Post by: brandogg on November 10, 2004, 09:15:00 PM
Post by: Wong Hung Lo on November 11, 2004, 03:33:00 AM
Post by: psyberxian on November 11, 2004, 05:50:00 AM
-Psyber
Post by: damam on November 11, 2004, 08:25:00 AM
I dont get CNN, Foxnews, MSNBC, etc cause i dont have cable or dish and I didnt have time to see national news on the free stations.
However, I was shocked by my local news coverage of the situation. They made him out to be some peace loving hippy type who stopped the palestenians from doing attacks against israel in 80's to present and started only persueing peaceful resolutions to the conflict!!!!! What a load of crap.
| QUOTE |
| Yassar Arafat wasn't even Palestinian... He's Egyptian born... |
this could possible be the first true and sane thing i have ever seen you post
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 11, 2004, 09:59:00 AM
Post by: pug_ster on November 11, 2004, 10:07:00 AM
Post by: Baner on November 11, 2004, 11:43:00 AM
Some moron was on Bortz (not sure if you know what that is) today, saying Arafat is a hero for ending the war with Isreal and Palistine in Lebanon. The fucker Arafat was the one who started the damned war! Fuckin morons...
Post by: pug_ster on November 11, 2004, 12:17:00 PM
Newborn Twins Named Yasser and Arafat
Post by: brandogg on November 11, 2004, 01:28:00 PM
Post by: Baner on November 11, 2004, 01:30:00 PM
...What the hell am I thinking? Peace in the Middle East!
Post by: pug_ster on November 11, 2004, 01:45:00 PM
| QUOTE (brandogg @ Nov 11 2004, 10:31 PM) |
| Way to throw something in to try to change the subject, pug_ster. Anyway, all the news channels showed the good and bad side of Yasser Arafat. The bad outweighs anything he's tried to do to get peace. |
I just want to interjet some jokes about Arafat. I agree that it was a good thing that he passed away.
But I was saying that now US have an golden opportunity to make peace in the Middle East in Palestine, an opportunity that Clinton didn't have since Arafat was alive. I hope that Bush will reach out for a peace settlement instead more violence in the middle east.
Post by: damam on November 11, 2004, 01:52:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Nov 11 2004, 10:48 PM) |
| But I was saying that now US have an golden opportunity to make peace in the Middle East in Palestine, an opportunity that Clinton didn't have since Arafat was alive. I hope that Bush will reach out for a peace settlement instead more violence in the middle east. |
I agree
Bush said when he first got into office that he would do what ever he could to get peace there, but he would not deal with arafat. its put up or shut up time
barring of course someone equael to or even more extreme taking his place in a very short period of time.
does anyone know anything concrete about his successor?
Post by: Baner on November 11, 2004, 01:57:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| does anyone know anything concrete about his successor? |
As of right now, I think it's the man with the biggest gun, But that's not concrete.
Post by: Heet on November 11, 2004, 08:49:00 PM
Post by: Arvarden on November 12, 2004, 05:03:00 AM
A militant cycling around on a mountain bike with a sniper rifle pinned down 150 US Marines
They called in air support, tanks and dropped god knows how much ordinance on him..When the dust settled he was spotted making is getaway.. US Marines=pussy's
Post by: damam on November 12, 2004, 07:39:00 AM
or did he actually have to die prematurely attacking Israel for that to happen
Post by: CHRONOSTORM on November 12, 2004, 08:00:00 AM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Nov 11 2004, 10:33 PM) |
| I'm thinking we'll see a couple of riots, looting, fires, suicide bombers, and car bombs for about 2 weeks. Then some sort of peace might happen. ...What the hell am I thinking? Peace in the Middle East! |
lmao. there will be a power strugle. take a bit longer than 2 weeks. the person that takes arifats place (if taken by force) Will be worse than him.
Post by: Wolfblade13 on November 12, 2004, 08:44:00 AM
RIP Yassar Arafat
Post by: Wolfblade13 on November 12, 2004, 09:59:00 AM
Post by: damam on November 12, 2004, 10:12:00 AM
| QUOTE (Wolfblade13 @ Nov 12 2004, 05:47 PM) |
| arafat maintaned the peace there, so now no one does. |
Its just laughable what you history revisionists are trying to do with arafat. This man had nothing to do with peace.
Post by: Baner on November 12, 2004, 10:43:00 AM
How about him turning down the best offer the Palistinians would get... ever... Wait, that's not good.
Being a terrorist himself? Don't forget that before he became the leader he "was" today, he got his experience as a leader in a terrorist organization. But that's no good either.
I can sit here all day digigng up dirt about Arafat, I'd like ot see one good thing about him.
Note: Palistine is not a country, therefor it's hard to bring peace to something that doesn't exsist.
Also, with Palistine not being a real country, it doesn't need a leader.
Post by: Wolfblade13 on November 12, 2004, 11:05:00 AM
and if he brought war to the mid east, bush did too
Post by: Baner on November 12, 2004, 11:12:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| well... MS neither is a country but also has a leader |
Can it's leader start wars? Raise taxes? Create laws? Anything that a country can do? MS is a company... it's "leader" is a CEO and a board of executives, who are setup to make sure the business doesn't go corrupt... You might wanna try a better analogy.
| QUOTE |
| and if he brought war to the mid east, bush did too |
I don't get how Bush brought war to the Middle East, please explain. Saddam brougt war upon himself, don;t forget the many sanctions the UN had on him, and his tract record for being a good guy isn't that great...
Funny, last time I checked, Arafat started a war with Isreal more than 15 years ago. I don't remember Bush jr. being in office then...
The Middle East was been a war zone for years, before you were around, before Bush, before anyone alive today... Arafat just took it to another degree
Post by: Master-Chief on November 12, 2004, 11:24:00 AM
Then again, you guys are only the average Americans.
Post by: Phizzy on November 12, 2004, 11:33:00 AM
| QUOTE (Master-Chief @ Nov 12 2004, 02:27 PM) |
| Wow, I never knew people on X-S could be so hatrid towards people and so immature. |
I know, it is wrong to hate a terrorist! I try to teach children that it is immature to hate the 9-11 terrorists or any other terrorist, including Arafat.
Post by: Arvarden on November 12, 2004, 11:51:00 AM
Post by: Baner on November 12, 2004, 01:07:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Wasnt Israel taking out various Palestinian leaders during negotiations therefore Arafat was pressured not to go ahead with the peace plan? |
Weren't they at war? Don't you expect people to die during war? If he didn't want any of his key leaders to be killed, them sign a peace treaty!... Not sure why you guys try and defend a terrorist, look at the facts...
| QUOTE |
| Palistine |
Gee golly, I'm sure stupid, damn... sucks that I don't spell PalEstine everyday...
Post by: damam on November 12, 2004, 03:17:00 PM
not that a 75 year old person really needs an autopsy . . .
Post by: blueshogun96 on November 12, 2004, 06:29:00 PM
| QUOTE (Wong Hung Lo @ Nov 11 2004, 12:36 PM) |
| |
lol
Post by: nemt on November 12, 2004, 07:47:00 PM
EDIT: Video: Arafat's Legacy
Post by: gronne on November 13, 2004, 05:27:00 PM
He had a very spartan lifestyle, he should have credit for that. Without him I don't think there would be much resistance to Israel.
And eventhough he was more of a problem the last years, he did admit Israel and approved of a two-states solution. I hope the media won't neglect that. Saying he didn't work for peace is a lie. That was everything he wanted. I can bloody guarantee that.
I'm worried his replacer will be more hostile. But we can always hope. No matter what, this transition will have a huge impact for the outcome, good or bad. I hope the rest of the world will act mature now when there's a great chance for something good here.
But as others have said, RIP Arafat. I hope your dream will come true. (As I said, he didn't "want" Israel dissolved).
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 14, 2004, 10:22:00 AM
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 14 2004, 02:30 AM) |
| I actually agree with you Nemt(feels strange, one-timer). On the part that he was "too" romanticized. But the muslims do remember his support for Hussein as negative. But apart from all the negative aspects he must be considered as a true hero for his people. |
Nahtzee!| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 14 2004, 02:30 AM) |
| He had a very spartan lifestyle, he should have credit for that. Without him I don't think there would be much resistance to Israel. |
You are right about that, he was a stubborn egoistical prick, and it is because of him they were unable to meet the two-state agreement, presented in 96.
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 14 2004, 02:30 AM) |
| And eventhough he was more of a problem the last years, he did admit Israel and approved of a two-states solution. I hope the media won't neglect that. Saying he didn't work for peace is a lie. That was everything he wanted. I can bloody guarantee that. |
I'm not sure where you pulled that one from, your ass maybe?
Arafat wanted nothing more than to see Israel obliterated, and the reunification of Palestine.| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 14 2004, 02:30 AM) |
| I'm worried his replacer will be more hostile. But we can always hope. No matter what, this transition will have a huge impact for the outcome, good or bad. I hope the rest of the world will act mature now when there's a great chance for something good here. |
You are probably right about his successor, today members of his PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) opened fire inside one of Arafat's mourning tents killing two, and wounding several others. As you can see these guys only want "peace", and they will do whatever necessary to achieve that "peace" even if it means slaughtering their own people.
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 14 2004, 02:30 AM) |
| But as others have said, RIP Arafat. I hope your dream will come true. (As I said, he didn't "want" Israel dissolved). |
I have no doubt now that you are Anti-Semitic, like the vast majority of Europe. Arafat wanted the reunification of Palestine, at the cost of dissolving Israel. He was also responsible for the murder of two American diplomats to Palestine during the 70's. Arafat was a terrorist, and nothing more.
Post by: gronne on November 14, 2004, 02:16:00 PM
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 14, 2004, 03:28:00 PM
Post by: bucko on November 14, 2004, 04:16:00 PM
Post by: gronne on November 14, 2004, 05:52:00 PM
| QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Nov 15 2004, 12:31 AM) |
| You are the blind one here my friend, you sympathize with the Palestinians because you feel you can identify with their struggle against the oppressive Israelis, when you have no fucking idea what life is like for either side (unless you have lived there, you have no fucking idea). Yet you feel no sympathy when Israeli civilians are killed, that my friend is sick. There can be no double standard. Some of my best friends are Muslim, but they aren't psychopathic tools that believe the divine will of God lies in the destruction of western civilization. Yes they felt Israel was the oppressor in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but they feel Arafat's promotion of violent tactics like suicide bombings were no better, and would not help in achieving peace either. Arafat never wanted an Israeli state that is why he turned down the best offer they would ever get. He was a failure. |
It's 2:15 am here now so I'm going to sleep soon, but whenever I get the time I will provide you with a link to those statements of his. And what hell are you talking about? I've said earlier that I don't sympathize with acts of terror WHATSOEVER, but you only want to remember him as a brutal terrorist when he did so much other good for the cause of the palestinians? It's not black and white, you know. Who's the blind one here? You don't seem to sympathize the least with the palestinians. Sure, let Mexico occupy USA, and I'm sure you'll be jumping in happiness.
I don't sympathize with acts of terror, but I can also reckon that if there never was any attacks in the first place, I'm sure resistance through words wouldn't have any affect AT ALL.
If there were no terror-attacks, the rest of the world wouldn't care the palestinians didn't have a homeland. Do you seriously think that? SERIOUSLY? If the palestinians made no resistance we wouldn't talk about this now, right? They would just be run over, and their struggle would be completely forgotten. You couldn't say that now, could you?
I would be PISSED if my neighbouring country said to me "We think this land was important to us 2000 years ago, so we unfortunately must rule here again... You know, it's important to us". I can sure UNDERSTAND they attack the jews, eventhough I don't sympathize with acts of violence at all. No one would allow anyone to steal their land without a struggle. If you think about it there are so many people that have something related to specific spots, but you wouldn't allow them to steal land, right? What if the indians demanded USA back since it was their country thousands of years before the europeans took over. Not that they should throw the europeans out, but call it Indianland, or whatever. They would have the same rights the jews had to steal a country, and I wouldn't agree with that either. Only morons would, so I guess everyone supporting zionism must be a moron.
BTW, you don't seem to sympathize with the muslims when the jews counter-attack them. The jews kill FAR more muslims, than the muslims kill jews. I'm an atheist so why would I care about any of the sides? Because they've been stolen from their land, and because zionism is wrong in it's essence. Israel is the biggest mistake ever, but it's way too late to dissolve it and it shouldn't be either.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 14, 2004, 06:25:00 PM
Post by: gronne on November 15, 2004, 09:56:00 AM
| QUOTE (EverythingButAnAnswer @ Nov 15 2004, 03:28 AM) |
| The Israelis don't directly target civilians. |
Should I laugh or cry? Well laughing is something I don't want to do about the situation down there, so I better cry. I also think the terrorist acts are horrible, but extreme people will always do something to make their voice heard, and one can't say they haven't been successful in that, but it's hard to sympathize with terrorists. I sympathize with the struggle, not the terror acts. And as I said, far more innocent palestinians have been killed in pure retaliation. Many have been DIRECTLY aimed to kill innocents, only for the cause of retaliation.
Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 15, 2004, 10:50:00 AM
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 15 2004, 06:59 PM) |
| Should I laugh or cry? Well laughing is something I don't want to do about the situation down there, so I better cry. I also think the terrorist acts are horrible, but extreme people will always do something to make their voice heard, and one can't say they haven't been successful in that, but it's hard to sympathize with terrorists. I sympathize with the struggle, not the terror acts. And as I said, far more innocent palestinians have been killed in pure retaliation. Many have been DIRECTLY aimed to kill innocents, only for the cause of retaliation. |
Unfortunately that is what happens when your enemy is a coward, and disguises themselves as members of the civilian population. Cowards who use woman and children as human shields, and directly targets innocent civilians, are vile disgusting sub human creatures, and they should be treated as such. Those sick egotistical parasitic pieces of shit don't care about the struggle, they don't care about Palestine, they only care about themselves, they exist only to bring pain and suffering to innocent people (fucking children) who if anything deserve to live out their lives in peace. They feed off the lives of innocents, and if there was no Israel-Palestine conflict, they would still be out their killing innocent people, because they are psychotic, and are no different from Nazis. You can't have it both ways, you either support them, their cause, and their actions fully, or you condemn it.
Post by: melon on November 15, 2004, 11:14:00 AM
How is this not directly targetting civillians?
Rest in Peace Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Hussaeini you united a people under extreme cicumstances and provication. For that you deserve to be honoured.
Post by: damam on November 15, 2004, 12:15:00 PM
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 14 2004, 11:19 PM) |
| At first he wanted to dissolve Israel, but then agreed there should be a two-states solution. . . . Please, take a good read on Arafat and you'll see what he was trying to achieve. |
If Arafat was ever serious about a two-state solution, the first thing he would have done was start marginalizing Hamas and the influence that hamas has over the palestenians. He never tried to do that. Over the years they simply got stronger. And dont try to argue that they had more funding either. Arafat embezzled over a billion dollars in "Muslim Tithes" and relief aide from around the world. Money that should have gone to the Palestenian people in the forms of food, health care, and education and services that hamas provides to the palestenians.
The next thing he would have done would have been to take the deal at camp david. THis is where his true intentions reared their head. He never had any intentions of really recognizing an Isreali State. And the arguement that Israel was killing PLO and Hamas members is true - but not all of the story, they were also targeting Israelis like never before. Hamas doesnt just want a Palestenian state. They want the end of the Israeli state as well and have said so many times.
What is it that the Arab world calls the Isreali state? "An-Nakba" which translates to "The Great Catastrophe". Two times since 1948, the surrounding arab states have tried to get rid of the Israeli state through direct force and several times thorugh indirect force. The fact is that they simply cannot stand the idea of living next to a jew.
| QUOTE |
| In the last thread on this debate I posted a link to a news story about how an Israeli soldier shot a little Palastinian girl on her way to school. He then stood over her body and shot repeatedly into her body. How is this not directly targetting civillians? |
If you can show me this is the rule and not an exception by showing a systamtic approach to dealing with the palestenians in this way, you might have a point. Otherwise, im inclined to believe that this was one sick bastard working on his own. In any organization your bound to have a couple. The palestenians are known for using women and children as human shields, and the israelis have had more than a couple opportunities to mow them all down. But they choose not too. Im not saying there hasnt been collateral damage, but as a general rule they have not intentionally killed the bystanders or human shields for that matter.
On the other hand, Yasser, PLO, and Hamas have shown a systematic approach of targeting civilians by attacking schools, civilian planes, shops, etc.
Post by: nemt on November 15, 2004, 05:04:00 PM
He was also one crazy looking muthafugga
Post by: gronne on November 17, 2004, 05:48:00 PM
| QUOTE (damam @ Nov 15 2004, 09:18 PM) |
| If Arafat was ever serious about a two-state solution, the first thing he would have done was start marginalizing Hamas and the influence that hamas has over the palestenians. He never tried to do that. Over the years they simply got stronger. And dont try to argue that they had more funding either. Arafat embezzled over a billion dollars in "Muslim Tithes" and relief aide from around the world. Money that should have gone to the Palestenian people in the forms of food, health care, and education and services that hamas provides to the palestenians. What is it that the Arab world calls the Isreali state? "An-Nakba" which translates to "The Great Catastrophe". Two times since 1948, the surrounding arab states have tried to get rid of the Israeli state through direct force and several times thorugh indirect force. The fact is that they simply cannot stand the idea of living next to a jew. If you can show me this is the rule and not an exception by showing a systamtic approach to dealing with the palestenians in this way, you might have a point. Otherwise, im inclined to believe that this was one sick bastard working on his own. In any organization your bound to have a couple. The palestenians are known for using women and children as human shields, and the israelis have had more than a couple opportunities to mow them all down. But they choose not too. Im not saying there hasnt been collateral damage, but as a general rule they have not intentionally killed the bystanders or human shields for that matter. On the other hand, Yasser, PLO, and Hamas have shown a systematic approach of targeting civilians by attacking schools, civilian planes, shops, etc. |
You're so blind it hurts. We often hear about Israeli counter-attacks where innocents ARE the targets. Retaliation feeds retaliation. Sure, the palestinians shouldn't have started attacking innocents in the first place, but does that mean you should completely stand on Israels side? As I've said, far more palestinians(civilians) have been killed than Israelis, and they are the ones illegally occupying others soil.
And as I've said, just because there are palestinian terrorists, doesn't give Israel ANY right at all to act like they do. I feel a lot of people choose the israelian side ONLY because of the terrorists. But then we're talking about individuals, and individuals shouldn't affect your whole opinion about the situation. In a modern society it can never be accepted for someone to take over a country because it was important to them 2000 years ago. I mean seriously, two thousand years ago.
Israel sure is a catastrophe, but it's WAY too late to dissolve it now. The only thing to do is to give back key areas to the palestinians. The muslims can stand the idea of living with jews, but they can't stand to have them steal their country. That's a huge difference. They lived together before Israel was a reality, so I don't think that's a big problem.
ANYONE would act like the muslims if it was your soil being stolen. Tell me how sick it would be if someone said "Sure, go ahead. Take my land and call it something else. That would be hilariuos". That's what the problem really comes down to, basic rights. Americans, if any, who'd fight every possible war to defend their lovely rights, ought to understand this. But no, you choose to support Israel, because of religious reasons?!?!? It's time to take a deep look in the mirror, my friends.
Post by: damam on November 18, 2004, 10:39:00 AM
| QUOTE (gronne @ Nov 18 2004, 02:51 AM) |
| Israel sure is a catastrophe, but it's WAY too late to dissolve it now. |
On May 14, 1948, when Israel declared independence despite the best efforts of the British and despite the fact that they guaranteed it with the Balfour Declaration in 1917. The UN while was in favour of Jewish state, as usual did absolutely nothing either way. The British went a bit further and actually tried to keep them from getting weapons, and gave weapons to the surrounding Arab states, opened up land entry from all the other arab states to israel and gave covor to them, obstructed Jewish defenses on the ground, blocked Jewish reinforcements and aide from both the mediteranean and land, and bombed the Jewish fighters from the air. The This was the first time that the Israelis survived a massive attack from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria (and arguably Britain). The stated purpose of this invasion was to "push the Jews into the sea" or genocide. This is not mere speculation; the Arabs of the former British Mandate of Palestine (that never came to be) were led by a Nazi collaborator, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, and was up for charges at Nuremberg before escaping in 1946. He was a well known supporter of the "The Final Solution". They also mowed down and irrecoverably destroyed all the Jewish settlements in Jordan and Egypt killing most of the Jews in the process. So the rest of the world DID TRY TO DISSOLVE IT right from the getgo. But the Israelis won despite the amazing odds.
| QUOTE |
| The only thing to do is to give back key areas to the palestinians. |
Israel did offer to give 90% of the land they won in the war to Yasser.
I already posted this earlier, but it fits better here . . .
First off it never belonged to the palestenians. It belonged to Jordan and Egypt. And in case you have forgetten - this is how the palestenians came into this predicament:
May 14, 1967: Egypt's President Gamal Nasser demands the withdrawal of United Nations force--established in 1957 as an international "guarantee" of safety for Israel--from the Sinai peninsula. The UN meekly obeys; the United States and Britain fail to rouse the Security Council to take action.
May 15: Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai. World community does nothing.
May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."
May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."
May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war. (US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")
May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."
May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."
May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."
May 30: Jordan's King Hussein signs a five-year mutual defence pact with Egypt and the two set up a joint command, making clear its stance in any future conflict.
My 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."
May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."
June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.
June 5: Six Day War begins: Israeli Airforce commits a pre-emptive strike on the airfields in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.
If it had not been for their own aggression, they would not be in this situation. Hell, they would probably still be called Egyptians and living in refugee camps. And yet if they had won, the world wouldnt even care.
| QUOTE |
| The muslims can stand the idea of living with jews, but they can't stand to have them steal their country. That's a huge difference. They lived together before Israel was a reality, so I don't think that's a big problem. |
Lived together in the loosest sense of the term. The so called "Golden Age of Arab-Jewish Co-Existence", is basically a lie. Sure the Jews could live there so long as they were willing to put up with special taxes levied against them, agreed to not build any places of worship, wore marks on there clothes so that all Arabs would know they were jews, and agreed to only work certain jobs and stay out of govornment. Then of course there was the periodic killing of all the males and enslavement of the females and children in a single town for population control (this also happened to the christians). Occasoinally, they would kill all the jews including the women and children as a reward for a failed upraising. Not to mention the fact that if any jew started doing too well, they would burn down his crops or kill all of his live stalk. In places like libya and parts of egypt, Jews could only live there if they had an Arab master and were considered his property. In Morocco, the only job jews were aloud to have was cleaning the latrines, had to sell items at half price, and could not refuse counterfitt coins. Other pass times of the Arabs during this erra were beard pulling, spitting, or just starting a good old fashion jewish stoning in the market place.
The worst arab/muslim offendors were the Moors in Spain, and Almoravids in Morrocco where their attrocities were far worse then mentioned above. So while the Jews did fair better in the middle east then in Europe (ie. no mass genocide attempts), it could harldy be called peacefule co-existence.
| QUOTE |
| You're so blind it hurts. We often hear about Israeli counter-attacks where innocents ARE the targets. Retaliation feeds retaliation. Sure, the palestinians shouldn't have started attacking innocents in the first place, but does that mean you should completely stand on Israels side? As I've said, far more palestinians(civilians) have been killed than Israelis, and they are the ones illegally occupying others soil. |
While the BBC is generally speaking a pretty unbiases news source, they have proven themselves to be very biased when comes to Israel. Your statement exemplifies that and if you want examples just ask. Every time an Israeli kills a palestenian it is considered civillian by most simply because you cant tell who is what. I am not saying I support everything that the Israeli's have done, some of Sherones work in the mid 70's was very questionable, but I do support their right to return fire when fired upon, to do pre-emptive strikes when attack is emminent, to retaliate, and to occupy land won in a war that was eminent.
As far as "illegally occupying soil . . . thats a whole other subject that I also disagree with. but this post is too long as it is
| QUOTE |
| And as I've said, just because there are palestinian terrorists, doesn't give Israel ANY right at all to act like they do. I feel a lot of people choose the israelian side ONLY because of the terrorists. But then we're talking about individuals, and individuals shouldn't affect your whole opinion about the situation. |
Do you think the average 16 year old Palestenian just inherently knows how to make a bomb strap it to their body, and detonate it? Or that so many of them just decided independently that this is a good thing to do? These are not just random outlier individuals working alone. Hamas and the PLO are not individuals. They are well organized and funded by the surrounding arab states.
| QUOTE |
| In a modern society it can never be accepted for someone to take over a country because it was important to them 2000 years ago. I mean seriously, two thousand years ago. |
That assumes that it had some how lost meaning to them, they left, or they ever stopped trying to regain there state. The Jews never left Israel. Sure some migrated away, but there has been a continual jewish presence there for over 3000 years. And from the occupation of Rome on, the Jews have tried several times to regain control. 1948 was just the first time they succeeded.
| QUOTE |
| ANYONE would act like the muslims if it was your soil being stolen. Tell me how sick it would be if someone said "Sure, go ahead. Take my land and call it something else. That would be hilariuos". |
Thats pretty funny coming from a subject of her majesty. Thats exactly what your country did. They took over the entire middle east, then arbitrarily drew lines in the sand and appointed leaders. None of these countries existed until they came along. Not only that, Britain spent 50yrs doing it. Yet, none of them cared how they were split up and divided so long as a Jewish state did not exist.
| QUOTE |
| That's what the problem really comes down to, basic rights. Americans, if any, who'd fight every possible war to defend their lovely rights, ought to understand this. But no, you choose to support Israel, because of religious reasons?!?!? It's time to take a deep look in the mirror, my friends. |
Israel has been far kinder to the palestenians, than the arabs ever were to the Jews. Also far kinder than Egypt or Jordan were to the palestenians. Unlike Egypt or Jordan, Israel has offered the palestenians full intigration if they put down there arms. Hell, Israel even offered Palestine 90% of the land they were asking for to setup their own state. Israel currently has a 22% arab population who work, vote, and are afforded all the same freedoms as the jews. Their are even Arabs in Parliment. You talk of basic human rights. Well they are there for the taking, they simply have to learn how to live with a jewish neighbor.
Post by: Baner on November 18, 2004, 10:59:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| Thats pretty funny coming from a subject of her majesty. |
Just thought I'd let you know that Gronne ain't a Brit.
Post by: damam on November 18, 2004, 11:03:00 AM
Post by: damam on November 18, 2004, 01:12:00 PM
| QUOTE (Arvarden @ Nov 18 2004, 08:32 PM) |
| Get the Israeli's out of Jerusalem and the haters can find something else to hate. Maybe they will turn to animal rights? |
I really dont think that would help-
Israel was attacked in 1948 before they ever held Jeruselem. It wasnt until the war of 1948 had been fought and the Armistice lines of 1949 were drawn that they gained half of Jeruselem. And it wasnt until the sixth day war in 1967 that they gained the other half. Heres what Israel looked like before 1949.
The only good neighbors Israel has ever had is lebonan. Notice that from 1948 to present, their border hasnt really changed much.
Post by: nemt on November 18, 2004, 02:46:00 PM
| QUOTE (damam @ Nov 18 2004, 05:15 PM) |
| The only good neighbors Israel has ever had is lebonan. Notice that from 1948 to present, their border hasnt really changed much. |
Another important note: Lebanon is the only state in the region without total muslim rule of government, it is the also the only state whose sovereignty is not recognized by its neighbors.
Post by: gronne on November 18, 2004, 05:38:00 PM
| QUOTE | ||||||||||||||||||
Post by: pepsik on November 19, 2004, 10:33:00 AM  The palestinians will just end up being another indigenous people to succumb to a massive genocide over land. Natives in South America by the spanish, Natives in North America by the colonists, Armenians in Eastern Europe by the Turkish, Palestinians and Lebanese in the Middle East by the Israelis( I only mention Lebanon because it's been war torn since the 80's and everyone in the region has had it's eyes on it) Post by: Baner on November 19, 2004, 10:52:00 AM
Try: Lebanese in the Middle East by the Israelis and Palestinians, I lived thru that war. (20 minutes(driving) away from Beruit, 5 minutes(walking) from the beach that would get bombed nightly)
Post by: pepsik on November 19, 2004, 11:24:00 AM
That had to suck, I know an armenian guy who's family escaped to Lebanon during the Turkish genocide, and they don't ever want to go back to Lebanon. Post by: Baner on November 19, 2004, 11:48:00 AM
Post by: nolem on November 19, 2004, 12:25:00 PM Of course no one will come put and say it. Post by: Baner on November 19, 2004, 12:32:00 PM
Does that count? Post by: damam on November 19, 2004, 01:13:00 PM
I can understand their frustration as well, especially the generations born since 1967. They now know what it was like for the Jews for the last 2000 yrs. Nobody wants them, and they have no place to go. But that doesnt mean I believe they have a legitimet claim to the land. What this really boils down to in the end is racism (im not saying your a racist - im only implying you dont know the arab mentality when it comes to Jewish or any other religious influence for that matter ruling). You want to go further back than 1948? Try 1917 when the Arabs tried to wipe out the Jews in the surrounding areas, 850,000 jews fled the arab countries because of it. Or even better, when the League of nations told 600,000 (540,000 actually left) arabs to leave Israel so that invading armies could wipe out the Jews that lived there so that they could "move into Jewish houses when they returned." This was yet another unsuccessful attempt to get rid of the Jews in the area (primariyl because abt 800,000 of the fleeing jews mentioned above moved to Israel). They tried this exact same tactic 1948. Told the arabs to leave so that the Jews could be exterminated - and it didnt work out. The interesting thing is that their were a lot of arabs that stayed and fought side by side with the Jews, and they are the current Israeli-arab population that represents about 22% of the total population. To say was the state of Israel a good idea is almost a non issue. Quite frankly - the rest of the world had very little to do with the creation of Israel and it probably would have happened regardless of whether or not the UN drew up the lines. The British set it up for failure, thinking that the other arab states, with their help, would simply crush it and things would go back the way they were. They never thought that the Israelis would win. The Israelites wanted it, fought for it, and got it despite what world oppinion wanted and over whelming odds against them. That alone, gives them legitamacy over the land especially since they are so willing to embrace the non-jews that lived and fought beside them. My view is this, that unless your a canaanite, you dont have more of a legitimate tie to that land than the Jews. While the palestenians like to claim they are descendants of the Canaanites, they are not. The arabs also like to say that the Jews abondaned their homeland, but that simply is not true either. This is two ways that Arabs could take the legitamacy away from the Israelis and they fail on boths. The third of course would be to take them out through war, which they have also failed at numerous times.
You seem to continue saying "it was 2000 years ago" and what not. Well, how long does it take for a people to no longer have a legitimet tie with that reasoning? What is it 5 yrs? 100 yrs? 500 yrs? 1000 yrs? Obviously you think its atleast 2000 yrs. When someone has taken something from you that is extremely valuable, it doesnt matter how long ago it was so long as it has remained valuable in their hearts. And it clearly has remained important to them over the years. Maybe 2000yrs from now the Indians will re-take over America. But for right now, its the Israelis that have re-taken their land. You also say that Jews dont get treated that badly around the world. I just dont know how you can say that. Sure it has gotten better, but it is far from equael. I dont know what its like in sweden, but in the US their are more "Hate Crimes" commited against Jews than any other minority in the US. Even in the 12 months after 911 happened while everyone was expecting to see an arab hate crime spike (and dont get me wrong here, there was one), the Jews were still more persecuted. The tides of anti-semetism keep rolling in all over the world year after year.
To say that suicide bombers are just acting as individuals because they were individuals before they joined hamas is obsurd. Once you join an organization and take an order to do something on behalf of that organization, and then you do it, you are no longer simply an individual working alone. I do think it is sad when it happens for both sides though.
They do it all the time, they put there women and children in front of them as shields and then shoot bullets, lob rocks and molotov cocktails at the Israeli soldiers.
If you dont want the israelis to take your land, dont attack them. Its as simple as that. Look at current lebanan border and compare it to the one in 1949 for the best example of how it works. And no, it would not help to role back the borders. That would still leave israel with land. Even if you take the approach that this is about Jeruselem, it still wouldnt help cause that would leave Israel with half of Jeruselem. The UN says the land was taken illegally cause the Israel did a pre-emptive strike, but no one argues with the fact that the surrounding nations were going to attack within days. And while Israel may be there for the Jews, they dont deny people of any nationality that want to come. They do have a 22% arab population that are considered full citizens. So it is very hard to argue that Israel is only for the Jews. The muslims wont be happy till Israel has total Muslim government in place.
My original post said that if Yasser was serious about peace and a two state solution he would have marginalized the Hamas. I still believe this to be true. Hamas has an enormous influence over the palestenians because they run free medical clinics, have food bank, and provide free education. They also recruit youngsters to blow themselves up. Yasser had the opportunity to start his own programs under the Palestenian league and show the Palestenians that their are other options. Instead, he allowed Hamas to attain and some cases granted them more power even after he said he wanted a two state solution. Anyone with a brain can see that that is counter productive to peace, and that he clearly had no intentions for peace or a two state solution. Post by: EverythingButAnAnswer on November 19, 2004, 02:40:00 PM  Hey gronne, it's socialism at its finest. 
Post by: EmperorPsiblade on November 19, 2004, 03:03:00 PM They actually made something of themselves... and they have the might to crush the Palestinians if they really wanted to... They won the land, they get to keep it... simple really... |