It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


For those who dispute Iran's intention to "Wipe Israel off the Map"

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

How isolated would the new network be? Well its a business network, with people in offices using it as terminals and accessing the world wide web. The trade traffic will travel like any other information but banking needs a safe secure network for business that guys who are hungry geniuses living in a basement in Czhecklos I can't even spell it. Its north of the stans, so one of those hungry geniuses does not steal a penny from every account on earth and go unnoticed.

So the data uses heavy encryption at each new hub. So if the bank is in house, and its data is heavily encrypted, thats secure. And if they want more, they can use keys that are passed by courier, and not on the Internet. Key codes or badges or dongs on their key chain or actual memorized passwords or a stamp. A picture of somewhere outside (truly random in all respects and a huge 2 megabyte key) and the data is encrypted using that key, so its as secure probably as the go codes.

But what about corrupting influence of people in bikinis in websites in an Arab country?

Each country has the right to impose laws that the people believe in. Its their country.
You make a website in their country, store it on a server in their country and it would today have to obey the laws of the land. But they let tourists go to the beach in bikinis and they turn a blind eye.

But what if, in house, a person makes a web site and stores it on a server in a different country?
To get around the law. Well are they using it to try to overthrow the lawful government or what?

You see we have free speech as one of the basic principles of our existence in the West.
And so we figure we can cope with almost anything the world has to offer.
Our personal beliefs and philosophy of life gives us the armor we need to view these things and not be corrupted.

You see Socrates died, in support of the state, and the state said that Socrates was corrupting youth, after Socrates said censorship is a good idea. BANG! Shot himself in the foot, the back, the shoulder because now the tables were turned on him.

So, he merely said well I am old man, what is a good way to die? So he chose to die but they did not answer the question.

We are left today struggling with the ideas they left unanswered and censorship is one of those.
So America tries to use propaganda as a tool of the state and disinformation campaigns, so as not to limit free speech. That and having all the power and the money and nuclear weapons. Thats what it takes so even if, you managed to get people to sit in on the grass and demand they give you all the money instead, they are in a position to not be dismayed by that.

So, I am old and wise like Socrates, and I can answer that question for you. If you think that in your country, you need to censor people then please force them to install software on their pc's that censors them.

If you feel you have the right to censor them, then you must also have the right to make them use censorship software that meets with your approval.
Case closed. Debate it at will. The smartest people in the world made the Internet and they discussed this subject for a long time, maybe 10 years after it was made and this is the true solution.

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

Censorship is an unenforceable law and the first rule of government is do not make unenforceable laws.

So then in the case of people visiting, the when in Rome do as the Romans do approach is common decency. But again, people will instead get drunk and trash your hotel rooms. etc.

Humans are like cats in a lot of ways, and if you try to herd them somewhere they don't want to go, then you need like a bull-whip, and a chair at the least.

Software cannot distinguish one picture from another. It can only filter words and PePle will make that useless immediately. We designed such systems as cloud computing systems, believe me we really work all the angles.
We went head to head with Microsoft, and ended up with Firefox, thats a win. We got that because I caught Windows crashing other browsers in browser wars. "This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down." That operation was the question, what browser are you Netscape?

So thats what you are dealing with.

So if you try to restrict file types? They will change the file extension.

So if you personally are concerned with what you view, then you need to censor your web sites.
They have safe web.

There is no fool proof way to do it. We are doing it the modern way. Teach people as best you can, to be strong and to believe in what is right and to not infringe themselves on others. But to coexist, and hope that by coexisting you can respect each others space. But you need to be a bit hardened or desensitized to the things that go on in the world. Well as I say our culture starts us off young in desensitizing us so we will not go into shock if we see something on the Internet.

Freedom is very important to us. And so we continually fight for it. And always will. Maybe because we can.
And the day we cannot, is the day we will no longer accept the society we live in, and we will revolt.
And if we can't revolt, we will wait and hope they die of old age.

So the best thing is to keep it simple. This is the Internet. As it is on the ground as Benjamin would say. lol
And we will just continue to do the best we can to make everyone happy. But one step at a time.
We are not going to solve the world's problems with this new hub system.
We will help business and commerce and that will help the people.

edit on 1-7-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 10:09 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

So after me suggesting that we would use Socrates and Plato as our guide, since we are dealing with Olympians and Titans, right away we come up against a question that killed Socrates and Plato couldn't answer.

So as I say we debated it heavily for 10 years. Those who do not agree are not sane. And we must just tolerate them. We have no choice.

Or work around them which is what everyone does.

And you pushed everyone to the point where they made something that only God can lift. Cloud based systems.
When the people decide they want to do something, no small handful of bureaucrats is going to stop them. No matter what sort of brainwashing or BS you have feeding them for breakfast and in school, and on TV and in every aspect of their life, they are humans, and this is what humans are like on the ground.

In Plato's perfect world of forms things must be different, but this is where we live and we as people are in no wise convinced, that pictures will cause us to be something we are not.

It takes more than that.

So we just ignore what we don't want to see just like when you go to a horror movie some times you have to cover your eyes.

So then regarding business again. If you censor something here, then you will censor something there, and that may be human rights, but more often it will be consumer related, and money driven. At that point no one cares about morals and ethics, they will put their ads there and not yours. Money talks then.

Google is an example of a for profit company that tries to maintain its common Internet goodwill stance. For whatever reason including basic business survival on the net. But the gov pressures them to censor, and they censor products and websites and everything themselves as well.
Firefox censors ads.
If you install the censor program. I use it. So you see everyone has their own censorship needs.
I use my censorship software on my pc to censor ads, I do demand that the companies stop advertising on the Internet immediately. They never listen so I am forced to censor my own ads. And that's ok. It works for me.

Do I have the right to inflict my views on others and say that they cannot advertise? Not really. I do have the right though to censor it myself.
Does any company like a search engine have the right to decide what you should get as a search return?
No, but then they try to do it in such a way as to meet your needs.
We all made Wikipedia and fight in the trenches everyday as to what constitutes facts.
So its there close to the top.
Safe major companies, you will find. Local companies you will find. Almost everything you are looking for you will find.
So considering that most people are reasonably happy with their performance so far, and their good will, and their performance, google maps as an example, we ourselves turn a blind eye to some of the things we don't like.
But the Internet is a huge place so there is something for everyone anyways. Pretty much.

Business wise is it right the way google manages itself for profit? Well the marketplace could test that if it was a free market but its not. Its a Nazi regime. So we have to just live within it. Lets not kid ourselves.
It doesn't have death camps and it doesn't do all the bad things but it sure does try to control everyone.
But look outside, this is our life, you don't have to look far to see worse.

So in 20 years is it getting worse or getting better? It sways in the wind. And like Socrates said, if you push too hard in one moral direction, the opposite will occur. If you censor too much, people flood the net with garbage bad stuff and hack all your websites and create incredible programs like Utorrent.
Unstoppable by any means save for a complete totalitarian regime akin to 1984.
Which we don't want so we must accept reality and just ignore what we can't control that we don't like.

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 10:30 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

I didn't explain the end of browser wars very well.

The illegal operation was that people were not using Internet Explorer. If you went to their website, it asked the software to identify itself, and if it was Netscape it would crash it.

Ok, so I caught them and so then we formed a coalition and we fought against the right to not view advertising.

You see you worry about the fact that people see things that influence them, but insist that everyone see things that you have scientifically designed to influence their buying habits.

So ok, we are not so stupid as to see that everyone is fighting for censorship and free speech at the same time.
They have their own ideas what those are.

In a commercial business trade network, its like a work place, and in our workplaces, some times there are cameras, watching people, some times there are audits, on their Internet traffic, leaked emails is a big one.

So humans are not infallible and really its much tado about nothing. Can you imagine being a lawyer for the prosecution, trying to make a case in government that someone had nude pictures on their computer, while one door down Monica Lewinski was servicing the president in the oval office?

The reason that 'they' want to make looking at dirty pictures a crime against humanity, is they want that as a tool of the state.
Well the state that really has no intention of obeying laws themselves, likes tools of oppression.
Even when the people themselves, want freedom.

So browser wars, we won when Netscape turned its code into public code, open source code that anyone could see and develop themselves. Then we got Firefox. And numerous other companies have tried to compete, but Firefox for us idealists suits us and is excellent at meeting our needs.
I hope for the sake of things that people who use other software that it meets their needs. Whatever those needs are and if that is ads, like TV on the Internet well then that is their thing.
I do feel sorry for the people who have no skills to decide for themselves. And are forced to take full on in the face pop up ads forever and are just helpless when facing this technology.

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

So, google's main source of income, Google Adwords. Pretty basic. But everywhere people will try to find a way to advertise to make a living. Well thats ok but people don't like door to door salesmen.

And things that detract from the purpose for which you are actually doing something, is annoying.

So advertising is a necessary evil if we want the websites that need it to survive.

And the net is self policing. And it has controls that go deeper but stopped short of blacklisting.
And it stopped short of providing ID when you use it.

So you see it was made by rebels. For freedom.

And it brought the house down, while it made everyone rich, through the 90's.
They couldn't argue against what it was doing when they looked at the stock market charts.
It was straight up.

So now we would be foolish, not to take this successful global enterprise and let business enjoy it for their needs as we have for our own. Which means make them a secure subsystem. That has actual bricks and mortar because business needs that, and use it to enhance our shopping experience.

I was at the marina today at 8 am, and there sitting at a table in the coffee shop was an old guy about 85 years old tall and fit and he was smiling and very happy as he held his 7 inch pc tablet in his hand, looking at a message his grandchildren sent him, happy Canada Day, and I could hear them in the background and I thought to myself, ~what a wonderful ~world....(Satchmo, Louis Armstrong song, maybe you have a song or two that you got off the net. )
Its all here, the entire world of knowledge and everything we have, and we did well. All of us. Everyone who ever made a website or web page or contributed to a thread.

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:23 PM
He said "Zionist Regime" !!!!!!!!!!!! To continue this discussion is pointless. Veterans Today has said Jews or Israel many times. I am not a fan of Iran but I refuse to perpetuate a lie. I recommend the same ATS.

In short, DENY IGNORANCE¡!!!

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:29 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

So after that long winded speech on censorship, which is necessary when considering making a subsystem of the Internet which will cross almost all global borders, for the sake of not getting stuck in the mud, we should use the typical company model. That is, in your company you have certain set of guidelines that you should follow and those are had top down. What the boss wants in your company you must do or be fired or reprimanded that is how business works. But a firing squad would certainly seem way out of line for anything of that nature.
A mere dismissal would be enough you would think.

Regardless of what it is. If the company sets policy the workers follow it. And the subnet is a business.

Now then, each company in that net, and there will be millions, has the right to privacy, and their standards are their own.

Now there exists privacy software the likes of which you have never seen before, used by the Fortune 500.

And that same software is available for you as well and its not open source but its business is privacy. It gets between the hardware and Windows and even it will simply be an Operating System and you don't need Windows. VMWARE. It creates a virtual computer and isolates it from your pc. So that virtual pc is on-line but not the host computer. Only that little window but in that window it can do anything your pc can do.
So you are protected as long as that company is not compromised.

Well, hah should we say that won't happen? Trying to accomplish that is probably where all the action is.
Open source seems to work and in that way its all transparent.

So go with an open source policy for the organization as a whole, since its managed by the G20, and not the G21, which might have prevented global nuclear holocost but just the 20 with all the weapons on earth, and no one to mediate, since I won't live forever, we better just design it so it is an organic like system, that has rules that can not be not obeyed, read that again. If we want to make a rule, we must make the system itself follow that rule.

Case in point: You leave a chocolate bar on the coffee table the kid walks in steals the candy bar. If you make a rule that no one shall put candy bars on the coffee table that could never have happened. With computer systems you can prevent anyone from putting a candy bar on that coffee table.

You will not have to punish the child if you just don't tempt him with a chocolate bar because kids must have chocolate bars or die trying.

So if we want to make a rule for the new system then we must make that rule effective and bullet proof.
Easy to do if you are an engineer.

Don't make rules you cannot enforce. If you don't want people to visit sites, then block them.
But thats company business not the same rules as in your own home.

You just have to remember the more you push, the more it will push back and often unforgivably and forever.
So don't be wrong, and don't be hasty when you take away people's rights.

But if you put people in a room, at a business meeting, usually they will act civilized.

And so the normal operation of that entire system, on any given day, would be as you would expect, normal people working to buy or sell products or do other forms of business and banking.

The managers might have free reign. Well you hired them.Who looks over the shoulder of the guy who looks over the shoulder at everyone? In the wild west, no one wanted to sit with their back facing the door in any saloon.
Business is business Mr. Bean, but tempus fugit.
Time flies, and in business time is money. Easy to manage a global network if it is a business.

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:34 PM

Originally posted by sirjunlegun
He said "Zionist Regime" !!!!!!!!!!!! To continue this discussion is pointless. Veterans Today has said Jews or Israel many times. I am not a fan of Iran but I refuse to perpetuate a lie. I recommend the same ATS.

In short, DENY IGNORANCE¡!!!

Originally posted by buster2010
He never said wipe Israel off the map. He said Zionism will fade from the pages of history. Two different things entirely.

I'd be willing to bet that neither of you read the article in the OP.
We're not talking about the original comment (which yes, has been interpreted by some as "wiped from the pages of history", but an entirely NEW comment, surrounding the upcoming missile tests in Iran.

Go back to the OP, read the article.

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:37 PM
Iran - and nearly all the other Arab/Muslim states - talk tough about wiping out Israel. But, for all the sabre rattling, the leaders are realistic enough to know that, in a full-scale war, Israel can pull them down with it.

One or more Arab states could nuke Israel, maybe depopulate most of it, but the Israel military still has retaliatory capability - enough not only to take out the major cities, including Mecca and Damascus, but also to make the Arab oilfields evaporate in a matter of seconds. In fact each Arab country knows that Israel will not only do that if it attacks Israel, Israel will do it if another Arab state attacks Israel. So they're not only restraining themselves, but also restraining each other.

This doesn't stop them from running their mouths, especially to the starving mobs in the streets, but apart from minor league guerrilla attacks, I don't expect a repetition of the attacks that started the Yom Kippur War.

posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by Rocketman7

Ok so that is big business philosophy and in the trade hubs, that is the philosophy that we should follow as an organization, and any companies within the complex, should accept those standards.

Now then, we went to school, and we were taught Socrates and Plato, so its easy for us, and we get our dinner by taking things out of a fridge for instance. We take that for granted. Well in some places a fridge is just a dream.
So they want to have a business too and they don't know much about Socrates and Plato.

So we have to be tolerant of other people if we want to allow business to thrive and make people wealthy and feed the world.
So we can't impose the same standards on others. We have to open a channel of trade, clear an area around it basically so its isolated and then pretty much stand back and let that traffic through.
At times governments will want to curtail activity and we will fight for freedom, and the individuals will push the envelope and life will continue as it does in every city everywhere.

The standards we set for the G20 and their management of the hubs, is not the same standard we would expect of the average public or the companies wanting to use the system.
We are experienced capitalists and live in a society which has a high social order and lawful intentions.
So what we don't know won't hurt us.
Thats the only way to provide that service.

Otherwise we are conducting industrial espionage.

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:16 AM
As you said, he is talking about self defense. Their prophecies cannot come to pass unless they are first attacked, they cannot be the aggressor. As long as no attack is made on Iran, it is all rhetoric - I doubt war is really what they want. Leaders need to appear strong, especially when a country or countries have threatened you with war for a decade, assassinated your scientists and launched cyber attacks. Only thing missing from this equation, from a religious point of view, is a direct attack.

When it comes to attack on Iran, I doubt that a simple bombardment is an option - Iran WILL retaliate. As for the feasibility of using a navy to attack Iran, I point you to "Millennium Challenge 2002" war game which simulated just that, though it seems the US understood the lesson and has built an extensive military infrastructure around Iran as a launch pad for potential invasion.

Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States armed forces in mid-2002... The simulated combatants were the United States, referred to as "Blue", and an unknown adversary in the Middle East, "Red". Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
edit on 2-7-2012 by Shred because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 01:15 AM
i don't think the jews ever (ETA: ever not never) heard the phrase "be careful what you wish for. you just may get it"

well i think it applies here. they demanded to have their own country and now they are targets for it. i'm tired of hearing about how oppressed they are and how the US needs to help. haven't we helped enough by helping give you your own country by tossing aside the land's people? haven't we helped you enough by providing you with one of the worlds most powerful arsenals?

fight your own damn battles, we have more important things to worry about on this side of the atlantic. israel threatens all their neighbors and even murders their civilians, yet iran wants nuclear power for it's people and "Oh no we are poor defenseless israel and we need america's help". screw that, let these bullies fight the fight they've been looking for
edit on 2-7-2012 by Hardstepah because: grammar correction

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 02:12 AM
I came in here to see something new
this is same rhetoric that has been spewed consistently to make Iran look like the aggressor

anyone with half a brain would be able to interpret this report objectively

Iran announced missile tests on Sunday and threatened to wipe Israel "off the face of the earth"


if the Jewish state attacked it


brandishing some of its starkest threats


the day Europe began enforcing an oil embargo and harsh new sanctions.

another NONstory.
Iran has every god dam right to be pissed off the sanctions are crippling it's economy and destroying it's primary source of income... Israeli supported MEK terorrists are assasinating scientists, they are being spyed on and cyber attacked ... ALL based on a NON-SUBSTANTIAL, NON-EXISTENT THREAT of nuclear weapon development

U.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb
The latest U.S. intelligence report indicates Iran is pursuing research that could enable it to build a nuclear weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.


posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 02:30 AM
reply to post by Awen24

What does everyone else think?

I think an interesting polarity would center on a dude like John Hagee (, his ecclesiastical dispensations, & whatever else one is capable of understanding given the brand of eschatology he believes & teaches.

Anyway, I'm thinking Iran's president & John Hagee would have been exceptionally good friends had both been born under the same religious regime. They both would have "seen the light" so to speak; they both would have been "on the right side of God or Allah." And I guess it goes without saying that my whole point is a point being made from silence.

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 02:40 AM
reply to post by FissionSurplus

There is a tendency in the mainstream media to soft-pedal anything Israel does as "self defense"

Some people cannot see the leaves for the trees. Read em' and weep because it is the truth. Many cannot handle the truth. Not mature enough and only have a desire to see evil where there is good intentions.

I'm not saying for a minute Israel is perfect but make no mistake Israel are the good guys here and anything else is delusional and "head in the sand" thinking.

The way I see it, Iran is backed into a corner.

A corner they have backed themselves into

I wouldn't give a rat's behind if that entire region was turned into smoldering rubble.

Well what a great humanitarian you are. I'm sure your parents would be so proud you have publicly stated you would not care if millions of people die. No matter whose side your on, the good guys or the terrorists no one should be that apathetic to something like that ....... Bravo

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 02:42 AM
Israel has been threating to attack Iran for thought crime for a long time and Iran has the right to say they will defend themselves if Israel commits an aggressive attack against them.

Personally if you can't see through Israels "we're the victim" crap, I don't know what else I can say to you.

**I use the term "thought crime" very generously because Iran knows Israel has nukes and if you look at history, Iran has a self preservationist streak. I don't think they are planning it nor would they risk it.
edit on 2-7-2012 by ThedeadeyesofCharlieSheen because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:13 AM
How come every time I switch on the news, Isreal is talking about a 'pre-emptive' strike on Iran being a possibility, no one worries about them???

They don't have a mahdi, but they do tell their kids to only marry other jews and think they're god's chosen people. (racism)

They also kill sand people [sic] and women and children with sticks n stones in Palestine day after day, and yet you've chosen to stick up for the guy with the big stick????

edit on 2-7-2012 by Beavers because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:51 AM
Tit for tat. Name calling, ganging up, cliques. School yard #. Our leaders need to grow up. Geeeeez. Not long ago Israel was saying how America was the big satan, Israel the small satan. Iran have big balls mate. Come near me n ill cut ya. Defensive threats work well, but pretend you don't give a f#+! and have nothing to lose, this will terrify your enemy and they wont want to mess with you. By saying... If you Come near us, we will end everything, is irans best form of defence. Btw I thought it was Israel who wanted to whipe Iran of the face of the earth.

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:57 AM
reply to post by Awen24

To be fair, you are talking about the philosophy behind the actions.

To my recollection, Iran, Cuba, North Korea are but three nations who don't have ties to "our" banking system and friction always arises when you come between the rich and their profiteering.

I don't think it is all about a single "dictators" aspirations. The fact is plain that Israel has made enemies of all its neighbors and perhaps this video shows the determination of what happens when you demand peace at gunpoint.

It is obvious that the only thing Israel is inspiring is hatred and retaliations.

I would rather dialogue than gun-sights because bottom line, Iran is but one nation among many ... who would be next? India and Pakistan both have nukes and how hard would it be for them to sell if the price were right?

Further, Israel has nukes and that mutually assured destruction thing has kept us from wwIII so why do they want to push it to the brink?

Perhaps because without the conflicts they don't make as much money?

Iran could have closed off the straights of Hormuz as simply as sinking a ship in its waters yet they won't shoot themselves in the foot either. Do you really think they would nuke such a small strip of land that would contaminate themselves?

If you kill off your trading partners who are you going to trade with?

The real threat is in a clandestine attack that nobody knew who was to blame and started everyone shooting at each other because they thought they should be guilty not that they actually are.

I am not there so I can't speak for the people, but I can surmise that the Iranians themselves would be speaking out on these social networks if they weren't going along with the leadership and if you think of it, can you blame them when the Palestinians have been oppressed for so long that generations are born into the hatred mindset.

The entire Middle East needs a good shrink IMO who would listen to both sides and find out who is the psychotic party, not who is sabre rattling atm, and as far as that goes, I get the impression that the entire world is getting fed up with rock throwing vs tanks. Bottle rockets are the only means they have of fighting back so could you expect any less from a people who really have nothing to lose?

Perhaps it will come down to a launch by one side or the other but Israel has an arrogance of being the "chosen ones" yet throughout Biblical History from Samuel (when the jews lost the arc of the covenant) through the book of Kings, every generation of the descendants of Israel has been punished by God.

Christ is denied by both as being the Messiah, who is the one who stopped time and made us start counting days. These politics of "Im gonna get you" loses its threat level when you hear it over and over so inevitably somebody is going to shoot first and that is where we are being led, not a peaceful resolution, and keeping others under the threat of being nuked will eventually lead to a desperation move where you really have nothing left to lose which would incite the action without hesitation.

But they know this and as headgames go, they have ingrained the threat into every mind to make us fear someone somewhere over something

edit on 2-7-2012 by anoncoholic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:05 AM
reply to post by phatpackage

I'm not saying for a minute Israel is perfect but make no mistake Israel are the good guys here and anything else is delusional and "head in the sand" thinking.

I cannot see a occupational force that acts like Israel, and speaks like Israel, as the good guys.

They have rights, they are people just like you and me. But labeling them "good guys" is labeling the other bunch "bad guys", and that is the part I disagree with.

Israel was injected into that area, and when we had the time to undo that mistake, the world didn't care. Now it's too late, and we have to live by it. But they are not the good guys, they are just one side of the guys.

And with all due respect, accepting other country's grief and pain is not being delusional, and being sympathetic to a nasty world isn't putting "the head in the sand".

However, stating that only your view of Israel matters, is being delusional.

A corner they have backed themselves into.

By doing what? Wanting freedom from westernized economical systems? Just because people don't accept just one way of living and doing things, doesn't mean they have cornered them-selfs. What happened to national identity? Or culture? Or freedom of pursuing your own path?

I find it ironical that the most important freedoms that the americans hold dear in the Constitution, are also the ones they most often take away from the people they don't agree with.

The world doesn't need to kiss the U.S. hand in order to function. People often forget about that.
edit on 2/7/12 by Tifozi because: typo

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in