From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Mon Apr 08 2002 - 16:52:27 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>>Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The US is very reluctant to side with Israel "too much" so as to
>>>>have some Arab support in killing off Saddam Hussein and other
>>>>terrorists in Iraq/Iran.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Lets clearly separate Saddam from "other terrorists".
>>>Saddam is attempting to develop nuclear weapons -- that is very
>>>differerent from Palestinians attempting to develop rockets
>>>to knock out Israeli tanks or to hurl at Israeli cities.
>>>
>>Of course we won't mention Israel which is both currently a
>>majorly aggressive state and definitely has nukes and other
>>weapons of mass destruction - since we gave them to them.
>>
>
> Responding to more Samantha-ganda:
> a) we didn't 'give' them to them, they built them themselves, and
They may have built their first nukes themselves although it can
be asked where the expertise came from. But we have certainly
provided them with significant amounts of military hardware over
the decades, much of it free of charge or very heavily
subsidized. It is a bit of an embarrassment when they use
weaponry we provided to commit cold-blooded assasinations.
,
> b) unlike Saddam, Israel has not used them, while Saddam uses his
> against his own people, not just foreign enemies, and
Switch of subject. Saddam has used nukes? Where and when?
> c) responding to terrorist attacks doesn't make you a 'majorly agressive
> state'.
>
Responding to terrorist attacks you caused and provoked by your
own policies with near genocide and destruction of a people and
all their works does make you a 'majorly aggressive state'.
Check the rhetoric also if you don't believe my claims on
Israeli intention.
>
>>>The similarity between Sadaam and the Palestinian leadership
>>>is that both seem to be very comfortable sacrificing the lives
>>>of their own people to achieve their goals.
>>>
>>>
>>As opposed to Israel which is more comfortable sacrificing the
>>lives of other people to acheive their goal?
>>
>
> What? Sacrificing the lives of terrorists who already have bombs
> strapped to their bodies with the intent to kill Israelis? Get real.
>
All the Palestinian people are terrorists now? Get real yourself.
>
>>>Lets also be clear that one can probably not "kill off"
>>>a large body of terrorists in Iraq/Iran. Our activities
>>>in Afghanistan clearly show that eliminating the people
>>>who choose terrorism as a means of attaining their goals
>>>is not easy. It would also be useful to separate the two
>>>countries. Terrorism supported by Iraq is coming in large
>>>part from Hussein himself by paying the families of suicide
>>>bombers. On the other hand in Iran, terrorism seems to be
>>>supported not by the elected administration but perhaps by
>>>the religious conservatives or other fringe groups. Two
>>>different cases entirely.
>>>
>>>
>>If I was Palestinian at this time I would do everything possible
>>to strike back at Israel. If I was Arab I would tend to support
>>any means the Palestinians used to fight back, generally
>>speaking. Making Saddam out to be a monster and justifying yet
>>more US involvement in the area on such a basis is ridiculous.
>>Again, what are you calling terrorism? Is what Israel is
>>currently doing terrorism?
>>
>
> Terrorism is very plainly defined in the Laws of War, which I've
> detailed here, to YOU repeatedly. The fact that you choose, like the
> Palestinians, to ignore these definitions which are accepted by 99% of
> the human race that lives in real civilization demonstrates how far out
> in left field you really are.
>
By the laws of war the US commits terrorism. A large percentage
of the human race believes that also. You pick and choose what
you believe and claim as oh so rational.
>
>>>Finally, the population of Iraq is 23 million and Iran
>>>is 66 million. By taking any action against them,
>>>unless it is against very specific, unpopular leadership,
>>>you run a significant risk of creating more terrorists
>>>than you eliminate unless you intend to nuke the countries
>>>into oblivion.
>>>
>>>
>>I was wondering when that would be mentioned. Do you know how
>>much damage the US did to its reputation when it "leaked" that
>>it would consider using nukes in its "war on terror"? Drop
>>nukes anywhere right now and you won't have to wait for attack
>>from foreign terrorists. The people of the US would go ape.
>>
>
> On the contrary, a large percent of the people I know would prefer just
> nuking the bastards and getting it over with. You don't see many
> Japanese terrorist groups attacking the US these days, do you?
>
I am very sorry but I don't consider people of that opinion to
be at all rational and I really have nothing further to say to such.
>
>>>>Saudi financing of Palestinian and Iraqi terror is honestly enough
>>>>reason to attack the Saudi kingdom once we have enough economic
>>>>independence from them to do that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>Are you out of your mind? You want to attack S.A. when they are
>>the lynchpin of our support in the area among Arab states?
>>
>
> They are hardly the lynchpin. It is their poor proxy-colonization of
> Afghanistan in concert with Pakistan which has caused this whole mess.
>
>
Wow. That is a MAJOR rewrite of history.
>>Perhaps we could start by thinking more rationally, not to
>>mention a great deal more compassionately, ourselves. Much of
>>what we are doing is not, imho, either.
>>
>
> So sayethe the black pot.
>
To the broken kettle.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:20 MST