Israel/Hezbollah

[IreneY]

nobody should get on their knees and thank anyone for the help they received! I will refrain from characterising such a notion because you don't really want to hear my opinion for anyone holding such a notion! Think it through everyone!

PeterD Greeks fought valiantly in WWII yes, and so did others. This is not the right reply to anyone saying that we should thank the Allies or whomever for the help we got. The right reply is to show our contempt to anyone thinking that anyone who fought and lost owes a debt of gratitude for receiving help from his Allies coupled with the suggestion that they look up the meaning of the word "ally". Whether we fought valiantly (which we did) or not.

Anyway, dragging WWII or anything of the kind into this discussion (stretching the definition a bit ) is not going to help really. And the whole Cyprus issue is not the same as WWII. And I really wonder why I keep on reading how two of my fellow foreros (got that from another site) trade insults and refuse point blank to admit that the other "side" may be right in the most infestimal way.

Sorry for any mistakes but I am rather frustrated.

[Bert]

The right reply is to show our contempt to anyone thinking that anyone who fought and lost owes a debt of gratitude for receiving help from his Allies coupled with the suggestion that they look up the meaning of the word "ally". Whether we fought valiantly (which we did) or not.

Point understood. I was not suggesting that they would owe a debt of gratitude to the ALLIES. After all, I wrote (as did Bardo de Saldo) ; get on their knees and thank GOD.
I was protesting what PeterD seemed to imly namely that what he read and what Bardo de Saldo read were mutually exclusive.

[IreneY]

They are not mutually exclusive but thanking God the allies helped us is wrong . Thank you God for making our allies doing what allies are supposed to? Or am I to understand that help was given out of pure altruism and thus something one should thank the Lord for? Anyway, I can't understand how one can thank God for help received by fellow human beings without feeling gratitude toward these fellow human beings.

[Bert]

They are not mutually exclusive but thanking God the allies helped us is wrong . Thank you God for making our allies doing what allies are supposed to?

I must confess that I did not weigh my words on a gold scale but your wording is fine.

Or am I to understand that help was given out of pure altruism and thus something one should thank the Lord for? Anyway, I can't understand how one can thank God for help received by fellow human beings without feeling gratitude toward these fellow human beings.

I think we are getting into splitting hairs now.
Just because my wife should love me doesn't mean I can't thank her for doing so.

[PeterD]

Anyway, dragging WWII or anything of the kind into this discussion (stretching the definition a bit ) is not going to help really. And the whole Cyprus issue is not the same as WWII.

I don't know why Bardo "dragged" WWII into the discussion. Perhaps he was ticked off because I had mentioned British duplicity into Greek affairs.

And I really wonder why I keep on reading how two of my fellow foreros (got that from another site) trade insults and refuse point blank to admit that the other "side" may be right in the most infestimal way.

With all due respect, Irene, my opponents on this subject are---SADLY--- either grossly misinformed, racists, or just plain nuts.

Let's look at some "for instances." My dear friend Kopio introduced this thread with the following statement:

• "Israel has the right to protect itself from terrorists."

From the start, we are told that Israel is dealing with terrorists. As to how he came to that conclusion, he does not say. He also doesn't say much about Israel's unceasing war crimes since its founding as a state in 1948. More importantly, moreover, there is no mention as to what may have precipitated the capture of two Israeli soldiers along the Israeli-Lebanese border; for example, were the southern Lebanese provoked? As much as Kopio meant no malice (and he had the guts to start this thread), I still must place his opening post in the "Grossly Misinformed" category.

In the "Racist" Category, we have two "lovely" gems:

• "It is quite a myth about the original origin of the Palestinians---quite simply, the Arabs who came to be known several decades later as "Palestinians" were Arab immigrants from the surrounding Arab countries, the 'dregs' of society that those countries didn't want..."

• "The problem is that anti-Zionists like you [that would be me ] try to use the occupation as an excuse to justify the liquidation of the Jewish state in Palestine. (emphasis mine)

The above quotes are from Lucus Eques (a.k.a. "Mr. Chivalry") and Beatus Pistor, respectively. I think it would be superfluous to add any commentary to the above drivel.

Finally, in the "Nutty" category, we have Bardo de Salso.

• "You [that would be me, again] hold Israel to a higher moral standard than those states who would holocaust them if they could (and don't forget who actually can). That implies that they stand on a Higher Moral Plane!"

The asinine quote above obviously belongs in the "Racist" category, as well, but I didn't feel like giving Bardo two "honours." Look at how he uses "holocaust" as a verb. What is he trying to say? Now look at how he is even trying to justify decades of Zionist war crimes against the Palestinians by trying to cast the conflict in moral terms. Yup. This belongs in the "Nutty" category.

Once again, with all due respect, Irene, who is insulting whom?

~PeterD

[IreneY]

Β?ε Πέτ?ο κι αν αυτοί πέσουν από τον γκ?εμό θα πέσεις κι εσ? όπως μου έλεγε και η μαμά μου; Δεν πας κι εσ? πίσω στους χα?ακτη?ισμο?ς έτσι; (και δεν θα μπω ΚΑ? στον κόπo να μιλήσω για τους "διαξιφισμο?ς" στο Χα?ο?μενη Ημέ?α Ευχα?ιστιών )

Hope you got that (sorry all I felt like using MG)

[Beatus Pistor]

Could this happen in an "apartheid" state, as defined by some anti-zionist/jewish propagandist(s) and provocateur(s)?

The Israeli supreme court has overturned part of a 17-month-old blanket ban by the government on Palestinians seeking compensation for harm inflicted by the Israel Defence Forces.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 070194.ece


N.B. I am not replying just mentioning a fact, and have no intention to give a direct reply to the notorious provocateur of this forum.

[PeterD]

[Bardo de Saldo]

That was very emotional, Irene, funny bones are funny. May God strike me dead before I question Greek Valiance & Gallantry! Do you think I´ve lost the oremus? The key words in my syntactically neat sentence are "if anything"; nothing to sulphur over, a teaser to get an answer at most. You know how this happens: One thing leads to the other, I read a book, Peter asks to ask about local views, I do with my limited knowlegde on Modern Greek History: You put Britain, Palestine and Greece on my mixer and what you get is a Churchillian sludgie: I was actually thinking of Churchill´s claim ---not that I have a reason to doubt it--- that he single-handedly kept Stalin away from Greece. So, tell us what really happened, you who felt the need to question my words.

[Bardo de Saldo]

"[. . .] Bardo de Saldo [. . .]" ---PeterD

If you "read" Chomsky the same way you "read" me, Pedro, no wonder.

[IreneY]

Bardo, I most definitely do not have the time for starting a long back and forth that passes for a dialogue such as you and PeterD had up to now, nor is it to my taste and this thread is most certainly not the place to discuss Modern Greek history (or the semantics of the use of "if anything").

Just a question though since I am a bit confused. Are we talking about the Yalta Convention here or the (latest) Greek civil war or something else althogether? Just out of curiosity you see.

[Bardo de Saldo]

"Bardo, I most definitely do not have the time [...]. Just a question though [...]." ---Irene Y

That was funny, Irene.

.

"[...] asinine [...] "Racist" [...] Bardo [...]." ---PeterD

The uninvited private message that you sent me, Peter, which I answered in this thread, was full of smileys and winkies. What happened? I am the closest thing you have to an ally in this thread; but with friends like you, who needs enemies?

.

"It is quite a myth about the original origin of the Palestinians---quite simply, the Arabs who came to be known several decades later as "Palestinians" were Arab immigrants from the surrounding Arab countries, the 'dregs' of society that those countries didn't want..." ---Lucus Eques

Until the ethnologists declare the poor to be a race apart, I'll say that Lucus' comment is classist. Maybe the U.N. could resettle the Palestinians in Australia... That would show them sons of convicts who's in charge!

(A wink to Australians.)

[PeterD]

Could this happen in an "apartheid" state, as defined by some anti-zionist/jewish propagandist(s) and provocateur(s)?

The Israeli supreme court has overturned part of a 17-month-old blanket ban by the government on Palestinians seeking compensation for harm inflicted by the Israel Defence Forces.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 070194.ece

Before I comment, I would like to point out that I am---indeed---anti-Zionist (ergo, I am also anti-Israel). I do not support Israel because it discriminates based on religious and ethnic grounds: It is not a State of all its citizens. That said, I am NOT anti-Jewish! Such defamation coming from a guy who doesn't know much (as I will soon show) does not in the least upset me. Let's just say it's expected.

Now, let's get back to that newspaper article that Beatus Pistor was kind enough to share with us. It is a short piece, so I will quote from it in blue and, after each such quote, I will follow with my comments. Oh, and one more thing: These rulings have to do with the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

The Israeli supreme court has overturned part of a 17-month-old blanket ban by the government on Palestinians seeking compesation for harm initiated by the Israeli Defense Forces.

-->Note how it was the government that initiated the blanket ban on compensation. Does the court's decision to overturn the blanket ban uphold justice? Let's continue to the next parargraph of the article.

The decision reopens the way for at least some law suits in the Israeli courts by Palestinians who suffer bereavement, injury or property damage at the hands of the Israeli military in Gaza and the West Bank, by cancelling a section of an amendment approved by the Knesset in July 2005.

-->Some law suits? I thought that "Palestininians have now won the legal right to sue Israel for damages." What's with the "some" business? It doesn't sound too promising. And, by the way, the "bereavement" and "injury" bit has to do with the killing, maiming, destruction and dispossesion of the indiginous people (the Palestinians, in case you didn't know)---C'mon, what do you expect from a State that shoots/bombs/bulldozes first and doesn't even bother to ask questions later. Let's continue on.

Right-Wing Knesset members queued up to denounce the ruling and hinted at attempts to reintroduce the legislation through the Knesset.

-->Don't be fooled by this---it's just for show. They're all delighted. Let's read the next three paragraphs to see why.

The practical application of the court's decision could be limited. Yehev Zekel, of the Israeli human rights group B'tselem, said the ruling was welcome but would not lead to a rush of claims for cases which people or property had been harmec by Israeli military operations.

The ruling did not cancel the exclusion "of members of terrorist organisations" from making claims even if they were not involved at the time of the damage. And the state would still be able to argue that it was not liable in cases where civilians were victims of "acts of war".

In practice, this meant civilians harmed during incursions to detain wanted militants for example, would mostly find it difficult or impossible to prove their case. "The applicant may just be lucky and find a judge who is sympathetic," Mr. Zekel said.

Why do I have the feeling that Beatus Pistor did not read past the first paragraph? If he went to the bloody trouble of shooting off his feet, he could have at least read a few more paragraphs of the article in question.

Seriously, though, despite Beatus Pistor's most stupid declaration, the Palestinians don't have a chance in hell of winning compensation from the apartheid State. Moreover, the same court later ruled that targeted assassinations can continue, albeit under more "stringent" conditions. The court also contravened International Law by ruling that the Apartheid Wall can continue as planned.

So you see, dear textkit members, the Israeli "Defence" Forces will continue to kill, maim, destroy, and steal unabated---all in the context of "acts of war."

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Indeed nothing has changed: The Republic of Cyprus still remains the only democracy in the Middle East.

N.B. I am not replying just mentioning a fact, and have no intention to give a direct reply to the notorious provocateur of this forum.

Beatus Pistor, you have alreadly shot off your feet. What's next? Will you be cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Once again, good riddance!

~PeterD

[PeterD]

The uninvited private message that you sent me, Peter, which I answered in this thread, was full of smileys and winkies. What happened? I am the closest thing you have to an ally in this thread; but with friends like you, who needs enemies?

Your reply in question had nothing to do with this thread. It was kind of freaky, actually. I thought you were kidding. That's why I sent you a pm. And what's the big deal about the pm? I get "uninvited" pm's all the time. I don't consider it rude. And aren't all pm's "uninvited"? Also, I had no intention of answering your reply (about Greeks "getting on their knees"). However, since you did not reply, I concluded that you meant what you said.

I am sorry about the uninvited private message. Rest assured that you will never receive any more pm's from me again, old boy.

[PeterD]

"[. . .] Bardo de Saldo [. . .]" ---PeterD

If you "read" Chomsky the same way you "read" me, Pedro, no wonder.

That's the problem, Bardo---you can't be "read."

[Beatus Pistor]

Again, the provocateur twists my words, and tries to represent me as some one who claims that Israel is not a state of all of its citizens(something which I have never said). I said Israel is the Jewish state of Palestine(as there should have been an Arab state of Palestine in the west bank and gaza). Israel is a Jewish state, as Britain is a British state and as French is for the French. It doesn't mean there cannot exist other ethnic groups with equal rights, which are referred to as Israelis(yes, including Muslims and Christians Arabs who live within the 1967 borders of Israel). The west bank is not part of Israel, as it hadn't been a part of Jordan, ever since this realm occupied these territories in 1948.
Again, I don't defend all what Israel's army does in the occupied territories, I even object most of the things it does(including unnecessary checkpoints in the west bank, curfews and building of several settlements). The wall, which is being built, is for the most part the fault of Palestinian terrorists who pushed the moderate left towards the right wing and supporting its building. I am not a right-winger, as an intellectual man like you probably know the political system of Israel, and I cannot be blamed for taking part in IDF actions and I am paying the price for it almost everyday. HOWEVER, I DISLIKE AND OBJECT ANTI-ZIONISTS(which sometimes are anti-jewish) WHO USE THESE ACTIONS TO JUSTIFY THE LIQUIDATION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL WITHIN ITS PRE-1967(i.e. those of the 1948 borders with minor changes) BORDERS.

[PeterD]

Beatus Pistor, your book recommendation to Dimitri (Mather's Xenophon's Anabassis: Book 1-4) was excellent. Not only does it provide line-by-line commentaries (excellent for autodidacts), but it also has wonderful introduction.

See? I can be nice, too!

Let's discuss your post after the holidays. For now, have a Merry Chritsmas (you, too, el Bardo).

~PeterD

[PeterD]

Hi! I hope you all had a wonderful holiday season. My family and I enjoyed a lovely week in beautiful Mont Saint-Sauveur (Laurentians), about 60 km north of Montreal.

Civilians are still dying in southern Lebanon from the thousands of unexploded bomblets. Israel saturated that part of the country with cluster bombs. These cluster bombs have a failure rate (that is they do not explode before or after impact) of around 25% (if not higher), which means they kill long after they're fired. In case you didn't know, this saturation bombing happened in the last 3 days of the war when negotiations for an end to hostilities were well under way.

Cluster bombs are intended to explode on impact. When they don't, they become de facto landmines---threatening civilians for many years to come. During the Vietnam war, the U.S. dropped hundreds of millions of cluster bombs on Southeast Asia. People are still being killed and maimed there as a result of America's war crimes. Thirty years later!

As reported by the Associated Press, December 26, 2006:

• "Cluster bombs wounded 5 people, including two children, in southern Lebanon during the past two days."
  
  "At least 28 people have died in cluster bombs and landmine explosions in Lebanon since Israel's war with Lebanon's Hezbollah guerillas ended in a UN-brokered ceasefire on August 14."
  
  "The UN and human rights groups have accused Israel of laying mines and dropping as many as 4 million cluster bombs during the July-August war."

Remember, Israel's saturation bombing happened in the last 3 days of the conflict when a ceasefire resolution was imminent. A shocking display of Israel's "benevolence" and "purity of arms," eh?

Now, let's get back to Beatus Pistor's last post.

Again, the provocateur twists my words and tries to represent me as some one who claims that Israel is not a state of all of its citizens (something which I have never said).

On November 19, Beatus Pistor said,

• "The problem is that anti-Zionists like you try to use the occupationn as an excuse to justify the liquidation of the Jewish state" (bold mine).

And what did you say in your last post, Beatus Pistor?

• "I said Israel is the Jewish state of Palestine..." (bold mine).

Say that again, please.

• "Israel is a Jewish state, as Britain is a British state and as French is for the French" (bold mine).

Why a Jewish state and not an Israeli state, where all the citizens are equal, irrespective of religion or ethnic origin? What's the matter? You can't add? One-fifth of the citizens of Israel are not Jewish, and these non-Jewish citizens are the indigenous inhabitants of the land.

Does Israel's for-Jews-only "Law of Return" ring a bell? What about the "Israel Land Authority?" Does it ring a bell? It distributes land to the "chosen people" ( ) only. Eh, Beatus Pistor? I thought so.

What rubbish playing with words, Beatus Pistor. Try to show some respect to the readers of this forum.

The wall, which is being built, is for the most part the fault of Palestinian terrorists...

First, the International Court of Justice (World Court) has ruled the wall to be illegal. Capiche? Second, it's nothing more than a blatant land grab. Why else is it being built deep inside Palestinian territory (populated by "terrorists") and not along the pre-1967 border?

With regard to terrorists, according to the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem...

• from January to December 27, 2006, 660 Palestinians have been killed in the Occupied Territories and Israel by Israeli security forces. The 660 figure includes 141 minors! The number of Israelis killed in 2006 by Palestinians was 17.

Pay attention, Beatus Pistor. The Palestinians who are committing these "terrorists" acts are simply fighting their oppressors---the Zionist oppressors who have stolen their lands. How can I put this to you delicately... The oppressors have no rights!

Again, I don't defend all what Israel's army does in the occupied territories, I even object most of the things it does (including unnecessary checkpoints in the west bank, curfews and building of several settlements)

How nice.

"Unnecessary checkepoints"? There are over 650 checkpoints in the Occupied Territories. How many would you say are "unnecessary?" A Palestinian can't take a freakin' pee without going thru a checkpoint!

"Building of several settlements"? There are over 200 settlements in the Occupied Territories. Total number of settlers: over 450,000!!! Need I remind you that the settlements---all of them!--- are illegal?

Beatus Pistor, you are out of your league. Other than dishonest arguments and shallow name-calling, you haven't contributed much to this thread. Good-bye!


~PeterD

[Amadeus]

Building of several settlements"? There are over 200 settlements in the Occupied Territories. Total number of settlers: over 450,000!!! Need I remind you that the settlements---all of them!--- are illegal?

~PeterD

Almost half a million?! No wonder there are tensions between the races. Isn't there plenty of land for the Jews elsewhere in Israel?

Also, I believe the Israeli government is planning to build more settlements in the West Bank (Cisjordania) for those Jews who were displaced from Gaza. What was the purpose then of leaving Gaza if you are still going to keep taking land from the natives? How can the Israelis be so blind as to allow this?

It seems things will only get worse over there. *sigh*

[PeterD]

Also, I believe the Israeli government is planning to build more settlements in the West Bank (Cisjordania) for those Jews who were displaced from Gaza.

The approximately 9000 "Jews who were displaced from Gaza" had occupied nearly one-third of the land while restricting 1,400,000 Palestinians to the rest---an area of only 150 square miles (a desert area, mind you). That comes out to...

[Give me a moment while I go fetch my calculator. 1.4 million / 150 sq mi = 9,333 per sq mi. For the Gaza settlers: 9000 / (224 - 150) = 121 per sq mi.]

...that comes out to 9,333 Palestinians per square mile versus 121 mooches per square mile. WOW! Any comment would be superfluous.

Shed no tears for the mooches. Each settler family received on average around $350, 000. Guess who footed the bill? That's right!---Paul, Kopio, William, and every other hard-working American taxpayer, that's who!!! You didn't for a moment think the apartheid state was going to pay for it, did you?

By the way, the Israeli government had even "promised" their sugar daddy that they would not transfer the Gaza settlers to the rest of the Occupied Territories.

What was the purpose then of leaving Gaza if you are still going to keep taking land from the natives? How can the Israelis be so blind as to allow this?

It's elementary, my dear Amadeus. The strategy for the apartheid state is two-fold: to increase/expand the existing settlements in the West Bank (including Jerusalem), eventually annexing them (sans natives) and, secondly, to render any hope for a viable Palestinian state---in the "bits and pieces" of Palestinian territory left---impossible. The Israelis are not "blind;" the American public, though, is---unfortunately---another matter.

It seems things will only get worse over there. *sigh*

Sadly, yes. It doesn't look good for the Palestinians. They can either leave the Occuppied Territories, never to return and thus completing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine; they can submit to perpetual second class status, or they can continue the struggle against the most powerful military in the region that also happens to be supported and financed by the most powerful military in the world. Sad, indeed!

~PeterD

[Bardo de Saldo]

"The British, however, were not as honest and sincere as it appeared. (One need simply ask a Greek, or a Greek-Cypiot, regarding British duplicity!)" ---PeterD

"I would like to hear your side of the story, Comrade Pietr, because I just finished reading Sir Winston S. Churchill's Memoirs of the Second World War and, judging by his story, if anything the Greeks should get on their knees and thank God for the help they got from the British!" ---Myself (exclamation point used for dramatic effect)

"Your reply in question had nothing to do with this thread. It was kind of freaky, actually. I thought you were kidding." ---PeterD

Ahem.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"That's the problem, Bardo---you can't be 'read'."---PeterD

I'll try again. Are you trying to convince us that we live in a cruel world, or that the Muslim Palestinians live in a cruel world? Are the Jews and the Americans bad and the Muslim Palestinians good? Are you focusing on the evils of the Jews because their good is hypocritical and putting aside the evils of the Muslim Palestinians because their evils are [fill-in-the-blank]? Is this thread about Israel and Hezbollah or about your personal yihad against hypocresy? In your own scale of values and giving universal brotherly love a 10, how would you rate plain evil against hypocritical good? (Treat the words good and evil, used for simplicity, with a healthy dose of cynicism.)

[PeterD]

Ahem.

Are you wheezing, or have you caught a bug, el Bardo?

I'll comment on your last post, but first I would like to hear your thoughts about the American Navy Ship the USS Liberty. Please tell me the Who, What, Where, Why, and How of this great tragedy. It's very relevant to the discussion. If you haven't the foggiest, no hai problema---I'll discuss it.

~PeterD

p.s. I hope you're feeling better.

[Bardo de Saldo]

Mmmm, perhaps you should tell me first what prompts your question and, after judging the freakiness of your reasons, decide whether to answer or not...

I suppose you have the USS Maddox and the USS Maine also in mind (Admiral Cervera showed those sissies at the Battle of Santiago what we are made of). All of your questions about the USS Liberty are only a google search away, except for the 'why', which neither you or I know. I don't believe that the Israeli attack was a mistake because of the testimony of the survivors, and that goes to show how national interests can outweigh national honor. I wouldn't call the different reactions to the USS Liberty, USS Maine and USS Maddox incidents outright hypocresy, but the knowledge on the part of the polititians in democratic countries that their standard constituent is too dumbed down to accept the plain truth, namely: "We live in a shitty world, and when a shithead comes at you with a broken bottle you don't always have the luxury of sending for your second", or "We want a war against this country, so we are going to do just that." Ah, the good old days when the prospect of booty was reason enough!

Let me try to opine on the issue at hand in a balanced manner, without disagreeing with you or trying to ridicule those with whom I disagree:
Israel's bestiality is but a reflection of the Moors' bestiality, and viceversa; and both are but a reflection of Mankind's bestiality.

About my use of 'good' and 'bad': Seeing that neither you or I migrated to Cuba or Saudi Arabia, I think that we would both agree that to simplify matters, we could say that 'democracy' is 'good' and 'dictatorship' is 'bad'; that 'equality of the sexes' is 'good' and 'female genital mutilation' is 'bad'; and that 'uniformed butchers' are not as bad as 'teenage suicide bombers.'

At some other time we could discuss what's up with the Far Left Wingers, who have found a very unnatural ally on the Moors since the collapse of the Soviet Union. When you put a pacifist and a Moor together, guess who's going to play 'active' and who 'passive' (and I'm not talking grammar).

[Turendil]

here's an idea. Imagine living in a society where the basic structure is the clan, and custom still takes the place of the standard rule of law. Then imagine that the best educated people in your society. The people educated along western lines have no way to advance themselves within the existing society because they lack the proper connections. If enough alienated educated (comparable to the standards of the community) people get together they eventually take up arms. Therefore the first task of a government should be to maintain order. The maintenance of order allows for judicial precedent to take the place of tribal custom which eventually allows for the development of a civil society. If you ask me the isreali's have approached the problem of terrorism from the wrong end of the stick. Every attack by hezbilah brings either retaliation from isreal in hopes that the violence will stop or concessions from isreal in hopes that the violence will stop. Stipping terrorism first requires that the area be pacified and the insurgents removed. Secondly to ensure that they never come back the infastructure must be repaired and people must feel that the "occupiers" or whatever you want to call them are improving their daily lives. To do this requires security. Given enough security and infastructure improvement eventually the repression lessens and a civil society develops. This is slowly happening today in china which legalized public property in 2005, It had a chance of working in Iraq before the administration decided not to commit the troops it would need, and It worked for a long time in British India.

[AVRAHAM]

Please forgive me. I am new here. This is actually my forst post. I just happened to come acrossed this first and decided to respond. I am a former Jew, turned Christian. I know Hebrew, Arabic, and am working on Greek, soon Latin. Religion, politics... these are such sensitive topics. I will no doubt offend someone. However, I do not mean to. I am simply presenting my own opinion. Nothing more. Please consider it, and accept it as my own. Well here goes:
1. Jews have not lived in Israel for 1,500 years.
2. Jews have forced many people out of their family homes that they have owned for generations. Putting them in camps to live insead.
3. True religious Jews are opposed to the "State of Israel", as it is opposed to the SPIRITUAL Israel. It's not about land. It's about OUR "Israel"(Heb.- Yisrael: struggle with God, or our "walk with God")
4. The reason that the State of Israel was formed based on the idea that the Jewish people needed a place to go so there could not be another holocaust? They could have easily given them a piece of land in the USA, Canada, Russia, etc. Or maybe even Germany. The size of the whole Country of Israel is only about 3% of the size of an average state in the US. Many large cities in the US are bigger in land size and population than Israel.
5. The reason that the State of Israel was established because it was the Promised "Holy Land"? I myself was shocked when I read the statistic. I thought China? Russia maybe? But no. Israel is listed as having the highest ammount of athiests per capita in the world.

Again, I do not mean to offend. Politics are not even my thing. But I only ask people to question all opinions, and make your own best educated opinions. But overall, regardless of politics, we must not forget: This is not politics we are dealing with. Not names, not groups, not the bad guy or the good guy. Not what other people say, or believe, nor our own interests. We are dealing with people. And everyone bleeds just the same when they're pricked. How best can we keep the pins in the pin cushion? Thank you for viewing my questionable bablings.....

[PeterD]

That's the problem, Bardo---you can't be "read."

I'll try again.

Wow, el Bardo...you're a trooper!

Are you trying to convince us that...the Muslim Palestinians live in a cruel world?

What is there to convince? The evidence speaks for itself: The Palestinians of East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza have been subjected to 40 years of brutal occupation---a brutal occupation that has brought humiliation, torture, and death on the innocent, forsaken Palestinians.

By the way, el Bardo, many Palestinians are Christian, too. And some of the leading political activists against the Apartheid state have been Palestinian Christians---for example, the Israeli-Arab politician and Knesset member Azmi Bishara, who is a Greek Orthodox Christian, not the evangelical-doomsday type favoured by Israel.

Are the Jews and the Americans bad and the Muslim Palestinians good?

What a silly thing to ask, el Bardo.

Are you focusing on the evils of the Jews because their good is hypocritical and putting aside the evils of the Muslim Palestinians because their evils are [fill-in-the-blank]?

Is this thread about Israel and Hezbollah or about your personal yihad against hypocresy?

The former.

In your own scale of values and giving universal brotherly love a 10, how would you rate plain evil against hypocritical good? (Treat the words good and evil, used for simplicity, with a healthy dose of cynicism.)

Is this where I ask "what's in your water supply," el Bardo? I'd have it analyzed if I were you. In the meantime, stick to bottled water.

~PeterD

p.s. Please excuse my tardy reply. I had some serious matters to attend to.

[AVRAHAM]

Though I cannot affirm that all PeterD has ever wrote or believes in is sound, I can certainly say that this last post is without a doubt. I completely concur with what is stated in it, and it is refreshing to hear someone who is not ignotant to the affairs of the world. I come from a Jewish background. I have many friends who live in Israel and the states that are Jewish. I have many friends in the States that are Muslim. Many from all over the world. And many from Israel. I used to be a Zionist when I was younger. The Israeli government even offered me my own free house in the West Bank. Of course now I wonder, not owning the West Bank, how can they do that? But now I have learned much about what really goes on there. And it is inhumane. Everyone, please keep an open mind anout these things. Thank you.
-Avraham

[cdm2003]

3. True religious Jews are opposed to the "State of Israel", as it is opposed to the SPIRITUAL Israel. It's not about land. It's about OUR "Israel"(Heb.- Yisrael: struggle with God, or our "walk with God")

Your politeness is appreciated, however, I must call you on your use of language here. Whom do you mean by "True religious Jews"? The only Jewish groups I know of that tended to lean towards anti-Zionism as a whole were Hasidics and Lubavitchers...and that was when the idea of the formation of a Jewish state was still being debated. Your statement seems to imply that any Jew who is supportive of Israel as a state, regardless of it's current politics, is not truly Jewish.

Chris

[AVRAHAM]

I am implying that there are different level of spiritual devotion in Judaism, and that some views are more correct than others. This does of course lead into opinions and theologies. That I am not attempting to dispute, or offend. What exactly it means to be "Jewish" is very disputed and ambiguous. The "legal" definition classifies "Jewish" as a socio-religious group. Basically, it a religion and/or a culture. The term gets even more confounded colloquially among non-Jews, and Jews alike. A common blunder is to think of Jewish as a race. It is, however, not one. The original Jews,(including Jesus, for all those Christians out there;) ) were Asian. Now, the majority of Jews in the world, including myself, are of European origin. So is one a Jew because they serve G-d with their life's devotion? Or because they eat gifilte fish every December? Halacha, Jewish Law, states that anyone born of a Jewish woman, will themselves be considered Jewish. Or anyone who gets circumcised (or poked if already cut), babtized (in mikvah), and swears to the Jewish G-d, and people, will also be Jewish. A famous man (I forget who, forgive me), once said that the definition of a Jew is anyone who is willing to argue that he is one. So my point is, I do not argue the Jewishness of and certain people, but rather their life-styles and opinions. And perhaps a more accurate wording to my original statement would be something on the lines of "the more devout Jews", or "more spiritual Jews". The Hasidics and Lubavitchers are indeed a good examle. And I do agree, from what I learned in Shul, being Jewish, that yes, a Jew in support of the State is Israel, is going against the Torah, or Bible. However, as always, these are only my opinions. Consider them a "second opinion". But consider them. And with everything, I apologize in advance if anyone finds offence in any of my words. I never intend it. Thanks again.

Truly,
Avraham

[PeterD]

Though I cannot affirm that all PeterD has ever wrote or believes in is sound, I can certainly say that this last post is without a doubt. I completely concur with what is stated in it, and it is refreshing to hear someone who is not ignotant to the affairs of the world.

Thank you, Avraham.

Is this thread about Israel and Hezbollah or about your personal [j]ihad against hypocrisy?

The former.

Instead, I should have (presciently) answered "Israel/Hezbollah AND IRAN."

My browser is set to yahoo.com. When I logged on this afternoon, this was one of the top news headlines:

U.S. Weighs Divulging Iran-Iraq Proof

And in a front page story in today's (Feb. 10) New York Times, there was this headline:

Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, U.S. Says

With two U.S. naval carriers already in the Persian Gulf, it was only a matter of time before the "marketing" of the bombing of Iran. The Neocons can't wait. The Israelis? Well, notwithstanding serious military strategists, they might---AGAIN---be stupid enough to go along with the Neocons.

How nutty are those people in Washington and Tel-Aviv? Given past actions . . .

In other top headline "news," Anna Nicole Smith . . .


~PeterD

p.s. So far this month, dozens of American soldiers have died in Iraq; hundreds of Iraqi CIVILIANS have died.

p.p.s. Ooops! I almost forgot . . . So far this year, hundreds of southern Lebanese civilians have been maimed or killed by Israeli cluster bombs.

[Bardo de Saldo]

[PRRRRRRRRRRT]

I had some serious matters to attend to.

You wasted your time exposing your miseries, we knew all about them. Don't feel like you owe me a real answer, I was just curious to hear you justify your dementia.

Two can play your game, and you are lucky that I don't like wasting my time, because it would be too easy to take any of your political ramblings and use them to turn you, your resentment, your dirty little heart and your sorry ass into buffoons.

[Bert]

In other top headline "news," Anna Nicole Smith . . .


~PeterD

Why the rolling eyes? Just curious.

[Kopio]

In other top headline "news," Anna Nicole Smith . . .


~PeterD

Why the rolling eyes? Just curious.

I was wondering if this was going to make the boards here. My wife actually called me at work to tell me! She's kinda into the whole Hollywood gossip thing. We had just been talking about Anna Nicole the night before with her pending lawsuit. My wife's comment was, "don't you think that poor girl has been through enough in the last year, loosing her son, having a baby that is in the middle of a paterity suit...now someone's suing her because even though they ate twinkies and Ben and Jerry's all day, they still thought Trimspa should have made them skinny?"

It was a very interesting occurence at work to see how fast word spread though. I quizzed people all day, "You hear about the big Hollywood hubub?" and there were very few people who hadn't heard about it.

[GlottalGreekGeek]

It was a very interesting occurence at work to see how fast word spread though. I quizzed people all day, "You hear about the big Hollywood hubub?" and there were very few people who hadn't heard about it.

Whereas I haven't heard about this at all. And I don't think I want to either. (I generally skip any headlines which smack of Hollywood celebrities. I'm interested in what they do on-screen - I really don't want to waste my time with what they do off-screen).

[PeterD]

In other top headline "news," Anna Nicole Smith . . .


~PeterD

Why the rolling eyes? Just curious.

Hi, Bert.

First, my condolences to the Smith family.

That said, in comparison to what is happening in the world today---wars, impending wars, political/corporate corruption, etc.---this story does not merit the national attention it's receiving in the national media. It's not real news. (Entertainment news? Indeed!) That's what I meant with the " ."

[Bert]

Got ye. First impression was; "So what she's dead." Glad that aint so.
I do agree that much of the news isn't newsworthy.

[PeterD]

[PRRRRRRRRRRT]

I had some serious matters to attend to.

You wasted your time exposing your miseries, we knew all about them. Don't feel like you owe me a real answer, I was just curious to hear you justify your dementia.

Two can play your game, and you are lucky that I don't like wasting my time, because it would be too easy to take any of your political ramblings and use them to turn you, your resentment, your dirty little heart and your sorry a** into buffoons.

The poodle barks again.

I am sorry, el Bardo, but when you make an inane---insane?---statement like this:

"Israel's bestiality is but a reflection of the Moor's bestiality, and viceversa; and both are but a reflection of Mankind's bestiality."

Dude, not only is your ignorance hilarious, it's also shameful if you purport to be a student of the Greek language! You're off to la-la land as far as I'm concerned. Seriously. There is no need to debate somebody like you.

No hard feelings, old boy.


~PeterD

[Bardo de Saldo]

The poodle barks again.

I am sorry, el Bardo, but when you make an inane---insane?---statement like this:

"Israel's bestiality is but a reflection of the Moor's bestiality, and viceversa; and both are but a reflection of Mankind's bestiality."

Dude, not only is your ignorance hilarious, it's also shameful if you purport to be a student of the Greek language! You're off to la-la land as far as I'm concerned. Seriously. There is no need to debate somebody like you.

No hard feelings, old boy.


~PeterD

Sadistic lopsided naïveté: That's a new one for the Annals of Psychiatry: I propose that it be called "PeterD's Wet Nightmare Syndrome."

[AVRAHAM]

Now, now people. Let's not turn this forum into another middle-east crisis. People have different beliefs. And many times, it seams insane that a person would believe somethig that seems so rediculous. It's almost as if they are intentionally being ignorant, or hostile. But they are not. It is just they're belief; their opinion. I admit, I can get pretty heated myself at times. At times when I probably shouldn't. But if it is possible, only in my opinion, why can we not do here, what is done on the rest of the forum in disputes? Simply state the facts. Do your research, and present the facts. Then all can judge for themselves. My hearts bleeds (and sometimes my mind rages), when I hear of more pain my Palastinian friends and their families are going through. I also have Jewish friends in Israel. And their life is a lot better. Not really much to complain about. But what came first? The chicken or the egg? Isn't that what they say? So if you're a zionist or not, express your facts on the situation, and let's compare notes. Thanks again everyone for listening to my rambles.

Truly,
Avraham

[Chris Weimer]

Sorry el bardo, but that *was* a pretty insane statement. moors? bestiality? wtf?