Would you agree with these statements ?

"This could be a hopeful moment in the Middle East. The United States must support the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a Palestinian state."


"Israel must recognize the goal of a Palestinian state. The outlines of a just settlement are clear: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security. Israel also must recognize that a Palestinian state needs to be politically and economically viable. "


"The proposal of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, supported by the Arab League, puts a number of countries in the Arab world closer than ever to recognizing Israel's right to exist. The proposal builds on a tradition of visionary leadership, begun by President Sadat and King Hussein, and carried forward by President Mubarak and King Abdullah."


"Israel must understand that its response to the recent attacks must only be a temporary measure. All parties have their own responsibilities. And all parties owe it to their own people to act. Israeli settlement activity in occupied territories must stop. Israel should take immediate action to ease closures and allow peaceful people to go back to work."


Question : Who made these satements ?


1. Yassir Arafat.

2. Koffi Anan.

3. George Bush Jr.

4. Chris Alger.

5. Someone else : _______________

.....didn't Bill Clinton make those remarks while getting a hummer in the Oval Office, despite dike Hillary waiting outside for him to sign "Don't ask, don't tell" legislation?

All quotes from the mouth of George Bush!!

1. Yassir Arafat. - documented murderer

2. Koffi Anan. - documented murderer

3. George Bush Jr. - part of evil bush cabal (s&l , iran contra, cia, etc.)

4. Chris Alger. - admits hes a lawyer


is this your way of making politicians and lawyers look good?


brad

when kofi was in charge of un peacekeepers in africa he granted refuge or whatever to one faction (gave them his (un) protection), then after they were disarmed let in the other faction to slaughter them.


i can get you documentation if you want.


but basically because they were all blacks nobody cared.


brad


p.s. talking like a really lot of people (tens of thousands? a hundred thousand?) alex jones talks about it all the time.


also its been in the papers about all the sex trade /sex slaves the un has in kosovo. (12 year old girls, that kind of stuff.)

cut and paste whole link into address bar. never mind the thread as i think its probably just junk but this article was in there.


http://groups.google.com/groups?q=kofi+annan+murder&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=e_N84.19130%24Mg.288613%40c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com&rnum=9

I will only address your point abt Kofi Anan. It was to Anan's personal interest as well as to the U.N.'s interest to see that no mass slaughters tok place in Rwanda. That this is exactly what happened was not Anan's fault. (The post you invoke is taken from a dialogue between two racists.)


I fail to see Anan's interest in allowing the massacres. He has no issue with either faction.


(About Arafat: show me someone who's leading eirther faction or country in this conflict that is not a "murderer", in any sense of the word, and I show you a dead man.)


--Cyrus

I agree for the most part with these statements made by Bush, but I also question whether the Arab states have any right not to recognize Israel's right to exist, period, regardless of whether Israel withdraws to pre-war borders...after all, Israel is recognized according to international law, and some of the territory Israel gained was due to a negotiated agreement between Israel and its neighbors--they traded land for an end to hostilities, so it takes a lot of balls on the Saudis' part to ask for that land to revert to the Arab states, IMO, as a precondition to recognition of Israel's right to exist. Don't the Arabic states' legal agreements with Israel mean anything? On a more positive note, it is a sign of a potentially productive direction.


One problem faced by Israel is that the Arab world "agreeing to recognize" Israel's right to exist is simply that many factions within the Arabic world won't, regardless of what their governments officially decide--and as long as these governments allow organized ant-Israeli militant groups to continue to exist within their own countries, Israel's security will likely be breached at some point. Examples along these lines would be Hezbollah, and the militant organizations of the Palestinians. So if Israel cedes land which is strategically important for a "agreement", it means little when the chips are down and the militants attack Israel. In order for Israel to have confidence that this agreement would do much, Israel needs to have confidence that anti-Israel militant groups would be broken up and be not tolerated by their own governments--a highly unlikely scenario. And if the recent information which Bush has acquired and publicized parts of is true, that Arafat actually is secretly funding and supporting terrorism while denouncing it publicly, we have a situation which must be corrected first. It is true that "first and foremost Israel requires a reliable partner for peace."


I do think Israel probably could at this point cease the further development of settlements in the occupied territories, however, and that this would be a positive step.

"and some of the territory Israel gained was due to a negotiated agreement between Israel and its neighbors--they traded land for an end to hostilities, so it takes a lot of balls on the Saudis' part to ask for that land to revert to the Arab states, IMO, as a precondition to recognition of Israel's right to exist. Don't the Arabic states' legal agreements with Israel mean anything?"


No Arab state has ever agreed, to my knowledge, that Israel has any right at all to do anything at all in the occupied territories except leave. Further, the only proposal for occupied land to revert to an "Arab state" involves the Golan Heights, which has little to do with the current crisis.


Do you really have some agreement in mind that I'm not aware of, or is this some half-remembered fake history from the Jewish Virtual Library?

I think you may be misunderstanding me in this post, although I may have erred in a previous related post in an earlier thread.


The Saudis' recent offer to push for Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist calls for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders, if I'm not mistaken. I believe the Saudis want Israel to return the Golan Heights as a precondition for this Arab recognition.

We are at a point where the Middle East crisis is at an impasse. The Palestinians have nothing to offer except a pathetic demand for their much ridiculed rights, as recognized by the United States, the U.N. and the world, except Israel. (That and kamikaze attacks against civilians.) The Israeli leadership have nothing to offer except more military action -- they have nothing political to put forth, as they have been repeatedly asked by the State Department. The only way out would be a third party proposing a break-through.


Which is what the Saudi Arabian proposal is, for all intents and purposes. Everyone has applauded the initiative, except for .. well, you guess who.


It must be a coincidence that Saudi Arabia has been getting suddenly such bad press across the U.S. (has everyone woken up now to the fact that the Saudis are such "bad guys"?) and that no one talks any more about their peace initiative. Only about their support of terrorists, their backward regime, their de-stabilisation of the economy, and so forth.


Funny how all those deeds, or many worse deeds, never stopped the U.S. or Israel from considering Saudi Arabia a "constructive" partner for "stability in the region". Long as they didn't interfere with the ultimate Zionist objective of complete colonisation & annexation of the West Bank the Saudis were "good guys". My, my, my...

More blatant anti-Semitism from Chris Alger. About once out of every 3 times you post you reveal your true hatred for Jews.


The only person on this board that posts virtual reality scenarios is you. You clearly overlook the fact that the PA and Fatah (in reality one and the same entity) finance suicide bombings, and claim even if they do, that they are justified.

The Saudis havee financed terrorism against the USA. They are also a dictatorship.The majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. The Saudis paid Bin Laden hundreds of millions of dollars to attack somewhere else. Bin Laden is a Saudi.


My, my, my......

The Saudi proposal may represent an opportunity for some sort of breakthrough--it's the closest thing to an opportunity that has existed recently, anyway.


The "coincidence" that the increasingly widespread public realization that the Saudis ideologically and financially support terrorism, may have more to do with the slowly increasing public awareness effects of 9/11, than anything you might be implying regarding Zionist aims and colonization.


The Saudis have long been considered a friend/ally due to primarily their willingness to keep oil prices relatively stable. However, we are now seeing the effects of many years of the official Saudi teachings of Wahabbism bearing fruit: teach kids hatred and fanaticism on a regular and long-term basis, and that's what they'll probably grow up believing. So the average common Saudi Arabian is more fanatical now than a couple decades ago, I believe.


I think Kasparov might be right: once we deal with Iraq and have a strong military presence in the region, maybe..just maybe...we should deal with the other sponsors and supporters of terrorism in the region too: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. How? Not sure, but I am sure the whole picture is very problematic...just as I am sure the picture of allowing the supporters of terror to continue building WMD is very problematic.


IMO it's too bad NATO isn't completely behind us on this. With NATO's help we could simply occupy these countries, throw out the fanatical and dictatorial governments, engage in nation-building and more or less force democracy and more modern ways down the throats of these backwards societies. If they didn't pose such a future threat with regards to weapons of mass destruction, then I would definitely say let them be and wait for change to gradually seep into their societies. But fanatics and dictators who would take aim at us with WMD must be stopped BEFORE they can do so. And all this leads me to wonder if just maybe we should drag them from the Dark Ages into the 21st century a whole lot sooner than would occur by letting events take their natural courses.


If it definitely comes down to a bare choice between doing that, and getting nuked in many of our major cities sometime during the next ten years, then I would say go occupy them now. Whether this is the stark choice we face is debatable, but I don't think it can be effectively argued that we definitely DON'T face this choice of two roads. We might not, but we very well might as well.

I've not been following this forum for too long. But your posts, mostly builiding on imaginary sins and plenty of paranoia, seem to be the product of an exceptionally delusional mind. And I'm saying this as matter-of-factly as I possibly can. Clinical is my middle name, see.


This being a poker website otherwise, I have to wonder if you are playing the game on the basis of imaginay and desirable flops or on what the dealer deals down. Otherwise known as reality.


...Do keep up the act, in any case. It makes for a most diverting sorbet between platefuls of facts served up by the likes of Alger.

Your response comes to support what I said. That there's simply no logical explanation for the sudden media onslaught against the Saudis (concerning whom, you will remember, I was first here to point out the gross inconsistencies in Amercina foreign policy). That the Saudis are all your are saying and more is not disputed, at least by me. So why now? Why at the stage when they have a plan to take us outof this mess?? Because they support Muslim extremists and they are dictators?? Give me a break! The U.S. is all over the bed with Pakistan, what are you tellinng me?


Ask yourself this : Are Netanyahu and Sharon willing to give up the West Bank ?? Suppose the Palestinians put a stop to the bombing attacks. They accept all American and Israeli terms for an armistice. Well, Bush said he supports a fully independent Palestinian State in the West Bank. The whole world agrees with that. Do Shaorn and his cohorts?


You ebt they don't. And the one plan that brings them closer to that "nightmare scenario" is the plan put forth by that scumbad Muslim fundamendalist dictatorship, the Saudis. Connetc the dots.


"We should deal with the other sponsors and supporters of terrorism in the region too: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. How? Not sure.


If it definitely comes down to a bare choice between doing that, and getting nuked in many of our major cities sometime during the next ten years, then ..."


Then, dear M, like the good poker player you probably are, you gotta take a deep, hard look at the condition you find yourself in and ask yourself "How the hell did I allow it to come to this, not know WHAT TO DO?? How THE HELL it comes I have such LOUSY CHOICES??"

I think the public perception has been building, since 9/11, that the Saudis support terror at least indirectly, and that what we are seeing now is mainly the result of this increasing public awareness.


However I agree that Netanyahu and Sharon probably aren't willing to withdraw from the occupied territories--certainly not under present conditions, and perhaps never.


How we came to be faced with such unpleasant choices vis-a-vis the Arab world today is due to myriad factors, only one of which is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, although that is a big one. However even without it, we would still be seeing cultures in collision, as the Dark Ages mentality and customs of fundamentalist Islam is forced to come face to face with the modern world.

I have the same understanding. But what does this have to do with an "agreement" that the Arab countries wish to renege on? Syria never agreed that Israel can have the heights.

Look at this Springield post and the inquiry of mine he's replying to. Do I deserve to get tagged (yet again) as an antisemite by this guy?

OK, maybe I'm a bit unclear on some of the specifics and you could help me out.


Exactly which lands were turned over to Israel as parts of any cease-fire agreements?

You are the one that posted references to a "virtual reality" conspiracy. This falls right in line with your other views which support your warped belief that Jews somehow control the Western media.

None. Cease-fire agreements are just that, agreements to stop shooting, typically with armed forces remaining in place. None of the Arab countries, and certainly not the Palestinians, have ever agreed that Israel could rightfully retain any land acquired in 1967, and UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires Israel to give it back. (Israel disagrees, claiming that the language "withdraw from territories" is distinguishable from "withdraw from the territories," a position that outside Israel is accepted only the U.S., although not at first and barely now).

I've read otherwise but I'll have to do some searching for details; will address this at a later date in a new thread. Thx