Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through April 06, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru June 2002 » Archive Thru April 2002 » Solution to the Middle East Problem » Archive through April 06, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
_Blackjack
Posted on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 5:40 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Unfortunately, Arafat is not that person for the Palestinians. He is a terrorist.



Likewise, Sharon is not that man for the Israelis, for the exact same reason.
_Blackjack
Posted on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 5:38 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Maybe a baby isn't but if you check out a Palestinian school book their is no country of Israel on the maps. Palestinians are taught from a young age that the Israelis must be driven into the sea and banished from the Holy Land.



Cite me a reference for this claim, please.


Quote:

I have never read a credible source for similar brain washing in Israeli schools to kill Palestinians.



And yet, somehow, the Israelis still manage to kill more Palestinians, by a large margin, than the other way around.

I can produce dozens of quotes from radical Israeli leaders calling for the extermination of total expulsion of the Palestinian people, but I know that is not the sentiment held by most Israelis. Can you please consider the possibility that those Palestinians who chose to murder Israelis are likewise an exception?
_Blackjack
Posted on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 5:29 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Since the Arabs consider Jews to be heathens in the empire of Islam, they have never recognized Israel's right to exist and 4 Arab countries proceeded to invade Israel on the very day of its independence.



Muslims do not consider Jews "heathens" (mushrik). They consider Jews (and Christians) to be fellow "peoples of the book" (ahlu l-kitab) and welcomed them in their society for most of their history. The Jews flourished in the Muslim world when they were being persecuted and burned in the Christian world. It was not until the Zionist ovement made clear its intentions to displace Palestinians from their land that hostilities developed.

(Interestingly, the first anti-Zionist violence in Palestine was at the hands of Arab CHRISTIANS, not Arab Muslims...)


Quote:

If your neighbor continues to walk through his open gate weekly to kick you in the nuts, only to have you kick his ass all the way back into his house, do you not think about taking possession of his gate to try and refrain him from doing it again?



You left out the part where you stole the house from the neighbor's brother and make him sleep in the shed out back.
_Blackjack
Posted on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 5:00 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Is that a rule written somewhere?



Er, yeah, I'm pretty sure it's in the United Nations Charter, in the whole bit about all peoples having the right to self-determination. Which would explain why the United Nations recognized the Occupied Territories as a by-rights Palestinian State.


Quote:

It also depends on who wins the war, do you think the Nazis were going to give back any land they conquered? Was that not one of the reasons they started the war in the first place. Did the Russians return the lands they "liberated" in WWII, or did they install puppet governments for a de facto expansion of the Soviet Union.



So you're comparing the Israelis to the Nazis and the Soviets? Not the best way to strengthen your argument.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 2:51 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Elbongo,

You say Arafat does not accept the right of Israel to exist well can I refer you to a letter sent by Arafat to Rabin on 09/09/93.

"Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognises the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338...

...In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid.

Sincerely, Yasser Arafat
Chairman, The Palestine Liberation Organization"

I challenge you to show me Sharon publicly acknowledging the right of a sovereign state of Palestine to exist.

Hobgoblin
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Saturday, April 6, 2002 - 12:49 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Elbongo,

If the Israelis did not forcibly take Palestinian land (with the collusion of the West) then how do you explain their presence there? Are they occupying a portion of the globe where there were no people there before they arrived? Did the people who were living there invite them in willingly and then volunteer to up sticks and live in overcrowded refugee camps?

The West had no right to carve up a piece of the middle-east with no regard for the wishes of the majority living there. The people who were displaced by this action have EVERY RIGHT to fight back.

As for your comment that "Arafat is not that person for the Palestinians. He is a terrorist." No, he is not (call him an ex-terrorist if you may). And what is Sharon? Are his past attrocities to be overlooked simply because (like Miladic, Milosevic and Hitler) he wore an Israeli army uniform when his heinous acts were carried out? Perhaps we could view his brutal slaughtering ofthousands of women and children in Sabra and Shatilla (there were no 'terrorists' in these camps as the 'terrorists' were all in Beiruit at the time) as a 'pre-emptive strike' against the possibility of future generations of extremists being born?

As to Palestinians not accepting Israel's right to exist, well if you were living in squallor in a refugee camp in Gaza after everything you ever owned was taken from you and given to Israelis and they've treated you like scum ever since, perhaps then you wouldn't be rushing to say that Israel has every right to keep what it took from you.

Anyway Arafat has accepted Israel's right to exist, he has said as much and was negotiating a way forward until Sharon decided he would have none of it. And what about Palestine's right to exist? Sharon and his kind do not accept the right of a sovereign nation of Palestine to exist. He want's to drive them out and destroy forever any possibility of there ever being any state of Palestine.

As for his current action, sealing off Palestinian towns, banning media presence, allowing nothing except his troops to go in or out, systematically going from house to house, do we really think ordinary Palestinians have nothing to fear from him? I just hope that when his 'operation' ceases we do not find mass slaughter of innocents, but judging on his track record we should be very concerned indeed.

As to his own released footage of some Palestinians in these towns firing back at Israelis as being justification for his actions there, well if tanks and soldiers from a foreign hostile nation invaded my country, smashing up everything in sight, sytematically destroying homes, property (and no doubt killing people) what would I do? If I had access to a gun I fucking use it.

Hobgoblin
Head_Prosthesis
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 8:58 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yes a drink to drinking, hear hear!
Head_Prosthesis
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 8:57 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

They have Arak. They don't need our expensive liquor.
Elbongo
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 8:56 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Who isn't for peace? The problem is the only way some people accept peace is at the end of the proverbial gun barrel.

It is a sad World. I drink a toast to Peace in the Middle East.

Salute
Robertsmith
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 8:49 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I say we share some of our absinthe with those over there who are for peace, and maybe that will help move the peace process along.
Elbongo
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 8:42 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Raschied,

I still do not see you point on forcibly occupying someone else's land. After the points you offered on the rocky start of the conditions leading up to the UN Partition act, the result was the Arabs (who were members of the UN and involved in the partitioning) basically lost out on what they wanted by a majority vote.

Instead of being a good member states and abiding by the consensus of an organization they belonged to, they chose to invade Israel on their very day of Independence. The Palestinians were most definitely aligned with their 4 Arab neighbors who invaded Israel. The end fact was the Arabs got their ass kicked. And as for the Arab section of the UN Partition act, too fricking bad as it became a spoil of the war.

The Palestinians made war, got their ass kicked, and lost their land (refer to War 101). This was an error to be learned again by several Arab states after the 1967 war. A position I totally agree with as a person with a military background and an understanding of World politics.

"If you want to talk peace we might give you back part or all of what we took, depending on what you have to offer."
Raschied
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 8:13 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"I'm not sure what you mean by "decide to forcibly occupate someone else's homeland"? Israel, as well as an Arab section, was created by the UN in the Partition of 1947."

Palestine was under international rule according to the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.

In 1917, the British Foreign secretary declared that the royal government approved of establishing Palestine as a homeland for Jews, provided "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

It wasn't until 1919 that the Palestinian people got a voice together to express their opposition to the Balfour Declaration.

1936 saw a general strike by Palestinians over confiscation of land.

In 1937, the Peel commission saw that the situation was unsolvable, and the only way to bring peace was to seperate the Palestinians and the Jews into different regions, with the holy sites to be administered by an international commitee.

In 1939 (I think - I'm doing this from memory) The British curtailed Jewish immigration into the area until further notice, seeing that the massive immigration would not hold the Jews to their regions for long.

In 1945, Terrorist groups like Irgun Zvei Leumi and the Stern Gang began pressuring the British government to open immigration again.

When the UN took over the problem in 1947, they also recommended a seperation of Palestine and Jewish land areas. As the British were pulling out in 1948, violence was high on both sides. The Zionist leaders chose this moment to declare an independent state, which resulted in war.
Elbongo
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 7:48 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

We need another Buddha, another Jesus...


Buddha is welcome to show up but if Jesus shows up I think that means it is the end of the World, and I'm not ready yet as I still have half a bottle of Wolfie La Blue and 3/4ths of green.

I also have several canoeing trips planned starting this month and running through the Fall so we need no second coming at this time.

On the flip-side, if a person was Jewish, I could understand them wanting Christ to appear.
Elbongo
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 7:30 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Just so- they want to stop them geurilla attacks.

Is there a way, do you think, besides extermination?


Yes. A real leader with the interest of the his people at heart would make the tough decisions needed for long term prosperity of his people, to include relations with their neighbors. Unfortunately, Arafat is not that person for the Palestinians. He is a terrorist.

A good related example of how a leader makes the right decision for his country is when the leader of Israel (21 JUN 48) sank an Israeli ship in the Tel Aviv harbor loaded with 900 men and many arms. This ship was coming to resupply the Irgun faction which had fought bravely in the War of Independence (14 MAY 48) for Israel, but after the war balked at being rolled into a secular IDF.

Was this a popular decision with the Israeli populace? No. Was it needed for the long term survival of Israel? IMHO yes.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 7:06 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Just so- they want to stop them geurilla attacks.

Is there a way, do you think, besides extermination?
Elbongo
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 6:45 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

You are definitely right in that both parties have blood on their hands. It is also correct that the Palestinians would like to eradicate the Israelis, as they have claimed so as recently as this week in a NY Times article. And I also agree that the Palestinians, as well as the rest of the Arab World, lack the power to eradicate Israel.

As far as the Israelis wanting to exterminate the Palestinians I don't see it that way, but rather they are tired of suicide bombers attacking their civilians and are attempting to put so much pressure on the Palestine Authority that they reconsider offers for a cease fire.

"Babies getting blown to bits cannot be considered politically oriented." Maybe a baby isn't but if you check out a Palestinian school book their is no country of Israel on the maps. Palestinians are taught from a young age that the Israelis must be driven into the sea and banished from the Holy Land. I have never read a credible source for similar brain washing in Israeli schools to kill Palestinians. Until the Palestinians accept that Israel has a right to exist as a country in land mandated to it by International consensus, their babies have no chance for a life anyway (unless they emigrate).
Destiny
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 6:35 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

We should just drop X into the all water sources of the Middle East and then let them negotiate. Can you imagine Arafat, with his head on Sharon's shoulder and feeling the hair on his arms?
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 6:23 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

If the Palestinians were saints, or the Israelis were...

They all have bloody hands, and there is no right answer. This is two dogs fighting- one is bigger. We feel bad for the Palestinians cause they are the smaller dog.

The Palestinians would like to eradicate the Israelis but simply lack the power. The Israelis do not lack the power. They are maneuvering in such a way that their extermination of the Palestinians will be excused enough to avoid sanctions or at least soften them.

I just wish that all the people who DONT feel the hate were not getting caught in the crossfire of the hate felt by the others. Babies getting blown to bits cannot be considered politically oriented. But then, as every good Arab or Jew knows, killing them now means they don't grow into a soldier down the road.

We need another Buddha, another Jesus. We need a world of beatniks and goths and hippies. We need to develop a Clue Ray, to aim at the idiots and enlighten them.
Elbongo
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 6:04 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

The Middle East situation just strikes me as the most hypocritical of situations - a people, oppressed and pushed from one region of Europe to another, decide to forcibly occupate someone else's homeland, using terrorist tactics to do so. They starve and oppress the native people, using barbaric tactics like witholding water supplies. Then, in the latest events, use the "war on terrorism" shield to systematically destroy what's left of the organization of the people. This from "God's Chosen"?
Comments?


I'm not sure what you mean by "decide to forcibly occupate someone else's homeland"? Israel, as well as an Arab section, was created by the UN in the Partition of 1947. Since the Arabs consider Jews to be heathens in the empire of Islam, they have never recognized Israel's right to exist and 4 Arab countries proceeded to invade Israel on the very day of its independence.

After the 1967 War Israel did decide to retain some captured lands that were used as staging grounds for invasion or positions to fire artillery at Israeli towns. The retainment of these lands might have been a good geographical security move, but of course introduced a whole new set of problems. If your neighbor continues to walk through his open gate weekly to kick you in the nuts, only to have you kick his ass all the way back into his house, do you not think about taking possession of his gate to try and refrain him from doing it again?

As far as using terrorist tactics to maintain the land, in a majority of situations where the Israelis strike out they are almost always in retaliation for an attack on them (IMHO). And yes they do overdo it sometimes, a problem that effects all armies fighting around civilians.

Israel occupies about 1% of the Middle East. Ironically, Jordan occupies far more of the so claimed Palestine land than does the Israelis, but yet their is no call for a holy war against Jordan.

And yes the "War on Terrorism" is giving the Israelis plenty of cover to ratchet up the stakes.

"God's Chosen" Hmm...That's almost as bad as claiming you have the only real religion and that all infidels need be killed unless they convert.
Elbongo
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 5:21 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

War 101
To the victor goes the spoils (if they want them)
Mvario
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 5:03 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Personally i have no love lost for Israel ever since the the USS Liberty attack during the Six Day War.

http://www.ussliberty.org/


and they block Sepulchritude where I work also (listed as pornography).
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 5:00 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"It also depends on who wins the war, do you think the Nazis were going to give back any land they conquered? Was that not one of the reasons they started the war in the first place. Did the Russians return the lands they "liberated" in WWII, or did they install puppet governments for a de facto expansion of the Soviet Union."

Elbongo, what a curious way of defending Israel's actions...
Elbongo
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 4:43 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Bongoboy, why do they block access to the forum? Were you a bad boy?



After we discovered a worker updating his personal child porn Web site from work, during work, with company equipment, management decided to implement a filter to control access to the Internet. Unfortunately, alcohol related sites are deemed non-business critical and blocked.

I actually manage the servers that do the blocking and can get around the service, but its a pain to do so and I'm usually to busy to screw with it.
Elbongo
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 4:36 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

"Er, Israel started most of the wars."




1948 War of Independence: When Israel achieved its independence on May 14, 1948, the country was invaded by the regular forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria.

1956 Sinai War: Precipitated by Egyptian sponsored raids from the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, and Jordan into Israel. Egypt concurrently buys massive amounts of tanks, armored vehicles, fighter aircraft, ships and subs. Egypt then greatly builds up it troops on the Israel border, nationalizes the Suez canal, and closes the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The IDF launches a preemptive strike.

1967 War: After demanding the withdrawal of UN troops from the Gaza and Sinai, in May of 1967 Nassar (Egypt) announced a blockade of Israeli shipping at the Strait of Tiran, an action since the 1956 War Israel had stressed would be equivalent to a declaration of war. Israel responds with a preemptive strike.

1973 Yom Kippur War: "September 28, Palestinian guerrillas detained an Austrian train carrying Soviet Jews en route to Israel. Subsequent Egyptian and Syrian military deployments were interpreted by Israel as defensive actions in anticipation of Israeli reprisals. For one week, Israel postponed mobilizing its troops. Not until the morning of Yom Kippur (October 6), about six hours before the Arab offensive, were Israeli officials convinced that war was imminent; a mobilization of the reserves was then ordered. In the early days of the war, the IDF suffered heavy losses as Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal and overran Israeli strongholds, while Syrians marched deep into the Golan Heights."



Quote:

""Preemptive retaliation" is an absurd concept. "



Maybe to you it is, but in is a tried and true military tactic used by all of mankind throughout the ages.

If you and your family was suddenly surrounded by thugs wanting to do you harm, do you wait for them to strike your family first before you react? Not I my friend.

If the US would have discovered ToJo's fleet in the Pacific heading toward Pearl, would they have waited for the Japanese to start bombing Pearl before they fired? I don't know the answer to that one.


Quote:

"Regardless, you don't get other people's land because you won a war. Not in this century anyway. The US doesn't own Germany and Japan, do we? "



Is that a rule written somewhere? I think that is up to the victor to decide during the negotiations of the surrender.

It also depends on who wins the war, do you think the Nazis were going to give back any land they conquered? Was that not one of the reasons they started the war in the first place. Did the Russians return the lands they "liberated" in WWII, or did they install puppet governments for a de facto expansion of the Soviet Union.
Destiny
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 4:35 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Bongoboy, why do they block access to the forum? Were you a bad boy?
_Blackjack
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 3:51 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I don't think the Israelis were under any misconception about Arafat's control over the terrorists; they knew full well that he didn't have enough power to stop them, because that was how they wanted it. If Arafat had been given enough authority to police his own people, and had chosen to do so (which I have no way of knowing if he would), then Israel would not have had an excuse to throw the whole peace plan out the window and roll the tanks back in.

I also have little doubt that the Palestinians responsible for the bombings knew full well that they would lead to Arafat's being removed from any authority, and that they wanted him out of the picture for being too moderate.
Elbongo
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 3:51 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Elbongo, where did you go? It would be interesting to read a response from you."

Unfortunately I have to work and we block access to http://www.sepulchritude.com/ :(

This evening I will be happy to respond to the posts with my opinions, and am looking forward to the discussion, even if we can only agree to disagree.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 1:59 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The misconception Israel seems to be laboring under is that Arafat can call these men to heel.

They followed him originally because he wanted what they wanted. In the eyes of a man who is willing to blow up a pizza shop and himself in the process to prove a point, Arafat would be a collaborator.

If you were a French resistance fighter in the second world war, and one day your leader said 'we can co-operate for peace' you might go along. Maybe. If one day he then said 'listen, stop resisting using violence, even though politics have proven useless' you would tell him to fuck off.

These people are geurillas. They don't fucking wear uniforms and snap out YES SIR! and NO SIR!, and the Arab culture operates on leadership by presitge and consensus. If the boss seems to have lost it, and has no formal governmental structure capable of holding a formal army, he cannot then stop the men he fought with from fighting.

I said 'seems' at the beginning of this because the Israelis goddamn well know he can't. They are using excuses- just like Hirohito did in Nanking.

This is for their own good, this is to protect ourselves, this is only in retaliation. The Japanese were lying, the Israelis are lying.

But on the other hand, what would WE do if the american indians started bombing pizza shops tomorrow?

We would do what Israel is doing.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 12:22 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Exactly Blackjack, we should not be providing financial or political support for either side. It is exactly our meddling that has caused the conflict in Israel/Palestine.

This conflict exists because we said to the much oppressed Jewish people, "hey go settle over there and kick all those greasy Arabs out of there homes, good luck to you,you have our blessing" and we have kept on saying this no matter what Israel has done over there. We have armed Israel to the teeth giving her the best equipped army in the region. She then uses this army to grab even more land from the people around her and still we keep arming her.

As for the current Palestinian and Israeli leadership, well it's odd that when Rabin was around both he and Arafat were making good headway towards sorting things out so that both sides could co-exist. Arafat is the holder of a Nobel Peace Prize, he just wants a viable State for his people. Rabin gets murdered by right-wing Zionists, Sharon (the Butcher) is now in the driving seat and peace is further off than ever. The bottom line is Sharon does not want peace, he wants the destruction of Palestine and the Palestinians. He is scum, pure and simple, and we should treat him as such.

Hobgoblin
_Blackjack
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 10:07 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

just as are the reactions of the IDF against Palestinian non-combatants, which sometimes get out of hand (as happens in all armed conflicts).



"Out of hand" is an understatement, since this civilian death ratio, even with the recent rash of bobmings, is still 4 Palestinians for every Israeli.
_Blackjack
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 10:02 am:   Edit PostPrint Post


Quote:

Israel was created by the UN in 1947 and was later expanded by victories on the battlefield in wars the Israelis did not start.



Er, Israel started most of the wars. "Preemtive retaliation" is an absurd concept. Regardless, you don't get other people's land because you won a war. Not in this century anyway. The US doesn't own Germany and Japan, do we?

The solution, as I see it, is to open our borders to anyone, Israeli or Palestinian, who wants to get the fuck out of the warzone, then refuse to help either side, militarily and financially. Both sides have both chosen "ex"-terrorists as their leaders, so this is obviously what the people want. Our only obligation is to those who DON'T want to be part of the war.
Raschied
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 9:49 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yes, Elbongo, i would like to hear more from your point of view. I am not a racist, and despite my moniker I do not have Arab roots. In fact, I can trace on my mother's side an ancestry that include Dutch Jews.

The Middle East situation just strikes me as the most hypocritical of situations - a people, oppressed and pushed from one region of Europe to another, decide to forcibly occupate someone else's homeland, using terrorist tactics to do so. They starve and oppress the native people, using barbaric tactics like witholding water supplies. Then, in the latest events, use the "war on terrorism" shield to systematically destroy what's left of the organization of the people. This from "God's Chosen"?

Comments?
Robertsmith
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 7:45 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

well put absinthe drinker. Arafat totally has his hands tied. While I agree that he has not done enough to discourage suicide bombers, Sharons current tactics are only making it more difficult for Arafat to act. Of course all of us realize this, but good luck getting that across to the Israeli government! Its fucking hopeless.
Chevalier
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 7:44 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Elbongo, where did you go? It would be interesting to read a response from you.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 7:43 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

I'm not actually (I stopped buying National newspapers some time ago and prefer to get my news from other sources) but I agree with your post.

Anyway thanks for the tip.

But Arafat wears a tea-towel on his head, is a Muslim, has dark skin and his people live in poverty whereas Sharon wears a nice suit, is not a Muslim, has pale skin and his people are affluent. Therefore naturally Arafat must be the terrorist.

Hobgoblin
Robertsmith
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 7:33 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Etienne and others:
The 1906 Pernod Fils was aquired by Betty and she sold me a few shots. They were pretty damn expensive, but if the price she told me she paid for the bottle is accurate (too much money to mention here!), then I got a damn good deal. If you want to see what the bottle looks like, I'll put the pic on my profile.
Absinthedrinker
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 7:29 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

What really takes the biscuit is Bush saying that Arafat should do more to control/arrest the bombers. Arafat has been humiliated, imprisoned, cut of from the outside world and his Palestinian 'Authority' has been dismantled with its police routed or murdered. So how is he supposed to control anything?

(Hobgoblin - are you keeping up with Robert Fisk's reports in the Independent?)
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 7:17 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Good points from both previous posters. But Argentina aside the whole thing makes my blood boil.

Sharon sent the Phalangists into Sabra and Shatilla with Israeli weapons and then the Israeli army sealed off the camps, flood lit the area so to make the Phalangists job easier and shot dead any of the refugees trying to escape. And what did the West do after the massacre, take action against Israel, cut off diplomatic relations with Israel? No. A few embarrassed token murmurs of displeasure perhaps but the West carried on giving Israel its support and continued to arm Israel to the teeth. How would the West react to a country that supported those who brutally murdered thousands of its people in one incident? The West would brand that country as a supporter of terrorism and go to war against her and expect the entire world to consider that country its enemy.

Now Sharon has sealed of several towns in the West Bank allowing nobody to go in or out, and no media coverage allowed either, while his troops 'get to work' in there. And what does the West do? It makes a few murmurs of discontent but does nothing , and will do nothing, and after it is all over the West will continue to back Israel. Sharon really has carte blanche to do what he likes and he knows it.

Hobgoblin
Chevalier
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 6:02 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Or because Argentinians have paler skin than Palestinians?"

That's arguable. The majority of Argentines are "morenos", darkish-skinned and of mixed indigenous/Spanish blood. Foreigners associate Argentina with European-looking blondes because the Argentines promote themselves as such. And it's true that the lighter-skinned hold the political and economic power, and they STILL fill Buenos Aires's expensive cafés. But move away from that city's Parisian avenues, and you'll see coffee skin and coarse black hair that rival any Palestinian's.
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 2:23 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Hob, the shape Argentina is in right now, they would welcome a Zionist occupation army...if they bring hard currency.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 12:47 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

"To think that part of the original Zionist movement called for taking over part of Argentina as a Zion state. Can you imagine the conflicts between the Catholics and the Zionists?"

I wonder which side we would be backing if this was the case?

Would we consider Zionists forcing Argentinian Catholics out of their homes and taking their property by force and killing any who resisted them than as being worse than Zionists forcing Palestinian Muslims out of there homes and taking their property by force and killing any who resisted them?

I think the West would see such action against Argentinian Catholics as much worse.

Why? Because Argentina is a Christian country? Or because Argentinians have paler skin than Palestinians?

What sickens me most of all is that we lend our support to a man responsible for the hideous slaughter and torture of (800 by Israeli government figures) (2,750 by a Red Cross body count) (or 7000 by Palestinian figures) innocent civilians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shaltilla in 1982. The victims included women, children, infants and old people, many of whom were brutally mutilated and disembowelled before being killed. Quite rightly we put Milosovic on trial for war crimes but then we roll out the red carpet for Sharon and treat him like a respectable statesman. Not one person has ever been brought to book for the attrocities in Sabra and Shatilla, and no doubt never will, after all it was only a load of worthless Palestinians who got wasted there (a minor misdemeanour on Israel's part).

Now we stand by while Sharon sends his men into the West bank (of course banning Western media presence in the area). We get on our high moral horse about 'terrorism' and then let Israel do whatever the hell it likes. Its time the West stopped turning a blind eye to the murderous actions of Sharon and his kind.

Hobgoblin
Crowlyman
Posted on Friday, April 5, 2002 - 12:07 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Let me get this straight, zionism is supposed to NOT be racism.(at least according to the bug UN counsel pre-9/11) Well what would you call the taking of lands for 'religious' rights or purposes?
They really wanted part of Argentina? I didn't know that. Why would they want that? I though the middle-east was supposed to be the 'holy land.' Whatever the fuck that means.
Raschied
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 11:55 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

To think that part of the original Zionist movement called for taking over part of Argentina as a Zion state. Can you imagine the conflicts between the Catholics and the Zionists?
Raschied
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 11:53 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I guess I shouldn't mention the Jewish terrorist groups in 1939 that were organized to drive the Palestinians out of Palestine, so the British would open up the immigration restrictions.

Or the terrorist groups of 1945, like Irgun Zvei Leumi and the Stern Gang. Again, Zionist organizations who used terrorist tactics to try to force Britan's hand.

It all depends on who writes the history books.
Crowlyman
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 11:13 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The only thought that I have is that the Israeli's are the one's with the tanks and big guns, therefore they should have the 'restraint' that the idiot...I mean, Dubya, has been calling for. I mean, any dark skin person in Israel is subjected to bodily searches if they happen to be sweating. To me the Israeli's are the aggressors this time around. For chrissakes, they raid neighborhoods house to house!! And we're supposed to support this?

Arafat is no saint mind you--he can reel in those Hamas and (insert name of the other group he leads-i cant remember the name) bomber if he wants to. If you remember, right after we got attacked in September there was no action from those guys.

I'm just sick and tired of this. Give them their fucking state and be done with it. If, then, in the future they become aggresive-get rid of the state.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 10:54 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The problem is that if you gave them North Dakota and part of South Dakota they'd in time want to take over the entire mid-West.

""The israeli government (not the israeli people!) are illegally occupying palestinian land" That is certainly one reasonable interpretation. But should the Israeli occupiers be viewed as illegitimate when they occupy land seized by defeating a recurring enemy who started the confrontation?"

What other interpretation is there? The Palestinians did not ask to be forcibly removed from their homes and forced to live in refugee camps in Gaza, the West bank and Lebanon. The Israelis kicked them out of their homes using military force. Did the Palestinians start that? No. Not content with that they brutally attack the same refugee camps because that is where most opposition to Israel is concentrated. This opposition is not exactly surprising since these are the people from whom Israel stole everything they ever owned and killed any Palestinian who tried to stop them doing so. Can we blame these people for feeling like this?

As to the recent conflict, Sharon intentionally started this by his visit to Temple Mount. He knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences would be. He wanted to scupper any chance that the peace deal had of success because he felt that such a deal would 'concede' more than he would like. It is disgusting that the West stands by and makes mild token criticism of Israel while it invades its neighbour, systematically and purposefully destroys as much of the homes, property and infra-structure of an already povert-stricken people, cuts civilians off from food and water (while beating the shit out of and shooting people (Jews and Gentiles alike) who want to deliver humanitarian supplies). This is not about Israel trying to defeat terrorists, it is about Israel trying to pummel the Palestinian controlled areas back to the 'Stone-age' so that they will be in no position to build any independent state for the next 20-30 years.

Sharon is a facist bastard who believes that Palestinians are a lesser form of human life. It is disgusting that the West gives him support. His regime is every bit as bad as previous White South African regimes.

Hobgoblin
Elbongo
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 8:14 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Strait of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent maritime passage must be preserved for all nations"

LBJ 19 JUN 67
Elbongo
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 8:06 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Would that include the Six Days War of 1967? I seem to recall from the history books that Israel started that one"

I guess that would depend on who is writing the history book. After all, as recently as last month, a Saudi University professor published an article in a Saudi newspaper that factually claimed that to this day Jews make holiday pastries using the blood of sacrificed Muslims or Christians.

After demanding the withdrawal of UN troops from the Gaza and Sinai, in May of 1967 Nassar (Egypt) announced a blockade of Israeli shipping at the Strait of Tiran, an action since the 1956 War Israel had stressed would be equivalent to a declaration of war.
Abelard
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 8:06 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yes, I agree I'd like to know everything..
Etienne
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 7:56 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Robertsmith;

Would you care to elaborate on that well concealed "1906 Pernod" bomb that you dropped?

It might be a lot more interesting than the situation in the middle east.
Elbongo
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 7:53 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Questions for thought

"The israeli government (not the israeli people!) are illegally occupying palestinian land"

That is certainly one reasonable interpretation. But should the Israeli occupiers be viewed as illegitimate when they occupy land seized by defeating a recurring enemy who started the confrontation?


"I will be perfectly content to sip my 1906 Pernod I am receiving tomorrow "

Must be nice, what a great find! Care if I show up tomorrow night to finish the discussion?


"only way we can live in peace is to stop killing people! "

For the most part that goes without saying, and I don't see anyway that someone can support what the Palestinian suicide bombers do. Targeting civilian crowds with bombs on a regular basis is indefensible, just as are the reactions of the IDF against Palestinian non-combatants, which sometimes get out of hand (as happens in all armed conflicts).
Raschied
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 7:50 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Israel was created by the UN in 1947 and was later expanded by victories on the battlefield in wars the Israelis did not start. "

Would that include the Six Days War of 1967? I seem to recall from the history books that Israel started that one, and kicked everyone's ass with French fighter planes. That one left Israel with over 4 times the land the UN had given them.
Robertsmith
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 7:26 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Here's another simple solution (although i like the ND/SD solution as well!). Ban all maps in the entire world, then give the israelis and the palestinians a pile of ecstasy and a bunch of Jenna Jameson pornos and make them all have sex with eachother. Or maybe what we could do is have every israeli and palestinian who is not for unconditional peace to raise their hands, and then we shoot those people in the head! The bottom line is that there will not be peace until those who are relentlessly violent are dead. The israeli government (not the israeli people!) are illegally occupying palestinian land. the Palestinian extremists feel the only way they can achieve retribution is by killing lots of innocent people. They're both fucking stupid morons and I hope they leave this world way before I do. In the meantime, I will be perfectly content to sip my 1906 Pernod I am receiving tomorrow and erase from my mind these relics of human history which refuse to evolve forward with the rest of us who realize that the only way we can live in peace is to stop killing people!
Elbongo
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 7:09 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

By your comments it appears you are a bigot, and it would be futile to argue with you.

I could care less if you are pro-Osama, but felt it was necessary to post facts in reference to the earlier post about Israel and the US.
Pikkle
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 6:59 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The Jews are illegal occupiers of Arab land, bottom line and they know it. Why do you think all these bankers and jewelers have been country-less for all these centuries? Because no one wants a thief living in their own backyard. So they buy off the U.N. and set themselves up. You think giving them their own country is going to give them credibility? Obviously not. Pro-Palestinian forever!!!

North Dakota, maybe, South Dakota, never!
Elbongo
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 6:47 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

"Israel was created by hostile takeover of Palestine lands. "

Israel was created by the UN in 1947 and was later expanded by victories on the battlefield in wars the Israelis did not start.


"the only reason the Israelis have lasted as long as they have is because of the support of the United States."

During the Israeli War of Independence, the Israelis had little support from the US and obtained their weapons from Europe, while the US was selling to the Arab states. The US did not become a strong ally of Israel until around the 1960's.
Mkmiller
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 5:57 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I just love working for a company that digs giant holes in the planet.
Mkmiller
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 5:54 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

OR, we could let my company strip mine Israel and then NO ONE will want it.
Raschied
Posted on Thursday, April 4, 2002 - 5:46 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I've been thinking about all the carnage happening in the Middle East, and I think I've finally come up with a solution.

Israel was created by hostile takeover of Palestine lands. Nobody in the region wants the Israelis there, except the Israelis. the only reason the Israelis have lasted as long as they have is because of the support of the United States.

Solution? This country has more land than we know what to do with. Offer the Israelis North Dakota and part of South Dakota as a new homeland! Plus, we will contract Walt Disney to build a new theme park in Bismark, called JerusalemWorld, with authentic replicas of the Mother City.

Presto! It's safe, secure, and we will even buy back our tanks and warplanes at half price. Whatta deal!

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page