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 : WAR on Terror. Will it engulf the Entire Middle East? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (11709)	1/23/2006 1:22:45 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

Hawk, You make great points but you are sending them to a racist who sorry to say cant be convinced. I guess bin-lenin, being a member of several persecuted groups himself (ethnic and sexual), resents a minority that has overcome and achieved so much and decides to go with the Pals whose victimization claims while part of 100mm arab majority is laughable. This aint the indians vs the USA Len and if it was it is Israel who are the indians, albeit very well armed. Continue the fight Hawk. Mike

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (11709)	1/23/2006 2:22:45 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 32591

The Palestinians just didn't have the ability for create a unified governmental body in the manner that the Israelis did. They didn't have the cultural background for democratic self-government, and any government would merely have reflected the ability of one tribe to dominate the others. The Palestinians did have one acknowledged leader post WWII - the Mufti. Unfortunately for them, he was a Nazi, and Nazis were, shall we say, out of fashion in the late 1940s.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (11709)	1/25/2006 1:36:13 PM
From: Elmer Flugum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32591

"Is that what the British did in the New World when they fought the French and Indians?" The British and French were not in Palestine to colonize the place. they were there to administer a government to take it out of the hands of the Ottoman Turks and into the hands of the Palestinian people. "The Palestinians just didn't have the ability for create a unified governmental body in the manner that the Israelis did. They didn't have the cultural background for democratic self-government, and any government would merely have reflected the ability of one tribe to dominate the others." So, this justifies foreigners coming in, dominating the process, usurping it actually? Palestine was a Third World nation, what can be expected of them initially? I must say, your reasoning mirrors the reasoning of the Crusaders, who were out to save (and make a few bucks in the process) the heathens for Christ. "The Palestinians have about as much right to claim that purchased land was "stolen" from them as the Canarse Delaware indians have for selling Manhattan Island for $24 (actually 60 guilders). They did it, they made a profit, and then the proceeded to try and fight the Jews to drive them off of it so they could reclaim it for themselves." I agree. If the land was legitimately purchased, it is the purchaser's land, regardless of where they came from. A contract is a contract. At most, only 9 % of the land in Palestine was purchased... Canarse? Sounds like some of my relatives! len