Israel & Palestine
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: Billy_Dean
I'd like to hear your opinions on the situation in Palestine \ Israel.
But I'd also ask you not to hold back what you really feel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see a resolution to the conflict in Palestine.
I hold Israel and the United States to be mostly at fault for the situation as it stands.
I want Israel to immediately cease their terror campaign against innocent civilians.
I want Israel to withdraw back to pre 1967 borders, and take the settlers with them.
I want Hamas, and whoever else is doing it, to cease the suicide bombings.
I want the United States to withhold all support for Israel if they refuse to act now.
That should be enough to start.
:ph34r:
Posted by: SlimShady
"Make love, not war"...
Posted by: chalice
Originally posted by SlimShady@11 September 2003 - 15:47
"Make love, not war"...
Its hard to get a good rhythm going when they're shooting at you.
Billy, I will respond to this thread in time.
I hope it doesn't get lost in the shrapnel.
Posted by: exeus
billy i agree with what u said i live in australia and over here the media is completely PRO Israel... we only ever see things like Palestine has killed inocent ppl once again, we dont get to see Palestine kids with rocks up against tanks and soldiers supported by america ........ we in the western world are led like sheep by those in power and the trub is most of us are unquestioning sheep which is sad
Posted by: ilw
The main problems i seewith the 1967 solution you suggest is that Israel won't accept losing all its settlements, also the fact that an independent palestinian state would have every right to arm itself and control its own airspace which would mean a permanent state of very high tension between the two countries. I think there are also water issues with the 1967 border, but i have to check that out. Add the fact that sites of major religious importance are in very close proximity or colocated and I reckon the tension would be intense. I think it may be trading in the current broken state of hostilities for all out war.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Since 1967, Israeli setllers have grabbed a further 46% (approx) of the occupied territories, against many UN resolutions, which, of course, they ignore. They are illegal under international law, they have to go.
The water issue I have heard about, I need to do some checking.
Exeus, one of the reasons the mainstream media in Australia is pro-Israeli is because it is largely jewish owned. Not the stations, the content, which, as you will know, is mostly fed to us from the States.
I'm also in Australia, it's almost 2am and I'm off to bed. I have a feeling this thread will be around for a while. I need to do some research on facts, figures and dates. I'll be back.
EDIT: As for the military issue, these things can be resolved, although Palestine may have the RIGHT to a large military force, this is not necessarily the way it need be. That, I think, would be one of the easier problems to resolve.
Posted by: james_bond_rulez
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@11 September 2003 - 15:44
I'd like to hear your opinions on the situation in Palestine \ Israel.
But I'd also ask you not to hold back what you really feel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see a resolution to the conflict in Palestine.
I hold Israel and the United States to be mostly at fault for the situation as it stands.
I want Israel to immediately cease their terror campaign against innocent civilians.
I want Israel to withdraw back to pre 1967 borders, and take the settlers with them.
I want Hamas, and whoever else is doing it, to cease the suicide bombings.
I want the United States to withhold all support for Israel if they refuse to act now.
That should be enough to start.
:ph34r:
just nuke both countries, their worries are over.
but then only the Americans would do something like that.
Posted by: The Knife Thrower
Why doesn't america bomb the israelis. They actually have weapons of mass destruction. :D
Seriously they should evict people from the illegal settlements and make some new houses on them for the palestinian refugees.
Posted by: internet.news
I am really sad and desperate when seeing nearly each day people killing themselves.
Although life contains also negativ parts (like unfortunately violence) - all the crimes are just being commited by humans aswell, criminals are just humans as well and will act like this, also if this is hard to understand: and it IS INDEED - it is sad to see people suffering the world.
Especially in Israel and Palestinia - ok, the conflict has historic roots and continues since 2000 years, but it is sad - where nearly every day and week some of these sad events happen.
I wish there would be solution. That is also why I think: We have to share our thoughts openly to understand each other better.
Probably if they would be more opened to each it could prevent some of this sad events.
thanks aynway, david.
Posted by: nikita69
The world talks about the "creation of an independent Palistanian State"!!! I'm curious to know, prior to the Balfour Declaration, a Legal independent country-part of the UN body called Palestine. Legally speaking, has that reconginition been desolved?? When? How? What?
Posted by: Billy_Dean
The Balfour Declaration
Arabs never tire of repeating, with some historical justification, that many of the ills of the modern Middle East can be laid at the door of the British and their imperialist double-dealing. The most criminal act, according to the Arabs, was the so-called Balfour Declaration.
The declaration that gave Britain's backing for the establishment of a national homeland in Palestine had a curious origin. A leading émigré Zionist who found himself teaching chemistry at Manchester University during the First World War was Chaim Weizmann. By 1916, Britain was running out of natural acetone needed to make ammunition for the Western Front.
Weizmann was put in touch with the British Prime Minister Lloyd George and was hired to find an artificial substitute, which he rapidly did, ending the nightmare prospect that Britain could lose the war for lack of bullets.
The declaration of the foreign secretary Lord Balfour that was to follow on November 2, 1917 was, at least in part, a reward for Weizmann's enterprise.
It also served to encourage Jewish American backing for the US entry into the war at a time when many in America were isolationist. It's worth quoting in full:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
All well and good. The trouble was, the British made overlapping commitments to the Arabs as a way of getting them to support the war against the Turks. When the Turks were defeated, Britain went back on its word to the Arabs and divided the region up between itself and France.
They finally pulled out in 1948, leaving the Arabs and the Jews to fight it out amongst themselves.
http://www.megastories.com/mideast/glossar...ary/balfour.htm (http://www.megastories.com/mideast/glossary/balfour.htm)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Lenni BRENNER
ZIONISM IN THE AGE OF DICTATORS
Chapter 26
THE STERN GANG
Until Begin's election victory in l977, most pro-Zionist historians dismissed Revisionism as the fanatic fringe of Zionism; certainly the more extreme 'Stern Gang', as their enemies called Avraham Stern's Fighters for the Freedom of Israel, were looked upon as of more interest to the psychiatrist than the political scientist. However, opinion toward Begin had to change when he came to power, and when he eventually appointed Yitzhak Shamir as his Foreign Minister it was quietly received, although Shamir had been operations commander of the Stern Gang.
The full text: http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zizad/zizad26.html
:ph34r:
Posted by: ilw
At the time of World War I the area was ruled by the Turkish Ottoman empire. Turkish control ended when Arab forces backed by Britain drove out the Ottomans.
Britain occupied the region at the end of the war in 1918 and was assigned as the mandatory power by the League of Nations on 25 April 1920.
During this period of change, three key pledges were made.
In 1916 the British Commissioner in Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon, had promised the Arab leadership post-war independence for former Ottoman Arab provinces.
However, at the same time, the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement between war victors, Britain and France, divided the region under their joint control.
Then in 1917, the British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour committed Britain to work towards “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, in a letter to leading Zionist Lord Rothschild. It became known as the Balfour Declaration.
Britain never really had any intention of handing over independance to the Arab leadership, but bear in mind that this was at a time when secret treaties and double dealing were dominant in European international politics and that France also pushed for their part of the region.
Britain, which had ruled Palestine since 1920, handed over responsibility for solving the Zionist-Arab problem to the UN in 1947.
The territory was plagued with chronic unrest pitting native Arabs against Jewish immigrants (who now made up about a third the population, owning about 6% of the land). The situation had become more critical with the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Jews fleeing the Nazi persecution in Europe. Some six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust during World War II.
The UN set up a special committee which recommended splitting the territory into separate Jewish and Palestinian states. Palestinian representatives, known as the Arab Higher Committee, rejected the proposal; their counterparts in the Jewish Agency accepted it.
The partition plan gave 56.47% of Palestine to the Jewish state and 43.53% to the Arab state, with an international enclave around Jerusalem. On 29 November 1947, 33 countries of the UN General Assembly voted for partition, 13 voted against and 10 abstained. The plan, which was rejected by the Palestinians, was never implemented.
Britain announced its intention to terminate its Palestine mandate on 15 May 1948 but hostilities broke out before the date arrived.
The death of British soldiers in the conflict made the continuing presence in Palestine deeply unpopular in Britain. In addition, the British resented American pressure to allow in more Jewish refugees - a sign of growing US suport for Zionism.
Both Arab and Jewish sides prepared for the coming confrontation by mobilising forces. The first "clearing" operations were conducted against Palestinian villages by Jewish forces in December.
Six-Day War: Before the war
From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was ruled by Jordan. During this period, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military administration. Israeli troops captured Egypt's Sinai peninsula during the 1956 British, French and Israeli military campaign in response to the nationalisation of the Suez Canal. The Israelis subsequently withdrew and were replaced with a UN force. In 1967, Egypt ordered the UN troops out and blocked Israeli shipping routes - adding to already high levels of tension between Israel and its neighbours.
Six-Day War: After the war
In a pre-emptive attack on Egypt that drew Syria and Jordan into a regional war in 1967, Israel made massive territorial gains capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Suez Canal. The principle of land-for-peace that has formed the basis of Arab-Israeli negotiations is based on Israel giving up land won in the 1967 war in return for peace deals recognising Israeli borders and its right to security. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace deal with Israel.
I think the Israeli's see the land they have gained in the 1967 war as being their best bargaining chip and rely on it in all negotiations, they are unlikely to give it away easily.
Another problem is that of East Jerusalem which has many of the holiest sites for both religions, under pre 1967 borders it would be part of Palestine and the Palestinians (like the Israelis) wish to make it part of their capital. I think it must remain an international city as the UN declared it to be, however, access to the religious sites it contains and the inevitable turmoil that will be present in the area make East Jerusalem one of the worst long term problems in the peace process (IMO).
Edit: Source for quotes BBC news website.
Posted by: bigboab
Anyone interested in the pre-second world war and the British betrayal of the arabs in this area should read 'The Seven Pillars of Wisdom' written by T E Lawrence(of Arabia).
Posted by: sabbath
I would like to see a resolution to the conflict in Palestine.
I want Israel to immediately cease their terror campaign against innocent civilians.
I want Israel to withdraw back to pre 1967 borders, and take the settlers with them.
I want Hamas, and whoever else is doing it, to cease the suicide bombings.
I'd say, if U.S. "departed" from the area, all these things would come naturally...
Posted by: ilw
How would these things come about naturally?
Posted by: Billy_Dean
I'd say, if U.S. "departed" from the area, all these things would come naturally...
How would these things come about naturally?
I don't believe it would come about naturally if the US left.
I don't believe it would lead to war either.
I still say the key to peace is Israel, they hold the cards, it's time to deal them out.
The question is, does the United States have the courage to tell Israel they will cut all financial ties if they don't comply with United Nation's resolutions.
:ph34r:
Posted by: sabbath
I don't believe that Israel would have continued that debate well over 50 years if it wasn't for the external support. I also believe that if Palestinians were given their soil back things would have calmed down, not peace, but calming down.
Posted by: ilw
So if america withdrew its financial support, Israel would dismantle all its settlements and remove thousands of its citizens from land they now claim as home? Would those citizens comply?
Posted by: sabbath
In time... (it's not that it's unjust or anything, is it?)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
They would have to. They won't want to, too bad, they knew they were stealing Palestinian land when they moved there. I'd like to see the houses left intact and used as a bargaining chip in negotiations over the refugees.
Maybe some of the settlements can stay, but as part of Palestine under Palestinian control, let the settlers who want to stay, pay their taxes to Palestine. Plenty of arabs live in Israel.
:ph34r:
Posted by: sabbath
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 16:02
They would have to. They won't want to, too bad, they knew they were stealing Palestinian land when they moved there. I'd like to see the houses left intact and used as a bargaining chip in negotiations over the refugees.
Maybe some of the settlements can stay, but as part of Palestine under Palestinian control, let the settlers who want to stay, pay their taxes to Palestine. Plenty of arabs live in Israel.
:ph34r:
My point exactly...
The only thing I believe that could solve this one is give the soil back to the Palestinians.
Posted by: ilw
Why would they have to give up the land? International pressure? IMO if they tone down their response to suicide bombings, froze settlement expansion and appeared to make steps towards liberalising access to Jerusalem then they would only have to deal with a small amount of international pressure.They could dither about making a Palestinian state for years and years. If your thinking they would ever be forced militarily then i just don't believe that.
Allowing the Israeli settlements to stay in Palestinian owned territory would throw up more problems, not only would the original inhabitants be claiming their land back (and any Palestinian government would be under considerable pressure from its people to listen to them), but also i see the settlements being isolated Israeli statelets, slightly removed from Palestinian control and undoubtedly focal points for the tensions.
Perhaps i'm being overly pessimistic and these matters are only minor hiccoughs on the road to peace, but at the moment with the suggestions so far all i see in the creation of a Palestinian state is a temporary lull followed by a rapid escalation in the conflict.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
I don't know if you are being OVERLY pessimistic, but you are looking on the dark side. As I've said before, whatever the solution, it's gonna take a lot of courage, and, unfortunately, I don't see much of that.
The Israeli army have already knocked some settlements down, they CAN do it. If the government were really serious, they could get them out. One of the reasons they are still there, is as a bargaining chip. They would be sacrificed if that was what were needed.
When I said maybe some could stay, i didn't mean as isolated jewish settlements, I meant as part of Palestine. They would have to be open to all, including the sale of houses to palestinians. The people would be able to replant their olive groves, and build onto these settlements.
BTW> I have never claimed it would be easy.
:ph34r:
Posted by: lynx
I could see the removal of Israeli settlements from Palestinian land as a distinct possibility if there was the political will. It is not as if this sort of situation is original. If you compare the whole area with South Africa during apartheit, you can see some very similar traits.
South Africa was forced to change due to international pressure, I see no reason why the same thing could not take place over Israel/Palestine. But it needs the people to stand up and tell their governments (and I don't just mean the US) to stop backing the violence - on both sides.
Posted by: tralalala
The main problem is: Yasser Arafat.
why?: in 1999 (if i remember correctly), Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak (Israeli PM at the time) went to Camp David to try sign a treaty.
Barak offered 97% (!!!!!!!!) of the west bank. the remaining 3% were big cites that are on the outskirtes of the west bank such as Ariel (some 30,000 people).
This seems to be very fair. but arafat said no, we want it all, no compromisation. all or nothing.
and thats where it blew up and the current intifada (holy war in arabic) started.
me, as an israeli, knows how it feels when a suicider comes and kills 15-25 people on a bus on their way home or to work. or last week even, in a hitchhiking area, a suicider blew himself up in a soldier hitchhiking area.
tralalala
Posted by: lynx
You can have 97% of the land, most of which is useless, we'll keep the other 3% which represents 60% of the value of the land.
How very generous.
Posted by: Snee
I don't want to aggravate anything, but I believe that some of the land the Palestinians now want back was nothing before the Israeli started cultivating it, it seems unfair that they should give back ground that was only really nothing more than desert of no interest to anyone when they got there, having said that, I'm sure this is hardly the case with more than a few places, as far as I know.
It's possible that the Israeli ought to do more on their part to ensure peace, I'm not the right person to say, I've known people from both nations and I have to say that they all seemed pretty sane and normal and I feel for them all, so it's sad that this has to continue.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
97% is 97%. The 100% in this instance is 100% of around 30%, of the original Palestine, pre 1948-9. (guess, sorry, can't find accurate figures, can you?) 3% is hugely symbolic, especially when the UN resolutions say they should withdraw to 1967 borders. How many wars have been fought by the west on the pretext of non compliance of UN resolutions? How fair do you think this looks to them? Can you see where they get their feeling of bias against them?
Posted by: sabbath
Tralala wrote:
me, as an israeli, knows how it feels when a suicider comes and kills 15-25 people on a bus on their way home or to work. or last week even, in a hitchhiking area, a suicider blew himself up in a soldier hitchhiking area.
And I sympathize with you also in that matter but I don't fail to sympathize with the Palestinians also who are fighting for their land. THEIR land.
Posted by: lynx
I understand what you are saying SnnY, but you have to remember that a lot of the land on the West Bank is not capable of sustaining high levels of cultivation, and the areas which were not being offered back (remember it is Palestinian land in the first place) were the prime sites before occupation.
It is also unfair to say that the Israeli's made the desert bloom while the Arabs had failed to do the same despite centuries in the area. It is only with modern technology funded by massive investment from abroad which has made this possible, the technology was not available when occupied by the Arabs, and where the Arabs still reside there is no massive inward investment.
If you lease a piece of land, any improvements you make belong to the <s>leaseholder</s> freeholder when the lease expires, any detrimental effects have to be made good. Surely the same applies to the return of occupied land, no-one was forced to improve the land.
Edit: correction as RF's post below, I meant you are no longer the leaseholder so improvements don't belong to you.
Posted by: Rat Faced
If you lease a piece of land, any improvements you make belong to the leaseholder when the lease expires, any detrimental effects have to be made good. Surely the same applies to the return of occupied land, no-one was forced to improve the land.
Depends on the countries Law...however generally.
Improvements belong to the Freeholder, when the lease expires....as the Leaseholder has no further interest in the land.
Land is generally defined as everything above and below the land, including mineral rights and buildings, unless specifically excuded by national law.
Posted by: lynx
Sorry, I meant the freeholder, wrong terminology.
Posted by: SlimShady
I'm sorry I'm not discussing the same topic in the topic, but I wanted to comment on the first post.
American authorities are selfish and greedy. Bush just found the reason to attack Iraq on his desk. Because he did it for the oil, everyone knows that. That Saddam Hussein was ruling there was just a good thing to him.
People in general are greedy (not all of us, ofcourse) look what happened in Israël.
Abbas was really doing his best to make it work between his people, the US and Israël.
Hamas and the Israelian authorities didn't make the right choice.
Instead of giving the good example they kill each other! What's so good about that?
If Bush really wants to make a good impression in the Arabian world he has to convince them that he isn't taking control of the oil.
And he has to stand between the Israelian authorities and the Palestinian people to tell them to stop and to work it out.
I just hope that one day there will be worldwide peace.
(My opinion)
Posted by: sabbath
If Bush really wants to make a good impression in the Arabian world he has to convince them that he isn't taking control of the oil.
Now, that could be a little tricky to accomplish
Posted by: nikita69
Originally posted by nikita69@12 September 2003 - 06:37
The world talks about the "creation of an independent Palistanian State"!!! I'm curious to know, prior to the Balfour Declaration, a Legal independent country-part of the UN body called Palestine. Legally speaking, has that reconginition been desolved?? When? How? What?
I've read several of the responses, yet not sure if anyone attempted to answer my question. All I'm saying that if the legal indepence of Palestine was never desovled (legally) then every member of the UN is responsible for the lives of the Palestinians and Jews in that land. Starting with the UK. I just don't believe any human has the the right to decide the fait (spelling!!) of anyone else.
Posted by: Snee
Originally posted by SlimShady@12 September 2003 - 18:02
I'm sorry I'm not discussing the same topic in the topic, but I wanted to comment on the first post.
American authorities are selfish and greedy. Bush just found the reason to attack Iraq on his desk. Because he did it for the oil, everyone knows that. That Saddam Hussein was ruling there was just a good thing to him.
People in general are greedy (not all of us, ofcourse) look what happened in Israël.
Abbas was really doing his best to make it work between his people, the US and Israël.
Hamas and the Israelian authorities didn't make the right choice.
Instead of giving the good example they kill each other! What's so good about that?
If Bush really wants to make a good impression in the Arabian world he has to convince them that he isn't taking control of the oil.
And he has to stand between the Israelian authorities and the Palestinian people to tell them to stop and to work it out.
I just hope that one day there will be worldwide peace.
(My opinion)
It warn't the Oil methinks, 'twas the fact that his popularity isn't exactly soaring if he isn't doing something radical pretty much all the time.
I don't have the numbers now but I know for a fact that whenever Bush were running things without an ongoing crisis his popularity ratings have been dropping.
*removed for Billy_Dean*
And about the Israeli issue getting no clear answers, well there are no answers, otherwise it would have been fixed already.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
I think you'll find that, prior to the Balfour Declaration, which was never enacted, Palestine was under British control and a Palestine as a seperate state was never declared.
I need to read more on this, a bit uninformed.
B)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
I think you'll find that Iraq has the second or third largest oil reserves in the world.
I believe, (my opinion) that the US intends to stay in Iraq because they want to pull out of Saudi Arabia.
:ph34r:
Posted by: Snee
Billy_Dean,12 September 2003 - 18:47] I think you'll find that Iraq has the second or third largest oil reserves in the world.
http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album/misc/fotw246.gif
^Here's how much oil is imported to the U.S. from abroad, not counting the domestic oil production, I was thinking about this, sorry.
U.S. production/import ratio:
http://www.chinkii.com/uploads/album/misc/usoil.gif
Posted by: clocker
Snny,
Your first graph is somewhat misleading as it shows Production not reserves.
Posted by: Snee
Clocker: I tried to show how much oil the US imports, It's actually oil import per day, Iraq's reserves on the other hand are supposed to be on par with those of Saudi-Arabia, I mixed up my numbers earlier so I was trying to show what I was thinking about.
Posted by: ilw
I don't think they went into Iraq for oil per se, though close links with whatever government comes to power is undoubtedly a benefit they considered. I think that quite a lot of people in power have wanted to get rid of Saddam for a long time. It was only after 9/11 that they finally managed to get the public support necessary to do it.
Posted by: billyfridge
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@11 September 2003 - 15:44
I'd like to hear your opinions on the situation in Palestine \ Israel.
But I'd also ask you not to hold back what you really feel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see a resolution to the conflict in Palestine.
I hold Israel and the United States to be mostly at fault for the situation as it stands.
I want Israel to immediately cease their terror campaign against innocent civilians.
I want Israel to withdraw back to pre 1967 borders, and take the settlers with them.
I want Hamas, and whoever else is doing it, to cease the suicide bombings.
I want the United States to withhold all support for Israel if they refuse to act now.
That should be enough to start.
:ph34r:
Only the religeous fanatics can stop this conflict, they started it 'only they can stop it. When they learn, like the civilised world, to put religeon in its proper place way down on the important things to do list, they might, only might, get on with the job of living, but i'm not holding my breath. the world has been blighted for hundreds, no, thousands of years, with this religeon crap, will we never learn? :angry:
Posted by: billyfridge
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@12 September 2003 - 13:26
I'd say, if U.S. "departed" from the area, all these things would come naturally...
How would these things come about naturally?
I don't believe it would come about naturally if the US left.
I don't believe it would lead to war either.
I still say the key to peace is Israel, they hold the cards, it's time to deal them out.
The question is, does the United States have the courage to tell Israel they will cut all financial ties if they don't comply with United Nation's resolutions.
:ph34r:
Dream on|||
Posted by: Rat Faced
Originally posted by ilw@12 September 2003 - 19:06
I don't think they went into Iraq for oil per se, though close links with whatever government comes to power is undoubtedly a benefit they considered. I think that quite a lot of people in power have wanted to get rid of Saddam for a long time. It was only after 9/11 that they finally managed to get the public support necessary to do it.
This would be much easier to believe, if Rumsfeld hadnt been pushing to invade Iraq for the Oil Reserves since the mid '90s.....openly
In fact he only stopped AFTER 9/11, when they decided there was a spin they could use to get public support.... ie Take advantage of the situation created.
Posted by: ilw
I don't really see why oil is an urgent thing at the moment though, Saudi Arabias's reserves are pretty substantial. I'm sure another country producing large amounts would lower the price but OPEC would surely try and minimise the effect of this.
Btw Donald Rumsfeld is IMO much more of an arse even than Bush.
Posted by: Rat Faced
The strikes in Venezuela didnt help.
And its the Reserves that are important......those nodding donkey pumps all over the USA are not a good sign, these appear only when you have to force the oil out of the ground, as most has been removed already.
To put into context:
Iraq has the 2nd largest reserves...ie actual oil in the ground,,,in the world.
Thats only enough oil...if these were the only fields, to last the world 4 years.
New Oil fields are found every year, however at only 10% of what is needed to replace spent fields.
A Documentary recently shown on UK TV had various "experts" from Government and various Oil Companies.....
They varied in their opinion of how much oil is left, obviously...however the most optimistic opinion given (Shell oil Company) was 15 years.
Add into all this, that North America uses 50% of all Oil produced (mostly USA)......and that is scary shit for any Government.
The analysts are already calling Iraq the "1st of the Oil Wars".....
The bottom line is that the Oil Companies have, for years, been buying the patents of inventions that would damage their industry....not so much more economical engines (although this did happen in the past....engines that could run 80mpg were developed in the 50's/60's), but engines that dont use Petrol/Gasoline.
They cant fight the Power Industry (same side?) so Electric/Hybrid cars get developed. Gas is also related, so they play with Hydrogen etc....
.....but what happened to the family saloon that ran 10,000 miles a year on the equivalent of a Soccer Field of Rape Seed, which i saw on display about 10 years ago?
The technical specifications showed less wear on the engine, hense less maintainance..OK, the Top speed was reduced by 20pmh or so....but it could still hit 100mph (30mph more than the legal limit in UK, and more than some smaller cars on sale)
I heard some people in Wales are running their cars on some sort of Spirit, and are getting arrested for avoiding Taxes...what kind of craziness is that? They pay a lot of tax on spirits.....just not as much as they would for petrol.
EDIT:
Appologise for being off-topic... :unsure: :'( :wacko:
Posted by: ilw
http://jrobb.mindplex.org/stories/2002/12/...3OilAndWar.html (http://jrobb.mindplex.org/stories/2002/12/16/2003OilAndWar.html)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/677610.stm
http://www.opec.org/
I disagree with your figures RF according to OPEC we have 80 years of oil left (though that figure is a few years old and is almost sure to be optimistic) and other estimates I've seen seem to be in the 40 - 80 range. Iraq's proven oil (NB likely reserves are considerably larger) could only provide oil for 4 years as you say however, saudi arabia has 2x as much and the next 4 countries after Iraq are not so far behind in terms of reserves :
Saudi Arabia: 261,750
Iraq: 112,500
United Arab Emirates: 97,800
Kuwait: 96,500
Iran: 89,700
Venezuela: 77,685
America is estimated to use about 25 - 30% of World oil. The interesting thing that the first link pointed out is that American reserves are running out rapidly and America will be more dependent than ever on the Middle East. (Though America has massive stores of barrels of crude).
I saw that thing in wales as well that was people mixing cooking oil and i think methane. Supermarkets for miles around were sold out of oil for weeks until they realised what was going on. Apparently you still have to pay duty on fuel (though its still cheaper than petrol/diesel)
Posted by: Rat Faced
As i said, I havent researched....just watched that Documentary.
However Shell Oil was the most Optimistic @ 15 years....of course that doesnt mean the program didnt pick and choose what was included ;)
I also said North America used 50%.........this includes Canada and Mexico...just that USA used most of this %....your figures may well be the USA's (America's) percentage. I think that, in part, North Americans are unfairly critised....they are large countries, and people NEED cars in the towns, country...
The critisism of the "Gas Guzzlers" i feel is justified, but smaller cars are becoming more common, even in USA. I have as much Criticism of some ponce in a Porche/Jaguar/Land Rover in Europe as i do for someone in a Chevy/Cadalac/un needed Pickup Truck in USA (as examples)
I think that 40-80 years is way over the top.......if it was this much, i doubt that there would be a lot of pressure to secure what there is....and there is a LOT of pressure.
What you wrote about Wales rang a bell, I couldnt remember the details....thanks :)
Dont suppose you could come back with the mixture they used for me? ;)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
A few maps I found ...
The first one is the UN proposal for two states, from 1947
http://www.piczonline.com/client/bowrabob/map1947.jpg
This one, from 1949, was the land the Israelis took after the Arabs rejected the UN proposal.
http://www.piczonline.com/client/bowrabob/map1949.jpg
This last one shows the present occupation of Palestinian land.
http://www.piczonline.com/client/bowrabob/mapnow.jpg
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Here is the full text of the "Roadmap to Peace."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2989783.stm
B)
Posted by: nikita69
Currently around 160 Palestinian children are being held as political prisoners by the Israeli government. Almost without exception, these children face torture while under interrogation, are denied family visits and are incarcerated in circumstances deleterious to their health and well being.
??????????????????????
http://www.dci-pal.org/prisonweb/childprisoners.html
Posted by: cpt_azad
unfuc*ingbelievable (spelling!!! <_< ). after reading all 4 pages, hasn't it struck anyone that america in cooperation with israel is targeting the muslims? doesn't it strike u a tee bit that many muslim countries are filled with oil, like: saudi arabia, iraq, iran, nigeria, chechnya, algeria, afghanistan. this is the biggest bunch of bullshit that israel has come up with. I think, imho, that israel should just fu*k off, and no, i'm not a zionist. i have nothing against the jews or judaism, and i'm not muslim if that's what ur probably thinking. it was britian and america that established israel (i think, kinda forgot) and why did they? simple, the jews were a smart ppl and they still are. now, that the israeli government has literraly taken over the western world, (coca cola, cnn, u name it), it's puppeteering america to do whatever it wants. all the while, israeli's don't know what's going on. someone should seriously try and assissnate rumsfeld, cheyne, bush, and sharon. bush attacks iraq, why? weapons of mass destruction? oil? saddam hussein? jesus christ, whatever happened to finding osama bin laden? wtf is going on? i honestly don't know, only bush and sharon know that. i can see this conflict going for years, if the israelis give back the land, ppl in israel will revolt, and if things keep going the way they are going, well, we all know what that would means. and the thing that really gets to me is how kids today are growing up with this pro-israeli influence. i'm only 15, and i know the truth, my friends actually think it's the right thing that america attacked iraq. one thing i also don't get is, 9/11. why did they attack afghanistan? i supported it, until i found out about the oil pipelines that run through afghanistan. this just tears me up inside, ppl killing, sorry, ethnically cleansing others for what? land? oil? if america attacked iraq in 1991 because it invaded kuwait, why didn't they respond and do the same (immediately) to the bosnia-serbia conflict? all this kinda leads us back to: ISRAEL. so, now that the government of israel controls the western world, what's next? weapons of mass destruction found in iran? how about algeria? or nigeria? ohh, here's a catchy one:
Bush: "I'm one hundred percent positive that, infact, Saudi Arabia has or is building weapons of mass destruction". 1.3 billion muslims, that's a lot, that' s how many there are around the world. imagine if you will, if america attacked saudi arabia. would the muslims just sit there, and let there holiest place be conquered? oh that's right, it already has and no one knows about it, hush now. the saudi monarchy (i'm pretty sure it's not democratic) is just another puppet government of america which in turn is a puppet government of israel. why else would saudi arabia allow america to let troops, of another religion, set foot there during the gulf war? why, is saudi arabia in debt to U.A.E. for 1 trillion USD? i'll tell u why, the saudi's payed for every single bullet used in the gulf war.
the thing that makes me mad is, why, after all these years, hasn't israel given back any land, instead they just take up more. the day i die, will be the day i truly am happy. it sickens me everytime that i turn on the tv, in this subliminally contolled continent called north america, and hear something about the middle east, and how the "terrorists" killed another bunch of "innocent ppl". fuc*ing pls. for every israeli dead, there's about 20 arabs dead. why, i ask u, would anyone suicide themselves? just because someone told them to? no. because they grew up in a world of hell, where everything, down to water, was controlled by someone else, a world where u saw ur own house tumbled to the ground, a world where u saw ur parents killed by soldiers as an act of "compensation" or "justice", in a world where u have nothing to live for anymore. i definately would suicide myself, but hell, while i'm at it, why not take out a bunch of "infidels" with me. that is very wrong, but it gives u some insight as to why there are suicide bombers, ooops! i mean terrorists!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
i'll be back tomorrow with a bunch of other stuff. :angry:
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Good on you Azad. Are you really 15?
unfuc*ingbelievable (spelling!!! ). after reading all 4 pages, hasn't it struck anyone that america in cooperation with israel is targeting the muslims?
I think if you read back to the very beginning you'll see that view expressed.
Come back soon.
:)
Posted by: ilw
Originally posted by cpt_azad@21 September 2003 - 09:19
why didn't they respond and do the same (immediately) to the bosnia-serbia conflict?
America pushed for NATO to step in when the UN failed miserably in protecting the Muslim community. (see Srebrenica massacre & opening of Srebrenica memorial)
hasn't it struck anyone that america in cooperation with israel is targeting the muslims?
Do you mean targeting muslims worldwide and have you got a good reason why they would want to do this?
Posted by: cpt_azad
Do you mean targeting muslims worldwide and have you got a good reason why they would want to do this? okay ilw, the thing is, stated above in my last post that americans in general are the best kinda ppl i know. it's just the government. israel, last time i checked, has had a pretty rough time with the arabs, and muslims in general. since the american economy is controlled by israel, israel can pretty much make them (america) do what they want. so, in a nutshell now: israels :angry: at muslims, israel tells america to attack iraq or else <_<. i thought, at first, that america attacked iraq because israel was scared that saddam was going to launch an attack on them. but then i realized that it was half true, oil really being the motivation and all. maybe i'm wrong, maybe i'm right, it doesn't matter, the truth is, yes, ISRAEL MUST COOPERATE with the UN. oh, and sorry about my earlier post about bosnia, didn't read up on it till this morning, my bad :( , but hey, atleast i admitided (spelling!!!), something that the israeli government can never do (neither george w "COUGH*bastard*COUGH*, i mean bush). oh, ya, i'm 15 :D .
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by cpt_azad@21 September 2003 - 15:54
israel, last time i checked, has had a pretty rough time with the arabs, and muslims in general. since the american economy is controlled by israel, israel can pretty much make them (america) do what they want.
Interesting stuff here.
The understatement of the century followed by a completely unsupportable assumption.
Bravo.
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by clocker+22 September 2003 - 00:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 22 September 2003 - 00:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-cpt_azad@21 September 2003 - 15:54
israel, last time i checked, has had a pretty rough time with the arabs, and muslims in general.* since the american economy is controlled by israel, israel can pretty much make them (america) do what they want.
Interesting stuff here.
The understatement of the century followed by a completely unsupportable assumption.
Bravo. [/b][/quote]
Clocker,
Don't you understand America is completely reliant on Israel for comedians. If we do not toe the line, no more Seinfelds, Jonathon Stewarts, or Jackie Masons.
Did he say 15 or 1.5 years of age.
I don't know whether to burp him or spank him. Anyway, he would be more comfortable in the lounge.
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by hobbes@21 September 2003 - 16:15
Don't you understand America is completely reliant on Israel for comedians. If we do not toe the line, no more Seinfelds, Jonathon Stewarts, or Jackie Masons.
Did he say 15 or 1.5 years of age.
Hobbes, have you not been following the news?
We invaded Iraq so we could plunder the country of it's comediens.
We haven't been dependent on Israel for quite a while.
Maybe the cpt is using metric years.
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by clocker+22 September 2003 - 00:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 22 September 2003 - 00:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@21 September 2003 - 16:15
Don't you understand America is completely reliant on Israel for comedians.* If we do not toe the line, no more Seinfelds, Jonathon Stewarts, or Jackie Masons.
Did he say 15 or 1.5 years of age.
Hobbes, have you not been following the news?
We invaded Iraq so we could plunder the country of it's comediens.
We haven't been dependent on Israel for quite a while.
Maybe the cpt is using metric years. [/b][/quote]
I was actually expecting a comment on my tits. Maybe you have found a better pair? Anyway, this is apparently a mature area, sometimes it is hard to tell.
The Iraqi information minister is filming a pilot comedy as we speak!
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by hobbes@21 September 2003 - 16:22
I was actually expecting a comment on my tits. Maybe you have found a better pair? Anyway, this is apparently a mature area, sometimes it is hard to tell.
Oh please.
I respect you for your mind, not your bountiful bosom.
Posted by: Rat Faced
Children, children............papa spank.
Go and spam the lounge if you feel the need.
Posted by: cpt_azad
okay there.... understatment of the century? unsupportable? please, do u watch the news? oh that's right, u probably watch cnn (i know that sounds like a flame, but it isn't, i'm assuming u do, no hard feelings or anything. last thing i want is a flame war ;) ). i live in canada, and cbc is good enough, atleast it isn't biased. i get my "REAL" news on a topic from both perspectives. so, who can try and flame me next <_<? btw, this is a really good thread :D .
Posted by: clocker
Tsk, tsk, tsk, cpt.
Questioning my television viewing habits is not support of your statement.
Please provide a few concrete examples of why you think that Israel controls the American economy.
Posted by: bigboab
Hey! Rat Face You leave the lounge alone! :P
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by clocker@22 September 2003 - 02:03
Tsk, tsk, tsk, cpt.
Questioning my television viewing habits is not support of your statement.
Please provide a few concrete examples of why you think that Israel controls the American economy.
Clocker,
He watches the REAL news, not your biased American drivel. Oh wait, you can watch the same thing he does.
Anyway, how do you decide that the news you watch is unbiased unless you want to believe that.
If it supports my ideal, it is unbiased.
Posted by: bigboab
My personal opinion is that there is no real answer to this situation and that the parties concerned should go back to the original 1948 boundaries and let the UN control it from there. Taking into consideration that it was not their(UN) problem to begin with.
Posted by: noname12
Must we go to petty insults?
Israel controling America? not really believable, Israel has nothing on america, not military superiority, not economic (i think) not even population, Israel doesnt have the ability to have control but what i believe to be going on is a I scratch your back you scratch mine system going on, Israel shares a common goal with America and Europe, for all three the threat is Muslims, and whats the best means of control? Distraction, providing an optical illusion, while other things are done, the entire Muslim world is split on Israel and what to do about it, and while they argue among them selves and get slaughtered by the Isralites, the americans can pretty much do what they want. As for bias in the media, every form of media is biased, as hobbes said "If it supports my ideal, it is unbiased." and reporters and news stations seem to follow the same route.
as for Israel & Palestine, give the land back to the Arabs and seeing how America loves Israel so much give up one of its states... i suggest alaska :lol: :P.
Any way, ask Illuminati, I am sure he knows about this whole Distraction method, and conspiracy theories.
Posted by: bigboab
Come on Noname! It has nothing to do with Muslims. It is a Jewish problem. 'not in my back door' so put them in your back door. And please! Do not come back with the promised land rubbish. Most of the books on this were written after the dark ages when anyone who wrote anything unpopular to the religion of the day was burnt at the stake or something worse, if that is possible.
Posted by: noname12
What promised land? well Israel is a promised land... its been promised to the palestinians for years... but they aint got it yet :P, as for the rest.... I didnt really understand :unsure: :huh: :lol:
Posted by: bigboab
Or you did not want to understand. That was the whole point.
Posted by: noname12
I do want to understand... but i dont see what that has to do with my original post? I didnt really call into question the beliefs of any one... or did I? (cheesy soap music)
Like I said move them off to Alaska, problem solved.
Posted by: bigboab
Move who off to Alaska?
Posted by: noname12
Move Israel to Alaska
Posted by: bigboab
Then you will have an Enuit Jewish problem.
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by noname12@21 September 2003 - 18:36
Distraction, providing an optical illusion, while other things are done, the entire Muslim world is split on Israel and what to do about it, and while they argue among them selves and get slaughtered by the Isralites, the americans can pretty much do what they want. Any way, ask Illuminati, I am sure he knows about this whole Distraction method, and conspiracy theories.
Interesting theory.
Too bad that the Israelis are NOT slaughtering the "entire Muslim world" and the Americans are hardly doing "what they want".
Don't you think that if our main goal in Iraq was to steal the oil and pillage the country, as has been suggested several times, that we could have seized the oil fields and had oil on tankers within a couple of days? We could have removed anything we considered to be of value and been gone long before now.
Sorry, but the "distraction theory" doesn't hold up in my opinion.
Posted by: noname12
Actually I am one of the very few people who think America have no interest in the oil fields in Iraq, America has enough oil to go around... theres more to this thing then meets the eye... well thats what I think any way... and clocker, it wouldnt be a good distraction plot if we where able to openly see what was going on, now would it :P, that would kinda defeat the purpose of a conspiracy :)
Posted by: noname12
bigboab, its either that or move them to Texas.
Posted by: bigboab
Now that is a thought! :P
Posted by: bigboab
Things like 'Burning Bush' spring to mind. :D
Posted by: noname12
So it is agreed... Texas is now known as Israel.
on other business.... I dont get the "'burning bush'" thing? :unsure:
Posted by: bigboab
Like Bush from Texas, angry maybe?
Posted by: noname12
Once every one settles down, and Sharon stops killing his neighbours for terrorist acts, such as having a BBQ while he's in his garden or something, everything will be peaceful.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
[cpt_azad posts]
[Clockos first reply]
Interesting stuff here.
The understatement of the century followed by a completely unsupportable assumption.
Bravo.
[Hobbes joins in]
Did he say 15 or 1.5 years of age.
I don't know whether to burp him or spank him. Anyway, he would be more comfortable in the lounge.
[cpt_azad posts]
[Hobbes replies]
I think his 15 is how many inches his head is up his ass.
[noname posts]
Must we go to petty insults?
[Rikk comments]
Well done lads, keep it up, you'll have an opinion of your own one day, just keep taking the tablets.
:)
Posted by: Sparkle1984
More about the suffering of innocent families caused by the occupation of their land:
From: "International Solidarity Movement" <ism-alerts@palsolidarity.org>
Subject: Press Release: "How Much Harassment Can One Family Face?"
For Immediate Release
Sun. 21/09/03 0800 (+2 GMT)
Jenin District, Palestine
How Much Harassment Can One Family Face?
Outside of Jenin in an area called Kharba Ghanib, on Monday two houses were demolished by the Israeli military, leaving 35 people homeless. Now, the families of this community have been barred from farming their land.
Over the last two years, over 100 dunams (25 acres) of family farmland has been taken by military force, annexed to the nearby Kadim settlement. What remains is unusable, due to harassment by Israeli soldiers and settlers, who claim the families' land is "too close to the settlement", situated nearly half a kilometer away.
Throughout the week, activists from the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) have visited the families, on several occasions accompanying the families to their farmland, near the settlement. Gunfire and arson by settlers and indiscriminate machine-gun fire by Israeli soldiers make even plowing or watering crops a life-
threatening activity. Again today, ISM and other human rights activists from the Jenin district will accompany the farmers, in hopes that the presence of outside observers will prevent violence.
Despite everything, even in the face of threats of further demolitions and seizures, the families of this community are determined to stay. Said Hassan Khalif, a farmer and father of five: "Our families' land in Haifa was taken in 1948, in 1968 we built these homes; (later) they took some of our land, then in 1980 they took a hundred dunams to build a settlement. Then they tell us we cannot farm on our land, which we have the (legal right) to. Then they killed 3 of our daughters. Then they take our houses. What else is there? Our homes, our children, and our land... what else is there to take?"
For more information contact:
International Solidarity Movement Jenin
(Arabic:) Youseff + 972-(0)59-358-055
(English:) Mostafa + 972-(0)54-627-026
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@22 September 2003 - 06:46
[cpt_azad posts]
[Hobbes joins in]
Did he say 15 or 1.5 years of age.
I don't know whether to burp him or spank him. Anyway, he would be more comfortable in the lounge.
[Hobbes replies]
I think his 15 is how many inches his head is up his ass.
:)
That was a bit harsh! I will edit that line. Shame on me. Petty personal insults are not my style, usually <_<
Anyway, I just wanted to redirect him away from the deep end and back to the kiddie pool.
Posted by: the_painter
Everyone is fighting with everyone else.
neibours,football supporters,spouces.
so why not these two, people talk of peace, it has never existed and never will.
humans fight and hunt thats how the race has survived so long, the problems came when people tryed to make peace this was the start of over population,starvation and destroying the environment.
LET THEM GET ON WITH IT AND SORT OUT YOUR OWN LIVES ! :angry:
Posted by: cpt_azad
way, I just wanted to redirect him away from the deep end and back to the kiddie pool.
okay, if i'm really kid, why do i know so much about this conflict? WAIT! ur gonna probably reply saying that all my "facts" are unsupported and biased, well, isn't everyone's opinion biased in some way (and no, i'm not saying mine is)? but one thing it isn't, is unsupported. just go to google and type in this subject matter, u'll find hundreds of millions of ppl who support my opinion on this matter(well, not my opinion really, but u know what i mean). oh, btw, thanks for withdrawing ur earlier reply, u almost made me cry :'( , :lol: . okay, i think it's time to close this thread. :o
:ph34r:
Posted by: mogadishu
just wanna say nice title and avatar noname12.
Posted by: Sparkle1984
Everyone is fighting with everyone else.
neibours,football supporters,spouces.
so why not these two, people talk of peace, it has never existed and never will.
humans fight and hunt thats how the race has survived so long, the problems came when people tryed to make peace this was the start of over population,starvation and destroying the environment.
LET THEM GET ON WITH IT AND SORT OUT YOUR OWN LIVES !
I find your opinion rather strange. Innocent people are dying, not just the people who actually take part in the fighting. So of course the world should help find peace.
Posted by: noname12
Thanks mogadishu :)
the_painter say that when your people get murdered without mercy :P
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Israeli pilots refuse to fly assassination missions
Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Thursday September 25, 2003
The Guardian
A group of Israeli airforce pilots declared yesterday that they would refuse to fly missions which could endanger civilians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The declaration was aimed at Israel's policy of assassinating activists of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade.
The 27 pilots sent a letter to the commander of Israel's airforce refusing to carry out duties, which include track and kill operations, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. One of the pilots told Israeli television that the letter said: "We, veteran pilots and active pilots alike...are opposed to carrying out illegal and immoral attacks, of the type carried out by Israel in the territories.
"We, who have been educated to love the state of Israel refuse to take part in airforce attacks in civilian population centres. We refuse to continue harming innocent civilians."
It was unclear how many of the pilots were still active in the airforce, but reserve pilots are regularly called upon for missions.
A spokesman for the Israeli army said they never discussed the numbers of military personnel in any sector but said that the 27 pilots were "a drop in the ocean".
Brigadier General Ido Nehushtn of the Israeli airforce said the pilots were a "marginal, small group" of retired and reserve pilots. Israel's chief of army staff, Moshe Ya'alon, said the pilots could be punished for their "illegitimate" and "forbidden" statement.
Since August 19, Israel's airforce has killed 12 Hamas members and four bystanders. Over the past two years Israel's "targeted assassinations" have killed dozens of bystanders by using bombs wieghing up to one tonne in densely populated areas of the Gaza Strip.
Last month an attempt to kill Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of Hamas, failed because the Israelis used a 113kg (250Ib) bomb rather than a one-tonne bomb on the building where he was expected to attend a meeting.
Israeli intelligence believed that Sheikh Yassin was meeting associates on the third floor of the building, which the bomb destroyed, but as the meeting took place on the first floor he was uninjured.
The week before an attempt on Mahmoud Zahar, another Hamas leader, failed because he was sitting in his garden when a bomb hit his house in Gaza City.
His son and a bodyguard were killed in the attack and his wife was injured.
The Article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1049271,00.html)
:)
Posted by: evilbagpuss
Originally posted by Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A group of Israeli airforce pilots declared yesterday that they would refuse to fly missions which could endanger civilians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [/b]
Good on them, that must have taken some real balls to stand up to their superiors on this issue. It will be interesting to see what punishment they receive.
<!--QuoteBegin-Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Since August 19, Israel's airforce has killed 12 Hamas members and four bystanders. Over the past two years Israel's "targeted assassinations" have killed dozens of bystanders by using bombs wieghing up to one tonne in densely populated areas of the Gaza Strip[/quote]
Could someone explain, in really simple terms, why this is morally acceptable and why UK/US taxpayers money should go towards supporting it?
Apparently it is 'contrarian' not to support this indiscriminate slaughter. If someone could also explain why this is so, I'd really appreciate it.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Bagpuss, haven't seen you around for a while, how are you?
Did you catch this post mate?
Billy Dean=evilbagpuss, one and the same (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=67443)
:)
Posted by: evilbagpuss
LMAO!!! Thanks for bringing it to my attention mate! I always seem to miss the good stuff!
Originally posted by j2k4
Two Brits living in Aussieland, with the same political M.O., the same propensity for superficial "philosophy", the same thought patterns, the same writing style, and neither of them (!) knows how to properly use the "quote" function on this board?
I was going to say that a moderator should check our IP addresses / locations but it seems that it has already been done. Thanks Bender :)
This is actually a good thing. I find it very encouraging to see j2k4 stoop to this level. Next time he tries on his "Im Mr Reasonable and Respectable, a fair player in all debates" act. We can just point him back to this. Lets focus on the worst aspect of this sad story...
I have never said I'm from Australia, in fact on multiple occassions I've stated that I'm from the UK. Every time this has been in a thread on the "world events" board where j2k4 and I regularly lock horns. So we must come to the conclusion that
J2k4 knows I do not live in Australia and has never seen a post from me claiming that I do. He has, however, seen me state, on more than one occasion, that I live in the UK.
So... as well as a childish personal attack on you and I, he also attempted to deceive everyone reading that thread.
A real man would apologise for such behaviour. I wont hold my breath waiting for it though...
PS
It has come to my attention that clocker and j2k4 both live in the United States and both hold similar political viewpoints on the Israel/Palestine issue.
After hours of research, soul searching, deep meditation and a lengthy forensic examination of the scene, I have come to the undeniable conclusion that this means absolutely fuck all!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Posted by: hobbes
Evilbagpuss,
J2K4 simply made a mistake, and if you guys had bothered to read, I enlightened him of this error. J2 was confusing you with Echidna, who lives down under. You all share a similar POV on the topic under discussion.
Well J2,
J2- EBP is from the UK, Billy Dean and Echidna are from Australia, don't forget myfiles3000 from Canada
http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?act=ST...ndpost&p=505105 (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=61963&hl=&view=findpost&p=505105)
I left a link, as the whole post would bring up bad memories for Billy and it might make you laugh if you understood the context. I don't want ol' EBP to laugh.
Since Bender cleared up the issue, why would you require an apology unless you were offended by being thought to be Billy Dean. If you were to accuse J2K4 of being Clocker (aka Clocko), you would be wrong, but J2 would certainly not be offended, he might even be a little flattered, who knows?
Anyway, I hope this stain on your name is something you can overcome.
Posted by: evilbagpuss
J2K4 simply made a mistake, and if you guys had bothered to read, I enlightened him of this error. J2 was confusing you with Echidna, who lives down under. You all share a similar POV on the topic under discussion.
J2k4 did not make a mistake. He wasnt confusing me with echidna. I think that is quite obvious. Let me show you.
Originally posted by j2k4
I found one where Billy "congratulated" himself....I mean, EBP, for "flushing me out".
Billy congratulated me for 'flushing' him out. Not echidna. Your argument that this is all a misunderstanding of identity does not fit the facts.
The truth is that he knew perfectly well what he was doing and who he was referring to.
Why do I deserve an apology? Because it was a dirty underhand attempt to 'debunk' Billy_Deans and my views without actually addresing them. Again this is obvious.
Pretending to be 2 people and talking to yourself on a forum is pretty ridiculous.. yes? Being accused of such insane behaviour is a stain on ones name is it not?
I think its quite obvious why I am offended by this 'strategy'.
Posted by: ilw
J2k4 knows I do not live in Australia
Hobbes was just pointing out that J2K4 mixed up where you and Echidna lived, he knew you were british, but thought you lived in Oz. I didn't read the thread when it came out, but i assumed the accusation was in jest
Posted by: hobbes
EvilBillypuss,
J2 apparently had an epiphany, or at least a strong cup of coffee, while reading the thread and decided to bring this revelation to the board. In this semi-manic state his memory failed to differentiate your homeland from Echidnas, as he likely stores information about you two on a single synapse due to your similar attitudes.
A single person, posting under 2 names is not unheard of and we must blame JPaul for planting this seed of suspicion in our minds.
As for deception, why would he start at thread avering that you 2 were one in the same? It must have been that he genuinely felt it to be true, and was hoping for confirmation from a mod.
If you look through the words to the meaning, you will see that the thread was basically asking a mod to confirm or deny his assertation. Being J2, his style was to go for the homerun (insert soccer equivalent), and state his convictions boldly.
True deception would have been to make this statement as a tactic to undermine your argument and credibility in a setting where there is no impartial body to confirm or deny this.
His thread stands there now, a clear reminder that he made a guess and was wrong. Live by the sword.......
Anyway, need we bring up your past deception, again. Given this history, it makes me wonder about your impartiality in this matter. Why you might have some use for portraying a mistake as an attempt at deception. Hmmm. Perhaps you are the one trying to deceive, again?
As for why you were offended, of course, it was obvious. Sometimes I like to intentionally misunderstand as well, to show people how aggravating it can be. I am a little insulted that you felt to need to explain the obvious to me :(
Posted by: evilbagpuss
@ilw On the contrary I think j2k4 was quite serious, serious enough for the thread to be locked by a moderator at any rate. Although now he has been proved wrong I'm sure he will claim it was just a "bit of fun" and not malicious in any way shape of form.
Anyway.. back to the topic. I had a couple of questions in my last post.
Originally posted by EBP+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (EBP)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Since August 19, Israel's airforce has killed 12 Hamas members and four bystanders. Over the past two years Israel's "targeted assassinations" have killed dozens of bystanders by using bombs wieghing up to one tonne in densely populated areas of the Gaza Strip
Could someone explain, in really simple terms, why this is morally acceptable and why UK/US taxpayers money should go towards supporting it?
Apparently it is 'contrarian' not to support this indiscriminate slaughter. If someone could also explain why this is so, I'd really appreciate it.[/b][/quote]
I would love to hear an adequate answer to those 2 queries.
Posted by: evilbagpuss
Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you look through the words to the meaning, you will see that the thread was basically asking a mod to confirm or deny his assertation[/b]
hmm... I'm afraid your going to have to spell it out for me hobbes. Where exactly did he ask a mod to deny or confirm his assertion? (At this point Im tempted to insult your spelling/grammar as you recently did to me but then I decide no I'm not going to drop to that level.)
Which words are we meant to "look through" precisely?
Read the thread again, even after he's been proved wrong he's still referring to "Billy/EPB".
Originally posted by hobbes+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>True deception would have been to make this statement as a tactic to undermine your argument and credibility in a setting where there is no impartial body to confirm or deny this[/b]
He did make a statement. It was a tactic. You either believe he is totally innocent or he is malicious. Im absolutely astounded by your "impartial body" comment. In the context of a forum it truly is nonsensical.
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@
Anyway, need we bring up your past deception, again. [/quote]
Wtf? What deception? More bullshit accusations? I think so.
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
Given this history, it makes me wonder about your impartiality in this matter. Why you might have some use for portraying a mistake as an attempt at deception. Hmmm. Perhaps you are the one trying to deceive, again?[/quote]
What history? Mistake, deception?? What a load of rubbish.
This is how it is.
You are trying to make out that poor old j2k4 made a silly mistake and that his intentions were as pure as the driven snow. This is obviously not the case. The only person trying to deceive people here is you. Your posts are not motivated by fairness or reason as much as you attempt to make them seem that way.
This can be seen in your insinuation that I have deceived people. Of course.. you will abandon this ASAP because there is no basis to it. I will be forced to badger you for days to get any answer regarding these 'accusations'.
Your transparent hobbes, and not half as clever as you would like to think. This is merely a case of "you guys" sticking together, so give up the "Im being Fair and Reasonable" act. Its not working.
As for why you were offended, of course, it was obvious. Sometimes I like to intentionally misunderstand as well, to show people how aggravating it can be. I am a little insulted that you felt to need to explain the obvious to me
Do you have an impartial body to verify that? ;)
Seriously though, people need to say what they mean and mean what they say. I have had enough "games" for one day. <_<
Posted by: ilw
mate, you need to take a chill pill, this is a storm in a teacup if ever i saw one.
Posted by: evilbagpuss
@ilw I am chilled B)
I am happy with the original j2k4 "issue". It shows his true colours.
What is pissing me off now is that hobbes is trying to twist things round in an Orwellian fashion whilst making some baseless accusations of his own. He is also doing this under a veneer of respectability in the same way that j2k4 used to operate.
Now I have to chase this one down as well.. tedious but necessary I'm afraid.
It all detracts from the subject of Israeli atrocities though.. which is good for certain individuals.. feel free to answer my questions.. I will be happy to continue on with the topic regardless of the two faced 'tactics' of some of my 'colleagues'.
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@26 September 2003 - 18:55
(At this point Im tempted to insult your spelling/grammar as you recently did to me but then I decide no I'm not going to drop to that level.)
He did make a statement. It was a tactic. You either believe he is totally innocent or he is malicious. Im absolutely astounded by your "impartial body" comment. In the context of a forum it truly is nonsensical.
This is how it is.
Your posts are not motivated by fairness or reason as much as you attempt to make them seem that way.
Your transparent hobbes, and not half as clever as you would like to think. This is merely a case of "you guys" sticking together, so give up the "Im being Fair and Reasonable" act. Its not working.
Seriously though, people need to say what they mean and mean what they say. I have had enough "games" for one day.* <_<
The impartial observer is our moderating team. Sure they may not be impartial as individuals, but in a case of checking IP's they can pretty much be. They were able to confirm that EBP and Billy Dean are not the same person.
If the forum were unmoderated, then we would all be left to speculate. J2's assertion could either be wrong, right, or he could be attempting to deceive.
As a tactic, deception is pointless, because the mods can check this, and they did. And he knew they would.
I see neither malice nor innocence, I see a person who tried to put some data together and made a mistake. I have actually done the same myself in thinking that a certain banned member was posting under another name. You win some, you lose some.
Sorry if I corrected a typo- though I don't recall doing so, perhaps that was under my other persona JPaul ;) .
I think that these two links will remind you of what I meant by your prior deception. I will just post the links for brevity sake. I think the first post also covers my philosophy on the purpose of the forum. The second post has a link which further bears out my motivations (It is only 1 sentence).
I will tell you that I am often wrong, but I always attempt to be reasonable and fair, otherwise I would be wasting my time here. I do not subscribe to the "buddy" system, but in this area (Israel/Palestine issue) perhaps J2 and I have common ground. We do disagree and debate on other subjects, but respectfully as we appreciate the honesty of the others opinions. If you were to look back at my less than polite entry into this forum (sorry again Skweeky), you will see that J2 and I locked horns early.
http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?act=ST...ndpost&p=327719 (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=34731&hl=&view=findpost&p=327719)
http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?act=ST...ndpost&p=328031 (http://www.klboard.ath.cx/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=34731&hl=&view=findpost&p=328031)
I will not discuss this above topic again, I will let any interested member read that thread (and you will need to read much more than those links as my role in that thread was minor) and decide for himself if you portrayed yourself honestly.
I agree with your last line, if it still is, your post seems to be growing as I try to repond. I will gladly endeavor to discuss topics to find a solution and not to mindlessly defend point of view. Discussions do not involve name calling or insults to the others intelligence.
Edit: added a clarification
Posted by: evilbagpuss
I see, so my "deception" is being pro-Palestinian because I referred to "laughing Israelis".
Not very convincing hobbes.
I have seen videos of laughing Israelis having their picture taken by a colleague whilst they stand over the body of a dead Palestinian.
I'm afraid "laughing Israelis" is reality not bias.
My whole argument in relation to this issue is that Israeli atrocities have been supported by the West and largely hidden from the taxpayers who fund it. The fact that this creates more terrorism and provides support for extremists shouldnt be such a hard concept for people to grasp.
If this is a "biased" viewpoint.. then we seem to have 2 different definitions of what the word biased means. If that is pro-Palestinian... we need a new dictionary.
So.. deception? I think not.
Lets think about this though. I mention "laughing Israelis" and everyone goes absolutely mad with rage.
Israel regularly drops 1 tonne bombs on crowded civilian areas and people such as yourself, j2k4 and clocker shrug their shoulders and say "so what"?
Shock+Awe confidently states that Islam is "evil from its very inception" and no one bats an eyelid.
Israel bulldozes the family homes of suicide bombers and you support and defend it.
Yet.. I am biased?? I am deceptive?? What an insane state of affairs... Anyone who supports these actions yet claims to be anything other than a psychopath is deceptive in the extreme.
For example...
Originally posted by j2k4
EBP goes on and on about an Israeli bomb/missile going off in the midst of a block of "innocent" Palestinians, and demands an explanation/justification.
hmm what does this mean I wonder... I take it to mean there is no such thing as an innocent Palestinian (observe the 'clever' use of quote marks) but do you think j2k4 would actually say it outright? Of course not.
Thats what I call deception. It was also the catalyst for j2k4's innocent "mistake" and so we come full circle...
Posted by: hobbes
"I am pro-people."-EBP
In the thread you sold yourself as unbiased and for the "people". It later was revealed that you had a very strong bias.
You misrepresented yourself as the impartial observer with no bias. You used this to try and sell the implied story that "any impartial observer would come to this conclusion". As the discussion progressed your impartial observer mask fell away and your true self stepped forward.
My response:
"Wow, full blown overt bias, should have been there from post one. Keeps credibility if you post your stance. You claimed to be unbiased and have lied.
There is nothing wrong with being pro-palestinean, in fact, I welcome the input of both sides. The problem stems from the inflexibility of religion, and when there is mortal conflict, compromise/resolution may not be possible"
That is what I am talking about.
Please continue to chase me down as I need the exercise :lol: I'm going for a run, quite literally, I will pretend that you are on my heels and gaining! Don't forget to stretch out.
Posted by: Rat Faced
Cool it guys......
EBP:
You know that this is the www....you are posting and only the MODs see your IP and can do the whois...just because you SAY you are from somewhere, does not necessarily mean you are.
If members are using Proxies, then they can appear to be posting from different parts of the globe etc, even for our whois.
I happen to know your ISP is a UK one, and isnt using Proxies....so i know you are posting from the UK.
I know that Billy is posting via Australia...however I havent checked to see if he IS in Australia (I assume Bender has ;) )
I hope you see the point im trying to make.....ilw is right, this is a storm in a teacup. As ultimately, someone that knows IT can fake who they are and where they are.
In this instance; j2k4 is incorrect.
At another time, we may not be able to verify that such an assertion is incorrect.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Well I've just read back through those threads Hobbes, I saw EPB and RF trying to discuss openly, and Clocko sticking to his stated bias.
Whilst your posts were certainly more even, you still seem to defend your countymen as a matter of habit. In this case, you attack EBP's "bias" whilst defending Clocko's.
One disturbing aspect of this and the other Israel\Palestine thread, is the reluctance of the pro-Israel camp to answer all the questions put to them. The usual way of circumventing this is to launch into personal attacks.
I'll state my bias here, again, - I am pro Palestinian. This does not mean I agree with everything that happens from the Palestinian side, it means that I believe the Palestinians are getting a very raw deal. Holding that view, I also believe that the two main antagonists in this conflict are Israel and the US, not Hamas, or the PLO, or any other Palestinian organisation.
The key to peace is land, Israel holds the land, you tell me where the solution lies.
:)
Posted by: hobbes
Well put, whether I agree with you on a topic or not is irrelevant. When we enter a discussion, it is useful to indicate our relationship to the situation so people can get a feel for what might affect our perception of a situation. From this point the discussion can move forward.
In this case, an objective discussion can only begin when we know:
1) Are you pro-palestinean
2) Are you pro-Israeli
3) Are you simply antisemitic (meaning that you could care less about Palestine, you just want to bad things to come to the Jews).
4) Do you have anger toward American foreign policy, making you more anti-Israel rather than truly pro-palestinean. You pretend you are pro-palestinean to hide your true agenda.
I personally find emotive threads suspect and just an attempt at manipulation. You can make your point without trying to elicit "stock response".
Do I really attack EBP's bias?
"There is nothing wrong with being pro-palestinean, in fact, I welcome the input of both sides. The problem stems from the inflexibility of religion, and when there is mortal conflict, compromise/resolution may not be possible"
The attack was on his misrepresentation of himself and not on his actual bias.
As for Clocko:
Clocker:
"I believe that the "issues at hand" as defined by the title of this topic are "Palestine or Israel".
I am pro-Israel.
You? "
--------------------
*
evilbagpuss Posted: 18 June 2003 - 15:27*
I am pro-people."
(This was the second time he asked- Justice was the first reply)
So Clocker, whether you agree with him or not, came out into the open whilst EBP remained crouched in the bushes. How can you have a frank discussion if you opponent is rustling about in the bushes and you can't see him? Clocker stated his position, EBP concealed his.
As for the current posts, I was merely relaying the other side of the coin to the forum. EBP claims that J2 was being malicious and deceptive, I wanted to show that his intention was to be neither, he made a mistake.
The Israel/Palestine issue has been debated on 2 threads for enough pages to indicate that additional discussion will not bring closure to this issue. These threads and their lack of resolution sadly parallel reality. But that issue has no bearing on this recent exchange.
As for defending my countrymen, are you not from the UK (although living in Australia currently) just like EBP? Could you be doing the same? Or are we to find that people of similar upbringing hold similar viewpoints?
PS: I notice that you have joined ShockandAwe in saluting Pink Floyd. I always knew you two were tight friends!
Posted by: Rat Faced
1) Are you pro-palestinean
2) Are you pro-Israeli
3) Are you simply antisemitic (meaning that you could care less about Palestine, you just want to bad things to come to the Jews).
4) Do you have anger toward American foreign policy, making you more anti-Israel rather than truly pro-palestinean. You pretend you are pro-palestinean to hide your true agenda.
5) Pro people.
Sorry hobbes, I have to side with the Pro People lobby.
There are bastards on both sides, and the people are the ones that get hit....again, on both sides.
To get a terrorist, they kill "people" that have nothing to do with the crime....in this case the Israeli government/army are the bad guys....sorry, but they are.
Likewise, when a terrorist kills a bus load of kids....its the organisation that sent him that are the bad guys.
Notice, in both cases....the people are the victims.
At no time have i seen EBP say he supports terrorism, he has merely stated that he understands why there is and sympathizes with the palestinians........as do I.
At other times he has sympathised with Israeli casualties...as have I.
At most he has said that the Israeli attrociaties are the greater, and yet again I agree with him.....on the 2 BASIC values whereby you can say they are greater.
1/ There are a lot more Pallestinian casualties (people) than Israeli (people)
2/ Israeli's are a nation...and as such should be following International Law, supported by the miliary aid of what, supposedly, is the "Home of Liberty", amongst others. The Pallestinian Terrorists are desperate Individuals, lead by a criminal organisation. ie They have no expectation for civilized behaviour from the international community, which doesnt make it right, but does make the Israeli actions worse... imho.
Posted by: noname12
Bah nevermind.... will just cause more annoying insults and pointless arguements.
Delete please.
Posted by: hobbes
1) Are you pro-palestinean
2) Are you pro-Israeli
3) Are you simply antisemitic (meaning that you could care less about Palestine, you just want to bad things to come to the Jews).
4) Do you have anger toward American foreign policy, making you more anti-Israel rather than truly pro-palestinean. You pretend you are pro-palestinean to hide your true agenda.
5) Pro people.
Sorry hobbes, I have to side with the Pro People lobby.
Should have been on my list, mea culpa.
Well, EBP certainly is not pro-people and his hatred bares this out. Words are sometimes just that.
There are bastards on both sides, and the people are the ones that get hit....again, on both sides.
I have said this over and over. I implored him that the street does travel both ways. He refused to budge.
I have never tried to justify that Israel is "right" and Palestine "wrong", I have just suggested that it a two way street and that there are extremists on both sides keeping the civilian population hostage. It is time that both sides got control of their extremists and stopped dying for their insanity.
I have also tried to explain why American policy is pro-Israel, rather than justify it.
I would say that I am far closer to being in the pro-people party than EBP. Honestly, I think both sides are just a bunch of lunatics, killing each other to defend their belief in a loving God. The irony is so bitterly rich.
To get a terrorist, they kill "people" that have nothing to do with the crime....in this case the Israeli government/army are the bad guys....sorry, but they are.
Likewise, when a terrorist kills a bus load of kids....its the organisation that sent him that are the bad guys.
Notice, in both cases....the people are the victims.
I have always unwaveringly agreed with this, as has Clocker. EBP will not admit this.
To be honest, I think Clocker can <span style='color:red'>relate to the Israelis better than the Palestineans, but I do not think that he finds their fight "the right one" and Palestineans in the wrong.
The issue has been discussed to death so I will stop here.</span>
The reason I responded to your thread was to make this point. When you post as YOU do, the cards are on the table and we can discuss issues. Look at how differently people respond to you versus EBP. Why do his exchanges always lead to name calling and anger. Why are those who disagree with him "filled with hatred". These are absurd claims and they undermine any useful discussion. If he were to reform his style, he could use his insights to win people over to or enlighten people of, his perspective, rather than turning people to the defensive by caustictic and personal remarks (I believe I was called a psychopath). How you say something can be more important than what you say.
Posted by: hobbes
technical moment
Posted by: hobbes
Err, moments. Board went screwy
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by Rat Faced@27 September 2003 - 16:54
2/ Israeli's are a nation...and as such should be following International Law, supported by the miliary aid of what, supposedly, is the "Home of Liberty", amongst others. The Pallestinian Terrorists are desperate Individuals, lead by a criminal organisation. ie They have no expectation for civilized behaviour from the international community, which doesnt make it right, but does make the Israeli actions worse... imho.
If the Palestinian terrorists are "desperate individuals" lead by a "criminal organization", then what right do they have trying to bargain their way into statehood?
Why should the US or Israel or any other legitimate state deal with them at all?
It seems to me that there is a strange duality at play here- Israel is condemned for it's actions because it is a "real" country, and the Palestininians are forgiven their transgressions because they are not.
How many times do you prod a tiger with a sharp stick before you realize that the response is disproportionate to the stimulus? How many teenaged suicide bombers does it take before some bright Palestinian says "Gee, you know this tactic isn't really working out too well? Pretty soon the Israeli Apaches are gonna drop another bo..."?
Why have the Palestinians continued to squander their ace in the hole- their role as the underdog?
There don't seem to be any white hats in this arena. I have seen Israeli leaders called criminals and terrorists.
Okay, fair enough.
So are Arafat and his gang.
I think that many of the Muslim countries are using the Palestine/Israel conflict as a convenient pressure release valve. Bleed off and divert dissension in their own countries by diverting it to the Palestinian problem. Allah forbid that these wild-eyed Islamic extremists stay at home and focus their attention on say, the House of Saud. Far better that they travel to Iraq, or Afghanistan or Palestine and sow their wild oats.
On the other side, I think that the Israelis see every suicide bomber not as an individual case of a brainwashed kid, but as the spearhead of a wide ranging and unified attack by all of it's Islamic neighbors. Give an inch in your response and next thing you know, Syria is at the door.
I say, give the Palestinians statehood. I don't even care about the borders. Once they get their country though, they had better clean up their act.
Posted by: noname12
Oh for the love of Allah, God, Jahova and what ever else,
I find your post, clocker, the single most annoying post I have had the mispleasure of reading my entire life of internet usage, so now not only are palestinians terrorists, but dumb ass animals too?
For one your use of muslim extremist is incorrect, by true Islamic terms an extremist is one who practices extreme pioty (spelling?), follows every last Islamic law to the letter and practices precuation in doubted laws, people like Ayetollah Sistani is an extremist by true nature.
Second of all your idea that no matter how the palestinians get treated they will gladly lob there teenagers at you is to be honest disapointing and your defence of a state like israel is rather suspicious...
Israel uses the same tactics as Palestine, if not worse, but israel is the worse of the two "devils" in this case, we all know the mosad has infiltrated Hamas and Islamic Jihad to such an extent that they can tell you where the leader of Hamas is going to eat in two years time :lol:, with the palestinians who have sold out and the mosad agents inside they can easely, and i mean easely strike the supposed terrorist in areas that have almost no civilian popoulus, but no they decide to hit while they sleep in there beds, with there families in packed apartment blocks... they do decide to hit at times where they can cause maximum infrastructure/civilian damage and still pass it off as an "unfortunate" part of the ongoing war against "terrorism"... its what is called scare tactics :P . Why are the Israelis worse?
Well the palestinian suicide bombers dont have a choice to go to a packed military base with lovely Israeli sniper guard towers waiting to give you a warm welcome, and those homely apache helicopters above there heads, so they are forced to use more unpleasant tactics, where as Israel can easely take out there enemies, with complete ease, and cause the most minimal civilian losses. You know the mosad as much as I do, they are so perfect at there job they have been able to get to the most highly guarded Islamic leaders and hit them, one example, Ayetollah Khamini, they put an explosive tape in a meeting of the highest Islamic scholars, he lost his arm in the explosian.... Ayetollah Khamini probably the most highly guarded Islamic scholar.
Second, Hasan Nusrullah, his son was poisened, the son of the leader of the Hizbullah Gorilla movement.
They have shown there ability, especially how they always manage to pinpoint the exact movements of Palestinian "terrorists" while they move in there cars.
Israel is just as guilty, well in my view, are more guilty then the rest, they deserve to be punished for crimes not the palestinians.
Oh and another thing, the Israeli military loves so much to go into Palestinian lands, they barley get shot at... you think it would be hard for Israelis to slip into gaza or westbank at night, go the the places the "terrorists" are and assasinate them with one shot to the head? blah, they have control of the borders not palestine.
How many times do you prod a tiger with a sharp stick before you realize that the response is disproportionate to the stimulus?
I think this applies more to your israeli buddies, then Palestine
Posted by: clocker
Oh for the love of Allah, God, Jahova and what ever else,
I find your post, clocker, the single most annoying post I have had the mispleasure of reading my entire life of internet usage, so now not only are palestinians terrorists, but dumb ass animals too?
Noname, you either have a very short history of internet usage or a very low annoyance threshold. Where did I call Palestinians "dumb ass animals"?
Second of all your idea that no matter how the palestinians get treated they will gladly lob there teenagers at you is to be honest disapointing and your defence of a state like israel is rather suspicious...
Well, they do seem to "lob their teenagers" with depressing regularity, don't you think?
In both of these threads I have consistently stated that I was pro-Israeli so I'm not sure how that would be "suspicious"...
we all know the mosad has infiltrated Hamas and Islamic Jihad to such an extent that they can tell you where the leader of Hamas is going to eat in two years time , with the palestinians who have sold out and the mosad agents inside they can easely, and i mean easely strike the supposed terrorist in areas that have almost no civilian popoulus, but no they decide to hit while they sleep in there beds, with there families in packed apartment blocks... they do decide to hit at times where they can cause maximum infrastructure/civilian damage and still pass it off as an "unfortunate" part of the ongoing war against "terrorism"... its what is called scare tactics . Why are the Israelis worse?
I think that you attribute powers/skills to Israeli intelligence that surpasses James Bond and approaches the supernatural. I'm sure that the Mossad is flattered. I guess, given this belief, you are a part of the "laughing Israeli" brigade then, eh?
QUOTE
How many times do you prod a tiger with a sharp stick before you realize that the response is disproportionate to the stimulus?
I think this applies more to your israeli buddies, then Palestine
Were the Palestinians as well armed and as organized as the Israelis then I might agree. As it is, I think you misunderstood the metaphor.
Posted by: hobbes
As for misunderstanding the metaphor, I think he may be thinking that an "underdog" is an actual animal.
Posted by: noname12
:) sorry was away from the computer, now lets see.
Now friend clocker, my internet life has been too long :P but anyway first the mosad, believe me when I say my words do not mean to flatter them idiots, but where I have been, people would say my words are an understatement :lol: , there is to much evidence of there works in the middle east, I guess the only way to believe it is to go see it for your self... I would personally suggest Syria.
My animal statement was refering to that charming tiger remark, it seems obvious that a country is pretty different to the response of an animal, Hamas does actually change its strategies depending on the ferocity (spelling?) or lack of, used by the Israeli military, but thats a different, long and encriminating story :lol: .
as for the suspicious remark, i am a very paranoid and conspiracy theory driven person, ahem ahem :) .
I did not misunderstand the metaphor, you say no matter how they get treated they will react the same, and from what I see, no matter what the Palestinians do, Israel acts the same... Araft - "Lets talk peace.", Sharon - "His words is a direct attack on the israeli state, this warrants a full scale incursion into the wastbank and gaza and allows us to destroy whatever annoys our eyes", Hamas - "eeh, we're getting tired of being massacred... how about we let things rest for now"
Sharon - "... Ah forget the speach, Just go and kill them" and so on... (event may have been exagerated by me)
Ah well All's fair in love and war, Israel can kill civilians, so i think palestine should have the same privalage. At the end of the day this will typically end with a huge war, Jews VS Muslims, the plans of the Israeli state is so plane that I dont really need to point it out.
oh and for the mosad thing, how is it possible for those helicopters to know what road there driving down, what room Hamas leaders sleep in, and what people they meet if they werent so deep inside the Hamas ranks? its simple Israel looses 10 civilians per attack, but each attack gives them another 100% support and justification to further into Palestinian lands, and now there beginning to set there eyes on other borders, its simple really. And why would this be so hard to believe? the majority in the Israeli government is Right wing "extremist" jews who dont want peace, by there own words, and would love nothing more then to march straight to the Muslim holy land and raze it to the ground. To them its just simple politics and PR.
Edit: typo
Posted by: clocker
Originally posted by noname12@27 September 2003 - 21:54
Edit: typo
Although I found you post to be rich in humor and irony (unintended, I presume), the above quote is easily the high point.
Please stop, you're killing me.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
I didn't think it would take long to get personal, Clocko, you don't disappoint. When will people who use English as their first language stop picking on spelling and grammar mistakes of those who don't?
If what was happening in Israel\Palestine was what we are being told, this debate would be simpler. It doesn't take much working out to see that there is also a secret, covert operation going on here. Noname touched on it with his Mossad remarks.
The MO of the west, the UK and US in particular, is "instability". The British have used the tactic for centuries to control whole regions, not just countries. The SAS, for instance are "officially" active in 35 countries around the world. Looking at the list, there are at least five others that I know of where they operate, Palestine is one of them. Wherever the UK government perceives it's interests to be at risk, they go there.
I can see no way that Sharon can deliver peace when he is kept in power by ultra orthadox jews, who want all Palestinians out of the whole of Palestine, and by settlers who have stolen 46% of Palestinian land since 1967. He will carry on making war, regardless of public opinion. This is the reason we call on the US to tighten the purse strings. If they had the will, they could easily obtain peace. Makes me wonder if they really do want it, or if instability is really their goal.
:)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Hobbes
As for the current posts, I was merely relaying the other side of the coin to the forum. EBP claims that J2 was being malicious and deceptive, I wanted to show that his intention was to be neither, he made a mistake.
....
As for defending my countrymen, are you not from the UK (although living in Australia currently) just like EBP? Could you be doing the same? Or are we to find that people of similar upbringing hold similar viewpoints?
PS: I notice that you have joined ShockandAwe in saluting Pink Floyd. I always knew you two were tight friends!
My take on your first point was, that j2k4 was being a smartarse, nothing unusual there.
I am from the UK, yes, I left 24 years ago. My politics tho, are mine, not Britain's nor Australia's. No-one who knows me would say I defend or attack any point of view because of a person's nationality. I am a cynic by nature, I don't believe anything told me by governments.
I haven't met ShockandAwe, but if he's into Pink Floyd, he must be a special person.
:)
Posted by: hobbes
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@28 September 2003 - 08:34
My take on your first point was, that j2k4 was being a smartarse, nothing unusual there.
I am from the UK, yes, I left 24 years ago. My politics tho, are mine, not Britain's nor Australia's. No-one who knows me would say I defend or attack any point of view because of a person's nationality. I am a cynic by nature, I don't believe anything told me by governments.
I haven't met ShockandAwe, but if he's into Pink Floyd, he must be a special person.
"No-one who knows me would say I defend or attack any point of view because of a person's nationality". Me neither. Seems this point is a draw..
Everyone is into Pink Floyd, myself included, or I wouldn't have known the song you are quoting in your signature.
So many people think that Floyd is about drugs and disrespect of authority, and as long as they don't listen to the lyrics they will live in their misinformed reality.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Originally posted by hobbes@28 September 2003 - 16:52
So many people think that Floyd is about drugs and disrespect of authority, and as long as they don't listen to the lyrics they will live in their misinformed reality.
SSHHH! Don't tell everyone!
:)
Posted by: ilw
I would have said that the MO of the UK & US governments was exactly the opposite, any country they have to deal with they crave stability and friendship. As you are so fond of pointing out they have installed lots of dictators in their time and imho dictators tend to run much more stable countries (generally corrupt and brutal, but stable). Maybe in some instances they've temporarily destabilised areas which are unfriendly, but i would guess that they usually have plans or can see an easy way in which the area will again stabilise, this time as friends
Posted by: clocker
The MO of the west, the UK and US in particular, is "instability". The British have used the tactic for centuries to control whole regions, not just countries. The SAS, for instance are "officially" active in 35 countries around the world. Looking at the list, there are at least five others that I know of where they operate, Palestine is one of them. Wherever the UK government perceives it's interests to be at risk, they go there.
This observation completely ignores the fact that the instability in Palestine is also precipitated by the interest of Libya, Iran and good old Yasser Arafat himself. In a stable and peaceful Palestine would Arafat have the means to land on the Forbes list of the top ten wealthiest Kings, Queens and Despots? He placed # 6, BTW, with a (conservatively) estimated personal fortune of $300 million. Not bad for a "freedom fighter" who is supposedly working for the betterment of his people- some 30-40% of whom live below the poverty level. Oddly absent from your repeated calls for US pressure on Israel is the request for Arafat to step down.
I can see no way that Sharon can deliver peace when he is kept in power by ultra orthadox jews, who want all Palestinians out of the whole of Palestine, and by settlers who have stolen 46% of Palestinian land since 1967. He will carry on making war, regardless of public opinion. This is the reason we call on the US to tighten the purse strings. If they had the will, they could easily obtain peace. Makes me wonder if they really do want it, or if instability is really their goal.
Again the one-sided insistance that the US and Sharon are the only factors preventing peace in the region. Should a peaceful settlement occur, how would Arafat and his PLO heirarchy disguise the fact that they have been systematically diverting money from international aid funds to their own use? How could they justify the bloated and corrupt bureaucracy that has served as a personal feeding trough for over 20 years?
Posted by: lynx
Originally posted by ilw@28 September 2003 - 12:52
Maybe in some instances they've temporarily destabilised areas which are unfriendly, but i would guess that they usually have plans or can see an easy way in which the area will again stabilise, this time as friends
I think that was the point of Billy's argument (although I'm not sure I agree with the sentiment behind it), and of course if there is likely to be no chance of creating a 'friendly' environment in the short term, then long term destabilisation would be the aim.
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Originally posted by ilw@28 September 2003 - 21:52
I would have said that the MO of the UK & US governments was exactly the opposite, any country they have to deal with they crave stability and friendship. As you are so fond of pointing out they have installed lots of dictators in their time and imho dictators tend to run much more stable countries (generally corrupt and brutal, but stable). Maybe in some instances they've temporarily destabilised areas which are unfriendly, but i would guess that they usually have plans or can see an easy way in which the area will again stabilise, this time as friends
ilw the British work on DEstabilization. Read up on it, don't guess. Some examples for you; Iran, Afghanistan Pakistan, Kasmir, India, Burma, South Africa, Zimbabwe, the list is endless.
I can't give you links to info I use, you have to suscribe. I'll point you to some tho', you can Google plenty of info yourself if you find the right keywords.
Executive Intelligence Review (http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/index.html)
Read especially ...
The SAS: Prince Philip's manager of terrorism. (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_sas.html)
and..
London's assault on the nation-state (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_asia_terror_intro.html)
There's much more going on than people realise.
:)
Posted by: noname12
I edit my post no depending on spelling or grammar but on what words I totally mess up and cant be understood, I use english alot, just cant be bothered to learn all the rules and spellings. :lol: you pretty much got the point of my post, so whats the problem. :)
Posted by: Billy_Dean
Originally posted by clocker@29 September 2003 - 00:03
The MO of the west, the UK and US in particular, is "instability". The British have used the tactic for centuries to control whole regions, not just countries. The SAS, for instance are "officially" active in 35 countries around the world. Looking at the list, there are at least five others that I know of where they operate, Palestine is one of them. Wherever the UK government perceives it's interests to be at risk, they go there.
This observation completely ignores the fact that the instability in Palestine is also precipitated by the interest of Libya, Iran and good old Yasser Arafat himself. In a stable and peaceful Palestine would Arafat have the means to land on the Forbes list of the top ten wealthiest Kings, Queens and Despots? He placed # 6, BTW, with a (conservatively) estimated personal fortune of $300 million. Not bad for a "freedom fighter" who is supposedly working for the betterment of his people- some 30-40% of whom live below the poverty level. Oddly absent from your repeated calls for US pressure on Israel is the request for Arafat to step down.
I can see no way that Sharon can deliver peace when he is kept in power by ultra orthadox jews, who want all Palestinians out of the whole of Palestine, and by settlers who have stolen 46% of Palestinian land since 1967. He will carry on making war, regardless of public opinion. This is the reason we call on the US to tighten the purse strings. If they had the will, they could easily obtain peace. Makes me wonder if they really do want it, or if instability is really their goal.
Again the one-sided insistance that the US and Sharon are the only factors preventing peace in the region. Should a peaceful settlement occur, how would Arafat and his PLO heirarchy disguise the fact that they have been systematically diverting money from international aid funds to their own use? How could they justify the bloated and corrupt bureaucracy that has served as a personal feeding trough for over 20 years?
Clocko, you never disappoint!
You accuse others of not reading posts, and misrepresenting what was written, then turn it into an art form.
When did I claim the US and Sharon were the ONLY factors affecting peace? Point me there.
Explain to me again how Bush got rich. And of course you've seen Arafats millions? Is his fortune more substantial than Saddams WMD?
Is there ANYTHING your government tells you that you are at least a LITTLE sceptical of?
As for feeding troughs, they come in very handy when the US needs them to pay one of their dictators!
You're becoming stale Clocko, may I suggest a holiday in Jamaica? A pound of weed, a few bottles of rum, and a couple of local girls, you'll be better in a few months.
:)
Posted by: thewizeard
Originally posted by Billy_Dean@28 September 2003 - 16:34
You're becom