Poll

How many people believe that the American Indians would be justified in suicide bombing nuursing homes, restaurants, and elementary schools unless the USA made all the people of European heritage go back to Europe?


I bet 10-1 that there is only one person on the board in favor of such practices.

....don't forget terrorist-apologist racist Cyrus

Maybe the Palestinians should be allowed to open tax-free casinos anywhere on their lands (provided they truly renounce suicide bombing). Then they could offer the world free air travel including 3 free nights and scenic tours of the holy city of Jerusalem.


Then after a couple of decades they could offer buy Israel back.

Please show me where anyone on this forum has said they approve of suicide bombing.


Thank you.

Alger's posts justifying violence clearly state that 1.non-violence is not an acceptable form of civil protest, 2.Palestinian's are justified in any tactics that they use, 3. Groups such as Hamas and the Islamic Jihad are welcome to join with the PA, even theough they endorse suicide bombing.


The list goes on and on. Please learn to read and quit apologizing for an individual that clearly hates Jews and takes delight in their murder.

I don't remember where or when (oh yeah, it was during the WSOP) but I saw the rake in some Austrian casino was "20" in a 20-40 game. 20-40 what? Do they play in dollars over there? Is a big blind-sized rake even physically possible in a game that size, Mason?


Are they hiring dealers? /images/wink.gif


eLROY

No wonder you guys use phony names. I wouldn't want my kids to find out either.

Good way of putting it. People that are so ready to defend the palestinians only do so because they are not victims of their terror practices. If it hit home they would be quick to change their opinions.


Kris

Your children already know that you are a terrorist lover that is preparing them for martyrdom.


The above post is not in favor of genocide.

I have the utmost respect for American Indians and support Ghandi and King. I reject any religious zealot that teaches children that murder and suicide are supported by G-d.

. . .I would appreciate references to your points in Alger's posts.


Disagreeing with the policies of Israel does not mean that one hates Jews or delights in their murder. Many Jews in Israel criticize their government's policy when they feel it is wrong. The equation of criticism of Israel with anti-semitism is just plain wrong. As wrong as it is to accuse those who disagree with particular American government policies of anti-Americanism.


If you can show me where Mr. Alger said the things you say he said, I'll do my best to read them more carefully.

Dr. Wogga has clearly and explicitly come out in favor of genocide:


"We should nuke Iraq and Palestine because we don't need either country. The world will get along just swell without them."

i think it has hit home already.

Andy,


This nettlesome indvidual can't demonstrate any of his accusations, which he has made repeatedly using numerous pseudonyms. After a careful stylistic analysis, I've determined this is the 457th name the same poster has used.


Please, whoever you are, use one phony name; it's really sufficient to enable you to spew forth your bile for those who wish to read it.


John

I stand corrected. The post asking who is in favor of Native-Americans adopting the tactics of the Palestinians does not support genocide.


Alger is the only person on the board that thinks suicide bombing is ethical.

>Good way of putting it. People that are so ready >to defend the palestinians only do so because >they are not victims of their terror practices. >If it hit home they would be quick to change >their opinions.

>

>Kris


That's utter crap. Adherence to your principles and views on something shouldn't be affected by your personal benefit or demise. That's kind of like the ex hippies who became Republicans once they realized they were now rich capitalists instead of poor students.


No one on here is agreeing with the bombing of innocents. What people on here are saying is that Israel's policies towards Palestine can in many cases be equally (or more) murderous towards palestinian civilians, and yet very few peeps are heard about that in the US media.


Now let's say for the US government decided to kick a tribe of Native Americans off their reservation because they discovered there was oil on it. They were not given any compensation for the land and were immediately deported to Mexico. This particular group of Native Americans then decides to take up terroristic practices against US civilians, crossing the border late at night from Mexico. I would feel that their methods were misdirected, inhumane and utterly wrong, but that they had a legitimate beef with the US government regardless of their methods. I would feel this way even if they killed people who were close to me. Ok?

A decorated WWII veteran and a Jew.

And darn you too! Ya even made me spell racketeer wrong in my other posts. I'd copied your spelling, but wouldn'tchya know it, you yucky mafia guys can't spell cuz ya never went past the 4th grade. Ya got set up with yer dang table in the back of the restaurant at age 9 and just opened up for business selling yer darn rackets right off the bat. Aw, why am I, even talkin' to ya, ya darn crime man. Go racketeer around someone else's conversation. Dang!


Ray Sprungfield

I agree that personal experience shouldn't have anything to do with it. But my point is that some people will incorrectly change their viewpoint on something when it hits home. I have no ties to Israel, I'm not Jewish, I think religions are a wate of time, yet what the Israeli's are facing is repulsive actions by a group of terrorists. Why is it that so many bleeding hearts are so concerned with the rights of palestinians, yet they are in favor of "justice" being served to the creeps that attacked the WTC? Granted some of the truly wacked out liberals don't even care about dealing out justice to the terrorists responsible for the WTC attacks, but still, many of those whop do care, don't seem to give a sh!t that Israelis are being killed several days a month, and sometimes several times a week.


Kris

"Harold Katz" has to constantly re-type his alias into the name screen because he uses so many other aliases, resulting in posts identifying him variously as "Harold Katz" or sometimes just "Harold." Moreover, he started out as just "Harold," but RS apparently thought that his bigoted diatribes would look more authentic if the source appeared to be Jewish. And above you see he's decided to smear WWII vets as well. Identically with RS, "Harold" he's the only poster here who never offers real argument and constantly bombards everyone he doesn't like with sick insults, specializing in calling people "nazis." It's RS trying to create another identity to get around the ban on him. My guess is that, like so many other RS aliases, "Harold Katz" won't be here too long.


I mention this only in the hihgly unlikely chance that someone hasn't noticed the pathetically obvious.


No watch as he flames me with entire threads made up of nobody but himself.

1. The Western USA was Mexico within the last 150 years.

2. The USA was Indian land. They werre continually kicked off land for mineral resources.

The Black Hills in South Dakota wre sacred to the Lakota. Custer and his expeditionary force discovered gold, and Congress violated the treaty of 1868 and forced the sale of the Black Hills.

The Pine Ridge Reservation and the Rosebud Reservation were formed this way.

3. This is just one example.You obviously don't know anything about American Western History.

4. The USA slaughtered, imprisoned, and stole from every tribe. Read Bury My heart at Wounded Knee. That's just the first book to start with.

5. Try to become politically educated before you pass yourself off as a know it all. You haven't done the least bit of background reading even in American History, let alone world events.

You are a paranoid outlaw, Chris. You must be drinking again. You've lost this debate. That's clear. You seem to think that the fact that you support radical Islam and the cold blooded murder of Jews and American citizens can be dismissed by accusing everyone of being me.


You are mistaken.

On you like sheet metal on a cobra. /images/angry.gif Uh... or something.

...and our sources tell us it's because we're wearing you down. Sorry Mr. Springfield, but we are on you. You cannot hide, SIR!

"Why is it that so many bleeding hearts are so concerned with the rights of palestinians, yet they are in favor of "justice" being served to the creeps that attacked the WTC?"


"Palestinians" didn't attack the WTC. Your statement would make as much sense if you substituted Iraqis or Irish for "palestinians."


"Granted some of the truly wacked out liberals don't even care about dealing out justice to the terrorists responsible for the WTC attacks...."


Name one.


"...but still, many of those whop do care, don't seem to give a sh!t that Israelis are being killed several days a month, and sometimes several times a week."


Name one. No, don't bother because it isn't possible. No one in the U.S. government, the national media or on this forum (certainly not me) that has addressed Palestinian suicide bombings has failed to express remorse and outrage over these crimes. The mistake you're making, which is very common, racist and stupid, is to assume that anyone who accepts roughly equal national rights for Palestinians and Jews is a supporter or apologist for terror, or worse.


These disputes tend to be over (1) whether those that denounce only Palestinian, Islamic and non-U.S.-related terrorism are hypocrites for failing to denounce terrorism and other human rights abuses by the U.S. and it's clients, including Israel; (2) whether a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict is feasible right now; (3) whether all armed resistance to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza amounts to "terrorism;" and (4) whether all military actions by Israel to secure it's occupation amount to "retalliation" and "self-defense."

Well the names of some of these extremists aren't necessary, but let me give one example. I was watching one of those political shows on MSNBC or something like that, and one of these ultra liberal university people (this person wasn't a professor but somehow tied in with a prominent university) was presented with the question of "Do you think that the palestinians are justified in the murder of innocent civillians?" How did this one particular individual respond- He said "well, killing innocent people is certainly wrong, BUT blah blah blah". I have seen this from more then one of these whackos. They say yeah its bad BUT this or BUT that. Sorry but there are no buts to be used afterwards. Terrorists actions are reprehensible and that's the bottom line period. No if's and's or but's.

I saw some liberal creep on TV who was saying that we should "see things from the perspective of the terrorists and revue our own policies to see why we are making them so unhappy". He went on to say that we really do have lots of things that we need to fix in order to not upset them so much. So yeah do you really think this guy gives a hoot if terrorists are being brought to justice? I think not. I don't make this crap up, I hear some of the things that a tiny minority of people say and just point them out. I am not attacking liberals in general when I say these things.

Also I never said palestinians attacked the WTC. And finally I never said that these extremist views were held by anybody in gov't offices. Palestinians would deserve some sympathy if they werent rogue criminals who not only terrorize, but then dance in the streets at the demise of Americans and Jews. If you sympathize with these people then I don't know what to say.


Kris

You tend use the word "terrorism" very broadly.


It is wrong to EQUALLY condemn both sides in regards to their practice of "terrorism."


You say it is hypocritical to not condemn US and Israeli actions, but while certain US or Israeli actions should certainly be criticized or even possibly condemned, the fact that neither side is perfect does not mean that evil actions on one side are necessarily on a par with evil actions of the other side.


In the real world, we are constantly faced with choices that are imperfect. We frequently have to choose between the lesser of two evils in our daily lives, in our businesses and government, and in international affairs.


I get the feeling that you may not fully understand or accept this concept (based in part on your other posts as well).

4) whether all military actions by Israel to secure it's occupation amount to "retalliation" and "self-defense."


Retaliation and self-defense are two very different components to an attack.


The homicide bombers are targeting innocent people, hoping to use the outrage of non-military citizens in Israel at being constantly under attack to pressure Israel to come to the negotiating table. Who didn't know the political climate would be reduced to the current stalemate once Netanyahu and Sharon took turns in office? They have always been extreme hawks and have lived down to my expectations.


The Israeli occupation, under Netanyahu's and Sharon's leadership has left the Palestinians with absolutely no hope..and the world perfectly satisfied with the quid pro quo. When you have a whole people under occupation, borders continually redrawn to squeeze them out of even more land, no prospects that their dilemma is going to improve, the results are ugly. Homicide bombers glorified by their people as warriors sacrificing themselves for the Palestinian people. This distorted thinking is a result of people under seige without hope. Israel and the U.S. must acknowledge that the continued occupation of Palestine without any real chance of dialogue with the Palestinians is only going to foster more homicide bombings and the alienation of more countries that are absolutely crucial to the U.S. foreign policy. Netanyahu and Sharon spiraled the Middle East to it's darkest days. I only wish Shimon Peres would get the support he needs. He seems to be cognizant of the fact that escalated military action by the Israelis is not the answer to a lasting peace in the Middle East.

I agree that squeezing the Palestinians out of more land is not a long-term answer.


There is a relevant part of the picture which you fail to mention...and I don't purport to have the answer to it. Israel legally has a right to safe and secure borders. Even the Oslo accords affirmed this. However, in practice what has happened, historically speaking, is that Israel has always been attacked by Arabs who do not accept this (Arabs from other countries as well as militant Palestinian groups). Now this puts Israel in a bit of a pickle when it comes to maintaining safe and secure borders and a buffer zone to help ensure this (buffer zone is legally provided for too, as is Palestinians' guarantee of safe and secure borders). So the the whole situation is somewhat paradoxical. Israel has been attacked REGARDLESS of what it has done. Now, how to ensure safe and secure borders? How to ensure a buffer zone? If Israel were to relinquish the land it gained from Jordan etc. in the cease-fire agreements from previous wars, why in the world should Israel believe it wouldn't again be attacked by Arabs? And if Israel were to completely relinquish control of the occupied territories, why in the world would it not be attacked further by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, whose avowed aims are nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel and " the right of return" for Palestinians "from the river to the sea?"


So yes, I agree that continually squeezing the Palestinians will be counterproductive in the long-term. However, given the demonstrated proclivity of Palestinians and other Arabs to attack Israel regardless of what Israel does (and their propensity to flout legal agreements with Israel), just what is the solution? If the Palestinians could restrain their own fanatics, and if other Arab states did not pose a menace (while those states which attacked Israel years ago may have learned their lesson, the emerging threats of Iraq and Iran to use weapons of mass destruction on Israel in the near future cannot be dismissed), then perhaps Israel could smile and say, here's all your land (occupied territories) and here's the land you signed away to us to end the prior war(s). We believe you won't attack us so we'll all be good neighbors. But the history of the Arabs has been just the opposite. I believe Israel needs a buffer zone, and they are legally entitled to one.


My own idea for a solution is something along the lines of the Clinton proposal...with a Berli-type wall until the Palestinian militants have shown they have decided not to attack Israel anymore and to recognize Israel's right to exist.


In the meantime, the onlty think Israel can do is clamp down, I'm afraid...and build the electrified wall.

"You tend use the word "terrorism" very broadly."


No, I use it precisely: the deliberate application of lethal force against non-combatants to instill terror as a means to military-political ends. Trying to murder civilians, targeting or indiscriminate shelling civilian areas, arbitary killings of civilians, targeting medical personnel, shoot-to-kill curfew enforcement, and arbitary mass arrests followed by torture are all criminal terrorism in my book.


"'It is wrong to EQUALLY condemn both sides in regards to their practice of "terrorism.'"


Right. It is more important to condemn and try to prevent whatever terrorism one is responsible for. To condemn terrorism without regard to one's responsiblity is to pretend to be a disinterested observer, which in this context is absurd. But I don't have to get to this point because (1) Israel's refusal to acknowledge national rights for Palestinians or to seek diplomatic solutions while the Palestinians have been fervently seeking one makes Israel fundamentally responsible for all events, even those beyond its direct control (in the same sense that S. African apartheid was fundamentally responsible for ANC terrorism); (2) Israel has killed and injured more people through terrorism than the Palestinians, a fact that has remained constant for several decades, and will likely continue for many decades to come. (OTOH, Israel and the U.S. loudly insist they comply with humantiarian principles which are openly derided by Palestinian terrorists. In light of the evidence showing that the professions of the former can't be taken seriously, I can't attach much significance to this).


"We frequently have to choose between the lesser of two evils in our daily lives, in our businesses and government, and in international affairs.

I get the feeling that you may not fully understand or accept this concept...."


I think I've made it clear that IMO the "greater evil" in this case is U.S./Israeli intransigence, just as I thought that S. African intransigence was the greater evil in that conflict. Your notion of "choice" between bad and worse completely ignores the notion of responsibility. As a result, you loudly condemn terrorism about which you can do little while funding other terrorism on the spurious grounds that it's "less bad," proving that no condemnation of terrorism by you should be taken seriously.

"Retaliation and self-defense are two very different components to an attack."


I suppose they often are, but in this conflict you inevitably end up with a chick or the egg problem. This is not only because of the a priori evil of Israel's occupation, but because the media constantly reports Israel statements of "retalliation" at face value. Thus, an action might begin with homes being demolished. Palestinian militants lob mortars, and the media reports Israel's "retalliation," typically against defenseless civilians, without mentioning the original provocation. (This example is from an AP report discussed at electronicintifada.com, an excellent source that keeps getting better).


"The homicide bombers are targeting innocent people, hoping to use the outrage of non-military citizens in Israel at being constantly under attack to pressure Israel to come to the negotiating table."


This might be true but I doubt it. Decades of Palestinian violence (including terrorism and armed resistance) in the face of an overwhelming and ruthless adversary has been a spectacular failure achieved, whatever one thinks of the morality of it, at tremendous cost. Any violence is more likely to prevent negotiations than faciliate them. Palestinians that continue to advocate it are either deluding themselves or are hopelessly caught between the perceived need to "do something now," even if it's counterproductive in the long run, and the perceived absence of alternatives. As for the suicide bombers, it's hard to see how they care about accomplishing anything constructive.

"Israel legally has a right to safe and secure borders."


If this is a problem then why is Israel the only country in the region that refuses to declare it's borders? Countries that are concerned with "safe and secure" borders do this, aggressors that can't decide where they want to draw lines do not.

Chris, I don't disagree that we have some responsibility. But this is the real world, and we can't be sure that all our tax dollars go to precisely those causes we favor most, nor that those whom we suport are always blameless.


Your notion of responsibility and action may be too idealistic, I'm afraid. If we couldn't have battled the Nazis, or al-Qaeda, without some nasty "black-ops", some treading on liberties, and some smaller degrees of evil, it sounds like you might say we shouldn't fight them at all. But that isn't the case. Now, I know the Palestinians are not the Nazis, and I'm not trying to say they are. I'm simply trying to show that in the real world, we frequently can't fight evil without somehow doing or supporting some evil ourselves...the world is just messy like that, and I don't see that it will be fixed anytime soon in this regard.


So if the Palestinians are more evil in actions than the Israelis, yet the Israelis are somewhat evil, you are saying we should cut off support to whatever evil we can--in this case the Israelis. I say that's ridiculous, and we can't live like that, except maybe in Neverland or somewhere.


If you say the Israelis are more evil in action, that's another issue, and probably worthy of a debate in itself. However, the notion that we automatically can't or shouldn't support one side because they are less than blameless, or commit some wrongs, is inherently flawed. Even our justice system recognizes this fact when it comes to granting certain immunity to certain "nasties" in order to convict bigger, nastier fish. In the real world our allies won't always be perfect...and neither will we. But if we or they are fighting a nastier foe, then we have to make some allowances. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I do, and I think most of the world does.

I don't know about that, but I suspect it might have something to do with the fact that the neighboring Arabs have always attacked Israel.

I know of all the cases you speak about. I was just coming up with a *hypothetical* 2002 scenario.


Your personal attacks are starting to get very tiresome.


It's a shame, you seem to possess quite a bit of knowledge, but it seems like you can't figure out how to apply it appropriately.

Right, I'm sure it has little to do with the long-standing commitments of the major parties and their pre-state predecessors, to say nothing of the more fanatic zionist groups, to control Eretz Israel from river to sea. You get some idea of how much national security drives the occupation by the fact that since 1967, no Israeli government has offered to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza in return for ironclad security guaranties. To argue that Israel maintains the occupation for reasons of security is like South Africa's argument that it maintained apartheid for the same reasons, rather than some notion of racial supremacy.


The whole idea of exclusive concern of Israel's security is a canard. Even if true, proves little because invading and occupying potential adversaries always improves the "security" of the aggressor, but that never justifies occupation by itself. In other contexts the issue requires balancing one country's need for security against another's right to live free. With Israel, almost all the discussion focuses on Israel's security, and very little on the equally compelling right of Palestinians to govern themselves.


A noteworthy precedent: the Soviet Union often tried to justify its domination over Eastern Europe for reasons of national security, yet was universally (and justly) condemned by the West. The principle invoked was that the right of other nations to self-determination outweighs the right of any one country to airtight national security. Israel, on the other hand, is routinely excused from recognizing any right of independence for Palestinians simply by invoking "national security."


Further, "security" is a flimsy pretext given that (1) Israel is the only regional superpower; (2) Israeli citizens and soldiers are less secure as a result of the occupation; (3) the people under occupation would be relatively powerless even if granted independence; (4) the people under occupation have never massed armies to invade Israel; (5) all countries that have attacked Israel in the past have agreed to make permanent peace (following the example of two already) if the Palestinian question is resolved, and (6) Israel's invasion of the Sinai in 1956, of Lebanon in 1976 and 1982, and it's military forays into Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza indicate that it is as much, if not more, of a regional aggressor than it's neighbors.

CA: "(Israel's)...and it's military forays into Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza indicate that it is as much, if not more, of a regional aggressor than it's neighbors."


This a a tremendous distortion. The Arabs were massed to attack Israel, Nasser and the Syrian ruler were calling for a war of annihilation against Israel, and Israel clearly acted pre-emptively in self-defense.


The simple fact is, Arabs have always refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and have been willing to strike militarily when they have seen an opportunity...and it goes on yet today, with Hamas, etc., and Iraq's threats and Iran's looming nuclear threat. And any agreements Arabs have made with Israel, they have either broken or sought to break.

"This is a tremendous distortion. The Arabs were massed to attack Israel, Nasser and the Syrian ruler were calling for a war of annihilation against Israel, and Israel clearly acted pre-emptively in self-defense."


There was "massing" for an attack on Israel in 1956, no Egyptian or Syrian threat or calls for war against Israel prior to it's invasions of Lebanon in 1976 and 1982. The 1982 invasion of Lebanon was a straightforward act of unprovoked aggression by Israel in order to destroy Palestinian refugee society in Lebanon and the PLO, with more devastating results, both in terms of destruction and numbers of civilians slaughtered in cold blood, than anything the Arabs have inflicted on Israel either before or since.


"The simple fact is, Arabs have always refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and have been willing to strike militarily when they have seen an opportunity...and it goes on yet today, with Hamas, etc., and Iraq's threats and Iran's looming nuclear threat. And any agreements Arabs have made with Israel, they have either broken or sought to break."


The idea the Israel must keep Palestinians in bondage because of a threat from Iran or Iraq is too silly to respond to. None of the other fact statements mentioned here are true.

The fact that you are ignorant, and uninformed remains proven. That is not a personal attack. It is a fact.


You must be taking lessons in paranoia from your idol Alger.


Just because you are clearly wrong, does not make everyone Ray Springfield. Ray Springfield puts forth more logical opinions than the terrorist wanna be Alger, anyway.


Follow Alger, and your life will come to failure.

Don't make the mistake of youth by adopting opinions and behaviors which will follow you through your entire life. Just because you want to be a rebel, doesn't mean that you have to destroy your life's opportunity.

Alger must have been in an alcoholic blackout to not remember posting the following:

1. Any tactic used by the Palestinians is acceptable. The blame, per Alger, still resides with Israel.

2. The USA and Israel are terrorist nations.

3. The NY Times falsifies stories to support Israel.

4. brad should become a self made eunuch rather than adopt Judaism.

5. The PA targets only 33% civilians.

6. Only a few Palestinians danced in the streets after 9-11 (it was clearly thousands)


These are just a few examples of Alger's propaganda that still populates the board.


2+2 has made some of the archives unavailble.

Nevertheless, I have copies of most of them.

The post about circumcision I cut and pasted in an e-maiil to Chuck Weinstock as an example of blatant anti-Semitism. I have copies of Chuck Weinstock's response agreeing with me.


Probably Alger believes that Chuck Weinstock is part of the international Zionist Conspiracy.


Last year Alger claimed that referring to Albert Einstein as a "Jew Scientist" was not racist. He supported the position that the world would be a better place if Hitler had conquered Russia, and thus won WWII.


The man is flagrant anti-Semite.

What about the shelling of Israel from Lebanon? Wasn't that a pretty good reason to go in and stop it?


CA: "The idea the Israel must keep Palestinians in bondage because of a threat from Iran or Iraq is too silly to respond to."


I'm not saying the Israelis have to keep the Palestinians in bondage, and especially not for this reason. I am saying that the Arabs historically have not, and STILL have not accepted Israel's right to exist...and that goes for many Palestinian Arabs, too. Well, until they stop attacking Israel, they're going to get pounded. The Arabs can't win this argument; they can't do away with Israel; Israel is a country, and the sooner those backward feudal peoples accept this, the better it will be for everyone, including them. That's really what most of this boils down to: they don't accept the right of Israel to exist (and are willing to try to make their arguments by force). Well...all I can say is, that's the way it is.


The American Indians were stolen from, oppressed, slaughtered, much more than the Palestinians ever were. But the primary focus of their resistance was fighting the soldiers, not the white man's women and children. They weren't primarily terrorists. They had some honor and dignity...probably more than most of the white men, I'm afraid.


Strange how a people can be raped far worse than the Palestinians yet still have some honor.


The African slaves in America were oppressed and raped worst of all. Did they resort to terrorism? Hell no. They had some honor and decency too. Even after slavery was outlawed, they were gravely oppressed. Dis they resort to terrorism? No, they resisted peacefully and eventually succeeded. However if they had resorted to terrorism on a large scale I bet their equal rights would have been a lot longer in coming, and there would have been a lot more misery along the way.

...Ray, I was wondering if you could chime in on the Bruce Lee versus Mike Tyson debate. What's your view on that? You think Tyson would kick Bruce's butt, or would Bruce's speed and grappling ability be enough, even at 130 pounds, to beat the big guy?


While you're at it, we really would like your thoughts on those Zep covers as well. We're depsparate for your thoughts. Thanks! /images/biggrin.gif


Oh, and please feel free to start a new Tyson/Lee/Zep thread since this is getting down here a ways. Thanks again!

"What about the shelling of Israel from Lebanon? Wasn't that a pretty good reason to go in and stop it?"


"Shelling" did not precipitate the invasion, as the PLO had been observing a cease-fire at the time of the invasion. Nor could "shelling" have been the pretext for the wanton destruction of refugee society in Lebanon as the IDF and it's mercenaries marched from the Galilee to Beruit, killing thousands of civilians.


"The African slaves in America were oppressed and raped worst of all. Did they resort to terrorism? Hell no."


Of course they did, you never heard of Nat Turner? But how could terrorism in response to slavery make supporting slavery any less immoral, or justify any reluctance in condemning it?


"I am saying that the Arabs historically have not, and STILL have not accepted Israel's right to exist...and that goes for many Palestinian Arabs, too."


Again with the double standard. The Palestinians have long recognized the right of Israel to remain sovereign within secure borders. Israel refuses to reciprocate. But you blame the Palestinians because many of them refuse to grant Israel what Israel refuses to give any of them: moral legitimacy, even after Israel has confiscated Palestinian land and generated hundreds of thousands of refugees. It's incredible hypocrisy.

No the Palestinians HAVE NOT recognized that right. What they say and print, versus what they DO, are two entirely different matters. Hamas has VOWED to destroy Israel and accept nothing less than the right of full return. And the Palestinians grant legitimacy to Hamas and cheer when it sends suicide bombers on successful missions. So the Palestinians simply HAVE NOT DONE as you claim they have done.


As for the double standard you bring up: OK, you are correct, there is some double standard at work here. But I wonder if there would have been all these problems if the Arabs (Palestinians included) had not consistently attacked Israel. In other words if they had simply left Israel alone, Israel would not have felt the (very understandable) need to establish wider buffer zones. And the problem is not just the history of the whole thing; it's that Israel cannot now take the Palestinians and Arabs at their word when it comes to recognizing secure borders. Their past actions have proven this. So we have a pragmatic problem.


On another note, between the Israelis on one side, and their brother Arabs on the other side (who also appropriated significant parcels of Palestinian land), the Palestinians have plainly gotten screwed.


I suggest you might want to put a bit of effort into arguing, and the Palestinians to put as much effort into getting, their land back from Jordan et al. So there is yet another double standard at work here it seems--we don't see the Palestinians attacking Jordan, or even demanding their land back from them.


As for the Nat Turner matter you mention regarding American slaves, it was not a widespread and organized movement...certainly not anything on a par with the Palestinian militant movements of today. Likewise there were also a few incidents of terrorism practiced by American Indians...but again, the breadth and scope of this was far more limited. I believe those peoples, as oppressed as they were, had on average better morals and less fanatic lunacy than today's Palestinians (again, on average). And I believe part of that is the fault of fundamentalist Islamic teachings.

On 7 August 2002, The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the military arm of Arafat's Fatah Organization, published in their official website a warning against any response whatsoever in favor of the Israeli security proposal. The warning sets out the position of the Al Aqsa Brigades concerning the Israeli security proposal, making clear that the only way to bring an end to the conflict is by continuing to carry out suicide bombings. The warning stressed that the suicide bombings will not cease until "the liberation of Palestine and the return of the refugees." "We are warning against once again accepting the offers of the enemy to our people, which will lead to the complication and contempt of the negotiations." "They will not escape punishment from our people, who are determined to continue the process of forestalling the achievement of any of the enemy's political goals." "Only recently, grave mistakes were made, including consenting to the arrest of the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the war heroes who killed the terrorist Rehav'am Ze'evi, as well as consenting to the exile of the fighters from the Church of the Nativity, on the claim that it would prevent harm." "We have examined our options and our path, and we have chosen the path of slaughter, by acts of Jihad, Istshahad (suicide) and resistance of every form, side-by-side with our brothers in the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and all the other Palestinian resistance groups, until the liberation of Palestine and the return of the refugees." "We call upon all those supporting the foreigners to remove themselves from our occupied land. For we shall strike at any time and place for victory or martyrdom, the eternal glory of the martyrs."