Pants on fire!!

[lazarus]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html

[there buster]

AP Reports 'Bush Lied' Study Funded by Ultra-leftist George Soros

Photo of Warner Todd Huston.

By Warner Todd Huston | January 23, 2008 - 10:57 ET

Well, the AP has done it again. They have given us leftist propaganda and painted it as news. This time they have published the results of a "study" that claims that "Bush lied" in the run-up to Iraq and somehow the AP forgot to mention that the organization that released this study was funded by extreme leftist George Soros, who has spent billions funding the Democrat Party and many far left think tank and advocacy organizations. Yeah, THAT study is going to be legitimate!

This one may as well have been just a reprint of the press release of the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, but the AP dressed it up as an actual story written by reporter Douglass K. Daniel. Headlined "Study: False statements preceded war," the AP reveals how, "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

What the AP forgets to mention is that the "two nonprofit journalism organizations" can hardly be imagined to be impartial. The Center for Public Integrity (CPI) is funded by well-known leftist, George Soros, as well as the Streisand Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Los Angeles Times Foundation -- all of which are exclusively leftist in political philosophy. Even more ridiculously, the second of these "non-profit journalism organizations" shares most of its board members with the first. So, the Fund for Independence in Journalism can hardly be considered a separate entity from the CPI.

The AP merely spews the claims form this study as if they are real news, but much of the APs story is disingenuous as is the "study.":

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Two things here. First, few people now think Saddam had WMDs, of course. But nearly everyone thought he had them before we went into Iraq -- including the leadership of every nation on the planet as well as Saddam's own generals. So, it was not a "lie" if it was commonly thought to be true by nearly every head of state in the world. That Saddam had WMDs may have been a mistaken notion, but it was not a lie before it was known for sure!

Secondly, it is interesting that this "study" claims that Bush "lied" about links with al-Qaeda. Yet even they have to massage that claim of a lie into "meaningful ties to al-Qaida." This means that even they are admitting that there are ties with al-Qaeda but that they aren't "meaningful."

Does that mean the "lie" is not that the ties exist but how "meaningful" they are? Instead of a lie we are squabbling over semantics. In essence, Bush DIDN'T lie about ties to al-Qaida, the is just a debate on how "meaningful" those ties are.

In these very first two instances, Bush's "lies" turn out not to be lies at all.

The New York Times also regurgitated this "study" without bothering to disclose that it was funded by some very left agenda-pushing folks, but the Times does have one interesting line...:

There is no startling new information in the archive, because all the documents have been published previously.

So, the question remains, why is this such big news, then? Why did the AP and the NYT rush to report a story that has "no startling new information" in it?

Was it just a new chance to say, "Bush lied, people died"? It must be because there isn't any real news here.

Finally, it is also interesting to note that the database of "Bush lies" does not notate the context of those "lies." How many of them were widely believed by Democrats and Republicans alike at the time, but were proven later to be less than true? A statement given that is thought to be true (even if it turns out untrue later) is not a lie. It is just mistaken!

Regardless, that neither the AP nor the NYT revealed the leftwardly, partisan financial backers of the so-called "non-profit journalism organizations" behind this "study" is unforgivable.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd...ed-george-soros

[Dr. Shane]

Reports like these make the public very skeptical of mainstream news organizations. While these news outlets are trying to use such sensational news to drive up ratings and get some immediate results, they are cutting off their own nose despite their face. They may get a short-term boost in ratings but in the long term the people see them as bias and loose confidence in their ability to accurately report the news.

[Neil D]

"two nonprofit journalism groups" that produced the above article is-

Welcome to The Fund for Independence in Journalism

Abraham Lincoln once said, "I'm a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

Today, many media corporations are reducing their commitment to journalism. That plus litigation against unwanted scrutiny and historic challenges to openness, freedom of information, and government oversight all stand in the way of bringing the public the "real facts."

The Fund for Independence in Journalism, a 509 (a)(3) nonprofit, tax exempt organization, was created in 2003 to foster independent, high quality public service journalism in the United States and around the world.

The Fund's primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity, and possibly other, similar groups. This core mission and our related activities illuminate the fundamental role of the press, the public's right to know, and accountability in a democratic society.

The other funder[in bold print] to this article is and it's mission

The Mission of the Center for Public Integrity

The mission of the Center for Public Integrity is to produce original investigative journalism about significant public issues to make institutional power more transparent and accountable.

To pursue its mission, the Center:

Generates high-quality, accessible investigative reports, databases and contextual analysis on issues of public importance.

Disseminates work to journalists, policymakers, scholars and citizens using a combination of digital, electronic and print media.

Educates, engages and empowers citizens with tools and skills they need to hold governments and other institutions accountable.

Organizes and supports investigative journalists around the world who apply the Center's goals and standards to cross-border projects.

Remains independent by building a strong and sustainable financial base of support, including a community of committed individuals and foundations.

The Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, non-advocacy, independent journalism organization based in Washington, D.C.

George Skoros et al are not on the board of directors, staff, nor major funders of these groups.

[Neil D]

The question that I have is this- Who is Warner Todd Huston?

Well, it appears that he writes for NewsBusters. And who is "NewsBusters", you ask? Well, here is their opening statement-

About NewsBusters.org

Welcome to NewsBusters, a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), the leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.

In August of 2005, with the guidance of Matthew Sheffield and Greg Sheffield, the creators of RatherBiased.com, the MRC launched the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting.

That's right, folks. Thier sole and primary purpose is to give you "the truth" on any "liberal" article that is out there....

In my humble opinion, I wouldn't call them a legitament news agency...

[Dr. Shane]

The Media Research Center is the conservative counterpart to Media Matters. Those of us that get our news from multiple sources are well familiar with them. They are no more and no less trustworthy than the their liberal Media Matters counterpart. So if anyone reads Media Matters they shouldn't be afraid of or scorn the Media Research Center.

[lazarus]

* On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

* In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.

* In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."

* On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

* On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

* On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&context=overview&id=945

[Dr. Shane]

These accusations are all so old. George Tenet only has a little more credibility than O.J. Simpson. He is more to blame for the Iraq War than anyone else. Then when he tries to pass the blame off onto Bush the liberals take the bait hook, line and sinker.

Saddam did indeed have WMDs. We have found them. He also had plans to build more and go nuclear as soon as he could have gotten sanctions lifted. So let's not bury our heads in the sand and pretend it wasn't so.

There was a relationship between Iraq and Al Queda. At one time, Saddam offered Bin Laden an Iraqi passport. Al-Zarqawi fled to Iraq from Afghanistan when the Taliban fell.

The Brittish government did believe they had proof that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Africa. I think they still maintain that.

Some just want to believe what they want to believe and are not concerned about the facts. We were misled by human intelligence coming out of Iraq. We did believe Saddam had a lot more WMDs than what he had. The only WMDs we found were pre-1991. However I have seen no evidence that the Bush Administration purposely and knowingly released misinformation.

It is critical to understand that the Bush Administration couldn't have misled Congress. The Intelligence Committees in the two respective houses of Congress have independent intelligence briefings and complete access to the same intelligence as the President does. This is due to the separation of powers. The US has a system of checks and balances. Congress must have equal access and independent briefings in order for them to hold the executive branch in check and balance.

So when the anti-Bush forces come out and claim he purposely misled the country (and the world for that matter) that means it was a giant conspiracy that Congress was a part of! I am just a little skeptical of that.

[fccool]

Saddam did indeed have WMDs. We have found them. He also had plans to build more and go nuclear as soon as he could have gotten sanctions lifted. So let's not bury our heads in the sand and pretend it wasn't so.

Of course he did have WMDs. BUT

That was not a problem back when these two guys met and the guy on the left made a deal with a guy on the right to sell more of these WMDs. And it did not stop them giving him a key to Detroit

The hypocrisy of current administration is quite obvious as they do nothing about North Korea who DOES have nuclear weapons, because they know if they do then North Korean government would not hesitate initiating nuclear holocaust. So US is bullying the other nations who even dare to acquire nuclear weapons which US itself is stockpiling in thousands. Lets not make it an issue of political hackery as we are talking about lives of people here who are really suffering from actions of this administration who seeks to play God on this earth deciding who's to live and who's to die. I don't believe McCain or Hilary, or Ron Paul for that matter would undo any damage that is done to US Image as a country because of this war.

Us has supplied and encourage Israel to have nuclear weapons... and it is not a problem with US. But when it comes to "crazy" people from Iraq and Iran... they need to see thing our way. If they build nukes... it is not for their protection from people like us, but to attack others. hehe

Can't you see through this hipocricy?

When USSR started building nuclear facilities in Cuba... there was an uproar! USA Has bases that carry nukes all over the world, and anybody who dares to challenge the fairness of it are being driven into the ground. Is this a republican way? If so, I'll err on the side of the leftist propaganda.

[Dr. Shane]

It's apples and oranges, not hypocrisy. Over twenty million people live in Seoul, South Korea which is 31 miles from the North Korea boarder. That is within the range of artillery shells. No American President can take any action on North Korea without South Korea's consent.

Israel has never threated their neighbors. Iraq and Iran have. Apples and oranges, not hypocrisy.

[fccool]

Israel has never threated their neighbors. Iraq and Iran have. Apples and oranges, not hypocrisy.

# * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".

# * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".

# * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".

# * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".

# * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".

# * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".

# * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".

# * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".

# * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".

# * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".

# * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".

# * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".

# * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".

# * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".

# * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".

# * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".

# *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".

# * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".

# * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".

# * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".

# * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".

# * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".

# * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".

# * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".

# * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".

# * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".

# * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".

# * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".

# * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".

# * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

# * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".

# * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious

# obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

# * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".

# * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".

# * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member

# states not to assist Israel's settlements program".

# * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".

# * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of

# two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".

# * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the

# council's order not to deport Palestinians".

# * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide

# by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

# * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".

# * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its

# claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".

# * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported

# Palestinian mayors".

# * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's

# nuclear facility".

# * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan

# Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".

# * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".

# * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".

# * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".

# * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and

# allow food supplies to be brought in".

# * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions

# and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".

# * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".

# * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".

# * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia

# in attack on PLO headquarters.

# * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw

# its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".

# * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students

# at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".

# * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices

# denying the human rights of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly

# requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

# * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".

# * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.

# * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians

# at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

# * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United

# Nations.

# * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of

# Palestinians.

# * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and

# calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

# * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians

# and calls for their immediate return.

[fccool]

Please don't call me anti-semitic, or anti-Israel... as I'm technically Jewish myself (grandmother on my mother side was). Forgive me for bringing it up, but as soon as I say something along these lines, I'm being labeled as aniti-semite. But I do want fairness for all people.

I'm just pointing out the facts of which I think you are not aware of.

[Bravus]

Thanks for that, fccool. Part of the problem is exactly what you state: how can we have any sort of sane debate that can move the peace process in the Middle East forward if any criticism of Israel's policies and actions is immediately labeled 'antisemitic' and made impossible to talk about? In *any* long-standing disputre there's fault on both sides, and to pretend Israel is faultless is just to step outside reality.

[Dr. Shane]

Israel's aggression has been in retaliation. Israel has never stated they wish to wipe out their neighbors. If it wasn't for the aid of the US to Israel, there would be no Israel today because the Arabs in the area would have killed every last one of them. Trying to paint Israel as an aggressor is a rather empty argument to students of history.

The fact is that Palestinian blood is Arab blood. It is the same as Jordan blood, Syrian blood or Lebanese blood. There is not specific "Palestinian" ethnic group. All the boarders in that area were artificially drawn up to begin with. If the Arabs wanted peace and to coexist with Jews they could.

[fccool]

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."

-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

-- Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."

-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

"This country exists as the fulfillment of a promise made by God Himself. It would be ridiculous to ask it to account for its legitimacy."

-- Golda Meir, Le Monde, 15 October 1971

"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."

-- Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25, 1982.

"(The Palestinians) would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls."

-- Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) Yitzhak Shamir in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many (Palestinian) hilltops as they can to enlarge the (Jewish) settlements because everything we take now will stay ours...Everything we don't grab will go to them."

-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."

-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online

It's not me saying these things and this is by far not the empty argument . If the above people do not convince you, then nobody will.

As far as the allegations of Whiped off the map... you need to examine both sides of the argument before coming to conclusion. I would ask you to examine this article and see what you think.

lost in translation

I must add that I believe that both parties should take equal share of the blame. But with mentality that Israel is only defending itself... this view is ridiculous as they are occupiers and have as much right to defend themselves as a thief that has broken into your house. I'd ask you to look into the issue more and look for sources on both sides of the argument. Ask yourself... why are people retaliating against Israel. They want peace, but it's not easy when your houses are being bulldozed illegally and Jewish settlements are built in their stead. Put yourself in place of Palestinians. How would you feel? What would you do?

I don't advocate hatred, just understanding... I think that understanding is the solution and it must start with Israel making some compromises... which they refused to since the state was established in 48.

[Dr. Shane]

I have examined both sides quite extensively. I grasp the issues. The UN divided Palestine. It was the Arabs that didn't like it and started wars because of it. The Arabs are a constant threat to Israel. Israel now is in the process of establishing a Palestinian state. Will that be enough? Will Arabs stop starting wars with Israel? Will they recognize Israel as a nation? Will they cooperate with the Israeli government to stop suicide bombings? I have serious doubts about that. I seriously doubt that the Arab states in the region want peace with Israel. They want to kill every last Jew. To allow them nuclear weapons would be grossly neglectfully on the part of the world community.

That is not to say I believe Israel has done everything right. However "everything" is never done right when nations go to war. Israel has been on the defensive since they became a nation in 1948. Comparing them to Iraq and Iran is disingenuous. They are apples and oranges.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I think that understanding is the solution and it must start with Israel making some compromises... which they refused to since the state was established in 48.

This shows an obvious lack of history education. This is absolutely false and anyone making such a statement shows they don't know the history of the Israeli/Arab conflict.

[fccool]

If somebody moves in USA territory and declares an independent sate... do you think US would be ok with that and want peaceful resolution ... or any country for that matter? Why should Palestine be content with their houses bulldozed off their land that their fathers plowed... is that in self-defense too? Are they not people also? Let's not oversimplify the issues here. The suicide bombings are result of desperation. Israel right now is the 4th strongest military country in the world. Palestinians hardly have an army, and throw rocks and stones in comparison. Who is the aggressor here? If you would be a Muslim, wouldn't you be outraged and condemn that too? As I said, let's not reduce the issue to apples and oranges as its not that simple.

[fccool]

PS. History is written by winners. We all know that as the unfortunate get the shaft and get "erased from the pages of the history books" . I think I'll end with this.

[Dr. Shane]

More apples and more oranges.

Let's say that a bunch of Mexicans moved into Texas from Mexico.

Oh, wait a minute! They have.

So should the white Texans that settled the land give the Mexicans jobs, let the Mexicans buy land, start businesses, vote and even run for office?

Oh, wait a minute! They do.

Now before someone says that Texas use to belong to Mexico... let's get our history right. Texas did belong to Mexico but it was settle by WHITE Americans and Europeans. They separated from Mexico when Antonio Lopez trashed the Mexican Constitution and took away Texas' representation in the Mexican government.

So now MEXICANS are moving into Texas. They now OUTNUMBER whites!!! Mexicans now build houses on land that white people use to plow. Mexicans hold high positions in the government that only whites use to hold. They hold leadership positions in our educational system that only whites held before. They now own major banks (my bank is owned by a Mexican).

Should white Texans demand a homeland? Should white Texans drive every last Mexican back into Mexico? Do white Texans somehow own Texas since they were here first?

[fccool]

Mexicans don't bulldoze the Texan houses off the post facto "forbidden" territories simply because they now outnumber the whites. They don't establish an independent Mexican state in the middle of Texas and don't let anybody but Mexicans to be a citizen... because some bad guys in Alaska are hunting them down. But then again, why would they... they have Mexico

PS... Mexicans don't set up laws that prohibit lease of the land to non-Mexicans... even if they are residents of Texas.

Regardless of who is right or wrong... there are real people suffering on both sides of the fence because of the actions of their leaders. Unfortunately the collective hatred of the opposites is so inbred on either side, that I don't think we will have a peaceful resolution in our lifetime.[i don't think that Jesus resolving things at the second coming will be peaceful] If we who are of the same faith can not agree on who is right and wrong... how much more those who are not and whose real lives are on the line? This is unfortunate, but I think that seeing one side as absolutely wrong and other as unquestionably right does not contribute to the solution. And I hope I have shown you at least on very minor level that Israel is not unquestionably just in their motives, and especially in their mode of operation.

I will not argue over this anymore.

[Dr. Shane]

The UN established an independent Israeli state. Prior to 1948 the land belonged to the United Kingdom - not Jews or Arabs.

In some cases, Mexicans do demolish old homes, schools and businesses that once belonged to white Texans in order to use the land for another use. If a Mexican purchases the property that a white Texan once owned, the Mexican can do with it as they choose as long as it is zoned as such.

The difference is that both white Texans and Mexican want to get along with each other. They understand that cooperation is mutually beneficial. The land in Texas is not viewed as belonging to any single ethnic group. Land belongs to the person that purchases it - regardless what color their skin or religious affiliation.

Jews did not arrive in Palestine with an army and take land away from the Palestinians. Jews arrived with money and purchased property. Much of what they purchased was of little value. They worked the land, built irrigation canals, roads, bridges, power plants, water and sewer treatment plants, etc. They made the land worth something. Land was purchased (not taken by force) by the Jewish National Fund. The Arabs complaint is that once the Jews bought land in Palestine, they would never sell it back to Arabs.

Although the Arabs living in the area had lived there for over 1,000 years, Jews did inhabit the area in large numbers up until the seventh century. So historically speaking, the Jews did have a claim to the land - although the Arabs did too.

The conflict between the Jews and the Arabs was really created by the Ottoman Empire's failure to protect property rights. When the Jews landed on the scene they "played by the rules" many of which the local Arab peasants were completely ignorant of. Many Jews did not treat Arabs well because these Jews felt they were entitled to this land because of God's promise. (However that is a very broad statement and not true of all relationships between individual Jews and Arabs.)

Of course many of the Arabs were upset when Jews started buying the property from absent land owners that the peasant Arabs were not even aware of. The peasant Arabs felt they were being pushed off "their" land. While they may have had a grievance, it was with the Ottoman Empire. The immigrating Jews were simply playing by the rules. It wasn't the Jews' fault the peasants were ignorant of what those rules were.

A mess had been created which was no fault of the Jewish immigrants fleeing oppression or of the peasant Arabs whose property rights had not been protected by the Ottoman Empire. As early as 1907 proposals were being made for a peaceful co-existence. Great Brittan only served to make the situation messier. After WW1 they gained control of the area from the defeated Ottoman Empire. Rather than looking for cohabitation of Palestine, Great Brittan looked to segregate the populations. Laws were passed that prohibited Jews from buying Arab land but many Arabs continued selling their land to Jews even though it was illegal.

Finally the UN decided to divide the property. The Arabs felt too much land was being given to the Jews. However at that point the mess was made. The Ottoman Empire no longer existed. Great Brittan was pulling out and going home. The division of the property seemed to be the best solution since co-existence wasn't desirable by either side. It was a way to try and start fresh and over again. The Arabs are the ones that started war and tried to drive the Jews off.

So now post-1948 the situation changes. Now the land belongs to the Jews because they fought a war, they didn't start, and won the land. It is the Jews land now.

• Both groups have a historic claim to the land.
• The UN divided the land
• The Arabs started a war
• The Jews won the war
• Historically wars decided borders
• War decided the borders of Israel

So now, with that brief history lesson I think I have shown that Israel's conflict with Palestine is not the same as Iraq's conflict with Iran or Kuwait. Israel is defending its borders. We cannot honestly say that Israel threatens its neighbors in the same way Iraq and Iran do.

[jasd]

>>...History is written by winners.<<

As evidenced by...

“The UN established

...

same way Iraq and Iran do.”