Re: terrorism, what it is and what should never be

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Thu Nov 29 2001 - 11:57:35 MST

>From: Chris Russo <>

>Brian D Williams wrote:
>> The Palestinians lost their land when they joined the rest of
>> the Arab world in attacking Israel the day after it was
>> declared. They have continued to miss every opportunity to
>> regain it ever since. They have waged a war of terror which
>> continues to this day and is the single major stumbling block
>> from reaching a settlement.

>Is it really? While I've heard the claim that the Palestinians
>are being offered sweetheart deals from Israel I've also heard
>conflicting claims that Israel isn't really giving up very much.
>The most recent number I heard is that Israel currently controls
>over 70% of the original Palestine/Israel territory, when they're
>supposed to only control 50%. Areas like the Golan Heights are
>supposed to be part of Palestine, but are so overly occupied by
>imported Ukranians that Israel refuses to give them up.

The Palestinians ought to count themselves damm lucky to get
anything at all.

They declared war and attacked their neighbors trying to wipe them
off the planet, and instead they get their ass kicked and lost

They ought to consider themselves lucky to get anything back.

The Golan heights has always been a problem because of it's
strategic value, it's high ground overlooking the rest of Israel
and any military planner can tell you how valuble that is. Every
attack on Israel has come from there.

The problem about who's land it is, is the fact that it was Jewish
land in ancient times before it was Palestinian, it's that old

>I don't claim to know everything about the situation, but what I
>do know smacks of unfairness. With the Russians out of the
>picture, why are we supporting that unfairness with our financial
>and military might?

Israel is a friend and ally, and if the Palestinians ever get
serious, which means putting a halt to terrorism, them I'm sure
they will come to terms.

>> Both Jordan and Syria occupy former Palestinian land and isn't
>>it funny that you never hear boo about it?

>Where Jordanian and Syrian governments are in control of the
>territory, Muslims aren't treated as second-class citizens. From
>what I know, Jews in Israel actually have extra constitutional
>rights and protections. Palestinians can freely enter and leave
>Jordan and Syria, but in Israel they have to obtain special papers
>and permits. To me, it's no surprise that Palestinians consider
>Israel to be the greatest threat in all this.

Israel is Israel and Palestinians are foreigners. They couldn't
walk around America or anywhere else without passports. Plus they
are still in a state of war because of terrorism.

>> Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see this set right, but the
>> Palestinians are every bit as much at fault, if not more so,
>> than the Israelis.

>See, that's where I'm not so sure. With our media and government
>so much under the influence of Jewish media moguls, have we as
>Americans been getting a reasonably objective view of the events
>in Israel and the Middle East? From my conversations with friends
>outside of the US media-sphere, I get the feeling that the
>Palestinians are much less at fault than we've been lead to

I get my facts from a wide variety of sources. But lets put it to
a simple test.

You are the leader of a country, your next door neighbor colludes
with other neighbors and attacks you. Thousands of your citizens
are killed. You successfully drive off the invaders and at the end
you are sitting on what was formerly your neighbors land. Do you
simply forget the whole thing and give it back?

The second time?

The third time?

>> So what right to we have to go around kicking in governments?

>Straw man. Who said anything about "kicking in governments"? I'd
>just like us to get out of the whole area. Leave Saudi Arabia and
>Kuwait. Let those governments stabilize and defend themselves. If
>they want help in creating secular democracies, then it's probably
>worth it for us to give them a hand. Currently, though, I don't
>understand why we're supporting the countries that we are.

Okay I see what you're saying. Mostly we're supporting these
countries because the alternative is worse.

>> Liberals always want to have things both ways.

>Oh, man. I certainly hope that you're not calling me a liberal.
>Them's fightin' words. I'd characterize myself as a libertarian,
>or at worst an atheistic conservative.

Nah, name calling is against list rules. ;)

It was an offhanded remark about liberals in general.

Everytime I take some political test I get labeled a liberal, but
what I am and what people who call themselves liberals are is
usually completely different.

>> The Cold War is over. This support of the "lesser of evils" no
>> longer makes the sense that it did a couple of decades ago.
>> Which is better, a corrupt government or a fundamentalist one?

>Who knows? In this case, the corrupt one was more predisposed to
>us because of our past intervention on their behalf, and because
>they know that our continued support is required for them to stay
>in power. Then again, our occupation of Saudi Arabia is one of
>the prime reasons why we just lost over 6,000 people and billions
>of dollars. Maybe supporting the fundamentalist one would have
>been cheaper.

Occupying Saudi Arabia?

We have troops there at the request of the Royal family on some
bases nothing more. Hardly qualifys as an occupation. The Saudi's
could ask us to leave tomorrow.

We lost 6000 people because a religious fanatic has been fighting
a declared war against us for years and our government stupidly
ignored it.

>We should just get the hell out of the support business for
>governments that are fundamentalist, corrupt, or both.

I still support the "lesser of two evils" argument.

>Of course we are. They've gotten filthy rich selling us oil at
>collusion-obtained prices (OPEC), yet when they have trouble with
>their neighbors, we take care of it for them. A lot of good it
>did for our oil prices this past summer when they went along with
>all of the other OPEC nations in reducing production.

OPEC isn't the only player in town, and supply and demand set the
price. We can always lessen our dependence. I can see why Kuwait
would have political reasons to remain on good terms with it's OPEC

Good discussion.


Extropy Institute,
National Rifle Association,, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:23 MDT