U.S. Fascists running World-Wide Concentration Camp System - Page 11 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #101 of 106 (permalink) Old 09-21-2006, 08:39 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by baby boo
Sorry but that last paragraph of yours just reeks of hypocricy.

That is a tactic that you, youself, use repeatedly in trying to paint those of us who see America's common values with Israel as somehow reflecting the existence of dual loyalties or as having outright un-Amercian ambitions. The word "traitors" is just beneath your fetid breath. You throw these little turds around all the time in your posts and then you complain when someone turns the tables on you. Here's a few examples from the past where you have insinuated that somehow "we" are less patriotic than you because of our defense of Israel. I have never heard this standard applied to any other country that is a ally of America. If you want to know why I willfully put in that last paragraph in my previous post then read this shit of yours:







Now I have repeatedly explained why I think it is in Amercia's interest to support Israel in the ME conflict. I have given you rational reasons, with which you are free to disagree, for why I think that this is so. And, in return, you have repeatedly come back and questioned my patriotism sometimes overtly and often masked with the thinnest veneer of civility.

I'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine and clearly you don't like it.
Getting a little touchy there boo!

Dual citizenship is the same as dual loyalties in my book, and, no matter how you try to portray how equal the loyalties are, it is bullshit. You boast about how that is a special relationship that (apparently) is only allowed between the United States and Israel. And the United States has no other "ally" that they support as blindly as we support Israel. We ditched our "allies" France and Germany, and others all over the world, to blunder into Iraq. Which you purport to be somehow in the United States' best interests because it supported Israel. Yes, you fail to hear the same complaints being tossed out about other American allies because they don't enjoy the same irrational forms of support.

Yes, I have one citizenship. American. It is much simpler to keep my motives and loyalties straight. If you feel so strongly about defending Israel, go there and defend Israel. It is your right and likely duty as someone who holds, apparently, a whole, half, citizenship there. I only object when you tell or insinuate to me it is America's duty to send Americans to the Middle East to engage in killing and being killed, to join a never ending battle of religious nonesense that will drag us back to the Middle Ages, because it is in Israel's best interests and our interests are conjoined somewhere around the sales of weapons and some kind of DoD type R&D. Great.

Sorry Boo, your indignant squeal about the fact that I find the duplicity of dual citizenships and the pushing of one specific agenda at the expense of broader solutions to global challenges is just another indication of a superficial, self serving perspective. Pick a nationality and learn how to be honest and loyal. Jim
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #102 of 106 (permalink) Old 09-21-2006, 10:17 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
baby boo's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,646
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
..... It is your right and likely duty as someone who holds, apparently, a whole, half, citizenship there. I only object when you tell or insinuate to me it is America's duty to send Americans to the Middle East to engage in killing and being killed, ......
I want to specifically address these two issues above.

First of all I never said that I have dual citizenship (or that I even desire it--I don't). What I did say was that the U.S. government does not, apparently, share your opinion that having political loyalties to the state of Israel is inconsistent with American ideals or is contrary to American interests in view of the fact that it allows dual citzenship. This involves a level of trust in that country that is a party to these agreements to the extent that it accepts the proposition that loyalty of its citizens to one does not imply dislolyalty to the other. This is an exceptional level of trust that, whether or not you feel is justified, constitutes the basis for my assertion that supporting the State of Israel in no way reflects disloyalty to America.

Secondly I never said (or even implied) that it is America's "duty" to do someone else's fighting and dying. Israel can fight its own wars. However countries like Iran represent a global threat and not a uniquely Israeli one. Many Americans feel that a nuclear armed Iran has the potential to destabilize the entire middle east and interrupt the flow of oil to the west by threateing its arab neighbors (like Iraq under Saddam Hussein had done). That it would have the capacity to blackmail both muslim and western nations knowing full well that military retaliation would involve great risks of a nuclear confrontation. The ramifications of this go well beyond any petty regional disputes that Iran my have with the state of Israel.

Finally, I added that last sentence: "Those same people who would like to see America adopt a more "even-handed" policy towards the ME are the same ones who are secretly hoping for an American defeat in Iraq so that they can be proven 'right.'" very deliberately in order to provoke a reaction out of you and you swallowed the bait responding with your typical phoney indignation. Your response left you vulnerable to the charge that although you, youself, repeatedly played the "patriot" card you became defensive when you were on the recieving end of those same tactics.

Bascially I don't see anything here that impresses me from an analytical point of view. You're just an old fashioned "intellectual", like the former father Coughlin, in whom isolationism merely masquerades as a phoney brand of patriotism.
baby boo is offline  
post #103 of 106 (permalink) Old 09-22-2006, 05:41 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Bruce R.'s Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2002 SLK 32 AMG, bone stock. 1987 190E 2.3-16 valve (destroyed). 2005 E320 new toy.
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 14,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
The only shoe that is going to fit is mine kicking your ass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FeelTheLove
if you said that to me in a bar, I'd punch your face.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFC
Are you for real?
I wouldn't sweat the little twit, it's easy to make threats on the web, there are never any real repercussions. Besides, after he fell off the bar stool you'd have to wake him up.

"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon, the pigeon knocks over all the pieces, on the board and then struts around like it won the game."
Vladimir Putin

"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?"
Paul Harvey 8/31/94


"The only people who have quick answers don't have the responsibility of making the decisions."
Justice Clarence Thomas
Bruce R. is offline  
post #104 of 106 (permalink) Old 09-22-2006, 06:32 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Getting a little touchy there boo!

Dual citizenship is the same as dual loyalties in my book, and, no matter how you try to portray how equal the loyalties are, it is bullshit. ...
I agree with that 100%.
Botnst is offline  
post #105 of 106 (permalink) Old 09-22-2006, 07:51 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by baby boo
I want to specifically address these two issues above.

First of all I never said that I have dual citizenship (or that I even desire it--I don't). What I did say was that the U.S. government does not, apparently, share your opinion that having political loyalties to the state of Israel is inconsistent with American ideals or is contrary to American interests in view of the fact that it allows dual citzenship. This involves a level of trust in that country that is a party to these agreements to the extent that it accepts the proposition that loyalty of its citizens to one does not imply dislolyalty to the other. This is an exceptional level of trust that, whether or not you feel is justified, constitutes the basis for my assertion that supporting the State of Israel in no way reflects disloyalty to America.
So, you give in. There is an unusual relationship with Israel that the rest of the ME cannot share with the United States. Another motive for the childish behavior of the ME states, as they compete for attention with the rest of the world's super powers. And, if it doesn't apply to you why do you repeatedly bring it up and wave it around like you thought it was some kind of free "I win" card for your flawed logic?

Now, as to why the United States allows this, or even if they do (I am not interested in this enough to research this), I suspect it has more to do with guilt and pity than any of the noble causes you might ascribe to it. I think the United States understands the creation of Israel and the inherently dangerous conditions that existed at the time warranted some kind of special consideration to allow those Americans who wished to support Israel's struggle to exist without giving up what they had in the United States. I imagine this was a situation that only happened because of the role America played in the UN activities that begat Israel and is not a concept that would be very likely to generate strong approval in Congress or across America today. In today's situation I do not agree there is any benefit to the United States to continue this policy and an open debate would suggest the concept would be buried in a discussion of "why just Israel?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by baby boo
Secondly I never said (or even implied) that it is America's "duty" to do someone else's fighting and dying. Israel can fight its own wars. However countries like Iran represent a global threat and not a uniquely Israeli one. Many Americans feel that a nuclear armed Iran has the potential to destabilize the entire middle east and interrupt the flow of oil to the west by threateing its arab neighbors (like Iraq under Saddam Hussein had done). That it would have the capacity to blackmail both muslim and western nations knowing full well that military retaliation would involve great risks of a nuclear confrontation. The ramifications of this go well beyond any petty regional disputes that Iran my have with the state of Israel.
This is an easy one. I believe everyone finds the idea of a nuclear armed Iran beyond a reasonable range of allowable outcomes. There are two problems here. One is that Bush has put America's international credibility in the cesspool. I am not sure if the odor of sulphur he apparently trails is necesssarily because he is the devil or just so full of shit he is oozing excrement from all his bodily orifices. At any rate, this administration is going to have to change its spots to gain much of an international agreement to do much more than wring their hands. Changing their spots is not in the cards.

Next, get Israel's woes out of the picture and let the situation in Iran be analyzed without the interference of Israel's situation. It should have nothing to do with whether or not Iran is developing nukes, and, when introduced it makes the issue an Israel vs. Iran issue, that joins the Israel vs. Palestinians, Israel vs. Syria, Israel vs. Lebanon, Israel vs. all Arabs pile of unsolvable and thus perpetual bickering bullshit. And suddenly it isn't credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baby boo
Finally, I added that last sentence: "Those same people who would like to see America adopt a more "even-handed" policy towards the ME are the same ones who are secretly hoping for an American defeat in Iraq so that they can be proven 'right.'" very deliberately in order to provoke a reaction out of you and you swallowed the bait responding with your typical phoney indignation. Your response left you vulnerable to the charge that although you, youself, repeatedly played the "patriot" card you became defensive when you were on the recieving end of those same tactics.
You seem quite proud of your attempt to press me into a response. I think you give too much credence to that particular selection of words. I respond to many of your one-sided arguments. Many of them contained similarly small minded suppositions that liberals and democrats were equal to traitors, or terrorist sympathizers or terrorist supporters. And when you weren't making these points you were cheering someone who did. I do not find those words any more or less offensive than the arguments you pose suggesting Americans should be willing to die in the ME to support Israel's cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baby boo
Bascially I don't see anything here that impresses me from an analytical point of view. You're just an old fashioned "intellectual", like the former father Coughlin, in whom isolationism merely masquerades as a phoney brand of patriotism.
And, basically I don't see much wisdom in your approach to turning the present situation into a "final solution" for Israel, a holocaust against the Arabs, by getting America to help you implement your solution of "killing them all" by constantly confronting them on Israel's behalf, with an argument loosely wrapped in some logic suggesting they represent a global threat. Keep it up. I see something analgous to "Sophie's Choice" on the horizon. The question will be, is Israel the girl or the boy? Jim

Last edited by JimSmith; 09-22-2006 at 07:55 AM.
JimSmith is offline  
post #106 of 106 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 05:16 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
US call over Guantanamo detainees
By Jane Little
BBC News, Washington

The US State Department's chief legal adviser has challenged foreign governments to stop calling for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay camp.

In an interview with the BBC, John Bellinger said they should instead start helping to resettle some of the more than 400 prisoners held there.

He said no-one was comfortable with the situation and the US had been trying to repatriate prisoners for a long time.

He also said some detainees could face military trials next year.

'Practical ways'

President Bush may have celebrated the signing of a new law this week allowing the US to push ahead with military trials at Guantanamo, but foreign governments, including allies, continue to be a thorn in his side.

Just last week, Britain's Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett issued the latest demand to close the camp, calling it unacceptable and saying it fuels Islamic radicalism.

But John Bellinger said that it was not enough to criticise when many countries were refusing to take back detainees.

"No one's comfortable with the situation in Guantanamo," he said.

"But if we really want to reduce the numbers to send people back, progress cannot be made by just simply saying Guantanamo should be closed."

"We have to have practical suggestions, practical ways to move forward."

While all nine British nationals held in Guantanamo have returned home, the UK government has been reluctant to take former British residents still held there.

British officials say there are nine; US officials count 10.

Other countries have blamed the US for delays in releasing inmates found not to be a threat.

There are more than 400 men held at Guantanamo from some 40 countries.
Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Its a Wide, Wide Door SLK World!!! apbaphil R171 SLK-Class 28 11-20-2005 07:41 AM
    stay away from World Wide Motors in Indianapolis barndogz General Mercedes-Benz 1 05-06-2005 03:09 PM
    stay away from World Wide Motors in Indianapolis barndogz R170 SLK-Class 5 05-04-2005 10:07 PM
    G-forums and chat boards world wide. mike G-Class 5 09-09-2003 11:53 PM
    Black 32 for sale at World Wide Motors in Indianapolis - beautiful! Douglas - Indianapol R170 SLK-Class 3 03-27-2002 01:58 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome