You know, only truly stupid people would blame the acts of individuals on a whole group of people.

Humans are not infallible and the body of the church is made of people who have made un-Christlike decisions. For every 500 year old event you drag up, I could counter with endless examples of true charity, love, and compassion in the saints and other servants who have devoted their lives to spreading the love of Christ, such as Mother Theresa, Saint Faustina, Fr. Solanus Casey, et. al.

I invite you to pick up a Catechism and show me the parts that embody evil in intent, thought, or deed.

7/27/2006 12:19:09 AM

^^maybe the terrorists who instigated the fighting by kidnapping the soldiers and spreading violence across the middle east?

7/27/2006 12:19:53 AM

^^only if they oppose you politically, right?

nobody's discounting the good people. we're just calling bs on self-righteous people like you

7/27/2006 12:21:09 AM

liberals judging and bashing conservatives, what a concept!

7/27/2006 12:22:18 AM

Since you think I'm so self righteous, use the search feature and find examples of said self righteousness.

Sadly, I think you'd have to understand the term 1st before you could attempt to find examples of it.

7/27/2006 12:24:28 AM

do you not often claim that you have a moral high ground while you bash liberals for bashing you?

i mean, why not let it just slide on by? who gives a fuck?

wait, stop, nevermind. im a heathen, im an evil liberal and im probably a communist too. thats what people want to hear.

[Edited on July 27, 2006 at 12:29 AM. Reason : .]

7/27/2006 12:27:38 AM

To my knowledge, I have never claimed the moral high ground. Those are your words, not mine.

Liberals can bash me if it's a legit criticism. It makes no difference to me. But making slanderous allegations based on untrue stereotypes of conservative thought is not a legit reason for criticism.

7/27/2006 12:29:53 AM

leave the poor liberals alone, theyre lost.

back to israel: has anyone given a good reason why they shouldnt be acting in their own defense right now, or last week, or in the weeks to come?

7/27/2006 12:31:35 AM

such hatred for a people


I think the arabs should be happy the jews don't hate them as much as they hate the jews

7/27/2006 12:32:12 AM

^^because if i steal a car and the owner comes to steal it back i have no right to shoot him for trying to steal "my" land.


actually if im driving in the car and he treis to pull me out is better.

[Edited on July 27, 2006 at 12:35 AM. Reason : anology time!!!]

7/27/2006 12:35:12 AM

they didn't steal the land you fucking waterhead

7/27/2006 12:35:57 AM

hezbollah kidnapped soldiers, so israel has no right to attack them. is that what you believe?

7/27/2006 12:36:39 AM

thats like if i sell your house to mytwocents and she givs me 5 dollars. i go back home with the money and she comes and takes your house that she bought from me. she bought the house and didnt steal it.


all they had to do was trade but israel doesnt do diplomacy. they rather kill a bunch of people instead.

[Edited on July 27, 2006 at 12:38 AM. Reason : hezbollah wanted a peacefull solution]

7/27/2006 12:37:29 AM

It's more like you were driving somebody else's car. The person who owned (or leased) the car gives the title to a 3rd person, but you think because you were driving that it makes the car yours.

7/27/2006 12:38:11 AM

haha are you claiming the jews had a legit claim to the region after not living there for hundreds of years?

7/27/2006 12:38:54 AM

ten hundred years

7/27/2006 12:39:59 AM

why did they kidnap soldiers if they wanted a "peaceful solution"

THEY WERE THE PROBLEM

Quote :

"I think the arabs should be happy the jews don't hate them as much as they hate the jews "

7/27/2006 12:44:05 AM

no, it's more like a schoolyard game of smear the queer. one person has the ball, and whoever can take it from him gets it, at which point HE becomes the guy with a bullseye on his head...until someone wrangles the ball away from him...

the game has been going on for thousands of years, and israel has held the ball for the last 60 or so.

hell, the way that the ownership of israel was determined the last time was about as legitimate as has ever been.

between the fact that, as of right now, israel belongs to the israelis--which is about the most legitimate claim to that land that anyone can have, and the fact that their enemies are piece of shit terrorists that i want to kill, i have to reluctantly side with those jackasses.

7/27/2006 12:51:57 AM

I'm going to go to one of the apartments I used to live in, then beat the current occupants with a baseball bat and throw them out.

I have a historical claim to that apartment.

7/27/2006 12:52:42 AM

that's the opposite of what i'm claiming.

i'm claiming that none of the parties in question have any more historical claim to that land than the others, so the only reasonable thing in my mind is the "possession is 9/10 of the law" way of looking at it.

i mean, don't you think it's kinda dumb to say "Well, the Palestinians were the 2nd most recent people to have it, so it should be theirs!"

[Edited on July 27, 2006 at 12:58 AM. Reason : I mean, i feel bad for Joe Palestinian, but there's no really good solution]

[Edited on July 27, 2006 at 1:05 AM. Reason : asdf]

7/27/2006 12:54:19 AM

That's crap.

Unjust invasion is ok so long as it's a hotly contested area?

7/27/2006 12:58:17 AM

Quote :

"thats like if i sell your house to mytwocents and she givs me 5 dollars. i go back home with the money and she comes and takes your house that she bought from me. she bought the house and didnt steal it."

That would never happen because I don't do business with terrorists and liars

Quote :

"hezbollah wanted a peacefull solution"

bwahahahahahahahahahahha

7/27/2006 1:03:45 AM

I'm saying that the way the Israelis got it in 1948 is no more unjust than the way it's changed hands the previous hundred times, so nobody's claim to it is any more legitimate than the next guy's.

furthermore, it's not like we can give it back to whoever had it first.

so:

Quote :

"the only reasonable thing in my mind is the "possession is 9/10 of the law" way of looking at it. i mean, don't you think it's kinda dumb to say "Well, the Palestinians were the 2nd most recent people to have it, so it should be theirs!""

[Edited on July 27, 2006 at 1:06 AM. Reason : asdf]

7/27/2006 1:05:10 AM

"2nd most recent" meaning "the people who have lived on the land since they took it from Roman occupation?" All other "owners" were colonial powers.

7/27/2006 1:07:29 AM

yep.

7/27/2006 1:10:54 AM

i'll go ahead and apologise in advance if this sounds disjointed and absurd, but do give it a thought:

1. i am not anti-Israel, and i absolutely love Jews. if there is a peaceful way for them to co-exist, i am for it.

2. i am anti-facism. most neanderthals want to walk around sound-biting McCarthy, fooling yourselves into thinking communism really exists (yeah, i'm going to go ahead a be condescending here). more people died fighting facism than anything else, and many people die today fighting the same evil.

3. because of #2, I don't support foreign policy based on passages from The Book of Revelations.

4. because of #3, I say, why should US taxpayer money support a state founded on religious identity? i seriously thought we were more modernised than that.

5. in case it becomes impossible that states based on/define themselves on religious grounds can coexist next to each other, I suggest we facilitate the movement of Islraelis to New Jersey. They can change the name of NJ to New Jerusalem for all i care. think about it, we would have super efficient capital markets because of their proximity to Wall Street, and i am convinced that Jews and Patels can coexist like two peas in a pod.

7/27/2006 1:16:30 AM

^^Then the entire Eastern Hemispere is up for grabs.



[Edited on July 27, 2006 at 1:21 AM. Reason : .]

7/27/2006 1:20:10 AM

No, you're still missing my point. My whole point is that Israel is NOT up for grabs--at this point, it doesn't matter how they got it...only that they have it now. Whether or not it should've gone down like that in 1948 is a different argument, and one that has no bearing on who has rightful claim to it now.

just like i'm saying that nobody has a legitimate right to kick Israel off of that land, it also follows that the rest of the eastern hemisphere (or a large part of it) is the same deal.

7/27/2006 1:45:44 AM

Quote :

"I'm saying that the way the Israelis got it in 1948 is no more unjust than the way it's changed hands the previous hundred times"

I disagree. In 1948 it was well understood that colonization is not the right way to do things.

Quote :

"he only reasonable thing in my mind is the "possession is 9/10 of the law" way of looking at it."

Well we know the israelis stole it. That's plenty clear. If I stole something from you, it wouldn't just become mine because I have possesion of it. This land hasn't really "changed hands". There have been governments which have come and gone, but there is a clearly indiginous people here, clearly they have claim to the land.

7/27/2006 1:48:53 AM

No, you're still missing my point. My whole point is that Israel Palistine is NOT up for grabs--at this point, it doesn't matter how they got it...only that they have it now. Whether or not it should've gone down like that in 1948 the Seventh Century is a different argument, and one that has no bearing on who has rightful claim to it now.

just like i'm saying that nobody has a legitimate right to kick Israel Palistine off of that land, it also follows that the rest of the eastern hemisphere (or a large part of it) is the same deal.


But I do get what you're saying: when dealing with any land that's changed hands more than once in the past 1000 years, whoever is currently occupying it is that land's legitimate ruler.

7/27/2006 1:53:27 AM

The only way I can see out of this is WWIII. We're all just itching to beat the crap out of one another, and that should tide us over for at least fifty years.

[Edited on July 27, 2006 at 2:20 AM. Reason : tide?]

7/27/2006 2:19:21 AM

I've always heard terrorists say "kill all the jews" and "wipe them off the face of the map"

I've really never heard a terrorist say "force them to the '67 borders where we can then live in peace together"

7/27/2006 8:05:30 AM

Ha, you guys think that satiating the arabs by getting rid of Israel will clear up the problems. They are like a nagging wife. Once ToDo item #1 is marked off the list they will piss and moan about ToDo item #2... and you just taught them a valuable lesson in the process - all that nagging gets results.

1) '67 borders
2) No more Israel
3) No more <insert country or belief system> in line
4) etc.

We are talking about people that have the mindset of "Two or three generations ago Jews bought some land from people's grandfathers 2000 miles away, they resisted when these far away strangers later tried to take back the land, that makes me so angry
! ! !"

And yes, ignorance is bliss.

[Edited on July 27, 2006 at 8:25 AM. Reason : -]

7/27/2006 8:16:48 AM

Quote :

"That would never happen because I don't do business with terrorists and liars"

How do you survive if you don't do business with the government (taxes and such)?

7/27/2006 8:20:31 AM

1. go back in time and tell ragean not to cut and run
2. ...
3. profit

7/27/2006 8:25:15 AM

Quote :

"Well we know the israelis stole it. That's plenty clear. If I stole something from you, it wouldn't just become mine because I have possesion of it. This land hasn't really "changed hands". There have been governments which have come and gone, but there is a clearly indiginous people here, clearly they have claim to the land."

That land is holy land to jews for more than just because they moved there after WWII. Jews had been there many many generations ago. The land changes hands a lot. Now its time to tell the fucking Muslims to deal with it. I say we support a border agreement that gives the Palestinians a good chunk of land with which to create a country. Then we say "stop fighting, god dammit...the next one that causes a fight gets obliterated"

That's the only actual way to solve the problem. The threat of total annihilation if they flinch. But that isn't the democratic way to solve it, so I don't know how I feel about the US playing dad to two misbehaving children.

7/27/2006 8:26:27 AM

Quote :

"That land is holy land to jews for more than just because they moved there after WWII. Jews had been there many many generations ago. The land changes hands a lot. Now its time to tell the fucking Muslims to deal with it. I say we support a border agreement that gives the Palestinians a good chunk of land with which to create a country. Then we say "stop fighting, god dammit...the next one that causes a fight gets obliterated"

Why does the United States feel the need to support the Jews in this endeavor? What do we gain by supporting the Jews besides the entire ME hating us and terrorist attacks against us?

7/27/2006 8:29:23 AM

We gain eternal salvation, duh

7/27/2006 9:04:11 AM

Quote :

"Jews had been there many many generations ago."

The palestinians had been there since the begining of humanity, so I think their claim holds more wieght.

Quote :

"I say we support a border agreement that gives the Palestinians a good chunk of land with which to create a country."

Israel won't allow it.

Quote :

"We are talking about people that have the mindset of "Two or three generations ago Jews bought some land from people's grandfathers 2000 miles away, they resisted when these far away strangers later tried to take back the land, that makes me so angry"

The Jew that moved there terrorized and murdered the innocent people living there before they violently overthrew the local government.

7/27/2006 9:15:35 AM

I support the Jews in their endeavor because they're more open and tolerant of Christianity (my religion) than are muslims. If you allow the muslims to take control of Israel, I lose any chance of ever visiting the holy land of my religion. Try entering Mecca as a non-muslim, they'll do the same to Israel. Also, I support Israel because they're the only Western-style government there and I think Western style government is better than theocracy.

And before anyone says "you aren't going to visit the holy land"...I have visited several holy sites to my religion before and plan to do so again. Unfortunately I just went to the Vatican and Ephesus--Turkey was as close to the M.E. as I cared to venture at the time.

7/27/2006 9:16:29 AM

that's seriously your argument for supporting israel?

7/27/2006 9:46:13 AM

That's seriously my argument for my own personal support for Israel as opposed to the palestinian/arab groups in the region. What should it be?

7/27/2006 10:08:52 AM

I'm gonna have to agree with Duke on this one: durrrrrrrrr

7/27/2006 10:09:57 AM

We really should have let the Marines take care of this in the 80's

7/27/2006 10:36:46 AM

Quote :

"I disagree. In 1948 it was well understood that colonization is not the right way to do things."

ding ding ding

the British voluntarily left India in 1948

i think most of the western world is intellectually dishonest and have a head in the sand mentality when it comes to this.

New Jersey is perfect for the chosen people. i say bring them home.

7/27/2006 11:37:50 AM

hahaha jersey

dump em off at newark with a bus pass and a pat on the ass

7/27/2006 11:38:35 AM

Quote :

"If you allow the muslims to take control of Israel, I lose any chance of ever visiting the holy land of my religion."

They controlled it for hundreds of years and never had any problems with christians or jews coming to visit, or even peacefully living there. It wasn't untill recent history that their land was stolen, which justifibly upset them. It was because of this, and our support of it that some muslims have a disdain for christianity and judaism. Look at pre-israel muslim history. These were fairly peaceful people who had little hate or even interest in the western world.

7/27/2006 11:39:23 AM

Quote :

"If you allow the muslims to take control of Israel, I lose any chance of ever visiting the holy land of my religion. Try entering Mecca as a non-muslim, they'll do the same to Israel. "

nah, you're completely wrong there. Jews and Christians are considered even by islamo-facists to be "people of the book", and would be allowed to pilgrimage to their holy sites in Jerusalem. Mecca is not a holy site for any other religion, and is thus a bad comparison.

7/27/2006 11:41:02 AM

New Jersey Jerusalem

7/27/2006 11:42:23 AM

even if they didn't want new jersey, I don't think many people would have a problem with them taking one of those big square states out west

well maybe the indians, but fuck them

7/27/2006 11:46:46 AM