[LordOpie]

jmvar, have you read this thread? Hasn't roee said he'd rather not live that way? The point isn't being happy with the situation, but NOT seeing a solution! And don't come back with it being in Israel's hands. When you're outnumbered 10-1 and those 10 want you dead, you don't have much of a choice.

Arafat has said that they won't be happy until every jew is dead or out of that entire region.

Do you want all the jews to pick up and move to S.America?

 

[Silver]

jmvar, have you read this thread? Hasn't roee said he'd rather not live that way? The point isn't being happy with the situation, but NOT seeing a solution! And don't come back with it being in Israel's hands. When you're outnumbered 10-1 and those 10 want you dead, you don't have much of a choice.

I gave four possible options further up in the thread. Apparently the status quo is working out for everyone...

It is in Israel's hands. They have the power to make the change.

Oh, and roee: Turkey. There's your Muslim democracy. It's amazing that the stinking monkeys have managed to cobble elections together, but stranger things have happened, I guess.

 

[LordOpie]

It is in Israel's hands. They have the power to make the change.

How?

A few key people with resources and ability to motivate the masses wants you dead. What's your solution? Give up, fight, run?

 

[Silver]

How?

A few key people with resources and ability to motivate the masses wants you dead. What's your solution? Give up, fight, run?

Withdraw from the occupied territories to start. Give up the lie that you're there temporarily. Give the Palestinians a place to live that belongs to them, where they don't have to worry about bulldozers clearing out their house to make room for a settlement...stuff like that.

Or, they can keep fighting until everyone is dead.

 

[LordOpie]

Withdraw from the occupied territories to start. Give up the lie that you're there temporarily. Give the Palestinians a place to live that belongs to them, where they don't have to worry about bulldozers clearing out their house to make room for a settlement...stuff like that.

Or, they can keep fighting until everyone is dead.

well, now you and I are doing the tango... get your hand off my ass!

I return the circle back to Arafat and his crew... he wants jews dead or gone. How do you fix that?

 

[Silver]

well, now you and I are doing the tango... get your hand off my ass!

I return the circle back to Arafat and his crew... he wants jews dead or gone. How do you fix that?

Give the Palestinians something to focus on instead of hating Israel. It's easy for Arafat to rustle up support right now, he's a symbol. You can ignore him, and he'll go away. Every single house that gets bulldozed, every time a missle gets fired into a refugee camp, all you do is stoke the fires of that hate.

Or, you can do what Sharon suggested in the 50's and kill the children. Whatever works...

 

[LordOpie]

So you're saying if Palestinians had their own state, they'd be too busy and focused to continue fighting?

 

[Silver]

So you're saying if Palestinians had their own state, they'd be too busy and focused to continue fighting?

It wouldn't happen overnight. But they need hope more than anything else. What kind of upward mobility is there for a Palestinian youth these days?

 

[LeeOz]

It seems that people have a hard time to understand that most "palestinians" or some neighboring arab countries for instance will never accept a Jewish state in the middle-east.
I'm a pro-palestinian state but not with that corrupt leadership... There's a few palestinian officials that have the faith that something can be done but unfortunately, they often silenced by their great leader.

People gotta understand that there's a huge power struggle within the palestinians themselves (factions, politics,...) and that more than a few palestinians are happy that no one can find a solution to reach the peace at the moment. All those so-called "freedom" fighters, what are they gonna do if peace is reached. You think they will give up all the money that's allocated to them by compliant arab states, you think they will give up the power they gained after years of fighting to embrace a political carreer.
I wish but I don't think that's gonna happen soon.

That was my opinion...

 

[LordOpie]

I'm a pro-palestinian state but not with that corrupt leadership...

are you saying you don't think it'll happen because of those corrupt leaders -or- that you don't want it to happen with them still in charge?

 

[Changleen]

Actually Opie, Arafat has said he accepts the right of Israel to exist, (he has for a long while) and that he would be happy with loosing a fair bit of Palestinian land to achieve this. I'll try and post a link later.

It doesn't really change that much though, GW and Sharon have stamped on the right to return and Arafat is under house arrest in a pile of ruble, so he's defacto powerless.

 

[LeeOz]

both...

Anyway it won't happen at the present time cuz sharon and arafat hate each other to the guts so imo as long as arafat is in control of the PA, nothing will happen. I don't even think that Sharon wants something to happen anyway but he will be pressured to do so. Same goes for the other side.

Middle-East is a crazy circus where no one is laughing

 

[LeeOz]

Actually Opie, Arafat has said he accepts the right of Israel to exist, (he has for a long while) and that he would be happy with loosing a fair bit of Palestinian land to achieve this.

While sending Fatah factions (Al-Aqsa Brigades) to kill and murder... right. Are you that naive?

 

[LeeOz]

If arafat is so ready for peace, I really wonder what happened back in 2000, well there you go (from http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_intensivetalks_2000.php)


The chronology included these events:

November 14, 1999: Barak and Arafat met in Tel Aviv

January 4, 2000: Steering committee agreed on 5% redeployment, part of the second redeployment

January 30, 2000: Multilateral track of Madrid Framework resumed in Moscow

March 9, 2000: Barak-Arafat Ramallah agreement on completing the second redeployment; permanent status talks to resume

March 21, 2000: Palestinian and Israeli negotiators resumed permanent status negotiations at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, DC

April 11, 2000: Clinton-Barak met in Washington, DC

May 15, 2000: Interim Agreements Steering and Monitoring Committee met in Jerusalem after new fighting

May 22, 2000: Barak cut off talks due to violence in territories

June 6, 2000: US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright met with Barak and Arafat (separately) to push for progress toward framework agreement

July 5, 2000: President Clinton invited Barak and Arafat to summit at Camp David
Despite many problems and delays, the working level meetings succeeded well enough to lead to the Camp David 2000 Summit convened on July 11, 2000. However, the summit ended in failure on July 25 after Israeli Prime Minister Barak put unprecedented concessions on the table in order to get to an agreement, but Yasser Arafat rejected them and walked out.

Make sure you don't miss it...

 

[LeeOz]

Some more, to silence the pathetic liars (from http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php)


What took place at Camp David in 2000?
The timeline of the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum called for final status negotiations to be completed by September 13, 2000. Talks during late 1999 and the first half of 2000 led to President Clinton's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat for a summit at Camp David, Maryland to be convened July 11, 2000.

Barak requested that Clinton call the meeting, feeling that it was important to show that Israel was committed to the Peace Process and that Israel was ready to make the necessary concessions. Barak also felt that the summit was the best place for this, rather than a public exchange of ideas that might be politically hard to constrain. The objective of the summit was to make enough progress on the final status issues so that an agreement could be put together by the September target date.

The meetings were difficult and almost ended prematurely, but President Clinton kept the parties at the negotiating table. The final status issues were the most difficult to resolve: Jerusalem, security, borders and refugees. Sessions lasted late into the nights. Under intense pressure from President Clinton, in an effort to reach a final agreement, and with promises of American support and security guarantees, Prime Minister Barak offered the most substantial concessions and far reaching proposals, going beyond all the long-standing Israeli "red lines", especially as regards Jerusalem. The US team called Barak "courageous" for these offers. When these terms were later revealed in Israel, people were stunned at the extent of the concessions Barak offered and it is unclear whether the Israeli public were prepared to support the deal. However they were never given the opportunity to endorse or reject the proposals; Arafat rejected them out of hand.

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak's offer included:

- Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
- The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
- The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
- Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
- Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
"Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out. This was typical of the Palestinian leader's style: offer nothing, just say no and wait for more concessions. In fact, the Palestinian negotiating team did make concessions during the negotiating process, but Arafat himself never agreed. It was not the specific terms that caused the summit to collapse, but rather the lack of a counterproposal. In addition, Arafat continued to insist on the Palestinian demand for a "right of return" of refugees to Israel, a demand that Israel cannot accept under any peace plan since it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

The summit ended on July 25, without an agreement being reached. At its conclusion, a Trilateral Statement was issued defining the agreed principles to guide future negotiations. An optimistic summary of the event would be that difficult issues were attacked for the first time and progress was made. But, what really happened at Camp David is that Barak offered astounding compromises in an effort to close a deal while Arafat stuck to the traditional Palestinian positions. The Israelis and Palestinians both lost faith in the process: if there is no deal in this favorable environment, when could there be?

After the close of the meeting, Barak said:

Israel was ready to reach agreement at a painful price but not at any price.
Arafat made no major statement before leaving the United States, because anything he would say would force him to disagree with Clinton’s assessment that Arafat was at fault for the summit's failure. In the following weeks, the Palestinians, having lost patience with the diplomatic approach, launched the al-Aqsa intifada (September 2000). (I would think it was staged personnally to add more weight on the palestinians side in case there was to be new negotiations soon after that debacle but once again it's what I think)

During the fall of 2000, with the al-Aqsa intifada raging, there were several more attempts to follow-up on the Camp David negotiations, in Washington and Taba, Egypt in January 2001. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met again in Washington, but there was no progress for the same reason: Arafat and his team said no to the US-brokered Israeli proposals and had no proposals of their own to offer.

President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of hte talks squarely on Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. "You are a great man," Arafat said. "The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one."


In my opinion, if the creation of a palestinian state had to happen, arafat would have to go and be replaced by someone that has more knowledge of today realities and how to run a sovereign state. It is still my opinion that as long as there's trouble in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, arafat (and some more) will have a job.

 

[Silver]

Some more, to silence the pathetic liars (from http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php)

I haven't really seen anyone standing up in this thread and saying that Arafat is a great leader. I'd personally put him on the same level as Sharon...which means that you have a stubborn and proud ideologue idiot on both sides, never a good thing.

Still, you're willing to screw over (and I don't mean screw over in the sense that they are going to have to pay some sales tax, or that they won't have social security, I mean really screw over) 3 million people because one man is an idiot? There are consequences to that action.

Hey, if 50 years of fighting doesn't do solve it, I'm sure another 50 will get us there...

 

[LeeOz]

well the fighting has being going on for thousand of years, even if at the time they wouldn't be called israelis and palestinians.

 

[Changleen]

While sending Fatah factions (Al-Aqsa Brigades) to kill and murder... right. Are you that naive?

LeeOz, this post perfectly demostrates your blinkered, one sided take on these issues.

1) From AP

Following a deadly suicide bombing at a Tel Aviv nightclub on June 1, 2001, by a Palestinian terrorist, Yasser Arafat issued the following statement: “We will exert now our utmost efforts to stop the bloodshed of our people, and of the Israeli people, and to do all that is needed to achieve an immediate and unconditional, real and effective cease-fire.”

2) Arafat HAS NO POWER! Why are we even discussing him? Because you found some easy links? Israel has bombed Palestinian infrastucture to pieces. Hamas and these other groups are acting mostly independantly, probably with a little co-operation between arguments. And even if Arafat was somehow masterminding everything from behind the scenes:

3) Sharon is sending the worlds 4th largest and possibly best equipt army in the world out to kill Palestinians! As you put it "..to kill and murder.." What's the difference? Both sides murder and kill, Israel does it more.

 

[Toshi]

How freaking arrogant it is for americans to say what Israel is doing right or wrong when they are killing 10's of thousands of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq because of 9/11. Man those peeps should be remembered what happened in Argentina, Chili and all South-America during the 60s & 70s for the sake of "freedom". Word they still use as an excuse to mess up with the whole planet.

israel's actions are wrong. this unjustified war in iraq is wrong. supporting puppet dictatorships and "democracies" in the bananalands is and was wrong. what's so difficult about this?

 

[Changleen]

israel's actions are wrong. this unjustified war in iraq is wrong. supporting puppet dictatorships and "democracies" in the bananalands is and was wrong. what's so difficult about this?

 

[LeeOz]

LeeOz, this post perfectly demostrates your blinkered, one sided take on these issues.

My "one-sided" takes respond to yours... you are biased to the extreme.

From AP:

Following a deadly suicide bombing at a Tel Aviv nightclub on June 1, 2001, by a Palestinian terrorist, Yasser Arafat issued the following statement: “We will exert now our utmost efforts to stop the bloodshed of our people, and of the Israeli people, and to do all that is needed to achieve an immediate and unconditional, real and effective cease-fire.”

Wow, he must be a really good guy then. Please go back to my thread about how he fu**ed up the peace talks in 2000 and stop the BS.

Arafat HAS NO POWER! Why are we even discussing him? Because you found some easy links? Israel has bombed Palestinian infrastucture to pieces. Hamas and these other groups are acting mostly independantly, probably with a little co-operation between arguments.”

If he has no power, why are some palestinian officials struggling so much to have him let some grip go over the security services for exemple. Oh yea right, his cousin oversees this department now.

BTW why are my links "easy"? you mean mines are false and yours genuine.

And even if Arafat was somehow masterminding everything from behind the scenes:

3) Sharon is sending the worlds 4th largest and possibly best equipt army in the world out to kill Palestinians! As you put it "..to kill and murder.." What's the difference? Both sides murder and kill, Israel does it more.

Firstable, and I said that already but you obviously don't pay attention in purpose, they're not out there to kill palestinians but militants that send suicide bombers (even kids and women) and shoot and kill Israelis. Unfortunately there's a lot of collateral damage.

 

[Changleen]

Unfortunately there's a lot of collateral damage.

That tends to happen when you repeatedly blow up houses with five families living in them to get to one guy. Do you really think Israel is 'trying as hard as it can' to 'do the right thing' and avoid collateral damage? They're not. They use every opportunity to kill and maim. Often they do it just to intimidate or for fun. Sharon is an evil bastard. The Palestinians have no schools, no infrastructure, no security, no police and no effective leaders and are kept in a state of terror by Israel. Like I said, suicide bombing is not right, but it is a predictable response to the conditions they are forced to live under by Israel.

Isreal's actions and Suicide bombings are both wrong, but Israel is more wrong. They kill more people, more innocents and they have the might, money and technology to easily pick out those they claim they are targeting. Unfortunatley for Palestinians, they are all targets in reality.

 

[Silver]

Firstable, and I said that already but you obviously don't pay attention in purpose, they're not out there to kill palestinians but militants that send suicide bombers (even kids and women) and shoot and kill Israelis. Unfortunately there's a lot of collateral damage.

I really hate that term. That's one of the more horrible spin inventions of the 20th century.

Don't forget that "Collateral Damage" really means "Innocent People Dying."

 

[roee]

Actually Opie, Arafat has said he accepts the right of Israel to exist, (he has for a long while) and that he would be happy with loosing a fair bit of Palestinian land to achieve this. I'll try and post a link later.

It doesn't really change that much though, GW and Sharon have stamped on the right to return and Arafat is under house arrest in a pile of ruble, so he's defacto powerless.

LOL, the "right of return"? It's never going to happen. NEVER EVER. Not even if Israel has to fight for another 100 years. You know why?
Because accepting it will mean the total, instant death of Israel.
It's not going to happen, and the Palestinians know it VERY well.
They fact that they keep demanding it shows how serious they are about negotiating.

 

[roee]

It seems that people have a hard time to understand that most "palestinians" or some neighboring arab countries for instance will never accept a Jewish state in the middle-east.
I'm a pro-palestinian state but not with that corrupt leadership... There's a few palestinian officials that have the faith that something can be done but unfortunately, they often silenced by their great leader.

People gotta understand that there's a huge power struggle within the palestinians themselves (factions, politics,...) and that more than a few palestinians are happy that no one can find a solution to reach the peace at the moment. All those so-called "freedom" fighters, what are they gonna do if peace is reached. You think they will give up all the money that's allocated to them by compliant arab states, you think they will give up the power they gained after years of fighting to embrace a political carreer.
I wish but I don't think that's gonna happen soon.

That was my opinion...

Your opinion is right on the money, it's exactly what I think.
It will never be better until the collective mentallity in the Arab world changes to something.. different (Once again I advise y'all to take a look at the countries around Israel).

 

[fluff]

Post Oslo I, many of the neighbouring Arab countries began peace negotiations with Israel (Syria being a notable exception). Qatar began supplying Israel with natural gas.

The subsequent assassination of Rabin by an Israeli (whose widow proudly displays his gun on her mantelpiece), and the failure of further negotiations sadly undid all of Rabin's work.

And to blame Arafat for the failure of the talks with Clinton and Barak is to look at only one side of the picture. Israel had not fulfilled its obligations under Oslo I (rather than leave the occupied territories settlers had increased by approx 200,000) and Arafat did offer to undertake further negotiations, an offer refused by Clinton (who sought personal glory) and Barak (who arguably lacked Rabin's commitment to peace).

Sharon's subsequent tour of the Al-Aqsa compound with an armed guard who opened fire on Palestinian stone-throwers killing several did nothing to help a tense situation.

It is true that Hamas and Hezbollah had resumed terrorist activity (in fact did not really cease it) but they are not controlled by Arafat. The Al-Aqsa martyrs (linkde to Fatah) only came into existence once the intifada had resumed.

So, whilst Rabin proved himself a leader of vision, Arafat, Sharon, and Asad prefer conflict as it increases their powerbase.

Not only do the Palestinians need better leadership, so does Israel. Seems unlikely whilst the spiral of violence is fed by those who believe it sounds them. The sad thing is that Israel's position weakens over time.

 

[ohio]

There is no "evidence" for someone being primate, it's just a classification based on personal values. Just like the cannibals examples I've given before,
each can classify them in a different matter. To me, and for most, they are "primates", because their society works by premitive values.
For you, it might be different.
Primate is not really an insult, just an evolutionary state.

Persia (modern-day Iran) was home to the greatest libraries, universities, and architectural feats in the world while our people were still wandering the desert. This is not an evolutionary state. These people are unfortunately the victims of oppressive fundamentalist MINORITY regimes that have fought their way to power. Sounds kind of like the direction our beloved democracies are slipping towards...

Please stop confusing being Muslim with being Arab, and please stop confusing being fundamentalist or extremist Muslim with the entire religion of Islam. There is potential there for moderate and democratic Muslim rule... but it needs a lot of help to see the light of day.

Oh, and Arafat needs to croak...

 

[ohio]

So, whilst Rabin proved himself a leader of vision, Arafat, Sharon, and Asad prefer conflict as it increases their powerbase.

That whole post, and especially this part summed it up nicely. I am in complete agreement.

 

[MikeD]

There is potential there for moderate and democratic Muslim rule... but it needs a lot of help to see the light of day.

Oh, and Arafat needs to croak...

I've been reading "Imperial Hubris," and it's done a lot to squelch both my hope for middle eastern democracy (which in a way is itself a very arrogant and imperialistic hope) and for America's survival as a nation...inneresting book, and I need to finish it before I draw any conclusions.

And Arafat, least of all, wants peace...talk about increasing your power base. Thomas Friedman's "Beruit to Jerusalem" paints a pretty scathing (and accurate) picture of what a self-important ego-compensating jackass he is.

MD

 

[roee]

Persia (modern-day Iran) was home to the greatest libraries, universities, and architectural feats in the world while our people were still wandering the desert. This is not an evolutionary state. These people are unfortunately the victims of oppressive fundamentalist MINORITY regimes that have fought their way to power. Sounds kind of like the direction our beloved democracies are slipping towards...

I agree with you on Persia, but the historical period you talk about was way before the Islam hit them.
While the support for this regime might be declining, it were the people who wanted an Islamic country back in '79 and helped take down the Shah.
They complained he was corrupt, and brought their current leaders upon themselves.
The poor state of our democracies is a direct result of what kind of leaders you seek to win wars. Like Winston Churchill back in his day, they are good leaders during hard times, but I wouldn't elect them otherwise. Bush might be stupid, yes, but I don't see Kerry fighting the Irani proliferation.
It's not really a poor state, it's just a matter of the democracy adapting to outside conditions.
Luckily, no nation in the western world would let someone force himself upon it. When people are used to democracy, they will never go back, even though they sometimes do, as a tactical step.

Please stop confusing being Muslim with being Arab, and please stop confusing being fundamentalist or extremist Muslim with the entire religion of Islam. There is potential there for moderate and democratic Muslim rule... but it needs a lot of help to see the light of day.

As someone once said, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims". I use either "Arabs" or "Muslims" because:
a. Nearly ALL Arabs are Muslims.
b. Iran, being non-Arab, is a greater threat than all other Arab countries combined. I want to express appreciation to their vast, never-ending efforts to fight the evil western culture.

There is the potential, yea, but I don't see it happening in my time.
We should just detach from them, let them do whatever they want - though nukes are out of the game - and hope they will eventually evolve into democracies like Europe did.
Forcing it upon them is no good, it's like giving a monkey a fork and a knife.
But, being so politically correct on the other hand and oil hungry on the other, the western world will never really detach from the Arab countries.

 

[roee]

So, whilst Rabin proved himself a leader of vision, Arafat, Sharon, and Asad prefer conflict as it increases their powerbase.

Do you really believe that Rabin might have made things different?
The Palestinians came to the conclusion - encouraged by Israel's retreat from Lebanon - that they could achieve more by the use of terror, and not negotiation. It's a strategical decision, and not an outcome of anything.
Oslo was a huge mistake, a mistake we paid a huge price for.
Legitimizing Arafat, supplying them rifles, ignoring all the attacks that were happening since '94 (then the concept of suicide bombers came true), killing hundreds of civilians inside Israel.

Not only do the Palestinians need better leadership, so does Israel. Seems unlikely whilst the spiral of violence is fed by those who believe it sounds them. The sad thing is that Israel's position weakens over time.

Israel has had 4 prime ministers and 4 goverments since Rabin's assassination. Sharon had no chance of even being a minister of defense back in '95, but when you need to fight terror, I guess there is no one better than him - he nearly stopped it, bringing Hamas and their friends to their knees (admittedly with the rest of the Palestinians population).
So I guess he's fit for the current situation.
As I said before, Israel is historically a leftist nation, and we will probably - economical issues withstanding- return to being just that when the Palestinian issue is solved.

 

[fluff]

Do you really believe that Rabin might have made things different?
The Palestinians came to the conclusion - encouraged by Israel's retreat from Lebanon - that they could achieve more by the use of terror, and not negotiation. It's a strategical decision, and not an outcome of anything.
Oslo was a huge mistake, a mistake we paid a huge price for.
Legitimizing Arafat, supplying them rifles, ignoring all the attacks that were happening since '94 (then the concept of suicide bombers came true), killing hundreds of civilians inside Israel.

Rabin may have made that difference, after all he did seem to have the vision to realise he needed to negotiate with the Palestinians and although he disliked Arafat made the effort to build a relationship with him.

Stategically the Palestinians may have made a correct decision, but that also implies that Israel and Barak made a incorrect strategic decision and attempted to negotiate from a position of strength that was not genuine.

Israel has had 4 prime ministers and 4 goverments since Rabin's assassination. Sharon had no chance of even being a minister of defense back in '95, but when you need to fight terror, I guess there is no one better than him - he nearly stopped it, bringing Hamas and their friends to their knees (admittedly with the rest of the Palestinians population).
So I guess he's fit for the current situation.
As I said before, Israel is historically a leftist nation, and we will probably - economical issues withstanding- return to being just that when the Palestinian issue is solved.

I think history may show Sharon doing tremendous harm to the national cause of Israel. I also think it is a fallacy to assume that you can 'fight terrorism' with the policies of the Likud and then return to peace with Labour. Israel is fighting a war which they can only win by genocide, which would then almost certainly bring about the destruction of the state of Israel. The only realistic way forward is negotiation, but Likud historically has little time for realism.

In the long term you cannot control territory by oppressing and disenfranchising huge numbers of people. It failed in South Africa and it would fail on the West Bank and in Gaza.

 

[fluff]

I
As someone once said, "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims". I use either "Arabs" or "Muslims" because:

That'll be news to;

IRA,
UDF,
ETA,
Tamil Tigers,
Contras,
ANC,
Irgun,
Lehi

Do you think they should be told?

Or perhaps there is another common denominator.

There are one or two people in this forum who have a much better way than I of explaining specious reasoning. Lisa's rock of bear protection is a good one.

 

[Silver]

That'll be news to;

IRA,
UDF,
ETA,
Tamil Tigers,
Contras,
ANC,
Irgun,
Lehi

Do you think they should be told?

Or perhaps there is another common denominator.

There are one or two people in this forum who have a much better way than I of explaining specious reasoning. Lisa's rock of bear protection is a good one.

If you want, you can throw the people who bombed the King David Hotel into that list as well. I don't believe they were Muslim/Arab apes.

Off the top of my head, there is also the Red Brigade, Protestant terrorists in Ireland, Action Directe in France, the Red Army Faction, FARC, Shining Path. I'd keep going, but roee is going to ignore this anyways.

Oh, and Lisa's rock kept tigers away. The Bear Patrol kept the bears away

 

[roee]

First, I said "almost all".
Second, NONE of the terror organizations listed above was a menace to the western world as the Islamic ones are today. None of them had the nerve, skills, or number of members as the Islamic ones do. Most of them weren't supported by goverments as the Islamic ones do.
All of them had a specfic intent; What's the intent of Al Qaeda? Destruction of the western civilization?

Yea, go on, bury your head in the sand in the name of "anti-racism" and politically correctness and when you pull it out, you'll see nothing is left standing.

Ignoring, Silver?

 

[Silver]

First, I said "almost all".
Second, NONE of the terror organizations listed above was a menace to the western world as the Islamic ones are today. None of them had the nerve, skills, or number of members as the Islamic ones do. Most of them weren't supported by goverments as the Islamic ones do.
All of them had a specfic intent; What's the intent of Al Qaeda? Destruction of the western civilization?

Yea, go on, bury your head in the sand in the name of "anti-racism" and politically correctness and when you pull it out, you'll see nothing is left standing.

Ignoring, Silver?

So roee...how many Muslims and Arabs do we need to kill before we are safe? Maybe all of them, just to be sure, right? Did you see what fluff wrote a few comments ago? If you happen to "win" by commiting genocide, what good does that do you?

The sky is not falling. The world will not end. Al Qaeda will not destroy Western Civilization. And the solution to killing isn't more indiscriminate killing, unless you're intent on creating new threats. Every time a bulldozer takes down a house, you've probably implanted the seeds of a suicide bomber. Every time a laser guided bomb misses, the relatives of the "collateral damage" become much more inclined to hate you.

 

[SDH]

1. May I suggest you go and view the US hostages decapitation movies again, before you start humanizing them. NO ONE DOES SUCH **** BUT PRIMATES. Same for bombing buses, restaurants, using living bombs etc.
They are all showing they (BOTH Arabs and Muslims) are lagging behind the western values, thus rightly earning the title "primates". How else can you label them? Freedom fighters? Let me repeat this: There are places inside Israel that no sane Jew will travel to, because he'll get slaugthered. Do you have such places in the US? Even Harlem is not what it used to be.
Can you imagine a place in your own country travelling to would mean an almost certain death?

Really????????

Hmmm, let's look at history. Where did the term terorism come from? Post WWII Palestine. Who was the first group of people to practice modern terrorism for a political cause..........Jew/Isrealites against the British. The jews were bombing british official's schools, work places and homes. Killing in the street was a common occurance. As a matter of fact, one of your most famous priministers was the former leader of the biggest jewish underground terrorist organizations in the late 40's early 50's wrong? Check your history books, the real ones at a college level not the crap they teach us in grade school. So by your reasoning you guys are just as much animals as they are............

More proof........your only Priminister that really took a stand on peace was shot in the street like a dog by one of your own people!

You guys created the term........now pay back is a b*tch!

 

[fluff]

First, I said "almost all".
Second, NONE of the terror organizations listed above was a menace to the western world as the Islamic ones are today. None of them had the nerve, skills, or number of members as the Islamic ones do. Most of them weren't supported by goverments as the Islamic ones do.
All of them had a specfic intent; What's the intent of Al Qaeda? Destruction of the western civilization?

Yea, go on, bury your head in the sand in the name of "anti-racism" and politically correctness and when you pull it out, you'll see nothing is left standing.

Ignoring, Silver?

Having worked in London during IRA bombing campaigns I'd say they were a menace to that particular part of the western world. Their agenda was more limited.

The intent of Al-Qaeda is to remove Western influence, especially US from the Middle East. That are supported by some Islamic states is due to convergent interests, however none of these states endorsed 9/11.

I do not support terrorism in any form. I also do not think that the current approach of Israel will work and the US and the UK ain't helping the situation much by invading Iraq without UN support for reasons other than those stated.

All the terrorist groups in Islamic lands will be Muslims, it's where they come from and their circumstances rather than their religion that makes them terrorists. There are plenty of extreme Christians and Jews who espouse similarly extreme views to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, many of whom abuse religion in the name of power.

If you think attacking Islam will help you need to look much deeper at the causes of the current problems.

 

[roee]

Really????????

Hmmm, let's look at history. Where did the term terorism come from? Post WWII Palestine. Who was the first group of people to practice modern terrorism for a political cause..........Jew/Isrealites against the British. The jews were bombing british official's schools, work places and homes. Killing in the street was a common occurance. As a matter of fact, one of your most famous priministers was the former leader of the biggest jewish underground terrorist organizations in the late 40's early 50's wrong? Check your history books, the real ones at a college level not the crap they teach us in grade school. So by your reasoning you guys are just as much animals as they are............

More proof........your only Priminister that really took a stand on peace was shot in the street like a dog by one of your own people!

You guys created the term........now pay back is a b*tch!

No one ever justified them, although they were never targeting civilians, and the newborn state actually fought them at more than one occasion (The "Altalena" weapons ship is one example). Those who did target civilians did it based on their own will, not by any directing hand. The Lechi terroist organization was IMMEDIATELY outlawed in the new state of Israel.
Anyway, terrorism wasn't introduced to the area by them, guess you never heard of the "Fad'ayun" Arabian brigades whose sole purpose was killing jewish civilians.

Read those books a little more, eh?

 

[N8 v2.0]

You guys need to slow it down so Changleen can play. Poor guys is in a whole other time zone...