Sam Samson

82 airborne, mirror imaged.

I love what I'm doing. as a matter of fact, I would even do it, if I wouldn't get paid for it. most of the time I'm my own boss. people "work" for me. but it didn't come easy. it took me years of blood, sweat, guts and tears to get to where I am today. but I never, ever wondered if it's worth it. I found out what I wanted to do when I was 19. I pursued my goal with a single mind and reached it. I'd counsel: never fall for the line that work is only the interruption of free time. 8h of slammer every day for 45 years is way too much. build on your strengths. work in the area of your greatest strength. become either a leader or be a loyal team member. and like ole ralphwiggum said, - quite a paedagogue -, develop social skills! by temperament I'm a loner. that fact hampered me in the beginning and cost me many opportunities.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bogo @ Sep. 03 2002,19:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Sep. 03 2002,19:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so, dot. israel should undeclare statehood and just evaporate? you ARE playing devil's advocate, I hope. ...or is somebody paying you for this?<span id='postcolor'> Sam tell me one thing. You as a christian you belive that jesus said that Palestine is Israel and it's only for jews. Could plese show me anywhere in the bible where it may say something like that. Or am i complytly wrong. Â <span id='postcolor'> bogo, is this some sort of a trick question? I'm falling for it. firstly: Jesus was born after the territory had been israel for ca. 1,300 years. He didn't need to say israel is for the jews, just like americans today don't go around saying: this usa is your national home! to one another. that fact needed no affirmation back then. God promised the territory, back then called canaan, to a man named abraham, then to his son isaac, then to that man's son jacob. that was about 3800 years ago. (genesis, chapter 12, verse 1; verse 7; chapter 13, 14-18) abraham never took possession of the land. it wasn't time yet. (genesis 14, 16. the chapter also talks about the future captivity in egypt.) later God spoke to moses by the burning bush. (exodus 3, note verse 17.) (btw: a burning thornbush is a symbol for a nation under divine judgment. this bush was burning in the fire, but it didn't burn up.) moses led israel, who got exploited as slaves in egypt, out of the fire of slavery and headed towards the promised land. judgment had come to an end. now. I'm NOT willing to discuss the conquest of canaan by moses, joshua, saul, david and solomon. suffice it to say that they did it by means entirely acceptable in their day. to understand the national contract God made with israel and its consequences read deuteronomy 28. if they would keep the law he gave them, they'd be doin' good. they'd even rise to the top among nations. if they left him, they would go down the drain, even to the point of being cast out of their country. (deuteronomy 28, esp verse 63-66.) in all this, I can't get into that now, he promised them an ultimate king, a redeemer who would usher in the golden age and make israel the royalty of the world. that man is called the Messiah in the bible. well. 70 years after the crucifixion israel ceeded to exist as a nation until 1948. I already elaborated on that in an other post. in my biased view, (I readily admit to that), "jacob's time of trouble" is coming to an end. israel is coming home. and no terrorist (cartel: the self-styled combatants, not the reasonable ones) will be able to dislodge them from where they are now. I personally wish that israel would win the present argument by turning the other cheek more forcefully. (I think the same about the other side.) but I can't forget what foreign minister abba eban said at the UN when israel extended a hand after the '67 war, and got rejected: "I think this is the first war in history that the victors sued for peace, and the vanquished called for unconditional surrender." irrational arabian fanaticism. methinks, the palos never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. as long as both sides, especially the palos, don't get into the live-and-let-live-mode, which Jesus incidentally preached, there's no hope for lasting peace. did that answer your question?

to get the thread back to the highbrow heights on which I started it, (now that the two of you kissed and made up): for the record: I define nationalism as the rather narrow and irrational view that my country is better than yours, simply because I happen to have been born into it. patriotism on the other hand is pride in the honorable principles upon which my land was founded, its sensible laws, and its functioning institutions. patriotism is generally good. nationalism can be brutish. let me elaborate: the old greeks had 4 words for "love" which all emphasize a different aspect of our english word "love." agape: that is divine love as exemplified by Jesus. philia: that's friendship love or love between boys and girls. (not the same as infatuation.) storge: this is family love, like towards children, granny, the rich uncle... lastly there is eros. no. the word is not just about sex. it actually refers to the strange and undefinable attraction we feel, like residuum said, for the home team, our country, our crowd or for a specific member of the other sex. when you hear the hymn of your country, something just stirs. when you hear the hymn of kiribati you just think: funny music. when you see just any ole woman walk down the street, nothing stirs. when you see HER it's gimmegimmegimme. (YAYEESSS SUH! eros is not at all highfalutin like agape. eros is rooted in bias and personal predilection. unchecked eros in a country can easily develop into brute, discriminate nationalism. it needs tempering by a good set of universally valid moral principles. it needs taming by being tied to a high standard, something like a faith that doesn't side in with the baser instincts of human nature. I guess patriotism can give you valid reasons for why you think your country is great. nationalism can't.

so, dot. israel should undeclare statehood and just evaporate? you ARE playing devil's advocate, I hope. ...or is somebody paying you for this?

6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Sep. 03 2002,006)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Sep. 02 2002,21:o2)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">at midnight of may 15, 1948, israel declared its statehood. 11 minutes later president truman acknowledged the new nation. on may 17 the soviets did too<span id='postcolor'> What was the demographic breakdown of Israel at its birth - what percentage Jew vs Arab? Was Israel's government representative of its population? Â Was there even one Arab member? Did any of the super powers care whether this new nation was a real democracy or not? Â Do you?<span id='postcolor'> I'd say that the 325,000 arabs integrated rather well into the new state and became loyal citizens, for what I read. even the inhabitants of east jerusalem came to terms rather fast after the 6 day war. they are free to travel all over israel. after the war they quickly found out that there was business opportunity in the west which was unheard of before '67. for crying out loud, bernadotte, don't whine. your arguments run thinner with every post. by now you must be at playing devil's advocate... do you start to see the light?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Sep. 02 2002,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sam, I don't know if you are capable of undertanding this right now; it is important to learn from history, but to settle this conflict you can't expect Isralites to get all the land back that they had centuries ago. Â If everyone thought this way we would have Isreael-Palestine conflicts all over the world! Â Copy? Do you see Germany asking for it's land, or Poland from Soviets? Â This leads to Isreal like conflits... some idea that you MUST by ALL means get what YOU WANT! I know very well this conflict will not end, like I said a while back here, sometimes I figure maybe it's possible, but people like Sam and DOR, Avon.... there will be no peace yet.<span id='postcolor'> yeah, we're real warmongers! thanks for you precise analysis. frankly my friend, as in the case of germany, poland, austria, etc, those nations are not surrounded by hostile nations hosting assorted terrorist groups targeting them. right now germany "buys" europe by being the biggest contributor to the common eu-purse. better tactics than the unpopular bullets of the 40s. neither are they britain with its ira-problem nor are they spain with its eta-problem. should britain withdraw from northern ireland? should spain grant independence to a basque state? should the civilized world really grant terrorism its wishes, thereby encouraging it? said powers' survival as nations is not at stake. gaining their former territories, which are awfully run down right now, might pose to be quite an economic challenge for which they are not prepared. but you might want to recall how germany reacted when it felt like it was surrounded by enemies in the 30s. an event called ww2 was the ultimate outcome of their paranoia. israel on the other hand is the only democracy in the region. (imagine a democratic germany surrounded by nazi-nations in the 30s. and guys like you (and the rest of the cartel here) rooting for ... something else than democracy! how can you live with that?

you guys are going in circles! quit it! there's no gain in clobbering one another with the same tired arguments over and over. study history, start with josephus: when jerusalem fell in 70 a.d., crushed by the 10th legion under vespasian, later titus, there were no more trees for crosses. they got all used up on the citizens. the jewish people got scattered into the four winds. there was no strong jewish presence for a long time. the romans called judaea, galilee, samaria, etc, "palestine", "land of the philistines", in disdain of the jews. rome ruled until in 637 the land fell to the islamic sword. then the seljuk turks took it, then the abbassides and fatimids, then the crusaders fought and slaughtered their way into jerusalem and held it for 87 years, then saladin, the best ruler in all the history of islam. then came the mamelukes of egypt until 1517 when the ottoman turks held it until 1917, when gen. allenby conquered jerusalem. (allenby incidentally means "man of God" in turkish. they fled w/o big fight. allenby entered jerusalem humbly on foot, not on a steed, with his helmet in hand.) neither arabs nor jews controlled the country for most of the last 2000 years. on nov 2, 1917, lord balfour wrote to baron rothschild: "his majesty's government views with favor the establishment of a national home for the jewish people." this declaration became the key political document for the jewish claim to palestine, formerly known as israel. at first the arabs were sympathetic to this idea. chaim weizmann even signed a pact with emir faisal, who ruled what is now saudi arabia, to "encourage and stimulate the immigration of jews into palestine on a large scale + as quickly as possible..." however, soon arab leaders felt in the promise of the land to the jews a frustration of their own ambitions. tribes and fiefdoms turned hostile. ---- I'll skip lots now, ww1 and for instance how imperial undersecretary Winston Churchill redesigned the mid eastern map "in one afternoon." ---- the one man who probably did most to sour relations between the two peoples was the mufti (spiritual leader) of jerusalem during the 30s and 40s. this guy even defected to berlin during ww2, being sympathetic towards hitler's schemes. then violent clashes started to happen periodically, scaring the british. fearing the arabian ill will britain issued a white paper repudiating to a large degree the promises of the balfour declaration. (all israel as homeland of the jews.) that angered the jews to no end and they resorted to violence to drive the british out. britain finally resigned the mandate on may 15, 1948. at midnight of may 15, 1948, israel declared its statehood. 11 minutes later president truman acknowledged the new nation. on may 17 the soviets did too (mostly to diminish british influence in the mid east.) a few hours after declaring statehood a large arabian legion attacked. after 4 weeks of jewish victories a truce was effected, which egypt refused to comply with. israel started operation 10 plagues and drove egypt into the desert. israel remained established as a nation. (in my view God helped them.) the saddest result of this arab-provoked war was the 700,000 refugees, who were promised speedy victory by their brothers. after the jews would be destroyed they could return to their homes and possess the land, they were told. that was 54 years ago. these refugees have received almost no help from their rich arabian brothers. they are kept in those horrid camps as a constant reminder of israeli hardheartedness. only when they become suicide bombers they finally receive money from some largehearted arab leader like hussein to aid their families. there are daily affirmations among arabs to destroy israel. levelheaded arabian voices are all but drowned out, even though they exist and have always existed. the overheated rhethoric inevitably lead to hostile actions, border provocations, katyusha rockets, snipe jobs, etc, no matter what israel does. the wars of '56, '67, '73, gulf war and the present intifada lead to the conclusion that israel can't just withdraw from all territories without seriously jeopardizing its very existence. i.e. to surrender the golan would be like handing israel over to syria, a rather fascoid, untransparent nation that sheltered wanted nazis until recently. so, what can be done? I say: buy the territories for top dollar, help the refugees to resettle in an arab land. if need be create an infrastructure for them like germany did for the soviet soldiers resettling into russia from former communist germany. encourage a democratic change of leadership to get rid of arafat. those people will then have a future. and after israel incorporates these ancient lands into its borders, with un-approval, it will be satisfied as far as territory is concerned and it will be safe. let's petition the un!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bogo @ Sep. 01 2002,23:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ME HAS ALIEN POWERS. BE GONE SUPERSAM Â Â <span id='postcolor'> just bear in mind that guys like me are a lot like obi wan kenobi: whenever you think we're finally dead we come back more powerful. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did ya see Sam's new avatar? /Bernadotte hides behind Paratrooper and Bogo. <span id='postcolor'> in real life my face is not that pixely.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Espectro @ Sep. 02 2002,12:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Sep. 01 2002,229)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">seems like a lot of folks are out knocking the US for patriotism these days. maybe they mistake patriotism for nationalism. I think patriotism and nationalism are not the same. nationalism is just plain foolish. why would any nation in and of itself be better than any other one? the blood of all runs but red. a canadian is not better than a yank who happens to have been born across the border. and a frenchman is not by some mysterial act of nature intrinsically better than a german. what makes any nation great is the rule of sensible law, rulers installed by the people that have their eye on the benefit of the people. (that have at least their mind on what they think that is.) what makes a nation great are the principles it was founded on and the institutions founded upon those principles. ultimately that seems to have a lot to do with religion, since your principles spring from your faith, no matter what that would be in particular. (even the credo in science would belong under that heading, as it formulates principles too). so, is the US wrong to be patriots of their nation? are their institutions and founding principles moronic enough to warrant perpetual knocking? Is patriotic synonymous with idiotic? whaddayathink? <span id='postcolor'> You are wrong, nationalism have nothing to do with race and color. It has to do with culture and laws.<span id='postcolor'> I see. would you please point out the lines where I talk about race and color? and how would you define patriotism? maybe you want to reread my post. or are you just suffering from a case of bad temper today?

I think bogo, paratrooper,et al in their assessment of the current situation ignore or forget conveniently how the 6 day war came about and what happened after it. judge that fruit by its tree. or will we see you shift the blame again? (that said my remarks should not construe that I agree with every last thing israel does today.) (I hate political correctness. it makes men into hypocrites.) I say paradise won't break out in palestine when israel withdraws from the zones. learn from the past. its not in those people. it can't come out. another solution will be neccessary. e6hotel: you got some good (and even well conveyed) points.

da duke's out whistlin' the dixie! 'preciate the moosic. ***goes off whistlin' "mmmdy doodle went to town, riding on a pony, stuck a feather in his hat ..."***

ouch. that hurt. now I'm a racist AND a bigot. or did you just define yourself and I misunderstood again? well, whatever. I'll get over it. turks and greeks exchanged populations. millions, btw. it worked. I'm not for forced deportation. let's just stick with my facts: call it integration. for arabs to move around the corner is like for oklahomans to move into texas. it's their culture. like turks moving from greece to turkey and vice versa. so don't whine at me here. be creative in your thinking for once. I say: buy their land. give them fair money and help them move. the west bank and gaza are not exactly prime real estate anyway. relocate them in jordan, lebanon or syria, arabia proper or egypt or anywhere else they please. (iraq, iran,...) buy the land for them with international aid money. it is there anyway. a great many palos are living there already. carry them on flowery beds of ease if you please. (they won't go.) you still owe me the explanation for what you want to do with the jews. should they just pack up and move to some remote location in idaho? or saskatchewan? or alaska? preferrably to somewhere behind the brooks range to go deep freeze? peace is unachievable with this current set of palestinian leaders. (read avon's early posts.) and you obviously have a real grasp at what all good people in america really think and want. well. flying passenger planes into skyscrapers doesn't exactly endear arabs in general and wahabi moslems in particular to ordinary americans. I pity you. trying so hard to be right. being so frustrated in spite of it. its your melancholy personality striving for perfection. I understand. I had to overcome that myself at some point. one thing you got right, though: a lot of times the rant IS my favorite mode of expression. YES! little humorless cynic. okay. I'll be all alone and in seclusion the next few days and won't be able to respond to your scribbles. so let me be frank for a moment. I'll let down my guard. love me for it if you please. here I go: I want israel for the jews for faith reasons. in the same vein I want jerusalem as the undivided capital of the jewish state without palestinian participation. tough. I know. but I know exactly why I want it that way. you would misconstrue my motives if you would argue racism or hate. you just don't understand. I don't even blame you. like I said: they're reasons of faith which I don't have time to expound just now. (you might not care or understand anyway.) guess I'm a "christian fundamentalist" like the duke (bless his heart) and half of america: I actually believe that God became man in Jesus. and that his blood was shed for the forgiveness of my sins. (it is for you too.) I don't have to go earn heaven. since I accepted Jesus as my personal saviour God just gives it to me. and blesses me in this life. I love him for it. and I love those steeples on every corner of america too. no dead state church, but thriving small congregations. mega churches in the big cities with 10.000 and more worshipers on sunday. stadiums with up to 60.000 men in attendance, all extolling God. it's awesome. you don't know what you're missing. but let me finish: in my view, - through the faith prism -, the underlying problem with the jews is that they still reject Jesus as their Messiah. as long as this persists, there will be no peace for them no matter where they are. politics or politicians will never be the saviour. Jesus is. politics will never be able to tackle spiritual problems, which are the true root cause of these outward symptoms of social unrest. this is why the president or any other leader will not be able to solve that crisis. it will persist. more general: the problem of mankind is not bad politics, but sin. get rid of the sin nature in man and the problems will work themselves out. only Jesus can accomplish that. that's why he came here in the first place. he redeems a person when he or she consciously invites him into his life. an exchange of innermost natures happens. the human minus turns into a divine plus. (um. the cross sorta looks like a plus, don't it?) Jesus calls this becoming born again. (John 3.) you're from then on a child of God. nobody can understand this who didn't experience it for himself. it is real, though. go ask the old dukearay. I don't know him from adam, at all. never met him. but I know exactly how he feels about God. and he knows how I do. there are hundreds of millions out there like us. in all shapes. we's harmless as doves. compared to some o'you doosies here. but I'll quit before I start preaching. bye now. gotta go. see you in a few days.

on second thought..., I'm not gonna post it. it's too grisly. it shows an orthodox paramedic cradling the grey corpse of a pretty messed up girl whose neck is obviously broken. the shot was taken right after a terror attack. would accomplish nothing for me to put this on here. just scare you. and then you can't sleep at night. and I'm at fault. (I put a high price on a pure conscience.)

bogo, then you know that it wasn't the israelis sabotaging oslo. (ring around the rosie, pocket full of posies... here we go again.) short word to the dude with the raging hormones who obviously looked at too much internet porn and got reprimanded by denoir: the last german dictatorship went down all but 12 years ago. spain was fascist until mid-70s. the soviet union imploded 11 years ago. the czechs, hosts to this forum, and all other former satellite states are still suffering from the aftershocks of that dictatorship. (in my eyes bis' resistance-storyline reflects a working out of that recent past.) ukraine, moldova, etc: they are still run by dictators. and in berlin city the communists are in charge again! western europe has been free for roughly 57 years. done fairly well since then. nevertheless: france is in its fifth republic. germany changed systems five times in 80 years. I applaud the uk for its longterm stability and predictability. so, next time you feel like insulting me: just go to the port-a-pot and jack off yourself, will yer? (at least you admitted you didn't switch your brain on before you posted.) p.s.: the picture of that chassidim cradling his baby is actually awesome. however, I don't see what is so funny about it. that sense of humor eludes me completely. I have a chassidim picture too. let me go look for it...

(ummm... the gang must somehow've found out that my grampa was a fearsome, blue-eyed, goosestepping blond german waffen-ss soldier with a chaplin moustachio... hey, no! actually he was a french ss volunteer! hold it, wait. got this all wrong. he was a ukrainian ss camp guard. no, no. he was, he was european for sure, but..., oh well. I forget. conveniently.) its my genes, guys! its not me! oh, yes! thanks again for telling me the truth about myself. I see: I'm a rabid american jew from nazisrael, begging to deep-six mild, dovelike arabs and greedily grab their land, scratching the back of my hand with gnarled fingers, grinning shylock-like under my big plump nose, eyes half closed, lighting up when I hear the anguished sounds of a ravished arab maiden. gimme a break. I'm not writing this in 1941. I'm not in berlin. I know I want to prevent further bloodshed. I don't know what you want. passively extend the holocaust via the arabian street? I just can't believe that. remember: all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. or to squabble forever like they in the 30s. just tell me: what is it that you want? toss me YOUR solution to this mess! so far you are utterly without imagination, seems like. merely regurgitating the problems. pretty non-progressive. the problem won't go away by you piously carping about it, (humanist piety, that is), or flinging witless zingers at me. anyway. thx to dottie for the links. 'preciate it. must have been quite a bit of work to find all that (quite leftish) stuff. (chomsky, nyt, peoples press palestine book project, etc.) what do you expect from them? the picture is quite revealing. it documents once again your skewered view of the problem: "I'm an AMERICAN jew..." you got it all backwards and wrong. israel is supposed to be home to all jews worldwide, not just decadent american adventure seekers from brooklyn, as you try to imply. the holocaust didn't happen in the US. the teeming masses of jewish rejects came from the slaughterhouse of europe. they founded  israel. if you are a yank, I bet you are a card-carrying member of the aclu. get a life. I found some links too. don't reflect all of my views, but close enough: www.factsandlogic.org, also good is www.jewishworldreview.com. they have great columnists in general: cal thomas, john leo, ... and so here I sit, still waiting for a decent proposal by one of you. give me your version of a peace plan. (then let's check if there was one like that yet and why it failed.) so far all you've done is yelp and snap at my heels, yer one-eyed bandits. (imagine how boring this thread would have been for the last day or two without me! you would have had no outlet for your righteous indignation! you should pay me for this! Â

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Posted: Aug. 26 2002,23:18 Last time i cheked what racism was it wasen't appointed to a ceartyn color or race or religion. You don't have to be white to be a racist. Any arab or a moslem who will here those words will think that you are a racist: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> can never be surrendered again to infidels. <span id='postcolor'> <span id='postcolor'> BOGO! READ MY POST! that's not my opinion expressed in that quote but the one the arabs have about israel! let me spell it out for yer: the islamic faith partitions the world into dar-el-harb (house of war: all lands that are not islamic yet) and dar-el-islam (the islamic house of peace)! islam says: a formerly moslem country can never be surrendered to infidels (people NOT of the islamic persuasion). (just go ask the imam at your local mosque.) the moslems want israel back for religious reasons, no matter what about the palestinians. even if there weren't any palestinians they would never make peace with israel (except for employing tikwa (the advantageous lie).) and don't ignore the balfour declaration. (my goodness.) what I'm doing is propositioning a radical answer to a tremendously complex problem. nothing ideal, but it worked in the past for others. fact is: arabs have somewhere else to go, jews don't. show a little mercy for the race, will you. also: I'm decidedly not in love with mr sharon, a noisy backbencher for most of his political career. now he gives it his shot. well. but I outright despise yassir (no sir) arafat, that arch-terrorist. remember the olympics of '72 munic, germany? remember the italian cruise ship achille lauro? remember the airline hijackings? mogadishu '77? ... he just doesn't cut it at all. too many slaughtered innocents, too much blood on the man's hands. as long as well-meaning folks like you and yer sympathetic government are patting his back, this fellow will keep playing his cynical game. he'll play the europeans against the us, jordan against syria, egypt against the saudis, everybody against israel, etc. the only language this man understands is overbearing, brute force. and sharon knows it. decidedly not pretty. God in heaven, I agree. and no. I don't accept blame for the us because it has to make-do with strange, uncalculable fellows in centcom's area. I'm sure the president would rather deal with jeffersonian democrats the world over. but they just aren't there. I'm sure there are very many points on which we agree in this. just get over your self-righteousness. be pragmatic. the world isn't perfect. there will be no morally impeccable solution, like you would like to have. my perfectionist europals. if you know a perfect solution to the dilemma, let me know it. I will call george right away!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Posted: Aug. 25 2002,23:51 by Bogo  This was very inacurate and racist remarks you made there Sam Samson.<span id='postcolor'> one last word: this one guy in his post above griping about me using the term infidel: you misunderstood. probably my fault for using unclear language (or expecting too much intellectual dexterity). what I said was: the arabs as MOSLEMS will never accept the right of israel to exist, because israel was once under islamic rule. and a country which was once islamic can never allowed to become occupied by infidels, (in this case they mean the jews), again. so. its not me calling anybody infidel, its the moslems. that's what I meant. but I maintain indeed that a great many palestinians of today are not exactly high on fidelity. c'mon bernadottie, give me your best shot now. Â

also don't tell me I don't know anything about palestinians: I lived together with one when I lived in tulsa. that guy was a christian though. maybe that's why we got along so well. I find your reasoning rather shallow. after all, I proposed a solution, while all you did was snipe at me for it. sorry. but realizing you are probably media-conditioned europeans, barely out of dictatorship yourself, I take you with a grain of salt in your stand against the jews. deep down in your heart you're better than that.

killers among us? beware. good thing you can't get there. my home is guarded by a SW .44 mag. I felled little trees with it. but let me reply a little, yer hollow points: I'm a racist!? argh! umm. now I know why my wife calls me hun! not as in "honey", but as in "attila the hun"! shucks. the things you learn about yourself by posting here... come to think of it! on the weekend I played chess against a friend of mine. he's black. and I beat him every time! yep. guess that's further proof that I'm hopelessly white supremacist. maybe I suffer from amnesia. let me check in my file cabinet. maybe I'm even ku klux grand wizzard and forgot about it! ...you know, in winter I wear something like a white robe to bed sometimes. musta misplaced the hood somewhere. yeah! now I remember! lent it to a palestinian streetfighter. well no... I'm supposed to be anti-palestinian here. that must be a conjured up memory... for crying out loud, guys! get a grip. not everybody is a racist who acknowledges israel's right to exist. where else do they have to go? when will you be satisfied? when the last jew surrenders and jumps into the sea? no I wasn't there in 1900. but I quoted somebody who was actually at the scene then, (the scorned mr twain). who do you have as a witness? the few - mostly nomadic - arabs there were subsistence shepherds then, like arabs traditionally are. kapish? you don't want to tell me that the farming kibbuz is an arab invention, do you? not with a straight face you don't. when the desert started to bloom under the israeli hand, arabs came also to work there, like they still do. these migrant field hands were encouraged to leave by their arab brethren when they were poised to attack israel in '48. now their descendants want back. after living for 50 years in these horrid camps while their stinkin' filthy rich brothers looked on and did nothing to alleviate their immense pain. (gasp.)

since you went through the trouble to spell assassinate for us. pls bear in mind that the original assassini, the ones from which this word is derived, were a radical islamic sect. fact is also: palestine under the osman empire (until 1919) was pretty much unclaimed land. and even after it became british nobody gave a rip about it. mark twain visited the land in the 1800s and then wrote about its barren, desertlike, arrid hostility towards life. no steaming, lush green arab homeland there. the arabs came after the jews tilled the soil and something came up. and they left in '48 because their arab brothers told them to. otherwise they would be stuck in the war they were prepared to wage against israel in the case it dared to proclaim itself. well, they did make war and lost it. now their descendants want back. is arabia that small that it needs that tiny strip of israeli land? reassigning populations can be done, you know. the german sudetenlanders ( 3.mil) were displaced by czechia after ww2 and integrated into western germany w/o problems. the turks and the greeks exchanged populations in the 20th century. they still don't love one another, but they manage to get along. it would work with the palestinians too, (integrating them into greater arabia), but they won't do it. mainly because of religious reasons. (a land that has at one time been ruled by moslems, as israel has, can never be surrendered again to infidels.) my sympathies clearly lie with israel.

we can't allow a second "munich" like the one we had in the 30s, when neville chamberlain mumbled about "peace in our time" after his conference with mr hitler. that appeasement stuff don't work. if the us has credible info about iraq's mass destructive capabilities, may they strike fast and with impunity so other two bit hitler-wannabes may learn to henceforth take on another dictator in their area and not (the) us. but i don't think we should go nuclear. that would just further endear us to the rest of the world, which didn't learn anything from the 30s.

well. in my neighborhood the gas prices vary daily btw 1.25 and $ 1.4x for premium. don't ask me why. but the main problem is: islam is never just a religion, but always politics also. just a reminder: all mohammed did in the last two years of his life was make war. his successors did it for more than 100 years constantly. the first caliphs (successors) killed one another, until the third one finally had the muse to sit down and gather the koran from various oral sources. (just for contrast: imagine peter trying to kill john and james for political control over the early church. unthinkable.) their problem is that hostile, loveless religion. btw, @col kurtz: the iranians are no arabs. an arab would never attack another arab brother. the saudis made war against hussein only because he first attacked kuweit. they faltered as soon as it was expedient.

CHESS! the mother of all strategic battle games. (must admit that the graphics in ofp are way better.)

how come those ridiculously, plutocratically rich petrol arabs yonder the sinai don't help their downtrodden brothers, living in horrible, abjectly poor conditions? can it be for cynical political reasons? they could help. why don't they? to keep the pressure up against israel. the palestinians should just integrate themselves into the gigantic arab lands around israel. that won't happen, because the arabs leaders themselves don't like arafat. he tricked and wronged every one of them at some time. just remember jordan in the seventies, (if you can.)