StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2002-08-02 06:02am**

Hello, everyone.

I recently read Mike's page on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and I admit to being surprised by his vehement opposition to the Israelis. Myself, as a citizen of the United States, I have always felt an affinity with the Israelis akin to that I feel with the West Europeans and the Japanese. Despite our differences, we are all (for the most part) liberal, capitalist societies; friends and allies. On the other hand, the Palestinians have always struck me as sinister, with values more akin to Saddam Hussein's or Ayatollah Khomenei's.

That aside, the moral basis of Mike's article was grounded mainly in his section entitled "The True Nature of Israel." First off, he reminds us that Israel was founded:

on the premise of racial and religious separatism and apartheid

He then goes on to point out:

You have been conditioned by the media and perhaps by religious upbringing to blindly accept that a Jewish state is a reasonable idea, but consider the idea of an "Aryan state", and you will see the problem. The whole idea of Israel is that the Jewish race needed a country (in a place delinerated by religious birthright) where they could freely discriminate against non-Jews!

This is what got me thinking. Really, how unusual is a state that is based on race? Most every form of nationalism on the planet is based upon "blood and soil." France exists because people who called themselves French, having lived on the land that is France for centuries, decided to make themselves a state. The same is true for the Japanese, the Chinese, the Arab states, etc. What makes the Jewish state morally inferior to the Arab state of Jordan?

However, upon further consideration, it occurred to me that Mike might not have noticed this (as I originally had not) for the very reason that he is a citizen of Canada, a former member of the British Empire. The British were the first to craft a nationalism that was not necessarily racist, through their inclusion of English, Scotch, Welsh and later Irish into a single identity that was based upon shared ideals and allegiances. Mike's inheritance of this ideal-based nationalism marks him as rare among the peoples of the world. However, my reading of his rant leads me to believe that he sees this as the default state of being.

Anyway, if my train of thought hasn't derailed somewhere along the line, it seems to me that the logical conclusion of Mike's condemnation of Israel is a similar condemnation of the Palestinians (though Mike condemned the Palestinians, he did so for their leadership rather than for their nationalist ideas). Furthermore, all nations which exist primarily to advance a particular ethnic group (in other words, without a governing ideal) are illegitimate.

This seems like quite a strong conclusion. Does Mike endorse this position? What about the rest of the denizens of this forum?

Posted: **2002-08-02 07:04am**

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:Hello, everyone.
I recently read Mike's page on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and I admit to being surprised by his vehement opposition to the Israelis. Myself, as a citizen of the United States, I have always felt an affinity with the Israelis akin to that I feel with the West Europeans and the Japanese. Despite our differences, we are all (for the most part) liberal, capitalist societies; friends and allies. On the other hand, the Palestinians have always struck me as sinister, with values more akin to Saddam Hussein's or Ayatollah Khomenei's.

It is quite understandable that people under military occupation can do sinister things.Without Israel probably the palestinians would have a state governed in a manner similar to Egypt.
Khomeini was a religious fanatic,as far as I know many palestinians are not even muslim.

That aside, the moral basis of Mike's article was grounded mainly in his section entitled "The True Nature of Israel." First off, he reminds us that Israel was founded:
on the premise of racial and religious separatism and apartheid
Religious separatism,yes.Racism? I do not know.

He then goes on to point out:
You have been conditioned by the media and perhaps by religious upbringing to blindly accept that a Jewish state is a reasonable idea, but consider the idea of an "Aryan state", and you will see the problem. The whole idea of Israel is that the Jewish race needed a country (in a place delinerated by religious birthright) where they could freely discriminate against non-Jews!

Sionism was a reaction to antisemithism.The founder of modern sionism was a jew journalist who had assisted to Dreyfus trial.Dreyfus was a jew officer of the french army during the franco-prussian war,after the conflict he was unjustly accused of treason and became the scapegoat of the french defeat.Of course he was considered guilty for the simple fact of being jew.
Many jews in the late 19th century started to think that only in their own state they would have been safe from persecutions.History proved that they were quite correct.

This is what got me thinking. Really, how unusual is a state that is based on race? Most every form of nationalism on the planet is based upon "blood and soil." France exists because people who called themselves French, having lived on the land that is France for centuries, decided to make themselves a state. The same is true for the Japanese, the Chinese, the Arab states, etc. What makes the Jewish state morally inferior to the Arab state of Jordan?

I do not know if this is exactly the same thing.Nationalism may be based on blood and soil:german,french.Racism is based on race:white men,black men.

However, upon further consideration, it occurred to me that Mike might not have noticed this (as I originally had not) for the very reason that he is a citizen of Canada, a former member of the British Empire. The British were the first to craft a nationalism that was not necessarily racist, through their inclusion of English, Scotch, Welsh and later Irish into a single identity that was based upon shared ideals and allegiances. Mike's inheritance of this ideal-based nationalism marks him as rare among the peoples of the world. However, my reading of his rant leads me to believe that he sees this as the default state of being.

It should be the default state of things.Unfortunately it is not.

Posted: **2002-08-02 08:43am**

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote: This is what got me thinking. Really, how unusual is a state that is based on race? Most every form of nationalism on the planet is based upon "blood and soil." France exists because people who called themselves French, having lived on the land that is France for centuries, decided to make themselves a state. The same is true for the Japanese, the Chinese, the Arab states, etc. What makes the Jewish state morally inferior to the Arab state of Jordan?

However, upon further consideration, it occurred to me that Mike might not have noticed this (as I originally had not) for the very reason that he is a citizen of Canada, a former member of the British Empire. The British were the first to craft a nationalism that was not necessarily racist, through their inclusion of English, Scotch, Welsh and later Irish into a single identity that was based upon shared ideals and allegiances. Mike's inheritance of this ideal-based nationalism marks him as rare among the peoples of the world. However, my reading of his rant leads me to believe that he sees this as the default state of being.

There is a difference between the 'blood and soil' nationalism you are referring to (which might be called simple national pride), and the aggressive, militarily expansionist, racism and religious bigotry of Israel.

Consider the parallels between what Israel did to Palestine (and other Arab states) during the 60's (all described in Mike's essay) and the World War 2 actions of Germany in attacking France and Poland, and Japan in attacking China. Then consider how the French or Polish might feel if, at the end of the war, Germany was allowed to retain control over those states, or the opinions of the Chinese, if Japan had retained control of the areas it had conquered.

Starting to get some idea why Israel could be seen as a little less than legitimate?

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:Hello, everyone.
Anyway, if my train of thought hasn't derailed somewhere along the line, it seems to me that the logical conclusion of Mike's condemnation of Israel is a similar condemnation of the Palestinians (though Mike condemned the Palestinians, he did so for their leadership rather than for their nationalist ideas). Furthermore, all nations which exist primarily to advance a particular ethnic group (in other words, without a governing ideal) are illegitimate.

This seems like quite a strong conclusion. Does Mike endorse this position? What about the rest of the denizens of this forum?

I doubt you will find Mike endorsing the strawman contained in the above paragraph - it goes far beyond what his essay says.

The problem with Israel is not that it has no governing ideal - it is that, in addition to the issues relating to its origins and aggressiveness, it is as blatantly discriminatory against Palestinians as South Africa was against blacks. For years, South Africa laboured under economic sanctions imposed by other nations who had one major demand: get rid of apartheid. Personal discrimination is an unfortunate fact of life - state-sanctioned discrimination is simply abhorrent. Ultimately, the international sanctions (along with internal factors) proved successful, and South Africa has made an impressive effort in dismantling apartheid. The international outcry against Israeli discriminitation is, well, a little less than deafening. Hell, Israel is probably even _worse_ than South Africa - I don't think the South African apartheid government went in for rolling tanks over blacks' homes and then claiming it was 'self defense'.

Actual modern liberal democracies (such as England, Canada, Australia, the US, much of Europe, other nations in Africa, South America and Asia), ascribe full rights to every citizen and sometimes greater rights to members of historically disadvantaged groups (such as Aboriginal Australians or Native Americans). These equal rights are often enshrined in law, such as the Australian Racial Discrimination Act, to say outright that these rights are to be respected by the government and by all citizens of the country. The exact rights vary from country to country, but the principle of "equality before the law" is a common one (even if it is imperfectly applied). In terms of quality of life for individual citizens, it's currently the best system humanity has come up with.

Mike's essay points out that the Middle-Eastern conflict is one where none of the direct participants can claim the moral high ground. Even America's hands aren't clean, since they treat Israeli thugs nicely and cast all Palestinians as potential terrorists. Being proud of your country is one thing. Bigotry and racism are entirely different - and that's the problem with Israel's current government. Unfortunately, the current Palestinian government, and the governments of the surrounding states aren't any better. So it's not a matter of supporting anyone over anyone else - we shouldn't be supporting any of them. But alas, this is the real world, and pragmatism wins the day. After all, the oil must keep flowing.

(Hmm, I wonder what the nations whose wealth is based on oil exports think of the idea of a hydrogen economy. . .)

Posted: **2002-08-02 09:37am**

Stand by for Imperial Smackdown

Commence...Primary...Ignition

Posted: **2002-08-02 10:22am**

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:Hello, everyone.
I recently read Mike's page on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and I admit to being surprised by his vehement opposition to the Israelis. Myself, as a citizen of the United States, I have always felt an affinity with the Israelis akin to that I feel with the West Europeans and the Japanese. Despite our differences, we are all (for the most part) liberal, capitalist societies; friends and allies. On the other hand, the Palestinians have always struck me as sinister, with values more akin to Saddam Hussein's or Ayatollah Khomenei's.

Admiral Piett wrote:It is quite understandable that people under military occupation can do sinister things.Without Israel probably the palestinians would have a state governed in a manner similar to Egypt.Khomeini was a religious fanatic,as far as I know many palestinians are not even muslim.

Two points. First, I don't think that it is a valid tactic in a moral argument to say that "the devil made me do it." People have fought many revolutions in the past without making their primary tactic the killing of civilians. Even if the Palestinian revolution is justified, that does not mean that their conduct thereof can be excused so easily. It has been said that it is possible to fight a just war unjustly.

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:That aside, the moral basis of Mike's article was grounded mainly in his section entitled "The True Nature of Israel." First off, he reminds us that Israel was founded:
on the premise of racial and religious separatism and apartheid

Admiral Piett wrote: Religious separatism,yes.Racism? I do not know.

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote: Yes, racism too. In these enlightened times, races have been broadly categorized. However, for a very long time, Italians were considered a different race than Germans. Japanese and Chinese and Hawaiians were all different races. Now, on the U.S. census, these are two groups: Caucasian and Asian/Pacific Islander.

He then goes on to point out:
You have been conditioned by the media and perhaps by religious upbringing to blindly accept that a Jewish state is a reasonable idea, but consider the idea of an "Aryan state", and you will see the problem. The whole idea of Israel is that the Jewish race needed a country (in a place delinerated by religious birthright) where they could freely discriminate against non-Jews!

Admiral Piett wrote: Sionism was a reaction to antisemithism.The founder of modern sionism was a jew journalist who had assisted to Dreyfus trial.Dreyfus was a jew officer of the french army during the franco-prussian war,after the conflict he was unjustly accused of treason and became the scapegoat of the french defeat.Of course he was considered guilty for the simple fact of being jew.
Many jews in the late 19th century started to think that only in their own state they would have been safe from persecutions.History proved that they were quite correct.

True. That is my point. Jews were not safe in countries for Germans or French, because they had been defined to be the "other." So they went and made a country of their own for Jews. This logic entails that Israel, on these grounds, is just as legitimate as Germany or France.

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote: This is what got me thinking. Really, how unusual is a state that is based on race? Most every form of nationalism on the planet is based upon "blood and soil." France exists because people who called themselves French, having lived on the land that is France for centuries, decided to make themselves a state. The same is true for the Japanese, the Chinese, the Arab states, etc. What makes the Jewish state morally inferior to the Arab state of Jordan?

Admiral Piett wrote: I do not know if this is exactly the same thing.Nationalism may be based on blood and soil:german,french.Racism is based on race:white men,black men.

See my point above. Those countries were once considered (in the Age of Nationalism) to consist of different races. The fact that they are all white guys now is probably a big factor in the creation of the super-national EU.

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote: However, upon further consideration, it occurred to me that Mike might not have noticed this (as I originally had not) for the very reason that he is a citizen of Canada, a former member of the British Empire. The British were the first to craft a nationalism that was not necessarily racist, through their inclusion of English, Scotch, Welsh and later Irish into a single identity that was based upon shared ideals and allegiances. Mike's inheritance of this ideal-based nationalism marks him as rare among the peoples of the world. However, my reading of his rant leads me to believe that he sees this as the default state of being.

Admiral Piett wrote: It should be the default state of things.Unfortunately it is not.

I will get to the rest of the comments when I have time. Thanks for writing.

EDIT: Cleared up some of the quotations and fixed a typo at the end. By the way, nested quotes do not appear to be working as I would expect. Is there a way to make it more clear that I am quoting a quote?

Posted: **2002-08-02 10:52am**

On the other hand, the Palestinians have always struck me as sinister, with values more akin to Saddam Hussein's or Ayatollah Khomenei's.

Make some new friendships with Palestinian or Arab peoples, you'll find your sweeping generalization to be wrong; they're not all hook nosed thieves as Disney likes to paint them.

Posted: **2002-08-02 10:54am**

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantM ... East.shtml

that is obscene piece of garbage. They must not teach history in Waterloo university anymore.

Couple of Rock Solid Facts:

There are no "palestinian" people. The Word Palestine means Greek not Arab Origins.

There has never been a palestinian state of anykind before the oslo occords.

"Isreal Was military aggreessors". Lets face facts on this. The arabs have been trying to wipe the jews out of the lands of "Mohmmad" sicne the days of mohmmad. Hell I can even go over some ethnic cleansing programs outlined in Islamic holy books intiated by the holy man himself in the city of Yathrib, "Medina", and later in Mecca.

Want to talkj about freedom, and religious segregation. jews are treated like pariahs in the entire middle east. They have been subject to suimmary esecution fort the past 1300 years for failure to convert to Islam.

Palestinians Have no righjts in Isreal. Palesitinians have more rights in Palestine than any arab in anyu other arab country, say turkey.

Isreali Arabs can indeed have children in isreali proper, and can own land and builf homes like any other isreali.

Christians are routinely persecuted and are subject t ocrimes against humanity in Plestine, lest we all forget the egerious war crime a few months back when Armed palesitines entered the church of the nativity and proceeded to abuse the priests and descerete on of the holiest christian sites. War criminals in anyu book.

Jews are the only people to maintain a 3000 year long unbroken preasence in isreal.

People talk about how many palestinians the jews kill. Jews target militant combatants, Palestiniansd target civilians, and rejoice throwing block parties every time they kill a few children or college students. If anjyone doubts it, the tapes oif the recent college bombing after partyy hit the air waves in the states less than a day ago. So literealy there are 10s of millions of american witnesses to these Murder parties.

Palestinians openly abmit that thier goal is to kill jews, plain and simple.

Mein Kemph is one of the most popular books in the middle east.

Arabs host telethons on state run TV to openly support terrorist goals of killing ALL jews. That hit the US networks too, there are literally milions of american witnesses to that.

Mike complains about the isrewali occupation of lebennon, which ended years ago. Where is his complaints about the continued occupation of lebeneon by Syria and Iran?

Palestinians use Ambulancdes of the red creasent to curry murder bombers into isreal, thatsa perfidy in any reading of the geneva convention. Then the palestinians complain that the isrealis are holding up ambulances. Well they have to check them for weapons and murderers!! They would be full within thier rights after such an act as using an ambulance as a munitions delivery system, to blow up every one they see at distance.

"Isreali Aggression" is a war crime according to the Geenva Convention. WRONG. the Geneva convention applies only between SIGNATORS, and responsible rebel groups who aggree to abide, and do abide in fact by the convention. IF they were signators, they would have violated every rule in the book, including this major one

You may not Use civilians as human shields!!! they base thier operations in cxivilian homes, and when attackingh isreali settlements, they fire from behind christian homes and churches so the isrealis would kill christans instead.

Really any one who can write an article like that must hate jews or is extremely ignorant of the circumstances of each conflict, and how the jewish state came to be.

Like the irish privilkiage to return to ireland is just as reprehensible accordsing to your logic

Posted: **2002-08-02 11:07am**

There are no "palestinian" people. The Word Palestine means Greek not Arab Origins.

So you wish to argue the meaning of Palestine? Totally irrelevent.

Posted: **2002-08-02 11:30am**

Well its rather significant.

Suppose German immigrants in 1910, decide they wanted to set up thier own little country in say downtown manhatten, and call it historical "indainstine", and claim that all German descendents have a claim to it, and the italians, english, and irish had to get out. Even to make it worse, the leader of the Indianstian Movement himself was born and raised in austria.

Would you think that was legitimiate? This is one time when the sheer terminology being used NEGATES the claim being made. If it weren't so sad I would laugh.

Posted: **2002-08-02 11:42am**

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:
Admiral Piett wrote:It is quite understandable that people under military occupation can do sinister things.Without Israel probably the palestinians would have a state governed in a manner similar to Egypt.Khomeini was a religious fanatic,as far as I know many palestinians are not even muslim.
Two points. First, I don't think that it is a valid tactic in a moral argument to say that "the devil made me do it." People have fought many revolutions in the past without making their primary tactic the killing of civilians. Even if the Palestinian revolution is justified, that does not mean that their conduct thereof can be excused so easily. It has been said that it is possible to fight a just war unjustly.

Err, no-one said anything about 'the Devil made me do it'. Rather he said it was quite understandable for moral niceties to be chucked out the window when some mongrel has wandered up and parked a tank on what used to be your home. Easy to get a tad emotional under those circumstances, don't you think? A little bit eager to "make the bastards pay"? But how do you do that when your enemy gets billions of dollars of military aid from the nation commanding the single largest military force on the planet?

These are people who have been ground into the dirt by the Israelis for decades. They were forced into accepting an unjust partitioning of land by the UN, which retroactively endorsed Israeli military conquests. Neither the actions of the Israelis nor the Palestinians are really justifiable, but at least the Palestinians have the excuse of resisting a genuine invasion of their homeland.

Do I condone suicide bombings? Of course not. But the Israeli's systematic millitary assault on Palestinian civilians is even worse. The Palestinians are fighting a just war, unjustly. The Israelis are flat out prosecuting an unjust war

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:
Admiral Piett wrote: Religious separatism,yes.Racism? I do not know.
Yes, racism too. In these enlightened times, races have been broadly categorized. However, for a very long time, Italians were considered a different race than Germans. Japanese and Chinese and Hawaiians were all different races. Now, on the U.S. census, these are two groups: Caucasian and Asian/Pacific Islander.

What is a race? It is a sub-type of a species (it might have a proper biological definition, but, if so, I don't know what it is). These days, it tends to be used fairly interchangeably with the term 'ethnic group' - and so, racism is discrimination against a particular ethnic group.

In South Africa (and the American South), it used to be blacks. On the Australian gold fields, it was Chinese. In Israel, it's Palestinians. The division of the Holy Land between Israel & Palestine was designed to separate the Jews from the Islamic Palestinians - both racial and religious segregation.

Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:
Admiral Piett wrote: Sionism was a reaction to antisemithism.The founder of modern sionism was a jew journalist who had assisted to Dreyfus trial.Dreyfus was a jew officer of the french army during the franco-prussian war,after the conflict he was unjustly accused of treason and became the scapegoat of the french defeat.Of course he was considered guilty for the simple fact of being jew.
Many jews in the late 19th century started to think that only in their own state they would have been safe from persecutions.History proved that they were quite correct.
True. That is my point. Jews were not safe in countries for Germans or French, because they had been defined to be the "other." So they went and made a country of their own for Jews. This logic entails that Israel, on these grounds, is just as legitimate as Germany or France.

No, it doesn't. The origins of the Israelite state involved taking land away from the existing Palestinian people. It is more analagous to the English invasion of Australia, or the effect of European settlement on the American Indians. Just because we can't go back in time to change those things, it doesn't make them right. The significant difference in this case is that both Australia and America have acknowledged that the treatment given their indigenous populations was unjust, and have endeavoured to bring them fully into society, with all the rights of any citizen.

Israel has not attempted to do any such thing, and has aggressively sought to expand its borders against the surrounding Arab states. This is why its current actions are indefensible.

Posted: **2002-08-02 11:46am**

Azeron wrote:There are no "palestinian" people. The Word Palestine means Greek not Arab Origins.

Irrevelant you dumbass

There has never been a palestinian state of anykind before the oslo occords.

So

"Isreal Was military aggreessors".

They started the Six Day War. Nations that attack others are commonly refered to as military aggressors

Lets face facts on this. The arabs have been trying to wipe the jews out of the lands of "Mohmmad" sicne the days of mohmmad.

Ever since the Hebrews left Egypt, they have been wiping entire cities off the map. They have murdered countless men, women, and children.

Want to talkj about freedom, and religious segregation. jews are treated like pariahs in the entire middle east. They have been subject to suimmary esecution fort the past 1300 years for failure to convert to Islam.

Most Jews left the Middle East after the second unsuccessful revolt against the Romans, before Islam was founded. Moreover, that does not excuse their current behavior.

Palestinians Have no righjts in Isreal. Palesitinians have more rights in Palestine than any arab in anyu other arab country, say turkey.

Yes, and blacks in America during the 1950s had more rights than most blacks in most African nations. Therefore, the civil rights movements were unneeded.

Isreali Arabs can indeed have children in isreali proper, and can own land and builf homes like any other isreali.

Just because they legallly can, doesn't mean they can in reality. Housing descrimination is blatant in Israel.

Christians are routinely persecuted and are subject t ocrimes against humanity in Plestine,

Yeah, and Muslims were murdered by the thousands in Bosnia just a few short years ago by Christians.

lest we all forget the egerious war crime a few months back when Armed palesitines entered the church of the nativity

That was in their territory, and they were defending their land from invasion.

and proceeded to abuse the priests and descerete on of the holiest christian sites. War criminals in anyu book.

They didn't abuse the priest, they treated the priest very well, as they were the only method of negociation with the Israelis. They did not descrete the church.

Jews are the only people to maintain a 3000 year long unbroken preasence in isreal.

Yeah, becaue they murdered everyone around them. They destroyed whole cities, even those that did not pose a threat, or do anything to provoke attack.

People talk about how many palestinians the jews kill. Jews target militant combatants, Palestiniansd target civilians.

Then why have more Palestinian civilians died than Israeli civlians?

Palestinians openly abmit that thier goal is to kill jews, plain and simple.

They would be alot nicer if the Jews hadn't invaded their homes, killed their people, and continued the occupation for over 30 years.

Mein Kemph is one of the most popular books in the middle east.

So

Arabs host telethons on state run TV to openly support terrorist goals of killing ALL jews. That hit the US networks too, there are literally milions of american witnesses to that.

Yeah, and they raise enough to equip terrorist with crude guns and explosives. In the meantime, my tax dollars are used to buy the Israelis tanks, helicopters, guns, and missiles that are used to keep up an illegal occupation.

"Isreali Aggression" is a war crime according to the Geenva Convention. WRONG. the Geneva convention applies only between SIGNATORS, and responsible rebel groups who aggree to abide, and do abide in fact by the convention. IF they were signators, they would have violated every rule in the book, including this major one

Technical bullshit. Is that the best you could do?

You may not Use civilians as human shields!!! they base thier operations in cxivilian homes, and when attackingh isreali settlements, they fire from behind christian homes and churches so the isrealis would kill christans instead.

When you fight a resistance against an occuuping army, you do what you must. And exactly how many Christians have been killed?

Really any one who can write an article like that must hate jews or is extremely ignorant of the circumstances of each conflict, and how the jewish state came to be.

Your nothing but some racist fundie with you head stuck all little too far up your ass. The world would be a better place if it wasn't for ignorant little fucks like yourself going around spouting this blantant bullshit. But then again, as long as their are villages, there will be village idiots.

Posted: **2002-08-02 11:49am**

Next of Kin wrote:
There are no "palestinian" people. The Word Palestine means Greek not Arab Origins.
So you wish to argue the meaning of Palestine? Totally irrelevent.

Acually the Name of Palestine come from the Latin for Philistine. The Area Was called Isreal until the Jew revolted against the Roman Empire. The Roman Emperor decreed that the Land would be called Palistine to try to destroy the Jew sence of nationalism. By the way, the Philistines were destroyed by Alexander The Great because they refused to provide supplies to his armu or to allow them to enter their temples to worship the Philistine gods. This is the same reasone Alexander destroyed Tyre and Sidon as well.

Posted: **2002-08-02 12:19pm**

Next of Kin wrote:
On the other hand, the Palestinians have always struck me as sinister, with values more akin to Saddam Hussein's or Ayatollah Khomenei's.
Make some new friendships with Palestinian or Arab peoples, you'll find your sweeping generalization to be wrong; they're not all hook nosed thieves as Disney likes to paint them.

Posted: **2002-08-02 12:53pm**

Nick wrote:
Nicholas Stipanovich wrote: This is what got me thinking. Really, how unusual is a state that is based on race? Most every form of nationalism on the planet is based upon "blood and soil." France exists because people who called themselves French, having lived on the land that is France for centuries, decided to make themselves a state. The same is true for the Japanese, the Chinese, the Arab states, etc. What makes the Jewish state morally inferior to the Arab state of Jordan?

However, upon further consideration, it occurred to me that Mike might not have noticed this (as I originally had not) for the very reason that he is a citizen of Canada, a former member of the British Empire. The British were the first to craft a nationalism that was not necessarily racist, through their inclusion of English, Scotch, Welsh and later Irish into a single identity that was based upon shared ideals and allegiances. Mike's inheritance of this ideal-based nationalism marks him as rare among the peoples of the world. However, my reading of his rant leads me to believe that he sees this as the default state of being.
There is a difference between the 'blood and soil' nationalism you are referring to (which might be called simple national pride), and the aggressive, militarily expansionist, racism and religious bigotry of Israel.

I don't think that there is a difference, except for the fact that the aggressive military expansionism that marked the growth and establishment of the European nations happened a long time ago. Lest you forget, France was established in its current form after 500 years of bloody warfare (often expansionist). Then, in the inaugural act of the modern French state, they united under the banner of Napoleon to attempt to conquer all of Europe.

This is only one example. The Spanish crushed the Basques, the Russians the Duchy of Novograd, the Americans crushed the Cherokee, and so on and so on. The point is that all modern nations are founded on the blood of people long since perished. Most of these had some component of racial or religious bigotry within their expansionism. Therefore, the question is: "What makes a nation illegitimate?" If the answer is that the Israelis started their nation in 1947, instead of 1447, that does not strike me as very satisfying.

Nick wrote: Consider the parallels between what Israel did to Palestine (and other Arab states) during the 60's (all described in Mike's essay) and the World War 2 actions of Germany in attacking France and Poland, and Japan in attacking China. Then consider how the French or Polish might feel if, at the end of the war, Germany was allowed to retain control over those states, or the opinions of the Chinese, if Japan had retained control of the areas it had conquered.

Starting to get some idea why Israel could be seen as a little less than legitimate?

Yes, I can see why Israel can be seen to be illegitimate. My point is that the logic used to declare Israel illegitimate could be used to declare almost every nation so.

Nick wrote:
Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:Hello, everyone.
Anyway, if my train of thought hasn't derailed somewhere along the line, it seems to me that the logical conclusion of Mike's condemnation of Israel is a similar condemnation of the Palestinians (though Mike condemned the Palestinians, he did so for their leadership rather than for their nationalist ideas). Furthermore, all nations which exist primarily to advance a particular ethnic group (in other words, without a governing ideal) are illegitimate.

This seems like quite a strong conclusion. Does Mike endorse this position? What about the rest of the denizens of this forum?
I doubt you will find Mike endorsing the strawman contained in the above paragraph - it goes far beyond what his essay says.

The problem with Israel is not that it has no governing ideal - it is that, in addition to the issues relating to its origins and aggressiveness, it is as blatantly discriminatory against Palestinians as South Africa was against blacks. For years, South Africa laboured under economic sanctions imposed by other nations who had one major demand: get rid of apartheid. Personal discrimination is an unfortunate fact of life - state-sanctioned discrimination is simply abhorrent. Ultimately, the international sanctions (along with internal factors) proved successful, and South Africa has made an impressive effort in dismantling apartheid. The international outcry against Israeli discriminitation is, well, a little less than deafening. Hell, Israel is probably even _worse_ than South Africa - I don't think the South African apartheid government went in for rolling tanks over blacks' homes and then claiming it was 'self defense'.

State-sanctioned discrimination between citizens and resident aliens happens all the time, in many more countries than Israel and apartheid South Africa. In wartime, drastic state-sanctioned discrimination between citizens and non-citizens is also common. For example, the state encourages its own young men to shoot certain young men (soldiers) of the opposing country, with extreme prejudice. Since the Israelis have been in a state of war with the Palestinians for 50 years, it is not surprising that they drive tanks over Palestinian houses. After all, the United States and Great Britain took less care in destroying German houses in World War II, and thereby killed many more civilians than the Israelis ever have. Admittedly, this is not a perfect analogy. The point is simply that only a very few individuals consider the United States and Great Britain illegitimate as a result of their actions during World War II.

Again, the grounds that you are using to declare Israel has no right to exist work apply to most nations.

Nick wrote: Actual modern liberal democracies (such as England, Canada, Australia, the US, much of Europe, other nations in Africa, South America and Asia), ascribe full rights to every citizen and sometimes greater rights to members of historically disadvantaged groups (such as Aboriginal Australians or Native Americans). These equal rights are often enshrined in law, such as the Australian Racial Discrimination Act, to say outright that these rights are to be respected by the government and by all citizens of the country. The exact rights vary from country to country, but the principle of "equality before the law" is a common one (even if it is imperfectly applied). In terms of quality of life for individual citizens, it's currently the best system humanity has come up with.

This is true. However, all of these nations implemented these laws from some point after their founding. The United States, having enshrined equality before the law as a founding precept, still took 80 years to abolish slavery and another 100 years to fully enforce political rights for all citizens. Other nations have similarly checkered records. This is historically unique, in that the broad rights that you mention have only been around for maybe 400 years, at the maximum. Furthermore, they were developed in very few places (Great Britain, for the most part). Using this standard for legitimacy means that most nations will fall short, because they were built upon gross violations thereof.

Nick wrote: Mike's essay points out that the Middle-Eastern conflict is one where none of the direct participants can claim the moral high ground. Even America's hands aren't clean, since they treat Israeli thugs nicely and cast all Palestinians as potential terrorists. Being proud of your country is one thing. Bigotry and racism are entirely different - and that's the problem with Israel's current government. Unfortunately, the current Palestinian government, and the governments of the surrounding states aren't any better. So it's not a matter of supporting anyone over anyone else - we shouldn't be supporting any of them. But alas, this is the real world, and pragmatism wins the day. After all, the oil must keep flowing.

(Hmm, I wonder what the nations whose wealth is based on oil exports think of the idea of a hydrogen economy. . .)

This is an interesting point. Are you in fact arguing that the other surrounding states are also illegitimate? I would not disagree, but you can see that declaring "a pox on both your houses" has logical ramifications beyond simply withdrawing support from the region.

Posted: **2002-08-02 01:14pm**

Acually the Name of Palestine come from the Latin for Philistine. The Area Was called Isreal until the Jew revolted against the Roman Empire. The Roman Emperor decreed that the Land would be called Palistine to try to destroy the Jew sence of nationalism. By the way, the Philistines were destroyed by Alexander The Great because they refused to provide supplies to his armu or to allow them to enter their temples to worship the Philistine gods. This is the same reasone Alexander destroyed Tyre and Sidon as well.

Actually the word litterally dervise from the word meaning "from the North", implying the greek caninites.

The first Expulsion occured in 70 AD (hadrian I beleive) with the second following in 135 AD.

Emperoer hadrian proclaimed that no jew would ever see thier homeland again. Renmaed it to what means "greekLand" to add injury to insult.

No the philistines were not destroyed by Alexander the great, they left following a invasssion by babylon. The Jews stayed and were by and large enslaved.

The orignal creators of Jearusalem were jesubites, they were killed off by the philistines (greeks). After the Asyrians Conquered Isreal and judea, Alexander came in and established his new empire. By and large the macedonians were far more generous to the jewish people than the asyrians had been (well at the start). There is a story in the bibile about how jewish woman who was kidnapped by asyrian soilders to be part of the harem of the King,. foiuled an assainiation plot and was evelvated to queen. The jews were allowed to return to isreal at that point. The temple mount was reebuilt by the asyrians. this is referred to as the second temple. It stood until the romans knocked it down again.

They started the Six Day War. Nations that attack others are commonly refered to as military aggressors

The arabs ammassed thier armies at the borders of isreal, and publicly declared thier intention to theworld to commit a new holocost. Amassing your troops and decalring an intention to attack, is consdiered an act of war. They Arabs also bloackaded the straits of the tirbirs, AN ACT OF WAR.

Ever since the Hebrews left Egypt, they have been wiping entire cities off the map. They have murdered countless men, women, and children.

I want to see your documentation for that. You are an antisemite plain and simple. Why not join the KKK or a neo-nazi group, they hate jews too.

Its kind of hard to call the hews a histroical aggrssor, considering thier city remains the most conquered city in the history of mankind, and isreal only exited for a short time.

Most Jews left the Middle East after the second unsuccessful revolt against the Romans, before Islam was founded. Moreover, that does not excuse their current behavior.

No you moron, they fled TO the middle east, which was under control of the Persian empire at the time, where they esttablished prosperous communties, like Yathrib (A key jewish city even mentioned in the Koran as a jewish city), Naglasa, and even established an extremely properouis community in Mecca as well as other places.

There is no record of jewish militants living in these cities established under persian rule revolting or commiting mass persecution. That did not happen until the Rise of Islam in 730 -40 AD.

I have a question for you, I know you hate jews and Zionism, Do you even know what the word Zion means?
Here is a hint, it refers a citidel on the highest hill in the old city of jeusalem, it means safeharbor, A PLACE where they can't kill us.

If the jews had the same percentage of a population in the world as they did in the roman times, there would be 200 million of them. There are only 12 million left in the world, and thier enemies are trying to finish off what hitler started.

Just because they legallly can, doesn't mean they can in reality. Housing descrimination is blatant in Israel.

Oh i see, the jews can;t buy or own land in the west bank, but palestinians should be able to buy of hold land anywhere. That makes sense. We just have to get rid of all those settlements and eleimate the jewish presence in the west bank. That reeks of ethnic cleansing. Far more than any restrictions the jews have placed on them.

Yeah, and Muslims were murdered by the thousands in Bosnia just a few short years ago by Christians.

the muslims started that war when they tried to impose sharia on non christiains.

That was in their territory, and they were defending their land from invasion.

They have no right to use a religious cukltural shrine to 2 billion people as a sheild for thier twisted political agenda for genocide.

They didn't abuse the priest, they treated the priest very well, as they were the only method of negociation with the Israelis. They did not descrete the church.

Perhaos you missed the footage of a brave monk who went to the roof, and help up a sign saying "HELP US". Yah they treated them well. Used the spot wherer christ was beleiveds to be born as latrine.
According to international law, they should have been punished for what they did. All of them.

Yeah, becaue they murdered everyone around them. They destroyed whole cities, even those that did not pose a threat, or do anything to provoke attack.

Where is your documentation for that? I want to see source material for that load of anti semitc garbage.

Then why have more Palestinian civilians died than Israeli civlians?

90% of all isrealis who have been killed have been civilian, 90% of the oalestinians who have been killed have been militants. (that includes murder bombers)

They would be alot nicer if the Jews hadn't invaded their homes, killed their people, and continued the occupation for over 30 years.

where is your documentation for that?

So

Yah a book dedicated to providing a case for killing off all the jews, is nothing. Nazi.

Yeah, and they raise enough to equip terrorist with crude guns and explosives. In the meantime, my tax dollars are used to buy the Israelis tanks, helicopters, guns, and missiles that are used to keep up an illegal occupation.

Guess what your money has also gone to pay for. Anti semitic text books, murder bomboings, summary executions of people beleived to be traitors to the "Palestinian Cause", block parties to celebrate the deaths of innocent civilians.

When you fight a resistance against an occuuping army, you do what you must. And exactly how many Christians have been killed?

I can't say how many christians have been killed, that number hasn't been published ax far as I know. I find it morally deploreable and sickening that you consider killing non-combatants in a resistance.

Perhaps you should read what Robert E Lee had to say about such kinds of war when it was suggested right before the surrender at appomatax

Paraphrased
"Such tactics are not about freedom or justice, they are completely about the combatant. Any reprisals result from such actions would hurt the people the guerilla proffecesses to protect, and bears responsibility for what happens to them. it is for this reeason I reject such tactics, and not being able to wage war, retire from the field"

Might I add tyhat the palesitinians also threw a block party when the WTC attack occured. After the isrealis kill some palestinians in retaliation for killing jews and americans 2 days ago, do you think americans will be celebratiing in the streets?

Palestinians also use bombs not employed by any military in the world against enemy soilders that the palestinians use against civilians. bombvs ringed with nails dipped into rat posin. Such weapons that are deisgned to bleed people to death slowly after being injured are banned in the Geneva Convention (I beleive so, I have been told) Thats why the isrealis after a bomb attack give only the instantly killed, but a couple day laters release a number that can be twice as high.

I reject the notion that you "have to use these kinds of tactics" washington and every successful resistance movement in the past hunderd years have't used them.

ohh and the palestinians pay taxes to teh PLO not to isreal. If you have problems with the streets, go blame it ojn the corrupt arafat.

You really hate jews.

Posted: **2002-08-02 01:23pm**

Nick wrote:
Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:
Admiral Piett wrote:It is quite understandable that people under military occupation can do sinister things.Without Israel probably the palestinians would have a state governed in a manner similar to Egypt.Khomeini was a religious fanatic,as far as I know many palestinians are not even muslim.
Two points. First, I don't think that it is a valid tactic in a moral argument to say that "the devil made me do it." People have fought many revolutions in the past without making their primary tactic the killing of civilians. Even if the Palestinian revolution is justified, that does not mean that their conduct thereof can be excused so easily. It has been said that it is possible to fight a just war unjustly.
Err, no-one said anything about 'the Devil made me do it'. Rather he said it was quite understandable for moral niceties to be chucked out the window when some mongrel has wandered up and parked a tank on what used to be your home. Easy to get a tad emotional under those circumstances, don't you think? A little bit eager to "make the bastards pay"? But how do you do that when your enemy gets billions of dollars of military aid from the nation commanding the single largest military force on the planet?

Yes, you just said that "the devil made them do it" in essence. Your entire point is that the Israelis attacked the Palestinians' homes, therefore making them "a tad emotional." You then imply that their rage, coupled with their relative military impotence, leads them to suicide bombings of children. It is the Palestinians' responsibility, under any reasonable doctrine of just war that I have read, to limit their response as much as possible to the military of their foes. In direct violation of this rule, the Palestinians have instead chosen to make their primary tactic the killing of civilians.

By the way, do you think that if the Palestinians had access to F-16s they would be as careful in using them as the Israelis. I doubt it.

Nick wrote: These are people who have been ground into the dirt by the Israelis for decades. They were forced into accepting an unjust partitioning of land by the UN, which retroactively endorsed Israeli military conquests. Neither the actions of the Israelis nor the Palestinians are really justifiable, but at least the Palestinians have the excuse of resisting a genuine invasion of their homeland.

Do I condone suicide bombings? Of course not. But the Israeli's systematic millitary assault on Palestinian civilians is even worse. The Palestinians are fighting a just war, unjustly. The Israelis are flat out prosecuting an unjust war

Actually, giving the Palestinians the benefit of the doubt with regard to the justness of the war, the Israelis are prosecuting an unjust war justly. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are fighting a just war unjustly.

To bring this point back to the main thread, does the fighting of an unjust war (whether of aims or of tactics) necessarily make a nation illegitimate? Mike seems to believe that it does, since his solution is total occupation of the area by outside forces and an imposition of a liberal, capitalist government upon the people of the region.

Nick wrote:
Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:
Admiral Piett wrote: Religious separatism,yes.Racism? I do not know.
Yes, racism too. In these enlightened times, races have been broadly categorized. However, for a very long time, Italians were considered a different race than Germans. Japanese and Chinese and Hawaiians were all different races. Now, on the U.S. census, these are two groups: Caucasian and Asian/Pacific Islander.
What is a race? It is a sub-type of a species (it might have a proper biological definition, but, if so, I don't know what it is). These days, it tends to be used fairly interchangeably with the term 'ethnic group' - and so, racism is discrimination against a particular ethnic group.

In South Africa (and the American South), it used to be blacks. On the Australian gold fields, it was Chinese. In Israel, it's Palestinians. The division of the Holy Land between Israel & Palestine was designed to separate the Jews from the Islamic Palestinians - both racial and religious segregation.

I don't think that you see my point. I was trying to say that race has historically been a fluid concept, and that national boundaries have tended to reflect this. In fact, one of the major reasons why most nations have existed has been to be a "homeland" for an ethnic group (or race, whichever term you prefer). That was the entire point of Woodrow Wilson's theory of self-determination: every people should have a seperate nation, so that they could live apart in harmony. Pretty much the ideal racist goal today, judging by the Neo-Nazi movement.

Nick wrote:
Nicholas Stipanovich wrote:
Admiral Piett wrote: Sionism was a reaction to antisemithism.The founder of modern sionism was a jew journalist who had assisted to Dreyfus trial.Dreyfus was a jew officer of the french army during the franco-prussian war,after the conflict he was unjustly accused of treason and became the scapegoat of the french defeat.Of course he was considered guilty for the simple fact of being jew.
Many jews in the late 19th century started to think that only in their own state they would have been safe from persecutions.History proved that they were quite correct.
True. That is my point. Jews were not safe in countries for Germans or French, because they had been defined to be the "other." So they went and made a country of their own for Jews. This logic entails that Israel, on these grounds, is just as legitimate as Germany or France.
No, it doesn't. The origins of the Israelite state involved taking land away from the existing Palestinian people. It is more analagous to the English invasion of Australia, or the effect of European settlement on the American Indians. Just because we can't go back in time to change those things, it doesn't make them right. The significant difference in this case is that both Australia and America have acknowledged that the treatment given their indigenous populations was unjust, and have endeavoured to bring them fully into society, with all the rights of any citizen.

Israel has not attempted to do any such thing, and has aggressively sought to expand its borders against the surrounding Arab states. This is why its current actions are indefensible.

Every nation is founded upon invasion. Period. The only question is how far back you look. Why, then, should Israel be condemned today for building a nation in the time-honored tradition? By your logic, if the Israelis either expel or kill most of the Palestinians and then give the remaining few full political rights they will have earned legitimacy. This is a terrible precedent to set in today's turbulent world, as it is essentially a blank check for mass murder.

I reiterate: to condemn Israel on these grounds is to condemn almost every nation in existence.

Posted: **2002-08-02 01:24pm**

Two quick notes as a I read this thread

The same is true for the Japanese, the Chinese, the Arab states, etc. What makes the Jewish state morally inferior to the Arab state of Jordan

One is that Japan is acutal founded by KOREANS dispite claims to the contrary acutal Japnese people are still in the farming with oxen state the "Japanse" you run into in Japan genetic testing has born out are acutal Korean's. Ask many Japanes on the street and they will deny this as its a prime cultural thing you can trace back a few thousand years to the concept of Forgiener which does not just mean your from somone-where else but also contains the notion of Barabisim and Barbarians
China has a similar problem of we are better than everyone else I belive its called the "Middle Kingdom" complex.

Second note is that those countrys did not have somone there already...
The Koren's when the moved into Japan did not *Put every man to the sword and everyone else inculding the child who has just taken its first breath

The Jew's however can not make the same claim.

Posted: **2002-08-02 01:37pm**

And thirdy Nick the thing is unlike two thousand years ago or five hundred years ago we CAN do somthing about it.
Our Country was founded in blood, so where many others well you know what?
We can't do anything about that

But we can do somthing about this

Consider this
Up until the Crusades the Jews and the Arabs got along very well. In fact even the hardest lined Jews Scollers can not disagree that they never had more Freedom then when Islam controled Spain. The problem today is the simple fact that the currnat Jewish goverment is much much to proude to negitate a peace combine that with people who had thier entire familyes wiped out by either the Jew's *peacekeeping or the Palestiene Responses to that and you have a fertile breeding ground for nut-jobs and people willing to take Bus rides in Du-pont made clothing.

As I've long contendted the first step is competly remove the current goverment for BOTH sides, The Palesntien goverment supports the terriorst and the Jewish Goverment has memebers that make Hitler look like a Pansy on thier clear stance.

Toss that in with JS right in the middle and you have a heck situation which feeds opon itself going out of control

The FIRST set is to break the Jewish Goverment and Clean the Palenstiene side as well

Without US support and one of the reasons so many hate the US is that without US support the Jewish Goverment would last less than a month. We help train thier troops, well along with other countrys sell them thier weapons and we provide tons opon tons of fincal aid, food and loans.

And what do we get in return?
A thank you?
No they say don't interfer with us and DONT you dare stop sending aid, as if its there due.

In a Newsweek poll last month nearly 30% of Americans are indorcing the view of comptelty with-drawing support and nearly 40% say we should take an extremly active roll

Face it the Country as it is with the Leadership as it is is a cluster@%@% its not gonna fix itself and the "Leadership" on both sides it just making it worse

Posted: **2002-08-02 01:51pm**

USAF Ace wrote:
Azeron wrote:People talk about how many palestinians the jews kill. Jews target militant combatants, Palestiniansd target civilians.
Then why have more Palestinian civilians died than Israeli civlians?

<snip>

When you fight a resistance against an occuuping army, you do what you must. And exactly how many Christians have been killed?

Although this is not my fight, I feel that I must comment upon these two statements by USAF Ace, as they directly impact my points elsewhere in the thread.

Many Palestinian deaths are classified as "civilian" when they die in clashes with the Israeli Army because they are not properly identifying themselves as combatants. Besides which, the Palestinians have killed fewer Israelis on the whole than the reverse simply because the Israelis have a far stronger military. A better measure is the percentage of civilians killed by either side, as that shows the intent of the combatants.

Admittedly, this site is Israeli, but from what I have been able to discover, it is fairly accurate.
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articled ... icleid=440

It shows that half of the Palestinian deaths were either probable or full combatants, with another 25% that were impossible to categorize. Meanwhile, about 70% of the Israeli deaths were non-combatants. This makes sense to me, since the Palestinians have made a tactic of explicitly targeting civilians.

Furthermore, as I have stated above, I do not believe that simply fighting for one's homeland gives a person carte blanche to commit any war crime they find expedient. In fact, if most nations are illegitimate, it would follow that it is wrong to defend your homeland at all. This is why I think that another standard for determining legitimacy, as opposed to the one set forth in Mike's rant, must be agreed upon.

Posted: **2002-08-02 01:52pm**

Mr Bean,

Lets get something stright about the capacity of Arab armies to wage war. They are complete idiots when it comes to fighting wars. In 1967 they could have destroyed thier neighbors completely, and that was without US supoirt. They could have done it again in 1973, but we held them back with promises. They could have wiped syria off the map in the Lebenon action.

The Money we give them is the only leverage we have in NOT killing the arabs off. They have nukes and can obliterate thier neighbors in a single afternoon.

Isreal will stand with or without us. The beleif the arabs can win thjis fight is delusional. Go ahead and talk to any marine who has ever done a joint excerise with the egyptions or Suadis. These guys can't even hit a target 100 meters away. Military commands are souly based on wh your parents are.

The next war between the arab war and isreal, will be a world of hurt from them and Washington knows it. Sharon is no pansey. You screw with isreal with him in command, you are going to get a lesson in waging war from clearly one of the best generals in history. It would be like having Patton as a president in the USA.

Posted: **2002-08-02 02:17pm**

The Money we give them is the only leverage we have in NOT killing the arabs off. They have nukes and can obliterate thier neighbors in a single afternoon

You can read an air-chart map right?

Sure they have nukes but you know the only two Countrys they can target and not have some of the fall-out end up in thier own Country
Iraq/Iran-Fall out will end up in Turkey and Greece, NATO members
Jordan-Thier own Country along with SA
Syria- Right back at them
Lebebon-Same as Syria
Egypt-Same thing
So excluding Iraq, Iran and Jordan any other country they nuke will have the fall-out end up right back on them.

To Quote Agent JC Denton a Gernade is a bad choice for a close combat fight

Isreal will stand with or without us. The beleif the arabs can win thjis fight is delusional.

Over seventy precent of Airplanes and Mechinised Weaponry in use by the Isreal Army is US designed and mostly Made in America.
In 1967 we did help them
Where do you think they get the weapons to fight those wars?
Russia? Hardly
China? They sell weapons to the Terriorsts
France?-Slaped an Embargo on weapon distbution to them in the sixties they only recently lifted
UK?-If we ask they will stop

Currently Isreal's Army is equiped with US Air-planes, US Tanks and French Tanks, With UK and US Side-Arms and General Infantry Weaponry.

Heres a hint the reason they won those wars is because they had the weapons WE sold them
There are many ways to support a country not all of them in aid.

Posted: **2002-08-02 02:52pm**

I had no idea that MERKAVA MK series is not an isreali tank
http://www.army-technology.com/projects ... index.html

they have over 2k of those suckers. You telling me thats only 30% of its arsenal. the isrealis don;t use m1 series, but I beleive also uses an a US APC.

The isrealis have been making their own weapons for a long time. France intiaited the blockacde in the late 1960's afgter the 6 day war. Not befeore transferring rocket and nuke tech to the iisrelis. Currently the range is not an issue. they fiueld 3 germna dolphin class sub with tactical nukes, 1 of which operates in the persian golf. Not To mention they also have ICBM capability to hit anywhere on the planet as recently demonstrated in their "commerical test bed" rocket. It is estimated that they have over 200 nukes considering theier production of nuclear material.

No one outsdie pakistan can come close to matching that.

in 1967 we didn't help them at all. We didn;t help them until the 1973 war, when we brided them with tanks so they wouldn't nuke Eygpt or hit the aswan dams and kill million of egyptions. Isreal also has the strongest navy in the area with is what is considered to be the best corvette/frigate in the world.

Posted: **2002-08-02 04:14pm**

Azeron wrote: The arabs ammassed thier armies at the borders of isreal, and publicly declared thier intention to theworld to commit a new holocost. Amassing your troops and decalring an intention to attack, is consdiered an act of war. They Arabs also bloackaded the straits of the tirbirs, AN ACT OF WAR.

They massed on the border because Israel massed on the border. Countries that don't like each other do that often. Besides, Israel shot first. The country that shoots first is the one that starts a war. Only an idiot with half his brain cells on crack would not understand that. Why don't you?

Ever since the Hebrews left Egypt, they have been wiping entire cities off the map. They have murdered countless men, women, and children.

I want to see your documentation for that.

Read the Old Testiment you dipshit!

You really hate jews.

I don't hate Jews, I just strongly disagree with Israel and their racist, military aggressive state. I also hate all the untolerant and oppressive Arab states with just as much vigor. I am simply trying to defend the Palestinians, the third party. Through no fault of their own, they are the ones who had their land taken away by the UN. They are the one had their remaining land invaded by the Israeli Army. They are the ones who are currently being occupied and forced out by settlements.

Just admit it. You hate Muslims and homosexuals and anybody else your right-wing ideology condemns. You fool no one. The only reason you defend Jews is because this is 2002. If you were living in the 1950s your hate would include Jews, blacks, and Asians. Of course I could be wrong, you might currently hate blacks and Asians. We wouldn't be suprised.

Posted: **2002-08-02 04:30pm**

For those who stop at the suface the MERKAVA is an Isreal tank

However for those who happen to click the links provided at the bottom of the page see that
KINETICS LTD - NBC PROTECTION, AIR-CONDITIONING, TURRET CONTROL, SUSPENSION AND HYDRAULICS
Is a American Company, As its says those parts of the tanks where provided by an American Firm

KINETICS LTD - TURRET CONTROL, SUSPENSION, HYDRAULICS, NBC AND AIR-CONDITIONING
More Parts Provided and Reacurched by an American Firm

NORTHROP GRUMMAN POLY-SCIENTIFIC - MOTION PRODUCTS, OPTICAL COMPONENTS AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
Another American Company provding yet more of the parts

In fact the only two parts which where not American made are the
BENTAL INDUSTRIES LTD - ELECTRO-MECHANICAL DEVICES FOR MILITARY VEHICLES
The Laser-Targeting System on the tank made by an Isreal firm

And the VENTLATION sytem provided by a Swiss Company

Saying The MERKAVA is an Isreal built and designed Tank is about as true as saying Dell Computers use 100% US made parts....

A tank that Engine is made in the US, Along with Gun barrel, Electronic systems, Armor, And the basic Design is and adaptation of an AMERICAN one along with the fact there are US Engineers on the design team for the MK III and MK IV verisons is kinda a hint for anyone willing to dig a bit deeper that your example is flawed

Posted: **2002-08-02 05:09pm**

Because many ccompoents including the main guin on an M1A2 are made by foriegn firms, is it less an American tank?

Of course not.

Built and made with licenses on foreign tech and isreali tech. There is no reason why they can't simply license and get technology from say the russians or the euros? Hell they deal with a mass murders in bhagdad and Havana over sugar and oil deals. I think that when the Cubans finnally overthrow the Castro government, that they shoiuld should in world courts over the slave labour wages they werte paid, while they gave castro over half the money.

There systems used in our military tech using lasers and missle interception, is the final product less of an american product?

You can buy all these partds but the important thing is that they are just parts and are useful unless you can put them together. You think keeping them from buying parts from us is goin g to keep a country that can design one of the best tanks in the world from making thier own or buying from someone else?

Foriegners on the deisgn team...ohh no, I guess every technology thaty uses an isreali or a jew makes the whole thing a Zionist Contraption!!!

Hell einstien came up with the general theory of relativity, perhpas the atom bomb is jewish. (he did work on the "design team"). I think that maybe we should free ourself of all this zionist technology (including the new really cool laser keyboard extension for Palm) so we can be truely free of the dreaded Jewish Grip!!

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Illegitimacy of (most) Nations

The Illegitimacy of (most) Nations

Re: The Illegitimacy of (most) Nations

Re: The Illegitimacy of (most) Nations

Re: The Illegitimacy of (most) Nations

Re: The Illegitimacy of (most) Nations

Re: The Illegitimacy of (most) Nations

Re: The Illegitimacy of (most) Nations