Nick Berg
-
I just saw this video. X| X| X| Everyone is so shocked by the way American and British troops have treated prisioners. Maybe this video should be shown on TV.. see how shocked people are by what our troops have done after they see a guy getting his head hacked off. If I had a better memory I would remember more.
-
I just saw this video. X| X| X| Everyone is so shocked by the way American and British troops have treated prisioners. Maybe this video should be shown on TV.. see how shocked people are by what our troops have done after they see a guy getting his head hacked off. If I had a better memory I would remember more.
-
I just saw this video. X| X| X| Everyone is so shocked by the way American and British troops have treated prisioners. Maybe this video should be shown on TV.. see how shocked people are by what our troops have done after they see a guy getting his head hacked off. If I had a better memory I would remember more.
Two wrongs do not make a right, my friend. Though I must agree, the video was horrible. I was shaking after I saw that. However, I am sure if the Iraqi abuse was on video it would be horrible too. Pankaj Without struggle, there is no progress
-
I just saw this video. X| X| X| Everyone is so shocked by the way American and British troops have treated prisioners. Maybe this video should be shown on TV.. see how shocked people are by what our troops have done after they see a guy getting his head hacked off. If I had a better memory I would remember more.
Suzanne Boyle wrote: see how shocked people are by what our troops have done after they see a guy getting his head hacked off. Yeah, the order of events could very important here: 1. Whatever the US had done in Afghanistan could be justified after the Twin Towers was hit. 2. Whatever the Palestinians had done could be justified after their land were taken away. 3. Whatever the Iraqis had done could be justified after their country was invaded. 4. As I remember, the head-cutters claimed they did it after the prisoners abuse to get even.
-
I just saw this video. X| X| X| Everyone is so shocked by the way American and British troops have treated prisioners. Maybe this video should be shown on TV.. see how shocked people are by what our troops have done after they see a guy getting his head hacked off. If I had a better memory I would remember more.
Alas, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Both events are wrong and, before very long, the situation in Iraq will spiral into a tit-for-tat of killings and abuse, if it hasn't already We (the coalition) should always act professionally and with dignity and honour and the animals that committed the abuse in the prison should and will be prosecuted. Even if they hadn't done this poor Nick Berg would probably have still been killed. However, at least we could have kept the moral high ground and gone after the killers in a dispassionate, unbiased way. As it is we are now floundering.
-
Suzanne Boyle wrote: see how shocked people are by what our troops have done after they see a guy getting his head hacked off. Yeah, the order of events could very important here: 1. Whatever the US had done in Afghanistan could be justified after the Twin Towers was hit. 2. Whatever the Palestinians had done could be justified after their land were taken away. 3. Whatever the Iraqis had done could be justified after their country was invaded. 4. As I remember, the head-cutters claimed they did it after the prisoners abuse to get even.
1: Oh yeah, you just murder 3000 odd innocent people and we'll call it a day. Grow up. 2: Not quite how it happened. Lets see... hmmm... surprise invasion by all my neighbours. Fight back, gain the upper hand and, as in all wars, win some territory. Defeated neighbours then spend the next 30 odd years whining about an unfair war, blah, blah. Grow up - in war land is gained and lost and no one expects the winner to hand anything back. Oh, except Israel. Always Israel. 3: Duh? The coalition did not invade because of something the Iraqi people did - they invaded because an evil tyrant was killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. And let's just examine what we (the agressors) get from this. We lose our sons. We pay higher taxes. It costs billions. We get villified. And you know what? A small price if it frees people from the hell they were living in. Sure it'll be rough for a while but it will get better. 4: Oh, so that makes it alright, then? 5: Have the courage to say who you are in this kind of debate - we all have.
-
1: Oh yeah, you just murder 3000 odd innocent people and we'll call it a day. Grow up. 2: Not quite how it happened. Lets see... hmmm... surprise invasion by all my neighbours. Fight back, gain the upper hand and, as in all wars, win some territory. Defeated neighbours then spend the next 30 odd years whining about an unfair war, blah, blah. Grow up - in war land is gained and lost and no one expects the winner to hand anything back. Oh, except Israel. Always Israel. 3: Duh? The coalition did not invade because of something the Iraqi people did - they invaded because an evil tyrant was killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. And let's just examine what we (the agressors) get from this. We lose our sons. We pay higher taxes. It costs billions. We get villified. And you know what? A small price if it frees people from the hell they were living in. Sure it'll be rough for a while but it will get better. 4: Oh, so that makes it alright, then? 5: Have the courage to say who you are in this kind of debate - we all have.
Mark Merrens wrote: 2: Not quite how it happened. Lets see... hmmm... surprise invasion by all my neighbours. Fight back, gain the upper hand and, as in all wars, win some territory. Defeated neighbours then spend the next 30 odd years whining about an unfair war, blah, blah. Grow up - in war land is gained and lost and no one expects the winner to hand anything back. Oh, except Israel. Always Israel. You seem to be starting your history around 1948. <Edit>actually I'm not sure where you are starting since the dates don't seem to match</Edit> If you went back to 1920 you would find an Arab land with a Jewish population of around 10%. It was out of that Arab land that Israel was created. Of course, if you go back still further, you can find a time when Palestine was Jewish --- but you have to go back all the way to around 130 AD. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Mark Merrens wrote: 2: Not quite how it happened. Lets see... hmmm... surprise invasion by all my neighbours. Fight back, gain the upper hand and, as in all wars, win some territory. Defeated neighbours then spend the next 30 odd years whining about an unfair war, blah, blah. Grow up - in war land is gained and lost and no one expects the winner to hand anything back. Oh, except Israel. Always Israel. You seem to be starting your history around 1948. <Edit>actually I'm not sure where you are starting since the dates don't seem to match</Edit> If you went back to 1920 you would find an Arab land with a Jewish population of around 10%. It was out of that Arab land that Israel was created. Of course, if you go back still further, you can find a time when Palestine was Jewish --- but you have to go back all the way to around 130 AD. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Mark Merrens wrote: 2: Not quite how it happened. Lets see... hmmm... surprise invasion by all my neighbours. Fight back, gain the upper hand and, as in all wars, win some territory. Defeated neighbours then spend the next 30 odd years whining about an unfair war, blah, blah. Grow up - in war land is gained and lost and no one expects the winner to hand anything back. Oh, except Israel. Always Israel. You seem to be starting your history around 1948. <Edit>actually I'm not sure where you are starting since the dates don't seem to match</Edit> If you went back to 1920 you would find an Arab land with a Jewish population of around 10%. It was out of that Arab land that Israel was created. Of course, if you go back still further, you can find a time when Palestine was Jewish --- but you have to go back all the way to around 130 AD. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
Actually going back to the 67 war. In reality, with any country (almost), you can keep going back and back and find that one or other peoples has occupied the land. However, the main crux here is that the Palestinians were pushed out of Jordan and pretty much every other Arab country after 1948 and squuezed into the West Bank and Gaza. When Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al decided to try and push Israel into the med they just rolled over the Palestinians, as usual. The Arabs don't want them or how about giving them back Trans-Jordan? How about giving them Sinai? Both of these areas are virtually empty. However Israel got the land, either as part of the Balfour declaration or the UN sanctioned state declaration in 48 or through the Britsih occupation or later wars, she has it. Why should it give it up? Did the US give Texas/California back to Mexico? France only gave back Algeria after a war. The UK only gave up its empire through attrition, civil war and other wars. Why is it that Israel is always made the scapegoat for other countries failings? After all, it is the only democratic free country in the middle east. Or does none of that matter? Have you closed your mind to all but the Palestinians and the 500 million Euros they get from the EU each and every year or the other subsidies and help they get which Arafat just creams off. Hey, I would sign back on but I'm tooooo lazy.
-
I just saw this video. X| X| X| Everyone is so shocked by the way American and British troops have treated prisioners. Maybe this video should be shown on TV.. see how shocked people are by what our troops have done after they see a guy getting his head hacked off. If I had a better memory I would remember more.
what a messy situation. people should study sun tzu's art of war - 'taking whole' and think about where and when to do battle. it is generally considered bad strategy to poke a tiger in the ass with a stick and hang around to see whats gonna happen next.
-
Mark Merrens wrote: 2: Not quite how it happened. Lets see... hmmm... surprise invasion by all my neighbours. Fight back, gain the upper hand and, as in all wars, win some territory. Defeated neighbours then spend the next 30 odd years whining about an unfair war, blah, blah. Grow up - in war land is gained and lost and no one expects the winner to hand anything back. Oh, except Israel. Always Israel. You seem to be starting your history around 1948. <Edit>actually I'm not sure where you are starting since the dates don't seem to match</Edit> If you went back to 1920 you would find an Arab land with a Jewish population of around 10%. It was out of that Arab land that Israel was created. Of course, if you go back still further, you can find a time when Palestine was Jewish --- but you have to go back all the way to around 130 AD. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: Of course, if you go back still further, you can find a time when Palestine was Jewish --- but you have to go back all the way to around 130 AD. Then just what point are you trying to make? Sounds as though you agree that possession == ownership. Using your implied theory, give back what you win (even though it is won in your defense), the USA should give back all lands to native Indians and Mexico. Then Spain probably has to do something for the native Indian population of Mexico. That would also mean that we should be refunded the cost of the LA Purchase and that land should also be given back since it was taken from the native Indian population. We'd probably have to get a refund on Alaska from Russia, then the the World Court could be asked whether or not Russia came to ownership naturally or did they take it from native Eskimo population. North America was probably inhabited by some group before native Indians came across the land bridge to settle the continent, so they probably need to leave as well. Germany probably owes Poland land. Forgot to say, we'd all need to be guaranteed the right of return. So I need a place to stay in Poland. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy Me "Kerry is a girl's name." Conan O'Brian "I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are." J.F.Kerry
-
John Carson wrote: Of course, if you go back still further, you can find a time when Palestine was Jewish --- but you have to go back all the way to around 130 AD. Then just what point are you trying to make? Sounds as though you agree that possession == ownership. Using your implied theory, give back what you win (even though it is won in your defense), the USA should give back all lands to native Indians and Mexico. Then Spain probably has to do something for the native Indian population of Mexico. That would also mean that we should be refunded the cost of the LA Purchase and that land should also be given back since it was taken from the native Indian population. We'd probably have to get a refund on Alaska from Russia, then the the World Court could be asked whether or not Russia came to ownership naturally or did they take it from native Eskimo population. North America was probably inhabited by some group before native Indians came across the land bridge to settle the continent, so they probably need to leave as well. Germany probably owes Poland land. Forgot to say, we'd all need to be guaranteed the right of return. So I need a place to stay in Poland. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy Me "Kerry is a girl's name." Conan O'Brian "I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are." J.F.Kerry
Mike Gaskey wrote: Then just what point are you trying to make? Sounds as though you agree that possession == ownership. Long standing possession, yes. That means that it is wrong to take land in the first place but that if enough time passes, then the realities have to be accepted and the more recent long possession takes precedence. I think that is the way the world works and that is the way it has to work, though there is disagreement about how long is long. Any people who lost their land in the middle of the twentieth century and who have lived pretty crappy lives ever since are going to be seriously pissed off. The loss of land is too recent and the subsequent experiences have been too bad for them to just "move on". The reality of this sense of grievance has to be dealt with --- either that or wait several hundred years for the sense of grievance to pass, if you're lucky. Giving Israel back to the Arabs is not a practical option (it would cause immense hardship) but the Palestinians certainly should be given a better deal than they are getting at the moment. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Actually going back to the 67 war. In reality, with any country (almost), you can keep going back and back and find that one or other peoples has occupied the land. However, the main crux here is that the Palestinians were pushed out of Jordan and pretty much every other Arab country after 1948 and squuezed into the West Bank and Gaza. When Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al decided to try and push Israel into the med they just rolled over the Palestinians, as usual. The Arabs don't want them or how about giving them back Trans-Jordan? How about giving them Sinai? Both of these areas are virtually empty. However Israel got the land, either as part of the Balfour declaration or the UN sanctioned state declaration in 48 or through the Britsih occupation or later wars, she has it. Why should it give it up? Did the US give Texas/California back to Mexico? France only gave back Algeria after a war. The UK only gave up its empire through attrition, civil war and other wars. Why is it that Israel is always made the scapegoat for other countries failings? After all, it is the only democratic free country in the middle east. Or does none of that matter? Have you closed your mind to all but the Palestinians and the 500 million Euros they get from the EU each and every year or the other subsidies and help they get which Arafat just creams off. Hey, I would sign back on but I'm tooooo lazy.
Mark [London] wrote: However, the main crux here is that the Palestinians were pushed out of Jordan and pretty much every other Arab country after 1948 and squuezed into the West Bank and Gaza. When Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al decided to try and push Israel into the med they just rolled over the Palestinians, as usual. The Arabs don't want them or how about giving them back Trans-Jordan? How about giving them Sinai? Both of these areas are virtually empty. I think the point is that the Palestinians came from Palestine, i.e., Israel plus the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Asking other countries to give up territory is both 1. a big ask, 2. an acquiescence in what Arabs consider to be a grave injustice. I don't know why you are talking about giving them back Jordan. They didn't have Jordan in the first place. As for places being empty, there is presumably a reason for that --- inhospitable desert perhaps. Mark [London] wrote: However Israel got the land, either as part of the Balfour declaration or the UN sanctioned state declaration in 48 or through the Britsih occupation or later wars, she has it. Why should it give it up? Did the US give Texas/California back to Mexico? France only gave back Algeria after a war. The UK only gave up its empire through attrition, civil war and other wars. Why is it that Israel is always made the scapegoat for other countries failings? After all, it is the only democratic free country in the middle east. Or does none of that matter? You seem to offer the era of colonisation as setting some sort of moral standard. Most people would consider that it was a period of racist arrogance in which nations that considered themselves superior believed that they were entitled to slaughter the innocent in order to grab their land and extract their resources. I would hope that we have more civilised attitudes these days. What is done is done and we can't go back. Noone is seriously proposing that Israel be given back. What is proposed is that the West Bank and Gaza Strip, making up just 22% of Palestine (i.e., Israel + West Bank + Gaza Strip), become a Palestinian State. This doesn't seem like a lot to ask. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true."
-
Chris Losinger wrote: but i think it was written in some book somewhere that the jews are entitled to the land. that trumps everything. Apparently so. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Then just what point are you trying to make? Sounds as though you agree that possession == ownership. Long standing possession, yes. That means that it is wrong to take land in the first place but that if enough time passes, then the realities have to be accepted and the more recent long possession takes precedence. I think that is the way the world works and that is the way it has to work, though there is disagreement about how long is long. Any people who lost their land in the middle of the twentieth century and who have lived pretty crappy lives ever since are going to be seriously pissed off. The loss of land is too recent and the subsequent experiences have been too bad for them to just "move on". The reality of this sense of grievance has to be dealt with --- either that or wait several hundred years for the sense of grievance to pass, if you're lucky. Giving Israel back to the Arabs is not a practical option (it would cause immense hardship) but the Palestinians certainly should be given a better deal than they are getting at the moment. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: but the Palestinians certainly should be given a better deal than they are getting at the moment. and why should they get a deal? they're sitting there whining about grievances that you and I know can't be changed, which is why I added the sarcasm about my "right of return" to Poland. I have no sympathy for any group of people who sit in refugee camps for 50 years demanding to get back what they left. Furthermmore I have no sympathy or empathy for that matter for any group of people who demand to have their own nation, yet refuse to declare it. And, remember, they walked away from a deal that would have given them damn near, although not quite, everything they say they want the latter part of 2000 when Clinton was pressing the Israeli government to make a deaal. Since then the game has become, "kill Jews". Now they're about to get their own land, land sitting outside of a defensive perimeter. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy Me "Kerry is a girl's name." Conan O'Brian "I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are." J.F.Kerry
-
Chris Losinger wrote: but i think it was written in some book somewhere that the jews are entitled to the land. that trumps everything. they were given the land by the british prime minister's(Balfour) promiss. The man who does not own the land gave it to who do not deserve it.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: but i think it was written in some book somewhere that the jews are entitled to the land. that trumps everything. they were given the land by the british prime minister's(Balfour) promiss. The man who does not own the land gave it to who do not deserve it.
-
John Carson wrote: but the Palestinians certainly should be given a better deal than they are getting at the moment. and why should they get a deal? they're sitting there whining about grievances that you and I know can't be changed, which is why I added the sarcasm about my "right of return" to Poland. I have no sympathy for any group of people who sit in refugee camps for 50 years demanding to get back what they left. Furthermmore I have no sympathy or empathy for that matter for any group of people who demand to have their own nation, yet refuse to declare it. And, remember, they walked away from a deal that would have given them damn near, although not quite, everything they say they want the latter part of 2000 when Clinton was pressing the Israeli government to make a deaal. Since then the game has become, "kill Jews". Now they're about to get their own land, land sitting outside of a defensive perimeter. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times Loyal member of the vast right wing conspiracy Me "Kerry is a girl's name." Conan O'Brian "I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are." J.F.Kerry
Mike Gaskey wrote: and why should they get a deal? For the sake of justice and for peace. Mike Gaskey wrote: I have no sympathy for any group of people who sit in refugee camps for 50 years demanding to get back what they left. I do. Mind you, it is an unfair characterisation. Palestinians work, they run businesses, they grow food... Mike Gaskey wrote: And, remember, they walked away from a deal that would have given them damn near, although not quite, everything they say they want the latter part of 2000 when Clinton was pressing the Israeli government to make a deaal. Arguable. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
I just saw this video. X| X| X| Everyone is so shocked by the way American and British troops have treated prisioners. Maybe this video should be shown on TV.. see how shocked people are by what our troops have done after they see a guy getting his head hacked off. If I had a better memory I would remember more.
oh, and, you might want to read this report. beheaded or smothered, which would you choose? and, don't forget, we've likely killed somewhere around 10,000 Iraqi civilians. if An Eye For An Eye is the name of the game, we're in deep shit. Cleek / Software
-
Actually going back to the 67 war. In reality, with any country (almost), you can keep going back and back and find that one or other peoples has occupied the land. However, the main crux here is that the Palestinians were pushed out of Jordan and pretty much every other Arab country after 1948 and squuezed into the West Bank and Gaza. When Syria, Jordan, Egypt et al decided to try and push Israel into the med they just rolled over the Palestinians, as usual. The Arabs don't want them or how about giving them back Trans-Jordan? How about giving them Sinai? Both of these areas are virtually empty. However Israel got the land, either as part of the Balfour declaration or the UN sanctioned state declaration in 48 or through the Britsih occupation or later wars, she has it. Why should it give it up? Did the US give Texas/California back to Mexico? France only gave back Algeria after a war. The UK only gave up its empire through attrition, civil war and other wars. Why is it that Israel is always made the scapegoat for other countries failings? After all, it is the only democratic free country in the middle east. Or does none of that matter? Have you closed your mind to all but the Palestinians and the 500 million Euros they get from the EU each and every year or the other subsidies and help they get which Arafat just creams off. Hey, I would sign back on but I'm tooooo lazy.
so you admin Palestine is the Palestinians' land..But now as Israel won a war it became Israeli land ok.. should we accept that wars should have the last word ? regardless of justice ? and history ? just force rules ? ok this is the same way Ben Laden thinks. Mark [London] wrote: After all, it is the only democratic free country in the middle east what happens now in Gazza strip and Rafah is democracy ? to kill tens and destroy 117+ houses ? to make thousands spen their lives in streets ?