Hillary Clinton: "The goal must be a durable outcome that promotes regional stability and advances the security and legitimate aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians alike"

Well, first of all, you would lose that bet. Argubaly one of the ten dumbest things of all time, right up there with deciding to invade Russia, is to bet against the Jews.

Second of all, and by way of supporting RS's assessment that a Palestinian state and Israel can never co-exist, I would ask you, I would ask anyone, why is it OK for 20% of Israel to be Arab but it's not OK for 4% of the West Bank to be Jewish?

Both of your comments were excellent.However, I think that the reason why the MSM covers for HRC and BHO is that they're really the MSM's creations.

I believe that HRC is indeed highly intelligent, albeit probably not as intelligent as she thinks she is. Her biggest problem is that she's one corrupt (expletive deleted). Does anyone remember Whitewater? She's also someone without a real moral core. She got her start helping to bring down Nixon for an admittedly egregious violation of public trust; yet, once in power herself, she joins her administration's nibblings at the First Amendment in order to please a foreign Islamic constituency, and when she gets around to speaking about the First Amendment, she sounds both tinny and as if she's trying out a foreign language which she hasn't really mastered.

As for BHO, he's still the affirmative action president to me, and beneficiary of two lackluster Republican presidential campaigns. It seems to me that in the age of Julian Assange, the only secret the US can keep is the academic record of the supposedly "most brilliant" president ever. His responses to the Benghazi attacks were downright shameful. He still seems to fly to flinders when faced with something other than complete, servile adulation (viz., Joe the Plumber, skeptics towards Susan Rice, etc.).

Worst of all the Lamestream media isn't showing the sort of fire in investigating Benghazigate or Slow and Scowling that they would had a Republican administration been involved. Yet I believe that the likelihood that Stevens' meeting with the Turkish Diplomat may well have had something to do with possible gun-running to the Syrian rebels, and hence the possibility of the USA being sucked into a wider Mideastern conflict.

As always, Kepha, I welcome your comments. Even when I disagree with them, which is a minority of times, they're without exception put forth by a superior intellect.

As for Whitewater, at least it started out as legitimate but then became corrupt. I have long, in first-important mode, tried to point the way towards the real-estate debacle of Castle Grande, the billing partner of which, as noted by Robert Ray (a Democrat who took over the Whitewater investigation from Kenneth Starr), was Hillary Clinton. Castle Grande didn't even start out as legitimate. It was a fraud from the beginning. And Hillary was the legal counsel for this fraud---from the beginning. If one wants to learn how really corrupt Hillary is, I say forget Whitewater, bad as it is, look to Castle Grande. If you or I, "mere" ordinary citizens, had engaged in the "antics" that Hillary did we'd still be sitting in jail.

On the topic du jour (Hillary), I have come to the conclusion that whenever this deficient American speaks about the Constitution, be it the First Amendment, the Electoral College or whatever, she reveals her extraordinary, stupefying, but well disguised, ignorance of what that great group of men accomplished during that terrible hot summer in Philadelphis back in 1787. In short, Hillary is a front and center example of how much America has dumbed down in our time.

As for the rest you mentioned---Benghazi, Stevens, the LSM et al., pretty damn sad to be sure. Makes me wonder if Polybius wasn't right after all, to wit, that everything for polities, however great, is cyclical.

Take care, my Christian friend. I want you to know that I respect you a lot.

Respecting

Your vapid prophecies are about as tendentious as they can be. Seems to me your tedious plugging for Israel to accept a Palestinian state, never mind that Israel has been prepared to do this since 1948 IF, yes IF, such a state would live in true peace with Israel, represents nothing more by you than a first-step effort by which the decrepit Arab Muslim world would eventually eliminate Israel.

Again, you fool no one of sense. Better try a different tact in the future, though I have no doubt even if you do it would be deceitful throughout. But at least you could be more subtly deceitful. C'mon.

Honestly, the minimum you could do, just for entertainment purposes, is to try being more disguised than you have to date. Won't you at least quit being so crude and obvious? Go ahead, give it a shot and entertain us all. And comprehend full well, if you do, that a hugely growing populace is coming to know the true worth of Islam, a spiritural totalitarian ideology if ever there were one.

Your turn if you can, if you're able. Why not surpise me and write something original for a change. After all, if I'm going to get deceit, I'd prefer it be at least interesting deceit.

"Hillary has had years of da'wah from Huma..."

And prior to that she had some 40 years of preparatory anti-Western education from leading Western educators, artists, writers and analysts, to help make her receptive to Huma's Dawah (and I'm not talking about her cunning skills as a linguist...).

"She's not that dumb."

Nope she's not.

Hillary Clinton "The goal must be a durable outcome that promotes regional stability and advances the security and legitimate aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians alike"

RS "Why does Hillary Clinton not realize that such a goal is absolutely unattainable?"

What makes people think she does not realise that?

It is something she has to say. Netanyahu says the same thing.

The annihilation of Israel is not a "legitimate aspiration" of the Palestinians.

So till that remains, that goal is unattainable.

But things may change in the distant future. Nothing lasts forever. Unless you believe that Islam will last forever.

"She's not that dumb."

Nope she's not.

Hillary Clinton "The goal must be a durable outcome that promotes regional stability and advances the security and legitimate aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians alike"

RS "Why does Hillary Clinton not realize that such a goal is absolutely unattainable?"

What makes people think she does not realise that?

It is something she has to say. Netanyahu says the same thing.

The annihilation of Israel is not a "legitimate aspiration" of the Palestinians.

So till that remains, that goal is unattainable.

But things may change in the distant future. Nothing lasts forever. Unless you believe that Islam will last forever.

ssa,

Blame it all on yourself. All Gazans have to do if they don't want to be flattened, is to stop firing missiles into Israel.

Gazans might also have decided not to elect Hamas. If you are degenerate enough to elect Hamas, what happens next is your own fault and no one else's.

Gaza's is a self-inflicted destiny. Why complain about what you yourself insist on bringing down on your own heads?

YGM,

You claim Israel will not attack Iran. You say it would be suicidal. But wouldn't it be suicidal for Israel not to attack Iran, given Iran's nuclear weapons program and Iran's oft-stated intention to wipe Israel off the map?

Your claim that it would be suicidal for Israel to attack Iran sounds a bit like the shamelessly lying bluster and hot air braggadocio one hears so often from Middle Eastern Islamic thugs in Iran. We heard this sort of stupid boasting in Iraq, too, from the information minister "Baghdad Bob," and also from Saddam Hussein himself, shortly before they disappeared into the dustbin of history.

@ darmanad & the complete fool, YGM

You're both clowns! Israel's position is strong. She has a robust economy, vast resources in gas and oil, courage, intelligence and lastly, fears no one! Iron Dome, by the way, is being battle tested. And there are countries around the world queuing to buy the defence system. And when 'David's Sling' is rolled out, the Islamic theocracy of Iran can fire as many nuclear nissiles at Israel as it likes, they will all be intercepted and destroyed -- assuming that Stuxnet doesn't cause them to explode in their silos when they are activated.

You are an idiot YGM, parroting the same lies every time you post. And all of your lies can be easily exposed and refuted.

Clowns, both of you!

"Nothing lasts forever. Unless you believe that Islam will last forever."

Man, I wish Hugh were still here. He'd have quoted the words above, laconically attributed it to "a commenter above", then launched into a 2,000 word essay that would have been the nucleus of yet another in his long list of profoundly chewy and nutritious treatises, in this case, one that would have wrested a great deal of useful and enlightening sense out of the rhetorical nonsense from the commenter above.

All I'll do, for now, is note two things:

1) Islam has been around for 1,400 years, waxing, waning, waxing, waning -- and now undergoing a global revival, increasingly enjoying perhaps the most global reach and technological advantage (thanks to a stupid West not only helping them with it, but also pumping billions of dollars into their diseased societies as though trying to keep Frankenstein alive with massive volts of electricity, and furthermore inviting Muslims into the West -- in unprecedented numbers in all its 1,400 years, with unprecedented access into nearly all levels of our societies);

and

2) A deadly expansionist supremacist ideology with millions of insanely fanatical followers all over the world -- and increasingly within the West -- doesn't have to last "forever" to be a horrible, terrible problem for the world.

'A secular-democratic Palestinian state, patrolled by a KFOR-type international robust peacekeeping force, is the only long-term solution to Israel's security'.

As in Lebanon, Rwanda and Bosnia?

Your faith isn't even touching.

And for all who think Israel's government can do no wrong, remember the USS Liberty?

That's ancient history...The Israeli gov of that time is not the Israeli gov of these times...Can't you come up with anything more recent?

...her cunning skills as a linguist ...

Beautiful!

"Well, first of all, you would lose that bet. Argubaly one of the ten dumbest things of all time, right up there with deciding to invade Russia, is to bet against the Jews."
....................................
As an American Jew, albeit non-religious and wandering, I take pride in the accomplishments of my landsmen in the arts, sciences and all other human endeavors. That includes their ability to overcome overwhelming odds to survive as a thriving democracy in the midst of hostile neighbors. However, any existential fight with the Dar al-Islam will result in the annililation of Israel as we know it unless you believe that Israel will be the first to use a nuclear weapon. Do you?

In any battle with conventional forces Israel would quickly be overrun by the combined forces of the Dar al-Islam whether it be Iran, Egypt, Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas, Iraq, Turkey, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. Any state left standing where Israel now exists after such hostilities would not be a Jewish state.
...................................

"Second of all, and by way of supporting RS's assessment that a Palestinian state and Israel can never co-exist, I would ask you, I would ask anyone, why is it OK for 20% of Israel to be Arab but it's not OK for 4% of the West Bank to be Jewish?"
.....................................
Because the Jews are not as bigoted as their fanatic, Jew-hating, biblical half brothers. That assumes your figure that Jews constitute less than 4% of the west bank population. Are Jew currently prohibited from living in the west bank (wouldn't surprise me)?.
Moreover, why would any Jew opt to live in the west bank when they could live in the much more livable Israel? I do think that if peace does come to Israel and a Palestinian state on the west bank, eventually more Jews will take up residence there. After all, they will be needed to help boot the Palstinian economy and infrastructure.

In any battle with conventional forces Israel would quickly be overrun...

Maybe, but not before they inflicting massive losses on the enemy...Israel can lose such a war, but it won't be an easy task...

Says Wellington; "Your vapid prophecies are about as tendentious as they can be. Seems to me your tedious plugging for Israel to accept a Palestinian state, never mind that Israel has been prepared to do this since 1948 IF, yes IF, such a state would live in true peace with Israel, represents nothing more by you than a first-step effort by which the decrepit Arab Muslim world would eventually eliminate Israel."
...................
Wellington, Could you expound on why a belief in the feasibility of a 2 state solution is nothing more than a first step toward elimination of Israel? Are there no cicumstances under which you can envision a secular Palestinian state that that would be willing to or forced to coexist with Israel?
...................................

Says Wellington: "Again, you fool no one of sense. Better try a different tact in the future, though I have no doubt even if you do it would be deceitful throughout. But at least you could be more subtly deceitful. C'mon.

Honestly, the minimum you could do, just for entertainment purposes, is to try being more disguised than you have to date. Won't you at least quit being so crude and obvious? Go ahead, give it a shot and entertain us all. And comprehend full well, if you do, that a hugely growing populace is coming to know the true worth of Islam, a spiritural totalitarian ideology if ever there were one."
...................
Wellinton, What are you getting at? Do you think 76700 is a Muslim? What is the decitful "tact" (sic) that you believe 76700 is taking? Is it that you simply think his arguments are deceitful? Does Israel not import the great % of its food and oil? Does it not have to rely on foreign aid in order to survive? Is the region not more fundamental Islamist now than it was 3 or 4 decades ago? Is it not consistently the position of RS that the US under BHO is less friendly to Israel than ever?
Frankly, I can't comprehend the meaning of this last part of your comment, the urging of 76700 to be more deceitful, or less crude and obvious, etc. Please specify how 76700 has been deceitful, or crude, or obvious (whatever that means).
Signed,
The clown ( with a hatts off to Buraq)

Says CGW "The YGM troll seems like it's desperately trying to convince itself of its specious arguments, with its desperate and frantic repetition of the same monkey talking points, over and over and over . . ."
..................
Monkey talking points? Could you be specific in what arguments 76700 has made that constitute monkey talking points and explain to us why they are specious (or monkeyish). For example, do you contend that Israel imports of fuel, food, and armaments are not required for its survival or that without US foreign aid it's economy would fold. Do you believe that the US support for Israel is stronger nowadays or, like the RS position on the current adminstration, do you believe US support for Israel is the weakest it has ever been? Or worse, that BHO is secretly a Muslim, was born in Indonesia, and is a Manchurian candidate like plant sponsored by Dar al-Salam to bring down the miserable house of the Great Satan from within?
...............................

CGW says: "Don't its posts constitute
"otherwise annoying" comments by now? I'm tempted to go to Robert soon. Marisol would have given it the boot before now."
.............
How ironic. Freedom of speech is one of, if not the most important, civil rights which Islam seeks to suppres. That you should seek to shut some one up because you disagree with the ideas they express shows just how blindly ignorant you are.
Please do give in to that temptation. Go to Robert. Demonstrate what a fine sense of fairness and great intellect you possess by atually attempting to do the very thing thing which this site is all about, i.e. maintaining the right to express your opinion about religion and governance. The irony is more acute because 76700 actually is a lot more knowledgable and informative than you could ever hope to be.

I have no doubts that Robert would reject your request to ban 76700. To his credit he believes in and practices freedom of speech. That is what Jwatch is all about.

How to undermine the credibility of Jwatch in one easy lesson:
"They want to destroy the good for being the good. They are all evil. They are all killers for the sake of killing. Don’t delude yourself. They want the same thing to happen to America."
Skipping your meds lately, Ed?

..."to help make her receptive to Huma's Dawah (and I'm not talking about her cunning skills as a linguist...).

I, for a fleeting moment, thought that you do.

Darmanad: That screen name sounds like a medication itself. However, you attack me and not my position? Have you any arguments against my position, other than a smear, or a smarmy remark? What do you mean, "undermine the credibility of Jihad Watch"? Or are you a Muslim troll, looking for a fight? Robert underestimates the malevolence of Clinton, Obama, and everyone else in that administration. That explains their whole Mideast policy. Observe their behavior. That's all you need to do. Next time, say something intelligent. Don't spout off like a left-wing college professor.

This ain't rocket science, dude. The reason why a two-state solution will not work can be summed up in one word: Islam. Islam is essentially spiritual Nazism and has a venom for Jews, a true disdain for them, built into its theological blueprint. Only a bad Muslim could agree to live alongside Israel. A good Muslim (which means such an individual is a bad person) cannot allow for the existence of Israel. Jesus Christ, don't you know this already?

Wellington ,
I was wondering whether you might get around to answering the question I posed to you on another thread, you know the one in which so carefull explained why the US was right to invade Iraq and install a leader of its choice. See http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/jihadists-form-islamic-state-in-syria.html.

That's where you make this interesting argument:
"As for Bush deposing the megalomaniac Saddam Hussein, he had to. Such an unstable dictator had to go... What Bush should have done was to put an authoritarian ruler in SH's place, one who would run Iraq with an iron hand while being pro-American or at least neutral."
............
I'm gonna bet you supported the US invasion of and decimation of Vietnam and enthusiastically joined in the chorus of loyal Americans chanting "my country, right or wrong."

Wellington ,
I was wondering whether you might get around to answering the question I posed to you on another thread, you know the one in which you so carefully explained why the US was right to invade Iraq and install a leader of its choice. See http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/11/jihadists-form-islamic-state-in-syria.html.

That's where you make this interesting argument:
"As for Bush deposing the megalomaniac Saddam Hussein, he had to. Such an unstable dictator had to go... What Bush should have done was to put an authoritarian ruler in SH's place, one who would run Iraq with an iron hand while being pro-American or at least neutral."
............
I'm gonna bet you supported the US invasion of and decimation of Vietnam and enthusiastically joined in the chorus of loyal Americans chanting "my country, right or wrong."

'David's Sling' is a ramped up version of Iron Dome. It is a refinement of the Iron Dome computerised system that works at, literally, the speed of light.
Israel is working on it now. When it's put into service, Israel will be protected from any rocket fired from anywhere.

And by the way, with regard to your parroted lie that The West is losing patience with Israel and she will soon be left to defend herself against the Islamic jackals circling her right now, Angela Merkel made a speech in the Lower House today in which she said unequivocally that Germany supported Israel in this conflict.

You're a clown!

You're so clueless, about me and so much else. First of all, I will invoke Carl Schultz, the 19th-century German immigrant to America who rose to great heights as a Union general in the Civil War, as a Senator from Missouri and as Secretary of the Interior in President Hayes' cabinet. He said of his adoptive country, which he loved, "My country right or wrong. If right to be kept right. If wrong to be put right." I could not agree more with this sentiment. So, your crude assumption that I would be with America as you stated it is just flat out wrong. I'm with Schultz on this one.

Second, the real killing in Vietnam only began once America left in 1975. America didn't even seek any land, any acquuistitions, in the Vietnam War. It was there to keep South Vietnamese free of the iniquity of Marxism, like Islam a totalitarian ideology. Yes, the Americans did not wage the war correctly, did not fight to win, but the intentions were honorable and, again, the real killing in SE Asia started only once America left, proving that America being there in the first place remains eminently defensible, though not necessarily wise.

Your turn, rube. Maybe, just maybe, you can get something right for a change, though I wouldn't bet on it.

duh_swami, why are you conceding on the blatantly false factoid of the USS Liberty being caused by Jews?

"Are there no cicumstances under which you can envision a secular Palestinian state that that would be willing to or forced to coexist with Israel?"

Yes there is one circumstance that comes to mind, off the top of my head: The astonishing miracle of Muslims transforming into rational human beings who don't want to commit genocide against Jews and then sing and dance in fanatically frenzied blood lust after they have accomplished that.

Your views about the Vietnam war are consistent with your views about American imperialism vis a vis Iraq. What makes you think that the US had the right to dictate to the Vietnamese people what kind of government or economic policy it ought to adopt? And then to bomb the villages of that country with napalm killing hundreds of thousands of peasants in order to impose "our" will.
You say the real killing didn't start until after US forces left. What constitutes real killing?. Explain that to the families of those that perished on both sides prior to 1973 all so that US capitalists might avoid a fall of dominoes in SE Asia.

Your statements regarding US involvement in Vietnam are outrageous and support my earlier statement that the JWatch "monkey gang" are not only not very smart, but are not very ethical.
Now all the monkeys can jump up and down and toss out epithets like they toss their feces in the zoo - it's all very entertaining.

The Cold War was a long affair and had many chapters to it. America did not always do the right thing in every chapter of this war (what power does in any war?), but the Cold War was ultimately won by the far more decent side (refute this and you really are an idiot if you think the USSR was preferable to the USA).

Respecting Vietnam particularly, President Eisenhower was told after the French blew it at Dien Bien Phu that if America didn't intervene that there would be mass slaughter of many Vietnamese, especially those who were Catholic. Added to this were the dynamics of the entire Cold War geopolitical situation. As Dean Acheson said when asked why America entered the Korean War, his astute reply was "NATO." Perhaps America shouldn't have intervened in Vietnam, the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, but it's easy in retrospect to say what should have been done. In any case, the real killing did begin after America left SE Asia, something you just skipped over in your eagerness to kick America first. As for killings when America was in Vietnam, the vast majority of American military personnel went out of their way, even to the extent of putting their own lives in greater danger often times, to avoid civilian casualties, just as the Israelis do, just as the Americans did in Iraq. If you deny this, you are a rank liar.

It has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, Bozo. Its posts fall under the "otherwise annoying" appellation due to their virtual copy-and-paste, extremely mindlessly repetitive nature, amounting to little more than spamming. Marisol definitely had it in for that type of spammer; Robert is much more lenient, so it's up to us stop feeding this particular troll at this time.

The one-trick pony YGM has been successfully refuted by several JWers, ad nauseum.

And for someone who criticized other JW posters as being "not too smart", you then criticized LemonLime, who can run rings around you intellectually, for his "erudition". Just can't face up to reality, can you?

The BOTTOM LINE for many here is that a two-state solution will NEVER BE VIABLE because of iSLAM (exactly why has been explained previously). The "palis" were given Gaza and they quickly destroyed and looted whatever good the Israelis had established there. They are incorrigible savages, pure and simple. The only viable solution is their expulsion from Greater Israel proper, which includes the West Bank in its entirety. Gaza should either be emptied of muslims or given to Egypt to administer.

Don't bother responding; i won't read it. I'm done with trolls for awhile.

Happy Thanksgiving to all my fellow JWers ! ! !

Eisenhower also said that if US had permitted the reunified elections between the people of the North and the South to take place as scheduled right after the French pulled out, Ho Chi Minh would have received 95% of the popular vote and unified the country peacefully. The US intervened to prevent that election and then subsequently installed its bought and paid for Diem as a puppet President of the newly configured South Vietnam.

Diem never had popular support, in large part because he was a fighter pilot for the French during the Indochina war and dropped bombs on his own people. It came as no great surprise he was assassinated not long into his term.

You claim that the Americans were a benevolent invading force, in Vietnam for the noble purpose of saving it from the ungodly evil of communism despite the wishes of the inhabitants to determine their own policies. Yes, the US forces were really benovolent and so considerate. You say "the vast majority of American military personnel went out of their way, even to the extent of putting their own lives in greater danger often times, to avoid civilian casualties." Do you mean avoiding civilian casualties as in the Lt Calley mentality Mai Lai massacre, or the infamous rationale for bombing villages to smithereens e.g., "we had to destroy the village in order to save it". Perhaps you're referring to the over-saturation of B 52 napalm bombs that incinerated much of that beautiful country together with tens of thousands of rural peasants?

America's misadventure in Vietnam will remain a stain on the US for as long as this country endures. I don't hate my country, but I do hate some of its horrific foreign policies like the rape of Vietnam and more recently the bombing of Iraq under false pretenses concocted by an ex CEO of Halliburton and his dim-witted oilman sidekick, the "shrub." You can add sending ground forces to Afghanistan and financial aid to Pakistan, too.

Douse, take your psuedo-intellectual head out of your arch conservative ass. The Vietnam war was a horror and any attempt to justify US conduct would now only be undertaken by unethical, ignorant, apologists for US imperialism such as yourself.

The term tool doesn't even come close to what hillary clinton and obummer are.
I was truly sadden when they started the ole'let's have peace talks, What ?????
we'll talk peace so they can rearm. pretty sure iran has found a tunnel that they can get bigger weapons and more bomber vest in.
This witch let Ambassador Christopher Stevens,Sean Smith,Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods DIE; what makes anybody think this witch cares abot Isarel.
Do remember her laugh; when she spoke of killing of Momar Kadafi ? We came, we....

Happy Thanksgiving to all !!!!!

I've had quite enough of your insults. I will answer one more time and then no more. Here goes.

Eisenhower did indeed know full well that fair elections would lead to Ho Chi Minh winning. But he was told that the 10% Catholic minority would be slaughtered as well as any who had at any time opposed the Viet Minh. Moreover, Eisenhower and subsequent Presidents were fighting a much larger war, the Cold War, and losing SE Asia would likely embolden the opposing side to even more daring endeavors.

As for atrocities, yes the My Lai massacre is a stain on the American military but it was the exception by far and not the rule. People like you bring it up in such a way, a deceitful way, to smear the American military in general. Shame on you forever for this.

No military is devoid of some rogue soldiers here and there, but decent militaries, like those of America, Israel and Britain, have a capacity to apologize for and correct wrongs, all the while adhering to a code of honor. No such code exists with Islamic terrorists. Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and all the other decrepit, barbaric Islamic groups who are too ready to use violence for its own sake, and to deliberately terrorize civilians, represent the forces of anti-civilization. You know this or should know it.

Now, you can stick your warped head up your ass. You sicken me by trashing America over and over while ignoring that more people have been killed in the name of Islam than in the name of anything else in man's history, some 270 million minimum. Besides, America has shown a capacity to apologize for its wrongdoings. The Islamic world has never shown such a capacity. Go to hell, asshole. I will respond to you never again. You are beneath contempt.

Yes, LL, you are correct that I basically agree with Spencer and Fitzgerald on Iraq, to wit, that Saddam Hussein had to be removed because way too unstable but sentimentally (and ignorantly) thinking that Iraqi Moms and Pops want the same freedoms Americans do was, well let me be kind, naive. I did at one time think that one shot at democratizing an Arab Muslim country should be tried, but I disabused myself of this notion long ago. The Arab Muslim world is pathetic and beyond redemption as long as it remains Muslim. It so richly deserves itself.

As for Vietnam and Western imperialism, I also agree with your takes on them. Hope you're doing well.

"thomas, I would never think of it!"

Why, of course not! Neither would I if I hadn't seen your comment. :) :)

darmanad wrote:

Not everyone shares RS's opinion that a Palestinian state and Israel can never coexist. However, unless Israel gets serious about restricting the construction of settlements on land designated by the UN partition plan as Palestinian, I have a fear that such coexistence may not come to be until a heck of lot misery befalls both sides...
............................

So—you believe that the "settlements" present a serious obstacle to peace, but Muslims' cutting the throats of Jewish babies and lobbing rockets at Israeli civilians *doesn't*?

And what leads you to believe that Muslims—who regularly crow over "wiping Israel off the map"—have any desire to live peacefully beside her?

More:

And if I were a betting man and had to bet whether Israel or an Arab alternative would be the last man standing, much as I hate to think of it, I would put my money on the latter.
............................

And what does that "Arab alternative" consist of, if not the destruction of Israel? Note that the "Israel alternative" doesn't involve destruction of Muslims.

As Benjamin Netanyahu once said, "If the Arabs [read "Muslims"—GI] put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel".

darmanad wrote, among reams of other spam:

I do think that if peace does come to Israel and a Palestinian state on the west bank, eventually more Jews will take up residence there. After all, they will be needed to help boot the Palstinian economy and infrastructure.
.......................

Well, this is *just grimly laughable*. Muslims have spent much of their history violently expelling Jews from their own lands.

The idea that Jews would be welcomed to live freely and safely in an Islamically-ruled West Bank is either utterly delusional or entirely meretricious.

Wellington "Respecting Vietnam particularly, President Eisenhower was told after the French blew it at Dien Bien Phu that if America didn't intervene that there would be mass slaughter of many Vietnamese, especially those who were Catholic."

How noble. Catholics would be slaughtered so lets drop napalm bombs on their villages and bomb them to smithereens.

Didn't America eventually get their ass kicked in Vietnam? and flee in great disarray?

What happened to the Catholics then? Did they get slaughtered?

Wellington "Respecting Vietnam particularly, President Eisenhower was told after the French blew it at Dien Bien Phu that if America didn't intervene that there would be mass slaughter of many Vietnamese, especially those who were Catholic."

How noble. Catholics would be slaughtered so lets drop napalm bombs on their villages and bomb them to smithereens.

Didn't America eventually get their ass kicked in Vietnam? and flee in great disarray?

What happened to the Catholics then? Did they get slaughtered?

Wow. Yet another deeply Leftist and anti-American eructation from Rich.

LL

You asked duh-swami "duh_swami, why are you conceding on the blatantly false factoid of the USS Liberty being caused by Jews?"

this after DS had told darmanad

"That's ancient history...The Israeli gov of that time is not the Israeli gov of these times...Can't you come up with anything more recent?")

in response to darmanad's very, very revealing deployment of the USS Liberty story, which is a perennial favourite amongst all antisemites whether Muslim or non-Muslim, including a good few who've posted here in the past

(darmanad said - "And for all who think Israel's government can do no wrong, remember the USS Liberty?" and provided two links, namely:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/margolis12.html

http://rense.com/general39/pilot.htm

which I am wary of clicking upon, myself, because of bearing in mind duh-swami's oft-repeated warning, over the years, in this forum, about the perils of clicking on links offered by mohammedans and by their apologists/ fellow travellers, namely, that such things 'have bugs that jump'.

Not sure why DS seemed to concede, as you put it; but I do know that DS has no truck with antisemitism and antisemites.

Indeed, one of the most memorable postings on the subject ever made here, was made by him, in this thread from 2010:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/lebanon-fires-on-israeli-warplanes.html

duh_swami | June 2, 2010 4:36 AM | Reply
“Lebanon fires on Israeli warplanes”

'They just want to get in on the act...and keep the anti-Israel pot stirred up...

'A witches brew, made of lies, and hate, the bones of dead men, and a few frog legs...

'
A large number of people, both Mahoundian and some kufrs have been sipping from it...It won't kill you but it does produce 
an intoxicating stupor, hallucinations, delusional material, and paranoia...

'Some posters right here on jihad watch have been hanging out at the 'Witches Brew Juice Bar and Falafel Shop'...and it shows...'.

Myself, when I saw darmanad tossing out that line about the USS Liberty, I thought, riiiight.

Okay. Now we know.

And what if it wasn't darmanad that brought up the USS Liberty? Does your tedious ad hominem analysis have any relevance? Are ad hominem attacks ever informative or useful?

I didn't know many of the details of the Liberty incident, but when I clicked on the links that someone else provided I read pretty damning evidence that Israel intentionanlly fired on the ship. (There was no virus). I find it hard to wrap my mind around the notion that Israel intentionally fired and assume that if that were really true, there would have been much graver repercussions, notwithstanding the attempts to explain why such repercussions didn't occur.

Some commenters seem to think I am a Muslim or an anti-semite despite my post identifying myself as a non-religious, but proud to be Jew. I want Israel to thrive as a Jewish state. I have written here often specifying why I abhor Islam. I have alienated some of my friends and acquaintances because I regularly distribute items published on JWatch and other sites which demonstrate the violation of fundamental human and civil rights inherent in Islam. Some of acquaintances probably think I am compulsive and may have written me off as such, but I do it anyway because I think it is important. I want to combat jihad. If I had my way, sharia law would be banned around the world. It is barbaric and often inhumane. Do you get the picture?

Despite my antipathy towards Islam, in my opinion the best way to achieve a permanent cease fire as a stepping stone to enduring peace in the mideast (and around other parts of the globe) is to establish a prosperous Palestinian state on the land designated for it (more or less) by the UN partition plan. I know the contents of the Hamas charter and all the fanatic Jew hatred of the pious Muslim mind, but in my view continued settlement construction by Israel only serves to accelerate Islamic religious fanaticsm and breed mujahedeen. It's counter productive. Besides acting as a catalyst for jihad by the world's most fanatic Muslims far and near to Israel, settlement construction is viewed by the non-Muslim world community as unjust and, dare I say it, greedy. Whether it's fair or not, Israel is viewed by much of the non-Muslim world as an aggessive bully and is on the road to becoming a pariah.

Okay, I know it's easy for me sitting here in the comfort of my office far from the firing lines to say that the Israelis must work more vigorously with the secular Palestinians, yes, must even be willing to trust them to keep their word, but unfortunately I see no other viable option. A perpetual state of war is not an option and ultimately will lead to Israel's elimination as a Jewish state. Continued hostilites only strengthen Hamas's power within the Palestinian population at large. Abbas is seen as a syncophant whereas Hamas is respected because to the distorted Muslim mind, they are perceived as freedom fighters.

So...Israel must stop settlement construction, negotiate with a secular representative of the Palestinians (someone who can fulfill this role needs to be identifed and supported), agree to boundaries roughly akin to those existing in 1967, compromise on the governance of Jeresulem (joint governance of a city state like the Vatican), negotiate a symbolic right of return that will not effect a Jewish majority, pay reparations to those Arabs that emigrated by force or fear and left behind property and rely on a strong internaional presence on the ground to keep the peace.

Now if anyone would like to debate this , I'm open to hearing your ideas and criticisms, but please don't assume I am ignorant of the tenets of Islam or naive enough to believe Hamas or Hezbollah will ever stop trying to eliminate Israel. My thinking is that there has to be a more vigorous attempt to end the hotilities with a secular Palestinian government representative or, at the very least, a sectarian one which will agree to a Jewish state even if only for the short term as in hudna. If carefully monitored by an international force any such Islamic Palestinian goverment will face great difficulty instituting hostilities anew. It would then become the pariah.

Wellington wrote: "You sicken me by trashing America over and over while ignoring that more people have been killed in the name of Islam than in the name of anything else in man's history, some 270 million minimum. Besides, America has shown a capacity to apologize for its wrongdoings. The Islamic world has never shown such a capacity.'
...............
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Samuel Johnson

I didn't trash America over and over again. I condemed her imperialist invasion of Vietnam and Iraq. Many, perhaps a majority of literate Americans, share my opinon. Your accusation that I trash America, e.g. not patriotic, is nothing more than a transparent effort to save face. You will resort to any means to try to win an argument even pulling out the patriot card. Have you no respect for the truth or honest debate? You sound like a real right wing creep.

During the Vietnam war, you opined above that we didn't commit to it sufficiently from a military standpoint. In other words, you were in the camp that beleived we should have carpet bombed No Vietnam in order to bring the peasants to their knees. Perhaps a majority of Jwatch readers agree with you, but if that option were exercised, it would have been as barbaric as any Islamic massacre in history. I know no Amercican apology that has ever been made to the people of Vietnam or of Iraq.

I know of the killing done in the name of Islam. Two wrongs don't make a right. Hopefully, liberal western democracies are more civilized than the Muslim world though one might have a hard time proving by the tone of some of the posts from a few Jwatch regulars.

You're about as much of a cheap shot artist as darmand. You also, like him, are living proof that a little knowledge is a bad thing. Neither of you are possessed of an ounce of sophistication. You just fault and smear.

To actually contend that Eisenhower would have gone into Vietanm (with about 600 advisers) solely or principally because of the Catholic population in Vietnam reveals a crude understanding of all that Eisenhower had to take into consideration. I mentioned the Catholic situation as partial evidence of what Eisenhower had to deal with. The Cold War was pretty hot in 1954-55 and Eisenhower understandably concluded Soviet expansionism needed to be checked most every time possible. Already under Truman, the document, NSC-68, had outlined what America had to do, should do and could do to thwart the evil which was the USSR. Presidents after Eisenhower continued what he and Truman had already engaged in. This does not mean that every decision made by American administrations was the right one or carried out in the right way, but the Cold War was won by the right side and Vietnam must be seen in this larger context, as a chapter in this much larger struggle.

Napalm and other military options were not indiscriminately dropped on Vietnam as you and other low-lifes allege. The enemy, the NVA and Viet Cong, were vicious and brutal (or do you deny this?) and had to be hunted out. Yes, sometimes innocent civilians were harmed but this is the nature of all war. Many German and Japanese children were killed by Allied bombing during WWII. Are you going to indict America and Britain for this as well? Don't you see that the forces of anti-civilization (e.g., Islamic and Communist savages) must sometimes be countered by the forces of civilization in such a way that death and destruction are perpetrated by both sides? But the ultimate blame for this lies with those who are enemies of liberty. After all, no two truly free countries have gone to war with each other in the past century. A dearth of freedom, an absence of real democracy, is always the root cause of war in our time and the responsbility for war lies with those who are enemies of liberty. For instance, Hitler was responsible not only for the deaths of British children but German children also.

Your stupidest and most incorect comment was your contention about America getting its ass kicked in Vietnam. No it didn't. The American military won every major battle in the Vietnam war, including the Tet Offensive in early 1968. The kill ratio was something like 11-1 for the Americans respecting enemy soldiers' death to that of the American solider. The American military did its job. It was the politicians, and particularly LBJ, who lost the war. But, it's just like you to gloat about America getting its ass kicked. What a jerk you are. Oh yeah, and I mention once again that the real slaughter, in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, only began once America left SE Asia, which tends to vindicate the American presence there in the first place. But you and darmand won't address this issue because you're too busy slamming America. Done here, doofus.

You just fault and smear.