KrustyKidd

That's possible. So, bomb some more and make abolutely sure they'll take even more and feell justified about it to boot. Then, keep on doing it and they'll set up a 'security zone' beyond the wall.

Flight 93 Trailer Scares Moviegoers

Born with a belt bomb, a very odd evolutionary trait. Kadima victory is disturbing for some West Bank settlers Oh, sorry, forgot to give you the breakdown in the election. Black Dog And evictions there as well. Troops Break Resistance in West Bank West Bank settlers looking to relocate So, seems the ball is in the Palestinians court. They don't terrorize and the government has no reason to change. Two parties dedicated to pulling out of the West bank on top and the two against on the bottom. Only terrorism can change that, hence, only Palestinians can screw it up.

And, that won't be changed by terrorism. It will only give them more rationale to carry on even more. They have moved settlers out of many areas in order to cater to the peace vote. Sinai is one I remember as I was there when it occured as is Hebron, Gaza and many other places. So don't tell me it would would never happen. Yep. They should make a deal now then. It's not going to get any better.

Extreme? They simply Parrot the Republican lines. If your idea of extreme is Rush, what is Savage? Really really really extreme? Or, can we just call Rush right wing? BTW, what would Roberts be? So extreme he's off the charts? Only fools think this hate mongerer represents the Left. Picture him as a left wing Pat Roberts.

Lots. Just like cute little fuzzy squirrels shouldn't be eaten by big bad wolves. However, that's reality. You got it finally! I was beggining to lose hope in you. See, that's why the only thing that can move is Palestinians. Oh well. That wall looks better everyday for both.

I think I understand this pretty good. Settlers wield a political pull and form a voting block that can only be countered by security concerns being addressed. Their vote is unlikely to change under any circumstances but, alone, they don't hold power. They will do what they do but do not hold the majority of the vote. Security trumps them. Easy. That's the way it is. Maybe to some but as we discussed earlier Israel is a democracy with various factions and voting blocks. Those predisposed to peace will out pull those disposed to expansion if there is some reality to make them believe it is possible. So every Palestinian negotiator and leader of the past fifty years has been living in a fantasy world? Well then, no sense in even discussing the subject then for you. I mean, Israel is not going to budge so, it's just guys killing themselves against a brick wall then. As for recognizing Israel's right to exist (again) I thnk the new Palestinian leadership has made a slight change in that policy. And we return back to the beginning. Israel is not going to move, change or provide anything without getting the peace voters to overcome the expansionist vote. It's a democracy and, to get that vote, you have to have one of the factors change and, the only factor that can change is Palestinian behavior. Too bad, might not be fair but that's reality.

Parliament, congress, the senate, the UN. Certainly. I doubt he changed anybody's mind though as everybody that listens to him is already predisposed to a certain mind set anyhow. I mean, the guy is mind candy for Republicans. And what were Oprah, Al Frankin, Randy Rhodes, Katie Couric saying? Didn't Michael Moore 'wiegh in' on this? Point being, all people go to the well they are afamiliar with. I'm sure you didn't listen to Rush to get the skinney on the case. Or did you? To say that the Right Wing talk shows can mobilize more action than the Left is indicitive of either more people being listeners of their shows than the Left ones, more people being Right Wing to begin with, the Right has more of a base audience due to the political spread or, Left Wing talk show hosts and producers are idiots that have no idea of how to run a show. I agreed with you totally and, gave the average Joe little credit. People vote what they always vote. Swing voters get the bug up their ass from other sources than these people. Then, once that bug is there and they begin to lean in an opposite direction, they may tune in for reinforcement of those views but there is generally a reason why they do before they do.

Tribal and religion. If they were white, the entire society would be nigger hating truck driving red necks who go to church on sundays. The rest of the world is wrong as their grand daddys did it that way and will continue to do it that way despite reality. It takes a lot of 'WD Stupid' to get that bolt to move a half millimeter but it can be done when the botl finally realizes that the extension bar is comming with an impact wrench and it's going to give. I probably would be too initially. Then, when it sunk in that it was going to be that way I would encourage my kids to either move, or, get a job under the new regime. I wouldn't allow my hatred to kill my kids. hat's a sign of something deeper than just getting a 'bad deal.' I have lots for the poor people that understand that this can only go one way and that is the way of peace. They must be crying themserlves to sleep at night watching all the opportunities lost and the generations that will be living in squalor come and go. It's so tragic. But, as it's said, a Palestinian never misses a chance to give up an opportunity.' Ok then, with the complete benifit of hindsight, please give the alternative but keep in mind, there are repercussions for all of them. That will never happen. What I see is that in about ten years the wall will be finished and Israel will just go about what they do. Palestine will find itself at the mercy of the world who will eventually place conditions on Hamas for the aid they recieve. It will undergo a political change sooner or later as there won't be any way to vent and the result will be either the emergence of a true society committed to peace or, one that begs anhialation from Israel once they have the capability to circumvent the wall.

Wrong. Israel will accept a Palestinian state that does not try to kill them. The majority of Palestinians however will not accept a Jewish state in any scenario. And yes, both the pot and the kettle are black here however, one (Palestine) is going nowhere and the other (Israel) is going everywhere, albeit, painfully.

Must be talking to somebody else. I said Another is kidnapping people and cutting off their heads, another is infiltrating societies and helping fellow Jihadists kill them and others are just regular good old killing the enemy however you can. I suppose you could think of some other examples but I certainly didn't think I was supposed to provide examples of other societies where they killed themselves. Sorry, I didn't mean to leave anybody out. Then again, Kamakazies are not Jihadists nor are they Palestinian either so I can be forgiven. Back to the thread please.

Suicide attacks are one method of Jihad. Which is a term for a struggle or, holy war as it is termed by Islamics. Hamas and at one point, the PLO both held this belief as a legitiate way to execute their goal wiich was to return Palestine to Islamic people and Muslims only. Hope that helps. Next time, possibly you could look that up in Wilkpedia or something in case I'm not around.

Politically it's a moot point as the violation of the fourteen or so resolutions provided the rationale to carry out enforcement via regime change/invasion. WMDs in Saddam's posession gave a dramatic edge to it which by all accounts, most leaders of the world agreed he had. On the practical side, I hope that if they are there still they are found so some farmer or kid doesn't kill themselves or worse, end up in the hands of some unsavory types and get returned to France in a Paris subway.

It's a democratic country with a huge voting block comprised of settlers. They won't budge until the terrorism stops, hence, that block will continue to weild influence until the Palestinians give it up. My point proved again. Who cares about moral when people deny your right to exist? I told you above that they don't care, they will do whatever they have to do to make sure they survive. If the Palestinians having a homeland helps that, they they will work to give them that, if they feel it is detrimental to their survival, they won't. It's really simple, Palestinians are the only moveable object here as they have no way to go but up whereas Israel has everything to lose and only peace to gain. If there was no threat of terrorism and full negotianions were taking place with benchmarks being reached, I don't see why not as the settler block would lose power to the peace vote. With all terms being filled by both sides there is no reason for Israel not to forego the settlements in return for enhnced security. Besides, I wasn't talking about Israeli good faith, I was talking about how the rest of the world would ostracize them for not living up to their part of the bargain when, for the first time, the Palestinians were doing theirs. But, we all know we are wasting our time here don't we, what with Hamas in charge, squalid refugee camps will be the norm for another fifty years.

It does though. The people who make the decisions do not use these people to base their rationale on. In the 'normal Joe' world, Oprah gets just as much coverage as these people do as does Letterman. And, Baldwin and Moore and so on and forth. The listenership proportions reflect the demographics for each theism I believe. Also, take a look at the proof supplied on just this forum - the right types give Fox and opinion pieces from right wing blogs and the Left from Truthout and the Guardian. Not exactly where the State Department gets their intelligence from but, each gravitates to their own well of comfort I suppose.

Ya I did miss it, sorry. I don't agree though. I listen to Hannity, Rush, Oreilly, Frankin, Levine, Savage, Rhodes and whomever else when I'm on the road, for entertainment and, as an extended news/information sort of thing as I'm interested in politics and whatever. They don't bring forth much in the way of new news or arguments nor shape my views as the information they give out is pretty basic as are the arguments they bring forth. Often I wonder how or why they don't get lambasted for cetain arguments they have or stances they take on certain issues but, it's entertainmet and they have the mic control and I have the off button. Another point I would like to make is that Rush Limbaugh is also no intellectual giant and, most of his points are pure republican boot licking. Nothing wrong with that if you love the Republican party just as randi Rhodes has her following. Dangerous? Hardly, no serious person would place their ability to gather information, mull it over and decide the fate of the free world from these people. I find that most people just make a decision and take a stand for reasons that are almost akin to flipping a coin.

I don't think it sunk in Black Dog. Israel is going to do what it has to do and, as much as it can in order to benifit it's people and keep them as safe as possible whether you, the Palestinians or the rest of the Arab World likes it or not. There is only one way to get through this with Palestinians comming out with something - stop terrorism and provide absolutely no excuse or reason for Israel to have any roadblock to giving them what they should have. Once done, the world will put the pressure on in spades and, even Israel can't withstand that.

Absolutely right. Ann Coulter, while some what she says I agree, with is only an entertainer. And, a very irritating one at that. As I stated before, Hannity would not find such an easy debate with real Democratic intellectuals as real ones don't parrot the Micahel Moore talking points. Rather see things from perspectives that take more into account than USA bad, rest of world good. I believe I also said that there would be no clear winner in that debate either but, it sure would be educational for the people watching.

Gerry, did you ever for one second thnk that it was about WMDs? If you did then you are way behind what is really going on. A pretext to place a force in the heart of the middle east to incite Saudi Arabia to begin clamping down on Al Queda, which they did. The rest of your post is redundent rhetoric for the emotionally challenged.

For Gingrich, it’s a dramatic reversal Gingrich's Bad Call

Oh that's right. Saddam didn't get the 1991 fax that said to destroy his WMDs and provide immediate and unconditional cooperation. Did he get the other ones or maybe the UN didn't provide the necessary communiques telling him what he had to do in order to be in complience with the fourteen resolutions? After all that, what was Bush supposed to say? "Get rid of your WMDs and provide immediate and unconditional cooperation?" Think that was said more than a few times so, your point is hubris.

You did though. I understand that you meant that terrorism was not as 'big of a threat' however, the events of 911 and, just as importent, the bombings in many of the weaker Muslim countries of the world all fall into the scheme that is Al Queda's mission. To weaken, then eventually topple those same regimes at the same time, provoking the US to respond in a way that they could use to unite the Muslim world. It's a chipping process, not a frontal attack. Osama was a radical long before he went to Afganistan. And, if his family was not in tight with the loyalty to the House of Saud, he would have been left to rot there like many of his fellows. There was a secondary reason to send them there and that was they were nutbars and the Afgan war was a great way to give them what they wanted and rid the country of some radicals. Hopefully never to return. You seem to be under the impression that some magical transformation occured in Afganistan. It didn't. These guys were hard core conservatives goiong in and, going out, they were battle hardened hard core conservatives, with or without the USA. As for saying that anybody could have seen this comming not. They didn't emerge as a movement until they had come out on top of the civil war, a very uncertain event. And only then did they move forward with the next plan. So was Musharif and he didn't fly planes into buildings. Same with the Kurds, same with the Iranians. Just as Stalin was a great guy to beat Hitler with. Radical Islam wasn't a houshold word until 911 Uh huh. Ferment disorder and then, topple the government and replace with a Muslim one. Standard procedure. The US is a an actor in a play the Wahhabists thought they wrote. However, they are not playing the part as expected.

Yes, invented on September 11, 2001. Prior to that, all suicide bombings were imaginary. Yes like Lincolns law where he imprisoned journalists, banished dissenters and the laws that forced Japanese people into camps. All iin place to this day, not one of them rescinded. The voting over the renewal of the Patriot act was done in a mock up of congress with actors from Broadway who filled in for the officials. It's a great way to increase your power as President - invoke actions that decrease your popularity to really low numbers and then, hold elections every four years just to get the opportunity for a thigh strapping. Hmm, does it look like this map? Coincidence? The Caliphate I would too if I thought that terrorism was a figment of the imagination.

92 actually. Then civil war between the Warlords with the Mujahedin and Taliban taking control eventually in 96. The Taliban were not deemed terrorists then nor are they now however, they did support terrorism and, were bombed in 98 by Clinton to reflect that. The fall of the USSR is seen by Al Queda as their victory, not Regans. And, to them and those who would join or follow them, evidence of their power. Confrontation with the US is only a method rather than an endgame. Al Queda Please address your concerns on the supposed 'illegal war' here.

They didn't become a terroist organization or an organization for that matter until they were marrooned in Afganistan by their own governments after the war. Battle hardened intellectuals who were given passage to Afganistan to fight the infidel by totolatarioan regimes that were glad to be rid of these hotheads for their rablle rousing beliefs and behaviors at home were not welcomed back. Their passports mysteriously vanished in Pakestan along with help from the CIA and others at the request of the goverments. All in the same place, hardened intellectual Wahhabist warriors wondering why they were betrayed. The reason? Easy, their governmnents were weak and aposphates. Tools of the infidels and so, they formed a plan to clean out the infestatin of unbelievers that ran Islamic countries, recapture the Caliphate, the one time in history when Islam was a power to be rec oned with and so began the rise of the Base. It would have happened in another way. I think I explained before. The US is not the target, the entire former Caliphate is. The US is oly a tool, if not for them, it would have been somebody else as for eight hundred years, the Middle East has been under the boot of one hegemon or another. As I observed, even the Dutch had their day there.