority of Jews were forced into exile from their homeland, doesn't take it away from them.
Another Zionist you might have heard of is Martin Luther King. Here's what he said (http://www.likud.nl/ref27.html): "And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-Semitism.
The anti-Semite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the anti-Semite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!"
You want to know what MLK thought Zionism was? "All men of good will exult in the fulfillment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land. This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less."
So yeah, you hate Jews and non-Jews are Zionists.
Think about this, is Israel occupying Palestine because of these quassams or is it the opposite?
Israel is "occupying" because Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria invaded in 1967, with weapons far larger than those Hamas rockets. Why is this so hard for you to understand? And why is what Israel doing "occupation" and what the US did OK?
and palestine is not just under occupation
Correct. It's not occupied at all, according to the definition the rest of the world uses for "occupation." The rules are different for Jews, apparently.
Rather then have the US bombing Afganistan, it should be the UN going in and trying to apprehend terrorist, it should be UN that steps up and investigates and prosecutes terrorists
Of course it shouldn't be the UN. The UN is useless. It has no power, except what it can beg from member nations. Power to establish rule of law comes from physical power, not whining. Whether or not you think conquering is a good way to establish your rule, it's the ONLY way that has ever worked. If you think I'm wrong, please cite one counter-example in the course of history. You're delusional if you think otherwise.
-jon
No, but people who deny the right of Israel to exist are Jew Haters. Plain and simple.
I forget there are Arab Zionist. Lame.
There sure are Arab Zionists. For example, Joseph Farah, who has gotten death threats for his very public statements in favor of Israel. Read www.worldnetdaily.com for his daily columns and look through the archives for his columns on Israel.
Israel has invaded Palistine, Israel is destroying their homes and buildings, Israel is killing more Palistinian civilians then Palistinian terrorist are killing Israeli civilians, Israel is placing settlements in palistine.
Israel never invaded "Palestine." There never has been a country called "Palestine." Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon in 1967, and won, capturing territory. Unlike every other country that wins wars, Israel immediately offered to return the territory in return for peace treaties. There were no takers. Under what definition of "invade" is this behavior an invasion?
If you want to keep track of body counts, they're roughly even since the Palestinians stopped their policy of using children as cover for snipers. Schools were bussing children to areas with Israeli soldiers, and having the kids throw rocks. Meanwhile, terrorists would stand behind the kids and shoot at the Israeli soldiers. Real heroes, those Palestinians. As soon as the Palestinians stop bombing and killing Jews, attacks against Palestinians by the Israeli army will stop. Plain and simple.
Launching rockets, is not even close to what happening in Israel.
Funny, Hamas and Hizbollah would care to differ. You might want to read http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/16/qassam.f acts/index.html or http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/hizballah.htm (this is a pro-Hizballah site, BTW).
And what part of "to ensure a more perfect union", doesnt sink in?
You really know nothing about history, do you? "A more perfect union" is a reference to the Articles of Confederation, which was a highly crappy form of central governance. Read a damn book.
we dont have any more civil wars between states, or is that to much to acknowledge?
We haven't had a civil war in 140 years primarily because the primacy of the federal government was established by the North conquering the South. Some Southerners still refer to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Agression."
Who exactly should start the conquering of the rest of the world in order to establish the New World Order you so desire?
And US using this as a reason to invade mexico and occupy its land, destroying their houses schools and buildings and replacing them with settlements.
The US DID do that. It's called Westward Expansion or Manifest Destiny. Americans wiped out every Mexican and Indian who stood in their way. If you're an American (or a Canadian), you're living on conquered land; you're a settler. Why don't you kill yourself in shame?
Another example of freedom in Israel, is Jerusalem, it is often touted how jews were banned from the east part when the arabs controled it, and they say now Israel lets arabs go there, but that is not accurate at all, it takes a long time before they are allowed to travel there, when they do go there they must be strip searched, and this is so humiliating to them that they dont ever want to go there again.
This is fiction. There is no separation between the various parts of Jerusalem. There is separation between the West Bank and Israel and Gaza and Israel. There have been recent proposals to wall off parts of Jerusalem, but that probably won't happen, as that would basically reward terrorists.
And Jews weren't just "banned" from Jerusalem by Arabs. Their cemeteries were descecrated (tombstones were used to pave the streets; you can still read the inscriptions on the roads), synagogues were destroyed, and the area by the Western Wall was turned into a garbage dump. Contrast this to what Israel did when it captured Jerusalem from Jordan in 1967: they turned administration of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Asqua to the Waqf, the Islamic religious authority and barred Jews from going on the Temple Mount. The Arabs were dumbfounded. Of course, you still think Jews are the bad guys, but that's because you hate Jews. So be it.
-jon
Wrong. I already quoted the CNN story from May, 2001 that lays out how the US provided $43Mil in aid to Afghanistan. It was given to aid groups, and most (if not all of it) was food. The Taliban was created by Pakistani intelligence. Since 1998, the US had been imposing sanctions on Pakistan for its nuclear tests (these sanctions have since been lifted due to Pakistani help since 9/11). So far your batting .000.
By your obtuse reasons, the Nazis were perfectly justified in killing Jews because they were "defending their homeland".
I could cite Goodwin's law, but that'd be too easy. But the Nazis scapegoated the Jews, blaming them for all of Germany's problems, just as Arab countries do today. Jews in Germany were integrated, productive members of German society; in fact, German Jews looked down on Jews from the rest of Eastern Europe as poor bumpkins, stuck in shtetyls and ghettos. Look what it got them.
Meanwhile, there would be ZERO violence against the Palestinians by the Israeli army if the Palestinians would stop blowing up little girls in pizza places.
Heck, Israel has been trying to give back the West Bank, Gaza, Golan, and Sinai (except for Jerusalem) since August 1967. Right after Israel WON the 6 day war, they offered to return all captured land (except Jerusalem, as it is the historic capitol of the Jewish people) if the Arab countries would sign peace treaties. There were no takers. After Israel won the Yom Kippur war of 1973-1974 (when those brave Arabs attacked on the holiest day on the Jewish calendar, during Ramadan of all times. Puts all that bitching during the Afghanistan war into context, eh?), Israel made the offer again. Still no takers. At that point, the settlements began and the Arabs started bitching. When Egypt made peace with Israel, the settlements in the Sinai were removed, and Israel gave back the land (along with Israel's only supply of oil). When Jordan made peace with Israel, it got back land captured in 1967. When the Syrians and the Palestinians want peace, they'll get their land back. Until then, nothing.
Palestinians are not citizens, cannot vote or hold public office, etc. Palestinians have been specifically denied any sort of representation in the Israeli government (because for a long time they outnumbered the Jews, and we can't have a "Jewish homeland" that isn't run by Jews). The Israelis provide no services (police, power, water, etc.) to the Palestinians.
Palestinians don't WANT to be citizens of Israel, so lack of representation isn't much of an issue. There most certainly is water and power service from Israel in the Territories; who do you think provides it? As for police, 95% of Palestinians live under the PA; if the PA wanted to police its citizens instead of launching suicide attacks, it could. But it doesn't.
Arabs have been in Palestine for thousands of years
And so have Jews. Hebron, for example, had a continuous Jewish population from about 1500BC until 1929AD, when Arabs killed many of the Jews in Hebron (they dared to actually fight back during an Arab pogrom, and the Arabs decided to really torture them for daring to stand up). In 1967, decendants of the people driven out of their homes 40 years earlier returned. You call these people "settlers", and think the Egyptian-born Arafat is a native. What kind of idiot are you?
Other cities in Israel had Jewish populations for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Sfad, Jerusalem (which has had a majority Jewish population since at least the 1850's), Tiberias, all had sizable numbers of Jews. But by and large, the land was barren and empty, with Bedouin nomads covering much of the countryside. Jews from Europe returned to the homeland of their ancestors, the land they'd been praying to return to for 2000 years, bought the land at obscene prices, and raised crops in places everyone else thought were worthless. For this, Arabs hated them, as do liberals who hate anyone who creates anything of value.
if the Zionists hadn't invaded.
If by invaded, you mean "bought the land at outrageous prices from the previous tenants," then yes, Zionists invaded. The Jewish National Fund was founded so that Jews worldwide could buy back the land of their anscestors. Arabs that fled their homes in the 1948 war lost their land, just as Jews who fled persecution in Arab countries lost their land. Are you proposing restitution for the Jews of Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, and Egypt? Or don't Jews qualify for restitution?
The commonsense thing would be a straight swap of Jewish property for Arab property. This was done throughout Europe after WW II, and the population transfers on Cyprus and with India and Pakistan worked in similar ways. The guy in charge of the Cyprus population transfer won the Nobel Prize. But you won't accord Jews the same behavior that everyone else has engaged in. Why is that, exactly?
British who were specifically trying to please the Zionists.
Bullshit. Please provide a source for this claim. The British did everything they could to stand in the way of Jewish settlements in Palestine. The Balfour declaration was issued by a relatively low-level official, and other British declarations and actions afterwards showed that they never meant it. Ever heard of the movie "Exodus?" I'd recommend the book, but I wonder if you're capable of reading something and actually understanding it.
Don't even try to argue with me on this topic. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and I'll cite chapter and verse from reputable historians to back me up. All you've got is Jew Hatred on your side. Bring it on.
-jon
So, if the UN opposes the US action, where is the vast UN army to stand up and attack the US? Oh, that's right. It doesn't have one.
Well, what does the UN have, besides some extra cushy real estate in New York, tax free? You got it: a really big mouth. Heard any complaints against the US for its actions? How about trade sanctions? Yeah, didn't think so.
The UN has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop the US action, hasn't even condemned the US, and hasn't raised an army to stop the US attacks. Seems to me that the UN accepts the US' reasoning.
If the UN doesn't accept the US' reasoning, then it's a worthless organization whose opinion doesn't matter, so why would the US ask for permission from it first?
-jon
It's good to distort the truth and/or outright like. It's the sign of a good Jew Hater. First of all, arresting protesters is done in EVERY democracy, usually for some petty crime like disturbing the peace. They're fined and released. MLK was arrested scores of times as were many anti-Vietnam activists. Doesn't make the US not a democracy. In fact, peaceful demonstration against polticial decisions you disagree with is a civic duty in a democracy. In China (and in every Arab country), it gets you shot.
Secondly, Bishara didn't just say that "occupation was wrong." He went to Syria, a country which has sworn to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, and gave a speech supporting those goals. Imagine a sitting member of a country's parliment appearing with an enemy who has a proxy army shooting rockets at you and supporting its goals. It's like a US Senator appearing with bin Laden in one of his videos. Sane people call that treason. Jew Haters call that proper.
How would it sound if Texas was invading and occupying Lousiana? Isnt this why we have a federal government? There is no justice in acting unilaterally, that is the same as Iraq acting unilaterally against Kuwait because they think Kuwait is stealing oil.
No, you ninny. The federal government isn't what keeps Texas from attacking Louisiana. As the Constitution says, the goal of the federal government is "to ensure a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." It's mostly for money and defending against enemies. Heck, considering there was this little thing called the Civil War, it sure didn't stop states from attacking each other.
To fix your completely broken example, it's more like what would the US do if there was a band of Mexican terrorists who thought that Texas should be Mexican territory and the Anglos should be driven out into the Gulf. These terrorists would launch rockets at Dallas and Houston and Galveston, blow up shopping malls and restaurants and children on Halloween, and the Mexican government would shrug its shoulders and blame the US government for the terrorist attacks.
Would Americans (a) As the UN to properly condemn Mexico or (b) invade Mexico? I figure that after about a week or so, a large portion of Northern Mexico would be pretty much cleared of terrorists. You see, Americans don't like being attacked, and don't much care what the rest of the world thinks. Why should Israel?
Heck, why use Mexico? Any American who isn't a full-blooded American Indian is a settler on someone else's land. The only reason every American city doesn't have American Indian terrorists planting car bombs and launching rocket attacks is that the US Army, with the willing help of American settlers, killed all the Indians they could, and forced the remainder onto shitty land, far away from American cities.
I know, the argument is that this all happened long ago, so it OK. The real answer is that stupid American liberals hold themselves blameless.
Right, and how easy it is for people to ignore that many Jew Zionist believe that even Palistine belongs to the Jews, and Jordan is the true Arab state. They claim stake to the land because it says so in their religion and because they lived their thousands of years prior to the arabs who "occupy" their land.
Ah, the "Jew Zionist." The surest sign of a Jew Hater is one who uses the word "Jew" as a pejorative. They also tend to interject absurd claims of Israeli "crimes" into completely off-topic conversations. Glad I could call you on it so easily. Sometimes you Jew Haters are harder to smoke out.
Anyway, back to topic. The last time "Palestine" was an independant country was when the Crusaders set up their states. Before that it was (shock of all shocks) when the Hasmonean dynasty of Jewish kings reigned. Do you konw the proper name for the West Bank (the name "West Bank" was invented in the 1950s)? It's Judea, i.e., the land of the Jews. Funny, that. "Palestine" is a name the Romans gave the place, referring to the Philistines. There is no relationship between the Philistines and the current residents of Palestine, despite Yasser Arafat's claims to the contrary (he also once claimed that Jesus wasn't a Jew, but a Palestinian, and that the Jewish Holy Temple in Jerusalem, described by several ancient sources (and whose sacking the Arch of Titus in Rome commemorates), never existed. Reliable man, that Yasser).
The current people calling themselves "Palestinians" are mainly immigrants from Egypt and Jordan who arrived about the same time as many Jews arrived from Europe. Heck, good old Yasser himself was born in Cairo.
Until the founding of the state of Israel, "Palestinians" referred to JEWS who lived in the land of Palestine. Now it refers to the Arabs who fled their homes at the request of the foolish leaders of the Arab countries that invaded Israel in 1948. After the Arabs lost the 1948 war, the same Arab leaders, who told the "Palestinians" to evacuate so the coming Arab armies could more efficiently exterminate Jews, just abandoned the refugees and now use them as a political device to refocus discontent against them in their own countries. Stupid saps (and Jew Haters looking for an excuse) have fallen for this trick for over 50 years. So are you a sap or a hate monger? Or both?
-jon
"The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development."
Didn't know about the Moslem/Muslim thing. I thought it was like po-tay-to/po-tah-to. Learn a new thing every day, I guess.
-jon
-jon
But virtually everyone who calls themselves an anarchist isn't thinking about Rouseau and Locke; they're thinking it'd be cool to blow shit up and steal stuff, and if they can get some rape in along the way, all the better. This is true with the morons protesting the WTO and it's true with this idiot. Giving them the status of political prisoners like many slashdot posters are is insulting to real political prisoners.
In short, this guy is a thug. Treat him how he wants to treat other people.
-jon
No, I'm a realist. I am stating a historical fact: might makes right. Some people have rephrased this to "God fights on the side of heavy artillery." If you think I'm wrong cite ONE counter example.
I'm not an anarchist. I agree to the rule of law established by my country, as long as it obeys its social contract. I am not making bombs and intending to force my political positions thorugh violence.
I don't have to like the fact that might makes right to acknowledge that it is true. But people who think that wishing something makes it true are called crazy.
Shouting aside, that's just not true. The US made no such appeal to the UN charter.
Wrong. The US has invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename= article&node=&contentId=A28565-2001Oct8 Sorry to inconvenience you with the truth.
your intellectual brethren in Al-quaeda use to support the killing of civilians.
People who tell others to rise up in violent revolt, provide descriptions of how to rise up in violent revolt, and are caught with instruments to engage in violent revolt aren't civilians. People working at trading bonds at Cantor Fitzgerald are. Learn the difference and stop trying to be clever. You aren't.
-jon