wolfowitz a legitimate target?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you claiming that you read the full text of public laws and bills before commenting on them? Give me a break, I would bet good money that there isn't a single individual in the country that has read all of some of the larger budget bills that pass (usually several thousand pages long) even the legislators that pass them. The PATRIOT Act alone is a couple hundred pages...again, I would bet that a relatively small number of people who comment on it have read it in its entirety.

Are you really complaining that he/she hasn't read the full text or are you complaining about the conclusions that they're making?

~elwood

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood,

If you had read my post it would be clear. I was asking Cyrus a question not expressing an opinion or lodging a formal complaint. To answer your question I either refrain from comment, note that I may not be sure based on a lack of information or thoroughly examine the law, bill or subject before stating my conclusion as a fact.

[brad]

no but i am a 2+2 munchkin so uu kknow

[Cyrus]

Wake Up CALL,

If you had any specific arguments, I would perhaps entertain the suggestion to think about addressing them. But your posts consist of nothing but irrelevant and generic remarks, spiced with (what I assume are meant to be) witticisms.

Case in point, the here an' now : I responded to Brad's post by claiming that (a) the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegitimate the way it was conducted, and that (b) the occupying forces of Iraq are now legitimate, and therefore (c) the current acts of insubordination to those occupying forces, incl. civilian reps such as Wolfowitz, could well be illegitimate.

Note that my conclusion above was posted without absolute conviction, since I am not a specialist in int'l law. (This is, by the way, an invitation for further discussion and/or elaboration by people with expertise, but you wouldn't know about such finesse.) But I do know enough about int'l law to claim that it recognizes faits accompli and, in fact, proceeds along nations' current commitments & will.

Your response was, once again, to insult , i.e. to question my reading ability. Without, of course, offering any opinion, argument or reference, once again.

Nice going.

--Cyrus

PS : See if you can muster up a minute or two of serious thought about any subject besides stringing up code or Palestinians. Exercize'll do wonders for your brain cells.

[Cyrus]

"You can't compare anything Arab nations do to anything the US/Israel does. Israel is a democratically elected government (even if you assume only Jews have the democratic rights, which is false).
Every single Arab state, including the PA, is a dictatorship/regime of some sort, to the highest levels of government, and thus does whatever pleases its leader , not its people."

Israel grants full civil rights only to Jews. It is a state created by Jews for Jews only. It is an ethnic and religious state. Whatever limited rights other inhabitants of Israel have, they are provided in exactly the same way Whites were granting "civil rights" to Blacks in the old South Africa.

(By the way, Gamblor : If you feel your oats some morning and wanna discuss the close collaboration between Israel and the old apartheid regime of South Africa, we have a date! I'm sure you'd wanna show me it was all Arab propaganda.)

The destiny reserved by Israel for the Palestinians, at best, is the kind of badustans which Blacks had in old S.A., and which "inexplicably" they resented and rioted against and rebelled against, because they wanted uhuru or whatever else them ingrateful niggers were chantin'.

As to Palestinians, they have, remarkably for a nation under occupation and engaged in armed struggle, the best possibly democratic regime under the circumstances -- which somehow renders your argument worthless about Israel facing "undemocratic opposition".

But I like it that you bring the issue of democracy as criterion for peace. Tell me, if tomorrow the United States forces democracy upon all of Israel's neighbors, would you accept then a true peace with Palestinians and granting them what the whole planet, including the US, has defined as a just solution (=a free and independent Palestinian state) ??

...I thought so.

[Chris Alger]

No. You either reject the Wolfowitz mentality or you don't.

[brad]

well i meant the israeli supporters who say suicide bombers would be legitimate if they targeted military targets.

and israel demolishes whole apartment buildings to get a semi high level 'terrorist'.

so what i mean is, is the 'iraq resistance' legitimate by targeting wolfowitz, or are they engaged in terrorism,

or

is there a double standard, US/israel on one side and arabs on the other.

[Chris Alger]

Sure, but "supporters" of Israeli policy in the OT's are simply supporters of terrorism, or to be precise, they support the killing and infliction of mass pain on innocent people in the hopes that the resulting terror facilitates their political goals. By their standard, everyone is a "legitimate target."

[Gamblor]

Whatever limited rights other inhabitants of Israel have, they are provided in exactly the same way Whites were granting "civil rights" to Blacks in the old South Africa.

The difference between the civil rights of Israeli Arabs and the civil rights of "them ingrateful niggers" in South Africa is as vast as your lack of knowledge regarding Israeli public opinion. If you'll recall, whatever that opinion is, it is still public opinion, not the opinion of a single war-monger bent on keeping his grip on power. Palestinians are foreigners, but Israeli Arabs are not. Don't put them in the same basket.

As to Palestinians, they have, remarkably for a nation under occupation and engaged in armed struggle, the best possibly democratic regime under the circumstances -- which somehow renders your argument worthless about Israel facing "undemocratic opposition".

If the Palestinians, and their leadership especially, are so committed to democracy, where was the big democracy before 1948? Before 1948, they could have had anything they wanted.

But I like it that you bring the issue of democracy as criterion for peace. Tell me, if tomorrow the United States forces democracy upon all of Israel's neighbors, would you accept then a true peace with Palestinians and granting them what the whole planet, including the US, has defined as a just solution (=a free and independent Palestinian state) ??

Throw in severe weapons sanctions and American monitors for Jewish residents there and you have a deal. Access to Jewish religious sites is a must. Well, at least, the ones the Arabs haven't destroyed and vandalized.

By the way, anyone notice the Haram al-Sharif is still standing and protected, even through Israeli rule, despite the fact that it lies on top of the ruins of the holiest place in Judaism?

[nicky g]

"But the fact that those people call for the destruction of the state is."

What do you actually mean by this? Or, more precisely, what do you think the people you're referring to mean by it?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"If the Palestinians, and their leadership especially, are so committed to democracy, where was the big democracy before 1948? Before 1948, they could have had anything they wanted."

[/ QUOTE ]
Needing only to forge a national consensus among tribal and clan communities demarcated by borders drawn by foreign occupiers yet well-armed and resolute enough to expel the world's most powerful empire while fighting a running civil war with Zionists determined to take the country for themselves. Obviously an independent state ripe for the plucking. If only Arabs weren't so lethargic and dissolute.