Israeli airstrike into Gaza kills fighter

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

That might have been possible at one time, but that little '67 war thingy and the one that followed a few years later, now followed by Iran going after a nuke, I doubt that will ever happen. But I bet you that the Persians would be willing to sacrifice the Arabs just to drop the big one on Israel.

Tough, if they did not want Palestinians to have nukes when they were in the same state, they should not have gotten nukes.
We have nukes, the UK has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, Israel has em', all kinds of people in that area do... we have no right to tell Iran they can't have em'. If we want to stop doing business with em' over it... so be it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Tough, if they did not want Palestinians to have nukes when they were in the same state, they should not have gotten nukes.
We have nukes, the UK has nukes, Pakistan has nukes, Israel has em', all kinds of people in that area do... we have no right to tell Iran they can't have em'. If we want to stop doing business with em' over it... so be it.

I would suggest we stop telling them they can't have them and set one off with a special ops team from the Mossad at their factory, tell everybody it was an accident in their processing plant. Might put an end to the issue.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Ok, I think you are wrong and it does go both ways.

Opposing the expansion of Israel means you oppose the existance of Israel? No. You can oppose the settlements and support Israel's existance.

That has been my experience. I have been to Israel. I have been to the Middle East. The people over there don't just hate the presence of the Jewish State.... They hate Jews.

That's anecdotal, and in any case it just shows one direction. An antisemite in the Middle East is likely to be anti-Zionist (As I mentioned, an American or European antisemite could just as easily be a gung-ho Zionist). But anti-Zionism doesn't imply anything about antisemetism.

And opposing expansion says nothing about either.

The rest of that is a ruse by anti-Jewish supporters of the Arab cause.

The rest of what?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Opposing the expansion of Israel means you oppose the existance of Israel?

A pretty rare position, but one that I support.

An antisemite in the Middle East is likely to be anti-Zionist (As I mentioned, an American or European antisemite could just as easily be a gung-ho Zionist). But anti-Zionism doesn't imply anything about antisemetism.

I think we have established that we disagree on that issue. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. You have not made your case to me in that respect.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

we have no right to tell Iran they can't have em'.

In international relations the whole notion of "rights" kinda goes right out the window. Without an established body of law, a governing organization, and international police, the basic disagreement about what "rights" are actually granted to various states is a big mess. It's sorta like, you have the "right" to walk through Harlem with a sign saying "I hate niggers" (ala Die Hard 3), but without policing, you can expect that your right really doesn't apply at all, and will be taken from you. Sure, your natural right still exists but your actual, real-life right will be revoked, along with many others of your rights.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

A pretty rare position, but one that I support.

I'm sorry, what position do you supoprt? That
Opposing the expansion of Israel means you oppose the existance of Israel?

If so, then at least you admit that's a rare position. We can therefore remove opposition to expansion from your "flock".

I think we have established that we disagree on that issue. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. You have not made your case to me in that respect.

The fact that we disagree is evidence for my position, as I am able to consider the issues separately and your position is that doing so is impossible.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I'm sorry, what position do you supoprt? That
Opposing the expansion of Israel means you oppose the existance of Israel?

If so, then at least you admit that's a rare position. We can therefore remove opposition to expansion from your "flock".

The fact that we disagree is evidence for my position, as I am able to consider the issues separately and your position is that doing so is impossible.

Negative. You are wrong again. I support the right of Israel to exist in its present form. No I do not admit that it "rare", only not mainstream. "My flock"???? what the fuck are you talking about? The fact we disagree provides no evidence for your position. Don't be an idiot. You can consider what ever the hell you want. Nothing you have stated makes you more correct than me.

Nice try though.

[Happy Monkey]

Rare was your word, not mine.

Flock was your word, not mine.

You are unable to maintain a coherent argument.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Merc

Most people, IMHO, who claim to be anti-Zionist are in fact also anti-Semitic.

No, there is a big difference. Jews are people, Zionism is an ideology. I am against Communism but I don't hate Communists. I am against the ideology of Neo-conservatism but I don't personally hate Neo-conservatives. I am against most forms of Zionism but I don't hate Jews.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I would like to see one state created with no special treatment for either group. All former borders returned to UN specifications. All land stolen by Israel from their neighbors in the name of "god promised", ever, is returned.

This is a good idea but I don't think it will work. For one, there are so many Israeli settlements in both in the 1967 borders and in the West Bank.

Originally Posted by harpers.org

Meanwhile, the small band of Gush Emunim has grown to some 230,000 settlers today, not including those in Jerusalem. Army intelligence is rumored to have concluded that 10 percent of the settlers (not including their supporters in Israel proper) would violently resist being moved, and the army command warns against political decisions that would force Jews to shed the blood of other Jews.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/01/0080361

There are too many Jews outside the 1948 borders to have an "ethical" moment or peaceful moment for that matter. The lines are so blurred with Arabs in Israel and Israelis in Palestine, the chances of a fair border being picked is basically impossible. Also to move the 230,000 Israelis and the many more outside the 1948 borders is just as bad as Israel forcing Palestinians out of their homes. It would be so much easier for the entire state to integrate fully.

Originally Posted by Merc

now followed by Iran going after a nuke

I don't trust Iran but the real leader of Iran is a lot less extreme than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Also, Iran has to know that if they nuke Israel the, in return, will be sent back to the stone age. I am not saying that they would never nuke Iran, but all logic says different. But lately, it seems all the world leaders have stopped using logic a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Merc

I would suggest we stop telling them they can't have them and set one off with a special ops team from the Mossad at their factory, tell everybody it was an accident in their processing plant. Might put an end to the issue.

And directly messing up other people's plans and blaming it on them will help us how? I believe things like this are the reason why Iran hates us in the first place.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Pierce, did I not remark that fascism can have quite a bit of kid appeal? Did you miss that sentence? There's your answer. The callow and the youthful are the ones most readily seduced by fascism. Old bulls like me have the mental wherewithal to tell its proponents where to get off, where to go, and what to do once they get there. (It involves palletloads of Ex-Lax.)

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

If actually attacked, you fight to win in a way that is productive.

Yeah, right: allow the antilibertarian opposition the first strike.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Pierce, did I not remark that fascism can have quite a bit of kid appeal? Did you miss that sentence? There's your answer. The callow and the youthful are the ones most readily seduced by fascism. Old bulls like me have the mental wherewithal to tell its proponents where to get off, where to go, and what to do once they get there. (It involves palletloads of Ex-Lax.)

Define fascism for me. You say I'm a fascist but do nothing to back it up. How am I a fascist?

This is a good idea but I don't think it will work. For one, there are so many Israeli settlements in both in the 1967 borders and in the West Bank.

Their lil' hobby has been making others move, they can move.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Define fascism for me.

Someone who doesn't think that the US should invade and occupy every dictatorship on Earth.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Someone who doesn't think that the US should invade and occupy every dictatorship on Earth.

DAMMIT! UG was right.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Their lil' hobby has been making others move, they can move.

Sorry to be cliche but two wrongs don't make a right. We can't just tell them to move just like the Native Americans can't tell us to move. While I wouldn't be overly opposed to forcing moving the Jews back to Israel, but it seems like it will cause more problems then it will solve.

If we split Israel into a bi or tri-national state and then slowly combine it into one-state, both Palestinians and Israelis can together.