Israel- What is up with these folks?

[interestedParty]

You have also ignored this:

You missed the entire point of my argument, which was this: we Americans do not think or act as a single unit, nor does any other nation or people. The root cause of all bigotries and racist philosophies is the belief that all members of a given people/ethnicity/nationality think and/or act as a single entity. By making such sweeping generalizations about Americans, you prove yourself to be nothing more than a common bigot.

[ezed]

I love Israel! They will not be compromised by the PC shit that has draped the world. It's simple, you fuck with us, we will decimate you. To date, they really have not unleashed the dogs of war.They have really been firing warning shots considering what their capable of.

They are truly commited to fighting terrorism, especially when it effects the homeland. Considering their geographic location, and their neighbors, I think they have shown considerable restraint, knowing their capabilities.

And don't give me shit about how they took the Palestinian home land. They're there, they made something of themselves, advanced there society and are now protecting it.

Too bad the Arab and Muslim countries can't find a way to funnel a piece of their oil riches down to their peoples. Maybe there wouldn't be these problems with countries that had to work for what they got.

To Hamas, Hezzbolah, Taliban, Al Quida (and all the rest of you "think you're entiled to something without earning it") may you go to your grave and realize that the teaching of your fat ass teachers who are making THEIR lives easier on earth by making you their lap dogs who do their bidding were false. Think about the 79 virgins. They'll scream in pain when you fuck them and then ask when are you going to marry them and not fuck them again. And you will say, I'm truely in hell, and fuck the goats were better than this.

Non thinking assholes!

[blahblahblah]

OMG..

Well, i admire your patriotism.

My previous post was not an expression of patriotism, it was the truth.

PS—I can't help but remark on your ability for maintaining your ignorance.

I'm sorry, but yes - it was a pure act of patriotism. No matter how negative it is to bomb someone with 2 nuclear bombs you will always try to find out something positive in it, only because that was the country of your origin that did it. If, for some reasons, russians did that against Japan, you would probably condemn it along with me. Pure little Truman. How could he possibly (and not only him, but also all those scientists too) figure out that a bomb like that not only kills when it detonates, but also many years afterwards, and that kind of killing is even worse. Also, regarding the truth of your wikipedia: I'm pretty much convinced that
if for some reasons axes won the WWII your wikipedia would sound totally different. I mean, it's always the winner that writes the history, it's always the winner's truth that matters, right? For example:

THE KAMIKAZE LIE

It was certainly in the evil media's interest to make the war up,
and to make the "enemies" as ruthless and evil as possible. One
notorious example is the lie that Japanese aviators were actually
encouraged to destroy their valuable aircraft (and themselves) by
crashing them into the sides of US ships.

Dr. Rubert Faurr, a French professor of basket-weaving, has
quoted no less an authority than General Douglas MacArthur on his
reaction when he heard the first rumor about these supposed
suicide missions. "That's ridiculous!" MacArthur exclaimed.

Honest Japanese people will also admit how absurd this claim is.
The word "kamikaze" actually means "he who herds the sheep" in
certain Japanese dialects, according to Japan expert Mort
Clondyke. And Atoyot Adnoh, currently Japanese minister of
history in the Diet, has stated publically that "that whole
episode was really crazy."

Hehe, pretty funny joke, isn't it? When an idiot look at it, withouth much thinking he will accept those "facts" directly and start shouting out new facts he newly learned.

But besides that joke, do you believe in kamikaze? I somehow doubt..... It might be a part of the propaganda war. I have not been there, so i'm not sure..

I'm not that easily manipulated with the "facts" that you can find on some popular media pages, i tend to build my own opinion more carefully than you. Of course, much of the WWII historical events in your wikipedia are actually true but some of them could have been written by some "patriots" like you. You are not objective at all.

[blahblahblah]

You have also ignored this:

You missed the entire point of my argument, which was this: we Americans do not think or act as a single unit, nor does any other nation or people. The root cause of all bigotries and racist philosophies is the belief that all members of a given people/ethnicity/nationality think and/or act as a single entity. By making such sweeping generalizations about Americans, you prove yourself to be nothing more than a common bigot.

I'm not generalising, that's pure bullshit from your side. I'm not that stupid to not be able to figure out that all the individuals are different. I just described how your country sometimes acts as uncivilised in global. But of course, your endless hate against me will make you describe me as "dumb fuck", "retard" and "common bigot" and even something more than that.

By the way, it seems to me that you hate me a little bit extra.. Are there any other reasons for that, besides those political issues? Have we "met" before? "interestedParty" is pretty new signature here at HA, does it belong to someone i know?

[blahblahblah]

It's simple, you fuck with us, we will decimate you.

hitler stated something similar during WWII too..

By the way, they will not only decimate their enemies (which would be an entire arab world) but UN observers too, on their way to make some civilisation over there:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

[interestedParty]

I'm not generalising, that's pure bullshit from your side.

That's interesting statement, particularly in light of this statement:

Well, you elected that cowboy twice (two times)

I elected "that cowboy"? Wow, I never realized that I was responsible for Bush becoming President! Or maybe you were generalizing...

Also, regarding the truth of your wikipedia: I'm pretty much convinced that
if for some reasons axes won the WWII your wikipedia would sound totally different.

For one thing, if the Axis (please check your spelling before you submit your posts, otherwise you come across as even more of an ignoramus than you actually are) had won WWII, I would not be here, since my grandparents would've been sent to the gas-chambers.

I'm not that easily manipulated with the "facts" that you can find on some popular media pages, i tend to build my own opinion more carefully than you. Of course, much of the WWII historical events in your wikipedia are actually true but some of them could have been written by some "patriots" like you. You are not objective at all.

And just where do you get your 'facts'? Most of my knowledge of WWII pertains to the European Theater, more specifically the Third Reich — and before you ask, that knowledge was obtained mostly from five books: Hitler, by Joachim Fest; Speer, also by Fest; The Order of the Death's Head, by Heinz Höhne; Inside the Third Reich, by Albert Speer; and Nazi Germany, by Klaus Fischer — if you want to acquire knowledge about a country's history, it's best to read a history book by someone who's from that country — all those authors are from Germany, and, of course, all were affected by WWII. I trust the information I get from Wikipedia, because said information matches information I have gained from other, trusted, sources (including the sources I mentioned above); therefore, I have every reason to believe in the veracity of the facts about the war in the Pacific that I've found on that site.

You say that I'm not objective — I say that I'm as objective as a human being can be about such things. Doubting history just because it's written down in history books isn't being objective, it's being paranoid. Short of actually being present at a given event, or scouring the world for first-hand accounts (something that most people, myself included, don't have either the time, energy, or resources to do anyway) the only thing a student of history can do is to seek out knowledge from books that are attested to as being accurate (usually by consulting bibliographies, book reviews, and, in some instances, history professors).

[interestedParty]

PS—McManaman, you still haven't told me what country you're from.

[blahblahblah]

For one thing, if the Axis (please check your spelling before you submit your posts, otherwise you come across as even more of an ignoramus than you actually are) had won WWII, I would not be here, since my grandparents would've been sent to the gas-chambers.

Oh, i see.. You are jewish (hopefully not the ortodox one, those are real fanatics), that's why you are so fanaticaly involved in this thread. Now i can understand you calling me dumb fuck, etc.. and for all the shit directed to me for misspelling the words of axees and hollocowst..

And just where do you get your 'facts'? Most of my knowledge of WWII pertains to the European Theater, more specifically the Third Reich — and before you ask, that knowledge was obtained mostly from five books: Hitler, by Joachim Fest; Speer, also by Fest; The Order of the Death's Head, by Heinz Höhne; Inside the Third Reich, by Albert Speer; and Nazi Germany, by Klaus Fischer — if you want to acquire knowledge about a country's history, it's best to read a history book by someone who's from that country — all those authors are from Germany, and, of course, all were affected by WWII. I trust the information I get from Wikipedia, because said information matches information I have gained from other, trusted, sources (including the sources I mentioned above); therefore, I have every reason to believe in the veracity of the facts about the war in the Pacific that I've found on that site.

You say that I'm not objective — I say that I'm as objective as a human being can be about such things. Doubting history just because it's written down in history books isn't being objective, it's being paranoid. Short of actually being present at a given event, or scouring the world for first-hand accounts (something that most people, myself included, don't have either the time, energy, or resources to do anyway) the only thing a student of history can do is to seek out knowledge from books that are attested to as being accurate (usually by consulting bibliographies, book reviews, and, in some instances, history professors).

You know, the history is something that can be manipulated by anyone. That's why i do not like the history, i like to see the current facts around me, that's the best evidence of what's happening in the world, and that shows oss who is the bad guy and who is the victim. And look around you and tell me, who are bad guys today? But please, be objective!

[blahblahblah]

PS—McManaman, you still haven't told me what country you're from.

Iceland. Now tell me all the bad fact that your whackypedia has to offer against it.

[interestedParty]

For one thing, if the Axis (please check your spelling before you submit your posts, otherwise you come across as even more of an ignoramus than you actually are) had won WWII, I would not be here, since my grandparents would've been sent to the gas-chambers.

Oh, i see.. You are jewish (hopefully not the ortodox one, those are real fanatics), that's why you are so fanaticaly involved in this thread. Now i can understand you calling me dumb fuck, etc.. and for all the shit directed to me for misspelling the words of axees and hollocowst..

And just where do you get your 'facts'? Most of my knowledge of WWII pertains to the European Theater, more specifically the Third Reich — and before you ask, that knowledge was obtained mostly from five books: Hitler, by Joachim Fest; Speer, also by Fest; The Order of the Death's Head, by Heinz Höhne; Inside the Third Reich, by Albert Speer; and Nazi Germany, by Klaus Fischer — if you want to acquire knowledge about a country's history, it's best to read a history book by someone who's from that country — all those authors are from Germany, and, of course, all were affected by WWII. I trust the information I get from Wikipedia, because said information matches information I have gained from other, trusted, sources (including the sources I mentioned above); therefore, I have every reason to believe in the veracity of the facts about the war in the Pacific that I've found on that site.

You say that I'm not objective — I say that I'm as objective as a human being can be about such things. Doubting history just because it's written down in history books isn't being objective, it's being paranoid. Short of actually being present at a given event, or scouring the world for first-hand accounts (something that most people, myself included, don't have either the time, energy, or resources to do anyway) the only thing a student of history can do is to seek out knowledge from books that are attested to as being accurate (usually by consulting bibliographies, book reviews, and, in some instances, history professors).

You know, the history is something that can be manipulated by anyone. That's why i do not like the history, i like to see the current facts around me, that's the best evidence of what's happening in the world, and that shows oss who is the bad guy and who is the victim. And look around you and tell me, who are bad guys today? But please, be objective!

Following your logic, the news is just as vulnerable to manipulation as history. It's all about context: show a video of bomb going off and put whatever narration you want to it.

The ease of manipulation of news by the news-media — all news-media — is striking. For instance, interviews with prominent figures can be edited so that they are made to look however the journalist wants them to. Man-on-the-street interviews can be conducted in such a way as to make a certain segment of the population appear stupid and/or ignorant. Segments can be shot in order to make it appear that one side of a conflict is more to blame than the other, even if it is clear to everyone involved that both sides are equally to blame. The more removed a story is from the region to which it is being reported to, the easier it is to distort the facts. However, I don't assume that these methods are employed at all — I know that it's possible to do these things, but I also know that it's highly improbable that they actually are done (at least not on any program I would watch). I don't see the point in doubting every piece of information that's presented to me. Empiricism can only be stretched so far before its use starts to border on the absurd.

You are too dismissive of historical study. A good student of history should know when a source is to be given credit, and when it is to be taken with a grain of salt. A good historian tells his/her reader when an account is verifiable, and when it is dubious. The study of history is fraught with difficulty, but yields tangible rewards. It allows its students to see patterns in current events, and to see how pursuing a slightly different course might yield results that would benefit everyone.

In regards to the present Israeli incursion into Lebanon, let me make one thing clear: I do not believe it is the correct response to Hezbollah's rocket attacks on Israel. In the end, I believe it will create more terrorists than it will destroy.