Bin Laden's Message and the Democrats

[Aileron]

I've just thought of something interesting about the video clip Bin Laden released. In it, he called Bush a Zionist crusader who was waging war against all of Islam. Clearly Bin Laden, the man who started this "Jihad" against the "infidels" is the last person to talk about religious tolerance. He is clearly a hypocrite, but that is beside the point.

 

The point is further than that - that Jihadists are incapable of thinking that way. Bin Laden only thinks in the way of Muslims vs. Christians. He doesn't belief the two groups can live in harmony and thinks peace will only come when one group kills or converts the other. The only difference between a Jihadist and a Crusader is that one is Muslim and the other Christian. The only criticism of the Crusader that the Jihadist would ever come up with is that the Crusader is Christian. All other aspects of the Crusader are akin to the Jihadist.

 

In this situation a Jihadist would criticise Bush for being Christian, or for NOT being violently zealous. The Jihadist, who is himself violently zealous and thinks that Muslims and Christians will always be at war, would understand, nay, expect violent zeal from his opponant.

 

 

So, if this isn't something Bin Laden thought of himself, where did he get it? Probably from the dozens of Liberals who called Bush a Zionist Crusader. The Democrats are effectively running Bin Laden's propaganda campaign.

 

The Democrats must learn that they are part of the American leadership and are responsable for what they say. If you look at Bush's outlook on Iraq, its clearly the most bright and chearfull portrayal of the situation. Liberals critise this action by Bush because they !@#$%^&*umed Bush was unintelligent a long time ago and think that he doesn't know the situation. Ofcourse Bush knows better than anyone what's going on in Iraq! He is the President...he's one of the first people to get the casualty lists. He however, portrays the positive because that's what good leaders do. He needs to portray the positive to give our soldiers the psychological edge they need to fight.

 

Similarly, the Democrats should put politics aside for the greater good of the country during wartime and stop feeding Bin Laden the material he needs to give his troops the psycological edge to fight. Yes, for them to stop berating Bush would hurt their poll numbers, but Bush sacrificed his poll numbers for the good of the country, so the Democrats should be expected to as well. They need to stop calling a Bush a Zionist Crusader so that next time Bin Laden speaks he trips over his own nature and cause his followers to wake up and abandon the Jihadist cause.

[AstroProdigy]

Ok now that's just ridiculous. I've never heard a Democrat call Bush a Zionist Crusader; you're just looking for an excuse to say dissent against anything Bush ever does supports terrorists. By the way 24% of Jews in America voted for Bush in 2004!!! They don't support him; if anything the Democrats can be called Zionists by he Republicans, but i have not heard this either. Why would Jews support the Jesus Party again???

 

Bush's outlook on Iraq is the most ignorant one. He doesn't even bother to confer outside his "circle of friends" about anything! Bush sure knows better than anyone about Iraq because he sure knew there were weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and connections to Alquieda in Iraq eh Aileron? Bush believes what he wants to believe regardless of whether its true or not.

 

Good leaders don't use a horrible attack that killed thousands of people as an excuse to trick the public into war for their own ends.

 

Bush has never put politics aside! It's all about politics with the Republican Party; politics and the bottom line, money. Iraqi oil is where the money is. The oil business executies are making hundreds of millions of dollars in their own profits thanks to their best friend George W. Bush. He hasn't even bother to limit price gouging because his friends would get mad.

 

Once again I've never heard a Democrat call Bush a Zionist crusader; i think you're imagining things. People will just up and abandon Bin Laden just because Democrats follow Bush??? I think it's funny that you say if Democrats become slaves to Bush then Bin Laden will lose his support. People don't support Bin Laden because Democrats don't blindly follow Bush, they support Bin Laden because Republicans do blindly follow Bush. Extremism only begets more extremism. Incase you haven't noticed NO ONE FOLLOWS BUSH ANYMORE!!!

[SeVeR]

The Democrats must learn that they are part of the American leadership and are responsable for what they say.

Are you saying Democrats shouldn't have free speech? Bush and most presidents that are have served in the US are Zionist Crusaders. Jews have a very powerful influence in America and as a result its probably the most Jewish country other than Israel... a country America created! America took the side of the Jews rather than the Muslims and their policy ever since has been to protect Israel and give them incredibles sum of money to build up their country. What America has done and continues to do should label Bush and previous presidents as Zionist crusaders. So when there is an element of truth to what Bin Laden says there shouldn't be a muzzle put on the mouths of democrats just because they agree. Its just like Hitler, people brand him as all evil but some of what he said was true.

 

BTW i certainly don't think Bin Laden was influenced by Democrats. Alot of Muslims would call Bush a Zionist crusader and for good reason.

 

It just looks like you've made a giant leap in your thinking process and ended up with a conclusion that fits you anti-democrat stance.

[Aileron]

Had to make this personal as usual, eh?

 

It was the UN, not the US, who created Israel. Jews have a right to life and a need for a homeland. If reconizing that human beings have a right to life and that Jews are human beings makes one a zionist, then anyone who isn't a zionist should be made to change their minds or be killed outright. That is not an unreasonable opinion - our universe will never be big enough to tolerate those who cannot respect the fundimental rights of others. The only way the world will ever have peace is if everyone has a "live and let live" mindset.

 

Hitler was a liar, a murderer, and a madman. There is not a single thing he ever said that wasn't out of hatred and powerlust.

 

I didn't suggest "put a muzzle on the Democrats". I suggested that the Democrats volunteer to accept the responsability that comes with their position of power and wield their freedom of speech accordingly.

[AstroProdigy]

You talk like the Democrats are the majority of the federal government. It is the Republican Party that has been making all of the decisions up till recently. Bin Laden doesn't get his support simply because of Israel; you are oversimplifying the situation. The War in Iraq is a big part of the current recruitment into Alqueda.

 

People in the Middle East don't think Bush is a zionist crusader because Democrats supposedly have said this (although I want to see you actually prove this), they think he's a zionist crusader because of his overwhelming support for Israel over Palestine and the fact that the policy changed from looking for an agreement agreeable to both groups in the Clinton administration to supporting whatever Israel does in the bush administration.

 

"I suggested that the Democrats volunteer to accept the responsability that comes with their position of power and wield their freedom of speech accordingly."

 

I suggest that the Republicans volunteer to not sell out to big business and use their position of power to help the people and not try to stifle their freedom of speech in the name of an indefinite war on terror accordingly.

[MonteZuma]

Aileron. This is crazy talk.

[SeVeR]

It was the UN, not the US, who created Israel. Jews

Please read up on the history of Israels creation. It was a UN par!@#$%^&*ion but it was clearly forced through by the US, read the following passage complete with a quote from Harry Truman (who obviously knew what he was doing..)

 

The U.S. is largely responsible for the Israeli-Palestinian problem because of American decisions in 1947 and 1948. Most people who knew the Middle East at first hand opposed the par!@#$%^&*ion plan adopted by the UN on November 29, 1947. Patently unfair, it awarded 56% of Palestine to its 650,000 Jewish inhabitants, and 44% to its 1,300,000 Muslim and Christian Arab inhabitants. Par!@#$%^&*ion was adopted after ruthless arm-twisting by the U.S. government and pro-Zionist U.S. senators whose telegrams to UN member states warned that U.S. goodwill in rebuilding their WWII-devastated economies might depend on a favorable vote. On Nov. 10, 1945, U.S. diplomats from the Mid-East urged Truman 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."

 

The US used its power over the other UN countries to get the par!@#$%^&*ion forced through. Truman admitted his power in the decision.

 

have a right to life and a need for a homeland.

Yes they do, as does everyone. But they don't deserve to be given someone elses land leaving another people homeless in their place! Are Jews somehow more important than Palestinians? To many US senators they were.

 

respect the fundimental rights of others.

That statement you made is well and truly something that the US government and the Jews didn't do at the time Israel was created.

 

Hitler was a liar, a murderer, and a madman. There is not a single thing he ever said that wasn't out of hatred and powerlust.

No human being is absolute evil, although i understand your need to believe in absolutes.

 

I suggested that the Democrats volunteer to accept the responsability that comes with their position of power and wield their freedom of speech accordingly.

And can you prove that the comments of democrats (as well as republicans) influence the way Bin Laden speaks to the world?

 

American governments since WW2 always have been Zionist crusaders. There is no use denying the human rights crimes of America unless you're a powerful Jew in the media, government or a big corporation spewing out pro-Israel proaganda and business threats to those who want the truth.

[Aileron]

Yes the US applied considerable diplomatic power, but it was still the UN who agreed to it.

 

The Jewish homeland had to come from somewhere...it is only appropriate that that land is their historic homeland. Muslims control a continent's worth of territory. They have more than enough room to grow and prosper without that tiny stretch of territory east of the Mediterranian.

 

And again you go with the personal attack. If you can name a single good thing Hitler did after he rose to power, please go ahead and point it out.

 

Unless the US brainwashed children to strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses full of civilians I think we are clear in the human rights department.

[AstroProdigy]

By your logic we could take all of the people of England and move them to France if some group wants that land because they're all Christians anyway so they can prosper in France. Nationalism doesn't just fall on religious lines. It is not a giant country called Islam; it is many smaller countries that practice Islam.

[Aileron]

That is a flawed analogy. England is a sovereign country. Pakistan is not, and it has been centuries since there was a sovereign country Pakistan. Ironically, the holder of the territory was Great Britain. They acquired the land from the Ottoman Empire when it collapsed. I'm not sure when exactly the Ottomans conquered the territory but that was atleast 600+ years ago.

 

That territory does not belong to Pakistan and it never did. They !@#$%^&*umed Great Britain would give them land which did not belong to them.

 

What they want is whatever land the jews occupy. We could move the Jews to Africa or South America, or set a friggin colony on the Moon for them, and Pakistan would demand whatever territory the jews have and would send suicide bombers in space shuttles if they had to. Why? Because they consider the Jews their mortal enemies and consider it righteous to kill their mortal enemies. They use land as an excuse when in reality is that they have enough and if they focused their economy on acquiring wealth instead of killing their neighbors they would be as prosperous as anyone right now.

 

I mean, they elected Hamas. "Domestic policy" or not, that should tell you what their mainstream intentions are. They have engrained anti-semitism in their very culture. Until this culture is changed or nuetralised, any prospects of peace are naive. Only free-thinkers want peace, and Pakistan doesn't have free-thinkers.

 

 

This is off topic though. This topic is supposed to be about Bin Laden. I just find it strange how people will take every opportunity they can to criticise Bush, the man we elected as leader as our country, but look for every excuse they can find to explain the actions of Bin Laden, the man who wants every single one of us dead. Is it suicidal or just plain stupid? A man who convinces his underlings to blow themselves up in order to kill their enemy cannot have a "live and let live" at!@#$%^&*ude. The average Joe-Jihadist would rather die than let his neighbors live, a fact proven by the definition of "suicide-bomber". If they don't value their life, then what could we possibly conceed to them that they would want?

 

And you know what? I'm sick of people claiming that the US and Bush violates human rights so often. Bush could defeat Hamas and Al-Queda tomorrow if he wanted to. All it would take is to start fire-bombing civilian targets, and suddenly the reality of the Jihad they are fighting would hit home and Hamas and Al-Queda would lose all the support they have. For those who think this would enbolden our enemies, the evidence suggests that they were enboldened in the past Israeli conflicts by territorial concessions and made peace when they were suffering losses. Free-thinking nations are sometimes enboldened by civilian losses, but when a backwards nations start suffering losses it causes the populace to start questioning their leadership. There's a lot to compaire modern day Al-Queda with WWII Japan in terms of the type of tactics they use...Al Queda probably would respond to the same kind of 'diplomacy' Japan responded to.

 

The only reason the US ~doesn't~ fire-bomb civilians is because the US ~doesn't~ violate human rights, because otherwise we would have a heck of a good reason to.

[AstroProdigy]

Ok....first I assume you mean Palestine not Pakistan...Your analogies are HORRIBLE. Just because Great Britain conquered the area does not give it any claim to the land!!! What land do Palestinians have? It is their homeland that Israel occupies right now; that little sliver of landlocked country isn't plenty of land.

 

What the !@#$%^&* are you talking about if the Jews occupied a different area the Palestinians would still attack them? They attack them because they are occupying land Palestinians have been living on for hundreds if not thousands of years.

 

Don't suggest that they disperse to other Islamic countries that shows a complete lack of knowledge of what the Muslim world is. The Muslim world is not 1 country! They are about as united as the Christian world was a century ago.

 

Are you crazy? If we started m!@#$%^&* murdering civilians we would get a huge uprising from the whole Muslim world and no support from anyone to us. You act like diplomacy is a joke, but it's war hawks like you that cause all these deaths because you continue to support an outdated philosophy that you can solve your problems with guns.

 

The Geneva Convention was created to prevent human rights violations and I would think the United States as a leader of free nations would be the strongest ADVOCATE of the Geneva Convention, not one of the biggest antagonists to it.

 

I think people in the United States are finally starting to see who they elected (bairly i might add) as the leader of our country for who he really is.

 

No one is trying to explain the actions of Bin Laden. Bin Laden is an evil extremist. People just want to explain why he even gets any support. Bin Laden would have little to send suicide bombers against if he didn't have the bumbling actions of Bush to explain it. By the way Bush is also an evil extremist!

 

By the way, as of now Bin Laden is winning! More Muslims hate us now than ever during Clinton's years. We fell right into his trap because our president has the intelligence of a fruit fly. You say the Democrats daring to question the president is helping Bin Laden, but it's Bush's action that help Bin Laden's movement soar and turn Bin Laden into the saint and the United States into the demon in the eyes of Muslims.

[Aileron]

Sorry, I got my p-stans crossed. The Pakistanis do not deserve those remarks in the slightest.

 

But that land never belonged to Palistine at any time in history. The Turks conquered both Palistine and Israel, and over time the collective territory kept switching hands from empire to empire until it wound up in British hands, and Britain gave Israel back to the Jews and Palistine back to Palistinians. The strange part is that the Jews moved to Europe while their territory was conquered whereas the Palistinians stayed put, and the Palistinians somehow !@#$%^&*umed that since they didn't see any Jews any more that they somehow walked off the edge of the planet and that both territories should be given to Palistine.

 

This war has been going on for 60 years. People don't fight for 60 years over a territorial dispute. Its much deeper than who owns the land and everyone knows it. When Hamas publicly states that their foreign policy is to eradicate Israel, why do people think they are lying? Do you think its impossible for a group of people to be racist and genocidal?

 

 

My point Astro is that the US is following the Geneva conventions. If we weren't we would be fire-bombing civilians because at this point in time it would make our lives easier. It was more to SeVeR in that he should stop claiming the US is doing all these human rights violations when we aren't, because if we did there would be several cities on fire right now.

 

Bush is a moderate...its not his fault his critics are mostly Marxists who think everything to the right of socialism is fundimentalist. Cheney and Rumsfeld are indeed true right-wingers though. No one has any real dissagreement with any of Bush's policies except one decision he made.

 

Public support for Iraq sickens me though. Before the war 70% of Americans supported it and 30% opposed it. Now 30% support it and 70% oppose it. I am one of the 30% who supported the war throughout, and I can understand the 30% who opposed it from day one...they thought the cost wasn't worth the benefit, which is understandable logic. Who I don't get is the 40% who changed sides. Did they honestly expect the thing to last a week, no one would die, and that the world would be bright and cheerfull by Christm!@#$%^&*? Bush knew this was going to be a lengthy occupation. He pointed that out numerous times in his speeches that both the War on Terror and the War in Iraq were going to be long and people would need to be resolved in their choices. The problem is that people don't listen to Presidential speeches, they watch CNN for the short version.

 

I don't blame Bush. I blame that shortshighted 40% who somehow thought that wars have no middle.

 

I guess the good news for Bush is that the 40% will mostly forget the middle ever happened and will suddenly swing back to supporting the war once this thing is over.

[AstroProdigy]

I'm going to let Monte respond to this it's too easy.

[MonteZuma]

Sorry Astro, but I think that you and SeVeR answered very well - I have nothing to add because I think that all of Aileron's !@#$%^&*ertions are preposterous.

[PoLiX]

the 40% we're the ones who sort of supported the war for the reasons that we're originally given. Al Queda connections, and Weapons of M!@#$%^&* Destruction. When neither we're found, their support was lost, simple as that. Doesn't take a genious to figure that one out. Lots of politicians pointed out they stopped supporting the war just for those same reasons, so no doubt if politicians, who are people, stopped because of that, other americans did also.

[AstroProdigy]

Bush is a moderate...if you take moderate to be the far right. If you've read a newspaper or seen a news program other than FOX then you'll see all the human rights violations Bush tried to cover up, but now they're out to the public. Human rights violations doesn't always mean obvious m!@#$%^&* murders.

 

This war between Israel and Palestine has been going on for 60 years because after World War 2 huge influxes of jews started to pour into the land and then began claiming it was their land. The exodus of the Jews took place almost 2000 years ago. This is plenty of time for another group to come into the land and create their own culture and national iden!@#$%^&*y.

 

"Britain gave Israel back to the Jews and Palistine back to Palistinians"

No...Britain abandoned the land because of all of the unrest and basically told them to solve the problem themselves.

 

We all know Hamas is an extremist organization, but they would have no support for this call to "genocide" if there weren't another group of people occupying the land they have occupied for centuries. Your argument voids the legitimacy of every country that has ever been taken over...in other words the whole world.

 

The problem with the world of Islam and Judaism is deeper than a territorial dispute. The problem between Israel and Palestine is they're both occupying the land they both claim is rightfully theirs and only theirs.

 

I'm not sure you know anything about the history of this area if you continue to make up history.

 

People believed the war wouldn't last long because Bush told them the war wouldn't last long. The sad thing is, I think he actually believed the occupation would be a peace of cake and wouldn't become the larger war in Iraq.

 

Like Polix said, when people are betrayed and lied to by their own government so the administration can achieve their own ends, they tend to lose support for the administration.

[Aileron]

Well, the problem here is people read indirect sources instead of watching Bush's speeches directly. A recent example might illustrate what I'm trying to point out. On the last Earth Day, I watched a live speech President Bush gave on C-span. The speech was in general about how he was sending funds to the development of hydrogen powered vehicles. Then, a week later, I pick up the USA Today, which cited editorials from several newspapers. Those editorials were in response to gas prices, and criticised Bush for not promoting the development of alternatives to gasoline, such as hydrogen powered vehicles for example. Now since most people don't watch live speeches, (I rarely do myself) most people will believe that Bush doesn't promote Hydrogen Fuel Cell research.

 

The problem is that most people don't cite the primary source. Even the press, people who are supposedly professionals who's full-time job is to do this stuff, don't cite the primary source. Bush said that this was going to be a long drawn out war, but the secondary sources didn't carry that part on. Bush gave about a dozen reasons, rangeing from how just stopping Hussein's genocide would save lives and how a democracy in Iraq would change the middle eastern political landscape, but the secondary sources only remembered WMDs.

 

 

 

I can't prove Bush is a moderate, but I can prove that the opposing viewpoint is ridiculously left-wing. First off, I'll point out that Karl Marx was radically left wing. Anyone who thinks Marx was a moderate will not agree with this arguement, but I'll venture to say that any such person is just...lost. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx cited that the reason for all wars was to acquire land and business opportunities to further the capitalist agenda. This is the general opinion of a left-winger on the subject.

 

If you look at the really old history of Israel and Palestine, it is filled with a lot of religious and racial wars. If you look in the more recent history of the conflict, there was a time when a lot of Middle Eastern countries allied with Palistine in a failed attempt to attack Israel, despite the fact that not one of those Arab countries would have acquired land or business opportunities even if victorious. When Israel conceeded some land necessary for Palistine to have a port on the Mediterranian, Palistine acquired business opportunity and thus no longer would have a need for conflict according to the theory, implying that the war would either end or diminish. However, the war continued and in fact escalated. If you look at Hamas today, they talk a lot about destroying Israel rather than "getting back our land." If you look at Iran today, they talk about destroying Israel, despite the fact that there is no way for Iran to acquire the land (it would go to Palistine.), and doing so would result in a ~loss~ of business opportunities because of the likely UN sanctions its about to get for its nuclear weapons program.

 

According to what Hamas and Iran does, this is a racial/religious conflict. According to what Hamas and Iran says publicly this is a racial/religious conflict. According to the economic damages both Palistine and Iran will suffer by continuing this conflict, there is no profit motive here and this isn't a capitalistic conflict. And after all that evidence stating the opposite, many come to the conclusion that Karl Marx came to and that the cause of this war is land and profit motive.

 

Is Bush a moderate here? All we know is that his opinion is consistent with the evidence on this matter. He could have very well have cone to this conclusion for entirely the wrong reasons. However, as for his opponants who came to the ~wrong~ conclusion and defend the wrong conclusion despite the overwhelming evidence that the cause of the Israeli-Palistinian conflict is idealogical, those people are indeed left-wing. In fact, anyone who thinks that Palistine only wants land is officially a Marxist locally to this particular issue. (SeVeR actually is a flat-out Marxist on all issues...just stating the facts, not meant as any insult really.)

[AstroProdigy]

Speeches aren't all you need to pay attention to. You need to actually see Bush's actions. Saying "let's explore hydrogen powered vehicles" and then doing the opposite isn't a good sign. In fact, over the years the Bush administration has taken a backwards step to fuel efficiency.

 

Tell me where Bush said this was going to be a long drawn out war (before the war). WMD's and Alquieta connections are the only thing people in the United States really cared about so that's what he based the bulk of his argument on and that's what he hoped the media would pick up so he could gain his support for the war.

 

Marx said this is the reason for ALL WARS. What the Democrats are saying is this is the reason for THIS WAR. Right-winger hawks like to think war is the answer to everything.

 

Yes other Muslim countries attacked Israel because they saw them as a threat to the whole area and because Jerusalem is one of their holiest sites and they didn't want to see it under the control of a different group.

 

Israel conceded some land??? There was a vast Palestinian majority in that area. They don't need to be satisfied. In their view this land was recently stolen by Israelis. You don't get back your land if there are people are still there. Therefore you'd have to destroy the country already there.

 

I don't care what side other countries are on; that doesn't make one way right over another. Might doesn't always make right. Iran won't get significant sanctions put on them because countries like Russia and China are unwilling to give up a large source of oil.

 

i'm not excusing Hamas's policies or actions, but let's say they won then Palestine WOULD gain something...they'd regain the land they used to have before this problem started.

 

You're taking completely unrelated arguments and sticking them together because they support your opinion even though they don't have a connection.

 

Bush takes an extreme standpoint on Israel, which means he isn't a moderate. He doesn't even seem to try to get an acceptable agreement between the two sides, just support the more profitable one. There are ideological differences between Israel and Palestine, but it would never have been a problem like this if it weren't for the limited land that they were fighting for. Thinking in absolutes sounds like the ideology of religious zealots.

[SeVeR]

Aileron:

Yes the US applied considerable diplomatic power, but it was still the UN who agreed to it.

Without the pressure from the US it would have been very unlikely to pass The blame cannot be spread over the whole UN to say everyone had an equal part because that's not true.

 

The Jewish homeland had to come from somewhere...it is only appropriate that that land is their historic homeland. Muslims control a continent's worth of territory. They have more than enough room to grow and prosper without that tiny stretch of territory east of the Mediterranian.

Well its still wrong to invade another people for no reason other than to take away their land. Why are you trying to make excuses for such a sin?

 

If you can name a single good thing Hitler did after he rose to power, please go ahead and point it out.

I cannot, i just don't believe in absolutes. When you said "There is not a single thing he ever said that wasn't out of hatred and powerlust", I just coudn't believe that, i don't think his marriage was out of either of those things.... to say what you said he'd have to be devil.

 

Unless the US brainwashed children to strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses full of civilians I think we are clear in the human rights department.

Is taking away peoples homes for no reason other than to give them to your richer friends not abuse? When that action results in the anger of thousands of muslims who strap bombs to their chests, is your blame still absolutely with the muslims who not only had to live through that but the subsequent annihilation through land-grabs?

 

That is a flawed analogy. England is a sovereign country. Pakistan is not, and it has been centuries since there was a sovereign country Pakistan. Ironically, the holder of the territory was Great Britain. They acquired the land from the Ottoman Empire when it collapsed. I'm not sure when exactly the Ottomans conquered the territory but that was atleast 600+ years ago.

Who care's if its sovereign, homes are homes and to take them away in either situation is wrong.

 

They use land as an excuse

I'm sorry but calling Israel an excuse to keep killing is like saying equal rights is an excuse for being racist. The attack came from America and Israel, not the other way round.

 

mean, they elected Hamas. "Domestic policy" or not, that should tell you what their mainstream intentions are

Yeah, they want their land back and elected a violent party because its been about 50 years with nothing done for them.

 

They have engrained anti-semitism in their very culture.

Yep, thats what happens when Palestianians see Jews living on their land.

 

Just because the people of Palestine are very angry that doesn't make it right to ignore the criminal act that started it.

 

but look for every excuse they can find to explain the actions of Bin Laden, the man who wants every single one of us dead. Is it suicidal or just plain stupid?

No, i just wanted to explain why he calls us Zionist Crusaders and I agree with him, i still want the !@#$%^&* dead. I think this is a problem with absolutes again. He is not absolute evil and not everything that comes out of his mouth has to be a lie. I still want him punished as ymuch as you do.

 

And you know what? I'm sick of people claiming that the US and Bush violates human rights so often. Bush could defeat Hamas and Al-Queda tomorrow if he wanted to.

The reputation of the country is at stake too. Plausible deniability through the press is the way they stay above water.

 

"There's a lot to compaire modern day Al-Queda with WWII Japan in terms of the type of tactics they use...Al Queda probably would respond to the same kind of 'diplomacy' Japan responded to"

 

If only they were a nation. But they're not and won't surrender to anything because we'd have to bomb the whole Middle East and large swathes of Asia, even then there are thousands of them in Africa too.

 

 

'Who I don't get is the 40% who changed sides. Did they honestly expect the thing to last a week, no one would die, and that the world would be bright and cheerfull by Christm!@#$%^&*?"

 

It just shows how they were swayed by the !@#$%^&*umption of WMDs and the belief that they were saving some oppressed people who never took the time to rebel by themselves. Now they have developed their own opinions based on seeing it happen. Bushes media machine certainly did a good job at the start of it all. Look how he is criminalising Iran in exactly the same way. I wonder how public opinion is changing on that issue...

[Aileron]

Look, the reason I believe in absolutes actually runs opposite to my being a Christian. The Christian opinion is "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I've pointed this out before...I'm not a very good Christian.

 

The reason I believe is absolutes is because I've seen it. I've seen, for example, the battered wives of husbands who beat their wives. It is only out of a combination of fear and naive stupidity that there is good in the husband that the wife continues to stick around and get beat again. And there never is any good in the husbands who beat their wives. They almost always repeat their behavior over and over again until for some reason they are ~unable~ to do it any more. (ie. the wife finally leaves or is beaten to death.)

 

And the killer is the husband always has something that in his mind is a justification for beating his wife. Either she didn't cook and clean properly or she looked at him some way or he thought she was messing around or something along those lines. Almost all other criminals do the exact same kind of behavior no matter if its petty burglary (the excuse is "he has so much money he should share it") to murder (actually I haven't seen a murderer first-hand yet...but I haven't read or heard a second hand account of a murderer who didn't regret his actions until after spending X many years in jail.)

 

The stranger thing yet is in our modern culture they like to play the victim. Usually how it goes down is a police officer spots the criminal, moves in to arrest the criminal, the criminal runs away or fights, the police officer has to tackle the criminal and force the restraints on him. Then the criminal turns around and pulls an act on how injured he was when the police officer used appropriate force on him. The criminal is then sent to the hospital, where, at public expense mind you, his "injuries" are tested and exposed as bogus. I guess supposedly there are cases where the injuries are real, but I've never seen one.

 

This isn't to say the justice system is flawed or anything...its just to point out how a criminal mind thinks. I mean, I'd like to believe that there's some small kernel of good in these people, but there either just isn't or such cases are so rare that I've never seen one. Suffice to say the vast majority of the time those who commit such actions do so because they do not even recognize the humanity of others.

 

Judging from my experiences, Al Queda and Hamas are following the exact same line of behavior, with indeed no sign in sight of them actually stopping to commit murder and with their petty justification for it, and with their suddenly playing the victim when the situation doesn't look so good for them.

 

 

I mean, take this situation from another point of view. I can't imagine telling a whole country to pack up and move to a different part of the world because their neighbors are insulted by their "holy land" being occupied by another religion.

 

 

Oh wait...now I can prove Bush is a moderate...the withdrawel from the Gaza Strip was Bush's idea!!!! He actually agrees with you ppl on this subject apparently. I mean, the "Roadmap for Peace" program is something I think is naive and left-wing, because it calls for the exact same thing you ppl call for...Israeli concessions.

[AstroProdigy]

If that's true then most proposed "good Christians" on the conservative right are hypocrits.

 

A husband who abuses his wife has problems and the wife should leave him. That being said, the husband isn't absolute evil.

 

How do you know a murderer doesn't just regret having to spend that time in jail?

 

Usually the criminal fakes an injury and goes to the hospital? Where do you get this from?

 

Who's playing the victim? Is the plight of the Palestinians "playing the victim"?

 

Again you ignore what the situation is. Israel stole the land from Palestine. Citing ancient history is no excuse. The problem now is it's already been done and can't be undone.

 

Bush has supported whatever Israel decided. Israel decided to cede land on the Gaza strip, not Bush. If Israel opposed this then so would Bush.

[Aileron]

Actually that's where denomination comes in. Most of the right-wingers are of the Calvinist-offshoot denominations that got kicked out of Europe first. Their belief system is slightly different, suffice to say they don't believe in that particular philosophy and thus cannot be hypocrits by not following a philosophy they don't agree with. Catholics like myself usually run somewhere in the middle, opposing abortion and homosexuality, yet also supporting distribution of wealth and equal rights for all races. I run a little to the right for I don't know what reason. Probably because a lot of people here are to the left and I like to argue, or maybe some subconcious desire to balance out unbalanced evironments.

 

Actually come to think of it, my opinion is not hypocritical. You are supposed to forgive, but you aren't expected to do so until they stop doing it. Basically, after the Palisitinians stop blowing up civilians, then I'll start looking for good in them.

 

I know criminal behavior because I've worked in a hospital and seen them do this first hand. I've seen the victims and seen the criminals, and I know by now one from the other.

 

In reality, there's probably dozens of other methods to get 'their territory back' that doesn't involve attacking Israel's civilian population directly, most of the other methods actually being more effective to their supposed goal. Its a fallicy to think that Hamas is down to the last option when choosing terrorism. There are plenty of other methods both in peace and war. Admittingly those methods aren't as easy, but all wrong behavior is a method that is easier than the right behavior for the perpetrator, but has a cost paid by somebody else.

 

Its just that based on all of it, the behavior of other theocrist muslim countries such as Iran, the methods Hamas uses, and my own personal experience dealing with people who think just like this, that acquisition of territory is only Hamas' secondary goal, and their primary goal is to kill off every Israeli citizen, man, woman, and child.

 

 

Actually this entire arguement is irrelevent. The withdrawel from the Gaza Strip was part of a deal. Israel gave up the Gaza Strip, Palistine gave up terrorist activities. If terrorist activities resume unchecked and on a large scale Israel should re-take the Gaza Strip, regardless of demographics of the region. Peace can only be obtained if both sides stay true to their word. It is never going to work if one side keeps breaking promises. Eventually the other side will simply stop coming to the table.

[AstroProdigy]

You're right, at first this act of fighting only caused them to lose more territory, but now it's wearing down the resolve of the Israelis so they look for peace.

 

They'd have no reason to kill every Israeli if there wasn't a state of Israel right there.

 

The act of a few extremists who blow themselves up doesn't mean the whole group should be punished. On this notion, the whole of Iraq hates us and should be forced off their land because of the act of terrorists. Some support terrorists and some don't. There are no absolutes here.

 

I don't know if terrorism in Israel will completely stop for a long time. It can be reduced to lower and lower levels with agreements, however. Let's hope it quiets down and then maybe other countries of the muslim world will moderate their stances on the west

 

Jesus taught that you are supposed to love your enemy and show good will to him (or her). The far right Christians of the Republican Party are completely off from the message of Jesus then. I'd say if Jesus is the son of God then it's better to not believe in Jesus than to act completely opposite to his beliefs and then claim to be his messenger for your own benefit.

[LearJett+]

They'd have no reason to kill every Israeli if there wasn't a state of Israel right there.

 

...

 

 

Jesus taught that you are supposed to love your enemy and show good will to him (or her). The far right Christians of the Republican Party are completely off from the message of Jesus then. I'd say if Jesus is the son of God then it's better to not believe in Jesus than to act completely opposite to his beliefs and then claim to be his messenger for your own benefit.

 

 

There were problems long before the state of Israel ever existed.

 

 

Jesus also taught that you should help out your fellow neighbor and defend people that can't defend themselves. 'Enemy' is an arbitrary term -- we defended Iraq from its minority aggressor, and we're staying there until the job is done.

 

 

It's safe to say that neither Palestine nor Israel have done as much as they should to create peace in the Middle East.

[AstroProdigy]

We invaded Iraq effectively, but we occupied it incompetently.

 

The problems were greatly escalated after the creation of the state of Israel.

 

Agreed; both need to do more.