PDA

View Full Version : Palestine Or Israel?



Pages : [1] 2

kAb
05-17-2003, 03:44 AM
Who do you support?

IMO-

I support Jews to have their own place to settle, but if they lost the land in a war, to the victor go the spoils.

Unless they can prove that the Bible which allows them Israel is non-fiction, I don't believe it.

The palestinians deserve their land back, but I don't agree with their ways of obtaining it.

How to settle this conflict? The palestinians have to agree to live peacefully with the Isrealis, but get rid of those idiotic checkpoints 1 by 1. Palestinians should not be restricted to their little patch of land, they owned all of Isreal at one point, can they not all coexist?

billyfridge
05-17-2003, 01:26 PM
----edited, due to profound stupidity of original post----

j2k4
05-17-2003, 08:33 PM
Both.

Enough calls for cessation of hostilities, renunciation of threats, historical or otherwise, FORGET ALL THE RHETORIC! Just get 'em situated, define their space, and then stand guard until they get tired of sticking out their tongues at each other.

Infidels, my ass! All they've ever needed was a referee-can the U. N. pull it off?

Stay tuned, more half-baked ideas are in the oven! :P

euro64
05-17-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by kAb@17 May 2003 - 03:44
Who do you support?

IMO-

I support Jews to have their own place to settle, but if they lost the land in a war, to the victor go the spoils.

Unless they can prove that the Bible which allows them Israel is non-fiction, I don't believe it.

The palestinians deserve their land back, but I don't agree with their ways of obtaining it.

How to settle this conflict? The palestinians have to agree to live peacefully with the Isrealis, but get rid of those idiotic checkpoints 1 by 1. Palestinians should not be restricted to their little patch of land, they owned all of Isreal at one point, can they not all coexist?
It's not only the checkpoints but the settlers too. They steal the best land from the palestinians and then complain that they are not liked.

clocker
05-18-2003, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@17 May 2003 - 14:33


Stay tuned, more half-baked ideas are in the oven! :P
http://www.plasticbag.org/images/baking.jpg

Skillian
05-18-2003, 06:32 AM
The chances of them living peacefully in the same space are a little slim I'm afraid, I don't think it'll happen. The only chance of peace would be a Palestinian state, but even that would not be agreeable to both sides. As was said, Palestinians used to own all of Israel at one point, so to expect them to be finally satisfied when they are given their own little patch is naive. But I don't see Israel giving up too much. In fact isn't the settlement development still going on as the "road map" is discussed?

Quick aside, I love this room - there is no forum like it on the net. I hope this room stays even though it is supposed to be about the Iraq war - it's now generally about politics and various countries' foreign policy and makes for truly fascinating reading even if I don't post here all the time. I don't think topics like these would fit well in the lounge alongside female pornstars and 3 word stories.

MagicNakor
05-18-2003, 07:12 AM
No, but they would fit in Bookworld. :-"

:ninja:

The Knife Thrower
05-18-2003, 07:42 AM
Israrel did obtain some of the land legally by buying it from the palestinians. It is ok for israelis to live in that land. However the israelis living on the settlements in palestinian land should be deported back to their original country.

pcthug
05-18-2003, 08:54 AM
it's disgusting what israel gets away with. sharon should be tried for war crimes. if any other country in the region was pulling this crap people would be up in arms. they bulldoze peoples homes destroy their business's and no one says :blink: boo. save the world end religion now....please

echidna
05-18-2003, 10:10 AM
i have to side with the palestinian underdogs
israel responds to rock throwing kids with tank and APC units with apache air support
if that isn't terrorism then what the fuck is
people suicide bombing is clearly a deplorable act, but it is also clearly a desperate act.
the israeli nation was born out of hideous abuse and now defines itself through hideous abuse.
Unless there is a seachange in the politics of israel and their unfaultering US support, the aparteid subjugation of palestinians will continue

pcthug
05-19-2003, 09:01 AM
well said echinda

ShockAndAwe^i^
05-19-2003, 09:39 AM
Israel
The Palistinians have had several chances to have there own country(land 4 peace).
Most Palistinians just don't wan't peace with Israel!
The truth is the Arab countries want this to continue on forever.
It's all a ruse!
Israel is not the bad guy here.
Israel does'nt respond to rock throwing at taks with deadly force.
Without the US, Israel will be "driven into the sea". :ph34r:
Thats a qoute from the palistinian constitution.
I believe other Arab countries adopted this as well.
This problem is never going away.
Ever!
There hatred blinds them to the truth.
They will believe any lie that is anti US or Israel.
They believed the lies there news was reporting about Saddam and the Iraq war.
When the statue came down they were shocked!
Which only goes to show that the hatred is so deep that there own news agencys will lie if it serves there purpose
God Bless Israel.

5 minutes ago I just heard of another suicide bomber killing more innocent people.
Chicken shit way to fight!
No fuckin' honor.
But thats what terrorists do and thats what terrorism is.

Barbarossa
05-19-2003, 10:29 AM
There will never be peace while the same patch of land is considered Holy to two such fervent religious cultures.

Islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion, so I can't quite understand who it spawns so many suicide bombers. Someone needs to explain that to me.

Judaism teaches their followers that they are God's chosen people, which gives them an enormous chip on their shoulder. Also by using various Old Testament passages to suit them, such as an eye for an eye, they can justify their excessive use of helicopter gunships. They are a paranoid people, who I feel sorry for.

Hell, I feel sorry for everyone really, lets nuke the lot of them and put them out of our misery. ;) :o

And another thing, why is Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest, they're not in Europe, never have been, and their musics shit anyway, they only with that Transvestite because people thought it was a joke.. Doesn't the Bible say anything about Transvestites for Gods sake? :P

EDIT: Put in smilies so that people know I'm joking :blink:

WeeMouse
05-19-2003, 10:35 AM
Both Palestinians and Israelies should get a smack on the nose, told that they are bad and that they should go stand in the corner till they're ready to behave themselves.

:)

OR

Just eradicate religion! People can interpret (is that the right word to use?) the Bible etc to mean different things...so the only answer may be to get rid of it all!

:flowers:

MagicNakor
05-19-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by barbarossa@19 May 2003 - 11:29
...Islam is supposed to be a peaceful religion...
So is Christianity. ;)

:ninja:

soopaman
05-19-2003, 03:04 PM
The way I see it is that Israel is a nation (only 60ish years old) that was founded by Terrorism/Abduction and Murder of the occupying "peace keeping" forces. But if any justification is needed they can always point the finger at the Holocaust. That is guaranteed to get everyone feeling guilty and keeping their opinions marginalised or condemned as anti-semitic/racist (God forbid!!). The Israeli government tacitly supports the murder of innocent men, women and children and then get angry when there are retaliatory strikes. I'm no fan of suicide bombing, but neither am I a fan of state sanctioned murder. The root of the problem is religion so my, admittedly radical, solution would be to nuke Jerusalem and Mecca so that the "kids" can't have their "toys". Seriously, if the US withheld its vast monetary assistance Israel would cease to function within a week. They would have to trade with their neighbours and maybe swallow some of that misplaced national pride!!

I wish the troubles in Palestine/Gaza would end, the endless pictures of slaughter are getting me down and they could fit more sport on the news!! :lol:

Peace.

echidna
05-19-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^

5 minutes ago I just heard of another suicide bomber killing more innocent people.
Chicken shit way to fight!
No fuckin' honor.
But thats what terrorists do and thats what terrorism is.

i think that the same applies to those who use, B52s, Predator UAs and Tomahawk cruise missiles, to kill innocent people.

ShockAndAwe^i^
05-20-2003, 04:16 AM
Wow echidna I had no idea you were so knowledgable about US weaponry!
Why are you so quick to blame the US and not Saddam for this?
He had 12 years man.
Also I think everyone is forgetting the fact that the UN had something like 18 resolutions of which he violated every one.
I don't know why I decided to use the UN but it's there for what it's worth.
They are a joke!
Can someone buy Echidna a plane ticket so he can come here and see that we're not as bad as he thinks?

Echinda's Trip to the US Itinerary
1.Las Vegas - I think he needs to get laid. ;)
2.New York - I'd take him to Yankee Stadium where we love being called Yanks.
Then the WTC site and the statue of liberty and after that we could go out and party the NY nightlife.
3.Los Angeles (Hollywood) - where he could meet some of the stars that agree with his anti american stance.
Then we could hit the beaches and check out the women possibly getting him laid again. :)
You will wish they all could be California girls!
Since he might feel to at home there it's off to..
4.well I'm not sure...anyone have any ideas?

j2k4
05-20-2003, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@19 May 2003 - 23:16
Wow echidna I had no idea you were so knowledgable about US weaponry!
Why are you so quick to blame the US and not Saddam for this?
He had 12 years man.
Also I think everyone is forgetting the fact that the UN had something like 18 resolutions of which he violated every one.
I don't know why I decided to use the UN but it's there for what it's worth.
They are a joke!
Can someone buy Echidna a plane ticket so he can come here and see that we're not as bad as he thinks?

Echinda's Trip to the US Itinerary
1.Las Vegas - I think he needs to get laid. ;)
2.New York - I'd take him to Yankee Stadium where we love being called Yanks.
Then the WTC site and the statue of liberty and after that we could go out and party the NY nightlife.
3.Los Angeles (Hollywood) - where he could meet some of the stars that agree with his anti american stance.
Then we could hit the beaches and check out the women possibly getting him laid again. :)
You will wish they all could be California girls!
Since he might feel to at home there it's off to..
4.well I'm not sure...anyone have any ideas?
A splendid idea-we could raise funds to create international awareness of the 'real' U.S. :P

I'm reasonably sure we could arrange an exchange program: One willing but undecided foreigner for one Hollywood celebrity-I suggest we begin our search in, oh, let's see......Someplace nice during monsoon season-vulnerable to tidal waves.....Bangladesh? :lol:

TheDave
05-30-2003, 10:31 AM
even while theyre sorting out the "roadmap to peace" isreal are killing palestiniens and building on theyre land.
palastiniens have nothing left but to suicide bomb.
the way of life is so poor they cant do anything they cannot hold peaceful protests, they are broken up by isreal and ignored
put yourself in theyre mind: they will destroy your home. they will kill your people, they take your land and your jobs.
all they have left is to kill themselves and if you can take isrealis with you..
3 palastinian civilians are killed for every isreali

p.s. did you know one of the peace protesters killed were jewish

kAb
05-31-2003, 02:30 AM
Well now.

Israel is offering to pull out of palestinian controlled areas and eliminate border controls... :o


i hope this works.. :unsure:

Zinedene_69
06-03-2003, 10:33 AM
Hi,

Just thought I may aswell join in..
The only way to stop the fighting is to stop the US's military support for Israel.
The israelis are killing everyday. Children and Women.
You only see what they allow you to see. Ive lived their, and filmed it, and its not nice...

Only a few weeks ago, an American girl died trying to protect an arab doctors house from being demolished.
The bulldozer stood infront of her for 20mins, then just crushed her to death.....may her soul rest in Peace.
Her name was Rachel Corrie.

NOW< at present, their are certain areas that if you are a westerner you have to sign a document from Israelis that says you are their and you are aware you are at risk of getting shot. Basically the document says if you die or get shot their, its your own fault for being their&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;



They are still doing it, even as we speak. The media news what u see is fabrication...most of palestinians dont even accept abu mazen.
Sharon is a terrorist. He was sacked many years ago for being to violent....and guess what...hes the leader of them now&#33;


Their soldiers kill WOMEN,CHILDREN, AND THE ELDERLY.
i HAVE FOOTAGE OF THEM DOING IT.

They have now knocked more houses down and have built an INTEL chip plant on occupied land, a court case which is still going on. Same with Coke, and many others ( i can provide all evidence, and links for all those that are interested)

They now are going to own the water supply, and have disected Palestine where it cannot become a state...
Israelis will have more water than palestinians, even though the palestinians are more in population.


People may call the suicide bombers terrorist, which they are, but so are the Zionists.
If the Israelis are killing with F-16&#39;s, Helicopters, Grenade Launcers, Bullets which are banned all over the world, shaking people as part of regular &#39;interogatin&#39;&#39; of suspects, then they have to expect resistence.
The people they are fighting have nothing, all their wealth, status has been robbed from them.

Then we can go onto Israeli NUCLEAR CAPABILITY, a dangerous game they are playing..


Saddest thing is, many are brainwashed into thinking Sharon is doing good, &#39;pulling back&#39;, its all part of the plans they have..
we have not forgot saabre and shatila.......
If anyone looks into my folder, you will see live footage, of Israelis kicking 5year old kids in the face, breaking peoples arms in the desert with stones, actually slicing off someones foot. and I have 1000&#39;s more....


We can blame palestinians for doing suicide bombings, but you have to go a stage further than that...and ask the question WHY?
When kids are seeing their houses getting knocked down and replaced with Israeli houses, they are then brought up in refuee camps with a certain hatred for the occupying force....

When it is commonplace to &#39;round -up&#39; over 3000 people including young boys form the age of 4years old, to elderly men up to 85, then you know their is something wrong...
When it is common for palestinian women having to give birth at check points because they are not allowed further access to hospitals. Many of these kids and mothers die, because of no assistence during the birth...
Whilst Israeli soldiers just sit their, and dont even offer a towel or water...
You may think I making it up, but if you went their, you would find a whole different world to whzt we see in TV.


Dont let the media trick you....
CNN, Sky news, dont forget, your only allowed to see what they WANT you to see. thats fact...



I know this is off the subject, but about September 11th, it was a tradegy definatley, and may all those that died rest in peace.
I was in Pakistan months before the bombing, and we already knew that the US was going to attack Afghanistan by October-Novermber time. It was even in the papers in Karachi...
We were told by an American official to get ready for a big US presence in that side of the world from October onwards...to fight in Afghanistan.....
In JULY, US paid Millions of Dollars to the taleban, known as &#39;Aid&#39;. Taleban didnt accept the US offer for the oil pipeline contract in Afghanistan, and handed the contract to a competing Argetinian company. Within the next few months, trade centre went down, the US forces were in their, and guess what, they got the pipeline in the end.

DONT FORGET, IF THEY WERENT OCCUPYING, THEIR WOULDNT BE A PROBLEM&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
ITS THAT SIMPLE
the suicide bombings are a RESULT of occupation. They have no guns, f-16&#39;s, and army uniforms to fight the oppressors.
Thats why Israel done what it did, when Palestine was trying to become a state many years ago...
I mean, Israel on creation, was accepted within HOURS of its creation by the US. Within Hours...one phonecall, and their now &#39;recognised&#39;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Well, I hope I havent offended anyone, and if so, my humblest apologies...
Hopefully, one day, we can all live in peace, regardless of religion and race....
If anyone wants anymore info, I can supply, and 1000&#39;s of video footage which is simply not on the net now.

The question is not about religion, but about basic morality.

Because of Israel, we now know that the worlds LARGEST refugee number is that of Palestinians.
MAny who under the UN laws , are meant to be able to go back home, but Israel is not allowing them to go to their own homes..

Sometimes, we have to actually be present in an area to really know whats is going on. When I see what is on the TV, and then I know what I saw, makes me sick...so much for democracy in the West. More like brainwashing and fabrication.

Only way to imagine the problem is imagining where you live, are attacked by a neighbouring country...
They take your land, plantations, olive trees, and resources...
They take your house, even though you have documentation for ownership of property. They put you into a refugee camp, and you have to watch a stranger living in your own house...
You cant go to the shops, it takes over 5hours to do a normal 30minute journey.



Peace,

Zinedene

*****boycott INTEL******

j2k4
06-03-2003, 01:28 PM
Of all the instances of aggression/discrimination against Palestinians, why are those perpetrated by Israel the only ones ever mentioned? Almost every country in the mid-east has a history of pushing the Palestinians around, and shuffling refugees from place to place-in 1991, immediately post Gulf-War, Kuwait expelled 300,000 Palestinians (who had lived there for years) simply because Arafat supported Hussein during the war. I don&#39;t recall hearing about THAT from the media, the U.N., or anyone else.

Fact: Where the media is concerned, the unfortunate plight of the Palestinians serves as nothing more than a "club" with which to hammer Israel.

The Palestinians suffer the ignominy, however ironic, of being even more "friendless" than Israel.

ClubDiggler
06-04-2003, 03:42 AM
If I was to take sides, I would also go for the underdog like someone said.
The solution is of course not simple and ir requires a huge compromise on both
sides. I really don&#39;t think they can resolve it on their own specially when both sides
are influenced by religion.

I think the world leaders should put their heads together and start a process of figuring out a fair way to divide the territory keeping in mind both sides interests and history. Hopefully a decision will be reached possibly after a long time of debate. (Kind of like a trial).

Once that decision is reached and a division is achieved; it should be enforced by the international comunity.

If that doesn&#39;t work....well...I think someone suggested nuking the place....I give up&#33;

By the way; I like the "U.S international awareness exchange program" and Las Vegas is a
great place to start&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; B)

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-04-2003, 04:08 AM
All this talk of going for the underdog is ridiculous. :blink:

Look..The palistinians were offered a state way back when Israel was created.
Side By Side.
They refused, to put it lightly and swore they would drive the "Zionist Pigs" into the sea.
They&#39;ve had several recent chances as well to attain there own state and everytime when they got close they launched new waves of terrorism against Israel and the US.
Yup ..It&#39;s really the same war.
They want the complete destruction of Israel, and the USA for it&#39;s support of the "zionist Pigs".
One more thing..
When you say "I&#39;m for the underdog" what your really saying is that your very very uninformed on the matter. ;)

j2k4
06-04-2003, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@3 June 2003 - 23:08
All this talk of going for the underdog is ridiculous. :blink:

Look..The palistinians were offered a state way back when Israel was created.
Side By Side.
They refused, to put it lightly and swore they would drive the "Zionist Pigs" into the sea.
They&#39;ve had several recent chances as well to attain there own state and everytime when they got close they launched new waves of terrorism against Israel and the US.
Yup ..It&#39;s really the same war.
They want the complete destruction of Israel, and the USA for it&#39;s support of the "zionist Pigs".
One more thing..
When you say "I&#39;m for the underdog" what your really saying is that your very very uninformed on the matter. ;)
This point needs to be honed a bit.

The threat of extermination has hung over Israel since day one, and has never been renounced.

It is only the alliance with the U.S. that has enabled Israel to survive.

Here is the bookend to THAT circumstance:

Islam&#39;s interests in the U.S. are represented and promoted by many groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) chief amongst them.

Amid a recent statement of their goals, this tidbit:

The elimination of references to"Judeo-Christian" when describing the heritage of the United States; CAIR will push instead for "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" or "Abrahamic", which phrase to be used "in all venues where we normally talk about Judeo-Christian values, starting with the media, academia, statements by politicians, and comments made in churches, synagogues, and other places."

Note there is no mention here of "Mosques"; in Mosques, the reference is to remain "Islam(ic)" only, no inclusion of "Judeo-Christian".

CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad, in a speech to a group of California Muslims in July, 1998, said "Islam isn&#39;t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

This concerns me.......

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-04-2003, 09:53 PM
All the politically correct talk in the world can&#39;t hide true Islam.
It&#39;s evil&#33;&#33;
I hear a lot of people(on TV and in Newspapers) who know absolutely nothing about this religion say "it&#39;s just the radical fundamentalists are ruining this great and peaceful religion".
Bull Crap&#33;
It&#39;s Pure evil from it&#39;s inception,and what we have here is a cover up of sorts as not to offend people.:devil:
It&#39;s a bunch of crap.
When someone actually gets the Koran and reads it,They will find line after blasphemous line calling for the death of everyone that is not a Muslim.
It is chock full of this and ton&#39;s of other shocking subjects as well.
I think an excellent read is about it is,yup you guessed it "The Satanic Verses"by Salmon Rushdie.
To get back to the point you were making, The Islamic faith never had anything to do with this country and hopefully never will.
It&#39;s just another attempt to rewrite a more politically correct version of history.
This is a very scary thing,and is rampant throughout our schools(in the US)from kindergarten on up to the University level
The phrase Judeo Christian is anathema to many,not just these Islamists.
Without being to prejudice to my friends on the left,let me say; that it is the left in this country that wishes to rewrite history and remove all references to God and the Judeo Christian faith.
In fact the Judeo Christian faith is under attack throughout the world as never before seen.
Christians are fast becoming some of the most hated and despised people on earth.
There&#39;s money trails to be found behind some of this too&#33;
j2, it should concern you.

Rat Faced
06-04-2003, 10:23 PM
Its NOT an evil religion.

The fanatics of ANY religion are as bad......I seem to recall burning crosses in the Southern States not so long ago.



The AIM of every religion is to be the only religion....thats why they have PREACHERS..to spread the religion.

The Christian Church sent thousands of people into the Americas, Africa, Far East to spread the Christian faith in the past ( and even now)

The Latter Day Saints send missionaries all over the world to spread the word of mormanism......



How is Islam any different?


The Ironic thing is Christianity has more in common with Muslims than it does with Jews......Islam recognises a guy called Jesus Christ as a prophet, even if they dont think he was the messiah, and so include his teachings as part of their religion. The Jewish faith doesnt.

The Old Testament ( which Christians share with the Jews) is not what Christianity is based upon.

MagicNakor
06-04-2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@4 June 2003 - 23:23
...The fanatics of ANY religion are as bad......I seem to recall burning crosses in the Southern States not so long ago...

The AIM of every religion is to be the only religion....thats why they have PREACHERS..to spread the religion...
And I always seem to recall the Crusades. Odd, that. ;)

:ninja:

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-04-2003, 11:55 PM
Yes but there are big differences between the two.
It&#39;s obligatory in nature to bring up the crusades.
And ridiculous to compare the Bible with the Koran.
The God of the Koran is completely different from the God of the Bible&#33;
I think you should read them before you make the usual kind of statements about it.
The Statement you make(rat face) about Christianity having more in common with Islam shows your total and complete ignorance on the subject.

Rat Face said
"The Ironic thing is Christianity has more in common with Muslims than it does with Jews......Islam recognises a guy called Jesus Christ as a prophet, even if they dont think he was the messiah, and so include his teachings as part of their religion. The Jewish faith doesnt".

Rat Faced said
"How is Islam any different"?
All I have to say is look at both cultures.
There couldn&#39;t be a bigger contrast&#33;
From the way they treat their WOMEN,to their Value system,their belief system,their laws(which btw you would find shocking)and on and on and on.
I really think you should read the Koran and see how different it is from the bible.
It&#39;s as different as night and day.
I think you&#39;ll be shocked&#33;
Oh god I think I&#39;ll puke if people start cutting and pasting quotes from the two books.
Please don&#39;t.

Just because Islam recognizes him don&#39;t mean squat.
Islam says he&#39;s a prophet but Christians say he&#39;s God Almighty in human flesh&#33;
Islam&#39;s messiah is Mohhammed, Christianity is Jesus, the Jews just believe the Messiah hasn&#39;t come just yet.
Christianity excepts the entire old testament(Jewish book and God)while rejecting the koran outright.
Really rat faced, I think you need to read at least one of the books first before you make outrageous statements like that.

These things like talking about the crusades is a weak and often used comparison.
What about today?
This is what I&#39;m talking about.
Radical Christian fundamentalists numbers are very few indeed.
What they do(blowing up abortion clinics and so on) is evil too&#33;&#33;:devil:
To compare the very small numbered and under finaced Chistian ?Fundamentalists to the BILLIONS of (hate filled for the west and jews)Muslims is ridiculous&#33;
How are they different right now?

OlderThanDirt
06-05-2003, 01:44 AM
Geography lesson -- find the Middle East on this Russian map:

http://novelhost.net/middle-east.jpg

clocker
06-05-2003, 02:12 AM
I tried OTD, I really did.

I kept getting distracted by ah, McMurdo Station. :P

ClubDiggler
06-05-2003, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@5 June 2003 - 02:44
Geography lesson -- find the Middle East on this Russian map:

http://novelhost.net/middle-east.jpg
Is that the Nile in the middle or the Strait of Gibraltar? :blink:

j2k4
06-05-2003, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by ClubDiggler+4 June 2003 - 22:14--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ClubDiggler @ 4 June 2003 - 22:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--OlderThanDirt@5 June 2003 - 02:44
Geography lesson -- find the Middle East on this Russian map:

http://novelhost.net/middle-east.jpg
Is that the Nile in the middle or the Strait of Gibraltar? :blink: [/b][/quote]
It&#39;s obviously the Nile; the Straits run east/west :lol: :lol:

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-05-2003, 06:24 AM
hehe
I was looking for Antartica

DarkBlizzard
06-05-2003, 06:29 AM
What the hell.....ahh&#33;&#33; AN ASS

Barbarossa
06-05-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@4 June 2003 - 23:55
These things like talking about the crusades is a weak and often used comparison.
What about today?
This is what I&#39;m talking about.
Radical Christian fundamentalists numbers are very few indeed.
What they do(blowing up abortion clinics and so on) is evil too&#33;&#33;:devil:
To compare the very small numbered and under finaced Chistian ?Fundamentalists to the BILLIONS of (hate filled for the west and jews)Muslims is ridiculous&#33;
How are they different right now?
Never mind all this crap about Christians Vs The Rest, who wants to try to explain to me why Catholics and Protestants can&#39;t get on in Northern Ireland?

Rat Faced
06-05-2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@4 June 2003 - 23:55
Yes but there are big differences between the two.
It&#39;s obligatory in nature to bring up the crusades.
And ridiculous to compare the Bible with the Koran.
The God of the Koran is completely different from the God of the Bible&#33;
I think you should read them before you make the usual kind of statements about it.
The Statement you make(rat face) about Christianity having more in common with Islam shows your total and complete ignorance on the subject.

Rat Face said
"The Ironic thing is Christianity has more in common with Muslims than it does with Jews......Islam recognises a guy called Jesus Christ as a prophet, even if they dont think he was the messiah, and so include his teachings as part of their religion. The Jewish faith doesnt".

Rat Faced said
"How is Islam any different"?
All I have to say is look at both cultures.
There couldn&#39;t be a bigger contrast&#33;
From the way they treat their WOMEN,to their Value system,their belief system,their laws(which btw you would find shocking)and on and on and on.
I really think you should read the Koran and see how different it is from the bible.
It&#39;s as different as night and day.
I think you&#39;ll be shocked&#33;
Oh god I think I&#39;ll puke if people start cutting and pasting quotes from the two books.
Please don&#39;t.

Just because Islam recognizes him don&#39;t mean squat.
Islam says he&#39;s a prophet but Christians say he&#39;s God Almighty in human flesh&#33;
Islam&#39;s messiah is Mohhammed, Christianity is Jesus, the Jews just believe the Messiah hasn&#39;t come just yet.
Christianity excepts the entire old testament(Jewish book and God)while rejecting the koran outright.
Really rat faced, I think you need to read at least one of the books first before you make outrageous statements like that.

These things like talking about the crusades is a weak and often used comparison.
What about today?
This is what I&#39;m talking about.
Radical Christian fundamentalists numbers are very few indeed.
What they do(blowing up abortion clinics and so on) is evil too&#33;&#33;:devil:
To compare the very small numbered and under finaced Chistian ?Fundamentalists to the BILLIONS of (hate filled for the west and jews)Muslims is ridiculous&#33;
How are they different right now?
I think that the confusion arises due to the fact you are talking about &#39;Culture&#39; and im talking about &#39;Religion&#39;.



British Isles have been &#39;Christian&#39; for about 1100yrs (give or take a Century); however women have only had &#39;Rights&#39; for the last 100 years or so.

300 years ago you could go out and Rape some poor girl and your only &#39;responsibility&#39; came if she got Pregnant, or her father caught you...The Authorities werent interested unless she had a Rich father (who was more likely just to pay someone to kill you)


Our &#39;Culture&#39; has changed since then somewhat, not the Countries religion.

The Crusades are actually quite a good example, as the &#39;Culture&#39; pertaining in the Middle East is quite largely &#39;fundamental&#39;, just as the &#39;culture&#39; of the Christian countries during these times were.....the main difference being that during the Crusades (obviously) there werent any AK47s and Jumbo Jets.

If during the Crusades, the European countries had been facing a vastly superior force, they had no chance of winning, they wouldnt have went to war so openly....but the more radical people would have gone into the Middle East anyway to kill, just not with the open support of the Monarchs.


As to knowing &#39;nothing about it&#39;, then tell me YOUR interpretation of the Bible, as every Church interprets it differently (otherwise there would only be Catholic and Orthodox). I had to study Religious Education for 7 years, my Ex is a Latter Day Saint and I have very religious Friends in all 3 Religions.

I can honestly say that Im glad I place no faith in any of those 3 religions (4 if you dont class Latter Day Saint as Christian).


This is the problem with BOTH Books.......you can &#39;Prove&#39; anything in either, especially with all the mistakes in straightforward interpretation between Latin and English in the King James Bible.

j2k4
06-16-2003, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by TheDave@15 June 2003 - 19:52
warning, not for the faint hearted

cant says its unbiased but look here (http://www.jareema.8m.com)
Bias aside, a typical website; doesn&#39;t add anything to the debate taking place here.

Take the pictures and add new captions; voila&#33; Pro-Israel/Anti-Palestinian.

Add your words, TheDave.

Participate in the debate, don&#39;t try to buy in with propaganda.

We want what&#39;s in your head and heart, not what you found wandering through the rhetoric. ;)

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 01:41 AM
Rhetoric? Seems like clear evidence of Israeli genocide to me. Unless you consider killing children &#39;fighting terrorism&#39;.

I wonder how you would react if someone defined pictures of the holocaust as &#39;rhetoric&#39;...

j2k4
06-16-2003, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@15 June 2003 - 20:41
Rhetoric?&nbsp; Seems like clear evidence of Israeli genocide to me. Unless you consider killing children &#39;fighting terrorism&#39;.

I wonder how you would react if someone defined pictures of the holocaust as &#39;rhetoric&#39;...
It seems you miss my point; the pictures, as stand-alone items, could be anyone.

The words are rhetoric; no getting around that-the same would be true if it were a pro-Israeli site.

Unless you are implying no Israeli children have been killed? :huh:

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 02:39 AM
the pictures, as stand-alone items, could be anyone

I think the Israeli soldiers uniforms give the game away. Thats assuming you got past the 1st page of course


Unless you are implying no Israeli children have been killed?

Of course not, you wouldnt be trying to put words in my mouth would you? Or are you implying that two wrongs make a right?

The difference between the two is that Israel is carrying out state sanctioned atrocities with a modern army backed by American tax dollars and military expertise. e.g Dropping a missile on a residential area to kill one terrorist leader is not acceptable when you demolish 4 apartment blocks and kill roughly 150 innocent people, including women and children, in the process. This happened less than 6 months ago.

I have also seen video footage on the BBC (I trust that is impartial enough?) of a Palestinian man carrying a baby being shot in the head. How can you define that as fighting terrorism? How can you not expect retaliation? Israel is MEANT to be a civilized country, not Hamas with more technology.

My point is this. Fighting a war against terrorism does not justify genocide and if you think the current Israeli actions are designed to implement peace you are mistaken. I wouldnt have supported the British bombing of Republican town centres as an acceptable anti-terrorist strategy, and we certainly wouldnt have made so much progress with the peace plan if they had.

Perhaps neither side wants peace, but lets not pretend this is an American action film where the goodies wear uniforms and act impeccably whilst the baddies wear turbans and are pure evil.

clocker
06-16-2003, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@15 June 2003 - 20:39


Perhaps neither side wants peace, but lets not pretend this is an American action film where the goodies wear uniforms and act impeccably whilst the baddies wear turbans and are pure evil.
Fine.
When we stop pretending let&#39;s include the idea that the poor, downtrodden underdog is noble and just and the uniformed, armed man is the oppressive bad guy.

j2k4
06-16-2003, 02:54 AM
You have mistaken me for someone a bit more gung-ho.

If I failed to properly peruse every picture on the site, I beg you forgive my inadequacy; I thought empathizing with both sides was sufficient fare to avoid the pejorative "Movie Fan".

In any case, the Beeb does not qualify as impartial.

The website in question is not insightful, it is, rather, inciteful.

I stand by my post(s), evil-may I call you evil?

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 02:54 AM
Fine.
When we stop pretending let&#39;s include the idea that the poor, downtrodden underdog is noble and just and the uniformed, armed man is the oppressive bad guy.

lol, have you ever heard of the &#39;straw men&#39; strategy ? It involves distorting the real argument and then attacking the weakened argument. Its usually a last resort for the desperate in a debate.

I never said anything that you attributed to me nor did I imply it. Ill try and make this as clear as possible so we can avoid further misunderstandings.

Fight terrorism. Dont kill innocent women and children.

It&#39;s a simple concept.

j2k4
06-16-2003, 03:01 AM
Here&#39;s some filler which is actually re-constituted post-edit with water added.

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 03:07 AM
You have mistaken me for someone a bit more gung-ho.

Your right I think I may have, please accept my apologies :) . However I think gung-ho is a euphemism for genocidal in this context.


the Beeb does not qualify as impartial.

I disagree. I see the devastation of suicide bombers as well as Israeli atrocities. I&#39;m not saying the Beeb is perfect but compared to CNN and others it&#39;s miles ahead. What would you recommend as a superior alternative?


The website in question is not insightful, it is, rather, inciteful.

Perhaps, but more importantly it shows the day to day experiences of the Palestinians. Not at the hands of terrorists but at the hands of an allegedley civilized countries armed forces.


evil-may I call you evil?

To quote one of my favourite characters from Snatch.. "you can call me Susan if it makes you happy". Well errr.. maybe not actually. Evil, EBP, Bagpuss whatever floats your boat :)

clocker
06-16-2003, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@15 June 2003 - 20:54


Fine.
When we stop pretending let&#39;s include the idea that the poor, downtrodden underdog is noble and just and the uniformed, armed man is the oppressive bad guy.

lol, have you ever heard of the &#39;straw men&#39; strategy ? It involves distorting the real argument and then attacking the weakened argument. Its usually a last resort for the desperate in a debate.

I never said anything that you attributed to me nor did I imply it. Ill try and make this as clear as possible so we can avoid further misunderstandings.

Fight terrorism. Dont kill innocent women and children.

It&#39;s a simple concept.

Perhaps neither side wants peace, but lets not pretend this is an American action film where the goodies wear uniforms and act impeccably whilst the baddies wear turbans and are pure evil.

I stand by my post.
It&#39;s irrelevant, however.

How do you propose to fight terrorism in such an honorable and bloodless way?
Queensbury rules don&#39;t seem to be in effect.

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-16-2003, 03:17 AM
Evilbagpuss
I don&#39;t think you used enough adjectives to describe me in your rambling uninformed bombast.
You say you read the entire thread, but you couldn&#39;t have.
Oh...I know you speed read it without checking any of the facts which I presented, which are facts and not my own racist views.
I don&#39;t think you bothered to check all the facts I presented as they might get in the way of your thinking.
I know, I know, damn the facts full speed ahead&#33;
Funny, but you don&#39;t seem to mention them even once in your condescending and uninformed rant.
Really it makes you look very stupid commenting on what you think you&#39;ve read.
And please don&#39;t misquote me.

[QUOTE]@Evilbagpuss
As I read through your vicious, fascist, paranoid, racist, genocidal posts I was angry. After a few more I was just plain depressed. When I reached the end of this thread I felt alot of pity for you. You life seems to be filled with nothing but hatred.

I assume your talking about killing every last known member of Hammas(terrorists) and driving the Palestinian&#39;s from the land when you say I want Genocide.
Where did you learn to read?
That&#39;s not calling for genocide&#33;
I don&#39;t know where you read all that other stuff , but it certainly wasn&#39;t in something I posted.
This is what the left in this country loves to do&#33;
Distract, Defray, Confuse, Equate to Hitler and of course misquote.
You must be there.
How you could have read this and come away with what you think is just beyond me.
I suggest you read it again.

You quote Mien Kampf quite a bit, you must have it handy&#33;
Is it your dream too?

Learn to spell or use a spell checker evilbagpuss.
I think you chose the correct name for yourself too.
As to everything else you&#39;ve said, I&#39;ve already responded to in my previous posts which you can&#39;t seem to read correctly or you just don&#39;t have the time to investigate.
Those are really deep statements you make:
"Fight terrorism don&#39;t kill women and children"
Who wouldn&#39;t agree with that except Hammas, Islamic Jihad,Hizbollah and on and on.
You seem to want to attack me instead of the facts I presented.
So show me where my facts are incorrect or shut up&#33;

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 03:18 AM
How do you propose to fight terrorism in such an honorable and bloodless way?

lol, your playing the straw men game again :)

I didnt mention anything about "honorable and bloodless" I said you shouldnt kill 100&#39;s of innocent people. Other countries can manage it. I&#39;m sure Israel can.

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 03:35 AM
And please don&#39;t miss quote me.


Learn to spell too or use a spell checker

Miss quote? Spell checkers? Thats a good one :lol:

btw the only strategy more desperate than "straw men" is to attack the individual and not the argument.


I assume your talking about killing every last known member of Hammas(terrorists) and driving the Palestinian&#39;s from the land when you say I want Genocide.

The 1st bit could be called fighting terrorism I guess. The 2nd bit is ethnic cleansing, sorry about that :)

I could explain why extremists like yourself on both sides are the main stumbling block to peace.. but I fear I&#39;d be wasting my time.

In a nutshell you believe "all muslims are evil". You dont want peace and your clearly insane. Flame away and enjoy yourself because I wont be communicating with you again. There are professionals who get paid to talk to the likes of you. I dont see why I should do it for free.

j2k4
06-16-2003, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@15 June 2003 - 22:07

You have mistaken me for someone a bit more gung-ho.

Your right I think I may have, please accept my apologies :) . However I think gung-ho is a euphemism for genocidal in this context.


the Beeb does not qualify as impartial.

I disagree. I see the devastation of suicide bombers as well as Israeli atrocities. I&#39;m not saying the Beeb is perfect but compared to CNN and others it&#39;s miles ahead. What would you recommend as a superior alternative?


The website in question is not insightful, it is, rather, inciteful.

Perhaps, but more importantly it shows the day to day experiences of the Palestinians. Not at the hands of terrorists but at the hands of an allegedley civilized countries armed forces.


evil-may I call you evil?

To quote one of my favourite characters from Snatch.. "you can call me Susan if it makes you happy". Well errr.. maybe not actually. Evil, EBP, Bagpuss whatever floats your boat :)
To clarify:

I am Pro-Israel.

I am Pro-Palestine.

I am shoveling shit against the tide.

I am anti-homicide bomber.

I am anti-Israeli pre-emption.

I am (once again) shoveling shit against the tide.

I am anti-Arafat.

I ain&#39;t wild for Sharon, either.

Abbas isn&#39;t the answer.

Someday it may come to pass this conflict will be done; but not soon, I don&#39;t think.

The BBC is as biased as the rest.

I watch Fox News; I&#39;m sure this tickles you, but consider: no matter what YOU may think of it&#39;s content, it does not walk in lockstep with all the others.

To top it off, I don&#39;t think Israel&#39;s activities re: this conflict bear semblance to a "genocide".

For that definition, I defer to the Jews; they have an undisputably clear understanding of the term&#39;s meaning.

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 03:50 AM
Its nice to get back on track with a reasonable human again :)


To top it off, I don&#39;t think Israel&#39;s activities re: this conflict bear semblance to a "genocide".

On reflection your right, genocide isnt the correct term for what the Israelis are doing. However they have certainly been carrying out atrocities on a regular basis for many years. And lets not forget that a war criminal runs the country.

Apart from that I agree with much of what you have said. I will have to check out Fox news but I have to admit I dont hold out much hope for impartiality. I still dont think the BBC is biased at all as you see it from both sides. You cant say that about many news sources.

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-16-2003, 03:54 AM
Where are my facts incorrect?

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-16-2003, 03:56 AM
I&#39;m waiting&#33;
You keep attacking me instead of my facts

clocker
06-16-2003, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@15 June 2003 - 21:18


I didnt mention anything about "honorable and bloodless" I said you shouldnt kill 100&#39;s of innocent people. Other countries can manage it. I&#39;m sure Israel can.
What countries?

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-16-2003, 03:59 AM
The straw strategy is your first and main form of debate.
I&#39;m still waiting&#33;

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-16-2003, 04:01 AM
I guess your going back to check what you&#39;ve already commented on&#33;

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-16-2003, 04:03 AM
I&#39;ll be back in 10 min when your done checking&#33;

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 04:04 AM
What countries?

the UK and Spain come to mind immediately (IRA and ETA respectively)

You dont think Israel is the only country in the world to experience terrorism do you? Are you seriously trying to argue that you cant fight terrorism without killing 100&#39;s of civilians? I&#39;m not sure what point you were trying to make with that comment.

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-16-2003, 04:12 AM
Now your going in an entirely different direction.
What do you call that form of debate?
Crazy straw?

Those facts are a bitch, aren&#39;t they

j2k4
06-16-2003, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@15 June 2003 - 22:50
However they have certainly been carrying out atrocities on a regular basis for many years. And lets not forget that a war criminal runs the country.


Assigning the designations "War Criminal" and "Atrocities" are risky also-I think a widely focused application of those terms (at least as loosely attributed as the U.N. does) would render anyone who&#39;s held a gun guilty of the appellation "War Criminal", and if he has fired said gun he likewise is guilty of concommitant atrocities.

I think the "World Court" is starved for customers: "What if you threw an international criminal prosecution and nobody came?"

Kofi Annan and the U.N. strive for legitimacy and relevance, as does France, et.al.

This is not to say Sharon is unstained, not at all; but I can&#39;t put him on the same plane as Arafat.

We shall continue to sort this out, I trust.

I don&#39;t think my friend ShockAndAwe^i^ hates all Muslims, but he gets very impatient with the ones who evince this unremitting and unrepentant wrongheadedness which we ALL find so bedevilling.

Right, Shock?

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-16-2003, 04:25 AM
Of course I don&#39;t hate all muslims.
I&#39;m talking about terrorists.
Yes I&#39;m getting impatient with the Palestinian problem and I don&#39;t have to much sympathy for them.
They sent terrorists to kill our soldiers, celebrated the 3000 dead on 911 and on and on.

I don&#39;t hate anyone and am a very forgiving person.
I hate evil&#33;

Btw I changed my sig to match the true meaning of Darkside of the moon.

because everything under the son is in tune, but the son is eclipsed by the moon&#33;

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 04:31 AM
Assigning the designations "War Criminal" and "Atrocities" are risky also

Absolutely not. Sharon personally rounded up a load of Palestinian men who were never seen again. It&#39;s a verified fact and its a war crime. At least it was when the same thing happened in what used to be Yugoslavia.

Dropping a missile onto a dense residential area killing 150 civilians is an atrocity.

This is why Israel has more UN resolutions against it than Iraq. If the USA hadn&#39;t used their veto repeatedley there would be many more.


I don&#39;t think my friend ShockAndAwe^i^ hates all Muslims

On the contrary....



All the politically correct talk in the world can&#39;t hide true Islam.
It&#39;s evil&#33;&#33;

It&#39;s Pure evil from it&#39;s inception

Could he make it any clearer?

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-16-2003, 04:35 AM
Calling Islam Evil is correct and not hatred towards Muslims.
I&#39;ve checked it out myself.
Read Salmon Rushdie&#39;s book The Satanic Verses.
He&#39;s was a muslim&#33;

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-16-2003, 04:40 AM
Using the UN as a moral judge is a joke.
Hey I gotta go check and see if anyone has a uncorrupted version of PSP 8.
I&#39;ll be back.

clocker
06-16-2003, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@15 June 2003 - 22:04

What countries?

the UK and Spain come to mind immediately (IRA and ETA respectively)

You dont think Israel is the only country in the world to experience terrorism do you? Are you seriously trying to argue that you cant fight terrorism without killing 100&#39;s of civilians? I&#39;m not sure what point you were trying to make with that comment.
Do you really want to use the UK v. IRA as an example of a war on terrorism without civilian casualties?
How do you single out the active participants in a terrorist conflict when using the general populace as cover is a primary stategic tactic
and a significant percentage of the population is complicit in the act?

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-16-2003, 05:11 AM
Wow
I couldn&#39;t have put it any better than that.
Btw Clocker is a liberal and I don&#39;t hate him. :huh:

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 05:20 AM
Do you really want to use the UK v. IRA as an example of a war on terrorism without civilian casualties?


lol, I can&#39;t believe your comparing the two. I can collect the figures if you wish but I shouldnt need to. The number of civilian casualties caused by British troops in that conflict is miniscule in comparion to the thousands of Palestinian civilians.


How do you single out the active participants in a terrorist conflict when using the general populace as cover is a primary stategic tactic
and a significant percentage of the population is complicit in the act?

Well how does everyone else manage to do it?? I suggest a good way to avoid civilian casualties might be to stop launching bloody missile attacks on crowded residential areas&#33;&#33;

This is going all over the place... lets get down to the core issue. This is my argument.

1) Nazis killing innocent Jews was wrong.
2) Palestinian terrorists killing Israeli civilians is wrong.
3) Israeli troops killing Palestinian civilians is wrong.

I&#39;m sure you guys dont have any problems with 1 and 2. What on Earth is so difficult about number 3? Do you agree with number 3 yes or no? This is as simple as it gets.

If you do agree how can you possibly argue regular missile attacks on residential areas are acceptable? Answer: You cant.

If you dont agree with number 3, you&#39;re just as evil as any terrorist.

clocker
06-16-2003, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@15 June 2003 - 23:20


This is going all over the place... lets get down to the core issue. This is my argument.

1) Nazis killing innocent Jews was wrong.
2) Palestinian terrorists killing Israeli civilians is wrong.
3) Israeli troops killing Palestinian civilians is wrong.


That is not an argument, that is a statement.
I agree with all three.

After rereading all of your posts in this thread I have concluded that you are pro-Palestinian.
Every example of violence you have cited has been Israeli.
You have used the words "genocide" and "war criminal" refering to Israelis.
Not one mention of corresponding acts by Palestinian fighters/leaders.

Is this a fair assessment?

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 06:40 AM
That is not an argument, that is a statement.

No. when you say something is wrong its an argument. People could always disagree and say "no killing Palestinian civilians is fine". A few more posts and we&#39;ll probably get there though...


After rereading all of your posts in this thread I have concluded that you are pro-Palestinian.
Every example of violence you have cited has been Israeli.
You have used the words "genocide" and "war criminal" refering to Israelis.
Not one mention of corresponding acts by Palestinian fighters/leaders.

Is this a fair assessment?

*sigh*

If you cant see the difference between terrorists committing terrorist acts and an Army committing terrorist acts I pity you. We&#39;ve already covered this ground so we&#39;re clearly going round in circles here.

I would hate to think the British army was killing Irish citizens indiscriminately with missile attacks on crowded apartment blocks. Reading between the lines I dont think you guys give a damn that your soldiers kill innocent civilians in your name. Perhaps it all comes down to a desire for revenge, not peace?

By all means kill the terrorists, but lets not pretend that killing civilians with the latest military hardware is either unavoidable, acceptable or justified.

j2k4
06-16-2003, 12:16 PM
EBP-

We try not to nit-pick here, nor exercise contrarian inclinations for their own sake, but you seem to be clinging a bit to tightly to your urge to label while denying others the right to disagree with your choice of labels; the only basic difference between us.

Yes, you do seem to be just a wee bit pro-Palestinian; such is your right, here or anywhere.

But the Israelis are, bottom line, doing what the Palestinians are: depriving their opposition of lives.

Would you prefer the Israelis form their own band of terrorists and conduct operations as the Palestinians do?

Do you think the Palestinians envy the Israelis their missles? Do you think they would shun the use of same if they were similarly armed?

All things considered, I think the civilian casualties are due in large part to the fact the operatives of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa, et.al. have a tragic propensity for hiding in densely populated areas so as to exact an additional toll vis `a vis the media when the attacks occur.

It could easily be deduced, from a tactical stand-point, Palestinians believe Palestinian lives are to be wasted by Palestinians (witness the teenage homicide bombers), not the Israeli army, and in both cases they are to be martyred.

We in the west believe such notions as "teenage homicide bombers" to be repugnant, and whatever urge compels their use to be redolent of the odor of cowardice.

evilbagpuss
06-16-2003, 03:50 PM
Well your vocabulary is quite impressive but I&#39;m afraid it doesnt add up to much.


We try not to nit-pick here,

I assume your talking about the difference between a terrorist group committing atrocities and an army committing atrocities. Thats not &#39;nit picking&#39;, not by a long shot.


nor exercise contrarian inclinations for their own sake

If you could explain that statement and tell me what is contrarian about my inclinations I would appreciate it. My inclinations do not contradict prevailing wisdom. Prevaling wisdom and International law says that the state sanctioned slaughter of civilians is illegal and unacceptable, regardless of the tactics of terrorist forces. If anyones inclinations are contrarian, they are yours.

I could also state the case as to why dropping a missile onto 150 civilians from a jet fighter is "redolent of the odor of cowardice", but yet again we&#39;d be going round in circles.

I have made all the relevant points I need to in this debate. They have been largely ignored and no matter how well you construct your sentences or how elegant your grammar, nothing justifies the indiscriminate murder of civilians.

clocker
06-16-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@16 June 2003 - 09:50


I have made all the relevant points I need to in this debate. They have been largely ignored and no matter how well you construct your sentences or how elegant your grammar, nothing justifies the indiscriminate murder of civilians.
Plainly put- what are the relevant points you feel you have made?
I don&#39;t think that anyone has disagreed with the statement that the murder of civilians is wrong.
You seem to make a distinction between identical acts by the two sides, however.
Somehow the Israelis are depicted as far more guilty than their Palestinian equivalents.
You grant the Palestinian leadership the luxury of "plausable deniability". They can claim that aggression from their side is the act of a "terrorist" when in fact, Hezbollah et al are the army of Palestine in all but name and uniform.
Decry their actions as loudly as the Israeli&#39;s and I don&#39;t see any disagreement at all.

j2k4
06-16-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@16 June 2003 - 10:50
nothing justifies the indiscriminate murder of civilians.
My point being that your last point constitutes a common bottom line.

The only additional points I tried to make were:

1) Your insistance that only your labels are justified, and you will brook no opposition on this point.

2) My opinion that the purposeful treatment of young teens as disposable "weapons" in this generational conflict has no parallel on the Israeli side of the equation, and stands alone as the signal tactic of Palestinian terrorism.

I will again qualify this post as I try to always: These are MY opinions.

I demand no acknowledgement of their legitimacy from you, EBP; this is only a debate.

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-17-2003, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@16 June 2003 - 17:49
I demand no acknowledgement of their legitimacy from you, EBP; this is only a debate.
Man, I wish I could remember that.

3RA1N1AC
06-17-2003, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@12 June 2003 - 14:32
If you want to argue about who&#39;s land it is by going back in time then your assessments fall flat on their face.
Ever heard of Judea,Jerusalem,Nazareth,Bethlehem and on and on?
The so called occupied West Bank is really Samaria and Judea.
Most of the names of the places in Israel are Jewish names That go back millennia.
This land belonged to the Jews long before the name "Palestinian" existed.
are you an american, and do you favor the idea of giving the entirety of the united states, canada and mexico back to the native americans? the north american continent belonged to them much longer than it has ever belonged to the currently ruling inhabitants, and many of the places bear native american names.

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-17-2003, 04:55 AM
Yes I am an American and no I don&#39;t favor giving American Indians the entire country Back.
But that&#39;s not what I said.
I said that if someone wants to argue about whose land it is by going back in time then lets just keep going.
How far back should we go to determine who&#39;s land it really is?
Over the past 2000 years both Jew and Arab have lived in those lands all the way up until now.
Let me say that I have great sympathy for the American Indian and believe they should get something back.
Are you aware that reparations have been taking place for a long time now.
While probably not enough, it&#39;s at least a start.
When my friend turned 18 years of age he got quite a bit of money just for being 1/4 Indian.
That was in the seventies.
Now they seem to be opening up casino&#39;s everywhere here in California.

3RA1N1AC
06-17-2003, 05:03 AM
so... you wouldn&#39;t be ecstatic if the rest of the world got together and said, "okay, everybody in america who isn&#39;t a native american, you&#39;re getting stuck over here in this ghetto... let&#39;s say, oklahoma and whichever other states are the least valuable. the rest of the land belongs to the indians now, since they were here originally."

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-17-2003, 05:16 AM
Don&#39;t even go there.
The palestinian&#39;s have been offered 97% of the west bank and the Gaza strip and they refused.
97% of what they want the most, or so they say.
Look at the map links I posted in this thread and you will see proof they want it all.

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-17-2003, 05:18 AM
:lol: Btw
Why does everyone pick on Oklahoma?

j2k4
06-17-2003, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@17 June 2003 - 00:03
so... you wouldn&#39;t be ecstatic if the rest of the world got together and said, "okay, everybody in america who isn&#39;t a native american, you&#39;re getting stuck over here in this ghetto... let&#39;s say, oklahoma and whichever other states are the least valuable.&nbsp; the rest of the land belongs to the indians now, since they were here originally."
Sounds like, being the sole perpetrator of sin and evil in the world, we&#39;re about to be forced to confront our "just" desserts by a bunch of puny, whiny, do-gooders from foreign lands-Woe is me&#33;

I say we should go to the U.N. and sue for "right of return"&#33;

Seriously-

Even those members I disagree with regularly must feel absolutely beset by the unrelenting stupidity, the utterly astounding disregard for fact and reason on display here in the last 48 or so hours.

It puts me in mind of the dreaded "Red Tide"-ugly and depressing, however temporary.

evilbagpuss
06-17-2003, 06:32 AM
Even those members I disagree with regularly must feel absolutely beset by the unrelenting stupidity, the utterly astounding disregard for fact and reason on display here in the last 48 or so hours.


The hypocrisy concerns me more.

Your argument is that the Jews owned the land over 2000 years ago and so it belongs to them. Yet you mock the idea of the American Indians being given back their land which was taken from much more recently.

Tell me... how do you get those clearly conflicting views to gel? Perhaps you believe in one rule for Jewish people and another for the Gentiles?

I find your replies dishonest. You claim to be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian yet you think nothing of Palestinian men being shot in the head while carrying babies, the mutilated corpses of Palestinian children or missile attacks on crowded areas full of women and children.

Your main argument seems to be "well they do it to the Israelis" while you ignore the logical implication of this argument i.e that by using similar methods the Israelis are terrorists as well.

If this isnt "astounding disregard for fact and reason" I dont know what is.

At least ShockAndAwe has the honesty to come out and say he wants the Palestinians "driven from the land". You dress up your views with an impressive if somewhat unnecessary vocabulary and pseudo-intellectual reasoning in, what I can only assume is, the vain hope people will forget the facts you have conveniently ignored.

To be brutally honest it sickens and depresses me. I take heart in the fact that there are many Israelis who disagree with state sanctioned atrocities.

clocker
06-17-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 00:32


At least ShockAndAwe has the honesty to come out and say he wants the Palestinians "driven from the land". You dress up your views with an impressive if somewhat unnecessary vocabulary and pseudo-intellectual reasoning in, what I can only assume is, the vain hope people will forget the facts you have conveniently ignored.


Got a mirror handy?

echidna
06-17-2003, 01:15 PM
j2k4 & S&A :: you guys seem convinced that might is right
i agree that in the short term that it does convince people under duress
but it is not a way of building trust or stability

we all know that the USA will not tolerate any other nation amassing anything like the weapons that the USA has
and so the USA will retain the might

but it doesn&#39;t make it right
it just makes the USA the biggest, best-armed thug in the playground

palestine belongs to the palestinians [muslim, jew and christian]
the zionist invasion is a recent aberration of over a thousand years history
israel gets it&#39;s right though might borrowed from the USA [and the holocaust allows israels no right to enact it&#39;s own genocide]

you&#39;re defending a mafiocracy, seemingly because it is american led, and that&#39;s just immoral and nasty [but probably patriotic], i fail to see how you cats can assume the moral or semantic high ground defending violence as a political tool

clocker
06-17-2003, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by echidna@17 June 2003 - 07:15
i fail to see how you cats can assume the moral or semantic high ground defending violence as a political tool
Unlike the Palestinians.

j2k4
06-17-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 01:32

Even those members I disagree with regularly must feel absolutely beset by the unrelenting stupidity, the utterly astounding disregard for fact and reason on display here in the last 48 or so hours.


The hypocrisy concerns me more.

Your argument is that the Jews owned the land over 2000 years ago and so it belongs to them. Yet you mock the idea of the American Indians being given back their land which was taken from much more recently.

Tell me... how do you get those clearly conflicting views to gel? Perhaps you believe in one rule for Jewish people and another for the Gentiles?

I find your replies dishonest. You claim to be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian yet you think nothing of Palestinian men being shot in the head while carrying babies, the mutilated corpses of Palestinian children or missile attacks on crowded areas full of women and children.

Your main argument seems to be "well they do it to the Israelis" while you ignore the logical implication of this argument i.e that by using similar methods the Israelis are terrorists as well.

If this isnt "astounding disregard for fact and reason" I dont know what is.

At least ShockAndAwe has the honesty to come out and say he wants the Palestinians "driven from the land". You dress up your views with an impressive if somewhat unnecessary vocabulary and pseudo-intellectual reasoning in, what I can only assume is, the vain hope people will forget the facts you have conveniently ignored.

To be brutally honest it sickens and depresses me. I take heart in the fact that there are many Israelis who disagree with state sanctioned atrocities.
If I were to grant without question your mis-perception of my stance, I could just as easily state that yours stands at a precise 180 degrees opposite.

I have made no qualification as to Israel&#39;s "right" to the land, historical or otherwise-the only relevant fact is they are currently occupying a plot of land whose borders are in a constant state of flux due to the conflicts they find themselves engaged in over the past 55 years.

Now, I&#39;m going to make a leap here; try to follow:

Indigenous peoples who have been defeated in war, or relieved of their lands through whatever means by a superior force, and are defined therefore as defeated or otherwise subjugated, no longer own the land.

The U.S. is not the first country (and certainly won&#39;t be the last) to usurp, however violently, brutally or unfairly, control of lands inhabited by other people, so resign yourself to the fact the U.S. is not the progenitor of that "sin".

Herewith a few facts about me, and my beliefs:

I do not suffer any qualms about being a member of a "conquering race".

Neither will I suffer a lecture from you as to the plight of the Amerindians; I am very well acquainted with them and their "plight" (as I&#39;m sure you would refer to it); you see, I live on a reservation-my two children are tribal members-ALL of my ex-inlaws are tribal elders who are steeped in their history, and not one of them would find a shred of agreement with your suppositions.

I owe them nothing, and just to make myself clear, I don&#39;t think I owe the descendants of historically enslaved Africans anything, either.

Now, then-back to the mideast:

Arafat is a hate-filled, terrorist-monger who treats the Palestinian "nation", such as it is, as his personal play-toy; an international "social experiment" gone awry. In case you hadn&#39;t noticed, no Arab country offers to help the Palestinians-have you ever given any thought to the origins of that enigma?

Do you have any capacity at all to get past the imagery of conflict and your unquestioning attachment to a cause whose leadership constitutes the largest impediment to peace?

Must you insist on practicing the politics of emotion rather than the politics of reason?

I have stated very clearly my support for the peoples on both sides of the conflict.

The leadership is another matter.

Just for the sake of asking:

What do you think of the Arafat&#39;s (hence Palestine&#39;s) stated (and as yet, unrenounced) stated goal of eradication of the Jews?

Rat Faced
06-17-2003, 03:52 PM
I appear to get a different inference from the arguments to evil bagpus.

j2k4 appears to agree with me...although much more elegantly worded....ie: Both leaderships are a bunch of bastards.

evilbagpus, also appears to agree with me: although he is trying to play Devils Advocate on the side of the pallestinians....ie: Both sides are a bunch of bastards


So.....

why are you both arguing over semantics?




I cant resist this though...please forgive me j2k4...


Indigenous peoples who have been defeated in war, or relieved of their lands through whatever means by a superior force, and are defined therefore as defeated or otherwise subjugated, no longer own the land.


Isnt this the opposite of the US argument used for not coming into WWII earlier than they did (or one of them)...ie The breakup of the British Empire was one of the "prices" that the British had to pay for aid in Europe?



:rolleyes: :-"

j2k4
06-17-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2003 - 10:52
I cant resist this though...please forgive me j2k4...


Indigenous peoples who have been defeated in war, or relieved of their lands through whatever means by a superior force, and are defined therefore as defeated or otherwise subjugated, no longer own the land.


Isnt this the opposite of the US argument used for not coming into WWII earlier than they did (or one of them)...ie The breakup of the British Empire was one of the "prices" that the British had to pay for aid in Europe?



:rolleyes: :-"
My "Indigenous peoples..." statement was meant to acknowledge only the ability of a militarily superior power to hold dominion over a weaker one, as in the case of creating, expanding or buffering empire-i.e., the recently dissolved Eastern bloc, whose countries were most assuredly "subjugated"; the actual ownership of the land, at the time, had defaulted to the greater U.S.S.R.

I believe the break-up of the British Empire would be more correctly viewed as a natural evolution arising from Britain&#39;s sorry financial state following the war: Olde Blighty was broke.

Rebuilding the the British Isles took priority over maintainance of the empire-simple as that.

Empires are nice, but they&#39;re not free. :P

In light of this, any input the U.S. had would have been more on the order of "good advice".

evilbagpuss
06-17-2003, 06:28 PM
evilbagpus, also appears to agree with me: although he is trying to play Devils Advocate on the side of the pallestinians....ie: Both sides are a bunch of bastards


So.....

why are you both arguing over semantics?


It&#39;s a little more than semantics Ratfaced. The Palestinians are not provided with the cutting edge in US military hardware and expertise so they can carry out atrocities with more efficiency.

Also no one here is trying to pretend that the Palestinian terrorists are a civilized democratic organisation.

These 2 important facts seem lost on jk24

edit: unforgivable typo&#33;&#33;

The Knife Thrower
06-17-2003, 06:34 PM
Q: What do hamas and the israeli army have in common?
A: They want to kill innocent civilians on the other side.

Q: Why are they different?
A: Because the israeli army doesn&#39;t tell the public that they are trying to kill civilians.

echidna
06-18-2003, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by The Knife Thrower@18 June 2003 - 04:34
Q: What do hamas and the israeli army have in common?
A: They want to kill innocent civilians on the other side.

Q: Why are they different?
A: Because the israeli army doesn&#39;t tell the public that they are trying to kill civilians.
the second question can also be answered;
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises &#39;human bombs&#39; snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.

clocker
06-18-2003, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by echidna@17 June 2003 - 22:49

the second question can also be answered;
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises &#39;human bombs&#39; snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.
I&#39;m sure that the dead on both sides really appreciate your finely drawn distinction.

j2k4
06-18-2003, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 13:28
It&#39;s a little more than semantics Ratfaced. The Palestinians are not provided with the cutting edge in US military hardware and expertise so they can carry out atrocities with more efficiency.

Also no one here is trying to pretend that the Palestinian terrorists are a civilized democratic organisation.

These 2 important facts seem lost on jk24

Nothing lost here-

Your first fact is irrelevant, however regretful.

The second is disingenuous; what right do Palestinian terrorists have to free land so as to form a country?

I would rather any lands foregone by Israel be earmarked for non-terrorist Palestinians; the terrorists should be hunted down and executed.

echidna
06-18-2003, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by clocker+18 June 2003 - 14:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 18 June 2003 - 14:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-echidna@17 June 2003 - 22:49

the second question can also be answered;
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises &#39;human bombs&#39; snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.
I&#39;m sure that the dead on both sides really appreciate your finely drawn distinction. [/b][/quote]
if the dead could draw anything they wouldn&#39;t be dead :P

it&#39;s the living [mostly the tax payers] who i think should be concerned about the distinction, (apart from anything else human bombs are much cheaper than helicopters) i guess every arms sale means american jobs, right.

j2k4
06-18-2003, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by echidna+18 June 2003 - 00:35--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (echidna @ 18 June 2003 - 00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 14:55
<!--QuoteBegin-echidna@17 June 2003 - 22:49

the second question can also be answered;
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises &#39;human bombs&#39; snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.
I&#39;m sure that the dead on both sides really appreciate your finely drawn distinction.
if the dead could draw anything they wouldn&#39;t be dead :P

it&#39;s the living [mostly the tax payers] who i think should be concerned about the distinction, (apart from anything else human bombs are much cheaper than helicopters) i guess every arms sale means american jobs, right. [/b][/quote]
Clocker-

Echidna petitions to disallow your metaphor; how do you answer the request? :huh:

Barbarossa
06-18-2003, 08:44 AM
If the dead were still alive they&#39;d be turning in their graves... :blink:

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 11:22 AM
Your first fact is irrelevant, however regretful.

If you and the majority of Americans cant see the connection between the first fact, a 36 year occupation funded and supported by the USA, 2 billion dollars worth of military aid each year and 9/11 then I&#39;m afraid you guys will not see the end of terrorism for many years. Your right though, this is certainly regretful for all concerned. Particularly for your allies in Europe who will act as a &#39;buffer&#39; due to them being an easier target for Al-Queda to reach.


The second is disingenuous; what right do Palestinian terrorists have to free land so as to form a country?

The second fact is anything but disingenuous. We&#39;ve covered this "A civilized democracy shouldn&#39;t use the same tactics as terrorists" point 3 times now and you still avoid it. Again, your making statements without justifying them. Although I have to ask you, if the people who commit terrorist atrocities don&#39;t deserve the land, then do you agree that no-one who has served in the Israeli army deserves the land either?

btw I&#39;m still waiting for an explanation of why my views are contrarian.


I would rather any lands foregone by Israel be earmarked for non-terrorist Palestinians;

Again I simply don&#39;t believe you. When S+A was arguing that the Palestinians should be driven from the land and that all Muslims are evil, you did nothing to distance yourself from his views. In fact you tried to make them more acceptable by diluting his rhetoric and attempting to put a PC spin on it. Add to this your utter lack of concern for the Palestinian civilians who have been systematically murdered for over 30 years and you will see why I find it hard to believe you.

Put it this way, if someone were agreeing with me, yet justified ethnic cleansing and stated that "all Jews are evil" I would swiftly distance myself from that individual.

clocker
06-18-2003, 12:57 PM
EBP,

For the record, would you please state on which side of this debate your sympathies lie.
One word will suffice.
Palestine?
Israel?

clocker
06-18-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+17 June 2003 - 23:41--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 17 June 2003 - 23:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by echidna@18 June 2003 - 00:35

Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 14:55
<!--QuoteBegin-echidna@17 June 2003 - 22:49

the second question can also be answered;
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises &#39;human bombs&#39; snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.
I&#39;m sure that the dead on both sides really appreciate your finely drawn distinction.
if the dead could draw anything they wouldn&#39;t be dead :P

it&#39;s the living [mostly the tax payers] who i think should be concerned about the distinction, (apart from anything else human bombs are much cheaper than helicopters) i guess every arms sale means american jobs, right.
Clocker-

Echidna petitions to disallow your metaphor; how do you answer the request? :huh: [/b][/quote]
Echidna may wish to petition his English instructors.
The verb in that sentence is "appreciate".
"Finely drawn" would be a adverbial modifier of "description".

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 01:20 PM
EBP,

For the record, would you please state on which side of this debate your sympathies lie.
One word will suffice.
Palestine?
Israel?

The fact you felt the need to ask that question is rather telling. I will answer in one word.

Justice.

Why dont you try and answer some of the issues I&#39;ve raised about the double standards at play here? Attempting to pigeon hole my views into a neat little pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian box is a desperate strategy and is not conducive to an informed debate.

clocker
06-18-2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 07:20

EBP,

For the record, would you please state on which side of this debate your sympathies lie.
One word will suffice.
Palestine?
Israel?

The fact you felt the need to ask that question is rather telling. I will answer in one word.

Justice.

Why dont you try and answer some of the issues I&#39;ve raised about the double standards at play here? Attempting to pigeon hole my views into a neat little pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian box is a desperate strategy and is not conducive to an informed debate.
Your answer is unsatisfactory, sorry.

Justice for whom?

You are awfully quick to accuse others of evading issues, whist simultaneously refusing to respond to direct ( and unequivacable) questions.

I apologise for the multisyllable words. They seemed appropriate.

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 01:46 PM
@clocker

Justice for all.

Israelis from Palestinian terror, US + European citizens from Islamic terror, Palestinian civilians from Israeli terror.

The point I&#39;ve been making for 3 days now is that none of this will happen until the USA stops being so one-sided and helping the Israelis commit atrocities. What is so evasive about that?

I suggest you go back to my post before your "For the record" post. You seem to be more concerned with getting people to take sides than dicussing solutions to problems. I suggest you rethink who is evading the real issues here.

No need to apologise for using "multisyllable words" as you put it. It&#39;s only when they are used to take the discussion OT and distract people from the real issues that they bother me. btw I would refer to them as &#39;esoteric&#39;&#39; (I&#39;m referring to jk24&#39;s words here, not yours) but hey, don&#39;t let an opportunity to insult pass you by :angry:

edited: removed ambiguity of one sentence and the chance for opportunists to insult and be evasive

j2k4
06-18-2003, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 06:22

Your first fact is irrelevant, however regretful.

If you and the majority of Americans cant see the connection between the first fact, a 36 year occupation funded and supported by the USA, 2 billion dollars worth of military aid each year and 9/11 then I&#39;m afraid you guys will not see the end of terrorism for many years. Your right though, this is certainly regretful for all concerned. Particularly for your allies in Europe who will act as a &#39;buffer&#39; due to them being an easier target for Al-Queda to reach.


The second is disingenuous; what right do Palestinian terrorists have to free land so as to form a country?

The second fact is anything but disingenuous. We&#39;ve covered this "A civilized democracy shouldn&#39;t use the same tactics as terrorists" point 3 times now and you still avoid it. Again, your making statements without justifying them. Although I have to ask you, if the people who commit terrorist atrocities don&#39;t deserve the land, then do you agree that no-one who has served in the Israeli army deserves the land either?

btw I&#39;m still waiting for an explanation of why my views are contrarian.


I would rather any lands foregone by Israel be earmarked for non-terrorist Palestinians;

Again I simply don&#39;t believe you. When S+A was arguing that the Palestinians should be driven from the land and that all Muslims are evil, you did nothing to distance yourself from his views. In fact you tried to make them more acceptable by diluting his rhetoric and attempting to put a PC spin on it. Add to this your utter lack of concern for the Palestinian civilians who have been systematically murdered for over 30 years and you will see why I find it hard to believe you.

Put it this way, if someone were agreeing with me, yet justified ethnic cleansing and stated that "all Jews are evil" I would swiftly distance myself from that individual.
This is the last time I&#39;m going to do this.

This forum is where I post MY opinions.

If I agree with the views of another, I may so state.

I may also choose not to state such views, for whatever reason, that is allowed also.

I am not compelled to post in order to demonstrate agreement, disagreement, or any variations of either, no matter what point is posted, or what member is posting.

Just for you, EBP:

The fact of U.S. support for Israel is what it is.

Debating the morality of the fact does nothing for the Palestinians.

Fomenting the notion that the U.S. is, by virtue of it&#39;s intransigence vis `a vis terrorism, guilty by proxy of any terrorism that may occur in Europe is an astoundingly creative application of your fervid anti-U.S. sentiment.

In light of such artistry I can only say, in my experience, logic is not capable of the "elasticity" your scenario demands.

Your attempted refutation of my second point is incoherent; all I could gather from it was an accusation that I am guilty of PC "spin".

Nobody in their right mind would call me PC, and as for spin, well, that&#39;s an awfully easily used invective.

You don&#39;t even recognize agreement when it occurs, and what&#39;s worse, you obviously don&#39;t even read the threads before you post.

EBP, if you are going to assay a landscape of oil and canvas here, don&#39;t blame me if your powers to conjure an image or convey a thought thereby seem nothing more than an unfortunate clash of color or waste of paint and space.

As you have displayed your contrarianism to all who post here, I don&#39;t owe you an explanation for having made note of it.

There-I am done with you.

clocker
06-18-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 07:46



The point I&#39;ve been making for 3 days now is that none of this will happen until the USA stops being so one-sided and helping the Israelis commit atrocities. What is so evasive about that?


Gee, you&#39;re right. That is not evasive.

It is mindbogglingly wrongheaded.

Do you really imagine that abandoning Israel will stop Islamic terrorism?

Your professed desire for "justice for all" seems exclusive to me.

It doesn&#39;t seem to include "justice" for the scores of Israeli civilian casualties, for instance.

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 02:07 PM
If I agree with the views of another, I may so state.


I dont recall saying otherwise....


The fact of U.S. support for Israel is what it is.

What an utterly inane statement, completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever. My house &#39;is what it is&#39; but that doesnt give you any insight or information about it does it?


Debating the morality of the fact does nothing for the Palestinian.

On the contrary if a consensus can be formed that the US support is immoral I think it would help the Palestinians alot.



Fomenting the notion that the U.S. is, by virtue of it&#39;s intransigence vis `a vis terrorism, guilty by proxy of any terrorism that may occur in Europe is an astoundingly creative application of your fervid anti-U.S. sentiment.

So you are denying that US actions in the Middle-East have any effect on the level of terrorism in Europe? Was there any need to pack such a simple concept into such a loooong sentence?


Your attempted refutation of my second point is incoherent; all I could gather from it was an accusation that I am guilty of PC "spin".

Your 2nd &#39;point&#39; was that Palestinian terrorists dont deserve the land. I dont recall saying they did. I merely asked you if your lofty morals apply equally to all who commit terrorist acts. They clearly do not.


As you have displayed your contrarianism to all who post here, I don&#39;t owe you an explanation for having made note of it.

haha, I knew I would never get an explanation for that one. :lol: you promised me one as well&#33; :lol: :lol:

Again, many insults, a competent grasp of the English language and an amazing ability to duck and dive every point I have made. Your agility is astounding, perhaps a career as a boxer would be appropriate?

Now you are &#39;done with me&#39; perhaps this thread can get back to the issues at hand.

edit: typo

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 02:17 PM
Do you really imagine that abandoning Israel will stop Islamic terrorism?

Not completely or immediately no. I also dont recall mentioning &#39;abandoning&#39; Israel. I was talking about the cessation of US support for Israeli atrocities. If that happened the moderate Palestinians would be less likely to support terrorist organisations who they see as there only hope. After 30 years of systematic slaughter who can blame them?

If you think it wouldnt make any difference you are sorely mistaken. Do you think that if the British had bombed Irish civilians for 30 years we&#39;d have anything resembling a peace process?

If the Russians were still a superpower and they provided the Palestinians with military hardware you&#39;d be the 1st to complain and I would be right behind you all the way.

It seems to me that you are the one with the exclusive idea of who deserves justice and who doesnt.

clocker
06-18-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 08:07


Now you are &#39;done with me&#39; perhaps this thread can get back to the issues at hand.
Excellent.

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
06-18-2003, 02:27 PM
I am pro-people.

Read the 1st post in this thread.

You will see that the real issue here is that it doesnt have to be "Palestine or Israel". That is the view of the guy who started this thread.

You really are obsessed with tying me down to one side or the other arent you? At least you have now admitted that you are biased towards one side.

There are people in Israel who believe what they&#39;re armed forces are doing is wrong. There are people in Palestine who believe what the terrorists are doing is wrong. (I have seen interviews with both on the &#39;biased&#39; BBC)

Unfortunately these people are in a tiny minority on both sides. THAT is the obstacle to peace. You would do well to ponder that for more than a fleeting moment.

clocker
06-18-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 08:27


Unfortunately these people are in a tiny minority on both sides. THAT is the obstacle to peace. You would do well to ponder that for more than a fleeting moment.
Very well, I shall.
As I do so, you would do well to ponder this...

The Palestinians have been used for decades by their Arab supporters as the straw man with which to goad the US.
They recieve substantial aid, both monetary and hardware, from several Arab nations.
The fact that this aid is cloaked and not a line budget item doesn&#39;t distinguish it from the aid provided Israel by the US in anything but name.


If you think it wouldnt make any difference you are sorely mistaken. Do you think that if the British had bombed Irish civilians for 30 years we&#39;d have anything resembling a peace process?


Your continued comparison of Israel&#39;s plight with that of the UK v. IRA is ridiculous.
The British do not have millions of IRA supporters camped on their doorstep and thus have the luxury of a more measured response.

You have spent several days now, in several different threads, taking cheap shots at the US while claiming to be impartial or acting as an "educator".
Please drop the charade.
If you would only admit to being anti- American I would have far more respect for your posts.
If you act like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck then you are a duck.

Now I&#39;m off to ponder.

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 03:23 PM
They recieve substantial aid, both monetary and hardware, from several Arab nations.
The fact that this aid is cloaked and not a line budget item doesn&#39;t distinguish it from the aid provided Israel by the US in anything but name.


hmm, I cant recall seeing Palestinians flying about in Attack Helicopters.. strange that. jk24 has also stated that no other Arab countries help the Palestinians, I wonder which one of you is talking crap.

I think the tune of &#036;2 billion a year distinguishes it in more than name. Thats just military aid alone.


Your continued comparison of Israel&#39;s plight with that of the UK v. IRA is ridiculous.
The British do not have millions of IRA supporters camped on their doorstep and thus have the luxury of a more measured response.

So you are justifying slaughtering women and children now? I&#39;d really like you to nail this one down so I can decide if you are a psychopath who will justify anything as long as it&#39;s pro-Israeli. Spain has millions of ETA supporters camped inside the house yet doesnt use the &#39;tactics&#39; you support.


If you would only admit to being anti- American I would have far more respect for your posts.


lol&#33; How can I be anti-American when there are a significant number of Americans who agree with my views&#33;&#33;?? It always comes down to that with your type though. Perhaps I should follow the US administrations example and start slagging off the French. Thats acceptable and anti-French sentiment seems to be in vogue right now. No hypocrisy there then eh? :lol: :lol: :lol:


you act like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck then you are a duck.

Thats very perceptive of you :rolleyes: , I&#39;d compliment you a little more but some guy is throwing me a slice of bread :lol:

If you would stop justifying murdering women and children I might have a little more respect for your posts. :angry:

echidna
06-18-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by clocker+18 June 2003 - 23:02--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 18 June 2003 - 23:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@17 June 2003 - 23:41

Originally posted by echidna@18 June 2003 - 00:35

Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 14:55
<!--QuoteBegin-echidna@17 June 2003 - 22:49

the second question can also be answered;
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises &#39;human bombs&#39; snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.
I&#39;m sure that the dead on both sides really appreciate your finely drawn distinction.
if the dead could draw anything they wouldn&#39;t be dead :P

it&#39;s the living [mostly the tax payers] who i think should be concerned about the distinction, (apart from anything else human bombs are much cheaper than helicopters) i guess every arms sale means american jobs, right.
Clocker-

Echidna petitions to disallow your metaphor; how do you answer the request? :huh:
Echidna may wish to petition his English instructors.
The verb in that sentence is "appreciate".
"Finely drawn" would be a adverbial modifier of "description". [/b][/quote]
yeah english isn&#39;t my strongest point
i did realise upon a re-read that i had gagged on my gag [oh-well]

dead people appreciating is equally as unlikely as them drawing don&#39;t you think though?

[i hope you don&#39;t charge english tuition fees, clocker]

i think that throwing stones at tanks or blowing yourself up with C4 seem like very desperate acts, while attacking homes [admittedly of human-bombers families] in residential palestine [ramallah for instance] with apache launched laser guided missiles seems like very aggressive acts.

in terms of sympathy, i can sympathise with those displaying desperation easier than with those displaying aggression.
maybe i just side with the underdog [better odds if your the betting type]

Rat Faced
06-18-2003, 04:30 PM
Your continued comparison of Israel&#39;s plight with that of the UK v. IRA is ridiculous.
The British do not have millions of IRA supporters camped on their doorstep and thus have the luxury of a more measured response.




If we&#39;d bombed the crap out of Ireland we would have had.

If, for example, Belgium (yeh lets drag Skweeky and Bender in here ;) ) had given us aid in order to bomb the crap out of Ireland, im sure the Irish Terrorists would have seen Belgium as a legitimate target too.

The Irish terrorists would have been receiving aid from US INDIVIDUALS....just like the Pallestinians, im sure, are receiving aid from Arabian INDIVIDUALS.



Still doesnt make it right.

Israel as a &#39;state&#39; is, in my opinion, commiting attrociaties.

Pallestinians as &#39;individuals&#39;, are committing attrociaties.

Supporting anyone to commit attrociaties of this nature, whether it be a state OR an individual is, in my humple opinion, "Aiding and Abbetting" in that attrociaty.

In the eyes of the people involved, the supporter thereby become legitimate targets to those that have had the attrociaties done to them.



Please note that last sentence....it is the whole reasoning behind the US/UK attack on afganistan.

To deny others the same reasoning, is hypocritical.

clocker
06-18-2003, 04:50 PM
Rat,

Both you and EBP have talked about the Palestinians as if they are soliciting quarters on streetcorners while America showers Israel with massive amounts of money and aid.
This leads to the emotionally satisfying tendency to "root for the underdog".
It leads to the perception that the US is just the "biggest, best armed thug on the playground" ( from another thread, I know).

America does provide significant aid to Israel.
Palestine terrorists receive significant aid (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ehrenfeld103102.asp) also.
It is certainly convenient to portray the PLO et al as the noble David to Israel&#39;s Goliath, but I don&#39;t think that it&#39;s at all accurate.

I&#39;m still confused why it is that all of you guys claim to be for justice and peace for everyone, yet all your examples of atrocities are Israeli.

fugley
06-18-2003, 05:20 PM
The best brains in the world can&#39;t sort it&#33; They are both as bad as each other&#33; Religion causes problems everywere&#33; But the real truth is ........ Human kind is a croc of sh*t. There will always be conflict one way or another. We will always find some difference or other&#33; Male v Female, Black V White, North v South, East v West, One religion v another religion,Meat eaters v Veggies, Old v Young,Gay v Straight, Rich v Poor, Me v You&#33; A never ending list - trust me&#33; All I have seen in here is Ego v Ego. lol

Just own up no one has an f*cking clue&#33;

Rat Faced
06-18-2003, 05:24 PM
Clocker,

The attrociaties ON BOTH SIDES, are so numerous, and so well recorded all over the world that i havent even bothered mentioning any.

If I was talking human rights in Burma, or the Pillephines i may have provided links or examples.

I dont feel that i have to here....it doesnt take much memory or searching to bring them up.



As to "siding with the Pallestinians"...I havent.

Im on record as saying i detest BOTH their leaderships equaly.

The peoples BOTH have a right to live.



I am merely pointing out, that if the US is going to take sides, then it has to live with the consequences of taking sides. Just like the Taliban did, when they aided the people that attacked the USA.


I am neither anti-Israeli nor anti-Pallestinian.....PEOPLE

But im anti BOTH leaderships.



Your link shows that there is not enough being done to stifle the flow of cash to terrorist organisations.....I agree.

I dont think enough is being done to stifle the flow of cash to Terrorist nations either, via military aid.....doubtless you will disagree.



If you are going to take every anti-Israeli comment as being Pro-Pallestinian, then i hope to hell you arent in charge of the peace talks :o

j2k4
06-18-2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 09:07

As you have displayed your contrarianism to all who post here, I don&#39;t owe you an explanation for having made note of it.

haha, I knew I would never get an explanation for that one. :lol: you promised me one as well&#33; :lol: :lol:

One LAST time:

I promised you a reply to your post, not an explanation of my view re: your contrarianism, but since you are the only member who doesn&#39;t "get it", here you go:

My application of that term has absolutely nothing to do with the "reasons/reasoning/facts/nonsense" that you post.

It has, instead, to do with your pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint for it&#39;s own sake (thus, contrarianism); you find someone whose views you oppose, then transfer the projection of your focus from the opinion to the poster and all subsequent opinions.

Clear enough? for you, probably not.

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 05:57 PM
@j2k4

Utter rubbish. For one thing contrarianism isnt a real word. Look in a dictionary if you dont believe me. I assume you&#39;ve based that word on "contrarian" which DOES NOT mean "a pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint for it&#39;s own sake". It means to go against conventional wisdom.

contrarian definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contrarian&r=3)

I have asked you to explain how my views go against conventional wisdom and still I&#39;m waiting.

Think about what your saying though. If I have a "pathological urge" to choose an opposing viewpoint how come I&#39;m not choosing the opposite viewpoint? What makes my beliefs more likely to stem from this pathological urge than yours or anyone elses?

If your going to attempt to impress us with this astounding vocabulary you seem so intent on displaying at least make sure you know what the bloody word means and that it makes sense in the context your using it in.

Although I couldnt find it in the dictionary I did find some people using it online. And it still doesnt mean pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint

Contrarianism (http://www.raptureready.com/rap20.html)

Is that clear enough for you? Probably not. :angry:

j2k4
06-18-2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 12:57
@j2k4

Utter rubbish. For one thing contrarianism isnt a real word. Look in a dictionary if you dont believe me. I assume you&#39;ve based that word on "contrarian" which DOES NOT mean "a pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint for it&#39;s own sake". It means to go against conventional wisdom.

contrarian definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contrarian&r=3)

I have asked you to explain how my views go against conventional wisdom and still I&#39;m waiting.

Think about what your saying though. If I have a "pathological urge" to choose an opposing viewpoint how come I&#39;m not choosing the opposite viewpoint? What makes my beliefs more likely to stem from this pathological urge than yours or anyone elses?

If your going to attempt to impress us with this astounding vocabulary you seem so intent on displaying at least make sure you know what the bloody word means and that it makes sense in the context your using it in.

Although I couldnt find it in the dictionary I did find some people using it online. And it still doesnt mean pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint

Contrarianism (http://www.raptureready.com/rap20.html)

Is that clear enough for you? Probably not.&nbsp; :angry:
Oh. boy-

The term doesn&#39;t imply a pathology in or of itself; you, EPB, have supplied that aspect separately-it is a component of your "technique", if I may be granted the liberty I take in using that term to describe what you do here.

Now, goodbye, SON.

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It has, instead, to do with your pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint for it&#39;s own sake (thus, contrarianism); you find someone whose views you oppose, then transfer the projection of your focus from the opinion to the poster and all subsequent opinions[/b]

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
The term doesn&#39;t imply a pathology in or of itself; you, EPB, have supplied that aspect separately-it is a component of your "technique", if I may be granted the liberty I take in using that term to describe what you do here.
[/quote]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

LMAO&#33;&#33;

fugley
06-18-2003, 06:27 PM
The air was thick with wanktosterone&#33;

clocker
06-18-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@18 June 2003 - 11:24



I am neither anti-Israeli nor anti-Pallestinian.....PEOPLE

But im anti BOTH leaderships.



Your link shows that there is not enough being done to stifle the flow of cash to terrorist organisations.....I agree.

I dont think enough is being done to stifle the flow of cash to Terrorist nations either, via military aid.....doubtless you will disagree.




It&#39;s all well and good to be for the people.
Let me state for the record that I too, am for the people.

Unfortunately for us both then, that that doesn&#39;t do much good, does it?
Tony Blair can&#39;t very well sit down with Achmed the bricklayer and hammer out a peace treaty, can he?

As to your next point, do you consider Israel a "terrorist" nation?

You&#39;re probably correct in your assumption that I would be a failure as the leader of peace talks.

My current (and best) proposal would involve stripping the populations of both sides down to loincloths, arming them with identical knives, building a 50 ft. wall around the whole area and letting them have at it.
Whoever walked out the gate at the end of the day could have that God-forsaken chunk of the Earth and welcome to it.

fugley
06-18-2003, 06:50 PM
You could ladel it with a spoon&#33; :blink:

Rat Faced
06-18-2003, 07:04 PM
As to your next point, do you consider Israel a "terrorist" nation?



Under the United Nations definition of Terrorism to which the United States as a founding member, has ratified......

Yes, it is a Terrorist State, with more UN resolutions against it than anywhere else in the region.



Does this mean i think all Israeli&#39;s are terrorists? ..........No.

Does this mean i think all Pallestinians are terrorists? ............No

Does this mean that i think the PLO and Hammas arent terrorists? .........No


I hope that this clears up my beliefs for you Clocker, I thought i&#39;d made them abundantly clear earlier in the thread.

clocker
06-18-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@18 June 2003 - 13:04



I hope that this clears up my beliefs for you Clocker, I thought i&#39;d made them abundantly clear earlier in the thread.
Great.

Now, other that the US withdrawing support for Israel and joining in the chorus of wailing, what is your proposal for settling this matter?

I believe that I made mine abundantly clear in my last post.

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by clocker
Now, other that the US withdrawing support for Israel and joining in the chorus of wailing, what is your proposal for settling this matter?

How about if the USA threatened to remove it&#39;s support unless the Israelis use it for defence only? I find it hard to believe that the misuse of US weapons against civilians seems to be such a hotly disputed issue.

If it were Russian helicopters and missiles being used against Israeli residential areas I don&#39;t think it would be so hard to reach a consensus on the matter. I wouldnt be trying to condone it thats for sure.

clocker
06-18-2003, 08:05 PM
I just stipulated to the US withdrawing all it&#39;s support.
The US has joined you in decrying Israeli aggression against the poor, aggrieved Palestinian people.

Now what?

Rat Faced
06-18-2003, 08:14 PM
Aha, this of course is the big question.

Unfortunatly, like yourself, im not an Oracle.



If the USA would only condemn the Israeli&#39;s when they do something, as loudly as it does the Pallestinians (No More, No less) and exerted its influence (Israel knows that it NEEDS the USA much more than the USA needs the crap it gets for supporting it) I think that peace would be a lot closer than it is now.

I can remember numerous times that Israel has been condemned for an action by most of the world....with no comment coming from the USA.

If you cast your mind back to 9/11, how did the US public react towards the countries/peoples that didnt condemn the act? The peoples in the Middle East are just the same.

Acts of Terrorism should be condemned.....no matter who the perpetrators are, it inflames emotion when it is not condemned.

What happens then? Recruitement is up because of the Innocent Martyrs, money flows in from those that wont fight, but will finance....for the same reason.


I have said away from this thread that US Foreign Policy is the reason that the US is getting more and distrusted in the world. All it needs to be is FAIR in this area...not turn Pro-Pallestinian, to defuse a lot of distrust, especially from the Islamic World.


The above of course, is my "opinion", and im sure that you&#39;ll be quick to point this out.

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by clocker
I just stipulated to the US withdrawing all it&#39;s support.


Thats not what I&#39;m talking about. If the USA did threaten to remove their assistance unless the Israelis stopped killing civilians indiscriminately the Israelis would crap themselves and immediately stop. So.. it would never come to "the US withdrawing all it&#39;s support".

As Ratfaced has already pointed out, all we&#39;re arguing is for the US to act fairly and stop turning a blind eye to actions it would loudly condemn if it were anyone else. Is that such a terrible thing?

You seem to be determined to go from one extreme to the other, Israel either kills people indiscriminately or the USA removes all support. Those arent the only 2 options as I&#39;m sure your aware.

The Knife Thrower
06-18-2003, 08:44 PM
Many isrealis think that they are better than non israelis and think that they have a right from god to own the land. So they think they are superior.

Isn&#39;t this similar to the hitlers view that the germans were the master race chosen by god.

Or is it just me.

clocker
06-18-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 14:26


You seem to be determined to go from one extreme to the other, Israel either kills people indiscriminately or the USA removes all support. Those arent the only 2 options as I&#39;m sure your aware.
I was only trying to simplify the debate, but that doesn&#39;t seem to have worked.
Let&#39;s try again...

Let&#39;s say the US does as both you and Rat wish.
What then?

Since neither of you have responded to that , I shall tell you what I think happens.

One day, one week, one month later, another 15 year old human bomb steps on a Israeli bus and blows up innocent Israeli civilians.
The Palestinian "freedom fighters" have raised the intentional targeting of civilians to an art form and I wouldn&#39;t expect them to abandon a tactic that through your intervention has just caused the Israeli&#39;s to lose their biggest supporter.
Who applies responding pressure to the Palestinians now?
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran?
Britain?

Hurry up with your answer, there is a psycho teenager strapping on a plastique filled vest as we ponder.

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by clocker
I was only trying to simplify the debate, but that doesn&#39;t seem to have worked.


Precisely, you have simplified it to the point where your arguing "what if this happened?" when it would never happen.

Ratfaced and I are not saying the US should remove all support.

We&#39;re saying they shouldnt just sit back and do nothing while their support is used to kill civilians. What is so wrong with that?

If Israel stopped killing civilians, ended its 36 year occupation, gave back the land they dont own and destroyed the illegal settlements and the Palestinians still wouldnt accept it, then no one would have any sympathy for them. If the Palestinians did accept it then great.

Why are you so determined that Israel should continue to kill innocent people? You can hardly take the moral highground with such an attitude.

clocker
06-18-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 15:03


Precisely, you have simplified it to the point where your arguing "what if this happened?" when it would never happen.


You seem awfully certain of that.
Based on what, if I might ask?

My supposition was based on historical fact. The scenario I described has been repeated countless times already.
If the US were to withhold/moderate it&#39;s support for Israel, who then, does the same to Palestine?

Respondevous sil vous plait

fugley
06-18-2003, 09:36 PM
Why not forget the history just for a moment and find out what the latest body counts is? Who ever has the highest body count could be classed as the victim?

Then we could all give whichever that is, our support, even if only temporarily&#33;

But should it be point = point ? Which is worth more a Palestinian or an Israeli?

evilbagpuss
06-18-2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by clocker
You seem awfully certain of that.
Based on what, if I might ask?

Oh you know, the last 30 years, little things like that. Also any President who did such a thing would be comitting political suicide, as I&#39;m sure you already know. If the US was going to remove it&#39;s support, it would have done so by now in response to some of the terrible atrocities Israel has committed.

Now... do you think it&#39;s possible for you to answer some of my questions? Here are a couple you seem to want to avoid like the plague.

1) We&#39;re saying they (the US) shouldnt just sit back and do nothing while their support is used to kill civilians on a regular basis. What is so wrong with that?

2) Why are you so determined that Israel should continue to kill innocent people?

Heres a new one for you.

3) Are you getting round to the point that the only way forward that doesnt involve the destruction of Israel is for Israel to continue killing Palestinian civilians till there are none left? No Palestinians no problem? Is that your attitude?

Say what you mean clocker, you seem to be skirting round the issue. The only solution I&#39;ve seen you provide is to give them all loincloths and knives and let them get on with it. Hardly realistic.

Apart from that you seem to be inferring the good old tried and tested ethnic cleansing method. I hope Im mistaken in that inference.

fugley
06-18-2003, 09:43 PM
Wee mouse is bang on with her ideas on religion and the twisting that&#39;s done to it for evil ends.



Seem to me America is an awful big place (believe its twice the size of Wales&#33;)

Could they not find something of Israel or Palestine proportions where they could create and fit a new state?

Just a suggestion and not really much dafter than some of the baloney goin on in here&#33;

kAb
06-18-2003, 09:51 PM
It looks like peace may be near. now, will hamas ever back down? they are now the only roadblocks in this "road to peace".

the palestinian prime minister supports two separate states, and suprisingly so does sharone.

hamas & hezbolla... bastards :angry:

israel sees that these are the last people standing forcefully in the way, that is why they are trying to eliminate them.

obviously they could work close w/ the prime minister to bring hamas down.. :angry:

clocker
06-18-2003, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss+18 June 2003 - 15:38--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 18 June 2003 - 15:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker
You seem awfully certain of that.
Based on what, if I might ask?

Oh you know, the last 30 years, little things like that. Also any President who did such a thing would be comitting political suicide, as I&#39;m sure you already know. If the US was going to remove it&#39;s support, it would have done so by now in response to some of the terrible atrocities Israel has committed.

Now... do you think it&#39;s possible for you to answer some of my questions? Here are a couple you seem to want to avoid like the plague.

1) We&#39;re saying they (the US) shouldnt just sit back and do nothing while their support is used to kill civilians on a regular basis. What is so wrong with that?

2) Why are you so determined that Israel should continue to kill innocent people?

Heres a new one for you.

3) Are you getting round to the point that the only way forward that doesnt involve the destruction of Israel is for Israel to continue killing Palestinian civilians till there are none left? No Palestinians no problem? Is that your attitude?

Say what you mean clocker, you seem to be skirting round the issue. The only solution I&#39;ve seen you provide is to give them all loincloths and knives and let them get on with it. Hardly realistic.

Apart from that you seem to be inferring the good old tried and tested ethnic cleansing method. I hope Im mistaken in that inference. [/b][/quote]
1.) Absolutely nothing

2.) I have never said in a single post that they should. I defy you to find a direct quote from my writing that does say that.

3.) No. Refer to #2.


This should leave you unable to say that I won&#39;t directly answer your questions. Although I feel that I have been providing direct answers to every question in the past, you have consistently refused to do the same. I attempted to leave no room for interpretation in this set of responses. Let&#39;s see if you are able to do the same.

1.) Based on my take on the past 30 years of history, I don&#39;t see any reason whatsoever to suppose that Palestine will abandon it&#39;s tactics of terror. Who will you have rein them in should Israel assume a passive/non-retaliatory stance?

2.) How do you propose to cut off the supply of funds/armaments from Palestine&#39;s Arab supporters?

3) Exactly what does your vision of the Palestinian state consist of? Where do you draw the borders?

evilbagpuss
06-19-2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1.) Absolutely nothing[/b]

Then why the blatant hostility when Rat Faced and I made a simple point about not killing civilians? You started going off on one about the US removing all support.. teenagers with plastique vests etc. Almost as if the idea of not killing Palestinian civilians was utterly preposterous and would lead to the destruction of Israel in a matter of months.

You&#39;ve also implied that you cant fight terrorism without dropping missiles on apartment blocks. I cant be bothered to get the exact quote but I will if you wish.

See the above for your responses to questions 2 and 3.


Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1.) Based on my take on the past 30 years of history, I don&#39;t see any reason whatsoever to suppose that Palestine will abandon it&#39;s tactics of terror. Who will you have rein them in should Israel assume a passive/non-retaliatory stance?
[/b]

This implies that Israeli retaliation has been "reining them in". The facts clearly do not support this view. If anything Israeli aggression increases the level of Palestinian terrorism not lessens it. Retaliation simply creates the &#39;tit for tat&#39; cycle of killing that has been going on for decades. At some point in time one side is going to have to be attacked and not retaliate. I would have thought that was obvious. How else can peace come about?

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@
2.) How do you propose to cut off the supply of funds/armaments from Palestine&#39;s Arab supporters?
[/quote]

I have never pretended to have the solution to that problem, but again dropping missiles on apartment blocks and killing women and children isnt going to solve it.

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
3) Exactly what does your vision of the Palestinian state consist of? Where do you draw the borders? [/quote]

You dont ask for much do you? Again its not related to killing civilians but I guess it would involve giving back the occupied territories and destroying the illegal settlements. The finer details would have to be decided in peace talks between the two sides.

It&#39;s nice to see you dont support state sponsored atrocities or ethnic cleansing but I cant understand why its taken so many posts and so much anger on your part to get to this stage. It was your reaction to a simple point that made me think you believe Israel should continue its policy of atrocities and/or the lives of Palestinians are so worthless that they shouldnt even be brought into the equation.

clocker
06-19-2003, 01:45 AM
Then why the blatant hostility when Rat Faced and I made a simple point about not killing civilians?
You think I&#39;ve been blatantly hostile? I will admit to trying to pin you down on your statements but that hardly rises to the level of hostility.

You&#39;ve also implied that you cant fight terrorism without dropping missiles on apartment blocks. I cant be bothered to get the exact quote but I will if you wish.
I will take this to mean that you searched and searched but could find no such quote. Primarily because I&#39;ve never said anything remotely like that.

This implies that Israeli retaliation has been "reining them in". The facts clearly do not support this view. If anything Israeli aggression increases the level of Palestinian terrorism not lessens it. Retaliation simply creates the &#39;tit for tat&#39; cycle of killing that has been going on for decades. At some point in time one side is going to have to be attacked and not retaliate. I would have thought that was obvious. How else can peace come about?
I agree. One of my main questions to you has consistently been: why not ask/demand this of the Palestinians?

It&#39;s nice to see you dont support state sponsored atrocities or ethnic cleansing but I cant understand why its taken so many posts and so much anger on your part to get to this stage. It was your reaction to a simple point that made me think you believe Israel should continue its policy of atrocities and/or the lives of Palestinians are so worthless that they shouldnt even be brought into the equation.
Again, you confuse disagreement with anger. Or perhaps it&#39;s my stunning condescencion - a trait I thought I had mastered until I ran into you. I now realize there are levels I hadn&#39;t envisioned.

evilbagpuss
06-19-2003, 02:24 AM
*sigh* ok Mr calm and collected lets fight this tooth and nail, point by point if we must...

Here are a few choice quotes immediately after rat faced and I dared to say Israel shouldnt kill civilians....


Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Great.

Now, other that the US withdrawing support for Israel and joining in the chorus of wailing, what is your proposal for settling this matter?[/b]

Notice how no one said anything about the US withdrawing support? Wailing? What are you on about?


Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
just stipulated to the US withdrawing all it&#39;s support.
The US has joined you in decrying Israeli aggression against the poor, aggrieved Palestinian people.
[/b]

Poor aggrieved Palestinian people? Is that your idea of "pinning me down"? Again your 100% stuck on the US withdrawing its support issue even though you brought it up in the 1st place. Again we merely dared to suggest that the USA shouldnt ignore the fact that its &#036;&#036;&#39;s are being used to carry out atrocities.


Originally posted by clocker
One day, one week, one month later, another 15 year old human bomb steps on a Israeli bus and blows up innocent Israeli civilians.
The Palestinian "freedom fighters" have raised the intentional targeting of civilians to an art form and I wouldn&#39;t expect them to abandon a tactic that through your intervention has just caused the Israeli&#39;s to lose their biggest supporter.
Who applies responding pressure to the Palestinians now?
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran?
Britain?

Hurry up with your answer, there is a psycho teenager strapping on a plastique filled vest as we ponder.


At this point Im wondering whether I should arrange a paramedic for the heart attack your soon to have. No hostility here eh? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now for your next point....


Originally posted by clocker
I will take this to mean that you searched and searched but could find no such quote. Primarily because I&#39;ve never said anything remotely like that

Here. Its not my fault you cant recall what you said a short time ago. :angry:


Originally posted by evilbagpuss
Fight terrorism. Dont kill innocent women and children

and in response you say.....

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@
How do you propose to fight terrorism in such an honorable and bloodless way?
Queensbury rules don&#39;t seem to be in effect.[/quote]

Silly me eh? Imagine trying to fight terrorism without killing women and children in missile attacks on residential areas :rolleyes:

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
why not ask/demand this of the Palestinians?
[/quote]

You mean why not ask this of the terrorists? Because by definition you cannot negotiate with terrorists.

I rest my case, Mr "Im not hostile". :lol:

clocker
06-19-2003, 03:00 AM
*sigh*

evilbagpuss
06-19-2003, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by clocker
*sigh*

Dont sulk. You demanded I prove every last word of my previous post. Getting all high and mighty about it when I meet those demands is more than a little irrational.

j2k4
06-19-2003, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss+18 June 2003 - 22:28--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss @ 18 June 2003 - 22:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker
*sigh*

Dont sulk. You demanded I prove every last word of my previous post. Getting all high and mighty about it when I meet those demands is more than a little irrational. [/b][/quote]
From my comfy seat on the sidelines I see a totally different picture.

Barbarossa
06-19-2003, 08:56 AM
This topic is going nowhere fast, and I think it should be closed. Everyone has had more than enough say on the matter. :rolleyes:

echidna
06-19-2003, 04:24 PM
i don&#39;t know which US general it was who made the famous quote during the vietnam war
it went something like;

[i]Originally posted by american with more firepower than sleep+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (american with more firepower than sleep)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>we had to destroy the village in order to liberate it[/b]
i have found this concept [and it&#39;s complete lack of plausible reason] to be endlessly useful in contextualising the actions of US force

i don&#39;t think it is in the nature of US foreign policy to be fair, i just wish a degree of even-handedness would be applied, [or at least a charade of even-handedness]
the support for israel has so much more to do with domestic issues from lobby groups to &#39;defence industry&#39; jobs and with peripheral external issues to do with the manipulation of regional stability for short term financial and political ends, than it has with any desire for peace in the cradle of christendom/islam/judaism

considering the attitude typified by the quote i imagine that collateral damage from the israeli use of US arms would be quite understandable, johnson&johnson sell a lotta band-aids apart from anything else
i also get the impression that clocker and j2k4 and S&A are members of a comparatively small minority of americans who actually care about and consider the situation
and also to the even smaller group who are at all informed as to the history and current politic of the region
i heard today that less than 12% of US college graduates regularly read newspapers, with such high levels of apathy and ignorance [no offence meant people but there are a lot of folk to teach in the US] politics is based upon very simple messages [often with very moral/ethical flavors] and concepts which would be quashed in most other democratic systems are not only tolerated but are the accepted and favoured norm


<!--QuoteBegin-imagine...
NUFChttp://raq599.uk2net.com/UKFootie/badges/new.gif is playing a heavily contested championship match against MUFChttp://raq599.uk2net.com/UKFootie/badges/mnu.gif, the most powerful and influential referee in the world is to adjudicate the match,
but he is wearing MUFC socks&#33;
and he keeps giving penalties to MUFC while he has run out of cards to issue to MCFC
[/quote]
the betting shops are going to strike :: no-one would trust or believe the outcome

in short it would be a fraud

[i don&#39;t think this is the best example, but the USA is sooooo obviously biased, why would anyone trust it&#39;s judgement on israel v. palestine? especially if you&#39;re a palestine supporter]


colinmac :: of cause this topic is going nowhere fast, it&#39;s about middle eastern politics, way deadlier stalemates have been going on for decades

clocker
06-19-2003, 04:57 PM
don&#39;t think it is in the nature of US foreign policy to be fair, i just wish a degree of even-handedness would be applied, [or at least a charade of even-handedness]
I can&#39;t think of any country who&#39;s foreign policy is based on being "fair". "Enlightened self interest" is about the best that you can hope for. I can certainly understand how it could be argued that our current stance does not meet this requirement either.

the support for israel has so much more to do with domestic issues from lobby groups to &#39;defence industry&#39; jobs and with peripheral external issues to do with the manipulation of regional [in]stability for short term financial and political ends, than it has with any desire for peace in the cradle of christendom/islam/judaism
When has there ever been peace in this region? With 3 major religions laying claim to the same plot of earth somebody is always going to feel that they got the short end of the stick. And two of these religions ( not sure about Judaism, I&#39;m not a scholar) don&#39;t particularly leave a lot of room for any other theology. Both Christianity and Islam are aggressively expansionist.

also get the impression that clocker and j2k4 and S&A are members of a comparatively small minority of americans who actually care about and consider the situation
and also to the even smaller group who are at all informed as to the history and current politic of the region
i heard today that less than 12% of US college graduates regularly read newspapers, with such high levels of apathy and ignorance [no offence meant people but there are a lot of folk to teach in the US] politics is based upon very simple messages [often with very moral/ethical flavors] and concepts which would be quashed in most other democratic systems are not only tolerated but are the accepted and favoured norm
This concept, while personally flattering, I think is somewhat flawed. Does the source for what you heard take into account that news is disseminated via more diverse outlets than newsprint?
Out of curiousity, is the circulation of your country&#39;s newspapers growing in proportion to population growth or shrinking?
My impression is that shrinking newsprint readership is a worldwide phenomonon not just a sign of the "dumbing down" of America. Believe me, I am not claiming that as a nation we couldn&#39;t/shouldn&#39;t do much better, I simply question the prevailing attitude that Americans are , as a nation, stupider and less informed than any other "1st world" nation.

echidna
06-19-2003, 06:05 PM
i agree that foreign policy is not based on fairness, i just think historically it can pay off if you pretend well more than &#39;the three major religions&#39; have co-existed in palestine successfully before. the romans ran the region peacefully for centuries after the fall of the first israeli occupation (the siege of Masada & such) the Phoenician empire did a pretty good job too, and up until the 40s apart from unrelated regional conflict spilling over every now and then [crusades, ottomans, world wars] the region known as palestine or israel has been a notably cosmopolitan and tolerant region of diverse cultural and religious influences. it seems to be when one part of that mix gets power out of balance or parties outside the region take a military interest that it becomes a blood bath. some parties would definitely like to rewrite history so we though that there had always been war there [archaeologists get shot at by extremest orthodox zionists in israel, and grenade attacks on digs have been known :: but we don&#39;t here about that on CNN] i think all of the monotheistic faiths are flawed by their denial of each other and all the polytheists/animists and others, most of the really excessive bad stuff that has been perpetrated in the name of religion has been by monotheists newspapers are still huge here, the number of papers continues to shrink though, i&#39;ve tended to find that american tend to educate themselves about different stuff more, many americans i have know have been very specialist in their knowledge, often at the expense of general knowledge. i agree that we&#39;re probably all getting duller and reading less, but i know where the primary market for faux news, friends and survivor is and it&#39;s all in one nation. all of it counts as &#39;media&#39; in the brave new global economy [i wanna live in a society, not an economy] around here the allies of the noecons are trying to rig a free trade deal with the states which would make your TV our TV [and not at all the other way around] i think that is one of the main problems that anyone has in trying to get across to the US public, the US public is very good at telling [and making sitcoms and movies and music and...] and very good at selling what it tells, but america doesn&#39;t culturally consume very much outside it&#39;s own production, eg. the american market for foreign films is tiny yet the world market of movies is predominantly american, this is the same with TV and music too
anyway, bedtime4me :sleeping:

Rat Faced
06-19-2003, 07:36 PM
I agree. One of my main questions to you has consistently been: why not ask/demand this of the Palestinians?



Because the Pallestinians are, by and large INDIVIDUALS.

If we could control individuals like this, then there would be no such thing as murder. Everytime there is an apartment building smashed, the Israeli&#39;s have created another 100+ potential terrorists and have increased their funding. That seems a cockeyed way to "Control" terrorism in the region.

When was the last time the Pallestinian Authority retaliated, while its own offices/police stations and hospitals were getting bombed?


I can&#39;t think of any country who&#39;s foreign policy is based on being "fair". "Enlightened self interest" is about the best that you can hope for. I can certainly understand how it could be argued that our current stance does not meet this requirement either.


I agree with you 100% on this whole paragraph.


When has there ever been peace in this region? With 3 major religions laying claim to the same plot of earth somebody is always going to feel that they got the short end of the stick. And two of these religions ( not sure about Judaism, I&#39;m not a scholar) don&#39;t particularly leave a lot of room for any other theology. Both Christianity and Islam are aggressively expansionist.

The Christians have, by and large given up their claim.....as long as they have full access to the Holy places...(It helps if Israel doesnt blow the churches up too ;) )

Judaism isnt expansionist....in fact I think they are the opposite. Although they will accept converts, its not with open arms (some of the sects wont even talk to other Jews, never mind other religions)

The funny thing is they are all devolved from the same basic religion...the differences being that Islam and Christians believe different people to be the messiah (although Islam does except Christ as a prophet) while the Jews dont think he&#39;s arrived yet....the other 2 major religions dont have this shit, and they are unrelated (Differences between Hindu and Islam in northern India excepted)....but forgive me, i go off topic :P



From my comfy seat on the sidelines I see a totally different picture.

Well? what picture? Dont keep us in suspenders. Speak up&#33; You usually have no trouble doing this ;)

Oh...And i HAVE to say.........



QUOTE (imagine...)
NUFC is playing a heavily contested championship match against MUFC, the most powerful and influential referee in the world is to adjudicate the match,
but he is wearing MUFC socks&#33;
and he keeps giving penalties to MUFC while he has run out of cards to issue to NUFC




This happens all the time in the Premiership, we&#39;re used to it. The referees are all scared of Ferguson... :angry:

As ANYONE that doesnt support MUFC....or play Championship Manager 3. Its fixed, I turned all their players into 4th division crap, and loaded up NUFC with the best Internationals in the world...ManU STILL won the bloody title, and NUFC was still 4th :(

evilbagpuss
06-20-2003, 11:33 AM
@clocker

Try and imagine, if you can, a world reversed....

Palestine is the one favoured by the USA. Jewish people are murdered in their hundreds as laughing Palestinians drop missiles from attack helicopters onto crowded streets. Helicopters and missiles paid for by US tax dollars of course.

The UN is doing its best to stop whats going on but the USA keeps on using its veto to block most resolutions. The media seems largely pro-Palestinian as it reports Jewish suicide bombers and the number of Palestinian dead, whereas Jewish casuaulties are not considered newsworthy and Palestinian atrocities are covered up and left unreported. The brutal 36 year occupation of whats left of Israel doesnt seem likely to end soon.

Now.. think of it like this, if you would support and defend the USA&#39;s actions in this imaginary scenario just as much as you do now.... then I respect you for that. I may disagree strongly with you but at least you&#39;d be applying your views equally to both sides regardless.

I suspect you would be outraged though wouldnt you? So my question is why would that imaginary scenario be any worse than whats happening today?

The only way you could say that imaginary conflict would be any worse was if you believed a Jewish life to be worth more than a Palestinians life.

If that imaginary scenario were happening I would still be here arguing the same points for the Jewish people. Would you still be here arguing the same points, defending the USA&#39;s actions?

clocker
06-20-2003, 11:55 AM
more than &#39;the three major religions&#39; have co-existed in palestine successfully before. the romans ran the region peacefully for centuries after the fall of the first israeli occupation (the siege of Masada & such) the Phoenician empire did a pretty good job too
Wasn&#39;t the Pax Romana based primarily on military might and cultural oppression/assimilation? Weren&#39;t the Romans in essence the Americans/Borg of 2500 years ago?

newspapers are still huge here, the number of papers continues to shrink though, i&#39;ve tended to find that american tend to educate themselves about different stuff more, many americans i have know have been very specialist in their knowledge, often at the expense of general knowledge
This may be true. Probably due to the frenetic pace of modern life. If so, I would suspect that the Japanese would exhibit this to a greater extent than we ( but that is sheer supposition).

think that is one of the main problems that anyone has in trying to get across to the US public, the US public is very good at telling [and making sitcoms and movies and music and...] and very good at selling what it tells, but america doesn&#39;t culturally consume very much outside it&#39;s own production
American culture, to the extent that it can be defined, is more flexible and in greater flux than you may give us credit for. Salsa outsells ketchup. Rap/hiphop outsells grunge/pop. Michael Jordan/Williams sisters outsell everybody.

Because the Pallestinians are, by and large INDIVIDUALS.
The PLO has been organized since the 60&#39;s and Yasir Arafat has been the titular head since 1969. He has been included in peace negotiations and treated as a de facto legitimate political figure for decades. He is also a terrorist.
It seems to me that you have to make up your mind- either the Palestinians are an organized political entity ( in which case they must be dealt with and held accountable as such) or they are a unorganized/amorphous rabble and have no place at the world&#39;s political forum.

QUOTE&nbsp;

From my comfy seat on the sidelines I see a totally different picture.&nbsp;


Well? what picture? Dont keep us in suspenders. Speak up&#33; You usually have no trouble doing this
Out of town till Monday. Then I&#39;m sure we&#39;ll all get an earful. :P

Rat Faced
06-20-2003, 02:53 PM

Because the Pallestinians are, by and large INDIVIDUALS.

The PLO has been organized since the 60&#39;s and Yasir Arafat has been the titular head since 1969. He has been included in peace negotiations and treated as a de facto legitimate political figure for decades. He is also a terrorist.
It seems to me that you have to make up your mind- either the Palestinians are an organized political entity ( in which case they must be dealt with and held accountable as such) or they are a unorganized/amorphous rabble and have no place at the world&#39;s political forum.


I did say "By and Large".

As I understand it, Hammas are the ones that are committing most terrorist actions now.

This is a seperate organisation to the PLO that does NOT regard Arrafat as its leader, in fact Arafat isnt even (and never has been) a member....the PLO as an organisation, have been surprisingly quiet since the Pallestinian Authority was established.

Hammas is much more Religiously organised, whereas PLO was/is a Nationalist movement (PLO charter accepts Jews that were there prior to Israel as Pallestinians...Hammas doesnt)

Hamas.....history and aims (http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0203/jpn0303.htm)

A Quote from that history.....


In Hamas&#39; worldview, Islamic precepts forbid a Jewish state in the area known as Palestine, the Jewish people have no legitimate connection to the land of Israel and Yasir Arafat is a traitor to the Islamic Palestinian cause. As its covenant proclaims, "The land of Palestine is an Islamic trust...It is forbidden to anyone to yield or concede any part of it...Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it..."


I highlighted the phrase of interest to you Clocker ;)

clocker
06-20-2003, 03:33 PM
Do most Palestinians support suicide bombings?
Since a second intifada (uprising) broke out in the fall of 2000, polls show that up to 70 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza back suicide bombings. The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly. Many Palestinians consider Hamas’ attacks a legitimate way of resisting Israeli occupation and argue that the world pays less attention to Palestinian losses—including about 1,600 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the second intifada began—than to Israeli ones. Pollsters say Palestinian support for anti-Israel violence hardened further during the spring 2002 Middle East crisis.

Has Arafat taken action to stop suicide terrorists?
The sides differ bitterly. Palestinian officials say that Arafat is doing all he can to crack down and warn that Israel’s spring 2002 incursion into the West Bank devastated the security apparatus Arafat could use to fight terrorism. But Israeli officials say that Arafat has played a double game—arresting militants after bombings but then quickly releasing them; denouncing suicide terrorists in English while praising them as “martyrs” in Arabic; funding secular suicide-bombing groups such as the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; and using terror as a political tool. In June 2002, the Bush administration concluded that Arafat’s ongoing links to terrorism made him unsalvageable and called for his removal. Middle East experts say Arafat, who dislikes major rifts among Palestinians, was unwilling to risk a showdown with the increasingly popular suicide bombers, especially under pressure from Israel’s right-leaning prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who is reviled by Palestinians.
Seems as if the PLO wants it&#39;s cake and to eat it too. If the PA/PLO want to be viewed as the legitimate face of Palestine then any support (covert or otherwise) and any unwillingness to quash Hamas is unacceptable.

The above quote was taken from here (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/hamas/html)

evilbagpuss
06-20-2003, 04:30 PM
The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly. Many Palestinians consider Hamas’ attacks a legitimate way of resisting Israeli occupation and argue that the world pays less attention to Palestinian losses—including about 1,600 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the second intifada began—than to Israeli ones.

Looking at it another way, you could argue that the way the US/world ignores Israeli atrocities actually creates the support for suicide bombers. No one seems to give a damn about their innocent dead so why should they care about innocent Israelis? It&#39;s not a viewpoint I agree with but you can certainly see how some Palestinians reach that conclusion.

PS I&#39;d still like you to answer my previous post.

clocker
06-20-2003, 05:23 PM
@clocker

Try and imagine, if you can, a world reversed....

Palestine is the one favoured by the USA. Jewish people are murdered in their hundreds as laughing Palestinians drop missiles from attack helicopters onto crowded streets. Helicopters and missiles paid for by US tax dollars of course.
The Israelis are laughing as they fire missles?

This single post characterizes your entire approach to this thread.
Whilst making tepid proclamations about your impartiality the underlying current has always been that the Israeli actions are somehow worse because they enjoy US backing.
Fine.
I&#39;ve already stated that I am pro-Israel.
I would imagine that this statement exposes my bias in the debate.
I think that without American support the continued existence of the State of Israel would be impossible.
When Syria and Iran renounce support for Hezbollah and Hamas respectively, then I&#39;ll consider curtailing support for Israel.
Not before.
You however, enjoy throwing low blows from your high horse ("laughing as they drop missiles").
When asked before to state your side in the debate you answered "neither, I&#39;m for justice".
Please drop the Christ impersonation.
If you want to debate a question your first obligation is to pick a side from which to debate.
This whole thread you&#39;ve been quacking like a duck while claiming to be dove.
I&#39;m not buying into it anymore.

evilbagpuss
06-20-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Israelis are laughing as they fire missles?[/b]

How do you know they are not? Heres a good idea though, in the interests of a healthy debate ignore that one word and try answering the question without throwing a tantrum and stamping your feet.


Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I think that without American support the continued existence of the State of Israel would be impossible.[/b]

Yet again Im forced to repeat myself.... I am not arguing for the US to remove their support, simply for them to put a little pressure on the Israelis instead of ignoring their atrocities.


Originally posted by clocker
When Syria and Iran renounce support for Hezbollah and Hamas respectively, then I&#39;ll consider curtailing support for Israel.
Not before.

So... when these countries, one of which is identified by Bush as being part of the axis of evil, stop supporting the terrorists, you&#39;ll say "NOW the Israelis should stop killing civilians". This smacks of a tit for tat attitude to me. Again the difference between an "axis of evil" country supporting atrocities and the worlds only superpower supporting atrocities flies straight over your head.


Originally posted by clocker
When asked before to state your side in the debate you answered "neither, I&#39;m for justice".

You seem to have missed this part of my post during your tantrum.


Originally posted by evilbagpuss
If that imaginary scenario were happening I would still be here arguing the same points for the Jewish people.


Originally posted by clocker
You however, enjoy throwing low blows from your high horse ("laughing as they drop missiles").
When asked before to state your side in the debate you answered "neither, I&#39;m for justice".
Please drop the Christ impersonation.

Get over the use of one word in what was otherwise a very fair and even handed post. I dont see it as a Christ impersonation either. I see it as being human. You should try &#39;pretending&#39; to be human and see all civilians deaths as atrocities too. Hey, you might even like it.

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@
If you want to debate a question your first obligation is to pick a side from which to debate.[/quote]

Utter bullshit. You think the "pick a side and then lets go for each others throats" attitude is the way to conduct a debate? It&#39;s been a recurring theme throughout your posts though.

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
This whole thread you&#39;ve been quacking like a duck while claiming to be dove.[/quote]

Man... you are immature... is the "quacking like a duck" phrase the schoolyard favourite these days? Grow up.

Lets get this back on track... forget this "pick a side" bullshit. If you are going to pick a side, pick the human one and remember we&#39;re all the same species regardless of religeon. Now...

I apologise profusely for using the word &#39;laughing&#39; I hope that placates your rage. Ignore that word and try and answer the post again I want to know what your views would be if the tables were turned.

PS calm down

Rat Faced
06-20-2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by clocker@20 June 2003 - 15:33

Do most Palestinians support suicide bombings?
Since a second intifada (uprising) broke out in the fall of 2000, polls show that up to 70 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza back suicide bombings. The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly. Many Palestinians consider Hamas’ attacks a legitimate way of resisting Israeli occupation and argue that the world pays less attention to Palestinian losses—including about 1,600 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the second intifada began—than to Israeli ones. Pollsters say Palestinian support for anti-Israel violence hardened further during the spring 2002 Middle East crisis.

Has Arafat taken action to stop suicide terrorists?
The sides differ bitterly. Palestinian officials say that Arafat is doing all he can to crack down and warn that Israel’s spring 2002 incursion into the West Bank devastated the security apparatus Arafat could use to fight terrorism. But Israeli officials say that Arafat has played a double game—arresting militants after bombings but then quickly releasing them; denouncing suicide terrorists in English while praising them as “martyrs” in Arabic; funding secular suicide-bombing groups such as the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; and using terror as a political tool. In June 2002, the Bush administration concluded that Arafat’s ongoing links to terrorism made him unsalvageable and called for his removal. Middle East experts say Arafat, who dislikes major rifts among Palestinians, was unwilling to risk a showdown with the increasingly popular suicide bombers, especially under pressure from Israel’s right-leaning prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who is reviled by Palestinians.
Seems as if the PLO wants it&#39;s cake and to eat it too. If the PA/PLO want to be viewed as the legitimate face of Palestine then any support (covert or otherwise) and any unwillingness to quash Hamas is unacceptable.

The above quote was taken from here (http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/hamas/html)
READ your own post.

In Particular...


The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly.

ie

Before the incoming Israeli government tore up the Peace Plan unilaterally, that the previous Israeli government had agreed too (a peace settlement BTW that the USA had been instrumental in acheiving).

The incoming Israeli Government then REVERSED the removal of settlements and re-deployed the military.

Just about any "Country" could have taken this as a declaration of war, however the Pallestian Authority/PLO has tried to stick with the diplomacy that so nearly worked.

The people are getting more and more disillusioned and are now turning to other Terrorist Organisations...due to the REFUSAL of the PLO to take up a major campaign.



Sorry, but it doesnt surprise me.

I lay the huge rise in the recruitment to Hamas in the region firmly at the Door of Sharron and his policies.


I have to admit, if i was in their shoes I would be tempted to get more aggresive...and no one here can accuse me of being any type of warmonger.



Middle East experts say Arafat, who dislikes major rifts among Palestinians, was unwilling to risk a showdown with the increasingly popular suicide bombers, especially under pressure from Israel’s right-leaning prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who is reviled by Palestinians.

You want him replaced?

Are you mad?

Look at your post. Everyone that could replace him as leader of the Pallestinians is leaning more and more into FIGHTING...he wamts peace through DIPLOMACY. Note that the PLO has not, despite the overwelming provocation, started any new campaigns.

He is fighting his own people to stay in power because he believes it will be all out war for some Hamas supporter to get into power there.

Its the attitude of the Right Wing Israeli government and now the USA that is making the Pallestinian people more and more intollerant.

Look at the REASONS that support for Hamas is growing...its a fact that it is, but there are REASONS. Take those reasons away, and support falls off.

clocker
06-20-2003, 10:15 PM
EBP, The foot stamping and tantrum throwing are coming from your side in my opinion.
You may characterize your post as "otherwise fair and even handed" I do not.
BTW, "in the interest of a healthy debate" you may first wish to familiarize your self with the definition of the word "debate" which specifically details "Two opposing sides arguing a question". Google it.

Man... you are immature... is the "quacking like a duck" phrase the schoolyard favourite these days? Grow up.
quack.

evilbagpuss
06-20-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>in the interest of a healthy debate" you may first wish to familiarize your self with the definition of the word "debate" which specifically details "Two opposing sides arguing a question". Google it.[/b]

I&#39;m glad you brought that up duck boy :) Out of the 4 definitions from www.dictionary.com only one of them involves 2 &#39;teams&#39; and that is in the formal context. What you will never grasp is that this debate doesnt have to have 2 &#39;teams&#39; divided into pro-palestinian/pro-israeli.

<!--QuoteBegin-www.dictionary.com

1)A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2)Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3)A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4)Obsolete. Conflict; strife. [/quote]

You start off the post denying acting like a small child having a tantrum, then you end it with "quack". Very convincing.

If you really think your juvenile behaviour either bothers me or does anything to further your &#39;point&#39; in this debate... keep dreaming. :P Compare Rat faceds post to yours. A world apart eh? I&#39;d like to see your attempt to answer that, it would certainly be more amusing than your farmyard impressions.

Finally... to cater for your narrow mind we could divide this into 2 &#39;teams&#39; pro-peace and pro-hatred. I think that should accomodate us two quite nicely.

hobbes
06-21-2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by evilbagpuss+20 June 2003 - 23:37--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 20 June 2003 - 23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-clocker
in the interest of a healthy debate" you may first wish to familiarize your self with the definition of the word "debate" which specifically details "Two opposing sides arguing a question". Google it.

You start off the post denying acting like a small child having a tantrum, then you end it with "quack". Very convincing.

If you really think your juvenile behaviour either bothers me or does anything to further your &#39;point&#39; in this debate... keep dreaming. :P Compare Rat faceds post to yours. A world apart eh? I&#39;d like to see your attempt to answer that, it would certainly be more amusing than your farmyard impressions.

Finally... to cater for your narrow mind we could divide this into 2 &#39;teams&#39; pro-peace and pro-hatred. I think that should accomodate us two quite nicely.[/b][/quote]
This has gone far enough.


If you are "pro-peace" why have you not attempted to find the middle ground with Clocker, who at no time has been "having a tantrum" or has needed to "calm down". I fail to find personal insults, exclamation marks or the words Utter Bullshit in his threads. ( He did tell you to "google it", which I find stunningly condescending&#33;- bad Clocker)

These comments are not conciliatory, but rather the opposite. If you think he is the child, you must take the high road and let him expose himself.


Why do innocent palestineans die, killed by laughing Jews. This is a very telling line, reveals your bias, which you claim not to have. That is one of those things which come out in anger, which can be retracted, but cannot be erased.




To me, this is a discussion forum, and is not about picking a side and sticking with it to the death, carefully twisting or distorting the words of the opponent to suit your side and win points with the judges. This forum is not about formal debate, but an evolving discussion to determine what is "right", not "who" is right.

A discussion requires concession on both sides, not name calling and provacation. A line like.."I see your point there, but here is where I tend to differ with you". This allows the discussion to move forward to the issues that remain, the road of progress paved by the concessions made and the points agreed upon. When I read this thread, page 3 reads much like page 5. It doesn&#39;t progress, it spins. And "spin" is quite apropos for this thread.



In regard to the topic, it seems that the Palestineans can&#39;t keep their extremists in line, leading to suicide bombings and Israels subsequent retaliation. A retaliation, which is less than pinpoint. This is a postive feedback cycle.

It seems that everytime a truce is call, it is the Palestine side which breaks it. Arafat condemns the acts, and declares loss of control. That is my experience, I don&#39;t claim be an expert.

The botton line is that there is a significant Palestinean contingent which does not want peace, they want to kill the Jews. Until this can be resolved, which would require changing the Palestinean charter, peace will never come.

Peace will never come until one group eliminates the other. Each side has its supporters, and if the US were to withdraw support from Israel completely, I feel confident that the Palestineans would eliminate the Jews. I am not as convinced that this would happen if the opposite were to happen.

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.

clocker
06-21-2003, 12:40 AM
Rat,

QUOTE&nbsp;
Middle East experts say Arafat, who dislikes major rifts among Palestinians, was unwilling to risk a showdown with the increasingly popular suicide bombers, especially under pressure from Israel’s right-leaning prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who is reviled by Palestinians.


You want him replaced?

Are you mad?
No, are you?
I think Arafat&#39;s "interest" in the diplomatic process begins and ends with his own personal involvement.
Should Abbas be successful in forwarding the peace process, Arafat loses power.
Also, the proposed Palestinian constitution calls for the holding of free and democratic elections and the respecting of human rights, two conditions Arafat has shown zero interest in meeting.
If Arafat were sincerely interested in achieving a Palestinian state he would recognize that his continued presence is a factor in it&#39;s delay. He would publically and forcefully denounce Hamas, urge all Palestinians to support Abbas and step aside. I doubt that that will happen.

Its the attitude of the Right Wing Israeli government and now the USA that is making the Pallestinian people more and more intollerant.

Look at the REASONS that support for Hamas is growing...its a fact that it is, but there are REASONS. Take those reasons away, and support falls off.
It is also due to support and aid from Syria and Iran. It would be Syria&#39;s ( a hereditary dictatorship) and Iran&#39;s (a theocracy) worst nightmare to have a democratic Arab state suddenly appear on their doorstep. As we type, students are demonstrating in Tehran and the mullahs don&#39;t seem terribly agreeable to the demands for democracy in Iran. A democratic Palestine would make their position untenable.
Take those reasons away and support may fall off, too.

evilbagpuss
06-21-2003, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by hobbes
If you are "pro-peace" why have you not attempted to find the middle ground with Clocker, who at no time has been "having a tantrum" or has needed to "calm down".

I have, by trying to get him to look at it from the opposite way round. i.e Palestinians being in the Jews position. I dont know if you&#39;ve read all of this thread but he has lost the plot on more than one occassion.

I agree that the "laughing" bit was badly chosen but.. I&#39;ve apologised for that already. It certainly wasnt intentional as it allowed him to ignore the question altogether. Hardly a &#39;victory&#39; from my perspective.

Anyway getting back to it....

I think there are extremists on both sides who just want to kill civilians

I think that constant unquestioning US support regardless of Israeli atrocities increases the support for Hamas on the Palestinians side.

The Palestinian extremists would wipe out the Jews if the US dropped its support but NO ONE in this thread asides from clocker has even suggested that the USA should do that.

In a nutshell the Israelis get away with alot of stuff and it isnt even shown on most media channels. If it were any other country all hell would break loose. But because it rarely gets reported we have this consensus that its always those damn Palestinians who dont want peace, which therefore excuses any and all Israeli actions no matter how disgusting they are. This then increases Palestinian support for terror groups because democracy is doing nothing for them and so the cycle continues....

We&#39;ve gotten to the position where people feel comfortable saying things like "Islam is evil" in public (on this forum) with little fear of criticism. I wonder what would happen if I stated "Judiasm is evil"? Unthinkable isnt it?

Anyway end of rant, end of my participation in this thread. I really cant see any consensus or agreement coming out of this no matter how patient/polite everyone is.

No malice intended here but... I genuinely think that some people participating in this thread are fuelled by hatred. Its as simple as that.

One final point for the US people reading this. Next time (if ever) you see a bunch of innocent Palestinian civilians (yes there is such a thing) killed in a totally unnecessary and indiscriminate attack... remember those are your hard earned tax dollars at work creating more terrorism for you guys to deal with in the future.

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-21-2003, 03:11 AM
One final point for the US people reading this. Next time (if ever) you see a bunch of innocent Palestinian civilians (yes there is such a thing) killed in a totally unnecessary and indiscriminate attack... remember those are your hard earned tax dollars at work creating more terrorism for you guys to deal with in the future.

Your final point is laughable :lol:
Raise my taxes&#33;
I think it&#39;s quite necessarry to attack terrorists that exclusively attack civilians, and use almost just as exclusively children to do it.
Why don&#39;t you give us your opinion on that point?
What do you think of these terrorists using high school students for 99% of there attacks on innocent civilians?
This is the height of cowardice, don&#39;t you agree?

clocker
06-21-2003, 03:27 AM
Thank you, hobbes.
Like cool water on a fevered brow, your post.

I was nearly overcome with the urge to stamp my foot. :P

BTW,EBP, where are you from?
I seriously doubt that the people of your country are any more unified on the questions of the Middle East than you think we Americans are. Our support of Israel is hotly debated from Congress to the corner bar.

I also think that I&#39;ve managed to hold onto the plot fairly well. Your inability to persuade me ( to whatever the hell your point has been) by dazzling rhetoric does not reflect on my intellect or powers of concentration. ;)

hobbes
06-21-2003, 03:50 AM
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.

Contrary opinion to yours does not indicate hatred, I have none, neither does Clocker. I think both sides are insane.

I want the name of the person fueled by hatred and not a generality.

Americans don&#39;t give a crap about Israel, but we have as many Jews here as in Israel and these people are influential in our government and thus our governmental policies reflect this.

You claim that the Jews are just as guilty of terrorism as the Palestinians, I will fully grant you this, if you wish.

This goes back to my point that peace is not desired and never will be achieved, until one side kills the other.


As far as Islam is concerned, it tends to be in conflict with the "freedom of religion" philosophy in America, particularly when part of the Palestinean charter avers that a goal is to kill the Jews (rather than accepting their right to practice their own religion).

As for the Jews, we have Seinfeld and Jon Stewart, funny likeable guys, so the American people have more "touchstones" with the Jews than the Palestineans. Many of my friends are Jewish, but I know them as people, not Jews and the fact that I am agnostic is not a problem for them.

My point is that Jews are real people to us, they don&#39;t act "crazy" or "cruel", they dress like us and speak English. As for Palestineans, they are those crazy people throwing rocks on TV.

I just wanted to point out how general American sympathy sides with Israel. Jews are real people, not images on the TV.

As for the intervention of the US, what should we do? Just tell me what you would like and I will give it some thought.

Respectfully and peacefully,

Hobbes


Added a link to illustrate my hatred http://forums.anarchy-online.com/showthrea...?threadid=17747 (http://forums.anarchy-online.com/showthread.php?threadid=17747)

clocker
06-21-2003, 03:59 AM
As far as Islam is concerned, it tends to be in conflict with the "freedom of religion" philosophy in America, particularly when part of the Palestinean charter avers that a goal is to kill the Jews (rather than accepting their right to practice their own religion).
Hobbes, have you read the new Palestinian Constitution?
It&#39;s easy to google ( sorry, see: new member title).
It looks like a wonderful thing and all references to eliminating Israel are gone. Human rights are included as are women&#39;s rights.
All wonderful.
And completely opposed to the way any Islamic state in the region is ruled.
Hence my concern re: Syria and Iran.

MagicNakor
06-21-2003, 05:17 AM
I don&#39;t know why I keep looking at this thread.

I think it&#39;s the slow-trainwreck mentality. ;)

:ninja:

Rat Faced
06-21-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by clocker@21 June 2003 - 03:59

As far as Islam is concerned, it tends to be in conflict with the "freedom of religion" philosophy in America, particularly when part of the Palestinean charter avers that a goal is to kill the Jews (rather than accepting their right to practice their own religion).
Hobbes, have you read the new Palestinian Constitution?
It&#39;s easy to google ( sorry, see: new member title).
It looks like a wonderful thing and all references to eliminating Israel are gone. Human rights are included as are women&#39;s rights.
All wonderful.
And completely opposed to the way any Islamic state in the region is ruled.
Hence my concern re: Syria and Iran.
Its defenitly a step forward.

However the old charter was NOT "anti-jew" it was "anti-Israel".

Article 6 specifically states that Jews that were there already are classed as Pallestinians, people that came as part of the "Zionist Invasion" are the enemy...ie Israel.

If Israel had been a Christian State, they would still have been the enemy.


@ Clocker,

I do see your point re: Iran and Syria; funding comes from all over the region, and should be curtailed.

However this isnt since the mid &#39;90s, this has been happening all along...

The increase in terrorism is since "The light at the end of the tunnel" was taken away from them....ie Israel (Sharron) unilaterally tearing up the previous Peace Process and reversing it.

The world has a choice:

Deal with the PLO, of which Arrafat is the leader, and which hasnt had a terrorist campaign in years (despite being attacked itself (Pallestinian Authority)) or deal with Hamas, which has the most support at the moment because the Pallestinian Authority is seen as not getting anywhere.

The trouble with dealing with Hamas is that its a Fundamental Organisation, that wants EVERYONE that is not practicing the Old Islamic Law (THEIR version) dead.

Israel is only the short term goal. Their long term Goal is the world...

In my opinion there is nothing you CAN negotiate with, with these people. At least the PLO is only a Nationalist Organisation...it can be negotiated with.

Negotiaiting with someone that was appointed, and isnt followed by any of the Pallestinians and so doesnt speak for any of them........seems a little backward, I mean none of them will listen. So whats the point?


So the answer appears to be (for me); let the Pallestinians SEE that the Pallestinian Authority is moving somewhere...give them the light at the end of the tunnel BACK.

This is not going to end terrorism overnight..nothing will. There are too many people wanting Vengeance for loved ones killed already, and there are the Religious Zealots (Hamas Hardcore) that will ignore it.

I think it will certainly turn the tide though, and in 10 years we may be back at the point we were 10 years ago....with the Majority of Pallestinians listening to the Authority, and then they CAN crack down on Hamas....if they tried at the moment, they&#39;d lose the ensuing Civil War...

human_pet
06-21-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@21 June 2003 - 10:49

The trouble with dealing with Hamas is that its a Fundamental Organisation, that wants EVERYONE that is not practicing the Old Islamic Law (THEIR version) dead.

Israel is only the short term goal. Their long term Goal is the world...
May I know where you get the idea that Hamas wants to take over the world? As far As I know,they only want their country to be free from zionists.....and I don&#39;t see anything wrong with that,Since they don&#39;t have much weopons other than rocks.I think it&#39;s only fair that they use other means (like "blowing themselves up") .

Salam/Peace :)

The Knife Thrower
06-21-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by human_pet+21 June 2003 - 11:04--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (human_pet &#064; 21 June 2003 - 11:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@21 June 2003 - 10:49

The trouble with dealing with Hamas is that its a Fundamental Organisation, that wants EVERYONE that is not practicing the Old Islamic Law (THEIR version) dead.

Israel is only the short term goal. Their long term Goal is the world...
May I know where you get the idea that Hamas wants to take over the world? As far As I know,they only want their country to be free from zionists.....and I don&#39;t see anything wrong with that,Since they don&#39;t have much weopons other than rocks.I think it&#39;s only fair that they use other means (like "blowing themselves up") .

Salam/Peace :) [/b][/quote]
I agree that theres nothing wrong with blowing themselves up. But getting some teenager to blow up a bunch of civilians is wrong. The true martyrs are the ones who blow up military targets.

human_pet
06-21-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by The Knife Thrower+21 June 2003 - 12:00--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Knife Thrower &#064; 21 June 2003 - 12:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by human_pet@21 June 2003 - 11:04
<!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@21 June 2003 - 10:49

The trouble with dealing with Hamas is that its a Fundamental Organisation, that wants EVERYONE that is not practicing the Old Islamic Law (THEIR version) dead.

Israel is only the short term goal. Their long term Goal is the world...
May I know where you get the idea that Hamas wants to take over the world? As far As I know,they only want their country to be free from zionists.....and I don&#39;t see anything wrong with that,Since they don&#39;t have much weopons other than rocks.I think it&#39;s only fair that they use other means (like "blowing themselves up") .

Salam/Peace :)
I agree that theres nothing wrong with blowing themselves up. But getting some teenager to blow up a bunch of civilians is wrong. The true martyrs are the ones who blow up military targets. [/b][/quote]
Civilians?um,correct me if i&#39;m wrong are they (civilians) also invaded the country?Who the heck told them that they can kick out the natives and make them refugees?I think Hamas are killing far more fewer civilians than the occupiers.

Salam/Peace

Salam/Peace :) :)

clocker
06-21-2003, 03:09 PM
Human Pet,

Do you think that Hamas should support the newly proposed Palestinian Constitution?

Rat Faced
06-21-2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by human_pet+21 June 2003 - 11:04--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (human_pet @ 21 June 2003 - 11:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@21 June 2003 - 10:49

The trouble with dealing with Hamas is that its a Fundamental Organisation, that wants EVERYONE that is not practicing the Old Islamic Law (THEIR version) dead.

Israel is only the short term goal. Their long term Goal is the world...
May I know where you get the idea that Hamas wants to take over the world? As far As I know,they only want their country to be free from zionists.....and I don&#39;t see anything wrong with that,Since they don&#39;t have much weopons other than rocks.I think it&#39;s only fair that they use other means (like "blowing themselves up") .

Salam/Peace :) [/b][/quote]
I posted a link with the history and Goals of Hamas.

Hamas, although popular in Pallestine at the moment, did not even originate there. Its NOT a Pallestinian Organisation, fighting for their freedom from Israel. They are popular only because they fight Israel, while the PLO (Pallestine Authority) are seen as not fighting Israel at the moment.

Their goals are Fundamentalist Islamic, and they believe EVERYONE should be living by THEIR version of Islamic Law.

As they are Religious Fanatics, with a warped outlook on everyone not one of them, then its pointless &#39;negotiating&#39; with them...as we cannot give consetions to this sort of Organisation.

Neither I, nor anyone I know, wish to live by Islamic Law.....and thats the only thing they will settle for.

On the other hand, the PLO is a Nationalist organisation with stated goals that can be negotiated, and have been in the past. The Pallestinian Authority is widely believed to be the PLO in a civilized guise....as Arrafat is leader of the Authority, and if not still leader of the PLO...then certainly still has a lot of influence.

cooolway
06-22-2003, 09:22 AM
Christian and Islam are relatively same. Both religions believe in Adam and Eve. Both religions believe the theory of Adam and Eve. They believe in Noah, Mary, Jesus, David, Moses. They call
"Satan" "Sha-taan"
"Adam" "Aadum"
"Moses" "Mosa"
"David" "Daaud"
"Jesus" "Eesa"
"Mary" "Marium"
They even believe some of the stuff in the bible.

human_pet
06-22-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by clocker@21 June 2003 - 15:09
Human Pet,

Do you think that Hamas should support the newly proposed Palestinian Constitution?
Umm,Sorry,i&#39;ve not been reading the Newz Paper lately,when you say Palestinian Constitution,are you talking about the .... &#39;Road Map&#39; ? If you&#39;re talking bout the Road Map,I don&#39;t think it&#39;s right for other people to decide what to do with the land,it is for the natives to have a say, not other people,and btw ,I do not view that as a peaceful resolution but a form of surrender,and I do not support people who surrenders to their enemy...

Peace/Salam... :)

clocker
06-22-2003, 01:03 PM
No, I&#39;m not talking about road maps.
I&#39;m talking about the Constitution (http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:VPrVmRxP55UJ:www.jmcc.org/documents/palestineconstitution-eng.pdf+palestine+constitution&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)


Edit: fix link

Rat Faced
06-22-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by human_pet+22 June 2003 - 12:51--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (human_pet @ 22 June 2003 - 12:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@21 June 2003 - 15:09
Human Pet,

Do you think that Hamas should support the newly proposed Palestinian Constitution?
Umm,Sorry,i&#39;ve not been reading the Newz Paper lately,when you say Palestinian Constitution,are you talking about the .... &#39;Road Map&#39; ? If you&#39;re talking bout the Road Map,I don&#39;t think it&#39;s right for other people to decide what to do with the land,it is for the natives to have a say, not other people,and btw ,I do not view that as a peaceful resolution but a form of surrender,and I do not support people who surrenders to their enemy...

Peace/Salam... :) [/b][/quote]
You can support something that saves the lives of the people without supporting those that stole the land.

The two are not mutualy exclusive.


@ Clocker

That link doesnt work for me. Page not Available

clocker
06-22-2003, 09:13 PM
Fixed link.
Retry.
www.jmcc.org/documents/palestineconstitution-eng.pdf+palestine+constitution&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]Or (http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:VPrVmRxP55UJ:[url) try here.[/url]

Rat Faced
06-22-2003, 11:33 PM
Borders Prior to June 1967....

That is, in effect, a recognition of Israel, and its right to be there....just not its current illegal borders, as recognised by UN resolutions

Its also a constitution based on Democracy, Free Market and Human Rights...including Religious Freedom.



And it was written at the request of.............the PLO.


ShockAndAwe........over to you.

clocker
06-23-2003, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@22 June 2003 - 17:33
Borders Prior to June 1967....

That is, in effect, a recognition of Israel, and its right to be there....just not its current illegal borders, as recognised by UN resolutions

Its also a constitution based on Democracy, Free Market and Human Rights...including Religious Freedom.



And it was written at the request of.............the PLO.


ShockAndAwe........over to you.
Pardon me for butting into line, Rat.

Hamas is going to gag on that constitution.

What is this "written at the request of the PLO&#39; all about?

Rat Faced
06-24-2003, 10:59 PM
What is this "written at the request of the PLO&#39; all about?



Didnt you read the preface?

I believe you&#39;ll see it on page 5, after the list of consultants ;)


I agree with the Hamas comment though....they aint gonna like the "Religious Fredom" bit in particular.

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-25-2003, 04:28 AM
I&#39;ve read that constitution, and they will never stick to it&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
If they did it would be a miracle. :blink:

j2k4
06-25-2003, 04:52 AM
Just a few notes here, as the board&#39;s being down has rendered my thoughts "un-syncable":

The first of two Mid-east summits held by President Bush, at Sharm el-Sheik, was a gathering of leaders of the Arab states; Bush&#39;s "Roadmap" proposal met with little reaction that could be characterized as positive-they would not even endorse Israel&#39;s right to exist as a Jewish state.

They did state an opposition to terrorism, but one would have to take this with a grain of salt given their proclivity for devoting much intellectual and religious reasoning to concurrently convince their native populations that killing Jews in "Palestine" should be considered resistance, not terrorism.

Neither would they endorse Mahmoud Abbas over Arafat as the head of the Palestinian state, thus depriving Abbas of the vote of confidence he needs to effectively press ahead with any coherent peace effort.

From all this it can rather safely be assumed the Arab states would prefer that the Palestinians none of them want in their own countries be offered an existence on par with, and, indeed, instead of, Israel.

Apparently, while nobody wants the Palestinians in their country, the Palestinians&#39; presence is still much preferred over that of Israel.

theprisoner
06-28-2003, 05:45 PM
Jews all the way[COLOR=red] :ph34r: :P

clocker
06-29-2003, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by theprisoner@28 June 2003 - 11:45
Jews all the way[COLOR=red] :ph34r: :P
Quit waffling&#33; :P

tralalala
07-03-2003, 01:17 PM
im a jewish israeli and ill tell you what i think:
fat assed sharon should start wiv taking down those goddamn settlements which r ruining everything.
then, fat assed arafat and abu mazen should get those goddamn suiciders to hell and kill them.
and ONLY then will the peace process get going.
and ill tell you what?
come and visit israel, its a lovely place, no fear, do not fear of anything.
your chances of being killed by a sniper in the U.S.A are like 25 times higher than getting killed in israel...

Come visit, its great.
loadsa places to visit: dead sea, the golan hights, sea of galilee, jerusalem, eilat (most southern city in israel and probably most visited), my home town of Karmiel which hosts every year one of the biggest dance festivals in israel (3 nights and days) and is a town of 50,000.

a lot to do.
come visit,
tralalala

j2k4
07-03-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by tralalala@3 July 2003 - 08:17
im a jewish israeli and ill tell you what i think:
fat assed sharon should start wiv taking down those goddamn settlements which r ruining everything.
then, fat assed arafat and abu mazen should get those goddamn suiciders to hell and kill them.
and ONLY then will the peace process get going.
and ill tell you what?
come and visit israel, its a lovely place, no fear, do not fear of anything.
your chances of being killed by a sniper in the U.S.A are like 25 times higher than getting killed in israel...

Come visit, its great.
loadsa places to visit: dead sea, the golan hights, sea of galilee, jerusalem, eilat (most southern city in israel and probably most visited), my home town of Karmiel which hosts every year one of the biggest dance festivals in israel (3 nights and days) and is a town of 50,000.

a lot to do.
come visit,
tralalala
I think I like your attitude, Tralalala.

Will you consent to be our man on the scene? :D

tralalala
07-03-2003, 01:59 PM
hey, im your man.
i live here in israel, which i think is one of the most amazing and stunning countries on the globe to date.

you may ask me anything, but anything about the situation here and what is going on, and how everyone here feels aobut it.

hope i can be of any assistance,
tralalala

j2k4
07-03-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by tralalala@3 July 2003 - 08:59
hey, im your man.
i live here in israel, which i think is one of the most amazing and stunning countries on the globe to date.

you may ask me anything, but anything about the situation here and what is going on, and how everyone here feels aobut it.

hope i can be of any assistance,
tralalala
Superb.

I hope to avail myself of your views soon.

Oh-why not now?

Do you think Hamas, Al Aqsa, et.al. will ultimately abide by a peace agreement, long-term?

Do you think Arafat&#39;s time has passed?

Is he capable of relevance in a time of peace?

How do you feel about the historical anti-Zionist threat of annihilation?

Also, if you could satisfy my curiousity:

What does the average Israeli think of Benjamin Netanyahou?


BTW-the Lakers suck. :lol: :lol:

tralalala
07-03-2003, 03:10 PM
hamas, al aqsa, islamic jihad and the fatah will probably not agree for a long term peace treaty if they "wont get more land".
if there will be peace (god please bless us, we want peace&#33;), arafat will no longer be relevant for ANYTHING. only abu mazen who seems to be OK except the fact that he is one of those guys that do not agree that there was a holocaust...
anti-zionism? stuff it.
we, the jews, are the first religion, the religion the other 2 major religions (christianity and islam) came from, and we have been around for some 5000 years and we have survived. so if that is not enough, ill give you some more.

so is this enough for now?
lol
if you want any more info. im here for you nearly every day.

hope i helped,
tralalala

edit::
the AVARAGE israeli thinks netanyahu is not a disaster but could be better.
in my houshold, we think he is a creep.
he is annoying, lies, his financial suggestions are pathetically pathetic ( :) )
and all or most left wingers (like me) just do not trust or like him.
trust me (sorry for the expression), he is a peice of sh&#33;t who hasnt a clue about what hes talking aobut.

j2k4
07-03-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by tralalala@3 July 2003 - 10:10
hamas, al aqsa, islamic jihad and the fatah will probably not agree for a long term peace treaty if they "wont get more land".
if there will be peace (god please bless us, we want peace&#33;), arafat will no longer be relevant for ANYTHING. only abu mazen who seems to be OK except the fact that he is one of those guys that do not agree that there was a holocaust...
anti-zionism? stuff it.
we, the jews, are the first religion, the religion the other 2 major religions (christianity and islam) came from, and we have been around for some 5000 years and we have survived. so if that is not enough, ill give you some more.

so is this enough for now?
lol
if you want any more info. im here for you nearly every day.

hope i helped,
tralalala

I&#39;m with you, here.

My prayers for the success of the process, and for you, too. ;)

MagicNakor
07-03-2003, 11:49 PM
How&#39;s that ceasefire working out? I saw one&#39;d been agreed to not too long ago.

:ninja:

tralalala
07-04-2003, 07:16 AM
correct.
all 3 terrorist groups (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Fatah which is arafats group...), have agreed for a 3 month ceasfire in which israel will get out of the occupied (sorry if im making spelling mistakes) territories (bethlehem, gaza, nablus and all those cities), and then, and only then will the peace process will get along with no interruption from these 3 groups (at least we hope).

right now, it seems to be working ok except the fact that around some of those settlements there were a few shooting incidences...

hope this clears it up for you MagicNakor,
tralalala

MagicNakor
07-04-2003, 07:27 AM
Certainly does. Just read in the paper that Bethlehem was being "abandoned," insofar that the Israelis were pulling out, although the Palestinian police officer interviewed didn&#39;t seem terribly optimistic it would last. I hope it works this time around.

:ninja:

hypoluxa3k
07-04-2003, 08:35 AM
i have an answer to your post question:

PALESTINE

tralalala
07-04-2003, 08:50 AM
tell me my good friend, what do you support with the palestinians?
the terrorism?
the killing?
the hiding between civilians?

you must understand that its abu mazen you support, not the terrorist groups.
abu mazen IS trying to stop terrorism unlike arafat (which i would rather refer to arafatso).

so, if you would kindly tell me if you support the first 3 things i mentioned at the top of this post and then make me think again, i would be happy.


p.s: i am an israeli and i know what im talking aobut, so convincing me that i am wrong may be a difficult procedure.

hypoluxa3k
07-04-2003, 08:54 AM
Picture removed by balamm



* I don&#39;t think so. If you have a comment to make that&#39;s fair but lets keep this a verbal exchange.

MagicNakor
07-04-2003, 09:56 AM
FLAMEBAIT

:ninja:

MUSLEMAN
07-04-2003, 10:00 AM
i think there is no land worth so many people dying, i think the leaders should lead their people to peace and happines not death as they have been doing so far :(

tralalala
07-04-2003, 11:32 AM
MUSLEMAN you are 100% correct.
if i were the leader i would have led the countries to peace long before...

but, the one let down was when Itzchak Rabin was assasinated on 4 november 1995. he was the prime minister that the whole country had faith in and he really was about to make peace till his tragic death.

nowadays, the leaders dont know what they are doing and we hope that there will be
peace one day in the not too distant duture...


hope i helped,
tralalala

BawA
07-08-2003, 11:49 AM
Let me ask u Ppl

how ull react when somebody come to ur home and overtake it from u and say that this is theyr home, offcorse u do any thing to bring ur home back

same is happning with phalastinian Ppl. now u deside to be with which one :rolleyes:

j2k4
07-08-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by bawa@Klite_user@8 July 2003 - 06:49
Let me ask u Ppl

how ull react when somebody come to ur home and overtake it from u and say that this is theyr home, offcorse u do any thing to bring ur home back

same is happning with phalastinian Ppl. now u deside to be with which one :rolleyes:
I think you will find that members here, who are by and large uninvolved in your unfortunate circumstance, favor a strategy of restoration; we think you should get your home back.

As I say, though-we are not in your shoes-you must deal with vengeful thoughts (if you have them) on your own.

tralalala
07-08-2003, 02:24 PM
guys guys listen, its nowhere like taking over someones home, they use terrorism which is used widely over the globe (september 11, bali, kasablanka etc.).
so, now you decide which way you look at it.

remember, im israeli and i have much more experience with being bombed (closest was some 40 kilometers away from my town which has been bombed several times- haifa).

tralalala

Rat Faced
07-08-2003, 06:52 PM
Yes they do use terrorism, but as we have stated on this thread...so does the Israeli Government, in my opinion.

Doesnt make either side "right" or "wrong"

Wolfmight
07-08-2003, 07:00 PM
peace is hard... both presidents/governments would have to be the same person
for a 100% easy Declare of Peace.

abigspidermonkey
07-08-2003, 09:39 PM
Israel all the way ;) ;) ;) :ph34r:

tralalala
07-10-2003, 02:16 PM
excuse me, how do the israeli troops use terrorism? by killing the people who are behind the killings of hundreds of innocent israelis???
ill tell you something even more shocking about the paelestinians: the people who are behind these suicide attacks (not many, maybe 5-10% of palestinian population) hide in between kids, women and the elderly.
they hide behind innocent people who want peace and thats the reason that sometimes there are some innocent palestinians killed...

its a shame but thats reality,
tralalala

evilbagpuss
07-10-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by tralala
excuse me, how do the israeli troops use terrorism

I have seen Palestinian men carrying babies being shot in the head. I&#39;ve seen Israeli troops respond to stone throwing kids with machine guns.

I&#39;ve seen the remnants of 4 apartment blocks that were destroyed by an Israeli missile. This was a successful assasination attempt on an a terrorist leader as he slept in his bed in his home. 150 innocent palestinians were also killed though. What else can you expect when you drop a missile onto a tightly packed residential area. You can hardly call it an accident.

I&#39;m all for fighting terrorism but these tactics are something completely different.

Anyone who partakes in this kind of indiscriminate killing is a terrorist. I dont care which country they come from and whether they&#39;re wearing a uniform or not.

tralalala
07-10-2003, 02:34 PM
first of all the babies shot in the head are fake and its a fact ive seen it on our news channel.
second, the kids throwing stones dont get shot, they get warned with a shot in the air.
only then will the troops threaten them.

tralalala

evilbagpuss
07-10-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by tralala+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tralala)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>first of all the babies shot in the head are fake [/b]

No the man carrying the baby was shot in the head. I&#39;ve seen it on BBC news footage. Video footage of that nature would be very hard if not impossible to fake.

<!--QuoteBegin-tralala
second, the kids throwing stones dont get shot, they get warned with a shot in the air.
[/quote]

I&#39;ve seen similar footage of kids being carried away with their guts spilling out. Again, hard if not impossible to fake.

I think the idea of the BBC, ITV and channel 4 news all faking this video footage is preposterous.

What about the missile attack that killed 150 innocent people?

You can&#39;t deny that the Israeli forces are, at least on occassion, using terrorist tactics involving indiscrimnate killing.

As a citizen of a country that was bombed for over 30 years by the IRA I have full sympathy with those trying to protect themselves from terrorism. But nothing can justify the actions I have been talking about.

brynasmith
07-21-2003, 07:43 AM
When you watch the BBc or what ever else you must not see what is really going on. I live in Israel and around my city we are surounded by palastinians. Eveyday I go to work I get shot at or stones are thrown at my windows. anyone who owns a car here has to get bullet proof windows- and that doesn&#39;t always help.
I go into Jerusalem and I try not to get close to any other person. Who knows if he doesn&#39;t have excplosives in his bag. I mean come on, how can you ask us to live like that and not kill the terrorists that are responsible for the fact that some of my friends have been killed in bombings? who some of them so badly wounded that they&#39;ll never be able to talk about it. How can you expect us to sit down in our houses and do nothing while our family is being killed??? Is that what you would do??

brynasmith
07-21-2003, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by kAb@17 May 2003 - 03:44
Who do you support?

IMO-

I support Jews to have their own place to settle, but if they lost the land in a war, to the victor go the spoils.

Unless they can prove that the Bible which allows them Israel is non-fiction, I don&#39;t believe it.

The palestinians deserve their land back, but I don&#39;t agree with their ways of obtaining it.

How to settle this conflict? The palestinians have to agree to live peacefully with the Isrealis, but get rid of those idiotic checkpoints 1 by 1.&nbsp; Palestinians should not be restricted to their little patch of land, they owned all of Isreal at one point, can they not all coexist?
you say:"I support Jews to have their own place to settle, but if they lost the land in a war, to the victor go the spoils."
for your information the jew captured israel by war, they didn&#39;t recieve just because they believe that it belongs to them. You have your facts wrong, it&#39;s the pales. who believe they can get the land as a present that it belongs to them.
Maybe you should know your facts before you state your opinion.

thewizeard
07-21-2003, 08:43 AM
Every one needs to calm down.

There has been so much blood spilt. I don&#39;t believe killing people will ever make Palestine/Israel or this world for that matter, a safer place to live in. What is the truth? Who is right, who is wrong. The answer probably is, we just don&#39;t know.

First the killings must stop. No more retaliation. Maybe even a little less media coverage.

I have friends who are Palestinian and I have friends who are Israelis. I do know they are all human beings. Every one has the right to live in peace; that their children may grow up in a safe and loving environment. This possibity has been stolen from the children of your region. They will grow up with hate and revenge embedded in their hearts. That&#39;s why it is important to try and create NOW the prerequisite for peace for your people in the future.

Somebody has to take the first step to end this constant downward spiraling. Maybe it should be YOU.

@ edit. The topic was Who do you support, Palestine or Israel> I support Israel and Palestine.

tralalala
07-21-2003, 06:25 PM
missile attack that killed 150 palestinians=reaction of troops to a suicide attack some 3-5 hours earlier...
second, babies shot in the head and kids with their guts spillin out is kinda gross, dont pur it that way mate... these are the answer to palestinian militant terrorist groups that are out there to stop the peace process, what they want- the whole of the land of israel to be palestine. what we, the israelis want- peace and quiet...
take a moment to think about what your saying before posting.

tralalala

p.s: i am israeli, i have the experience to tell you what i typed above, so with all due respect, i think i deserve a little more respect ot my words...

thewizeard
07-21-2003, 06:54 PM
Not getting any more peaceful though. Tommorow or next week the next attack as retribution. Nobody is winning everyone is losing. This is thus not the solution. As for respect, that can&#39;t be forced either.

tralalala
07-21-2003, 06:58 PM
so whats your suggestion smart arse?? ^_^

tralalala

thewizeard
07-21-2003, 07:04 PM
Read again what I wrote earlier, go and sit down and think about it. You say you want respect for your words, you could possibly get it, if you were more polite?

Manners maketh man&#33;

tralalala
07-21-2003, 07:07 PM
i know but what you say maes no sense...
maybe consider editing your post or something?

tralalala

thewizeard
07-21-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by tralalala@21 July 2003 - 19:07
i know but what you say maes no sense...
maybe consider editing your post or something?

tralalala
Now what exactly makes no sense. If I had the answer to the problem there would have been peace many years ago. What would you wish for me to edit? If it would bring peace and quiet I would gladly do so.

tralalala
07-21-2003, 07:16 PM
as i said a few posts ago, you cannot make anyone change their mind...

tralalala

thewizeard
07-21-2003, 07:23 PM
Then the killings will go on. Tralala, that&#39;s why I believe that someone has to make the first move, and put an end to this violence, by not retaliating. Sooner or later you both will have to find a way to live side by side. Why not sooner?

brynasmith
07-22-2003, 06:05 AM
are you trying to say that if one side stops the other side will stop sometime too? I&#39;m sorry to say but thats not whats going to happen the other side will just kill us.
There really is no good answer.

denis123
07-22-2003, 06:20 AM
Yes&#33; Sooner rather than later, that&#39;s the only sane answer&#33; Stop all the killings.

denis123
07-22-2003, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by tralalala@21 July 2003 - 19:16
as i said a few posts ago, you cannot make anyone change their mind...

tralalala
Lets us hope that the truth will help.

brynasmith
07-22-2003, 07:25 AM
the fact is that not all plastenians and Israelie&#39;s can live together so there will always be wat between them there is no hope for peace because neither side WANTS peace&#33;

echidna
07-22-2003, 09:32 AM
[i]Originally posted by tralalala+22 July 2003 - 04:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tralalala &#064; 22 July 2003 - 04:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>p.s: i am israeli, i have the experience to tell you what i typed above, so with all due respect, i think i deserve a little more respect ot my words...[/b]
with all due respect, could you explain your allegiances, they seem a bit confusing
in your sig you advertise a basketball team from california USA
in your sig you claim to be proud to be british
in this quoted post you claim to be israeli

if you feel that your israeli roots aren&#39;t getting you enough respect maybe it&#39;s because your board image doesn&#39;t reflect any israeli influence


@brynasmith :: being scared of terrorism sounds a bit like a relaxed version of a military curfew.
helicopter rocket attacks, armoured bulldozers, sniper towers, checkpoints and attacks upon ambulances seem a bit more extreme in terms of threat levels when compared to rock throwing and the occasional kamikaze sniper or human-bomb
i don&#39;t envy the plight of israelis but i cannot support their actions either, sharon is a war-criminal as well as being prime minister & the IDF is a state terrorist organisation
[i do support the israeli imprisoned conscientious objectors]

israel is specifically a jewish state ie. religiously biased state, and i can&#39;t support any such exclusionist regime, to be so biased is just as evil as german national socialism or south african apartheid
excluding people in a nation is wrong and should be deplored

the fact that israel would fold without US assistance is true, but nowadays the crunch that the IDF would cause upon folding is something which the world cannot afford [nuke blackmail giving the USA a taste of their own medicine]

<!--QuoteBegin-ShockAndAwe^i^@ 5 June 2003 - 07:53
All the politically correct talk in the world can&#39;t hide true Islam.
It&#39;s evil&#33;&#33;
[/quote]
by writing this you just demonstrated the fascist bigotry which underlies the hypocrisy of the USA in so many situations, S&A
do you think you&#39;d be happy if a superior military power conquered north america and said that the USA could have it&#39;s own state in arkansas and new mexico? i doubt it
yet this is what you seem to feel palestinians should have been happy with&#33;

in fact i doubt if you could even empathise with most of the souls on earth, you surely miss the point of pink floyd&#39;s message

all in all, you are just another brick in the wall
a wall which traps, restricts and obscures the truth
a wall that one day will crumble (i pray)

you also don&#39;t understand salmon rushdie&#39;s writing either [BTW salmon will tell you that he writes fiction (which means he made it up, FYI)]
you have issue with those who criticise the USA while you expunge pure bile filled intolerance like this :: why should anyone respect your opinion in this light?

TIBZ
07-22-2003, 09:45 AM
ok im 25% plo and 75% lebanese my family used to live in palistine and we got kicked out all of our money was takin and cows and horses and shit this was like 50-70 years ago and now my family lives in lebanon i live in detroit wit my parents and sibbling wat im tryin to say is that the palestinians were there first and no matter wat land cannot be taken away unless sold i think that jerusalem shud just be its own country where no1 can live and it shud just be a place for worship and government and palestine of israel or watever u wanna call it shud be split equaly.....o and im surprised non of u guys c wats goin on there jews r treatin my people worse than hitler was treatin them and still arabs r the terrorists try downloadin occupation 101 its a documentery i dont it came out but watch the preview and ull no wat i mean thx 4 listenin

www.ocupation101.com

edit:site posted

tralalala
07-22-2003, 11:05 AM
i was born in london, britain and came to israel at the age of 5 months.
second: you know, the lakers dont have supporters only inside the USA... some supporters are on the other side of the globe man...

tralalala

thewizeard
07-22-2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by brynasmith@22 July 2003 - 07:25
there is no hope for peace because neither side WANTS peace&#33;
I sincerely hope that this is not true and to be honest, I don&#39;t believe you.

In any case, to reach peace, many offers will have to be made by both sides.

In China and other eastern countries, there used to be a tradition between two countries who were at war, of marriage between the children of the rulers of the two countries.

Maybe an idea for Palestine and Israel?

echidna
07-22-2003, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by tralalala@22 July 2003 - 21:05
i was born in london, britain and came to israel at the age of 5 months.
second: you know, the lakers dont have supporters only inside the USA... some supporters are on the other side of the globe man...

tralalala
that&#39;s hep G
i just wanted to point out that there&#39;s a certain amount of ambiguity to your ID in this brave new world of pixels
shalom

brynasmith
07-22-2003, 08:21 PM
You think that everyone here in Israel wants peace?
OK there are SOME people that want peace- Some Israelie&#39;s and some palastiniens, but both of them also have a good %% that don&#39;t want peace they want to live without the other at all, and because of that any agreement that is met will not be recieved by everyone and thus will bring to more problems than there already is.

brynasmith
07-22-2003, 08:27 PM
you write: being scared of terrorism sounds a bit like a relaxed version of a military curfew.
helicopter rocket attacks, armoured bulldozers, sniper towers, checkpoints and attacks upon ambulances seem a bit more extreme in terms of threat levels when compared to rock throwing and the occasional kamikaze sniper or human-bomb
i don&#39;t envy the plight of israelis but i cannot support their actions either, sharon is a war-criminal as well as being prime minister & the IDF is a state terrorist organisation

Do you know that every attack the Israelie&#39;s have made has been as a respond to attacks the arabs have done, are you trying to say that it isn&#39;t right for them to do this? that we should just sit here and let them bomb us all away?

denis123
07-22-2003, 08:27 PM
@Brynasmith:

What more problems could there possibly be, than there already is?

denis123
07-22-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by brynasmith@22 July 2003 - 20:27


are you trying to say that it isn&#39;t right for them to do this? that we should just sit here and let them bomb us all away?
I am afraid so if you wish to put an end to the spiral of violence.

brynasmith
07-22-2003, 08:34 PM
Tibz, you write: wat im tryin to say is that the palestinians were there first and no matter wat land cannot be taken away unless sold
Obviosly you don&#39;t know your history, but the jewish nation was is in Israel before the Arabs or anyone else, and there has never been a time when Isreal didn&#39;t have any jews in it, sometimes there were very few that people may not remember but they were there. So what does that mean? that the arabs should leave? maybe now you think a little diffrent hu?
Another thing: land also changs hands by war, no? isn&#39;t that whats happened throughout the history? are you saying that that doesn&#39;t count? than maybe you should try and fix the WHOLE world and not only Israel.

brynasmith
07-22-2003, 08:40 PM
life here in Israel can be a lot worse, like someone here already gave the great Idea that there shouldn&#39;t be anymore check points, do you know what that would mean???&#33;&#33;&#33;
Do you know how many bombers the israelie&#39;s catch by those chack points??&#33;&#33;&#33; and do you know that those would be bombers get realesed a few days later because they didn&#39;t DO NOTHING&#33;&#33; think of what would be if there were no check points?? I wouldn&#39;t be alive to tell about it.
Do you know that the Israelie goverment pays the family&#39;s of the suiside bombers money to live after they are dead?? they do that even after that bomber kills people, I wouldn&#39;t say that the goverment are war criminals (not that I agree with the fact that they give them money to live on)

Rat Faced
07-22-2003, 09:20 PM
you write: being scared of terrorism sounds a bit like a relaxed version of a military curfew.
helicopter rocket attacks, armoured bulldozers, sniper towers, checkpoints and attacks upon ambulances seem a bit more extreme in terms of threat levels when compared to rock throwing and the occasional kamikaze sniper or human-bomb
i don&#39;t envy the plight of israelis but i cannot support their actions either, sharon is a war-criminal as well as being prime minister & the IDF is a state terrorist organisation

Do you know that every attack the Israelie&#39;s have made has been as a respond to attacks the arabs have done, are you trying to say that it isn&#39;t right for them to do this? that we should just sit here and let them bomb us all away?


So the UK should have bombed the crap out of The Republic of Ireland when being attacked by the IRA?

Crap.

If you lower yourself to the level of terrorists then dont be surprised when you in turn are called terrorists.


Tibz, you write: wat im tryin to say is that the palestinians were there first and no matter wat land cannot be taken away unless sold
Obviosly you don&#39;t know your history, but the jewish nation was is in Israel before the Arabs or anyone else, and there has never been a time when Isreal didn&#39;t have any jews in it, sometimes there were very few that people may not remember but they were there. So what does that mean? that the arabs should leave? maybe now you think a little diffrent hu?


The Jews were in Israel and Left.

The Articles of the PLO when it was founded, described Jews that were already in Palestine before the creation of Israel as Palestinians, its the invaders that came AFTER that they objected to.

As to saying that the Jewish nation was there before the Arabs....wasnt Israel the "Promised Land"? And wasnt it occupied BEFORE the Israelis moved in even then?

Its immaterial though...because you have just stated that USA should be given back to the Native Americans and Australia to the Aborigini&#39;s.....etc etc etc

Israel exists now, its a done deal.....it was the Creation of Israel by the UN that was the mistake, however there is no turning the clock back. It exists and is the home of Israeli&#39;s born and bred there, taking it away now is as bad as creating it in the 1st place.

You stated earlier that Israel was created by war....exactly.

By the same tactics you are now condemning in the Palestinians...ie Terrorism.

If you want to debate, then debate....but please at least add facts to your beliefs, instead of "I say, therefore its right"....makes you sound like Bush.

echidna
07-23-2003, 03:51 AM
here here Rat Faced, you took the words out of my mouth,
put simply
somebody has to stop punching before the fight can end

[BTW :: it seems that joshua in the first israeli invasion of Canaan was the leader of the first military genocide, prior to joshua&#39;s subjugation of the land of milk and honey armies integrated the cultures they conquered into their own fold and/or took tribute, it&#39;s no real wonder why ultra-orthodox fanatics shoot at and attack archaeologists trying to study in israel, they don&#39;t want more evidence of this jewish first coming to light]

brynasmith
07-23-2003, 06:21 AM
before the jews came to Israel there were 7 other MAIN nations living there. NONE of these nations are still here today. My family has lived in Israelfor a 1000 years and they weren&#39;t the only jews living here.
I&#39;m know the we the Israelie&#39;s shouldn&#39;t do what we are doing, but what do you Want US to DO??? Everyone has to defend themselves from voilince, is there anyway other to do that?? what do you want us to do?

denis123
07-23-2003, 06:29 AM
You"ve already been given the answer to that, but you just ingnore it and start asking the same question again.

echidna
07-23-2003, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by brynasmith+23 July 2003 - 16:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (brynasmith &#064; 23 July 2003 - 16:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>before the jews came to Israel there were 7 other MAIN nations living there. NONE of these nations are still here today. My family has lived in Israelfor a 1000 years and they weren&#39;t the only jews living here.
I&#39;m know the we the Israelie&#39;s shouldn&#39;t do what we are doing, but what do you Want US to DO??? Everyone has to defend themselves from voilince, is there anyway other to do that?? what do you want us to do?[/b]
israel did not exist 1000 years ago
the roman empire sacked jerusalem about 70AD ending the israel of david, herod and solomon and modern israel was mandated by the UN in 1947 and had been demanded by the first international zionist congress in 1897

nations are an idea invented in the french revolution (1792ish) and 1000 years ago was the period where the land now being called israel was changing hands from the arabs to the turks [a bit before the crusades got into full swing]

here is a bit of a run down [up to 1987];
<!--QuoteBegin-www.passia.org/index_jerusalem.htm
Stone Age: ca. 4000 BC: Earliest settlements on present location of Jerusalem.

Bronze Age: ca. 3000 BC: Canaanites were the people of Palestine. Migration of the Semite to Palestine. (Ancient Jerusalem was located on an area of ca. 4,7 hectares)

Canaanites and Philistines:
ca. 2500 BC: Canaanites in Palestine; Jerusalem (Ursalem) built by Jebusites, a Canaanite tribe.
ca. 1842 BC: First mention of Jerusalem in a written text (Egyptian): Abraham greeted at Salem in the name of the "most high God".
ca. 1800 BC: Earliest archaeological evidence of a permanent settlement in J’lem (Jebusites).

Hyksos Rule:
ca. 1700 BC: Jerusalem destroyed by Hyksos.
- 1550 BC: Hyksos rule in Egypt and Palestine.

Canaanites:
1550-ca.1200 BC: Jerusalem - a Canaanite city-state ruled by a king under partial Egyptian rule.
ca. 1350 BC: First mention of Jerusalem as city-state in Egyptian Amarna letters.
ca. 1300 BC: Archaeological evidence of renewed habitation; Jebusites may have rebuilt and occupied Jerusalem for the next 400 years.
ca. 1250 BC: Jewish exodus from Egypt.
ca. 1220 BC: King of Jerusalem defeated by Israelites and the city is destroyed.

Jebusites: ca. 1200-1004 BC: The Jebusites rule the city.

Israelites; 1000-587/586 BC: King David captures the Jebusite fortress and establishes united Israelite kingdom.

1000-965 BC: City ruled by King David and is renamed from "Jebus" to "City of David".
965-928 BC: King Solomon succeeds David, erects First Temple (952).
928 BC: After Solomon&#39;s death the kingdom splits: Israel and Judah (Jerusalem is capital).
926 BC: Egyptian forces ravage Jerusalem. 840 BC: Syrian Kingdom of Damascus occupies Jerusalem until ca. 810 BC.
720 BC: Kings of Judah between rivals Assyria (later Babylonia) and Egypt; Assyrians capture Jerusalem.
701-627 BC: Assyrians beleaguer Jerusalem; Judah is a tributary state of the Assyrian Empire.

Babylonians; 587-538 BC:

587/586 BC: Nebuchadnezzar captures and destroys Jerusalem, including the First Temple.
587/6-538 BC: Babylonians (Chaldaeans) rule Jerusalem.

Persian Rule 538-333 BC: Persians overthrow Babylonian empire; Jerusalem is capital of Persian province. King Cyrus allows Jews to return.

520-515 BC: Temple is rebuilt (Second Temple).

Hellenistic Rule; 332-141 BC:

332 BC: Alexander the Great captures Jerusalem.
301 BC: After breakup of Alexander&#39;s Empire: Ptolemies of Egypt rule in Palestine.
ca. 200 BC: Greek-Syrian Seleucids capture Jerusalem. Period of extreme Hellenization.
169 BC: Seleucids ruler Antochius Epiphanos destroys the city and forbids Judaism.

Hashmonean Kingdom; 167-152 BC:

167 BC: Macabbean (Jewish) revolt; Hasmonean dynasty founded, rule Jerusalem; Temple restored.

Macabbean Jews 141-63 BC:

141 BC: Simon Macabbee recovers Jerusalem.
134 BC: Antiochus Sidetes, King of Syria, sieges city.

Roman-Byzantine Empire; 63 BC-ca. 638 AD:

63 BC: Jerusalem is captured by Pompeji, head of the Roman Army.
37 BC: Palestine is a vassal kingdom of Rome, Herod the Great the king (37-4 BC).
6-37 AD: Procuratorial rule in Jerusalem.
44-326 AD: Procuratorial rule by Rome in Jerusalem.
66-70 AD: 1st Judean revolt led by Titus against Romans; city and temple partially destroyed.
117-138 AD: Jerusalem made a Roman colony.
ca. 132 AD: Great Judean revolt, led by Bar Kochba.
135 AD: Emperor Hadrian captures Jerusalem; rename city "Aelia Capitolina", expel Jews.
235-270 AD: The Kingdom of Palmyra (Tadmor) rules in Palestine.
323 or 326 AD: Emperor Constantine moves capital from Rome to Byzanz; Christianity made official or state religion - begin of an era of Christian rule in Jerusalem.
335 AD: Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Church of Golgatha built.
614-628 AD: Persians under King Chroseos II conquer Jerusalem (Sassanid Empire).
628 AD: Roman-Byzantinian Emperor Heraclius reconquests the city.
628-638 AD: Byzantinian Christians rule the city.

Muslim Rule; 638-1072 AD:

638 AD: Jerusalem conquered by Caliph ‘Omar Ibn al-Khattab bearing the new faith of Islam. City called Al-Quds; Jews allowed to return.
661-692 AD: Ummayad dynasty.
691 AD: Ummayad Caliph Abd al-Malik builds Dome of the Rock.
709 AD: Al-Aqsa Mosque built.
750 AD: Abbasid Caliphate; capital is Baghdad.
878 AD: Tulunid dynasty.
915 AD: Ikhshidid dynasty.
969 AD: Shi&#39;i Fatimids establish caliphate with Cairo as capital.
975 AD: Reign of Caliph al-Aziz; city walls rebuilt.
ca. 1000 AD: Fatimid empire declines.

Turks; 1072-1092 AD: Jerusalem ruled by various successor, among them Seljuk Turks.
Arabs; 1092-1099 AD: Arab reconquest of Jerusalem.
Crusader Rule; 1099-1187 AD: Christian Crusaders capture Jerusalem; city becomes capital of the Latin Kingdom.
Arabs; 1187-1517 AD:

1187 AD: Salah ed-Din reconquests city; restoration of the Muslim shrines; Jews permitted to remain and settle.
1187-1220 AD: Ayyubids rule Cairo and control Jerusalem.
1229-1239 AD: City ceded by treaty for ten years to Crusaders (Frederick II of Germany).
1239-1516 AD: Arabs regain control over the city; Arab (Mameluke) Rule.
1243/44 AD: Khwarizmians (Mongols) invade Jerusalem.

Ottoman Empire; 1517-1917:

1517 AD: Ottoman Sultan Selim defeats Mameluks, incorporates Jerusalem and Palestine into Ottoman Empire.
1537-1541 AD: Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilds city walls and restores the Dome of the Rock. 1831-1840 AD: Mohammed Ali of Egypt occupies Palestine; Egyptian rule of Jerusalem.
1841-1917 AD: Restoration of Ottoman-Turkish rule.
1876: First Ottoman parliament convened in Constantinople; first Palestinian deputies from Jerusalem elected.
1880: Ottoman administration created mutasarrifiyya of Jerusalem.
1898: A section of old city wall was removed to facilitate the entrance of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and his entourage on their visit to Jerusalem.

1917, Dec. 9: Ottoman forces surrender in Jerusalem: allied forces led by General Allenby conquer Palestine; Jerusalem under British military administration.
1918, Jan. 27-Feb. 10: First Palestinian National Congress meets in Jerusalem, sends two memoranda to Versailles Peace Conference rejecting Balfour Declaration, demanding independence.
1920, April: British remove Musa Kazim al-Husseini, mayor of Jerusalem, from office for opposing their pro-Zionist policies. San Remo Peace Conference assigns the Mandate for Palestine to Great Britain. 1921,May-June: 4th Palestinian National Congress held in Jerusalem, decides to send delegation to London to explain Palestinian case against Balfour Declaration.
1922: Britain obtains League of Nations mandate to rule Palestine; Jerusalem becomes capital under British civil administration.
1922-1939: Period of Palestinian revolts against British occupation and massive Jewish immigration.
1925, March: Palestinian general strike to protest against private visit by Lord Balfour to Jerusalem.
1928,June: 7th Palestinian National Congress convened in Jerusalem.
1928, Nov.: Islamic Conference meets in Jerusalem,urges protection of Muslim property rights at Wailing Wall, itself a Muslim holy site.
1929, Aug. 28-29: Palestinians up-rising in reaction to militant demonstrations at Wailing Wall.
1931, Dec. 16: Pan-Islamic Congress held in Jerusalem, 145 delegates from Muslim World attend.
1933, Oct.: Demonstrations in Jaffa and Jerusalem protesting against British pro-Zionist policies.
1936, May 8: Conference of all National Committees in Jerusalem calls for ‘no taxation without representation’. General strike begins.
1946, July 22: Irgun and Stern Gang Zionist groups blow up King David Hotel, Jerusalem.
1947, Nov. 29: UN Partition Resolution 181 recommends that Jaffa be part of the proposed Palestinian state and that Jerusalem and Bethlehem be a corpus separatum under a special international regime administered by UN Trusteeship Council.

1948 - Al Naqba (Catastrophe)

April 8: Abd al-Kader Husseini killed in counter-attack at Qastel, western suburb of Jerusalem.
April 9: Irgun and Stern Gangs led by Menahim Begin and Yitzhak Shamir massacre 245 Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassin, western suburb of Jerusalem.
April 11: Haganah destroy village of Kalonia near Qastel and occupy Deir Yassin.
April 30: Palestinians in all quarters of West Jerusalem occupied by Haganah are driven out.
Israeli-Jordanian Rule; Divided City: 1948-1967

Following the 1948 war the British withdraw from the city, Israeli state established; Jerusalem divided (East Jerusalem incl. Old City under Jordanian rule). Israel occupies West Jerusalem.

June 28: Bernadotte&#39;s first peace plan: Jerusalem to be Arab.
July 7: Mt. Scopus Area divided into 3 sectors: Jewish (incl. Hadassah Hospital and Hebrew University, which were completely isolated from Israel); Arab (Issawiya); and a third sector incl. Arab Augusta Victoria Hospital.
Sept. 17: UN Mediator Count Bernadotte assassinated in Jerusalem.
Dec. 13: Israel proclaims Jerusalem as its &#39;eternal capital&#39;.
Dec. 20: Sheikh Hussam Addin Jarallah appointed Mufti of Jerusalem (replacing Haj Amin Husseini); Amin Abdul-Hadi appointed head of Supreme Muslim Council.
1949
Dec. 13: West Jerusalem declared illegally the capital of Israel.
Dec. 19: UN General Assembly Resolution 303: Internationalisation of Jerusalem.
1950
Jan. 2: King Abdullah appoints Ragheb Nashashibi as custodian of the Holy Places.
July 20: King Abdullah assassinated in Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
1960 Jan. 16: Egypt states in letter of credentials of the new Consul of the United Arab Republic (UAR) in the Old City of Jerusalem, that the Consul was being appointed as the Consul General in all the territories located west of the Jordan River, being part of Filistine conquered by the Jordanian Army.&#39; Jordan rejects the credentials of the UAR Consul in Jerusalem on the grounds that they infringe on its sovereignty.
1964: May 28: First Palestinian National Council meets in Jerusalem.

Israeli Occupation; 1967

Jerusalem entirely occupied by Israeli forces in the course of the June War;hundreds of Palestinian homes demolished in the Old City&#39;s Maghrebi Quarter, its residents evicted in order to facilitate the construction of an expanded Jewish Quarter and a plaza in front of the Wailing Wall.
June 7: Israel confiscates the keys to the Magharbeh Gate (western gate of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound) and has not yet returned them to the Islamic Waqf.
June 9: Friday mid-day prayers are interrupted for the first time since Salah ed-Din reconquered the city, when battle breaks out near Haram ash-Sharif compound.
June 11: Israeli government decides to annex East Jerusalem, illegally declares the city its capital. Knesset empowers government to extend Israeli law,jurisdiction and public administration over the area of the Land of Israel.
June 28: Israel annexes old Jerusalem, begins settlement in OPT.
July 4: General Assembly Resolution 2253 (ESU) calls upon Israel to "rescind all measures taken (and) to desist forthwith, from taking any action which would alter the status of Jerusalem."
July 24: Muslim Council (al-Hayat al-Islamiya) founded, 1st Palestinian representative body after the war. 1968: June 26: An Australian Jewish tourist sets a fire inside Al-Aqsa Mosque; worshippers stop the fire; considerable damage left.
1969: First Israeli families move into Ramat Eshkol, Israel&#39;s new settlement in annexed East Jerusalem.
June 16: Israeli authorities seize the south-western section of Haram-al-Sharif compound.
June 24: Israeli forces take over the Tankiziyya school at Silsila Gate; the building is still used as military base.
Aug. 21: Burning of Al-Aqsa Mosque, damaged by arson.
1978: Oct. 1: Statement of condemnation by the West Bank National Conference, held in Beit Hanina, of Sadat&#39;s visit to Jerusalem.
1979: Israeli Jewish population in East Jerusalem reaches 50,000 (in 7 East Jerusalem settlement areas).
March 22: UNSC Res. 446 calls on Israel to dismantle the settlements "those having no legal validity" in the OPT, including Jerusalem. Aug.: Members of Jewish extremist groups Gershon Salomon and Meir Kahane try to enter Al-Aqsa Mosque but are prevented by thousands of Palestinians; ensuing battle leaves dozens of Muslims wounded.
Oct. 11: Israeli forces wound dozens of worshippers, shooting and throwing tear gas into the Mosque.
1980
April 19: Religious Jews announce that they would work on overtaking Al-Aqsa Mosque.
July 30: The Israeli government reaffirms the 1967 de facto annexation and declares Jerusalem the eternal undivided capital of Israel through a Basic Law "Jerusalem".
1981:
Aug. 28: Israeli authorities start building a tunnel beneath the Haram compound.
1982
March 30: Jewish extremists send letters to the Islamic Waqf asking them to leave Al-Aqsa mosque.
April 11: Israeli soldier Goldman forces his way to the Haram compound, shoots at Muslim worshippers killing several and injuring over 60, and attempts to blow up al-Sakhra Mosque but is prevented by a Palestinian.
May 20: Zionist organisations send a final warning to Waqf officials, threatening they would kill them if they cannot pray in Al-Aqsa.
July 28: Palestinians protest against the occupation of 3 Palestinian owned houses by armed settlers.
1983
March 26: Israeli diggings under-neath the Waqf Department lead to the collapse of the main entrance.
April 16: Thieves steal rare books and paintings worth over &#036;4 mil-lion from Jerusalem&#39;s Islamic Museum.
Nov.20: US Jews begin fundraising for the construction of the "Temple Mount" to be built on Al-Aqsa compound.
1984:
Oct. 28: 1 Palestinian killed and 10 wounded as Arab bus in Jerusalem hit by anti-tank rocket in one of a series of terrorist attacks against Palestinians. PM Peres con-demns killings and promises a determined hunt for attackers: An Israeli soldier is arrested and confesses to the attack.
1985: Aug. 21: Israeli police allow Jewish extremists to pray in Al-Aqsa if 10 ask admittance together.
1986: Aug. 4: Jewish extremists announce their decision to build a synagogue in the Mosque yard.
1987: June 6: Al-Fajr editor Hanna Siniora announces plan to lead list of Palestinian candidates in 1988 Jerusalem municipal elections. Israelis and Palestinians reject proposal.
[/quote]

what should you do? maybe understanding the history of your home might be a good start [thogh it isn&#39;t simple]
you have already hinted that you can&#39;t see the possibility of peace with your neighbours so i might be wasting my time
it is clear to anyone with vision unclouded by racist xenophobia that the land now called israel has not always been the home of the jews, it has often been home to some of the jews but never only of the jews
but i fail to see why the state of israel has any special rights to this country [might isn&#39;t really right]

MagicNakor
07-23-2003, 07:54 AM
The fact that three major religions all claim this area as their Holy Land, and that all three are relatively non-tolerant when you start edging into the fundamentalist views, likely ensures that there won&#39;t be a lasting "peace" for some time. There really aren&#39;t any easy solutions for a problem like this. Except for mine, which is to construct a working time machine and warp back to the UN meetings that were creating the current Israel/Palestine layouts and urge them to do it in a different manner. ;)

Edit: No, I haven&#39;t thought far enough ahead to figure out what manner that may be. First, the time machine.

:ninja:

thewizeard
07-23-2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@23 July 2003 - 07:54
Except for mine, which is to construct a working time machine and warp back to the UN meetings that were creating the current Israel/Palestine layouts and urge them to do it in a different manner. ;)

Edit: No, I haven&#39;t thought far enough ahead to figure out what manner that may be. First, the time machine.

:ninja:
Much to dangerous, someone might go back and kill Adam and Eve&#33;

tralalala
07-23-2003, 12:48 PM
lol, israel DID exsist 1000 years ago, read the bible...
the jews have been around for some 5000 years and are now the religion which has survived the longest, so maybe they are trying to do this (killings) cos they think we have some magical powers that we have survved for so long?

tralalala

junkyardking
07-23-2003, 01:00 PM
The Palestines and the Jews are the same people seperated by religion, they did genetic tests in Israel that found this, but it was always known as both the Palestines and Jews are Semitic peoples.

tralalala
07-23-2003, 01:04 PM
actually they arent:
the majority of palestinians are muslims (90-99%), and the muslims come from ismael, one of abrahams two sons.
the jews, come from sem who was one of 3 of noahs sons.
conclusion: jews came before muslims and they are both NOT the same people.

tralalala

echidna
07-23-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by tralalala@23 July 2003 - 22:48
lol, israel DID exsist 1000 years ago, read the bible...
the jews have been around for some 5000 years and are now the religion which has survived the longest, so maybe they are trying to do this (killings) cos they think we have some magical powers that we have survved for so long?

tralalala
please give some at least rudimentary evidence that israel existed around 1000AD tralalala [just a reference will do]
i think you&#39;re talking out of your ass
my neighbours have been practising their religion for between 20,000-60,000 years [way before anybody was even thinking of building pyramids] so your claim that judaism is the oldest religion is also not kosher
believe lies if you like but that is what david irving does, and i don&#39;t believe either of you

echidna
07-23-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by tralalala+23 July 2003 - 23:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tralalala &#064; 23 July 2003 - 23:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>actually they arent:
the majority of palestinians are muslims (90-99%), and the muslims come from ismael, one of abrahams two sons.
the jews, come from sem who was one of 3 of noahs sons.
conclusion: jews came before muslims and they are both NOT the same people.

tralalala[/b]
you guys sure got taught out of different books to the rest of us
here&#39;s a reference;
<!--QuoteBegin-clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Bible/Ethnic_Groups.htm




Abraham (originally called Abram) eventually had two sons, even though his wife Sarah (originally called Sarai) was considered incapable of bearing any children (Gen 12-50)




Since Sarah was childless at first, his oldest son Ishmael was born to Sarah&#39;s slave Hagar (see Gen 16; a common practice in ancient times)



But later, Sarah herself had a son, named Isaac, and some rivalries developed between the mothers, which eventually split the family (Gen 21).



Isaac also had two sons, twins named Esau and Jacob (Gen 25), each of whom had numerous descendants themselves (Gen 35:23--37:1).



Jacob&#39;s name was later changed to Israel (Gen 32:28; 35:10; see "Israelites" below).





Jews see themselves as the physical descendants of Abraham, through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob.



Even though Isaac was younger than Ishmael, and Jacob was younger than Esau, the Jews consider themselves the ones chosen by God as the legitimate heirs of the covenant and promises God made to Abraham (Gen 17:20-22; 22:16-18; 27:1-45; 49:1-12)




Arabs also claim to be physical descendants, but through Abraham&#39;s first son, Ishmael (see Gen 25:12-15), and/or his grandson, Esau (Gen 36:9-19).



Since Ishmael was older than Isaac, and Esau also older than Jacob, Arabs see themselves as the "older sons," and thus the legitimate heirs of Abraham.



Recognizing this close common heritage is necessary for beginning to understand the animosity between Jews and Arabs over the centuries.



Muslims from other ethnic groups also consider themselves to be "spiritual" children of Abraham.




Christians also claim to be Abraham&#39;s descendants (Gal 3; Rom 4), but through "faith" or spiritual "adoption" (Gal 4; Rom 8), rather than physical birth.


[/quote]
noah [although highly unlikely to have existed as outlined in the torah] had his flood and all that caper happened long before the first covenant was made between moses and yahweh
israel was conquered by joshua moses young successor
so what bearing does noah have to do with jewish rights to occupy israel?

[BTW why if muslims and jews are so different are kosher and hallal food requirements almost identical? both religions make excellent falafel (lebanese christians make great falafel too&#33;)]

Ed. stupid f#*king list nesting .. what is it with invision board getting confused

brynasmith
07-23-2003, 04:32 PM
you write: you have already hinted that you can&#39;t see the possibility of peace with your neighbours so i might be wasting my time
it is clear to anyone with vision unclouded by racist xenophobia that the land now called israel has not always been the home of the jews, it has often been home to some of the jews but never only of the jews
but i fail to see why the state of israel has any special rights to this country [might isn&#39;t really right]

maybe the jews and palestinians both have a right to live in Israel but we&#39;ll never know if that will work at the rate we&#39;re going. Didn&#39;t Rabbin and Arafat sign for peace a couple of years ago in oslow?? If that didn&#39;t work how is a new peace going to work?? I just cant see that happening.

thewizeard
07-23-2003, 05:53 PM
Ok I am going to bore you with a quote out of the I Ching.


"Here the subject is the dispersing and dissolving of divisive egotism. DISPERSION shows the way, so to speak, that leads to gathering together. This explains the similarity of the two texts (Gathering together and Dispersion)

Religious forces are needed to overcome the egotism that divides men. The common celebration of the great sacrificial feasts and sacred rites, which gave expression simultaneousy to the interrelation and social articulation of family and state, was the means employed by the great rulers to unite men. The sacred music and the splendor of the ceremonies aroused a strong tide of emotion that was shared by all hearts in unison, and that awakened a consciousness of the common origin of all creatures. In this way disunity was overcome and rigidty dissolved. A further way to the same end is co-operation in great general undertakings that set a high goal for the will of the people; just as a boat crossing a great stream, all hands must unite in a joint task.

But only a man who is free of all selfish ulterior considerations is capable of so dissolving the hardness of egotism."

This man needs to be found&#33;