danshome Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 They werent mine but hey!, Just want to say WOW and WOW again.. (for the forensics, good job) I'm still distinctly troubled by the fact that the people between shots three and four are not wearing the same uniforms, or holding the same weapons. Still there is no comment as to the sources of the photos, the situations surrounding the photos or the legitimacy of the captions that originally came with them. For all I know, these could be stills from a movie shoot (though, obviously I doubt that, but the point exists the same)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DisinfectedDuck Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 As an Israeli Jew, i'm deeply offended by many things said and showed here. I ask sincerly for this thread to be closed. I can say one thing though - Not even one of you, and not Ghandi nor Mandela can ever begin to understand the situation let alone offer solutions. The only ones who can are the Israelis who live in Israel and the Palestinians who live in the west bank and Gaza. I really think this should be closed before any other Israelis/Palestinians/Jews/Muslims are offended by this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YtseJam Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 DisinfectedDuck, you're a bit late. ;) Read Drinkrbel's post. I believe it expresses everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danshome Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by txkang HALO!! I sent neoBond's gruesome pictures to my friend in Japan for analysis and here is the result he sent to me. He is scientist at Forensic Lab in Japan. I, of course, asked him to read this thread this morning so he is aware of what is going on. Here WE GO! http://156.26.162.121/murder.jpg They werent mine but hey!, Just want to say WOW and WOW again.. (for the forensics, good job) The sheer apallingness of the "forensics" on this series of photos has more or less forced me to do another similar comparison. May I suggest that these series of photos have been chosen for the similarity of the surroundings, so instead I concentrated on the objects and people within the scene. I shall repeat my comments of earlier: http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~danshome/sp...potthefakes.jpg 1) The first three pictures show soliders (of unknown origin, though probably Israeli) in uniform. The last two show what looks like people in american police uniform. 2) The soliders in 1-3 all have army-regulation rifles, while the policeman in picture 4 is holding a handgun to the head of the suspect 3) The back of the policemen clearly all have a word written in white on them (probably "Police") - the army uniforms have nothing similar. 4) The wheels on the two trucks at the top of the pictures (3 and 4) are different - one has a metal hubcap, the other does not. If this is a continuous scene of photos, where is the missing hubcap? 5) The man who has been shot has his lower-half blacked out. This conveniently means we cannot compare the trousers of the victims, but failing that, they have different skin tones. 6) The angle that the light falls upon pictures 1-3 is actually different from that in pictures 4 and 5, suggesting that the two events occurred either at two different times, or alternatively, at two different places. Or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dARKSTAr Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Nant...I don't think that Drinkrbels' post does say it all. It does say one thing. Everyone who has anything negative to say about Israel is either a closet or not so closet anti-semite. Saying someone is an anti-semite, or questioning whether they are, has been thrown around in this thread a few times. Painting someone with the brush of anti-semitism or any sort of racism, is a dangerous thing to do. Cause when you are wrong, it makes you look ignorant. One thing that mystifies me in this thread. Shafi posted the pictures of the "assasination" and there was much debate over whether the pictures were fake. Was i the only one who noticed that the pics didn't come from any professional news organization, but from a personal website? With all respect to the poster who sent the results to some forensic investigator in Japan, sorry dude, that doesn't wash in my book...Shafi, you need to step up and show us where you got those pictures from if you want us to believe what you are trying to show us. Until you do, then I think they are fake. And if you don't step up and show us where you got the pics, then you best be glad that i'm not the admin of this forum or i'd ban you for posting inflammatory lies and hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danshome Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 One thing that mystifies me in this thread. Shafi posted the pictures of the "assasination" and there was much debate over whether the pictures were fake. Was i the only one who noticed that the pics didn't come from any professional news organization, but from a personal website? With all respect to the poster who sent the results to some forensic investigator in Japan, sorry dude, that doesn't wash in my book...Shafi, you need to step up and show us where you got those pictures from if you want us to believe what you are trying to show us. Until you do, then I think they are fake. Not at all dARKSTAr - you're certainly not the only person who's pointed out that there is absolutely no background to the pictures whatsoever, that there is no source material and that their legitimacy is questionable. As for the "forensic investigator", all I heard mention of was that they were passed to a friend, who (if you'll pardon my french) has done a pretty ****-poor job in analysis of the pictures. It just had enough hints of legitimacy for sensible people such as NeoBond to take it as real... I hate propaganda. It ****es me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshie Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Dude, territories change. Borders throughout the world were drastically different "thousands of years ago." If Israel deserves to exist because it did at one point in history, that's like saying we should completely revert the world map to what it was pre-Medieval era. Anyway, it's a moot point that Jews were oppressed, and they still are in some places today, but not everywhere. In fact, Jews are entirely welcome in the Americas and a lot of Europe today. If you're trying to escape oppression, why the hell do you insist on living, as you said, surrounded on all fronts by people who want to destroy you? It's utterly masochistic. The location chosen for Israel was very likely one of the worst possibly places it could've gone. The point is, the need for a hiding place doesn't exist anymore. You have hundreds of other places you can go. The idea of losing Israel in a war shouldn't be anathema. Hell, it'd postpone the apocalypse, which would probably be very welcomed, since the majority of the western Judao-Christian world is absolutely terrified of facing the fact that they're way too sinful by their own standards to face judgement yet. *smirk* And you shouldn't have taken offense from my "stop being 'Jewish' and start being 'human'" remark. That was me criticizing the pride taken in words. I didn't tell you to give up your heritage or religion. I told you to stop segregating yourselves from the rest of mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danshome Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 I can understand that you disagree with the premise of Israel - fine, you don't get that. I can see that it was placed in potentially one of the worst places it could possibly have been (though the point is that it could not have been anywhere else, otherwise the country would not have worked - I can't remember who said "If people are screaming at you, then you're doing something right"). What I don't understand is the logic: "X exists. But people don't like X and have caused wars as a result. So because I can't find any relevence for X in a modern world, we should destroy X and let things be." Which, if you'll forgive me for saying so, is one of the most narrow-minded opinions I've ever heard. The fact that you can't see a relevence for Israel in the modern world does not make it any less a legitimate country. It exists. And since it exists, it has every right to defend itself and not to live in terror every day. Or are you suggesting that we should just "drive the Jews into the sea"? And you shouldn't have taken offense from my "stop being 'Jewish' and start being 'human'" remark. That was me criticizing the pride taken in words. I didn't tell you to give up your heritage or religion. I told you to stop segregating yourselves from the rest of mankind. I wasn't taking offence at the fact that you intimation that the pride in religion has caused problems. I was taking offence at the intimation that being "Jewish" wasn't the same as being "Human". And quite rightly, I should think. But, if I'm going to interpret the reponse as if it was a legitimate comment, the idea is not to segregate but to integrate in a method that works. If you want a discussion on the various methods of interethnic acculturation, I'm more than happy to continue it with you. Let us just get things straight - the formation of a country, even as a "safe haven", if you choose to interpret it that way, is not an act of segregation. An act of segregation would be to close of all the borders to the world and refuse to have any connection with the world around you - Iran gets closest to this, in the modern world, but think more about China a few centuries ago. I think the phrase you're trying to moan about is "or l'goyim" - a light unto the nations. Unfortunately, the Jews cannot be 'a light unto the nations' unless they are a nation to be a light... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danshome Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 I almost forgot... Dude, territories change. Borders throughout the world were drastically different "thousands of years ago." They were drastically different 50 years ago, too. Israel exists Now. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeRider Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Once more my friends unto the breech? Couple of things . . . dARKSTAr . . . I have nothing but respect for the British activities in the Second World War. That they didn't fall is a testament to the temerity of those people. As far as the passage of troops across Mother Russia and then to Alaska, I think if you look at the Siberia of history and in some repects even today, you'd realize exactly why that was nearly impossible. Unreasonably long lines of supply, no real means of traversing the distance effectively. Such an invasion would be a logistical nightmare and would take literally years to plan, coordinate and execute. That would of course assume that you had somehow managed to gain the support or at least the obedience of the population. Hitler's aims in Russia did not extend that far East. He merely sought lebensraum, and the oil rich steppes. I do not believe that Hitler or Japan ever posessed the necessary manpowr to subjugate an area as large as the Soviet Union. In the 1940's, I do not believe that there was a nation on Earth capable of executing a successful attack on the Continental United States . . . including the United States! If you get my drift! The logical course of attack in the event of British capitulation, was not across the Atlantic to France. It was across the Mediteranian to Italy. We did in fact execute such an attack as I'm sure you know. Imagine the Italian campaign under the full weight of US resources at the time! There were political and logistical considerations that made a second . . . actually a third front in France a more attractive solution. danshome . . . I find your arguements to be articulate and well considered. The name is TimeRider, not Raider. I have no problem with you disagreeing, and stating your case so eloquently is a compliment to your maturity. Don't louse it up by being sophomoric. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it is a typo. It is the search of a people expelled continuously from their homeland for over 3,000 (if not more) yearsI don't believe that the expulsion was continuous. Nor do I believe it was entirely an expulsion. During the First Temple period Israelites established lands in Egypt, as well as other Middle Eastern Countries. During the Second Temple period, long before the Temple was destroyed and the people expelled. The Jews ventured from the Land of Israel to Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, Spain, even as far as Persia and India, and again to Egypt. They established important religious centers in these settlements, some of which, such as Babylonia, far surpassed the Jewish center in the Land of Israel, both spiritually and economically. And throughout the centuries of the Jewish dispersal throughout the world, very few immigrated to the Land of Israel, even when opportunities lay before them.Are you really suggesting that there is somehow validity to a 3,000 year old claim to this land that should be recognized by the world community? Sorry . . . I'm not buying it. Neither are a lot of others. The remainder of the number is made up by Slavs, Homosexuals, Gypsys, prisoners of war and political enemies of the Germans. While the Nazi policy was to kill these other peoples when they got the chance they were more than happy just driving them out. Actually prior to KristalNacht, they would have been very happy if the Jews had just left as well. They did everything possible to make it known that the Jews were not welcome anymore. I don't say this to excuse this philosophy, only to illustrate that the Nazi's were rounding up and imprisoning other groups long before they attempted to implement "The Final Solution." That the other Nations of the World did not allow the Jews to emmigrate under these circumstances was reprehensible, including my own country. There is a difference between you and I in that I do not try to justify or rationalize the actions of my fathers . . . They were wrong. To consider that the state would only be protecting the individuals within it's borders would have been to only look after several thousand Jews, rather than the 15-odd million world wide.This is very slippery of you danshome . . . the context of the original quote was in reference to your assertion that the Israeli's of the time were attacked without provocation by the Arabs. All evidence to the contrary. The Haganah High Command had every intention of seizing by force, land that was outside the scope of the original UN division. Considering the political climate of Palestine in that day, such an action was EXTREMELY provacative and ultimate led to the attacks that started the 1948 war. In essence, your version of history condemns the actions of the Arabs for doing exactly what you claim your country is doing now . . . protecting it's borders and it's citizens.I don't see anything unacceptable about this? Herzl's plan was to create a country, not a village! And at the moment Israel has a population of what, about 5 million. So his drean has come to some form of fruition If you don't see a problem with planning a country on lands that are not yours to posess, then you are as guilty as those who expelled the Jews 3 millennia ago. Would those people not be justified in asking for their country back?!No . . . they wouldn't be justified. The people who lost it had been dead for a thousand years. The people who took it had been dead for a thousand years. The people who currently occupy it are guilty of nothing, and those requesting it's return are entitled to nothing.I think you've managed to sum up the whole situation very succinctly in one sentence. Yes, they probably will. And now tell me that we're not justified in defending ourselves? But that's not what you're doing. You're country is involved in a military exercise that is the DIRECT result of it's decision to occupy by force of arms, territory that belongs to another group. Since 1967 your Government has established over 240 settlements in the West Bank and over 40 Settlements in Gaza. This is territory that is supposed to be a Palestinian State by both UN Resolution and your own Armistice with the Arabs. Yet you continue to occupy and develop these areas under force of arms. The Palestinains are merely trying to protect what is theirs. Get your citizens out and they won't be bombed. It's as simple as that. The Arab nations have, on more than one occasion agreed to recognize Israel if only Israel will return to the borders established by the 1967 Armistice. Do that, and all of this ends. Do it not, and it will only get worse. So what's the hold up? -TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drinkrbell Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 I am thrilled you are suddenly so brave in arming yourselves with famous quotations, and supporting documents. But even those, are from about 70 years ago or at least before the founding of Israel. You are navigating the whole discussion to irrelevant horizons. Israel existence as a state is a fact. Its validity and legitimacy to exist ?here, now- is undisputed. It was declared a sovergn independent state by the UN?s decision. So the discussions of who was here first, about our illegal immigration during the British mandate, or preposterous suggestions we be exiled to Uganda. And its true that at the beginning of the 20th century when there were few Jews here and those were against the new-coming Zionists from Europe. Because the majority of the local Jews were religious, and they did not see eye to eye with the Zionist ideology(being mostly a secular movement with communistic points of view). However even then, there was no peaceful neighboring between the Jews here and the local Arabs. I shall point out the ?Hebron massacre? in 1928(and again in 1936). But if youre in to proving and disproving, our right to exist here, resorting to ancient history and mythic fables, I can tell you of an incident which occurred in a UN conference in 67. Abba Even-the Israeli representative at the UN ?began his speech by ?quoting? the bible and telling, how one fine day, while Moses was roaming around canaan, he saw an oasis. He took his clothes off and plunged in, to take a refreshing bath. Suddenly some Arabs came and stole his clothes. Immediately, the Arab representatives rose up and objected ?there were no Arabs here at that time?. He responded ?that was exactly my point. There *were* no Arabs here at that time?. So much for nice fables? This discussion is about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, specifically about Israel?s recent operation ?chomat magen?(protective shield). Why are you trying to totally de-legitimize our right to country? Do you not believe we have a right to one? And with the same breath, I am willing to answer ahead- I do believe Palestinians have the right to a country as well. I?ve wanted to avoid posting any photos or pictures, since I find it biased, unreliable (can be easily taken out of context or manipulated) and spite with a bad propaganda oder. However, since you really like the whole ?a picture is worth a thousand words?, ?pictures speak for themselves? bit. I?ve decided to include some: http://www.projectonesoul.com/consequences.htm http://www.projectonesoul.com There, feast your blood thirsty eyes upon the horror. These photos I can vouch with my own eyes are real. And still, they are one sided?but..you've left me no choice... BTW, as I am writing this, there was just another terrorist attack. In Jerusalem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danshome Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 I don't believe that the expulsion was continuous. Nor do I believe it was entirely an expulsion. During the First Temple period Israelites established lands in Egypt, as well as other Middle Eastern Countries. During the Second Temple period, long before the Temple was destroyed and the people expelled. The Jews ventured from the Land of Israel to Asia Minor, Greece, Rome, Spain, even as far as Persia and India, and again to Egypt. They established important religious centers in these settlements, some of which, such as Babylonia, far surpassed the Jewish center in the Land of Israel, both spiritually and economically. And throughout the centuries of the Jewish dispersal throughout the world, very few immigrated to the Land of Israel, even when opportunities lay before them. Hmm... well, I'm more than happy to say that centres of both commerce and study were created in those lands. On the other hand, all of this was a result of first Babylonian, then Greek invasion, then Roman and the minor emmigration that occurred as a result. That we weren't forcibly expelled until later is rather a moot point.Are you really suggesting that there is somehow validity to a 3,000 year old claim to this land that should be recognized by the world community? Sorry . . . I'm not buying it. Neither are a lot of others. I'm not asking you to buy it. Personally, I don't think that it is valid reason for a claim. But neither do I feel that because 50 years ago, what is now Israel was called Palestine and was under British rule, is any reason for the Palestinians to have an equal claim. All evidence to the contrary. The Haganah High Command had every intention of seizing by force, land that was outside the scope of the original UN division. Considering the political climate of Palestine in that day, such an action was EXTREMELY provacative and ultimate led to the attacks that started the 1948 war. In essence, your version of history condemns the actions of the Arabs for doing exactly what you claim your country is doing now . . . protecting it's borders and it's citizens. Let me be clear - I disagree fundamentally with some of the actions that the Haganah undertook. At one point, they came dangerously close to being labelled terrorists themselves. But they stopped that action and as a result, Israel was created. I am quite convinced that, whether or not they undertook provocative action, or whether or not the Haganah had planned to take the land, that there would have been a war in 1948 nonetheless. The arab nations as much as stated that they would attack Israel as soon as it was formed - indeed they attacked the day after the declaration, well before any attempts to gain land could even be thought about being exectued - of far more importance to the early settlers was of building a country, rather than expanding it. At the time it was all desert, and the settlers were predominately socialists who wanted to work the land.But that's not what you're doing. You're country is involved in a military exercise that is the DIRECT result of it's decision to occupy by force of arms, territory that belongs to another group. Since 1967 your Government has established over 240 settlements in the West Bank and over 40 Settlements in Gaza. This is territory that is supposed to be a Palestinian State by both UN Resolution and your own Armistice with the Arabs. Yet you continue to occupy and develop these areas under force of arms. The Palestinains are merely trying to protect what is theirs. Get your citizens out and they won't be bombed. It's as simple as that. The Arab nations have, on more than one occasion agreed to recognize Israel if only Israel will return to the borders established by the 1967 Armistice. Do that, and all of this ends. Do it not, and it will only get worse. Firstly, I would contest that the current exercise is a direct result of occupation of territory by force of arms. More it is a direct result of terrorist actions, not because of the occupied territory but rather aiming for the destruction of Israel entirely. The territory in question is under Israeli control and is at the moment not part of any Palestinian country, nor part of any country at all. It has never been intended to be part of a Palestinian homeland since the Palestinians rejected the Partition Plan way back when. That the land has subsequently be seconded to the Palestinian Authority as territory under their control does not make it any less Israeli land until the formation of a true Palestinian country, nor does it make it a sovereign country capable of being invaded or held by military force. It is, as it has been since 1967, Israeli territory which - and let's be quite clear on this - is not Palestinian territory because the Palestinians do not WANT it. As I have said previously, it is my belief that Arafat's aim is not to create a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza, for had it been he could have signed one of the many peace agreements and then further negotiated. It is not his intention, because should he not have signed the agreements, he could have made a unilateral declaration of independence as he was planning to do just a few short years ago. Yet he refrained. And why did he refrain? Because he is firstly unwilling to take reponsibility for the dire state that the Palestinian people are in - one that desperately needs to be fixed by a competent leadership - and secondly because to form a homeland in the West Bank is not the aim of Arafat. His aim is now, as it was when he was the head of the PLO and the world's foremost terrorist, is to destroy the state of Israel. The terrorist bombs are not a valid weapon for an oppressed minority - they are not targetted, they are only intended to kill as many Israelis as possible, without care as to who or what they are. Better, indeed, that they are innocents for Arafat's cause. He claims publicly and through his spokemen that the Palestinians regard it as better to lay down their life in fighting for their country than to die oppressed. Yet, that is NOT what they are doing - what they are doing is laying down their life to kill as many innocent people as possible, rather than to at least fight soldiers and have some honour. Forgive me, if I disagree on this point - I, like this Israeli government, believe that by pulling out of the West Bank, we would invite the Palestinian bombers to increase their attacks and further drive us towards the ocean, or out of the land entirely. Personally, I would not leave the area until I was certain that every last bomber had been removed and that each and every Palestinian citizen was protected from their own government that does not care for them. It is my belief that the Arab nations WILL NOT recognise Israel if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders - as I have said before, the only reason for Syria to possess the Golan Heights would be to either cut off Israel's water supply or to launch an attack into Northern Israel. It seems far more likely, especially in this day and age, that their first action will be to attack, in full force, against Israel when - as you so rightly pointed out, this is not 1967 and they have chosen to take the reversing lights off of their tanks and have the ability and political will to use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockcreek Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by irdawood to my mis informed american friend that said earlier that if it wasnt for the americans then us british would be speaking german...??? what crap i dont hear the geramn speaking english as for americal wanted to come in the was...it HAD to come in the war if germans took over the UK..The US was next Stop for the germans...this would leave no stepping stone for the yanks to come into europe so no the americans did not do us a favour...they HAD to come into the war The US did need to enter WWII in Europe, this does not change the fact that Europe has never been able to handle it's own problems. WWII to Bosnia they always wait too long to do anything. Plus do not forget it was the UK that screwed up the mid east in the first place after WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akassebaum Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Well, this conflict is as interesting as it is old. I am surprised on why the United States is getting in the middle to try to mediate a problem that has existed for probably 2 milenium. This not a regular war at all. sure, they are fighting for control of land. But this is more of a war of beliefs. Being that the region hosts 3 of the world's major religion, it is by default a hotbed for conflict. I personally think that America ought to stay out of the entire situation because we are dealing with our own war o terrorism in which we are also occupied elsewhere. With plans to attack Iraq and the resentment of other Arab countries, America is treading on dangerous waters. How can America tell Israel to halt the aggression when we bombed the tar out of Afghanistan in retalliation to the senseless acts of a non Afghani hell bent at destroying the United States. That in my opinion is double standards. I am a proud American, don't get me wrong. Our economy is being affected only because we have decided to take sides. I have no ill-gotten feelings towards either Israel or Palestine. I just pray that they can look past their differences and end the hated plaguing their people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockcreek Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by txkang HALO!! I sent neoBond's gruesome pictures to my friend in Japan for analysis and here is the result he sent to me. He is scientist at Forensic Lab in Japan. I, of course, asked him to read this thread this morning so he is aware of what is going on. Here WE GO! http://156.26.162.121/murder.jpg Of course anyone that says they can tell if pictures are from the same source and the times from looking at jpgs on the net is full of himself :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeRider Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Israel existence as a state is a fact. Its validity and legitimacy to exist ?here, now- is undisputed.Well that's not exactly true now is it . . . if it were undisputed there would be no problems over there. Be that as it may, I have no problem with the existance of Israel. I do have a problem with the constant assertion that it's creation was justified by a 3,000 year old claim to the territory. You mock me for 70 year old quotes and then assert a 3,000 year old claim . . . Puh-lease!However even then, there was no peaceful neighboring between the Jews here and the local Arabs. I shall point out the ?Hebron massacre? in 1928(and again in 1936). These events are post Balfour . . . after the British began the immigration practices. The Arab majority wanted the Jewish immigrants out. Perhaps they felt they were protecting their people and their borders. The relative peace I speak of was for the 1300 years ending in 1917. Why are you trying to totally de-legitimize our right to country? Do you not believe we have a right to one?Not at all . . . I think that Israel is a fact of life and the Arab nation States need to accept that. However it is painfully obvious that the Zionists were not interested in a "country," since the British also offered up Argentina as an alternative. The Zionists wanted Palestine . . . nothing else. How they went about getting it was a terrible injustice that would have made Hitler proud. It was practically Anchluss.BTW, as I am writing this, there was just another terrorist attack. In Jerusalem. Why would there be an attack in Jerusalem. That area was to be an International Zone according to the UN Charter that created the Nation State of Israel . . . Oh yeah . . . that's right . . . the Israeli Army occupied Jeruselam. Just out of curiuosity, how many of these terrorist attacks have taken place in Israel proper? . . . the Israel of 1948. And how many have taken place in the Israeli Settlements built in the west Bank and Gaza? You're in the wrong. Get your people out. Leave the Palestinians alone. Give them back what is rightfully theirs. Before it is too late. -TR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Administrators Posted April 12, 2002 Administrators Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by shafi CNN DOES NOT SHOW EVERYTHING ! I HAVE SEEN YOUNG CHILDREN KILLED BY Israels. First they arrest Moh'd Saleh, a Plastinian aged 23. So far nothing is wrong with the picture!! http://www.lotsui.net/aspdotnet/1(4).jpg Then they pin Moh'd on the floor suspecting he had bombs attached to him. Still nothing out of the ordinary? http://www.lotsui.net/aspdotnet/2(2).jpg They have him on the floor still, and they try to question a second Plastinian on the scence. They seem to have definitly overpowerd him and have full control over the suitation. http://www.lotsui.net/aspdotnet/4(6).jpg That's not enough? OK!! Now they have to strip him to make sure he doesn't really have any bombs on him. AS we can see he is almost naked on the floor, (at least they had the decency to keep his underwear on), he is obviously overpowerd and unarmed, there is no sign of a bomb or any resistant. So what would a democratic country such as Isreal, a county which claims to respect human digintiy and life do??? Take him to prison?? http://www.lotsui.net/aspdotnet/5(5).jpg The picture speaks for itself !?! http://www.lotsui.net/aspdotnet/6(2).jpg Why am I suddenly the one who posted the above. I am not.. if you go to page 12 you will see that I QUOTED the above just like I am doing now. Please dont make me into something I am not. Thankyou. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockcreek Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by danshome Useful figures - I wonder how many of the surrounding Arab countries would take in the Palestinian refugees and how many would send them away as fast as they've could. Syria, Iraq and Lebanon are all notoriously grateful for their Kurdish refugees... Jordan, Syria and Lebanon have kicked the Palastinians out of their countries already... How soon we forget history... They all got sick of their contant violent behavior. Most must have forgot the photos of the PLO leaving Lebanon on a ship after being expelled by the government of Lebanon, heck the Syrians and Jordainians just << racial epithet >>d them out by fource. So if they could not get along with other Arab states why should anyone feel they can live sise by side with Israel. The Arab community wants them to have their own state because they don't want them in their countries :-) Sorry... those are just the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockcreek Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by TimeRider You're in the wrong. Get your people out. Leave the Palestinians alone. Give them back what is rightfully theirs. Before it is too late. -TR Since there never was a Palistinian state why is it their land? Why not give the land back to Jordan, Syria and Egypt? Answer. Because these countries had the Palatinians in their countries and kicked them out. They wish to see a Palastinan State because they do not wish the Palastinans back in their countries. To return to pre 1967 borders would create a Palastinian State but instead put the Palastinians back in Jordan Syria and Egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danshome Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Why would there be an attack in Jerusalem. That area was to be an International Zone according to the UN Charter that created the Nation State of Israel . . . Oh yeah . . . that's right . . . the Israeli Army occupied Jeruselam. Just out of curiuosity, how many of these terrorist attacks have taken place in Israel proper? . . . the Israel of 1948. And how many have taken place in the Israeli Settlements built in the west Bank and Gaza? For a while, TimeRider, I thought you were actually sensible. As it happens, most of the attacks have taken place in Israel "proper" - In Jerusalem, in Haifa, in Tel Aviv. And if you think that Jerusalem was EVER an International city, you're sorely mistaken. Israeli's weren't allowed anywhere near the city until they retook it in 1967. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockcreek Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by neo1980 the rules of war and the rules of resolve is that when u invade an area, according to UN resulotion in 1948, you HAVE to give the land back, now this is a stalemate because Arab countries will only recognise Israel now that if they return to the 1967 borders and Israel has admitely said that it wont ever return to the 1967 borders, something the UN has asked them according to the UN resolution in 1948, it is true that Arab countries attacked Israel but u also know who had the stronger army, arab countries retreated in 6 days, i think thats a modern day world record of retreat because of the might of the Israeli army, but remember they have never attacked it since, maybe because of the fact thier army is weak but MOST because of the fact that this is 2002, a modern age where politics comes before war. If the Israelis return to 1967 borders the Palestinians will not have their own state. Before 67 that land was part of Syria, Jordan and Egypt. I say give it back to whom it belongs. Of course that will not happen because none of those countries want the Palastinians in their countries as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Administrators Posted April 12, 2002 Administrators Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by danshome For a while, TimeRider, I thought you were actually sensible. I find that offensive to judge a person in the context you do. If TimeRider made a mistake it was one out of many other valid arguments you have not yet answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimeRider Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 For a while, TimeRider, I thought you were actually sensible. Because I disagree with you I lack sense? That's the kind of thinking that is killing Israeli citizens. This whole we're right and everyone else is wrong idea. During the course of the 1948 war, the Israeli forces occupied additional territory beyond that allocated to the Jewish State in the UN Partition Plan, totalling approximately half of the territory alloted to the Arab State, in addition to the western part of Jerusalem. After the war, Israel extended its laws and regulations to those territories and never withdrew to the partition lines. As a result, approximately 78% of the territory of Palestine came under Israeli control. The remaining areas of Palestine, approximately 22%, came under Arab control (Jordan and Egypt). In the course of 1949, and with UN mediation, Israel concluded armistice agreements with Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. The armistice agreements were based on military considerations and do not prejudice the rights, claims and positions of the parties with regard to the settlement of the Palestine Question. The Hashemite Jordan Kingdom-Israel General Armistice Agreement set a line of what came to be known as the West Bank, which includes East Jerusalem, which came under Jordanian control (there was also a so-called ?no man?s land? which separated East Jerusalem from West Jerusalem). The Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement set a line of what came to be known as the Gaza Strip, which came under Egyptian control at the time. Both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (along with the Sinai and the Syrian Golan) were occupied by Israel in the 1967 War and much of is still occupied todaThe PLO?s position regarding the issue of borders is simple: the international borders between the states of Palestine and Israel shall be the armistice cease-fire lines in effect on June 4, 1967. Both states shall be entitled to live in peace and security within these recognized borders. Accordingly, the PLO calls for the establishment of a boundary commission to delimit and demarcate the international borders, based on the Jordanian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement of April 3, 1949, the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement of February 24, 1949 and other relevant documentary and testimonial evidence. The PLO?s position is supported by United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, the internationally recognized Palestinian right to self-determination, and other firmly established principles of international law. Since the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993, Israel and the PLO have consistently agreed to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Resolution 242 emphasizes the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and calls for the withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 war. The Security Council?s injunction is unambiguous: All of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 were occupied by war; Israel is legally prohibited from acquiring (i.e., annexing) any territory occupied by war; accordingly, Israel must withdraw from all territory so occupied. In addition to its plain language, the resolution?s drafting history indicates that the Security Council had no intention of endorsing Israeli annexation of any part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip. For example, the Indian ambassador to the Council stated in no uncertain terms that ?the principle of the inadmissibility of force is absolutely fundamental to our approach and we cannot accept or acquiesce in any decision that leaves out territories occupied by military conquest from the provision of withdrawal.? The ambassadors of a number of other States expressed similar views, including the U.S.S.R., France, Nigeria, Bulgaria, and Mali. The Palestinian position on Resolution 242 is also fully in accord with the important precedent set by Israel?s peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, which was also based on the resolution. Under Article 1 of Annex 1 of the Treaty, Israel withdrew both its armed forces and its civilians from the territory it occupied in 1967. The people of Palestine are entitled to no less. By virtue of their universally-recognized right to self-determination, the Palestinian people possess sovereignty over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and, accordingly, have the right to establish an independent State on that territory. As noted above, Palestinian acceptance of the June 4, 1967 borders represents an extraordinary compromise. Any further Israeli incursions into Palestinian territory will result in widespread disillusionment and disaffection and could strike a fatal blow to the peace and security that the parties are working now to forge.ng now to forge. http://www.nad-plo.org/permanent/borders.html Why doesn't your Government keep its agreements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dARKSTAr Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 Originally posted by TimeRider I do not believe that Hitler or Japan ever posessed the necessary manpowr to subjugate an area as large as the Soviet Union. You make my point perfectly TR. Which is why americans should stop patting themselves on the back for winning the war. It was not our inclusion in the conflict that caused the war to be won. It was our inclusion that "sealed the deal" so to speak. Hitler signed his death warrant when he invaded russia.The scary thing was how close he actually did come. Britain was losing the battle of britain because germany was attacking their airbases and aircraft factories. Hitler had given specific orders not to attack london though. However, in late Aug, 1940, a lost squadron of german bombers mistakenly dropped bombs on London, and the English responded by bombing Berlin. Neither attack caused much damaged, but it infuriated Hitler and he retaliated with massive bombing campaigns against London.This change of tactics saved the radar system the brits were developing (the germans nearly destroyed it) and it gave a reprieve to the massive damage being caused against british air defenses. the morale of the fighter pilots also dramatically improved. The attacks on London and british industry did not wear down the british people and by mid sept, a disappointed hitler postponed his invasion of britain, and turned his attention to Operation Barabossa, which was the invasion of the Soviet Union. I'm sure you probably know that bit of history, but it has always fascinated me how the course of a military conflict can be changed by the smallest and seemingly most insignificant things. About my idea of a russian advance into north america, i think you'll remember that i said 1948. It assumes a united axis triumvirate of germany, the soviets and japan. A triumvirate that might be considering the best way to attack north america. It also assumes a germany with jet fighters, bombers, rockets and nuclear weapons and the huge resources of her ally russia. truthfully, i think a more intriguing possibility is that if these three great axis powers germany, russia and japan were united (this assumes that germany never invaded russia) then the powerful japanese navy would be where the strike would have come from.Similiar to what was feared after the attack on Pearl. An invasion of the west coast...Luckily, things turned out much different. danshome...i must have missed people questioning where the pics came from. I saw posts saying they were fake but i guess i missed the ones calling for shafi (see Neobond, some of us can read ;) and know the post didn't come from you) to reveal his sources for the pics. haven't heard from him lately, so it seems to further question the validity of the photos... Oh Shafi? Where, oh where are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest daniel Posted April 12, 2002 Share Posted April 12, 2002 I live in Israel and most people don't know what's really going on here because they don't live here. Back in 48 when the UN gave us a state , not all of Israel but part of it. We said yes but the Arabs didn't want to share it. They have 21 country we only have one. In war the winner captures land. Do you want to return the land that the US got from Mexico? If the palastines wanted peace we would have peace , but they don't. They could have gotten every thing , even part of Jerusalem , but they said NO. Do you think if Israel didn't exist , that Jordan , Egypt etc. will give them a state? I don't think so , they really don't want them , they hat them , they know that they are not human they are barbaric people (if you can call them that) After that they turned to violence and terrorisem.Do you want to live in a place where you can't go on a bus or eat in a restaurant or celebrate holidays????? We entered the palastines cities not to kill innocent people but to destroy terrorism. In jenin you may see a lot of destruction , but this shows you with what we have to deal with. BTW 2 hours ago. a suicide bombing at a bus stop in a central Jerusalem market blew him (or her) self up. 6 people are dead and up to 70 are wounded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts