Does Israel need to be defended? Well, it's been attacked many times over its lifetime, and suicide bombers and rockets keep killing its people. So yes I'd say it needs to be defended.

Excellent point about the number of attacks Israel has sustained. Given that, hasn't Israel defended itself adequately (erring on the side of abuse), such that Israel does not need to be defended by the US?

In other words, your own argument disproved your point.

And don't pretend your hatred is just for me. If you support Ward Churchill you are supporting someone who said that the three thousand people murdered on Sep 11 weren't innocent. If you support Bill Ayers you are supporting someone who planted bombs and wrote that his parent's generation needed to be murdered. Proud liberals - what a joke.

I'm not sure who you're addressing here, or if you're just tilting at windmills or talking to the voices in your head. If you can show me where I supported Wade Churchill, you get a free pony and a trip to the ice cream parlor.

Here's the bottom line: innocent civilians don't deserve to die, whether they were in the WTC on 9/11, or if they were shocked-and-awed residents of Baghdad. I utterly condemn anyone who promotes the wanton deaths of innocents. In that respect, Anonymouse, as a proponent of the violent deaths of tens of thousands of Iranians, you have far more in common with Wade Churchill than I do. Maybe that's why you bring him up so often?

Check this out. You can almost hear the gears turning:

If you don't support some of the things that somebody said, then you must dislike EVERYTHING they ever said?

If you do support something that somebody said, then you must support EVERYTHING they ever said?

The answer to both these questions is, no. Perhaps you've already looked in the back of the book and discovered this yourself.

As for Anonymouse's threatened banning, I'm dead set against it. I want Anonymouse to remain here. This is for 2 reasons: 1) I do value free speech and am happy to let anyone, even with the most vile ideas, put those ideas into the marketplace for others to accept or reject; 2) without people like Anonymouse to provide us an example, we wouldn't have such intimate knowledge of just how intellectually bankrupt the whole neocon philosophy is. Sure, it looks like a failure and sounds like a failure, but without Anonymouse's can't-rub-two-braincells-together type of support, this failure would appear a bit more theoretical, no? I think Anonymouse is provide an excellent service here, seriously.

Some Israelis don't agree. Some Israelis who are in a position to know think Israel is its own worst enemy.

And they would be correct. But in terms of armed and dangerous, bull-in-a-china-shop type of defense, Israel does fine.

In the longrun, however, they are very much their own worst enemy. Part of this is due to Israel's original purpose. Israel was founded the same year as Apartheid South Africa, organized by the same people for the same purpose: to provide an island of pro-Western sympathy (and force) in a region to facilitate access to that region's natural resources.

However, I have an inordinate amount of Israeli friends, and I do sympathize with them a lot. They want to live their lives and be peaceful and free, just like everyone else. That's why it's very important to distinguish the Likhud party Zionists from Israel as a whole. Most non-Americans are quickly able to distinguish pro-Bush republicans from the rest of us, and are happy to give the rest of us a break. It's too bad the deadend 29%-ers like Anonymouse are incapable of this complexity of thought.

On a larger issue, do you suppose Anonymouse, George Bush and the rest are a product of a dysfunctional education system?

Your arguments are so easy to dismantle, it's like playing a video game on "novice" mode. Can you somehow increase the level of difficulty to make this a bit interesting?

For example:

why in God's name are you people condoning the bombing of Israeli civilians?

This, my braindead friend, is called a "false choice." In your shallow little world, there exist only two options: commit genocide against the Palestinians, or cheer while bombs drop on Israeli civilians.

Unlike yourself, I actually have a great many Israeli friends, and none of them (okay, maybe one of them) wants to re-enact Masada with the Palestinians playing the part of the jews. They all want to survive, just like you and I do, but they realize that because Israel was granted to the jews at a great cost to the Palestinians, that means Israel has extra responsibility to make sacrifices to ensure the peace. That does not mean they can just hit "G26" on the Sears Robuck Instant Genocider and send all the Palestinians to Allah. If they want real peace (something the Likhud party clearly does not want any more than Hammas), there are no such simple choices.

Stick to Dick and Jane, Shooter. That story doesn't have nearly the complexities that real life does, and attempting to analyze it is not nearly so likely to portray you as a fool.