anybody notice israel attacked syria? or syria about to start a war!

[brad]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ09Ak01.html

-about bush and neocons support for israel

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=35 77501

'
JERUSALEM/MADRID (Reuters) - Syria's ambassador to Spain said on Wednesday Damascus would respond militarily against Israel if the Jewish state carried out new attacks on Syrian territory.

A senior Israeli security source swiftly dismissed the threat, saying Israel did not want to escalate tensions and believed Syria did not want to start a war. The source said the envoy's statement was mainly intended to impress the Arab world.

But the comments increased tensions simmering since Israel carried out an air strike on Sunday on what it said was a training camp for Palestinian militants near Damascus, one day after a Palestinian suicide bombing killed 19 people in Israel.

Syria says the target was a civilian site and has said it has the right to defend itself.
...
'

so whos the terrorist state again?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4928.htm

'The minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said Israel should "incinerate Beirut and Damascus" in retaliation for resistance attacks in the West Bank.
'

relative of dem pres cand. heh.

whos terrorists again?

[Rushmore]

I'm starting a pool on how many minutes it will take for Gamblor, Chris, MMMMMMM, and Cyrus to ALL post replies to this post.

I've got everything between one and 59, just in case one of them was out to dinner or taking a bath or throwing the wife a shag.

[MMMMMM]

brad, Damascus houses many terrorist offices under the guise of "media offices." However Hamas et al have set up shop in and around Damascus with the blessing of the Assad regime. There are also terrorist training camps operating in Syria and Lebanon. Also, Hezbollah is supported by Syria and Iran.

Bombing of terrorist training camps is not terrorism, it is counter-terrorism. I know you don't like Israel but please try to recognize that there is a difference. You might as well call us terrorists for attacking al-Qaeda in Afghanistan if you are not going to differentiate.

Syria has not only sustained succor and location for known terrorist groups, it is allowing terrorists to cross from Syria into Iraq (or at least it is not being very good at stopping them). Yet Syria has quite an Army and could easily kick these terrorists out or arrest them if it so desired. It is not semi-helpless like the PA. Yet due to old ways and interests, Damascus is going down the wrong path.

Syria might be next. Assad better wake up and fast.

[MMMMMM]

Very good, Rushmore.

I was indeed out to dinner with my sister and returned perhaps ten minutes ago. So you get a bonus point for that. However don't put it past Cyrus to delay a bit on purpose just to be difficult and cross you up if he reads your post before responding to brad's. On the other hand now that I've said that if he reads my post he will be even more inclined to do the opposite just because I suggested it. But now he can't even do that because I suggested that too. Poor Cyrus, there is nothing for him to do I guess but wait for that Big Rock.

[Chris Alger]

I doubt it. After Sharon started targeted Hamas political leaders in earnest, those guys went underground. Now Israel has run out of targets while the White House is giving it heat for killing so many civilians, fearful that it will spin out of control like it did in March 2002, while the US is bogged down in Iraq.

More likely, Sharon's just flailing around, trying to prove he's unconstrained. One news report had the Haifa bomber as coming from an area known as "Little Tehran" because of PIJ concentration. If Sharon had a green light from the US, he'd have leveled it. Instead, he bombs a generator in Gaza (the same refugee camp where he personally helped massacre some 40 civilians back in '53) and an abandoned "training camp" in Syria used by picnickers (which might explain the "operational delay" of the mission).

Sharon's won. The PA is in tatters and the US is letting him carve up the occupied territories any way he wants. There's no point in going to war with Lebanon or Syria.

Sharon's also taking heat from his right flank over the prisoner exchanges negotiations with Hezbollah. Bombing an empty building in Syria shunts some of that criticism.

[Gamblor]

Instead, he bombs a generator in Gaza (the same refugee camp where he personally helped massacre some 40 civilians back in '53) and an abandoned "training camp" in Syria used by picnickers (which might explain the "operational delay" of the mission).

Why do you take the Palestinian/Syrian claim that it is a "generator" and not a bomb-making facility, or that the camp was "abandoned" as fact, but you systematically dismiss the Israeli claim that these are in fact terrorist strongholds?

Why did you divert attention from the issue at hand and instead feel the need to remind everyone, completely off topic that 40 civilians were killed? And you ignore, once again, that since the terrorists (even in Sharon's military heyday) hide out among civilians, it is often very difficult to discern which is which?

Of course, Palestinian accounts of the events in question (they lined up 1000 people and blindfolded them and made them lick each other's butts, and then did the chicken dance, then the Israelis shot them) are naturally 100% reliable, whereas Israeli accounts are 100% bullplop.

Correct?

All of this, despite the fact that Israeli media is free and Israel purports to run a relatively transparent democracy (whether it is for Jews only or otherwise I will not address), while the Palestinian media dissemination consists mainly of killing anyone who's account doesn't fit with the PA's goals.

Any parties interested in why Israel attacked Syria may find out here (http://nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200310070819.asp)

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why do you take the Palestinian/Syrian claim that it is a "generator" and not a bomb-making facility...."

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, you haven't the slightest clue. There were no media reports, not even in the Jerusalem Post, that Israel targeted a "bomb-making facility," and reports of it knocking out a generator were widespread and amply witnessed. Some examples of what you call a "Palestine/Syria claim": <ul type="square"> “Israeli helicopter gunships fired three missiles at Palestinian targets in el-Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip early on Sunday, witnesses said. One of the missiles struck an electricity generator, cutting off power to much of the central Gaza Strip. The two others plowed into a field, witnesses said.” Reuters (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&amp;storyID=3558511)

“Israel hit back early today, launching helicopter gunship strikes that damaged a militant's home in Gaza City and struck an electricity generator in el-Bureij refugee camp, cutting power to much of central Gaza.” Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&amp;c=Article&amp;cid=1065305419152&amp;call_pag eid=968332188854&amp;col=968350060724)

“In retaliation, Israeli helicopters fired three missiles at Palestinian targets in the el-Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip early today, witnesses said. One of the missiles struck an electricity generator, cutting off power to much of the central Gaza Strip.” New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/7314.htm) [/list] [ QUOTE ]
"since the terrorists (even in Sharon's military heyday) hide out among civilians, it is often very difficult to discern which is which?"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the usual self-justifying BS: Israel invades, occupies and colonizes areas where 3.5 civilians live. When they fight back, Israel justifies killing civlians on the grounds that its hard to tell them from the "terrorists." Therefore, killing civilians pursuant to in invasion that meets resistance -- The Warsaw ghetto, Vietnam, Hungary '56 -- is justified, because the "terrorists" "hide" among the civilians.

As for the "terrorist training camp," no source, including the National Review column you cite, offers any contemporary evidence that this camp is a "stronghold" of anything. The only evidence it offers is an unspecified "1997 report" of PFLP activity unrelated to suicide bombings which is fairly consistent with Syrian claims that the camp used to be a PLFP camp but has been abandoned for the last seven years. Of course, there's also no evidence that the PFLP or Syria had any connection to the Haifa bombing which purportedly inspired the "retalliation."

Claims that the camp was abandoned are also consistent with the absence of any evidence that the strike caused any casualties, or that a single human being lived there. "The Bush administration sought Sunday to distance itself from Israel's airstrike inside Syria, with senior officials saying the United States had no advance warning of the attack and no solid evidence that the target was in fact a terrorist training camp." NY Times, 10/5/3

[Gamblor]

One of the missiles struck an electricity generator, cutting off power to much of the central Gaza Strip. The two others plowed into a field, witnesses said.&amp;#8221;

witnesses said.

No mention of which side these witnesses were on. The other articles present this as fact as well. The lost power could easily be the result of blown power lines as a result of this attack.

How many IDF witnesses do you think the authors asked?

Therefore, killing civilians pursuant to in invasion that meets resistance -- The Warsaw ghetto, Vietnam, Hungary '56 -- is justified, because the "terrorists" "hide" among the civilians.

This is a sidebar and nothing more: I don't know about Vietnam or Hungary, but I don't recall any Warsaw ghetto Jews firing into German homes, cafes, and I certainly don't recall any Jews strapping any dynamite to their chests and filling the charges with nails and shrapnel to prolong the agony of those not quite close enough to be incinerated. Israel is not simply killing people who are defenseless - they are killing people who are killing Jews.

"If the Arabs put down their guns, there would be no war. If the Jews put down their guns, there would be no Israel"

[Chris Alger]

Has it even occurred to you that Israel hasn't even denied the witnessed accounts? And do you have any reports from anywhere supporting your claim that Israel targeted a "bomb-making factory," or is that one of the many lies you tend to make up when accusing others of "BS?"

"I don't know about Vietnam or Hungary...."

You don't know anything about anything.

[Gamblor]

You don't know anything about anything.

Mature.

And do you have any reports from anywhere supporting your claim that Israel targeted a "bomb-making factory,"

Your tired manipulation of my words and libellous accusations are amateur, at best.

Journalists may simply do not include Israeli denials because it doesn't fit into their interpretation of the conflict, and furthermore, the god-complex that comes with disseminating information to hungry masses allows them to pick and choose what they want people to believe.

Nowhere did I claim that this specific instance included a bomb-making facility. I merely included it as a possible alternative to generator.

Having written the LSAT, you ought to have done a few hundred questions that might have to do with "What is the role of this statement in the argument above?"

Ultimately, you suck.

[nicky g]

""If the Arabs put down their guns, there would be no war. If the Jews put down their guns, there would be no Israel" "

When the Arabs had their guns taken off them by the British, there was no Palestine. And when they put down their guns in Deir Yassin, Qibya, Sabra and Chatila, and 100 other places, there were no Palestinians shortly after.

[Gamblor]

When the Arabs had their guns taken off them by the British, there was no Palestine. And when they put down their guns in Deir Yassin, Qibya, Sabra and Chatila, and 100 other places, there were no Palestinians shortly after.

There was no Palestine because to accept Palestine meant that the Arabs would be forced to accept Israel. Which they refused to do, instead demanding the entire lands of the Mandate. When the refusal to accept Israel turned violent, then the guns were taken away.

Wait a minute, they got guns again...

How many times am I going to explain this to you? The reason those events happened is because the Palestinians with guns continued to demand the end of Israel. Do you really believe the Palestinians are poor helpless weak children while the big bad Israelis come in with their tanks and subjugate them?

Are you not open at all to the possibility that they have brought each and every catastrophe upon themselves by refusing to accept the existence of the State of Israel, they have called for and acted towards Israel's destruction, and demand that there can be no peace until the entire middle east is Arab/Muslim run/owned? That this attitude may have brought about measures by the Israelis to squash this sort of behaviour and "uprising"? Uprising yes - against the occupation of the entire land, not just the West Bank.

[Gamblor]

There is a lot of worry popping up in the media just now -- "Can Israel survive?" Don't worry about it. It relates to something that Palestinians, the Arabs, and perhaps most Americans don't realize -- the Jews are never going quietly again. Never. And if the world doesn't come to understand that millions of Arabs are going to die. It's as simple as that.

Throughout the history of the world, the most abused, kicked-around race of people have been the Jews. Not just the holocaust of World War II, but for thousands of years. They have truly been "The Chosen People" in a terrible and tragic sense.

The Bible story of Egypt's enslavement of the Jews is not just a story, it is history, if festooned with theological legend and heroic epics. In 70 AD the Romans, which had for a long time tolerated the Jews, even admired them as 'superior' to other vassals -- tired of their truculent demands for independence and decided on an early "Solution" to the Jewish problem. Jerusalem was sacked and reduced to near rubble, Jewish resistance was pursued and crushed by the implacable Roman War Machine. (see Masada) And thus began The Diaspora, the dispersal of Jews throughout the rest of the world. Their homeland destroyed, their culture crushed, they looked desperately for the few niches in a hostile world where they could be safe. That safety was fragile, and often subject to the whims of moody hosts. The words 'pogrom,' 'ghetto,' and 'anti-Semitism' come from this treatment of the first monotheistic people.

Throughout Europe changing times meant sometimes tolerance, sometimes even warmth for the Jews, but eventually it meant hostility, then malevolence. There is not a country in Europe or Western Asia that at one time or another has not decided to lash out against the children of Moses, sometimes by whim, sometimes by manipulation.

Winston Churchill calls Edward I one of England's very greatest kings. It was under his rule in the late 1200s that Wales and Cornwall were hammered into the British crown, and Scotland and Ireland were invaded and occupied. He was also the first European monarch to set up a really effective administrative bureaucracy, surveyed and censured his kingdom, established laws and political divisions. But he also embraced the Jews. Actually Edward didn't embrace Jews so much as he embraced their money. For the English Jews had acquired wealth -- understandable, because this people that could not own land or office, could not join most of the trades and professions, soon found out that money was a very good thing to accumulate. Much harder to take away than land or a store, was a hidden sock of gold and silver coins. Ever resourceful, Edward found a way -- he borrowed money from the Jews to finance imperial ambitions in Europe, especially France. The loans were almost certainly not made gladly, but how do you refuse your King? Especially when he is 'Edward the Hammer' Then, rather than pay back the debt, Edward simply expelled the Jews. Edward was especially inventive -- he did this twice. After a time, he invited the Jews back to their English homeland, borrowed more money, then expelled them again.

Most people do not know that Spain was one of the early entrants into The Renaissance. People from all over the world came to Spain in the late medieval period. All were welcome -- Arabs, Jews, and other Europeans. The University of Salamanca was one of the great centers of learning in the world -- scholars of all nations; all fields came to Salamanca to share their knowledge and their ideas. But in 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella, having driven the last of Moors from the Spanish Shield, were persuaded by the righteous fundamentalists of the time to announce "The Act of Purification." A series of steps were taken in which all Jews and Arabs and other non-Christians were expelled from the country, or would face the tools and the torches of The Inquisition. From this "cleansing" come the Sephardim Jews --- as opposed to the Ashkenazim of Eastern Europe.

In Eastern Europe, the sporadic violence and brutality against Jews are common knowledge. 'Fiddler' without the music and the folksy humor. At times of fury, no accommodation by the Jew was good enough; no profile low enough, no village poor enough or distant enough. From these come the near-steady flow of Jews to the United States. And despite the disdain of the Jews by most 'American' Americans, they came to grab the American Dream with both hands, and contributed everything from new ideas of enterprise in retail and entertainment to becoming some of our finest physicians and lawyers. The modern United States, in spite of itself, IS The United States in part because of its Jewish blood.

Then the Nazi Holocaust -- the corralling, sorting, orderly eradication of millions of the people of Moses. Not something that other realms in other times didn't try to do, by the way, the Germans were just more organized and had better murder technology.

I stood in the center of Dachau for an entire day, about 15 years ago, trying to comprehend how this could have happened. I had gone there on a side trip from Munich, vaguely curious about this Dachau. I soon became engulfed in the enormity of what had occurred there nestled in this middle and working class neighborhood. How could human beings do this to other human beings, hear their cries, their pleas, their terror, their pain, and continue without apparently even wincing? I no longer wonder. At some times, some places, ANY sect of the human race is capable of horrors against their fellow man, whether a member of the Waffen SS, a Serbian sniper, a Turkish policeman in 1920s Armenia, a Mississippi Klansman.

Because even in the United States not all was a Rose Garden. For a long time Jews had quotas in our universities and graduate schools. Only so many Jews could be in a medical or law school at one time. Jews were disparaged widely. I remember as a kid Jewish jokes told without a wince -- "Why do Jews have such big noses?"

Well, now the Jews have a homeland again. A place that is theirs. And that's the point. It doesn't matter how many times the United States and European powers try to rein in Israel, if it comes down to survival of its nation, its people, they will fight like no lioness has ever fought to save her cubs. They will fight with ferocity, a determination, and a skill, that will astound us. And many will die, mostly their attackers, I believe. If there were a macabre historical betting parlor, my money would be on the Israelis to be standing at the end. As we killed the kamikazes and the Wehrmacht Soldaten of World War II, so will the Israelis kill their suicidal attackers, until there are not enough to torment them. The irony goes unnoticed -- while we are hammering away to punish those who brought the horrors of last September here, we restrain the Israelis from the same retaliation. Not the same thing, of course -- We are We; they are they. While we mourn and seethe at September 11, we don't notice that Israel has a September 11 sometimes every day? We may not notice, but it doesn't make any difference. And it doesn't make any difference whether you are pro-Israeli or you think Israel is the bully of the Middle East.


If it comes to where a new holocaust looms -- with or without the concurrence of the United States and Europe -- Israel will lash out without pause or restraint at those who would try to annihilate their country.

The Jews will not go quietly again.

Edward Joe McCain, brother of Sen. John McCain

[brad]

nobody owes u anything cause youre a jew.

p.s. thanks israel 4 that sneak attack on USS Liberty.

[Chris Alger]

Why would anyone bothering reading this? It's another of hundreds of examples of trying to equate the cause of Palestinian nationalism with Nazism, of a Palestinian state with the holocaust. It's the way Israel protrays itself as a "victim state" while it holds 3.5 million people in bondage and keeps several million more in a diaspora cuased by ethnic cleansing.

For how many more generations are Palestinians supposed to live without basic human rights as a result of European crimes agaisnt the Jews? 20? 100?

Interesting that you think I'm a Nazi when you're the one who believes that Jewish bloodstock and culture gives Israelis rights superior to those of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, the "mere" Arabs as you call them. Gosh, where have we seen that kind of attitude before?

[Wake up CALL]

"For how many more generations are Palestinians supposed to live without basic human rights as a result of European crimes agaisnt the Jews? 20? 100?"

Until they suicide bomb themselves out of people. I believe that will happen much sooner than your projection of 20 generations. In fact I suggest we offer the Palestinians foreign aid in the form of gunpowder and really short fuses.

[nicky g]

The period when "all were welcome" - Chritians, Muslims, Jews - in Spain was under Islamic rule.

Noone doubts the terrible persecution of the Jews. The Palestinans should not, and should not have, had to make way for an exculsively Jewish homeland.

[Gamblor]

It's another of hundreds of examples of trying to equate the cause of Palestinian nationalism with Nazism, of a Palestinian state with the holocaust.

No, the cause of Palestinian nationalism and Jewish nationalism are mutually exclusive and thus, a Palestinian state means the end of the Jewish state. Or did all those maps the PA publishes not tell you anything?

It's the way Israel protrays itself as a "victim state" while it holds 3.5 million people in bondage and keeps several million more in a diaspora cuased by ethnic cleansing.

Its the way the Palestinians protray themselves as victims while they hold 5.5 million people in terror with the continued and unrelenting wave of bombings.

For how many more generations are Palestinians supposed to live without basic human rights as a result of European crimes agaisnt the Jews? 20? 100?

Zero. They are supposed to live without basic rights because they do not live as humans - when you support murder, you lose any right. Same as a criminal goes to jail. If they do not support murder, I suggest they speak to their government.

Interesting that you think I'm a Nazi when you're the one who believes that Jewish bloodstock and culture gives Israelis rights superior to those of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, the "mere" Arabs as you call them. Gosh, where have we seen that kind of attitude before?

I don't recall saying anything of the sort, and I suggest you stick to the facts. It has nothing to do with bloodstock and culture. I say that as the indigenous people to the land, the Jews do in fact have rights superior to the land. Classic false claim that Jews are not indigenous to the land. Are you now manufacturing history?

Furthermore, whatever potentially legitimate claim they may have had is now gone because of the turn to violence.

[Gamblor]

If they're so bent on blowing themselves up, wouldn't it be doing them a favour if we simply nuked the whole thing?

[MMMMMM]

Well the Arabs shouldn't have persecuted the Jews for so many centuries then, and 1/989 of the total Arab land mass is a relatively small amount to give up in order for those that they persecuted to have a safe haven. Granted it isn't fair to the Arabs who were living right there. Also, the Jews were living there historically longer than even the Arabs, if you go back far enough.

[nicky g]

"Well the Arabs shouldn't have persecuted the Jews for so many centuries then"

That's good. Because they didn;t.

"1/989 of the total Arab land mass is a relatively small amount to give up in order for those that they persecuted to have a safe haven"

100% of your house is a relatively large amount to give up for someone else's security.

"Also, the Jews were living there historically longer than even the Arabs, if you go back far enough"

I suggest we go back right to the start of history and give all the land of the world back to the dinosaurs.

[Chris Alger]

"Classic false claim that Jews are not indigenous to the land. Are you now manufacturing history."

How are Jews "indigenous" to the land in a way that Palestinians are not?

"Furthermore, whatever potentially legitimate claim they may have had is now gone because of the turn to violence."

Because, under your Master Race theory, only Israelis retain all rights after turning to violence. Arabs, OTOH, lose all rights. Indeed, if so much as a handful of Arabs resort to terrorism, no Arabs have any rights. Yet if the elected representatives of all Israelis commit mass violence, all Israelis still retain all rights.

[nicky g]

Chris you just don't listen. That's because Arabs are no-good liars, thieves, and murderers who never wash and shovel camel dung all day. Listen to Gamblor and you'll be alright.

[MMMMMM]

nicky, the Arabs most certainly did persecute the Jews over many centuries. Do a Google search on "arab persecution jews" if you want to get an idea.

[Gamblor]

How are Jews "indigenous" to the land in a way that Palestinians are not?

Because 3000 years ago, there were Jews there.
When the Jews were expelled shortly after Christ, the Arabs arrived.


Indeed, if so much as a handful of Arabs resort to terrorism, no Arabs have any rights. Yet if the elected representatives of all Israelis commit mass violence, all Israelis still retain all rights.

I don't recall saying that - once again you infer arguments that I don't make. Why is this like a big ugly LSAT question?

If the elected representatives are voted into power, they are permitted to act in a way that Israelis want them to act. Generally, Israelis can be lumped into a pro-violence category by virtue of this fact. But the question of which side initiates it, perpetuates it, and ultimately must bear responsibility for it is almost rhetorical.

Your bias and distortion of my statements, along with your sickening display of compassion and support for a people that continue to have no regard for human life is appalling. There is no incentive for an open democracy to intentionally kill civilians. What could it gain? International condemnation? How could a vibrant democracy possibly gain by intentionally and systematically murdering civilians?

[Gamblor]

100% of your house is a relatively large amount to give up for someone else's security.

So if I am arrested, and jailed unjustly (say, by the Roman police) away from my home, and you come along and say, "Oh, this looks nice", move in with your kids, take my livelihood (for oh, lets say about 1500 years), and after years of longing and dreaming, I finally come back, I am not permitted to kick you out onto the street?

Would you not go to the city council (for example, the UN), who is run by all your buddies (except for my one and only friend - who has a veto) and claim that the house is 100% yours? Would you settle for a bedroom? Would you not tell your kids that the entire house is yours? Would you not go by any means necessary, including killing me and my kids, to take the house back? And I realize this, and after killing my kids, I kill you, would I not be justified?

Cause about 3.5 million people think that they would do all these things, and about 5.5 million think I would be justified - considering they don't really have anywhere else 100% safe for them.

Or does this ring a bell?
Jews in Europe (http://www.geocities.com/bnaibrithisrael/europe.html)

[nicky g]

I have read enough Middle Eastern history to know that there was no long-standing systematic persecution of Jews "for centuries" in the Arab world. While there were certainly individual instances and periods of persecution, as happened between virtually any distinct communites that came together prior to the 20th century, and since, Jews and Christians were tolerated as peoples of the book. Toleration isn't enough but it's a hell of a lot better than non-Christians were getting in Christian countries. You can only judge by the standards of the time; for most of the past 1000 years, Jews were much better off in Arab rather than Christian lands. Furthermore Jews were not targeted any more than Christians or other religions (which weren't tolerated) were. It's worth pointing out that there were and are many, many Arab Jews - the distinction should be between Jews and Muslims. Jew and Christians were treated shabbily in Muslim countries compared to Muslims - they were not consitently persecuted, expelled or attacked, as they were in Christian countries. Jews were in no sense bottom of the pile.

Here's an article from a Sephardic Jewish site, which has no obvious political links or agenda (unlike the endless right-wing Zionist propaganda I get when I do your search) on Jews in Moorish Spain:

Jews in Moorish Spain (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2679/alandalu_english.htm)

"The Muslim invasion freed the Jews from Visigothic oppression and in certain cases they collaborated in guarding castles and cities. Arab rule brought a time of flowering for Spanish Jewry... It was a Golden Age for the Jews; they learned Arabic and built prosperous communities in Seville, Granada and Cordova, the capital. Under the Caliphate, the Jews were able to preserve their rites and traditions. Peaceful coexistence led to their economic and social flourishing. Bit by bit they began to acquire positions of importance in the Caliphate administration and also stood out as skilful craftsmen."

When the Caliphate fell and divided into several dozen small taifas, there was persecution of Jews and Christians in some of the Taifas. When Christian rule was restored, the Jews were expellecd.

[Gamblor]

Jews were much better off in Arab rather than Christian lands

True. Doesn't mean they were equal, or even safe.

unlike the endless right-wing Zionist propaganda I get when I do your search

WHY DO YOU DISMISS SOMETHING YOU DON'T AGREE WITH AS RIGHT-WING ZIONIST PROPAGANDA?

What criteria constitute a reputable source?

Why is anything written by Netanyahu, or anything Israeli for that matter propaganda, but the BBC isn't liberal British House of Commons Propaganda?

[nicky g]

"Because 3000 years ago, there were Jews there.
When the Jews were expelled shortly after Christ, the Arabs arrived. "

At least you'll admit this. I've read countless times absurd claims from Zionists that there were either no Arabs there when the Zionists arrived, or that they'd only emigrated there several years before the Zionists.

[nicky g]

"So if I am arrested, and jailed unjustly (say, by the Roman police) away from my home, and you come along and say, "Oh, this looks nice", move in with your kids, take my livelihood (for oh, lets say about 1500 years), and after years of longing and dreaming, I finally come back, I am not permitted to kick you out onto the street? "

I'd be impressd if you lived for 1500 years. The case you repesent is exactly that of the Palestinians - their houses were literally taken off them and moved into by the Zionists. Many still have the mandate title deeds, keys etc to the house. This is not the case with Jews - their ancestors were expelled 1500 years beforem, and there was very little left of their civilisation, property etc, left. That's not to say there should not have been any Jewish emigration to Palestine. But they had no right to ake Palestinian property - it was in no snese "theirs". I accept a Jewish presence in Palestine - I do not accept the approporation of other people's land, the houses they built, etc.

[nicky g]

"WHY DO YOU DISMISS SOMETHING YOU DON'T AGREE WITH AS RIGHT-WING ZIONIST PROPAGANDA?

What criteria constitute a reputable source?

Why is anything written by Netanyahu, or anything Israeli for that matter propaganda, but the BBC isn't liberal British House of Commons Propaganda"

Netanyahu is a right-wing Israeli politician. It's his job to disseminate right-wing Israeli propaganda. The BBC on the other hand is a news organisation with an obligation in its charter to impartiality. It's not run by TOny Blair or the House of Commons as some sort of Voice of Britain - indeed theBritish governement have been very critical of its reproting, as have many people.

The sites I was referring to (us-israel.org, www.netanyahu.org (http://www.netanyahu.org), worldnetdaily etc) are openly right-wing, pro-Israeli sources. They have political objectives. I do not believe that anything Israeli is propaganda.

[nicky g]

"Jews were much better off in Arab rather than Christian lands

True. Doesn't mean they were equal, or even safe."

They weren't equal; nor were any non-Muslims. In general, they were safe.

[Gamblor]

Netanyahu is a right-wing Israeli politician. It's his job to disseminate right-wing Israeli propaganda.

No, his job is to control the finances of the nation. As an aside, it is also his job, as a politician, to present facts as he sees them so as to gain support for his position. Which is not arrived at through arbitrary dice-rolling, but rather through having experienced all of the things an Israeli experiences.

The sites I was referring to (us-israel.org, www.netanyahu.org (http://www.netanyahu.org), worldnetdaily etc) are openly right-wing, pro-Israeli sources. They have political objectives. I do not believe that anything Israeli is propaganda.

Agreed.
Does that mean he doesn't believe, as do many others, what they write?
Assuming they write what they believe, does their political position make their beliefs any less true than anyone else's?
Are their political objectives are to show that what they believe is the truth?
Assuming I believe what they believe, having experienced Jenin, terrorism, Arab-Israeli interaction, etc. etc, can I not present their views as truth?

The BBC doesn't have political objectives? It's in the PLO Charter that they must destroy the "Zionist entity" (Israel). Is that going to happen? I don't think so, and neither is BBC impartiality - both because there are people in charge at respective stakeholding organizations that will not allow either event to happen.

[Gamblor]

Many still have the mandate title deeds, keys etc to the house. This is not the case with Jews - their ancestors were expelled 1500 years beforem, and there was very little left of their civilisation, property etc, left.

I don't doubt that this is the Arab claim. But the Arab claim to the land is relatively newer than the Jewish claim. I'm here to show that the Jewish claim is far older, far more just, and far more "fair".

The natives in Canada were here, this was their land. The Europeans come along, take everything over, and now we have a 135 year old nation on Native land. Iroquois, Blackfoot, Cree, Chippewa, Onondaga, Huron, it's all theirs. But now, nobody doubts Canada's claim to the land. Natives are herded onto reserves, 15 million are slaughtered, and basically live miserable lives sniffing gas and drinking (obviously a terrible and disgusting generalization - this does not speak for all natives, but natives do not succeed at the same rate as patriate Canadians). This is exactly what Israelis are trying to prevent. The Arabs have yelled and screamed long enough hoping that people will forget what really happened thousands of years ago.

Why can't the Arabs be absorbed into the other Arab states, instead of demanding a new Arab state?
I don't expect an answer because we obviously disagree.

But they had no right to ake Palestinian property - it was in no snese "theirs".

I'd be very impressed if you found title deeds, keys, etc. 1500 years old anywhere.

But that's the point. It was theirs - historical revisionists and especially the Islamists, claim no temple stood, that the Western Wall is manufactured, that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has been Muslim for all time.

After 4000 years, is King David suddenly a myth?
Is Joshua's entry to the Holy Land at Jericho, after 700 years of slavery a falsehood?

Can I be expected to hold onto my title deed from 1500 years ago when all of my belongings, my prayer books, my families have been taken from me while I'm in exile?

No nation has been kicked around as much as the Jews have - it is nearly impossible to maintain historical documents when you are constantly on the move, constantly being robbed of your possessions, constantly under threat of death. No matter where or how equal you think you are.

[MMMMMM]

So the 54,500 results Google turned up for "Arab Persecution of Jews" is, according to nickyg, "endless right-wing Zionist propaganda."

Also, "safe," when you have to pay most of your income on a poll tax applied to non-Muslims, is quite similar to the safety you have when you pay the Mafia "protection money." Not persecuted but protected...LOL.

[nicky g]

They beieve their position is the correct one. Most of them probably believe that most of what they say is true. Any political organisation is going to prevent a skewed version of the truth, however; usually not deliberately, but sometimes so.

"The BBC doesn't have political objectives?"

I don't believe so. It is not 100% impartial -it would be impossible to rid all its reporters of personal prejudices, and news isn't written in a vaccuum - but I beleive it's as impartial as a news organisation of its size can realistically be. I don't understand why the BBC would have an anti-Israeli agenda; how would it benefit from it? Why would an organisation run by figures from a generally pro-Israeli British establishment take an anti-Israeli line?

Despite your personal experience, you should really consider that much of the coverage that shows Israeli actions in a negative light might be accurate.

[nicky g]

Try not paying your taxes today and see how safe you are. That the tax was based on religious/ethnic grounds is wrong. That's about the height of it.

[nicky g]

I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying that the Jews had no right to return to Palestine; I beleive they did. But the "property" they left behind no longer existed, and hadn't for hundreds and hundreds of years. None of the houses, farms etc they appropriated origninally belonged to Jews; there were no houses or farms to take back. I can't believe you don't seriously see a distinction between a people who were expelled from a country nearly 2000 years ago and have since setteled in communities across the world, and a group of people who were expelled 50 years ago by a state still in existence, many of whom are still alive, and who are still living in refugee camps, have no rights, are stateless etc.

[Chris Alger]

Is there something magic about that 3,000 year number that makes Jews "indigenous" and Palestinians "not indigenous?" Why, in other words, are only Jews the only indigenous people, or at least the only indigenous people with, as you say, “superior rights to the land,” given that they are only one of perhaps a dozen groups that have dominated the same land dating back to the Natufians of 10,000 years B.C.?

[ QUOTE ]
ME: "Indeed, if so much as a handful of Arabs resort to terrorism, no Arabs have any rights. Yet if the elected representatives of all Israelis commit mass violence, all Israelis still retain all rights."

You: "I don't recall saying that - once again you infer arguments that I don't make. Why is this like a big ugly LSAT question?"

[/ QUOTE ]
And then you admit that "Generally, Israelis can be lumped into a pro-violence category by virtue of this fact [of Israeli democracy].” Yet these "pro-violence" people -- guilty of planting bombs in markets, massacering sleeping refugees, shooting civilians hiding from indiscriminate shelling and gunfire in their homes -- retain “superior rights to the land.” Palestinians, however, “are supposed to live without basic rights because they do not live as humans” because they “support murder,” although on a much smaller scale. On standard for the Jews, another for the Arabs, to the extreme degree of full rights for one (including the right to invade, occupy, kill), and no rights for the other (such as the right to vote, travel and work). That’s why you’re an anti-Arab racist and no more worth talking to than any other neo-nazi KKK-type moron.

[MMMMMM]

nicky it was more than wrong, it was a discriminatory tax and a very steep one at that, and as such was clearly a form of persecution, as well as a method of control and extortion.

Also don't think the Arabs did not slaughter Jews and Christians in some locales and time periods.

[nicky g]

It was certainly discriminatory. It changed from period to period and region to region; at times it was relatively high, at times it was relatively low. It was wrong, but a rather minor wrong in the grand scheme of things. In general, the Muslim rulers treated Christians and Jews extremely well compared to how they would have been treated if the situation was the other way round.

"Also don't think the Arabs did not slaughter Jews and Christians in some locales and time periods. "

There were Arab Christians and Jews. You mean Muslims. I am sure that happened occasionally, just as nearly every community has slaughtered members of every community it's come into contact with at one time or another. On the whole, they were safe, and in may instances prospered.

[Gamblor]

I can't believe you don't seriously see a distinction between a people who were expelled from a country nearly 2000 years ago and have since setteled in communities across the world, and a group of people who were expelled 50 years ago by a state still in existence, many of whom are still alive, and who are still living in refugee camps, have no rights, are stateless etc.

They were not expelled until they turned to violence.

Most of them are not alive.
Form a state, I don't care, give yourself all the rights in the world - but you don't get my state, and you don't get my holy land if you can't live peacefully.

I can assure you, that if there was no anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim world, if the Arab nations hadn't attempted at least 6 separate times to destroy Israel, and if Jews were really, truly accepted as equals all over the world, that there would be any need for an Israeli state.

[Gamblor]

[nicky g]

You are right. I should have said "if the Christians were ruling over the Muslims and Jews"

That said Israel does not treat its Muslim minority particularly well; they are certainly discriminated against. The expulsion of 700000 people is not genocide, but it's not good. There was at least as much Israeli on Palestinian violence in the run-up establishment of the Israeli state than vice-versa, and vastly more during the establishment. The Zionists never made it any secret that they did not want the Palestinians to stay, violent or not. That the Egyptian, Syrian etc army went to war with Israel does not mean tha that the native Arab population should have had to leave or be prevented from returning.

[Gamblor]

I don't understand why the BBC would have an anti-Israeli agenda; how would it benefit from it? Why would an organisation run by figures from a generally pro-Israeli British establishment take an anti-Israeli line?

The BBC itself has no agenda period.

But reporting doesn't come from organizations - it comes from reporters and editors. And the kind of ideology pervasive in the UK public is liberal.

The effect is simple: Israel is the big bad rich evil colonizers, and the Palestinians are poor, wretched, downtrodden, subjugated etc. etc. etc.

Combine that with the massive Arab population in the UK: even the BBC wants ratings - that's the editor's gain.

More often than not, anecdotal evidence in Arab towns is accepted as fact because there is nobody to deny it - other than the accused.

Criticism of Israel is acceptable, even if I don't agree with it. But the outright stupidity on the BBC

[nicky g]

"Combine that with the massive Arab population in the UK: even the BBC wants ratings - that's the editor's gain."

What? There is no massive Arab population in the UK. There are hardly any outside of West London. Perhaps you mean Muslim population (mainly Pakistani/Indian?)?

[nicky g]

"I can assure you, that if there was no anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim world, if the Arab nations hadn't attempted at least 6 separate times to destroy Israel, and if Jews were really, truly accepted as equals all over the world, that there would be any need for an Israeli state."

If there had have been no antisemtisim in Europe, there would have been no need. Zionism was an entirely European Jewish project. Up until the actual establishment of Israel and the conflicts that followed, there was very little interest in a Jewish state from Jews in the Middle East. Many were hostile to the idea.

[Gamblor]

First of all, Israeli Arabs/Muslims live better in Israel than any Arab country. They have more access to education, health care, and human rights than the rest of the Arab nations.

Israel is a scapegoat - it's the Eurasia, the Victory Gin, of 2003.

That the Egyptian, Syrian etc army went to war with Israel does not mean tha that the native Arab population should have had to leave or be prevented from returning.

95% of Arabs want you dead.
What do you do with the other 5%?

Racist? I don't think so.

If 10% wanted me dead, and I expelled them all, that's racist.

[nicky g]

"And the kind of ideology pervasive in the UK public is liberal."

You really know very little about the UK. "Liberal" isn't a term that has the same connotations here, but regardless, the popular press here is extremely right-wing. THe best selling papers are the Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Express, all of which are very right-wing and largely xenophobic. Of the 10 or so nationals, only 3 are left-leaning and the others sell vastly more copies proportionally. The British public is generally very conservative.

[nicky g]

"First of all, Israeli Arabs/Muslims live better in Israel than any Arab country. They have more access to education, health care, and human rights than the rest of the Arab nations."

They do not live as well as Israeli Jews. They pay the same taxes but receive less services; they are completely underrepresented in all professions; they aren't allowed to own, build or rent on a majority of the land. Their population has grown massively while the amount of land they have to live on has shrunk massively since 1948.


"95% of Arabs want you dead."
More arguing with a goldfish. In the most recent poll available, as I told you, the vast majority of Palestinians believed in either a 2-state solution or a binational state. They don't want Jews dead, they want the occupation to end and some sort of restoration of their rights. Many of them support suicide bombing as a tactic to get what they want, not because they want to kill all the Jews. Either way it's wrong but it's not the same thing. None of them were remotely interested in Jews before they lost their land.

[Gamblor]

If there had have been no antisemtisim in Europe, there would have been no need. Zionism was an entirely European Jewish project. Up until the actual establishment of Israel and the conflicts that followed, there was very little interest in a Jewish state from Jews in the Middle East.

Agreed. 100%.

Doesn't mean there is no need today.

Many were hostile to the idea.

Only the ultra-religious were hostile, and that was because they believed that only the Messiah could recreate the kingdom of the Hebrews.

[nicky g]

"Many were hostile to the idea.

Only the ultra-religious were hostile, and that was because they believed that only the Messiah could recreate the kingdom of the Hebrews."

No, many Jews in Arab countries were unhappy with Zionism because they believed it would upset the balance they'd achieved in their own countries. As it turned out, they were right. I've also read that there is some discrimination in Israel against "Oriental" Jews and that many of them were pressured/scaremongored into moving to Israel.

[Gamblor]

Apologize, that was an inference made through re-election of Labour party in 2001.

[Gamblor]

I've also read that there is some discrimination in Israel against "Oriental" Jews and that many of them were pressured/scaremongored into moving to Israel.

"Oriental" Jews are Mizrachi Jews- basically they fled to Israel after the establishment of the state because the Arab nations expelled them...

As far as discrimination goes, they are viewed as backward - having adopted many practices from Arab lands, as opposed to the "enlightened" european Jews.

They were herded into development towns to try and grow the nation, instead of simply settling in the cities and overcrowding, so if that's discrimination then so be it.

But there is definitely not discrimination any more than there is discrimination against the Polish or the Russians in the US...

The odd joke here and there, but nothing of any substance, and nothing serious.

[Gamblor]

They do not live as well as Israeli Jews.

So, Americans of african descent in the US do not live as well, and do not have the same representation in the professional services that those of european descent have. Is the US a racist state?

In the most recent poll available, as I told you, the vast majority of Palestinians believed in either a 2-state solution or a binational state.

Only now that they realize they can't have it all. I think that given the choice, they would.

They don't want Jews dead, they want the occupation to end and some sort of restoration of their rights.

Occupation of what? The West Bank and Gaza, or all of Israel?

None of them were remotely interested in Jews before they lost their land.

And Jews were not remotely interested in them until they took Israelite/Hebrew/Jewish land.

You're missing my point. There is nothing inherently wrong with an Arab person. But an Arab person sitting in a mosque while his imam calls for my death, I have a problem with. And I'm certainly not letting him into my country. And I'm certainly not going to be as careful when his friends are firing at me from all directions.

[Gamblor]

correct. my mistake.

[Gamblor]

correct. my mistake.

Would you expect the Muslims to be impartial though?

[Chris Alger]

According to prominent Washington, D.C. attorney and Jewish World Report contributor Nathan Lewin, "the Torah commanded the total eradication - including women and children - of certain nations (Amalek being a singular illustration) because of the continuing threat its members presented to the survival of Israel." We find God's order to perpetrate the holocaust against the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15:3: "Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." And so Saul "utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." He spared King Agag, however, capturing him alive.

This shard of mercy was bitterly disappointing to God. "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands." As Samuel, through whom God was speaking at the time, pointed out "the LORD sent you on a mission, and said, 'Go and utterly destroy the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are exterminated." Saul concedes that "I have sinned; I have indeed transgressed the command of the LORD..." Samuel then commands: "Bring me Agag, the king of the Amalekites." And Agag came to him cheerfully. And Agag said, "Surely the bitterness of death is past." But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal."

Lewin uses the example of the genocide of the Amalekites to justify the mass murder of innocents today, namely the "parents, brothers, and sisters" of Palestinian suicide bombers, without regard to knowledge or culpability but merely on the basis of blood relation, and like God presumably sparing neither "child" nor "infant." You can read his essay advocating this practice at http://www.shma.com/may02/nathan.htm His pal Alan Dershowitz has argued that Lewin proposal to murder innocents is "a legitimate if flawed attempt to strike a balance between preventing terrorism and preserving democratic norms." Forward, 7/7/02
http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.06.07/news1.html

[Cyrus]

"3000 years ago, there were Jews there.
When the Jews were expelled shortly after Christ, the Arabs arrived."

Now if I were to tell you that this is tremendously silly and that Human History, Archaeology and Paleontology have shown ideas such as the above to be patently absurd, you would wonder once again whether I have studied all that and "know everything".

Please realize that, in life, one would be well advised to try and know (master) all there is to know about one thing but also try and learn something about everything. "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing" but that doesn't mean that we should not try and learn about all subjects under the sun, provided (and this is the prime caveat!) that we approach those subjects without arrogance nor prejudice.

To wit :

It appears most likely that "we" have all come out of Africa -- Jews, Arabs, British, Chinese, Sioux, everybody. It used to be (and that lasted for thousands of years) that every land belonged to whomever had the most power at the time to keep it. "Historical claims" to a piece of land are no less absurd than the "claims" put forth from a Jewish or Christian pirest about his hold on "Eternal Truth". Hence, there are no "Holy Lands", no "Holly Relics", no nothing "holy", except maybe for Holy who came out from Miami, Fla. Just our weak and scared imaginary constructs.

Moreover, a rudimentary intimacy with Biology (though no biologist, I have recommended a few popular books that, IMHO, are helpful) would make one understand the underlying idiocy of claims about "genetic differences" and their "consequences" in humans. Add to this the fact that two peoples who have lived together in a specific georgraphic location long enough, become even closer genetically, and you would (maybe!) understand how silly the arguments about "Arabs" and "Jews" are.

The point is that by the end of the 20th century, and more so in the 21st century, we are extremely late in abandoning this absurd notion of nationalism and the main culprit is Israel : its stranglehold on the Middle East conflict and on American foreign policy constitute an untenable situtation that drives us backwards instead of forwards. The Middle East conflict rules over all other international issues today. Childhood'd End is nowhere near us yet because, among other things, we are kept occupied with the latest murders committed by Hamas or Sharon, instead of focusing on managing our house better.

...I guess all the above is just gibberish to a young Jewish stallion like you who only knows that he's One of the Chosen.

[Cyrus]

You were already told that you haven't the slightest clue (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=366364&amp;page=0&amp;view=ex panded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=14&amp;vc=1)! Not even your comrades claimed that Israel targeted a "bomb-making facility" in Syria. So why haven't you bailed out of the thread already?

You think that by ducking the indictment of your colossal lies and all those absurd claims and by pretending you didn't read 'em, that you can somehow "win" the argument? Don't you realize the hilarity your "points" are causing? It is becoming quite embarassing.

Try putting up another poll, about how Cyrus is in the Devil's crew, or something.

[brad]

the funny thing is that there are race specific bio weapons (say to kill all japanese, but not koreans), and israel has them, as do US and UK, probably russia.

study just done that arabs and jews in middle east, both semitic people, are genetically identical. of course, some jews, like east european converts in russia (emigrants from russia who make up majority i think of israeli jews), would not be affected by an 'arab' bioweapon, but 'true' semetic jews (ie, those descended from biblical jews) would be.

[Cyrus]

You continue to exhibit your profound ignorance like a badge of honor.

"The BBC itself has no agenda -- period."

The BBC, although far from being without faults, is a public institution not answering to the government but only to its listeners and viewers! This, by definition, sets it apart it from commercial entities whose sole "agenda" is Return On Investment to their shareholders -- period.

"...the massive Arab population in the UK."

What strange notions you have in your head : there is no significant Arab population in the UK, let alone "massive".

"Even the BBC wants ratings - that's the editor's gain."

Have you any idea at all how many commercials are shown by the Beeb every day? Take a wild guess.

"[In BBC,] anecdotal evidence in Arab towns is accepted as fact because there is nobody to deny it ... the outright stupidity on the BBC."

Contrary to balderdash such as the above, the Beeb is reknown for giving out dispassionate and corroborated reportage. You may argue about what you perceive to be BBC's "biased slant on the news", in other words undue emphasis on Israeli as opposed to Palestinian crimes, but whatever it reports, it reports it usually well backed-up. Nothing "anecdotal" at all, but of course you are confusing BBC with Fox.

--Cyrus

Program Producers' Guidelines for the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/producer_guides/)

How the BBC is run (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/running/)

BBC's Purpose &amp; Values (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/purpose/)

[MMMMMM]

"The BBC, although far from being without faults, is a public institution not answering to the government but only to its listeners and viewers!"

I take some issue with this statement. Since the BBC is funded by taxpayer's money, that is different than if it were funded by voluntary private donations.

Look at a variety of publicly funded (tax-funded) programs, and see if your characterization applies. I don't think all such programs answer to those who receive services from them. Actually, the more funding something receives from tax dollars, the less likely it is to be responsive to customer views, not the more, generally speaking.

Also, institutions which are publicly funded have a vested interest in perpetuating that funding, not the least reason of which is that those in management with cushy, well-paid jobs might find themselves worse off were their institution to cease receiving funding. Thus they have a vested interest in electing officials who will see to it that their funding continues unabated--or even increases. And since such officials are typically centrists or leftists, management at the BBC has a vested interest in making sure that a right-winger who might abolish most government programs is not elected to office. And I would find it hard to believe that management's leanings do not affect reporters at all, or do not affect the hiring of reporters.

[MMMMMM]

Well brad I don't know about all that.

Also, aren't the Jews are descended from Isaac, while the Arabs are descended from Ishmael?

[MMMMMM]

If Israel targeted an empty abandoned facility instead of an active terrorist training center (I don't know which claim is true), that's a good way to send a gentle message to Assad, who seems agreeable but rather impervious to encouragement by the U.S. to stop supporting terrorists.

Syria had better wake up and expel the terrorists from their Damascus offices.

[Cyrus]

"Since the BBC is funded by taxpayer's money, that is different than if it were funded by voluntary private donations."

Your premise is incorrect, I'm afraid. The BBC is not funded by taxpayers' money.

How The BBC Is Funded (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/)

The whole of your argument thereafter collapses into irrelevancies ("leftist bias" my ass). But it's a Sunday so no big deal.

(Privately-funded media care about their subscribers and not, as the case is with ad-sponsored media, consumers. You should understand the difference. Note also, that the larger its support base and the greater its de jure independence, the more the media ressembles a publicly-funded enterprise, since the set of television owners is almost identical the set of taxpayers, in the UK. The trick is to allow for the greatest possible de jure independence, and to get the government off the journalists' backs! This is when the media, eg the Beeb, is allowed the least leeway in bias, since its sponsor is the citizenry.)

[Cyrus]

"If Israel targeted an empty abandoned facility instead of an active terrorist training center, that's a good way to send a gentle message to Assad, who seems agreeable but rather impervious to encouragement by the U.S. to stop supporting terrorists."

The latest smokescreen emanating from Sharon's Murder Incorporated is that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict cannot be resolved (and, thus, no such thing as an independent Palestinian state, as promised in the American roadmap, is possible) unless &amp; until the "terrorist-supporting regimes" of Syria, Iran, Libya and Jordan eliminate that support. Whether they are persuaded peacefully or violently to do so. (If those countries do so tomorrow, other countries will make the list.)

It is a policy that directly makes a complete mockery of the American promises made to the Arabs and the Palestinians and the rest of the world. Israel ridicules the U.S. President's assumed authority over the matter of Middle East peace. The true and sole authority lies with the Israeli state, which draws its strength exclusively from its support within the American political establishment.

Israel does not want ever to see "an independent and secure Palestinian state". Not now, not in ten years, not ever! Israel will employ every tactic, strategy and trick it can get away with, to stop such a thing from happening. And so far it gets away with everyhting, even with making a fool of the United States President.

And this is the best thing that could happen to Palestinian terrorists : They can point to the colossal Israeli duplicity and intransingence and immunity in crime --and justify to the Palestinians the bombing actions as the only means of resisting Israeli aggression. Which is, of course, precisely what Israel's leaders want : to be dealing with terrorists rather than politicians.

--Cyrus

[Chris Alger]

Seriously, if you're going to say ignorant things, people are going to make fun of you.

Arabs are defined by language and culture, not geneology. An "Arab" is someone who speaks Arabic and identifies herself as an Arab. Arabic originated in the Arabian pennisula around 3,000 BCE.

The (scientifically absurd) notion that Arabs descended from Ishmael, "blessed son of Abraham," originated with Muhammad, preaching around 700 CE. Christians and Jews (self-proclaimed children of Isaac, or Israel) use this claim to argue that Arabs are cursed, disfavored or just plain mean "Ishmaelites," drawing upon their own mostly contradictory scripture to suggest that Isaac was the good son, Ishmael the bad one, etc. A more virulently anti-Arab line holds that Arabs aren't even this, and have no connection with Abraham or God's chosen, rendering them just plain people.

[MMMMMM]

Well thank you for correcting my misuderstanding of exactly how the BBC is funded.

From what little I have seen of BBC, however, I still do think they are generally biased a bit towards the left, and somewhat pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel, anti-US, and pro-Labor. Whether that is due to the reporters' biases themselves, or management's, or both, I do not know, and my opinion is subject to change as I read more of their news reports. Palast for example is a screaming anti-establishment sort of journalist who seems congenitally incapable of reporting facts without mixing in liberal doses of his own feelings and opinions. There is hardly a page (well pretty much) in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy that is not marred by this unprofessionalism.

[MMMMMM]

So Muhammad promulgated this 'false' view?

I told you Islam was an extremely divisive religion.

[MMMMMM]

There is probably something to what you say, but it is also indubitably true that Damascus and Tehran support terrorism.

As Garry Kasparov said in the WSJ opinion piece, "Once American ground troops are in Iraq, the message must go out to all regional sponsors of terror that this game is up." (quoting from memory)

I don't think we have been emphatic enough in sending that message. We have been too focused on defense due to the jihad warriors and Saddam remnants attacking and sabotaging in Iraq.

I think we need to tell Syria and Iran to knock it off or they're next, in plain language. And if they don't, then we need to hit every terrorist training camp in the Middle East and hit them hard...hard enough to obliterate all those camps.

And it isn't all just about Israel. These camps are also about jihad, about violent aggression against the West for religious reasons. They need to be elimiated anyway, and maybe it would be better to go ahead and do it without further warning.

[brad]

not converts en mass in middle ages. look it up.

[brad]

true, i mean native inhabtants of say jerouselem.
the jews and muslims are genetically very alike. (scintific paper just done on this)

race specific bioweapons are in PNAC, 4 example.

[Cyrus]

A word or two about Kasparov : Read religiously everything he has to say about Chess. Ignore pretty much everything he says/writes about world politics. His checkered (har har) record in that area speaks for itself.

And he's a very bad businessman too! I don't know if his mother is a blessing or a curse but if it weren't for her, he would be probably bankrupt. So many bad, bad decisions.

[MMMMMM]

"A word or two about Kasparov : Read religiously everything he has to say about Chess. Ignore pretty much everything he says/writes about world politics."

This is where you and I must part paths, as we have in the past, Cyrus.

I don't much care who said something if I think what was said has merit. Converse and inverse also.

[Cyrus]

"I don't much care who said something if I think what was said has merit."

There is merit to that point but temper your inclination with this : We have but a finite time on this world and cannot afford to read everything in order to "judge for ourselves". I'm not saying that we should be prejudiced against certain individuals, just that we should scale our preferences.

I mean, just say two words, "ann coulter", and paint me gone. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Please also note that I was making a point about Kasparov more than anything else, a person I otherwise admire tremendously for his Chess genius.