Bush Wins

I AM ME · Post by **I AM ME** » 11/18/2004, 4:00 am

In all seriousness though, what right does Israel have to exist in it's current state at all? It's debatable about whether or not Jews even have a stronger claim to the land.

Israel was a created country, cenetered around guilt and pity. What happened to the Jews was horrible, so we gave them a country that they coudl call their own. Problem is, people were already living there.

I AM ME · Post by **I AM ME** » 11/18/2004, 4:05 am

This should strike a strong chord with you anarchists. You should be able to understand the rage of having your land and country given to another.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 11/18/2004, 6:52 am

Whether it's existence is justified or not is a moot point since it now exists. But I really don't know. BUt what country was there before they created Israel?

closeyoureyes · Post by **closeyoureyes** » 11/18/2004, 9:22 am

The Palestine State. They have religious claims to the land also.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » 11/18/2004, 9:27 am

Israel is a touchy issue......

They don't have a formal constitution. They are lead by their declaration of independence, and then the laws that were drawn up by the Parliament (Knesset).

I believe that this can be considered a factor. If you take a strong look at the Israeli population that is whole-heartingly against having a seperate Palestinian state, they feel they are ABOVE the law.

Israel needs to make some changes....and start making the public realize that they can't do whatever they want.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 11/18/2004, 9:29 am

Isreal was a part of Egypt which was British territory.
http://mondediplo.com/maps/middleeast1939

Just a few points from what you said Korzic.

1. re: Osama's place of birth. I don't think Osama cares too much about country borders. To him, his "country" is anywhere were arabs are. So to him the people of Palestine are just as much his people as the people of Saudi Arabia. You can see how he refers to "his people" in the quote below.

2. You can be allies at one point, and then be enemies at another. See Iraq/US relations over the same time period. The only reason the US was giving guns to Osama was to stop the Soviet Union indirectly. Osama just happened to be the middle man during the Cold War.

Here's what Osama says is when his hatred for the USA began (from his Oct 29, 2004 tape)

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet.

During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.

And as I was looking at those towers that were destroyed in Lebanon, it occurred to me that we have to punish the transgressor with the same -- and that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children.

You guys seem to be sceptical to believe anything Osama says, but frankly in my opinion he has no reason to lie about such things. He's already the worlds most wanted man, so why bother lying?

3. Osama also says that this war on the USA has nothing to do with Bush.

Your security is not in the hands of [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.

Therefore whether it was Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, or Bush Jr, doesn't mean a thing to him because he is after America (and its allies who target his people), not specific individuals.

Again I don't know which side is right. I'm not an expert on Isreal and Palestine, and in fact knew very little about the actual situation until very recently. I just think there must be an answer to this without the use of bombs and guns. Maybe I'm naive but so far the war option hasn't seemed to have solved anything.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 11/18/2004, 11:45 am

Bandalero wrote:we wern't blowing up his country before the towers. he's just pissed because he's no longer being funded by us and the Israelis are. he had no problem with us when we were fighting USSR together. Palestine isn't his country. you get mad, when we have a leader that is all for war, yet you want justice for a country who's leader was a gun runner? that seems unreasonable.

Ok, so Palestine isn't Osama's homeland but those are his people. The arab nations, and i'm sure you all know this, are a closely knit bunch. The whole middle east is pretty upset with Israel and therefore America. There's no other way to spin in, Israel vs Palestine is about as clear an example of East vs West and that's how America came to be "the great satan"

And everything else you say is probably true, he's mad because the US cut him off, he's mad because now they're funding his enemy, etc etc.

He said a lot of stuff. It made me laugh too. It was probably best that you missed the debate dude, then you wouldn't look like so much of a tool when trying to argue your position with an argument that has no basis.

This tells me right away that i shouldn't even bother with you, because you'd rather turn this into a flame fest then have a debate. I don't know anything, right? I'm just some kid who thinks he knows it all, right?

1) Osama was born in Saudi Arabia. That makes Saudi Arabia his country, not Palestine.

see above. Arabs fight each other's battles. See iraq war for proof.

2) Osama didn't object to the American's support in attempting to kick the USSR out of Afghanistan. He was all for it. YAY FREE GUNS etc.

Well duh. Why would he object?

3) America wasn't attacking anyone on August 7, 1998 when Al Quaeda tok a set of explosives to the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya killing 258 people and wounding over 5000. That was Mr. Clinton's presidency, Not Bush.

I don't care who was in office. Let me tell you a few things about the global political landscape on August 7, 1998 because you obviously either missed my point entirely (likely) or weren't aware of this: In 1998 the following things were true: Israel (western, "american" power) and Palestine (eastern "arab" country) were fighting. America was paying for Israel's bombs. America was not paying Osama. American foreign policy was then (and still remains) slanted against the Arab nations (think Iraq & Iran).

You see where I'm going here? And uh, America was too attacking somebody in 1998. IRAQ. AGAIN.

To make my point perfectly clear: These arabs stick together.

4) On October 12, 2000. The US missile destroyer, the USS Cole was ram raided by an inflatable boat laden with explosives on a scheduled refueling stop in Yemen, this resulted in 17 deaths of US sailors.

5) In February 1988, Al Qaeda issued a fatwah under the name "the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders" saying that "to kill Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able." This was pre Bush Sr. years as president.

6) Madrid train bombings. Killed lots of people. This wasn't even directed against the US.

7) Other failed incidents include the attempt at bombing the USS Sullivans . This was widely regarded as a trail run for Cole. They put too many explosives in the boat and it sank. There was a plan to blow up LAX. The bomber was caught at the US/Canadian border with the bombs in his car. This was in late 1999. In early 2000, Jordanian authorities arrested 28 men in regards to an attempt to attack Israeli and US tourists visiting Jordan for Y2K celebrations. German police foiled a plot to destroy a cathedral in Strasbourg, France in December 2000. And last but not least, in Manila, Phillipines, an apartment fire exposed a plane to explode aircraft passenger liners midflight over the Pacific.

Again I refer you to my above points about the political landscape. I don't know why you felt it neccessary to bring up all these terrorist attacks, because I'll tell you right now that i know that the arabs have been blowing up americans and their allies for fifty years now, same as Americans and their allies have been doing it back.

Please note the dates of these. ALL PRE GW BUSH YEARS. Since 1990. Gulf War 1 (Saddam invades Kuwait) Yugoslavia (ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo) Somalia (don't remember the exact circumstances, but I dont think there was plane bombings) Gulf War 2. There are all the major conflicts that the US has been involved in in the past 15 yrs. None of these have affected Osama directly at all. Despite trying to find another way to hate Bush, its baltently obvious that the terrorist attacks are because of him.

I don't know how this counters my argument at all. If anything it proves my point, which is that it's been America & Friends vs Arab world for the last several decades.

One last thing as Bandalero mentioned. Mr. Arafat was the leader of the PLO, you know that terrorist organisation like the IRA, adept at blowing people up, but then became a political party? Nice double standards.

Annnnd?

1 last point. Do you suppose that Israel would exist today, given who it is surrounded by. Palestine Syria Egypt Jordan etc. without US support and help?

Nope. Israel sure wouldn't. But then again, Israel DIDN'T exist until america & friends decided it had to.

Bandalero · Post by **Bandalero** » 11/18/2004, 1:40 pm

ok, he's angry about palestine and lebonon, but what are his emotions about afganistan during those same times? he won't openly come out and say he appreciated the guns and the support that HE got from the US. how can you be glad to have guns from the US and then get mad when we have our own motives that don't include him? he's a displaced pawn looking to bite the hand that actually armed him. it's hipocrisy.

his people aren't palestinians or saudis or iraqis, his people are the few that follow him. he should get that through his head. there's not a single nation in the middle east that wants this man fighting their fights, i'm sure they can do it themselves. he's got this stupid notion that the world owes him something, that the US owes him something because we killed/ supported the killing of a few people he didn't even fucking know. he's got this notion that the Arab world should run to him and let him fight their wars for them, that they owe it to him to let him be their hero against Israel and the US. it's a warped view of the world, warped by some imbalance in the head i'm sure and overzealous religious views. we're great satans because of our new world philosophy, and he's in the right because of his old world philosophy. as long as both exist, there will always be a religious fanatic pissed because we don't do what his god tells him we should be doing.

Doug: how can a gun runner like arafat be taken seriously? he's got an interest in war, wars use guns, he runs guns, therefore war = money, he was no better then bush is now. if you hate bush now, then you shouldn't like what arafat was.

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 11/18/2004, 2:50 pm

I think this all really can be stemmed down to the basic premise of does two wrongs make a right?

Both Osama and US foreign policy are hypocitical. That's very clear in their actions over the past 20 years, so to say one side is in the wrong is absurd. Both sides have reasons for their beliefs, and both are willing to stand up for them.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 11/18/2004, 4:15 pm

just to clarify, i don't like arafat, i don't like osama, i don't like anybody who would use force to achieve thier politics or who thinks their agenda is more important than anybody elses.

i agree with Jim, my point all along has always been that Bush = Osama, just in different clothes with different methods and resources. But fundamentally what they are are two individuals who want not just their lives but EVERYBODY ELSES to be lived according to their rules.

you guys are find condemning bin laden but you fail to accept that your country and your leaders do the same things he does.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 11/18/2004, 9:23 pm

mosaik wrote:just to clarify, i don't like arafat, i don't like osama, i don't like anybody who would use force to achieve thier politics or who thinks their agenda is more important than anybody elses.

i agree with Jim, my point all along has always been that Bush = Osama, just in different clothes with different methods and resources. But fundamentally what they are are two individuals who want not just their lives but EVERYBODY ELSES to be lived according to their rules.

you guys are find condemning bin laden but you fail to accept that your country and your leaders do the same things he does.

That's like saying a cat = dog because they're animals both have fur and can be made pets.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 11/19/2004, 9:53 am

not really.

if that's all you've got for me, then i guess we're done here.

Narbus · Post by **Narbus** » 11/19/2004, 10:07 am

mosaik wrote:
i agree with Jim, my point all along has always been that Bush = Osama, just in different clothes with different methods and resources. But fundamentally what they are are two individuals who want not just their lives but EVERYBODY ELSES to be lived according to their rules.

Well, actually, since you're rooting for the total abolition of government, you're trying to have everybody else live their lives by your rules, also. GG.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 11/19/2004, 10:11 am

OK let me put it like this.

Using your argument that they are fundamentally the same.

I will now prove using the same logic that a dog = a cat.

Both have fur, 4 legs, a tail, 2 eyes, a nose and a mouth. Both are carnivores. Both can be found in the wild and domesticated. And to top it all off both are animals. Fundamentally, they are the same. Therefore by logic above DOG = CAT. But everyone knows sure as hell that they aren't. So how is this any different?

OR you are offering this argument (FRUIT NIKKI FRUIT)

An apple is an orange but its just got a different colour, taste and texture.

Also.

HOORAY for more debate.

Axtech · Post by **Axtech** » 11/19/2004, 10:13 am

But, considering the vast expanse of all living organisms, cats and dogs are quite a lot alike and extremely comparable.

Korzic · Post by **Korzic** » 11/19/2004, 10:22 am

Rob... that kinda comment could stir up all kinds of sentiments from dog and cat lovers alike

nelison · Post by **nelison** » 11/19/2004, 11:49 am

Here's one for ya then... a gun and a machetti aren't the same thing, but they sure as hell both hurt.

I get the feeling you guys are arguing analogies because you have no other argument.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 11/19/2004, 2:49 pm

Narbus anarchist philosophy does not include rules. what you are saying is not my argument at all and has never been my argument.

From now on I'm not going to rebutt you when you put words in my mouth. Please stick to the stuff i actually believe instead of using my combative nature to make me argue points you can win.

My point about Bush = Osama is not that they are physically the same person.

It's that they do the same things. Osama blows up innocents, so does bush. Osama hurts his supporters, so does Bush. Osama's people follow him out of blind faith, so do Bush's. Etc, etc.

If you would like to contest that point, do so.

mosaik · Post by **mosaik** » 11/19/2004, 2:53 pm

Let me clarify further by saying that i find their ACTIONS alone to be equilivent and i should have said so from the start.

Rusty · Post by **Rusty** » 11/19/2004, 5:28 pm

mosaik wrote:
My point about Bush = Osama is not that they are physically the same person.

It's that they do the same things. Osama blows up innocents, so does bush. Osama hurts his supporters, so does Bush. Osama's people follow him out of blind faith, so do Bush's. Etc, etc.

If you would like to contest that point, do so.

That's what I've been saying.