Rue

First off Bjre I am debating you and I debate hard but I mean nothing personally insulting so if it comes across that way its not meant to be. I respect your right to have different opinions but I want to debate them and blast away at some of them. That is all. Thank you for debating me. You said: "The poor people there (Africa) are victims of western robbers." You later on conceded my point that not all poor people are that way as a result of just corupt Western business interests. They are just as much robbed by their own people. The fact is dishonesty starts in our own backyards and we are all equally culpable for it. This notion that certain robbers only rob because they themselves are victims I do not buy. I believe there are people coming out of Africa who do not use corupt Westerners as an excuse to rip their own people off. I think it is an insult to them to try suggest someone like Mugabe only became corupt because Westerners caused him to. That to me is a crock. Mugabe is a self-created man responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands. He is a classic example of the sociopaths of many nations who are not victims-they are simply rotten people. You stated: "When some politicians there rape and plunder their own people, western countries did not help them in improve their economy, they turned to make them more poor so that more such things happen, and they can blame more, actually, western politicians are so evil that they hope those ugly things happen so that they can have things to blame others." Again I criticize your simplistic black and white statements. Too much generalization for me. There are in fact very good Westerners who have tried very hard over the years to help people of modest means in Africa only to have their efforts ransacked not by Westereners but corupt Africans in the military or guerilla or terrorist units or corupt bureaucracies. This simplistic dividing of the world into black and white is patronizing not just to African peoples but all people. Don't suggest I am an evil Westerner aiding the exploitation of Africans simply because I live in a global economy I have no control over that necessarily is dependent on unethical as well as ethical practices. I can control so much in my life and I try like many others to do the right thing. I will be damned if someone generalzies me as evil. I am ugly and I smell and I am rude and get on peoples' nerves and I have done some bad things but no I do not need you to label me an evil white man from the West thank you. You stated: "African people should have their own bank system totally independent from US banks, the way to become wealthy is to get rid of western countries and do it themselves." Are you that naive? You think the coruption in Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana, Kenya, for example indicates a continent ready for an ethical banking system? You think the business decisions of Robert Mugabe indicate someone who is capable of understanding banking? What a ridiculous thing to say. Banks are colour blind and should be colour blind. They should be run by apolitical people without political and racial biases or any other kinds of biases. You confuse hiring people you want to look and think in a way you find acceptable with competence. I don't care what colour skin, gender, age, or gender preference the banker is. What I want to know is are they competent to invest and see into the future and what will prove to be solid, promising projects of high return. You scapegoat the US for world banks? Again try do some homework on the world banking system and Switzerland's role in it and the corupt third and fourth world leaders' role in it as well as multi-nationals, the military-industrial and oil complexes. There are numerous players and simply scapegoating the U.S. is absurd. Its like suggesting the banks are controlled by jews or Chinese. Its run by people of all colours and countries. Money is colour blind. Whether money comes from someone in India, China, the U.S., South America, it has only one colour, green. You stated: "I did not read what Ghaddafi did. But Mugabi did very well before evil western countries try to destroy the country he lives." Your selectivity as to the corupt totalitarian dictators of Africa does not surprise me. Ghaddafi sent his army into Chad and massacered helpless civilians, thousands of them. As for Mugabe he is a sick mass murderer and terrorist and I would like you to be specific on the accusations you make trying to switch focus from his evil and murderous reign to the alleged countries you referred to. He destroyed an economic structure that kept his people fed and clothed and in homes for what? He has forced over 60% of his country to flee to South Africa and the rest starve and live under constant terror attack and tribal slaughter. You want to blame the West for him? Really. What next. Oh wait you will tell me I am responsible for Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Ghaddafi, Jean Bidel Bokassa, Idi Amin Jr.? You stated: "I don't know all rich people, but there are greedy rich people who are powerful and evil." Yes and you don't know all poor people either and therte are greedy pooor people who are powerful and evil. Its all relative. That is the point. Not all poor people are good and not all rich people are evil. I am neither poor or rich and I am a mix of evil and good. Such stereotypes don't always work do they. That is my point. We need to get a bit more complex in our analysis of conflicts rather than melt it down to such simplistic categories of good and evil. You stated: "China did it good because it helps people with no condition." With due respect that is nonsense. China did what it did using the tactic known as predatory pricing. It uses its state monopoly on trade restriction and currency to make it possible to flood other countries' markets with its cheap goods while placing heaving restrictions on goods coming back the same way. China did good? Do you call setting up a slave state good? For who? It has set up a large slave labour economy of captive people with no freedom of expression. Good? So go work in a factory in China if you think they did it good. Good? You think they give help with no condition? Oh really now. How about you explain what charitable donations China has given to other third world countries. That I would love to see. Go find out the price it pays for oil from Mozambique, Angola and Sudan as well as Iran. It has paid off corupt politicians precisely so it can get its oil and cheap prices that do nothing to benefit the people of those nations. China did good? Tell that to the people of Tibet. Tell that to India who it has gone to war with twice and threatens to again because it fears India's ability to keep up with it and surpass it. You want to portray China as having done good? Tell that to the millions in jail because they are political dissidents for having the audacity to point out their lives are trapped in a cycle of oppressive poverty. You stated: " If there are human being there, China helps them to improve their life." Say now, don't tell me. China has paid your way to Canada to study. Lol. This hero worshipping of China speaks for itself. Are you a Maoist or a modern day state monopolist? "Evil western politicians try to block trading to countries who don't buy their "democracy", their agenda is to control the law-makers of the target country, even if the human beings there are in urgent need of help." You think its that simple? And China of course places no conditions on its trade. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Venezuela, they place no conditions on their trade. Just evil western politicians. Lol. Got it. "They would rather let the target country be destroyed in name of "human rights" than help the human beings there, even when the "human rights" situation in their own western countries are so poor, they just enjoy let the poor people in target country die and use that to blame the target government." Do you refer to China propping and protecting the corupt regime in Sudan and its genocide of poor Africans? Do you refer to China's propping of Iran's regime which crushed on the streets people marching in seach of democratic freedoms? No no not you. Its only evil Westerners that get in bed with corupt third and fourth world leaders. Lol. China good. West very bad. China nice. West poo poo people. Yep heard that before. Only most times its used to describe Israel and the U.S. as poo people and anyone who hates either country as good people. Been there done that. See for me while you see black and white, I just see brown. The colour of poo you know is always brown.

yes. Very valid point. Point taken.

Its not supposed to it was a joke. J O K E. HEE HEE. Ho. Ho. Hah hah. O.k. its time someone give this board a very large enema. Bend over all of you. note: that was a figurative expression not meant to be taken literally. Oleg put that water hose down!

You know how silly that sounds? Are you the messiah? What you now have a monopoly on the truth? Lol. Dang but there are a lot of diddlers on this board now. Never seen so many people in love with their right hand.

Wow. That was probably the most sophisticated level of debate I have heard in a while. Well Dre now that you made clear what level of awareness you are at, how about you shut the bathroom door....and try keep the moaning down.

Lol you mean that communist FDR? You actually like my second favourite President next to Truman? Lol. Some Republican you are. Say now you know who was a very big spender. Hint he had Alzheimer's and dyed his hair while he was in office and had a wife who looked like a big prune.

My but we are accusatory. I doubt the person you are addressing himself personally is in democracy sales. Maybe aluminum siding or roof shingles or hemmeroid ointment though. See my point? He doesn't wake up every morning engaging in what you accuse any more then you do. He didn't create the inter-connected economies. He/she is like you and me just one dot in a sea of sand so your turning him/her into a scapegoat for the failures of others is a bit absurd. He/she is no more guilty than you are unless of course you are telling me you are a pristine 3rd world virgin victim. Problem is when we get righteous and point the finger at others as whores we forget the stains on our own pants are still visible. Your portrayal of Africans by the way is quite patronizing not that someone as liberal and tolerant as you would realize. Why didn't you just refer to them as poor wretched savages. How compassionate of you. Wait I know, you cry every time you see a World Vision commercial. Wait don't tell me either, some of your best friends are savages and you send money to Oxfam. Got news for you, your simplistic, patronizing depicture of Africans is bloody racist. What do you think these people are the helpless victims you portray them as? Clearly you do not know all Africans you just assume though you can write them all off as victims. There are many successful Africans who are independent and making quality lives for themselves and others. Get real. Africa is full of may kinds of people of which some are corupt, sociopathic politicians who choose to rape and plunder their own people. Yes it is a tragedy people starve and are trapped in poverty. Yes foreign investors and financial interests tied to oil,diamonds, natural resources, have a vested financial interest but what about the stooges they find who have no problem turning on their own people? Do you care to just ignore that? Also would you have us believe you do not put your money in a bank or buy a product from someone inter-related to an unethical business? Really now. Oh wait you want to tell me Robert Mugabi or Moe Ghaddafi are victims? The world is far more complex then you give it credit for with your simplistic good v.s. bad, black v. white concepts. In reality poverty, injustice is not simply the creation of some white Westerner and no the person you accuse of owning banks does not or are you suggesting he is one of those you know who's who own banks and produce Hollywood movies and hang out with Oleg Bach and other rich people? (Oleg I get you everytime! I will make you famous Oleg with my tributes!) However we see your agenda. When you see it done by Chinese you apologize and use the double standard that if a Westerner does it, its evil, but if a Chinese communist does it, its fine, its only fair.Uh no. Either its wrong for all or its wrong for none. The relativist arguement you try poo poo works like this-it states, if you want to hold the world to a high standard, then don't just select a scapegoat you will hold to your standard and look the other way when others commmit evil. No more no less. It doesn't mean we have a double standard and people you find acceptable can act evil because they are entitled to since you feel others do. That is precisely why the cantankerous conservatives roll their eyes at stereotype liberals like you. They find your righteousness absurd. They argue its not evil you are against, just the fact you aren't in on it. In the real world I would contend victims are also oppressors and oppressors are also victims-the two are not conveniently divided and attached and that is what makes conflicts so difficult to resolve-the cycle of beater and beaten constantly goes back and forth the longer the conflict between the 2 or more parties is. The roles become interchangeable the longer the cycle of conflict goes on. At any given arbitrary point in time the vanquished become conquerors and vice versa often at the same time.

I think he is saying you are as fat as he is.

Jonsa allow moi to debate some of your comments I placed in quotes: "It is egalitarian within Islam." Far from it. The Muslim Brotherhood depending on its cell is far from egalitarian to other Muslims outside its cell. The treatment of Amidyah Muslims by the Muslim Brotherhood is anything but egalitarian. The treatment of progressive Muslims is anything but egalitarian. The on-going disputes between Shiite and Muslim sects and the battle between certain Muslim Brotherhoods which are Sunni with non Muslim brotherhood groups that are Shiite speaks for itself. It not only discriminates against non Muslims but any Muslim who does not pray the same way as the Muslim Brotherhood sect pontificating its righteousness. You stated: "Its not imperialism. Within the caliphate there would be only equality for all muslims. And, while Islam was spread by wars, that pretty much ended by the 19th century." Not sure what you are referencing. The inter-secretarian religious wars between Muslim sects speak for themselves. If you don't think Islam is still spread by war go take that up with the Muslim terrorists in the Phillipines, Chechnya, China,Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, or how about you start with Morrocco, Libya, Algeria, Iran and the Sudan and tell me what do you think happened in the last century with them. What do you think happened in world war one, two, in 1948, in 1956, in 1967, 1973. You think these many wars and confrontations had no Muslim religious fuel to them? You stated: "Interesting perspective." i.e., the concept that Jewish refugees escaped colonialism. Tell me who do you think the Jews fleed from in Europe if not colonialists? What would you call Europeans? What would you tell the 900,000 Jews forcefully expelled from the Arab League nations they were fleeing from? I am not the one to revise history to define refugees as opporessive colonialists. Know who started that? You might want to go find out. It was Stalin, the very same Stalin who originally defined the Jews as victims of colonialism fighting neo colonial puppets (the Arab league of nations). The Soviets saw the Jews of Palestine as comrades and Stalin's decision to send them 200,000 Jews along with Elenor Roosevelt's single handed 3 year diplomatic battle are the two key reasons Israel came about. The third was Czechoslovakia's support of the Jews of Palestine and the haganah. The Czech's would never have been allowed to help the Jews without the Soviet Union's approval as it was a puppet state of Stalin. The revision of history to define Jews as colonialists and colonial puppet stooge Arab empires as 3rd world victims came about from former officers of Josef Goebels who moved to Damascus post WW2 and set up the Ministry of Communications in Syria and created and broadcast this revisionist platform that to this day is repeated. Its a Nazi script, nothing but a regurgitated Nazi script ironically which Stalin had no problem buying into in the 1950's when he decided it was more advantageous to back the Arab League then Israel. Then again he could have been like the British who openly flew the Egyptian Air Force planes that attacked the Jews of Palestine in the independence war and led its armies or the French who sold weapons to the Arabs. Ah you have to like the British and French because when Israel won its independence France had no problem building the Israeli post office, telegraph system, government bureaucracy and even a nuclear reactor all at the same time as supporting Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Morrocco and Algeria all technically at war with Israel at the same time. The British had no problems with the French using Ben Gurion as their toy during the Suez Canal crisis while at the same time courting Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan. The Soviets realized in 1949 Israel would never turn its back on the U.S. or democracy and decided it would back the same regimes it called neo colonialist. So it had no problem suddenly becoming the sponsor of Egypt, Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile the Muslim Brotherhood went from a Nazi fascist party to a British-French puppet and then later a CIA puppet before it evolved to what it is today. This is why I find your neat black and white definitions of who is a colonialist or imperialist absurd. The fact is anyone could be described as either. Its like describing oneself as moderate or left wing or right wing. Its meaningless. Such words necessarily take on the subjective bias of the person throwing them out as to what they mean. To me there is but only one kind of political ideologist, and that is an opportunist. I subscribe to the Oleg Bachian belief that we all know what politics is-its only the amount you have to pay one that is in question. Completely and totally different. The Japanese expanded to acquire material wealth and ruled by subjugation of entire populations. The vision of the Caliphate is expansion to achieve religious objectives and ruled thru established religous hierarchical autocratic mechanisms. To me words have particularly important meaning. The fact that many of lexically challenged misuse and abuse words does not change the word's actual meaning. Take the misuse of the word "socialism" in american politics today. I doubt that 20% of those that use it know what it means, but their audiences do know its something to FEAR.

Ooops I did not read your responses. I seem to have repeated the very questions you did. Excuse me. There is an echo echo echo on the board.

In regards to the first comment you mistake the fact that the Israeli state defines itself as Jewish with it being a theocracy. If it was a genuine theocracy, its political leaders would be clergy and it would not afford Muslims and Christians their own court systems for family law and cultural disputes regarding religious principals. In regards to the second comment you trot out the usual stereotype. Do you think because it has been repeated so many times, that in itself makes it beyond proof and you can just throw it out as a given? Do you care to provide the objective data to share how you determined what you did or is it one of those, oh you know, everyone knows how rich and powerful the Jews are....kind of thing. Do tell.

In theory I agree with you but in reality this is not done because of practical issues regarding family law and estates (inehritance) law.

Call it Islamo fascism fine, but to ne it is a strain of fascism. I also have a problem with the notion it is equalitarian. Its anything but. It defines non Muslims pf Muslims other then the ones it deems acceptable as inferiors. As I write this Muslim Brotherhood members in Indonesia incited an attack against Christians. There is nothing equalitarian in that. That by its very nation makes it elitist. Also the claim its not imperialist is an interesting one. Setting up a caliphate is what? Its the creation of an imperial empire. The form of Muslim caliphate the Muslim Brotherhood calls for necessarily calls for the spread and conquering of different cultures all in the name of one uniform, centrally opposed theocratic organ. I always find words like imperialist and colonalist absurd anyways. They were expropriated by Marxists and Marxist regimes and have been used in absurd ways that make no sense. The Arab League of States was nothing more than a network of colonial state puppets and yet revisionists change history now to pretend Israel was colonial and the powets fighting Israel were anti-colonial. In fact the Jews of Israel were refugees from colonialism seeking their freedom and encountered colonial puppet regimes and revisionists twisted this around. Colonialist? Imperialist? You think the Caliphate vision is any different then say the Japanese one of World War Two? I say no. I say For the Soviet Union to refer for example to the U.S. as imperialists when it was setting up puppet regimes across the world no different then the U.S. was a joke. The words mean nothing anymore. They have been overused in so many selective subjective contexts as to have lost their meaning er at least so I think.

Excellent response. I could continue to debate the semantics of the word "fascist" with you but I do appreciate the very well stated retorts distinguishing Islamofascism from Nazi fascism. No they are not the same for all the reasons you pointed out but they are both types of fascism. Most certainly some of the sites I provided have very clear biases. No more so then the ones Dre would use in reverse. I do most certainly concede some of the articles are pure opinion pieces.

Dre I think it ridiculous to pretend the Muslim Brotherhood is anything but fascist. In fact I would like to know on what basis you deny their fascist origins and fascist ideology. You are quick to say its ridiculous to call them fascist why? They are fascist. They have never hidden their fascist origins and their open admiration of Hitler and everything Hitler stood for. You'll have to do better then simply call people ridiculous because you want to revise history and ignore their origins or their ideology and now try paint them as cuddly bearded men. My references for contending that the Muslim Brotherhood is a fascist organization and a puppet of Nazis, then the British, then the CIA and now has broken off again and is necessarily and inherently anti-semitic can be found here: http://www.shoaheducation.com/muslimnazi.html http://media0.terrorismawareness.org/files/NaziRoots.pdf http://lightonthings.blogspot.com/2010/11/arab-muslim-nazism-documentation-your.html http://jewishrefugees.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-we-should-fear-muslim-brotherhood.html http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/muslimbrotherhood.html http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/islamic-jihad-articles/on-the-foundations-of-muslim-brotherhood-alqaeda-and-dr-zindane/ http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/probing-the-history-of-the-muslim-nazi-alliance/ http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/163591 http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=11146 http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/tag/muslim-brotherhood http://www.aina.org/news/2007070595517.htm http://arabracismislamofascism.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/arab-muslim-nazism-documentation-your-reference-guide/ http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/03/hannity-cleric-fight-over-isla http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=764

Resonding again to your comments in quotation WP; "First, let me say that I am glad that you share some of the concerns of the writers of those articles I collected on secular/orthodox tensions in Israel. " I must concede them. They are all capable of being corroborated with objective evidence. As well the article may contain subjective opinions I spit at, but I concede they are directly on point to this debate and you were perfectly on point raising them and they must be considered. You stated: "Don't forget that the writer was quoting Frank Luntz - the notorious Republican pollster, who was commissioned by some wealthy Jewish zionists to find out why young American Jews were not as vigorously defending Israel as they would like." Yes and I find that rather ironic. That is an excellent point. No one finds that more ironic than do I. "I've heard it said that Judaism is a religion of practice, rather than a religion of belief and confession." Yes. That is a huge differebce in mind set between Judaism and Christianity. Both are supposed to be codes to follow, but in Christianity there is a concept of being able to confess and start again when you screw up. We technically don't have that although it would be incorrect to say we don't have something that forgives us. We do have the ceremony of Yom Kippur where we basically apologize to God for screwing up for the entire lasy year, and re-create our promise to try be a good person the next year. So that is a sort of cleansing ritual but most times we don't have that ability to alleviate the sin and seek forgiveness. The religion in that respect is tough love. I think one of the reasons we have Christianity was the need to seek a more compassionate way to deal with screw ups. I do not doubt people found our God forboding and mean and looked to a more gentle image. Thus Jesus feels a void in that respect. His image and role is when you think about it a lot gentler and personal than the traditional role between God and Jews. We go from an angry distant God to one of flesh and blood who symbolically hugs people when they screw up. "Some of the paragraphs that I edited out in that long article were regarding Israeli politics. In particular, the author sees a rise in extremist opinions that want to expel Arabs, most notably the Foreign Minister - Lieberman..." Yes I certainly appreciate that. I have read the entire article. Between you and me I personally with no surprise to you would categorically reject what Lieberman stands for and I am greatly worried about the future of Israel if his kind of opinion became mainstream and I admit its growing. Ironically I am not sure what you call someone like him. I consider him first and foremost myself a bigot. Is he that way because of orthodox jewish beliefs. Here I get confused. I know orthodox Jews who are not anyway like him and feel his extremism is not in the spirit of what the Talmud teaches us. Then again I know fundamentalist orthodox Jews like him. I am not even sure if one could call him a religious Jew. Russian Jews are very pragmatic, tough people. Something about living in the former Soviet Union hardened them. There is a lack of gentility in their approach. Its tough. Its cold. Its very competitive. I am generalizing with my own subjective feedback of it of course. I personally do not think young Israelis embrace Lieberman at all. I think young Israelis are very existential if I may use that word. Their very lives are an absurdity they struggle to find a meaning for. They reject his words. Young Israelis want to get along with young people all over the world. They don't want to be hated and isolated. I again generalize but I feedback what they have told me. I concede its just my opinion. I do not claim my opinion is any more valid then anyone else's. You stated: "There's not much I can work with in this criticism, since you criticize the author's subjective sense of how other Jews feel about Zionism with your own subjective interpretation of how the students, and "most Jews" regard Zionism. I have no way to evaluate this sort of argument." Yes thank you for acknowledging the above. That is a crucial point I was making. On the first part of the article it is possible to discuss it in a dettached way because the information is there to test it. The second part becomes subjective and I thought you would find it interesting to hear from the words of the very person this writer stereotypes. You stated: "... leaders of major organizations and lobby groups like AIPAC...supporting the most aggressive, hardline policies for dealing with Palestinians and Arab states...totally out of synch with the wishes of American Jews, who expect Israel to be making every effort to seek a peaceful resolution to the neverending war. .." In regards to that reference by the writer let me say this. American Jews are no different then the rest of us Jews in the diaspora, i.e., Canada, Britain, Argentina, etc., and in Israel. All Jews want and expect Israel to be making every effort to seek a peaceful resolution. You just need to read and listen to the dialogue between us Jews to know that. As well I don't think its fair to Christians who do support Israel's right to exist to depict them all as hard liners. There are elements in AIPAC, the B'Nai B'Rith, in other Jewish and non Jewish organizations that support Israel all kinds of differing opinions on what it will take and should be done to achieve piece. I think the writer is dead wrong to think AIPAC is just a mouthpiece. It has openly had disagreements with Likud,Barak, Levni, Dayan, Rabin, to name but a few disputes. Its true some Jewish leaders are very supportive of Israel but its a misnomer to try package Jewish dialogue into neat categories. In fact our opinions are all over the place. Now its interesting you talk of the rise of Menachem Begin and Likud and how the focus went to the West Bank. I must chide you a bit. Although I am no Likud supporter at all and a major proponent of Labour Zionism, fair is fair, the Likud didn't suddenly show an interest in the West Bank. That preoccupation came about simply because of where the terrorists went to. The preoccupation to go into the West Bank was not religious by Likud it was anti-terrorist and they did nothing different than the Labour governments would have done. Both parties disagree on many things but not strategy against terrorists. So lets be fair. Israel went into the West Bank primarily to head off terrorist attacks. It planted settlers as early warning posts. It welcomed crazy fanatical Biblical Zionists because sane people were not willing to live in little early warning posts and constantly have to fight incoming terrorists. Israel used these settlers because at the time did not have sattelite technology or the evesdropping equipment they have now. As well if you knew anything about military tactics you would know the Sinai is inhospitable for war. Neither the Egyptians or Israels want it. The only thing of interest to either is Sharem El Shaik for tourism. Genuinely the only true strategic concerns for Israel are the Golan Heights, the Lebanese border and the West Bank. The Sinai swallows up tanks as they roll across due to the heat. It has limited use as a buffer zone. Today conventional tank warfare is less of a factor as it was in 1973 or 1967. Today most wars are fought in close quarters in city streets with no room for tanks and thus modified personnel carriers and helicopters have become the crucial weapons as well as satellites and unmanned drones and sophisticated listening posts. Israel never wanted the Sinai.The truth though is they always felt the Golan and West Bank as well as Lebanese borders were vulnerable to terrorist penetration as well as the border with Gaza and their ocean front. You said; "If Israel is becoming more orthodox and more theocratic, it looks more and more like those Islamic fundamentalist states than it does with a western, democratic society." I am stating to you yes, it could but I also think its misleading to ignore the fact that the majority of Jews reject extremist fundamentalism in Judaism and its not fair to them to take a vocal minority and give them more power, influence or credit then they deserve. I making the same arguements Egyptians are now when people make statements they they are extremists because of their Muslim Brotherhood. I think Israelis are too Western to fall into a religious theocracy. Israeli women are far too liberated to allow themselves to be turned into step and fetch its. Young Israelis are speaking out. There is a dynamic press, dynamic peace groups and human rights organizations and the average Israeli who is the pith and substance of the IDF do not embrace religion in the army and the orthodox Rabbiahs in the IDF. Anyways, appreciate your feedback. It certainly is interesting. I do have my concerns Israel does not turn into a fundamentalist theocracy of course. So I am trying to concede a concern yes but at the same time spit at what I consider unfair stereotypes. I trust I did not get any of your clothes wet. If I did sorry.

Go for it then. Just don't lower yourself to calling him personal names and preface your opinions with the words "in my opinion". I must try do the same thing. When you and I or anyone else on this forum forget to preface our remarks with "in my opinion" we sound like we believe our opinion is the only valid one. Even if you feel that way the fact is you and I when we come on this board must make it clear when what we say is a subjective opinion or in fact based on an objectively established fact. In fact, youur subjective opinions are no more truthful then Bob's. In fact opinions are not fact, they are opinions. Neither here nor there. All I am trying to get you to do is stop with the name calling. I understand you get heated and intense in your beliefs. I do too. I am asking you to try what I am trying and fail at some times too.

I feel a sort of Oleg Bachian perception coming over me......economic interaction as we are all aware or at least should be Oleg is inter-related. I may not directly get profit from General Dynamics but indirectly the employees paid by it spend money which ripples into the economic market and makes its way as taxes into the government services and benefits I do receive. The reality is all of us, every single friggin last one of us has some benefit flowing from the military industrial complex. Its just a fact of life. Now we could transform those activities if we wanted but at this point the powers that be do not want to and those powers are not conspiring CIA agents, just executive shmoes with hemmeroids and sagging breasts trying to assure their little department is doing what it was told to so they get their bonus and are not fired. The entire world is a series of never ending cubes each with a titular head barking at others to meet a quota. You think someone could afford to get a breast lift. Its all inter-connected so Bush when you call me a whore and in it for the money I say, well yes I find myself screwed by many departments some governmental, others non governmental. Should I blame you the entire world appears fixated on missiles, satellites, and suvs? No. We are all part of it. Just some of us still think of ourselves as crisp, clean virgins. Interesting but those same missile creators make our virgins' fridges, stoves, iphones, cars. That I call gloablization-the fact that all our economies are inter-dependent and at the whim of the oil and military industrial complexes. Transforminge economic activity necessarily threatens to put the very politicians and executives out of power who have it. Thus the resistance. It aint rocket science, just rocket development.

WP I am a non religious Labour type Zionist, the kind this article supposedly refers to as being endangered. So I find it interesting how my type of Zionist is being described. First of all I reject the literary device of taking students and using them as the justification for subjective generalizations such as comments like this: "Most of the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly defined. They had imbibed some of the defining values of American Jewish political culture: a belief in open debate, a skepticism about military force, a commitment to human rights." The above description is a projection by the writer. I have the exact same views as he has described as do man Jews but we are not liberals broadly defined-we in fact reflect the moral views of Western culture. The above views are not the exclusive domain of liberals. They are also the domain of classic conservatives, libertarians, socialists, a wide range of political approaches. The writer then takes the above generalization and then patronizes these students by projecting on to them virginity, naivite, gullability, etc.: " And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed those values when it came to Israel." No one has said when it comes to being a supporter of Israel I must shed the above views. No one is pressuring me, these students or any Jews or non Jews who have similiar views from being able to have these opinions and support the right of Israel to exist. That is the writer projecting his bias on us and creating this Zionist monster supposedly threatening us. Thank you I do not need this writer to patronize me, stereotype me and tell me I am being asked to give up my views if I wish to support Israel. In fact the conservatives on this board who support Israel and consider my Labour Zionist views a bunch of manure have never insulted me, pressured me, or told me I am less of a Jew or Zionist then they. If anything I have blasted some of them not the other way around. I know many right wing conservatives-they are actually quite respectful of individual differences of opinion. The kind of ultra religious Zionist intolerant of my views who would best be described as a fundamentalist settler or Jewish religious Zionist are a minority of Jews and Israelis. They are vocal but they are a minority and no they are not a mythical force that threatens to castrate me or any other Jew. You want to understand the psyche of Jews-its simple-understand that we disagree on most things and openly debate them. For one reason look at the Talmud. It is a book that provides a starting point to commence debate. Our religion and culture does not believe in absolute dogma. We believe our collective approach to life is in a constant state of mutation-whether we range from humanist/atheist to ultra-orthodox the one thing we have in common is that our method of process constantly is in seach of a new meaning to things. It is not stagnant. The writer makes us appear fixed in entrenched views blowing hot air at each other from these entrenched positions. No in reality we are all over the place. The writer stated: "The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was a Zionism that recognized Palestinians as deserving of dignity and capable of peace, and they were quite willing to condemn an Israeli government that did not share those beliefs." Again the writer takes liberty in restating an opinion throwing in his own subjective bias and opinions and projecting it as being one and the same with the students. He sees want he wants to see and hears what he wants to hear. I can assure you that I and these students and many Jews believe as do most Israelis that Palestinians deserve dignity and peace and their own state and we are not afraid to criticize ourselves. For heaven's sake the Israeli knesset, press, court system are blatant examples of how Israelis are open about this self criticism. We don't exactly hide it. There are hundreds of human rights organizations in Israel and the Knesset is always bedlam. However to stereotype us and say the ONLY kind of Zionism we find attrative is.....is a pretentious and ridiculous statement. We don't ever believe in an ONLY kind of Zionism. For us Zionism was never and will never be just one kind. Zionism is not a fixed black and white concept. It is in constant change so if this writer bothered to put aside their own political biases they would realize those of us he thinks see ONLY ONE possible Zionism do not. We see many, in fact an infinite number of variations. The writer said: " Luntz did not grasp the irony." Again the writer presumes to know how Luntz thinks and feels and assumes because the writer has this opinion that there is an irony, Luntz could not grasp it. No Luntz was probably no different than me-he probably does not understand why some people try to pigeon hole Zionists and try label us with simplistic black and white generalizations. The only irony is the writer claiming to know what others think and believe and can reduce them to simplistic stereotypes necessarily in conflict with one another. Its a patronizing approach where the writer assumes to know what these Jews want let alone they can't have. I make the exact comments above for this comment the writer said: "The only kind of Zionism they found attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working against for most of their lives." What crap. Those students, me, most Jews do not limit our visions of Zionism let alone find oourselves being worked against by some alleged American Jewish establishment. What a crock. This statement creates the stereotype of a reavtionary American Jewish establishment conspiring against Zionists such as myself. Thanks but don't patronize me and presume to tell me who in the Jewish community is working against me. The alleged establishment is no different then the gentile establishment. It contains people of all beliefs ranging from extreme self-hating and denying Jew to anti Zionist but none the less Jew atheist Jewish Zionist to non religious but still God believing Jew to conservative to orthodox to ultra orthodox Zionist to ultra orthodox non Zionist. There are all kinds of us some believe in religious Zionism others see Zionism as completely without rreligion and see our Jewish identity as a political or cultural one. To stereotype us as a oone ideology establishment is a joke. Its nothing more then a crude variation of yet another attempt to stereotype the Jew into this uniform character of predictability. The writer stated: "Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral." Now we see the real personal bias of the writer. Let's get this straight. People like me have never felt morally stronger even though we feel as people who support peace and what Obama is doing it makes us unpopular or because of current circumstances it makes it difficult if not impossible for us to find Palestinian peace partners. No we are not in a downward spiral any more then we have ever been in an upward one. Zionism doesn't ride spirals. It is simply the common heart beat of Jews. No more, no less. It remains constant. Jews don't ride trends. We either breath or we die. There is no debate as to whether we need to exist. That remains constant. The only debate is which strategies will best enable us to continue to survive and of course that is a fluid, constantly mutating arguement in progress. Now it didn't take time for the usual patronizing if you Jews know what's good for you...you had better know your place speech, i.e., "If the leaders of groups like AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to find a younger, Orthodox-dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians scares even them, and a mass of secular American Jews who range from apathetic to appalled." Right. There it is. I better wake up or these Orthodox Jews will get me. Thanks. This does nothing but resurrect the Jew as boogy man monster theme only it appeals to me as a Jew to believe it. What I am supposed to be afraid of orthodox Jews? That is what it says. Oh but wait the writer tells me how I can be a good as opposed to boogy man Jew.... " by talking frankly about Israel’s current government, by no longer averting our eyes." O.k. listen up. Jews talk frankly. If anything we talk too frankly. Thanks but I do not need to have anyone patronize me and tell me to fear any kind of Jew let alone avert my eyes. Who the f...ck does this writer think he is adopting that tone of presumption? He's going to lecture Jews and tell us we need to criticize Israel and fear orthodox jews? Gee thanks. I will start right now. The next Hasidic or Orthodox Jew I will run up to and yell "shame..shame..". Just once can I read an article questioning Israel's future that doesn't revert into purile anegative stereotypes of Jews as evil boogy men who need to be captured and conquered because they are evil and going to spread their germs. Oh but wait just so you are clear that today's Israel is full of evil Jews here is the vision for you: "in Israel today, this humane, universalistic Zionism does not wield power" As well just in case you did not know Netanyahu is a boogy evil Hew because... " the Netanyahu coalition is the product of frightening, long-term trends in Israeli society" and in case you didn't know who he is a monster for let's trot out the latest version fo the evil jew stereotype: "an ultra-Orthodox population that is increasing dramatically, a settler movement that is growing more radical and more entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy and army, and a Russian immigrant community that is particularly prone to anti-Arab racism." There we go got it. We no longer need to use descriptions like hook nose or sinister money lender. We just throw out terms like Russian immigrant and settler. Just as effective without having to use the word "hook nosed". Oh by the way just in case you missed it these evil Jews have sucked me of all my blood: "the language of liberal Zionism—with its idioms of human rights, equal citizenship, and territorial compromise—has been drained of meaning." Yes thanks. Thank you for letting me know I am drained. Oh but wait I am an old fart too.... "It remains the lingua franca in part for generational reasons, because many older American Zionists still see themselves as liberals of a sort. They vote Democratic; they are unmoved by biblical claims to the West Bank; they see average Palestinians as decent people betrayed by bad leaders; and they are secular." Right. I am a dithering old twat. Shut up.I heard that.

WIP the article you posted made these quotes I would agree with: -western, secular community of Israelis is shrinking, while the Orthodox, religious fanatic segment is growing in size and power: -extant tensions regularly break out into full kulturkampf struggles in cities and towns throughout the country where ultra-Orthodox, Orthodox and seculars live side by side, often with little to no social contact. -in Jerusalem, the number of secular neighborhoods has shrunk markedly in recent years as the ultra-Orthodox population (22 percent of the populace) continues to grow -young seculars continue to flee the increasingly religious and socio-economically stagnant city, which is now Israel's poorest. -kulturkampf struggles are also occurring in largely religious cities such as Bet Shemesh, where ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox residents are increasingly squaring off, and intra-Haredi violence appears to be on the rise -the great majority of Jewish Israelis are not Orthodox they may only marry in Orthodox Jewish services -there are no civil courts for marriage or divorce, so many couples are obliged to go abroad in order to legalise their union or dissolve it. Mixed marriages are forbidden. -more than 300,000 immigrants not considered Jewish by the Orthodox Rabbinate cannot be married or divorced in Israel, nor can they be buried in public religious cemeteries when they die. There is only one public civil/secular burial plot in Israel. in 2009 the budget for religious services for the Jewish population was 96 percent of total funding, although religious minorities (including Moslems, Christians, Druze, Bahai and others) comprise slightly more than 20 percent of the population -a Protection of Holy Places law prohibits women praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem All of the above I I checked for myself and verified and corroborated. In the next post I will explain what I do not agree with in the article you quoted but concede right now, this is a valid article to quote to present the discussion point you are and I think its a valuable one and captures many concerns I have as a secular, non religious Zionist. When presented as you have I must openly acknowledge the above and not pretend it is not so.

Did that make you feel better? I know you disagree with him. I know his opinions are much different then yours. It doesn't make either of you a douche bag it just means you disagree with one another. How about I put it in terms you understand. If I said I think you are being a douche bag because you are calling Bob a douche bag would that sound credible? You are engaging in the very things you accuse Bob of doing. Look just because I don't agree with many of your opinions does not mean I think you are a douche bag nor does it make me one. ( I am a douche bag for other reasons thank you) Isn't it possible we can disagree without insulting one another and getting personal? Come on. Is it the anger in you? Can you express your views without getting so angry you need to insult the person you disagree with? This is precisely how wars come about-because we get so caught up in our arguements we become emotionally attached to them and project negative emotions on others. I am as guilty of it as you. I admit it here and now. Bob may have quirks and characteristics you do not like but many could same the same of you and me and everyone else. You want to be accurate we are all douche bags. Every last one of us with me at the head of the list. So enough Bud. Stick to the issues. If you get that angry then don't respond to him. You undermine your own credibility when you do that. I speak from experience. I have lost it many times. I am not trying to pull a righteous trip on you at all. I just don't see though how you calling him names will do anything but invite them back. Let's focus on the issues.

Wip allow me to respond to just some of your comments I have placed in quotes: "Maybe rightwingers just aren't capable of seeing issues from other perspectives than their own interests..." That could be the case but it would equally hold true of you as well then, unless you are saying only your opinions are acceptable. The point is you made a generalization simply based on the fact that you disagree with what you stereotype as "rightwingers". Not all "rightwingers" are closed minded. For you to suggest such a thing simply evidences you want to name call and reduce a vast range of opinions into a simplistic label to make it easy for you to dismiss without having to debate. You stated this: "you believe the average Egyptian should give a crap about Israel's security!" It appears the above is supposed to be a rhetorical question but in fact you rephrased it to project through exclamation your own view. How about instead of projecting onto others your opinion, you take ownership of your opinion and simply state you believe the average Egyptian doesn't need to care about Israeli security. Now in response to that specific opinion of yours, I don't doubt right now the real reason Egyptians are on the street are food prices. However of course Egyptians might want to care about Israel although I do not presume to lecture any Egyptian. If there is a war with Hamas and Israel of course it will cause futher instability across the Middle East and fan the Islamist extremists in Egypt which from what appears to be the case represents about 30% of its population but not more. Egyptians have traditionally hated Israel and probably always will manifest anti-semitism which pertains to all Jews and not just Israelis since it is deeply entrenched in its culture, i.e., expressed in its media, universities, school curriculums and popular views, but that said, Egyptians are also first and foremost pragmatists and invited Israeli dollars from tourism and the average Egyptian was not wanting the Muslim Brotherhood and a shiite theocracy which they fear would spread with Hezbollah, Hamas and anti Israeli extremists. So to answer your question, no Egyptians are probably not as simplistic as you, at one level they probably still entertain ancient anti-semitic beliefs about Judaism, a gut hatred for Israel and a manifest distrust of Israel and sympathy for Palestinians but on another level are capable of understanding why a stable Middle East without Israel at war is of benefit to them as well. You made this sweeping statement: "If the close relationship the Mubarak Regime has with Israel causes blowback, and a similar situation as Iran in 1979, that's the price you pay when you try to manipulate entire nations as pawns on a chessboard." Egypt never had a close relationship with Israel. There never has been any warmth or closness or genuine mutual admiration or affection. Egypt never exchanged an ambassador. It shows how little you know of the actual relationship. The relationship came out of pragmatism not closeness or affection-it came because Egypt received billions in aid from the US for being Israel's ally and portraying itself as an ally of the US. Egypt's relationship with Israel was based on pure self interest and a mutual concern over Islamic fundamentalist extremism, Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. You stated: "I've never paid a great deal of attention to what Israel is, and is not doing," Yes that is clearly evident in your comments and none-the-less it doesn't seem to stop you from making all kinds of generalizations and assumptions about Israel now does it? You made this statement: ".. but I am sick of the Harper Government's changing of Canada's historic position of working for peace, to one that offers unqualified support for whatever Israeli governments want to do." Well we are even then because I am sick of people like you mistating Harper's position and reducing it to something he has never stated he supports. Harper has never given unqualified support for what ever Israeli governments want to do. That again is you projecting your subjective opinion and another simplistic black and white one on the actual foreign policy of the Conservative government in the Middle East which is no different then the Liberal one at this point. If you bother to actually read it, what Harper has done is to say unequivocally he defends Israel's right to protect itself against terrorism, no more, no less. When it comes to the West Bank he has stated he is in favour of a two state solution, supports a settlement freeze, and does not encourage continued settlement by Israel on the West Bank. In that respect his policy is no different than Ignatieff's. Do provide the documentation for your representation. I would love to read the policy statement where Harper said he would support anything Israel did at any time. Can't wait. Oh by the way before you label me a right winger, I am well known on this board for not being a Conservative or a left winger. Its possible to be neither. Its also possible to disagree with Harper but not agree with people like you who deliberately misrepresent his positions to bolster your rhetoric. You made this comment: "If they want to plant their flag and takeover most of the West Bank, why the hell is our Government supporting them?" Put up or shut up. Provide the evidence Harper stated he supports continued settlement on the West Bank. You then after admitting you do not follow what Israel does provided this expert analysis of Israel: "As Israel has progressed from its beginnings as a secular Jewish state, to one dominated by Orthodox Jews.." You are of course completely incorrect and your statement shows your inability to understand the difference between the Rabbinical Court dominated by Orthodox Jews and the Israeli government and typical Israeli who if you need to use a simplistic label is more aptly described as reluctant existentialist. In fact actual orthodox Jews are not the majority of Israelis. The average Israeli is not religious at all. The fact the Rabbinical Courts have dominated what the definition of a Jew is during debate on it or now controls the marriage and citizenship laws of Israel, does not mean Orthodox Jews dominate Israel or the government. There is a big difference your simplistic generalizations can not clearly grasp. In fact the average Israeli is sick and tired of orthodox Judaism principles imposed on them and mostly ignore them. The religious Orthodox Jewish political parties are fringe groups and even their clout in Netanyahu's coalition of right wing groups is precarious. The fundamentalist Jewish settlers on the West Bank constitute one third of the Jews on the West Bank. They most certainly effect Israeli policies on the West Bank and within their group are cells of intolerant extremists. However another 1/3rd of the Jewish population are in fact ultra-orthodox Hasids who do not recognize the state of Israel something you appear to have overlooked. The other 1/3rd are typical Israelis, non religious and reluctant existentialists just trying to survive. You also made this statement: "It's time for the West to start to realize that the real demographic bomb for Israel is not Palestinian Arabs, but importing Orthodox Jews from around the world, which are breeding like rabbits, and calling every settlement they build 'holy land' that must stay Jewish forever. " Again for someone who does not much care for Israel or what goes on there you have no problems lecturing us all on Israel and making sweeping stereotypes and ridiculous ones at that about Orthodox Jews breeding like rabbits. That without a doubt summarizes the extent of your credibility-the need to make sweeping insulting generalizations as to Orthodox Jews and their sexual habits reducing them to rodents. How insightful. You might perhaps want to look at the actual population rates of Palestinians and Jews to see who is as you state "breeding lile rabbits". Your statement is nonsensical because in fact Palestinians have a birth-rate far higher than Israelis. Your idiotic statement also shows you engage in an erroneous stereotype. Hasidic or ultra-orthodox Jews believe in large families yes, but over 60% of them are not even Zionist! In fact the vast majority of Israelis are not reproducing in large amounts because of high taxes and the constant stress. You though being a sexologist and demographer and expert on Jewish breeding habits must have forgot that. You stated: "Israel will eventually turn into a Jewish theocracy.." Another insightful comment. It has been since 1948. Not that you seem to have noticed. This from someone who claims to be an expert on Jewish sex habits. Oh but wait, just to let you know I actually agreed with one thing you stated: " There has always been an inherent contradiction between having a Jewish state and a democratic state. This contradiction was submerged for the first few decades because the Arab population was small enough to allow them full participation without worrying about losing that Jewish character. But, as the Arab population has grown, the restrictions have increased on the non-Jewish population." That is an excellent analysis actually and something openly discussed everyday in Israel. Also interestingly it directly contradicts your sex theories on the reproduction of Jews because if they were breeding like rabbits the above wouldn't be an issue no would it? Um uh um uh. Oh but wait here is another lecture to me and Jews about knowing our place in the world. Tell me that need to tell me my place you know where that comes from. Do you have any idea where you get that habit to lecture Jews as to our proper place? Ooopsy. Another trendy leftist liberal who spits out elitist, arrogant patronizing, holier then thou lectures to the pushy Jew on their rightful place. Where is it? Oh wait you say it is.... "If Israel wants to build a state for every Jew in the world to go to, and correspondingly push out everyone who is not Jewish, then they should have to stand or fall by that choice." Thanks for the lecture about the price we Jews must pay for wanting to be free and not subject to you and your lectures. Thanks. Oh by the way Bwana Massuh, who are you lecturing about the price Jews have paid for their freedom? Israelis? You think with your soft sheltered buttox which takes freedom and majority status and the power that comes with it for granted so much so you need to patronize Jews, that you can lecture any Israeli or Jew on the price we have paid for our freedom? You think Israelis do not know the price they have paid since Israel's inception and before it was created for our freedom? Really now. Got news for you Bwana Massuh take that arrogant presumptious patronizing tone which presumes to lecture Jews on the price they have paid for freedom and shove it up your onboxious stuck up derrieres. Oh was that too pushy? Does this Jew not know his place? What's that massuh az need to suffer some moh you sez? Are you even aware you have raised an ancient anti-semitic canard with that question that flows from the concept that Jews deserve to suffer? You even know where it comes from and why or do you just spew it out because its so deeply entrenched in your culture that you have no idea where it comes from? Oh but wait let's trot out some more stereotypes shall we..here we go...the entire West should resist mind control of that dastardly Jew lobby.... "It's stupid for the West to be dragged into blanket support for Israel because of the powerful Jewish Lobby..." Well its nice to know in the above stereotype of the Jew lobby (do note how you said JEWISH lobby not Israeli lobby-because after all what would we be if in a discussion criticizing Israel we forgot to stereotype all Jews, right?)..you then decided to stereotype a whole bunch of gentiles as well.... "and idiot Christian Zionists, who want to foment a big war because the dumbasses think it will fulfill end-time prophecy....." You are just full of stereotype platitudes aren't you...tell me how would your sensibilities be if I trotted out such stereotypes of Egyptians or Muslims? In regards to this comment,believe it or not I do not criticize it, I may not agree with all of it but I think its fair to throw it out as a political opinion...because if for no other reason some of us who do support Israels' right to exist are not stupid and no there are ulterior motives involved in all political decisions... "I think Harper's playing of the Israel card has more to do with appealing to Christian fundamentalists than it does to sucking up to Ezra Levant & co." I do believe Harper is a fundamentalist Christian which causes him to be a supporter of Israel. I think that is a fair thing to say and quite frankly I am not under the impression he has ever hid his traditional Christian views and therefore support of Israel for religious reasons. I think he has also made it clear though that foreign policy is not just based on that or his personal views. Even if it is true, what is the difference between saying that or saying Carolyn Parrish deliberately enagged in anti Israeli and anti-semitic comments to get elected in Mississauga as an MP and then later as an Alderman before she was thrown out on her large buttox? Are you suggesting Harper is inherently evil simply because he is a Christian or pro Israel in certain views? How is that different from the NDP having a bias against Israel because it sucks up to trade unions that have decided they feel they should tell the world Israel is evil? You seem a tad selective. See from where I sit, I don't embrace extremism from the left or right or generalizations made by you simply because you feel your leftism gives you inherent righteousness. I hate everyone and criticize everyone equally. I don't select what I hate for politically opportune arguements. I believe in insulting everyone all the time.

Wild Bill greetings. The Muslim Brotherhood has quite the history. It was created and was first propped and sponsored by the Nazis. Then after WW2 Britain tried to use it to prevent Israel from becoming a state, then it was put underground by Nasser in the 1950's after it tried to kill him and was resurrected again as a prop of the CIA. It had no problem getting into bed with Western intelligence agencies or the Nazis when it suited its needs. Its original leaders were pro Nazi facists sharing the same hatred of Jews and moderates make no mistake. It believes in Sharia law and one Muslim theocracy of all Muslim nations under Sharia law. It sees a world of all of Africa, Asia, Indonesia, as one Muslim Caliphate empire. It subscribes to fundamentalist Islam. This means it believes in dhimmitude, i.e., anyone who is a Muslim can not enjoy the same state rights as a Muslim. It wants Israel dismantled and all Israelis killed or expelled and believes in violence to achieve this goal and thus supports and finances Hamas, Hezbollah and hundreds of terror cells in Algeria, Tunisia, egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to name but a few Muslim countries. The Muslim Brotherhood is first and foremost an umbrella network of fundamentalist Muslims who see reclaiming the East under the umbrella of fundamentalist Muslim theocracy and a government structure identical to the one you see in Iran. It believes Westernized Arab women should be put back into head gear and back into a subservient role and has all the anti-democractic beliefs you would expect a totalitarian facist belief system to have. Because it is essentially facist, it was seen as a stooge by the CIA to fight the communist Russians in Afghanistan and it of course turned on the CIA as it did Nasser, Britain and anyone else who tried to use it. Anyone who says it is moderate is a joker. All you have to do is go on the internet and read its statements, positions and religious beliefs and history. The Ridiculous to suggest it is anything then what it is. It is also powerful. Its network is found in all Muslim countries, and it has active cells in the US, Europe, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela. The Egyptian Military is no fan of it but fears its extensive power network and there is good reason to believe as it did in Turkey it has infiltrated the military. The Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and the one in Egypt while they share the common enemy of Israel are otherwise enemies. The current Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is at odds with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and both brotherhoods are at odds with the Syrian government and experience friction with Iran and its proxy Hezbollah. Hamas which is a Muslim Brotherhood creation and stooge is split in two factions, one controlled by Egypt the other by Syria. The Syrian one currently dominates in Gaza. The Muslim Brotherhood in Sudan runs the country. The Muslim Brotherhood make no mistake is intolerant of Christians, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Assyrians, Berbers, Kurds, Druze, homosexuals, communists, trade unionists of any kind, feminists, Westernized Arabs, liberal and progressive Muslims as well as Israelis and Jews. It sees Europe and the US and all Westerners as the enemy. To try portray it as otherwise is a joke. Politically it is the best organized and most powerful opposition party in Egypt but its popularity has always hovered only about at 30% of the Egyptian population, without about 28% pro Mubarak and the rest really not affilited with one particular party or another but anti Mubarak.

Got it.

He whines no more then you do if that is the word you want to use. He has a right to defend the US and complain about those who criticize it as much as you do criticizing the U.S. As for the US wanting to police the world, you miss something. In your world I guess you miss all the countries that whine about the US but are the first to demand and take aid and benefits from it. That is his point. You can't have it both ways. You can't have it all either. You can't expect the US to carry the world with its navy and aid, and then sit around and let people take insults at it. Many countries have benefited from the US being the policeman of the world-the very same countries that sheeyit on it. You ask me which you did not lol, I say, you want to whine about the US don't take a friggin penny or benefit from it.