Iranian leader denies Holocaust

[random evil guy]

And our system isn't corrupt as well?

 

While I loathe his tactics a lot of problems in the Middle East would be solved if Israel just wasn't there.  Great Briton and the US had no right to steal land from the indigenous people who were living there at the time and form Israel.  The Axis powers were the ones who caused the this Holocaust and lost WW2.  Isreal should have been formed by taking their lands in payment for their crimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

exactly and that's the whole problem. israel shouldn't be there. the founding of israel was a huge mistake and i don't think it'll ever be really resolved...

[Volourn]

It should be pointed out that the Palestinians are not the original inhabiters of that land neither. So, let's stop the pointing fingers when it comes to who stole what piece of land.

[Cantousent]

I've avoided this topic like the plague, although I've been reading it since day one.

 

For non-US citizens, carry on as usual. I won't even comment.

 

For US citizens, really... really, the more you liken Bush to Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the more his stock will rise. There are a bunch of factors working against President Bush right now. He has problems at home and abroad. Even the Republican party isn't very popular at the moment, its base notwithstanding. While all the missteps aren't the President's fault, or even Republicans as a party, he's made enough mistakes that he deserves having his feet held to the fire.

 

Still, there's nothing like having folks literally claim that he is the second coming of Hitler or that he just as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein to engender some sympathy. I'm not going to argue policy in this thread, but I will argue that, if you want to do real damage to President Bush, you'd be better off making arguments that aren't simply ridiculous on their face.

 

The President can't run for another term. Nothing will better confirm the solid foundation of our democracy better than the elections themselves, when one administration will step down and be replaced by another.

 

In the meantime, the Republicans never learned their lesson when they used the same tactics against President Clinton. You can demonize the President. Hell, that's the political process. Just don't make yourself look stupid in the process. It doesn't hurt the president, but it can hurt the cause with which you've associated yourself.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It should be pointed out that the Palestinians are not the original inhabiters of that land neither. So, let's stop the pointing fingers when it comes to who stole what piece of land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Jews were. One of the Roman Emporers deported the whole country.

 

Got to love the irony.

[Kinslayer]

I know a funny story too....The term "Palestina" was invented by the Roman emperor Hadrian. The Romans wanted to rename Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) after the Philistines, the longtime enemy of the Jews. Hadrian believed that by renaming the Jewish homeland after the Jews' archenemy, he would be able to forever break the bond between the Land of Israel and the Jewish people.

But even the name of the Philistines, from which the term "Palestine" was adopted, is completely alien to the Land of Israel. The name Philistines in Hebrew is plishtim, which comes from the Hebrew verb polshim (foreign invaders).

So those who call themselves "Palestinians" are using a term that actually means "foreign invaders." "

The irony.....

[Azarkon]

In the meantime, the Republicans never learned their lesson when they used the same tactics against President Clinton. You can demonize the President. Hell, that's the political process. Just don't make yourself look stupid in the process. It doesn't hurt the president, but it can hurt the cause with which you've associated yourself.

 

I'd agree except that the Republicans captured a majority of the seats since then. Their tactics hardly backfired, and the fervor with which fundamentalist America embraced Bush's conservative values platform attests to the effectiveness of demonizing/praising the President based on moral values.

 

As far as the Israel vs. Iran thing, what makes us think that we can judge either of them? The reason I keep bringing the thread back to the US is because it's simply ridiculous to impose our world views and judgmental values on a conflct many times older than the US and most nations of Europe. It's this exact sense of Western universalism - the idea that Western values *must* represent the values of the entire world - that led to the current conflict after the West imposed Israel upon the Middle-East without any attention to their own feelings. And now we're trying to judge them once again? Haven't we learned our lesson by now?

Edited December 16, 2005 by Azarkon

[Volourn]

"Still, there's nothing like having folks literally claim that he is the second coming of Hitler or that he just as bad or worse than Saddam Hussein to engender some sympathy. I'm not going to argue policy in this thread, but I will argue that, if you want to do real damage to President Bush, you'd be better off making arguments that aren't simply ridiculous on their face."

 

Eldar wins.

 

 

 

"that led to the current conflict after the West imposed Israel upon the Middle-East without any attention to their own feelings."

 

Boo hoo. As SP pointed out, the idea that the Palestinians have some 'god given right' to the land in question is balony. The lands werne't originally theirs. The idea that the 'Jews stole them' is ridiculousness to the highest degree.

 

And, oh, judging others is a two way street. the ME has NO problem judging the West. They do it all the time.

Edited December 16, 2005 by Volourn

[Delta Truth]

And, oh, judging others is a two way street. the ME has NO problem judging the West. They do it all the time.

 

I agree

 

This is such a complicated situation all the muslim countries point to Israel/Palestine conflict as the main issue- But really how can one talk off peace if they want one countries people deported from there own land

[Cantousent]

In the meantime, the Republicans never learned their lesson when they used the same tactics against President Clinton. You can demonize the President. Hell, that's the political process. Just don't make yourself look stupid in the process. It doesn't hurt the president, but it can hurt the cause with which you've associated yourself.

 

I'd agree except that the Republicans captured a majority of the seats since then. Their tactics hardly backfired, and the fervor with which fundamentalist America embraced Bush's conservative values platform attests to the effectiveness of demonizing/praising the President based on moral values.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We disagree on a number of issues, but I've always appreciated your arguments. Even better, I've found some of them irritating. :Eldar's wink and grin icon:

 

However, in this case I just think you're wrong. Clinton came into office at the back end of a recession. The first two years of his administration were marked by mistakes and mismanagement. It was during his mid-term election that the Republicans gained the senate and the house.

 

After that, the Republicans steadily lost ground, but not overall power. It wasn't the fact that the Republicans kept flogging Clinton that they kept power. It's simply that power is easier to keep than to take. Moreover, the impeachment proceedings were a big mistake on the Republicans' part. Now, I'm sure many of them, perhaps even most, really believed that the impeachment was necessary. Some of the Democrats, perhaps even most of them, thought that the impeachment was entirely unfounded. As a political issue, it didn't seem to help the Republicans that year as they actually lost seats during the mid-term elections of Clinton's second term.

 

The demonizing is useful to rouse the base, but let the general public hear too much of it. It really isn't a winning strategy unless there's truly irrefutable evidence.

[Azarkon]

Sure, they flogged the issue too much and by the end of their flogging most people were getting tired of the argument, but you can't deny that the moral dealings of Clinton, which from my point of view was irrelevant to his ability as a president, was a huge deal to the public. Towards the end, of course, it was all about Clinton lying under oath, but that he had to answer the accusation in the first place speaks volumes about what Americans look for in presidents and, consequently, the usefulness of demonizing the President so long as it's not beating a dead horse as it were towards the end of Clinton's term.

 

Of course, since the Republicans dominate the senate and the house at the current junction of time, the possibility of a impeachment campaign against Bush would be nearly impossible unless he drags the country into yet another protracted war in Iran. In this respect, the Democrats have little to gain from demonizing Bush - everyone knows by now that he's a dumbass, so they are in effect beating a dead horse.

 

And, oh, judging others is a two way street. the ME has NO problem judging the West. They do it all the time.

 

Judging others is not a two way street. If you leave someone alone, they'll eventually leave you alone. Consequently, the ME did not give a damn about the US back when the US had no interests in the ME. Problem is, the US has not left the ME alone for the, oh, past fifty years or so, and it's only relatively recently that they've decided to return the favor.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Azarkon

[random evil guy]

It should be pointed out that the Palestinians are not the original inhabiters of that land neither. So, let's stop the pointing fingers when it comes to who stole what piece of land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Jews were. One of the Roman Emporers deported the whole country.

 

Got to love the irony.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well, both the palestinians and the jews are semites, so one could argue they were both there thousends of years ago. however, it isn't really clear as to who were there first.

[Atreides]

It could be that Ahmedinejad (sp?) is intentionally provoking others to get a reaction (sanctions etc) to play up "the West/Christians repress Muslims" or justify something drastic.

[SteveThaiBinh]

It could be that Ahmedinejad (sp?) is intentionally provoking others to get a reaction (sanctions etc) to play up "the West/Christians repress Muslims" or justify something drastic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's likely that he's doing it entirely for domestic reasons, to satisfy his own constituency or make life difficult for his opponents, and doesn't care in the least how it goes down in Washington or London.

 

Not everything is about us. No, not even you, George.

[Atreides]

There's been mention in news that a few people in the govt think he's too outspoken and damaging Iran's international rep.

[Judge Hades]

It should be pointed out that the Palestinians are not the original inhabiters of that land neither. So, let's stop the pointing fingers when it comes to who stole what piece of land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It doesn't matter who the original inhabitants are at all. Only the current inhabitants really mattered.

[Cantousent]

By your reasoning, the Jews deserve Israel because they currently inhabit it.

[Volourn]

"It doesn't matter who the original inhabitants are at all. Only the current inhabitants really mattered. "

 

Eldar destroys you as like he said going by this logic, Isreal is in the right since they currently inhabit and control the region.

[Judge Hades]

They do now, but that doesn't change the fact they were a huge arse mistake back when WW2 ended. Unfortunately some countries just can't admit it when they are wrong nor learn from their mistakes as well. Stinking one's nose where it doesn't belong will often get it chopped off.

Edited December 17, 2005 by Judge Hades

[taks]

well, both the palestinians and the jews are semites, so one could argue they were both there thousends of years ago. however, it isn't really clear as to who were there first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

given that islamic religions did not exist until Muhammad in the late 500s, and that current day palestinians do not have much in the way of a common heritage or lineage, it will be difficult to argue that any other than jewish (more appropriately hebrew) people were there first.

 

it is more than plausible (probable, probably) that many owe their original heritage to the jews in the first place, however, which is a strange irony.

 

taks

[Judge Hades]

That is why who was ther first is an irrelevant argument. They are both there now and they need to learn to get along or face mutal destruction. As far as I am concern if I was God I would wipe out both sides. Its the only way to ensure peace.

[random evil guy]

well, both the palestinians and the jews are semites, so one could argue they were both there thousends of years ago. however, it isn't really clear as to who were there first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

given that islamic religions did not exist until Muhammad in the late 500s, and that current day palestinians do not have much in the way of a common heritage or lineage, it will be difficult to argue that any other than jewish (more appropriately hebrew) people were there first.

 

it is more than plausible (probable, probably) that many owe their original heritage to the jews in the first place, however, which is a strange irony.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

well, good thing i'm not talking about religion then. the semites lived in that region probably prior to the beginning of Judaism. both palestinians and israelis are decendants.

 

btw, the term jew is just a semite who believes in judaism...

Edited December 17, 2005 by random evil guy

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That is why who was ther first is an irrelevant argument.  They are both there now and they need to learn to get along or face mutal destruction.  As far as I am concern if I was God I would wipe out both sides.  Its the only way to ensure peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes I named you aptly :D

 

You have much in common with the Dark Judges.

[taks]

well, good thing i'm not talking about religion then. the semites lived in that region probably prior to the beginning of Judaism. both palestinians and israelis are decendants.

some, but not all... they claim heritage from a variety of places, including rome. that's what my point was in the follow up, i.e. modern day palestinians do not really have a common heritage or lineage. they are a mixture of several cultures over time.

 

btw, the term jew is just a semite who believes in judaism...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nope, well, at least not only. lots of jews don't believe in judaism. read up relevant passage:

 

"In modern usage, Jews include both those Jews actively practicing Judaism, and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish heritage and their own cultural identification."

 

most of the jewish friends i've had in my life called themselves "jews" but did not connect with the religion.

 

taks

Edited December 17, 2005 by taks

[random evil guy]

well, good thing i'm not talking about religion then. the semites lived in that region probably prior to the beginning of Judaism. both palestinians and israelis are decendants.

some, but not all... they claim heritage from a variety of places, including rome. that's what my point was in the follow up, i.e. modern day palestinians do not really have a common heritage or lineage. they are a mixture of several cultures over time.

 

btw, the term jew is just a semite who believes in judaism...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nope, well, at least not only. lots of jews don't believe in judaism. read up relevant passage:

 

"In modern usage, Jews include both those Jews actively practicing Judaism, and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews by virtue of their family's Jewish heritage and their own cultural identification."

 

most of the jewish friends i've had in my life called themselves "jews" but did not connect with the religion.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1.it is an error. jews like to think of themselves as a 'people', but they're not. they're just semites. just like the palestinians. religion doesn't make you special, sorry...

 

2.it doesn't matter if palestinians have a common lineage or not. both the palestinians and the 'jews' are semites and decend from the semites who lived there thousends of years ago.

[taks]

1.it is an error. jews like to think of themselves as a 'people', but they're not. they're just semites. just like the palestinians. religion doesn't make you special, sorry...

according to who, you? you get to be the ultimate arbiter are who gets to claim what heritage. i'd like to see you stand before a non-practicing jew and tell him/her he is not a jew.

 

pretty incredulous claim there. pretty foolish as well, to make such ill-informed statements without anything other than... oh yeah, your opinion. highly regarded as it is, too.

 

2.it doesn't matter if palestinians have a common lineage or not. both the palestinians and the 'jews' are semites and decend from the semites who lived there thousends of years ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

uh, now you don't make sense. by definition, lineage is where you descended from. in other words, if you descended from the same place, you have the same lineage. in other words, not all palestinians are semites... they come from different places.

 

taks