SAT's BUSH-1206/ KERRY-1190/ CLINTON-1032

[Steve]

On 11/7/04 9:17 AM, in article
[email protected], "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> TritonRider wrote:
>>> From: "Kurgan Gringioni" [email protected]
>>
>>> OTOH, is it really in our best interest to take Israel's side in
> this
>>> matter? Israel has several dozen nukes of her own. And she's let the
>>> Arab countries know about "The Sampson Option", so it's not like
> Iran's
>>> going to be enthusiastic about nuking Tel Aviv.
>>>
>>>
>>> K. Gringioni.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I don't see the Israelis using nukes except when they are going
> under. I just
>> can't see them using nukes for any other purpose, conventional
> weapons yes, but
>> I think they realize that they are barely controlloing the territory
> they have
>> now. They would be overextended with anymore to protect.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Do some research on "The Sampson Option" and exactly what it is (other
> than a book).
>
>
> K. Gringioni.
>
Geez!
You are a real Dumbass!!


That¹s exactly what he said! Stop trying to prove to everybody how smart you
are.......

>> I don't see the Israelis using nukes except when they are going
> under.

That¹s it right here!

-----------------------------------------------------------------
So prime minister Golda Meier and her war ministers passed a desperate plan
ordering that any future Israeli government that sees enemy armies
overwhelming their soldiers by sheer numbers, that government must resolve
to unleash Israel's considerable arsenal of nuclear weapons against the
invading nation's major cities.  They called this desperate tactic the
"Sampson Option" after their Biblical strongman Sampson.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Steve]

On 11/7/04 9:19 AM, in article
[email protected], "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>> Of course, that won't always be the case, and I'll make
>>> a guess that when our system does come crashing down (as all great
>>> Empires eventually do) [...]
>>>
>>> Hopefully whenever that happens, we'll all be long dead.
>>
>> Dumbass,
>>
>> Most empires don't come crashing down, they slowly decline. Slowly
> enough
>> that it's often hard for its citizens to realize they've jumped the
> shark.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Ya, but we're in the nuclear age now. In the future, when the 1940s
> nuclear technology inevitably percolates down to the most
> technologically challenged nations, my guess is that we'll get into one
> unecessary war too many.
>
> BOOM! The end will be sudden.
>
>
> K. Gringioni.
>

You keep tryin too ****** hard to use your own logic here!
If an incident happens does not mean it will be unilateral on all sides!

It has not happened yet! Give us some credit although we are all dumbasses
except for you.......

 

[Steve]

On 11/7/04 9:27 AM, in article [email protected],
"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> From: "Kurgan Gringioni" [email protected]
>
>> Do some research on "The Sampson Option" and exactly what it is (other
>> than a book).
>>
>>
>> K. Gringioni.
>>
>
> http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_07_04/Israeli_Nuclear_Policies/israeli
> _nuclear_policies.html
> Thanks.
> I hadn't heard that specific name for it. I knew of the policy.
> Bill C

This policy is NO different than a last ditch response that most countries
would do in the same situation.

This story shows an obvious bias in it's heading........

 

[TritonRider]

>From: Steve [email protected]

>Geez!
>You are a real Dumbass!!
>

>That¹s exactly what he said! Stop trying to prove to everybody how smart you
>are.......

>That¹s it right here!
>

>So prime minister Golda Meier and her war ministers passed a desperate plan
>ordering that any future Israeli government that sees enemy armies
>overwhelming their soldiers by sheer numbers, that government must resolve
>to unleash Israel's considerable arsenal of nuclear weapons against the
>invading nation's major cities.  They called this desperate tactic the
>"Sampson Option" after their Biblical strongman Sampson.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain to me how my admitting ignorance is trying to prove how smart I
am? I'm confused. I know how limited I am and freely admit it. I talk with
other people to learn more. I thanked Henry because he introduced me to a new
term that I may have seen before but didn't remember. My short term memory
sucks.
Like Heather I can re-read things months later and get new insights out of
them.
With me, what you see is what you get. I just wish there was a LOT less of me
to see. Hopefully this spring.
Thanks for the criticism Steve
Bill C

 

[Steve]

On 11/7/04 1:13 PM, in article [email protected],
"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> From: Steve [email protected]
>
>> Geez!
>> You are a real Dumbass!!
>>
>
>> That¹s exactly what he said! Stop trying to prove to everybody how smart you
>> are.......
>
>> That¹s it right here!
>>
>
>> So prime minister Golda Meier and her war ministers passed a desperate plan
>> ordering that any future Israeli government that sees enemy armies
>> overwhelming their soldiers by sheer numbers, that government must resolve
>> to unleash Israel's considerable arsenal of nuclear weapons against the
>> invading nation's major cities.  They called this desperate tactic the
>> "Sampson Option" after their Biblical strongman Sampson.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Please explain to me how my admitting ignorance is trying to prove how smart I
> am? I'm confused. I know how limited I am and freely admit it. I talk with
> other people to learn more. I thanked Henry because he introduced me to a new
> term that I may have seen before but didn't remember. My short term memory
> sucks.
> Like Heather I can re-read things months later and get new insights out of
> them.
> With me, what you see is what you get. I just wish there was a LOT less of me
> to see. Hopefully this spring.
> Thanks for the criticism Steve
> Bill C
>
>

This was for Dumbass Kurgan..

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Steve wrote:
>
> This policy is NO different than a last ditch response that most
countries
> would do in the same situation.



Dumbass -

Except that most countries don't have nuclear weapons.

Israel officially denies that she has nuclear weapons. Google it before
you accuse me of distorting the facts.

Lying as official public policy. It's a good thing isn't it? That's
what we should expect of our allies.


K. Gringioni

 

[Steve]

On 11/7/04 7:16 PM, in article
[email protected], "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Steve wrote:
>>
>> This policy is NO different than a last ditch response that most
> countries
>> would do in the same situation.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Except that most countries don't have nuclear weapons.
>
> Israel officially denies that she has nuclear weapons. Google it before
> you accuse me of distorting the facts.
>
> Lying as official public policy. It's a good thing isn't it? That's
> what we should expect of our allies.
>
>
> K. Gringioni
>


They all lie! Its called "protecting national security"
What's the difference?

What is "officially" known?

Israel is trying to survive.....
The "other side" does not want that........

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Steve wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > Ya, but we're in the nuclear age now. In the future, when the 1940s
> > nuclear technology inevitably percolates down to the most
> > technologically challenged nations, my guess is that we'll get into
one
> > unecessary war too many.
> >
> > BOOM! The end will be sudden.
> >
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
> >
>
> You keep tryin too ****** hard to use your own logic here!

This is just a personal view, but in my opinion logic is a good thing.

> If an incident happens does not mean it will be unilateral on all
sides!
>
> It has not happened yet! Give us some credit although we are all
dumbasses
> except for you.......


Dumbass -

First of all, I never said I wasn't a Dumbass. However, I did say that
you were exhibiting ignorance in this thread. Those are 2 different
things.

Second of all, I said it'll probably happen in the future, so of course
it hasn't happened yet. The reason I think it *will* happen is that
we've shown a propensity for fighting unecessary wars in the last 50
years.

The reason that's happened, IMO, is Americans have this tendency to
imagine that everyone else around the world thinks the same way that we
do. When that's not true, it has sometimes lead to some very wrong
conclusions.

I believe it's a product of being geographically isolated (which leads
to cultural isolation).

K. Gringioni.

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Tim Lines wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
>
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > Arafat is an extremist.
>
> DA -
>
> He is an extremist who is surrounded by other extremists. He wasn't
> free to change, even if he'd wanted to. A move towards peace by
Arafat
> would have resulted in new leadership for the Palestinians. That is
all.


Dumbass -

That's not true at all.

Shimon Peres says that the tentative (since Arafat isn't dead yet) new
leadership is "more grounded" than Arafat, ie. they can be negotiated
with.

The problem is that since Arafat didn't "sell out" (in the eyes of the
Palestinians), the new leadership will have difficulty negotiating for
less than Barak offered him (without losing credibility with the
general Palestinian public).

Peace may be held up by Arafat, even in death. That motherfucker.
K. Gringioni.

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Steve wrote:
>
> I agree with this but not that Sharon is an extremist. Standing up
for
> principles is not an extremist! Although, using the dictionary
definition,
> his views are "beyond the norm" based on numerous left wing ideals
and NOT
> beyond the norm or rational, principled viewpoints.


Dumbass -

Sharon was the architect of Israel's occupation of Southern Lebanon and
also brokered himself into being in charge of the Israeli Housing
Authority, not because he was interested in Housing, but rather so he
could continue to expand the settlements.

Further expansion of settlements basically means no peace and you can't
really blame the Palestinians for being ****** about their land being
gradually taken away.

Do a search on: "Butcher of Beirut" and see who pops up. Ariel Sharon.

How do you think he got that name? And the stuff above doesn't even
begin to address the groups that Bill C has noted.

> Face it............... You suck!

When the strength of one's arguments fails, there's always the personal
insult.


K. Gringioni.

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

TritonRider wrote:

> I am a staunch supporter of Israel's right to exist, free from
terror. There
> is no way in hell that I can say that the Haganah, Irgun, Stern Gang
etc... did
> not commit terrorist acts. Sharon is tied into all of them, and his
personal
> record is questionable at best.


Dumbass -

I agree.

Check this out. There are many other sources which verify it. The
incidents are not pleasant, to put it mildly.

http://www.bigeye.com/012702.htm

<snip>

Hobeika, who had long been accused of a primary role in the slaughter,
denied guilt and announced he would present dramatic new evidence that
would prove his innocence and further implicate Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon and others in the crime. Sharon is currently under
investigation in a Belgian superior court for alleged crimes against
humanity for the Lebanese massacres.

This mysterious affaire began in 1982, when Lebanon was locked in civil
war between Maronite Christians, Muslims, and the Palestine Liberation
Organization, who had set up a mini-state in southern Lebanon. Israel's
defense minister, Ariel Sharon, seized the excuse of the shooting of
Israel's ambassador to London in September, 1982, by the Abu Nidal
terror group, to invade Lebanon.

Sharon assured Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and the US he only
intended to stage a limited incursion into Lebanon to wipe out PLO
`terrorists.' In fact, Sharon launched a full-scale invasion whose aim
was to eradicate PLO, cement Israeli rule over the West Bank and Gaza,
drive out Syrian forces, and turn Lebanon into an Israeli protectorate.
Israeli troops besieged Beirut. Sharon's heavy artillery and warplanes
pounded the capital for 40 days. An estimated 17,500 Lebanese and
Palestinian civilians were killed by the Israeli invasion.

Israel sent its Lebanese Maronite Christian allies - the Phalangists
and Lebanese Forces- to `cleanse' the Palestinian refugee camps at
Shatilla and Sabra. The Phalangists were founded in the 1930's by
Pierre Gemayel as a Lebanese version of Mussolini's fascist blackshirts
and had long dominated the nation's Muslim majority. Many of the
anti-Muslim Lebanese Christians denied they were even Arabs, styling
themselves `Phoenicians.' Israeli intelligence, Mossad, had armed and
financed the Phalangists during much of the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil
war. Elie Hobeika was a senior Phalangist commander and Mossad agent
with a deserved reputation for savagery and murder.

The US arranged a cease-fire between Israel and the PLO, and promised
to protect Palestinian civilians after the withdrawal of PLO fighters
to Tunisia. Soon after, Israel's principal Lebanese ally, Phalangist
warlord Bashir Gemayel, was blown to bits by a bomb, likely planted by
Syrian intelligence.

On the evening of 16 September, Israeli troops surrounded the
Palestinian refugee camps of Shatilla and Sabra. The Israeli command
ordered - or at least allowed - Phalangist fighters to enter the
undefended camps

For the next 38 hours, the Phalangists, under the command of Hobeika,
set about murdering Palestinian civilians - mostly women and children -
with knives and grenades. Many women were gang raped before being
killed; children's heads were smashed against walls; pregnant women
were eviscerated. Israeli forces illuminated the scene with flares.

Senior Israeli officers watched and did nothing, or even encouraged the
killing. According to the Red Cross, at least 2,700 Palestinians were
slaughtered. A week later, 400,000 outraged Israelis demonstrated,
demanding a full investigation of the mass murder in Beirut.

An Israeli government commission found Ariel Sharon `indirectly' but
`personally responsible' for the massacre. Critics in Israel accused
the government of a whitewash and called Sharon the `butcher of
Beirut.' Sharon maintained his innocence, blaming Phalangists for the
Beirut crimes, but was forced to resign.

<snip>

 

[Tim Lines]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dumbass -
>>>
>>>Arafat is an extremist.
>>
>>DA -
>>
>>He is an extremist who is surrounded by other extremists. He wasn't
>>free to change, even if he'd wanted to. A move towards peace by
>
> Arafat
>
>>would have resulted in new leadership for the Palestinians. That is
>
> all.
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> That's not true at all.
>
> Shimon Peres says that the tentative (since Arafat isn't dead yet) new
> leadership is "more grounded" than Arafat, ie. they can be negotiated
> with.
>
> The problem is that since Arafat didn't "sell out" (in the eyes of the
> Palestinians), the new leadership will have difficulty negotiating for
> less than Barak offered him (without losing credibility with the
> general Palestinian public).
>
> Peace may be held up by Arafat, even in death. That motherfucker.
> K. Gringioni.
>

DA

Time will tell about Arafat's successors. The thing you miss is that
the PLO is not the only possible source of leadership for the
Palestinians. It is precisely when progress towards peace is occuring
that groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
become more prominent and active.

If Arafat were the only ******** in the middle east, it would all be
much simpler.

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

 

[TritonRider]

>From: Tim Lines [email protected]

>It is precisely when progress towards peace is occuring
>that groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
>become more prominent and active.

If you know the PFLP's history, you know they make Arafat look pacifist.
They are not someone to even consider negotiating with IMO.
Bill C

 

[Tim Lines]

TritonRider wrote:
>>From: Tim Lines [email protected]
>
>
>>It is precisely when progress towards peace is occuring
>>that groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
>>become more prominent and active.
>
>
> If you know the PFLP's history, you know they make Arafat look pacifist.
> They are not someone to even consider negotiating with IMO.

Really. We started out discussing the various extremists in leadership
positions in the middle east. Arafat qualifies as an extremist in my
book. But he looks moderate when compared to some of the others,
including the PFLP.

I've rethought my earlier statement, however. I believe that when the
PLO looks serious about peace that many extremists defect for other,
more hardline organizations. By I also recall a lot of PFLP activity
during the early 80's when Israel invaded Lebanon, kicked the PLO's
butt, and sent Arafat running off to Tunisia. What is it they say about
nature abhorring a vaccuum?
--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

 

[TritonRider]

>From: Tim Lines [email protected]

> I believe that when the
>PLO looks serious about peace that many extremists defect for other,
>more hardline organizations. By I also recall a lot of PFLP activity
>during the early 80's when Israel invaded Lebanon, kicked the PLO's
>butt, and sent Arafat running off to Tunisia. What is it they say about
>nature abhorring a vaccuum?
>--
>

The PFLP started because they thought that the PLO was not agressive enough.
For the first couple of years they were busy trying to kill off each others
leadership between attacking Israel. There's still seems to be a big split
between those willing to negotiate and those who will accept nothing less than
the end of Israel. I think your right that a lot of hardliners moved from the
PLO when they committed to more than token negotiations to some of the other
groups.
That's one of the big problems IMO is that there is really noone to negotiate
with on the Palestinian side that actually can control the attackers without
fighting a Palestinian civil war first.
Bill C

 

[Ernst Noch]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dumbass -
>>>
>>>Arafat is an extremist.
>>
>>DA -
>>
>>He is an extremist who is surrounded by other extremists. He wasn't
>>free to change, even if he'd wanted to. A move towards peace by
>
> Arafat
>
>>would have resulted in new leadership for the Palestinians. That is
>
> all.
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> That's not true at all.
>
> Shimon Peres says that the tentative (since Arafat isn't dead yet) new
> leadership is "more grounded" than Arafat, ie. they can be negotiated
> with.

Yeah, and he has no political motives for saying that, sure. He is
setting expectations to foster public pressure to get them going in a
certain direction and at the same time setting up a positive atmosphere
for future negotiations. I like that, but such considerations somewhat
put some doubt into his objectivity.

> The problem is that since Arafat didn't "sell out" (in the eyes of the
> Palestinians), the new leadership will have difficulty negotiating for
> less than Barak offered him (without losing credibility with the
> general Palestinian public).

The key point is that there are indeed a fundamental issues, one of
which is what UNGAR 194 says about the refugees. It doesn't matter if
the negotiating parties are extremist or not, they have big hurdles to
take. Even if there was a real democracy in Palestine, it would be hard
for any Gouvernment to make concessions big enough to show any progress
in that matter. Even today, the relationship between Germany, Poland and
Czech Republik periodically gets problematic because someone is
bringing up the matter of compensation for german refugees (questionable
issue at best IMO). Stuff like that has the potential of creating a lot
of extremists on both sides, and you don't want 4.500.000 extremists in
your country.




> Peace may be held up by Arafat, even in death. That motherfucker.

If you are limiting that matter to the question about the person Arafat,
you are oversimplifying

 

[Ernst Noch]

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Tim Lines wrote:
>
>>Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Dumbass -
>>>
>>>Arafat is an extremist.
>>
>>DA -
>>
>>He is an extremist who is surrounded by other extremists. He wasn't
>>free to change, even if he'd wanted to. A move towards peace by
>
> Arafat
>
>>would have resulted in new leadership for the Palestinians. That is
>
> all.
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> That's not true at all.
>
> Shimon Peres says that the tentative (since Arafat isn't dead yet) new
> leadership is "more grounded" than Arafat, ie. they can be negotiated
> with.

Yeah, and he has no political motives for saying that, sure. He is
setting expectations to foster public pressure to get them going in a
certain direction and at the same time setting up a positive atmosphere
for future negotiations. I like that, but such considerations somewhat
put some doubt into his objectivity.

> The problem is that since Arafat didn't "sell out" (in the eyes of the
> Palestinians), the new leadership will have difficulty negotiating for
> less than Barak offered him (without losing credibility with the
> general Palestinian public).

The key point is that there are indeed a fundamental issues, one of
which is what UNGAR 194 says about the refugees. It doesn't matter if
the negotiating parties are extremist or not, they have big hurdles to
take. Even if there was a real democracy in Palestine, it would be hard
for any Gouvernment to make concessions big enough to show any progress
in that matter. Even today, the relationship between Germany, Poland and
Czech Republik periodically gets problematic because someone is
bringing up the matter of compensation for german refugees (questionable
issue at best IMO). Stuff like that has the potential of creating a lot
of extremists on both sides, and you don't want 4.500.000 extremists in
your country.




> Peace may be held up by Arafat, even in death. That motherfucker.

If you are limiting that matter to the question about the person Arafat,
you are oversimplifying

 

[TritonRider]

>From: Ernst Noch [email protected]
>Date: 11/10/2004 3:39 PM Eastern

>The key point is that there are indeed a fundamental issues, one of
>which is what UNGAR 194 says about the refugees. It doesn't matter if
>the negotiating parties are extremist or not, they have big hurdles to
>take. Even if there was a real democracy in Palestine, it would be hard
>for any Gouvernment to make concessions big enough to show any progress
>in that matter. Even today, the relationship between Germany, Poland and
> Czech Republik periodically gets problematic because someone is
>bringing up the matter of compensation for german refugees (questionable
>issue at best IMO). Stuff like that has the potential of creating a lot
>of extremists on both sides, and you don't want 4.500.000 extremists in
>your country.
>

Some of the Jewish groups are threatening to countersue the surrounding Arab
governments for compensation for what they lost when they were driven out of,
and stripped of their homes and businesses in the Arab countries. I've seen
estimates ranging from 180,000 to over 1,000,000. I'm comfortable with a figure
of around 200-220,000. Definitely enough to throw a big monkey wrench into any
settlement deal.
Bill C

 

[TritonRider]

>From: [email protected] (TritonRider)

> Some of the Jewish groups are threatening to countersue the surrounding Arab

<snipped>
Here's a link to a starting point.
http://www.jimena-justice.org/
Bill C

 

[Kurgan Gringioni]

Ernst Noch wrote:
>
>
> > Peace may be held up by Arafat, even in death. That motherfucker.
>
> If you are limiting that matter to the question about the person
Arafat,
> you are oversimplifying




Dumbass -

I'm not doing anything of the kind.

I'm pessimistic about the region ever having peace because:

2 religious (read irrational) groups covet the same land for religious
(read irrational) reasons.
How does one reconcile that?



K. Gringioni.