Lets talk about the Palestinians and the Israelis

[Dark Helmet]

Read a good column today (it's short):

http://www.detnews.com/2003/editorial/0308/24/a11-252023.htm

[Sharky]

Damn right. Enough is enough. Time to take the leash off Sharon and let him end this once and for all. Interesting that they (Abbas) called him a criminal for the missile attacks on the terrorist leadership, yet he never mentioned the bus bombing or expressed any regret that it happened. I wonder why the Palestinians "Arab Brothers" dont offer them a piece of their desert to live in.:rolleyes:

[Dark Helmet]

"You can't negotiate with that level of ignorance, hatred and religious insanity."

My favorite line.

[MarcWarren]

Allow me to bring another thought here as an Arab-American myself.
Althought I despise and condemn these terrorist attacks(homicide/terrorist, choose your poison) along with many arabs living here in America, you have to be forced to deal with the whole picture here. Altough Israel has embarked on the peace treaty, you have to understand that the Palestinian Authority is subject to political backstabbing like it happens in every government in the world. It is only brought to the forefront, because of the continued media interest in the question. Bush is mainly interested in leaving a "legacy" after him as the president that resolved the Middle East issue, just like Clinton attempted before him. If he was truly driven to end this, there are more qualified assistants than the assclown bigots he is surrounding himself with(Read Daniel Pipes et al), that could bring a better plan to the table. He could also flex the American muscle more effectively, when dealing with both of these countries. Enough politicalese and worrying about the polls! This Prez lives by the polls, just like all the others before him.

Believe me, if you were to read the Aljazeera website and some other arab newspapers, you would think there are two different wars in Iraq, two separate Middle East conflicts.....etc. You can't try to conciliate two warring parties when they are speaking such dissimilar language. I am pained, everytime that I see another bus bombing, because I know that these people are not helping their cause and they are sullying the religion that they claim for these acts.

Sharky: re:Sharon, please read about Sabra and Shatila. You would understand what many palestinians have against him, and why many don't support peace talks as long as he is Prime Minister.

P.S: sorry to be so long-winded. With all due respect...

[Hoepoe]

Good Morning

Firstly, i thank you for answering in a mature manner. I am an ex-IDF fighter still living in Israel.

It is true that the Sabra and Shatilla massacres were exactly that, massacres, but you failed to mention that not one Israeli soldier were in these refugee camps, it was Lebanese militia who performed the massacres. Sharon and his troops were in the area i believe but they did not kill anyone during these massacres.

arafat (yes i did not capitilize his name purposefully) is no angel himself and has much blood on his hands, both Israli, American and Arab, so remember when pointing a finger at someone, there are four fingers pointing back at you. Mr Abbas is also no angel, but i believe he is willing and sincerely wants peace for his people.

Arik Sharon is a great warrior and a good leader, he has seen the ugly face of war and is not after his own legacy and i truly belive these are the reasons that the sooner the terror attacks end, the sooner the Palestinians will indeed have a state. Israel will gladly allow the Palestinians to have a state once they prove that they, as the Palestinian government is actively combating the militant groups. Until then, we will have to do this for them,...

It is indeed true what you say that if one reads Pro-Arab as opposed to Pro-West news media, several different views, angles and facts will be displayed. The Arab nation is renowned for it's skill in propoganda however, i think to get a full understanding one should read media reports from both sides of the playing field.

I hope one day there will be peace, i believe there can be, but i also believe the ball's in the Pals court.

I welcome you to come visit Israel objectively and you will see we are not blood drinking monsters. You will see we love our children too and we laugh and cry as well. We DO NOT focus our live son the killing of anyone, we just want to be left alone.

There was a news feature last Friday night on Israel Channel 2 news:

It feature Israeli and Paletsinian children at a summer camp held in Italy. All the kids had someone close to them killed by this violence, be terror or the IDF. This ironically bonded the kids and now a handful of kids realize that the killing must stop.

After this we saw an interview with the leader of the Al Aqsa Bridgades in Jenin where he was holding his week old baby, saying howe his life is dedicated to killing Israelis. As Golda Meir said so long ago "There will be peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us" This proves itself over and over again.

Sincerely

Hoepoe

[TigerHooter]

The "Detroit News" must be 'right-leaning'. I agree with Finley's article, it's just surprising to see it in a periodical that has wide dissemination. This kind of belief is not 'popular' and therefore, not espoused by main stream media.

I am old enough to remember the days of airline highjackings here in the US. The hardline, "We do not negotiate with terrorists", came from the Isreali stance. Over the years, however, we have eroded that stance, giving credence to the belief that such tactics (terrorism) can achieve the desired outcome of the terrorists.

It is an utter shame that the Palestinians cannot reign their own in. It is also a shame that we, the US administrations over the years, have bridled the Isrealis. If WE had not intervened to spare the Palestinians, Isreal would probably have rectified the situation that we now face with wide-spread terrorism. IF we, all civilized nations, had held hard to that phylosophy, we would not be in the state the world is now in.

IF!

What then?

'Palestinians' say, "I do not agree with the use of violence to achieve our ends." Iraquis do the same. But, their's are very closed societies. Before Ackmed's nephew even goes to 'martyr' school, the whole communmity knows, much less when he makes his filmed 'will'. If they are not willing to stand up and combat this insanity, then they are an active part of it. If they are willing to accept the adulation of their neighbors for the dispicable actions of their kindred, they should suffer the consequences. Their neighbors as well! They know. If they truly value life, livelyhood, and a future for their people, they should themselves be taking an active part in the eradication of such practices.
Self-determination begins with 'self'. But, the mind set of those in many impoverished places is 'the government is responsible'. They have no energy to improve their own individual well-being, much less opportunity and economic position. They do not care who governs, as long as they have the basic neccesities. If we ever turn the ME into a region amenable to the west, they will become an oil-rich, welfare state as a whole.

Solution?

I think the same phylosophy that Isreal took against the 'homes' of the so-called martyrs is the only answer. But, taken two steps further.

Ackmed blows himself and umpteen civillians up, the civillized nations destroy his immediate family, their home, imprison the closest relatives and neighbors for three houses around his family home (for 10-20 yrs) and post bounties on all that may have known of his plans. No quarter, period. If they lived that close, in those societies, they knew. They are guilty.

We, the US, the western world, and legitimate governments in the world have the capability to do this. Until WE adopt (resume) the hard-line, terrorists will continue to kill. Only when WE make the PEOPLE kill the terrorists, their own, will the world be free of terrosism. CONTRAY TO POPULAR BELIEF, THE PEOPLE THAT PEOPLE THIRD-WORLD COUNTRIES ARE IGNORANT, APATHETIC, AND LAZY. Fear is the only thing that motivates them and responsibility and opportunity are foreign to them. You can wave dollars/rubles/francs in their face, and all they think is how they can steal it from you or cheat you out of it. You can give them a legitimate means of earning their pay, but all they know is it's here now, it will go away, so how do I get what I can while it is here.

Hell, sounds like Californians, too.

--Self Edited--
Sorry,
I'm raging, I'm not really this hardened.
Except, califagians do SUCK!

[MarcWarren]

Hoepoe: I appreciate your point of view. I was in no way trying to disseminate misinformation. My reference to Sabra and Shatila was just that: a reference. Many arabs hold it against Sharon, whether he did it or not. I hold no point in the matter, since the blame game can be played ad nauseam.
If the israelis did something, then the arabs did just as bad. Both are guilty in this affair, and it is in no way helped by the media that marginalizes the main points and provides only biased information.
Truly, I know that there are good israelis out there, just as there are arabs. Last december, I was on the plane going to JFK, and sat next to a jewish couple. I ordered the jewish meal, since the regular fare was pork that day, and the guy thought that I was jewish. I replied that I was a muslim. Automatically he shut up, and went back to reading his newspaper. I was gonna do the same, but thought that I would try to engage in a conversation with him. And believe me, over the next three hours, it was an enlightening conversation for us three. I saw that they have the same joys, incertitudes, problems, troubles and hapiness that we have. They share the same worries about their children growing up knowing their faith, marrying a good person, getting into a good school...nothing different. And I told him that, and he concurred. It reminded me of the racism in the South against black people, how you can discount a person's contribution to life based on their skin color. Now we are experiencing worse, based on religion and culture. Believe me, I have no animosity towards regular jews or israelis or palestinians. I only hold it against those who brainwash others into commiting these massacres on both sides.
I long for the day where my children would not have to be faced with such bleak hatred.
Perhaps, we should rekindle with Dr King's speech. They have a special with Jennings on Wed " I have a dream"

[Hoepoe]

Wise words QuietPatriot and a pleasure to meet you.

Hoepoe

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by QuietPatriot
Bush is mainly interested in leaving a "legacy" after him as the president that resolved the Middle East issue, just like Clinton attempted before him. If he was truly driven to end this, there are more qualified assistants than the assclown bigots he is surrounding himself with(Read Daniel Pipes et al), that could bring a better plan to the table.

I beg to differ, Bush's interest is not in leaving a legacy, it is in preserving and protecting the security of this nation. There is a big difference between Bush and Clinton in regards to their foreign policies, Bush is a leader and Clinton nothing more than an opportunist.

As for Daniel Pipes, I think he is exactly the right man for the job. He is one of the few who openly states the obvious, that militant islamic fundamentalism must be eradicated.

While you may be an Arab-American, it doesn't sound to me like you have spent much time over in the middle east. The vast, vast majority of Arabs don't give a rat's ass about the Palestinians, despite their rhetoric. This mess could be solved in an instant if the arab countries would simply absorb their Palestinain "brothers" but if you ever suggest that to an Arab, they look at you like you have two heads.

I would draw the same analogy towards the limousine liberals in this country who shoot their mouths off about the light of the inner-city minorities living in poverty. They are all "concerned" about them but there is not a chance in hell that any of them want some inner-city black kids living in their neighborhoods.

The Palestinian issue is a red herring to the rest of the arab world, particularly insofar as it impacts the radical militants that we are currently battling in Iraq and Afghanistan. If it wasn't Palestine, it would be another cause for them. They are not fighting for the liberation of Palestine, they are fighting for the complete destruction fo our way of life. And therefore they must be treated like the cancer they are and wiped off the face of this planet to the last man.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Hoepoe
It is true that the Sabra and Shatilla massacres were exactly that, massacres, but you failed to mention that not one Israeli soldier were in these refugee camps, it was Lebanese militia who performed the massacres. Sharon and his troops were in the area i believe but they did not kill anyone during these massacres.

The Israelis are hardly blameless in this conflict.

Standing around with your hands in your pockets, doing the Sgt. Schultz "I see nothing" routine while hundreds of innocent civilians are being slaughtered is hardly the act of a guiltless party. You are the same people who shelled a Red Cross camp, killing dozens of innocents after claiming that mortar fire was coming from those areas. Don't even get me started on the USS Liberty.


Originally posted by Hoepoe
Israel will gladly allow the Palestinians to have a state once they prove that they, as the Palestinian government is actively combating the militant groups.

I have a hard time buying this line until I see settlements being dismantled. There are hardliners on the Israeli side as well who have no interest in peace.


Originally posted by Hoepoe
The Arab nation is renowned for it's skill in propoganda however, i think to get a full understanding one should read media reports from both sides of the playing field.

You will gain absolutely nothing from reading Arab reports, nothing. It is complete and utter propoganda (a point which you, yourself, make) and completely worthless. The arab media is a tool for manipulating the arab population and nothing more. There is little, if anything, factual in their reporting and it is intended to incite and inflame attitudes, nothing more.



Originally posted by Hoepoe
I welcome you to come visit Israel objectively and you will see we are not blood drinking monsters. You will see we love our children too and we laugh and cry as well. We DO NOT focus our live son the killing of anyone, we just want to be left alone.

That is true of 90% of people on both sides of this (and most any other) conflict. It is the 10% of militants on both sides that is the problem. And, as I said previously, the Israelis are not blameless in this regard either.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
[B]This mess could be solved in an instant if the arab countries would simply absorb their Palestinain "brothers" but if you ever suggest that to an Arab, they look at you like you have two heads.


Why is your solution that the Palestinians should be uprooted and moved to some other country? Is an Egyptian an Iraqi simply because they are both brown and worship Allah? For that matter are you French (I'm assuming you're white)? Or Swedish? If you're black, do you identify with a Liberian? Does a Liberian identify with a Hutu?

The Palestinians were there first. The Israeli's bought 7% of the land from Palestinian landowners. The UN then gave them another 48% of the land that belonged to the Palestinians. It's their land. It's their land. It's their land. The "solution" of uprooting them and moving them to some other country, some other place, well Hitler tried that with the Jews, right? The Romans did it with the Jews as well with the Diaspora.

I thought we didn't like actions like that. -shrug-

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
I beg to differ...

beat me to it

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Kid A
Why is your solution that the Palestinians should be uprooted and moved to some other country? Is an Egyptian an Iraqi simply because they are both brown and worship Allah? For that matter are you French (I'm assuming you're white)? Or Swedish? If you're black, do you identify with a Liberian? Does a Liberian identify with a Hutu?

You sure a fan of false anologies. You don't understand much about other cultures. And you mirror image a lot. You should read Crisis in Islam .

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Jimbo
You sure a fan of false anologies. You don't understand much about other cultures. And you mirror image a lot. You should read Crisis in Islam .

What am I failing to understand? The premise of the argument I'm debating is that Palestinians should be happy living in Egypt, or Jordan, or Syria, or Iraq, or any other "Arab" country simply because they're Arabs.

That's exactly the same as if the government of the US said to those living in Montana: "Hey, Montana is a wilderness and should be preserved eternally as a national park. We're moving all of you to California."

I realize there is a crisis in Islam and I realize that terrorists and fundamentalists have hijacked Islam. That still doesn't mean that you simply uproot a people who have lived in an area for thousands of years simply because some other "culture" also wants to live there and also has ties going back thousands of years.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Kid A
That's exactly the same as if the government of the US said to those living in Montana: "Hey, Montana is a wilderness and should be preserved eternally as a national park. We're moving all of you to California."

No, its not.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Jimbo
No, its not.

How is it not then? Are you saying the Palestinians, because they are Arabs, do not have a culture distinct and different from another Arab?

Does the Montana cattle rancher not have a culture distinct and different from the Berkley Professor?

I grew up in the Mountains of North Georgia. Yes, I am an American, but my "culture" is distinctly different from the Watermen of the Chesapeake Bay.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Kid A
How is it not then? Are you saying the Palestinians, because they are Arabs, do not have a culture distinct and different from another Arab?

Does the Montana cattle rancher not have a culture distinct and different from the Berkley Professor?

I grew up in the Mountains of North Georgia. Yes, I am an American, but my "culture" is distinctly different from the Watermen of the Chesapeake Bay.

What makes you think that Arabs and Palestinians identify themselves in the same manner you do? Have you demanded you college tuition back?

By saying that Palestinians have lived in Palestine for thousands of years, whether you know it or not, you are taking away their free will. You are assuming that everyone in Palestine has been there forever. You are imposing your view of the world on others, a critical mistake in understanding a problem. You are from North Georgia, but you don't live there now. That move occured in your life time. Now take that out over several thousand years. That is your first failing.

Now, lets discuss Islam, which I am admittedly no expert on, but it seems any education on this matter would be of benefit to you.

Most Palestinians are Muslims and they identify themselves as such. Identifying onself as a Muslim over any national identity is a common characteristic of Muslims and has often been at the root of a nationalistic movements in the region. Therefore you have a Muslim nation subdivided into nations (subdivided by external, non-Muslims, by the way) with the nations being of less import. It is in this context that re-settlement is not as caustic an idea as you imagine it is. Read up on the history of the region and you will find that most of the nations we discuss, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq did not exist, especially in the Muslim mind, until very recently Muslims also know very well and are keenly aware of their history. 'Palestine' as we identify it today did not exist for much of history. 'Palestine' is less of an issue than the holy sites and cities.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Most Palestinians are Muslims and they identify themselves as such. Identifying onself as a Muslim over any national identity is a common characteristic of Muslims and has often been at the root of a nationalistic movements in the region. Therefore you have a Muslim nation subdivided into nations (subdivided by external, non-Muslims, by the way). Muslims also know very well and are keenly aware of their history. 'Palestine' as we identify it today did not exist for much of history. 'Palestine' is less of an issue than the holy sites and cities.

The 1.6 million Muslims (Muslims, not Nation of Islam wackos) in the United States identify with the Muslims in Egypt more than they identify with the U.S.? Maybe we should just move them into the new "Muslim Nation" situated somewhere on the globe?

Christians characterize themselves as Christians, but also as French, Americans, Canadians, etc. You're saying it is different for Muslims?

And what of the Indonesians? They're Muslim.

"The most populous Muslim countries are Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. The number of Muslims in Indonesia alone (175 million) exceeds the combined total in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran, the traditional heartlands of Islam."

Would a Palestinian identify with an Indonesian?

"Palestine" as we identify it today did not exist as we identify it today. Of course. But neither did "Israel" or "Greece" or "Italy" or "Russia" or...well, you get the picture.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Kid A
Christians characterize themselves as Christians, but also as French, Americans, Canadians, etc. You're saying it is different for Muslims?

Yes. Are you a biggot? Is it so inconcievable that other people have different belief systems and identity mechanisms than you?

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Yes. Are you a biggot? Is it so inconcievable that other people have different belief systems and identity mechanisms than you?

Bigotry has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I know people have different belief systems. You're the one who is saying, essentially "An arab is an arab is an arab" (Despite the fact that that is completely wrong) as well as "A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim" (Again, completely wrong.)

I'm the one saying that they each have different cultures and cultural identities.

Since I'm obviously ignorant, please show me where you've learned that all Muslims, from any country, identify with all other Muslims, again from any country, and their cultures don't matter.

I mean you'd think that all the "Muslim" countries in the Mid-East would simply combine into one enormous country if this were so.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Kid A
"Palestine" as we identify it today did not exist as we identify it today. Of course. But neither did "Israel" or "Greece" or "Italy" or "Russia" or...well, you get the picture.

You are so right. I was wrong. Ignore my whole argument.

Muslims are different. Try hard to understand that.

[Jimbo]

Listen, kid, I'd love to continue this all day and point out that people can be different from you and me yet still identify with other people and that religion can be a very bonding link between different ethnic and grographic areas, but I'm trying to get some work done, so, I may get back to this later in the day, but if you, too, could get to work and stop wasting my tax dollars, I'd appreciate it.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Listen, kid, I'd love to continue this all day and point out that people can be different from you and me yet still identify with other people and that religion can be a very bonding link between different ethnic and grographic areas, but I'm trying to get some work done, so, I may get back to this later in the day, but if you, too, could get to work and stop wasting my tax dollars, I'd appreciate it.

I'm not denying that religion is a bonding link. You're denying that these "Muslims" have any other bonding link other than RELIGION.

And again, what of the 1.6 million American citizens who are Muslim?

And I'm caught up on my work currently.

[Gulf Yankee]

Kid A:

The more you post, the worse my opinion becomes of D.C. staffers, with you first and foremost.

For someone who spent time in the Gulf, you sure as hell don't know a fucking thing about arabs or arabic culture.

First: there is NO historical support for the land belonging to the Palestinians, NONE. National distinctions in the middle east are the sole result of map-drawing by the British. Arabs don't see themselves as Saudi or Syrian or jordanian or Kuwaiti, they define themselves by tribal and family connections, national considerations are completely secondary.

Second: These are a bedouin, nomadic people, so yes uprooting them and moving them works, since they themselves have been doing it for milleniums.

Third, there is a historical document called the Old Testament which shows that jews have called a section of the middle east their homeland for far longer than there has been any record of a people calling themselves Palestinian.

Fourth: What the fuck solutions do you have to offer?

Fucking democratic bureauracratic staffer: long on criticism and short on ideas.

I think you post here simply to start arguments. You want to debate all fucking day long whereas some of us would rather solve the fucking problem.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
You're the one who is saying, essentially "An arab is an arab is an arab" (Despite the fact that that is completely wrong)

I mean you'd think that all the "Muslim" countries in the Mid-East would simply combine into one enormous country if this were so.

An arab IS an arab IS an arab. If you knew anything about the people and the region, you would understand that.

And there is a tremendous amount of discussion among arabs about a unified arabian nation, that discussion has been going on for hundreds of years. The tribe that would lead such a nation is the issue and the cause of much of the hostility between arab nations (and tribes). Every despot in the middle east thinks he is the one who should lead all arabs (remember a guy named Saddam Hussein?)

Muslims obviously differ across a number of boundaries, yet all muslims consider themselves to be of one group (more or less) as followers of Mohammed. Yet even within this group there is a huge amount of hostility. The bottom line is an arab will kill another arab just as easily as he will kill an infidel and as history has shown, muslims have no problem with slaughtering each other.

You of the liberal, left-wing, PC, cultural-equivalnce, multi-culturalism bent want to believe that all societies and cultures on the plaent are equal. Wll guess what? They are not.

There are superior cultures and inferior cultures. There are tribes in Africa, Asia and South America which have not progressed in a thousand years (and, yes, that includes arabs) and they are the source of much of the bloodshed in this world. So what do you propose? Send a couple of peace corps volunteers? How about some folk groups to sing them songs?

There are groups on this earth that are nothing more than cancers, and that includes radical militant islamic fundamentalists. You cannot deal with them, you cannot negotiate with them, you can not satisfy their demands. They want nothing more than your complete destruction and to end our way of life in favor of returning the world to some Taliban-like medieval islamic state.

We have no choice but to wipe them off the face of the earth, plain and fucking simple. Your type is doing nothing more than making that job, and ensuring the security of this nation, that much harder.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
The Palestinians were there first...It's their land. It's their land. It's their land.

Who owns Britain?

After all the Romans were there before the Normans and the Celts before them and, I think, the Picts before them?

Does Spain belong to the Spanish or the Moors or the Franks or the Huns or the Romans? Does Istanbul belong to Turkey or to Greece?

And what about the fucking aborigines?

At what point in time, does ownership become transferred and how long do you have to occupy a land before it officially becomes your own?

This whole fucking argument is ridiculous.

[Kid A]

The Israelites do not OWN the areas currently known as "Palestine" The Israelites have the area that they govern and are "theirs." They were given this land by the United Nations in 1947.

The bottom line is an arab will kill another arab just as easily as he will kill an infidel and as history has shown, muslims have no problem with slaughtering each other.

History has shown that Americans will kill Americans, that whites will kill whites, blacks will kill blacks, browns will kill browns, and yellows will kill yellows. I'm not following your point. Better to sum it up as "Humans will kill Humans despite any subtle differences."

As far as how long the "Palestinians" have been in "Palestine" Let's look at the Philistines, who were in the area before the Jews.

It was my understanding that after the Jews came to the area and lived, for hundreds of years, they lived there with the Philistines.

Long time later the Romans destroyed Judea and we had the "Diaspora." The Romans renamed the area "Palestine" in honor of the "Philistines."

The bible itself recognizes that the "Philistines" were in the area much longer than the Jews.

And maybe you aren't reading all of my posts.

I've repeatedly given my theory on how to solve the problem. I'm tired of repeating it.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
I've repeatedly given my theory on how to solve the problem. I'm tired of repeating it.

Sounds like the typical politician.

Give an initial vague and evasive answer and then respond to any queries for clarification by stating "I've already answered that question, please refer to my previous answer".

Clinton would be proud of you, son.

[KJ]

Originally posted by Kid A
And what of the Indonesians? They're Muslim.

"The most populous Muslim countries are Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. The number of Muslims in Indonesia alone (175 million) exceeds the combined total in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran, the traditional heartlands of Islam."

Would a Palestinian identify with an Indonesian?

Originally posted by Kid A
Since I'm obviously ignorant, please show me where you've learned that all Muslims, from any country, identify with all other Muslims, again from any country, and their cultures don't matter.


Whereas I cannot tell you if a Palestinian identifies with an Indonesian, I can tell you with reasonable certainty that a Muslim Indonesian does indeed identify with a Palestinian.

Ever heard of the Bali club bombing? Where did you think Bali was located? Perhaps you have heard of Imam Samudra and the Jemaah Islamiyah? Samudra has admitted ordering the Bali attack, which killed more than 190 people, as part of a holy war "to avenge injustice against Muslims."

A quote from the AP Star online:
"Authorities have arrested more than 30 suspects in the case. Police say they worked for the al-Qaida-linked Jemaah Islamiyah terror group, which is alleged to be seeking an Islamic state across Southeast Asia.

The suspects have said they carried out the attack to avenge the treatment of Muslims in Afghanistan and in the Palestinian territories by the United States and its allies."

You asked the question of culture over country:

Nana Rukmana and Apriadi Gunawan, The Jakarta Post, Cirebon/Medan

A number of districts in West Java, believed to be home to extremists advocating sharia (Islamic law), are now under tight surveillance to prevent the possibility of further terrorist attacks, says provincial police chief Insp. Gen. Dadang S. Garnida.

"The regions in West Java that we are monitoring are those where Muslims are overly fanatic. We are conducting surveillance in those areas,"

And lastly, I leave you with another famous ex-Indonesian recreation spot: East Timor

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
As far as how long the "Palestinians" have been in "Palestine" Let's look at the Philistines, who were in the area before the Jews.

The bible itself recognizes that the "Philistines" were in the area much longer than the Jews.

The people you refer to as Palestinians are no more descendants of the biblical Phillistines than the people who currently inhabit Egypt are descended from the Ancient Egyptians. At least half the people we consider to be Greek are of slavic descent and not related to the Greeks of classical times. Do you think the inhabitants of the republic of Macedona are the descendants of Alexander the Great?

Some quality time with a history book instead of your Democratic Party propoganda papers and NPR broadcasts might do you some good.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Sounds like the typical politician.

Give an initial vague and evasive answer and then respond to any queries for clarification by stating "I've already answered that question, please refer to my previous answer".

Clinton would be proud of you, son.

Oh please, I'm hardly a "politician."

Again:

Israel disbands the settlements. This includes all of them, not just the sparsly populated ones.

Israel relinquishes all control of Palestinian areas. No incursions.

The Palestinians, at the same time, round up all terrorist leaders and turns them over to a world court (turning them over to Israel would incense all Arabs, turning them over to Arabs would likely result in their "getting lost")

At this point "Palestine's" borders become sovereign. Any incursion into that area will be viewed as an act of war. Palestinians elect a leader, a parliment, a fucking king. Who cares? Elect someone responsible.

The Responsible person's government draws up a constitution. They petition for official recognition as a country.

Israel has no ties to Palestine. Any water rights within "Palestine" belong to "Palestinians." Any settlers remaining in "Palestine" become "Palestinians."

At this point we have two separate but equal countries living side by side.

Any violence on the part of one against the other constitutes an act of war.

If the Palestinians fuck it up then, then Israel can deal with them however they see fit. Going into Palestine without UN Authority, however, could likely spark a multi-country Mid-East war. At this point it becomes politics.

[KJ]

Looking at your solution, I have to repeat the immortal words of Forrest Gump: "Stupid is, as stupid does." You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, the people you are talking about, or the issues you are talking about.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
The people you refer to as Palestinians are no more descendants of the biblical Phillistines than the people who currently inhabit Egypt are descended from the Ancient Egyptians.

Really?

http://www.aldeilis.net/jus/politics/ilfolder/claimsbefore1917.pdf

"The Palestinians are the descendants of the Canaanites and the Philistines. The Canaanites are the earliest known inhabitants of Palestine and are thought to have settled there after 3000 BC. They lived in cities and possessed an economy based upon agriculture and commerce. Each city was ruled by a priest-king. The Canaanites gave to the country its early biblical name of 'the land of Canaan' (Numbers, 34:2; 35:10) and 'the country of the Canaanites' (Exodus, 3:17). Among their cities was Jerusalem which may have come into existence some 18 centuries BC.
The Philistines and the Israelites came to the land of Canaan almost contemporaneously with each other in the latter part of the second millennium BC. The Philistines came to the land of Canaan about 1175 BC, probably from Illyria. (It should here be remembered that this date, like other dates of biblical events, are approximate.) They occupied its southern part and eastern coast and remained for several centuries in control of the territory which became known as Philistia. It was the Philistines who gave to Palestine its modem name. According to the biblical account, the Israelites wandered in the desert after their exodus from Egypt, reaching the eastern part of the land of Canaan about 1200 BC. During the following two centuries they slowly infiltrated into the country and settled in it as the twelve tribes of Israel. They were ruled by the Patriarchs."

"Palestine was inhabited many centuries before the arrival of the Israelite tribes from Egypt. When they invaded the land of Canaan in the 12th century BC. the population of the country includedapart from the Canaanites, the Hittites, Ammonites, Edmites, Moabites and Philistines. The name Palestine stems from the Philistines who lived along the southern Mediterranean coast in the 12th century B.C. The Palestinians people of today are the descendant's of the Philistines, Canaanites continued to inhabit their land." http://www.prc.org.uk/palestine%2048/people.html


So, then, where did the "Palestinians" come from and how did they get there? I'm assuming since they are not descendants from the "Philistines" that everyone left the area for a generation or two, it was empty, and then new people moved in from somewhere else and inhabited the land.


Please show me your history book that states that the "Palestinians" are not descended from the Philistines and Caananites. I can't find anything that says they aren't.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by KJ
Looking at your solution, I have to repeat the immortal words of Forrest Gump: "Stupid is, as stupid does."

I suppose you have a better one then, right?

[KJ]

Originally posted by Kid A
I suppose you have a better one then, right?

Perhaps I would start that answer by asking Colin Powell.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by KJ
Perhaps I would start that answer by asking Colin Powell.

""[N]othing is more important than cracking down on those who would use terror to kill innocent people in some hope that this will improve the lives of the Palestinian people or make it possible to move toward that Palestinian state that we are working for. It will not," Powell said. "

I'm pretty sure I covered that.

Powell: "And, frankly, we have asked both sides to start doing things right away. And Prime Minister Sharon said he would start doing things. The outposts, we expect some of them to be dismantled in the very, very near future. And he'll be taking other steps. They said they would be taking more of the steps of the kind that Prime Minister Sharon presented to me a couple of weeks ago. And Minister Dahlan knows that we are expecting him to take some steps right away -- not months from now, right away. "

I'm pretty sure I covered that.

SECRETARY POWELL: A contiguous state has to be a state that both sides accept and that is viable. It can have an economy, people can move back and forth freely. And both people feel they have achieved their objective. They have a state that they can call their own, living in peace with another state."

I covered this as well.


So what is it you'd ask Colin Powell?

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Israel disbands the settlements. This includes all of them, not just the sparsly populated ones.

Israel relinquishes all control of Palestinian areas. No incursions.

The Palestinians, at the same time, round up all terrorist leaders and turns them over to a world court (turning them over to Israel would incense all Arabs, turning them over to Arabs would likely result in their "getting lost")

At this point "Palestine's" borders become sovereign. Any incursion into that area will be viewed as an act of war. Palestinians elect a leader, a parliment, a fucking king. Who cares? Elect someone responsible.

The Responsible person's government draws up a constitution. They petition for official recognition as a country.

Israel has no ties to Palestine. Any water rights within "Palestine" belong to "Palestinians." Any settlers remaining in "Palestine" become "Palestinians."

At this point we have two separate but equal countries living side by side.

Any violence on the part of one against the other constitutes an act of war.

If the Palestinians fuck it up then, then Israel can deal with them however they see fit. Going into Palestine without UN Authority, however, could likely spark a multi-country Mid-East war. At this point it becomes politics.

This is the most ridiculous, naive, sophomoric thing I think I have ever read on the subject. What was this, a proposal drawn up by the sixth graders at Calvin Cooledge Middle School at East Bumfuck, VA? Or maybe this came out of an MTV discussion group?

What about the right to return, the singularly most central and non-negotiable issue among virtually every Palestinian peace proposal?

And what about all those terrorist groups who have refused to recognize Israel's right to exist and who have sworn not to stop until Israel is destroyed?

Oh gee, all we have to do is get the Palestinain Authority to round up all the terrorist leaders and turn them over to the World Court for prosecution. Why didn't I think of that?!? Let's get on it right away :rolleyes:

Any violence on the part of one against the other constitutes an act of war?!? Oh, thanks, that certainly clarifies the issue. I wasn't sure what the current conflict was.

If this is your solution, then it is no wonder the democrats in Washington have their heads so far up their ass. What pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

Here's my middle east peace solution: Kill terrorists.

[Jimbo]

Glad to see this discussion is going so well.

Seriously, kid, get your money back from college and send a check to Gulf Yankee University, School of Distance Learning.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
[B]This is the most ridiculous, naive, sophomoric thing I think I have ever read on the subject. What was this, a proposal drawn up by the sixth graders at Calvin Cooledge Middle School at East Bumfuck, VA? Or maybe this came out of an MTV discussion group?

That's funny, it follows along Bush's ME Peace Plan almost to the letter.

"Right of Return?" Of course they get the "right of return" It's now Palestine. They have immigration laws just like any other country does.


At the end you say "kill terrorists" but at the beginning you say:

And what about all those terrorist groups who have refused to recognize Israel's right to exist and who have sworn not to stop until Israel is destroyed? and also Oh gee, all we have to do is get the Palestinain Authority to round up all the terrorist leaders and turn them over to the World Court for prosecution. Why didn't I think of that?!? Let's get on it right away :rolleyes:

How are you planning on "killing terrorists" then? Identifying them? Routing them out?


Here's my middle east peace solution: Kill terrorists.

Yeah, which ones? Just the ones that Israel identifies as terrorists, or the ones the Palestinians identify as terrorists - which would be the Israelis.

I argue just to argue? Hi Pot, meet Kettle.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
So, then, where did the "Palestinians" come from and how did they get there? I'm assuming since they are not descendants from the "Philistines" that everyone left the area for a generation or two, it was empty, and then new people moved in from somewhere else and inhabited the land.

Nomadic bedouin tribes from the east. The Philistines you speak of have long since been bred out of existence by assimilation with other groups. Same as the ancient Eqyptians, Babylonians, Persians, and countless other ancient peoples.

You met any aztecs lately?



Originally posted by Kid A
Please show me your history book that states that the "Palestinians" are not descended from the Philistines and Caananites. I can't find anything that says they aren't.

Certainly not if you are relying on sources like the Palestinian Return Centre for your research. :rolleyes:

What next, citations from the Islamic Jihad website? Jesus Fucking Christ.

[nikto]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Nomadic bedouin tribes from the east. The Philistines you speak of have long since been bred out of existence by assimilation with other groups. Same as the ancient Eqyptians, Babylonians, Persians, and countless other ancient peoples.

I'm not an expert on this, but from what I've read, modern-day Egyptians are very much the descendants of the ancient Egyptians - they've just changed languages and adopted the Islamic culture. Ditto for the Iranians/Persians, except that they kept their language.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Nomadic bedouin tribes from the east. The Philistines you speak of have long since been bred out of existence by assimilation with other groups. Same as the ancient Eqyptians, Babylonians, Persians, and countless other ancient peoples.
[quote]

The same applies to the Jews then doesn't it? Surely all the original Israelites have been bred out of existence. Hell most of the ones populating Israel now came from Russia.

[quote]

Certainly not if you are relying on sources like the Palestinian Return Centre for your research. :rolleyes:

What next, citations from the Islamic Jihad website? Jesus Fucking Christ.

I asked you to show me proof that they are not from one of your unbiased sources. Can't you do that much? Hell the dictionary/glossary in the back of my 1970's-era King James Bible Identifies the Palestinians as Philistines.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Yeah, which ones? Just the ones that Israel identifies as terrorists, or the ones the Palestinians identify as terrorists - which would be the Israelis.

The ones that we decide are terrorists. It ought to be pretty easy to determine who is a fucking terrorist. I would think the distinction between someone who straps on an explosive vest and blows up a busload of grandmothers out shopping and a uniformed soldier engaging individuals who engage him is quite obvious, even to someone as utterly naive as yourself.



Originally posted by Kid A
I argue just to argue? Hi Pot, meet Kettle.

I hate to argue, particularly with brick walls. But I also hate idiotic statements made by people who ought to know better, especially of they are in positions of influence, which you purport to be.

I much prefer spending my time actually working on solving problems, as I spent the better part of the last two years doing, not sitting in offices debating endlessly...

[Jimbo]

For Kid A, who never paid attention in school.

History

Ancient Palestine

The earliest known inhabitants of Palestine were of the same group as the Neanderthal inhabitants of Europe. By the 4th millennium B.C. Palestine was inhabited by herders and farmers. It was in the 3d millennium that most of the towns known in historical times came into existence. They became centers of trade for Egyptian and Babylonian goods. During the 2d millennium, Palestine was ruled by the Hyksos and by the Egyptians. Toward the end of this period Moses led the Hebrew people (see Jews) out of Egypt, across the Sinai, and into Palestine.

Around 1200 B.C., the Philistines (“Sea Peoples”) invaded the southern coastland and established a powerful kingdom (see Philistia). The Hebrews were subject to the Philistines until c.1000 B.C., when an independent Hebrew kingdom was established under Saul, who was succeeded by David and then by Solomon. After the expansionist reign of Solomon (c.950 B.C.), the kingdom broke up into two states, Israel, with its capital at Samaria, and Judah, under the house of David, with its capital at Jerusalem. The two kingdoms were later conquered by expanding Mesopotamian states, Israel by Assyria (c.720 B.C.) and Judah by Babylonia (586 B.C.).

In 539 B.C. the Persians conquered the Babylonians. The Jewish Temple, destroyed by the Babylonians, was rebuilt (516 B.C.). Under Persian rule Palestine enjoyed considerable autonomy. Alexander the Great of Macedon, conquered Palestine in 333 B.C. His successors, the Ptolemies and Seleucids, contested for Palestine. The attempt of the Seleucid Antiochus IV (Antiochus Epiphanes) to impose Hellenism brought a Jewish revolt under the Maccabees, who set up a new Jewish state in 142 B.C. The state lasted until 63 B.C., when Pompey conquered Palestine for Rome.

[Kid A]

the ones that we decide are terrorists.

Define "we"

The United States of America?


I would think the distinction between someone who straps on an explosive vest and blows up a busload of grandmothers out shopping and a uniformed soldier engaging individuals who engage him is quite obvious, even to someone as utterly naive as yourself.


Hmm. The terrorist in your first instance would already be killed. Killing him again would be redundant.

Or are you proposing that we kill the ones who may have thought about blowing themselves up? Thought crime anyone?

You think that the Israeli's wouldn't be routing out the people who are about to blow themselves up if they could?


And please show me the uniform of the Palestinian Army. I'd like to see it. See? That's what needs to happen first. Palestine needs to have autonomy so that they can have an Army. So that their civilians don't have to get pissed off and blow themselves up.

Israel comes into Palestine with a tank, the Palestinian tank meets him there. Then the two sides can shoot at each other in uniform.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Jimbo
For Kid A, who never paid attention in school.

OK - you still haven't shown how the Palestinians of today are not descendants of the Philistines of yesterday.

All you've shown is that the Palestinians/Philistines/Caannanites have been in the area longer than the Israelites.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Kid A
Hmm. The terrorist in your first instance would already be killed. Killing him again would be redundant.

Or are you proposing that we kill the ones who may have thought about blowing themselves up? Thought crime anyone?

What in the hell are you talking about?

[KJ]

Originally posted by Kid A
See? That's what needs to happen first. Palestine needs to have autonomy so that they can have an Army. So that their civilians don't have to get pissed off and blow themselves up.


Once again, "Stupid is, as stupid does."

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Jimbo
What in the hell are you talking about?

He said "kill terrrorists" That is his solution.

However when someone blows themselves up, they are no longer alive, therefore they can't be killed.

I'm sure he meant "round up the terrorist factions" and kill the leaders who are planning the events. Problem is "we" don't know who they are, or can't find them. There is an unlimited number of Palestinians who are willing to blow themselves up. These same Palestinians would probably like to sign up for the military if there was a military there. There isn't though.

The "terrorists" who were responsible for 9/11 are already dead. They were in the planes. The money to support them came from Saudi Arabia, amongst other places. We didn't kill any of them. We killed some al Qaeda, some Taliban, but not all of them. There's a lot left. We were still "never forgetting" 9/11 when we went to war in Iraq. Now the "terrorists" in Afghanistan are starting up again and well, we don't have the resources to go back over there.

We need our own "kill terrorist" policy with regards to the ones who hate us before we go fucking around worrying about the ones who hate Israel.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by KJ
Once again, "Stupid is, as stupid does."

Stupid? So the Palestinians deserve absolutely no rights of their own, no self-preservation, no military, no nothing?

And you call me stupid?

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Kid A
He said "kill terrrorists" That is his solution.

However when someone blows themselves up, they are no longer alive, therefore they can't be killed.

I'm sure he meant "round up the terrorist factions" and kill the leaders who are planning the events. Problem is "we" don't know who they are, or can't find them. There is an unlimited number of Palestinians who are willing to blow themselves up. These same Palestinians would probably like to sign up for the military if there was a military there. There isn't though.

There you go again with this 'we' shit, batman. Remember what that assumption got you in the Afghan bombing thread?

Next, there is not an unlimited number of Palestinians willing to blow themselves up. You are an idiot.

The "terrorists" who were responsible for 9/11 are already dead. They were in the planes. The money to support them came from Saudi Arabia, amongst other places. We didn't kill any of them. We killed some al Qaeda, some Taliban, but not all of them. There's a lot left. We were still "never forgetting" 9/11 when we went to war in Iraq. Now the "terrorists" in Afghanistan are starting up again and well, we don't have the resources to go back over there.

We need our own "kill terrorist" policy with regards to the ones who hate us before we go fucking around worrying about the ones who hate Israel. What planet do you live on? Have you never read anything about the Middle East or terrorism? Did you just wake up today and decide to start running your suck?

Damn. I didn't think one person could have so much stupid.

[Kid A]

There is not an unlimited number?

How many of them are there then? 10? 20?

[Jimbo]

More than all your fingers and toes and less than infinite, so doing the calculations is apparently beyond your capabilities.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by nikto
I'm not an expert on this

That's right, you're not.

[echoes]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
This is the most ridiculous, naive, sophomoric thing I think I have ever read on the subject. What was this, a proposal drawn up by the sixth graders at Calvin Cooledge Middle School at East Bumfuck, VA? Or maybe this came out of an MTV discussion group?


Hi GY & Jimbo! Hope it is okay to throw in my .02?

I just read and re-read the whole thread.
A. I cannot figure out what Kid A is talking about, as his platform.
B. I know what Kid A. can do to "solve" the issue.
C. Kid A. You should take an envoy, a bullhorn, and a big white sheet with two holes cut out so you can see.
D. GO right into the heart of Muslim Country, and let them know how to solve their issues.

That should just about work... :rolleyes:

(echoes is once again backing away slowly...as to not get flamed.)

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Define "we"

The United States of America?


No, the fucking Swahili nation.





Originally posted by Kid A
Or are you proposing that we kill the ones who may have thought about blowing themselves up? Thought crime anyone?

How about the ones sending them? Or the ones financing them?


Originally posted by Kid A
You think that the Israeli's wouldn't be routing out the people who are about to blow themselves up if they could?

I do and they are.


Originally posted by Kid A
Israel comes into Palestine with a tank, the Palestinian tank meets him there. Then the two sides can shoot at each other in uniform.

Now that's what I call a peace process
:rolleyes:

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
We need our own "kill terrorist" policy with regards to the ones who hate us before we go fucking around worrying about the ones who hate Israel.

I thought your whole premise was that the ones who hate us do so because we support Israel and that securing peace in Palestine is the way to combat those other terrorist factions? :rolleyes:

[ktek01]

Originally posted by Jimbo
There you go again with this 'we' shit, batman. Remember what that assumption got you in the Afghan bombing thread?

Next, there is not an unlimited number of Palestinians willing to blow themselves up. You are an idiot.

What planet do you live on? Have you never read anything about the Middle East or terrorism? Did you just wake up today and decide to start running your suck?

Damn. I didn't think one person could have so much stupid.

Excellent post, especially that last line.:D

[Kid A]

The ones financing them? Good idea. However let's start with the ones who financed 9/11.

That issue hits a little closer to home for me.

I can even point you to where to get them: It's a country called Saudi Arabia.

Why aren't we there? I missed that part.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Stupid? So the Palestinians deserve absolutely no rights of their own, no self-preservation, no military, no nothing?

And you call me stupid?

You know what? The Palestinians already have a country of their own. It is called Jordan (70%+ Palestinian).

We all know how the Jordanians treated their arab "brothers" back in September, 1970.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Kid A
The ones financing them? Good idea. However let's start with the ones who financed 9/11.

That issue hits a little closer to home for me.

I can even point you to where to get them: It's a country called Saudi Arabia.

Why aren't we there? I missed that part.

Since you're the only person on this board with a personal stake in September 11th, I guess we should defer to you and just go drop those Saudis?

Its a little more complex than that, sherlock, but that is the most agreeable statement you've made so far.

However, we have to deduct points because the Saudis are responsible as well for the perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Overall: another poor showing.

[echoes]

Originally posted by Kid A
The "terrorists" who were responsible for 9/11 are already dead. They were in the planes.

We were still "never forgetting" 9/11 when we went to war in Iraq.

Kid A. I am still "never forgetting"!

That is why I Respect ALL of the US Armed Forces led by George W. Bush, our President!!!

And Why?

Because they, not you or I, are going after those "bad guys"!

One pesky terrorist at a time!!! :mad:

Holly

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Since you're the only person on this board with a personal stake in September 11th, I guess we should defer to you and just go drop those Saudis?

Its a little more complex than that, sherlock, but that is the most agreeable statement you've made so far.

However, we have to deduct points because the Saudis are responsible as well for the perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Overall: another poor showing.

Please don't make illogical leaps and then attribute them to me. Did I ever say or even imply that I was the only one with a personal stake in 9/11? No. I did not.

Complex? Of course it is. As is the Palestinian/Israeli issue, but that hasn't stopped you from dropping your 2 cents worth into it has it?

And are you saying that because it is "complex" that the Saudi's get a free hand? (see, I'm not claiming that is your position, I'm asking if it is your position).

So SA funds terrorists, keep the Arab/Israeli issue going, but, well, it's "complex" so let's just leave it be.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by echoes
Kid A. I am still "never forgetting"!

One pesky terrorist at a time!!! :mad:

Holly

Oh please. George W. Bush diverted much needed military might from Afghanistan to deal with Saddam Hussein because, as his administration told it, we could be attacked by Iraq within 45 minutes.

Was Hussein a bad man? Yes. Was he responsible for any terrorist acts against the US other than the one ship incident in the 1980s? Not that anyone has shown, no. Did he have WMDs? Perhaps, but they're so damn well hidden that we can't find them (much less be deployable in 45 minutes). And speaking of which - why weren't they used during this past Incident especially since the WH claimed that Hussein gave his commanders the go-ahead to use them?

Meanwhile in the 2 years since 9/11 the Saudis are going unpunished and the Taliban is back in Afghanistan.

But Hussein is gone.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Kid A
Please don't make illogical leaps and then attribute them to me. Did I ever say or even imply that I was the only one with a personal stake in 9/11? No. I did not.

Complex? Of course it is. As is the Palestinian/Israeli issue, but that hasn't stopped you from dropping your 2 cents worth into it has it?

And are you saying that because it is "complex" that the Saudi's get a free hand? (see, I'm not claiming that is your position, I'm asking if it is your position).

So SA funds terrorists, keep the Arab/Israeli issue going, but, well, it's "complex" so let's just leave it be.

If we are now going to confine this discussion to logic, you have to go back and delete about 5 of your posts.

Yes, we should all pack it up and not do anything because conveying nuances to a nincompoop over a BBS is too trying.

Despite you working on the almighty Hill, there is quite a bit going on in this town of which you are unaware. It will remain that way.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Seriously, kid, get your money back from college and send a check to Gulf Yankee University, School of Distance Learning.

Coeds receive personalized one-on-one tutoring with the headmaster ;) :D



...yes, the pun was intended

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
The ones financing them? Good idea. However let's start with the ones who financed 9/11.

That issue hits a little closer to home for me.

I can even point you to where to get them: It's a country called Saudi Arabia.

Why aren't we there? I missed that part.

I suggest you re-read my myriad of posts on that very issue while I was spending the last 20 months in the Arabian Gulf ignoring the impact of 9/11.

I have said many times that the Saudis are the real enemy and that sooner or later we will need to deal with them.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by echoes
Kid A. I am still "never forgetting"!

That is why I Respect ALL of the US Armed Forces led by George W. Bush, our President!!!

And Why?

Because they, not you or I, are going after those "bad guys"!

One pesky terrorist at a time!!! :mad:

Holly

Holly:

You let me know when you want a scholarship to the GY School of Distance Learning Personal One-on-One Tutorial Program :D

[Kid A]

I have said many times that the Saudis are the real enemy and that sooner or later we will need to deal with them. [/B]

And with this I agree with you 100%. I would gladly go to a system where one was only allowed a ration of gasoline, or to drive on certain days if it meant getting these bastards.

Of course not everyone feels this way, least of all the oil companies and auto manufacturers (or the people who stuck flags on their cars to "show support" and drove around until they fell off in the gutter somewhere.

And I'm not saying we're "ignoring" the terrorists responsible for 9/11, just that we really, really misplaced our focus with this Iraq thing.

[echoes]

Originally posted by Kid A
Oh please. George W. Bush diverted much needed military might from Afghanistan to deal with Saddam Hussein because, as his administration told it, we could be attacked by Iraq within 45 minutes.

Was Hussein a bad man? Yes. Was he responsible for any terrorist acts against the US other than the one ship incident in the 1980s? Not that anyone has shown, no. Did he have WMDs? Perhaps, but they're so damn well hidden that we can't find them (much less be deployable in 45 minutes). And speaking of which - why weren't they used during this past Incident especially since the WH claimed that Hussein gave his commanders the go-ahead to use them?

Meanwhile in the 2 years since 9/11 the Saudis are going unpunished and the Taliban is back in Afghanistan.

But Hussein is gone.

Kid A. I am just a little guest here, but I do have a dark side, and you have just touched it.
Please, please, please, DO NOT drag the name of our President, George W. Bush, through any kind of mud...it just shows that you wish you were higher up the ladder.
Completely Trasparent to me.

How can YOU, a civillian, possible make the claims above???
How do you know there are not WMD? Plain as day, you do not, but I can bet that you probobly wish you did?!

Hussein killed, tortured, and raped innocent people,
and GW put an end to what Your Bill Clinton could not!
Saddam is gone from power, and the world is a better place.
Do Not argue with me on this,
I am blonde, and I can get very angry!

Just suck it up, and carry on like a good little Demoncrat.
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Holly

(echoes is now just waiting for fire...I know it is coming. :( )

[Gulf Yankee]

But as soon as we start dealing with the Saudi issue, all the blowhards on your side of the aisle will start wailing about Bush going after the Saudis solely for oil for his cronies...:rolleyes:

[Lurch]

Originally posted by Kid A
However let's start with the ones who financed 9/11.
Some French guy told me it was the CIA:eek:

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by echoes
Hussein killed, tortured, and raped innocent people,
and GW put an end to what Your Bill Clinton could not!

Well I wasn't there by myself, there were plenty of others...oh, sorry, I thought that read GY... :p:D

[echoes]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Holly:

You let me know when you want a scholarship to the GY School of Distance Learning Personal One-on-One Tutorial Program :D

(((wink))) at cha ;)

Holly

[Kid A]

Originally posted by echoes
[B]Please, please, please, DO NOT drag the name of our President, George W. Bush, through any kind of mud...it just shows that you wish you were higher up the ladder.
Completely Trasparent to me.


As a veteran, I believe Bush is probably the worst president the military has had in recent memory (yes, worse than Clinton). Bush will rail on and on about supporting the troops, then his Administration will cut Concurrent Receipt, and is seriously contemplating cutting danger pay for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

How can a President tell a disabled veteran "I support you, but you are going to have to give up your retirement pay because you are receiving disability"?


Hussein killed, tortured, and raped innocent people,
and GW put an end to what Your Bill Clinton could not!
Saddam is gone from power, and the world is a better place.
Do Not argue with me on this,
I am blonde, and I can get very angry!



So have, and so do, numerous dictators currently in power. We're not stopping them are we? Charles Taylor left, but he's promised to come back. He probably will, too. Taylor was probably MORE evil than Hussein. Bill Clinton "could not" go back into Iraq because a Republican-Controlled Congress wouldn't let him. Bill Clinton "could not" finish in Somalia because a Republican-Controlled Congress forced him to pull the troops.

"The Congress urged the President "to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law."

Representative Benjamin Gilman (Republican of New York) introduced H.R. 4655 September 29, 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law October 31, 1998."

Notice that the CONGRESS called upon the PRESIDENT (Bill CLinton) to call upon the UNITED NATIONS.

You'll remember that the CONGRESS was controlled by the REPUBLICANS.

[lrd]

Originally posted by Steve1/75
Some French guy told me it was the CIA:eek: And we all know that the French know what they are talking about, since they have declared that there is no evidence that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are terror groups (http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=257044&lang=e&dir=news).

[Kid A]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by echoes
Hussein killed, tortured, and raped innocent people,
and GW put an end to what Your Bill Clinton could not!
Saddam is gone from power, and the world is a better place.
Do Not argue with me on this,
[QUOTE]

By the way, he is not "MY" Bill Clinton. I voted for George the First and then Bob Dole. I was voting Republican up until the current moron got into office.

And by the way, George Bush the First has an interesting quote on why he didn't oust Hussein. Look it up. He didn't finish the job either, but feel free to blame Bill Clinton.

Yes. Moron. Feel free to disagree with me on this but I don't care. He's a troop fucker. He screwed his National Guard contingent when he wouldn't bother showing up for drills and he's screwing the troops he's sending all over the world.

Fortunately for him people hear "Concurrent Receipt" in the news and don't bother with it because they assume it's boring. Well it isn't. It's Georgie Porgie screwing troops.

And I don't care if the world was a better place. George Bush got the support of the American people and the Congress to go to war with Iraq on a number of key issues. Being a bad man was not one of them. Everyone knew he was a bad man.

As I remember the "key issues" Bush told us:

Hussein was linked to al Qaeda
Hussein had nukes or was rapidly acquiring them
Hussein had WMDs
Hussein could attack the US in 45 minutes.

None of this has been proven YET.

[echoes]

Originally posted by Kid A
As a veteran, I believe Bush is probably the worst president the military has had in recent memory (yes, worse than Clinton). Bush will rail on and on about supporting the troops, then his Administration will cut Concurrent Receipt, and is seriously contemplating cutting danger pay for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bill Clinton "could not" go back into Iraq because a Republican-Controlled Congress wouldn't let him. Bill Clinton "could not" finish in Somalia because a Republican-Controlled Congress forced him to pull the troops.

Two points, then I am done.

1. You are just madder than hell, aren't cha? And how do I know? Simple, you have to make up Excuses for Bill Clinton.

2. George W. Bush is President of the United States of America.
You are not. Too bad.

For now, I, for one, am grateful to have a Leader that does NOT bow to terror, does NOT just let things slide, and does NOT just stand by and do nothing when over 3,000 of our fellow countrymen died as they were going about their day, on 9/11.

I am just a little person, a nobody, but you know what Kid A.? There are a lot of us, a whole hoard of us, who still believe that Respect and Honor are words to be used with tact.

Holly

[RAT]

Originally posted by Kid A
And with this I agree with you 100%. I would gladly go to a system where one was only allowed a ration of gasoline, or to drive on certain days if it meant getting these bastards.

Of course not everyone feels this way, least of all the oil companies and auto manufacturers (or the people who stuck flags on their cars to "show support" and drove around until they fell off in the gutter somewhere.

And I'm not saying we're "ignoring" the terrorists responsible for 9/11, just that we really, really misplaced our focus with this Iraq thing.

Kid,

You were doing pretty well about the Pal's I agree with you in some parts about their state.

As for the OIL way off...

The Oil companies would love for you to drive one day a week. Supply and Demand. Gas would be around 35 dollars a gal. I assume you are younger and did not know 1st hand the energy crunch of the 70's.

IMO I think we went to Iraq for the OIL.. It makes the world go around. If the fun loving liberals would let us drill more here on our own land we would not be in such demand for foreign oil. Given it is far cheaper to bring their oil from over there than to drill for it here and get it on line.

This is another whole post. If you want to talk about the oil and gas.

What I do find funny about this whole thread is at the very start are two people from two diff cultures who are exposed to hate each other. They handled their difference like adults. They are the ones that are going to change the world not people like us. We are just ARM CHAIR QB's. Till we move there and we do something about it. All the FAT ASS Good for nothing teachers we have in this country are going to spout out what they THINK THEY KNOW What do they know Not a FUCKING thing. Only what they read. I had a teacher was tell me why were where in Somalia. They read all about it and they were by god a teacher of African History. Needles to say we got into it. I got an "F" They got a PISSED off Marine. The campus Police came we went to meet with the DEAN.I got an "A" I was not allowed to take any more classes which that Teacher was teaching.

So pull up all your crap to try and back your arguments. Both sides can pick and choose what you want. But till we are living there and seeing what is going on for ourselves. I am going to take a back seat and see what happens.

Going back to my chair with a cold beer and the remote.

RAT OUT!!!

[Kid A]

Hmm

For now, I, for one, am grateful to have a Leader that does NOT bow to terror, does NOT just let things slide, and does NOT just stand by and do nothing when over 3,000 of our fellow countrymen died as they were going about their day, on 9/11.


I guess you're assuming that any other person other than George W. Bush would have just sat around crying and let 9/11 happen?

That's absolutely ludicrous. You can't say WHAT anyone would have done had another President been in Office.

Make up excuses for Bill Clinton? No excuses. Facts hon. Facts.

Maybe you've forgotten the part about where a President needs to have Congressional approval to go to war. Bush had it. Clinton didn't it. Congress wouldn't allow Clinton to do anything substantial.

[Hoepoe]

Does this prick work for the Govt? (kid a)

scary...

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Hoepoe
Does this prick work for the Govt? (kid a)

scary...

Does a Jew have a big nose?

A: Yes.


Now we can continue the 3d grade name calling or you can join the discussion. Your choice. I can call names and make jokes as easily as the next guy.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Maybe you've forgotten the part about where a President needs to have Congressional approval to go to war. Bush had it. Clinton didn't it. Congress wouldn't allow Clinton to do anything substantial.

You mean all that time I spent in Kosovo, Macedonia and Albania, I didn't have to go!?! Damn, I wish someone told me back then...

How many of you guys reading this were in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and all those other places that Clinton didn't have the authority to send you to???

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
You mean all that time I spent in Kosovo, Macedonia and Albania, I didn't have to go!?! Damn, I wish someone told me back then...

How many of you guys reading this were in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and all those other places that Clinton didn't have the authority to send you to???

Did you miss the part about "go to war"? I think so.

Now tell me, of the places you listed: Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia. Which ones were we at war with?

I thought we were working with the UN in those places.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Bill Clinton "could not" finish in Somalia because a Republican-Controlled Congress forced him to pull the troops.

Oh, I think you just opened up a can of shitstorm here, boy.

There are TFR vets on these boards and I bet they won't take kindly to your opinion. I seem to recall the fact that they were denied armor and Spectre gunship support because Aspin, in his infinite wisdowm, decided that they would be unnecessarily "provocative"

BTW, when did we pull out of Somalia? Wasn't it at least a year before the Republicans took control of Congress?? :rolleyes:

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Did you miss the part about "go to war"? I think so.

Now tell me, of the places you listed: Kosovo, Macedonia, Albania, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia. Which ones were we at war with?

I thought we were working with the UN in those places.

I am sure that distinction really weighs heavily with the families of the troops that died in those places that we were not "at war" with.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by echoes
(((wink))) at cha ;)

Holly

Hey, don't let RAT read this thread :D

[Hoepoe]

Kid A, you are just that, a kid your silly comments and jokes do not offend me, you are but an ignorant uneducated fool.
I do not believe for a second that you work for the US government or any other for that matte.r I do feel however that you are a bored teenager with a snotty nose (small nose) and nothing better to do that piss people off.

mmm how does it go:

if you were on fire, i wouldn't even piss on you

You deserve no further repsonse from me. And just for the record, next time you're visiting palestine, look me up, i'd love to see your bloody face after this Jew Boy kicks your teeth in. I am serious.

You are a bigot and a fool.

Mike

[Kid A]

Clinton and Congress and Somalia:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N48/somalia.48w.html

"President Clinton Thursday ordered 5,300 new combat troops and an aircraft carrier to Somalia "to protect our troops and to complete our mission," and at the same time he announced that he would bring all American combat forces home by March 31. "

"I [William Jefferson Clinton] have continued the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to Somalia pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and in accordance with applicable treaties and laws. This deployment is consistent with S.J. Res. 45, as adopted by the Senate on February 4, 1993, and as modified and adopted by the House on May 25, 1993. "

[Kid A]

You keep saying this, yet you keep responding. You end up shaking with rage and calling names.

Now who is the kid?

I'm the bigot? You're the one who wants to get rid of all the Arabs.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
And by the way, George Bush the First has an interesting quote on why he didn't oust Hussein. Look it up. He didn't finish the job either.

So let me get this straight:

Bush 1 is at fault because he followed the UN mandate.

but Bush 2 is at fault because he didn't follow the UN mandate??

Cognitive dissonance anyone?? :confused:

[Hoepoe]

Ha ha, last reply...:-)

Shaking with rage? Not quite my boy, just itching to hurt you, not from anger, but for enjoyment.

If you take the time to read my posts, please point me to the post where i refer to getting rid of all the Arabs. Unlike you, kid, i am a tad more realistic and a whole lot more intelligent.

Go do your homework, oh yes, i hope you get your waiver, it's for a medical or psychological problem isn't it? How surprising, i'm sure all the sf guys here will welcome you in their ranks, you really seem the type, i mean with your loyalty and exeptionally high intelect.

Good luck

Mike

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Cognitive dissonance anyone?? :confused:

Do I get points for being the first to diagnose the problem?

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Clinton and Congress and Somalia:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N48/somalia.48w.html

"President Clinton Thursday ordered 5,300 new combat troops and an aircraft carrier to Somalia "to protect our troops and to complete our mission," and at the same time he announced that he would bring all American combat forces home by March 31. "

"I [William Jefferson Clinton] have continued the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to Somalia pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and in accordance with applicable treaties and laws. This deployment is consistent with S.J. Res. 45, as adopted by the Senate on February 4, 1993, and as modified and adopted by the House on May 25, 1993. "

And yet Clinton and the Democratically-controlled Congress withdrew all troops shortly afterwards...

We all know what an oath from Clinton means.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Hoepoe
if you were on fire, i wouldn't even piss on you


Hey, let's have some fucking respect around here :mad:


I, for one, would be more than happy to piss on kid A.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
So let me get this straight:

Bush 1 is at fault because he followed the UN mandate.

but Bush 2 is at fault because he didn't follow the UN mandate??

Cognitive dissonance anyone?? :confused:

I'm not faulting Bush 1 for following the UN mandate. I'm saying he did follow the UN mandate.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Hoepoe
[B]

Go do your homework, oh yes, i hope you get your waiver, it's for a medical or psychological problem isn't it?

Actually no. It's because I took a college drop and received an early out and subsequently received the wrong RE code.

Not that it's any of your business.

[lrd]

Originally posted by Kid A
Yes. Moron. Feel free to disagree with me on this but I don't care. He's a troop fucker. He screwed his National Guard contingent when he wouldn't bother showing up for drills and he's screwing the troops he's sending all over the world.

Fortunately for him people hear "Concurrent Receipt" in the news and don't bother with it because they assume it's boring. Well it isn't. It's Georgie Porgie screwing troops.

And I don't care if the world was a better place. George Bush got the support of the American people and the Congress to go to war with Iraq on a number of key issues. Being a bad man was not one of them. Everyone knew he was a bad man.

As I remember the "key issues" Bush told us:

Hussein was linked to al Qaeda
Hussein had nukes or was rapidly acquiring them
Hussein had WMDs
Hussein could attack the US in 45 minutes.

None of this has been proven YET. Kid A,

Be careful with your "facts."

Concurrent receipt has been signed into law. Please refer to the concurrent receipt thread, as I don't wish to repeat myself. We have already discussed this.

The increase in danger pay has to be renewed. It is simply a matter of process. (Having to renew my driver's license doesn't mean that the governor is out to take away my driving privileges.) It is only the increase that has to be renewed...not the basic danger pay given out.

President Bush did not screw his National Guard unit. An explanation of his service is available if you really care.

As far as Hussein's links to al qaeda...the evidence supporting this link is mounting as we write. Just because you haven't been informed of every detail, doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there.

You are not impressing me, Kid. For someone who claims to work on the hill, you are remarkably uninformed.

[Hoepoe]

Gulf Yankee, i got no buff with you, but he aint got respect from me. I do however apologise if that offended you, not him...respect is a two way street.

Mike

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
And yet Clinton and the Democratically-controlled Congress withdrew all troops shortly afterwards...

We all know what an oath from Clinton means.

You're right, I misspoke. Congress was controlled by Democrats at the time.

Are you denying that Congressional Republicans called for Clinton to pull the US out of Somalia however?

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Hoepoe
Gulf Yankee, i got no buff with you, but he aint got respect from me. I do however apologise if that offended you, not him...respect is a two way street.

Mike

Mike:

I guess the sarcasm was not strong enough in my post. I wasn't serious, I was trying to make a joke.

No worries mate :D

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Are you denying that Congressional Republicans called for Clinton to pull the US out of Somalia however?

If you're going to send them in harm's way, then give them the tools and support to do the job.

Clinton didn't do this and we ended up with a lot of body bags. That man was unfit to be the commander in chief.

If there was a call for the removal of troops by the Republicans it was to ensure that no more brave men needlessly died under Clinton's incompetent leadership.

[Kid A]

Concurrent receipt has been signed into law. Please refer to the concurrent receipt thread, as I don't wish to repeat myself. We have already discussed this.

it has?

H.R.303
Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability to receive both military retired pay by reason of their years of military service and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability.
Sponsor: Rep Bilirakis, Michael [FL-9] (introduced 1/8/2003) Cosponsors: 354
Related Bills: H.RES.251
Latest Major Action: 2/20/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Benefits.
Note: On 6/12/2003, a motion was filed to discharge the Rules Committee from consideration of H.Res. 251. H.Res. 251 provides for the consideration of H.R. 303. A discharge petition requires 218 signatures for further action. (Discharge Petition No. 108-2: text with signatures.)

H.R.2701
Title: To amend title 10, United States Code, to extend to additional military retirees with service-connected disabilities the special compensation authority provided for certain retirees with combat-related disabilities.
Sponsor: Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] (introduced 7/10/2003) Cosponsors: (none)
Latest Major Action: 7/10/2003 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.


The Senate passed it. It's being held up in the House. Bush has threatened to veto it.

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 7, 2002; Page A02

Alarmed by the cost of expanding military entitlement programs, President Bush has threatened to veto the $355 billion defense authorization bill for the new fiscal year if House and Senate conferees do not eliminate new pension benefits for disabled military retirees that could cost from $18.5 billion to $58 billion over the next decade.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
If you're going to send them in harm's way, then give them the tools and support to do the job.

Clinton didn't do this and we ended up with a lot of body bags. That man was unfit to be the commander in chief.

If there was a call for the removal of troops by the Republicans it was to ensure that no more brave men needlessly died under Clinton's incompetent leadership.

Oh please.

Tell me how much Clinton had to do with the events of Oct 3 -4.

If they didn't have the tools to do the job, why did MG Garrison send them in? Obviously he thought the job could be done. There were many other mistakes made, one being that the UN teams there weren't ready to roll in should something have gone wrong.

There were a lot of fuck ups, granted, but to say that the call for removal of troops was to ensure no more brave men died is absolute revisionist crap.

Congress, and Clinton, pussied out.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Tell me how much Clinton had to do with the events of Oct 3 -4.


He was commander in chief, it was his and his SECDEF's decision to withhold armor and gunship support so as not to "provoke" the Somalis.

And we all know the results.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
If they didn't have the tools to do the job, why did MG Garrison send them in?

There are enough Ranger/TFR vets here and individuals who know Garrison personally here to answer your question. Perhaps you should pose it to them?

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
He was commander in chief, it was his and his SECDEF's decision to withhold armor and gunship support so as not to "provoke" the Somalis.

And we all know the results.

Ah, the "Buck Stops Here" argument. I agree with it.

You remember Bush II and how long it took him to take the blame for the "uranium" mention though, right? How many took the blame initially before he stepped up to the plate.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
to say that the call for removal of troops was to ensure no more brave men died is absolute revisionist crap.

It reflects the utter lack of confidence in Clinton's leadership, plain and fucking simple.

[Kid A]

If it reflects a lack of confidence in Clinton's leadership, then how is it that you were travelling to all those places you mentioned?

I mean shouldn't Congress have pulled the US forces out of everywhere since there was no confidence in his leadership?

Or was this a petty bipartisan issue when what was needed was for a united congress to back the President of the United States and get shit done?

You're making it sound as though there was no one but Clinton running the DoD and the Pentagon.

[lrd]

Originally posted by Kid A
it has?

Please read the last post in the concurrent receipt thread.

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Kid A
The Senate passed it. It's being held up in the House. Bush has threatened to veto it.

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 7, 2002; Page A02

Alarmed by the cost of expanding military entitlement programs, President Bush has threatened to veto the $355 billion defense authorization bill for the new fiscal year if House and Senate conferees do not eliminate new pension benefits for disabled military retirees that could cost from $18.5 billion to $58 billion over the next decade.

Now we know why you missed the Afghan bombing story, you're reading newspapers from last year! Are you over in Germany listening to Billy Joel and Roxette?

[Kid A]

Originally posted by lrd
Please read the last post in the concurrent receipt thread.

"Concurrent Receipt isn't even out of conference yet, and like Missile Defense, it will be hotly debated between the Congressional Leadership and SECDEF Rumsfeld, who has a forty five year record of getting his way!"

So if it is still in Conference, and it is, and it isn't coming out because not a single Republican co-sponsor of the original bill has the balls to vote for a discharge, how was it signed into law?

It's still in conference.

From CRLegislation.com

"This administration's opposition to concurrent receipt appears to be relentless, and the only thing that will overcome this resistance is more of the same grass roots contact with your member, and the real threat of losing the Veterans vote next year."

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Now we know why you missed the Afghan bombing story, you're reading newspapers from last year! Are you over in Germany listening to Billy Joel and Roxette?

Are you denying that a discharge petition is in effect (H.R. 303) and that the Republicans are refusing to sign it? Are you denying that the President has threatened to veto Concurrent Receipt, as well as any legislation that contains Concurrent Receipt language?

[Jimbo]

Originally posted by Kid A
Are you denying that a discharge petition is in effect (H.R. 303) and that the Republicans are refusing to sign it? Are you denying that the President has threatened to veto Concurrent Receipt, as well as any legislation that contains Concurrent Receipt language?

I'm avoiding the discussion of CR altogether. I'm just taking shots at you for choosing a year old article to reference.

[Silent_warrior]

We are long past it but about the subject about the Philistines. I have read that they have came from the Greek island of Creete.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Jimbo
I'm avoiding the discussion of CR altogether. I'm just taking shots at you for choosing a year old article to reference.

Bush's stance hasn't changed from last year to this year has it? Therefore the article, no matter the date, remains true.

Bush will veto Concurrent Receipt.

On the legislation that was passed last October that lrd referenced, that isknown as "combat-related special compensation," or CSRC. Which proviedes, for certain seriously disabled retirees, a cash benefit financially identical to what concurrent receipt would provide them. Neither type of "special compensation" removed the statutory prohibition on actual concurrent receipt.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
how is it that you were travelling to all those places you mentioned?

I go where I am told to go.


Originally posted by Kid A
Or was this a petty bipartisan issue when what was needed was for a united congress to back the President of the United States and get shit done?

As the democrats are demonstrating so ably at present??


Originally posted by Kid A
You're making it sound as though there was no one but Clinton running the DoD and the Pentagon.

And you're making it sound like there is no one but Bush at the CIA.

[lrd]

Originally posted by Kid A
Bush will veto Concurrent Receipt.
I will reread what I have on concurrent receipt. It was my understanding that what is at issue is funding.
Concurrent Receipt was signed into law last December so if we wisely play our cards right, at least partial funding will be seen this October! Next Year, we can continue lobbying for the remainder based on the partial funding precedent.

In the meantime, do you have proof of the above statement? or is this rumor? and don't cite me an article in a newspaper...I would like a primary source.

(edited to add quote)

[Kid A]

No I'm not. The White House knew the CIA had already taken the "uranium" mention out of previous speeches. They put it back. Those are facts.


What are the Democrats doing currently that is bi-partisan? They are still supporting action in Iraq though some are calling for investigations into why we went and the intelligence that we went on. That's fine with me. I'd want to know if the President was lying about reasons for war - I don't care who is President at the time.

The only bi-partisan quibbling the Dems are doing is pushing for Concurrent Receipt and the Republicans are blocking it.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by lrd
I will reread what I have on concurrent receipt. It was my understanding that what is at issue is funding.

In the meantime, do you have proof of the above statement? or is this rumor? and don't cite me an article in a newspaper...I would like a primary source.

Proof:

Bush Threatens Veto of Defense Bill
President Wants Costly New Disabled Military Pension Benefits Eliminated

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 7, 2002; Page A02

Alarmed by the cost of expanding military entitlement programs, President Bush has threatened to veto the $355 billion defense authorization bill for the new fiscal year if House and Senate conferees do not eliminate new pension benefits for disabled military retirees that could cost from $18.5 billion to $58 billion over the next decade.

___

http://johnson.senate.gov/~johnson/releases/200207/2002701B08.html

Washington, D.C.–U.S. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) in a letter today to President Bush urged him to reconsider his opposition to disabled veterans receiving both military retirement and disability benefits, commonly refered to as concurrent receipt of military retirement benefits.

-----
On November 12, 2002, the House and Senate passed the final version of the FY2003 National Defense Authorization Act. Unfortunately, given the ongoing threat by President Bush to veto the Act if it included concurrent receipt, this legislation did not repeal the current ban on concurrent receipt.
http://www.house.gov/wexler/speeches/speech_Dec_2002.htm

--------
and Bush's message:

“The administration also believes that our current deficit projections necessitate strict adherence to fiscal discipline to ensure the quickest return to a balanced budget. The Administration is concerned that an amendment may be offered on the Senate floor that would expand this objectionable provision even further. Should the final version of the bill include either provision affecting concurrent receipt of retirement and disability benefits, the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.”

[lrd]

Originally posted by Kid A
Proof:
...the President’s senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill...
He has been advised to veto.

If you want to discuss concurrent receipt any more, please take it back to the concurrent receipt thread. We have gotten off topic here.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
What are the Democrats doing currently that is bi-partisan? They are still supporting action in Iraq

I knew they were out of touch on Capital Hill but this takes the fucking cake :rolleyes:

[Jimbo]

Please tell me you are a LA for something like agriculture or 4H activities or Starbucks runs and nothing that you have run your suck about today.

[Bravo_One_Three]

Originally posted by Kid A
Does a Jew have a big nose?

A: Yes.


Really now? Would you like to see my nose up close? I can show it to you right as you fade the fuck out.

Fuck you, fuckstain.

PM with my contact info on the way.

[Bravo_One_Three]

In retrospect, I have a great idea. You are claiming to be an LA... a government official. That seems to me to be the kind of information I would like to see verified. Why don't you contact an admin with your creds so that you can be verifed Kid A?

What's the worse that can happen? Your comments get referred to your boss...

[Dark Helmet]

Eleven hundred views in less than 24 hours. Who woulda thunk?

[Sdiver]

Originally posted by Dark Helmet
Eleven hundred views in less than 24 hours. Who woulda thunk?

To bad I had to go to work today....when this was just getting started.

THAT'S IT GODDAMNIT....TOMORROW, I QUIT !!!!!!:mad:

[Hoepoe]

Good morning all

Well, i see overnight the thread has somewhat cahnged in nature, some notes:

1. Gulf Yankee Sir, was tired, forget the misunderstanding

2. There seems to be a poster with an ardent anti-everything stance.

3. There is a US Government worker who wants to join SF but would not follow orders and believes that the military is political as opposed to a-political.

5. The abovementioned LA is one of the, "the army screwed it up, that why i'm not in sf or blah blah" we have all seen those, haven't we folks.

6. The abovementioned individual is a very pissed off guy, relax man, life will be so much prettier.

7. This was no intended as a personal attack, but might be percieved as one, shit happens.

Hoepoe

[Bravo_One_Three]

Originally posted by Hoepoe
7. This was no intended as a personal attack, but might be percieved as one, shit happens.

Hoepoe,

Fuck Him.

[Hoepoe]

Bravo_One_Three

You're right, he is a waste of air.....

;-)


Hoepoe

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Bravo_One_Three
Really now? Would you like to see my nose up close? I can show it to you right as you fade the fuck out.

Fuck you, fuckstain.

PM with my contact info on the way.

Thanks for your contact info. I have no intentions of going out there from out here to call you a "Big Nose." I have no intentions of calling anyone a "Big Nose" other than Hoepoe. If you'll notice in his posts to me in this thread as well as others, he starts off relatively calm but once his arguments get pushed to the wall he lashes out with name calling. I don't have the time or care to look up the posts now, but in the "Big Nose" response I gave, in the very message I gave it to him he called me a prick. Seemingly innocuous, but I was fucking tired of it. I'm not going to let someone sit there and sling names at me repeatedly. I think I've stood my ground pretty well in the 7 pages of "debate" on this issue but when the petty bullshit namecalling comes out, well fuck him.

This whole "I can kick your ass" thing is kind of silly as well. Maybe you can, maybe you can't. Maybe Hoepoe can, maybe Hoepoe can't. I know he wouldn't piss on me if I were on fire. That's cool. I would probably never get the stink out anyway. Burning piss reeks.

I've told the guy in another thread to reel in his comments and he hasn't. So I gave him a dose of his own medicine.

[Hoepoe]

lol, i actually have a small nose :-) but not that it matters as all Jews to you have big noses.

You're insults do not bother me, your ignorance and stupidity does though, not sure why.

You came into this debate all worked up kid, because I pointed a fingure at the poor porr palestinian freedom fighters.

This is no longer a debate, it is silly, All off us except you seem to know the truth.

You seem very angry in your world, strange.

Good luck in your serach for happines and maby martyrdom, you silly silly fool.

Hoepoe

[ktek01]

Originally posted by Kid A
Thanks for your contact info. I have no intentions of going out there from out here to call you a "Big Nose." I have no intentions of calling anyone a "Big Nose" other than Hoepoe. If you'll notice in his posts to me in this thread as well as others, he starts off relatively calm but once his arguments get pushed to the wall he lashes out with name calling. I don't have the time or care to look up the posts now, but in the "Big Nose" response I gave, in the very message I gave it to him he called me a prick. Seemingly innocuous, but I was fucking tired of it. I'm not going to let someone sit there and sling names at me repeatedly. I think I've stood my ground pretty well in the 7 pages of "debate" on this issue but when the petty bullshit namecalling comes out, well fuck him.

In all fairness it was different when he called you a prick because from your posts it is obvious you are. I dont think any of us know what his nose looks like, but funny how when someone calls you a name you go straight to the racist slur. Held your own for 7 pages? How do you get that? You changed the subject so many times who can keep track. WTF does conccurrent receipt have to do with Israel and the PLO?

This whole "I can kick your ass" thing is kind of silly as well. Maybe you can, maybe you can't. Maybe Hoepoe can, maybe Hoepoe can't. I know he wouldn't piss on me if I were on fire. That's cool. I would probably never get the stink out anyway. Burning piss reeks.

I've told the guy in another thread to reel in his comments and he hasn't. So I gave him a dose of his own medicine.

Who the hell are you tell anyone anything?

[Kid A]

Originally posted by ktek01
In all fairness it was different when he called you a prick because from your posts it is obvious you are.

Who the hell are you tell anyone anything?

I'm a prick? How? I argue my beliefs on the issue, wrong or not, they're my beliefs. Is terrorism wrong? Yes. Are the Palestinians being fucked by the Israeli's? Yes.

Those are the two basic tenents. Now there's a lot of other shit going on past these two basic tenents, like the rest of the Arab world fucking the Palestinians as well. But I'm going for basic here.

And as far as who I am to tell anyone anything? I'm the guy at the receiving end of his bullshit name calling, that's who. And when I'm at the receiving end of this shit, then I'm going to tell him to cut it short. He either can, or he can't.

As you said, this thread is far off topic.

I'm returning it to the stacks.

[Kid A]

Admittedly it was out of line. I apologize if anyone other than Hoepoe took offense. When he can apologize for his name calling, for insulting my service record, then I will also retract the comment from pertaining to him.

However this double-standard regarding "racial slurs" is idiotic in my opinion. You don't get a free pass to name call and label people and then cry foul if someone says something you don't happen to like, or take offense at. Play the game or don't play the game.

Thread returned to the stacks for good.

[echoes]

Originally posted by Kid A
Admittedly it was out of line. I apologize if anyone other than Hoepoe took offense.

Good Morning!

I just wanted to tell Hoepoe that I like Big Noses.
They are sexy...ask any blonde, and she will tell ya. :)

And, may God bless you, and I hope
"the Peace that passes all understanding"
will find you today in Isreal.

Luv It!!!

Holly

[Jimbo]

Ok. You are not a prick. Let us find a word better suited to your conduct on this board.

You are just a person who lacks a solid foundation in geography (widely applied term, here), history and sociology and who does not cope with complexities in general or especially when an understanding of the aformentioned academic subjects are necessary in said coping. You are argumentative, but lack the ability to stick with the argument you start. When confronted with information that runs contrary to the world image you present, you dismiss it as being merely incidental to the point that you are trying to make.

The closest thesaurus entry is:

jerk (jûrk) v., jerked, jerk·ing, jerks
n. Slang. A foolish, rude, or contemptible person

Personally, I find your behavior, as someone six years my senior, to be childish and more befitting a playground than either this message board or, worse, Congress.

[echoes]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Ok. You are not a prick. The closest thesaurus entry is:
jerk (jûrk) v., jerked, jerk·ing, jerks
n. Slang. A foolish, rude, or contemptible person

Personally, I find your behavior, as someone six years my senior, to be childish and more befitting a playground than either this message board or, worse, Congress.

Greetings Jimbo. Just wanted to thank you beofre Doogie gets the chance!
The Search button, not just for decorating! :D

Holly

[Bravo_One_Three]

Originally posted by Kid A
Admittedly it was out of line. I apologize if anyone other than Hoepoe took offense.

Tough shit stud. You are a prick. There is a term called "GIC" that you really ought to search. I'll be in your AO shortly, I'll buy you a beer... you know, give you a good long look at my big jew nose you fucking skidmark.

[Cujo]

(edited)...

[SN]

Late joining in (Boss actually expects work during duty hours).

You stated that the Republicans wouldn't let Pres Clinton go after Saddam (paraphrasing, I know). Not entirely true. President Clinton conducted two bombing campaigns against Iraq (Desert Fox and Desert Thunder, I believe). The Repblicans bitched, but the democrats pointed out (correctly) that the original Gulf War resolutions were still in effect. Same democrats were miffed when Bush II used those resolutions (among others) to finish the job.

Vice President Gore stated the bombing was necessary because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, yet the Clinton administration never produced solid evidence that the weapons existed (lets apply the same standard to your guy that you are applying to my guy).

Ref TF Ranger, MG Garrison was under pressure from the (Clinton) administration to get Aideed. They were not willing to wait in order to flush him out, so we launched what was (hindsight) a questionable mission. We probably could have nailed the guy with fewer dead (both sides) if White House lackeys would have let the General (who took responsibility) run the op. You should read the book Blackhawk Down to get some background on Somalia. Speaking of Somalia, remember the president announcing to the world that the Rangers were being deployed? Killed OPSEC by letting the sammies know we were upping the stakes. Current administration increases my chances of coming home by not announcing everything in advance.

Is there pressure to find Saddam or Osama, yes. Is that pressure driving tactical considerations, no. Big difference.

Ref Somalia et al. Bosnia and Kosovo are NATO ops, not UN ops. We went in because the NATO countries believed it was in their best interest to stop genocide. Haiti was a U.S. operation, the U.N. came in afterward.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by WSC Guy
We went in because the NATO countries believed it was in their best interest to stop genocide. Haiti was a U.S. operation, the U.N. came in afterward.

Yes, and the Haitian invasion has proven to be such a raging success. Who would have thought that Haiti would enjoy such openness and prosperity now that they have free, fair and open elections and death squads no longer impose the will of the despotic regimes on the innocent masses. Haiti, the Caribbean paradise!! :rolleyes:

We were a bit late in Bosnia but as far as Kosovo is concerned I am not too sure about our "allies", the Kosovar Albanians. I personally couldn't tell the difference between them and the Serb thugs. Pretty timely start to the campaign though, just in time to push Monica Lewinsky's testimony off the front page. Not that Clinton would do anything so reprehensible as sending American troops into harms way to deflect attention from his own personal problems :rolleyes:

[SN]

Kosovo is getting better, GY: you are dead on about Haiti. We accomplished nothing, absolutely nothing with that mission. Except divert attention.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by WSC Guy
Kosovo is getting better, GY: you are dead on about Haiti. We accomplished nothing, absolutely nothing with that mission. Except divert attention.

Not quite true, we did make the Congressional Black Caucus and the Kennedys happy.

Yes, Kosovo has quieted down but when I was there we were getting nervous about Albanian and KLA territorial ambitions. It was not a fun time to be there, especially since we knew we were being used for political purposes.

[SN]

I just came back from Kosovo, major sweep was conducted earlier this year. Many KLA are now in jail or unemployed, we did another major house cleaning just before I left.

The local courts actually sentenced four former KLA to life terms for crimes committed during the war.

On the down side, we had a RPG and grenade attack (against UNMIK-P facilities) just before I left, and an UNMIK-P Officer was killed in an ambush the day after I left.

The Russians are gone, and downsizing continues. 5 more years and this one year mission will also be complete.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by WSC Guy
Ref Somalia et al. Bosnia and Kosovo are NATO ops, not UN ops. We went in because the NATO countries believed it was in their best interest to stop genocide. Haiti was a U.S. operation, the U.N. came in afterward.

Thanks for your post. I'll have to re-read Black Hawk Down and pay more attention to the politics side. I'm [pretty sure I remember some loud Republican screaming to get the troops out after the "event" (and I've no doubt that there were D's screaming too, just not as loud as, well, in politics, it was their guy in the WH).

I remember the Haiti op (Restore Democracy?). I was on a C-141 off the coast of FL to jump into that hellhole when we were turned around in the sky. Glad we weren't sent back to make the peace though. Not a very nice place from what I hear.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by WSC Guy
5 more years and this one year mission will also be complete.

Yeah, and maybe a year or two after that, those troops in Bosnia that were going to be home by Christmas, 1996 will make it back :rolleyes:

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
I'm pretty sure I remember some loud Republican screaming to get the troops out after the "event" (and I've no doubt that there were D's screaming too, just not as loud as, well, in politics, it was their guy in the WH).

Let's see, a democratically-controlled White House, a democratically-controlled Senate, a democratically-controlled Congress, a democratically-controlled SECDEF office...and it was the Republicans fault?!? :rolleyes:

Let's get one thing straight, boy, the debacle in Somalia and the embarrassment we suffered is the fault of one man, Clinton.

[echoes]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Let's see, a democratically-controlled White House, a democratically-controlled Senate, a democratically-controlled Congress, a democratically-controlled SECDEF office...and it was the Republicans fault?!? :rolleyes:

Let's get one thing straight, boy, the debacle in Somalia and the embarrassment we suffered is the fault of one man, Clinton.

Good Morning GY! :)

Just wanted to give a two thumbs up here, and a big shout of "Oh Yeah!" to the above comments.

Clinton was, and is, a poser. Hated by many, feared by few,
but laughed at none-the-less by most everone!

Hope you are having a great day! :)

Holly ;)

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by echoes
Hope you are having a great day! :)

Holly ;)

I am now :D

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by Kid A
Actually no. It's because I took a college drop and received an early out and subsequently received the wrong RE code.

Not that it's any of your business.

RE code of 3 is given to anyone who does not complete their service obligation for whatever reason. It is simply. They want to be sure you are not going to get sand in your clit again and up and leave to persue something else.

I hear Re code waivers for college drops are fairly common so you may get your chance soon. FID with your team should be interesting.

James D

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by echoes


...Clinton was, and is, a poser. Hated by many, feared by few,
but laughed at none-the-less by most everone!

Hope you are having a great day! :)

Holly ;)

Now that is funny.

Good morning Holly

James D

[RipperTOW]

After thinking about this, I would like to point out a fundamental fact about the arguments tendered for a Palestinian State. When America was formed, it was formed on the basis that there were ideas, that did not have political expression at the time, and which the Americans wanted to base a state on. The entire justification for America offered in the Declaration was ideological. Today, I think most Americans still recognize ideology, as opposed to, say, ethnicity, as the essential issue in determining the moral validity of a state.

But what is the nature of the argument for a Palestinian State? There is no ideology that they might claim to uphold that doesn't already exist in the region, and right where they are living. If they like the way the Arabs in Syria, Jordan, or Egypt run their countries (in terms of the ideas), then why don't they just call for being assimilated into those areas? If they prefer freedom and liberalism, why don't they work to assimilate into the Israeli politics? Instead, it is asserted, they need a state of their own because they are "Palestinian" as against "Jew." In other words, it is ethnicity.

When Zionism was crystallizing into a polity in the early 20th century, the very thing that chaffed the Palestinian Arabs so much was the idea that they would have to live in a region where there was dominant political body of [gasp] jews. But what about their jewishness did the Arabs hate? Well, the real answer is historical. In Islam jews and christians are dhimmi, which is something akin to 3/5ths human. Mix that long-standing idea with 2 tablespoons of German philosophy and you get a hatred of the jews for the fact that they are jews, and the view that it is an intrinsic part of their ethnic identity. Recall that the Palestinian Mufti under the British Mandate sided with the Nazis during WWII.

So why on earth should anyone give any currency to the idea that because of your race you need a state of your own? Talk about racist. These people are so consumed with their identity as "Palestinian Arabs" that they can't reconcile themselves to being either among the other Arabs or [gasp] the Jews. It is time that those who want this state to come into existence are held accountble for some argument beyond: because they are Palestinian. The left just asserts this today as if it were an obvious fact, like gravity, that if you're a different ethicity you need a state apart from others of different ethnicity. One would think that most Americans would be beyond forming arguments strinctly on racial and ethnic lines these days.

[specwarnet]

Humans have always fought over land. Only time it ever stops is when the losers are dead or war prizes.

The extremists on both sides are going to keep this boiling until they run out of fuel. The sooner one group takes out the other the sooner peace will return to the lands. Seems cold but sometimes you have to let nature run its course.

[Tyr]

RipperTOW, Good Post.......

That was rational and reasonable but alas, some people just don't respond to reason. Nothing anyone can do.......Specwarnet is probably correct.

Tyr

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by Tyr
RipperTOW, Good Post.......


I concur.

The fighting did not start in an instant and it shall not end that way.

James D

[ralph conner]

Originally posted by specwarnet
Humans have always fought over land. Only time it ever stops is when the losers are dead or war prizes.

The extremists on both sides are going to keep this boiling until they run out of fuel. The sooner one group takes out the other the sooner peace will return to the lands. Seems cold but sometimes you have to let nature run its course.

***

History certainly verifies this observation.

BTW, isn't the polulation of the Palestinian territories almost 30 percent Christian?

[RipperTOW]

Originally posted by ralph conner
...isn't the polulation of the Palestinian territories almost 30 percent Christian?

I don't think so. I know there is a substantial Christian population in Lebanon (Maronite), but unless you're including that in "Palestine" then I don't think 30% is anywhere close. It's probably close to the Christian population of Lebanon, in fact. Maybe more like 3%. I'm sure this is available in some World Bank Fact Book, but that's probably close.

As far as the land goes, I agree they want the land. My point was that the leftists in the US and Europe who try to intellectually justify the Palestinian's claim should be called to the carpet more on their racist justification.

[Kid A]

RipperTow:

ANd what is it that Israel and Zionism offer other than a place for Jews run by Jews? Sure Israel is a pseudo-Democracy, but one FOR Jews. Arabs who marry Jews are no longer afforded citizenship.

The same argument for the Palestinians assimilating into Arab populations exists for the Jews, in fact there are more Jews living OUTSIDE of Israel than inside of Israel. There are more Jews living in North America than in Israel. Obviously the Jewish Identity and the need for a state exists for only the close to 5 million living in Israel. The others, including the over 6 million in America, have already assimilated. They are enjoying TRUE Democracy, not Democracy for a Few, such as the State of Israel.

So the very end result is we have two people, two different religions, but from the same ancestry, who worship the same God of Abraham, who despise each other. One people has been in the area longer than the other (that would be the Palestinians), but the other people have the "Right" to exist there and god help anyone who says otherwise.

So why on earth should anyone give any currency to the idea that because of your race you need a state of your own?

That's the Jewish Reason as well. They don't want a Democracy for anyone other than themselves so they bring nothing new to the area other than one other state fractured from all others in the region. Israel is a pseudo-Democracy for Jews and Jews alone. Now why isn't that racist as you state?

In Islam jews and christians are dhimmi, which is something akin to 3/5ths human.

Where can one find this?

What I discovered is not the dhimmi is a 3/5th human, but a dhimmis is a [b[non-Muslim living under the protection of a Muslim state[/b]. He is exempt from duties of Islam like military and zakah but must instead pay a tax called jizyah.

Dhimmi does not cover any non-Muslim who does NOT live in a Muslim state.

But what does the Qu'ran say about Jews and Christians? Let's not use what the Mullahs say since anyone can use any book to justify anything (as has frequently been done in the name of Jesus, Moses, God Himself by people with agendas).

II. 62. Those who believe, and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,_ any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

IV. 131. To Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth. Verily we have directed the People of the Book before you, and you (o Muslims) to fear Allah. But if ye deny Him, lo! unto Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth, and Allah is free of all wants, worthy of all praise.

It is even interesting to note that the Koran acknowledges the fact that Allah gave Jews the Promised land.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by ralph conner

BTW, isn't the polulation of the Palestinian territories almost 30 percent Christian?

It was. Now it's less than 2% because they're leaving in droves due to the Israeli incursions.

"Today, no more than two percent of the population is Christian, compared to as much as 20 percent in 1948. The population of towns like Bethlehem and Ramallah were once over 90 percent Christian, but today, Bethlehem is less than 25 percent Christian while in Ramallah, the percentage is even lower."

"For example, two months ago in the northern West Bank village of Zababdeh, one 33-year-old mechanic, a member of the Roman Catholic community, was taken from his shop by a passing military jeep to be used as a human shield while the soldiers fired beside his head in response to a Molotov cocktail that someone had thrown near their jeep. It was his wife's 24th birthday. The practice of taking human shields is illegal according to international law, and Christians - like their Muslim neighbours - share the fear of and anger at being abused by Israeli soldiers who break the law and take advantage of Palestinians."

http://www2.wcc-coe.org/pressreleasesen.nsf/index/feat-03-09.html

That's from the World Council of Churches. Take from it what you will.


" In 1948, an estimated 750,000 Palestinians were forced out of their homeland and became refugees. Today, 20 refugee camps are home to over a million people. All Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims, are restricted to tiny areas of land within the West Bank. This continues to have devastating effects upon the Palestinian economy. Palestinian Christians, in cooperation with the church worldwide, are working to alleviate this suffering. "

...

"It is unfortunate that some Christians from the West believe God gave the land solely to the Jewish people. The resident Arab population, Christians and Muslims, are dismissed as trespassers or a stumbling block to the fulfillment of prophecies. "

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8td/8td068.html

So yeah, Palestinian Christians once thrived in the area. Not any more.

[ralph conner]

As far as the land goes, I agree they want the land. My point was that the leftists in the US and Europe who try to intellectually justify the Palestinian's claim should be called to the carpet more on their racist justification.""

***

Rippertow ; Thanks. I'll go look it up. My focus is, that the region
is, and always has been a mixture of many ethinic groups and 'Arab' isn't very accurate. Admittedly 'Christians' are more 'recent'.

Other than that, I'm not about to get into this......

[RipperTOW]

Let's not evade the fact here that Zionism was not formed so much because the Jews thought they needed a racially pure homeland, as because they were being persecuted throughout Europe by Russians, Frenchmen, Germans, etc., who thought they needed an ethnically pure homeland.

Zionism's purpose was to build a place were a jew could be a jew, not a place were only jews could live to the exclusion of everyone else. As evidence of the fact recall that on the eve of the war in '48 the Zionists made guarantees to every arab who would stay and help them defend themselves.

It is ridiculous to look at the situation with marraiges now and drop the context of over 50 years of overt belligerence, as if it were 1947 all over again. Israel wasn't founded on ideas such as that one, they have emerged out of the necessity of surviving in a region where 99% of the people in the area would love to see your whole country in a shallow grave.

And I don't care what the Koran says or what kind of apologetic interpretation you come up with. The mullahs are the one teaching everyone there, and what we call "Islam" today is as much the writing of Islamic scholars as it is the Koran. That is the "Islam" that people have to deal with in reality. You can soften the interpretation all you like on an internet BBS, but guess what: muslims in the middle-east don't happen to agree with you.

And your argument that jews and christians were treated fairly is akin to saying the same thing about the American slaves. Dhimmi could not participate in politics, were most often forced to live in separate communities, and heaven help them if they were accused of some transgression by a Moslem. I don't know which Islamic website you get your Islamic history from, but it's just plain incorrect.

[BadMuther]

RipperTow-

Good post, I never really looked at it from that angle before.

I'm not a middle east expert but I disagree with those that hold both sides of the conflict as equally guilty.

You don't see jews routinely blowing themselves and innocent people up every week......

It seems to me that the Israelis are constantly giving in to the Palestinians, while the Palestinians just want more and more.

How someone who was tied to the 1983 Marine barracks bombing could ever win a "Nobel Peace Prize" is beyond me....

But then so did Nelson "burning tire necklace" Mandela.

My two cents.......

[Kid A]

Originally posted by RipperTOW
And your argument that jews and christians were treated fairly is akin to saying the same thing about the American slaves. Dhimmi could not participate in politics, were most often forced to live in separate communities, and heaven help them if they were accused of some transgression by a Moslem. I don't know which Islamic website you get your Islamic history from, but it's just plain incorrect.

I didn't say they were treated fairly did I? I posted the definition of Dhimmi.

In Israel can an Arab participate in politics? Don't they live in separate communities? And heaven help them if they are accused of being a "terrorist"?

I'm just asking you to apply the same rhetoric and harshness to the Israeli's that you apply to the Arabs. Because they both pull the same bullshit.

And don't say that the Israelis do this out of "necessity" while limiting the right of the Arabs to do the same.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by wm311
[B]
It seems to me that the Israelis are constantly giving in to the Palestinians, while the Palestinians just want more and more.

Giving what exactly? Since you can make the assumption, what is it based on? The palestinians willingly gave up 78% of their land. SEVENTY-EIGHT percent in the Oslo Accords.

What they WANT is for Israel to disband the illegal settlements and get the hell out of the West Bank and Gaza.

How can you say the Israeli's give and give when they are colonizing the Palestinian areas that are OUTSIDE of Israel?

[ralph conner]

Originally posted by Kid A
It was. Now it's less than 2% because they're leaving in droves due to the Israeli incursions.

"Today, no more than two percent of the population is Christian, compared to as much as 20 percent in 1948. The population of towns like Bethlehem and Ramallah were once over 90 percent Christian, but today, Bethlehem is less than 25 percent Christian while in Ramallah, the percentage is even lower."

"For example, two months ago in the northern West Bank village of Zababdeh, one 33-year-old mechanic, a member of the Roman Catholic community, was taken from his shop by a passing military jeep to be used as a human shield while the soldiers fired beside his head in response to a Molotov cocktail that someone had thrown near their jeep. It was his wife's 24th birthday. The practice of taking human shields is illegal according to international law, and Christians - like their Muslim neighbours - share the fear of and anger at being abused by Israeli soldiers who break the law and take advantage of Palestinians."

http://www2.wcc-coe.org/pressreleasesen.nsf/index/feat-03-09.html

That's from the World Council of Churches. Take from it what you will.


" In 1948, an estimated 750,000 Palestinians were forced out of their homeland and became refugees. Today, 20 refugee camps are home to over a million people. All Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims, are restricted to tiny areas of land within the West Bank. This continues to have devastating effects upon the Palestinian economy. Palestinian Christians, in cooperation with the church worldwide, are working to alleviate this suffering. "

...

"It is unfortunate that some Christians from the West believe God gave the land solely to the Jewish people. The resident Arab population, Christians and Muslims, are dismissed as trespassers or a stumbling block to the fulfillment of prophecies. "

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/8td/8td068.html

So yeah, Palestinian Christians once thrived in the area. Not any more.

Thanks, KidA (I feel like I'm cheating on my homework with you
doing my research :) )

The fact is that I know a Christian from that region so I was wondering about the demographics.

Actually, they arn't the only ones leaving in droves. The media for
the past year has been reporting that Israel is loosing it's itellectua due to this unrest.

[RipperTOW]

Originally posted by wm311
My two cents.......

That kind of common sense observation is worth more than two-cents. More people......ahem.....Kid A....should do as you have, rather than focusing on out of context minutae.

Unless you just start with the premise: Israel bad, Palestinians good, and then cherry-pick a bunch of out-of-context examples to support the conclusion you had before you even looked at the evidence, then I don't see how you can look at this situation and see anything other than 50+ years of unwarranted aggression on the part of the arabs.

But then again, you wouldn't think there would still be anyone around arguing for a welfare state after almost a century of communism brought the world nothing but a grave for untold millions. Maybe its no coincidence that these are usually the same people.

[BadMuther]

Kid A-

The palestinians willingly gave up 78% of their land. SEVENTY-EIGHT percent in the Oslo Accords.

Maybe they shouldn't cry about it then?

Everytime you look at any kind of "peace" deal, the Israeli concede more and more land back to the Palestinians....and each time it's NEVER enough for them.

I noticed you didn't comment on my homicide bombers statement......

[BadMuther]

"then I don't see how you can look at this situation and see anything other than 50+ years of unwarranted aggression on the part of the arabs."

EXACTLY!!!!

"But then again, you wouldn't think there would still be anyone around arguing for a welfare state after almost a century of communism brought the world nothing but a grave for untold millions. Maybe its no coincidence that these are usually the same people."

Ripper Tow for president..........or at least Kali governor!!!

:)

[Kid A]

Ripper you still haven't described the wonderful Democracy that Israel offers non-Jews. I'm still waiting. You can't. Israel is NOT a Democracy unless you are a Jew. Please stop referring to it as such.

The fact remains, whether out of necessity or not, Israel is just as much a racist state as Saudi Arabia (which prohibits Jews). They are simply not going to get a free pass in my book, you may give them one, feel free, but it doesn't make it right.

The atrocities that Israel has committed against the Arabs, the absolutely racist statements about killing all the Palestinians that come directly out of the mouths of Israel's leaders, the stealing of water (and yes, this is a big issue, especially when you don't have one - and let me make it again: Israeli Settlers who are inhabiting PALESTINIAN lands illegally get 50 times the water ration that a Palestinian does), etc, etc etc will never change my view towards Israel.

However I also agree that Egypt, Jordan, etc are EQUALLY as racist and wrong, which is something that none of you have done: apply the same standards to all the countries in that shithole the Mid-East. All I hear is "poor Jews being blown up" Not Poor palestinians, forced from your homes, forced to endure illegal settlements in your lands, forced to live in black out conditions, forced out of work, forced forced forced forced.

But that's ok, - it's perfectly acceptible to be a racist against Arabs these days.

[RipperTOW]

Ralph and Kid,

You don't think that perhaps one little part of the reason people have been leaving in droves since 1948 is because after the West pulled out the arabs have waged war after war, and blew up bomb after bomb, in Israel and the territories, to try to eliminate the jews and "drive them into the sea?"

Nah, that can't be it. It must be something the jews did, right? After all, the World Council of Churches thinks so.

Ralph, be careful whom you ask to do your homework.

[mgran]

Good points RipperTOW.

It seems to me that the Palestinians are "used" by Arab/Islamic states to justify Anti-American and Anti-Israel sentiments and rhetoric. That way their governments can take the heat off their repressive regimes. Outside of Jordan, I am at a loss to name a Muslim state or nation where its people don't live under a great deal of oppression.

I'm often puzzled why many Islamic nations seem mute about the situation of slavery (yes slavery in 2003) in Sudan (justified supposedly by Islam according to the individuals practicing this) and yet so vocal about Palestinians.

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by Kid A
RipperTow:

ANd what is it that Israel and Zionism offer other than a place for Jews run by Jews?

And America is a place FOR americans, run by Americans. Greece is a place for Greeks, run by Greeks. Whats your point?

Thats right you dont really have a point, just a piont of view.


Sure Israel is a pseudo-Democracy, but one FOR Jews. Arabs who marry Jews are no longer afforded citizenship.

Why should marrying into a culture automatically make you a citizen? I dont just mean Isreal either. It should not be that way here either. If you wish to marry and become a citizen become a citzen and marry. It should not be afforded because of wedding vows.

The same argument for the Palestinians assimilating into Arab populations exists for the Jews, in fact there are more Jews living OUTSIDE of Israel than inside of Israel. There are more Jews living in North America than in Israel. Obviously the Jewish Identity and the need for a state exists for only the close to 5 million living in Israel. The others, including the over 6 million in America, have already assimilated. They are enjoying TRUE Democracy, not Democracy for a Few, such as the State of Israel.

Are you referring to Jews by religion or nationality or just lumping the two together?

They don't want a Democracy for anyone other than themselves so they bring nothing new to the area other than one other state fractured from all others in the region. Israel is a pseudo-Democracy for Jews and Jews alone. Now why isn't that racist as you state?

II. 62. Those who believe, and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,_ any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

IV. 131. To Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth. Verily we have directed the People of the Book before you, and you (o Muslims) to fear Allah. But if ye deny Him, lo! unto Allah belong all things in the heavens and on earth, and Allah is free of all wants, worthy of all praise.

It is even interesting to note that the Koran acknowledges the fact that Allah gave Jews the Promised land.

Ill be damned if it dont. Well if their God says its Isreal's land and our God says its Isreal's land what is the problem. Oh yeah that blind hatred for Jews. Damn I nearly forgot about that little insignificant thing.

[RipperTOW]

Originally posted by Kid A
Ripper you still haven't described the wonderful Democracy that Israel offers non-Jews. I'm still waiting. You can't. Israel is NOT a Democracy unless you are a Jew. Please stop referring to it as such.

Since I have never in the whole thread called Israel a wonderful democracy, I have to suggest that you either stop with the beer or stop with the pain-killers, but whatever you do, stop mixing. And, furthermore, I don't think democracy is any kind of "great thing" in politics. I think rights are, like those in our Constitution. And on this note, even for the arabs in Israel, Israel is a superior place to any other place in the region by a mile.

Look at how much of the anti-Israel propaganda (most of which you've copied and pasted into this forum already) is created and spread in Isreal!!!! In what other ME country does this exist? It doesn't. You're only free in those countries if you tow the line. In Israel, that is not the case. Is Israel perfect? Absolutely not. Are many of their problems the result of the chronic state of war imposed on the region by arab belligerence? Yes. Is there even a remote comparison that can be made between the extent to which individual liberties for everyone in the population are protected in Israel as against the rest of the Middle-East? No, it is far and away worse, by a fucking mile, than it is in Israel. That is why Israel is in the right, period.

I'm sure you'll post a follow up, but I'm quitting the thread on the grounds that we're getting back to old arguments we have both made in the past, and to hopefully stem the tide of propaganda you'll cut and paste in here if we continue.

[Kid A]

[QUOTE to try to eliminate the jews and "drive them into the sea?"[/QUOTE]

How about this? Everytime I hear the "drive them into the sea" statement for any kind of justification I'm going to post the following statements. OK? Because I'm trying to apply an even hand and you're having none of it. You're a State of Israel apologist, no matter what. I've no doubt they could skin 5,000 Palestinians alive and you'd find justification for it.

So here goes, and remember, every time I read "drive them into the sea" I'm going to post this, just to keep it fair.

"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they
are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman
Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of
General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October
1983.
__________

"I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian
child (that) will be born in this area. The
Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the
man, because the Palestinian childs existence infers
that generations will go on, but the man causes
limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli
civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and
I would make him suffer before killing him. With one
hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I
wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls
as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we
do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we
shall do but we tell others what they shall do.

[Ariel Sharon, current Prime Minister, In an interview
with General Ouze Merham, 1956]

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation,
land confiscation, and the cutting of all social
services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"

"Every time we do something you tell me America
will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you
something very clear: Don't worry about American
pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control
America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime
Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon
Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.
_________

David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime
Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never
sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have
taken their country. It is true God promised it to us,
but how could that interest them? Our God is not
theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis,
Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see
but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their
country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum
Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox),
pp121.

_________

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will
be able to do about it will be to scurry around like
drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief
of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York
Times, 14 April 1983.

_________
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab
villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab
villages, and I do not blame you because geography
books no longer exist. Not only do the books not
exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal
arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the
place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of
Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal
al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this
country that did not have a former Arab population."
Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported
in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

_________
"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many
hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements
because everything we take now will stay ours...
Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel
Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting
of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party,
Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.
________
"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to
public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain
number of facts that are forgotten with time. The
first of these is that there is no
Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the
eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their
lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July
1972.

So there it is. Now tell me, why is "Drive the Jews into the Sea" any worse?

[Kid A]

Originally posted by RIT_MEDIC
[B]And America is a place FOR americans, run by Americans. Greece is a place for Greeks, run by Greeks. Whats your point?

Thats right you dont really have a point, just a piont of view.


Please don't tell me that you believe that an "American" cannot differ from another "American." The point with Israel is you have to be Jewish. That's it. Jewish. In America you don't have to be a certain religion, you don't have to worship a certain God. Neither in Greece.

In Israel you must be Jewish, either by religion, or by birth.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by RipperTOW
[B] That is why Israel is in the right, period.

Here's a question for you: Egypt blasts through the Sinai Penninsula into Israel. They put up a few dozen settlements, filled with Egyptians, and around those settlements are hundreds of tanks, thousands of soldiers, and constant monitoring by jets. Israel trys to defeat them, but can't (remember, this is hypothetical),

What do you think about Egypt now? Are they in the right? Of course they aren't, but it's exactly what Israel is doing.

I could give a flying baboon's ass what Israel does IN ISRAEL, but get the FUCK out of the West Bank and Gaza because it isn't yours.

That is a very simple concept.

Very simple to everyone but the Israeli's. It's not yours, you can't have it, eventually you will be forced to leave it, and it causes you a whole shitload of grief because terrorists use it as reason to bomb your civilians.

Get your heads out of your asses and leave. What is so hard to understand about that? You have Israel, fine. Keep it. Do whatever you want with it. Kick all the Arabs out. Big deal. But get the hell out of the WB and Gaza.

[RipperTOW]

Originally posted by Kid A
Now tell me, why is "Drive the Jews into the Sea" any worse?

Because of the little fact, as you might have noticed, THAT THEY'VE ACTUALLY BEEN TRYING TO FUCKING DO IT FOR THE PAST 50+ YEARS. They've started WHOLE WARS to try to accomplish this. It's not a cherry-picked, out-of-context quote that nobody's ever heard of. You can find quotes like the ones you've posted from people in government from any country on earth. The difference is, not everyone has the rap sheet to match the quotes.

So much for quitting this thread.

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by Kid A
Please don't tell me that you believe that an "American" cannot differ from another "American." The point with Israel is you have to be Jewish. That's it. Jewish. In America you don't have to be a certain religion, you don't have to worship a certain God. Neither in Greece.

In Israel you must be Jewish, either by religion, or by birth.


Its a Jewish State. It is for the protection of the Jewish people.

James D

[Kid A]

Counterpoint:

1956

I vow that if I was just an Israeli
civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and
I would make him suffer before killing him. With one
hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I
wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls
as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we
do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we
shall do but we tell others what they shall do.

[Ariel Sharon, current Prime Minister, In an interview
with General Ouze Merham, 1956]

1956

Now when was the last "war" on Israel by another country?

[Kid A]

Originally posted by RIT_MEDIC
Its a Jewish State. It is for the protection of the Jewish people.

James D

So the six million in America aren't protected?

Protection from what? Persecution? Well that's not working over there is it?

It's working here though, in America. Perfectly protected from persecution.

[BadMuther]

Kid A-

those were some pretty recent dates on your quotes (1983, 1956)...

While you call others "Israeli apologists", you sir, are an Arab apologist.

Leave the rhetoric aside......Look at the history of both sides.....

Israelis can talk all the hate talk they want, but the reality is it's the Palestinians who are committing the majority of (if not all of the) atrocities.

Ripper Tow, please don't quit the thread....and consider running for governor in the PRK at least, Ok?

:)

[Kid A]

Originally posted by wm311
[B]Kid A-

those were some pretty recent dates on your quotes (1983, 1956)...


Yeah, and the guy who made them, who talked about killing 750 Palestinians for the hell of it, who talked about telling his soldiers to rape Palestinian women is who now? Oh, that's right, He's currently the Israeli Prime Minister. Do you think his views have changed?


Israelis can talk all the hate talk they want, but the reality is it's the Palestinians who are committing the majority of (if not all of the) atrocities.


Really? Back up this statement with facts. I want death numbers from both sides for all interactions between palestinians and Israelis.

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by Kid A
So the six million in America aren't protected?

Protection from what? Persecution? Well that's not working over there is it?

It's working here though, in America. Perfectly protected from persecution.


Thats why it was created numbnuts. If America were to leave isreal alone for a short time, stop sticking our nose in their national security they would have long solved this. It is the leftist dimwits that keep the war going. You guys have to find something to harp on.

Why is it you cannot find a quote from recent history? why all this 1950's crap. I am sure with enough effort one could find similar quotes from our politician in reference to the Germans, Russians, Terrorists from 911, and so on.

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by Kid A
Yeah, and the guy who made them, who talked about killing 750 Palestinians for the hell of it, who talked about telling his soldiers to rape Palestinian women is who now? Oh, that's right, He's currently the Israeli Prime Minister. Do you think his views have changed?

Do you know they have not. NO

[RipperTOW]

Originally posted by Kid A
Here's a question for you: Egypt blasts through the Sinai Penninsula into Israel. They put up a few dozen settlements, filled with Egyptians, and around those settlements are hundreds of tanks, thousands of soldiers, and constant monitoring by jets. Israel trys to defeat them, but can't (remember, this is hypothetical),

What do you think about Egypt now? Are they in the right? Of course they aren't, but it's exactly what Israel is doing.

If, hypothetically, Egypt was relatively pro-individual rights and Israel was a despotic pesthole, then I would be all for it.

[BadMuther]

Your telling me Sharon has not softened his hardline stance from 1956 till now??????????

The answer is Yes, he has. I'm not going to take something he said in 1956 and hold it against him the rest of his life. I'll look at his actions over the years (especially the last 10, and definitely the last couple) instead.

As for numbers, dude, do you not watch the news????

Friggin homicide bombers blowing up innocent people left and right???? How many homicide bombers have there been since just the start of the year?????

liberals and people like you let us know evertime the israelis get even a scratch on a palestinian....

That idiot chick who got ran over by the bulldozer (I know american citizen/traitor bitch) comes to mind.....


http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22157&highlight=killed+by+bulldozer

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Israel is NOT a Democracy unless you are a Jew.


Current members of Knesset:

Azmi Bishara
Wasil Taha
Jamal Zahalka
Mohammad Barakeh
Issam Makhoul
Ahmad Tibi
Abdulmalik Dehamshe
Talab El-Sana

An awful lot of arab names for a legislative body in a jewish-only democracy :rolleyes:

[Sayar]

Originally posted by Kid A
Giving what exactly? Since you can make the assumption, what is it based on? The palestinians willingly gave up 78% of their land. SEVENTY-EIGHT percent in the Oslo Accords.

it wasnt theirs to give. the negotiations went on the territory captured in '67. they got ~90% of it and 5% of land in israel as a swap. thats a hell of a lot to give.

What they WANT is for Israel to disband the illegal settlements and get the hell out of the West Bank and Gaza.
and right of return, and compenstaion and a free uncontroled passege through israel and so on....

[RipperTOW]

Originally posted by Kid A
Now when was the last "war" on Israel by another country?

In Islamic lore there is a story about the Qu'raysh tribe. The Qu'raysh were from Mecca, and they expelled Muhammad when he started talking to god and trying to convert them. Muhammad went to Medina, where his new religion caught on and he became a powerful businessman (he was actually an arbiter of disputes). Eventually, he ruled Medina.

He negotiated a 10-year peace with the Qu'raysh in Mecca. It was essential that he do so, because at the time he the Qu'raysh were far more powerful. But he used the 10-year peace to build an army, and as the agreement was due to expire he attacked and defeated the Qu'raysh.

On the eve of the Oslo agreements, Arafat appeared on Egyptian television and addressed the Palestinian people and anyone else who was listening. The agreements, he said, "were made in the spirit of the Qu'raysh tribe." Everyone in Arabia understood the reference (this is not an obscure piece of the Islamic folklore - it's something akin to turning water into wine for Christians). Arafat was reminding everyone that while it was obvious since '73 that an outright confrontation wouldn't work, they could use the illusion of peace to mount attacks at Isreal's very core. Lo and behold, there came the Intifada.

That wasn't the first time the Qu'raysh were mentioned. After the defeat of the arab armies in 1973 it was written into the PLO charter (which I won't reproduce here but is available on the internet).

So, by Arafat's own analogy, the inexorable and steady march of terrorism is the latest battle in the same war that has been waged against Israel since it has existed. It is part of the same ideological movement that drove Nasser's tanks into the Negev in 1967.

[Gulf Yankee]

You know, RipperTOW, you're awfully literate for a Marine :D

[RipperTOW]

I don't know what to say, I got all this stuff in School of Infantry.:cool:

[BadMuther]

He's lying-he was probably in the army first, or at least learned to read in an army school....

;)

[SGTROCK]

You know these Muslim,Palestinian Arabs et all not only want the destruction of the Jews but western civilization itself,whats so hard to understand about this!! They are against EVERYTHING that I believe in,have bled and fought for and some of my close friends have died for."FUCK THEM" there is a quote for you from 2003 that you can quote me on in 2053!!Anybody that has a problem with this can kiss my ass,my white Anglo American ass that is!!!! These fuckers are cut from the same cloth of those that attacked MY country 2 years ago!!!!These that preach death and destruction to me, my friends and family and our(American) way of life will find themselves looking for those 12 virgins if they EVER talk this trash to my face,which I highly doubt since they are the most cowardly scum that I have ever known.Your apologetic rhetoric reminds me of another scumbag known as Taliban John who I hope is taking one DEEP right now as I write this!!! Oh yeah if I wasnt clear before FUCK the Arab world!!!!!And if you are curious this is from my own real world experience from living and fighting in this POS world for 2 years!!!!!

SGTROCK

RipperTow, SOI?........BOOOT!!!!!!!:D

[mangda]

The 1956 Sharon quote is just another fabrication from media monitors which is a muslim site.

[mccarthy]

Throughout history land has changed hands one of two ways, it was purchased or it was taken by force, more often the latter.

I could give a flying baboon's ass what Israel does IN ISRAEL, but get the FUCK out of the West Bank and Gaza because it isn't yours.

Well that's the problem KidA, it is Isreal's. They possess it. You have a post-Woodrow Wilson world view where wars are fought for strictly moral reasons and for moral ends. That was not the case in his time, history does not support it nor can you find much evidence for it in the present.

Here's a question for you: Egypt blasts through the Sinai Penninsula into Israel. They put up a few dozen settlements, filled with Egyptians, and around those settlements are hundreds of tanks, thousands of soldiers, and constant monitoring by jets. Israel trys to defeat them, but can't (remember, this is hypothetical),

Then that part of Isreal would belong to Egypt. To say it would still be Isreal's land is simply illogical. What claim would they have to it? If they did make such a claim who would they bring it to? Who would honor their claim and by what means? You see, we are back to force again.

What do you think about Egypt now? Are they in the right? Of course they aren't, but it's exactly what Israel is doing.

The question of right and wrong does not matter. Being a weaker culture or army does not some how make you morally just and the stronger culture or army morally unjust.

I want death numbers from both sides for all interactions between palestinians and Israelis.

To prove what? Is the one with the higher death toll atomatically right? The only thing you might find is who is winning.

A culture or nation being uprooted by a dominate nation is nothing new to history. Why are we amazed when it happens now. It is the way humans have interacted with one another for millennia. Remember, the land you stand on used to belong to the Indians who had most likely warred with other Indians for it. Do you think the Romans were the first ones in Rome?

The only solution I see to the Isreali-Palestinian conflict is complete domination of one side over the other. We have two sides claiming the same land and neither appear likely to give up their claim. Peace will only come when on side loses. Right now it looks like it will be the Palestinians. But don't fault the Isrealies just because they're winning.

[Bravo_One_Three]

Give it up Gents, Kid A lacks the ability to admitt that he is wrong, and provided there are Jews involved will just keep on parroting.

Kid A, That isn't an attack, it is a simple obersvation based on reading your previous posts in this and other threads. You don't even have the sack to admitt that your previous statement was a bit "over reaching". You complain about debate, but you are unwilling to admitt that maybe (ok definitely) you picked the wrong horse to bet on. I say again: Coward, over.

Your analogy regarding Egypt and the Sinai was way off. Lets suppose that Israel had repeatedly used the Sinai as a stepping off point for the invasion of Egypt, each time, the Egyptians had stood thier ground and then even advanced to the point of threatening Tel Aviv.

The Egyptians decide that the 3rd time is a charm, and decide not to give back the lands that were repeatedly used as jump off points for invasions. Would they be right in doing so... yes they would. Would the Israelis be right in waging a guerilla war against Egyptian military targets? I wouldn't say no, but I wouldn't say yes either. But what if the Israelis started packing in bombs laced with rat poison, and attacking civilian targets in Cairo? Specifically targeting, not incidentally... deliberatley calculated attacks designed to cause catostophic casualties amoung people just trying to go to work, or get married, or raise thier families, or whatever.

Based on your rabid comments thus far, I think you'd be against the jews defending themselves in any way.

You know, the only people more concerned with race than the Nazi's were are liberals... you are a Jew Hating Liberal of the worst kind. Blinders and all.

I want to make this perfectly clear... I don't give a fuck about Israel. I'm a Jew, and I don't give a rats ass about that state. I am an American first, last and always. My religious faith is with God, not in a state.

Contrary to your other claims, there ARE Palestinians serving in the Parliment in Israel. But you fail to mention that there are no Jews in office in the territories. None.

But seeing all those Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11 cleared up any sympathy I had for thier cause. I don't care why they hate us, and I hope Israel kills every god damned member of Hamas, Fatah, and Hezballah, and uses American bombs to do it.

[BadMuther]

"But seeing all those Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11 cleared up any sympathy I had for thier cause. I don't care why they hate us, and I hope Israel kills every god damned member of Hamas, Fatah, and Hezballah, and uses American bombs to do it."

I concur. I feel that anyone defending the Palestinians has a very short memory (9/11, 1983, to name a few) and that their views are at least anti-american, if not traitorous.

Americans have the right of free speech and to debate, but I just don't understand why any patriotic American would defend these palestinian terrorist scumbuckets.

I wouldn't lose ANY sleep if they (PLO, etc.) were all dead tmrw......

The majority of terrorist attacks against westerners over the years from the 60's till now have been committed by arab terrorists...and people still don't get it........

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by wm311
Americans have the right of free speech and to debate, but I just don't understand why any patriotic American would defend these palestinian terrorist scumbuckets.

Out of ignorance, unfortunately.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by wm311
[B]That idiot chick who got ran over by the bulldozer (I know american citizen/traitor bitch) comes to mind.....



Traitor? What, exactly, was she doing that was treasonous to the United States? Trying to stop an occupying power from bulldozing a home?

Funny. I remember the Chinese student stopping a tank in Tienamen Square and the world cheering him on. An American girl tries to stop a bulldozer from crushing a house and she's a traitor bitch.

And yes, I watch the news. I asked you for the numbers of Israeli deaths and the numbers of Palestinian deaths. They're pretty easy to find out.

I'd also like the number of permits granted to Palestinians to build homes in their own territories verses the number of "illegal" permits granted to Israeli's to build homes in the PALESTINIAN areas, not in Israel.

Because, you see, when someone gets pushed enough they fight back, whether right or wrong, but they fight back. This is so much more than "push them to the sea."

And I believe at least one of my quotes was from 2001.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
Current members of Knesset:

Azmi Bishara
Wasil Taha
Jamal Zahalka
Mohammad Barakeh
Issam Makhoul
Ahmad Tibi
Abdulmalik Dehamshe
Talab El-Sana

An awful lot of arab names for a legislative body in a jewish-only democracy :rolleyes:

And, tell me, Gulf Yankee, what are the prohibitions on an Arab candidate for serving in the Knesset. Hint: There are a couple of things they are not allowed to discuss. Name them.


Arab members of the Knesset are puppets.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Bravo_One_Three
[B]You don't even have the sack to admitt that your previous statement was a bit "over reaching".



Which statement?


Based on your rabid comments thus far, I think you'd be against the jews defending themselves in any way.


Not at all. When have I advocated the Jews can't defend themselves? All along my position has been that if the Israeli's disband the settlements, and proctor the Occupied Territoires according the the Geneva Convention (which they signed) and other laws governing Occupying Powers, that they'd have a lot stronger case should the Palestinians continue their terror attacks.

Get out of the Occupied Territories, you aren't allowed to be there. If they aren't going to follow the Geneva Convention and International Law, and, in fact, blatantly wave the fact that they aren't in everyone's face, then why should they have any reason to cry "Foul"? It's not as though they're giving the Palestinians a great life or treating them fairly.


I want to make this perfectly clear... I don't give a fuck about Israel. I'm a Jew, and I don't give a rats ass about that state. I am an American first, last and always. My religious faith is with God, not in a state.


Good. We agree. I don't give a fuck about the Israeli State either, but that doesn't mean I'm for the destruction of the Jews.


Contrary to your other claims, there ARE Palestinians serving in the Parliment in Israel.

True, there are, but they are tethered and can't speak of certain things, no?


But you fail to mention that there are no Jews in office in the territories. None.

Are there any that want to but are being prohibited? I don't know.


But seeing all those Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11 cleared up any sympathy I had for thier cause.
I thought there was big debate about the veracity of those pictures. I'm pretty sure that CNN even backed off the images saying they were from some earlier riot. Not sure. I'll check it out.

I don't care why they hate us, and I hope Israel kills every god damned member of Hamas, Fatah, and Hezballah, and uses American bombs to do it.

I agree too. I've always said the terrorist groups need to be turned over, gotten rid of, etc, and the Israeli's need to get rid of the settlements at the same time.

Then they may be able to come to the table more level headed.

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by Kid A
Traitor? What, exactly, was she doing that was treasonous to the United States? Trying to stop an occupying power from bulldozing a home?

Funny. I remember the Chinese student stopping a tank in Tienamen Square and the world cheering him on. An American girl tries to stop a bulldozer from crushing a house and she's a traitor bitch.

I wanna know what made it any of her fuckin' business?

And yes, I watch the news. I asked you for the numbers of Israeli deaths and the numbers of Palestinian deaths. They're pretty easy to find out.

There is a distinct difference in a homicide bomber killing innocent women and children and the death of the Palestinian from collateral damage during military missions against the terrorists and those that support them. In my mind there is no difference in the terrorists, those that support them or those that know who they are and do nothing about it. They are all guilty and should be delt with accordingly.

If the argument is about the Isreali Govt then the war waged against Isreal should be engaged against the military/govt, not innocent civilian targets.

I'd also like the number of permits granted to Palestinians to build homes in their own territories verses the number of "illegal" permits granted to Israeli's to build homes in the PALESTINIAN areas, not in Israel.

Because, you see, when someone gets pushed enough they fight back, whether right or wrong, but they fight back. This is so much more than "push them to the sea."

And I believe at least one of my quotes was from 2001.

Why is it the fight is taken to the innocent women and children at coffee shops, malls, riding buses? Cowards every last one of them.

If the Palestinian Authority wants peace then he might try roping his his own people first. Although, since I believe they order this they very well cannot contain those whose action they bless.

Which quote was from 2001? I could not find it.

James D

[Kid A]

Originally posted by RIT_MEDIC
IIf the Palestinian Authority wants peace then he might try roping his his own people first. Although, since I believe they order this they very well cannot contain those whose action they bless.

Which quote was from 2001? I could not find it.

James D

I think it was the Sharon quote RE: America. Have to go look. No matter. The point was made. So far though I've not seen a single person quote a source or date or person for the "drive them to the sea" quotes. I'm not denying that it has been said, I just haven't seen anyone attribute it. I attribute what I post.

And I agree on the Palestinian Authority. I agree re: Arafat. The problem with Arafat is the Pals have been trodden on for so long, he's the one who stood up. Yeah he's a terrorist sponsoring asshole, but he's pretty much all they had for quite some time, so turning him over really isn't an option. Shooting him isn't one either. The only option really available is for another strong candidate to come out and take over (or pray Arafat dies). They have a guy now...and I'm too lazy to look his name up, but he's the PM? Whatever. He seems fairly level headed.

The problem is that Israel is in clear violation. This is how I see it. It's how many Israeli's see it. The majority of Israeli's could give a shit about the Settlements since they realize that the settlements and the violence surrounding them is one of the main reasons for the Palestinian terror campaigns.

Get rid of the settlements. Once they're disbanded the Palestinians have, say, 30 days to turn over, say, 50 members of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc (or 30 days to provide details of where they are). The Palestinian people turn their backs on them, shun them. Now this won't work for all of them, but it will for the majority. So Israel has the terrorists, Palestine has the Occupied Terroritoried that aren't Occupied anymore.

Then they sit down at the table.

Will there still be terror bombings? Unfortunately, yes. We can't even stop snipers and bombers here in America, but Israel will have to show restraint until it is clear that the road to peace is a sham.

Then they can reign hell fire on them for all I care. All I'm saying is that they haven't treated the Palestinians with dignity for decades, and a terrorized people rapidly becomes a terrorizing people.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
And, tell me, Gulf Yankee, what are the prohibitions on an Arab candidate for serving in the Knesset. Hint: There are a couple of things they are not allowed to discuss. Name them.


Arab members of the Knesset are puppets.

Oh, I see...

First you tell me that arabs cannot participate in Israeli government.

Now you tell me that they can but those that do are puppets.

Pretty fucking convenient, don't you think.

Why not simply admit that your statetments were wrong instead of this embarrassing backpedaling?

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Arab members of the Knesset are puppets.

Number of arabs democratically elected in Israel: 8

Number of arabs democratically elected elsewhere in the middle east: 0

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A So far though I've not seen a single person quote a source or date or person for the "drive them to the sea" quotes.

A basic fundamental tenet of Hamas is their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. They have, in countless communiques, stated that their goal is the complete destruction of Israel


Originally posted by Kid A All I'm saying is that they haven't treated the Palestinians with dignity for decades, and a terrorized people rapidly becomes a terrorizing people.

Those terrorists that flew planes into our buildings were hardly poor and disenfranchised. In fact, they were solidly middle-class. The latest suicide bomber was a middle-class teacher. Linking terrorism with poverty is convenient but hardly accurate. After all, I can't remember the last time a starving Guatamalan refugee blew himself up in a NYC bus.


Lastly, Einstein, do you know that those Israeli settlements that are "illegally" being built on the West Bank are largely being built by Palestinian owned and managed contractors? Did you know that the single largest building contractor engaged in building Israeli settlements is owned by Arafat's brother-in-law? No, I didn't think so. :rolleyes:

[Kid A]

Why not simply admit that your statetments were wrong instead of this embarrassing backpedaling? [/B]

Actually I said that Israel was not a Democracy unless you are a Jew. I stand by that statement. Just because a few Arabs can serve on the Knesset doesn't make it a Democracy for Arabs. In fact I don't think I said that Arabs could NOT serve in the Knesset as long as they meet the qualifications for a List.

As far as the "democratically" elected Arabs in Israel and the rest of the Middle East. Who cares? Why this constant comparison to the rest of the Arab world? Everyone keeps saying the Arabs want to drive Israel to the sea. What in the hell does that have to do with the Palestinians? They don't even have a friggin airplane to my knowledge. I'm talking about the Palestinians and you guys keep bringing up all the other countries surrounding Israel and how they want to push Israeli's into the sea.

I'm talking, and have been talking, about the occupation of Palestine.

Talk about thread drift.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
A basic fundamental tenet of Hamas is their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. They have, in countless communiques, stated that their goal is the complete destruction of Israel

I'd like to see a communique, just for fairness' sake. I post sources. I want to see sources. I'm not doubting you by the way.



Those terrorists that flew planes into our buildings were hardly poor and disenfranchised.



And this has what, exactly, to do with the Palestinians? The terrorists who flew planes into our buildings were, I do believe, Saudis.


In fact, they were solidly middle-class. The latest suicide bomber was a middle-class teacher. Linking terrorism with poverty is convenient but hardly accurate. After all, I can't remember the last time a starving Guatamalan refugee blew himself up in a NYC bus.


And again, where did I mention poverty? I said "dignity" not "poverty." A palestinian can't build a house without petitioning Israel for the right to build a house - and again, under the laws governing an occupying power, this is illegal. Is a curfew dignified? When someone is prevented from going to a hospital because of a "curfew" wouldn't that piss you the fuck off especially if you had nothing to do with whatever brought the curfew on?

Care to check on the numbers of Palestinians who have died, including children, JUST during curfew hours because they were refused permission to go to a hospital?



Lastly, Einstein, do you know that those Israeli settlements that are "illegally" being built on the West Bank are largely being built by Palestinian owned and managed contractors? Did you know that the single largest building contractor engaged in building Israeli settlements is owned by Arafat's brother-in-law? No, I didn't think so. :rolleyes:

Are there bastards who will take advantange of people everywhere? Yes. Have I not condemned Arafat? Yes. And there is no need to put "illegally" in quotes. You can look up the Geneva Convention as well as I can. We both know, hell the whole world knows, that the settlements are illegal under a document that Israel signed. Had they NOT signed it that would be one thing, but they are a signatory.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Kid A
Actually I said that Israel was not a Democracy unless you are a Jew. I stand by that statement. Just because a few Arabs can serve on the Knesset doesn't make it a Democracy for Arabs. In fact I don't think I said that Arabs could NOT serve in the Knesset as long as they meet the qualifications for a List.

You are worse than fucking Clinton.

You specifically inferred that arabs are outside the democratic process in Israel. I pointed out to you that arabs can be elected to the Knesset exactly as Israelis can, therefore the arabs in Israel DO have a voice in government there. An arab can be elected to the legislature in Israel, arabs have the right to vote in Israel, what more is required for Israel to be a democracy for arabs?!?!?!

What is this, another example of "depends on what your definitiion of 'is' is"? More Clintonesque hair-splitting.

In fact, I don't know why I even bother responding to you? My time is more productively used enjoying the coffee-induced bowel movement I had this morning than it is in discussing anything with you.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
[B]You are worse than fucking Clinton.

You specifically inferred that arabs are outside the democratic process in Israel. I pointed out to you that arabs can be elected to the Knesset exactly as Israelis can, therefore the arabs in Israel DO have a voice in government there. An arab can be elected to the legislature in Israel, arabs have the right to vote in Israel, what more is required for Israel to be a democracy for arabs?!?!?!

What is this, another example of "depends on what your definitiion of 'is' is"? More Clintonesque hair-splitting.

It is not hair splitting at all.

An Israeli-Arab CAN, in fact, run for a seat on the Knesset, however that Israeli-Arab cannot speak of a few certain things. He or she is prevented from it. That is not a Democracy in my view. Maybe it is in yours.

What if we put a prohibition on Senators and Representatives from criticizing the President of the United States (no matter who he was)? Would that make any sense at all? What if an elected representative couldn't talk about "taxes" or about the military, or about Defense?

So fine. I was wrong. Israel is a Democracy. Mind if I put it in quotes? Israel is a "democracy" but only in word, not in definition. You know it, and I know it.

[Gulf Yankee]

I have come to the conclusion that a previous participant had stated, there is no way that Kid A is who he says he is. My guess is he is some 16 year old gadfly, trying to stir up trouble for kicks.

There is no way a 30-something, 82nd Airborne veteran, Congressional staffer can be this naive and uninformed, simply no way.

Kid A, shouldn't you be doing your homework or attending to your summer reading list? Go back to your video games, son, and leave this Board to the adults.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by Gulf Yankee
I have come to the conclusion that a previous participant had stated, there is no way that Kid A is who he says he is. My guess is he is some 16 year old gadfly, trying to stir up trouble for kicks.

There is no way a 30-something, 82nd Airborne veteran, Congressional staffer can be this naive and uninformed, simply no way.

Kid A, shouldn't you be doing your homework or attending to your summer reading list? Go back to your video games, son, and leave this Board to the adults.

Naive and uninformed? So where's the quote about driving them to the sea? What are the prohibitions placed on an Arab candidate running for a seat in the Knesset? How many people have died because they were prevented from going to hospitals during a curfew? What does the Geneva Convention say about settlements? About land-use administration? About building permits? You ask me for things, I give them *yes, even your biblical New Testament Violent Jesus quote.

Oh yeah, you asked for a conflict where Christians were fighting and advocating violence. How about, oh, uh, let's see.....Ireland?

[Gulf Yankee]

Junior,

You are on my ignore list. Don't bother posting anything directed at me, you are wasting your time.

[myclearcreek]

Kid A would like to continue his discussion with himself here...

http://forums.teencentre.net/showthread.php?t=1364

[ktek01]

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

This seems to be your mode of operation. I am not surprised, the asshole who said it loved "useful idiots" like yourself. Dont even start on Ireland, I can assure you that you dont have a clue how Irish Catholics or Brits really feel about that situation.

[Kid A]

Originally posted by ktek01
[B]This seems to be your mode of operation.

Please show me a lie.

I'm genuinely curious what I have "lied" about.

[Kid A]

Israel is a signatory.

"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles

of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

Unless agreed otherwise, flights over enemy or enemy occupied territory are prohibited.

Art. 23. Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases.

Art.24. The Parties to the conflict shall take the necessary measures to ensure that children under fifteen, who are orphaned or are separated from their families as a result of the war, are not left to their own resources, and that their maintenance, the exercise of their religion and their education are facilitated in all circumstances. Their education shall, as far as possible, be entrusted to persons of a similar cultural tradition.

Art. 25. All persons in the territory of a Party to the conflict, or in a territory occupied by it, shall be enabled to give news of a strictly personal nature to members of their families, wherever they may be, and to receive news from them. This correspondence shall be forwarded speedily and without undue delay

Art. 27. Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Remember Sharon's quote

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

This, Art 33. Speaks to Curfews and Lockdowns

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

This speaks to bulldozing homes


Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

What about the settlements? Maybe Israel missed this part of the Convention when they signed it.

All measures aiming at creating unemployment or at restricting the opportunities offered to workers in an occupied territory, in order to induce them to work for the Occupying Power, are prohibited.

Again, Israel restricts movement from Occupied Territory to Occupied Territory. Once again in Violation [B/]

Art. 59. If the whole or part of the population of an occupied territory is inadequately supplied, the Occupying Power shall agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and shall facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.

[B] This speaks to Palestinian rock throwing. Which is met with machine gun fire by Israeli's

Art. 72. Accused persons shall have the right to present evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular, call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the necessary facilities for preparing the defence.

Accused persons have the right to a trial, not to having their homes bulldozed or assassinated

And so on and so forth.

But no one gives a shit, right?

[Bravo_One_Three]

Originally posted by Kid A
Which statement?

Take a guess, Rhinoplasty boy.

Please show me a lie.

I'm genuinely curious what I have "lied" about.

Every premise you espouse is based on a significant fallacy. I came to the same conclusion that Gulf Yankee did about you a few days ago. You CAN prove me wrong by providing the information I requested earlier.

Otherwise, I suggest you frequent a site other than SOCNET; something like indymedia.com, or www.bunchofwhineytrashtalkingkids.com . Et al.

Jason
(Big Nosed Jew)

[EchoFiveMike]

But no one gives a shit, right?

Nope, they got it coming.

When assholes from their culture crashed planes in the WTC and Pentagon, these fuckers danced in the streets and NOT FUCKING ONE OF THEM CONDEMNED IT!! I simply resigned them to the trash heap of history. They seem incapable of acting in a rational fashion. Their eradication betters the rest of the world. Too fucking bad for them, natural selection is a merciless motherfucker. S/F...Ken M

[Bravo_One_Three]

I wonder what that convention says about strapping people with Semtex loaded with Ball Bearings, Nails, Screws Nuts, and Rat Poison, then having them explode themselves in the most highly populated civilian area you can find.

You fuckers on the left would have the Israelis capture every bombmaker, one by one and try them, but you would bitch if they had to go into Gaza to grab them. I can't even believe you waived that fucking rag in here.

[Tyr]

AND they weren't just dancing in the Middle East. Plenty were showing they're ass here in the U.S. Again, if you don't like it here- move on......
Kid A you need to move on as well. You always seem to have an answer for everything no matter how ridiculous it is, and you always have to out do the next person. Ex.
---------------------------------------------
An Israeli-Arab CAN, in fact, run for a seat on the Knesset, however that Israeli-Arab cannot speak of a few certain things. He or she is prevented from it. That is not a Democracy in my view. Maybe it is in yours.
---------------------------------------------

Cont, going thru a fire alarm at the moment.

[NewportBarGuy]

Cut-n-paste all day
Cut-n-paste yay!

I can Cut-n-Paste too.

So, again, without the UN lingo, laws, and doctrine... Why is it ok for Hamas Al-Aqsa and Hezbollah to kill Israeli's and it's a very very bad thing when Israel says "fuck this" and launches strikes against those doing this to them because Abbas (Arafat really) won't crack down on those committing the crimes against Israel.

Palestine can have a State on the land they have and what land Israel feels like giving up, after they show that they can at least police themselves and eliminate threats to the security of Israel. Until they do that, they should not expect or receive jack shit.

Negotiating with people who seek to destroy you does not seem like smart policy, unless you are interested in becoming a Darwinian Experiment.

Until Palestinians can establish an authority to quell the violent scumbags in their midst, I support Israel doing anything they have to in defense of their nation.

[Tyr]

Alright back from the alarm.

As long as the Palestinian's allow their people to keep blowing crap up and not reign them in, Israel can do whatever it wants. It's just that simple. I see a mosque was just obliterated. What nice neighbors........

Tyr

[RipperTOW]

[sighs]

Kid, you've done a good bit on insinuating that "the Palestinian people" have nothing or little to do with the rest of the Arabs and their reaction to Israel. This is a misguided (to say the least) view.

"The Palestinian people," is not some discrete entity that speaks with one voice. Instead, in politics, it is a group that becomes manifest through its spokesmen, activists, and militants. The opinions of "the Palestinian people" are recorded in the material published by those demagogues who speak on their behalf, and in the visible reactions of arab individuals in that region to world events. On that note, there is no basis whatever in history or current events for the conclusion that the Palestinians should be considered outside the context of arab politics in general. The spokesmen and demagogues of your "Palestinian people" have made sure that the recent political history of that region is so interwoven with their agenda as to be inseparable.

For decades after Israel's war of independence Palestinians urged attacks on Israel by other Arabs. In Jordan, they were expelled on account of thier constant guerilla activity against Israel in the border regions. They did so actively to provoke an Israeli retaliation, and force a casus belli on the Arabs that they would have to undertake to save face. The same was true in 1967, when al-Aqsa attacks from within Syria were intended to bring about a military confrontation between Damascus, Cairo, and the Israelis under Eshkol (whom they all thought was weak).

Since 1973, Arafat's chicanery is more well-known. He has led the Intifadas, he has purchased arms for and sheltered terrorists, when he had control of the territories during Oslo he built an army instead of infrastructure, he has been overtly duplicitious (see Qu'raysh post), etc., etc.

During the first Gulf War, Arafat supported Saddam Hussein and agitated for him to attack and draw Israel into a war.

After 9/11, "the Palestinian people" cheered in the streets and handed out candy.

I don't know what "Palestinian people" you've been communing with on Pacifica Radio websites, but the ones who speak on their behalf on planet earth are evil and corrupt authoritarians, preaching or supporting a horrible mixture of 7th century mysticism and violent nationalism. I don't mean down to the last individual - there are definitely some decent Palestinians. But in essential terms, these are the defining thrusts of that culture.

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by myclearcreek
Kid A would like to continue his discussion with himself here...

http://forums.teencentre.net/showthread.php?t=1364

I will be damned if it does not appear to be some Kid A sympathizers who also cannot admit when they are wrong.

James D

Editted to add:

Kid A, if I am not mistaken, didnt someone ask for your credentials? I believe he asked you to send them to one of the Admins so you could be verified. Why have you not complied with this simple request?

[RipperTOW]

Meant to post this the other day. Here are a few good books for anyone interested in the actual history of the region:

The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle-East Conflict, by M. Bard (actually very good and concise, and available at a large bookstore near you)

Six Days of War, by M. Oren (good and also widely available)

....and....for some quick reading on what's really being said in the arab media.....

www.memri.org (MEMRI = Middle-East Media Research Istitute, it's a non-profit that translates items from the arab media into English).

[gk404]

Why is it that discusions like these always have to come down to petty namecalling and rhetoric?

I guess in the eyes of both the Israelis and Palestinians "you're either with us or against us". I like to think there's two sides to every story and this is certainly true in this case. If you want to look for someone to lay blame on, I would point to the UN. After all it was the decision made by the general council that's ultimately brought us where we are today. Both sides have fought dirty, lets not kid ourselves atrocities and terrorist acts have been carried out by both sides. Dredging up the past though, doesn't bring you closer to a resolution. (I know I get pissed off when my wife brings up shit I did years ago in an argument....) If we can all agree that the violence needs to stop then we need to look forward to what can be done from here on to attain that goal.

It would be nice if both parties would agree to have an idependent arbritrator(UN?) resolve their dispute (on agreement that they would both be legaly bound to the arbritrators decision).

I am by no means an expert on the subject and maybe I should be keeping my trap shut but, this is a discussion after all! So for what it's worth that's this canucklhead's humble opinion.

GK

[Reegs]

Winston Churchill said appeasement is hoping that the alligator eats you last. Appeasing the Palestinian terrorists is just as wrong-headed as appeasing any other terrorist group or state threat. The Palestinians HAVE repeatedly said their goal is to drive the Jews into the sea. In 1967, Yassir Arafat went before the Arab League after the 6 Day War and stated that the PLO, under his command, would continue the struggle against the Zionist entity until the Jews had been driven into the sea. In fact, he felt so strongly about this that he placed it in that exact text into the PLO Charter (It was not removed until Oslo). I have read this in many sources. The one that springs to mind right now is Fouad Ajami's "The Arab Predicament." It can be found at every university library in Washington DC, and if you doubt its veracity, Dr Ajami is on the faculty of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Thats a short drive from DC. I'd give you the page number for the quote, but its in America and I'm not. The fact that Israel does not exist on any of the maps in their school text books should be your first hint that its not peace and prosperity they are after. To answer the question of how many Palestinians have died, my guess is, not enough.

[gk404]

Originally posted by Reegs
To answer the question of how many Palestinians have died, my guess is, not enough.

So what are you saying? Kill em all?

[Reegs]

No, but thanks for asking. I'm saying that I think that the terrorism occurring in the Middle East should not be approached from a conflict resolution standpoint. In Europe, terrorist groups supposedly sought political goals and were subject to negotiation. The Europeans, and unfortunately the Americans as well, have forced this viewpoint on the Israelis. Terrorism may have political goals, but in negotiating with terrorists, a sense of moral legitimacy is accorded to their actions. This is, in my mind, unacceptable. Not only are their political goals validated, but in the process, their strategies and tactics are validated as well. This means that other "disenfranchised" groups may see terrorism as a legitimate means for the redress of their grievances. I think this "creates more terrorists" than simply aggressively hunting down existing terrorists regardless of where they reside. Instead, I think the proper response to terrorism is to avoid the use of law enforcement and criminal statutes whenever it is possible, and to instead pursue total victory against terrorist organizations through the use of military and intelligence assets. Hope that clarifies my position.

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by gk404
... If we can all agree that the violence needs to stop then we need to look forward to what can be done from here on to attain that goal.

The answer is capture/kill the ones committing the terrorist acts, those that support them and those that do nothing to prevent them from killing. The problem with the aforementioned is the Palestinians do not want peace atleast not the leaders... I am not talking about policing up 5 or 10. I am talking all of them. The Palestinians know who they are. Dont kid yourself for one minute into thinking they are all secret. Children are raised thinking it is their duty to kill Isreali's. The neighbors of the radical Islamists know who they are...when they are turned in or killed, I dont much care which one, there can be peace, but not until. Peace would not be a problem if they stopped killing innocent Isreali's. Everytime Isreal moves its troops out of the West Bank and Gaza the Palestian bombers strike again...then they move back in and so the process continues.

It would be nice if both parties would agree to have an dependent arbritrator(UN?) resolve their dispute (on agreement that they would both be legaly bound to the arbritrators decision).

I am by no means an expert on the subject and maybe I should be keeping my trap shut but, this is a discussion after all! So for what it's worth that's this canucklhead's humble opinion.

GK

A legally binding contract huh? You might want to post that in the Humor forum...because that was damn funny. Seriously though, that should work. Why not have Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, PLO, and so on sign it. Then what? What do we do when they kill again? Is the UN going to sue them? How will this contract be inforced and by whom? It is not going to stop until the terrorists are DEAD.

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by gk404
So what are you saying? Kill em all?

All the terrorists and terrorist sympathizes...YES.

James D

[gk404]

Originally posted by RIT_MEDIC
A legally binding contract huh? You might want to post that in the Humor forum...because that was damn funny. Seriously though, that should work. Why not have Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, PLO, and so on sign it. Then what? What do we do when they kill again? Is the UN going to sue them? How will this contract be inforced and by whom? It is not going to stop until the terrorists are DEAD.

In all seriousness, you're right. Something like that would not work but if you thought that was funny here's another one for ya.

To the question of would enforce such a contract..... well who else but UN peacekeapers!

[ktek01]

Originally posted by RIT_MEDIC
All the terrorists and terrorist sympathizes...YES.

James D

ruhro KidA, I guess that would include you.:eek:

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by gk404
In all seriousness, you're right. Something like that would not work but if you thought that was funny here's another one for ya.

To the question of would enforce such a contract..... well who else but UN peacekeapers!

You are right. That is funny.

It was not a direct attack on you BTW. That just sounded funny. As for the UN Peacekeepers; name one country they have actually been able to keep the peace in without help from either the US or GB.

James D

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by ktek01
ruhro KidA, I guess that would include you.:eek:

Okay, well maybe sympathizers was the wrong word... I can admit when I am wrong, what about you Kid A?


James D

[e5wsf]

Originally posted by Kid A
I think it was the Sharon quote RE: America. Have to go look. No matter. The point was made. So far though I've not seen a single person quote a source or date or person for the "drive them to the sea" quotes. I'm not denying that it has been said, I just haven't seen anyone attribute it. I attribute what I post.


On Israel:
"We will not lay down our weapons until complete liberation...
Sooner or later we will throw the Zionists into the sea."
-- Lt. Col. Munir Maqdah, Commander of P.L.O. forces in Lebanon
(Reuters, October 8, 1993)

This one quote took me about 5 minutes to find. It's been said many times before.

Maps and History (http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/HISTORICAL_PERSPECTIVES/Maps_and_History/maps_and_history.asp)

[gk404]

Originally posted by RIT_MEDIC
You are right. That is funny.

It was not a direct attack on you BTW. That just sounded funny. As for the UN Peacekeepers; name one country they have actually been able to keep the peace in without help from either the US or GB.

James D

I thought you'd like that one:D

As for a successful peacekeeping mission that the US and UK have not been involved in, how about UNMOT - United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan. (you gotta love Google):D

Here's (http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unmot/Unmot.htm) the link if you wanna check it out.

[gk404]

Sorry for straying off topic...

[RIT_MEDIC]

Originally posted by gk404
I thought you'd like that one:D

As for a successful peacekeeping mission that the US and UK have not been involved in, how about UNMOT - United Nations Mission of Observers in Tajikistan. (you gotta love Google):D

Here's (http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unmot/Unmot.htm) the link if you wanna check it out.

Oh damn there is one. Now, what is the ratio of successful to unsuccessful mission? Damn that sounds like a leftist back-peddling statement...lol Let the record show there was a successful mission that I missed and I made an error. Now if the Liberals could learn from this...

James D

[ktek01]

Originally posted by RIT_MEDIC
RE code of 3 is given to anyone who does not complete their service obligation for whatever reason. It is simply. They want to be sure you are not going to get sand in your clit again and up and leave to persue something else.

I hear Re code waivers for college drops are fairly common so you may get your chance soon. FID with your team should be interesting.

James D

For the RE Codes see Angel Six's post http://www.socnetcentral.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27198&highlight=RE+Code

[mac3982]

i don't know where to start, i'll just read in keep my mouth shut, cept for what RIT said, fuckin kill them all, you can not try to do anything with a terroists but, help them with there goal of meetin up with allah!

[colmurph]

The Palestinian problem is an "Internal" Israeli problem. There is no historical basis for a "Palestinian Homeland" as they are made up of outcasts from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and elsewhere. There has NEVER BEEN a Palestine or a "Palestinian People". Let the Israelies handle it on their own without outside meddling. It's like a splinter group in the U.S. declaring that they need to carve out their "Own Homeland" out of the U.S. (I believe this has been the case a few times over the last hundred years) The palestinians have no "Right" to their own country. No other Arab country wants to take them in. They only support them to cause Israel problems. I've been through the Palestinian "Refugee" camps in Lebanon and my impression of them was that they were slums where the Lebanese forced them to live because they did not want them mingling with their own citizens. If the Palestinians continue to kill Israeli citizens I believe that the Israelis have the right to round up all of them to protect themselves. What they ought to do is expel every Arab from Israel and start from scratch. Make illegal emigration a capital offense and kill every Arab that tries to sneak back in.

[Gulf Yankee]

Originally posted by Reegs I think the proper response to terrorism is to avoid the use of law enforcement and criminal statutes whenever it is possible, and to instead pursue total victory against terrorist organizations through the use of military and intelligence assets.

I agree 100%.

[echoes]

Originally posted by RIT_MEDIC
Now that is funny.

Good morning Holly

James D

(wink) at cha! ;)

Luv It

Holly

[RipperTOW]

I saw earlier on this thread where someone posted a reference to Churchill's analogy of a hungry alligator in ref. to appeasement. I saw C. Krauthammer speak on this subject once, and he told the following apt joke/parable:

After Henry Kissenger's retirement, as something to fill his time between writing projects, he built and oversaw the running of a Biblical Zoo.

One day, a friend goes to visit Kissinger in his office at the back of the zoo. But while walking past the animal exhibits, he becomes curious about a throng of people all gathered around an exhibit. He pushes his way to the front to see what all the excitement is about, and there, to his complete astonishment, in the middle of a little field is a lion laying down next to a lamb.

"I'll be damned," he says to himself, shaking his head, and walks off to keep his appointment with Kissenger.

After meeting him in his office, and exchanging a few pleasantries, the man can't resist the question: "Henry, I've gotta tell you, I saw the exhibit with the lion laying down with the lamb. People said it could never be done!!!! It's simply amazing. How did you pull it off."

A broad smile creeps across Kissenger's face, and he leans acrss his desk and whispers to his friend.

"Every day... a new lamb."

[Hoepoe]

re-post into this thread, i think it's appropriate...

[RipperTOW]

As one more point in the (overwhelming) argument that Israel is a morally superior political entity to anything else in the region, the front page of the WSJ today features a blurb:

"[An Israeli] commission found bias and excessive use of force against Arab citizens of Israel."

I found a more comprehensive article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/02/international/middleeast/02ISRA.html) here, if you can stomach visiting the NY Times website.

From that article, here is another quote from a panel commissioned by the Israeli government:

"Criticizing police tactics that included the use of sniper fire to disperse crowds, the report concluded that Israel 'must educate its police that the Arab public is not the enemy, and should not be treated as such.'"

The article is worth reading, not because it is particularly important whether the findings are right or wrong (at least in the context of the debates on this forum), but because it is indicative of an element of Israeli governance that exists nowhere else in that region - the rule of law and essential respect for the rights of individuals.

They may not always get it right, but at least there are mechanisms in government for addressing these issues.

[RipperTOW]

Also, does anyone know where the thread, "How can we make peace with these bastards?" has disappeared to?