drumsicle - i think you are one of the more intelligent posters on gfy. if you disagree with labret's basic thesis, please refute it, point by point.

Please do so?

Those links are in response to jammyjenkins' problem with foe's statistics. He wasn't challenging foe calling them terrorists, nor were the links supporting that. They were sources for the statistics that foe cited. So I think that they are indeed relevant.

Agreed - I'd like to see that.

.

I don't think you can possibly serious. ;)

Allright. My error, I thought they were somehow posted to prove that the Palestinians are a "bunch of terrorists" as posted by Foe.

Quite:

I was reffering to you asking Drumsicle to refute point by point.

I'm not going to jump in, but its nice to see people who have some understanding of the theological and historical underpinnings of the Palestinian/Jewish conflict debating the issue.

Unfortunately the major US middle eastern policy decisions are being made by shallow fools who do not have the sort of broad historical background and commitment to objectivity it takes to render a reasonable judgement on the issue.

scathing

how will i ever recover from such an attack?

where are your facts?

I seem to have missed them among the deluge of shit you post

That's because for our leaders the interest in this situation is purely an economic one. No one cares about the history of this dispute. Israel has deep economic ties to us - Palistine doesn't. Israel is a 'beach-head' ally for us in the mideast that allows our military units to continue to step in and keep control of our oil interests. Why should we care about Palistine? As stated before, it's all about survival.

For the record, I'm not in favor of either country and I would like to see them work this out or blow each other to bits already.

where were his links?

to my eyes he just quoted random statistics, with no intelligent comment or background information.

It's just like me saying:

75% of Jews support the extermination of Palestiniens

It has no basis in fact. I've just disguised my opinion with some made up numbers.

So you side with Labret because he provides some historcial facts?

Well, ***NEWS FLASH***

There are ethical truths as well (at least most people think so).
Such as, murdering of thousands of innocent people by mass destruction weapons is wrong - and thus, if you cheer for mass destruction of innocent people, you are wrong - ethically.

uh oh... [runs]

who is this question for?

My opinion is I think both the Palestiniens and Israeli's are acting like idiots, and murdering innocent people in the process.

That's it.

Neither side is right ... I just hate the fact that the media tries to paint one side as doing the right thing, when they're patently not.

More objectivity from the US Gov and the Media (especially US) would be a big step in helping resolve the ME situation.

dude, you need to separate his argument from 'cheering for the death of some group'

if i make a coherent argument for anything under the sun, then state that i wish all retarded people were dead, that doesn't take *anything* away from my argument - ad hominem sucks.

lol

The argument goes like this

a.. blaa blaa
b.. Moses blaa blaa
c... United Nations blaa blaa

====
conclusion: Mass desctruction in the area would be right.

But we know that the conclusion is wrong, thus some of the premises must be false, if he is giving a valid argument like you are suggesting.

His basic thesis seems to be that the Jews have no claim to the land other than a bogus religious one -- Zionism.

But Zionism is no longer the issue and hasn't been the issue since Israel became a state.

Let's even say he is right and that Zionism is a bunch of misguided hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo bullshit.

It doesn't matter.

They still have a completely legitimate claim to the land. It is the only claim that anybody anywhere has to any land. It is that they are there. They ARE there. They are not moving in and trying to take over. They already did that and if you were opposed, the time to stop it was then. Now it is spilled milk.

That doesn't mean that the Palestinians or and/or other Arabs, or anybody else for that matter, can't TRY to conquer that piece of land and keep it for themselves. They can and in a limited way they are.

And that's where we've stood for over fifty years with this. The Israelis are holding the hill and the Palestinians are trying to take the hill.

Now Labret doesn't like the way they took the land from the Brits. Fine, but it doesn't mean that they aren't there now, just the same. THEY ARE. Did he like the way the Brits took the same land from the Ottoman Turks? Who gives a fuck?

Truthfully, I don't see that he really has much of a thesis. His thesis seems to be that he doesn't like the way the Jews laid claim to the land, THEREFORE, THEY CAN'T HAVE IT. Where is the thesis? So after the Israelis apologize to Labret for offending his sensibilities, they will go right on defending that little piece of land they call home.

As to the only other point I can seem to find in his anti-Israel rants, that the Jews are a group of genocidal maniacs posing as victims -- 1. He can't possibly think that Jews have some kind of monopoly on killing in the name of religion. 2. They hardly have a monopoly on victim status either. 3. It has absolutely nothing to do with Israel anyway.

enjoy your DVD player labret

Ethical?

Those so called "ethical truths" are not relevant to this discussion.
People bring those up when they have no facts to present or arguments to come up with.

There's no question about it ...

Zionism IS a bunch of misguided hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo bullshit.

Like all religion.

according to your break down, the conclusion should not be able to escape more blah, blah, blah.

Dude, if we talk about RIGHT to a piece of land, we need to define RIGHT. Eventually we need ethics. ok?

If Labret says someone has a RIGHT to a piece of land, he is already assuming that ethical truths exist. Ok?

ethics?

"You're either with us ... or against us!"

That's what shrub considers ethics.

Therefore the US should bomb:

Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, France, UK (more and more), China...etc etc.

That could cost a bit.

I think that the only country that hasn't actually disagreed with the US since 9/11 is Australia.

i'll leave this for labret lol

Living in the US and arguing the land rights of people from thousands of years ago is kind of funny.

I entered to clear up the fact that 737s could not have been and were not the a/c used on 9/11...

no more -- no less.

You looking for an argument?

haha hardly an attack. Just pointing out that foe was approximately correct in his statistics according to the sources in the links I posted. The links that is, which you don't seem to be able to see.

always

well, you know what makes you blind don't you...

What have you added again??? Oh that's right...

jack and shit.

you asked a question

I answered

what more do you want -- my cock up your arse?

Yes I asked a question... I've asked more than one... and that was your answer(s)...

who's spewing shit now?

Summary of what some of you seem to think is Labret's argument.
It's no argument, it's a plain opinion.

I'm glad he himself realizes it's just a feeling.
Everything else in his posts are just blaa blaa. Blaa blaa.
Then he comes to a conclusion that Israelis do not belong there. Why? Because they do not have claim to the land. A claim that is valid. IN HIS OPINION. Now what is a valid claim to a land?

Does USA have a valid claim to a land, or the native Indians? Or the Neanderthals? Maybe. Labret SEEMS to possess knowledge about RIGHTNESS to a piece of land. He must have some ethical arguments to back this up, since the word RIGHT itself is a word of ethical meaning.

This is the 1st time I read his "arguments" more carefully. i don't think they are argumenst that lead to any valid conclusion. Just his plain opinion about rightness to a piece of land.

I think he understands himself that it's nothing more than his opinion. Some other person might have another view of what makes a piece of land RIGHt for someone to possess.

Honestly, no one has any 'claim' on any land. It seems very few nations are populated by the same people who originally settled their land. So what is this bullshit in the middle-east? Are these rational adults? Obviously no. Neither can claim that the land is rightfully theirs. Israel is being the bigger man of the two and not blowing Palistine to shit for bothering them about it.

The constant whining of Palistine, 'Give it back, Give it back.... waaaaa....~boom!!!'' sending their little suicide bombers in is pathetic and annoying. Since no man can claim a land by anything other than force, I think the US should drop the ethics bullshit and show their true colors and just take their land and shut everyone up since Israel doesn't have the balls to do it. I'm sure we can justify it as some peacekeeping b.s. which seems to be our new 'Christianity like' vehicle which helps us occupy countries.

Yup ... apparently the Welsh were in fact the original "English" people.

Shit! We're going to get over-run by sheep!!!....



What does a Welshman call a sheep tied to a tree?

A leisure centre

I might be.

Which way you wanna go?

How would you define the Isreali settlements on the West Bank, and government encouragement to settle the area..? :winkwink: