I would like to argue something pretty important to me.

[RioDeLeo]

Oh yeah, and while we are at it, let's conveniently forget that that the people who live there now aren't, at least not a majority of them, people who took, or could have taken, an active part in the actual takeover, .

What the fuck are you on about Snny? The takeover was in 1967 not 1867, think before you post.

[Helghast004]

Nah I dont think that would've been a problem considering my dad was in the military. Its all the paperwork he needed to fill out, the 3 month quarantine of my sisters dog (which is why she didnt want to go) and a bunch of other stuff.

[RioDeLeo]

pretty much everyone knows who you are

You know fuck all, l don't know you and you don't know me, but if playing these childish games turn you on, good on you.

[Helghast004]

I usually get into this kind of discussion but at the moment I feel lost... :lookaroun

[sArA]

Don't worry Helghast004...there are two simultaneous conversations going on here...I suggest you stick with the original topic and let the other one go....that one is board history. ;)

[RioDeLeo]

As SnnY said very well - The American Jews haven't a clue...

They give us money to do what THEY want us to do, and to support us... If they really wanted to support us, they should STFU and come and live here instead of "bullying" Israel, as they are people who think they know everything.

As to your statements prior to that Rio:
Zionism is the urge of a Jew to come and live in Israel - Zion... So wher the hell can you come to a conclusion from that says Zionism is not Judaism!? :huh: :blink:


Next time take a minute to read over what you wrote please.

More crap Rafi, you're full of it, no intelligent responses, just repeat your brainwashing. You are a racist masquerading as someone who really cares, but you don't. You answer only that which you can come up with a smartarse remark to, l don't remember you answering 3RANIAC's post.

If Zionism was Judaism then why are so many Jews opposed to it? As l said, you talk out of your arse.

[JPaul]

Just offensive flaming now, oh well so it goes.

[GepperRankins]

pretty much everyone knows who you are

You know fuck all, l don't know you and you don't know me, but if playing these childish games turn you on, good on you.
is this some kind of parody of self, or have you still not realised that no matter who you pretend to be we can spot you a mile off

[RioDeLeo]

I have absolutely no idea.
You certainly don't.


is this some kind of parody of self, or have you still not realised that no matter who you pretend to be we can spot you a mile off
Look, l don't know who you are and l don't care, your childish rantings are boring, maybe this section is just too highbrow for you, try the lounge.

[GepperRankins]

You certainly don't.


is this some kind of parody of self, or have you still not realised that no matter who you pretend to be we can spot you a mile off
Look, l don't know who you are and l don't care, your childish rantings are boring, maybe this section is just too highbrow for you, try the lounge.
stop acting like you know the forum. you only have 26 posts

[tralalala]

Right, Rio it seems you are sort of screwing up this topic - flaming for no good reason...

How can I be a racist? I have Arab friends, black friends from Ethiopia, dark and light friends, what the hell are you talking about? You have no right to call me a racist. You can just about get the hell out of this thread, even the forum because since you've arrived here, things screwed up.

Nah, I can't talk out of my arse, I tried, I ended up stinking the room out.

So, in this case, I don't think you have much of a say, because you are trying to talk to everyone as a Palestinian person who is suffering badly, which you are not.
You can't dictate what should happen here, you never will, because you simply do not have a clue, just like American Jews, so please...

[3RA1N1AC]

You answer only that which you can come up with a smartarse remark to, l don't remember you answering 3RANIAC's post.
well. i wasn't really arguing directly with his statements. what i was suggesting was that the basic presumptions of an israeli viewpoint might be so different from those of the typical FST member that he could be wasting his breath trying to convince us all that such a viewpoint is correct (or even compatible with us).

i don't mean that the "knock their parents' houses down" policy is just plain wrong. in the u.s. it would be considered ethically incorrect and unfair. in israel it might be considered ethically correct and perfectly fair. or another example: the u.s. makes major scandals of relatively trivial problems in the military backgrounds of our presidential candidates, while israelis and palestinians have no qualms about being led by people who've committed what we'd describe as atrocities. and if that's the case, then it signifies such a sharp difference in cultural attitudes that i couldn't imagine why an israeli would or should care whether or not the rest of the world agrees with something like the "knock their parents' houses down" policy.

so my point wasn't "YOU'RE WRONG!"... it was more like "you might be talking to the wrong forum, if you're hoping to win people over to your way of thinking." that's all.

[tralalala]

Well, I am not trying to convince anyone I am right, I am just making conversation, and a very interesting one may I say :)

[Snee]

Oh yeah, and while we are at it, let's conveniently forget that that the people who live there now aren't, at least not a majority of them, people who took, or could have taken, an active part in the actual takeover, .

What the fuck are you on about Snny? The takeover was in 1967 not 1867, think before you post.
What exactly do you think the average age is over there?

50? 60? I'm guessing it's a wee bit younger, just like in the rest of the world.
(Google says 28, but hey, google can be wrong)

A 48 year old would have been ten years old in 1967. For a majority of all current settlers to have been able to take the decision to actually steal anyone's land, or even live on their own, they'd have had to have been a bit older.

And do you really think that most settlers participated in any military actions against Palestians (assuming their average age is 54-56 or more, which is just about what they'd have to be, to have been in the army or been able to vote), or were part of this zionist agenda of yours?

Also, it was 38 years ago, ffs. Not fucking last year.


In short, think before you post, you tosser.

[Busyman]

What the fuck are you on about Snny? The takeover was in 1967 not 1867, think before you post.
What exactly do you think the average age is over there?

50? 60? I'm guessing it's a wee bit younger, just like in the rest of the world.
(Google says 28, but hey, google can be wrong)

A 48 year old would have been ten years old in 1967. For a majority of all current settlers to have been able to take the decision to actually steal anyone's land, or even live on their own, they'd have had to have been a bit older.

And do you really think that most settlers participated in any military actions against Palestians (assuming their average age is 54-56 or more, which is just about what they'd have to be, to have been in the army or been able to vote), or were part of this zionist agenda of yours?

Also, it was 38 years ago, ffs. Not fucking last year.


In short, think before you post, you tosser.
I never say this internet crap but....

:01: :1eye: :shutup: PWNED!!!!! :shutup: :1eye: :01:

[tralalala]

Just about eh..? :lol:

[Rat Faced]

Cool it please..

Lets keep it civilised.

[RPerry]

Cool it please..

Lets keep it civilised.

ok, then RioDeLeo.... out :P

[kazaaman]

FEAR

False
Expectations
About
Risk

[RioDeLeo]

What exactly do you think the average age is over there?

50? 60? I'm guessing it's a wee bit younger, just like in the rest of the world.
(Google says 28, but hey, google can be wrong)

A 48 year old would have been ten years old in 1967. For a majority of all current settlers to have been able to take the decision to actually steal anyone's land, or even live on their own, they'd have had to have been a bit older.



My my, you are stupid aren't you? EVERY single person living on occupied land knows the land was stolen, and knows the UN has declared it illegal. The settlements may have started 38 years ago, but they are still going on today. EVERY settlement has armed guards to prevent the true owners from harming the settlers, so they all know what's going on. Hundreds or thousands of new homes are being built right now, walls are going up annexing more land as l type this.

@ Busyman: Grow up.

[GepperRankins]

What exactly do you think the average age is over there?

50? 60? I'm guessing it's a wee bit younger, just like in the rest of the world.
(Google says 28, but hey, google can be wrong)

A 48 year old would have been ten years old in 1967. For a majority of all current settlers to have been able to take the decision to actually steal anyone's land, or even live on their own, they'd have had to have been a bit older.

And do you really think that most settlers participated in any military actions against Palestians (assuming their average age is 54-56 or more, which is just about what they'd have to be, to have been in the army or been able to vote), or were part of this zionist agenda of yours?

Also, it was 38 years ago, ffs. Not fucking last year.


In short, think before you post, you tosser.
I never say this internet crap but....

:01: :1eye: :shutup: PWNED!!!!! :shutup: :1eye: :01:
but he used google :ermm:

[RioDeLeo]

Right, Rio it seems you are sort of screwing up this topic - flaming for no good reason...

Au Contraire mon ami, someone needs to counter your over the top propaganda.


How can I be a racist? I have Arab friends, black friends from Ethiopia, dark and light friends, what the hell are you talking about? You have no right to call me a racist.

Your attitude towards Palestinians is racist, l don't care how many 'coloured' friends you imagine you have.

You can just about get the hell out of this thread, even the forum because since you've arrived here, things screwed up.

Remember the title of this thread you started >> I would like to argue something pretty important to me. << Well you've got your argument, even though you didn't want one, you just wanted to fool people into believing that you really care what happens to the Palestinians when you quite clearly don't.

So, in this case, I don't think you have much of a say, because you are trying to talk to everyone as a Palestinian person who is suffering badly, which you are not.

You don't have to be Palestinian to abhor Israel's treatment of them, or to stick up for them.

You can't dictate what should happen here, you never will, because you simply do not have a clue, just like American Jews, so please...

l'm not trying to dictate what happens there, l'm just pointing out the illegality and racism endemic within the Israeli populace, of which you're a fine example..


l've been reading back over some of your early posts, l shall bring some of them up another time to show your true attitude towards Palestinians.

[tralalala]

Well, if, and I say IF Israel were racist towards the Palestinians, I don't think there would have been any of them left by now, don't you?

And I am not racist because if I was I'd be writing things like "we need to throw them ***** into the sea", or "they are the ones responsible for our crappy society" and stuff like that.
Did I write something like that? I don't believe I did, so you can stop pointing out wrong things please and thank you.

If anyone, YOU are being racist towards the Israelis, so give us all a break please...

My argument in mind was not having someone talking to me as a racist like the Nazis or the Apartheid in South Africa, but more of someone who can understand the situation here, which you obviously don't.

And once again, we Israelis are not racist, otherwise there would have been no Paelstinians by now........

[tralalala]

What exactly do you think the average age is over there?

50? 60? I'm guessing it's a wee bit younger, just like in the rest of the world.
(Google says 28, but hey, google can be wrong)

A 48 year old would have been ten years old in 1967. For a majority of all current settlers to have been able to take the decision to actually steal anyone's land, or even live on their own, they'd have had to have been a bit older.



My my, you are stupid aren't you? EVERY single person living on occupied land knows the land was stolen, and knows the UN has declared it illegal. The settlements may have started 38 years ago, but they are still going on today. EVERY settlement has armed guards to prevent the true owners from harming the settlers, so they all know what's going on. Hundreds or thousands of new homes are being built right now, walls are going up annexing more land as l type this.

@ Busyman: Grow up.
SnnY aint stupid, he RAWKS!! :D

The land was not stolen, it was taken over by the Israelis AT WAR TIME - try and get that into your head...
It's funny how you are moaning about Israel and stolen land that belongs only to the Palestinians, but I find it odd you not even saying a word about the Golan heights.. never mind that.

We have armed guards protecting us inside Israel from people wanting to harm us too.......... :blink:

Houses being built..? :lol: you call a crummy caravan which will be removed in 5 minutes a home..? lol your sad.....

The wall is going up to prevent war when the disengagement finishes, and is something no one has questioned seriously, and is in fact a good idea... so get your facts right.
Once again the UN is a joke... they condemned all of the suicide attacks, and do you see them stopping..?

[GepperRankins]

isn't isreal full of arabs? so racism doesn't really come into it

i don't really know like, i just thought as a race they were allowed to live in isreal. just not if they want to make trouble

[tralalala]

Yes, you are right Gepper.

Only more proof that Israel is not a racist country: In the independance scroll that was signed in 1948, it was written that all Arabs present in Israel at the time would receive full citizenship, and would be allowed to vite and get voted.
Anothe example: Israel has Aram MK's (equivalent of an MP in Britain - Member of Knesset).

So, how on earth could Israel be racist..? :blink: :huh: ;)

[bigboab]

Yes, you are right Gepper.

Only more proof that Israel is not a racist country: In the independance scroll that was signed in 1948, it was written that all Arabs present in Israel at the time would receive full citizenship, and would be allowed to vite and get voted.
Anothe example: Israel has Aram MK's (equivalent of an MP in Britain - Member of Knesset).

So, how on earth could Israel be racist..? :blink: :huh: ;)

Hi Rafi:)

I cant remember the exact details, but was there not a law introduced by the Israeli's barring Paslestinians from buying land in the 'Mandated' territory? If I come across the details I will post them.

[RioDeLeo]

The land was not stolen, it was taken over by the Israelis AT WAR TIME - try and get that into your head...

Try to get this into your head, -->> THE ANNEXATION OF LAND OCCUPIED AS THE RESULT OF WAR IS ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW <<-- Read the United Nations resolutions 242 and 446.



Security Council Resolution 242, Nov. 22, 1967

Calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the war that year and "the acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."


Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979

"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."




It's funny how you are moaning about Israel and stolen land that belongs only to the Palestinians, but I find it odd you not even saying a word about the Golan heights.. never mind that.

This thread has nothing to do with Syria, and l'm surprised that you'd use one crime to justify another.


We have armed guards protecting us inside Israel from people wanting to harm us too.......... :blink:

Houses being built..? :lol: you call a crummy caravan which will be removed in 5 minutes a home..? lol your sad.....
Crummy caravans? Sharon recently announced thet they intend to build 3,650 new housing units in Ma'aleh Adumim alone, and there are around 250 other illegal settlements that want to expand.


The wall is going up to prevent war when the disengagement finishes, and is something no one has questioned seriously, and is in fact a good idea... so get your facts right.
No-one has questioned seriously ... are you serious? Where do you get your information from? Most countries in the world have condemned Israel for the walls they are building, on Palestinian land!


You really do your cause no favours when you come up with crap like this, refuting you is like taking candy from a baby.

[Snee]

What exactly do you think the average age is over there?

50? 60? I'm guessing it's a wee bit younger, just like in the rest of the world.
(Google says 28, but hey, google can be wrong)

A 48 year old would have been ten years old in 1967. For a majority of all current settlers to have been able to take the decision to actually steal anyone's land, or even live on their own, they'd have had to have been a bit older.



My my, you are stupid aren't you? EVERY single person living on occupied land knows the land was stolen, and knows the UN has declared it illegal. The settlements may have started 38 years ago, but they are still going on today. EVERY settlement has armed guards to prevent the true owners from harming the settlers, so they all know what's going on. Hundreds or thousands of new homes are being built right now, walls are going up annexing more land as l type this.

@ Busyman: Grow up.
:rolleyes:

Excluding the settlements that are considered illegal (ie, all those places that are still being settled today despite the government saying it's a no go), everyone in Israel doesn't know these settlements are illegal, on account of them not being so, in Israel.

What you don't get is that these settlers for the most part are neither living there illegally, nor did they take any part in any illegal actions, according to the laws in the country they live in. Their state apparently does, according to the UN, but that's debateable, as is the authority of the UN in that region.

EVERY settlement has armed guards to protect them from those pesky people with bombs. They all know someone is out to harm them, this much is true.

Do you think anyone, anywhere, would obey the UN, if the UN told them that they had to give away their land to people that considers it honourable to to blow up innocents for something that happened before you, or they, were born?

I'm sure most Palestinians aren't taking part of these murders, but it's the arseholes with the bombs the israeli would feel they were giving in to.


You would move people that have lived and worked in those legal areas for a long time, many of them for their entire lives, you'd steal their homes and every inch of fertile land they've taken from the desert, because the area once was stolen from someone else (and not by the people living there now, mind). It amazes me how you can't grasp this is wrong, especially so with all your talk of theft.

But like I said before, as long as it's people you don't like, then they don't matter, do they?

[tralalala]

Man, it's sad that you actually feel like you are there and need to save Palestine....

The land that was taken over by in the war in Gaza and West Bank is going to be given back... Why do you keep thinking it's not going to happen?

Maale Adumim is not far from Jerusalem, and is a big place like Ariel - it cannot be evacuated.
It's almost like saying if London was originally lets say Scottish (just ofr the example), and 200 years ago the Brits took it over, and now the Scots want it back - how on earth do you think you could possibly evacuate that place!?

Where are the UN resolutions (which mean nothing) that condemned the Nazis... eh? Even if they were, no one took them seriously, because the WERE AT WAR.

Syria - no, Israel took it over to make sure the Syrians stopped killing innocent civilians. Since the Syria has never wanted the place back... Hardly a crime.

The caravans I'm talking about are those being put up bt those nutters in these tiny bits of land (not even a quarter of an acre), and they think it'll stop the disengagement (which it won't).

No one takes these condemnations seriously as they mean nothing. They say it "because everyone else does". That's all... The wall will stop Palestinians from getting into Israel and bombing us after the disengagement. A good idea in my sense.



@BB: Not sure.. try find that info.

[Rat Faced]

Man, it's sad that you actually feel like you are there and need to save Palestine....

The land that was taken over by in the war in Gaza and West Bank is going to be given back... Why do you keep thinking it's not going to happen?

Maale Adumim is not far from Jerusalem, and is a big place like Ariel - it cannot be evacuated.
It's almost like saying if London was originally lets say Scottish (just ofr the example), and 200 years ago the Brits took it over, and now the Scots want it back - how on earth do you think you could possibly evacuate that place!?

Where are the UN resolutions (which mean nothing) that condemned the Nazis... eh? Even if they were, no one took them seriously, because the WERE AT WAR.

Syria - no, Israel took it over to make sure the Syrians stopped killing innocent civilians. Since the Syria has never wanted the place back... Hardly a crime.

The caravans I'm talking about are those being put up bt those nutters in these tiny bits of land (not even a quarter of an acre), and they think it'll stop the disengagement (which it won't).

No one takes these condemnations seriously as they mean nothing. They say it "because everyone else does". That's all... The wall will stop Palestinians from getting into Israel and bombing us after the disengagement. A good idea in my sense.



@BB: Not sure.. try find that info.

Its not going to happen. You've said yourself its not.. Israel will keep part, and its the best part.

Berwick upon Tweed, in the north of England has swapped hands a number of times between Scotland and England. To my knowledge its never had to be evacuated, to the withdrawing country. The locals just "got on with it", being part of a different country. In addition, 200 years ago there was no "International Law" as such that is worth mentioning, 38 years ago there was.

The UN wasn't around at the time of Nazi Germany, so i cant see how they could have passed any resolutions against them. If they had been, im sure they would have.

Syria doesnt want the Golam Hights back? Then fair enough.. keep them if the rightful owner doesnt want them. However it was shown that a number of the "attacks" in the north of Israel were actually conducted my Mossad, in order to facilitate the extention of Israels borders that way.

The wall has been condemned by most countries in the world, and is a contradiction of your opening argument. Its being built upon the land in dispute and has stopped 1000s of innocent Palestinians working land that they own now... simply because their village is on one side of the wall, and their land is on the other.

[bigboab]

Here is an article that mentions the land thing Rafi. Albeit I would have preferred to find a less biased account.:lol:

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr264/sagall.htm

[Barbarossa]

Berwick upon Tweed, in the north of England has swapped hands a number of times between Scotland and England. To my knowledge its never had to be evacuated, to the withdrawing country. The locals just "got on with it", being part of a different country. In addition, 200 years ago there was no "International Law" as such that is worth mentioning, 38 years ago there was.


Slightly off-topic, but interesting none the less... Berwick-Upon-Tweed was also technically at war with Russia for some 93 years...

http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/berwick/berwickupontweed/


Even Henry VII's final capture of the town in 1482 didn't entirely simplify matters. Under the Treaty of Perpetual Peace between Henry VII of England and James IV of Scotland in 1502 (just 11 years before the Scottish army and nobility was destroyed by the English at the Battle of Flodden) Berwick was given a special status as being "of" the Kingdom of England but not "in" it. As a result the town thereafter needed special mention in royal proclamations.

This had one odd effect. When Queen Victoria signed the declaration of war on Russia in 1853, she did so in the name of "Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, Ireland, Berwick-upon-Tweed and the British Dominions beyond the sea." But Berwick was not mentioned in the Treaty of Paris that concluded the Crimean War in 1856, leaving the town technically still at war with Russia.

A peace treaty was only finally signed by a Russian diplomat and the the Mayor of Berwick in 1966. As the mayor said at the time: "You can tell the Russian people that they can now sleep peacefully in their beds".

:lol: :D

I guess it does prove one thing, even International Law is sometimes an ass... :dry:

[JPaul]

Any "International Law" would only be meaningful if the State accepts that it supercedes their own laws. If they do not and something is illegal under this "International Law", but not illegal under the laws of the State itself then the people are not breaking any law.

It could obviously be argued that the State was in breach of "International Law" by failing to enact it. However the State could also argue that they had never accepted this law and as such were not bound by it. People often talk of us not having the right to impose our views on certain groups. If that is the case then we don't have the right to impose our views on anyone.

As an aside, but on a similar vein, there are also international treaties on human rights, which States ignore regularly. What one State considers a legitimate punishment another State may consider torture, or at the very least cruel and unusual punishment. What one State sees as reasonable policing of it's people another may see as oppresive behaviour, or again torture.

It really is a matter of perspective.

The one thing which makes progress impossible is when people say "you are 100% wrong and I am 100% right". Without compromise nothing will change, at least not in any sustainable or meaningful way.

[tralalala]

Man, it's sad that you actually feel like you are there and need to save Palestine....

The land that was taken over by in the war in Gaza and West Bank is going to be given back... Why do you keep thinking it's not going to happen?

Maale Adumim is not far from Jerusalem, and is a big place like Ariel - it cannot be evacuated.
It's almost like saying if London was originally lets say Scottish (just ofr the example), and 200 years ago the Brits took it over, and now the Scots want it back - how on earth do you think you could possibly evacuate that place!?

Where are the UN resolutions (which mean nothing) that condemned the Nazis... eh? Even if they were, no one took them seriously, because the WERE AT WAR.

Syria - no, Israel took it over to make sure the Syrians stopped killing innocent civilians. Since the Syria has never wanted the place back... Hardly a crime.

The caravans I'm talking about are those being put up bt those nutters in these tiny bits of land (not even a quarter of an acre), and they think it'll stop the disengagement (which it won't).

No one takes these condemnations seriously as they mean nothing. They say it "because everyone else does". That's all... The wall will stop Palestinians from getting into Israel and bombing us after the disengagement. A good idea in my sense.



@BB: Not sure.. try find that info.

Its not going to happen. You've said yourself its not.. Israel will keep part, and its the best part.

Berwick upon Tweed, in the north of England has swapped hands a number of times between Scotland and England. To my knowledge its never had to be evacuated, to the withdrawing country. The locals just "got on with it", being part of a different country. In addition, 200 years ago there was no "International Law" as such that is worth mentioning, 38 years ago there was.

The UN wasn't around at the time of Nazi Germany, so i cant see how they could have passed any resolutions against them. If they had been, im sure they would have.

Syria doesnt want the Golam Hights back? Then fair enough.. keep them if the rightful owner doesnt want them. However it was shown that a number of the "attacks" in the north of Israel were actually conducted my Mossad, in order to facilitate the extention of Israels borders that way.

The wall has been condemned by most countries in the world, and is a contradiction of your opening argument. Its being built upon the land in dispute and has stopped 1000s of innocent Palestinians working land that they own now... simply because their village is on one side of the wall, and their land is on the other.

Think for a moment why the part Israel is keeping is the best.....

Because Israel while owning that land actually did something with it, and that is why it is "better" as you say, from the land which we are giving back.

Intersting story about Berwick, but a little different from our situation - English people and Scottish people CAN in fact, as much as it sounds odd, live together in the same society, and that is why generally changing such a place between those areas wouldn't matter as much. In Israel, we are talking of putting people who are of completely different religion, background, even language... So I don't think your example, as interesting as it might be, is in place... :)

About the UN:
I thought (we learned it this year...) that after WW1, part of the Versay Agreements was creating a global "law enforcer", which would later on become the UN... this is long before WW2 took place.

About the Mossad attacks, I will have to agree with you on that point, or at least beleive you, because I actually don't know about that story :unsure:, although I am sure the attacks were done as said before to protect Israel from Syrian attacks.

The wall:
Yes, I know, it is very sad that we are ruining these peoples lives, and I think it is wrong to build the wall through villages. I think it should be built around villages, not through them, to STOP 100s of Palestinian militants and bombers from getting into Israel (that is it's main reason for being built).


@BB; I am tired and could'nt be bothered to read it all :lol: Could you summarize it for me? :lol: :lol:

@JPaul: I agree with you 100%. You are 100% right, and so am I. what situation does that cause? :unsure: :lol:

[JPaul]

It's perfectly possible for us both to be right, from our perspective.

Maturity involves being able to see someone else's point of view, even if you disagree with it. Then being able to compromise.

[tralalala]

I'm mature!! Yay!! :lol:

[JPaul]

I said "involves", there's more to it.

You're about as mature as cheese.

I quite like mature cheese.

[Busyman]

I said "involves", there's more to it.

You're about as mature as cheese.

I quite like mature cheese.
Mold on it. :sick:

[JPaul]

I said "involves", there's more to it.

You're about as mature as cheese.

I quite like mature cheese.
Mold on it. :sick:
What shape.

[Busyman]

Mold on it. :sick:
What shape.
No, no..."With" mold on it.

[Afronaut]

Enough with cheese allready!
:P

Back to this:


People worried about traveling to Israel.

And in the news (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Force_attacks_targets_in_Gaza):

Israeli Air Force attacks targets in Gaza

Uninviting news to me.

Come to think of it, these news of fighting of Hamas/Israel/whatever adds up.
If I won a ticket for 2 weeks vacation in Israel, I'd probably try to sell it.
Not because whos right/wrong and who does the fighting, but the fact that there is fighting.
:(

[Rat Faced]

Islamic Jihad bombs Israel and is condemned by the Palestinian Authority and, unusually, by Hamas and told to obide by the truce.

Israel responds by a rocket attack on Hamas, an organisation that had kept the ceasefire (for once)...

Go Figure :rolleyes:

[tralalala]

Umm... did you read the news yesterday..?

Hammas sent 3 Kassam rockets and killed a woman by hitting her with one of the rockets..

That was the reason of the bombing in Gaza.

[Busyman]

Islamic Jihad bombs Israel and is condemned by the Palestinian Authority and, unusually, by Hamas and told to obide by the truce.

Israel responds by a rocket attack on Hamas, an organisation that had kept the ceasefire (for once)...

Go Figure :rolleyes:
Hmmm.....maybe they didn't believe Hamas kept the ceasefire. :ohmy: Go figure.

[Rat Faced]

Umm... did you read the news yesterday..?

Hammas sent 3 Kassam rockets and killed a woman by hitting her with one of the rockets..

That was the reason of the bombing in Gaza.

Actually, no i hadn't.. I had heard how they'd condemned the suicide bomber earlier in the week though.

Perhaps their change of mind had something to do with:


Israel had reaffirmed its intention to resume what it calls "targeted killings" of top militants following an Islamic Jihad suicide bombing that killed five Israelis on Tuesday. It had suspended the internationally condemned policy under the truce.

As they are militants, maybe they took that as a threat?

Or maybe:


Hamas said Thursday's deadly rocket attack on an Israeli collective farm avenged the killing of a hamas leader in an Israeli army raid into the West Bank city of Nablus, part of an offensive after Tuesday's suicide bombing in Israel.

They did after all condemn that suicide bombing.. why were they targeted?

[Busyman]

Actually, no i hadn't.. I had heard how they'd condemned the suicide bomber earlier in the week though.

Perhaps their change of mind had something to do with:


Israel had reaffirmed its intention to resume what it calls "targeted killings" of top militants following an Islamic Jihad suicide bombing that killed five Israelis on Tuesday. It had suspended the internationally condemned policy under the truce.

As they are militants, maybe they took that as a threat?
Ya think?

I like the idea of the "targeted killings" versus arbitrary bombings.

[tralalala]

The targeted attacks in Nablus were a result of the bombings.

At least Israel targets militants, not women, children and elderly.....!!!! ;)

[Rat Faced]

Yes, however they targeted a group that had stuck to the ceasefire and condemned the suicide bomber.

You think they're going to just stand by while they are targeted and killed?

Busyman, Israeli "targeting" often involves blowing up an entire appartment block because a militant might be inside... Not a sniper taking one guy out :ph34r:

[tralalala]

Come on man, you know it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. What if Israel tried to kill a Jihad member, but killed a Hammas member by mistake?
It's possible - all Arab militants look the same - covered face with black stockings, and a Kalashnikov handy..

Or, maybe, the Hammas actually did do something that caused Israel to attack.

[bigboab]

The targeted attacks in Nablus were a result of the bombings.

At least Israel targets militants, not women, children and elderly.....!!!! ;)


Rafi. Please check before you make statements like that. I came across this when I was hunting for that other subject.




Despite these efforts, television stations around the world transmitted images of the horror prevailing in Palestine. Among the history-making moments were images of Palestinians shot point-blank in the head, bound and blindfolded captives being dragged off to the unknown, a world leader addressing the world by candlelight, dark and deserted Palestinian streets, hospitals that had incurred the wrath of Israeli soldiers, nuns and monks shot by Israeli tanks, and NGO members trying to form a "human shield" for the innocent Palestinian people. When the morgues at Ramallah's hospitals were full, they started to put two bodies into units intended for one. Then news came of mass graves being created for those who had been murdered. Places such as Tulkarem, Bethlehem, and Qalqilya had become sites of bloodbaths in the full sense of the word. In Bethlehem, believed to be the town where Jesus was born, many Palestinians desperately sought shelter in churches, but to no avail. This was no obstacle for the Israel army, as news reports soon appeared of shots being fired at churches and even members of the Christian clergy being killed.



The rest of the article can be found here;

http://www.palestiniantragedy.com/latestattacks.html



I am not taking sides here. Its just the fact that when I read your statement the above article came to mind.:(

[Rat Faced]

Come on man, you know it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. What if Israel tried to kill a Jihad member, but killed a Hammas member by mistake?
It's possible - all Arab militants look the same - covered face with black stockings, and a Kalashnikov handy..


They all look the same huh?

Doesnt make a difference...

Well, it sure as hell makes a difference to them.

And now it could well start a civil war in the occupied territories, between Hamas and the Authority.. Thats something that Sharron would welcome, kill an awfull lot of towel heads without wasting Israeli Ammo huh?

Ah, forget it Tralala... read some finnish papers or something, then come back when your able to criticise both sides in what is a bloody stupid situation.

[bigboab]

I know this is only a discussion. But Rafi has had to experience this situation most of his life. We can only imagine the situation. He has not been 'brainwashed', his country has had to deal with a very tricky situation. How would we deal with the same situation?

I am not trying to be funny when I say if I was young and in the Israeli forces I would tend to be like Lt Howard Hunter out of 'Hill Street Blues'. Hit them with everything you are armed with. After negotiations have failed of course.
Taking into acount that the vast majority of the worlds politicians say that they will not negotiate with terrorist. How the hell are we going to solve not only this crisis but the 'islamic' crisis too.

They are saying they are doing for Islam not me. That last part is probably in the wrong thread. Bedtime.:(

[RioDeLeo]

At least Israel targets militants, not women, children and elderly.....!!!! ;)

Is that right?


Israel's top military prosecutor is investigating an army commander accused of repeatedly firing at the lifeless body of a young Palestinian girl.

Soldiers said they pleaded with the officer to stop as he sprayed Iman al-Hams, 13, with automatic gunfire.

She had been shot by Israeli soldiers after straying into a restricted area near Gaza's border with Egypt.

Hundreds of Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli troops during the Palestinian uprising or intifada.

It is unusual for the army to launch an investigation into the circumstances of such incidents.

But the death of Iman al-Hams is different because soldiers have complained publicly about the behaviour of their commander - who has not been named.

Close range

Without revealing their identities, soldiers from the Givati brigade platoon told Israeli television how Iman al-Hams had been shot on 5 October in the Tel Sultan neighbourhood of Rafah.

"We saw her from a distance of 70 metres. She was fired at ... from the outpost. She fled and was wounded," a soldier said.

While Iman was lying, wounded or dead, about 70m from the Israeli guard post, the platoon commander approached her and fired two bullets from close range at her head, the soldiers said.

He then went back a second time, put his weapon on the automatic setting and - ignoring their objections on the walkie-talkie - emptied his entire magazine into her body.

"We couldn't believe what he had done. Our hearts ached for her. Just a 13-year-old girl," one soldier said.

"How do you spray a girl from close range? He was hot for a long time to take out terrorists and shot the girl to relieve pressure," the soldier added.

It is not clear from reports whether the investigation will focus on the initial shooting of Iman al-Hams or the officer's subsequent behaviour.

"Confirming the kill" - as Israeli troops call shooting combatants at close range to make sure they are dead - goes against Israeli military regulations governing the rules of engagement, Haaretz newspaper reported.

Palestinian witnesses say it was more than an hour before the Israeli troops would let medics get to the body in an ambulance.

Sniper fire

Initially the Israeli army had said Iman al-Hams was shot because she was suspected of carrying a bomb to the army outpost.

It was reported that the Israeli troops had initially thought her satchel contained explosives - although it was found only to contain school books.

Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Moshe Ayalon defended his troops on Sunday, telling the Israeli cabinet that Iman al-Hams had been sent towards the outpost to draw out the soldiers so that Palestinian snipers could fire at them.

Her brother Ihab al-Hams angrily brushed off news of the investigation.

"Will this bring her back to life? Will this bring her back home? Will this heal our wound?" he told reporters.

"They are murderers and they killed her in cold blood."

Have a look here for the real story of what goes on >> 12 yr old boy SHOT DEAD in front of your eyes (http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/sniper.html)

[tralalala]

Right, @BB's first post:
You took it from a Palestinian loving website, or an Israeli racist website, I can tell by the nem of the website..... None of the stories are true - Any Israeli soldier ding such a think would be sent ot prison for a long time (only last week after some settlers wanted to murder a Palestinian 16 yr old, an Israeli managed to stop it, and the organiser will be accused of attemt of murder).

@RF: What if I was to tell you Israel were stopping a "ticking clock"? I mean someone who is about to go and blow himself up, and Israel god intelligence before he got onto his mission?

@Rio: That soldier was suspended for life from the IDF, and we are sorry it ever happened, it was a horrible mistake, and, ONE mistake.
Your second story has no life to it, and I shall explain why:
That video was taken right at the beginning of the Intifadah, around October/November of the year 2000.
The story is that those 2 people were caught at battle between Israeli armed forces and the Palestinian militants.
In the end it was verified that the kid was killed by Palestinian fire.

One other thing: Did you notice that the father sort of "got the best spot", and sat inside that cement thingy? I would have made sure my son would have been safer if that occured.. Just a side thought...

But anyhoot you're going back almost 5 years, irrelivant story, and as your little fairytale tells it, it is complely untrue.

[tralalala]

Plus, this only happened once...... How many times have they done it? I get sick of trying to count.

Don't try and say we are worse because of 1 silly mistake, and about 1000 of theirs.

[RioDeLeo]

@Rio: That soldier was suspended for life from the IDF, and we are sorry it ever happened, it was a horrible mistake, and, ONE mistake.

That'll teach him not to kill young girls, won't it?

The story is that those 2 people were caught at battle between Israeli armed forces and the Palestinian militants
In the end it was verified that the kid was killed by Palestinian fire.

Wrong on both counts! You really should get your facts straight, "Occupied Jerusalem: October 3/00 - An Israeli army spokesman has admitted that Israeli soldiers murdered the Palestinian child Rami Al-Durra on Sunday.

The spokesman claimed the soldiers were responding to stone throwing and didn't notice the child and his father who were taking cover against a wall from Israeli bullets."

One other thing: Did you notice that the father sort of "got the best spot", and sat inside that cement thingy? I would have made sure my son would have been safer if that occured.. Just a side thought...

Yes, you certainly have a plethora of "side thoughts" don't you?

But anyhoot you're going back almost 5 years, irrelivant story, and as your little fairytale tells it, it is complely untrue.

The typical post of someone whose blinkers have slipped and they don't like what they've seen.


You really are losing all credibility now, posting these lies and crap. l must admit though to a chuckle when l read your bit about Syria not wanting the Golan Heights back, classic!

[RioDeLeo]

Plus, this only happened once...... How many times have they done it? I get sick of trying to count.

Don't try and say we are worse because of 1 silly mistake, and about 1000 of theirs.


List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2000 lists Palestinian infants, children and youth killed by Israeli soldiers and civilians in 2000 after the beginning of the al-Aqsa Intifada on September 30, 2000.

You can also see the list of israeli children who were murdered by suicide bombs HERE (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Terrorism-against-Israel-in-2002)

30 September 2000
Nizar Aida, 16, of Ramallah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Khaled Bazyan, 15, of Nablus, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Muhammad al-Durrah, 12, of Bureij camp, Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to abdomen and chest.
1 October 2000
Muhammad Dawood, 15, of el-Bireh, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Sara Hassan, 18 months, of Nablus, killed in car by Israeli settler gunfire to head.
Samer Tabanja, 10, of Nablus, killed by Israeli forces helicopter gunfire to head.
Sami Taramsi, 17, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
2 October 2000
Wael Qattawi, 16, of Balata camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Muhammad Sajdi, 17, of Jericho, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to abdomen.
3 October 2000
Husam Hamshari, 16, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Ammar Rifai, 17, of Maghazi camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
4 October 2000
Muhammad Abu Asi, 9, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
6 October 2000
Majdi Misilmani, 15, of Beit Hanina, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to heart.
Muhammad Tammam, 17, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
8 October 2000
Yusif Khalaf, 17, of Rafah camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
11 October 2000
Sami Silmi, 17, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
12 October 2000
Sami Abu Jazar, 12, of Rafah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
14 October 2000
Ala Ahmad, 10, of Nablus, died of burst appendix after Israeli army denied access to hospital.
16 October 2000
Muayad Abu Jawarish, 14, of Aida camp, Bethlehem, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
20 October 2000
Samer Awaisi, 15, of Qalqilya, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
Ala Bani Nimra, 13, of Salfit, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Muhammad Abu Tahun, 17, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest and neck.
21 October 2000
Majid Hawamdeh, 15, of el-Bireh, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Omar Ibheisi, 16, of Deir el-Balah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
22 October 2000
Wael Emad, 16, of Jabalyah camp, killed by Israeli forces rubber coated bullet to head.
Salah Nijmi, 15, of Maghazi camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to heart.
23 October 2000
Ashraf Habayeb, 15, of Nablus, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
24 October 2000
Nidal Dbeiki, 17, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire (fragmenting bullet) to abdomen.
Iyyad Shath, 14, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces rubber coated bullet to head.
26 October 2000
Ala Jawabra, 14, of Hebron, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
27 October 2000
Bashir Shalawit (deaf), 16, of Qalqilya, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to abdomen.
29 October 2000
Husni Najjar, 14, of Rafah camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
1 November 2000
Muhammad Hajjaj, 15, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Ibrahim Omar, 15, of Shati camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Ahmad Abu Tayeh, 13, of Shati camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
2 November 2000
Khaled Khatib, 17, of Jerusalem, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
3 November 2000
Rami Abdel-Fattah, 15, of Jerusalem, killed by Israeli forces gunfire (fragmenting bullet) to upper body.
5 November 2000
Maher Saidi, 16, of Bureij camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
6 November 2000
Wajdi Hattab, 13, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Muhammad Jazar, 16, of Rafah camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Muhammad Taban, 17, of Deir el-Balah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to back.
7 November 2000
Ahmad Khuffash, 7, of Salfit, hit by a car driven by Israeli settlers.
8 November 2000
Fares Audeh, 16, of Hebron, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
Raed Dawood, 14, of Salfit, killed by Israeli forces gunfire (fragmenting bullet) to pelvis.
Muhammad Abu Ghali, 15, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Ibrahim Qassas, 17, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Khalil Abu Saad, 15, of Shati camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Khaled Abu Zahra, 17, of Nur Shams camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
10 November 2000
Usama Azouka, 14, of Jenin, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
Usama Jirjawi, 17, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
11 November 2000
Musa Dibs, 15, of Jabliyah camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
12 November 2000
Mahmoud Abu Naji, 16, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces sniper fire to chest.
13 November 2000
Yahya Abu Shamalah, 17, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces sniper fire to back and heart.
14 November 2000
Muhammad Ajla, 13, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Saber Barash, 15, of Amari camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
15 November 2000
Ahmad Basal, 13, of Deir el-Balah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to heart and back.
Jadou Abu Iqbash, 16, of Hebron, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Ibrahim Jeaidi, 15, of Qalqilya, killed by Israeli forces gunfire (fragmenting bullet) to upper body.
Muhammad Shurafi, 17, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
16 November 2000
Jihad Abu Shahmeh, 11, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
17 November 2000
Muhammad Abu Rayan, 16, of Halhoul, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to face.
19 November 2000
Abdul Rahman Dahshan, 14, of Maghazi camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
20 November 2000
Ibrahim Othman, 16, of Rafah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
21 November 2000
Yasser Abdul Rahim, 16, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
22 November 2000
Ibrahim Moqanan, 15, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
23 November 2000
Maram Hassouna, 3, of el-Bireh, died of [[asphyxiation after inhaling Israeli forces tear gas.
24 November 2000
Majdi Abed, 15, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
25 November 2000
Abdul Minem Izzidin, 17, of Jenin, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
28 November 2000
Karam Kurd, 14, of Rafah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
29 November 2000
Muhammad Mashrawi, 14, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
30 November 2000
Wael Badan, 17, of Bethlehem, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
Shadi Zaghoul, 14, of Husan, .hit by a car driven by Israeli settler and left to bleed to death.
1 December 2000
Muhammad Arja, 12, of Rafah, killed by Israeli sniper fire to neck.
5 December 2000
Ramzi Bayatnah, 15, of Ramallah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
8 December 2000
Ammar Mashni, 16, of Jerusalem, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Mutaz Teilakh, 16, of Ramallah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
9 December 2000
Salim Hameida, 13, of Rafah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
11 December 2000
Ahmad Qawasmi, 14, of Hebron, killed by Israeli forces (point blank) gunshot to head.
15 December 2000
Muhammad Dawood, 16, of Nablus, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
20 December 2000
Hani Sufi, 14, of Rafah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
22 December 2000
Arafat Jabarin, 16, of Hebron, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.

Source = Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_children_killed_by_Israelis_in_2000)

[RioDeLeo]

I know this is only a discussion. But Rafi has had to experience this situation most of his life. We can only imagine the situation. He has not been 'brainwashed', his country has had to deal with a very tricky situation. How would we deal with the same situation?

I am not trying to be funny when I say if I was young and in the Israeli forces I would tend to be like Lt Howard Hunter out of 'Hill Street Blues'. Hit them with everything you are armed with. After negotiations have failed of course.
Taking into acount that the vast majority of the worlds politicians say that they will not negotiate with terrorist. How the hell are we going to solve not only this crisis but the 'islamic' crisis too.

They are saying they are doing for Islam not me. That last part is probably in the wrong thread. Bedtime.:(

What if you were Palestinian?

[tralalala]

First off, a 17 year old Palestinian is like a 25 yr old Israeli.... They attack us (there have been several bombers no older than 18).

Second: Do you really want me to give you the list of Israeli children killed by Militants and/or suiciders..? :(

[RioDeLeo]

First off, a 17 year old Palestinian is like a 25 yr old Israeli.... They attack us (there have been several bombers no older than 18).

Second: Do you really want me to give you the list of Israeli children killed by Militants and/or suiciders..? :(

No-one is denying that innocent children are being killed, except you.


this only happened once

This happens all the time, on BOTH sides.

[bigboab]

I know this is only a discussion. But Rafi has had to experience this situation most of his life. We can only imagine the situation. He has not been 'brainwashed', his country has had to deal with a very tricky situation. How would we deal with the same situation?

I am not trying to be funny when I say if I was young and in the Israeli forces I would tend to be like Lt Howard Hunter out of 'Hill Street Blues'. Hit them with everything you are armed with. After negotiations have failed of course.
Taking into acount that the vast majority of the worlds politicians say that they will not negotiate with terrorist. How the hell are we going to solve not only this crisis but the 'islamic' crisis too.

They are saying they are doing for Islam not me. That last part is probably in the wrong thread. Bedtime.:(

What if you were Palestinian?


Then I would probably feel the same way that a young Palestinian does.
I dont know if it has slipped anyones notice or not.
Israelis kill and maim innocent children in their 'retalitary' attacks on Palestinians. I am sure a lot of it is not intentional.
Palestinian bombers are 'deliberately' attacking civilian targets. There is a difference there.
There is no way I would condone either. Sadly the UDA, IRA and all the other various terrroists groups targetted civilians for years.

[RioDeLeo]

Israelis kill and maim innocent children in their 'retalitary' attacks on Palestinians. I am sure a lot of it is not intentional.
Palestinian bombers are 'deliberately' attacking civilian targets. There is a difference there.


No, there isn't. Israeli forces carry out retaliatory attacks knowing that innocent civilians, men, women and children, will or could be killed, by tank, rocket and air attacks, those deliberate actions terrorise civilian populations.

[bigboab]

Israelis kill and maim innocent children in their 'retalitary' attacks on Palestinians. I am sure a lot of it is not intentional.
Palestinian bombers are 'deliberately' attacking civilian targets. There is a difference there.


No, there isn't. Israeli forces carry out retaliatory attacks knowing that innocent civilians, men, women and children, will or could be killed, by tank, rocket and air attacks, those deliberate actions terrorise civilian populations.

There is a bloody difference. One is retaliation and one is deliberate. I thought I already stated that.

The terrorists are using the civilians as a shield. If they want a war and want to call themselves an army. Then dress as an army and fight like an army. But none of them will do that. They are mostly lily livered cowrds who use brainwashed kids to do their killing for them. Usually the kids getting killed in the process.:angry:

[RioDeLeo]

There is a bloody difference. One is retaliation and one is deliberate. I thought I already stated that.

They are both deliberate, the Israeli military murders civilians in an attempt to terrorise them into submission. They know they are killing innocent civilians, and don't care, blowing a car up in the middle of a crowded street with rockets is a reckless and deliberate killing of innocent people, designed to terrorise them as much as to kill their targets. Would you have approved of the British Army using the same methods against the Northern Irish?

The terrorists are using the civilians as a shield. If they want a war and want to call themselves an army. Then dress as an army and fight like an army.

Against tanks, helicopter gunships, aircraft, and all the other eqiupment of war? They use what they have, just as the Zionist gangs did against the British in the late 40's.


But none of them will do that. They are mostly lily livered cowrds who use brainwashed kids to do their killing for them. Usually the kids getting killed in the process.:angry:




"The first challenge, then, is to extract acknowledgement from Israel for what it did to us...But then, I believe, we must also hold out the possibility of some form of coexistence in which a new and better life, free of ethnocentrism and religious intolerance, could be available...If we present our claims about the past as ushering in a form of mutuality and coexistence in the future, a long-term positive echo on the Israeli and Western side will reverberate."

[Busyman]

RioDeLeo = either leftism or 1234.

I win!!!

[RioDeLeo]

RioDeLeo = either leftism or 1234.

I win!!!

Your powers of perception are truly amazing, and l bow to you. :cool:

However, this time you are wrong. :cry:

l win!!!

[Busyman]

RioDeLeo = either leftism or 1234.

I win!!!

Your powers of perception are truly amazing, and l bow to you. :cool:

However, this time you are wrong. :cry:

l win!!!
Well you sound like wunadem assholes. :lol: :lol:

...and either way you ain't a newcummer but I like that someone is on the Palestinian side or this thread would be as dry as a frigid twat.

(besides all-o-dat I'm right lefty)

[lynx]

I don't think so, lefty was such a coward he always used proxies.

That's not something we can accuse billy of doing.

[Biggles]

I don't think so, lefty was such a coward he always used proxies.

That's not something we can accuse billy of doing.

Also, Rio either works the night shift or lives in the antipodes. :)

Either way, a little gingering up of the Drawing Room isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[lynx]

or lives in the antipodes. :)How clever of you to work that out.

We mods have better methods. :snooty:

[Biggles]

or lives in the antipodes. :)How clever of you to work that out.

We mods have better methods. :snooty:


:ph34r: Apologies for using Luddite techniques.

[RioDeLeo]

Also, Rio either works the night shift or lives in the antipodes. :)


Yes and yes, BrisVegas.

This Billy fella must have been quite famous l take it, should l be flattered for the association?

[Biggles]

Also, Rio either works the night shift or lives in the antipodes. :)


Yes and yes, BrisVegas.

This Billy fella must have been quite famous l take it, should l be flattered for the association?

:ph34r: Perhaps.


:lol:

[Snee]

You really are losing all credibility now, posting these lies and crap. l must admit though to a chuckle when l read your bit about Syria not wanting the Golan Heights back, classic!
Seeing as your links aren't exactly unbiased or extremely reliable, and because you really do seem to be to have some real issues with all israelis, you lost yours first, I'd say. And can you prove they are all lies, or crap for that matter?

Secondly, remember Vietnam? Think about how many soldiers lost their marbles in Vietnam, now consider the fact that this is a very common thing in extremely hostile situations.

It's extrememly bad that it happens, but killings such as the one that article describes need not necessarily be indicative of that the soldier(s) involved were under orders to kill the child, or trained to do so.

Rather they might well have succumbed to the pressure.

A real problem with the israeli army is that, given the percieved need to defend everything, there aren't enough experienced soldiers to go around which makes for a lot of mistakes.

"What goes on" according to you, is neither indicative of a norm nor something that most israelis want.


As for the settlers firing from the rooftops, I assume it was the same kind of settler that isn't supposed to be settling anything, ie illegal settlers. Israel has its right wing nutter fundamentalists too, but they are nowhere near a majority of the population. And it still doesn't make the bulk of the Israeli population into villains or somesuch, or the word "israeli" into something vile.

And I always wonder about these comments about them having the approval of the army.


Having said that, I don't think it's any more right than suicide bombings, which is something equally insane. But the only thing you've proven is that a small element of the Israeli population have gone as nuts as the suicide bombers.



List of Palestinian children killed by Israelis in 2000 lists Palestinian infants, children and youth killed by Israeli soldiers and civilians in 2000 after the beginning of the al-Aqsa Intifada on September 30, 2000.

You can also see the list of israeli children who were murdered by suicide bombs HERE (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Terrorism-against-Israel-in-2002)

30 September 2000
Nizar Aida, 16, of Ramallah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Khaled Bazyan, 15, of Nablus, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Muhammad al-Durrah, 12, of Bureij camp, Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to abdomen and chest.
1 October 2000
Muhammad Dawood, 15, of el-Bireh, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Sara Hassan, 18 months, of Nablus, killed in car by Israeli settler gunfire to head.
Samer Tabanja, 10, of Nablus, killed by Israeli forces helicopter gunfire to head.
Sami Taramsi, 17, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
2 October 2000
Wael Qattawi, 16, of Balata camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Muhammad Sajdi, 17, of Jericho, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to abdomen.
3 October 2000
Husam Hamshari, 16, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Ammar Rifai, 17, of Maghazi camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
4 October 2000
Muhammad Abu Asi, 9, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
6 October 2000
Majdi Misilmani, 15, of Beit Hanina, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to heart.
Muhammad Tammam, 17, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
8 October 2000
Yusif Khalaf, 17, of Rafah camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
11 October 2000
Sami Silmi, 17, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
12 October 2000
Sami Abu Jazar, 12, of Rafah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
14 October 2000
Ala Ahmad, 10, of Nablus, died of burst appendix after Israeli army denied access to hospital.
16 October 2000
Muayad Abu Jawarish, 14, of Aida camp, Bethlehem, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
20 October 2000
Samer Awaisi, 15, of Qalqilya, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
Ala Bani Nimra, 13, of Salfit, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Muhammad Abu Tahun, 17, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest and neck.
21 October 2000
Majid Hawamdeh, 15, of el-Bireh, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Omar Ibheisi, 16, of Deir el-Balah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
22 October 2000
Wael Emad, 16, of Jabalyah camp, killed by Israeli forces rubber coated bullet to head.
Salah Nijmi, 15, of Maghazi camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to heart.
23 October 2000
Ashraf Habayeb, 15, of Nablus, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
24 October 2000
Nidal Dbeiki, 17, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire (fragmenting bullet) to abdomen.
Iyyad Shath, 14, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces rubber coated bullet to head.
26 October 2000
Ala Jawabra, 14, of Hebron, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
27 October 2000
Bashir Shalawit (deaf), 16, of Qalqilya, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to abdomen.
29 October 2000
Husni Najjar, 14, of Rafah camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
1 November 2000
Muhammad Hajjaj, 15, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Ibrahim Omar, 15, of Shati camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Ahmad Abu Tayeh, 13, of Shati camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
2 November 2000
Khaled Khatib, 17, of Jerusalem, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
3 November 2000
Rami Abdel-Fattah, 15, of Jerusalem, killed by Israeli forces gunfire (fragmenting bullet) to upper body.
5 November 2000
Maher Saidi, 16, of Bureij camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
6 November 2000
Wajdi Hattab, 13, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Muhammad Jazar, 16, of Rafah camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Muhammad Taban, 17, of Deir el-Balah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to back.
7 November 2000
Ahmad Khuffash, 7, of Salfit, hit by a car driven by Israeli settlers.
8 November 2000
Fares Audeh, 16, of Hebron, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
Raed Dawood, 14, of Salfit, killed by Israeli forces gunfire (fragmenting bullet) to pelvis.
Muhammad Abu Ghali, 15, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Ibrahim Qassas, 17, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Khalil Abu Saad, 15, of Shati camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Khaled Abu Zahra, 17, of Nur Shams camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
10 November 2000
Usama Azouka, 14, of Jenin, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
Usama Jirjawi, 17, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
11 November 2000
Musa Dibs, 15, of Jabliyah camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
12 November 2000
Mahmoud Abu Naji, 16, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces sniper fire to chest.
13 November 2000
Yahya Abu Shamalah, 17, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces sniper fire to back and heart.
14 November 2000
Muhammad Ajla, 13, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Saber Barash, 15, of Amari camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
15 November 2000
Ahmad Basal, 13, of Deir el-Balah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to heart and back.
Jadou Abu Iqbash, 16, of Hebron, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
Ibrahim Jeaidi, 15, of Qalqilya, killed by Israeli forces gunfire (fragmenting bullet) to upper body.
Muhammad Shurafi, 17, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
16 November 2000
Jihad Abu Shahmeh, 11, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
17 November 2000
Muhammad Abu Rayan, 16, of Halhoul, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to face.
19 November 2000
Abdul Rahman Dahshan, 14, of Maghazi camp, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
20 November 2000
Ibrahim Othman, 16, of Rafah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
21 November 2000
Yasser Abdul Rahim, 16, of Tulkarm, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to chest.
22 November 2000
Ibrahim Moqanan, 15, of Khan Yunis, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
23 November 2000
Maram Hassouna, 3, of el-Bireh, died of [[asphyxiation after inhaling Israeli forces tear gas.
24 November 2000
Majdi Abed, 15, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
25 November 2000
Abdul Minem Izzidin, 17, of Jenin, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
28 November 2000
Karam Kurd, 14, of Rafah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
29 November 2000
Muhammad Mashrawi, 14, of Gaza, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
30 November 2000
Wael Badan, 17, of Bethlehem, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
Shadi Zaghoul, 14, of Husan, .hit by a car driven by Israeli settler and left to bleed to death.
1 December 2000
Muhammad Arja, 12, of Rafah, killed by Israeli sniper fire to neck.
5 December 2000
Ramzi Bayatnah, 15, of Ramallah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
8 December 2000
Ammar Mashni, 16, of Jerusalem, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
Mutaz Teilakh, 16, of Ramallah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
9 December 2000
Salim Hameida, 13, of Rafah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.
11 December 2000
Ahmad Qawasmi, 14, of Hebron, killed by Israeli forces (point blank) gunshot to head.
15 December 2000
Muhammad Dawood, 16, of Nablus, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
20 December 2000
Hani Sufi, 14, of Rafah, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to upper body.
22 December 2000
Arafat Jabarin, 16, of Hebron, killed by Israeli forces gunfire to head.

Source = Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_children_killed_by_Israelis_in_2000)
That too is very bad, and someone should indeed be held accountable. But how many of these children died because they stood in the middle of a crowd throwing rocks, bottles and whatever they could get their hands on at israelis? And how many were killed by rubber bullets?

I don't think the killers on the israeli side should go on as they do, and they are guilty of their share of atrocities, sure enough, but I don't think your way of arguing makes for a fair judgement at all.

[Busyman]

I don't think so, lefty was such a coward he always used proxies.

That's not something we can accuse billy of doing.
Ok then, 1234?

[Busyman]

That too is very bad, and someone should indeed be held accountable. But how many of these children died because they stood in the middle of a crowd throwing rocks, bottles and whatever they could get their hands on at israelis? And how many were killed by rubber bullets?

I don't think the killers on the israeli side should go on as they do, and they are guilty of their share of atrocities, sure enough, but I don't think your way of arguing makes for a fair judgement at all.
I bet that there are many Israeli's that would just be done with it and want to wipe out all of the Palestinans. I could easily see how this mindset would come about.

Just like I could understand a Palestinian father that hears his only son was collateral damage in an Israeli rocket attack. Instead of looking at his own as partly responsible he then decides to walk in a cafe with a bombbackpack.

For the most part I think that Palestinians want peace. However I think there is an evil contingent in that country and the Arab world for that matter that ignores a ceasefire just to start up the violence again....on both sides.

Someone asked why would somone be a suicide bomber. Keep in mind that Islam is a much more seious religion than most. When I say much more serious I mean it involves much more regimen than say Christianity. Take Christianity then add that you must eat halal meat and no pork, wash a certain way, pray 5 times a day and in a certain matter, etc. Then tell those, which are many, a twisted version of jihad is something they should embark on and also add that they lost a loved one.

Suicide bomber. :ph34r:

[RioDeLeo]

Someone asked why would someone be a suicide bomber.

In normal circumstances l couldn't be a suicide bomber, having no religious beliefs means l have no concept of an afterlife, so this is it for me, l'm very picky about what circumstances l would lay down my life for.

However, l would gladly die to save the lives of my kids, so l can imagine that someone who loves their "God" as much as l love my kids would be willing to die if they believed that what they were doing was right.

l have no doubt that every (Muslim) suicide bomber really believes they are carrying out the work of Allah. They aren't doing it as a prank, and they aren't criminals in that sense, and they believe they will go straight to wherever it is that suicide bombers go.

[JPaul]

Someone asked why would somone be a suicide bomber. Keep in mind that Islam is a much more seious religion than most. When I say much more serious I mean it involves much more regimen than say Christianity. Take Christianity then add that you must eat halal meat and no pork, wash a certain way, pray 5 times a day and in a certain matter, etc. Then tell those, which are many, a twisted version of jihad is something they should embark on and also add that they lost a loved one.


That pretty much sums it up.

That and certain salvation for martyrs pretty much gets you all the murderers you can use.

[Snee]

That too is very bad, and someone should indeed be held accountable. But how many of these children died because they stood in the middle of a crowd throwing rocks, bottles and whatever they could get their hands on at israelis? And how many were killed by rubber bullets?

I don't think the killers on the israeli side should go on as they do, and they are guilty of their share of atrocities, sure enough, but I don't think your way of arguing makes for a fair judgement at all.
I bet that there are many Israeli's that would just be done with it and want to wipe out all of the Palestinans. I could easily see how this mindset would come about.

Just like I could understand a Palestinian father that hears his only son was collateral damage in an Israeli rocket attack. Instead of looking at his own as partly responsible he then decides to walk in a cafe with a bombbackpack.

For the most part I think that Palestinians want peace. However I think there is an evil contingent in that country and the Arab world for that matter that ignores a ceasefire just to start up the violence again....on both sides.

I reckon there are more nutters than there should be on both sides.

To be honest I don't think, at this point, that's it's possible to say that one side is completely right or indeed right at all, and one is not, anymore.

The only thing I'll argue against are those comments that are aimed to make villains of one side or another, as, while neither side is without guilt, there are reasons to what happens that go beyond something easily quantifiable as right or wrong.

But a majority of both peoples isn't guilty of any warcrimes, thefts or atrocities.


I do think that most people, anywhere really, would prefer to live and let live. But, like you, I can certainly see how people on both sides would lose their balance in the face of murders and atrocities.

[tralalala]

@SnnY:
The ammount of nutters on both sides (Palestinians militants, and religious settlers) is a minority on both sides.
The main difference is, that on the Arab side of it, this minority sort of "rules" on the streets, and dictates Palestines political policies, whereas on the Israeli side, the minority barely has a say, and all they can do is harm Israels view by the rest of the world, which they do, but at least Israel can somewhat keep them under control.

[RioDeLeo]

@SnnY:
The ammount of nutters on both sides (Palestinians militants, and religious settlers) is a minority on both sides.
The main difference is, that on the Arab side of it, this minority sort of "rules" on the streets, and dictates Palestines political policies, whereas on the Israeli side, the minority barely has a say, and all they can do is harm Israels view by the rest of the world, which they do, but at least Israel can somewhat keep them under control.

So you're both to blame, but they're more to blame than you? Got it!

If you really believe that minorities have very little say in Israeli politics you must be blind, minorities play a huge part, always have, and the loudest voices for the fewest votes are the Ultra Right Wing parties, the ones who want ALL Arabs out of "Greater Israel", which includes much more than just Palestine.

[tralalala]

:lol: You honestly think that whatever they say makes a difference?

Most people don't give a toss about those nut-jobs... They whitter on about holy shit in Gaza, kill Arabs etc. whereas most people don't even give them air time... Theres maybe 1 MP from that party in the parliament.
The regular right wingers don't beleive in pulling out, but do not beleive in driving all Palestinians out of where they are.

Loudest voices.... :lol: you crack me up Rio... you haven't a clue... :lol: :lol:

[Rat Faced]

Israel is having political and religious problems in its armed forces. The head of the armed forces has openly reminded all officers that, when they are on active duty, they must obey their officers, and not their rabbis. The major dispute comes from the deeply religious settler community. These are the Jews that believe in “Greater Israel.” That is, an Israel that takes over the West Bank and all other territories that were once part of Israel in the ancient past. This would include, depending on which version of Greater Israel you believe in, parts of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and other nearby countries. So far, the Greater Israel movement has established itself as Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians, naturally, don’t agree with this form of expansionism. Israel, being a democracy, has found that a majority of the population does not agree with the Greater Israel idea either. So a recent government decision to shut down the settlements in Gaza brought the government into direct confrontation with the Greater Israel movement. Since the settlers believe they are obeying a religious mandate to resettle historically Jewish lands, they see efforts to remove them in religious, not political, terms. Israel has a conscript army, thus many of the troops are believers in the Greater Israel concept. These soldiers are being told by their religious leaders that they should refuse orders to assist in the removal of settlers from Gaza. This brings us back to the commander of the Israeli armed forces reminding everyone that the religious leaders have no authority to countermand orders from military commanders. This is not the first time individual Israelis have refused to follow military orders they did not agree with. In the past, these soldiers were simply removed from service, and sometimes jailed. But this time the number of soldiers who might be involved numbers in the thousands. The army is allowing soldiers with relatives in settlements to be shut down, to, if need be, get transferred to a unit not involved in settlement operations. But beyond that, the army is telling the troops that it will not allow rabbis to countermand military orders. Any soldier who refuses to obey officers will be punished.

The problem Israel faces is not unique. All nations have, at one time or another, run into problems when divisive political, or religious, issues caused a breakdown of discipline. If the dissenting groups are large enough, such disagreements can lead to civil war. Some extremist religious leaders have called for that. But for now, the number of soldiers. who might be tempted to disobey orders, appears to be small. This is partly because many of the most religious young men are exempt from conscription if they are engaged in religious studies. But the main reason this will not be a major problem is because Israel is a democracy, and whatever decisions that are made represent the majority. The religious parties in Israel have always been small (about 15 percent of the parliament). These parties are more religious than political, seeking new laws that will increase the power of religion in day to day life. The fear in Israel is that some of the deeply religious Jews will become radicalized, and violent. As some Israelis have been heard to observe, “Israel is turning into a Middle Eastern country.”

Source (http://strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005141.asp)

That sites hardly pro or con...

[Snee]

Israel is having political and religious problems in its armed forces. The head of the armed forces has openly reminded all officers that, when they are on active duty, they must obey their officers, and not their rabbis. The major dispute comes from the deeply religious settler community. These are the Jews that believe in “Greater Israel.” That is, an Israel that takes over the West Bank and all other territories that were once part of Israel in the ancient past. This would include, depending on which version of Greater Israel you believe in, parts of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and other nearby countries. So far, the Greater Israel movement has established itself as Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians, naturally, don’t agree with this form of expansionism. Israel, being a democracy, has found that a majority of the population does not agree with the Greater Israel idea either. So a recent government decision to shut down the settlements in Gaza brought the government into direct confrontation with the Greater Israel movement. Since the settlers believe they are obeying a religious mandate to resettle historically Jewish lands, they see efforts to remove them in religious, not political, terms. Israel has a conscript army, thus many of the troops are believers in the Greater Israel concept. These soldiers are being told by their religious leaders that they should refuse orders to assist in the removal of settlers from Gaza. This brings us back to the commander of the Israeli armed forces reminding everyone that the religious leaders have no authority to countermand orders from military commanders. This is not the first time individual Israelis have refused to follow military orders they did not agree with. In the past, these soldiers were simply removed from service, and sometimes jailed. But this time the number of soldiers who might be involved numbers in the thousands. The army is allowing soldiers with relatives in settlements to be shut down, to, if need be, get transferred to a unit not involved in settlement operations. But beyond that, the army is telling the troops that it will not allow rabbis to countermand military orders. Any soldier who refuses to obey officers will be punished.

The problem Israel faces is not unique. All nations have, at one time or another, run into problems when divisive political, or religious, issues caused a breakdown of discipline. If the dissenting groups are large enough, such disagreements can lead to civil war. Some extremist religious leaders have called for that. But for now, the number of soldiers. who might be tempted to disobey orders, appears to be small. This is partly because many of the most religious young men are exempt from conscription if they are engaged in religious studies. But the main reason this will not be a major problem is because Israel is a democracy, and whatever decisions that are made represent the majority. The religious parties in Israel have always been small (about 15 percent of the parliament). These parties are more religious than political, seeking new laws that will increase the power of religion in day to day life. The fear in Israel is that some of the deeply religious Jews will become radicalized, and violent. As some Israelis have been heard to observe, “Israel is turning into a Middle Eastern country.”

Source (http://strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005141.asp)

That sites hardly pro or con...

Good site, but you do realize, I hope, that "religious" doesn't necessarily equal ultra-religious right wing-types.

It's disconcerting that thousands of troops would disobey orders like that, btw. I'm guessing that it's still a small percentage of the entire israeli army (50,000 people or so, I think) but even so.

I think that the soldiers disobeying orders aren't the only ones that need to be punished in that affair, those rabbis should have their fair share of it too.

[Rat Faced]

I'm not trying to say that they are a majority or even imply such.

However 15% of the parliament is a long way from "1 MP"

1000's of troops willing to disobey orders and follow the rabbi's is not minor.

[JPaul]

Folow the Rabbi's what.

[Rat Faced]

Considering they talk out of their arseholes, i leave that to the workings of the reader ;)

[JPaul]

Considering they talk out of their arseholes, i leave that to the workings of the reader ;)
That appears a bit harsh.

[Snee]

However 15% of the parliament is a long way from "1 MP"

Yes it is, however, you are missing the point.

Tralala said that: "Theres maybe 1 MP from that party in the parliament." when referring to: "the Ultra Right Wing parties, the ones who want ALL Arabs out of "Greater Israel", what you quoted said that 15% of the israeli parliament belong to religious parties.

Religious doesn't automatically translate to: "the Ultra Right Wing parties...etc." You see?



1000's of troops willing to disobey orders and follow the rabbi's is not minor.
True, it's very bad, but at the same time it's just a small percentage of the entire army, which means that it isn't what most israeli soldiers do.

[DanB]

:01:

[RioDeLeo]

Loudest voices.... :lol: you crack me up Rio... you haven't a clue... :lol: :lol:

Try reading what l actually said, instead of your usual schoolboy rhetoric. l said "Minorities" play a huge part in Israeli politics, which they do. Your government is a coalition, at the moment between the two main parties, Labour and Likud, sworn enemies.

Party (translation in quotes, party leader in parentheses) - percent of vote by party -

Likud Party ("Union") (Ariel Sharon - prime minister) - 29.4% (38 seats+ 2 seats of Yisra'el Ba'Aliya).
Labour Party or 'Avoda-Meimad ("Labor") (Amram Mitsna) - 14.5% (19 seats)
Shinui ("Change") (Yosef Lapid) - 12.3% (15 seats)
Shas or Mifleget HaSfaradim Shomrei Torah ("Orthodox Sephardi Party") (Eliyahu Yishai) - 8.2% (11 seats)
HaIhud HaLeumi ("National Union") (Avigdor Lieberman) - 5.5% (7 seats)
Meretz ("Vigor") (Yossi Sarid) - 5.2% (6 seats)
Yahadut HaTora ("United Torah Judaism") (Yaakov Litsman)- 4.3% (5 seats)
Mafdal or Miflaga Datit Leumit ("National Religious Party") (Ephraim Eitam) - 4.2% (6 seats)
Hadash ("Democratic front for peace and equality") (Muhammad Baraka) - 3.0% (3 seats)
Am Ehad ("One Nation") (Amir Peretz) - 2.8% (3 seats)
Balad or Brit Leumit Demokratit - Al-Tajamu' Al-Watani Al-Demokrati ("National Democratic league") (Azmi Bishara) - 2.3% (3 seats)
Yisra'el Ba'Aliya ("Israel on the rise (also immigration)") (Nathan Sharansky) - 2.2% (2 seats). Now, part of the Likud.
Raam ("United Arab List") (Abd al-Malik Dahamshah) - 2.1% (2 seats)

It's you who haven't a clue, and you live there. You have been caught out with your lies and bullshit throughout this thread. You answer the posts you think you have an answer for, whilst ignoring those that stuff you. You repeat the same old shit over and over. As l said before, you started this thread to make it look as though you give a shit about the Palestinians, when in fact you don't. :frusty:

[tralalala]

Ummmmmm, why have I been caught out with that post of yours?

I never said only 1MP from religiouse party, I meant 1 from the worst party.
The ones I was referring to were Yehadut Hatorah - 5 seats as you put it... Hardly a say eh? They haven't been an influence on anything whilst in parliament. Shas however, do not want to kill all Arabs, and in fact, at one time wee willing to compromise on the disengagement. So, once again, as someone who doesn't live here - YOU are the one without a clue.


@SnnY: You are typing everything I wanted to say.... man, that's scary!! :lol:

[Busyman]

Ummmmmm, why have I been caught out with that post of yours?

I never said only 1MP from religiouse party, I meant 1 from the worst party.
The ones I was referring to were Yehadut Hatorah - 5 seats as you put it... Hardly a say eh? They haven't been an influence on anything whilst in parliament. Shas however, do not want to kill all Arabs, and in fact, at one time wee willing to compromise on the disengagement. So, once again, as someone who doesn't live here - YOU are the one without a clue.
Aww come on but, but, but.........Rio googled. :huh:

He can't be wrong.

[RioDeLeo]

Ummmmmm, why have I been caught out with that post of yours?

That's rather obvious.

I never said only 1MP from religiouse party, I meant 1 from the worst party.
The ones I was referring to were Yehadut Hatorah - 5 seats as you put it... Hardly a say eh? They haven't been an influence on anything whilst in parliament. Shas however, do not want to kill all Arabs, and in fact, at one time wee willing to compromise on the disengagement. So, once again, as someone who doesn't live here - YOU are the one without a clue.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool, isn't it?

Talking about right wing religious groups, Shas, who gained 11 seats certainly come under that heading, and they are the foruth largest party.

You can read about them HERE (http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/haredi_groups.html)


@SnnY: You are typing everything I wanted to say.... man, that's scary!! :lol:

The same person maybe?



l'll tell you what Rafi, you read this book, and then make serious comments on it if you can. The book is about Jewish fundamentalism and it's effect on the Israeli political system. It might be a bit much for you as there aren't any pictures, but give it a go.

Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel - by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky (http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/haredi_groups.html)

[RioDeLeo]

Aww come on but, but, but.........Rio googled. :huh:

He can't be wrong.

Engage brain
Read what was written
Consider your reply
Post

[Busyman]

Aww come on but, but, but.........Rio googled. :huh:

He can't be wrong.

Engage brain
Read what was written
Consider your reply
Post
So that's how you do it. :ohmy:

Engage brain :wacko:
Read what was written
Google for words you don't understand :unsure:
Consider your reply :lookaroun
Consult Google again and maybe Ask Jeeves about it :frusty:
Post with Googled links :01:

Good one that man Rio!!! :clap:

[RioDeLeo]

Engage brain
Read what was written
Consider your reply
Post
So that's how you do it. :ohmy:

Engage brain :wacko:
Read what was written
Google for words you don't understand :unsure:
Consider your reply :lookaroun
Consult Google again and maybe Ask Jeeves about it :frusty:
Post with Googled links :01:

Good one that man Rio!!! :clap:


Unlike superior humans like you, l'm not divinely inspired, l need to learn, when l need a list l Google for one, and reprint it, why don't you tell us what you would have done in the same circumstances, oh superior being you. :hypocrite

[Busyman]

So that's how you do it. :ohmy:

Engage brain :wacko:
Read what was written
Google for words you don't understand :unsure:
Consider your reply :lookaroun
Consult Google again and maybe Ask Jeeves about it :frusty:
Post with Googled links :01:

Good one that man Rio!!! :clap:


Unlike superior humans like you, l'm not divinely inspired, l need to learn, when l need a list l Google for one, and reprint it, why don't you tell us what you would have done in the same circumstances, oh superior being you. :hypocrite
I don't give away secrets. Besides that, Google has proven your point to a T. I commend you. ;)
However, it will never up innate intelligence....just the appearance of intelligence.
For every googled link to prove your point there is most likely a counter.

Keep it up and I'll think you a table member.

[RioDeLeo]

However, it will never up innate intelligence....just the appearance of intelligence.

How can a Google link give the cut\paster an air of intelligence? l could type the same list from any of a number of Cyclopedia, but why would you type that out one finger at a time when you can cut and paste the same thing?

For every googled link to prove your point there is most likely a counter.

That's the beauty of it, anything you say can be refuted, but the way to do it is to find a counter point, not rubbish the method of research.

Keep it up and I'll think you a table member.

l defy anyone on here to say they haven't used Google to garner information.

[Busyman]

However, it will never up innate intelligence....just the appearance of intelligence.

How can a Google link give the cut\paster an air of intelligence? l could type the same list from any of a number of Cyclopedia, but why would you type that out one finger at a time when you can cut and paste the same thing?

For every googled link to prove your point there is most likely a counter.

That's the beauty of it, anything you say can be refuted, but the way to do it is to find a counter point, not rubbish the method of research.

Keep it up and I'll think you a table member.

l defy anyone on here to say they haven't used Google to garner information.
How much of it is correct?
Can one come to an accurate conclusion based on google all the time?
Does one google more than one source or settle for the first link?
Does said person crack open a book or pass their eyes by any other media source?

edit: I see you are European. Still not a Newcummer though.

[RioDeLeo]

How much of it is correct?

How correct is any other source of information?

Does one google more than one source or settle for the first link?
Does said person crack open a book or pass their eyes by any other media source?

You've answered your own post there, if you don't know the answer to those points you can hardly make a valued judgement.

edit: I see you are European. Still not a Newcummer though.

l'm African.

[bigboab]

How much of it is correct?

How correct is any other source of information?

Does one google more than one source or settle for the first link?
Does said person crack open a book or pass their eyes by any other media source?

You've answered your own post there, if you don't know the answer to those points you can hardly make a valued judgement.

edit: I see you are European. Still not a Newcummer though.

l'm African.



Which part of Africa?

[RioDeLeo]

l'm African.

Which part of Africa?

It's hard to say, as new evidence turns up daily, and is often disputed, here's an example .. Secrets of the Dead (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_firsthuman/).

[MCHeshPants420]

Meh. All the cool kids are using Wikipedia these days.

[JPaul]

You answer the posts you think you have an answer for, whilst ignoring those that stuff you. You repeat the same old shit over and over.
When will the land be returned to the natives of North America, of Africa, of Australia and New Zealand. In fact everywhere else where it was stolen.

[GepperRankins]

Which part of Africa?

It's hard to say, as new evidence turns up daily, and is often disputed, here's an example .. Secrets of the Dead (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_firsthuman/).
is this playing along with the europe thing? :rolleyes:



i'd hate to side with billy dean, but STFU busyman. doing research is good. when i really want to find something out, i use google. i don't settle with the first link either. i check multiple sources. if it's a news story i'll check bbc.co.uk (i know it's only one source, but i trust it :liberalmedia: )

just because it's not read from a book doesn't make it any less valid you n00b.

[MCHeshPants420]

if it's a news story i'll check bbc.co.uk (i know it's only one source, but i trust it :liberalmedia: )


I use http://infoweb.newsbank.com :snooty:

[lynx]

l'm African.


Which part of Africa?The Australian part, apparently. :huh:

[lynx]

It's hard to say, as new evidence turns up daily, and is often disputed, here's an example .. Secrets of the Dead (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_firsthuman/).
is this playing along with the europe thing? :rolleyes:



i'd hate to side with billy dean, but STFU busyman. doing research is good. when i really want to find something out, i use google. i don't settle with the first link either. i check multiple sources. if it's a news story i'll check bbc.co.uk (i know it's only one source, but i trust it :liberalmedia: )

just because it's not read from a book doesn't make it any less valid you n00b.
I rather think that Busy's point was that google is a search engine, it finds results depending on what you ask it. Google has no interest whether the results it gives are either valid or true.

Try this link:
google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=bG5&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=moon+green+cheese&btnG=Search&meta=)
The first result provides "scientific evidence" that the moon is made of green cheese, but there are many more too. Your argument appears to be that since it is on google it must be true.

[JPaul]

The problem with google is that it can be used in totally the wrong way. Have an opinion then find evidence to support it.

Unfortunately that can lead one to sites run by people with the same narrow minded agenda as the person doing the research. Re-inforcing the view that they are correct and everyone else is wrong.

One wonders whether some groups exploit this desire to find others who agree with one's views. They may even disguise who they are. e.g. I could set up a Glasgow Rangers Supporters website, then post that we were in fact more sectarian than the Celtic supporters. Which could then be used by Celtic supporters - "look they admit it themselves"

Google is a useful tool, if used with caution.

[GepperRankins]

good point. but like i said i tend to check more than one site. more often than not even the sites with the best intentions don't have all the facts so you gotta shop around

[JPaul]

good point. but like i said i tend to check more than one site. more often than not even the sites with the best intentions don't have all the facts so you gotta shop around
Agreed, or as you said earlier use sites which are reputable to get your facts / news. Then form an opinion from them, allied to other information you have.

Rather than just reading interpretations / opinions from other people. If you do read the opinions of others try to be aware of their own background, agenda etc and read them with that in mind.

http://www.britannica.com/ is always good for facts.

[RioDeLeo]

is this playing along with the europe thing? :rolleyes:

i'd hate to side with billy dean, but STFU busyman. doing research is good. when i really want to find something out, i use google. i don't settle with the first link either. i check multiple sources. if it's a news story i'll check bbc.co.uk (i know it's only one source, but i trust it :liberalmedia: )

just because it's not read from a book doesn't make it any less valid you n00b.
I rather think that Busy's point was that google is a search engine, it finds results depending on what you ask it. Google has no interest whether the results it gives are either valid or true.

Try this link:
google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=bG5&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=moon+green+cheese&btnG=Search&meta=)
The first result provides "scientific evidence" that the moon is made of green cheese, but there are many more too. Your argument appears to be that since it is on google it must be true.

l hate to side with someone who sides with billy dean, but our gepper friend has a point. When l typed in "israeli parliament" l got over a million replies, l wasn't 'guided' to anywhere in particular, or to any point of view. l was looking for a chart, and l found one, l wasn't looking for an opinion. Google, in fact, presented me with more material to study than any other method would have done, it's actually the friend of research, not the enemy.

A favourite method of discussion on here, and many other forums, is the gladiatorial system of post\counter post, l don't think this in itself is a bad idea, in fact it can be quite entertaining. This method often involves heavy Googeling, and opinions can be random depending on what page you land on. A lot of the time you also just want an opposing view to someone you believe is giving a biased account. This is often the case when you are playing the Devil's advocate. But this method often leads to opinions being formed from hearing both sides of an argument instead of well thought out compromises all the time.

[JPaul]

l hate to side with someone who sides with billy dean ....
Quite right too, this is the sort of anti-semitic vitriol he posts at his own site.

"l'd just love to see Israel destroyed, maybe their god will come back and do to them what he has done many times in their history. Israel is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. The Nazis certainly taught them well, there's nothing like a practical demonstration to get the message across. l dread to think what the place would be like today if six million of them weren't killed, they'd be waging war across the whole Middle East."

It's one thing having different points of view, but that's just bigoted filth.

[lynx]

I rather think that Busy's point was that google is a search engine, it finds results depending on what you ask it. Google has no interest whether the results it gives are either valid or true.

Try this link:
google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hs=bG5&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=moon+green+cheese&btnG=Search&meta=)
The first result provides "scientific evidence" that the moon is made of green cheese, but there are many more too. Your argument appears to be that since it is on google it must be true.

l hate to side with someone who sides with billy dean, but our gepper friend has a point. When l typed in "israeli parliament" l got over a million replies, l wasn't 'guided' to anywhere in particular, or to any point of view. l was looking for a chart, and l found one, l wasn't looking for an opinion. Google, in fact, presented me with more material to study than any other method would have done, it's actually the friend of research, not the enemy.

A favourite method of discussion on here, and many other forums, is the gladiatorial system of post\counter post, l don't think this in itself is a bad idea, in fact it can be quite entertaining. This method often involves heavy Googeling, and opinions can be random depending on what page you land on. A lot of the time you also just want an opposing view to someone you believe is giving a biased account. This is often the case when you are playing the Devil's advocate. But this method often leads to opinions being formed from hearing both sides of an argument instead of well thought out compromises all the time.
I have little doubt that your facts and figures relating to the make-up of the Knesset is accurate. That doesn't hide the fact that the particular site you picked could have been inaccurate and I'll wager you didn't compare it to other sites for verification, though to be fair, tables such as that tend on the whole to be reasonably accurate.

You have admirably illustrated the point about googling for your own point of view. You seek out pages which back up your argument and contradict the opposing view. Again, no checks for accuracy, you simply want to show that the other side is biased because it offends your own point of view. That in itself can hardly be described as a balanced approach.

And what's wrong with bias? You use it as if it is a dirty word, but surely all of us are biased to some extent otherwise there would be no differences of opinion. Biased argument based on truthful and accurate statements is how we promote our point of view, it is untruths and inaccuracies which are the downfall and we've seen these from both sides in this thread.

[Snee]

Ummmmmm, why have I been caught out with that post of yours?

That's rather obvious.

I never said only 1MP from religiouse party, I meant 1 from the worst party.
The ones I was referring to were Yehadut Hatorah - 5 seats as you put it... Hardly a say eh? They haven't been an influence on anything whilst in parliament. Shas however, do not want to kill all Arabs, and in fact, at one time wee willing to compromise on the disengagement. So, once again, as someone who doesn't live here - YOU are the one without a clue.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool, isn't it?

Talking about right wing religious groups, Shas, who gained 11 seats certainly come under that heading, and they are the foruth largest party.

You can read about them HERE (http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/haredi_groups.html)


@SnnY: You are typing everything I wanted to say.... man, that's scary!! :lol:

The same person maybe?



l'll tell you what Rafi, you read this book, and then make serious comments on it if you can. The book is about Jewish fundamentalism and it's effect on the Israeli political system. It might be a bit much for you as there aren't any pictures, but give it a go.

Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel - by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky (http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/haredi_groups.html)
Ah yes, Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky. I had a look on google too, and amazingly, it would appear that these people are/were as politically radical an Israeli (Shahak) and an american (Mezvinsky), could be on the israeli issue without coming off as complete nutters. Anti-israeli is a term that sometimes comes up.

For someone who bases his arguments on the most radical opinions around, and comes off as having absolutely no understanding that Israelis are people too, in a couple of your earlier posts, you are fairly liberal with your negative assessments of tralala's understanding of the situation.

Tralala might be young, and it's possible that he isn't seeing the entire picture. But none of what you have written so far has proven you to have an unbiased, accurate view of the situation.

And, you mentioned ignoring uncomfortable facts on tralala's part, well, the way I see it, you have been doing the same thing, picking and choosing the arguments you think you can respond to.

[Rat Faced]

However, no one seems to be disputing Tralalala's facts here..

I've pointed out that they're incorrect, and will reinforce this by pointing to Israeli Polls which state such things as:


The poll, commissioned by Israel Radio, showed that popular support for the disengagment, which a year ago was running at 60 percent and higher, had dropped to 50 percent.

At the same time, opposition to the plan went up to 40 percent, from a low of 33 percent last year, the radio added.

This is a long way from just the "Religious Nutters" being against it, which is what is implied.. unless the Nutters now make up 40% of the population.

I dont like Polls, as they give information without informing of the demographic of the source...

However there are so many giving similar results, that they cant be ignored.


In addition no one has actually asked what, if any, benefit will be gained by a partial withdrawal. Plus what affect any measurements will have mearly because they were "brokered" by the USA.

Both things have a negative value in the eyes of the Palestinians.

eg:

This Poll was from 2004, and conducted with Middle Eastern Academics..

The Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza and Proposed Annexation of West Bank Settlements (http://www.irmep.org/measure.htm)

This was also released in 2004, by the Pew Research Centre which is non-partisan. This shows the trust for the USA and attitudes towards Muslims, Jews and Christians in different countries.

The USA may be surprised to know that Christians are more unpopular now than Jews in most Muslim countries...

A Year After Iraq War (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206)

[Snee]

However, no one seems to be disputing Tralalala's facts here..


You and "RioDe Leo" did that, I thought :blink:



EDit: if disengagement means withdrawing and leaving 21 settlements, and the homes of a lot of people, I can understand why people would be against it, for sentimental reasons if nothing else :unsure: . It's not the same thing as saying that 40% of the israeli population are for taking more Palestinian territory, or that they want to expand, or that they are in favour of the illegal settlers.

Not really sure how this has any bearing on what tralala said about ultra religious people.

[Rat Faced]

True...

But Rio is anti-Israel

I'm anti-"all the bloody leaders everywhere, shit rises and politicians are the worst" :angry:


:P

[Snee]

True...

But Rio is anti-Israel

I'm anti-"all the bloody leaders everywhere, shit rises and politicians are the worst" :angry:


:PAmen to that.

Anarchy all the way :01:

Nah, maybe not, but some things are screwed up all over the place thanks to dodgy decisions made by politicians, and that includes Israel, Palestine and pretty much the rest of the world.

[GepperRankins]

However, no one seems to be disputing Tralalala's facts here..

I've pointed out that they're incorrect, and will reinforce this by pointing to Israeli Polls which state such things as:


The poll, commissioned by Israel Radio, showed that popular support for the disengagment, which a year ago was running at 60 percent and higher, had dropped to 50 percent.

At the same time, opposition to the plan went up to 40 percent, from a low of 33 percent last year, the radio added.

This is a long way from just the "Religious Nutters" being against it, which is what is implied.. unless the Nutters now make up 40% of the population.

I dont like Polls, as they give information without informing of the demographic of the source...

However there are so many giving similar results, that they cant be ignored.


In addition no one has actually asked what, if any, benefit will be gained by a partial withdrawal. Plus what affect any measurements will have mearly because they were "brokered" by the USA.

Both things have a negative value in the eyes of the Palestinians.

eg:

This Poll was from 2004, and conducted with Middle Eastern Academics..

The Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza and Proposed Annexation of West Bank Settlements (http://www.irmep.org/measure.htm)

This was also released in 2004, by the Pew Research Centre which is non-partisan. This shows the trust for the USA and attitudes towards Muslims, Jews and Christians in different countries.

The USA may be surprised to know that Christians are more unpopular now than Jews in most Muslim countries...

A Year After Iraq War (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206)
apparently 63% of isreal and america are against a disengagement, i don't know why it really matters what the americans think like :ermm:

clicky (http://www.zoa.org/pressrel2005/20050715b.htm)

[tralalala]

@RF's post further up the page:

As you said yourself - the poll is "out of date", and is from over a year ago.

Since, many have changed - now it's around 65%-70% (supporting the dusengagement) if I am not mistajen (from one of the major Israeli newspapers about 2-3 months ago... they do one every few months).

I shall explain why this figure has changed:
In the past 2 months, all the settlers have been trying to get the disengagement cancelled, or at least postponed. The thing was, the way they did this pissed many, many Israelis off, which is why more and more people are comign to hate these nutters and want them to get the hell out of Gaza for the sake of Israel.
Settlers have blocked main roads on the country by sitting on them
Settlers have glued keyholes in police stations/army bases
Settlers have punctured the tires of many cars (including army cars/jeeps, MP cars, police cars etc.).

That and many more have pissed us off, and now so many more people want them outta there and as fast as possible.
They try and try, but now it is getting rediculouse, which is why they will eventually lose their already lost battle.


@SnnY: Young and can't see the whole picture... half of that statement is true, the other is false. Can you guess which? :P
Seriously though - I may only be a teenager, but I have had more experience in what is going on in my country that anyone else in this forum, and all over the world for that matter. I think my posts have many info. that is true in them, I do see the big picture, I see it everyday on the news here in Israel (not BBC and not SKY). I see bombing moments after they happen, I see settlers pissing off people, I see it all.



BTW just read the paper - last weekend nearly 100 killed in Iraq by 11 suiciders, a woman suicider killed 5 in Turkey (including an English and an Irish and 3 Turks).... All Muslim.. Now someone tell me that modern terrorism isn't all about Islam....

[tralalala]

@Gepper:
As I said before - we Israelis don't give a toss about American Jews' thoughts about the situation, they don't have a say.

[JPaul]

Now someone tell me that modern terrorism isn't all about Islam....
How many times FFS. That's just garbage.

3 of the 4 murderers in the UK were apparently banned from the local Mosque.

Please do not blame everyone for the actions of a few.

Not all Catholics supported the actions of the IRA. Not all Muslims support these atrocities. The Imans have been speaking out against these actions and say they are sins.

[Rat Faced]

I do see the big picture, I see it everyday on the news here in Israel (not BBC and not SKY). I see bombing moments after they happen, I see settlers pissing off people, I see it all.




And as i said earlier, the israeli Media is rated 135th in the world as "Free Press"..

I'll stick with my 27th rated thanks :snooty:

[GepperRankins]

i heard some guy on the radio. just a random muslim in the streets of leeds asked about the terrorists and he said "they aren't even muslims, suicide is a sin. these guys are just wannabes"

apparently these kids in london weren't even suicide bombers though. i wouldn't expect them to be as they had a lot to live for. but the timings of the bombs going off suggests they were detonated remotely, as well as some other stuff that's in the papers that i didn't buy.

[GepperRankins]

I do see the big picture, I see it everyday on the news here in Israel (not BBC and not SKY). I see bombing moments after they happen, I see settlers pissing off people, I see it all.




And as i said earlier, the israeli Media is rated 135th in the world as "Free Press"..

I'll stick with my 27th rated thanks :snooty:
our media is 27th free-est? :ohmy:

who is number 1 and where do the merkins stand?

[Snee]

Dunno' about the merkins.

But we are 11th :01:

_:)_ (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715)

the UK was 28th in 2004 :snooty:
and Israel 36th :blink:

[Rat Faced]

I must appologise to Tralalala... the Israeli Press are not 135th :(

The US press with regards to Iraq are.

Israel are 44th (with regards to anything outside of the occupied territories)

and 146th with regard to the Occupied Territories.

Again.. Sorry, your press is even worse than i thought on this issue :(


My other rankings remain.. Finland is ranked No 1 in the Free Press rankings..

source (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247)

[tralalala]

I've been misunderstood... no probs there.

What I meant was, that I think all (or, a very very very high percentage) suicides and murders on a nationalist basis are Muslim related.

@RF: Are you telling me the Israeli media are liers? I thought it was rated low because you are not permitted to talk about security stuff freely, and for a good reason. Could you imagine if someone found out lets say how many soldiers there are in the IDF (Which by the way is confidential material, and no one apart from I think the Cheif of Staff and some MP's know about), and spoke it out so people (or, better - enemies such as Hizballah related people) heard it and passed it on... A war would break out immediately (if for instance there are a low ammount of soldiers for instance).

I think that is why it is said that Israels media is not rated so high in Free Press. Not because it's rubbish what they say, but simply as a precaution for Israels security.

[Snee]

At reporters without borders the index for 2004 said that Israel was 36th/115th wrt israeli/occupied territories :unsure:

You've got 2003, rat'.

[Rat Faced]

Its only with regard to the occupied Territories that the Press is not allowed to report what they wish to.

It is a ranking of Press Freedom, not what they report.


This does not mean they are, or are not, liars.

Just that all the reports are biased by the Government, therefore look elsewhere for the facts... such as Finland, Netherlands, Iceland or Norway.. all ranked No 1

[tralalala]

Hey RF, mistakes happen, no probs, accept your apology :)

Anyway, i think that my previouse post still apllies :)

[GepperRankins]

do you hear about when isreali soldiers kill palestinian kids in the streets, be it accidental or not? did you hear about the british reporter who was shot in the head while waving a white flag?

[tralalala]

It's problematic having people post same time you do isn't it..? :lol:

Anyway, I don't think you will find anymore info. about the Territories anywhere else in the world.
The press can't post what they want for security reasons, and I think you can all understand and accept that.
That is why they are ranked so low in the Freedom thingy table..

[Rat Faced]

At reporters without borders the index for 2004 said that Israel was 36th/115th wrt israeli/occupied territories :unsure:

You've got 2003, rat'.

Thanks, i'll try and update my bookmark :lol:


Damn, we dropped a place :lol: :lol:

NEW Source (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715)


108 United States of America (in Iraq) 36,00 :rolleyes:

[tralalala]

Yes, we heard al saw al of that on the news.

Just yesterday we saw how an Israeli soldier headbutted a Palestinian demonstrator against the wall being built. He was suspended.
We see all we can see. You cannot see more than you need to here.

[RioDeLeo]

You have admirably illustrated the point about googling for your own point of view. You seek out pages which back up your argument and contradict the opposing view. Again, no checks for accuracy, you simply want to show that the other side is biased because it offends your own point of view. That in itself can hardly be described as a balanced approach.

An admirable job of misrepresentation there Lynx, you are to be commended.



And, you mentioned ignoring uncomfortable facts on tralala's part, well, the way I see it, you have been doing the same thing, picking and choosing the arguments you think you can respond to.
Where are your examples? Or is this just another of your swings in the dark?

[Busyman]

l'm African.
It explains alot.

[Busyman]

In addition no one has actually asked what, if any, benefit will be gained by a partial withdrawal. Plus what affect any measurements will have mearly because they were "brokered" by the USA.

Both things have a negative value in the eyes of the Palestinians.
As I say, they will never be satisfied.

[Rat Faced]

@ Lio

"The only devils in the world are those running in our own hearts. That is where the battle should be fought. "

[Rat Faced]

In addition no one has actually asked what, if any, benefit will be gained by a partial withdrawal. Plus what affect any measurements will have mearly because they were "brokered" by the USA.

Both things have a negative value in the eyes of the Palestinians.
As I say, they will never be satisfied.

Its because only 5% trust the USA.

On the other hand, 51% trust the Arab League... they've been stabbed in the back by both.

[JPaul]

I've been misunderstood... no probs there.

What I meant was, that I think all (or, a very very very high percentage) suicides and murders on a nationalist basis are Muslim related.


What does " ... on a nationalist basis are Muslim related" mean. Are you saying that Muslim is a nation.

Simply because people claim to be Muslim and claim to be acting on behalf of other Muslims does not make it so.

The British ones were banned from the mosque. The Muslim leaders have denounced the acts. The Muslim people are saying that they don't approve of the Murders and asking everyone else to realise that it is nothing to do with them. In fact that it is against what true Muslims believe

Why do you persist in saying that these acts are Muslim related, when they killed Muslims and when the Muslim people want nothing to do with them.

It's that sort of attitude which causes problems and supports the likes of the BNP in their bigotry. If you feel that way in your country that's a matter for you. However the right thinking people in my country feel entirely differently.

[Rat Faced]

Although Islam was born in Mecca, diversity was its hallmark from the very beginning. The Prophet Muhammad’s earliest followers included Bilal the African slave, Ibn Sailam the Rabbi, Suhaib the Byzantine Roman and Salman the Persian. Today, there are clear differences within the Islamic world between the various axes. There is a struggle for leadership between the oil-rich Arab world and the Persian axis led by Iran; between the Europe-ward tendencies of Turkey and Sharia-dominated Nigeria; the Baul mystics of Bangladesh and the militant Jamaatis of Pakistan. In America and Europe, there are new Islamic variations that are unthinkable in Third World Islam — such as militant Muslim feminists and out-and-proud Gay Muslims (“Queer Jihad”). In short, there is both conflict and cooperation, traditionalism and experimentation, harmony and strife.

Sure sounds like Christianity etc to me..

Lots of factions, and none speak for the rest :rolleyes:

[JPaul]

You answer the posts you think you have an answer for, whilst ignoring those that stuff you. You repeat the same old shit over and over.
When will the land be returned to the natives of North America, of Africa, of Australia and New Zealand. In fact everywhere else where it was stolen.
Perhaps this time.

[tralalala]

When I said nationalist related I meant that they weren't killing somONE because he/she hated him/her specifically, i meant these killings and suicides were taken out on a basis that the murderers hated the general nation/region (western) they came from, as in they didn't want to kill Arabs or Muslims, they wanted to kill Jews or Westeners.

It's hard to explain for me, I hope you understand.... :)

[JPaul]

Although Islam was born in Mecca, diversity was its hallmark from the very beginning. The Prophet Muhammad’s earliest followers included Bilal the African slave, Ibn Sailam the Rabbi, Suhaib the Byzantine Roman and Salman the Persian. Today, there are clear differences within the Islamic world between the various axes. There is a struggle for leadership between the oil-rich Arab world and the Persian axis led by Iran; between the Europe-ward tendencies of Turkey and Sharia-dominated Nigeria; the Baul mystics of Bangladesh and the militant Jamaatis of Pakistan. In America and Europe, there are new Islamic variations that are unthinkable in Third World Islam — such as militant Muslim feminists and out-and-proud Gay Muslims (“Queer Jihad”). In short, there is both conflict and cooperation, traditionalism and experimentation, harmony and strife.

Sure sounds like Christianity etc to me..

Lots of factions, and none speak for the rest :rolleyes:


They don't speak for each other, however others are happy to lump them all together.

[GepperRankins]

When I said nationalist related I meant that they weren't killing somONE because he/she hated him/her specifically, i meant these killings and suicides were taken out on a basis that the murderers hated the general nation/region (western) they came from, as in they didn't want to kill Arabs or Muslims, they wanted to kill Jews or Westeners.

It's hard to explain for me, I hope you understand....


they didn't want to kill westerners or christians. they wanted our government to stop supporting america/isreal and GTFO of their business

[Rat Faced]

Sure sounds like Christianity etc to me..

Lots of factions, and none speak for the rest :rolleyes:


They don't speak for each other, however others are happy to lump them all together.

I was agreeing with you :P

Hell, some factions wont even speak to each other.. again, just like Christianity and Juadism :shutup:

[RioDeLeo]

When will the land be returned to the natives of North America, of Africa, of Australia and New Zealand. In fact everywhere else where it was stolen.
Perhaps this time.

Are you saying l should respond to your spam as well? Although that post of yours bore no relation to the subject of this thread, it was still answered by someone else, perhaps you missed it.

[Snee]

And, you mentioned ignoring uncomfortable facts on tralala's part, well, the way I see it, you have been doing the same thing, picking and choosing the arguments you think you can respond to.
Where are your examples? Or is this just another of your swings in the dark?
Swings in the dark :rolleyes:


Let's try this: how will you explain away the fact that it's logistically impossible for the average israeli (at an average age of 28, what your beloved google says) to have taken part in the bulk of the expansions between now and 1967? At the earliest they could have joined the armed forces or voted in what, 1995? And they can't all have participated in expansionist actions, can they, even if they had been in the army?

Also, knowing that, how can you condone taking away their homes, when it's again, logistically impossible for them, a majority of the israeli people (@28 or less), to have taken part in this grand criminal scheme you've painted out in order to justify taking away their homes? And do you have a problem with israelis, because it certainly seems like it, as you seem to say that it's all right to take away their homes, but that it was wrong to take away someone else's home?

I asked you before, and I can't say your answer made much sense, if there was an answer at all.

Oh, and let's not forgot the grand Zionist plot itself, is there any solid proof that it exists today, and if so that it's something most israelis are in on?


EDit: and yes, what about JPaul's/busyman's/my notion of this being similar to the US and the Australian taking over of aboriginal lands (for example)? If we are going to force one nation to give back land they've taken from someone else in the past, surely we should do the same everywhere?

And don't forget this:

And furthermore, palestinian terrorism, or freedom fighting if we'll go by your definition, is equally contradictory to the UN's wishes, and seeing as how PLO was/is a big player in Palestine's government and was responsible for terror attacks in the past and most likely condones and possibly has a stake in the occasional attack today, and presumably has a considerable backing from the people, the powers that be in both countries have issues with following the UN's recommendations.

[tralalala]

When I said nationalist related I meant that they weren't killing somONE because he/she hated him/her specifically, i meant these killings and suicides were taken out on a basis that the murderers hated the general nation/region (western) they came from, as in they didn't want to kill Arabs or Muslims, they wanted to kill Jews or Westeners.

It's hard to explain for me, I hope you understand....


they didn't want to kill westerners or christians. they wanted our government to stop supporting america/isreal and GTFO of their business
Well, what if they knew that one train was full of Jews, Christians, Americans and Brits, the other full of Muslims.... Which one do you think they would go for..?

[GepperRankins]

they didn't want to kill westerners or christians. they wanted our government to stop supporting america/isreal and GTFO of their business
Well, what if they knew that one train was full of Jews, Christians, Americans and Brits, the other full of Muslims.... Which one do you think they would go for..?
they'd probably go for the first.


it's not the point though. it's not about killing a particular religion or even particular people. it's about trying to convince our government to stop supporting the US or try and get them out of the arab worlds business.

[JPaul]

Perhaps this time.

Are you saying l should respond to your spam as well? Although that post of yours bore no relation to the subject of this thread, it was still answered by someone else, perhaps you missed it.
Thank you, made the point better than anyone else could. You accuse the chap of ignoring points which he cannot answer, but you are more guilty of it yourself.

I am familiar with the tactic.

[tralalala]

@Gepper:

But it is the point.. Otherwise they would go for either one of the trains..
But, as you stated yourself, getting the government to support/not support something is also, the same sort of thing - the attackers were of a religion that is spread widely in the region they wanted you out of, and who did they attack? Not Muslims. Or at least they weren't going to target Muslims, but Britons nad Jews and supporters of the war in Iraq (who are of course people who belong to counttries of the West.).

:)

[Rat Faced]

However one of the bombs in London went off in a largly Muslim Community, and most of the bombs in Iraq hurt.. Muslims.

[GepperRankins]

@Gepper:

But it is the point.. Otherwise they would go for either one of the trains..
But, as you stated yourself, getting the government to support/not support something is also, the same sort of thing - the attackers were of a religion that is spread widely in the region they wanted you out of, and who did they attack? Not Muslims. Or at least they weren't going to target Muslims, but Britons nad Jews and supporters of the war in Iraq (who are of course people who belong to counttries of the West.).

:)
hardly anyone over here supported the iraq war. most likely none of the victims did. the intention is to get the people and the government to realise that if they get out of the middle-east our people won't get killed in terrorist attacks.


you're kinda right in a way. the one thing that links our muslims to muslims in the middle east is, well... islam. the leaders will use this to say your brothers are being oppressed, you should fight for them.

[tralalala]

But who "creats" the bombs, and who sets them off? And in what intention?


Yup, Muslims....

[lynx]

You have admirably illustrated the point about googling for your own point of view. You seek out pages which back up your argument and contradict the opposing view. Again, no checks for accuracy, you simply want to show that the other side is biased because it offends your own point of view. That in itself can hardly be described as a balanced approach.

An admirable job of misrepresentation there Lynx, you are to be commended. On the contrary, I was clarifying exactly what you yourself had said. If there is any misrepresentation you have uttered it yourself.

You may be surprised to find that I strongly disagree with the tripe that tralalala is putting forward. Unfortunately your method of argument is equally odious, it brings no merit to you or your point of view, and as such it damages the whole argument of those who see the events in the occupied territories as atrocities.

[JPaul]

But who "creats" the bombs, and who sets them off? And in what intention?


Yup, Muslims....
You see only one thing, the religion they claim to have.

Are all Catholics terrorist supporters as well.

[GepperRankins]

do you think they represent all muslims? seriously?

the intention is to kill indescriminantly. it's about politics not bigotry

[tralalala]

It's a very difficult thing to argue..

In one sense, yes I agree, it's only a tiny fraction of nutters, which do not reflect the general beleif and co.
But on the other hand, it has been happening too often in the past 5 years, don't you think?

[GepperRankins]

It's a very difficult thing to argue..

In one sense, yes I agree, it's only a tiny fraction of nutters, which do not reflect the general beleif and co.
But on the other hand, it has been happening too often in the past 5 years, don't you think?
so we should have another holocaust? this time go after the muslims?


i'm kinda worried that's where we're heading because i don't see the US leaving the east alone

[lynx]

Rafi, I think you need a little enlightenment about the situation of the settlements in the occupied land. I'll give you one example, but it is typical of what happened all over the West Bank. This was related to me by my uncle (by marriage). I won't reveal his name without his family's permission, so you will have to trust me when I say that he was one of the most respected theologians in the Catholic church.

In the early 1980's my uncle and aunt lived in the outskirts of Jerusalem. Their neighbours on a small but prosperous farm were an old Arab man and his family, who had lived there for more generations than they could remember. One day the old man was approached and offered a pittance for his land, naturally he declined the offer. Almost immediately he was presented with papers from an Israeli court telling him to leave, and that the land had been "proved" to be owned by the person who had madet the offer. The old man had not even had an opportunity to argue his case. The court did not even have proper jurisdiction, but it is impossible to argue with a bunch of soldiers forcing you out at gunpoint.

My point is that this is how much of the land occupied by the West Bank settlers was obtained. You seem to think that "stolen land" was the result of the 6 day war. I think my example shows that the theft actually took place much later, it was not the result of war but of greedy settlers, aided and abetted by corrupt lawyers and judges. It is hardly surprising that the original owners want their land back.

[tralalala]

Most of the land "stolen" was during the 6 day war. Israel quadrupled it's size (seriously!!) by the end of that war.

The example you gave me - I cannot argue, it was wrong to do so.

@Geppe:
No, I am not even thinking of going through another Holocaust, how could you say such a thing?? One is enough for all years before it, until eternity. No one else, no religion, race or anything should or need to go through such sickness, even if there is a good reason for it.

I say we go after the Muslim [b]terrorists[b], get them from the roots (the people who send them and plan it all), and stop it, it's enough already. How many more people need to die before this all gets too far out of hand??

[JPaul]

Lynx,

That seems similar to how a lot of land was stolen, indeed on a lot of occasions the pittance wasn't even offered, they just took what they wanted.

I trust you support the notion that all of it should be given back to it's rightful owners.

[GepperRankins]

Rafi, I think you need a little enlightenment about the situation of the settlements in the occupied land. I'll give you one example, but it is typical of what happened all over the West Bank. This was related to me by my uncle (by marriage). I won't reveal his name without his family's permission, so you will have to trust me when I say that he was one of the most respected theologians in the Catholic church.

In the early 1980's my uncle and aunt lived in the outskirts of Jerusalem. Their neighbours on a small but prosperous farm were an old Arab man and his family, who had lived there for more generations than they could remember. One day the old man was approached and offered a pittance for his land, naturally he declined the offer. Almost immediately he was presented with papers from an Israeli court telling him to leave, and that the land had been "proved" to be owned by the person who had madet the offer. The old man had not even had an opportunity to argue his case. The court did not even have proper jurisdiction, but it is impossible to argue with a bunch of soldiers forcing you out at gunpoint.

My point is that this is how much of the land occupied by the West Bank settlers was obtained. You seem to think that "stolen land" was the result of the 6 day war. I think my example shows that the theft actually took place much later, it was not the result of war but of greedy settlers, aided and abetted by corrupt lawyers and judges. It is hardly surprising that the original owners want their land back.
and if they have nothing left to live for but poverty and oppression. suicide bombing is an easy and glorious way out

[tralalala]

The Gaza strip and most of the West Bank will indeed be given back to the Palestinians... East Jerusalem, as much as the Jews don't particularly need it, will currently not be given back, and probably won't for a long long time.

[GepperRankins]

Most of the land "stolen" was during the 6 day war. Israel quadrupled it's size (seriously!!) by the end of that war.

The example you gave me - I cannot argue, it was wrong to do so.

@Geppe:
No, I am not even thinking of going through another Holocaust, how could you say such a thing?? One is enough for all years before it, until eternity. No one else, no religion, race or anything should or need to go through such sickness, even if there is a good reason for it.

I say we go after the Muslim [b]terrorists[b], get them from the roots (the people who send them and plan it all), and stop it, it's enough already. How many more people need to die before this all gets too far out of hand??
the way to stop it is to stop the causes. IE the west and isreal. we can never stop the terrorists the way we're going about it now unless we lock up every palestinian and sympathiser in the world

[Snee]

Rafi, I think you need a little enlightenment about the situation of the settlements in the occupied land. I'll give you one example, but it is typical of what happened all over the West Bank. This was related to me by my uncle (by marriage). I won't reveal his name without his family's permission, so you will have to trust me when I say that he was one of the most respected theologians in the Catholic church.

In the early 1980's my uncle and aunt lived in the outskirts of Jerusalem. Their neighbours on a small but prosperous farm were an old Arab man and his family, who had lived there for more generations than they could remember. One day the old man was approached and offered a pittance for his land, naturally he declined the offer. Almost immediately he was presented with papers from an Israeli court telling him to leave, and that the land had been "proved" to be owned by the person who had madet the offer. The old man had not even had an opportunity to argue his case. The court did not even have proper jurisdiction, but it is impossible to argue with a bunch of soldiers forcing you out at gunpoint.

My point is that this is how much of the land occupied by the West Bank settlers was obtained. You seem to think that "stolen land" was the result of the 6 day war. I think my example shows that the theft actually took place much later, it was not the result of war but of greedy settlers, aided and abetted by corrupt lawyers and judges. It is hardly surprising that the original owners want their land back.
Can't speak for tralala, but I know this is something that went on, and still goes on.

My argument, if you were thinking of me as well, is that the settlers living in areas settled before they were born, or while they still were children, cannot be seen as guilty of theft, and that taking away their homes is wrong too.

And, as far as I know, most of the stolen land was taken quite some time ago, I believe Israel got greatly enlarged after the war and that a lot of the further settlements came into being between 1967 and 1980 or thereabouts.

If this took place outside of the jurisdiction of the Israeli courts, and since it happened as you told it, and I have no doubt that this wasn't an isolated incident, it was by every account illegal, and this includes by israeli law.

Obviously, if this still goes on today (and I hear it does), something should be done about this, not only by the stolen land being returned (assuming the original settler-thief still inhabits the place), but also a serious inquiry into which officials allowed this to happen.



Rather, however, than doing what "Rio" seems to propose, and drive every settler and his children out, some form of compromise must be reached, wherein those who aren't guilty of theft, who didn't steal land as you describe, aren't punished, even if their land was originally taken from someone.

[Rat Faced]

The thefts came after the establishment of "International Law", and Israel is a member of the United Nations, therfore recognising this law.

I have no sympathy for any settlers losing their land, as it was never theirs.

I have just as little sympathy for the Brits and others buying houses in Northern Cyprus now finding that the Greeks want their land back.

Everyone that is educated knows the history of the land in both cases.

Tough.

If you buy a car in the UK and it turns out to be stolen, it still belongs to the original owner (or the insurance company), the fact that you paid money for that car is immaterial.. you should have checked first.

The same principle applies.

I feel sorry for the disruption in their lives, no more than that.

[tralalala]

@Gepper:

So how do you stop modern terrorism?

[GepperRankins]

@Gepper:

So how do you stop modern terrorism?
i don't know if it's been brought up already... compromise

[JPaul]

The thefts came after the establishment of "International Law", and Israel is a member of the United Nations, therfore recognising this law.

I have no sympathy for any settlers losing their land, as it was never theirs.

I have just as little sympathy for the Brits and others buying houses in Northern Cyprus now finding that the Greeks want their land back.

Everyone that is educated knows the history of the land in both cases.

Tough.

If you buy a car in the UK and it turns out to be stolen, it still belongs to the original owner (or the insurance company), the fact that you paid money for that car is immaterial.. you should have checked first.

The same principle applies.

I feel sorry for the disruption in their lives, no more than that.


Caveat emptor, eh RF.

[Snee]

The thefts came after the establishment of "International Law", and Israel is a member of the United Nations, therfore recognising this law.

I have no sympathy for any settlers losing their land, as it was never theirs.

I have just as little sympathy for the Brits and others buying houses in Northern Cyprus now finding that the Greeks want their land back.

Everyone that is educated knows the history of the land in both cases.


You can't argue that way, imagine being born in a place, growing up there, and finally inheriting it, only to find out you were losing it because of something that happened 30 years ago. And also, imagine thinking it was all legal, 'cos it was, according to the laws of the country you live in.

That doesn't work, and it's hardly more fair than throwing the palestinians out in the first place.

[Rat Faced]

@Gepper:

So how do you stop modern terrorism?

You look at the reasons for it, then see what you can do to remove the reasons.

There are many reasons..

In Israel, its the Palestinian question and occupied territories

In Turkey and Spain, its because of sepratists wanting Independance.

In Iraq, its because of an illegal war and the foreign policy of western nations that then get targeted too.

In USA its a combination of the Israel/Palestine question, whereby the USA is blatently playing favourites, aggrevated by the events after 911.



The only FACTS: is that the "fight against terrorism" as its now being fought, has increased the number of terrorists 3fold easily. And the number of sympathisers have increased significantly more than that.

Thats not the way to fight terrorism or make the world safer.

[Rat Faced]

The thefts came after the establishment of "International Law", and Israel is a member of the United Nations, therfore recognising this law.

I have no sympathy for any settlers losing their land, as it was never theirs.

I have just as little sympathy for the Brits and others buying houses in Northern Cyprus now finding that the Greeks want their land back.

Everyone that is educated knows the history of the land in both cases.


You can't argue that way, imagine being born in a place, growing up there, and finally inheriting it, only to find out you were losing it because of something that happened 30 years ago. And also, imagine thinking it was all legal, 'cos it was, according to the laws of the country you live in.

That doesn't work, and it's hardly more fair than throwing the palestinians out in the first place.

I just did.

There is no "Law of Conquest" and has not been since the end of World War II.

Israel wanted recognition, it got it.

It wished to join the UN and did.

It therefore must accept its responsibilities, which it doesnt.


Can you name one other country that will not allow the UN to inspect its Nuclear Program? That includes places like Iran and North Korea.

It repays the favours of countries such as the US by selling its secrets and blowing up its naval vessels.

Israel wants its own way, without regard to anyone else.

It wants its cake and to eat it...

Well, if it wishes to be viewed as a "western" nation, then it should start acting as such, instead of a spoilt child that throws a tantrum when anyone says anything against it.

[lynx]

Rafi, you've missed the point.

The land was occupied after the 6 day war, occupation refers to who controls the day to day running of the territory involved, not who owns the individual parcels of land.

By and large the inhabitants stayed on their land. They may have got out of the way for a short time while the fighting took place, but for the most part they returned to their farms and smallholdings.

The trouble is some of them returned to find an Israeli squatter living in their home. Other's were forcibly evicted in the manner I indicated. That's not a result of war, it is pure simple theft, there isn't any other way to describe it, and it had the backing of the Israeli courts, army and (possibly by neglect) the Israeli parliament. Theft of a parcel of land is a completely different concept from occupation of a territory.

That's why all the illegal settlements in the occupied zones should be removed.

SnnY, I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Given that these illegal settlements were established with the blessing of the Israeli legal machinery, it is up to them to compensate any evicted settlers, if indeed you feel that there should be any compensation for the perpetrators of theft.

[Rat Faced]

Rafi, you've missed the point.

The land was occupied after the 6 day war, occupation refers to who controls the day to day running of the territory involved, not who owns the individual parcels of land.

By and large the inhabitants stayed on their land. They may have got out of the way for a short time while the fighting took place, but for the most part they returned to their farms and smallholdings.

The trouble is some of them returned to find an Israeli squatter living in their home. Other's were forcibly evicted in the manner I indicated. That's not a result of war, it is pure simple theft, there isn't any other way to describe it, and it had the backing of the Israeli courts, army and (possibly by neglect) the Israeli parliament. Theft of a parcel of land is a completely different concept from occupation of a territory.

That's why all the illegal settlements in the occupied zones should be removed.

SnnY, I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Given that these illegal settlements were established with the blessing of the Israeli legal machinery, it is up to them to compensate any evicted settlers, if indeed you feel that there should be any compensation for the perpetrators of theft.

:01: :01:

Said much more diplomatically than me.. :blushing:

[lynx]

Rafi, you've missed the point.

The land was occupied after the 6 day war, occupation refers to who controls the day to day running of the territory involved, not who owns the individual parcels of land.

By and large the inhabitants stayed on their land. They may have got out of the way for a short time while the fighting took place, but for the most part they returned to their farms and smallholdings.

The trouble is some of them returned to find an Israeli squatter living in their home. Other's were forcibly evicted in the manner I indicated. That's not a result of war, it is pure simple theft, there isn't any other way to describe it, and it had the backing of the Israeli courts, army and (possibly by neglect) the Israeli parliament. Theft of a parcel of land is a completely different concept from occupation of a territory.

That's why all the illegal settlements in the occupied zones should be removed.

SnnY, I disagree with your assessment of the situation. Given that these illegal settlements were established with the blessing of the Israeli legal machinery, it is up to them to compensate any evicted settlers, if indeed you feel that there should be any compensation for the perpetrators of theft.

:01: :01:

Said much more diplomatically than me.. :blushing:
It makes a change for the boot to be on the other foot. :snooty:

[Snee]

Oh, come on, it's not that simple.

By saying that you totally ignore the fact that a population is made up by individuals, or that this particular one lives in a state that hasn't recognized the decisions made by the UN.

The nation is guilty of breaking the law, sure enough, but the individuals have followed the local laws, they can't be held accountable for decisions made by a governement that is no longer in office.

You cannot force people who have done no wrong to give up what they own, because their nation hasn't followed the rules (the particulars of which they never agreed on) in the past.

And, speaking of international law, I have to say that our local laws matter far more to me. I'd follow our own laws before any international laws, when in this country.



@lynx: it may have been stolen, but that doesn't mean that it's fair to take it away again if the current owners took no part in the original theft.

For all I know a lot of people probably have no clue that their land was taken illegally, as all of it wasn't aqcuired in the same way.

[Rat Faced]

Local Laws are, in theory, subject to International Law.

Just as By-Laws are subject to National Law.



This is why "International Law" restricts itself to "international" issues, giving rise to POWs getting better treatment than the locals in some instances.

The Territories were "Occupied", therefore it was and is Israels responsibility to look after them in accordance to International Law.

They have not even attempted to annex them; as they did the Golan Hights, which far from Syria not wanting back, Israel are continually in negotiaitions about.

Again, Israel blatently broke International Law to ANNEX the Golan Hights.. despite the fact they were occupied by 3/4million Syrians prior to their occupation. ie: Stole the land.

[lynx]

Look at it this way.

Less than one percent of the land now held by Israeli settlers in the occupied territories was held by them before 1967.

Almost none of the land was purchased from its legitimate owners. Any subsequent purchasers knew that, so they should be almost certain they were buying stolen land. That being the case they have only themselves to blame. Those who bought legally purchased land will be safe from eviction.

As for what you describe as inheritors, you can't inherit something that isn't owned by the legator.

And finally, they did not follow local law, they subverted it.

Kick them out now, the longer this goes on the more of your subsequent "purchasers/inheritors" there will be.

[Snee]

@rat: But the thing is, that normally when a nation is subject to international law, it recognizes its authority, and the international is integrated into local laws accordingly, in this case however, past israeli governments (and notice that "past" means that the current inhabitants of the land might not have had a say in the composition of the same governments on account of not having been around to vote) chose to ignore those laws and thus allowed the land to be treated as israeli land, regular property.

It is not the individual's task to find out what international laws apply, or to follow them on his or her own, that is for the nation to do.

They have all gotten a raw deal, innocent settlers and palestinians, but it can't be solved by robbing one side or the other, no matter the historic background.

@lynx: but how, if you didn't take it yourself, will you know what land was bought, what land was stolen, and what land was unoccupied to begin with.

The original settler would probably not use that as a sales-argument, and nor would your parents tell you they didn't acquire it legally, maybe it was stolen, maybe it wasn't, you wouldn't know it till they took it away.

[Rat Faced]

The settlers are the Religious Right... ask Tralalala.

They knew it was not Israeli land, and went in anyway, because they want "Greater Israel".

They wanted to make it impossible to give the land back to the Palestinians.

They knew what they were doing was illegal and immoral and did it anyway.

I have no sympathy for them.

[Snee]

The settlers are the Religious Right... ask Tralalala.

They knew it was not Israeli land, and went in anyway, because they want "Greater Israel".

They wanted to make it impossible to give the land back to the Palestinians.

They knew what they were doing was illegal and immoral and did it anyway.

I have no sympathy for them.
Nor have I, for the original settlers, if they stole the land.

But how many of them are left now? And how many people who had nothing to do with the theft live there now?

Can you be certain all the settlers are members of the religious right, and even if they are deeply religious, do they deserve to be punished for that, if they didn't steal anything?

[tralalala]

I'm too bloody tired, its 23:04...

But anyways....

@Lynx (previouse page) - what do you mean by "some of them reutrned.."? From where? To what??

You say Israel disobeyed it's responsibilities. Which ones? The Arabs were the ones to start each and every one of the wars Israel has fought since 1947. Israel cannot be held responsible for beatin the sh*t out of them and thus conquering land that originally wasn't thiers...

What if the US started a war tomorrow with Mexico that Mexico intiated, and as a result the US took over a quarter of Mexico, then what?





That's it for tonight.. :lol:
If anything makes sense, then I ROCK!! :lol: :lol: If not, then just don't take any notice..... :Lol: :)

[Rat Faced]

Snny...

The Occupation happened in 1967.

Most of the "settlers" arrived long after that.

They went there for a specific purpose and knew the land didnt belong to Israel in any legal terms. They went anyway.

"Settlers" is being used one way here too.

There are Arab "settlers" of Jewish land not in Israel, when Jews evacuated the surrounding land in 1948 and in 1967 to avoid the fighting.

I have the same argument to them.. tough, its not yours.

There are also Jewish Palestinians. Jews have been in Palestine a long time, and are recognised by the Palestinian Authority as being Palestinian if there prior to 1948.

@ Tralalala


The Arabs were the ones to start each and every one of the wars Israel has fought since 1947.

Crap.

Israel still bombs and threatens to bomb the smaller Arab nations surrounding it on a regular basis.

They also started the 1967 6 day war.

The argument that Arab nations were gathering Military Vehicles on the border doesnt wash, you attacked them.

That argument gives Arab Nations the excuse to attack you now, as Israeli forces are currently massed on the Border of the Gaza Strip.. If they do, then they will have attacked you.

[Snee]

Snny...

The Occupation happened in 1967.

Most of the "settlers" arrived long after that.

They went there for a specific purpose and knew the land didnt belong to Israel in any legal terms. They went anyway.

"Settlers" is being used one way here too.

There are Arab "settlers" of Jewish land not in Israel, when Jews evacuated the surrounding land in 1948 and in 1967 to avoid the fighting.

I have the same argument to them.. tough, its not yours.

There are also Jewish Palestinians. Jews have been in Palestine a long time, and are recognised by the Palestinian Authority as being Palestinian if there prior to 1948.

Do you have any statistics for when most of the settlements occured? :unsure:

It was my understanding that Israel's borders were expanded in a big way increasingly in the years after 1967 and that the outward growth has kept a much slower (but steady) pace in more recent years. I could be wrong though.

And, if I'm wrong about that, I'm wrong about how many people are innocent and are not, I don't mind admitting to that as long as it's a fact and not one of those dodgy links as provided by a tosser.


And for the record, I'm all for evicting thieves if indeed that's what they are, and for compensating those who were stolen from. Innocents shouldn't have to suffer though.

[Busyman]

In Iraq, its because of an illegal war and the foreign policy of western nations that then get targeted too.
Wtf is an illegal war?

[bigboab]

If any of you have a spare day or so. this link, plus all the other links inside, will give you all the info you need. It also contains a timeline on the situation.:)

http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm

Unfortunately it does not give you the answers.:(

[Snee]

In Iraq, its because of an illegal war and the foreign policy of western nations that then get targeted too.
Wtf is an illegal war?
A war not approved by the UN, I suppose.

[Busyman]

Wtf is an illegal war?
A war not approved by the UN, I suppose.
Oh, papers drawn up and signed off on?

Bullshit.

[Rat Faced]

A war for specifically for regime change is illegal under International Law.

Now that all arguments they use to justify it have broken down, there have been leaks on both sides of the Atlantic showing that this is what the whole thing was about in the first place.

Indeed, both Governments have been bragging about it for a couple of years now. :blink:

[bigboab]

Wtf is an illegal war?
A war not approved by the UN, I suppose.

I think its when one side is bigger and stronger than you.:(

What if you dont obey or belong to the UN?

[Rat Faced]

Snny...

The Occupation happened in 1967.

Most of the "settlers" arrived long after that.

They went there for a specific purpose and knew the land didnt belong to Israel in any legal terms. They went anyway.

"Settlers" is being used one way here too.

There are Arab "settlers" of Jewish land not in Israel, when Jews evacuated the surrounding land in 1948 and in 1967 to avoid the fighting.

I have the same argument to them.. tough, its not yours.

There are also Jewish Palestinians. Jews have been in Palestine a long time, and are recognised by the Palestinian Authority as being Palestinian if there prior to 1948.

Do you have any statistics for when most of the settlements occured? :unsure:

It was my understanding that Israel's borders were expanded in a big way increasingly in the years after 1967 and that the outward growth has kept a much slower (but steady) pace in more recent years. I could be wrong though.

And, if I'm wrong about that, I'm wrong about how many people are innocent and are not, I don't mind admitting to that as long as it's a fact and not one of those dodgy links as provided by a tosser.


And for the record, I'm all for evicting thieves if indeed that's what they are, and for compensating those who were stolen from. Innocents shouldn't have to suffer though.


Settlement didnt start in ernest until 1977 when the Likud Party gained power in Israel.

Ariel was built in the 1980's i think, and has been growing ever since.

In total, there are about 250,000 Jews living in the West Bank.. i would assume most of them are in Ariel so, basically most have went there within the last 25 years.

Number of settlers for specific years? you'd best look up the Israeli stats ;)

[Snee]

Ah, 'k, that's different then.

That would make a larger percentage of the settlers first-generation settlers for sure.

[Snee]

Found a site which appears to be very biased, but I think these numbers sound familiar:
Israel did not begin to build large numbers of settlements until after 1977. That is also when Egypt negotiated peace. Israel froze settlement building afterward in the hope that other Arab states would follow Egypt's example, none did.

Israel built more settlements in the 1980's and 1990's; nevertheless, King Hussein made peace with Israel, and settlements were not an issue.
source (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/5_settlements.html)

Don't read the rest of it as pure facts tho'.
1977, not 1967, and I had it wrong anyway.

This still leaves room for a lot of settlers to not having been involved in any theft, but, I'd say this looks worse than I thought.

[tralalala]

Snny...

The Occupation happened in 1967.

Most of the "settlers" arrived long after that.

They went there for a specific purpose and knew the land didnt belong to Israel in any legal terms. They went anyway.

"Settlers" is being used one way here too.

There are Arab "settlers" of Jewish land not in Israel, when Jews evacuated the surrounding land in 1948 and in 1967 to avoid the fighting.

I have the same argument to them.. tough, its not yours.

There are also Jewish Palestinians. Jews have been in Palestine a long time, and are recognised by the Palestinian Authority as being Palestinian if there prior to 1948.

@ Tralalala


The Arabs were the ones to start each and every one of the wars Israel has fought since 1947.

Crap.

Israel still bombs and threatens to bomb the smaller Arab nations surrounding it on a regular basis.

They also started the 1967 6 day war.

The argument that Arab nations were gathering Military Vehicles on the border doesnt wash, you attacked them.

That argument gives Arab Nations the excuse to attack you now, as Israeli forces are currently massed on the Border of the Gaza Strip.. If they do, then they will have attacked you.
Think you got some wrong stuff here mate:

Who does Israel threaten to bomb? Small Arab nations? Which ones??

Israel shot the first gun and the last in the 6 day war.
You say "we attacked first so we are to blame". Rat-Faced: They were gathering all their army forces (Egypt, Jordan and Syria as one) to attack Israel from three different places, and, literally drive us into the sea.






Try for one moment to think what would have happened if Israel did not attack first.......



Devastation, a second Holocaust.

No Jews left,



And most importantly - no tralalala/Rafi for FST!!!!!!!




About your second point saying the Arabs can attack us now - they have attacked since.... in 1973 the Yom Kippur war started, Israel screwed up, 2000 soldiers were killed. Israel however managed to stop the attack and managed to get the upper hand of the war (they did not lose any land of what they actually got on 67).
Since, there have also been 2 Intifadahs, one of which is still going on.

So, the Arabs, are getting what you call revenge, what I call a pathetic attempt to wash up their loss in previouse war.

You can call it whatever you want, either way, it's the same......

[tralalala]

There are, however, a number of settlements in the Gaza strip which have been there for over 30 years.

I read it in the paper - they are doing profiles of all settlements being "emptied out" :lol:

[bigboab]

I thought you came from Glasgow Rafi. Or your parent(s) came from there.

[tralalala]

My dad :)

I was born in London, and mym mum in Bournemouth :D


Where did that question come from though Bob? :blink:

[JPaul]

My dad :)

I was born in London, and my mum in Bournemouth :D


Not necessarily in that order.

[Snee]

My dad :)

I was born in London, and mym mum in Bournemouth :D


Where did that question come from though Bob? :blink:
Maybe he was thinking that neither you, nor your parents would have been in Israel to be shot/bombed/wtf'd in 1967, assuming they lived in England at the time? :unsure:

[Rat Faced]

Israel shot the first gun and the last in the 6 day war.

Exactly.

Im not saying whether it was right or wrong.

Im saying Israel started the fighting, which is at odds with what you'd previously posted.


Israel was threatening to bomb Iran just a couple of month ago.. didnt you hear?

They frequently bombed Lebanon, Syria and Jordan in the 80's and into the 90's.

[Snee]

Israel shot the first gun and the last in the 6 day war.

Exactly.

Im not saying whether it was right or wrong.

Im saying Israel started the fighting, which is at odds with what you'd previously posted.

I hear pre-emptive strikes are all the rage these days.

[bigboab]

My dad :)

I was born in London, and mym mum in Bournemouth :D


Where did that question come from though Bob? :blink:

I just thought that most of your relations came from Glasgow. And assumed, wrongly, that you did too.:)

[Busyman]

A war for specifically for regime change is illegal under International Law.

Now that all arguments they use to justify it have broken down, there have been leaks on both sides of the Atlantic showing that this is what the whole thing was about in the first place.

Indeed, both Governments have been bragging about it for a couple of years now. :blink:
What was the war about?

[GepperRankins]

A war for specifically for regime change is illegal under International Law.

Now that all arguments they use to justify it have broken down, there have been leaks on both sides of the Atlantic showing that this is what the whole thing was about in the first place.

Indeed, both Governments have been bragging about it for a couple of years now. :blink:
What was the war about?
oil. don't even try and argue because i'll come to your house and give you a wedgie. don't even try any shit about guns either, i'm more ghetto than any of those lying rappers you fantasize about.

ya dig? good

[JPaul]

If it was about oil, why did they stop when Iraq invaded Kuwait - to steal their oil.

[bigboab]

If it was about oil, why did they stop when Iraq invaded Kuwait - to steal their oil.

IMO I think it is to control the 'buffer' situation between Israel and the hard line Islamic states. In particular Iran.

[Snee]

Btw, since I do believe that we've established by now, that Israel, and what is a minority of the Israeli population in particular (a percentage of the settlers) are in breach of international law, how about the Palestinians?

I mentioned this before:

...palestinian terrorism, or freedom fighting if we'll go by your definition, is equally contradictory to the UN's wishes, and seeing as how PLO was/is a big player in Palestine's government and was responsible for terror attacks in the past and most likely condones and possibly has a stake in the occasional attack today, and presumably has a considerable backing from the people, the powers that be in both countries have issues with following the UN's recommendations.


If I may say so, for the sake of fairness, Israel may not be the best country in the world, but in my thinking, neither is the Palestinian nation.


EDit: It may be that PLO no longer condones terrorism, but they used to, some of the current members included.

[Busyman]

If it was about oil, why did they stop when Iraq invaded Kuwait - to steal their oil.

IMO I think it is to control the 'buffer' situation between Israel and the hard line Islamic states. In particular Iran.
Oh no. Haven't you heard? Once everything is finished (and even now), our oil prices will plummet.

Hell since Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and we intervened, we've had a steady decline in gasoline prices.....silly.

[bigboab]

IMO I think it is to control the 'buffer' situation between Israel and the hard line Islamic states. In particular Iran.
Oh no. Haven't you heard? Once everything is finished (and even now), our oil prices will plummet.

Hell since Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and we intervened, we've had a steady decline in gasoline prices.....silly.

I was thinking about the longer term implications of the various nations in that area. Not the short term rise and fall of fuel prices for automobile owners.:(

As you say. Silly me.:lol:

[RioDeLeo]

An admirable job of misrepresentation there Lynx, you are to be commended. On the contrary, I was clarifying exactly what you yourself had said. If there is any misrepresentation you have uttered it yourself.

You may be surprised to find that I strongly disagree with the tripe that tralalala is putting forward. Unfortunately your method of argument is equally odious, it brings no merit to you or your point of view, and as such it damages the whole argument of those who see the events in the occupied territories as atrocities.

Do we really need this shit in here Lynx? You took my words, of which l was speaking generally, and twisted them to infer that l was talking about my modis operandi, and you did it deliberately. One would have expected more from the staff. Thankfully others can read my words without your interpretations. :angry:

@SnnY: You accused me of not answering points, then bring things up that you have flogged to death, and which l have answered many times. Your analogy about America\Australia et al has nothing to do with the present situation, there was no international law then, so there can be no illegal occupation.


I have absolutely no idea.
Yes, you have demonstrated that many times.

[manker]

IMO I think it is to control the 'buffer' situation between Israel and the hard line Islamic states. In particular Iran.
Oh no. Haven't you heard? Once everything is finished (and even now), our oil prices will plummet.

Hell since Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and we intervened, we've had a steady decline in gasoline prices.....silly.Sarcasm doesn't really suit you.

Now if that's your argument, that the war couldn't have been about oil because you're paying more to fill your petrol tank. It's pretty shallow.

Do I need to point out why?

Now, I'm not saying that the war was purely for oil but it's undeniably a huge factor in the US' foreign policy. To deny this is particularly short sighted.

[Snee]

On the contrary, I was clarifying exactly what you yourself had said. If there is any misrepresentation you have uttered it yourself.

You may be surprised to find that I strongly disagree with the tripe that tralalala is putting forward. Unfortunately your method of argument is equally odious, it brings no merit to you or your point of view, and as such it damages the whole argument of those who see the events in the occupied territories as atrocities.

Do we really need this shit in here Lynx? You took my words, of which l was speaking generally, and twisted them to infer that l was talking about my modis operandi, and you did it deliberately. One would have expected more from the staff. Thankfully others can read my words without your interpretations. :angry:

@SnnY: You accused me of not answering points, then bring things up that you have flogged to death, and which l have answered many times. Your analogy about America\Australia et al has nothing to do with the present situation, there was no international law then, so there can be no illegal occupation.


I have absolutely no idea.
Yes, you have demonstrated that many times.
Sure, you've answered it :rolleyes:

You haven't backed up your claims about that zionist crap one iota, for one thing.
And you've failed to answer the rest of it too, lynx and rat had to do that.

And, for the settlers that didn't steal anything from anyone, the analogy is definitely valid :dry: International law is only your law, if your state recognizes it, ffs.

EDit: and finally WRT the last quote, given who's got power in Palestine and what they've done in breach of all kinds of laws, why should Israel be expected to be any better wrt international laws?

[Busyman]

Oh no. Haven't you heard? Once everything is finished (and even now), our oil prices will plummet.

Hell since Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and we intervened, we've had a steady decline in gasoline prices.....silly.Sarcasm doesn't really suit you.

Now if that's your argument, that the war couldn't have been about oil because you're paying more to fill your petrol tank. It's pretty shallow.

Do I need to point out why?

Now, I'm not saying that the war was purely for oil but it's undeniably a huge factor in the US' foreign policy. To deny this is particularly short sighted.
Riiiight...and it has translated lower gas prices.

We have better relations with Kuwait ffs.

The water is only up to my ankles.

[Rat Faced]

Oil companies profits are up, if thats what you mean.

Didnt think it was for the consumers benefit, did you?

[manker]

Sarcasm doesn't really suit you.

Now if that's your argument, that the war couldn't have been about oil because you're paying more to fill your petrol tank. It's pretty shallow.

Do I need to point out why?

Now, I'm not saying that the war was purely for oil but it's undeniably a huge factor in the US' foreign policy. To deny this is particularly short sighted.
Riiiight...and it has translated lower gas prices.

We have better relations with Kuwait ffs.Better relations with Kuwait ... but better with other oil producing regions? Nope.

It's not about the the cost of petrol to citizens, your government doesn't care about that. It's about control.
The water is only up to my ankles.That's just babbling.

[Busyman]

Oil companies profits are up, if thats what you mean.

Didnt think it was for the consumers benefit, did you?
Their profits were there before. Oil costs more period.

As far as consumer benefit, I'm full aware of Bushcronyism.

[RioDeLeo]

You haven't backed up your claims about that zionist crap one iota, for one thing.

What Zionist crap? If you have a particular point to raise, do so, generalising shows a lack of honesty.

And you've failed to answer the rest of it too, lynx and rat had to do that.

l have answered it, you just refuse to accept it.

And, for the settlers that didn't steal anything from anyone, the analogy is definitely valid :dry: International law is only your law, if your state recognizes it, ffs.

As Israel were members of the UN from 1949, isn't it fair to assume that they recognised it?

EDit: and finally WRT the last quote, given who's got power in Palestine and what they've done in breach of all kinds of laws, why should Israel be expected to be any better wrt international laws?

Again, you generalise, what point are you arguing?

[Snee]

You haven't backed up your claims about that zionist crap one iota, for one thing.

What Zionist crap? If you have a particular point to raise, do so, generalising shows a lack of honesty.
All right, you posted this: http://cactus48.com/truth.html
According this link the zionist movement were out to steal the arabs' land from the get-go, and you continued by saying that Israel was a zionist state, not a jewish state.

I called you on the credibility of the same link (I used sarcasm so you might not have understood it), as I've further critized the bulk of your links in this thread.

Is there anyone, apart from these radicals you seem so fond of, that distinguishes between judaeism and zionism and makes the same claims of the zionists, who are apparently running the place (given that it is, according to you, a zionist state) planning to do what you say?

In short, is there any actual proof, or is it all like that?



And you've failed to answer the rest of it too, lynx and rat had to do that.

l have answered it, you just refuse to accept it.
Right, so you justified claiming that all settlers are thieves, and you explained why you think they don't deserve keeping their land even if they've done nothing wrong, and you explained what you have against israelis in general.

oic




And, for the settlers that didn't steal anything from anyone, the analogy is definitely valid :dry: International law is only your law, if your state recognizes it, ffs.

As Israel were members of the UN from 1949, isn't it fair to assume that they recognised it?
They obviously didn't, given that many of the current settlers own their land according to Israeli law.



EDit: and finally WRT the last quote, given who's got power in Palestine and what they've done in breach of all kinds of laws, why should Israel be expected to be any better wrt international laws?

Again, you generalise, what point are you arguing?

I generalize?

There's a good argument :rolleyes:


You expect the Israel and israelis to follow international law, and you demonize them, but their enemies, whose rights you are happy defending are represented, and in part governed by choice, by a former terrorist organization.

You don't see a problem with that?

If international law can recognize the authority of these people, given their past sins, why should Israel pay for theirs?



You seem well happy bashing the Israelis. But in this conflict bashing either side is easy enough, but what about defending the opposition instead?

What makes the PLO any better, or more deserving to be protected by international laws than israel?

[RioDeLeo]

Boy, this is getting tedious!






What Zionist crap? If you have a particular point to raise, do so, generalising shows a lack of honesty.
All right, you posted this: http://cactus48.com/truth.html
According this link the zionist movement were out to steal the arabs' land from the get-go, and you continued by saying that Israel was a zionist state, not a jewish state.

I called you on the credibility of the same link (I used sarcasm so you might not have understood it), as I've further critized the bulk of your links in this thread.

Is there anyone, apart from these radicals you seem so fond of, that distinguishes between judaeism and zionism and makes the same claims of the zionists, who are apparently running the place (given that it is, according to you, a zionist state) planning to do what you say?

In short, is there any actual proof, or is it all like that?

What the fuck are you babbling on about? Have YOU done any research? Can YOU state something different? All you do is argue with no other input.



And you've failed to answer the rest of it too, lynx and rat had to do that.

l have answered it, you just refuse to accept it.
Right, so you justified claiming that all settlers are thieves, and you explained why you think they don't deserve keeping their land even if they've done nothing wrong, and you explained what you have against israelis in general.

Yes, and what was l supposed to do? l gave my opinion, you gave yours, (which you later claimed you were probably wrong!), what's your problem?




And, for the settlers that didn't steal anything from anyone, the analogy is definitely valid :dry: International law is only your law, if your state recognizes it, ffs.

As Israel were members of the UN from 1949, isn't it fair to assume that they recognised it?
They obviously didn't, given that many of the current settlers own their land according to Israeli law.

So they were members of the UN but didn't recognise it ... is that your opinion?



EDit: and finally WRT the last quote, given who's got power in Palestine and what they've done in breach of all kinds of laws, why should Israel be expected to be any better wrt international laws?

Again, you generalise, what point are you arguing?

I generalize?

There's a good argument :rolleyes:


You expect the Israel and israelis to follow international law, and you demonize them, but their enemies, whose rights you are happy defending are represented, and in part governed by choice, by a former terrorist organization.

Both sides have links to terrorism, not just the Palestinians, look at some of the members, past and present, of the Israeli government.

You don't see a problem with that?

If international law can recognize the authority of these people, given their past sins, why should Israel pay for theirs?

Ask the UN.

You seem well happy bashing the Israelis. But in this conflict bashing either side is easy enough, but what about defending the opposition instead?

WTF?

What makes the PLO any better, or more deserving to be protected by international laws than israel?

Who said they were? When you run out of ideas, bring other matters up as if l have defended them, very cute. l don't defend things l haven't claimed.

[JPaul]

I have absolutely no idea.
Yes, you have demonstrated that many times.
:lol:

That's two, are you going for the hat-trick.

[Snee]

What the fuck are you babbling on about? Have YOU done any research? Can YOU state something different? All you do is argue with no other input.

Oh excuse me, do you think I'd have asked you that if I hadn't done some research?
the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of this zionist idiocy of yours.

Feck, it's nigh on impossible for it to be true, as you yourself later stated that the Israeli government had only a smaller percentage of religious party members.

The settler agenda, and the settlers are right wing religious, as rat later stated. Some of them are the ones actively perpetuating what even remotely sounds like this zionist agenda of your description with any enthusiasm, today

If anyone subscribes to that zionist business at all the way you put it, that would be them.
Yet I can find no official statements saying that they are just zionist, not jewish (or that they subscribe to zionism as anything apart from religion), and that the agenda, the way you describe it exists. They do want a homeland, but that doesn't mean that Israel is out to rob the arabs of their land, or that an element that desires this runs the government. By all accounts the settlers, a minority, are just a small part of the Israeli population.

One Israeli link link I found even said that the goals of zionism had been attained with the founding of Israel, which, I don't think I have to remind you happened before 1967.

And I quite liked this:

So*called "non*Zionist" Jews are pleased that Israel exists from a practical standpoint-as a haven for oppressed Jews and as a land imbued with holiness well*suited for Torah study. But they don't generally assign religious significance to the formation of the modern state, and often decry aspects of its secular culture.
source (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/Anti-Zionism.html)

You don't have to be a zionist to be israeli.

There is no truth or real research behind what you posted, and having said that, I seriously doubt the rest of your argument was built on any solid research.



Yes, and what was l supposed to do? l gave my opinion, you gave yours, (which you later claimed you were probably wrong!), what's your problem?


Oh no, I never claimed I'd changed my mind about the fact that every settler isn't a thief or that they don't deserve to be treated with the same respect as any palestinian.

You never recognized any of that, though, and I suppose you aren't going to. This of course ties in beautifully with the fact that you are anti-israeli as rat' says, not pro-justice, or pro-palestinian.


So they were members of the UN but didn't recognise it ... is that your opinion?
Well, for someone who complains about people twisting words, you sure are doing a remarkable job of trying the same.

I'm saying that the Israeli government made it legal for settlers to own land in defiance to UN resolutions, which aren't synonymous with laws, btw.


A United Nations resolution (or UN resolution) is a decision of a United Nations (UN) bodies. Any UN body can issue resolutions. However, in practice, most resolutions are issued by the Security Council or the General Assembly.

The legal status of UN resolutions has often been a matter of intense debate:

Most experts appear to consider most General Assembly resolutions to be non-binding (Articles 10 and 14 of the UN Charter refer to General Assembly "recommendations"),
However, the status of Security Council resolutions is more ambiguous. In particular, it is not clear if all Security Council resolutions are binding are only those adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter ("Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression"). Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are obligated to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter" but it is unclear what kinds of resolutions are covered by the term "decisions".
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Un_resolutions)

Now, under that one charter they would be bound (but it still isn't law, international or otherwise) obviously, unless you chose to treat it as another recommendation, in defiance with the UN charter today, not necessarily in, say 1979.

It would appear that former Israeli government chose to not recognize the absolute authority of any resolutions made by the UN. Israel, in those days, couldn't have as it is legal for israeli individuals to own land on occupied territory.

Obviously, in your world, individuals don't matter, not if they are israeli anyway, so you have answered my question on whether it's fair to them, by saying that they don't have any rights. Or that they are all thieves anyway, and thus, again, have no rights.

I suppose that's the best answer I'll be getting out of you, regarding whether it's fair to them.

My bad.

Both sides have links to terrorism, not just the Palestinians, look at some of the members, past and present, of the Israeli government.
Yes, both sides have a history of crime then (the israelis may or may not have terrorist ties, but at least they didn't elect a terrorist organization), but shouldn't they both, then pay for what they've done.

Israelis lose their homes, and Israel compensates Palestine for lost water, what are PLO doing to pay for what they've done?

(Other than agreeing to not blow any more people up, of course.)

Both sides have been wronged, but in the world according to you, one side seems so much less worthy of lenience or redemption.


Ask the UN.
That means you aren't answering my question, doesn't it?

The UN, who has allowed the opposition to elect outspoken terrorists as their leaders, are forcing Israel to put their land in the hands of the oppostion. Somehow, something seems to be missing here.

Also, while we are at it, since we don't care about individuals now, who is Israel going to give back their land to?

One would presume, as we are looking at the big picture here, that Israel should, going by the resolution of 1979, give back the land to the countries they took it from, and as it is, the state of Palestine didn't exist at the time, which would force Israel to give it back to Jordan, or something. That's what the resolution says, isn't it?


WTF?...Who said they were? When you run out of ideas, bring other matters up as if l have defended them, very cute. l don't defend things l haven't claimed.
Oh come on, you can't even manage some small measure of a reason as to why PLO is worthy of the redemption it has been given, why should Israel recognize its authority, or be forced to pay heed to their rights, when the israeli people, as criminals according to you, have no rights to retain their property, stolen or not.


Like I said, you don't care about Palestine or fairness, you just don't like Israel.

[tralalala]

Israel shot the first gun and the last in the 6 day war.

Exactly.

Im not saying whether it was right or wrong.

Im saying Israel started the fighting, which is at odds with what you'd previously posted.
Israel had started the fighting ot of no other choice..

Israel was threatening to bomb Iran just a couple of month ago.. didnt you hear?
No actually, that I didn't hear. What I did hear and do hear pretty often is that Iran are testing thier "Shihab 3" rockets, and warn that if Israel does anything, they would be willing to attack with WMD stuff.....
They frequently bombed Lebanon, Syria and Jordan in the 80's and into the 90's.
That was always mutual. The Lebanese side, which were actually Hizballah from Syria had been attacking us for ages, even nowadays. They were the ones who kidnapped Ron Arad, they were the ones that kidnapped most of the Israeli armymen who are missing. And how could Israel have attacked Jordan in the 90's if there was a peace teaty signed in 1994..? :blink:

So, I have made the point that Israel does not attack anyone without a very good reason, otherwise there would have been peace and quiet here for a long time, and from a long time ago..

[RioDeLeo]

Yes, you have demonstrated that many times.
:lol:

That's two, are you going for the hat-trick.

Keep trolling and l'll keep posting it, it's your call.

[manker]

:lol:

That's two, are you going for the hat-trick.

Keep trolling and l'll keep posting it, it's your call.You could try being witty, rather than repetitive, in response to this perceived 'trolling'.

That would be novel.

[RioDeLeo]

...

Boy, that was the biggest load of crap you've posted yet, and l'll not legitimize it by answering. You make things up, twist words, lie, and post the first links you come across.

You wanna know about Zionism? Read their own words >> Homeward Bound (http://www.arab2.com/biography/conflict/zionist-congresses-d.htm) <<

[RioDeLeo]

Keep trolling and l'll keep posting it, it's your call.You could try being witty, rather than repetitive, in response to this perceived 'trolling'.

That would be novel.

l'll give it a try, do you really think it will work?

[manker]

...

Boy, that was the biggest load of crap you've posted yet, and l'll not legitimize it by answering. You make things up, twist words, lie, and post the first links you come across.

You wanna know about Zionism? Read their own words >> Homeward Bound (http://www.arab2.com/biography/conflict/zionist-congresses-d.htm) <<How disappointing.

Predictable, but disappointing.

Well done, SnnY.

[manker]

You could try being witty, rather than repetitive, in response to this perceived 'trolling'.

That would be novel.

l'll give it a try, do you really think it will work?No.

Take away the insults and you're actually quite dull.

[JPaul]

:lol:

That's two, are you going for the hat-trick.

Keep trolling and l'll keep posting it, it's your call.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Brilliant, the old deflection. You call people stupid, arses etc. You flame away and then you say someone else is trolling.

How many times must you be told. It's all there for people to read. They don't just take your word for it.

[tralalala]

@Rio:
Where else a better place to get info about Zionism and the Jews than an Arab website?? :lol: You surprise me time after time, over and over...

The guys are right - your insults and flaming are getting a bit too repetitive, and you post them too often..... Please stop.



:lol:

[JPaul]

I'm quite sure

Yaseen Hayajneh
2224 13th street
Coralville, IA 52241
US

or

Yaseen Hayajneh
Dier Alsaneh
Irbid, Jordan 99999
JO

has no particular axe to grind.

[Snee]

...

Boy, that was the biggest load of crap you've posted yet, and l'll not legitimize it by answering. You make things up, twist words, lie, and post the first links you come across.

You wanna know about Zionism? Read their own words >> Homeward Bound (http://www.arab2.com/biography/conflict/zionist-congresses-d.htm) <<
"www. arab2.com..."?

Their own words?

Not even sure what relevance what the page you linked to has to say about israelis, or even zionist agendas today.

Or whether Israel is a zionist state of the kind you describe, or if a majority of all israelis are zionists. Or...well you get the picture.


You make things up, twist words, lie, and post the first links you come across.


That sounds about right, about you.

Can't counter it? -> Ignore it all.


Hopeless, just hopeless.

Odious indeed.

[tralalala]

:lol: Well PWNED SnnY :lol: :lol:

[RioDeLeo]

@Rio:
Where else a better place to get info about Zionism and the Jews than an Arab website?? :lol: You surprise me time after time, over and over...

The guys are right - your insults and flaming are getting a bit too repetitive, and you post them too often..... Please stop.



:lol:

Sponsored by the Joint Program for Jewish Education of the State of Israel,
the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Zionist Organization.

[RioDeLeo]

Keep trolling and l'll keep posting it, it's your call.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Brilliant, the old deflection. You call people stupid, arses etc. You flame away and then you say someone else is trolling.

How many times must you be told. It's all there for people to read. They don't just take your word for it.

You're the troll here, you've contributed nothing to this thread except put-downs, it seems to be all you're good for.

[RioDeLeo]

That sounds about right, about you.

Can't counter it? -> Ignore it all.


Hopeless, just hopeless.

Odious indeed.

Counter what? Your babble? You have no interest in this thread beyond having a go at me, and you're doing a poor job at that.

[RioDeLeo]

Take away the insults and you're actually quite dull.

Well you should know.

[RioDeLeo]

Not even sure what relevance what the page you linked to has to say about israelis, or even zionist agendas today.

Of course you don't, because it wouldn't occur to someone like you to actually read the article or follow the links, you just look for an argument to back up your crap.

[JPaul]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Brilliant, the old deflection. You call people stupid, arses etc. You flame away and then you say someone else is trolling.

How many times must you be told. It's all there for people to read. They don't just take your word for it.

You're the troll here, you've contributed nothing to this thread except put-downs, it seems to be all you're good for.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

What did I tell you right from the start, Rafi.

A troll, nothing else, just a one trick pony.

Sorry, two things a troll, a one trick pony and a waste of time.

Three things ....

[JPaul]

Take away the insults and you're actually quite dull.

Well you should know.
And manker crawls away, licking his wounds after the venemous put down. You'll get detention if you're caught using that kind of stinging jibe again, me laddo.

[Snee]

That sounds about right, about you.

Can't counter it? -> Ignore it all.


Hopeless, just hopeless.

Odious indeed.

Counter what? Your babble? You have no interest in this thread beyond having a go at me, and you're doing a poor job at that.
I think you'll find that I haven't just replied to you, in fact, I do believe my first post in this thread was a comment on something tralala said, and my second was a response to rat. And I've also discussed matters with rat and lynx since.

But yes, I might not be posting here now if it wasn't for you.

Had you not, without being right, tried to call me on my response to rat, I might not have bothered staying on.

Glad that I did though, 'cos that way you couldn't get away with your nonsense and bigotry. You couldn't even handle being critical, which is easy in this conflict, without resorting to predjudice, lies and insults.

I'm neutral in this matter, btw, I could just as easily have argued for the palestinians, in fact I think I could have done it much better and without resorting to fantasies like you, but I didn't, because they had plenty of support, before you got here. If anything you removed some of that from this thread.


Of course you don't, because it wouldn't occur to someone like you to actually read the article or follow the links, you just look for an argument to back up your crap.
As it happens, I did have a bit of a look, even though the person who put it up doesn't sound that reliable.

But I still found nothing to back up your claims.

Even though the timeline goes all the way to 1921, too.

[Busyman]

Reading through this thread l get a distinct odour of anti-Islam\pro-Israel bias.

Good on you RioDeLeo for maintaining a sense of decorum. :ermm:

[sArA]

Good morning BM....sharpening your tools already? :lol:

[Busyman]

Good morning BM....sharpening your tools already? :lol:
For teh stabbin'. :shifty: