Thread: ABC's John Miller Interviews Osama Bin Laden (1998)

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

In the UN-likely event that Bin Ladens demands could be met by the USA Gov atleast the demans of substance then im sure he would comprise on the issues regarding lifestyle. In onothe thread i was just reading a bit ago there was this koran thing that said "strike terror into the heart of the non beleivers lest they incline towards peace" or something like that... Think about it for a sec man!

The Koran also says to kill nonbelievers for being nonbelievers, and Bin Laden's letter says what it says.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Ya well anyone can support "terrorists". Your country has a history of supporting Guerrillas in Latin America, Guerrilllas like FARC which some countries consider terrorist organazations. During the Lebanese Civil War Israel armed and supported Maronite "terrorists" to help destabilize the country further and inrease the sectarian divide. For all you know any country could have the possibility of arming "terrorists". Thats not a good enough excuse.

The Hussein regime was an enemy terrorist organization that did not merely use mercenaries for things as important as defeating the Soviet Union. They provided financial incentives specifically for suicide bombings against Israel, funded terrorist groups specifically for their terrorist purposes, and used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds. That is how they did things, and they saw us as their bitter enemy. You can't tell me that that was not a big problem.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

LOL you guys didn't give a shit about the Kurds and you still don't. Excuses excuses. America support rogue countries when its conventient and you betray them when its conventient.

Do we need to talk about the word "support" again? You need to know the difference between having an alliance against a common enemy and actually supporting the evil deeds of a government. You talk about them as if they are the same thing. Also, even if you want to tell yourself we never cared about the Kurds, you are talking off point. The Hussein regime's terrorist attack against them showed what kind of government the Hussein regime was. They were a threat. That is the point, and you cannot realistically deny it.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

How did the Problem with Iran come about? Wester Imperialism. I know its a dum word but its true. America and Britian and Israel even supported the tyrant known as the Shah. Britain (and if im not wrong america to some extent)overthrew the democracticly elected government of Iran. Why? Because he nationalized his countries petrol and gas resources and took the fate of the country away from a Britisih Company called British Petroleum know called "Beyound Petroleum" I'm sure you've seen their commercials.

Anyway the Iranian leader nationalized the resources and Britaina and america to some extent i beleive overthrew hima nd installed the pro western tryant known as the Shah. Democeracy to you people is irrevelant, when you ally with a country its only a marriage of convenience.

The leader we overthrew had Soviet ties, and we had to win the Cold War. So what you are saying was a dis on democracy was actually part of the ultimate act of preserving democracy. Does the Soviet Union rule Canada? No. We ended their existence, and taking out their partners in Soviet expansion was part of the plan, which was a plan that worked.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Hugo Chavez natioalized Venezuela's Oil from a foreign giant, he almost got thrown out of power from a coup d'etat which is beleived to have had Western backers. Un like the prime minister of Iran who nationalized the gas fields he stayed in power and perservered and now he has come to bite america in the asss. Its not about democracy point is. Its just a marriage of convenience the people are irrevelant. I have onother example of Guatmela too but i need to get a referesher on those events.

What does Chavez have to do with democracy, and what did the U.S. government itself have to do with a coup against him?

The United States has done more to create and preserve world democracy than any other country in history. Your freedom to say what you say on the internet is a result of that.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

LOL. C'mon wheres the evidence? If there were Weapons of Mass destruction and Yellow cake Uranium like bush weas talking about before the war then there would surely be some sort of evidence to support it, maybe a whistelblower mabe some documents and maybe better yet some actual WMDS!!!!! NO nada. Its widely accepted that their were no weapons of mass Desctructions. If you listen closely to bush you will notice him and his Aides are no longer using the WMD'S excuse for invading Iraq. Remember when he invaded Iraq in that video? "We are invading Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein from his WMD's" or something like that. If there was any substence to that bull shit from Bush then he would be still be talking about WMD's and how he nearly avoided WW3 or something. But no bush is using different excuses, he retired the WMD excuse because it has been descridited. There is no ample evidence to suggest his claims at all. Now bush talks about Freeing the iraqies from the tryant Hussein. See? He is a politican all excuses. You cant trust em.

Our CIA, Senate, and previous presidential administration. Five other goverments. Officials at the U.N. Hussein's noncompliance with inspections. You call that non-evidence? The fact that we have not found the weapons is not proof that they never existed. We acted responsibly on information that came from many sources. Did Usama Bin Laden ever exist? Please give me his address.

Bush does not talk about WMD's now because they have not been found and the Hussein regime no longer exists.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Dude when Iraq had its Nuclear Program it was supported by various Western Governments like Norway, Italy and France they all provided Iraq with the cababilities and Materials to develop a Nuclear Program. It's not like Iraq was being hush hush about it. At the time I think Iraq was on good terms with the USA and that they may have had purchased some material support from the USA i think. If the west was all afraid of Iraq then they would never have let iraq buy the capabilities. There's no proof that Iraq was trying to make Nukes either. Israel was not wondering if Iraq is trying to get Nuclear Power or trying to get Nuclear Weapons. They did not and do not want an Arab country to have even Nuclear Facilities because it could come back and bite them in the Ass some day not neccesarily that Iraq was at the time developing nuclear potential for the purpouse of Weapons.. It was widely assumed Iraq was doing it for energy purpouses though. On the other hand we have Israel my friend. Israe, israel... Your country actually tried to stop israel from developing Nuclear Facillities in the 50's i beleive but Israel was able to get some materials from Britain i think. Why was your country more worried about israels nuclear program at the time of its contruction then Iraq's which they had no qualms about at the time?

The Hussein regime became much more of a threat when they became our enemy. Think really hard about why that may be.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I consider the Bulk of israels population to be colonists. Not necesarily every jew but i do consider the European population of Israel to be colonists(not the arab jews). Its plain as day they are colonizing the West Bank they are demolishing homes to make way for encroashing jewish settlements. Even settlers are going out now and creating "outposts" which israel itself considers illegal but they are only half heartidly stoping those. Anyway all i want is the deportation of all Ashekanazies and people of European Descent from Palestine . I know its ethnic cleaning but an eye for an eye right??

ONCE AGAIN.... Every person is an individual. You are not getting revenge on the 1948 settlers by killing today's five year olds. I don't know how to shake you out of your view that they are all one superorganism with a single mind. Individuality... Explore the concept. Now please answer my question... Why do children who were born in Israel deserve to die? You have obsessively dodged that question.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

And im telling you that Israel was a country founded on land with majority arabs. they created a jewish state on land they knew had arabs as the majority then the very nature of this state is founded on ethnic cleaning and racial and relegious discrimination of Arabs. Israel needs to be disssolved and have a "fresh start". Maybe a bi national state maybe an arab only state.

Fuck all prejudiced bullshit forms of government that favor one religion over others. It is not legitimate government. Democracy of equality is the only way. I know that Israel is not quite all the way there. They need to be. I wish you would get it out of your head that all Israeli Jews are a single organism and that all Arabs in the region are a single organsim. They are not. You sound just like KKK members talking about black and white people. Individuality is never acknowledged by the KKK. They talk about the white race as if it is one person and the black race as if it is one person. That is the type of thinking you are showing.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The children who were born in israel were conceived and sired by Usurpers they were born on ill goten land they themselves are Usurpers. I dont care where they were born, they are all Usurpers and must be expelled to their true homelands. Thats my opinion only. Equality can only be achieved once the concept of a jewish state is finished and that the israelies realise they are Usurpers and must recognize their claim to the land is only secondary and that arabs hold the true right to the land.

I don't believe in a "Jewish" state either, but what you want to do is just as unjust as what happened to Arabs in Israel in 1948. I can assure you that the conflict will continue as long as enough people think in the group terms you think in. You have no idea how much I wish all Muslims and Jews in the Middle East could understand that. The situation reminds me of a dog chasing its tail. It is so fucking absurd.

Now tell me why you think Israeli children deserve to die.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Yes you are right. (I think)More then 60% of Israels jewish population only dates back to after 1948(the formation of Israel) For example in the 1990's Israel took in atleast a million Soviet Immigrants. And Israels Sefardie and Mizrahi population basically came after 1948 (look up jewish exodus from arab lands). And today the Sefardie and Mizrahi community form about 30-40% of Israels jewish population. Yes, they are nation of Colonists. The south African colonists couldn't ignore the much larger black population and even though the israelies have been able to create an artifical Jewish majority for a time right now the population of arabs and jews is basically on par the only difference is most of the Arabs are kept in open air prisons. Almost 2 million Arabs living in Squalor in Gaza. and 3-4 million Arabs in the West Bank who have no freedom of movement or self- determination in their own lands because of the occupation and the illegal settlers.

60%? I seriously doubt it. 1948 was 60 years ago.

What exactly do you have against my idea of a democracy where all religions are treated equally? Why are you so stuck in the one religion versus another idea? Don't you want that shit to end?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Umm no im not trying to hide anything. I just don't want to give away personal info on why i think the way i do. I think the Arab ppl are in the right so i suppor the ppl who i think are right. thats all there's to it.

Then keep hiding it.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Hezbollah came to be in Southern Lebanon, Interestingly enough the thing that Hezbollah grew from was Occupation. The israeli ocupation of Southern Lebanon is what gave rise to the organazation we call Hezbollah. Ever since Hezbollah kept on fighting Israel, they are the only entity in the Middle East that has been able to kick israel off arab land without a peace treaty. (war of '06). One mans terrorist is onothers freedom fighter.

One man's freedom fighter is another man's prejudiced moron who needs to come out of the stone age and learn about democracy and equality.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

So a BI-National state is what you're getting at?

No, I am talking about a secular government where all innocent individuals are equal. Government and religion do not mix.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Hussein regime was an enemy terrorist organization that did not merely use mercenaries for things as important as defeating the Soviet Union. They provided financial incentives specifically for suicide bombings against Israel, funded terrorist groups specifically for their terrorist purposes, and used WMD's in a terrorist attack on the Kurds. That is how they did things, and they saw us as their bitter enemy. You can't tell me that that was not a big problem.

Ya the last time they used WMD's on the Kurds? In the late 80's right? If that was a big deal for the USA you guys would have used you're good diplomatic relations with Iraq at the time to alleviate the situation for the kurds.

The truth is Iraq was not an imminent threat to anyone at all there was no imminent catastrophy at that point in time. Nothing sitting down and talking couldn't have fixed with time. The US approach was just ended up destabilizing a whole country and costing loads of unnecesary Iraqi and American casulaties. Furthermore I beleive the UN said their would be consequences for non compliance(which did happend) and that those consequences would be determined by the UN not by any country but by the UN!.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Do we need to talk about the word "support" again? You need to know the difference between having an alliance against a common enemy and actually supporting the evil deeds of a government. You talk about them as if they are the same thing. Also, even if you want to tell yourself we never cared about the Kurds, you are talking off point. The Hussein regime's terrorist attack against them showed what kind of government the Hussein regime was. They were a threat. That is the point, and you cannot realistically deny it.

A threat but not by any means an imminent threat as in they were not openly threatening war with any other country nor was a confrontation with a nighbouring country expected.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The leader we overthrew had Soviet ties, and we had to win the Cold War. So what you are saying was a dis on democracy was actually part of the ultimate act of preserving democracy. Does the Soviet Union rule Canada? No. We ended their existence, and taking out their partners in Soviet expansion was part of the plan, which was a plan that worked.

In that day and age Iran shared a border with the Soviet Union and Iran and the Soviet Union were the only two countries to have a coastline on the "Caspian Sea". Its not unreasonable to assume that Iran and the Soviet Union would have had a good relationship. and its not un reasonable to blame them for having one since Russia was a huge potential exporter/importer of Iranian goods.

Excuseme, dissing democracy? Britain and the US overthrew a democractically elected government and replaced it with a brutal tryant and im the one who is dissing democracy? The fact is Mossadeq was democractically elected.

You talk about the USA wanting to protect democracy. Your country went to extreme lenghts to arm and aide israel because they were a "democracy". Why not Irans (at the time) fledgling democracy? Why did you guys have to overthrow him and put in a dictator if protecting democracy was you're aim?

You could have done a number of things to foster a benifital relationship with the Iranian Democracy at the time. Your country could have given them large sums of Money as aide as you have been doing with israel. I have read statistics that claim that America has pumped a trillion dollars into israel so far. Im not sure if its true but if it is surely you could have diverted some of that cash. You could have donated arms to Iran like you have done to israel to help stabilize the countries democracy. You could have brought agricultural producsts at inflated (above market price) prices to help support the countries poor farmers, You could have exported below markter price (cheaper)food items to Iran to help make food cheaper.

an example of this would be Venezuelas relationship with Cuba. Venezuela sells Cuba Petrol at below market price because Cuba can't afford to pay the Regular market price and Venezuela exports petrol at cheaper (below market price) to Cuba to help keep gas as cheap as possible for Cubans.

The USA and Britain could have bolstered and strenghtened Irans democracy in any number of ways instead of overthrowing him, i gave a few suggestions myself above. All that did was exasterbate anti western sentiment in the region.
Now why did they overthrew him. The UK had a monoply of sorts over gas/oil fields in Iran (in the persian gulf). Iran derived little profit from their most important resource and in turn Britain made lots of profit from it.

I beleive Mosadeq tried to negotiate with Britain but the negotiations disintergrated and he nationalized the Oil putting the countries most important resource back into Iranian and out of foreign hands.

It was at this point that Britain enlisted the USA and together they ousted him from power. Mosadeq is widely viewedd today as an anti imperialist and the coup d'etat is widely regarded as an act of imperialsm. A similar fate happend to Guatemala when they tried to nationalize their most important resource and Railyway. The excuse ofcourse was an assertion of Soviet ties which if im not wrong turned out to be propaganda. Anyway im not an export on the Guatemala and UFCo situation.

Originally Posted by universal Mind

What does Chavez have to do with democracy, and what did the U.S. government itself have to do with a coup against him?

The United States has done more to create and preserve world democracy than any other country in history. Your freedom to say what you say on the internet is a result of that.

OK i admit that is true. The USA has. For example that thread i made about the American govs report. If the USA was in control of Palestine at the time the Americans would have allowed the arabs to have self determination and choose their own fate rather then the british option which has produced chaous.

Alleged involement of the USA in attempted coup I personally beleive there was american involvement in the attempted Coup in Venezuela just like there was in Irans coup and Guatemalas.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Our CIA, Senate, and previous presidential administration. Five other goverments. Officials at the U.N. Hussein's noncompliance with inspections. You call that non-evidence? The fact that we have not found the weapons is not proof that they never existed. We acted responsibly on information that came from many sources. Did Usama Bin Laden ever exist? Please give me his address.

That is not in itself evidence of WMD's. If there were said WMD'S in iraq then surely there would be a whistel blower or some documents discovered in Iraq? If someoen in iraq had knowledge of Weapons of Masss destruction you guys would of had it by now...but not. You have n't found it and you haven't had any credible sources that can lead you to any definitive proof.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Bush does not talk about WMD's now because they have not been found and the Hussein regime no longer exists.

haven't you heard any of bushes speeches? Iraq had to be free of that tryant dictator and the iraqy people had to be freed". What you should be paying attention is to what he is not saying. He is not talking about weapons of mass destruction. If he had any sold proof of the stuff he would have included something about them in his speecheds " the invasion of iraq was neccesary to disarm saddam from his WMD's and free iraq from a tryant" but his speeches now adays dont include talk about WMD's because his excuse feell through the floor. He is a politican trust me he wouldn't stop talking about his success in disarming iraqs WMD's if there were actual WMD's discovered.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

ONCE AGAIN.... Every person is an individual. You are not getting revenge on the 1948 settlers by killing today's five year olds. I don't know how to shake you out of your view that they are all one superorganism with a single mind. Individuality... Explore the concept. Now please answer my question... Why do children who were born in Israel deserve to die? You have obsessively dodged that question.

To answer youre question I don't think israeli children deserve to die at all but i think Palestinians should be able to do whatever need be to free their country from the Usurpers. I don't care if they were born there thats irrevelant to me. YOu can break into my house and lock me in teh closet for 40 years and raise a family with all the children born in my house and still the house is not yours. palestine is like that house in my opinion.


[quote=Universal Mind]Fuck all prejudiced bullshit forms of government that favor one religion over others. It is not legitimate government. Democracy of equality is the only way. I know that Israel is not quite all the way there. They need to be. I wish you would get it out of your head that all Israeli Jews are a single organism and that all Arabs in the region are a single organsim. They are not. You sound just like KKK members talking about black and white people. Individuality is never acknowledged by the KKK. They talk about the white race as if it is one person and the black race as if it is one person. That is the type of thinking you are showing. [QUOTE]

Umm no im not a white or arab supremacist at all. I don't think one race is superior over onother and such an idea is just ludicruous.

I think the palestinians need to reclam their homeland thats all.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't believe in a "Jewish" state either, but what you want to do is just as unjust as what happened to Arabs in Israel in 1948. I can assure you that the conflict will continue as long as enough people think in the group terms you think in. You have no idea how much I wish all Muslims and Jews in the Middle East could understand that. The situation reminds me of a dog chasing its tail. It is so fucking absurd.

How can people stop thinking in group terms? The region is divided relegiously,racially and lingustiically lots of Israeli arabs dont speak Hebrew and lots of Israeli jews dont speak Arabic.And plus the communities tend to live apart in different municipalities although there are exceptions like Jerusalem and Haifa and even then its divided by nighbourhoods or "ghettos" if you wanna call them that. Its all sepereated by group. Its not like in the USA where you have lots of mixed neighbourhoods. IN Palestine/israel there is not much group interaction socially at all. Actually i heard from an israeli jew that the relationship between jews and arabs is that of master over slave. But to be fair the israeli jew is on the arab side so hes probably biased.

Originally Posted by Universal MInd

60%? I seriously doubt it. 1948 was 60 years ago.

I meant to say something like 60% plus of israelies have a FAMILY HISTORY of only 60 or so years at the most in the region. Ok lets calculate that again ok. S'fardie and Mizrahi jews only make up about 30-45 percent of Israels population. they only date back for the most part to after israels inception, look up Jewish exodus from arab lands again and you will know what im talking about. In the 1990's Israel received atleast 1 million soviet immigrants. So there we have it atelast 50 percent probably more of Israeli jews only have a family history of atleast 60 or so years in the region. You can't argue with numbers.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What exactly do you have against my idea of a democracy where all religions are treated equally? Why are you so stuck in the one religion versus another idea? Don't you want that shit to end?

Keep on dreaming not gonna happen.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

One man's freedom fighter is another man's prejudiced moron who needs to come out of the stone age and learn about democracy and equality.

UMMMM NO.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Ya the last time they used WMD's on the Kurds? In the late 80's right? If that was a big deal for the USA you guys would have used you're good diplomatic relations with Iraq at the time to alleviate the situation for the kurds.

Their history plus the fact that they became our enemy amounted to the threat. Whether we did everything we could for the Kurds is completely off point. The Hussein regime showed what kind of government they are and then turned on us. That was a big problem.

I don't think they would have made friends with the Kurds as result of any persuasion from us.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The truth is Iraq was not an imminent threat to anyone at all there was no imminent catastrophy at that point in time. Nothing sitting down and talking couldn't have fixed with time. The US approach was just ended up destabilizing a whole country and costing loads of unnecesary Iraqi and American casulaties. Furthermore I beleive the UN said their would be consequences for non compliance(which did happend) and that those consequences would be determined by the UN not by any country but by the UN!.

Sitting down and talking? They wouldn't even comply with weapons inspections. They violated our ceasefire for twelve years. Do you really think a conversation would have gotten that suicide bomb government's middle fingers out of our faces?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

A threat but not by any means an imminent threat as in they were not openly threatening war with any other country nor was a confrontation with a nighbouring country expected.

We had just been attacked. We obviously had an enemy that wanted to target large numbers of our civilians. The Hussein regime was a government that, based on the intelligence we had, could have given Al Qaeda or a similar terrorist organization WMD's for such terrorist attacks. Even if they couldn't right then, they could have at some point. We wanted to go ahead and get rid of that threat because it looked imminent and was definitely there. Plus there are lots of other reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

A threat but not by any means an imminent threat as in they were not openly threatening war with any other country nor was a confrontation with a nighbouring country expected.

People have to make announcements to be an imminent threat? Al Qaeda didn't make any announcements about what they were about to do.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

In that day and age Iran shared a border with the Soviet Union and Iran and the Soviet Union were the only two countries to have a coastline on the "Caspian Sea". Its not unreasonable to assume that Iran and the Soviet Union would have had a good relationship. and its not un reasonable to blame them for having one since Russia was a huge potential exporter/importer of Iranian goods.

Things were much more serious than just that. It went beyond just having a good relationship. It was about support of the Soviet cause. That was dangerous stuff. I am not sure how it should have been handled, but we were fighting Soviet expansion, which is one of the two biggest threats the world has ever faced, and maybe sometimes the U.S. government went overboard in handling it. Hindsight is 20/20, and we had possibly the most serious situation ever to handle. Even if the overthrow was not the best possible move, it was still done with the intention of preserving the bigger picture of democracy. That ultimate goal was accomplished.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Excuseme, dissing democracy? Britain and the US overthrew a democractically elected government and replaced it with a brutal tryant and im the one who is dissing democracy? The fact is Mossadeq was democractically elected.

I just cleared that up.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

You talk about the USA wanting to protect democracy. Your country went to extreme lenghts to arm and aide israel because they were a "democracy". Why not Irans (at the time) fledgling democracy? Why did you guys have to overthrow him and put in a dictator if protecting democracy was you're aim?

You could have done a number of things to foster a benifital relationship with the Iranian Democracy at the time. Your country could have given them large sums of Money as aide as you have been doing with israel. I have read statistics that claim that America has pumped a trillion dollars into israel so far. Im not sure if its true but if it is surely you could have diverted some of that cash. You could have donated arms to Iran like you have done to israel to help stabilize the countries democracy. You could have brought agricultural producsts at inflated (above market price) prices to help support the countries poor farmers, You could have exported below markter price (cheaper)food items to Iran to help make food cheaper.

an example of this would be Venezuelas relationship with Cuba. Venezuela sells Cuba Petrol at below market price because Cuba can't afford to pay the Regular market price and Venezuela exports petrol at cheaper (below market price) to Cuba to help keep gas as cheap as possible for Cubans.

The USA and Britain could have bolstered and strenghtened Irans democracy in any number of ways instead of overthrowing him, i gave a few suggestions myself above. All that did was exasterbate anti western sentiment in the region.
Now why did they overthrew him. The UK had a monoply of sorts over gas/oil fields in Iran (in the persian gulf). Iran derived little profit from their most important resource and in turn Britain made lots of profit from it.

I beleive Mosadeq tried to negotiate with Britain but the negotiations disintergrated and he nationalized the Oil putting the countries most important resource back into Iranian and out of foreign hands.

It was at this point that Britain enlisted the USA and together they ousted him from power. Mosadeq is widely viewedd today as an anti imperialist and the coup d'etat is widely regarded as an act of imperialsm. A similar fate happend to Guatemala when they tried to nationalize their most important resource and Railyway. The excuse ofcourse was an assertion of Soviet ties which if im not wrong turned out to be propaganda. Anyway im not an export on the Guatemala and UFCo situation.

You are harping on that one situation way too much. There is a major U.S. Cold War rationale for the overthrow of Mosadeq. You assume it was propagana, and I don't. Like I said, the Cold War was one of the two most serious situations the human race has ever faced. I am sure the government went out of bounds a few times in that severely important struggle. It is inevitable in every war. Stopping the Soviet Union was not easy.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

OK i admit that is true. The USA has. For example that thread i made about the American govs report. If the USA was in control of Palestine at the time the Americans would have allowed the arabs to have self determination and choose their own fate rather then the british option which has produced chaous.

Alleged involement of the USA in attempted coup I personally beleive there was american involvement in the attempted Coup in Venezuela just like there was in Irans coup and Guatemalas.

Why do you keep talking about the overthrows of corrupt leaders during the Cold War? The Cold War was our ultimate act of preserving democracy. Taking a microscope and looking for Cold War moves where governments got worse treatment than they should have does not disprove our ultimate goal in the Cold War.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

That is not in itself evidence of WMD's. If there were said WMD'S in iraq then surely there would be a whistel blower or some documents discovered in Iraq? If someoen in iraq had knowledge of Weapons of Masss destruction you guys would of had it by now...but not. You have n't found it and you haven't had any credible sources that can lead you to any definitive proof.

We did have credible sources. Very few people in the Hussein regime would have had knowledge of their location. It took major snooping from the intelligence agencies of six governments and the U.N. to get the information. The people who know where the WMD's are now are either dead or refuse to talk.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

haven't you heard any of bushes speeches? Iraq had to be free of that tryant dictator and the iraqy people had to be freed". What you should be paying attention is to what he is not saying. He is not talking about weapons of mass destruction. If he had any sold proof of the stuff he would have included something about them in his speecheds " the invasion of iraq was neccesary to disarm saddam from his WMD's and free iraq from a tryant" but his speeches now adays dont include talk about WMD's because his excuse feell through the floor. He is a politican trust me he wouldn't stop talking about his success in disarming iraqs WMD's if there were actual WMD's discovered.

It is a fact that six governments and officials at the U.N. reported the intelligence. The WMD's have not been found, the Hussein regime no longer exists, and Saddam Hussein is dead. Why would Bush need to talk about them now? Until he comes up with a plan to dig up the whole desert area of the Middle East and Northeast Africa, Bush has no reason to talk about WMD's.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

To answer youre question I don't think israeli children deserve to die at all but i think Palestinians should be able to do whatever need be to free their country from the Usurpers. I don't care if they were born there thats irrevelant to me. YOu can break into my house and lock me in teh closet for 40 years and raise a family with all the children born in my house and still the house is not yours. palestine is like that house in my opinion.

So you don't think the children deserve to die, but you do think it is okay for the Palestinians to deliberately target and kill them? Please tell me how that campaign is working out. Have all of these dead children resulted in a Muslim take over of Israel?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Umm no im not a white or arab supremacist at all. I don't think one race is superior over onother and such an idea is just ludicruous.

I think the palestinians need to reclam their homeland thats all.

I didn't say you are a white supremecist or think one race is superior to another. I used an analogy. I am saying you hate an entire group based on their ancestry and do not respect the individuality of the people in the group. You side with one group against another, based on ancestry, and talk as though what some people in one ancestral group do is the behavior of everybody in the group. That is what I am saying is KKK thinking.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

How can people stop thinking in group terms? The region is divided relegiously,racially and lingustiically lots of Israeli arabs dont speak Hebrew and lots of Israeli jews dont speak Arabic.And plus the communities tend to live apart in different municipalities although there are exceptions like Jerusalem and Haifa and even then its divided by nighbourhoods or "ghettos" if you wanna call them that. Its all sepereated by group. Its not like in the USA where you have lots of mixed neighbourhoods. IN Palestine/israel there is not much group interaction socially at all. Actually i heard from an israeli jew that the relationship between jews and arabs is that of master over slave. But to be fair the israeli jew is on the arab side so hes probably biased.

All you are arguing is that too many Jews have group prejudice too. I agree. What you said does not justify hating individuals and wanting to take away their land because of their ancestral group.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I meant to say something like 60% plus of israelies have a FAMILY HISTORY of only 60 or so years at the most in the region. Ok lets calculate that again ok. S'fardie and Mizrahi jews only make up about 30-45 percent of Israels population. they only date back for the most part to after israels inception, look up Jewish exodus from arab lands again and you will know what im talking about. In the 1990's Israel received atleast 1 million soviet immigrants. So there we have it atelast 50 percent probably more of Israeli jews only have a family history of atleast 60 or so years in the region. You can't argue with numbers.

You aren't going to calculate in the number of 1948 Israelis who are dead now?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Keep on dreaming not gonna happen.

Then they will always be at war.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

UMMMM NO.

Fighting for Muslim rule cannot possibly under any circumstances be a fight for freedom. The two ideas contradict each other.

Mmmm...
No 1 problem: Bin Laden treats civilians as objects. ie You kill 'my' civilians and I kill 'yours'.
No 2 problem: Reversed logic. ie "The American military is an enemy of Islam, and the American military are Americans, therefore all Americans are enemies of Islam"

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The children who were born in Israel were conceived and sired by Usurpers they were born on ill gotten land they themselves are Usurpers. I don't care where they were born, they are all Usurpers and must be expelled to their true homelands. Thats my opinion only. Equality can only be achieved once the concept of a jewish state is finished and that the Israelis realize they are Usurpers and must recognize their claim to the land is only secondary and that Arabs hold the true right to the land.

Just like the American claim to their land is secondary and the Indians hold the true right to the land, just like Australian white people and aboriginals, just like Norwegians and vikings, and just like the Arabs and whoever lived "at their homeland" before, right?

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

Just like the American claim to their land is secondary and the Indians hold the true right to the land, just like Australian white people and aboriginals, just like Norwegians and vikings, and just like the Arabs and whoever lived "at their homeland" before, right?

Let me continue that for you. You metnioned Norwegians. The natives of Scandanavia are the Laplanders i beleive. Present day Scandanavia is populated by people who are descended from North Germanic tribes i beleive. They came over to Scandanavia something like 1000 years ago if im not mistaken.

You must be refering to the Arab conquest of North Africa in your mention of Arabs. You might be well aware that the Natives of North Africa are the Berber People.

In Mooroco let say there are two groups of people. There are those who call themselves Berbers and there are those who call themselves Arabs.

They did some genetic tests of a set of people. One set who refered to themselves as Arabs and onother set who identified as Berbers. They found that there was basically no difference between the genetics or whatever of the Berbers and the Arabs.

The study went on to conclude that the Arab conquest of North Africa was mostly CULTURAL and not RACIAL. That is to say the Arab conquesters were absorbed in large part into the Berber population and the change in
North Africa was Cultural not racial. Mooroco itself is heavily mixed between berbers and Arabs. I saw some statistics that claimed that 3/4 of Moorocains are Berbers or have Berber blood.

I beleive the findings in the study is true of Algeria and Tunisia. I have a feeling this is not true of Libya on the other hand judging by their more "pure" standard of Arabic. In this sense Pure means closer to Middle Eastern Arabic.

Several thousand years ago in what is now israel/Palestine the jews were exiled out of the middle east and wandering
Nomadic Arab tribes (just like Native american tribes) found their way into the land that was once mostly populated by jews and it was mostly empty of jews because of the Exile forced onto them by the romans many many moons prior. that is the origin of todays Arabs population in the area.

An Argument made by zionists is that the jews who live in europe should be able to take Palestine away from the Palestinians because several thousand years ago jews populated the region.

Interestingly enough I think the jews who came to the region in the first place were not natives of the place either. the real natives were the Caanites. The Hebrews came to the region themselves as a Wandering Tribe i beleive and then they ransacked the Caanites and eventually mixed with them just like the Arabs in North Africa i mentioned. And Eventually the Hebrews themselves were exiled a few thousand years ago from the area.

Today the People of Lebanon and Palestine have the blood of Caanites in them and also there is a signicant amount of Lebanese people who have Crusader Descandants(from the Crusades of dark ages)

You mention "real natives". However, assuming evolution to be correct, all humanity has one common ancestor, and one "original homeland". All other land was colonized indirectly from there.

What I'm trying to get at, really, is that the land belongs to no one group. If someone tries to force you out of your home, sure, you should resist them - but it's wrong to claim certain pieces of land just because one's ancestors lived there.

Or maybe I'm wrong. I don't actually know a lot about the whole Israel/Palestine thing. Maybe we need to keep better track of one's possessions: Like if Bob steals something from Alice and gives it to his children without telling them he stole it, then it's passed down through the generations, but it still really belongs to Alice('s descendants) right?

But anyway try not to group people together too much - what of someone with both Jewish and Palestinian ancestors?

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

You mention "real natives". However, assuming evolution to be correct, all humanity has one common ancestor, and one "original homeland". All other land was colonized indirectly from there.

What I'm trying to get at, really, is that the land belongs to no one group. If someone tries to force you out of your home, sure, you should resist them - but it's wrong to claim certain pieces of land just because one's ancestors lived there.

Or maybe I'm wrong. I don't actually know a lot about the whole Israel/Palestine thing. Maybe we need to keep better track of one's possessions: Like if Bob steals something from Alice and gives it to his children without telling them he stole it, then it's passed down through the generations, but it still really belongs to Alice('s descendants) right?

But anyway try not to group people together too much - what of someone with both Jewish and Palestinian ancestors?

"native" is only a relative term i suppose. IN the region of Palestine/Israel who are the real natives? The land switched hands so many times. Caanites, Hebrews,Bedouins, Assyrians, Romans, arabs,Turks(ottomans),Crusaders, British, and now modern day israel.

So many groups have called the area home over its history its true in a sense there are no natives.

But is it not reasonable to expect that in the 1800's when jews started to immigrate that they at the very LEAST respect the Estabilished Population? Would that not have been to much to ask? In 1948, less then a generation later when they are still for the most part a minority they deman a jewish state carved under arab majority land.

That was the ultimate act of disrespect and indifference towards the estabilished arab majority that is in my opinion inexcusable.

Answering your other question there are indeed people of Palestinian and Jewish Heritage. They are Palestinian Jews. They have everyright to Palestine as do Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

The Palestinian jews have been in Palestine for over a 1000 years. Now i make a distinction between Palestinian jews and Ashakanazie jews(I know this is random but the guy in my avatar is an Ashakanazie jew actually). the Ashekanazie jews are those immigrated from Europe to Palestine, They started to immigrate in large numbers starting in the late 1800's.

The Palestinian Jews are so called Natives. They are a very well estabilished population and got along well with the Arabs over the centuries unfortunately Zionism hurt Palestinian arab and Palestinian jew relations very badly and tor the two groups apart whom got along well over the many centuries of co-habitation.

Zionism (european immigration) was the straw that broke the camels back.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Their history plus the fact that they became our enemy amounted to the threat. Whether we did everything we could for the Kurds is completely off point. The Hussein regime showed what kind of government they are and then turned on us. That was a big problem

Ya they did fall out of spot with Washington.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think they would have made friends with the Kurds as result of any persuasion from us.

I suppose that would be shooting to high but you guys could have still played some part in helping the situation.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Sitting down and talking? They wouldn't even comply with weapons inspections. They violated our ceasefire for twelve years. Do you really think a conversation would have gotten that suicide bomb government's middle fingers out of our faces?

Your ceasefire? The Ceasefire was brokered cheafly by US officials but if im not mistaken it was a NATO ceasefire, the US officials who brokered it were on behalf of the wider NATO organazation because the whole thing was a NATO operation. Is that right?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We had just been attacked. We obviously had an enemy that wanted to target large numbers of our civilians. The Hussein regime was a government that, based on the intelligence we had, could have given Al Qaeda or a similar terrorist organization WMD's for such terrorist attacks. Even if they couldn't right then, they could have at some point. We wanted to go ahead and get rid of that threat because it looked imminent and was definitely there. Plus there are lots of other reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

Attacked but not by Iraq.....Are you telling me Saddam was plotting to attack America? You say the enemy (Hussein) was trying to target your civilans. So you are saying effectively he was plotting to attack american soil? Hussein and Al Qaeda are not ones to ally with Islamists. The Hussein Dictatorship was Secular and at the time Al Qaeda was mostly wa'habi fundamntalists.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

People have to make announcements to be an imminent threat? Al Qaeda didn't make any announcements about what they were about to do.

Imminent threat as in they are about to Attack onother country and such an offense like the invasion of Kuwait is imminent.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Things were much more serious than just that. It went beyond just having a good relationship. It was about support of the Soviet cause. That was dangerous stuff. I am not sure how it should have been handled, but we were fighting Soviet expansion, which is one of the two biggest threats the world has ever faced, and maybe sometimes the U.S. government went overboard in handling it. Hindsight is 20/20, and we had possibly the most serious situation ever to handle. Even if the overthrow was not the best possible move, it was still done with the intention of preserving the bigger picture of democracy. That ultimate goal was accomplished.

That is no excuse to destabilize a country. He had soviet ties thats not a big deal either, they shared a border and an a extensive coastline. Thats like asking canada not to have relations with the USA.

The british motivation for the Coup was the the Nationalization of the Gas and OIl fields. That was their reason. They enlisted the Americans siting alleged Soviet Ties. But if it was to protect democracy then surely you would have bolstered their democracy in any number of ways like you did with Israel. If any country should have been "sacrificed" then it should have been israel, by allowing its destruction you could have goten unfathonable support from the Arab and Muslim world, incuding Iran givign you guys even more influence to help their countries become democracies.

What i see with the Iran issue is just imperialism, It was a modern day act of Imperialism and your countries are suprised why Iran is so destrustful of the west.

Originally Posted by universal Mind

You are harping on that one situation way too much. There is a major U.S. Cold War rationale for the overthrow of Mosadeq. You assume it was propagana, and I don't. Like I said, the Cold War was one of the two most serious situations the human race has ever faced. I am sure the government went out of bounds a few times in that severely important struggle. It is inevitable in every war. Stopping the Soviet Union was not easy.

There were plenty of options on the table other then overthrow the guy. It was primarily about the nationalization of the Oil fields and Gas and the alleged soviet ties was just icing on the cake. UM im not sure you realise what Britain was up to at the time. Onother Imperialist action on behalf of Britain was the invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis. The Egytpains nationalized the Suez Canal and Britian,France and Israel invaded Egypt because they nationalized it. Again onother imperial action, the right of the people of the country and self determination was pushed aside in favour of Business interests. the western reaction of the Suez Crisis was imperialism and the overthrow of Mosadeq in favour of a Dictator Tyrant was imperialism.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why do you keep talking about the overthrows of corrupt leaders during the Cold War? The Cold War was our ultimate act of preserving democracy. Taking a microscope and looking for Cold War moves where governments got worse treatment than they should have does not disprove our ultimate goal in the Cold War.

It came up during our discussion i guess. The Cold War was not about preserving democracy but was about countering Soviet Influence and Vice Versa it was just a competition for who would be the top dog not about Democracy. During the Cold War the West did very little to protect Democracy especially in the Muslim world. The French handling of Algeria for example, The Suez Crisis, The immigrant jews were given palestine instead of the long estabilished arab majority, The installation of a brutal dictator in Iran by the west, French Colonialism in IndoChina.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We did have credible sources. Very few people in the Hussein regime would have had knowledge of their location. It took major snooping from the intelligence agencies of six governments and the U.N. to get the information. The people who know where the WMD's are now are either dead or refuse to talk.

There would be Whistel blowers, Not possibly everyone could have died or refuse to talk,
At any rate there would have been documents, truck drivers who drove the materials, government workers who had knowledge of it. Remember alot of these people who would have allegedly have knolwedge of WMD's would go to the USA or the UK authorities and give what they know for a Bribe or atleast a Visa to a Western Country. Look read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2083760/ this puts it in better perspective then i possibly can.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

]It is a fact that six governments and officials at the U.N. reported the intelligence. The WMD's have not been found, the Hussein regime no longer exists, and Saddam Hussein is dead. Why would Bush need to talk about them now? Until he comes up with a plan to dig up the whole desert area of the Middle East and Northeast Africa, Bush has no reason to talk about WMD's.

Every now and then bush gives a speech where he says Saddam had to be stopped and the tryant overthrown to free the iraqi people but if there was ample evidence at all now of WMD's then he would say something about them and how he dis armed him from the WMD's. He is a politican if there was ample evidence of the WMD's or heaven forbid actual WMD's then he would have included in his speeches on why the iraq war was neccesary.

So you don't think the children deserve to die, but you do think it is okay for the Palestinians to deliberately target and kill them? Please tell me how that campaign is working out. Have all of these dead children resulted in a Muslim take over of Israel?

Its not about a muslim take over of palestine its about a palestinian take over of Palestine. I don't care what the Palestinians do to fight the usurpers, as long as they are fighting them thats A-OK with me. The usurpers brought it upon themselves and it was well known giving Palestine over to the immigrant jews could only be done by force. The American report in my other thread showed the Americans concluded it and i assume the british would have done research too. It was well known that disenfranchizing the Palestinian Muslims and Christians could only be done by force and today the struggle continues because of Western indifference towards arabs.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't say you are a white supremecist or think one race is superior to another. I used an analogy. I am saying you hate an entire group based on their ancestry and do not respect the individuality of the people in the group. You side with one group against another, based on ancestry, and talk as though what some people in one ancestral group do is the behavior of everybody in the group. That is what I am saying is KKK thinking.

The israelies are made up of immigrants or the children of immigrants like i have said many many tiems. Atleast 50% of the country only has a family history of 60 or so years in the region. They did not respect the Palestinians and they usurped their land, now is the time for revenge.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

All you are arguing is that too many Jews have group prejudice too. I agree. What you said does not justify hating individuals and wanting to take away their land because of their ancestral group.

The immigrants usupred the land from the Palestinians and now they will pay for it. An immigrant european in 1948 according to you has just as much right to Palestine as does a Palestine with a centuries old family history in the region?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You aren't going to calculate in the number of 1948 Israelis who are dead now?

I calculated the number for you to put in perspective for you the very little history these people have in the region and how they stole Palestine first by Force with Western made weapons and then by flooding the region with immigrants.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Fighting for Muslim rule cannot possibly under any circumstances be a fight for freedom. The two ideas contradict each other.

It's not about Muslim rule, i dont like the idea of a theocracy anymore then you do. I want PALESTINIAN rule, and secular rule. The Palestinians shouldn't be able to rule their own land because they are Muslims?


I have no problems with jews being in Palestine but when they forcibly take the land away frm the Majority by means of Arms and then flood the area with immigrants that indeed becomes a problem.

Personally, I want no rule, only order. But we know that's not likely to happen soon.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Ya they did fall out of spot with Washington.

They turned on us and showed our enemy status with them in many ways. Think about that while thinking about everything else I have said about them. What that all adds up to is a picture of a government that needed to be overthrown.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I suppose that would be shooting to high but you guys could have still played some part in helping the situation.

We overthrew the Hussein regime, and the Kurds love us for it.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Your ceasefire? The Ceasefire was brokered cheafly by US officials but if im not mistaken it was a NATO ceasefire, the US officials who brokered it were on behalf of the wider NATO organazation because the whole thing was a NATO operation. Is that right?

It was a U.N. ceasefire with 12 resolutions. However, the U.N. refused to enforce our ceasefire, and the refusal was wrong and corrupt, so we did it instead.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Attacked but not by Iraq.....Are you telling me Saddam was plotting to attack America? You say the enemy (Hussein) was trying to target your civilans. So you are saying effectively he was plotting to attack american soil? Hussein and Al Qaeda are not ones to ally with Islamists. The Hussein Dictatorship was Secular and at the time Al Qaeda was mostly wa'habi fundamntalists.

I did not say we knew they were plotting. I am saying they had a high enough likelihood based on their history and positions. They were a major threat.

The Hussein regime may have had a secular domestic government operation, but their international actions were not secular. They funded Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel and supported Hamas and Hezbollah, as in gave them money specifically for their terrorism. Hussein called the U.S. "infidels" and "Satan". They were a suicide bomb terrorist government. If they had offered WMD's to Al Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbollah or whomever else, how sure are you that they would have turned the offer down? They had a common enemy.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

That is no excuse to destabilize a country. He had soviet ties thats not a big deal either, they shared a border and an a extensive coastline. Thats like asking canada not to have relations with the USA.

Not merely Soviet ties or relations. We had Soviet relations. That is not what I am talking about. He was deemed to be an aider in the Soviet expansion aspirations. Winning the Cold War was more serious than any other thing the world has ever faced, other than the fight against the Nazis. It was the second biggest deal ever. We won it. If you don't like how we did it, that is unfortunate. Hindsight is 20/20, and we did what we thought we had to do. It worked. In the big picture, we were fighting for the ultimate preservation of democracy and the liberation of the Soviet states and of Eastern Europe.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The british motivation for the Coup was the the Nationalization of the Gas and OIl fields. That was their reason. They enlisted the Americans siting alleged Soviet Ties. But if it was to protect democracy then surely you would have bolstered their democracy in any number of ways like you did with Israel. If any country should have been "sacrificed" then it should have been israel, by allowing its destruction you could have goten unfathonable support from the Arab and Muslim world, incuding Iran givign you guys even more influence to help their countries become democracies.

Like I have said, I am not sure in looking back that the coup was totally necessary. We won the Cold War.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

What i see with the Iran issue is just imperialism, It was a modern day act of Imperialism and your countries are suprised why Iran is so destrustful of the west.

How much longer do you want to talk about this side issue? If the British intelligence was wrong, that sucks, but we did have a Cold War to win, and we did respond to intelligence that a powerful communist expansion leader was running Iran. I don't want to split any more hairs over whether that one move in the second biggest nightmare the world has ever faced was necessary. We won the Cold War. That's all I have to say about that. If you want to start a thread where you bitch about what the U.S. did in Iran decades ago, then do it, but I am tired of addressing this side issue.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

There were plenty of options on the table other then overthrow the guy. It was primarily about the nationalization of the Oil fields and Gas and the alleged soviet ties was just icing on the cake. UM im not sure you realise what Britain was up to at the time. Onother Imperialist action on behalf of Britain was the invasion of Egypt during the Suez crisis. The Egytpains nationalized the Suez Canal and Britian,France and Israel invaded Egypt because they nationalized it. Again onother imperial action, the right of the people of the country and self determination was pushed aside in favour of Business interests. the western reaction of the Suez Crisis was imperialism and the overthrow of Mosadeq in favour of a Dictator Tyrant was imperialism.

It came up during our discussion i guess. The Cold War was not about preserving democracy but was about countering Soviet Influence and Vice Versa it was just a competition for who would be the top dog not about Democracy. During the Cold War the West did very little to protect Democracy especially in the Muslim world. The French handling of Algeria for example, The Suez Crisis, The immigrant jews were given palestine instead of the long estabilished arab majority, The installation of a brutal dictator in Iran by the west, French Colonialism in IndoChina.

If it were not for what the United States did during the Cold War, democracy would not exist on this planet right now. Do you see what I am saying?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

There would be Whistel blowers, Not possibly everyone could have died or refuse to talk,
At any rate there would have been documents, truck drivers who drove the materials, government workers who had knowledge of it. Remember alot of these people who would have allegedly have knolwedge of WMD's would go to the USA or the UK authorities and give what they know for a Bribe or atleast a Visa to a Western Country. Look read this: http://www.slate.com/id/2083760/ this puts it in better perspective then i possibly can.

The whistles were blown about the existence of the WMD's. The very few who hid the weapons have not blown whistles concerning their locations.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Every now and then bush gives a speech where he says Saddam had to be stopped and the tryant overthrown to free the iraqi people but if there was ample evidence at all now of WMD's then he would say something about them and how he dis armed him from the WMD's. He is a politican if there was ample evidence of the WMD's or heaven forbid actual WMD's then he would have included in his speeches on why the iraq war was neccesary.

Most people do not understand the WMD issue. They jump to this insane conclusion that because the weapons have not been found, they therefore never existed. Not finding them has made Bush look terrible on the world stage, which was Hussein's goal, so Bush knows that it would be bad politics to even bring up the subject now.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Its not about a muslim take over of palestine its about a palestinian take over of Palestine. I don't care what the Palestinians do to fight the usurpers, as long as they are fighting them thats A-OK with me. The usurpers brought it upon themselves and it was well known giving Palestine over to the immigrant jews could only be done by force. The American report in my other thread showed the Americans concluded it and i assume the british would have done research too. It was well known that disenfranchizing the Palestinian Muslims and Christians could only be done by force and today the struggle continues because of Western indifference towards arabs.

The struggle continues because of the mentality that what one Israeli Jew does, no matter when it happened, is the responsibility of all Israeli Jews. Your indifference to the deliberate murders of Israeli children who were born in Israel, whose parents were born in Israel, whose grandparents were born in Israel, and who are too young to even know that there is a conflict is the type of mentality I am talking about. That kind of thinking is the problem.

Based on what you are saying, you don't care if a two year old Israeli like I just described is killed and nothing good comes from it. I will never be able to relate to that. I don't understand being that cold toward people because of what their ancestors did, and I will never be able to relate to treating an ethnic group as though it has only one mind. I don't get it at all. I have asked you to explain it to me many times, and at this point I am not even sure you understand what I am saying. Nothing you say ever acknowledges that you even understand my point. I am going to try one more time to illustrate it to you.

When I was in the fourth grade, my teacher would punish the entire class if a few students were too loud during lunch. She knew damn well that I was not one of the ones being too loud, but she would punish me and other innocent students for what some other students did. I would ask her why I had to write lines, and her response would be, "Because the class was too loud." Her reasoning was that I was in the class, and the class was too loud, therefore I was too loud. That is NOT logical reasoning. I will give you another illustration. In the 1960's, John Lennon said that The Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ. A bunch of fanatical Christians responded to that by burning Beatles records and getting on the radio and telling people to shun The Beatles for what "they" said. The Beatles did not say it. John Lennon said it! It is that type of prejudiced thinking that is the biggest problem in the world. It is not logical, and it is very destructive and terrible.

Do you understand my point at all? You hate what the 1948 Israeli settlers did, and you blame every Jew who is in Israel 60 years later. I am not even close to getting that.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The israelies are made up of immigrants or the children of immigrants like i have said many many tiems. Atleast 50% of the country only has a family history of 60 or so years in the region. They did not respect the Palestinians and they usurped their land, now is the time for revenge.

People should be held responsible for what their family members of 60 years ago did? Please explain that to me. How is killing people in Israeli Jew group B revenge against people in Israeli Jew group A? Can you answer that? The only thing I can guess is that you are so prejudiced and blinded by your own hatred that they are all the same to you. They are not all the same to reality!

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The immigrants usupred the land from the Palestinians and now they will pay for it. An immigrant european in 1948 according to you has just as much right to Palestine as does a Palestine with a centuries old family history in the region?

Tonight when you are in bed and about to go to sleep, ponder deeply on the word "they". Do everything within your intellectual abilities to get to the bottom of what that word means... and what it does NOT mean.

If red headed individuals shoot my dog, have I gotten revenge if I shoot red headed individuals other than the ones who shot my dog? "Oh, but 'they' shot my dog." Think really hard about how that concept falls very short of being anything logical. If you can figure it out, please help me spread the word.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The immigrants usupred the land from the Palestinians and now they will pay for it. An immigrant european in 1948 according to you has just as much right to Palestine as does a Palestine with a centuries old family history in the region?

If you and your parents were born on some land, you are not wrong for being there. Your well established and cultured existence there is understandable. Holding people's ancestry against them is far from understandable. The 1948 take over of land was unjust, just as the same thing now with Palestinian settlers would be unjust. Both are unjust concepts, and the 1948 Jews had the same excuse you are using for exactly the same thing with Palestinians. Same thing in both cases. Both are wrong. However, I blame the U.N. for the 1948 misdeed more than the settlers who accepted what the U.N. gave them. I sure as Hell do not blame Israeli children of 2008 for it. Why do you?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I calculated the number for you to put in perspective for you the very little history these people have in the region and how they stole Palestine first by Force with Western made weapons and then by flooding the region with immigrants.

I just boldfaced the word "they". I challenge you to tell me what is illogical about your use of it in that context. Can you tell me?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

It's not about Muslim rule, i dont like the idea of a theocracy anymore then you do. I want PALESTINIAN rule, and secular rule. The Palestinians shouldn't be able to rule their own land because they are Muslims?

Rule cannot be both Palestianian Muslim and secular. The concept of a Palestinian state is universes away from secular. A secular government would not discriminate based on religion.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I have no problems with jews being in Palestine but when they forcibly take the land away frm the Majority by means of Arms and then flood the area with immigrants that indeed becomes a problem.

Then be pissed at the individuals who did that, not at their descendants who did absolutely nothing except be raised and continue to live where they were born. Imagine being born and raised in Canada and later in life being told you have to move away because you are the wrong religion or because you have the wrong ancestors. Think really hard about that. Now imagine losing your life over it. Imagine your three small children being blown up at a birthday party over it, and then imagine somebody calling it "revenge" and referring to your children as some group of "they" to which they actually do not belong.

I realise my statements about deportion and other stuff about the israelies are irrational but the things they've done to the Palestinians. Fuck they invade and swarm palestinian land and say there are no such things as Palestinians they say they are egyptians and jordanians. I dont care though they hate, they get hate in return., they are a stain on the middle east and must be "cleansed" as you would a stain there is no making peace with these animals. The israelies call palestinians dirty animals and in turn i do the same to them so dont jump on that statement.

The rascist european immigrants thought the palestinians were just like native americans that they are just peasant nomads who will take it up the ass like the native americans. They are no better then south african whites.

Never forgive, Never forget.

I will respond to the rest at a later time.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I realise my statements about deportion and other stuff about the israelies are irrational but the things they've done to the Palestinians. Fuck they invade and swarm palestinian land and say there are no such things as Palestinians they say they are egyptians and jordanians. I dont care though they hate, they get hate in return., they are a stain on the middle east and must be "cleansed" as you would a stain there is no making peace with these animals. The israelies call palestinians dirty animals and in turn i do the same to them so dont jump on that statement.

The rascist european immigrants thought the palestinians were just like native americans that they are just peasant nomads who will take it up the ass like the native americans. They are no better then south african whites.

Never forgive, Never forget.

I will respond to the rest at a later time.

You realize your statements are irrational? Then why do you say them?

Look at the words I boldfaced, and then think back on my main message from my last post. Are you starting to see my point? I think you should meditate deeply on the concept of individuality.