This is just like how Congressional spendthrifts screaming about "cutting social programs" when one particular program is slated for a 20% increase instead of a much higher pie-in-the-sky hypothetical increase. Well, since one proposed massive increase in spending is less than a much more massive proposed increase in spending, of COURSE the funding is being GUTTED!
"So we'll probably have use the backup plan of Israel 'bombing their WMD factories' or something"
Hmmm. Israel tried this against Saddam Hussein. They bombed his nuclear weapons factory. Saddam is at LEAST as much of a foam-at-the-mouth rabid dog as the Iranian dictators. What happened? Nothing, except for the effect of setting Saddam Hussein's plans to wage nuclear war back many years. It's hard to get Iran more mad-dog anyway. Israel has never lifted a finger against the place, and already the mad-dog dictators are firing up the ovens and getting the cattle-cars ready.
Can't get the idea of Roy Scheider using an Apple//GS (the true technology of the future!) out of my head, along with the damn spinning sand-covered pacman spaceship. Arthur C. Clarke surely would have been rolling in his grave over THAT movie if the damn old coot had died long ago like the other scifi grand masters.
I remember this one piece of software. At random, stark blue screens fill the desktop with ominous messages about illegalities and other such. Damn near jump out of my chair every time. Dire monsters with names like Bonzo Buddy and X-10 Camera crowd the screen, defying all attempts to get rid of them. Tens of thousands of virtual entities called "viruses" haunt you at every turn. Grisly scenarios like "shock the monkey and win a free iPod" are common. The more you play, the less secure you feel.
I don't play this game anymore. I'm not sure I even miss it, although it gave me the most frights I ever had on a computer. I ended up loading Red Hat Linux on the box, and the scary game software (with the innocuous name of "Windows ME"...made me think of the plant monster saying FEED ME!!!") does not seem to be Linux compatible, so I could not load it. Oh well, on to other things.
Has their been a transit strike yet? A situation where the entire transportation system is held hostage to the naked greed of a few transit "Workers"? A real nasty one happend in NYC around last Christmas. This is a true weakness of public transportation because it is so centralized.
Apple is not a PC manufacturer. Not yet, anyway The summary mistakenly implied that they were. If you have no idea of the difference between Mac's and PCs, then have fun using that software program on your Mac when the box says "PC only". "Personal computers" were never even mentioned. The term is different from what the acronym PC means.
The story's about Apple slumping along with the PC sales. (it's not just PC's). Without digging into the "Read more", its inclusion here almost implied that PC maker's sales were slumping vs Apple sales.
"The right to live does not contain the right to settle a neighboring country and bomb them when they get pissed"
From Day 1, the Palestinian government declared its goal of exterminating the Israelis. It invaded Israel and forced Israel to bomb and occupy: just like Japan forced a US retaliation. Unlike the Japanese, the Palestinians did not have the decency to call off their Final Solution and surrender, naturally resulting in a near-permanent occupation. Who in their right mind would give land away to a nation that has declared it wants to kill you off? After this, it is hard to blame Israel for settling the lands the Palestinians are all but giving away.
"nor does it contain the right to attack a neighboring country when they elect a government you don't like"
It does when that "government you don't like" declares anew its war (including the extermination goal) and attacks you first. When in fact this "attack" is a retaliation to get this country to cease attacking you.
"especially when you also bombed their previous government."
Perhaps if that previous government did not have its military attack Israel routinely.
It also, in case you're not clear where I'm standing, doesn't contain the right to blow up civilians with car bombs. Neither car bombs nor bombing runs on civilians in retalition for said bombs are acceptable behavior.
I agree. The Palestinian government should cease from its practice of purposefully hiding terrorists and military assets in civilian areas in order to force bombing runs in civilian areas.
"This is not entirely Israel's problem."
In fact, the problem is entirely created by Israel's enemies.
"and any objective observer would come to the conclusion they want this problem so they have an excuse to continue to their little war with Palestine, because they sure as hell aren't trying to stop it."
They've tried, many times. This includes numerous unilateral cease-fires (always broken when the Palestinian government blows up a bus or the like) or even large-scale land retreats. Time and again, hostilities die down, but then the Palestinians launch new attacks.
"Israel has all that and the ability to build a fucking wall and stay on their side of it, and, yet, they don't."
Any objective observer would see that the Palestinian government has found ways to engage in unprovoked aggression againsts Israel despite the wall. This includes when the Palestinian government decided to launch this conflagration by kidnapping an innocent man deep inside Israel.
"If anyone could stop this idiotic war, it's Israel, in less than a week, but they don't."
They should seek unconditional surrender by the aggressors this time. This time they might be going for it.
"Because they want to get rid of Palestine as much as Palestine wants to get rid of them."
Any objective observer would see that this is not the case. The occupation in fact was a situation forced by the invasions. Its continuation was forced by the fact that the Palestinian government never really gave up its goal of extermination. If Israel were left to its own devices, and there was NO unprovoked Palestinian aggression forcing occupation, the territory controlled by Israel would actually be a lot smaller than it is now. They've even tried to shrink it a few times (most recently the Gaza pullout), but are only rewarded with more aggression.
"We need to call all countries on their unacceptable behavior."
I agree, but there is nothing unacceptible about Israel striking back at those who attacked it from Gaza and Lebanon.
"That's false. Clinton's budgets produced 6 years of surplus, not just one. Look it up."
I did. Actually, all 8 Clinton years produced defecit. The debt increased. A lot. Here is just one of the references showing an ever-soaring debt line:
"And no... the total national debt was lower when he left office than when he came in. Once again, look it up."
Is your calculator upside down. Let's check it out: In 1992, the national debt was about 3.5 trillion. In 2000, it was about 5.5 trillion. Last time I checked, that was an increase.
"Yes... he raised taxes in 1993. Rush Limbaugh and others predicted that this would plummet the US into a depression."
Rush was wrong, but Clinton's policies did bring along a recession at the end of his administration.
"Rush even bet the DNC $1 million that all five major economic indicators would be worse one year after the 1993 omnibus bill."
I think you are more concerned with Limbaugh's lame prognostication than you are with cold hard national debt figures.
"He raised the tax rates on those making more than $200,000."
So? Does this make it good for the government to be greedy?
"Patently and provably false."
"He came into office with the government 6 trillion in debt, he left with the government less than 5 trillion in debt. You have it exactly backwards."
What the hell? Are you MIRROR IMAGING the national debt trend charts????
"The GAO, which is independent of the White House, recorded a surplus for the final six Clinton budgets... Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001."
They did not. For every single year, they spent more than they took in.
"George Bush's government has spent like a drunken sailor and plunged this country nearly two extra trillion in debt since he took office."
That puts him on track with what Bill Clinton did in all his years in office. Only Bush is doing it faster. What does that make Clinton? A moderately inebriated sailor???
"Clinton was the best thing (fiscally) to happen to this government in your lifetime"
Carter and Ford increased the debt a lot less than Clinton did.
No. I am just aware of the facts that when you add trillions to the debt, it means that the debt is trillions higher.
"and you were too blinded by your hatred of all things not GOP to realize it."
I have no partisan bias. I readily realize that Bush spending policy is worse than Clinton's (even if Bush's tax policy is more fair and sane and has resulted in record high IRS revenues). What blind hatred is causing you to re-label yearly Clinton budget defefits as surpluses?
Here's some more real-world data. Try not to mirror-image the GIF this time:
http://www.adrich.com/Opn2004/Oct04.2.gif
About Clinton:
1) He raised tax rates. Not only irresponsible, but downright greedy too. The government had plenty of money if it didn't waste it.
2) More important: he added more than one trillion to the national debt. It wasn't just 18 billion (the number you said). How is this responsible? He actively chose to sign way out-of-whack budgets during most of his years in office, and refused to sign the Balanced Budget Amendment.
3) He did not generate surplus. The books were cooked to make it look like he did in his last year, but the fact remains that he still wasted more money was coming in.
Nothing we can't solve by getting rid of our "unconditional support" of the rights of Israeli people to live, and thus satisfy the bloodlust for genocide by the mad-dogs in the Middle East, right? Get rid of the Jews, and we have no problems in that place?
"Those organizations only exist, or, at least, only were elected into political power because of the mismanagement of Bush."
Hamas, Hesbollah and the Iranian dictatorship existed prior to George W. Bush. Perhaps you can blame the older Bush or Reagan if you want. But the fact remains that they existed and two of them were in power prior to Bush. Hamas was recently elected, but if you look at it, this group has been engaging in attacks prior to and after their election. Prior to the recent election, Hamas was part of the Palestinian government, anyway, and was an active part prior to Bush.
"They didn't just magically spring into existence and power."
Especially not at the command of G. W. Bush.
"They are the result, not the problem."
They are the root of the problem.
"The problem is our unconditional support of Israel"
That is not a problem at all. It is not a "problem" to support the existence of a nation to the consternation of those who want to exterminate its people. The real problem lies with those who want to wipe out that nation.
"while they continually try to get rid of Palestine"
Nobody wants to get rid of Palestine. The Israelis would rather not be forced to invade and occupy by the constant unprovoked aggression that comes from the Palestinian territories.
"instead of trying to work with both sides"
One side wants to live in security. The other side wants to invade and exterminate the first side. Both are equal to you?
"our rhetoric about 'Axis of Evil'"
Those countries chose to put themself on the list.
"If you can tell the actual difference between what we're saying should happen to Iran, and what Iran says should happen to Israel, please tell me."
Only someone who knows nothing about foreign affairs thinks there is NO difference between what we want to happen in Iran (that they stop their nuclear weapons program) and what Iran wants for Israel (utter annihilation of an entire nation)
"which the Middle East figured out Bush was lying about before we did"
Bush, whatever his faults, told the truth about Iraq. I think the "lie" here is on your side. How many WMD have to be found before we can put to bed the old lie "Bush knew there were no WMD"? It seems that 500 shells is not enough, is it?
"and, what's more, doesn't believe we could be that stupid, because, after all, we didn't do anything about the lies and even reelected him."
It is not surprising since it turns out that the real lies came from Bush's opponents. I guess we did something about the lies: we kept the liars out of office.
"A good hard look at our policies in the Middle East and a realignment of our priorities could have happened"
Do you mean making new friends, and accepting compromise on the "Exterminate the Israelis" goal? No, if you look at our policies, they are probably the best option. That is, if you think genocide is a bad idea.
"Or, and this was the other options, we could just fixed Afghanistan and gotten out of the whole area. Not the best idea, but ignoring the Middle East has worked in the past."
This would have worked real well in WW2, just the same way.
"The neocons are trying..."
This explains a lot. You are enamored of a whacky conspiracy theory involving a group that is not even in power. Any time someone begins to babble about "neocons", you know they've lost it. As if your thinly-veiled antisemitism wasn't enough.
As long as you realize that retreat/isolationism isn't necessarily a solution and won't necessarily stop the "brutes". Remember the rail bombing in Spain? The main reason for it was that the Spanish, hundreds of years ago, repulsed Muslim invaders.
"This is in comparison to polytheists who were forced to either convert (if they were ever even given the option) or lose their heads. Also, compare this to the Christian treatment of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition."
This is a little better, actually, than what was faced by the considerably large Jewish population in what is now Saudi Arabia. They were pretty much ordered exterminated by Muhammad. Islam has the distinction of being just about the only major religion founded by a genocidal warlord, and many of its dictates reflect this. Imagine what it would have been like if Attilla the Hun or Ghingis Khan had decided to take a little time out to create a religion based on themselves. Most likely, similar results.
"This is in comparison to polytheists who were forced to either convert (if they were ever even given the option) or lose their heads. Also, compare this to the Christian treatment of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition."
I was considering mentioning this: that others were treated worse at this time. This does not change the fact that the treatment of non-Muslims demanded under Islamic law is inhuman and indefensible.
"and might in fact be detrimental since it serves as the focus of Muslim hatred."
The error is in thinking that appeasing bloodthirsty savage brutes would really change things. They already have a long list of targets for unreasoning hatred.
"(sorry if this comes across as unduly harsh, but sometimes a gangrenous limb needs to be amputated to save the body)"
And what happens next after we appease the demands of bloodthirsty brutes who demand that an entire nation be destroyed as a "diseased limb"? How many more nations do we destroy on their demands after this?
"Jews are people of the book according to Islam - they're to be treated with more respect than most other religions, actually."
During the height of the rule of Islamic law (middle ages), this meant that Jews in Muslim-occupied lands were forced to pay a special tax for being Jewish, forced to obey many laws of a religion they did not agree with, and they were also denied participation in government. It was a second-class citizen status very roughly equivalent to blacks in the Jim Crow south.
"Their problem is the Jewish occupation of Israel"
More specifically, they have a problem with anyone who lives in what they consider conquered Muslim land without being subject to Muslim law. This is coupled with old fashioned Islamic antisemitism and Arab imperialism/nationalism (the Arabs conquered this place and, by Allah, we won't be turned back!). It must be added, however, that it goes beyond this. Hamas, Hesbollah, and Iran consider Jews everywhere to be the enemy. Not just in Israel.
"The state of Israel is a symbolic crutch that isn't needed and will just cause problems for Judaism in the long term."
So, a nation "isn't needed". That sounds almost like a code word for justifying genocide against that nation.
"Far better to put Israel under a multinational mandate"
Under whose authority? The UN, which is well-known for a very long list of antisemitic mandates? The same UN that had an actual card-carrying Nazi (tm) lead it for a long time? Why not instead put the territories held by Hamas, Hesbollah, and Iran under such a punitive mandate? They are the ones causing the problem here.
How does a voter ID discriminate against black voters? Something like this is needed (to ensure that only authorized voters vote), considering the major voting fraud problem.
Remember what Congressional legislation did to toilets. Used to be toilets worked, but then Congress mandated "improvements" such that they did not flush anymore.
"Congress might have to talk about the fact that the Middle East is about to descend into chaos due to complete mismangement over the past five years"
There's a limit to how much you can blame Bush for the fact that Hamas, Hesbollah, and Iran will only be satisfied if the Jews are outright exterminated. There's not much room for negotiation and compromise with these players, and they are large players that can't be ignored. How do you compromise with someone who wants all Jews eliminated? Do you meet them half-way and agree to let them wipe only half out?
Slashdot Mirror
This is just like how Congressional spendthrifts screaming about "cutting social programs" when one particular program is slated for a 20% increase instead of a much higher pie-in-the-sky hypothetical increase. Well, since one proposed massive increase in spending is less than a much more massive proposed increase in spending, of COURSE the funding is being GUTTED!
"So we'll probably have use the backup plan of Israel 'bombing their WMD factories' or something"
Hmmm. Israel tried this against Saddam Hussein. They bombed his nuclear weapons factory. Saddam is at LEAST as much of a foam-at-the-mouth rabid dog as the Iranian dictators. What happened? Nothing, except for the effect of setting Saddam Hussein's plans to wage nuclear war back many years. It's hard to get Iran more mad-dog anyway. Israel has never lifted a finger against the place, and already the mad-dog dictators are firing up the ovens and getting the cattle-cars ready.
Can't get the idea of Roy Scheider using an Apple //GS (the true technology of the future!) out of my head, along with the damn spinning sand-covered pacman spaceship. Arthur C. Clarke surely would have been rolling in his grave over THAT movie if the damn old coot had died long ago like the other scifi grand masters.
I remember this one piece of software. At random, stark blue screens fill the desktop with ominous messages about illegalities and other such. Damn near jump out of my chair every time. Dire monsters with names like Bonzo Buddy and X-10 Camera crowd the screen, defying all attempts to get rid of them. Tens of thousands of virtual entities called "viruses" haunt you at every turn. Grisly scenarios like "shock the monkey and win a free iPod" are common. The more you play, the less secure you feel.
I don't play this game anymore. I'm not sure I even miss it, although it gave me the most frights I ever had on a computer. I ended up loading Red Hat Linux on the box, and the scary game software (with the innocuous name of "Windows ME"...made me think of the plant monster saying FEED ME!!!") does not seem to be Linux compatible, so I could not load it. Oh well, on to other things.
Has their been a transit strike yet? A situation where the entire transportation system is held hostage to the naked greed of a few transit "Workers"? A real nasty one happend in NYC around last Christmas. This is a true weakness of public transportation because it is so centralized.
Apple is not a PC manufacturer. Not yet, anyway The summary mistakenly implied that they were. If you have no idea of the difference between Mac's and PCs, then have fun using that software program on your Mac when the box says "PC only". "Personal computers" were never even mentioned. The term is different from what the acronym PC means.
The story's about Apple slumping along with the PC sales. (it's not just PC's). Without digging into the "Read more", its inclusion here almost implied that PC maker's sales were slumping vs Apple sales.
What is your point? Reword please? Not sure what you are getting at.
"The right to live does not contain the right to settle a neighboring country and bomb them when they get pissed"
From Day 1, the Palestinian government declared its goal of exterminating the Israelis. It invaded Israel and forced Israel to bomb and occupy: just like Japan forced a US retaliation. Unlike the Japanese, the Palestinians did not have the decency to call off their Final Solution and surrender, naturally resulting in a near-permanent occupation. Who in their right mind would give land away to a nation that has declared it wants to kill you off? After this, it is hard to blame Israel for settling the lands the Palestinians are all but giving away.
"nor does it contain the right to attack a neighboring country when they elect a government you don't like"
It does when that "government you don't like" declares anew its war (including the extermination goal) and attacks you first. When in fact this "attack" is a retaliation to get this country to cease attacking you.
"especially when you also bombed their previous government."
Perhaps if that previous government did not have its military attack Israel routinely.
It also, in case you're not clear where I'm standing, doesn't contain the right to blow up civilians with car bombs. Neither car bombs nor bombing runs on civilians in retalition for said bombs are acceptable behavior.
I agree. The Palestinian government should cease from its practice of purposefully hiding terrorists and military assets in civilian areas in order to force bombing runs in civilian areas.
"This is not entirely Israel's problem."
In fact, the problem is entirely created by Israel's enemies.
"and any objective observer would come to the conclusion they want this problem so they have an excuse to continue to their little war with Palestine, because they sure as hell aren't trying to stop it."
They've tried, many times. This includes numerous unilateral cease-fires (always broken when the Palestinian government blows up a bus or the like) or even large-scale land retreats. Time and again, hostilities die down, but then the Palestinians launch new attacks.
"Israel has all that and the ability to build a fucking wall and stay on their side of it, and, yet, they don't."
Any objective observer would see that the Palestinian government has found ways to engage in unprovoked aggression againsts Israel despite the wall. This includes when the Palestinian government decided to launch this conflagration by kidnapping an innocent man deep inside Israel.
"If anyone could stop this idiotic war, it's Israel, in less than a week, but they don't."
They should seek unconditional surrender by the aggressors this time. This time they might be going for it.
"Because they want to get rid of Palestine as much as Palestine wants to get rid of them."
Any objective observer would see that this is not the case. The occupation in fact was a situation forced by the invasions. Its continuation was forced by the fact that the Palestinian government never really gave up its goal of extermination. If Israel were left to its own devices, and there was NO unprovoked Palestinian aggression forcing occupation, the territory controlled by Israel would actually be a lot smaller than it is now. They've even tried to shrink it a few times (most recently the Gaza pullout), but are only rewarded with more aggression.
"We need to call all countries on their unacceptable behavior."
I agree, but there is nothing unacceptible about Israel striking back at those who attacked it from Gaza and Lebanon.
"That's false. Clinton's budgets produced 6 years of surplus, not just one. Look it up."
I did. Actually, all 8 Clinton years produced defecit. The debt increased. A lot. Here is just one of the references showing an ever-soaring debt line:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif
"And no... the total national debt was lower when he left office than when he came in. Once again, look it up."
Is your calculator upside down. Let's check it out: In 1992, the national debt was about 3.5 trillion. In 2000, it was about 5.5 trillion. Last time I checked, that was an increase.
"Yes... he raised taxes in 1993. Rush Limbaugh and others predicted that this would plummet the US into a depression."
Rush was wrong, but Clinton's policies did bring along a recession at the end of his administration.
"Rush even bet the DNC $1 million that all five major economic indicators would be worse one year after the 1993 omnibus bill."
I think you are more concerned with Limbaugh's lame prognostication than you are with cold hard national debt figures.
"He raised the tax rates on those making more than $200,000."
So? Does this make it good for the government to be greedy?
"Patently and provably false."
"He came into office with the government 6 trillion in debt, he left with the government less than 5 trillion in debt. You have it exactly backwards."
What the hell? Are you MIRROR IMAGING the national debt trend charts????
"The GAO, which is independent of the White House, recorded a surplus for the final six Clinton budgets... Fiscal Years 1996 through 2001."
They did not. For every single year, they spent more than they took in.
"George Bush's government has spent like a drunken sailor and plunged this country nearly two extra trillion in debt since he took office."
That puts him on track with what Bill Clinton did in all his years in office. Only Bush is doing it faster. What does that make Clinton? A moderately inebriated sailor???
"Clinton was the best thing (fiscally) to happen to this government in your lifetime"
Carter and Ford increased the debt a lot less than Clinton did.
No. I am just aware of the facts that when you add trillions to the debt, it means that the debt is trillions higher.
"and you were too blinded by your hatred of all things not GOP to realize it."
I have no partisan bias. I readily realize that Bush spending policy is worse than Clinton's (even if Bush's tax policy is more fair and sane and has resulted in record high IRS revenues). What blind hatred is causing you to re-label yearly Clinton budget defefits as surpluses? Here's some more real-world data. Try not to mirror-image the GIF this time: http://www.adrich.com/Opn2004/Oct04.2.gif
About Clinton:
1) He raised tax rates. Not only irresponsible, but downright greedy too. The government had plenty of money if it didn't waste it.
2) More important: he added more than one trillion to the national debt. It wasn't just 18 billion (the number you said). How is this responsible? He actively chose to sign way out-of-whack budgets during most of his years in office, and refused to sign the Balanced Budget Amendment.
3) He did not generate surplus. The books were cooked to make it look like he did in his last year, but the fact remains that he still wasted more money was coming in.
blast it, no way to flag you "friend" or mod you through the roof.
Does he vote No to everything, including tax cuts?
Nothing we can't solve by getting rid of our "unconditional support" of the rights of Israeli people to live, and thus satisfy the bloodlust for genocide by the mad-dogs in the Middle East, right? Get rid of the Jews, and we have no problems in that place?
"Those organizations only exist, or, at least, only were elected into political power because of the mismanagement of Bush."
Hamas, Hesbollah and the Iranian dictatorship existed prior to George W. Bush. Perhaps you can blame the older Bush or Reagan if you want. But the fact remains that they existed and two of them were in power prior to Bush. Hamas was recently elected, but if you look at it, this group has been engaging in attacks prior to and after their election. Prior to the recent election, Hamas was part of the Palestinian government, anyway, and was an active part prior to Bush.
"They didn't just magically spring into existence and power."
Especially not at the command of G. W. Bush.
"They are the result, not the problem."
They are the root of the problem.
"The problem is our unconditional support of Israel"
That is not a problem at all. It is not a "problem" to support the existence of a nation to the consternation of those who want to exterminate its people. The real problem lies with those who want to wipe out that nation.
"while they continually try to get rid of Palestine"
Nobody wants to get rid of Palestine. The Israelis would rather not be forced to invade and occupy by the constant unprovoked aggression that comes from the Palestinian territories.
"instead of trying to work with both sides"
One side wants to live in security. The other side wants to invade and exterminate the first side. Both are equal to you?
"our rhetoric about 'Axis of Evil'"
Those countries chose to put themself on the list.
"If you can tell the actual difference between what we're saying should happen to Iran, and what Iran says should happen to Israel, please tell me."
Only someone who knows nothing about foreign affairs thinks there is NO difference between what we want to happen in Iran (that they stop their nuclear weapons program) and what Iran wants for Israel (utter annihilation of an entire nation)
"which the Middle East figured out Bush was lying about before we did"
Bush, whatever his faults, told the truth about Iraq. I think the "lie" here is on your side. How many WMD have to be found before we can put to bed the old lie "Bush knew there were no WMD"? It seems that 500 shells is not enough, is it?
"and, what's more, doesn't believe we could be that stupid, because, after all, we didn't do anything about the lies and even reelected him."
It is not surprising since it turns out that the real lies came from Bush's opponents. I guess we did something about the lies: we kept the liars out of office.
"A good hard look at our policies in the Middle East and a realignment of our priorities could have happened"
Do you mean making new friends, and accepting compromise on the "Exterminate the Israelis" goal? No, if you look at our policies, they are probably the best option. That is, if you think genocide is a bad idea.
"Or, and this was the other options, we could just fixed Afghanistan and gotten out of the whole area. Not the best idea, but ignoring the Middle East has worked in the past."
This would have worked real well in WW2, just the same way.
"The neocons are trying..."
This explains a lot. You are enamored of a whacky conspiracy theory involving a group that is not even in power. Any time someone begins to babble about "neocons", you know they've lost it. As if your thinly-veiled antisemitism wasn't enough.
The terrorists did not mention this as the main reason.
As long as you realize that retreat/isolationism isn't necessarily a solution and won't necessarily stop the "brutes". Remember the rail bombing in Spain? The main reason for it was that the Spanish, hundreds of years ago, repulsed Muslim invaders.
"This is in comparison to polytheists who were forced to either convert (if they were ever even given the option) or lose their heads. Also, compare this to the Christian treatment of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition."
This is a little better, actually, than what was faced by the considerably large Jewish population in what is now Saudi Arabia. They were pretty much ordered exterminated by Muhammad. Islam has the distinction of being just about the only major religion founded by a genocidal warlord, and many of its dictates reflect this. Imagine what it would have been like if Attilla the Hun or Ghingis Khan had decided to take a little time out to create a religion based on themselves. Most likely, similar results.
"This is in comparison to polytheists who were forced to either convert (if they were ever even given the option) or lose their heads. Also, compare this to the Christian treatment of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition."
I was considering mentioning this: that others were treated worse at this time. This does not change the fact that the treatment of non-Muslims demanded under Islamic law is inhuman and indefensible.
"and might in fact be detrimental since it serves as the focus of Muslim hatred."
The error is in thinking that appeasing bloodthirsty savage brutes would really change things. They already have a long list of targets for unreasoning hatred.
"Why not just have the case lined with tin-foil or a thin metal sheet of some kind"
I just tuck the passport under my tinfoil beany. No need to craft an extra shield.
"(sorry if this comes across as unduly harsh, but sometimes a gangrenous limb needs to be amputated to save the body)"
And what happens next after we appease the demands of bloodthirsty brutes who demand that an entire nation be destroyed as a "diseased limb"? How many more nations do we destroy on their demands after this?
"Jews are people of the book according to Islam - they're to be treated with more respect than most other religions, actually."
During the height of the rule of Islamic law (middle ages), this meant that Jews in Muslim-occupied lands were forced to pay a special tax for being Jewish, forced to obey many laws of a religion they did not agree with, and they were also denied participation in government. It was a second-class citizen status very roughly equivalent to blacks in the Jim Crow south.
"Their problem is the Jewish occupation of Israel"
More specifically, they have a problem with anyone who lives in what they consider conquered Muslim land without being subject to Muslim law. This is coupled with old fashioned Islamic antisemitism and Arab imperialism/nationalism (the Arabs conquered this place and, by Allah, we won't be turned back!). It must be added, however, that it goes beyond this. Hamas, Hesbollah, and Iran consider Jews everywhere to be the enemy. Not just in Israel.
"The state of Israel is a symbolic crutch that isn't needed and will just cause problems for Judaism in the long term."
So, a nation "isn't needed". That sounds almost like a code word for justifying genocide against that nation.
"Far better to put Israel under a multinational mandate"
Under whose authority? The UN, which is well-known for a very long list of antisemitic mandates? The same UN that had an actual card-carrying Nazi (tm) lead it for a long time? Why not instead put the territories held by Hamas, Hesbollah, and Iran under such a punitive mandate? They are the ones causing the problem here.
How does a voter ID discriminate against black voters? Something like this is needed (to ensure that only authorized voters vote), considering the major voting fraud problem.
Remember what Congressional legislation did to toilets. Used to be toilets worked, but then Congress mandated "improvements" such that they did not flush anymore.
"Congress might have to talk about the fact that the Middle East is about to descend into chaos due to complete mismangement over the past five years"
There's a limit to how much you can blame Bush for the fact that Hamas, Hesbollah, and Iran will only be satisfied if the Jews are outright exterminated. There's not much room for negotiation and compromise with these players, and they are large players that can't be ignored. How do you compromise with someone who wants all Jews eliminated? Do you meet them half-way and agree to let them wipe only half out?