Well, I was just looking on multiple country lists and I don't see Palestine as one. How very odd...
Last edited by DesertFox423 (2006-08-24 17:43:24)
That cracks me up, the Katyushas are WWII weapons which were first deployed in Europe.starman7 wrote:
(and Europe really has to grow some balls. They will only learn when the Katyushas fall on Paris).
And a Katyusha is a pinprick compared to the ballistic missiles which were used all over Europe during the WWII. Over 500 deaths have been recorded from a single V-2 and there were thousands launched.
It is a very low estimation of the people of Europe to say that they would advocate the slaughter of civilians on the opposing side because it had been visited upon them. Ask a Blitz survivor if they would wish that on anybody.
My perception is that Europe is much more aware of the suffering and consequences of all-out war than much of the rest of the world, and it's perceptions of the wrongs in the current Middle East conflict are shaped by the very factor you choose to accuse them of lacking... experience.
I know I've picked one sentence, but here's a few points I'd mention about the rest of your post:
The argument that Hezbollah is being propped up by regimes with similar aims to it's own is just as much an indictment of America and it's allies, who have adopted similar policies for a long, long time.
As for your accusations of the 'dependance' of 'some' Arab nation's economies on oil, it would be foolish to ignore the fact that many non-Arab nations have economies which have grown significantly due to 'Black Gold' (crude oil), and to note that trade of natural resources like gold, silver, iron, coal and so on have formed the basis of every economy in the world that I can think of at some stage in history. I don't know which orifice you pulled the 90% figure out of, but saying that you see no evidence of the sweat of the people of Arab nations 'creating, building out of a desert' reveals how blinkered your views are.
Try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_worldDesertFox423 wrote:
Well, I was just looking on multiple country lists and I don't see Palestine as one. How very odd...smile
Eh... I don't know, Nuttah. The list contains, "internationally recognized and generally unrecognized independent states." I JUST DON'T KNOW WHO TO BELIEVE
Read the text of the UN partition plan of 1947. Alternatively read the league of nations mandate for palestine laid down at the San Remo conference. Both declare Palestine as a nation.DesertFox423 wrote:
Eh... I don't know, Nuttah. The list contains, "internationally recognized and generally unrecognized independent states." I JUST DON'T KNOW WHO TO BELIEVE
Palestine as it exists today was declared a state in 1988. Palestine is recognised as a nation by 94 states. Israel is recognised by 161.
But the discussion was not about the states as they exist today - but rather as they existed when Jewish settlers moved there. Look up the British Mandate of Palestine for further details.
Or look up the White Paper of 1939 - which is the most explicit of the documents concerning Jewish immigration. The most in depth article regarding the matter is probably the report of the Hope Simpson Royal Commission in 1930 (but that's a couple of hundred pages, it does take a while to read - maybe you should just stick with FOX news).
White Paper of 1939
Hope Simpson Royal Commission
Indeed, it doesn't have a voting seat on the UN. And yet, supposedly, they have nothing to complain about.DesertFox423 wrote:
Well, I was just looking on multiple country lists and I don't see Palestine as one. How very odd...
Apparently you're looking for a fight? Don't make assumptions about people you know absolutely nothing about. Get your head on straight.Bertster7 wrote:
Read the text of the UN partition plan of 1947. Alternatively read the league of nations mandate for palestine laid down at the San Remo conference. Both declare Palestine as a nation.
Palestine as it exists today was declared a state in 1988. Palestine is recognised as a nation by 94 states. Israel is recognised by 161.
But the discussion was not about the states as they exist today - but rather as they existed when Jewish settlers moved there. Look up the British Mandate of Palestine for further details.
Or look up the White Paper of 1939 - which is the most explicit of the documents concerning Jewish immigration. The most in depth article regarding the matter is probably the report of the Hope Simpson Royal Commission in 1930 (but that's a couple of hundred pages, it does take a while to read - maybe you should just stick with FOX news).
White Paper of 1939
Hope Simpson Royal Commission
Of course I'm not looking for a fight. Just putting across the facts about the nation of Palestine. Unoriginalnuttah is a friend of mine and you seemed quite critical of his pointing out where you could find Palestine listed as a nation.
I am sorry if I have got the wrong idea, but I really don't think my post was particularly offensive - more informative. The only part I could see anyone taking offense to is the "maybe you should just stick with FOX news" towards the end, which was addressing the confrontational attitude you seemed to be showing in your earlier posts - if I misinterpreted your intentions then I am sorry, if not then my original comments stand. Throughout my post I have endevoured to answer your questions concerning Palestine as clearly, concisely and unambiguously as possible.
What assumptions I have made about you have been based directly on the contents of your posts and the fact you seemed unwilling to accept answers to your questions that didn't fit in with your agenda - which seemed very 'FOX news' to me. I am sorry if I have stereotyped you incorrectly, but there are a number of users on this site who seem to value the 'unbiased' news content presented by FOX, there is a thread about it here. Currently 8% of the sites users believe FOX news are an unbiased and valued news broadcaster. Your absolute faith in a single source led me to believe you could have well have been one of these 8%.
How is that looking for a fight?
Mass illegal immigration into someones country, driving up property prices and forcing people out of work before begining a brutal terror campaign against them - now that's looking for a fight.
Which seemed quite confrontational to me, disregarding information on an issue you had asked questions about.DesertFox423 wrote:
Eh... I don't know, Nuttah. The list contains, "internationally recognized and generally unrecognized independent states." I JUST DON'T KNOW WHO TO BELIEVE
I am sorry if I have got the wrong idea, but I really don't think my post was particularly offensive - more informative. The only part I could see anyone taking offense to is the "maybe you should just stick with FOX news" towards the end, which was addressing the confrontational attitude you seemed to be showing in your earlier posts - if I misinterpreted your intentions then I am sorry, if not then my original comments stand. Throughout my post I have endevoured to answer your questions concerning Palestine as clearly, concisely and unambiguously as possible.
What assumptions I have made about you have been based directly on the contents of your posts and the fact you seemed unwilling to accept answers to your questions that didn't fit in with your agenda - which seemed very 'FOX news' to me. I am sorry if I have stereotyped you incorrectly, but there are a number of users on this site who seem to value the 'unbiased' news content presented by FOX, there is a thread about it here. Currently 8% of the sites users believe FOX news are an unbiased and valued news broadcaster. Your absolute faith in a single source led me to believe you could have well have been one of these 8%.
How is that looking for a fight?
Mass illegal immigration into someones country, driving up property prices and forcing people out of work before begining a brutal terror campaign against them - now that's looking for a fight.
Here's a nice little picture of Southern Beirut.
So that's not indescriminately targeting civilians then? I'd call that a totally appropriate and proportionate use of force.
So that's not indescriminately targeting civilians then? I'd call that a totally appropriate and proportionate use of force.
Men are not open to truth or reason. They cannot be reached by a rational argument. The mind is powerless against them. Yet we have to deal with them. If we want to accomplish anything, we have to deceive them into letting us accomplish it. Or force them. They understand nothing else. We cannot expect their support for any endeavor of the intellect, for any goal of the spirit. They are nothing but vicious animals. -Ayn Rand
Well I felt the post which was directed to UnOriginalNuttah was straightforward enough that I didn't need to use the lame [/sarcasm] tags but that's one of the Internets disadvantages with text.
That's precisely what I was getting at - vindictive, closed minded sacarsm directed at people correcting you - when you in fact were wrong.DesertFox423 wrote:
Well I felt the post which was directed to UnOriginalNuttah was straightforward enough that I didn't need to use the lame [/sarcasm] tags but that's one of the Internets disadvantages with text.
To add to that, Israel is being investigated on yet another front, the illegal use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, mainly homes, apartments, etc...Bertster7 wrote:
Here's a nice little picture of Southern Beirut.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi … /img/1.jpg
So that's not indescriminately targeting civilians then? I'd call that a totally appropriate and proportionate use of force.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/ … index.html
This doesn't surprise me in the least, they are all about killing civilians.
Civilians die in war... they were justified in their attacks, I would have done the same to protect my family & so would you sir. Were they to turn the other cheek, to have done so would have been an invitation for more attacks from others. They gave warnings to get the hell out of there, they should have heeded the warning if they cared about their family's.
Boy are you wrong. As a veteran I can honestly say I would NOT have done that, there rules and laws to abide by in war, and Israel has broken just about all of them...TrollmeaT wrote:
Civilians die in war... they were justified in their attacks, I would have done the same to protect my family & so would you sir. Were they to turn the other cheek, to have done so would have been an invitation for more attacks from others. They gave warnings to get the hell out of there, they should have heeded the warning if they cared about their family's.
They weren't protecting anyone, they were comitting murder, plain and simple.
veteran of what?HM1{N} wrote:
Boy are you wrong. As a veteran I can honestly say I would NOT have done that, there rules and laws to abide by in war, and Israel has broken just about all of them...TrollmeaT wrote:
Civilians die in war... they were justified in their attacks, I would have done the same to protect my family & so would you sir. Were they to turn the other cheek, to have done so would have been an invitation for more attacks from others. They gave warnings to get the hell out of there, they should have heeded the warning if they cared about their family's.
They weren't protecting anyone, they were comitting murder, plain and simple.
Huh?TrollmeaT wrote:
Civilians die in war... they were justified in their attacks, I would have done the same to protect my family & so would you sir. Were they to turn the other cheek, to have done so would have been an invitation for more attacks from others. They gave warnings to get the hell out of there, they should have heeded the warning if they cared about their family's.
Hezbollah captured 2 Israeli soldiers, in response Israel started bombing Lebanon. Hezbollah then responded with useless Katyushas.
1000+ dead because of 2 fucking soldiers, thats justification? Awesome.
Like jonsimon said, there are so many things wrong with your post, and consequently with your way of thinking, one cannot be expected to address them all at once. Nevertheless, I feel obliged to address at least some:Dersmikner wrote:
After reading a few threads about the Arab/Israeli conflict, I thought I'd share a story with you. Man, you won't believe this.
Yesterday I was walking down the street with a knife in my boots, and a gun in my briefcase (concealed carry permit), and a hateful sonofabitch jumped out of the bushes and stabbed me with a knife.
I was going to shoot him, but then I realized that would be disproportionate use of force, so I put the gun away and stabbed him back.
Absurd. Allow me to use this example to tell all the people who have used the phrase "disproportionate use of force" in the last two weeks to kiss my ass.
Know why I've never been shot by a cop? I don't throw rocks and Molotov cocktails at them. Know why I don't get the shit beaten out of me by big, mean, roided up assholes? I don't spit on them.
It's the same theory in all aspects of violent human interaction. If a man hits you in the head with a stick are you going to refrain from bashing his skull with a baseball bat because you think it's only right to reciprocate with like force?
I don't give a good shit if Hezbollah was shooting .22s indescriminately into Israel, that calls for a leveling.
Worse is the whining about "indescriminate attacks". In addition to not giving a shit about "proportionate force", I don't call what Israel is doing "indescriminate". Rounds were fired from up North, rounds will be returned to the same locale. Indescriminate would be firing rounds all over Hell and half of Iran.
You think those shitheads in Lebanon are using laser guided missiles that are aimed at Israeli military bunkers? They have no idea if they're going to hit a tank, a hospital, a church, or a Girl Scouts meeting. Those dumbasses can't even AIM those fucking rockets they're firing. They have NO IDEA where they're going to land. I've got a better chance to hit a target with a WalMart model rocket.
The next time I hear someone say that after Hezbollah launched 200 "wherever the fuck they land is okay with us" missiles, and the Israelis fought back, that Israel should take care to limit civilian casualties, I'm going to shit. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The NEXT time Hezbollah "targets" an Israeli military objective will be the FIRST. Once a Katusha leaves the pad, it's got a general direction and not much else. No onboard guidance system, nothing. Point and shoot. Where are the objections about that from the whiners?
I'm reading these threads and some of them astound me.
1. Don't want to be an Israeli target? Fight back against Hezbollah.
2. Can't fight back against Hezbollah? Go to the government for help.
3. Government can't help? Get the hell out of a country that is run by terrorists.
So simple.
By the way, I suggest that the next time one of you walks in on your Mother/Sister/Girlfriend getting raped, instead of bashing the guy's skull in with a 2 by 4, rape him back. Yeah, that's the ticket. Just don't be too rough. Proportionate and all... proportionate.
Israel is the aggressor, the Arab world are the ones being fucked. Israel drew first blood. Israel is the occupant of Palestinian land. The Israeli government is driving innocent civilians out of their homes, essentially giving them no alternative but to fight back any way they can. If you are unaware of the practices of the Israeli government, the check points and the like, I am afraid I can be of no further assistance. Search and you shall find.
If you never felt the need to attack a cop - and all that he represents and protects, again I can be of no assistance. You will always be a puppet of your government.
"Big, mean, roided up assholes" will some times kick your ass without having been provoked. That's life. If you've been lucky so far, good for you.
But you know what? This thing is not about big, mean, roided up assholes, it's about Israel and the Middle East. And in this case I kind of agree with you, all those people crying out about disproportionate use of force are missing the point. They're angry about the wrong things.
Of course Israel is going to answer back with 1000 times the force it was attacked with. But you see what's wrong with this sentence? ISRAEL IS NOT ANSWERING BACK. THEY ARE THE ONES STRIKING FIRST. And they are winning.
Oh and BTW, if you are actually walking around with a knife and a gun, you are a menace to civilized society and you should be put away in a cell with Charlton Heston.
ƒ³
I served in the Army in a Ranger Battalion, any more than that doesn't need to be told here...GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
veteran of what?HM1{N} wrote:
Boy are you wrong. As a veteran I can honestly say I would NOT have done that, there rules and laws to abide by in war, and Israel has broken just about all of them...TrollmeaT wrote:
Civilians die in war... they were justified in their attacks, I would have done the same to protect my family & so would you sir. Were they to turn the other cheek, to have done so would have been an invitation for more attacks from others. They gave warnings to get the hell out of there, they should have heeded the warning if they cared about their family's.
They weren't protecting anyone, they were comitting murder, plain and simple.
Last edited by HM1{N} (2006-08-25 10:30:10)
what was your MOS? that might explain a lot...HM1{N} wrote:
I served in the Army with a Ranger Battalion.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
veteran of what?HM1{N} wrote:
Boy are you wrong. As a veteran I can honestly say I would NOT have done that, there rules and laws to abide by in war, and Israel has broken just about all of them...
They weren't protecting anyone, they were comitting murder, plain and simple.
which bat? where you posted?
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-08-25 10:31:12)
Why would that explain more?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
what was your MOS? that might explain a lot...HM1{N} wrote:
I served in the Army with a Ranger Battalion.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
veteran of what?
a question with a question, its all fitting in,
I don't see how, you are trying to make some correlation between my MOS and my views on Israel, I don't see how that's relevant.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
a question with a question, its all fitting in,
Unless of course you are trying to imply that my MOS is indicative of my intelligence level, in which case I will tell you this: I maxed the ASVAB when I took it...and I graduated college with a 3.97GPA.
1) What is this supposed to imply? Am I reading this right? If you never felt the need to attack a cop I can be of no assistance? What?oug wrote:
1) If you never felt the need to attack a cop - and all that he represents and protects, again I can be of no assistance. You will always be a puppet of your government.
2) ISRAEL IS NOT ANSWERING BACK. THEY ARE THE ONES STRIKING FIRST. And they are winning.
3) if you are actually walking around with a knife and a gun, you are a menace to civilized society and you should be put away in a cell.
2) What's wrong with that, they are proactively going after terrorist states, and you have a PROBLEM with that? Ok, so you have a different opinion, cool, you want terrorist states around, ok.
3) WHAT!?!?! You think its bad that a responsible citizen is carrying a firearm. Think about this for a second, what if no law abiding citizens ever carried a gun anywhere, than who would be carrying the guns....criminals, you want only the criminals to have guns, I see. Very interesting.
so, what was your MOS?HM1{N} wrote:
I don't see how, you are trying to make some correlation between my MOS and my views on Israel, I don't see how that's relevant.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
a question with a question, its all fitting in,
Unless of course you are trying to imply that my MOS is indicative of my intelligence level, in which case I will tell you this: I maxed the ASVAB when I took it...and I graduated college with a 3.97GPA.
1. Yes you are reading this right. Cops are here to control you/ the people. Try demonstrating against a decision of your government and see what happens. Remember what happened in your city, Seattle, a few years back? Or were you too young back then?AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
1) What is this supposed to imply? Am I reading this right? If you never felt the need to attack a cop I can be of no assistance? What?
2) What's wrong with that, they are proactively going after terrorist states, and you have a PROBLEM with that? Ok, so you have a different opinion, cool, you want terrorist states around, ok.
3) WHAT!?!?! You think its bad that a responsible citizen is carrying a firearm. Think about this for a second, what if no law abiding citizens ever carried a gun anywhere, than who would be carrying the guns....criminals, you want only the criminals to have guns, I see. Very interesting.
2. Who decided they were terrorist states? Your government? WHO THE FUCK ARE THEY TO DUDGE? And about them pre-emptive strikes: The law says innocent until proven guilty. What happened to that?
3. In all civilized countries of the world, all law abiding people DO NOT carry firearms. The old west is dead.
Grow up little boy. Do what you must to form a decent opinion, then come here to lecture me about terrorism, the role of the government in contemporary societies, arms and the like. Because I'm not going to waste any more time about the basics with you or anyone else.
Last edited by oug (2006-08-25 11:06:06)
ƒ³