Damn you Monsanto
By Herring (Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:16:31 AM EST) (all tags)
It's horizontal gene transfer I swear.

Yes, despite the fact that we don't grow Roundup Ready corn or anything in the UK, the genes for glyphosate resistance have transferred into many of the weeds in my garden. I'm going to sue.

I've got very little actual work to do this week. The boredom is not helped by the fact that the air conditioning is not up to the job.

I know I'm a bit slow on this one, but the Israeli response to this kidnapping thing seems quite out of proportion. This is considering the fact that the Palestinians actually targetted the military for once. I think that's a good thing - if both sides stuck to the "target the military" principle then the whole situation wouldn't be so shite.

Damn you Monsanto | 59 comments (59 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Are you using Roundup(TM) by greyrat (4.00 / 1) #1 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:22:48 AM EST
or some inferior, generic and probably old product. Glyphosate breaks down over time. Actually, it breaks down quite quickly. That's one of it's advantages. So go buy a fresh bottle ad try again...

Thanks. by Herring (4.00 / 1) #5 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:45:36 AM EST
I think I will give some more money to Monsanto then.

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]
You're welcome! by greyrat (2.00 / 0) #7 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:51:24 AM EST
Just looking out for my stock future job considerations your well-being. And your yard's too.

[ Parent ]
You can also do it the old fashioned way by lm (2.00 / 0) #8 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:51:44 AM EST
Yank the weeds up by their roots. Long term, this will work far better than chemicals. But, at least short term, it's a lot more work.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I don't agree. Obviously. by motty (4.00 / 2) #2 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:32:33 AM EST
I think Israeli is being incredibly restrained under the circumstances.

I'd point out that Hamas' recent threat to 'resume attacks on Israel proper' is the single most disingenuous lie I have heard in a long while. They never ceased their attacks on Israel proper. That's the root of the problem.

The whole thing happened precisely as a result of the constant daily rocket attacks on Israeli towns near to but outside the Gaza strip, subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal, in which between 9 to 11 Israeli civilians have died. Israel attempted to get the guys responsible for that, Hamas retaliated by attacking an Israeli army base (for a change), and captured a soldier.

So, tragically, now we stand on the brink of the full-scale war that the Palestinian people voted for when they decided to elect a party sworn to destroy their next-door neighbour.

I agree with you about the 'target the military' principle. The Israeli side makes an effort to and always has. The Palestinian side invented the suicide bomber and uses its own population as human shields. What solution would you suggest here?

I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T

It just seems odd to me by Herring (4.00 / 2) #4 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:44:44 AM EST
that the reaction to the kidnapping of one soldier is so much more full-on than the reaction they give for bombing a bus/cafe full of civilians. I think if you're going to take out civilian infrastructure like bridges, powerplants etc. then basically you are at war.

Overall, it's a shitty situation. Both sides have been guitly of some pretty reprehensible acts. A couple of years ago, it looked like there was almost the making of a two-state solution but now ...

christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky

[ Parent ]
Olmert is fucked by motty (2.00 / 0) #10 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:55:03 AM EST
He has no security background and has an electoral population of reservists many of whom either have children in the army or will do soon.

He must get that guy back, alive and in one piece, if at all possible, and if not, at least be seen to have a had as good a go at it as possible.

On which basis, I think the reaction so far has been incredibly restrained.

I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T

[ Parent ]
So what you're saying by ambrosen (4.00 / 2) #14 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 10:15:51 AM EST
Is that he's destroying cities to stay in power. Like what Saddam did.

[ Parent ]
It's ok though. by garlic (4.00 / 3) #17 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 10:52:35 AM EST
He's part of the chosen people.

[ Parent ]
Does Israel still bulldoze homes? by lm (4.00 / 3) #6 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:48:16 AM EST
Unless the Israelis no longer bulldoze the homes of the surviving families of suicide bombers, I think it a false assertion that they don't target civilians. In fact, it doesn't seem very difficult to see how policies such as this increase hatred rather than act as a deterent. This policy was also the impetus for the original bounties offered to the families of suicide bombers by many middle eastern states. Given that the houses of the families were going to be squashed, it was seen as a humanitiarian act to give the families something with which to rebuild.

Also, in areas of Palestine that are (or at least were) predominantly Christian, Israel seemed to care not a whit that the general population was not involved with Hamas or other terrorist organizations. (Not that the various Palestinian organizations are any better on this score.)

Israel may very well be better than Hamas with regards to targeting civilians, but only by a limited extent. This is a conflict that doesn't seem to have very many white hats on either side.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Targetting civilians by motty (2.00 / 0) #9 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:52:22 AM EST
I've never been in favour of the bulldozing homes thing and agree that it is totally counter productive.

However, there is a difference between bulldozing someone's home and blowing them up while they are shopping that an awful lot of people appear to have an awful lot of difficulty with.

I've spent years as a Zionist peacenik arguing with people that no, the Palestinians really do want peace, really they do, it is possible.

Then they went and elected Hamas, and I really don't know what to think any more.

I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T

[ Parent ]
whaqt's the difference by martingale (4.00 / 1) #40 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 03:50:31 PM EST
between a human smart bomb exploding at a bus stop, and a missile assassination attack on a car in a busy street?

Answer: in the second case, the killer is still alive and ready to kill again.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
Yes, there is a difference by Cloaked User (2.00 / 0) #49 Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 03:18:22 AM EST
It doesn't make it right though.

Still, I don't know anywhere near enough about the situation to really comment at all, let alone any further.

--
This is not a psychotic episode. It is a cleansing moment of clarity.

[ Parent ]
I'm not really interested in arguing by lm (2.00 / 0) #59 Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 11:57:21 AM EST
But the IDF seems to me to be more than willing to pretty much ignore how many civillians are in a given area when they strike at Palestinian targets. I don't see a difference in kind between this behavior and the Palestinians targetting pizza shops where there are only civilians. I will concede a difference in extent. I'll also concede that part of the blame lies on the Palestinians for the willingness to use their own people as human shields. I don't think it is any coincidence that a large number of the Palestinian military strongholds are in locations (such as Bethlemhem) which have historically been predominantly populated by Christians who tend not to have a dog in this fight.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
bwahaha by martingale (4.00 / 1) #38 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 03:44:48 PM EST
Obviously, I can't agree with you.

There's no good guys or bad guys here. The conflict has been asymmetric for a long time now. Israel goes into Palestine to cause damage with bulldozers and tank shells, and Palestine goes into Israeli settlements with homemade rockets and human smart bombs.

It's equalized recently with a slightly more assertive government for the Palestinians and a less experienced government for the Israelis.

I found the fact that they're calling the capture of the israeli soldier a "kidnapping" one of the funniest jokes in middle east news in a while.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
Concept by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #3 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:37:21 AM EST
We will reduce our aid by $Ne6/yr to either Israel or Palestine for each civilian killed by that side. Signed USA --- Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline Concept by motty (3.50 / 2) #11 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 09:58:05 AM EST When one side has always at least attempted to avoid killing civilians, while the other side has always deliberately targetted civilians, maybe a more complex solution than 'treating both sides as if they were the same' would be appropriate. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] where 'more complex' == 'unequal'? by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 2) #12 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 10:02:02 AM EST I guess we'll see how hard they've "always attempted" after they lose a few hundred million per year in free fighter jets. --- Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline [ Parent ] It must be nice by motty (2.00 / 0) #13 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 10:13:33 AM EST To pontificate from a distance on a subject about which you know nothing and don't care much. Yeah. Israel has always attempted to avoid civilian casualties. Palestinians, on the other hand, send suicide bombers into bars and public places in order to blow as many civilians up as possible. But if that, you know, bothers you, feel free to carry on pretending otherwise. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] So then Palestine will run out of money first by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #15 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 10:35:48 AM EST The part I'm not clear on is where the USA is required to give money to two groups to try to kill each other and then also give them money to try to make peace. --- Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline [ Parent ] Yeah. by motty (2.00 / 0) #16 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 10:41:54 AM EST Last I looked, they'd run out of money already. The solution to this problem is neither throwing money at it nor taking money away from it. There are two sides. One side has been offering peace more or less constantly since 1947. One side has been rejecting peace more or less constantly since the same date. The solution will come when both sides want peace. Only then and not until then. In the meantime it's a bloody tragic mess for everyone involved. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] Define "offered peace" by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #20 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 10:59:39 AM EST I hear the US government offered peace to the Cherokee right after the Trail of Tears. --- [ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman [ Parent ] Great analogy by motty (2.00 / 0) #24 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 12:17:49 PM EST Only, not. Because there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever with the facts. How about starting in 1947, when the Palestinians could have accepted the UN Partition plan - for peace - as the Jews did, followed by, since then absolutely every possible opportunity to talk to a reasonable Arab or Palestinian interlocuter ever since, without exception, including Yasser Arafat, the instant he renounced violence, and despite his history, and including Golda Meir smuggling herself over the border to talk to Hussein of Jordan in the sixties or so, once it became clear that he would talk, albeit secretly, and including making peace with Egypt and Jordan as soon as was possible and blah-de-fucking-blah. Not only that, but Israeli politics has had an active peace movement since before 1947, when not all Zionists were even in favour of a state. Meanwhile, the other side, which does not have a peace movement of any sort, just keeps fighting and killing people. And losing. And fighting some more and killing more people. And losing more. And appealing to world public opinion, while fighting more. And losing more. When they stop fighting, they'll stop losing. Do me a favour. Name a Palestinian peace activist. Ever. Just one would do me. I am in total despair right now. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] So by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #25 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 12:30:34 PM EST When they stop fighting, they'll stop losing. So you are saying that if the Palestinians en masse stopped resorting to violence, that the Isrealis would immediately stop building settlements in territories the Palestinians regard as theirs? I don't recall the Isreali's ever offering unconditional peace. As far as I can recall, they've only ever offered the Palestinians peace conditional on giving up territorial claims. --- [ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman [ Parent ] It would be good to see by motty (2.00 / 0) #27 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 12:35:42 PM EST It would be interesting to see what would happen, but yes, actually, I have always thought that the best way to stop the problem of Israeli settlements was for the Palestinians to cease their violence. The whole point of the two-state solution is that both sides give up territorial claims. It goes back to 1947. I don't recall Israel ever offering a pony either, but I don't see what that has to do with anything. Most of all I don't ever remember the Palestinians ceasing their violence. Until they do it's all moot. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] But you see by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #29 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 01:00:22 PM EST The Palestinians have very good reasons for regarding the entire place theirs so at least from their point of view, any peace settlement gives up what they regard as theirs. But the reason I bring it up is that historically speaking, the Isrealis have hardly stopped the settlements when the "Palestinians ceased their violence". What makes it all the more problematic is that the Isrealis demand that all Palestinians act in unison when in truth it is hard to imagine any Palestinian having the power to stop the violence. Do you hold the Irish prime minister accountable for the IRA? Can you point to any Palestinian official who could "stop the violence"? Honestly, it's all moot until both sides stop acting like vindictive fuckheads. The extent that the Isrealis act "better" than the Palestinians is to the extent that the Isrealis already have power and thus have less need to attack to get their way. --- [ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman [ Parent ] The Palestinians by motty (2.50 / 2) #33 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 01:15:16 PM EST Did not exist as an idea until the sixties, so their objective 'claim to the land' is as tenuous as anyone else's. It's not about that, at this point. It's about people wanting war or people wanting peace. As a peacenik Zionist, I have always had to argue with everybody, both the people who believe that the Jews should simply vanish or let themselves be massacred or something and the people who think I am a traitor. As it happens, why is it that if someone held the view that Chinese people should not be allowed to live in Italy, say, they are right-wing racist of the nastiest kind, but if someone holds the view that a Jew should not be allowed to live in Hebron or on a hill overlooking it, they are holding a perfectly reasonable mainstream leftist point of view. Now I'm not in favour of the 'settlements', either, as they are a barrier to peace. But it still strikes me as odd. No, it doesn't cut both ways. There are Israeli Palestinian Knesset members. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] And Chinese people in Tibet? by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #37 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 01:31:18 PM EST Is that a better analogy? [ Parent ] not so much by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #47 Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 01:11:56 AM EST People arn't saying "Chinese people should not be allowed to live in Italy", but that "Chinese government shouldn't turn up and knock down all the Italian beach Villas and build a new appartment complex for Chinese people.". That has a tendancy to piss of the Italians. And to be fair, when the Mafia get pissed off about it, you can hardly blame the Italian people as a whole for the retrubutions. --- Thad --- Almost as Smart As you. [ Parent ] I don't know about you by martingale (2.00 / 0) #48 Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 02:08:24 AM EST but I wasn't born when the Palestinian idea was first formed, nor when the Israeli idea was formed. So they're both equally authoritative, if age is the criterion. --$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$[ Parent ] Errr by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #31 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 01:09:03 PM EST How about starting in 1947, when the Palestinians could have accepted the UN Partition plan - for peace - as the Jews did, followed by, since then absolutely every possible opportunity to talk to a reasonable Arab or Palestinian interlocuter ever since, without exception... This speaking to "reasonable" Arabs, did this at any time include stopping the land grabs? --- Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline [ Parent ] The land grabs? by motty (2.00 / 0) #35 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 01:19:56 PM EST You mean like in 1967, when the entire Arab world tried to push the Jews into the sea, and failed, or 1973, when they tried the same thing again, and failed. You're really really shit at history aren't you. Why do you keep trying to talk about it? Perhaps we should change the subject to soccer. I think you'd be better off talking about soccer. You can be completely fucking ignorant about soccer and still have a conversation. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] *checks calendar* by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #36 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 01:31:15 PM EST No, still 2006. Not 1984. --- Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline [ Parent ] Hmm by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #22 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 11:14:58 AM EST Yes the israelis have offered peace but on their terms only... [ Parent ] Example offer of peace? by DesiredUsername (4.00 / 1) #28 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 12:48:08 PM EST When they stop fighting, they'll stop losing. Note to Israel: You know when a non-existent entity says you are promised land? That's not a binding contract. --- Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline [ Parent ] 1947 by motty (2.00 / 0) #30 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 01:05:48 PM EST That's a pretty good example. Note to DU: I really really don't know what you mean about this non-existent entity of which you speak. Can you explain further? You can't surely be suggesting that Jews only believe that Israel has a right to exist because of some stuff written in a book which most of us don't believe in? Gosh. I didn't know that. Back in my Jewish history degree, they told us the development of Zionism was all a lot more to do with the development of Jewish culture and thought in reaction to modernity during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This included the regeneration of the Hebrew language for secular use and the increasing obvious sense that Central and Eastern Europe was no longer a particularly good or welcoming place for the Jews to be and the mass emigration in all directions at the end of the nineteent and beginning of the twentieth centuries. This was followed by the great and horrible muddle that was the twentieth century, in which all kinds of ideas about both nationalism and socialism came into it, the regrowth of the Jewish population in first Turkish then British Mandate Palestine, the concomitant regeneration of the economy there in general, and concomitant rise in Arab population, the British divide-and-rule policy which encouraged separatists on both sides at the expense of those who wished to live side by side in peace, and finally the UN Partition plan of 1947, which the Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected. But as you obviously know so much more about it than all those fusty dusty old professors, please, do tell me more about the Jewish people and its history. As a Jew I have always found this stuff just fascinating, which is why I did the degree I did. So I am all ears. Educate me further. Go on. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] OIC by DesiredUsername (2.00 / 0) #32 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 01:10:09 PM EST The location is just a coincidence. Sorry. --- Now accepting suggestions for a new sigline [ Parent ] Errr... by motty (2.00 / 0) #34 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 01:17:19 PM EST No, it's not a coincidence. The importance of the land of Israel is attested as a major feature in Jewish culture constantly going back over thousands of years. You don't need to believe in God for that. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] So has belief in God. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #50 Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 08:58:05 AM EST Why the one without the other? [ Parent ] Er, no... by motty (2.00 / 0) #51 Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 09:13:23 AM EST Not for the last hundred years or so, in which a distinctly secular Jewish culture has emerged, to which Zionism is pretty much central. The Bundists would have disagreed with me, but they are sadly no longer with us. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] Right, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #53 Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 09:47:37 AM EST but 'Palestinian' culture is only 60 years old, so thus not worthy of protection. [ Parent ] I never said that by motty (2.00 / 0) #54 Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 10:28:25 AM EST I know it's extremely difficult to understand but I really would like to see peace and a two state solution. That involves Israel and Palestine. For me it's fundamental as a Zionist - if the Jewish state has a right to exist, so does the Palestinian state. If the Jewish state can have Jerusalem as capital, so should the Palestinian state. We share it. End of. Unfortunately, my voice is drowned out by the voices of Palestinians shouting 'Death to the Jews'. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] In North London? by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #55 Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 12:14:24 PM EST Weird. [ Parent ] Do you know that, or are you stereotyping? by Herring (2.00 / 0) #57 Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:00:28 AM EST E.g. motty lives in Golder's Green and in his spare time likes to control the international media and finance industries. christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky [ Parent ] Hey, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #58 Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 08:05:50 AM EST don't reply to comments in this story. I was all braced to try to write something bulletproof on a subject about which I am massively outgunned, but think I have a more distanced point of view on. And yes, it's on his myspace page. My mum grew up in Golder's Green. He's slightly more suburban than that, but I was noting it mainly as a point of envy, because it seems a very nice place to be. [ Parent ] Oh motty, my brother, by greyrat (4.00 / 1) #39 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 03:45:02 PM EST I'm 5 G&Ts in for the evening and I want to support DU in his argument. I believe you and he are heading for the same conclusion here, but I'm too pissed to prove it. All I can say at this point is I think both the Israelis and the Palestinians AS ENTIRE CULTURES are too immature to see that if they stop antagonizing each other, peace will break out. You and DU are just approaching it from opposite sides. Isn't it interesting that the two of you can't see that? [ Parent ] 27 IAF pilots say "Bollocks" to that by Rogerborg (4.00 / 4) #18 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 10:52:58 AM EST I don't care at all, mind, but the moral difference between deliberately targetting civilians and just not giving a fuck how many you kill is probably cold comfort to their relatives. Yes, I know what the policy is. Well, it ain't working. - Metus amatores matrum compescit, non clementia. [ Parent ] The trouble by ucblockhead (4.00 / 3) #19 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 10:57:23 AM EST Much of the trouble is the oversimplification inherent in statements like: Israel has always attempted to avoid civilian casualties. Palestinians, on the other hand, send suicide bombers into bars and public places in order to blow as many civilians up as possible. This is an untrue statemnt, and oversimplifies matters. It should read: The Isreali government has always attempted to avoid civilian casualties. Some groups of Palestinians, on the other hand, send suicide bombers into bars and public places in order to blow as many civilians up as possible. If people didn't treat other people as if they were identical clones wondering around with shirts that said "Isreali" or "Palestinian", we'd all be better off. --- [ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman [ Parent ] it's funny by martingale (2.00 / 0) #41 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 03:56:57 PM EST to say that Israel avoids killing civilians when overall they kill about 3-4 times as many as the other side, who apparently aren't avoiding? What kind of numbers does it take to admit that the avoidance policy is failing miserably? The way I see it, neither side gives a damn if it shows their own people that they're still fighting. --$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$[ Parent ] Rubbish by motty (2.00 / 0) #42 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 04:06:37 PM EST Those aren't civilians. They're not being civilians when they fire rockets into Israel or plan suicide bombings, and they're not being civilians when they are targeted. Magically, because they are Palestinians, they become civilians when they are dead, and weirdly, get reported as such by the blatantly pro-Palestinian European media. The Palestinians, by contrast, target civilians. Openly and specifically. Meanwhile, I still want peace and the vast bulk of the Israeli population still wants peace. Show me the Palestinians who want peace. How do you make peace with someone who is trying to kill you? I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] bzzt. wrong. by martingale (2.00 / 0) #44 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 04:49:54 PM EST Those aren't civilians. That argument only works with the converted. The morgues say otherwise. Meanwhile, I still want peace and the vast bulk of the Israeli population still wants peace. I don't doubt that, but you're not in power. I like several of your arguments but I normally object when you mix in moral superiority for either side. I think speaking for the motivations of large subpopulations in either Israel or Palestine is unconvincing. --$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$[ Parent ] Yeah yeah yeah. by motty (2.00 / 0) #45 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 05:26:20 PM EST Israel has had minority extremist parties who have outrageous views vis-a-vis the Palestinians, advocating policies of transfer (ie deportation) and worse. They have not been elected and, I sincerely hope, never will be. But the Palestinians elected Hamas, who are still sworn to destroy Israel. Of course I don't have a magic crystal ball to tell me what large subpopulations anywhere are thinking. But I can see election results. And I can see consequences. It's just a total unmitigated disaster for everyone on both sides. I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T [ Parent ] The Israeli state has been a complete disaster by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #46 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 06:00:51 PM EST It's about as workable as the Chinese taking over a small part of Japan and expecting peace. Dumbfuck humans have deep cultural memories and itchy trigger fingers. [ Parent ] they got tibet though. by garlic (2.00 / 0) #52 Tue Jul 04, 2006 at 09:29:21 AM EST and then proceeded to have han chinese settelments created in the area. Hmm... that sounds familiar. . . [ Parent ] I'm actually on the Israeli side for once by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #21 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 11:12:35 AM EST The Palestinians voted in a bunch of suicide bombing supporting fanatics who have sworn to destroy the state of Israel. So who can the Israelis actually negotiate with? Then they make life very uncomfortable but not actually kill any civilians in pursuit of a captured Israeli soldier who is very likely to be tortured to death if they do nothing. The stupid thing for the Palestinians is that they have fairly moderate Israeli govt to deal with as the Likud hardcore is no longer there. I didn't want to post this .... by Herring (4.00 / 1) #23 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 11:59:21 AM EST but the USians (allegedly - could've been Diebold) voted for GWB. Does that make all US citizens legitimate targets? christ, we're all old now - StackyMcRacky [ Parent ] Or closer to home for you guys by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #26 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 12:31:57 PM EST Are you legitimate targets for Iraqi insurgents because you voted Blair in? --- [ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman [ Parent ] neither side wants to negotiate in the first place by martingale (2.00 / 0) #43 Mon Jul 03, 2006 at 04:19:01 PM EST What, practically speaking, is the difference between a government which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, and a government which refuses to recognize the Hamas government's right to exist? When each side puts itself in a position where it simply refuses to talk to the other side, negotiation (at least in public) is not an option. --$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s\$

[ Parent ]
Hamas and Israel by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #56 Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 03:45:50 AM EST
This is the response the kidnappers wanted.  Take a page from 19th Century Anarchists.  The populace doesn't rise up when it's fat and happy.

---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
Damn you Monsanto | 59 comments (59 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback