Jordan and the west bank [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Felix_Nietsche

04-17-2005, 06:36 AM

"I saw a documentary on BBC were they went to Palestine and found some of those "celebrators" and BBC found proof that they did not celebrate the 911 attacks. It was all staged anti-palestinian propaganda."
************************************************** *****
I don't think so. The video the dancing Palelestinians in Gaza was very convincing.
I am very critical of many major news sources (including the BBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC) but even I do NOT believe they would try to lie about something like this.... The internet has been very effective in breaking news stories that major American news outlets have failed to discover as in the case of forged National Guard documents by CBS. In FREE COUNTRIES, it is much harder to tell BIG LIES into today's world.

"When are you Americans going to realize that you are being misled by your government and media on these issues? Much of the rest of the world has discovered. Here nobody believes this propaganda bullshit anymore."
************************************************** *
I'm not sure what you think specifically how Americans are being mislead. We were attack on 9/11 and we're going to kill people. And we're going to keep killing until they are either all dead/or in hiding. And winning a popularity contest with countries that disagree with the USA is not high on our list of priorities. And by us I mean the 55% of Americans who approve of Bush43's foreign policy (the numbers flucuate but Americans preferred Bush43's foreign policy strategies over Kerry's).

"They still have relatives there, so I ask them how the Americans behave in Iraq and almost all of them answer that they behave ruthless, harass arrest and shoot people without good reason"
*********************************************
LOL....I find this funny. I'm a former Army officer and I'm familiar with the operations of the US Army. Soldiers who were caught abusing Iraqis get punished. My opinion of these Iraqis that you speak of are that they are not being very honest... The Kurds love the Americans, the Shias are distrustful but hopeful, and the Sunnis are very afraid that the Kurds and Shias will team up against them to avenge past wrongs. As a result, the Sunnis have been the core of a vicious insurgency. Their brutality of the Sunnis towards other Iraqis is shown on USA news every day....but perhaps they don't show these stories in Scandanavia. Perhaps you are the one being brain-washed with propaganda....

And we have Iraqis living in the USA as well. The majority of them leave in the Detroit, Michigan area and they were quite happy the USA invaded Iraq. I have seen numerous videos of their celebrations to convince me this is true.
Also, I suspect the Iraqis telling these stories in your country are Sunnis and therefore their views are biased against the Americans.

Is it ever mentioned by Donald Rumsfeld?
Is it ever on CNN?
Several of them lobbied for a American invation to overthrow Saddam and thus hold lots of credibility when they critize the Americans.
***********************************************
I like Rumsfeld. The American Democrat party HATES Rumsfeld and every chance a TV camera is pushed into their face they remind us how they don't like Rumsfeld.
I *HATE* CNN. Bush43 supporters like myself find CNN to be very biased against Bush.

I wanted Iraq invaded. For four reasons:
1. They violated terms of the armistice.
2. They violated terms of the armistice.
3. They violated terms of the armistice.
4. S.Hussein supported terrorism financially and by other means. Perhaps not al-qaida directly but he definately supported other terrorists groups.

I believe after a war and an armistice is signed, the agreement MUST BE ENFORCED. Failing to do so only leads to more wars....as WW2 taught us. Hussein violated the Armistice numerous times and the USA kept giving the UN the chance to make Iraq comply. And what did the UN do? There was the oil-for-food bribe scandals and illegal arms being sold to Hussein by France, Russia, and others. About 1/3 of all Americans are completely disgusted with the UN and would love to leave the UN forever. 1/3 of Americans want to give the UN a 2nd chance, and 1/3 of Americans love the UN.
It is not difficult to guess which group I belong to...

Or Lebanon, what did the UN soldiers tell of. Israeli forces attacking causal civilians as revenge for Hizbollah attacks.
Is not this terror?
************************************************** ****
There was a massacre of Palestinian by Christian Lebanese Militiamen as revenge upon the assassination of their leader. Is this what you are referring to? In the case Israeli soldiers heard the Christain Lebanese attacking the palestinians and they chose not to get involved. There was no terrorism on the Israeli's part. The Israelis probably knew what was happening but they chose NOT to atack their ONLY allies in that insane war. Blame the Lebanese Christians for that...

You are being manipulated, wake up!
************************************************
I feel very awake. But thank you.

Arnfinn Madsen

04-17-2005, 06:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Arfinn, let me be quite clear in what I am about to ask you.

Are you saying that you saw a documantary on the BBC saying that ALL the celebrations shown on U.S. and worlwide television was staged?

OR

Are you saying you saw a documentary that explained how one instance or perhaps several were staged ?

As far as I know the PA acknowledges there were widespread celebrations on 9-11 and infact I heard Yassir ARABFAT in an interview in 2002 say he regretted that it had occurred.

Additionally I know several people that lived in the middle east at the time of the attacks and they all describe scenes of joy and revery after NYC was attacked.

Some of these people are even arabs themselves and openly admitted to setting of fireworks to celebrate the murder of several thousand innocent people.

There are pictures of the celebrations taken by AFP. Do you regard AFP as an allie of the US/JEWISH media cabal/?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was replying to the scenes of joy which Felix refered to. These were footage shown quite early after 9/11 and was the only footage I saw of celebration from the palestine areas. Several places in Arab countries there probably were celebrations, but the footage from the Palestines were staged.

Arnfinn Madsen

04-17-2005, 07:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. The video the dancing Palelestinians in Gaza was very convincing.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was a woman in black clothing who particularily danced very "excessively". It was staged.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a former Army officer and I'm familiar with the operations of the US Army. Soldiers who were caught abusing Iraqis get punished.

[/ QUOTE ]
There was actually a officer here (we are a NATO-country) who said that it was probable that atrocities happen in a larger scale than what is punished. He said that the pressure upon the individual soldier leads to war crimes.

[ QUOTE ]
The Kurds love the Americans, the Shias are distrustful but hopeful, and the Sunnis are very afraid that the Kurds and Shias will team up against them to avenge past wrongs.

[/ QUOTE ]
They are mostly Kurds. Actually the Moslem community here was quite pro-American prior to the war (many are refugees from totalitarian regimes) but after the onset of the war they have sided against.

[ QUOTE ]
As a result, the Sunnis have been the core of a vicious insurgency. Their brutality of the Sunnis towards other Iraqis is shown on USA news every day....but perhaps they don't show these stories in Scandanavia. Perhaps you are the one being brain-washed with propaganda....

[/ QUOTE ]
They show these stories /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Let's check the main foreign news here:
"Sunni insurgents threatens to kill 150 Shia hostages in a city south of Baghdad"

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted Iraq invaded. For four reasons:
1. They violated terms of the armistice.
2. They violated terms of the armistice.
3. They violated terms of the armistice.

[/ QUOTE ]
?????

[ QUOTE ]
4. S.Hussein supported terrorism financially and by other means. Perhaps not al-qaida directly but he definately supported other terrorists groups.

[/ QUOTE ]
Colin Powell claimed in the UN security council that there was a link through Ansar-Al-Islam to Al-Qaida. The former leader of Ansal-Al-Islam lives here and he has been arrested several times based on these claims. However, after investigations conducted in Iraq and Norway, he has been released due to lack of evidence (they did not even have enough to press charges, but it is still reason to go to war? /images/graemlins/confused.gif).

[ QUOTE ]
There was a massacre of Palestinian by Christian Lebanese Militiamen as revenge upon the assassination of their leader. Is this what you are referring to? In the case Israeli soldiers heard the Christain Lebanese attacking the palestinians and they chose not to get involved. There was no terrorism on the Israeli's part. The Israelis probably knew what was happening but they chose NOT to atack their ONLY allies in that insane war. Blame the Lebanese Christians for that...

[/ QUOTE ]
Norwegian UN-soldiers were interviewed and they said they witnessed attacks on civilians conducted by the Israeli army.

Arnfinn Madsen

04-17-2005, 07:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
4. S.Hussein supported terrorism financially and by other means. Perhaps not al-qaida directly but he definately supported other terrorists groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice the news excerpt regarding the group Colin Powell claimed was the link to Al-Qaida from Saddam Hussein (notice the torture part, tortured witnesses is good ground for war /images/graemlins/tongue.gif):

No indictment
Meanwhile, Norwegian prosecutors said Tuesday they won't indict Krekar on earlier charges that he has financed terrorism and was involved in political murders in northern Iraq. Krekar, who lead the guerrilla group Ansar al Islam there, has been alleged, for example, to have encouraged suicide bombers.

Prosecutors had kept Krekar in custody earlier this year while they attempted to gather evidence against him related to his earlier guerrilla activities in northern Iraq. Now, however, they won't pursue the case against him on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

Prosecutors also claimed potential witnesses in the case against Krekar were being threatened and tortured, and in at least one case, had changed their testimony under pressure.

A court case would have required Krekar's continued presence in Norway and likely dragged on for many more months. Krekar had said earlier that he hoped he would be indicted, so that he would have a chance to clear himself in court.

Cyrus

04-17-2005, 09:29 AM

I'm glad you stopped referring to the armistice that the United States and Iraq signed as a peace treaty. You should be more familiar with the difference between the two terms.

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted Iraq invaded. For four reasons:
1. They violated terms of the armistice.
2. They violated terms of the armistice.
3. They violated terms of the armistice.
4. S.Hussein supported terrorism financially and by other means. Perhaps not al-qaida directly but he definately supported other terrorists groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

You first "three reasons" are idiocy cubed! What terms of an armistice did Saddam violate? (Oh, I get it! Iraqi anti-aircraft firing against American pilots who were bombarding them! Which conveniently ignores the all-important concept of self-defense. "Yes, officer, I had to kill that man because he was resisting when I hit 'im!")

From the web: [ QUOTE ]
A temporary ceasefire was arranged on February 28, 1991, between the Allies and Iraq. On March 3, the permanent ceasefire was signed, with Iraq agreeing to all U.S. and U.N. demands. On April 7, 1991, the so called northern "no-fly zone" over Iraq, located north of 36 degrees latitude, was established by the United States, France, and Great Britain in order "to protect the Kurds" from Saddam Hussein.
A similar "no-fly zone" in the south was established on August 27, 1992 "to protect Iraq's Shia". This zone ran south of 32 degrees latitude, and was later extended to 33 degrees latitude after France and several other NATO countries ceased patrolling these zones. Some raised questions about the legality of the zones arguing that they had not been authorized by the United Nations.
 . 
The U.S. countered that the zones were in line with Security Council Resolution 688 of April 5, 1991 which condemned Iraq's repression of its civilian population, in general terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your 4th point is meaningless : Saddam has not supported anti-American organisations. Only organisations that are anti-Israel and, for this reason, have been termed terrorist. I can understand Israel profusely thanking America for taking out their enemy, but Saddam Hussein as anti-American?? Never happen. You are hallucinating, like the rest of the neo-con sheep.

Zygote

04-17-2005, 01:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Still, Sharon continued to advocate an ethnic cleansing (in more delicate terms) of the Palestinian "problem" into the Hassemite kingdom. It would be Israel's Final Solution of the Palestinian Problem. (And some people dare to protest when Israel's institutional racism is compared to apartheid South Africa's or Nazi Germany's!)

[/ QUOTE ]

You should throw away whatever crap books you read and pick your ass up and go to israel. then you should go to south africa and ask non-afrikaners about the apartheid days. Also, do a little a resarch on what happened in the holocaust, perhaps visit a death camp, and maybe then yo'll get a grasp of REALITY.

Please tell me how they are the same? I grew up in glen hazel SA and have been to israel many times. Comparing the two situations is a sign of pure ignorance to both issues.

the Nazi's? You are sick and i must conclude you are antisemtic, or something of the sort, because there is no other reason you would willfully create an illusion of what is occuring in Israel.

Felix_Nietsche

04-17-2005, 01:40 PM

"I was replying to the scenes of joy which Felix refered to. These were footage shown quite early after 9/11 and was the only footage I saw of celebration from the palestine areas. Several places in Arab countries there probably were celebrations, but the footage from the Palestines were staged."
************************************************** ********
Just out of curiousity who do you think sponsored these staged celebrations. The Jews?...The Americans? Did they use Arabs or did they use actors pretending to be Arabs. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

There are MANY sources of news in the USA. To stage something like this is possible....BUT getting away with it in a country with a FREE PRESS is vitually IMPOSSIBLE.

Felix_Nietsche

04-17-2005, 01:51 PM

"What terms of an armistice did Saddam violate?"
************************************************** *
Several terms of the amistice were violated.
*Firing on American aircraft.
*Kicking out the UN inspectors.
*Interfring with the UN inspectors.
etc....

"Oh, I get it! Iraqi anti-aircraft firing against American pilots who were bombarding them! Which conveniently ignores the all-important concept of self-defense."
************************************************** **
Here are the facts.

1. By terms of the armistice, coalition aircraft were FREE to patrol the no fly zones.
2. Iraqi SAM (surface-to-air missiles) sites were FREE to remain in the no fly zones.
3. Iraqi SAM sites frequently chose to 'radar lock' on US aircraft. This is analogous to pointing a gun at someone with the finger on the trigger.
4. By rules of enagagement, that SAM site became a HOSTILE target and the US military was free to destroy it. As they should have.
5. If the SAM site did not radar lock on US aircraft, they would not have been attacked.

Felix_Nietsche

04-17-2005, 02:20 PM

"There was actually a officer here (we are a NATO-country) who said that it was probable that atrocities happen in a larger scale than what is punished. He said that the pressure upon the individual soldier leads to war crimes."
************************************************** ***
This may be true. Not everyone gets caught. But look at it from the US soldiers point-of-view. They see their friends killed by suicide bombers, car bombs, people being kidnapped and having their heads chopped off.... These insurgents do not behave in a civilize fashion. They kill and terrorize other Iraqis and the reaction of American soldier is typically one of anger.

Occasionally they catch someone they are 80% certain is guilty of attrocities. Perhaps there is not enough evidence to convict but they do not want to let the person go to kill again. Well sometimes military discipline breaks down and soldiers take the law in their own hands. Officers are suppose to maintain discipline and prevent these things from happening... When soldiers get caught, they get punished.

04-17-2005, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"I was replying to the scenes of joy which Felix refered to. These were footage shown quite early after 9/11 and was the only footage I saw of celebration from the palestine areas. Several places in Arab countries there probably were celebrations, but the footage from the Palestines were staged."
************************************************** ********
Just out of curiousity who do you think sponsored these staged celebrations. The Jews?...The Americans? Did they use Arabs or did they use actors pretending to be Arabs. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was going to say.

Arnfinn, did you see the video of the Palestinians celebrating at the time it aired? I did. And it left a VERY lasting impression on me. I like to think that I'm not one that is easily duped. And there was NO doubt whatsoever that those celebrations were spontaneous. And disgusting.

Arnfinn Madsen

04-17-2005, 08:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I was replying to the scenes of joy which Felix refered to. These were footage shown quite early after 9/11 and was the only footage I saw of celebration from the palestine areas. Several places in Arab countries there probably were celebrations, but the footage from the Palestines were staged."
************************************************** ********
Just out of curiousity who do you think sponsored these staged celebrations. The Jews?...The Americans? Did they use Arabs or did they use actors pretending to be Arabs. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was going to say.

Arnfinn, did you see the video of the Palestinians celebrating at the time it aired? I did. And it left a VERY lasting impression on me. I like to think that I'm not one that is easily duped. And there was NO doubt whatsoever that those celebrations were spontaneous. And disgusting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those who took part did not know that it was going to be used in connection with 911. Based on their investigation BBC concluded that it was the journalists who staged it. They did not find their reason.

04-17-2005, 09:00 PM

It took me exactly 6 seconds of a google search to find this, from Reuters:

Palestinians Celebrate Attacks with Gunfire

By Joseph Logan

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Palestinians in Lebanon met news of devastating attacks on American targets Tuesday with jubilant gunfire, dancing and cheering, saying Israel's chief backer deserved such a punishment.

"This is the result of American policy. America and Israel are one," one Palestinian gunman said.

"This is the reaction required to confront the American and Israeli arrogance," said Mohamad Hallak, a 40-year-old Palestinian refugee from the southern Rashidiyeh camp in Tyre.

Firing rattled across Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and the West Bank as soon as television stations broke the news, carrying live footage of buildings on fire and collapsing and terrified Americans fleeing the stricken areas.

Jubilant Palestinians took to the streets of refugee camps of Lebanon and the West Bank, waving Palestinian flags and distributing sweets to celebrate the attacks on major U.S. landmarks and government offices.

Some Lebanese shared the joy.

"We're ecstatic. Let America have a taste of what we've tasted," said Ali Mareh, a Lebanese resident of Beirut.

"People are happy. America has always supported terrorism. They see how the innocent Palestinian children are killed and they back the Zionist army that does it. America has never been on the side of justice," said Samir, a Lebanese.

"This is the language that the United States understands and this is the way to stop America from helping the Zionist terrorists who are killing our children, men and women everyday," said Mohamed Rasheed, a Palestinian.

Lebanon is home to some to 360,000 Palestinian refugees. After four generations of exile, many Palestinians feel embittered against the United States for its support of Israel -- a feeling which has grown during the present uprising in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza.

"Today is a feast for the Palestinians. We do not differentiate between America and Israel. America is our prime enemy," added another Palestinian.

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat condemned the attacks which leveled the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and struck the Pentagon in Washington.

Palestinians who have often burned U.S. flags in protests during their 11-month-old uprising against Israeli occupation also celebrated in the streets of Arab East Jerusalem.

"I feel I am in a dream. I never believed that one day the United States would come to pay a price for its support to Israel," said Mustafa, a 24-year-old Palestinian gunman.

Several dozen Palestinian youths gathered in Arab East Jerusalem to celebrate as well, honking out wedding tunes on their car horns. "We are so happy that America was hit. America is against us in supporting Israel," Suleiman, one of the demonstrators, said.

In Nablus, motorists honked their horns and gunmen fired into the air from assault rifles to cheer on the attacks which unfolded in the space of a few hours and stunned people around the globe.

--------------

That's Reuters. It's not the American press. So putting aside the ridiculousness of the assertion that anyone from the American media was involved in "staging" the celebrations ... was Reuters in on it too?

vulturesrow

04-17-2005, 11:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You first "three reasons" are idiocy cubed! What terms of an armistice did Saddam violate? (Oh, I get it! Iraqi anti-aircraft firing against American pilots who were bombarding them! Which conveniently ignores the all-important concept of self-defense. "Yes, officer, I had to kill that man because he was resisting when I hit 'im!")

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite wrong. I can say with certainty that no Iraqi positions were ever attacked without provocation by the Iraqis. They continuously strove to down American and Coalition aircraft. They developed new tactics dedicated to shooting down aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.

And the claim that Saddam wasnt anti-American is ludicrous.

Cyrus

04-18-2005, 12:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The claim that Saddam wasnt anti-American is ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I trust that you are honest in debating such issues, and despite your already formed and strong opinions, I would strongly suggest you research more thoroughly the relations between Saddam Hussein/Ba'athists/Iraq on one side and the United States on the other. You might not change your mind about the war in Iraq or how you view Saddam (undoubtedly an extremely vile man) but I'm sure you will learn a few things about the region.

(Hint : Saddam Hussein's Ba'athists were extreme anti-communists.)

Cyrus

04-18-2005, 03:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do a little a resarch on what happened in the holocaust, perhaps visit a death camp. Please tell me how they are the same [with Israel]?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said any such thing. You are reading the words but not understanding the meaning. You are angered and confused.

[ QUOTE ]
I grew up in Glen Hazel and have been to Israel many times. Comparing the two situations is a sign of pure ignorance to both issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, right. Are you black?

[ QUOTE ]
The Nazi's [i][sic] ? You are sick and I must conclude you are antisemtic [sic].

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I get that a lot.

Every time I point out the blatant monstrosities of Israeli policies towards the occupied natives (such as Sharon's Final Solution), I get the standard flak, about anti-semitism. You must think I give a damn.

Gamblor

04-18-2005, 03:11 AM

The question is: if Israel continues to steal land at gunpoint and refuses to honor its obligation of withdrawing from the occupied territories?

What of the Arab obligation to give up terrorism?

Israel is not required to withdraw from anywhere until the Arabs denounce and cease all terrorist activity.

Furthermore, it should be clear to even the simplest of left-wing moonbats that Israel must first and foremost be concerned with her own security.

Just ask "my buddy".

Dead

04-18-2005, 03:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I get that a lot.

Every time I point out the blatant monstrosities of Israeli policies towards the occupied natives (such as Sharon's Final Solution), I get the standard flak, about anti-semitism. You must think I give a damn.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's their only argument.

I agree with Cyrus 100%, and I am Jewish.

I must be an anti-semite. Better yet, a self-hating Jew. That's why I celebrate the holidays and do the mitzvot. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gamblor

04-18-2005, 03:18 AM

"As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien Settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their slogan No, never lose their influence, and only then their influence be transferred to more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against pushing them out, and equality of civil, and national rights"

Zygote

04-18-2005, 04:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I never said any such thing. You are reading the words but not understanding the meaning. You are angered and confused.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are confused by my words; i wasn't refering specifcally to the death camps.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, right. Are you black?

[/ QUOTE ]

are you retarted? whats funny is my question is probably more relevant.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I get that a lot.

Every time I point out the blatant monstrosities of Israeli policies towards the occupied natives (such as Sharon's Final Solution), I get the standard flak, about anti-semitism. You must think I give a damn.

[/ QUOTE ]

i definitely don't think you give a damn, but I like to say my piece.

Zygote

04-18-2005, 04:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with Cyrus 100%, and I am Jewish.

I must be an anti-semite. Better yet, a self-hating Jew. That's why I celebrate the holidays and do the mitzvot.

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought we already established that we don't need to hear you announce you are Jewish anymore.

Cyrus

04-18-2005, 08:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't refering specifcally to the death camps

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you were. You still don't get it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you black?

[/ QUOTE ] Are you retarted?

[/ QUOTE ]

You still don't get it.

vulturesrow

04-18-2005, 09:29 AM

Cyrus,

Leave that strawman alone. I dont claim that Saddam was always anti-American. I know the United States history with him. That being said, I think that Saddam was strongly anti-American after Operation Desert Storm. Now your reply to that (and possibly rightly so) is "well of course!". That doesnt change the fact that he was anti-American.

WhatAbout?

04-18-2005, 09:38 AM

Israel? What about Rwanda? What about the Nazis? What about JANE FONDA?

Cyrus

04-18-2005, 09:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think that Saddam was strongly anti-American after Operation Desert Storm. Now your reply to that (and possibly rightly so) is "well of course!".

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, of course!

Seriously, please explain to me the geo-strategic threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the United States. (Let's leave the crap about bringing democracy and freedom to the Iraqis for FoxNews.)

The notion of pro- or anti-Americanism makes sense only by that perspective. Correct foreign policy is not formulated according to "feelings".

Gamblor

04-18-2005, 11:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I get that a lot.

Every time I point out the blatant monstrosities of Israeli policies towards the occupied natives (such as Sharon's Final Solution), I get the standard flak, about anti-semitism. You must think I give a damn.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's their only argument.

I agree with Cyrus 100%, and I am Jewish.

I must be an anti-semite. Better yet, a self-hating Jew. That's why I celebrate the holidays and do the mitzvot. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you do all that stuff because your mom told you to when you were a kid. you keep the mitzvot because that is your way of being jewish.

my family's way of being jewish is to live in the jewish homeland.

ACPlayer

04-18-2005, 12:02 PM

Ah, now to be a good Jew you have to live in the "homeland".

Failing that you should be "banging bitches" another major Jewish viewpoint.

Dead

04-18-2005, 02:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Failing that you should be "banging bitches" another major Jewish viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hahaha. /images/graemlins/grin.gif I think that was in the Talmud.

Gamblor

04-18-2005, 05:17 PM

Just like i always said here.

most goyim genuinely don't care if you're jewish or otherwise. they're not interested - those are the good people.

"you're jewish? so?"

most lefties and anti-Zionists only like the Jews who sit quietly in the corner and fit their stereotype of a jew. accountants, showbiz types, lawyers, doctors. You know, they were so persecuted, now they're successful, how noble.

Just shut up, we don't want to hear your opinion. Sit in the corner. Jews in charge, well, that just can't happen. i'm not listening to a jew tell me what to do. they don't deserve their own homeland anymore than they deserve to get into our golf clubs. it's our club.

you know, the funny thing, is that in israel (among the younger crowd anyway), the holocaust is a big [censored] joke. [censored] pathetic. lead like sheep to a slaughterhouse and they don't even put up a fight.

well [censored] that. nobody's going to even try to kill us, otherwise they get [censored].

that's just my opinion.

Gamblor

04-18-2005, 07:19 PM

The Final Solution?

Comparing the forced removal of a violent, belligerent terrorist population and its band of supporters to the outright murder of a non-violent benign ethnic group is the sickest bastardization of reason I have ever heard.

Keep up the good work Herr Goebbels.

ACPlayer

04-18-2005, 10:41 PM

The comparison is spot on.

I suspect that the good German (like the good Zionist thinks today) thought he was doing God's work as he packed Jews into Ghetto's, bulldozed buildings, and went after any perceived threat in the Ghettos of Poland.

But then you would realize that the reason you have to identify your self as one who is "banging bitches" is so you dont have to face up to your conscience.

Fortunately, my opinion of Jews is formed by my many friends and not the likes of yourself.

chabibi

04-18-2005, 11:14 PM

AC player,

I'm not sure if you realize this but the word Zionist does no necessarily contain any religious connotations. the Zionist movement was founded on a belief that the Jewish people need a soveirgn homeland. Israel was chosen because it was the historical land of the Jewish people. much of that history is recorded in the bible but archeological evidence supports this claim.

stating that Zionists feel they are carrying out the work of god is a contradiction because Zionism was founded as nationalistic movement and not a religious one. some Zionists (myself included) may be atheist or agnostic but still believe that the state of Israel is morally just in its war with the Palestinians

hetron

04-18-2005, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The question is: if Israel continues to steal land at gunpoint and refuses to honor its obligation of withdrawing from the occupied territories?

What of the Arab obligation to give up terrorism?

Israel is not required to withdraw from anywhere until the Arabs denounce and cease all terrorist activity.

Furthermore, it should be clear to even the simplest of left-wing moonbats that Israel must first and foremost be concerned with her own security.

Just ask "my buddy".

[/ QUOTE ]

Gamblor, enough of this nonsense. The occupation of the west bank and gaza strip is not making Israel more secure. That's why Sharon is even considering withdrawing. Do I have to cite the statistics again about how many israeli's have died since the occupation vs. before the occupation?

That being said, I often wonder why either the US or the UN doesn't just step in and establish a demilitarized zone around Israel. It has worked well in Korea, why not try it in the middle east?

Gamblor

04-19-2005, 12:10 AM

i have explained the bangin bitches tagline multiple times on this forum and i wont bother again but suffice to say that has no bearing on the conversation and it takes a very poor argument indeed to even bring that up within the context of the discussion.

trust me. listen to *my buddy*.

Gamblor

04-19-2005, 12:29 AM

Do I have to cite the statistics again about how many israeli's have died since the occupation vs. before the occupation?

What the hell do you call the occupation? 1967? 1948?

hetron

04-19-2005, 01:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Do I have to cite the statistics again about how many israeli's have died since the occupation vs. before the occupation?

What the hell do you call the occupation? 1967? 1948?

[/ QUOTE ]
The occupation of the west bank and gaza strip starting in '67. We have talked about it before. Don't get amnestic on me. But I'll pull up the stats again if you want.

Cyrus

04-19-2005, 02:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Comparing the forced removal of a violent, belligerent terrorist population and its band of supporters to the outright murder of a non-violent benign ethnic group is the sickest bastardization of reason I have ever heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

And there you have it.

A whole population, the totality of a people, are labeled terrorists and, thus, liable for forced removal, collective punishment - or worse. How come a whole population is a terrorist population you ask? How come they are all evil? Must be in their genes...

The more those Betar supremacists try to conceal their hand, the more they reveal it. It's uncanny.

Cyrus

04-19-2005, 02:13 AM

Because of the way you tried to insult your fellow Jew, I'll fine tune the assessment of your intelligence one notch down (still plenty to go, but not too many).

[ QUOTE ]
You do all that stuff because your mom told you to when you were a kid.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how all customs are passed down, you dufus. From our elders.

It's the rare exception (eg Dylan getting re-born, etc) that one makes a conscious choice later in life. The vast majority of people simply take on the mores and customs of the previous generations, when very young, as a given thing, and move on -- to change them perhaps.

[ QUOTE ]
My family's way of being jewish is to live in the jewish homeland.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's that supposed to mean? That anyone who is not in the "homeland" is not 100% Jewish or something?

And shouldn't that be Fatherland ? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Gamblor

04-19-2005, 02:36 AM

Don't get amnestic on me

end of thread.

Gamblor

04-19-2005, 02:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Comparing the forced removal of a violent, belligerent terrorist population and its band of supporters to the outright murder of a non-violent benign ethnic group is the sickest bastardization of reason I have ever heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

And there you have it.

A whole population, the totality of a people, are labeled terrorists and, thus, liable for forced removal, collective punishment - or worse. How come a whole population is a terrorist population you ask? How come they are all evil? Must be in their genes...

The more those Betar supremacists try to conceal their hand, the more they reveal it. It's uncanny.

[/ QUOTE ]

and its band of supporters

God you're thick.

Gamblor

04-19-2005, 03:16 AM

Dead:
[ QUOTE ]
(Sarcasm) Better yet, {I'm) a self-hating Jew. That's why I celebrate the holidays and do the mitzvot

[/ QUOTE ]

Gamblor:
[ QUOTE ]
You do all that stuff because your mom told you to when you were a kid.

[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of people simply take on the mores and customs of the previous generations, when very young, as a given thing, and move on -- to change them perhaps.

The vast majority of people simply take on the mores and customs of the previous generations, when very young, as a given thing, and move on -- to change them perhaps.

Here, Cyrus, I'll fix your post:

[b]Hi Gamblor,

My original reply was to repeat exactly what you said, but in different words. Instead, I'll let you know that I originally misinterpreted what you said as an insult. However, I just noticed that you were explaining to him that the only thing keeping him Jewish is whatever mindless ancient customs he has (regardless of where he got them).

Whereas you, Gamblor, understand that Jews are not simply Anglo-Saxons or Africans or whoever who happen to believe that Christ was not supernatural. They are a thriving ethnic nationality. You understand that the real centre of Jewish culture and ethnicity is not wherever someone happens to kiss the mezuzah every time they enter a room *because that's what daddy does). Rather it's the place making Jewish music and furthering Jewish technology, language, and art (wherever the actual funding comes from).

ACPlayer

04-19-2005, 05:41 AM

Zionist does no necessarily contain any religious connotations
Zionist movement was founded on a belief that the Jewish people need

Jewish == Religion (Gamblor's protestations not withstanding).

Zionist has religious connotations.

Israel is a based on a theocratic principles (with the token non jew thrown in to ensure the money keeps flowing from foolish Americans).

These are non-debatable.

Cyrus

04-19-2005, 06:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
and its band of supporters

God you're thick.

[/ QUOTE ]

Au contraire, my dear professor of reading comprehension!

I omitted highlighting that bit about "band of supporters" in order precisely to demonstrate that you are including everyone in your horror dreams, i.e. both the "band of supporters" and (always your words:) "a violent, belligerent terrorist population".

Ergo, all Palestinians are terrorists! Which is where we came in. Keep posting.

MMMMMM

04-19-2005, 06:52 AM

Cyrus and ACPlayer are wrong in this thread.

The drawing of a parallel of Israeli policies to Nazi Germany's policies is exaggerated and odious.

The naming of Israel a "theocratic state" misses the mark, because Israel is essentially a democracy, not a theocracy.

MMMMMM

04-19-2005, 07:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ergo, all Palestinians are terrorists!

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus you are not reading this with a sharp enough eye. Get out your scalpel not your broadaxe. What you wrote above is NOT necessarily the implication of Gamblor's words.

Below is what Gamblor wrote:

[ QUOTE ]

Comparing the forced removal of a violent, belligerent terrorist population and its band of supporters to the outright murder of a non-violent benign ethnic group is the sickest bastardization of reason I have ever heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere does Gamblor indicate that the "population" he is referring to (as violent, belligerent) must refer to the entire population of Palestinians. Rather he is apparently referring to those elements which are violent and belligerent--and adding in their supporters as well (which is a great many more).

The ("violent, belligerent") elements comprise their own "population", which in turn is a part of the greater Palestinian "population". Look at this as if in simple set theory terms, please, if you can.

While Gamblor's remarks could be taken either way, I think he probably meant it the way I have outlined. At any rate, his words cleartly do not support the conclusion that "Ergo, all Palestinians are terrorists!"

Additionally, since he wrote "and their band of supporters", that indicates that that band of supporters is NOT a part of the group initially referred to as "violent, belligerent." Else, why would he need to mention them as distinct through the use of the word "and" and a different description? Therefore he is clearly not including them in the group you would call "terrorists".

You really ought to think about these sort of things more precisely. Better yet, maybe you should take an introductory course in set theory and try to apply it conceptually when you read anything in the English language. This will hopefully stop you from making such errors (and errors along these lines have been a recurrent, if not frequent, theme in our discussions on these boards).

I don't make this suggestion lightly but rather out of concern for your future --it is VERY important to be able to know the precise meaning of anything written in English. Heck you might someday very easily get bamboozled on something you sign if you cannot read, and conceptualize what you read, very precisely.

Be well.

ACPlayer

04-19-2005, 07:18 AM

The drawing of a parallel of Israeli policies to Nazi Germany's policies is exaggerated and odious.

You may not like it, unfortunately it does not change the facts of the ghetto-ization of millions. Lumping an entire people into a "guilty" group and the use of police state tactics.

Unfortunately your bigotry (a bit less odious than Gamblor but only because it is founded on ignorance) comes through in your inability to analyze the situation.

It is however true that Israel has not (yet?) resorted to the truly abhorrent death chambers of the Nazis. But in terms of the use of Ghettos, the targetting and rampant, indescriminate use of force and the collective stigmatization of a group they embody the racism of the Nazi's and the Apartheid era.

ACPlayer

04-19-2005, 07:28 AM

You are, as usual, reading what you want in the post.

Gamblor uses the words: forced removal of a violent, belligerent terrorist population and its band of supporters

Further today in Israel (and in Gamblor's mind) the supporter of a terrorist includes: family, neighbours, friends, and bystanders etc. All of these people are routinely attacked, houses bulldozed and American made missiles used on them.

OK, so the set includes a few actual terrorists (the ones blowing themselves up) union the set of family, friends, and neighbours. Now the number of terrorists grows, add on another layer of friends and families and you have the "population" of snot nosed, Ali and Mohammeds riding on donkeys penned in by a wall and a ruthless army with orders to shoot. All of this backed up by American apologists like yourself.

The institutionalized bigotry of Israel is mindboggling in its immorality.

MMMMMM

04-19-2005, 07:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You are, as usual, reading what you want in the post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm reading exactly what Gamblor wrote.

I suggest you do the same.

ACPlayer

04-19-2005, 07:50 AM

Perhaps you are just willing to give Gamblor the benefit of doubt in his use of the word population and the "set" that defines.

Other than that there is no interpretation of his words other than that offered by Cyrus that stands up to scrutiny.

MMMMMM

04-19-2005, 08:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The drawing of a parallel of Israeli policies to Nazi Germany's policies is exaggerated and odious.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You may not like it, unfortunately it does not change the facts of the ghetto-ization of millions. Lumping an entire people into a "guilty" group and the use of police state tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does Israel have any choice but to employ police-state (or semi-police-state) tactics when being perpetually attacked by suicide bombers?

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately your bigotry (a bit less odious than Gamblor but only because it is founded on ignorance) comes through in your inability to analyze the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am only bigoted against violent morons and totalitarian assholes. If the Palestinian population contains a higher perecentage of such bastards, then there may be more individual Palestinians whom I would think of as scum, than perhaps individuals somewhere else. Thhis certainly does not mean I am bigoted against all Palestinians. Furthermore, this is the logical and moral way to look at such things.

[ QUOTE ]
It is however true that Israel has not (yet?) resorted to the truly abhorrent death chambers of the Nazis. But in terms of the use of Ghettos, the targetting and rampant, indescriminate use of force and the collective stigmatization of a group they embody the racism of the Nazi's and the Apartheid era.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they do so defensively. They have no choice due to all the violent fanatics who suicide bomb them and would push them into the sea if given the chance. Also, I do not think Israel uses force entirely indiscriminately.

Let the Palestinians act like human beings instead of like animals or demons, and then Israel can treat them in a better manner: of course, most Palestinians are not animals or demons, but the general Palestinian population has not restrained its individual beasts nor its beastly groups like Hamas. In fact many of them support such groups and suicide bombing. If they can't or won't curtail such activity, then Israel is perfectly justified in conducting targeted assassinations against the leaders of militant groups. Also Israel is thereby forced to treat all Palestinians as potential suicide bombers; hence the fence, etc.

The Palestinians ought to move on; they don't have to stay trapped in a ghetto and in a fruitless rage. Heck if I was a Palestinian do you think I would be trying to fight an unwinnable battle against a much stronger foe for my grandfather's land? No, nor would I stay in the ghetto: I'd leave somehow. Ask the boat people and other refugees who have fled bad places for uncertain chances in better places. That would be me in a flash. They don't all have to all remain there wallowing in their misery.

MMMMMM

04-19-2005, 08:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you are just willing to give Gamblor the benefit of doubt in his use of the word population and the "set" that defines.

Other than that there is no interpretation of his words other than that offered by Cyrus that stands up to scrutiny.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not quite correct, although I would be inclined to give Gamblor the benefit of the doubt. Here is why it is not quite correct:

Gamblor used the word "and" thusly: "...a violent belligerent population and their band of supporters". This usage indicates a distinction between the violent belligerents and the band that supports them. Therefore it is clear that he is not referring to the entire Palestinian population as "violent, beliggerent". Therefore Cyrus is wrong in saying that his words mean "Ergo, all Palestinians are terrorists!".

ACPlayer

04-19-2005, 08:27 AM

Yes, Israel has a choice. It can either a) provide citizenship for all those in the ghetto's and expand its border to the Jordan river or b) allow the Palestinians self determination and statehood (which includes a police and military and does not include settlers scattered through its area).

If it had done either and the suicide bombimgs continued then it would be morally justified to defend itself.

However, as Chris and Cyrus have pointed out Israel wants a "pure" state that extends to the Jordan river which means it is not in favor of peace as long as it has the preponderance of military might and the idiotic American policy to back it up.

Let the Palestinians act like human beings instead of like animals or demons

And exactly what set of people are you talking about. The entire population? That is the group you are punishing and labelling as animals or demons. The MEMRI propoganda machine has converted another dupe.

MMMMMM

04-19-2005, 08:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Let the Palestinians act like human beings instead of like animals or demons
---------------------------------------------------------------
And exactly what set of people are you talking about. The entire population? That is the group you are punishing and labelling as animals or demons. The MEMRI propoganda machine has converted another dupe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here was my quote, in full:

"Let the Palestinians act like human beings instead of like animals or demons, and then Israel can treat them in a better manner: of course, most Palestinians are not animals or demons, but the general Palestinian population has not restrained its individual beasts nor its beastly groups like Hamas. In fact many of them support such groups and suicide bombing. If they can't or won't curtail such activity, then Israel is perfectly justified in conducting targeted assassinations against the leaders of militant groups. Also Israel is thereby forced to treat all Palestinians as potential suicide bombers; hence the fence, etc."

Obviously I am talking about suicide bombers and those in the militant groups. Obviously I am NOT talking about the entire population (as being "animals or demons").

I don't know whether you just read it too fast or whether you deliberately took my quote out of context (and even out of sentence). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here but please try to be more careful in the future.

Cyrus

04-19-2005, 09:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You are not reading this with a sharp enough eye. Get out your scalpel not your broad axe. What you wrote above is NOT necessarily the implication of Gamblor's words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, a population is not a population, right, attaboy.

...I think the Ann Coulter/Canadians-in-Vietnam thread already provided me with a full year's supply of your obfuscation.

So, you're on your own here. Knock yourself out.

nicky g

04-19-2005, 09:22 AM

He refers to the forced removal of the people in question. Given that 7/8 of the Arab population of what is now Israel were forcibly removed, he is clearly referring to the majority of Palestinians.

Cyrus

04-19-2005, 09:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Here, Cyrus, I'll fix your post:

Hi Gamblor,
...
I just noticed that you were explaining to [Dead] that the only thing keeping him Jewish is whatever mindless ancient customs he has (regardless of where he got them).

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that the only thing that makes you a Saxon or a German or a Jew are such "mindless ancient customs", right? I mean, you do realize that biology does not enter into this? And that Abraham's genes have been "lost" generations ago?

The day you are able to "fix" something about national identity will be a drizzly day in hell.

MMMMMM

04-19-2005, 09:57 AM

Not obfuscation, Cyrus; Gamblor first identified the population he was referring to as those who are violent and belligerent.

If you have a population of fruit flies A, and a subset population B of fruit flies female, and another subset of fruit flies male (C) who mate with population (B)...when you say "a population of fruit flies female" you are clearly not referring to A, you are referring to population B which is a subset of A.

If you also have a population of fruit flies young (D), and you say: "a population of fruit flies female and their young", you are clearly not referring to the total population A. Likewise when Gamblor said "...a population of violent belligerents and their band of supporters" he was referring to two subsets in a greater population. This is indicated by his use of the word "and" and his naming of another group.

Hope this helps, but if it doesn't, go back to junior high school and ask Mr. or Mrs. -----------.

MMMMMM

04-19-2005, 10:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]

He refers to the forced removal of the people in question. Given that 7/8 of the Arab population of what is now Israel were forcibly removed, he is clearly referring to the majority of Palestinians.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely sure about that and I have to run, but even if so, Gamblor wasn't referring to all Palestinians (as you put it only the majority); hence my valid gripe with Cyrus' remark that Gamblor's words meant "Ergo, all Palestinians are tewrrorists!"

I'm going to be late, gotta run.

jaxmike

04-19-2005, 11:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Final Solution?

Comparing the forced removal of a violent, belligerent terrorist population and its band of supporters to the outright murder of a non-violent benign ethnic group is the sickest bastardization of reason I have ever heard.

Keep up the good work Herr Goebbels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because we all know that the Jews were constantly firing rockets into Berlin and Munich. Occasionally one would detonate an explosive device on his person in a crowded market.

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The current situation in Israel/Palestine is NOTHING like your beloved Nazi Germany.

ACPlayer

04-19-2005, 11:46 AM

You dont need to give me the benefit of the doubt. I read it precisely as you wrote it.

You start out by asking the Palestinians to act like human beings and not the suicide bombers. The sentence is plain and clear. Of course with your MEMRI washed brain you lump the guilty and the innocent into one pile. The exact same line that terrorists like Sharon want us to buy. The rest of the paragraph is an excuse to treat the entire population like animals or demons. Collective punishment should be entirely anethema to the American (specially the American Libertarian you claim to be) and to all intelligent people (another unsubstantiated claim offered by yourself).

ACPlayer

04-19-2005, 11:54 AM

You are emotionalizing the thinking by talking about Nazi's not being under rocket attack. The point is that they (the Nazi's) believed they were being attacked by the Jews (for economic and religious reasons -- those are valid attacks as well btw if real). The German politicians used this attack to whip up hysteria so that the politicians could further their goals. The religious right in the Zionist camp uses the suicide bombers to whip up the same hysteria about donkey riding monkeys to enable the cleansing of Israel and the continued land grab.

The parallels are there. The scale of atrocities in Nazi Germany was far more horrendous bu that is not the only parallel one can or should consider.

jaxmike

04-19-2005, 12:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are emotionalizing the thinking by talking about Nazi's not being under rocket attack. The point is that they (the Nazi's) believed they were being attacked by the Jews (for economic and religious reasons -- those are valid attacks as well btw if real). The German politicians used this attack to whip up hysteria so that the politicians could further their goals. The religious right in the Zionist camp uses the suicide bombers to whip up the same hysteria about donkey riding monkeys to enable the cleansing of Israel and the continued land grab.

The parallels are there. The scale of atrocities in Nazi Germany was far more horrendous bu that is not the only parallel one can or should consider.

[/ QUOTE ]

The parallels are nonsense. You CANNOT equate trumped up rhetoric, like those used by the antisemites in Germany as a comparison to the Israeli's living in fear of rocket attacks and suicide bombers.

Israel has been attacked time and time again. Both by military forces of its neighbors and by terrorists in land it legitimately occupies.

The need to equate Zionists to Nazis is amazing to me.

Their is little practical similarities between the issues you try to draw comparisons too. The only thing that it accomplishes is making you and other idiots believe that the Israeli's are kind of like the Nazis.

MMMMMM

04-19-2005, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You dont need to give me the benefit of the doubt. I read it precisely as you wrote it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you took it entirely out of context.

[ QUOTE ]
You start out by asking the Palestinians to act like human beings and not the suicide bombers. The sentence is plain and clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is very clear that I am NOT calling all Palestinians animals or demons. I wrote, to wit: "Let the Palestinians act like human beings instead of like animals or demons, and then Israel can treat them in a better manner: of course, most Palestinians are not animals or demons,..."

[ QUOTE ]
Of course with your MEMRI washed brain you lump the guilty and the innocent into one pile. The exact same line that terrorists like Sharon want us to buy. The rest of the paragraph is an excuse to treat the entire population like animals or demons. Collective punishment should be entirely anethema to the American (specially the American Libertarian you claim to be) and to all intelligent people (another unsubstantiated claim offered by yourself).

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't collective punishment I favor or argue for, but rather the necessity of somewhat effective security. SINCE the Palestinians have allowed the militant elements among them to gain so much power and leeway to wreak havoc, unfortunately those necessary security measures which Israel must take do end up sometimes punishing the Palestinians as a whole. Well...whose fault is that? The Palestinians have forced Israel to take extreme security measures via their persistent attacks. And by the way, the fence in the non-Gaza part is working just great, thank you very much: the incidence of attacks there is nil or nearly nil. Yes the fence punishes a great many more Palestinians but Israel has no choice.

Maybe the Palestinians should rise up and stop/disband their militant groups? Could that actually help their cause, do you think? Or should they keep attacking and keep getting collectively punished by the therefore necessary security measures???

Gamblor

04-19-2005, 08:21 PM

You realize that the only thing that makes you a Saxon or a German or a Jew are such "mindless ancient customs", right?

Irrelevant.

Israelis are living and breathing Jewish culture. One that doesn't include the ol' "let's just redo what dad did in the old country and hope they don't slaughter us again" culture.

Gamblor

04-19-2005, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Jewish == Religion

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in America, the great melting pot (where everyone is American first and whatever else second) is this true.

[ QUOTE ]
Israel is a based on a theocratic principles

[/ QUOTE ]

Only some parts of Israeli law consider theology, and that was only to appease that percentage of Jews who actually practiced the religion.

zaxx19

04-19-2005, 11:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Israel is a based on a theocratic principles

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you say that? Do you know anything about Israeli law?

Do you know anything about Israel?

ACPlayer

04-20-2005, 12:38 AM

Actually, I have visited Israel more than once though about 10 years ago and for business.

Israel was formed to protect and hence enhance a particular religion. Fundamentally it is a state who's founding charter is based on a religion.

Cyrus

04-20-2005, 02:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Several terms of the amistice were violated.
*Firing on American aircraft.
*Kicking out the UN inspectors.
*Interfring with the UN inspectors.
etc....

[/ QUOTE ]

And the United Nations (for lack of better alternative, still the world's body assigned to deal with such matters) took the infractions into consideration and acted upon them. The results were re-introducing inspections, allowing the inspectors back, etc.

As it turned out and as the Americans that invaded Iraq found out, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had complied with the UN demands! The WMDs had been destroyed! Which kinds puts the argument about the Un being "impotent" to rest. The UN's way was more tardy, that's all.

And it didn't kill people. You seem to prefer some tens of thousands of people killed just so that things happen more quickly. Typical of American gung-ho idiocy.

[ QUOTE ]
Iraqi SAM sites frequently chose to 'radar lock' on US aircraft. This is analogous to pointing a gun at someone with the finger on the trigger. By rules of enagagement, that SAM site became a HOSTILE target and the US military was free to destroy it. As they should have.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, the testimony of the people from the very side that eventually attacked and destroyed Iraq must be taken at face value pertaining to the excuses for the attack and destruction! Beautiful.

Got any independent, verifiable evidence that the Iraqis were firing without cause (eg without being bombarded) and/or "locking their radars" onto American and British aircraft over the no fly's? Ooops, I forgot, that's the kind of evidence that the United Nations is supposed be invited to provide. But you would never think of the UN interefring. Silly of me to even mention it.

zaxx19

04-20-2005, 03:45 AM

Here is the declaration of the establishment of Israel.

I dont see this as being theocratic in anyway or based on any religion of which I am familiar.

It does have however STRONG elements of Ethno-nationalism, and for that I wouldnt make excuses.

[ QUOTE ]
ERETZ-ISRAEL (the Land of Israel) was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma'pilim (immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation) and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.

In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.

This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people — the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe — was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the community of nations.

Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe, as well as Jews from other parts of the world, continued to migrate to Eretz-Israel, undaunted by difficulties, restrictions and dangers, and never ceased to assert their right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in their national homeland.

In the Second World War, the Jewish community of this country contributed its full share to the struggle of the freedom- and peace-loving nations against the forces of Nazi wickedness and, by the blood of its soldiers and its war effort, gained the right to be reckoned among the peoples who founded the United Nations.

On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.

ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.

WE DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the People's Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ, the People's Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel".

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

THE STATE OF ISRAEL is prepared to cooperate with the agencies and representatives of the United Nations in implementing the resolution of the General Assembly of the 29th November, 1947, and will take steps to bring about the economic union of the whole of Eretz-Israel.

WE APPEAL to the United Nations to assist the Jewish people in the building-up of its State and to receive the State of Israel into the comity of nations.

WE APPEAL — in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months — to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

WE EXTEND our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.

WE APPEAL to the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora to rally round the Jews of Eretz-Israel in the tasks of immigration and upbuilding and to stand by them in the great struggle for the realization of the age-old dream — the redemption of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its here in black and white. Particular attention should be shown to the segment of the passage in BOLDFACE. It is important to note that the founders named Natural and Historic rights explicitly, but evidently didnt site Religious rights at all, in this key passage.

ACPlayer

04-20-2005, 07:51 AM

Your post says what I said. It was founded to protect and enhance a particular religion.

MMMMMM

04-20-2005, 08:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Your post says what I said. It was founded to protect and enhance a particular religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said Israel is a theocracy.

Theocracy means religious rule. Democracy means rule of the people. Israel's political system is clearly that of a democracy (albeit with a religious component)--not a theocracy.

The rabbis don't decree the law in Israel. There is a democratic political process. Israel is a democracy.

ACPlayer

04-20-2005, 08:24 AM

Becuase it is founded to protect a relgion -- an invalid reason to form a nation and full of perils. It is headed in the direction of a true theocracy. Once the right wing has annexed the land to the Jordan river and purged the lands of those hat are not "chosen" they will turn their attention to other political agendas.

When the principle is flawed the result is doomed. But then you always had trouble understanding principles and process.

I did like your little aside == albeit with a religious component. You may wish to cogitate on that to see how Israel may grow from its present infancy through adoloscence and into future history.

Even America is becoming more theocratic as control is being exercised by the Christian Right in policy from the local to the federal levels.

MMMMMM

04-20-2005, 08:28 AM

I won't argue as to whether Israel is drifting towards theocracy or not, as I don't know. I was just pointing out that calling it "a theocracy" is inaccurate.

Gamblor

04-20-2005, 12:28 PM

cause youre grasping at straws here.

ACPlayer

04-20-2005, 12:33 PM

Your witty repartee is at the same abysmal level as your inability to think, write or read.

Felix_Nietsche

04-20-2005, 02:38 PM

"And the United Nations (for lack of better alternative, still the world's body assigned to deal with such matters)"
************************************************** *****
The USA is a sovereign nation and the USA is FREE to work with the UN....OR NOT. To say the UN is "assigned to deal with such matters" is not necessarily correct. US sovereignty still trumps the UN 100% of the time...

"As it turned out and as the Americans that invaded Iraq found out, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had complied with the UN demands! The WMDs had been destroyed!"
************************************************** *****
That is more than I know...
It is true the USA has not discovered MASS stockpiles of WMD but.....Where is the evidence that the WMD were destroyed?
Answer: There is none except for Hussein's testimony. And everybody knows what a TRUTHFUL guy S.Hussein is. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Typical of American gung-ho idiocy.
********************************************
Care to share your nationalty?

"Got any independent, verifiable evidence that the Iraqis were firing without cause (eg without being bombarded) and/or "locking their radars" onto American and British aircraft over the no fly's?"
************************************************** ****
So are you going to cite a conspiracy theory that American pilots attacked Iraqi SAM sites without being provoked?

If you were to, I would remind you all USA military aircraft contains black boxes which record everything that happens on that plane. Black boxes are used to discover the cause(s) of military plane crashes as well as monitored enemy tactics and the pilots counter tactics. To believe that conspiracy theory, you would have to claim that the pilots were lying despite knowing the black box data would expose that lie. No rational military officer is going to risk their military career by falsifying an after action report...especially when that lie could be so easily exposed.... Nice try though.

It is interesting you imply the Iraqi SAM crews were peacefully drinking Merlot and planting flowers when SUDDENLY....Evil Nazi American Pilots bombed them. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cyrus

04-20-2005, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To say the UN is "assigned to deal with such matters" is not necessarily correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tell that to the Bush administration. They worked through the UN as long as it voted "right". (And when the UN suit their purposes, they acted unilaterally.) The United States has formally assigned to the UN such duties through its work in the SC and its co-authorship of various relevant resolutions.

The alternative to the UN is chaos, where the neighborhood bully naturally wins.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is the evidence that the WMD were destroyed?
Answer: There is none except for Hussein's testimony.

[/ QUOTE ] The Bush administration pretty much admitted that the search for the WMDs is over (but, of course, they keep their eyes open for 'em, etc). If you don't like the word "destroyed", use another. The stone cold fact is, sorry bud but there were no WMDs in Iraq! Which means, clearly and conclusively, that the much maligned UN sanctions and pressure were working. Blabber on to the contrary as much as you like.

[ QUOTE ]
So are you going to cite a conspiracy theory that American pilots attacked Iraqi SAM sites without being provoked? No rational military officer is going to risk their military career by falsifying an after action report.

[/ QUOTE ] Why do you find it so impossible that the American and British pilots were going out on bombing runs? And that the "provocation" was constructed afterwards?

Is it because you cannot see that such actions were perfectly compatible with American policy on Iraq? Or because you believe that America never did such things before? You're like some latter day Polyanna in your naiveté.

MMMMMM

04-20-2005, 06:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is interesting you imply the Iraqi SAM crews were peacefully drinking Merlot and planting flowers when SUDDENLY....Evil Nazi American Pilots bombed them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah it's pretty amazing what Cyrus thinks these days;-) (whatever it is;-))

I recall reading a few years ago that Iraqi SAM missiles were fired at American planes in the no-fly zone at least once a day. In 2003 the Iraqis fired SAMs over 500 times at American planes. Of course, they SUCKED SO BAD, that they always missed, although there was a close call with a U2, and they did manage to take down a drone.

Note for Cyrus: the SAM sites were bombed because they locked radar on and/or fired on American planes conducting legal patrols--not the other way around.

nicky g

04-21-2005, 06:37 AM

"Note for Cyrus: the SAM sites were bombed because they locked radar on and/or fired on American planes conducting legal patrols--not the other way around. "

The legality of the no fly zones was shady to say the very least. See for instance this report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm) .

"However, unlike the military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the no-fly zones were not authorised by the UN and they are not specifically sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.
The resolution condemned the repression of the Iraqi civilian population and demanded that Iraq end it immediately.

It said the repression amounted to a threat to international peace and security - a phrase our correspondent says is often used to justify intervention.

But critics of the no-fly zones point out that the resolution did not say the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for enforcement action.

Nor did it say that all necessary means could be used.

Critics add that whatever was justified in 1991 is not necessarily justified more than 10 years later, when the reasons for continuing the air patrols may have changed. "

MMMMMM

04-21-2005, 08:53 AM

Thanks for the additional info., Nicky, and I do not know enough to comment further. At any rate the SAMs weren't fired because of American bombing of the sites; rather, American planes bombed the missile batteries in response to missile firings or perhaps radar locks. I would like to know from whence Cyrus gets the notion that it was generally the other way around.

Cyrus

04-21-2005, 10:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM : "American planes bombed the missile batteries in response to missile firings or perhaps radar locks. I would like to know from whence Cyrus gets the notion that it was generally the other way around."

[/ QUOTE ]

The American and British bombing runs were planned, executed and then justified. Even Americans from the Right started questioning the wisdom, if not the legitimacy, of such a policy. (Bill Clinton was president at the time.)

Sample reaction:

[ QUOTE ]

"I'm no fan of Saddam Hussein. He is certainly one of the most brutal dictators in the world today. But, the questions must be asked: "What are we doing in Iraq today? What are we hoping to accomplish? When will we be able to stop dropping bombs? How will we know when our objectives have been achieved? What are our objectives?"
Link to full article (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14811)

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a comment from your favorite right-wing loonies at World Net Daily ! /images/graemlins/grin.gif Way back in 1999, before 9/11 and the madness that rules ever since over America. Seems like you are not reading carefully the comments of even your own folks.

Here's something from a more credible source:

[ QUOTE ]
"On February 16 2001, President George W. Bush ordered a bombing outside the NFZs, close to Baghdad. That attack reportedly killed 3 civilians and wounded 30 more. Since that time, there have been four more bombings (2/21, 2/22, 3/20, and 3/30)."

[/ QUOTE ] "Outside the No-fly Zones" means that the American airplanes had no business being there. And note that they were not attacked! Bush simply ordered a bombing run.

[ QUOTE ]
"Since the December, 1998 “Desert Fox” bombing of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq, U.S. and British air raids have become, in Bush's words, “routine.”
In 1999, they attacked 138 times; an average of once every three days.
In 2000, the average came closer to once every five days.
Although less frequent, there have been a total of 13 bombings just in the first 95 days of 2001; an average of once per week.

[/ QUOTE ] You don't have "routine bombing runs" when you are only reacting to "Iraqi radars locking up" on you or missiles fired at your plane.

[ QUOTE ]
"In early March 2001, Powell stated that the U.S. was looking to expand the list of possible targets in the no-fly zones to include suspected weapons sites."
 . 
Link to full article (http://www.rdrop.com/~pjw/flyer0401/ceasefire10YLfacts.pdf)

[/ QUOTE ] Which means that the US was clearly planning its bombing runs with specific, offensive objectives. The American and British aircraft were NOT reacting to "Iraqi radar locking up on them", as people like Felix Nietzsche sheepishly claim.

Pretty air-tight case.

Cyrus

04-21-2005, 10:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM : "I do not know enough to comment further."

[/ QUOTE ] You should make that admission a permanent signature in your posts! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Here's why the Iraqis had a legitimate reason to put obstacles to the work of the United Nations. The same United Nations that is despised by the neo-conservative loonies today.

[ QUOTE ]
...the Boston Globe and The Washington Post reported, on January 6 [1999], that "U.S. intelligence agencies, working under the cover of the United Nations, carried out an ambitious spying operation." The Clinton administration refused comment on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Article : "Clinton's other war" (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/04/iraq.html)
.

jaxmike

04-21-2005, 10:21 AM

Here is where you are wrong. Many of the strikes ordered by Clinton and Bush have been planned, this much is true. However, you simply are not even considering the reasons behind the attacks. What were they? Do you have access to the intelligence? Were you flying the planes that were locked onto by SAM and radar sites? Do you understand how these things work?

I don't think you do.

Basically, I am sure there are cases when Iraq locked on to US fighters with a SAM site, and there was an *almost* immediate response from the fighter(s). The best response is a missle that targets radar. By simply turning on the batteries, they become targets.

However, in many cases the SAM sites, or other tactically critical targets are discovered in the flyovers/satellite images/or other intelligence. In these cases, the fighters would basically plan a mission to take the weaponry (or whatever) in question out. Just because the mission is planned doesn't necessarily mean that its not a response to a threat or provacative action on the part of the Iraqis.

You jump to conclusions. They fit your disturbing and pathetic world view. That's fine, I don't expect irrational and emotional people to do anything less.

jaxmike

04-21-2005, 10:26 AM

Perhaps if UNSCOM was doing its job or if Hussein was cooperating with the UN's inspectors there would not have been a need for this to happen, if its even true.

MMMMMM

04-21-2005, 10:32 AM

Thanks for the explanation, Cyrus, and I think it shouldbe noted that this is disctinct from the fact that every day, Iraqi SAM sites fired on American planes patrolling the no-fly zone.

Ok, so on certain occasions, the bombing runs were pre-planned, and over expanded territoty, for various reasons. BUT generally speaking, bombing of SAM sites was most often in response to the daily act of Iraqi SAM missiles firing on American planes! Funny how you left that out of your post when you first broached the subject.

Cyrus

04-21-2005, 03:40 PM

It's almost like conversing with the Automatic Monkey.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so on certain occasions, the bombing runs were pre-planned, and over expanded territory, for various reasons.

[/ QUOTE ] On "certain occasions" ?? Try "routinely", as George Bush put it.

The planned bombing runs were the rule. The official policy was to bomb and bomb again. Responding to Iraqi missiles or "radar locks" was the exception.

[ QUOTE ]
Generally speaking, bombing of SAM sites was most often in response to the daily act of Iraqi SAM missiles firing on American planes!

[/ QUOTE ] Only in your dreams. The articles I linked to provide enough explanations and data for anyone who's remotely objective to understand that during Clinton's term and until the invasion of
2003, the United States was purposefully, actively and quite heavily bombing Iraqi villages, factories, installations, military compounds, and, yes, SAM sites - whether they were firing or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how you left that out of your post when you first broached the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
There have been indeed some cases where the Iraqis fired on American airplanes before those airplanes fired their rockets. Given the pattern of American bombing on Iraq, a pattern that was quite destructive and without any limitations, I am not surprised at this and cannot really condemn it: As I wrote when I first broached the subject, the Iraqis were simply defending themselves. They see airplanes bombing for weeks without being provoked and when they come again the next day, they fire at them first! A point that war supporters choose to ignore. (The same folks who usually support the right of every individual to protect his home with lethal force when it's invaded by intruders.)

Cyrus

04-21-2005, 03:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
...the SAM sites...

[/ QUOTE ] Obviously you either cannot read or your brain no longer registers the intended meaning of words.

I have provided you with links to texts that show that the American and British bombing campaign throughout the 1990s was NOT limited to "SAM sites". Yet you go on, carping about "radars locking", etc. The West was bombing Iraq to the tune of a bombing run every three to five days! The West was bombing every "target" under the sun, sparing nobody and nothing.

Some of the targets were SAM sites. Some of the Iraqi anti-aircraft installations (all? many? a few? you call it) indeed would have fired first at the incoming airplanes -- seeing as those airplanes were bombing the living daylights out of Iraq (inside and outside the No-Fly Zone), the Iraqis truly must have taken the "offensive" a number of times (a lot? a few - you call 'em).

Which doesn't change the stone cold fact that the Americans and the British were bombing Iraq -- whether "provoked" or not.

[ QUOTE ]
You jump to conclusions. They fit your disturbing and pathetic world view. That's fine, I don't expect irrational and emotional people to do anything less.

[/ QUOTE ] Pot, kettle, blackest black.

jaxmike

04-21-2005, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...the SAM sites...

[/ QUOTE ] Obviously you either cannot read or your brain no longer registers the intended meaning of words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another childish assault on me. Again, it was ignorantly delivered (ignores the facts) and taken totally out of context. I did not in any way limit my discussion soley to SAM sites. You just ignore that fact.

Here is my proof from what I wrote...
[ QUOTE ]
However, in many cases the SAM sites, or other tactically critical targets are discovered in the flyovers/satellite images/or other intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

OR OTHER TACTICALLY CRITICAL TARGETS
(I know that I missed a comma in what I quoted, so the Grammar-Nazi Dead doesn't get to be the first to bring it up.)

[ QUOTE ]
I have provided you with links to texts that show that the American and British bombing campaign throughout the 1990s was NOT limited to "SAM sites".

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I did not limit my post to SAM sites. Please learn to read. I repeat... OR OTHER TACTICALLY CRITICAL TARGETS

[ QUOTE ]
Yet you go on, carping about "radars locking", etc. The West was bombing Iraq to the tune of a bombing run every three to five days! The West was bombing every "target" under the sun, sparing nobody and nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please prove your assertion that the "West" was bombing Iraq indisciminately every three to five days. Your links do no such thing. The targets of the bombings were DISRIMINATE, they were CHOSEN. There CAN be a planned retaliation to threatening material or actions, it doesn't have to be immediate.

[ QUOTE ]
Some of the targets were SAM sites. Some of the Iraqi anti-aircraft installations (all? many? a few? you call it) indeed would have fired first at the incoming airplanes -- seeing as those airplanes were bombing the living daylights out of Iraq (inside and outside the No-Fly Zone), the Iraqis truly must have taken the "offensive" a number of times (a lot? a few - you call 'em).

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to think that Iraq was allowed to do what it pleased OUTSIDE the NFZ. This is not the case. Clearly you do not understand the situation in Iraq during this time, specifically in regards to what it was allowed to do under the cease-fire agreement it signed.

[ QUOTE ]
Which doesn't change the stone cold fact that the Americans and the British were bombing Iraq -- whether "provoked" or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, we were bombing them.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You jump to conclusions. They fit your disturbing and pathetic world view. That's fine, I don't expect irrational and emotional people to do anything less.

[/ QUOTE ] Pot, kettle, blackest black.

[/ QUOTE ]

My points in this thread have not been emotional, and have been rational. You simply have been out-debated... again.

Cyrus

04-22-2005, 02:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Please prove your assertion that the "West" was bombing Iraq indisciminately every three to five days. Your links do no such thing. The targets of the bombings were DISRIMINATE, they were CHOSEN.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pro-war faction of this forum, with Felix Nietzsce most prominently, claimed that the American and British airplanes were bombarding "only in retaliation" to missiles fired at them or radars locking on them.

I showed that this is a bunch of nonsense.

Now, in your usual deluded state of mind, you wanna deny that it was a pure, unadulterated bombing campaign. You wanna claim that it was still a defensive reaction to Iraqi beligerence!

Well, dufus, "the targets of the bombings were DISRIMINATE, they were CHOSEN". This is what bombing campaigns are made of. Defensive actions are not like that.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to think that Iraq was allowed to do what it pleased OUTSIDE the NFZ. This is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another gem from the resident gemologist!

In other words, not only the unilaterally imposed No-fly Zones should have been obeyed by the Iraqis, but the Iraqis should also be guessing what they could do outside the NFZs. Beautiful.

Well, as the links (a few among many sources) show, the American and British bombing of Iraq was pretty much intentional (there's an understatement), contnuous and independent of Iraqi reaction -- which was useless, as everybody knew, anyway. And the bombing was done both inside and outside the NFZs.

[ QUOTE ]
Please learn to read. I repeat... OR OTHER TACTICALLY CRITICAL TARGETS

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, every object on the ground can be labeled like that. Especially after the fact! Some of us, you know, remember all too well the stories about "hidden explosives" in bombed schools. What a sad figure you make.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly you do not understand the situation in Iraq during this time, specifically in regards to what it was allowed to do under the cease-fire agreement it signed.

[/ QUOTE ] I admit that I never flew an airplane over Iraq. But I do know more than you, and, I dare say, I can see things clearer than you. (But, then, most people do, anyway.)

Oh, and before I forget : The No-fly Zones were put in place ostensibly to protect the Kurds in the North and the Shi'ites in the South. Because, of course, Saddam Hussein could hit the Kurds and the Shi'ites only from the air!... What a horror show.

nicky g

04-22-2005, 06:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It's almost like conversing with the Automatic Monkey.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so on certain occasions, the bombing runs were pre-planned, and over expanded territory, for various reasons.

[/ QUOTE ] On "certain occasions" ?? Try "routinely", as George Bush put it.

The planned bombing runs were the rule. The official policy was to bomb and bomb again. Responding to Iraqi missiles or "radar locks" was the exception.

[ QUOTE ]
Generally speaking, bombing of SAM sites was most often in response to the daily act of Iraqi SAM missiles firing on American planes!

[/ QUOTE ] Only in your dreams. The articles I linked to provide enough explanations and data for anyone who's remotely objective to understand that during Clinton's term and until the invasion of
2003, the United States was purposefully, actively and quite heavily bombing Iraqi villages, factories, installations, military compounds, and, yes, SAM sites - whether they were firing or not.

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how you left that out of your post when you first broached the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
There have been indeed some cases where the Iraqis fired on American airplanes before those airplanes fired their rockets. Given the pattern of American bombing on Iraq, a pattern that was quite destructive and without any limitations, I am not surprised at this and cannot really condemn it: As I wrote when I first broached the subject, the Iraqis were simply defending themselves. They see airplanes bombing for weeks without being provoked and when they come again the next day, they fire at them first! A point that war supporters choose to ignore. (The same folks who usually support the right of every individual to protect his home with lethal force when it's invaded by intruders.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention that the Iraqis had a very strong case that the no-fly zones had no legal basis and that the planes enforcing them and/or bombing Iraqi targets were illegally and agressively violating sovereign Iraqi airspace.

MMMMMM

04-22-2005, 08:55 AM

From the articles linked in your post of 0/4/21/05 10:04 AM, Cyrus:

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a typical AP report from earlier this week:

"U.S. warplanes bombed two Iraqi air defense sites Monday in response to Iraqi anti-aircraft fire, the U.S. military said.

"The planes bombed an air-defense warning site south of the city of Mosul, about 250 miles north of Baghdad, the military said in a statement released from the Germany-based U.S. European Command. They also bombed an anti-aircraft artillery site northwest of Mosul.

"The air-defense warning site was part of a wider Iraqi air-defense system that had regularly targeted planes patrolling the no-fly zone over northern Iraq, the statement said. The same site was bombed during routine patrols Friday in response to Iraqi fire.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14811

Just how do you claim that that those bombings were not in response to aggressive Iraqi SAM activity, according to the article above?

The second article you linked gave a number of examples or counts of bombings. It mentioned the number of bombing runs per year for a certain few years. BUT THAT NUMBER WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN ONE PER DAY. IRAQI SAM MISSILES WERE FIRED AT U.S. PATROL PLANES EVERY DAY for a number of years, as I've pointed out. So again you have no case that the SAM attacks were in response to U.S. bombing runs.

Now here is a link detailing the chronology of U.S. strikes of Operation Southern Watch. Yes SOME runs were in response to U.N. violations, but MANY runs were in response to hostile activity by Iraq. This controverts your claim that all Iraqi antiaircraft fire/SAM missile attacks were defensive in nature. Check out the other years too, if you wish;-)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch-2001.htm

jaxmike

04-22-2005, 10:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The pro-war faction of this forum, with Felix Nietzsce most prominently, claimed that the American and British airplanes were bombarding "only in retaliation" to missiles fired at them or radars locking on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I make that claim? Then STFU.
[ QUOTE ]
Now, in your usual deluded state of mind, you wanna deny that it was a pure, unadulterated bombing campaign. You wanna claim that it was still a defensive reaction to Iraqi beligerence!

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not deluded, and I do not think it was an unadulterated bombing campaign. Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all bombed Iraqi targets, there is not a political issue for me at all. I UNDERSTAND the situation, you clearly do not.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, dufus, "the targets of the bombings were DISRIMINATE, they were CHOSEN". This is what bombing campaigns are made of. Defensive actions are not like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your idea of defensive is clearly not consistent with anyone elses then. Defensive campaigns do not have to be immediate, they can be delayed.

[ QUOTE ]

Another gem from the resident gemologist!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, you admit I was right....

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, not only the unilaterally imposed No-fly Zones should have been obeyed by the Iraqis, but the Iraqis should also be guessing what they could do outside the NFZs. Beautiful.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the Iraqi's knew what they could and could not do. However, just like everything else, they just ignored it. They did what they wanted, they ignored the terms of the cease fire. As soon as you learn this, you may be able to speak more intelligently and accurately about this.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, as the links (a few among many sources) show, the American and British bombing of Iraq was pretty much intentional (there's an understatement), contnuous and independent of Iraqi reaction -- which was useless, as everybody knew, anyway. And the bombing was done both inside and outside the NFZs.

[/ QUOTE ]

And? The targets were legitimate. End of story. Doesn't matter WHERE the bombings were, Clinton fired cruise missles into Baghdad the day of, or before his impeachment, THAT may have been over the line, if only because it LOOKED REALLY BAD (like he was trying to take the heat off himself).

[ QUOTE ]

Yep, every object on the ground can be labeled like that. Especially after the fact! Some of us, you know, remember all too well the stories about "hidden explosives" in bombed schools. What a sad figure you make.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you finally admit that you were 100% wrong in how you presented my quote. Thank you for your admission. Funny how there have been lots of explosives found in schools in Iraq. Sad that you don't have the courage to stand up to evil.

[ QUOTE ]

Oh, and before I forget : The No-fly Zones were put in place ostensibly to protect the Kurds in the North and the Shi'ites in the South. Because, of course, Saddam Hussein could hit the Kurds and the Shi'ites only from the air!... What a horror show.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok.

jaxmike

04-22-2005, 10:46 AM

To hell with the facts. I will speak out of my irrational anger!

Cyrus

04-22-2005, 07:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am not deluded.

[/ QUOTE ] You are seriously deluded but you can't tell, in your state.

[ QUOTE ]
The targets were legitimate. End of story. Doesn't matter WHERE the bombings were. Clinton fired cruise missiles into Baghdad.[/b]

[/ QUOTE ]

See what I mean? Delusion! You support one position and then you write stuff that totally destroys it! You say the bombing campaign was essentially defensive in nature and then you say that Clinton was pretty much shooting wildly everywhere. "Doesn't matter where the bombings were", huh?

[ QUOTE ]
The Iraqi's knew what they could and could not do.

[/ QUOTE ] Remember, this is about the bombing campaign outside the No-fly Zones! So please tell us, O Greatest of the Great Swamis, what exactly were the Iraqis supposed to do outside the No-Fly Zones so that they wouldn't get bombed?
(Answer: Stop breathing.)

[ QUOTE ]
You finally admit that you were 100% wrong in how you presented my quote.

[/ QUOTE ] Don't flatter yourself. The day I need to misquote you to prove you are wrong will be the day you wake up with an overdose of L-dopa.

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how there have been lots of explosives found in schools in Iraq. Sad that you don't have the courage to stand up to evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was sarcasm, dufus.

American and British ariplanes were bombing everything under the sun. (The objectives of the bombing campaign included hitting the population itself. The "strategy" of causing shock, unrest and then rebellion from the Iraqi people is common knowledge.)

When the American and British airplanes were hitting something too blatant for TV audiences, such as schools or hospitals, the spokesman numbnuts from the Pentagon was quick to claim that there were weapons hidden inside the school!

You apparently swallowed that lie --- hook, line and sinker.

Cyrus

04-22-2005, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This controverts your claim that all Iraqi antiaircraft fire/SAM missile attacks were defensive in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did I say that all Iraqi fire was responsive to American aggression? I specifically wrote that I don't doubt the Iraqis would have indeed opened fire before the Americans did, oftentimes .

Which does NOT take anything away from the stone cold fact that the Americans and the British were conducting for close to a dozen years a straightforward, pure, unadulterated, offensive bombing campaign against Iraq. The perpetrators themselves have already admitted as much -- but silly war fans like MMMMMM will still have none of it...

MMMMMM

04-22-2005, 07:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This controverts your claim that all Iraqi antiaircraft fire/SAM missile attacks were defensive in nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say that all Iraqi fire was responsive to American aggression?

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone wrote that Iraq had violated the armistice by firing on or targeting coalition planes, and you responded with this: [ QUOTE ]
You first "three reasons" are idiocy cubed! What terms of an armistice did Saddam violate? (Oh, I get it! Iraqi anti-aircraft firing against American pilots who were bombarding them! Which conveniently ignores the all-important concept of self-defense. "Yes, officer, I had to kill that man because he was resisting when I hit 'im!")

[/ QUOTE ]

From the above I gathered that you were arguing that Iraqi SAM lock-ons/attacks were only of a defensive nature (otherwise it would mean that Iraq had indeed violated the terms of the armistice, no?)

[ QUOTE ]
I specifically wrote that I don't doubt the Iraqis would have indeed opened fire before the Americans did, oftentimes

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I must somehow have missed or forgotten that part. Anyway, it wasn't only that they would have, but that they did. And didn't that thereby violate the terms of the armistice agreement?

jaxmike

04-25-2005, 10:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not deluded.

[/ QUOTE ] You are seriously deluded but you can't tell, in your state.

[ QUOTE ]
The targets were legitimate. End of story. Doesn't matter WHERE the bombings were. Clinton fired cruise missiles into Baghdad.[/b]

[/ QUOTE ]

See what I mean? Delusion! You support one position and then you write stuff that totally destroys it! You say the bombing campaign was essentially defensive in nature and then you say that Clinton was pretty much shooting wildly everywhere. "Doesn't matter where the bombings were", huh?

[ QUOTE ]
The Iraqi's knew what they could and could not do.

[/ QUOTE ] Remember, this is about the bombing campaign outside the No-fly Zones! So please tell us, O Greatest of the Great Swamis, what exactly were the Iraqis supposed to do outside the No-Fly Zones so that they wouldn't get bombed?
(Answer: Stop breathing.)

[ QUOTE ]
You finally admit that you were 100% wrong in how you presented my quote.

[/ QUOTE ] Don't flatter yourself. The day I need to misquote you to prove you are wrong will be the day you wake up with an overdose of L-dopa.

[ QUOTE ]
Funny how there have been lots of explosives found in schools in Iraq. Sad that you don't have the courage to stand up to evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was sarcasm, dufus.

American and British ariplanes were bombing everything under the sun. (The objectives of the bombing campaign included hitting the population itself. The "strategy" of causing shock, unrest and then rebellion from the Iraqi people is common knowledge.)

When the American and British airplanes were hitting something too blatant for TV audiences, such as schools or hospitals, the spokesman numbnuts from the Pentagon was quick to claim that there were weapons hidden inside the school!

You apparently swallowed that lie --- hook, line and sinker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. You honestly think it's me that is delusional. That's quite funny. Good day.