Iran welcomes US nuclear report

[Carcharoth]

What I know is that you are not a friend of Israel. What I know is that you are more than just sympathetic to the Palestinians. And that my friend is all that I need to know.

You recognize hate as something that someone causes you to do. I recognize hate as a choice we each must make. I choose not to hate. Jesus chose not to hate.

So supporting Palestinians is wrong? Personally I am opposed to the state of Israel. I think it should never have been allowed to be set up, and I'd prefer if it was dissolved and the land given back to the Palestinians who inhabited it before it was occupied by European Jews. But obviously, that won't happen, so the next best thing would be to have Israel revert back to the borders of 1948 and make Jerusalem an autonomous city not belonging to any country.

And I agree with whoever you quoted, hate doesn't suddenly just appear out of nowhere. You don't wake up one day and decide to hate someone for no apparent reason. For hate to appear, there needs to be a catalyst that spurs the hate.

[henrychalder]

Utter tosh. Europe didn't "give" Israel anything; when Israel called itself into being in 1947, it was at the behest of the indiginous palestinian Jews who could no longer trust any word power to look after their interests or protect them from increasingly violent attacks by the Arabs in palestine. (recall that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time was a fervent Nazi supporter and had expressed enthusiasm for the Holocaust).

This business of "why don't the Europeans offer a home to the Jews" is a cynical piece of misdirection. It misses the point that Jerusalem is a holy city to the Jews, as is the land upon which it stands.

Would you like to suggest that Muslims transfer their pilgrimage site from Mecca to - say - Kabul ? Or Denver ?

Meow Purr.

[edit] - darnit - in the time it took me to write this post (which was a response to #4), y'all had written dozens of posts.

Jerusalem maybe a holy city to the Jews but not all Jews believe in the concept of a Jewish State. In fact not all Jews are Zionists, Some believe that the Jewish State should be made up of a common belief that all Jews around the world make up a state in itself without being drawn up by borders but a common recognition amongst themselves that they are to be the masters and the Gentiles are to be sub serviant to 'Gods chosen people' who are rulers by a sort of divine right. According to the bible.

I have no argument with Muslims and Arabs, I've spoken amongst them in Egypt and I've found them to have a high regard for the British...that was before Blair was re-elected that is, they seemed to think common sense would prevail and the voters would vote him out. We did side partly with the Arabs during the 6 day war by stealth as we were friendly with them, after all in 1947 our soldiers were being blown up by Jews in the new state of Israel and some tortured to death by Jewish terrorists.

A lot of Arabs fought for the Nazi's and a lot died on the Russian front, they fought for the Nazi's because of their hatred toward the Jews, so you have a point there.

At the moment we have a problem in the UK of Israel funding our politicians via the LFI and of course giving favours to donors who are mainly property developers.

The two main parties are practically owned by Zionists, especially the Labour party who seemed to have departed from Labour values and yet the biased media will not report this for obvious reasons. The slimey secrecy has probably been blown for the Jewish Lobby who like to hide and keep low unlike the American Jewish Lobby who are quite arrogant and open. These entities aren't bothered about the debt these countries/hosts that are accruing or their well being or their tax payers.

If we are to get embroiled in invading innocent countries for their oil and for the interests of other foreign countries I dont mind at all, but as a citizen I would want to take the same attitude of a good Jewish market stool salesman.....whats in it for me? whats my profit for my investment and MY people, maybe a little profit for Multi Corporates like Exxon etc. Then we can simply call ourselves Imperialists that don't have to give nonsense why we invade. That would be the honest way, instead of all this bull of spreading democracy and making the world safe and doing some good. it all sounds so corny.

But we must get rid of the two faced shapeshifters who are out to undermine us, for it is they that are the true racists in the true sense of the word, they are undermining our people, our culture, our heritage, one of them in power is drawing up a picture of what Britishness is and wants to even change our National Anthem...Some of them are our enemies not the Muslims

Edited December 5, 2007 by henrychalder

[ninjadude]

It misses the point that Jerusalem is a holy city to the Jews, as is the land upon which it stands.

An interesting thread and sub-threads. Certain people have shown their true colors.

I just wanted to point out this post from cat. Jerusalem is a holy city to Muslims as well as the land upon which it stands. As well as Christians. That doesn't give Israel a leg to stand on.

[AROCES]

Both of the above were about the power struggle between the US and Soviet Union. If you are referring to the current day North Korea situation - well they really do have nuclear weapons and I see no clamour there from the US for a military campaign.

And the power struggle almost started WWIII because of WMD.

The United States has been putting pressure on N Korea from the time they built their reactor, and Military option has always been on the table as an option.

N Korea has nulkes now? I think that is still not clear.

Yes it is peculiar the US and Saudi Arabia get on so seemingly well considering the Saudi general dislike of Israel and the fact most of the 9/11 'hijackers' were from that country. Perhaps it is due to the Saudi foreign policy being compliant with the Wests oil needs from an early stage?

Still, you can't blame the United Stated for the failure of other countries for many other countries have prosper with their Oil resources.

[Bob26003]

Thank goodness the Intel community has decided to stand up to the neocon war-seekers.

Perhaps after seeing how tenet will go down in history as bush's "slam dunk" lackey they wised up.

The whole iraq debacle severely damaged the credibility of the US intel institutions, and I don't think they are nearly as willing to make up the intel around the policy.

And that certainly is a good thing.

Thank Goodness teh neocon era is ending. Now to clean up the mess.

[coughymachine]

Yes i was serious about we've secured the Iraqi oil fields, i done a post about it many many moons ago, why i feel the invasion was justified for oil, in short it was along the lines of we need to secure the countries growing need for oil, and how every single item in our everyday life needed oil at one point, and people who moan about the war being for oil well, so what you'd all be moaning if the price of every day items went through the roof, but it was a long time ago when i posted it,

Okay, sorry, I misinterpreted your earlier comment. I thought you were trying to suggest it wasn't about oil.

I understand very well why the West needs access to oil. I just don't agree that forcibly invading another country on false pretences and murdering tens or hundreds of thousands of its innocent civilians is the right way to get access to it.

Are you suggesting this was a price worth paying for our 'convenience'?

[coughymachine]

Fine, and in the mean time we just not worry, pull out of Iraq, leave the Middle East and make sure Bush and co don't ever profit.

We redirect tax revenue to domestic programs and show the whole world we want peace and will mind our own business.

And when we just get surprised by a nuke detonation one day then we just have to keep our guards up and make sure we don't make anyone angry or angrier by reacting to it.

Now America will be respected and not be hated.

You can 'invent' apocalyptic scenarios each way, AROCES. None of them would come to pass. But let's address yours: no one is going to 'nuke' America if it decided to stop murdering Arabs.

As for the issue of tax revenues, I'm sure if the average American stopped for one second to think about where the hundreds of billions of dollars of wartime appropriations came from and where they have ended up, they would be very happy indeed to see them diverted into domestic programmes.

Edited December 5, 2007 by coughymachine

[Ins0mniac]

Quite frankly...your arguments about WHY anyone hates are moot. Hate is a problem of the hater...not the hated.

Let me state that again:

Hate is a problem of the hater...NOT the hated!

I agree that the hatred that the Palestinians have is unproductive and not a good idea. I'm just saying I can understand where a lot of it comes from. You know, I've heard a lot of Jewish hatred of the Palestinian Arabs as well. Which I think is also a problem.

So would you say you don't hate the Palestinian Arabs then? (Just curious. Not saying I know the answer). Whether you do or not, it's interesting that you judge the Palestinians like that, I thought that was god's job. You are a Christian right?

The thing I find interesting is that you judge the Palestinians for hating but you don't seem to judge the Jews that formed Israel and without any regard for the Arabs that had lived there for generations. Or for their collective punishment methods. They aren't ALL terrorists you know.

[+joc]

I am not a friend or enemy of Israel or the Palestinians, I just ask a lot of questions.

Can you answer the question - how would you react if a group destroyed your home, took your livelihood, killed your family and ruined your life joc?

I don't know how I would 'react'. But I do know this: I would choose not to hate them.

And I agree with whoever you quoted, hate doesn't suddenly just appear out of nowhere. You don't wake up one day and decide to hate someone for no apparent reason. For hate to appear, there needs to be a catalyst that spurs the hate.

That catalyst can be ANYTHING! Consider some gang members will shoot you dead just for 'looking at them' the wrong way. Therefore hate is an internal thing. In fact...if we hate...it is our fault...no one else's. Please don't blame the Jew's for the hate of the Arabs. It is the Arabs own fault that they hate...no one else's.

[stevewinn]

Okay, sorry, I misinterpreted your earlier comment. I thought you were trying to suggest it wasn't about oil.

I understand very well why the West needs access to oil. I just don't agree that forcibly invading another country on false pretences and murdering tens or hundreds of thousands of its innocent civilians is the right way to get access to it.

Are you suggesting this was a price worth paying for our 'convenience'?

In Iraq Killing innocent civilians is always regrettable and coalition forces do their best to avoid collateral damage but like in any conflict civilians ultimately get caught up in any action, you must also remember that insurgents in Iraq also kill innocent civilians and contribute to the high death toll.

If the United Kingdom needs oil to safe guard our way of life and invading Iraq was the only option then yes it was worth it for our covenience, on a personal level the deaths of all coalition forces and civilians is not worth it in our way of thinking, but you cant let emotion get in the way of military activities,

also the covenience you've been enjoying while living in Britain has been aquired by conflicts through out history similar to Iraq.

militarily, the Iraqi war has been successful for caolition forces, casualty and combat deaths have been low for the type of conflict and for the length of operations. politically the Iraqi war hasnt gone that well but has not turned into a disaster...

Edited December 5, 2007 by stevewinn

[coughymachine]

In Iraq Killing innocent civilians is always regrettable and coalition forces do their best to avoid collateral damage but like in any conflict civilians ultimately get caught up in any action, you must also remember that insurgents in Iraq also kill innocent civilians and contribute to the high death toll.

If the United Kingdom needs oil to safe guard our way of life and invading Iraq was the only option then yes it was worth it for our covenience, on a personal level the deaths of all coalition forces and civilians is not worth it in our way of thinking, but you cant let emotion get in the way of military activities,

also the covenience you've been enjoying while living in Britain has been aquired by conflicts through out history similar to Iraq.

militarily, the Iraqi war has been successful for caolition forces, casualty and combat deaths have been low for the type of conflict and for the length of operations. politically the Iraqi war hasnt gone that well but has not turned into a disaster...

Whilst I continue to admire your candour, I think your rationale is deeply flawed. Furthermore, I think the implications of what you have to say are nothing short of alarming.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but, reading through all of your posts, this is the message I'm getting from you - please correct me if I'm wrong.

• We in the West enjoy a certain level of 'convenience' as the result of oil;
• We have acquired oil through various means, including historical conflicts;
• Our decision to invade Iraq was driven by the requirement to have access to their oil;
• It was acceptable for the government to lie to the public about its reasons for launching an unprovoked invasion of another country; and
• * The 'collateral damage' - which I have already stated amounts to tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths, not to mention the decimation of their public infrastructure - is a price you consider worth paying for our convenience.

* For this last point, I've taken your two conflicting views and assessed that logically, though you have a personal sense the deaths were 'not worth it', you nonetheless believe that military objectives take precedence.

If I've summed up your view accurately, perhaps you could explain why it was, in 2003, you felt invading Iraq was the 'only option' available to 'safe guard our way of life'?

Edited December 5, 2007 by coughymachine

[AROCES]

You can 'invent' apocalyptic scenarios each way, AROCES. None of them would come to pass. But let's address yours: no one is going to 'nuke' America if it decided to stop murdering Arabs.

Really, you mean like how some invented the Holocaust of the third Reich, the mass graves found in Iraq and 9/11???

You want to put your trust to those who cut heads on videos that if we leavre them alone and be good they will never have the dream of expanding their ideologies and way of life?

You simply really lack knowledge of human history or think that global domination of certain group, beliefs or ideologies won't happen anymore if only we behave.

As for the issue of tax revenues, I'm sure if the average American stopped for one second to think about where the hundreds of billions of dollars of wartime appropriations came from and where they have ended up, they would be very happy indeed to see them diverted into domestic programmes.

That is excatly what the United States did and believed in the 70's and the rest was history. Unless you think this time the result will be different???

Edited December 5, 2007 by AROCES

[coughymachine]

Really, you mean like how some invented the Holocaust of the third Reich, the mass graves found in Iraq and 9/11???

This is completely irrelevant. How disgusting that you should evoke the Holocaust to justify your enthusiam for the bloodbath in Iraq. Shame on you.

You want to put your trust to those who cut heads on videos that if we leavre them alone and be good they will never have the dream of expanding their ideologies and way of life?

A typical "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" response. I oppose the invasion, occupation and mass-murder in Iraq. Simple as. This doesn't mean I side with anyone against the West.

You simply really lack knowledge of human history or think that global domination of certain group, beliefs or ideologies won't happen anymore if only we behave.

I have a sound grasp of history. What point are you trying to make here? As far as I can see, this is senseless hyperbole driven by extreme prejudice.

That is excatly what the United States did and believed in the 70's and the rest was history. Unless you think this time the result will be different???

Perhaps you could set out exactly what the US did in 70's that was the equivalent of my point. Just in case you forgot - and your comment seems to suggest you have - my point was that, following the war in Iraq, the US government has taken hundreds of billions of wartime appropriations dollars from the public and used it to line the pockets of corporate America.

What happened in the 1970's that compares with this?

Finally, I recall discussing the fact that the current administration lied about Iraq's WMD in the run up to the war with you some time ago. I also recall that, even when I produced the evidence, you hopped from foot to foot and changed the subject in a quite ridiculous effort to avoid having to admit you were wrong.

If you wriggle around here using the same tactics, I'll simply ignore you.

[stevewinn]

Whilst I continue to admire your candour, I think your rationale is deeply flawed. Furthermore, I think the implications of what you have to say are nothing short of alarming.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but, reading through all of your posts, this is the message I'm getting from you - please correct me if I'm wrong.

• We in the West enjoy a certain level of 'convenience' as the result of oil;
• We have acquired oil through various means, including historical conflicts;
• Our decision to invade Iraq was driven by the requirement to have access to their oil;
• It was acceptable for the government to lie to the public about its reasons for launching an unprovoked invasion of another country; and
• * The 'collateral damage' - which I have already stated amounts to tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi deaths, not to mention the decimation of their public infrastructure - is a price you consider worth paying for our convenience.

* For this last point, I've taken your two conflicting views and assessed that logically, though you have a personal sense the deaths were 'not worth it', you nonetheless believe that military objectives take precedence.

If I've summed up your view accurately, perhaps you could explain why it was, in 2003, you felt invading Iraq was the 'only option' available to 'safe guard our way of life'?

Yes your more or less spot on, (first Bold), not oil but all the benefits we've got through trade and our empire days,

(second bold) no i dont believe its acceptable for a government to lie to the public, (unless national security is at risk)

(third bold) i didnt think it was the only option but it appears our government did, i think the US and UK were worried by the growing economies of India and China, and through national insterests decided they had to secure their future supply of oil, looked around the region and seen Iraq as the easy target, plus the case for Iraq would be easier to sell to the world than say invading saudi Arabia or kuwait, especially with Iraqs history,

safe guard our way of life:, the Iraqi war has secured are oil for at least the next 15 years, could you imagine if we never secured oil from some where and at some point in the future we were held us to ransom over oil, our economy at home would collapse, industry would go under unemployment would go through the roof, everyday items bread, clothes, heating, electric, would all be double or three times the price, life wouldnt be worth living, our dependence on oil is are weak point, just think every single thing in your home needed oil, i dont know about you but i like the life my country can afford me and i hope we keep this way.

You say my views are alarming, but how can this be, its just the reality of the day, everyones saying the Iraqi war was for oil, all im doing is agreeing with the people who say the war was for oil and the reality of whats happening on the ground,

its like the Sudan there is no national interest for the majority of worlds countries, thats why everyones so quick to send troops to stabilise the country, the same with Burma, no national interest from major countries so everyone shakes their head and points but no-one done anything, why? no national interest, Kosovo, NATO sends troops why, its a conflict too close to home(Europe) and is a concern to national ineterests, all eurpean countries send troops, see its the way of the world, its not just my views, its the way at this point in time

[coughymachine]

You say my views are alarming, but how can this be, its just the reality of the day, everyones saying the Iraqi war was for oil, all im doing is agreeing with the people who say the war was for oil and the reality of whats happening on the ground,

I will respond to your post in full later when I have enough time. But I did want to give you an immediate initial response to this, though perhaps I'll expand later.

It's alarming to me because it suggests to me that you believe it is acceptable to kill tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to continue to make life convenient for you. I believe you could only possibly hold this view because Iraq is far away and that you are, therefore, dislocated from the devastation the actions you advocate are causing other human beings.

Yes, this is the reality, but this doesn't make it right.

What is the difference in principle, for example, between what you appear to believe, and my arguing that I stole my neighbours car and killed him when he tried to reclaim it, because my car was getting old and unreliable, and I couldn't afford to buy another one? After all, I'm only acting to ensure the continuation of the convenient lifestyle to which I'd become accustomed.

[Moon Monkey]

So when an injustice is committed against a person or group thus causing them to hate, it is unreasonable?

So would be reasonable for jews to hate all germans and commit suicide bombings against german children and rocket german cities every night ?

In the same way that the oppression of the Palestinians by Israel is going on today, in the way that foreign military forces are occupying Arab lands today.

Israel stopped occupying Gaza and S.Lebanon...did that help appease the hatred in these areas ?

So in your opinion, hatred is a conscious decision that people may choose to manifest for no particular reason? Would you not hate a group if they destroyed your home, took your livelihood, killed your family and ruined your life joc?

The germans killed my wifes entire extended family and they lost homes and businesses on both the polish and yugoslavian sides of her family yet bears no ill will whatsoever. What percentage of palestinians have had their livelihoods taken and homes destroyed ? and what percentage voted in a government whose raison d'etre is the destruction of Israel ?

Palestinians blow themselves up in market places and such, Israel drop bombs from US supplied warplanes - is one really better than the other? In any case the question stands – whether the Palestinians are oppressed or suppressed do you not think that fuels Arab hatred?

....and you would have thought those indiscriminate suicide bombings would make Israelis hate palestinians with the same venom, but it doesn't.

Hezbollah was designed as a resistance movement when Israel invaded and occupied Lebanese territory in 1985. The original groups and individuals which came to form Hezbollah included some of those expelled from Palestine during the creation of the State of Israel. You do see that without the creation of the State of Israel and leading on, without the aggression and expansionism of that state, there could be no Hezbollah?

To start with the dates are wrong but anyhoo, without the attacks such as those on Nahariya and the school in Ma'alot there would never have been an invasion against the PLO.

You know there is zero evidence of the Iranian government supporting an ‘insurgency’ in Iraq? Do you know that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki recently described Tehran as playing a “positive and constructive” role in Iraq? Similar to Hezbollah, you realise there could be no ‘insurgency’ without a foreign occupying force in Iraq?

Why who is occupying S.Lebanon or Gaza ?

I am not a friend or enemy of Israel or the Palestinians, I just ask a lot of questions.

More statements than questions, and when they are questions I get the impression you think they are rhetorical

I agree that the hatred that the Palestinians have is unproductive and not a good idea. I'm just saying I can understand where a lot of it comes from. You know, I've heard a lot of Jewish hatred of the Palestinian Arabs as well. Which I think is also a problem.

Is there a palestinian equivlalent of Peace Now ? 2 million palestinian arabs live within Israel proper, they are not hated.

The thing I find interesting is that you judge the Palestinians for hating but you don't seem to judge the Jews that formed Israel and without any regard for the Arabs that had lived there for generations. Or for their collective punishment methods. They aren't ALL terrorists you know.

Well. most of those jews would be dead now as would most of those wronged on both sides in 48. There were plenty of jews who lost their ancestral homes in places such as the old city as well but thats war for you. The threat of suicide bombings whilst shopping or taking the bus to school, rockets falling etc. is also collective punishment. Palestinians have the choice whether or not to join Hamas, Israeli kids have to do the army. They aren't all Sharons you know.

[Spurious George]

I respect stevewinn's comments and agree that that is the reality... though I take it one step further. In reality a country has every reason to invade another country to safeguard its own interests... just like guys in sandals have every reason to blow the sh** out of them with homemade bombs when they get there... and stupid people has every reason to jeer these disfigured vets out of swimming pools to protect their own interests. It really comes down to putting the boot to other peoples throats to get your way

Edited December 5, 2007 by McNuclearWar

[stevewinn]

I will respond to your post in full later when I have enough time. But I did want to give you an immediate initial response to this, though perhaps I'll expand later.

It's alarming to me because it suggests to me that you believe it is acceptable to kill tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to continue to make life convenient for you. I believe you could only possibly hold this view because Iraq is far away and that you are, therefore, dislocated from the devastation the actions you advocate are causing other human beings.

Yes, this is the reality, but this doesn't make it right.

What is the difference in principle, for example, between what you appear to believe, and my arguing that I stole my neighbours car and killed him when he tried to reclaim it, because my car was getting old and unreliable, and I couldn't afford to buy another one? After all, I'm only acting to ensure the continuation of the convenient lifestyle to which I'd become accustomed.

I dont believe its acceptable to kill any amount of innocent people, if we went to Iraq for the oil, i find it hard to believe that our governments invaded with the intension to kill innocent civilians, because what you have to remember is when we went into Iraq, the military and political planners thought the Iraqi people would see coalition forces as liberators from Saddams dictatorship and they did for about three weeks until things went a bit pear-shaped, from that point fighting increased, then we seen market bombings with Iraqis killing Iraqis, and over time things have improved but not to our western standards of peace or security,

you agree that it is reality, but it doesnt make it right, i agree with you, it doesnt make it right,

your last part i dont agree with any of it. because you can not compare your example to the scale of interests that affect such Nations ( UK or US.)

I respect stevewinn's comments and agree that that is the reality... though I take it one step further. In reality a country has every reason to invade another country to safeguard its own interests... just like guys in sandals have every reason to blow the sh** out of them with homemade bombs when they get there... and stupid people has every reason to jeer these disfigured vets out of swimming pools to protect their own interests. It really comes down to putting the boot to other peoples throats to get your way

Macca,

the "guys in sandlas" are going to fight back thats expected and comes has no surprise. And even the people who jeered the injured vets in the swimming pool even though i didnt agree with what they said, i would defend to the death their right to say it,

[Bob26003]

The fact is: Israel is an occupying force. And building settlements in Palestinian land.

Do we really expect no resistance with a policy of expansion and occupation?

[Moon Monkey]

The fact is: Israel is an occupying force. And building settlements in Palestinian land.

Do we really expect no resistance with a policy of expansion and occupation?

You usually use the word 'constantly' before expansion so maybe you are mellowing in the use of your favourite two words...anyhoo are you telling us that Israels borders are more expansive today than in 1968, 1983, 1993, 2000, 2002 ? Or are you ready to admit that the real fact is Israel have returned the majority of land they won in wars for peace deals ?

BTW resistance against an occupying military,fair enough as they should not be there, specifically targetting and murdering kids on their way to school, old people on buses with their shopping and families in restaurants, no excuses for those types of actions Bob.

[coughymachine]

I dont believe its acceptable to kill any amount of innocent people...

Well, this is contrary to the very strong impression you gave earlier in our exchange when you said "If the United Kingdom needs oil to safe guard our way of life and invading Iraq was the only option then yes it was worth it" in response to a question I asked, which was, "Are you suggesting that [murdering tens or hundreds of thousands of its innocent civilians] was a price worth paying for our 'convenience'?"

I hope you can see how I'm entitled to conclude that you believe it's acceptable to murder innocent Iraqis to get hold of their oil.

if we went to Iraq for the oil, i find it hard to believe that our governments invaded with the intension to kill innocent civilians,

Really? You surely accept that any invasion consisting of artillery, ground and aerial assaults is bound to result in the mass loss of innocent lives, don't you? Since it's inevitable, it's kinda hard to argue that the government didn't plan on killing some innocents. This is what the term 'collateral damage' was invented for - to make us feel better about committing mass-murder. You should also understand that I believe those who have a legitimate right to defend their homeland are also innocent victims.

because what you have to remember is when we went into Iraq, the military and political planners thought the Iraqi people would see coalition forces as liberators from Saddams dictatorship

Oh please. Don't start telling me 'war is peace' and 'freedom is slavery'. No invasion, occupation and mass-murder should ever be called a 'liberation' and it is utterly perverse of you - someone with honest frank views - to come out with this garbage.

your last part i dont agree with any of it. because you can not compare your example to the scale of interests that affect such Nations ( UK or US.)

Well I offered this as an "in principle" thought exercise. I figured you'd treat it as such. In these circumstances, scale is irrelevant - it is the underlying mindset I'm comparing. My example only personalises what you seek to justify from a national perspective. Other than that, there's no difference, and the fact that you want to treat them differently is interesting.

Edited December 6, 2007 by coughymachine

[henrychalder]

So would be reasonable for jews to hate all germans and commit suicide bombings against german children and rocket German cities every night ?

Its hardly the same comparison to the Middle East situation. How long would you think a Jewish terrorist group would last doing this to a European country after the war?

It would trigger an inquisition that would make the Mac Arthur investigations in America look like a tea party with the removal of all Jewish influence across Europe. It would have been a gift to Mosley's black shirts and a resurgence of Nazism.

Instead of bombings and rocket attacks maybe the best answer is to infiltrate governments across Europe and show their contempt of their indigenous populations, dilute their heritage, rid them of Nationalism, rule the media and the banking systems and corrupt those in power.

Change the populas concept of what they conceive as patriotic or of noble causes and even change their National Anthem as Lord Goldsmith is doing now!

Israeli's responsible of atrocities, amongst many

Edited December 6, 2007 by henrychalder

[Moon Monkey]

Its hardly the same comparison to the Middle East situation. How long would you think a Jewish terrorist group would last doing this to a European country after the war?

It would trigger an inquisition that would make the Mac Arthur investigations in America look like a tea party with the removal of all Jewish influence across Europe. It would have been a gift to Mosley's black shirts and a resurgence of Nazism.

Instead of bombings and rocket attacks maybe the best answer is to infiltrate governments across Europe and show their contempt of their indigenous populations, dilute their heritage, rid them of Nationalism, rule the media and the banking systems and corrupt those in power.

Change the populas concept of what they conceive as patriotic or of noble causes and even change their National Anthem as Lord Goldsmith is doing now!

Israeli's responsible of atrocities, amongst many

Israelis didn't kill anyone in Sabra or Shantila the Lebanese did just as they just did in north lebanon this summer to deafening silence (compare that with the Jenin operation), btw look up Ma'alot and Nahariya massacres etc. and you may understand why Israel went into Lebanon in the first place. As for the rest of your unsubstantiated ponderings, I keep telling you where the conspiracy forum is, just two forums up.

[Ins0mniac]

Is there a palestinian equivlalent of Peace Now ? 2 million palestinian arabs live within Israel proper, they are not hated.

Why yes actually.

Palestinians For Peace Now

They are not hated? So you're telling me I could not go to Israel and gather a whole bunch of Israelis who have hatred in their hearts when it comes to the Palestinian Arabs? Frankly, I don't believe you. I've seen too many of them in documentaries, personal websites etc. In fact, I can understand where the hatred comes from with all the suicide bombing against Israel.Would be extremely surprising if there wasn't hatred among them. Just as I can understand why there is hatred among the Palestinians. But obviously not all Israelis hate the Palestinian Arabs, nor do all Palestinian Arabs hate the Israelis.

I don't think the fact that Palestinian Arabs live in Israel is proof that no Israelis there hate them anymore than than fact that black people in the States proves there are no racists there.

The threat of suicide bombings whilst shopping or taking the bus to school, rockets falling etc. is also collective punishment. Palestinians have the choice whether or not to join Hamas, Israeli kids have to do the army. They aren't all Sharons you know.

Yes, suicide bombing is also collective punishment. I don't endorse it either.

Sure Palestinians have the choice whether or not to join Hamas. And not all of them do. And yeah, obviously not all Israeli kids are Sharons. They're individuals. Just like the Palestinians.

Edited December 6, 2007 by Ins0mniac

[Moon Monkey]

Why yes actually.

Palestinians For Peace Now

They are not hated? So you're telling me I could not go to Israel and gather a whole bunch of Israelis who have hatred in their hearts when it comes to the Palestinian Arabs? Frankly, I don't believe you. I've seen too many of them in documentaries, personal websites etc. In fact, I can understand where the hatred comes from with all the suicide bombing against Israel.Would be extremely surprising if there wasn't hatred among them. Just as I can understand why there is hatred among the Palestinians. But obviously not all Israelis hate the Palestinian Arabs, nor do all Palestinian Arabs hate the Israelis.

I don't think the fact that Palestinian Arabs live in Israel is proof that no Israelis there hate them anymore than than fact that black people in the States proves there are no racists there.

Yes, suicide bombing is also collective punishment. I don't endorse it either.

Sure Palestinians have the choice whether or not to join Hamas. And not all of them do. And yeah, obviously not all Israeli kids are Sharons. They're individuals. Just like the Palestinians.

The Israeli-Arabs are not hated. Sure you will be able to find some nutters who hate them just as you will find Israeli-Arabs who hate the jews but generally, in my experience, its live and let live. The Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank are a different story.

BTW I will take Palestinian for Peace Now a bit more seriously when I see 100,000 rallying in central Gaza or Ramallah as you do the Israeli Peace Now regularly in Tel-Aviv