Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Okay let me get this straight. At first, the justification for war was imminent threat from WMDs. Then when there were no WMDs,

We still need to search Syria.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Okay let me get this straight. At first, the justification for war was imminent threat from WMDs.

Yes. Still is. There were sanctions etc. showing that the UN believed that Iraq had them Ty argues that Clinton blew up some stuff and that's why they were all gone. This "magic missile" theory is perhaps why Clinton believed shooting a cruise missile into a hill inAfghanistan negated the Taliban.

Now the argument against invading Iraq was that the UN did not support an invasion and that we could have left the Un to continue business as usual. Back then I disagreed we could have left the UN. I assume you now also agree the UN could not have been left to handle it.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Yes. Still is. There were sanctions etc. showing that the UN believed that Iraq had them Ty argues that Clinton blew up some stuff and that's why they were all gone. This "magic missile" theory is perhaps why Clinton believed shooting a cruise missile into a hill inAfghanistan negated the Taliban.

He hit a camel in the arse.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There are Israelis who want a state which does not permit Palestinians to have a land of their own -- e.g., who would settle and control Gaza and the West Bank. Those Israelis -- and there are many of them -- seek more than "reasonable and defensible boundaries."

Yes, but the relative numbers are far from comparable. The number of hard-liners is but a small minority. Look at what is happening this week. The will of the majority of Israelis is being executed by forcing their countrymen to abandon their homes in hopes of a potential peace with the Palis.

There are Palestinians who seek something less than driving the Israelis into the sea. Israel should not bother to negotiate with the others. But failing to deal with these Palestinians in good faith, and failing to do things that strengthen them, will predictably strengthen the extremists. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Israel's strategy at times has been to weaken the moderates, to keep the conflict percolating and strengthen its own position.

How are they failing to deal with them in good faith? Look at what is happening this week. Israel is voluntarily giving up land acquired 30+ years ago. This search for moral equivalency is ridiculous.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Yes. Still is. There were sanctions etc. showing that the UN believed that Iraq had them Ty argues that Clinton blew up some stuff and that's why they were all gone. This "magic missile" theory is perhaps why Clinton believed shooting a cruise missile into a hill inAfghanistan negated the Taliban.

Now the argument against invading Iraq was that the UN did not support an invasion and that we could have left the Un to continue business as usual. Back then I disagreed we could have left the UN. I assume you now also agree the UN could not have been left to handle it.

I can't agree to it, in part because I can't really figure out what you're talking about.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Again, the difference to me is, when Shamir, Begin and Sharon are on the winning side, by winning it meant getting a nation. Once they had that they were interested in administering that nation as a responsibile member of the regional and international community. Arab state aggression has caused them to act in manner of self-defence that other's criticise as excessive or aggressive; however Israel seems to have the capacity to peacefully coexist with its neighbours (see Jordan, and Egypt). OTOH, Arafat and the rest of the PLO leadership was fairly clear that their idea of victory meant no more Israel, no more Jews in the middle east. they may have (and be) softpeddling this of late but go to the Arabic versions of their speeches (i.e not what they say when the liberal MSM is around and they speak in English) for their true intent.



I disagree. I think modern day Israel has the moral highground.

I think Israel is finally slouching toward an attempt at a peaceful resolution. The leadership clearly is attempting to work out a platform for coexistence. I'm not sure they have enough of the people behind them, but I hope they do.

At the moment, I'm neutral but willing to tilt toward optimism.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
They are not just influential, they are the leaders.

Here's another quote from Nobel Peace Prize winner Arafat:

"We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem."

Here's another:

"Continued to press on soldiers of freedom! We will not bend or fail until the blood of every last Jew from the youngest child to the oldest elder is spilt to redeem or land!"

1. Arafat is dead.

2. Clinton is no longer President.

3. Constantly harping on shibboleths undermines your credibility.

FWIW.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations.-Yassir Arafat

He's dead.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Since we cannot defeat Israel in war; we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel. -Yassir Arafat

He's dead.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem. -Yassir Arafat

He's dead.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Whoever thinks of stopping the uprising before it achieves its goals, I will give him ten bullets in the chest. -Yassir Arafat

He's dead.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Arafat is dead, but his legacy is undeniably strong. there has not been a real substantive change.



You might be able to, but the bottom line is, Sharon attempts to act through the international legal process, Sharon is the product of democratically elections and Sharon is not trying to kill all of the Palestinians. On the latter, if he was, he wouldn't be pulling out of Gaza.

He's dead.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by taxwonk
He's dead.

While enlightening, I'm not sure this brand of reply can be considered "schtick-free". I'm checking with a panel of experts and I'll let you know the results.


ETA: Ah, you are merely claiming to be sctick-free, not schtick-free. Maybe this was my mistake.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not in a mood.

The references to the Peace Prize are a mocking denigration of the culmination of the liberals (more in Europe but also the US) effourts to draw a moral equivalency between the PLO and Israel. These liberals took a mass murderer, a man bent on genocide, a man with a record of killing non-combatants, including targetting school children, going back 40 plus years, a man who effectively introduced the concept of hijacking as a political tool to the terrorists agenda, a man who denigated the Olympics by turning it into a crime scence, and made him a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

there is no retrospect here. The people who supported Arafat, the people who broke bread with Arafat and the people who's effourts at legitimatizing him to the point that his historical legacy is Nobel Peace Prize winner instead of babykilling terrorist knew going in who he was. To his credit despite sometimes putting some icing on the shitcake he was, he never strayed far from his true belief of the righteousness of driving all the jews into the sea. But his supporters in the West were willing to overlook the massive shitcake and see only the thin layer of icing. These people have de-legitimised the Nobel Peace Prize. Unless they were to rescind his award (which would make no sense, as there was no mistake, he was who he was when he got it) I can't look at it with any respect. that doesnt undercut any winners' legitimate accomplishmets. It has the meaning of Lawrence Olivier winning a people's choice award.

My point is to point out the dangers of the moral relativity that the Clintons and their pals so love.

He's dead.

The Clintons are not in the White House.

Begin, Sharon, Netanyahu, Shamir, et.al., became legitimate statesmen through the same means practiced by Arafat. Once they won the war(s), they no longer had to keep engaging in terrorism. There is no proof that if the Arab League had won the war in 1948, they would not now be in the samed position that Israel is and the Israelis wouldn't still be blowing things up. This point is trengthened by the simple observation that the Israelis are still blowing things up. They are using soldiers and Apache attack helicopters, but the buildings are still crumbling and the body count is still rising.

Who's the moral relativist here, Penske? J'accuse.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
"The Israelis are mistaken if they think we do not have an alternative to negotiations. By Allah I swear they are wrong. The Palestinian people are prepared to sacrifice the last boy and the last girl so that the Palestinian flag will be flown over the walls, the churches and the mosques of Jerusalem."

--- P.L.O. Chairman Yasser Arafat, in a speech given on 6 August 1995 at a party to celebrate the birth of his daughter (Haaretz, 6 September 1995; The Jerusalem Post, 7 September 1995)

2005: He's dead.