uhmump95 Wrote:Just how stupid are you?

well now, what's the basis for comparison? against some, i account pretty well. against others, not so well. and against some, i've not really been measured.

as compared to you? think george will vs. protozoan.

Quote:Do you believe that the Israels would be any where near as aggressive as they are without us watching their back?

aggressive? gosh, why should they behave in such a fashion when so many for so long made the destruction of israel an important platform in their governmental structure?

Quote: No they wouldn't, but if you believe the Israelis are tough on their own that is cool with me because that means you would support the US not supporting them anymore.

If you actually read my post (instead of looking for sound bites in an attempt to make yourself look intelligent) you would see that I am not for any "social" programs which happens to be a major problem that I have with Israel.

what is it you protest in the protection afforded the US to Israel; that we helped them survive against incalculable odds? and in the process derived significant benefit? or do you just think that judaism is a gutter religion and that zionism is holding you back?

gruehls Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:To me, Israel is a big welfare case.

yeah, all they need is affirmative action.

You beat me to the punch.

Wonder why it is welfare when the people are white Jews and it is justified compensation for an oppressed people when those people are African Americans?

Can you say double standard?...... :rolleyes:

uhmump95 Wrote:Do you believe that the Israels would be any where near as aggressive as they are without us watching their back?  No they wouldn't, but if you believe ...

You've shifted from "how long will they last" to "anywhere near as agressive".

Do you advocate the destruction of Israel, or some other state of affairs?

You'll be best served by stating what you believe, not engaging in exchanges of "who's the biggest idiot". The risk is that you'll both lose.

I45Owl Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:Do you believe that the Israels would be any where near as aggressive as they are without us watching their back?  No they wouldn't, but if you believe ...

You've shifted from "how long will they last" to "anywhere near as agressive".

Do you advocate the destruction of Israel, or some other state of affairs?

It appears he just advocating what he's been fed.

gruehls Wrote:

Quote:there is not and never has been a "muslim" democracy.

Quote:Turkey IS a democracy and it IS Muslim!!!

turkey is not a muslim democracy. the turkish republic...

A Republic, pretty much what we pledge allegiance to. Yet most still consider ourselves a democracy, which is not altogether correct.

Quote:

Quote:high tech from the US as modified by Israel is GOOD

Quote:And high tech that they now receive from us they sell to Communist China.  The powers that be in Washington are fuming about that.

Quote:no doubt they figured if it was good enough for the clinton administration, it ought to be good  enough for them

You can't really compare what Clinton did as to what what Israel is doing now. Yes it was a breach of national security and its highly controversial, but what President of ours has not done similar acts to various states which have been or have become threats to our security and that of others? If pursued by politicians and a constituency that really cares about the path of our nation, these issues would have been given much greater importance and those found guilty would have been punished under our laws. Israel has been an ally since the Cold War and has been trusted by the Federal Government and the US Military to preserve the integrity of shared military technology. Unfortunately they made a mistake and sold technology to a serious military power which will be able to challenge us within a decade or two. Those guilty of doing this will not be found guilty under our laws, and most likely not under that of any others.

blah Wrote:Wonder why it is welfare when the people are white Jews and it is justified compensation for an oppressed people when those people are African Americans?

blah,

We just posted a long thread where I made my feeling very clear about my stand on "welfare" programs. For you to make a post like that shows that you also are cought up in dropping sound bites to fit in with the conservative crowd in this board.

Our difference is on affirmative action. But I see that our difference may be with what we individually see affirmative action to be.

My view
Affirmative Action - A policy that allows minorities to be able to pursue jobs without their race being a hinderance. (This is what I supports)

Your view
Affirmative Action - quotas and lowering of standards for minorities to be hired (I do not support this)

Quote:what is it you protest in the protection afforded the US to Israel;

I have no problems with the protection that we afford Israel. I have issues with the fact they use our protection as a hinderance to any real peace process between them and their neighbor countries.

uhmump95 Wrote:

Quote:what is it you protest in the protection afforded the US to Israel;

I have no problems with the protection that we afford Israel. I have issues with the fact they use our protection as a hinderance to any real peace process between them and their neighbor countries.

I honestly don't believe there will ever be true peace between Israel & the Arab world. Biblically speaking the next time there is "peace" between the two should be when a 7-year peace pact is signed ushering in the Biblical "Tribulation Period."

These two nations have hated each other since Abraham had sons with both Hagar (Ismael, seed of the Arab nation) and Sarah (Isaac, seed of the Jewish nation) over 4,000 years ago.

uhmump95 Wrote:Should he have added


...I am sorry that our media would put a Muslim suicide bomber on the first page of our publications, but bury when Isreali gunmen  decide to shoot into to groups of innocent Palestinians in a little blurb on page 12.

<a href='http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA081405.3H.gurwitz.1ba2fa15.html' target='_blank'>This terrorist attack just as despicable, yet look at the difference </a>

gruehls Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:Should he have added


...I am sorry that our media would put a Muslim suicide bomber on the first page of our publications, but bury when Isreali gunmen&nbsp; decide to shoot into to groups of innocent Palestinians in a little blurb on page 12.

<a href='http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA081405.3H.gurwitz.1ba2fa15.html' target='_blank'>This terrorist attack just as despicable, yet look at the difference </a>

And yet that story wasn't on the front page. As best I recall, neither was <a href='http://travel.guardianunlimited.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,741852,00.html' target='_blank'>this one</a>, so UHMumps claim is dubious at best.

I45Owl Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:Should he have added


...I am sorry that our media would put a Muslim suicide bomber on the first page of our publications, but bury when Isreali gunmen  decide to shoot into to groups of innocent Palestinians in a little blurb on page 12.

<a href='http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA081405.3H.gurwitz.1ba2fa15.html' target='_blank'>This terrorist attack just as despicable, yet look at the difference </a>

And yet that story wasn't on the front page. As best I recall, neither was <a href='http://travel.guardianunlimited.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,741852,00.html' target='_blank'>this one</a>, so UHMumps claim is dubious at best.

i am beginning the process of re-evaluating my assessment of the overall quality of your posts.

I45Owl Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:Should he have added


...I am sorry that our media would put a Muslim suicide bomber on the first page of our publications, but bury when Isreali gunmen  decide to shoot into to groups of innocent Palestinians in a little blurb on page 12.

<a href='http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA081405.3H.gurwitz.1ba2fa15.html' target='_blank'>This terrorist attack just as despicable, yet look at the difference </a>

And yet that story wasn't on the front page. As best I recall, neither was <a href='http://travel.guardianunlimited.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,741852,00.html' target='_blank'>this one</a>, so UHMumps claim is dubious at best.

The link in your post does not work. What was the article about?

uhmump95 Wrote:The link in your post does not work.  What was the article about?

try this one; same paper and front page coverage of an israeli murder of palestinians, described by sharon as an act of "jewish terror":

<a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1550682,00.html' target='_blank'>Israeli gunman kills three Palestinians </a>

it also is featured prominently on Drudge as :'JEWISH TERROR': Israeli gunman kills two Palestinians in West Bank... , with the following link:.<a href='http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050817/ts_nm/mideast_shooting_dc_8' target='_blank'>Settler kills 3 Palestinians, rattling Gaza pullout </a>

the point is the same; you were wildly inaccurate in your description of how such horrific actions by israelis are prominently covered in the press. such mindless violence is routinely decried by every civilized country and organization EXCEPT the islamic/arab ones when the actions are perpetrated by islamic nutcases and financially rewarded by more islamic nutcases.

<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/17/gaza.pullout/index.html' target='_blank'>Another one</a>

Quote:Although there were few reports of violence Wednesday, a Jewish settler in the West Bank grabbed a gun from an Israeli guard and shot dead three Palestinians in the Shilo settlement, Israeli police said. Two Palestinians were wounded.

They certainly don't appear to be glossing over it here.

uhmump95 Wrote:

I45Owl Wrote:And yet that story wasn't on the front page.&nbsp; As best I recall, neither was <a href='http://travel.guardianunlimited.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,741852,00.html' target='_blank'>this one</a>, so UHMumps claim is dubious at best.

The link in your post does not work. What was the article about?

Here is a <a href='http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:lmTeHn19SxwJ:travel.guardianunlimited.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,741852,00.html++%22Rachel+Shabo%22&hl=en%20target=nw' target='_blank'>cached version</a>. Basically, it's a story of a Palistinian gunman who broke into a settlement and killed a mother and three children while her husband was gone. It seemed remarkably cruel to me, but also notable since the story was buried in the Dallas paper.

It's foolish to get into arguments about which incidents of cold-blooded murder are more cruel, or even how many inches of ink the incidents gather - they are either more newsworthy or less so for much different reasons, as <a href='http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/613936.html' target='_blank'>this incident</a> would suggest.

The question I am more interested in is what you suggest be done, with regard to US Policy, and what you suppose the consequences would be. I find it hard to reconcile what I see as three distinct positions you've taken: "how long will they last", "anywhere near as agressive", "no problems with the protection that we afford". You suggest primary or sole responsibility for hindering the peace process lies with the Israelis without acknowledging (a) the strength of Hamas in the dynamic of Palestiinian politick, (b) the significance of the death of Arafat in jump-starting the peace process (and the fact that virtually everyone involved in the peace process - Israelis, Americans, the late King Hussein, etc. have long bemoaned both his intransigence and vacillations - what a combination :rolleyes:). You should be able to recognize the difficulty at this juncture of the unilateral disengagement. At any time, had there been leadership of the Palestinians who were genuinely interested in a peaceful or fair settlement, no amount of US aid could have created enough of an obstacle to the peace process to forestall progress. Unfortunately, the process on the Arab side has historically been dominated by (1) dictators <a href='http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A//www.twq.com/05summer/docs/05summer_ross.pdf&ei=4foDQ_2aN7by4AHC5Oz6DQ&sig2=tmVl0uSIQjmza8buzIVdwg' target='_blank'>unintersted in peace</a>, (2) Islamists more interested in genocide, and (3) the self-indulgent Yasser Arafat-dominated PLO. The remarkable exceptions of King Hussein and Anwar Sadat, who together are responsible for many of the productive efforts to date.

As it stands, the disengagement may be viewed as an <a href='http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/613373.html' target='_blank'>Israeli defeat</a> (arguing the Israeli hand was not played strong enough), and encourage Hamas toward more violence.

Another opinion:<a href='http://www.dfw.com/mld/news/opinion/12472195.htm' target='_blank'>Feeding Crocs</a>

May require free registration.

If link doesn't work, go to http://www.star-telegram.com, go to opinions, go to "Feeding Crocs".

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Another opinion:<a href='http://www.dfw.com/mld/news/opinion/12472195.htm' target='_blank'>Feeding Crocs</a>

May require free registration.

If link doesn't work, go to http://www.star-telegram.com, go to opinions, go to "Feeding Crocs".

Never cared much for Cal Thomas myself. However, to some extent, he's right. <a href='http://tinyurl.com/8e2xz' target='_blank'>These guys</a> [<a href='http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm' target='_blank'>1</a>] claim that their violence liberated Gaza. In addition, they claim <a href='http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=3&id=1294' target='_blank'>religious purpose</a> ("Our position stems from our religious convictions") for their terrorism despite those who insist that suicide terrorism is done for a <a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400063175/amzna9-1-20/ref=nosim/103-6533970-8295868?dev-t=D26XECQVNV6NDQ%26camp=2025%26link_code=xm2' target='_blank'>secular purpose</a>.