Take a Criminology class. Because you don't seem to know what rationalism is in terms of criminal behaviour is. Having personality disorders does not make people irrational.

If you want to know what irrational it is... it is a disorganized serial killer.

Don't get snippy because you are ignorant in understanding what is rational and irrational.

the who is the $64,000 question. I am not so delusional to think the USA isn't the largest power player currently on the planet, but there are a few constants in history. The big guys tend to fall to the sideline bigger guys in time. Could be the Indians, or the Chinese, or some other arranged coalition. To think it will be American military might that keeps the peace is naive, Egypt is the example that change occurs without a nuclear arsenal.

don't play nice with others refers to the Israelites in a longer historical context than 65 years. The disputes in the region predate the formation of the USA, by quite a long time. IF the Israelis wanted peace with the Palestinians in the 20th century, then it would have already occurred. But back to history, in their march to Canaan instead of establishing peace with the Ammonites or the Hittites et al, it was a war of extermination. And its that same strategy 20th century Israel practices. Listen to Bibi, its all about Israeli security, and control of the others. Some things don't change over a millennia. If he could negotiate a deal with another power to blowup all of Irans infrastructure, he would never meet with a US envoy, ever again.

Israeli nationalism dates to the late 1800s. It was a European movement with only a vague, magical connection to Palestine. Most early Zionists were not very religious, they were secular socialists. There is no direct line from ancient times to today's Israel. It's like connecting the formation of the United States to Greek myths. Ya, you could make a nice story about Greece as the originator of a republic, and the Titans vomiting out George Washington, but it would be a very recent origins myth, done for contemporary nationalist reasons.

The other problem with your comparison is that ethnic cleansing is not the same as extermination.

i'm not interested in doing any of those things, they sound horrible. try to consider that i'm not using this word in your special east-coast liberal elitist vernacular, college boy.

i think you guys need to watch a documentary on how israel treats the Palestinians and the people of gaza. these muslims cant even get to other parts of their country or even get out of it because israel has put up fences throughout various regions and completely landlocked certain areas. they can only move through these areas like 1 hour of the day and only on certain days. the israelis are just as bad as the terrorists. i think it does not make sense as a foreign policy to appease say a couple million ppl(jews) compared too a billion people(muslims).

The way you use the word is inherently horribad when you apply to it criminals. If you think guys who are irrational write out manifestos outlining why they have a problem with society and why they are taking the action they do... then you truly are ignorant of the word... it requires rationalism to express what he did no matter how you use that word.. and you would be a defense attorneys wetdream if your definitions held weight in the Justice System.. y'know the real world.. not the mickey mouse world where everything is dumbed down and people exchange words for other ones even when it doesn't make sense to do that...

so you think killing innocent people is an optimal method of bringing about grand social change?

these are the conclusions these men came to. what is rational about it? they were trying to but they were coming up with insane solutions.

this tangent came about beause of what we could learn from bin ladin. we're supposed to take a maniac's critiques seriously when he's known to make such insane leaps in his thought process? if he was rational he wasn't rational enough to be credible at all.

It is the thought process. They were able to plan. Understood that there may be consequences to their actions. That's rational behaviour.

Irrational behaviour is some guy randomly killing another person because there is a strong break from reality altogether.

OBL, Unabomber, and others are still functioning humans who understand the real world. And OBL subscribed to an extreme version of Islam. In his mind he was doing right.

It has nothing to do with how I judge their missions..

Dude you need to stop. You're way behind, and you're presenting a snapshot - and a distorted one at that - of a conflict that involves several different views, ideologies, religions, nationalities, ethnic groups, and political structures.

Go read the Israel Palestine thread.

i'm so glad you took that criminology class. without it, we wouldn't have had a nothing conversation about the non-difference between not being rational and being ****ty at being rational. either way we wouldn't take the rantings of either of those men seriously, because their thoughts and conclusions are often nonsensical. although you still suspiciously seem to want to refuse to disavow al-queda and its architect... if i were waterboarding you in a secret prison right now, you'd definitely be losing.

I disagree. Go read the Israel Palestine thread.

Not saying this line of reasoning is correct. But if it was I'd give more credence to the overwhelminly out of proportion number of American Jews who fully understand quantum mechanics and how ipads and hydrogen bombs work compared to non Jews. Politicians can be voted out.

AIPAC spends millions funding politicians.

So do unions, corporations, Arab oil barons, and many others.

AIPAC isn't anywhere close to being among the largest organized fundraisers. But suddenly has complete control over US foreign policy - to its own detriment.

Nevermind the idea that money buys votes, of course, because everyone else is mindless sheep who do what they're told while you have all the real answers.

By the way, this is one of the reasons also:

What a loltastic, snivelling, cretinous post. I deleted it. I said so. The end.

It takes a special kind of miserable oozing slime to not only interpret my post like that, but then stoke the fire - where there is none - like that.

Of course, when all you know how to do is hate, that's what you do.

Par for the course.

thanks but i really got tired of you spewing propaganda

But what AIPAC expects for its support is more specific.

also i understand there has been a lot of history within the region but i dont think we(america) need to continue to support israel because of this history and i dont think its in our best interest to play favorites in this situation. Gamblor obviously you are going to disagree because you are an israeli. Gamblor list some positives and negatives(try at least) for america to continue its support of israeli.

so you intend to ignore contrary arguments without addressing them, dismiss everything out of hand without a second thought, and mindlessly repeat your own filth?

and I'm the propagandist?

positives:
1) strategic, stable ally in violent, unpredictable region
2) hub of technological, medical, scientific innovation, US market gets first crack at most of it
3) US corps benefit from a small but wealthy market for exports
4) knowledge and proximity to governments with tacit support of terror against American targets - huge intelligence benefits
5) about 2% of the electorate supports israel for nationalism reasons (i.e. they're Jewish), so obv auto majority, electoral college = sham.

negatives
1) alienate the arab/muslim street, which doesn't matter cause the street is powerless and poor and the regimes/cronies have complete control of economy and all are happy to deal with US anyway to fill their pockets
2) alienate ignorant leftists that whine a lot cause they (wrongly) think israel is "white" and think its racist
3) provoke existing terror, which imo would have some other excuse to kill americans even without israel.

mainly, you assume that without US support of Israel, these terrorist organizations wouldn't hate the US so much. Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, the far east - all US spheres of influence, all have been focii of anti-US hatred. Israel is just one of many excuses.

The real reason for terror is not religion or occupation or zionism - millions of muslims live in peace and quiet in the western world despite hating israel, and in israel as voting israelis.

the reason for terror is the interpretation of internationalization as a corrupting influence. it is a reaction to the perceived loss of an imagined a time of "pure", insular communities with defined codes of morality - whether they were religious or not. As US influence grew, it showed them the freedom to choose adultery, gambling, alcohol, and relative gender equality, something that bent their brains just as it bends the brains of southern US wingnuts. and just as southern US looneys killed "corrupting" abortion hospital workers, these guys kill "corrupting" americans. whether you characterize that influence as imperialism or simply the result of a clash of different lifestyles/political structures resulting from internationalization and opening up emerging markets for economic interests is not for this discussion, but that is what the "bad" guys are thinking. And when they kill in order to stop this "corruption", the US kills em right back to protect its interests, and we get the last 100 years of US foreign policy. take away israel, and nothing changes. israel is a scapegoat, not the cause.

but your main problem is that you haven't realized that there isnt any sort of major anti-israel sentiment outside arab/muslim nationalists/supremacists in the middle east, fringe leftist political circles like NGOs based in the territories, and extremist politicians (George Galloway) that confuse helping Palestinians - who legitimately need help - with being anti-Zionist. Of course, the UN is a political forum, it is not the impartial world government people think it is (or want it to be).

so yeah, the anti-israel crowd is basically just a loud, screechy, ignorant minority who sees the whole thing as a zero-sum game - where, in order to help PalArabs, Israel must harmed. It's not. peace is good for all, and the routes to peace are many. as an israeli, i know that most israelis realized that long ago.

aside from israel's massive natural gas reserves, what is the logic behind saying israel provides a foothold into arab oil?

I am not in favor of abandoning Israel as an ally, but as a point of order, would 1) and 4) even matter but for the presence of Israel in that region?

Thanks for going ahead and disproving the negatives for us ahead of time

As an Israeli, can you outline your feelings about Netanyahu's efforts to bring about peace with the Palestinians?

Gamblor

The negatives aren't really negatives right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE