IAP Political Forum

Well, this is the first post in the new ME section of the new IAP 2.0 site.

As an opening, I wanted to put a sensible, worthy post for a change.

So I take this chance to remind a few truths that too often get distorted in the noise made by bigotries of all color.

- Israel does exist. It's a sovereign country and its citizens have every right that every citizen haves in a country. This rights are reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

- Although Israel is intended to be the home of the whole Jewish ethnia, this is matherially impossible. It's a land too small and poor in resources to harbor the entire jewish population in the world. In the future, most Jewish people will keep living outside of Israel, as part of different harboring societies.

- Jewish people are largely a non-issue in what Western countries are officialy concerned. Although the degree fo sensitivenes to Jewish issues varies, today Western countries are more neutral than they have ever been before towards the Jewsih minorities living in them.

- Israel as a state was founded by a legal mean, but its survival was threateend from the very start due to a complete lack of agreement and understanding with its neighbors. Although efforts have been made and some neighbors officially tolerate Israel, for the most part Israel has got no friends in its neighborhood.

- Israel is a very convenient topic for domestic policy in about every Arab country in the ME. Israel is used as scapegoat to focus wrath and anger that otherwise would be directed to the usually poor and corrupt rulers of these countries.

- Israel is also a focus point for Jewophobes. Although jewophoby today has lost all meaning, it still is alive as a disgrace being carried from fathers to sons. The irrational hate agaisnt Jewish people, more than ever before, has lost all emaning. It shields in Israel's actions as an excuse to not face its own lack of a reason to exist. Jewophoy, more than ever before, exists merely for the sake of existing.

- Israel has provided endless ammunition to jewophobes. Israel's actions, domestic and international, often are tainted by a lack of respect to human rights. In some cases, Israel's unilateral actions are self-defeating and alienate itself from tolerant countries like the Western countries, and contribute to spread problems rather than resolve them.

- Israel's problems can not be fixed through violence. But currently nobody empowered in Middle East is willing to renounce to violence. Actually violence is a convenient thing to do instead of not doing aything or doing thigns that could lead to peace.

- But all in all, israel's problems don't stem from its population being Jewish or not -but from the usefulness of keep using Jewish people as a convenient excuse to avoid doing what should be done.

Thee main tragedy in Middle East is not that it's a tragicla situation -but that all forces play to keep the tragedy working in their favor rather than sacrifice for peace. And this is, definitvely, NOT Israel's sole fault.

Israel does have a right to exist. As haves every state and population in the ME area. But this right is being continuously abused by everyone who profits from violence. It's a collective sin of which noones is innocent -power and influence in ME are used to some degree for violence, and often for violence alone.

And nothing will ever change until this profiting from violence ends or, better, stops being useful conveneint or profitable.

Peace haves no friends in ME. Is then time to make sure that violence has got enemies at least?

Israel has the right to exist in the same fashion that other colonial states do. As a fait accompli whose original "illegitimacy" has been annulled by the sheer passage of time. As a collectivity in which the present generations cannot be held accountable for the "original sin", nor can they be demanded to undo it by departing the country.

It gets more complicated when the Palestinian refugees enter the screen. What are their rights? In the "abstract justice", it's impossible to find justification for denying anyone violently uprooted from his native land the right to return there. The right of the Palestinian return is compatible with Israel's right to exist, - to exist as a state, but not as a Jewish state. Israel has the right to exist, - but does it have the right to exist as an exlusively Jewish state? Japan has the right to exist as an exclusively Japanese state, but this is not a country founded through violent removal of the pre-Japanese population 60 years ago whereas these removed aboriginals are packed into camps outside of Japan's borders.

But the question of Israel's existence disturbs only extremists and speculative ethics philosophers. The real practical question is not about its existence or about its Jewish character, but about its borders.

I have to applaud you peis for finding this place...I like how this thread MZL jumps right into the deep end.

way to open up the forum.

no wai

Oh, welcome, houm, I guess.

I'll say...


I think Israel has a right to exist like any country... and like any country they are susceptable to attack and invasion. They are susceptable to retaliation for their actions.

There is no reason why the US should fund a countries existence. It is the responcibility of the country in question to defend itself and commit actions that would best secure that country.

Bombing imaginary targets in northern Syria is NOT the way to excercize that existence... but hey, what do I know?

.

I agree with both Major Lee and Abraxas, and Israel deserves the right to live in peace with its neighbors, as long as THEY are peaceful.

Terry

.

Kudos toth post from Peis. Agree 100%. What goes around comes around.

Maybe so, but that is way too simplistic for the Mid-East, kactus mate!


Kind regards
Terry


...

Well spoken, Zee.

I've always been hopeful of peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestinian crisis.  In some ways I agree that the US should stay out of it and not support either side, but in other ways I don't.  I know you didn't bring that up, but it has to be talked about.

Israel does have the right to exist, and so does Palestine.  Peis brought up that the real issue is borders - and I tend to agree.  On the other hand, I think the biggest obstacle is the lack of moderates on either side.  These forums are a perfect microcosm of that very problem.  We've all seen posts that are just filled with hate or complete distrust and disgust for the other side.  I think that exists to a large extent in the Middle East.  Israel has its nut-jobs, and so does its neighbors. 

Israel, in my mind, should be assured that it will be defended from outside aggression.  That does not mean however, that Israel should feel invulnerable due to its own aggressive actions.  Pre-emption should be redefined as aggression and it should be known that it is completely unacceptable.  In other words, you reap what you sow.  If Israel goes out and starts picking fights, well, good luck with that.  The US has to be stern in warning Israel that aggression will erode our support, but the rest of the world should offer that same warning to Israel's neighbors. 

In time, MAYBE enough trust can be built to start making some progress.

So you don't entirely disagree with how the US arms Israel?

I think part of why we do it is cause now we have a fall guy in the Middle East. Consider this.

Israel attacks Syria. Syria responds. Iran begins to fund Hezbolah more heavily again. US begins the active defense of Israel and in the ensuing fight an American plane is shot down or an American soldier is killed. Defacto, the US has valid reasoning to attack Syria and/or Iran.

And thus, American expansion into the Middle East continues for another decade.

Am I a "konspirasist" kook? 


I'm sorry... but am if I say "unlikely", is it cause I'm a pascimist?

You know much. Indeed it is certainly not our responsibility to do Israel's bidding nor that of any other nation.

OswaldTheOsprey

...


I like Crypto's analysis, but Abraxus is probably more realistic. I believe what will actually happen falls between those two views.


...

Entirely?  No.  We arm our allies in many cases.  Europe had been armed by the US for the last 60 years in some way or another.  We also supply arms to many nations in the Middle East.  Iran still has American F-14s sitting on the ground somewhere but defunct because we don't supply parts.  This is something that we do.  The Russians do it, the Chinese do it, the Europeans do it.  

What I disagree with is the continuous arming with no strings attached.  Israel, as I said before should feel secure from outside, uninstigated threats.  But the US should be very clear that we don't arm Israel so Israel can do what she wishes.  If Israel turns aggressive, support from us will dry up.


Could be.  But somehow I just don't see us gaining much from this.  Outside of oil, there is no strategic interest in the area.  And, we can buy all the oil we like.  It is far cheaper to do that than to prosecute a war (or multiple wars).  On the flip-side, my post was to point out how we should continue if we insist on arming Israel.  Your first sentence is "Israel attacks Syria" which to me is aggression.  As such, the US should stay out of the fight and leave Israel to the consequences of its own actions.  I know that isn't happening now, but it needs to.


Nope.  You are speaking to the realities of the situation.  That is why I put "maybe" in all capital letters.  To be honest, the quicker the rest of the world gets out of the affairs of Israel and Palestine, the faster the situation will resolve itself.  Each side can inflict a lot of pain on the other, and at some point they will equilibrate.  It will probably be bloody, but we'll have end-game.

...


Maybe it is that the arming and the use of those arms is the key issue here. I would like to think that there is control over Israel vis-a-vis the U.S.

ridiculous thread

I'm more of an isolationist and would prefer NO arms sales, mostly because I don't trust government to sell arms responcibly. If we arm another nation it's not soely for their benefit and it is THAT atitude that often times screws us in the end.

Iran. Iraq. Israel (in some cases). Saudi Arabia.

I see a pattern... and it's a shame the government doesn't... or just chooses NOT to see it.


Why buy the oil when you can subtely control the distribution of it? Sure, war is expensive but if it means maintaining control over one of the BIGGEST oil reserves in the world... why not?

I know saying "it's about the oil" makes me sound like an ignoramous unable to make another point... but our interference in the Middle East really *IS* about oil.

Iraq has a big enough reserve already... but Iraq is already at odds with Iran. Iran feels a natrual right to intervene considering the vecinity of US troops and air craft carriers to their borders and shores. We feel an obligation to protect Iraq (a developing Democracy) from Iran (an incroaching Dictatorship), which leads to bombing and the eventual control of THEIR territory.

Now we have a HUGE percentage of the Middle East's oil under our political thumb...

40 years (this is totally estimated) of ensured foreign oil for the price of 2 wars? That's a bargain at twice the price.

Maybe I am just thinking too hard... :P


I can't see coexistence. I see either a continuation of this current tension or the eradication of one in a huge, radioactive mushroom cloud.

I think I am a pascimist.

I will say that the Arabs' promotion of peace is reassuring... but I don't think they have made much progress in the last few months.


I think there is... which is what scares me.

Do we create war vicariously through Israel? Or is it the byproduct of our support?

Doesn't tension ensure low oil prices? Doesn't tension create war? War is profitable, especially to the US, the biggest arms dealer in the world.

God this is complicated... :-\

...


Originally Abraxas, the idea was to protect Israel. But when you get loose cannons like GWB Jr. roll in, the troubles come in too.   >:(


...

Good point.

I suggest we split this topic if you can do it as we are getting off-topic from the original post.  I think it would be a good discussion - should we sell arms to another country?  If so, who should we sell to, etc.?


Well, my opinion is that a half-trillion dollars is way too much to "control" oil.  I mean, if we are controlling oil, why isn't it free?  The price keeps going up, so now we have a huge war debt to pay and we have to pay 5 times more than the stuff (oil) is actually worth.  If gasoline was 22 cents/gallon, I could see that point of view.  But apparently, controlling oil doesn't make it cheaper which begs the question: "Why do we need to control it?"


But again, foreign oil is already ensured, is it not?  I mean, as long as they keep producing it and selling it on the world market, it is available to us.  Unless someone blockades us, we are going to get their oil.  Embargos can happen for sure, but that requires that they cut production.  It seems like this cannot be contained to just one nation, but that the entire world feels the sting.  In other words, we can't really control the oil and OPEC cannot keep it from us exclusively.  If the Arab states don't want to sell it, then we are in trouble - but of course, there goes their #1 economic asset as well.

Lastly, and this has to do with Israel and the original post:  If oil is so incredibly important and we would get along great with Arab states without Israel in the mix - why do we still support Israel?  I mean, if America is as greedy and terrible as everyone thinks we are, why not throw the Jews to the wolves to help quench our thirst for Middle Eastern oil?  We've been accused of far worse.  Why not make nice with the Arabs, cease all support for Israel, and buy oil at a cheap price?


Well, you said it - if there isn't goint to be coexistence, there will be bloodshed.  I think bloodshed is the only way to get to that coexistence unfortunately.  Obviously, the stakes haven't become high enough to convince both sides that violence is no longer desirable.  I sure do hope it doesn't come to a nuclear event, but nothing would surprise me now. 

Now that the group orgy is over, are folks interested in a serious discussion about the right for Israel's existence? Because the talking points are about the justifications, not the factual evidence.

Israel was created upon the insistence of a political group (Zionists), who felt they needed some land of their own, despite religious scripture forbidding it. Instead of negotiating, it was taken by force (with terrorism used to seal it -- the 1947 hotel bombing is a prime example initiated by Israel's rulers).

A nation established on the basis of terrorism will aspire to use terroristic means to justify it's existence. This is why there can't be peace in that region. Every time Israel tries to justify it's use of terrorism to suppress another population, it's history will keep kicking itself down.

Israel reminds me of the plight of the Native Americans. In many ways the state of Israel and the USA have striking similiarities. The settlers to this new world took by force and terrorism land that belonged to natives, and many years later still have to address how to reconcile the barbarity that happened to the natives (as Britain is trying to do with the effects of it's colonization). The USA won't give the land back to the Native Americans, as Israel won't to the Palestinians (even if it was possible).

So what does that leave us?

If neither is willing to undo the land grabs by returning the land, the only other moral and ethical solution is to compensate for the trangressions. Money itself would not do, as it'll be spent without regard. Some other method (e.g., a statehood tax paid to those who were oppressed is a good work around) could compensate for the inbalance of the economy and social gains (e.g., trade and educational access).

The fact of the matter is, people are being oppressed (Native American reservations are horrid places of despair, as the refugee camps in Palestine). That must end as humans are suppose to be better than animals, and give a justification for being called human. Equality and tolerance aren't buzzwords, they justify being human and having a civilization. To do otherwise is to devolve to being worse than beasts (who have an instinct to care of their own) living in a pig stye.

Instead of just justifying a state's existence, the focus needs to be spent on how to compensate for displacing natives --by force-- and address those grievances in a sane and humane manner. Until that is done, there will be no peace (Zionists know this and why they stall any peace talks with the Palestinians), as oppressed people will always rebel -- look at our own forefathers for great examples! and it'll be an albatross around the necks of the oppressing nation's conscience.

This is true, however it is due to an extent to America's armament of Israel that Muslim countries view the nation as an agent of American imperialism.

Israel certainly has the right to exist, though it bears the responsibility of ensuring peace in the region by abandoning any potentially aggressive campaigns. It must be viewed upon as a passive country by its neighbors, un-influenced by Western foreign policy.

I can do that. I guess it belongs in the US forum. I'll get started on that after this.


Good point.

I would imagine there are too many people nervous over the current conflict and once everything settle downs the price of oil will as well. A lot of what I wrote was kind of like diharea of the mouth... so I don't have any evidence or proof... just my rambelings.


We're friends with Saudi Arabia. Arabs that sit on the biggest reserve in the world, if I'm not mistaken.

You could argue we're playing both sides against the middle.


It feels like the rubber band is stretched too far... and it's been stretching for centuries... and something's going to give... and I fear we will all be alive to see it :-X .

I can do that. I guess it belongs in the US forum. I'll get started on that after this.


Good point.

I would imagine there are too many people nervous over the current conflict and once everything settle downs the price of oil will as well. A lot of what I wrote was kind of like diharea of the mouth... so I don't have any evidence or proof... just my rambelings.


We're friends with Saudi Arabia. Arabs that sit on the biggest reserve in the world, if I'm not mistaken.

You could argue we're playing both sides against the middle.


It feels like the rubber band is stretched too far... and it's been stretching for centuries... and something's going to give... and I fear we will all be alive to see it :-X .

I can do that. I guess it belongs in the US forum. I'll get started on that after this.


Good point.

I would imagine there are too many people nervous over the current conflict and once everything settle downs the price of oil will as well. A lot of what I wrote was kind of like diharea of the mouth... so I don't have any evidence or proof... just my rambelings.


We're friends with Saudi Arabia. Arabs that sit on the biggest reserve in the world, if I'm not mistaken.

You could argue we're playing both sides against the middle.


It feels like the rubber band is stretched too far... and it's been stretching for centuries... and something's going to give... and I fear we will all be alive to see it :-X .

I think Israel has the right to exist--within it's UN mandated, pre-1967 borders. In other words, it has to withdraw from the West Bank IMO.
It is an occupying nation, and is the principle point of contention between Arab nations and nations who support Israel, primarily the United States.
It was strategically sensible for the U.S. to support Israel during the Cold War; it makes no sense for us to support it now, the highly influential Jewish lobby in Washington D.C. notwithstanding.
The United States must pressure Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders.

I can do that. I guess it belongs in the US forum. I'll get started on that after this.


Good point.

I would imagine there are too many people nervous over the current conflict and once everything settle downs the price of oil will as well. A lot of what I wrote was kind of like diharea of the mouth... so I don't have any evidence or proof... just my rambelings.


We're friends with Saudi Arabia. Arabs that sit on the biggest reserve in the world, if I'm not mistaken.

You could argue we're playing both sides against the middle.


It feels like the rubber band is stretched too far... and it's been stretching for centuries... and something's going to give... and I fear we will all be alive to see it :-X .

Perhaps.  But then one has to wonder what those same people (Muslims in the Middle East) think about us arming their nations.  Certainly, it goes both ways.  Egypt and Saudi Arabia get significant military aid from the US.  I'm not crazy about either of those nations but then again I don't get to make those decisions!


Agreed.  Israel needs a more dovish policy in regards to its neighbors.  I'm all for self-defense, but Israel needs to show restraint.  I think that is easier to promote if the US makes it clear that we will support Israel in the face of outside aggression.  But they need to take care of the problems in Gaza and the West Bank on their own. 

I suppose it is easier said than done.

A good example of the initiatives each country must take.

We must try, though.

I said basically the same thing at the end of the old thread. Israel has a responsibility to show restraint as well as attempts to get along with it's neighbors.

Are you holding your breath? ;)

OswaldTheOsprey

(snicker)

Probably so Oswald, probably not even better!   ;D



Warm regards
Terry

it's no longer about security. it's all about land OUTSIDE of the Green Line, that is, outside of Israel's borders. Go through any negotiation set, - Camp David, Taba, other, - they always stumble over East Jerusalem and West Bank. Both territories are called "Occupied Palestinian Territories" by the international community, incl. the USA. The question is no longer whether Israel has the right to exist, but whether it has the right to exist in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Indeed. Israel uber alles. >:(

OswaldTheOsprey

I just recalled this.

Isaac Asimov (I guess you all know who he was) wrote in one of his autobiograpic books that in a certain occasion he was talking with a Jewish friend of him (Asimov was Jewish too) and the issue was Israel. It was 1948 and Israel just had been established and Asimov said to his friend (I translate from Spanish, so are not litheral words): "You just have established an armed ghetto amidst fifty million Arabs who will never forget, will never forgive and will not vanish. Israel will never be safe nor in peace. Is this the promised land of our forefathers or is it a cruel joke?"

Next year will be the 60th aniversary and two generations later Israel still is not safe and still is not in peace.

Ne'er truer words spoken. Thank you Major Zee. Your work here shows magnificently.
Terry

Excellent observation. Thanks for the post.

OswaldTheOsprey

.

So we are in agreement.  8)


Oswald look to your left, a pressy for you.  ;)

Just for little old me? ;)

OswaldTheOsprey

Israel as such doesn't have a right to exist. A country in it's place where people of all nationalities are respected as equals would have a right to exist. The Zionist apartheid regime now in place has no intention of ever allowing that to happen.

That fact is really quite elementary and easy to understand for people of decency. No other country in the world would expect anything different and remain credible. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable for an Arab or a person of any other nationality to say, the Zionist apartheid regime should be wiped from the face of the earth. Sooner or late justice must prevail and if it is delayed much longer the entire world will pay a heavy price for the Zionist apartheid. Beginnning more than likely in the US with another attack against their support of such cruelty on the scale of 911. And once again, they will have it coming.

That is the hard cold truth of the matter and it can no longer be ignored.

or it just could be your hatred driven schizophrenia,,, with which i tend to agree more,,, you are delusional,,, not even worth to show how stupid you are with your silly comments




PJ, keep it civil.

- Abraxas

You should attempt to rebut the logic of my post as opposed to challenging it with a personal attack against my character. IMO your kind of behaviour should not be allwed on political forums.

Excellent point-both on the substance of the thread and in re the personal attack. Welcome aboard!

OswaldTheOsprey

your "imho" is the last thing i'm interested in my life and if there is something wrong on this board with members and admins maybe this is time to bugger off?

there is no Arab or/and Muslim country where non Arabs or Muslims are respected,,, on other hand i understand where wiping Israel off the map coming from,,, this is the main reason why Israel is so offensive against ones like you,,, GOD bless it

what kind of response you want to have when you post 90% of Russian criminals are Jews without any actual proof of that or some article written on blog by some ex-KKK member?

Just in case you didn't understand what I said I will take the time to inform you that I didn't advocate wiping Israel off the map. And neither did Ahmadinejad for that matter. I won't bother to attempt to explain it to you further as it's pretty obvious to me now that you are only here to cause a disturbance and are not interested in a polite exchange of ideas. Have a nice day!

Your view is a bit extreme, don't you think? I agree with some of your views, but not your final solution.

Comeupance happens in strange ways!  ;)


Warm regards
Terry

"i see it reasonable for someone to wipe off other country"
"i'm here for a polite exchange of ideas"

so does Ahmadinejad ,,,


flawless !!! and yes i understood you perfectly

Please any post of mine from an ex-Klansman blog. As to what Taki said of Russian criminals-offer proof to dispute it! ::) ::) ::)

OswaldTheOsprey

Thanks for your kind support Oswald. BTW, could you tell me who the moderators are. I'm a little confused with the behaviour of some people who are claiming to be moderators, admins, etc. Or is that the nature of this forum. If that's the case and there's nothing can be done to improve it then I think I don't belong here.

i prefer you keep staying misinformed retard,,, easier to trick when it's really needed

look what we got here,,, little revolutioneer,,, looks like Oswald just found his new best Trotsky fella,,,

Hi Orwells,
Your question comes up occasionally, moderators are free to speak their mind and disagree as much as they want with another members posts, as long as they separate their personal beliefs with their duties as moderator there is no problem.

To identify a moderator it will say under their user name. Plus I think they have 5 blue stars.

Exactly what needs improving Orwell? We have freedom of speech here and Mod's participate. Do you have a problem with that concept? If you do, 'ave a 'goodun!

Kind regards
Terry

You wanna have "polite exchange od ideas" here is one.

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

"regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time."

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse.

Right or wrong this is the exact translation of Ahmadinejad's speech.
Just saying.

kactus, are you saying his point was lost in translation? This is interesting. I've never heard this theory before.

So he doesn't want to wipe Israel off the map... he just wants to destroy/end their current leadership?

You seem to be the most uninformed member of this section

It's open to different interpretations Abraxas. I have read a conscript of his speech and some suggest that he is referring to the removal of the zionist regime as he does not recognise it but not the removal of a country from a map as it was mistranslated.

with all due respect to Juan Cole or other historians,,, these never came across one and true meaning of anything ,,, there are always speculations and theories,,,

now as someone who lives around middle east and not like someone like you who never been to it,,, i know that Muslims call to "All Jewish Israelis" a Zionists,,, "Vanishing Jewish-Israelis state" is as equal to translation given in first place by Al-Jazeera,,, This is the reason why it was translated right in first place,,,

So continue to speculate with original Persian meaning of word "vanishing",,, i've seen things they show with my bare eyes and heard them speak quite well,,,

Yawn! Oh hum. Did somebody say something?

OswaldTheOsprey

You are most welcome. I know that Totino and bringbackwigs are mods. Try one of them.

OswaldTheOsprey

Pretty much right on cactus only you didn't mention that it wasn't Ahmadinejad's speech to start with. But of course Ahmadinejad must be demonized in case there becomes a need to destroy his country.

let's start from reading Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel)

if there is anything you disagree with you are more than free to change if it would be accepted by others,,, until then stfu

How about if I go and rewrite it so it tells the truth? Or not bother because it will probably be done for me by tomorrow anyway. Most people understand that of course. Maybe you're spending too much time laying on your back Jane, to understand anything more than where your next quarter is coming from.

That's right Kactus and Orwell.  We couldn't have us knowing the truth could we?  There's always got to be some big bad bogeyman to incite the fear factor and justify endless war.

So you wanna say you 2 are anti-war?

never seen it coming,,, as i see it you just want to have different enemy instead of normal who discuss movies, art, cooking or anything else that normal ppl would discuss,,,

The mods and Admins post their opinions along with the other posters. No, it's not going to change. If you can't live with it then cya. If you can't handle a discussion without crying, then you're right: this place isn't for you.


Ahk

Not a problem at all angry person. I just want to know what's normal and what a person is going to get jumped on for saying. I guess I'll just have to ignore the ignorance and the mudslinging and try to find some normal people to debate with.

i bet those "normal" debaters are the ones who agree with you,,, otherwise you wouldn't be thats nice to two local Nazis,,, Oswald and Winston ive meant

Is Winston another 'good' guy? WHat's that's nice to debaters with Winston er Oswald good, grunt, grunt. Go to bed!

My, my, look whose talking. A debater deals with issues. Boys like you just want to stir the pot, debate isn't their concept or goal. Here is a freebie hint, just deal with the issues of a thread, your bovine scat tactics are so very transparent.


Terry


.

Thanks for the advice Terry but I have been around forums for a while now and stuff like that from angry war supporters usually turn out to be an effort to label a person as a troller in an effort to promote moderator action against him. I'm not buying today terry. :-)

this is what trolls actually use as 1st excuse,,,

done your homework, ah racist troll?

Just so. It just happens to shoot blanks so it is not worthy of anything much. Reminds me of a fly or mosquito, irritating but not much else, providing the mozzie carries no disease in which case it should be avoided like the plague (pardon the pun).



Terry

Yes, think of me as a mosquito that has landed right in the middle of your back and is just now starting to sink his little lance into you. You know the exact place. And don't try to scratch it.

Aww, you did.

No seriously. What the real truth is is that I am a psychopathic knife murderer who stalks people on political forums. And I have a method of knowing who some of those people are and where they live. (SOMEBODY PLEASE STOP ME) In fact weeks ago I found out where you live Terry and I came to your hometown. Actually tonight I came to your house with my wireless. And do you know where I am right now Terry? Did you feel a draft in the room Terry? I've just sharpened my knife Terry so it will slice through the jugular without any effort at all. There won't be a sound at all, only a quiet hissing sound as my knife finds it's way and another war supporter .......

Don't look behind you Terry.

Cool stuff hey Terry. I got it out of a Hitchcock book years ago and I modified it for you especially. If you ever get a chance to pick it up it's called 'Don't look behind you' by Alfred Hitchcock. Short story abut ten pages long which the supposed murderer claimed that he had cleverly bound into a Hitchcock book of short stories. You'll like it because it was really very effective. Hitchcock always was the master doncha think?

I'm shaking so hard with laughter I can't hardly contain myself. Come on over, be my guest. I know what my capabilities are, do you?



Terry

Someone ought to ban this guy.

Oh for heavens sake the whole thing went right over your head didn't it! THis has nothing to do with what you self-proclaimed Ninjas think your abilities are. It's about the human tendency to accept suggestions which create fear in them. At least enough fear to create some doubt. Anyway, I can tell by your response that you looked behind you. Don't feel bad, it usually works on anyone!

Ah illhumanoddity, he'll melt down soon. Or he will realize he breaks TOC's and gets IP banned.  ;)


Warm regards
Terry

.

It doesn't take long for you chickenhawks to start talking about some kind of banning when you start receiving a licking does it.

Nighty nite now. It's 11 p.m. where I live.

p.s. And I get the pleasure of hearing you whine about it Terry!

if it was up to me i would keep you as long as you keep being clown

i li