Let's be fair.....

I'm listening.

These are important matters, and my opinions could benefit from more facts.

I'm learning a thing or two here.

Thanks.
 
Several forumites, including a super-moderator who, (as do I, as an officer of the courts for over a quarter of a century), takes the oath to defend the Constitution (including the First Amendment) very seriously, have been rather loose, in my opinion, in using the vicious slander of "anti-Semite" against a forumite who has expressed cogent and articulate views, based on personal experience which few of us have. Agree with him, disagree with him; fine. Slander? Read the following, and consider.
"One can be critical of Israel's policies and not be an anti-Semite," Wiesel said. "It is possible. But there are people who have always been against Israel. Then, I think I'm entitled to have some doubts. But, again, I do not believe that automatically, a person who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite."
So where is the line? What about people who call Israel's West Bank settlements colonialist? Is that word out of bounds?
"It's not out of bounds," Foxman said. "It's a loaded word."
And what if someone calls Ariel Sharon a murderer?
"I can deal with that," Foxman said. "Two countries at war. You don't like one country that's at war. OK, he's a murderer."
Click to expand...
 
Berk,

Speaking strictly for myself, my remarks had nothing to do with any criticism of Israeli policy. I do not equate criticism of Israel or Israeli policy with anti-Semitism. Nor, for the record, do I consider my statements slanderous. And finally, though my position on the forums may be "supermoderator", I was speaking for myself and certainly not on behalf of the site. If that was not clear I hope it is now.

Now that I got that out I'll beg off this discussion as I had after making my last statement. My perception, for the record, remains unchanged.
 
I congratulate you Pierre on the dignity with which you have defended your views against"unfair odds".
The fact that you have not responded to name calling and low blows lends more weight to your argument and shows that you back it with your intellect and not just hot air.
Well some of us have to learn what the word democracy means;) .


Yaj.
 
Glenn, did you notice the date of Bill's post?

This whole thread was before my time, but I found it fascinating reading.
 
I'm not getting into this one.. I'm just one of those old wimps that has bought some HI khuks. I don't rekon 20 Yrs. with the Corps count for much anyway, just a retired old pharte now.:)
 
I am enjoying reading all this stuff.

I heard Clinton one time say something to the effect that we had to find a way to do law enforcement that didn't involve profiling, but that we also had to realize why there WAS profiling, which goes back to the point of the first post.

On the Arab Israeli conflict. You got 2 religions there that believe an eye for an eye, instead of turn the other cheek. If either Israel or the Palestinians had the guts to adopt the approach Ghandi or Dr. King (or Jesus) suggested, there would likely already be some sort of unified international solution.

I think the Palestinians have caused trouble in almost every country they have been in. They tried to destabilize the King of Jordan, they ruined Lebanon. I still think they should have their own country though.

I don't believe a Palestinian state would prevent terrorisim. The Arab states like to use the Palestinians as a fifth column to attack Israel. If they were really concerned about downtrodden ethnic groups having their own homeland why aren't they pushing the same thing for the Kurds?

Think about this: If the Mexicans wanted Texas and California back and started doing these suicide bombings in the US and employing the same tactics that the Palestinians are using in the Mid East, what Israel is doing to the Palestinians would look like a slap on the wrist compared to what the US would do. Look at Iraq. They have never directly threatened our country and we still went halfway across the world and killed thousands of them just cause we thought they might lock up the world oil supply(91) or might have weapons they could hurt us with (now)
 
The United States could sell nuclear weapons to all Mideast Countries. The profits from the weapons could help pay back money wasted on that part of the world over the last half century.

Then, as they do so well, the CIA could instigate a war.

Since the whole region is worthless desert, with the only thing of value being underground, an all encompassing nuclear war would do little harm to the environment, but would purge the area of it’s excess and troublesome populations.

After things have cooled off and it’s safe to enter ground zero, the U.S. could deal with the survivors for the oil. If there are no survivors, that would be even better, as the area could be colonized and made safe for the introduction of Freedom, Democracy, Christianity, and Capitalism.

If this proposal is too radical, we could adopt the more conservative and traditional approach of sending our armies on a crusade to liberate the Holy Land. Since America is “One Nation Under God”, God is obviously on our side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top