lotrfan55345
Feb 7th, 2005, 12:08 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4244493.stm
Wow. Let's see how this one turns out...
Wow. Let's see how this one turns out...
View Full Version : Israel-Palestinian truce 'likely'
substand
Feb 7th, 2005, 2:38 PM
keep your fingers crossed but dont hold your breath!
DarkAce
Feb 7th, 2005, 5:17 PM
What's the current record for how long they've actually kept a truce?
stewey
Feb 7th, 2005, 5:35 PM
Abbas is certainly quickly earning my respect. He has done more for peace in a few weeks than Arafat did in several decades.
Maleko
Feb 7th, 2005, 9:19 PM
Any Palestinian leader who is impressing people with his ability to negotiate peace with Israel is a puppet.
If my people were treated like Israel has treated the Palestinians since 1946, war would be the only answer.
See for yourself what Israel has done to the Palestinians.
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=553
If my people were treated like Israel has treated the Palestinians since 1946, war would be the only answer.
See for yourself what Israel has done to the Palestinians.
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=553
midnight21
Feb 7th, 2005, 10:13 PM
Hello everyone, i'm new here, although i've been lurking around on this site for almost a year and a half now...
It says in the bible that there will be peace between isreal and palenstine and the treaty will last for 7 years.
Then there will be the rise of the antichrist and his new world order.
And all hell will break loose in the final war of armageddon.
As for the antichrist, i'm really begining to suspect that George W. Bush is the antichrist himself... there were just so many coincidences piling up one after another.....
What gets me the most was his eyes. They looked so cold... so dead... so evil...
Every time i look at his face in magazines or TV, i get tremendous shivers of fear down my spine.
I never trusted him at all from the time he first joined office... I smelled a rat in him at the begining... or perhaps even satan...
we'll have to wait and see what happens, unfortunately...
It says in the bible that there will be peace between isreal and palenstine and the treaty will last for 7 years.
Then there will be the rise of the antichrist and his new world order.
And all hell will break loose in the final war of armageddon.
As for the antichrist, i'm really begining to suspect that George W. Bush is the antichrist himself... there were just so many coincidences piling up one after another.....
What gets me the most was his eyes. They looked so cold... so dead... so evil...
Every time i look at his face in magazines or TV, i get tremendous shivers of fear down my spine.
I never trusted him at all from the time he first joined office... I smelled a rat in him at the begining... or perhaps even satan...
we'll have to wait and see what happens, unfortunately...
Rynotek
Feb 8th, 2005, 4:12 AM
Now that Hamas control local government in Gaza that should keep Abbas in line. He hopefully still has some respect. If he screws the people over they will rip him apart although i imagine the Palestinian people are tired and just want there sons and daughters not to get their brains splattered all over a wall by some 19 yo trigger happy IDF nutter.
substand
Feb 8th, 2005, 2:24 PM
What's the current record for how long they've actually kept a truce?
I'm thinking that the "palestinian authority" doesnt have any authority really. You can negotiate all you want with the "heads of state" but the heads simply do not have any power over people who have no perceived stake in peace in failed cultures. Ralph Peters described them as a warrior class (his ideas, not my own). Of course not all palestinians would be members of this class, but those who are in it have the ability and will to ruin it for everyone.
I'm thinking that the "palestinian authority" doesnt have any authority really. You can negotiate all you want with the "heads of state" but the heads simply do not have any power over people who have no perceived stake in peace in failed cultures. Ralph Peters described them as a warrior class (his ideas, not my own). Of course not all palestinians would be members of this class, but those who are in it have the ability and will to ruin it for everyone.
Brewloc
Feb 8th, 2005, 2:56 PM
Hamas has other things in mind. Peace is far from near.
Musheer al Masri, a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, told reporters that Abbas' declaration represents only the Palestinian National Authority's position.
"It is not necessary to represent the position of other factions including Hamas," said Masri.
"Our position is still clear that there is no ceasefire offered to the Zionist enemy without a real price. We will keep calmness only if Israel makes commitments to release all Palestinian prisoners," added Masri.
Indeed, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas will have his hands full.
Musheer al Masri, a spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, told reporters that Abbas' declaration represents only the Palestinian National Authority's position.
"It is not necessary to represent the position of other factions including Hamas," said Masri.
"Our position is still clear that there is no ceasefire offered to the Zionist enemy without a real price. We will keep calmness only if Israel makes commitments to release all Palestinian prisoners," added Masri.
Indeed, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas will have his hands full.
stewey
Feb 9th, 2005, 8:48 PM
There is no excuse to use children as suicide bombers. None. I do not care what Isreal did to them, it doesn't matter. you do not use children as suicide bombers. Also, you do not intentionally target civilians.
Hamas is horrible. Arafat was horrible. Abbas has been excellent so far though.
I am not saying Isreal is the victim here, as both have done horrible sides, but this was in response to Maleko. Must be a bleeding heart liberal for endorsing Palestinian tactics against Isreal.
Hamas is horrible. Arafat was horrible. Abbas has been excellent so far though.
I am not saying Isreal is the victim here, as both have done horrible sides, but this was in response to Maleko. Must be a bleeding heart liberal for endorsing Palestinian tactics against Isreal.
Rynotek
Feb 10th, 2005, 3:22 AM
Ok let me get this straight, One of the best equiped armies in the world against an ex country with no standing military force? I only remember one incident of a child suicide bomber and that case in itself was highly dubious. I think Hamas has every right to defend their country. And a suicide bomber is no worse than an Apache gunship straifing an apartment block or shooting a disabled kid in the head or repeatedly shooting a 15 year old girl to the point of where the commanding officer stands over her body to reload his pistol.
Hamas can and does attack military positions when it can. But attacking a civilan population is a part of guerrila warfare, it worked in the Lebenon and it has brought Sinn Fein to be the largest nationlist party in Northern Ireland. So fuck them, until they withdraw to there borders, stop cutting down olive groves, setting dogs on farmer, destroying civilians houses, making people wait in the dirt for three days at a military checkpoint. They will reap what they sow.! Has a soilder ever stuck a gun in your back or slapped you in the face or spat on you???? until you have an occupying force in your country you will have no idea what you will do to defend your civil liberties, rights and dignity. It really depends on which side you stand.
Hamas can and does attack military positions when it can. But attacking a civilan population is a part of guerrila warfare, it worked in the Lebenon and it has brought Sinn Fein to be the largest nationlist party in Northern Ireland. So fuck them, until they withdraw to there borders, stop cutting down olive groves, setting dogs on farmer, destroying civilians houses, making people wait in the dirt for three days at a military checkpoint. They will reap what they sow.! Has a soilder ever stuck a gun in your back or slapped you in the face or spat on you???? until you have an occupying force in your country you will have no idea what you will do to defend your civil liberties, rights and dignity. It really depends on which side you stand.
dutchie
Feb 10th, 2005, 5:17 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4252445.stm
Hamas now intentionally fucks up the peaceprocess. These guys don't want peace, and they sure as hell do not represent the majority of palestinians, as 65% voted Abas - against war.
Abas should round up all Hamas criminals, and give them a clear choice. Once he declares all these factions to be illegal, he finally can ACT. Talking to Hamas or Islamic Jihad is pointless.
Oh yeah, and Abas should take control over infrastructure, schooling and housing. At present too much of that is being taken care of by Hamas, in the process controlling schools and brainwashing children to become Israel-hating suicidal maniacs.
It's absolutely true that both sides carry blame for all that happened. Now pop the heads out of the arses and get working on peace. If they let this chance slip, they're all fucked for decades to come..
Hamas now intentionally fucks up the peaceprocess. These guys don't want peace, and they sure as hell do not represent the majority of palestinians, as 65% voted Abas - against war.
Abas should round up all Hamas criminals, and give them a clear choice. Once he declares all these factions to be illegal, he finally can ACT. Talking to Hamas or Islamic Jihad is pointless.
Oh yeah, and Abas should take control over infrastructure, schooling and housing. At present too much of that is being taken care of by Hamas, in the process controlling schools and brainwashing children to become Israel-hating suicidal maniacs.
It's absolutely true that both sides carry blame for all that happened. Now pop the heads out of the arses and get working on peace. If they let this chance slip, they're all fucked for decades to come..
Rynotek
Feb 10th, 2005, 5:36 AM
He has no right to declare a cease fire without consulting the people doing the firing, that is just a stupid manouver. The people have voted indeed, Abas is the face that they want the world to see and Hamas (as shown in local council elections) is the muscle they want to steer Abas into doing the right thing for them. Hamas have done the correct thing here, they know that Sharon wants out of the Gaza, its already been in the closing stages for months,. Abas will now whittle away any advantage the Palistinians have gained to look good for the western media and we can all sit here and tut tut about bad old hamas throwing the toys out of the pram because they where not consulted about a ceasefire when in reality, Hamas and Fatah are the only true power among the people of Palastine. Of course we will not be told that by the BBC or CNN, I imagine that the PA will be constantly in the news from now on and i wish them the best of luck, but they will never achieve peace by undermining the work that Hamas has been doing for years.
substand
Feb 10th, 2005, 12:41 PM
Hamas now intentionally fucks up the peaceprocess. These guys don't want peace, and they sure as hell do not represent the majority of palestinians, as 65% voted Abas - against war.
Abas should round up all Hamas criminals, and give them a clear choice. Once he declares all these factions to be illegal, he finally can ACT. Talking to Hamas or Islamic Jihad is pointless.
Oh yeah, and Abas should take control over infrastructure, schooling and housing. At present too much of that is being taken care of by Hamas, in the process controlling schools and brainwashing children to become Israel-hating suicidal maniacs.
It's absolutely true that both sides carry blame for all that happened. Now pop the heads out of the arses and get working on peace. If they let this chance slip, they're all fucked for decades to come..
Amen.
I was going to respond to rynotek too... but it was so nonsensical I couldn't find the words.
I think it is clear now, if it hasn't been for a LONG time, that Hamas consists mostly of barbarians who have no hope of making it in real life. If there is peace, thier life will have no meaning. They don't want peace. They attach themselves to a cause that they don't beleive in. I'm not convinced they'd stop even at the utter destruction of Israel.
Abas should round up all Hamas criminals, and give them a clear choice. Once he declares all these factions to be illegal, he finally can ACT. Talking to Hamas or Islamic Jihad is pointless.
Oh yeah, and Abas should take control over infrastructure, schooling and housing. At present too much of that is being taken care of by Hamas, in the process controlling schools and brainwashing children to become Israel-hating suicidal maniacs.
It's absolutely true that both sides carry blame for all that happened. Now pop the heads out of the arses and get working on peace. If they let this chance slip, they're all fucked for decades to come..
Amen.
I was going to respond to rynotek too... but it was so nonsensical I couldn't find the words.
I think it is clear now, if it hasn't been for a LONG time, that Hamas consists mostly of barbarians who have no hope of making it in real life. If there is peace, thier life will have no meaning. They don't want peace. They attach themselves to a cause that they don't beleive in. I'm not convinced they'd stop even at the utter destruction of Israel.
stewey
Feb 10th, 2005, 3:15 PM
Dutchie you said it perfect. Abbas kicks ass so far, I really respect the guy. It seems he is doing his best to promote peace, and he may very well be one of the most influential men in history if he is successful.
substand
Feb 10th, 2005, 3:21 PM
Abbas basically fired some of the security ppl over the latest attacks:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7595907
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7595907
Maleko
Feb 10th, 2005, 11:53 PM
There is no excuse to use children as suicide bombers. None. I do not care what Isreal did to them, it doesn't matter. you do not use children as suicide bombers. Also, you do not intentionally target civilians.
Hamas is horrible. Arafat was horrible. Abbas has been excellent so far though.
I am not saying Isreal is the victim here, as both have done horrible sides, but this was in response to Maleko. Must be a bleeding heart liberal for endorsing Palestinian tactics against Isreal.
Sorry not a bleeding heart liberal at all. I beleive in personal freedom and personal responsibility. I beleive you reap what you sow. And I most of all beleive in the rights of oppressed people to fight back by any means necessary.
Imagine if you will, one day you go to the market to get some food for dinner, and when you try to go home, you find a bulldozer has completely totalled your house, and your told "Hehe oops. Weren't you told you had to leave this area? Oh well, you've been told now." What if you are woken up by the noise of a giant 30ft wall being built up against your house and you are escorted to the other side of the wall at gunpoint. What if EVERYTHING your ancesters fought and bled and sweated for was taken away from you and everyone you know. Are you telling me that you wouldn't fight back with everything you had? I agree using children is betting your future against your present, and a horrible thing to do. But when you have no rights, no freedoms, no life other than what a govt you don't even have a say in tells you to have, what are you supposed to do?
I say hell yes, target civilians, Israel is and does constantly. I say blow anything and everything you can up. They do it to you. Israel has mandatory military service for all young residents. Israel is using their children against the Palestinians. Granted these "children" are 18-25 yrs old, but honestly is that any better? Can you honestly look me in the eye and say that sending a 20 yr old to their death is morally better than a 10 yr old trying to defend his family? (Notice one is defender and the other is the attacker)
How can you defend ANYTHING Israel is doing against the Palestinians? Israel has violated hundreds of UN resolutions by increasing it's land over the 60ish years it has been a country. Israel incites every Middle Eastern country against them by provoking them incessantly. Israel has militarily attacked numerous countries numerous times, not in defense mind you, pure all out attacked. I'm not saying the Muslums in the area are any better mind you. What I am saying is Israel deserves every car bomb, suicide bomb, and bottle thrown at them. Hell, Israel is taking over these "settlements" for the civilians. If I got thrown out of my house and came home to another family living in my house, your damn right I would take it out on that family. You see the civilians have a choice. They don't NEED to move deeper and deepr into Palestinian land. The govt pushes Palestinians out, then sells the land for dirt cheap to the Israeli people. Sorry but if you buy land that was stolen you are, at the bear minimum, complacent in that theft.
And don't label me anti-semetic either. I have nothing against Jews, I do however have a large issue with people and governments that feel that might is right.
There is no "high road" when your in a war for your very survival. There is only two roads, death or survival.
Also, it is rumored (and seems to be gaining a lot of credability) that HAMAS is run by MOSAD.
And finally Stewey, notice how I did not attempt to insult you, nor make this a personal attack. Please keep any insults you have about me to yourself. And yes I consider being called a "bleeding heart liberal" an insult as it was quite clear you were not meaning that to be a compliment.
Hamas is horrible. Arafat was horrible. Abbas has been excellent so far though.
I am not saying Isreal is the victim here, as both have done horrible sides, but this was in response to Maleko. Must be a bleeding heart liberal for endorsing Palestinian tactics against Isreal.
Sorry not a bleeding heart liberal at all. I beleive in personal freedom and personal responsibility. I beleive you reap what you sow. And I most of all beleive in the rights of oppressed people to fight back by any means necessary.
Imagine if you will, one day you go to the market to get some food for dinner, and when you try to go home, you find a bulldozer has completely totalled your house, and your told "Hehe oops. Weren't you told you had to leave this area? Oh well, you've been told now." What if you are woken up by the noise of a giant 30ft wall being built up against your house and you are escorted to the other side of the wall at gunpoint. What if EVERYTHING your ancesters fought and bled and sweated for was taken away from you and everyone you know. Are you telling me that you wouldn't fight back with everything you had? I agree using children is betting your future against your present, and a horrible thing to do. But when you have no rights, no freedoms, no life other than what a govt you don't even have a say in tells you to have, what are you supposed to do?
I say hell yes, target civilians, Israel is and does constantly. I say blow anything and everything you can up. They do it to you. Israel has mandatory military service for all young residents. Israel is using their children against the Palestinians. Granted these "children" are 18-25 yrs old, but honestly is that any better? Can you honestly look me in the eye and say that sending a 20 yr old to their death is morally better than a 10 yr old trying to defend his family? (Notice one is defender and the other is the attacker)
How can you defend ANYTHING Israel is doing against the Palestinians? Israel has violated hundreds of UN resolutions by increasing it's land over the 60ish years it has been a country. Israel incites every Middle Eastern country against them by provoking them incessantly. Israel has militarily attacked numerous countries numerous times, not in defense mind you, pure all out attacked. I'm not saying the Muslums in the area are any better mind you. What I am saying is Israel deserves every car bomb, suicide bomb, and bottle thrown at them. Hell, Israel is taking over these "settlements" for the civilians. If I got thrown out of my house and came home to another family living in my house, your damn right I would take it out on that family. You see the civilians have a choice. They don't NEED to move deeper and deepr into Palestinian land. The govt pushes Palestinians out, then sells the land for dirt cheap to the Israeli people. Sorry but if you buy land that was stolen you are, at the bear minimum, complacent in that theft.
And don't label me anti-semetic either. I have nothing against Jews, I do however have a large issue with people and governments that feel that might is right.
There is no "high road" when your in a war for your very survival. There is only two roads, death or survival.
Also, it is rumored (and seems to be gaining a lot of credability) that HAMAS is run by MOSAD.
And finally Stewey, notice how I did not attempt to insult you, nor make this a personal attack. Please keep any insults you have about me to yourself. And yes I consider being called a "bleeding heart liberal" an insult as it was quite clear you were not meaning that to be a compliment.
substand
Feb 11th, 2005, 1:25 AM
Sorry not a bleeding heart liberal at all. I beleive in personal freedom and personal responsibility. I beleive you reap what you sow. And I most of all beleive in the rights of oppressed people to fight back by any means necessary.
I say hell yes, target civilians
So innocent civilians sowed what exactly, to deserve death? Oh, I see, they sowed thier seed in a woman who then gave birth to a filthy jew.
Can you honestly look me in the eye and say that sending a 20 yr old to their death is morally better than a 10 yr old trying to defend his family?
Yes, I can. Can you honestly say that it is morally ok to teach children that jews eat little muslim babies and that thier duty in life is to strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up before reaching puberty? Do you think a 10 yr old child has any will or way to avoid this brainwashing? And then you hand them the bomb. You're fucking sick.
And not to mention a fool. Both governments clearly want to try and negotiate a peace settlement, with the end result being a palestinian state. And the only way to acheive this is to stop the violence. And they have agreed to stop it. And you want to bomb one party and screw it up. Who wants the utter destruction of Israel? Not just Hamas, apparently.
Israel has militarily attacked numerous countries numerous times, not in defense mind you, pure all out attacked.
Which ones and why does it matter?
I say hell yes, target civilians
So innocent civilians sowed what exactly, to deserve death? Oh, I see, they sowed thier seed in a woman who then gave birth to a filthy jew.
Can you honestly look me in the eye and say that sending a 20 yr old to their death is morally better than a 10 yr old trying to defend his family?
Yes, I can. Can you honestly say that it is morally ok to teach children that jews eat little muslim babies and that thier duty in life is to strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up before reaching puberty? Do you think a 10 yr old child has any will or way to avoid this brainwashing? And then you hand them the bomb. You're fucking sick.
And not to mention a fool. Both governments clearly want to try and negotiate a peace settlement, with the end result being a palestinian state. And the only way to acheive this is to stop the violence. And they have agreed to stop it. And you want to bomb one party and screw it up. Who wants the utter destruction of Israel? Not just Hamas, apparently.
Israel has militarily attacked numerous countries numerous times, not in defense mind you, pure all out attacked.
Which ones and why does it matter?
Maleko
Feb 11th, 2005, 7:48 AM
Quote: Substand
I say hell yes, target civilians
So innocent civilians sowed what exactly, to deserve death? Oh, I see, they sowed thier seed in a woman who then gave birth to a filthy jew.
Well although I don't see it that way, I'm glad your true colors came out. It has NOTHING to do with being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or agnostic. The civilians are guilty of taking stolen property. An Israeli family that knowingly takes property from the Israeli goverment, in new occupied territories, has knowingly taken an ACTIVE role in the fighting. By accepting the land form the Israeli government, knowing full well that it is in an occupied territory, they are no more innocent than the man who ordered the bulldozing of the house.
Quote: Substand
Can you honestly look me in the eye and say that sending a 20 yr old to their death is morally better than a 10 yr old trying to defend his family?
Yes, I can. Can you honestly say that it is morally ok to teach children that jews eat little muslim babies and that thier duty in life is to strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up before reaching puberty? Do you think a 10 yr old child has any will or way to avoid this brainwashing? And then you hand them the bomb. You're fucking sick.
No, you're fucking sick. You think that a few years of age justifies sending your child off to (potentially) die makes any difference? Death is death. I can't morally defend either position. They both result in a child being no more. But at least the Palestinians are not trying to take over Israel. The Palestinians are fighting for their SURVIVAL as a people. They are fighting for freedom. They are fighting for their LIVES! You have to keep in mind that one side has years and years of aggression and expansion under it's belt and the other (although far from oerfect) has lost many possesions it once owned. Is it any different that in the American Revolution many many children signed up to fight England? They were under age also. They stood up for what they belived in (or were told to beleive) fought just as bravely as any man, and died just as well as the full grown men. Both sides in this are wrong. The Israelis force every citizen into the military, they have no choice but to fight against the Palestinians, whether they are blood thirsty serial killers, or peace loving potential religious leaders, Israel makes them take part in the fighting. In this case the 10yr old Palestinain has as much choice as the 22 yr old Israeli which means exactly NONE. How could you possibly defend either side?
Let me make this clear since you have a hard time understanding what I wrote earlier. I don't condone nor accept sending children into battle. I also do not condone sending men or women into battle. I find war offensive, distastefull, and a waste of life.
Quote: Substand
And not to mention a fool. Both governments clearly want to try and negotiate a peace settlement, with the end result being a palestinian state. And the only way to acheive this is to stop the violence. And they have agreed to stop it. And you want to bomb one party and screw it up. Who wants the utter destruction of Israel? Not just Hamas, apparently.
Both of what governments? The Palestinain government that Israel wouldn't even recognize exists for almost 50 years? Of course the Palestinians want peace. After being slautered for 50+ years I would beg for peace also. After having everything I owned stolen from me, my friends and family being killed, displaced, raped, murdered, and numerous other atrocities, of course I would want peace. As for Israel wanting peace, ya right. Israel was asked to peacefully end the conflict at the Green Line, well that is now gone. Israel is being asked to stop expanding now at the new wall they are building, we'll see if that happens. My money is on Israel not stopping for peace until they have driven out all Muslims form the Middle East. Israel has had numerous chances to live in peace. Hell had they not tried to expand into the "occupied territories" (which the name implies is not their land to begin with) the world would be a much different place. All I see coming from the Israeli state is lip service about peace. They have been talking about peace for half a century now but still insist on taking more and more land and resouces. Only a fool could see that unending imperialism as a sign of peace.
Quote: Substand
Israel has militarily attacked numerous countries numerous times, not in defense mind you, pure all out attacked.
Which ones and why does it matter?
The Sinai War (1956) [Also known as the Suez War]
The invasion and temporary conquest of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula by Israel, while France and Great Britain seized the Suez Canal.
The Six-Day War (1967)
In a rapid pre-emptive attack, Israel crushed the military forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and seized large amounts of land from each. Iraq also participated in the fighting on the Arab side.
The Osirak Raid (1981)
An Israeli air attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.
Look at the pictures on this page (http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=553) don't read the text just look at the land that was given to the Israelis and look at how that land has changed over the years. If you see a nation that wants peace, then you sir are in need of glasses.
Why does it matter? Well it's simple, a long history of aggression is shown. Just like the playground bully, you don't assume he wants to end his aggression just because he didn't beat you up for your lunch money today, it takes a much larger gesture than that.
I say hell yes, target civilians
So innocent civilians sowed what exactly, to deserve death? Oh, I see, they sowed thier seed in a woman who then gave birth to a filthy jew.
Well although I don't see it that way, I'm glad your true colors came out. It has NOTHING to do with being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or agnostic. The civilians are guilty of taking stolen property. An Israeli family that knowingly takes property from the Israeli goverment, in new occupied territories, has knowingly taken an ACTIVE role in the fighting. By accepting the land form the Israeli government, knowing full well that it is in an occupied territory, they are no more innocent than the man who ordered the bulldozing of the house.
Quote: Substand
Can you honestly look me in the eye and say that sending a 20 yr old to their death is morally better than a 10 yr old trying to defend his family?
Yes, I can. Can you honestly say that it is morally ok to teach children that jews eat little muslim babies and that thier duty in life is to strap a bomb to themselves and blow themselves up before reaching puberty? Do you think a 10 yr old child has any will or way to avoid this brainwashing? And then you hand them the bomb. You're fucking sick.
No, you're fucking sick. You think that a few years of age justifies sending your child off to (potentially) die makes any difference? Death is death. I can't morally defend either position. They both result in a child being no more. But at least the Palestinians are not trying to take over Israel. The Palestinians are fighting for their SURVIVAL as a people. They are fighting for freedom. They are fighting for their LIVES! You have to keep in mind that one side has years and years of aggression and expansion under it's belt and the other (although far from oerfect) has lost many possesions it once owned. Is it any different that in the American Revolution many many children signed up to fight England? They were under age also. They stood up for what they belived in (or were told to beleive) fought just as bravely as any man, and died just as well as the full grown men. Both sides in this are wrong. The Israelis force every citizen into the military, they have no choice but to fight against the Palestinians, whether they are blood thirsty serial killers, or peace loving potential religious leaders, Israel makes them take part in the fighting. In this case the 10yr old Palestinain has as much choice as the 22 yr old Israeli which means exactly NONE. How could you possibly defend either side?
Let me make this clear since you have a hard time understanding what I wrote earlier. I don't condone nor accept sending children into battle. I also do not condone sending men or women into battle. I find war offensive, distastefull, and a waste of life.
Quote: Substand
And not to mention a fool. Both governments clearly want to try and negotiate a peace settlement, with the end result being a palestinian state. And the only way to acheive this is to stop the violence. And they have agreed to stop it. And you want to bomb one party and screw it up. Who wants the utter destruction of Israel? Not just Hamas, apparently.
Both of what governments? The Palestinain government that Israel wouldn't even recognize exists for almost 50 years? Of course the Palestinians want peace. After being slautered for 50+ years I would beg for peace also. After having everything I owned stolen from me, my friends and family being killed, displaced, raped, murdered, and numerous other atrocities, of course I would want peace. As for Israel wanting peace, ya right. Israel was asked to peacefully end the conflict at the Green Line, well that is now gone. Israel is being asked to stop expanding now at the new wall they are building, we'll see if that happens. My money is on Israel not stopping for peace until they have driven out all Muslims form the Middle East. Israel has had numerous chances to live in peace. Hell had they not tried to expand into the "occupied territories" (which the name implies is not their land to begin with) the world would be a much different place. All I see coming from the Israeli state is lip service about peace. They have been talking about peace for half a century now but still insist on taking more and more land and resouces. Only a fool could see that unending imperialism as a sign of peace.
Quote: Substand
Israel has militarily attacked numerous countries numerous times, not in defense mind you, pure all out attacked.
Which ones and why does it matter?
The Sinai War (1956) [Also known as the Suez War]
The invasion and temporary conquest of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula by Israel, while France and Great Britain seized the Suez Canal.
The Six-Day War (1967)
In a rapid pre-emptive attack, Israel crushed the military forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria and seized large amounts of land from each. Iraq also participated in the fighting on the Arab side.
The Osirak Raid (1981)
An Israeli air attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor.
Look at the pictures on this page (http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=553) don't read the text just look at the land that was given to the Israelis and look at how that land has changed over the years. If you see a nation that wants peace, then you sir are in need of glasses.
Why does it matter? Well it's simple, a long history of aggression is shown. Just like the playground bully, you don't assume he wants to end his aggression just because he didn't beat you up for your lunch money today, it takes a much larger gesture than that.
substand
Feb 11th, 2005, 11:43 AM
oh no way. i typed all that out and now its gone! ugh. i'm not even going to try again ... at least not today.
mikem
Feb 11th, 2005, 12:14 PM
I think that peace is not to be shot down so quickly. It stands a chance but so does abbas being assisinated in a matter of days or weeks. I think abbas is doing a much better job at working for peace which is a smart move since america is using the excuse that Israel is the only on working for peace to to back them. What the problem will be is controlling groups like hamas. Palestine does not have the money or military to control its radical groups and I don't think that Israel will be to motivated to put a stop to its own groups. The governments may be talking peace, but the real situation is what the people do
Rynotek
Feb 11th, 2005, 3:56 PM
You all to have a very comfortable, armchair view of a war against occupation. Your views are nobel and very idealist, but thats hardly close to the reality of what is happening. You are also ignoring the fact the Hamas control local govenment, that dosent happen by the majority of people being against them. These men work during the day and fight at night against a superior force. I really hope that Abbas can make peace but i think hes going the wrong way about it. To cut any deal they need to include Hamas and Fatha whether they like it or not, its simple really. Both sides have been killing civilans from day one,
DarkAce
Feb 12th, 2005, 1:44 AM
Wow, quite astonishing reasoning going on in this thread....instead of ending violence they should continue fighting over who's apparently right? No, even better justification is that the other side does it, so they should? Wtf? It's called settling differences and coming to an compromise. Boths sides have done much wrong, and allowing it to continue would just mean more turmoil and innocent lives lost, etc. But apparently there seems to be quite a self-righteous attitude going on that violence is the answer due to blah blah blah.
Right, you're so far connected from the very real reality of the situation and carnage that it is down there. You think those people fucking like living like that? Not knowing whether the person sitting next to them on the bus is going to blow themselves up or not? Not knowing if you're going to be gunned down or blown up by a missiles, etc? Not to mention the living standards, etc.
This isn't about whatever absurd values and views you may have, but what's best for the israeli and palestinian people.
An Israeli family that knowingly takes property from the Israeli goverment, in new occupied territories, has knowingly taken an ACTIVE role in the fighting. By accepting the land form the Israeli government, knowing full well that it is in an occupied territory, they are no more innocent than the man who ordered the bulldozing of the house.
You're right. Every german should have been executed also after WW2 because of what the Nazis did. Right...
So apparently any citizen of Israel is just as guilty as a militant because they're trying to exist?
If you're american, you're on natives land...aren't you technically occupying?
No, you're fucking sick. You think that a few years of age justifies sending your child off to (potentially) die makes any difference?
It makes a huge difference. For the simplest of reasons as to why we don't allow children to do other things until they're a certain age. It's because they're not mature enough to understand the full weight and obligations of certain decisions. Some never are even when they reach that age, but in general terms.
Let me make this clear since you have a hard time understanding what I wrote earlier. I don't condone nor accept sending children into battle. I also do not condone sending men or women into battle. I find war offensive, distastefull, and a waste of life.
Quite a disclaimer there, considering that the majority portion of your posts blatantly send the message that they don't deserve peace and should continue fighting for whatever reasons. Again this isn't about whatever ideologies you may have, but what's best for BOTH the Israeli and Palestinian people. It's quite something to sit there bitching and moaning over the internet while you live in probably a middle class lifestyle in I believe your from the states?While it's quite a different case living over there. No matter how much you may have read or think you know it doesn't change that fact.
You are also ignoring the fact the Hamas control local govenment, that dosent happen by the majority of people being against them. These men work during the day and fight at night against a superior force. I really hope that Abbas can make peace but i think hes going the wrong way about it. To cut any deal they need to include Hamas and Fatha whether they like it or not, its simple really.
No, it also doesn't mean the majority of people support them either. When you have a certain amount of firepower, you gain a certain amount of power. It's that kind of power they have that allows them any significant amount of regardance. Also with the hardships many of the palestinian people face, or loved ones lost, it baits them into those organizations. I'm not sure what romanticized view you may hold but have you actually seen the beliefs and views Hamas hold? It's one thing to be fighting for freedom, but they've strayed far from just fighting for that.
It's far from simple. How do you cut a deal with people who are very uncompromising?
Right, you're so far connected from the very real reality of the situation and carnage that it is down there. You think those people fucking like living like that? Not knowing whether the person sitting next to them on the bus is going to blow themselves up or not? Not knowing if you're going to be gunned down or blown up by a missiles, etc? Not to mention the living standards, etc.
This isn't about whatever absurd values and views you may have, but what's best for the israeli and palestinian people.
An Israeli family that knowingly takes property from the Israeli goverment, in new occupied territories, has knowingly taken an ACTIVE role in the fighting. By accepting the land form the Israeli government, knowing full well that it is in an occupied territory, they are no more innocent than the man who ordered the bulldozing of the house.
You're right. Every german should have been executed also after WW2 because of what the Nazis did. Right...
So apparently any citizen of Israel is just as guilty as a militant because they're trying to exist?
If you're american, you're on natives land...aren't you technically occupying?
No, you're fucking sick. You think that a few years of age justifies sending your child off to (potentially) die makes any difference?
It makes a huge difference. For the simplest of reasons as to why we don't allow children to do other things until they're a certain age. It's because they're not mature enough to understand the full weight and obligations of certain decisions. Some never are even when they reach that age, but in general terms.
Let me make this clear since you have a hard time understanding what I wrote earlier. I don't condone nor accept sending children into battle. I also do not condone sending men or women into battle. I find war offensive, distastefull, and a waste of life.
Quite a disclaimer there, considering that the majority portion of your posts blatantly send the message that they don't deserve peace and should continue fighting for whatever reasons. Again this isn't about whatever ideologies you may have, but what's best for BOTH the Israeli and Palestinian people. It's quite something to sit there bitching and moaning over the internet while you live in probably a middle class lifestyle in I believe your from the states?While it's quite a different case living over there. No matter how much you may have read or think you know it doesn't change that fact.
You are also ignoring the fact the Hamas control local govenment, that dosent happen by the majority of people being against them. These men work during the day and fight at night against a superior force. I really hope that Abbas can make peace but i think hes going the wrong way about it. To cut any deal they need to include Hamas and Fatha whether they like it or not, its simple really.
No, it also doesn't mean the majority of people support them either. When you have a certain amount of firepower, you gain a certain amount of power. It's that kind of power they have that allows them any significant amount of regardance. Also with the hardships many of the palestinian people face, or loved ones lost, it baits them into those organizations. I'm not sure what romanticized view you may hold but have you actually seen the beliefs and views Hamas hold? It's one thing to be fighting for freedom, but they've strayed far from just fighting for that.
It's far from simple. How do you cut a deal with people who are very uncompromising?
Maleko
Feb 12th, 2005, 8:45 AM
Quote: DarkAce
Wow, quite astonishing reasoning going on in this thread....instead of ending violence they should continue fighting over who's apparently right? No, even better justification is that the other side does it, so they should? Wtf? It's called settling differences and coming to an compromise. Boths sides have done much wrong, and allowing it to continue would just mean more turmoil and innocent lives lost, etc. But apparently there seems to be quite a self-righteous attitude going on that violence is the answer due to blah blah blah.
Right, you're so far connected from the very real reality of the situation and carnage that it is down there. You think those people fucking like living like that? Not knowing whether the person sitting next to them on the bus is going to blow themselves up or not? Not knowing if you're going to be gunned down or blown up by a missiles, etc? Not to mention the living standards, etc.
This isn't about whatever absurd values and views you may have, but what's best for the israeli and palestinian people.
What would be best for the Palestinian people would be that Isreal returns to the land they were given after WW2. Any other consessions would be to the benefit of Isreal at the loss of Palestine. I agree that peace should be the goal. But you can not expect one side to give up 90% of what is rightfully theirs while the other side makes no concessions.
Quote: Darkace
You're right. Every german should have been executed also after WW2 because of what the Nazis did. Right...
So apparently any citizen of Israel is just as guilty as a militant because they're trying to exist?
If you're american, you're on natives land...aren't you technically occupying?
As far as I know, The german people weren't all complacent, nor participants in the atrocities commited against the Jews and Gypsies. Rather from my understanding, a whole lot of german citizens had no idea what was going on. So your statement doesn't compare. As for the Native Americans, your absolutely right. The europeans came here and stole the land, kicked the natives out, and killed hundreds of thousands of natives to do it. Was it right? Nope, Can it be fixed now, sadly no. My great grand mother was a Leni Lenapi Indian and had all of her land, belongings and a large part of her family taken away from her. This was not right, but sadly I can see no way of "fixing" this wrong done to her and her people short building a time machine. Does this mean I don't care, or that all the people of European decent should be kicked out of the Americas and sent packing? Of course not. The wrongs commited agaiinst the Native Americans should be redressed, but that does not mean that Israel can do the same thing today and worry about righting a wrong 100+ years down the road.
Quote: DarkAce
It makes a huge difference. For the simplest of reasons as to why we don't allow children to do other things until they're a certain age. It's because they're not mature enough to understand the full weight and obligations of certain decisions. Some never are even when they reach that age, but in general terms.
My point was neither the brainwashed child of 10 nor the "adult" of 18 has a choice in the matter. Without choice neither has the ability to "understand the full weight and obligations of certain decisions" since neither are making any decisions. Therefore, in my opinion, neither position carries any moral weight.
Quote: DarkAce
Quite a disclaimer there, considering that the majority portion of your posts blatantly send the message that they don't deserve peace and should continue fighting for whatever reasons. Again this isn't about whatever ideologies you may have, but what's best for BOTH the Israeli and Palestinian people. It's quite something to sit there bitching and moaning over the internet while you live in probably a middle class lifestyle in I believe your from the states?While it's quite a different case living over there. No matter how much you may have read or think you know it doesn't change that fact.
I'm not saying the Israeli and Palestinian people don't deserve peace. But rather that Israel needs to make a whole lot of concessions towards that goal. All you ever hear is how the Palestinians need to allow peace to happen. How Israel is the good guy in this, how happy everyone is that the Palestinians choose a moderate leader. Were is anyone asking for Israeli concessions. Where are people saying that the Israeli government needs to bring peace. Every major media outlet, and yes even the tone here, is all about how Israel deserves peace and how Arafat wouldn't bow to Israel's will. All I'm saying is look at what REALLY happened, and start asking for Israel to make some concessions.
Wow, quite astonishing reasoning going on in this thread....instead of ending violence they should continue fighting over who's apparently right? No, even better justification is that the other side does it, so they should? Wtf? It's called settling differences and coming to an compromise. Boths sides have done much wrong, and allowing it to continue would just mean more turmoil and innocent lives lost, etc. But apparently there seems to be quite a self-righteous attitude going on that violence is the answer due to blah blah blah.
Right, you're so far connected from the very real reality of the situation and carnage that it is down there. You think those people fucking like living like that? Not knowing whether the person sitting next to them on the bus is going to blow themselves up or not? Not knowing if you're going to be gunned down or blown up by a missiles, etc? Not to mention the living standards, etc.
This isn't about whatever absurd values and views you may have, but what's best for the israeli and palestinian people.
What would be best for the Palestinian people would be that Isreal returns to the land they were given after WW2. Any other consessions would be to the benefit of Isreal at the loss of Palestine. I agree that peace should be the goal. But you can not expect one side to give up 90% of what is rightfully theirs while the other side makes no concessions.
Quote: Darkace
You're right. Every german should have been executed also after WW2 because of what the Nazis did. Right...
So apparently any citizen of Israel is just as guilty as a militant because they're trying to exist?
If you're american, you're on natives land...aren't you technically occupying?
As far as I know, The german people weren't all complacent, nor participants in the atrocities commited against the Jews and Gypsies. Rather from my understanding, a whole lot of german citizens had no idea what was going on. So your statement doesn't compare. As for the Native Americans, your absolutely right. The europeans came here and stole the land, kicked the natives out, and killed hundreds of thousands of natives to do it. Was it right? Nope, Can it be fixed now, sadly no. My great grand mother was a Leni Lenapi Indian and had all of her land, belongings and a large part of her family taken away from her. This was not right, but sadly I can see no way of "fixing" this wrong done to her and her people short building a time machine. Does this mean I don't care, or that all the people of European decent should be kicked out of the Americas and sent packing? Of course not. The wrongs commited agaiinst the Native Americans should be redressed, but that does not mean that Israel can do the same thing today and worry about righting a wrong 100+ years down the road.
Quote: DarkAce
It makes a huge difference. For the simplest of reasons as to why we don't allow children to do other things until they're a certain age. It's because they're not mature enough to understand the full weight and obligations of certain decisions. Some never are even when they reach that age, but in general terms.
My point was neither the brainwashed child of 10 nor the "adult" of 18 has a choice in the matter. Without choice neither has the ability to "understand the full weight and obligations of certain decisions" since neither are making any decisions. Therefore, in my opinion, neither position carries any moral weight.
Quote: DarkAce
Quite a disclaimer there, considering that the majority portion of your posts blatantly send the message that they don't deserve peace and should continue fighting for whatever reasons. Again this isn't about whatever ideologies you may have, but what's best for BOTH the Israeli and Palestinian people. It's quite something to sit there bitching and moaning over the internet while you live in probably a middle class lifestyle in I believe your from the states?While it's quite a different case living over there. No matter how much you may have read or think you know it doesn't change that fact.
I'm not saying the Israeli and Palestinian people don't deserve peace. But rather that Israel needs to make a whole lot of concessions towards that goal. All you ever hear is how the Palestinians need to allow peace to happen. How Israel is the good guy in this, how happy everyone is that the Palestinians choose a moderate leader. Were is anyone asking for Israeli concessions. Where are people saying that the Israeli government needs to bring peace. Every major media outlet, and yes even the tone here, is all about how Israel deserves peace and how Arafat wouldn't bow to Israel's will. All I'm saying is look at what REALLY happened, and start asking for Israel to make some concessions.
substand
Feb 12th, 2005, 2:55 PM
"Hamas said Saturday it will not attack Israeli targets but held off from officially joining a Palestinian cease-fire with Israel"
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/consumer_news/10885998.htm?1c
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/consumer_news/10885998.htm?1c
DarkAce
Feb 13th, 2005, 2:09 AM
What would be best for the Palestinian people would be that Isreal returns to the land they were given after WW2. Any other consessions would be to the benefit of Isreal at the loss of Palestine. I agree that peace should be the goal. But you can not expect one side to give up 90% of what is rightfully theirs while the other side makes no concessions.
To answer that, I'll even use your own response:"Was it right? Nope, Can it be fixed now, sadly no." What's done is done. You can't logically sit there and think that all those jews should just pack up and leave? Where are they suppose to go? It's not as simple as merely just moving somewhere else in what you claim is legally their territory. I'd think you'd have a hard time exiling peoples who have been exiled throughout most of our written history. Hence the word compromise. If they can co-exist peacefully, they could share the land evenly or some shit. The resolution has to be appeasing to both sides and peace after years of turmoil sounds damn pleasing. You can't just decide one is more right than the other so they should reject peace because they're in the right and continue a winless war.
So your statement doesn't compare. As for the Native Americans, your absolutely right.
It was sarcasm to illustrate a point in your flawed assertion that an Israeli citizen is just as guility as an Israel militant that eats babies and kills puppies merely because they're given what is supposidly Palestinian land to live on.
Having such a strong fixation on past wrongs is dangerous for a positive outcome in the future. Again I repeat, what's done, is done. We can only hope to let past wrongs settle and make up for them under peaceful resolutions for the future.
History is filled with nations/empires conquering others filled with both positive and negative results. You must be one filled angst ridden person holding countless grudges if you feel that strongly about 'occupying' powers. We should just give all land back to their original owners from lets says whoever they were from around 800 B.C. Would that be fair enough for you? Hell we should even pay rations for the injustice!
My point was neither the brainwashed child of 10 nor the "adult" of 18 has a choice in the matter. Without choice neither has the ability to "understand the full weight and obligations of certain decisions" since neither are making any decisions. Therefore, in my opinion, neither position carries any moral weight.
Who are you to say they don't have a choice nor neither "making any decisions"? Do you know what's going through those people's head. Or really grasp what leads them to do what they do? No we don't. However it's only hindsight that one who is older should have more sense and awareness than that of a mere child. Children are highly impressionable and easier to take advantage of than adults. That is why it's worst.
Well from the american media I've heard Israel has already pulled out of certain areas as well as released numerous palestinian prisoners. This is only the beginning. With cotniued peace they could continue making more broader changes. I don't see how it'd be possible, if in your opinion the palestinians should continue fighting that any real changes would be made.
To answer that, I'll even use your own response:"Was it right? Nope, Can it be fixed now, sadly no." What's done is done. You can't logically sit there and think that all those jews should just pack up and leave? Where are they suppose to go? It's not as simple as merely just moving somewhere else in what you claim is legally their territory. I'd think you'd have a hard time exiling peoples who have been exiled throughout most of our written history. Hence the word compromise. If they can co-exist peacefully, they could share the land evenly or some shit. The resolution has to be appeasing to both sides and peace after years of turmoil sounds damn pleasing. You can't just decide one is more right than the other so they should reject peace because they're in the right and continue a winless war.
So your statement doesn't compare. As for the Native Americans, your absolutely right.
It was sarcasm to illustrate a point in your flawed assertion that an Israeli citizen is just as guility as an Israel militant that eats babies and kills puppies merely because they're given what is supposidly Palestinian land to live on.
Having such a strong fixation on past wrongs is dangerous for a positive outcome in the future. Again I repeat, what's done, is done. We can only hope to let past wrongs settle and make up for them under peaceful resolutions for the future.
History is filled with nations/empires conquering others filled with both positive and negative results. You must be one filled angst ridden person holding countless grudges if you feel that strongly about 'occupying' powers. We should just give all land back to their original owners from lets says whoever they were from around 800 B.C. Would that be fair enough for you? Hell we should even pay rations for the injustice!
My point was neither the brainwashed child of 10 nor the "adult" of 18 has a choice in the matter. Without choice neither has the ability to "understand the full weight and obligations of certain decisions" since neither are making any decisions. Therefore, in my opinion, neither position carries any moral weight.
Who are you to say they don't have a choice nor neither "making any decisions"? Do you know what's going through those people's head. Or really grasp what leads them to do what they do? No we don't. However it's only hindsight that one who is older should have more sense and awareness than that of a mere child. Children are highly impressionable and easier to take advantage of than adults. That is why it's worst.
Well from the american media I've heard Israel has already pulled out of certain areas as well as released numerous palestinian prisoners. This is only the beginning. With cotniued peace they could continue making more broader changes. I don't see how it'd be possible, if in your opinion the palestinians should continue fighting that any real changes would be made.
Maleko
Feb 13th, 2005, 11:59 AM
Quote: DarkAce
To answer that, I'll even use your own response:"Was it right? Nope, Can it be fixed now, sadly no." What's done is done. You can't logically sit there and think that all those jews should just pack up and leave? Where are they suppose to go? It's not as simple as merely just moving somewhere else in what you claim is legally their territory. I'd think you'd have a hard time exiling peoples who have been exiled throughout most of our written history. Hence the word compromise. If they can co-exist peacefully, they could share the land evenly or some shit. The resolution has to be appeasing to both sides and peace after years of turmoil sounds damn pleasing. You can't just decide one is more right than the other so they should reject peace because they're in the right and continue a winless war.
I beg to differ. Removing the Israeli people (I hesitate to use the word Jew since this isn't about religion at least to me) Removing all the Israeli people from the occupied territory is a hell of a lot different than removing all of those of European descent form the Americas. How? Simple, the occupation is happening NOW. It has been happening for the last generation. Surely you see the difference between clearing out 200+ years of occupation and only 50 years.
Again, I'm not saying that peace should be rejected at all. What I am saying is that everyone pressures the Palestinians to provide peace, but I have yet to hear ONE media outlet, or even ONE person here state that Israel needs tom compromise also. The simplest, and also the one supported by the UN and Palestine is that Israel keeps the land up to the green line, and the Palestinians make thier own state with the rest. it's quite a simple plan, Israel gives back all that they have stolen since 1967 (ish) and the Palestinians make their own country with whats left. Surely you don't think that the Palestinians should concede over 90% of what they were given following WW2 do you?. My main pont is that all everyone says that the Palestinian people need to give up so much in order for there to be peace. What I am saying is what about Israel. Should they get to keep what they have stolen and profit form it, while the Palestinians make all the concessions. Sure you say that they both need to compromise, and I agree, it's just that the compromise that you offer (and Israel) is VERY one sided.
Quote: DarkAce
It was sarcasm to illustrate a point in your flawed assertion that an Israeli citizen is just as guility as an Israel militant that eats babies and kills puppies merely because they're given what is supposidly Palestinian land to live on.
Having such a strong fixation on past wrongs is dangerous for a positive outcome in the future. Again I repeat, what's done, is done. We can only hope to let past wrongs settle and make up for them under peaceful resolutions for the future.
History is filled with nations/empires conquering others filled with both positive and negative results. You must be one filled angst ridden person holding countless grudges if you feel that strongly about 'occupying' powers. We should just give all land back to their original owners from lets says whoever they were from around 800 B.C. Would that be fair enough for you? Hell we should even pay rations for the injustice!
I don't have any issue at all with what the Israeli's were given. My problem is what they stole, and ARE CURRENTLY stealing. It's not that Israel has, in the past, stonlen land. Hell if you want to go back to 800 B.C. then Israel would have much more then they have now. This is happening as we speak. It has been happening all of my life. We aren't discussing what should have been done in 1946, nor are we discussing what should have happend in 2500 B.C. We are discussing what has been happening in the last 50 years. What they current and past generations of Israelis have done and are CURRENTLY doing. Israel hasn't stopped taking more territory, they haven't even OFFERED to give back what they are currently taking. All the Palestinians are asking for is for the territory lines to go back to WHAT WAS AGREED upon. Is that so unfair to Israel? Most Palestinians would be thrilled if Israel would go back to the green line. Hell even Arafat conceded that. But again, everyone is asking the Palestinians to give up more and more in order to acheive peace.
And yes I do carry some grudges against governments stealing property from people, citizens or otherwise. You see my family (and many many others) had hundreds of acres taken from it by the US governemt in order to build a hydro-electric dam. The governments offer was 10-20% of fair market value of this land. Emenent Domain is supposed to pay market value, but the Government didn't offer that and we were FORCED to take 20% or NOTHING. Well 20+ years later, there is no dam, no hydro-electric power, and we can not reclaim our land. So yes I do have strong personal feelings about governments taking things away from people.
Quote: DarkAce
Who are you to say they don't have a choice nor neither "making any decisions"? Do you know what's going through those people's head. Or really grasp what leads them to do what they do? No we don't. However it's only hindsight that one who is older should have more sense and awareness than that of a mere child. Children are highly impressionable and easier to take advantage of than adults. That is why it's worst.
Well from the american media I've heard Israel has already pulled out of certain areas as well as released numerous palestinian prisoners. This is only the beginning. With cotniued peace they could continue making more broader changes. I don't see how it'd be possible, if in your opinion the palestinians should continue fighting that any real changes would be made.
Isreali citizens must serve in the Israeli military. No choice involved. You are a citizen, you serve in the military. It's quite simple, if your a citizen, you MUST serve. Please show me where you see a decision there. I do happen to know several Israeli citizens (a good friend of mine is engaged to one) and she had no choice but to serve. She is very anti-war and is very active in the peace movement (not only with the Palestinian conflict, but many other issues as well) and although I can not say I know what every Israeli is thinking, I can state that as an Israeli citizen, you MUST join the military. Therefor I stand by my assertion that since neither has a real option, or the ability to make any choice, then they are equal in moral "wrongness". I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, since I will not change my mind and it seems you will not change yours.
Yes Israel has offered to back out of a small portion of the Gaza strip. And yes that is a good first step. Sadly though, that is the ONLY concession Israel is offering. So again I ask you, is Israel giving up 1% and the Palestinian people giving up 89% fair to those involved? As for Israel releasing prisoners, I have only heard of lip service being given over prisoners, and not heard anything of any actual releases. If you have any links I would be very happy to see them.
One last question, have you looked at the map I linked too several times in this thread? Have you seen the geographical losses that Israel is asking the Palestinians to take (while conceding VERY little)? If not, please do look at them as it may drive home exactly what your asking these people to give up, and what you are giving Israel. Also you mentioned that you don't feel that displacing Israelis in order to make the Palestinians happy is a workable solution, I also ask you then why is it workable for the Palestinians to live as refugees but not some Israeli citizens?
To answer that, I'll even use your own response:"Was it right? Nope, Can it be fixed now, sadly no." What's done is done. You can't logically sit there and think that all those jews should just pack up and leave? Where are they suppose to go? It's not as simple as merely just moving somewhere else in what you claim is legally their territory. I'd think you'd have a hard time exiling peoples who have been exiled throughout most of our written history. Hence the word compromise. If they can co-exist peacefully, they could share the land evenly or some shit. The resolution has to be appeasing to both sides and peace after years of turmoil sounds damn pleasing. You can't just decide one is more right than the other so they should reject peace because they're in the right and continue a winless war.
I beg to differ. Removing the Israeli people (I hesitate to use the word Jew since this isn't about religion at least to me) Removing all the Israeli people from the occupied territory is a hell of a lot different than removing all of those of European descent form the Americas. How? Simple, the occupation is happening NOW. It has been happening for the last generation. Surely you see the difference between clearing out 200+ years of occupation and only 50 years.
Again, I'm not saying that peace should be rejected at all. What I am saying is that everyone pressures the Palestinians to provide peace, but I have yet to hear ONE media outlet, or even ONE person here state that Israel needs tom compromise also. The simplest, and also the one supported by the UN and Palestine is that Israel keeps the land up to the green line, and the Palestinians make thier own state with the rest. it's quite a simple plan, Israel gives back all that they have stolen since 1967 (ish) and the Palestinians make their own country with whats left. Surely you don't think that the Palestinians should concede over 90% of what they were given following WW2 do you?. My main pont is that all everyone says that the Palestinian people need to give up so much in order for there to be peace. What I am saying is what about Israel. Should they get to keep what they have stolen and profit form it, while the Palestinians make all the concessions. Sure you say that they both need to compromise, and I agree, it's just that the compromise that you offer (and Israel) is VERY one sided.
Quote: DarkAce
It was sarcasm to illustrate a point in your flawed assertion that an Israeli citizen is just as guility as an Israel militant that eats babies and kills puppies merely because they're given what is supposidly Palestinian land to live on.
Having such a strong fixation on past wrongs is dangerous for a positive outcome in the future. Again I repeat, what's done, is done. We can only hope to let past wrongs settle and make up for them under peaceful resolutions for the future.
History is filled with nations/empires conquering others filled with both positive and negative results. You must be one filled angst ridden person holding countless grudges if you feel that strongly about 'occupying' powers. We should just give all land back to their original owners from lets says whoever they were from around 800 B.C. Would that be fair enough for you? Hell we should even pay rations for the injustice!
I don't have any issue at all with what the Israeli's were given. My problem is what they stole, and ARE CURRENTLY stealing. It's not that Israel has, in the past, stonlen land. Hell if you want to go back to 800 B.C. then Israel would have much more then they have now. This is happening as we speak. It has been happening all of my life. We aren't discussing what should have been done in 1946, nor are we discussing what should have happend in 2500 B.C. We are discussing what has been happening in the last 50 years. What they current and past generations of Israelis have done and are CURRENTLY doing. Israel hasn't stopped taking more territory, they haven't even OFFERED to give back what they are currently taking. All the Palestinians are asking for is for the territory lines to go back to WHAT WAS AGREED upon. Is that so unfair to Israel? Most Palestinians would be thrilled if Israel would go back to the green line. Hell even Arafat conceded that. But again, everyone is asking the Palestinians to give up more and more in order to acheive peace.
And yes I do carry some grudges against governments stealing property from people, citizens or otherwise. You see my family (and many many others) had hundreds of acres taken from it by the US governemt in order to build a hydro-electric dam. The governments offer was 10-20% of fair market value of this land. Emenent Domain is supposed to pay market value, but the Government didn't offer that and we were FORCED to take 20% or NOTHING. Well 20+ years later, there is no dam, no hydro-electric power, and we can not reclaim our land. So yes I do have strong personal feelings about governments taking things away from people.
Quote: DarkAce
Who are you to say they don't have a choice nor neither "making any decisions"? Do you know what's going through those people's head. Or really grasp what leads them to do what they do? No we don't. However it's only hindsight that one who is older should have more sense and awareness than that of a mere child. Children are highly impressionable and easier to take advantage of than adults. That is why it's worst.
Well from the american media I've heard Israel has already pulled out of certain areas as well as released numerous palestinian prisoners. This is only the beginning. With cotniued peace they could continue making more broader changes. I don't see how it'd be possible, if in your opinion the palestinians should continue fighting that any real changes would be made.
Isreali citizens must serve in the Israeli military. No choice involved. You are a citizen, you serve in the military. It's quite simple, if your a citizen, you MUST serve. Please show me where you see a decision there. I do happen to know several Israeli citizens (a good friend of mine is engaged to one) and she had no choice but to serve. She is very anti-war and is very active in the peace movement (not only with the Palestinian conflict, but many other issues as well) and although I can not say I know what every Israeli is thinking, I can state that as an Israeli citizen, you MUST join the military. Therefor I stand by my assertion that since neither has a real option, or the ability to make any choice, then they are equal in moral "wrongness". I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this, since I will not change my mind and it seems you will not change yours.
Yes Israel has offered to back out of a small portion of the Gaza strip. And yes that is a good first step. Sadly though, that is the ONLY concession Israel is offering. So again I ask you, is Israel giving up 1% and the Palestinian people giving up 89% fair to those involved? As for Israel releasing prisoners, I have only heard of lip service being given over prisoners, and not heard anything of any actual releases. If you have any links I would be very happy to see them.
One last question, have you looked at the map I linked too several times in this thread? Have you seen the geographical losses that Israel is asking the Palestinians to take (while conceding VERY little)? If not, please do look at them as it may drive home exactly what your asking these people to give up, and what you are giving Israel. Also you mentioned that you don't feel that displacing Israelis in order to make the Palestinians happy is a workable solution, I also ask you then why is it workable for the Palestinians to live as refugees but not some Israeli citizens?
substand
Feb 13th, 2005, 1:35 PM
We are discussing what has been happening in the last 50 years.
I think the point was basically asking you "why do you just arbitrarily pick 50 yrs ago?"
All the Palestinians are asking for is for the territory lines to go back to WHAT WAS AGREED upon.
You call that a compromise?
What they current and past generations of Israelis have done and are CURRENTLY doing. Israel hasn't stopped taking more territory, they haven't even OFFERED to give back what they are currently taking.
and when Israel offered Arafat 90% of the land they wanted, and he still said no? Was that not OFFERED for a COMPROMISE?
I think the point was basically asking you "why do you just arbitrarily pick 50 yrs ago?"
All the Palestinians are asking for is for the territory lines to go back to WHAT WAS AGREED upon.
You call that a compromise?
What they current and past generations of Israelis have done and are CURRENTLY doing. Israel hasn't stopped taking more territory, they haven't even OFFERED to give back what they are currently taking.
and when Israel offered Arafat 90% of the land they wanted, and he still said no? Was that not OFFERED for a COMPROMISE?
Maleko
Feb 13th, 2005, 4:28 PM
Quote: Substand
I think the point was basically asking you "why do you just arbitrarily pick 50 yrs ago?"
Because in 1967 is when this bout of the Arab-Israeli conflict started. It's called the 6 day war, and was an attack by Israel on Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Palestinians (and the rest of the Arab world) wish to get these lands back.
Quote: Substand
and when Israel offered Arafat 90% of the land they wanted, and he still said no? Was that not OFFERED for a COMPROMISE?
I have googled for almost an hour to try to find one offer from Israel that included 90% of the land. Please enlighten me with a link or three.
But I could find some concessions that the PA has made: On 6/18/2002, the Palestinian Authority presented an outline of a peace proposal, which made concessions on the status of Jerusalem and refugees, but insisted that Israel retreat to the pre-1967 borders to allow for formation of the Palestinian state. However, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon indicated that the time is not "ripe" for a Palestinian state, and began building a fence between the West Bank and Israel, including part of the Occupied Territories within Israel.
But please, if you have any links, i would be willing to read them.
I think the point was basically asking you "why do you just arbitrarily pick 50 yrs ago?"
Because in 1967 is when this bout of the Arab-Israeli conflict started. It's called the 6 day war, and was an attack by Israel on Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Palestinians (and the rest of the Arab world) wish to get these lands back.
Quote: Substand
and when Israel offered Arafat 90% of the land they wanted, and he still said no? Was that not OFFERED for a COMPROMISE?
I have googled for almost an hour to try to find one offer from Israel that included 90% of the land. Please enlighten me with a link or three.
But I could find some concessions that the PA has made: On 6/18/2002, the Palestinian Authority presented an outline of a peace proposal, which made concessions on the status of Jerusalem and refugees, but insisted that Israel retreat to the pre-1967 borders to allow for formation of the Palestinian state. However, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon indicated that the time is not "ripe" for a Palestinian state, and began building a fence between the West Bank and Israel, including part of the Occupied Territories within Israel.
But please, if you have any links, i would be willing to read them.
substand
Feb 13th, 2005, 4:45 PM
Because in 1967 is when this bout of the Arab-Israeli conflict started. It's called the 6 day war, and was an attack by Israel on Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Palestinians (and the rest of the Arab world) wish to get these lands back.
You've gone this far at least trying to be fair. Try to do it here to, and acknowledge that the egyptians had remilitarized a demilitarized zone next to israel, and syria had been shelling israeli citizens (if i remember correctly)... not to mention the simultaneous mobilization of other armies in the area, all of which have pledged to destroy them. (http://www.answers.com/six-day+war&r=67)
About the 90%:
Here is a NY Times editorial http://www.mideasttruth.com/nyt14.html
While those offers of more than 90 percent of the West Bank, Gaza and part of East Jerusalem may not have been sufficient for Palestinians, they were a serious opening bid.
you can also find it at NY Times (possibly at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70F10F73D580C768CDDAB0994D94044 82) (i dunno if the link will work since it was found through a search) but you will have to pay to view it.
You've gone this far at least trying to be fair. Try to do it here to, and acknowledge that the egyptians had remilitarized a demilitarized zone next to israel, and syria had been shelling israeli citizens (if i remember correctly)... not to mention the simultaneous mobilization of other armies in the area, all of which have pledged to destroy them. (http://www.answers.com/six-day+war&r=67)
About the 90%:
Here is a NY Times editorial http://www.mideasttruth.com/nyt14.html
While those offers of more than 90 percent of the West Bank, Gaza and part of East Jerusalem may not have been sufficient for Palestinians, they were a serious opening bid.
you can also find it at NY Times (possibly at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70F10F73D580C768CDDAB0994D94044 82) (i dunno if the link will work since it was found through a search) but you will have to pay to view it.
Moishe3rd
Feb 17th, 2005, 10:47 PM
Quote: Substand
I think the point was basically asking you "why do you just arbitrarily pick 50 yrs ago?"
Because in 1967 is when this bout of the Arab-Israeli conflict started. It's called the 6 day war, and was an attack by Israel on Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Palestinians (and the rest of the Arab world) wish to get these lands back.
Quote: Substand
and when Israel offered Arafat 90% of the land they wanted, and he still said no? Was that not OFFERED for a COMPROMISE?
I have googled for almost an hour to try to find one offer from Israel that included 90% of the land. Please enlighten me with a link or three.
But I could find some concessions that the PA has made: On 6/18/2002, the Palestinian Authority presented an outline of a peace proposal, which made concessions on the status of Jerusalem and refugees, but insisted that Israel retreat to the pre-1967 borders to allow for formation of the Palestinian state. However, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon indicated that the time is not "ripe" for a Palestinian state, and began building a fence between the West Bank and Israel, including part of the Occupied Territories within Israel.
But please, if you have any links, i would be willing to read them.
Peace Timeline (http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/Israel-peace-timeline.html)
Camp David and Taba (http://www.beyondimages.info/b21.html)
Now that Arafat the Rotting is finally recognized as a dead parrot, Abu Abooboo, also known as Aboo Abubu, may be able to keep the poor, benighted Arabs known as Palestinians from further descending into barbaric tribal anarchy and he may be able to slowly reverse the death cult fanatics who pass their children into the fire of Baal.
This would be good.
Then perhaps, these poor people might be able to rise from the cannabalized remains of their former slavemasters, Arafat the Rotting; Bashir the Benighted; and Nasser the Nobody.
This would be good.
Then again, maybe they won't. Maybe they will continue to commit suicide and die.
Hey, :crazy:
The world is so full of a number of things,
I'm sure we should all be as happy as kings.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
I think the point was basically asking you "why do you just arbitrarily pick 50 yrs ago?"
Because in 1967 is when this bout of the Arab-Israeli conflict started. It's called the 6 day war, and was an attack by Israel on Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The Palestinians (and the rest of the Arab world) wish to get these lands back.
Quote: Substand
and when Israel offered Arafat 90% of the land they wanted, and he still said no? Was that not OFFERED for a COMPROMISE?
I have googled for almost an hour to try to find one offer from Israel that included 90% of the land. Please enlighten me with a link or three.
But I could find some concessions that the PA has made: On 6/18/2002, the Palestinian Authority presented an outline of a peace proposal, which made concessions on the status of Jerusalem and refugees, but insisted that Israel retreat to the pre-1967 borders to allow for formation of the Palestinian state. However, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon indicated that the time is not "ripe" for a Palestinian state, and began building a fence between the West Bank and Israel, including part of the Occupied Territories within Israel.
But please, if you have any links, i would be willing to read them.
Peace Timeline (http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/Israel-peace-timeline.html)
Camp David and Taba (http://www.beyondimages.info/b21.html)
Now that Arafat the Rotting is finally recognized as a dead parrot, Abu Abooboo, also known as Aboo Abubu, may be able to keep the poor, benighted Arabs known as Palestinians from further descending into barbaric tribal anarchy and he may be able to slowly reverse the death cult fanatics who pass their children into the fire of Baal.
This would be good.
Then perhaps, these poor people might be able to rise from the cannabalized remains of their former slavemasters, Arafat the Rotting; Bashir the Benighted; and Nasser the Nobody.
This would be good.
Then again, maybe they won't. Maybe they will continue to commit suicide and die.
Hey, :crazy:
The world is so full of a number of things,
I'm sure we should all be as happy as kings.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
dutchie
Feb 21st, 2005, 2:23 AM
Now that Arafat the Rotting is finally recognized as a dead parrot, Abu Abooboo, also known as Aboo Abubu, may be able to keep the poor, benighted Arabs known as Palestinians from further descending into barbaric tribal anarchy and he may be able to slowly reverse the death cult fanatics who pass their children into the fire of Baal.
This would be good.
Then perhaps, these poor people might be able to rise from the cannabalized remains of their former slavemasters, Arafat the Rotting; Bashir the Benighted; and Nasser the Nobody.
This would be good.
Then again, maybe they won't. Maybe they will continue to commit suicide and die.
Which scenario would you prefer, Moishe3rd? Hmm?? Now be honest..
This would be good.
Then perhaps, these poor people might be able to rise from the cannabalized remains of their former slavemasters, Arafat the Rotting; Bashir the Benighted; and Nasser the Nobody.
This would be good.
Then again, maybe they won't. Maybe they will continue to commit suicide and die.
Which scenario would you prefer, Moishe3rd? Hmm?? Now be honest..
Moishe3rd
Feb 21st, 2005, 5:08 PM
Which scenario would you prefer, Moishe3rd? Hmm?? Now be honest..
Oh.... Hmmmmm...... (Let's see now... blood... burning pieces of flesh... umm, dead babies... screaming fanatics as they play with the body parts of the people they've murdered.... uhhh, hmmm... massive death and degradation.... yeah... hmmm... okay.... as opposed to ? hmmm... peace, safety, prosperity, happiness, life, friendship, innovation, freedom, health and love....)
Decisions, decisions, decisions.... :schizo:
Oh what the heck. I'll go with Abooboo. Let's do peace!!
::)): ::)):
Oh.... Hmmmmm...... (Let's see now... blood... burning pieces of flesh... umm, dead babies... screaming fanatics as they play with the body parts of the people they've murdered.... uhhh, hmmm... massive death and degradation.... yeah... hmmm... okay.... as opposed to ? hmmm... peace, safety, prosperity, happiness, life, friendship, innovation, freedom, health and love....)
Decisions, decisions, decisions.... :schizo:
Oh what the heck. I'll go with Abooboo. Let's do peace!!
::)): ::)):
Emerald_Dragon
Feb 22nd, 2005, 3:17 PM
>and when Israel offered Arafat 90% of the land they wanted, and he still said no?
>Was that not OFFERED for a COMPROMISE?
was that 90% of the land that was recently bulldozed? or 90% of the land since 1967? that newsclip didn't cite anyone in authority making that offer, like Sharon, or Clinton, or W. it was more "hearsay" than from the source.
anywayz, there was a peace, brokered by Clinton, for about a few hours. then the PA allegedly reneged, at least that's what the media has lead us to believe. mind you, U.S. media has not been known for its candor. at least not until a blogger or an independant news site has had plenty of time to prepare people for the eventual admission.
i can tell you people are pro-Israel. can you even see the hypocrisy in their own actions? you claim to know the history of the Middle East. Answer me this, did the U.S. have any enemies in the ME pre-1948?
>Was that not OFFERED for a COMPROMISE?
was that 90% of the land that was recently bulldozed? or 90% of the land since 1967? that newsclip didn't cite anyone in authority making that offer, like Sharon, or Clinton, or W. it was more "hearsay" than from the source.
anywayz, there was a peace, brokered by Clinton, for about a few hours. then the PA allegedly reneged, at least that's what the media has lead us to believe. mind you, U.S. media has not been known for its candor. at least not until a blogger or an independant news site has had plenty of time to prepare people for the eventual admission.
i can tell you people are pro-Israel. can you even see the hypocrisy in their own actions? you claim to know the history of the Middle East. Answer me this, did the U.S. have any enemies in the ME pre-1948?
Moishe3rd
Feb 22nd, 2005, 3:50 PM
>and when Israel offered Arafat 90% of the land they wanted, and he still said no?
>Was that not OFFERED for a COMPROMISE?
was that 90% of the land that was recently bulldozed? or 90% of the land since 1967? that newsclip didn't cite anyone in authority making that offer, like Sharon, or Clinton, or W. it was more "hearsay" than from the source.
anywayz, there was a peace, brokered by Clinton, for about a few hours. then the PA allegedly reneged, at least that's what the media has lead us to believe. mind you, U.S. media has not been known for its candor. at least not until a blogger or an independant news site has had plenty of time to prepare people for the eventual admission.
i can tell you people are pro-Israel. can you even see the hypocrisy in their own actions? you claim to know the history of the Middle East. Answer me this, did the U.S. have any enemies in the ME pre-1948?
See above link to Camp David and Taba.
US enemies in Middle East prior to 1948:
Nazi Germany
Fascist Italy
Arab or Muslim leaders who supported the above such as the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini
Troubling US allies or neutrals in the Middle East vis a vis control and war:
Egypt
Great Britain
France
Turkey
Saudi Arabia
All of the above threatened US interests. Prior to WWII, this was a problem. During WWII, the survival of Western democracies trumped the worry about Middle Eastern enemies that the US might have with these same democracies.
>Was that not OFFERED for a COMPROMISE?
was that 90% of the land that was recently bulldozed? or 90% of the land since 1967? that newsclip didn't cite anyone in authority making that offer, like Sharon, or Clinton, or W. it was more "hearsay" than from the source.
anywayz, there was a peace, brokered by Clinton, for about a few hours. then the PA allegedly reneged, at least that's what the media has lead us to believe. mind you, U.S. media has not been known for its candor. at least not until a blogger or an independant news site has had plenty of time to prepare people for the eventual admission.
i can tell you people are pro-Israel. can you even see the hypocrisy in their own actions? you claim to know the history of the Middle East. Answer me this, did the U.S. have any enemies in the ME pre-1948?
See above link to Camp David and Taba.
US enemies in Middle East prior to 1948:
Nazi Germany
Fascist Italy
Arab or Muslim leaders who supported the above such as the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini
Troubling US allies or neutrals in the Middle East vis a vis control and war:
Egypt
Great Britain
France
Turkey
Saudi Arabia
All of the above threatened US interests. Prior to WWII, this was a problem. During WWII, the survival of Western democracies trumped the worry about Middle Eastern enemies that the US might have with these same democracies.
Emerald_Dragon
Feb 22nd, 2005, 4:07 PM
...preferably from an objective point of view, not funded by AIPAC to market the pro-Israeli POV and buying positive opinions using public relations firms....
BTW, i wasn't aware that Germans were in the ME, or Italians for that matter.
BTW, i wasn't aware that Germans were in the ME, or Italians for that matter.
Emerald_Dragon
Feb 22nd, 2005, 4:43 PM
do you ever wonder if the U.S. is interested in the world, and if anything threatens it global influence, it should pre-emptively act?
Does that make us "right"? are we entitled to it? is it a "Manifest Destiny" passed down from our original sovereigns? i mean, we did rebel and fight dirty and spill alot of tea to gain our independance from an oppressive rule. and if not for the French, we wouldn't have had the guns and powder and Rochambeau discipline to do so. now we consume freedom fries.
Does that make us "right"? are we entitled to it? is it a "Manifest Destiny" passed down from our original sovereigns? i mean, we did rebel and fight dirty and spill alot of tea to gain our independance from an oppressive rule. and if not for the French, we wouldn't have had the guns and powder and Rochambeau discipline to do so. now we consume freedom fries.
Moishe3rd
Feb 22nd, 2005, 5:15 PM
1) U.S. Confirms Role of Mufti as Nazi Middle East Leader
OFFICE OF U.S. CHIEF OF COUNSEL
FOR PROSECUTION OF AXIS CRIMINALITY
No. 792-PS
17 September 1945
Source of Original OKW Files, Flensburg
[Excerpt]
LEADS: CANARIS, IBN SAUD, GRAND MUFTI.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT POINTS (with page references):
1. Only through the funds made available by Germany to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was it possible to carry out the revolt in Palestine. (Page 1).
2. Germany will keep up the connection with the Grand Mufti. Weapons will be stored for the Mufti with Ibn Saud in Arabia. (Page 2).
3. Ibn Saud himself has close connections with the Grand Mufti and the revolting circles in TransJordan. (Page 2).
4. To be able to carry out our work one of Germany's agents will be placed in Cairo (Page 3).
5. The document is undated but obviously written before the outbreak of the war in 1939. It is not signed.
Analyst Landmann Doc. No. 792-PS
Source:The Arab Higher Committee, Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes, The Documentary Record Submitted to The United Nations, May 1947, by Nations Associates.
13 September 1940,
First Italian offensive in North-Africa; Italy invade Egypt, the objective is to lock the Suez Canal. Stop at Sidi Barrani; because they didn't become enough material to continue.
The 10th Italian Army (Marchall Graziani): 6 inf. div. and 8 tankbatalions, total 250.000 soldiers in Lybia. The Britain troops (general Wavell): 3 batalions, 1 tankbatalion, 3 battery, 2 squadron armoured scout cars, total 36.000 soldiers in West-Egypt.
Source (http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1940.htm)
Just for the hell of it.
I'd post the German invasions too, but why bother...
And, the French were fighting the British. Helping the Americans was an undesired by product of their war. The French fleet made it to Yorktown by accident. Lafayette was put under house arrest when he got back to France for being a dangerous democrat (republican) revolutionary...
OFFICE OF U.S. CHIEF OF COUNSEL
FOR PROSECUTION OF AXIS CRIMINALITY
No. 792-PS
17 September 1945
Source of Original OKW Files, Flensburg
[Excerpt]
LEADS: CANARIS, IBN SAUD, GRAND MUFTI.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT POINTS (with page references):
1. Only through the funds made available by Germany to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was it possible to carry out the revolt in Palestine. (Page 1).
2. Germany will keep up the connection with the Grand Mufti. Weapons will be stored for the Mufti with Ibn Saud in Arabia. (Page 2).
3. Ibn Saud himself has close connections with the Grand Mufti and the revolting circles in TransJordan. (Page 2).
4. To be able to carry out our work one of Germany's agents will be placed in Cairo (Page 3).
5. The document is undated but obviously written before the outbreak of the war in 1939. It is not signed.
Analyst Landmann Doc. No. 792-PS
Source:The Arab Higher Committee, Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes, The Documentary Record Submitted to The United Nations, May 1947, by Nations Associates.
13 September 1940,
First Italian offensive in North-Africa; Italy invade Egypt, the objective is to lock the Suez Canal. Stop at Sidi Barrani; because they didn't become enough material to continue.
The 10th Italian Army (Marchall Graziani): 6 inf. div. and 8 tankbatalions, total 250.000 soldiers in Lybia. The Britain troops (general Wavell): 3 batalions, 1 tankbatalion, 3 battery, 2 squadron armoured scout cars, total 36.000 soldiers in West-Egypt.
Source (http://www.euronet.nl/users/wilfried/ww2/1940.htm)
Just for the hell of it.
I'd post the German invasions too, but why bother...
And, the French were fighting the British. Helping the Americans was an undesired by product of their war. The French fleet made it to Yorktown by accident. Lafayette was put under house arrest when he got back to France for being a dangerous democrat (republican) revolutionary...
substand
Feb 22nd, 2005, 11:13 PM
did the U.S. have any enemies in the ME pre-1948?
I was going to put "no" as my answer, but Moishe3rd added the needed "nuance."
None of the states as we see them now were our enemies because they were mostly part of larger empires. From WW1 to WW2 they were gaining a bit of ground in becoming actual states.
Your question also fails to address the flow of information and how because it flows much easier:
1) people in these countries who have no sort of mechanism for distinguishing what they see in western movies from western culture fear that if they were to embrace any small bit of western culture (or if anyone in their own culture were to embrace it) then it would be the end of morality. They decide they must oppose it.
2) people in these countries see massive wealth differences, and because of our "devil culture" it must be because we sold our souls, so we are the cause of their problems- not themselves individually or culturally.
I was going to put "no" as my answer, but Moishe3rd added the needed "nuance."
None of the states as we see them now were our enemies because they were mostly part of larger empires. From WW1 to WW2 they were gaining a bit of ground in becoming actual states.
Your question also fails to address the flow of information and how because it flows much easier:
1) people in these countries who have no sort of mechanism for distinguishing what they see in western movies from western culture fear that if they were to embrace any small bit of western culture (or if anyone in their own culture were to embrace it) then it would be the end of morality. They decide they must oppose it.
2) people in these countries see massive wealth differences, and because of our "devil culture" it must be because we sold our souls, so we are the cause of their problems- not themselves individually or culturally.
Brewloc
Feb 22nd, 2005, 11:58 PM
Israel-Palestinian truce 'likely'
Both sides have made a valid attempt over the past few days. Hopefully this will continue.
Kudos to both sides.
:2thumbs:
Both sides have made a valid attempt over the past few days. Hopefully this will continue.
Kudos to both sides.
:2thumbs:
DarkAce
Feb 26th, 2005, 1:42 AM
RAMALLAH, West Bank - A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up in a crowd of young Israelis waiting outside a nightclub near Tel Aviv’s beachfront promenade, killing at least four other people, wounding dozens and shattering an informal Mideast truce.
The blast, just before midnight Friday, ended several weeks of calm and presented the first serious test to the unofficial cease-fire declared by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Feb. 8 at a dramatic summit in Egypt.
Israeli officials indicated the attack would not derail the tentative peace efforts. But the bombing put new pressure on Abbas to take action against militants, who have not formally accepted the truce.
The Palestinians must “do much more to prevent such attacks,” said Gideon Ezra, the Israeli public security minister. Despite the violence, he said contacts with the Palestinians should continue.
Hezbollah blamed for attack
There was no official claim of responsibility. But Palestinian officials and militant leaders said the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah had orchestrated the attack.
Abbas pledged to track down those responsible, accusing them of trying to derail the peace process.
“The Palestinian Authority will not stand silent in the face of this act of sabotage,” Abbas said in a statement after holding an emergency meeting early Saturday with his security chiefs. “We will follow and track down those responsible and they will be punished accordingly.”
Palestinian security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Israeli army identified the bomber as Abdullah Badran, 21, a university student. Israeli officials arrested five people, the officials said, including two of Badran’s brothers and the local imam.
Israeli troops also imposed a curfew on the West Bank village of Deir al Ghusun on Saturday, the apparent home of Badran, the Palestinian officials said.
Israel imposes curfew
The Israeli army said troops had carried out an arrest raid and that a curfew had temporarily been imposed but gave no further details. Israel this month said it would no longer destroy the homes of suicide bombers — a practice once common — because an army review concluded it didn’t deter attacks but did inflame hatred.
Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was to convene a meeting of security chiefs later Saturday to discuss an Israeli response, Israeli Army Radio reported.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned the attack “in the strongest possible terms” and said it is essential that Palestinian leaders take “immediate, credible steps” to find those responsible.
Rice took note of the Palestinian condemnation of the attack. “We now must see actions that send a clear message that terror will not be tolerated,” she said.
Hezbollah has emerged as the biggest threat to the fragile Israeli-Palestinian truce, offering West Bank gunmen thousands of dollars to attack Israelis. The group, which is backed by Iran and Syria, has hundreds of West Bank gunmen on its payroll, according to Palestinian security officials.
Militant groups deny involvement
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, the largest Palestinian militant groups, all denied involvement, saying they were respecting the recent calm.
“If it turns out that indeed an individual from the brigades carried out this attack, everyone must know that they acted alone, and that the Aqsa Brigades does not identify with him and does not recognize him as a member,” said Abu Mahmoud, the group’s official spokesman.
However, a senior Al Aqsa commander said one of its members had been recruited by Hezbollah to carry out the attack. The commander spoke on condition of anonymity.
A senior Palestinian security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, also said the bomber was hired by Hezbollah. Palestinian officials said they had been tracking communications between Hezbollah and Al Aqsa militants in the northern West Bank in recent days.
Al Aqsa, which is loosely linked to Abbas’ Fatah party, has largely honored Abbas’ efforts to maintain the cease-fire. But rogue elements of the militant group are widely believed by Israeli and Palestinian officials of receiving orders and funding from Hezbollah.
In Beirut, a Hezbollah official declined involvement. “As far as we are concerned, there is no need to respond to such lies,” the official said.
The bombing occurred at the Stage, a nightclub located near Tel Aviv’s seaside promenade, as about 20 to 30 people were waiting to enter the club. The area was especially busy on a mild weekend night.
“Suddenly there was this huge explosion and we just ran,” said Merav Ayush, a 20-year-old club goer. “I saw a boy and a girl sitting on the ground. At the entrance to the club there were about 15 people just lying on the floor,” she said.
Very powerful blast
Tel Aviv police chief David Tzur said security guards outside the club spotted the bomber and didn’t allow him in. “The impact, if he would have gone inside, would have been tragic,” he said.
He said four people were killed and dozens wounded. At least one of the dead was female. Israeli police said about 50 people were wounded, more than 10 of them seriously.
Israeli police spokesman Gil Kleiman said the blast was exceptionally powerful.
The explosion ripped off the front of the nightclub, shattering windows of nearby restaurants and blackening cars. Dozens of ambulances and rescue workers pored through the scene, and police scoured the balconies of nearby buildings for evidence. Several covered bodies and a pool of blood lay on the ground.
A neighborhood shopkeeper, who identified himself only as Shlomo, said the blast was so powerful that it knocked a row of bottles off a shelf onto his head. “Immediately we knew it was an attack. It’s a terrible feeling. We saw the people scattered all over,” he said.
Promenade hit before
The Tel Aviv promenade has been hit before by Palestinian militants, including explosions in 2001 outside the Dolphinarium disco and Mike’s Place, a popular pub.
Since this month’s Mideast summit, the two sides have stepped up security cooperation, and Israel has pledged to hand over security responsibilities in most of the West Bank to Palestinian forces.
The two largest and most powerful Palestinian militant organizations, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have so far refused to join a cease-fire officially but have pledged to maintain the fragile calm.
The radical Palestinian factions are expected to hold talks with Egyptian officials next week on the cease-fire with Israel, a senior Hamas official said on condition of anonymity.
While Israel has welcomed Abbas’ efforts, it wants the Palestinian leader to begin to take steps to dismantle the militant groups — a step he is reluctant to take.
It was the first suicide bombing since the cease-fire declaration, as well as the first such attack since the death of longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat on Nov. 11. The last suicide bombing killed three people in a Tel Aviv market on Nov. 1.
Link:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7011091/
:(
The blast, just before midnight Friday, ended several weeks of calm and presented the first serious test to the unofficial cease-fire declared by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas on Feb. 8 at a dramatic summit in Egypt.
Israeli officials indicated the attack would not derail the tentative peace efforts. But the bombing put new pressure on Abbas to take action against militants, who have not formally accepted the truce.
The Palestinians must “do much more to prevent such attacks,” said Gideon Ezra, the Israeli public security minister. Despite the violence, he said contacts with the Palestinians should continue.
Hezbollah blamed for attack
There was no official claim of responsibility. But Palestinian officials and militant leaders said the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah had orchestrated the attack.
Abbas pledged to track down those responsible, accusing them of trying to derail the peace process.
“The Palestinian Authority will not stand silent in the face of this act of sabotage,” Abbas said in a statement after holding an emergency meeting early Saturday with his security chiefs. “We will follow and track down those responsible and they will be punished accordingly.”
Palestinian security officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Israeli army identified the bomber as Abdullah Badran, 21, a university student. Israeli officials arrested five people, the officials said, including two of Badran’s brothers and the local imam.
Israeli troops also imposed a curfew on the West Bank village of Deir al Ghusun on Saturday, the apparent home of Badran, the Palestinian officials said.
Israel imposes curfew
The Israeli army said troops had carried out an arrest raid and that a curfew had temporarily been imposed but gave no further details. Israel this month said it would no longer destroy the homes of suicide bombers — a practice once common — because an army review concluded it didn’t deter attacks but did inflame hatred.
Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was to convene a meeting of security chiefs later Saturday to discuss an Israeli response, Israeli Army Radio reported.
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice condemned the attack “in the strongest possible terms” and said it is essential that Palestinian leaders take “immediate, credible steps” to find those responsible.
Rice took note of the Palestinian condemnation of the attack. “We now must see actions that send a clear message that terror will not be tolerated,” she said.
Hezbollah has emerged as the biggest threat to the fragile Israeli-Palestinian truce, offering West Bank gunmen thousands of dollars to attack Israelis. The group, which is backed by Iran and Syria, has hundreds of West Bank gunmen on its payroll, according to Palestinian security officials.
Militant groups deny involvement
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, the largest Palestinian militant groups, all denied involvement, saying they were respecting the recent calm.
“If it turns out that indeed an individual from the brigades carried out this attack, everyone must know that they acted alone, and that the Aqsa Brigades does not identify with him and does not recognize him as a member,” said Abu Mahmoud, the group’s official spokesman.
However, a senior Al Aqsa commander said one of its members had been recruited by Hezbollah to carry out the attack. The commander spoke on condition of anonymity.
A senior Palestinian security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, also said the bomber was hired by Hezbollah. Palestinian officials said they had been tracking communications between Hezbollah and Al Aqsa militants in the northern West Bank in recent days.
Al Aqsa, which is loosely linked to Abbas’ Fatah party, has largely honored Abbas’ efforts to maintain the cease-fire. But rogue elements of the militant group are widely believed by Israeli and Palestinian officials of receiving orders and funding from Hezbollah.
In Beirut, a Hezbollah official declined involvement. “As far as we are concerned, there is no need to respond to such lies,” the official said.
The bombing occurred at the Stage, a nightclub located near Tel Aviv’s seaside promenade, as about 20 to 30 people were waiting to enter the club. The area was especially busy on a mild weekend night.
“Suddenly there was this huge explosion and we just ran,” said Merav Ayush, a 20-year-old club goer. “I saw a boy and a girl sitting on the ground. At the entrance to the club there were about 15 people just lying on the floor,” she said.
Very powerful blast
Tel Aviv police chief David Tzur said security guards outside the club spotted the bomber and didn’t allow him in. “The impact, if he would have gone inside, would have been tragic,” he said.
He said four people were killed and dozens wounded. At least one of the dead was female. Israeli police said about 50 people were wounded, more than 10 of them seriously.
Israeli police spokesman Gil Kleiman said the blast was exceptionally powerful.
The explosion ripped off the front of the nightclub, shattering windows of nearby restaurants and blackening cars. Dozens of ambulances and rescue workers pored through the scene, and police scoured the balconies of nearby buildings for evidence. Several covered bodies and a pool of blood lay on the ground.
A neighborhood shopkeeper, who identified himself only as Shlomo, said the blast was so powerful that it knocked a row of bottles off a shelf onto his head. “Immediately we knew it was an attack. It’s a terrible feeling. We saw the people scattered all over,” he said.
Promenade hit before
The Tel Aviv promenade has been hit before by Palestinian militants, including explosions in 2001 outside the Dolphinarium disco and Mike’s Place, a popular pub.
Since this month’s Mideast summit, the two sides have stepped up security cooperation, and Israel has pledged to hand over security responsibilities in most of the West Bank to Palestinian forces.
The two largest and most powerful Palestinian militant organizations, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, have so far refused to join a cease-fire officially but have pledged to maintain the fragile calm.
The radical Palestinian factions are expected to hold talks with Egyptian officials next week on the cease-fire with Israel, a senior Hamas official said on condition of anonymity.
While Israel has welcomed Abbas’ efforts, it wants the Palestinian leader to begin to take steps to dismantle the militant groups — a step he is reluctant to take.
It was the first suicide bombing since the cease-fire declaration, as well as the first such attack since the death of longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat on Nov. 11. The last suicide bombing killed three people in a Tel Aviv market on Nov. 1.
Link:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7011091/
:(
Brewloc
Feb 26th, 2005, 3:52 PM
This is sad. We will see how both sides react in the upcoming days. Peace is still possible.
DarkAce
Feb 27th, 2005, 1:09 AM
Plans to hand West Bank security to Palestinians halted
JERUSALEM - Israel’s defense minister on Saturday blamed Syria and a Palestinian militant group based there for a suicide bombing that killed four Israelis outside a Tel Aviv nightclub and shattered an informal truce, prompting him to freeze plans to hand over security responsibilities in the West Bank. Syria denied the charges.
Israel has attacked Syrian targets in the past and will do so again if it deems necessary, another senior Israeli defense official said Sunday. Deputy Defense Minister Zeev Boim said Israel will attack Syrian targets if it feels that is the way to stop attacks that originate in Damascus.
The suicide bombing, which broke two weeks of relative calm, has threatened to derail an informal cease-fire declaration by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. It also could spark new tensions between longtime foes Israel and Syria.
Abbas angrily accused a “third party” of orchestrating Friday’s attack to sabotage the Mideast peace process, and his security officials said the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah, which is backed by Syria and Iran, was involved.
Conflicting claims of responsibility
In Beirut, Hezbollah, denied the accusations, and Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian militant group with members in Lebanon and Syria, claimed responsibility, reversing initial denials by its members in the Palestinian territories.
The conflicting accounts created a rare sense of mystery around the attack, which also wounded dozens.
In the past, militant groups have been quick to praise their members for carrying out deadly bombings. But Islamic Jihad waited nearly 24 hours to claim the attack outside a crowded nightclub. The delay raised speculation among Palestinian officials that Islamic Jihad was acting on behalf of Hezbollah.
If the bombing had been planned by militants in the Palestinian territory, Abbas would be under tremendous pressure to crack down. But since it looked as if the bombing was linked to Islamic Jihad in Syria, and perhaps inspired by Hezbollah, Israel was likely to give him more leeway.
Israel points finger at Syria
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz blamed Syria after meeting with senior security commanders late Saturday in Tel Aviv. “The defense minister ruled that Israel sees Syria and the Islamic Jihad movement are those standing behind the murderous attack in Tel Aviv,” a statement from Mofaz’s office said.
The Bush administration strongly condemned the bombing and welcomed the Palestinian leadership’s response.
“Such brutal attacks that kill and wound innocent Israelis cannot be tolerated by the Israeli people. Nor should they be tolerated by the Palestinian people, for such attacks undermine their hopes for a better future,” the White House said in a statement.
U.S. officials have been in touch with the Palestinians “to urge immediate and credible action” to determine who is behind this terrorist act and to bring them to justice,” according to the statement.
Israel and the United States have demanded that Syria close the headquarters of Palestinian militant groups in Damascus and end its support for other militant organizations.
Syria also faces pressure to withdraw troops from Lebanon amid accusations it was behind a massive bombing on Feb. 14 that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 16 other people. Syria has denied involvement in the slayings.
For the rest of the article, click here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7011091/
JERUSALEM - Israel’s defense minister on Saturday blamed Syria and a Palestinian militant group based there for a suicide bombing that killed four Israelis outside a Tel Aviv nightclub and shattered an informal truce, prompting him to freeze plans to hand over security responsibilities in the West Bank. Syria denied the charges.
Israel has attacked Syrian targets in the past and will do so again if it deems necessary, another senior Israeli defense official said Sunday. Deputy Defense Minister Zeev Boim said Israel will attack Syrian targets if it feels that is the way to stop attacks that originate in Damascus.
The suicide bombing, which broke two weeks of relative calm, has threatened to derail an informal cease-fire declaration by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. It also could spark new tensions between longtime foes Israel and Syria.
Abbas angrily accused a “third party” of orchestrating Friday’s attack to sabotage the Mideast peace process, and his security officials said the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah, which is backed by Syria and Iran, was involved.
Conflicting claims of responsibility
In Beirut, Hezbollah, denied the accusations, and Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian militant group with members in Lebanon and Syria, claimed responsibility, reversing initial denials by its members in the Palestinian territories.
The conflicting accounts created a rare sense of mystery around the attack, which also wounded dozens.
In the past, militant groups have been quick to praise their members for carrying out deadly bombings. But Islamic Jihad waited nearly 24 hours to claim the attack outside a crowded nightclub. The delay raised speculation among Palestinian officials that Islamic Jihad was acting on behalf of Hezbollah.
If the bombing had been planned by militants in the Palestinian territory, Abbas would be under tremendous pressure to crack down. But since it looked as if the bombing was linked to Islamic Jihad in Syria, and perhaps inspired by Hezbollah, Israel was likely to give him more leeway.
Israel points finger at Syria
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz blamed Syria after meeting with senior security commanders late Saturday in Tel Aviv. “The defense minister ruled that Israel sees Syria and the Islamic Jihad movement are those standing behind the murderous attack in Tel Aviv,” a statement from Mofaz’s office said.
The Bush administration strongly condemned the bombing and welcomed the Palestinian leadership’s response.
“Such brutal attacks that kill and wound innocent Israelis cannot be tolerated by the Israeli people. Nor should they be tolerated by the Palestinian people, for such attacks undermine their hopes for a better future,” the White House said in a statement.
U.S. officials have been in touch with the Palestinians “to urge immediate and credible action” to determine who is behind this terrorist act and to bring them to justice,” according to the statement.
Israel and the United States have demanded that Syria close the headquarters of Palestinian militant groups in Damascus and end its support for other militant organizations.
Syria also faces pressure to withdraw troops from Lebanon amid accusations it was behind a massive bombing on Feb. 14 that killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 16 other people. Syria has denied involvement in the slayings.
For the rest of the article, click here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7011091/
Emerald_Dragon
Feb 27th, 2005, 4:25 PM
> Helping the Americans was an undesired by product of their war.
yea, the showed up late. they had their own post-revolution to deal with. still, they helped in that final battle at Yorktown. tactics which were a precursor to those used in WWI trench warfare. and, they did inspire Americans to start their own revolution, did they not? Benny-J F did visit Paris for awhile.
>I was going to put "no" as my answer, but Moishe3rd added the needed "nuance."
*lol*, you sure you want to stand with moishe's reply? i was thinking more along the lines of countries in the Middle East that were enemies of the U.S., just like you were. not religious leaders mercing themselves to arms suppliers.
you know, like an "Axis of Evil", funding terrorists to attack America and its allies within 45 minutes with NBC weapons with remote control drones, oppressing its people with theocracy instead of democracy, hating us because we are "free", hating us because we are corrupted by our own materialistic, capitalistic lifestyles.
anywayz, her reference was undated and unsigned. isn't that like finding paperwork in an Iraqi building stating they were planning WTC911? ooops, that didn't happen.
my point was, the U.S. did not have enemies in the ME pre-1948. We started acquiring them after supporting and supplying a band of religious fanatics in their nation building. I believe we felt sorry for them after we saw what had happened at liberated concentration camps, and being the good Christians that we are, we did what we felt was right. Little did we know, we would be taken advantage of, and have to stick up for little brother when he starts going out picking fights with the toys we gave him. now we have to justify it to the family.
>Your question also fails to address the flow of information and how because it flows much easier:
sure, if they only watched more of our television, they'd see our point of view much easier. much like your understanding of how they think, based on what our mainstream media tells us.
i don't limit myself to what the U.S. mass media tells us to conclude [refer to Peter Jennings "Seeing Is Believing" bs]. i use bloggers, BBC, Pravda, JU, Al-J, to find my answers. We are all allowed to believe what we want, based on what we've been exposed to. If you don't get all the info, naturally, your point of view is limited. in this age of information, how can you not be informed?
yea, the showed up late. they had their own post-revolution to deal with. still, they helped in that final battle at Yorktown. tactics which were a precursor to those used in WWI trench warfare. and, they did inspire Americans to start their own revolution, did they not? Benny-J F did visit Paris for awhile.
>I was going to put "no" as my answer, but Moishe3rd added the needed "nuance."
*lol*, you sure you want to stand with moishe's reply? i was thinking more along the lines of countries in the Middle East that were enemies of the U.S., just like you were. not religious leaders mercing themselves to arms suppliers.
you know, like an "Axis of Evil", funding terrorists to attack America and its allies within 45 minutes with NBC weapons with remote control drones, oppressing its people with theocracy instead of democracy, hating us because we are "free", hating us because we are corrupted by our own materialistic, capitalistic lifestyles.
anywayz, her reference was undated and unsigned. isn't that like finding paperwork in an Iraqi building stating they were planning WTC911? ooops, that didn't happen.
my point was, the U.S. did not have enemies in the ME pre-1948. We started acquiring them after supporting and supplying a band of religious fanatics in their nation building. I believe we felt sorry for them after we saw what had happened at liberated concentration camps, and being the good Christians that we are, we did what we felt was right. Little did we know, we would be taken advantage of, and have to stick up for little brother when he starts going out picking fights with the toys we gave him. now we have to justify it to the family.
>Your question also fails to address the flow of information and how because it flows much easier:
sure, if they only watched more of our television, they'd see our point of view much easier. much like your understanding of how they think, based on what our mainstream media tells us.
i don't limit myself to what the U.S. mass media tells us to conclude [refer to Peter Jennings "Seeing Is Believing" bs]. i use bloggers, BBC, Pravda, JU, Al-J, to find my answers. We are all allowed to believe what we want, based on what we've been exposed to. If you don't get all the info, naturally, your point of view is limited. in this age of information, how can you not be informed?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.