Nick Berg
-
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
-
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.
Suzanne Boyle wrote: 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. in my opinion, it's because we in the US (and the West) like to think of ourselves as The Good Guys. we already know how bad Al-Q is - they demonstrated it pretty clearly on 9/11 (and in dozens of less dramatic ways since then, including the beheading of the reporter Daniel Pearl). and, we know how bad Saddam was. that they continue to be bad isn't really news. but, we're supposed to be fighting against that kind of savage brutality, not participating in it. Cleek / Software
-
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 ?
both are refused? Pardon? what does this mean? Look, you wake a sleeping giant you gotta expect he's going to strike back. No one is saying that no one else has died for any cause and I'm not saying life is fair (cos it isn't) but it was a response to a specific point. Gambling? I presume you're attempting a humorous retort. What rights? There are no rights in war. There are only winners and losers. You just gotta hope you're on the winning side. That is reality. Oh and I never said Israel won every war and South Lebabnon was not handled well. However, Sinai was handed back to Egypt as the price of peace. Funny how the Egyptians were happy with a bit of desert and didn't ask for anything for the Palestinians. Are you a Paleastinian or an Iraqi? Are you saying that you were better off under Saddam Hussein? That it is better to be killed raped or mutilated by your own? Or are you one of Arafats oppressed? One of the poor bastards that he locks in to the "refugee camps"? It is really tedious to keep having to login. Stoopid kompooters.
-
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
Mike Gaskey wrote: they blow up school buses. the same did and still iraeli army do. Mike Gaskey wrote: their goal, obviously, is to destroy Israel and eliminate Jews. the big lie that you like to believe..We want to believe we don't aim Jews and jewish.. We (in Egypt as a sample) hosted and still host jews as noraml citizens. some large economical organizations still hold the names of the jews that built them before leaving to what currently named Israel.
-
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.
Incorrect. Britain created a bizarre proposal about equitable land ownership, which arguably contradicted a League of Nations mandate, but it was purchased from the Ottomans (Turkey) not given. One of the mistakes Palestinians made in the first half of the 20th century was that they complained about increased Jewish ownership of land, but didn't increase their own purchases. This was partly, or even largely, due to a lack of support from neighboring Arab countries. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
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 ?
hspc wrote: Saddam did not suffer a moment.. Children did. And if you look into the UN Oil for Food program and the corruption that it contain the primary reason that Saddam did not suffer and the children did is because of high level bribery and corruption at the UN, France, Russia, etc. If the sanctions killed millions then the US invasion has saved lives by removing the sanctions and even more lives by removing Saddam. Dave
-
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 ?
hspc wrote: 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 ? wouldn't be happening if they weren't blowing up school buses. 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
-
both are refused? Pardon? what does this mean? Look, you wake a sleeping giant you gotta expect he's going to strike back. No one is saying that no one else has died for any cause and I'm not saying life is fair (cos it isn't) but it was a response to a specific point. Gambling? I presume you're attempting a humorous retort. What rights? There are no rights in war. There are only winners and losers. You just gotta hope you're on the winning side. That is reality. Oh and I never said Israel won every war and South Lebabnon was not handled well. However, Sinai was handed back to Egypt as the price of peace. Funny how the Egyptians were happy with a bit of desert and didn't ask for anything for the Palestinians. Are you a Paleastinian or an Iraqi? Are you saying that you were better off under Saddam Hussein? That it is better to be killed raped or mutilated by your own? Or are you one of Arafats oppressed? One of the poor bastards that he locks in to the "refugee camps"? It is really tedious to keep having to login. Stoopid kompooters.
Mark [London] wrote: However, Sinai was handed back to Egypt as the price of peace according to your (rules) this can't be true.. why does a winner give anything to a looser ? Mark [London] wrote: Funny how the Egyptians were happy with a bit of desert and didn't ask for anything for the Palestinians. a desert or not..It's our land..can you exchange a part of your country for a part of the gulf coz it contains some oil? anyway it's no longer a desert.
-
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.
-
The only thing the two events have in common is that it will be the Americans who punish the perpetrators. Of course that is also the significant difference between the two events as well. Dave