"W" as The Dark Night?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

liberal, anti-Semitic

Interesting combination of words. Ever notice that most Jews are liberal?

Yep. And have you ever noticed that some of the worst anti-Semites on the planet are Jewish??? Many liberal Jews hate Israel.

QUOTE

Far from escalating anything, Israel has sought and implemented as many nonviolent measures as possible to curb violence.

I applaud that, but we've got to look at the whole truth. There have also been unjustified Jewish massacres of Palestinians. You can't honestly deny that.

Yes, I can. I am far more aware of Jewish history than you realize and most of the alleged massacres were nothing of the sort.

Clearly you consider anyone who isn't ultra-Zionist to be anti-Semitic.

No, I consider stupid remarks that try to make Israel out to be morally equivalent to terrorist thugs.

In your eyes, Israel can do no wrong as long as it's in the name of self-defense. Is that correct?

Nope in fact, I am an outspoken critic of Israel on many things. It's just unlike you liberals, I criticize Israel to make Israel and better AND I know what I am talking about when I talk about Israel.

You clearly haven't seen what I've seen.

I am Jewish. I know far more about this issue and have a much more personal and unique perspective on this than you realize. Trust me, you don't want to get into a debate with me about Israel. It is not a debate you will win, I can promise you that.

You either don't know about, or refuse to accept, the many instances of peaceful Palestinian settlements being invaded, and Western reporters being killed in cold blood by Israeli troops.

Yeah, I have heard about stuff like that. Most of the time, it usually ends up either not being true, or is the product of a rogue soldier acting on his own. I am very familiar with a lot of the myths perpetrated about Israel in order to make Israel look like the bully. You are not the first one on this board to bring up all of the lies and misinformation, half-truths and conspiracy theories abuot the conflict, and you won't be the last.

I am not saying that Jews have not stepped over the line, but they do so on their own without the sanction, approval or the the command to do so by the Israeli government.

Compare that with the terrorism that is funded by Arab governments and is sanctioned by the Palestinian terorrist controlled "government" like Hamas, and the former PLO. They fund and train the terrorists and produce literature for school children teaching them that Jews are descended from apes. They created "Disney" like cartoon characters that teach little children that killing Jews as a martyr in the name of "allah" is the path to glory and immortality. Yet the world tries to say that it is Israel's reprisals that is begetting the violence. The Palestinians bathe their children with violence day and night. It is all they know in many cases. It has become their righteousness.

They take suicide bombers and put their images on children's trading cards, name streets after them. The most notorious get special remembrances like getting weapons name after them like the "Qassam" rockets that continue to fly over into Israeli towns day and night.

They have Imams screaming for Israel's destruction every Friday night from Mosques that sit on Israeli soil and this done without a word of criticism from the rest of the world. If Israel were to ever disappear, the Palestinians would self-destruct and implode on themselves because the violence that has been sown into their hearts from the crib has to have a target.

I cannot defend everything Israel has done on its behalf. However, those errors and miscalculations in judgment would not have been made in the first place were Israel not having to suffer ongoing terrorism from all sides, and six wars based upon nothing but an irrational hatred for Israel's very existence.

Israel is not perfect, but Israel's imperfections do not warrant being unfairly singled out as the source of the problem. Israel suffers continuous threats to its existence, which is flamed, perpetuated and rewarded by the international community and the international media who treat known terrorist organizations as legitimate political entities (which violates the Quartet sponsored Road Map) while unfairly placing the majority of the blame upon Israel as the root cause of this conflict.

Israel continues to strive for peace with her neighbors and safety for her people. It is unfair for Israel

[The Lorax]

Yep. And have you ever noticed that some of the worst anti-Semites on the planet are Jewish??? Many liberal Jews hate Israel.

Wow, you actually do define non-Zionists as anti-Semites! You're erroneously playing the race card--just like all those liberals you despise.

No, I consider stupid remarks that try to make Israel out to be morally equivalent to terrorist thugs.

No one here is equating Israelis with terrorist thugs. However, people have aptly pointed out that Israel is capable, and culpable, of wrongdoing.

I am Jewish. I know far more about this issue and have a much more personal and unique perspective on this than you realize. Trust me, you don't want to get into a debate with me about Israel. It is not a debate you will win, I can promise you that.

You're right, I don't want to debate with someone who is already convinced they are absolutely right. Such people don't want a debate, they simply want to be agreed with.

I cannot defend everything Israel has done on its behalf. However, those errors and miscalculations in judgment would not have been made in the first place were Israel not having to suffer ongoing terrorism from all sides, and six wars based upon nothing but an irrational hatred for Israel's very existence.

Israel is not perfect, but Israel's imperfections do not warrant being unfairly singled out as has been done in this letter. Israel suffers continuous threats to its existence, which is flamed, perpetuated and rewarded by the international community and the international media who treat known terrorist organizations as legitimate political entities (which violates the Quartet sponsored Road Map) while unfairly placing the majority of the blame upon Israel as the root cause of this conflict.

This is probably the closest we'll come to an agreement, so I'll end on this note.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 30 2008, 10:15 PM)

Yep. And have you ever noticed that some of the worst anti-Semites on the planet are Jewish??? Many liberal Jews hate Israel.

Wow, you actually do define non-Zionists as anti-Semites! You're erroneously playing the race card--just like all those liberals you despise.

Anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. Anti-Zionism is just another expression of anti-Semtism. Just as anti-Semitism denies Jews equality with respect to civil and human rights in a given community, anti-Zionism denies Israel the right to operate as equal member in the community of nations. It is the same disease but a different name. Anti-Zionism is racism.

QUOTE

No, I consider stupid remarks that try to make Israel out to be morally equivalent to terrorist thugs.

No one here is equating Israelis with terrorist thugs.

That is exactly what you are doing and that is what others are doing with remarks like "violence begets violence" which is basically just another way of blaming Israel for the conflict.

QUOTE

I am Jewish. I know far more about this issue and have a much more personal and unique perspective on this than you realize. Trust me, you don't want to get into a debate with me about Israel. It is not a debate you will win, I can promise you that.

You're right, I don't want to debate with someone who is already convinced they are absolutely right. Such people don't want a debate, they simply want to be agreed with.

I am convinced I am right because I have faith in my ability to prove my point. Being convinced one is right is not an impediment to debate but the spirit of it. That is the whole point of debate: to see who's facts and knowledge can stand up to scrutiny.

You are simply smart enough to recognize that you don't have the resources or the knowledge to debate the issue, but lack the courage or integrity to admit it.

[Burning_Ember]

Could give us your definition of Anti-Zionist, what it entails, and in that context how it is racist, shiloh?

Saying Violence begets violence isn't Racism against Jews. It is common sense in that bringing violence will probably cause violence as a reaction. Take Iraq, for example. The reason why the conflict isn't bad as it could be by a good margin is because the various leaders of tribes/militias etc agreed to stop shooting at each other and pay more attention to terrorism, not because they were bombed into submission by each-other/America/Terrorists. Calm the sensitivity down a bit.

[Guest shiloh357]

Could give us your definition of Anti-Zionist, what it entails, and in that context how it is racist, shiloh?

Well, first let's define Zionism.

Zionism is:

• The National Liberation movement of the Jewish People.
  
• It is the modern expression of the ancient longing by the Jewish People to return to their land and live as a free people once again.
  
• It is the desire to secure a modern state for the Jewish nation.
  
• It is the conviction that the Jewish people have the right to live in freedom and security in its homeland.
  
• It is the determination to aid and encourage the return of any and all Jewish refugees of the Diaspora who wish to return home.
  
• It is the concern for the safety and security of that modern state, and the desire to see it strong enough to defend itself and the Jewish people as a whole from any present or future existential threat.
  

~The Center for Ethnic Jewish Studies

To be against the above, is to be anti-Zionist and thus anti-Semitic. If the above were discussing Africans, or any other race and such ideals were denied them, it would be just as racist.

Anti-Zionism is:

[*] The belief that Israel does not have the right to exist.

[*]It is the belief that the determination of Israel's need for secure and defensible are not the right of the Israeli people or government to decide.

[*]It is the double standards that have been erected wherein Israel is criticized for actions and policies of self-defense and self-preservation that do not even bring minor criticism when the same actions are employed by non-Jewish countries.

[*]It is the hypocrisy of the international community of nations, which regularly sides with Israel

[The Lorax]

Anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. Anti-Zionism is just another expression of anti-Semtism.

Talk all you want, but not supporting a Jewish state in Israel does not equate to anti-Semitism, which is the belief Jews are inferior. You've got nothing there.

Also, suppose it were true that anti-Zionism means racism against Jews, then Zionism would mean racism against Palestinians. Your own logic implicates you in racism!

That is exactly what you are doing and that is what others are doing with remarks like "violence begets violence" which is basically just another way of blaming Israel for the conflict.

Ah, putting words in my mouth. I'm not equating Israelis with terrorist thugs. If you have reading comprehension problems, that's your issue to sort out.

You are simply smart enough to recognize that you don't have the resources or the knowledge to debate the issue, but lack the courage or integrity to admit it.

Through your confusion of simple statements and concepts, you've demonstrated a total inability to handle debate.

By the way, I think our discussion so far serves DUO's point that violence begets violence. You insult me, and I shoot back. You are unwittingly disproving your own point with your behavior here.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 30 2008, 10:57 PM)

Anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. Anti-Zionism is just another expression of anti-Semtism.

Talk all you want, but not supporting a Jewish state in Israel does not equate to anti-Semitism, which is the belief Jews are inferior. You've got nothing there.

Not supporting Israel in the context of its current conflict leaves you with no option but to deny Israel's right to exist which is what is at stake in the conflict.

Zionism is the belief in the right of the Jews to have a nation of their own in their homeland. Were you to deny that to ANY other ethnicity it would be labeled as racist. You fail to understand the full breadth of how anti-Semitism is expressed.

Also, suppose it were true that anti-Zionism means racism against Jews, then Zionism would mean racism against Palestinians. Your own logic implicates you in racism!

Wrong again, liberal. Look at the definition above in my last post and show me where it denies anything to the Palestinians. I can't believe you could be this dense.

Zionism is not built on a platform that denies the right of the Palestinians a nation of their own.

In November of 1947, when the UN put a two-state solution to a vote, it was the Zionists that voted for a Palestinian state to be created alongside the nation of Israel. It was the Arab world that voted against it. Zionists have never spoke against the creation of a Palestinian nation. Zionists have never called for the elimination or eradication of the Palestinians. In fact, when you include the Peel Commission partition plan of 1936 and the Ehud Barak offer of nationhood back in 2000, both of which the Arabs and Palestinians rejected, the Palestinians had 3 chances for a nation of their own and the Jews did not oppose any of them. The Barak offer was probably the most generous, and even Bill Clinton was dumbfounded and fairly incensed at Arafat when Arafat walked out on the offer. In each case the Zionists agreed to a Palestinian state.

In the words of Abba Eban: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

It is the Zionists who currently provide free healthcare and welfare to the Palestinians. It was the Zionists who caused the Palestinian quality and standard of living to increase by 200% after Israel took control of the Gaza and West Bank.

I am sorry, Lorax, but you should stick with science. You don't know beans about Zionism, or its history.

QUOTE

That is exactly what you are doing and that is what others are doing with remarks like "violence begets violence" which is basically just another way of blaming Israel for the conflict.

Ah, putting words in my mouth

No, I was quoting "Do Unto Others" that was her remark.

I'm not equating Israelis with terrorist thugs. If you have reading comprehension problems, that's your issue to sort out.

Yes you are particularly with your attempt to make the conflict appear equally bad on both sides with your remarks about alleged "massacres" as if the same violence was typical for both sides.

QUOTE

You are simply smart enough to recognize that you don't have the resources or the knowledge to debate the issue, but lack the courage or integrity to admit it.

Through your confusion of simple statements and concepts, you've demonstrated a total inability to handle debate.

So far, you have botched up everything you have said between misinformation and your lack of understanding of what Zionism is. I can see the fog of ignroance that usually clouds liberal minds is in no danger of dissipating.

By the way, I think our discussion so far serves DUO's point that violence begets violence. You insult me, and I shoot back. You are unwittingly disproving your own point with your behavior here.

In your overactive imagination perhaps. Debate cannot be put on the same level as physical violence. But since you have nothing intelligent, meaningful, substantive, logical, knowledgeable or historically accurate to contribute to the conversation, I can imagine it would be necessary to make such an erroneous and irrational comparison.

Stick with what your good at, Lorax. The middleeast conflict is just out of your league.

[The Lorax]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 30 2008, 10:57 PM)

Anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. Anti-Zionism is just another expression of anti-Semtism.

Talk all you want, but not supporting a Jewish state in Israel does not equate to anti-Semitism, which is the belief Jews are inferior. You've got nothing there.

Not supporting Israel in the context of its current conflict leaves you with no option but to deny Israel's right to exist which is what is at stake in the conflict.

Zionism is the belief in the right of the Jews to have a nation of their own in their homeland. Were you to deny that to ANY other ethnicity it would be labeled as racist. You fail to understand the full breadth of how anti-Semitism is expressed.

Also, suppose it were true that anti-Zionism means racism against Jews, then Zionism would mean racism against Palestinians. Your own logic implicates you in racism!

Wrong again, liberal. Look at the definition above in my last post and show me where it denies anything to the Palestinians. I can't believe you could be this dense.

Zionism is not built on a platform that denies the right of the Palestinians a nation of their own.

In November of 1947, when the UN put a two-state solution to a vote, it was the Zionists that voted for a Palestinian state to be created alongside the nation of Israel. It was the Arab world that voted against it. Zionists have never spoke against the creation of a Palestinian nation. Zionists have never called for the elimination or eradication of the Palestinians. In fact, when you include the Peel Commission partition plan of 1936 and the Ehud Barak offer of nationhood back in 2000, both of which the Arabs and Palestinians rejected, the Palestinians had 3 chances for a nation of their own and the Jews did not oppose any of them. The Barak offer was probably the most generous, and even Bill Clinton was dumbfounded and fairly incensed at Arafat when Arafat walked out on the offer. In each case the Zionists agreed to a Palestinian state.

It is the Zionists who currently provide free healthcare and welfare to the Palestinians. It was the Zionists who caused the Palestinian quality and standard of living to increase by 200% Israel took control of the Gaza and West Bank.

I am sorry, Lorax, but you should stick with science. You don't know beans about Zionism, or its history.

QUOTE

That is exactly what you are doing and that is what others are doing with remarks like "violence begets violence" which is basically just another way of blaming Israel for the conflict.

Ah, putting words in my mouth

No, I was quoting "Do Unto Others" that was her remark.

I'm not equating Israelis with terrorist thugs. If you have reading comprehension problems, that's your issue to sort out.

Yes you are particularly with your attempt to make the conflict appear even with your remarks about alleged "massacres" as if the same violence was typical for both sides.

QUOTE

You are simply smart enough to recognize that you don't have the resources or the knowledge to debate the issue, but lack the courage or integrity to admit it.

Through your confusion of simple statements and concepts, you've demonstrated a total inability to handle debate.

So far, you have botched up everything you have said between misinformation and your lack of understanding of what Zionism is. I can see the fog of ignroance that usually clouds liberal minds is in no danger of dissipating.

By the way, I think our discussion so far serves DUO's point that violence begets violence. You insult me, and I shoot back. You are unwittingly disproving your own point with your behavior here.

In your overactive imagination perhaps. Debate cannot be put on the same level as physical violence. But since you have nothing intelligent, meaningful, substantive, logical, knowledgeable or historically accurate to contribute to the conversation, I can imagine it would be necessary to make such an erroneous and irrational comparison.

Stick with what your good at, Lorax. The middleeast conflict is just out of your league.

Wow. I don't even need to quote each of your "arguments" individually because they are all the same:

1) Restate your point again, but with superfluous detail

2) Insult liberals

3) Remind me that I'm liberal

4) Brag about your knowledge of Zionism

5) Discourage me from continuing to debate the subject

You have only one argument worth addressing individually, which is that about racism

Zionism is the belief in the right of the Jews to have a nation of their own in their homeland. Were you to deny that to ANY other ethnicity it would be labeled as racist.

No so. If another group of people asked to regain their homeland of 2000 years ago, and in doing so, to displace the people currently living there, they would be laughed at.

Zionism is the belief in the right of the Jews to have a nation of their own in their homeland.

Correction: Zionism is the belief in the right of the Jews to have a nation of their own in their homeland...even if it means displacing the people already living there.

To deny Jews the right to exist, to deny them the right to have a homeland somewhere, is racist. But to deny Jews the "right" to displace a huge community of people based on a religious claim, that's not racist. (Obviously, as a Christian, I believe Jews belong in Palestine, but I don't feign ignorance of other perspectives, like you do. And I don't call people racist because they're morally opposed to the sudden displacement of one group of people by another.)

In November of 1947, when the UN put a two-state solution to a vote, it was the Zionists that voted for a Palestinian state to be created alongside the nation of Israel. It was the Arab world that voted against it. Zionists have never spoke against the creation of a Palestinian nation. Zionists have never called for the elimination or eradication of the Palestinians. In fact, when you include the Peel Commission partition plan of 1936 and the Ehud Barak offer of nationhood back in 2000, both of which the Arabs and Palestinians rejected, the Palestinians had 3 chances for a nation of their own and the Jews did not oppose any of them. The Barak offer was probably the most generous, and even Bill Clinton was dumbfounded and fairly incensed at Arafat when Arafat walked out on the offer. In each case the Zionists agreed to a Palestinian state.

It doesn't matter that Zionists haven't called for the elimination of Palestinians. They still claimed--and won--the privilege to displace people who had been living in an area for hundreds of years based on a racial and religious claim. By the way, you know Jerusalem is sacred to Muslims, do you not? It's where they claim Mohammed ascended to heaven.

If it weren't already clear, the idiocy of your argument is proved by the fact that, before WWII, most Jews weren't Zionists, and still today, many aren't. Only an idiot would claim millions of Jews are racist against themselves because they don't believe in territorial encroachment.

[nebula]

1) For what it is worth, "our" side believes that we are not being agressive enough, that we truly are not doing what it takes to defeat the Terrorists.

1) Well we are currently in 2 wars, how much more aggressive should we be? 3 wars, 10 wars?

Hey, I'm trying to present a calm, rational discussion on this issue. Please don't spoil it by jumping to conclusion, OK?

Being more aggressive has to do with how we execute our dealings in what we are already immersed in, not starting new wars.

2) Several of us argue for aiming missiles at Mecca and telling the terrorists to back off or else.... (I, of course, think we should add that well the Mahdi is supposed to rise from to the hit list as a means of stopping Pres. Akminijab(sp?).)

2) I wonder if Bin Laden and his ilk we saying - Several of us argue for blowing something up (like an embassy or something) and telling the West to get out of the holy land or else... I wonder how that played out. I bet there was no ensuing violence.

My response is that first of all, it appears you are confusing initial aggression with self-defense. In your scenario, Bin Laden destroys the building first, then makes the demand for withdrawl. In my scenario, the holy site is threatened with the intent of ending furhter aggression.

Do you see the difference?

Second, another country actually did this: As a deterrent against further aggression from Islamic terrorists, the president threatened to bomb Mecca. The terrorists determined the risk too high and withdrew their aggression.

[nebula]

So, what is your proposition? I know you said:

I believe this is the crux of many issues with Bush. We are supposed to be above/better than criminals/our enemies. Leading by example and all, PROVING that we are better than they by NOT resorting to their tactics.

3) But what does this mean?

3) It means that we don't torture even though our enemies do it. It means we act Christ-like as a means of showing non-Christians the light, regardless of how many times we must do it. If even one soul is saved by the light of Jesus then it would be worth it. Hope that's enough for you.

That isn't answering what I was asking. (And please don't be short with me, OK? I am asking sincere questions.)

What I am asking for is a specific course of action. How would you, as president, show Christ-likeness to Bin Laden after 9/11? And how would you encure the future safety of US citizens via your actions?

4) What specifically would you do if you were in power to defend your people from another 9/11? or Madrid train bombing? or the London subway bombing?

4) I would get ****** out of their country when they ask or tell us to. That would be a good start considering that's what Bin Laden attacked us for.

Oh dear. It sounds to me like you are in agreement with Bin Laden from the start? Is that what you mean by "considering that's what Bin Laden attacked us for"?

But aside from motive, it sounds like you are suggesting we give in to the terrorists? I do not understand how that would make the world a safer place to live. Would you please explain.

You see, to me that would be the same as paying the Mafia for their "protection." (If you know what I mean.)

5) or to prevent Hamas from firing any more missiles into Sderot and other areas?

Specifically, what would you do?

5) That's a different scenario but PEACE TALKS need to happen and frankly Bush has done squat for 7 years on the issue.

But how do you hold peace talks with someone who does not want peace?

Do you honestly believe Bin Laden is seeking peace?