Nick Berg
-
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 ?
-
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
Chris Losinger wrote: 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 sh*t. to be fair they are not only 10,000 millions killed by the american econonomic siege against Iraq. thousands will die in the next decades coz of the forbidden weapons uses by USA in the region.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: 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 sh*t. to be fair they are not only 10,000 millions killed by the american econonomic siege against Iraq. thousands will die in the next decades coz of the forbidden weapons uses by USA in the region.
hspc wrote: to be fair they are not only 10,000 millions killed by the american econonomic siege against Iraq. thousands will die in the next decades coz of the forbidden weapons uses by USA in the region the sanctions were UN sanctions, most of the world signed that as a result of the 1st war, as part of numerous UN resolutions. what forbidden weapons ?
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
-
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: 1: Oh yeah, you just murder 3000 odd innocent people and we'll call it a day. Grow up. killing 3000 in a day is never worse than killing tens of thousands in years. both are refused. 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. still you think that it's a gambling game!! there are rights that must be respected. by the way Israel did not win all the wars..unless u think that escapeing form south Lebanon was a victory..being nocked out of Sainai was a victory !! ??? Mark Merrens wrote: We lose our sons. We pay higher taxes. It costs billions. We get villified not our problem,,, we did not ask you to free us..free us ? do u free us by raping and killing ?
-
hspc wrote: to be fair they are not only 10,000 millions killed by the american econonomic siege against Iraq. thousands will die in the next decades coz of the forbidden weapons uses by USA in the region the sanctions were UN sanctions, most of the world signed that as a result of the 1st war, as part of numerous UN resolutions. what forbidden weapons ?
Maximilien Lincourt Your Head A Splode - Strong Bad
first thank you for correcting the word Seige with Sanctions for me :) were these sanctions human ? who put all him power behin this un human decision ? and why ? to panish Saddam ? Saddam did not suffer a moment.. Children did. Maximilien wrote: what forbidden weapons ? reports say that USA tried new forbidden weapons in the Gulf. many children dead of Uranium polution did you hear about the Gulf disease that USA soldiers suffered from after the 1991 war ?
-
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.
Mark Merrens wrote: 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. Here Here.... Voted you a five because of your response. Nicely stated. Silence is golden, so shut the heck up!
-
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
Don't get me wrong, I am disgused by the treatment coalition troops have given to prisioners. If we invaded Iraq to free the people from an evil dictator then we should not be treating the people as badly as they would have been treated by said dictator. What was pissing me off was how the media, and many other people I have heard speak about this, kept on saying how disgusting the treatment of the prisioners was but never mentioned how disgusting the revenge attack was. If I had a better memory I would remember more.
-
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: Have the courage to say who you are in this kind of debate - we all have. That's because you live in UK. If you live in one of the middle-east countries then I will admit you do have a lot of courage, if you still dare to say what you said here. I live in USA, in theory nobody is going to do anything to me because of my political views, but I could be fired for other trivial things such as posting this while in office. I am not related to middle-east in any way and don't really like a lot of things on both sides of the conflicts, but it is not worth it to show people like you how much courage I have. I could make up a phony name like many of you do, but why bother?
-
-
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
John Carson wrote: it is an unfair characterisation. Palestinians work, they run businesses, they grow food... they blow up school buses. their goal, obviously, is to destroy Israel and eliminate Jews. No sympathy, no empathy. And, no help from their own people (Jordan, Egypt, etc, ie., some 50 odd Muslim nations), no push towards peace (from those same 50 odd Muslim nations). 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
-
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: 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. Actually, this isn't true. Israel was created out of Ottoman Empire land. Ottomans are not Arabs, but Turks. Good summary: http://www.jerusalemites.org/jerusalem/ottoman/9.htm[^] And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict[^] What this article doesn't note is that very little land inside the broadest modern Israel borders was actually owned by Palestinians. Most was owned by Turks, some of whom were Jews--Jews could own land in Israel if they were were Ottomans. After the British took control, Jews increasingly bought land. Britain intended to ensure Arabs and Jews purchased equal amounts of land, but in practice, the Arabs purchased very little land and the Jews a whole lot less land than the Jews. [EDIT: John Carson below points out that according to one accepted analysis, Jews owned 6.6% of the land in Palestine as of 1947 and 20% of the farm land. The following source lists 12.5% of the land "[o]n which 80% of Israel's population now lives." There were additional purchases after 1947, which may account for the difference. I also hasten to point out, that this in no way justifies the taking of titled land in the 1947 border from Arabs, Palestinians or whomever, by Israeli forces. The acquisition of land as the result of a fundamentally defensive war--even if launched preemptively--is more problematic. I tend to go with the "to the victor go the spoils" philosophy here. That isn't to say that this philosophy is politically wise. The new settlements especially haven't helped Israel any and turning at least some of them over to individual Palestinians unilaterally would, I think, be a net positive for Israel. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_zionists_land.php[^]] (From a his