Serious Chat > Palestine

This topic has been autolocked for inactivity. If you have something to add, Click Here to request it is re-opened.

#666457 by unknown[77969] at 2006-08-14 01:38:48 (6 years ago) - [Report]

basher99 wrote:

As for skk bashing America, i cannot speak for him but i would say from my interpretation he is criticising American Foreign policy and that is distinctly different from attacking the citizens of America who have nothing directly to do with this. Why people cannot distinguish from critique of governments and the people of a nation really puzzles me. If someone slams Blair and his cabinet or any other political party in the UK, i would not take as a direct attack on me or the British people.

Whether he was bashing the government or the people is irrelevant.
He still has not posted a "concise" explanation of how the US created the problem in the first place.
Neither the American people, government, or foreign policies created this middle east "mess".

If his post was a critique, he sure has hell hasn't proved anything because it was a baseless critique.

I hope you don't agree with his stupid conclusion that America created this problem too.

#666489 by VeryBadGuy Donor

(Mad Ultra Mod) at 2006-08-14 02:38:06 (6 years ago) - [Report]

Ganth I know we didnt create the problem..but we do help to perpetuate it and sustain it with our continued blind, unfailing support for Israel. Do not mistake that as me supporting the Palestinians in the way that they are going about getting their land back at all. The fact that the US has used it's veto to block unbiased resolutions against Israel is nothing short of appalling.

Resolution Vetoed by the USA regarding Israel...

# 1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
# 1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
# 1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
# 1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
# 1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
# 1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
# 1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
# 1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.
# 1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
# 1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
# 1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
# 1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
# 1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.
# 1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
# 1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
# 1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
# 1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
# 1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
# 1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq.
# 1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
# 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983). 1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
# 1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
# 1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
# 1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
# 1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
# 1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
# 1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places.
# 1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
# 1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
# 1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
# 1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon.
# 2 resolutions. 1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
# 1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
# 1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
# 1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
# 1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
# 1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.
# 1998 resolutions (1992 to 1999). 2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

I can sit here and think yeah...maybe some of them were biased towards Israel and should have been vetoed or reworded...but all of them? And those are the ones that were vetoed...doesn't even include the 66 resolutions they have completely ignored...didn't we bomb the living sh*t out of Saddam for "ignoring UN resolutions?"

Couple this with the billions of dollars we have thrown at them over the years makes me so angry that sometimes I cannot even speak.

Last edited by VeryBadGuy at 2006-08-14 02:43:32

#666523 by unknown[125834] at 2006-08-14 04:25:25 (6 years ago) - [Report]

basher99 wrote:

America in my view should stop all the military aid to Israel. The billions saved could be invested back into America through schools,health care etc. It is American tax-payers money and this should be spent on them not Israeli weapons. Only humanitarium aid should be given to Israel.

Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

Amazing how much usa care about israel. Israel is simply using usa. Wonder why they give them so much money. The United States does not need Israel, israel is using america, simple as that. For those who doesnt know this, usa have a big role on this conflict. Before asking why they have big role on this conflict, read this thread again.

#666545 by unknown[77969] at 2006-08-14 05:46:09 (6 years ago) - [Report]

Saying the US has a role in the conflict is different from saying they started it or created the conflict.

#666614 by negge (Power User) at 2006-08-14 11:40:44 (6 years ago) - [Report]

Holy shit VeryBadGuy I never knew about those facts! Damn, the US is really making this world a worse place.

#666637 by VeryBadGuy Donor

(Mad Ultra Mod) at 2006-08-14 12:08:21 (6 years ago) - [Report]

negge wrote:

Holy shit VeryBadGuy I never knew about those facts! Damn, the US is really making this world a worse place.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that...because believe it or not the US does more good than you can imagine. My brother was in the Marines for 6 years and spent 99% of his deployment doing humanitarian relief missions etc. While most of the foreign aid that the US gives out goes to Israel they still donate millions upon millions to poorer nations. Maybe it is a pittance of their GDP in comparison to other countries but it's still more money than any other country...I just wish we would cut back the aid to Israel (who blatently does not need it) and give it to other countries that do.

But as for resolutions being vetoed....those are just the ones involving Israel/Palestine...the list is a lot bigger...apparently the only other UN security council member to veto resolutions more than once was Russia...with a whopping 2 vetos.

#666659 by DrevoKocour (Power User) at 2006-08-14 13:03:11 (6 years ago) - [Report]

(sorry for the edited post, it was written in a hurry and I didn't read other stuff properly)

On the other hand, the list of those resolutions vetoed also shows how inefficient UN is, or can be. And those are just a few examples in its history.

However I don't think the sometimes unbelievable US support and vetoes make the situation that much worse or prolong the conflict. As VBG pointed out Israel has ignored resolutions that weren't vetoed, so I guess without the US veto they would ignore several more of them. As for the perhaps excessive material/financial support, I doubt it would actually help the situation over there if it was lower (or non-existent), quite the contrary, as it would become more desperate for Israel (the same goes for political pressure that would go together with Israel ignoring the UN more). And apparently the US leadership considers its support for Israel worth it, whether because of a grand conspiracy or because of the region being a proxy war front for them against their would be opponents, I don't know, but I'd bet on the latter.

Last edited by DrevoKocour at 2006-08-14 13:27:35

#666683 by unknown[132664] at 2006-08-14 14:02:04 (6 years ago) - [Report]

VBG is it fair when you fight an enemy with no address, follow the book blindly? The Kippur war was our last war against a real army. Since then, we are being attacked by an enemy which doesn't have to obey any rules and got no moral limits.. Do you really think it can be done? The American vetoes in indirect way balance this situation.

All I can say about the American aid is I wish we won't be needing it. I rather the money goes to more African countries or Americans but reality is different.

I wanna point out that Israel is very contributing country. very advanced in agriculture and some say leading in that area. Many African countries send students to Israel(The Faculty of Agriculture in Rehovot) where they learn the latest technological developments of agriculture. I met many Ethiopian(non Jewish) students who were sent by their country. Such knowledge in African countries is gold.

#666726 by unknown[77969] at 2006-08-14 16:03:18 (6 years ago) - [Report]

VeryBadGUy wrote:

But as for resolutions being vetoed....those are just the ones involving Israel/Palestine...the list is a lot bigger...apparently the only other UN security council member to veto resolutions more than once was Russia...with a whopping 2 vetos.

Definitly not true.
Since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, the Soviet Union and Russia have used their veto at the Security Council 120 times, the United States 76 times, Britain 32, France 18 and China only 5 times.

#666732 by negge (Power User) at 2006-08-14 16:06:25 (6 years ago) - [Report]

VeryBadGUy wrote:

negge wrote:

Holy shit VeryBadGuy I never knew about those facts! Damn, the US is really making this world a worse place.

Wikipedia wrote:

Decisions in the 15-member Security Council on all substantive matters�for example, a decision calling for direct measures related to the settlement of a dispute�require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote�a veto�by a permanent member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes. Abstention is not regarded as a veto. Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used 5 vetoes; France, 18; Russia/USSR, 122; the United Kingdom, 32; and the United States, 81. The majority of the USSR vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence, and the numbers since 1984 have been: China, 2; France, 3; Russia/USSR, 4; the United Kingdom, 10; and the United States, 43.

Russia/USSR has used their veto power way more than 2 more times than the US, according to this.

#666748 by unknown[77969] at 2006-08-14 16:28:43 (6 years ago) - [Report]

And before someone starts bashing America and goes on an anti-american crusade again, It was the Soviet Union that created this UN Security Council veto rights policy.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12698.html

Wikipedia wrote:

The Soviet Union took an active role in the United Nations and other major international and regional organizations. At the behest of the United States, the Soviet Union took a role in the establishment of the UN in 1945. The Soviet Union insisted that there be veto rights in the Security Council and that alterations in the United Nations Charter be unanimously approved by the five permanent members.

#666752 by basher99 (Power User) at 2006-08-14 16:34:52 (6 years ago) - [Report]

I hope you don't mind Mbodnar but i have used your words but "amended" a few...

The American Neo-cons don't care whether your friend or foe, they will carry out their own agenda whether it's for or against an enemy. The Neo-cons hate the Arabs and vice-versa but the Neo-cons are being blinded by Christian fundamentalism.

The Neo-cons are using christian Fundamentalism as a weapon to fool and lead the Americans to their own slavery under Fascist Rule. Almost every gov. in the Middle-East is controlled by American Puppet regimes who are Sunni Muslims and are in the minority. The majority of these populations which reside in these countries are Shiite muslims, but remember this they are Arab Shiites not Westerners, and believe me that makes the greatest difference of all. Do you know that during the rein of Bush the only people that were persecuted in the ME were the Arabs. that's right, the Jews who lived in Palestine were not persecuted under Bush, neither were the Israelis who were part of the illegal settlements, that were living in Palestine. The Neo-cons will stop at nothing in trying to overthrow these Mid-east nations.

The Neo-cons and Zionists have always believed in their own percieved destiny. But also down thru history the Persians were conquered but they always have been able to rebuild their empire. The Greeks under Alexander the Great conquered Persia, after the Greeks, the Romans conquered them, then the Turks, and thru all of this Persia was able to overcome these great powers and was able to rebuild itself, now though Neo-con Christian Zionists have resurfaced and are doing the same kind of stick diplomacy in order to achieve their goals. The difference today is the Neo-cons are using religion and military might to defeat it's Arab enemies and it's not apparently working, just look at Hezbollah,Iraq and Afghanistan who refuse to be a lap dog slave of the West lickings Bush,Blair and Israel's boots.

If you are not paranoid of the rise of a nuclear American, Israeli empire you ought to be (like most Arab states and oil rich nations). This has happened and gas prices have steadily increased since the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan but this will be the least of our hardships if the US attack Iran.
:-P

#666762 by unknown[77969] at 2006-08-14 16:41:08 (6 years ago) - [Report]

basher99 wrote:

Almost every gov. in the Middle-East is controlled by American Puppet regimes who are Sunni Muslims and are in the minority. The majority of these populations which reside in these countries are Shiite muslims

Care to provide some examples?

#666796 by mbodnar (Airborne Mod) at 2006-08-14 17:25:36 (6 years ago) - [Report]

Ganth wrote:

basher99 wrote:

Care to provide some examples?

I agree. Basher changed all the principals but unfortunatly when you do that the entire statement becomes hogwash. Good try though.

#666800 by basher99 (Power User) at 2006-08-14 17:33:28 (6 years ago) - [Report]

Ganth wrote:

basher99 wrote:

Care to provide some examples?

Egypt,Jordan,Saudi Arabia and before you become anal it was a play on Mbodnar's words. I was going to mention this and i changed as few words as possible (otherwise i would have written the whole text myself for crying out loud) but i assumed most people would see the point i.e. the tongue smilie at the end. Would you fell better if i edit my post for you?

basher99 wrote:

Alot of governments in the Middle-East are American Puppet regimes

There you go give one browny point to yourself and a slap on my wrists. :ras:

Oh and no i do not think the US was directly responsible for the conflict but they did give the green light and supplied bombs,etc so they were complicit. Also it is obvious that they wanted Israel to weaken or destroy Hezbollah paving the way at least partly if they decide to attack Iran.

#666815 by VeryBadGuy Donor

(Mad Ultra Mod) at 2006-08-14 18:00:11 (6 years ago) - [Report]

negge wrote:

Russia/USSR has used their veto power way more than 2 more times than the US, according to this.

Sorry I was only speaking of recent history.

And even so while concentrating on the amount of times Russia has used it's veto power Ganth has completely ignored the fact that no other country has used it's veto power almost exclusively to protect a nation that doesn't need nor deserve to be protected.

#666824 by unknown[77969] at 2006-08-14 18:14:59 (6 years ago) - [Report]

basher99 wrote:

Ganth wrote:

basher99 wrote:

Care to provide some examples?

I only wanted to know of what countries sunni muslims are in power with a shite population majority.
So the president of Eqypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are all sunni muslims ruling with a shiite majority in their country?

#666868 by basher99 (Power User) at 2006-08-14 19:36:21 (6 years ago) - [Report]

Ganth wrote:

basher99 wrote:

Ganth wrote:

basher99 wrote:

Care to provide some examples?

Ganth are you being deliberately obtuse or wanting to press home a point which i have answered in my last post? My penultimate post was a play on words or to be more specific a parody, and the more words that are changed the less it becomes this.

If you wish to research ME countries then go ahead but i am not yours or anyones nurse maid.

I did not change the principles but the parties to show how easily Mbodnar's comments could give a completely different viewpoint with very few changes. A parody if you will, and to demonstrate how mbodnar's common thread of Iran as the evil empire in his comments is based on paranoia and prejudice IMO not on cold hard facts,i.e. who has invaded two nations in recent history, or who has used nuclear weapons on another nation? Does this mean the US are an evil empire? Well no!!! That is a stupid generalisation just as Mbodnar's is.

Compare the two. I hope this clears this up and the oneupmanship is getting tedious:

mbodnar wrote:

The Persians don't care whether your friend or foe, they will carry out their own agenda whether it's for or against an enemy. The Persians hate the Arabs and vice-versa but the Arabs are being blinded by Islam.

The Persians are using Islamic Fundementalism as a weapon to fool and lead the Arabs to their own slavery under Persian Rule. Almost every gov. in the Middle-East is controlled by Sunni Muslims who are in the minority. The majority of these populations which reside in these countries are Shiite muslims, but remember this they are Arab Shiites not Persian, and believe me that makes the greatest difference of all. Do you know that during the rein of Khomeni the only people that were persecuted in Persia were the Arabs. that's right, the Jews who lived in Persia were not persecuted under Khomeni, neither were the Americans who weren't part of the embassy staff, that were living in Persia. The Persians will stop at nothing in trying to overthrow these Mid-east nations.

The Persians have always believed in their own percieved destiny. Down thru history the Persians were conquered but they always have been able to rebuild their empire. The Greeks under Alexander the Great conquered Persia, after the Greeks, the Romans conquered them, then the Turks, and thru all of this Persia was able to overcome these great powers and was able to rebuild itself, now Persia has resurfaced and are doing the same kind of carrot and stick diplomacy in order to achieve it's goals. The diffenence today is the Persians are using religion to defeat it's Arab enemies and it's working, just look at Hezbullah a lap dog slave of Persia lickings Persian boots.

If your not paranoid of the rise of a nuclear Persian empire (like Tony, George, and myself) you ought to be. If this happens $3/gallon gas will be the least of our hardships.

basher99 wrote:

The American Neo-cons don't care whether your friend or foe, they will carry out their own agenda whether it's for or against an enemy. The Neo-cons hate the Arabs and vice-versa but the Neo-cons are being blinded by Christian fundamentalism.

The Neo-cons are using christian Fundamentalism as a weapon to fool and lead the Americans to their own slavery under Fascist Rule. Almost every gov. in the Middle-East is controlled by American Puppet regimes who are Sunni Muslims and are in the minority. The majority of these populations which reside in these countries are Shiite muslims, but remember this they are Arab Shiites not Westerners, and believe me that makes the greatest difference of all. Do you know that during the rein of Bush the only people that were persecuted in the ME were the Arabs. that's right, the Jews who lived in Palestine were not persecuted under Bush, neither were the Israelis who were part of the illegal settlements, that were living in Palestine. The Neo-cons will stop at nothing in trying to overthrow these Mid-east nations.

The Neo-cons and Zionists have always believed in their own percieved destiny. But also down thru history the Persians were conquered but they always have been able to rebuild their empire. The Greeks under Alexander the Great conquered Persia, after the Greeks, the Romans conquered them, then the Turks, and thru all of this Persia was able to overcome these great powers and was able to rebuild itself, now though Neo-con Christian Zionists have resurfaced and are doing the same kind of stick diplomacy in order to achieve their goals. The difference today is the Neo-cons are using religion and military might to defeat it's Arab enemies and it's not apparently working, just look at Hezbollah,Iraq and Afghanistan who refuse to be a lap dog slave of the West lickings Bush,Blair and Israel's boots.

If you are not paranoid of the rise of a nuclear American, Israeli empire you ought to be (like most Arab states and oil rich nations). This has happened and gas prices have steadily increased since the invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan but this will be the least of our hardships if the US attack Iran.
:-P

#667137 by unknown[77969] at 2006-08-15 04:24:17 (6 years ago) - [Report]

basher99 wrote:

I understand it was just a parody.
I just wanted to understand a part of it...which was this.

Quote:

I wanted you to provide current examples of Sunni leaders ruling in a shiite majority population.
They must be "puppet regimes" as well.

You later gave examples as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (maybe you didn't understand my original post and were just giving examples of puppet regimes in general?), but I specifically wanted examples of "Sunni leaders governing a Shiite majority population country"

Is the President of Egypt a Sunni muslim? Is the majority muslim population shiite?
Is King Abdullah a Sunni muslim rulling in a shiite muslim majority in Jordan?
Are the Saudi leaders Sunni muslims ruling in a Shiite muslim majority population in Saudi Arabia?

I only wanted to know those things.
But since you don't want to be my house maid, I guess I'll research it myself as I type.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa … os/jo.html
Jordan has a 92% Sunni majority.
I don't know if King Abdullah is a Shiite or Sunni muslim himself, but if he's Sunni there's nothing wrong in it based on his country's population.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa … os/sa.html
Saudi Arabia says 100% muslim...Doesn't say Sunni or Shiite.
I haven't found anything on the Saudi king's religion either.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa … os/eg.html
Egypt has a Muslim (mostly Sunni) 90% majority.
I haven't seen anything saying "Hosni Mubarak" is a Sunni muslim, but if there is; I don't see anything wrong with that based on his country's muslim population.

The only recent example I can think of is Iraq which was a US puppet regime in the 80's.
Saddam was a Sunni, and the majority of the muslim populations in Iraq were shiite.

Those are the types of examples I wanted you to list or show...
Sunnis ruling over a Shiite majority muslim population.
They must be US "puppets" as well.

VeryBadGuy wrote:

And even so while concentrating on the amount of times Russia has used it's veto power Ganth has completely ignored the fact that no other country has used it's veto power almost exclusively to protect a nation that doesn't need nor deserve to be protected.

OK...I have only said two things in this thread

1.) US didn't create this middle east problem as most people were implying here.
2.) Russia has more vetoes than the US.
3.) The remaining posts are between both me and Basher99's rant.

I never said that "Israel needs to be protected by US vetoes" or "The US vetoes are not exclusively protecting Israel" like you're implying here.

If I've ever said "The US vetoes are not exclusively protecting Israel", I'd like you to point out where I said that.

#667179 by unknown[9349] at 2006-08-15 07:10:18 (6 years ago) - [Report]

VeryBadGuy:

Quote:

Do not mistake that as me supporting the Palestinians in the way that they are going about getting their land back at all.

This is always a complete mistery to me. So, what is it that you don't like about "the way" the Palestenians are going about getting their land back? Would you do it differently? If so, how?

Statements like this just make absolutely no sense to me. How can you pretend to understand the Palestenian situation (socially and politically), but then cop out by condemning the tactics? Is the media so powerful that even people who support the cause somehow think the method of gaining freedom is immoral but the method of the occupation is less so?

There are two points I'd like to make here:

1. When will you people realize that the Palestenians are on the defensive, and have absolutely no real way to hurt Israel? When someone threatens your life or your family or whatever, will you really make sure that your defensive tactics to protect yourself or regain your home or family are acceptable by some outside moral ruling body? Do rules of engagement have any meaning to the defender? NO, and they shouldn't, its ludicrous to think otherwise. Rules of war and conflict are there only for one reason, to make sure that first world countries at least don't committ grave genocide or take extreme measures when they decide that a poor and defenseless country needs a lesson (usually the lesson is how to properly trade goods with the said 1st world country, when the people of the third world country democratically decide to change their economic system). The rules are certainly not there for the defending nation/peoples, it just makes no sense to even remotely think this way.

It is the defenders duty to use any and all means necesarry to protect whatever it is that is under attack, as the offender is always in the wrong (even when the offensive force is truly morally superior, this applies, but this is rarely the case in any conflict).

2. The above being said, it is amazing to me that even if one takes the offence/defence out of the equasion, one would still feel that the tactics of the Palestenians are less moral and more cowardly. This propaganda is obviously working as most people think this way.

How it is more cowardly to sacrifice your life and kill a few enemy civilians to make a point of resistance when weapons of war are unavailable and you're a grave underdog and under oppresion, then to sit in a comfy chair pushing a button which launches a missile and kills indiscriminantly, in much larger numbers, without responsibility (just taking orders sir) is way beyond my head. I will never understand this.

How is trying to defend your family and land by using tactics that have an emotional response in the enemy less moral then attacking and oppresing a whole nation of people from a safe distance, using advanced weapons, with no other agenda then to keep a population in perpetual poverty?

I beg you to think people. Killing 100 civilians is always worse then killing 10. Mass killing from a safe distance using technology is always more cowardly then sacrificing yourself not knowing if any damage or any effect will be felt by the enemy. These points are true even when we leave out the reason both sides are in this conflict, meaning offence vs. defence, which should make it obvious to anyone who has any doubts.

Quote:

If you think any of the true rulers of the world (those that keep our political/economic system intact in the fact of any democratic decision by the population), the proponents of one world government and new world order, have absolutely anything to do with Christianity, think again. They are way too smart to hold any kind of organized religious beliefs (although many if not all are part of organizations which some may call religoius or spiritual).

Quote:

The Neo-cons are using christian Fundamentalism as a weapon to fool and lead the Americans to their own slavery under Fascist Rule.

I should have read your whole message first before responding to your first paragraph, indeed you may be on the right track!

#667182 by unknown[105549] at 2006-08-15 07:20:13 (6 years ago) - [Report]

Trypt wrote:

2. The above being said, it is amazing to me that even if one takes the offence/defence out of the equasion, one would still feel that the tactics of the Palestenians are less moral and more cowardly. This propaganda is obviously working as most people think this way.

How can you then justify that there is Palestinians that actually want to live under Israeli government?
Because it is democracy, explain that to me then.

And how can you even say it is propaganda?
It doesn't take many brain cells to understand that Terrorist attacks against shall never ever be accepted.

Of course Israel is not gods best Childs, but frankly it is far beyond comparable to what the Palestine�s are doing.

#667305 by DragonWar (Power User) at 2006-08-15 14:36:41 (6 years ago) - [Report]

How about thinking outside the box on more specifically Jerusalem?

Make Jerusalem a International City beloning to no one. Convert at least half of Jerusalem to hotesl, time shares, universities, museums, churches, synagues, temples, mosques, etc. Have International Police Force, UN Solders, and swiss guards to patrol the city. It suppose to be the holiess city in the world. The ultimate freedom of religious area of the world. Allow anyone to visit, to pray, to sightsee etc. It is home of 3 religions, so anyone should be allow to enjoy the holiness cities.

This can alleviate some of the tension.

Last edited by DragonWar at 2006-08-15 14:45:56

#667306 by basher99 (Power User) at 2006-08-15 14:38:46 (6 years ago) - [Report]

Ganth wrote:

I understand it was just a parody.

Really? Then what are you persisting with this? A parody is imitating the writing of someone to show how absurd the whole premise is, which is sometimes satirical. It can never be 100% accurate portrayal of a subject and that is not its purpose. It is not a factual account, how the hell can it be. So all your statistics are pointless and miss the point (again). I apologise for using this style of writing on serious chat as it probably not appropiate, and will as is evident bring out the issue of anal retention or childish point scoring.

Parody
The imitative use of the words, style, attitude, tone and ideas of an author in such a way as to make them ridiculous. This is usually achieved by exaggerating certain traits...

Just answer me this, when did you read or watch a parody and believe it was a documentation of fact or take it literally? You would have to be a completely off your rocker to think that.

For example:
"The American Neo-cons don't care whether your friend or foe, they will carry out their own agenda whether it's for or against an enemy".
Well that is a simplification and to be more accurate: it is if Neo-cons perceive you as an enemy which usually relates to a country not serving American interests and does not take into account for example the influence of Israel and other lobbying groups including corporate.

"The Neo-cons are using christian Fundamentalism as a weapon to fool and lead the Americans to their own slavery under Fascist Rule".
Again this does not include the other influences on their policies. Neo-cons have their own twisted agenda but it is not insulated from other powerful groups as well as Christian Evangelists.

The Christian Evangelical right wing who are mostly nuttier than a fruitbat with their prophecies of armageddon. For example john Hagee is a staunch Republican with 18,000 members. They see the ME as the catalyst for their loopy doomsday predictions. This is why they are backing Israel and could not give a damn about Palestinians or Lebanese. Now that is a real Christian, supporting the killing of Christians in Lebanon. If Evangelical nutters want to meet their maker and believe this then fine. I would say go ahead and don't forget to shut the door when you go but don't take me with you wackos.
http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=606
http://www.evangelicalright.com/2006/08 … gee_e.html

The real issue is though, just how much these and other groups influence the US government foreign policy.

so if i included the above it would hardly be a parody...

Ganth wrote:

You later gave examples as Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (maybe you didn't understand my original post and were just giving examples of puppet regimes in general?)

Well yes, that is exactly what i did, and i also said:

basher99 wrote:

Would you fell better if i edit my post for you?
Alot of governments in the Middle-East are American Puppet regimes
There you go give one browny point to yourself and a slap on my wrists.

And still you miss the point...

(Incidently as you wish to be pedantic, i said nurse maid not house maid.)

#667314 by VeryBadGuy Donor

(Mad Ultra Mod) at 2006-08-15 15:12:55 (6 years ago) - [Report]

DragonWar wrote:

The original plan for the partition of Palestine called for Jerusalem to be made an International city...and Israel and Palestine two seperate countries...if both of them had accepted this comprimise we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in now. Want to guess who agreed to this and who didn't and then attacked the other..thus losing most of the land given to them and Jerusalem?

#667330 by gasto Donor

(Power User) at 2006-08-15 15:49:32 (6 years ago) - [Report]

VeryBadGUy wrote:

But why would someone ever want to share territory with someone else?

edit: BTW

UN wrote:

After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled.

UN wrote:

In September 1983, the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, which was widely attended, adopted inter alia the Geneva Declaration containing the following principles: the need to oppose and reject the establishment of settlements in the occupied territory and actions taken by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem

So, the way I see it, no one 'lose' anything. Someone occupied it.

Last edited by gasto at 2006-08-15 15:55:31

This topic has been autolocked for inactivity. If you have something to add, Click Here to request it is re-opened.

1 2 3 4 5
<< Prev Next >>

This topic is locked; no new posts are allowed.