let's get back to Dwight and Harden and Parsons.

IWG don't do politics

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Nalod wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Nalod wrote:USA was not defending itself against a neighbor. Iraq is not trying to tunnel into NYC or sling rockets our way.

Condemnation is easy when rockets are not being slung your way.

So what exactly is a 5 year old Palestinian child suppose to do in this situation to avoid death? Or is your genuine stance "tough s***t, some adult of a similar ethnicity fired a rocket so it's a shame but it's okay if that kid gets blown up". No person genuinely deep down believes that but we end up picking sides and somehow defending stuff that's just basically and fundamentally wrong. Politics is politics, but basic human nature is about protecting and raising children not murdering them and not putting them in harms way- something both sides decide to forget.

If you rejoice that the child killed is in the glory of ALLAH and in a better place then who are you to say otherwise? Thats not your belief, but that is Hamas. Christian-Judeo values don't believe that. You and I look at innocent children dying and its painful. Israel has to make a choice, allow enough missiles to keep flying until one of them does kill? How long can that go on?

Seems the thought process of dying for the glory of Allah is accepted by those promoting the violence. Is this the will of the people? Do they want Hamas gone?

FOr years we have read about how Hamas teaches their children young. One example:

I'd recommend you thumb through your Torah/Bible again because you are mistaken on that point...

Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us. He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalms 137:8-9)

Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (1 Samuel 15:3)

At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. (2 Kings 15:16)

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. (Hosea 13:16)

God orders Moses to kill every Midianite woman who was no longer a virgin. (many of these women would obviously have been pregnant) (Numbers 31:15-18)

The only difference between Hamas and the hard-right in Israel is that the latter has better weapons. At the end of the day, they still pull from bull**** religious texts that has them believe they are God's favorites that in turn emboldens them to do heinous things yet claim moral superiority.

hamas derives inspiration from the koran, a 1300 year old religious book, and uses politics as a pretext to establish a caliphate-like dominance in the region, tolerating other religions only so long as islam is the predominant religion.

you are citing examples from another religious book, a religious book that was written between 3200 and 2300 years ago, and which has very little historical validity, ie it is a bunch of stories that have a hard time being proven as true. that said, they are far older than the koran.

both books seem to possess a great deal of primitive thinking relative to modern ideas of tolerance and separation of church and state.

the error in your citing of these horrific passages is that the state of israel and its constitution is not based on the bible, and certainly not these passages. it is a modern, democratic state that was created in 1948 and whose sovereignty is denied by none but a very few.

your post is basically inaccurate rhetoric.

The Bible is filled with a bunch of bull**** stories as well but it's still being used to deny climate change (God promised Noah to never flood the world again so rising sea levels couldn't possibly be happening), promote anti-gay rhetoric, denounce abortion, shape foreign policy and a host of other ridiculous policies/positions. Hell, you just heard another poster distinguish one side as being morally superior to the other on the basis of this text. You'd be out of your mind if you don't think that these texts are not part of the psyche/hubris for both sides. Don't believe me? Just listen to this dope...

http://youtu.be/UbsVQiY0Qkw

he is an example of a politician whose politics is more than likely based on his religious views. these sorts are sickening to me. frankly, i was expecting you to provide videos from israeli religious kooks or some members of the knesset to make your point.

obviously citing any old religious kook from israel would not bolster your argument-- but a member of the knesset who is a fanatic might....

Done and done. The first link involves part of the comment in question by Israeli Naftali Bennett; the second involves the entire interview, which borders on the ridiculous at times...

http://youtu.be/VYH4aYb7IAU

http://youtu.be/ls0KV2Ixm6o

As a side, if you think Lindsey Graham is an isolated incident of the Republican Party/conservative platform...I've got plenty more videos and articles to prove the contrary. The only real reason they are willing to spend indiscriminately on Israel (while criticizing any and every other form of spending) is because they believe their sky-God can only return if Jews have absolute and total control of those lands before WWIII erupts.

the flaw in the first video is trying to create moral equivalence from the "who was here first" dead end.

the second video is mostly about preventive measures towards iran. towards the end the palestinian issue is raised and, while bennett is being a bit jingoistic, it seems to me the most salient point he makes is that hamas and the palestinians in general have to recognize israel's right to exist as a homeland for the jews. that is the most basic starting point.

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Nalod wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Nalod wrote:USA was not defending itself against a neighbor. Iraq is not trying to tunnel into NYC or sling rockets our way.

Condemnation is easy when rockets are not being slung your way.

So what exactly is a 5 year old Palestinian child suppose to do in this situation to avoid death? Or is your genuine stance "tough s***t, some adult of a similar ethnicity fired a rocket so it's a shame but it's okay if that kid gets blown up". No person genuinely deep down believes that but we end up picking sides and somehow defending stuff that's just basically and fundamentally wrong. Politics is politics, but basic human nature is about protecting and raising children not murdering them and not putting them in harms way- something both sides decide to forget.

If you rejoice that the child killed is in the glory of ALLAH and in a better place then who are you to say otherwise? Thats not your belief, but that is Hamas. Christian-Judeo values don't believe that. You and I look at innocent children dying and its painful. Israel has to make a choice, allow enough missiles to keep flying until one of them does kill? How long can that go on?

Seems the thought process of dying for the glory of Allah is accepted by those promoting the violence. Is this the will of the people? Do they want Hamas gone?

FOr years we have read about how Hamas teaches their children young. One example:

I'd recommend you thumb through your Torah/Bible again because you are mistaken on that point...

Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us. He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalms 137:8-9)

Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (1 Samuel 15:3)

At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. (2 Kings 15:16)

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. (Hosea 13:16)

God orders Moses to kill every Midianite woman who was no longer a virgin. (many of these women would obviously have been pregnant) (Numbers 31:15-18)

The only difference between Hamas and the hard-right in Israel is that the latter has better weapons. At the end of the day, they still pull from bull**** religious texts that has them believe they are God's favorites that in turn emboldens them to do heinous things yet claim moral superiority.

hamas derives inspiration from the koran, a 1300 year old religious book, and uses politics as a pretext to establish a caliphate-like dominance in the region, tolerating other religions only so long as islam is the predominant religion.

you are citing examples from another religious book, a religious book that was written between 3200 and 2300 years ago, and which has very little historical validity, ie it is a bunch of stories that have a hard time being proven as true. that said, they are far older than the koran.

both books seem to possess a great deal of primitive thinking relative to modern ideas of tolerance and separation of church and state.

the error in your citing of these horrific passages is that the state of israel and its constitution is not based on the bible, and certainly not these passages. it is a modern, democratic state that was created in 1948 and whose sovereignty is denied by none but a very few.

your post is basically inaccurate rhetoric.

The Bible is filled with a bunch of bull**** stories as well but it's still being used to deny climate change (God promised Noah to never flood the world again so rising sea levels couldn't possibly be happening), promote anti-gay rhetoric, denounce abortion, shape foreign policy and a host of other ridiculous policies/positions. Hell, you just heard another poster distinguish one side as being morally superior to the other on the basis of this text. You'd be out of your mind if you don't think that these texts are not part of the psyche/hubris for both sides. Don't believe me? Just listen to this dope...

http://youtu.be/UbsVQiY0Qkw

he is an example of a politician whose politics is more than likely based on his religious views. these sorts are sickening to me. frankly, i was expecting you to provide videos from israeli religious kooks or some members of the knesset to make your point.

obviously citing any old religious kook from israel would not bolster your argument-- but a member of the knesset who is a fanatic might....

Done and done. The first link involves part of the comment in question by Israeli Naftali Bennett; the second involves the entire interview, which borders on the ridiculous at times...

http://youtu.be/VYH4aYb7IAU

http://youtu.be/ls0KV2Ixm6o

As a side, if you think Lindsey Graham is an isolated incident of the Republican Party/conservative platform...I've got plenty more videos and articles to prove the contrary. The only real reason they are willing to spend indiscriminately on Israel (while criticizing any and every other form of spending) is because they believe their sky-God can only return if Jews have absolute and total control of those lands before WWIII erupts.

the flaw in the first video is trying to create moral equivalence from the "who was here first" dead end.

the second video is mostly about preventive measures towards iran. towards the end the palestinian issue is raised and, while bennett is being a bit jingoistic, it seems to me the most salient point he makes is that hamas and the palestinians in general have to recognize israel's right to exist as a homeland for the jews. that is the most basic starting point.

...and yet he has been on record a number of times stating that he would NOT support the idea of a Palestinian state or their right to exist. Kinda hypocritical don't you think? What's worse is that he denounces another country from developing nuclear technology, when his own country has nuclear power plants AND 500 nuclear weapons! I'm not suggesting that Iran should have nuclear weapons...NO ONE should, especially any religion-centric state.

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Nalod wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Nalod wrote:USA was not defending itself against a neighbor. Iraq is not trying to tunnel into NYC or sling rockets our way.

Condemnation is easy when rockets are not being slung your way.

So what exactly is a 5 year old Palestinian child suppose to do in this situation to avoid death? Or is your genuine stance "tough s***t, some adult of a similar ethnicity fired a rocket so it's a shame but it's okay if that kid gets blown up". No person genuinely deep down believes that but we end up picking sides and somehow defending stuff that's just basically and fundamentally wrong. Politics is politics, but basic human nature is about protecting and raising children not murdering them and not putting them in harms way- something both sides decide to forget.

If you rejoice that the child killed is in the glory of ALLAH and in a better place then who are you to say otherwise? Thats not your belief, but that is Hamas. Christian-Judeo values don't believe that. You and I look at innocent children dying and its painful. Israel has to make a choice, allow enough missiles to keep flying until one of them does kill? How long can that go on?

Seems the thought process of dying for the glory of Allah is accepted by those promoting the violence. Is this the will of the people? Do they want Hamas gone?

FOr years we have read about how Hamas teaches their children young. One example:

I'd recommend you thumb through your Torah/Bible again because you are mistaken on that point...

Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us. He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalms 137:8-9)

Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (1 Samuel 15:3)

At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. (2 Kings 15:16)

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. (Hosea 13:16)

God orders Moses to kill every Midianite woman who was no longer a virgin. (many of these women would obviously have been pregnant) (Numbers 31:15-18)

The only difference between Hamas and the hard-right in Israel is that the latter has better weapons. At the end of the day, they still pull from bull**** religious texts that has them believe they are God's favorites that in turn emboldens them to do heinous things yet claim moral superiority.

hamas derives inspiration from the koran, a 1300 year old religious book, and uses politics as a pretext to establish a caliphate-like dominance in the region, tolerating other religions only so long as islam is the predominant religion.

you are citing examples from another religious book, a religious book that was written between 3200 and 2300 years ago, and which has very little historical validity, ie it is a bunch of stories that have a hard time being proven as true. that said, they are far older than the koran.

both books seem to possess a great deal of primitive thinking relative to modern ideas of tolerance and separation of church and state.

the error in your citing of these horrific passages is that the state of israel and its constitution is not based on the bible, and certainly not these passages. it is a modern, democratic state that was created in 1948 and whose sovereignty is denied by none but a very few.

your post is basically inaccurate rhetoric.

The Bible is filled with a bunch of bull**** stories as well but it's still being used to deny climate change (God promised Noah to never flood the world again so rising sea levels couldn't possibly be happening), promote anti-gay rhetoric, denounce abortion, shape foreign policy and a host of other ridiculous policies/positions. Hell, you just heard another poster distinguish one side as being morally superior to the other on the basis of this text. You'd be out of your mind if you don't think that these texts are not part of the psyche/hubris for both sides. Don't believe me? Just listen to this dope...

http://youtu.be/UbsVQiY0Qkw

he is an example of a politician whose politics is more than likely based on his religious views. these sorts are sickening to me. frankly, i was expecting you to provide videos from israeli religious kooks or some members of the knesset to make your point.

obviously citing any old religious kook from israel would not bolster your argument-- but a member of the knesset who is a fanatic might....

Done and done. The first link involves part of the comment in question by Israeli Naftali Bennett; the second involves the entire interview, which borders on the ridiculous at times...

http://youtu.be/VYH4aYb7IAU

http://youtu.be/ls0KV2Ixm6o

As a side, if you think Lindsey Graham is an isolated incident of the Republican Party/conservative platform...I've got plenty more videos and articles to prove the contrary. The only real reason they are willing to spend indiscriminately on Israel (while criticizing any and every other form of spending) is because they believe their sky-God can only return if Jews have absolute and total control of those lands before WWIII erupts.

the flaw in the first video is trying to create moral equivalence from the "who was here first" dead end.

the second video is mostly about preventive measures towards iran. towards the end the palestinian issue is raised and, while bennett is being a bit jingoistic, it seems to me the most salient point he makes is that hamas and the palestinians in general have to recognize israel's right to exist as a homeland for the jews. that is the most basic starting point.

...and yet he has been on record a number of times stating that he would NOT support the idea of a Palestinian state or their right to exist. Kinda hypocritical don't you think? What's worse is that he denounces another country from developing nuclear technology, when his own country has nuclear power plants AND 500 nuclear weapons! I'm not suggesting that Iran should have nuclear weapons...NO ONE should, especially any religion-centric state.

well, insofar as only a few hours had passed before the entire arab world decided to make war on the newly-created state of israel-- and that the war of 1948 has essentially never ended-- i cut this guy a little slack. it all comes back to 1948. the arabs of that part of the middle east call it "the catastrophe" and have never gotten over it-- even when the state of israel was granted existence by the rest of the world. this is not to say that, in the acts leading to becoming a nation that the jews who founded the state of israel have clean hands-- they clearly don't. but, the state of israel gained traction in the wake of the holocaust, despite having its roots in zionism. arabs complain that they should not have to pay the price for a european sin, but this is merely the straw that broke the camels back... for the jews of europe and russia had been angling fro a return to ancient jewish lands since the days of herzl, circa 1895. not ben-gurion, menachem begin, and yitzak shamir forty-five years later.

you will note that, ever since the emergence of islam in the late seventh century, that tolerance of "the other" in the umma and the caliphates and the modern muslim nations is conditioned on islam as the governing and overriding essence of islamic society. it was "pluralistic" only in an extremely narrow sense, in that non-muslims were not treated as equals-- especially when it came to being taxed (jizya) for being non-believers, even "people of the book." that is, accept being taxed or die. one wonders if the democratic state of modern israel harbors this peculiar sort of "pluralism." my impression is that the israeli arabs who live in israel consider themselves fortunate, whereas the jews who had lived in arabic/muslim societies would not be able to say the same.

so far as the nuclear question-- who would you rather possess nuclear weapons in the middle east, israel or any arab state you wish to mention?

...and what does any of that have to do with the indigenous population of the land having the right to self-determination?

And as for nuclear weapons, once again, NO ONE should have them. That includes Arab and non-Arab states; secular and non-secular. Nuclear weapons are a waste of money and have no real tactical purpose unless the endgame is to destroy the world. All it takes is 100 of them to kill all of humanity. That fact is offputting especially when the technology is in the hands of religious zealots who think that their **** never stinks and have VIP access to an afterlife.

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

dk7th wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Nalod wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Nalod wrote:USA was not defending itself against a neighbor. Iraq is not trying to tunnel into NYC or sling rockets our way.

Condemnation is easy when rockets are not being slung your way.

So what exactly is a 5 year old Palestinian child suppose to do in this situation to avoid death? Or is your genuine stance "tough s***t, some adult of a similar ethnicity fired a rocket so it's a shame but it's okay if that kid gets blown up". No person genuinely deep down believes that but we end up picking sides and somehow defending stuff that's just basically and fundamentally wrong. Politics is politics, but basic human nature is about protecting and raising children not murdering them and not putting them in harms way- something both sides decide to forget.

If you rejoice that the child killed is in the glory of ALLAH and in a better place then who are you to say otherwise? Thats not your belief, but that is Hamas. Christian-Judeo values don't believe that. You and I look at innocent children dying and its painful. Israel has to make a choice, allow enough missiles to keep flying until one of them does kill? How long can that go on?

Seems the thought process of dying for the glory of Allah is accepted by those promoting the violence. Is this the will of the people? Do they want Hamas gone?

FOr years we have read about how Hamas teaches their children young. One example:

I'd recommend you thumb through your Torah/Bible again because you are mistaken on that point...

Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us. He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalms 137:8-9)

Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (1 Samuel 15:3)

At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. (2 Kings 15:16)

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. (Hosea 13:16)

God orders Moses to kill every Midianite woman who was no longer a virgin. (many of these women would obviously have been pregnant) (Numbers 31:15-18)

The only difference between Hamas and the hard-right in Israel is that the latter has better weapons. At the end of the day, they still pull from bull**** religious texts that has them believe they are God's favorites that in turn emboldens them to do heinous things yet claim moral superiority.

hamas derives inspiration from the koran, a 1300 year old religious book, and uses politics as a pretext to establish a caliphate-like dominance in the region, tolerating other religions only so long as islam is the predominant religion.

you are citing examples from another religious book, a religious book that was written between 3200 and 2300 years ago, and which has very little historical validity, ie it is a bunch of stories that have a hard time being proven as true. that said, they are far older than the koran.

both books seem to possess a great deal of primitive thinking relative to modern ideas of tolerance and separation of church and state.

the error in your citing of these horrific passages is that the state of israel and its constitution is not based on the bible, and certainly not these passages. it is a modern, democratic state that was created in 1948 and whose sovereignty is denied by none but a very few.

your post is basically inaccurate rhetoric.

The Bible is filled with a bunch of bull**** stories as well but it's still being used to deny climate change (God promised Noah to never flood the world again so rising sea levels couldn't possibly be happening), promote anti-gay rhetoric, denounce abortion, shape foreign policy and a host of other ridiculous policies/positions. Hell, you just heard another poster distinguish one side as being morally superior to the other on the basis of this text. You'd be out of your mind if you don't think that these texts are not part of the psyche/hubris for both sides. Don't believe me? Just listen to this dope...

http://youtu.be/UbsVQiY0Qkw

he is an example of a politician whose politics is more than likely based on his religious views. these sorts are sickening to me. frankly, i was expecting you to provide videos from israeli religious kooks or some members of the knesset to make your point.

obviously citing any old religious kook from israel would not bolster your argument-- but a member of the knesset who is a fanatic might....

Done and done. The first link involves part of the comment in question by Israeli Naftali Bennett; the second involves the entire interview, which borders on the ridiculous at times...

http://youtu.be/VYH4aYb7IAU

http://youtu.be/ls0KV2Ixm6o

As a side, if you think Lindsey Graham is an isolated incident of the Republican Party/conservative platform...I've got plenty more videos and articles to prove the contrary. The only real reason they are willing to spend indiscriminately on Israel (while criticizing any and every other form of spending) is because they believe their sky-God can only return if Jews have absolute and total control of those lands before WWIII erupts.

the flaw in the first video is trying to create moral equivalence from the "who was here first" dead end.

the second video is mostly about preventive measures towards iran. towards the end the palestinian issue is raised and, while bennett is being a bit jingoistic, it seems to me the most salient point he makes is that hamas and the palestinians in general have to recognize israel's right to exist as a homeland for the jews. that is the most basic starting point.

...and yet he has been on record a number of times stating that he would NOT support the idea of a Palestinian state or their right to exist. Kinda hypocritical don't you think? What's worse is that he denounces another country from developing nuclear technology, when his own country has nuclear power plants AND 500 nuclear weapons! I'm not suggesting that Iran should have nuclear weapons...NO ONE should, especially any religion-centric state.

well, insofar as only a few hours had passed before the entire arab world decided to make war on the newly-created state of israel-- and that the war of 1948 has essentially never ended-- i cut this guy a little slack. it all comes back to 1948. the arabs of that part of the middle east call it "the catastrophe" and have never gotten over it-- even when the state of israel was granted existence by the rest of the world. this is not to say that, in the acts leading to becoming a nation that the jews who founded the state of israel have clean hands-- they clearly don't. but, the state of israel gained traction in the wake of the holocaust, despite having its roots in zionism. arabs complain that they should not have to pay the price for a european sin, but this is merely the straw that broke the camels back... for the jews of europe and russia had been angling fro a return to ancient jewish lands since the days of herzl, circa 1895. not ben-gurion, menachem begin, and yitzak shamir forty-five years later.

you will note that, ever since the emergence of islam in the late seventh century, that tolerance of "the other" in the umma and the caliphates and the modern muslim nations is conditioned on islam as the governing and overriding essence of islamic society. it was "pluralistic" only in an extremely narrow sense, in that non-muslims were not treated as equals-- especially when it came to being taxed (jizya) for being non-believers, even "people of the book." that is, accept being taxed or die. one wonders if the democratic state of modern israel harbors this peculiar sort of "pluralism." my impression is that the israeli arabs who live in israel consider themselves fortunate, whereas the jews who had lived in arabic/muslim societies would not be able to say the same.

so far as the nuclear question-- who would you rather possess nuclear weapons in the middle east, israel or any arab state you wish to mention?

...and what does any of that have to do with the indigenous population of the land having the right to self-determination?

And as for nuclear weapons, once again, NO ONE should have them. That includes Arab and non-Arab states; secular and non-secular. Nuclear weapons are a waste of money and have no real tactical purpose unless the endgame is to destroy the world. All it takes is 100 of them to kill all of humanity. That fact is offputting especially when the technology is in the hands of religious zealots who think that their **** never stinks and have VIP access to an afterlife.

well doesn't the indigenous argument simply lead back to the futile and eternally regressive "i was here first"? genetically, in fact, the jews who left 2000 years ago share a great deal of their dna with the arabs of today-- they are genetic cousins. no amount of miscegenation by migrating to europe and being kicked out of one european country after the next can change that. or do you believe the jews have their origins not in the levant but somewhere outside the place where they established the state of israel? or lets put it another way: are the people who call themselves jews today totally different from the jews of ancient judea genetically?

no argument about nuclear arms. but if i were a jew living in israel i don't know how good i'd feel about being surrounded by bad neighbors whose main desire is not to live in peace with me but rather drive me into the sea if given the opportunity. and i don't know how fair it is to equate the level of zealotry in israel with that of its arabic adversaries. religious kooks are a section of many societies in the middle east... but i think you'd have a hard time convincing yourself that the religious kooks in israel are closer to the nuclear button than their counterparts in the nations they are surrounded by.

How many Palestinian's were there prior to 1948? Israel was a wasteland with a few Jordanian nomads.

Continue to support the good Arab nations who have always outnumbered and outsized Israel by more than 10 to 1. And blame their continual military incompetence on the the US, Bush and conservative Christianity's support of evil Israel. Go back and look at what Israel had for armaments at the outset of hostilities.

You hate Bush and Christianity with a f**cking passion. Point taken.

Each of Israels neighbors at one time or another has attacked them.

You can argue all the history and the morality until we chase the tail round and round. Who was there first? What is the Mecca of the Jews? Israel. What is the Mecca for Islam? Mecca.

Bottom line is the here and now. Hammas lays down its arms there is peace. Israel lays down its arms there is no israel. Can you dispute Hamas charter? No.
GOING FORWARD what are the elements for peace? Hamas stops rockets, there is no reprisal. Pretty simple.

Israel is not leaving israel. So while you might not agree with its right to exist its just not going away no matter how much hypocrisy you and others onesided can point to.
They have had the bomb for decades, yet have not used it. You think if Hamas had one they'd us it even if it meant the fall out rained down back on them? Killing both Jews and Arabs at teh same time?
If you don't believe, your an infidel, if you do believe, Allah will have your back!

If thats your belief please state it. If so, our views are not compatable and I'd just as soon find an ending. Your a good guy "otherwise"

NardDogNation wrote:

Nalod wrote:Nard, you seem to thrive on Hypocrisy!

Each of Israels neighbors at one time or another has attacked them.

You can argue all the history and the morality until we chase the tail round and round. Who was there first? What is the Mecca of the Jews? Israel. What is the Mecca for Islam? Mecca.

Bottom line is the here and now. Hammas lays down its arms there is peace. Israel lays down its arms there is no israel. Can you dispute Hamas charter? No.
GOING FORWARD what are the elements for peace? Hamas stops rockets, there is no reprisal. Pretty simple.

Israel is not leaving israel. So while you might not agree with its right to exist its just not going away no matter how much hypocrisy you and others onesided can point to.
They have had the bomb for decades, yet have not used it. You think if Hamas had one they'd us it even if it meant the fall out rained down back on them? Killing both Jews and Arabs at teh same time?
If you don't believe, your an infidel, if you do believe, Allah will have your back!

If thats your belief please state it. If so, our views are not compatable and I'd just as soon find an ending. Your a good guy "otherwise"

You and I are never going to agree about this issue. At this point, I feel like I made my point clear enough. In the end, people are dying senselessly and we'll get pulled into another nonsensical conflict.

Nard,

The conversation was very respectful with you and Nalod. Would be nice to see more discussions like these even though you are far apart.

However, can you answer the question that he asked a number of times?

Do you have skin in the game? If yes, can you elaborate?

If you do not want to answer that then that is okay and I will respect your right to withhold ...

What is the % of Gaza's population is Jewish? Christian?