It fucking disgusts me that America...

Re: Re: p_p_man

Pechorin said:

I also enjoy playing "that old chestnut" bingo. It's easy. Start off with a list of issues (George Dubya, Israel, IRA, Royal Family, WWII etc) and see how long it is before the thread has managed to reference them all.

Click to expand...

I don't think, after over a year of trying, I've yet managed a full house.

But the winning thread is always just around the corner...

what am I going to do? I didn't vote for Bush. You can only stage so many protests.

Re: Re: p_p_man

Pechorin said:

Synnerman, as a British citizen I have just 2 words to say to you, "Danke schoen"

Click to expand...

You are very welcome.

“And what is a country that intentionally starts a war (Yes, history and facts have shown that ISREAL actually started the 6 day war) and attacks US Flagged ships in international waters KNOWING it was an international ship (the USS Liberty).”

Technically, maybe. But the nations around them had mobilized and were poised to attack. Strategy being strategy, if your opponent is playing pure attack, then attack is your best defense, especially if you waited for the attack in prior meetings.



“Shit now I am really pissed off... I have to agree with PP on this one. Sharon is not part of the solution... he is a huge part of the problem.”

Please remember, Israel had a DOVE government aided heavily by Clinton and Carville. It was Arafat’s rejection of that government’s overtures that led to Sharon’s election. He is the will and embodiment of a people at this point in time. A people that threw their hands up [as in Warsaw] and said, take it, take what you want… When that was rejected, they became the people of Masada…




“What Sharon is doing by his actions is feeding the fire of anti-Semitism. In the real world people are beginning to think of Israelis as "those fucking Jews".”

Honestly, I don’t think they’ve ever stopped. It’s been masked well, but at every possible juncture in which people of the Jewish faith look like they are having a bit of a hard go, it comes out…




“Despite their frustration with what they see as Arafat's refusal to act decisively against terrorism, Bush administration officials see no alternative but to keep channels open to the elected leader of the Palestinian Authority."

Yes, there was once an election, long, long ago. Hitler was once elected too!




And, oh yes, p_p_, we do give the PLO aid also (even though they hate us and celebrate when thousands of people go up in flames)…




Remember SexyChele, p_p_man became adamant about this thing some 18 months ago when he saw that one dead Palestinian child and chose his side right then and there on the spot. All of his research since then has gone into supporting his decision and not reaching an informed opinion.





As for attacking civilians. In guerilla war, as we have learned in both Saigon and Belfast, the daytime civilian is at best a sympathizer in the night and at worst, one of the combatants. You see, most of the time, they are more frightened of their side than they are of the other…

Will wonders never cease...

I saw this after I answered, from Cheyenne

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=1528004#post1528004

Myrrdin said:

Israel has had countless moderate leaders in the past couple of decades. They've tried moderation, summits and peace talks and yet their women and children have still been indiscriminately shot at and bombed in markets, bus stops and restaurants. The Palestinian leadership's aim has always been the destruction of the entire state of Israel.
Now we see the backlash. The Israeli's have had enough. They voted in a hard line leader, who is aiming to bring peace inside Israel, by defeating it's attackers.
Why should we complain about his tactics? His army has been far less vicious than the people who attack Israeli women and children. Do we expect a better code of moral behaviour for battlefield behaviour, because they are followers of our God? Do we think suicide bombing of buses and restaurants is acceptable because the Palestinians are followers of Mohammed or Allah?
I won't condemn Israel for stooping to the levels of it's attackers. War is a dirty business. Innnocents get killed.
Personally I don't think there will be peace in the Middle East, until the Palestinian leadership are shown how much they will lose if they continue.

Click to expand...

"His army has been far less vicious than the people who attack Israeli women and children." With as much respect as possible, that is absolute rubbish. It seems to me that alot of people in Israel and the West, especially the US, seem to have found their holy grail in this word "terrorism." It seems to magically set the course for what is right and what is wrong exactly where the west wants it to go. If someone you don't agree with kills someone you with which you do, it is an act of terrorism. If your ally slaughters innocent civilians, then it is a justified response. It's all to easy too call the Palestinians terrorists because they are disorganised and lacking in a strong military. They do not have the resources to properly defend their homes and their people, but do not think that they turn to what methods they have. Do you really think that Arafat, (Who IS the legally and democratically elected leader of Palestine) chooses to send homeless orphan children into Israel with bombs tied to their backs? If you had just had your house destroyed by an Israeli-dropped-US-made smartbomb and seen your parents killed in front of your eyes, how much extra incentive do you think you would need in order to want revenge against those who murdered your family and yet seem to have the backing of the international community to do so?
Perhaps Bush said it best when he said that if Arafat, holed up in his compound and unable to leave due to Israeli forces, needed to stop the terrorist attacks if he wanted the Israeli occupation to end. At this point I am tempted to use some words we all know and love to describe good ole Georgy, but I will make yet another effort to keep my temper in check.

Would we prefer the Palestinians were to adopt the same approach as the Israelis? Would it be better if they wore uniforms and committed their acts of mass murder as an organised group, rather than lone widows and orphans irreversibly damaged by the sights of their families and parents raped or murdered before their eyes?

Do not make the mistake of thinking that Israelis are only commiting acts of justified defence simply because they have a real army. Where does the distinction really lie? Is justice on the side of Israel because they have suffered the attacks on their own soil? Israel has been carrying out assassinations with US made and donated attack helicopters for decades. So called acts of "retaliation" by Israel some how always seem to end up going rather beyond simply "an eye for an eye." If you are skeptical, simply look at the numbers. They are incontroversial. Even western media such as ABC and BBC reports confirm that the death toll on the side of the Palestinians far outweighs that of the Israelis. Put yourself in a home in Israel, and ask yourself how much anger you would feel when you are told that the 500 of your country men who were killed by Israeli troops in the last month were killed in "retaliation" to the 20 or so Israelis that were killed in a handful of suicide bombings.

I see no evidence that ppman hates Jews. I find it unfortunate that he is not better able to control his temper, because he gives more justification to those of you who wish to view the situation through Red-White-And-Blue lenses and label those who oppose you as terrorists and let that be reason enough.

I also find it sad that people want to remove all blame and thought of wrong-doing from the actions of the US. I have heard many political and historical anaylsts recently point out that it is not coincidence that the nation that spends almost as much on its military budget as the rest of the world combined seems to find its way into "war" every ten years, and that its current leader has assembled the same cabinet as his father did ten years before.

ppman mostly answered his only question as to the motive for US support of Israel with the statement (it has all to do with votes.) There is a huge Jewish population in the US and their presence is undoubtedly a major factor in the US governments ridiculous levels of aid for the Jewish state. Israel is one of the richest nations on Earth, and yet it is the largest recipient of US aid, more than half of which is military. Why save lives in Africa when you can fuel your econmy and win votes by supporting Israel?

As for Israeli support of Sharon, I know only that he is the legal representative of Isral and that he is at least widely supported, if not by a majority. But the left wing in Israel is growing in strength and large numbers (Millions) of Israelis are far from pleased by the current actions of their own army.

The final issue I want to address (for now ) is those US citizens who dare to say "What business is it of yours?" The US consumes more than 30% of everything produced on the entire planet. Its trade deficit is enormous. Despite being the richest country in the world, is had one of if not the largest debt to the UN. The rest of the world is supporting your opulence and paying a huge toll in many ways, so what right do you have to say "mind your own business" to those whose backs you walk on?

I have tried my best to present a factual account of my thoughts and resist my desire to insult those who seem ignorant to me, I would ask that all of you reading this do your best to afford the same curtesy to me and the other posters on this thread.

Daltonnez

Why didn't Arafat accept the Clinton Peace Plan?

Daultonnz said:

"His army has been far less vicious than the people who attack Israeli women and children." With as much respect as possible, that is absolute rubbish. It seems to me that alot of people in Israel and the West, especially the US, seem have found their holy grail in this word "terrorism." It seems to magically set the course for what is right and what is wrong exactly where the west wants it to go. If someone you disagree with kills someone you do, it is an act of terrorism. If your ally slaughters innocent civilians, then it is a justified response. It's all to easy to call the Palestinians terrorists because they are disorganised and lacking in a strong military. They do not have the resources to properly defend their homes and their people, but do not think that they turn to what methods they have. Do you really think that Arafat, (Who IS the legally and democratically elected leader of Palestine) chooses to send homeless orphan children into Israel with bombs tied to their backs? If you had just had your house destroyed by an Israeli-dropped-US-made smartbomb and seen your parents killed in front of your eyes, how much extra incentive do you think you would need in order to want revenge against those who murdered your family and yet seem to have the backing of the international community to do so?
Perhaps Bush said it best when he said that if Arafat, holed up in his compound and unable to leave due to Israeli forces, needed to stop the terrorist attacks if he wanted the Israeli occupation to end. At this point I am tempted to use some words we all know and love to describe good ole Georgy, but I will make yet another effort to keep my temper in check.

Would we prefer the Palestinians were to adopt the same approach as the Israelis? Would it be better if they wore uniforms and committed their acts of mass murder as an organised group, rather than lobe widows and orphans irreversibly damaged by the sights of their families and parents raped or murdered before their eyes?

Do not make the mistake of thinking that Israelis are only commiting acts of justified defence simply because they have a real army. Where does the distinction really lie? Is justice on the side of Israel because they have suffered the attacks on their own soil? Israel has been carrying out assassinations with US made and donated attack helicopters for decades. So called acts of "retaliation" by Israel some how always seem to end up going rather beyond simply "an eye for an eye." If you are skeptical, simply look at the numbers. They are incontroversial. Even western media such as ABC and BBC reports confirm that the death toll on the side of the Palestinians far outweighs that of the Israelis. Put yourself in a home in Israel, and ask yourself how much anger you would feel when you are told that the 500 of your country men who were killed by Israeli troops in the last month were killed in "retaliation" to the 20 or so Israelis that were killed in a handful of suicide bombings.

I see no evidence that ppman hates Jews. I find it unfortunate that he is not better able to control his temper, because he gives more justification to those of you who wish to view the situation through Red-White-And-Blue lenses and label those who oppose you as terrorists and let that be reason enough.

I also find it sad that people want to remove all blame and thought of wrong-doing from the actions of the US. I have heard many political and historical anaylsts recently point out that it is not coincidence that the nation that spends almost as much on its military budget as the rest of the world combined seems to find its way into "war" every ten years, and that its current leader has assembled the same cabinet as his father did ten years before.

ppman mostly answered his only question as to the motive for US support of Israel with the statement (it has all to do with votes.) There is a huge Jewish population in the US and their presence is undoubtedly a major factor in the US governments ridiculous levels of aid for the Jewish state. Israel is one of the richest nations on Earth, and yet it is the largest recipient of US aid, more than half of which is military. Why save lives in Africa when you can fuel your econmy and win votes by supporting Israel?

As for Israeli support of Sharon, I know only that he is the legal representative of Isral and that he is at least widely supported, if not by a majority. But the left wing in Israel is growing in strength and large numbers (Millions) of Israelis are far from pleased by the current actions of their own army.

Click to expand...

Rather than rant off on you and your post, I thought I'd let someone else answer the OBVIOUS.

--------------------------------------------------

David Limbaugh

April 20, 2002

Master of the obvious

Someone raised the objection to my last column that its main point -- that Arab nations stand in solidarity against Israel in its conflict with Palestinians -- is too obvious even to mention. Hmmm.

I happen to think it's abundantly obvious that abortion is wrong, but many don't agree. Paradoxically, sometimes people (even a majority) are blind to the obvious -- and so it needs to be said.

The friendly objector then suggested that a more interesting column would be to examine why "the Palestinians hate the Jews with such white heat. Are the Jews 'only' protecting themselves, or are they indeed denying the Palestinians their human dignity and their right to self-determination?"

OK, I'll take the bait, even though, as I've written before, this rallying cry for self-determination is a bit of a stretch, considering that no Arab nation left to its own devices is free. And protests about human dignity are hard to swallow from a people whose leadership devalues life to the point of sending its youth to their sacrificial deaths.

But before we can answer the question, we need to know how the Palestinians define their right of self-determination. The Palestinian Authority's main beef with Israel is not her "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel's very right to exist. We keep hearing that Israel is not shown on Palestinian maps and that the Palestinians
teach their children that Israel is illegitimate. So their position -- that their right to self-determination is impossible as long as Israel exists -- is obvious, right?

Another relevant fact bearing repetition is that the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1964, three years before Israel acquired the "occupied territories" in a defensive war. If Israel didn't have that land, what was driving the Palestinians? What was the significance of the "L" in "PLO?" From what or whom were they seeking liberation?

The best place to find the answer is the PLO's Charter, where their grievances and goals are clearly articulated. Read it for yourself, and you will discover that the Palestinian leadership believes that among other things:

-- "The Palestinian Arab people alone have legitimate right to their homeland" (all of Palestine);

-- The existence of the state of Israel in Palestine is itself "Zionist Occupation."

-- "It is a national obligation to provide every Palestinian with a revolutionary Arab upbringing, and to instill in him a profound spiritual and material familiarity with his homeland and a readiness for armed struggle and for the sacrifice of his material possessions and his life, for the recovery of his homeland. All available educational means and means of guidance must be enlisted to that end, until the liberation is achieved." (This one explains a lot, doesn't it?)

-- "Armed struggle is the only way of liberating Palestine, and is thus strategic, not tactical."

-- "Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular war of liberation."

-- "The destiny of the Arab nation, indeed the continued existence of the Arabs, depends of the fate of the Palestinian cause."

-- "The liberation of Palestine is a national obligation for the Arabs. It is their duty to repel the Zionist and imperialist invasion of the greater Arab homeland and to
liquidate the Zionist presence in Palestine."

-- "The Partition of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel, are fundamentally invalid."

-- "The Palestinian Arab people, expressing themselves through armed revolution, reject all alternatives to the total liberation of Palestine."

So, regardless of whatever else may drive Palestinian antipathy toward Israel, the immediate root cause is Israel's existence itself. Realization of this obvious truth has profound implications. It means that until the PLO rescinds its Charter, it remains dedicated to the violent extermination of Israel, not just the "occupied territories."

If you were Israel's prime minister, would you surrender the "occupied territories" to the Palestinians, knowing that they will use those strategically critical lands to launch
further attacks against you until their complete goal is achieved?

If a gang of hoodlums attacked you with weapons, and in the process of beating their fannies you were able to confiscate their weapons, would you return those weapons so they could attack you again -- especially if you knew that their gang charter required them to continue attacking you until you existed no more?

Of course you wouldn't, unless you're a complete idiot. So it's a stupid question -- a no-brainer -- one for which the answer is embarrassingly obvious. Then, why is it, my fellow colleagues in discernment, that half the world apparently fails to grasp it?

--------------------------------------------------

The PLO charter is available 'on-line'. Even ppman knows this as I have provided him the link.

Daultonnz said:

The final issue I want to address (for now ) is those US citizens who dare to say "What business is it of yours?" The US consumes more than 30% of everything produced on the entire planet. Its trade deficit is enormous. Despite being the richest country in the world, is had one of if not the largest debt to the UN. The rest of the world is supporting your opulence and paying a huge toll in many ways, so what right do you have to say "mind your own business" to those whose backs you walk on?

I have tried my best to present a factual account of my thoughts and resist my desire to insult those who seem ignorant to me, I would ask that all of you reading this do your best to afford the same curtesy to me and the other posters on this thread.

Click to expand...

Now, as to your drawing US economics into this.

We consume about 25%, so what? Your point is what? Is your bitch that we support the rest of the world by consuming their goods? Who would the miserable bastards sell their crap to if not for US markets. Take a course in ecomonics before you EVEN think of bringing this up again. My point, and a factual one, is that inorder for their to be a consumer, there must FIRST be a producer. And that fact doesn't change regardless of what economic system you choose, Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. Even the Chinese know this.

There are a great many countries in the world that should kiss our ass for the trade deficit that we are carrying. (By the way, this money does come back to us. Eventually.) It means that some factory worker, somewhere, is living a little better, eating a little better, getting his/her kids a little better education.

Be careful of the arguments you bring up. All swords have two edges.

As far as the UN debt goes? I hope we NEVER pay that one. I have rarely seen such a wasteful, useless organization in my life, or historically for that matter. It has become a pensionor's club for the cronies of third world dictators. As a taxpayer, I feel no obligation whatsoever to contribute to that abysmal morass of waste. I write my elected officials with some regularity expressing this very opinion. Apparently they still listen to me and my fellow countrymen.

Ishmael

" Daltonnez
Why didn't Arafat accept the Clinton Peace Plan?"

Sorry, I don't know the answer to that. I'm unfamiliar with the details of that proposition.

I know there was a recent plan proposed by Saudi Arabia for the land denominations to go back to the way they were in 1967, and entire Arab community agreed to this plan, even though it gives 78% of the holy land to Israel and only 22% to Palestine. Don't ask me to define "the holy land," those figures I am quoting from a Palestinian citizen I saw on a TV debate. I was quite impressed with it it was very informative and I wished I could have seen alot more, but they of course had limited time. Both sides recognised the other's right to have a presence in the area that is currently Isreal, unfortunetely the Israelis had no suggestion as to how that would be achieved and when asked about the double standard could say nothing other than "Life is unfair."

Let's forget third-party offerings and get back to an actual agreement between negotiated between Barak and Arafat that gave Arafat every single thing he asked for. Arafat did not sign it.

Now, you have provided much argument in detail on the other points. Let's be intellectually honest on this one.

Why didn't Arafat agree to peace and a country of his own?

For his people...

Jumping in

This looks like a good enough jumping point as any for my very first Literotica post (apologies to my Literotica ladyfriend I had promised "radio silence" to)

Some background on Mr. Bush might explain some of the current knee-jerk support. In America, George W. Bush's political base is essentially well-off-financially fiscal conservatives, coupled with a much smaller, though vitally important, fundamental Christian social conservative base.

Contrary to widely held beliefs, Mr. Bush's policies are not tailored to appease Jewish voters in America. He knows he will never garner appreciable support from Jews, and does not spend any political capital attempting to change their views.

What Mr. Bush is doing is attempting to placate Christian right-wingers in his own party. Rightly or wrongly, these Christians believe in the inerrancy of their Bible. To them, the establishment of Israel as a nation is a confirmation of Biblical prophecy. To them, Israel must be maintained and supported as a nation. This slavish simplistic view has unfortunatley given Israel a wide degree of latitude in its own internal and external conduct in world affairs.

Compounding the situation is the fact that Mr. Bush was installed in office after running on a platform that was diametrically opposed to anything his predecessor did. Since President Clinton was actively involved in seeking a peace solution in the middle east, Mr. Bush's policy was a knee-jerk 180 degrees different (82 celsius for you metric fans *grin). Only when the situation had spiraled totally out of control did Mr. Bush deign to get involved.

I have deleted this post because I was too angry when I wrote it and wasn't making much sense

Re: Daltonnez

SINthysist said:

Why didn't Arafat accept the Clinton Peace Plan?

Click to expand...

Easy peasy. Would you have accepted it under these restrictions?

Source: Media Monitors Network - a non-profit, non-bias and non-political platform which mainly helps to prevail the whole truth and generally facilitate answers to any disputed, controversial topic being broadcast, web cast, published, distributed or telecast in the world media. MMN is seeking for the truth in most critical "hot topics" which can often be twisted by the world media.

MMN was established in California, USA, in October 2000


"Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal?

For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living as equal neighbors. Israel's Camp David proposal, which was never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David proposal presented a 're-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation.

Didn't Israel's proposal give the Palestinians almost all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967?

No. Israel sought to annex almost 9% of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in exchange offered only 1% of Israel's own territory. In addition, Israel sought control over an additional 10% of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the form of a "long-term lease". However, the issue is not one of percentages - the issue is one of viability and independence. In a prison for example, 95% of the prison compound is ostensibly for the prisoners - cells, cafeterias, gym and medical facilities - but the remaining 5% is all that is needed for the prison guards to maintain control over the prisoner population.

Similarly, the Camp David proposal, while admittedly making Palestinian prison cells larger, failed to end Israeli control over the Palestinian population."

ppman

And when he did, he erred.

He should have applied his terrorism doctrine fairly.



















Unless one assumes there is still an endgame he is playing for...

Yes, but with Peace and the Nobel and the world press he could have launched a campaign for Independence that would have been greatly bolstered by displaying a willingness to build a country and live in peace with his neighbors.

But that’s not the way strong men do it and we are definitely dealing with a strong-man culture.

The answer is – HIS SIDE WOULD HAVE KILLED HIM AND CONTINUED THE WAR WITHOUT HIM BECAUSE THE FUCKERS ARE QUITE SIMPLY NEVER GOING TO STOP!







whew










I feel so much better…

Re: Jumping in

ThrobDownSouth said:

This looks like a good enough jumping point as any for my very first Literotica post (apologies to my Literotica ladyfriend I had promised "radio silence" to)

Some background on Mr. Bush might explain some of the current knee-jerk support. In America, George W. Bush's political base is essentially well-off-financially fiscal conservatives, coupled with a much smaller, though vitally important, fundamental Christian social conservative base.

Contrary to widely held beliefs, Mr. Bush's policies are not tailored to appease Jewish voters in America. He knows he will never garner appreciable support from Jews, and does not spend any political capital attempting to change their views.

What Mr. Bush is doing is attempting to placate Christian right-wingers in his own party. Rightly or wrongly, these Christians believe in the inerrancy of their Bible. To them, the establishment of Israel as a nation is a confirmation of Biblical prophecy. To them, Israel must be maintained and supported as a nation. This slavish simplistic view has unfortunatley given Israel a wide degree of latitude in its own internal and external conduct in world affairs.

Compounding the situation is the fact that Mr. Bush was installed in office after running on a platform that was diametrically opposed to anything his predecessor did. Since President Clinton was actively involved in seeking a peace solution in the middle east, Mr. Bush's policy was a knee-jerk 180 degrees different (82 celsius for you metric fans *grin). Only when the situation had spiraled totally out of control did Mr. Bush deign to get involved.

Click to expand...

Yes I don't think for one moment it's the Jewish vote that Bush has his eye on (unlike Harry S Truman all those years ago) and your point on the Christian right wingers in his own party is well taken.

But I do think the Jewish Lobby with its power, influence and money has a lot to do with Bush's actions in Israeli/Palestinian conflict over the past few weeks.

Especially with the mid-term elections coming up soon.

ppman

Re: Daltonnez

SINthysist said:

Why didn't Arafat accept the Clinton Peace Plan?

Click to expand...

See my post gentlemen. It has nothing to do with land. It has everything to do with the total elimination of Isreal. Arafat could not agree to anything in violation of the PLO charter.

As long as the Palestinians "require" the total elimination of Isreal, there will be no peace. And they (the Palestinians) will reap what they sow.

Ishmael

PS The creation of the state of Isreal came about as a result of the breakup of the British Protectorate of the middle east. It was a British initiative before the UN. Why are so many Brits here so anxious for the US to turn it's back on the very conditions created by the Brits? Why has it become the US's responsibility to 'clean up' their failed foriegn policy? The US had very little to do with the mid-east until the Brits abandoned the area after the 'Suez Crisis' in '56. Britain recognized the conceptual establishment of what was to become Isreal as far back as the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

For futher reading:

From the NY Post July 2, 1948

http://www.varchive.org/obs/480702.htm

Re: Re: Daltonnez

Ishmael said:

Why has it become the US's responsibility to 'clean up' their failed foriegn policy?

Click to expand...

No idea.

I can only think America saw Israel as a way of extending her economic colonisation in the area.

Bit short sighted of her I would say.

Now the going's getting tough, the tough don't wanna know...

Re: Re: Re: Daltonnez

p_p_man said:

No idea.

I can only think America saw Israel as a way of extending her economic colonisation in the area.

Bit short sighted of her I would say.

Now the going's getting tough, the tough don't wanna know...

Click to expand...

ROFL - "Nequaquam vacui"

You're foriegn service experience taught you that.

However, let us discuss the PLO charter.

Is it intellectually sustainable to support a group that calls for the total irradication of another group? We will not discuss 'feelings' here, or make anecdotal references to unsupportable bull shit. We will discuss the declarations made in the PLO charter and what the the effect of the fulfillment of those goals, as stated in writing, would have on the region.

Ishmael

Ishmael

You're pissing in the wind, man. PP is convinced the Palestinians have been victimized and brutalized by Israel and the Butcher of Beirut .

This is the sum total of pp's political philosophy:

If it's American, I hate it.

Re: Ishmael

miles said:

You're pissing in the wind, man. PP is convinced the Palestinians have been victimized and brutalized by Israel and the Butcher of Beirut .

This is the sum total of pp's political philosophy:

If it's American, I hate it.

Click to expand...

Sorry Miles, I still get carried away with logic and moral values from time to time.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Ishmael

Re: Re: Ishmael

Ishmael said:

Sorry Miles, I still get carried away with logic and moral values from time to time.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

Don't EVER bring facts and logic into the equation! It's all about rhetoric!

Ishmael

Ishmael said:

You're foriegn service experience taught you that.

However, let us discuss the PLO charter.
Is it intellectually sustainable to support a group that calls for the total irradication of another group? We will not discuss 'feelings' here, or make anecdotal references to unsupportable bull shit. We will discuss the declarations made in the PLO charter and what the the effect of the fulfillment of those goals, as stated in writing, would have on the region.
Ishmael

Click to expand...

You have, in effect, busted ppman's balls.

He's all about rhetoric, anectodes, and bullshit.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Daltonnez

Ishmael said:

However, let us discuss the PLO charter.
Ishmael

Click to expand...

I know you tend to confuse yourself at times in your deliberations and I know also that you only post to appear in print, because, I admit, you have a beoootiful style, (that's based on my not having seen anything worthwhile coming from you yet - but you could still prove me wrong) but if you bother to go back one page you will see my reply to SexyChele on the PLO Charter.

I'll teach you how to hold a thread if you like.

It's quite simple, first you...

Damn I've run out of time.

ppman

Re: Ishmael

miles said:

PP is convinced the Palestinians have been victimized and brutalized by Israel and the Butcher of Beirut

Click to expand...

But of course. I thought everyone knew that, apart from the brainwashed few that is...

ppman