:lol: Btw
Why does everyone pick on Oklahoma?
Printable View
:lol: Btw
Why does everyone pick on Oklahoma?
Sounds like, being the sole perpetrator of sin and evil in the world, we're about to be forced to confront our "just" desserts by a bunch of puny, whiny, do-gooders from foreign lands-Woe is me!Quote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@17 June 2003 - 00:03
so... you wouldn't be ecstatic if the rest of the world got together and said, "okay, everybody in america who isn't a native american, you're getting stuck over here in this ghetto... let's say, oklahoma and whichever other states are the least valuable. the rest of the land belongs to the indians now, since they were here originally."
I say we should go to the U.N. and sue for "right of return"!
Seriously-
Even those members I disagree with regularly must feel absolutely beset by the unrelenting stupidity, the utterly astounding disregard for fact and reason on display here in the last 48 or so hours.
It puts me in mind of the dreaded "Red Tide"-ugly and depressing, however temporary.
The hypocrisy concerns me more.Quote:
Even those members I disagree with regularly must feel absolutely beset by the unrelenting stupidity, the utterly astounding disregard for fact and reason on display here in the last 48 or so hours.
Your argument is that the Jews owned the land over 2000 years ago and so it belongs to them. Yet you mock the idea of the American Indians being given back their land which was taken from much more recently.
Tell me... how do you get those clearly conflicting views to gel? Perhaps you believe in one rule for Jewish people and another for the Gentiles?
I find your replies dishonest. You claim to be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian yet you think nothing of Palestinian men being shot in the head while carrying babies, the mutilated corpses of Palestinian children or missile attacks on crowded areas full of women and children.
Your main argument seems to be "well they do it to the Israelis" while you ignore the logical implication of this argument i.e that by using similar methods the Israelis are terrorists as well.
If this isnt "astounding disregard for fact and reason" I dont know what is.
At least ShockAndAwe has the honesty to come out and say he wants the Palestinians "driven from the land". You dress up your views with an impressive if somewhat unnecessary vocabulary and pseudo-intellectual reasoning in, what I can only assume is, the vain hope people will forget the facts you have conveniently ignored.
To be brutally honest it sickens and depresses me. I take heart in the fact that there are many Israelis who disagree with state sanctioned atrocities.
Got a mirror handy?Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 00:32
At least ShockAndAwe has the honesty to come out and say he wants the Palestinians "driven from the land". You dress up your views with an impressive if somewhat unnecessary vocabulary and pseudo-intellectual reasoning in, what I can only assume is, the vain hope people will forget the facts you have conveniently ignored.
j2k4 & S&A :: you guys seem convinced that might is right
i agree that in the short term that it does convince people under duress
but it is not a way of building trust or stability
we all know that the USA will not tolerate any other nation amassing anything like the weapons that the USA has
and so the USA will retain the might
but it doesn't make it right
it just makes the USA the biggest, best-armed thug in the playground
palestine belongs to the palestinians [muslim, jew and christian]
the zionist invasion is a recent aberration of over a thousand years history
israel gets it's right though might borrowed from the USA [and the holocaust allows israels no right to enact it's own genocide]
you're defending a mafiocracy, seemingly because it is american led, and that's just immoral and nasty [but probably patriotic], i fail to see how you cats can assume the moral or semantic high ground defending violence as a political tool
Unlike the Palestinians.Quote:
Originally posted by echidna@17 June 2003 - 07:15
i fail to see how you cats can assume the moral or semantic high ground defending violence as a political tool
If I were to grant without question your mis-perception of my stance, I could just as easily state that yours stands at a precise 180 degrees opposite.Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 01:32
The hypocrisy concerns me more.Quote:
Even those members I disagree with regularly must feel absolutely beset by the unrelenting stupidity, the utterly astounding disregard for fact and reason on display here in the last 48 or so hours.
Your argument is that the Jews owned the land over 2000 years ago and so it belongs to them. Yet you mock the idea of the American Indians being given back their land which was taken from much more recently.
Tell me... how do you get those clearly conflicting views to gel? Perhaps you believe in one rule for Jewish people and another for the Gentiles?
I find your replies dishonest. You claim to be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian yet you think nothing of Palestinian men being shot in the head while carrying babies, the mutilated corpses of Palestinian children or missile attacks on crowded areas full of women and children.
Your main argument seems to be "well they do it to the Israelis" while you ignore the logical implication of this argument i.e that by using similar methods the Israelis are terrorists as well.
If this isnt "astounding disregard for fact and reason" I dont know what is.
At least ShockAndAwe has the honesty to come out and say he wants the Palestinians "driven from the land". You dress up your views with an impressive if somewhat unnecessary vocabulary and pseudo-intellectual reasoning in, what I can only assume is, the vain hope people will forget the facts you have conveniently ignored.
To be brutally honest it sickens and depresses me. I take heart in the fact that there are many Israelis who disagree with state sanctioned atrocities.
I have made no qualification as to Israel's "right" to the land, historical or otherwise-the only relevant fact is they are currently occupying a plot of land whose borders are in a constant state of flux due to the conflicts they find themselves engaged in over the past 55 years.
Now, I'm going to make a leap here; try to follow:
Indigenous peoples who have been defeated in war, or relieved of their lands through whatever means by a superior force, and are defined therefore as defeated or otherwise subjugated, no longer own the land.
The U.S. is not the first country (and certainly won't be the last) to usurp, however violently, brutally or unfairly, control of lands inhabited by other people, so resign yourself to the fact the U.S. is not the progenitor of that "sin".
Herewith a few facts about me, and my beliefs:
I do not suffer any qualms about being a member of a "conquering race".
Neither will I suffer a lecture from you as to the plight of the Amerindians; I am very well acquainted with them and their "plight" (as I'm sure you would refer to it); you see, I live on a reservation-my two children are tribal members-ALL of my ex-inlaws are tribal elders who are steeped in their history, and not one of them would find a shred of agreement with your suppositions.
I owe them nothing, and just to make myself clear, I don't think I owe the descendants of historically enslaved Africans anything, either.
Now, then-back to the mideast:
Arafat is a hate-filled, terrorist-monger who treats the Palestinian "nation", such as it is, as his personal play-toy; an international "social experiment" gone awry. In case you hadn't noticed, no Arab country offers to help the Palestinians-have you ever given any thought to the origins of that enigma?
Do you have any capacity at all to get past the imagery of conflict and your unquestioning attachment to a cause whose leadership constitutes the largest impediment to peace?
Must you insist on practicing the politics of emotion rather than the politics of reason?
I have stated very clearly my support for the peoples on both sides of the conflict.
The leadership is another matter.
Just for the sake of asking:
What do you think of the Arafat's (hence Palestine's) stated (and as yet, unrenounced) stated goal of eradication of the Jews?
I appear to get a different inference from the arguments to evil bagpus.
j2k4 appears to agree with me...although much more elegantly worded....ie: Both leaderships are a bunch of bastards.
evilbagpus, also appears to agree with me: although he is trying to play Devils Advocate on the side of the pallestinians....ie: Both sides are a bunch of bastards
So.....
why are you both arguing over semantics?
I cant resist this though...please forgive me j2k4...
Isnt this the opposite of the US argument used for not coming into WWII earlier than they did (or one of them)...ie The breakup of the British Empire was one of the "prices" that the British had to pay for aid in Europe?Quote:
Indigenous peoples who have been defeated in war, or relieved of their lands through whatever means by a superior force, and are defined therefore as defeated or otherwise subjugated, no longer own the land.
:rolleyes: :-"
My "Indigenous peoples..." statement was meant to acknowledge only the ability of a militarily superior power to hold dominion over a weaker one, as in the case of creating, expanding or buffering empire-i.e., the recently dissolved Eastern bloc, whose countries were most assuredly "subjugated"; the actual ownership of the land, at the time, had defaulted to the greater U.S.S.R.Quote:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2003 - 10:52
I cant resist this though...please forgive me j2k4...
Isnt this the opposite of the US argument used for not coming into WWII earlier than they did (or one of them)...ie The breakup of the British Empire was one of the "prices" that the British had to pay for aid in Europe?Quote:
Indigenous peoples who have been defeated in war, or relieved of their lands through whatever means by a superior force, and are defined therefore as defeated or otherwise subjugated, no longer own the land.
:rolleyes: :-"
I believe the break-up of the British Empire would be more correctly viewed as a natural evolution arising from Britain's sorry financial state following the war: Olde Blighty was broke.
Rebuilding the the British Isles took priority over maintainance of the empire-simple as that.
Empires are nice, but they're not free. :P
In light of this, any input the U.S. had would have been more on the order of "good advice".
It's a little more than semantics Ratfaced. The Palestinians are not provided with the cutting edge in US military hardware and expertise so they can carry out atrocities with more efficiency.Quote:
evilbagpus, also appears to agree with me: although he is trying to play Devils Advocate on the side of the pallestinians....ie: Both sides are a bunch of bastards
So.....
why are you both arguing over semantics?
Also no one here is trying to pretend that the Palestinian terrorists are a civilized democratic organisation.
These 2 important facts seem lost on jk24
edit: unforgivable typo!!
Q: What do hamas and the israeli army have in common?
A: They want to kill innocent civilians on the other side.
Q: Why are they different?
A: Because the israeli army doesn't tell the public that they are trying to kill civilians.
the second question can also be answered;Quote:
Originally posted by The Knife Thrower@18 June 2003 - 04:34
Q: What do hamas and the israeli army have in common?
A: They want to kill innocent civilians on the other side.
Q: Why are they different?
A: Because the israeli army doesn't tell the public that they are trying to kill civilians.
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises 'human bombs' snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.
I'm sure that the dead on both sides really appreciate your finely drawn distinction.Quote:
Originally posted by echidna@17 June 2003 - 22:49
the second question can also be answered;
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises 'human bombs' snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.
Nothing lost here-Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@17 June 2003 - 13:28
It's a little more than semantics Ratfaced. The Palestinians are not provided with the cutting edge in US military hardware and expertise so they can carry out atrocities with more efficiency.
Also no one here is trying to pretend that the Palestinian terrorists are a civilized democratic organisation.
These 2 important facts seem lost on jk24
Your first fact is irrelevant, however regretful.
The second is disingenuous; what right do Palestinian terrorists have to free land so as to form a country?
I would rather any lands foregone by Israel be earmarked for non-terrorist Palestinians; the terrorists should be hunted down and executed.
I'm sure that the dead on both sides really appreciate your finely drawn distinction. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+18 June 2003 - 14:55--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 18 June 2003 - 14:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-echidna@17 June 2003 - 22:49
the second question can also be answered;
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises 'human bombs' snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.
if the dead could draw anything they wouldn't be dead :P
it's the living [mostly the tax payers] who i think should be concerned about the distinction, (apart from anything else human bombs are much cheaper than helicopters) i guess every arms sale means american jobs, right.
if the dead could draw anything they wouldn't be dead :PQuote:
Originally posted by echidna+18 June 2003 - 00:35--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (echidna @ 18 June 2003 - 00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 14:55
<!--QuoteBegin-echidna
Quote:
@17 June 2003 - 22:49
the second question can also be answered;
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises 'human bombs' snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.
I'm sure that the dead on both sides really appreciate your finely drawn distinction.
it's the living [mostly the tax payers] who i think should be concerned about the distinction, (apart from anything else human bombs are much cheaper than helicopters) i guess every arms sale means american jobs, right. [/b][/quote]
Clocker-
Echidna petitions to disallow your metaphor; how do you answer the request? :huh:
If the dead were still alive they'd be turning in their graves... :blink:
If you and the majority of Americans cant see the connection between the first fact, a 36 year occupation funded and supported by the USA, 2 billion dollars worth of military aid each year and 9/11 then I'm afraid you guys will not see the end of terrorism for many years. Your right though, this is certainly regretful for all concerned. Particularly for your allies in Europe who will act as a 'buffer' due to them being an easier target for Al-Queda to reach.Quote:
Your first fact is irrelevant, however regretful.
The second fact is anything but disingenuous. We've covered this "A civilized democracy shouldn't use the same tactics as terrorists" point 3 times now and you still avoid it. Again, your making statements without justifying them. Although I have to ask you, if the people who commit terrorist atrocities don't deserve the land, then do you agree that no-one who has served in the Israeli army deserves the land either?Quote:
The second is disingenuous; what right do Palestinian terrorists have to free land so as to form a country?
btw I'm still waiting for an explanation of why my views are contrarian.
Again I simply don't believe you. When S+A was arguing that the Palestinians should be driven from the land and that all Muslims are evil, you did nothing to distance yourself from his views. In fact you tried to make them more acceptable by diluting his rhetoric and attempting to put a PC spin on it. Add to this your utter lack of concern for the Palestinian civilians who have been systematically murdered for over 30 years and you will see why I find it hard to believe you.Quote:
I would rather any lands foregone by Israel be earmarked for non-terrorist Palestinians;
Put it this way, if someone were agreeing with me, yet justified ethnic cleansing and stated that "all Jews are evil" I would swiftly distance myself from that individual.
EBP,
For the record, would you please state on which side of this debate your sympathies lie.
One word will suffice.
Palestine?
Israel?
Clocker-Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+17 June 2003 - 23:41--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 17 June 2003 - 23:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by echidna@18 June 2003 - 00:35
Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 14:55
<!--QuoteBegin-echidna
Quote:
Quote:
@17 June 2003 - 22:49
the second question can also be answered;
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises 'human bombs' snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.
I'm sure that the dead on both sides really appreciate your finely drawn distinction.
if the dead could draw anything they wouldn't be dead :P
it's the living [mostly the tax payers] who i think should be concerned about the distinction, (apart from anything else human bombs are much cheaper than helicopters) i guess every arms sale means american jobs, right.
Echidna petitions to disallow your metaphor; how do you answer the request? :huh: [/b][/quote]
Echidna may wish to petition his English instructors.
The verb in that sentence is "appreciate".
"Finely drawn" would be a adverbial modifier of "description".
The fact you felt the need to ask that question is rather telling. I will answer in one word.Quote:
EBP,
For the record, would you please state on which side of this debate your sympathies lie.
One word will suffice.
Palestine?
Israel?
Justice.
Why dont you try and answer some of the issues I've raised about the double standards at play here? Attempting to pigeon hole my views into a neat little pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian box is a desperate strategy and is not conducive to an informed debate.
Your answer is unsatisfactory, sorry.Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 07:20
The fact you felt the need to ask that question is rather telling. I will answer in one word.Quote:
EBP,
For the record, would you please state on which side of this debate your sympathies lie.
One word will suffice.
Palestine?
Israel?
Justice.
Why dont you try and answer some of the issues I've raised about the double standards at play here? Attempting to pigeon hole my views into a neat little pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian box is a desperate strategy and is not conducive to an informed debate.
Justice for whom?
You are awfully quick to accuse others of evading issues, whist simultaneously refusing to respond to direct ( and unequivacable) questions.
I apologise for the multisyllable words. They seemed appropriate.
@clocker
Justice for all.
Israelis from Palestinian terror, US + European citizens from Islamic terror, Palestinian civilians from Israeli terror.
The point I've been making for 3 days now is that none of this will happen until the USA stops being so one-sided and helping the Israelis commit atrocities. What is so evasive about that?
I suggest you go back to my post before your "For the record" post. You seem to be more concerned with getting people to take sides than dicussing solutions to problems. I suggest you rethink who is evading the real issues here.
No need to apologise for using "multisyllable words" as you put it. It's only when they are used to take the discussion OT and distract people from the real issues that they bother me. btw I would refer to them as 'esoteric'' (I'm referring to jk24's words here, not yours) but hey, don't let an opportunity to insult pass you by :angry:
edited: removed ambiguity of one sentence and the chance for opportunists to insult and be evasive
This is the last time I'm going to do this.Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 06:22
If you and the majority of Americans cant see the connection between the first fact, a 36 year occupation funded and supported by the USA, 2 billion dollars worth of military aid each year and 9/11 then I'm afraid you guys will not see the end of terrorism for many years. Your right though, this is certainly regretful for all concerned. Particularly for your allies in Europe who will act as a 'buffer' due to them being an easier target for Al-Queda to reach.Quote:
Your first fact is irrelevant, however regretful.
The second fact is anything but disingenuous. We've covered this "A civilized democracy shouldn't use the same tactics as terrorists" point 3 times now and you still avoid it. Again, your making statements without justifying them. Although I have to ask you, if the people who commit terrorist atrocities don't deserve the land, then do you agree that no-one who has served in the Israeli army deserves the land either?Quote:
The second is disingenuous; what right do Palestinian terrorists have to free land so as to form a country?
btw I'm still waiting for an explanation of why my views are contrarian.
Again I simply don't believe you. When S+A was arguing that the Palestinians should be driven from the land and that all Muslims are evil, you did nothing to distance yourself from his views. In fact you tried to make them more acceptable by diluting his rhetoric and attempting to put a PC spin on it. Add to this your utter lack of concern for the Palestinian civilians who have been systematically murdered for over 30 years and you will see why I find it hard to believe you.Quote:
I would rather any lands foregone by Israel be earmarked for non-terrorist Palestinians;
Put it this way, if someone were agreeing with me, yet justified ethnic cleansing and stated that "all Jews are evil" I would swiftly distance myself from that individual.
This forum is where I post MY opinions.
If I agree with the views of another, I may so state.
I may also choose not to state such views, for whatever reason, that is allowed also.
I am not compelled to post in order to demonstrate agreement, disagreement, or any variations of either, no matter what point is posted, or what member is posting.
Just for you, EBP:
The fact of U.S. support for Israel is what it is.
Debating the morality of the fact does nothing for the Palestinians.
Fomenting the notion that the U.S. is, by virtue of it's intransigence vis `a vis terrorism, guilty by proxy of any terrorism that may occur in Europe is an astoundingly creative application of your fervid anti-U.S. sentiment.
In light of such artistry I can only say, in my experience, logic is not capable of the "elasticity" your scenario demands.
Your attempted refutation of my second point is incoherent; all I could gather from it was an accusation that I am guilty of PC "spin".
Nobody in their right mind would call me PC, and as for spin, well, that's an awfully easily used invective.
You don't even recognize agreement when it occurs, and what's worse, you obviously don't even read the threads before you post.
EBP, if you are going to assay a landscape of oil and canvas here, don't blame me if your powers to conjure an image or convey a thought thereby seem nothing more than an unfortunate clash of color or waste of paint and space.
As you have displayed your contrarianism to all who post here, I don't owe you an explanation for having made note of it.
There-I am done with you.
Gee, you're right. That is not evasive.Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 07:46
The point I've been making for 3 days now is that none of this will happen until the USA stops being so one-sided and helping the Israelis commit atrocities. What is so evasive about that?
It is mindbogglingly wrongheaded.
Do you really imagine that abandoning Israel will stop Islamic terrorism?
Your professed desire for "justice for all" seems exclusive to me.
It doesn't seem to include "justice" for the scores of Israeli civilian casualties, for instance.
I dont recall saying otherwise....Quote:
If I agree with the views of another, I may so state.
What an utterly inane statement, completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever. My house 'is what it is' but that doesnt give you any insight or information about it does it?Quote:
The fact of U.S. support for Israel is what it is.
On the contrary if a consensus can be formed that the US support is immoral I think it would help the Palestinians alot.Quote:
Debating the morality of the fact does nothing for the Palestinian.
So you are denying that US actions in the Middle-East have any effect on the level of terrorism in Europe? Was there any need to pack such a simple concept into such a loooong sentence?Quote:
Fomenting the notion that the U.S. is, by virtue of it's intransigence vis `a vis terrorism, guilty by proxy of any terrorism that may occur in Europe is an astoundingly creative application of your fervid anti-U.S. sentiment.
Your 2nd 'point' was that Palestinian terrorists dont deserve the land. I dont recall saying they did. I merely asked you if your lofty morals apply equally to all who commit terrorist acts. They clearly do not.Quote:
Your attempted refutation of my second point is incoherent; all I could gather from it was an accusation that I am guilty of PC "spin".
haha, I knew I would never get an explanation for that one. :lol: you promised me one as well! :lol: :lol:Quote:
As you have displayed your contrarianism to all who post here, I don't owe you an explanation for having made note of it.
Again, many insults, a competent grasp of the English language and an amazing ability to duck and dive every point I have made. Your agility is astounding, perhaps a career as a boxer would be appropriate?
Now you are 'done with me' perhaps this thread can get back to the issues at hand.
edit: typo
Not completely or immediately no. I also dont recall mentioning 'abandoning' Israel. I was talking about the cessation of US support for Israeli atrocities. If that happened the moderate Palestinians would be less likely to support terrorist organisations who they see as there only hope. After 30 years of systematic slaughter who can blame them?Quote:
Do you really imagine that abandoning Israel will stop Islamic terrorism?
If you think it wouldnt make any difference you are sorely mistaken. Do you think that if the British had bombed Irish civilians for 30 years we'd have anything resembling a peace process?
If the Russians were still a superpower and they provided the Palestinians with military hardware you'd be the 1st to complain and I would be right behind you all the way.
It seems to me that you are the one with the exclusive idea of who deserves justice and who doesnt.
Excellent.Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 08:07
Now you are 'done with me' perhaps this thread can get back to the issues at hand.
I believe that the "issues at hand" as defined by the title of this topic are "Palestine or Israel".
I am pro-Israel.
You?
I am pro-people.
Read the 1st post in this thread.
You will see that the real issue here is that it doesnt have to be "Palestine or Israel". That is the view of the guy who started this thread.
You really are obsessed with tying me down to one side or the other arent you? At least you have now admitted that you are biased towards one side.
There are people in Israel who believe what they're armed forces are doing is wrong. There are people in Palestine who believe what the terrorists are doing is wrong. (I have seen interviews with both on the 'biased' BBC)
Unfortunately these people are in a tiny minority on both sides. THAT is the obstacle to peace. You would do well to ponder that for more than a fleeting moment.
Very well, I shall.Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 08:27
Unfortunately these people are in a tiny minority on both sides. THAT is the obstacle to peace. You would do well to ponder that for more than a fleeting moment.
As I do so, you would do well to ponder this...
The Palestinians have been used for decades by their Arab supporters as the straw man with which to goad the US.
They recieve substantial aid, both monetary and hardware, from several Arab nations.
The fact that this aid is cloaked and not a line budget item doesn't distinguish it from the aid provided Israel by the US in anything but name.
Your continued comparison of Israel's plight with that of the UK v. IRA is ridiculous.Quote:
If you think it wouldnt make any difference you are sorely mistaken. Do you think that if the British had bombed Irish civilians for 30 years we'd have anything resembling a peace process?
The British do not have millions of IRA supporters camped on their doorstep and thus have the luxury of a more measured response.
You have spent several days now, in several different threads, taking cheap shots at the US while claiming to be impartial or acting as an "educator".
Please drop the charade.
If you would only admit to being anti- American I would have far more respect for your posts.
If you act like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck then you are a duck.
Now I'm off to ponder.
hmm, I cant recall seeing Palestinians flying about in Attack Helicopters.. strange that. jk24 has also stated that no other Arab countries help the Palestinians, I wonder which one of you is talking crap.Quote:
They recieve substantial aid, both monetary and hardware, from several Arab nations.
The fact that this aid is cloaked and not a line budget item doesn't distinguish it from the aid provided Israel by the US in anything but name.
I think the tune of $2 billion a year distinguishes it in more than name. Thats just military aid alone.
So you are justifying slaughtering women and children now? I'd really like you to nail this one down so I can decide if you are a psychopath who will justify anything as long as it's pro-Israeli. Spain has millions of ETA supporters camped inside the house yet doesnt use the 'tactics' you support.Quote:
Your continued comparison of Israel's plight with that of the UK v. IRA is ridiculous.
The British do not have millions of IRA supporters camped on their doorstep and thus have the luxury of a more measured response.
lol! How can I be anti-American when there are a significant number of Americans who agree with my views!!?? It always comes down to that with your type though. Perhaps I should follow the US administrations example and start slagging off the French. Thats acceptable and anti-French sentiment seems to be in vogue right now. No hypocrisy there then eh? :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
If you would only admit to being anti- American I would have far more respect for your posts.
Thats very perceptive of you :rolleyes: , I'd compliment you a little more but some guy is throwing me a slice of bread :lol:Quote:
you act like a duck, walk like a duck and quack like a duck then you are a duck.
If you would stop justifying murdering women and children I might have a little more respect for your posts. :angry:
Echidna may wish to petition his English instructors.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+18 June 2003 - 23:02--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 18 June 2003 - 23:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@17 June 2003 - 23:41
Quote:
Originally posted by echidna@18 June 2003 - 00:35
Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@18 June 2003 - 14:55
<!--QuoteBegin-echidna
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
@17 June 2003 - 22:49
the second question can also be answered;
Q: Why are they different?
A: Hamas utilises 'human bombs' snipers and shoulder launched rockets, funded by extremists and the palestinian diaspora.
While the IDF utilises the latest military technologies such as apache helicopter gunships and armoured bulldozers, subsidised by the US tax payers.
I'm sure that the dead on both sides really appreciate your finely drawn distinction.
if the dead could draw anything they wouldn't be dead :P
it's the living [mostly the tax payers] who i think should be concerned about the distinction, (apart from anything else human bombs are much cheaper than helicopters) i guess every arms sale means american jobs, right.
Clocker-
Echidna petitions to disallow your metaphor; how do you answer the request? :huh:
The verb in that sentence is "appreciate".
"Finely drawn" would be a adverbial modifier of "description". [/b][/quote]
yeah english isn't my strongest point
i did realise upon a re-read that i had gagged on my gag [oh-well]
dead people appreciating is equally as unlikely as them drawing don't you think though?
[i hope you don't charge english tuition fees, clocker]
i think that throwing stones at tanks or blowing yourself up with C4 seem like very desperate acts, while attacking homes [admittedly of human-bombers families] in residential palestine [ramallah for instance] with apache launched laser guided missiles seems like very aggressive acts.
in terms of sympathy, i can sympathise with those displaying desperation easier than with those displaying aggression.
maybe i just side with the underdog [better odds if your the betting type]
Quote:
Your continued comparison of Israel's plight with that of the UK v. IRA is ridiculous.
The British do not have millions of IRA supporters camped on their doorstep and thus have the luxury of a more measured response.
If we'd bombed the crap out of Ireland we would have had.
If, for example, Belgium (yeh lets drag Skweeky and Bender in here ;) ) had given us aid in order to bomb the crap out of Ireland, im sure the Irish Terrorists would have seen Belgium as a legitimate target too.
The Irish terrorists would have been receiving aid from US INDIVIDUALS....just like the Pallestinians, im sure, are receiving aid from Arabian INDIVIDUALS.
Still doesnt make it right.
Israel as a 'state' is, in my opinion, commiting attrociaties.
Pallestinians as 'individuals', are committing attrociaties.
Supporting anyone to commit attrociaties of this nature, whether it be a state OR an individual is, in my humple opinion, "Aiding and Abbetting" in that attrociaty.
In the eyes of the people involved, the supporter thereby become legitimate targets to those that have had the attrociaties done to them.
Please note that last sentence....it is the whole reasoning behind the US/UK attack on afganistan.
To deny others the same reasoning, is hypocritical.
Rat,
Both you and EBP have talked about the Palestinians as if they are soliciting quarters on streetcorners while America showers Israel with massive amounts of money and aid.
This leads to the emotionally satisfying tendency to "root for the underdog".
It leads to the perception that the US is just the "biggest, best armed thug on the playground" ( from another thread, I know).
America does provide significant aid to Israel.
Palestine terrorists receive significant aid also.
It is certainly convenient to portray the PLO et al as the noble David to Israel's Goliath, but I don't think that it's at all accurate.
I'm still confused why it is that all of you guys claim to be for justice and peace for everyone, yet all your examples of atrocities are Israeli.
The best brains in the world can't sort it! They are both as bad as each other! Religion causes problems everywere! But the real truth is ........ Human kind is a croc of sh*t. There will always be conflict one way or another. We will always find some difference or other! Male v Female, Black V White, North v South, East v West, One religion v another religion,Meat eaters v Veggies, Old v Young,Gay v Straight, Rich v Poor, Me v You! A never ending list - trust me! All I have seen in here is Ego v Ego. lol
Just own up no one has an f*cking clue!
Clocker,
The attrociaties ON BOTH SIDES, are so numerous, and so well recorded all over the world that i havent even bothered mentioning any.
If I was talking human rights in Burma, or the Pillephines i may have provided links or examples.
I dont feel that i have to here....it doesnt take much memory or searching to bring them up.
As to "siding with the Pallestinians"...I havent.
Im on record as saying i detest BOTH their leaderships equaly.
The peoples BOTH have a right to live.
I am merely pointing out, that if the US is going to take sides, then it has to live with the consequences of taking sides. Just like the Taliban did, when they aided the people that attacked the USA.
I am neither anti-Israeli nor anti-Pallestinian.....PEOPLE
But im anti BOTH leaderships.
Your link shows that there is not enough being done to stifle the flow of cash to terrorist organisations.....I agree.
I dont think enough is being done to stifle the flow of cash to Terrorist nations either, via military aid.....doubtless you will disagree.
If you are going to take every anti-Israeli comment as being Pro-Pallestinian, then i hope to hell you arent in charge of the peace talks :o
One LAST time:Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 09:07
haha, I knew I would never get an explanation for that one. :lol: you promised me one as well! :lol: :lol:Quote:
As you have displayed your contrarianism to all who post here, I don't owe you an explanation for having made note of it.
I promised you a reply to your post, not an explanation of my view re: your contrarianism, but since you are the only member who doesn't "get it", here you go:
My application of that term has absolutely nothing to do with the "reasons/reasoning/facts/nonsense" that you post.
It has, instead, to do with your pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint for it's own sake (thus, contrarianism); you find someone whose views you oppose, then transfer the projection of your focus from the opinion to the poster and all subsequent opinions.
Clear enough? for you, probably not.
@j2k4
Utter rubbish. For one thing contrarianism isnt a real word. Look in a dictionary if you dont believe me. I assume you've based that word on "contrarian" which DOES NOT mean "a pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint for it's own sake". It means to go against conventional wisdom.
contrarian definition
I have asked you to explain how my views go against conventional wisdom and still I'm waiting.
Think about what your saying though. If I have a "pathological urge" to choose an opposing viewpoint how come I'm not choosing the opposite viewpoint? What makes my beliefs more likely to stem from this pathological urge than yours or anyone elses?
If your going to attempt to impress us with this astounding vocabulary you seem so intent on displaying at least make sure you know what the bloody word means and that it makes sense in the context your using it in.
Although I couldnt find it in the dictionary I did find some people using it online. And it still doesnt mean pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint
Contrarianism
Is that clear enough for you? Probably not. :angry:
Oh. boy-Quote:
Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 12:57
@j2k4
Utter rubbish. For one thing contrarianism isnt a real word. Look in a dictionary if you dont believe me. I assume you've based that word on "contrarian" which DOES NOT mean "a pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint for it's own sake". It means to go against conventional wisdom.
contrarian definition
I have asked you to explain how my views go against conventional wisdom and still I'm waiting.
Think about what your saying though. If I have a "pathological urge" to choose an opposing viewpoint how come I'm not choosing the opposite viewpoint? What makes my beliefs more likely to stem from this pathological urge than yours or anyone elses?
If your going to attempt to impress us with this astounding vocabulary you seem so intent on displaying at least make sure you know what the bloody word means and that it makes sense in the context your using it in.
Although I couldnt find it in the dictionary I did find some people using it online. And it still doesnt mean pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint
Contrarianism
Is that clear enough for you? Probably not. :angry:
The term doesn't imply a pathology in or of itself; you, EPB, have supplied that aspect separately-it is a component of your "technique", if I may be granted the liberty I take in using that term to describe what you do here.
Now, goodbye, SON.
Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It has, instead, to do with your pathological urge to choose an opposing viewpoint for it's own sake (thus, contrarianism); you find someone whose views you oppose, then transfer the projection of your focus from the opinion to the poster and all subsequent opinions[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
The term doesn't imply a pathology in or of itself; you, EPB, have supplied that aspect separately-it is a component of your "technique", if I may be granted the liberty I take in using that term to describe what you do here.
[/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:
LMAO!!