Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Semoreson who wrote (122784)	9/18/2001 2:21:39 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

>>I think you don't want a history lesson, you just want to support your pre-conceived ideas.<< david, thanks for at least giving me a chance even though you don't think it will go anywhere. i really don't have an axe to grind other than to provide some balance where i perceive it to be sorely lacking. wrt to knighty's list, i'm really not sure how that adds value to the current mix. would accept the children of canaan taking over israel based on this list? using the same logic, native americans own the US. i understand the complexity of the history. if russia destroyed israel and knighty added "20. russia" to his list, would that make russia righteous in their endeavor? the perception i'm getting is that you feel "hey, lots of people have lived on the land throughout time, therefore it is righteous to go and forcefully take the land and the people that lost their home have no right to be upset - after all the UN agreed that we should take their land." please correct me if this perception is wrong. my only point is that if what happened to the palestinians happened to any reasonable person (you or i!), they would be rightfully angry. that's it. this seems self evident. >>In terms of finding peace .... why, over the 50 years since, aren't any individual Palestinians allowed to resettle in Jordan or other Arab countries if they wish? And compare the current treatment of Muslim holy sites by Isreal to the Jordanian treatment of Jewish holy sites when they controlled East Jerusalem.<< david, i try to be on the side of reason and truth, not on any national side. the arabs have treated many people - including their own - in terrible ways. i say this and yet folks apparently don't believe me when i say it. it is TRUE and you cite just one example of many. but that doesn't mean that what the israeli's did by lobbying for control of land that they did not have at the time of lobbying was righteous to the people who were displaced against their will. if the UN says americans have to move out of their house and let native americans take over... what would happen? >>There are lunatics on both sides, but one side has democracy, courts, free press and public criticism ... just like the battle between Osama and the USA.<< israel is a great ally to the US. we support them and they have, undoubtedly, caused great benefit to the US. but that is not the issue, imho. the issue is wresting control of land away from others and the impact that has on the people who reasonably feel their land was stolen (with UN approval, as you pointed out). osama is a sick sob and i expect him to be properly dealt with - as should other dangerous people. would i lose sleep if he and his crew got "jeffrey dahmered" in prison? nope. david, if someone were to take something from you in the manner israel took over what is now israel i would be defending your right to be pissed off as i reasonably expect you would be (i would be!). i wouldn't defend your (or my!) right to bomb folks, though. the same goes for the palestinians. seems like a reasonable position. israel isn't going anywhere nor do i think they should. however, this "we did nothing wrong, why the heck are all those lunatics mad at us" attitude seems to be based more on self interest than reality. would the US go to war to protect land it reasonably deemed as its own if someone took it? of course and reasonably so, imho. why do we make others who do that into warmongers. perhaps they are. if so, we are, too. we can't have it both ways. other nations have used the situation for selfish gain - but that doesn't make the initial act right and just. here are a couple articles i pulled up that go over the history of the situation. i don't see any particular slant to the articles, either way. trumanlibrary.org i-cias.com one question, though. didn't the UN recommend creating two states - an israel state and a palestinian state? if so, does israel actively support the creation of a palestinian state since they rely somewhat on UN authority to justify the "land grab?" or, am i missing something here?