zionist terror

Quote from dddooo:
More...

Then you may want to take a position that the Israelis want to live in peace while the muslims want to get rid of Israel, that if the Arab world disarms there will be no wars, if Israel disarms there will be no Israel. This should put things in proper perspective.

The proper perspective is that violence by both sides is wrong.



You bet you do if 100% of your criticism is directed towards Israel, if you go out of the way to find fault with Israel or excuses (no matter how absurd and ridiculous) for the actions of arab and muslim governments/street. You bet you take sides, yu're just an intellectually dishonest coward to acknowledge that.

Irrational. In my post I blamed both sides equally.

I see you are pulling the ratchild "coward" play.

Classic. Fanatics are fanatics no matter what side they take. They just can't help themselves to find balance in a moderate reasonable position.

When you never ever take a position to illustrate that the Arabs/muslims are wrong, when you never ever take a position to illustrate that Israel may be right, when you never take a position to illustrate that Israel has the right to exist and defend its borders and its population - I have every right to show you for who you really are - a dumb, bigoted, anti-Israel, anti-American scumbag. Then again, you're the most despised member of ET by far so I'd rather you side with wael than me. In fact that you keep supporting and justifying the most regressive backward and despicable countries/regimes/tribes/religions illustrates that misery indeed loves company.

I see both sides as wrong when they use violence for political purposes and then rationalize they are blameless in their violence.

Fanatics just can't handle the criticism, and you serve to demonstrate how fanatics think in such a reactive defensive and irrational manner.

Your myopic rabid knee jerk reaction defensive continues, as does the ad hominem attempts to diminish the logical truth of what I have stated.

Thanks for always helping to making my case for me when it comes to the behavior patterns of fanaticism...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

The proper perspective is that violence by both sides is wrong.
More...
then explain it to those who murdered school children in Beslan and theater goers in Moscow, commuters in Spain and London and tourists in Bali, explain it to those who want to wipe Israel off the map, crash planes into american buildings, riot, pillage and burn over cartoons, implement sharia law in Europe...

Explain it to these people, governments and organizations cause so far you have been either silent or defending them.
 
Violence by both sides is wrong.

If someone doesn't understand that puts blame equally where it belongs, they are beyond help.

Given your emotionalism, hate mongering and fanaticism, I really am surprised you are not a RuPaul follower...perhaps they knew you were a blind supporter of Israel.

Quote from dddooo:

then explain it to those who murdered school children in Beslan and theater goers in Moscow, commuters in Spain and London and tourists in Bali, explain it to those who want to wipe Israel off the map, crash planes into american buildings, riot, pillage and burn over cartoons, implement sharia law in Europe...

Explain it to these people, governments and organizations cause so far you have been either silent or defending them.
More...
 
Quote from dddooo:

I don't see mormons of "some other lowly religion" deliberately murdering innocent civilians on every continent of the world, rioting over some lousy cartoons, burning some lousy french cars... Do you?
More...

You meant "or" right? not "of"? Must've been a typo.

It don't matter what you see. You'll make up any o'l lie to do the trick. If you can't murder one group of humans, you'll deliberately make up a reason to murder another.

You people are like that.
 
Quote from chuck.ells:
More...

You meant "or" right? not "of"? Must've been a typo.
Yes, it was a typo, I did mean "or".

It don't matter what you see.
It does to me. I am sure it does not to you though as you don't seem to have a deep interest in the reality.

You'll make up any o'l lie to do the trick. If you can't murder one group of humans, you'll deliberately make up a reason to murder another.
Even if that was true it still does not deny the fact that some groups (hint - groups that murder, kidnap, behead, riot...) don't need lies or made-up reasons, their reputation is well deserved and is based on the merits of their activities.

You people are like that.
hmm, just out of curiosity, what group of people are you lumping me with?
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

In America following the Colonial period and the expansion that followed the indigenous people of America were slaughtered, abused and their land stolen.

Angered and feeling powerless against a superior military and political power, they struck back.

When they struck back, they were called savages and they "whined" about what happened to their people...

The narrowness of your thinking is obvious when you ignore what has actually given rise to the resistance movement of the indigenous people in the middle east...
More...

Yes, They "struck back" and got slaughtered. No group can win against an established nation and their mighty military.

The only examples of success are the Gandhi movement against the British and Kings fight against the American bigot south.

Both movements were battles against the moral and consciousness of the larger state. The British control of India after WW2 was unnecessary and considered oppressive. Same with Israel’s control of Palestinian land.

For hamas/ PLO to fight with bombs and rockets is a sure way to be slaughtered.

They need a non-violent peaceful fight just like King in the South.
A non-violent march on Jerusalem would garner lots of moral support from the world, just like the march on Selma.

No way could Israel continue attacks on a non-violent movement, nor would they.
 
What a silly argument concerning the response of the American Indian. A peaceful march during the expansion era would have deterred the white man's movement west into their land?

Even in today's climate, protests don't seem to have much impact on what the government in this country does. Bush has even take steps to hide protesters behind "Free Speech Zones."

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

If as you say "they can't win" then they aren't a genuine threat...especially the way they are portrayed as a threat to the very existence of Israel by the right wing Israelis and their American supporters...

And if they can't win but they try anyway and die, then they are seen as martyrs for their cause...which increases support for their cause.

By the way, they said David couldn't win...they also said the Colonists couldn't win in a war with King George...they said the Afghan people couldn't resist the Russian invasion...

Israel ignores world opinion, that is obvious, so they can, and will continue to do whatever their military power allows them to do.

http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Palestine/031603_american_woman_peace_activist_ki.htm




Quote from Mercor:

Yes, They "struck back" and got slaughtered. No group can win against an established nation and their mighty military.

The only examples of success are the Gandhi movement against the British and Kings fight against the American bigot south.

Both movements were battles against the moral and consciousness of the larger state. The British control of India after WW2 was unnecessary and considered oppressive. Same with Israel’s control of Palestinian land.

For hamas/ PLO to fight with bombs and rockets is a sure way to be slaughtered.

They need a non-violent peaceful fight just like King in the South.
A non-violent march on Jerusalem would garner lots of moral support from the world, just like the march on Selma.

No way could Israel continue attacks on a non-violent movement, nor would they.
More...
 
Quote from Mercor:

They need a non-violent peaceful fight just like King in the South.
More...
A non-violent fight could quickly lead to the establishment of a palestinian state (23rd arab state) alongside Israel but this is not what it is all about. Their explicitly stated objective is NOT the existence of a palestinian state but the destruction of Israel. Non-violent methods are quite useless in this respect.
 
Quote from dddooo:

A non-violent fight could quickly lead to the establishment of a palestinian state (23rd arab state) alongside Israel but this is not what it is all about. Their explicitly stated objective is NOT the existence of a palestinian state but the destruction of Israel. Non-violent methods are quite useless in this respect.
More...

Yes, that is the truth, the whole and nothing but the truth.

And the other Arab states push the violence to mask their own oppression of their citizens.

The Palestinians don't realize that are being used by their Muslims brothers.

just look at the way Egypt treats the border with Gaza....unbelievable, considering Egypt used to own Gaza and lost it in the war....Now they support the anti-Israel cause through the Palestinians but offer very little tangible support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top