The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
in context".

I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to condemn
Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
least, not be name anyway).

Schizoid Man wrote:
The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
in context".

I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to condemn
Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
least, not be name anyway).

If it's not an assassination it's an act of war because an execution
would have requiered at least a minimum judgment. Right ?
So if we are in a logic of war this fully justify all suicide bombings
by Hamas.

Lionel wrote:


Schizoid Man wrote:
The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
in context".

I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to
condemn
Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
least, not be name anyway).

If it's not an assassination it's an act of war because an execution
would have requiered at least a minimum judgment. Right ?
So if we are in a logic of war this fully justify all suicide bombings
by Hamas.








There's some faulty logic involved here. Israel's policy of targeted
assassinations is directed towards specific military personnel, or in the case
of Yassin, a leading Hamas suicide bombing advocate and planner. By contrast,
Hamas' suicide bombings are directed at innocent civilians for the most part.
It requires quite a leap of the imagination to try and compare Hamas militants
and Israeli school children et al. riding in a commuter bus.



Bruce J. Richman

From: Lionel

Schizoid Man wrote:
The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
in context".

I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to
condemn
Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
least, not be name anyway).

If it's not an assassination it's an act of war because an execution
would have requiered at least a minimum judgment. Right ?
So if we are in a logic of war this fully justify all suicide bombings
by Hamas.



War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will not be
happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an organization of
murder and child abuse. Nothing justifies murdering civilians simply because
they are Jewish, or even (ugh) French.

Once again you show that while you pretend to care about human life, you really
are just another idiot commie fool.

From: (Bruce J. Richman)

There's some faulty logic involved here. Israel's policy of targeted
assassinations is directed towards specific military personnel, or in the
case
of Yassin, a leading Hamas suicide bombing advocate and planner. By
contrast,
Hamas' suicide bombings are directed at innocent civilians for the most part.

It requires quite a leap of the imagination to try and compare Hamas
militants
and Israeli school children et al. riding in a commuter bus.



Bruce J. Richman





How about that? We agree on something.

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message


War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will
not be
happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an organization
of
murder and child abuse.

Child abuse? Lol. That's a fresh one, I admit.


Once again you show that while you pretend to care about human life, you
really
are just another idiot commie fool.

Schizoid Man wrote:

The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
in context".

I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to condemn
Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
least, not be name anyway).

This actually restores a LITTLE faith in this country.

Terrorists=scum. Get shot being a terrorist? So sorry.

Schizoid Man wrote:

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message



War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will

not be

happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an organization

of

murder and child abuse.


Child abuse? Lol. That's a fresh one, I admit.

Brainwashing children to to your dirty work that you won't
go out and get off your leader ass to do is abuse, pure and simple.

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:



Schizoid Man wrote:

The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
in context".

I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to

condemn

Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
least, not be name anyway).

If it's not an assassination it's an act of war because an execution
would have requiered at least a minimum judgment. Right ?
So if we are in a logic of war this fully justify all suicide bombings
by Hamas.









There's some faulty logic involved here. Israel's policy of targeted
assassinations is directed towards specific military personnel, or in the case
of Yassin, a leading Hamas suicide bombing advocate and planner.

This is where you are faulting Bruce, you are trying to find a *logic*
weakness in my above comment about US veto and your argument is really
weaker than my "faulty logic". If my english was better we could debate
a long time about that, but... I remember you that since the begining of
the second intifada there is approximatively 2 Palestinian deaths for 1
Israelian, are you sure that all Palestinian deaths were precisely
targeted assassinations ?
I just want to demonstrate to "Schizoid man" that, as soon as you are
*partisan* in a conflict you cannot have an interesting or better a
*usefull* opinion.

By contrast, Hamas' suicide bombings are directed at innocent civilians for the most part.
It requires quite a leap of the imagination to try and compare Hamas militants
and Israeli school children et al. riding in a commuter bus.

The answer to the above remains the same. I'm not sure that a country
who has murdered so much innocents in Nagasaki and Hiroshima is really
in a good position to give such lesson moreover when the so-called
country is managing a colonial war in an Arab country. Not necessary to
remember you that this war is based on the most laughable "official"
justification.

The danger in the precise case is to "officialize" the state of war. As
ScottW remembered us yesterday there is no *clean* way to make a war. In
a logic of war suicide bombings are not better or worst than nuclear
bombs, phosphor, napalm, agent orange... :-(

You are in a good position to know that all the conflicts continuation
is always based on such "leap of the imagination". You perfectly know
that all conflicts have their own continuation logic and that the only
way to stop a conflict is to break this logic by the introduction of a
logic of concession.
In this context I don't thing that Yassin assassination was opportune
nor the American veto.
Far from me to justify suicide bombing.

Lionel

From: "Schizoid Man"

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message


War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will
not be
happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an organization
of
murder and child abuse.

Child abuse? Lol. That's a fresh one, I admit.

When you recruit children as suicide bombers, I call it child abuse.

Your humor is wierd.


Once again you show that while you pretend to care about human life, you
really
are just another idiot commie fool.

From: Lionel

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:

Schizoid Man wrote:

The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked
at
in context".

I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to

condemn

Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
least, not be name anyway).

If it's not an assassination it's an act of war because an execution
would have requiered at least a minimum judgment. Right ?
So if we are in a logic of war this fully justify all suicide bombings
by Hamas.









There's some faulty logic involved here. Israel's policy of targeted
assassinations is directed towards specific military personnel, or in the
case
of Yassin, a leading Hamas suicide bombing advocate and planner.

This is where you are faulting Bruce, you are trying to find a *logic*
weakness in my above comment about US veto and your argument is really
weaker than my "faulty logic". If my english was better we could debate
a long time about that, but... I remember you that since the begining of
the second intifada there is approximatively 2 Palestinian deaths for 1
Israelian, are you sure that all Palestinian deaths were precisely
targeted assassinations ?

If the Palestinians weren't trying to kill every Jew in Israel there wouldn't
be any Israeli targeting of Palestinian terrorists.

I just want to demonstrate to "Schizoid man" that, as soon as you are
*partisan* in a conflict you cannot have an interesting or better a
*usefull* opinion.

You don't have any useful opinions. You have admitted voting for Communists
for 23 years, thereby demonstrating you are useless.



By contrast, Hamas' suicide bombings are directed at innocent civilians for
the most part.
It requires quite a leap of the imagination to try and compare Hamas
militants
and Israeli school children et al. riding in a commuter bus.

The answer to the above remains the same. I'm not sure that a country
who has murdered so much innocents in Nagasaki and Hiroshima is really
in a good position to give such lesson moreover when the so-called
country is managing a colonial war in an Arab country.

It was a wartime act to end a war with Japan. Had teh Japanese not attacked
first there would have been no bombs dropped on them.

Not necessary to
remember you that this war is based on the most laughable "official"
justification.

In your opinion.

The danger in the precise case is to "officialize" the state of war. As
ScottW remembered us yesterday there is no *clean* way to make a war. In
a logic of war suicide bombings are not better or worst than nuclear
bombs, phosphor, napalm, agent orange... :-(


War have miltary targets Hamas and the PLO are targeting civilians and consider
all Israeli's as targets.

Much like the Comunists would target anybody that had money for execution.



You are in a good position to know that all the conflicts continuation
is always based on such "leap of the imagination". You perfectly know
that all conflicts have their own continuation logic and that the only
way to stop a conflict is to break this logic by the introduction of a
logic of concession.

The only way to stop the war in the middle east is to have the terrorists stop
being terrorists.



In this context I don't thing that Yassin assassination was opportune
nor the American veto.
Far from me to justify suicide bombing.

Lionel

But then you are a communist and as such your perspective is flawed.

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message

From: "Schizoid Man"

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message


War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will
not be
happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an
organization
of
murder and child abuse.

Child abuse? Lol. That's a fresh one, I admit.

When you recruit children as suicide bombers, I call it child abuse.

Your humor is wierd.

So is your spelling. Weird, that is.

Schizoid Man wrote:

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message


From: "Schizoid Man"

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message



War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will

not be

happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an

organization

of

murder and child abuse.

Child abuse? Lol. That's a fresh one, I admit.


When you recruit children as suicide bombers, I call it child abuse.

Your humor is wierd.


So is your spelling. Weird, that is.

Waa! I run out of things to say and have to attack spelling
mistakes! What a putz.

From: "Schizoid Man"

Your humor is wierd.

So is your spelling. Weird, that is.


Old news.

Mikermckelvy wrote:

How about that? We agree on something.

Hey Bruce did I miss something ?

Lionel wrote:

Mikermckelvy wrote:

How about that? We agree on something.

Hey Bruce did I miss something ?








We agree that it is unfair and illogical to equate Hamas' targeted suicide
bombings of civilians (e.g. women, ;children, school buses, restaurants, etc.)
with Israel's targeted killings of known Hamas military leaders and terrorists.



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:


Mikermckelvy wrote:


How about that? We agree on something.

Hey Bruce did I miss something ?









We agree that it is unfair and illogical to equate Hamas' targeted suicide
bombings of civilians (e.g. women, ;children, school buses, restaurants, etc.)
with Israel's targeted killings of known Hamas military leaders and terrorists.

Sorry to insist but you don't help me to understand. For example you
don't explain why since the begining of the second intifada there's
nearly 2 times more Paslestinian killed compared to Israelian...
This sordid arithmetic let me bewildered.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Sorry to insist but you don't help me to understand. For example you
don't explain why since the begining of the second intifada there's
nearly 2 times more Paslestinian killed compared to Israelian...
This sordid arithmetic let me bewildered.

Your sordid arithmetic leaves me bewildered as well.
In a war (which you claim is in progress), you feel there
are some rules requiring sides to maintain equal
casualty levels?
I think you watched too much Star Trek, time for
you to report to your annihilation chamber.

ScottW

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:


Mikermckelvy wrote:


How about that? We agree on something.

Hey Bruce did I miss something ?









We agree that it is unfair and illogical to equate Hamas' targeted suicide
bombings of civilians (e.g. women, ;children, school buses, restaurants,
etc.)
with Israel's targeted killings of known Hamas military leaders and
terrorists.

Sorry to insist but you don't help me to understand. For example you
don't explain why since the begining of the second intifada there's
nearly 2 times more Paslestinian killed compared to Israelian...
This sordid arithmetic let me bewildered.








Perhaps you would be less bewildered if you considered the following:

(1) When a war against terrorists is being fought, it is not unusual or
unreasonable to expect collateral damage.

(2) Number of casualties does not justify arguments over who is right and who
is wrong - especially in this case, or for that matter, in many other wars of
self-defense.

(3) Less Israeli casualties then Palestinian casualties is a result of several
factors - including the ability of the Israeli military to prevent numerous
Palestinian bombers from carrying out their attacks. This fact has been well
documented in many newspaper reports.
In fact, more than a few Palestinian bombers have (a) blown themselves up prior
to encountering Israeli targets, and (b) killed Palestinians as well as
Israelis during their many attacks at restaurants and elsewhere.

(4) Ask yourself who has initiated several wars in the Middle East since
Israel's creation in 1948. Hint - it wasn't Israel.

(5) As George Middius pointed out, the destruction of Israel and occupation of
all - not some - of its land has been the goal of most Palestinians since 1948.

(6) You might also want to consider that prior to 1948, Palestinians had a
homeland. It was called Jordan (or Trans-Jordan). Perhaps you can explain for
me why Jordan does not want to help solve this problem by offering the
Palestinians the "right of return" :



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Perhaps you would be less bewildered if you considered the following:

(1) When a war against terrorists is being fought, it is not unusual or
unreasonable to expect collateral damage.

(2) Number of casualties does not justify arguments over who is right and who
is wrong - especially in this case, or for that matter, in many other wars of
self-defense.

(3) Less Israeli casualties then Palestinian casualties is a result of several
factors - including the ability of the Israeli military to prevent numerous
Palestinian bombers from carrying out their attacks. This fact has been well
documented in many newspaper reports.
In fact, more than a few Palestinian bombers have (a) blown themselves up prior
to encountering Israeli targets, and (b) killed Palestinians as well as
Israelis during their many attacks at restaurants and elsewhere.

Two more points:

1:Many are killed before they even get a chance to blow anything
up.

2: Israel has better mideicla and emergency services. If you
get a leg blown off in Israel, you'll likely survive. In
the Palestinean areas...

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Lionel wrote:



Bruce J. Richman wrote:

Lionel wrote:



Mikermckelvy wrote:



How about that? We agree on something.

Hey Bruce did I miss something ?









We agree that it is unfair and illogical to equate Hamas' targeted suicide
bombings of civilians (e.g. women, ;children, school buses, restaurants,

etc.)

with Israel's targeted killings of known Hamas military leaders and

terrorists.

Sorry to insist but you don't help me to understand. For example you
don't explain why since the begining of the second intifada there's
nearly 2 times more Paslestinian killed compared to Israelian...
This sordid arithmetic let me bewildered.









Perhaps you would be less bewildered if you considered the following:

(1) When a war against terrorists is being fought, it is not unusual or
unreasonable to expect collateral damage.

(2) Number of casualties does not justify arguments over who is right and who
is wrong - especially in this case, or for that matter, in many other wars of
self-defense.

(3) Less Israeli casualties then Palestinian casualties is a result of several
factors - including the ability of the Israeli military to prevent numerous
Palestinian bombers from carrying out their attacks. This fact has been well
documented in many newspaper reports.
In fact, more than a few Palestinian bombers have (a) blown themselves up prior
to encountering Israeli targets, and (b) killed Palestinians as well as
Israelis during their many attacks at restaurants and elsewhere.

(c) cibled assassinations aren't well cibled most of the time.

The following is out of subject because I never comment about
Palestinian cause, I never wrote that Palestinian are right and
Israelian wrong.
Are you supposing that I am pro-palestinian only because I think that
U.N must condemn Yassin assassination ? I'm afraid that, concerning this
problem, your vision of the world is too much manicheist, Bruce. Be
careful, passion is the enemy of the lucidity.

(4) Ask yourself who has initiated several wars in the Middle East since
Israel's creation in 1948. Hint - it wasn't Israel.

(5) As George Middius pointed out, the destruction of Israel and occupation of
all - not some - of its land has been the goal of most Palestinians since 1948.

(6) You might also want to consider that prior to 1948, Palestinians had a
homeland. It was called Jordan (or Trans-Jordan). Perhaps you can explain for
me why Jordan does not want to help solve this problem by offering the
Palestinians the "right of return" :



Bruce J. Richman

ScottW wrote:

I think you watched too much Star Trek, time for
you to report to your annihilation chamber.

I prefer rugby.

George M. Middius said:

I'd call Hamas's attacks indiscriminate rather than targeted. (If they
tried to assassinate Sharon or another figure of authority in Israel,
that would be targeted.) And that's the big difference: Israel defends
its land and its people, and the militant Arabs just want to destroy
everything they see. If there weren't an "enemy" for them to hate
right next door, they'd be killing each other in greater numbers. Or
maybe they'd be terrorizing Jordan.

The militant Arabs in Palestine showed their agenda 40 years ago, and
nothing has changed since then. There has never been a leader in
Palestine who truly desired a peaceful coexistence. When there is,
Israel may find another way to establish security, and the current
conditions may change.

Well said, George.
One wonders what Arab countries would be like when all the energy that
is put into hatred was put to build up their countries, their economy
and their personal lives.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Sander deWaal wrote:
George M. Middius said:


I'd call Hamas's attacks indiscriminate rather than targeted. (If they
tried to assassinate Sharon or another figure of authority in Israel,
that would be targeted.) And that's the big difference: Israel defends
its land and its people, and the militant Arabs just want to destroy
everything they see. If there weren't an "enemy" for them to hate
right next door, they'd be killing each other in greater numbers. Or
maybe they'd be terrorizing Jordan.


The militant Arabs in Palestine showed their agenda 40 years ago, and
nothing has changed since then. There has never been a leader in
Palestine who truly desired a peaceful coexistence. When there is,
Israel may find another way to establish security, and the current
conditions may change.


Well said, George.
One wonders what Arab countries would be like when all the energy that
is put into hatred was put to build up their countries, their economy
and their personal lives.


I must agree with the above concerning the Palestinian leaders and for
the use that some Arabs leaders have of the Palestinian conflict.

We should also acknowledge honestly that when the Israelian
interlocutors wasn't as cynic, comptemptuous and scornful than Mr.
Sharon the peace discussions had done some progress.
We shouldn't forget the past efforts because in this conflict the only
alternative to annihilation is optimist negotiation.

George M. Middius wrote:


La Salope muttered:

We should also acknowledge honestly that when the Israelian
interlocutors wasn't as cynic, comptemptuous and scornful than Mr.
Sharon the peace discussions had done some progress.

Why is your command of English still only Krooger-level?

We'll get to your empty-headed political yammering later on.....













While Sharon's political party (Likud) is definitely not as *generous* when it
comes to making concessions as the prior Labor party and its prime minister,
Sharon's personality characteristics have nothing at all to do with the failure
to resolve the MidEast conflict. Your perhaps don't recall that one of
Israel's prior prime ministers, Menachem Begin, was also quite "hard-line"
relative to other Israeli le4aders, and he nevertheless managed to reach a
peace agreement with Egypt. Of course, in that case, there was an Arab leader
willing to negotiate in good faith and reach an accomodation. None of that
exists today. Arafat has no interest in peace under any rational set of
conditions, as proven by his refusal of an extremely generous offer from the
prior Israeli government, and his consequent refusal to make any counteroffer
and subsequent encouragement and support of terrorism.

Even the crown prince of Saudi Arabia has advanced an idea, which, while
probably not acceptable to the vast majority of Israelis in its present format,
at least represents an effort to make a proposal which might conceivably serve
as a stimulus for negotiations. And, while I think its politically motivated
in part for both domestic and international (read American) consumption, it
might be worth further exploration. The alternative is more of the same cycle
of violence, it would appear.

There are times when personality characteristics do indeed interferee with and
override the ability for rational thought.
I don't think that obsevation applies to Sharon. As pointed out above, it is,
in a sense, paradoxically easier, for a hard-liner to make peace at times than
a more dovish leader.


Bruce J. Richman

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
George M. Middius said:

I'd call Hamas's attacks indiscriminate rather than targeted. (If they
tried to assassinate Sharon or another figure of authority in Israel,
that would be targeted.) And that's the big difference: Israel defends
its land and its people, and the militant Arabs just want to destroy
everything they see. If there weren't an "enemy" for them to hate
right next door, they'd be killing each other in greater numbers. Or
maybe they'd be terrorizing Jordan.

The militant Arabs in Palestine showed their agenda 40 years ago, and
nothing has changed since then. There has never been a leader in
Palestine who truly desired a peaceful coexistence. When there is,
Israel may find another way to establish security, and the current
conditions may change.

Well said, George.
One wonders what Arab countries would be like when all the energy that
is put into hatred was put to build up their countries, their economy
and their personal lives.


Don't you realize that they DON"T WANT to join the
modern world? They are stuck in a seventh century groove.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Art wrote:


"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news
George M. Middius said:

I'd call Hamas's attacks indiscriminate rather than targeted. (If they
tried to assassinate Sharon or another figure of authority in Israel,
that would be targeted.) And that's the big difference: Israel defends
its land and its people, and the militant Arabs just want to destroy
everything they see. If there weren't an "enemy" for them to hate
right next door, they'd be killing each other in greater numbers. Or
maybe they'd be terrorizing Jordan.

The militant Arabs in Palestine showed their agenda 40 years ago, and
nothing has changed since then. There has never been a leader in
Palestine who truly desired a peaceful coexistence. When there is,
Israel may find another way to establish security, and the current
conditions may change.

Well said, George.
One wonders what Arab countries would be like when all the energy that
is put into hatred was put to build up their countries, their economy
and their personal lives.


Don't you realize that they DON"T WANT to join the
modern world? They are stuck in a seventh century groove.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---








I prefer 33 1/3 and 45 rpm grooves.

Currently spinning;

WEAVERS - At Carnegie Hall, Vol. 2

Next up:

COPELAND - El Salon Mexico (conducted by Copeland)

NITTY GRITTY DIRT BAND - Will the Circle Be Unbroken




Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

While Sharon's political party (Likud) is definitely not as *generous* when it
comes to making concessions as the prior Labor party and its prime minister,
Sharon's personality characteristics have nothing at all to do with the failure
to resolve the MidEast conflict. Your perhaps don't recall that one of
Israel's prior prime ministers, Menachem Begin, was also quite "hard-line"
relative to other Israeli le4aders, and he nevertheless managed to reach a
peace agreement with Egypt. Of course, in that case, there was an Arab leader
willing to negotiate in good faith and reach an accomodation. None of that
exists today. Arafat has no interest in peace under any rational set of
conditions, as proven by his refusal of an extremely generous offer from the
prior Israeli government, and his consequent refusal to make any counteroffer
and subsequent encouragement and support of terrorism.

Even the crown prince of Saudi Arabia has advanced an idea, which, while
probably not acceptable to the vast majority of Israelis in its present format,
at least represents an effort to make a proposal which might conceivably serve
as a stimulus for negotiations. And, while I think its politically motivated
in part for both domestic and international (read American) consumption, it
might be worth further exploration. The alternative is more of the same cycle
of violence, it would appear.

There are times when personality characteristics do indeed interferee with and
override the ability for rational thought.
I don't think that obsevation applies to Sharon. As pointed out above, it is,
in a sense, paradoxically easier, for a hard-liner to make peace at times than
a more dovish leader.

Do you know any conflicts in which one side support 100% of the
responsability ?
Keep on reasoning this way and you will get more congratulation messages
from McKelvy... :-(

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message

Schizoid Man wrote:
Your humor is wierd.

So is your spelling. Weird, that is.

Waa! I run out of things to say and have to attack spelling
mistakes! What a putz.


Obie,

Maybe you try to tone down the belligerent rhetoric. I wrote McKelvy one
line consisting of six words. I would hardly think that will constitute an
an 'attack'. I just happen to disagree with him.

Since you are such an ignoramus, let me educate you. Hamas to my mind is
amongst the most reprehensible organizations in the world. But even so, they
have repeatedly asked women and children to not participate in the suicide
(you might prefer homicide) bombings.

So unless you have something that is not malevolent to say, I suggest you
shut that black hole you call a mouth.

Schiz

Schizoid Man wrote:

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message

Schizoid Man wrote:

Your humor is wierd.


So is your spelling. Weird, that is.

Waa! I run out of things to say and have to attack spelling
mistakes! What a putz.



Obie,

Maybe you try to tone down the belligerent rhetoric. I wrote McKelvy one
line consisting of six words. I would hardly think that will constitute an
an 'attack'. I just happen to disagree with him.

I thought it was fitting considering the ****ing contest of multiple
posts sniping at each other. Youboth sound like kids squabbling on
the playground.

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

While Sharon's political party (Likud) is definitely not as *generous* when
it
comes to making concessions as the prior Labor party and its prime
minister,
Sharon's personality characteristics have nothing at all to do with the
failure
to resolve the MidEast conflict. Your perhaps don't recall that one of
Israel's prior prime ministers, Menachem Begin, was also quite "hard-line"
relative to other Israeli le4aders, and he nevertheless managed to reach a
peace agreement with Egypt. Of course, in that case, there was an Arab
leader
willing to negotiate in good faith and reach an accomodation. None of that
exists today. Arafat has no interest in peace under any rational set of
conditions, as proven by his refusal of an extremely generous offer from
the
prior Israeli government, and his consequent refusal to make any
counteroffer
and subsequent encouragement and support of terrorism.

Even the crown prince of Saudi Arabia has advanced an idea, which, while
probably not acceptable to the vast majority of Israelis in its present
format,
at least represents an effort to make a proposal which might conceivably
serve
as a stimulus for negotiations. And, while I think its politically
motivated
in part for both domestic and international (read American) consumption, it
might be worth further exploration. The alternative is more of the same
cycle
of violence, it would appear.

There are times when personality characteristics do indeed interferee with
and
override the ability for rational thought.
I don't think that obsevation applies to Sharon. As pointed out above, it
is,
in a sense, paradoxically easier, for a hard-liner to make peace at times
than
a more dovish leader.

Do you know any conflicts in which one side support 100% of the
responsability ?
Keep on reasoning this way and you will get more congratulation messages
from McKelvy... :-(








There is nothing in my comments above to suggest that one side deserves 100% of
the responsibility. So where is your condemnation of Hamas suicide bombings?
(You support the U.N. condemnation of Yassin's assassination but not the
assassination of hundreds of Israeli civilians in buses, restaurants, etc.?)



Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have about
my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have
about
my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.







I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no definition given
for the word, so it's meaning is not known. Therefore, it's use is sort of
pointless.

It's always a good day for me.


Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:



Bruce J. Richman wrote:


There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have

about

my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.








I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no definition given
for the word, so it's meaning is not known. Therefore, it's use is sort of
pointless.

You say that because you aren't curious. Lazy ?

It's always a good day for me.

I'm not really surprised.

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you
have about my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.

I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no
definition given for the word, so it's meaning is not known.

Perhaps to you.

Therefore, it's use is sort of pointless.

Manicheanism is a dualistic religion that is loosely related to Buddhism.

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

You can understand whatever false assumptions you choose to make, especially
the one that Yassin's assassination was political. Just as I am free to
understand that you choose to isgnore the fact that Yassin's assassination was
NOT POLITICAL.

This is what the press and many people forget.

Terrorists are not political leaders. They are criminals in the same
way the the ex-Nazi leaders were. You hunt them down and kill or
capture them whenever and wherever you can.

Lionel wrote:

I don't see above any comdemnation of the Jewish religious extremist and
their influence on Israelian government. Those extremists are made in
the same wood than wahhabists but the occidental "politically correct"
forbids to make such comparison.

I don't see very many Hassidic Jews strapping on bombs and blowing
up groups of Palestineans. That's the difference.

It's terribly simple. There are people who want Israel to be a smoking
crater and would gladly nuke it to serve their goals - if they had the
ability. They are armed and use bombs to blow up civilians using
terror tactics.

Where does it make sense to do anything other than put a bullet in
their head? These are bad people that made their choice to die
by taking out people with bombs strapped to thier bodies. I see
no problem in killing them before they get to their intended target.

I only read above that you confirm to be agree with the death sentence
that Israel applied to a Palestinian leader.

Except...

Yassin was NOT a political leader. He was a terrorist leader just
like BinLaden is.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:



Bruce J. Richman wrote:

You can understand whatever false assumptions you choose to make,
especially
the one that Yassin's assassination was political. Just as I am free to
understand that you choose to isgnore the fact that Yassin's
assassination was
NOT POLITICAL.


This is what the press and many people forget.

Terrorists are not political leaders.

Not agree. Most of them are the avatars of the influent nations
duplicity and underground policy (France, USA...)

They are criminals in the same
way the the ex-Nazi leaders were.

Agree

You hunt them down and kill or
capture them whenever and wherever you can.

If you kill them you create martyrs and by the way you keep up the conflict.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:

There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you
have about my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.

I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no
definition given for the word, so it's meaning is not known.

Perhaps to you.

Therefore, it's use is sort of pointless.

Manicheanism is a dualistic religion that is loosely related to Buddhism.










Whatever. Its' irrelevant to this thread.


Bruce J. Richman

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Lionel wrote:



Bruce J. Richman wrote:


There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have

about

my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.








I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no definition
given
for the word, so it's meaning is not known. Therefore, it's use is sort of
pointless.

You say that because you aren't curious. Lazy ?

It's always a good day for me.

I'm not really surprised.







Nor am I surprised that you make assumptions about what I've said that are
probably incorrect.


Bruce J. Richman