Bush calls Sharon a "man of peace" - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-22-2002, 02:14 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Zoomerang96,
The Iraqi's never showed anything to prove that an Oil well near the border with Iraq in Kuwait was involved in slant drilling, even after they invaded and annexed the country. It would have been easy enough to take the Oil Well near the border and show the world what they were talking about, but that was never their interest in the first place. The Oil Well dispute was simply used as cover for their attack and take over of Kuwait. They would have made up anything to justify what they did. Just like Hitler did when he invaded Poland in Sept 1939.
While certain stories by Kuwaities might of turned out to be false, they were many things that happened to Kuwaiti civilians and nearly 10,000 are still unaccounted for 11 years after the invasion of Kuwait. Many were taken to Iraq following the start during the ground phase of the Gulf War, as Iraqi soldiers began to retreat from Kuwait. I find it strange that you would attempt to defend Iraq by using their trumped up claims against Kuwait. While one story of the Rape and destruction of Kuwait may not of been true, there are thousands of others that are. The country was totaly ruined by Saddam Hussian's forces.

The war on Terrorism has freed the Afghan people of Taliban control. For the first time in 20 years, people there can have hope. The Taliban refused to turn over Al-quada and UBL. The USA and are Allies were totally justified in bringing down the Taliban government for their hiding and support of Al Quada. They are just as guilty of 9/11. There is no reliable figures on civilian causualties, and the figure of 5,000 civilians killed by US bombing is simply an estimate by Arab, or Anti-War groups. A war was all ready in process when 9/11 happened between Taliban and N. Alliance and it is difficult to distinguish where and when causalties occured and from what. Often Taliban Anti-Air Craft shells would fall to the ground in cities having not hit a target in the air, causing damage on the ground. Over 80% of the ordenance dropped on Afghanistan were precision guided munitions. Most of the major bombing and fighting took place outside of cities and away from the population in the hills.
The US military does not target civilians unlike Al-quada, Taliban, Palestinians and others. Any civilian loss of life in Afghanistan as a result of US bombs dropped is an accident. Unless civilians were living with Al-quada in the mountains or in the front lines with the Taliban, civilian loss of life from US bombing was low.
Poor conditions in Iraq are created by Saddam Hussain for his propaganda purposes of lifting sanctions. Saddam wants sanctions lifted so he can use his oil revenue to rebuild his military. Right now the UN moniters what the Oil revenue can be used to buy. Iraq can sell as much oil as they want for humanitarian supplies. In fact, last year the value of Iraqi Exports was $21,800,000,000! Thats more than double the Iraqi Export figure for 1989 when there were no sanctions.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
Old 04-22-2002, 02:40 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:07 AM
The Palestinians use of suicide bombers has nothing to do with Israel having a superior army. First, the target of the suicide bombers is not the Israely army, but kids at a disco or club, perhaps listening to U2. Or at a Passover supper having dinner. Most suicide bombers avoid police or military targets. Don't tell me your going to call that legit self defense. What do the kids at the Disco have to with the West Bank or Gaza? This is the targeting and senseless slaughter of Israely civilians and does nothing to defend or support the cause for a Palestinian state. Their driven to do that, I think not. Over a BILLION people around the world live in worst conditions than the Palestinians, but they don't strap bombs to themselves and blow people up! The infrastructure of terror on the west bank supports, directs, equips, exploits and uses brain washed childern to commit their useless acts of terror.
Israel acted in self-defense by going into the west bank to capture and kill the terrorist that the PLA had either been unable to stop or were actually apart of. If the IDF were terrorist, everyone in the West Bank would have been dead decades ago.
There will only be peace in Israel and Palestine when the Palestinians realize that their terrorist actions prevent them from ever having a state of their own. It is only successful in bringing IDF troops into the West Bank. Israel has a state and a powerful military that is impossible to stop. Only through non-violent action and US support will the Palestinians ever be able to have a state. Of course the Palestinians first have to learn what non-violence is, since the destruction of Israel, and ill concieved strategies to accomplish that, have been their only goal since 1948.
__________________

STING2 is offline  
Old 04-22-2002, 03:23 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Anthony,
The British have as much interest as the USA with the war on terrorism. The UK is just as much a target of terror as the USA is. As far as an attack on Iraq, this would certainly be legal sense the Gulf War has technically not ended due to the failure of Iraq to meet the agreed upon terms of the Cease-fire for that war.
It is unknown currently what WMD materials Iraq has currently. What is known is that Iraq had one of the largest WMD operations in the world, based on what was found by the UN inspectors before they were forced out in 1998. Saddam Hussians behavior combined with WMD is what makes the problem so frightening. Saddam since taking control of Iraq in 1979 murdered political opposition in the government. Invaded Iran in 1980 and fought a long war with them from 1980-1988. Used Chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranian soldiers in 1986. Attacked a US warship in 1987 called the Stark in the Gulf.(Ok that was supposedly and accident, but I have my suspicions.) Invaded and terrorized and destroyed much of Kuwait in 1990-1991. Murders even members of his own military in addition to any Iraqi civilian. Starves his people when he could feed and support them, to create the illusion that sanctions and the UN are killing Iraqi people. Stalled and interfered with the UN inspectors on a constant basis to prevent them from finding and destroying key WMD material. Financialy supports Palestinian terrorism.
His above behavior and WMD is a recipe for disaster. The fear is that if Al-quada or another terror group have not hooked up with Saddam Hussian yet, it is a very likely possibility in the future. Saddam has shown his willingness to use WMD and terror in the past, and supplying WMD materials to an organization like Al-quada is a likely possibility and must be prevented.
At a minimum, the UN inspectors must be let back in and be free to go where ever in Iraq and destroy any WMD materials found. Some type of safeguard would also have to be put in place to make sure Saddam could never develop WMD again. If these task cannot be accomplished, then I think that an invasion of Iraq would be warranted.
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-22-2002, 03:24 AM   #24
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome:
your point being?

Killing people to stop acts like those from happening, is what I meant.

I guess you are talking about Israel though.
z edge is offline  
Old 04-22-2002, 03:57 AM   #25
I serve MacPhisto
 
z edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the HORROR
Posts: 4,022
Local Time: 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nintendan:

The Palestinians aren't blowing themselves to prevent an attack on Iraq.
They are doing it so their family can get a whopping $25,ooo

Quote:
Iraq invaded Kuwait. A war was fought beacuse they had. Iraq left Kuwait and surrendered. Iraq has now said that it respects Kuwaits sovreignity.
And they have been throwing us "bones" every since. In 1994, they amassed 75% of their troops on the Kuwaiti border again. I know, I had to fly over there for that.

I would not believe a single thing they say, their desire is not to "trust anyone nation's sovreignity"

Quote:
A war against Iraq now doesn't have a thing to do with Kuwait.
Probably not

Quote:
Iraq doesn't trust the US that doesn't mean it has the right to attack the US does it.
September 11, 2001

Quote:
[b]No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq./[B]
Now I'm laughing pretty hard

Quote:
The US has the most Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world. The US has enough weapons to destroy the whole world. The US is the only country in the world to use Nuclear weapons. These weapons were used on a civilain population. The US has more biological weapons than all other countries combined. One might say its dangerous for all countries to have WMD but the same logic can be applied to gun rights in the US.
I'm not sure what your point is here other than to sympathize with Iraq, make the USA look like the great satan, show your opinions as if they were facts.

You remind me of John Walker Lindh.

Quote:
A war against Iraq now doen't have a thing to do with weapons of Mass Destruction.
LOL
DO you even consider the fact that there are missing weapons such as the "suitcase nukes" that can do considerable damage when they are used, and I believe they will if not recovered.

Quote:
There hasn't been any connection found between Iraq and 9/11. It almost seems as if the US wants for there to be a connection.
Laughing even harder now

Quote:
A war against Iraq now doen't have a thing to do with the war on terrorism.
They say ignorance is bliss, I say funny too

Quote:
"E-L-E-C-T, I wonder if they even know what that means???? Do you?????"
Elect,e-lekt',vt. To pick or choose; to select for an office.-a. Chosen; chosen to an office, but not yet in office.-n. sing. or pl. One of several chosen; those favored by God.
~from New Webster's Dictionary

Quote:
I'm not saying that the Palestinians vote. I was only making a point in regards to the deal that Palestinians should accept by using a previous poster's sentence.

Do I know what ELECT means? I certainly do, but looking at the last US elections it doesn't seem as if you do.

Ha Ha,
Sounds like a Gore loser, I mean sore loser.
z edge is offline  
Old 04-22-2002, 07:31 AM   #26
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2:
[B]Anthony,The British have as much interest as the USA with the war on terrorism. The UK is just as much a target of terror as the USA is. B]
I'm sorry, but I do not agree with this. Yes, it is true, we have known terrorism very VERY well, albeit a different type of terrorism, however, the parallels can not be made. Why? Because for countless of decades, Britain has been the target of countless and countless of IRA attacks, and it was always our problem; when did the USA ever even support the British in destroying the IRA? The answer is, it didn't. In fact, many over here get the distinct impression that the IRA was actually encouraged by America, indeed, Ireland could almost always rely on America for anything.

No, I'm not bitter about it at all, its a pure and simple observation; if Britain, who arguably has suffered just as much as the USA - if not more, which I think is the case - has had to go it alone thanks to international indifference, when everybody else was pretty much concerned with their own problems, I do not see what is so wrong with Britain realising that this is an American problem (since it WAS an attack on American soil) and simply dissolve from this war on terrorism. I agreed with strikes on Afghanistan, but I do not believe in the UK giving the USA a blank cheque in everything Bush demands. Ultimately, it is not in our interest. What WAS in our interest was the IRA, but then again nobody really helped us in that, and we didn't need to go around saying that 'if you're not with us, you're against us'.

Ant.
Anthony is offline  
Old 04-22-2002, 07:45 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Anthony,
Over 100 british citizens were killed in the World Trade Center attack. When was the last time a single IRA attack killed that many British citizens?
The United Kingdom along with many if not most industrialized democracies have an economic and political interdependent nature between them, that makes most Global issue's of interest to them all. What effects me, effects you.
The US has worked very hard in negotiations to bring about a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. There has never been any support from the US government for the terror activities of the IRA. Private US citizens may have secretly made contributions to the IRA though. The Government in Ireland has been against the IRA as well as the US and UK. As far as needing military help to combat the IRA, the British don't need the USA in this case. The British military and police is more than strong enough to combat them.
Private US companies and US citizens as well as other tourist have helped to improve the situation in Northern Ireland economically which has been the real key to peace. There are still terrorist on the Protestant side and the IRA, but only the extremist which grow smaller every day.
Al-Quada and Palestinian terrorist fault the UK for their problems just as much as the USA. The UK is a capitalist democracy just like the USA is. The UK is a possible target and Al-quada agents have been arrested in the UK planning attacks.
Like all industrialized countries, the UK has huge interest in the middle east because of oil and its effect on the economy and the economies of its trading partners.
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-22-2002, 08:32 PM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 04:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2:
the target of the suicide bombers is not the Israely army, but kids at a disco or club, perhaps listening to U2. Or at a Passover supper having dinner...What do the kids at the Disco have to with the West Bank or Gaza?
But, according to some, they are "infidels" and legitimate targets just the same. Alleged "twentieth hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema today that he prays "to Allah...for the destruction of the United States of America," and for "the destruction of the Jewish people and state." If that latter prayer request is not blatant, racist anti-Semitism, I don't know WHAT is.

I have conceded several times in here that I do not think Sharon is the best Israelil leader for peace, but some of you really need to take a look yourselves at groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Jihad for a source of blame rather than making excuses for them bombing seder dinners and dance clubs.

If you ask me, Al Qaeda and their violent allies make up one of the largest racist and religious hate groups in the world. They could take a clue from the left: celebrate diversity.

~U2Alabama

[This message has been edited by U2Bama (edited 04-22-2002).]
U2Bama is offline  
Old 04-22-2002, 08:55 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Zoomerang96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,462
Local Time: 04:07 AM
alright sting2, i disagree with nearly everything you said, but thats fine.

but why do you think the states DID intervene and help good ol' kuwait? us interest was at stake and thats ALL.

ive been to greece and talked to some of the people there, they will tell you what they think of the us flat up. theyre full of shit in their foreign policy.

ask anyone who lives or lived on the island cyprus. as you all probably all know, turkey one day decided to take the northern half of the island away from greece by FORCE.

people ask "why didnt the us help? we all know why, its cause we have no oil. they care about themselves and thats about it."

exact wording, no. precisely put? yes.

and i find it funny how "awesome everything is now that afghans dont have to live under the taliban. wow did we ever do a great deed in freeing them."

if 9/11 hadnt happened, they wouldnt have done anything with the taliban.

oh, and china has been long considered to be a constant violater of human rights.

why dont we bomb them?

they only have a million+ man army, not too mention a massive stockpile of weapons...

------------------
-deathbear

[This message has been edited by Zoomerang96 (edited 04-22-2002).]
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 04-22-2002, 09:19 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 09:07 AM
"Over 100 british citizens were killed in the World Trade Center attack. When was the last time a single IRA attack killed that many British citizens?"

A lot more British citizens were killed over the years in accumulation, though perhaps not in one go. September the 11th happened in one day, what happened to places all over London and all over the rest of Britain has taken place over three decades - just because it never received the media attention September 11th did doesn't mean the murders were fewer, the terrorism less consequential; in fact, I think it was worse.

"The United Kingdom along with many if not most industrialized democracies have an economic and political interdependent nature between them, that makes most Global issue's of interest to them all. What effects me, effects you."

Try telling that to the rest of Europe, who don't really care about the war on terrorism.

"The British military and police is more than strong enough to combat them."

The moment British military was used, it was accused of being brutal and unecessary by most observers, and the police was never enough to stop IRA madmen from bombing unsuspecting targets.

"Private US companies and US citizens as well as other tourist have helped to improve the situation in Northern Ireland economically which has been the real key to peace. There are still terrorist on the Protestant side and the IRA, but only the extremist which grow smaller every day."

No, the situation in Northern Ireland improved because everyone realised that the British government would never give in, and Blair's deals with Sinn Fein and the Unionists eventually lead to the IRA finding it increasingly difficult to operate, ecentually everyone knew that their pathetic war would have to end, so they decided to try to end it with peace talks and good intentions.

"The UK is a possible target and Al-quada agents have been arrested in the UK planning attacks."

The UK is a possivle target because its so closely aligned with the US, thanks to Blair constantly being seen as USA's bnest friend, as Bush calls him. I believe that if we weren't closely aligned, we wouldn't be so close to the target.

Ant.


[This message has been edited by Anthony (edited 04-22-2002).]
Anthony is offline  
Old 04-23-2002, 12:39 AM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Anthony,
The main point about mentioning the british lives that were lost on Sept 11 was to show the interconected nature of our two countries today. The USA is important to the UK for business and Economic reasons as well as political and cultural reasons. What effects the US economy will eventually effect the economy in the UK due to a high level of trade and business activity between the two countries. Oil in the middle east and there for, stability in the middle east is just as important to the UK as it is for the USA! The two countries are in bed together for many reasons, and unless you want the UK to return to the 18th century, nothing is going to change that. The UK simply does not have a seperate set of interest from the USA nor the USA from the UK on the international scene. Thats why the two countries have been together on nearly every major international issue since the start of the 20th century. British lives were lossed on 9/11 as well as American lives. An Attack on American soil is an attack on British soil.
So you say the Europeans don't care eh? Well then why did the 19 countries of NATO declare that the attacks on 9/11 were an attack on all NATO countries? Why did Germany, Spain, Italy, Belguim, and the UK arrest Al-quada leaders that were planning attacks? Why have several of the NATO nations sent troops to Afghanistan and continue to operate with the USA in many ways through out the middle east? Its because we all have a common interest in stopping terrorism and preventing instability and war that would effect our interdependent economies and way of life. Europe makes a lot of money off of Exports to the United States as well as the USA doing well with Exports to Europe. I'm sorry but there is very little that seperates Europe and the USA, were tied at the hip. That does not mean there are disagreements, but in the long run, political and economic interdependency keeps us together. People in Europe who disagree with this are in denial.
In Northern Ireland in the 1960s, there was a very high level of unemployment, often upwards of 30%, and Catholics recieved an heavy discrimination in getting the few jobs there were. The level of unemployment among Catholics was much higher than Protestants. The Economic development and improving employment situation for everyone played just as an important role if not more important than the political agreements.
This is what I was told by people in Northern Ireland and Ireland when I was there for a few weeks in January. Everyone talked of the problems in the past tense. It was my first time to Northern Ireland and I found it just as beautiful and wealthy as the rest of Ireland.
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-23-2002, 12:44 AM   #32
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome:
I can't think of many moments in history where killing people led to peace

Don't you want to restate that.. or Re Word It.. I understand what you're saying, But you're negating all War in General..

I've said this before, and I've posted articles saying it in much more eloquent terms, But the point remains.. Peace won't be achieved through Negotiation.. Of course, we've figured that out by now.. Only when one Side has been eliminated, or soundly defeated that they are not able to fight the next day, will there be peace..

Here's a Nice Editorial I found.. Enjoy...

THE WAR CRIMES LIE
NYPOST

April 22, 2002 --
THE Palestinian big lie against Israel keeps shifting as the truth emerges.

The first big lie was that the Israelis had perpetrated a massacre in Jenin, killing more than 500 people and then stashing them in mass graves. Then, as aid workers and journalists uncovered no evidence of mass graves, the lie was that the Israelis had secretly transported the dead bodies in refrigerated trucks.

Now it's that the Israelis have violated international law relating to war. Ac- cording to the BBC on Thursday, "International officials say some actions by [Israel's] troops, there and elsewhere, would appear to have breached the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to the protection of civilians in war or under occupation."

Why? Well, "the convention forbids violence being used against civilians, as well as inhumane or degrading treatment . . . It is claimed that civilians died in Jenin when their houses were demolished. The convention prohibits the destruction of property except where military operations make it absolutely necessary."

Lies. Lies lies lies. Damnable, outrageous, unseemly lies.

The simple truth is this: International law relating to the conduct of the incursion exculpates the Israelis and convicts the Palestinian Authority. Period.

The Israelis went into Jenin and made a systematic search for bomb laboratories and terror cells that had been hidden among civilians. The purpose was to destroy the laboratories and take prisoner or kill those who had been building the suicide bombs and directing the suicide attacks.

The Palestinian intifada describes itself as an armed struggle, an uprising. The word that describes the leaders and planners of such an armed struggle, in legal parlance, is "combatants."

And international law could not be any more plain. On June 8, 1977, the Fourth Geneva Convention was updated. The document is called "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts."

Article 37 outlaws the use of civilian populations as a shield for military actions. It explicitly prohibits "the feigning of civilian, noncombatant status; and the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict."

What the leaders of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hamas and Islamic Jihad do is hide among civilian populations to make it as difficult as possible for their enemies to attack them. The Geneva Convention denounces this as "perfidy."

Peter Bouckaert, a researcher at Human Rights Watch in New York who sneaked into Jenin on Thursday, told the Washington Post, "It's been incredibly difficult to tell the difference between fighters and civilians. If a combatant uses the civilian population as a shield in this way, the deaths incurred are the moral and legal responsibility of those who are hidings out in this grotesquely cowardly fashion.

Previously, Palestinians and their apologists had claimed the Israelis were violating the Fourth Geneva Convention by refusing to allow ambulances operated by the Red Crescent Society to move freely between Israeli hospitals and the West Bank towns in which the incursions were taking place.

Article 38 specifically addresses the ambulance issue: "It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun." And yet this is precisely what the Palestinians have done. The Israelis have stopped and searched ambulances emblazoned with the Red Crescent and found suicide belts hidden in them. One of these incidents, on March 27, was captured on videotape.

By using this internationally accepted symbol as a diversionary tactic - in essence turning ambulances into tanks - the Palestinians thus bear the moral and legal responsibility under international law for the Israeli refusal to allow the free conduct of Red Crescent vehicles.

The violators of international law - the criminals in this war - are the Palestinians who devised these shameful tactics.


E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com


[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 04-22-2002).]
Lemonite is offline  
Old 04-23-2002, 01:40 AM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Zoomerang96,
The USA has done far more than any other country on the planet to protect people who are unable to protect themselves. Yes the USA does act in its self interest like every other country on the planet does. But it also has many allies around the world that it protects and supplies. The USA has spent a century fighting to protect and free Europe from Totolitarian regimes and Communism. World War I, World War II, The Marshall Plan, Cold War, Bosnia, Kosovo.
There was no oil in South Korea, Vietnam and Somalia. US funding and Diplomatic efforts have helped to prevent a huge war between Greece and Turkey. But the USA alone does not have the money and power to intervene everywhere in the world where there is human rights abuses.
How about Greece? What did Greece do to help the people of Afghanistan while they were ruled by the Taliban. How about a little closer to home. What did Greece do to help Muslims in Kosovo? OR Bosnia? What did Greece do for the people in Somalia?
The USA acts in its self interest, which in fact is the interest of the entire industrialized world. Do people in Greece benefit when the price energy(oil) is cheap! You bet, everyone does. Do people in Greece benefit from Exports to the USA! They sure do.
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-23-2002, 10:06 PM   #34
Babyface
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 26
Local Time: 09:07 AM
One thing that I have never noticed in any of these posts about the Middle Eastern conflict, is that Zionists actively perpetuated terrorist acts in the 1940s to help them establish the State of Israel. They killed many innocent people, especially British people. Yet this is never mentioned? Why was Israeli terrorism ok, and all others bad? I may be making wrong assumptions here, but you cant ignore the facts that Israel was at least partially founded due to terrorism and acts of violence against British soldiers and civilians.
Mikesimus is offline  
Old 04-24-2002, 04:32 PM   #35
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Stow, MA, USA
Posts: 256
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Lets put it in a simple equation problem:

Israel leave Palestine alone + Israel Highten security = Paletinian people free to live + No suicide bombing

You see, these suicide bombings are wrong... But when you have people living in conditions where they can't live, don't expect a good result.....
Ok, someone is going to get pissed off at me for saying this.... BUT DEAL, PALESTINE COULDN'T DEVELOP,BECAUSE OF ARAFAT AND MORE SO B/C OF SHARON'S FAT ASS AND THE IDF ON TOP OF THEM.
Amna is offline  
Old 04-24-2002, 07:32 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 09:07 AM
There were few Israely soldiers in the West Bank until the huge increase in suicide bombers. The Palestinian Authority was supposed to be arresting terrorist but instead was helping them. Israel had no choice but to destroy known terrorist that were planning attacks. Why would anyone deny Israels right to do this?

The only way your are going to have peace is when Palestinians recognize that the #1 obstacle to their hopes for a Palestinian state are the culture of terrorism that they preach to their childern and act out against Israel. It is pointless and useless and achieves nothing for them. Only through non-violence and attempting to gain US support will the Palestinians be able to have a state. Suicide bombings don't achieve that. They just bring more Israely troops into the west bank and increase US support for Israel. The Palestinians need to be doing things that are actually productive in achieving their goal.
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2002, 08:20 PM   #37
Registered User
 
chain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Posts: 126
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Mikesimus:
One thing that I have never noticed in any of these posts about the Middle Eastern conflict, is that Zionists actively perpetuated terrorist acts in the 1940s to help them establish the State of Israel. They killed many innocent people, especially British people. Yet this is never mentioned? Why was Israeli terrorism ok, and all others bad? I may be making wrong assumptions here, but you cant ignore the facts that Israel was at least partially founded due to terrorism and acts of violence against British soldiers and civilians.
Your information is correct. It is conveniently ignored or overlooked because of bias.
Perhaps ignorance would be more charitable.


chain is offline  
Old 04-24-2002, 09:16 PM   #38
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 04:07 AM
It is true that Jewish terrorist groups antagonized the interests of the British "empire" in the 1940s. This was because Britain had promised them as far back as 1917 an independent Jewish state; however, the international climate of World War I, World War II and the years in between encouraged the British "empire" instead to tighten its grasp, and also during that time, Palestinian sentiment built up.

Much like Sharon and his past terrorist activites, future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin was involved in some of the terrorist activities of the 1940s.

I don't know if the lack of attention to these events is the result of bias as much as the fact that it was overshadowed by the European and Pacific theatres of World War II.

I do not consider Israeli terrorism to be "ok," but I don't have a problem with their desire to break from the British "empire."

~U2Alabama
U2Bama is offline  
Old 04-24-2002, 09:57 PM   #39
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Stow, MA, USA
Posts: 256
Local Time: 09:07 AM
The only way your are going to have peace is when Palestinians recognize that the #1 obstacle to their hopes for a Palestinian state are the culture of terrorism that they preach to their childern and act out against Israel
-----------------------------------------
Where did you get that fact from.....? Parents and family rarely preach this.... Their are organizations that support them... But like most of the suicide bombers, they were not taught by their parents to kill themselves..... How do I know this? Go read the article in the Time magazine about the young girl who killed herself in the market place.............. THESE ARE ACTS OF DESPERATION..... THEIR NOT RIGHT, BUT PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO......... THINK ABOUT IT, THEY HAVE NO REAL REPRESENTATION AND THEY LIVE IN A CONSTANT CAMP OF DESTRUCTION........
READ OR EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THE ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN. If terrorism should be fought, lets be fair....... There is terrorism within the IDF, and Sharon, and their is terrorism within Palestine..... Lets try and look at the whole picture.
Amna is offline  
Old 04-24-2002, 11:04 PM   #40
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 09:07 AM
Liberals?... ANY QUESTIONS?.. A Nightmare? Feel free to gag in 'Poopaganda'.. No One Will Notice..


Sharon offers plan for peace
By Ben Barber
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed a three-stage peace plan for the Middle East during a televised address to about 4,000 American supporters yesterday.
During his speech to members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Mr. Sharon repeated a proposal he has made for a regional peace conference including the United States, Israel, the Palestinians and moderate Arab states "to bring about a cessation of hostilities."
He said Israel would present a peace plan that includes three phases:
A complete cessation of violence.
A long-term intermediate agreement similar to an armistice.
A permanent agreement in which final borders would be established for Israel and the Palestinians, "ending the conflict between us and the Palestinians and the Arab countries."
Hours later, members of his administration told reporters that Israel has withdrawn its offer to cooperate with a U.N. fact-finding mission being sent to determine what happened during Israel's operation in the Jenin refugee camp earlier this month.
An official told the Associated Press that Israel believes the United Nations has violated agreements with Israel in its selection of people for the commission and in drawing up its terms of reference.
Israel said it would not admit a U.N. fact-finding mission probing its siege of the Jenin refugee camp unless the team included military as well as counterterrorism experts.
In response, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the team might be expanded "as deemed necessary," but he expected only a short delay in the mission, which he wants in the region by Saturday.
"The secretary-general agreed to postpone the departure of the fact-finding team to allow consultation to take place, but he expects the team to be in the Middle East by this Saturday," Mr. Annan's office said in a statement
A State Department official said the United States continued to support the investigation.
In London, a British Foreign Office aide, Ben Bradshaw, condemned reports of the Israeli government's about-face, warning that Israel was doing itself "irreparable damage" in the eyes of the international community.
He told the British Broadcasting Corp. that the move "would be a very foolish thing to do, the latest in a string of cataclysmic public relations mistakes by the Israeli government."
He added: "If Israel has nothing to hide, they have absolutely no reason not to allow this team to go ahead."
In his address to the committee, Mr. Sharon also defended his 3-week-old incursion into the West Bank and rejected charges of excessive use of force by Israeli soldiers.
It was not clear whether the intermediate agreement would follow the lines of a plan disclosed by Israeli Cabinet ministers in recent days calling for up to half of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel on an "interim" basis.
But in any case, the Sharon plan diverges markedly from the U.S. and Palestinian approaches to restoring the peace process.
The U.S. plan pushed by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on his recent trip to the Middle East calls for working on a cease-fire and the political track at the same time.
Palestinians also call for immediate moves toward solving political problems such as settlements, refugees and boundaries, and they refuse to discuss a cease-fire unless those issues also are brought forward.
The Palestinians have rejected the idea of another interim agreement, which would essentially freeze Israeli control over most of the West Bank and delay any further land transfers to the Palestinian Authority.
Palestinians say their anger, which spilled over into violence and an intifada in September 2000, came because the interim agreement set up after the Oslo peace accords of 1993 was dragged out while Israel continued to build settlements in the West Bank.
Mr. Sharon defended Israel against criticism by U.N. and human rights officials over injuries and deaths to civilians during its three-week military campaign against suicide bombers and terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank.
"In Afghanistan, the United States is fighting terrorism," he said. "Sometimes innocent civilians are caught in the cross fire. Israel is fighting terrorism on our doorstep. We have a moral right and obligation to defend ourselves."
Much of the criticism has concerned events in the refugee camp in Jenin, the scene of eight days of intense fighting between Israeli troops and Palestinian gunmen. Israeli forces say that at least some civilians were buried alive when their homes were knocked down on top of them.
A government official said later that members of a U.N. panel named to explore what happened in Jenin would not be allowed to enter Israel until differences with the world body had been worked out.
Mr. Annan had named Martti Ahtisaari, a former president of Finland, to lead the team, which also included Cornelio Sommaruga, former president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Sadako Ogata, the former U.N. high commissioner for refugees.
An American official told Reuters news agency that the Bush administration, which sponsored the U.N. resolution last week that authorized the investigation, continued to support the probe.
In his speech, Mr. Sharon tied America's fate to that of Israel.
"Being the only true democracy in the Middle East, Israel stands at the forefront of the conflict between the civilized world and the forces of evil," he said.
President Bush, after meeting with Moroccan King Mohammed VI at the White House yesterday, called for the Palestinians to end the violence and for Israel to pull back its troops.


__________________

Lemonite 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 04:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×