Thanks for the money, America! - Page 2

Who is this Waltz fellow?
And I'm really sorry to have to point things out to you in your own area of expertise, but I'd take a careful look at <a href="http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1981/497e.pdf" target="_blank">UN Security Council Resolution 497</a> and rethink.

Especially this little tidbit:
Reaffirming that the acquistion of territory by force is inadmissable in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant Security Council resolutions.

There is more to it, of course, it even mentions the fact that the U.S. is partner to Israel's breaking international law. But perhaps having a superpower on your side is justification enough, eh?

------------

Eugene:

[quote]We still occupy Okinawa.<hr></blockquote>

I was completely unaware that we had American citizens living in Okinawa with only American citizenship, that the people in Okinawa are governed by American law and that all of this was enforced by a violent military force.

You learn something new every day, eh?

[quote]As in Somalia, many of these people offer themselves as human shields. how do you kill a rebel who is shooting you with his AK-47 between the legs of an 'innocent' woman?<hr></blockquote>

Well she isn't really innocent if she's offering herself as a human shield. However, this is quite an idiotic response to my post when I explicitly mentionted the use of heavy artillery to destroy populated areas. Or in your mind does the same principle apply?

[quote]And I would prefer death from mortar fire or a bomb blast to death from being stoned to unrecognizable and beaten into pulp.<hr></blockquote>

So it's your contention that Israel is justified because it has more humane killing tactics? Or even past that, that stoning is the general way Palestinians kill people?

If you want to trade stories of horrible deaths at the hands of either side then we could trade all day long. I'm sorry if your story doesn't sway me when discussing a situation that has thousands of horrible stories from both sides.

[quote]Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
<strong></strong><hr></blockquote>

Honestly, are you sad? Oswald was. Honestly, do you want attention? Well maybe you got it. Honestly, did you get some satisfaction from all this? Didn't think so. Why don't you (all of us actually) really do something about this. The time is naught. It's really all a game. TAG. YOUR IT.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Especially this little tidbit:
Reaffirming that the acquistion of territory by force is inadmissable in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant Security Council resolutions.

There is more to it, of course, it even mentions the fact that the U.S. is partner to Israel's breaking international law. But perhaps having a superpower on your side is justification enough, eh?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You ignore the point of my statement. The UN really has no more power than is afforded to it by it's member states. It has no formal enforcement mechanisms, and it's "laws" have no formal implications on the international system.

Waltz is a international relations theorists who posited that the international system, despite any international organizations, is in a state of anarchy. States are in competition for scarce resources, and that leads them to conflict. While I generally don't agree with his theory, it fits in the situation in the Middle East, because Israel felt threatened, and thus took land to ensure its security. If you want me true thoughts on the region in a more micro-level, read my first post in the thread.

The question is: Did Israel aquire more land just for security reasons?

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>The question is: Did Israel aquire more land just for security reasons?</strong><hr></blockquote>

In 1967, yes. The Golan Heights was used by Syria as a launching point for attacks on Israel. The Sinai gave Egypt a launching point into Israel. The West Bank provided a buffer with Jordan. However, in the case of the Sinai, Israel displayed that the land was no longer as important for peace as a formal agreement with Egypt, and they returned the land.

So now they can return the rest of the land for peace then?

[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>So now they can return the rest of the land for peace then?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Only if they think that it's in their best interests.

[quote]You ignore the point of my statement. The UN really has no more power than is afforded to it by it's member states. It has no formal enforcement mechanisms, and it's "laws" have no formal implications on the international system.<hr></blockquote>

That's an interesting theory, considering that Israel itself is essentially a creation of the U.N.

So, using your logic, we should simply stop aiding Israel and if the Arab nations have the power to destroy that entire nation then by all means they are allowed to?

There *are* formal enforcement mechanisms, the U.S. has just stood in the way of them. If you read the resolution is condemns the U.S. for standing in the way.

[quote]Waltz is a international relations theorists who posited that the international system, despite any international organizations, is in a state of anarchy.<hr></blockquote>

There is a difference between stating that laws are useless and stating that there are no laws, especially for a self-described expert.

[quote]States are in competition for scarce resources, and that leads them to conflict. While I generally don't agree with his theory, it fits in the situation in the Middle East, because Israel felt threatened, and thus took land to ensure its security. If you want me true thoughts on the region in a more micro-level, read my first post in the thread.<hr></blockquote>

It's really a shame that what you just said doesn't work at all in relation to what Israel is doing.

By settling this land they are essentially putting Israeli civilians right up against those damned Palestinians again, so I guess they'll need another security buffer. Which they will settle so they'll need another security buffer...

[quote] By settling this land they are essentially putting Israeli civilians right up against those damned Palestinians again, so I guess they'll need another security buffer. Which they will settle so they'll need another security buffer... <hr></blockquote>

LOL

ok, due to the incompetence of the replies to my posts on international relations theory, as well as having my initial post completely ignored, I feel that it is pointless for me to continue posting in regards to this subject matter. Have a nice day.

Maybe you just need to work harder on your expertise status.

The incompetence is your own. You claimed there were no international laws forbidding acquiring and occupying land through force. I showed you there were.

[edit]

Need a Kleenex?

[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Maybe you just need to work harder on your expertise status.

The incompetence is your own. You claimed there were no international laws forbidding acquiring and occupying land through force. I showed you there were.

[edit]

Need a Kleenex?

[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I guess I lied about not posting anymore, so I'll bite. I didn't say that there were no pieces of paper in in existence in a UN office somewhere that attempt to pose as "international law." What I said was that these "laws" have no meaning because there is no means of enforcement. A UN resolution condemning something means jack-shi*, because the UN can't do anything on it's own. And Israel was NOT created by the UN, rather it was created by an agreement between nation-states who happened to comprise the UN. To claim that there are laws that prevent the acquisition of land means that US possession of Puerto Rico violates international law because we acquired in armed conflict.

And no, I'll pass on the kleenex. I can manage.

[quote]What I said was that these "laws" have no meaning because there is no means of enforcement.<hr></blockquote>

A question I have still that you didn't answer above...

Your contention is that international laws have no power when they are not enforced... so that makes enforcement the most important aspect of all international action, no?

So, then, would Arab nations be actually breaking any international laws if they were to take out Israel entirely or would their success exempt them from reprisal?

Also, it's extremely shortsighted to look at it your way since if something is not done immediately then there is no reason to ever do anything if force wins out.

And there *are* international laws because they *have* worked and will in the future.

[quote]To claim that there are laws that prevent the acquisition of land means that US possession of Puerto Rico violates international law because we acquired in armed conflict.<hr></blockquote>

1898... you bring up something from 1898 in an attempt to discredit the UN's authority and premise?

That's laughable, "expert".

How does the Spanish-American war apply at all to this situation? There weren't even theoretical means of international law-making.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>
Israel is violent and aggressive.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So I guess then your gonna call your fellow Texan pal Dubya and the USA violent and aggressive too right? I mean, they attacked those poor innocent Afgans to destroy the wonderful regime of the Taliban and the al Qaida liberators.

You have previously said how good Bush is and so on, so you feel that hypocracy is perfectly fine for you?

Calling Israel violent and aggressive is just plain stupid, it wouldn't be as bad if you gave some evidence, oh wait, there is none!

For this last decade Israel has been constantly restraining herself from responding to violent acts of terror against civilians, offered peace, offered Judea, Samaria (West Bank), and Gaza, East Jerusalem to Arafat.

So, in other words peace and giving land = violence and aggression?

Try looking those two words up in a dictionary so you can gain a better understanding of those terms.

But what's even worse is you have labeled the entire Jewish state as being violent and aggressive. What do you have against the Jewish people?

Are they too dirty for you? Are they a "threat" to reunite your Arian peoples in their quest to save their German fatherland? Well, in your case Texas.

So there are two conclusions. One, your are a racist anti-semitic, or two, you don't really mean what you're saying, you're just trolling and flame bating. For your sake I hope it is the latter.

It is people like you Groverat that will bring upon us the next Holocaust, but lucky for us not everyone can be as easily brainwashed as the citizens of Nazi Germany and the Arab countries (as well as the territories.)

Too bad you weren't in Washington today for the pro-Israel demonstration. You should've been there to give your opinion about those dirty violent aggressive Jews.

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: MacsKickAss ]</p>

[quote]So I guess then your gonna call your fellow Texan pal Dubya and the USA violent and aggressive too right? I mean, they attacked those poor innocent Afgans to destroy the wonderful regime of the Taliban and the al Qaida liberators.<hr></blockquote>

Lesse... they attacked us. We attacked them back. We didn't occupy and settle their land, forcing our laws on it... I don't see the parallel. As a matter of fact, the people of Afghanistan might end up better off at the end of the day.

[quote]You have previously said how good Bush is and so on, so you feel that hypocracy is perfectly fine for you?<hr></blockquote>

He has done more good than harm. Once again, I'm failing to see the parallel.

[quote]Calling Israel violent and aggressive is just plain stupid, it wouldn't be as bad if you gave some evidence, oh wait, there is none!<hr></blockquote>

The evidence that they have violently occupied someone else's territory is in the paper every day. I don't know how you're missing it.

[quote]For this last decade Israel has been constantly restraining herself from responding to violent acts of terror against civilians, offered peace, offered Judea, Samaria (West Bank), and Gaza, East Jerusalem to Arafat.<hr></blockquote>

Yep, no Palestinian civilians have ever been killed by Israel. Those pictures that OswaldDefenseLawyer are fakes made by Commies.

You're on the ball with this issue, I can tell you've really done your homework.

[quote]So, in other words peace and giving land = violence and aggression?<hr></blockquote>

What land has Israel given the Palestinians?

[quote]But what's even worse is you have labeled the entire Jewish state as being violent and aggressive.<hr></blockquote>

The IDF (look that up if you don't know what it is) has carried out thousands of murders in the name of peace. Thousands of women and children have been killed and more are killed daily.

I don't remember labelling the entire Jewish state (I am taking it for granted that you mean all the people in Israel) as violent and aggressive. But as a state, Israel has and is taking violent and aggressive action. Yes.

[quote]What do you have against the Jewish people? Are they too dirty for you? Are they a "threat" to reunite your Arian peoples in their quest to save their German fatherland? Well, in your case Texas.<hr></blockquote>

Yep, you got me you wily Canadian, it's really all because I'm an anti-Semite. The only possible reason you could see things differently in regards to this situation is if you hate the Jewish people. No wonder you guys are such an important part of the world, you've got all this stuff figured out.

[quote]So there are two conclusions. One, your are a racist anti-semitic, or two, you don't really mean what you're saying, you're just trolling and flame bating. For your sake I hope it is the latter.<hr></blockquote>

Nope, you busted me on my anti-Semitism. May God, Jean Chretien and the Queen have mercy on my soul.

[quote]It is people like you Groverat that will bring upon us the next Holocaust, but lucky for us not everyone can be as easily brainwashed as the citizens of Nazi Germany and the Arab countries (as well as the territories.)<hr></blockquote>

You got me, MacsKickAss, your logic is flawless. I am an Aryan/Arab anti-Semitic bent on world domination. It's all about Jew-killing with me. Thank God for Canada and her legions of intelligent citizens.

[quote]Too bad you weren't in Washington today for the pro-Israel demonstration. You should've been there to give your opinion about those dirty violent aggressive Jews.<hr></blockquote>

Yeah, they're all very dirty. In great need of a bath, the entire nation of Israel. Dirty dirty Jews.

And I almost got away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling Canadians.


<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:

Your contention is that international laws have no power when they are not enforced... so that makes enforcement the most important aspect of all international action, no?<hr></blockquote>

Here, your confusing laws with action. Laws require enforcement for effectiveness. Action isn't even involved here.

[quote]

So, then, would Arab nations be actually breaking any international laws if they were to take out Israel entirely or would their success exempt them from reprisal?<hr></blockquote>

Sure, they might be breaking "international laws" as you see them. They would only be free from reprisal if no other nation-state saw fit to react. However, if Arab nations did try to take out Israel they would see retaliation from (a) Israel, who has nuclear capabilities (the threat of which greatly deters Arab nations from action) and (b) the United States, who, as the only world superpower, has the ability to influence the system. It's a unipolar international order out there.

[quote]
Also, it's extremely shortsighted to look at it your way since if something is not done immediately then there is no reason to ever do anything if force wins out.
<hr></blockquote>

I fail to see your reasoning here. Action takes place when states feel threatened. That's what I've been positing is the case here the entire time.

[quote]
And there *are* international laws because they *have* worked and will in the future.
<hr></blockquote>

Name one.

[quote]
1898... you bring up something from 1898 in an attempt to discredit the UN's authority and premise? ... How does the Spanish-American war apply at all to this situation? There weren't even theoretical means of international law-making.
<hr></blockquote>

I brought it up merely as a US example. I could easily have brought up British military action in the Falkland Islands, Russian possession of the Kurile Islands, a continued US presence at Guantanamo Bay, etc. And just because the UN doesn't exist then doesn't mean it wouldn't be a violation of "international law." Most of the "laws" of the UN are codifications of previously existing but uncodified "agreements".

[quote]
That's laughable, "expert".
<hr></blockquote>

I never claimed to be an expert. I only said that it was my field of study. I'm the same age as you are, I'm just not a complete ass about my views. Just as you criticized SJO's overtop the top rhetoric on the Blue Meanie's drug threads, you lose credibility when you act like and ass about things that you don't know what you are talking about. If you want, I can give you the list of some books to read. Thanks for playing.

Edit: Everyone, it seems, has missed my original intention in posting. That was to illustrate that both the Israelis and Palestinians are to blame. There's been no unilateral action in this war. Read my first post in this thread; it's all there.

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>

Your "might makes right" argument is very Nietzsche, ubermensch. But I'm afraid that it's not really how we base our actions outside the self-centered world of the intellectual.

[quote]Name one.<hr></blockquote>

Ask Slobodan Milosevic.

[quote]And just because the UN doesn't exist then doesn't mean it wouldn't be a violation of "international law." Most of the "laws" of the UN are codifications of previously existing but uncodified "agreements".<hr></blockquote>

The whole "you can't keep land you conquer" is quite new, as evidenced by the outrage expressed at demanding that Israel give back the land it has conquered. And as proven by your examples, it is not merely a codification of assumed law, but a created law and policy by the UN.

[quote]I never claimed to be an expert. I only said that it was my field of study.<hr></blockquote>

You used it as an assertion of credibility in an area. That is a claim of expertise. It's interchangeable, but if you take offense to the term I'll stop using it.

[quote]Just as you criticized SJO's overtop the top rhetoric on the Blue Meanie's drug threads, you lose credibility when you act like and ass about things that you don't know what you are talking about.<hr></blockquote>

Have I exaggerated any claims at all? Have I accused the Jewish or Palestinian people of anything that is untrue or blown out of proportion?

SJO used hyperbole, I'm just arrogant, especially when I know I'm right.

I have demonstrated a greater knowledge of this issue than anyone else in this thread, yourself included. I had to point out a basic UN law to you in your own field of study. Honestly, how have I shown that I don't know what I'm talking about?

You can accuse me of being an ass or arrogant or annoying or rude, but you certainly can't accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about.

[quote]I'm just not a complete ass about my views. <hr></blockquote>

I think you are, just in a different way.

[quote]If you want, I can give you the list of some books to read.<hr></blockquote>

I'm a big fan of V.S. Naipaul, who would you suggest? I read "Beyond Belief: An Excursion Among the Converted Peoples" over winter break, a great read.

If you're talking about polysci books that led you to espouse such beautiful existential attitudes about international relations then I'm afraid I'm not interested.

I originally said:<strong>

So I guess then your gonna call your fellow Texan pal Dubya and the USA violent and aggressive too right? I mean, they attacked those poor innocent Afgans to destroy the wonderful regime of the Taliban and the al Qaida liberators.</strong>

Groverat's reply:

<strong>Lesse... they attacked us. We attacked them back. We didn't occupy and settle their land, forcing our laws on it... I don't see the parallel. As a matter of fact, the people of Afghanistan might end up better off at the end of the day.</strong>

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hizbolla, Fatah, PLO, PA were really victims of suicide bombings first. My bad. Those Israelies send martyrs everyday to kill Palestinian civilians. Hamas, etc are just acting in self defence. Riiiight.

I oringally said: <strong>

You have previously said how good Bush is and so on, so you feel that hypocracy is perfectly fine for you?</strong>

You said:

<strong>He has done more good than harm. Once again, I'm failing to see the parallel.</strong>

The parallel is his War on Terrorism. America can go fight to destroy terror but Israel cannot (makes it a little hard for the US to form an Arab coalition against Saddam Huissein.)

I originally said: <strong>

Calling Israel violent and aggressive is just plain stupid, it wouldn't be as bad if you gave some evidence, oh wait, there is none!</strong>

You said:

<strong>The evidence that they have violently occupied someone else's territory is in the paper every day. I don't know how you're missing it.</strong>

So then by that logic the USA is violently occupying Afganistan. You do know there are US soldiers there (Canadian and others as well.)

I originally said by me<strong>

For this last decade Israel has been constantly restraining herself from responding to violent acts of terror against civilians, offered peace, offered Judea, Samaria (West Bank), and Gaza, East Jerusalem to Arafat.</strong>

You said:

<strong>Yep, no Palestinian civilians have ever been killed by Israel. Those pictures that OswaldDefenseLawyer are fakes made by Commies.</strong>

In a war civilians get killed. Did you forgot about the Afgan civilians killed by US forces?
Now did you forget about the hundreds of Israeli civilians killed by terrorists? Should I post some pics of them? Or if I did would they really be fakes made by commies?

You again:

<strong>You're on the ball with this issue, I can tell you've really done your homework.</strong>

I could say the same about you.


I said:
<strong>
So, in other words peace and giving land = violence and aggression?</strong>

<strong>What land has Israel given the Palestinians?</strong>

Israel has given the West Bank of the Jordon River and the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians to be ruled autonomously by the Palestinian Authority.

90% of the West Bank and Gaza, and East Jerusalem were offered to the Palestinians for a state of their own, but Arafat rejected it.

I said: <strong>

But what's even worse is you have labeled the entire Jewish state as being violent and aggressive.</strong>

You said:

<strong>The IDF (look that up if you don't know what it is) has carried out thousands of murders in the name of peace. Thousands of women and children have been killed and more are killed daily.</strong>

No, I really don't know what the Israel Defence Forces are. What tens of thousands of murders are you refering to? Arab-Israeli wars of 1948, 53, 58 (or 59), 67, 73 when Arab states invaded Israel in an attempt to exterminate the Jewish state, you're saying killing the Arabs' professional army are thousands of murders?

Or are you refering to Lebanon in 1982, but those were Christian militias. Or, could you be possibly refering to the last couple of weeks. Is eliminating 100 terrorists somehow in mathematics = thousands of murders?

You said:

<strong>I don't remember labelling the entire Jewish state (I am taking it for granted that you mean all the people in Israel) as violent and aggressive. But as a state, Israel has and is taking violent and aggressive action. Yes. </strong>

You said Israel is violent and agressive. If you did not mean it as the entire Jewish state, then why did you not say the Israeli gov't, the IDF, the people on the far-right for example.

I said: <strong>

What do you have against the Jewish people? Are they too dirty for you? Are they a "threat" to reunite your Arian peoples in their quest to save their German fatherland? Well, in your case Texas.</strong>

You said:

<strong>Yep, you got me you wily Canadian, it's really all because I'm an anti-Semite. The only possible reason you could see things differently in regards to this situation is if you hate the Jewish people. No wonder you guys are such an important part of the world, you've got all this stuff figured out.</strong>

So I'm a wily Canadian now? You don't like Canadians either. What a surprise. Are there any other national, religious, ethnic, or lifestyle minorities you don't like? You know what, I don't want to know.

When did I say "The only possible reason you could see things differently in regards to this situation is if you hate the Jewish people."
I don't have a problem with those who have different opinions from me, but those who make up lies, distort half truths, and ignore the other side's wrong doing - I do have a problem with that.

"No wonder you guys are such an important part of the world, you've got all this stuff figured out."

Are you refering to "you guys" being Canada, or "you guys" being Israel?

If you're refering to Canada, well, we seem to be very important to you guys, considering you import more stuff from Canada than any other country, and we are your largest market for your exports, our companies supply you with arms, energy, many other things, and our soldiers who are risking their lives in Afganistan.

For the world, Canada has played an important role in peace keeping and improving the lives of all the inhabitans of this planet we all share.

Now about having "all of this stuff figured out", I unfortunetly don't speak for most Canadians. Most seem to be taking a neutral stance, but there are many who are either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian.

If you're refering to Israel you also trade very much with them, including importing/exporting of arms and other things. Don't forget all the Jewish scientists who made discoveries of the things you take for granted. Have you ever heard of Einestein?

Also Israel is the home of many important sites of biblical significance to the world's monotheistic religions. I don't see how your sarcasm would apply to that.

I said:
<strong>
So there are two conclusions. One, your are a racist anti-semitic, or two, you don't really mean what you're saying, you're just trolling and flame bating. For your sake I hope it is the latter.</strong>

You said:

<strong>Nope, you busted me on my anti-Semitism. May God, Jean Chretien and the Queen have mercy on my soul. </strong>

May God, George W. Bush and George W. Bush have mercy on your soul as well, you need it.

I said quote:

<strong>It is people like you Groverat that will bring upon us the next Holocaust, but lucky for us not everyone can be as easily brainwashed as the citizens of Nazi Germany and the Arab countries (as well as the territories.)</strong>

You got me, MacsKickAss, your logic is flawless. I am an Aryan/Arab anti-Semitic bent on world domination. It's all about Jew-killing with me. Thank God for Canada and her legions of intelligent citizens.

For once I agree with what you said.

I said <strong>

Too bad you weren't in Washington today for the pro-Israel demonstration. You should've been there to give your opinion about those dirty violent aggressive Jews.</strong>

You said:

<strong>Yeah, they're all very dirty. In great need of a bath, the entire nation of Israel. Dirty dirty Jews.</strong>

Can you say anything besides sarcastic statements?

You said:

<strong>And I almost got away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling Canadians.</strong>

It is one thing if you instult me but insulting the nations of both Israel and Canada are inapropriate and if you deeply believe you are correct in your righteous campaign then keep your xenophobic opinions to yourself.

Oh, and good luck replying to this. I had a hell of time managing the quotes. Good luck if you are going to do this same. I may have one or two quotes out of order.

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: MacsKickAss ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>If you're talking about polysci books that led you to espouse such beautiful existential attitudes about international relations then I'm afraid I'm not interested.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Too bad, you might actually learn something. With that, I'm done. This thread is pointless and is going around in circles. I am going to just agree to disagree with you, since no one seems willing to debate the merits of my original post. Oh well, that was a lot of wasted time... Sorry to think that I could actually make someone change their opinion about something on this board. And groverat, your arrogant assumption of knowledge is laughable.

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>

<a href="http://www.walk4israel.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Victims" target="_blank">http://www.walk4israel.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Victims</a>

Here's some dead Israeli terror victims for you to see groverat. It shouldn't take you that long to look at the 9 pages with about 50 pictures on each of them. 466 in all.

Be glad I'm just asking you to look at the fatalities. How would you like to look at several thousand who were seriously injured?

All of those are from September 2000 and up alone.

I could post all them but somehow the people with low-bandwidth internet connections would not be very happy with me.

I would order you one of the posters but all you would say is that its the Israelis' own fault and throw it in the garbage.

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: MacsKickAss ]

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: MacsKickAss ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by agent302:
<strong>
And groverat, your arrogant assumption of knowledge is laughable.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm glad you were able to get laugh out of it.

[quote]No matter how much you disagree with Israeli military action in the West Bank (and I happen to think that Ariel Sharon is the biggest idiot in Israeli history), it cannot be used to justify Palestinian terrorism.<hr></blockquote>

I agree with this 100%, I have no reason to discuss your first post. I agree with it. At no point have I stated that the terrorist attacks on Israel were justified or moral.

[quote]And groverat, your arrogant assumption of knowledge is laughable.<hr></blockquote>

This coming from someone who actually said "Hate to get theoretical on you, but this is my field of study."

Interesting. I only said that I have demonstrated a greater knowledge since I actually brought up facts and stuff. Whether or not I have the most knowledge is definitely debateable. I'm sure someone who has posted thus far knows more than me and I can guarantee you that someone who has read all this knows a lot more than me on the subject.

You can't counter what I've said because you either don't understand the books you're reading or maybe what you're being taught is bullshit. (polysci major learning stuff that isn't applicable in real life but acting like it is even when confronted with grim reality... never!)

Also, no response re: Slobodan, eh? I guess that big court thingy at the Hague isn't really there, a Commie illusion. Nope, <a href="http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm" target="_blank">International law</a> is just a big <a href="http://www.un.org/law/" target="_blank">figment of our imaginations.</a>

I understand your theory, agent, I really do, I just know that it's bullshit given the state of the actual world and the mountain of quite obvious circumstances that show it to be quite flawed.

I prefer actual knowledge to hollow theorizing. But then again, polysci is your field of study, so we're different right off the bat. I'm a journalism major, after all, I'm supposed to be analyzing the bullshit your peers pump out. Those are our jobs, after all.

------

I think the real winner in all this is MacsKickAss, for exposing the anti-Semitic idea of mutual peace for what it really is. Israel deserves that land, by God, and anyone who says diff'rnt is a pinko Aryan/Arab Commie fag!

But for fun I'll get at a few basic points...

[quote]So then by that logic the USA is violently occupying Afganistan. You do know there are US soldiers there (Canadian and others as well.)<hr></blockquote>

There are soldiers there, yeah. But the people aren't subject to U.S. or Canadian authority. The land also isn't being settled by armed Americans or Canadians. What's going on is a police action, not a settlement and occupation. There's a difference and it's a quite obvious difference.

[quote]Or if I did would they really be fakes made by commies?<hr></blockquote>

Nope, we killed civilians and I'm well aware of the fact. But we did it for a very limited time and we're not doing it anymore, because the conflict in that particular area has cooled considerably. Israeli soldiers and Palestinian terrorists have been killing civilians for decades. Also, Israel has killed many Palestinians while demolishing their homes, making way for Israeli settlers, a situation you won't find in Afghanistan.

[quote]Israel has given the West Bank of the Jordon River and the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians to be ruled autonomously by the Palestinian Authority.<hr></blockquote>

That never was the Israeli's to offer. They took it away and offered to give it back if Arafat agreed to let them have some of the other land they had taken. He, rightly, refused. Palestinians want all of their land, and this is why we're at the bloody impasse we're at now.

[quote]You don't like Canadians either.<hr></blockquote>

Damnit, you got me some more! I hate Canadians and Jews and homosexuals and puppies and birdies and fishies and handicapped people and blacks and browns and yellows and blues and Australians and even myself. I hate you for making me face the ugly truths that dwell inside me. No, not dwell, fester, they fester inside me like something that festers... festers with a great festering presence!

[quote]Are you refering to "you guys" being Canada, or "you guys" being Israel?<hr></blockquote>

Canadians. And Mac users. (Oh yeah, I hate Mac users and Amiga users and Linux users and Windows users. And, God help us all, BSD users.)

[quote]Can you say anything besides sarcastic statements?<hr></blockquote>

I don't know, when you start saying intelligent things I will stop being sarcastic. When you actually assert with sincerity that the only reason I could disagree with Israeli occupation is because I'm anti-Semitic... am I supposed to take such idiotic tripe seriously?

[quote]Oh, and good luck replying to this. I had a hell of time managing the quotes. Good luck if you are going to do this same.<hr></blockquote>

I can handle it just fine.

A little more information:

Since the Zionist settlement in Israel in 1860, the country has lost 21,182 people in wars and in terror attacks.

In just March, 104 citizens were killed and 833 were injured.

Just wondering if you knew that.

I don't have much time so I'll just respond to the important quotes.

[quote]
I said:
<strong>Israel has given the West Bank of the Jordon River and the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians to be ruled autonomously by the Palestinian Authority.</strong><hr></blockquote>

[quote]Your reply:
<strong>That never was the Israeli's to offer. They took it away and offered to give it back if Arafat agreed to let them have some of the other land they had taken. He, rightly, refused. Palestinians want all of their land, and this is why we're at the bloody impasse we're at now.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They took away the West Bank and Gaza from Jordon and Egypt, respectively. Those two Arab states did not offer those occupied territories to the Palestinians.

How did Arafat rightly refuse. They were offered all there land. 90%+ is not good enoguh? Or are you refering to all of Israel should be given to Arafat the PA?

I have to go to bed now, I won't be able to respond to anything else tonight.

And I did not say you are anti-semitic, just what you are saying could be derivied from it or that you are simply saying this for flame bate.

Many Arabs in the area have been killed as well. I know both sides have suffered. I've said this quite a few times.

[quote]They took away the West Bank and Gaza from Jordon and Egypt, respectively. Those two Arab states did not offer those occupied territories to the Palestinians.<hr></blockquote>

Really, the <a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gz.html" target="_blank">Gaza Strip</a> was Egypt's? You must have some knowledge that no one on else had before. Wow.

And <a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/we.html" target="_blank">the West Bank</a> was Jordan's? Fascinating.

[edit]

[quote]How did Arafat rightly refuse. They were offered all there land. 90%+ is not good enoguh?<hr></blockquote>

You would accept 90% of your land back if someone took it from you?

They were *not* offered all their land.

[quote]Or are you refering to all of Israel should be given to Arafat the PA?<hr></blockquote>

Yep, that's what I'm saying. Since I hate Jews and everything. You've nailed me.

****ing idiot.

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

groverrat, I think I have an idea of what your are suggesting. But do you really think the Israelis and the Palestinians can live in peace at such close proximity even after a resolution is formed and accepted by both parties? I think lasting peace is that thing that is so elusive. It won't happen with other countries around that still harbor deep seated resentment towards Israel. they will always be poking it to the Palestinians until something new erupts.

[quote]But do you really think the Israelis and the Palestinians can live in peace at such close proximity even after a resolution is formed and accepted by both parties?<hr></blockquote>

That's the $64,000 question, now isn't it?

Unfortunately, I think hostilities in that region will never die.

However, it is imperative that everyone act in good faith and obey international laws. Without strict adherence to laws there is no hope at all for peace and there will be no end in sight to the bloodshed.

If the Palestinians can get organized under a productive government, then yes, I absolutely believe that there can be hope for peace. First the extreme Zionists and extreme Muslims must be removed from any positions of power in the region.

I can't say whether or not an immediate Israel pull-out will solve all the problems, but it will most certainly help. And besides, they are breaking the law by staying there anyway and inviting further attacks on their civilians.

[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Your "might makes right" argument is very Nietzsche, ubermensch</strong><hr></blockquote>

You haven't really studied Nietzsche, have you? Didn't think so.


PS: I just read the rest of this post. Keep your dick in your pants. It's not nearly the size you think it is...

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</p>

I've read "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Will to Power" but beyond that I haven't really studied Nietzsche all that closely. The whole will to power as a physical theory, thing. Nihilism and all that fun jazz.

[edit]

From "The Will to Power":
The development of pessimism into nihilism. - Denaturalisation of values. Scholasticism of values. Detached and idealistic, values, instead of dominating and guiding action, turn against action and condemn it. Opposites replace natural degrees and ranks. Hatred against the order of rank. Opposites suit a plebeian age because easier to comprehend. The repudiated world versus an artificially built "true, valuable" one. - Finally: one discovers of what material one has built the "true world": and now all one has left is the repudiated world, and one adds this supreme disappointment to the reasons why it deserves to be repudiated. At this point nihilism is reached: all one has left are the values that pass judgement - nothing else.

Here the problem of strength and weakness originates:

1. The weak perish of it.
2. Those who are stronger destroy what does not perish.
3. Those who are strongest overcome the values that pass judgement.

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>

Oh really? They started shooting 4 year olds in the head? That's news to me. I thought they were only looking to kill pregnant women, and blind old people with one leg. My bad .

The US is, by UN definition, a terrorist state (as is Israel). The PLO did not choose nonviolence in the early 60s and therefore is close to as bad (if they had more Arab money they would be as bad as Israel, who is funded by the US and UK). Either way, the truth will come out sooner or later that the US does not want peace in the middle east but instead wants a kind of controlled chaos (just like Latin America)and we should see a two state system.

BTW - anyone who thinks that a country with a religious symbol on its flag is a "democracy" should 1) check the law, which favors jews over other all others and 2) imagine the (predominantly christian) US with a cross on their flag with the same exact laws in this country.

Both the PLO and Israel are bloodthirsty and driven by ego; the US is, too- the only difference is that they LIKE it that way.

Supporting Israel's bloody imperialism has really come back to sting us. We've got over 3,000 dead as a result and it's high time we stopped funding their military machine. If they want to continue violent expansion let them do it on their own dime.

[quote] BTW - anyone who thinks that a country with a religious symbol on its flag is a "democracy" should 1) check the law, which favors jews over other all others and 2) imagine the (predominantly christian) US with a cross on their flag with the same exact laws in this country. <hr></blockquote>
ehh. both Switzerland and all the north European countries have a cross in their flag. I don't know about switzerland, but the cross in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and the faroe island is the christan cross... (I also believe the english flag has the same form...)

I agree that those are christian crosses; thanks. I still, however, remember reading that Israel's lawbooks favor jews, which reminds me of "old" South Africa.

Yes, your is still valid. How can a state both favor One Relgion and be Democratic, one excludes the the full implementation of the other...

would the world be a better place if someone simply nuked all countries where religion informed the people's lives?

Spooky are you saying to get rid off all muslim nations?

There are no pure Muslim nations like Israel is a pure Jewish nation.

Indonesia is about as close as you get.

Oh stupid me! What the hell was I thinking!

You have got to be kidding me. Israel is a PURE jewish state? Then what the hell is Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

Anyway spooky said, would the world be a better place if someone simply nuked all countries where religion informed the people's lives?

Not where religion is PURE. Where religion informed the people's lives or what ever that mean.

Or was that just another jab at the jews?

[quote] Definately. If all you have is a slingshot, don't pick a fight with a trained soldier toting an M-16A2.

<hr></blockquote>

not to pick sides, because both are wrong wrong wrong....

but if foreign soldiers atacked my home and family in America, even if they had guns and all i had were stones, i would throw stones, pebbles and finally dust if i had to to try and protect my family....g