23 year old American Rachel killed by Israeli Army Bulldozer - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-10-2003, 02:33 PM   #76
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:57 AM
ouizy:

Please tell whom you qoted otherwise it looks like i said this

Klaus
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 03:07 PM   #77
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 88
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ouizy





What can I possibly say? I will try to withhold my emotions about this one and say something as clear as I can.

Your Jewish lobbyist theory (in my mind) does not truly hold up as most of the US government (whether you want to admit it or not) are Christian and are from states with very low percentages of Jewish citizens.

If there were troops fighting for freedom in as you call it Palestine/Israel, what exactly would they be fighting for, or should I say whom?

It seems to me your two sentences contradict each other when you say the Jewish lobbyists are bhind support for Israel due to all that OIL, but then you say Palestine does not have oil, or the support of these lobbyists, so what exactly are these numerous Jewish lobbyists lobbying for exactly?

Your argument confuses me.
[/B]
Hi Ouizy,

Let me try to clear up my argument. First of all, I think your idea for a peace plan is very well thought out and hopefully, one day, peace would come from such a process. Anyways, to clear up my opinions on Jewish lobbyists and their influence in the U.S.

Jewish lobbyists have massive power over American policy... They include the American Pro-Israel Commitee, along with the American Jewish Committee, the American Defense League, the United Jewish Communities, the National Jewish Democratic Council, and the Republican Jewish Coalition. It is traced to the power of the collective Jewish or pro-Israeli lobby, a well-organized, well-funded, extremely active, and extraordinarily connected group, according to many political analysts. These lobbyists donate millions of dollars to campaigners, and when elected, these elected politicians become Israeli biased when it comes to mid-east policy. That's a fact. It is truly disturbing to see American elected officials falling over themselves in an unseemly attempt to 'pledge allegiance' to a foreign government and its domestic lobby. AIPAC is one of the most powerful pro-Israeli lobbyists in the U.S. and have been known to donate up to $500,000 per candidate. So what does this mean for America????

It means that decisions about every region on the planet (not only the most volatile) will be made on the basis of AIPAC influence.

It means that the United States will continue to fund the repression and murder of Palestinians.

It means that our media will, by-and-large, debase truth and objectivity for the benefit of Israeli blessings.

It means that we can continue to expect candidates like Jesse Jackson to be savagely labelled "anti-Semitic" for suggesting fairness in America's Middle East policy.

To further my argument, here's a quote from WRMEA.com (which is a great site btw) "The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.

AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.

Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary,one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.


Ouizy "It seems to me your two sentences contradict each other when you say the Jewish lobbyists are bhind support for Israel due to all that OIL, but then you say Palestine does not have oil, or the support of these lobbyists, so what exactly are these numerous Jewish lobbyists lobbying for exactly?"

The lobbyists are lobbying to protect Israel from its biggest threat to its existence... In Iraq........ Saddam Hussein's military, Saddam Hussein's support of the Palestinian cause. Furthermore, from what I've recently heard through my brother in law who is with Bloomberg news(just a rumour), the Israili's are planning on building a pipeline from Israel to Iraq... Oil once again at the center of issues.... Hmmmm...

In Palestine/Israel... the lobbyists push the U.S. to continue support of Israel and it's murderous, repressive, aggressive, and unjustified occupation of Palestine. Oh, and they're also paying off or lobbying congressmen to push for the continued donation of $10 billion dollars of U.S. tax payers money to Israel.

In addition, what about Congressmen Jim Moran who told the truth and said that the United States wouldn't be going to war if it wasn't for Jewish lobbyists.... He was forced to resign by pressure from Jewish lobbyists for those very comments... Moran was a politician who spoke the truth, went against the grain, risked his political career.... and in turn was labelled an anti-semite and was forced to resign. Sad.

Anyways, I gotta get back to the books.


You can read up on all this stuff in government books and all over the net.


Later
__________________

__________________
Man Inside The Child is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 03:52 PM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 01:57 AM
It has nothing to do with being pro-Jewish. Jerry Falwell encourages support for Israel, because it is his belief that it will cause a war that will kill 2/3 of the Jews and the other 1/3 will convert to Christianity. "A win-win situation," in his words.

Considering some of the fanatics in Bush's circle of influence...

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 04:03 PM   #79
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
It has nothing to do with being pro-Jewish. Jerry Falwell encourages support for Israel, because it is his belief that it will cause a war that will kill 2/3 of the Jews and the other 1/3 will convert to Christianity. "A win-win situation," in his words.

Considering some of the fanatics in Bush's circle of influence...

Melon
Huh, that's the most horrible things i've heared about motives why the US supports Israel - can you tell me when he said that?
And do you think anyone listens to this religious fanatic?

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 04:06 PM   #80
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 01:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Huh, that's the most horrible things i've heared about motives why the US supports Israel - can you tell me when he said that?
And do you think anyone listens to this religious fanatic?
He said it during a "60 Minutes II" (U.S. TV newsmagazine) interview and unapologetically.

I would like to think "no," but considering the kinds of "Christians" that have been popping up everywhere from AIDS committees to FDA appointments, I have to question it. Of course, Bush would never admit it openly.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 05:22 PM   #81
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
ouizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: s p o r a t i c
Posts: 3,743
Local Time: 12:57 AM
Man Inside the Child,

Your post was clear and to the point, and albeit biased displayed the skeleton behind the US support for Israel.

As you see it as wrong, I see it as a group of people who have been segregated, persecuted, and killed for too many years not to put forth their best effort in this country.

I can gurantee you you that in due time, through the peace process there too will be numerous Palestinian lobbyists in the US, but they will only be recognized when the terrorism stops.

As much as I understand your side of the argument, I have a problem reading many pro-Palestinian posts because they generally do not ever mention the terror that group of people has displayed in Israel.

Statements like:

Quote:
In Palestine/Israel... the lobbyists push the U.S. to continue support of Israel and it's murderous, repressive, aggressive, and unjustified occupation of Palestine.
It is hard to debate people with the same beliefs as you because many of us do not believe there ever was a Palestine, and the idea that the Palestinian group of people "deserve" anything due to a claim on land that was never theirs is null.

As far as the pipeline, I have a very hard time believeing any of this. I am not saying your family memeber made anything up - I am sure the rumour is out there (I can only guess who propagated it..) but I have to say there is no way any free country on this planet including the US would ever allow Israel to ever tap into Iraq's oil supply until a free Iraq agreed to it.

If this were to happen surreptitiously, the state of Israel as we know it would cease to exist as its neighbors (who already despise) them would squash them.

As far as Jerry Falwell is concerned whoever listens to him should be ashamed of themselves, especially if they are the "leader of the free world."

Klaus, sorry - I sometimes do not always say who I am quoting - just throw out some recent quotes and respond to them, sorry if it seemed like you said something you did not say...
__________________
ouizy is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 05:26 PM   #82
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 12:57 AM
This is an article by Eric Alterman in this weeks nation. I think it is an interesting slant on the issue.

STOP THE PRESSES by Eric Alterman
Can We Talk?

.L. Sulzberger would not have liked this war. Back in 1937, New York Times Washington bureau chief Arthur Krock was hoping to be named editorial page editor. As Gay Talese tells it in The Kingdom and the Power, Sulzberger would not even discuss it. He explained to Krock, "It's a Jewish paper and we have a number of Jewish reporters working for us. But in all the years I've been here, we have never put a Jew in the showcase."

This war has put Jews in the showcase as never before. Its primary intellectual architects--Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Douglas Feith--are all Jewish neoconservatives. So, too, are many of its prominent media cheerleaders, including William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Marty Peretz. Joe Lieberman, the nation's most conspicuous Jewish politician, has been an avid booster, going so far as to rebuke his former partner Al Gore and much of his own party.

Then there's the "Jews control the media" problem. It's probably not particularly relevant that the families who own the Times and the Washington Post are Jewish, but let's not pretend this is so in the case of the Jewish editors of, say, U.S. News & World Report and The New Republic. Mortimer Zuckerman is head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and Peretz is unofficial chair of the American Arab Defamation Committee. Neither is shy about filling his magazine with news Jews can use.

To make matters worse, many of these Jewish hard-liners--"Likudniks" in the current parlance--appear, at least from a distance, to be behaving in accordance with traditional anti-Jewish stereotypes. Much to the delight of genuine anti-Semites of the left and right, the idea of a new war to remove Saddam was partially conceived at the behest of Likud politician Benjamin Netanyahu in a document written expressly for him by Perle, Feith and others in 1996. Some, like Perle, apparently see the influence they wield as an opportunity to get rich. What's more, many of these same Jews joined Rumsfeld and Cheney in underselling the difficulty of the war, in what may have been a ruse designed to embroil America in a broad military conflagration that would help smite Israel's enemies. Did Perle, for instance, genuinely believe "support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder"? Is Wolfowitz really so ignorant of history as to believe the Iraqis would welcome us as "their hoped-for liberators"?

The character of this Administration, unfortunately, adds further fuel to the stereotypical fire. Unlike, say, Tony Blair, George W. Bush does not readily give the impression of having a geopolitical clue. Hence, he appears rather easily manipulated by the smart fellows with their fancy concepts and Ivy League degrees who surround him. (Yes, I know about Bush's degrees, but they're never part of the story.) Rapidly shifting conventional wisdom has already begun to blame Bush advisers' "bum advice," according to one Washington Post report, for the war's decidedly not-so-cakewalk-like character. A really good conspiracy theorist would begin to wonder if the Jews are being set up to take the fall when things go badly.

A big part of the problem in addressing the "Jewish war" conspiracy thesis is the reticence of almost all sides to broach the issue of Israeli and American Jewish influence on US foreign policy. A few writers, most notably Stanley Hoffmann, Robert Kaiser and Mickey Kaus, have raised the question gingerly. But writing on the Washington Post op-ed page, New Republic editor Lawrence Kaplan insists that even raising "the specter of dual loyalty" is "toxic." Kaus noted accurately in Slate that the dual loyalty taboo is "quite openly designed to stop people from raising the Likudnik issue." And it works.

This is all very confusing to your nice Jewish columnist. My own dual loyalties--there, I admitted it--were drilled into me by my parents, my grandparents, my Hebrew school teachers and my rabbis, not to mention Israeli teen-tour leaders and AIPAC college representatives. It was just about the only thing they all agreed upon. Yet this milk- (and honey-) fed loyalty to Israel as the primary component of American Jewish identity--always taught in the context of the Holocaust--inspires a certain confusion in its adherents, namely: Whose interests come first, America's or Israel's? Leftist landsmen are certain that an end to the occupation and a peaceful and prosperous Palestinian state are the best ways to secure both Israeli security and American interests. Likudniks think it's best for both Israel and the United States to beat the crap out of as many Arabs as possible, as "force is the only thing these people understand."

But we ought to be honest enough to at least imagine a hypothetical clash between American and Israeli interests. Here, I feel pretty lonely admitting that, every once in a while, I'm going to go with what's best for Israel. As I was lectured over and over while growing up, America can make a million mistakes and nobody is going to take away our country and murder us. Israel is nowhere near as vulnerable as many would have us believe, but it remains a tiny Jewish island surrounded by a sea of largely hostile Arabs. Perhaps it was a strategic mistake for America to rush to Israel's aid in 1973, but given the alternative, I really don't care. As Moshe Dayan told Golda Meir at the time, the "third temple" was crumbling. Tough luck if it meant higher gasoline prices at home.

I can't profess to speak for the motivations of others, and by the numbers, American Jews seem no more prowar than the US population, and maybe even a little less. But I'd be surprised if the Administration's hawkish Likudniks were immune to the emotional pull of defending Dayan's "third temple." Our inability to engage the question only forces the discussion into subterranean and sometimes anti-Semitic territory. If the Likudniks played an unsavory role in fomenting this war (and future wars), and further discussion will help illuminate this unhappy fact, then I say, "Let there be light." If something is "toxic" merely to talk about, the problem is probably not in the talking, but in the doing.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-10-2003, 10:01 PM   #83
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 88
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Hi Ouizy,

I agree with everything you said and I do respect your opinion... There has been unnecessary life lost on the Israeli side of things and that saddens me as well. My question has always been why such terror occurs and what has spurred such terror.


Anyways, you mentioned:
"As you see it as wrong, I see it as a group of people who have been segregated, persecuted, and killed for too many years not to put forth their best effort in this country. "

You're right, the Jews have suffered over the centuries, especially this one... But having suffered all those years, how can they now turn around and segregate, persecute, and kill Palestinians? Let's face it in the first instance, many Jews were the victims of tyranny. In the second instance, many Jews are now the tyrants.

As far as the history of the region goes, you mentioned "It is hard to debate people with the same beliefs as you because many of us do not believe there ever was a Palestine, and the idea that the Palestinian group of people "deserve" anything due to a claim on land that was never theirs is null. " But really, the Canaanites, the original Palestinians had inhabited Palestine well before (as early as 3000 bc)... it was not until 1400 bc that the Hebrews conquered the Canaanites... Just a little history.

The Palestinian people had originally occupied the land and were part of the land, its culture, and its history until today. At times, yes, they did not self-govern, like during the Ottoman Empire... but the Ottoman's ran most of Europe.

Later
__________________
Man Inside The Child is offline  
Old 04-11-2003, 12:12 AM   #84
The Fly
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto
Posts: 88
Local Time: 05:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ouizy


As far as the pipeline, I have a very hard time believeing any of this. I am not saying your family memeber made anything up - I am sure the rumour is out there (I can only guess who propagated it..) but I have to say there is no way any free country on this planet including the US would ever allow Israel to ever tap into Iraq's oil supply until a free Iraq agreed to it.

Here's a recent article discussing the rumour (which is now pretty close to fact from what I hear) of a pipeline running from Iraq to Israel....




Israel Already Talks Of
Reopening Iraq-Haifa Oil Pipeline
4-1-3


BERLIN (IRNA) -- Israel is seriously considering an old plan to restart the Iraq-Haifa oil pipeline which used to run from the north Iraqi city of Mosul to Israel's northern port of Haifa, DPA quoted the Israeli daily Ha'aretz on Monday.

Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky has requested an assessment of the state of the oil pipeline which ceased operations in 1948.

Paritzky hoped the flow of oil from Iraq to Haifa could be renewed, if an Israel-friendly regime was set up in Iraq after the war. The minister said that resurrecting the old pipeline could save Israel the high cost of shipping oil from Russia.

He also thought the United States would react favorably to the idea, since the pipeline would bring oil directly from Iraq to the Mediterranean. Israel had made one attempt to renew the oil flow to Haifa during the Iraqi imposed war in the 1980s, however Syria blocked the flow of Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean.

Reuters also reports on this story....
__________________
Man Inside The Child is offline  
Old 04-11-2003, 01:59 AM   #85
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 10:57 PM
I don't read The Nation and I'm not familiar with Eric Alterman, although with a quick Google-ing I discovered that he's somewhat of a controversial pundit and has a few enemies out in cyberspace. Nevertheless, putting all his conjecture aside, if it's true that Perle and Wolfowitz are "Jewish neoconservatives," I mean, this alone is troubling for me.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 04-12-2003, 12:47 PM   #86
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 12:57 AM
Another peace activist was killed yesterday at the West Bank. I hope the UK looks into this better than the US did.
British activist shot in head by Israeli troops

Student peace worker suffers suspected brain damage in attack while protecting Palestinian family in Gaza Strip

Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Saturday April 12, 2003
The Guardian

A British peace activist was shot in the head yesterday as he tried to help a Palestinian woman and her children flee Israeli gunfire.
Tom Hurndall was shot as he moved towards the family in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. He was wearing a fluorescent orange vest, and witnesses say that there had been no exchange of fire between the Israeli army and Palestinian gunmen that day.

According to doctors at Rafah Hospital, he is believed to have suffered brain damage.

Alice Coy, 27, a peace activist from London, said that their group had been on their way to pitch a tent by a mosque yesterday afternoon.

They planned to try to prevent an Israeli tank repeating its nightly routine of taking position at the mosque and firing down the street.

"As we approached the mosque, several shots landed in the street around us," she said. "We took cover behind a mound of earth.

"Most of the Palestinians around us had run away, but there was a woman with her two children stuck in front of us. I looked up and Tom was moving towards them in his orange vest.

"I imagine he was trying to take them to safety. Then he was shot in the head by a single bullet, I believe from an Israeli watchtower."

The Israeli army said that it could not comment because the incident was still under investigation.

Last month a US activist, Rachel Corrie, 23, was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer.

She too was wearing an orange vest when she knelt in front of the vehicle, but it kept going. The Israeli army is still investigating.

Last week, Brian Avery, 24, another activist from New Mexico, was shot in the face by Israeli soldiers in Jenin.

A spokesman for the International Solidarity Movement - the group which had trained Mr Hurndall in non-violent resistance - alleged that the Israeli army had embarked on a campaign against its activists.

"It now seems like it is open season on international peace activists," he said. "They just want us out so they can get on with their business without international observation."

Mr Hurndall, 21, from Tufnell Park, London, was studying photography at Manchester Metropolitan University. At the end of February he went to Iraq to join the human shields in Baghdad but left before the war.

He arrived in the West Bank on April 4 and completed a training course at ISM's headquarters near Bethlehem.

The ISM has activists operating all over the West Bank and Gaza who come to the region from around the world to try to act as a buffer between the Israeli army and settlers and Palestinians. Their activities range from protecting the olive harvest to escorting children to school. They often work with Israeli human rights groups.

Their presence is a source of annoyance to the Israeli army and they are often arrested and beaten up.

Last November an Irish activist, Ciaomhe Butterly, 23, was shot in the leg in Jenin after talking to soldiers. She was deported.

Palestinians are regularly killed by gunfire in Rafah. It is situated next to the Israeli-controlled border with Egypt, through which Palestinian smugglers attempt to tunnel to import goods and weapons. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are active in the town.

The Israeli army is widening the buffer zone between homes in Rafah and the security fence, a task that has involved the demolition of hundreds of homes.

According to Tom Wallace of the ISM, Mr Hurndall was part of a group of activists on their way to set up a tent by a mosque in the Jibna area of Rafah. On Thursday morning, two brothers aged 19 and 15 had been shot by Israeli soldiers as they approached the mosque.

Mr Wallace said the activists wanted to "challenge the army's nighttime terrorism". "In addition to preventing sporadic shooting, the activists hope to help the residents of Jibna to pray in peace," he said.

Raphael Cohen, 37, a computer programmer from London who lives in Cairo, said he had met Mr Hurndall recently.

"He is a fantastic person and a very passionate photographer," Mr Cohen said.

"He was documenting the daily life of Rafah, not just the bad stuff.

"He was very excited about being in Rafah. He came here to help people and that is what he was doing every day."
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 09:00 AM   #87
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:57 AM
Sorry for reanimating that thread but today BBC news fits exactly to this thread:

Quote:
BBC News: Israel restricts Gaza access

Foreigners and Israeli civilians entering the Gaza Strip will have to sign waiver forms absolving the army of responsibility if they're killed or injured in military operations.

The form requires all foreigners, including United Nations relief workers, to acknowledge they are entering an unsafe area.

They must also declare that they are not peace activists.

The move comes after the deaths of a number of foreign journalists and human rights activists in Israel, particularly those from the International Solidarity Movement whose volunteers work as human shields in the Palestinian territories.


Soon after the new measures came into force, four foreign peace activists belonging to the movement were detained.

Israeli police sources said two were arrested in the West Bank at Beit Sahur, near Bethlehem, for being present in a restricted area without permission.

Peace activists said another two were detained late on Thursday at a checkpoint at the entrance to the Gaza Strip.

Their nationalities are unknown.

Officials of the International Solidarity Movement said the detention of their members was unacceptable behaviour by the Israeli authorities.

The latest Israeli measures follows a demand from the British Government for an investigation into the death of British cameraman James Miller, who was shot dead last week while making a documentary in a Gaza refugee camp.

'In harms way'

Visitors are being warned that they are not permitted to approach security fences next to Jewish settlements or enter Israeli military zones in the Rafah refugee camp, where Miller was killed on Saturday.

Miller's death follows the shooting of ISM activist, Tom Hurndall, who is currently in a coma with severe brain damage. He was shot in the head by an Israeli soldier as he protected a child on the way home from school, witnesses said.

A British Parliament committee has said it is considering an investigation into recent events in the Middle East, including the shootings of Miller and Mr Hurndall.

Another ISM activist, American Rachel Corrie, was killed in March after being crushed by an Israeli bulldozer.

The Israeli army has expressed regret for each incident, but said the activists had put themselves in harm's way.

'Terror' claim denied

According to reports in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper, senior military and foreign ministry officials met this week to discuss means of expelling the activists.

There were also recent reports that two alleged British suicide bombers - one of whom is said to have detonated a bomb in Tel Aviv last month which killed three people - had attended ISM meetings.

The ISM says that it had never knowingly had associations with Palestinians affiliated with militant, political or religious groups.

Its members told the BBC they did meet the two Britons but were not aware of their intentions.
While it sounded like a good idea to me to warn the people that they are in a unsafe area we can see that this can be easily abused to simply forbid all people who are not pro Sharon to enter that area.
Palestinensians are not alowed to go outside this territory without permission and foreigners aren't allowed to enter this area without governments permission - this getho building frightens me.

Klaus
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 05-09-2003, 09:12 AM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 05:57 AM
If the occupited territories aren't safe enough for foreigners to enter, how can anyone argue it's acceptable that the Palestinian people live under such conditions?
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com