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: Noel de Leon who wrote (181325)	2/8/2006 10:17:25 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Israel does not claim that their primary goal is to wipe out Palestine "At least 52% of Israelis want everything west of the Jordan." The government has enough sense to restrain the wishes of the people. If Israel tried to advance that agenda, they would lose support of the US and the critical foreign aid US provides to them. "The wall, aka the fence, steals land from farmers." Yes, on both sides. Jews have lost access to their land and muslims to theirs. It was sited based on defensible positions. Do you deny Israel's right to exist? Defend themselves? ME muslims practice selective moral outrage from the perspective of Westerners / Jews / Christians. In reality, it is not. Their holy book teaches them that non-mulsims are all infidels. As such, they are less than human, and have no rights. Since non-mulsims have no rights, when they are slaughtered it is of no more consequence than if cattle or camels are slaughtered. You wouldn't expect foreign governments or religious leaders to express regret or outrage if someone killed a herd of cattle would you? It might be news, but no more. <Once things fell into perspective, it became much easier to recognize muslims as no different than the worst of early American slave owners. They were upset when someone killed a slave just as they would have been upset if someone stole a gun from them. "An unjustified generalization." Perhaps the choice of the worst slave owners is not appropriate, but the understanding imparted by the example appears to be correct.