magekillr

Just admit already that you support Hamas in their goal to wipe Israel off the map. Just admit that you support any actions that Israel deems necessary because "Hamas started it". My friend wrote a piece that expresses exactly how I feel, so here it is. Stop making accusations about me when you have such a narrow minded view of the topic. No, that's not hypocritical because I understand the situation, and even if Hamas might have provoked the attacks, that does not give Israel the right to go bombing every which way seeking to end terrorism when it's going to shoot them in the foot in the years to come.

Great video, especially about that pathetic human shield argument...

False dichotomy. No, they did what's best for re-election. Throughout this entire spectacle I've caught their own leaders lying about what their goal is. Livni, for example, is saying one thing while Regev says something else. It's not surprising to see Livni lie, she's always been a liar and is running for PM.

This. I'm not sure to the level of urgency that it is, but I see no reason why we shouldn't seek reduce emissions and find alternative energies anyway. I also think it's extremely naive and willfully ignorant to deny that humans have had a huge impact. Provide real evidence beyond the equivalent of Creation Science, and maybe the rest of the scientific community will listen to you. Until then, I remain convinced that humans and their acts of industry and farming (meat industry) are the main causes of sudden changes in the Earth's temperature.

The thing is that it's their land. They got ganked by multiple countries, beat them off, and took some of their territory. It's perfectly acceptable for European and Western nations to do this, what's wrong with Israel doing it? By all definitions of the word "fair," that land is theirs to keep. What's the incentive for them to give it back? Absolutely nothing other than veiled promises of peace that will likely not happen. The Fourth Geneva Convention? Israel has continued to violate international law (although so has the US), and it always has the US vetoing propositions that could result in peace. Technically they haven't broken it, as they're trying to avoid as much civillian casualties as possible but it's practically impossible. The fact that they are not murdering civillians on purpose makes it void. Also, any member of hamas isn't protected under the geneva convention. They're protected under the civillian human shields they use :| http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7609905.stm

The thing is that it's their land. They got ganked by multiple countries, beat them off, and took some of their territory. It's perfectly acceptable for European and Western nations to do this, what's wrong with Israel doing it? By all definitions of the word "fair," that land is theirs to keep. What's the incentive for them to give it back? Absolutely nothing other than veiled promises of peace that will likely not happen. The Fourth Geneva Convention? Israel has continued to violate international law (although so has the US), and it always has the US vetoing propositions that could result in peace.

Technically Israel "doesn't have any nuclear weapons" because they've never officially admitted to it. Everyone knows that they have them, but yeah lol, they've never come clean about it (to my knowledge anyway...I don't think they've admitted to it yet). Nuclear weapons should never be used...ever. Far too many lives are lost, and most of them are civilian lives. Speaking of nuclear weapons, and this is a tad off topic, I am curious how Obama plans to stop Iran's nuclear program even though Europe's done everything diplomatically possible. Although I could say it's never fully "exerted" itself, nor does it have the same leverage as the US. We shall see in 3 weeks, I suppose.

Transitive fats. Some countries have bans on them, I'd like to see the US do the same.

There's something called evolution that resulted in humans seeing an enlargement of the neocortex previously developed in earlier mammals, allowing for logical thinking and senses of morality. To compare humans to bees, is utter nonsense and a guised form of a red herring. Furthermore, for anyone that likes to reference the Bible, something that I do not like to do unless I am quoting Jesus himself (as written by Matthew in this case, anyway):

Utterly, completely, and unwaivering in my opposition to the death penalty under ANY circumstances. I did not condone the execution of Saddam Hussein, and I thought it was extremely heinous to do it publicly. There's many reasons for this opposition, but the main ones are: 1.) It's not a deterrent. 2.) An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. 3.) No one short of a universal arbiter of supreme knowledge should have the authority to kill another human being.

So, is Dana Olmert an antisemite? I've heard Olmert's wife disagrees with him politically, as well. Olmert had single digit approval ratings at one point, and over 60% of Israelis wanted him to resign for his handling of the 2006 Lebanon war. Kadima is none too popular. I don't believe that the majority of Israeli citizens endorse all of their state's actions (and that the majority DO support disengagement from Gaza and the West Bank). In my experience, most of the intransigent nationalism/unconditional support for Israel has been from those who live outside of Israel; at least in America.

And this is why no one wants to deal with the situation in the United States. You know what? Fine, call me an antisemite, I know that I love all humans equally, and hold no contempt against Jewish people. I do, however, hold contempt against the state of Israel. It could be controlled by rich white Europeans and I would still hold the same contempt for the state. What would that make me then? Racist against white people? If it makes me an antisemite to call the State of Israel out on its [cabbage] agenda throughout its entire history, then so be it.

Ask them if the lottery is a waste of time and money. In my opinion, more programs like this need to be implemented.

If Hamas Did Not Exist: http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein01012009.html Yes I'm citing Counterpunch, deal with it. It's an excellent article/commentary/whatever you'd like to call it. I would also suggest you watch the documentary about Israel-Palestine, "Occupation 101". The link is provided below: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0811690589

And thus, we've come completely full circle: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081231/ap_ ... lestinians This is backed by 5 hard line student groups and one conservative cleric. They claim to have 10,000 people ready to kill themselves. They believe they will be martyrs. Now claiming to have and actually having are two separate things, and I believe it's nothing more than empty words from Iranians...but you can already see the repercussions from Israel's actions. This not only affects Palestinian/Israel relations, but it also leads to more propaganda that can easily be taken advantage of in Iran. It's almost like clock-work that this was going to happen, and just shy of the 5 day mark.

I wasn't aware that ANYONE was making this claim. For example, when Russia invaded South Ossetia, I was very much in favor of Russia's aggression. However, what made me upset with Russia was their complete and utter annihilation of Georgian territory, and mass murdering of Georgian citizens. Of course my support for Russia in this situation could no longer really last, because like Israel, they don't have any threshold for "restraint". Had Russia just invaded South Ossetia, secured the region, made sure that their citizens were in the clear, they would have been seen in a much better light and had acted properly. However, what Russia did to Georgia is completely UNACCEPTABLE, and this is coming from someone that supported the aggression when it first started. Of course, Georgia started it, I condemned them for doing so at an opportune time (the Olympics), and that they only did so because they thought they had NATO's backing. So I condemned Georgia in the beginning, and then later condemned Russia as well for completely overreacting and killing many Georgian civilians and leaving their infrastructure to [cabbage]. The same I will do with the Israeli-Gaza situation. I condemn Hamas for firing their rockets at Israel, regardless of ANY brokered cease-fire agreements. Israel can defend itself, and they have that right, but their attacks have been downright out of proportion and completely unjustified. Hell, when you get rational about it and leave your emotional outrage towards Hamas out of it, ANY form of attack would not be good for long-term peace. Every bomb they drop is 5 new recruits for any terrorist organization that exists in the region, and a newfound support for a Hamas run government, thusly continuing the same old game that's been going on for years; it's coming full circle. As Ginger pointed out, had Israel not attacked, the Kadima party would lose all support from irrational citizens that feel they have nowhere else to turn but a government that "protects" them by attacking back. When it all comes down to it, neither of these government truly empathize with their citizens, and only care for one thing: power. Oddly enough one man that does empathize with his people is Ahmadinejad. He spends more time helping poor Iranians in ravaged towns than any other president I've seen in the entire world. He works sometimes up to 20 hours a day, most of it for the poor. He reads their letters, addresses their concerns, and travels all around the country. Now I'm not a supporter of the man that equates the rest of the world with the Devil, but I am saying he is one that is looking at his citizens with the actual best intentions rather than a seat of power (even though he's not even the "real" leader in Iran anyway). And this is gold, bingo, and yahtzee all in one: edit: good commentary: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 14981.html

Israel knew there would be mass casualties, so when you say "What are they supposed to do then?", they shouldn't have attacked at all in this fashion. Zbigniew Brzezinski's take, and I agree completely with him: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 3#28433263

Yo yo's, and Pogs. I was into Pokemon, but not really for the reasons other people were. I didn't even know wtf they were until someone bought me a starter deck for my one birthday. Any other craze that occurred around me I wasn't really into, I'm such a non-conformer :roll:

God, I just love Kucinich so much. Although I will say I never supported his run for President because he's kind of the black sheep of the Democratic party, and would thusly follow in Jimmy Carter's shoes. If only he had the same charisma and ability to inspire like Obama...he'd be like my perfect Presidential candidate. Although, he's not going to get anywhere. Let's just take a look at the vetoes that the US has laid out throughout the years, allowing Israel and the US to be above international law: http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

This is a variant of the argument by numbers fallacy - but I will indulge you. Canada - ref: Public Safety Canada EU - ref: Official Journal of the European Union Japan - ref: Bluebook Australia - ref: Australian National Security UK - ref: Home Office My mistake, I was confusing Hezbollah with Hamas when it came to the EU rejecting the terrorist organization label. I had remembered a 2005 or 2006 resolution signed by 200 odd members of Congress to label Hezbollah a terrorist organization; I confused it with Hamas. Nonetheless, I broke no fallacy.

Painted by whom? Last I heard, the rest of the world ignored the US' plea to label them a terrorist organization. The only ones labeling them a terrorist organization is the US and Israel (possibly a few other countries thrown in, but for the most part that's it). The EU declined such a label in 2006, and I suspect them to do the same again. Where do you draw the line when you label places terrorist organizations? The largest terrorist organization by these definitions continues to be the United States and Israel. I mean, Saudi Arabia isn't exactly a beacon of light when it comes to peace, the US is great buddies with them, and actively gives them weapons. I'm just speculating here, but I think the Saudis are the ones arming Al Qaeda. You think this is justified? Israel just bombed a University: Disproportionate bombing any area is going to incite hatred towards Israel, but to bomb a University with students? That's just asking for more terrorist recruitment.

Yes, they elected them, but like 1_man_army said, Israel is just continuing to shoot themselves in the feet by bombing their citizens. step 1 - Hamas (of Palestine) sends rockets to 2 small southern Israeli towns (Sderot & Ashkelon), because that's as far as their rockets can reach, and barely anyone gets hurt. step 2 - the Israeli government is pressured to retaliate, which they do, by air-raiding the Gaza Strip and killing hundreds of Palestinians. step 3 - Condoleeza Rice defends Israel's actions, without criticizing anything at all, and blames everything on Hamas. step 4 - Hamas uses the whole ordeal to make propaganda against Israel & the United States, which helps them gain popularity and stay in power in Palestine. step 5 - repeat step 1. It's been this way for years, and it's going to continue until there is some change. I don't expect Hillary or Obama to react much differently than Condi Rice, though.

Why are there no topics about this? What is the world going to do about this? What should be the next course of action? Of course the US isn't going to tell Israel that they're using far too much force just like they did in Lebanon in 2006, and now the Palestinians are being shot at by Egyptians for trying to escape the air-raids from the Israelis.

Show me proof that homosexuality isn't a choice. Show me proof that it isn't. Oh, you don't have any; just words from a man named Paul, not Jesus.

edit: False. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/ ... myths.html The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight. [so Obama is actively trying to include BOTH sides of the religious debate.] Furthermore, one benefit that I saw to Sarah Palin being the nominee for the Republican Vice President was that it could open many Evangelical minds that women CAN and SHOULD be involved in leading the country. They do not believe this is a woman's place (the women of that denomination included...including my mother). However, if presented with the scenario of Sarah Palin as a prospect for VP, maybe they'd see that they're wrong. The same goes for Obama bringing in Warren: perhaps the Evangelicals will give Obama the time of day to listen to the liberals when it comes to this issue! You CANNOT shut them out like they don't matter, even if their opinions are disgusting and don't deserve the time of day in the first place!