Palestine Or Israel?

[evilbagpuss]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

Thats very perceptive of you , I'd compliment you a little more but some guy is throwing me a slice of bread

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

[echidna]

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

Originally posted by j2k4@17 June 2003 - 23:41

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

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

@17 June 2003 - 22:49

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

I&#39;m sure that the dead on both sides really appreciate your finely drawn distinction.

if the dead could draw anything they wouldn&#39;t be dead

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

Clocker-

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rat Faced]

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

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

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

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



Still doesnt make it right.

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

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

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

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



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

To deny others the same reasoning, is hypocritical.

[clocker]

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&#39;s Goliath, but I don&#39;t think that it&#39;s at all accurate.

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

[fugley]

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

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

[Rat Faced]

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

[j2k4]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss@18 June 2003 - 09:07

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

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

One LAST time:

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

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

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

Clear enough? for you, probably not.

[evilbagpuss]

@j2k4

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

contrarian definition

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

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

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

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

Contrarianism

Is that clear enough for you? Probably not.

[j2k4]

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

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

contrarian definition

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

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

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

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

Contrarianism

Is that clear enough for you? Probably not.&nbsp;

Oh. boy-

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

Now, goodbye, SON.

[evilbagpuss]

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

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



LMAO&#33;&#33;