Mid east

[Longinius 1]

"Oligo-I can hardly believe you're in the dark about this

Swedish Eugenics

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/internat/pdinter/pdint178.html"

Sweden is not the only country that has done such things. They did however make the mistake of getting caught with their pants down, so to speak. What is worse, sterilizing a mentally ill person and then releasing him into society or simply keeping him locked up in an assylum so he wont mix with the rest of the lot? Atleast here they get to live out in the real world and not in a padded room...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

So whats this? youre now defending eugenics?

Longinius-"What is worse, sterilizing a mentally ill person and then releasing him into society or simply keeping him locked up in an assylum so he wont mix with the rest of the lot? Atleast here they get to live out in the real world and not in a padded room..."

You really think in the rest of the world the authorities dont let the mentally unfit out in case they mate with others???

what world of illusion are you living in?

...... ...... ...... ......

In other news -Pro Israeli Rally in London Criticised by Muslim community \/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1970000/1970028.stm

[Longinius 1]

"So whats this? youre now defending eugenics?"

No, I'm not. I am simply stating that Sweden has not been alone in such experiments. But ofcourse you are gonna twist my words anyway so I will save you the time by saying: Yes, I voted for eugenics in our last public elections. It was one of Goran Perssons finest points I might add. Especially since I myself will be weeded out since I carry bad genes (I have glasses).

"You really think in the rest of the world the authorities dont let the mentally unfit out in case they mate with others???

what world of illusion are you living in?"

Where did I say that I reffered to the rest of the world? The fact is that some nations have locked away mentally ill people for the sole purpose of them NOT mixing with the general population. Them not producing offspring is included in the purpose for this isolation.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

No hard feelings Longinius,

anyway perhaps this topic should return the middle east, it seems to have 'strayed' a little (for which i take responsibility)

[E6Hotel 0]

Oligo:

"Oh, people always whine about how 'generous' it was to offer 95% of land and the evil pals declined. Let's make a comparison: If U.S. was under occupation, would you agree to a deal where you get all the land back, EXCEPT all the roads? This would efficiently fragment your new state to a ridiculous puzzle, forcing you to eat from the hand of the occupier of the roads. The so called 95% plan offered to the pals was just bullshit, because the israelis would have retained every strategically important area."

As the great American philosopher H. Simpson once observed, “Bullfloppies.† Whether it’s “generous†or not, being offered 95% of what you claim to be asking for is a pretty good starting point.  It’s called negotiation, not capitulation.  Perhaps Israel should turn over 100% of the territory and rely on Arafat’s promise that the attacks would end?  After all, he’s been trustworthy so far.  There are two reasons not to accept the 95% as an initial offer:  (1) He’s stupid, or (2) He has an ulterior motive -- and whatever other negative qualities Arafat may embody, he hasn’t survived this long by being stupid.  Is it possible that he has another objective in mind?  But what could the noble PLO want, other than a Palestinian homeland?

"The prison analogy is the best I have heard so far. In a prison, prisoners control 95% of the 'land' but the walls (5%) are controlled by the state."

The only “prison†here is the one of their own making.  I'd also suggest that bombing the "guards," i.e. teenage girls, is not a good way to get "paroled."

"Afganistan: Yeah, yeah, it's your 'great patriotic war'. Good thing bombing some camel jockeys does it for you."

Damn us hyperaggressive barbarians, oppressing yet another group of innocents!  When will we learn that it’s better to sit on our hands and kindly ask these philosophers not to fly passenger planes into our evil buildings?  Taking the fight to them might damage their fragile self-esteem!  Oh, woe!  

I’ve got nothing against “camel jockeys,†as you refer to them.  It’s the “Boeing jockeys†that I don’t have much use for.  And as far as bombing “doing something for me,†it’s only business -- personally, I’m partial to long walks on the beach with lovely Latina lasses.

"Yugoslavia: In a democracy, politicians want to be re-elected. So if the press tells about the bad people killing the innocent people too much, then the illustrous politician has to do something to satisfy the John Smith slamming Budweiser and watching telly in a country bar."

Are you under the impression that there was a public outcry here demanding that we jump into this fray?  If so, you’ve been misinformed.

"Also, munitions have an exiry date, so you have to dump them somewhere."

PLEASE tell me you’re joking.

"But be careful to pull out before John starts to think: 'Our boyz are dying for nothing'. Bad press is always bad press."

Yes, I see your point – how incredibly selfish of us.  Obviously, it's better to die for nothing.

"Vietnam: When you are a kid, you fear the evil monster living under your bed. When you grow up, the evil monster loses his scariness, so you have to have a new one: Enter evil communism, which lives in some countries around the world. So you went to Vietnam to fight the evil monster living under your bed, oops the evil communism."

I’m not arguing whether or not we went to Korea and Vietnam to try and contain communism, in fact, that’s obvious.  Again, my point is that we were trying to help other countries without us having a direct stake in the outcomes.

Semper Fi

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ May 07 2002,03:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Yugoslavia: In a democracy, politicians want to be re-elected. So if the press tells about the bad people killing the innocent people too much, then the illustrous politician has to do something to satisfy the John Smith slamming Budweiser and watching telly in a country bar."

Are you under the impression that there was a public outcry here demanding that we jump into this fray?  If so, you’ve been misinformed.<span id='postcolor'>

There was indeed a public and most of all a diplomatic outcry. NATO was going in and US had only one choice - to lead the effort. It was very much a question of credibility and saving face. The fact is that this came very late in the war. The US efforts were at best half-assed in Bosnia. EU was much more involved (and much more incompetent, I should add). Clinton went in first when he really didn't have any choice.

The descision of going to war is not a simple one. You have political reasons (international relations), public opinions (average Joe might complain), media (reports but also brings opinions), economical reasons (military industry and so on).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Also, munitions have an exiry date, so you have to dump them somewhere."

PLEASE tell me you’re joking.<span id='postcolor'>

This is actually not as absurd as it sounds. You know for instance the recent Russian-US nuclear arsenal reduction? It has nothing, I repeat *nothing* to do with any peace efforts (as it is labeled officialy). It is about getting rid of old warheads that are very expensive to maintain.

Not that I am saying that you would start a war to get rid of surplus ammo.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I’m not arguing whether or not we went to Korea and Vietnam to try and contain communism, in fact, that’s obvious.  Again, my point is that we were trying to help other countries without us having a direct stake in the outcomes.<span id='postcolor'>

Saving the poor bastards from communism? Or forcing them to adopt a western government? Pick your choice.

[Guest]

nothing. stupid forum bug.

[E6Hotel 0]

Denoir:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US efforts were at best half-assed in Bosnia. EU was much more involved (and much more incompetent, I should add). Clinton went in first when he really didn't have any choice.

<span id='postcolor'>

It seems to me that we (U.S.) are better suited to be peacemakers than peacekeepers.  It's only my lame opinion, but I truly believe we do have a responsibility to use our capabilities to help when we can, and not just when it's convenient.  The point I'm trying to make, though, is that Clinton would have been in no danger of losing his job on the basis of whether or not we deployed.  This was not our fight, but we tried to meet our obligations.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not that I am saying that you would start a war to get rid of surplus ammo.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, that was my point.  Being a former grunt, I'm not too familiar with maintaining strategic-level weapons.  However, I seem to recall reading/hearing that rocket fuel tends to corrode missiles over time?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saving the poor bastards from communism? Or forcing them to adopt a western government? Pick your choice.

<span id='postcolor'>

I'll take door number one, thanks!  I don't think the soldiers on the wall (so to speak) at the DMZ are there to ensure that the South Koreans have a representative government.

Nice photochop w/ Wobble, BTW.  Heh.

Semper Fi

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ May 06 2002,21:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Oligo-I can hardly believe you're in the dark about this

Swedish Eugenics

http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/pi/internat/pdinter/pdint178.html"

Sweden is not the only country that has done such things. They did however make the mistake of getting caught with their pants down, so to speak. What is worse, sterilizing a mentally ill person and then releasing him into society or simply keeping him locked up in an assylum so he wont mix with the rest of the lot? Atleast here they get to live out in the real world and not in a padded room...<span id='postcolor'>

Just out of interest, I saw an intersting documentary about this happening in the southern states of the US up to the 1950s...they would get mentally ill/retarded people in under the guise of giving them a booster shot and sterilise them.

[Longinius 1]

"Just out of interest, I saw an intersting documentary about this happening in the southern states of the US up to the 1950s...they would get mentally ill/retarded people in under the guise of giving them a booster shot and sterilise them."

You must have misunderstood, only Sweden and nazi Germany did this ;P

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ May 06 2002,18:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oligo-I can hardly believe you're in the dark about this

Swedish Eugenics<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, now I understand what you're talking about. I just couldn't connect, because I don't think that the shit (sterilization of retards) done in Sweden, Finland and everywhere else also had much to do with eugenics, although the author of the article seems to think so. Anyway, it's a so-so question, whether to call it eugenics (the betterment of genetic stock by preventing the poorly gened from replicating).

I know many politicians and doctors and such have vouched for the mandatory sterilization of retards to curfew the spreading of genetic defects in the population. And maybe they went slightly too far in Sweden and in other countries, but the basic practice is pretty viable, although for a different reason than the one given above.

Raising children is a difficult matter and retards just don't cut it. Actually, there are many 'normal' people, who should not have children, if you ask me. Still, the retards retain the sexual drive of normal humans and care little about the consequences of sticking their dicks somewhere or taking it in (if they are allowed to run free that is). So if we have fertile village idiots running around, pretty soon we'll have village idiot babies.

This issue is just like the issue of marrying cousins or the death penalty (how barbaric that is?). There is no absolute right or wrong, but everyone has to decide for themselves. The state majority then dictates state policy, it's democracy man.

[Oligo 1]

"As the great American philosopher H. Simpson once observed, “Bullfloppies.†Whether it’s “generous†or not, being offered 95% of what you claim to be asking for is a pretty good starting point. It’s called negotiation, not capitulation. Perhaps Israel should turn over 100% of the territory and rely on Arafat’s promise that the attacks would end? After all, he’s been trustworthy so far. There are two reasons not to accept the 95% as an initial offer: (1) He’s stupid, or (2) He has an ulterior motive -- and whatever other negative qualities Arafat may embody, he hasn’t survived this long by being stupid. Is it possible that he has another objective in mind? But what could the noble PLO want, other than a Palestinian homeland?"

It wasn't an 'initial offer'. It was 'take it or fuck off'. Anyway, what the hell does it matter what ulterior motive PLO has? Once given the indie state of their own (a proper state), how the fuck are the bad terrorists going to get into Israel to blow shit up? Also, the international opinion will swing in favour of israelis. Furthermore, how is the PLO ever (even now) going to defeat one of the mightiest armies in the world (IDF)? And final question: How many times has this same debate been fought?

"Damn us hyperaggressive barbarians, oppressing yet another group of innocents! When will we learn that it’s better to sit on our hands and kindly ask these philosophers not to fly passenger planes into our evil buildings? Taking the fight to them might damage their fragile self-esteem! Oh, woe!"

Well, I didn't know the airliners were coming from Talebanland, I thought it was some terrorist organization (no homeland) which attacked you. I thought you attacked the taleban, because they make a good enemy (easy to defeat and nobody likes them) and they happened to have talked to the evil terrorists. But whatever, man. I'm not having THIS discussion again.

"Are you under the impression that there was a public outcry here demanding that we jump into this fray? If so, you’ve been misinformed."

Yes there was.

"PLEASE tell me you’re joking."

Maybe I was, maybe not? Isn't it funny that the country which spends most on defence, also fights the most wars? Is this a case of: We have a big army, so I guess we have to use it for something. DANG, now, who'll we attack. Come on you baddies, show yourselves...

"Yes, I see your point – how incredibly selfish of us. Obviously, it's better to die for nothing."

That's why you go somewhere, bomb shit and kill and then pull out to leave somebody else to sort out the ruins.

"I’m not arguing whether or not we went to Korea and Vietnam to try and contain communism, in fact, that’s obvious. Again, my point is that we were trying to help other countries without us having a direct stake in the outcomes."

And I'm arguing that your fear of evil communism is just ridiculous and childish. It's just another goddamn ideology, it's not a contagious disease. But I guess you have to fear something and fearing communism looks cooler than fearing that the sky is going to fall on your head.

[WKK Gimbal 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ May 07 2002,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

"Well, I didn't know the airliners were coming from Talebanland, I thought it was some terrorist organization (no homeland) which attacked you. I thought you attacked the taleban, because they make a good enemy (easy to defeat and nobody likes them) and they happened to have talked to the evil terrorists."

My humble oppinion is: I don't care if Taleban was involved. They where torturing the Afghan people and for the first time in even 100s of years, these people can finally hope to have proper peace. I think that's a pretty damn good thing!

And who really cares if the terrorists in the planes came from Taleban? I mean ... they're dead now anyway.

"That's why you go somewhere, bomb shit and kill and then pull out to leave somebody else to sort out the ruins."

I believe this is simple distraction of the public eye, and a damn effective one. When fighting an exiting war in some foreign country, it will boost patriotism and production. Most importantly, it will give less room for focusing on domestic problems (which are much harder to deal with).

[Longinius 1]

"My humble oppinion is: I don't care if Taleban was involved. They where torturing the Afghan people and for the first time in even 100s of years, these people can finally hope to have proper peace. I think that's a pretty damn good thing!"

Are you sure the general population is much better off? Have things changed that much? Do you think women arent oppressed anymore?

[Pukko 0]

Regading the great defeat of the Talibans:

I really hate the way western media alienates the Talibans as the most evil and cruel people around. Look, I dont really 'defend' them; rather trying to give the face of humans - the same goes for Palestinians (both in popular opinion viewed as Tolkiens Orcs or something):

1: The main problem we had with the Talibans was that they did not accepted western culture; all that we know of!!! Is that illegal? To think that its a sin to live a western life? Is religions illegal, and their (even if extremely interpreted) goal of salvation evil??

2: Afganistan happened to be a very poor nation, maybe to be considered a century after some western nations (partly due to exploation, unfair competition, war, different interests etc). How the fuck good were we, the allmighty and holy western nations, some 100-200 years ago? Is the fact that a nation (to big parts due to us) has fallen behind reason enough to hate them and kill the evil Talibans who have been leading them for a few years??

3: Remember that the Taliban was vastly much better than what was around before they came to power.

4: Western nations are also very oppressive - but in differance of the Talibans we dont, at least not usually, use concrete violence or 'more strict rules than anyone else'; creating the illusion that we are relatively better than the Talibans. But i can tell you - dare look under the shiny surface of western society; its far more smelling and ugly than any Talibans. Oppression of women? PLEASE! We have been the fucking masters of female opression until very recently!!!!!! And dare I say our very present disguting oppression of children?? Im writing an essay on that topic at the moment - quite abstract and hard to accept, so I will not try to explain that more here. The only differance between the western world and the Talibans is that we use SYMBOLIC violence; an abstract form of oppression that only ages of social research can destroy; we have SO much in our everyday life that we think is good and natural - but before we die of old age we will puke on many of them.........

5: The way things turn out in Afaganistan now, its very likely we will leave them to their destiny once again - and they will be back to the awful time that were before the Talibans

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ May 07 2002,06:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not that I am saying that you would start a war to get rid of surplus ammo.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, that was my point.  Being a former grunt, I'm not too familiar with maintaining strategic-level weapons.  However, I seem to recall reading/hearing that rocket fuel tends to corrode missiles over time?<span id='postcolor'>

Actually only the russians use liquid fuel for the missiles. US missiles use solid oxygen propellant. The problem is that boths sides use liquid plutonium in their warheads and after a number of years it starts to leak from differenet causes. So they have to maintain them or dismantle them. Both options are extremely expensive and there is a large industry revolving around it. On the long term dismanteling them is cheaper, creates nice press and doesn't change the overkill significantly. If you can blow up all your enemeys cities 900 times or 850 times doesn't make much difference.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saving the poor bastards from communism? Or forcing them to adopt a western government? Pick your choice.

<span id='postcolor'>

I'll take door number one, thanks!  I don't think the soldiers on the wall (so to speak) at the DMZ are there to ensure that the South Koreans have a representative government.

<span id='postcolor'>

I think that both you and I know that Korea and Vietnam was a pissing contest with the Soviets that started because of political hysteria in the world. Too bad so many Americans, Koreans and Vietnamese had to pay with their lives.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice photochop w/ Wobble, BTW.  Heh.

<span id='postcolor'>

Thank you

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WKK Gimbal @ May 07 2002,11:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"That's why you go somewhere, bomb shit and kill and then pull out to leave somebody else to sort out the ruins."

I believe this is simple distraction of the public eye, and a damn effective one. When fighting an exiting war in some foreign country, it will boost patriotism and production. Most importantly, it will give less room for focusing on domestic problems (which are much harder to deal with).<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, a "homeland war" is always a good booster for the society. And with catchy slogans like "Infinite Justice", how can it go wrong?

As for the Taliban goes, they were an arbitrary target, of course closest they could find to Bin Laden, but still much of a political decision based on the popular demand for action. I won't however shed many tears for the Taliban. They probably deserved to get their asses kicked. I think however that it is far from over (for Afganistan)- the current afgan allience won't be able hold so long.

[KingBeast 0]

Hey ho, ive been chatting with a young Muslim in lebanon and its kind of changed my perspective on things once more.

Ill post the history here, at least take the time to read it. He comes up with some pretty interesting answers...

Please note that i am intentionally being provocative at times, just to see what kind of reaction I get

(I am Rob, he is Gansta)

Rob: I disagree with the suicide bombing. It isnt right to attack innocents. But no i dont think palestinians are terrorists.

gangsta 4: well get back to history do u think its fair to kill 3000 ppl in one night like wha happened in 1986

Rob: No I dont think its fair. I also dont think its fair that the Nazis murdered thousands of jews, but that doesnt mean i dislike Germany now.

gangsta 4: well dude we r talkin about palestine n not germany

Rob: Yes but my point is you cant hold grudges. History is history. What concerns me is the present and the future. I dont care what happened 10 years ago or 20 or 30 or a hundred or a thousand, because things change. What matters is the here and now.

gangsta 4: ok dude this happened 2 weeks ago 1500 ppl in 6 days they were livin in there camp

Rob: Where?

gangsta 4: in there homes children,women,old men what do u think

gangsta 4: (genin)

Rob: ? I havent heard anything about 1500 people dead.

gangsta 4: ohhh man i dunno what news u have in ur country

Rob: Well one cant always beleive the media. Have you yourself been to Jenin? Or jsut heard numbers from a Biased news station?

gangsta 4: hahah man even sharon said that he killed 1500 n bush n the UN says that they feel sorry for the killed pplz there

gangsta 4: n btw they supposed to send an invistigation group there but israel didnt agree

gangsta 4: man u r christian i think right?

Rob: No im not. Why do you think that im a Christian?

gangsta 4: just askin

gangsta 4: so what is ur religion?

Rob: I have no religion. Im guessing you are Muslim?

gangsta 4: yes i am

gangsta 4: so u dont like to chat now bcoz im muslim????

Rob:No im just typing my reply if you will let me finish.

gangsta 4: im sorry

Rob: Okay. Im jsut curious, do you think that Hamas and other extremist organisations that support suicide bombing are doing the right thing? For example, are you sorry for the innocent Jews that die? Or do you not care?

let me make it clear that i am not on either

side. I do not condone Israeli actions, nor palestinian. I am just wondering what your views are.

gangsta 4: well im wid hamas n hezbollah do u know y?simply they want there freedom n what have been get by power u have to get it back by power man they starts killin do u want them to look at them n asks them for peace

Rob: Yes but suicide bombing civilians, what does that achieve? perhaps it would be understandable if they only bombed military targets, but what does killing civilians do? It makes Israel angry, and then Israel send tanks to the palestinians and smash down houses. Then the Palestinians get angry and send out more bombers. It goes on like this in a circle. On and on.

Rob: You know most of the world are actually more supportive of the palestinians than the Israelis? But that wont last if there are more and more suicide bombings of innocent civilians

gangsta 4: dude u have to know 1 thing u cant compare both power i mean look at israel (f16-tanks....)look at palestinians bombs well they start killing inocent n civilians n hamas should defend their souls from dead

Rob: Okay jsut answer me this question. Do you think it is good that the civilians, children, women etc are killed by suicide bombs?

gangsta 4: no i dont but as i said its fair now bcoz israel starts killing n i dont think u will accept ur child to be killed infront of ur eyes n u still askin for peace

Rob: Well indeed, but the same happens to the israelis. It happens on both sides.

gangsta 4: man im sorry but have u ever red history

gangsta 4: its known that israel start this in 1948

Rob: Yes I have. Its funny you say that, because when i talk to Israelis they always say the exact same thing

Rob: Well its hard to make either side admit that they have done wrong. From what you say, it seems that Israelis are evil demons that have always started conflict and never wanted peace. And from Israelis I hear that the Palestinians are the evil ones, who want to push them back into the sea.

gangsta 4: hahahaha they r funny n theres no logic in saying

this

gangsta 4 : they r using bombers n fighters n we r using stones n we want to push them to the sea

Rob: What would Israel ahve to do for example, to make you happy with them?

gangsta 4: they have to move there asses outta of the lands they invated in 1967

gangsta 4: they have to let the palestinian live in peace

Rob: And if they leave the occupied territories do you

think the suicide bombing wil lstop?

gangsta 4: sure it will

gangsta 4: we called this suicide bomboers

martyres

gangsta 4: bcoz they r really martyrs

Rob: If i walked into your house and shot your mother in the head, would that make me martyr?

gangsta 4: well u killed my mom them ur not dead

Rob: Okay if i shot her in the head then shot myself in the head. Would that make me a martyr? What defines a martyr?

gangsta 4:n if u were dead no ur not a martyr

gangsta 4: but as i say they r doin what israeli doin

Rob: adn that makes it just and right yes?

gangsta 4: yes

gangsta 4: do me a favor will u

Rob: sure

gangsta 4: all i want from u is to open ur mind n forget ur media look on our mideas or at least search on the net or try to read history books about palestine history n what happens wid this country n u then make a balance by ur heart

Rob: So far i have had a very open mind. What makes you think otherwise?

gangsta 4: see how many pale were killed n how many israeli were killed n u will see the big deffirence

gangsta 4 : no no im just askin u to see the truthby ur mind n wid ur heart

what ever plz take care i gtg now talk to u la8 if u want to

Rob: Allah be with you

gangsta: hey how come u know what we say

Rob: Because im not as ignorant as you might have

thought I was

gangsta 4: hahaha im sorry anyway n i didnt say that u r ignorant yalla ma salama

gangsta 4: i mean god bless u

Rob: thanks. Take care

[E6Hotel 0]

Oligo:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Once given the indie state of their own (a proper state), how the fuck are the bad terrorists going to get into Israel to blow shit up?<span id='postcolor'>

Israel has a fairly tight defensive posture right now (slight understatement), but these clowns don’t seem to have much trouble blowing civilians into bloody chunks.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I thought you attacked the taleban, because they make a good enemy (easy to defeat and nobody likes them) and they happened to have talked to the evil terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

They made themselves a good enemy.  If they had stuck with blowing up statues and cutting animals out of paintings I don’t think we’d have gotten very upset.  It was providing training grounds and safe haven for those Al-Queda rascals that slightly peeved us.  “Happened to have talked to the evil terrorists,†indeed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But whatever, man. I'm not having THIS discussion again.<span id='postcolor'>

Oh no you don’t, you don’t get away THAT easily!  Heh.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">‘"Are you under the impression that there was a public outcry here demanding that we jump into this fray? If so, you’ve been misinformed."

“Yes there was.â€

<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, but there was not.  Seriously, ask yourself:  Can you imagine the typical American demanding that we send our boys to Czech-, er, Saraj-, I mean, Yugoslovakia-land?  Please.  Even I can admit that back in ‘95-’96 the average American would think that “Bosnia-Herzegovina†was a female gymnast.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Isn't it funny that the country which spends most on defence, also fights the most wars?<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps we have overdeveloped public-service glands.  And how many of these wars have we initiated?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's why you go somewhere, bomb shit and kill and then pull out to leave somebody else to sort out the ruins.<span id='postcolor'>

Two words: Marshall Plan.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I'm arguing that your fear of evil communism is just ridiculous and childish. It's just another goddamn ideology, it's not a contagious disease. But I guess you have to fear something and fearing communism looks cooler than fearing that the sky is going to fall on your head.<span id='postcolor'>

We can look back now and brush off the threat communism posed, but it was a different world back in the 50’s and 60’s.  Pardon us if we felt threatened by a bushy-eyebrowed goon in charge of the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, who got up in front of the whole world and shoe-beat a table threatening to “bury†us.

I also suspect that without NATO, many people in Western Europe might have developed a slightly different opinion of the communist threat.

Semper Fi

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ May 07 2002,22:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And with catchy slogans like "Infinite Justice", how can it go wrong?

As for the Taliban goes, they were an arbitrary target, of course closest they could find to Bin Laden, but still much of a political decision based on the popular demand for action. I won't however shed many tears for the Taliban. They probably deserved to get their asses kicked.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, war is so much about catchy slogans and 'heroic' speeches that it never ceases to amuse me.

Anyway, I don't produce any tears for the Taleban either. What pisses me off, though, is that they got kicked for the wrong reasons (they had nothing to do with 9/11). But that's just me and my opinion.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ May 08 2002,00:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey ho, ive been chatting with a young Muslim in lebanon and its kind of changed my perspective on things once more.

Ill post the history here, at least take the time to read it. He comes up with some pretty interesting answers...<span id='postcolor'>

I wonder if he is really a muslim from Lebanon. That's the problem with Internet. But to me, he sounds exactly like the israelis I have heard from. He denies any wrongdoing by his side and calls the opposing side a bunch of demons.

What it all comes down to is that both sides are really pigheaded, as I (and others) have said many times before. Now, there's even-handedness for you...

[Oligo 1]

"Israel has a fairly tight defensive posture right now (slight understatement), but these clowns don’t seem to have much trouble blowing civilians into bloody chunks."

And I ask again, how does the suicide bomber to be get into Israel proper to blow him/herself up? Finland has about a 1000 klicks of border with Russia and a lot of it is in totally undeveloped wilderness (roadless and such, you can still find old crashed german and russian warplanes from WWII in there). Still, we manage to guard this border so well that it is next to impossible to get in undetected. So how the hell cannot Israel do that? Explain it, I want to know.

"They made themselves a good enemy. If they had stuck with blowing up statues and cutting animals out of paintings I don’t think we’d have gotten very upset. It was providing training grounds and safe haven for those Al-Queda rascals that slightly peeved us. “Happened to have talked to the evil terrorists,†indeed."

The problem is that while I admit the talebs deserved to be kicked (not for the reasons you claim, but for being oppressive bastards), your reaction to this 9/11 matter was so classically yanky: 'Find an enemy quick, so we can bomb, because talking is so confusing, because there is no clear winner.' You just love simple solutions, but simple solutions don't work in a complex world.

"Oh no you don’t, you don’t get away THAT easily! Heh."

Ok.

"Sorry, but there was not. Seriously, ask yourself: Can you imagine the typical American demanding that we send our boys to Czech-, er, Saraj-, I mean, Yugoslovakia-land? Please. Even I can admit that back in ‘95-’96 the average American would think that “Bosnia-Herzegovina†was a female gymnast."

The public outcry need not come from your citizens, but it can also come from your allies and such, which you need to suck from time to time in order to keep them in the leash.

"Perhaps we have overdeveloped public-service glands. And how many of these wars have we initiated?"

I don't know what you think, but war is never a 'public service'. And the way I see it, you have never exactly been dragged into a war, either. So technically, you initiated your involvement into them all (usually with an attack).

"Two words: Marshall Plan."

In the little wars after WWII you have been involved in, you have always gone in, dropped bombs and left others to sort out the shit. Promises don't count. Only after you have really done something, you have the right to claim that you have changed.

"We can look back now and brush off the threat communism posed, but it was a different world back in the 50’s and 60’s. Pardon us if we felt threatened by a bushy-eyebrowed goon in charge of the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, who got up in front of the whole world and shoe-beat a table threatening to “bury†us."

Yet communists were always the ones who backed away from imminent nuclear showdowns (f.ex. the Cuban missile crisis). It was never you. So who's the fanatic?

"I also suspect that without NATO, many people in Western Europe might have developed a slightly different opinion of the communist threat."

I'm from a country that did not and does not belong to NATO. I'm from a country that the Soviet Union tried to take over several times, sometimes with war. Yet, we survived the cold war. The bear did not consume us. Why is that if they were so completely evil? Could it be that they were not completely evil, but merely human, having a social experiment which failed?

[KingBeast 0]

Oligo my exact point was he sounded so similar to the Israelis i have spoken to!

For example he would say things about me needing to read history books to see that Israelis were in the wrong, then he would say our media is biased

(Damn the BBC is biased to both palestinians and Israelis! Does that make it neutral?? )

From his email, im guessing he was telling the truth. It was something@emirates.net.ae

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ May 08 2002,15:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Damn the BBC is biased to both palestinians and Israelis!<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree.

[Gaswell 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ May 07 2002,15:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I disagree.<span id='postcolor'>

From what I can read about HonestReporting.com, I can't help but question their neutrality.

In fact, the HonestReporting.com site comes off as being so blatantly biased that it's rather laughable. Don't get me wrong; I'm not implying that HonestReporting.com doesn't provide honest-to-God reporting, but I'm saying that their journalistic style comes off as bordering on propaganda. Maybe a slight adjustment would benefit their credibility?

But they're a funny read, nonetheless, in a Pravda sort of way. Guess I'm just used to another level of news reporting.