SoAMadDeathWish

Here you go:

Is it now considered evil to defend yourself from an aggressor, or are you just going to pretend that Israel's numerous violations of ceasefire agreements never happened? Here is a new concept for you, you answer my question. Then you can ask me questions. Your question is a loaded question.

Would you give us a time frame for this particular slice of history that you refer too? 1949-2014 So, every Israeli act since 1949 justifies their evil intentions, correct? Is it now considered evil to defend yourself from an aggressor, or are you just going to pretend that Israel's numerous violations of ceasefire agreements never happened?

Would you give us a time frame for this particular slice of history that you refer too? 1949-2014

Certainly not the people who broke the previous cease fire agreement and inflicted 100% of the casualties in their pursuit of collective punishment for the Palestinians' imagined crimes. To see why Hamas would reject a cease-fire from Israel, all you have to do is look at the history. 1. Israel breaks ceasefire agreement and due to its superior military force accomplishes its goals quickly 2. Palestinians retaliate 3. Israel calls for ceasefire before Palestinians have a chance to defend themselves or regain lost territory or whatever. 4. Palestinians obviously reject ceasefire It's like somebody punches you in the face, takes your money, and then when you start to fight back says "Hey, you know,... this fighting and violence is pointless. Let's all just live in peace and harmony."

Define apartheid...here is the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa Just trying to help you Tinkerbell...all we have to do is what? A... All you have to do is change some names around and you have the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict right there.

Yes. Israel withdrew only because maintaining the settlements in Gaza was costly while Gaza held essentially no economic resources. No, because I'm right, and you haven't really presented any arguments to the contrary. The genocide is at the stage of herding the undersirables into ghettos. They're just one step away from concentration camps. That's nice.

You do that by making conditions for the persecuted population completely unlivable and dependent for their basic sustenance on you. Israel has slowly conquered Palestinian water reserves and farmable land, bit by bit over the years. They continue to dispossess Palestinians of their homes and lands and then hand them over to Israeli settlers. They refuse to recognize Palestine as a state in order to deprive it of many of the protections of the UN and Geneva conventions. They impose embargoes on the Palestinian territories, so they can't trade what they produce on the world market and face serious food shortages and nutritional deficits. They divide up Palestinian territory with Israeli only highways and dividing walls which separates many Palestinians from their families, jobs, lands, and basic utilities such as hospitals, power, and water. They impose an apartheid regime where only Israelis have access to civil courts, but where Palestinians are tried in military tribunals where they face arbitrary arrest, where they may be detained for long periods of time without being charged, where they face steeper punishments for the same crimes, where they often don't have access to legal representation, and where obtaining permits to build their homes is next to impossible. And finally, they deliberately target civilians in military strikes, under the pretext of their hiding supposed missiles and weapons, in order to clear the way for new infrastructure projects to support the settlers. Most of the info above can be found here points 39 and on: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/FFM/FFMSettlements.pdf

Because the facts obviously contradict your position. If they didn't, you would have presented your evidence that Hamas seeks to eradicate all Jews. But of course, you don't actually have any so you resort to personal attacks instead. Here is a "fact" about HAMAS: Here twit: A... You forgot to mention the part where they never actually adopted that charter.

Because the facts obviously contradict your position. If they didn't, you would have presented your evidence that Hamas seeks to eradicate all Jews. But of course, you don't actually have any so you resort to personal attacks instead.

You are so pitifully ignorant. Thanks though. Therefore, since HAMAS has recently merged with the PLO and HAMAS's declared policy position is to eradicate all Jews and Israel, that is not a declared genocidal position? OK A... This is simply false.

Now I am going to give you another chance to be intelligent. I know the various definitions for your use of the phrase "'Four legs good. Two legs bad'" theory of history. You're not making any sense. I can't even figure out what your charge is here. It's the idea that in any conflict one side is the "good guys" and the other the "bad guys". This is usually followed by rationalization of the facts to fit this view. Ummm... no. Genocide is the systematic killing of a group of people based on their ethnicity, religion, nationality, or geographic location. So when you see a systematic killing of a group of people based on their ethnicity, religion, nationality, or geographic location and then call it genocide, that's not a circular argument, that's a fact.

There's not much to compare, they're pretty much the same. Mostly from debates with other people and the sources they referred me to. http://www.amazon.com/The-Machiavellians-Defenders-James-Burnham/dp/0895267853 Mostly, all it takes is looking at what people do instead of taking whatever they say at face value.

No I don't.

The Israeli state must be truly blessed to be run by angels. That's a simple but very interesting question. One thing before we go, Israel's motive is not the blind extermination of Palestinians for its own sake. Israel is interested in the land and resources that the Palestinians occupy, and they don't care what they have to do to get it, even if it means they have to take it by force. Israel relies heavily on the support of the US and the UN. If they just went in and straight up started slaughtering Palestinians, their leaders would face all sorts of opposition from the rest of the world. Everything from trade embargoes to being tried for war crimes. Obviously they want to avoid those scenarios, so they have to resort to a "round-about" way of achieving their goals.

MSK can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe there is any statutory requirement on OL that you comment on topics you seem to know little about. The certainty of your pronouncements seems, routinely, to be inversely proportional to the array of facts that might support them. Your use of the term "Final Solution", in this context, is assinine--hoaxed letter, or not. Your use of the term "lebensraum", which you probably think is clever, is gratuitous bullshit. I have learned that the adage that "youth is wasted on the young" has some resonance, especially for those both young and smart, which you appear to be. No offense, but I am often reminded of this adage when I read your posts. Yeah... no... see, I think you're pulling this judgment out of your ass, since I'm quite certain that I've never been uncertain about something I know a lot about. But even then you don't have the slightest clue about how much I know about the topic anyway. I stand by what I said in that post. Israel's policies toward the Palestinians are nothing short of genocide. Anybody with eyes can see that, and, as I've come to learn, anybody who disagrees is usually ignorant of the topic, and when they're not, they've bought into the "Four legs good. Two legs bad." theory of history.

Might as well call it "Operation Final Solution to the Palestinian Question" and get it over with. I'll believe Israel is only defending itself when they end their policy of lebensraum in Palestinian territories.

You don't understand something, that's for sure. I actually expect that kind of superficiality from you. (It's like MM who thinks this is about supporting or bashing Sarah Palin, who he can't stand on a visceral archetypical level, and that's all he thinks about it.) I'm seeing this from the standpoint of COBS. For a man who deployed that capability and did it well, Obama is falling into some elementary errors. I find it fascinating how vanity and being goaded pushes a human being to commit such basic mistakes, so much so he might just get impeached instead of engineering consent. But like I said, I don't expect you to understand this perspective or fascination. You still think according to the political-cultural dichotomy game they serve up in the mainstream media while pretending to yourself (and to others) you are so very above it. I have faith in you, though. One day you might begin to see this stuff--and that where you are at right now is posture, not substance. What's worse, it's posture that has been programmed into you, not posture you freely chose with that beautiful mind of yours. I want to say unshackle thine eyes and your mind will do the rest, but the worst kind of blind person is the one who wants to see without opening them. It takes time... Michael In your OP, you said the error he made was showing vulnerability by acknowledging his critics and their calls for impeachment. But really, I think it's the opposite. To quote him, "I don’t have to run for office anymore, so I can just let it rip." If you look at the facts, there never was, and there likely never will be, any serious impeachment case brought up against Obama. That there is, is just wishful thinking. Really what he's doing is saying: precisely because he knows that no one can touch him.

So clever. Do you ever think about what is best for the individual citizen of this country? Plus, as you indicted about your disability, your sense of humor sucks...now here we are in agreement. A... Of course, being an individual citizen of this country, I'm always thinking about what is best for me.

Does this mean anything--anything at all? Just a smidgin of something? He'll be gone forever in less than two years, and then it will be as if he never even existed. I just don't understand this obsession with every little thing that the President does. It's not as if which hand he holds it with when he takes a piss is gonna be at all relevant in the long-run of things. (I'm reminded of my liberal friends' obsession with Bush. If he so much as chewed his food a bit too loudly, you'd bet I would be hearing all about it and how its destroying our freedoms).

Wow.... at this rate, there's no way he'll win in 2016.

How did you get that from the video? The two points she actually made: 1. That young people are generally not responsible or prepared enough to raise children. 2. That virtually nobody can raise 12 children and do a good job of it. are perfectly sensible and uncontroversial. Pointless thread is pointless.

Yes, and therefore turns it into a completely different idea. Hegel's dialectic is an almost supernatural mechanism by which the "Idea" acts on reality, whereas Marx's dialectical materialism is exactly opposite, and it says that material forces shape human ideas. Your argument could just as easily be applied to Rand and Plato and "prove" that Objectivists are dominated by Platonism because they turn the primacy of consciousness over existence on its head. Just because two people might agree on some point doesn't prove that one "dominates" the thinking of the other.

Not Marx. Marx rejected Hegel's dialectic, and only referred to it to contrast it with his own dialectic.