"Chemiocal Ali" Killed By Missles Aimed at his Car

[Skeptic]

And so ends the notorious life of one of the world's greatest terrorists, the man responsible for gassing thousands of Kurds to death in the 1980s.

Funny, when israel does the same thing to people reponsible for the death of its own citizens, it's "government-sponsored assassination".

But I keep forgetting: killing jews isn't a crime. It's "legitimate resistance of the palestinian people".

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

And taking a mu*cough* palestinians land isn't theft, it's just running the do*cough* err.. palestinians off of the land. Hey, they don't need land! They aren't people. I mean, if my dog was in my backyard I don't have to buy the land from it.

Especially if a different dog once bit my daughter. DAMN TERROR-DOGS.

[Richard G]

Everyone knows the Jews have a monopoly on the worlds landmasses. They need to give some back to the poor Arabs who don't have any. :rolleyes:
http://www.israelmybeloved.com/land/pics/map_arabworld_med.jpg

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Richard G
Everyone knows the Jews have a monopoly on the worlds landmasses. They need to give some back to the poor Arabs who don't have any. :rolleyes:
http://www.israelmybeloved.com/land/pics/map_arabworld_med.jpg

lol

JK

[blackpriester]

What does the size of stolen land in relation to the land retained have to do with the moral justification of "stealing land"? Plus, why does the fact that other Arab tribes have lots of land justify the taking of land from the Palestinians?

Just curious...

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by blackpriester
What does the size of stolen land in relation to the land retained have to do with the moral justification of "stealing land"? Plus, why does the fact that other Arab tribes have lots of land justify the taking of land from the Palestinians?

Just curious...

You are claiming Israel is taking land from Jordan, the Palestinian homeland? :eek:

Is it on the news or are you making that up?

JK

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Isreal isn't taking Jordanian land, they are taking land from the so-called 'palastenian' people. We told them it was ok after WWII because the germans persecuted them.

You really need to get a history book.

[blackpriester]

Ok, Sir Jedi... how does "accepting a gift of land that was previously stolen by another thief" sound to you? But then again, the Zionists did unleash quite a bit of terror on their own to claim this gift...

[blackpriester]

Oh - and by the way: I AM GERMAN and quite ashamed of what happened in this country 60 years ago. But one injustice, no matter how great, does not justify the victim in inflicting injustices to others.

[Skeptic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blackpriester

...from San Francisco...

What does the size of stolen land in relation to the land retained have to do with the moral justification of "stealing land"?

I don't know. Care to ask the 500 or so American Indian tribes who lived in your country before the white man arrived? Since you have such moral aversion to living on stolen land, I suppose you will be leaving soon. By the way, the same indians could tell you something about how succesful all the "land for peace" treaties they signed with the white man were.

Of course, as for "stolen" land, let's ask King David, or Jesus for that matter, a). What religion they were, and b). where did they live. You also might want to say something to my grandfather, who was driven out of Germany to British Palestine because, after all, everybody knows THAT is the jewish homeland, and he had no right to pollute honest German soil with his jewish presence.

I wish they would make up their mind: EITHER the jews are european colonialists who stole the palestinian land (never mind that 90% of the palestinians only came over to "occupied palestine" AFTER the beginning of the jewish "colonization", since life there became, due to jewish influence, relatively heaven compared to life in the arab world) OR they are palestinians and thus must not pollute christian/aryan europe with their presence.

P.S.

No, it's not a typo to call jews "palestinians". The term signified JEWS living there until 1948, since the arabs living there didn't really see themselves as "palestinians" any more than Americans see themselves as belonging to the "Californian nation".

[blackpriester]

Skeptic,

I understand your bitterness. The history of the jewish people is a painful one and I have a lot of sympathy for you guys. As a matter of fact, as long as I lived in SF, my best friend was Jewish.

I say that only because you might want to take note of the fact that I am friggin' 30 years old and never gassed any Jews, nor did my Dad or even my Grandfather (who was a devout catholic from the "Sudetenland" and actually fed Jews that were driven through his city under danger to his own life. Funnily enough, he was later driven from HIS land by the Czechs for being German...).

So as for your argument about "making up minds":
I did never in my life think that Jews soil the earth anywhere, and neither does any sane person from my generation. I would be happy to have more Jewish people living in Germany or San Francisco. And guess what - I would also not mind to have them live in Palestine AS LONG AS THEY DON'T CLAIM POWER OVER A COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN ARABIAN UNTIL 50 YEARS AGO.

There is a big difference between the taking of the American land from the natives (which was also unjust!) and the situation in Palestine: One was done roughly 200 years ago, one IS done right now - fantaic settlers and other fringe idiots using the Israeli army to tear down Palaestinian homes.

In the first case, we can not do much but try to make up what we can to Native Americans. In the second case, we can at least try to stop the injustice that is going on RIGHT NOW.

I would agree with you if you defend the basic right of Israel to exist - after 50 years, a quasi-right of the Jewish people to be there has been created. But the right of Israelis to keep power over the Westbank and Gaza? The settlers who settle at the outskirts of the Israeli sphere of influence, citing a Biblical right to be there? Give me a break.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by blackpriester
Skeptic,

I understand your bitterness. The history of the jewish people is a painful one and I have a lot of sympathy for you guys. As a matter of fact, as long as I lived in SF, my best friend was Jewish.

I say that only because you might want to take note of the fact that I am friggin' 30 years old and never gassed any Jews, nor did my Dad or even my Grandfather (who was a devout catholic from the "Sudetenland" and actually fed Jews that were driven through his city under danger to his own life. Funnily enough, he was later driven from HIS land by the Czechs for being German...).

So as for your argument about "making up minds":
I did never in my life think that Jews soil the earth anywhere, and neither does any sane person from my generation. I would be happy to have more Jewish people living in Germany or San Francisco. And guess what - I would also not mind to have them live in Palestine AS LONG AS THEY DON'T CLAIM POWER OVER A COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN ARABIAN UNTIL 50 YEARS AGO.

There is a big difference between the taking of the American land from the natives (which was also unjust!) and the situation in Palestine: One was done roughly 200 years ago, one IS done right now - fantaic settlers and other fringe idiots using the Israeli army to tear down Palaestinian homes.

In the first case, we can not do much but try to make up what we can to Native Americans. In the second case, we can at least try to stop the injustice that is going on RIGHT NOW.

I would agree with you if you defend the basic right of Israel to exist - after 50 years, a quasi-right of the Jewish people to be there has been created. But the right of Israelis to keep power over the Westbank and Gaza? The settlers who settle at the outskirts of the Israeli sphere of influence, citing a Biblical right to be there? Give me a break.


*clap* *clap* *clap*

[blackpriester]

and about the "indigenous population, you might want to check these facts: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.

[blackpriester]

Thank you, Rusty... [*bowing down in all directions*]... ;)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by blackpriester
Ok, Sir Jedi... how does "accepting a gift of land that was previously stolen by another thief" sound to you? But then again, the Zionists did unleash quite a bit of terror on their own to claim this gift...

You have been hanging around the mosques too much. You need to get some air sometime to clear up the lies you have been taught as history.

JK

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You have been hanging around the mosques too much. You need to get some air sometime to clear up the lies you have been taught as history.

JK


why do you end all of yoru posts even the unfunny ones as jk? YOU MAKE 0 SENSE.

Please provide me with real history then. The other poster provided link to back up his statement, and why are you kidding? Do you support the palestinian or do you support the jewishinian?

MAKE UP YOUR MIND MAN.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot
Isreal isn't taking Jordanian land, they are taking land from the so-called 'palastenian' people. We told them it was ok after WWII because the germans persecuted them.

You really need to get a history book.

Gosh Rusty, whose land was it that Israel "stole"-- their own? Yep, they took their own land back. The territory of the State of Israel is the land of the Jews going back as far as all of recorded human history.

But look, I am always interested in reading leftist revisionist history so if you got that nonsense you just said from a history book, give me the ISBN so I can read it and then critique it.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot



why do you end all of yoru posts even the unfunny ones as jk? YOU MAKE 0 SENSE.

Please provide me with real history then. The other poster provided link to back up his statement, and why are you kidding? Do you support the palestinian or do you support the jewishinian?

MAKE UP YOUR MIND MAN.

JK = Jedi Knight

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by blackpriester
Thank you, Rusty... [*bowing down in all directions*]... ;)

Bowing to lies? Interesting.....

JK

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

YOu do it again? Are you just kidding or are you serious?

What ist his state? Israel State? What country was it a part of? Where is a history book that is not resolutionary?

Maybe I'd believe you were serious if it was only the media saying that there was no Israel 100 years ago and they took land stolen from PALENSTINE.

BUT: The media is not saying that, they are saying the opposite. SO why would the liberal media say the opposite? Perhaps because the zionists are paying them off eh? Maybe if they weren't so damned busy whining about how everyone owes them a free ride and get a damn job then we wouldn't have to deal with this crap!

[blackpriester]

Sir Jedi, believe me, I have NO SYMPATHY for the Muslim "faith" at all - but neither do I have sympathy for Christianity or Judaism or Scientolgy or Buddhism etc. for that matter.

People are people, and they should be treated with fairness and respect, no matter what particular brand of supernatural idiocy they use to guide their personal life. The fact that the indigenous Arabian population prays in mosques, not in temples or churches does not give us a right to give their country away at our whim.

Also, what i have been "taught" in history is in accordance with what the enlightened world accepts as fact. You might have checked the source I have given in my link, it's the friggin' UN.

And yes, i have been lurking around here long enough to know that YOU don't respect the UN. Problem is, the rest of the world does.

Oh, just a little sidenote from the same source:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html
In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict. In 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and to return. The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The General Assembly conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in other international conferences held under United Nations auspices.

So if we are right in "preventive warfare" to punish violating UN sanctions in Iraq, what do we do with Israel ;)?

[Richard G]

never mind that 90% of the palestinians only came over to "occupied palestine" AFTER the beginning of the jewish "colonization", since life there became, due to jewish influence, relatively heaven compared to life in the arab world

A very good point, which most people miss, or are unaware of. That area was an undeveloped desert ******** while the Arabs occupied it. Most of them were nothing more than uneducated goat herders. Everything there now that resembles modern civilisation, was built by the Jews. Why should they give up what they have built? The jews would have no problem assimilating peacfull Palestinians into their society if they (palestinians) weren't so damned blood thirsty.

More perplexing, why will no arab "brother" nations give the Palestinians a home if their plight is so unbearable? Because even the Arabs know that the Palestinians are a bunch of unreasonable, lawless, violent barbarians that have nothing good to offer any modern society. The Arab nations much prefer them where they are, canon fodder to be thrown at their collective enemy the Jews. This allows the Arabs to fund, support, and wage war on the Jews indirectly, at the Palestinians foolish expense, something they (Arabs) have failed miserbaly to do through direct, open war and aggression.

Moral of the story, the Arabs don't give a rats ass about the Palestinians. And its not really about land, its about destroying the Jews.

[Richard G]

So if we are right in "preventive warfare" to punish violating UN sanctions in Iraq, what do we do with Israel ?

Pass 17 more resolutions?

[blackpriester]

Also from the UN, as you might have guessed... just to have a quick reference here...

The Palestine problem became an international issue towards the end of the First World War with the disintegration of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Palestine was among the several former Ottoman Arab territories which were placed under the administration of Great Britain under the Mandates System adopted by the League of Nations pursuant to the League's Covenant (Article 22) .

All but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

During the years of the Palestine Mandate, from 1922 to 1947, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad, mainly from Eastern Europe took place, the numbers swelling in the 1930s with the notorious Nazi persecution of Jewish populations. Palestinian demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing terrorism and violence from both sides during and immediately after World War II. Great Britain tried to implement various formulas to bring independence to a land ravaged by violence. In 1947, Great Britain in frustration turned the problem over to the United Nations.

See also: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem Part I

The map collection
The United Nations and the Question of Palestine

1947-1977


After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being.

In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

In 1974, the General Assembly reaffirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty, and to return. The following year, the General Assembly established the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The General Assembly conferred on the PLO the status of observer in the Assembly and in other international conferences held under United Nations auspices.

See also: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem Part II

The map collection
The United Nations and the Question of Palestine

1977-1990
Events on the ground, however, remained on a negative course. In June 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon with the declared intention to eliminate the PLO. A cease-fire was arranged. PLO troops withdrew from Beirut and were transferred to neighboring countries after guarantees of safety were provided for thousands of Palestinian refugees left behind. Subsequently, a large-scale massacre of refugees took place in the camps of Sabra and Shatila.

In September 1983, the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, which was widely attended, adopted inter alia the Geneva Declaration containing the following principles: the need to oppose and reject the establishment of settlements in the occupied territory and actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem, the right of all States in the region to existence within secure and internationally recognized boundaries, with justice and security for all the people, and the attainment of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

In December 1987, a mass uprising against the Israeli occupation began in the occupied Palestinian territory (the intifadah). Methods used by the Israeli forces during the uprising resulted in mass injuries and heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population.

[blackpriester]

Since you are a patriot (a thing I admire, as long as it's not FRINGE-NATIONALISTIC [we Germans have some negative experiences with Fringe-Nationalism, you know...]), here is the OFFICIAL US position on Zionism:

http://www.palestinehistory.com/isrbio.htm
In 1975 The General Assembly of the UN condemned Zionism as ‘a form of racism and racial discrimination’; among those voting against the resolution were the USA and the members of the European Community (now the European Union).

(admittedly from a biased source, but probably true.. I'm
sure a quick google check can bring that up)

[Richard G]

In 1975 The General Assembly of the UN condemned Zionism as ‘a form of racism and racial discrimination’;

This proves that the U.N. is itself racist against Jews. That statement is as obsurd as saying "Being a patriotic American is racist".

U.N., flawed in many terrible ways. I'll be glad to see it go.

[blackpriester]

Hi Richard,

Your argument about the raising of living standards in Palestine under Israeli occupation is not a MORAL argument at all. Or do you support the US in attacking, lets say Angola? I'm sure we could raise their standard of living by a lot and all they'd have to give us is their land! [Sarcasm=on] "Hell, all the other niggaz from neighboring countries will probably come rush in and participate in the benefits of the new economy!" [Sarcasm=off]

All I say is that NOTHING justifies forcibly taking land from indigenous people. Sure you'd be right in saying (as stated above) that the Zionist settling in Israel for 50 years now are to be counted as indigenous, too. It does not JUSTIFY taking the land, but it's a situation we have to deal with now - and that means that BOTH sides will have to give up some of their demands and try to meet in the middle.

- m.

[Quickly edited to correct some spelling]

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Richard G

Because even the Arabs know that the Palestinians are a bunch of unreasonable, lawless, violent barbarians that have nothing good to offer any modern society.

So you are a racist? Or do you believe that if we took a palestinian and gave him a good education in a good family free of violence (say you raised him in your home) then how would he turn out? Would he remain a violent barbarian?

You fail to see your own hippocrisy, unless you are just kidding as well but you don't put the jk symbols on it post like ME!

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Richard G


This proves that the U.N. is itself racist against Jews. That statement is as obsurd as saying "Being a patriotic American is racist".

U.N., flawed in many terrible ways. I'll be glad to see it go.


Dude, you know that this statement is ********. I don't want to discuss the UN here, if avoidable... but it is the best body to resolve international conflict we have so far. Do you really want a hegemonial power to take its place? The law of the strongest? Mind you, one day it might not be the US anymore. Don't come crying to me if China does what they want in 50 years...

And the UN is not racist against Jews in any way. I want to remind you that the quote I gave you alter is the official AMERICAN position. Do you think the US is racist against Jews?

(Just out of interest: Are you Jewish?)

[blackpriester]

Thank you, Rusty, you beat in me in answering to that one.
Although I would have spared myself the personal attack on Richard... its just his opnion, and he feels srongly about it.

But of course its wrong ;).

I am convinced that no nation is more violent than another.
I do know that Plaestinians have many more REASONS to be violent. WHICH DOES NOT EXCUSE THE ACTUAL VIOLENCE OF COURSE.

[Richard G]

Your argument about the raising of living standards in Palestine under Israeli occupation is not a MORAL argument at all.

A body of people whos goverment, and schools condone, and encourages blowing up innocent civilians with suicide bombers has no moral argument. They are criminal.

No, I'm not Jewish. I side with nations and people who respect the rule of law, individual life, and liberty.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Richard G


This proves that the U.N. is itself racist against Jews. That statement is as obsurd as saying "Being a patriotic American is racist".

U.N., flawed in many terrible ways. I'll be glad to see it go.

Incidentally, the 1975 deicsion--like the Oil embargo--was simply part of the arab revenge at losing yet another war of annihilation they started against israel in 1973.

The next year, I believe, the UN condemned israel (on Algeria's recommendation) for "practicing aerial terrorism"... by having armed guards in its planes that make them harder to hijack by Arabs.

Yes, the UN--what a paragon of fairness.

[blackpriester]

...because of the 6 to 9 hour time difference to you guys.

Richard:
I also side with nations that use the rule of law and respect human rights. Incidentally NEITHER Israel nor the Palestinians do that. They just fight tooth and claw - and all I'm saying is that the basis for this fight is an injustice perpetrated by... the League of Nations (giving the land to Zionists in the first place).

Since the Palestinians are the party who got the short end of the stick, I tend to identify with their cause. The means they employed to reach the cause are certainly nothing we need to discuss - we will agree that they are not justified. Terrorism never is. I just want to point out though, that the Israeli side used its own share of terrorism to "convince" the English to leave the land. So don't judge the moral justification of the partys to be there by the means employed - you might open a barrel that stinks.

If we could battle fantaicism on both sides and get them to talk to each other again (like in the old days.. you remember? Pre-Netanjahu? Clinton-Era?), we'd be off for a good start.

[Skeptic]

Another version on this idea:

http://idisk.mac.com/kfiralfia/Public/protest_warrior/images/posters/sign_24.jpg

[Skeptic]

And:

http://idisk.mac.com/kfiralfia/Public/protest_warrior/images/posters/sign_22.jpg

And, no, I'm not exagerrating. The palestinian goal is, was, and apparently always will be the destruction of israel (that is what the code words "freeing palestine" means) and the butchery and expulsion of all the jews (that's the "end zionism" and "stop the colonialists occupiers" part).

To put it as simply as possible, the palestinian goal is not peace, or justice, or anything like that--but a second holocaust, as the palestinian leadership, its people, its religious leaders, and its schoolteachers continually say.

All you have to do is ask them.

[blackpriester]

Skeptic, I think both of your points have been addressed in the previous discussion... and you know full well that I do not advocate unleashing war on Jewish people.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by blackpriester
Skeptic, I think both of your points have been addressed in the previous discussion... and you know full well that I do not advocate unleashing war on Jewish people.

True. You just advocate giving moral, practical, and political support to the palestinains so THEY will continue the already-unleashed war of annihilation on the jewish people.

Your point is a bit like saying: "Hey, I don't advocate unleashing a Jihad on the American people, I just support Al Quaeda."

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Skeptic
And:

http://idisk.mac.com/kfiralfia/Public/protest_warrior/images/posters/sign_22.jpg

And, no, I'm not exagerrating. The palestinian goal is, was, and apparently always will be the destruction of israel (that is what the code words "freeing palestine" means) and the butchery and expulsion of all the jews (that's the "end zionism" and "stop the colonialists occupiers" part).

To put it as simply as possible, the palestinian goal is not peace, or justice, or anything like that--but a second holocaust, as the palestinian leadership, its people, its religious leaders, and its schoolteachers continually say.

All you have to do is ask them.

So all palestinians have this belief? They must be like future robots sent back in time to stop the zionist machine right? Sort of like Terminator 3, the real judgement day! No doubt the palestinian people, being robots and what-not, are incapable of peace. We must wage a holy righteous war against them! God is on our side!!!!!

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Skeptic


True. You just advocate giving moral, practical, and political support to the palestinains so THEY will continue the already-unleashed war of annihilation on the jewish people.

Your point is a bit like saying: "Hey, I don't advocate unleashing a Jihad on the American people, I just support Al Quaeda."

So Skeptic, you really are unable to realize that the Palestinian people and Anti-sematism are DIFFERENT THINGS.

You need to work on your racism, because you are a racist.

The Palestinian people are PEOPLE, they are not Anti-sematism.

[DanishDynamite]

Hmmm. A lot of maps in this thread. Here's another one I'm sure the Islamophobes will agree with....
http://www.derfcity.com/n/newtoon3.html

Edited: Darn! Won't allow the link. Ok, here's the link. (http://www.derfcity.com/n/newtoon3.html)

[Richard G]

Incidentally NEITHER Israel nor the Palestinians do that. They just fight tooth and claw

Here you are wrong. The Palestinians commit war crimes, and heinous attrocities against civilians in Israel, then hide among their own civillian population. Israel then responds in self defense by going after those individuals, and their leaders. As you well know, civilian casualties are impossible to prevent in urban combat, but the Isralis are targeting valid military (terrorist) targets. Blame for excessive Palestinian casualties lies squarly on the Palestinian thugs, who choose to fight in plain clothes, and hide among their own innocents. But the Israelis do not go out, and target civilians indiscrimantly, or deliberately. If they did, Palestinian style, they could eassily wipe out the entire Palestinain race in a few days.

One cannot draw a comparison between the way the two sides fight against each other. One is self defense, carried out under the confines of Geneva Convention, and the memories of genocide that haunt the Jewish history and memory, the other is unrestricted, cold blooded terrorism.

Since the Palestinians are the party who got the short end of the stick, I tend to identify with their cause. The means they employed to reach the cause are certainly nothing we need to discuss - we will agree that they are not justified. Terrorism never is.

Out of your own mouth....terrorism.....but it is the entire root of the problem. Nothing else can be discussed until this very thing [terrorism] is addressed. America will not negotiate, reason, harbor, or support terrorism. We actively hunt it down to erradicate it. Why would one expect the Isralis to do any different?

Why should any legitimacy at all be given to a people who live by, and practice daily, terrorism? It shouldn't. And until the Palestinian choose new leadership with drasticly different methods and ideas than the leadership they have been cursed with since their begining, their situation will never improve, and unfortunately, niether will Israels.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Richard G

The Palestinians commit war crimes, and heinous attrocities against civilians in Israel, then hide among their own civillian population.

Considering that the Palestinians are not allowed to have a military, anything they do must be from the civilians.

[Skeptic]

So all palestinians have this belief?

No, but somewhere around 80-90% do, according to their own polls. Of course, if you listen to Arafat, it IS 100%, since "the entire palestinian people are united as one man in this struggle to free our land", blah blah blah.

They must be like future robots sent back in time to stop the zionist machine right?

No. They just have a genocidal hatered of jews. That, of course, is nothing new.

No doubt the palestinian people, being robots and what-not, are incapable of peace.

Except for the "robots" part, got it in one. Of course, you can prove me wrong, by showing me some signs of peace on the palestinian side.

Can you find, for example, one palestinian political party that recognizes israel's right to exist?

No?

How about a palestinian politician openly denouncing terrorism?

Nada?

What about finding a palestinian schoolbook where the jews are NOT portrayed as evil beasts to be destroyed?

Can't do?

How about an official palestinian announcement that they will retract the sections in the palestinian version of "sesame street" where a five-year-old claims he'll be a shahid (suicide bomber) when he grows up, and is greatly encouraged by all the other kids to do so?

Nope?

Gee...

We must wage a holy righteous war against them!

No, just engage in self-defense against an openly genocidal enemy.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Considering that the Palestinians are not allowed to have a military, anything they do must be from the civilians.

They WERE allowed to have a military--the so-called 40,000 strong "police force", complete with heavy APCs and weapons.

Needless to say, this police force was staffed by commanders almost literally according to how many jews they could boast of killing. While its official purpose was to keep the peace internally, it was of course turned on israel the moment the long-planned "intifada" (actually, genocidal terrorism-based war) started in september 2000.

But I agree: it is an EVIL WAR CRIME by the RACIST ISRAELIES to not allow those whose official goal is to destroy them and push them into the sea to have an army.

Truly disgusting, isn't it?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Skeptic



But I agree: it is an EVIL WAR CRIME by the RACIST ISRAELIES to not allow those whose official goal is to destroy them and push them into the sea to have an army.

Truly disgusting, isn't it?

Well, everyone seems to express outrage at Saddam's audacity to try to squash the Kurdish uprising.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by blackpriester
[B] Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

Aside from the fact that this is not an enforcable Resolution (i.e. not Chapter 7) there is one part that seems to have been ignored by the other parties involved:

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No doubt the palestinian people, being robots and what-not, are incapable of peace.

Except for the "robots" part, got it in one. Of course, you can prove me wrong, by showing me some signs of peace on the palestinian side.
[/B]


Just don't forget, Skeptic, that you are an admitted racist.

Please explain to me what makes the Palestinian's incapable of peace? You say it's not because they are futuristic robots so what is it?

In twenty years your children will wonder how anyone could be so stupid.

[WildCat]

Well this is a good hit by the Brits... oops, I thought this thread was about the death of Chemical Ali. :rolleyes: Sorry.

[bva]

It is a sad day for leftists, liberals and liberatarians. An innocent Iraqi has fallen. :p

[Skeptic]

Just don't forget, Skeptic, that you are an admitted racist.

Yeah yeah yeah. "You're a RACIST!"--the last resort of the liberal when he is defeated in an argument. So sue me.

Please explain to me what makes the Palestinian's incapable of peace? You say it's not because they are futuristic robots so what is it?

Being brainwashed from kidergarten age on up in hatered of jews and instilled with the desire to kill as many of them as possible. Telling five-year-olds on "seasame street" that their goal in life is to be a suicide bomber is just one example. Unfortunately, this is not some odd aberration; it's official policy that is openly encouraged as the right attitude toward the jews.

You know, just like the media and schools in most arab and muslim countries blame of all the country's trouble on the evil jews (not in ALL such countries; but in 90% of them.) It sure takes the people's mind off the kleptocrats that rule them, THAT'S for sure.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by blackpriester

Oh, just a little sidenote from the same source:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html
In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. [B] Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

...

So if we are right in "preventive warfare" to punish violating UN sanctions in Iraq, what do we do with Israel ;)?

I just wanted to point out a few very important differences between Iraq and Israeli UN resolutions.

The resolutions against Iraq were Chapter 7 (enforcable) resolutions. In other words, non-compliance could be met with force if necessary. Resolutions agains Israel were chapter 6 resolutions, meaning they are more guidelines and suggestions.

The other thing about the chapter 6 guidelines is that they require actions by more than 1 party to be successful. For example, if you follow the link you provided, it leads to the text of the resolution itself. And while the resolution does request that Israel withdraw from the disputed lands, it also requires other parties in the world to respect the borders and security of all states in the region. This has not happened. (For example, Syria does not recognize the right of Israel to exist.)

Unless all countries and parties in the area are willing to negotiate and follow the ideals layed out in the document, Israel is under no obligation to follow the resolution unilaterally.

The following article discusses the differences between the Iraq and Israeli situations:
http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I just wanted to point out a few very important differences between Iraq and Israeli UN resolutions.

The resolutions against Iraq were Chapter 7 (enforcable) resolutions. In other words, non-compliance could be met with force if necessary. Resolutions agains Israel were chapter 6 resolutions, meaning they are more guidelines and suggestions.

The other thing about the chapter 6 guidelines is that they require actions by more than 1 party to be successful. For example, if you follow the link you provided, it leads to the text of the resolution itself. And while the resolution does request that Israel withdraw from the disputed lands, it also requires other parties in the world to respect the borders and security of all states in the region. This has not happened. (For example, Syria does not recognize the right of Israel to exist.)

Unless all countries and parties in the area are willing to negotiate and follow the ideals layed out in the document, Israel is under no obligation to follow the resolution unilaterally.

The following article discusses the differences between the Iraq and Israeli situations:
http://economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1378577

Thanks Segno, for your well-thought-out post. You might recognize that my original post does NOT condone UN-action against Israel, since I was actually well aware of the fact that it is a c6... yet, the philosophical question remains...

Especially, since the Iraqi resolution is quite stretchable in its interpretation by itself - although it is c7, it does NOT necessarily condone war.

But to come back to the "palestinian problem":
Skeptic, if somebody came into your backyard, took away your house and locked you in one room, would you not try to get him out of your house? Can't you understand the Palestinian cause one bit? Don't you see the unfairness?

I agree with you (as stated above) that terror acts do nothing to buy the Palestine cause any sympathy in my eyes. But their anger and thirst for retaliation will ONLY be quenched if we give them back some of their land - and get peace and the right for jews to live in the remaining areas in return.

It WILL be a hard process, but there was a time when we were already further along. I do remember Palestinians ACTUALLY SAYING ON TV that they accept the right of israel to exist (which, remember, is like saying that you won't throw the occupier out of your house!). Of course, extremists from BOTH SIDES (ever listened to the settlers?) have shot this process down lately.

But do you really want to give up looking for peaceful solutions?

[Skeptic]

Can't you understand the Palestinian cause one bit?

I certainly USED to--when I believed that the palestinian cause was to have their own state.

Palestinian actions, however, had proven beyound a shadow of a doubt the all the talk about opression, inequality, "coloniamism", etc. is just a cover for the real dream--namely, throwing the jews into the sea.

Strangely enough, I do not "understand" fascist mobs whose goal in life is to see me dead.

I agree with you (as stated above) that terror acts do nothing to buy the Palestine cause any sympathy in my eyes. But their anger and thirst for retaliation will ONLY be quenched if we give them back some of their land

Bzzzzzzt. Wrong.

This was tried before. That was the idea behind the Oslo process. The result of offering the palestinian a state? The current terror war.

The truth is, the more land you give the palestinians, the more they become sure of imminent victory (e.g., israel's destruction) is on the way, and the more--not less--terrorism and butchery you get, as experience amply shows.

To think the palestinians will be satisfied with a state as long as israel exists is like believing that Hitler's "last territorial demand in Europe" every six month in the late 1930s was really the last, or that you could reach an agreement with a rapist by consenting to have sex with him once in a while.

It's called "appeasement". It doesn't work.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Just don't forget, Skeptic, that you are an admitted racist.

Yeah yeah yeah. "You're a RACIST!"--the last resort of the liberal when he is defeated in an argument. So sue me.

Please explain to me what makes the Palestinian's incapable of peace? You say it's not because they are futuristic robots so what is it?

Being brainwashed from kidergarten age on up in hatered of jews and instilled with the desire to kill as many of them as possible. Telling five-year-olds on "seasame street" that their goal in life is to be a suicide bomber is just one example. Unfortunately, this is not some odd aberration; it's official policy that is openly encouraged as the right attitude toward the jews.

You know, just like the media and schools in most arab and muslim countries blame of all the country's trouble on the evil jews (not in ALL such countries; but in 90% of them.) It sure takes the people's mind off the kleptocrats that rule them, THAT'S for sure.

You have said that the palestinians are incapable of peace.

So we can't do something to prevent the brainwashing? We can't deprogram them? We can't cancel their sesame street program?

What if we do all these things? Then would the be capable of peace. That means they are capable of peace.

Is thinking really that difficult?

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Can't you understand the Palestinian cause one bit?

I certainly USED to--when I believed that the palestinian cause was to have their own state.

Palestinian actions, however, had proven beyound a shadow of a doubt the all the talk about opression, inequality, "coloniamism", etc. is just a cover for the real dream--namely, throwing the jews into the sea.

Strangely enough, I do not "understand" fascist mobs whose goal in life is to see me dead.

Skeptic, you do realize (as shown in my links above) that there are many, probably a majority of Palestinians who just want to have peace and get along? Of course even the simple folks are militant sometimes - just like the Germans were under Hitler and the Americans are under Bush - when THEY ARE TOLD BY THEIR LEADERS THAT THEY ARE THREATENED. THIS IS what we have to battle - the paranoia and the hate that is spewed forth by "leaders" with self-interest and/or a "divine mission".
And we do that best by not threatening them, while clearly communicating that violence from their side is not tolerated (i.e. Land for peace, Land taken back for violence).

I agree with you (as stated above) that terror acts do nothing to buy the Palestine cause any sympathy in my eyes. But their anger and thirst for retaliation will ONLY be quenched if we give them back some of their land

Bzzzzzzt. Wrong.

This was tried before. That was the idea behind the Oslo process. The result of offering the palestinian a state? The current terror war.

********. The current terror war is the result of the escalation by Mr. Netanjahu after the assasination of Premier Rabin, as detailed in these documents:
http://www.ariga.com/peacebiz/edits/timeline.htm http://www.ariga.com/peacebiz/edits/101796.htm


The truth is, the more land you give the palestinians, the more they become sure of imminent victory (e.g., israel's destruction) is on the way, and the more--not less--terrorism and butchery you get, as experience amply shows.

To think the palestinians will be satisfied with a state as long as israel exists is like believing that Hitler's "last territorial demand in Europe" every six month in the late 1930s was really the last, or that you could reach an agreement with a rapist by consenting to have sex with him once in a while.

It's called "appeasement". It doesn't work.

I give you this little quote from one of the articles linked to above to think about:
Shoot or listen

Oct 10 1996


In the process of recreating themselves as a nation into the State of Israel, the Jews helped create Palestinian nationalism. Now if either nation is to survive -- Israeli or Palestinian -- both must end the war and share the land both call home.

For both sides this is a learning process made all the more difficult by the similarities, as well as the differences between these two peoples. Sometimes, indeed often, they are difficult to tell apart.

On both sides there are two groups that overlap -- the civilian and the religious; ruled by seculars influenced by religions famously not forgiving the way Christianity preaches, the two societies have walked a tight-rope between a religious war on one side and a colonialist on the other. On both sides, the rhetoric often swings into religious claims, which immediately makes one side sound lunatic to the other.

As an Israeli Jew, it is not my responsibility to speak for the Palestinians. As a Jewish Earthling, it is my responsibility to understand the suffering of the Other.

From Holocaust to Redemption was the book Menachem Begin was supposed to write when he retired. He ended up on a street called named for someone called Tzemach, which means vegetable, in Jerusalem. Not that he ended a vegetable, just a man whose idealism was broken on the shores of reality.

Begin was a Jew first,and then an Israeli. So was Yitzhak Shamir. Yitzhak Rabin, on the other hand, who died by a Jewish hand, was an Israeli who was a Jew.

Benjamin "Nitai" Netanyahu, born to a family that left Israel in a huff at the end of the Israeli War of Independence because Bibi's father's politics were too far to the right of Menachem Begin, became an American before he became an Israeli but was raised to believe that his mission was first of all a Jewish one, and while ideology is dandy, marketing is better, which means simplistic messages, easy to understand but lacking any substance.

In that sense, yes, Bibi is like Golda, whom he brags was the only other Israeli premier who understood the Americans as well as he does.We'll see now how he understands the Americans, who do not like it when their friends break their promises. And Bibi promised Bill Clinton that he would go through with the Oslo Agreement.


In the Muddled East, as a French poet who once lived in Jerusalem used to call this place, an expertise in what the Israelis call "hasbara"-- literally explanation, unfortunately best translated as propaganda, and is actually Bibi's only expertise -- is not enough to make things move forward. Anyone who has lived in the Muddled East knows that in a sandstorm, when you stand still, the ground around you changes.

Netanyahu was elected because he said the peace process was moving too fast. The truth is that it was moving too slow. Now he says that if he makes any comprimise with the Palestinians, it will only be setting the groundwork for them to use their guns against Israelis. It is precisely that logic that Yitzhak Rabin, and indeed Yasser Arafat, rose above. Perhaps it's because unlike Netanyahu, who never led an army unit larger than a platoon, Yithzak Rabin knew that the greatest responsibility of a commander is to keep his soldiers alive.

Not that Bee-bee wants any soldier killed. Has vehalila. He says that all he wants is reciprocity. So far, the only reciprocity he's giving the Palestinians is in his violations of the Oslo Agreement. And if their violations make him want to slow down the process, why shouldn't his make them want to blow it all up?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by blackpriester


Thanks Segno, for your well-thought-out post. You might recognize that my original post does NOT condone UN-action against Israel, since I was actually well aware of the fact that it is a c6... yet, the philosophical question remains...

Especially, since the Iraqi resolution is quite stretchable in its interpretation by itself - although it is c7, it does NOT necessarily condone war.

True, you didn't call for military action against Iraq. However, the passage you quoted implies that Israel is to blame for not following UN resolutions (whereas they can't/shouldn't follow them unilaterally), and it is a very common tactic for the anti-war side to point out the false hipocracy of the US enforcing Iraqi resolutions while ignoring Israeli resolutions.

As for 1441, although it does not explicitely state that military action is required, it does point to 'serious consequences'. Now, just what 'serious consequences' are may be open to debate. The France/Germany plan of adding more inspectors does not count as 'serious'. And if you have any other ideas of what a 'consequence' could be, i'd like to hear.

It should also be noted that the original cease fire (the one which put a halt to the war) had a clause that required Iraq to follow all subsequent resolutions. By failing to live up to 1441, they are breaking the part of the cease fire, so in effect the war can resume because the cease fire is no longer in effect.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by blackpriester

Skeptic, you do realize (as shown in my links above) that there are many, probably a majority of Palestinians who just want to have peace and get along? Of course even the simple folks are militant sometimes - just like the Germans were under Hitler and the Americans are under Bush - when THEY ARE TOLD BY THEIR LEADERS THAT THEY ARE THREATENED. THIS IS what we have to battle - the paranoia and the hate that is spewed forth by "leaders" with self-interest and/or a "divine mission".
And we do that best by not threatening them, while clearly communicating that violence from their side is not tolerated (i.e. Land for peace, Land taken back for violence).


First of all, you said that many (probably a majority) of palistinians want peace. But what number? You can't even guarantee more than 50%. (Actually, I do remember seeing a pole which showed a majority did want peace, but that's the argument you should make.)

Secondly, the problem with pointing out the people who want peace is that it doesn't really say what they are willing to give up to get that peace. I'm sure 99% of Palestinians would be happy to be at peace with Israel, if they were able to take over and run all Israeli land. Fewer would want peace if Israel would exist with its 1967 borders. Even fewer would want peace if it meant Israel kept Jereuselum.

So, the Palestinians want peace... what will they be willing to sacrafice to get that? And are they willing to take action (like actually arresting the terrorists operating inside the occupied territories) to achieve that peace?

As for 'deprogramming' Palestinains... it would be hard to do that if they were a soverign nation. Should we wait to give the Palestinians their own country until they've unlearned all the bad stuff?

I do believe that by taking out Iraq, one of the 'negative' influences on Palistine has been removed, and it may cause other nations in the area to rethink their attitudes on how they deal with Israel/Palestine.

[blackpriester]

Segno, discussing with you is challenging and fun - you don't make sloppy arguments and remind people (even me for christ's sake ;)) of their duty to make certain arguments!

You are right, the Palestinian side will have to make sacrifices to achieve peace - but that is what I have been saying all along. During the peace talks that SHOULD occur (and have during the Clinton era... just teasing you), it has to ALWAYS remain clear that both sides are going for a compromise - no BIBLICAL borders for Israel, no driving the Jews into the sea for the Palestinians.

And guess what (call me an optimist), I am sure you would find a majority on both sides for any reasonable compromise.

I do, by the way, NOT believe that the taking out of iraq has any positive effect on Palestinians. Quite the contrary, it will reinforce the prejudices that the US is in league with the Zionists and will do everything to hurt Arab pride.

- black