Isreal Goes on The Attack!

[--zeSto--]

oh shit... *and a typo in the subject line.... d'oh!

Israel Bombs Syria
Warplanes hit suspected training camps used by Palestinians


We're in for some serious shit now!

Beirut, Lebanon -- Israeli warplanes bombed a target just miles from the Syrian capital yesterday, in the first Israeli military attack inside Syria in 30 years. Israel said the site was a training camp used by Pales- tinian militants responsible for deadly attacks against Israelis, but Syria said it was a civilian area and warned of a "grave escalation" in violence.

The air strike - in apparent retaliation for a Palestinian suicide bombing Saturday that killed 19 Israelis, came on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, in which Israel held off Arab armies. The attack brought condemnation from many Arab governments and heightened fears that Israeli-Palestinian fighting could spread to neighboring countries. The Bush administration appeared to have been taken by surprise, with officials saying that Israel did not give Washington any advance warning of the attack.

The administration urged both countries to show restraint, but added a pointed criticism of Syria, saying Damascus "must cease harboring terrorists and make a clean break from those responsible for planning and directing terrorist action from Syrian soil." Washington has been pressuring Syria for months to cease its support for Palestinian militant groups and to seal its borders with Iraq, where Syrians have slipped in to fight U.S. troops. Last month, administration officials suggested that they might impose sanctions on Syria.

^ How about some sanctions on Isreal?

If ANY other country in the world did this it would become a major
international crisis and you know the US would be stepping in to 'police' the situation.

[--zeSto--]

damn typo!

--------------------------whoa!

WASHINGTON took aim at Syria yesterday, accusing it of being a supporter of terror as the furore grew over Israel's air strike on Syrian soil on Sunday.

The rebuke came as the George W. Bush Administration sought to stop the incident from escalating into a regional crisis.

Syria called an emergency UN Security Council meeting over the attack saying it threatened "security and peace in the region and internationally".

In response, the Israelis said the deepest airstrike into Syria in 30 years had targeted a training camp for Palestinian militants and was in self-defence.

Washington said it would not support a Syrian resolution condemning the raid because it made no mention of a Palestinian suicide bomber attack on Saturday, in which 19 people were killed in an Israeli restaurant.

say what?
http://www.clone-high.com/images/char/char_gandhi.gif'>
[i]'No it's more like... Saaayyyy Whhaaaat?'

[Dirty_habiT]

ooooops oh well.

[imported_Tesseract]

I have a strange feeling i know where will this lead....

:tongue:
:tongue:
:tongue:
:tongue:
:tongue:
:tongue:
:tongue:
:tongue:

[Pistol]

sucks for syria.
^5 Israel for not letting us know/asking for permission.

[--zeSto--]

I mean Launching an attack on a country you suspect is going to attack you?

where the hell did they figure out that one?

;)

[Vanity]

everybody to the wartime shuffle

[imported_Tesseract]

I dont buy the "Israel did not give Washington any advance warning of the attack." if it werent for the states the arab world would have eaten the jews alive a long long time ago. Israelis dont move with no US backup. aka "Washington said it would not support a Syrian resolution condemning the raid because it made no mention of a Palestinian suicide bomber attack on Saturday, in which 19 people were killed in an Israeli restaurant."

[nomadawhat]

Originally posted by Pistol
^5 Israel for not letting us know/asking for permission.


by us you mean the U.S. right, (but meant to say 'us' not U.S.), well I would be surprised if we didn't know about it and bless it.

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by Kilo7-
]
The Bush administration appeared to have been taken by surprise, with officials saying that Israel did not give Washington any advance warning of the attack.

The administration urged both countries to show restraint, but added a pointed criticism of Syria, saying Damascus "must cease harboring terrorists and make a clean break from those responsible for planning and directing terrorist action from Syrian soil." Washington has been pressuring Syria for months to cease its support for Palestinian militant groups and to seal its borders with Iraq, where Syrians have slipped in to fight U.S. troops. Last month, administration officials suggested that they might impose sanctions on Syria.


the beginning of a new and dangerous outlook on foreign policy and international relations, set off by bushy..preemptive strike (imperialism and domination disguised as fighting terrorists) without clear evidence and international support

and of course, bush is secretly thanking sharon for going on the syrian offensive, setting the stage for future aggression against another non-threataning muslim country.

disgusting.
the israeli/u.s. coalition has now cemented its position as terrorists themsleves.

in fiction, this would be the foreshadowing of the next world war..
[it may be reality as well]
we're dead meat


***tesser, i agree.
the israeli army is funded by the u.s.
simply by supplying them with weapons we have a good idea of what they;re being used for, and surely whenever a new devlopment crops up, we support it [but deny it publicly to save face while concurrently achieveing another objective: undermining syria]

[fermentor666]

and of course, bush is secretly thanking sharon for going on the syrian offensive, setting the stage for future aggression against another non-threataning muslim country.


Whatever, let some asshole set off a bomb during your family reunion with all your close friends there and then tell me you wouldn't want to retaliate. :o

[--zeSto--]

try living next to a bunch of terrorist assholes and having a 'smart' bomb blow up the entire block.

:o

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by fermentor666
Whatever, let some asshole set off a bomb during your family reunion with all your close friends there and then tell me you wouldn't want to retaliate. :o

With all due respect, that kind of argumentative doesnt lead anywhere. Both sides practice the last 30+ years and see where we are. I'd hate it if that thread would evolve into a who did what thing.
Aparently, this is another new chapter..you all remember that after Iraq Bush wanted to invade Syria after washington claimed that the WMD's where tranfered there (...). After the whole Kelly thing in the UK and the exposure of the fact that Bush and Blair Lied Israel bombs Syria cause the give shelter to terrorists...and the saga continues...

its sickening me.

[fermentor666]

Right, sorry.

Can't we all just get along? :confused:

[!@#$%]

so, i take it you are an authority on Jewish settlements in Palestine?

when, and why they were founded? and by whom?

what international conflicts stirred around the establishment of "Israel"

if you want to harken back, then go all the fucking way back.

you can't point to a suicide bombing last week as the cause of a justified israeli attack on syria.

the suicide bomber was palestinian.
when was there any international investigation into terrorist activities in syria?
when was the last u.s. led terrorism investigation??

and while you are on the subject..
WHAT ABOUT THE FAMILY THAT WAS MASSACRED ACCIDENTALLY AT A WEDDING IN AFGHANISTAN LAST YEAR??

i suppose those lives don't count enough fo rretaliation in your book??

like tesser said, bringing up the history is a waste of time.
it is about what to do form here, and right now, attacking syria is only going to precipitate more conflict.

fucking ignorance!!
unveleebable

[--zeSto--]

on the history tip...

I think most people are in agreement that the Brits did a shit job
of diving the post-war territories. Originally the plan was to make
Jerusalem an 'Internation Religiou Zone' free of one countries jurisdiction.

and to go waaaay back...

There's a bit in the bible/torah about the jewish people moving in from
the desert and taking their 'promised land' by force. However modern
archeologist have found that to be untrue. There was a series of settlements
in the desert that would indicate that it took many years to 'gently move
into the promised land'. There was no great biblical 'take over'.

but like we all know...

The history and rightfull ownership can be disputed from here 'till infinity,
but that will not solve the conflict. Who knows what will?

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by Kilo7-
on the history tip...

I think most people are in agreement that the Brits did a shit job
of diving the post-war territories. Originally the plan was to make
Jerusalem an 'Internation Religiou Zone' free of one countries jurisdiction.



Brits messed things up bigtime, another fine example is the Cyprus case. I dont know how many of you are aware of what went (and going on) down there, but its like a mini middle-east.

[Smart]

I had to go back 'home' for a funeral last week... while there I walked past a couple of my old houses... one we rented and one we bought... I'd like to get both those places back but if I went in there with a gun it would be fucked up and I'd go to jail. If I had some court back up (for whatever reason) I could probably make it happen, but if they moved the folks I got evicted right next door to me then, I predict ongoing hostility and resentment... and then if I started digging up thier garden to plant my own flowers, well... it couldn't be good...

Still, at one point, after 30 years of fueding, I might believe that they had SO wronged me in the recent past that I would feel justified setting their car on fire... espescially if I got the gas from the courts that originally sanctioned my presence.

EVERYBODY wants to bitch about the middle east but nobody has a solution, MOSTLY because the people who live in the middle east will make their own decisions... and they have decided on religious bigotry and intolerance.

By choosing sides in the conflict, you align yourself with bigots of one kind or another. I don't even know why we argue about this crap. None of you ever mention the reunification of Ireland, a conflict that is every bit as real and carries more direct political implications as far as the U.S. is concerned...

[fermentor666]

Originally posted by !@#$%
so, i take it you are an authority on Jewish settlements in Palestine?

when, and why they were founded? and by whom?

what international conflicts stirred around the establishment of "Israel"

if you want to harken back, then go all the fucking way back.

you can't point to a suicide bombing last week as the cause of a justified israeli attack on syria.

the suicide bomber was palestinian.
when was there any international investigation into terrorist activities in syria?
when was the last u.s. led terrorism investigation??

and while you are on the subject..
WHAT ABOUT THE FAMILY THAT WAS MASSACRED ACCIDENTALLY AT A WEDDING IN AFGHANISTAN LAST YEAR??

i suppose those lives don't count enough fo rretaliation in your book??

like tesser said, bringing up the history is a waste of time.
it is about what to do form here, and right now, attacking syria is only going to precipitate more conflict.

fucking ignorance!!
unveleebable


You get pissed easy. Can't we all just get along and live in peace and harmony? Let's be hippies.

P.S. I am a bigot. I am not ignorant.


P.P.S. I'm going to go look for another job like I should have 1 hour before I posted here. Enjoy debating about something which does not involve you. And I agree, make a topic about Ireland if diplomatic injustices really make you that angry. Or maybe Bosnia/Serbia (even though that was SOOOO 1999). :)

[--zeSto--]

Originally posted by Smart
None of you ever mention the reunification of Ireland, a conflict that is every bit as real and carries more direct political implications as far as the U.S. is concerned...

You think so?
Maybe because Kennedy was Irish but there's never been a jewish
or an islamic president so the conflict will always seem foreign to the US.
And what commodity was there to fight over in Ireland? The whiskey or
the potato crops? I'd agree that the Irish situation has a much bigger
impact on both the British Gov't and the Church, but on terms of international
finance it's a flash in the pan.

White Christians killing other White Christians is a bad thing but it's
really hard to pick sides (from the north american non-irish perspective)
but in the middle east it seems to come down to siding with who can benefit
the west more than the other, and right now palestine has nothing to offer.

my opinions, not to be mistaken for factual.

[Smart]

Originally posted by Kilo7-
White Christians killing other White Christians is a bad thing but it's
really hard to pick sides (from the north american non-irish perspective)
but in the middle east it seems to come down to siding with who can benefit
the west more than the other, and right now palestine has nothing to offer.

I'm just gonna skip over the ignorance in the beginning and point out how you brought the 'race-card' into 2 conflicts that are entirely religious. The ONLY reason an Israeli looks any different from a Muslim is that the Jews rolled all over Europe for a thousand years, otherwise they are basically the same people (from a 'racial' standpoint).

And, how do you know that Palestine has 'nothing to offer'? What do the Israelis offer? This isn't a catchphrase conflict (war for oil)... but if you can distill it down to a t-shirt slogan, then, by all means...

[imported_El Mamerro]

Question: Does anybody have a credible source that confirms the following quote?


"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian childs existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

~Ariel Sharon, current Prime Minister, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956


I remember Browner posting it a while back, and it prompted me to find out more about it. However, all I find is the quote stated on a jillion anti-Israel sites, with nothing that acertains it's authenticity. I can't even find the name Ouze Merham anywhere except mentioned in the quote. I've found one rebuttal (http://www.geocities.com/myjoy18/arielsharon1956lie.htm) to the quote but it doesn't look too convincing. Anyone?

[TEARZ]

Originally posted by Smart
None of you ever mention the reunification of Ireland, a conflict that is every bit as real and carries more direct political implications as far as the U.S. is concerned...

i'm not 100% with kilo's comments either, but you're gonna have to back up this statement, because it seems absurd honestly.

[!@#$%]

dude, the u.s. is not providing BILLIONS of dollars in military aid and equipment to ireland.

bottom line

this makes our involvement very real, very concrete

and the implications quite direct.

and fermentor666...
pissed? ..no.
but i am passionate about politics.

i don't see anything wrong with that
and i am all for peace.
unfortunately the u.s. government is not promoting peace accords..its roadmap was naive and unplanned...and now it is doing nothing in the face of an attack on syria

i never saw ireland attacking its neighboring countries due to terrorism on its own soil (in the most recent years of that conflict

[Smart]

Originally posted by !@#$%
dude, the u.s. is not providing BILLIONS of dollars in military aid and equipment to ireland.

bottom line


No, you're quite right, we provide that money to England.


this makes our involvement very real, very concrete

and the implications quite direct.

That's exactly what I'm saying... about the 'troubles'.

Apparently your memory is short, 5 years of an uneasy truce is NO solution.

[TEARZ]

allow me to elucidate a little bit because it's only right...
the israel-palestine conflict encapsulates issues that affect the whole region and moreso the whole world in ways that the irish conflict does not.
religious intolerance is the common thread.
but conflict in ireland hardly destabilizes all of western europe. this conflict is not wrought on "foreign" shores, except for england, and if you are really being technical, it isn't foreign in the conflict in any way.
whereas the israel-palestine conflict is pregnant with all of the issues facing the middle east-- us imperial interests, the right of a religious state to exist (sometimes non-democratic), broad-based international acts of terrorism, not to mention the east v. west concept which without bringing race or ethnicity into the matter, cannot be applied in the case of ireland.
there's 10 thousand more things to say, but you get the picture.

mammero, if you snoop around you'll find that the sharon quote is really only the tip of the iceberg. i can't provide anything concrete with that particular quote, but you'll find the same shit paraphrased regularly in major (usually british) publications.

[imported_Tesseract]

Mamerro, i have no link to offer...however, i'm sure Sharon said that, aswell as a gazillion other things. You wont find that shit in Pro-israel media for obvious reasons. I understand and completely salute the search of truth, but detail is pornography. If you just read a factual history of the middle east ish, and Ariel Sharons biography and carrergraphy(?!) you get the fullDVDcrisp quality picture.


As far as the things Smart said, i agree...i'm equally interested in all these cases, Ireland, Middle East, Cyprus, Armenia, Russia/tsetsenia(sp!?) Bosnia/Hergegovinia. Its just that right now, the middle east is on top of scale of disaster and devastation and the american 'guilt' is more obvious than everywhere else.

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by El Mamerro
Question: Does anybody have a credible source that confirms the following quote?


"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian childs existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."

~Ariel Sharon, current Prime Minister, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956




Google advanced search :
exact phrase: "I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child "


results:

this one is unreal:
http://www.boycottisrael.org/Is_crimes_sha...haron_facts.htm (http://www.boycottisrael.org/Is_crimes_sharon_facts.htm)

http://www.iap.org/zionism2.htm

http://sijpa.org/world.htm

i'm probably going on the government's watch list for visiting some of those websites.

they are obviously biased to the palestinian cause.



one from the daily mirror (london)

http://www.dailymirror.lk/inside/worldw/020405.html

The persecuted have become the persecutors. This statement is valid in terms of not only recent history, but also West Asian history tracing back to thousands of years. Both the Islamic and the Judaeo-Christian scriptures relate how, prior to the birth of Moses - and also soon after the birth of Jesus - the male children of the Hebrews were slain. Sharon is also turning out to be a Pharaoh or a Herod. In 1956, this is what he is reported to have told General Ouze Merham in an interview which has been reproduced in a recent issue of the Palestine Chronicle:
"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child are more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger.

He Said That Shit.

[Vanity]

Originally posted by Tesseract
another fine example is the Cyprus case. I dont know how many of you are aware of what went (and going on) down there, but its like a mini middle-east.


completely unfamiliar w/ it... let us know (site, whatever)

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by Smart
No, you're quite right, we provide that money to England.

[B]

That's exactly what I'm saying... about the 'troubles'.

Apparently your memory is short, 5 years of an uneasy truce is NO solution.

we do not provide britain with billions in aid.
never have.

site your source

and there has not been a 'peace' there quite yet

and you make no mention of my point that ireland has not attacked say, norway.

[TEARZ]

our buddy kissinger was all up in the cyprus mix. that fucking filthy pathetic excuse for a man.

[Vanity]

Originally posted by Smart
What do the Israelis offer?

i thought our whole justification was that they gave us a military stronghold in the region.

he does bring up a good point though... if you aren't proposing solutions, it's just intellectual masturbation.

[Vanity]

Originally posted by !@#$%

and you make no mention of my point that ireland has not attacked say, norway.

fucking norway

[Smart]

Never have? WWII? Israel, and the entire middle east was divided from land 'owned' by whom? Norway hasn't been supporting and tacitly sanctioning British terror camps, so far as I know...

Are you saying Syria is some innocent 3rd party to the intefada?

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by Smart


Are you saying Syria is some innocent 3rd party to the intefada?

No man, The big question is Are you saying that Israel doesnt fit under the term terrorist?

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by Smart
Never have? WWII? Israel, and the entire middle east was divided from land 'owned' by whom? Norway hasn't been supporting and tacitly sanctioning British terror camps, so far as I know...

Are you saying Syria is some innocent 3rd party to the intefada?

israel needs to give up their claims to the region
it's all based on some bogus entitlement based on thousands of years ago..

the distribution of the ottoman empire post ww1 was the start of some huge fiascos in the region. not post ww2

look back further, to when the middle east was ruled by arabs and turks in the arabian and ottoman empires. iraq didn't even exist before ww1 france was still trying to colonize syria in the 1920s.


and i cannot say for certain what the syrian governement has or has not been supporting..
hell, even on the front page of my local newspaper it says that israel hit "ALLEGED terror camps"
the u.s. has opened up the 'pre-emptive strike with no evidence' pandora's box.
i'm not saying syria is innocent, but what country is?!

certainly not the u.s.

so by your argument, it's ok for say, nicaragua to hit us with military retaliation based on some terrorist shit our government did there??

[!@#$%]

and i would still like to know where you got that the u.s. funds britain with Billions of dollars in aid.

and couldn't that then be considering a cooperative terrorism force in training between the u.s. and britain (based on our current 'covert' operations in iraq, pakistan, afghanistan, and a few months ago, Syria?!)

we are terrorists too, by these semantics

[Smart]

Originally posted by Tesseract
No man, The big question is Are you saying that Israel doesnt fit under the term terrorist?

yeah, No... what I said, and continue to say is that nobody's definitions matter when the fighting is in the street. You can all decry either sides acts of inhumanity all day and night but you can't exert one IOTA of influence in/over the conflict.

Define away, put it into terms we can all understand, balance the religious tensions in your statement, solve it all from 1000 miles away but don't be suprised when things continue as before.

Neither side is willing to concede anything... both sides want the other wiped from the planet. Here you stand arguing who is the more admirable of the race hating and religiously intolerant governments.

Imho, that is a big waste of time... argue about how to educate the youth of both countries, how to push the old hardliners out of office, how to promote tolerance and understanding... That idea alone is a brutal conflict waiting to happen internally on both sides, similar to the desegregation of the US in the early 60's... there is a long hard road in front of that region but arguing about the day to day, for those of us not in the middle of it, is arrogant and ignorant.

[!@#$%]

i don't believe that everyone should just shut up because they don't understand.

i still think that jewish settlers don't have a claim to the region.

i hope that doesn't make me anti-semitic, but it is obvious that there is no solution to satisfy everyone..

but it continues to get worse.

i also don't believe that must happen.
i am a firm believer in the interconnectedness of all things.
i am not going to ignore this because i don't live in the midst of it.

i am not admiring one side over another
i am taking a side:
the u.s. must stop funding israeli military action, stop the wall building, and encourage jews to settle elsewhere.

of course i am not surprised by the perpetuation of violence.

does that mean i should cease to be outraged?

i won't become cynical and apathetic because i'm too far away to get it.

[Smart]

Originally posted by !@#$%
and i would still like to know where you got that the u.s. funds britain with Billions of dollars in aid.


Yeah, thanks for the history lesson... I was actually referring to WWII. Who do you think financed that effort? The Brits were on shaky financial standing due to WWI AND the several years spent in Burma fighting the Japanese and in Europe fighting Hitler before we entered, AND bankrolled the whole show.

And, following the war, due to Britan's continuing financial struggles, overtook the position of patron to Israel.

Why do you all keep trying to portray me as 'wrapped in the flag' and 'anti-terrorist'? EVERYONE, EVERY GOVERNMENT EVER has committed terrorist acts. EVERY ONE! It happens, deal with it... or offer a valid solution... I'm guessing you guys are prepared to deal (and bitch)...

[!@#$%]

so we shouldn't have learned from that right?

and who are we currently bankrolling to further our own political interests?

so, yeah, i was correct.
we are NOT CURRENTLY financing britain.
we are cooperating with them to take over a middle eastern country, while the u.s. simultaneously funds israeli conflict against another middle eastern country.

my original point: we are too fucking involved with the bankrolling of that country's military.

and thanks to the additional ww2 examples, we can see that the u.s. has been bankrolling subversive military campaigns for decades.


thanks for the sarcasm lesson.

i forgot, everyone is fucked, all governments are shit, let's throw up our hands and not bother to talk about it.
we can all sit back and enjoy a money shot of kettie's crotch instead of some intense discussion about international issues.
yeah.

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by Smart

Imho, that is a big waste of time... argue about how to educate the youth of both countries, how to push the old hardliners out of office, how to promote tolerance and understanding... That idea alone is a brutal conflict waiting to happen internally on both sides, similar to the desegregation of the US in the early 60's... there is a long hard road in front of that region but arguing about the day to day, for those of us not in the middle of it, is arrogant and ignorant.

Dude, c'mon now...you know i always respect (not in a PO kinda way) your points and thoughts. However i feel you're on some devil advocating kinda shit right now. We're not debating so we can get it solved, we're debating as 'outsiders' (that a whole new convo there) in a struggle to find the truth. Its a moral issue of wanting to know, and an issue of educating people so you could theoritically avoid that kind of shit in the future, even in the present. Form 'common knowledge'.

I dont pretend to be some sort of master on the subject but i'm always down on discussing things that interest me.
We are living in very corrupted times, and its everyones duty to protect himself from ingorance that leads to laid back ignorance, thats the price westerns pay for having a secure lifestyle, being able to not give a fuck.

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by Smart


Why do you all keep trying to portray me as 'wrapped in the flag' and 'anti-terrorist'? EVERYONE, EVERY GOVERNMENT EVER has committed terrorist acts. EVERY ONE! It happens, deal with it... or offer a valid solution... I'm guessing you guys are prepared to deal (and bitch)...

The sum of all that is that the 'war against terrorism' is just another crusade...that has been my point since day1.

[seeking]

since i can not take place in these discussions due to an overload of work in the world of accounting, i designate !@#$ as speaking on my behalf on this matter, as well as any other middle eastern conflict.
so whatever !@#$ says, now counts as double.

thank you.


seeks/oh, did i say fuck you? i meant double fuck you forever.

[Smart]

Well, again I'm afraid I've mortally offended !@#$% though perhaps she seperates spirited debate from personal politics but, so few do... and, you know I respect you Tesser... still...

This isn't a discussion aimed at truth... that's why I, the 'moderate' who has taken a decidedly middle of the road approach catches so much hate. !@#$% is practiacally married to her beliefs and so are most of the others posting in here. If we were truly focused on truth we would accept that both sides are wrong, both sides inhumane. THEN, and this is the part that always gets skipped aound here, we would give PROPS to the 'right thinkers' (I mean correct, not conservative) on both sides. We would echo and amplify their beliefs and strategies. The sad fact is that both sides still want war.

It's like watching a 12 round boxing match in super slo-mo and giving every punch attempt a break down based on it's aggressiveness and effectiveness... all this while pretending that the 2 guys in the ring are just hanging out and minding their own business... and the 2 guys are NOT Israelis and Palestininans, it is Israelis versus most Arabs... maybe I should have made a Wrasslin' analogy as well... anyway... round 5 is just about over...

[Dr. Dazzle]

I'll start rationing the cheese puffs and canned corn......

[--zeSto--]

I dont think anyone can propose a working solution
without really understanding the problem. So if we were
to boil it down to a 't-shirt sized slogan'... the problem is territory.

so what's a solution?
Let's say that Saudi Arabia offers to transplant every person in Palestine
and integrate them into their own economy. The Palestinians wouldn't
leave their homeland and you can bet the USA wouldn't allow any nation
to take such big steps without Uncle Sam overseing the whole thing.
On the other side...
If you were to offer..say.. New Jersey to the Jewish people, you can bet
none of them would be willing to leave 'their homeland' either.

It really saddens me to say it, but there will be no solution that
doesn't involved the dehumanization of one of these groups (in the long term)
and I'd bet it wont be the Israelis.

[imported_Tesseract]

I dont disagree at all...however, for me, and truths sake, Israelis are the ones who initially had fault. Misjustice happened under an international umbrella and eventhough i agree with you that both sides are wrong at this point, the only solution i see is Israelis giving back the land they stole, and palestinians forming an official goverment.

I think !@#$%'s words underline mostly the historical road that lead there...she's a cat with claws but we all love that kind dont we?
i personally do.

[--zeSto--]

here I need to swap sides
(in regards to tesseracts point)

A huge chunk of the land Israel 'stole' happened after
Arab forces attacked them in the 70's. They were invaded
and then forced back the attackers and kept land that was
previously beyond their borders. Is that theft?

well I suppose yes, but it's like stealing the wallet frm the mugger you beat up.
Morally wrong but what cop is going to charge you with it?

[Smart]

Tesseract,

well, see, there you're married to an idea as well... so, seeking truth or not, you're still seeking it from a predjudiced position, that doesn't mean that you're wrong... maybe just a bit less right...

And I can't think of a way to capitalize on your !@#$% analogy without vaugely insulting her so I'll just agree...

but I would like to point out that, in the face of what some haters believe, the 'original' jewish homeland was gonna be in Argentina.


And, yeah, I'm a big supporter of the Israeli right of conquest defined by the war in the 60's but, the continued forays and settlement into and around the boundaries outlined after that conflict seriously jeprodize their moral position regarding resident opposition in those areas...

Underlying all of this is the very concept of imposing rigidly defined borders upon people who are basically nomadic by nature...
I mean, I don't care what city it is, when I got my crew together we basically own our spot and 200 feet around us, and we got beef if you disagree. This is based stricly on self preservation, if you're cool then mingle, if not... ejected.

[!@#$%]

Come on, you all keep me interested.

married to my beliefs?

i'd like to think that i am passionate about them
but totally willing to admit defeat
and i am ok with being wrong sometimes.

i love a lively discussion.
and its cool that we can all talk about it.
of course i have learned a great deal form all this discussion, some about opinions, some from links to historical info, some new knowledge about positions and ideals i never considered.

i never get angry about this

shit, my aggression is sprayed all over metal.
it doesn't play out here.

and we could all use another intelligent woman in our lives, right?

...make your points
i won't be offended. i'm smart enough not to take it personally

yes, i knew about argentina too.

and i can absolutely agree that after reading quite a bit about it, both sides are mostly interested in defeating the other side, not so much in making peace, or even what is in their own best interest.

sadly, the whole conflict has boiled down to a vendetta.

the sorriest part about that is that the vendetta was basically created form nothing. in ancient times jews and arabs coexisted in peace.
it wasn't until years of war in the west that the middle east started getting diviied up, and the quagmire was thus created.

solutions?
..like i said, i still believe israel needs to calm down, a lot. the outer settlements need to be dismantled, by force if necessary. the aggressive israeli nationalist settlers need to be hemmed in..they are on the front lines, and great examples of israelis who are more interested in conflict than peace.

the wall building needs to cease
the billions of $$ in military aids needs to be reduced

hamas and islamic jihad need to respond to the above concessions.
maybe if israel exchanged some low level inmated for a big leader, or if their was an actual ceasefire for a time there could be the release of a figurehead..

someone needs to start trusting first.

...so yeah, i may be married to my beliefs, but i am well aware of the existance and value of a million other opinions.

it's all good, baby.

[TEARZ]

smart, i gotta say that i think that the line you've taken in this whole thing is bullshit. first you make the dramatic entrance, making the all-too-familiar "we can never know what really goes on so why bother to talk about it" argument, then go on to reduce all conversation in this thread, of which there was some very good stuff (esp !@#$%) to extranumerary "bitching," followed up by the haughty claim that ireland's conflict has more political relevance to the us than does the us-palestine conflict (again, the superciliousness returns- the kids table talks about x when the "real shit" is y) and furthermore you never back this shit up. ever (par usual i must say). then when it's all done you wanna play the moderate under attack card. we're in here discussing shit- the fact that we take the time to type shit out means that what we are discussing matters to us on some level. if your argument is gonna be that it doesn't matter, then don't respond. or if you're gonna pull the haughty shit and say that we're in here microanalyzing the conflict, i just disagree. if you see sharon's attempt to remove arafat for example, as just round 4 of 12, pardon me while i fucking watch that shit in slo-mo with chips, discussing every twitch in muscle fiber of each boxer with the rest of the kids table.

[Vanity]

i don't think you can expect isreal to give anything up.. it does say in the bible that's it's the jewish promise land and what not, and when you're fighting with the belief that God is on your side, that'll give you quite a bit of confidence.


ISRAEL AND SYRIA - OLD FOES
Went to war in 1948, 1967 and 1973
Israeli attacks on Syrian forces in Lebanon go back to 1982, with new strikes in 2001
Israeli warplanes buzzed a presidential palace in Syria in August in what was seen as a warning

[TEARZ]

whoops, i ruined the love fest.
haha, but it's nothing personal/permanent, just the way i feel, dunnies.
btw, !@#$% is my motherfuckin girl.

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by !@#$%
Come on, you all keep me interested.

married to my beliefs?

and we could all use another intelligent woman in our lives, right?



Its the first time in my life i wish i was not a man, but a belief....

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by TEARZ
whoops, i ruined the love fest.
haha, but it's nothing personal/permanent, just the way i feel, dunnies.
btw, !@#$% is my motherfuckin girl.

.. we are a family.
we can spread love.

and bickering, arguing, petty conflicts, and on point criticism. expect nothing less!


:D g yeah

[TEARZ]

Originally posted by Tesseract
Its the first time in my life i wish i was not a man, but a belief....

hahahaha, funny shit, tess i beg you to remember that you said this... tuck it away for posterity.

[Vanity]

i dont see why kids are getting upset w/ smart... if it werent for him, this thread woulda been like 10 posts, and ya'll couldn't jerk eachother off ;)



vanatee whale... still dolo

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by TEARZ
hahahaha, funny shit, tess i beg you to remember that you said this... tuck it away for posterity.


:dazed:

[Smart]

Originally posted by TEARZ
smart, i gotta say that i think that the line you've taken in this whole thing is bullshit. first you make the dramatic entrance, making the all-too-familiar "we can never know what really goes on so why bother to talk about it" argument, then go on to reduce all conversation in this thread, of which there was some very good stuff (esp !@#$%) to extranumerary "bitching," followed up by the haughty claim that ireland's conflict has more political relevance to the us than does the us-palestine conflict (again, the superciliousness returns- the kids table talks about x when the "real shit" is y) and furthermore you never back this shit up. ever (par usual i must say). then when it's all done you wanna play the moderate under attack card. we're in here discussing shit- the fact that we take the time to type shit out means that what we are discussing matters to us on some level. if your argument is gonna be that it doesn't matter, then don't respond. or if you're gonna pull the haughty shit and say that we're in here microanalyzing the conflict, i just disagree. if you see sharon's attempt to remove arafat for example, as just round 4 of 12, pardon me while i fucking watch that shit in slo-mo with chips, discussing every twitch in muscle fiber of each boxer with the rest of the kids table.

Dramatic entrance... wow, unexpected bonus! The only fact I've been trying to find is the one about US support for Britan... the only thing I've dug up so far is $50 billion, but I think that is the total package, but it was in a report about Angola, a British colony/protectorate/whatever they call it...

*Oh I just saw where you wanted me to elucidate the intricacies of the UK, RoI, US political relationship... well that's gonna be another thread at least.

I don't think that, just because I discarded !#$%'s argument that I belittled her personally in any way (or I kinda did feel that from it but didn't mean to get personal, hence the later reference toward 'offwending her').

Quite the contrary, I took the time to engage her, and you all, simply because I care about, and value what she, and you all, think/thinks...

Now, I disagreed with it so I didn't give her whopping creds on her conclusions but I wouldn't have replied if it wasn't well presented.

I have played the moderate card from day one... all the way back to when Seeking told me I couldn't quit an argument (That was the one where he insisted that the US truck bombed to Pentagon to heighten the outrage on 9/11)...

Further, my argument isn't that the issue doesn't matter, it's that you (collectively) are AGAIN arguing about the scab and cause of the wound instead of treating the infection as it currently exists.

You can stick to your finger pointing politics and johnny-come-fashionably-lately derived positions but until you offer solutions or insight I'm gonna classify it as the babbling about socio-inequality from some middle class white punk (fat) chick at the mall.

[!@#$%]

You can stick to your finger pointing politics and johnny-come-fashionably-lately derived positions but until you offer solutions or insight I'm gonna classify it as the babbling about socio-inequality from some middle class white punk (fat) chick at the mall.

dude, come the fuck on.

in several posts above, i outlined what i thought would be positive, concrete steps that both sides could take to avert further violence.

now you are just picking out singular statements and railing against that, without consideration of context..these are Posts, not Statements..
what i say can easily be read and reviewed for complete and utter dissection.

at least say my suggestions are bogus.

don't claim that we are all dancing around conclusions because we are too enamored ofd the current fashionable international conflict.

you are reducing some of us to one dimensional versions of ourselves, even when we have carefully outlined arguments and come back to elucidate and define those positions.

your final statements are just patronizing and condescending

[Smart]

Originally posted by !@#$%
you are reducing some of us to one dimensional versions of ourselves, even when we have carefully outlined arguments and come back to elucidate and define those positions.

your final statements are just patronizing and condescending

You're correct but I thought I took care to remove you and Tesseract from that broad accusation... I was responding to Tearz exclusively with all that... basically an attack based upon a previous attack, much like the current Israeli situation...

The point is, I'm arguing with him because he argued with me... I'm arguing with the rest of you because you have made me think a little and, agree or not, or think it's all bullshit, that is what originally moved me to respond...

I'm sorry if you think others were caught in the crossfire but I think he tried to reduce me to a one dimensional person and further, impugn my opinions on a historical basis ("like you always do")...

[imported_El Mamerro]

Well, thanks for the links and words, but I'm still unsatisfied as to the quote. It seems to me that some of you (and I apologize if this is an illogical assumption) who responded about it tend to believe that it was probably said not because of actual documented evidence, but because Sharon's and Israel's actions would lead one to believe he would say such a thing. As I read somewhere, "It doesn't really matter if he actually said or not, it was definitely what was on his mind anyways". I have a serious problem with this type of logic, especially when it deals with reporting.

That kind of quote is exacty what would get a person with relatively little knowledge of a situation (me) riled up and jumping on one side without really analyzing and studying said situation. Thankfully I gave it the benefit of the doubt and went on a search, but I bet a large number of young people, a good majority even, wouldn't do the same. I don't see much of a difference between this and what the Bush administration did with the Iraq spin (note the word "technical"). So far I am leaning towards the quote being fabricated, not because of its abscence from Pro-Israel media... Tesser, you said I wouldn't see it there for obvious reasons, but I think it WOULD be there... being discredited over and over. I lean to fabrication because there is simply no evidence being brought forward of this actually being documented by anyone other than the Palestine Chronicle. Why isn't there a full transcript of this interview somewhere? Details are pornography, but if you don't have your car parts measured to thousandths of an inch, the whole thing won't fit together well. When it comes to this kind of world issue, I will continue to be very rigorous of the details of the information I gather, especially those that are obvious appeals to emotion. This particular situation is riddled with them.

[Vanity]

mams, you could try emailing (or better yet, calling) whereever you read that to see if they'd tell you.

[TEARZ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Smart
You're correct but I thought I took care to remove you and Tesseract from that broad accusation... I was responding to Tearz exclusively with all that...

nice of you to clarify that your patronizing and condescending comments were reserved solely for me. unfortunately for you, most of the members involved in this conversation are intelligent and understand that they were aimed at them in some way regardless of your "clarification." beyond that, and more importantly, they know that you came into this thread with a patronizing tone and a supercilious attitude. that, coupled with the fact that you refused to back up some of your more incendiary claims is why i "attacked" you in the first place. and yes, i did link it with your penchant for avoiding the more incisive criticisms that others often offer you. i thought it was apropo given the context. i'd rather not get into it, but i can cite references without the need "for a whole additional thread." i was just calling it like i see it man, it wasn't anything personal. i wasn't trying to reduce you, i was being honest and direct in calling you on what i thought and still think is some bullshit. i think it's bullshit that you came into the thread like you did and avoided direct challenges and comments, sometimes by focusing on one sentence of the author and not their point. i think that others probably see it as that too.
it's not "crossfire" or an "attack" or all these other violent metaphors. it's debate dude. unlike the fatpunkgirlmall comment. what the fuck? perplexingly, my political beliefs weren't even espoused in this thread in the slightest, let alone the bullshit johnny-come-lately ones you ascribed to me. again, bullshit.

[imported_Tesseract]

Mamerro, when i say Detail is pornography i dont mean the christian believe and dont invastigate quote. What i mean is that i dont have to be a mechanic to know how a car works, but i have to be a mechanic to make it, or fix it. Your reply buffles me a bit cause i dont see where its going. Information is available or suspiciously unavailable to all.
I, personally, have formed an opinion on Sharon based on the facts i can get my hands on throughout a gazillion of sources. I concider my obligation to be able to valuate and combine the data in order to reach a conclusion. I see Sharon demonstrating his beliefs and ways everyday lately, and its fully compatible with the quote you're reffering to.
If he really said it or not is something i cant vouch for, reason i'm not using it to prove a point. however it makes small difference to me. What i'm trying to say, is that each one spends his energy and interest in the way he sees fit, and is judged by how valid his final opinion is. If that piece of info doesnt cut it, you just move and find other info you can rely on.

[seeking]

Originally posted by TEARZ
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Smart
[B]...you refused to back up some of your more incendiary claims is why i "attacked" you in the first place. and yes, i did link it with your penchant for avoiding the more incisive criticisms that others often offer you....i wasn't trying to reduce you, i was being honest and direct in calling you on what i thought and still think is some bullshit. i think it's bullshit that you came into the thread like you did and avoided direct challenges and comments, sometimes by focusing on one sentence of the author and not their point. i think that others probably see it as that too.


what is more 'one dimmensional' than replying to every single argument with the same set of irrelivent tactics, designed to avoid any notion of substance and rely solely on smoke and mirrors and the illusion of some monopoly of truth?

i cant think of one argument ive witnessed or participated in, where smart actually backed up a single substantial claim he made with anything relivent. he uses insults and outlandish comments in place of facts and or common sense. a perfect example is his (100% irrelivent) comment about "...when Seeking told me I couldn't quit an argument (That was the one where he insisted that the US truck bombed to Pentagon to heighten the outrage on 9/11)..." now, i never 'insisted' anything, other than the fact that the damage done to the pentagon, did not in any way shape or form support the idea that a jumbo jet crashed into it, then COMPLETELY DISINTIGRATED. further more, what my contention was, has absolutely nothing to do with his ability, or inability to concede anything. this is known as deflection; trying to switch the focus to something else, in an attempt to avoid the attention. this is what he does, he makes it seem like whoever he is 'arguing' with is so ignorant that their perspective does not even warrant a counter argument. which i really cant understand, because he isnt stupid, he knows plenty of facts, he just seems to be completely unable to formulate them in any kind of rational, intelligent manner. it winds up coming across as nothing but bitter, jaded, and overall, insecure.
i would never claim i'm always right, but if i say i believe something, i will always give thurough backing. my 'facts' might prove me wrong, but atleast they prove i wasnt just talking out my fucking ass.

i know me saying all this risks sparking some sort of big 'seeking vs. smart' super-mod battle, where i get misquoted and smart makes more shit up, but whatever.
i couldnt agree with you more TEARZ, and have made these exact same 'criticisms' for over 3 years now.

oh, and in adition to that, fuck israel.

seeks/if the glove doesnt fit, you must aquite.

[Vanity]

ya'll are acting like a buncha 14 year old hoes... who cares how someone argues? just dont respond to them :idea:

a response must be earned.. with that being said... egypt just released all of their prisoners in honor of the 30th aniversery(sp?) or the isreali conflict.

[imported_Tesseract]

Fuck that,
If Smart was around on Tearz last reply, i bet they'd reach the balance spot after a few more 'attacks'. I've seen us all exagerate and trying to distract others in our struggle to maintain our position. Its the only way to keep things going, and discuss the stuff that interest us all in a 'vivid' way.
It cant get more boring than personal and out of subject.

[hottnickels]

Smart, On the Scandalous Thread....
This isn't a discussion aimed at truth... that's why I, the 'moderate' who has taken a decidedly middle of the road approach catches so much hate. !@#$% is practiacally married to her beliefs and so are most of the others posting in here. If we were truly focused on truth we would accept that both sides are wrong, both sides inhumane. THEN, and this is the part that always gets skipped aound here, we would give PROPS to the 'right thinkers' (I mean correct, not conservative) on both sides. We would echo and amplify their beliefs and strategies. The sad fact is that both sides still want war.

Further, my argument isn't that the issue doesn't matter, it's that you (collectively) are AGAIN arguing about the scab and cause of the wound instead of treating the infection as it currently exists.



you rolled up in our cia thread and decided to judge our discussion.
not participating in said discussion, but deciding what we were talking about, and then say that we weren't doing it right.
i see responses from several people that include ideas about the future.
and i know i can see many sides in an argument.

after all, i'm willing to admit to having plenty of doubts about that sharon quote after more thought (i don't judge a person on the basis of one quote anyway)

exactly what are you going for here smart?

should i throw my hands up and say fuck it..i don't know what's up, there's no point in intelligent commentary on 12oz?!

and several times you were careful to ensure i wasn't offended.
(and i'm not)
..even though i am surely included in the word 'collectively' you say later i was carefully excluded..
..but this is interesting. why have i garnered special attention?
it's damn funny now that i've met a few 12ozers in person, and there's this history there of learning so much about a person's personality before you ever meet.

[Smart]

Originally posted by hottnickels
exactly what are you going for here smart?

world domination... what else is there?

If I was more often wrong about the opinions I choose to express, and more inflexible about admitting my own misjudgement I would probably be more offended by the sludge you are trying to throw at me...

[hottnickels]

what fucking sludge?!

i am incredulous.

fuggit.

[Vanity]

closed!

[seeking]

Originally posted by hottnickels
what fucking sludge?!


i believe that line was directed towards me, not you.

[non-hetero]

I'm really interested in this subject and thus far from my readings I'm feeling like Sharon is a fuckwit.

But I'm definately not educated on the subject.


Some suggested readings would be nice.
Books please. Big ones. Not one sided, if that's even possible.

[!@#$%]

Originally posted by Smart
Well, again I'm afraid I've mortally offended !@#$% though perhaps she seperates spirited debate from personal politics but, so few do...
i'm still not offended, but obviously you are.
editing posts... :rolleyes:

[Smart]

!@#$%... no, don't. I'm not...

I thought we settled that right after it happened... I wish you would get AIM, or last we talked about it you had just downloaded it but maybe it was at work and didn't function or something, I forget, anyway...

[seeking]

Originally posted by !@#$%

editing posts... :rolleyes:

dont forget 'deleting them and hoping no one saw it' :rolleyes:

!@#$,
what was the book you were talking about? i promise, this is the last time i'll ask.

[imported_Tesseract]

:tongue:

[Smart]

Originally posted by seeking
dont forget 'deleting them and hoping no one saw it' :rolleyes:

!@#$,
what was the book you were talking about? i promise, this is the last time i'll ask.

actually, I eleted that hoping only you had seen it... the 10 views after I posted before another post insured that it was a probable event and I felt satisfied... are you just trying to provoke me?

If you need me to, I can repeat myself

[Smart]

wait, I just figured out who hotnick's is but... still not offended...

[seeking]

trying to provoke you? to do what, make up more ficticious quotes and talk in circles without ever actually saying anything? no, thats ok, thats what the 'search' function is for; so people dont have to post the same shit twice.
just as with the last time we had this 'discussion', you brought me into it out of nowhere, not the other way around. had you not insulted me, when i had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with any of this, i wouldn't have bothered. but since tearz was calling you out, and you felt it necessary to talk about me anyway, i figured id lend my support to his claim.

seeks/in my casino, there is always someone watching

[TEARZ]

hottnickels is !@#$%. she said that.
there's no trickery involved.

[Smart]

Originally posted by TEARZ
hottnickels is !@#$%. she said that.
there's no trickery involved.

and I missed that, sorry I was out having a life... I didn't suggest trickery was afoot

and Seeking, I didn't try to insult you but... maybe you can clarify...

What I'm getting is that, when I referenced the argument you claimed "I couldn't quit", when that happened it wasn't an insult... or was it when I said you hate Jews, because you seem to be pretty vocal about that on your own... so, ANYWAY, you just came in here to argue with me about me insulting you when you could have just have easily taken me off block and told me all this shit on AIM?

[seeking]

dude, are you fucking drunk?
you mentioning that i claimed you couldnt quit an argument wasn't an insult, but you completely making up something i never said and injecting it into a converstion, over two years later, that had absolutely, positively, nothing to do with anything and was posted with no other possible intention than to attempt to 'clown' me, for god knows what reason, since my only post in this thread stated i didnt have time to post in the thread certainly was.
and now because i am 'very vocal' about my disdain for A COUNTRY that i feel is basically one large terrorist state, now that means that i hate jews? hahaha, this is seriously a new level of ignorance, even for you! do you not see that your every word is just further proving what tearz and i are claiming? that instead of ever backing up a single claim you make, you just fucking make shit up and spit insults?! and why didnt i unblock you, if i felt like insulting you? i dont know, why the fuck did you insult me in the first place?
really bro, your a fucking joke. just stop.

seeks/bedtime for hypocricy

[BROWNer]

the alleged sharon quote:
first of all, mams, i'm glad this was brought up, sort of..becuz i have wrestled with it too.
but instead of trying to prove one single quote that seemed sensational and malicious, i looked at dude as a whole..peep sharon's oeuvre.
i do not know the 'source' for this quote, but an aquintance(sp982u9?) mentioned
that chomsky had referred to it somewhere. i can't confirm where this referral was published or heard
since this person is out of contact and i cannot remember even if the
book or situation was mentioned, but i took this person's opinion as a
respectable one. it would also be difficult to source chomsky's reference since
the man has spoken about the middle east in a retarded amount of instances.
now, if it was referred to by chomsky, is that good enough?
not 100% since you'd still be taking somebodies word without actually
being in the room with sharon and the general yourself. this type of thinking can be mapped over practically every piece of news you'll read and the stamina to pursue
and be rigorous about these things is a pretty rare thing if you're not chomsky, said, parenti or the handful of others that are considered rigorous. the only thing you can really do then, when it comes to these guys, is look at what they've laid out, and look at them as individuals.
you can do this sort of shit with practically every published news article
on any volatile political, environmental, or racial issue. at what point
do you consider the shit you read is or isn't worth its salt?
the quote is extreme, and its unfortunate that it doesn't seem that anyone has done their homework on this quote, including me i suppose.
its also unfortunate that ariel sharon is an extreme piece of slime who is
responsible for massive carnage of innocent people.
any minor forays into the type of character sharon is should leave
you with some sort of comfortable stick to measure the alleged quote.
even if it is a complete fabrication, which it may very well be, it conveys the
basic tenet of sharon's conduct over that last few decades.
bottom line though is you can never be 100%. so whats the next best
thing? phone 'em up? pretty fucking impossible to ever tell what is PR/propaganda and what isn't when you start thinking this way. admittedly, either way its kind of a problem.

[Smart]

Originally posted by seeking completely making up something i never said and injecting it into a converstion, over two years later, that had absolutely, positively, nothing to do with anything and was posted with no other possible intention than to attempt to 'clown' me, for god knows what reason, since my only post in this thread stated i didnt have time to post in the thread certainly was.

dude you said it... so maybe you're a ******* ****... how's that for an insult?

I got no time to include you in ANY fantasy life of mine. I'm sorry you're so uncomfortable with the positions you previously embraced.

Why dont we give this over to Browner and Mammerro and people who want to be part of that argument... as I said before, we have numerous private avenues to settle this, again.

[seeking]

oh wait, so now you're trying to have an intelligent 'argument'? you're the one that interupted the damn argument in the first place, insulting every single one of them for even discussing it. you are seriously fucking insane. how can i hate jews, when you're the revisionist?

other avenues? im proceeding with the avenue you CHOSE in the first place.
dont be salty now cause every word makes you look like a bigger fucking jackass.

please go get drunk and walk in front of a fucking bus or something, jesus christ.

[Smart]

yeah, please keep playing the drunk card because that's getting you big points...

insulting all of THEM? I think they disagreed but I think you're the one insulted around here.

Yeah, other avenues, as I said I didn't set out to insult yiou, just mentioned your previous actions to clarify a point... you got on my dick here when I just put you in as a sideliner... whatever, let's have our biz in the streets, keep calling me drunk, I'll keep calling you stupid... get stomach cancer.

[seeking]

ok, you win.
have fun.

[Smart]

whee... fun.

[seeking]

bush should just send me and smart over there to 'mediate'. we'll wind up just insulting eachother all day long, annoy the fuck out of both israel and palestine, then they'll unite just to shut us the fuck up, and the problem is solved.



seeks/another one bites the dust

[!@#$%]

because hey, this is really some pointless shit now.
let's get back to some international issues that have some relevance and are, in reality, humanitarian crisis that desperately need all the intelligent attention they can get.

..one step closer to all out war ...

Israel, Lebanon in border clash

Tuesday, October 7, 2003 Posted: 4:42 AM EDT (0842 GMT)

(CNN) -- Israel and Lebanon exchanged gunfire in a disputed border area, according to Lebanese officials, a day after Israeli planes attacked a suspected Palestinian militant base in Syria.

The Lebanese Joint Security Force said in a statement Monday that gunmen engaged Israeli forces in a gun battle and that explosions were heard in the disputed area known as the Shebaa Farms.

The Israel Defense Forces said an Israeli patrol in the area returned fire after being shot at by snipers on the Lebanese side who were wearing the uniforms and masks of the militant group Hezbollah.

IDF said one Israeli soldier was killed in the exchange.

The Shebaa Farms area, a mountainous region at the foot of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, has been subject to sporadic attacks by Hezbollah guerrillas in the three-and-a-half years since Israel withdrew its forces from South Lebanon.

The increased tension in the volatile border zone followed Sunday's attack by the Israeli Air Force on the suspected Palestinian training camp in Syria.

Israel issued a warning to both Syria and Lebanon late Monday, urging them to stop their alleged support of militant groups.

At the same time, Israel said it had not ruled out another attack in Syria.

"There could be more, there could be not," Israeli government spokesman Ranaan Gissin said in a telephone interview.

Israel defense officials said the camp targeted in the Syria strike was used to train members of Islamic Jihad -- a militant group that has claimed responsibility for terror attacks against Israelis in the past, including the suicide bombing Saturday in Haifa.

But the Syrian Foreign Ministry insisted the Israeli target, near Damascus, was a civilian site, without elaborating. A spokesman for the Islamic Jihad denied Sunday there were any Islamic Jihad training bases in Syria.

Meanwhile, U.S. President George W. Bush said Monday he had made clear to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that "Israel's got a right to defend herself, that Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defense of the homeland."

But he added that he had told Sharon "it is very important that any action Israel take should avoid escalation, creating higher tensions."

On Sunday, Syria proposed a draft resolution at the U.N. Security Council condemning the Israeli strike and calling on Israel to avoid any actions that would worsen the Middle East crisis any further. (Full story)

No vote is yet scheduled on Syria's resolution, and it is doubtful whether the United States -- which holds the Security Council's rotating presidency this month -- will support it.

On Monday, the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Fayssal Mekdad, told CNN his nation has worked with the United States to fight terrorism, and deserved support.

Amr Moussa, Arab League secretary-general, agreed. "This is a situation that doesn't conform to the international law. The right of self-defense applies when a state is attacked," Moussa said.

"When a country occupies the land of other countries and practices violence ... it's not

[GLIK$]

Ill ban you both, I swear to god.

[--zeSto--]

whoa!

when good mods go bad!

Remind me not to make such inflamitory threads.
This one turned into a full on shit flinging battle royale.

getting back on topic.....

Meanwhile, U.S. President George W. Bush said Monday he had made clear to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that "Israel's got a right to defend herself, that Israel must not feel constrained in terms of defense of the homeland."

How's that for double Speak. I wonder if by 'constrained' Bush really
was refering to the boarders of Israel and he's giving carte blanche
for maor attacks against whomever Israel decides is helping Hamas.
That almost exactly like Bush's blanket excuse for the 'pre-emptive'
strikes on Iraq.

I still say just turn New Jersey into the 'New Jerusalem'.

[!@#$%]

bush is saying that they have a right to go beyond their borders (which are heavily contested already..) and engage.

bullshit.

they have moved into syria and now lebanon.
in the name of peace.

and i guess i shouldn't even bring up the golan heights.

[seeking]

dude, this whole 'pre-emptively attacking your enemies turf' has been working succesfully for the bloods and crips for 20 years now, why should we think it will be any less 'productive' in the middle east?


if israel turned out to be built ontop of a really big version of one of those 'sand pit' things from 'return of the jedi' that eats people, i wouldnt be too bummed.


seeks/but of course thats only cause i hate jews.

[--zeSto--]

^ yes I follow that point quite clearly.

It's almost like they took a page out of Bush's playbook.

I still dont understand how 'defending' a country involves
moving into another country with force. Well maybe I can
see it a bit if there's a military force building on your borders,
like Isreal, but there's no excuse when they're on the other
side of the plantet, like Iraq. Israel is afraid of attacks happening
again like they did in the 60's and 70's so I do understand the
need for real 'defence'. What they are doing is not really a defensive
move because they are just increasing the tension and pissing off
their enemies. You know without the US backing they'd be keeping
to themselves and playing nicely in the sand.

[GLIK$]

I hate Jawas too man.

Fucking sand dwellers.

GWB needs to hop on his land speeder and hon solo some fucking ass over there.

bling bling, one love.

fuck being serious.

if you dont live there dont care.

youll die younger

enter
enter
enter.

[!@#$%]

this is what got intelligent people scared about the gulf war.

i knew saddam was a piece of shit, but i knew it would pave the way for basically any country to strike "pre-emptively" without international support or even approval..

now it'll be interesting to see how much trouble we get in as a result of the rest of the new bush doctrine..

like how we hold afghani men without trials indefinitely (i saw it repoted on dateline that some of those men may NEVER be released OR get a TRIAL)

so how will that effect us when we are trying to get POWs back on the basis of the geneva convention.

if terrorists take our men they don't have to recognize the geneva treaty...after all, they are not representing a 'state' as we have defined them "enemy combatants" and entirely new designation not covered under the g.c.

bullshit!!

we are reaping what we sow.


and as far as the pit of Sarnac, it might help some shit out in a big way. (throws up hands, shrugs)

[--zeSto--]

Well seing how Bush has declared a 'war' on terror,
you'd figure that he should have to play by the rules of war.
The other side might not choose to play by them same rule,
and then we are fucked.

Also they seems to be a major reluctancy to seperate
'terrorists' from 'guerilla forces'. These two things are
fundamentally different. Just like the Boer war where the
traditional army formations were slaughtered by desperate
but proud men hiding in the bushes, the West will learn a hard lesson here.

[seeking]

Originally posted by Kilo7-
You know without the US backing they'd be keeping
to themselves and playing nicely in the sand.

without the US (and british) backing, they never would have taken that land in the first place. and they sure as shit wouldnt be pulling any of the shit they are now.

!@#$,
perhaps you know this... are there any arabic countries still fighting amongst eachother, or are our actions pretty much just uniting them against us?

seeks/punching people is soooo last year

[!@#$%]

ultimately it's not countries.

it is tribal infighting, based largely on ethnic and also religious differences.

for example, currently in iraq there is a power struggle being played out between sunnis and shiites, arabs and kurds....

it's extremly complicated.
it harkens back to the Ottoman and Persian empires, and the devastation unleashed in the region when they were destroyed...individual countries cropped up, spurred by a nationalistic identity that the western world attempted to impose.

these are still nomadic, tribal peoples.
it is tempting to say that of we got the fuck out, shit would chill, but unfortunately we opened a torrent of unrest when we deposed a brutal dictator (an individual able to control dissent by fear)...now we want to establish a democracy in a country that seems to want a religious gov't

..

some more..

Where could the violence come from? Not from an imagined "vertical" civil war pitting Shi'ites against Sunnis, or Arabs versus Kurds, but from the source of evil that has been contaminating and corrupting Iraqi society over the past decades; i.e., the highly politicised and violent social atmosphere created by the Ba'athist regime. A protest movement against the war carnage and the humiliation of the army can immediately turn into targeting the most visible symbols of authority: known collaborators with the Ba'athists, members of the countless oppression and control organs, or simply people belonging to Tikrit. In the latter case, revenge need not necessarily take a sectarian colouring. Sunni regions that have been relegated to a secondary position under the Ba'ath, such as Samarra and Dulaim, may well show signs of hatred that surpass those of Shi'as.

from..
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/623/sc3.htm

or...

Analysis of establishing democracy..

U.S. President George W. Bush's promise to create a model democracy in Iraq after he's thrown out Saddam Hussein and his regime is no doubt well intentioned, but ignores the lessons of history. Democracy doesn't come in a box with a set of easy-to-follow instructions and an American army of occupation to make it happen in a couple of years. It grows slowly, hesitantly, and often with bloody setbacks along the way.

Mr. Bush's supporters point to Germany and Japan after the Second World War as examples of how democracy can be created in a defeated country. But Germany had a history of democracy before Hitler took power in 1933; his dictatorship was the exception not the rule, and the task after the war was not to create democracy but to restore it.

Japan was a tight, homogenous society with a developed economy famous for its skill in copying western industrial products. When the United States agreed to allow the god-like emperor to remain on his throne, the people followed orders, proving apt pupils of their American teachers.

But how well they really learned their lessons is not entirely clear. True, they have elections, but the same party always wins, and the real source of power appears to be in giant industrial enterprises that dominate the economy.

Looking beyond the special cases of Germany and Japan, the U.S. has usually failed to implant democracy in other countries in which, with allies or by itself, it has overthrown the regime. Of the 18 cases in the last century, only five became democracies, according to The Christian Science Monitor. And when the U.S. was acting alone, only Panama progressed from, in effect, a U.S. protectorate to self-governing democracy.

from
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/corresp...tell030314.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/canada/correspondents_westell030314.html)

[210006]

Originally posted by Tesseract
I dont buy the "Israel did not give Washington any advance warning of the attack." if it werent for the states the arab world would have eaten the jews alive a long long time ago. Israelis dont move with no US backup. aka "Washington said it would not support a Syrian resolution condemning the raid because it made no mention of a Palestinian suicide bomber attack on Saturday, in which 19 people were killed in an Israeli restaurant."
i have'nt read the whole thread, but i remember something about a nsa spy ship getting knocked out by the israeli airforce just before the 7 day war... brings memories?

[!@#$%]

[img]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Iraq-Quagmire/IraqQuagmire/kal.gif'>


relevance....

[fermentor666]

Stop the violence.

Yassar Arafat is a piece of shit. No one loves the Palestinians except for the Americans.

Bend it Like Beckham you assholes.

[serum]

http://www.okaro.okayama-c.ed.jp/you/image/ultraman.jpg
^ oh yeah, fuck you! beckhams a homo

[KaBar2]

Both sides suck. Israel does whatever it pleases, regardless of what we ask them to do. They are more than willing to kill Americans if it suits their purpose. The Palestinians are almost entirely motivated by racial and religious hatred. The shit they put on their TV's and teach their kids in school would make the Devil blush.

I think we need to stop trying to get them to play nice, and just do whatever SUITS US. Fuck 'em both.

http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/

http://www.mideastfacts.com/1967-liberty.html

[SWIMS]

Crazy days. The occupation is reaching 50 years pretty soon. Anybody's that interested should check out the new Geneva accords released this week. Hopefully they will have some effect. Sharon and his Lekut boys have disregarded it and are pressing full on with their wall. Funny, it will give the Israeli's the ability to stop most of the water flowing into the west bank next time they roll in for another good old clean sweep because they are looking for "terrorists". Just a little synicle I know but this conflict has two sides both drowning in the blood they have spilled. These attacks in syria were purely symbolic.
It does seem that international atention is is finnaly curbing to an un-bias (non-zionist) view. The 2nd Intifada was able to change the world view of the palestinian as a victim instead of a terrorist but the media has seemed to not be interested in this and many things point to an actual regression in political progress.

[old*824]

i really want to paint that wall the taxpayers in the united states are paying for.

g e n o c i d e spells genocide.

[Dick Quickwood]

:horse fart:

[wiseguy]

Originally posted by KaBar2
The Palestinians are almost entirely motivated by racial and religious hatred. The shit they put on their TV's and teach their kids in school would make the Devil blush.

well, i guess that i cant argue that, but what about the US or Israel? they have made it clear that they hate arabs when they bomb the fucking shit out syria, palestine, afghanistan and iraq (not to mention the fact that they are now fucking with iran and lebanon).
also, how does america portray arabs in films? how do they portray the Israel Palestine conflict in the news? its no better than the palestinian news, it just reinforces the same bullshit mindset that most people are stuck in.




freepalestineoner.

[Kyuzo]

middle east aka [img]http://www.12ozprophet.com/ubb/icons/icon30.gif'>

[seeking]

my thing, which is completely based on opinion and my recognition of the facts, is that if given their livelyhood back, and left alone to live their lives, i dont beleive palestinians would continue blowing up 'innocent jews'. however, israel, who is in control, has their livelyhood and control of their lives, continues to kill and displace 'terrorist palestinians'.

answer seems pretty simple to me in this one.

seeks/why does pro peace have to be anti-semetic?

[--zeSto--]

Originally posted by seeking
seeks/why does pro peace have to be anti-semetic?


uhhhh.... which group of semites would peace be against?

I'm sure you know it, but both Judaism and Islam are 'Semetic'.

And like we've all said many times...

Being against Isreali politics doesnt have to be against Isreali people.

[RubbeRBand]

Alright, first off, Semites were a race of mostly nomadic people in the Fertile Crescent/ Middle East, they supposedly merged with Babylon and might've migrated to the Egyptian Nile too. Then of course there are the Judaic Semites, Hebresews. Prob. is, they all live in the desert, us Westerners look on over our fatty fat lawns and say, "oh, we'll put a border here and a border there, here a border there a border la la la laaah," we did this after WWI and again after WWII with no regard to the fact that many of the inhabitants are nomadic by nature. Typical bullying bullshit on our part, we right, you wrong... but then again you look at the countries where this long lasting type of shit boils up, Pakistan vs. India vs. Bengali, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc. (donut forget Palestine) vs. Israel. Do you sense a theme here, with the exception of india, they all use the arabic number system... Blast, I thought I dun got it...

[!@#$%]

the u.s. backed away from a lot of the border debates and land reorganization that took place following the end of wwi

the decisions were made primarily by britain and india..

there were quite a few people opposed to the diviing that was going on then as well..

woodrow wilson's 14 points were in favor of self determination, and though those views were not favored by the majority at the time, it was not quite the imperialistic path we are on today.

[heavyLox]

Mistakes were made...

I can not beleive arafat has the best interest of his people in mind.

Leaders have SO much to do with shaping the views of their people.
Most leaders have hidden agendas. THis guy is fueling the fire for his people. A struggle that makes them suffer daily. At this point they need to realize Isreal is NOT backing down.

I feel secure in saying if Arafat were to say to the people this has gone on long enough, for the sake of all of us we will make X,Y,Z conssesions, his people would go for it.

the majority just want work and securioy, as we all do.


Flip It/

Isreal needs to realize that the fatah, hezbola, plo(?), and all of the associated groups will continue to find people willing to die just to proove a point. Isreal is the Middle easts North Korea, they make unilateral moves with little concern for outside approval.
What other country PUBLICaly threatens to asassinate another countrys leader ( besides the US).

If i had super powers id clear all this crap up in a jiff
: flex muscles:








Africa is another country with fairly random borders.