Israel will react very very very very seriously

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
In what ever conflict, america-afghanistan, israel-palestinians, you comment from the side about "american" or "israeli" lack of morals, while justifying militant muslim barbarism as "resistance to opression".

I have a suggestion for you: Try READING people's posts before making asumptions. I have NEVER, EVER, EVER tried to justify "militant muslim barbarism" or any other sort of violence. NEVER.

I understand that you are locked in some sort of single minded hatred - but just because I disagree with israel, doesn't mean I agree with the palestinian side - infact, I have told you numerous times that I do not support them. And likewise, just because I disagree with the USAs "war on terror" doesn't mean I support terrorism.

And each time you sing songs about human rights for beasts which target and slaughter innocent civilians by the dozens.

I support human rights for everyone, including you.

And each time you behave 'disgusted' when someone who has been shaken by his nation's tragedy only expresses a will to deal with the terrorists in an angry fashion.

I wouldn't describe it as "disgusted" but I certainly do not like, or support, any sort of revenge - revenge does nothing but give someone else a reason to carry out their own revenge.

This contrary to justyfing or rationalising acts of horror made by fanatical brutes from the other side.

Again, I have NEVER done that.

So you don't really get hurt, since you sit high up there in Canada and you think you can piss on everybody and that we can't spit back. So you call nations immoral and illegal and inhuman. But when time comes and terror gets to you - we'll see who cares.

You know, most people who I argue with I respect. I can understand their different point of view or different opinion. You and a limited number of others, are jerks who like to mentally masturbate by leading themselves to believe they are morally superior than anyone. And for that, I don't respect your opnions, and don't respect you very much too.

[Natan]

Re: Re: Re: Well

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I like the way the British express big numbers. Instead of saying 90 billion, they say 90 thousand millions. That gives you a better idea of how much is involved. Let's suppose we could build a new public school for $1 million. With the money that has gone to Israel, we could have built 90,000 brand-new public schools or restored 90,000 public waterworks or bridges or any number of other infrastructure needs.

That's ninety billion over the course of decades, and most of it during the Cold War. Egypt gets more aid than Israel now anyway.

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to tax the labor of the American people and hand over the proceeds to a foreign government

I suppose we could just stop giving our foriegn aid, but that would be unilateralist, wouldn't it? Actually though, the aid we give to all of these countries, Israel, Egypt, Russia, etc. serves American interests quite well. The money costs us a whole lot less than losing it would cost them, and it gives us a lot of easy leverage.

[Sceptor107]

ehygpt get 2.9 bil a year

israel gets 2.5


it was part of camp david peace treaty. seems to work now actually. eygpt would have ecome more fanatical soviet lovers otherwise.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Osweld
I have a suggestion for you: Try READING people's posts before making asumptions. I have NEVER, EVER, EVER tried to justify "militant muslim barbarism" or any other sort of violence. NEVER.

In every thread involving terror you and the likes of you are full with "reasons" and "justifications" for the terror.

Of course you exclaim you oppose violence everywhere, "but", "this was expected and it's no surprise that blah blah blah".

Well i'm part of those who think terror is wrong everywhere, while violence is not wonrg everywhere, and if directed at the right targets, can be an effective measure of getting security.

I understand that you are locked in some sort of single minded hatred - but just because I disagree with israel, doesn't mean I agree with the palestinian side - infact, I have told you numerous times that I do not support them. And likewise, just because I disagree with the USAs "war on terror" doesn't mean I support terrorism.

I didn't say you support them. I said you rationalise them, which is faulted since they don't desrve it since they are mostly irrational.

Rational and appeasement didn't work with the Nazis and Commies and doesn't work with Terrorists.

Furthermore, what I did write, and you approved in the text i quoted, is that you behave arrogantly.

You condem both sides for being morally wrong, and save yourself the moral high by simply not suggesting any real solution.

Sometimes, to solve things, one needs to get his hands dirty. But you like to sit on the fence and point at others. And that part really gets to me.

I support human rights for everyone, including you.

Thank you.

I support human rights for everyone who deserves them. But ok, let's apply them to everyone.

Still, sometimes, when you are in an extreme threat, your safety comes first. You simply don't know that since you aren't in an extreme threat.

I wouldn't describe it as "disgusted" but I certainly do not like, or support, any sort of revenge - revenge does nothing but give someone else a reason to carry out their own revenge.

But that's the problem.
You morally equate both sides.

While terrorists "revenge", niether Israel nor America do. What you think is revenge is actually military steps with defenite targets of removing the threat on them.

You think of it as revenge. We as a solution. I can assure you as an Israeli revenge is the farthest variable when I think about viable Israeli steps.

Again, I have NEVER done that.

I remember you have.

It is remotely possible I confused you with someone else, but him behaving like yourself usually, I chose to blame it all on you

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well

Originally posted by Natan
Egypt gets more aid than Israel now anyway.

Including military aid?

I suppose we could just stop giving our foriegn aid, but that would be unilateralist, wouldn't it?

No, it wouldnt. Btw, you could pay your dues to the UN, instead.

And you are also sidestepping his argument about unconstitutionality.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

In every thread involving terror you and the likes of you are full with "reasons" and "justifications" for the terror.

Reasons, yes. justifications and rationalizations? No. (I don't know about "my like", though )

Of course you exclaim you oppose violence everywhere, "but", "this was expected and it's no surprise that blah blah blah".

I do oppose violence everywhere, but I'm rarely surprised, when it happens.

Well i'm part of those who think terror is wrong everywhere, while violence is not wonrg everywhere, and if directed at the right targets, can be an effective measure of getting security.

As does your enemy.

I didn't say you support them. I said you rationalise them, which is faulted since they don't desrve it since they are mostly irrational.

Again, I do not rationalize any violence or wrong.

You condem both sides for being morally wrong, and save yourself the moral high by simply not suggesting any real solution.

Sometimes, to solve things, one needs to get his hands dirty. But you like to sit on the fence and point at others. And that part really gets to me.

My solution is simple; for both sides to put their differences aside, stop fighting and learn to live together.

You can kill each other all you want, but all that does is fuel the conflict.

But that's the problem.
You morally equate both sides.

No, the problem comes when people demonize their enemy.

Both sides have humans on them. People from both sides feel the same pain, anger, and despair. People from both sides are jsut that - people.

I remember you have.

Give me a link.

[Sceptor107]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Including military aid?

yes believe it or not eygpt has 400 M1a1 abrams and a few hundred M113's and F-16's. (Also Tow's and M-16's). all with the latest munitions. eygpt got more than israel so far.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Osweld
Reasons, yes. justifications and rationalizations? No. (I don't know about "my like", though )

Palestinians: reason - territorial conflict with israel and hate towards it, plus, to some extent the opression from occupation.
you seem to think the conflict results from the occupation while infact the occupation resulted from it.

Muslim Militants : reason - damn right crazy loonies who want to take over the world, and succeed in asia. you seem to think the west opresses them in some way, but the only thing they are bothered with is that you are a sinner.

In each case, you give the terrorists reasons and justifications which aren't really correct. They are to some extent, but you can't offer solutions before you supress the militant side.

Just like germany's problems couldn't be solved until the nazis were defeated, and any appeasement only served to enlarge their appetite for land.

I do oppose violence everywhere, but I'm rarely surprised, when it happens.

you act surprised and all pacifist when it happens.

As does your enemy.

And I would have no problem with the conflict had my enemy didn't target civilians.

I'm not opposed to armed conflicts, if differences are unbridgeable by conversation (as apparently they were in 48).

But then using terror squads against Israel, is unacceptable.

Again, I do not rationalize any violence or wrong.

You do, by giving terrorists traits they don't have like concience and such. If they'd have concience they'd be simple combatants.

My solution is simple; for both sides to put their differences aside, stop fighting and learn to live together.

But you know very well it's not realistic, since at least one side in each forementioned conflict is interested in continuing the war.

So, if one side wants to fight, you can't expect the other side to turn the other cheeck and be slaughtered. It's nice and all, but not real.

You can kill each other all you want, but all that does is fuel the conflict.

True, conflicts feed themselves.

But it's not the chicken or the egg.

First there is a conflict and then violence.

How to solve this?
Solve conflict!
But the violence is still around and feeds itself.
Therefore violence must be solved first, or else, the conflict won't really be solved.

No, the problem comes when people demonize their enemy.

I don't think neither the Nazis, nor Saddam and Osama and Hamas need us to demonize them. They are doing a great job.

Both sides have humans on them. People from both sides feel the same pain, anger, and despair. People from both sides are jsut that - people.

Wars are between leaders, and people drag along because of ideologies / relogion / culture.

To solve this, we need to re-educate the whole world against violence, which I would see as the solution.

But that would be "imposing our values" and lefties would find it wrong.

Give me a link.

You know very well I can't since I don't exactly remember what it was since I'm disagreeing with you probably for a year now.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Including military aid?

Yes. Egypt has M1 Abrams tanks which Israel doesn't, F-16 fighter jets, Apache attack helicopters and a lot of other fun gadgets. IIRC, we do joint war games with them every year.

No, it wouldnt. Btw, you could pay your dues to the UN, instead.

So that the recipients of our foriegn aid money could be selected by far-away dictators instead of by our democratically elected representatives? Besides, that would also be unconstitutional.

And you are also sidestepping his argument about unconstitutionality.

That's because firstly, he doesn't state what amendment he bases this claim on, and secondly, no US court has ever ruled in accordance with his view.

[Sirotnikov]

Some news to lighten up your day:

1. Peres said he finished his plan with Abu Ala. It talks about following the tennet and mitchell plans, creating a palestinian state on the current A & B territories and then 1 year of peace talks.

2. When asked what he feels about support for it in Israel he couldn't answer.

3. when asked what is the support for it in the PNA he couldn't answer.



In other news:

A saudi newspaper claimed that the Fatah decided to disperse it's military wings, responsible for terracts against Israel.
Fatah spokesman rebutted that claim and said "these organizations weren't dispersed. in any case, no one can disperse them since they are secret and underground and no one knows who is a member in them".

lol

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Natan
So that the recipients of our foriegn aid money could be selected by far-away dictators instead of by our democratically elected representatives?

Dues are not foreign aid. If you want to stay a member of a club, you have to pay your dues. If the UN had any guts, they would kick you out.

[Sceptor107]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Dues are not foreign aid. If you want to stay a member of a club, you have to pay your dues. If the UN had any guts, they would kick you out.

Well no. Without the USA nobody would be give the UN any credibility. (basically they wouldnt listen to ya).


so those are our dues.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sceptor107
Well no. Without the USA nobody would be give the UN any credibility.

Not so sure. The UN could then become the organizational platform of an anti-US coalition.

[Sceptor107]

nice try but 40% of the worlds aircraft belong to USA. Also have 16 carriers (world has less than half that) plus our tech advantage. good luck. also throw israel into the equation and you are doomed

[Comrade Tribune]

Having Israel on your side is a major handicap that will reduce your chances against the rest of the world considerably.