"And why you think Iran's interaction with Lebanon is a useful thing to talk about here, I don't know. They left Lebanon"
Anyone who thinks that the branch of the Iranian war machine called Hesbollah has already "left Lebanon" has no qualifications to talk about middle-eastern issues.
"Oh, and before you mention this newest thing, the external wing of Hamas!=the PLO, and neither does Hesbollah."
However, both Hamas and the PLO have been the Palestinian government for a very long time. Even when Hamas was not in "top power", it was acting in a military capacity in (its war against Israeli civilians who ride busses, etc) with the approval of Fatah.
Hamas had no reason to kidnap innocent Israelis. They never have. Like with any war of aggression and extermination, there is really no justification. The military prisoners held by Israel were caught committing crimes. (Easy way for Palestinians to stay out of prison: just do the reasonable thing and NOT wake up and say "What a nice day. How can I kill or harm a Jewish person today?") As per any typical prisoner of war situation, prisoners of war get returned when the war is over. Hamas is still 100% dedicated to its unreasonable war of extermination against the Israelis: they have not decided to stop waging their war. If Hamas wants prisoners back, why doesn't it call off its war? Since what Israeli actions DO make sense, how could it do something insane like turn loose thousands of members of an army that are dedicated to slaughtering every Israeli civilian?
"But, no, everything Israel does is logical and makes sense"
By and large, yes. Their basic "live and let live, but if you attack us we will strike back" attitude makes sense. What does not make sense is the aggression by the Palestinian government. It only invites retaliation in the forms of bombs falling on Palestinian terrorist installations, closing of borders, loss of territory, and economic hardship. They would do well to look at what happend to Egypt. Egypt was once under the leadership of an Arab imperialist warlord named Nasser. Like many such warlords, exterminating Israelis was a "no brainer" to him. He attacked Israel. Israel fight back, and ended up holding the Sinai as a reasonable security buffer. Nasser's successor Sadat was a sane man, and gave up the bloodthirsty imperial dreams of his predecessor. He called off the one-sided aggression. Guess what? Israel left Egyptian territory. There was no longer a legitimate security reason for for them to be there. Now, imagine if the Palestinian government called off its aggression and gave Israel no reason to be in the occupied territories....
"because no one has died in Israel at the hands of the Iranian military?"
People in Israel have died before as the result of Hesbollah attacks. In the last few days, several more have died. As if it wasn't enough that Hesbollah was created and is funded and controlled and supplied by Iran: now they have found actual "from Iran" Iranian solders fighting in Hesbollah.
"the fact the US and Australia have never been at war..."
That's a entirely apples-and-oranges analogy, considering that from day one, the Iranian regime has declared its goal of wiping out the Israelis, and has devoted significant resources to this.
"do count that. Israel, UNPROVOKED, repeatedly invaded Palestine and conquered parts of it."
The repeated invasions have been "provoked" and justified. It is quite similar to the US vs Japan situation. The Japanese eventually had the decently to surrender, and we restored Japanese sovereignty. But, have no doubt, the US would still be trying to bomb Japan into submission if they kept "Pearl Harboring" us the way the Palestinian government keeps invading Israel and killing Israelis. Also, have no doubt that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory would have ended decades ago if the PLO/etc had called off their war of extermination (and thus given Israel no legitimate reason to have a military presence in the territories).
I agree with a lot of what you said this time. I'll not bring up the couple of parts that I disagree with: these exchanges can't go on forever, you know.
Last time I checked, someone modded + 2 Interesting could in now way be called a troll.
"Monopolists do not fix prices based on supply and demand."
Trying to change the subject? No monopolists are being discussed.
"let's leave murderers out of jail"
Get a grip. I guess it makes it easier for you to think if you call Bill Gates a murderer, however.
"Noooo, it is not the monopoly that gives them the chance...
With your changing of the subject to monopolists, I am wondering if your angry poorly-thought-out rant was intended as a reply in another news item.
"Just beacuse europeans prefer to be rich, not to have rich corporations..."
That one ranks rather low on the coherency-scale. I hope you eventually find the proper news item for your post and have better luck with it than you did here.
I said they were two different meanings. However, they do not contradict. It merely identifies two different groups which can abuse power. Too often, you get both working at the same time: the rich influencing government to act on their behalf with their money and at the same time government uses its power to enrich itself. The only way to reduce both problems, it would seem, to be to reduce the power and size of government itself.
"Our system of government is not an economic marketplace. It is a structured social agreement. It has accountability pre-baked-in,"
How much of an agreement is it when, if you refuse to participate in it, they might kill you for it? Government is much less accountable than the free market, also.
"allowing greater stratification between the social and economic classes."
So? Since when is this a problem? There is no need to create class warfare, and no need to structure government policy just to cut people down for being too successful.
"I thought the golden rule was those who has the gold makes the rules. There is a difference in meaning."
Your statement is also correct, and the meanings are different. Knowing both meanings, both wordings is important. It works both ways. "Those who have the gold make the rules" recognizes the reality that the rich use their influence to influence law and policy. "Those who make the rules get the gold" recognizes the reality that those in government use its unrivaled power to enrich and empower themselves. If you deny the reality of both, you aren't a civically-aware person and should really stay away from the voting booth or else you might cause some real damage.
"And that would be the end of MS's monopoly everywhere."
No need to end that which does not exist. I've searched high and low for a place where Microsoft is the only company that offers OS, "office software", etc. I have not found it yet. Such places might exist, but they are likely very rare. Everywhere else, there is no monopoly as long anyone can and will use Linux, *BSD, OS-X, OS-9, "Open Office", etc in large numbers.
Mod parent up! Like ANY typical government body, the EU is greedy and practices the golden rule quite frequently: those who make the rules get the gold. So, Microsoft pays out a little money and boosts prices (passing it on to the consumer) while the Euro bureacrats get richer. How does this help the computer users? Not at all. Imagine instead if they had punished Microsoft by forcing it in some way to be better to its consumers. Or imagine if they had forced Microsoft to pay this money DIRECTLY to computer users. Nope, never going to happen. The main interest of the EU is in enriching itself, not helping anyone. No way the victims of Microsoft, however they are defined, are going to see justice however it is defined.
"You said the founders of the USA were similar to "Muslim terrorists". Can you condemn the "Muslim terrorists" without also condemning them? "
Yes, I would condemn them equally, except one group is DEAD and we can't do anything about it other than spit on their graves. We can, however, do something about the Muslim terrorists who are rampaging across much of the world.
"to tell me who you thought had the moral high ground based upon your assumptions about the players."
Actually, I was basing this on the facts of the situation, not assumptions.
"but SOLDIERS on the other side are not?"
Israeli soldiers are not legitimate targets: there is no reason to engage in unjustified aggression against them.
" Don't you think those who have been on the receiving end of it consider that Israeli soldiers have been "engaging in violent atrocities" against them too?"
If they "consider" this, then they are considering something that is just not true. However, hateful myths about Jewish people abound in that area.
"Do you think this can be accomplished with warfare?"
Probably not. However, when Israel is attacked by those who want to exterminate them, the have the moral high ground when they strike back. If they decided to sit back and take it, millions of them would be exterminated in the wait while Islam reforms itself (if ever) into a decent religion.
"Palestinians are semites too"
Are you really that ignorant about the term antisemitic? Look it up.
" I would argue that the only sane way to end this madness is for each of us to reform our own prejudices"
Yeah, this really works. We can stand and sing and hold hands while the Jihadis knife us and bury is in mass graves.
"I'll use it both ways) is wrong, isn't it equally wrong to condemn somebody simply because they are Muslim or Iranian, for example?"
That is why I only condemn the Iranian dictatorship, not its people. As for Islam, it is true that there is a deep seated genocide and disrespect for the faiths of others (MOST Muslims I talk to want to exterminate the Israelis), but I know it is not universal in the faith. I have in fact met several Muslims who accept the rights of non-Muslims, but these are few and they often fear for their lives.
"For peace to work, everybody needs to reform, and the only people we can ever reform is our own selves."
In the real world, the "Why can't we just get along?" idea only works sometimes. The rest of the time, the peace lovers get moved over by the tanks. There are some people for whom this does NOT work. For example, let's consider Martin Luther King Jr. He did his work in an environment where there were enough people with real power who agreed with him. Imagine if he had done his work in mainland China instead. King and all of his followers would quickly be put in secret mass graves, and his message would be unheard. In the real world, not everybody reforms! Look at Mussolini. It required military action to stop him. Peaceful methods would have only let him kill and oppress a lot more. The military actions undeniably brought peace to Italy. If we only reform ourselves, we will never have peace. There are often many situations that require military action.
I did read your link. Nowhere does it say Congress can't do this, either. See for yourself. In fact, the ability for members of Congress to make "suggestions" is explicitly supported by the First Amendment.
I thought you were against violence and prejudice and hate and all that. Yet, you are here trying to make a case that Iran's open calls for genocide are not really that bad at all. You attempt to do this by translating one of the pro-genocide quotes into something that means that Iran is merely trying to get the nation it hates to merely vanish....as if trying to get a nation of people to "vanish" is not still genocidal and is somehow commendible!. I hardly find the demand that a nation of millions of people get "erased from the pages of time" to be less of a call for genocide. Ahmadinejad actuallhy has said thatt "Israel must be wiped off the map" at other times, as have the nation's other leaders ever since Muslim terrorists took over the nation in 1979. The official name of Iran ("Islamic Republic") itself is a declaration of war and oppression. What of the many people in Iran who are not Islamic? Including those who practice the indiginous religion of Iran? They are clearly not welcome in a Muslim terrosit nation.
Yes, we are being systematically lied to by those who for (whatever reason, even if it is not hatred of Jewish people) try to soft-pedal Iran's "We are going to use nuclear weapons to exterminate a nation" announcements of aggression.
If you want more factual quotes concerning Iran, visit this link:
http://www.memri.org/antisemitism.html It contains links to many quotes from the Iranian dictatorship detailing its demands for the elimination of a nation in many ways.
You will also find that the Iranian dictatorship is promoting the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", which is an ages-old staple of European antisemitism. The Iranian government is also teaching the tale that Jews like to eat Christian babies...yet another staple of old European antisemitism.
I did reply to your other message, in which you seem to think that brutality against Native Americans is bad, but brutality by Muslim imperialists is somehow OK. I take it that the statements of Jefferson-era Americans about the Indians "vanishing" from the continent that truly belonged to the whites are bad, but statements from the Iranian government about the indiginous people of Israel "vanishing" are quite alright! You did say before that "Like I talked about before, ignorance and prejudice and fear are very comfortable together." You yourself are quite comfortable with them as long as the haters are only trying to get ethnic groups / nations to merely "vanish".
"until Israel and the US couldn't stop Iran's nuclear arms development, back in 2003, at which point Israel started the threats, with the US joining in in 2005."
At least you admit that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. What you don't admit is the fact that the threats FROM IRAN started in 1979 (or even before?): the post-Revolutionary government has always supported the idea of wiping the Israelis off the map, and has provided much support to the "boots on the ground" (Hesbollah, Hamas, other terrorists) who are actually working to bring the Ayatollahs' "rational" dream to light. What happend in 2003 and 2005 was that Israel and the US started to react more strongly to Iran's stated aggression now that they knew the aggression would soon be carried out with nuclear bombs.
I referred to the gibbering madman of Iraq when I meant gibbering madmen of Iran. There are still gibbering madmen in Iraq, to be sure, but thanks to positive action, they are far fewer in number, aren't in power, and aren't openly preparing to start nuclear war like the ones in Iran are.
"What. The. Hell. Are you talking about? Iran hasn't ever occupied Israel"
"The area" we were discussing at the time was Lebanon. In 1982, Iran created the Hesbollah army to do its bidding. It has controlled and funded it ever since.
"because Iran and Israel have never been at war."
I'm glad you bring this up. It makes the gibbering madmen in Iraq and their Job One of extermination of the Israelis all the LESS rational. However, it denies the huge fact that the Hesbollah branch of the Iranian military has invaded Israel and killed many Israelis and Lebanese as well.
"You're asserting Israel has the cleanest motives in history"
It is as clean as it gets when you behave like Israel has, and only engaged in military action when forced to by unprovoked attacks by its enemies. There is indeed a big difference between one side saying "leave me alone and knock it off" and the other holding the consistent view of "Die!!!!!". For things to really change, Israel's neighbors need to do the humane thing and recognize the rights of Israelis to exist. The Palestinian government should have the decency to abandoned its grand plan for a complete pogrom/Final Solution and call off all attacks.
"And why you think Iran's interaction with Lebanon is a useful thing to talk about here, I don't know. They left Lebanon"
Not yet. Iran's military branch in south Lebanon happens to be making big headlines recently. They even started a major war a few days ago. Discussing Iran is "useful" at this point because their current headline-shattering bomb blitz against Israel puts the lie to your repeated false assertion that the gibbering madmen in Tehran are harmless and rational.
" and Iran is Snidely Whiplash"
You yourself admitted in a way that Iran has no logical reason to ramp up and wage nuclear war against Israel. If you want, I can bring up a long list of quotes from Iran's President and real leaders containing the most vile, antisemitic, and aggressive language you'd ever see. I'm not even sure you are a rational actor. In an earlier message, you defended Iran's actions in light of some sort of "Western conquest of the Middle East". If you have any ideas like that, you are either easily given in to paranoid delusions concerning things that are not happening, or Osama is paying you to lie about foreign affairs. Perhaps I should not have let slide your earlier thinly-veiled reference to the US as a "ZOG".
"and how Iran hasn't, actually, ever done anything at all."
They've done plenty. Unless you think that bombing and killing Jews really doesn't count.
Perhaps you indeed are antisemitic, if you think that the "long term grievances" of the Palestinian terrorists (mainly, the one that the Israelis insist on living) are in any way legitimate. Since you were the first one to mention Nazis (Godwin's Law!), it is probably an appropriate time to mention that the PLO's political forebears were actually allied with Nazi Germany (research the Mufti of Jerusalem) and the writings of Hamas and those of the actual Nazis where Jews are concerned are really hard to distinguish. It is not surprising that discussion of actual Nazis comes into the conversation when one side in the conversation is defending extreme, blatant, antisemitism as a justifiable "greivance".
Thousands of innocent people have died in Lebanon and Israel at the hands of the Iranian military occupying in this area. I wonder what reason you have to lie about this? It is also interesting that you soft-pedal the Iranian president's open and frequent demand for the annihilation of Israel as him merely claiming it is an "illegal nation". As if this is much better: since when are people "illegal" merely for living free in their own nation? Considering the Iranian justice system, the Iranian president's mild claim that Israelis are illegal probably means they want all Israelis to be executed, raped in prison, or have their hands cut off. Iran's threats really amount to "We've been punching you in the face for years. Now we're going to break your neck. Why? because you do not worship the Muslim god". Iran is only the most "rational actor" if you think it is rational for it to center its foreign policy around the proposed extermination of a nation of millions that has never really lifted a finger against it.
" Israel threw the first punch"
It is very rare to find instances of this happening.
"The PLO hasn't called for the destruction of Israel ever since it has actually been the government of Palestine."
The PLO has always called for the annihilation of the Jews. It has been recognized as the representative of the Palestinian people for decades. Even after the Oslo accords, Arafat went around stating that the PLO's imperialist demands for taking over Israel and wiping out its people had not changed. Divisions of the Palestinian government military (Al Aksa, Hamas) openly and frequently stated their goals of invading Israel and wiping out its people, and the Palestinian government launched attacks toward this end. The actions of the Palestinian government had not changed, either. There has hardly been a time they have not been sending soldiers into Israel to intentionally kill civilians. The map used by the Palestinian government also happens to show Palestinian land as including all of Israel. You're just completely, flat-out, wrong.
Yes, I'm one sided, I admit it. It is easy to be for such one-sided conflicts where one nation wants merely to live and others want to exterminate that nation's people for no reason. I side with Israel against those who invade it. Likewise, I think that Poland was in the right in the 1939 conflict with Germany. There is just no need for the aggression. Imagine if Hamas had called off its attacks, and recognized the rights of Israelis to live. Or if the government of Lebanon had not decided to start the very recent war by having one of its army invade Israel and abduct innocent people. Again and again, Israel gives the aggressors a chance to drop the whole matter. Again and again, the aggressors take this opportunity to start new violence. I am not really pro-Israel, any more than I am anti-genocide. There is not much "Balance" to be found with a side (Israel's enemies) whose main demand is the annihilation of an entire nation.
"Genocide in every sense of the word. They were slaughtered, their source of food, clothing, and shelter (buffalo) was slaughtered nearly to the point of extinction"
That makes the white invaders somewhat similar to the Muslim terrorists, actually, in being "bloodthirsty brutes".
"some soldiers were taken prisoner by men hoping to negotiate a swap for scores of civilian prisoners held by the other side."
You've overlooked that innocent people were kidnapped in order to free people who were imprisoned for engaging in violent atrocities. In return, the other side bombed military targets held by the government of the nation that ordered the kidnapping. Israel as always has the high moral ground. It just wants to be left alone, and cannot be blamed for striking back at the "bloodthirsty brutes" who want to exterminate them. Just like Geronimo and other Native Americans could not be blamed for fighting back against the white invaders. The only sane way to end this madness is for a reformation of Islam in which it drops the deep-rooted antisemitism.
Slashdot Mirror
"And why you think Iran's interaction with Lebanon is a useful thing to talk about here, I don't know. They left Lebanon"
Anyone who thinks that the branch of the Iranian war machine called Hesbollah has already "left Lebanon" has no qualifications to talk about middle-eastern issues.
This is just like those p2p (old Napster/etc) who download large numbers of music files but only get around to listening to a few of them.
"Oh, and before you mention this newest thing, the external wing of Hamas!=the PLO, and neither does Hesbollah."
However, both Hamas and the PLO have been the Palestinian government for a very long time. Even when Hamas was not in "top power", it was acting in a military capacity in (its war against Israeli civilians who ride busses, etc) with the approval of Fatah.
Hamas had no reason to kidnap innocent Israelis. They never have. Like with any war of aggression and extermination, there is really no justification. The military prisoners held by Israel were caught committing crimes. (Easy way for Palestinians to stay out of prison: just do the reasonable thing and NOT wake up and say "What a nice day. How can I kill or harm a Jewish person today?") As per any typical prisoner of war situation, prisoners of war get returned when the war is over. Hamas is still 100% dedicated to its unreasonable war of extermination against the Israelis: they have not decided to stop waging their war. If Hamas wants prisoners back, why doesn't it call off its war? Since what Israeli actions DO make sense, how could it do something insane like turn loose thousands of members of an army that are dedicated to slaughtering every Israeli civilian?
"But, no, everything Israel does is logical and makes sense"
By and large, yes. Their basic "live and let live, but if you attack us we will strike back" attitude makes sense. What does not make sense is the aggression by the Palestinian government. It only invites retaliation in the forms of bombs falling on Palestinian terrorist installations, closing of borders, loss of territory, and economic hardship. They would do well to look at what happend to Egypt. Egypt was once under the leadership of an Arab imperialist warlord named Nasser. Like many such warlords, exterminating Israelis was a "no brainer" to him. He attacked Israel. Israel fight back, and ended up holding the Sinai as a reasonable security buffer. Nasser's successor Sadat was a sane man, and gave up the bloodthirsty imperial dreams of his predecessor. He called off the one-sided aggression. Guess what? Israel left Egyptian territory. There was no longer a legitimate security reason for for them to be there. Now, imagine if the Palestinian government called off its aggression and gave Israel no reason to be in the occupied territories....
"because no one has died in Israel at the hands of the Iranian military?"
People in Israel have died before as the result of Hesbollah attacks. In the last few days, several more have died. As if it wasn't enough that Hesbollah was created and is funded and controlled and supplied by Iran: now they have found actual "from Iran" Iranian solders fighting in Hesbollah.
"the fact the US and Australia have never been at war..."
That's a entirely apples-and-oranges analogy, considering that from day one, the Iranian regime has declared its goal of wiping out the Israelis, and has devoted significant resources to this.
"do count that. Israel, UNPROVOKED, repeatedly invaded Palestine and conquered parts of it."
The repeated invasions have been "provoked" and justified. It is quite similar to the US vs Japan situation. The Japanese eventually had the decently to surrender, and we restored Japanese sovereignty. But, have no doubt, the US would still be trying to bomb Japan into submission if they kept "Pearl Harboring" us the way the Palestinian government keeps invading Israel and killing Israelis. Also, have no doubt that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory would have ended decades ago if the PLO/etc had called off their war of extermination (and thus given Israel no legitimate reason to have a military presence in the territories).
I agree with a lot of what you said this time. I'll not bring up the couple of parts that I disagree with: these exchanges can't go on forever, you know.
I know. I've had some dealings with Neelie Kroes' cousin Mike Kroes Offt.
"i see government trying to foster competition in the market. what do you see that i don't?"
There are already viable OS products being GIVEN AWAY that run plenty of software and are more stable.
Last time I checked, someone modded + 2 Interesting could in now way be called a troll.
"Monopolists do not fix prices based on supply and demand."
Trying to change the subject? No monopolists are being discussed.
"let's leave murderers out of jail"
Get a grip. I guess it makes it easier for you to think if you call Bill Gates a murderer, however.
"Noooo, it is not the monopoly that gives them the chance...
With your changing of the subject to monopolists, I am wondering if your angry poorly-thought-out rant was intended as a reply in another news item.
"Just beacuse europeans prefer to be rich, not to have rich corporations..."
That one ranks rather low on the coherency-scale. I hope you eventually find the proper news item for your post and have better luck with it than you did here.
"But those two sayings are contradictory"
I said they were two different meanings. However, they do not contradict. It merely identifies two different groups which can abuse power. Too often, you get both working at the same time: the rich influencing government to act on their behalf with their money and at the same time government uses its power to enrich itself. The only way to reduce both problems, it would seem, to be to reduce the power and size of government itself.
"Our system of government is not an economic marketplace. It is a structured social agreement. It has accountability pre-baked-in,"
How much of an agreement is it when, if you refuse to participate in it, they might kill you for it? Government is much less accountable than the free market, also.
"allowing greater stratification between the social and economic classes."
So? Since when is this a problem? There is no need to create class warfare, and no need to structure government policy just to cut people down for being too successful.
....and give him a hahmboogehr!
"I thought the golden rule was those who has the gold makes the rules. There is a difference in meaning."
Your statement is also correct, and the meanings are different. Knowing both meanings, both wordings is important. It works both ways. "Those who have the gold make the rules" recognizes the reality that the rich use their influence to influence law and policy. "Those who make the rules get the gold" recognizes the reality that those in government use its unrivaled power to enrich and empower themselves. If you deny the reality of both, you aren't a civically-aware person and should really stay away from the voting booth or else you might cause some real damage.
"And that would be the end of MS's monopoly everywhere."
No need to end that which does not exist. I've searched high and low for a place where Microsoft is the only company that offers OS, "office software", etc. I have not found it yet. Such places might exist, but they are likely very rare. Everywhere else, there is no monopoly as long anyone can and will use Linux, *BSD, OS-X, OS-9, "Open Office", etc in large numbers.
Mod parent up! Like ANY typical government body, the EU is greedy and practices the golden rule quite frequently: those who make the rules get the gold. So, Microsoft pays out a little money and boosts prices (passing it on to the consumer) while the Euro bureacrats get richer. How does this help the computer users? Not at all. Imagine instead if they had punished Microsoft by forcing it in some way to be better to its consumers. Or imagine if they had forced Microsoft to pay this money DIRECTLY to computer users. Nope, never going to happen. The main interest of the EU is in enriching itself, not helping anyone. No way the victims of Microsoft, however they are defined, are going to see justice however it is defined.
Where's the Natalie Portman Grits-pool Freestyle?
"You said the founders of the USA were similar to "Muslim terrorists". Can you condemn the "Muslim terrorists" without also condemning them? "
Yes, I would condemn them equally, except one group is DEAD and we can't do anything about it other than spit on their graves. We can, however, do something about the Muslim terrorists who are rampaging across much of the world.
"to tell me who you thought had the moral high ground based upon your assumptions about the players."
Actually, I was basing this on the facts of the situation, not assumptions.
"but SOLDIERS on the other side are not?"
Israeli soldiers are not legitimate targets: there is no reason to engage in unjustified aggression against them.
" Don't you think those who have been on the receiving end of it consider that Israeli soldiers have been "engaging in violent atrocities" against them too?"
If they "consider" this, then they are considering something that is just not true. However, hateful myths about Jewish people abound in that area.
"Do you think this can be accomplished with warfare?"
Probably not. However, when Israel is attacked by those who want to exterminate them, the have the moral high ground when they strike back. If they decided to sit back and take it, millions of them would be exterminated in the wait while Islam reforms itself (if ever) into a decent religion.
"Palestinians are semites too"
Are you really that ignorant about the term antisemitic? Look it up.
" I would argue that the only sane way to end this madness is for each of us to reform our own prejudices"
Yeah, this really works. We can stand and sing and hold hands while the Jihadis knife us and bury is in mass graves.
"I'll use it both ways) is wrong, isn't it equally wrong to condemn somebody simply because they are Muslim or Iranian, for example?"
That is why I only condemn the Iranian dictatorship, not its people. As for Islam, it is true that there is a deep seated genocide and disrespect for the faiths of others (MOST Muslims I talk to want to exterminate the Israelis), but I know it is not universal in the faith. I have in fact met several Muslims who accept the rights of non-Muslims, but these are few and they often fear for their lives.
"For peace to work, everybody needs to reform, and the only people we can ever reform is our own selves."
In the real world, the "Why can't we just get along?" idea only works sometimes. The rest of the time, the peace lovers get moved over by the tanks. There are some people for whom this does NOT work. For example, let's consider Martin Luther King Jr. He did his work in an environment where there were enough people with real power who agreed with him. Imagine if he had done his work in mainland China instead. King and all of his followers would quickly be put in secret mass graves, and his message would be unheard. In the real world, not everybody reforms! Look at Mussolini. It required military action to stop him. Peaceful methods would have only let him kill and oppress a lot more. The military actions undeniably brought peace to Italy. If we only reform ourselves, we will never have peace. There are often many situations that require military action.
I did read your link. Nowhere does it say Congress can't do this, either. See for yourself. In fact, the ability for members of Congress to make "suggestions" is explicitly supported by the First Amendment.
Yes, we are being systematically lied to by those who for (whatever reason, even if it is not hatred of Jewish people) try to soft-pedal Iran's "We are going to use nuclear weapons to exterminate a nation" announcements of aggression.
If you want more factual quotes concerning Iran, visit this link: http://www.memri.org/antisemitism.html It contains links to many quotes from the Iranian dictatorship detailing its demands for the elimination of a nation in many ways. You will also find that the Iranian dictatorship is promoting the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", which is an ages-old staple of European antisemitism. The Iranian government is also teaching the tale that Jews like to eat Christian babies...yet another staple of old European antisemitism.
I did reply to your other message, in which you seem to think that brutality against Native Americans is bad, but brutality by Muslim imperialists is somehow OK. I take it that the statements of Jefferson-era Americans about the Indians "vanishing" from the continent that truly belonged to the whites are bad, but statements from the Iranian government about the indiginous people of Israel "vanishing" are quite alright! You did say before that "Like I talked about before, ignorance and prejudice and fear are very comfortable together." You yourself are quite comfortable with them as long as the haters are only trying to get ethnic groups / nations to merely "vanish".
"until Israel and the US couldn't stop Iran's nuclear arms development, back in 2003, at which point Israel started the threats, with the US joining in in 2005."
At least you admit that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. What you don't admit is the fact that the threats FROM IRAN started in 1979 (or even before?): the post-Revolutionary government has always supported the idea of wiping the Israelis off the map, and has provided much support to the "boots on the ground" (Hesbollah, Hamas, other terrorists) who are actually working to bring the Ayatollahs' "rational" dream to light. What happend in 2003 and 2005 was that Israel and the US started to react more strongly to Iran's stated aggression now that they knew the aggression would soon be carried out with nuclear bombs.
I referred to the gibbering madman of Iraq when I meant gibbering madmen of Iran. There are still gibbering madmen in Iraq, to be sure, but thanks to positive action, they are far fewer in number, aren't in power, and aren't openly preparing to start nuclear war like the ones in Iran are.
"What. The. Hell. Are you talking about? Iran hasn't ever occupied Israel"
"The area" we were discussing at the time was Lebanon. In 1982, Iran created the Hesbollah army to do its bidding. It has controlled and funded it ever since.
"because Iran and Israel have never been at war."
I'm glad you bring this up. It makes the gibbering madmen in Iraq and their Job One of extermination of the Israelis all the LESS rational. However, it denies the huge fact that the Hesbollah branch of the Iranian military has invaded Israel and killed many Israelis and Lebanese as well.
"You're asserting Israel has the cleanest motives in history"
It is as clean as it gets when you behave like Israel has, and only engaged in military action when forced to by unprovoked attacks by its enemies. There is indeed a big difference between one side saying "leave me alone and knock it off" and the other holding the consistent view of "Die!!!!!". For things to really change, Israel's neighbors need to do the humane thing and recognize the rights of Israelis to exist. The Palestinian government should have the decency to abandoned its grand plan for a complete pogrom/Final Solution and call off all attacks.
"And why you think Iran's interaction with Lebanon is a useful thing to talk about here, I don't know. They left Lebanon"
Not yet. Iran's military branch in south Lebanon happens to be making big headlines recently. They even started a major war a few days ago. Discussing Iran is "useful" at this point because their current headline-shattering bomb blitz against Israel puts the lie to your repeated false assertion that the gibbering madmen in Tehran are harmless and rational.
" and Iran is Snidely Whiplash"
You yourself admitted in a way that Iran has no logical reason to ramp up and wage nuclear war against Israel. If you want, I can bring up a long list of quotes from Iran's President and real leaders containing the most vile, antisemitic, and aggressive language you'd ever see. I'm not even sure you are a rational actor. In an earlier message, you defended Iran's actions in light of some sort of "Western conquest of the Middle East". If you have any ideas like that, you are either easily given in to paranoid delusions concerning things that are not happening, or Osama is paying you to lie about foreign affairs. Perhaps I should not have let slide your earlier thinly-veiled reference to the US as a "ZOG".
"and how Iran hasn't, actually, ever done anything at all."
They've done plenty. Unless you think that bombing and killing Jews really doesn't count.
Perhaps you indeed are antisemitic, if you think that the "long term grievances" of the Palestinian terrorists (mainly, the one that the Israelis insist on living) are in any way legitimate. Since you were the first one to mention Nazis (Godwin's Law!), it is probably an appropriate time to mention that the PLO's political forebears were actually allied with Nazi Germany (research the Mufti of Jerusalem) and the writings of Hamas and those of the actual Nazis where Jews are concerned are really hard to distinguish. It is not surprising that discussion of actual Nazis comes into the conversation when one side in the conversation is defending extreme, blatant, antisemitism as a justifiable "greivance".
Thousands of innocent people have died in Lebanon and Israel at the hands of the Iranian military occupying in this area. I wonder what reason you have to lie about this? It is also interesting that you soft-pedal the Iranian president's open and frequent demand for the annihilation of Israel as him merely claiming it is an "illegal nation". As if this is much better: since when are people "illegal" merely for living free in their own nation? Considering the Iranian justice system, the Iranian president's mild claim that Israelis are illegal probably means they want all Israelis to be executed, raped in prison, or have their hands cut off. Iran's threats really amount to "We've been punching you in the face for years. Now we're going to break your neck. Why? because you do not worship the Muslim god". Iran is only the most "rational actor" if you think it is rational for it to center its foreign policy around the proposed extermination of a nation of millions that has never really lifted a finger against it.
" Israel threw the first punch"
It is very rare to find instances of this happening.
So much to respond to:
"The PLO hasn't called for the destruction of Israel ever since it has actually been the government of Palestine."
The PLO has always called for the annihilation of the Jews. It has been recognized as the representative of the Palestinian people for decades. Even after the Oslo accords, Arafat went around stating that the PLO's imperialist demands for taking over Israel and wiping out its people had not changed. Divisions of the Palestinian government military (Al Aksa, Hamas) openly and frequently stated their goals of invading Israel and wiping out its people, and the Palestinian government launched attacks toward this end. The actions of the Palestinian government had not changed, either. There has hardly been a time they have not been sending soldiers into Israel to intentionally kill civilians. The map used by the Palestinian government also happens to show Palestinian land as including all of Israel. You're just completely, flat-out, wrong.
Yes, I'm one sided, I admit it. It is easy to be for such one-sided conflicts where one nation wants merely to live and others want to exterminate that nation's people for no reason. I side with Israel against those who invade it. Likewise, I think that Poland was in the right in the 1939 conflict with Germany. There is just no need for the aggression. Imagine if Hamas had called off its attacks, and recognized the rights of Israelis to live. Or if the government of Lebanon had not decided to start the very recent war by having one of its army invade Israel and abduct innocent people. Again and again, Israel gives the aggressors a chance to drop the whole matter. Again and again, the aggressors take this opportunity to start new violence. I am not really pro-Israel, any more than I am anti-genocide. There is not much "Balance" to be found with a side (Israel's enemies) whose main demand is the annihilation of an entire nation.
"Genocide in every sense of the word. They were slaughtered, their source of food, clothing, and shelter (buffalo) was slaughtered nearly to the point of extinction"
That makes the white invaders somewhat similar to the Muslim terrorists, actually, in being "bloodthirsty brutes".
"some soldiers were taken prisoner by men hoping to negotiate a swap for scores of civilian prisoners held by the other side."
You've overlooked that innocent people were kidnapped in order to free people who were imprisoned for engaging in violent atrocities. In return, the other side bombed military targets held by the government of the nation that ordered the kidnapping. Israel as always has the high moral ground. It just wants to be left alone, and cannot be blamed for striking back at the "bloodthirsty brutes" who want to exterminate them. Just like Geronimo and other Native Americans could not be blamed for fighting back against the white invaders. The only sane way to end this madness is for a reformation of Islam in which it drops the deep-rooted antisemitism.