Yes in your distorted perception of the world I would be considered right wing to you.
Not trying to get involved in your argument or anything but just had a comment about this statement. Why is his perception of the world distorted? Because he lives in Europe?! If that's what you're saying(I hope I've understood incorrectly), well that's a very fucked up and not to mention STUPID thing to say honestly. Anyway if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying please correct me.
Why? If I correct you, you're just going to say I'm an elitist pig anyway.
Yes in your distorted perception of the world I would be considered right wing to you.
Not trying to get involved in your argument or anything but just had a comment about this statement. Why is his perception of the world distorted? Because he lives in Europe?! If that's what you're saying(I hope I've understood incorrectly), well that's a very fucked up and not to mention STUPID thing to say honestly. Anyway if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying please correct me.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. - E.B.White
Originally posted by speed: First I will provide various quotes, with an analysis of different text's and your own words, in the process I will further prove your right wing alignement.
Yes in your distorted perception of the world I would be considered right wing to you. This must come from you living in Europe for so long that you have lost touch with American politics and alignment in general. Even the liberals must seem conservative in Europe as they do in Canada. In reality, under my current government I would be considered a dissenter 75% of the time. In no way does my pro-military stand point make me aligned with the right-wing. I refuse to answer to your pathetic list because "Material Egalitarianism" is a socialist ideal (read Utopian) "Luck Egalitarianism" is a left-wing philosophy that calls for the equalization of luck, or eliminate uncertainty, which is patently impossible. "Political Egalitarianism" is a tenant of true democracies in which everyone has the same amount of say in government, when in fact America is a republic, and I tend to agree with the idea of a representative democracy. Not a criminal offense yet. Gender and Race are tenants of our constitution, sexual preference is not, hopefully it never needs to be. So there you have it, I don't think that if I acted against these principles I would be arrested, so I'm not all that worried about it.
quote:
by saying this I must asume that: 1 - You are homophobic in some measure, as you have used homosexuality as an insult towards me.
Care to source that... I was simply pointing out where the idea of Universal Equality is used. We do not deal with nations on a population basis, we do so on a government level. (At least in the US, I cant speak for Spain)
quote:
2 - You do not believe gays are equal to other human beings, otherwise you wouldn't qualify their use of this principle of utopian. Thus you imply that you believe homosexuals will never achieve equal rights as their aspirations are utopic. (needless to say that you probably don't want them to achieve anything of the sort)
Here you prove your ignorance, but never the less, I was simply pointing out groups that use this theory. As in not in foreign relations. Foreign relations are based around gain and it's many facets.
quote:
3 - You used the word doctrine, that is incorrect, doctrine is likewise to ideology for me. I do not believe in doctrine, pre established morality, or ideology of any sort. As these three elements are mere constraints to one's actions, decisions, and most importantly, one's thought's. I thought I had made that point clear in another discussion with you.
No, the only thing you've made clear is that you don't debate because you seem to think it's purpose is egotistical in nature.
quote:
I have provided the exact meaning of the principle, notice it is not my principle, rather, it is the principle applied in all judgemental matters regarding human rights, and on a grander scale, international relations. If you wish to keep defending a posture bordering nazism by saying that human beings are not all equal be my guest, you'll only make laughing stock of yourself.
Human beings are not all equal. They do not all have equal rights all the time. One makes a decision which directly effects the level of rights they have. Everyone is born equal yes, however total equality is a farce, unrealistic, and unattainable. Apply natural selection here. There are always going to be greater and lesser. There is nothing anyone can do or say to change it.
quote:
You are clearly looking at things from the high chair perspective, as you fail to point out certain facts that are quite relevant when analizing the singular situation in wich Palestinians live. 1 - Palestinians live in limbo, they are entitled to the election of a government to represent them, but they are not effectively part of a state, as a large part of them are not Israeli citizens, nor do they enjoy the same rights most Israeli's do.
And I am of the belief that this is the fault of the Palestinians. Had they acted accordingly decades ago to maintain their sovereignty there wouldn't be an issue. However the Palestinians would much rather destroy Israel then accept it's status as a Nation.
quote:
2 - Israel collects taxes from the palestinian population, wich it later re-distributes to the PNA(Palestinian National Authority), Israel has withheld tax money from the PNA since the election of Hamas. Initially this measure was thought a valid way of putting pressure on Hamas to moderate it's postures, but no visible results have been achieved, and the lack of money has destabilized the government. This is one of the main reasons for the now ended infighting that has taken place recently.
It is entirely inside Israels right to do so. Half a century of war between Arabs and Jews has left the Arabs reeling, their territory taken as spoils of war. Again, Israel was progressing as planned through the peace process and Palestinians screwed it up for themselves. There is no great mystery here.
quote:
3 - Israel carries out a policy of premptive use of force against any objective's it deems suitable for attack. Some of these objectives are Terrorist related elements, yet a large part of them are not. Media exposition(In Europe, most of this stuff never hits the news at all in the US) usually puts focus on selective assasinations*, typically the objectives are prominent Palestinians involved in some way or other with the political scene. But many times Israels preemptive strike policy involves attacking Palestinian villages in attempts to flush out terrorist elements from hiding in civilian homes. When this happens civilian casualty's are automatic and un accounted for. Almost all of the international community, with the notable exception of the US, condemns these attacks, and openly expresses skepticism with Israels stated objectives and motives for these attacks. It is a rather universal perception that these attacks in reality serve a purpose of psicological warfare that intends to demoralize and weaken palestian morale and cohesion.
Well thats war for you, what do you want the easter bunny?
quote:
4 - "Many Palestinians are dependent on access to the Israeli job market. During the 1990s, Israel however began to replace Palestinians with foreign guest workers. They were found to be economical and also were useful as a means of limiting dependence on Palestinians as a source of cheap labor due to what it called security concerns. This hurt the Palestinian economy, in particular in the Gaza strip, where 60% of the population is under the poverty line according to the CIA World Factbook. " - Source CIA World Factbook. The construction of the Wall that separates Israeli settlements from Palestinians further damages the allready depleted Palestinian economy, as Palestinians will effectively have no way of physically accessing the labor market wich is vital to them. The influx of foreign workers to cover the hole left by cheap palstinian labor is a temporary solution, but experts predict that in the long run the economy will start to stagnate when this resource is depleted and foreign workers, mostly of Arab origin, start to encounter ideological constraints to working is Israel. The time this will take is unpredictable, as it largely depends on how the conflict unfolds. Right now perspective's aren't very good.
If the US has learned one thing, there is never a shortage of cheap foreign labor. I am unconcerned for the Israelis on this matter. But again, the Palestinians have dug their grave, and they will be made to lie in it.
quote:
*Selective Assasination is considered ilegal under international law, and is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention's 4th article. Israel has demanded it's right to defend itself against terrorist attacks by invoking the Geneva Convention's many times, stating that terrorist elements violated the Convention's by targeting civilians. Yet, Israel's official defense policy breaches the Convention's in many ways.
Thats because Israel in its interest of survival is not bound to your, or the worlds false high and mighty moral values. Yes they may violate the Geneva Conventions, however terrorism on it's own is not a violation because it is not a nation state. Israel learned the lesson we are learning in the middle east years ago.
quote:
Now that I have put things into context, I will proceed to criticize your post
The first thing I noticed about your debate methods is that you rely on the common perception existing on the website that veterany is directly proportional to one's worth, when accounting for one's respect by others this is comprehensible, as the larger familiarity with known users is likely to get their posts taken more seriously than those of someone who is not known. So far so good, the problem arises when you translate veterany to intelectual worth, as you have done many times. I will state this as simply as possible: You do not know me, you can't deduct my intelectual worth solely from what you may read of me, because as you have made obvious you completely disagree with most everything i say, and thus it is unlikely you give it any value whatsoever.
The reason I give your arguments negative worth is because they are the view of an extremist. You are of a far left Utopian persuasion. You can not and will not even attempt to find a middle ground. On this and other posts your ideology is based around an idea that is absolutely impossible to attain in any amount of numbers. Therefore it has no merit. The reason I pointed to my post count is because it is impossible that you have read anything prior to your arrival on the site that has been written by me. If you had, some of these comments that you make about my right-wing alignment as you say would have been nullified already.
quote:
Having said you're in the military, it's hardly possible that your opinions aren't atleast a little biased on some points, it's just not possible.
Well obviously that is like saying that you living in Europe wouldn't influence your opinions. In fact you have mentioned on more than one occasion that in fact the European press does help mold your view.
quote:
Your negation of this bias does imply many things though. For one, it imply's that you consider your views to be neutral and consequently absolute, thus other people's views are deviations of what you judge as correct. That is clear prepotence. Another issue related to this is where you study, it is a commonly known fact that some schools have certain ideological inclinations. I'm not saying this is the case, but just for clarity it would be interesting of you to provide where you are studying.
I am studying at the Defense Intelligence Institute and the American Public University System. Neutrality is a position of perspective, I am not neutral, I am moderate. I do not hold extreme views such as abortion clinics should be bombed, Jesus Christ speaks to me and says that gays are evil, and we should strive to live in Utopia.
quote:
If you feel like you need me to own you some more keep it up, it's also worth pointing out that you have insulted me countless times, and I have refrained from doing so, and have limited my responses to you militaristic aggresivity to what my opinions and views on matters are. Alltogether, you have shown that you have no debating ability whatsoever, as you have resorted to personal attacks instead of taking the inteligent course of actually counter argumenting me, you have a very biased bank of knowledge on the matters we discuss, as your views and statements clearly prove, and ultimately, you have adopted an aggresive intolerant tone since the start, attacking me and everything I've said.
Yes very aggressive towards ignorance and extremism. I will admit that. By the way, you gain nothing by stating that my opinions are biased, when your very own must hold bias as well or you would not defend them. You are influenced by the European population, which gives you a bias to the Palestinians rather than the Israelis. It doesn't really matter in the realm of opinion. Facts however can not be biased, I do not offer up biased facts. This debate has very little basis in fact at all. Simply because the facts are well known by all parties. It is the opinion and position regarding those facts that we are debating.
Ahh yes, back to your sad Utopian doctrine, most often used by Gays and the ALF.
by saying this I must asume that: 1 - You are homophobic in some measure, as you have used homosexuality as an insult towards me. 2 - You do not believe gays are equal to other human beings, otherwise you wouldn't qualify their use of this principle of utopian. Thus you imply that you believe homosexuals will never achieve equal rights as their aspirations are utopic. (needless to say that you probably don't want them to achieve anything of the sort) 3 - You used the word doctrine, that is incorrect, doctrine is likewise to ideology for me. I do not believe in doctrine, pre established morality, or ideology of any sort. As these three elements are mere constraints to one's actions, decisions, and most importantly, one's thought's. I thought I had made that point clear in another discussion with you.
saying that does not necessarily mean that he hates gays like you say he does. Gays have their own issues but we'll save that for another thread.
quote:
1 - Palestinians live in limbo, they are entitled to the election of a government to represent them, but they are not effectively part of a state, as a large part of them are not Israeli citizens, nor do they enjoy the same rights most Israeli's do.
perhaps because they constantly say they are their own state, but when Israel tries to give them a state, they screw things up with another terrible bombing. IMHO, if the palestinians stopped bombing Israel, they'd have their own state within two years (my opinion, not based on fact)
quote:
"Many Palestinians are dependent on access to the Israeli job market. During the 1990s, Israel however began to replace Palestinians with foreign guest workers. They were found to be economical and also were useful as a means of limiting dependence on Palestinians as a source of cheap labor due to what it called security concerns. This hurt the Palestinian economy, in particular in the Gaza strip, where 60% of the population is under the poverty line according to the CIA World Factbook. " - Source CIA World Factbook. The construction of the Wall that separates Israeli settlements from Palestinians further damages the allready depleted Palestinian economy, as Palestinians will effectively have no way of physically accessing the labor market wich is vital to them. The influx of foreign workers to cover the hole left by cheap palstinian labor is a temporary solution, but experts predict that in the long run the economy will start to stagnate when this resource is depleted and foreign workers, mostly of Arab origin, start to encounter ideological constraints to working is Israel. The time this will take is unpredictable, as it largely depends on how the conflict unfolds. Right now perspective's aren't very good.
yes true, a few palestinians lose jobs, and hundreds of Israelis live. all sarcasm aside, you do realize that other Arab nations do not employ palestinians...in fact, they refuse to.
quote:
He is actually fairly liberal, but he's more conservative than you, which is why you see him as right wing.
do I dare ask how he sees me?
"The price of Freedom is paid in lives" - Adm. Geoffrey Tolwyn
yes clpo, that is exactly why i'm saying it. the fact that he was the one who invoked the term utopic, and later used as a defining trait to homosexuality and it's related activism proves my point on the matter. By stating that gay rights are utopic he effectively implies that he doesn't believe in those rights. This, in turn, reveals that homosexuality is insulting and degrading for him, wich doesn't supply much to the credibility of his judgement.
Political alignment is relative. I'm not right wing by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm considered rather conservative by some of my more liberal friends. Hydrok is the same way. He is actually fairly liberal, but he's more conservative than you, which is why you see him as right wing.
quote:
by saying this I must asume that: 1 - You are homophobic in some measure, as you have used homosexuality as an insult towards me. 2 - You do not believe gays are equal to other human beings, otherwise you wouldn't qualify their use of this principle of utopian. Thus you imply that you believe homosexuals will never achieve equal rights as their aspirations are utopic. (needless to say that you probably don't want them to achieve anything of the sort) 3 - You used the word doctrine, that is incorrect, doctrine is likewise to ideology for me. I do not believe in doctrine, pre established morality, or ideology of any sort. As these three elements are mere constraints to one's actions, decisions, and most importantly, one's thought's. I thought I had made that point clear in another discussion with you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Hydrok, but I believe he's saying this because the idea of a utopia is impossible. Complete equality is a nice thought, but ridiculously unrealistic.
First I will provide various quotes, with an analysis of different text's and your own words, in the process I will further prove your right wing alignement.
quote:
* Material egalitarianism stresses equality with respect to material possessions. * Moral egalitarianism stresses equality in moral worth. * Legal egalitarianism stresses equality under the law. * Luck egalitarianism holds that inequalities in well being should only result from the free choices of individuals and not from their unchosen circumstances. * Political egalitarianism stresses equality in political power. * Gender egalitarianism refers to equality of the genders. * Racial egalitarianism stresses the biological equality of the races. * Libertarians are concerned with inequalities of political power. * Opportunity egalitarianism stresses equality in economic and social opportunity
would you be kind enough to tell me what exactly you opose of these points? And when and if you do, would you, also kindly please, justify such postures? It is probably worth pointing out that direct oposition and confrontation with most of these pointers, and acting accordingly, constitutes criminal offense in most democratic nations.
quote:
Ahh yes, back to your sad Utopian doctrine, most often used by Gays and the ALF.
by saying this I must asume that: 1 - You are homophobic in some measure, as you have used homosexuality as an insult towards me. 2 - You do not believe gays are equal to other human beings, otherwise you wouldn't qualify their use of this principle of utopian. Thus you imply that you believe homosexuals will never achieve equal rights as their aspirations are utopic. (needless to say that you probably don't want them to achieve anything of the sort) 3 - You used the word doctrine, that is incorrect, doctrine is likewise to ideology for me. I do not believe in doctrine, pre established morality, or ideology of any sort. As these three elements are mere constraints to one's actions, decisions, and most importantly, one's thought's. I thought I had made that point clear in another discussion with you.
quote:
Yes lets look at it under the false pretense that your little principle means anything... good call
I have provided the exact meaning of the principle, notice it is not my principle, rather, it is the principle applied in all judgemental matters regarding human rights, and on a grander scale, international relations. If you wish to keep defending a posture bordering nazism by saying that human beings are not all equal be my guest, you'll only make laughing stock of yourself.
quote:
Furthermore, all they had to do was give the soldier back and Israel wouldn't be attacking right now. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me.
You are clearly looking at things from the high chair perspective, as you fail to point out certain facts that are quite relevant when analizing the singular situation in wich Palestinians live. 1 - Palestinians live in limbo, they are entitled to the election of a government to represent them, but they are not effectively part of a state, as a large part of them are not Israeli citizens, nor do they enjoy the same rights most Israeli's do. 2 - Israel collects taxes from the palestinian population, wich it later re-distributes to the PNA(Palestinian National Authority), Israel has withheld tax money from the PNA since the election of Hamas. Initially this measure was thought a valid way of putting pressure on Hamas to moderate it's postures, but no visible results have been achieved, and the lack of money has destabilized the government. This is one of the main reasons for the now ended infighting that has taken place recently. 3 - Israel carries out a policy of premptive use of force against any objective's it deems suitable for attack. Some of these objectives are Terrorist related elements, yet a large part of them are not. Media exposition(In Europe, most of this stuff never hits the news at all in the US) usually puts focus on selective assasinations*, typically the objectives are prominent Palestinians involved in some way or other with the political scene. But many times Israels preemptive strike policy involves attacking Palestinian villages in attempts to flush out terrorist elements from hiding in civilian homes. When this happens civilian casualty's are automatic and un accounted for. Almost all of the international community, with the notable exception of the US, condemns these attacks, and openly expresses skepticism with Israels stated objectives and motives for these attacks. It is a rather universal perception that these attacks in reality serve a purpose of psicological warfare that intends to demoralize and weaken palestian morale and cohesion. 4 - "Many Palestinians are dependent on access to the Israeli job market. During the 1990s, Israel however began to replace Palestinians with foreign guest workers. They were found to be economical and also were useful as a means of limiting dependence on Palestinians as a source of cheap labor due to what it called security concerns. This hurt the Palestinian economy, in particular in the Gaza strip, where 60% of the population is under the poverty line according to the CIA World Factbook. " - Source CIA World Factbook. The construction of the Wall that separates Israeli settlements from Palestinians further damages the allready depleted Palestinian economy, as Palestinians will effectively have no way of physically accessing the labor market wich is vital to them. The influx of foreign workers to cover the hole left by cheap palstinian labor is a temporary solution, but experts predict that in the long run the economy will start to stagnate when this resource is depleted and foreign workers, mostly of Arab origin, start to encounter ideological constraints to working is Israel. The time this will take is unpredictable, as it largely depends on how the conflict unfolds. Right now perspective's aren't very good.
*Selective Assasination is considered ilegal under international law, and is a direct violation of the Geneva Convention's 4th article. Israel has demanded it's right to defend itself against terrorist attacks by invoking the Geneva Convention's many times, stating that terrorist elements violated the Convention's by targeting civilians. Yet, Israel's official defense policy breaches the Convention's in many ways.
Now that I have put things into context, I will proceed to criticize your post
The first thing I noticed about your debate methods is that you rely on the common perception existing on the website that veterany is directly proportional to one's worth, when accounting for one's respect by others this is comprehensible, as the larger familiarity with known users is likely to get their posts taken more seriously than those of someone who is not known. So far so good, the problem arises when you translate veterany to intelectual worth, as you have done many times. I will state this as simply as possible: You do not know me, you can't deduct my intelectual worth solely from what you may read of me, because as you have made obvious you completely disagree with most everything i say, and thus it is unlikely you give it any value whatsoever.
The second thing I have noticed, wich you have made especially plausible in your last response to me in this thread, is that you rely on the credit people are willing to give to your academic study's to validate your arguments. You don't actually provide any information from your study's, you just state that you are coursing so and so, therefore you know. You then proceed to recriminate me for not knowing that you are a self apointed expert on the matter. Having said you're in the military, it's hardly possible that your opinions aren't atleast a little biased on some points, it's just not possible. Your negation of this bias does imply many things though. For one, it imply's that you consider your views to be neutral and consequently absolute, thus other people's views are deviations of what you judge as correct. That is clear prepotence. Another issue related to this is where you study, it is a commonly known fact that some schools have certain ideological inclinations. I'm not saying this is the case, but just for clarity it would be interesting of you to provide where you are studying.
The third, and maybe most important, point also regarding your conduct is the lack of real content of that simply huge piece of aggressive writing you hung up on YN to attack me. Stop a second(calm down), and read over it. What does it say? it basically says that I'm full of shit, but you do not provide a singular argument to fundament anything you say. You do not give any facts that disprove what I say, you do not make any sort of analysis of any of my points, you seemingly rely on what I just mentioned, your education and your veterany, to get acceptance for your words. A posture like this would be tolerable from a simple uneducated highschool graduate(like me), but not from a well educated expert on Intelligence Studies that is going to take a Masters Degree in International Relations.
If you feel like you need me to own you some more keep it up, it's also worth pointing out that you have insulted me countless times, and I have refrained from doing so, and have limited my responses to you militaristic aggresivity to what my opinions and views on matters are. Alltogether, you have shown that you have no debating ability whatsoever, as you have resorted to personal attacks instead of taking the inteligent course of actually counter argumenting me, you have a very biased bank of knowledge on the matters we discuss, as your views and statements clearly prove, and ultimately, you have adopted an aggresive intolerant tone since the start, attacking me and everything I've said.
I apologize for not including this earlier, but it was 6am and I had yet to feel the effects of coffee and was quite cranky... not good conditions to be posting under.
quote:
Originally posted by speed: Your signature is a notable contrast to your own views, you are a conservative, that has shown sympathy for militarism, foreign interventionism, and a series of other postures proven unprofitable countless times, yet you profess you are the one that will attack people with strong views on matter they don't understand? i would recomend you apply that to yourself first of all, because the mere act of supporting and defending certain ideals is unrefutable proof that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of many of these issues.
The accusations you make here are awful presumptuous. After all it's not like I'm a handful of credits away from an Intelligence Studies B.A. or anything (a pre-requisite for my International Relations masters) So of course I am, in your opinion, supportive of militarism, maybe thats because I AM in the military. Isn't that a concept to behold? Also your suggestion that I support foreign interventionism is a complete and rabid farce. It is such because you time and time again to see anything but the evil American dictatorship as you have mentioned multiple times in this post and others, and your convoluted and idealistic thought that the world should live in a Utopian society. I challenge you to find other things, however I feel that you must simply be either too lazy or just plain unmotivated to do so. Also you would have a difficult time finding a vet here that would be willing to label me a conservative. So I suggest you get sifting, you have about 3000 posts, debates, and articles to look through. But I will give you a hint, I am neither liberal nor conservative, I am, to put it simply, of the no-bullshit persuasion.
All further comments concerning my signature are now moot and pointless, and there is no need for further discussion, seeing as it is you who forgot to do their homework before provocation.
quote:
Here we should apply the principle of universal equality. For those of you who don't know what this is i suggest you analize the 2 words that compose the name of the said principle. As is clear and obvious, the principle, a supposed staple of international relations, means that as all human beings are equal, they must be treated equally and have the same rights in ALL ASPECTS.
Ahh yes, back to your sad Utopian doctrine, most often used by Gays and the ALF. The overarching theme of this principle really has nothing to do with HUMAN rights per se, but rather the overarching theme that everything should be treated equal. This is kind of like saying that Saddam Hussein has the same entitlements that you or I would, and that we deserve to be treated equal when we clearly are not. Most notably he is a mass murderer, I am not. So in short this principle can not be applied to society today or at any point in our history or anyone else's for that matter.
quote:
Now we will look at Israel's policy under the light of this principle.
Yes lets look at it under the false pretense that your little principle means anything.. good call
I hope you don't mind, I took out all the bull crap that was here, because as stated above it obviously doesn't apply. Furthermore, all they had to do was give the soldier back and Israel wouldn't be attacking right now. Doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me.
quote:
Don't say their election of a Radical governement is the nail that sealed the coffin. We flocked around a radical government that manipulated public opinion after 9-11, and look at public opinion now, 5 years later, everyone has realized what an error it was to give credibility to the bush administration, and the elections prove it.
Yes here is the American Dictatorship I was speaking to earlier. By the way we didn't as a people allow our rights to be taken away, we had some privacy removed however that was the decision of a Republican controlled congress and and administration. So again I hope you don't mind if I skip over the rest of this nonsensical propaganda.
quote:
The election of Hamas is the natural result of a manipulation of public opinion through fear, Hamas promises to solve problems in time of need, and the palestinians, who happen to be sick of the uneffectivenes of Al Fatah in dealing with the crises decide to give them a chance. The death of Yassir Arafat also has a lot to do with this, Arafat was carismatic, , and his absence left Al Fatah without a strong leading figure, situation on wich Hamas capitalized.
Must have missed all that infighting in the streets of "Palestine" recently then... you know where Abbas' supporters were attacked by Hamas supporters etc... so easy to overlook things that don't support your argument.
See Speed, you are exactly the type of person my signature refers to. You don't believe, you don't practice, but you are a hawk when it comes to defending the Palestinians, who ruined it for themselves by taking an Israeli soldier hostage and electing an extremist government. Honestly the Palestinians have no one to blame for their problems but themselves anymore. Israel was coming to the conclusion of peace, and they screwed it up.
Your signature is a notable contrast to your own views, you are a conservative, that has shown sympathy for militarism, foreign interventionism, and a series of other postures proven unprofitable countless times, yet you profess you are the one that will attack people with strong views on matter they don't understand? i would recomend you apply that to yourself first of all, because the mere act of supporting and defending certain ideals is unrefutable proof that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of many of these issues.
Here we should apply the principle of universal equality. For those of you who don't know what this is i suggest you analize the 2 words that compose the name of the said principle. As is clear and obvious, the principle, a supposed staple of international relations, means that as all human beings are equal, they must be treated equally and have the same rights in ALL ASPECTS. Now we will look at Israel's policy under the light of this principle. Israel occupy's land by use of military force, it violently expels the land's residents, and denigrates them to the category of vermin, obstacles to zionism, and all purpose heretics, for resisting self proclaimed will of god through there mere existence. (God's will is that jews live once more in the holy land, or some all purpose bullshit with the same meaning) If we are to consider Israel a legal law abidding state, we give validity to it's actions, thus we also accept that the palestinians, as EQUAL human beings also have rights to resist a process wich is clearly oriented to destroy them. Now, continuing under this focus, let's see where Israel has violated the principle of universal equality, and denied the right of the palestinians as equal human beings to resists a damaging process. Israel holds thousands of palestinians in jail, many of wich are mere scapegoats with no connection to terrorists, this is hardly comparable to the 1 israeli soldier that remains kidnapped by Palestinians. Due to this kidnapping, Israel takes as a right of it's own to indiscriminatly attack the Gaza strip, provoking incidents like those seen last week, in wich 19 civilians whre killed, 8 of wich where children. The Palestinians how ever, having thousands of people held in Israeli jails HAVE NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to resist this process, and when they do, they are acused of terrorism and vilified in the media.
Effectively, this state of affairs denies the Principle of Universal Equality, thus defining the Palestinian people as INFERIOR, as they DO NOT have the same rights as Israelis, to defend themselves, to resist occupation, and to live where they desire. All of these rights are granted to Israelis, but the Palestinians, AS INFERIOR PEOPLE, don't share in them.
Don't say their election of a Radical governement is the nail that sealed the coffin. We flocked around a radical government that manipulated public opinion after 9-11, and look at public opinion now, 5 years later, everyone has realized what an error it was to give credibility to the bush administration, and the elections prove it. The election of Hamas is the natural result of a manipulation of public opinion through fear, Hamas promises to solve problems in time of need, and the palestinians, who happen to be sick of the uneffectivenes of Al Fatah in dealing with the crises decide to give them a chance. The death of Yassir Arafat also has a lot to do with this, Arafat was carismatic, , and his absence left Al Fatah without a strong leading figure, situation on wich Hamas capitalized. Germany flocked around Hitler and the NSDAP during the 30's economic crises that resulted from the Versailles treaty, WE flocked around our monkey president because we feared terrorism, and Palestinians voted for Hamas because every day they live under opression and fear. You just negated the principle again by blaming them for giving Hamas power, WE DID the exact same thing, we gave up our rights to fight terrorim, and now it has been proven that most if not all of this process has been for nothing at all except getting american soldiers killed.
Please change your signature, it would be ridiculous of you not to after such a display of lack of criterium and knowledge.
Rather than reply to all of this let me just say you make many assertions here... and the vast majority, especially concerning me, are largely incorrect.
Another reason, to take into consideration, for resentment of the U.S. in the Middle East is how our different types of governments work. Venezuelen president, Hugo Chavez, made an appearence on Arab TV network, Aljazeera, where he described how his government gave him the necessary tools to use oil money for his country's peoples' education and aid. Messages poured into Aljazeera asking when will the Middle East acquire a leader such as Chavez. People of the Arab world are well aware that their land is very rich with oil, but their leaders do not use the money to help the poor or the middle class for that matter. They do not do this because they are under pressure from the United States. If money from the oil was put out for the benefit of people from every financial status, then evereyone in the Muslim world (Wheather it be the Middle East, Morocco, Indonesia, or Pakistan) would be able to receive a university level education. The understanding that this way of life could be acheived but is not going underway because of the U.S. has caused a lot of hate toward the west in the region.
See Speed, you are exactly the type of person my signature refers to. You don't believe, you don't practice, but you are a hawk when it comes to defending the Palestinians, who ruined it for themselves by taking an Israeli soldier hostage and electing an extremist government. Honestly the Palestinians have no one to blame for their problems but themselves anymore. Israel was coming to the conclusion of peace, and they screwed it up.
Your signature is a notable contrast to your own views, you are a conservative, that has shown sympathy for militarism, foreign interventionism, and a series of other postures proven unprofitable countless times, yet you profess you are the one that will attack people with strong views on matter they don't understand? i would recomend you apply that to yourself first of all, because the mere act of supporting and defending certain ideals is unrefutable proof that you have NO UNDERSTANDING of many of these issues.
Here we should apply the principle of universal equality. For those of you who don't know what this is i suggest you analize the 2 words that compose the name of the said principle. As is clear and obvious, the principle, a supposed staple of international relations, means that as all human beings are equal, they must be treated equally and have the same rights in ALL ASPECTS. Now we will look at Israel's policy under the light of this principle. Israel occupy's land by use of military force, it violently expels the land's residents, and denigrates them to the category of vermin, obstacles to zionism, and all purpose heretics, for resisting self proclaimed will of god through there mere existence. (God's will is that jews live once more in the holy land, or some all purpose bullshit with the same meaning) If we are to consider Israel a legal law abidding state, we give validity to it's actions, thus we also accept that the palestinians, as EQUAL human beings also have rights to resist a process wich is clearly oriented to destroy them. Now, continuing under this focus, let's see where Israel has violated the principle of universal equality, and denied the right of the palestinians as equal human beings to resists a damaging process. Israel holds thousands of palestinians in jail, many of wich are mere scapegoats with no connection to terrorists, this is hardly comparable to the 1 israeli soldier that remains kidnapped by Palestinians. Due to this kidnapping, Israel takes as a right of it's own to indiscriminatly attack the Gaza strip, provoking incidents like those seen last week, in wich 19 civilians whre killed, 8 of wich where children. The Palestinians how ever, having thousands of people held in Israeli jails HAVE NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to resist this process, and when they do, they are acused of terrorism and vilified in the media.
Effectively, this state of affairs denies the Principle of Universal Equality, thus defining the Palestinian people as INFERIOR, as they DO NOT have the same rights as Israelis, to defend themselves, to resist occupation, and to live where they desire. All of these rights are granted to Israelis, but the Palestinians, AS INFERIOR PEOPLE, don't share in them.
Don't say their election of a Radical governement is the nail that sealed the coffin. We flocked around a radical government that manipulated public opinion after 9-11, and look at public opinion now, 5 years later, everyone has realized what an error it was to give credibility to the bush administration, and the elections prove it. The election of Hamas is the natural result of a manipulation of public opinion through fear, Hamas promises to solve problems in time of need, and the palestinians, who happen to be sick of the uneffectivenes of Al Fatah in dealing with the crises decide to give them a chance. The death of Yassir Arafat also has a lot to do with this, Arafat was carismatic, , and his absence left Al Fatah without a strong leading figure, situation on wich Hamas capitalized. Germany flocked around Hitler and the NSDAP during the 30's economic crises that resulted from the Versailles treaty, WE flocked around our monkey president because we feared terrorism, and Palestinians voted for Hamas because every day they live under opression and fear. You just negated the principle again by blaming them for giving Hamas power, WE DID the exact same thing, we gave up our rights to fight terrorim, and now it has been proven that most if not all of this process has been for nothing at all except getting american soldiers killed.
Please change your signature, it would be ridiculous of you not to after such a display of lack of criterium and knowledge.
Topics 
