Can someone please tell me what 'Terrorism' is?

[wade]

The training of Osama and support of Saddam are therefore irrelevant because that doesnt change the fact that terror techniques and the idea of terrorism among muslims was promoted by the Soviets. They are using these communist techniques.

Ummm.. the Zionists invented modern terrorism in an effort to create Israel - and it worked!

Your contention that terrorism (non-modern) was invented by the French revolutionaries is totally ridiculous - you must not know much history. What about the Romans, or Ghengis Khan? Or the crusaders, or the destruction of the Kathars by the Catholics?

Similarly, your contention that the French revolutionaries created the first totalitarian state is just outright silly. I can give example after example of earlier regimes that were totalitarian - in fact, it's pretty hard to think of any that were not!

Please don't profess to know anything about history when it is all too clear you do not.

Wade.

 

[drac]

Ummm.. the Zionists invented modern terrorism in an effort to create Israel - and it worked!

wow, nice statement, just what do you base it on? any proof, other than arab media. and what is modern terrorism, it is like up to 1892 we have anicent terrorism and now we moved into the modern age
BTW israel existed long time before it, but i leave it to AJ, he will probably explain it better to you.

Your contention that terrorism (non-modern) was invented by the French revolutionaries is totally ridiculous - you must not know much history. What about the Romans, or Ghengis Khan? Or the crusaders, or the destruction of the Kathars by the Catholics?

Just a little bit of definition after quick googling
<i>Terrorism is not simply a modern phenomenon. Rather, the word, along with terrorist, first appears in English in 1795 in reference to the Jacobins of France. They ruled France in what was called the Reign of Terror from 1793-94. By 1798, the term was being applied generally to anyone who attempted to achieve political goals through violence and intimidation.
The word is thought to have been coined by the Jacobins themselves, but the French terrorisme is not recorded until 1798. If the Jacobins did coin it, they are the only ones to have used it self-referentially. The term has always had negative connotations since then.</i>
from http://www.wordorigins.org/wordort.htm
So yes, it is generally believed, that french coined that term during the revolution.

In addition soviets did sponser arab terror as a way to combat west ideas in middle east. Even the 1967 war was partially provoked by soviets.

 

[NightTrain]

In addition soviets did sponser arab terror as a way to combat west ideas in middle east. Even the 1967 war was partially provoked by soviets.

It was entirely provoked by the Soviets, and it was truly amazing the way it turned out. Syria, Jordan, Lebanon & Egypt were manipulated into attacking the only staunch U.S. ally in the region. It's still a stunning victory against all odds. Israel proved itself in that war, decisively enough that there hasn't been a conventional confrontation since then.

Now the accepted means of attack is through chickenshit means, with funding, training and encouraging suicide bombers and terrorism - because the surrounding nations have realized that they are way outclassed militarily in hardware, training and morale. To directly confront is foolhardy for Isreal's enemies so they've gone the guerilla route with plausible deniability.

 

[MrMarbles]

Liberals todays are not liberals in classic sense of the word. Now what we call liberals are actually socialists like yourself.

Right, because they have move with natural evolution. First it was civil rights for black people, now it is civil rights for gay, it all moves forward, so that we can all have the same rights. Conservatives try and stop this natural progression. America would be a part of the British commonwealth today if it weren't for liberal ideals. God Bless America.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Right, because they have move with natural evolution. First it was civil rights for black people, now it is civil rights for gay, it all moves forward, so that we can all have the same rights. Conservatives try and stop this natural progression. America would be a part of the British commonwealth today if it weren't for liberal ideals. God Bless America.

WHy do libs support racial discrimination in the form of Affirmative action.

Rights does not mean economic equality. Your economic success depends on you and should. TO decouple a person's economic life from his activities is to destroy our whole society. You're utterly brainwased.

You hate success. You're envy laden and willing to use authoritarianism to slake your hatred and move focus off your own shortcomings.

 

[drac]

It was entirely provoked by the Soviets, and it was truly amazing the way it turned out. Syria, Jordan, Lebanon & Egypt were manipulated into attacking the only staunch U.S. ally in the region. It's still a stunning victory against all odds. Israel proved itself in that war, decisively enough that there hasn't been a conventional confrontation since then.

Now the accepted means of attack is through chickenshit means, with funding, training and encouraging suicide bombers and terrorism - because the surrounding nations have realized that they are way outclassed militarily in hardware, training and morale. To directly confront is foolhardy for Isreal's enemies so they've gone the guerilla route with plausible deniability.

agree.
i think one of the reasons soviets wanted that war was to promot the sale of soviet made weapons. i do not think they wanted to totally destroy israel (they use israel and soviet's jews as one form of control over arabs). What is a better way to advertise one's weapons as a tool which helped to win a war.

 

[MrMarbles]

WHy do libs support racial discrimination in the form of Affirmative action.

Rights does not mean economic equality. Your economic success depends on you and should. TO decouple a person's economic life from his activities is to destroy our whole society. You're utterly brainwased.

You hate success. You're envy laden and willing to use authoritarianism to slake your hatred and move focus off your own shortcomings.

I believe the right person for a job, should not be discriminated against from attaining it because colour or sex. Affirmative action has faults, but the best person should get any job.

And your economic situation does depend on you, whats your point? Just because your gov't provides for your god given rights, dosen't mean economic strife.

And you hate change. You will stop human growth and advance in order to fill your coffers. You are unable to see the big picture, stand in someone else's shoes, or even except that things can different, but still just as good. Wake! Look around. Try traveling, even if it just means over to your neighbours to see life from a different angle. But until you do, don't try and pass this crap off as truth. There are many different points of view out there, and most of them are pretty good.

 

[wade]

wow, nice statement, just what do you base it on? any proof, other than arab media. and what is modern terrorism, it is like up to 1892 we have anicent terrorism and now we moved into the modern age
BTW israel existed long time before it, but i leave it to AJ, he will probably explain it better to you.

Modern terrorism is the killing of civilians by out of power political groups seeking political goals. Usually this consists of using bombs against civilian targets. The first such terrorist attacks were commited by the Zionists in the late 40's to drive the British out of palastine. Earlier acts of terrorism generally focused specific political and/or miltary targets.

Read for yourself: http://www.angelfire.com/ia/palestinefoever/massacre.html

There are lots of sources about Zionist terrorism, just search on it and you will find all you want/need to verify that the Zionists were in fact terrorists using the same tactics we now see the Arab terrorists using today.

Just a little bit of definition after quick googling
<i>Terrorism is not simply a modern phenomenon. Rather, the word, along with terrorist, first appears in English in 1795 in reference to the Jacobins of France. They ruled France in what was called the Reign of Terror from 1793-94. By 1798, the term was being applied generally to anyone who attempted to achieve political goals through violence and intimidation.
The word is thought to have been coined by the Jacobins themselves, but the French terrorisme is not recorded until 1798. If the Jacobins did coin it, they are the only ones to have used it self-referentially. The term has always had negative connotations since then.</i>
from http://www.wordorigins.org/wordort.htm
So yes, it is generally believed, that french coined that term during the revolution.

The french may have coined the term, but that is irrelevant, it has been used throughout history. In France there was a power vacume and rival forces used terror to achieve their goals. But to state this was the beginning of terrorism is silly - just look across the channel at Britain and their war with the Scotts. Look at Ghingis Kahn, who would wipe out entire towns or cities if they put up any resistance, is that not the use of terror to achieve a political goal? You can look back through history and see the use of terror appears again and again, usually by those in power to maintain their power, but also between rival factions for a variety of purposes. Such tactics can be seen all through European and Asian history, and can also be found in more recent American history (used by and against the American Indians) and in South America. It is nothing new.

What is relatively new is the use of explosives against primarily civilian targets, often with no political or military value whatsoever. This is "modern terrorism".

In addition soviets did sponser arab terror as a way to combat west ideas in middle east. Even the 1967 war was partially provoked by soviets.

I do not disagree the Soviets encouraged such activities. However, the West also "provoked" uprisings in Soviet block states. This was part of what the cold war was all about.

Wade.

 

[wade]

WHy do libs support racial discrimination in the form of Affirmative action.

Rights does not mean economic equality. Your economic success depends on you and should. TO decouple a person's economic life from his activities is to destroy our whole society. You're utterly brainwased.

You hate success. You're envy laden and willing to use authoritarianism to slake your hatred and move focus off your own shortcomings.

The idea of Affirmative Action is to redress the imbalance caused by past behaviors. You want to pretend the field is level and then say "your success depends on you", but that is hardly true.

There are exceptions, but there is no deying that in America, more than any other factor, success is directly related to your starting point in the social/economic strata of America. Because minorities, to a very huge degree, start further down the economic ladder than do non-minorities, the concept of AA is that this should be addressed by giving them a boost by providing money for education and other support which for non-minorities comes from the family.

Note: I'm not saying I agree with the policies of AA, especially as they are implemented. Just pointing out the philosphy and rational behind it.

Wade.

 

[Avatar4321]

Loose morals? It's called civil liberties, equal oppourtunity, and free speech.

What the heck do civil liberties, equal opportunity and free speech have to do with being immoral and doing drugs? Quite the opposite. They bring only bondage and sorrows as we have seen as a result in Aghanistan.

Support South Vietnam. A corrupt dictatorship, well that was after Americas assasination of their democratically elected leader.

Exactly my point. The left in power in the time got involved with assasinating South Vietnams leadership and then they complain about Americas interference in the world. Its called hypocrisy

You also dont seem to understand the concept that if you have a choice between totalitarians and a corrupt dictatorship, then supporting the lessor of two evils IE the corrupt dictatorship against the totalitarians is a better option. You deal with the most immediate threat first. Its why we allied with that monster Stalin to take out Hitler. Sometimes to bring about good you have to work with evil men. because we pulled our support for the South Vietnamese, millions have died. Does that mean anything to you?

Terror and 'the left' have nothing in common. Nor do these concepts have roots in the french revolution. Left and liberal ideals of self-determination and equality have been around since ancient greece. America was built on thse ideals. Whats the point in having a revolution, and then proceed to move backwards?

You think the idea of redistribution of wealth and and government has been around since acient greece? Do you think abolishing the traditions that have governed us for millinium were started in Anicent greece. Having studied the French revolution in depth i can tell you that the beginning of both terror and the left was found in the French revolution. The problem with the left is that they want to abolish everything they percieve to somehow restrain their liberty when in reality the things they wish to abolish is the very thing that protects their liberty through checks and balances.

And I don't know why these things aren't relevant. The US used these people and their tactics to her advantage, they helped create these monsters. By trying to take the moral high ground, America has shown her hypocracy.

Thats because you dont seem to understand what the heck im talking about to begin with. All you see is your anti American agenda and anything that doesnt agree with that you right it off. America did not create Funamental muslim extremists. The Soviets did to combat America. Osama bin laden isnt using American tactics to deal with percieved oppression he is using communist revolutionary tactics. As has been shown before Saddam didnt get most of his weaponry from the US, he got it from France Germany and the Soviets. US didnt create these monsters. But like i said it doesnt fit your agenda so you dont care.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ummm.. the Zionists invented modern terrorism in an effort to create Israel - and it worked!

Your contention that terrorism (non-modern) was invented by the French revolutionaries is totally ridiculous - you must not know much history. What about the Romans, or Ghengis Khan? Or the crusaders, or the destruction of the Kathars by the Catholics?

Similarly, your contention that the French revolutionaries created the first totalitarian state is just outright silly. I can give example after example of earlier regimes that were totalitarian - in fact, it's pretty hard to think of any that were not!

Please don't profess to know anything about history when it is all too clear you do not.

Wade.

Funny, you seem full of hot air but havent provided any evidence for your assertions as usual. Like i said i have a degree in European studies, many of those hours focused on European history.

name a totalitarian regime before the French revolution. Do you even know what a totalitarian regime is?

Your equation of previous armies doesnt prove squat about terror. These were traditional armies. Traditional conequests. Provide evidence of modern terrorism before the French revolution. In fact back up your stupid claim about Zionists being terrorists.

In fact, just back up everything you try to assert.

 

[Avatar4321]

I believe the right person for a job, should not be discriminated against from attaining it because colour or sex. Affirmative action has faults, but the best person should get any job.

Affirmative action has nothing to do with the best person getting the job. It has to do with making sure a certain number of minorities get jobs regardless of qualifications. If a company hires solely on the basis of merit and cant find minorities qualified enough to meet a certain quota, groups like the ACLU or Minority groups will sue them. How does this help businesses get the best person qualified?

And your economic situation does depend on you, whats your point? Just because your gov't provides for your god given rights, dosen't mean economic strife.

HIs point is Affirmative action is racist because it requires that they hire someone because of their skin color rather than their own ability.

And you hate change. You will stop human growth and advance in order to fill your coffers. You are unable to see the big picture, stand in someone else's shoes, or even except that things can different, but still just as good. Wake! Look around. Try traveling, even if it just means over to your neighbours to see life from a different angle. But until you do, don't try and pass this crap off as truth. There are many different points of view out there, and most of them are pretty good.

unable to see the bigger picture? I refer you to the case of mote v. beam. Seriously, you dont understand how its racist to insist that someone be hired because of the color of theri skin and seem to think its progress when people engage in this action. Where have you lived to make you so "empathetic" to your neighbors? Why do you think that someone if you look at it from their point of view that Racism will be any less wrong?

 

[Avatar4321]

The idea of Affirmative Action is to redress the imbalance caused by past behaviors. You want to pretend the field is level and then say "your success depends on you", but that is hardly true.

There are exceptions, but there is no deying that in America, more than any other factor, success is directly related to your starting point in the social/economic strata of America. Because minorities, to a very huge degree, start further down the economic ladder than do non-minorities, the concept of AA is that this should be addressed by giving them a boost by providing money for education and other support which for non-minorities comes from the family.

Note: I'm not saying I agree with the policies of AA, especially as they are implemented. Just pointing out the philosphy and rational behind it.

Wade.

Actually I think i will deny that minorities start off further down the latter then anyone else. We all have opportunities present to us. We can all take advantage of educating ourselves for free. We can all take advantage of assistance to help pay for higher degrees or take advantage of working hard for scholarships. An immigrant regardless of skin color can come here with pennies to his name and become well off within a few years with hard work. Yet you seem to think that people born here, just because they may have a different skin color or may start off poor cannot achieve economic success despite having every opportunity handed to them.

We have free public schooling. It may not always be the greatest but even in poor school districts like my old high school where we have idiots who dont know how to spend the money in order maximize benefits for the students, we can learn and excell if we work hard.

The problem with society right now isnt that there arent opportunities. There are plenty. The problem isnt with there not being enough government programs, we have more than enough. The problem is with personal responsibility. The problem is with parents who dont teach their children to take advantage of the opportunities given them and make a better life for themselves. The problem is with parents who dotn care squat about their kids and have them just so they can get another welfare check and then let them fend for themselves. The problem is with parents who dont want to take responsibility for their actions because theyve been taught that others will take care of it and have learned to expect the government to get them out of their problems. That is the problem in society and it doesnt matter what race, creed, or background you come from because the problem is found among all of them.

Minorities are any different than the majorities. We are all human beings and we need to be treated as such and if you continue to promote special treatment for people based on their skin color rather than the merits of their achievement we will continue to have problems.

 

[wade]

Funny, you seem full of hot air but havent provided any evidence for your assertions as usual. Like i said i have a degree in European studies, many of those hours focused on European history.

Well, i have minors in political science and history, and a major in Economics focusing on the economics of war. I also have many hours of study into European history. I've given you examples, do you not read them?

name a totalitarian regime before the French revolution.

LOL - that's easy - Rome.

Do you even know what a totalitarian regime is?

Ahhh.. now you will try to play the symantics game. Definitions differ, but it is pretty clear that totalitarian regimes contain the following elements:

1) Centralized power of the government.

2) The individual is a subject and subordinate to the will of the state.

3) The state tolerates no dissention and supresses any expression or action against it with force.

You seem to want to apply this to certain structures of governments only, but it in fact can apply to many different forms of government, including communism, socialism, dictatorships, and monarchies.

Your equation of previous armies doesnt prove squat about terror. These were traditional armies. Traditional conequests.

No they weren't "traditional" armies, but that is beside the point. The point is that terror to subdue the population was used. Terror was also sometimes used to counter such state sponsored terrorism, but admittedly rarely and with little success.

Provide evidence of modern terrorism before the French revolution.

I dispute that there was any "modern terrorism" during the French revolution. Modern terrorism requires the terrorist groups to be acting against an established state/society in pursuit of some specific goal. During the French revolution a myraid of groups were working against an unestablished goverment and a society in a state of flux, it is hardly the same thing.

In fact back up your stupid claim about Zionists being terrorists.

Easily done... For one who professes to be so well studied in the history of Europe you really don't know of Zionist terrorist attack? These extended into Britain so you should know of them, or didn't your European studies cover such things?

You really have never heard of the King David Massacre? The Semiramis Hotel massacre? Deir Yassin? Dawayma? Kafr Kassim? Grrr...

Okay now to back up my claim:

SOME EARLY EXAMPLES OF JEWISH-ZIONIST TERROR.

August 20, 1937 - June 29, 1939. During this period, the Zionists carried out a series of attacks against Arab buses, resulting in the death of 24 persons and wounding 25 others.

November 25, 1940. S.S.Patria was blown up by Jewish terrorists in Haifa harbour, killing 268 illegal Jewish immigrants (see below).

November 6, 1944. Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister Resident in the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo.

July 22, 1946. Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the central offices of the civilian administration of the government of Palestine, killing or injuring more than 200 persons. The Irgun officially claimed responsibility for the incident, but subsequent evidence indicated that both the Haganah and the Jewish Agency were involved.

October 1, 1946. The British Embassy in Rome was badly damaged by bomb explosions, for which Irgun claimed responsibility.

June 1947. Letters sent to British Cabinet Ministers were found to contain bombs.

September 3, 1947. A postal bomb addressed to the British War Office exploded in the post office sorting room in London, injuring 2 persons. It was attributed to Irgun or Stern Gangs. (The Sunday Times, Sept. 24, 1972, p.8)

December ll, 1947. Six Arabs were killed and 30 wounded when bombs were thrown from Jewish trucks at Arab buses in Haifa; 12 Arabs were killed and others injured in an attack by armed Zionists on an Arab coastal village near Haifa.

December 13,1947. Zionist terrorists, believed to be members of Irgun Zvai Leumi, killed 18 Arabs and wounded nearly 60 in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Lydda areas. In Jerusalem, bombs were thrown in an Arab market-place near the Damascus Gate; in Jaffa, bombs were thrown into an Arab cafe; in the Arab village of Al Abbasya, near Lydda, 12 Arabs were killed in an attack with mortars and automatic weapons.

December 19, 1947. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 Arabs, including 5 children. Haganah admitted responsibility for the attack.

December 29, 1947. Two British constables and 11 Arabs were killed and 32 Arabs injured, at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem when Irgun members threw a bomb from a taxi.

December 30,1947. A mixed force of the Zionist Palmach and the "Carmel Brigade" attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 Arabs.

1947 -- 1948. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and land, and forced to live in refugee camps on Israel's borders. They have been denied the right to return to their homes. They have been refused compensation for their homes, orchards, farms and other property stolen from them by the Israeli government. After their expulsion, the "Israeli Forces" totally obliterated (usually by bulldozing) 385 Arab villages and towns, out of a total of 475. Commonly, Israeli villages were built on the remaining rubble.

January 1, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked a village on the slopes of Mount Carmel; 17 Arabs were killed and 33 wounded.

January 4, 1948. Haganah terrorists wearing British Army uniforms penetrated into the center of Jaffa and blew up the Serai (the old Turkish Government House) which was used as a headquarters of the Arab National Committee, killing more than 40 persons and wounding 98 others.

January 5, 1948. The Arab-owned Semiramis Hotel in Jerusalem was blown up, killing 20 persons, among them Viscount de Tapia, the Spanish Consul. Haganah admitted responsibility for this crime.

January 7, 1948. Seventeen Arabs were killed by a bomb at the Jaffa Gate in Jerusalem, 3 of them while trying to escape. Further casualties, including the murder of a British officer near Hebron, were reported from different parts of the country.

January 16, 1948. Zionists blew up three Arab buildings. In the first, 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 12 years, died.

December 13, 1947 -- February 10, 1948. Seven incidents of bomb-tossing at innocent Arab civilians in cafes and markets, killing 138 and wounding 271 others, During this period, there were 9 attacks on Arab buses. Zionists mined passenger trains on at least 4 occasions, killing 93 persons and wounding 161 others.

February 15, 1948. Haganah terrorists attacked an Arab village near Safad, blew up several houses, killing 11 Arabs, including 4 children..

March 3, 1948. Heavy damage was done to the Arab-owned Salam building in Haifa (a 7 story block of apartments and shops) by Zionists who drove an army lorry ( truck) up to the building and escaped before the detonation of 400 Ib. of explosives; casualties numbered 11 Arabs and 3 Armenians killed and 23 injured. The Stern Gang claimed responsibility for the incident.

March 22, 1948. A housing block in Iraq Street in Haifa was blown up killing 17 and injuring 100 others. Four members of the Stern Gang drove two truck-loads of explosives into the street and abandoned the vehicles before the explosion.

March 31, 1948. The Cairo-Haifa Express was mined, for the second time in a month, by an electronically-detonated land mine near Benyamina, killing 40 persons and wounding 60 others.

April 9, 1948. A combined force of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang, supported by the Palmach forces, captured the Arab village of Deir Yassin and killed more than 200 unarmed civilians, including countless women and children. Older men and young women were captured and paraded in chains in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem; 20 of the hostages were then shot in the quarry of Gevaat Shaul.

April 16, 1948. Zionists attacked the former British army camp at Tel Litvinsky, killing 90 Arabs there.

April 19, 1948. Fourteen Arabs were killed in a house in Tiberias, which was blown up by Zionist terrorists.

May 3, 1948. A book bomb addressed to a British Army officer, who had been stationed in Palestine exploded, killing his brother, Rex Farran.

May11, 1948. A letter bomb addressed to Sir Evelyn Barker, former Commanding Officer in Palestine, was detected in the nick of time by his wife.

April 25, 1948 -- May 13, 1948. Wholesale looting of Jaffa was carried out following armed attacks by Irgun and Haganah terrorists. They stripped and carried away everything they could, destroying what they could not take with them.

Here is a listing of the more famous acts of Zionist terrorism:

1. King David Hotel, July 22, 1946.
2. Sharafat, Feb. 7, 1951.
3. Deir Yassin, April 10, 1948.
4. Falameh, April 2, 1951.
5. Naseruddine, April 14, 1948.
6. Quibya, Oct. 14, 1953.
7. Carmel, April 20, 1948.
8. Nahalin, March, 28, 1954.
9. Al-Qabu, May 1, 1948.
10. Gaza, Feb. 28, 1955.
11. Beit Kiras, May 3, 1948.
12. Khan Yunis, May 31, 1955.
13. Beitkhoury, May 5, 1948.
14. Khan Yunis Again, Aug. 31, 1955
15. Az-Zaytoun, May 6, 1948.
16. Tiberia, Dec. 11, 1955.
17. Wadi Araba, May 13, 1950.
18. As-Sabha, Nov. 2, 1955.
19. Gaza Again, April 5, 1956.
20. Houssan, Sept. 25, 1956.
21. Rafa, Aug. 16, 1956.
22. Qalqilyah, Oct. 10, 1956.
23. Ar-Rahwa, Sept. 12, 1956.
24. Kahr Kassem, Oct. 29, 1956.
25. Gharandal, Sept. 13, 1956.
26. Gaza Strip, Nov. 1956.
26. Gaza Strip, Nov. 1956.
http://www.ummah.com/waragainstislam/terrorism.htm

In fact, just back up everything you try to assert.

It is you who do not provide references for your assertions. I have done so repeatedly, but you seem not able to accept or read anything that does not fit with your pre-concieved notions about history.

Here are some more links for you, since you are too lazy to look them up yourself:

http://www.moqawama.org/v_zionis/zi_terro.htm
http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion ...nion/13o/Zionist Terrorism, Mark Franklin.htm
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/special-edition/terrorism50/zionterr.htm

It seems in your view modern terrorism can only be carried out by Islamics.

I can also provide more recent acts of Israeli terrorism, but that would be off topic and I don't want to de-focus the issue any more than it already has been. The point is that the Zionists/Israeli's invented modern terrorism, and it has come back to haunt them and us.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Actually I think i will deny that minorities start off further down the latter then anyone else. We all have opportunities present to us. We can all take advantage of educating ourselves for free. We can all take advantage of assistance to help pay for higher degrees or take advantage of working hard for scholarships. An immigrant regardless of skin color can come here with pennies to his name and become well off within a few years with hard work. Yet you seem to think that people born here, just because they may have a different skin color or may start off poor cannot achieve economic success despite having every opportunity handed to them.

We have free public schooling. It may not always be the greatest but even in poor school districts like my old high school where we have idiots who dont know how to spend the money in order maximize benefits for the students, we can learn and excell if we work hard.

The problem with society right now isnt that there arent opportunities. There are plenty. The problem isnt with there not being enough government programs, we have more than enough. The problem is with personal responsibility. The problem is with parents who dont teach their children to take advantage of the opportunities given them and make a better life for themselves. The problem is with parents who dotn care squat about their kids and have them just so they can get another welfare check and then let them fend for themselves. The problem is with parents who dont want to take responsibility for their actions because theyve been taught that others will take care of it and have learned to expect the government to get them out of their problems. That is the problem in society and it doesnt matter what race, creed, or background you come from because the problem is found among all of them.

Minorities are any different than the majorities. We are all human beings and we need to be treated as such and if you continue to promote special treatment for people based on their skin color rather than the merits of their achievement we will continue to have problems.

Now I know you are a naive idiot! Do you really contend that everyone in this country has equal access to a quality education? Do you really think that the person who's family is wealthy and well connected does not have a huge advantage in our society over someone who's family has nothing?

Do you not relate at least a little to the pain of the black man working in a textile mill for minimum wage that is owned by a white man who's fortune derives from his great-grandfather's having owned the blackman's great-grandfather?

Refering to your other post on this topic, I generally agree that affirmative action in the workplace, using quotas, is bad. But that is not really done anymore. Where I disagree is that affirmative action does have a legitimate place in education - it is the only way most inner city minorities have a chance to get a quality college education unless they are truely brilliant. Do you really think things are at all even when the rich kid can go to college and has as much of his non-class time as he cares to devote available for study, but the kid from the poor family, even with AA, must work 16+ hours a week to barely squeek by?

I went to college with some of the richest people in the country. One of my dorm-mates used to have the family jet pick him up every weekend during ski season to fly him to Aspen or Jackson hole or wherever the snow was good. Another refused to actually go to class, and he laughed that they simply would not fail him - and they didn't, and now he is on the boards of several fortune 500 companies!

The point is these guys had it made from the get-go. They didn't have to do what everyone else had to to end up recieving huge salaries for little or no productivity. They had the best opportunities, squandered them, and still ended up at the top.

There is no question that in our society, more than any other factor, where you start on the economic ladder determines where you will end up! Minorities start with less, and in the case of the black minorities especially, this is due to the injustices of the past perpetrated upon them by the majority. Some compensation or adjustment is justified to level the playing field at least a little, and that is the intent of Affirmative Action.

The fact is there is little upward mobility in America. Read for yourself:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html

Wade.

 

[MrMarbles]

Avatar, you are all over the place here. KNow wonder it is hard to understand your point, you are arguing across a bunch of different lines here.

Terror and liberal ideals did not start with the French revolution. The French revolted becuase of poor treatment by the upper crust. They had specifically waited until after the dust had settled in the American revolution before acting. They used the American revolution as a guide.

As for affirmative action. As long as everyone with the proper qualifications get the job they diserve, then why complain? In the begining people were hired out of their depth, ahead of others. But now things seem to be quite diverse. It's a good idea, but like all good ideas, it has a few bumps that need ironing out.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Avatar, you are all over the place here. KNow wonder it is hard to understand your point, you are arguing across a bunch of different lines here.

Terror and liberal ideals did not start with the French revolution. The French revolted becuase of poor treatment by the upper crust. They had specifically waited until after the dust had settled in the American revolution before acting. They used the American revolution as a guide.

As for affirmative action. As long as everyone with the proper qualifications get the job they diserve, then why complain? In the begining people were hired out of their depth, ahead of others. But now things seem to be quite diverse. It's a good idea, but like all good ideas, it has a few bumps that need ironing out.

If by ironed out you mean, completely eliminating the disgusting racially divisive program, then I agree.

 

[MrMarbles]

If by ironed out you mean, completely eliminating the disgusting racially divisive program, then I agree.

As long as that does not revert back to the original problem of racial, and sexual discrimination.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

As long as that does not revert back to the original problem of racial, and sexual discrimination.

I believe racist policies will never eradicate racism. Call me crazy. :scratch:

 

[Comrade]

I believe racist policies will never eradicate racism. Call me crazy. :scratch:

Budda say:

The only way we stop racism is by fucking with each other.