ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your perception is the reverse; the Jews have been taking Palestinian land/property at will. Just look at the map someone provided which shows the trend in land ownership since the early part of the last century. Picture speaks louder than words, but then, it's practically impossible to teach old dogs new tricks.

I thought the Arabs came from Arabia, and now consider all of the Middle East and North Africa, plus Pakistan, parts of China, parts of the Phillipines, and perhaps places I am not aware of, as their God given turf. Sounds like Arabs have a penchant for expansionist thinking?

2 Replies

@Foofie,

"God given?" Show me?

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Go ahead, Foofie, do that brain dead flag routine again,

Do you think you are as cool as the Fonz? Or, cooler?

2 Replies

@Foofie,

Most definitely; especially against somebody like you who fains knowledge.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

Go ahead, Foofie, do that brain dead flag routine again,

Starting to see that it's a pretty idiotic thing to just unthinkingly mouth propaganda, eh, Foofie?

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

Sounds like Arabs have a penchant for expansionist thinking?

That's pretty rich comin' from the land of Manifest Destiny.

2 Replies

@JTT,

"Rich" indeeddy. LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Most definitely; especially against somebody like you who fains knowledge.

"Feigns," not "fains."

Ad-hominems add nothing to your position/arguement, if you have one. I do not comment on you, since my position is subjective, just like yours, and both are based on our own subjective value system. I will not convince you, nor you me. However, what do you get out of making ad-hominem remarks towards me? I would get no benefit of making any ad-hominem remarks towards you.

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:

Go ahead, Foofie, do that brain dead flag routine again,

Starting to see that it's a pretty idiotic thing to just unthinkingly mouth propaganda, eh, Foofie?

No. I do not see what you mean. Educate me please, Your Lordship. <Foofie bows deeply>

0 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Sounds like Arabs have a penchant for expansionist thinking?

That's pretty rich comin' from the land of Manifest Destiny.

Would you mind terribly to just make declarative statements, rather than oblique references that assumes I am on your wavelength?

Your response sounds like repartee, and I do not do/avoid repartee. "Repartee" to me sounds like the dialogue on some sitcoms on the BBC. Too, too!

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Rich" indeeddy. LOL

If the U.S.A. did not have a Manifest Destiny, you would be speaking Spanish in your environs. Not that that would be bad, but look how prosperous Mexico is, as compared to the U.S.A.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

You seem to have missed the whole point; we are not a majority speaking Spanish. One need only go to Central or South America for that!

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

THIS NEEDS REPEATING!

The past failures of the Palestinian Arabs to make the following offer to the Israelis makes the Palestinian Arabs responsible for all the harm the Israelis acting in their own self-defense have caused the Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Arabs can save themselves from future harm by the Israelis by making the following offer :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF
the Israelis agree to return to the Palestinian Arabs all Palestinian land originally recommended by the UN to be governed by the Palestinian Arabs,

THEN
1. the Palestinian Arabs will cease and desist trying to steal Israel;
2. the Palestinian Arabs will convict and incarcerate any and all Palestinian Arabs not living in Israel that are proven to have perpetrated crimes against Israelis, including murder, attempted murder, and other physical harm to the Israelis or to their property.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Palestinian Arabs were to agree to make this offer, then the Israelis would have little choice other than to agree to accept that offer, because America would no longer help the Israelis if the Israelis failed to agree.

Until the Palestinian Arabs make this offer, they are responsible for their own misery.

1 Reply

Since this thread includes reference to Iran who is backing Syria who is backing Hamas and Hezbollah, and the general theme started at as the possible catalyst for WWIII, I think this little blurb probably belongs here. President Obama will have to walk the same tightrope walked by Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 re our Iraeli/Palestinian policy and strained relations with Iran as a result of that and Iran's nuclear program:

Quote:

Iran says Obama's offer to talk shows US failure
Jan 31 08:16 AM US/Eastern

US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday.

"This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency.

"Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.

After nearly three decades of severed ties, Obama said shortly after taking office this month that he is willing to extend a diplomatic hand to Tehran if the Islamic republic is ready to "unclench its fist".

In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.

Iranian politicians frequently refer to the US administration as the "global arrogance", "domineering power" and "Great Satan".

Tensions with the United States have soared over Iran's nuclear drive and Ahmadinejad's vitriolic verbal attacks against Washington's close regional ally Israel.

Former US president George W. Bush refused to hold talks with the Islamic republic -- which he dubbed part of an "axis of evil" -- unless it suspended uranium enrichment, and never took a military option to thwart Tehran's atomic drive off the table.

The new administration of Obama has also refused to rule out any options -- including military strikes -- to stop Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Iran denies any plans to build the bomb and insists its nuclear programme is solely aimed at peaceful ends.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.073ba2ee2f1f00668848a4655420fedc.411&show_article=1

2 Replies

Let's see if I understand the MAL's (i.e., Modern American Liberal's) passion for negotiation with those who seek to steal our lives and property.

We offer them a portion of what they say they want for them to stop trying to steal our lives and property from us.

They say our offer is inadequate.

We offer them more.

...

They say our offer is inadequate.

We offer them more.

...

Eventually, they say that unless you agree to allow us to steal your lives and property, we will steal your lives and property.

Deal ??? ... ??? ... ??? ... ??? ... ??? ... ??? ...

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Wrong conclusion at the onset: the US is not a country of "domination." We have been "dominant" in both economic and military terms, but not in the way that word was used in that article.

Is that your claim?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre--Have you no faith?

I know that Ahadminejad is a fundamentalist Moslem thug.

I know he is taking advantage of the novice president.
********************
In response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a fresh tirade against the United States, demanding an apology for its "crimes" against Iran and saying he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama.
***************
But you forget, there can be no more "cowboy" diplomacy. President Obama is, I am sure, confident that when he meets Ahmadinejad face to face, he can persuade him to "reason together". Bush did not do that and it was just a lucky accident that we weren't hit again.

When President Obama uses his charisma on Ahmadinejad, the Iranian will melt in the face of reason, and the drive for global peace and amity.

You see, Foxfyre, you probably think that the fundamentalist Muslim morons who blow themselves up, cut off heads of captives, beat women on the streets, and execute homosexuals , can't be reasoned with and will stab us in the back as soon as we are not looking, but you would be wrong!!!

President Obama knows which buttons to push..After all, he has had experience on the streets of Chicago where he dealt with vicious murdering dope addicts and gang bangers..Don't you know what a peaceful city Chicago has become?

0 Replies

We need to keep in mind that the monster that is Iran might be the result of our actions.

Years ago, Mossedegh, a socialist, was democratically elected prime minister of Iran. We engineered a coup in which he was deposed and our puppet, the Shah, was installed. The latter largely looted the country and ruled, with the help of his secret police, with an iron hand. Can you imagine the hatred for the USA this engendered. I am surprised that there is not even more hatred directed at us.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

We need to keep in mind that the monster that is Iran might be the result of our actions.

Years ago, Mossedegh, a socialist, was democratically elected prime minister of Iran. We engineered a coup in which he was deposed and our puppet, the Shah, was installed. The latter largely looted the country and ruled, with the help of his secret police, with an iron hand. Can you imagine the hatred for the USA this engendered. I am surprised that there is not even more hatred directed at us.

Actually we were acting on behalf of our allies, the British, who were then involved in a showdown with Mossedegh in negotiations over British Petroleum owned oil fields and refineries in Iran. The Iranians wanted a deal similar to the one we had then recently cut with the Saudis that provided for joint ownership and a 50-50 split of the profits. The British were getting 90% on their interests in Iran and cooking the books as well to hide the profits. The British labor government argued that in order to pay welfare benefits to Englishmen they had to continue exploiting Iranians.

President Truman tried hard to broker a negotiated settlement between Mossedegh and the British, but failed. The then new Eisenhower administration then agreed to take over an existing British intelligence network in Iran and sponsorship of their puppet Shah, in part out of concern for Soviet ambitions in Iran (we had only a few years earlier got the Red Army out of the northern part of the country. There is some evidence that Eisenhower later regretted this action and that may have influenced his actions over the British/French/Israeli invasion of Suez a few years later.

The origins of our problems in Iran as well as those in Palestine and the rest of the Arab world are traceable (at least in part) to 20th century British imperialism.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Actually we were acting on behalf of our allies, the British, who were then involved in a showdown with Mossedegh in negotiations over British Petroleum owned oil fields and refineries in Iran. The Iranians wanted a deal similar to the one we had then recently cut with the Saudis that provided for joint ownership and a 50-50 split of the profits. The British were getting 90% on their interests in Iran and cooking the books as well to hide the profits. The British labor government argued that in order to pay welfare benefits to Englishmen they had to continue exploiting Iranians.

President Truman tried hard to broker a negotiated settlement between Mossedegh and the British, but failed. The then new Eisenhower administration then agreed to take over an existing British intelligence network in Iran and sponsorship of their puppet Shah, in part out of concern for Soviet ambitions in Iran (we had only a few years earlier got the Red Army out of the northern part of the country. There is some evidence that Eisenhower later regretted this action and that may have influenced his actions over the British/French/Israeli invasion of Suez a few years later.

The origins of our problems in Iran as well as those in Palestine and the rest of the Arab world are traceable (at least in part) to 20th century British imperialism.

Well, PM Winston Churchill actually was a Conservative (besides the period in the Liberal Party for a couple of years) and certainly led a Conservative government.

While the British perhaps were primarily interested in getting their oil, the US' interest could be described, in my opinion, as the result about concern of the spread of Soviet influence.
The CIA organized all, got it approved and ... done.

It's quite easy and cheap to downgrade all that to "British imperialism".

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know