Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Captain Virgil Hilts on July 05, 2004, 09:28:44 AM
-
What did I tell you al-Sadr would do?
Remember what I told you Pongo?
At least you admitted you knew nothing about him.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124717,00.html
Now you know, at least you will if you can read.
I told you his word was worthless. He's a liar and a murdering thug.
-
Do we know what his word was? Do we know if he was promised a voice in the new goverment that has now been denied? We dont really know anything except that peace broke down.
Either way it was good to quiet him down for a bit to get the new dictatorship in place with minimum fuss.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Do we know what his word was? Do we know if he was promised a voice in the new goverment that has now been denied? We dont really know anything except that peace broke down.
Either way it was good to quiet him down for a bit to get the new dictatorship in place with minimum fuss.
pfffffft. what a liberal this guy. Are you a muslim?
-
This guy is just using "resistance and liberation" as a means to try and escape the crime of Murder. If he was really legitimate and cared about his country then he could easily form an opposition party and run in the elections. Launching rockets into an Iraqi neighborhood shows his true colors.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by storch
pfffffft. what a liberal this guy. Are you a muslim?
Ya Im a devout Muslim. Are you a devout Nazi?
-
Pongo,
I've met you and youre a cool guy so I'm really surprised by your posts here of late, why all the excessivly severe negativity about my country?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Do we know if he was promised a voice in the new goverment that has now been denied?
Yeah, probably by Kerry! :mad:
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Ya Im a devout Muslim. Are you a devout Nazi?
I take offense at that question in that manner. You are discredited in my opinion. careful your ignorance is showing.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
This guy is just using "resistance and liberation" as a means to try and escape the crime of Murder. If he was really legitimate and cared about his country then he could easily form an opposition party and run in the elections. Launching rockets into an Iraqi neighborhood shows his true colors.
Crumpp
If your country had not launched an illegal immoral war against the sovereign country of Iraq, Al Sadr would be just some chubby cleric no one ever heard about. Along with the prison abuse pictures and all the subsequent court martials and continuing investigations, you can't in any way claim 'the high road' as your own crump.
Al Sadr charged with killing one man...the US has killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by storch
I take offense at that question in that manner. You are discredited in my opinion. careful your ignorance is showing.
you guys can dish it out...but you cant take it:rofl
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Pongo,
I've met you and youre a cool guy so I'm really surprised by your posts here of late, why all the excessivly severe negativity about my country?
what did I say that was negative about your country. I was applauding them for controling this cleric politically. What is negative about that.
The thread starter is negative about your country. he is critisising the administrations handling of this cleric. I am supporting them.
So what are you talking about?
Stork asks me if Im a muslim. why didnt you pipe in about that? You dont care about that I guess. I ask him if hes a nazi and thats real bad.
Listen to yourself.
Eagler posts here that he thinks board members want to kill his family..You didnt post anything about that..
Your not a voice of reason here GH. Dont kid yourself. Your a hardline neo conservative brain washed war monger. You dont represent your country you represent the powers that currently control it. Critism of them or you or stork is not critism of America no matter how you wished it was so.
-
I dont listen to anything on fox news, only CNN!!!! :D
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
If your country had not launched an illegal immoral war against the sovereign country of Iraq, Al Sadr would be just some chubby cleric no one ever heard about. Along with the prison abuse pictures and all the subsequent court martials and continuing investigations, you can't in any way claim 'the high road' as your own crump.
Al Sadr charged with killing one man...the US has killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq.
Time alone will tell if it was a mistake or if the people of Iraq will indeed be better off for our actions. Even though there are no Arab democratic republics and perhaps the concept is too foreign for them there is a hope that perhaps it might work along the lines of the Turkish model.
If the war was illegal and immoral then the UN should be immediately denounced and disbanded as a costly and irrelevent entity. At the very least the UN should stop mandating that states comply with world standard behavior since what is mandated turns out to be immoral and illegal.
-
The irrelivency you derride is moslty a side effect of the US veto power. Should we do away with that? A veto is apperenlty not enought for neo conservative supporters. What is needed is a US right to order the UN to war.
If not for the power of the US to veto, Sanctions vs Iraq would have been removed nearly a decade ago. Then you would have to find even more comical excuses for the war in Iraq, but at least you wouldnt be able to blame it on the UN.
-
It was your country that made the UN irrelevant by not obtaining their authority to launch this war. If only the US had waited and received that second resolution from the UN, you would have been able to legally wage war against iraq, with the help from your long time allies all over the world.
I will remind you that you had no opposition to the gulf war under GB senoir, nor did you have any oppostion to the Afghan war...we all supported and understood you.
This iraq war is very different.
-
Somebody said members of this BBS want to kill them? Where?
-
What the media is failing to bring to public understanding is that much of the "opposition" in Iraq is foreign Arabs not Iraqi's. Why do you think the Iraqi government is not welcoming other Arab nations offer of troops?
http://www.meib.org/articles/0405_iraq1.htm
The few Iraqi's who are involved in Armed opposition are those men whose interest lies outside seeing a free and democratic Iraq.
Why?
Because these Iraqi's, long before the coalition arrived, have firmly entrenched themselves against the rule of law. They have committed mass murder, rape, and crimes against humanity in the name of Saddam Hussien. Or they are opportunist who used the cloak of war to settle old scores and commit murder. They know that under the rule of law, their only place in it is to be in front of a judge answering for their crimes. Their choice is to face justice or fight. This guy killed another cleric, totally unrelated to the coalition, how religious a man can he be?
I've encountered this situation before. Two farmers got together and killed a more successful third farmer for his land. Just walked up to him and bashed his brains out with a couple of shovels. We took them into custody. Took statements from witnesses, recovered the body and photographed it. Afterwards we turned them over to the Afghan Government.
I Am all for negotiating with men who think they are fighting for the future of their families but I would rather fight those that think the rifle is more powerful than the book. He has twisted many good men to follow him. These I would like to see exposed to the truth and saved if possible. If we give in to this guy then we are cutting into the thread that binds us to our humanity.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Pongo
If not for the power of the US to veto, Sanctions vs Iraq would have been removed nearly a decade ago. Then you would have to find even more comical excuses for the war in Iraq, but at least you wouldnt be able to blame it on the UN.
Yes the evil Neocons behind the Clinton regime really were out to screw iraq a decade ago..
So again I ask why all the hystecvical evil usa negativity...
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
It was your country that made the UN irrelevant by not obtaining their authority to launch this war. If only the US had waited and received that second resolution from the UN, you would have been able to legally wage war against iraq, with the help from your long time allies all over the world.
I will remind you that you had no opposition to the gulf war under GB senoir, nor did you have any oppostion to the Afghan war...we all supported and understood you.
This iraq war is very different.
Let's see. a quick search of UN resolutions regarding Iraq produces 10 results between 1990 and 2002.
661 '90
678 '90
686 '90
687 '91
688 '91
707 '91
715 '91
986 '95
1284 '99
1441 '02
But none of that matters huh? saddam hussein would be a threat to us as long as we allowed him to remain in power. I'm glad we have a President who anihilated his regime and i hope he doesn't stop there. No matter how generous or magnanimous we are America will never be loved or even liked by you people. Perhaps you should start to fear us.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
If your country had not launched an illegal immoral war against the sovereign country of Iraq, Al Sadr would be just some chubby cleric no one ever heard about. Along with the prison abuse pictures and all the subsequent court martials and continuing investigations, you can't in any way claim 'the high road' as your own crump.
Al Sadr charged with killing one man...the US has killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq.
Couple points here.
I see that by calling the U.S. actions immoral, you were pro-Saddam and favor mass murder of innocent civilians. How horrible. We warned the world we were going for the terrorist. Saddam was in bed with them, AND was in violation for over a decade of U.N. resolutions that he aggreed to so as to avoid us marching up into Baghdad during the 1st war (was the liberation of Kuwait unjust and immoral also?) and taking him out. I personally blame the majority of the decade of time btween the 2 wars on the U.S. having a bleeding heart tree hugger in charge of our military for 8 of those years. Saddam was a bad guy. Plenty of torture and killing (real torture, not nude pyramid building) was done by Saddam. He needed taken out.
As far as the "high road", I see no comparison in embarrising some prisoners and attacking innocent civilians. Ok, so some reservists made some Iraqi prisoners stand naked and took pictures of them in humiliating positions, FOR which they are being punished. Vs. attacking and killing innocent civilians. I fail to see how these two things are remotely the same. One is similar to a fraternity prank, while the other is cold blooded murder. Remind me again how they are alike. I will be happy to dig up some old Sesame Street re-runs that have the "One of these things is not like the other ones" bit. Seems you are a bit rusty.
And re. the US killing hundreds of thousands Iraqi's, I again fail to see the similarities to cold blooded murder, and deaths in a war. The U.S. doesn't target innocent civilans, while Iraqi troops went out of their way to put the Iraq civilian population in harms way. Don't blame the U.S. soldiers for blowing up the building that had a family of 12 in it. Blame the 10 Iraqi soldiers who intentionally tried to use the civilians as a shield and used their house to attack the U.S. forces. (not letting the civilians leave to get out of harms way I might add)
Have you been to war? Have you seen war? Do you have a CLUE what the rest of the world is like outside your narrow (and non. reality grounded) little world? Let me hear some of your first hand experiences with human suffering. I'm serious, I would like to hear them. What have you personally witnessed? Have you been to another country and witnessed some of the atrocities that were committed in Iraq? OR anything remotely similar? I would like to hear just what life experiences you have had that you are basing your opinions on.
-
funny how you didnt follow the link on that page you posted. he is calling for peaceful resistance. and so he should be allowed, its a "democracy" aint it?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124734,00.html
-
Originally posted by Furball
funny how you didnt follow the link on that page you posted. he is calling for peaceful resistance. and so he should be allowed, its a "democracy" aint it?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124734,00.html
No way! We evil Amreekans are installing a dictatorship!!!!
-
Before you start spouting the "Greatness" of the UN, you need to examine its record and get the ground truth from the people it's attempted to help.
The UN is great in concept but falls extremely short in action. Just ask the survivors of Bosnia about the effectiveness of the UN?
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/survivors.html
Only when the United States began pushing and pushing the hand wringing European Powers did the bombs start falling on those responsible.
Or talk to the Survivors of Sierra Leone about the greatness of the UN effort.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/04/africa_surviving_sierra_leone/html/1.stm
Talk to the Italians, who compromised their friends for their own personal safety in Somalia. Yes after the Pakistani's were ambushed the Commander of the Italian Army contingent cut a deal with Mohammed Farid Adid. In exchange for a guarantee of safety for Italian troops he reported to Adid every move TF Ranger made.
I could go on and on....
What you fail to understand is that the UN pays around 750 US dollars to each soldier on a UN mission every month. The United State turns this money back to the UN but most nations keep it. It does not go to the soldier but rather falls into the Host Nation Government coffers in most cases. Most of these countries have little real interest in these UN missions and their soldiers certainly do not see the point in dying for them. It's a chance to increase your budget for the year and to posture on the Worlds Stage that your country is actually contributing something. Big Political gains which end up meaning nothing or making things worse for those the UN was supposed to help.
The UN is great in theory but for the most part Bankrupt in practice. Unfortunately it's the best thing the world has going for it IF we ever truly do hope to become a world community. Don't be surprised if the United States acts as a sovereign nation when tough decisions the UN is incapable of making or effecting come along. Maybe one day the UN will not be so bankrupt. We are doing everything to see that happens. Maybe Iraq will be the catalyst that wakes the UN up to reform.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by RTStuka
I dont listen to anything on fox news, only CNN!!!! :D
Yesterday on CNN Radio, I heard that we celebrate this years 4th of July as the 228 anniversary of the drafting of the constitution.
I thought we had for a while Articles of Confederation, but I guess I was wrong. I learn something new everyday.
-
Originally posted by flyingaround
Couple points here.
I see that by calling the U.S. actions immoral, you were pro-Saddam and favor mass murder of innocent civilians. How horrible. We warned the world we were going for the terrorist. Saddam was in bed with them, AND was in violation for over a decade of U.N. resolutions that he aggreed to so as to avoid us marching up into Baghdad during the 1st war (was the liberation of Kuwait unjust and immoral also?) and taking him out. I personally blame the majority of the decade of time btween the 2 wars on the U.S. having a bleeding heart tree hugger in charge of our military for 8 of those years. Saddam was a bad guy. Plenty of torture and killing (real torture, not nude pyramid building) was done by Saddam. He needed taken out.
As far as the "high road", I see no comparison in embarrising some prisoners and attacking innocent civilians. Ok, so some reservists made some Iraqi prisoners stand naked and took pictures of them in humiliating positions, FOR which they are being punished. Vs. attacking and killing innocent civilians. I fail to see how these two things are remotely the same. One is similar to a fraternity prank, while the other is cold blooded murder. Remind me again how they are alike. I will be happy to dig up some old Sesame Street re-runs that have the "One of these things is not like the other ones" bit. Seems you are a bit rusty.
And re. the US killing hundreds of thousands Iraqi's, I again fail to see the similarities to cold blooded murder, and deaths in a war. The U.S. doesn't target innocent civilans, while Iraqi troops went out of their way to put the Iraq civilian population in harms way. Don't blame the U.S. soldiers for blowing up the building that had a family of 12 in it. Blame the 10 Iraqi soldiers who intentionally tried to use the civilians as a shield and used their house to attack the U.S. forces. (not letting the civilians leave to get out of harms way I might add)
Have you been to war? Have you seen war? Do you have a CLUE what the rest of the world is like outside your narrow (and non. reality grounded) little world? Let me hear some of your first hand experiences with human suffering. I'm serious, I would like to hear them. What have you personally witnessed? Have you been to another country and witnessed some of the atrocities that were committed in Iraq? OR anything remotely similar? I would like to hear just what life experiences you have had that you are basing your opinions on.
blow it out your prettythang
and by the way...speaking of being in contempt of UN resolutions, when are you going to take the worlds biggest terrorists to task: israel? they have more resolutions agianst them than any other country, 87 to date...you convoluted, hypocritocal embicile:lol
I hold the lint I clean from my belly button in higher regard than I do for people like you--you total fediddleing goof
-
Your damn skippy his organization should be allowed peaceful resistance. I hope they form an opposition party get involved in the democratic process. Give the Iraqi people what they want.
However, that does not change the fact this guy needs to answer for his crimes in an Iraqi court. If he is innocent then so be it, if not then he should pay. That is not negotiable and is the main sticking point in prior coalition negotiations with him. It will be interesting to see what the Iraqis' do.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
blow it out your prettythang
and by the way...speaking of being in contempt of UN resolutions, when are you going to take the worlds biggest terrorists to task: israel? they have more resolutions agianst them than any other country, 87 to date...you convoluted, hypocritocal embicile:lol
I hold the lint I clean from my belly button in higher regard than I do for people like you--you total fediddleing goof
What a remarkably well thought out and erudite response to an intelligently presented argument. I guess the Canadian education system is world class after all.
-
Originally posted by storch
What a remarkably well thought out and erudite response to an intelligently presented argument. I guess the Canadian education system is world class after all.
try to come up with something new storch...ive seen you reuse this similar phrase time and time again with many many people...frankly its getting tired
btw: what university did you attend? :rofl
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
try to come up with something new storch...ive seen you reuse this similar phrase time and time again with many many people...frankly its getting tired
btw: what university did you attend? :rofl
really, please provide one link. I served four years in the United States Navy as an enlistedman, I then went straight to work in various different fields finally settling in welding and sheetmetal work. Later on as the security market looked promising we diversified into access controls and perimeter security. while I took some pertinent courses on specific electronics equipment I never attended any university beyond an associates degree obtained slowly in the evenings. What does that have to do with your consistently demonstrated ignorance?
-
your opinion, as is your education, weightless;)
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
your opinion, as is your education, weightless;)
written like the true liberal that you are. tell us about your marvelous education/life experience. I'm still waiting for the response to your allegation of my overusage of remarking on the obvious frailty of the Canadian education system.
-
If I trusted my skills in the kitchen, I'd sear some ahi tonight. Had some at a restaurant on Saturday and have been craving it ever since. Nice and rare.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
your opinion, as is your education, weightless;)
Being from St. Louis, I attended Washington University (father wanted cornell)
Rankings
In 2004, U.S. News & World Report places 17 Washington University graduate and professional programs in their top-10 rankings. The School of Medicine is number two in the nation, and 11 of the departments and programs in medicine are ranked in the top 10. The George Warren Brown School of Social Work is ranked number two in the nation, and three Arts & Sciences areas are ranked in the top 10. The School of Law's clinical training program ranked number four. The Department of Biomedical Engineering is ranked number 14, despite having only been founded in 1997.
Where did you attend btw? You seem to want to flout something here, so let's see what you are alluding to?
ALSO, as opposed to even ATTEMPTIMG to debate any of my points, you instead chose to do the "typical" and IMHO comical stance of "look at Israel!! look at Israel!!" which is bunk. Israel is a seperate issue. Don't change the subject (lol I know you HAVE to change it, you have no way of backing up your opinion. I just want it to be obvious). I will be happy to debate Israel with you AFTER we have finished the current discussion.
The topic at hand was Iraq, and what you stated. Please stick with the subject (if you can, which I doubt because your position is not only HORRIBLY thought out, but also undefendable).
All you are showing so far is your ignorance (which is obvious) but the HILLARIOUS part is you are trying to say that you are somehow so vastly superior to me/us (ROFL uh huh. I did more before I was 21 than you will probably do in your lifetime)
Stick with the subject please, or concede. Defend your opinion, or admit your just another wanna be keyboard jockey who has all the intellectual depth of my dog's arse.
Ok...outside of "blow it out your arse" please (attempt) to show me WHY you are right. Don't change the subject.
-
I'm going to roast some rainbow. (if I catch some)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
No way! We evil Amreekans are installing a dictatorship!!!!
And it a well know fact the Ameerikaaann won't ever to that...
Neither the French :D
-
Originally posted by flyingaround
ALSO, as opposed to even ATTEMPTIMG to debate any of my points, you instead chose to do the "typical" and IMHO comical stance of "look at Israel!! look at Israel!!" which is bunk. Israel is a seperate issue.
It's only a seperate issue if I let you make it one. You said you went after Iraq because if UN violations...i stated that israel has more UN violations than evey other country in history. (87) That's why I called you a hyprocrite.
The topic at hand was Iraq, and what you stated. Please stick with the subject (if you can, which I doubt because your position is not only HORRIBLY thought out, but also undefendable).
you now ask me to 'defend' an 'undefendable' position? btw: the correct word is indefensible.
I did more before I was 21 than you will probably do in your lifetime)
have you been stalking me? how much do you know about me to make that assertion?
Stick with the subject please, or concede. Defend your opinion, or admit your just another wanna be keyboard jockey who has all the intellectual depth of my dog's arse.
I will do neither. I don't concede; I will not defend my position to YOU.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
when are you going to take the worlds biggest terrorists to task: israel?
This statement alone makes you a complete moron.
Actually your "statement" does not make you a moron, it just reveals the moron you are.
-
xrtoronto,
Did you read my post on the United Nations?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
when are you going to take the worlds biggest terrorists to task: israel?
Why do you hate the jews so much?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why do you hate the jews so much?
he hates them because they are always hijacking planes and sending suicide bombers to kill civilians. Everyone knows Israel is the number one terrorist state in the world......geeze Grun, I thought you went to college :)
Every country is on the lookout for Jewish terrorists....
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
you now ask me to 'defend' an 'undefendable' position? btw: the correct word is indefensible.
Indefensible:
Inexcusable; unpardonable: indefensible behavior.
Invalid; untenable: an indefensible assumption.
Vulnerable to physical attack: indefensible borders
Undefendable:
adj : not defended or capable of being defended; "an open city"; "open to attack" [syn: assailable, undefended, open]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
One Proto ad-hominem argument: repelled
I deserve seared ahi now for sure.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
your opinion, as is your education, weightless;)
I'm still awaiting your reply gradeschooler.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
he hates them because they are always hijacking planes and sending suicide bombers to kill civilians. Everyone knows Israel is the number one terrorist state in the world......geeze Grun, I thought you went to college :)
Every country is on the lookout for Jewish terrorists....
He hates them because he is probably an arab living in Canada.
-
xrtoronto,
Why should the United States wring it's hands about UN involvement when the indecisiveness and inept UN Forces create more problems for the populace they claim to be helping? In Srebrenica Dutch peacekeepers stood by and watched the people they were there to protect in a UN SAFE ZONE be lead off to be slaughtered. I for one was ashamed the United States was member of it that day. Read about the attrocites committed by UN Peacekeepers in Sierra Leone.
Sure we want the support of the world and a consensus would be nice but not at the price of our security or the people of Iraq.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I'm going to roast some rainbow. (if I catch some)
o.O
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
xrtoronto,
Did you read my post on the United Nations?
Crumpp
no crumpp I haven't ... could you post a link so i can find it plz?
(btw: i'm not entirely convinced the UN is worth its weight either, but need to research the topic more before deciding for myself.)
I enjoy reading what you post, and respect your opinion, even if it differs from my own. I would appreciate the info on UN. thx in advance
-
It's only a seperate issue if I let you make it one. You said you went after Iraq because if UN violations...i stated that israel has more UN violations than evey other country in history. (87) That's why I called you a hyprocrite.
The U.N. violations referred to in my post were specific to the topic at hand. We CAN discuss ALL the nations that have U.N. sanctions against them at another time if you wish. Pretty lengthy list though. ALSO off topic. As I thought, you can't back up a single thing you say. Don't know why I tried to hold an intellectual debate with you. So far this discussion has been similar to picking a fight with a quadriplegic. The "uhh.. I can't follow up anything I say with reason, or logic, so I better try and change the subject or throw out personal insults because i'm a moron" tactic looks good on you. Fits well. Go with it.
you now ask me to 'defend' an 'undefendable' position? btw: the correct word is indefensible.
Learned that one at the much vaulted acadamy of higher learning you attended eh? ROFL your language skills are roughly on par with your debating skills. BTW you never did mention where YOU attended college. Please do so I can make sure my kids avoid it.
have you been stalking me? how much do you know about me to make that assertion?
Next time I decide to stalk a "special" person I will give you a ring. I just have lived quite a life. "Don't dream it, be it" (for you Rocky Horror fans) would typify my early life. I'm sure you'll read all about it some day. (in the works. can't really discuss that quite yet)
I will do neither. I don't concede; I will not defend my position to YOU.
What I expected. So far your retorts have amounted to what I expect from my 6yr old (except for the Jew hating part of course). The above statment is the equivalent of "Whaaaa!! I'm not going to play because it's obvious I will lose" (lost actually, as is apparent to all) and is a common ploy for the mentally challenged.
Thanks for PROVING your level of ignorance to me.
If you don't play you lose.
Woot! I won! Go me!
-
Originally posted by storch
I'm still awaiting your reply gradeschooler.
if i wanted to talk to you or nuke i would drive down to your trailer park...but, don't hold your breath dude;)
Q: have you and/or nuke been on Jerry Springer?:rofl
-
xrtoronto,
Thanks, I respect your opinion as well. It's wouldn't be a free country without dissention. However, dissention for it's own sake is not necessarily a good thing. Just as the "nothing is worth war" crowd would quickly find their freedoms taken away.
Before you start spouting the "Greatness" of the UN, you need to examine its record and get the ground truth from the people it's attempted to help.
The UN is great in concept but falls extremely short in action. Just ask the survivors of Bosnia about the effectiveness of the UN?
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/survivors.html
Only when the United States began pushing and pushing the hand wringing European Powers did the bombs start falling on those responsible.
Or talk to the Survivors of Sierra Leone about the greatness of the UN effort.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/...eone/html/1.stm
Talk to the Italians, who compromised their friends for their own personal safety in Somalia. Yes after the Pakistani's were ambushed the Commander of the Italian Army contingent cut a deal with Mohammed Farid Adid. In exchange for a guarantee of safety for Italian troops he reported to Adid every move TF Ranger made.
I could go on and on....
What you fail to understand is that the UN pays around 750 US dollars to each soldier on a UN mission every month. The United State turns this money back to the UN but most nations keep it. It does not go to the soldier but rather falls into the Host Nation Government coffers in most cases. Most of these countries have little real interest in these UN missions and their soldiers certainly do not see the point in dying for them. It's a chance to increase your budget for the year and to posture on the Worlds Stage that your country is actually contributing something. Big Political gains which end up meaning nothing or making things worse for those the UN was supposed to help.
The UN is great in theory but for the most part Bankrupt in practice. Unfortunately it's the best thing the world has going for it IF we ever truly do hope to become a world community. Don't be surprised if the United States acts as a sovereign nation when tough decisions the UN is incapable of making or effecting come along. Maybe one day the UN will not be so bankrupt. We are doing everything to see that happens. Maybe Iraq will be the catalyst that wakes the UN up to reform.
Crumpp
-
question.....
are the Jews aloud to have nuke's?
-
question....
are the Jews aloud to build home's on a territory that does not belong to them
-
question....
are the Jews aloud to capture fugitives in another Sovereign Country without informing the Authorities
-
Could you possibly mean allowed? Could you mean the Israelis? Have you ever heard of the raid on Entebbe? The Israelis can do what ever they want, they are God's chosen people on earth. All of the land from the Euphrates on the North to Red Sea on the South is The Promised land and therefore belongs to Israelis.
-
question.....
are the Jews aloud to have nuke's?question..... are the Jews aloud to have nuke's?
are the Jews aloud to capture fugitives in another Sovereign Country without informing the Authorities
are the Jews aloud to build home's on a territory that does not belong to them
don't quite understand. ALLOWED by whom? I would like to see just who would stop them from doing pretty much what they want.
yes they have nukes.
yes they capture fugitives.
yes they built homes on the territories they own. Gazza, West Bank etc are THEIRS. They captured them after they were attacked, and if I remember my international law correctly, they get to keep said territories until a peace treaty is established with the countries they were at war with. Resonably confident THAT never happened.
What I get a kick out of, is the fact that soooo many Islamic people HATE the fact that Israel uses street fighting tactics against the chicken 'chit terrorists, and the countries that support them. The difference being that they target strategic military targets, vs. the Islamic terrorists target civilians. Not to say that Israel hasn't killed any innocent civilians. That is unavoidable when the wuss Jihad types imbed themselves in the civilian population. Don't blame the Israeli military for collateral damage. It is the punk 'arse terrorist who are hiding behind civilians due to lack of balls. They have no hope of beating Israel in open combat, so they cloak themselves like women behind the skirts of the population.
Man I'm on a soap box today. Wonder what got my sheepskin thong in such a bunch. Time for a beer run.
-
well.....
for your information it was not the Palestinians that declared WAR in '69....
yet they still hold Palestinian land.
and no the Israel's are not supposed too have nukes...yet they still do....
and they do go around the world kidnapping people....
-
Why aren't the Palestinians pissed off at the Syrian's? Didn't they gobble up 80 percent of what used to be Palestine?
Crumpp
-
crumpp you have given me alot to think about. Thank you!
You probably saw the comment about me hating jews...do you think it was fair?
I am critical of the Israeli military for being heavy handed and ultimately counter productive. To live under that occupation must be a horror*. It doesn't mean I hate Jews. I stand shoulder to shoulder with Jews from all around the world who feel the same way. There is a couple thousand Israelis in prison for refusing to fight in the occupied areas. Again, these are the men & women I stand shoulder to shoulder with.
I would like to "see through your eyes" by having your thoughts on Israel/Palestine conflict (in brief)
I am embarrassed for Grun that he made that comment.
*yes yes yes...it's is also a nightmare for the Israelis who have to live under constant threat from suicide bombers. It's horrible for both sides
-
my point crumpp is that the Israelis are far from being innocent bystanders just defending there country....
-
And I'm embarrased for you that you say Isreal is the worlds #1 terrorist state...
The Israelis arent any sort of babies by any measure but the simple fact of it is that after the UN mandated foundation of Israel post ww2 the arabs have been constantly trying to destroy them and have resisted final peace settlements.
Take the Deal Barak offered to Arafat during the last good negotiations a few years back. Now that deal was far from a perfect solution and Arafat had every right to refuse it and continue negotiating, but nooooo. Thee palestenians go ahead and start another intifida with suicide bombers targeting pizza arlors and busses, another senseless orgy of violence that brings them more defeats, more death, more israeli troops in their towns, more checkpoints, more bombings and more of everything bad for them..
So before you go mounthing off how Isreal is some terrorist state, lets have some perspective...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The Israelis arent any sort of babies by any measure but the simple fact of it is that after the UN mandated foundation of Israel post ww2 the arabs have been constantly trying to destroy them and have resisted final peace settlements.
that goes back way before WW2.....
chit these 2 peoples have been fighting each other for hundreds of years
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So before you go mounthing off how Isreal is some terrorist state, lets have some perspective...
I'll stop referring to Israel as a terrorist state when they stop state sponsored terror.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
what did I say that was negative about your country. I was applauding them for controling this cleric politically. What is negative about that.
The thread starter is negative about your country. he is critisising the administrations handling of this cleric. I am supporting them.
So what are you talking about?
Stork asks me if Im a muslim. why didnt you pipe in about that? You dont care about that I guess. I ask him if hes a nazi and thats real bad.
Listen to yourself.
Eagler posts here that he thinks board members want to kill his family..You didnt post anything about that..
Your not a voice of reason here GH. Dont kid yourself. Your a hardline neo conservative brain washed war monger. You dont represent your country you represent the powers that currently control it. Critism of them or you or stork is not critism of America no matter how you wished it was so.
And implying the US has installed a dictatorship in Iraq is not
negative huh? Good thing the US exists, or you canucks would
have nothing to whine about.
-
Originally posted by Rino
And implying the US has installed a dictatorship in Iraq is not
negative huh? Good thing the US exists, or you canucks would
have nothing to whine about.
time will tell....
-
Originally posted by SLO
that goes back way before WW2.....
chit these 2 peoples have been fighting each other for hundreds of years
Not really.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
I'll stop referring to Israel as a terrorist state when they stop state sponsored terror.
Since you consider any acts in Israels self defense to be terrorism I dont think they they will stop. You know they prolly dont want to risk being wiped out as a people again...
But maybe I presume too much? What can israel do in self defense that you wouldnt consider terrorism?
-
Just as I told a guy from Israel:
In the Arab-Israeli conflict NO SIDE is without blood on their hands, innocent blood at that. It is also a very dark and muddy bit of History.
It is essentially a Land conflict, as I understand it. The Israeli's conquered a portion of Palestine to make Israel. Yeah, if I were Palestinian that would piss me off. Once more they had Western backing when they did it. Not good.
That was also 60 years ago and after the Holocaust it eased European consciousness to help them have their own country.
The surrounding Arab countries vowed to destroy Israel and tried to do so. During the subsequent conflicts Israel grabbed more of Palestine, as did Palestinian "fellow" Arab nations. In the end the Palestinians lost their homes and became refugees in their own land.
At this point the Palestinian cause is a just one.
The Palestinian's responded with International Terrorism and allowing organizations like HAMAS to enter their mainstream politics. Bad choice of tactics, in my opinion. Extremism is dangerous and now only serves to rob the Palestinian people of legitimacy. Had the Palestinian's adopted a peaceful non-violent campaign for their own country, I am sure it would have happened. Look at India. The Western world, which backed Israel, simply would not have stood for Israeli tanks against innocents.
Today the Palestinian cause has been robbed of legitimacy. Known INTERNATIONAL terrorist are not only harbored by them but celebrated instead of being treated as sick criminals. Several times Palestinian's have been offered their own country. Rather than accept it as a beginning and establish themselves as responsible members of the international community, they come across as more interested in the destruction of Israel than in gaining their own permanent home.
Now with the latest attempt by Israel to gain a measure of security by building a wall after the peace talk breakdowns we see a renewed suicide bomber campaign. Almost Daily we see innocent Israeli's killed while at the mall, restaurant's, and bus stops. Children, women, the old and sick none are spared Palestinian anger. The west will never see a few kilometers of land worth a child's life. Israel retaliates and the blood flows.
So what are the Israeli's to do surrounded by their enemies? What are the Palestinian's to do with their Homes unjustly taken? Well, the first step begins when both sides tire of the bloodshed. When the moderates on both sides get tired of the extremist killing off their sons and daughters only then can peace begin. There are moderates on both sides who want peace. I am sure that shortly after that the world will see a measure of Justice for the Palestinian people. Although NOTHING remotely resembling what HAMAS wants or calls justice. The West calls that GENOCIDE.
In fact the Palestinian people would do well to condemn HAMAS and take meaningful action to destroy their organization. That would certainly serve their cause more than anything else they could do at this moment in time.
Crumpp
-
Israel didn't take any "Palestinian land, as there is no such nation as "Palestine". Israel held land from Jordan, Egypt and Syria after those nations and others announced their intentions and prepared to wipe Israel off the map in 1967.
The biggest farse of the "Palestinian" cause is that they are a seperate race of Arabs who have no "homeland". There is no such thing and never has been such a thing as a "Palestinian" race or county. The land they claim as a "homeland" is just land that was taken from Jordan after 1967 for the most part.
-
http://www.palestinehistory.com/war.htm
Nuke,
The land just didn't appear out of sea for the Israeli's to live on. People were living there and their homes were removed so the State of Israel could be formed. It didn't happen in a vaccuum and just because some European looks at a map and says "This land is for the Jew's" Does not make it right.
Facts are the land was unjustly taken.
With that said it also a fact that Israel is an estabilished country at this point AND a respected member of the world community. At least in the eyes of the majority of the worlds governments. Israel is not going anywhere.
Crumpp
-
Capt. Pork is spot on. Seared ahi is some damn good eatin'. :D
-
I agree that land was taken to form Israel. The people living in that land which is now Israel where Arabs and Jews and mostly nomads. No country ever existed there other than Israel in ancient times.
It was only after the Arabs tried to wipe Israel from existance begining in 1948, that a lot of these Arabs fled the area due to war. Nobody kicked anyone from their lands, they fled from the land after their fellow Arabs started a war to decimate Israel.
Now the "Palestinians" lead, by the Egyptian Arafat, claim that area as their "homeland" begining in 1967 for the most part, which is a farse of the highest magnitude and that is what I have a problem with.
-
BTW,
That is a Palestinian site. So take it with a grain of salt. It allows you to see their view on the conflict. Again it is DEEP and MUDDY.
I especially like the "Massive US aid" that kept Israel afloat!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Israel didn't take any "Palestinian land, as there is no such nation as "Palestine". Israel held land from Jordan, Egypt and Syria after those nations and others announced their intentions and prepared to wipe Israel off the map in 1967.
The biggest farse of the "Palestinian" cause is that they are a seperate race of Arabs who have no "homeland". There is no such thing and never has been such a thing as a "Palestinian" race or county. The land they claim as a "homeland" is just land that was taken from Jordan after 1967 for the most part.
I dont like this argument at all, in fact I think it borders on serious racism.
The palestenians are not a seperate race of arabs, true. But neither are the british are a seperate race of white people from the french - but we have france and we have the UK.
The simple fact is there is a group of pepople living there who have been living there for a long time and many of them are now for a few decades displaced from their land their homes because of this conflict.
So please no more of this nonsense trying to dismiss their claim to this land.
Otherwise we can open up a discussion as to the ethnic orgins of Israelies and what exactly it means to be "Jewish."
-
Are Palestinians disliked as a people? What I mean is they don't seem to be receiving any help from any of their Arab neighbours.
That is something else I don't understand.
I recall that recently you, Flyboy and me spoke in another thread briefly re: Israel. Both of you impressed me by acknowledging problems originating on both sides of this conflict. Much too often on this BBS is the inability to see some things in terms of other than just 'black & white'. I am glad the both of you see beyond it and examine the 'grey' areas.
I also believe that your reference to Gandhi is a very good one. He has long been one of my heros. "Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man." He has a wonderful place in our worlds history. Palestinians would do well to emmulate him.
Crumpp, once again I want to say I appreciate the time and effort you put into your response. I thought the final paragraph was of particular significance because it reflects my feelings.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I dont like this argument at all, in fact I think it borders on serious racism.
The palestenians are not a seperate race of arabs, true. But neither are the british are a seperate race of white people from the french - but we have france and we have the UK.
The simple fact is there is a group of pepople living there who have been living there for a long time and many of them are now for a few decades displaced from their land their homes because of this conflict.
So please no more of this nonsense trying to dismiss their claim to this land.
Otherwise we can open up a discussion as to the ethnic orgins of Israelies and what exactly it means to be "Jewish."
Well to understand the concept of "Palestinian homeland" claimed by Arafat and the PLO after 1967, you have to buy into the lie that this was the historical homeland of "Palestine" which is utterly false.
People where displaced in a lot of counties after WWI and WWII and the world map changed in many places. The Arabs and Jews both inhabited this area from ancient times, but only Israel ever had a nation there. The only thing that changed after WWII was that the Jews where given back their homeland, one tenth of one percent of the land in the middle east.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
Are Palestinians disliked as a people? What I mean is they don't seem to be receiving any help from any of their Arab neighbours.
That is something else I don't understand.
when you begin to understand history rather than propoganda, then you can make up your own mind.
Did you know that the "Palestinians" first tried to take over Jordan BEFORE they claimed a homeland in Israel?
They started a war in Jordan and tried to claim Jordan as their "homeland" and nearly succeded. The King of Jordan kicked Arafat and the "Palestinians" out of Jordan. That is one reason why some of their fellow Arabs do not support the "Palestinians"
-
But it is not a lie Nuke.
To them it is the truth. Nomadic tribes call the land they travel in "Home" just like we do.
You can't get around the fact Israel is an artificial state. You also need to check out the Israeli terrorist's that attacked the British in the early 20th century. They were almost as brutal.
Crumpp
-
No state is an artificial state. Israel has a right to exist....they are a race that originated in that area.
The Jews and the Greeks are probably the two peoples that have contributed the most to modern man's culture. The Jews have a homeland and deserve their homeland.
The Jews and Israel have an ancient history in that land.....you don't think they have a right to a "homeland" too?
The "Palestinians" are just Arabs asking for yet another "homeland"
-
Nuke
There are two countries that are considered "Artificial States" Poland and Israel. Both were created by international treaty and their borders were determined on a map by treaty.
There may be a few more now that the wall came down and Yugoslavia has fragmented.
Nobody has in this formum has asked for the destruction of Israel, Nuke. In fact I am a strong supporter of Israel as my earlier post's will back up. I would never support giving into Palestinian demands under the threat of terrorism.
In order to find peace you have to eliminate the source of conflict. That means understanding the positions of both sides and working towards a mutually agreeable end. Anything else is simply ignorance.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, a simple question; If Israel didn't exist where it is, where do you think it should exist?
-
I don't know nor will even pretend to know a good answer for that. It's a mute question since Israel exist today. The real question is Where should Palestine be located?
Crumpp
-
Palestine never existed.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nuke
There are two countries that are considered "Artificial States" Poland and Israel. Both were created by international treaty and their borders were determined on a map by treaty.
There may be a few more now that the wall came down and Yugoslavia has fragmented.
Nobody has in this formum has asked for the destruction of Israel, Nuke. In fact I am a strong supporter of Israel as my earlier post's will back up. I would never support giving into Palestinian demands under the threat of terrorism.
In order to find peace you have to eliminate the source of conflict. That means understanding the positions of both sides and working towards a mutually agreeable end. Anything else is simply ignorance.
Crumpp
Poland got screwed over worse. FDR and Churchill blatantly lied to the exiled govt's faces repeatedly. The Poles had the most kills in the RAF in WWII. The most sickening part of it all is that on June 8th, 1946, the British Labour government invited Communist Poland to their Victory Parade. To avoid pissing off Stalin, barred the hundreds of thousands of Poles who had fought under Britsih Command. Poland shrunk by over 50% at the end of the Border Carvings after WWII.
Long live the Kosciuszko Squadron.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
There are two countries that are considered "Artificial States" Poland and Israel. Both were created by international treaty and their borders were determined on a map by treaty.
Really? So what was Mieszko I thinking, anyway?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Really? So what was Mieszko I thinking, anyway?
Toad, you've impressed me.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The land just didn't appear out of sea for the Israeli's to live on. People were living there and their homes were removed so the State of Israel could be formed. It didn't happen in a vaccuum and just because some European looks at a map and says "This land is for the Jew's" Does not make it right.
Facts are the land was unjustly taken.
Crumpp
Wow! what an interesting view of history. I have NO idea where your opinion comes from.
Here's MY understanding of Israels history.
Jewish Immigration to the Holy Land, which had been going on since the 1880's increased just before WW2 due to the persecution of European Jews the Nazi's. The local Arab population wanted to limit the numbers arriving and there were clashes between the Jewish immigrants and the Arabs. In 1947 Britian gave up its mandate and the U.N. took over supervision. The U.N. proposed TWO states, one Arab, one Jewish. The Jews accepted; the Arabs rejected the plan. David Ben-Gurion declared the foundation of the state of Israel on May 15th, 1948. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan invaded, and were beaten back. The Jews secured and extended the area proposed for them by the U.N.
Let's back up a bit.
A common misperception is that the Jews were forced into the diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem around 70 A.D. and then, 1,800 years later, "suddenly" returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. A national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained.
The Jewish people base their claim to the land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham; 2) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 3) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people and 4) the territory was captured in defensive wars.
The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines. In the second century A.D., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.
The Twelve Tribes of Israel formed the first constitutional monarchy in Palestine about 1000 B.C. The second king, David, first made Jerusalem the nation's capital. Although eventually Palestine was split into two separate kingdoms, Jewish independence there lasted for 212 years. Almost as long as America has enjoyed independence.
Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in Palestine continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.
Many Jews were massacred by the Crusaders during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century-years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement-more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.
When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades. Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not." In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Koran, rather it is called "the holy land" (al-Arad al-Muqaddash).
Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:
"We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds."
In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission (which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine) "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.
I hope this clears up some of the more "common" misperception.
-
Originally posted by SLO
well.....
for your information it was not the Palestinians that declared WAR in '69....
yet they still hold Palestinian land.
and no the Israel's are not supposed too have nukes...yet they still do....
and they do go around the world kidnapping people....
I wasn't aware that there was a war in '69. There was however a war in '67 when the Israeli military launched a preemptive strike against the arabs (Syria, and Egypt were the major arab players and Jordan contributed several brigades also). I believe the war in '67 is called the 6 Day War, Israel captured the Golan Heights, West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Sinai noodleula in 6 days, against superior numbers.
I don't call finding and arresting terrorists and former Nazi's kidnapping. I call that bringing criminals to justice.
-
Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.
Flyingaround,
Thanks for Jumping in, Good History lesson. Please read the link I posted. It gives the entire History of Palestine. It's from an earlier post.
http://www.palestinehistory.com/war.htm
Nobody has in this formum has asked for the destruction of Israel, Nuke. In fact I am a strong supporter of Israel as my earlier post's will back up. I would never support giving into Palestinian demands under the threat of terrorism.
In order to find peace you have to eliminate the source of conflict. That means understanding the positions of both sides and working towards a mutually agreeable end. Anything else is simply ignorance.
Please read the rest of the thread so you can catch up.
Thanks
Crumpp
-
Masherbrum,
I didn't know the Poles were treated so badly after WWII in Britain. It's a shame we tried to appease the Soviet Union. You would have thought the West learned something from Chamberlin.
Crumpp
-
I hope this clears up some of the more "common" misperception.
Nice spin, you don't perhaps work for FLAME or perhaps one of the other Jewish-American "information" organisations do you?
Firstly, the post 1947 situation wasn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. There are plenty of examples of Jewish militias going on the offensive in areas where there was no Arab threat and securing desireable land.
international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people
No they didn't, just to that territory granted the Jews under the UN partition plan.
the territory was captured in defensive wars.
Wrong again, you're just relying on the frequently expressed *myth* that the 1947 and 1967 wars were purely "defensive" in nature. There are well documented sources that indicate otherwise, the memoirs of Moshe Dayan for example.
The Twelve Tribes of Israel formed the first constitutional monarchy in Palestine about 1000 B.C. The second king, David, first made Jerusalem the nation's capital. Although eventually Palestine was split into two separate kingdoms, Jewish independence there lasted for 212 years. Almost as long as America has enjoyed independence.
Really, so friggin' what? Are you claiming that because there was a Jewish state in the area 3000 years ago for just over 200 years, that as a result modern Jews today have a more valid claim to the land than the people whose families have lived there for centuries?
Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in Palestine continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea
More irrelevant cludge. You might want to check the population figures from the 1922 census.
Muslims - 589,177
Jews - 83,790
Christians - 71,464
When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades
I've seen this claim repeated ad nauseam by the Zionists but not with any sources to back it up. What are your sources?
Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.
Again, so what? How does this justify kicking people of their land , stealing their water and denying them any political rights?
-
Actually Crumpp, The national Identity of Poland can be traced back to 966AD. The Origin of the name comes from the word "Polaine" or "Polanie" which meant the people of the plain.
The first Polish Monarch was Mieszko (967-990) However his son Boleslaw (992-1025) was considered the first true King. Known as Boleslaw the Brave he appeased the germanic tribes to the west while grabbing as much land as he could in a series of wars ultimately extending his influence into the modern day Ukraine.
The Poles have been around longer than that though. They are Slavic and have cultural ties with Czechs.
The Poles were basically sold out to the Soviets by Roosevelt and Churchill. A quick read of the treaty at the Yalta Conference in Feb. 1945 will clear up any doubt. The first paragraph regarding Poland says "A new situation has been created in Poland as a result of her complete liberation by the Red Army". It shamefully goes downhill from there.
-
Storch,
Your absolutely right. However do not confuse what I am saying.
"Artificial State" is a state department term and denotes a country created on a map by treaty. It refers to boarders and not cultures.
Example - Before 1918 Poland as a country did not exist on any map. After the end of WWI Poland was created. The boundaries of that country did not exist prior. In other words it did not simply change names or fragment an existing territory. New boarders were drawn and a whole new country created.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Storch,
Your absolutely right. However do not confuse what I am saying.
"Artificial State" is a state department term and denotes a country created on a map by treaty. It refers to boarders and not cultures.
Example - Before 1918 Poland as a country did not exist on any map. After the end of WWI Poland was created. The boundaries of that country did not exist prior. In other words it did not simply change names or fragment an existing territory. New boarders were drawn and a whole new country created.
Crumpp
It would be better to write : between 1815 and 1918 there was not polish state.
-
I'm sorry Straffo,
Poland did not exist as an Independant country until after 1918. Again you are confusing a cultural boundry with a political one.
Crumpp
-
I disagree
see here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland
Before 1918 there was a polish state during the Napoleonic war and some trial to make one in about 1860 (don't remember exactly)
if you prefer there was a Poland before the 3 partition between Austria, Russia and Prussia
-
.The Duchy of Krakow is not the country of Poland. It is interesting that French History relates Poland as an Independent country during the Napoleonic era. On this side of the Atlantic we have it as a subject province of the Napoleonic Empire. If you examine the borders during the time period you are considering you will see they are NOT the same borders of Poland.
Not an attack, just curious. Does French History relate Vichy France as an Independent Country allied with Nazi Germany? I suppose that is a valid view due to the fact England hand to pull a "Pearl Harbor" to keep the French from making the Axis Navy Surface fleet as strong as the Royal Navy. The first combat US Army Forces experienced was with French Forces in Operation Torch.
From the link you provided. I don't think the Poles considered themselves and Independent country until 1918.
Over the past millennium, the territory ruled by Poland has shifted and varied greatly. At one time, in the 16th century, Poland was the second largest state in Europe, after Russia. At other times there was no separate Polish state at all. Poland regained its independence in 1918, after more than a century of rule by its neighbors.
Again you are confusing cultural boundaries with political ones.
Poland did not exist as a Country until 1918 when the Map of Europe was redrawn to incorporate it's boundaries by treaty. Names were not just changes but new borders created. Hence the term "Artificial State".
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
.The Duchy of Krakow is not the country of Poland. It is interesting that French History relates Poland as an Independent country during the Napoleonic era. On this side of the Atlantic we have it as a subject province of the Napoleonic Empire. If you examine the borders during the time period you are considering you will see they are NOT the same borders of Poland.
It's my own interpretation :)
Being half polish it how in my familly see this,and how my grand father teached me.
Not an attack, just curious. Does French History relate Vichy France as an Independent Country allied with Nazi Germany? I suppose that is a valid view due to the fact England hand to pull a "Pearl Harbor" to keep the French from making the Axis Navy Surface fleet as strong as the Royal Navy. The first combat US Army Forces experienced was with French Forces in Operation Torch. [/B]
Sorry ,but I don't see the point here ?
You try to hit a nerve ?
From the link you provided. I don't think the Poles considered themselves and Independent country until 1918. [/B]
Here you're completly right ... with an independant Poland we won't had to flee the Russians :)
Again you are confusing cultural boundaries with political ones.
Poland did not exist as a Country until 1918 when the Map of Europe was redrawn to incorporate it's boundaries by treaty. Names were not just changes but new borders created. Hence the term "Artificial State".
Crumpp [/B]
Only cultural ?
What existed during the Jagiellon period for example ?
I call this a state.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Masherbrum,
I didn't know the Poles were treated so badly after WWII in Britain. It's a shame we tried to appease the Soviet Union. You would have thought the West learned something from Chamberlin.
Crumpp
Read "A Question of Honor" by Lynne Olson and Stanley Cloud. It is about the 303 (Koscuiszko) Squadron. One of the best WWII books I've read. Also "Given Up for Dead" by Bill Sloan is another fantastic book. It is about the stand on Wake Island (December 1941).
Karaya
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Palestine never existed.
neither did Israel
-
Straffo,
You attempting to argue with me over a US State Department Term which I have explained the meaning of for you.
It fits the definition for both the formation of Poland and Israel. The Link you posted was exactly were I got my information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland
Let me repost my reply to Storch. Please reread it and try and understand it. Perception defines your reality. I am 100 percent sure that Polish perception, Palestinian perception, US perception, Israeli perception and French perception of world events may have some similarities they will also have their differences.
My question on French perception was a legitimate one and not a cheap swipe at France. I was trying to get a view from French perception. Perhaps France feels that the Duchy of Krakow was an independant country while the Poles felt they were subjects of the Napoleanic Empire. Therefore the date of Polish independance is different in French History books than it is in other accounts. Much stranger things have been printed in History Books.
==============================================
Storch,
Your absolutely right. However do not confuse what I am saying.
"Artificial State" is a state department term and denotes a country created on a map by treaty. It refers to boarders and not cultures.
Example - Before 1918 Poland as a country did not exist on any map. After the end of WWI Poland was created. The boundaries of that country did not exist prior. In other words it did not simply change names or fragment an existing territory. New boarders were drawn and a whole new country created.
==============================================
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Nice spin, you don't perhaps work for FLAME or perhaps one of the other Jewish-American "information" organisations do you?
Again, so what? How does this justify kicking people of their land , stealing their water and denying them any political rights?
ROFL FLAME. I'm an Arab actually. Always blew my mind when other Arabs would "invent" history. My post was more re. the fact that "Palestine" was basically southern Syria, and "Palestinian" is not a refrence to an Arab. Too many people try to give that term an Arab identity, which is totally false.
Kicking people off their land? (sigh) so you are one of "those" huh? So according to you, those four Arab countries did NOT attack Israel? 50,000,000 Arabs attacked 600,000 Jews and got trounced (50mil in ref. to the countries combined populations). AND the Arabs had the military bases (given to them by the Brit's) and the Brit's hvy weapons they left behind. YES the Jews are guilty of terrorism in that region before Israels independance. MANY nasty things done on both sides. Not what I was trying to convey.
At least the Jews have close to 3,000 years of histiory in the region, and their own identity. No Arab claims "Palestine" as a homeland. Well, they might now, but that claim is baseless. It's "those" Arabs that give us a bad name.
Don't think I'm some pro-jew, anti-arab. Being Arab mysel, quite the opposite, but like most "intellectual" Arabs (term used loosly re. me of course) I like to formulate opinions based on facts, as opposed to hype.
BUT TO BE CLEAR here, Palestine was NEVER an Arab state. Palestinian did not ref. to an Arab.
-
Originally posted by SLO
well....for your information it was not the Palestinians that declared WAR in '69....
Neither did the Israelis... I'd bet a case on it...
The Six Day War was in '67, Yom Kippur War was in 73...
-
ding ding ding... took forever before someone finally hit it.
-
crap....fugged the date up.....so shot me for christ sake
-
Originally posted by flyingaround
ROFL FLAME. I'm an Arab actually. Always blew my mind when other Arabs would "invent" history. My post was more re. the fact that "Palestine" was basically southern Syria, and "Palestinian" is not a refrence to an Arab. Too many people try to give that term an Arab identity, which is totally false.
Kicking people off their land? (sigh) so you are one of "those" huh? So according to you, those four Arab countries did NOT attack Israel? 50,000,000 Arabs attacked 600,000 Jews and got trounced (50mil in ref. to the countries combined populations). AND the Arabs had the military bases (given to them by the Brit's) and the Brit's hvy weapons they left behind. YES the Jews are guilty of terrorism in that region before Israels independance. MANY nasty things done on both sides. Not what I was trying to convey.
At least the Jews have close to 3,000 years of histiory in the region, and their own identity. No Arab claims "Palestine" as a homeland. Well, they might now, but that claim is baseless. It's "those" Arabs that give us a bad name.
Don't think I'm some pro-jew, anti-arab. Being Arab mysel, quite the opposite, but like most "intellectual" Arabs (term used loosly re. me of course) I like to formulate opinions based on facts, as opposed to hype.
BUT TO BE CLEAR here, Palestine was NEVER an Arab state. Palestinian did not ref. to an Arab.
You sound like my friend Fahmi, he makes the same claim. sometimes we have to leave places in a hurry. :D
-
Probably even allowed.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Straffo,
You attempting to argue with me over a US State Department Term which I have explained the meaning of for you.
It fits the definition for both the formation of Poland and Israel. The Link you posted was exactly were I got my information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland
if it's the state departement it can't be wrong ?
Please look at this affirmation :
Poland existed as a state during the XVI century
Is it right or wrong ?
You are speaking of Poland state as made by the allied at the end of WWII.
I'm speaking of Poland as the country of the Polish.
Let me repost my reply to Storch. Please reread it and try and understand it. Perception defines your reality. I am 100 percent sure that Polish perception, Palestinian perception, US perception, Israeli perception and French perception of world events may have some similarities they will also have their differences.
[/B]
certainly.
My question on French perception was a legitimate one and not a cheap swipe at France. I was trying to get a view from French perception. [/B]
Perception is the key word, French citizen though vichy was legitimate ,but for a stricly republican/legal/constitutional point of view it was not.
See : " Le nouveau gouvernement formé à Bordeaux le 16 juin 1940 l'avait bien été initialement selon les procédures normales ; mais il n'avait pas reçu la consécration parlementaire imposée par le droit positif. Il était donc illégitime parce que vicieusement formé."
(imprecise translation )
The governement formed in Bordeaux gave the full power to Pétain but even if this governement was created correctly it was not legitimated by the National Assembly.
So it was build on vicious bases and this governement had not the legal power to transfert to Pétain control of France.
-Petain was given the power to rewrite a new Constitution but this was never done.
-He instead put forth three Constitutional Acts that suspended the Constitution of the Third Republic of 1875.
-These Acts suspended Parliament, transferred all powers to himself
Sorry but a Republic without parlement ,constitution and not recognizing the human right as no value here.
Perhaps France feels that the Duchy of Krakow was an independant country while the Poles felt they were subjects of the Napoleanic Empire. [/B]
Beg to disagree here ,as a Pole we prefered Napoléon to the tzar ,just because the tzar was Russian !
But a Pole living in Poland will have perhaps a different perception than mine.
Therefore the date of Polish independance is different in French History books than it is in other accounts. Much stranger things have been printed in History Books.[/B]
-
Straffo,
You are speaking of Poland state as made by the allied at the end of WWII.
WWI, but..
Exactly! "Artificial State" is a technical term the US State Department uses to denote a country created by treaty where none existed before. It refers to Political BORDERS not peoples CULTURES. It has nothing to do with whether the land was occupied or the people existed before the countries creation.
I'm speaking of Poland as the country of the Polish.
EXACTLY!! You are talking about the traditional cultural dwellings and area inhabited by the Poles. Nothing you have said is wrong. It just taken from a different point of view. That is why we have cultural maps as well as political ones. That is how most border disputes arise. When the cultural boundries cross the political one's!
We on the same sheet of music now? ;)
Crumpp
-
Thanks for the History lesson on Vichy France, BTW. I did not know that Petain tried to take absolute power.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
We on the same sheet of music now? ;)
certainly :)
About Pétain it has never been very clear if it was his will or the will of Pierre Laval in which case Pétain was just a strawman.
But he accepted the responsibility
IMO he was under the influence of the extreme right wing like the anti-republicain ,the monarchist and the former member of the "cagoule" (the CSAR)
-
not recognizing the human right as no value here.
Governments which do not recognize human value have no right today either!
Thanks for the insight into Vichy France. It is covered in our required History classes but not in detail.
Crumpp
-
Well ... it's not completly covered in French schools
There is still some famillies where speaking Vichy that lead to fights :)
-
Wrong again, you're just relying on the frequently expressed *myth* that the 1947 and 1967 wars were purely "defensive" in nature. There are well documented sources that indicate otherwise, the memoirs of Moshe Dayan for example.
In 1967 if the Israelis hadn't attacked first, the Arabs would have. The old adage *the best defense is a good offense* applies rather well to the Israelis in the 6 Day War. Instead of waiting for the Arabs to attack them the Israelis went on the offensive.
neither did Israel
Slo are you just trolling again? Or are you really that ignorant of Jewish history? Jewish people have inhabited that land for 1000's of years, since the time of Abraham. Many times they were conquered and enslaved by other countries in the region, yet each time they returned to their homeland and reestablished the state of Israel.
-
Iraq's new interim government is "illegitimate," militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr said Sunday as he vowed to resist occupation forces to the "last drop of blood."
Actualy, he act as he said that he will act.
he claimed long time ago that he will not respect non elected goverment.
CNN didnt quote him ?
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/06/iraq.main/index.html
See our problems are solved.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Slo are you just trolling again? Or are you really that ignorant of Jewish history? Jewish people have inhabited that land for 1000's of years, since the time of Abraham. Many times they were conquered and enslaved by other countries in the region, yet each time they returned to their homeland and reestablished the state of Israel.
yup...that would be like the UN giving back the US to the Indians....
-
Originally posted by SLO
yup...that would be like the UN giving back the US to the Indians....
Or Canada to the Indians, except the Indians aren't God's chosen people.
-
Originally posted by SLO
yup...that would be like the UN giving back the US to the Indians....
The Indians in the Americas never reestablished themselves, and never had clearly defined borders either.
-
Originally posted by storch
Or Canada to the Indians, except the Indians aren't God's chosen people.
in there culture they belong to the land....same as saying belonging to a God
-
Originally posted by SLO
in there culture they belong to the land....same as saying belonging to a God
Inaccurate.....The Indians had Gods, and the land wasn't a God for them. The land was something that in their eyes no one could own and was to be taken care of and not abused.
-
Elfie, where did you learn your American Indian history?
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Inaccurate.....The Indians had Gods, and the land wasn't a God for them. The land was something that in their eyes no one could own and was to be taken care of and not abused.
name 1 Indian God please....
-
Casino Apache.
-
Originally posted by SLO
name 1 Indian God please....
manituu ? :D
-
Originally posted by lada
manituu ? :D
and what does he or she represent.....(animal or man)
-
Originally posted by SLO
and what does he or she represent.....(animal or man)
realy dont know ... i have to check Vinetoouuu ;)
-
AWONAWILONA (Pueblo Indians)
"The One Who Contains Everything." The Supreme God, the Creator of All. Before the creation there was only Awonawilona; all else was darkness and emptiness. Both male and female, Awonawilona created everything from himself and taking form became the maker of light, the Sun.
BREATHMAKER (Seminole)
Breathmaker taught men to fish and dig wells, and made the Milky Way. When the virtuous die, they follow the Milky Way to a glorious city in the western sky.
COYOTE (Southwestern Indians, but known in other areas as well)
A trickster, a clown. The creator and teacher of men. Like Loki, Coyote is always lurking about, causing trouble and playing pranks. To the Zunis, Coyote is a hero who set forth the laws by which men may live in peace. The Pomo Indians maintain that Coyote created the human race and stole the sun to keep them warm. The Montana Sioux say that Coyote created the horse.
The Chinook tell how Coyote and Eagle went to the land of the dead to bring back their dead wives. On reaching the land of the dead, they found a meeting lodge lit only by the moon which lay on the floor. Every night an old woman would swallow the moon and the dead would appear in the meeting lodge. Recognizing their wives among the spirits of the dead, the two gods devised a plan. The next day, after the old woman had vomited up the moon and the dead had disappeared, Coyote built a huge wooden box and placed in it leaves of every kind of plant. Coyote and Eagle then killed the old woman, and Coyote donned her clothes. When the time came, Coyote swallowed the moon. The dead appeared, but Eagle had place the box outside the exit. When Coyote vomited up the moon, the dead filed out and were trapped in the box. Coyote pleaded to be allowed to carry the box, and Eagle gave it to him. But Coyote couldn't waitto see his wife and opened the box. The spirits of the dead rose up like a cloud and disappeared to the west. So it is that people must die forever, not like the plants which die in winter and are green again in a season.
GAHE Also GA'AN (Apache)
Supernatural beings who dwell inside mountains. The can sometimes be heard dancing and beating drums. Because they can heal and drive away disease, they are worshipped. In the ritual dances of the Chiricahua Apache masked dancers painted a different color for each point of the compass represent all the Gahe except the Grey One. The Grey One, though he appears as a clown, is really the mightiest of all the Gahe.
KACHINAS (Hopi)
Nature spirits which inhabit and control everything -- animal spirits, spirits of departed ancestors, spirits of natural resources such as wind, rain and thunder. Their exact number is not known, but at least five hundred appear in the mythologies of the different villages.
NESARU (Arikara)
Sky spirit. In the beginning, Nesaru had charge over all creation. Displeased with a race of giants in the underworld who would not respect his authority, Nesaru sent a new race to the underworld to replace them and sent a flood which destroyed the giants without destroying the new men. When the new men cried out to be released from the underworld, Nesaru sent the Corn Mother for their deliverance.
OLELBIS (Wintun, Pacific Coast)
The Creator who lived in Olelpanti (Heaven) with two old women. When the first people destroyed the world with fire, Olelbis sent wind and rain to quench the flames, and repaired the earth. Olelbis intended men to live forever. When they grew old, they were to climb to heaven and join Olelbis in paradise. Olelbis set two vultures to the task of building a ladder to Olelpanti for men to ascend, but Coyote persuaded them to stop work.
RABBIT (Southeastern tribes)
Like Coyote and Michabo, a trickster god. Through a sly trick, Rabbit brought fire to man.
RAVEN (Northwestern tribes)
Another trickster god. Very greedy, forever seeking food. Raven stole the moon from a miser and placed it in the sky.
In the beginning Tirawa-Atius called the gods together to announce his plan to create the human race and promised the gods a share of power for their help. Shakura the Sun was assigned to provide light and heat, Pah the Moon was assigned the night, and Tirwara-Atius placed the Evening Star, the Mother of All Things in the west. The Morning Star he set to guard the east. After the gods had raised dry land from the watery chaos, Tirawa Atius told Sun and Moon to make love, and they gave birth to a son. He then told Evening and Morning Star to make love, and they gave birth to a daughter. So the human race was made.
All would have been well if Coyote had not stolen a sack of storms from Lightening. Opening the sack, Coyote loosed the storms and so brought death into the world.
THOUME' (Chitimacha)
Thoume' taught the people to make clothing and fire, and how to make love. After making the moon and the sun, Thoume' sent the trickster god Kutnahin to teach medicine and food preparation to men. Kutnahin traveled through the world disguised as a derelict covered with buzzard dung.
WACHABE (Sioux/Osage)
Black Bear. A guardian. Symbol of long life, strength and courage.
-
http://www.gods-heros-myth.com/namerican/northgods.html
Crumpp
-
Dang Crummp you beat me to it :D Indian dieties normally had to do with the Sun and animals, but the land itself wasnt a God to them, they lived on the land but ownership of land was a concept that was totally foreign to them. (Especially to the plains tribes)
-
Sorry! :)
Crumpp
-
That is correct Elfie. Ownership was by force and occupation, and they did not respect the land, in the way we understand that today. Under current thoughts of land conservation, they raped and ruined the land at every chance, with no understanding or care of the long term consequences.
That is not an indictment of the Indians, mind you, only of the so-called educators who teach Native American history.
-
Originally posted by SLO
name 1 Indian God please....
Wankatanka, Lakota people.