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

So how many of the 300,000,000 people of the U.S. belong to the 926 hate organizations in the United states? Is it a majority or a minority?

It's a majority that allows these degenerates free reign to spread their hatred, to spread malicious lies, to incite people to violence against minority groups.

Without this majority support, they wouldn't flourish like they do, 66 in TX, 88 in CA, 56 in FL, 37 in PA, ...

JTT FANTASY
[quote"JTT"]It's a majority that allows these degenerates free reign to spread their hatred, to spread malicious lies, to incite people to violence against minority groups.

Without this majority support, they wouldn't flourish like they do, 66 in TX, 88 in CA, 56 in FL, 37 in PA, ... [/quote]

"Officially" the U.S. in inclusive. However, historically there have been European countries and Middle Eastern countries that have been comfortable to officially be exclusive. I believe there are remnants of that in the popular culture in some European countries so that the term "outsider" is not considered politically incorrect in polite conversation. However, in polite conversation the term "outsider" is politically incorrect in the U.S.

I am aware that there are some people that might like to revert U.S. society back to the early nineteenth century demographic. However, the mainstream society is going in the direction of diversity.

The above is my opinion, based on my observations. If one does not agree with me, so be it.

Being Jewish myself, I would not vote for a Jewish president of the U.S., since being a realist, I believe that there is more than enough anti-Semitism in the popular culture without having a Jewish president blamed for that which did not go well under his/her presidency. I am quite content to have the historical paradigm of WASP U.S. presidents; however, I believe that for purposes of showing the world how egalitarian the U.S. society is, the U.S. could have a string of non-WASP presidents?

In effect, in a world that finds anti-Semitism an intractable mental condition, yes, a Jew might just not be "good enough," as you ask above, to be the president, if one is looking for the most effective president, as opposed to making the presidency a virtual "musical chairs" for each ethnicity, race, religion in the U.S.

Untill they do something illegal they have the right to believe what they want. My point was that out of 300 million citizens you are talking 10,000 to mabey 1,ooo,ooo who belong to these organizations. I dont have to support or finance them.

So much for this warm and fuzzy inclusiveness.

Anti-Semitism within the popular culture does not negate the U.S. society being inclusive. Anti-Semitism just means that the popular belief among many is that Jews are "INHERENTLY" different, so a Jewish child raised by Gentile parents would still "turn out Jewish" in some traits (as an example of what I mean). But, the society is inclusive, since today Jews get to attend many colleges they could not attend in the first half of the twentieth century, and can be seen in livelihoods that were closed to them during an earlier era.

"Inclusive" does not mean that Jews must have a certain percentage of CEO's in every industry (for example). Since Jews were not part of the building of certain industries, I would not expect them to be represented to a great degree in those industries. Since they did risk their capital to start the movie industry, I would guess a few Jews might be found in Hollywood.

Whereas, in Europe, Jews are routinely put in stockades and pelted with rotten tomatoes and eggs. I see what you mean now, Foofie.

I believe your point above is a non-sequitor to what I was saying; nor do I understand any point you might be alluding to. I think it is time for me to face my American flag and Pledge Allegiance to it.

But, you should remember that only 65 years ago many (and I mean MANY) where glad to see Jewish towns and villages wiped off the map, not to mention the elimination of a culture and people that existed there for over a thousand years, while there is no history in the U.S. of such venomous feelings. Perhaps, Europe is too small for diverse cultures? So, then the U.S. being as large as it is (to allow diverse cultures to exist) might have truly been blessed by God?

Most certainly. When God created the world, it was one of his major plans and aims to send some Europeans at a certain time to the American continent, to elect out of them some specialists to settle in North America and out of them again some consecrated to God who founded the USA.
Dei gratia, sacrae USA majestatis.

Hamas is dead set on kidnapping Israeli soldiers. That is the problem with giving huge payments to kidnappers (e.g., hundreds of prisoners in return for Shalit). Also, Hamas is threatening a much wider war in the future.


Hamas leader warns of new war with Israel involving entire region

12 February 2010

The exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal has warned that if a new war broke out with Israel it would not be limited to the Gaza Strip but involve the wider Middle East. In an interview with the Arab newspaper ‘al-Hayat’, which is based in London, he said Hamas was not interested in war and bloodshed, but if a war was waged against it, Hamas would stand strong.

Mashaal accused Israel of killing the Hamas operative Mahmoud Mabhouh in Dubai last month. He rejected reports that Hamas was blaming Arab states for the death and claimed that the Mossad was solely responsible for the assassination. Meshaal gave the interview in Moscow, where earlier this week he met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Meanwhile, there were media reports on Friday that IDF troops had been warned to stay on high alert amid Hamas plans to abduct Israeli soldiers. The security service Shin Bet arrested a prominent Hamas activist in Gaza, who infiltrated Israel with the intention to abduct an Israeli soldier, murder him, and negotiate over the body.

This was not an isolated incident, an unnamed Israeli defense official told the ‘Haaretz’ newspaper: "The attempt along the Egyptian border to attack and abduct, which was foiled in December, was not a one-time procedure. The terrorist organization won't hesitate at any chance to grab another bargaining chip against Israel."

-- World Jewish Congress

Mere diplomacy will not end the Arab rejection of Israel's existence.


Peace vs. the 'peace process'
by Jeff Jacoby; The Boston Globe, October 14, 2009

"WHOM THE GODS WOULD DESTROY," the late Irving Kristol once observed, "they first tempt to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict." Maybe "destroy" was putting it a bit strongly, but there is no denying that American presidents seem irresistibly drawn to the belief that they can succeed where others have failed and conjure a lasting peace between Israel and its Arab enemies. This diplomacy has gone by various names -- Oslo, the Roadmap, Camp David, and so on -- but time and again it has led not to the end of the conflict but to its intensification.

In his memoirs, former President Bill Clinton describes Yasser Arafat's refusal to accept the extraordinarily generous terms for a permanent settlement offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000. That refusal led to a Palestinian terror war, the bloody Second Intifada, and when Arafat called Clinton in January 2001 to tell him what a great man he was, Clinton was bitter. "I am not a great man," he told Arafat. "I am a failure, and you have made me one."

Of course, if Clinton was a failure so were the two George Bushes. Each made it his goal to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, each convened a grand international conference for that purpose (Bush 41 in Madrid, Bush 43 in Annapolis), and each left the situation worse than he had found it.

In his first nine months as president, Barack Obama has shown every sign of succumbing to the same temptation. Two days after moving in to the White House, he named George Mitchell, the former Senate majority leader, his special envoy to the region. He pressured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into endorsing a "two-state solution." He declared that "the moment is now for us to act" to achieve peace in the Middle East.

Unlike his recent predecessors, Obama has gone out of his way to signal a distinct coolness toward Israel and its interests. At a White House meeting with the leaders of American Jewish organizations in July, he suggested that because there had been "no daylight" between Israel and the United States when George W. Bush was president, there had been "no progress" toward peace.

In fact, there had often been "daylight" between Washington and Jerusalem during the Bush years. There had been plenty of movement too, from the adoption of the Roadmap to the Israeli "disengagement" from Gaza to the final-status negotiations that followed the Annapolis conference.

Still: Obama was right when he said there had been no progress toward Arab-Israeli peace under Bush. Nor had there been any under Clinton. Nor, as things stand now, will there be any under Obama. Why? Because the "peace process" to which all of them, their sharp differences notwithstanding, have been so committed is not a formula for ending the decades-long war in the Holy Land, but for prolonging it.

In an important article in the current Middle East Quarterly, Daniel Pipes reviews the terrible failure of the 1993 Oslo accords, and homes in on the root fallacy of the diplomatic approach it embodied: the belief that the Arab-Israeli war can "be concluded through goodwill, conciliation, mediation, flexibility, restraint, generosity, and compromise, topped off with signatures on official documents." For 16 years, Israeli governments, prodded by Washington, have sought to quench Palestinian hostility with concessions and gestures of goodwill. Yet peace today is more elusive than ever.

"Wars end not through goodwill but through victory," Pipes writes, defining victory as one side compelling the other to give up its war goals. Since 1948, the Arabs' goal has been the elimination of Israel; the Israelis', to win their neighbors' acceptance of a Jewish state in the Middle East. "If the conflict is to end, one side must lose and one side win," argues Pipes. "Either there will be no more Zionist state or it will be accepted by its neighbors."

Diplomacy cannot settle the Arab-Israeli conflict until the Palestinians abandon their anti-Israel rejectionism. US policy should be focused, therefore, on getting them to abandon it. The Palestinians must be put "on notice that benefits will flow to them only after they prove their acceptance of Israel. Until then -- no diplomacy, no discussion of final status, no recognition as a state, and certainly no financial aid or weapons."

So long as American and Israeli leaders remain committed to a fruitless Arab-Israeli "peace process," Arab-Israeli peace will remain unachievable. Let the newest Nobel peace laureate grasp and act upon that insight, and he may do more to genuinely hasten the conflict's end than any of his well-meaning predecessors.

The Israeli Jews have peacefully accepted the Israeli Arabs.

The Palestinian Arabs will never accept the Israeli Jews.

Therefore the only solution available for the Israeli Jews is for them to flee Palestine or conquer the Palesrinian Arabs.

Therefore the only solution available for the Palestinian Arabs is for them to flee Palestine or conquer the Israeli Jews.

The UK and Ireland call in Israeli ambassadors over murder in Yemen. Since any country would have done the same as Israel apparently did, I wager it was done with a wink and a nod.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jp2_MMlBbhXzP4kXVKT0XiMO53_g

I always said that you have to watch out for the Irish.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0223/dubai.html

The fanatics are in charge: peace-loving Muslims are afraid to speak out.

Why the Peaceful Majority is Irrelevant
by Paul E. Marek, March 18, 2007, Arutz Sheva " IsraelNationalNews.com

History lessons are often incredibly simple. I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.

"Very few people were true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" is the "silent majority," and it is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians"most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Digging out and reposting old opinions now?
(Paul E. Marek, by the way, is a second-generation Canadian. He wrote ithat blog article in February of 2006.)

Walter, truth must be repeated often until it is learned and relearned, and not forgotten.

It is good to see you doing some research. Marek writes the truth, of which people should be reminded. The story of the Nazis, and the German people who fell in line with them, is very relevant.