BREAKING: Palestinian group says Israeli settler executed

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: RichardE

A government who wants to take care of its people does not allow its military to attack the neigbor nextdoor. What you show is how good Hamas is at propoghanda, and how gullible you are at believing it.

Now explain why they would allow and fund there military to attack Israel?

You need to go stay safe in your little gated suburban house. You OBVIOUSLY have never lived in a second world or third world country. Governments and political institutions have far less control than they do in established countries - that is why so many of them fall to rebellions, that is why so many are rife with military squads that the government can't control if they wanted to, that is why things just generally don't work that well. That's not unique to Palestine, that not unique to South America, that's not unique even now in Russia...but it happens in all of those places and more.

To say that you expect a 6 month old government of amature politicians whom inherited a dysfunctional government - to be able to control a divided, embittered population - is pure immaturity on your part. It just isn't going to happen in 6 months...maybe in 6 years. It has probably taken 3-5 years for the IRA to reign in it's splinter groups in Ireland after it assumed political power in a joint government with it's previous foes. During that time, the "Real IRA" and other splinter groups bombed England and Northern Ireland hoping to provoke a response and derail the peace process. England waivered...but restrained themselves...and today there is a semblance of peace in Ireland, and it has the fastest growing economy in the EU. But it took men of courage and conviction to remain unshakable in the provocations of those that wished to stop progress...people that know that the eventual welfare of the people is worth ignoring the slings and arrows of those that wish to provoke a response.

If you believe that Hamas's leadership is behind this, then please, tell my WHY? What tactical or strategic advantage would they hope to gain from abducting a single soldier and provoking a response from Isreal? Do you think they think that will get their monies freed from Israel? Do you think they needed to do that to gain additional political support internally?

Please, tell me why they would do such a thing...because frankly, it's a set-up. The only people that have to gain from this are hardcore Hamas fighters that are worried that Hamas may turn to peace...and those that play into their hands, like yourself...

Future Shock

I am not the Hamas leaders, I do not know why. From the dialogue they have communicated with the rest of the world, the dialogue has not been one of a peacefull organization intent on building a nation alongside Israel. The do not recognize it, wish for it to be destroyed. This is not a government who wishes to build peace, this is one that took the flame from the last government and continues the bloodshed.

So what if the goverment wish to destory israel? There not going to get there way so why not just work with them to make Palestian a better nation.

There military is still attacking Israel. Why would they work with a nation that sends it's military to kill civilians?

Because it is the only option that can lead to peace.

No, Palestine laying there weapons down can lead to peace. Israel not doing anything in regards to attacks leads to nothing but more Israel deaths.

Qhat makes you think israels attacks will work this time when they have failed for the last 40 years. Do you think destorying shackes while nring peace?

No, I think killing the majority of Palestinians militants and there leaders, while not caring who gets in the way will start. I agree with Futureshock that some Hamas leaders want peace, Israel need to kill everyone else. Sitting back and doing nothing like you want will not bring peace.

 

[Markbnj]

BTW - Sharon said the same thing repeatedly when HE was Prime Minister as well. Google is your friend...

Now, go find a mirror, and go find some idiocy...

You really are off the deep end. He was referring to the population dynamics in the so-called occupied territories, not the state of Israel as it existed before 1967. There are about 6.2m Israelis at this time, vs. 1.3m Palestinians. Here's a graph from a few years ago that ought to make the situation clear to even you.

Not that it matters. There is no "Palestinian" people. Just a ragtag mob of refugees from surrounding countries that, like the rest of the Arab world, spends as much time fighting among themselves as they do pointing their guns at any common enemy. Their history for the last 2000 years is a straight up record of slaughtering each other over the stupidest bullshit. Why do Shiites hate Sunnis and vice versa? Why have they been killing each other for all these years? Because they interpret the role of the Prophet's descendents differently. What a bunch of whackjobs.

They sat astride the nexus of three continents and the world's richest trade routes for more than two millenia, and what did they get for it? They got their asses kicked, over and over. They've never ruled Palestine. The only reason they are in the situation they're in now is that, rather than try to live peacefully with the Jews in 1948 they tried to kill them all, and failed.

I don't know if you have all these ties to the region or not. I don't think anything you say can be trusted, because you're damn near foaming at the mouth in your posts. I've been there and spent significant time in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Nazareth, and a few other places. I never met a Jew when I was there that expressed hatred for Arabs in general, or Palestinians in particular. Resignation was probably the dominant emotion I encountered. I'm sure a lot of that attitude comes from listening to leftist asshats in the west equivocating between the actions of Palestinian murders and the actions of the Jews in defending themselves.

So when was the last time the Israelis blew up a bus full of Palestinian men, women, and children? When was the last time they abducted a family and killed them all? When was the last time the Israelis lobbed rockets indiscriminately at Palestinian villages? When was the last time a mob of Israelis tore apart a Palestinian militant and danced arround with blood on their hands in front of a cheering mob? When was the last time a Jew, or a Christian, cut off someone's head for having a different set of beliefs?

You have a seriously warped worldview if you can blame the Jews for this situation. But then the Jews should be used to that, shouldn't they?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: RichardE

A government who wants to take care of its people does not allow its military to attack the neigbor nextdoor. What you show is how good Hamas is at propoghanda, and how gullible you are at believing it.

Now explain why they would allow and fund there military to attack Israel?

You need to go stay safe in your little gated suburban house. You OBVIOUSLY have never lived in a second world or third world country. Governments and political institutions have far less control than they do in established countries - that is why so many of them fall to rebellions, that is why so many are rife with military squads that the government can't control if they wanted to, that is why things just generally don't work that well. That's not unique to Palestine, that not unique to South America, that's not unique even now in Russia...but it happens in all of those places and more.

To say that you expect a 6 month old government of amature politicians whom inherited a dysfunctional government - to be able to control a divided, embittered population - is pure immaturity on your part. It just isn't going to happen in 6 months...maybe in 6 years. It has probably taken 3-5 years for the IRA to reign in it's splinter groups in Ireland after it assumed political power in a joint government with it's previous foes. During that time, the "Real IRA" and other splinter groups bombed England and Northern Ireland hoping to provoke a response and derail the peace process. England waivered...but restrained themselves...and today there is a semblance of peace in Ireland, and it has the fastest growing economy in the EU. But it took men of courage and conviction to remain unshakable in the provocations of those that wished to stop progress...people that know that the eventual welfare of the people is worth ignoring the slings and arrows of those that wish to provoke a response.

If you believe that Hamas's leadership is behind this, then please, tell my WHY? What tactical or strategic advantage would they hope to gain from abducting a single soldier and provoking a response from Isreal? Do you think they think that will get their monies freed from Israel? Do you think they needed to do that to gain additional political support internally?

Please, tell me why they would do such a thing...because frankly, it's a set-up. The only people that have to gain from this are hardcore Hamas fighters that are worried that Hamas may turn to peace...and those that play into their hands, like yourself...

Future Shock

I am not the Hamas leaders, I do not know why. From the dialogue they have communicated with the rest of the world, the dialogue has not been one of a peacefull organization intent on building a nation alongside Israel. The do not recognize it, wish for it to be destroyed. This is not a government who wishes to build peace, this is one that took the flame from the last government and continues the bloodshed.

So what if the goverment wish to destory israel? There not going to get there way so why not just work with them to make Palestian a better nation.

There military is still attacking Israel. Why would they work with a nation that sends it's military to kill civilians?

Because it is the only option that can lead to peace.

No, Palestine laying there weapons down can lead to peace. Israel not doing anything in regards to attacks leads to nothing but more Israel deaths.

Qhat makes you think israels attacks will work this time when they have failed for the last 40 years. Do you think destorying shackes while nring peace?

No, I think killing the majority of Palestinians militants and there leaders, while not caring who gets in the way will start. I agree with Futureshock that some Hamas leaders want peace, Israel need to kill everyone else. Sitting back and doing nothing like you want will not bring peace.

The area grows militants, so even if you kill everyone more will be there to take there place until you improve the condition of their life.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: RichardE

A government who wants to take care of its people does not allow its military to attack the neigbor nextdoor. What you show is how good Hamas is at propoghanda, and how gullible you are at believing it.

Now explain why they would allow and fund there military to attack Israel?

You need to go stay safe in your little gated suburban house. You OBVIOUSLY have never lived in a second world or third world country. Governments and political institutions have far less control than they do in established countries - that is why so many of them fall to rebellions, that is why so many are rife with military squads that the government can't control if they wanted to, that is why things just generally don't work that well. That's not unique to Palestine, that not unique to South America, that's not unique even now in Russia...but it happens in all of those places and more.

To say that you expect a 6 month old government of amature politicians whom inherited a dysfunctional government - to be able to control a divided, embittered population - is pure immaturity on your part. It just isn't going to happen in 6 months...maybe in 6 years. It has probably taken 3-5 years for the IRA to reign in it's splinter groups in Ireland after it assumed political power in a joint government with it's previous foes. During that time, the "Real IRA" and other splinter groups bombed England and Northern Ireland hoping to provoke a response and derail the peace process. England waivered...but restrained themselves...and today there is a semblance of peace in Ireland, and it has the fastest growing economy in the EU. But it took men of courage and conviction to remain unshakable in the provocations of those that wished to stop progress...people that know that the eventual welfare of the people is worth ignoring the slings and arrows of those that wish to provoke a response.

If you believe that Hamas's leadership is behind this, then please, tell my WHY? What tactical or strategic advantage would they hope to gain from abducting a single soldier and provoking a response from Isreal? Do you think they think that will get their monies freed from Israel? Do you think they needed to do that to gain additional political support internally?

Please, tell me why they would do such a thing...because frankly, it's a set-up. The only people that have to gain from this are hardcore Hamas fighters that are worried that Hamas may turn to peace...and those that play into their hands, like yourself...

Future Shock

I am not the Hamas leaders, I do not know why. From the dialogue they have communicated with the rest of the world, the dialogue has not been one of a peacefull organization intent on building a nation alongside Israel. The do not recognize it, wish for it to be destroyed. This is not a government who wishes to build peace, this is one that took the flame from the last government and continues the bloodshed.

So what if the goverment wish to destory israel? There not going to get there way so why not just work with them to make Palestian a better nation.

There military is still attacking Israel. Why would they work with a nation that sends it's military to kill civilians?

Because it is the only option that can lead to peace.

No, Palestine laying there weapons down can lead to peace. Israel not doing anything in regards to attacks leads to nothing but more Israel deaths.

Qhat makes you think israels attacks will work this time when they have failed for the last 40 years. Do you think destorying shackes while nring peace?

No, I think killing the majority of Palestinians militants and there leaders, while not caring who gets in the way will start. I agree with Futureshock that some Hamas leaders want peace, Israel need to kill everyone else. Sitting back and doing nothing like you want will not bring peace.

The area grows militants, so even if you kill everyone more will be there to take there place until you improve the condition of their life.

And the condition of life is dependent on economic growth.

That will not happen until Israel feels secure.

Israeli's security will be determined by either isolating the Palestinian population physcially

OR

The Palestinians stop threatening Israel (completely).

The second option will have a much better economic benefit; the first will consign the PA to second class people begging for handouts from the world.

There may be some hardcore militants that do not want peace. It is up to the Palestinian population to determine which is option is better for their future. They have seen what the current attitude has accomplished over the last 40 years.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: RichardE
No, I think killing the majority of Palestinians militants and there leaders, while not caring who gets in the way will start. I agree with Futureshock that some Hamas leaders want peace, Israel need to kill everyone else. Sitting back and doing nothing like you want will not bring peace.

And I happen to agree with you that there is a good chance that the whole soldier kidnapping may have been a mistake by a local commander, an insurgency op that just went awry.

The only thing that I might add to your comments above: you are ignoring the possibility that Hamas's more mature leaders may decide to take out the ones that persist in being extremists - either by politics, or having them killed over time. This HAPPENED in Ireland...the IRA and the splinter "Real IRA" engaged in a warfare of assassinations and bombings against each other, that lead to the eventual dissolution of much of the "Real IRA's" leadership...and now there is relative peace in Ireland. But it took time, 3-5 years as I mentioned previously. If Hamas leaders kill other Hamas leaders, there is no further outcry against Israel - never underestimate the benefits of having someone else do your dirty work.

Or perhaps some of the extremists can be bought off (many of them are terrorists because they like the power and feeling useful). And some can be educated over time.

But all of that takes time. Now, GIVEN that time, and if nothing happens, then I agree with you, there will be little else for Israel to do but to take an active role. Hamas is the ONLY relevant partner for peace in Palestine, so they have one chance to get it right. But where you and I disagree is on the subject of time...how much time should that chance entail. History seems to indicate that 6 months is way too little to get an outcome that Israel wants, where the more mature Hamas leaders win.

Future Shock

 

[Goalitalia]

Has anybody factored in this disscuion that there was a so called so called cease fire on the table when this happened:http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/mideast/
I wonder why this incident was not given as much public outcry as the kidnapping. Your thoughts please.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: smack Down
Qhat makes you think israels attacks will work this time when they have failed for the last 40 years. Do you think destorying shackes while nring peace?

You're intentionally ignoring his point: if the Palestinians disarmed, there would be a two-state peace settlement. However, if the Israelis disarmed, they would quickly cease to exist as a nation. In other words, if Israel "wins" this war, there will be an Israel and a Palestine. If the Arabs win, there will be no Israel. Thats as simple as it gets, and it tells me who has to win and who has to lose.

 

[Doboji]

Originally posted by: Goalitalia
Has anybody factored in this disscuion that there was a so called so called cease fire on the table when this happened:http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/mideast/
I wonder why this incident was not given as much public outcry as the kidnapping. Your thoughts please.

What happened on that beach is far from clear... the Israelis deny any involvement. The original explanation that it was shelling from a Israeli warship, has clearly been debunked by multiple sources. The question remains though as to what actually happened.

 

[Goalitalia]

Originally posted by: Doboji

Originally posted by: Goalitalia
Has anybody factored in this disscuion that there was a so called so called cease fire on the table when this happened:http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/09/mideast/
I wonder why this incident was not given as much public outcry as the kidnapping. Your thoughts please.

What happened on that beach is far from clear... the Israelis deny any involvement. The original explanation that it was shelling from a Israeli warship, has clearly been debunked by multiple sources. The question remains though as to what actually happened.

I believe whatever happened on that beach has a large influence on current events.

 

[Markbnj]

I believe whatever happened on that beach has a large influence on current events.

It doesn't really matter what happened. There would not be a state of military conflict, with its associated risks to innocent life, if the Palestinians had kept faith as a people with any of the agreements they have made with the Israelis. In this context it is silly to spiral inward on who was responsible for lobbing a few shells onto a beach. Thousands of people are dying across the mideast, and all for essentially the same reason. It would be nice if artillery shells were never fired where they aren't supposed to be. But far more lives would be saved if Muslim radicals learned a little tolerance. Israel will live in peace with the Palestinians starting tomorrow, under the terms of Oslo. Why won't this happen? Why does the most recent "breakthrough" policy document from Hamas still contain language supporting the continuation of the armed struggle against Israel? The answer to either question is the answer to the other.

And by the way, speaking of world problems, it would be nice if you guys would stop stabbing the quote button. The amount of repeated text in this thread is out of control.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: smack Down
Qhat makes you think israels attacks will work this time when they have failed for the last 40 years. Do you think destorying shackes while nring peace?

You're intentionally ignoring his point: if the Palestinians disarmed, there would be a two-state peace settlement. However, if the Israelis disarmed, they would quickly cease to exist as a nation. In other words, if Israel "wins" this war, there will be an Israel and a Palestine. If the Arabs win, there will be no Israel. Thats as simple as it gets, and it tells me who has to win and who has to lose.

Israel is on top and has the palestinians in a positions it is happy with and would be glad to keep it that way, so they are willing to except peace at the status quo. The palestinians on the otherhand are at rock bottom so they have nothing to lose by fighting so they fight.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Originally posted by: smack Down
Qhat makes you think israels attacks will work this time when they have failed for the last 40 years. Do you think destorying shackes while nring peace?

You're intentionally ignoring his point: if the Palestinians disarmed, there would be a two-state peace settlement. However, if the Israelis disarmed, they would quickly cease to exist as a nation. In other words, if Israel "wins" this war, there will be an Israel and a Palestine. If the Arabs win, there will be no Israel. Thats as simple as it gets, and it tells me who has to win and who has to lose.

Israel is on top and has the palestinians in a positions it is happy with and would be glad to keep it that way, so they are willing to except peace at the status quo. The palestinians on the otherhand are at rock bottom so they have nothing to lose by fighting so they fight.

Israel would rather a peacefull two nations. You "really" need to actually learn the history of this conflict before saying anything.

 

[Meuge]

Really? So you mean in 1948 when Israelis had less people, less weapons, and much less land (let's count much of Jordan, which WAS part of the British Mandata), and the situtation was reversed, the arabs just forgot to have peace or something?

Or in 1967, when they had a more advanced army, that was much larger in size... and Israel's economy wasn't much, compared to Egypt's.

Hmmm, I see a pattern, and it doesn't quite correspond to what you're screaming with foam at your mouth. All I see are obvious attempt to mask your hatred.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? So you mean in 1948 when Israelis had less people, less weapons, and much less land (let's count much of Jordan, which WAS part of the British Mandata), and the situtation was reversed, the arabs just forgot to have peace or something?

Or in 1967, when they had a more advanced army, that was much larger in size... and Israel's economy wasn't much, compared to Egypt's.

Hmmm, I see a pattern, and it doesn't quite correspond to what you're screaming with foam at your mouth. All I see are obvious attempt to mask your hatred.

Israel was also happy with the stituation then so they wanted peace. The arabs were not happy so they wanted war. Wanting peace doesn't mean they are better people and wanting war doesn't make them worses people it just means that the rewards of peace are greater then the rewards of war.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? So you mean in 1948 when Israelis had less people, less weapons, and much less land (let's count much of Jordan, which WAS part of the British Mandata), and the situtation was reversed, the arabs just forgot to have peace or something?

Or in 1967, when they had a more advanced army, that was much larger in size... and Israel's economy wasn't much, compared to Egypt's.

Hmmm, I see a pattern, and it doesn't quite correspond to what you're screaming with foam at your mouth. All I see are obvious attempt to mask your hatred.

Israel was also happy with the stituation then so they wanted peace. The arabs were not happy so they wanted war. Wanting peace doesn't mean they are better people and wanting war doesn't make them worses people it just means that the rewards of peace are greater then the rewards of war.

I have to give you due for avoiding the issue... ... ... ok, now answer. If wanting war doesn't make the arabs bad people, then I presume your judgement of the Israelis is just a product of your spite towards their nation, rather than a criticism of their policies.

Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? So you mean in 1948 when Israelis had less people, less weapons, and much less land (let's count much of Jordan, which WAS part of the British Mandata), and the situtation was reversed, the arabs just forgot to have peace or something?

Or in 1967, when they had a more advanced army, that was much larger in size... and Israel's economy wasn't much, compared to Egypt's.

Hmmm, I see a pattern, and it doesn't quite correspond to what you're screaming with foam at your mouth. All I see are obvious attempt to mask your hatred.

Israel was also happy with the stituation then so they wanted peace. The arabs were not happy so they wanted war. Wanting peace doesn't mean they are better people and wanting war doesn't make them worses people it just means that the rewards of peace are greater then the rewards of war.

I have to give you due for avoiding the issue... ... ... ok, now answer. If wanting war doesn't make the arabs bad people, then I presume your judgement of the Israelis is just a product of your spite towards their nation, rather than a criticism of their policies.

Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.

My judgement of the israelis is that they are really bad at working towards peace and are just out for reveange.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? So you mean in 1948 when Israelis had less people, less weapons, and much less land (let's count much of Jordan, which WAS part of the British Mandata), and the situtation was reversed, the arabs just forgot to have peace or something?

Or in 1967, when they had a more advanced army, that was much larger in size... and Israel's economy wasn't much, compared to Egypt's.

Hmmm, I see a pattern, and it doesn't quite correspond to what you're screaming with foam at your mouth. All I see are obvious attempt to mask your hatred.

Israel was also happy with the stituation then so they wanted peace. The arabs were not happy so they wanted war. Wanting peace doesn't mean they are better people and wanting war doesn't make them worses people it just means that the rewards of peace are greater then the rewards of war.

I have to give you due for avoiding the issue... ... ... ok, now answer. If wanting war doesn't make the arabs bad people, then I presume your judgement of the Israelis is just a product of your spite towards their nation, rather than a criticism of their policies.

Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.

My judgement of the israelis is that they are really bad at working towards peace and are just out for reveange.

Yeah, whatever... it's clear that you don't have anything useful to further contribute to the conversation. We've gone from historical evidence and politics to your personal judgement. You're done. Disappear.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? So you mean in 1948 when Israelis had less people, less weapons, and much less land (let's count much of Jordan, which WAS part of the British Mandata), and the situtation was reversed, the arabs just forgot to have peace or something?

Or in 1967, when they had a more advanced army, that was much larger in size... and Israel's economy wasn't much, compared to Egypt's.

Hmmm, I see a pattern, and it doesn't quite correspond to what you're screaming with foam at your mouth. All I see are obvious attempt to mask your hatred.

Israel was also happy with the stituation then so they wanted peace. The arabs were not happy so they wanted war. Wanting peace doesn't mean they are better people and wanting war doesn't make them worses people it just means that the rewards of peace are greater then the rewards of war.

I have to give you due for avoiding the issue... ... ... ok, now answer. If wanting war doesn't make the arabs bad people, then I presume your judgement of the Israelis is just a product of your spite towards their nation, rather than a criticism of their policies.

Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.

My judgement of the israelis is that they are really bad at working towards peace and are just out for reveange.

How are you defining as working toward peace.
What is different between what the Israelis are doing now ("toward peace") vs 20, 40 and 60 years ago.

Then after you are able to define that, put the same question toward the Arab confederation at the same time frames.

Use historical facts not propaganda.

 

[Harabec]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? So you mean in 1948 when Israelis had less people, less weapons, and much less land (let's count much of Jordan, which WAS part of the British Mandata), and the situtation was reversed, the arabs just forgot to have peace or something?

Or in 1967, when they had a more advanced army, that was much larger in size... and Israel's economy wasn't much, compared to Egypt's.

Hmmm, I see a pattern, and it doesn't quite correspond to what you're screaming with foam at your mouth. All I see are obvious attempt to mask your hatred.

Israel was also happy with the stituation then so they wanted peace. The arabs were not happy so they wanted war. Wanting peace doesn't mean they are better people and wanting war doesn't make them worses people it just means that the rewards of peace are greater then the rewards of war.

I have to give you due for avoiding the issue... ... ... ok, now answer. If wanting war doesn't make the arabs bad people, then I presume your judgement of the Israelis is just a product of your spite towards their nation, rather than a criticism of their policies.

Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.

My judgement of the israelis is that they are really bad at working towards peace and are just out for reveange.

I'd say I'm sorry but there's no reason to:
You really, really have no idea.

As suggested above, study about the area and its history.

 

[6000SUX]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Man...Gaza is going to be a dustbowl by the end of the day.

Heh heh. I can't help laughing evilly every time the Israelis go and get some. They don't f*ck around, ever.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? So you mean in 1948 when Israelis had less people, less weapons, and much less land (let's count much of Jordan, which WAS part of the British Mandata), and the situtation was reversed, the arabs just forgot to have peace or something?

Or in 1967, when they had a more advanced army, that was much larger in size... and Israel's economy wasn't much, compared to Egypt's.

Hmmm, I see a pattern, and it doesn't quite correspond to what you're screaming with foam at your mouth. All I see are obvious attempt to mask your hatred.

Israel was also happy with the stituation then so they wanted peace. The arabs were not happy so they wanted war. Wanting peace doesn't mean they are better people and wanting war doesn't make them worses people it just means that the rewards of peace are greater then the rewards of war.

I have to give you due for avoiding the issue... ... ... ok, now answer. If wanting war doesn't make the arabs bad people, then I presume your judgement of the Israelis is just a product of your spite towards their nation, rather than a criticism of their policies.

Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.

My judgement of the israelis is that they are really bad at working towards peace and are just out for reveange.

How are you defining as working toward peace.
What is different between what the Israelis are doing now ("toward peace") vs 20, 40 and 60 years ago.

Then after you are able to define that, put the same question toward the Arab confederation at the same time frames.

Use historical facts not propaganda.

The arab confederation has nothing to do with the current situation in gaza.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? So you mean in 1948 when Israelis had less people, less weapons, and much less land (let's count much of Jordan, which WAS part of the British Mandata), and the situtation was reversed, the arabs just forgot to have peace or something?

Or in 1967, when they had a more advanced army, that was much larger in size... and Israel's economy wasn't much, compared to Egypt's.

Hmmm, I see a pattern, and it doesn't quite correspond to what you're screaming with foam at your mouth. All I see are obvious attempt to mask your hatred.

Israel was also happy with the stituation then so they wanted peace. The arabs were not happy so they wanted war. Wanting peace doesn't mean they are better people and wanting war doesn't make them worses people it just means that the rewards of peace are greater then the rewards of war.

I have to give you due for avoiding the issue... ... ... ok, now answer. If wanting war doesn't make the arabs bad people, then I presume your judgement of the Israelis is just a product of your spite towards their nation, rather than a criticism of their policies.

Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.

My judgement of the israelis is that they are really bad at working towards peace and are just out for reveange.

How are you defining as working toward peace.
What is different between what the Israelis are doing now ("toward peace") vs 20, 40 and 60 years ago.

Then after you are able to define that, put the same question toward the Arab confederation at the same time frames.

Use historical facts not propaganda.

The arab confederation has nothing to do with the current situation in gaza.

Why do you say that?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? So you mean in 1948 when Israelis had less people, less weapons, and much less land (let's count much of Jordan, which WAS part of the British Mandata), and the situtation was reversed, the arabs just forgot to have peace or something?

Or in 1967, when they had a more advanced army, that was much larger in size... and Israel's economy wasn't much, compared to Egypt's.

Hmmm, I see a pattern, and it doesn't quite correspond to what you're screaming with foam at your mouth. All I see are obvious attempt to mask your hatred.

Israel was also happy with the stituation then so they wanted peace. The arabs were not happy so they wanted war. Wanting peace doesn't mean they are better people and wanting war doesn't make them worses people it just means that the rewards of peace are greater then the rewards of war.

I have to give you due for avoiding the issue... ... ... ok, now answer. If wanting war doesn't make the arabs bad people, then I presume your judgement of the Israelis is just a product of your spite towards their nation, rather than a criticism of their policies.

Let's see you weasel your way out of this one.

My judgement of the israelis is that they are really bad at working towards peace and are just out for reveange.

How are you defining as working toward peace.
What is different between what the Israelis are doing now ("toward peace") vs 20, 40 and 60 years ago.

Then after you are able to define that, put the same question toward the Arab confederation at the same time frames.

Use historical facts not propaganda.

The arab confederation has nothing to do with the current situation in gaza.

Why do you say that?

Because he thinks that the Palestinians are angels and they receive no support from any Arab countries. There is no way the Palestinians are supported/encouraged by other Arab nations.