[vmarks]

“Hamas is condemning the U.S vote and stating that Hamas considers the U.S as an enemy and as an accomplice to the Israeli enemy aggression against the Palestinians. Hamas regards the U.S position as a criminal act that puts her in a confrontation with ”weak“ nations. The U.S will face responsibility for its position as an accomplice with Israel to the animosity.”

But don't suggest everything that has happened is the West's fault. Arguments ring hollow when you suggest it's all about Israel; Israel didn't even exist when the first modern Islamic terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, was founded in the 1920s.

[gerbnl]

Originally posted by vmarks:
“Hamas is condemning the U.S vote and stating that Hamas considers the U.S as an enemy and as an accomplice to the Israeli enemy aggression against the Palestinians. Hamas regards the U.S position as a criminal act that puts her in a confrontation with �?weak“ nations. The U.S will face responsibility for its position as an accomplice with Israel to the animosity.�?

But don't suggest everything that has happened is the West's fault. Arguments ring hollow when you suggest it's all about Israel; Israel didn't even exist when the first modern Islamic terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, was founded in the 1920s.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
But don't suggest everything that has happened is the West's fault. Arguments ring hollow when you suggest it's all about Israel; Israel didn't even exist when the first modern Islamic terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, was founded in the 1920s.

Yawny Yawn.

[Atomic Rooster]

An enemy of your enemy is your friend.

A friend of your enemy is your enemy.

You haven't figured that out yet?

[Logic]

Good for them. The US has already labelled them an enemy(terrorist organisation) so they are just returning the favour.

[Spliffdaddy]

Does that mean it's OK to kill them now?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Does that mean it's OK to kill them now?

If that means that you think it is OK for them to kill Americans now, then sure.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Logic:
If that means that you think it is OK for them to kill Americans now, then sure.

are you kidding? of course it's OK.

other than Americans, it's tough to find anyone that has a problem with it.

[MATTRESS]

We are their enemy because we support their enemy. Duh.

As long as we support Israel more Americans will die.

When will we wake up and stop sending our tax dollars to that state? Probably never since the Jewish lobby has such power here.

[vmarks]

You ignore that these terrorists hated the West prior to Israel's existence.

Based on that ignorance, you make the incorrect conclusion that divesting from Israel would somehow render America no longer a target.

[MATTRESS]

How many Islamic terrorist incidents occurred against U.S. citizens prior to the establishment of the state of Israel?

I mean, gosh, the daily bombardments of planes against skyscrapers in New York and the beheadings of our citizens were just so common that I guess it became old news.

Can anyone think of a better use for $5 billion annually than giving it to a state that sells weapons to our enemies and makes us a walking bullseye for Muslim terrorists?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
You ignore that these terrorists hated the West prior to Israel's existence.

I wonder why that could be.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Based on that ignorance, you make the incorrect conclusion that divesting from Israel would somehow render America no longer a target.

It would certainly help. Of course if the US really wanted to be free from terrorist attack, it would stop messing with the Middle East in general.

[PacHead]

Many palestinians support hamas. Maybe this means we can start carpetbombing soon.

Bring it on hamas degenerates, Americans do not fear lowlifes such as hamas. We'll kill 'em all, every last one of them.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
How many Islamic terrorist incidents occurred against U.S. citizens prior to the establishment of the state of Israel?

I mean, gosh, the daily bombardments of planes against skyscrapers in New York and the beheadings of our citizens were just so common that I guess it became old news.

Can anyone think of a better use for $5 billion annually than giving it to a state that sells weapons to our enemies and makes us a walking bullseye for Muslim terrorists?

You conveniently ignore the money going to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Palestinian Authority, UNRWA (which hires Hamas terrorists, yes your tax dollars pay people who have declared themselves the enemy)

What you're advocating is abandoning an ally - In 1934, Winston Churchill famously declared that "I cannot imagine a more dangerous policy" than one of deliberately weakening an important ally, upon whose strength one's own security may significantly rely.

[Logic]

Are you trying to imply that the US's security relies on having Israel as an ally??

[The Oracle]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
How many Islamic terrorist incidents occurred against U.S. citizens prior to the establishment of the state of Israel?

How many moon landings were there prior to the establishment of Israel?

The world was totally different in 1948 and earlier. Your statement is downright misguided.

[The Oracle]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
We are their enemy because we support their enemy. Duh.

As long as we support Israel more Americans will die.

When will we wake up and stop sending our tax dollars to that state? Probably never since the Jewish lobby has such power here.

Other Western nations have been recent targets of brutal terrorism, yet they aren't supporters of Israel. Spain, France, and Australia top the list. For a Mattress, your thoughts are decidedly unfirm.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Logic:
Good for them. The US has already labeled them an enemy(terrorist organisation) so they are just returning the favour.

Just to be clear: Do you disagree with that assessment?

There's plenty not to like about Israel's conduct in the Territories, but can you argue that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation?

[Logic]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Just to be clear: Do you disagree with that assessment?

There's plenty not to like about Israel's conduct in the Territories, but can you argue that Hamas is not a terrorist organisation?

The problem is that the militant arm of Hamas is just a small fraction of the whole organisation.

But that part is a terrorist organisation. The other part does much good work for the people of Palestine. I've hoped they would focus all their energy on that but I doubt that will ever happen.

So no, I don't disagree with that assessment. Though I think that labelling all Hamas members(like vmarks loves to do) terrorists is wrong.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by The Oracle:
How many moon landings were there prior to the establishment of Israel?

The world was totally different in 1948 and earlier. Your statement is downright misguided.

No, it's not. I see two skyscapers down in NYC and the ultimate cause: our support for a racist apartheid state called Israel.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by vmarks:

What you're advocating is abandoning an ally - In 1934, Winston Churchill famously declared that "I cannot imagine a more dangerous policy" than one of deliberately weakening an important ally, upon whose strength one's own security may significantly rely.

Yes, the ally that sold missiles to China that could have downed our own servicemen.

Some friend, who needs enemies? The sooner we drop this "alliance" with Israel the safer Americans will be.

Let the Israelis stand or fall on their own. Let's see this "God" of yours protect them.

[itai195]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
No, it's not. I see two skyscapers down in NYC and the ultimate cause: our support for a racist apartheid state called Israel.

And here I thought the ultimate cause was a deranged millionaire operating with impunity out in Afghanistan.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
It would certainly help. Of course if the US really wanted to be free from terrorist attack, it would stop messing with the Middle East in general.

That would be giving the terrorists exactly what they want. It's best to do exactly the opposite, no matter how little sense it makes.

I've often wondered what the Americans would do if terrorists demanded that they breath oxygen. I suspect it might be the quickest route to a terrorist victory over America.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by itai195:
And here I thought the ultimate cause was a deranged millionaire operating with impunity out in Afghanistan.

No no, that was proximate. The ultimate cause was fearful oligarchies in undemocratic states latching onto an ideology of hatred to deflect the rage of dispossessed and idle youth.

[Capt Shane]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
We are their enemy because we support their enemy. Duh.

As long as we support Israel more Americans will die.

When will we wake up and stop sending our tax dollars to that state? Probably never since the Jewish lobby has such power here.

They hate us cause we are free and are fighting to free others not cause of isreal

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Capt Shane:
They hate us cause we are free and are fighting to free others not cause of isreal

Have you ever really thought through that particular piece of propaganda?

[constrictor]

In a perfect world, we would just nuke the entire Middle East, Israel included, and then the problem would be solved.

In the real world, perhaps we can do it anyway? I know what our response will be if we ever get "dirty bombed" here on US soil. Then the message to all the Middle Eastern fathers whose babies are born with heart defects from our retaliatory nuclear radiation will be simple: you should have done something to stop your neighbors.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by constrictor:
In a perfect world, we would just nuke the entire Middle East, Israel included, and then the problem would be solved.

It's frightening that in your "perfect world" you're as bad as the terrorists

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's frightening that in your "perfect world" you're as bad as the terrorists

It's more frightening that they've had 2000 years to quit the nonsense and there has been NO PROGRESS. I begin to wonder how long we should put up with the whole region's inability to climb out of the dark ages. I don't support Israel in any way, nor any other country in the region. There's a mosque right here on my corner with a prominent sign that says "Women's Entrance," and the police showed up four months ago when a few of the men decided to throw out a young woman from the "Men's Entrance" by dragging her out of the building by her hair. Nice culture you've all got going there. Mind you, this is in the middle of NYC. I wouldn't be upset if we decided to drop the big one. Even mice will kill their siblings when they sense something sick about them.

[Spliffdaddy]

whoa now, constrictor dude.

you're starting to sound like a Republican - instead of a tree-hugging peacenik.

When you talk about nuking the middle east, you make a lot of sense.

They had 2,000 years to get their act together and learn to be civilized human beings. I doubt a few more decades will make any difference.

Turning the area into a glowing glassy crater would guarantee peace now.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
whoa now, constrictor dude.

you're starting to sound like a Republican - instead of a tree-hugging peacenik.

When you talk about nuking the middle east, you make a lot of sense.

They had 2,000 years to get their act together and learn to be civilized human beings. I doubt a few more decades will make any difference.

What many of the Bush taint-lickers (you included) fail to grasp, is that it is possible to think Bush is a drooling, fat-tongued tard and not be a tree-hugging liberal. I am in the middle of the political road as I think one can get. I just think your Second Coming of Christ President is the wrong wrong wrong man for the job.

[Spliffdaddy]

And I think Kerry mentions God far too often to condemn Bush for doing it only occasionally.

Not all rightwing conservatives care anything about religion.

And, in reality, we don't have to vote for Bush nor Kerry.

edit: If I marry a billionaire, I would probably thank God fairly often.

[vmarks]

Whoa- you think nuking the innocent with the guilty is "middle-of-the-road" ?

Where are you, to the right of Pat Buchanan or left of Lyndon LaRouche?

I guarantee you, when a dirty bomb goes off in a western country, it won't have been an Israeli who did the deed. What you're proposing is that if one country doesn't take care of the problem neighbors, that America should wipe out the whole region.

Nevermind the ostracizing that Israel took for eradicating Iraqi nuclear facilities in the early 80s. Nevermind the ostracizing Israel takes for simply existing, much less taking care of the business of eliminating terrorists.

Advocating eliminating allies trying to balance world opinion with security is sheer foolishness. If you mean to suggest that allies should be less subjugated to world opinion and more focused on proactively fighting the war on terror, that's certainly a suggestion- but don't go off the deep end.

[Spliffdaddy]

aw shucks.

Just when both sides of the political spectrum had found some common ground - the nuking of the middle east - along comes a disinterested moderate to spoil the fun.

[Spliffdaddy]

Gaza? How about just nuking Gaza?

I'm so sick of hearing that name.

We could do it on a day when the prevailing wind blows away from Israel.

[constrictor]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
aw shucks.

Just when both sides of the political spectrum had found some common ground - the nuking of the middle east - along comes a disinterested moderate to spoil the fun.

Moderate, yes. Disinterested, no. You've simply misunderestimated me.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Capt Shane:
They hate us cause we are free and are fighting to free others not cause of isreal

If "they" hated us due to our freedom then all free countries and all free peoples would be targets.

"They" hate us because of our misguided policies in the Middle East.

Were it not for oil we wouldn't have to be in the Middle East and we wouldn't have to support Israel for the sole purpose of keeping a thorn in the side of the Arabs as a whole.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
If "they" hated us due to our freedom then all free countries and all free peoples would be targets.

"They" hate us because of our misguided policies in the Middle East.

Were it not for oil we wouldn't have to be in the Middle East and we wouldn't have to support Israel for the sole purpose of keeping a thorn in the side of the Arabs as a whole.

But terrorists do attack in other free countries. Spain, Sweden, France, the Netherlands
Or do you not count the beating of Danish non-Muslim college professors for quoting from the Quran, the situation in Malmø Sweden, where the police are afraid to police the city, and Swedes are emigrating from the city fearing for their safety, as stabbings, armed robbery, vandalism and pretty much any kind of crime and violence you can think of occur at the hands of Muslim immigrants- as terrorism?

As for the rape and gang rape situation, Swedish media have admitted that there has been a sharp increase in brutal rapes, including gang rapes, during recent years. They don’t state why, though. It may still not be as bad in Sweden as it is in Muslim ghettos in France, but the trend is the same:


http://www.iht.com/articles/114798.html


The phenomenon of gang rape in France has become banal. It occurs - how often is unknown - in the concrete wastelands built as cheap housing for immigrants on the outskirts of France's big cities. Here, according to sociologists and prosecutors, teenage boys, many of them loosely organized into gangs, prey on neighborhood girls. Many of the boys are raised in closed, traditional families and are hopelessly confused or ignorant about sex; others are simply street toughs. In this world, women enjoy little respect; often girls who appear weak, or who wear tight-fitting clothing or go out unaccompanied by their fathers or brothers are considered fair game. To avoid trouble, many girls of the projects have taken to wearing loose-fitting jogging clothes and hidden themselves behind domineering fathers or brothers; others have organized themselves into their own gangs. Many of the Muslim girls have donned head scarves - more for protection than out of religious conviction.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in617270.shtml


They rule gangland style, combined with the male-dominated traditions of the Arab countries they came from. It's gotten so bad that, today, most of the young women only feel safe if they are covered up, or if they stay at home. Girls who want to look just like other French girls are considered provocative, asking for trouble. “There was a trial in Lille where a 13-year-old girl was gang raped by 80 men. Sometimes, it’s 80, or 50 or 10. It’s absolutely terrible,” says Bellil. “In the case of Argenteuil, it was horrible. A young woman was raped in a school. Of course, everybody knew, but they're so afraid of these young men that they prefer to close their eyes. That's the price of peace in the ghettos.” When the verdicts came down in this case, the courthouse turned into a madhouse. Eighteen teenagers were convicted of raping a 15-year-old girl over a two-month period. But what really shocked France was how the mothers of those boys reacted. "'You call this justice, seven years in prison for some oral sex,' says one mother. 'It's the girl who should be behind bars.'"

credit for much of the above to Ali Dashti

[itai195]

Originally posted by Mithras:
No no, that was proximate. The ultimate cause was fearful oligarchies in undemocratic states latching onto an ideology of hatred to deflect the rage of dispossessed and idle youth.

You lost me... Could you rephrase that answer using the word 'Israel' instead?

[Logic]

Wow. We have a moderator that has no problem with people talking about nuking the entire ME, just as long as we don't bomb Israel. What's the word I'm looking for?


Wow. We have a moderator that brings up something completely unrelated to the topic at hand to once again attack Muslims and Islam(3rd time this Ramadan). What's the word I'm looking for?



And perhaps if you would have lived in Sweden and/or a Muslim ghetto you would know that stories like that are complete and utter BS. But go on showing how much of a ****** you are, it's quite entertaining. Only problem is that it will hurt macnn in the long run.

[Randman]

Gee, tell them to wait in line behind all of the other groups with grudges.

[Millennium]

Why do they hate us?

I've come to think that what we're dealing with is a pair of profoundly incompatible worldviews. Your average pseudo-Muslim terrorists wants, more than anything else, a world where "Islam" (to be read as "their brand of pseudo-Islam") is held as the highest ideal, to rule over -some would say "dominate"- all things in a kind of holy justice.

The US, and indeed most of the West, idealizes a world where it is not possible for religion to have that kind of influence. Each worldview sees the other as fundamentally immoral for a wide variety of reasons, some valid, some not.

Israel is nothing more than a tool used by both sides to distract their people. Al-Qaeda, for all its bluster about Israel, has never once struck there, and the groups who do strike inside Israel (counting all disputed territories) do not strike elsewhere. They are two completely separate issues, but both al-Qaeda and its opponents are served well by confusing the issue.

Abandoning Israel to be genocided (and they will be genocided in the end, but not before the conflict escalates to nuclear proportions) will solve nothing. Those who hate the US (by which I mean actual terrorists, not opponents of US policy) will find other cheap excuses to do so. Meanwhile, I don't doubt that Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Baghdad, and other cities will be wiped from the map.

That is what it means to abandon Israel: it will solve nothing, and cost everything. For all that people claim that the US blindly supports Israel, they fail to see that it also holds the leash.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Millennium:
That is what it means to abandon Israel: it will solve nothing, and cost everything. For all that people claim that the US blindly supports Israel, they fail to see that it also holds the leash.

"holds the leash"? Perhaps the US should try to keep a shorter leash on Israel. If the US would do that it would be safer, be able to continue to support Israel, and could save countless lives. At the moment the US is only concerned about Israeli(Jewish and Christian lives). The moment they start caring about Palestinian lives they will prove that they are holding the leash. It's useless to hold the leash if the rabid dog is still able to chew on the legs of others.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Logic:
Wow. We have a moderator that has no problem with people talking about nuking the entire ME, just as long as we don't bomb Israel. What's the word I'm looking for?


Wow. We have a moderator that brings up something completely unrelated to the topic at hand to once again attack Muslims and Islam(3rd time this Ramadan). What's the word I'm looking for?



And perhaps if you would have lived in Sweden and/or a Muslim ghetto you would know that stories like that are complete and utter BS. But go on showing how much of a ****** you are, it's quite entertaining. Only problem is that it will hurt macnn in the long run.

and Wow. We have a member that everytime he cannot come up with any argument to vmarks posts will just start attacking him on the moderator level especially about his signature... WHO CARE REALLY?! Get over yourself Logic. If one of the admins had a problem with it they would have told him so. GG.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Millennium:


Israel is nothing more than a tool used by both sides to distract their people. Al-Qaeda, for all its bluster about Israel, has never once struck there, and the groups who do strike inside Israel (counting all disputed territories) do not strike elsewhere.

Incorrect.

Al-Qaida is operating in Gaza, has attacked in Jordan, Tawid and Jihad (in Iraq) has declared allegiance to Al-Qaida ( http://www.boston.com/dailynews/291/...had_dec:.shtml ) and Al-Qaida and HizbAllah jointly performed last weeks' attack in Taba Egypt which succeeded in its aim to harm Israeli tourists outside of Israel. And you wouldn't want to forget the attacks on the Israeli athletes at the Olympics. Al-Qaida (by your count) is attacking inside Israel, and those who commonly attack inside Israel are striking elsewhere.

[Logic]

Got anything to back up that Hezbollah claim?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
Wow. We have a moderator that has no problem with people talking about nuking the entire ME, just as long as we don't bomb Israel. What's the word I'm looking for?

Reading comprehension. Those are the words you're looking for. I'm advocating against the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons. Once again, you read what you want to hear so that you can see discrimination where there is none.

Have an easy fast.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Reading comprehension. Those are the words you're looking for. I'm advocating against the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons. Once again, you read what you want to hear so that you can see discrimination where there is none.

Have an easy fast.

You said this:

Whoa- you think nuking the innocent with the guilty is "middle-of-the-road" ?

So you think it's OK to nuke the "guilty". And you said nothing against using nukes in the ME. All you said was that Israel shouldn't be nuked.

So tell me. How do you propose "nuking the guilty" in the ME without getting the innocent as well? And do you really support using nukes in the ME(of course as long as it doesn't affect Israel)?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Logic:
You said this:

So you think it's OK to nuke the "guilty". And you said nothing against using nukes in the ME. All you said was that Israel shouldn't be nuked.

So tell me. How do you propose "nuking the guilty" in the ME without getting the innocent as well? And do you really support using nukes in the ME(of course as long as it doesn't affect Israel)?

What, you don't think there are innocent anywhere else in the ME? I know I do. Nuclear weapons have only been used once in our history against populations, and I hope it never comes to that again.

Please, you're very intelligent, yet you continually work to find ways to interpret my writing as bigotry where there is none.

[Logic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
What, you don't think there are innocent anywhere else in the ME? I know I do. Nuclear weapons have only been used once in our history against populations, and I hope it never comes to that again.

Please, you're very intelligent, yet you continually work to find ways to interpret my writing as bigotry where there is none.

Nice duck and also you are wrong.

Nuclear weapons have been used twice.

Will you answer my question please?