View Full Version : The US cuts off ties with Israel


PkPhuoko
04-03-2002, 06:23 PM
....... the problem is solved right?

Ammy
04-03-2002, 06:25 PM
*gigglesnort*

*hugs clint*

Mood ring
04-03-2002, 06:27 PM
how so?

PkPhuoko
04-03-2002, 06:28 PM
thats the question

PhantomFM
04-03-2002, 06:29 PM
wondering where you get your news. psht http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif

------------------
PhantomFM (http://www.unc.edu/~lawsonb)

PkPhuoko
04-03-2002, 06:45 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PhantomFM:
wondering where you get your news. psht http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/rolleyes.gif

</font>

its a hypothetical question

kinda like "What would happen if someone turned lawson in for fucking his 14 year old girlfriend"

MisterSquishyHalo
04-03-2002, 07:00 PM
If US cuts ties with isreal, hello world war three.

stumblingdreamer
04-03-2002, 07:12 PM
it's quite unlikely, i'm sure.

but if it were to happen, things would change in the US, especially gasoline prices and shit.

Smack Me In My Mouth
04-03-2002, 07:34 PM
I think that the problem would be, if not solved, then at least brought closer to a conclusion. I think our close bond with Israel is one of the biggest mistakes we've ever made, so cutting off ties with them would not only bring a long-overdue correction to that error, but also clear things up handily in the Middle East.

Best Looking Boy
04-03-2002, 07:41 PM
We should have never allied ourselves with fucking jews.

melancholia
04-03-2002, 07:47 PM
^ i really hope you're fucking joking...

if the US broke ties with Israel... world war three wouldn't be far off.

PkPhuoko
04-03-2002, 07:48 PM
Ok.. we cut off relations with Israel... the rest of the free world puts Israel in its place and eventually they become somewhat of a blacklisted country....

the enormous amount of jewish figureheads in America get pissy... now what?

Best Looking Boy
04-03-2002, 07:50 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by melancholia:
^ i really hope you're fucking joking...

if the US broke ties with Israel... world war three wouldn't be far off.</font>
It wouldn't really be a world war if all those cunts just killed each other and we just smiled from a distance.

Smack Me In My Mouth
04-03-2002, 07:51 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
the enormous amount of jewish figureheads in America get pissy... now what?</font>

They deal with it. It sucks, but Israel has been doomed from the beginning.

[This message has been edited by Smack Me In My Mouth (edited 04-03-2002).]

PhantomFM
04-03-2002, 08:01 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
its a hypothetical question

kinda like "What would happen if someone turned lawson in for fucking his 17 year old girlfriend"</font>

then use the word if, dipsh1t

PkPhuoko
04-03-2002, 08:03 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PhantomFM:
then use the word if, dipsh1t

</font>

Call me crazy but the question mark aka ? usually denotes a question.

PkPhuoko
04-03-2002, 08:05 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Smack Me In My Mouth:
They deal with it. It sucks, but Israel has been doomed from the beginning.
</font>

come now you know that never works that way.

Sucking up and dealing with it is what gets us in these situations to begin with cause eventually the people who are just "sucking up and dealing with it" get pissed and end up taking it into their own hands.

Smack Me In My Mouth
04-03-2002, 08:08 PM
If the "Jewish figureheads" want to go fight some war on behalf of Zion in the Middle East, that's super. I'm not going to stop them.

Best Looking Boy
04-03-2002, 08:10 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Smack Me In My Mouth:
If the "Jewish figureheads" want to go fight some war on behalf of Zion in the Middle East, that's super. I'm not going to stop them.</font>
No one asked you, you fucking jew.

Smack Me In My Mouth
04-03-2002, 08:17 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Best Looking Boy:
No one asked you, you fucking jew.</font>

Oh, right. My mistake.

Kilgore Trout
04-03-2002, 08:22 PM
I don't see anything on CNN about this but if it's true I'm all for it.

------------------
http://www.followmearound.com/images/artwork/oxygen.gif
Wait, if what you are saying is true...then I still don't care. - Dave Nelson

AIM: pugbugg

Eulogy
04-03-2002, 08:27 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Kilgore Trout:
I don't see anything on CNN about this but if it's true I'm all for it.

</font>


Maybe you should read the thread before replying.

THRILLHO
04-03-2002, 10:18 PM
damn, you had me hopeful there for a second.

Founder, Inamorati A
04-03-2002, 10:21 PM
Cheney tells Sharon U.S. wants to attack Iraq for Israel's sake

Occupied Jerusalem: 20 March, 2002 (IAP News) - US vice-President Dick Cheney
reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that the U.S. was planning
to attack Iraq "first and foremost for Israel's sake."

According to Israeli sources quoted by the Israeli state-run radio Wednesday ,
Cheney asked Sharon to "tone down" the confrontation with the Palestinians so
as not to disrupt or disturb American plans vis-à-vis Iraq.

The sources quoted Cheney as saying that he expected President Bush to decide
to attack Iraq in spite of widespread opposition in the Arab world.

Sharon said publicly Tuesday that Israel would bless wholeheartedly any
American attack on Iraq, telling Cheney that the US "can always count on us."

The Israeli press reported this week that Sharon was hoping that a decisive
American onslaught against Iraq would demoralize the Palestinians and force
them to concede defeat and put an end to the intifada.

However, Cheney and Sharon reportedly agreed to keep coordination and
cooperation on Iraq behind the curtain in order not to embarrass pro-American
puppet Arab regimes.

------------------
http://hedonia.net/art/images/wicker_fire_circleth.jpg

MisterSquishyHalo
04-04-2002, 01:11 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Smack Me In My Mouth:
I think that the problem would be, if not solved, then at least brought closer to a conclusion. I think our close bond with Israel is one of the biggest mistakes we've ever made, so cutting off ties with them would not only bring a long-overdue correction to that error, but also clear things up handily in the Middle East.</font>

CLear things up how? The only reason sh*t hasnt totally hit the fan over in the middle east is because of US presence. US leaves, It will be full scale war, and we are not just talking conventional weapons.

MisterSquishyHalo
04-04-2002, 01:13 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
Ok.. we cut off relations with Israel... the rest of the free world puts Israel in its place and eventually they become somewhat of a blacklisted country....

the enormous amount of jewish figureheads in America get pissy... now what?

</font>


Only if it was that simple.

ZERO
04-04-2002, 01:14 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by MisterSquishyHalo:
CLear things up how? The only reason sh*t hasnt totally hit the fan over in the middle east is because of US presence. US leaves, It will be full scale war, and we are not just talking conventional weapons.

</font>

I'm sorry but i had to post. You are the biggest fucking moron to exist. What the fuck has been happening for the last 50 years? You're just pulling shit out of your comfortable american ass without realizing how many people die on a daily basis there. Full-scale war? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HAS BEEN HAPPENING?! DUH!!??

NegaBenji
04-04-2002, 04:47 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ZERO:
I'm sorry but i had to post. You are the biggest fucking moron to exist. What the fuck has been happening for the last 50 years? You're just pulling shit out of your comfortable american ass without realizing how many people die on a daily basis there. Full-scale war? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HAS BEEN HAPPENING?! DUH!!??</font>

True that. Are where are Israel getting their military aid from? That's right.

I don't think The US should cut all ties with Israel, because as people said - their asses will be kicked from here to the moon. Hopefully the threat of abandonment would be enough to force Israel to rethink its position. They need to kick Sharon out of government, and pull back to the internationally recognized borders, and allow Palestine to form self-governing state. The US needs to support Israel if they actually start moving in the right direction, but until that happens they should be on their own

liarsclub
04-04-2002, 05:23 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by NegaBenji:

I don't think The US should cut all ties with Israel, because as people said - their asses will be kicked from here to the moon. Hopefully the threat of abandonment would be enough to force Israel to rethink its position. They need to kick Sharon out of government, and pull back to the internationally recognized borders, and allow Palestine to form self-governing state. The US needs to support Israel if they actually start moving in the right direction, but until that happens they should be on their own</font>

I agree with you, but I feel Arafat needs to be removed also - it's like having Thurmond and Helms still in Congress. I think it's time for new, more peaceful, co-existing ideas to be circulated in the region. The world can't allow governments to encourage people to try to take out an entire race of humans...

jackboot7
04-04-2002, 06:00 AM
gotta take a crap back in five

bawbageo
04-04-2002, 06:14 AM
What is shocking is that 2/3 Americans think the military action Isreal took was justified. American Jews have so much power that Bush is probably too shit scared of doing anything that will alienate them

Irrelevant
04-04-2002, 06:28 AM
we shouldn't cut ties, but we at least shouldn't be so much in favor of their actions. Israel isn't just defending itself, it's persecuting an entire people.

PkPhuoko
04-04-2002, 07:11 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by NegaBenji:
True that. Are where are Israel getting their military aid from? That's right.
</font>


i'd like to know whatkind of military aid you think the US is giving them

NegaBenji
04-04-2002, 08:16 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:

i'd like to know whatkind of military aid you think the US is giving them</font>

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/19/us.israel/
http://www.americapress.org/editorials/ed010305.htm
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:ARFgx-9WaJgC:www.aipac.org/Assistance.PDF+us+%22military+aid+to+israel%22&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/A%20breakdown%20of%20United%20States%20Aid%20to%20 Israel.htm
http://www.mof.gov.il/beinle/press23.htm << Israeli MOF site, not that they'd know or anything
http://www.mjccr.org/Israel%20update.asp
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n23israelsec_body.html
http://www.coxnews.com/washingtonbureau/staff/kaplow/09-10-00ISRAELDATA091000COX.html
http://www.lacnet.org/suntimes/001022/inside.html
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/israel.htm

You're such a shining example of the military, Clint.

PkPhuoko
04-04-2002, 12:30 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by NegaBenji:

You're such a shining example of the military, Clint.</font>

im not in the military you dolt... i work at wallgreens

but you're right... being an ally with america means we are there to control you. The UK recieves enormous amounts of military support.... so i guess we control them. Everything wrong with the UK is the US's fault.

So in the same sense would the Kiwis be at fault for what the US does wrong since they supply us regional support?

Or maybe its Turkeys fault. They give us vital ground and air support.

No wait its Saudis fault. They give us a few billion dollars a year to stay there.

Or maybe it's just the US's fault because they're already the scapegoat for the worlds problems.

Nega you're such a shining example of the worlds youth.

MisterSquishyHalo
04-04-2002, 12:34 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ZERO:
I'm sorry but i had to post. You are the biggest fucking moron to exist. What the fuck has been happening for the last 50 years? You're just pulling shit out of your comfortable american ass without realizing how many people die on a daily basis there. Full-scale war? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK HAS BEEN HAPPENING?! DUH!!??</font>


Right let me guess you live in the west bank? If not shut the fuck up. If you do, you got some balls.

Yes few hundreds/thousands have died the last several years, but if it was FULL ON WAR, we are talking many thousands. Has Biological weapons used? NO Has Nuclear weapons been used? NO, has their been carpet Bombing? NO, so Yes, it can get much worse.

dumb ass

thank you drive thru.

MisterSquishyHalo
04-04-2002, 12:36 PM
Both arafat and Sharon need to be removed. They are BOTH fucking up. Sharon doesnt have the vision and doesnt know what the fuck hes doing. Arafat cant even control his own people, he has no fucking power.

Both need to go.

tweedyburd
04-04-2002, 01:02 PM
It really is remarkable at the naiveté that some exude when it comes to Israel removing themselves from the occupied territories in question.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered up a peace initiaitve that included cease fires, leaving the occupied territories, as well as (to the astonishment of many) the dividing up of certain parts of Jeruseleum. Know what the Palestinians did? They said go to hell.

The thing people don't realize is that it isn't as easy an answer as to just pull out of the territories. The PLO is a bloodthirsty organization that will only accept occupation by killing, not be civil exchange of proposals, plain and simple. This latest Saudi peace plan was a joke, and it wouldn't have mattered if Arafat had attended or not. His links to Iran and multiple terrorist organizations bolsters the notion that he's perhaps the world's biggest terrorist right now.

Crippler
04-04-2002, 01:10 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by tweedyburd:
It really is remarkable at the naiveté that some exude when it comes to Israel removing themselves from the occupied territories in question.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered up a peace initiaitve that included cease fires, leaving the occupied territories, as well as (to the astonishment of many) the dividing up of certain parts of Jeruseleum. Know what the Palestinians did? They said go to hell.

The thing people don't realize is that it isn't as easy an answer as to just pull out of the territories. The PLO is a bloodthirsty organization that will only accept occupation by killing, not be civil exchange of proposals, plain and simple. This latest Saudi peace plan was a joke, and it wouldn't have mattered if Arafat had attended or not. His links to Iran and multiple terrorist organizations bolsters the notion that he's perhaps the world's biggest terrorist right now. </font>

<font color="aquamarine">Amen, brother.

Mood ring
04-04-2002, 01:12 PM
i tend to think they both need to go...they're rather old, what exactly do they have to look foreward to? It's like grumpy old men being stubborn to the point of igniting a new facet in the current Holy War.

But Isreal is a democracy, so he cant exactly be exiled...this is where I become amused at those who side with Palestines, you know, the neo-fascist that infiltrate the Ivory Towers that voted Yassir Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize. What a joke that is. He's been targeting woman and children for 30 years but ehhhh, lets give him a Nobel.

It's a Holy War. Pick a side. There are absolutes. Nihilism is dead.

PkPhuoko
04-04-2002, 02:39 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by tweedyburd:
It really is remarkable at the naiveté that some exude when it comes to Israel removing themselves from the occupied territories in question.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered up a peace initiaitve that included cease fires, leaving the occupied territories, as well as (to the astonishment of many) the dividing up of certain parts of Jeruseleum. Know what the Palestinians did? They said go to hell.

The thing people don't realize is that it isn't as easy an answer as to just pull out of the territories. The PLO is a bloodthirsty organization that will only accept occupation by killing, not be civil exchange of proposals, plain and simple. This latest Saudi peace plan was a joke, and it wouldn't have mattered if Arafat had attended or not. His links to Iran and multiple terrorist organizations bolsters the notion that he's perhaps the world's biggest terrorist right now. </font>
fuckin owned

MisterSquishyHalo
04-04-2002, 03:26 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by tweedyburd:
It really is remarkable at the naiveté that some exude when it comes to Israel removing themselves from the occupied territories in question.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered up a peace initiaitve that included cease fires, leaving the occupied territories, as well as (to the astonishment of many) the dividing up of certain parts of Jeruseleum. Know what the Palestinians did? They said go to hell.

The thing people don't realize is that it isn't as easy an answer as to just pull out of the territories. The PLO is a bloodthirsty organization that will only accept occupation by killing, not be civil exchange of proposals, plain and simple. This latest Saudi peace plan was a joke, and it wouldn't have mattered if Arafat had attended or not. His links to Iran and multiple terrorist organizations bolsters the notion that he's perhaps the world's biggest terrorist right now. </font>

winnar!

NegaBenji
04-04-2002, 03:31 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
im not in the military you dolt... i work at wallgreens

but you're right... being an ally with america means we are there to control you. The UK recieves enormous amounts of military support.... so i guess we control them. Everything wrong with the UK is the US's fault.

So in the same sense would the Kiwis be at fault for what the US does wrong since they supply us regional support?

Or maybe its Turkeys fault. They give us vital ground and air support.

No wait its Saudis fault. They give us a few billion dollars a year to stay there.

Or maybe it's just the US's fault because they're already the scapegoat for the worlds problems.

Nega you're such a shining example of the worlds youth.</font>

So you admit that the US *does* in fact donate military aid to Israel? Even though you said (in your super high-level informed opinion) the opposite? In that case, you'll know that an estimated $1.8 billion (and rising) is spent per year on pure military aid, not accounting for other economic aid eventually diverted to military use. $1.8 billion buys a lot of tanks and bullets. Do I need to draw you a diagram here? It's a direct link, financially supporting a regime which is persecuting a huge number of people. Which is nothing like the 'examples' you gave. And how much aid goes to the UK? Proof please.

NegaBenji
04-04-2002, 03:39 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by tweedyburd:
It really is remarkable at the naiveté that some exude when it comes to Israel removing themselves from the occupied territories in question.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered up a peace initiaitve that included cease fires, leaving the occupied territories, as well as (to the astonishment of many) the dividing up of certain parts of Jeruseleum. Know what the Palestinians did? They said go to hell.

The thing people don't realize is that it isn't as easy an answer as to just pull out of the territories. The PLO is a bloodthirsty organization that will only accept occupation by killing, not be civil exchange of proposals, plain and simple. This latest Saudi peace plan was a joke, and it wouldn't have mattered if Arafat had attended or not. His links to Iran and multiple terrorist organizations bolsters the notion that he's perhaps the world's biggest terrorist right now. </font>

That agreement was generally rejected as being unacceptable by Palestinians, who don't just want peace, but also their rights. Obviously giving back the territories isn't as easy as Israel moving their cars or something, but real initiatives have to be put forward.

I don't entirely buy the whole 'Arafat is the devil' idea. Israel is trying to put him forward as the next Bin Laden, in the same way they've hijaked the whole War on Terror rhetoric to justify moving further into Palestinian territory and kill more people. I agree the PLO's actions cannot be justified, but terrorism and counter-terrorism are the same thing, just from different viewpoints. If the PLO are committing acts of terror, what is Israel doing *right now*? They're both as bad as each other, yet one of them is receiving support. Guess which one.

tweedyburd
04-04-2002, 05:38 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by NegaBenji:
That agreement was generally rejected as being unacceptable by Palestinians, who don't just want peace, but also their rights. Obviously giving back the territories isn't as easy as Israel moving their cars or something, but real initiatives have to be put forward.</font>

If going so far as to remove themselves from the occupied territories, offer up a plan of cease fire, and actually divide THEIR holy city as they see fit isn't some good indication of a 'real intitiative', then what is? The only rights you could reasonably argue that the Palestinians have is the right to have a recognized state, which, by Barak's proposals, would have certainly been something to get that idea rolling.

Islamist extremism isn't about taking something offered to you in peace, and no where is it spelled out more obviously than in Barak's proposals being dismissed by the PLO. Jihad and all it's religious subcategories do not recognize a reasonable peace offering because it's blinded by radical violence--it's their life blood--and it's all they know because it's all they've ever known.

Remember when the Cold War was won and all the communist regimes began to crumble and all the ultra-conservatives' agendas were solved? Their purpose was, in effect, no longer relevant. There was nothing else to fight for. In some ways, they probably even missed the communist threat because it gave them an agenda to continually work toward.

In that same vein, having nothing else to fight for is what the PLO doesn't want right now, and may never want, no matter what victories they may see.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by NegaBenji:

I agree the PLO's actions cannot be justified, but terrorism and counter-terrorism are the same thing, just from different viewpoints. If the PLO are committing acts of terror, what is Israel doing *right now*? They're both as bad as each other, yet one of them is receiving support. Guess which one.</font>

Oh, please. If you can't distinguish between targeting innocent civilians and having unfortunate civlian casualties in the process of targeting terrorist camps/regimes, then no wonder we have such a huge misunderstanding and liberal backlash on this issue.

Israel is not perfect by any means, but you can't equate those two (targeting civilains as opposed to inadvertently killing civilians in the process of targeting terrorists).




[This message has been edited by tweedyburd (edited 04-04-2002).]

PkPhuoko
04-04-2002, 05:53 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by tweedyburd:
Oh, please. If you can't distinguish between targeting innocent civilians and having unfortunate civlian casualties in the process of targeting terrorist camps/regimes, then no wonder we have such a huge misunderstanding and liberal backlash on this issue.

Israel is not perfect by any means, but you can't equate those two (targeting civilains as opposed to inadvertently killing civilians in the process of targeting terrorists).

</font>

simply awesome.

And Nega i just asked you to post what support you thought we were giving. You posted a bunch of links.


Whats the difference between the UK allowing us to nearly fully use 6 of their bases, hangars, etc etc than giving us 1 billion dollars to build 6 bases?

NegaBenji
04-04-2002, 06:40 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by tweedyburd:
If going so far as to remove themselves from the occupied territories, offer up a plan of cease fire, and actually divide THEIR holy city as they see fit isn't some good indication of a 'real intitiative', then what is? The only rights you could reasonably argue that the Palestinians have is the right to have a recognized state, which, by Barak's proposals, would have certainly been something to get that idea rolling.

Islamist extremism isn't about taking something offered to you in peace, and no where is it spelled out more obviously than in Barak's proposals being dismissed by the PLO. Jihad and all it's religious subcategories do not recognize a reasonable peace offering because it's blinded by radical violence--it's their life blood--and it's all they know because it's all they've ever known.

Remember when the Cold War was won and all the communist regimes began to crumble and all the ultra-conservatives' agendas were solved? Their purpose was, in effect, no longer relevant. There was nothing else to fight for. In some ways, they probably even missed the communist threat because it gave them an agenda to continually work toward.

In that same vein, having nothing else to fight for is what the PLO doesn't want right now, and may never want, no matter what victories they may see.

</font>

But you see, they *do* have rights. Israel is in direct contravention of rules set down by the UN when Israel was recognized as a state, and allowed membership. Israel has since expanded way beyond the agreed borders, and they were not prepared to move back anywhere near as much as they should. Jerusalem was supposed to be internationalized in the first place, being a holy city to both Jews and Arabs, so forgive me if I'm unimpressed by that gesture. Arafat was under pressure from his own people, and much of the arab world at that time, so just because a deal of some kind was offered, doesn't mean it would be accepted. Saying 'Barak wanted a deal and Arafat said no' is grossly oversimplifying things.

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by tweedyburd:
Oh, please. If you can't distinguish between targeting innocent civilians and having unfortunate civlian casualties in the process of targeting terrorist camps/regimes, then no wonder we have such a huge misunderstanding and liberal backlash on this issue.

Israel is not perfect by any means, but you can't equate those two (targeting civilains as opposed to inadvertently killing civilians in the process of targeting terrorists).

</font>

The US has files which document a huge catalog of human rights abuses committed by Israel against Palestinians, yet nothing is done. It's this kind of hopeless existence which creates terrorists - angry people with nothing to lose out to get revenge. Rolling tanks into refugee camps and townships and massacring everyone in sight is not the way to effectively (or responsibly) deal with terrorists - you think people are going to say 'wow, that sucked, I sure hope they don't come kill everyone again?' It's just going to create more fighters, and more support for them. Which of course propagates the problem, giving Israel an excuse to occupy more and more land in the interests of 'security.' Of course you disagree with me on this point, because you believe the civilian casualties are 'unfortunate accidents' that occur when Israel makes calculated strikes against terrorist groups. Which is exactly what's happening now, right? Which is why the world's media is showing dead families, ambulances being stopped, hospitals and medical equipment being destroyed, people fleeing towns...

NegaBenji
04-04-2002, 06:42 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by PkPhuoko:
simply awesome.

And Nega i just asked you to post what support you thought we were giving. You posted a bunch of links.


Whats the difference between the UK allowing us to nearly fully use 6 of their bases, hangars, etc etc than giving us 1 billion dollars to build 6 bases?

</font>

Ok, I'll spell it out for you in small words. If-you-click-the-links-they-lead-to-a-number-of-sources-which-discuss-military-aid-given-to-Israel-by-the-US. I'm not repeating myself again. And how does the UK allowing the US to use bases, or giving 1 billion dollars, equate to the UK receiving military support from the US? Receiving support is when someone helps *you*, not the other way around. I really can't tell if you're being stupid for comic effect, or if you think being confused is a valid method of discussion. I hope they don't let you near the bang-bangs if there's a war.

BeautifulLoser
04-04-2002, 06:58 PM
These little debates are the only reason I still visit Netphoria every now and then.

I say that there's really nothing that can be done in that place. I'm not saying we should do nothing, but I have no idea of anything that could happen that could make all the fighting stop. The people of the region have had their ideas and beliefs so long, that any comprimise would be completely inconcevieable (sp?) to them. I just don't know.

------------------
AIM: JenniferZero

censored25: Dont be sad, Jesus loves your ass

tweedyburd
04-04-2002, 10:28 PM
But you see, they *do* have rights


Of course they do. But they have no rights as far as something that's Israel's responibility past simply allowing them a state. Which is what was basically offered (or at least the opportunity to build toward one) by Barak, and which they ignored.

Israel is in direct contravention of rules set down by the UN when Israel was recognized as a state, and allowed membership. Israel has since expanded way beyond the agreed borders, and they were not prepared to move back anywhere near as much as they should.


The point is that the offereing was a start, something to go on, and wasn't supposed to be the end-all-be-all conflict solver. If Arafat were any sort of leader that was looking for real results, and actually had some balls to quit perpetrating the problem further, he would've made the decision to hear the proposals out and consider them to at least get the general sentiment to lean in that direction, rather than wipe his ass with it and turn away back to the regular routine of violence.



Saying 'Barak wanted a deal and Arafat said no' is grossly oversimplifying things.


You've spoken a lot about 'just because a deal of some kind was offered' but said nothing as to WHY it wouldn't/shouldn't be taken. Or why calling it like it is is 'oversimplifying' it.


Rolling tanks into refugee camps and townships and massacring everyone in sight is not the way to effectively (or responsibly) deal with terrorists


Where are you getting this information? Source?




[This message has been edited by tweedyburd (edited 04-04-2002).]

MisterSquishyHalo
04-04-2002, 10:44 PM
Arafat is a puppet, he has no god damn power to control his own god damn factions.

HEs useless, and I am beginning to think sharon is useless as well.


God damit, bring back Yitzhak Rabin

tweedyburd
04-04-2002, 11:07 PM
In Nega's defense, I'll say I did just see some Israeli soldiers beating up on some Palestinian civilians on Fox News (an interesting surprise for all you 'Fox is a right wing network' folk). Point taken, Nega, in regards to what's happening now. But, even though there is counter acts of violence going on, I think we can both agree it's not as severe as a suicide bomber entering a passover feast.

NegaBenji
04-05-2002, 05:56 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by tweedyburd:
In Nega's defense, I'll say I did just see some Israeli soldiers beating up on some Palestinian civilians on Fox News (an interesting surprise for all you 'Fox is a right wing network' folk). Point taken, Nega, in regards to what's happening now. But, even though there is counter acts of violence going on, I think we can both agree it's not as severe as a suicide bomber entering a passover feast.</font>

Oh I'm with you on that one - killing innocent civilians for retribution is totally unjustifiable, and the attitude of some Palestinians towards these 'heroes' is very disturbing. But these are the acts of extremists, and when Israel itself reacts by rolling in tanks, or launching rocket attacks by helicopter, we're hardly talking about surgical precision. It's akin to blowing up a street in Belfast because you heard some IRA members live there - and it just furthers the problem, which is why Israel (and their irresponsible policy) should not be supported.

MagicPie
04-05-2002, 08:37 AM
I think Lee has gone beyond the call of duty to show you all the problem.I recommend you all just to buy a paper that is printed outside of north america (the irish indepentant/times) and see it from a european perspective.

btw fox news is just beyond reproach in its manner of reporting at least in Nazi germany it was a dicatorship that channel is in a democracy.

melancholia
04-05-2002, 09:00 AM
I only skimmed through this thread, and I'm sorry if I'm repeating something posted...

but... I really believe that the US's involvment in Israel is directly related to Sadam... Palastine recives money from Sadam, simply because they are Muslim... and in the Middle East in general, Muslims stick together and Jews stick together...and they just go back and forth with their 10,000 year old feud.

If we back Israel, While Sadam backs Palestine... then were are indirectly fighting a war with him. The US governemnt puts on a facade that we're out to get peace... while in reality, what the US is doing, is trying to "flex our muscles" to Sadam. (think Cold war)

I think that the US is waiting for the situation in Israel to get worse, so we have an excuse to bomb the fuck out of Sadam, and take him out of power too...

It seems to me that the whole thing from a US perspective is more about past grudges, and oil. It all boils down to the oil...

*shrug*

Travis Meeks
04-05-2002, 09:02 AM
and now they want to ship me off to kuwait, give me a break, how much shit can a nigga take, i ain't going nowhere no how

tweedyburd
04-05-2002, 09:52 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by MagicPie:


btw fox news is just beyond reproach in its manner of reporting at least in Nazi germany it was a dicatorship that channel is in a democracy. </font>

Yeah, I guess that's why they showed the Israeli's kicking the shit out of Palestinian civlians, right? Cause, you know, any thing approaching anything like you said would obviously show something to generate dissent among the people. Riiiiiight.

MagicPie
04-05-2002, 12:47 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by tweedyburd:
Yeah, I guess that's why they showed the Israeli's kicking the shit out of Palestinian civlians, right? Cause, you know, any thing approaching anything like you said would obviously show something to generate dissent among the people. Riiiiiight.

</font>

The questions asked in numerous news reporting has demonised arafat and is extremely pro israel.What is needed is a news service that gives unbiased reporting and fox don't.If they were to completely come out as israel loving ppl would ask questions and decline in viewership they have to give the impression of being unbiased.

tweedyburd
04-05-2002, 03:41 PM
You don't have to tell me that Fox often seems like a 'bias' station. But bias is often relative to which values you hold. To me, Arafat should be described accurately, as a terrorist. And the fact that they showed the other side--the brutality of Israel beating civlians--is enough for me to see that it's balanced.

What I was actually responding to was the ridiculousness with which you intimated that Fox should be the product of or on par with Nazi propoganda.

ModernCheeze
04-05-2002, 03:57 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by tweedyburd:

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered up a peace initiaitve that included cease fires, leaving the occupied territories, as well as (to the astonishment of many) the dividing up of certain parts of Jeruseleum. Know what the Palestinians did? They said go to hell. </font>

http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/offers.doc

note: the transcription here lacks the maps in the above document.

"The West Bank and the Gaza Strip, captured in 1967, comprise 22% of pre-1948 Palestine. When the Palestinians signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993 they agreed to accept only these 22% and recognize Israel within the Green Line borders. Conceding 78% of the land was a historical Palestinian compromise.

But this compromise was not enough for Barak. In his offer to the Palestinians, Barak demanded the following:

10% Land Area for Settlement Blocs.

69 settlements are included in this area, where 85% of the settlers live. It is clearly visible that The blocs create impossible borders, which severely disrupt Palestinian life in the West Bank.

In addition to the settlement blocs, Barak came up with another demand;
Territories that will be under “Temporary Israeli Control”. (another 10% of West Bank Land Area)

The “Temporary Control” concept is unique. It refers to sovereign Palestinian land that will remain under Israeli military and civil control for an indefinite time.

What appears to be territorial continuity is actually split up by settlement blocs, bypass roads and roadblocks. The Palestinians have to relinquish land reserves essential for their development and absorption of refugees. They also have to accept Israeli supervision of borders crossings together with many other restrictions...

Data in this document are based on the maps Barak showed Arafat in December 2000 and generally termed “Barak’s Generous Offers”.
The Israeli public, media and academics use this description unwittingly. This document sheds light on the offer and exposes the truth by examining the details – the offer is a pretense of generosity for the benefit of the media!

Barak’s offer gives Israel control over all the border crossings of the Palestinian State. No country in the world would accept that. The words “territorial continuity” are deceptive. No Israeli would agree to travel 50 miles from one town to another, if the real distance between them is only ."

Barak's offer was a promising begginning, not the be all to end all. He was offering LESS than the internationally recognized borders of Palestine. Can you blame the Palestinians for not accepting?

This should have been the first step. Instead, both sides summarily turned their backs to each other, Sharon came into office, reinstigated the violence (essentialy his campaign platform), dismantled (and continues to dismantle) the Palestinian control structure under Arafat, ostensibly turning Arafat into a figurehead who has no control of the radicals in his movement that now kill innocents at their whim.

No side is without blame for the total situation. The current 18-months of violence, however, are all because of Sharon. He WANTED it.

------------------
-JJ

"Everyone hates a sad professor. I hate where I wound up."
AIM: nu100

[This message has been edited by ModernCheeze (edited 04-05-2002).]

MisterSquishyHalo
04-05-2002, 09:18 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by melancholia:
I only skimmed through this thread, and I'm sorry if I'm repeating something posted...

but... I really believe that the US's involvment in Israel is directly related to Sadam... Palastine recives money from Sadam, simply because they are Muslim... and in the Middle East in general, Muslims stick together and Jews stick together...and they just go back and forth with their 10,000 year old feud.

If we back Israel, While Sadam backs Palestine... then were are indirectly fighting a war with him. The US governemnt puts on a facade that we're out to get peace... while in reality, what the US is doing, is trying to "flex our muscles" to Sadam. (think Cold war)

I think that the US is waiting for the situation in Israel to get worse, so we have an excuse to bomb the fuck out of Sadam, and take him out of power too...

It seems to me that the whole thing from a US perspective is more about past grudges, and oil. It all boils down to the oil...

*shrug*</font>

we've been involved in the middle east far before Sadaam reared his ugly head, we are the ones that stuck his ass in power, to counter another enemy of ours, IRAN

The US seems to try to solve problems by giving support to another regional leader. Eventually the leader turns on us. (we powered the taliban, because they were slapping the russians, we powered the Iraqi's, because the Iraqi's were slapping IRAN. etc etc etc I think you get the point.

dancl
04-05-2002, 11:29 PM
-funny how the israelis have turned out just like the Nazis.

They have tanks, guns and planes.
The Palestinians dont.

MisterSquishyHalo
04-06-2002, 12:06 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by dancl:
-funny how the israelis have turned out just like the Nazis.

They have tanks, guns and planes.
The Palestinians dont.</font>


ALright that is just stupid, if you need me to explain why it was stupid, please let me know.

tweedyburd
04-06-2002, 12:10 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ModernCheeze:


Barak's offer was a promising begginning, not the be all to end all.
</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by tweedyburd:


The point is that the offereing was a start, something to go on, and wasn't supposed to be the end-all-be-all conflict solver. If Arafat were any sort of leader that was looking for real results he would've made the decision to hear the proposals out and consider them to at least get the general sentiment to lean in that direction, rather than wipe his ass with it and turn away back to the regular routine of violence.
</font>