|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
23-03-04, 12:40 PM | #1 | |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
it's funny and in line with his childish view of the world. |
|
23-03-04, 01:42 PM | #2 |
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
where did i ever say "dirty" jew..or where did i even imply that they were dirty..ffs
full of very pathetic attempts of character assaination today zpan... so what if i have jewish friends..do you know if i even discuss israel with them? i can quite easily be a jew hater and know jewish people.. but regardless of how you try and paint me.. i dont hate them.. i probably would even say i am as wary of jews as i am of arabs..but thats beside the point.. you cant hold a political argument to save yourself..pretty fucn weak indeed..you have to be in this thread doing the tired old drag multi down to avoid the crux of the discussion..routine the real action is elsewhere..lets see you drag that off topic.. |
23-03-04, 02:03 PM | #3 | |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
what is this "real action" and where exactly is "elsewhere"? in fact...what the hell are you talking about? this thread is about glorifying the death of a horrible madman, let's keep it that way, OK? |
|
23-03-04, 02:25 PM | #4 |
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
so i am a fasict now..fcn lol lol
keep going..wahhhahaa.. all i see is a targeted assasination of an important enemy figure..carried out exactly to plan.. using weapons sold by the US (NOT for the purpose of attack) defend the killing all you like..he was an old man..not many years left..i say they wanted to kill him before he died ...also i will say the people behind the palistinans and their agenda wanted it that way too they werent going to let him die just like that no no.. they needed to kill a symbol..somthing that would hurt..enflame ..enrage.. |
23-03-04, 02:27 PM | #5 | |
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
Quote:
Israel did create Hamas did they not? This is a very good read......... Sharon's Terror Child How the Likud Bloc Mid-wifed the Birth of Hamas http://www.counterpunch.org/hanania01182003.html
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend |
|
23-03-04, 02:28 PM | #6 | |
hi
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,708
|
Quote:
i thought we were having an intelligent conversation, not a linking match.. and what's worst is the source.. a neo-nazi site. what i most admire about sharon is the way he always stood up against the arabs. an eye for an eye, give them a taste of their own medicine. see, the arabs are gonna kill jews anyway. if anyone is stupid enough to believe that what's taking place between arabs and israelis is because of so-called "israeli occupation" then they oughta get their head out of their arse (hint: there is NO israeli occupation taking place. israel didn't decide one day to simply march in and occupy the territories. these lands were won during war, a war that the arabs, as a collective, started.) like i said, the arabs will go on with the bloodshed. it's in their genes. they're cannibals. it doesn't matter if there's someone other than sharon in office. even when the leftist doves were running israel and were willing to give land to the arabs in exchange for peace the arabs continued to murder jews. |
|
23-03-04, 08:18 PM | #7 | |
hi
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,708
|
Quote:
|
|
23-03-04, 08:27 PM | #8 |
hi
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,708
|
and multi, since you constantly whine about how the west always supports israel and the unfairness of it all, here's an interesting article from the jerusalem post for you
Letters from London: Different strokes for different folks By DOUGLAS DAVIS If Osama bin Laden had been killed in the early hours of Monday morning, the sound of champagne corks popping in the Foreign Office would have echoed around London. British officials would have happily congratulated each other, and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw would have enthusiastically made the rounds of television studios to crow about "progress in the war on terror." Somehow, Israel's war on terror means something quite different. Straw, currently in Brussels where he is, ironically, stiffening the wobbly spine of his European partners on terror in the wake of the Madrid bombings, was first out of the blocks with his denunciation of Israel's assassination of Ahmed Yassin. The attack, he intoned, was "unacceptable" and "unjustifiable." Everyone understands Israel's need to protect itself against terrorism, but – and there is always a "but" when it comes to Israel's self-defense – "it is not entitled to go in for this kind of unlawful killing." Just four days earlier, Straw had told a joint press conference in London with his Italian counterpart, Franco Frattini, that, "Nobody can opt out of the war against terrorism. As far as the British, and I know the Italian governments, are concerned, nobody is going to opt out either." Nobody, apparently, except Israel. Different strokes for different folks. But why is Israel's response to Hamas regarded as being so different from the West's response to its close cousin, al-Qaida? They are, after all, virtually indistinguishable in terms of ideological motivation, operational method and strategic objective. Some argue that Straw is simply attempting to win back votes in his own heavily Muslim constituency; others argue that he is seeking to restore Britain's credibility within the European Union, where London – a full-blown combatant in the "war on terror" – is seen as Washington's patsy. That might explain some of the motivation for Straw's apparently perverse response to the overnight developments in Gaza. But it is not the whole explanation. The point is that for Europeans Israel's battle against Islamic psychopaths who explode themselves in buses, bars, pizza parlors and discotheques are not part of their "war on terror." While Europe is facing the imminent threat of dozens of its citizens being blown to smithereens, Israel is perceived to be engaged in a political-military struggle with a deprived, dispossessed nation that is seeking no more than the expression of its legitimate national aspirations. If European political leaders have bothered to read the Hamas Charter, they have also chosen to suspend disbelief and simply discount the overwhelming message at the heart of that document: an absolute rejection of any negotiation with Israel and an uncompromising determination to destroy the Jewish state. So when Israel targets the man who founded the organization, who embodied its zero-sum ideals, who inspired the deaths of hundreds of Israelis, it is regarded in the European councils of state as a noxious, hateful, illegitimate act. The objectives that the Hamas Charter so clearly articulates – including a detailed religious justification for killing Jews – is simply overlooked in the frenetic drive to secure a "viable Palestinian state." There is another deeply sinister reason for Israelis to be profoundly concerned about the European response to Yassin's death: Those who confidently asserted that the slaughter in Madrid would bring Europe to a greater understanding of Israel's predicament are dead wrong; on the contrary, as terrorist outrages permeate across the continent – and security experts are certain that they will – it is Israel that will bear the blame and European Jews who will feel the consequences. Israel's "treatment of the Palestinians" and its "refusal to negotiate the establishment of a Palestinian state" are widely regarded among the political and media classes, as well as among the wider European public, as the progenitor of Islamic extremism and the source of Islamic terrorism. It is Israel, therefore, that is widely perceived to bear responsibility for having brought death and destruction on an industrial scale to the West. Europe's leaders are always ready with a pro-forma condemnation when Israelis are killed, but there is no pro-forma condemnation of the killers. Rather, there is a profound and fundamental belief that Israel is the intransigent author of its own pain. I have lost count of the number of times European officials have told me: "Sharon is the problem. Arafat is the solution. And if you don't want Arafat today, you will have to deal with Hamas tomorrow." In the face of further terrorist atrocities in Europe, there can be little doubt that Israel will ultimately pay the price, both political and economic. Nor can there be much doubt that European Jews will suffer the consequences of the virulent anti-Semitism that has been germinating across the continent since September 11, 2001. The stage has been set. It's show time. Again. |
23-03-04, 08:29 PM | #9 | |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
|
|
23-03-04, 10:48 PM | #10 | |
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
Quote:
Did you read the article? What is false in it? The article pretty much says Hamas is a terrorist group. What I got out of it is the fact neither side wants peace, both sides are just content on killing each other.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend |
|
24-03-04, 05:25 AM | #11 | |
BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Soon to be elsewhere
Posts: 1,327
|
Quote:
I thought legend had it that it was the Jewish who stole Christian children and ate them... unless... no, surely not... the whole thing's bullshit? Look, plain and simple. The root of the problem is that in 1947, the UN (under severe political pressure from the United States which bordered on illegal) passed an "agreement" which offered the Jews 55% of Palestine, even though they only owned 7% of it. In my opinion, the US was attempting to make the best effort they could in what was a dire, dire decade. The Palestinians refused to accept these decisions on the grounds that: a) It was illegally imposed because of pressure from the US b) It gave the Israelis the better part of the land c) It would be used as a basis for further expansion All three objections were entirely understandable - but essentially ignored. Now sure, sure. A Palastinian 'state' never actually existed and there had never been an 'Independent Palestinian State'. Before 1918 it was part of the Ottoman Empire. After that, British Empire. Fair enough - but the land was almost exclusively occupied by Arabs with a small Jewish minority which (for the most part) lived peacefully side by side with those Arabs. 'The problem' only occured when the huge influx occurred, declaring ownership of the better parts of the region, under the claim that the Jewish God had promised the land. At the risk of being labelled an Anti-Semite - I would argue that such a course of action is bound to piss off any owner/occupiers. Put it this way, if Russia declared that 55% of the US or UK should be turned over to a group of people in diaspora and turned into an independant state - what do you think would happen? I'll hazard a guess, at the risk of being labelled a 'stuffed-shirt Brit', that the average American would fight to the death. Beleive it or not, the average Brit would think along similar lines. Believe this or not, the average Palestinian Arab has similar feelings. The Palestinians and Israelis are both courageous and determined people. Both feel that if they lose this war they will be killed or dispossessed, whether that is realistic or not. Though I hate the idea of segregation, partition is the only way forward. That has to include some way of guaranteeing the security of both Israel and Palestine from incursion by the other side. That might mean stationing half a million troops on the frontier, but I can't see a realistic and presently achievable alternative. There isn't just two sides to this story (pro-arab/anti-semite or pro-Israel/anti-terror), that's a foolish mistake to make. It's a very much a George Bush fallacy in the vein of 'you're either with us or against us'. It's also known as a 'false dichotomy'. Furthermore, you will be very hard pressed to find anybody in semi-educated real life who is actually dense enough to proclaim "Hitler would be very proud of you" in response to the suggestion that Israel had acted improperly, or that there appears to be a curious pattern to US support. In fact, this one of the biggest strawman fallacies I can imagine. Neither 'side' are law abiding, neither 'side' has any more territorial rights than the other and neither are justified in their attacks. This latest one will only perpetuate the situation.
__________________
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002 "I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003 Last edited by tambourine-man : 24-03-04 at 08:18 AM. |
|
24-03-04, 08:22 AM | #12 | ||
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
Quote:
he could of died next month from old age... but neither the pals or israelis would of probably wanted that.. there is something ancient associated with the jews i really respect is the cabbala/sepiroth one of more important/powerful human symbols i dont pretend to know all about it but there is still much to be learnt therein lies many answers there is like most ancient ideas a beautiful colourful culture.. (i like ancient greek stuff for the same reason..) anyway i cant say much against people who can only colour me a jew-hater a jew-baiter or jew-investigator maybe my respect for all cultures and races of the world past/future/present has got nothing to do with how i may view the political agendas at any given point in time... the lives of the innocent jews and the lives of the innocent arabs are of equal value and importance as the lives of anyone else in the world...to make out i think otherwise..is pretty futile.. Quote:
so thats a little extreme in its presentation.:sorry ..but dont look like it was all made up.. so what about the bush family fortune being built from profits made from the holocaust...you are pretty silent on that one.. is it true?..if so why havent we heard more about it..? |
||
24-03-04, 09:18 AM | #13 | ||
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
24-03-04, 09:42 AM | #14 | |
--------------------
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
|
Quote:
BULLSHIT...Britain is to blame, plan and simple...not the US...nice try, ---quote--- In 1917, Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, issued the Baltour Declaration, which promised British support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine providing that "nothing shall he done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities" - a reference to the Arabs, who then were 92 percent of the population. The declaration was interpreted by key Zionist leaders as support for a sovereign Jewish state. In the wake of the Balfour Declaration, and during the British mandate, Jewish immigration increased. So, in proportion did sporadic strife between Arabs and Jews. Immigration nevertheless continued and in the 1930s - with the rise of Adolf Hitler - and after World War II, Jewish immigration increased still further. As British efforts to control it generated widespread disapproval in the West and stimulated underground warfare by militant Zionist units against British forces, Britain eventually placed the problem in the hands of the United Nations, which in 1947 voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab States. Fighting then flared up in Palestine. Six months later, when Britain withdrew and formation of the State of Israel was proclaimed, the Arabs went to war against the newly declared nation. As Jewish forces were victorious - and as stories spread that some 250 Arab civilians had been massacred in a village called Deir Yassin - thousands of Palestinians fled, among the first of today's 3.4 million refugees and exiles. Eventually the United Nations negotiated a truce, but fighting became endemic and war broke out again in 1956, 1967, and 1973. The 1967 war triggered underground warfare by Palestinian militants, whose attacks were primarily aimed at Israel, but also included strikes in Europe and hijackings on international air routes.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend |
|
24-03-04, 10:15 AM | #15 | |
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
ok..ok
if its bullshit its bullshit.. thats all i wanted to know.. Quote:
|
|
24-03-04, 10:25 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
|
Quote:
|
|
24-03-04, 10:38 AM | #17 | ||
Thanks for being with arse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
|
Quote:
but.. http://www.clamormagazine.org/featur...3_feature.html oops...lol it was right at the end.. i didnt remember it(slightly long read) Quote:
|
||
24-03-04, 06:43 PM | #18 | |
Keebeck Canuck
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Close to a border of LUNATICS
Posts: 1,771
|
Oh please on ya
Will reply on this one in the morning, been on a 2 day cooking spree + a major cleaning of the place. It's not a neo-nazi site, why would you think this? It's prolly the german cross on the isralie flag that might have did the trick? Imo, it was made to provoke. well, gotta get back to that brocco cream now Quote:
|
|
25-03-04, 01:34 AM | #19 |
BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Soon to be elsewhere
Posts: 1,327
|
Admittedly I left out Balfour as I see it as having little relevance to the current situation. My mistake. The Balfour Devclaration (and others before it) were a series of shitty attempts to ease the tension within the Arab population, after breaking free of Ottoman rule. I say shitty as they turned out to be worth less than the paper they were written on.
As you'll know, Arab tensions grew with over 500 Jews killed between (I think) 1936 and 1939, during which, the Peel Commission originally suggested the idea of partition - the Zionists accepted but understandably, the Arabs did not. The 1939 White paper restricting Jewish immigration did not exactly help matters - although it went some way to easing Arab fears, there are still those who will site the 1939 paper as Anti-semite or Holocaust supporting. Again, I suspect that it was a genuine attempt to intervene in what was (and is) an impossible mission. After the British turned over control to the UN, the 1947 Partition was made under Rsolution 181. If you don't believe that this was made under duress from the US, then fine - I won't push you. But please let's not get into a 'who's the biggest asshole country' debate - it'll be neck and neck. As I said, I don't blame the US for it's actions - I reckon theirs was a genuine attempt, but as illegal and as ham-fisted as any other attempt - including those made by the UK (infact, the blame-game really goes nowhere - I thought the thrust of my argument was more about the fact that I cannot easily criticise a nation (if not a 'state') of people who are under occupation based on a flimsy religious claim and the 'word of God'). My point still remains that if the US/UK were told by Russia (or the UN) that 55% of its land (the better part of the land) had to be given away to a group of people in diaspora, and that it would lead to an independant state, AND that the current population of the US/UK had no real say in this matter..... you'd fight to your last breath - and rightly so.
__________________
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002 "I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003 |
26-03-04, 02:20 PM | #20 | ||||||
Keebeck Canuck
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Close to a border of LUNATICS
Posts: 1,771
|
Quote:
Like I asked you earlier, What makes you think it's a neo-nazi site? If you were to explore it more, you'd discover that The Ariel Sharon Caracter is only a small part if it. Just try and take another look if you dare! you'll discover many more atrocities perpetrated by another type of terrorists And you might not like it a bit. True, On this one, i'll conceed. The islamist religion is truly against anything that does not represent their religious and political values. Recently read some verses of the koran (only wish to have the book at hand to study it more). To make a long point short, if the quotes i've read on the web are true, The Follower of the Koran must islamised all the non beleivers and if they do not convert, the non beleivers inturn becomes 'the Infidels'. It is a very radical point of view imho. So either you bow to Islam and be 'saved' or you go straight to 'hell' according to the Koran... Now this does remind me of another long time standing religion that is caugh, caugh, now practiced by most of the western countries. Also True that the Koran is devoted to the almost systematic erradication of the Jewish ppl, why is that? According to some research i've recently done and to quote you again on this Quote:
Quote:
So i'd be carefull about the arab genes statement if I were you since they were all arabs in the first place before all that religion shit messed it up... Either it was Christianity, Islamisim or Judaisim, they all share the same original gene pool, like it or not! Do you truly beleive that Jesus was white? Newsflash, either he was an arab or an essinian (still from arab decendence). Imho, there is no solution about the israel-palestine crises, They will keep destroying eachother until they are no one left of the other faith. It's very true that the Jewish ppl are truly surrounded by a mostly muslim faith that the extremist uses also use as excuses for ethnic clensing, the zionist actually does the same thing ''deep chill in my bones'' The only truly thing i'm arguing here is that the Isralies even though surrounded, does not play it smart! To them, Yassir is truly more powerful dead than he was alive, because of these actions, there will be more bloodshed of isralites and palestinians. It is also true that if the US stop sending money to the state of Israel, they will prolly meet their creator sooner than they expected. It's also a truth that no US weapons should be used to exterminate any palestinians 'rebels' leader. Israel, by using the money the US is sending them to subjugate the palestinian ppl also invites more attacks on the american ppl by terrorists cells. Just to give you an example on this... My ex boyfriend has a jewish friend that is totally into Sharon's view. The first thing he said about 9/11 was that it must surely have been the 'dirty palestinians' who did it!!! It truly was it's first reaction! I did let it rant all he wanted for the sake of the friendship between him and my ex. So in this light, we have the old judaisim religion opposed by the newly (600 years later after christ) formed islamist religion. Both sprang from the same roots... now who is right and who is wrong Both are wrong, infact any religion who proclaim that if they (you) do not embrace their views, you'll be damned to hell... that's a scary thought. But to come back on track about out contreversial Ariel Sharon figure, here are some facts... To quote again from the same caugh caugh so labeled neo-nazi site . Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now if you could come up with some valid numbers of Palestinian killed at the Hand of Sharon vs the Isralies killed at the hands of the palestinians we could begin some serious talk about this horrid matter. Also imho, It is sad to compare palestinians as terrorists considering that there weapon is they body and life against Israel weapon power provided by the good ole USofA. No, Yassir was no saint, he was as sick as Ariel Sharon is right now. This just to tell that the 'Holy war' is far from over if both sides want's to keep anahilates themselves. |
||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|