We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsWorld Affairs Discussion

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Emile Vidrine who wrote (1686)8/27/2002 2:31:07 PM
From: lorne
   of 3959
Do you have a link for this story>>>
Gordon Thomas.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Thomas M. who wrote (1677)8/27/2002 4:36:01 PM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha
   of 3959
Thanks Thomas.

You know, many of us would just like to learn the truth in these matters since the attacks of 911, but it seems for every piece of information to blame one group, there is a contradicting piece of information to blame another.

I try to find sites that at least appear to have an unbiased approach in the hopes that history will not have been re-written to serve the writers.I also try to garner as much information as I can from those familiar with the subject at hand, but if those people are misinformed or willing to deceive, we are at their mercy, not being up to speed on these issues myself.

It's like investing, isn't it?After a while you don't know who or what to believe so you do as much due diligence as you can bare and then make your decision.

One comment I read dealt with the concept of a country or countries being able to wage war without consequence .That article referred to the ME situation after 1967 whereas the defeated were willing to go back to the boarders they started from.I tend to agree that it appears self defeating to just give back the spoils of war if your country was not the aggressor, however, therein lies the argument of who started it in the first place.

I will continue to try to remain neutral and ferret out the truth the best I can.Some can only hope there can peace before there is war, unlike some on SI advocate.

" They " say WAR never solves anything.I tend to agree,but know that WARRING,unfortunately, has become part of our human make-up, and there appears to more " war war war " than " talk talk talk ".

What a world.

PS: Thanks for the info.I will study it further.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (1682)8/27/2002 8:05:57 PM
From: Chris land
1 Recommendation   of 3959
The only reason they apologized was because it was right around Christmas and they didn't want to incur the negative publicity. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the school up till that time had been breeding hate and contempt for Christianity and no doubt will continue to do so in the future.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Chris land who wrote (1689)8/27/2002 9:24:15 PM
From: goldsnow
   of 3959
And how that compares to being killed merely for being Christian (or Jew) ...with no Apology?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Eashoa' M'sheekha who wrote (1688)8/28/2002 1:01:48 AM
From: Thomas M.
   of 3959
I tend to agree that it appears self defeating to just give back the spoils of war if your country was not the aggressor

Except that Israel was the aggressor, unquestionably.

Furthermore, the primary dispute is not with the countries that fought in the 1967 war - Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. It is with the Palestinians. They were not part of the war, yet they have borne the consequences of it.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: monkey's uncle who wrote (1684)8/28/2002 1:03:27 AM
From: Thomas M.
   of 3959

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Thomas M. who wrote (1691)8/28/2002 2:06:18 AM
From: Eashoa' M'sheekha
   of 3959
" however, therein lies the argument of who started it in the first place. "

Was the remainder of that sentence you left out.

To which you assert, " Except that Israel was the aggressor, unquestionably. "

As I said " therein lies the argument of who started it in the first place ".

If a group of people surround my home with bazookas aimed at me, I might just be tempted to take them out as a pre-emptive defense measure, as opposed to waiting for the place to possibly go up in flames.

They may whine and say what they want later after I bring them to their knees,things like " we really weren't going to attack..we were just...uh..uh...showing off our new stuff...ya!..that's the ticket!....showing off our new stuff
to uh...uh,,,scare you!...ya..that's it...scare you...etc..

Sorry Thomas...I don't buy it... neither did Israel.. and they are still here today to tell the story.

That's the crux of the argument for me Thomas.I will not discuss that aspect further.

But to reiterate....peace is the objective for me...not who was right and who was wrong...who started..who didn't...

Just find a merciful solution without war.

Here's a few Canadian links, if you're interested, that shows how divided that argument still is.........

And this one from Norway :

I have nothing further to add to this subject.



Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: epicure who wrote (1683)8/28/2002 3:02:17 AM
   of 3959
Re: So would that be Talmudic Jews apologizing for something? In which case, will Emile be the first to praise such exemplary behavior?

Dunno... Unlike Emile, I wasn't a rabbi in a former life.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: ChinuSFO who started this subject8/28/2002 3:41:35 AM
From: Spytrdr
   of 3959
the strong geopolitical case against Irak...


<<U.S. Plants Footprint in Shaky Central Asia


A 'Great Game' Renewed

Central Asia has a long history as a venue for geopolitical intrigue. This was the site for the 19th-century test of strength and influence between Russia and Britain that Rudyard Kipling immortalized as "the great game." Then the area was the buffer zone between an eastward- expanding Russian empire and a nervous Britain that feared the Russians had designs on British India. Russian armies conquered most of Central Asia during the 19th century, stopping only at the Pamir Mountains and the Afghan border.

In the first years of the 21st century, the collapse of Russian imperialism, the rise of Muslim fundamentalism and the world's ever-increasing thirst for oil, have all contributed to a new kind of strategic significance for Central Asia. Geography is still critical. The five former Soviet republics and Afghanistan together constitute a zone of weak states in the middle of a neighborhood that includes Russia, Pakistan, India, Iran and China, whose western-most province, Xinjiang, borders Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. In this setting, what happens in Central Asia can have wide repercussions.

During the 1990s the United States began to quietly build influence in the area. Washington established significant military-to-military relationships with Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Soldiers from those countries have been trained by Americans. Uzbekistan alone will receive $43 million in U.S. military aid this year. The militaries of all three have an ongoing relationship with the National Guard of a U.S. state -- Kazakhstan with Arizona, Kyrgyzstan with Montana, Uzbekistan with Louisiana. The countries also participated in NATO's Partnership for Peace program.

"We wanted to extend our influence in the region, and promote American values, too," said Jeffrey Starr, a Pentagon official who was responsible for these relationships during the second Clinton administration as deputy assistant secretary of defense.

Oil and gas have enhanced the region's strategic value. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan sit atop vast quantities of both. Geologists keep raising their estimates of Kazakh oil reserves as more becomes known about the oil fields beneath the Caspian Sea. The Energy Department now says Kazakhstan may have as many as 95 billion barrels of oil, or nearly four times Mexico's proven reserves. Chevron, a U.S. company, was the first to make a major commitment to the development of Kazakh oil, and the company -- now Chevron Texaco -- is investing billions of dollars in Kazakhstan.

"We have an enormous economic and energy stake in this country," said a senior U.S. official in Kazakhstan. "It's part of our national energy strategy." By 2015 Kazakhstan and its Caspian neighbors could make up one of the world's most important sources of oil, the official said.>>

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: lorne who wrote (1671)8/28/2002 5:42:25 AM
   of 3959
Re: There a crazies in every culture, heck look at the USA and al gore. :o)

This guys words sound more like they are from the other end of the horse.

Well... expectedly, it didn't take too long for Judeofascists to froth over rabbi Sacks' interview:


Now aged 54, Sacks assumed his current role in 1991 and could remain in his post until he is 65. He is regarded as an intellectual heavyweight and was considered to be among the brightest postwar students at Cambridge University, where he received the university's highest honors for his doctorate in philosophy.

There is no doubt that Sacks's outburst will resonate among a large section of the community, including Prime Minister Tony Blair's personal envoy to the Middle East, Lord Michael Levy, which embraces a liberal-left approach to Israeli political affairs.

However, it is likely to be frostily received by the heartland of Sacks's constituency, the modern Orthodox United Synagogues center of the community.

"This kind of thing makes me ashamed," one member of the United Synagogues told The Jerusalem Post yesterday. "Whether Sacks really believes what he is saying or not, he should not be using public platforms in this way to sell his books. "Israel has enough problems, especially with the Guardian, without Sacks turning the demonization of Israel into a commercial venture."

The British Likud movement accused Sacks of "moral blindness" and said it was "unfortunate" that he had "allowed himself to be used by people who, at best, cannot be described as friends of Israel." "Some of his comments, as reported in the media, can only act as an encouragement to our enemies to further intransigence and violence against Israel and the Jewish people "By failing to recognize that Israel is acting in the highest traditions of the Jewish people," added a spokesman, "the chief rabbi is displaying a moral blindness."

The religious Betar youth group, among the first to react to Sacks's reported comments, demanded his resignation, calling his remarks "a disservice to Israel, British Jewry, and world Jewry at large... When anti-Semitism in Britain and the world is rising we do not expect our chief rabbi to support the enemies of Israel and their propaganda."

Yitzhak Rath, the spokesman for Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yisrael Lau, quoted him as saying, "It's hard to believe that [Sacks] really said what was quoted in his name." He added that Lau would verify Sacks's reported remarks before commenting further.

Who knows? Rabbi Sacks' candid utterances might prompt the Israeli Gestapo to put him on its "blacklist"....

Message 17926685

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10