birdog1960

the part where movements, trade and activities are so restricted that the people remain virtual prisoners in their own land.

concepts apparently aren't your strong suit. the basis for these actions from voting rights to mutilation is the desire for control and power. we need not explore the psychosexual pathology of organized sadism to understand that. and i can only imagine what a valued boss you must be.

wow,nute was neutered. "we're not occupying our neighbors. we're not occupying mexico and canada". neutered response:"but, um, well,..."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/07/28/John-Oliver-Rails-Against-Egypt-And-Its-91-Female-Genital-Mutilation-Rate yes, to almost all your questions. it's about control. are you surprised? c'mon, were so enlightened here in the west that women were only given the right to vote i the last century in the US. it's also about fear. fear of new ideas, fear of smart and influential women, fear of questioning the tenuous basis for traditions and rules...in short, fear of men losing any control to the other half of the population.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/why-benjamin-netanyahu-should-be-very-very-worried-20140728. grossman's comments are spot on.

you might want to look up the definition of annhilation. if there weren't any muslims, we wouldn't have anything to discuss in this thread.

diplomacy might very well remove the inspiration for building tunnels into israel.

and you and they are idiots to believe that this war will change things in the long run. how many "lefties" there don't recognize that is beyond me. unfortunately, use of force is very frequently the default response of israelis.

what lefties? not over this war. over 80% of israeli's support the current war. those that don't and say so publicly are at risk of physical attack. one of the few outspoken (or at least publicized) "lefties" interviewed on npr this am (link to follow when available) suggested that all that need be invoked is the threat of extermination since it's a threat that the jews are very familiar with. then the ancient barbarism bandwagon is overflowing. it reminds me of the US right before the invasion of iraq.

it's impossible to defend that statement or the ever growing radical zionist groups statements of "death to arabs". both of these statements have been intensified and empowered with this current war. neither side can claim the moral high ground. and that's pecisely why the war goes on...rinse, lather and repeat. both sides are immoral. we should choose to support neither.

wouldn't it be more effective if the argument against it came from the moral high ground?

it seems most israeli's rmembrance of threated extermination overwhelms those of kristallnacht: http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/21/israeli_peace_demo_violently_disrupted_dozens. best not to get out of line even among the jews in israel.

how bout everyone due a scientifically validated personality test instead? http://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality. nah, that'd be too logical.

here's an idea: http://www.crutchfield.com/S-InNEkj6A3pk/. but why do the smart thing when the violent thing is available?

criteria includes negative impact on the country and the world. he will be remembered for these. most of the rest are long forgotten because their presence was largely inconsequential. that's superior to being responsible for negative consequences.

obviously an attendant the ppp right wing nut job school of debate. he's calling someone out for a double standard. he's wasn't defending obama nor is there a need to for making the argument. but it's helpful from you perspective to conflate several issues. because he's right.

brownback sold the tax cuts as "an adrenaline shot to the heart" for the kansas economy. have you ever witnessed an adrenaline shot to the heart? it's pretty immediate when it works (unfortunately, unlike the new cocktail for us executions). he said it, not me or gatorman.

and you didn't get the point of my response. there doesn't appear to be a strategy that will completely eradicate al qaeda but attempted annihilation through overwhelming force hasn't worked and isn't likely to. history has shown it to actually be counterproductive.

yes, a question to which a clearly incorrect answer caused years of futile war and further regional instabilty is hilarious.

and which strategy has historically been successful in eliminating al qaeda? didn't we already try the israeli's current tack?

i don't see anyone here defending hamas. they're despicable. nice try at one of the taller straw men recently used on ppp. but what circumstances allowed them to come to power? and by what methods ar ethey likely to lose power? i don't see turning gaza into rubble as a method with high chances of success.

100 former repug office holders sre endorsing the dem in this race: http://www.npr.org/2014/07/20/333366894/tax-cuts-fallout-put-kansas-governor-on-defense.

yup. i can surely see how this rhetoric will advance the goal of a peaceful outcome.

how many topics are we debating simutaneously in this thread? kinda like fighting 2 or 3 wars simultaneously - often inneffective for all concerned. not at all sure what la's lifestyle has to do with any of this. he could be a hermit,acrobat or zookeeper that frequents tiki bars and it wouldn't offer further insight into his group think dualism. why should we care? but obama keeps getting invoked. and the same posters tell us that cheney is not relevant and should be ignored. so i did a little experiment that you all can do at home without parental supervision, i searchrd "cheny, obama, iraq" and despite his irrelevance i got thousands of hits, including many within the last month. the links were to places like the wall st journal, the nationaql register, fox, hannity and even nbc,cbs and abc. i found it all rather confusing. seems posters here avoid all of these sites like the plague. do all the cons here limit their news gathering to the bbc like darin? hmm, "bbc,cheney,obama,iraq"... http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27911385