Debate : 10084


Off-Topic / Debate / 10084

Re: A question of remembrance... —Richard Marchetti

(...) Okay, let's assume this is true. It probably is. My question is: so what? Who comes to the table with clean hands? When it comes time to talk of peace there is usually blood on all sides. No side is innocent. No side is able to speak from a (...) (24 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) My point was that perhaps they “should take care of it” without torture etc. (...) As I understand it, to join, Turkey would have to bring its legislation in line with that of the EU. (...) Appearances can be deceptive ;-) (...) I agree. But (...) (24 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Where the fault is split 60-40 I think you're right. But what if the fault is almost all on one side? (it's not 60-40 in this case but it's not 99-1 either, so this is a hypothetical, I want to know what you think) What then? I come from the (...) (24 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) Very noble Larry. Perhaps you could tell us how this can be done? And what about state sponsored/enacted terrorism? Scott A (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler

(...) Scott: I would turn the question around and ask how you would propose to achieve peace with the state sponsors of terrorism, when those same states have demonstrated irrefutably that they accept the destruction of innocent life as a valid (...) (24 years ago, 1-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) Education. (...) It worked for a while in Spain. It is working in NI. It worked in south africa. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler

(...) Please elucidate; such education as would seem to be necessary requires a fundamental restructuring of one side's world view, and can be perceived as colonial indoctrination by the restructured party. (...) Interesting, but I'm not convinced (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) All of this depends on our definition of "terrorist". The best example I can give us is George Washington. We see him as an American hero, a general who led soldiers against an oppressive British monarchy. Now, the British saw him as a (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Richard Marchetti

(...) Well, this is a very hard question to answer in the hypothetical without more specifics, so I leave it to you to pose a more detailed hypothetical should you choose to do so. Given the real world instance of the nations of Israel and (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) This is a very good point. I took the time on Sunday to watch a programme about a so called "hero of libertarian America" - Rany Weaver. From a UK perspective this guy appeared to nothing better that a moron with a gun. However, I could not (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) How about when one side is a nation that says it wants to exterminate a certain religion's adherents and the other side is an almost weaponless group of members of that religion in the inner city of an occupied capital of a country that nation (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) Nonsense. Terrorism can are be perpitrated against a state. Groups such as the IRA worked that killing "bystanders" is bad PR. So they attack the state : Police, Army, & the Post Office(!). Recently the IRA have taken to apologising when (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Frank Filz

(...) And this is the point the Palestinians need to understand. So long as they threaten Israel, Israel can do nothing less than take steps to assure the safety of its people. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to make sure you are safe from (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) ... by building homes on the land which does not belong to them for immigrants from eastern Europe? The people who were causing trouble in London yesterday were the children of the British middle class. Their idea of suffering is haveing to (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Richard Marchetti

(...) I thought this was supposed to be hypothetical, not rhetorical... =oP Plus I plead the 5th, or maybe the 9th -- whatever gets me out of the trouble of having to answer this one... (...) Did he really write this? Was this the motivation behind (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Please define "terrorist". Dan (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Good question. I gave my definition in this post: (URL) about the second or third para down. To your point about soldier==terrorist and vice versa, I agree that the perception sometimes runs that way. But that's at least in part an effect of a (...) (24 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

Lar, I read your post about what a terrorist is: "I would tend to say it's a person or group using violence against bystanders as a way to make a political point or get a political outcome." By your definition, here's a list of "terrorists" for you: (...) (24 years ago, 3-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ok, then, there may be some flaw in the definition as that is an unexpected result. Let's dig in a bit. What makes ALL of these guys terrorists? (some might be, I suppose). What is your definition of terrorism? What if we c/as a way/as the (...) (24 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Sorry, I didn't follow that last bit: "c/as a way/as the primary way/ ??" I am not familiar with all of the internet shorthand yet. To answer your question about my definition of terrorism, I can only say that the popular use of the term (...) (24 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Sorry, that just means this: What if, in the definition wording, we changed "as a way" to "as a primary way"... the shorthand comes in because c/xx/yy/ is an editor command in several old skool line editors to effect a change of xx to yy. When (...) (24 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Your internal notion is your paradigm of world issues, including what you consider to be a terrorist. You have formed this paradigm through whatever media you've accepted as "the truth"...whether it is ABC, CNN, or newspapers, magazines or (...) (24 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: <snip> I appreciate your concern for my morals and my tax dollars. However... I want to stay narrow and not specific to this issue. What is a terrorist? Divorce it from the context. I gave a (...) (24 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Simple question: Why do you take the side of the oppressor? Divorce that from the context too. Dan (24 years ago, 5-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Three part answer: - I'm not taking sides when I say one side is worse than the other... we are talking shades of black, after all, not black vs. white. - Oppressor is such a loaded word, really. You haven't demonstrated that either side in (...) (24 years ago, 5-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Then, my friend, you are chosing the PLO to be the "far worse" shade when, factually and morally, it is totally opposite. Stop lumping things together and believing the Zionist propaganda about the Intifadah (the uprising of Palistinian (...) (24 years ago, 5-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) Wrong: (URL)- That said, I don't ever *intend* to take the side of an oppressor. You (...) Others are. As I understand it, a report is about to be published which will lay much of the blame on Israel: Report condemns Israeli expansion (URL) (...) (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) my satisfaction". However under yours: "to govern (people) in an unfair and cruel way and prevent them from having opportunities and freedom" I don't see that being the case with the Israeli governance. (...) Don't intend to try to convince (...) (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Oh, forgot to toss this stick into the hornets nest... turns out that the *PLO*, under *your* definition is an oppressor. The PLO oppresses the very people that it is governing under the limited mandate given it by the Israelis... since its (...) (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) As I said before Larry, both sides are equally bad. (...) The "nightmare" they have voted for is not high taxes, it is the use of helicopter gunships of residential areas. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Spoken like a true Zionist again! Learn the truth and stand up for what's right. Dan (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) One of the purposes of a dictionary is to ensure that words have the same meaning for all of us. Assuming our own meanings on words dilutes the power of language... in my opinion. (...) Really? (...) I am beginning to you lack any thinking on (...) (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: Snip. (...) Both sides are bad. but... (...) the PLO are far worse. That's it. End of point. Saying this does not make me a Zionist. Sorry, Dan, but it just doesn't. Saying that Hitler was worse than (...) (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Spoken like a ture Zionist once more. Don't be a puppet, Larry. (...) Didn't say you were a Zionist, but you are speaking for them. The Israelis stand against basic human rights, the same rights that Americans fought for against the British (...) (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That's a reach. (...) *Which* invader? Let's see... how about: The phoenicians, the egyptians, the greeks, the romans, the crusaders, the turks, the french, the british. There have been so many, no one has clear title. The zionists just (...) (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) But you obviously favor the Israelis, right? Okay, let's consider the Zionist story regarding Israel as the "home of the Jews" and their claim to distant Semetic bloodlines (fraudulent, by the way). Considering Judaism is a Semetic religion (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Shiri Dori

Hi Dan, I've been following this part of the debate and specifically staying out of it, because I can tell when a cool-headed discussion turns into a hot flame war. Although this isn't a full-fledged flame war, it is certainly not a great debate, (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Richard Marchetti

(...) Geez, this is really becoming the thread that would not die! And I can see that some are getting overheated about some of the points being made. MY point would be to suggest that no one will get much closer to peace until everyone concerned is (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

Richard, I am very sorry about this debate dragging on but I cannot, with clear conscience, allow certain blatantly Zionist remarks to slide. The moral issue I've maintained is "who invaded who" and "who is oppressing who" and I'll add "who is (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Richard Marchetti

(...) First, no apologies are necessary. You obviously have some things you wish to express. (...) To be honest, I don't support much of anything outside of U.S. borders. I want to mind my own business in relation to my neighbors, and I want U.S. (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well said! You, me and Jefferson: "Honest friendship with all who wish it, entangling alliances with none" (...) Although they got a nice piece of change by owning Foxwoods! THAT was shrewd working within the system. :-) (...) Maybe not but (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler

(...) This is an oft-quoted snippet, and I have no doubt that it was fine foreign policy for an infant nation two centuries ago, but in an age when we can cross the globe in hours, I think its relevance is more metaphorical than actual. And while (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Couldn't have said it better myself! From what I've seen in my life so far, the sort of "peace" that Israel wants. Dan (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Richard Marchetti

(...) ::sigh:: I knew I should have left in my qualifier about the Nazis... In my last post I WAS going to include that the nations of the world should have spotted the threat the Nazis represented much earlier on and not have jumped into bed with (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, yes and no. The world does not admit of us huddling behind our borders and assuming that distance keeps us safe, but nevertheless there is merit in not getting entangled in alliances quite as much as we seem to have gotten lately. No (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler

(...) That's interesting! During last year's debates about Libertopia et al, I tried to envision the type of world that could support a free nation like Libertopia (remember when I oh-so-cleverly coined it Liberama? Ah, such wit!) I still don't know (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Put it this way, when was the last time you were personally threatened by the Lichtenstein Army? Now if Lichtenstein turns into a pocket dicatorship that kind of stinks for the Lichtensteiners but it won't last. Bill Gates could afford to do (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed. (...) It does not have one. They rely on the Swiss for defence. (...) Big business would only do such a thing if there was $$ involved fom them. Individuals would only do such as thing if there was kudos involved. I would rather these (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Got me... I did not know that. Pick some other tiny country as the root of the example then... one that does have a tiny army. How about if we use the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, because that's obviously fictional. This is a fictional example, (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) I do. (...) For people "in general" I do. (...) Well, what were his motives? (...) That is the important question. Many things are clearly "wrong" : mass murder etc. But at the other edge of the scale it is harder to tell... but perhaps the (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Selçuk Göre

(...) Heh...:-) I think you don't know much about what could be the cost of a corrupt government to you, perhaps you never have to live with one, generations long. Selçuk (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) I suppose these things are all realtive ;-) Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Shiri Dori

In replying both to Richard and Dan - I agree. We all want peace, and naturally everyone's peace will be on different terms. We cannot change the past, but we can try and deal with what's here. I agree that Israel as it was formed was not a good (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

Alsalaam aleikum! Shalom! (...) Actually, the Zionists WERE doing it out of greed and hoodwinked the mass of Holocaust victims worrying about a homeland. No real Jew would ever have supported invading someone's land, murdering, crippling and running (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Shiri Dori

(...) Markhaban, Ahalan (wasahalan), hi, what's up :-) (My knowledge of Arabic consists of, umm, "Markhaban ya talamiz, Ana Mualima Ismi Salma", and, well, I forget the rest... since I left .il without taking high-school Arabic. If I had not had (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

Alsalaam aleikum! Shalom! Regarding the link I gave you, perhaps you'll have to wait a little while and try back again. It's something worth reading. More bloodshed today, more Palestinians dead, more excuses from Israel. I'm glad that you at least (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Richard Marchetti

(...) I am perfectly willing to give you the last word, Dan -- but tell me this: what do you propose should happen if you got everything you wanted? I don't want a fantasy, answer with what you would do tomorrow if "fixing" the situation were up to (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

An addendum to my previous posts regarding the Israeli occupation: Although I have used the term "Palestinian" repeatedly to describe the Arabs of that area, I realize that there are certain inaccuracies with the term. The root word is (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

Another addendum to my last post: (...) What I meant to say: There isn't a violent "Palestinian" action against Israeli civilians on record since the creation on Israel that matches the Massacre of Deir Yassin. My apologies, I am usually more (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

Yet another addendum: (...) I mean "of" Israel not "on." Never type tired... Dan (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I hadn't thought about the etymology, odd! Even odder, when considering that the inhabitants of Philistia were Mycenaean Greeks displaced by the Dorian Invasions of c. 800BC. :) I do wonder, then, how much of their genetics and culture ended (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Kind of an obtuse way of saying "forgotten" or "ignored". :-) Bruce (for the younger, Michael Collins was the Astronaut from the Apollo 11 moon mission that didn't walk on the moon) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler

(...) Actually, I was thinking Lindsay was trying to start up another Liam Neeson movie controversy. Dave! (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Heh, actually, that's an interesting link I hadn't thought of. I wonder if we can work Darkman in here too? LFB (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler

(...) And let's not forget Krull. Oh wait. On second thought, let's! Dave! (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Ack! Purged from the memory banks. What else have I forgotten? LFB (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Nope. Wrong Michael Collins. See below, it's not obtuse at all. (...) Actually, that's a different Michael Collins. The one I'm thinking of was the one sent in 1922 by Eamon de Valera to negotiate the Good Friday Agreement that created the (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) So, you forgot about the Astronaut? You're just proving my point! ;-) Bruce (sheesh, I shoulda known it was a more esoteric answer...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes, but peace on what terms? "Israel sticks to settlement policy" (URL) your country voted for Sharon they did not vote for diplomacy. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

Hi Shiri, Alsalaam aleikum! Shalom! I genuinely appreciate the olive branch. :) I try not to generalize, but I'm guilty of trying a few shortcuts in my last post. It seems I unwittingly made a point about generalizations because most, dare I say (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Frank Filz

(...) Oh, now thats a solution. By that generalization, I belive almost NO ONE in the world has any right to live where they live. I doubt ANY population in the world can be documented to be living on land they didn't take from someone else (and in (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler

(...) I know many people who shouldn't be trusted with weapons, and most of them aren't police. However, you've hit on an important point, regarding both the necessity of a professional military and the difficulty of reducing it. No one with a stake (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) The people who least want to see a reduction in the military are those who make the weapons. Take a look how much the companies who will work on Son of Star Wars gave Dubya for his election. Scott A (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler

(...) Ugh! Don't even start me on that ridiculous cash cow! I foresee, shortly after the implementation of this fine umbrella, someone boating up the Potomac with a suitcase bomb or a big tank full of anthrax. I think a real distinction can be (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) See today's WSJ. All the pieces of Brilliant Pebbles have been tested and shown to work (although not as part of an integrated system). Most of them in Clementine, one of the most cost effective civilian space missions ever! According to the (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler

(...) But is the intent of the Umbrella to stop attacks by other nations against other nations? That's how Dubya is trying to sell it, but it doesn't sound like any other nation is buying the rhetoric. (...) That's true--my example wasn't especially (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right. Hence my question, is it our duty to be the world's policeman (in the area of incoming missiles) just because we CAN? I tend to say no. I say build the thing and then announce that there is a 1B USD charge per missile for stopping (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Um, wrong. Yet another reason to question anything coming across the pages of the WSJ. Not that I've read it since they'd declared breatfeeding dangerous to infants... I've been seeing the antiballistic missile development more-or-less behind (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Jeremy... Clementine was a SINGLE spacecraft. No backup. Sure, there was QA performed on components on the ground to put only ones believed to work into it, but all the components worked (for that mission, which of course was to do mapping, (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) Oops, I thought we were talking about the missile shield program, not one portion of it succeeding with 99% already-proven technology. Clementine was less about proving technology, and more about PR. Badly-needed PR, I might add, for an (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) You are missing the point! It has nothing to do with defence. It has two objectives: 1. Start a "new" arms race and bankrupt China. 2. Move large amounts of money from US taxpayers to US shareholders. Everything else is salesman’s banter. (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —James Powell

(...) Na, Dave! has it right, all it is going to do is save the attacking country ~ 10 billion dollars or so, on ICBM research as well as Special Weapons (Gas/Bugs/Nukes). It's a farce. An expensive farce, that I don't think will bankrupt China, (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) Very good point. However, both arguments assume there is the real risk of an attack. (...) I doubt it will bankrupt China too, especially given the amount of $$ the west is pumping into it! Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ya, Taiwan can sleep well at night, Mainland China has no desire to "take back its rogue province" and all those platforms they're building in the Spratleys are just fishing shacks. Ya, Japan can sleep well at night, North Korea is the most (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) What is that got to do with the USA? (...) What is that got to do with the USA? (...) What is that got to do with the USA? (...) Perhaps to you. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Why make my statement sound so far fetched? Is it any more or less valid than the British finally pulling out of India? With regard to Israel, I wouldn't call my statement a generalization. The specific fact remains that the European Jews ran (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Because after the British "left" India, there were still a lot of Britons who elected to stay, and India still existed. Who would leave if "the greedy Zionists" packed up and "went home" to the places where they--pardon me, their grandparents (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

Thank you for your input, Lindsay, and for presenting the "facts on the ground" point of view about the Israeli occupation. The Zionists would like nothing better than to hold up their children born in Israel as a further claim to the land they took (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Dave Schuler

(...) Just for my own clarity, Dan, what would you say to the Jews born in Israel in the last fifty years? While their births don't "entitle" the Jews as a people to usurp land from anyone, I don't understand why the native-born Israelis wouldn't (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I can't disagree at all with that last prescription. I've been reading very closely articles that point out that even within the territory Israel claims as sovereign, Palestinians and other non-Jewish residents will outnumber Jews within 20 (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Tom Stangl

(...) Um, you're missing the point. If everyone lays down their claim, that INCLUDES your Arabs. <cluephone, ring, ring> -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | iPlanet Support - (URL) A division of AOL (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Larry Pieniazek

Shiri's right. This isn't much of a debate (most that involve Scott A. in some significant way tend not to be) and neither of us are moving much. But I just can't let a couple of points slide. (...) For about the 9th time, no. It is not favoritism (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) The debate has not moved on Larry as you have failed to justify your "far worse" comment. Instead you squirm, muddy the water and make cheap shots like the one above. (...) If the PLO is "far worse" than the Israelis, are the Israelis not far (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Tom Stangl

(...) That's ridiculous. That's like saying "you think the KKK is far worse than the Black Panthers, so you must support the Black Panthers", which is obviously NOT true (in my case, anyways). -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server Technical Support (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) It's not within the context of Larry's "argument". That's like saying "you think the KKK is far worse than the (...) I have no idea who the Black Panthers are. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) Come on Larry, tell us. Tell us how your rights based personal philosophy came up with these tomes of wisdom. Scott A (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Then for the 10th time, YES IT IS when the opinion is biased, gained from pro-Zionist media. What part of that do you not understand? Stop pretending that you are somehow open minded or unbiased about the Middle East. Name ONE Arabic newspaper (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Frank Filz

(...) Well, Dan did bring up Nazi before you brought up Hitler... Frank (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) But it is a point you are not able to justify... or so it appears. (...) The is no loosing or winning here Larry. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Spoken like a true Zionist, Larry. You are allowing yourself to be a puppet for a political group that has turned the same Nazi tactics, that previously oppressed the Jews, on the Palistinian population to get them to bow down. The same (...) (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Daniel Jassim

(...) Oops, sorry if I left you hanging on that question, I thought it was rhetorical. I believe the dictionary would use the literal meaning as "one who instills terror in others." Perhaps a bit too general for an America that prefer's having (...) (24 years ago, 5-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Selçuk Göre

(...) Actually I really can't understand why there is a term like terrorist? We already have enough terms that define the actions of "terrorist" like murder, kidnapping, burglary, plunder, and so on. What is the difference if you killed someone for (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A question of remembrance... —Scott Arthur

(...) Indeed. You were asked for a definition after your sentenced terrorists to an arbitrary fate. But then it turned out you were a little muddled about what a terrorist is. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 6-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)