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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (53265)	10/19/2002 5:36:41 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But you keep claiming "attacks will stop" if Israel withdraws to "internationally recognized" boundries. Never claimed that. I claimed that the casualties will diminish. You can't stop the attacks completely - there ARE evil people, there ARE terrorists. Fact of life. And Israel has created a sea of hatred that will keep giving its fruit for decades. But the perpetrators will be smaller in number (take away those who fight for simple liberation), and have no international support in world opinion (including people like me). No one disputes that surrender and withdrawal lead to short-term drops in casualties. That's the appeal of appeasement. LOL! NO. What leads to a drop in casualties, is when you withdraw from STOLEN lands, when you STOP OCCUPYING, when your aggression stops. Ask any colonial power that was subject to casualties in liberation wars. Casualties diminished when they stopped subjugating people and confiscating land. Lebanon's "security Zone" was NOT Israeli territory. It was stolen land. Israel did not "appease" or "surrender" - Barak, a decorated Israeli general, was not a surrenderer, or appeaser. He had to correct for Sharon's-ilk insane expansionist policies. Same with PAL territories - stop occupying does not mean "surrender". See? LOL! You keep trying to simplify the situation - think what is REALLY in the interest of Israel - a few parcels of land they'll eventually choke on, isolated in the world, or to be in recognized pre-67 borders not occupying anyone, and supported by world opinion (including folks like me) when they are then attacked by (much diminished) illegitimate terrorists, and when casualties diminish drastically?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (53265)	10/19/2002 5:52:12 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Respond to of 281500

It really is amazing how incapable you are from refraining from distortion. No matter how many times I post and stress: As I've said, Israeli *******CASUALTIES******* will diminish* you still characterize that as "you keep claiming "attacks will stop"" when I did no such thing. Every which way you try to distort, and you never seem to get it right. Boy, arguing with you is simply a series of attempts to just correct your mischaracterizations, LOL! Really, your addiction to Debka disinformation and distortions is having some very deletrious effects, LOL!