Monday, July 25, 2005

Re-active vs. Pro-Active

The London Terrorist Bombings were a much-needed eye opener for Europe. It's nice to see that the people of the UK aren't as spineless as the Italians and are choosing to fight back rather than appease (or JOIN, in Italy's case) their enemies.

However...the reason this article caught my attention had more to do with the issue of immigration than terrorism. Maybe it's because they are so closely linked together. You's much tougher to fight an ENEMY WITHIN, than an outside enemy. In the UK's was too late. British open immigration policy has left them in an EXTREMELY precarious situation. The US would be well advised to take a lesson before it is too late!!

America is already becoming increasingly divided into TWO parts. And I'm not referring to Red vs. Blue States, or Conservatives vs. Liberals...I'm referring to "American Citizens" and "People who have become citizens but hold allegiance to OUTSIDE countries" (usually Mexico). With the new mayor of LA pledging allegiance to Mexico over America, and an increasing number of legal and illegal immigrants that refuse to learn English or embrace any of America's culture...we are already a long way's down the road to division in this country. Immigrants used to work hard to assimilate into an AMERICAN culture, today immigrants expect America to assimilate to THEIR culture.

Some may say that the American Culture is "ever-changing" and that is a good thing. I can subscribe to that belief, except when the American Culture is to change to that of one that does not hold affection, patriotism, loyalty, love, pride, duty, honor, allegiance, etc. to America. This leaves America divided and vulnerable.

It is better to act now in a Pro-Active manner than to wait until it is too late, and then attempt to Re-Act.

Deport all who 'spit hate' - Major
25 July 2005

People who "spit hate" at the British way of life should be deported, Tory former Prime Minister John Major said.

Mr Major spoke of the "uncomfortable reality" that many terrorists were born or lived in the UK but had been taught to hate its culture.

"There seem to be many people who, for reasons that are irrational, dislike the Anglo-Saxon way of life," he said.

He called for heavier penalties for those who incited violence at this "particularly sensitive time".
"Always difficult to balance this against freedom of speech but I think, at the moment, it is justifiable to protect the public," he argued.

Mr Major added: "As far as those who literally spit hate at our country and there are some of them - they spit hate at our country and they incite - I personally would be prepared to deport those where it is clear that what they are doing is causing civil unrest and may cost other people, as a result of that, their lives."

He also called for more CCTV cameras to deter the threat and the use of intercept evidence in courts. Interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Mr Major urged the Government to consult widely over new anti-terror legislation.

"They are going to have to carry people with them at this moment," he warned.

He also defended the controversial shoot-to kill policy that led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

"I rather prefer the expression shoot to protect rather than shoot to kill - I think that is a more accurate description of what happened."


Anonymous said...

As an immigrant, I agree that people that come in should try to add to the country rather than just seperate themselves by ethnicity and language. I have to disagree on the alliagance issue though; I still feel Greek rather than American and I imagine I'll do so for the rest of my life. It's where I was raised and it's not so easy to jsut put that aside. I don't think you "need" to have pride in the country as pride in your country is often mere word-association for pride in your county's politics. Why must we insist on telling people what to think and how to feel about their place of residence? I say if immigrants make an effort to learn the language, interact peacefully with all others and get honest work, that's good enough for me. I don't care where their loyalties lie unless they're in politics and have loyalties to certain companies that donate money to their cause or are willing to put aside the public's wants and wishes to fulfill the loyalties they feel to their respective friends or religion.


Anonymous said...

That sounds very contradictory to me. If you say you don't care if people have no loyalties to the very country they live in, but do care if they have a loyalty to a business. Look at the mexican immigrants (especially illegals) who have loyalty to businesses because they get their money, but have no loyalty to the United States way of life and beliefs and values. IF YOUR LOYALTIES LIE ESLEWHERE... THERE YOU SHOULD BE. There is no reason you should live somewhere where you could give a crap less about. This reminds me of a roomate situation I found myself in once. Where the roomates could care less about the house we were in, because THEY NEVER PAID A SECURITY DEPOSIT... and trashed the hell out of it and I WAS THE ONE WHO HAD TO PAY FOR THE CRAP AND WAS OUT $800 dollars. If you don't respect the valuables of others... you don't belong there. Same with immigration. If someone doesn't like America.. then I believe they should get the hell out. After all, that is a crappy attitude to have.

Anonymous said...

Respecting others' valuables and feeling loyalty to someone's valuables are completely different concepts. I didn't say I didn't like America, I said I felt more alliagence toward the country in which I was born. As far as loyalty to business, if you read my comment I speak of people in politics, in charge of desicions that affect the populations; they should be free of biases and loyalties to anything other than the well-being and the wishes of the general public.

The "if you don't like it, get out" mentality is archaic and very undeveloped. Dissent is generally responsible for societal improvement.


B2 said...

"Respecting others' valuables and feeling loyalty to someone's valuables are completely different concepts." ???????????????

Not really!!! If you have pride or loyalty to something, you will respect it or do what is in its best interest. And I AM referring to people in politics also. Do you think someone who cares more for Mexico and its people (or Greece in your case) is more likely to do what is best for the American people or for the people of the country they hold allegiance to? Leaders will ignore the wellbeing of Americans if they can help the wellbeing of the people from the country they hold allegiance to. The same goes for average citizens here in America. They will vote not in the best interest of the American people, but instead of the people from the country they hold allegiance to.

B2 said...

THUS AUG 04, 2005

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within, said the American historian Will Durrant about ancient Rome. This self-destruction of values is exactly what is happening in England today.

Yes, I still call the country of my birth England, in spite of the peculiar political correctness that insists that it be called 'the UK' and that we, its denizens, must be 'Britons'.

Even though the Welsh are proud to call themselves Welsh, as are the Irish and certainly the Scots, woe betide the Briton who calls himself 'English' -- a much-frowned-upon no-no.

I believe that when a country loses so much respect for itself that it can no longer even be identified by its historically correct name, insecurity and lack of respect filter down to its inhabitants.

Recently, I have concluded that London is no longer the 'seat of civilised society' that the world once considered it to be, and is certainly not the safe city I grew up in.

A particular incident demonstrated the lack of respect and manners that is but a small example of the horrible, encroaching decay of the country that I love dearly.

My husband Percy and I were at a ball at the Grosvenor House Hotel -- a black-tie event attended by the socalled 'elite' of the city.

As Percy held the door open to let me through, a 6ft tall, middle-aged, horse-faced male pushed past me, trod on the hem of my dress and rushed outside to climb into the taxi that the doorman had waiting for us.

This was a person who should, or at least looked like he should, have known better. The cause of his behaviour? The awful pervasive disregard that we have for civility today.

Bump accidentally into someone in the street these days and you are soundly cursed. Look at a poor derelict collapsed in a doorway for more than a second and they'll spit at you. Surely everyone has experienced the barely suppressed rage lurking behind the faces of a vast number of car drivers.

We've become the 'Whatcha lookin' at?' culture. Why do young people consider it cool to be arrogant, swaggering and rude? Why do so many people in England seem so cynical and self-centred?

I witnessed young, drunken yobs roaming the streets kicking cars, screaming insults, pushing people and even pushchairs out of their way, attacking each other viciously and then turning on the police when they tried to maintain order.

THE WHOLE scene evoked the image of hordes of inebriated Vikings sacking devastated towns. Even during the day, feral mobs roamed the cities with absolute disregard for anyone else's property or well-being. Traditional virtues of male chivalry and female propriety were very far from view.

After all, a lack of manners and politeness in a society can only be a reflection of what the society thinks of itself.

It's frightful how being told that you are no good makes you hate yourself, and hate others. And it's frightful how quickly a whole country of self-loathers can be bred.

Anonymous said...

Respect and Alliagance are not the same thing. Alliagance is a feeling, you can't just put it aside. Respectful everyday citizens are concerned with going to do honest work, taking care of their families and loved ones and bettering their society. If you live here you're not going to try to wreck the place, you're going to try to make it better (whether you hold allagance to it or not) 'cause it is where you live. If you're not respectful, you will only dwell amongst your own, not try to assimilate to your country of residence, commit crimes, not take care of your family, etc...
Yes, if you have pride in something you will respect it, but that comment is not exclusive as you're interpreting it. I don't take pride in the joe-schmoe I see walking down the street, I'm busy with my stuff and don't take the time to think of him, however I'm not going to disrespect him.

The article you posted supports my point of view, it focuses on lack of respect...

Now, if I vote for a politician 'cause he's Greek and/or says he may do something good for Greece, I'm being closed-minded, no different than gays voting for someone that's gay or supports their 'cause, or a black man voting for the only black politician on the ballot. As this country is multi-racial it's also multi-national. We all have our alliagance to something, whether it be religion or political group or nationality or whatever... when people vote on issues based primarily on one alliagance (my biggest problem with religious conservatives is I feel they do exactly that) they have become narrow-minded and are no longer interested in the well being of anyone but themselves.


B2 said...

Allegiance can be put aside. If my country supports genocide or even would lose my allegiance. That is why I fight so hard for it right now. It's principles are under attack.

"If you live here you're not going to try to wreck the place, you're going to try to make it better"....UNLESS YOU ARE VENGEFUL OF IT. If you wish to return it to the hands of Mexico, or England, or France, etc. That's like saying Israel should just freely admit Palestinians or other hostile muslims and not think twice about it...afterall...they live their so they will want to make it better. I'm not so blindly optimistic. If a country like the US is to be brought will be by enemies within. In addition...patriots fight for the principles of this country because they mean a lot to them. If our country loses it's love for those principles, we will fall to socialism, etc. and fail like all of the other countries that have gone before us.

Besides...if the US and it's Capitalism don't exist anymore...where will the rest of the world get its charity to take care of its people?! ;-) Don't even deny the enormous amount of charity we give. The other countries (even G8 countries) pale in comparison. Heck...we are the ones keeping the anti-American, anti-semetic UN on its feet, though I wish we didn't.

"If you're not respectful, you will only dwell amongst your own, not try to assimilate to your country of residence, commit crimes, not take care of your family, etc..." ...I'M GLAD WE AGREE ON SOMETHING...because this is PRECISELY what is happening in the US. Illegal immigrants commit crimes because they face no punishment other than deportation (and they will just return to do it again anyway). They work for American dollars and then send it to Mexico to support their families (I don't blame them for this, but then liberals wonder why our economy is suffering). They don't assimilate. Most will never learn English or fly and American flag or even care if our country is attacked. They just want to earn a buck and send it back to take care of their families or make a buck through drug smuggling, gangs and other violent crime. The largest gang in LA is comprised mostly of illegal aliens who coincidentally are running a drug smuggling ring. (I have a post on it a couple months back).

Maybe religious conservatives are just concerned with the fact that our country was founded on conservative Christian principles and they don't like to see the country slipping further away. I think a biased liberal holding allegiance to socialism (without considering the destruction it would cause on America) to be far more dangerous. But that's just me.

The article focuses on destruction of values: A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within, said the American historian Will Durrant about ancient Rome. This self-destruction of values is exactly what is happening in England today.

It also speaks of a country losing its sense of identity. It is great that America is a melting pot of many different cultures. But in the past those cultures combined or assimilated into an American culture. Not today!!! That is dangerous and that is how a country is slowly destroyed from within.

Anonymous said...

Dude, there is no American culture. We stole this land from the Indians. And by "we" I mean the English and the Spanish. Nobody's trying to turn the US to Mexico and comparing it to the situation between Israel and Palestine is absurd. I'm not talking bordering countries at war with one another. I'm saying that whether people are born here or move here, as long as they're honest and respectful of others they're fine by me.

There are people. Some do a lot of good and some bad, others do a lot of bad and some good. They're not defined by their nationality, beliefs or alliagances but by their actions.

A guy that holds alliagance to the US but hates all Muslims, or sells drugs for a living is not cool by me and doesn't have his society's best interest in mind. An import, such as myself, that holds alliagence to another country but is willing to work his butt off and take care of those around him is always welcome to my society of "earth". Stop being so ethnocentric. It's about making your family better, your town better, your state better, your country better, your entire world better, it doesn't begin and end with the invisible borders of our nation.

You keep throwing the "founding fathers and principles" stuff around. This country was "founded" on practical extermination of a people, on doping the innocents with "fire water" and introducing them to "boom-sticks", on lies and deceipt, on growing marijuana and tobacco, on using slaves to build and work for the white man, on lynching of witches and later socialists. It was also built and founded on the ability of the English and the Spanish to co-exist. You can choose what you're willing to look back to but in reality we have to learn from our errors and keep thinking in a progressive manner. Stop looking at "Christian principles" or you're just shoving your values onto everyone else. Stop pushing away Socialism 'cause you're not willing to learn from other ways of life.

For a good Christian you sure cast a lot of stones :)

How 'bout that Walker to Miami trade?


B2 said...

This country was not founded on the extermination of Indians just as Israel was not founded on the extermination of Muslims. The English Monarchy cast people out of England and to America because of their religious beliefs. The people became fed up of being told what religion they could practice and the unfair taxation they were forced to pay. With the help of the French Government those people fought and gained INDEPENDENCE from the English Monarchy so that they could have a place to live and practice their religion freely and set up a government BASED ON THOSE CHRISTIAN VALUES. (You can't deny that!!!!) That's why they wrote it into the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS!!! The right to practice any religion, anytime, anywhere, without the interference they received from the likes of the English Monarchy. As more and more people saw how great and appealing this country was, they flocked here from ALL OVER the world (and continue to do so today for the very same reasons).

Once they realized they couldn't be crammed into 13 small colonies, they moved on out in the vast wilderness. They purchased the majority of the US land from Napoleon and the French. When they moved out they met Indians. Some were peaceful and welcomed co-habitation. Some were not and fights and blood-shed broke out. I don't blame the Indians for wanting to protect their home and their land, but as a scientist...I'm sure you know how survival of the fittest works. The inevitable happened as the natives were outnumbered dramatically and continue to be more and more outnumbered every day.

I know you would like to have seen the pilgrims say..."oh...I didn't know you guys already lived here. What's that? You don't want us to live here too...ok...we'll just move back to England and leave you guys to be happy in this vast country all alone." you isn't very fair and nature took its course.

I'm sure no one forces Indians to drink just as no one had to introduce them to smoking peyote or what not. I'm sure the diseases weren't spread on purpose. Come to think of it...they were given land free from "white-mans" rules and taxes AND are provided with free money to live off of, and still receive such today. You should pop up to NorthEast Nebraska and Iowa someday and check out all of the Indian Reservations. We have the Omaha Res, Macy Res, Omaha Nation Res., Winnebago Res., Ottawa Res., Sioux, etc. all within 1-2 hours of where I live here in Omaha. Our highschool plays them in sports and they always sport the latest in Nike Air Jordans and NFL Starter Jackets, etc. (all provided at taxpayer expense). No complaints by the way either. They have assimilated into the culture nicely, just like the Germans, Italians, Irish, English, Spanish, get the drift. In fact...I was up at the Pow Wow in Winnegago last weekend and they were honoring their members of the various branches of the US millitary. They stated that they were part of this country and that it was important to fight this war in Iraq as part of this country! (Got some great pics too by the way! I'll have to send them your way). They did special dances for the Marines, Navy, Army, Coast Guard, etc.

You act like Slavery was something that Americans invented. It was NOT. It was something that America got rid of before many other nations. It still exists in many countries today!

And I don't see "burn all witches" anywhere in the Constitution so its hard to believe you when you say our country was founded on that.

Are you saying that the Indians would have drove us back to England if we didn't have guns? Come on?! It's about Numbers Johnny!! The Soviets beat back the Germans with shovels in WWII, because they severely outnumbered them!

Once again...This country was not founded on the extermination of Indians. It was founded on the Christian Principles I stated earlier (that you somehow refuse to acknowledge). I wish you could change history so you could be right and happy, but you can't deny what has already happened. It's a FACT!!! Though...if it were founded differently...I don't think we would be the successful country we are today.

You said, 'Nobody's trying to turn the US to Mexico"...but that's why I wrote the post. They ARE and you and many others are either ignoring it or are just completely oblivious to it! Did you not read what the new Mayor of Los Angeles said?! If he could turn LA (or this country) over to Mexico...HE WOULD!!! And now he is making decisions for ALL citizens living in LA.

"An import, such as myself, that holds alliagence to another country but is willing to work his butt off and take care of those around him is always welcome to my society of "earth"." ---This statement would have been fine but you forget the most important part, where he wishes to do whatever is best for his country of allegience, EVEN IF IT MEANS harming the United States!!! You can't just see and hear what you want to. You have to comprehend EVERYTHING. All of the intentions!!! They are not good like you seem to think. That's called BLIND OPTIMISM my friend...and it is dangerous. That's like saying that you think Saddam probably would have quit the genocide after he reaced 600,000 bodies without any outside influences. His taste for blood and hatred for the US just would have stopped on its own right?!

Kind of like your views on socialism. You ALWAYS point out all of the great aspects (which there ARE plenty) but fail to acknowledge the failures, which are extremely dangerous to the well being of a country and its people.

"It's about making your family better, your town better, your state better, your country better, your entire world better, it doesn't begin and end with the invisible borders of our nation." - And that's the problem...they want to make their country better...AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR COUNTRY. That's the part you ignored. When a mayor of one of the largest cities in the US publicly states that, "I will base my political decisions (for Los Angeles) on the well-being of Mexico"...he is doing just that!!

I only cast stones at ideas. And only ideas that will inevitably lead to the destruction of my beloved country. I have a son to worry about now you know! ;-)

Prove my theory on socialism wrong and I'll jump on board with ya! And you know I'm willing to listen to your side of it Johnny!

Anonymous said...

I don't think your point on the Indians is logical. Survival of the fittest is real. Thriving at the expense of others is evil. The Christians that lived here had plenty of space and resources to survive, they were greedy and wanted more.

Israel was indeed built on the extermination of Muslims and on our (US, England & Soviet Union) approval of that extermination.

I point out the goods of Socialism 'cause those are the parts that I want to incorporate into our current social, political and economic state. I'm trying to make our system better by not being so absolutely exclusive to one system. It is you that is exclusive to Capitalism and sees everything outside of it as an evil. Encouraging competition is a formadable idea. Isolating is as the primary political, financial and social driving force is extreme and dangerous and not consistent with Christian values.


B2 said...

I've never said that every aspect of socialism is evil. In fact...I consistently state that it is a very NOBLE idea, but one that is...BLINDLY OPTIMISTIC!!!

If you can point out some ways to incorporate the positive aspects of socialism without destroying the will to succeed, and promoting laziness and living off of others...I'm all ears!!!

As for the Israel thing...I think arguing with you on that is pointless. How can you make such a misguided statement. That sounds like a sentence from one of Bin Ladin's propoganda films! Come on! Give us facts if you want to make a point!

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Lying about Middle Eastern Land
One of the few things unchallengeable about the Middle East conflict is that it has virtually nothing to do with land. Arab countries already control 6,145,389 square miles of land. That is almost twice the land area of the United States, which is 3,537,438 square miles, and about the same as the land area of Russia. Israel, even when including all of the "occupied territories" retained from the 1967 SIx Day War, controls less than 10,000 square miles.

The West Bank and the Gaza Strip comprise about 2300 square miles (a bit less when deducting Jerusalem and its suburbs from the account), which is about half the size of the Everglades. The Moonbats-against-Israel lobby wants us to believe that with 6,145,389 square miles, the Arabs want war and genocide, but with 6,145,389 plus 2300 more, then they will want peace. If Israel only trades “land for peace” with the land-deprived Arabs, and never mind that its abandonment of the West Bank would leave an Israel ten miles wide and waiting for the Arab armies to annihilate, then all will be well.

The "anti-Zionists" want the world to believe that the entire Middle East war is due to the fact that those evil selfish Jews are unwilling to share their 10,000 square miles with the poor land-starved Arabs. But in reality, the obvious true cause of the Middle East war is the fact that the Arab world is unwilling to allow the Jews to control even a sixth of one percent of the territory of the Middle East. The Arabs, controlling more land than any other ethnic group on the planet besides the Russians (most of whose land is frozen tundra), are simply unwilling to share even the tiniest sliver of the Middle East with the Jews.

If the "anti-Zionists", for their part, get what they want, then there will be no Jews left alive in Israel.

It should be remembered that in 1918, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France were handed 5,000,000 square miles to divvy up and 99% was given to the Arabs to create countries that did not exist previously. 1% was given as a Mandate for the re-establishment of a state for the Jews on both banks of the Jordan River. In 1921, to once again appease the Arabs, another three quarters of that 1% was given to a fictitious state called Trans-Jordan. (Jack Berger, May 31, 2004.)

We are told that there is a difference between extremist Islam and peaceloving normal Islam.
Judging by their behavior, Muslims are anti-West, anti-Democracy, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Buddhist, and anti-Hindu. Muslims are involved in 25 of some 30 conflicts going on in the world: in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, East Timor, India, Indonesia (2 provinces), Kashmir, Kazakastan, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Macedonia, the Middle East, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Sudan, Russia-Chechnya, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan.

Doesn't this mean that extremist Islam is the norm and normal Islam is extremely rare?

"To those who think that the establishment of a Palestinian state will bring peace, I say it will bring the exact opposite. It will be a base for large-scale terror in the heart of our country. It will import tanks, missiles, cannons and people. A flood of refugees and also soldiers, from Iraq and Iran and Syria. Soldiers from countries with which bi-lateral agreements are going to be signed. This is within the rights of a sovereign state, even if it is bound by international agreements not to do it. ... A Palestinian state will be a threat to our very existence." ( Jan Willem van der Hoeven. )

"No country in the world exists today by virtue of its 'right'. All countries exist today by virtue of their ability to defend themselves against those who seek their destruction." (David Meir-Levi, April 6, 2005, "Does Israel Have a Right to Exist?" - )

As for the point is that the people from here bought the land from the French and fought for the land from the English. If you have a beef with should be with the French and the English for claiming land that was "already claimed". Anyway...once again...I know you would like to have seen the pilgrims say..."oh...I didn't know you guys already lived here. What's that? You don't want us to live here too...ok...we'll just move back to England and leave you guys to be happy in this vast country all alone." you isn't very fair and nature took its course.

Anonymous said...

We're not seeing eye to eye on how land becomes somebody's. Being "given" or "sold" somebody else's land in not righteous. Expanding through-out somebody else's land (Indians never asked us to leave, I don't think they ever asked to be pushed into reservations either) when resources were plentiful to occupy a part of it is not righteous.

You're quick to point out extremist Islam yet seem to forget that until the last few years, for the most part, the images weren't of suicide bombers but of young children tossing stones at Isreali soldiers while being machine-gunned down by said soldiers.


B2 said...

But now you are only seeing what you WANT to see or remember.

Not all Indians wanted to assimilate or follow white man's government. The reservations were and STILL ARE "government free zones". They receive benefits unrivaled!!! If you want to talk about people not getting's the slaves. It's too late for that now. I certainly don't support handing out money/land to descendants who have never experienced or no nothing of the horrors of slavery. But that's another topic.

The American Indians on reservations today receive BIG $$$ and pay NO TAXES and are allowed to run casinos and reap the $$$ without giving back to the white man. Affirmative Action allows them first shot at schools, jobs and millitary positions. They are free to move off of the res, but choose not to because the benefits are so great!

I'm in no way saying life was fair to them. But let's think about where they would be if the English outcasts didn't inhabit this land. By now...some other country...probably Spanish or Portuguese would have taken over (you know as well as anyone that it would have happened sooner or later) and then you would be mad at the Spanish instead of the English outcasts. If the Old European countries wouldn't have snatched it up, then the Middle East Muslim countries could. Why should Turkey stop with Greece right?! It is the land of opportunity and unfortunately someone was gonna take it! Don't hate the player...hate the game! ;-) Always hated that saying but how true it is!

Now America is the most powerful country on earth and is the most desired destination of people all around the world!!! That wouldn't be the case if things worked out differently. We would be no more than a vast wilderness with SO MUCH TO OFFER!!!

The Indians contribute plenty, mostly good to this country, as do the English, Spanish, Irish, Italian, Mexican, Chinese, Greek, etc. that moved here because this country has SO MUCH TO OFFER. Be a realist my friend!!! Reality bites, but it is still REALITY!!!

Same thing goes for Israel/Palestine. It is misguided to blame the Isreali Jews for moving and protecting the land they were given by the English. Hate the English if you must hate! Or accept the unfair world for what it is. It isn't the Israelis fault anymore than it is the Palestinians fault. It is highly religious (and thus valuable) land. Of course both sides want it and are willing to go to extremes for it. So don't blame Israel for wanting to protect it from those who want to take it. Both sides have a valuable claim to the land and they should work it out peacefully. Peace and openmindedness is what you say liberals stand for. So back it up. Don't jump on one side. Condemn hate and murder and violence. Support those who wish to destroy those who bring terror. Only when peaceful leaders have full control on both sides, can true movement towards peace and compromise exist there. Until then...just more of the same! Instead of taking sides and promoting the violent movement...stand up against violence on both sides and support peace. Support the removal of all who promote violence on both sides. Don't condemn self-defense, condemn-terrorism! (Oops...I mean bombers! ;-))

Anonymous said...

I don't hate.

I didn't blame the Jews for moving to Isreal, for me this has nothing to do with religion or individuals and everything to do with politics, US, England and Russia "giving" someone else's land. I said that the Nation of Isreal was built on the spilt blood of Muslims as ours was built on the Indians (and the slaves), there's a difference.

We have different interpretations of protecting one's land.

I never promoted a violent movement.


B2 said...

Where do you suggest the Israeli Jews go? Antartica? How about we put them on someone elses land? But whose land would you approve of giving to them? Hmmmm...a quandary!!! Perhaps we could find some Christians to give up their land?!

Anonymous said...

I didn't suggest they leave. You fail to acknowledge that this conversation was about how a nation was founded...


B2 said...

Well since we can't go back in time and "found' it a different way...let's look to the future and how we can promote peace in the future. Holding grudges and seeking revenge will just lead to more murder and violence. No-one needs that. It's time to MOVE-ON.