Hamas: Make Up Your Freekin' Mind, Would Ya?

[VeeJay]

Now they want Israel to change the flag (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=97520)

On the one hand, you want to destroy Israel. Now you just want them to change their flag. So, after changing their flag, do they still get destroyed? I am confused. :confused:

[Pieces Hit]

For extra trivia points and an all-expense paid trip to nowhere:

In the Bible, who said there would never be peace in Israel until Jesus returns?

[JohnnyMack]

For extra trivia points and an all-expense paid trip to nowhere:

In the Bible, who said there would never be peace in Israel until Jesus returns?

Pat Robertson?

[Pieces Hit]

You're not going nowhere anytime soon.

[KABOOKIE]

Pat Robertson?

Real f'ing funny you liberal POS. :D

[Pieces Hit]

Real f'ing funny you liberal Sow's Ear. :DFixed. :)

[Scott D]

For extra trivia points and an all-expense paid trip to nowhere:

In the Bible, who said there would never be peace in Israel until Jesus returns?

duh it was Mohammad who then also said when that day came 'ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!'

[soonerscuba]

duh it was Mohammad who then also said when that day came 'ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US! FOR GREAT JUSTICE!'

He did set us up the bomb, it is all coming together.

[critical_phil]

http://www.nothingtodo.co.uk/view/1107/flash/flash-animations/all_your_base_rhapsody.html


still funny.......

[KaiserSooner]

An Israeli government official said that Egytian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdullah are worried that the Hamas electoral victory might encourage radical Islamic groups in their own countries.

I think the above is quite revealing. Here we have the Bush Administration making this idealistic and romantic push for democracy in the Middle East, yet now that an undesirable outcome has occurred, it is not well received by the administration or its allies. I think such negative reactions by the West is only further evidence, in the eyes of the Arab world, of our two-faced and self-serving policies.

In the long term, I think this election is probably the best thing to happen for democracy in the Arab world because we had an election in which the people (in this case, the Palestinians) threw out the incumbent government and replaced it with the opposition.

Where else in the Arab world has that occurred? You can make the case of Lebanon in their elections a few months back, but this is definitely the first clear-cut case of a dissatisfied people democratically turning their collective back on a government that wasn't producing the desired results and replacing it with the opposition party.

And make no mistake about it. This election and Hamas' victory wasn't about wiping Israel off the map. It was about the corrupt incumbent party not producing results for Palestine, and the Palestinian electorate reflecting that reality. It was a vote against Fatah.

[OklahomaTuba]

I think the above is quite revealing. Here we have the Bush Administration making this idealistic and romantic push for democracy in the Middle East, yet now that an undesirable outcome has occurred, it is not well received by the administration or its allies. I think such negative reactions by the West is only further evidence, in the eyes of the Arab world, of our two-faced and self-serving policies.

Hows that alternative solution you lefties have been working on for the last decade going?

Oh wait, isolationism and appeasement is your answer. And all this time I thought the left was void of any real solutions, when bending over and taking it is the plan after all.

[Pieces Hit]

In the long term, I think this election is probably the best thing to happen for democracy in Europe because we had an election in which the people (in this case, the Germans) threw out the incumbent government and replaced it with the opposing Nazi party.

Historic fix.

[TUSooner]

Hows that alternative solution you lefties have been working on for the last decade going?

Oh wait, isolationism and appeasement is your answer. And all this time I thought the left was void of any real solutions, when bending over and taking it is the plan after all.
Wow, what a brilliant and thoughtful contribution to the discussion!

Not really.

[picasso]

I think such negative reactions by the West is only further evidence, in the eyes of the Arab world, of our two-faced and self-serving policies.


Do you know any Arab Muslims here in the U.S.? I happen to know a few who own businesses in this area I don't think the consensus anywhere is happy with the Hamas victory.

[yermom]

but what can we say if the democratic process was used?

[soonerscuba]

Jesus...check.
Hitler...check.

Tuba, you haven't used the word "libz" yet. And I'll get this out of the way, somehow, someway this is Clinton's fault.

[KABOOKIE]

but what can we say if the democratic process was used?


"We're sorry"

www.wearesorry.com :D

[JohnnyMack]

Do you know any Arab Muslims here in the U.S.? I happen to know a few who own businesses in this area I don't think the consensus anywhere is happy with the Hamas victory.

Obviously it is in Palestine.

[Pieces Hit]

Palestine was the scariest monster ever.
Worse than the Wolfman even.

[Hatfield]

i am curious if the people that gave bush the credit for the situations in syria and lebannon now blame bush for the situations in iran and the hamas victory.

[KaiserSooner]

Hows that alternative solution you lefties have been working on for the last decade going?

Oh wait, isolationism and appeasement is your answer.

No one's talking about either of those. At least not in this thread. I'm all for the spread of democracy, but not by forcing it on others. The very nature of democracy is such that it should be of a grass roots nature. To that end, the Western world's role is to foster and encourage democracy....not force it down other's throats.

Secondly, we in the West, if we're all gung ho for the spread of democracy, have to be prepared to face its consequences, namely that it will, in all liklihood produce results that are not favorable to US or European policies.

I don't think the people who advocate policies, such as spreading democracy by force, and those that support them are willing to face the consequences of democracy.

[KaiserSooner]

In the long term, I think this election is probably the best thing to happen for democracy in Europe because we had an election in which the people (in this case, the Germans) threw out the incumbent government and replaced it with the opposing Nazi party.
Historic fix.

Oh boy, German history. You're going after the wrong person when it comes to German history, PH ;)

Seriously though, that is a historic misconception.

The German electorate never threw any party in or out of government after the stock market crash of 1929. Instead, electoral politics and parliamentary government was thrown into stalemate precisely (or at least partially) because the electorate would not choose a governing majority.

Even though the Nazi party was the largest party in the Reichstag from the summer of 1932, the party never garnered a majority of the electorate....not even in the mildly undemocratic March 1933 elections, which took place after Hitler was appointed chancellor in January 1933. In fact, in all fair and free elections (obviously excluding March 1933), the Nazi never received more than a third of the vote.

In reality, after 1929, who was or was not chancellor and who or who didn't constitute a government depended more on the German president's power to appoint the chancellor and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering than anything else.

[OklahomaTuba]

Secondly, we in the West, if we're all gung ho for the spread of democracy, have to be prepared to face its consequences, namely that it will, in all liklihood produce results that are not favorable to US or European policies.

In all likihood? :rolleyes:

So ONE armed terrorist group gets to play political party in a non-state (that thinks its at war mind you) for a little while, and all of a sudden promoting free and fair government around the world is doomed to failure?

Glad the billion or so people around the planet that are living in democratically elected nations thanks to the USA didn't know that little fact.

Damn, I miss the libz of yesterday, when they actually believed in the human rights and freedom of people, and didn't pine away for their own nations failure fighting for those exact things.

[Hatfield]

wow...misrepresent much?

[Pieces Hit]

Oh boy, German history. You're going after the wrong person when it comes to German history, PH ;)

Seriously though, that is a historic misconception.

The German electorate never threw any party in or out of government after the stock market crash of 1929. Instead, electoral politics and parliamentary government was thrown into stalemate precisely (or at least partially) because the electorate would not choose a governing majority.

Even though the Nazi party was the largest party in the Reichstag from the summer of 1932, the party never garnered a majority of the electorate....not even in the mildly undemocratic March 1933 elections, which took place after Hitler was appointed chancellor in January 1933. In fact, in all fair and free elections (obviously excluding March 1933), the Nazi never received more than a third of the vote.

In reality, after 1929, who was or was not chancellor and who or who didn't constitute a government depended more on the German president's power to appoint the chancellor and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering than anything else.

Oh.

[KaiserSooner]

wow...misrepresent much?
No kidding. I usually don't bother with his demagoguery, but chose to today, for some reason. Rational discussion of issues simply is one marble he doesn't possess.

I'll go back to ignoring him.

[JohnnyMack]

Oh.

Ger-pwned!!!1

:P