Friends of Chris, braad, and Cyrus

Two Israeli brothers from this settlement were shot to death by masked Palestinian gunmen this morning when they stepped out of their tanker truck to sell diesel fuel in a neighboring Palestinian village.


Later, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a falafel stand in Jerusalem, wounding five people, none seriously. It was the first such attack inside Jerusalem in more than a month, since back-to-back bombings killed 26 people and prompted Israel to begin its latest West Bank military offensive.

"It was the first such attack inside Jerusalem in more than a month,"


Hence the Gaza bombing.

Are you saying the Gaza bombing was the cause of those attacks? Justification for them?

What, the myriad attacks Yassin orchestrated before don't count or something?


Israel wasn't retaliating for the recent attack, but for all the attacks Yassin already held responsibility for. And Israel did manage to ensure at least one thing: he'll never again plot homicide attacks on innocent Israelis.


Good riddance. Don't you agree?

I may not have correctly understood your point above, Chris; hence my response may be irrelevant to what you were trying to say.


I still don't understand what you meant.

I'm not going to get into this much because it's the same tired argument: every time someone identifies some crime by Israel, the chauvinists trot out their favorite or more recent Palestinian atrocity and say: why don't you condemn this? How can you justify it? Where you when ...?" With one exception (not B-Man), I think the stupidity of these "arguments" is not lost on the readers of this forum.


Yeah, they got a bad guy, so good riddance. He'll probably be replaced by another of an endless supply of bad guys under circumstances suggesting that the govt. of Israel cares less about terrorism against its citizens compared to continuing it's 30-year policy of crushing the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians.

Note that the latest Israeli attack got indeed its intended target, a Hamas militant, while also causing the death of some dozen civilians, including small children.


M wrote


"...And Israel did manage to ensure at least one thing: he'll never again plot homicide attacks on innocent Israelis."


The old bastard from Georgia (not Jimmy Carter, you fool!) had these to say, when western humanist writers visiting him at the Kremlin politely pointed out that it's better to let 9 guilty men go free if it meant that 1 innocent would also go free :

"I'd rather have 9 innocent men shot if it means shooting 1 guilty man too".


What a legacy, huh?

The difference (which may be lost on some) is that it depends how terrible the evil person in question was/is.


If it had cost twelve innocent lives, or twelve thousand, to do away with Stalin or Hitler, it would have been a bargain by any account. To some (fools) even that price might have seemed unacceptable. Sheik Yassin was not a Hitler or Stalin (at least in terms of sheer weight of evil deeds committed). Yet he plotted and was responsible for the murders of more than 200 innocent Israelis. Had he lived longer, he very well might have managed to double that tally, or even more. So those who think twelve innocent lives was unquestionably too high a price to pay might wish to consider this.


At any rate it is not so simple as equating one life with one life in these cases, because we must factor future lives spared or lost into the equation--and you know that, Cyrus--I should think;-)


As for Stalinspeak, a million times good riddance and thank God he can't do anything now. Such monsters should sooner rather than later be laid to rest if they should ever surface again in this world.

"At any rate it is not so simple as equating one life with one life in these cases, because we must factor future lives spared or lost into the equation."


What that saying goes? The best intentions are laid waste in the best equations.


"The difference (which may be lost on some) is that it depends how terrible the evil person in question was/is."


Would you care to legislate that?


And, before you respond, I'll have you know that these four guys you beat last night at the tables, think you're evil.


"As for Stalinspeak, a million times good riddance [to the dead Hamas leader] and thank God he can't do anything now."


As to the women and children killed in the attack, I might have to revise my position. Who knows what kind of terrorists these children would grow up to be. Good riddance to them too.


...Stalin too was dismissive of foolish nonsense such as the Geneva Convention protocol. And his equation was never bettered. Quite a legacy.

Do you really think you are making RELEVANT sense with that "evil at the poker table" analogy, or are you just screwing around?


Do you agree that a 12 or 12000 lives cost to get rid of Stalin or Hitler would have been a bargain, or do you disagree? If you agree then you must acknowledge the validity of that point of my argument even if you aren't in agreement with the numbers regarding Sheik Yassin. If however you disagree that a relatively small number of lives would have been a bargain to get rid of Stalin or Hitler before they killed millions just say so. And then tell me how many lives YOU think it would have been worth to get rid of them before they butchered millions (or millions more). One thing's for sure: it isn't one-to-one.


Finally, for "Stalinspeak" in my sentence, where you substituted in parentheses "that dead Hamas leader" I had hoped the reader would instead substitute "Stalin." I was saying good riddance and thank God that Stalin is dead and can't do anything more.

I guess anyone who calls you out for what you really are advocating is stupid. I can live with that.


Its funny how you continually accuse me and others of having racist views, yet you are the one who continually blames terrorism on the victims. Yes Chris, there is a big contradiction between condemning terrorism and blaming Israel for its occurrence. Nothing Israel does justifies homicide bombings. When you stop trying to blame Israel for everthing that's gone on in the region, and stop writing posts which imply there was peace and calm before Israel stirred everything up by going after a terrorist, then I'll get off your case.

No, but there's an obvious connection. Did slavery in the U.S. cause violence? Obviously. Did it "cause" the murders of John Brown to a degree that John Brown bears no responsibility? No. Would pious and otherwise non-violent John Brown have killed people if it hadn't been for slavery? Probably not. (So asking if something is "the cause" of something else can be a tricky matter).


You can't discuss intelligently the causes of 9/11 outside its historic context. 9/11 wasn't committed people from random countries, but by people that obviously had extreme and sometimes specific grievances against U.S. mideast policy. Granted, these grievances of bin Laden and his gang are hard to take seriously because they're clouded in a lot of racist-religious claptrap with heavy emphasis on the celebration of murder.


The media and U.S. officials, however, tend to explain 9/11 in a particularly dangerous way: since U.S. policy by definition is a noble, often selfless endeavor, those with serious objections to it must "hate" freedom, democracy, progress and enterprise and other lofty concepts that we like to invoke when explaining what we do. There has even been a frankly totalitarian argument by the most extreme apologists for the U.S. (Charles Krauthamer and the neocons come to mind) that anyone who tries to explain 9/11 as a reaction to U.S. policy is arguing, in essence, the we "had it coming," and is therefore trying to justify terrorism. Consider the source and I think the agenda here is plain.


In addition to actual terrorists and their supporters, millions of people in the Middle East, including broad segments of the educated and secular classes, object strenuously to things like our blanket support for Israel's violations of international law, our propping up corrupt regimes in order to maintain access to oil and channel it's profits into the west, sanctions against Iraq and out tendency toward intervention. Regardless of one's politics, 9/11 makes listening to what these people have to say more rather less important, IMO.

Alger blames the Jews for Palestinan murder.


He has stated that the USA is a terrorist nation.


He told brad that if the choice was between circumcision and being Jewish that brad should keep chopping it off.


He has clearly stated that any murder of the Jews is a fight for liberation, while any killing of Palestinians is Jewish facism.


He has openly stated that the NY Times falsifies stories put ouut by the AP and UPI to make Israel look good.


If he didn't work for a 2+2 client, then he would be banned.

also the assumption is that we know exactly what happened on 911.


brad

Brad,


This is the second or third time I've seen you write this type of post. It seems you subscribe to a lot of conspiracy theories.


What do YOU think happened on 9/11? Are you suggesting that what has been reported is not true?


Similarly, on your post about the OKC bombing allegedly not being caused by fertilizer, what are you implying?

'He told brad that if the choice was between circumcision and being Jewish that brad should keep chopping it off. '


i took his advice and chopped off my right testicle to decrease the chance of having another 'right-winger', and help me become more middle of the road by giving me a 'leftist bent'.


brad aka 'one-nut brad'

'Similarly, on your post about the OKC bombing allegedly not being caused by fertilizer, what are you implying?'


well, when top experts say that its physically impossible for a fertilizer truck bomb to do the damage then you know that theres some kind of propaganda going on.


for example. did you know that in the first world trade center bombing the fbi had an informant in the group and and the fbi let the bombing go forward. probably you dont but it was in the New York Times.


now ill bet you just dont believe this. but, but, this is a verifiable fact (whether it was in the NYT or not.)


i can get you the exact day and page #, but i dont know it offhand. (kind of lame, i know.)


brad

Interestingly however, bin-Laden's chief gripe was that we had 5,000 infidels stationed in a remote corner of Saudi Arabia. That's a totally illegitimate complaint because not only did those infidels not do anything to him or to the Saudis, but our infidels almost surely saved the Saudis from being made into mincemeat by the Butcher of Baghdad. The Palestinian issue did not directly affect the Saudis (and indeed bin-Laden seemed to mention it almost as an afterthought after 9/11). And we haven't been propping up any horrid regimes in the most recent years either. In addition, when it comes to international law, Israel is merely occupying the lands given to it by Jordan and Egypt, legally, as part of the agreements to end the war--which is in full accord with international law. It may not be popular internationally, but it is legal (unless I'm sorely mistaken). So I say bin-Laden has no significant legitimate gripes at all--and certainly none that could in any way warrant an attack on US soil.

What are you implying happened on 9/11? In OKC?


I'm not sure what you say is actually a verifiable fact or not, but I'd be interested in seeing the evidence.

One could try to make a case that a revolt by the Palestinians is at least in part caused by Israeli actions. However there are key differences between a revolt and terrorism. Israel might be partially responsible for causing a Palestinian revolt, but it cannot be in the least responsible for causing Palestinian terrorism, because revolts or guerilla wars can and have happened without terrorism, without a deliberate emphasis on targeting the innocent.


It all comes down to choices, and while the Palestinians may have few choices, they have deliberately chosen to focus their attacks primarily on innocent civilian targets--this is their choice to embrace terrorism--in no way forced on them by the Israelis. They could have focused their suicide bombings primarily on military or political targets instead of on the innocent populace. Therefore Israeli actions are simply not responsible for Palestinian terrorism.

i dont know but im more than 95% sure the official version is at minimum an edited version.


but since OKC there were more bombs, then that means that it wasnt just a lone nut type thing.


i mean look at the anthrax thing. right away the news is plastered with a lone nut right wing responsible. (tom daschle comes on tv and says it was weapons grade anthrax (coated in bentonite (sp?) or something) and took a 50 million dollar lab minimum.) now the evidence points towards a government scientist working in a top weapons lab, but they dont pursue the investigation. also the notes implicating arab groups (obviously fakes). what is going on there?


if you listen to the alex jones show everyday for like 2 weeks youll get an overview and its fun to listen to. www.infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com)


www.m2ktalk.net (http://www.m2ktalk.net) for online listening.


brad

'while the Palestinians may have few choices, they'


well the average palestinian is just stuck in the middle with nowhere to go.

exactly but that is no excuse to murder innocents, or to cheer their murders

Where you been? Thanks allasame. Just when I needed proof for a couple of arguments.

http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=18062002-051845-8272r


heres a good example of how things really work (or dont work).


brad