I’ve never really conversed with an honest to god anti-semite before, but I guess abb1 now qualifies.

That’s the kind of demented hatred of Israel that speaks for itself; no comments are necessary

Thank you for asking: it ‘means’ they are human, just like countless other refugees (such as over 12 mil Germans kicked out of their homes after WW2)whose leaders didn’t project their victimhood by celebrating murders of innocent people and other crimes against humanity. Not that Palestinians collectively are ‘inhuman’; those who keep them in camps while themselves living in luxury are. Or those who send other people’s children on suicide missions. And that takes us to the second question:

“What does it have to do with the PLO? Absolutely nothing.”

Or maybe it has something to do with the PLO. A fraction of the billions stolen by Arafat and his cronies would have transformed Palestinians into a model of prosperity. Money spent on fermenting anti-Semitic hatred at schools and in the media could have been used for teaching reconciliation and nation building. Obvious staff, unless you are demented by Israel-hatred and pin global warming on the Jews

Wikipedia says: In December 1978, after several years of border conflict and a flood of refugees into Vietnam, Vietnamese troops invaded Cambodia, capturing Phnom Penh on January 7, 1979 and deposing the Khmer Rouge regime. Despite Cambodians’ traditional fear of Vietnamese domination, the Vietnamese invaders were assisted by widespread defections of Khmer Rouge activists, who formed the core of the post-Khmer Rouge government. See, he didn’t had enough support and that was the end of him.

That sounds like an interesting version of history. Can you tell me where you learnt it?

soru

Well, that pretty much settles it, you’ll be hearing the emergency brakes screaming in short order. Going batshit is essentially the PLO’s reason for being.

Pol Pot – yes, but his regime fell appart really very quickly, didn’t it.

If you wanted to look at internally-stable regimes with popular support probably lower than that, try Pol Pot’s Cambodia, King Leopold’s Congo, or German South West Africa (present day Namibia).

Of course, in those cases, it makes a big difference to the figures whether you assume those killed by the regime would have voted against it.

soru

My criticism has nothing to do with where you live, and everything to do with the content of what you’re saying. You made the ludicrous assertion that “Iran” justifiably sees itself as Poland to America’s Nazi Germany. Since there is no basis in fact for this absurd analogy—or indeed even a clear interpretation of the name “Iran” used in it—I speculated that what you really meant was that you saw Iran as Poland to America’s Nazi Germany. Your other references to America’s “naked aggression” lent support to my speculation.

All I meant is that Iran is in self-preservation mode; its security fears are perfectly rational.

All totalitarian regimes are perennially in self-preservation mode, and at least some of their security fears are bound to be perfectly rational. But that’s certainly not “all [you] meant”….

The days of trying to export Islamic revolution at the point of a bayonet are long, long behind it, despite the US’ best efforts in Iraq.

Does the name, “Hezbollah”, mean anything to you? Or “Badr Brigades”? Or “Palestinian Islamic Jihad”?

That doesn’t mean I like the mullahs; still less that I dislike America.

You mean the America whose “[s]pending more than the rest of the world combined on ‘defence’ while pursuing distant wars of choice” constitutes “naked aggression”? Gosh—I can only wonder what you go around saying about the countries you do frankly dislike….

Anyway, I’m not convinced that the mullahs are as widely detested as much as people say. Regimes, even authoritarian ones, just don’t survive as long as they have without the consistent support of a large segment of the population

I’m with soru on this one—I really hope, for your own sake, that you’re just saying this to shore up a collapsing argument, and don’t really believe it.

I see Israel as an ethnic racist expansionist state, the worst violator of the international law in the post-WWII history.

So if keeping land out of the hands of your enemies that they have just used to rain down artillary on your civilians is “expansionsist” then I’m glad they are.

You seem to have a soft spot in your heart for people who use artillary on civilians so I’d think you’d be more forgiving of the US’s accidents in Iraq. But I guess it would just be your racism. Non-arab states can do no right, and arab states can do no wrong.

I see Israel as an ethnic racist expansionist state, the worst violator of the international law in the post-WWII history.

I view the PLO as the organization that made unbelievable, impossible advance and sacrifice by agreeing to give away 78% of its people’s land for the sake of peace in the region. In 2002 the Arab League also agreed to end the conflict completely if Israel would comply with the relevant UN resolutions: to end the occupation and to compensate the refugees.

So, what else does your nation of laws and democracy want? A bit more than 78% – is that it?