cambiatagn@... wrote:

> <<You say that if we are going to attack Iraq because it tortures
> people we should also attack Israel and Morocco. What about every
> other Muslim country? What about Russia? What about Guatemala? etc.>>
>
> You could also include China, while you're at it. You're actually
> making my point for me - once we start, where do we stop? And why are
> we singling out htis one country - why is it top priority?

No, my point is that you singled out Israel and Morocco to make your
point, not much worse offenders like many Arab countries, Russia, etc.
Why is Israel the first country that gets picked on by people who claim
to be for "peace"? Why can't you answer that?

Israel has done more to try to make peace than any country on earth.
Israel has suffered 100 days like 9/11. Why is there no sympathy from
you? How can you claim to be so concerned about peace when you seem so
unconcerned about victims of torture and terrorism?

As to your point, the fighting stops when we feel that we have weakened
the terrorists who are committed to our destruction to the point that
they are no longer a threat. Why is Iraq the top priority? That is a
good question, but you could ask that about any country. If we chose
Iran or Syria you would probably have asked the same question. You have
to start somewhere. Meanwhile, Iraq is being run by a madman, and that
makes it a particularly dangerous state. Also, the people there really
hate their leader, and are more secular than some other countries, so
they may be good candidates to embrace democracy. Did you ever consider
that?


>
>
> <<Why is Israel always the primary target of people who try to deflect
> criticism away from dictators and terrorists?>>
>
> I refuse to get into a debate about Israel - especially since anyone
> who disagrees with you about it is in your worldview themself evil and
> ignorant and whatever other perjoratives you care to come up with.

That is a cowardly way to act. You don't know my world view, and to
characterize me as one who throws around pejoritives is insulting. You
are the one who tried to equate the regime in Iraq to the one in Israel.
That is the insult. If you are going to make such inflammatory and
incorrect statements then you should be willing to back up your
positions. I assume that in your circles it is common to denigrate
Israel without getting challenged. But that will not fly here. This is a
place to discuss things, not make speeches.



>
>
> One last comment, and then I will put this to bed: You keep referring
> to Spetember 1 in reference to Iraq. Give it a rest or at least
> direct it at those truly responsible (El Quaeda, Saudi Arabia, Yemen,
> etc.). A

You are apparently ignorant of the movement among Muslims to bring about
a Muslim caliphate. Do you know what that is? You also seem ignorant of
the goal of militant Islam. If you want to have a serious debate here, I
can show you much information about what they believe. Saddam has made
speeches calling for the caliphate with him as it's head. That is what
was behind his invasion of Kuwait. So even though he may not have been
behind that one attack on 9/11, he is in league with Bin Laden and
others who have the same exact goal: first a Muslim caliphate and then
world domination. Are you not aware of this? Or do you willfully ignore
it? Furthermore, the Bush doctrine states that states that support or
harbor terrorists will be seen as our enemies. Clearly he does both. So
it doesn't matter whether or not he can be linked to that one attack.


>
>
> 'Nuff said. You continue with your worldview and pursue your agendas,
> I will do likewise and continue to try to learn.
>

What is my "agenda"? You obviously like to put people in little boxes of
your own choosing and then run away. Do you want to talk, to share
ideas, to learn? Or do you just want to attack, and hide behind your
preconceived notions?

You also conveniently didn't respond to my most of my questions. If you
want to have a dialogue you have to respond to the questions posed to
you. Otherwise you are just out to push your "agenda" and don't have a
desire to be challenged and possibly learn something new. I may defend
my positions with strongly, but I am always willing to talk, and am open
to new ideas if they are logical and well presented.

This off topic list is a place where people can really hash things out.
I never envisioned it as a place where people would make attacks and
then run for the hills. If you really believe that you have a moral
position you should not be afraid to explain it. If you are not willing
to debate, then I can only assume that my negative impressions of you
are correct and you are afraid to show us your true self.

How can people come together in peace if they refuse to explain
themselves? Give peace a chance, means, be willing to debate, be willing
to listen, be willing to change your point of view.


Von Cello
http://www.voncello.com/

"Moral equivalency is not moral!"


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]