SeVeR

The Ottomans were defending their territory by expanding their borders. Most of the population were Arab and of similar descent to the Turks. The British came from half way around the world to take charge of a country that was no threat, and nowhere near their proper sphere of influence. The British had no ethnic links. That's only the first argument. Secondly, the Ottomans took Palestine many centuries ago when this was a normal thing to be doing. There was no international law, and rival kings often fell out with eachother resulting in wars. Taking control of neighboring lands was more a way of ensuring survival than it was imperialistic. The British were a democratic government in a time of international law, and what's worse is it was after WW1, which was supposed to be a fight against this sort of territory gaining expansion. I see many differences. Anyway, you are attempting to justify Israel's conquering of Palestine by comparing with the Ottomans. So are both takeover's right, or are both wrong? Would it be right for the US to conquer Thailand tomorrow if they decided to?

The British obviously had no right to be there. Hitler was a racist and killed Jews for being Jewish (not a good thing). I want to see the peaceful disollution of Israel. The population of Israel happens to be primarily Jewish.

Aileron: This paranoia that the government will enslave you is proposterous and typical of conservative Americans. These are the sorts of people who have paid tens of thousands of dollars for underground bomb shelters. I will ask the same question i ask everyone who comes out with it: Do you think the police and the army will let this happen? You see, conservative Americans happen to think the army and police are mindless drones who will follow the orders of the next Hitler should he come to government. They're not real people, they're fascists, obviously. They won't object to a massacre of the blacks or the Jews, and they won't object to the enslavement of the populace. No, they aren't the sons and daughters of people like you and me, they're grown by the government to do their bidding, which is to be our enemy. Get real! DC is an awful example because the gun-crime rate was already sky-high before the gun-ban was put in place. In fact that's why it was put in place. Not being a national ban, it's no surprise it wasn't effective. Pro-gunners, who look for any excuse to justify their love of guns, will tell us the gun-ban was actually to blame! Such deceit. The USA is the largest producer of guns, and their population is one of the best armed. When you say criminals have "illegal" guns, do you seriously mean to tell me they got their guns from Nicaragua or Mexico? Hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen every year from the homes of US citizens. For the year of 1994 a National Ins!@#$%^&*ute of Justice do!@#$%^&*ent states that 211,000 hand-guns and 382,000 long-guns were stolen in non-commercial thefts. (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt) This is just one example of how the right to bear arms fails. How about straw-purchases? The purchase of a gun legally followed by an illegal sale to a criminal, does this count as an "illegal gun" because it sure as !@#$%^&* doesn't sound like it. How about crooked gun dealers/manufacturers/delivery men? What do you mean when you say "vote out democracy"? Did we vote out democracy when we outlawed all the thousands of other things you can't do by law? Absolute freedom is absolute anarchy. Laws are there for our protection. Don't try and re-define democracy; if we democratically choose to outlaw something (like murder) then we are still a democracy when that thing is outlawed. The real threat to democracy comes from people who use the right to bear arms as an excuse to say that anyone who opposes their point of view shouldn't be considered. This isn't a right like freedom of speech, since we all agree on that. This is a right like freedom to have an abortion. It is, and should be, up for debate in the arena of democracy, where majority decision rules. I think someone said 66% is needed, well that's not the majority i was thinking of.

If Obama gets the most "delegates" will he be certain to win the nomination or can Hillary still get in there? I only ask because i agree with you about the democrat party and how they've wanted Hillary as President for some time now. If Obama gets nominated i'd be shocked but bloody happy at the same time.

Aileron. Well for starters, the Jews weren't an occupational force. There were already small Jewish communities in Palestine, and as my last post shows, immigration to Palestine was strongly encouraged by the US and it's allies to the extent where laws were changed. The UN par!@#$%^&*ioned the land, the next stage in the occupation, but by now the population was only 3:1 Arab. Even so the Jews got 55% of the land in the par!@#$%^&*ion while having one third the population. Thus, the Jews already had a base in the country, and homes to go to. The difference between this occupation and most others is that the Jews wanted to live on the land they occupied, and they succeeded for this reason, just as the Europeans did when they chose to live on the land of the American Indians. If the Indians were still fighting now then we should decide whether to support them in their efforts or not. Just to point out, the Indians were fighting long after 60 years of occupation They appear to be happy now. They were given citizenship, land to live on, and peace was made long ago. The same cannot be said for the Palestinians. There is no peace. They have not given up fighting since Israel's creation. I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying they should give up and let Israel win? Are you saying they're not committed to getting their land back? What is it you're saying.

That's what Ahmadinejad said. I don't think anyone can answer why the Palestinians lost their land, other than it's something the UN decided to do under the instruction of the US. Who instructed the US? I have a fairly good idea. The U.S. President, Harry Truman, at the time of the creation of Israel was urged by U.S. diplomats from the Middle East not to heed Zionist urgings. He replied: "I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my cons!@#$%^&*uents." This quote is hard to find because it shows the racial favouring of an American President who is largely responsible for the creation of Israel and the resultant creation of the continuous fighting in that region. At a Chicago rally in 1944, then Senator Truman said, "Today, not tomorrow, we must do all that is humanly possible to provide a haven for all those who can be grasped from the hands of Nazi butchers. Free lands must be opened to them." Opened? This kind of sympathetic justification is scorned by anyone who objects to the premise that two wrongs make a right. Truman wrote to Senator Joseph Ball of Minnesota on November 24, 1945: "I told the Jews that if they were willing to furnish me with five hundred thousand men to carry on a war with the Arabs, we could do what they are suggesting in the Resolution [favoring a state] - otherwise we we will have to negotiate awhile." Hundreds of thousands of Jews arrived in Palestine between 1880 and 1950, much to the dismay of the Arab population who had lived in that area for 1,300 years. The Jews bought up the land while Truman urged countries across the world to relax laws allowing this m!@#$%^&* immigration of Jews into Palestine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zionism_and_Immigration To draw a parallel think what it would be like if 300 million Chinese people immigrated to the USA in the next 70 years. Following this m!@#$%^&* arrival they then got a UN vote that gave them a significant chunk of the land in the USA. The people of the United States would rise up against the Chinese, leading to a war where China claims the rest of the land reserved for the US people; going against the very organisation that gave them land in the first place.

Oh i got a good one. You're on a plane that's been hijacked by terrorists, and they're about to fly it into a building, what do you do? Legalise cannibis and get everyone high... "Awwh sorry man, i been getting way too stressed about this whole Jihad thing, lets fly to Jamaica man."

So you're saying you're no better than the criminal? You'll descend to their level? You'll shoot someone on a "what if".... guilty with prompt execution before proven innocent? Wow. Run, call for help, pull out your knife if you have one, ... wonder why you're in a dark corner without any witnesses at the mercy of two armed men? Seriously...

That is pretty shocking darkhosis. I guess we know where Hillary Clinton takes her bribes, er, campaign contributions from. It's funny that the whole article is set out to attack Obama, while the most shocking point gets no further discussion. Aileron, occupations don't always fail, you've been thinking too much about Iraq. Even in Iraq the Americans could remain there indefinately. You can't use the "it's been half a century" excuse. For Palestinians the war never ended, they are still fighting to get their land back. It's half a century since the start of the war, but there hasn't been half a century of peace. I wonder how a Palestinian would feel if you said "You've taken more than 20 years to get your land back, therefore we think you're happy with the way things are, and won't support you". If the American Indians had been fighting for 200 years, or the Christians for 500 years (or however long it's been), then it would still be an open conflict and we would need to decide on a resolution. There is no-one fighting though, it's obviously not that important to the majority of these peoples.

lol? How so? How is me defending myself from a mugger dependent on you owning a gun? You talked about guns being a deterrent for muggers. Bak quite rightly replied that muggers have no idea who has a gun and who doesn't. The only way they might be deterred is if most people owned a gun. You're really putting words into my mouth here. I'm saying that if a criminal with a gun decides to mug you, then what the !@#$%^&* are you going to do about it? If you go for your gun then you are dead. End of story. Again, you seem to think a criminal will know you're concealing a firearm before they attack you. You having a gun is no deterrent whatsoever. So all those gang-related murders were just "picking on the unarmed" gang-members right? Gangs/thugs know the other gang is armed, yet they still shoot the crap out of eachother.

Then we should bomb or condemn Israel as well.

Exactly. Oh, and see what good it'll do to pull out your gun to "defend yourself" with one pointed at you. Actually don't try it, i don't want anyone here to get shot.

I don't think we should jeorpardise thousands of lives to test an excuse that the pro-gun lobby uses to justify their ownership of guns. Rival gangs in the USA are armed to the teeth, they know their opponents are armed to the teeth, yet they still shoot the sh!t out of eachother. Pro-gunners like guns, they love guns, they probably masturbate over their guns, and what this means is they'll come up with as many vaguely plausible arguments as they can to change the issue from a `want' into a `need'.

Yea.... Iraq will be safer with more armed people in it. Those who already have guns sure as !@#$%^&* aren't shooting people with them.......

America has a crime rate that is slightly lower than most European countries. However, they have a murder rate that is three times higher. Surely, this is due to the lethality of weapons in the USA: Crimes turn into murders far too easily. Lending further evidence is the fact that 66% of murders in America involve firearms, whereas in countries where guns are banned it is around 10%.

I don't have the right to go through red lights when driving. I don't have the right to play music as loud as i would like because it would disturb the public. I don't have the right to set fire to things. I don't have the right to own a rocket launcher or a suitcase nuke. I don't have the right to take a dump outside in public. I don't have the right to walk outside in the nude. I don't have the right to not pay taxes I don't have the right to take medical supplies to Cuba. I don't have the right to kill people or take what i want. I don't have the right to have sex with my dog. So, the first question is, why don't we have the right? The answer is there are laws put in place for our safety that restrict our rights. If by some argument it's determined that gun's are detrimental to the public safety, then that "right" should also be taken away. Why can't i be armed with a nuclear weapon? What if i need to defend myself against Iran?

So if and when the people of America choose by majority to outlaw guns, what will this "amendment" become?

Aileron, you can't pick and choose the victims characteristics that you want to use as motive for the attacks. For example, when a black person feels they're being discriminated against, they often say "It's because i'm black isn't it", but alot of the time it's just because they're an idiot. The victims of suicide bombers in Israel have two major characteristics: 1. They're Israeli, and 2. They're Jewish. All the evidence points to No. 1. being the motive for attacks. Firstly, Jews have lived with Muslims peacefully for centuries in the Middle East, and still do in all places other than in Israel. Secondly, Hamas and Hezbollah don't ask "Are you a Jew?", they simply bomb indiscriminately killing Christians and Jews alike. This is because it doesn't matter to them; they are killing Israelis. Thirdly, they have every reason to want to kill Israelis and no reason to kill Jews just for being Jewish. Again, this comes back to the first point, does this happen outside Israel? No. I think it's sad that people are being indoctrinated to believe that these groups, no matter how irrational and wrong they may be, are racists. I don't think there is much wrong with the consequences of our beliefs, since i don't condone the actions of these groups. I do think there is plenty wrong with our understanding of why they do it. How can we ever understand their actions when we are being led to believe they are racists (evil) with no motive other than irrational prejudice. The fact is, Hamas and Hezbollah might get a few more supporters in the West if we understood why they make their attacks. By dismissing them as racists the public is deceived but will fall into line. As for saying Hezbollah have no excuse for bombing Israel, i assume you are joking or just haven't read about Israel's decades long occupation of Lebanon? Do you think the Lebanese just forgive the 17,000 left dead after the conflicts? No, they present Israel with Hezbollah.

Yea i read that somewhere too. I think it's because they've risen to the top alot faster, and are therefore more successful.

Yes, that's the right distinction i think. Also, do inexperienced presidents typically make for bad presidents? Unless this is true, then the "too inexperienced to be elected" opinion really is propagandist.

ROFL, i'm not saying suicide bombers are rational. I'm saying they're irrationally killing people for being Israeli (Zionist) and not for being jewish.

The thing is, i don't think there is a single person in America who hasn't heard the "Obama is inexperienced" line, due simply to it's prolific circulation. It's importance has been blown out of proportion, to the extent where he is unelectable by some. It has nothing to do with his policy, and nothing to do with anything he himself says or does. Still, you're right, it can and should be stated, but to have it shoved down your throat is evidence of a political agenda. I suppose this pales in comparison with the "Obama is a Muslim Extremist" story, circulated principally by none other than the right-wing news agency: Fox News. To even acknowledge that Fox News is right-wing should be enough to take them off the air. The same should be said for any leftist news organisations. If i had my way, Rupert Murdoch would be brought up on charges of treason.

Dav, you're right, it's a method of conversion to pro-Israeli thought. No-one wants to be labelled racist, and no-one wants to be a cause of racism. This article is saying that criticising Israel "intentionally or not encourages anti-Semitism." This hostility can translate into physical violence...", and with that one sentence they blame violent acts on a harmless political view. Good point about being racist against your own people. When it becomes possible to be racist against yourself, something is obviously wrong with the definition. Ail: Hezbollah and Hamas seek the dissolution of Israel, not the extermination of all Jews. These people, deemed terrorists, may be extreme enough to want to kill as many Israelis as they can (such is the hatred generated by both sides in the region), but it's not because their victims are Jewish, it's because they're Israeli. Now i'm not speaking for all members of Hamas and Hezbollah, but i'm pretty sure that if one of these "terrorists" met a Jewish anti-Zionist, they wouldn't want to kill that person for being Jewish. My reason for saying this is clear: That Jews and Muslims have lived peacefully in the Middle East for millenia, and only since Israel's creation has there been violence. The cause of Muslim hatred is obviously Zionism and not Judaism. Yes, i meant to say "other than Israel"; i usually do say it when i mention this fact, but forgot it this time, my bad.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...lBrandChannel=0 "Anti-Semitism, including government-promoted hatred toward Jews and prejudice couched as criticism of Israel, has risen globally over the last decade, the State Department said on Thursday." ... "The distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that -- whether intentionally or unintentionally -- has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel's perceived faults to its Jewish character," ... "Such unremitting criticism of Israel "intentionally or not encourages anti-Semitism." This hostility can translate into physical violence, as in the surge in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide during the 2006 war between Israel and the Shi'ite Muslim group Hezbollah, the report said." ... "It cited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has questioned whether the murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis took place, and Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, who the State Department said had "publicly demonized" Israel." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is anyone else sick to their stomach after reading this? For starters Iran has the largest population of Jews anywhere in the Middle East, those Jews have a reserved place in the Iranian parliament, and the Supreme Leader of Iran has declared that "Jews are a religious minority that require our protection". Iran is not racist, they are anti-Zionist and are a prime example of how one must distinguish between anti-Zionism and racism (anti-semitism). The main point though, is they are strongly linking criticism of a political regime with racism. This is utterly deplorable. Will the day come when criticising Israel will be deemed a race-crime? Lastly, i'm not surprised this has come out of Washington. Is anyone else?