RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One."

RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 7:16:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth How do you negotiate with a people whose leaders' basic platform calls for killing "all Jews and Americans"? When people have a future and something worthwhile to lose they will stop listening to extremists. At the moment the west justifies the words of the extremists because the west has proved hypocritical and exploitative of the people we want to be civilized, as though we are civilized ourselves. MC, The quote addressed by the OP wasn't from an "extremist" it was from a representative, and elected leader. I'm not suggesting that we are any more civilized then them, but the acceptance of this statement without condemnation in the Islamic world is unparalleled in the west. The most similar occurrence was when President Reagan called the USSR the "evil empire". There was an outcry of condemnation from much of the west, as well as within the US. Why is the reaction not similar in this case? Who is responsible for making a people feel they have a worthwhile future? It should be the leaders of the country shouldn't it? Why make one of the primary planks in the political platform the killing Jews and Americans?

samboct -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 7:30:23 AM)
The Middle East is a mess, and we have no good response. The best thing we could do is develop alternatives to oil as quickly as possible-since it's the oil money flowing there that gives these people power. I stayed on the phone for several hours listening to Chris Shays (R) of CT a month back. He originally supported the war in Iraq, but his comment now was that if he had known how abysmal the post war planning was, he would have never voted for going in the first place. Why did he support going to war? I think it boils down to the news footage of 9/11 around the world. There were lots of cheering throngs amongst regions with devout Muslims, but far fewer amongst regions of the world with more secular individuals. Simply put, I think this pissed a lot of people off- I know I was pretty angry (and I lived close enough to see the smoke from the Twin Towers when I went in a few days later.) His comment today about the Palestinians? Settle the Palestinian question with Israel- will that bring peace? HAH- not bloody likely. However, the biggest mistake that the Republicans made was believing their own propaganda about the desire for democracy in the Middle East. They didn't understand the mindset of the people-what they wanted were the TVs, the air conditioning, the blondes with big boobs- but democracy? Hell no- they wanted the fruits of centuries of technology, not the right to vote. The Republicans (and a lot of Democrats) thought that they could make it clear that democracy built a system which created those "desirables"- but the people running the Middle East weren't listening. In terms of the Palestinians- well, never has so much money flowed to so few and done so little. Basically it got stolen. I think the UN did a study that showed that there was $5k (or more) of direct aid per year per Palestinian. Actually, the oil producing countries WERE throwing money to them. So what happened? In a word- Arafat. Greed knows no satiety- and Arafat was a greedy little man. (I know greed first hand- I used to work for a guy like this. He was Jewish (actually, so am I), but it doesn't matter-it's the mindset that counts.) This is why he never missed a chance to shoot himself in the foot in the peace process- and why his widow has lots of $$BB in Swiss banks. And why Hamas winning the election as opposed to Fatah may have been a step in the right direction. But the real problem here is corruption- and the answer of throwing money in with no accounting will only make matters worse. But would I support aid to Palestine if it could be used to really help build something? Somebody's got to make the first move in diplomacy, and the US does have a lot of advantages here. And our ally, Israel, has had something to do with the mess there. Does Israel have a role in the creation of the latrine of Palestine? You bet-Israeli soldiers kicked the Palestinians out of their homes at gun point. Stay in your house and you live as a second class citizen. Leave and you take a terrible economic hit. Israel is an apartheid regime- the Palestinians living in Israel have separate laws. Sound like blacks or women in this country up until Martin Luther King? Anybody wonder why South Africa was one of the first countries (think it was THE first country) to recognize Israel in 1948? Great choice- leave with the clothes on your back, or stay in your house and get lorded over by Jews. Am I unsettled by all the anti Jewish and anti American hatemongering- yes, but walking away doesn't solve the problem either. Look- if kids stop dying of disease and malnutrition due to US aid- that's going to make the hatemongers there lose their ammo. But if we throw in this money- we have to make sure it's actually going to accomplish our goals- and that's been a problem to date- witness the "rebuilding" in Iraq. Seems like we're building castles in the sand- and the tides coming in. while I used to believe that all politicians are liars, I had a friend of mine make a run for Congress- she didn't make it, but got close- and I realized that it was a hard job- and that some folks were really doing the best that they could. I didn't vote for Shays, but I respect the guy- I do think he's honest and actually pretty sharp. Labeling all politicians as thieves and liars is the same as calling all lawyers greedy shysters- the good ones really do help make the world a better place- the bad ones do a lot of damage. I listened to Shays explain why he thought there were WMD in Iraq, he believed the human intelligence and couldn't see a reason for Saddam to lie to his own people- Saddam's generals thought that they had gas weapons. I had a close friend from Iran in high school and college- what I learned was that he believed that you should only tell people what they need to know- minus at least 10%. People from different cultures have different values- and that's something that trips most folks up- including the people in Congress. Clearly there were lots of folks that actually believed that Saddam had WMD- they were just wrong. Even the NYT took that as a slam dunk. I didn't but couldn't make my voice heard (tried writing letters to the NYTimes). I did market research in advanced materials- had lots of contacts in the chemical industry- the guys from DuPont and ICI thought that Saddam didn't have that capability- they would know. Plus what was being claimed as WMD didn't make logical sense, but that's another story. Sam

caitlyn -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 7:47:43 AM)
General response ... There is an old expression that actions speak louder than words. I think it's problematic to take words, even very harsh ones, and make the assumption that actions are the inevitable next step. Religious and even elected leaders speak to the audience, and say things to challenge and shock. When an elected leader does this, they are fishing for supporters ... sometimes only a few ... but it's an all gain and no risk situation. They might pick up a few more, and loyalists will not be swayed by these statements. Look on this message board. There are people that would support President Bush no matter what he said. Same is true for Nancy Pelosi. Then you have to take into acount, those that say one thing, and intend to do another. A treaty was signed, right before Operation Barbarosa, etc ... Pick your random radical cleric or political personna in Iraq. They might have some harsh things to say, and do it it stir up trouble, but it's pretty obvious that the difficulties over there are from a very small segment of the population ... hence, the difficulty in painting any group with a broad brush, because of what a few people have to say, or even what a few people do. I used this argument in a thread the other day ... while not overly fond of President Bush, I have an amazingly small influence on the things he says and does, and have next to no way to change it, other than waiting for him to leave office. The same is probably true of random cleric in Iraq ... when this one person stands up and spews whatever message they have ... exactly what does anyone expect your average Iraqi shop keeper to do about it? One of our members here, pretty much constantly hammers on America, because of the actions and words of very few people ... people that the rank-and-file here in the United States, can't really do much about, other than wait them out. I don't see any wisdom in holding other countries to standards any higher than those. When random Muslin Nation President says this, or that ... it is unwise to come to the conclusion that the whole country feels that way ... or even the majority, and even more unwise to see this as the face if Islam. Merc would say that this is an elected leader of the country. I would counter ... that makes him all the more difficult to silence, just like we have a difficult time silencing our radical elements in this country. You tend not to really know what they will say and do, until you have already elected them. Actions speak louder than words.

Mercnbeth -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 8:38:32 AM)
quote: Merc would say that this is an elected leader of the country. I would counter ... that makes him all the more difficult to silence, just like we have a difficult time silencing our radical elements in this country. caitlyn, He is an elected leader of people. I'm not advocating silencing them, just the opposite. I'm saying listen, believe them, and make policy based upon it these statement. Meaning no aid, no military commitment, no 'Rose Garden' hand-shakes, no nothing. It seems pragmatic. If there is any backlash - point back at the statements. Statements NOT from self aggrandizing religious or cult leaders but from representative, elected, officials. The problem with this idea is that, unlike the west where dissension is permitted, has media access, and easily published; the Islamic States associated with these statements don't permit similar access. Some people here choose to defend the practice, rationalizing that it their "right". And so it is. I just point it out to establish the obvious reason they must do it. The example of the breakup of the USSR is still fresh. The Berlin wall and the dissolving of the Soviet Union did not happen because of bombs, but because of rhetoric. Call it propaganda if you like, but it fell internally because access to western culture drove the citizens to demand the same from their leaders. When they couldn't provide it and the underground economy became more productive than the 'official' economy the entire system collapsed. The people of Iran and Iraq and the middle east in general are no different. They are human, subject to the same individual desire for comfort. subject to selfishness, subject to greed. Currently they don't have any choice and believe they have no access to any other system or culture. Dissolving the line between Religion and State is very effective method of control. It makes eternal 'paradise' a function of serving the State in this plane of existence. In this environment death, as a suicide murdered, is a relief having great expectation compared to the life they surrendered for the State.

Sinergy -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 9:20:05 AM)
Unlikely to give up a job that pays me boat loads of money to do as little as possible, but thank you for your concern. I was reading an interview with the creator of BattleCry a few months ago, wherein he talked about the need for a no-holds barred, militant approach to Spreading The Word. Most importantly was his decision to target pre-teens and teens using various methods which reminded me of organizations like EST and multi-level marketing schemes methods to instill True Believer ideals into the malleable. While this was not discussed in depth on the web site, I will find the interview and post it so that you can object that it is not representative of the Religious Right. Sinergy

losttreasure -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 9:46:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Unlikely to give up a job that pays me boat loads of money to do as little as possible, but thank you for your concern. You are welcome... though I'm not sure why you consider it necessary to brag. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I was reading an interview with the creator of BattleCry a few months ago, wherein he talked about the need for a no-holds barred, militant approach to Spreading The Word. Most importantly was his decision to target pre-teens and teens using various methods which reminded me of organizations like EST and multi-level marketing schemes methods to instill True Believer ideals into the malleable. While this was not discussed in depth on the web site, I will find the interview and post it so that you can object that it is not representative of the Religious Right. As long as it clearly calls for God to smite the unbelievers, then I'm sure it will be fine. [;)]

juliaoceania -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 10:03:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: losttreasure quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania My point is that we cannot dismiss an entire group of people because a few of them are assholes blinks Really? quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Now I do not need to make shit up... everyone knows what freaks the Religious Right are, and if you are going to sit there and play ostrich, fine... but in my opinion that looks just plain silly. It is common knowledge that these people are loons I'm sure then that you really meant in this statement that it is Randall Terry, Pat Buchanan and Jerry Falwell who are freaks and loons, and not the Religious Right. How silly of you. [;)] I am not taking part in the sniping flaming BS losttreasure. If that feels good to you, more power to ya!

NorthernGent -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 12:01:52 PM)
In response to the OP: a) It is unwise to remove an event/action from its context. b) The context is the US government and army uninvited in Iraq, and the American funded Israeli Army grabbing Palestinian land and bulldozing homes in what is arguably a policy of ethnic cleansing. Then there is the involvement in Iran. c) Based on b, is it any surprise there is anti-US and anti-Israeli feeling in the Middle East? d) Imagine if an occupying Middle East force set up shop in the US and Americans were having their homes bulldozed by this occupying force, and they were being financed by European funds. e) You can't keep people down. They'll fight back for as long as it takes to force out the occupiers. f) What came first, anti-US sentiment in the Middle East? or the US government's involvement in Middle Eastern politics?

Lordandmaster -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 12:20:23 PM)
Ouch. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent What came first, anti-US sentiment in the Middle East? or the US government's involvement in Middle Eastern politics?

Mercnbeth -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 12:47:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Ouch. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent What came first, anti-US sentiment in the Middle East? or the US government's involvement in Middle Eastern politics? L&M, Stub your toe? What came first aid or weapons? What came first economic development and harvesting the oil resources or militarily taking over the fields? What came first, conquest, occupation, mass murder; or the establishment and recognized sovereignty of the Countries in the middle east? How far back do we have to consider before addressing the present to satisfy you? WWII? 1947 is always a convenient date - but then you'd have to address the Islamic nations telling the 'Palestinians' who before 1947 didn't exist to leave while they made the first attempt to "wipe Israel off the map". BTW- how is it that the richest nations in the world, the Arab nations in the middle east, can't provide a home for their brother Palestinians? The USA accepts more immigration from these people than Saudi Arabia. Why? So do you want to go back the crusades? David v. Goliath? Moses v. Red Sea?

NorthernGent -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 12:49:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UtopianRanger quote: Seconded, implying Julia's quote is one of limited value because she can't source a quote correctly (according to the parameters laid out by our resident Historian and master of footnotes, Sanity) and because she's a member of the World Socialists or something (which obviously means the quote can't possibly be correct), isn't legitimate discussion. Unless the quote can be shown to be fabricated, then the argument stands - attempting to discredit the poster lacks class. I laughed my butt off after reading all the petty-ass bickering in this thread. - R PS - Sanity doesn't believe-in or like my quotes, either. ; } It's fair to say a thread entitled "Kill Americans and Jews" was always doomed to a life of chaos and wild-eyed antics. We need some threads along the lines of Former Iraqi Chief of Religious Persecution renounces his position and takes Pat Buchanan to be his common law husband - The Idaho Conservative Observer 5th May 2007. Cat among the pigeons eh, Ranger.

Lordandmaster -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 3:07:50 PM)
I can't figure out exactly what you're talking about, but there was, I think you'll agree, less anti-American sentiment in the Middle East at the time of Moses than there is now. Less in 1947, too. Less in 1960. They started to get pissed off at us right around the same time we started fucking around in their part of the world. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth How far back do we have to consider before addressing the present to satisfy you? WWII? 1947 is always a convenient date - but then you'd have to address the Islamic nations telling the 'Palestinians' who before 1947 didn't exist to leave while they made the first attempt to "wipe Israel off the map". BTW- how is it that the richest nations in the world, the Arab nations in the middle east, can't provide a home for their brother Palestinians? The USA accepts more immigration from these people than Saudi Arabia. Why? So do you want to go back the crusades? David v. Goliath? Moses v. Red Sea?

FirmhandKY -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 3:16:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You are not sending the Palestinian government $60 million. Israel is stopping all monies to the Palestinian authority. The only money getting through is to NGOs. Perhaps. Source? http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1967251,00.html It is hardly surprising there is extremism in the area. When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. As Karl Marx would say 'All you have to lose are your chains." Nope, sorry, try again. This time look at the dates of your article, and compare it to the dates of my article: Your "news: UN plea for millions in Palestinian aid amid fears of economic collapse December 8, 2006 My news: U.S. to send $59 million to Palestinians April 10, 2007 Marx was mistaken when he wrote that, and you are mistaken now. FirmKY

FirmhandKY -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 3:19:25 PM)
FR: I've been away from the forums for a day. Let me read the thread in detail, and I may have additional comments. FirmKY

meatcleaver -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 3:26:59 PM)
Washington wants to sure up their man Abbas. If you read the article the money isn't going to the Palestinian Authority but to Abbas to administer. Without wanting to derail the thread, Marx was 100% right in what he said. Capitalism retreated in the face of action by organized labour. It is why western workers got increasingly improved conditions throughout the 20th century. Churchill introduced unemployment benefit and said it was cheap at the price considering the alternative was revolution. Don't forget, when western labour started organizing, workers had worse conditions than workers now in Chineese sweat shops.

Mercnbeth -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 3:39:18 PM)
quote: I can't figure out exactly what you're talking about, but there was, I think you'll agree, less anti-American sentiment in the Middle East at the time of Moses than there is now. Less in 1947, too. Less in 1960. They started to get pissed off at us right around the same time we started fucking around in their part of the world. L&D, Very simple. In all cases, good-bad-indifferent, you get the present because of what occurred in the past. Whether to justify going to war, getting out of one, the focus should be on the present. You selectively quoted only a portion of my post, not including the other section. The same selective memory serves the Islamic rationalizers. I have no problem with that tactic if its needed to support a debate position. I reference the past but chose to plan for the future based upon the present. I don't rationalize the reason for the present by the past and try to use it to initiate future policy based upon that rationalization. These elected leaders speak today for today. I only support reacting today and planning for the future based upon their words. And are you sure about the 60's. If memory serves wasn't there some Suez Canal crisis back in the late 1950-60s involving Israel and Egypt? By definition didn't that also involve the US? You can argue that the current war is the most recent saga going back at least to this 1950's event. But wait you said "less". Not being alive at the time, I can't speak for less, and can't find any documented evidence that any Islamic or Arab leader made a speech calling for the death of all Jews and American's. If that is your current definition of less - I'd have to agree. But for today and now having a clear position of Iran and the Palestinian elected leader as a reference - I stand by my position.

VeryMercurial -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 3:43:24 PM)
I have to agree with losttreasure here. Lumping all Christians with the Religious Right or fanatics is like lumping all Americans with any extremist group. There is no validity here. I am very much a Christian, I rarely go to church but last time I checked "churches" are not GOD. Anyone that invests a lot of time mocking or slandering Christians, will probably reap what they do sow.

juliaoceania -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 4:07:19 PM)
quote: Lumping all Christians with the Religious Right or fanatics is like lumping all Americans with any extremist group. Just as defining all Islam as extremists that wish us death is also lumping all of a certain group of people together. I agree... lumping bad... quote: There is no validity here. I am very much a Christian, I rarely go to church but last time I checked "churches" are not GOD. Anyone that invests a lot of time mocking or slandering Christians, will probably reap what they do sow Could you please tell me where I said all Christians are bad or mocked them? In fact on other threads I have defended people who believe in God, just do not care for extremists, even those who purport to be "Christian"

mnottertail -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 4:11:33 PM)
Hey let's kill a few Maorians or Canucks---they don't fuck with much of nothing out there and therefore are skimming below the radar, this would take a little pressure off those of us that fuck with the world politik. Ron

meatcleaver -> RE: "... kill Jews and Americans "to the very Last One." (5/3/2007 4:17:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth And are you sure about the 60's. If memory serves wasn't there some Suez Canal crisis back in the late 1950-60s involving Israel and Egypt? By definition didn't that also involve the US? You can argue that the current war is the most recent saga going back at least to this 1950's event. It involved Israel, France and Britain. Eisenhower, refused to help Britain when there was a run on the pound so Britain, France and Israel had to back down and go home with their tails between their legs. That ended the career of the then British Prime Minister and cemented the already dawning reality that Britain was no longer a power in the world and face reality. It took France somewhat longer to come to that reality. It also gave the Arabs their first nationalist hero in Naser.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875