I would like to argue something pretty important to me.

[tralalala]

Hi everyone, how you all doing? :)


I would like to make a discussion out of this: People worried about traveling to Israel.


As you all know, Israel has been under attack from the Palestinians for nearly 4 years now. This has cause major events not to take place in Israel (Maccabi Haifa had to play their Champions League clashes in Cyprus.. and that's only 1 example out of many).

Now, following the terrorist attack on London, my home city, I would like to ask ya'll: Why are you worried to come to Israel?
What's so different here than anywhere else in the world? 9/11, Baali bombings, Madrid, London...... nowhere is safe nowadays, so why not come and visit Israel?

The last suicide attack in Israel was over 6 months ago (which is a long time considering that during the first 6 months of the Intifadah there were around 2 attacks every week..).


I would like to argue the fact that sports organizations and culural organizations over the world are "affraid to come to Israel because of the ongoing war".


And I ask: Is it THAT much safer in New-York? London? Paris?
It's just a matter of time until the next one.

Israel, and this is a fact, has the safest airline in the world, the safest airport in the world, and generally is the safest place in the world considering the ammount of attacks that are attempted every year (hundreds are attempted, and the most you could get nowadays is 2 in the worst case, leaving 10-20 dead in the worst worst worst case).



So, do you now have any different feelings about the safety in Israel? I think it's sad that people brag about the safety of their country, when they don't even have 1 security guard at the entrance to the malls, a thing that could easily allow a mad terrorist to enter and blow up the place leaving tens dead and hundreds wounded... I think it's time the world woke up - using security guards can only help the country, and even the economy!!

Just think - more security guards = extra safety, AND LESS UNEMPLOYMENT.
Think about it - that's thousands of extra jobs for unemployed people who can get some cash in their hands and actually live a proper life.




What are your thoughts on this issue?


Rafi

[Tikibonbon]

I wouldn't be afraid to take a trip to Isreal, in fact, I once considered transfering with my job there. But common sense would tell me that there are some areas that I definitaly shouldn't go into. But that isn't anything Isreal specific. Same as if I took a vacation in Jamaica.

[tralalala]

Sure there are places in Israel you keep away from.

Just a couple of examples:

The Muslim Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem
Hebron
Anywhere too close to the Gaza strip and/or the West Bank
Anywhere too close to the Syrian/Lebanese border

There are plenty other places, but all of them together are only a minor percentage of Israel.... Israel is safe to visit and live in..!!!!!

[Busyman]

For many non-Jewish Americans, I'd imagine Israel ain't a blip on the Ihavtavisitthere radar.

Then add the fact of there being an ongoing war where a suicide bomber may walk into a cafe and reduce to rubble then there you have it.

Israel isn't known as a big tourist attraction besides Jerusalem.

[tralalala]

Maybe not, but please remember that the country that unfortunately suffered the biggest and most horrific attack ever was... the USA.

I visited the US on a Jewish delegation to Pittsburgh, and once again was amazed at the fact that there are NO guards at the entrances to simple places like cafe's and cheap shops.. even some malls.....
This fact could lead an Islamic nutjob who has US citizenship to create his own explosive device, and kill some 20 people tomorrow.

I'm shocked that after 4 major attacks on the world by Al-Quaeda all countries attacked have barely changed.
The US made adjustments to airports, but I think they overdid it - Israel's airport aint got half the devices that the US one has and is considered the safest airport in the world (and also has the biggest Duty Free :D).
London I bet you will carry on as if nothing happened to try prove to the terrorists that they are unbeatable. In another 2 years another attack will take place if Britain does not change it's security status.
The same regarding Madrid.


I hope I've made myself clear.



P.S: I never meant that people have to visit Israel... What I meant was that if people want to visit Israel and are scared, then they are completely out of order in my view, because as the world has seen - many other countries are extremely vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

[Tikibonbon]

That is what terrorists want to do, spread fear and disrupt life.

If these countries that have been attacked have to put guards at these locations, terrorist have won.

But if you visited Busy's part of the land, I am sure he can tell you of having security everywhere. Tho that isn't against terrorists. More due to certain demographics.

[JPaul]

I think I agree with busyman on this one, certainly with regard to the travelling yank. There just aren't that many of them (proportionatelly) who leave the ewe essay to go anywhere.

If they do it's more likely to be a whistle stop tour of Europe.

Israel doesn't really have that much to entertain your average travelling phillistine.

[tralalala]

Well, if you're looking for amusement parks and stuff like that then no.
Israel has many cultural places to visit, even for non-jews: Nazareth, the Jordan river, Jerusalem, Eilat, the deserrt and many more.


@Tikibonbon: Fine, lets not put up guards, say we won, and live in the fear that the next person coming in might just be the one who will blast the place down.. is that what you want?

As I said - more guards = more safety, less enemployment.


I don't see why people should object to this.

[manker]

Heavy handed techniques to combat terrorists don't work. Israel are the country which retaliate the hardest against terrorist strikes and they have the worst problem. An eye for an eye only precipitates the problem.

You say that nothing will change in London. Good. I hope we continue with the same freedom of movement and expression as we always have. Yes we will be vigilant but we cannot offer our citizens 100% security against this sort of thing. The people understand this.

I believe that we were targeted because of our affiliation with the US' aggressive foreign policy. I hope that our government takes heed of this and distances itself. Apart from increased vigilance by our police and other institutions - that is the only reaction I want to see.


As to visiting Israel; I would not. There are a few cities that I would like to visit because of their historical significance but until the trouble at those places ceases significantly then I will not put myself or my family at risk ... added to that, while on holiday I don't wish to be herded like cattle because of draconian security measures implemented because it's simply not safe to do otherwise.

Thanks anyway.

[Tikibonbon]

I think I agree with busyman on this one, certainly with regard to the travelling yank. There just aren't that many of them (proportionatelly) who leave the ewe essay to go anywhere.

If they do it's more likely to be a whistle stop tour of Europe.

Israel doesn't really have that much to entertain your average travelling phillistine.

hmm, I wonder how the 117 travel agencies in this town stay open then.....

Isreal is actually a major destination, we do have a few Jews after all. :)

JPaul, you seem to dismiss all the humanitarian groups that travel the world over on a continual basis. For example, my gf makes two trips to honduras annually.

[Barbarossa]

I visited the US on a Jewish delegation to Pittsburgh, and once again was amazed at the fact that there are NO guards at the entrances to simple places like cafe's and cheap shops.. even some malls.....
This fact could lead an Islamic nutjob who has US citizenship to create his own explosive device, and kill some 20 people tomorrow.


Why do you assume that the sort of nutjob who could do this would be Islamic? Before 9/11, the biggest terrorist attack on American soil was the Oklahoma City bomb, courtesy of one Timothy McVeigh (non-Islamic). After 9/11, there were the snipers in Washington, also non-Islamic, and then the Anthrax letters. Also, perpetrated by a non-Islamic.




London I bet you will carry on as if nothing happened to try prove to the terrorists that they are unbeatable. In another 2 years another attack will take place if Britain does not change it's security status.
The same regarding Madrid.


I would hate it if my freedom of movement and other civil liberties were curtailed because of the actions of terrorists. It's a credit to all the cities and countries involved to show the strength of character to stand firm against these atrocities, and go about business as usual.

Security has been stepped up a hundredfold since 9/11, and the threat level is constantly being reviewed, but if someone is that organised and that determined to blow something up, there is not alot else that can be done.

Excepting of course if we lived in a Police State. Thankfully, the number of people who are twisted enough to do this is a tiny tiny minority.




I hope I've made myself clear.


Unfortunately you have, and I feel a bit sorry for you now, you seem very frightened.




P.S: I never meant that people have to visit Israel... What I meant was that if people want to visit Israel and are scared, then they are completely out of order in my view, because as the world has seen - many other countries are extremely vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

The only part of Israel that would interest me is the Dead Sea, but I'd probably find it all a bit too hot for my liking, terrorists or not. ;)

[Tikibonbon]

As I said - more guards = more safety, less enemployment.


Bush is doing is best to turn us into a police state, let's not give him more opportunities. :lol:

[Busyman]

That is what terrorists want to do, spread fear and disrupt life.

If these countries that have been attacked have to put guards at these locations, terrorist have won.

But if you visited Busy's part of the land, I am sure he can tell you of having security everywhere. Tho that isn't against terrorists. More due to certain demographics.
Washington DC and Maryland?

No actually.

There are concierges/guards in multi-tenant buildings and the number increase in those folks are due to a terrorism threat. I know this specifically from going into Barry Farms projects and also going places like the Treasury building, FBI, Secret Service, and hell I even have to go back to Reuters News (I was there yesterday).

We have absolutely no increase in security due to demoGraphics...and what demographic would that be anyway? :huh:

Congress , The White House and AAFB being nearby? :huh:

[NikkiD]

Not having guards outside every mall and shop is something we're pretty proud of here, and I'd think our American neighbours are too. It means we're not living in fear. We have emergency responses set up if it happens, but we don't live in fear of when it's going to happen. I hope I'm never reduced to living in the kind of fear that drove me to want armed guards searching me every time I wanted to go shopping.

[Tikibonbon]

That is what terrorists want to do, spread fear and disrupt life.

If these countries that have been attacked have to put guards at these locations, terrorist have won.

But if you visited Busy's part of the land, I am sure he can tell you of having security everywhere. Tho that isn't against terrorists. More due to certain demographics.
Washington DC and Maryland?

No actually?

There are concierges/guards in multi-tenant buildings and the number increase in the folks are due to a terrorism threat.

We have absolutely no increase in security due to demobraphics...and what demographic what that be anyway? :huh:

Congress , The White House and AAFB being nearby? :huh:


Last time I was in DC, went to a Safeway, and what do I see? About 10 security guards.

I am rather sure they weren't there due to terrorists. :lol:

It was in a predominatly non-white we will call it area.

[Busyman]

Washington DC and Maryland?

No actually?

There are concierges/guards in multi-tenant buildings and the number increase in the folks are due to a terrorism threat.

We have absolutely no increase in security due to demobraphics...and what demographic what that be anyway? :huh:

Congress , The White House and AAFB being nearby? :huh:


Last time I was in DC, went to a Safeway, and what do I see? About 10 security guards.

I am rather sure they weren't there due to terrorists. :lol:

It was in a predominatly non-white we will call it area.
You are lying. There aren't 10 security guards at the front of any government building and I've been to every single Safeway in DC.

[Rat Faced]

I think I agree with busyman on this one, certainly with regard to the travelling yank. There just aren't that many of them (proportionatelly) who leave the ewe essay to go anywhere.

If they do it's more likely to be a whistle stop tour of Europe.

Israel doesn't really have that much to entertain your average travelling phillistine.

hmm, I wonder how the 117 travel agencies in this town stay open then.....

Isreal is actually a major destination, we do have a few Jews after all. :)

JPaul, you seem to dismiss all the humanitarian groups that travel the world over on a continual basis. For example, my gf makes two trips to honduras annually.

He did say proportionatly, he wasnt getting at you ;)

There are plenty of Americans that get around a bit, however per head of population its quite low.

This is probably because you have just about every climate/terraine etc within your own country somewhere, so why go through the hassel of getting a passport.

As to visiting Israel... the chances of being blown up by a bomb even when the terrorist threat was at its hight was very small. It wouldnt have noticably affected any plans i'd have.

I agree with those before me, if we let our lives change because of the terrorists, then they have won.

I dont wish to live in a police state, i'd rather take my chances with a Terrorist threat, thanks.

[JPaul]

I think I agree with busyman on this one, certainly with regard to the travelling yank. There just aren't that many of them (proportionatelly) who leave the ewe essay to go anywhere.

If they do it's more likely to be a whistle stop tour of Europe.

Israel doesn't really have that much to entertain your average travelling phillistine.

hmm, I wonder how the 117 travel agencies in this town stay open then.....

Isreal is actually a major destination, we do have a few Jews after all. :)

JPaul, you seem to dismiss all the humanitarian groups that travel the world over on a continual basis. For example, my gf makes two trips to honduras annually.


Sorry if I wasn't clear, as I said I was referring to the average travelling phillistine.

That is entirely different from people who travel for religious or humanitarian reason. People in those groups would be less interested in the security situation than tourists would be.

Given the talk of sporting events and touristy type stuff I thought that's what the thread was about. Rather than pilgrims or aid workers.

Sorry for any confusion. I must remember not to agree with busyman again, it leads to no good.

[Busyman]

hmm, I wonder how the 117 travel agencies in this town stay open then.....

Isreal is actually a major destination, we do have a few Jews after all. :)

JPaul, you seem to dismiss all the humanitarian groups that travel the world over on a continual basis. For example, my gf makes two trips to honduras annually.


Sorry if I wasn't clear, as I said I was referring to the average travelling phillistine.

That is entirely different from people who travel for religious or humanitarian reason. People in those groups would be less interested in the security situation than tourists would be.

Given the talk of sporting events and touristy type stuff I thought that's what the thread was about. Rather than pilgrims or aid workers.

Sorry for any confusion. I must remember not to agree with busyman again, it leads to no good.
Fuck were you thinkin'?

You like standin' in front of a dart board? :ermm:

(I could have sworn I saw "average travelling phillistine" like at the end of yaw pawst but maybe people missed it, schucks :pinch: )

[RPerry]

Last time I was in DC, went to a Safeway, and what do I see? About 10 security guards.

I am rather sure they weren't there due to terrorists. :lol:

It was in a predominatly non-white we will call it area.
You are lying. There aren't 10 security guards at the front of any government building and I've been to every single Safeway in DC.

well, there were 2 cops on duty at the Holiday Inn Express we stayed in Morningside last weekend ( you know the one across the street from the main gate of Andrews Air Force base Busyman )

[tralalala]

@Manker: what's better: 50% secure with freedome and all, or 80-90% secure with minor changes (simply opening your bag for the guard to check, and a 1 second scan with his/her hand held metal detector)?

I would vote for the second. I do not want to live indefinately, I want to live safe like I do today.

[manker]

We have more than ten security guards on duty at any time in most large department stores in Cardiff. Always have as far as I know, some are hidden away watching shoppers on little screens, but they're there.

What's all the fuss about :unsure:

[manker]

@Manker: what's better: 50% secure with freedome and all, or 80-90% secure with minor changes (simply opening your bag for the guard to check, and a 1 second scan with his/her hand held metal detector)?

I would vote for the second. I do not want to live indefinately, I want to live safe like I do today.All hand luggage is checked by metal detectors and x-ray machines when flying anywhere from Britain.

Whatcha talking about.

[Busyman]

You are lying. There aren't 10 security guards at the front of any government building and I've been to every single Safeway in DC.

well, there were 2 cops on duty at the Holiday Inn Express we stayed in Morningside last weekend ( you know the one across the street from the main gate of Andrews Air Force base Busyman )
Yup I sure do. That's a popular spot for AAFB visitors who don't stay on base and a nice fuck spot for folks that from a club called Classics a quarter mile down the street (Allentown Rd).

The reason for the cops, it's a busy intersection near AAFB. There are also fuck spots (pun intented) near other entrances to AAFB like the Comfort Inn and Econo Lodge that have no police presence at all.

[Busyman]

We have more than ten security guards on duty at any time in most large department stores in Cardiff. Always have as far as I know, some are hidden away watching shoppers on little screens, but they're there.

What's all the fuss about :unsure:
....but we don't have 10 security guards walking around grocery stores like Safeway. :dry:

[JPaul]

Everyone and every bag travelling on a plane in the UK goes thro either x-ray machines or metal detectors or both.

I am now quite used to walking thro' the archway metal detector, then also having a rub-down search carried out. It happens more often than not now, probably just the way I look.

I have no problem with this. However I would not like things to escalate too much. Just the sight of the armed Policemen at Heathrow makes me both uncomfortable and comforted at the same time.

[manker]

We have more than ten security guards on duty at any time in most large department stores in Cardiff. Always have as far as I know, some are hidden away watching shoppers on little screens, but they're there.

What's all the fuss about :unsure:
....but we don't have 10 security guards walking around grocery stores like Safeway. :dry:Hmm. I don't go shopping much but reckon that at Asda or Tesco, over here, there would be about that number of security personel.

Just for dealing with shoplifters and weirdos. I've never been in a Safeways but the big grocery stores here also sell stuff like DVDs, clothes and things. Ten isn't an unreasonable number.

[Busyman]

....but we don't have 10 security guards walking around grocery stores like Safeway. :dry:Hmm. I don't go shopping much but reckon that at Asda or Tesco, over here, there would be about that number of security personel.

Just for dealing with shoplifters and weirdos. I've never been in a Safeways but the big grocery stores here also sell stuff like DVDs, clothes and things. Ten isn't an unreasonable number.
It's highly irregular here. Last time I went to a DC Safeway, there was a whole one guard at the front of the store.

Tikonbon was outright lying. It's as simple as that.

There weren't 10 security guards walking around at my local Target (similar to WalMart) and I was there to personally breakdown the floor model of this gazebo http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00068V8S4.16._AA260_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
during and after store hours. :dry:

edit: as far the Safeways, I've been everywhere including the bowels of the stores in DC.

[tralalala]

Well, regarding JPauls wording of being uncomfortable with armed policemen at Heathrow - we have people walking above with shotguns (armymen) all over the country... My neighbour recently left the army and used to bring his gun back every night...
As amazing as it sounds, here in Israel people are actually so used to seeing people with guns/other weapons, that being in a place like London after the blast wouldn't concerne them too much......

The difference is amazing..


Once again - in the shopping "compund" near my home there are security personel checking out the cars as they arrive, PLUS there are security guards at the entrance to each and every shop/store/food place with a handheld gun and a metal detector..

I must say the last time I was in Scotland (last November), I was amazed at not getting scanned at the entrance to a mall in Glasgow (it felt pretty weird.. :lol:)...

[tralalala]

@Manker: what's better: 50% secure with freedome and all, or 80-90% secure with minor changes (simply opening your bag for the guard to check, and a 1 second scan with his/her hand held metal detector)?

I would vote for the second. I do not want to live indefinately, I want to live safe like I do today.All hand luggage is checked by metal detectors and x-ray machines when flying anywhere from Britain.

Whatcha talking about.
I was taling about simple little places such as cafe's and little fish n' chip shops... that's where most blasts would take place. Or on a bus...

Nowadays in Israel you have a security person on buses when approaching stations to go through the bus a inspect people. Most of the Arab-Israelis get stared at mostly, and I must say that I think the feeling must be horrible if you're a simple person going to work, but hey, it's for our safety.

Another thing people don't know - On most El-Al flights (Israels airline), there is a security person with a gun in civilian clothing... And I feel totally comfortable with it, as I know I am safe from people wanting to attack Jews/Christians or any other people.



And in response to the person who wrote that attacks prior to 9/11 were not Muslim attacks: Yes, you are right, but in modern times in the 21st century attackers are all Muslim, and the Muslims them selves do not do anything to condemn the terrorists acts, and I think they should do something about it...

[JPaul]

I must say the last time I was in Scotland (last November), I was amazed at not getting scanned at the entrance to a mall in Glasgow (it felt pretty weird.. :lol:)...
Where the feck is a "mall" in Glasgow.

We will not live in fear.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

[NikkiD]

All hand luggage is checked by metal detectors and x-ray machines when flying anywhere from Britain.

Whatcha talking about.
I was taling about simple little places such as cafe's and little fish n' chip shops... that's where most blasts would take place. Or on a bus...

Nowadays in Israel you have a security person on buses when approaching stations to go through the bus a inspect people. Most of the Arab-Israelis get stared at mostly, and I must say that I think the feeling must be horrible if you're a simple person going to work, but hey, it's for our safety.

Another thing people don't know - On most El-Al flights (Israels airline), there is a security person with a gun in civilian clothing... And I feel totally comfortable with it, as I know I am safe from people wanting to attack Jews/Christians or any other people.



And in response to the person who wrote that attacks prior to 9/11 were not Muslim attacks: Yes, you are right, but in modern times in the 21st century attackers are all Muslim, and the Muslims them selves do not do anything to condemn the terrorists acts, and I think they should do something about it...

Well I think we just revealed why many tourists don't visit Israel.

I would personally feel less safe being "policed" by armed forces and having to submit to violations of personal freedoms than I do in the trusting society I live in.

Here's a thought... and it's just me mulling things around in my head so I don't really have any proof to back it up other than my own logic.

Is it possible that by creating a police state, and forcing people to live in fear, and others to live under oppression, scorn and disdain, that you actually escalate terror attacks? I would be interested to know if attacks happen more frequently in so called "secure" societies, or in ones where freedom is more important.

By the way, you have insulted all Muslims. They HAVE condemned the terrorist attacks, and are no more responsible for the extremists who perpetrated them than you are. They share a faith, and I say that loosely.

[Rat Faced]

And last i heard, Basques weren't Muslims, neither were P9 or the Orange County Skinheads.. they're white supremisists :blink:

And theres always the arguement that Israel itself, together with most coalition forces have all comitted "Terrorist" acts.

Just because the perpetrator is in uniform doesnt change the crime.

[Snee]

You can't measure safety in security guards.

The fact that they are there indicates that shit has a tendency to happen.



'sides, I reckon that if some loon with a bomb doesn't get me, some Israeli nutjob soldier with rubber bullets will.

And there's really nothing to see there for me I can't find elsewhere ('cept maybe for that weird dana-bloke that won the eurovision song contest, those don't grow on trees), what with me not being a person of faith and all.

[Tikibonbon]

Last time I was in DC, went to a Safeway, and what do I see? About 10 security guards.

I am rather sure they weren't there due to terrorists. :lol:

It was in a predominatly non-white we will call it area.
You are lying. There aren't 10 security guards at the front of any government building and I've been to every single Safeway in DC.

Well, just returned home to see this. Busy, nowhere did I mention security guards in front of government buildings. Not once. Keep your words out of my mouth.

I will admit, I did the common exageration thing on the number of guards (more like 6 or 7), and nowhere did I imply it was due to terroist threats.

The "demographic" I was speaking of was younger black teens/twenties folks.

You may have been to every single Safeway in DC, so what? It is not that uncommon for places like this to hire off duty police officers to walk around stores and keep an eye out for shoplifters. Go to NYC, Dallas, LA, it's a common practice.

In ending, you are not Bush, please don't try to control what I see. :lol:

[tracydani]

Nowadays in Israel you have a security person on buses when approaching stations to go through the bus a inspect people. Most of the Arab-Israelis get stared at mostly, and I must say that I think the feeling must be horrible if you're a simple person going to work, but hey, it's for our safety.

Wow...

I live in Germany and regularly go in an out of American posts, often on buses. The only time you have people searching you on a bus is when the alert is high (like the few months right after 9/11). Only when they feel we are under a direct threat.

Even though they changed alerts in the US we have not experienced any changes.

When I visited Egypt a few years back I experienced the kind of security you are talking about... There were almost as many armed police/security around as civilians. That scared me more then all the things I had heard before going (generaly things like fair hair/fair skinned people and children getting kidnapped as I had my young childrenwith me).

I could not imagine living in those conditions or paying to go and vacation in them again.

TD

[Peerzy]

The image of the country would stop me coming. If you're asked to name an area in the world where your most likley to die not from natural causes im sure alot of people would say the middle eastern area, just because of how the media has reported on the area and such.

[cpt_azad]

I'd go to Israel anyday, in fact I plan on doing so (Jerusalem) after I graduate from High School, always wanted to go to a place of history, even if it was mostly violent (and yes I'm taking into account the Crusades as well).

[bigboab]

I must say the last time I was in Scotland (last November), I was amazed at not getting scanned at the entrance to a mall in Glasgow (it felt pretty weird.. :lol:)...
Where the feck is a "mall" in Glasgow.

We will not live in fear.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

Please to be keeping youself up to date.:) The Argyle Arcade is now The Argyle Arcade Shopping Mall.:lol: Does not tell you that you need a fortune to buy anything in there though.:)

[Peerzy]

I'd go to Israel anyday, in fact I plan on doing so (Jerusalem) after I graduate from High School, always wanted to go to a place of history, even if it was mostly violent (and yes I'm taking into account the Crusades as well).


Would you be taking your guns along :unsure: and in the hope of making peace in the middle east with them :rolleyes:

[tralalala]

The image of the country would stop me coming. If you're asked to name an area in the world where your most likley to die not from natural causes im sure alot of people would say the middle eastern area, just because of how the media has reported on the area and such.
Every person who says that is absolutely totally wrong.

In the US how many people are fired every year?! Kids shoot each other at school over the stupidest things!! People in the US with no permit have guns, the mobs are on the streets, and you're telling me you're more likely to die in the safe environment of Israel..??? How can you say such a thing!?!


@Nikki & JPaul: The guards are not there to make people scared.. Why do you think they have them? To keep the civilians SAFE, not SCARED. In fact I feel a hell of a lot safer in a place like Israel rather than a big outlet in the US with no security guards stopping suspicious people from entering the big shops, who might just be the next to blow the place to the ground.
Same with London, or any other big place in the world nowadays. No one is safe without the right safety precautions. If there are no guards, then yes you may feel more "free" as you put it. But in todays world you are not safe. Just image, god forbid, you walking down the street and walk into a book store. The place is packed because the new Harry Potter book has just been released. There are no security guards checking peoples bags at the entrance. A person walks in with a bag that you would think is a regular handbag.

10 minutes later: 30 dead, hundreds wounded.


That's what security guards PREVENT. They make sure things like that do not happen. If the civilians will cooperate with security, I can promise you it will be so much harder for these mad terrorists to do anything, that the chances will get as low as 0%, rather than 50-50 with no guards.


I'm not saying put up 2341235908 guards at each store, but I think a guard for a store is plenty to make the society a safer place. 2-3 guards in big-big stores (like WHSmith and places like that). Life would go on exactly as it does today, but the big difference would be that we would all be much much safer. Less unemplyment, and the war on terror would be easier (because if an attack takes place, the world stops, and that gives time for these animals to find their next target).


Think about it........

[JPaul]

Anyone who finishes a post with "Think about it..." is a condescending idiot.

People are saying that they don't want to live like you do. They would rather have the tiny element of risk than have their liberties so eroded. If your country feels that the risk is so high then lots of people won't want to visit, because you are declaring it as very dangerous.

If as you say the risk is no higher than elsewhere, then get the armed guards off the streets. You don't need them. If you choose to keep them, cool it's your choice, but expect it to have the effect it does.

Think about that.

[tracydani]

In fact I feel a hell of a lot safer in a place like Israel rather than a big outlet in the US with no security guards stopping suspicious people from entering the big shops, who might just be the next to blow the place to the ground. Same with London, or any other big place in the world nowadays. No one is safe without the right safety precautions. If there are no guards, then yes you may feel more "free" as you put it. But in todays world you are not safe. Just image, god forbid, you walking down the street and walk into a book store. The place is packed because the new Harry Potter book has just been released. There are no security guards checking peoples bags at the entrance. A person walks in with a bag that you would think is a regular handbag. 10 minutes later: 30 dead, hundreds wounded.

The thing is, this is not a normal occurance in these places. We all know it is possible, however at this time we do not need to live in constant fear of it happening and do not need to take such drastic steps to prevent it.

We can only hope things do not reach the level they have where you are that we need to take those steps.

Yes it is true that the violence in the states due to crime is higher then most other places, but the average person does not need to worry about being a victim each and every day of their lives.

The sort of violence you are protecting yourself from with all these gaurds is not "normal" in my view. In general, people do not go out and randomly kill to support their cause in the states.

TD

[Jon L. Obscene]

Now, following the terrorist attack on London, my home city, I would like to ask ya'll: Why are you worried to come to Israel?
What's so different here than anywhere else in the world? 9/11, Baali bombings, Madrid, London...... nowhere is safe nowadays, so why not come and visit Israel?

Because Rafi.........personally, I would'nt go to london, nor new york nor any major city, for 2 reasons
1: I don't like cities
2: no major city is safe atm

But I think the main reason for most is because 9/11 and london have happend once, Isreal has buildings/busses etc exploding quite frequently.

As for the guards and religion, if I start on that I'll piss you all off cos I think the whole situation and belief (meaning all religions) is bollocks, period.

Jonno :cool:

[Afronaut]

Israel? It's just not on my list of places to visit because there's nothin there im interested in. And thats before thinkin about security issues.

I'd like to check more Europen countrys,
even Russia is a bit more interesting than Israel imo.

[JPaul]

, if I start on that I'll piss you all off cos I think the whole situation and belief (meaning all religions) is bollocks, period.

Jonno :cool:
Any right thinking person would say "Cool, you're as entitled to your belief system as I am".

I will support yor right to be wrong any day of the week.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Well exactly, cos it IS my opinion, and the funny thing I find about it all is that someone can preach about they're religion, but a man can't give a view against it without being wrong.
Religion makes me angry in any form pretty much, therefore I've given up arguing about it even tho I have kinda here so I'm gonna be quiet now.

Having said that, it is each to their own.......my opinion is just my own.

It's a funny ol' world init :rolleyes:

Jonno :cool:

[Peerzy]

The image of the country would stop me coming. If you're asked to name an area in the world where your most likley to die not from natural causes im sure alot of people would say the middle eastern area, just because of how the media has reported on the area and such.
Every person who says that is absolutely totally wrong.



Yup, we are wrong i agree, but it's how the media shows the country, which puts people off.

[JPaul]

Well exactly, cos it IS my opinion, and the funny thing I find about it all is that someone can preach about they're religion, but a man can't give a view against it without being wrong.


Jonno :cool:
But you also think they are wrong, it cuts both ways.

I think everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. They are, from my point of view. They equally think I am wrong, because I disagree with them.

The funny thing is that often we are both right, from our own perspective. That's why it's important to try to see things from the other persons point of view.

Even when they are obviously wrong.

[tralalala]

@JPaul: The risk here is no higher than elsewhere BECAUSE of the security. If the security was taken off the streets, then Israel would become a place much more vulnerable than others. But that's not the case, as Israel has had too much experience in attacks, and that's why we are so good at preventing them.......

[Busyman]

You are lying. There aren't (EVEN) 10 security guards at the front of any government building and I've been to every single Safeway in DC.

Well, just returned home to see this. Busy, nowhere did I mention security guards in front of government buildings. Not once. Keep your words out of my mouth.

I will admit, I did the common exageration thing on the number of guards (more like 6 or 7), and nowhere did I imply it was due to terroist threats.

The "demographic" I was speaking of was younger black teens/twenties folks.

You may have been to every single Safeway in DC, so what? It is not that uncommon for places like this to hire off duty police officers to walk around stores and keep an eye out for shoplifters. Go to NYC, Dallas, LA, it's a common practice.

In ending, you are not Bush, please don't try to control what I see. :lol:
Oh I know what you were getting at. Also see my above quote again. It wasn't to say YOU said anything about government buildings.

The fact is you are still lying (which you admitted). Even at Hechinger Mall on Benning Rd, you'd be hard pressed to find 6 security guards in the whole fucking shopping center and that area fits your "demographic" to a tee (oh and they have a Safeway too). I mentioned has anyone seen 10 security guards in any grocery store to some coworkers and they LTAO!!!!.

You're subterfuge with this "Keep your words out of my mouth" is unnecessary since your mouth is full of :shit:.

There is no "so what" if I've been every Safeway in DC. They don't have 10 or even 6 security guards so again...you are lying.

btw Bush seems to be your good ole boy, not my mine.

[Tikibonbon]

Whatever Busyman, you know better what I saw than myself. You are correct, whatever you say.

[Busyman]

Whatever Busyman, you know better what I saw than myself. You are correct, whatever you say.
Well no...

Maybe Black Hawk Security decided to have thier morning meeting at Safeway store #37 that day.

Maybe there was a security guard convention and the local Safeway was a good way to put on a good show of force as well as have the convention.

Maybe the government should move their confidential files to Safeway from now on so if someone tries to steal them, there could be 10 flashlights shone on this thief and he would be blinded for like a whole 10 seconds.

[Tikibonbon]

I guess someone should tell the gentleman in bold that he shouldn't bother going into work today, because everyone knows that no Safeways in Washington DC have security guards...


D.C. Slots Goal Met, Backers Say
Petitions Submitted For Nov. 2 Ballot

By Serge F. Kovaleski
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 7, 2004; Page A01

Supporters of a plan to bring slot machines to the nation's capital ended their five-day petition drive yesterday claiming that they had collected more than 50,000 signatures and had met the legal requirements to get the issue on the November ballot.


As organizers submitted the forms to the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics just before a 5 p.m. deadline, the president of the California company hired to run the petition effort said he was confident that at least 17,599 of the signatures -- the minimum needed to put the gambling proposal before voters Nov. 2 -- were from registered D.C. voters.

The elections board has 30 days to review the 3,869 petition sheets and the signatures on them to determine how many are valid. The petition push, which did not begin until Thursday evening, has been dogged by opponents' allegations that many of the signatures were gathered illegally. Anti-slots activists said they plan to argue before the board that many petition circulators were not D.C. residents, as required by law, and that campaign workers made false statements about the initiative to get people to sign the forms.

But Angelo Paparella, president of Progressive Campaigns Inc., based in Santa Monica, Calif., said he expected that more than 20,000 of the signatures collected would be ruled valid. The rest are people who are not registered to vote in the city or whose addresses do not match D.C. voter rolls, he said.

"The majority of these signatures on these petitions will be upheld by the elections board, so I fully anticipate that voters will have a chance to be heard on this issue come November," he said. Paparella said the initiative had met another legal requirement by getting signatures from at least 5 percent of registered voters in six of the city's eight wards.

The initiative would ask voters to approve a plan to install as many as 3,500 video lottery terminals in an entertainment complex to be built on a 14-acre site at New York Avenue and Bladensburg Road NE. The two investors in the project so far are D.C. businessman Pedro Alfonso and Rob Newell, a financier from the U.S. Virgin Islands. The initiative's general counsel is former D.C. Council member John Ray. Alfonso and Ray did not return calls yesterday.

Paparella said that about 200 paid workers took part in the signature-gathering, and that half of them were not D.C. residents, coming from states that included California, Utah, Washington, Florida and Michigan. That explanation appears to conflict with previous statements from Ray, who said last week that Progressive Campaigns had brought in managers from out of town, "but they are not supposed to be circulating any petitions."

Paparella said that the petition circulators earned about $3 per signature but that some workers received bonuses for performing well, such as getting 100 signatures or more a day with a validation rate of at least 50 percent.

"Workers were brought in from out of town because of the short time frame," Paparella said. He contended that District law allows the use of workers from elsewhere in the country as long as a D.C. resident witnesses all the signatures being placed on each petition form.

But opponents of the gaming project -- as well as several of the out-of-town petition workers -- said that numerous signatures were not witnessed by a D.C. resident. In some cases, D.C. residents brought along as witnesses were seen several blocks away from the out-of-town circulators or were trying to monitor several of them at once, according to interviews.

A security guard at a Safeway on Capitol Hill said in an interview yesterday that several workers paid him $55 Saturday night after he agreed to sign the affidavit on their petitions stating that he had witnessed the signatures on those forms.

"At the time, I was busy and I didn't see every signature. But I did notice them standing out there," said the guard, speaking on the condition that his name not be used. "One of them said, 'You see me standing out there getting signatures. I didn't write any myself.' "

The guard added that after showing the workers two forms of identification and signing the affidavit, he was given $20 in cash and a $35 check from a company named Initiatives Plus that showed a Seattle address.

Paparella said that Initiatives Plus was one of several national companies hired to help conduct the petition drive. "There are a lot of different layers here," Paparella said.

A petition circulator from Northern Virginia said in an interview that after he and a neighbor told an organizer Friday evening that they had collected signatures without a D.C. resident as a witness, the organizer told them to forge the signature of the witness who had accompanied them the night before.

His neighbor then did so, said the Northern Virginia man, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"If anyone signed the petition saying they witnessed the signatures when they didn't, or if someone told them to break the law, they should be prosecuted," Paparella said.

Regina James, one of the plaintiffs who was involved in an unsuccessful suit to block the petition drive, said she filed a complaint yesterday with the elections board, alleging that the petition workers had violated the city's laws and "made a mockery of the process."

Slots opponents also have alleged that petition circulators used questionable tactics and arguments to persuade people to sign.

Charles Callis, 58, said that after he dropped off his wife yesterday morning at the Metro station on Rhode Island Avenue NE, a petition worker told her she could win a car if she signed the form because it was the final stretch of the drive.

Later on, Callis said, the petition worker told him that the money from the slots would go to rebuilding the District's school system. "I think they were deliberately trying to do the bait-and-switch and divert attention away from the fact that this is gambling," Callis said.

Some homeless people in the District were recruited to work in the petition drive. One of them, 41-year-old David Williams, who said he has been living at a District shelter for about six months, complained yesterday that he had been taken advantage of and had been paid only $35, even though he had collected about 80 signatures.

"I need money, and to be cheated like this is very unfair," he said.

Antoine Pitts, 28, a graphic designer from Detroit, said he learned about the signature drive from a company he identified as Petition Management. He said he had been paid $400 and was expecting an additional $2,600.

"A witness saw all my signatures," Pitts said, adding that the company paid for his airfare and hotel stay. "It was a good free vacation."

[Tikibonbon]

And this guy apparently felt the need to lie about where he worked....tho I would have come up with something a little better...

D.C. weighs in on Kobe's fiasco
By James Wright
Published: Thursday, July 24, 2003
Article Tools:Email This ArticlePrint This Article Page 1 of 2Next Page

Arthur Roberts loves pro basketball, and it is not unusual to see him wearing shirts and shorts supporting his favorite team: the Los Angeles Lakers.

But ask the 25-year-old about Kobe Bryant, the Lakers forward who has been charged in Colorado with rape, he shrugs his shoulders.

"Kobe Bryant is a grown man with a wife, he should have known what he was doing," said Roberts, a security guard at the Safeway in the Petworth section of Washington, D.C. "If he raped that girl, he should get what he deserves. If he gets off free, I will still respect him as a ballplayer."

Bryant was accused of sexual assault by a 19-year old employee at the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera in Edwards, Colo, a resort hotel he was staying at for the rehabilitation of a knee injury suffered at the end of the Lakers season. District Attorney Mark Hurlbert, after two weeks of examining evidence and interviewing Bryant and the woman, decided to prosecute the five-time NBA all-star and key leader of the Lakers' three consecutive championships in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Bryant, in a tearful press conference last Friday, said he was not guilty of rape and, with his wife Vanessa by his side, said he was only guilty of adultery and will fight the charges. He has hired Pamela Mackey, a noted Denver defense attorney, who has represented the likes of John and Patricia Ramsey, author Hunter S. Thompson and Colorado Avalanche goalie Patrick Roy.

Mackey said that Bryant will have a jury trial in Eagle County, Colo., where the alleged offense took place. A preliminary hearing will be held on Aug. 6, but the actual trial date is not known, though Mackey believes it will be sometime in January 2004, right in the middle of the NBA season.

If Mackey's estimation holds, Bryant will likely miss the 2004 NBA All-Star game, which will be held in Los Angeles in February.

Reflecting the sentiments of many Washingtonians, Roberts said Bryant should have known better, given his status as a superstar ballplayer. "These guys should learn by now that this type of stuff is going to happen," he said. "Look at what happened to Juwan Howard and Chris Webber. Those guys were accused of rape, and it turned out to be bogus. They have got to learn that all these women want is a little fame and money."

[Busyman]

"Kobe Bryant is a grown man with a wife, he should have known what he was doing," said Roberts, a security guard at the Safeway in the Petworth section of Washington, D.C..

A security guard at a Safeway on Capitol Hill said in an interview yesterday that several workers paid him $55 Saturday night after he agreed to sign the affidavit on their petitions stating that he had witnessed the signatures on those forms.
I like this better.........


Kobe Bryant is a grown man with a wife, he should have known what he was doing," said Robert, Joe, Mack, David, Tiki, Steve, BonBon, Austin, Ralph, Doug, Richard, Dick, Harry, and Potter, security guards at the Safeway in the Petworth section of Washington, D.C..

Security guards at a Safeway on Capitol Hill said in an interview yesterday that several workers paid them $55 Saturday night after they agreed to sign the affidavit on their petitions stating that they had witnessed the signatures on those forms.

Your point was what?

[manker]

Wow, tiki's just proved that Safeway's security guards have opinions :blink:

[Rat Faced]

The chances of being hit by a drunk driver in a major city is higher than that of being caught in a terrorist blast.

I worry about neither.

I wouldnt want to get rid of cars or alcohol nor would i want my freedom infringed in a pointless attempt at "Security".

[JPaul]

The chances of being hit by a drunk driver in a major city is higher than that of being caught in a terrorist blast.

I worry about neither.

I wouldnt want to get rid of cars or alcohol nor would i want my freedom infringed in a pointless attempt at "Security".
I agree, depending on the city obviously. If there is no alcohol and loads of terrorists then things may change a bit.

Think about it ....


@JPaul: The risk here is no higher than elsewhere BECAUSE of the security. If the security was taken off the streets, then Israel would become a place much more vulnerable than others. But that's not the case, as Israel has had too much experience in attacks, and that's why we are so good at preventing them.......

I love the idea of someone saying "Our Country is only safe because there are armed guards everywhere and you will get searched when you go shopping. Why doesn't anyone come visit us".

FFS even if it is as safe as everywhere else, which is highly dubious, why would people want to go thro' that (other than pilgrims and aid workers (to prevent confusion)). There's a whole World to see where you can just go about your business.

[NikkiD]

Every person who says that is absolutely totally wrong.

In the US how many people are fired every year?! Kids shoot each other at school over the stupidest things!! People in the US with no permit have guns, the mobs are on the streets, and you're telling me you're more likely to die in the safe environment of Israel..??? How can you say such a thing!?!


@Nikki & JPaul: The guards are not there to make people scared.. Why do you think they have them? To keep the civilians SAFE, not SCARED. In fact I feel a hell of a lot safer in a place like Israel rather than a big outlet in the US with no security guards stopping suspicious people from entering the big shops, who might just be the next to blow the place to the ground.
Same with London, or any other big place in the world nowadays. No one is safe without the right safety precautions. If there are no guards, then yes you may feel more "free" as you put it. But in todays world you are not safe. Just image, god forbid, you walking down the street and walk into a book store. The place is packed because the new Harry Potter book has just been released. There are no security guards checking peoples bags at the entrance. A person walks in with a bag that you would think is a regular handbag.

10 minutes later: 30 dead, hundreds wounded.


That's what security guards PREVENT. They make sure things like that do not happen. If the civilians will cooperate with security, I can promise you it will be so much harder for these mad terrorists to do anything, that the chances will get as low as 0%, rather than 50-50 with no guards.


I'm not saying put up 2341235908 guards at each store, but I think a guard for a store is plenty to make the society a safer place. 2-3 guards in big-big stores (like WHSmith and places like that). Life would go on exactly as it does today, but the big difference would be that we would all be much much safer. Less unemplyment, and the war on terror would be easier (because if an attack takes place, the world stops, and that gives time for these animals to find their next target).


Think about it........

What is the very nature of the word terrorist? A person who causes terror. Here, and most places in the free world, they have not succeeded. Attacks happen, we mourn for those lost, we try to find a reason, and we go back to our lives. The best way to fight terrorism is to show these people they cannot win, that they can't make us live in fear of them. The moment we start to live in fear of what terrorists could do, and give up our civil liberties so that we can feel safe, terrorists have already won. Even if they never attack again, they have won, because they have created the fear that they so desire.

If someone wants to blow something up badly enough, I doubt security guards would stop them from doing so. Of course we know it can happen. We just choose not to dwell on the fact. It's not that we're naive, we do know all about the terrible things that can and do happen in this world. We choose to live free in spite of all these things because we will not let fear run our lives.

You choose to live in fear of what may happen. What you call security, I call paranoia. Suspicion of everyone carrying a bag, suspicion of anyone with Arabic features, and the need to have armed guards everywhere is a manifestation of that fear.

[tralalala]

If someone wants to blow something up badly enough, I doubt security guards would stop them from doing so. Of course we know it can happen. We just choose not to dwell on the fact. It's not that we're naive, we do know all about the terrible things that can and do happen in this world. We choose to live free in spite of all these things because we will not let fear run our lives.

You choose to live in fear of what may happen. What you call security, I call paranoia. Suspicion of everyone carrying a bag, suspicion of anyone with Arabic features, and the need to have armed guards everywhere is a manifestation of that fear.

Well, if that were the case we would have 200 attacks in Israel every year, and that is not the case. We have managed over the last 5 years to reduce it to maybe 1 or 2 a year in the worst case.

And yes, the fact I live in a country surrounded by Arabs, who most likely hate us Israelis for being as succesful as we are (Hi-Tech, stuff like that), makes us worry about people of Arab nature (and there are many of those), because we do not know when then next mad man might turn up. The fact is there are so many Arabs that are close enough to Israel to attack, that we need the security guards, otherwise it's just as if I went to the border with Syria and flashed them my ass and told them to try catch me.


It's all precautions for our safety, and it works. That's the important bit - it works.

[JPaul]

Every person who says that is absolutely totally wrong.

In the US how many people are fired every year?! Kids shoot each other at school over the stupidest things!! People in the US with no permit have guns, the mobs are on the streets, and you're telling me you're more likely to die in the safe environment of Israel..??? How can you say such a thing!?!


@Nikki & JPaul: The guards are not there to make people scared.. Why do you think they have them? To keep the civilians SAFE, not SCARED. In fact I feel a hell of a lot safer in a place like Israel rather than a big outlet in the US with no security guards stopping suspicious people from entering the big shops, who might just be the next to blow the place to the ground.
Same with London, or any other big place in the world nowadays. No one is safe without the right safety precautions. If there are no guards, then yes you may feel more "free" as you put it. But in todays world you are not safe. Just image, god forbid, you walking down the street and walk into a book store. The place is packed because the new Harry Potter book has just been released. There are no security guards checking peoples bags at the entrance. A person walks in with a bag that you would think is a regular handbag.

10 minutes later: 30 dead, hundreds wounded.


That's what security guards PREVENT. They make sure things like that do not happen. If the civilians will cooperate with security, I can promise you it will be so much harder for these mad terrorists to do anything, that the chances will get as low as 0%, rather than 50-50 with no guards.


I'm not saying put up 2341235908 guards at each store, but I think a guard for a store is plenty to make the society a safer place. 2-3 guards in big-big stores (like WHSmith and places like that). Life would go on exactly as it does today, but the big difference would be that we would all be much much safer. Less unemplyment, and the war on terror would be easier (because if an attack takes place, the world stops, and that gives time for these animals to find their next target).


Think about it........

What is the very nature of the word terrorist? A person who causes terror. Here, and most places in the free world, they have not succeeded. Attacks happen, we mourn for those lost, we try to find a reason, and we go back to our lives. The best way to fight terrorism is to show these people they cannot win, that they can't make us live in fear of them. The moment we start to live in fear of what terrorists could do, and give up our civil liberties so that we can feel safe, terrorists have already won. Even if they never attack again, they have won, because they have created the fear that they so desire.

If someone wants to blow something up badly enough, I doubt security guards would stop them from doing so. Of course we know it can happen. We just choose not to dwell on the fact. It's not that we're naive, we do know all about the terrible things that can and do happen in this world. We choose to live free in spite of all these things because we will not let fear run our lives.

You choose to live in fear of what may happen. What you call security, I call paranoia. Suspicion of everyone carrying a bag, suspicion of anyone with Arabic features, and the need to have armed guards everywhere is a manifestation of that fear.


Exactly, but he's not listening, coz' it's what he's used to and cannot see that freedom > fear.

[tralalala]

But I'm not afraid... Why won't ya'll get it??

I feel safe, not afraid. I live a totally normal and SAFE life.

[Rat Faced]

And why dont you get it?

Especially coming from London...

We dont LIKE being surrounded by armed men, otherwise we'd give more of our coppers guns.

[tralalala]

I understand the fact that you don't like it.
My main point in this thread is that today, not enough security means too much vulnerability. That's all.

I'm not here trying to clash with people and get into fights, otherwise who would I have to talk to on FST!? :lol: I'm just giving my oppinion - everyone is entitled for his/her own oppinion, correct? :)

[Rat Faced]

They are indeed.

You were asking why we didnt visit though :P

[JPaul]

I understand the fact that you don't like it.
My main point in this thread is that today, not enough security means too much vulnerability. That's all.

I'm not here trying to clash with people and get into fights, otherwise who would I have to talk to on FST!? :lol: I'm just giving my oppinion - everyone is entitled for his/her own oppinion, correct? :)
Absolutely.

In addition your original question re why more people don't visit has been answered. The very oppressive security measures which you need and want do not sit well with many other people.

Which is also why major sporting events will also avoid you, just another price you have to pay.

[JPaul]

@RF

Jinx :lol:

[tralalala]

Why would major sporting events not occure in Israel..??

Just a couple of weeks ago it was decided that a WTA tourney will take place here, the Maccabiah (a sort of Jewish Olympics) takes part every 4 years with people from all over the world....... Israel is not a dull place let me tell you that.. :)

[JPaul]

Why would major sporting events not occure in Israel..??

Just a couple of weeks ago it was decided that a WTA tourney will take place here, the Maccabiah (a sort of Jewish Olympics) takes part every 4 years with people from all over the world....... Israel is not a dull place let me tell you that.. :)
I cant remember who said this

"This has cause major events not to take place in Israel (Maccabi Haifa had to play their Champions League clashes in Cyprus.. and that's only 1 example out of many)."

Oh wait, it was you I was quoting. Then you say I'm talking pish.

Where's that banging head against wall smillie.

[NikkiD]

Well, if that were the case we would have 200 attacks in Israel every year, and that is not the case. We have managed over the last 5 years to reduce it to maybe 1 or 2 a year in the worst case.


It's all precautions for our safety, and it works. That's the important bit - it works.

:blink:

If it works... then why 1 or 2 a year?

Without armed guards, Canada has managed to limit the number of terrorist bombings to... oh wait, we haven't had a terrorist bombing in like, forever. And we have lots of Arabs. Go figure.

Even in the US and Europe, where there HAVE been terrorist attacks recently, the number of attacks in proportion to the security you propose is ludicrous. An average of say 1-2 attacks per year over 20 odd countries? I'd say we're still pretty safe.


My main point in this thread is that today, not enough security means too much vulnerability. That's all.

You say you're not afraid, however, that statement is completely paranoid. Sounds like fear to me.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Well exactly, cos it IS my opinion, and the funny thing I find about it all is that someone can preach about they're religion, but a man can't give a view against it without being wrong.


Jonno :cool:
But you also think they are wrong, it cuts both ways.

I think everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. They are, from my point of view. They equally think I am wrong, because I disagree with them.

The funny thing is that often we are both right, from our own perspective. That's why it's important to try to see things from the other persons point of view.

Even when they are obviously wrong.

:lol: I like that, you make sense in a Johnny Vegas kinda way.

I'd like to buy you a pint one day :lol:

Jonno :cool:

[JPaul]

I would like to drink said pint and return the favour :beerchug:

[Rat Faced]

"A boy doesn't have to go to war to be a hero; he can say he doesn't like pie when he sees there isn't enough to go around."

Edward W. Howe


:P

[JPaul]

"A boy doesn't have to go to war to be a hero; he can say he doesn't like pie when he sees there isn't enough to go around."

Edward W. Howe


:P
Nice one .... what the feck are you talking about.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Ok I've had a read over this thread and I don't think anyone has said it but........this "Armed Guards" on busses thing, I maybe wrong but surely that actually puts a loaded gun in the mix?
Whats to stop someone getting his gun and going on a rampage?

Like sky marshals except it's a lot easier to step on a bus in the street than get on a plane.

A knife in your pocket, step onto bus, dissarm guard by stabbing him, grab gun, shoot people.
So not only do you have the threat of terrorists and bombs, but also random hijackings and shootings with supplied weapons.

Of course I could be wrong but thats how I see it.

Jono :cool:

[NikkiD]

Ok I've had a read over this thread and I don't think anyone has said it but........this "Armed Guards" on busses thing, I maybe wrong but surely that actually puts a loaded gun in the mix?
Whats to stop someone getting his gun and going on a rampage?

Like sky marshals except it's a lot easier to step on a bus in the street than get on a plane.

A knife in your pocket, step onto bus, dissarm guard by stabbing him, grab gun, shoot people.
So not only do you have the threat of terrorists and bombs, but also random hijackings and shootings with supplied weapons.

Of course I could be wrong but thats how I see it.

Jono :cool:

That's actually a very good point. I'm not sure I feel that the guns would be stolen, but paranoid guards with guns scares me too. Who knows, they might think I look like a terrorist and shoot me.

[Snee]

"A boy doesn't have to go to war to be a hero; he can say he doesn't like pie when he sees there isn't enough to go around."

Edward W. Howe


:P
Nice one .... what the feck are you talking about.
And so the wheel of wtf turns, like the days of our lives.

[JPaul]

Nice one .... what the feck are you talking about.
And so the wheel of wtf turns, like the days of our lives.
At last, some sense.

[Jon L. Obscene]

That's actually a very good point. I'm not sure I feel that the guns would be stolen, but paranoid guards with guns scares me too. Who knows, they might think I look like a terrorist and shoot me.

Funny I was thinking that just as I clicked on to read this :lol:
Dammit woman :frusty:

But yeah a very good point, I mean I've been followed round shops by security cos they thought I looked dodgy or something, so why not shoot me if I'm fiddling with a bag? (no inuendo please :rolleyes: )

Jonno :cool:

[tracydani]

Ok I've had a read over this thread and I don't think anyone has said it but........this "Armed Guards" on busses thing, I maybe wrong but surely that actually puts a loaded gun in the mix?
Whats to stop someone getting his gun and going on a rampage?

Like sky marshals except it's a lot easier to step on a bus in the street than get on a plane.

A knife in your pocket, step onto bus, dissarm guard by stabbing him, grab gun, shoot people.
So not only do you have the threat of terrorists and bombs, but also random hijackings and shootings with supplied weapons.

Of course I could be wrong but thats how I see it.

Jono :cool:


When we were regularly getting checked, the gaurd dropped the rifle slung over her shoulder :yikes: (and a crapping yer pants smiley for good measure). That second or two when it was bouncing on the ground was pretty intense. Not to mention if as you say, someone took the oportunity to use that gun.

I really would prefer not to have my childs life in jeopardy just so someone else can feel they are protecting me :rolleyes:

TD

[JPaul]

, so why not shoot me if I'm fiddling with a bag? (no inuendo please :rolleyes: )

Jonno :cool:
:lol:

Fan-tastic

[Jon L. Obscene]

lol thank you

You know what I think is a brilliant idea?
Rubber bullets.

A few months ago in Norwich a guy was shot 7 times with rubber bullets, they imobalised him but he only suffered bruising.
Security and police the world over should only carry rubber bullet firing guns.
These things hurt, if you're hit in the leg you wont continue to run but no serious harm will come to you.

So why not use them more?

Although it's still a weapon introduced into the public domain.

Jonno :cool:

[Rat Faced]

You just have a thing about rubber tho... :unsure:

[Snee]

lol thank you

You know what I think is a brilliant idea?
Rubber bullets.

A few months ago in Norwich a guy was shot 7 times with rubber bullets, they imobalised him but he only suffered bruising.
Security and police the world over should only carry rubber bullet firing guns.
These things hurt, if you're hit in the leg you wont continue to run but no serious harm will come to you.

So why not use them more?

Although it's still a weapon introduced into the public domain.

Jonno :cool:
Those are all fun and games 'til someone loses an eye.

I hear that if you get hit in the eye with one it bursts like a teensy weensy balloon.


Heck, they aren't strictly speaking non-lethal at all, more like "less lethal".

A bad headshot can still kill you.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Yes I know that Mr.S , but something like 80% of bullet wounds are body shots, a gunshot to the stomach will kill you slowly, a rubber bullet will simply bruise you.
I mean come on, even a decent .22 rifle could kill you if shot in the head :rolleyes:
It's all about reducing the risk and I'm saying if they HAVE to have armed guards, arm them with rubber bullets................and gimp masks :ph34r:

Bring out the gimp.............teh gimps sleeping :ph34r:

Jonno :cool:

[Rat Faced]

Paintballs

[JPaul]

Paintballs
Paint yer own, bawbag.

[bigboab]

Why dont we allow the terrorists to legally walk around with guns. That way we would know who to avoid.:blink:

It's a hot day. siesta time I think.:cry:

[Snee]

How about something like the microwave ray thingie?

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/images/edge2.jpg

link (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000697.html)

(It's prolly still lethal to someone with a heart condition, just like tasers are. And that foam and netting stuff can smother you.)

[bigboab]

I think the Active Denial System is already in use by top politicians.:huh:

[Biggles]

Rafi

Don't you think that perhaps you are viewing this back to front. Surely you feel secure with heavy security because you are surrounded by people that want to attack you. We are not surrounded by people who want to attack us hence armed guards at every cafe is wild overkill (if you will pardon the pun) and a hugely unnecessary expense.

I, for one, would like my country to remain somewhere where I am free to roam at will and where the only danger in a cafe is a bad cup of tea. The handful of deranged psychos that have set up shop in London will be caught and will make radical Islam an even more unacceptable bad joke to young British Muslims.

With regards Israel, I would visit quite happily. Although not my particular faith, it would nevertheless be interesting to see the historical sites.

My ex spent almost a year there back in 78 and enjoyed the country and the people immensely, although she did come back less than impressed with Hassidic Jews whom she found rude and overbearing. I guess it just shows that all extremes are a pain in the butt no matter which side they are on.

Apologies in advance if you are a Hassidic Jew Rafi. :blushing:

[tralalala]

:lol: Don't you worry Biggles, I AM NOT a Hassidic Jew... they are them people with Peot (the dangling hair near the ears), those silly black hats, and dance to kiddy music..... :lol:

In fact, the Hareydim Jews are even worse... They are everything the Hassidic Jews are, plus they are the ones settling in the Palestinian territories.........


But back to the subject:

We are surrounded by people that hate us, you are not surrounded, but are carefully watched by many people WANTING to attack you...

Anyway, it's actually very difficult to determine the next attack in Europe, simply because the countries who were attacked have so many Muslims in them, they are not aware of the dangers in not "monitoring" them (not that I'm saying do that just to Muslims - there are plenty Jews wanting to attack Arabs and are caught weekly..).

That's why I think places are more dangerouse - the denial of acceptance that you are not as safe as before.


P.S: Go visit the Old City of Jerusalem.. amazing place. Plenty of places up north too - Akko (Acre), Tiberias, Gamla and many more - look 'em up on Google you'll find them easy :)

[Rat Faced]

Old city of Jeruselem, one of the reasons that the jews are hated.. you know, demolishing someone elses houses so that the state can build more jewish homes..

Think i'll give it a miss, thanks all the same.

Terrorists come in all shapes sizes creeds and races; just because the islamic ones are getting a bad press, you shouldnt forget the Christian ones or indeed the Jewish.

[Jon L. Obscene]

We live in the free world, we will not live in a police state, our forefathers fought for our freedom and it will not be taken from us by cowardly pathetic little insignificant........I was gonna say people but terrorists are not human, they are slime.
As someone said earlier in this thread I think.......to guard every train bus, cafe and shop is admitting you are afraid and therefore bowing down to terrorists.

The WW2 ceremony today held in london with loads of important people , most of the royal family and the prime minister in light of recent events just goes to show we will not live in fear or change our plans because of fear.

We in the free world will remain free :01:

Jonno :cool:

[Snee]

We live in the free world, we will not live in a police state, our forefathers fought for our freedom and it will not be taken from us by cowardly pathetic little insignificant........I was gonna say people but terrorists are not human, they are slime.
As someone said earlier in this thread I think.......to guard every train bus, cafe and shop is admitting you are afraid and therefore bowing down to terrorists.

The WW2 ceremony today held in london with loads of important people , most of the royal family and the prime minister in light of recent events just goes to show we will not live in fear or change our plans because of fear.

We in the free world will remain free :01:

Jonno :cool:
And if someone won't agree with that, then let's blast them with microwaves till they do. :01:

[Busyman]

Well I have no problem with an upgraded security presence.

For instance, in bad areas that fit Tikibonbon's "demographic" having more police patrol the areas.

Our subway system for instance has Metro cops in full view everytime I go there. However, they are not bothering anyone by being there.

I disagree with guarding every bus, train, etc. but I agree with more security than before.

You can do it without being a police state. To my knowledge Israel is not one.

Israel just happens to be like Microsoft.

[Barbarossa]

Anyway, it's actually very difficult to determine the next attack in Europe, simply because the countries who were attacked have so many Muslims in them, they are not aware of the dangers in not "monitoring" them (not that I'm saying do that just to Muslims - there are plenty Jews wanting to attack Arabs and are caught weekly..).


Mmmmkay... :blink:

Not content to have armed security guards on every street corner and in every shop/bus/train....

In your ideal world you now want the movements and presumably the actions, associations and communications of all Muslim and non-Muslim people alike, to be "monitored"...

http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/media/generic/bb6-eye.gif

Do you want to live in a society where you are constantly under suspicion?? :unsure:

[tralalala]

Old city of Jeruselem, one of the reasons that the jews are hated.. you know, demolishing someone elses houses so that the state can build more jewish homes..

Think i'll give it a miss, thanks all the same.

Terrorists come in all shapes sizes creeds and races; just because the islamic ones are getting a bad press, you shouldnt forget the Christian ones or indeed the Jewish.
WTF?? :blink:

Why do you think demolishing houses of terrorists gives money to building Jewish homes in a place with no room for them anyway?? :blink: :blink:

And I can't seem to recall the last suicide bomber who happened to be a Jew :blink:


@Jonno: Do you honestly think that having more security to catch maniacs is giving in to them?? Giving in to them would be letting them run free in the streets lurking and trying to blow you up again.

@Busyman: Israel is not a police state. There are too many different peoples to become a police state.

@colin: My ideal world would be a world where you wouldn't need any security, no poverty, equality in all areas, and no need to double think when you are planning to travel a bus, plus no need to go into the army and fight (which is where I will be in 2 and a half years :( ).

[Busyman]

Old city of Jeruselem, one of the reasons that the jews are hated.. you know, demolishing someone elses houses so that the state can build more jewish homes..

Think i'll give it a miss, thanks all the same.

Terrorists come in all shapes sizes creeds and races; just because the islamic ones are getting a bad press, you shouldnt forget the Christian ones or indeed the Jewish.
WTF?? :blink:

Why do you think demolishing houses of terrorists gives money to building Jewish homes in a place with no room for them anyway?? :blink: :blink:
All the occupants aren't terrorists though. :dry:
And I can't seem to recall the last suicide bomber who happened to be a Jew :blink:


@Jonno: Do you honestly think that having more security to catch maniacs is giving in to them?? Giving in to them would be letting them run free in the streets lurking and trying to blow you up again.
On that, I agree. However, he conveniently adds "every bus, plane, train...." blah, blah, blah.....and on that, I agree as well.

@Busyman: Israel is not a police state. There are too many different peoples to become a police state.
Yeah. I kinda said that.

@colin: My ideal world would be a world where you wouldn't need any security, no poverty, equality in all areas, and no need to double think when you are planning to travel a bus, plus no need to go into the army and fight (which is where I will be in 2 and a half years :( ).
Then come ta DisneyWuld!!!

It's da bestest!!!

[RioDeLeo]

Why do you think demolishing houses of terrorists gives money to building Jewish homes in a place with no room for them anyway??

l take it this is the Israeli definition of terrorist, ie: a Palestinian intending to live on Palestinian land coveted by Israel.


Since 1967, Israel has expropriated approximately 34% of East Jerusalem's land area for “public use”. Another 53% of East Jerusalem’s land has been set aside for colonies or designated as “green areas.” Palestinians in East Jerusalem can therefore live and build on only 13% of their land. Permission to build houses in East Jerusalem can cost $30,000, (the price of a small apartment in West Jerusalem) and the process often takes up to five years. Palestinians often therefore find themselves lacking any other alternative but to build without permits and are then subject to forced evictions and home demolitions. Over 2,000 Palestinian homes in Occupied East Jerusalem have been destroyed by Israeli occupation forces since 1967.

It's rare to get a balanced view of the situation in the Middle East from an Israeli, you come close at times Tralala, but at other times you exhibit a complete misunderstanding of what really goes on. l take it from your comment about joining the army in two and a half years that you are still young, so there's hope for you yet.

[NikkiD]

Why do you think demolishing houses of terrorists gives money to building Jewish homes in a place with no room for them anyway?? :blink: :blink:

That's a rather sweeping statement. I find it very hard to believe that ALL those people were terrorists. By that statement, anyone living in Israel who is not Jewish would be a terrorist. That is totally untrue.


And I can't seem to recall the last suicide bomber who happened to be a Jew :blink:

Not all terrorists are suicide bombers. I think if you looked at it from an Arab point of view, you would see things very differently. How many Arabs living in and around Israel have to deal with the fear of being searched, harrassed, detained for questioning, or worse, shot, simply because of the colour of their skin or the religion they practice? Law abiding people, just trying to go about their lives everyday. All for your safety. But what about theirs? To them, you are the terrorists.


@Jonno: Do you honestly think that having more security to catch maniacs is giving in to them?? Giving in to them would be letting them run free in the streets lurking and trying to blow you up again.

How many maniacs do you think we have living in the streets???? The last time a terrorist attack happened in London, (I'll use that example, as it is the most recent,) was during the IRA attacks of the 70's. I don't see that they're lurking in the streets waiting to blow us up.

Yes, having more security is giving in to them. When we are too afraid to go about our lives in freedom as we always have, then terrorists have won. When we are suspicious of people just because of how they look, they have succeeded. When we are paranoid of what could happen, instead of reacting to what does happen, we are no longer the free society that as Jonno said, our forefathers fought to give us.


@Busyman: Israel is not a police state. There are too many different peoples to become a police state.

I don't quite understand what you mean by that statement. You have armed guards patrolling the streets. You have armed guards on public transportation. You have armed guards everywhere, who can search and detain anyone on request. That is a police state.


@colin: My ideal world would be a world where you wouldn't need any security, no poverty, equality in all areas, and no need to double think when you are planning to travel a bus, plus no need to go into the army and fight (which is where I will be in 2 and a half years :( ).

Don't you think that is what most Muslims want too? A few extremists do not represent the whole. They are largely like you and I, and want to go about their lives in peace. These terrorist attacks affect them as much as they do you, because though they don't perpetrate or support them, they have to live with the consequences of these actions.

[Jon L. Obscene]

@Jonno: Do you honestly think that having more security to catch maniacs is giving in to them??


Yes. You're showing you are afraid.Showing weakness.
I'll bring it down in scale a bit, you get into a fight and you hit the other guy.
If he then got all his mates to stand in front of him ,you'd think him a coward, next time you see him you wont be afraid of him because he backs down and is weak and needs protecting (often like leader bullies in schools)
If on the other hand, you hit him and he stands there blank face, you would instantly think to yourself he's a tough guy and you gonna have to hit him harder than that, or maybe don't mess with him cos you gave him your best shot and he just smilied at you.

Now bring the scale back up.

They hit Isreal and it posts a centry on every corner.
That statement says "We are afraid of you and we need protecting"

Usa, Uk and several others get hit and we clean up, mourn our lost and carry on as normal.
That statement says "You can hit us as hard as you like but we wont be forced to live in fear from you"

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

@Jonno: Do you honestly think that having more security to catch maniacs is giving in to them??


Yes. You're showing you are afraid.Showing weakness.
I'll bring it down in scale a bit, you get into a fight and you hit the other guy.
If he then got all his mates to stand in front of him ,you'd think him a coward, next time you see him you wont be afraid of him because he backs down and is weak and needs protecting (often like leader bullies in schools)
If on the other hand, you hit him and he stands there blank face, you would instantly think to yourself he's a tough guy and you gonna have to hit him harder than that, or maybe don't mess with him cos you gave him your best shot and he just smilied at you.

Now bring the scale back up.

They hit Isreal and it posts a centry on every corner.
That statement says "We are afraid of you and we need protecting"

Usa, Uk and several others get hit and we clean up, mourn our lost and carry on as normal.
That statement says "You can hit us as hard as you like but we wont be forced to live in fear from you"

Jonno :cool:
Utter bullshit.

[Jon L. Obscene]

:lol: *claps* oh that was an awesome comeback, I loved the way you pointed out flaws in my post and backed up your views as to why you dissagree, well done sir :rolleyes:

Jonno :cool:

[NikkiD]

:lol: *claps* oh that was an awesome comeback, I loved the way you pointed out flaws in my post and backed up your views as to why you dissagree, well done sir :rolleyes:

Jonno :cool:

Damn you, you beat me to it. I was reading your mind again. :P

@ Busyman, exactly what part do you find bullshit?

[Busyman]

:lol: *claps* oh that was an awesome comeback, I loved the way you pointed out flaws in my post and backed up your views as to why you dissagree, well done sir :rolleyes:

Jonno :cool:

Damn you, you beat me to it. I was reading your mind again. :P

@ Busyman, exactly what part do you find bullshit?
The ENTIRE post as it relates to the topic.

It's bullshit.

[NikkiD]

Damn you, you beat me to it. I was reading your mind again. :P

@ Busyman, exactly what part do you find bullshit?
The ENTIRE post as it relates to the topic.

It's bullshit.

Thanks, that clarified it for me. :wacko:

[Jon L. Obscene]

The ENTIRE post as it relates to the topic.

It's bullshit.

:huh: Yeah clared it up for me too.

Erm dude, this is like a Discussion, that means people put their pov forward.
Simply typing "Utter bullshit" is hardly a worthwhile post and has 1000 times less relation to this topic than my post.

So once again, either point out exactly where you think I was wrong or keep childish 2 word posts to yourself.

Jonno :cool:

[Rat Faced]

How many maniacs do you think we have living in the streets???? The last time a terrorist attack happened in London, (I'll use that example, as it is the most recent,) was during the IRA attacks of the 70's. I don't see that they're lurking in the streets waiting to blow us up.

I think the many dead in London from Terrorist attacks throughout the eighties and most of the nineties would disagree.

The last intelligence of an IRA threat in London was March this year..

The UK, mostly Ulster and London have lived with terrorism for a long time. As have many European countries.

The difference is the people who are targeting us, and the reason for targeting us is very clear in the case of Islamic Fundamentalists.


BTW: I dont see how his post was bullshit this time (apart from the spelling and grammer) :lookaroun

[Jon L. Obscene]

Ira have been basically quiet for a while now and altho still terrorists and cowards, they did usually warn someone, either police and media, I don't recall many ira attacks killing so many as this new threat.

But yeah, britain has been under terrorist attack for a long long time and we still continue with our lives as normal.

And the spelling and grammer are to 2005 gcse standards :lol:

Jonno :cool:

[Rat Faced]

Ira have been basically quiet for a while now and altho still terrorists and cowards, they did usually warn someone, either police and media, I don't recall many ira attacks killing so many as this new threat.

But yeah, britain has been under terrorist attack for a long long time and we still continue with our lives as normal.

And the spelling and grammer are to 2005 gcse standards :lol:

Jonno :cool:

Especially surrounded by militant Turkeys as you are in Norfolk.. :blink:

[Jon L. Obscene]

Oh dude you have no idea, them feathers hide all sorts of scary things................timed Giblettes for a start :ph34r:

Still waiting Busyman...........or are you busy? :frusty:
Maybe he really does agree bt just wants to dissagree for the sake of it :rolleyes:

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

The ENTIRE post as it relates to the topic.

It's bullshit.

Thanks, that clarified it for me. :wacko:
Great!!!

Now that I have time (since there alot that agree with Jonno), I will explain.


Yes. You're showing you are afraid.Showing weakness.
By having security?

I'll bring it down in scale a bit, you get into a fight and you hit the other guy.
If he then got all his mates to stand in front of him ,you'd think him a coward, next time you see him you wont be afraid of him because he backs down and is weak and needs protecting (often like leader bullies in schools)
If on the other hand, you hit him and he stands there blank face, you would instantly think to yourself he's a tough guy and you gonna have to hit him harder than that, or maybe don't mess with him cos you gave him your best shot and he just smilied at you.
Bullshit. In the real world and not this movie shit, if a fella had people protecting him, I would think him a coward. However, if I hit him and he smiles, I'm still going to fuck him up. Besides all-o-dat, none of that has shit to do with security in a country. You are supposed to take measures to protect yourself. Terrorists want to ruin America by destroying monuments, people, infrastructure, and markets. They will not stop due to us smiling and moving on. If anything, reduction in security will encourage it.


Now bring the scale back up.

They hit Isreal and it posts a centry on every corner.
That statement says "We are afraid of you and we need protecting"

Usa, Uk and several others get hit and we clean up, mourn our lost and carry on as normal.
That statement says "You can hit us as hard as you like but we wont be forced to live in fear from you"

Ya see, 9/11 because of lack security. A passive attitude does not relieve problems and actually will encourage it.

By your post, I think we should eliminate the Metro cops from the subway system.

In essence, WE DO NEED PROTECTING. duh. :1eye: ...and it can be done without too much harassment.

Otherwise, you curl up and die. For many folk, if ya don't pick up a weapon to arm yourself and turn your back, they will shoot you anyway.

Your post was full of the most liberal bullshit rationale I have ever heard, and I'm considered liberal. :dry:

[NikkiD]

I think the many dead in London from Terrorist attacks throughout the eighties and most of the nineties would disagree.

The last intelligence of an IRA threat in London was March this year..

The UK, mostly Ulster and London have lived with terrorism for a long time. As have many European countries.

The difference is the people who are targeting us, and the reason for targeting us is very clear in the case of Islamic Fundamentalists.


BTW: I dont see how his post was bullshit this time (apart from the spelling and grammer) :lookaroun

I stand corrected on my facts, (actually an article about the recent bombings in a Canadian newspaper) but I still stand by the point. Added security does nothing but make the average, law abiding person paranoid and afraid, and I don't think there are as many nutjobs running around as Rafi suggests.

[GepperRankins]

turning a blind eye to terrorism is kinda stupid as they want to scare us, and they want us to listen. if we ignore them and stay insecure they'll get louder, not back down

with the IRA we could and apparently still do keep a close eye on them. but with the current al-qaida threat we can't keep an eye on them because we simply don't know who they are, therefore an armed police presence and vigilant commuters are the most effective ways to stop the current threat.

[Busyman]

I think the many dead in London from Terrorist attacks throughout the eighties and most of the nineties would disagree.

The last intelligence of an IRA threat in London was March this year..

The UK, mostly Ulster and London have lived with terrorism for a long time. As have many European countries.

The difference is the people who are targeting us, and the reason for targeting us is very clear in the case of Islamic Fundamentalists.


BTW: I dont see how his post was bullshit this time (apart from the spelling and grammer) :lookaroun

I stand corrected on my facts, (actually an article about the recent bombings in a Canadian newspaper) but I still stand by the point. Added security does nothing but make the average, law abiding person paranoid and afraid, and I don't think there are as many nutjobs running around as Rafi suggests.
Really? I thought a bomb up the ass of a baby makes a..

law abiding person paranoid and afraid.
:dry:

I know I feel a little bit better with normal police patrol. Hell I liked when my community patrol rolled past (which I was part of).

I was the only person that patrolled past 10pm 'cause I thought that was when was most needed.

I think some of you watch too many after-school specials.

[NikkiD]

Thanks, that clarified it for me. :wacko:
Great!!!

Now that I have time (since there alot that agree with Jonno), I will explain.


Yes. You're showing you are afraid.Showing weakness.
By having security?

I'll bring it down in scale a bit, you get into a fight and you hit the other guy.
If he then got all his mates to stand in front of him ,you'd think him a coward, next time you see him you wont be afraid of him because he backs down and is weak and needs protecting (often like leader bullies in schools)
If on the other hand, you hit him and he stands there blank face, you would instantly think to yourself he's a tough guy and you gonna have to hit him harder than that, or maybe don't mess with him cos you gave him your best shot and he just smilied at you.
Bullshit. In the real world and not this movie shit, if a fella had people protecting him, I would think him a coward. However, if I hit him and he smiles, I'm still going to fuck him up. Besides all-o-dat, none of that has shit to do security in a country. You are supposed to take measures to protect yourself. Terrorists want ruin America by destroying monuments, people, infrastructure, and markets. They will not stop due to us smiling and moving on. If anything, reduction in security will encourage it.


Now bring the scale back up.

They hit Isreal and it posts a centry on every corner.
That statement says "We are afraid of you and we need protecting"

Usa, Uk and several others get hit and we clean up, mourn our lost and carry on as normal.
That statement says "You can hit us as hard as you like but we wont be forced to live in fear from you"

Ya see, 9/11 because of lack security. A passive attitude does not relieve problems and actually will encourage it.

By your post, I think we should eliminate the Metro cops from the subway system.

In essence, WE DO NEED PROTECTING. duh. :1eye: ...and it can be done without too much harassment.

Otherwise, you curl up and die. For many folk, if ya don't pick up a weapon to arm yourself and turn your back, they will shoot you anyway.

Your post was full of the most liberal bullshit rationale I have ever heard, and I'm considered liberal. :dry:

Why are we supposed to take measures to protect ourselves? Are we expecting to be attacked at every turn? I'm not. If you are, then you prove the entire point I've been trying to make. That terrorism causes fear. You choose to give in to that fear and feel the need to protect yourself against something that may or may not happen again. I choose to go about my life the same as before. I'm not naive, I'm aware of what can happen. I choose not to let it run my life, as I've said before.

I remember what things were like after 9/11. People being harrassed for no other reason than having an Arabic last name. It was like that here as well, my stepkids are of Arabic descent and took a lot of crap at school because of their dark skin. It was a sad state in countries that pride themselves on being multicultural. That's the way we want to live? In constant suspicion?

I don't believe in just fighting a disease. I think it's more important to find a cure. As manker said earlier, eye for an eye only escalates the problem. Maybe it's time to look at why it happens instead of just increasing security and sending back a "proportionate response".

[JPaul]

There is a world of difference between having heightened security and having armed men wandering the street, searching people going into shops and buses etc. Armed guards may make people feel better (if that's your way of dealing with things, it isn't mine). However proper intelligence is the best way to deal with any terrorist threat. If there is resource to be spent, that's where it should go.

I agree with Jonno on this, we should live life as normally as possible. Thank goodness the cricket and F1 went ahead, with due respect to the deceased. That is the best response the public can make. We will not live in terror.

However we must also use the full force of the law to find the murderers, prosecute them and let them rot in prison, for a genuine life sentence. No martyrs, ket their "colleagues" see them rot in jail, without the glorious death and salvation.

[Rat Faced]

Great!!!

Now that I have time (since there alot that agree with Jonno), I will explain.


Yes. You're showing you are afraid.Showing weakness.
By having security?

I'll bring it down in scale a bit, you get into a fight and you hit the other guy.
If he then got all his mates to stand in front of him ,you'd think him a coward, next time you see him you wont be afraid of him because he backs down and is weak and needs protecting (often like leader bullies in schools)
If on the other hand, you hit him and he stands there blank face, you would instantly think to yourself he's a tough guy and you gonna have to hit him harder than that, or maybe don't mess with him cos you gave him your best shot and he just smilied at you.
Bullshit. In the real world and not this movie shit, if a fella had people protecting him, I would think him a coward. However, if I hit him and he smiles, I'm still going to fuck him up. Besides all-o-dat, none of that has shit to do security in a country. You are supposed to take measures to protect yourself. Terrorists want ruin America by destroying monuments, people, infrastructure, and markets. They will not stop due to us smiling and moving on. If anything, reduction in security will encourage it.


Now bring the scale back up.

They hit Isreal and it posts a centry on every corner.
That statement says "We are afraid of you and we need protecting"

Usa, Uk and several others get hit and we clean up, mourn our lost and carry on as normal.
That statement says "You can hit us as hard as you like but we wont be forced to live in fear from you"

Ya see, 9/11 because of lack security. A passive attitude does not relieve problems and actually will encourage it.

By your post, I think we should eliminate the Metro cops from the subway system.

In essence, WE DO NEED PROTECTING. duh. :1eye: ...and it can be done without too much harassment.

Otherwise, you curl up and die. For many folk, if ya don't pick up a weapon to arm yourself and turn your back, they will shoot you anyway.

Your post was full of the most liberal bullshit rationale I have ever heard, and I'm considered liberal. :dry:

Why are we supposed to take measures to protect ourselves? Are we expecting to be attacked at every turn? I'm not. If you are, then you prove the entire point I've been trying to make. That terrorism causes fear. You choose to give in to that fear and feel the need to protect yourself against something that may or may not happen again. I choose to go about my life the same as before. I'm not naive, I'm aware of what can happen. I choose not to let it run my life, as I've said before.

I remember what things were like after 9/11. People being harrassed for no other reason than having an Arabic last name. It was like that here as well, my stepkids are of Arabic descent and took a lot of crap at school because of their dark skin. It was a sad state in countries that pride themselves on being multicultural. That's the way we want to live? In constant suspicion?

I don't believe in just fighting a disease. I think it's more important to find a cure. As manker said earlier, eye for an eye only escalates the problem. Maybe it's time to look at why it happens instead of just increasing security and sending back a "proportionate response".

:01: :01: :01:

The Met just admitted that since the Iraqi conflict, they estimate 3000.. yes, i said 3000, people in the UK are now sympathetic with the Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists.

I really dont want my world being made safer that way.

I still remember when everytime i heard an Irish accent I was looking with suspicion, when i was in a pub taking my turn as lookout...

I didnt want coppers to have guns then, i still dont.

I'd rather live free thanks, without every nutter (and i wouldnt trust some of our soldiers with guns, never mind our police) being able to carry firearms.


Nikki, you forget busymans culture where the guns are freely available and everyone has a few... Its different to ours.

I'm sure if i'd been brought up in a place where they were visible all the time, were freely available and every petty thief is armed, i'd feel different.

[Busyman]

Great!!!

Now that I have time (since there alot that agree with Jonno), I will explain.


Yes. You're showing you are afraid.Showing weakness.
By having security?

I'll bring it down in scale a bit, you get into a fight and you hit the other guy.
If he then got all his mates to stand in front of him ,you'd think him a coward, next time you see him you wont be afraid of him because he backs down and is weak and needs protecting (often like leader bullies in schools)
If on the other hand, you hit him and he stands there blank face, you would instantly think to yourself he's a tough guy and you gonna have to hit him harder than that, or maybe don't mess with him cos you gave him your best shot and he just smilied at you.
Bullshit. In the real world and not this movie shit, if a fella had people protecting him, I would think him a coward. However, if I hit him and he smiles, I'm still going to fuck him up. Besides all-o-dat, none of that has shit to do security in a country. You are supposed to take measures to protect yourself. Terrorists want ruin America by destroying monuments, people, infrastructure, and markets. They will not stop due to us smiling and moving on. If anything, reduction in security will encourage it.


Now bring the scale back up.

They hit Isreal and it posts a centry on every corner.
That statement says "We are afraid of you and we need protecting"

Usa, Uk and several others get hit and we clean up, mourn our lost and carry on as normal.
That statement says "You can hit us as hard as you like but we wont be forced to live in fear from you"

Ya see, 9/11 because of lack security. A passive attitude does not relieve problems and actually will encourage it.

By your post, I think we should eliminate the Metro cops from the subway system.

In essence, WE DO NEED PROTECTING. duh. :1eye: ...and it can be done without too much harassment.

Otherwise, you curl up and die. For many folk, if ya don't pick up a weapon to arm yourself and turn your back, they will shoot you anyway.

Your post was full of the most liberal bullshit rationale I have ever heard, and I'm considered liberal. :dry:

Why are we supposed to take measures to protect ourselves? Are we expecting to be attacked at every turn? I'm not. If you are, then you prove the entire point I've been trying to make. That terrorism causes fear. You choose to give in to that fear and feel the need to protect yourself against something that may or may not happen again. I choose to go about my life the same as before. I'm not naive, I'm aware of what can happen. I choose not to let it run my life, as I've said before.

I remember what things were like after 9/11. People being harrassed for no other reason than having an Arabic last name. It was like that here as well, my stepkids are of Arabic descent and took a lot of crap at school because of their dark skin. It was a sad state in countries that pride themselves on being multicultural. That's the way we want to live? In constant suspicion?

I don't believe in just fighting a disease. I think it's more important to find a cure. As manker said earlier, eye for an eye only escalates the problem. Maybe it's time to look at why it happens instead of just increasing security and sending back a "proportionate response".
At this point, why it happens is cultish.

Remember there are no amount of concessions that will appease the bad apples. However, you can influence those that aren't already drawn in.

What you are talking about regarding harassment is an entirely different matter. For instance, here we have increased security sans the harassment.

I'm talking more bodies patrolling the areas and not making everyone open their bags on any little whim.

If we had armed guards on the subways, I couldn't give a rat's ass. For the most part security should be mostly transparent but ever changing it it's visibility. It makes potential terrorists harder to get a beed on making concrete plans but gives Joepublic the sense of being more secure.

[Busyman]

Great!!!

Now that I have time (since there alot that agree with Jonno), I will explain.


By having security?

I'll bring it down in scale a bit, you get into a fight and you hit the other guy.
If he then got all his mates to stand in front of him ,you'd think him a coward, next time you see him you wont be afraid of him because he backs down and is weak and needs protecting (often like leader bullies in schools)
If on the other hand, you hit him and he stands there blank face, you would instantly think to yourself he's a tough guy and you gonna have to hit him harder than that, or maybe don't mess with him cos you gave him your best shot and he just smilied at you.
Bullshit. In the real world and not this movie shit, if a fella had people protecting him, I would think him a coward. However, if I hit him and he smiles, I'm still going to fuck him up. Besides all-o-dat, none of that has shit to do security in a country. You are supposed to take measures to protect yourself. Terrorists want ruin America by destroying monuments, people, infrastructure, and markets. They will not stop due to us smiling and moving on. If anything, reduction in security will encourage it.


Now bring the scale back up.

They hit Isreal and it posts a centry on every corner.
That statement says "We are afraid of you and we need protecting"

Usa, Uk and several others get hit and we clean up, mourn our lost and carry on as normal.
That statement says "You can hit us as hard as you like but we wont be forced to live in fear from you"

Ya see, 9/11 because of lack security. A passive attitude does not relieve problems and actually will encourage it.

By your post, I think we should eliminate the Metro cops from the subway system.

In essence, WE DO NEED PROTECTING. duh. :1eye: ...and it can be done without too much harassment.

Otherwise, you curl up and die. For many folk, if ya don't pick up a weapon to arm yourself and turn your back, they will shoot you anyway.

Your post was full of the most liberal bullshit rationale I have ever heard, and I'm considered liberal. :dry:

Why are we supposed to take measures to protect ourselves? Are we expecting to be attacked at every turn? I'm not. If you are, then you prove the entire point I've been trying to make. That terrorism causes fear. You choose to give in to that fear and feel the need to protect yourself against something that may or may not happen again. I choose to go about my life the same as before. I'm not naive, I'm aware of what can happen. I choose not to let it run my life, as I've said before.

I remember what things were like after 9/11. People being harrassed for no other reason than having an Arabic last name. It was like that here as well, my stepkids are of Arabic descent and took a lot of crap at school because of their dark skin. It was a sad state in countries that pride themselves on being multicultural. That's the way we want to live? In constant suspicion?

I don't believe in just fighting a disease. I think it's more important to find a cure. As manker said earlier, eye for an eye only escalates the problem. Maybe it's time to look at why it happens instead of just increasing security and sending back a "proportionate response".

:01: :01: :01:

The Met just admitted that since the Iraqi conflict, they estimate 3000.. yes, i said 3000, people in the UK are now sympathetic with the Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists.

I really dont want my world being made safer that way.

I still remember when everytime i heard an Irish accent I was looking with suspicion, when i was in a pub taking my turn as lookout...

I didnt want coppers to have guns then, i still dont.

I'd rather live free thanks, without every nutter (and i wouldnt trust some of our soldiers with guns, never mind our police) being able to carry firearms.


Nikki, you forget busymans culture where the guns are freely available and everyone has a few... Its different to ours.

I'm sure if i'd been brought up in a place where they were visible all the time, were freely available and every petty thief is armed, i'd feel different.
...and isn't it sumthin'?

We still live our lives as happy as can be. :)

Many of you still miss the point.

Being passive with no protection is fucking stupid.

You can secure yourself almost transparently.
I hear extremes to prove a point when those extremes aren't necessary and for me, don't exist. :dry:

[Jon L. Obscene]

Well RF brought to light about your culture.
Explains quite a bit, like I said ealier in this or in another post , why do you need to protect yourself with steel bullets?
IF you REALLY are that afraid that you need weapons to feel safe, why do you have to have weapons that kill with the squeeze of a trigger?

In the uk you got no chance of getting a gun, not legally anyway.
Hell , there are only a couple of places where police carry more than a batton and pepper spray in the uk.
We feel safe, the threat is still there with your armed guards, cept you are showing fear.

Places like Isreal have busses exploding and shit like that far too frequently.
Why??
What good are these guards doing?

Show me proof these Guards are making people feel safe and actually making the country a safer place.

Personally I find the thought that pretty much anyone can own a gun rather disturbing.
Jesus christ you can't even own a powerful catapolt here.

Do we moan about national saftey?

No

So like I said, prove me wrong.

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

Well RF brought to light about your culture.
Explains quite a bit, like I said ealier in this or in another post , why do you need to protect yourself with steel bullets?
IF you REALLY are that afraid that you need weapons to feel safe, why do you have to have weapons that kill with the squeeze of a trigger?

In the uk you got no chance of getting a gun, not legally anyway.
Hell , there are only a couple of places where police carry more than a batton and pepper spray in the uk.
We feel safe, the threat is still there with your armed guards, cept you are showing fear.

Places like Isreal have busses exploding and shit like that far too frequently.
Why??
What good are these guards doing?

Show me proof these Guards are making people feel safe and actually making the country a safer place.

Personally I find the thought that pretty much anyone can own a gun rather disturbing.
Jesus christ you can't even own a powerful catapolt here.

Do we moan about national saftey?

No

So like I said, prove me wrong.

Jonno :cool:
Remove your entire police force then.

.....and why do they need pepper spray and a batton?

And yes you do moan about national safety.

You'd be some dumbfucks not to change something in your security measures on your subway system. This does not have to include harassment.

I heard that you had a very good camera system.

Regarding guns, I chill in my backyard. Sleep in my hammock at night.

Yet I own guns. STFW. My ownership is transparent...until I need to use it.

[Rat Faced]

Coz even a limey petty thief can pick up a stick :P

[Jon L. Obscene]

Oh ffs, I'm sorry but there's a world of difference between pepper spray and a gun.
The police is different, they are there to inforce laws, normal household laws.
The police's main concern is not terrorism, it's drunken disturbances.
And the police are a deterant to law breakers.

Placing an armed (with automatics guns) guard on every bus train and cafe door is a little different from a local bobby plodding the drunken beat.

So don't even try and interconnect the 2 because that arguement holds no wieght whatsoever in this discussion.

Jonno :cool:

Edit: wait.......by your comment of you used to beat after 10pm, does that mean you were a copper?
That would also explain your views, you see things only from a coppers pov, not joe publics pov and you always will, I'm not taking the piss here I'm serious. It is programmed into you to protect and serve.......what were you protecting and serving from?
Did you know where a drug deal was gonna go down? did you know about drive by shootings? or did you get there AFTER the event?
So by your logic there should be a copper on guard 24/7 on every street in the world. Cos that would make people feel safe would'nt it :rolleyes:

[Busyman]

Oh ffs, I'm sorry but there's a world of difference between pepper spray and a gun.
The police is different, they are there to inforce laws, normal household laws.
The police's main concern is not terrorism, it's drunken disturbances.
And the police are a deterant to law breakers.

Placing an armed (with automatics guns) guard on every bus train and cafe door is a little different from a local bobby plodding the drunken beat.

So don't even try and interconnect the 2 because that arguement holds no wieght whatsoever in this discussion.

Jonno :cool:
Neither does yours. You keep bringing up armed guards with automatic guns on every bus, train and cafe when the only person that seems to embrace that is tralalalalalala.

You've proven my point. Police are a deterant to law breakers. WTF does the stepped up security do? :dry:

Not having stepped up security encourages more 9/11's. I'm sure the hijackers took awhile due to planning....planning on how to get past security measures (and learning to fly).

If the London subway security remains static then I'm sure there will be a repeat performance of that atrocity.

What pisses me off about our security is that it is reactive. After your subway bombing then we had stepped up security. Great!!...what about all this stepped up shit after 9/11? :angry:

[Jon L. Obscene]

Neither does yours. You keep bringing up armed guards with automatic guns on every bus, train and cafe when the only person that seems to embrace that is tralalalalalala.

:huh: So you're agreeing with me now?
You make no sense man.

Isreal hav'nt stepped up security, they are a military state pretty much.
I was arguing against Rafi's point of armed guards in isreal is good, wtf have you been talking about? :huh:

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

Neither does yours. You keep bringing up armed guards with automatic guns on every bus, train and cafe when the only person that seems to embrace that is tralalalalalala.

:huh: So you're agreeing with me now?
You make no sense man.

Isreal hav'nt stepped up security, they are a military state pretty much.
I was arguing against Rafi's point of armed guards in isreal is good, wtf have you been talking about? :huh:

Jonno :cool:
Now? Check post #97. :dry:

[Jon L. Obscene]

Ah, you're arguing my point that heavy security makes you look week.

Well I'm sorry but to me a person or place that needs heavy security at their own home is showing fear, if you don't live in fear, why do you need the security like that?

Jonno :cool:

[NikkiD]

The police here carry guns. And it is legal for citizens to have guns. However, to buy a gun, you must first be trained, and then licensed. The types of guns available to the public is much more limited than it is in the US. Only certain individuals may carry concealed weapons, and it is very, very difficult to obtain a license for that - Private investigators, personal bodyguards, highly trained persons. Storage of weapons here is very specific. All weapons must have trigger locks as well as safety mechanisms. They may not be stored loaded. They must be stored in a locked compartment - and ammunition must be stored separately and also locked away. So they are available, but not freely.

That said, the number of gun related deaths in Canada is relatively low in comparison with the US. I'm not sure of exact statistics in this area, so I won't give exact quotes.

I personally don't own a gun. Don't want one, don't feel a need for one. I know very few people who do, most of those are used for deer/goose hunting. I rarely lock my door, though I have had the occasional drunk wander in. I still feel safe.

I don't feel that being passive with no protection is stupid. I don't feel the need for protection, that's the whole point. There IS a police force, yet crime still happens. There IS security in the subways, yet people still get pushed onto the tracks. There IS an intelligence agency in the states, and yet 9/11 happened. You can't prevent everything. Deal with what happens as it happens. Punish the offenders accordingly. Move on. You can't live your life worrying about what might happen - that's no way to live.

[Jon L. Obscene]

There IS a police force, yet crime still happens. There IS security in the subways, yet people still get pushed onto the tracks. There IS an intelligence agency in the states, and yet 9/11 happened. You can't prevent everything. Deal with what happens as it happens. Punish the offenders accordingly. Move on. You can't live your life worrying about what might happen - that's no way to live.

That's!! what I was trying to say :lol:

I can add nothing more to that, perfectly said :)

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

Ah, you're arguing my point that heavy security makes you look week.

Well I'm sorry but to me a person or place that needs heavy security at their own home is showing fear, if you don't live in fear, why do you need the security like that?

Jonno :cool:
Hmmm.....no security makes you look weaker. Maybe banks should take your advice.

Since me owning a gun is transparent, I don't "look" weak or strong.

If you call that heavy security (simple ownership)...well it sounds kinda wussy.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Our banks have no security guards, only alarms and shutters.

Jonno :cool:

Edit: Ok Busyman you got me, I actually am now not sure what it is you're dissagreeing with.
We are talking about the difference between Isreal and countries like the us and uk. And my pov is that all the extra security Isreal is pouring onto it's streets makes it look weak and that the best way to battle terrorism is to show no fear, you cannot prevent, it's impossible to fight an invisible enemy. So rather than show fear by upgrading security by giving every bobby an ak-47, we/I think it's a better policy to try to find the people responsible and get to them that way, eventually you will briong them down from the inside, meanwhile we show they have no effect on our lives and we continue to live not in fear........but just simply in our own lives.

[tralalala]

I would like to reply to a couple posts a few pages back (I would have replied earlier but the bloody board went offline... typical.. :lol:).

So this is what I was gonna write:

@RioDeLeo:

I pronmise one thing to you: If you take statements from a Muslim article, you will always see the Israeli guy as "the bad guy". It's a fact. Sky News in Britain always seem to show Israel as the "bad people", same with the BBC.
People always want to show how bad Israel is all the time, when they do not even consider looking at the situation from the Israeli guys side. These people hate us. We want peace, but quite a few of them don't. We offer a portion of land which is definately enough (as Israel is the only Jewish state, whereas the Palestinians could not just live in Palestine, but in 20 other countries too, so please..).

An Israeli would see a terrorist as a person looking to cause fatalities for this reason: He wants to.
Not all Arabs are terrorists, in fact, only a small percentage of them are, but unfortunately that small percentage reflects the big picture too. The same if you took a class of 30 kids. 3 kids cause havoc in every lesson. Teachers say the class is screwed up.
Small things have big reflections too you know...


@Nikki:
All houses demolished were of the families of the terrorists (i.e their mom and dads house, or their own house if they had one - most of them were too young for one of their own.......).

In todays world, we need to catch these people seeking to kill us and get them first. How do we do that? catch 'em hot handed. The other option: Invading their countries from which they operate and get them from there. The problem: Too many people will condemn that, so it wouldn't work.
Alas, the winning option is more security to catch them.

In Israel, we have lots of guards everywhere so we can walk in the streets not worrying about terrorists, as they are being caught on their way by our guards who PROTECT US. I know it sounds odd, but none of you have lived in such a country surrounded by hatred, needing to protect itself in a very big sort of way.
That is why we are not a police state.
In fact, if we could actually get peace here please god, we may not need to have compulsory army service anymore, but maybe just a minor service (like 1 year instead of 3).


Yes, I think Muslims also want a nice world, but as I wrote above, a little splurge can ruin the whole picture....


Now to the newer replies:

Nikki:
You say lets leave the armed guards, forget 'em. I'd rather be open to attacks than be protected by guards. You'd be gone within a month of that change in Israel.

Jonno:
Your example with the punch up is not a good one and unlike Busy who summed it up in 2 words :lol: I'll tell ya why in more detail:

A punch up - I hit someone. He brings backup - I stop hitting him cos I'm worried he and his backup men will hit me.
Terrorism is different. They will try and hit you even if you do have backup.
And, as Busyman said - If I hit someone and he smiles back at me, I'll make his smile fractured within a matter of 2 punches and a boot.. :lol:

Countries are different, in countries you need to have someone on the watch to make sure there is no havoc, no casualties, no fatalities.
I wouldn't call myself a coward for enjoying the fact that I am safe.

You said someone with excessive guards is weak and paranoid.
I'm not weak. My mum and dad and brother aren't weak.
My friends are not weak. We are also not paranoid.
We live a perfectly normal life, just like you up untill that attack, and yes, we live like you do PLUS we are SAFE as well.

That is why I would call me a precautiose person rather a fearful and weak person.
If we had no guards and security like we do, the chances of me perishing in one of these attacks would be so much higher..!!
Could you imagine losing me Jonno, could you??????!!!!!!!!?!?!?!

I know, I sound mad, and I sound afraid of being kiled, but infact I am not. I am more afraid of losing my family and friends abroad as a result of lack of security. Forget Israels security - that's a different story - we have had too much experience in that feild unfortunately, but now we got hit, we have our backup, and it is now more difficult to hit us back.



Rafi

[Busyman]

The police here carry guns. And it is legal for citizens to have guns. However, to buy a gun, you must first be trained, and then licensed. The types of guns available to the public is much more limited than it is in the US. Only certain individuals may carry concealed weapons, and it is very, very difficult to obtain a license for that - Private investigators, personal bodyguards, highly trained persons. Storage of weapons here is very specific. All weapons must have trigger locks as well as safety mechanisms. They may not be stored loaded. They must be stored in a locked compartment - and ammunition must be stored separately and also locked away. So they are available, but not freely.

That said, the number of gun related deaths in Canada is relatively low in comparison with the US. I'm not sure of exact statistics in this area, so I won't give exact quotes.

I personally don't own a gun. Don't want one, don't feel a need for one. I know very few people who do, most of those are used for deer/goose hunting. I rarely lock my door, though I have had the occasional drunk wander in. I still feel safe.

I don't feel that being passive with no protection is stupid. I don't feel the need for protection, that's the whole point. There IS a police force, yet crime still happens. There IS security in the subways, yet people still get pushed onto the tracks. There IS an intelligence agency in the states, and yet 9/11 happened. You can't prevent everything. Deal with what happens as it happens. Punish the offenders accordingly. Move on. You can't live your life worrying about what might happen - that's no way to live.
One should always strive for perfection even though you can't achieve it. Did Canada change any security measures after 9/11? Probably so. Why do ya think?

Obviously a security hole was exploited so a passive attitude towards that type of thing is stupid. Plain and simple.

If you have young kids and rarely lock your doors, I consider that stupid.

I like you gun laws btw. ;)

[tralalala]

And might I add the post I missed whilst typing my previouse one:

Nikki: Punishing the offenders is not enough, you need to punish the future ones too.
We can catch them.
We should catch them.
We need to catch them.

If we get hit, and look at who hit us, then walk away, why should that stop him from hitting again??

[tralalala]

:lol: yet again missed posts.....

Nikki: Rarely locking your doors with kids in the house is a silly thing to do... What IF someone came in and nicked your TV? What IF someone came in and (GOD FORBID) attacked you or kids?
In that case, why not leave you're car open at all times, in fact, what's the need for keys anymore?

9/11 Happened, probably, because of someone sort of missing an eye, not taking it seriously.
That's how the 1973 Yom Kippur war (where Israel was attacked at the same time by Jordan, Egypt and Syria) started, and Israel lost many lives - over 2000. All because of someone who thought nothing's gonna happen, so let's pass on it..

As they say: Better safe than sorry.

And I think that sums it up don't you?




P.S: EDIT: We also have those same gun rules. Only after trained and licensed may you handle a gun publicly.

[Jon L. Obscene]

@Rafi...... dude I never said YOU'RE weak, I'm talking about the apperence your country gives.
And this crap about if you hit someone and he smiled you'd break his face, omg get out of terminator mode both of you, if you hit me and I smiled you would not be thinking you're gonna break my face. I've seen it happen, it casts fear. You hit someone as hard as you can and they smile at you, what you gonna do? hit em again so they smile at you again?
Thing to think about is.......what is happening while they are smiling at you?

It makes perfect sense, we've always called bullies weak becase they will be 1 big lad protected by others, take his mates away and he's weak, whereas people like me will stand alone and stand his ground.

It's just a scale thing.

Jonno :cool:

Oh and Rafi.......Living your life by "What if's" is no good, what if I fall of my bike today? what if I get hit by a car today? what if I slip in the shower and hit my head today?

[tralalala]

Again, put it all into scales: Safety from terrorists is far more "bigger" shall we say, than falling in the shower.
Terrorism is something people do to you. The other examples you gave were just bad luck that happens to you.

You can generally control you're life by living it, as wild as can be, but making sure you don't get into dodgy "zones", and by that way, making the "Better safe than sorry" phrase a well placed one.

[tralalala]

I'm so so sorry but I think I'm gonna retire to bed..... its Midnight here and I need to get up tomorrow at 7:30 to go help out at ma wee brothers camp.....

G'night all, don't let the bed bugs bite!! :)


Man this has become one heck of a discussion eh? Let's keep it going this way!! :)


G'night once again,
Rafi *yawn*

[Jon L. Obscene]

What if I get jumped on my way to work and beaten for no reason?
What if a fight breaks out and I interfere and get stabbed?

It's all what if's and life's not like that.
Besides, you said what if someone steels her tv etc, thats a bit less important than me getting hit by a car would'nt you say?

You can not control terrorism with more guns, you get more guns so they have to out do you and get more themselfs, to teach you a lesson.

You do not fight fire with fire, you can't wn that battle.
Attacks cannot be predicted.
All they do now if they can't get on a bus is get in a taxi, or just leave a car parked.
Tell me again what good it does to have so many armed guards?

Jonno :cool:

Edit: Night dude :)

[NikkiD]

One should always strive for perfection even though you can't achieve it. Did Canada change any security measures after 9/11? Probably so. Why do ya think?

Yes, some measures changed. Airport security for one - you now have to go through the same security checks for domestic flights as for international. Loved ones cannot see you through to the gate anymore, they cannot come past security. The types of things that are allowed in carry on luggage has changed. All in all though, not that noticeable a difference to the average Canadian, other than an extra hour at the airport to fly to within borders. There is also now a sky marshall on each flight, though they are plain clothed and unnoticed. (so far as my mother says, I haven't been on vacation since 2000 cause I can't afford it :cry: :lol: )

Other than that, I couldn't tell you what changes have occurred here. If they have, they are not blatantly obvious to me.


Obviously a security hole was exploited so a passive attitude towards that type of thing is stupid. Plain and simple.

Now, that statement would be true, if, the government knew that terrorists planned to fly airplanes into buildings and did nothing about it. And if that is the case then the flaws are not with this "passive attitude" but with your government itself. If they knew this for a fact, and knew there were security holes at airports, and stood by and did nothing, then the blame lies with them, not with society's passive attitude. National security is the responsibility of the government, it is not the responsibility of the everyday citizen to arm themselves. When that happens, you enter the realm of martial law, and that is a dangerous place to be.


If you have young kids and rarely lock your doors, I consider that stupid.

Don't get me wrong, at night, if I'm alone with the kids, I lock the door. I'm little. During the day though, it's open, and yes, there are times when I forget, or fall asleep on the couch with it open. At the same time though, I figure locked or unlocked, if someone wants to break in badly enough, they will.


I like you gun laws btw. ;)

They've gotten better these last few years. :)

[bigboab]

I flew into Prestwick Airport from Dublin the same day as the G8 leaders arrived at Prestwick. I saw an old man with a walking stick going through the security at Dublin. That walking stick might have been a 'plastic' gun. I had to take my shoes off. Bet they dont ask me to do that again.:lol:

Hundreds of police with guns and dogs etc at Prestwick. I am used to that kind of reception wherever I go.:(

[NikkiD]

I would like to reply to a couple posts a few pages back (I would have replied earlier but the bloody board went offline... typical.. :lol:).

So this is what I was gonna write:

@RioDeLeo:

I pronmise one thing to you: If you take statements from a Muslim article, you will always see the Israeli guy as "the bad guy". It's a fact. Sky News in Britain always seem to show Israel as the "bad people", same with the BBC.
People always want to show how bad Israel is all the time, when they do not even consider looking at the situation from the Israeli guys side. These people hate us. We want peace, but quite a few of them don't. We offer a portion of land which is definately enough (as Israel is the only Jewish state, whereas the Palestinians could not just live in Palestine, but in 20 other countries too, so please..).

An Israeli would see a terrorist as a person looking to cause fatalities for this reason: He wants to.
Not all Arabs are terrorists, in fact, only a small percentage of them are, but unfortunately that small percentage reflects the big picture too. The same if you took a class of 30 kids. 3 kids cause havoc in every lesson. Teachers say the class is screwed up.
Small things have big reflections too you know...


@Nikki:
All houses demolished were of the families of the terrorists (i.e their mom and dads house, or their own house if they had one - most of them were too young for one of their own.......).

In todays world, we need to catch these people seeking to kill us and get them first. How do we do that? catch 'em hot handed. The other option: Invading their countries from which they operate and get them from there. The problem: Too many people will condemn that, so it wouldn't work.
Alas, the winning option is more security to catch them.

In Israel, we have lots of guards everywhere so we can walk in the streets not worrying about terrorists, as they are being caught on their way by our guards who PROTECT US. I know it sounds odd, but none of you have lived in such a country surrounded by hatred, needing to protect itself in a very big sort of way.
That is why we are not a police state.
In fact, if we could actually get peace here please god, we may not need to have compulsory army service anymore, but maybe just a minor service (like 1 year instead of 3).


Yes, I think Muslims also want a nice world, but as I wrote above, a little splurge can ruin the whole picture....


Now to the newer replies:

Nikki:
You say lets leave the armed guards, forget 'em. I'd rather be open to attacks than be protected by guards. You'd be gone within a month of that change in Israel.

Jonno:
Your example with the punch up is not a good one and unlike Busy who summed it up in 2 words :lol: I'll tell ya why in more detail:

A punch up - I hit someone. He brings backup - I stop hitting him cos I'm worried he and his backup men will hit me.
Terrorism is different. They will try and hit you even if you do have backup.
And, as Busyman said - If I hit someone and he smiles back at me, I'll make his smile fractured within a matter of 2 punches and a boot.. :lol:

Countries are different, in countries you need to have someone on the watch to make sure there is no havoc, no casualties, no fatalities.
I wouldn't call myself a coward for enjoying the fact that I am safe.

You said someone with excessive guards is weak and paranoid.
I'm not weak. My mum and dad and brother aren't weak.
My friends are not weak. We are also not paranoid.
We live a perfectly normal life, just like you up untill that attack, and yes, we live like you do PLUS we are SAFE as well.

That is why I would call me a precautiose person rather a fearful and weak person.
If we had no guards and security like we do, the chances of me perishing in one of these attacks would be so much higher..!!
Could you imagine losing me Jonno, could you??????!!!!!!!!?!?!?!

I know, I sound mad, and I sound afraid of being kiled, but infact I am not. I am more afraid of losing my family and friends abroad as a result of lack of security. Forget Israels security - that's a different story - we have had too much experience in that feild unfortunately, but now we got hit, we have our backup, and it is now more difficult to hit us back.



Rafi

Whoa whoa whoa... families of terrorists????? WTF???? So now should we go out and punish murderers by tearing down the houses of their families too? That is guilt by association, and it simply wrong.

I seriously doubt that you get an unbiased view on what happens there from the Israeli media Rafi. I should think that the BBC or the SkyNews are probably closer to the truth of the matter.

You cannot possibly punish future offenders - there is no way of knowing with any certainty who they are without punishing the innocent as well. Sending someone to jail because they might set off a car bomb is totally unjust.

(had to do that quick cause I gotta run and make dinner... so it might not make sense.)

[Busyman]

Yes, some measures changed. Airport security for one - you now have to go through the same security checks for domestic flights as for international. Loved ones cannot see you through to the gate anymore, they cannot come past security. The types of things that are allowed in carry on luggage has changed. All in all though, not that noticeable a difference to the average Canadian, other than an extra hour at the airport to fly to within borders. There is also now a sky marshall on each flight, though they are plain clothed and unnoticed. (so far as my mother says, I haven't been on vacation since 2000 cause I can't afford it :cry: :lol: )

Other than that, I couldn't tell you what changes have occurred here. If they have, they are not blatantly obvious to me.
....and that's what I'm talking about.....transparency ;)


Obviously a security hole was exploited so a passive attitude towards that type of thing is stupid. Plain and simple.


Now, that statement would be true, if, the government knew that terrorists planned to fly airplanes into buildings and did nothing about it. And if that is the case then the flaws are not with this "passive attitude" but with your government itself. If they knew this for a fact, and knew there were security holes at airports, and stood by and did nothing, then the blame lies with them, not with society's passive attitude. National security is the responsibility of the government, it is not the responsibility of the everyday citizen to arm themselves. When that happens, you enter the realm of martial law, and that is a dangerous place to be.
We are all obviously talking about the government and whether we agree with certain tactics. I hear this passive attitude towards security yet you seem cool with the changes Canada made. :huh:
The security hole on 9/11 was whether people made it on the plane with weapons (and tracking folks that aren't supposed to be here anymore). This is not known for a fact but is likely.

Security holes should be plugged without offensive crap like our Patriot Act. :dry:

[Busyman]

Our banks have no security guards, only alarms and shutters.

Jonno :cool:

Edit: Ok Busyman you got me, I actually am now not sure what it is you're dissagreeing with.
We are talking about the difference between Isreal and countries like the us and uk. And my pov is that all the extra security Isreal is pouring onto it's streets makes it look weak and that the best way to battle terrorism is to show no fear, you cannot prevent, it's impossible to fight an invisible enemy. So rather than show fear by upgrading security by giving every bobby an ak-47, we/I think it's a better policy to try to find the people responsible and get to them that way, eventually you will briong them down from the inside, meanwhile we show they have no effect on our lives and we continue to live not in fear........but just simply in our own lives.
It's pretty easy. I disagreed with post 103.

[NikkiD]

....and that's what I'm talking about.....transparency ;)

We are all obviously talking about the government and whether we agree with certain tactics. I hear this passive attitude towards security yet you seem cool with the changes Canada made. :huh:
The security hole on 9/11 was whether people made it on the plane with weapons (and tracking folks that aren't supposed to be here anymore). This is not known for a fact but is likely.

Security holes should be plugged without offensive crap like our Patriot Act. :dry:

And with that I agree.

That has not changed my life to any visible extent. There were always security measures in airports, they have just been extended to include domestic flights. There was always a police detachment at the airport. What Rafi proposes however, is placing armed guards in malls (which are not present here now), on streets, in parking garages, on public transportation. This would cause a visible change. If I were to be stopped on the street and a guard asked to search my car or person, I would be livid, and probably ask to see a search warrant. :lol: That is the kind of protection I'm saying I don't want or need.

[3RA1N1AC]

@Nikki:
All houses demolished were of the families of the terrorists (i.e their mom and dads house, or their own house if they had one - most of them were too young for one of their own.......).

Whoa whoa whoa... families of terrorists????? WTF???? So now should we go out and punish murderers by tearing down the houses of their families too? That is guilt by association, and it simply wrong.
hmm. well, people seem fond of repeating the idea that muslims are on a completely different track from "us"... whole different idea of whats ethical/moral/true/false... and that they simply cannot be measured by "our" ethical standards. tralala's statement, and eye-for-an-eye and sins-of-the-fathers sort of stuff, makes me wonder if the same is no less true of israel. might it be a mistake to assume that just because israel's aligned to the west & supported by it, that israel's "moral compass" is pointed anywhere near the rest of ours? when someone commits a crime in my country, my first thought certainly isn't "okay, let's round up the family, knock their house down and punish them"; any culture that considers this logically & ethically acceptable is alien to me.

[RioDeLeo]

hmm. well, people seem fond of repeating the idea that muslims are on a completely different track from "us"... whole different idea of whats ethical/moral/true/false... and that they simply cannot be measured by "our" ethical standards. tralala's statement, and eye-for-an-eye and sins-of-the-fathers sort of stuff, makes me wonder if the same is no less true of israel. might it be a mistake to assume that just because israel's aligned to the west & supported by it, that israel's "moral compass" is pointed anywhere near the rest of ours? when someone commits a crime in my country, my first thought certainly isn't "okay, let's round up the family, knock their house down and punish them"; any culture that considers this logically & ethically acceptable is alien to me.

Well said.

@ Tralala: l think you are well named, you obviously live in LalaLand.

This statement ..

These people hate us. We want peace, but quite a few of them don't. We offer a portion of land which is definately enough (as Israel is the only Jewish state, whereas the Palestinians could not just live in Palestine, but in 20 other countries too, so please..).
.. is typical of your sort.
You hate them as much as they hate you.
Many, many Israelis DON'T want peace, they want all Muslims\Arabs out of "Greater Israel".
The "portion" of land you offer them is already theirs, along with the rest of it you stole.
Jews can and do live in every country in the world, they don't all have to live in Israel any more than all Catholics have to live in the Vatican.

Your earlier answer to NikkiD about terrorists houses was ably answered by 3RA1N1AC, so l will only concur with what he said.

[tralalala]

I'm sorry Rio but that post of yours is out of order.

"is typical of your sort". Your sort?? Now you talking to me as if I'm some alien or something?!
Israel is the only country where Jews can live, and not be worried about antisemetism which is growing more and more.
The Palestinians can live in any other Arab countrywithout worrying about antisemetism, don't you think?

How can you say I hate them? I don't like them for what that small portion of them do, but I do not hate the majority, they are good people.
Many Israelis? You've been watching Al-Jazeera again right?
That portion of land I was talking about is the land that was used by the settlers, and currently is held by Israel (though I think it should'nt be held by us).
Yes, Jews may well live anywhere, but their home is in Israel, land of the Jews, and you cannot change that.

[Barbarossa]

Yes, Jews may well live anywhere, but their home is in Israel, land of the Jews, and you cannot change that.

Funny, I could have sworn that part of the world used to be called Palestine ... :huh:

So basically you want to drive all the Palestinians out of their ancestral home, and hope that other countries such as Syria, Jordan and Egypt will take them in as refugees. Sounds a bit like ethnic cleansing to me.. Sounds alot like religious persecution too, you know, sort of like that anti-semetism you were bleating on about..

[bigboab]

I think that solving this problem will take a long while.

If you are a Jew then you believe that this is your promised land.

If you are a Palestinian then you believe that the land is yours.

If you are Islamic then you back the Palestinians, or appear so to do.

If you are non religious then you look at the facts.

When I was a young boy the Jews were the terrorists, killing British soldiers.
People tend to forget this fact. Or were they 'freedom fighters' depending on which side of the fence you were on.

Now the Palestinians are the terrorists, or are they 'freedom fighters'.

A very tricky situation. When you start talking about 'promised lands' The British 'promised' this land(and a lot of other land) to the Arabs for their help in the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire in that area. Lawrence Of Arabia and all that. The british were forced to renege on that promise by the intervention of WW2 and the League Of Nations Mandate on Palestine.

I would not even attempt to try and take sides in all that mess. Who is right and who is wrong. I dont know.:(

[RioDeLeo]

I would not even attempt to try and take sides in all that mess. Who is right and who is wrong. I dont know.:(

To the victor goes the spoils, unfortunately. In this case the haves are in the wrong and the have-nots are in the right, because it's the haves who are denying the have-nots what is rightfully theirs.

@ Tralala, you have a hide calling my post out of order, and judging by the comments here you are convincing no-one.

[bigboab]

In this case the haves are in the wrong and the have-nots are in the right, because it's the haves who are denying the have-nots what is rightfully theirs.

Most indubitably.:blink:

[tralalala]

Right,

colin: Where would we go if we were to give "Palestine" in it's whole back to them?
You need to understand that Israel is more than wiling to offer land to the Palestinians to live in. It is up to them to decide if they want it or not.
They strive for more, we can't afford to give more... We are 6 million, they are 1 million.
There is a difference.

No I do not want them out of here, that would be impossible and wrong. I want them to live peacfully next to us.
Israel was called Palestine by the Greeks... Go figure...
Jews have always lived in that land, so have Arabs, but the thing is we will never manage to decide "who was there fisrt".
The fact is today both are still here.
At the 1948 war of independance, straight after the UN decided Israel would become a state for the Jews, what happened? All arab states (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq and most importantly - the what we now call Palestinians or Israeli-Arabs), started to attack the newly born country simply because they did not want us to live here.
We won.
They lost.
Many fled and today they want to come back.
This is impossible - there would be a demographic explosion if they did.

@BB:
The Jews helped the Brits in WW2.
The Brits promised to let Holocaust survivors to come live in Israel.
They never let more than some 2000 in legally.
That is why some Jews started to attack the Brits - they did not do what they promised to do, leaving many Jews on ships doing nothing, waiting.
Yes, the Palestinians are fighting their war of independance, they will get a state.
They will NOT get all of Israel, that will never happen.

@Rio:
I am only trying to convine people that Israel are not what they see. Don't beleive everything people tell you... (A good example on that is "Yes Minister".. watch it).
And by that odd statement of yours I'm taking that once again you are telling that Israel are wrong, the Arabs are right eh?
Well, THEY FLED THE COUNTRY IN 1948.
THEY NEVER RETURNED.
NOW THEY SUDDENLY WANT TO COME BACK TO GIVE US A HARD TIME.
NO WAY ARE ISRAEL OUT OF ORDER HERE.

Israel is NOT rightfully theirs, never was, never will be.
Israel belongs to the Jews, and has done for 57 years, and thousands of years prior to that.

[tralalala]

And another thing Rio and colin:

Do you support sending the Jews out of Israel and leaving them out?

If not, what do you support in that term then???

[Barbarossa]

And another thing Rio and colin:

Do you support sending the Jews out of Israel and leaving them out?

If not, what do you supposr in that term then???

It just doesn't occur to you to try and find a way to peacefully co-exist with each other, does it?

To be fair, it's not just you, it appears to me that it doesn't occur to any of the involved parties.

Enjoy your military service... ;)

EDIT: Seems I'd better put this back, as Tralalala already replied to it.. However, I apologise in as much that I missed something Tralalala said in the post above the above post... (if that makes any sense)

[tralalala]

Whaaaaa???

You think we don't want to co-exist? We want peace, I WANT PEACE....

That's what I've been saying since I started this thread.......
And what do you mean by "another way to co-exist"..??

Enjoy your military service, whats that supposed to mean!?

[Barbarossa]

Whaaaaa???

You think we don't want to co-exist? We want peace, I WANT PEACE....

That's what I've been saying since I started this thread.......
And what do you mean by "another way to co-exist"..??

Enjoy your military service, whats that supposed to mean!?

Apologies, I did not read all of your previous post. :blushing:

[tralalala]

It's ok, hap[pens to many people.. Easy to mis-post when typing something about a topic so "delicate"...

[RioDeLeo]

@Rio:
Don't beleive everything people tell you... (A good example on that is "Yes Minister".. watch it).

No, you watch it, l'm not a 15 year old kid, thank you very much!

And by that odd statement of yours I'm taking that once again you are telling that Israel are wrong, the Arabs are right eh?
Well, THEY FLED THE COUNTRY IN 1948.
THEY NEVER RETURNED.
NOW THEY SUDDENLY WANT TO COME BACK TO GIVE US A HARD TIME.
NO WAY ARE ISRAEL OUT OF ORDER HERE.

You invaded them in 1967 and stole all the land they had. You occupy it, illegally, to this day. You have built illegal settlements ever since. You stole all the lands of the West Bank containing the underwater aquafers, and now intend to vacate the Gaza Strip, a land you have no historical or biblical links to, in order to keep the 42% of the West Bank you illegally stole and occupy. Their fight is not only about the return of refugees, driven illegally from their villages by Jewish terrorist gangs, it's about getting rid of the illegal occupiers of their land. They are not asking for the whole of Israel, they are asking for the land you stole from them in 1967, and the removal of foreign forces from their land.

Israel is NOT rightfully theirs, never was, never will be.
Israel belongs to the Jews, and has done for 57 years, and thousands of years prior to that.

Bullshit! Their land is their land, always was and always will be, and there will never be peace in the region until you accept that, and start treating them as equals.

The jews who attacked the British and slaughtered innocent civilians were terrorists, you call them freedom fighters; the Palestinians who oppose the illegal occupation of their lands are called terrorists by you, they look far more like freedom fighters to me.

[Rat Faced]

THEY FLED THE COUNTRY IN 1948.
THEY NEVER RETURNED.
NOW THEY SUDDENLY WANT TO COME BACK TO GIVE US A HARD TIME.
NO WAY ARE ISRAEL OUT OF ORDER HERE.


Israel is NOT rightfully theirs, never was, never will be.
Israel belongs to the Jews, and has done for 57 years, and thousands of years prior to that.

Your last comment contradicts your 1st.

Why?

You fled thousands of years ago, now you all want to come back..

Seems you just lost yourself your own argument.

In addition, if you wish to go the religious route... didnt Jehovah tell you all to not come back to there when you all left?

The Jews that were there for centuries, and the Arabs that were there for centuries lived in peace with each other until the Jews started bombing the hell out of them and the British.

If we should not have dialogeaue with terrorists, then Israel wouldnt exist...as it was created with such dialogue with such terrorists.

The Facts:

Israel is in contravention of numerous UN resolutions.

Nations have been invaded and occupied for less, you get the truth told about your nation and dont like it.


Sky News is owned by News Corporation (Fox News)- Rupert Murdoch. If you think THEY are biased, then your quite correct... on the side of the Israeli's.

The BBC reports the actions of BOTH sides.. you may not like the fact they report the Israeli attrociaties AND the Palestinian ones but they do.


The Journalists have their own little website that says how unbiased the worlds news services are: Israel comes 135th in that list, the UK is in the low 20's.

If you want to know the TRUTH, as the Journalists want to report it.... read the Finnish Newspapers, as they have the most free/truthful press in the world.



Tralalala, the Palestinians helped teh Brits in WWII too.. and i always thought it was the world that was appalled at what was happening to the Jews, not the Jews were helping the allies. :ph34r:

[tralalala]

@Rio:
Don't beleive everything people tell you... (A good example on that is "Yes Minister".. watch it).

No, you watch it, l'm not a 15 year old kid, thank you very much!

And by that odd statement of yours I'm taking that once again you are telling that Israel are wrong, the Arabs are right eh?
Well, THEY FLED THE COUNTRY IN 1948.
THEY NEVER RETURNED.
NOW THEY SUDDENLY WANT TO COME BACK TO GIVE US A HARD TIME.
NO WAY ARE ISRAEL OUT OF ORDER HERE.

You invaded them in 1967 and stole all the land they had. You occupy it, illegally, to this day. You have built illegal settlements ever since. You stole all the lands of the West Bank containing the underwater aquafers, and now intend to vacate the Gaza Strip, a land you have no historical or biblical links to, in order to keep the 42% of the West Bank you illegally stole and occupy. Their fight is not only about the return of refugees, driven illegally from their villages by Jewish terrorist gangs, it's about getting rid of the illegal occupiers of their land. They are not asking for the whole of Israel, they are asking for the land you stole from them in 1967, and the removal of foreign forces from their land.

Israel is NOT rightfully theirs, never was, never will be.
Israel belongs to the Jews, and has done for 57 years, and thousands of years prior to that.

Bullshit! Their land is their land, always was and always will be, and there will never be peace in the region until you accept that, and start treating them as equals.

The jews who attacked the British and slaughtered innocent civilians were terrorists, you call them freedom fighters; the Palestinians who oppose the illegal occupation of their lands are called terrorists by you, they look far more like freedom fighters to me.
OMG have you ever studdied history?!!?

Open a history book, it won't hurt.....

"You invaded them in 1967"... did you ever hear why? All surrounders of Israel were planning to slaughter the Jews and drive them into the sea. Israel, with it's intelligence, managed to get that info and get them before they attacked - the whole Egyptian air force was demolished in 1 day. The war lasted 6 days (thus, the 6 day war). Israel took over the Sini desert as a result of the war, East Jerusalem, The Gaza Strip, The Golan Heights and the West Bank.
Since then, Israel has returned Sini to the Egyptians as part of the peace treaty in 1979.
Gaza will be returned to the Palestinians within 2 months, same with the West Bank.
East Jerusalem will currently remain under Israels authority until firther discussions.
The Golan Heights will remain Israel's forever. It was taken over to stop the Syrians from destroying Kibbutzim (villages) by bombing them from the mountains.

"Illegaly stole..." - I think you mean taken over by as a result of a WAR.


What about Falklands...?

I could easily say Britain illegaly stole land from Argentina..

Regugees illegaly driven from the country? The fled, ran away, there was WAR.
What happened in WW2? Jews fled too, they never went back did they? You don't see Jews sqeualing to go back and live in Germany or Austria or any other country invloved do you??

You say their land is their land - yup, Gaza strip and West Bank and East Jerusalem.
That is their land, always had been always will be.


The Jews you claim were terrorists actually attacked British soldiers - hardly innocent civilians.
I can't recall readin anywhere that British civilians ever lived in Israel, apart from the soldiers, who once again may I remind you did not do what they promised.



It's all a matter of readin THE FACTS.


@RF: I stand corrected.
What I meant is that what they claim as theirs sometimes, is the whole State of Israel, as well as the rest (Gaza, West Bank etc..).
They fled their land, and now want ours.

God was the one who brought us back to Israel from Egypt.... :dry:

"Jews started to bomb the hell out of them.." - Did you not read my post from before?
The Brits declared they would let Jews emigrate to Israel from Europe, and did they do that? Nope.
That is why Jews started attacking them, as Jews were stuck at sea with no land to go back to, and no land to get in to.

In 1939 all Arabs living in Israel decided to start screwing the Jews, and attacked them on the main routes to big cities (Jeruslalem, Tel Aviv, Tiberias etc..). That is why they were also attacked by the Jews.



About journalism: Did you never notice that all (or most) pics showed by those media stations are of an Israeli tank in front of a Palestinian kid with stones?
Now I ask myself -
A) wtf is that kid doing out? Give him some education instead.
B) Why do those channels never show the heads of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah in their big areas where they get together and shoot guns, make bombs, dress babies in their clothes with a Kalashnikov gun in his hand.. eh? That you never see......

And then you wonder why I say that they try to show Israel as the "bad people"...

[tralalala]

This just in:

A suicide bomber killed 2 or 3 (not verified yet) and injured some 46 others, 6 of them critically, in the Netanya mall.

The Jihad claimed responsibility.


Yet anothe Muslim attack on innocent civilians in Israel......... This is the first attack since the mettings in Sharm El-Sheikh (almost a year ago).

[JPaul]

This just in:

A suicide bomber killed 2 or 3 (not verified yet) and injured some 46 others, 6 of them critically, in the Netanya mall.

The Jihad claimed responsibility.


Yet anothe Muslim attack on innocent civilians in Israel......... This is the first attack since the mettings in Sharm El-Sheikh (almost a year ago).
You really are trying to eat your cake and have it there.

Yet another ... implying it is a regular occurance.

(almost a year ago) .... implying that the attacks are infrequent.

You can't really use the same fact to support opposing views you are trying to put forward.

[tralalala]

Yet another does not mean it happens every day.

This is attack number god knows how many in Israel, that's why I used that phrase.

Yes, in the past 2 years it is infrequent, but in general, attacks on Israel are generally a thing that happens every now and again.

It used to be twice a week, it is now once a year, yes, not as frequent, but it still happens.

[Rat Faced]

My sympathies with the families of those involved. :(


You don't see Jews sqeualing to go back and live in Germany or Austria or any other country invloved do you??

There are currently over 100,000 Jews in Germany, however i'd agree that at the moment i'd rather be in a different country to Austria at the moment if i were Jewish (currently 10,000).. or a member of any other minority for that matter.

The "Freedom" Party has altogether too much power there, and its pretty obvious what tendancies this party has :(

I'm not trying to be "Anti-Israeli" Tralala.. however, until you can see yourselves through the eyes of your enemies, then it doesnt matter how much talking is done, you wont understand the hate and there wont be peace.

That works for both sides in the conflict, even when you think that the issues are "Self Evident". They believe they are in the right, just as much as you do.. and the evidence does not place Israel as "Can do no wrong", sorry to say.

As to religion:

I was on about the despirtion of the tribes throughout the world, and told only to return when you followed ALL of the Commandments.

Last i heard; Thou Shalt Not Kill, is still a Commandment and there are still Divorces in Israel for Adultary, people go to jail for Theft etc etc.

Therefor, by your own religious Texts, you arent yet due to return to "The Promised Land"... your still Human. :P

[bigboab]

I think the only way agreement will be reached is if Israel withdraws to the Mandate boundaries and some sort of 'defence' agreement is signed by all concerned.

It has to come. Whether it be next year or next century. America is now being 'nudged' into acceptance along those lines. Too many countries are demanding a settlement.:)

[tralalala]

My sympathies with the families of those involved. :(

[QUOTE]As to religion:

I was on about the despirtion of the tribes throughout the world, and told only to return when you followed ALL of the Commandments.

Last i heard; Thou Shalt Not Kill, is still a Commandment and there are still Divorces in Israel for Adultary, people go to jail for Theft etc etc.

Therefor, by your own religious Texts, you arent yet due to return to "The Promised Land"... your still Human. :P

Only 10 were sent out of Israel.
2 remained and always did: Judea and Benjamin.
The rest are what are now known as the lost tribes.

And about the other matter: What is your suggestion then?


@BB:
It will come within 2-3 years, my promise :)

[Rat Faced]

And about the other matter: What is your suggestion then?


I think the only way agreement will be reached is if Israel withdraws to the Mandate boundaries and some sort of 'defence' agreement is signed by all concerned.

[tralalala]

Ummmm, isn't that the "rodamap"??

That's what Israel is currently in process of coordenating with the Palestinian Authority :duh:

[Rat Faced]

No, its not.

Israel will keep some of the West Bank.

The Paestinians want all their land.

Even if Israel substitutes some of its own land in compensation for the land they keep.. it wont work. (and they would never do this)

They dont want YOUR land, they want THEIR land.

And on top of this; what about Jeruselem?

[tralalala]

Right, I see what you mean:

There is a big city across the green line (not far across though) called Ariel.
There is no way we could possibly transfer this city.

Instead, Palestine will receive a nice portion of different land at the south of the West Bank.

About Jeruslaem:
I am not too sure, as I do not know what is going on right now, I will try and find some info. about this and will keep you posted.

[Barbarossa]

This report says the last suicide attack was on the 25th of february... :huh:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4677695.stm

However, it does seem that the security guards did their job, in not letting the guy into the mall...

[Snee]

No, its not.

Israel will keep some of the West Bank.

The Paestinians want all their land.

Even if Israel substitutes some of its own land in compensation for the land they keep.. it wont work. (and they would never do this)

They dont want YOUR land, they want THEIR land.

And on top of this; what about Jeruselem?
Their land?

Are you aware of the fact that some of "their land" used to be desert, and pretty much uninhabitable.

The Israelis have, inch by inch, cultivated and otherwise put considerable work into making some of it what it is today.

Not sure there had been as much fuss, had it still been desert.

[tralalala]

Well, I must say that if bloody Arafat hadn't put away his billions of dollars in bank accounts in Switzerland, and had used it to cultivate and help out the Palestinians, I bet you there would have been peace even before Rabin was murdered...

BTW colin, that link you gave me got me the article about the explosion in Netanya, the one that took place yesterday.... :huh:

[Barbarossa]

BTW colin, that link you gave me got me the article about the explosion in Netanya, the one that took place yesterday.... :huh:

Yeah I know, but in that article it said about there being about 4 months peace since the previous suicide bomb...

[tralalala]

Well, it must have been some shooting insidence in the West Bank or somethig (serves those maniac settlers right for not moving out of there).

The last major bombing INSIDE Israel was a long time ago, considering the ammount of attacks we've had...

[Barbarossa]

Well, it must have been some shooting insidence in the West Bank or somethig (serves those maniac settlers right for not moving out of there).

The last major bombing INSIDE Israel was a long time ago, considering the ammount of attacks we've had...

Suicide bomb attack on a nightclub in Tel Aviv - 25/02/05 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4299995.stm)
Images of suicide bomb attack (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4299897.stm)
follow-up article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4300893.stm)
another follow-up article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4301447.stm)
an article the following week (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4305453.stm)
another article about the same event (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4301851.stm)

Did the BBC just invent this one then?? :unsure:

[Busyman]

Well, it must have been some shooting insidence in the West Bank or somethig (serves those maniac settlers right for not moving out of there).

The last major bombing INSIDE Israel was a long time ago, considering the ammount of attacks we've had...
I remember the bombing of some cafe within the past year. :huh:

[RioDeLeo]

Their land?

Are you aware of the fact that some of "their land" used to be desert, and pretty much uninhabitable.

The Israelis have, inch by inch, cultivated and otherwise put considerable work into making some of it what it is today.

Not sure there had been as much fuss, had it still been desert.

So if l steal your car and put new tyres on it, l can claim it as mine?

Most of the "desert' is sitting on top of water, aquafers, in total the "desert" they stole contains over 60% of the Palestinian's water, which they sell back to them for many times the price they charge the Jewish settlers.

Stealing land is srealing, and illegal under international law, it makes not one iota of difference if it's desert or rainforest.

[Busyman]

Their land?

Are you aware of the fact that some of "their land" used to be desert, and pretty much uninhabitable.

The Israelis have, inch by inch, cultivated and otherwise put considerable work into making some of it what it is today.

Not sure there had been as much fuss, had it still been desert.

So if l steal your car and put new tyres on it, l can claim it as mine?

Most of the "desert' is sitting on top of water, aquafers, in total the "desert" they stole contains over 60% of the Palestinian's water, which they sell back to them for many times the price they charge the Jewish settlers.

Stealing land is srealing, and illegal under international law, it makes not one iota of difference if it's desert or rainforest.
Did Britain steal land from American Indians? Did the USA?

Did we steal America from Britain?

Did Britain steal land from countless others.

[tralalala]

@Busyman: Yeah, the bombing at "The Stage" club// it was almost a year ago :) :(

@Rio: You don't seem to want to listen to anyone do you..

First off, the water in that aquafer is pollouted, and has been for a very long time (yes, by the Palestinians that live above it). So I don't think bad water will do them much good don't you? ;)

And second: Once again, for maybe the tenth time - Israel was at war with 3 different countries, we managed to not only win the war, but also capture the land you are talking about - that is what war does, people take lands and lose lands.
An example - World War 1... (Versay agreements tell you anything?).
So, Israel wins a war, wins land, and cultivates parts of it. You can't give back ALL of the cultivated land 40 years later, that is ludicrouse.
That is why Israel is offering the southern part of the West Bank to seal the deal, and I don't see why that should matter.. the Aquafer is under both areas, both areas a deserts, and, ummm, the only difference is the peoplesthat live there.

[RioDeLeo]

Open a history book, it won't hurt....

Take your own advice kid, something other than Israeli ones. Study UN resolutions Israel has ignored over the years while you're at it.

Your attitude, which l find quite typical, is a sympton of all that is wrong in your country. Your air of superiority is sickening.

[RioDeLeo]

@Rio: You don't seem to want to listen to anyone do you..

First off, the water in that aquafer is pollouted, and has been for a very long time (yes, by the Palestinians that live above it). So I don't think bad water will do them much good don't you? ;)

And second: Once again, for maybe the tenth time - Israel was at war with 3 different countries, we managed to not only win the war, but also capture the land you are talking about - that is what war does, people take lands and lose lands.
An example - World War 1... (Versay agreements tell you anything?).
So, Israel wins a war, wins land, and cultivates parts of it. You can't give back ALL of the cultivated land 40 years later, that is ludicrouse.
That is why Israel is offering the southern part of the West Bank to seal the deal, and I don't see why that should matter.. the Aquafer is under both areas, both areas a deserts, and, ummm, the only difference is the peoplesthat live there.

l'm sick of listening to you Rafi, or whatever your name is, you talk nothing but bullshit Israeli propaganda. Where you get crap like that about the aquafer water is beyond me, l don't think you're intelligent enough to make that crap up, so someone is probably pumping it into you. l just hope this gets cleared up one way or the other so people like you can settle down and stay where you are.

[RioDeLeo]

Did Britain steal land from American Indians? Did the USA?

Did we steal America from Britain?

Did Britain steal land from countless others.

Is this going anywhere? :blink:

[Busyman]

Did Britain steal land from American Indians? Did the USA?

Did we steal America from Britain?

Did Britain steal land from countless others.

Is this going anywhere? :blink:
I don't know. Is it?

You probably can look under your own feet and see stolen land. :ermm:

[Barbarossa]

Kudos to the Nederlanders...

They build new land out of the sea ! :01:

[Snee]

Their land?

Are you aware of the fact that some of "their land" used to be desert, and pretty much uninhabitable.

The Israelis have, inch by inch, cultivated and otherwise put considerable work into making some of it what it is today.

Not sure there had been as much fuss, had it still been desert.

So if l steal your car and put new tyres on it, l can claim it as mine?

Most of the "desert' is sitting on top of water, aquafers, in total the "desert" they stole contains over 60% of the Palestinian's water, which they sell back to them for many times the price they charge the Jewish settlers.

Stealing land is srealing, and illegal under international law, it makes not one iota of difference if it's desert or rainforest.
It's nothing like stealing a car.

First of all, as tralala says, legally it was conquest. War-time rules and all that.

And the civilians involved today aren't responsible for driving anyone off, for the most part, as far as they are concerned, they (or rather their grandparents and parents) settled empty areas.
(Not counting illegal settlements of course, which is a whole 'nother thing, and not condoned by everyone in israel.)

Second of all, the aquifers you mention stretch past Israeli territory (I think). I'm fairly certain it would be possible to drill down from Palestinian territory.

But Israel does oppose that on some fairly dodgy grounds (one being that the palestinians don't have the resources to preserve the integrity of the aquifers and thus would be risking mixing saltwater in the freshwater), this is true.



But yes, it is about water more than it's about land. For the governments involved (the nutters with the bombs probably don't get exactly what they are fighting for). The definition of what is their land is pretty fluid. What water they are entitled to is more concrete, though. All the water they need, perhaps. If I'm not mistaken Israel is, on directions from the UN, supposed to compensate Palestine for water lost, how far they are complying with this today, I'm not sure of, though.

Also, there's a considerable cost involved in drilling down and extracting the water safely, it could be that Palestine can't afford it. Of course, if they could claim back "their land", they'd have pre-built Israeli installations paid for by Israel. And wouldn't that be practical.

[Barbarossa]

But yes, it is about water more than it's about land. For the governments involved (the nutters with the bombs probably don't get exactly what they are fighting for). The definition of what is their land is pretty fluid. What water they are entitled to is more concrete, though. All the water they need, perhaps. If I'm not mistaken Israel is, on directions from the UN, supposed to compensate Palestine for water lost, how far they are complying with this today, I'm not sure of, though.


Did you really just say....

...words to the effect of...

"their land is fluid and their water is concrete" ???

Excellent!! :w00t: :tease: :clap:

[Rat Faced]

legally it was conquest. War-time rules and all that.

There is no legal Law of Conquest, this was something done in the past BEFORE countries started talking and being civilized and created International Laws.

If you followed that argument, the only countries in Europe are the UK, Russia and USA plus the ones that stayed neutral in the last war.

[tralalala]

@Rio: You don't seem to want to listen to anyone do you..

First off, the water in that aquafer is pollouted, and has been for a very long time (yes, by the Palestinians that live above it). So I don't think bad water will do them much good don't you? ;)

And second: Once again, for maybe the tenth time - Israel was at war with 3 different countries, we managed to not only win the war, but also capture the land you are talking about - that is what war does, people take lands and lose lands.
An example - World War 1... (Versay agreements tell you anything?).
So, Israel wins a war, wins land, and cultivates parts of it. You can't give back ALL of the cultivated land 40 years later, that is ludicrouse.
That is why Israel is offering the southern part of the West Bank to seal the deal, and I don't see why that should matter.. the Aquafer is under both areas, both areas a deserts, and, ummm, the only difference is the peoplesthat live there.

l'm sick of listening to you Rafi, or whatever your name is, you talk nothing but bullshit Israeli propaganda. Where you get crap like that about the aquafer water is beyond me, l don't think you're intelligent enough to make that crap up, so someone is probably pumping it into you. l just hope this gets cleared up one way or the other so people like you can settle down and stay where you are.
Tje question is Rio, where do you get your crap from? ;)

No one is forcing you into this thread mate...


and about your previouse post: Typical superiority? The way our countryis?
Go on then, what's your suggestion - what should we do instead of what is going on now?
Suggesting to give back "thier land" is going nowhere, give us a proper, full explained suggestion.


@SnnY:
Israel is giving millions of dollars yearly to encourage the growth of the Palestinians ability to get the water they don't have, and to help victims of thier own problems.
Yes, the aquafers are also in Israels land :)

Again - the land they will get will be sort of empty, but Israel will of course pay the cost of building basic machines for getting water, and building houses and co.

[Snee]

But yes, it is about water more than it's about land. For the governments involved (the nutters with the bombs probably don't get exactly what they are fighting for). The definition of what is their land is pretty fluid. What water they are entitled to is more concrete, though. All the water they need, perhaps. If I'm not mistaken Israel is, on directions from the UN, supposed to compensate Palestine for water lost, how far they are complying with this today, I'm not sure of, though.


Did you really just say....

...words to the effect of...

"their land is fluid and their water is concrete" ???

Excellent!! :w00t: :tease: :clap:
Yep :D

@Rat: What I meant was that once the situation had stabilized after the war, the people who inhabited the place were the Israeli and that, since it was a war situation, there were no working laws in the transition period.

Had the french fled france, and the country been settled by Germans, and the Germans won the war. France had been Germany.


If there are no laws during one period, possession is nine tenths of the law, once the dust settles, and the winner sets the terms, it's how it has worked throughout history.

Not saying I like it, but you might as well call it conquest.

[GepperRankins]

Is this going anywhere? :blink:
I don't know. Is it?

You probably can look under your own feet and see stolen land. :ermm:
i'm pretty certain he's a descendent of crooks in a stolen country anyway :stuart:

[GepperRankins]

if land is taken in war, then isreal is at war with palastine. does this mean the terrorists aren't terrorists?

[RioDeLeo]

So if l steal your car and put new tyres on it, l can claim it as mine?

It's nothing like stealing a car.

First of all, as tralala says, legally it was conquest. War-time rules and all that.

As Rat Faced has pointed out, there is no legal right to confiscate or occupy land taken in a war.



3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;



Tje question is Rio, where do you get your crap from?

No one is forcing you into this thread mate...


and about your previouse post: Typical superiority? The way our countryis?
Go on then, what's your suggestion - what should we do instead of what is going on now?
Suggesting to give back "thier land" is going nowhere, give us a proper, full explained suggestion.

Easy, abide by United Nations resolutions, as you insist other countries do. Get back to the pre-1967 borders and vacate the land you illegally occupy. And if this is "going nowhere", as you suggest, it's because Israel is not prepared to do what is right. Thankfully most of the world is against you, it's just a pity more places aren't prepared to boycott the place.

[RioDeLeo]

Here you go Tralalal, a few things you can take notice of to help you understand why so many people are against your country for the way it treats the Palestinians and it's other neighbours. l wonder if we would now be waging a War on Terror if Israel had complied with UN resolutions from the beginning?


Resolution 106: condemns Israel for Gaza raid.

Resolution 111: condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people.

Resolution 127: recommends Israel suspend its no-man's zone' in Jerusalem.

Resolution 162: urges Israel to comply with UN decisions.

Resolution 171: determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria.

Resolution 228: censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control.

Resolution 237: urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.

Resolution 248: condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.

Resolution 250: calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.

Resolution 251: deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250.

Resolution 252: declares invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital.

Resolution 256: condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as flagrant violation.

Resolution 259: deplores Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.

Resolution 262: condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport.

Resolution 265: condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan.

Resolution 267: censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem.

Resolution 270: condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon.

Resolution 271: condemns Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem.

Resolution 279: demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.

Resolution 280: condemns Israeli's attacks against Lebanon.

Resolution 285: demands immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

Resolution 298: deplores Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem.

Resolution 313: demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.

Resolution 316: condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.

Resolution 317: deplores Israel's refusal to release.

Resolution 332: condemns Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.

Resolution 337: condemns Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.

Resolution 347: condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

Resolution 425: calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.

Resolution 427: calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

Resolution 444: deplores Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces.

Resolution 446: determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention

Resolution 450: calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.

Resolution 452: calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.

Resolution 465: deplores Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist its settlements program.

Resolution 467: strongly deplores Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.

Resolution 468: calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return.

Resolution 469: strongly deplores Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians.

Resolution 471: expresses deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Resolution 476: reiterates that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are null and void.

Resolution 478: censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law.

Resolution 484: declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors.

Resolution 487: strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.

Resolution 497: decides that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights

is null and void and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith.

Resolution 498: calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.

Resolution 501: calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.

Resolution 509: demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon.

Resolution 515: demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in.

Resolution 517: censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon.

Resolution 518: demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.

Resolution 520: condemns Israel's attack into West Beirut.

Resolution 573: condemns Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.

Resolution 587: takes note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw.

Resolution 592: strongly deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.

Resolution 605: strongly deplores Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.

Resolution 607: calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Resolution 608: deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians.

Resolution 636: deeply regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.

Resolution 641: deplores Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.

Resolution 672: condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

Resolution 673: deplores Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.

Resolution 681: deplores Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.

Resolution 694: deplores Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

Resolution 726: strongly condemns Israel's deportation of Palestinians.

Resolution 799: strongly condemns Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.

----------------------------------------------------------

Of course, you could just ignore what the rest of the world wants and act like God's chosen people.

[Snee]

It's nothing like stealing a car.

First of all, as tralala says, legally it was conquest. War-time rules and all that.

As Rat Faced has pointed out, there is no legal right to confiscate or occupy land taken in a war.



3. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories;



I already answered that in part.

Israel is only doing what other countries like the US are doing, ie: going by their own laws instead of UN's resolutions, when the war was over they lived there, after all. Also, the people that live there now aren't the same people that lived there in 1967, people have had time to live there and grow old since the area was taken, while many palestinians, whose land it is according to you, then, have never set foot on the same soil in their lives.

If we are going to start demanding that large populations be moved from areas that their ancestors stole from others, we'll have to evacuate the US, Australia, the north of Sweden and so on, depending on how far back in history you'd like to go.

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.

[Busyman]

If we are going to start demanding that large populations be moved from areas that their ancestors stole from others, we'll have to evacuate the US, Australia, the north of Sweden and so on, depending on how far back in history you'd like to go.

;)

All we can do now is make sure no new land is "stolen"....anywhere.

[RioDeLeo]

If we are going to start demanding that large populations be moved from areas that their ancestors stole from others, we'll have to evacuate the US, Australia, the north of Sweden and so on, depending on how far back in history you'd like to go..

OK, so let's not do what's right, let's ignore UN resolutions, let's thumb our noses to the world, after all, what's a few thousand more lives? Let's keep going until Muslims run out of suicide bombers, or the world's cities run out of buses. Let's encourage terrorism by handing the spoils to the aggressors. Fuck the towel heads let them eat cake, and live in those parts of the desert the Israelis don't want. If they don't want what's best for Israel, fuck 'em. So what if the land we stole belonged to their fathers, what right do the children have to expect it?

If you steal my house, it's still my house, no matter how long you live in it, and if l die before l get it back, my sons will own it.

Are you Israeli SnnY? You sure sound like one.

[JPaul]

"Tralalal"

"Are you Israeli SnnY? You sure sound like one."

:lol:

Fan-tastic

[Busyman]

If we are going to start demanding that large populations be moved from areas that their ancestors stole from others, we'll have to evacuate the US, Australia, the north of Sweden and so on, depending on how far back in history you'd like to go..

OK, so let's not do what's right, let's ignore UN resolutions, let's thumb our noses to the world, after all, what's a few thousand more lives? Let's keep going until Muslims run out of suicide bombers, or the world's cities run out of buses. Let's encourage terrorism by handing the spoils to the aggressors. Fuck the towel heads let them eat cake, and live in those parts of the desert the Israelis don't want. If they don't want what's best for Israel, fuck 'em. So what if the land we stole belonged to their fathers, what right do the children have to expect it?...and while were at it...

Let's go back to paying taxes to Britain and then make Britain give the land back to the Indians. As a matter of fact...Indians? India should reclaim part of there homeland and whatnot...it's clear 'cross da water.

Who conquered South Africa?

What about Australia? I think those Aborigines should start strapping C-4 to their backs and walk into the local pubs. I'll have a Molotov Cocktail please.

[JPaul]

Do we have land in India.

I thought the Mahatma had kind of sorted that out, by peaceful means.

EDIT : But I do agree your overall point. The World's history is full of this type of thing. With us probably being the worst, certainly in modern times.

What did the Romans ever do for us.

[RPerry]

If we are going to start demanding that large populations be moved from areas that their ancestors stole from others, we'll have to evacuate the US, Australia, the north of Sweden and so on, depending on how far back in history you'd like to go.

;)

All we can do now is make sure no new land is "stolen"....anywhere.

I wonder if we had to give it back, if we would get to keep Alaska... after all, even though it was paid for it could still be considered a steal :lol:

[JPaul]

;)

All we can do now is make sure no new land is "stolen"....anywhere.

I wonder if we had to give it back, if we would get to keep Alaska... after all, even though it was paid for it could still be considered a steal :lol:
Or New York.

[Busyman]

Do we have land in India.

I thought the Mahatma had kind of sorted that out, by peaceful means.

EDIT : But I do agree your overall point. The World's history is full of this type of thing. With us probably being the worst, certainly in modern times.

What did the Romans ever do for us.
No, no, no....Indians migrated to America and you took then we took.....and

"We brought 3 friends and they brought 3 friends and so on and so on and so on."

[Busyman]

;)

All we can do now is make sure no new land is "stolen"....anywhere.

I wonder if we had to give it back, if we would get to keep Alaska... after all, even though it was paid for it could still be considered a steal :lol:
...or Hawaii or Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. Hell the last 2 can't even vote.

:ph34r:

[RPerry]

Do we have land in India.

I thought the Mahatma had kind of sorted that out, by peaceful means.

EDIT : But I do agree your overall point. The World's history is full of this type of thing. With us probably being the worst, certainly in modern times.

What did the Romans ever do for us.
No, no, no....Indians migrated to America and you took then we took.....and

"We brought 3 friends and they brought 3 friends and so on and so on and so on."

Well, I'm 1/4 Wampanog Indian, does that mean I get to stay ? :rolleyes:

[Busyman]

No, no, no....Indians migrated to America and you took then we took.....and

"We brought 3 friends and they brought 3 friends and so on and so on and so on."

Well, I'm 1/4 Wampanog Indian, does that mean I get to stay ? :rolleyes:
Hey me too...well actually I'm part Chickasaw, white, and black.

I'm sure there was alot of cross-ancestral-banging.

I'm a Duke in England
A tribal leader in Africa as well as here.

I claim triple citizenship right now!!!! :angry:

[JPaul]

Do we have land in India.

I thought the Mahatma had kind of sorted that out, by peaceful means.

EDIT : But I do agree your overall point. The World's history is full of this type of thing. With us probably being the worst, certainly in modern times.

What did the Romans ever do for us.
No, no, no....Indians migrated to America and you took then we took.....and

"We brought 3 friends and they brought 3 friends and so on and so on and so on."
So you are giving it back to us, then we give it back to them.

It's so much simpler in Africa and Australia, where the people who stole the land can just give it straight back.

Feck that was us as well.

[JPaul]

Well, I'm 1/4 Wampanog Indian, does that mean I get to stay ? :rolleyes:
Hey me too...well actually I'm part Chickasaw, white, and black.

I'm sure there was alot of cross-ancestral-banging.

I'm a Duke in England
A tribal leader in Africa as well as here.

I claim triple citizenship right now!!!! :angry:
You can be three friends, all on your own.

[RPerry]

No, no, no....Indians migrated to America and you took then we took.....and

"We brought 3 friends and they brought 3 friends and so on and so on and so on."
So you are giving it back to us, then we give it back to them.

It's so much simpler in Africa and Australia, where the people who stole the land can just give it straight back.

Feck that was us as well.

Hopefully this helps people realize how crazy this is. its not so easy to change the past, all we can really do is make better for the future :frusty:

[Busyman]

No, no, no....Indians migrated to America and you took then we took.....and

"We brought 3 friends and they brought 3 friends and so on and so on and so on."
So you are giving it back to us, then we give it back to them.

It's so much simpler in Africa and Australia, where the people who stole the land can just give it straight back.

Feck that was us as well.
Ya'll used to kick ass all over the world.

Didn't ya'll just give back Hong Kong or sumthin'?

[Snee]

If we are going to start demanding that large populations be moved from areas that their ancestors stole from others, we'll have to evacuate the US, Australia, the north of Sweden and so on, depending on how far back in history you'd like to go..

OK, so let's not do what's right, let's ignore UN resolutions, let's thumb our noses to the world, after all, what's a few thousand more lives? Let's keep going until Muslims run out of suicide bombers, or the world's cities run out of buses. Let's encourage terrorism by handing the spoils to the aggressors. Fuck the towel heads let them eat cake, and live in those parts of the desert the Israelis don't want. If they don't want what's best for Israel, fuck 'em. So what if the land we stole belonged to their fathers, what right do the children have to expect it?

If you steal my house, it's still my house, no matter how long you live in it, and if l die before l get it back, my sons will own it.

Are you Israeli SnnY? You sure sound like one.
So the fact that the people you want to take away land from didn't steal it doesn't matter.
Let's steal their land, 'cos it was stolen from someone else in the past.
Yeah, that's much better.


You don't really care about some people, do you?

Just as long as the ones you think should own the place does, the fact that you screw the lives up for a lot people today doesn't matter. It is negated by the fact that others got the same treatment in the past, then?

It seems to me that some people are better than others in your thinking.


Do you have something in particular against Israelis at all?

[Busyman]

So you are giving it back to us, then we give it back to them.

It's so much simpler in Africa and Australia, where the people who stole the land can just give it straight back.

Feck that was us as well.

Hopefully this helps people realize how crazy this is. its not so easy to change the past, all we can really do is make better for the future :frusty:
Actually the buck is supposed to stop with Israel according to Rio.

[JPaul]

So you are giving it back to us, then we give it back to them.

It's so much simpler in Africa and Australia, where the people who stole the land can just give it straight back.

Feck that was us as well.
Ya'll used to kick ass all over the world.

Didn't ya'll just give back Hong Kong or sumthin'?
Gave it back to China, that's the kind of guys we are.

[JPaul]

So you are giving it back to us, then we give it back to them.

It's so much simpler in Africa and Australia, where the people who stole the land can just give it straight back.

Feck that was us as well.

Hopefully this helps people realize how crazy this is. its not so easy to change the past, all we can really do is make better for the future :frusty:
Can I quote Santayana again.

[RPerry]

OK, so let's not do what's right, let's ignore UN resolutions, let's thumb our noses to the world, after all, what's a few thousand more lives? Let's keep going until Muslims run out of suicide bombers, or the world's cities run out of buses. Let's encourage terrorism by handing the spoils to the aggressors. Fuck the towel heads let them eat cake, and live in those parts of the desert the Israelis don't want. If they don't want what's best for Israel, fuck 'em. So what if the land we stole belonged to their fathers, what right do the children have to expect it?

If you steal my house, it's still my house, no matter how long you live in it, and if l die before l get it back, my sons will own it.

Are you Israeli SnnY? You sure sound like one.
So the fact that the people you want to take away land from didn't steal it doesn't matter.
Let's steal their land, 'cos it was stolen from someone else in the past.
Yeah, that's much better.


You don't really care about some people, do you?

Just as long as the ones you think should own the place does, the fact that you screw the lives up for a lot people today doesn't matter. It is negated by the fact that others got the same treatment in the past, then?

It seems to me that some people are better than others in your thinking.


Do you have something in particular against Israelis at all?

Well said SnnY
and @ RioDeLeo I can vouch SnnY is not Israeli, so can others. If he were, why do you make it sound like a disease ? :dry:

[RPerry]

Hopefully this helps people realize how crazy this is. its not so easy to change the past, all we can really do is make better for the future :frusty:
Can I quote Santayana again.

Absolutely :cool:

[Busyman]

Ya'll used to kick ass all over the world.

Didn't ya'll just give back Hong Kong or sumthin'?
Gave it back to China, that's the kind of guys we are.
:blushing:

[JPaul]

Can I quote Santayana again.

Absolutely :cool:
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Thanks, I always enjoy that

[Busyman]

So the fact that the people you want to take away land from didn't steal it doesn't matter.
Let's steal their land, 'cos it was stolen from someone else in the past.
Yeah, that's much better.


You don't really care about some people, do you?

Just as long as the ones you think should own the place does, the fact that you screw the lives up for a lot people today doesn't matter. It is negated by the fact that others got the same treatment in the past, then?

It seems to me that some people are better than others in your thinking.


Do you have something in particular against Israelis at all?

Well said SnnY
and @ RioDeLeo I can vouch SnnY is not Israeli, so can others. If he were, why do you make it sound like a disease ? :dry:
Hmmph. SnnY...that Israeli sespool bastard of scum. :angry:

[JPaul]

Well said SnnY
and @ RioDeLeo I can vouch SnnY is not Israeli, so can others. If he were, why do you make it sound like a disease ? :dry:
Hmmph. SnnY...that Israeli sespool bastard of scum. :angry:
That's a bit h4r5h.

[tralalala]

Right, I could vouch Rio has something against Israelis... He said SnnY was Israeli in a very... scummy sort of way don't you think..? http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/images/smilies/dry.gif.

Now, I could say you were right bringing those UN thingys, but did you find any condemning the Arabs for trying to repeatedly attack Israel, for lost respect in the wars they lost? Probably not..
The UN is a joke.
Why do I say that? check this out:
In 1967, as Egypt were getting ready to attack Israel in what was to become the 6 day war, the DEMANDED the UN forces sitting in Gaza, and some parts of Sini removed themselves from there IMMEDEATLY.
What did the UN do in response? Evacuated the forces. No questions, no nothing. Pretty pathetic don't you think?


@SnnY - all you said, was said perfectly, I could not have phrased it any better :)

Rio - As you can see, many, many other countries did the same, and in the end all became "good" shall we say. Your suggestions are impossible to do - evacuate 20,000 people from a big city, who have been living in the West Bank legally? (Ariel and Gush Etzion, right next to Jerusalem, and have been living there for a very long time).

We will however evacuate them nutters from Gaza, and deep in the West Bank, as they live there ILLEGALY.

I believe that in 10 years time this thread will be irrelevant, and Israel and Palestine will live in peace.

[JPaul]

Rafi,

He's just a troll, always has been always will be.

Don't rise to the insulting bait.

[Busyman]

Hmmph. SnnY...that Israeli sespool bastard of scum. :angry:
That's a bit h4r5h.
Well as an Israeli, he deserves derision. :wacko:

[JPaul]

That's a bit h4r5h.
Well as an Israel, he deserves derision. :wacko:
SnnY is a country :blink:

[Busyman]

Well as an Israeli, he deserves derision. :wacko:
SnnY is a country :blink:
Ya beat me to my edit. Shit!!!

[JPaul]

SnnY is a country :blink:
Ya beat me to my edit. Shit!!!
Hoi, who are you calling Shit!!!

[lynx]

Rafi,

He's just a troll, always has been always will be.

Don't rise to the insulting bait.
That's the way it is with Billy.

Which reminds me, didn't we ban him once?

[manker]

Rafi,

He's just a troll, always has been always will be.

Don't rise to the insulting bait.
That's the way it is with Billy.

Which reminds me, didn't we ban him once?How did you know :ohmy:


Ehh, he's not doing much harm. At least wait until this ID alienates a few more sections of the board. He's not popped into the lounge to say hi yet.

[JPaul]

That's the way it is with Billy.

Which reminds me, didn't we ban him once?How did you know :ohmy:


Ehh, he's not doing much harm. At least wait until this ID alienates a few more sections of the board. He's not popped into the lounge to say hi yet.
Billy wouldn't want that, coz it would be like special treatment and if he believes in one thing it's fair treatment for all.

Except the Israelis obviously.

[tralalala]

Well, I know it may seem as if I am insulted, but it annoyes me that someone thinks he can write stuff like that, and all will go quiet. <_<

[JPaul]

Well, I know it may seem as if I am insulted, but it annoyes me that someone thinks he can write stuff like that, and all will go quiet. <_<
It appears he was wrong tho'. ;)

[tralalala]

Well, it seemed as if he wasn't going to accept that fact was he now.. ;)

[JPaul]

Well, it seemed as if he wasn't going to accept that fact was he now.. ;)
The words "Leopard" and "Spots" seem strangely apt.

[Busyman]

Ya beat me to my edit. Shit!!!
Hoi, who are you calling Shit!!!
Shit, who are you calling Hoi!!!?? :huh:

[RioDeLeo]

Ooh, a gang, scarrrrry!!

Why don't you read another side of the story, not that you're interested in any other truth than your own.


As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational "terrorists" who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes - on both sides - inevitably follow from this original injustice.

This paper outlines the history of Palestine to show how this process occurred and what a moral solution to the region's problems should consist of. If you care about the people of the Middle East, Jewish and Arab, you owe it to yourself to read this account of the other side of the historical record.



Introduction

The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs' inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists' intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs' opposition to Zionism wasn't based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

One further point: being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. We do not believe that the Jews acted worse than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930's and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.

But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic "land without people for a people without land" was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is the root of the problem, as we shall see.


Read the full account here. (http://cactus48.com/truth.html)

What you are espousing Rafi is Zionism, not Judaism, Israel is a Zionist state, not a Jewish one.

[JPaul]

" ...not that you're interested in any other truth than your own"

:lol:

As ever, the inadvertent master of irony.

Purely as an aside " ... any truth other than your own" would be much better.

[RioDeLeo]

" ...not that you're interested in any other truth than your own"

:lol:

As ever, the inadvertent master of irony.

Purely as an aside " ... any truth other than your own" would be much better.

Sorry, but do l know you? You seem to presume that you know me.

[manker]

Are we to play the 'I'm not Billy' game again. Good stuff.

Tell us a bit about yourself, then. What fantastical life do you live this time.

No really, I am interested :)

[JPaul]

" ...not that you're interested in any other truth than your own"

:lol:

As ever, the inadvertent master of irony.

Purely as an aside " ... any truth other than your own" would be much better.

Sorry, but do l know you? You seem to presume that you know me.

:lol:

The question one must ask one's self is why, when other folk have actually said who you are, is it me you question about it. Are you in fact infatuated with me at all, or did I get to you.

However as manker says, please continue it actually gives chaps a bit of a chuckle. Almost as much as reading your trolling and ranting, but not quite.

[RioDeLeo]

The question one must ask one's self is why, when other folk have actually said who you are, is it me you question about it.

Are you quite there? Who knows me, or said who l am? l can assure you no-one on this board knows me, or anything about me, and that includes you.

[lynx]

To misquote Mr Collins:

Oh Billy, Billy, don't you lose your number 'Cause you're not anywhere that I can't find you

[GepperRankins]

The question one must ask one's self is why, when other folk have actually said who you are, is it me you question about it.

Are you quite there? Who knows me, or said who l am? l can assure you no-one on this board knows me, or anything about me, and that includes you.
pretty much everyone knows who you are

[Snee]

Read the full account here. (http://cactus48.com/truth.html)


Ah yes, the experts have spoken.

American jews (for justice) know better than Israeli ones, then, apparently.
Glad to know you place your trust in people who've really been in the thick of it.

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, or this horrid, horrid zionist plot. But let's kick them out then, now that america's jews (well, a fifth of them anyway, and I'm sure they've been as fair as humanly possible when they collected the data, they don't appear to have any sort of agenda at all) have decided that that's the proper thing to do.

[tralalala]

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.

[Helghast004]

Personally I have no fears of traveling overseas. I wanted to move to Bahrain, cause I had a choice, but my family all decided to stay within the states so they didnt have to mess with legal shit.

[tralalala]

Yeah I s'pose you'd be getting investigations every time you went back to visit the US eh..?