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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (251939)	4/30/2002 12:46:05 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

More evidence of Sharon's triumph over terror. guardian.co.uk Mr Karim said that National and Islamic Forces, one of several groups claiming to control the intifada, are to meet today to consider a bar on attacks on civilians, particularly suicide bombings. "I think it was very harmful, not just because of the Israeli action but because of the harm done to the image of the intifada in world opinion," he said.

To: tejek who wrote (251939)	4/30/2002 1:12:22 AM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

"And if its about religion, then the Palestinians are simply racists, and they aren't worth the time of day" There appears to be an element of truth to this, don't you think? "Sure there is but that's not the whole story and yet there are people working diligently trying to convince everyone that it is." I'm not saying it is the whole story, but the impression I get is that the religiously run Arab states are extremely non-tolerent of other religions. That seems like state sponsored racism to me. Does Israel have religious freedom? Do they have policies that do not even recognize other country's rights to exist? Saudi Arabia apparantly does if they are floating a plan to "recognize" Israel if they give back land they captured when they were attacked. And what world body recently labeled Israel a racist country? Wasn't that some U.N. function that so irritated the U.S. (prompting a boycott I believe). Calling someone a racist who is not a racist IS racist (or something just as bad) imo. "Compromises were offered to appease them but in the end the state was created over their objections" So the argument needs to go back to whether Israel ever has had a right to exist. If they do, then your point is mute. Till this day most of the Arab nations don't recognize them. "I think its been argued successivefully that when people are forced out due to war that their propety rights remain intact" Were they forced out, or did they leave voluntarily? Your last post strengthened my beleif that they left so others could crush Israel. If they were forced out that is quite a bit different. Which one is it?