Harvey wrote:

"FP" <FP@fp.can> wrote in message news:401A44B2.9E18A22D@fp.can...

Harvey wrote:

"FP" <FP@fp.can> wrote in message news:40173FD8.58E1C34E@fp.can...

me and bobby mcgee wrote:

"You the Jews are invited to live in safety in Palestine, the

whole..."

Wait, but I thought the nasty A-rabs wanted to toss the poor

into

the sea!

They do want to toss the Jews, Christians, and everyone else

(Infidels

that

they are) into the sea.

A few do. :( Not many. Not too many want to kill the

That would be news to the Arabs I know. You know you go to the

World and say the Arabs want to throw the Jews into the sea, and

will laugh at you. It is regarded as a Zionist lie.

By the way- who the hell do the "Palestinians" think they are to

claim

it is

THEIR land anyway?

Cuz it is?

The Israelites lived there long before the Arab Muslims,

So what? The IsraeliteNazis got tossed out on their butts long

2000 yrs ago. They are out. You cannot come back and reclaim

land

2000 yrs later after you got conquered and tossed, forget it.

Interesting. I like the thread and your way of reasoning in it thus

FP.

Thx!

But I have questions.

1) Given that it is unreasonable for a people to be displaced, have

years pass, and expect the land back again, we have established that

there

is a threshold for time passing where expectation turns from

to

unreasonable.

No, I do not think so. No time limit.

Given what you've written here I imagine we're pretty much on the same

except for a couple of things.

denying the present Israelis their "right" to return after 2000 years

insisting on no time limit for the return of a displaced people.

Right, if they never surrender, never renounce the right, never give up,
never renounce armed struggle. I doubt that for 2000 years Jews were
ranting in the Diaspora about how they were going to reconquer their
stolen land.

I imagine

in clarifying that you'll suggest the present Israelis are a different

somehow

No, they are not. But they did not maintain armed struggle, or even
threaten armed struggle, to get their land back for 2000 years, so the
world ratified the crime of the conquest.

and we can dance around that without coming to agreement.

No they are Jews all right. I do not buy the Khazar theory.

Is that

pretty much how that will go, or do you have something else?

Yeh they gave up their right effectively. They moved along ways away,
the original invaders got displaced by new invaders to the pt where they
could not even get their land back from those who displaced them. The
Jews did not fight armed struggle for 2000 years, nor rant in the
Diaspora about how they were going to wage armed struggle to get their
land back, so they snoozed and they lost. The whole Diaspora thing
about "return to Jerusalem/Israel" really meant the Messiah comes, God
gives Israel to the Jews, everything is fine. Zionism was essentially
religious heresy in that they decided, in 1862, to go and conquer their
land back by invading it. So, 1800 yrs later, the Jews decide they want
to start up armed struggle again. You snooze you lose.

My problem with this displaced persons argument in general is that it

the heartstrings while not providing anything else. There are many

of people being displaced for unfair reasons, but when righting that

simply becomes unworkable, making the argument isn't helpful (and I

buy for a minute your rationalizations about the American Indians, for
example, while trying to hold open the argument for the Palestinians...
please correct me if I'm making unwarrented assumptions).

You are indeed. The Indians surrendered, the Palestinians never did.
When the natives surrender, the world ratifies the invasion and moves
on.

Returning

Palestine to the Palestinians and recreating the situation 60 years ago
isn't workable. Some other balance must be struck.

I favor a binational state, if possible.

and American Indians

Yes there are quite a few of them living all around me here, on their
ancestral land. :)

certainly can and do have a similar grievance...

Yes, they do, but the game is over here. Not so in Palestine.

indeed a much better one,

Not really, IMHO. The 2 situations are analogous.

since they were inarguably the first ones here on the two American
continents.

I do not think this stuff about Who Was Here First means anything.

Oh, come now, Who Was Here Second means more? You're really not making

here.

Yes I am. It is not based on who was here first, because if so, the
Basque claim predates the Chechens, the Blacks have a right to kick out
the Berbers, the Zulu have no claim over the Afrikaaners because Zulu
kicked out Bushmen, bla bla bla. Who was here first MOST RECENTLY AS IS
SENSIBLE. I guess Danes landed in Newfundland before British and
French. Danish invasion?

Apparenly the Basques may have been in the Caucasus before the others.
The white Berbers in N. Africa are apparently invaders.
Bushmen/Hottentots used to live in Ethiopia. The Zulu kicked out the
Bushmen. The Dravidians used to have all of India. The Han overran
much of China. England is settled mostly by invaders. On and on.

And on and on and on... which is why the displacement argument more than

generation or so removed doesn't make much sense in the first place, and

marginal even then.

No because all those groups surrendered or renounced armed struggle, so
the world ratified the crime and moved on. The claim remains as long as
the natives wage war for it.

The time to prevent or redress such an injustice without

creating a new one in much more immediate than that, and for the
Palestinians WRT land it has passed, IMO. As a practical matter most

instinctively realize this. If I go gunning for someone who *killed*

less, took his land) my father, people will understand. If I go gunning

someone who killed my grandfather, they start to think maybe I live in
Appalachia. If I go gunning for someone who killed my great-grandfather
they'll rightly assume I'm nuts.

In the ME or the Afghanistan or Chechnya no one would think you were
crazy at all. Anyway, it is about a people and their homeland, really,
not about what was done to one's ancestors. Palestinians identify as
Palestinians, say they are deprived of their homeland, and wage war to
get it back. Ok, fine. Most do not talk about what got done to grandpa
anyway. It is all about what Israel did yesterday. Palestinians are
not fighting Israel cuz of grandma.

Can the theoretical threshold be dropped from 2000?

No, I would argue instead that the Am Indians signed peace treaties in
which they were given a part of their land in return for an end to the
wars. The treaties were *****, but the Indians basically just gave up,
slowly, group by group, over ~300 years. They put down their weapons,
renounced armed struggle and resolved to accept the invaders.

Anyway the situation with US and Indians differs in many ways from
Zionists and Arabs which I will elaborate if you wish.

Please do.

In another post, ok.

Basically, Am

Indians have a much better situation that the Palestinians and their 2
conditions are not really analogous at the moment.

2) You've established a list of countries that must be attacked in

to

stamp out Islamic fundamentalists,

Not me! I just threw out some guesses for you all. Because the
warriors here when they talk about this Terror War, it sounds like a

on Islam or a War on Muslims. Well, if that is what it is then *I

gladly advocate armed attacks on military targets in the US* right

ok? Now, I do not think the US is intending at the moment to attack
every Muslim country on Earth. So, I want the warriors here to LAY

precisely which damned countries they wish to attack and why. Also,
there are talking about war on some vague "Muslim terrorists" entity.
Well, fine. Like the PLO? See? So, I am going to lay out a list of
armed Islamic movements or groups out there, and I want you folks to
tell me if they are on the plate or what?

Reasonable?

since the Muslims around them cannot or

will not make them cease their attacks against what they see as a

powerful

enemy.

Well I never made that argument. I do not think any government on

is assisting Al Qaeda right now, not directly. Iraq is a lot

looks like help from Iran. Looks like Pakistan, Iran and Russia are
arming the Afghan mujahedin. So, anyway, my point is the people, the

Qaeda constellation, that worry us so, essentially are not being
supported by any states, so regime changing states to fight Al Qaeda
seems retarded.

ARTT, you either buy the notion that militant Islamic fundamentalism is
dangerous, or you do not.

Well, it is, at the moment, because they are at war with us. But they
have laid out some pretty reasonable demands for a truce with us, it
appears. And their original grievances with the US were quite
reasonable. IOW, we could quite easily alleviate much of Al Qaeda's
rage towards us. At that point, I guess they are targeting Muslim
regimes or Israel, or India or Russia, I do not know.....as long as we
stay in Afghanistan and Iraq, we feed it. If we could get out of war
with them, I think they would not attack us. At that pt., I think the
threat is pretty marginal in real terms.

IMV it represents the rise of a new form of

religious fascism,

Oh I suppose. It is nothing new you know.

and not fighting such a thing early on is stupid.

Not really. It is just Islam. We lived with it for centuries, we lived
with the stupid Caliphate, it was no big deal. I would not even worry
about that much.

Fighting it without a strategy is more stupid, if that's possible.

The worst thing is to feed and increase it which is what we are doing.

In this

case, there is a strategy, and it isn't retarded.

It is.

I'm not sure why you pick

out Al Qaeda per se,

They have declared war on USA.

they all share common goals,

Yes but most others have not declared war on USA. Furthermore, Al Qaeda
is extremely radical, much more radical than most such groups.

but let's take them as an

example. There is nothing OBL would like better than to see a caliphate
across the entire ME in the short term

All the Islamic World, first. Which will never happen, probably.

and the world in the long term.

This is something OBL has never discussed, or Al Qaeda either for that
matter. It is all about the Islamic World.

The

present invasion as a tactical ploy against Al Qaeda is a null move.

Waging war on Al Qaeda by invading Iraq was like setting your hair
onfire and putting it out with a sledgehammer.

As a

strategic move it is quite good.

Actually it is a total disaster.

Let's presume the fundamentalists are right, that the USA is an

enemy,

Is this controversial? Surely, to these fundamentalists, the US is an
enemy to many of them. We have stated as much.

lead by a secret Zionist cabal.

Well, you know, the Zionists have never had more power than under this
loony administration. The Likudniks pretty much have the upper hand
with the Bushies. And it is not a secret cabal, we have names,

dates, biographies, organizations and periodicals with addresses and
phone numbers and a paper trail of evidence dating back decades.

More to the point we have a de facto alliance with Israel.

Ok but it is important to understand that the Bush alliance w/ Israel
vs. all previous administrations is like 2 different universes.

Do you believe that the USA could not

easily conquer every country on the list in all-out warfare?

Which list? We could probably conquer most of those countries, though

Korea would be really terrible because the N Koreans would kill so

S Koreans and probly Americans in the process. Iran would not be easy
but we could do it. Syria would be like Iraq but harder. Lebanon
similar to Iraq, that is really hard to say. Somalia could be

Sudan, yes, Libya, yes. However, Libya and Syria have chem weapons

could lob at us or Israel. Iran has a highly advanced chem and bio
program. N Korea has a huge chem and bio program and probably a

of nukes.

NO it would not be EASY as you put it, esp N Korea. However, it is

probably doable. But then you would just end of like Iraq or probably

lot worse in case of Syria, Lebanon, N Korea, maybe Libya, Sudan,
Somalia, because the population would be so goddamned hostile.

I meant "easily" in terms of the military capability,

North Korea and Iran would not be easy at all, and some of the others
would not be pretty. NK and Iran are both doable, but NK is insane
because of all the loss of life.

not the attendant

human suffering and loss of life. And that's only considering our
conventional capability. In all-out warfare it would be over in an
afternoon.

Well I would not recommend that. I assume you mean nuclear warfare.

Not that I'm advocating that, I'm just not sure where you're going with
listing this country or that one that has problems from the US

with harboring IF terrorists.

Because it is not entirely clear to me why the US is at war with say,
Hamas, or Islamic Jihad, or Hezbollah, or Al-Aqsa, or PFLP, or DFLP. It
is not clear that the countries on those lists are haboring any
terrorists at all, furthermore, even if they are, it looks like those
terrorists are fighting Israel, in which case I say why is that our
business.

You simply have utterly failed to lay out your ***** case. You
threaten this country and that, and 1/2 the time it seems you
threatening war on the whole Islamic/Arab World. As I said before, if
that were our nation's policy, USA would be a mad dog and I would
support all out war on America. Now, that said, that does not appear to
be our policy. But frankly, you guys sound like Hitlerite mad dogs that
need to be put down. It is utterly not accessible to just threaten war
on vast segments of the Earth, without being specific. As I said,
nations that do that are MAD DOGS that must be destroyed. Now, if you
warriors have a beef with some nation, or some group, I want to hear
just exactly what that beef is, ok? Otherwise you will go into the MAD
DOG category.

Whatever you think of the morality of invading

Iraq, I don't think you can credibly question that the leaders of the
countries on your list wonder what America will do if they persist.

Of course they do, but the whole philosophy is stupid, and so are the
charges. Did any antiwar folks REALLY say that the Bushies would not be
able to threaten ppl right and left and get a lot of ppl to cave in?
Who said that? Show me the quote? So why is it some big victory that
Bush is able to bully the planet into getting his way? The Mafia, the
Colombian cartels, the Axis, the Crips and Bloods, Saddam, they all
bullied ppl into going along with him. Why is Bush's success at
bullying any more apreciable than the Mafia's, or Stalin's, or Saddam's,
or Mao's? Of course bullying works! Did we ever say it did it? Quote
me who said that. It is just a reckless policy that is as likely to
fail as well as succeed and the primary danger is *blowback*.

Anyway, at the moment, it is obvious to anyone that the USA ain't goin
nowhere. The US and Israel (USreal) are completely died down. Israel
is bankrupt and the US is heading there. Israel has its hands full in
OT, and the US in Iraq. The US lacks troops to occupy Iraq. So now we
can go attacking right and left everywhere else? *****. It is
possible that the USreal idiots could recklessly extend themselves even
further by attacking Syria, say, but that is just insane at the moment.
To attack more countries, the US needs a bigger army and a draft.

The Iraqi rebels deserve commendation in a way. They have tied down the
US in a horrible way. Without their resistance, clearly the US would
have attacked Syria, maybe Iran, maybe NK by now.

done a good thing.

There's

evidence that they do wonder about that now, and they should.

They do, but also they are smiling because they know that the US is
horribly tied down in Iraq and cannot really start anymore major wars.
To that end, they are supporting the Iraqi rebels - Syria, Saudi Arabia,
Iran, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinians. No one wants the US in Iraq
now, it is bad for all the neighbors. It is in their interest to make
this Iraq situation as ugly as possible.

I do not agree that NK, Iran, Syria or the others are caving in anyway.
I think that is a bunch of propaganda crap.

--
"You the Jews are invited to live in safety in Palestine, the whole...".
Islamic Jihad leader Shaik Nafez Azzam 12-03.
"(Hamas)...is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the
followers of other religions. Under the wing of Islam, it is possible
for...Islam, Christianity and Judaism to coexist in peace and quiet with
each other." Hamas Charter, 1988.
In a 8-8-82 speech before the Israeli National Defense College, Menachem
Begin admitted that Israel started the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1982, not
the Arabs.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0794/9407073.htm