Yesterday IDF forces murdered 3 hostages who were shirtless with hands up (so obviously unarmed) waiving white flags and begging for help in Hebrew. 2 shot to death immediately, the third shot to death after cease fire was called by the commander.
This is conclusive evidence that the IDF is targeting any living person including surrendering unarmed civilians, not Hamas. In fact, over half the 30000 bombs they have dropped are dumb bombs, and the smart bombs target hospitals, refugee camps, and caravans of refugees (anywhere civilians can be found in groups) 100% intentionally.

The world needs to wake up and eliminate expansionist Israel and the terrorist Zionists, every single one is a fascist murderer just like the Nazis and they deserve the same treatment.

Sadly, a huge percentage of the terroristic murderous “settlers” are American Jews, so don’t let anyone claim America isn’t to blame here, we not only cause the conflict, we fund it and arm the murderous side.

We deserve any blowback we get, no matter how big.

Monkey Island games were always wacky and difficult puzzles simply because it required you to think of objects in such ways as to break the fourth wall of the game itself. Guybrush and his infinite pocket space.

Also note, these are good games despite their frustrating bits. There were far more frustrations prior to the days where you are given dialog choices, when you were required to type in all of the dialog options using key words. Cough, cough, older Tex Murphy games and just about every text adventure from the dawn of home computers.

I loved those games, but many of them turned into puzzles that maybe one person in the family finally figured out after brute force trying thousands of combinations of objects with each other. I did that multiple times in the original Myst. I think there was one passcode that took close to 10,000 attempts. LOL!

Or how about games that had dead ends but didn't alert the player? Cough, cough Maniac Mansion. People could die, but as long as one person was left alive, the game never ended, even though only the bad endings are left. But it's not like modern games, some of the bad endings were themselves puzzles, and some deaths lead to a half good and half bad ending, like winning a lottery and then having a character abandon the plot altogether because he/she is rich and then THE END.

Those were the days. None of this FNAF shit -- which is really what deserves the infamy of terrible, convoluted puzzles...

Before video games became as massively popular as they are today, it wasn't always a requirement to make your game easily solved and you were not always provided with prompts for failure or success until many grueling hours, days, months, sometimes YEARS of random attempts. How many families bought a Rubik's Cube versus how many people solved it without cheating and learning the algorithms from another source?

Go back hundreds or thousands of years and it wasn't common for chess or go or xiangqi (the most popular game in the entire world TODAY) to come with rules at all, so only regions where national ruling boards were created will there be standardized rules; so, the truth, rules, patterns, and solves of games have traditionally been obfuscated and considered lifelong intellectual pursuits; and, it's only a recent, corporatized reimagining of games that has the requirement of providing your functional requirements and/or game rulings so as to maintain the value of its intellectual property. I mean, look at how Risk has evolved since the 1960s -- now there's a card that you can draw called a "Cease Fire" card which ends the game, making games much shorter and not epic at all. Easy to market, but old school players want the long stand offs -- I mean, if you're going to play Risk... TO THE BITTER END!

I realize everyone is foaming at the mouth and positive of what happened here, but it should be noted that Israel denies hitting the hospital, and that the United Nations had not confirmed the source of the blasts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/world/middleeast/despite-talk-of-a-cease-fire-no-lull-in-gaza-fighting.html?_r=0

Everyone wants to paint Israel like this giant monster, but things are being way overstated. Let's get serious. If Israel was embarking on a program of "ethnic cleansing" they could easily kill every last person in Gaza. Seems clear enough to anyone that this is not what they're trying to do.

If Hamas was in Mexico shooting rockets at Texas half the people shouting genocide at Israel would be wearing little yellow ribbons hoping our soldiers all come back safe from our Mexican invasion.

I have a hard time imagining, or believing, that anyone purposely bombed a hospital full of children. But I can easily believe accidents of all kinds will happen in a battleground the size of Detroit.

The Palestinian boy was burned alive:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/05/palestinian-boy-mohammed-abu-khdeir-burned-alive

Israel has Gaza under siege, what are they suppose to do, role over and die?

The cease fire agreement is just ploy. Israel and Egyptian government are both unfriendly to Palestine. Would you agree to sign a contract written by your enemies without any representation from your side.

At the point that Israeli soldier was killed the ground invasion had already began, what would anyone except?

Can you name any other conflict in which they count the number of ammunition fired by one side? If you can't, its because conflicts are never reported that way. It is a talking point from Netanyahu's propaganda scripts and you shouldn't trust a source that just reads propaganda.

I know a lot more has been going on, but this is how I see it. 3 Israeli teens were taken hostage and then killed by Hamas.....1 Palestinian teen throwing gas bombs at police was arrested and beaten by the Israeli police.....Hamas launches hundreds of rockets at Israel costing Israel millions of dollars to shoot down. Egypt asks for a cease fire and Israel agrees...Hamas launches another rocket that kills an Israeli soldier....Israel starts launching there own guided missiles at suspected Hamas rocket locations.....killing 100's of Palestinians......This is how wars are started....the rest of the world is just the same.....we all are! Hamas stared it and if the Palestinians want Israel to stop maybe they should kick Hamas out....

What BS There are 2 sides fighting and only 1 being put on the spot during this interview.

Hamas heard the Cease fire and chose to ignore it at their own peril.

And Israel is fighting terrorist. I say kill them all, women and children. If you just pick and choose then you end up like America wars since Vietnam, losing wars.

Off the start, there's a good chance I'm older than you .

My real problem isn't the moral relativism angle. It is the mindset of holding America to a higher standard not only when placing expectations on it, but when analyzing a situation and the expected results. The situation with the recent chemical weapons attack isn't at all special. War crimes are almost always committed within the fog of war. The trouble I have is people that are completely willing to accepted circumstantial evidence or even simply motive for accusations against America or an ally, but if it's the other side suddenly the burden of proof becomes much, much higher. List a heading that American forces were involved in a massacre of dozens in Iraq or Afghanistan and people just say yep, must be true. List the same heading that Assad has done the same and the response is show us the proof! That attitude and mindset is what I mean to oppose.

You asked who is 'more' evil, or which actions are more evil. Arming and training Syrian rebels, or Assad waging his campaign against them. Assad rules Syria because his father ruled Syria. His father held onto his control by massacring an entire town when the brotherhood spoke up. In the current conflict, the uprising started up as peaceful protests. Assad broke that peace by shooting the protesters when it became clear they weren't stopping.

When it comes to concern for international law, I don't understand if you've been paying attention to it for the last couple decades. When push comes to shove, NOBODY cares about international laws. Well, at least nobody making decisions on the international playing field. International laws did a great job protecting people in Darfur. International laws did a great job protecting Rwandans. International laws did a great job in Chechnya, Serbia, Somalia and on and on and on. Russia, China and Iran will respond to the situation in Syria based on the perceived benefit to them, just the same as America, Israel and everyone else, and not a one of them will waste a thought for international law at the end of the day. The only thing they will consider is what impact they expect their actions to have and they will choose the one they perceive to have the greatest benefit to them. Syria is long on it's way into a quagmire, and not a place of great value to Russia or China for long if the status quo continues. That is why you see their rhetoric softening, because they just have less to gain by maintaining their relationship with a regime that holds less and less control over it's resources.

What I would like to see if I got to play quarterback is the imposition of a no fly zone over regions of Syria, much like in Libya and northern Iraq after the first Gulf war. That alone could force enough of a line where neither Assad nor the rebels could hope to make serious in grounds upon each other. You might even persuade people to talk then but the 'cease fire', even then, would make the Israel/Palestine borders look pristine. I don't see Obama or Putin being dumb enough to each put their own boots on the ground to start anything over Syria. Neither one of them has reason to care enough. Putin, through Iran has strategic access to all of Iran and most of Iraq as it is, and solidifying relationships through Iraq is more than enough to keep Iran occupied.

i guess in the end I do not choose the non-intervention route because if you allow dictators to use chemical weapons to hold onto power, what exactly IS worth intervening for? During the Darfur genocide all the same arguments kept everyone out because you don't want to worsen a civil war. In Rwanda, same story. In Iraq it took 3 campaigns of murdering 100s of thousands before anyone finally took sides against Saddam, and even then his removal is held up as on of the worst violations of international laws and norms ever. It'd be nice for a change to at least find someone that figures starting the Iran-Iraq war and the Al-Anfal campaign against the Kurds where even worse. Far more people died, and the sole end game of them was to enhance the prestige and power of a mad man.

ok.
i am reading your response.
and trying to follow your logic..
it is..confusing.
i do not mean that in a critical way.it literally is confusing.

so let me understand this.
you think that because people pointing out the hypocrisy on american foreign policy somehow translates to a moral relativism in regards to assad?
that one is more evil than the other?
and to point to one means to ignore the other?

ok.
which one is MORE evil:
1.the assad regime which has been brutal on its own citizens.beheadings,executions in the street.the people are in a constant state of fear.
this is a common tactic for brutal dictators.fear and intimidation and when then start getting out of control? killings and maimings.of the public kind.
assad has been on the human rights watch for decades.
he is a monster.
or.
2.america and britain have been sending weapons and training a weak rebel force (for the past few years btw).after the outbreak of violence of the arab spring and assads decending hammer of escalating violence the rebels find their ranks being filled by alqeada,muslim brotherhood and other radical muslim factions.
which has the culminative effect of not only creating the civil war but prolonging it.
death tolls of innocents rising.
displaced syrians in the millions.

which of these two are "more" evil?
both caused death.
both caused suffering.
or do you think training and arming rebel factions which only serves to prolong the conflict less evil?

while evil is an arbitrary and subjective word the answer is BOTH are evil.
on a basic and human level BOTH bear responsibility.

let us continue.

now america has had a non-interventionism policy so far.just supplying training and weapons and prolonging the civil war and henceforth:the violence,death,maiming and suffering.

then two things quietly happened.
syria russia and china (iran as well) began talks to drop the petrodollar AND assad refusing a natural gas pipeline through syria (probably in order to not piss off russia).

when you realize that americas currency is almost solely propped up by the petrodollar,the current white house rhetoric starts to make more sense.

this is why evidence on who is responsible for the chemical attacks is important because the united states government used THAT as its reason for NOT entering the conflict (even though it already was involved,but not directly).the united states didnt want to get directly involved.
until the pipeline and petrodollar talks started to surface.

and then as if by magic.
a chemical attack is executed.
now assads army was winning,on all fronts.
why would he risk international intervention if he was winning?
now i am not saying that dictators and tyrants dont do dumb things,but that is dumb on an epic level.
doesnt make sense.
doesnt add up.

so the whole drumbeats for war now.
which were non-existent a month ago...
are all about "humanitarian" and "human rights" and a new "axis of evil".

bullshit.plain and simple.

this is about oil.
about the petrodollar.
this is about big business.

bryzenscki called this 20 yrs ago in his book "the grand chessboard"

and that is my counter argument.
and by your last post on my page i think you agree in some fashion.

now,
let us discuss your "final solution".
oh my friend.you accused so many of being naive.
reading your conclusion i can only shake my head.
not that i dont appreciate your time or that i dont see maybe why you feel that way.
i just dont think you grasp the enormity of it and have listened to one too many of the uber-rights "paper tiger" argument.

if we choose the path you think is the best to put assad on his heels.
america launches a limited strike on assad forces.
and lets say those strategic targets are 100% incapacitated (unlikely,but this is hypothetical).
what then?
have you considered what the reaction of russia,china,iran,saudi arabia, might be?
because according to international LAW,without a united nations concensus.russia and china AND iran would have the right to step in,set up shop and tell you to go fuck yourself.they would dare you to cross that line.
and what then?
do you cross it? and under what grounds?
you have (and when i say YOU i mean america) already disregarded every single policy put forth in regards to international law.the irony is the you (america) were vital in the creation of those very laws.(we rocked that WW2 shit son).

so pop quiz jack.what do you do?
do you really think you can ignore russia and china?ignore the international community?
do you really think the american government gives two shits about people dying in another country?
(checks long list of historical precedent)
not..one..bit.

here are the simple facts.
YOU are a compassionate human being who is outraged over the suffering and execution of innocent people.
YOU.
and i and pretty much everybody with a soul and a heart.
but YOUR argument is coming from that outrage.and man do i wish i was your age again.
god i admire you for this alone.
but the simple,hard and ugly fact is:
this country is about its own business of empire.
they could not give a fuck who is dying or being oppressed,tortured or enslaved.
i will be happy to provide the links but please dont ask...i dont wish to see your heart break anymore than it already has.
you and i live under the banner of an empire.this is fact.
this empire only cares about its own interests.

so let us talk about the very thing that is the emotional heart of the matter shall we?
the syrian people.
how do we alleviate their suffering?
how do we quell the tidal wave of dying?

a limited strike on strategic targets would help the innocents how exactly?
by bombing them?this is your logic?
or is "collateral damage" acceptable? and if so..how much?
do you realize that there are no actual 'strategic targets".assads troops are embedded just as much as the rebels are.
so..where do you hit for maximum effect?
and how many innocent deaths are acceptable?
and if the goal is to weaken assads forces,to level the playing field,wouldnt this translate to an even MORE prolonged conflict?
and wouldnt that equal even MORE innocent people dying?

this scenario is WITHOUT russia,china or iran intervening!

you are killing more and more people that i thought you wanted to save!
what are you doing man? are you crazy!

so i ask you.
what are your goals?
is it revenge?
is it regime change?
do you wish to punish assad?

then assasination is your only true option that will get the results you want and save innocent lives.

in my opinion anyways.

this is why i choose the non-intervention or the negotiation route.
yes..there will still be violence but only to a point.
when negotiations begin there is always a cease fire.
in that single move we stopped the violence.
this will also have the effect of bringing other international players to the table and much needed food,supplies and medical for the syrian people.

all kinds of goodies for the syrian people who are in such desperate need of help.
wanna go with me? ill volunteer with ya!

so which path is better for the syrian people?
a limited strike which at the very least will prolong this vicious civil war.
or negotiations which will bring a cease fire,food,water,medical help,blankets,clothes and smiles and hugs for everyone!

are ya starting to get the picture?

i have lived on three continents.
met and lived with so many interesting and amazing people.
learned about so much and was graced and touched in ways that are still incredible for me to explain.
and you have got to be the most stubborn mule i have ever met...ever.

but kid.you got some serious heart.
so you stay awesome.
namaste.

*edit-it appears assad may be the culprit.syria just accepted russias offer to impound the chemical weapons.so we know they have them.lets see what the US does.
i still think you are going to get your wish for military action.so dont be getting all depressed on me now.

I think we need to get detailed. Israel captured and occupied the Golan Heights in the 1967 war in which they "pre-emptively" struck Egypt decimating their air force and in turn Syria and their Arab allies declared war on Israel for this aggression.

"As Israel's neighbors prepared to destroy the Jewish state, Israel invoked its inherent right of self-defense, launching a preemptive strike (5 June 1967) against Egypt in the South, followed by a counterattack against Jordan in the East and the routing of Syrian forces entrenched on the Golan Heights in the North.

At the end of six days of fighting, previous cease-fire lines were replaced by new ones, with Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Sinai peninsula, and the Golan Heights under Israel's control."

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/History/pages/HISTORY-%20The%20State%20of%20Israel.aspx

Facts matter.

>> ^AeroMechanical:

I believe their rifles fire three shots with each pull of the trigger, so being shot three times doesn't necessarily mean anything.
>> ^marbles:
Army medical examiners concluded Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away. Friendly fire? Yeah, right.



It doesn't? It makes it hard to sell the lie that it was an Al-Qaeda ambush.

New documents shed light on Tillman’s death:
“The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
...
Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman’s death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn’t recall details of his actions.

No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.
...
It has been widely reported by the AP and others that Spc. Bryan O’Neal, who was at Tillman’s side as he was killed, told investigators that Tillman was waving his arms shouting “Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat (expletive) Tillman, damn it!” again and again.

So here's my take on this whole thing. Basically, Obama is being shortsighted.

During the primary in 2008, Democrats had a choice between a hard-nosed centrist who was an experienced inside the beltway deal maker, and a passionate, idealistic newcomer who had little patience for the kinds of backroom dealings that tend to dominate our political process.

It's true that in terms of specific platforms, Clinton and Obama were almost indistinguishable. The difference was that Clinton presented that moderate, centrist platform as though it was some utopian dream, whereas Obama presented it as just what was possible now, while painting a picture of what more could be possible if we could change the political landscape by electing such an inspiring visionary.

Long story short, that's what we did.

Thing is, that person who had become the inspiring leader of a renewed progressive movement disappeared November 5th, 2008.

After that day, what we got was a not very hard-nosed centrist who was hoping to quickly become an experienced inside the beltway deal maker. He stopped trying to present his inspiring progressive vision to the American people. Instead, he basically spent all his time saying to liberals "no no, conservatives have a valid point of view." Frankly, that's insane for anyone to think anymore, and completely wrong for the leader of the primary political opposition to conservatism to say out loud, much less say in front of cameras.

He has, ever since he was inaugurated, acted like he doesn't need to reach out to the American people at all. What started as a reasonable strategy of ignoring the uglier, crazier things said about him in the media quickly became a refusal to fight for any news cycle. It seemed he had this naive idea that if he ignored politics, and focused on the mundane aspects of governance, the politics would take care of itself.

The problem with that is that the way you acquire the power to govern is by playing and winning the political game. Winning a term of office isn't the end of your political campaign, it's just another chapter. That's doubly true if you're aiming to do big things. By focusing on the inside the beltway deal making, he's ignoring the bigger picture. If he spent more time trying to rally the public to his cause, and making sure the Democratic positions on issues were being clearly expressed to the public, he'd find that when it came time to negotiate legislation, he'd be starting from a much stronger position.

This tax cut thing seems to be the ultimate culmination of this trend. He's not said one damn thing about it for almost 2 years, until the Republicans made a stink about it in the run up to the election, and rather than reiterate his position from 2008, and make that the clear, unambiguous party line that he'd veto anything but his tax plan, he and the rest of the Democrats kinda just ran away from the issue and hid, and then finally said they'd "address" the issue in the lame duck session after the election.

Democrats have a strong position on this: they still have their large majorities in both chambers of Congress, the majority of the people say they prefer Obama's tax plan, and the best part is that if nothing passes, all the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone, so if the Republican block Obama's tax cut, they'll be doubly responsible for the tax increases. Plus, with all the deficit bullshit we've been hearing, it seems like it'd be worth reminding people that the tax cuts are responsible for most of our debt, and that the more we extend them, the worse the budget picture looks.

But instead of having the fight, Obama just goes ahead and says "I'll do anything to just make sure the taxes on the middle class don't go up, what do you want in exchange for a couple votes?" to the Republicans, and they amazingly extract a huge list of concessions from Obama.

Obama justifies this thusly:

I've said before that I felt that the middle class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high end tax cuts. I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers unless the hostage gets harmed. Then, people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.

Yeah, but you kinda fail to understand that there's a larger picture here. Because you've fucked up the politics of this, no one's going to remember that the Republicans took anyone hostage. Mostly they'll just remember that you said you're not going to renew the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and then did it anyways.

The Republicans will learn (as if they didn't know before), that they can always count on you to cave when hostages are taken.

You know the debt limit needs to be raised in March of 2011, right Obama? You know they're gonna hold that hostage, right? You know unemployment benefits? Those will be held hostage again too, and I guarantee we'll need them in a year. How about just budget resolutions? Remember the government shutdown in the 90's? They wanna do that again.

This is a fucking war. Compromise isn't something that happens at the beginning of these things, it's the cease fire agreement that comes after you've unleashed hell on them and tried to defeat them outright. They are out to destroy you, and the Democratic party at all costs. They don't give a fuck about what's good for the country, or anyone but their cadre of corporate interests. All they care about is getting and retaining power, so they can be rewarded by their masters.

You need to come to grips with that, and quickly, or we're all going to wind up paying for your naivete.

The only option is to leave. Now.

COIN in Afhganistan and "The Surge" in Iraq have been utter failures.

In Iraq, "The Surge" is not why there's been a decrease in the amount of violence. We can start with Muqtada al-Sadr's cease-fire that happened before Petraeus' little surge ever happened. Armed Shiite militias pushed out almost all (unarmed) Sunni's from Baghdad, Patreus built huge blastwalls between ethnically opposing neighborhoods, complete with a maze of checkpoints to keep out "insurgents", and made most markets pedestrian only - to keep car & truck bombs from blowing the fuck out of innocent citizens.

There was no "political reconciliation". Unless that means dividing the citizens, arming the shiite militias, and kicking the Sunni's to the curb.

Baghdad has gone from 50/50 split of Sunni/Shia, to a horrible 15% Sunni.

Over 4 million Iraqis have been displaced. The vast majority have lost ownership of their homes and can never return.

We have 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan to fight 50-100 members of the Taliban. The Pashtuns want US and NATO forces the fuck out of their country right now, and are not afraid of either the Tajiks or the Hazarahs.

We are not, nor have we ever been in that country to end "safe havens" for terrorists. If so, Tora Bora would've been the last day our soldiers were there. Which was in fucking 2001.


Also, remember those "mineral treasures" we recently found (years and years ago) there? Yeah, that's never had anything to do with Bush's invasion mindset.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^acidSpine:
long. Wow it's like the only difference between Hezbollah and America is they take care of their veterans

They are even in large part foreigners to Lebanon like the Americans, being founded pre-dominantly by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and still receiving most of their support through Iran and Syria.
Also, let's not forget the racism. From Hezbollah's own description of itself:
Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is
aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the
expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when
this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace
agreements, whether separate or consolidated.
We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as
enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the
legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the
Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan,
Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the
recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.
Now re-read and remember that the 'Zionist entity' is Hezbollah's name for the entire state of Israel, and all that have any desire to see it continue to exist.


First of all, I don't think seperating the Muslim states into countries is a useful exercise when dealing with this sort of issue, since the existing states were divided up by western conquerers in times past, countries are essentialy an artificial, arbitrary construct. Muslim solidarity reigns supreme. The Jews wouldn't even have had the opportuntity to steal palestinian land had not the English occupied it beforehand.

Secondly, I can't see any racism in the quote you provided (didn't click the link cause you never know these days, could land me in guantanamo, ironic since we're talking about recently stolen land ) All it says is that Israel (zionism solidified) has been "aggressive since it's inception", built on stolen land, they want it back and all treaties drawn up by the US are bullshit and Hezbollah won't accept them. Nothing racist there.

Just an honest question here to anyone really. Why were Jews relocated to Palestine folowing WWII? Surely some existing friendly country could have taken them in. Space is clearly not an issue consideing the dimuntitive scale of the region in question. The only answer I can think of off the top of my head is that there was an express desire to reclaim the "holy land" (what God probably calls the COLOSSEUM!!!!) after 2000 odd years away.

Anyway, if it isn't clear, I'm on the Palesininan side of this debate but I feel free from any accusations of bias since I am neither a Muslim, Jew or Zionist Christian. I'm just male, middle class and white like the song but I think I have a solution if you would just hear me out.

Ok, here goes. control of the middle eastern oil fields is removed from corporate ownership and handed over part and parcel of universal arab soveringnty from western backed dictatorships including the Saudi royal family. Part of the profits from the oil will go to compensate Israeli folk for their relocation to Europe, North America, Australia, anywhere really that could accomodate for Isarelies culturaly. The govenment of Israel will liquidise all assets not essential to the re-establishment of Palestine (ie. everything but their tanks and their bombs and their guns and their bombs, whats in your head, in your head, in your head, zombie, zombie, zombie) leaving the infrastructure entact and using the profits as reparations to Palestine for 40+ years of repression. I think it would be fair that America pays Palestine a salary equal to that of the miltary aid given to Israel during their enduring occupation. Think that sounds unfair, check out the debt 3rd world countries are compelled to pay as a price for their autonomy over their former opressors.

Wow, thats about five times bigger than any other post Iv'e made on the internet ever. I hope someone reads it. Pipe dreams naturally but reality blows, suck it down.

>> ^acidSpine:

long. Wow it's like the only difference between Hezbollah and America is they take care of their veterans


They are even in large part foreigners to Lebanon like the Americans, being founded pre-dominantly by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and still receiving most of their support through Iran and Syria.

Also, let's not forget the racism. From Hezbollah's own description of itself:

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is
aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the
expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when
this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace
agreements, whether separate or consolidated.
We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as
enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the
legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the
Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan,
Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the
recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity.

Now re-read and remember that the 'Zionist entity' is Hezbollah's name for the entire state of Israel, and all that have any desire to see it continue to exist.

Boy - the left wing of the political class sure does think that everyone is incredibly stupid.

Bush had about - and I'm being generous - two days of VERY begrudged relative silence from the Democrat party after 9/11. During the election Bush was assailed relentlessly as a moron/drunk/fratboy. Immediately after the election he was relentlessly assailed as illegitimate because of FloriDUH. The opposition from the Democrat side immediately after his election was staunch, persistent, and rather personal. There were contant calls for his failure, and for knee-jerk resistance and rejection to any and all of his policies. "Tax cuts for the rich" anyone? I - unlike too many people here it would seem - have not forgotten that in 2001 it was the DEMOCRAT party that was the "Party of NO!"

Then 9/11 hit, and for about two days the Democrat party had a reluctant, bitter, and resentful cease-fire. But even then they were clearly chomping at the bit to lite into Bush, and they couldn't help themselves entirely. Even in those dark days there were Democrats and left-wing media pundits saying it was all a Bush conspiracy. And there were constant jibes at Bush for his 'handling'. Whining about him reading to the kids... Insinuations that he was a coward for staying on his airplane... It went on, and I (unlike some of YOU) have not forgotten it.

Then Bush started moving at Iraq and the party of "NO!" came back 100-fold. And since that day the Democrat party resisted everything Bush did, called for his failure, worked to aid and abet our enemies, and generally did everything they could possibly do to cause Bush problems and ensure that Bush 'failed' in the polls.

I - unlike some of YOU - have not forgotten that 99.93151% of the Bush administration's term was 100% pure partisan contrariness. I haven't forgotten that the left wing hoped for, prayed for, called for, and (most importantly) WORKED for Bush failure. It is pure sophistry for some of you to imply that Democrats somehow were hoping Bush succeeded as they were actively torpedoing his administration, and calling it a complete failure every day in the news.

Now - here's the point... I - unlike YOU - am not a hypocrite. I don't have a problem with people wanting Bush to fail. I was no fan of Bush, and I WANTED many of his policied to fail completely. His big spending agendas... He toss-away liberal policies... His terrible management and domestic agenda... His pointless persistence in Iraq... I WANTED them to fail, and I wanted them to END because they were BAD POLICY. There is nothing wrong with wanting a stupid man's BAD policies to fail because they are bad for the country.

And you know what? Obama's plan to socialize America, tax productivity, cap & trade energy, and otherwise turn America into "Euroloserland" is also BAD POLICTY. I want all of Obama's BAD POLICY to fail and fail hardcore. And I will do what I can to aid and assist in the resistance to Obama's bad policies. I will march against Obama like some of you marched against Bush and for the exact same reasons... Because he's a terrible president who is enacting idiotic policies that will cause incredible damage to this great nation for years to come.

You see - I'm not a slave (like some of YOU) to a 'party'. Those of you that mindlessly hew to party politics must dance to the tune of your pied piper. You don't mind selling out your honesty, fairness, and common sense because you have whored them out in the name of partisan fanboism. I - as an intelligent principled person who stands on pure philosophy am not shackled by such limitations. And so for me there is nothing inconsistent in my PRINCIPLE BASED resistance to both Bush's and Obama's bad policies. You - sadly - are party slaves who have no choice but to surrender your integreity when your messiah snaps his fingers. I pity you. But fret not. Those of us with a stiffer spine and more courage will fight the good fight with our without you...