NOT Turning the Other Cheek… Run 2

USW Note: This article was run back a few weeks ago and happened to have the bad luck to have run on the morning the Bin Laden story hit the news. As a result, LOI’s hard work didn’t really get a fair chance to be discussed. Several people noted in the comments that they would like to see it run again later, and LOI also has a part two that this sets up. So here we have it again, so that it can get the spotlight it deserves…

The Colonel has shared his insights and information on Texas border violence.  I don’t mean to stray into his territory except to note that when someone shoots at Texans, they tend to shoot back.  When an armed helicopter enters Texas airspace (1), their response is to have ready sixteen armed helicopters.(2)  Brings to mind the saying, “Don’t mess with Texas”.

I saw a headline today about China accusing the USA of human rights violations.  I don’t know, didn’t bother to read any farther.  I was occupied with considering stepping between the esteemed Colonel and our original pirate, Black Flag.  With all the violence in the Middle East, the increasing attacks on Israel have failed to attract much media attention.

I have a personal belief, that self-defense is an absolute right.  Such a simple statement, but the ramifications  can be quite complex.  I think the same right belongs to groups and nations.  The United States has the right to demand Mexico stop acts of violence across our border.  We have the right to hold them accountable for even individual acts of violence.  When Rico the drug dealer shoots at a rancher in the US, we can treat this as an act of war.  So what is different in the situation between Israel and Palestine?

two, one two three four

Ev’rybody’s talking about
Bagism, Madism, Dragism, Shagism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism
ism ism ism
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

its goin’ great

Two Wounded After Gaza Missile Strike Hits School Bus

By Leland Vittert

April 7: A wounded Israeli is treated by medics at the site where an Israeli school bus was hit by a mortar shell fired from the Gaza Strip near the border between southern Israel and Gaza Wednesday. A Palestinian mortar shell from the Gaza Strip struck a school bus in southern Israel Thursday, wounding two people, including one child critically, Israeli officials said.

AP2011April 7: A wounded Israeli is treated by medics at the site where an Israeli school bus was hit by a mortar shell fired from the Gaza Strip near the border between southern Israel and Gaza Wednesday. A Palestinian mortar shell from the Gaza Strip struck a school bus in southern Israel Thursday, wounding two people, including one child critically, Israeli officials said.

In what appears to be a clear escalation of the Hamas-Israel cross-border attacks along the Gaza Strip, a possible anti-tank weapon fired by militants hit a school bus that just minutes before had dropped off 30 children.

Two people were wounded in the attack on the bus and for the next two hours the area came under heavy rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza.(3)

How would Texas respond if drug lords fired missiles and mortars into one of its towns?  Whether you agree with the wars we are in today, most people are honest enough to admit we try not to kill non-combatants.  This is our choice, not something required under the laws of war.  Someone using a child as a human shield is still a legal target if they are or were attacking you.  Same for churches, hospitals or schools, the attacker made it a legal target when they attacked from that site.  Can a doctor or teacher stop an armed madman from using their property?  Maybe not, but if I am under attack, I can’t let their failure stop me from protecting my people.  And with the Palestinians, who voted in Hamas to be their government, I am not very sympathetic.  I remember those peace-loving people dancing in the streets on 9/11.  I know the USA has done terrible things.  I know we have also done much good.  I think any people who celebrate the deaths of innocents are not what I judge to be “good”.

Everybody’s talkin’ bout’ministers,
sinisters, banisters and canisters,
bishops and fishops and rabbis and pop eyes,
and byebye, byebyes

all we are saying is give peace a chance,
all we are saying is give peace a chance,

Gaza residents from the southern city of Rafah hit the streets Saturday to celebrate the terror attack in the West Bank settlement of Itamar where five family members were murdered in their sleep, including three children.
Residents handed out candy and sweets, one resident saying the joy “is a natural response to the harm settlers inflict on the Palestinian residents in the West Bank.”(4)

Consider also, what we think is influenced by our source of information.  (Yes, that includes the pro-Israel writer of the following)

April 11, 2011, Leo Rennert

WaPo coddles Hamas, while making Israel look bad

The Monday, April 11, print edition of the Washington Post carries a brief story about Israel and Hamas moving toward a Gaza cease-fire after four days of cross-border fire exchanges that began when a Hamas anti-tank missile hit an Israeli school bus, critically injuring a teenager.

The Post goes on to report that “Israeli retaliatory air strikes have killed 19 Palestinians,” not bothering to specify that most of them were terrorists. By failing to distinguish between Palestinian civilians and Palestinian combatants, the Post leaves a misleading impression that Israel responded with random strikes that conceivably might have killed only civilians.

The New York Times, whose coverage also tends to be hyper-critical of Israel while sanitizing Hamas, nevertheless in this instance was quite specific in reporting that Israeli fire “killed 18 Palestinians, 10 of whom were militants and the rest civilians, according to officials in Gaza.” The Washington Post, with two full-time correspondents in Jerusalem and one or more stringers in Gaza, was privy to the same information as the Times, yet decided to keep the number of Palestinian terrorist fatalities a deep, dark secret. An omission that opens the way for anti-Israel campaigners to accuse Israel of using disproportionate force.

Having failed to report responsibly about Israeli retaliatory strikes, the Post then fails to give a full account of how each side behaved in the run-up to the expected cease-fire. “No Israeli airstrikes were reported Sunday,” the Post tells readers, omitting that on Sunday — while Israel held its fire — Gaza terrorists still fired about 10 rockets and mortar shells into southern Israel,. The New York Times found this newsworthy; the Post excised Hamas’s continued fire from its report. Bad behavior by Hamas, as in this instance, more often than not gets a pass from the Post.(5)

I still think Israel was/is wrong to continue settling in the disputed areas.  I understand it is not likely to make any difference, that they were going to be attacked anyway.  I think if the US were to give them land equal to Israel and relocate their entire population, the attacks would follow.  Why?
Not much point in asking after the thousands of years of fighting.  It takes two to make peace, but only one to wage a war.  The other can choose not to fight, and then die.
And are they not fighting a “strange” war?  If I was a warrior, I would want to kill other combatants.   I would make them my primary target.  Going after women and children just makes them  angry and more determined to defeat me.  So is there a reason for their tactic?  We think Iran is supplying weapons to Hamas, as they are in Iraq.  Seems to me they are trying to wage a war of public opinion, hoping to provoke enough of a response that Israel switches to a full war with the civilian deaths to be used as charges of genocide.  And they appear to be upping the ante.
let me tell you now
Ev’rybody’s talking about
Revolution, evolution, masturbation,
flagellation, regulation, integrations,
meditations, United Nations,
Congratulations.
All we are saying [keep talking] is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance
Article - Aslan Iran Chaos
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s plan to destroy Israel.

Monday, 21 Mar 2011 01:00 PM By Ken Timmerman

Israeli naval commanders have seized a ship containing weapons to arm terrorists, a ship linked to Iran and further proof of its clandestine arms-smuggling networks.On Tuesday, Israeli naval commanders boarded the Victoria, a German-owned container ship operated by French shipping giant CMA-CGM, some 200 miles off the coast of Al-Arish, Egypt. The Israelis came equipped with a list of 39 containers, which they believed contained weapons bound for Hamas in the Gaza strip. And they were right.

Neatly stacked beneath sacks of lentils and cotton in three of the containers, they found crates full of long-range mortars as well as C-704 radar-guided anti-ship missiles that would have given Hamas the ability to sink Israeli navy ships at distances of up to 35 kilometers.Israeli military spokesman called the Chinese-made missiles “strategic weapons,” and brought the ship into Ashdod for further inspection.

In all, they seized more than 25 tons of weapons they believed were intended for Hamas.Two days later, authorities in Malaysia announced they had seized two containers from on board a Malaysian ship bound for Iran that contained equipment for Iran’s nuclear program.“The parts were labeled as boiler parts,” federal police chief Ismail Omar told the official news agency. “Detailed investigations are being carried out with the help of Interpol and relevant experts.”Security analysts interviewed by Newsmax believe that Israel probably had its own intelligence — possibly satellite photographs — that allowed it to identify the containers with the weapons as they were being loaded onto the A.S. Victoria in Latakia, Syria, before the ship sailed for Mersin, Turkey, and then on to Egypt.The A.S. Victoria loaded weapons in Latakia that were brought to Syria by the two Iranian warships that transited the Suez Canal in February, Israeli officials believe.

It was the first time Iranian warships had transited the Suez Canal since the 1979 revolution in Iran.The C-704 missiles found in the containers are actually an Iranian-made version of the Chinese original known as the Nasr-1. The Chinese set up an assembly plant for the missiles in Iran, according to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Iran publicly inaugurated the Nasr-1 assembly line in March 2010.(6)


Is this correct?  Are we nearing another Israel/Arab war, perhaps that last war?  I am by no means a military expert, but I see things that make me wonder.  Wasn’t Ahmadinejad the General that led Iran to victory over Iraq?  Marching thousands of women and children at gunpoint ahead of his army to clear mines from their path?  I think we have to give credit where it’s due,  Ahmadinejad  is a madman by our standards, but a successful madman, non the less.  Hitler is proof a madman can be effective.  Do we think Ahmadinejad is not a student of history, unable to plan and act in that light?  He has watched our president sit on the sidelines while Iran endured it’s riots.  Heard that same president publicly call for the US ally in Egypt to step down.  If he is to act against Israel, doing so while Obama is in office is not hard to predict.

Oh Let’s stick to it
Ev’rybody’s talking about
John and Yoko, Timmy Leary, Rosemary, Tommy smothers, Bobby Dylan,
Tommy Cooper, Derek Tayor, Norman Mailer, Allen Ginsberg, Hare Krishna,
Hare Hare Krishna
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

John Lennon

Hezbollah is planning an attack on Western targets, a Lebanese news website reported on Tuesday, basing its claims on information intercepted by a Western intelligence agency.

According to the Beirut Observer article published Tuesday, Western intelligence officials believe Hezbollah intends to strike Western targets, citing the unusual movement of suspected Hezbollah and Iranian Revolutionary Guards operatives.

The report said the intention of such an attack is to divert global public opinion from the indictments expected to be issued by a special United Nations tribunal dealing with the assassination of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.

Lebanese officials and Western diplomats expect the court to accuse Hezbollah members of involvement in the assassination, a prospect Lebanese politicians fear could fuel further tensions.

The Lebanon tribunal, the world’s first international court with jurisdiction over the crime of terrorism, was set up to try those accused over the 2005 bombing that killed Lebanese ex-prime minister Hariri and 22 others.

Hezb’allah is panicking. Since their recent takeover of the Lebanese government, things have not been going very well, They have yet to be able to form a cabinet with their puppet prime minister proving to be unpersuasive. The sealed tribunal indictments – once opened – might precipitate a civil war between Sunni and Shia because the murdered Hariri was particularly beloved among Lebanese Sunnis.

If they feel they have to hit Israelis or other westerners in order to distract the Lebanese population from their traitorous alliance with Bashar Assad of Syria (who probably ordered the hit on Hariri but won’t suffer the consequences due to UN cowardice), they are truly worried that they may be forced to rule Lebanon at gunpoint.(8)

Here in the US and at SUFA have been more interested in our budget battles, of late. Japan has their problems, England prepares for a royal wedding. With all our distractions, is the next Middle East war about to start? I don’t know, but the signs are there. I think when Jesus spoke about turning the other cheek, it was to insult, not against an attack on your life or your family. The bible also speaks about “preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting…

I completed this on April 17, and came across this video the next day. Yes it is Glenn Beck, but it’s only nine minutes..

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/glenn-beck/index.html#/v/4647422/beck-is-israel-being-set-up/?playlist_id=86917

.

.

.

(1)http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=23733

(2)http://soitgoesintexas.blogspot.com/2010/11/texas-launches-its-own-war-against.html

(3) http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/04/07/wounded-gaza-missile-strike-hits-school-bus/#ixzz1IrJbmcEt

(4)http://www.drudge.com/news/142163/gaza-residents-celebrate-massacre-israeli

(5)http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/wapo_coddles_hamas_while_makin.html

(6)http://www.newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/Israel-terrorist-weapons-Iran/2011/03/21/id/390195

(7)http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/the_next_gaza_war_will_be_a_co.html

(8)http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/hezballah_intends_to_attack_we.html

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Good morning 🙂

    It seems that violence has escalated as of late with border clashes. I heard a person on a radio interview some time back, saying that Muslims were trying to organize a million people to march on the Isreali border. That would be a bloodbath. Are we seeing the lead up to WWIII?

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    Cheer Up! 🙂

    Testicle Therapy

    Two women were playing golf. One teed off and watched in horror as her
    ball headed directly toward a foursome of men playing the next hole.
    The ball hit one of the men. He immediately clasped his hands together
    at his groin, fell to the ground and proceeded to roll around in
    agony. The woman rushed down to the man, and immediately began to
    apologize. ‘Please allow me to help. I’m a Physical Therapist and I
    know I could relieve your pain if you’d allow me, she told him.

    ‘Oh, no, I’ll be all right. I’ll be fine in a few minutes,’ the man
    replied. He was in obvious agony, lying in the fetal position, still
    clasping his hands there at his groin. At her persistence, however, he
    finally allowed her to help. She gently took his hands away and laid
    them to the side, loosened his pants and put her hands inside. She
    administered tender and artful massage for several long moments and
    asked, ‘How does that feel’?

    “Feels great”, he replied; “but I still think my thumb’s broken”!

  3. 9 seconds (never mind 9 minutes) of Glenn Beck is more intellectual terrorism than a batshit crazy lefty can endure.

    But what’s up with all the news article quotations? Suddenly, you SUFArites are trusting the media? Why’s that?

    I think I read a reference in there regarding “while Obama is in office” … do you really believe it makes a difference who is in office? Lest we forget … these terrorist actions are planned over a long period of time (9-11 Clinton into Bush) … and just think back to all the credit some of you here wanted to relish on Mr. Incompetence (George W) for taking down Bin Laden … oy vey …

    How about we don’t interrupt anything in the middle east, (they’re all going to do what they want anyway–which is their right) bring our troops home and take care of business here?

    • How about we don’t interrupt anything in the middle east, (they’re all going to do what they want anyway–which is their right) bring our troops home and take care of business here?

      I’m with Charlie on this (don’t get carried away Comrade 🙂 ). It isn’t any of our business.

    • USWeapon says:

      “But what’s up with all the news article quotations? Suddenly, you SUFArites are trusting the media? Why’s that?”

      Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Todd and others have berated the writing here for not including references to where people get their references. People start providing them and you ride them for doing so.

  4. How would Texas respond if drug lords fired missiles and mortars into one of its towns?

    Not an accurate analogy.

    How would Texas respond if Mexicans, after the Mexicans have been assaulted, invaded, homes destroyed, families slaughtered, by Texas responded by firing missiles into Texas town?

    • Mathius says:

      They’d respond exactly the same way. They would forget about their own aggressive actions and respond as if they were the only victims.

      Saddle up, cowboy hats, and a lot of Mexican corpses.

      • Mathius,

        Exactly.

        And that is what we see in the ME too.

        As I’ve said before, until the Hegemony UNILATERALLY disengages, there will be no change to the current situation.

        • Mathius says:

          there will be no change to the current situation. False.

          The situation will change.

          It will escalate.

        • You keep saying this and I see the logic upto a point, but could you tell me just how you think Israel could manage to accomplish a disengagement without being destroyed or taken out a few at a time?

          • V.H.

            but could you tell me just how you think Israel could manage to accomplish a disengagement without being destroyed or taken out a few at a time?

            Do you really believe Israel –who has the largest army, navy, tanks, nuclear weapons and air force in the region – can be destroyed by a People who have NO tanks, NO navy, NO nukes, NO air force?

            • Only if they disengage without someway to protect themselves-So if you state they must disengage-how do they go about doing that. What diplomatic steps should they take? Some practical advise to back your assertions?

        • Mathius says:

          Hegemony UNILATERALLY disengages

          I’m curious. I do blame Israel for half of what’s going on in the middle east, and I agree that one side needs to disengage. I know you’ve talked about this before.. why does it have to be Israel which backs off?

          If Israel stops responding to violence, I see no reason to believe that the Palestinians will reciprocate. In fact, their history suggests, to me, that they would likely escalate in order to draw a response which, in turn, justifies their aggression.

          Conversely, if Palestinians stopped attacking, I do not see it likely that Israel would invade without provocation. More likely, Israel would continue or step up their settlement in the disputed areas, but that is not, by itself, equivalent to physical violence.

          Can you explain your reasoning?

  5. Mathius says:

    Hey…..

    This all looks very familiar…. Is it a glitch in the matrix?

    OK, so, Bin Laden’s old news, so let’s look at LOI’s article, shall we?

    When Rico the drug dealer shoots at a rancher in the US, we can treat this as an act of war. No. And here’s why. Mexico doesn’t have full control over Rico’s actions. In your family, if your grown children go out and commit a crime, you should not be held accountable.

    most people are honest enough to admit we try not to kill non-combatants. Sure.. try.. yes. Well, we know that.. but do the families of our (many, many) innocent victims know (or even care) about that? When we hit the wrong target, operate on bad intel, shoot first and ask questions later, overreact, and/or have our occasional Mỹ Lai massacre, do the innocents believe that the kind and good US didn’t mean really it?

    It’s like a raging alcoholic.. he tries not to beat up his innocent wife, kids and dog, but it still happens from time to time. And should he get credit for the things he does, or for the things he tries to do?

    How would Texas respond if drug lords fired missiles and mortars into one of its towns? It wouldn’t be pretty. That’s for sure.

    And with the Palestinians, who voted in Hamas to be their government, I am not very sympathetic. Why not? They’ve been lied to and manipulated. They’re largely ignorant of the facts, and they voted in the guys who promised to help them. Turns out they voted for a bunch of psychopaths who are only interested in power and self-aggrandizement and are perfectly willing to act violently on other nations if it’s in their own interest….. wait, sorry, am I talking about the US or Palestine?

    • “When Rico the drug dealer shoots at a rancher in the US, we can treat this as an act of war. No.”

      I could be wrong on this, but I think they have not defined what constitutes grounds for war in terms of killing one, ten or one hundred. It is up to each country to decide when they have had enough. S. Korea, for example, had grounds, but like most countries, they try to avoid outright war. If a person attacks from your country, the other country has the legal right to respond to that attack. You are responsible for what takes place on your territory.

      “When we hit the wrong target, operate on bad intel, shoot first and ask questions later, overreact, and/or have our occasional Mỹ Lai massacre, do the innocents believe that the kind and good US didn’t mean really it?”

      I agree the USA has made many horrible mistakes. I think we can be proud that we do try to address them, and shame on those among us that try to cover them up. How do we stack up against those who’s policy was to exterminate villages as an example? Syria has killed over 800 of it’s citizens for daring to protest.

      “And with the Palestinians, who voted in Hamas to be their government, I am not very sympathetic. Why not? They’ve been lied to and manipulated.”

      I agree, but they still are accountable for the choices they make. I think they should choose peace, not war. And don’t shield/help/empower those who make war.

  6. Mathius says:

    I think any people who celebrate the deaths of innocents are not what I judge to be “good”. Define “innocents.” To the Palestinians, all Zionists are responsible for their plight.

    I remember seeing an interview where the mother of a
    suicide bombing victim talked to the mother of the suicide bomber. The bomber’s mother said that she only regrets that she only had one child to give to the cause. Think about that. The victim’s mother tried to explain that her daughter didn’t do anything and was innocent. The bomber’s mother said that she was guilty for being a part of the nation which stole her ancestral home and whose army blah blah blah blah.

    Point is, they don’t see the victims as innocent, so your statement fails on its face.

    Also, you should know that, surprise surprise, not all Palestinians think this way. There are many who disagree but are powerless to stop it.

    I still think Israel was/is wrong to continue settling in the disputed areas. It doesn’t matter. If they stopped, then the “disputed area” would just move. The dispute isn’t over the area. The dispute is a justification for violence perpetuated by both sides on the other. If they ever agreed, they’d drop that issue and select another one to fight over.

    England prepares for a royal wedding. Look, I know this is a re-post, but would it kill you to update it a little?

    I think when Jesus spoke about turning the other cheek, it was to insult, not against an attack on your life or your family. Actually no.. from the book of Matthew: 5:39 “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Actually, this is more like passive aggression to me. “Yea, give him the other cheek, then he’ll really feel like a jerk!” But Jesus was right. Only non-violence can overcome violence (assuming you survive that long).. ask Dr. MLK Jr…Well, he didn’t make it, but his followers did.

    • Let’s use the same definition for innocents that the media and so many others apply to the Palestinians.

      I agree with you-this is about hate-nothing else.

      There still talking about the wedding, well sorta, now it’s all about Pippi-or whatever her name is.

      • Mathius says:

        I agree with you-this is about hate-nothing else. No, it’s not.. that’s the thing. It’s about smoke and mirrors.

        The leaders of Israel use the threat of terrorism as justification for maintaining their power and aggressive military posture. They can point at the “other” as reason for the poor economy, the roadblocks, the draconian security situations, the shortages, etc. They say “No, it’s not our fault – it’s theirs! You have to give us more power and question us less and do what we tell you like good little sheep, and we’ll save you from THEM.” We have to do all this because they’re attacking us, and Israel is our homeland, given to us by God.

        The asshats on the other side are no different. They can point to aggressive military action by Israel, as well as the mere fact of Israel’s existence, as a way to distract from their follower’s living conditions. They say “No, it’s not our fault – it’s theirs! You have to give us more power and question us less and do what we tell you like good little sheep, and we’ll save you from THEM.” We have to do all this because they’re attacking us, and Israel is our homeland since it belonged out our ancestors. Pay no attention to the fact that you’re poor, hungry, illiterate, and have very short life expectancies, pay no attention at all.. or pay attention, but remember that it’s all their fault.

        And the leaders of both sides fear peace more than anything else, because peace would strip them of power and control and refocus the rage of the vox populi where it belongs: on leaders who have done nothing to help their people for the last half-decade. They would need to explain why their people are poor and sick, or why the economy is in shambles. But as long as they can point at each other, that will never happen.

        So the leaders pick fights with each other, provoking outraged reactions, and using those as justifications for “responses.” If they ever agreed over the borders, they’d fight over water rights. If they agreed over that, they’d fight over something else. Anything and everything, just so long as they can distract their followers and maintain their power.

        My left hand? No, no.. look at my right hand!

        • What the heck is this, “side with the Left Day” or something.

          ::sigh:: I’m pretty much on board with Mathius on this too.

        • Okay-it’s all about hate is too symplistic an answer. But Hamas didn’t start out as a political movement-at least I don’t think they did.

          This isn’t just a matter of political power. It’s a matter of hate, resentment, power, religion, self preservation, etc. but hate is the glue that keeps it going.

    • “Point is, they don’t see the victims as innocent, so your statement fails on its face.”
      YOU, YOU, YOU WEAR GIRLY SHOES WITH POINTED TOES!
      How they see themselves does not change who is attacking whom. And those who want to claim they are only trying to reclaim the land stolen from their grandfather, etc, need to do so in a court of law, not thru force of arms.
      Embrace peace or war.

      “Also, you should know that, surprise surprise, not all Palestinians think this way. There are many who disagree but are powerless to stop it.”
      And only when they are the majority and decide to stand up for themselves and stop their neighbors and brothers who want war will this end, or never.

      “England prepares for a royal wedding.” So sorry, tried to insert the latest on the Governator’s mistress, but can’t.

      “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.”
      And I think/believe the Bible allows for self defense, but encourages non-violent resistance.
      http://www.loveyourenemies.org/sword.html

      • Mathius says:

        Your statement: “I think any people who celebrate the deaths of innocents are not what I judge to be “good”.”

        My response: “Point is, they don’t see the victims as innocent, so your statement fails on its face.”

        Your: “How they see themselves does not change who is attacking whom. And those who want to claim they are only trying to reclaim the land stolen from their grandfather, etc, need to do so in a court of law, not thru force of arms.”

        But that’s not really the point. It’s not about how they see themselves, it’s about how they see the “innocents” they’re killing. You claim that they are not “good” because they celebrate killing innocents. But they aren’t. They are celebrating the killing of what they think of as their oppressors. And there is nothing bad about celebrating the killing of your oppressors, is there? That doesn’t make them bad people. Confused? Sure. Wrong? Sure. Bad? I just don’t see the justification there.

      • Mathius says:

        Me: “Also, you should know that, surprise surprise, not all Palestinians think this way. There are many who disagree but are powerless to stop it.”

        You: “And only when they are the majority and decide to stand up for themselves and stop their neighbors and brothers who want war will this end, or never.”

        But that’s not really true, is it. Because the violent ones are willing to be violent not just toward their enemies. They’ll happily be violent toward enemy sympathizers.

      • Mathius says:

        Jesus: “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.”

        You: “And I think/believe the Bible allows for self defense, but encourages non-violent resistance.”

        Not surprisingly, I’m a big fan of the Book of Matthew.

        Though the old testament is very clear that you must preserve life above all else, it is less clear that Jesus preached this. Jesus preached that being good would be rewarded in the next life (whosoever believeth in me shall not die, but live forever..). Further, he was pretty clear when he said that “all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

        It seems to me, from my reading, though of course you may disagree (I’d be interested in your biblical citations), that Jesus was serious about non-violence, even if it resulted in death (because life eternal made death moot, perhaps?).

        Turning the other cheek wasn’t, for him, metaphorical. He seems to have meant it. And his quote is fairly clear on the subject: he refers to someone striking you and clearly states that the response should be to offer them (passive-aggressive) peaceful resistance.

        Then again, there was the cleansing of the Temple, which is the only instance I can recall of Jesus using violence.

        • Prior to His crucifixion, Jesus revealed to His disciples the future hostility they would face and encouraged them to sell their outer garments in order to buy a sword (Luke 22:36-38; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:26-27). Here the “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

          Self-defense may actually result in one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:14). When protecting one’s family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.

          Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that
          “to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong.

          To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable.

          In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally.”

          http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html

  7. Naten53 says:

    Some good news for my town after months of worry. The primarries last night saw the defeat of the school board members (I didn’t vote since I’m not in a party) that wanted to close the elementary school in my town and consolidate it with the elementary school in theirs (the school board of 9 members only had 3 that were not from the other town – three towns total).

    5 seats of 9 were up for election and all 5 had to be won to stop the consolidation project. On average the margin of victory was 85% to 15%

    Both elementary schools are in the top 10% in the state. The pro consolidation people had been called out for their outright lies about the cost of building one school vs. costs of renovating both by myself and others in the construction industry. The school board president (one that just lost) was quoted by the paper generally saying that he voted to consolidate in his town because of the protests by people from my town.

    • Mathius says:

      Kudos.

      Our budget passed by 70% yesterday (which is good, because I wasn’t able to make it out to the polls).

      And now my property taxes will be going up by 2%.. ::sigh::

      • My property taxes went up last year when we passed the new mil levy for EMS. And my taxes went down this year when I went underwater on my mortgage due to the $20k drop in my property value!

        ::sigh: win some – lose more.

  8. Mathius says:

    All by myself…
    Don’t wanna be…
    All.. by.. myself!!

    Anymore!!!!!!!

    I’m feeling pretty lonely here at SUFA today.. what’s going on?

    • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Hey, don’t worry.. I’m always here to keep you company!

    • I would respond, but I don’t feel like I know enough to make a cogent and reasoned argument.

      But, seeing as it might make you feel better…

      I think this conflict will linger as long as people are unwilling to give up on the past and “righting the wrongs.” Palestinians see Israel as their land and the nation of Israel as invaders. Israel was attacked by their neighbors and continue to be attacked politically in the UN and by nations who refuse to acknowledge their statehood.

      As I see it, if the surrounding countries acknowledge the state of Israel and denounce the violence perpetrated against them, there will be a chance for peace. Otherwise, there won’t be. Why would Israel be friendly with states that desire it’s destruction?

      I know many people believe Israel doesn’t deserve the land it now holds (and has for a long time), and that they are responsible for displacing Palestinians who lived there, but what is the solution? Displace all the Israelis to give the Palestinians land they haven’t had in at least 60 years? How is that better?

      Sadly, I can’t ever see Palestinians and Israelis living peaceably together.

      • I agree and from what I’ve read-once Israel was established alot of Jews were made to leave other ME countries and they went to Israel. I suspect others took the property they were forced to leave behind. Are they gonna get their land back if Israel gives up theirs? Not

  9. 😐

  10. I’m reading a fascinating book about Albert Camus and his French-Algerian issues … he was abandoned by the left for abandoning the terrorist movement in Algiers, but what he sought was independence and justice for his true native land (Algeria) … interesting reading and much of what he put forward (albeit in a very peaceful manner) may well apply today (sometimes you just can’t do anything but hope for the best). The book is Albert Camus the Algerian, by David Carroll. Now come on, yous forced me to try and digest crazy Ayn Rand …

    • Mathius says:

      It’s been a while, but didn’t Camus write a book where the whole plot is that main character kills an Arab for no reason and doesn’t feel bad about it?

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Yes, “The Stranger” I believe…

        • Mathius says:

          That’s the one. I vaguely recall Bush Jr telling a reporter that it’s one of his favorite books.

          I wonder why..

          • “Mother died today, or maybe it was yesterday, I can’t be sure.”

            Matt wins a cookie … Buck wins two cookies. Yes, that was Camus … a literary masterpiece by most standards. He also fought in the resistance against Nazi Germany but had conflicted feelings about the French domination of Algiers. Interesting dude …

  11. gmanfortruth says:
  12. Mathius,

    Can you explain your reasoning?

    I have, often, explained this. If you have a disagreement on a part, please respond with your the complaint.

    In all conflicts, it is between a stronger power and a weaker power.

    Conflicts occur when one entity believes it has enough power to defeat another.

    Weak actors do not attack stronger actors without a existential reason. Little guys do not pick on big guys if they want to survive. In fact, weaker actor bend and twist inside the provocations of a stronger actor so to survive. This is the strength of a hegemony – it has threat power as well as physical power.

    But when there is an existential threat to the weaker power, the weaker power converts the threat power of the hegemony into physical power, but the threat must have been created BEFORE the weaker actor had to act.

    Therefore, it is a RESPONSE to a provocation – it does not create the initial condition.

    The provocation must come from the stronger actor, for that is who the weak actor is attacking.

    Therefore, it is the HEGEMONY action which solicits the weaker actors REACTION.

    In all cases:
    Hegemony ACTS.
    Weaker power REACTS.

    The weaker power – in conflict with a hegemony – has two and only two options.

    Resistance until Victory.
    Surrender.

    If the weaker power by philosophy declares it will never surrender, it therefore will continue to resist in any and all manner it can against the hegemony until the end of time or until victory or until agreement for peace.

    A weaker power offer of peace:
    …. is always an admittance of exhaustion of will. There is no reason for a stronger power to accept. This offer will always lead to:
    Surrender of the weaker power.

    Therefore, in any conflict where the weaker power has philosophically refused surrender, they cannot offer peace first.

    Therefore, if the desire is to end the conflict that desire MUST come from the Hegemony. It must ACT. The weaker actor will REACT.

    In all cases historical, this has been the situation. Either the weaker power has -somehow- overcome the hegemony into victory (Vietnam) OR come to accommodation by dialogue initiated by the hegemony (Korea).

    Yes, this does mean that the Hegemony may have to suffer asymmetrical attacks upon it while in the phase of peace negotiations – which is why I said it must be unilateral. But if its desire is for peace, this is what it must suffer, because it is the stronger power.

    If it does not desire peace, then the effort it masked as “peace” is not an attempt at peace but an attempt of subterfuge and is a tactic of conflict. (see US Bombing of Cambodia)

    Israel/ME conflict contains no conditions that change this.

    • PS:

      A weaker power offer of peace:
      …. is always an admittance of exhaustion of will. There is no reason for a stronger power to accept. This offer will always lead to:
      Surrender of the weaker power.

      Case in point:
      Every time the Palestinians arrive to some agreement, Israel invades or attacks.

      This is not necessarily an act of duplicity. It is more probably the result of the line of reasoning I stated above: –
      -the enemy is admitting to an exhaustion of will.
      -our will is not exhausted.
      -by upping the attacks, we can force them to turn their peace offer into surrender.

    • Mathius says:

      Conflicts occur when one entity believes it has enough power to defeat another. Neither party holds this belief here. Israel does not have the political will to “defeat” the Palestinians as this would require total annihilation. The Palestinians do not have the physical capacity to overpower the Israelis. Both fight, but neither holds any plausible hope for “defeating” the other.

      Weak actors do not attack stronger actors without a existential reason. My younger brother used to pick fights with me all the time.. he never won any of them, but that didn’t stop him from trying. He knew that I lacked the will to inflict serious harm, and it allowed him to let off steam that he couldn’t safely direct at our older brother (who did, very much so, have the will to inflict serious harm).

      In much the same way, the Palestinians are directing violence outward to Israel because they cannot safely direct it inward. They are frustrated, poor, hungry, sick, hot, and under-educated and their leaders have convinced them to blame Israel rather than themselves (the leaders). It’s misdirected anger, not the result of an existential reason.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Nope, sorry Mathius — as the hegemonic power between you and your brother, he was merely reacting to your imposition of force upon him. Your mother is right – its all your fault!

      • Mathius,

        Conflicts occur when one entity believes it has enough power to defeat another. Neither party holds this belief here.

        I strongly disagree.

        Zionist plans from day one has been to re-establish Ersatz Israel – which encompasses lands within today’s Syria, Lebanon, Jordon and Egypt.

        There has been no action taken that has altered this.

        Every action of Israel can be understood by this.

        Israel does not have the political will to “defeat” the Palestinians as this would require total annihilation.

        I, again, strongly disagree.

        What stays the Israeli hand is the risk of global condemnation.

        It has already come dangerously close to this already – by the end of the Yom Kipper War, most nations in the world had a “positive” view of Israel. Today, it is less than a handful, and getting fewer.

        Israel completely depends on global support; militarily and economically. It cannot survive in isolation.

        This is why I say, that if Israel does not drastically reverse its current political philosophy and actions soon, it will not exist in 20 to 50 years.

        The Palestinians do not have the physical capacity to overpower the Israelis. Both fight, but neither holds any plausible hope for “defeating” the other.

        Israel overran the Egyptian army, who had tanks, artillery, hundreds of thousands of veteran troops, air craft, a navy , and the backing of a global super power.

        You now believe that Israel – who like Egypt has all these things plus nukes – cannot overrun the Palestinians who have NO tanks, NO artillery, NO hundreds of thousands troops, NO navy, NO air craft and NO backing of any significant power, let alone a global super power.

        …hmmm….

        My younger brother used to pick fights with me all the time..

        He was never threatened by complete annihilation. The hegemony was your parents, not you.

        • USWeapon says:

          “Israel overran the Egyptian army, who had tanks, artillery, hundreds of thousands of veteran troops, air craft, a navy , and the backing of a global super power.”

          And you now believe that Palestine cannot do the same thing to Israel now that the roles are reversed.

          …hmmmm…

          • USWep,

            Are you serious?

            Israel was capable of doing that because they had tanks, aircraft and massive military support of the USA.

            Pray tell the equivalence that Palestine has???

    • Another PS:

      A weaker power offer of peace:
      …. is always an admittance of exhaustion of will. There is no reason for a stronger power to accept. This offer will always lead to: Surrender of the weaker power

      Any offer of peace by any side is ALWAYS an admittance of exhaustion of will, including if the offer comes from the hegemony. (See Vietnam)

      However, the exhaustion of will of a hegemony is NOT existentially destructive since it still retains physical power over the weaker actor. (See USA after Vietnam)

      Should the weaker actor become confused about the meaning of the hegemony peace offer, it could cause the hegemony to reinvigorate its will, and continue the conflict.

      It maybe true that the Palestinians are confused by Israeli actions and peace offers as these actions/peace offerings have most often been contradictory. Thus, the Palestinian response may have been as contradictory, infusing will back into the hegemony to continue its assault.

      This is why I believe “honest-brokers” are necessary to resolve the situation – sadly, the US is not seen as such a broker, but actually seen as a provocation as best and a participant at worse.

  13. Plainly,

    praxelogically

    Praxeology is the study of human action.

    Etymologically defined as “the science of human action”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology

  14. Don’t know what to think about this???

    Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. He is the author of A Time to Betray a book about his double life as a CIA agent in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, published by Threshold Editions, Simon & Schuster, April 2010.

    May 18, 2011
    Revolutionary Guards and Ammo Dispatched to Syria
    Reza Khalili
    According to reports by Green experts of Iran (an opposition group in Iran), the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has dispatched 65 agents via four planes, filled with guns, ammunition, and other military equipment, to Damascus during the past week. This is the second such convoy that has been sent from Tehran to Damascus in just the last month. The planes fly from Tehran to Damascus in such a way that it coincides with passenger flight patterns in order to avoid raising suspicion.

    Commander Ebrahim Jabbari, who heads up the Vali’eh Amr (Supreme Leader’s) revolutionary forces, is in charge of these security and military flights.

    Expert analysis shows that following the widespread and bloody social uprising throughout Syria, and the Assad government’s failure to contain the political situation, frenetic deliberations between Iranian and Syrian authorities have increased. Fearing the frailty of the Assad rule, which in turn would weaken Iran’s influence in Syria, one part of the operational plan is to bait the Israeli government and incite unrest in the region. To this end, the military and security forces of the IRGC have created an operations outlet entitled the Ammar Operations HQ in Damascus.

    Based on reports obtained from Iranian Green experts, the Ammar Ops HQ has begun coordinating with various Lebanese Hezb’allah and Palestinian groups, which distributed 600 heavy firearms that have been set up and situated in designated areas. The report also stresses that the operation has been planned in such a way that the role of the Syrian government is minimized in the crisis, giving it an air of a more impromptu and spontaneous confrontation. Then in the midst of the confrontations, Iran plans to enter the fray and appear as the uniter of the Palestinian people and a hero among Arab governments.

    Other analysis also illustrate that the Ammar Ops HQ, which also has branches on the borders of Syria, Lebanon and Israel, is essentially intending to wreak international havoc and fan the flames of regional chaos.

    As I reported on May 09th, The Iranian Supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, held a covert meeting with commanders of the Revolutionary Guards, representatives of the Syrian embassy, members of Hezb’allah, and leaders of the Sadr movement, to put together a plan to suppress the Syrian protesters and save the Syrian regime. It seems now the plan is extended to destabilize Israel by inciting a third intifada in which protesters would storm Israel’s borders on three fronts: Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Syria. This in turn would draw Israel into some kind of retaliation to protect its borders, which then will be used as a tool and a call for unification among Arabs and the redirection of the media and Syria’s internal problems, giving the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, enough time to fully suppress the internal uprising.

    Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talked about the recent clashes at Israeli borders during the “Nakba Day” protests and said the clashes showed Israel’s real nature. “Like a cancer cell that spreads through the body, this regime infects any region. It must be removed from the body,” he said.

    Yesterday, Hezb’allah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, lauded what he called the Palestinians’ struggle to acquire the right to return to their homeland and predicted that they will attain their goal soon.

    One thing is for sure as unrest spreads in Iran and Syria; their leaders will try to draw Israel into an unwanted war so that they can divert attention and further solidify power. It is time for the West to confront these brutal regimes and openly support the people so that we can once and for all put an end to the terrorist leaders of Iran and Syria.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/revolutionary_guards_and_ammo.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This is interesting, as I had rumors that a group of Arabs were trying to get as many as 1 million Muslims to rush the Israeli borders.

      Flagster, What would be Israels response to this in your opinion? This would be a major decision on their part. If they kill thousands, the Muslim’s go nuts, if they do nothing, there would ba a massacre in the Israeli streets of Muslims and they’d go nuts anyway.

      • GMan,

        I doubt the Arab border nations will allow them to cross into Israel.

        If they do, Israel will gun the down without hesitation.

        No one cares what the Muslims think in either case.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I’m not sure what the border nations will likely do, but I do agree that they would be gunned down. What this would accomplish….I have no idea. That whole area of the world is one big mess. I have no doubt that some of the leaders over there are somewhat insane, but they sure are rattling some cages.

    • their leaders will try to draw Israel into an unwanted war so that they can divert attention and further solidify power

      This is an utterly insane comment.

      Right. They want to be attacked by the “armed to the teeth, including nuke” Israel so that they can solidify their power at home.

      Anyone who thinks this is insane.

  15. V.H.

    Only if they disengage without someway to protect themselves

    Israel has no problem protecting themselves.

    When was the last “enemy” tank that entered Israeli territory?
    Oct 24, 1970, and it died.

    When was the last time Israeli tanks entered another territory?
    Yesterday

    For reasons I do not understand, you seem convinced that Israel is some sort of “underdog” – which is a sign of the success of its propaganda.

    Israel is the most powerful nation of the region in the region. It has the most powerful nation on Earth as its “until death do we part” ally.

    Yet, you believe it is hanging on by a thread.

    -So if you state they must disengage-how do they go about doing that.

    Stop.
    Simply stop what it is doing.

    What diplomatic steps should they take?

    Engage an honest broker, perhaps Japan or Sweden.

    Some practical advise to back your assertions?

    End the blockade.
    Withdraw the occupation.
    End the construction on captured territory.

    The “global community” would faint at this impossibility.

    • B.F.-Israel has no problem protecting themselves. When was the last “enemy” tank that entered Israeli territory?
      Oct 24, 1970, and it died.

      Me-When was the last time missiles were fired at Israel? When did the last suicide bomber blow his self up?

      B.F.-When was the last time Israeli tanks entered another territory?
      Yesterday

      Me-Don’t know the date of the attacks against Israel but they were recent-one of the reasons I know this –is that Israel’s tanks entered their territory yesterday.

      B.F.-For reasons I do not understand, you seem convinced that Israel is some sort of “underdog” – which is a sign of the success of its propaganda.Israel is the most powerful nation of the region in the region. It has the most powerful nation on Earth as its “until death do we part” ally.Yet, you believe it is hanging on by a thread.

      Me-No, I am aware that Israel can protect herself-my question was based on your assertion that they shouldn’t do so-not that they can’t. Obviously, no society is going to set back and be continuously attacked.

      B.F.-Stop.
      Simply stop what it is doing.What diplomatic steps should they take? Engage an honest broker, perhaps Japan or Sweden.Some practical advise to back your assertions?
      End the blockade.
      Withdraw the occupation.
      End the construction on captured territory.

      Me-Per your above statements-since that would require Israel to completely surrender to all their demands-I personally can’t see a need for an honest broker. 

      The real strength of Israels position, as you have stated many times-depends on the US and the opinion of the “global community”. I look at the resent S. Korea and N. Korea situation- N. Korea attacked S. Korea so they made noise but didn’t retaliate-maybe that was the right decision maybe it wasn’t. If they had fired back a war might have started. If they had retaliated N. Korea may have thought twice about doing it again. Not retaliating may make another attack by N. Korea guaranteed because they got away with it. Who really knows?

      Now Israel-this battle has been going on for along time-The attacks aren’t few and far between so expecting the Israeli people to put up with numerous attacks is IMO-asking to much of them. If Israel just stopped retaliating it might well help to change the “global community” to their favor. I certainly can see an advantage to Israel if that happened. But I don’t think Israel should or even can concede to all these demands without weakening their position too much. And I don’t think any countries people would stand by for long and accept doing nothing-when outside forces continued to attack them.

      B.F.-The “global community” would faint at this impossibility.

      Me-And I would faint if the attacks against Israel stopped even if they gave the Palestinians everything they are asking for-I would faint if Israel’s enemies would accept anything less than the complete removal of the State of Israel. But because of the circumstances they don’t have to admit to their real desire-they can pretend it is only about borders.

      No one has the answer to this mess – your idea has some merit but IMO it just isn’t that simple. In all honestly, I think the “global communities” opinion is based more on just getting rid of a problem-they don’t believe there is an answer-so what the hell-lets just help to destroy the State of Israel.

  16. Shameless fun post.

    Well, I’m addicted.
    http://worldoftanks.com/

    It is a very well made online, massive multi-player game, running WW2 tanks in teams.

    They mix and match Russian, German and American tanks on a team and you go -14 a side- into a 15 minute smash-fest.

    They have extended their play into a Clan War, with the “conquering” of Europe, America and eventually the world as an extension to the tactical play.

    For a hoot, come play.

    If you’re interested you can join my clan so we can take over the world. I need at least 15 members with Lvl 5 play.

    You can find me online in WoT under “Gungunus” and my clan:
    “Legio Sexta Ferrata”

    • You are playing war games???? Violent war games?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        While he’s playing with his violent clan, I’m working hard to make the Feds irrelevent. Fortunately, I did this on my own, and when the Feds are illegitimate, he’ll wonder how it could happen!! 🙂 Hint, he was playing with tanks instead of fixing things, LOL,

      • Kathy,

        Games 🙂

        Why not?

    • Naten53 says:

      I must check this out.

  17. The proposed passport application where you will be required to list:
    – your mother’s residence before you were born, the year after you were born, and where she worked before you were born

    – the hospital and care at the time of your birth

    -all the places you lived since you were born;
    -every job you ever had
    -every school you ever attended
    -your religion

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I guess you won’t be getting one if you have CRS. WTF, all this just to go to the beach in Aruba, Horsedookie!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Hah, fixed the Aruba thing. The farmer has a big pond with an island ti the middle, and I can top it with sand and put in a fake palm tree. I box with the ocean sounds and I’m there.
        WE need to abolish the Feds, completely.

  18. Had to post this one

    Tuesday, May 10, 2011
    California DoT Nixes Public Display of American Flag, Calls it “Impermissible Public Expression”
    Posted by Aurelius at 3:23 PM

    Can someone please tell me what world we live in when we cannot erect our own American flag because it might upset some people?

    In the town of Orcutt, California, thousands of dollars in donations have been gathered to create a monument to fallen soldiers and the branches of our military. The memorial would go between “a highway exit and a park-and-ride lot;” a pole would rise out of the center and display the American flag.

    The California Department of Transportation was okay with the plan… that is, until it was revealed that our nation’s flag would be flying. When CalTrans heard, they stymied the effort, declaring the display of an American flag an “impermissible act of “public expression.””

    The panel that ruled that the American flag could not be displayed demanded “viewpoint neutrality” at the monument. In other words, they declared it illegal to solely fly the US flag, stating that other flags must also have the right to be flown at the memorial, be it “the British flag, the Nazi flag, or the Jolly Rogers.”
    Apparently not allowed in California
    In response to concerns, CalTrans wrote:

    To answer your question regarding the court’s decision in Brown v. California Department of Transportation pertaining to flying the American Flag in the State right of way, it was established that, “The display of the United States flag constituted expressive activity, within the meaning of the First Amendment.”

    The concern that we have in this situation is that, whether a flag hanging on a bridge [not OTORA’s proposal], or a monument placed within a park and ride lot [the proposal], we would be placed in a position of having to permit all forms of expression as encroachments in the right of way if we were to allow yours. As such, the department has determined that the state highway system is not a forum for public expression except as expressly allowed.

    And do you want any more proof that CalTrans has no idea what it is doing? More from the Weekly Standard:

    Last summer, a few days before the Fourth of July, CalTrans painted over a 35-foot American flag mural on a hillside in the East Bay, several hours north of Orcutt, which had been completed in the wake of the terrorist attacks. CalTrans painted over the mural with gray paint.

    http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/05/california-dot-nixes-public-display-of.html

  19. V.H.

    Me-When was the last time missiles were fired at Israel? When did the last suicide bomber blow his self up?

    …neither of which risk any existential threat to the existence of Israel….

    Missiles and suicide bombers do not ‘take and hold’ territory.

    Me-Don’t know the date of the attacks against Israel but they were recent-one of the reasons I know this –is that Israel’s tanks entered their territory yesterday.

    You easily excuse the continuation of the cause of the issues as a valid response – hence, the situation continues to escalate.

    Me-No, I am aware that Israel can protect herself-my question was based on your assertion that they shouldn’t do so-not that they can’t. Obviously, no society is going to set back and be continuously attacked.

    (1) They are not “continuously” attacked.
    (2) They continuously “attack” on the argument they are occupying another nation’s territory.

    You have the provocations backwards.

    B.F.-Stop.
    Simply stop what it is doing.

    Easy, huh?

    What diplomatic steps should they take?

    They need not do anything.

    The rest of the world would run with the ball and organize a balanced and as fair as possible resolution.

    Engage an honest broker, perhaps Japan or Sweden.Some practical advise to back your assertions?
    End the blockade.
    Withdraw the occupation.
    End the construction on captured territory.

    Me-Per your above statements-since that would require Israel to completely surrender to all their demands-I personally can’t see a need for an honest broker. 

    “Surrender” by giving back what they stole???
    “Surrender” by stop killing innocent people??
    “Surrender” by sending the tanks home???

    You have a badly distorted view of “surrender”.

    The real strength of Israels position, as you have stated many times-depends on the US and the opinion of the “global community”.

    And Israel and the US have seriously eroded that view to the point that it is dangerously risks the existence of the Israeli nation.

    I look at the resent S. Korea and N. Korea situation- N. Korea attacked S. Korea so they made noise but didn’t retaliate

    Once you get a propaganda piece in your head, no matter what fact may follow, it won’t leave.

    S.Korea provoked N.Korea, V.H. – but because you have been taught that N.K. “is bad”, nothing done to it can be wrong, and everything done by it is right.

    -maybe that was the right decision maybe it wasn’t. If they had fired back a war might have started. If they had retaliated N. Korea may have thought twice about doing it again.

    You jest.

    This is a nation that was nearly obliterated by the US. You think they see the US as anything then a great scourge on the face of the Earth?

    Not retaliating may make another attack by N. Korea guaranteed because they got away with it. Who really knows?

    A lot of people know.

    But I don’t think Israel should or even can concede to all these demands without weakening their position too much.

    Let me get this straight.

    You believe that they have a right to occupy another nation’s territory and that it is a concession to give it back????

    So you believe a thief has a right to hold on to your property until you surrender something else to get it back????

    Eek!

    B.F.-The “global community” would faint at this impossibility.

    Me-And I would faint if the attacks against Israel stopped even if they gave the Palestinians everything they are asking for

    People like you said:
    “If we leave Vietnam, Communism will overrun the World!!”

    We left, and it didn’t.

    You proclaim amazing irrational policies to other people you do not like yet you do not do the same to those that you do like.

    You judge rational as: “People I like”
    You judge irrational as: “People I do not like”

    Thus, you hold beliefs that create irrational policies.

    • B.F.

      We are never going to agree and I do not like being put into a neat little box to further your points. Both sides are guilty of doing wrong-But Israel is there-they were not going to just allow their enemies to destroy them back when they were given a state just because people objected to the way the land was divided up after a war. After 60 plus years of fighting, they are not now going to retreat to borders that were determined back in 1967?, if they believe they cannot defend those borders-they are not going to allow their enemies to move back into Israel. Yes, world opinion may destroy them anyway(if I don’t figure in the power of God-which I do 🙂 but you don’t so we won’t discuss that). Now I can see that compromise has to be made by both sides if peace is ever possible. You can only see Israel surrendering to the Palestines demands. But again time, hate, refugee camps and attacks that kill people have changed the definition of whats fair- IMHO.

      • “Both sides are guilty of doing wrong-” Yes, but only one side is wanting peace, the other calls for Israel’s destruction. Whenever it looks like they might reach a peaceful settlement, a group of Palestinian’s attack.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit

        Ehud Barak claimed that he offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries.[17] The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel’s Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks, was “we can’t accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation.”[18]

        Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, “I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace.” The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[15][19][20] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority

        • LOI

          Both sides are guilty of doing wrong-” Yes, but only one side is wanting peace, the other calls for Israel’s destruction.

          You can’t be serious.

          Are you truly fooled by the man mouthing “all I want is peace” while he is beating you to death with a club???

        • LOI,

          Re: Camp David

          Arafat was not Palestinian and betrayed them numerous times.

          • And what has change today? A different betrayer?

            • LOI,

              What has changed….

              Israeli dogma and policy has become more extreme
              Palestinian demands have become smaller and smaller.

              Today, the Israelis refuse to stop building on occupied territories…..

              …while the only “demand” of the weak, isolated, starving, water depraved, living in the “largest prison camp in the world” is “stop building on occupied territories”.

  20. V.H.

    We are never going to agree and I do not like being put into a neat little box to further your points.

    The situation is simply defined.

    You do not like that, because it obvious on who is the “problem”, and that means “the guys you like” are wrong.

    To you, that is impossible, because you like them.

    Therefore, no matter what, its the other guys fault.

    Both sides are guilty of doing wrong

    There is Cause/Effect – judgments of “right/wrong” are pointless.

    One side acts, the other side reacts.

    If you do not like the consequence of this interchange, the process completely depends on the side that acts.

    Demanding the side that reacts to not react is irrational.

    After 60 plus years of fighting, they are not now going to retreat to borders that were determined back in 1967?,

    Thus, you support a war crime.

    You can only see Israel surrendering to the Palestines demands.

    I have already discussed the concepts of “surrender” and how it does not apply to the hegemony.

    I have no interest in listening to irrational rants that continue to ignore my arguments.

    • “I have no interest in listening to irrational rants that continue to ignore my arguments.”

      ” irrational rants”??? Pot/kettle
      “that continue to ignore my arguments” To not agree is not the same as ignore. You have failed to convince us, mark it as another FlagFail and let it go or try explaining to an entrenched mind like mine(or yours). And you are being rude to VH. I suggest, http://www.midol.com/

      • Thanks Illusion-I am used to Flags rudeness-it is an intentional part of his debating, I suspect he tries to use ridicule or anger to make people be more honest and less PC in their response-civility and PC sometimes covers up our true feelings which come out when we are more emotionally responding. But I am not at all convinced that it actually leads to the truth-and there is the possibility that I give him more credit than he deserves 🙂 he could just be trying to make me mad so I can’t think straight 🙂 and Flag I never ignore your arguments.

        • One more thing Flag-I never ignore your arguments but you do ignore mine.

          • V.H.

            I have answered your arguments specifically and in great detail, one point at a time.

            The issue is that you do not acknowledge your contradictions, and merely repeat the same irrational stuff over and over in the vain hope that some of it may stick.

      • LOI

        It is dangerous to step in someone else’s mine field.

        I have no problem with disagreement – which if you note, what I asked Mathius (and by extension, anyone else) to provide.

        But merely yelling “I disagree” is merit-less and pointless

        Give me a reason, not merely because the TRUTH is unpalatable for you.

        • Now Flag-I understand what you are saying and I agree that some simply will not discuss some things in detail with you-but that is their choice. But people give you reasons all the time and quite frankly you ignore them and just repeat your own stuff over and over again. Case in point-You don’t believe time and circumstances change what should be done about Israel and the Palestinians-I do-that is not a contradiction-it is a difference of opinion. You discard the point because you disagree-which is the same as ignoring my point. But we have had many invigorating dialogues and I enjoy them. So lets just say friends sometimes argue and enjoy the next one 🙂

          • V.H.

            But people give you reasons all the time and quite frankly you ignore them and just repeat your own stuff over and over again.

            I do not ignore them.
            I give a contrary opinion – backed up by reasons – when I disagree.

            If the other side then responds by merely repeating the same refuted arguments, then I the discussion has been moved to irrational.

            Case in point-You don’t believe time and circumstances change what should be done about Israel and the Palestinians

            So responded that you support a war crime.

            It is a war crime to seize territory by force of arms.
            It has been declared a war crime since 1945.
            There is NO statutory time limit for a war crime.

            Thus, you arguing that the past should be forgotten and “we pick up today” must mean you support a war crime

            But, that would put you in a bit of unsavory position, and you don’t like that either.

            So you will irrational bounce hither and yon to try to deal with NOT being unsavory AND supporting the seizure of territory.

            -I do-that is not a contradiction-it is a difference of opinion.

            The positive opinion of unsavory tactics is probably an unsavory opinions.

            We are always friends.

            • Yes, we are always friends 🙂 Irritating friends sometimes 🙂 but that is a fact with most everybody.

              By ignoring my argument-I mean you do not look at the outcome when it comes to Israel -if they do just give in to the 1967 borders. Israel is strong, no doubt but they have many enemies and you cannot just say they are too strong to fall militarily because the Palestinians are weaker. If the strength of the Palestinians was the only consideration this fight would have been over years ago. And you certainly admit that they aren’t to strong to fall if the “global attitude” goes against them. And then accuse me of being irrational just because I see the danger and you dismiss it as unimportant. Based on an international law that doesn’t take into consideration the actual facts of what is going on-just makes a blanket restriction-no one has the right to say a country must commit suicide to comply with a law. I’m also not holding a people guilty of war crimes when in my minds eye the war has Never really ended. Who’s to blame at this point really doesn’t matter-a compromise that benefits both is what matters. Whether it’s your Israel wants all the land or the Palestinians would rather die than use anything but the 1967 borders(although I believe they want all the land as much as you believe Israel won’t settle for anything less) both are losing in this standoff.l

            • Bottom Line says:

              Flag,

              Kinda reminds me of a conversation where some guy named “Black Order” uses reason to wreak havoc at the Ron Paul fan site.

              ROFL!

              http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

%d bloggers like this: