Solution for Isreal -- begin annexing land.

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: Czar
so torture is a ok in your book, good to know

It's just as ok as suicide bombing and cross-border assaults are in your book.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: Czar
so torture is a ok in your book, good to know

It's just as ok as suicide bombing and cross-border assaults are in your book.

have I said that?

 

[imported_dna]

Drawing that conclusion I allowed myself as much latitude you accorded yourself in order to reach your conclusion.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: dna
Drawing that conclusion I allowed myself as much latitude you accorded yourself in order to reach your conclusion.

so you didnt just excuse the use of torture earlier?

 

[imported_dna]

For how much longer do you wish to carry this inane exchange?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: dna
For how much longer do you wish to carry this inane exchange?

To dna,

You are somewwhat right---we are now going nowhere in this thread. But going back to the original question---awarding land to one side in compensation for the number killed by the other side is clearly a crazy and unimplemental idea. So, as they say, that dog won't hunt or that childish idea was born stillborn. The entity that could impartially and fairly referee the body count could better be employed to solve the entire mid-east dispute.---and its the lack of fair and impartial entity that is the problem.

But that you dna---offer yourself up as that fair and impartial entity the world lacks is the
most laughable part of this entire thread. You are perhaps the most biased person I have ever had to share a forum with.

 

[imported_dna]

Even though I agree that the idea is rather lame, the underlying concept is valid, and someone already said it -- there must be reprecussions to acts of agressions, taking away land (as they did in the days of old), seems to be the only option. Example: in 1948 all he neighboring Arab countries attacked, and at the end Israel ended up with more land than it was supposed to have according to the Partition Plan.

Other than that, I never offered myself as a "fair and impartial entity"; I was merely pointing out that ignoring the PLOs role in he Lebanon debacle is revisionism of history.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: dna
Even though I agree that the idea is rather lame, the underlying concept is valid, and someone already said it -- there must be reprecussions to acts of agressions, taking away land (as they did in the days of old), seems to be the only option. Example: in 1948 all he neighboring Arab countries attacked, and at the end Israel ended up with more land than it was supposed to have according to the Partition Plan.

Other than that, I never offered myself as a "fair and impartial entity"; I was merely pointing out that ignoring the PLOs role in he Lebanon debacle is revisionism of history.

Heh, I don't get what your obession on PLO is about. Are you saying they are the source of all evil? Give the rest of us a break will you? If Israel didn't drive all those Palestinians away from their home, there wouldn't a PLO to start with. Just like if Israel didn't occupy Lebanon, there wouldn't be Hezbollah to start with. So if you want to blame PLO for this conflict, you might as well blame Israel for driving 700,000 palestanian away from their home after 1948.

It's time to give your PLO obsession a rest, Arafat is dead and they are not even the controling party in Palestine. This very latest conflict is about Israel and Hezbollah, pure and simple.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: rchiu
So if you want to blame PLO for this conflict, you might as well blame Israel for driving 700,000 palestanian away from their home after 1948.

You should've admitted from the start that you are biased, and held the beliefs that Israel "stole land" and "kicked out" Palestinians. If you had, then I would have known how to deal with you from the start.

Chew on this, and try not to choke:

ince 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees... while it is we who made them leave.... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave.... We have rendered them dispossessed.... We have accustomed them to begging.... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level.... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes .... [36]

-- Khaled Al-Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."

- Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

Also, don't forget that, at the very least, a comparable number of Jews were kicked out of Arab countries, yet I doubt you have any problem with that.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: magomago
this is the worst idea I have ever heard.

Those were my exact words when i read the thread title and summary.

 

[acole1]

I think it has been forgotten that terrorists don't bargain and they don't know what diplomacy is.

You have two options. You can either kill, or be killed. If I hear the words "diplomacy" or "negotiation" again, I am going to hurl.

Wake up and come to your senses! :disgust:

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: rchiu
So if you want to blame PLO for this conflict, you might as well blame Israel for driving 700,000 palestanian away from their home after 1948.

You should've admitted from the start that you are biased, and held the beliefs that Israel "stole land" and "kicked out" Palestinians. If you had, then I would have known how to deal with you from the start.

Chew on this, and try not to choke:

ince 1948 it is we who demanded the return of the refugees... while it is we who made them leave.... We brought disaster upon ... Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave.... We have rendered them dispossessed.... We have accustomed them to begging.... We have participated in lowering their moral and social level.... Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon ... men, women and children-all this in the service of political purposes .... [36]

-- Khaled Al-Azm, Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war

"This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country."

- Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London) in The Arabs (London, 1955), p. 183

Also, don't forget that, at the very least, a comparable number of Jews were kicked out of Arab countries, yet I doubt you have any problem with that.

Heh, what else is new, blaming Arabs for not accepting those refugees. Hey, I don't deny that Arab nations are crap for not accepting their own people and discriminate against Palestinian in their country. But would there be such problem if Israel didn't take the land by force and driving those who lived there already out?

And you expect Arabs countries to be nice to the Jewish people after all Jewish people in Israel did to the Palestinian and to the Arab countries in the wars?

 

[alejandroAT]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Hi WhipperSnapper. Are you a member of the Israeli Parliament? Are you an Israeli Government Official of any rank?

If you answered no to the above questions, please wake up and come back to reality.

I'm an atheist and an advocate of reason. As I see it, Isreal stands for the values of Western Civilization and (in general) the concept of individual rights even if it still suffers from religious collectivism to a small degree. In contrast, the Arab societies stand for primative religious mysticism, collectivism, and religious dictatorship.

America controls "western civilization". America is controlled by its goverment. Its goverment is contolled by conservative religious ppl. Wake up and smell the "religious dictatorship" that is ruling your "land of the free". The land of the wiretapping and guandanamo lockups.

 

[alejandroAT]

Originally posted by: acole1
I think it has been forgotten that terrorists don't bargain and they don't know what diplomacy is.

You have two options. You can either kill, or be killed. If I hear the words "diplomacy" or "negotiation" again, I am going to hurl.

Wake up and come to your senses! :disgust:

Every single terrorist was "created" as retaliation to oppression or hostile actions. I m not saying they are right but you have to admit that terrorists do not spawn out of nowhere. They did not start the issue. They are the reaction to the action.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: rchiu
Heh, what else is new, blaming Arabs for not accepting those refugees. Hey, I don't deny that Arab nations are crap for not accepting their own people and discriminate against Palestinian in their country. But would there be such problem if Israel didn't take the land by force and driving those who lived there already out?

When you say "take the land by force", what time period are we talking about?
Prior to 1948, Jews were buying land and by 1947 they owned 1874.69km².

And you expect Arabs countries to be nice to the Jewish people after all Jewish people in Israel did to the Palestinian and to the Arab countries in the wars?

Yet again you're lacking context, and you seem to basing your argument on common knowledge that is no more than twisted history and propaganda. I would really like to know what you're basing your argument on.

In the meantime, check this page, as well as this British Police report dated several weeks prior to the end of the British Mandate.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
Every single terrorist was "created" as retaliation to oppression or hostile actions. I m not saying they are right but you have to admit that terrorists do not spawn out of nowhere. They did not start the issue. They are the reaction to the action.

How does your little theory apply to 9/11 and Bin-Laden? Or to the Sunni terrorism in Iraq?

The latter is nothing more than political maneuvering, and struggle for power which employs terrorist tactics of indiscriminate killing. You can hardly claim that they were oppressed.

I'd like to hear your opinion about 9/11.

 

[alejandroAT]

my opinion about 9/11 is simple. I know you like your "proofs" (we have clashed in the past ) but on this one there is none. You may find it extreme but there you go. It is not the first time rulers use fear to gain power. I believe that the attack on 9/11 was allowed to happen. The goverment wanted power that it simply could not seize otherwise. They used fear to persuade the public and politicians to fund a war. Bush and his lackies wanted to attack Iraq. So they linked bin-laden to Iraq (simply by repeating it over and over and over until it made it true somehow) and there you go. Ever since 9/11 they do whatever they want in the name of the war on terror. The fact that all members of the Laden family were immediatelly flown out of the US after the attack is extremely suspicious. Their link with the Bush family also. But these are never discussed are they? of course not. Because you cant possibly believe that your freedom-torch carrier of a country could possibly be the root of all evil on this planet. We got rid of the Nazis and the Reds and now we have to deal with the next Roman Empire. Arent we just lucky that we have the US to save us from satan?

 

[alejandroAT]

dont you know that your presidents father is mixed up financially with the Ladens?

a lot of people are so young that all they have seen in their lives is the retaliations and not the root of the problem. And the US has a long history of trying to deal with problems the cowboy way. You should have learned since Vietnam that david can be victorious over goliath if he is defending his home and family. 9/11 was nothing more than an overdue bill that unfortunate innocents had to pay for their country.

 

[alejandroAT]

i have naver ever seen any american even mention the thousands of deaths inflicted by his/her country. You always moan about a couple of soldiers dying in Iraq and never about the hundreds these soldiers killed. You are so convinced you are on the right side that your concience just dismisses it. I wander how you can sleep at night and wander why the world dont like you no more.

I remember when everyone was dressing up like americans and had stickers of the US flag on their cars and what have you. Now you are even embarass to admit it while travelling abroad. Ever wandered why?

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
my opinion about 9/11 is simple. I know you like your "proofs" (we have clashed in the past ) but on this one there is none. You may find it extreme but there you go.
....

Yeah, I know, I also saw the Moore movie.
Nevertheless, allowing such an event to happen is a different thing than what I asked, and that is what "oppression" was the reason for the attack?
Sure, they'll argue Israel, Iraq, but that's just baloney.

As for conspiracy theories go, I lean more towards the incompetence-theory and not the inside-job theory. Recently I've read about how [supposedly] the Perl Harbor was allowed to take place, but those were different times.

 

[alejandroAT]

oh dont dare mention pearl harbour. You annihilated 2 cities and hundreds of thousands of poeple for that and you still make movies about it and claim how unfair it was!!!!!

and about the moore movie.....read the book...it has sources for every single information...i wouldnt quote a movie duuude....that would be stupid.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
i have naver ever seen any american even mention the thousands of deaths inflicted by his/her country. You always moan about a couple of soldiers dying in Iraq and never about the hundreds these soldiers killed.

I don't know about that, but US media does report civilian casualties, although without any Lebanon-style raw footage (even though I'm sure they don't have that kind of circus there); but that is comparable to what the Arab news agencies do, since I haven't seen any passionate covering of civilian death in Iraq by Al-Jazeera -- definitely not the way Lebanon was covered.

Another thing to keep in mind is that civilian deaths over there are not due to US soldiers, but due to "internal conflict", which I'm sure is fueled by outside players such as Iran. Sure, there are civilian deaths due to US operation, but they don't even come close to what the rivals there are doing to one another.

 

[alejandroAT]

of course i m not blaming you for every single death dude. that would make me a fanatic. But you cant say that just because they are killing you can kill too. Thats childish.

I was watching US tv news on the internet while the iraq war was going on. All i saw was union flag draped coffins of 20 year old american soldiers!!!!

What i m saying is that if your country has caused so much death over the last decades then what exactly makes you better than them? are you saying that the cause is justifying the means? or are you saying that the west has a license to kill because it is "civilized"?

 

[Witling]

Boy, someone recently replied to this and it jumped to the top of the list. I'm not going to read through 121 posts but Whippersnapper must be stupid, uninformed, or both. Whipper, one of Israel's giant problems is the Arab birth rate exceeds the Jewish birthrate. Israel is terribly afraid of losing the Jewish character of Israel because of the growth of the Arab population. Annexing land -- I'd love to see you come up with a legal theory for that, unless you pick "might = right" just aggravates the problem.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: alejandroAT
oh dont dare mention pearl harbour. You annihilated 2 cities and hundreds of thousands of poeple for that and you still make movies about it and claim how unfair it was!!!!!

and about the moore movie.....read the book...it has sources for every single information...i wouldnt quote a movie duuude....that would be stupid.

You don't need to get so personal; I didn't press any buttons.

Anyway, you'll be surprised to know that I think that nuking two cities was a mistake, particularly in light of records demonstrating that a more military target was not considered.

Which book are you talking about? Due to the way you phrased that sentence I'm unsure whether you mean Moor's book.