And that is why they will win, because they quite correctly believe that Israel, as it is presently constitutionally defined, will not last forever. And so they do not settle for crumbs now when they can have the whole loaf in the future, by which I mean one Palestinian Republic for all its people.

Israel’s army chief, understanding this dynamic, knows exactly what must be done: “the Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.” Indeed, if the Palestinians saw themselves as history’s losers, they would take what little they have now.

The metaphor of mediation comes to mind. The Israeli’s bluff, telling the Palestinians to settle less or lose big-time. The Palestinians say: your defense is crumbling before your eyes, see you in court, assholes.

“To suggest that I’m somehow anti-Semitic, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, is yet another example of how little Hong has to contribute to intelligent discussion.”

Touched a nerve didn’t I? You can call yourself tolerant but your apology for Islamic terror betrays your true self. You’ve been unable to even properly define the principal differences between medieval and modern islamic terrorism (because there is none). You’ve been given opportunity after opportunity by myself and others here to enunciate your opinions in a logical, coherent manner but mostly you repeat obsolete leftist dogma. I and others without much effort have demolished your ‘arguments’ and you return to abuse and disgrace the English language ever more.

So yes, you are an anti-semite. You are a bigot and prejudiced in favor of islamo facism and other racist and dogmatically intolerant beliefs. Your arguments have been ham-fisted and embarrassingly inept. You have an incomplete and childish grasp of history and a painfully weak understanding of debate. You frustrate easily and throw tantrums when Fisked. It has been a pleasant distraction humiliating you online. Please continue.

The simple fact was that suicide attackers during that age came in the form of a man charging his victim with a dagger and stabbing repeatedly until both were killed. One by the dagger and the other by the victims bodyguards. Had you been less lazy and studied the actual history of the Assassin organization, you’d have avoided this neat trap. It is embarassing for you that you’re too complacent to do your research.

You apparantly lack the nuance to understand the point. That war can solve some dilemnas but not all.
And that some savagery and barbarity is common in all wars.

“You give away your game so easily, Hong. Strip away the witless ad hominem, and all you’ve got is a cheerleader’s uniform on. Yeah, we know which side you’re on, but it’s obvious you’re not driven by any principles and a little to slow to pick up the contradictions in your own comments.”

Actually, you are the one guilty of ad hominem since you have little else to say beyond crowing your hatred and bigotry Boogster. My ‘contradictions’ are the workings of your paranoid imagination along with perhaps that sad and pathetic sexual fantasy you have of me in a cheerleaders outfit. lol

“To you, barbarity is just fine, provided its done by your team. When the other side does it, barbarity is the ipso-facto definition of moral inferiority.”

Barbarity is never fine but necessary in war but war is not when targeted maining or killing of civilians. That’s terrorism. It’s the only objective as your terrorist mooooslems seem concerned with. Your inability to differentiate that distinction is proof again of the crude and unsophisticated nature of your reasoning. It’s embarassing watching you handle debate so poorly. Your frustration is beginning to reduce you to tantrums. It’s quite amusing.

“You certainly correct that some things never change. But it’s actually neo-cons who are at the forefront of pushing the idea that WMD has changed everything as regards fighting terrorism.”

I don’t apprecite the anti-semtic slur neo-con since it’s obviously another rough attempt at hiding your bigotry. As for WMDs, we argued the need to end terrorism because of 9/11 not WMDs. That’s simply a strawman (bogeyman) argument you’ve established booger.

“Were you living in a cave in the run up to the Iraq war?”

You apparantly still live in the cave since the war was motivated by far more than fear of a WMD armed Iraq. In your simplistic fashion you absorbed the one issue and discarded the others. This is further evidence of your intellectual flailing about boogertronic. You haven’t succeeding in even convincing yourself of such a false presumption.

“I’m perfectly willing to have a discussion with you, Hong, but you really should lay off the ad hominem, you’re n”ot very good at it.”

Clearly your offended by my words although calling you Booger is hardly ad hominem compared with your hate and anti-semitism. If I wasn’t any good at whatever you’re complaining about you wouldn’t need to return to express your wounded pride now would you? You’re perfectly willing to apologize for the terrorists but that’s hardly the same as ‘debate’. It’s simply a desperate attempt at avoiding the poverty of your cause.

You give away your game so easily, Hong. Strip away the witless ad hominem, and all you’ve got is a cheerleader’s uniform on. Yeah, we know which side you’re on, but it’s obvious you’re not driven by any principles and a little to slow to pick up the contradictions in your own comments.

To you, barbarity is just fine, provided its done by your team. When the other side does it, barbarity is the ipso-facto definition of moral inferiority.

You certainly correct that some things never change. But it’s actually neo-cons who are at the forefront of pushing the idea that WMD has changed everything as regards fighting terrorism.

Were you living in a cave in the run up to the Iraq war? How many times were we told that it was a new era, a new kind of threat. We had to go beyond self-defense and reaction, because ”the confirmation of our suspicions could be a mushroom cloud.”

I’m perfectly willing to have a discussion with you, Hong, but you really should lay off the ad hominem, you’re not very good at it.

“Absolutely. Barbarity doesn’t work. Those who demand it are ignorant of history.”

Actually it does. War by it’s definition is barbarous but it can successfully annihilate a threat. The Mongol liquidation of the Assassins being a proven example.

You’re still as clumsy in your arguments as before Booger. Technology has little to play since the assassins were suicide attackers in an age of blade weaponry. Therefore the principles remain unchanged whereas you still fear confronting the truth.

“You make it clear that you’d rather bend the facts to fit your argument than the other way around.”

The fact that the Mongols destroyed the terrorists of their day? Or the fact that the midieval Moslems applied suicide tactics before gunpowder was invented? Again read the actual history of the original muslim terrorists and their defeat by the Mongols. However, because you operate on a phobia of the truth, I doubt it can penetrate your density.