THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

In the Israel ... thread, I recommended that the Israelies in their own self-interest, and to ensure their survival, kill at least 1,000 Palestinian Arabs for each Israeli the Palestinian Arabs kill.

Maybe you think the NYT, WP, BG, LAT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, who want us to leave Iraq, are more reliable?

ican wrote:

In the Israel ... thread, I recommended that the Israelies in their own self-interest, and to ensure their survival, kill at least 1,000 Palestinian Arabs for each Israeli the Palestinian Arabs kill.

The typical ugly conservative American. Human life means nothing to you. I might remind you the Nazis used that same tactics in WWII. They slaughtered entire villages because of the work of some partisans. Your no different than Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.

ican has never shown respect for human life. With every post he makes on a2k, he shows his own is not worth much either; he's a monster the likes of bin Ladin and Saddam.

Quote:

Maybe you think the NYT, WP, BG, LAT, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, who want us to leave Iraq, are more reliable?

I haven't seen any evidence that any of these news organizations acutally want us to leave Iraq. Perhaps you have seen this evidence and can link to the article or editorial showing that they all agree that we must up and leave Iraq.

I only say this because I sure have read a hell of a lot of stuff written in each one of those papers about how leaving would be a disaster...

As for the 1000:1 killing ratio of Palestinians you propose, if such a thing were to happen, the Israelis would be the new Nazis. I don't guess you have much of a problem with that.

Anyone can claim that anything is self-defense, anytime. The only question is whether or not they would get away with it.

Cycloptichorn

I haven't seen any evidence that any of these news organizations acutally want us to leave Iraq.

Anyone can claim that anything is self-defense, anytime. The only question is whether or not they would get away with it.

With few exceptions, all of the Palestinian Arabs in words and deeds have made it clear that they seek the removal of Israel, and are willing to continue to kill Israelis, or support their colleagues killing Israelis, until Israel is removed.

The Palestinian Arabs have made it clear by their celebrations of their colleagues killing Israelis, rather than damning, criticizing, or making any effort to stop their colleagues killing Israelis.

The Israelis on the otherhand in words and deeds have frequently offered the Palestinian Arabs opportunities to peacefully coexist with Israel free of Palestinian Arab deliberate killings of Israelis, and free of Israeli retaliation for past Palestinian Arab deliberate killings of Israelis. In support of their offers, the Israelis have frequently stopped killing Palestinian Arabs for long periods of time even while the Palestinian Arab continued to kill Israelis.

This problem is due principally to the belief by the Palestinian Arabs that they have an inherent right to rule all of Palestine, while the Israelis believe they have a legal right to rule a specific part of Palestine.

The belief by the Palestinian Arabs that they have an inherent right to rule all of Palestine is itself based on their belief that Muhammed, the founder and prophet of their religion, declared after conquering all Palestine in the 7th Century that they have an inherent right to rule all of Palestine.

Furthermore, based on their religion, they believe that when an inherent right based on their religion is threatened rebuffed or rejected by non-believers of their religion, they are obligated by their religion to kill/slay those non-believers whereever they find them.

emphasis added

Quote:

EXCERPTS FROM THE KORAN

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/ot2www-koran?specfile=%2Flv2%2Fenglish%2Frelig%2Fkoran%2Fwww%2Fkoran.o2w&query=wherever+you+find+them&docs=text&sample=1-100&grouping=work

Chapter 4: The Women : 4.89: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

Chapter 4: The Women : 4.91: You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority.

Chapter 2: The Cow : 2.191: And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

Chapter 9: The Immunity : 9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

The solution for the Palestinian Arabs is obvious. Kill as many Israelis as they can, wherever they find them.

The belief by the Israelis that they have a legal right to rule a specific part of Palestine is based on the fact that the previous rulers of Palestine, the British, delegated to the UN the authority to decide how and who was to subsequently rule Palestine. The UN, acting according to that delegation of authority by the British, passed their 1947 resolution to divide Palestine into an Arab State and an Israeli State.

The solution for the Israelies is also obvious. For every Israeli the Palestinian Arabs kill, the Israelis in their own self-defense must kill multiple Palestinian Arabs.

I recommend that for every Israeli the Palestinian Arabs kill, the Israelis in their own self-defense and long term survival must kill at least a thousand Palestinian Arabs.

In brief, The most effective way for Palestinian Arabs to regain their individual property, is to stop killing Israelis and stop supporting the killing of Israelis.

The Israelis did in fact, more than once, make that specific offer to the Palestinian Arabs, if they were to stop killing Israelis. The Palestinian Arab leaders rejected that offer.

Unless you and yours have experienced the daily threat of being killed by those who think they have been authorized by their god to kill you, your criticisms of the reactions of people, who are experiencing that daily threat, are shallow and without merit as long as those criticisms are unaccompanied by realistic recommendations for what you think their reactions should be.

AMENDMENT

dekonk= deliberate killers of non-killers

sodekonk = supporters of deliberate killers of non-killers

It is the human life of dekonk that means nothing to me. It is the life of those who were victimes of dekonk and is threatened by dekonk, that means everything to me.

It is the human life of persistent sodekonk that means little to me. It is the life of those who are or become resisters of dekonk that means a great deal to me.


By the way, the acronyms dekonk and sodekonk are used by me to not only save typing. I use these acronyms to convey my contempt for the people these acronyms accurately label.

By the way, the acronyms dekonk and sodekonk are used by me to not only save typing. I use these acronyms to convey my contempt for the people these acronyms accurately label.

ican wrote:

By the way, the acronyms dekonk and sodekonk are used by me to not only save typing. I use these acronyms to convey my contempt for the people these acronyms accurately label.

Very childish.

Ican, the Old Testament is filled with violence against other nations and against its own people apparently sanctioned by God. However, it is clear that in this day and time we don't still do those things.

Not all Muslims who believe in the Koran go around killing non believers so you cannot drag out those verses as a justification for saying that since the Koran says that it is just to kill any and all Muslims.

There are extremist in every religion or group just as there are reasonable moderates in every religion or group. Fighting extremist violence and hate with our own violence in hate only continues the cycle. Sooner or later if we (everybody on all sides) truly want peace, everyone is going to have to get to the heart of the grievances and compromise.

Why bring up the Koran verses if you don't believe that just because someone is a Muslim and follows the Koran that they are out to kill all non believers?

...

Quote:

New Survey: Iraqis Want a Speedy U.S. Exit -- and Back Attacks on Our Forces

By E&P Staff

Published: November 21, 2006 10:20 AM ET

NEW YORK Past surveys have hinted at this result, but a new poll in Iraq makes it more stark than ever: the Iraqi people want the U.S. to exit their country. And most Iraqis now approve of attacks on U.S. forces, even though 94% express disapproval of al-Qaeda.

Quote:

94% [of Iraqis] express disapproval of al-Qaeda

At one time, this was primarily a call by the Sunni minority, but now the Shiites have also come around to this view. The survey by much-respected World Public Opinion (WPO), taken in September, found that 74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis in Iraq want us to leave within a year. The number of Shiites making this call in Baghdad, where the U.S. may send more troops to bring order, is even higher (80%). In contrast, earlier this year, 57% of this same group backed an "open-ended" U.S. stay.

Did the poll question ask: Do you favor the US pulling out of Iraq in less than a year regardless of whether the Iraq government has demonstrated within that time period that it is capable of protecting the security of Iraqis?

By a wide margin, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they're preventing -- and that day-to-day security would improve if we left.

...

Ican says we should kill anyone who supports the terrorist. So I guess he's in favor of killing 60% of the Iraqi population. Ican has a name for them; sodekonk.

revel wrote:

Why bring up the Koran verses if you don't believe that just because someone is a Muslim and follows the Koran that they are out to kill all non believers?

Some Muslims don't follow those particular Koran verses and some do.

There is a preponderance of evidence to support the allegation that almost all Muslim Palestinian Arabs do follow those particular Koran verses. In otherwords, almost all Musllim Palestinian Arabs are either dekonks (i.e., deliberate killers of non-killers) or sodekonks (i.e., supporters of deliberate killers of non-killers). Both the dekonks and the sodekonks act in compliance with the four excerpts from the Koran that I previously posted.

Did the poll question ask: Do you favor the US pulling out of Iraq in less than a year regardless of whether the Iraq government has demonstrated within that time period that it is capable of protecting the security of Iraqis?

Clarence Page

Americans running out of appealing options on Iraq

Published November 23, 2006

WASHINGTON -- What next for Iraq? The cover of the latest New Republic, a liberal-leaning magazine that went totally neo-conservative in the run-up to the Iraq war, makes one's head spin with its menu of contradictory opinions by leading experts:

David Rieff: "Bring the troops home"

Robert Kagan: "Send more troops"

Peter W. Galbraith: "Divide Iraq"

Reza Aslan: "Keep it whole"

Larry Diamond: "Deal with the Sunnis"

James Kurth: "Crush the Sunnis"

Josef Joffe: "Ally with the Sunnis"

Peter Beinart: "Threaten to leave"

George Packer: "Save whomever we can"

Niall Ferguson: "Bribe the insurgents"

Michael Walzer: "Talk, talk, talk"

Leon Wieseltier: "Try anything"

What a mess this war is.

The Democratic victories in the midterm election tell us that American voters lean toward Wieseltier's "Try anything" option. Yet, polls also show that Americans are not united in leaving Iraq yesterday. If The New Republic's experts agree on anything, it is the lack of great options regarding Iraq. "In the end, this struggle will be over the difference between a largely intolerable outcome and a completely intolerable one," the magazine declares in a contrite editorial. In other words, how can America turn Iraq over to the Iraqis with the least amount of carnage and chaos as we make our way out?

True-blue neo-cons like Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, Michael Rubin, William Kristol and the above-mentioned Kagan ("Send more troops") blame the White House for botching (too few troops, etc., etc.) their grand plans for a Mideast makeover.

But finger-pointing pales in the shadow of the larger, more urgent question: Where do we go from here?

Even former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, recently a backstage adviser to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, calls the Iraq war unwinnable if winning means what Bush wants: a stable Iraqi government capable of maintaining order throughout the country.

The Pentagon is entertaining three big options: "Go big, go long and go home," according to the Washington Post's senior Pentagon correspondent Thomas E. Ricks, author of the best-seller "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq." A secret Pentagon study commissioned by Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has come up with three options, Ricks reports:

- Put more troops into Iraq

- Stay longer with a reduced force

- Completely pull out.

Neither "go big" nor "go long" sounds appealing when Democrats and an apparently growing number of Americans are pushing for a "phased withdrawal." Yet, "go home" raises the question of "when?"

Contrary to a widespread belief, our war efforts are not being wasted. Reports on the ground indicate America's forces are the main reason that law, order and rebuilding in Iraq are functioning at all. So far, the new Iraqi regime has been too slow, corrupt or bitterly divided to take control of its own country.

Well, when all else fails, try diplomacy. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that Iraq should convene a regional conference that includes Syria and Iran. A similar suggestion is expected to come soon from a blue-ribbon bipartisan advisory panel led by Bush family friend and former Secretary of State James Baker III, a Republican, and former U.S. Rep. Lee Hamilton, a Democrat.

The U.S. does not currently have diplomatic relations with Syria or Iran, but that could change. For all the deadly mischief that Iran and Syria stir up in the region, their leaders still respect the regime-toppling force of America's military. We should be able to work out a regional deal, as the great dealmaker Baker and incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates have suggested.

Obama also repeated his earlier call for the U.S. to stop "coddling" the Iraqi government and begin a reduction of troops in the next four to six months. In the meantime, we can only hope that Iraqis will work out the differences between their warring factions.

Obama has once again carved out a political middle ground that has helped his rock-star popularity.

Americans appreciate the neo-conservative dream of spreading democracy through the Middle East, but the Iraq disaster offers us a painful lesson on the limits of our grasp.