Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John Brandon
Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
May I pose for a moment as the anti-DSH and offer the above-inscribed
motto on the current political situation in the U.S.?
motto on the current political situation in the U.S.?
-
Gjest
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
John Brandon schrieb:
I am not an American and have no interest in American politics, but I
find this post offensive and deeply unwelcome. This is a group for
discussing mediaeval genealogy, not your (or anyone else's) politics.
Michael Andrews-Reading
May I pose for a moment as the anti-DSH and offer the above-inscribed
motto on the current political situation in the U.S.?
I am not an American and have no interest in American politics, but I
find this post offensive and deeply unwelcome. This is a group for
discussing mediaeval genealogy, not your (or anyone else's) politics.
Michael Andrews-Reading
-
John Brandon
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
If you truly have "no interest in American politics," I don't see how
this is offensive. Annoying maybe, but offensive?
this is offensive. Annoying maybe, but offensive?
-
John Brandon
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
Oh, Lord, I see some nerd out there is already assigning and
subtracting stars based on supposed merit ....
subtracting stars based on supposed merit ....
-
John Brandon
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
I am not an American and have no interest in American politics, but I
find this post offensive and deeply unwelcome. This is a group for
discussing mediaeval genealogy, not your (or anyone else's) politics.
Michael Andrews-Reading
Oh, I think I'm starting to catch on. Your parents were in the London
bombings in July last year, and you want the US to be as militarily
'gung-ho' as always to guarantee your own precious little safety.
(Never mind how much we are damaged domestically by it). Rather
selfish and stupid of you, if you ask me.
The British need to start looking after their own security. The
perennial stories about how someone entered a palace or got a sensitive
job by giving false credentials show just how lazy and complacent they
continue to be about these thing.
-
John Brandon
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
I, personally, was very distressed by the things went, and find anyone's gloating over it to be offensive.
Of course, you would gloat if "your" people won, but no one else is to
think of doing so ...!
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
John Brandon wrote:
Off topic and OFFENSIVE in the extreme.
While many of the new Democrats are perfectly ordinary
non-offensive old-fashioned "tax and spend and love the
illegal aliens and let men marry men" sort, some of them,
and many holdovers, are effectively pro-actively taking
stances that aid and abet and encourage Islamic terrorists
to kill more innocent people. I find their election
offensive.
Doug McDonald
If you truly have "no interest in American politics," I don't see how
this is offensive. Annoying maybe, but offensive?
Off topic and OFFENSIVE in the extreme.
While many of the new Democrats are perfectly ordinary
non-offensive old-fashioned "tax and spend and love the
illegal aliens and let men marry men" sort, some of them,
and many holdovers, are effectively pro-actively taking
stances that aid and abet and encourage Islamic terrorists
to kill more innocent people. I find their election
offensive.
Doug McDonald
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ej0dhf$vd9$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Good - this bile is a measure of the absurd corruption of US political
thninking on the Right, even in people who clearly ought to know better, and
to cogitate more rationally, about their opponents.
Peter Stewart
news:ej0dhf$vd9$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
John Brandon wrote:
If you truly have "no interest in American politics," I don't see how
this is offensive. Annoying maybe, but offensive?
Off topic and OFFENSIVE in the extreme.
While many of the new Democrats are perfectly ordinary
non-offensive old-fashioned "tax and spend and love the illegal aliens and
let men marry men" sort, some of them, and many holdovers, are effectively
pro-actively taking
stances that aid and abet and encourage Islamic terrorists to kill more
innocent people. I find their election
offensive.
Good - this bile is a measure of the absurd corruption of US political
thninking on the Right, even in people who clearly ought to know better, and
to cogitate more rationally, about their opponents.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
Good - this bile is a measure of the absurd corruption of US political thninking on the Right, even in people who clearly ought to know better, and to cogitate more rationally, about their opponents.
Peter Stewart
And very predictable from Doug McDonald, who, a few months ago, was
lamenting the end of slavery in the United States!
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163133764.135892.24500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well, political zealotry in weak characters and/or ill-disciplined minds can
readily turn into a kind of hysteria, then there's no limit on the
foolishness that will result. However, the perverted nonsense about aiding
and abetting terrorists was beyond any pale of reason.
People who can't save themselves from rancorous extremes in the first place
are not likely to learn much from an election outcome.
Perhaps the coming freight-train of another Clinton presidency, with Obama
as VP, will straighten out the political tracks that so many Republicans
have run off.
Peter Stewart
news:1163133764.135892.24500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Good - this bile is a measure of the absurd corruption of US political
thninking on the Right, even in people who clearly ought to know better,
and to cogitate more rationally, about their opponents.
Peter Stewart
And very predictable from Doug McDonald, who, a few months ago, was
lamenting the end of slavery in the United States!
Well, political zealotry in weak characters and/or ill-disciplined minds can
readily turn into a kind of hysteria, then there's no limit on the
foolishness that will result. However, the perverted nonsense about aiding
and abetting terrorists was beyond any pale of reason.
People who can't save themselves from rancorous extremes in the first place
are not likely to learn much from an election outcome.
Perhaps the coming freight-train of another Clinton presidency, with Obama
as VP, will straighten out the political tracks that so many Republicans
have run off.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
John Brandon schrieb:
No, John, I find it annoying when you try to tell me you know what I
think of something better than I do. I find it annoying when trolls
try to stir up trouble.
I find it offensive when a regular poster decides to stir up trouble
intentionally - when he indicates that he considers it acceptable to
introduce material he himself defines as "annoying", without any
consideration for other posters. I find it offensive that you think
your political views are important enough to air on a forum dedicated
to mediaeval genealogy, and I find it offensive that you are happy to
intrude rancorous political debate - which is exactly what has now
happened.
If you (and everyone else who has thrown their political views of
whatever colour into this thread) wish to turn this forum into your
political soapbox, I shall take my mediaeval genealogy elsewhere.
Michael
If you truly have "no interest in American politics," I don't see how
this is offensive. Annoying maybe, but offensive?
No, John, I find it annoying when you try to tell me you know what I
think of something better than I do. I find it annoying when trolls
try to stir up trouble.
I find it offensive when a regular poster decides to stir up trouble
intentionally - when he indicates that he considers it acceptable to
introduce material he himself defines as "annoying", without any
consideration for other posters. I find it offensive that you think
your political views are important enough to air on a forum dedicated
to mediaeval genealogy, and I find it offensive that you are happy to
intrude rancorous political debate - which is exactly what has now
happened.
If you (and everyone else who has thrown their political views of
whatever colour into this thread) wish to turn this forum into your
political soapbox, I shall take my mediaeval genealogy elsewhere.
Michael
-
Gjest
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
John Brandon schrieb:
Nope, no-one asked you, Brandon. And, as with much of your
genealogical cut-and-paste work, you are leaping to faulty conclusions
that say more about you than the facts you are struggling to deal with.
Let me get this right: you make a blatantly off-topic partisan
political post on a mediaeval genealogy forum, designed to irritate; I
politely object; you respond by dragging my parents having been caught
up in the London bombings last year into this, and decide that I am
selfish and stupid.
Now that truly is offensive.
MA-R
I am not an American and have no interest in American politics, but I
find this post offensive and deeply unwelcome. This is a group for
discussing mediaeval genealogy, not your (or anyone else's) politics.
Michael Andrews-Reading
Oh, I think I'm starting to catch on. Your parents were in the London
bombings in July last year, and you want the US to be as militarily
'gung-ho' as always to guarantee your own precious little safety.
(Never mind how much we are damaged domestically by it). Rather
selfish and stupid of you, if you ask me.
Nope, no-one asked you, Brandon. And, as with much of your
genealogical cut-and-paste work, you are leaping to faulty conclusions
that say more about you than the facts you are struggling to deal with.
Let me get this right: you make a blatantly off-topic partisan
political post on a mediaeval genealogy forum, designed to irritate; I
politely object; you respond by dragging my parents having been caught
up in the London bombings last year into this, and decide that I am
selfish and stupid.
Now that truly is offensive.
MA-R
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
<mjcar@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1163146855.872236.175690@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
This is a discussion group where a very small number of people interchange
views in a particular field, while obviously holding them in many other
areas of life, and get used to communicating amongst themselves. Obviously
current events in the wider sphere will obtrude from time to time. When
poisonous views are put here, any group of decent people will naturally take
some notice and, if from a regular participant, make some response/s.
Your replies to John Brandon's provocations are just as off-topic - but of
course just as appropriate in the circumstances - as mine to the contrarian
oaf McDonald.
Beyond that, if you find a brief irruption of political comment altogether
too annoying, it is probably best that you look for another group to join,
as the like will doubtless keep happening here.
Peter Stewart
news:1163146855.872236.175690@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
John Brandon schrieb:
If you truly have "no interest in American politics," I don't see how
this is offensive. Annoying maybe, but offensive?
No, John, I find it annoying when you try to tell me you know what I
think of something better than I do. I find it annoying when trolls
try to stir up trouble.
I find it offensive when a regular poster decides to stir up trouble
intentionally - when he indicates that he considers it acceptable to
introduce material he himself defines as "annoying", without any
consideration for other posters. I find it offensive that you think
your political views are important enough to air on a forum dedicated
to mediaeval genealogy, and I find it offensive that you are happy to
intrude rancorous political debate - which is exactly what has now
happened.
If you (and everyone else who has thrown their political views of
whatever colour into this thread) wish to turn this forum into your
political soapbox, I shall take my mediaeval genealogy elsewhere.
This is a discussion group where a very small number of people interchange
views in a particular field, while obviously holding them in many other
areas of life, and get used to communicating amongst themselves. Obviously
current events in the wider sphere will obtrude from time to time. When
poisonous views are put here, any group of decent people will naturally take
some notice and, if from a regular participant, make some response/s.
Your replies to John Brandon's provocations are just as off-topic - but of
course just as appropriate in the circumstances - as mine to the contrarian
oaf McDonald.
Beyond that, if you find a brief irruption of political comment altogether
too annoying, it is probably best that you look for another group to join,
as the like will doubtless keep happening here.
Peter Stewart
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
John Brandon wrote:
And THAT is far more offensive indeed, and I take EXTREME
offense from it. I did no such thing, and always
have hated slavery. Sure, my ancestors were slave owners,
and the way that slavery was ended ... without compensating
them ... was very bad, but slavery should never have been.
On-topic, one can discuss the "term" contractual servitude
practiced among many immigrants to 17th century America,
pro or con. One can argue that this helped many people,
including very many of my ancestors, make their way to a
better life. A very much better life. It was not ideal, and
they were often mistreated, but it was not like real slavery.
Doug McDonald
Good - this bile is a measure of the absurd corruption of US political thninking on the Right, even in people who clearly ought to know better, and to cogitate more rationally, about their opponents.
Peter Stewart
And very predictable from Doug McDonald, who, a few months ago, was
lamenting the end of slavery in the United States!
And THAT is far more offensive indeed, and I take EXTREME
offense from it. I did no such thing, and always
have hated slavery. Sure, my ancestors were slave owners,
and the way that slavery was ended ... without compensating
them ... was very bad, but slavery should never have been.
On-topic, one can discuss the "term" contractual servitude
practiced among many immigrants to 17th century America,
pro or con. One can argue that this helped many people,
including very many of my ancestors, make their way to a
better life. A very much better life. It was not ideal, and
they were often mistreated, but it was not like real slavery.
Doug McDonald
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
Peter Stewart wrote:
You truly DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
This election has given much more hope to the terrorists.
They have managed to help elect people synmpathetic to their
cause, and willing, as apparently Stewart is, to look teh
other way to the INTENTIONAL AND SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED
mass murder of innocent women and children, wedding guests,
etc, by Islamic terrorists. Sure, Israeli attacks against
those terrorists accidentally kill some civilians, but
the attacks are done to try to minimize this. Islamic
terrorists try to MAXIMIZE the killing of innocents, so
people like Stewart will reward them with appeasement.
Doug McDonald
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163133764.135892.24500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Good - this bile is a measure of the absurd corruption of US political
thninking on the Right, even in people who clearly ought to know better,
and to cogitate more rationally, about their opponents.
Peter Stewart
And very predictable from Doug McDonald, who, a few months ago, was
lamenting the end of slavery in the United States!
Well, political zealotry in weak characters and/or ill-disciplined minds can
readily turn into a kind of hysteria, then there's no limit on the
foolishness that will result. However, the perverted nonsense about aiding
and abetting terrorists was beyond any pale of reason.
People who can't save themselves from rancorous extremes in the first place
are not likely to learn much from an election outcome.
Perhaps the coming freight-train of another Clinton presidency, with Obama
as VP, will straighten out the political tracks that so many Republicans
have run off.
Peter Stewart
You truly DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
This election has given much more hope to the terrorists.
They have managed to help elect people synmpathetic to their
cause, and willing, as apparently Stewart is, to look teh
other way to the INTENTIONAL AND SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED
mass murder of innocent women and children, wedding guests,
etc, by Islamic terrorists. Sure, Israeli attacks against
those terrorists accidentally kill some civilians, but
the attacks are done to try to minimize this. Islamic
terrorists try to MAXIMIZE the killing of innocents, so
people like Stewart will reward them with appeasement.
Doug McDonald
-
John Brandon
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
Let me get this right: you make a blatantly off-topic partisan
political post on a mediaeval genealogy forum, designed to irritate; I
politely object; you respond by dragging my parents having been caught
up in the London bombings last year into this, and decide that I am
selfish and stupid.
Now that truly is offensive.
Whatever.
I don't understand your incessant need to reprimand me. Do I ever jump
into _your_ threads tsk-tsking and shaking a finger? Remember that
moralizing can be a vice, just as much as gambling or boozing.
-
John Brandon
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
This election has given much more hope to the terrorists.
They have managed to help elect people synmpathetic to their
cause, and willing, as apparently Stewart is, to look teh
other way to the INTENTIONAL AND SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED
mass murder of innocent women and children, wedding guests,
etc, by Islamic terrorists. Sure, Israeli attacks against
those terrorists accidentally kill some civilians, but
the attacks are done to try to minimize this. Islamic
terrorists try to MAXIMIZE the killing of innocents, so
people like Stewart will reward them with appeasement.
Doug McDonald
Bullshit. Try not to make a total fool of yourself ... Hard, I know.
-
John Brandon
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
have hated slavery. Sure, my ancestors were slave owners,
and the way that slavery was ended ... without compensating
them ... was very bad, but slavery should never have been.
So they should have been compensated even after starting a terrible war
in order to keep their slaves?
-
Janet Crawford
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
Doug wrote:
Sure, my ancestors were slave owners,
Do you mean you think your ancestors should have been compensated for
the human beings they beat, raped, worked to death and had put to
death? Like they were equated to maybe a horse and cart, or a crop?
[Brain explodes]
Janet
Sure, my ancestors were slave owners,
and the way that slavery was ended ... without compensating
them ... was very bad, but slavery should never have been.
Do you mean you think your ancestors should have been compensated for
the human beings they beat, raped, worked to death and had put to
death? Like they were equated to maybe a horse and cart, or a crop?
[Brain explodes]
Janet
-
Warren and Paula Jo Merri
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
To anyone using Microsoft Outlook that doesn't already know this....
Life will be more pleasant if you follow these steps:
1) Click on the original message of this thread
2) On the menu click on 'Message' and then on 'Block Sender'
From that point on any message posted by that person will be automatically
deleted and you will never see them again. Makes life more pleasant for you
and from that point on those who want to trash newsgroups with garbage can
post all they want but nobody will ever see the message. Maybe someday
they'll figure out that its like they are picking up the phone and trying to
have a conversation with the dial tone.....
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> spewing in message
news:1163099405.457632.216670@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
.....off topic garbage snipped.....
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Life will be more pleasant if you follow these steps:
1) Click on the original message of this thread
2) On the menu click on 'Message' and then on 'Block Sender'
From that point on any message posted by that person will be automatically
deleted and you will never see them again. Makes life more pleasant for you
and from that point on those who want to trash newsgroups with garbage can
post all they want but nobody will ever see the message. Maybe someday
they'll figure out that its like they are picking up the phone and trying to
have a conversation with the dial tone.....
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> spewing in message
news:1163099405.457632.216670@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
.....off topic garbage snipped.....
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
-
John Brandon
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
Thank you, Warren Jo and Paula Jo, for your input.
Warren and Paula Jo Merrill wrote:
Warren and Paula Jo Merrill wrote:
To anyone using Microsoft Outlook that doesn't already know this....
Life will be more pleasant if you follow these steps:
1) Click on the original message of this thread
2) On the menu click on 'Message' and then on 'Block Sender'
From that point on any message posted by that person will be automatically
deleted and you will never see them again. Makes life more pleasant for you
and from that point on those who want to trash newsgroups with garbage can
post all they want but nobody will ever see the message. Maybe someday
they'll figure out that its like they are picking up the phone and trying to
have a conversation with the dial tone.....
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> spewing in message
news:1163099405.457632.216670@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
....off topic garbage snipped.....
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
John Brandon wrote:
No. Not for losing their slaves. Starting the war ended that
idea. Perhaps for the horrible
treatment they got after the Carpetbaggers moved in.
Doug McDonald
have hated slavery. Sure, my ancestors were slave owners,
and the way that slavery was ended ... without compensating
them ... was very bad, but slavery should never have been.
So they should have been compensated even after starting a terrible war
in order to keep their slaves?
No. Not for losing their slaves. Starting the war ended that
idea. Perhaps for the horrible
treatment they got after the Carpetbaggers moved in.
Doug McDonald
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ej228o$fsp$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
This is more mindless garbage.
The US military has produced a number of the successful election candidates
for the Democratic party that you so stupidly fulminate against. Do you
seriously propose that they wish to "appease", "aid and abet" or indeed
"give hope to" terrorists? If not them, why me?
All terrorism is always wrong, always criminal, always to be opposed in
every way and punished to the utmost penalty (short of capital punishment in
my view) that can be brought to effect. This includes the state terrorism
that aided and abetted the foundation of a state such as Israel, when for
instance Ariel Sharon led his troops into Arab villages at night to
terrorise the inhabitants with threats of another Hiroshima, ethnically
cleansing areas of Palestine to make "Lebensraum" for Zionists.
This of course is the kind of consideration that is labelled "radical",
indeed "aiding and abetting" Palestinian extremism, in the corrupt political
discourse of the US, on both sides of the party divide, and yet it is
straightforward, undeniable fact, admitted by participants on the Israeli
side.
Terror is terror, whoever perpetrates it. Killing is worse and may be a
distinct crime - Sharon notoriously found proxies to do it for him in
Beirut, while Olmert now vilely pretends to "technical malfunction", but
that scarcely exonerates these friends of the White House as exponents of
state terrorism. They ought to be pariahs in a civilised world, not honoured
allies.
Peter Stewart
news:ej228o$fsp$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163133764.135892.24500@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Good - this bile is a measure of the absurd corruption of US political
thninking on the Right, even in people who clearly ought to know
better, and to cogitate more rationally, about their opponents.
Peter Stewart
And very predictable from Doug McDonald, who, a few months ago, was
lamenting the end of slavery in the United States!
Well, political zealotry in weak characters and/or ill-disciplined minds
can readily turn into a kind of hysteria, then there's no limit on the
foolishness that will result. However, the perverted nonsense about
aiding and abetting terrorists was beyond any pale of reason.
People who can't save themselves from rancorous extremes in the first
place are not likely to learn much from an election outcome.
Perhaps the coming freight-train of another Clinton presidency, with
Obama as VP, will straighten out the political tracks that so many
Republicans have run off.
Peter Stewart
You truly DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
This election has given much more hope to the terrorists. They have
managed to help elect people synmpathetic to their cause, and willing, as
apparently Stewart is, to look teh other way to the INTENTIONAL AND
SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED
mass murder of innocent women and children, wedding guests,
etc, by Islamic terrorists. Sure, Israeli attacks against those terrorists
accidentally kill some civilians, but
the attacks are done to try to minimize this. Islamic terrorists try to
MAXIMIZE the killing of innocents, so people like Stewart will reward them
with appeasement.
This is more mindless garbage.
The US military has produced a number of the successful election candidates
for the Democratic party that you so stupidly fulminate against. Do you
seriously propose that they wish to "appease", "aid and abet" or indeed
"give hope to" terrorists? If not them, why me?
All terrorism is always wrong, always criminal, always to be opposed in
every way and punished to the utmost penalty (short of capital punishment in
my view) that can be brought to effect. This includes the state terrorism
that aided and abetted the foundation of a state such as Israel, when for
instance Ariel Sharon led his troops into Arab villages at night to
terrorise the inhabitants with threats of another Hiroshima, ethnically
cleansing areas of Palestine to make "Lebensraum" for Zionists.
This of course is the kind of consideration that is labelled "radical",
indeed "aiding and abetting" Palestinian extremism, in the corrupt political
discourse of the US, on both sides of the party divide, and yet it is
straightforward, undeniable fact, admitted by participants on the Israeli
side.
Terror is terror, whoever perpetrates it. Killing is worse and may be a
distinct crime - Sharon notoriously found proxies to do it for him in
Beirut, while Olmert now vilely pretends to "technical malfunction", but
that scarcely exonerates these friends of the White House as exponents of
state terrorism. They ought to be pariahs in a civilised world, not honoured
allies.
Peter Stewart
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
Peter Stewart wrote:
various
While the pre-1947 Zionists certainly did bombings,
they were not terrorists in the modern sense: they did not
SPECIFICALLY target innocent civilians as their main matter
of policy. They did of course frighten and "terrorize" in
the generic sense of teh word, but they did not practice as
their standard, approved, MAIN matter of operation the
specific targeting of innocent civilians as the Islamic
terrorists do. And history records that they did indeed
allow large numbers of non-Jews to remain in Israel as full
citizens. Of course Israel is a
Jewish country and non-Jews are not exactly their "chosen
people" but they are well off, far better off than people
in the Palestinian terrorities.
And indeed the many Democrat's actions give great hope to
the terrorists, because they propose to act like the Spanish
did, or like they managed to do after Vietnam: win the war,
but intentionally cause the peace to be lost.
Doug MCDonald
various
While the pre-1947 Zionists certainly did bombings,
they were not terrorists in the modern sense: they did not
SPECIFICALLY target innocent civilians as their main matter
of policy. They did of course frighten and "terrorize" in
the generic sense of teh word, but they did not practice as
their standard, approved, MAIN matter of operation the
specific targeting of innocent civilians as the Islamic
terrorists do. And history records that they did indeed
allow large numbers of non-Jews to remain in Israel as full
citizens. Of course Israel is a
Jewish country and non-Jews are not exactly their "chosen
people" but they are well off, far better off than people
in the Palestinian terrorities.
And indeed the many Democrat's actions give great hope to
the terrorists, because they propose to act like the Spanish
did, or like they managed to do after Vietnam: win the war,
but intentionally cause the peace to be lost.
Doug MCDonald
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ej2v70$qri$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Oh? And there were no civilians in the King David Hotel when it was blown
up? Perhaps you mean they did not EXCLUSIVELY target civilians? What exactly
was the military rank of Count Bernadotte?
The Stern Gang were terrorists, full stop. One of them became prime minister
of Israel, full stop.
The Israeli Arabs do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens in Israel,
full stop.
When a settlement is finally reached, Palestinian refugees will either have
to be allowed the right of return or compensated fairly and by their own
consent. No Israeli government has yet made a decent offer towards this.
Only when this is done can they hope to negotatie the existence of an Israel
with the unequivocal right to defend itself.
So what? Morality is not a matter of material well-being.
Precipitate withdrawal from Iraq is not the unanimous policy of Democrats -
this is a fringe view, held also by some on the Republican side.
Peter Stewart
news:ej2v70$qri$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Peter Stewart wrote:
various
While the pre-1947 Zionists certainly did bombings,
they were not terrorists in the modern sense: they did not SPECIFICALLY
target innocent civilians as their main matter of policy.
Oh? And there were no civilians in the King David Hotel when it was blown
up? Perhaps you mean they did not EXCLUSIVELY target civilians? What exactly
was the military rank of Count Bernadotte?
They did of course frighten and "terrorize" in the generic sense of teh
word, but they did not practice as their standard, approved, MAIN matter
of operation the specific targeting of innocent civilians as the Islamic
terrorists do. And history records that they did indeed allow large
numbers of non-Jews to remain in Israel as full citizens.
The Stern Gang were terrorists, full stop. One of them became prime minister
of Israel, full stop.
The Israeli Arabs do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens in Israel,
full stop.
When a settlement is finally reached, Palestinian refugees will either have
to be allowed the right of return or compensated fairly and by their own
consent. No Israeli government has yet made a decent offer towards this.
Only when this is done can they hope to negotatie the existence of an Israel
with the unequivocal right to defend itself.
Of course Israel is a
Jewish country and non-Jews are not exactly their "chosen people" but they
are well off, far better off than people
in the Palestinian terrorities.
So what? Morality is not a matter of material well-being.
And indeed the many Democrat's actions give great hope to
the terrorists, because they propose to act like the Spanish did, or like
they managed to do after Vietnam: win the war, but intentionally cause the
peace to be lost.
Precipitate withdrawal from Iraq is not the unanimous policy of Democrats -
this is a fringe view, held also by some on the Republican side.
Peter Stewart
-
Gjest
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
Peter Stewart escreveu:
down in Congo. Not many people knows that his brother Bo Hammarskjoeld
was the leader of the swedish-american conglomerate that controlled the
copper market; and Katanga had the biggest and richest copper mines.
Count Bernardotte represented a menace - or so the jews thought - to
the future of an Israeli State in Palestine.
Sad and censurable as it was but both were understandable targets.
In matters of history I try to avoid moral judgements and to undestand
the *other* part's arguments; maybe with little success ...
The authority over the area was british. British officers promised an
Israeli State to preeminent jews as a reward for their help against the
nazis so when the British Government *bleated* (tergiversated ?) some
extremist jews thought themselves entitled both to fight the british
authority and international instances considered by them without
legitimity.
mainly against the british and the other against arab leaders.
I just want to recall that they did not sprung off from nowhere. In the
beggining most terrorist are *good* but when scenary changes they
become *devils* and their supporters and creators are rarely blamed.
Stalin was a terrorist who killed about 30 million "kulaks" but I
recall reading in _Sellections of the Reader's Digest_ the wonderfull
saga of the russian people's fight against the nazis under the benign
guidance of 'Oncle Joseph'.
Tito and Mihailovich - under german and croatian eyes - were both
terrorists, one a communist the other a monarchist. On a basis of
comparative efficiency, Churchill personnally took the decision of
support Tito who later become president while Mihailovich and most of
his companions were just killed.
Saddam Hussein was a terrorist against shias and curds but was first
supported and installed by americans.
Bin Laden was a CIA trained agent sent to fight against Russia in
Afghanistan.
During the colonial war of Portugal in their african colonies general
Spínola, the governor and commander-in-chief of Portuguese Guinea
started unauthorized negotiations with the PAIGC (African Party for the
Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde). On the PAIGC side, extremists
also disapproved and on a scheduled meeting both delegations were
ambushed and massacrated - the portuguese were 3 army majors and a 2nd
lieutenant acting as motorist - and not much later the historical and
respected leader of PAIGC Amílcar Cabral was assassinated in his home
at Conakry. The leader and organizer of those murders became
prime-minister of Cape Verde and was well received both at U.N. in New
York and in Lisbon.
Most of Palestine was owned by absent arab lords and they were
labourers without any guarantees of employment or sindical rights
(unthinkable). Their status was just slightly above beduins.
Before and when the Israeli State was unilaterally declared, Israelis
were more than ready to keep using that cheap handiwork mostly where
they had bought the property from the arab's lords and really with
little change for the palestinians and mainly for better (more work and
tendentially better paid). But, under the influence of arab leaders,
mostly religious zealots like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a former
nazi ally, they were influenced to emmigrate to Jordany and to Lebanon
(Syria repelled them and killed any who tried to enter the country).
Later they were armed and military trained mainly by Saudi Arabia's
money (they still are, Hamas is a terrorist organization and his leader
become prime-minister exactly as
Arafat also was a former terrorist leader) Saudi's Arabia beeing the
most backward confessional state and America's best ally in the area.
The situation soon became intolerable and king Hussein of Jordany sent
his army to disarm them. If you remember, it was called the 'Black
September"; but the survivors are nowadays fully integrated and enjoy
the same rights that any jordanese.
Lebanon did not had an army to act like the jordanian and they took
control of the south. As a result, the christian extremists of Lebanon
organized militias, the muslim shias reacted and did the same and that
was the cause of the 14 year civil war in Lebanon and also the cause -
or pretext if you wish - to the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon that
lasted for 12 years.
vietnamites that fought against the french beating De Castries in
Dien-Bien-Phu, and the Americans years later. It is a whole generation
where the leaders were selected for military qualities and are not
prepared psicologically or technically for civil activities. North
Vietnam, invaded Cambodja and kept a border war with China wich caused
something like one million casualties.
No decent offer from Israel will be enough to settle this kind of
problem but, of course, it must be part of the solution.
that can disentangle this knot, especially after the clumsy
intervention in Iraq (I am not condemning the intervention but
deploring the form).
While the West will depend on petrol and Europe keep spending what do
not produce so without military capacity, Americans MUST keep a
military presence in the area. Once Iraq failed, Saudi Arabia must be
kept. Keeping Saudi Arabia no good relations seem possible with most
muslim countries, v.g., Iran. While Iran and Syria keep supporting
whoever menaces Israel and declaring that Israel should be vanished, no
peace iniciatives will succeed. After Iraq, the USA lost any real
possibility of a military intervention in Iran or Syria and can not
approach them diplomatically without menacing the continuity of
governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordany and Egipt.
And after petrol, water will come. The next conflict or the same, in
less than 20 years will be for water and the control of Jordan, the
bassins of the Tigres and Eufrates rivers and the Lebanese valley of
the Bekaa whatever the moral motives will be called upon.
It is just curious that since the 20th century all the american wars
were started by Democrats and finished by Republicans. The two Bush are
the exceptions and both commited the same capital error: do not
antecipate what to do after the military victory. I can not but feel
that if Bush father had pushed to Bagdad after the releasing of Koweit
it would have been much better. Bush son did the utmost to create caos:
dismissed the police the army and the party, leaving the country
without order or civil organization; not accepting old policemen and
military in the new army and police force, not only delayed their
readiness but left unemployed and free to terrorism the only people who
already had the training for it.
On the other hand, I can not but remember that the Democrat
'curriculum' is not any better. I recall the rescue operation by
helicopters in Iran and the Bay of Pigs.
Best regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
P.S.1- Please excuse for my poor English.
P.S.2- Excuse me also for not offering a solution or a moral choice
between good guys and bad guys. I have none.
P.S.3- I would not dare to contradict you about medieval genealogy. .-)
F.
Oh? And there were no civilians in the King David Hotel when it was blown
up? Perhaps you mean they did not EXCLUSIVELY target civilians? What exactly
was the military rank of Count Bernadotte?
Dag Hammarskjoeld had no military rank either and his plane was shot
down in Congo. Not many people knows that his brother Bo Hammarskjoeld
was the leader of the swedish-american conglomerate that controlled the
copper market; and Katanga had the biggest and richest copper mines.
Count Bernardotte represented a menace - or so the jews thought - to
the future of an Israeli State in Palestine.
Sad and censurable as it was but both were understandable targets.
In matters of history I try to avoid moral judgements and to undestand
the *other* part's arguments; maybe with little success ...
The authority over the area was british. British officers promised an
Israeli State to preeminent jews as a reward for their help against the
nazis so when the British Government *bleated* (tergiversated ?) some
extremist jews thought themselves entitled both to fight the british
authority and international instances considered by them without
legitimity.
The Stern Gang were terrorists, full stop. One of them became prime minister
of Israel, full stop.
Yes they were. There were two terrorist organizations, one that acted
mainly against the british and the other against arab leaders.
I just want to recall that they did not sprung off from nowhere. In the
beggining most terrorist are *good* but when scenary changes they
become *devils* and their supporters and creators are rarely blamed.
Stalin was a terrorist who killed about 30 million "kulaks" but I
recall reading in _Sellections of the Reader's Digest_ the wonderfull
saga of the russian people's fight against the nazis under the benign
guidance of 'Oncle Joseph'.
Tito and Mihailovich - under german and croatian eyes - were both
terrorists, one a communist the other a monarchist. On a basis of
comparative efficiency, Churchill personnally took the decision of
support Tito who later become president while Mihailovich and most of
his companions were just killed.
Saddam Hussein was a terrorist against shias and curds but was first
supported and installed by americans.
Bin Laden was a CIA trained agent sent to fight against Russia in
Afghanistan.
During the colonial war of Portugal in their african colonies general
Spínola, the governor and commander-in-chief of Portuguese Guinea
started unauthorized negotiations with the PAIGC (African Party for the
Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde). On the PAIGC side, extremists
also disapproved and on a scheduled meeting both delegations were
ambushed and massacrated - the portuguese were 3 army majors and a 2nd
lieutenant acting as motorist - and not much later the historical and
respected leader of PAIGC Amílcar Cabral was assassinated in his home
at Conakry. The leader and organizer of those murders became
prime-minister of Cape Verde and was well received both at U.N. in New
York and in Lisbon.
The Israeli Arabs do not enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens in Israel,
full stop.
Palestinians never enjoyed the same rights, full stop.
Most of Palestine was owned by absent arab lords and they were
labourers without any guarantees of employment or sindical rights
(unthinkable). Their status was just slightly above beduins.
Before and when the Israeli State was unilaterally declared, Israelis
were more than ready to keep using that cheap handiwork mostly where
they had bought the property from the arab's lords and really with
little change for the palestinians and mainly for better (more work and
tendentially better paid). But, under the influence of arab leaders,
mostly religious zealots like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a former
nazi ally, they were influenced to emmigrate to Jordany and to Lebanon
(Syria repelled them and killed any who tried to enter the country).
Later they were armed and military trained mainly by Saudi Arabia's
money (they still are, Hamas is a terrorist organization and his leader
become prime-minister exactly as
Arafat also was a former terrorist leader) Saudi's Arabia beeing the
most backward confessional state and America's best ally in the area.
The situation soon became intolerable and king Hussein of Jordany sent
his army to disarm them. If you remember, it was called the 'Black
September"; but the survivors are nowadays fully integrated and enjoy
the same rights that any jordanese.
Lebanon did not had an army to act like the jordanian and they took
control of the south. As a result, the christian extremists of Lebanon
organized militias, the muslim shias reacted and did the same and that
was the cause of the 14 year civil war in Lebanon and also the cause -
or pretext if you wish - to the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon that
lasted for 12 years.
When a settlement is finally reached, Palestinian refugees will either have
to be allowed the right of return or compensated fairly and by their own
consent. No Israeli government has yet made a decent offer towards this.
Only when this is done can they hope to negotatie the existence of an Israel
with the unequivocal right to defend itself.
Palestinian nowadays are in similar situation than the north
vietnamites that fought against the french beating De Castries in
Dien-Bien-Phu, and the Americans years later. It is a whole generation
where the leaders were selected for military qualities and are not
prepared psicologically or technically for civil activities. North
Vietnam, invaded Cambodja and kept a border war with China wich caused
something like one million casualties.
No decent offer from Israel will be enough to settle this kind of
problem but, of course, it must be part of the solution.
So what? Morality is not a matter of material well-being.
Agreed. But what is morality in international affairs?
Precipitate withdrawal from Iraq is not the unanimous policy of Democrats -
this is a fringe view, held also by some on the Republican side.
I am afraid that there is no american policy, Republican or Democrat
that can disentangle this knot, especially after the clumsy
intervention in Iraq (I am not condemning the intervention but
deploring the form).
While the West will depend on petrol and Europe keep spending what do
not produce so without military capacity, Americans MUST keep a
military presence in the area. Once Iraq failed, Saudi Arabia must be
kept. Keeping Saudi Arabia no good relations seem possible with most
muslim countries, v.g., Iran. While Iran and Syria keep supporting
whoever menaces Israel and declaring that Israel should be vanished, no
peace iniciatives will succeed. After Iraq, the USA lost any real
possibility of a military intervention in Iran or Syria and can not
approach them diplomatically without menacing the continuity of
governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordany and Egipt.
And after petrol, water will come. The next conflict or the same, in
less than 20 years will be for water and the control of Jordan, the
bassins of the Tigres and Eufrates rivers and the Lebanese valley of
the Bekaa whatever the moral motives will be called upon.
It is just curious that since the 20th century all the american wars
were started by Democrats and finished by Republicans. The two Bush are
the exceptions and both commited the same capital error: do not
antecipate what to do after the military victory. I can not but feel
that if Bush father had pushed to Bagdad after the releasing of Koweit
it would have been much better. Bush son did the utmost to create caos:
dismissed the police the army and the party, leaving the country
without order or civil organization; not accepting old policemen and
military in the new army and police force, not only delayed their
readiness but left unemployed and free to terrorism the only people who
already had the training for it.
On the other hand, I can not but remember that the Democrat
'curriculum' is not any better. I recall the rescue operation by
helicopters in Iran and the Bay of Pigs.
Best regards,
Francisco
(Portugal)
P.S.1- Please excuse for my poor English.
P.S.2- Excuse me also for not offering a solution or a moral choice
between good guys and bad guys. I have none.
P.S.3- I would not dare to contradict you about medieval genealogy. .-)
F.
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
Peter Stewart wrote:
No, I meant that they targeted military targets. The King
David hotel was used as a MILITARY base. Targeting it is the
same as what the Israelis do today: they target military
targets.
An NOTE CAREFULLY, since you apparently conveniently neglect
to not this: the Islamic people INTENTIONALLY put military
targets near or mixed with civilian targets ... even putting
missiles in people's homes ... to INTENTIONAL CAUSE CIVILIAN
CASUALTIES WHEN THE ISRAELIS TARGET THESE MILITARY TARGETS.
This causes their supporters like you to scream. IT IS
INTENTIONAL AND YOU ARE DISPICABLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT
REPEATEDLY POINT IT OUT.
They will never return, and you kow this.
VERY generous offers have been made and refused.
Compensation is negotiable .... BUT it will not be
negotiated unless the Palestinians agree to no return and to
recognize that Israel is going to be there forever, and
CEASE TERRORISM.
The problem lies today ... and today is all that matters ...
with the Islamic side. Israel is poised to be as pragmatic
as necessary if the Islamic side comes to the table in
a realistic pose (i.e. admits defeat in their desire to
destroy Israel, recover East Jerusalem, or have people
return.) Once the Islamic side does that and truly agrees to
peace, a deal can be cut in weeks. The Palestinians could in
fact get most of the areas they were offered some years ago
AND TURNED DOWN in order to kill more Israelis by terrorism.
If they (Islamic side) were real nice ... real, real nice,
like a real true desire for real peace ... they would even
get back places like the Golan Heights. Because they (the
Islamic side) have lied so many, many, many, many, many,
many times about disarming (e.g. not putting missiles back
into Lebanon) it is going to be hard for them to convince
Israel or any reasonable person (you are not reasonable)
that they (the Islamic side) is not lying about their claims
of stopping attacks.
All I say is perfectly reasonable and correct. You seem not
to recognize the problems of sincerity on the Islamic side
I mention. The Israelis are GOOD PEOPLE in general. I know
many of them personally, including a long-lasting Science
Minister, and have met many others, including Shimon Perez.
(Who, admittedly, was drunk as a skunk when I met him. Drunk
on the worst wine I ever tasted!) They have a terrible
problem ... being attacked by evil people. They are doing
the right things in the face of terrible odds.
Doug McDonald
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ej2v70$qri$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Peter Stewart wrote:
various
While the pre-1947 Zionists certainly did bombings,
they were not terrorists in the modern sense: they did not SPECIFICALLY
target innocent civilians as their main matter of policy.
Oh? And there were no civilians in the King David Hotel when it was blown
up? Perhaps you mean they did not EXCLUSIVELY target civilians? What exactly
was the military rank of Count Bernadotte?
No, I meant that they targeted military targets. The King
David hotel was used as a MILITARY base. Targeting it is the
same as what the Israelis do today: they target military
targets.
An NOTE CAREFULLY, since you apparently conveniently neglect
to not this: the Islamic people INTENTIONALLY put military
targets near or mixed with civilian targets ... even putting
missiles in people's homes ... to INTENTIONAL CAUSE CIVILIAN
CASUALTIES WHEN THE ISRAELIS TARGET THESE MILITARY TARGETS.
This causes their supporters like you to scream. IT IS
INTENTIONAL AND YOU ARE DISPICABLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT
REPEATEDLY POINT IT OUT.
When a settlement is finally reached, Palestinian refugees will either have
to be allowed the right of return or compensated fairly and by their own
consent.
They will never return, and you kow this.
No Israeli government has yet made a decent offer
towards this.
VERY generous offers have been made and refused.
Only when this is done can they hope to negotatie the existence of an Israel
with the unequivocal right to defend itself.
Compensation is negotiable .... BUT it will not be
negotiated unless the Palestinians agree to no return and to
recognize that Israel is going to be there forever, and
CEASE TERRORISM.
The problem lies today ... and today is all that matters ...
with the Islamic side. Israel is poised to be as pragmatic
as necessary if the Islamic side comes to the table in
a realistic pose (i.e. admits defeat in their desire to
destroy Israel, recover East Jerusalem, or have people
return.) Once the Islamic side does that and truly agrees to
peace, a deal can be cut in weeks. The Palestinians could in
fact get most of the areas they were offered some years ago
AND TURNED DOWN in order to kill more Israelis by terrorism.
If they (Islamic side) were real nice ... real, real nice,
like a real true desire for real peace ... they would even
get back places like the Golan Heights. Because they (the
Islamic side) have lied so many, many, many, many, many,
many times about disarming (e.g. not putting missiles back
into Lebanon) it is going to be hard for them to convince
Israel or any reasonable person (you are not reasonable)
that they (the Islamic side) is not lying about their claims
of stopping attacks.
All I say is perfectly reasonable and correct. You seem not
to recognize the problems of sincerity on the Islamic side
I mention. The Israelis are GOOD PEOPLE in general. I know
many of them personally, including a long-lasting Science
Minister, and have met many others, including Shimon Perez.
(Who, admittedly, was drunk as a skunk when I met him. Drunk
on the worst wine I ever tasted!) They have a terrible
problem ... being attacked by evil people. They are doing
the right things in the face of terrible odds.
Doug McDonald
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Good riddance to bad rubbish ...
Comments interspersed:
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ej4qkc$c11$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Shouts in bad spelling and syntax are not becoming to your argument.
The very many instances of weapons and fighters sheltering behind civilians
are indeed appalling: I am NOT supporting or ignoring these evil tactics.
They had nothing to do with the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila camps
directly under the aegis of Israel in the person of Ariel Sharon; they had
nothing to do with the killing of 18 civilians by the Israeli army in Gaza
recently - even according to Olmert this was not unfortunate targeting but a
"technical malfunction". He is evidently content to become the Janet Jackson
of war crimes.
The point I was making, and that you predictably missed, is that US policy
towards Israel over the past 60 years ultimately gives hope to terrorists,
that if they stick at it they can be heroes to their own people and embraced
by the rest of the world, just like Begin, Shamir and Sharon. Unless ALL
terrorism is condemned and ALL of its perpetrators are visited with justice,
there is hope for Muslim criminals who will emulate and outdo their Jewish
counterparts.
I didn't say they would return, only that they must be allowed the right to
do so. This already belongs to them, it is not Israel's to grant.
Nonsense - this is the falsehood that Clinton bought into from exasperation,
that led to demonising Arafat and turning him back to the dirty lessons he
had learned from Begin and Shamir in the first place. A decent offer would
be a substantial proportion of the wealth of Israel, including title to land
that was filched from occupants by underhand deals with absent owners, as if
European leasehold and freehold customs applied in some kind of fantasy
colonial entersprise, along with immediate withdrawal from occupied
territory including East Jerusalem. The idiocy of Bush demanding that Hamas
should recognise Israel is blindingly obvious: even the US does NOT
recognise the Israeli state as it currently represents itself to be, with
annexed territory. If Hamas did this while necessarily reserving the
question of Jerusalem, in step with the rest of the world, there would still
be a definite "causa belli" and nothing would be advanced except the
humiliation of Palestinians.
But Israel will NOT be there for ever if it continues with present
policies - no power has ever sustained itself indefinitely on a war footing,
no army has ever won every war or fought its opponents to a standstill in
every engagement, as Israel is bound to do until a just peace is made.
Justice means full reparations for the petty crime againsy humanity of an
essentially trespasser state, that Israel has been for 60 years.
When Israel eventually does what history demands, there will of course be
renewed Jewish terrorism from settlers who refuse to give up their religious
dream of "Greater Israel". The crimes of others, in this context the
terrorists who defile Islam by claiming adherence to it, cannot excuse the
ongoing offenses of Israel with US backing.
I agree that most Israelis are good people, and I wish them a nation at
peace for ever as they deserve. I think the same about Palestinians.
Perceptions of sincerity may be culturally relative to a degree - too many
in the West do not try to understand the rhetorical imperative in Arabic
expression.
It is always vital to recognise the enemy in war: jihadist maniacs are a
tragic nuisance, but they inflict death on themselves and it is rather the
people who manipulate their ignorance who are the threat. This means not
only Osama bin Ladin, whose aim has always been to win personal power, to
sweep aside "Saudi Arabia" in favour of a new "Ladini Arabia", and who
self-evidently prefers life to martyrdom, but also every Muslim collaborator
who tells the lies that justify terrorism.
Peter Stewart
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ej4qkc$c11$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Peter Stewart wrote:
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ej2v70$qri$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Peter Stewart wrote:
various
While the pre-1947 Zionists certainly did bombings,
they were not terrorists in the modern sense: they did not SPECIFICALLY
target innocent civilians as their main matter of policy.
Oh? And there were no civilians in the King David Hotel when it was blown
up? Perhaps you mean they did not EXCLUSIVELY target civilians? What
exactly was the military rank of Count Bernadotte?
No, I meant that they targeted military targets. The King David hotel was
used as a MILITARY base. Targeting it is the same as what the Israelis do
today: they target military targets.
An NOTE CAREFULLY, since you apparently conveniently neglect to not this:
the Islamic people INTENTIONALLY put military targets near or mixed with
civilian targets ... even putting missiles in people's homes ... to
INTENTIONAL CAUSE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES WHEN THE ISRAELIS TARGET THESE
MILITARY TARGETS. This causes their supporters like you to scream. IT IS
INTENTIONAL AND YOU ARE DISPICABLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT REPEATEDLY POINT IT
OUT.
Shouts in bad spelling and syntax are not becoming to your argument.
The very many instances of weapons and fighters sheltering behind civilians
are indeed appalling: I am NOT supporting or ignoring these evil tactics.
They had nothing to do with the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila camps
directly under the aegis of Israel in the person of Ariel Sharon; they had
nothing to do with the killing of 18 civilians by the Israeli army in Gaza
recently - even according to Olmert this was not unfortunate targeting but a
"technical malfunction". He is evidently content to become the Janet Jackson
of war crimes.
The point I was making, and that you predictably missed, is that US policy
towards Israel over the past 60 years ultimately gives hope to terrorists,
that if they stick at it they can be heroes to their own people and embraced
by the rest of the world, just like Begin, Shamir and Sharon. Unless ALL
terrorism is condemned and ALL of its perpetrators are visited with justice,
there is hope for Muslim criminals who will emulate and outdo their Jewish
counterparts.
When a settlement is finally reached, Palestinian refugees will either
have to be allowed the right of return or compensated fairly and by their
own consent.
They will never return, and you kow this.
I didn't say they would return, only that they must be allowed the right to
do so. This already belongs to them, it is not Israel's to grant.
No Israeli government has yet made a decent offer
towards this.
VERY generous offers have been made and refused.
Nonsense - this is the falsehood that Clinton bought into from exasperation,
that led to demonising Arafat and turning him back to the dirty lessons he
had learned from Begin and Shamir in the first place. A decent offer would
be a substantial proportion of the wealth of Israel, including title to land
that was filched from occupants by underhand deals with absent owners, as if
European leasehold and freehold customs applied in some kind of fantasy
colonial entersprise, along with immediate withdrawal from occupied
territory including East Jerusalem. The idiocy of Bush demanding that Hamas
should recognise Israel is blindingly obvious: even the US does NOT
recognise the Israeli state as it currently represents itself to be, with
annexed territory. If Hamas did this while necessarily reserving the
question of Jerusalem, in step with the rest of the world, there would still
be a definite "causa belli" and nothing would be advanced except the
humiliation of Palestinians.
Only when this is done can they hope to negotatie the existence of an
Israel with the unequivocal right to defend itself.
Compensation is negotiable .... BUT it will not be negotiated unless the
Palestinians agree to no return and to recognize that Israel is going to
be there forever, and CEASE TERRORISM.
But Israel will NOT be there for ever if it continues with present
policies - no power has ever sustained itself indefinitely on a war footing,
no army has ever won every war or fought its opponents to a standstill in
every engagement, as Israel is bound to do until a just peace is made.
Justice means full reparations for the petty crime againsy humanity of an
essentially trespasser state, that Israel has been for 60 years.
The problem lies today ... and today is all that matters ...
with the Islamic side. Israel is poised to be as pragmatic as necessary if
the Islamic side comes to the table in
a realistic pose (i.e. admits defeat in their desire to destroy Israel,
recover East Jerusalem, or have people return.) Once the Islamic side does
that and truly agrees to peace, a deal can be cut in weeks. The
Palestinians could in fact get most of the areas they were offered some
years ago AND TURNED DOWN in order to kill more Israelis by terrorism.
When Israel eventually does what history demands, there will of course be
renewed Jewish terrorism from settlers who refuse to give up their religious
dream of "Greater Israel". The crimes of others, in this context the
terrorists who defile Islam by claiming adherence to it, cannot excuse the
ongoing offenses of Israel with US backing.
If they (Islamic side) were real nice ... real, real nice, like a real
true desire for real peace ... they would even get back places like the
Golan Heights. Because they (the Islamic side) have lied so many, many,
many, many, many, many times about disarming (e.g. not putting missiles
back into Lebanon) it is going to be hard for them to convince Israel or
any reasonable person (you are not reasonable)
that they (the Islamic side) is not lying about their claims of stopping
attacks.
All I say is perfectly reasonable and correct. You seem not to recognize
the problems of sincerity on the Islamic side
I mention. The Israelis are GOOD PEOPLE in general. I know many of them
personally, including a long-lasting Science Minister, and have met many
others, including Shimon Perez.
(Who, admittedly, was drunk as a skunk when I met him. Drunk on the worst
wine I ever tasted!) They have a terrible problem ... being attacked by
evil people. They are doing the right things in the face of terrible odds.
I agree that most Israelis are good people, and I wish them a nation at
peace for ever as they deserve. I think the same about Palestinians.
Perceptions of sincerity may be culturally relative to a degree - too many
in the West do not try to understand the rhetorical imperative in Arabic
expression.
It is always vital to recognise the enemy in war: jihadist maniacs are a
tragic nuisance, but they inflict death on themselves and it is rather the
people who manipulate their ignorance who are the threat. This means not
only Osama bin Ladin, whose aim has always been to win personal power, to
sweep aside "Saudi Arabia" in favour of a new "Ladini Arabia", and who
self-evidently prefers life to martyrdom, but also every Muslim collaborator
who tells the lies that justify terrorism.
Peter Stewart