HAMAS wins big.

Tmy said:
I thought democracy wasnt supposed to be compatable with terrorism.
Click to expand...

Adolf Hitler was elected. The founding fathers were elected. In my opinion the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. If they would have lost the war they wouldn't be on the money, they would have gotten hung.
 
Mycroft said:
Sharon did what you wanted him to do: a unilateral withdrawal with no conditions attached. You should give him credit for that.
Click to expand...
At the very least, he firmly and unmistakingly placed the ball in Palestine's court. That the Palestinians have fumbled so badly ever since hopefully serves to underscore the nature of Israel's plight.
 
Perforatu said:
At the very least, he firmly and unmistakingly placed the ball in Palestine's court. That the Palestinians have fumbled so badly ever since hopefully serves to underscore the nature of Israel's plight.
Click to expand...

They aren't doing anything Israel and most other countries don't do also. Pursue their own self interests regardless of the consequences.
 
Vagabond said:
Adolf Hitler was elected. The founding fathers were elected. In my opinion the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. If they would have lost the war they wouldn't be on the money, they would have gotten hung.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have that altogether right. In particular you should know that mentioning the H word is not advisable in serious commentary.
 
Vagabond said:
They aren't doing anything Israel and most other countries don't do also. Pursue their own self interests regardless of the consequences.
Click to expand...
I dunno, I think many countries stop pursuing their own self interests when the consequences become too negative. I also think some countries pursue matters that are not in their immediate interest because they hope for positive consequences somewhere along the line.
 
Elind said:
What!!:eek:

You of all people agreeing with Bush now:covereyes!!!

Where will it all end:boxedin:?
Click to expand...

Oh no I dont!!

But thats the line thats always floated. Democracies dont go to war, or become terror nations.
 
Perforatu said:
I dunno, I think many countries stop pursuing their own self interests when the consequences become too negative. I also think some countries pursue matters that are not in their immediate interest because they hope for positive consequences somewhere along the line.
Click to expand...

Some countries sure, but I also said "most".

What is more negative than a world war? Plenty of countries pursued that before they would back down on what they thought was in their best interest.
 
Lower the bar

The only thing the USA is asking of HAMAS now, in order to be considered a viable negotiating partner in any ongoing dispute-resolution process in the region, is "recognition" of Israel.

Well, no problem there! HAMAS does recognize Israel. It specifically says that they recognize the Israelis as their enemy! Anyway, there will be a bit of harruumphing, and clearing of throats, and HAMAS elected officials will make the proper diplomatic noises, and the President of the USA can say "OK, I declare they're Kosher, they are committed to a political path of Palestinian Statehood, their Izz-a-Din Military Wing is not the same as their Parliamentary Wing, etc etc..."
"They are following the truce, they are fulfilling the wishes of their people, they are the only game in town, Israel has always negotiated with its enemies, etc etc..."

I must say, in the defense of the Palestinians, the HAMAS has the power to do a lot of good and if only they would turn this inward and leave Israel alone in peace for a few years, and forge the political process ahead, they would have one heck of a nice situation, including Jerusalem/Al-Quds! After all, they have Ehud Olmert and a coalition of the center/left to work with for the next few years (based on the pre-destined outcome of the elections in Israel in 60 days).

It could all work out pretty well, actually, ya never know!
 
Skeptic said:
Well, I can think at least of one other relatively recent regime which was elected on the "death to the jews" platform.

All the smart money said that their firebrand leader, one Adolf H., will surely get moderate and reasonable now that he had to deal with the pragmatic realities of power. Besides, the real reason that leader was voted in was, undoubtebly, mere frustration with the previous, corrupt and ineffectual, regime in the first place.

With a leader who will now have to become moderate about the "kill the jews" nonsense and a population that really voted for him for completely different reasons, said all the experts, what's the worse that could happen?

Er, no, Mark. Amazingly enough, I think the Palestinians voted overwhelmingly for a party whose official goal is to kill all the jews because they overwhelmingly want to kill all the jews.

If Hitler had taught us anything, it's this: when someone tells you his goal is to kill all the jews, believe them.
Click to expand...


I do believe them, and did not in any way defend them. Nevertheless, there may be a glimmer of hope here. I am a supporter of Israel in case you were wondering...not that you bothered to ask or anything...
 
Mark said:
I do believe them, and did not in any way defend them. Nevertheless, there may be a glimmer of hope here. I am a supporter of Israel in case you were wondering...not that you bothered to ask or anything...
Click to expand...

He doesn't need to ask, he has magical powers that allow him to discern what people are really thinking.
 
Mycroft said:
If you want to consider relocating the entire population of a nation as a viable option (and I don't, but let's pretend) then it's obvious that relocating the Palestinians would be easier and less expensive. There are fewer of them with less investment in infrastructure to replace.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that he morally justifies just this in advance, since if you accept as a fact that group X will eternally hate you with genocidal fervor and will always try to kill you, this is one of the very few instances when it is justified to expell them all (if not, perhaps, to kill them all if it can be avoided).

I would also like to know what "Island somewhere" where the jews "with a brain in their head" need to move to Vagabond has is mind. So far as I know there are no such islands; and if there are, surely they are occupied, so the war with the natives will start all over again. Perhaps Vagabond means that the jews "with a brain in their head" need to find some island where it is easier to butcher all the inhabitants than it is to kill all the Muslims. A moral solution indeed. So much easier than demanding the slightest change from the Muslim world.

Anyway, since Vagabond thinks the jews should move to "an island somewhere" which doesn't exist, what he is really saying is that the jews "with a brain in their head" should disappear and stop annoying the world with their continued existence. If they continue to exist, then, like the rape victim, what do they expect except for repeated assualt? They're not going to get any sympathy from him.

The "find an Island somewhere" also has a slightly different problem. When my grandfather was young in Germany, he was told: "we Germans will always hate you since you are middle eastern foreigners, not european. Why don't you move to Palestine, where you belong?". There were signs at the time in German villages saying, for example, "jews keep moving, the road to Palestine doesn't pass through this village." Now, the jews in Palestine are told: "we Muslims will always ate you since you are european foreigners, not middle eastern. Why don't you move back to europe where you belong"?

So it seems rather pointless to move, as it seems that wherever the jews are, they will be told that they will always be hated for being there, and told that only solution is for those jews "with a brain in their head" to move on, to go somewhere else.

Demadning renewed exile from the jews is, of course, always so much more realistic than making crazy, insane demands like "stop hating the jews" or "don't butcher jewish babies" from the neighboring population.
 
Skeptic said:
I would also like to know what "Island somewhere" where the jews "with a brain in their head" need to move to Vagabond has is mind. So far as I know there are no such islands; and if there are, surely they are occupied, so the war with the natives will start all over again. Perhaps Vagabond means that the jews "with a brain
Click to expand...

With the billions that Israel sucks out of the US every year to allow them to live in the desert they could buy an island from whoever owns it now. The rest is the same whiny crap that allowed the Jews to run the British blockage and go to Palestine when they were forbidden from going there because it already belonged to somebody and they knew what was going to happen. It was used to justify their own terrorist acts against the British to force them to allow you to stay once you got there. It's been used as a basis for the several wars you have started, other sovereign nations you have violated while you cry about your own sovereignty. The basis for subjugating and forcing to live as occupied people the very people who actually owned the land you stole for over 50 years now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom