Nick Berg
-
US caused millions to die and you consider invading Iraq a saving ? any sence ? what was lost won't be brought back again. If somebody constantly steal half of your salary .. Do you consider him saving your money by stealing only the quarter ?;P should you thank him ?
-
hspc wrote: the same did and still iraeli army do. Bullshit. You can't site a single instance where the Israeli army blew up a Palestinian school bus. Nor can you find an instance of the Israeli army shooting a woman and her three young daughters at point blank range. Nor can you find an instance of Israeli soldiers parading the remains of Palestinians around the streets. hspc wrote: 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 Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have yet to official denounce, and put in writing, their stated goal to "push Israel into the sea." Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: bull****. You can't site a single instance where the Israeli army blew up a Palestinian school bus. Nor can you find an instance of the Israeli army shooting a woman and her three young daughters at point blank range. Nor can you find an instance of Israeli soldiers parading the remains of Palestinians around the streets. maybe not school buses .. attacking schools is also a bad thing. cutting olive trees is a bad thing. unless you think olive trees are bad coz they feed Palestine. Joe Woodbury wrote: push Israel into the sea yes.. push JEWS into the sea no..
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: their goal, obviously, is to destroy Israel and eliminate Jews. That goal only exists at the rhetorical level. Mike Gaskey wrote: 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). I don't know what help you are referring to. Several military attacks on Israel could be construed as attempts to help the Palestinians. There have also been some peace proposals from Arab countries and constant lobbying. In any case, I don't see the relevance. If the people in other Arab nations have frequently been hypocritical and insincere, how is that the Palestinians fault? 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: That goal only exists at the rhetorical level. as proven time and time again at the physical level. John Carson wrote: I don't know what help you are referring to. None, that was my point. John Carson wrote: Several military attacks on Israel could be construed as attempts to help the Palestinians. With an eye towards a peaceful resolution, no doubt. John Carson wrote: If the people in other Arab nations have frequently been hypocritical and insincere, how is that the Palestinians fault? It is not. But it isn't Israel's or mine either. 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
-
The US did not cause millions to die in Iraq - Saddam Hussein did. The sanctions were set up under the auspices of the UN not the US. So if you want to blame the sanctions - blame the world for every Iraqi death. Dave
DRHuff wrote: blame the world for every Iraqi death i agree we should not blame usa only all the nathions that accepted should be blamed.
-
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.
What rules? There are no rules. There are deals. And war. That's it. Live with it. It's pleasing to hear that the Egyptians have made something of the Sinai - I hadn't known that. However, at the time it was given back it wasn't theirs. And we have our own oil (UK), thank you very much - don't need your overpriced goods. Maybe you should spend some of those hefty oil revenues on your own people in the form of food and medicine instead of stockpiling housed all over the world and sendiong weapons to terrorist organisations. That'll promote peace, won't it? Bottom line: put down your weapons, accept that you can't get back everything you think you lost, accept that Israel is not going to go away and maybe, just maybe we can all get what we really want - peace. I'm not holding my breath. Can I stop apologising for not logging in now?
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: their goal, obviously, is to destroy Israel and eliminate Jews. That goal only exists at the rhetorical level. Mike Gaskey wrote: 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). I don't know what help you are referring to. Several military attacks on Israel could be construed as attempts to help the Palestinians. There have also been some peace proposals from Arab countries and constant lobbying. In any case, I don't see the relevance. If the people in other Arab nations have frequently been hypocritical and insincere, how is that the Palestinians fault? 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
The Arab relationship to Palestinians is rather complicated. After 1967, Jordan became the home of many, if not most, the Palestinians. In the early 70s Jordan attempted to forcibly expel them, causing many to go to Lebanon which was one of the causitive factors of the Lebanese civil war. Due mainly to the killing of Israeli commuters, Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 and then again in 1982. Arafat, the PLO and a few thousand Palestinian refuges evacuated Beirut and went to Tunis. Ironically, it was the United States Marines that supervised the actual evacuation, not any Arab country, and it was accomplished with US, Italian and French ships. (The subsequent slaughter of Palestinians in Lebanese refugee camps was done by a Lebanese Christian faction.) For the record, while I think the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978 was justified, I do think the invasion in 1982 was a blunderous mistake. Yes, the PLO had launched missile attacks, but they could have been dealt with with special forces and targeted attacks. The situation in Lebanon by that point was insane, with several factions beating the crap out of each other; Israel only made a bad situation worse. (Then Reagan put in, the pulled out, the Marines; a monumental mistake all around and one that ranks up with the sudden withdraw of the Marines from Mogadishu twenty years later as major contributing factors to emboldening fanatical Islamic elements.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: 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. you are right that Palestinians did not get the true support note that Arab countries was also conquested. anyway buying some land in englan does not give me the right to consider it an hspcian land and make a new nation on it!!!
hspc wrote: anyway buying some land in englan does not give me the right to consider it an hspcian land and make a new nation on it!!! They didn't buy the land in England. They purchased land from Ottoman Turks, Arabs and yes, even Jews. It's also important to note that the Palestinians never had a nation; the territory had been part of the Ottoman empire for 400 years. This isn't to say Britain's governance of the territory was somewhere between bad and awful; it was. However, given the history of the region, the actions of the League of Nations in other parts of the Arab world and Britain's history has a colonizing power, what happened becomes somewhat understandable, though not justifiable. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: Before 1967, the West Bank belonged to Jordan, the Golan Heights to Syria. Palestinian claims to the West Bank are historically non-existant. No, Jordan got the West Bank when it joined in the attack on Israel in 1948 and held it until 1967. Transjordan as defined by the British was only on the east side of the river. 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: No, Jordan got the West Bank when it joined in the attack on Israel in 1948 and held it until 1967. I should have been more specific; yes, Jordan did take ownership of the west bank in 1948, but they did "own" it as of 1967. Prior to that it was part of the Ottoman empire; it was not "owned" by Palestinians. (One big problem with arguing "ownership" in this part of the middle east is that when the Ottoman empire was broken up after WWI, the European powers secretly and arbitrarily carved it up--if you really want to place blame, that's where it really lies. Only Saudia Arabia really has long term traditional claims to it's territory, since the Ottoman's never fully conquered it. Here's an interesting map of the expansion and decline of the Ottoman empire: http://www.naqshbandi.org/ottomans/maps/default.htm[^]) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
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
Joe Woodbury wrote: Actually, this isn't true. Israel was created out of Ottoman Empire land. Ottomans are not Arabs, but Turks. Actually, it is true that Israel was created out of Arab land. Of course Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. That is why the British gained control of it, because the Turks were on the losing side in WWI. That doesn't make Palestine Turkish any more than it makes India British during the period of British colonial rule. According to Mark Tessler (A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, p.145) in 1922 there were 668,000 Arabic speaking Palestinians (589,000 Muslims, 71,000 Christians and 7,500 Druze) and 85,000 Jews. He doesn't give figures for the Turkish population, which was apparently not numerically significant. Joe Woodbury wrote: 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. It is true that Jews were keen to purchase land, but not true that they acquired a lot of it. According to Tessler (p. 174), they only owned 6.6% of the land by 1947. I don't have overall figures for the division between Arabs and Turks but view your claims with scepticism. Joe Woodbury wrote: From a historical perspective, it's also important to point out that the concept of "return" gained its real momentum as a result of WWII. Before then, Jews as a group had no real desire for a "homeland" and even Zionists proposed alternatives to Israel, such as Uganda, of all places.) WWII certainly added to it, but there was a great deal of momentum prior to that. Jewish migration had increased the proportion of Jews in the population to about 1/3 and the immigration quotas were a constant source of conflict between the Jewish representatives and the Arabs and British. 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 Ru
-
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. I hear this come up time and time again. Do you, or does anyone else, have reliable, documented proof of this, or is it merely rhetoric? Call me curious.
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project Lurker -
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: It is really tedious to keep having to login. Stoopid kompooters. Next time you log in, go to My Settings and check the "Use cookies so you don't have to log on again?" box. 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 [London] wrote: It is really tedious to keep having to login. Stoopid kompooters. Next time you log in, go to My Settings and check the "Use cookies so you don't have to log on again?" box. 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
Knew that, ta. Sadly I am bang in the middle of developing an app that eats cookies (kinda) and it keeps eating mine. Buggers won't give me another machine and I can't be asked to write a little batch file to store them, run the app and then restore them. Hey, wait, while I've f'd about writing this mail I coulda written the script. Doh! Hey, good debate if a little intense. Still I guess a war'd do that.
-
hspc wrote: to be fair they are not only 10,000 millions killed by the american econonomic siege against Iraq. I hear this come up time and time again. Do you, or does anyone else, have reliable, documented proof of this, or is it merely rhetoric? Call me curious.
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project LurkerPaul Lyons wrote: Do you, or does anyone else, have reliable, documented proof of this, or is it merely rhetoric? not under my hands now.. I also don't have an evidence that Bin laden commited the 11/9 crime.
-
hspc wrote: anyway buying some land in englan does not give me the right to consider it an hspcian land and make a new nation on it!!! They didn't buy the land in England. They purchased land from Ottoman Turks, Arabs and yes, even Jews. It's also important to note that the Palestinians never had a nation; the territory had been part of the Ottoman empire for 400 years. This isn't to say Britain's governance of the territory was somewhere between bad and awful; it was. However, given the history of the region, the actions of the League of Nations in other parts of the Arab world and Britain's history has a colonizing power, what happened becomes somewhat understandable, though not justifiable. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: They purchased land from Ottoman Turks when ? palestine was under the british conquest!! Joe Woodbury wrote: understandable, though not justifiable. and what matters here is justice
-
What rules? There are no rules. There are deals. And war. That's it. Live with it. It's pleasing to hear that the Egyptians have made something of the Sinai - I hadn't known that. However, at the time it was given back it wasn't theirs. And we have our own oil (UK), thank you very much - don't need your overpriced goods. Maybe you should spend some of those hefty oil revenues on your own people in the form of food and medicine instead of stockpiling housed all over the world and sendiong weapons to terrorist organisations. That'll promote peace, won't it? Bottom line: put down your weapons, accept that you can't get back everything you think you lost, accept that Israel is not going to go away and maybe, just maybe we can all get what we really want - peace. I'm not holding my breath. Can I stop apologising for not logging in now?
Mark [London] wrote: you should spend some of those hefty oil revenues on your own people in the form of food and medicine instead of stockpiling housed all over the world and sendiong weapons to terrorist organisations. mmmmmm talking to blair ?;P ok..Yes he should stop his terrorists and also care about his next elections
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: They purchased land from Ottoman Turks when ? palestine was under the british conquest!! Joe Woodbury wrote: understandable, though not justifiable. and what matters here is justice
You need to read up on your history. After WWI, the Ottoman empire was broken up and partitioned in secret by Britain, France and Italy, which accounts for the mostly arbitrary borders of many countries in the region. While Britain controlled the Palestine territory, title to the lands was still retained mostly by Ottoman Turks (most were absentee landlords.) The history of Palestine/Israel is long and complicated. hspc wrote: and what matters here is justice If you're talking justice, begin with prosecuting the Palestinian terrorists who deliberately target and kill women and children. Also prosecute the parents who kill their daughters for disgracing them by being raped or having consensual sex out of wedlock. If you're talking justice, why hasn't Arafat been arrested for embezzling and misappropriating over a billion dollars of money meant for the Palestinian people? Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Paul Lyons wrote: Do you, or does anyone else, have reliable, documented proof of this, or is it merely rhetoric? not under my hands now.. I also don't have an evidence that Bin laden commited the 11/9 crime.
hspc wrote: not under my hands now.. Thanks. If you do happen to come upon it, please let me know. hspc wrote: I also don't have an evidence that Bin laden commited the 11/9 crime. Hmmm, don't recall asking that. :confused: Since you are an enlightened seeker of knowledge, perhaps this[^] might help you.
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project Lurker -
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 networks know that what you can't see, you'll soon forget. You'll remember what happened to Nick because you've seen it. The torture of prisoners is more hazy, they won't let you see that. And as the invader, the USA has the obligation to be more than 'less evil', if they want the support of the populace. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder