I'll take your word for it and change the reference in the original post.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
im getting sick of the fucked up figures. 84B in US aid since the creation of Israel, not 80 billion annual. 1.5Billion annually.
increased to 2.5 billion for 2007
Well as every IED doesn't have a freakin label on it I guess I can't. But every dead terrorist leader is from somewhere else.CameronPoe wrote:
This isn't an Iraq thread - read the thread I referred you to if you want my views instead of pre-supposing them.|AIA| DAS wrote:
So Kadima's policy of removing Jewish settlements from Palestenian territories and building a wall to keep Jewish settlers inside their own borders constitues terrorism?CameronPoe wrote:
That would be off-topic but I'm sure you can guess. Starts with an I ends with a Q. You can check up the 'For people who believe things are going badly in Iraq' thread where I have a lengthy exchange with Darth_Fleder.
For the record - I do believe in Palestinians violent rebelling against Israeli military targets while the state of Israel remains intransigently oppressive and continues to steal their land and operate outside of international law. I don't condone killing Israeli civilians however.
PS I view Kadima/Likud as 'state terrorist' parties.
Sorry M8 but I would think you would support that.
As far as Iraq goes, Every terrorist planting an IED in that country is from another arab country, not Iraq. The Iraqis want freedom, when the Americans think they are ready to protect and govern themselves, I'm sure they will leave.
/sarcasm
OH Those arrogant bastards...How dare they liberate that country from that peaceful genocidal dictatorship.
Kadima's leader that never was, Ariel Sharon, is a war criminal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra-Shat … cre#Events
Building a wall that is largely inside the 1948 green line further annexing more Palestinian land is the policy of Kadima. Their stance is also that the settlements of Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim and various other settlements would not be removed - eternal parts of Israel in their words - along with Palestinian East Jerusalem. I'm afraid I'm not gonna 'support' such land grabs. The fact the wall intends to curve around these settlements effectively annexes a further 10% or so of the west bank. It's like the Americans sending all the Navahos to Bosque Redondo - how can the Palestinians possibly be self-sufficient and have a viable state.
PS For the record I would find it amazing if you could state with absolute certainty that every IED in Iraq is placed by someone who isn't Iraqi. LOL
So the fact that a Political party's leader is a "war criminal", makes the entire party corrupt? Brilliant!
You are correct this isn't an Iraqi thread but you brought it up. As far as reading those other posts, I've enough of your mindless drivel on this thread. Thanks!
Cheers for remaining respectful to the last. I don't think I made any openly derogatory remarks, until right now, about your 'mindless drivel' and false accusations. You can put your head in the sand if you want - you don't have to read this thread if you don't want to.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Well as every IED doesn't have a freakin label on it I guess I can't. But every dead terrorist leader is from somewhere else.CameronPoe wrote:
This isn't an Iraq thread - read the thread I referred you to if you want my views instead of pre-supposing them.|AIA| DAS wrote:
So Kadima's policy of removing Jewish settlements from Palestenian territories and building a wall to keep Jewish settlers inside their own borders constitues terrorism?
Sorry M8 but I would think you would support that.
As far as Iraq goes, Every terrorist planting an IED in that country is from another arab country, not Iraq. The Iraqis want freedom, when the Americans think they are ready to protect and govern themselves, I'm sure they will leave.
/sarcasm
OH Those arrogant bastards...How dare they liberate that country from that peaceful genocidal dictatorship.
Kadima's leader that never was, Ariel Sharon, is a war criminal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra-Shat … cre#Events
Building a wall that is largely inside the 1948 green line further annexing more Palestinian land is the policy of Kadima. Their stance is also that the settlements of Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim and various other settlements would not be removed - eternal parts of Israel in their words - along with Palestinian East Jerusalem. I'm afraid I'm not gonna 'support' such land grabs. The fact the wall intends to curve around these settlements effectively annexes a further 10% or so of the west bank. It's like the Americans sending all the Navahos to Bosque Redondo - how can the Palestinians possibly be self-sufficient and have a viable state.
PS For the record I would find it amazing if you could state with absolute certainty that every IED in Iraq is placed by someone who isn't Iraqi. LOL
So the fact that a Political party's leader is a "war criminal", makes the entire party corrupt? Brilliant!
You are correct this isn't an Iraqi thread but you brought it up. As far as reading those other posts, I've enough of your mindless drivel on this thread. Thanks!
I don't think you managed to bring yourself to say one conciliatory word about the civilians dying at the hands of Israel. This suggests to me that you are equally if not more biased towards Israel than I am towards Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-20 10:32:05)
Sorry M8 if I was disrespectful. You are entitled to your opinions as I am to mine. I will try to keep it civil here forward.CameronPoe wrote:
Cheers for remaining respectful to the last. I don't think I made any openly derogatory remarks, until right now, about your 'mindless drivel' and false accusations. You can put your head in the sand if you want - you don't have to read this thread if you don't want to.|AIA| DAS wrote:
Well as every IED doesn't have a freakin label on it I guess I can't. But every dead terrorist leader is from somewhere else.CameronPoe wrote:
This isn't an Iraq thread - read the thread I referred you to if you want my views instead of pre-supposing them.
Kadima's leader that never was, Ariel Sharon, is a war criminal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra-Shat … cre#Events
Building a wall that is largely inside the 1948 green line further annexing more Palestinian land is the policy of Kadima. Their stance is also that the settlements of Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim and various other settlements would not be removed - eternal parts of Israel in their words - along with Palestinian East Jerusalem. I'm afraid I'm not gonna 'support' such land grabs. The fact the wall intends to curve around these settlements effectively annexes a further 10% or so of the west bank. It's like the Americans sending all the Navahos to Bosque Redondo - how can the Palestinians possibly be self-sufficient and have a viable state.
PS For the record I would find it amazing if you could state with absolute certainty that every IED in Iraq is placed by someone who isn't Iraqi. LOL
So the fact that a Political party's leader is a "war criminal", makes the entire party corrupt? Brilliant!
You are correct this isn't an Iraqi thread but you brought it up. As far as reading those other posts, I've enough of your mindless drivel on this thread. Thanks!
I don't think you managed to bring yourself to say one conciliatory word about the civilians dying at the hands of Israel. This suggests to me that you are equally if not more biased towards Israel than I am towards Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.
As far as the civilians killed by Israel, I am appalled at the loss of any civilian life, however I do feel that hiding behind civilians is equally if not more horrific. Relentless blind bombing is far more dangerous than precision strikes.
Ask the mother of the two small boys killed in Nazareth yesterday.
As for me being Pro Israel, I'm not. I just agree that they have a right to exist, and protect what land they do have, and protect it's citizens. With the resources they have at their disposal, they are using restraint. They could be carpet bombing all of Lebanon, and costing thousands of civilian lives. They are not, they are using precision strikes to lessen collateral damage as much as possible.
Exactly.|AIA| DAS wrote:
As for me being Pro Israel, I'm not. I just agree that they have a right to exist, and protect what land they do have, and protect it's citizens. With the resources they have at their disposal, they are using restraint. They could be carpet bombing all of Lebanon, and costing thousands of civilian lives. They are not, they are using precision strikes to lessen collateral damage as much as possible.
I don't disagree with you that Israel are precision bombing and Hezbollah are simply aiming towards the nearest available urban centre. The problem is precision bombing is a little bit of a misnomer because no matter how accurate you are there will be a blast radius, incorrectly identified targets, slight deflections in projectile path due to environmental conditions, etc. - innocent people are inevitably going to be killed.|AIA| DAS wrote:
As for me being Pro Israel, I'm not. I just agree that they have a right to exist, and protect what land they do have, and protect it's citizens. With the resources they have at their disposal, they are using restraint. They could be carpet bombing all of Lebanon, and costing thousands of civilian lives. They are not, they are using precision strikes to lessen collateral damage as much as possible.
My argument is that Israel could have engaged the vastly inferior Hezbollah troops eye to eye. Such a focused attack better guarantees that their desired targets are being hit. The side effect of bombing civilian centres in Lebanon is that it does Israel no favours from a PR perspective and alienates more Lebanese people. I just don't know how effective their bombing strategy really is and whether it is worth the costs.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-20 11:08:40)
Your absolutely right on the bombing, however, The face to face action was thwarted by all the mines and traps set up along the border that killed eight IDF and blew a tank into rubbish. The bombing initially started to contain hizbollah, and prevent them from taking the captured soldiers into Syria. Imagine those consequences. Had the IDF started bombing Syria!CameronPoe wrote:
I don't disagree with you that Israel are precision bombing and Hezbollah are simply aiming towards the nearest available urban centre. The problem is precision bombing is a little bit of a misnomer because no matter how accurate you are there will be a blast radius, slight deflections in projectile path due to environmental conditions, etc. - innocent people are inevitably going to be killed.|AIA| DAS wrote:
As for me being Pro Israel, I'm not. I just agree that they have a right to exist, and protect what land they do have, and protect it's citizens. With the resources they have at their disposal, they are using restraint. They could be carpet bombing all of Lebanon, and costing thousands of civilian lives. They are not, they are using precision strikes to lessen collateral damage as much as possible.
My argument is that Israel could have engaged the vastly inferior Hezbollah troops eye to eye. Such a focused attack better guarantees that their desired targets are being hit. The side effect of bombing civilian centres in Lebanon is that it does Israel no favours from a PR perspective and alienates more Lebanese people. I just don't know how effective their bombing strategy really is and whether it is worth the costs.
It would appear that is what's going on now.(At least recently)CameronPoe wrote:
My argument is that Israel could have engaged the vastly inferior Hezbollah troops eye to eye. Such a focused attack better guarantees that their desired targets are being hit. The side effect of bombing civilian centres in Lebanon is that it does Israel no favours from a PR perspective and alienates more Lebanese people. I just don't know how effective their bombing strategy really is and whether it is worth the costs.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&a … ast_dc_447
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I wish we could fight terrorists eye to eye but it will never work. They are cowards who hide behind women and children or run into the nearest mosque when danger nears. Collateral damage would be far higher if conventional forces were to invade and fight eye to eye.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't disagree with you that Israel are precision bombing and Hezbollah are simply aiming towards the nearest available urban centre. The problem is precision bombing is a little bit of a misnomer because no matter how accurate you are there will be a blast radius, incorrectly identified targets, slight deflections in projectile path due to environmental conditions, etc. - innocent people are inevitably going to be killed.|AIA| DAS wrote:
As for me being Pro Israel, I'm not. I just agree that they have a right to exist, and protect what land they do have, and protect it's citizens. With the resources they have at their disposal, they are using restraint. They could be carpet bombing all of Lebanon, and costing thousands of civilian lives. They are not, they are using precision strikes to lessen collateral damage as much as possible.
My argument is that Israel could have engaged the vastly inferior Hezbollah troops eye to eye. Such a focused attack better guarantees that their desired targets are being hit. The side effect of bombing civilian centres in Lebanon is that it does Israel no favours from a PR perspective and alienates more Lebanese people. I just don't know how effective their bombing strategy really is and whether it is worth the costs.
Last edited by -=NHB=- Bananahands (2006-07-20 11:22:14)
MYTH
“The United Nations unjustly partitioned Palestine.”
FACT
As World War II ended, the magnitude of the Holocaust became known. This accelerated demands for a resolution to the question of Palestine so the survivors of Hitler's "Final Solution" might find sanctuary in a homeland of their own.
The British tried to work out an agreement acceptable to both Arabs and Jews, but their insistence on the former's approval guaranteed failure because the Arabs would not make any concessions. They subsequently turned the issue over to the UN in February 1947.
The UN established a Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) to devise a solution. Delegates from 11 nations* went to the area and found what had long been apparent: The conflicting national aspirations of Jews and Arabs could not be reconciled.
The contrasting attitudes of the two groups "could not fail to give the impression that the Jews were imbued with the sense of right and were prepared to plead their case before any unbiased tribunal, while the Arabs felt unsure of the justice of their cause, or were afraid to bow to the judgment of the nations."1
Although most of the Commission's members acknowledged the need to find a compromise solution, it was difficult for them to envision one given the parties' intractability. At a meeting with a group of Arabs in Beirut, the Czechoslovakian member of the Commission told his audience: "I have listened to your demands and it seems to me that in your view the compromise is: We want our demands met completely, the rest can be divided among those left."2
When they returned, the delegates of seven nations — Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, The Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay — recommended the establishment of two separate states, Jewish and Arab, to be joined by economic union, with Jerusalem an internationalized enclave. Three nations — India, Iran and Yugoslavia — recommended a unitary state with Arab and Jewish provinces. Australia abstained.
The Jews of Palestine were not satisfied with the small territory allotted to them by the Commission, nor were they happy that Jerusalem was severed from the Jewish State; nevertheless, they welcomed the compromise. The Arabs rejected the UNSCOP's recommendations.
The ad hoc committee of the UN General Assembly rejected the Arab demand for a unitary Arab state. The majority recommendation for partition was subsequently adopted 33-13 with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947.3
MYTH
“Israel usurped all of Palestine in 1948.”
FACT
Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1921 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20-odd percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, and Egypt's control of Gaza, Arabs controlled more than 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent.6a
MYTH
“The majority of the population in Palestine was Arab; therefore, a unitary Arab state should have been created.”
FACT
At the time of the 1947 partition resolution, the Arabs did have a majority in western Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews.7 But the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.
Prior to the Mandate in 1922, Palestine’s Arab population had been declining. Afterward, Arabs began to come from all the surrounding countries. In addition, the Arab population grew exponentially as Jewish settlers improved the quality of health conditions in Palestine.
The decision to partition Palestine was not determined solely by demographics; it was based on the conclusion that the territorial claims of Jews and Arabs were irreconcilable, and that the most logical compromise was the creation of two states. Ironically, that same year, 1947, the Arab members of the United Nations supported the partition of the Indian sub-continent and the creation of the new, predominantly Muslim state of Pakistan.
MYTH
“The Arabs were prepared to compromise to avoid bloodshed.”
FACT
As the partition vote approached, it became clear little hope existed for a political solution to a problem that transcended politics: the Arabs' unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in Palestine and the refusal of the Zionists to settle for anything less. The implacability of the Arabs was evident when Jewish Agency representatives David Horowitz and Abba Eban made a last-ditch effort to reach a compromise in a meeting with Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha on September 16, 1947. Pasha told them bluntly:
The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.8
“The United Nations unjustly partitioned Palestine.”
FACT
As World War II ended, the magnitude of the Holocaust became known. This accelerated demands for a resolution to the question of Palestine so the survivors of Hitler's "Final Solution" might find sanctuary in a homeland of their own.
The British tried to work out an agreement acceptable to both Arabs and Jews, but their insistence on the former's approval guaranteed failure because the Arabs would not make any concessions. They subsequently turned the issue over to the UN in February 1947.
The UN established a Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) to devise a solution. Delegates from 11 nations* went to the area and found what had long been apparent: The conflicting national aspirations of Jews and Arabs could not be reconciled.
The contrasting attitudes of the two groups "could not fail to give the impression that the Jews were imbued with the sense of right and were prepared to plead their case before any unbiased tribunal, while the Arabs felt unsure of the justice of their cause, or were afraid to bow to the judgment of the nations."1
Although most of the Commission's members acknowledged the need to find a compromise solution, it was difficult for them to envision one given the parties' intractability. At a meeting with a group of Arabs in Beirut, the Czechoslovakian member of the Commission told his audience: "I have listened to your demands and it seems to me that in your view the compromise is: We want our demands met completely, the rest can be divided among those left."2
When they returned, the delegates of seven nations — Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, The Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay — recommended the establishment of two separate states, Jewish and Arab, to be joined by economic union, with Jerusalem an internationalized enclave. Three nations — India, Iran and Yugoslavia — recommended a unitary state with Arab and Jewish provinces. Australia abstained.
The Jews of Palestine were not satisfied with the small territory allotted to them by the Commission, nor were they happy that Jerusalem was severed from the Jewish State; nevertheless, they welcomed the compromise. The Arabs rejected the UNSCOP's recommendations.
The ad hoc committee of the UN General Assembly rejected the Arab demand for a unitary Arab state. The majority recommendation for partition was subsequently adopted 33-13 with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947.3
MYTH
“Israel usurped all of Palestine in 1948.”
FACT
Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1921 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20-odd percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, and Egypt's control of Gaza, Arabs controlled more than 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent.6a
MYTH
“The majority of the population in Palestine was Arab; therefore, a unitary Arab state should have been created.”
FACT
At the time of the 1947 partition resolution, the Arabs did have a majority in western Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews.7 But the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.
Prior to the Mandate in 1922, Palestine’s Arab population had been declining. Afterward, Arabs began to come from all the surrounding countries. In addition, the Arab population grew exponentially as Jewish settlers improved the quality of health conditions in Palestine.
The decision to partition Palestine was not determined solely by demographics; it was based on the conclusion that the territorial claims of Jews and Arabs were irreconcilable, and that the most logical compromise was the creation of two states. Ironically, that same year, 1947, the Arab members of the United Nations supported the partition of the Indian sub-continent and the creation of the new, predominantly Muslim state of Pakistan.
MYTH
“The Arabs were prepared to compromise to avoid bloodshed.”
FACT
As the partition vote approached, it became clear little hope existed for a political solution to a problem that transcended politics: the Arabs' unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in Palestine and the refusal of the Zionists to settle for anything less. The implacability of the Arabs was evident when Jewish Agency representatives David Horowitz and Abba Eban made a last-ditch effort to reach a compromise in a meeting with Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha on September 16, 1947. Pasha told them bluntly:
The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.8
Nice post.negolien wrote:
MYTH
“The United Nations unjustly partitioned Palestine.”
FACT
As World War II ended, the magnitude of the Holocaust became known. This accelerated demands for a resolution to the question of Palestine so the survivors of Hitler's "Final Solution" might find sanctuary in a homeland of their own.
The British tried to work out an agreement acceptable to both Arabs and Jews, but their insistence on the former's approval guaranteed failure because the Arabs would not make any concessions. They subsequently turned the issue over to the UN in February 1947.
The UN established a Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) to devise a solution. Delegates from 11 nations* went to the area and found what had long been apparent: The conflicting national aspirations of Jews and Arabs could not be reconciled.
The contrasting attitudes of the two groups "could not fail to give the impression that the Jews were imbued with the sense of right and were prepared to plead their case before any unbiased tribunal, while the Arabs felt unsure of the justice of their cause, or were afraid to bow to the judgment of the nations."1
Although most of the Commission's members acknowledged the need to find a compromise solution, it was difficult for them to envision one given the parties' intractability. At a meeting with a group of Arabs in Beirut, the Czechoslovakian member of the Commission told his audience: "I have listened to your demands and it seems to me that in your view the compromise is: We want our demands met completely, the rest can be divided among those left."2
When they returned, the delegates of seven nations — Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, The Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay — recommended the establishment of two separate states, Jewish and Arab, to be joined by economic union, with Jerusalem an internationalized enclave. Three nations — India, Iran and Yugoslavia — recommended a unitary state with Arab and Jewish provinces. Australia abstained.
The Jews of Palestine were not satisfied with the small territory allotted to them by the Commission, nor were they happy that Jerusalem was severed from the Jewish State; nevertheless, they welcomed the compromise. The Arabs rejected the UNSCOP's recommendations.
The ad hoc committee of the UN General Assembly rejected the Arab demand for a unitary Arab state. The majority recommendation for partition was subsequently adopted 33-13 with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947.3
MYTH
“Israel usurped all of Palestine in 1948.”
FACT
Nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1921 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20-odd percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan’s annexation of the West Bank in 1950, and Egypt's control of Gaza, Arabs controlled more than 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent.6a
MYTH
“The majority of the population in Palestine was Arab; therefore, a unitary Arab state should have been created.”
FACT
At the time of the 1947 partition resolution, the Arabs did have a majority in western Palestine as a whole — 1.2 million Arabs versus 600,000 Jews.7 But the Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the resolution and in Jerusalem.
Prior to the Mandate in 1922, Palestine’s Arab population had been declining. Afterward, Arabs began to come from all the surrounding countries. In addition, the Arab population grew exponentially as Jewish settlers improved the quality of health conditions in Palestine.
The decision to partition Palestine was not determined solely by demographics; it was based on the conclusion that the territorial claims of Jews and Arabs were irreconcilable, and that the most logical compromise was the creation of two states. Ironically, that same year, 1947, the Arab members of the United Nations supported the partition of the Indian sub-continent and the creation of the new, predominantly Muslim state of Pakistan.
MYTH
“The Arabs were prepared to compromise to avoid bloodshed.”
FACT
As the partition vote approached, it became clear little hope existed for a political solution to a problem that transcended politics: the Arabs' unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in Palestine and the refusal of the Zionists to settle for anything less. The implacability of the Arabs was evident when Jewish Agency representatives David Horowitz and Abba Eban made a last-ditch effort to reach a compromise in a meeting with Arab League Secretary Azzam Pasha on September 16, 1947. Pasha told them bluntly:
The Arab world is not in a compromising mood. It's likely, Mr. Horowitz, that your plan is rational and logical, but the fate of nations is not decided by rational logic. Nations never concede; they fight. You won't get anything by peaceful means or compromise. You can, perhaps, get something, but only by the force of your arms. We shall try to defeat you. I am not sure we'll succeed, but we'll try. We were able to drive out the Crusaders, but on the other hand we lost Spain and Persia. It may be that we shall lose Palestine. But it's too late to talk of peaceful solutions.8
If you are going to post other people's writings, you should use common courtesy and post a link, or at least the man's name who wrote it.negolien wrote:
a bunch of stuff he copied
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … s/mf3.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/mbbio.html
clearly not an unbiased source at all.
If we are going to talk about biased lets talk about the liberal media.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
If you are going to post other people's writings, you should use common courtesy and post a link, or at least the man's name who wrote it.negolien wrote:
a bunch of stuff he copied
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … s/mf3.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/mbbio.html
clearly not an unbiased source at all.
Yes and your sources are totally objective. LOL.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
If you are going to post other people's writings, you should use common courtesy and post a link, or at least the man's name who wrote it.negolien wrote:
a bunch of stuff he copied
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso … s/mf3.html
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/mbbio.html
clearly not an unbiased source at all.
And I KNOW you cheated on Jeopardy!
Last edited by |AIA| DAS (2006-07-20 12:11:52)
Liberal media which plays into Israeli mindsets....what do you think about that? The so-called liberal media, which you despise, supports the same side you do. Seriously, though, I do not want to debate the bias of the media in this thread. There are about 4 others that deal with that specific topic.-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:
If we are going to talk about biased lets talk about the liberal media.
Take a look at the news stories I posted. As unbiased a site as you can come across as far as this issue is concerned.
edit: This thread is about Israel's unjust use of force in regards to the latest attacks on Lebanon. It is not about the creation of Israel, the War in Iraq, or the Israeli land grab/Palistinian aggression of the past. You people here cannot be in support of Israel's wanton destruction of cilivilization can you? Read the facts, over 240 civilians dead in Lebanon, indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets (not infastructure, not military targets), these things cannot go unpunished. Israel is clearly trying to strike actual Lebanese society.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-07-20 12:19:40)
lol racisim at it's best.. I posted facts /shrug say what ya want I used that site because it has the easiest search engine and usually the best jew-arab stuff. I guess it could be worse and I could get my info from terrorist news sites like Al-Jazzera like you but /shrug lol. I never said I wrote it either u just ASSumed so lol. I even told ya in a link where i got it didn't I ? oh ya that's where you got ur info I forgot from me.
Refute the info if u can???
Refute the info if u can???
Racism? You used the site because it you are pro-Zionism, and the site is too. Look at the link I posted for unbiased news. It is from www.democracynow.org, not Al-Jezeera, which incidentally is not a terrorist news site, unless everyone in the mid-east is a terrorist in your eyes. Show me the link. It wasn't there. I got to that site because I have read those arguments before, both from that site and another incredibly biased site, Facts and Logic About the Middle East I know you are capable of more intelligent thoughts then the above post, lets see them!negolien wrote:
lol racisim at it's best.. I posted facts /shrug say what ya want I used that site because it has the easiest search engine and usually the best jew-arab stuff. I guess it could be worse and I could get my info from terrorist news sites like Al-Jazzera like you but /shrug lol. I never said I wrote it either u just ASSumed so lol. I even told ya in a link where i got it didn't I ? oh ya that's where you got ur info I forgot from me.
Refute the info if u can???
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-07-20 12:25:14)
Wow its amazing people condemming Izraels attacks on the Palestine but yet they dont look at there own country. September 11, 500 and something US citizens were killed in one of the worst terrorist attacks ever. The US attacked Afghanistan firing off Cruise missles which had radiated the area so much that the ratiation levels in London had went over the safety limit. Mass genocide of civilians from so called collateral damage. Numbers far higher then 30. This was the doing of the US government blaming Afghanistan for what Osamas men had done and the civilians pay for it? I ask myself how can you guys criticize another country without looking at yourselves. The US has been involved in the most amount of wars in the 20'th century. The US supplied Izrael with its jets and bombs. Back to the main point how can you call what Izrael has done bad doing when your country is also doing it. They both have the same intention of protecting their civilians. Let me remind you that in world war 2 millions of jews were killed by hitler and the jews have been through the most troubles. Syria is always on there ass pestering them and most arab countries totally hate Izrael. You know i dont blame them for reacting how they did. Its the wrong thing to do but i dont blame them at all.
Last edited by spray_and_pray (2006-07-20 12:39:09)
I am highly critical of my country's government in regards to its involvement in the "War on Terror." I clearly disagree with the way the world in general deals with terrorism. It is very easy for me to say it is "bad" (as you so eloquently put it) when my own government does the same thing. Like the quote under this text, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I disagree with your statement that they are intending to protect their citizens. Killing civilians in another country is not conducive to protecting your own citizens; it has been argued that just the opposite occurs. It has been argued that Hezbollah knew the type of response Israel would have. Does that justify their actions? Of course not, but it goes a long way to think that a terrorist organization attacks another country knowing that the ensuing bloodshed will mobilize the citizens to be sympathetic to their cause.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-07-20 13:03:07)
if someone fires mortars at your own country and kill 1 person id take action.. Although not the kind of action the US and Izrael takes performing acts of murder/genocide. Ahh this reminds me the Jew's follow the old testament which says that revenge is the correct thing to do. I do agree that they have overstepped it but what pisses me off people living in glass houses shouldnt throw rocks and stones. My main point was how can someone be critical of another country but not of your own. Id like to accredit this to nationwide dimming of the people. The facts are on the table now its ignorance or stupidity but it seems like people just never look at themselves.
democracy.org? You truly have to be kidding. I'm speechless. LMFAOKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Racism? You used the site because it you are pro-Zionism, and the site is too. Look at the link I posted for unbiased news. It is from www.democracynow.org, not Al-Jezeera, which incidentally is not a terrorist news site, unless everyone in the mid-east is a terrorist in your eyes. Show me the link. It wasn't there. I got to that site because I have read those arguments before, both from that site and another incredibly biased site, Facts and Logic About the Middle East I know you are capable of more intelligent thoughts then the above post, lets see them!negolien wrote:
lol racisim at it's best.. I posted facts /shrug say what ya want I used that site because it has the easiest search engine and usually the best jew-arab stuff. I guess it could be worse and I could get my info from terrorist news sites like Al-Jazzera like you but /shrug lol. I never said I wrote it either u just ASSumed so lol. I even told ya in a link where i got it didn't I ? oh ya that's where you got ur info I forgot from me.
Refute the info if u can???
and we wonder why Iran wants to nuke em
Read again there chap. Its www.democracyNOW.org. Why are you speechless and laughing your ass off? It is no joke, my friend. Please tell me why it does not qualify as a news site. Any logical arguments will be considered.<[onex]>Headstone wrote:
democracy.org? You truly have to be kidding. I'm speechless. LMFAO