| Author | Message | ||
     Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 493 Registered: 8-2004 |
Also, Paul I'm not interested in a "discussion" with someone who ignores inconvenient questions or facts, who constantly repeats refuted ideas like the UN, and who is eager to criticize anyone who would take action against these murderers without suggesting what else might be done besides surrender. My point in all this is to show everyone reading this that you have an ax to grind. If after understanding that they still want to take you seriously, that's their problem. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave  Post Number: 10348 Registered: 4-1997  |
Maybe you can cite the posts where Paul is displaying an ax to grind? | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 697 Registered: 2-2003 |
Gordon, I'll second Dave's request, and also ask why -- if you're not interested in a discussion with me -- have you repeatedly posted comments that are addressed to me and/or my postings? Isn't this a discussion board? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 848 Registered: 1-2006 |
There are others with useful opinions, such as the following on "useful idiots," which certainly doesn't apply to us. But, recall the New York Times reporter Walter Duranty, who saw Stalin's gulag empire, and reported from his Moscow post throughout the thirties that he had seen the future and it was good. Here, one possible future stares at us, and some see it better than others. Here it is, from an Iranian exile: Islam's Useful Idiots August 7th, 2006 Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” the sort of people Lenin identified living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies, but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology. Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population. Arguably, the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception. The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to. The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception. Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning Quarterback.” The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society—the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct. Even a “normal” person spends a great deal more energy aiming to fix things out there than working to overcome his own flaws and shortcomings, or contribute positively to the larger society. People don’t like to take stock of what they are doing or not doing that is responsible for the conditions they disapprove. But the Useful Idiot takes things much farther. The Useful Idiot, among other things, is a master practitioner of scapegoating. He assigns blame to others while absolving himself of responsibility, has a long handy list of candidates for blaming anything and everything, and by living a distorted life, he contributes to the ills of society. The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate. Regrettably, a large segment of the population goes along with these nonsensical euphemisms depicting Islam because it prefers to believe them. It is less threatening to believe that only a hijacked small segment of Islam is radical or politically driven and that the main body of Islam is indeed moderate and non-political. But Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and state are one and the same—the mosque is the state. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical in the extreme. Even the “moderate” Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well-deserve being maltreated compared to believers. No radical barbaric act of depravity is unthinkable for Muslims in dealing with others. They have destroyed precious statues of Buddha, leveled sacred monuments of other religions, and bulldozed the cemeteries of non-Muslims—a few examples of their utter extreme contempt toward others. Muslims are radical even in their intrafaith dealings. Various sects and sub-sects pronounce other sects and sub-sects as heretics worthy of death; women are treated as chattel, deprived of many rights; hands are chopped for stealing even a loaf of bread; sexual violation is punished by stoning, and much much more. These are standard day-to-day ways of the mainstream “moderate” Muslims living under the stone-age laws of Sharia. The “moderate” mainstream of Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man, beheaded 700 Jewish men in the presence of the Prophet himself. The Prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men’s women and children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most vicious and shameless practitioners of slavery. The slave trade, even today, is a thriving business in some Islamic lands where wealthy, perverted sheikhs purchase children of the poor from traffickers for their sadistic gratification. Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself—something that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same. Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a ruse. As soon as he gathered the reins of power, Khomeini went after the Useful Idiots of his time with vengeance. These best children of Iran, having been thoroughly deceived and used by the crafty phony populist-religionist, had to flee the country to avoid the fate of tens of thousands who were imprisoned or executed by the double-crossing imam. Almost three decades after the tragic Islamic Revolution of 1979, the suffocating rule of Islam casts its death-bearing pal over Iranians. A proud people with enviable heritage is being systematically purged of its sense of identity and forced to think and behave like the barbaric and intolerant Muslims. Iranians who had always treated women with equality, for instance, have seen them reduced by the stone-age clergy to sub-human status of Islamic teaching. Any attempt by the women of Iran to counter the misogynist rule of Muhammad’s mullahs is mercilessly suppressed. Women are beaten, imprisoned, raped and killed just as men are slaughtered without due process or mercy. The lesson is clear. Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power. Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist. He maintains a website at AmilImani.com | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 494 Registered: 8-2004 |
Everything Paul posts argues that the IDF attacks can accomplish nothing and that Israel should instead arrive at some political accomodation with Hezbollah. He doesn't answer questions about the one-sidedness of his information sources, he doesn't respond to criticisms that postures very similar to those he recommends have been tried and failed, he ignores any possibility that military action could have positive political consequences. What's the point of debating strategy with someone who can't answer a question? But Paul does offer one promising line of discussion, and I sincerely apologize for missing it.
As I've said all along, Paul's selective analysis suggests that his strategic judgment is predetermined by some other opinion, and I think we are seeing it here. He's happy to be called an appeaser, because he doubts that anyone can offer anything more "humane" or "morally sound". I'm not sure I can. I'm not about to call the displacement of a million morally sound,or the deaths of hundreds of innocents "humane", whether they were are accidental or not. The IDF in South Lebanon is an ugly business. But it might be necessary, and it is separated from the wicked brutality of Hezbollah by the hope that, pushed far enough and done well, it might end this sort of thing. Whereas the violence of Hezbollah has no stopping point but will go on and get larger as its capabilities grow. Paul doesn't care about those distinctions. All he sees is the inhumanity of the IDF, and he's not wrong, as far he goes. He is against inhumanity, for any reason, and sees any justification of violence as an excuse for perpetuating inhumanity. These, I think, are the real roots of Paul's position, and if he's willing to admit them, or if not to describe what those real roots are, then we might have an interesting discussion. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10349 Registered: 4-1997 |
You don't think Israel displaced Palestinians? There are two sides to this and there always will be. What Paul is pointing out is that overly emotional people on both sides won't be able to reach any kind of agreement if there is no ceasefire. Hezbollah is going nowhere. Lebanon is going nowhere. Syria is going nowhere. Israel is going nowhere. These are the facts. Killing people solves nothing. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4635 Registered: 12-2001  |
I guess GWB is the "useful idiot" because his belligerence is forcing moderate groups in the Islamic world to distance themselves from the United States. We are doing the Iranian reformers no favor by locking horns with Ahmedinejad. Ahmedinejad, I think, understands this and has done his part to precipitate the uranium enrichment argument. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12336 Registered: 5-2001 |
In fairness to Israel, it is pretty hard to reach an accomodation with a group such as Hezbollah that is sworn to push you back into the sea. Sometimes I view remarks such as that as bravado. With Hezbollah I tend to believe them. I can work up a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians who I view as an oppressed people. Hezbollah doesn't get my sympathy. One way or another Hezbollah has shown itself to be very inteligently led and capable of inflicting a lot of damage on the vaunted IDF. One positive sign is that Israel is taking prisoners who actually surrendered, rather than die in place. Possibly the war is having some effect on the resolve of the Hezbollah fighters. Israel seems to initially had two problems. First the new, and rather inexperienced, government bought into the very American idea that you can bomb an enemy into submission and all the ground forces have to do is mop up. If this works, and I don't think it does, you keep the casualties down, which is important to Israel with its conscript and reserve army. The second problem is that the IDF is really a tank army designed and equipted to fight a war of manuever in the desert. Their tanks are proving to be very vulnerable, according to news reports, to the modern anti-tank weapons supplied by Syria in what is basically a mountain war against fixed positions. Don't pick on Paul. He is basically one of the last rationale men left on earth. He believes with great passion that reasonable people can reach reasonable settlements. However, that always isn't the case.  | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4637 Registered: 12-2001 |
Actually, this strategic bombing idea is a British import. It didn't work in WW II and it isn't working now. It has the hallmarks of insanity - you keep trying the same thing with the expectation of different results. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 698 Registered: 2-2003 |
Gordon, You misread again. I called your reference to "appeasement" a theory. Fortunately, it's a theory that's misinformed, misguided and wrong. As far as not answering questions, if I failed to answer a question, I apologize. Please resubmit and I'll be more than happy to answer. The premise of my basic argument about the IDF bombing of Lebanon -- that it makes Hezbollah stronger and undermines Israeli security -- has been borne out in the last several weeks. For example, Nicholas Kristof on Sunday reported that: And continued bombing will further strengthen Hezbollah in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East and further undermine Israel's security. That's why I have opposed the bombing from the beginning and why I advocate ending the bombing -- by accepting Nasrallah's offer -- now. The humanitarian issues arising from the destruction of Lebanon and the subjugation of Israel to death and terrorism from rockets are important, but the political/security imperative of following a strategy that makes Arab moderates stronger and makes Arab extremists weaker stands on its own. But back to the questions that you say I haven't answered, please post them again and I promise I'll answer them. Many thanks. | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4638 Registered: 12-2001 |
Building on what Paul said, I heard an interesting commentary on NPR on Friday pointing out that terrorists thrive on weak and shattered states AND that our actions in the Middle East have thus far weakened states as opposed to strengthening them. | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 495 Registered: 8-2004 |
So close, and yet so far. Paul, if you won't discuss the real sources of your opinions, there's nothing to talk about. Because as I've noted above, the opinions you offer here are so detached from the facts available to us that they cannot be derived from those facts, and will survive any facts we do get. Arguing further only gives you a platform for your polemics. No, Paul, I shan't go back and gather the half-dozen questions you've sidestepped; the last time I supported my contentions from the record, you ignored that too. Anyone who thinks you're falsely accused can go back and see for themselves. The only people who find you persuasive are the ones who agreed with you in the first place; and everyone else figured you out a while ago. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10354 Registered: 4-1997 |
I went searching back and the only post of Gordon's that contains a question mark is this one: "What's the point of debating strategy with someone who can't answer a question?" So I infer that must be the question Paul needs to answer. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 699 Registered: 2-2003 |
Gordon, I'm disappointed, that's a real cop-out. And as far as your notion that you'll deny me "a platform" by refusing to engage in dialogue, I hate to disappoint you, but I don't need your help to find "a platform" for my views. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 700 Registered: 2-2003 |
Dave, With respect to Gordon's question (I'll keep my promise to answer his questions): I guess I would answer that question like this -- if you can provide examples of questions that your opponent refuses to answer, you can demonstrate a weakness in your opponent's position. On the other hand, if you claim that your opponent refuses to answer questions, but you can't provide any examples of those questions, that indicates a weakness in your position. | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 496 Registered: 8-2004 |
A week ago, I contended that Paul was downplaying the strategic possibilities of the military operation. He said it wasn't so and asked for proof, I dug through the archive and came up with this:
Somehow, this never got a response. I could go through the exercise again, but there is little gained by it -- Paul would go silent for a day or so, and then re-emerge with the same predictable take, and we'd be back at square one. If you don't believe me, read the thread yourself. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 701 Registered: 2-2003 |
Gordon, Your assertion that I did not respond to your post is simply false. Here's a copy of my response (July 31, 2006, 11:47 pm):
| ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 5374 Registered: 9-2001  |
"Perhaps talks with Syria & Iran for starters, since they are the ones orchestrating behind the scenes." Phenixrising, IMHO, Lebanon is for all intent and purpose a terrorist state... It's clear that their military is made up in large part by the Hezbollah as is their government. The idea of talks with Syria and Iran is a good one. They are orchestrating this war and need to know that they're next if they don't stop their support for the Hezbollah. | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 497 Registered: 8-2004 |
Personally, Paul, I don't think repeating the same selective newsreading and narrow analysis you're accused of make much of a reply. Credibility is a silly thing to argue about, and if you're satisfied with your replies, I'm satisfied to let the readers judge. | ||
| Phenixrising Citizen Username: Phenixrising Post Number: 1839 Registered: 9-2004  |
“IMHO, Lebanon is for all intent and purpose a terrorist state...” ajc, WRONG! Lebanon is a muti-cultural state. About 91% of the population of Lebanon is urban and comprises many different ethnic groups and religions, including numerous Christian and Muslim sects. Lebanon has by far the largest proportion of Christians of any Arab country. It's clear that their military is made up in large part by the Hezbollah as is their government. WRONG again… After the 2005 elections, Hezbollah won fourteen seats in the 128-member Lebanese Parliament. In addition, Hezbollah has two ministers in the government, and a third is endorsed by the group. Hezbollahs base is in Lebanon’s Shiite-dominated areas, including parts of Beirut, southern Lebanon, and the Bekaa Valley. However, their military may seems to be influenced by Syria and its control seems to be mainly in south of Lebanon This isn’t even half of the country. However, after the attack of Israel the tides have change. Here is an exchange from Tim Russert to Condi Rice on a poll taken AFTER the invasion. “MR. RUSSERT: But according to polling that Nick Confessore writes about in The New York Times today in Lebanon, 87 percent of the Lebanese support Hezbollah against Israel; 80 percent of the Lebanese Christians support Hezbollah over Israel. Has our policy of, in effect, giving Israel a green light to continue their military response, and for you to wait at least two weeks before going to the Middle East, has that backfired, and in fact made Lebanon as a country much more sympathetic to Hezbollah? ******************************** This was NOT the case before the crisis. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10358 Registered: 4-1997 |
The Lebanese Government has to make a choice: 1) Declare war on Israel, 2) Declare war on Hezbollah, or 3) Step aside and concede power to Hassan Nasrallah. So far it has done none of these, but it's not a terror state. It's a weakened state. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 702 Registered: 2-2003 |
Gordon, If you don't like my response, that's fair enough. But you said and that's a false statement. You're right that credibility is a silly thing to argue about when you've been exposed for making a false statement and don't even have the integrity to admit it and make a retraction. | ||
| Gordon Agress Citizen Username: Odd Post Number: 498 Registered: 8-2004 |
Well, Paul, you're right. ". . . never got a _useful_ response" would have been slightly more accurate. Your preference addressing semantics rather than substance speaks for itself. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 703 Registered: 2-2003 |
Gordon, That's a weasely and intellectually dishonest retraction, but I guess it's the best you can do. Speaking of substance, what do you have to say of substance about the topic at hand -- the war between Hezbollah and Israel? | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2667 Registered: 3-2003 |
Paul, must you turn every thread in which you are challenged into a digression on your wounded honor? Agress does not find you credible. He explained why, multiple posts ago, and plainly does not care to engage further with you, as he believes you will continue to make remarks he considers evasions of your underlying views. Why not drop it already. | ||
| tulip Citizen Username: Braveheart Post Number: 3801 Registered: 3-2004  |
Paul, must you be so...so...right and convincing, ethical, patient and decent all the time???!!! Be nasty, get dirty and mean, irrational and wrong-headed like everyone else for goodness sake!!! | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1816 Registered: 10-2004  |
 | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 704 Registered: 2-2003 |
J Crohn, Well, since the ball is now in Gordon's court, I think you should ask him to "drop it already" if you're concerned about further exchanges between us. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1345 Registered: 4-2006 |
Paul- I know you mean well, but the world is not populated by boy scouts. Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad well take your lunch money, or your lunch box, and your life. In historical terms this enemy is closest to the 20th century Nazis,i.e. pure evil. No time to go all wobbly knee, i.e. become negotiating appeasers. This is the 21st century test for the descendants of what Tom Brokaw writes is the "greatest generation", those who fought and won WWII. Interesting to read what the field generals of MOL have to say about the conflict, but let's see what actually has transpired at the end. I believe the Israeli millitary has a better grasp of things than you think. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 705 Registered: 2-2003 |
Facts, The only solution to Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad is to discredit and marginalize them in the eyes of their own people. They can be killed but their ideologies can't be killed by military force, especially by bombs that destroy civilians and the infrastructure that supports civilian life. The killing and kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers was an outrage on many levels, especially because it was committed by a rogue army within a sovereign nation. Israel had to respond, but its leaders should have thought carefully about the consequences of its response. Would its response discredit Hezbollah and marginalize it in the eyes of the Lebanese people? Or would its response victimize the Lebanese people and turn the Lebanese people against Israel, instead of against Hezbollah? There is plenty of evidence that the Israeli leadership believed that "hitting the Lebanese" would turn them against Hezbollah, because they would blame Hezbollah on their troubles. I've cited before Bret Stephens' column in the Wall Street Journal which revealed that in Israeli security circles the bombing was viewed as a way to tell the Lebanese people that "the boss-man has gone beserk." What could Israel have done differently? Imagine a scenario where Israel went to the UN Security Council urging that action be taken to return the soldiers and that measures be taken to implement Resolution 1559. And coupled with this a massive public relations campaign to expose to the Arab world that Hezbollah had committed an international act of agression against a neighbor who wants to live in peace, in total disrespect of the democratically elected government of Lebanon. Would the soldiers have been returned? Would 1559 have been implemented? Certainly not for a while. But a political struggle would have been launched in which Israel could effectively make its case to the Lebanese people and Arabs throughout the Middle East. Hezbollah would have been on the defensive. Instead, we have a situation where Hezbollah has the support of 87% of the Lebanese people has achieved heroic status in most of the Arab world. It's entirely possible that as a result of the bombing, Hezbollah could come to power in Lebanon, as Hamas did in Palestine. It's too late to undo all of the damage, but it's not too late for Israel to adopt a strategy that recognizes that politics and ideology are as important in the struggle against terrorism as military security. This approach should inform Israel's position in the Security Council debate that is now underway. The two combined principles to follow are well-known: politics is the art of what is possible and war is politics by other means. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 856 Registered: 1-2006 |
Terrorism is the ideology. Politics is the religion. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15519 Registered: 10-2001  |
This is the most important post in the whole thread. Can anyone figure out why? | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 86 Registered: 4-2006 |
PhenxRising quotes Russert: “MR. RUSSERT: But according to polling that Nick Confessore writes about in The New York Times today in Lebanon, 87 percent of the Lebanese support Hezbollah against Israel; 80 percent of the Lebanese Christians support Hezbollah over Israel. Has our policy of, in effect, giving Israel a green light to continue their military response, and for you to wait at least two weeks before going to the Middle East, has that backfired, and in fact made Lebanon as a country much more sympathetic to Hezbollah? Phenix - I know these are not your thoughts, but when is Tim Russert going to get it through his thick skull that polls questioning subjects of a communist, dictatorial or terrorist state do not have that much credibility. Ask a Cuban if they love Fidel and the answer is yes, the alternative is death. Ask an East German if they love the Stasi and the anwer was yes, the alternative was unpleasant. Ask a Lebanese Muslim or Christian if they like Hizbollah and under the implicit threat that they will be 'disappeared' if they give the wrong answer, more often than not, they say yes. Does Hizbollah kill Muslims or Christians in Lebanon, we don't know - they don't exactly publish those statistics. Were East Germans happy when the wall came down, yes, do Cubans swim through shark infested waters for their freedom, yes...and before you try to equate those people seeking their freedom with suicide bombers, don't even try. Suicide bombers are the helpless and hapless, ignorant ones, the terrorist leaders don't strap bombs on themselves or their family members. And the suicide bombers target civilians. Yes, this is rambling, but no - Lebanese people - deep down inside - do not love being controlled by Hezbollah - despite what they say with a literal or figurative gun to their head. | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 87 Registered: 4-2006 |
Paul S write: "Imagine a scenario where Israel went to the UN Security Council urging that action be taken to return the soldiers and that measures be taken to implement Resolution 1559. And coupled with this a massive public relations campaign to expose to the Arab world that Hezbollah had committed an international act of agression against a neighbor who wants to live in peace, in total disrespect of the democratically elected government of Lebanon. Would the soldiers have been returned? Would 1559 have been implemented? Certainly not for a while. But a political struggle would have been launched in which Israel could effectively make its case to the Lebanese people and Arabs throughout the Middle East. Hezbollah would have been on the defensive. " Paul - what bizarro world are you living in? An Israeli PR campaign succeeding in convincing Arabs? Soldiers returned through peaceful negotiation? 1559 implemented unilaterally? I don't follow all the threads here, but the only thing I can hope is that you wrote this as satire? | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 858 Registered: 1-2006 |
Thank you, sbenois. jd | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 15522 Registered: 10-2001 |
I meant mine sport. | ||
| joel dranove Citizen Username: Jdranove Post Number: 859 Registered: 1-2006 |
Paul, dream on about Israel making its case to Arab states and populace. The "Zionist entity" Israel doesn't exist in their view of reality, where the re-creation of a Jewish state, in 1947 is considered the "catastrophe" naqba, for starters. The war to exterminate Israel is in its sixth decade. It is just the latest installment of global jihad, revived and strong and in its fourteenth century. You are playing politics with an ideology of terrorism for religious conquest. You lose, eventually, your life. jd | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 706 Registered: 2-2003 |
Ender, Let me put it to you in more simple terms: A more intelligent and effective response to the killing and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah would have been an international political and diplomatic offensive, rather than a military air campaign which victimized the Lebanese people. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10374 Registered: 4-1997 |
Even Israel seems to be somewhat acknowledging this in their firing of a general today. | ||
| Ender Citizen Username: Enderw Post Number: 88 Registered: 4-2006 |
More intelligent - maybe, civilized - yes Effective (when confronting islamo-fascists) - no way Using an international political and diplomatic offensive against Hezbollah is naive - in 'simple' terms. |
