Look, I don't have all day to answer all your questions. The fact that I did not answer something does nto necessarily mean I don't have an answer; more likely than not that means I have not gotten around to answering the question. If you want to continue based on your assumptions about me you can continue all you want but don't expect me to comment. So, here goes, point by point:
1) I write to relay what I consider to be accurate to the best of my knowledge. I do not write to create an appearance of any sort.
2) On the issues. Regarding Japan, you should have read what I said before more carefully:
The Japanese were ready to accept all terms of surrender save for the American demand that they denounce the divine nature of their emperor.
After the nuclear strike, they surrendered unconditionally. In general, would it be correct to say that you are not agaisnt terrorism in cases where it is expected to shorten the conflict and diminish the overall loss of life?
3) Israel and terror there. I could easily see how Hamas would be thinking that by running an extra-agressive capaign of terror they get Israelis to budge and as a result fewer of their people (and Israelis too) woudl die than ina prolonged conflict. To that end they migth undertake to plan a more spectacular attack, something that would kill hundreds as opposed to dozens of people. Of course, it is a roll of a dice - but that sort of logic may well be there.
4) Baruch Goldstein. Of the Jews I know there are quite a few (probably no less than a dozen) who think him a hero. They are both in Israel and elsewhere. His autobiography was a hot item, too (I think something like a hundred thousand copies were sold in Israel, I could find the exact figure). That tells me he is far from unpopular.
5) Arabs in Israel. Excluded from many jobs due to lack of military service. The Land Fund precludes them at times from buying properties they seek. No right to carry weapons which makes them an easy target for criminals, whether racially motivated or otherwise. And I am not even talking private-sector discrimination.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: FYI
Date: 2006-03-16 10:37 am (UTC)1) I write to relay what I consider to be accurate to the best of my knowledge. I do not write to create an appearance of any sort.
2) On the issues. Regarding Japan, you should have read what I said before more carefully:
After the nuclear strike, they surrendered unconditionally.
In general, would it be correct to say that you are not agaisnt terrorism in cases where it is expected to shorten the conflict and diminish the overall loss of life?
3) Israel and terror there. I could easily see how Hamas would be thinking that by running an extra-agressive capaign of terror they get Israelis to budge and as a result fewer of their people (and Israelis too) woudl die than ina prolonged conflict. To that end they migth undertake to plan a more spectacular attack, something that would kill hundreds as opposed to dozens of people.
Of course, it is a roll of a dice - but that sort of logic may well be there.
4) Baruch Goldstein. Of the Jews I know there are quite a few (probably no less than a dozen) who think him a hero. They are both in Israel and elsewhere.
His autobiography was a hot item, too (I think something like a hundred thousand copies were sold in Israel, I could find the exact figure). That tells me he is far from unpopular.
5) Arabs in Israel. Excluded from many jobs due to lack of military service. The Land Fund precludes them at times from buying properties they seek. No right to carry weapons which makes them an easy target for criminals, whether racially motivated or otherwise.
And I am not even talking private-sector discrimination.