[J m HofMarN]

Renegade-

1: I suppose you'd refer to Bush simply as "George"? If required to do so I might call him Mr. President, but I wouldn't mean it. However, when it comes to His Excellency, I have the same respect for him when I speak of him as I will have should I gain the opportunity to speak to him, which I very much hope to do.

2: The US blockade against Cuba is indeed internationally illegal, or close enough to it that it shouldn't be allowed.

To put it this way: If your local gas station said that people who go by your house can't get gas there, would that be illegal? If you took it to court it probably would be ruled illegal, and for good reason too.

And yes, distributing pictures of Saddam Hussein, whether naked or clothed, is against the Geneva conventions which disallow making POWs into "public curiousities" you cannot drive POWs through the streets in cages, you cannot force them to renounce their government publicly, and you sure as hell can't distribute pictures of them in their underwear. That would be a violation of international law.

I really don't see why you want to quibble over terminology. The US is an imperialist, aggressive, oppressive nation and you still cling to your belief that they're motivated by some bullshit ideology of democracy and not just greed and blood lust.

3: You wouldn't say such things unless you hoped they would occur. And His Excellency's government would only be in danger of falling because of, you guessed it, American imperialism.

4: So you're saying that it's terrorism to target civilians in a country with mandatory conscription? So then the US nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki is terrorism then right? I'm curious as to the difference here. When the Zionists or the imperialists bomb civilian targets its "collateral damage" but when the freedom fighters blow up an Israeli army outpost in Gaza and give their lives in the heroic act, they're "terrorists"

Ah I see what you're saying now. You have to act as though you think there's some kind of threat there and then you're not guilty of terrorism. I guess Hamas should just use the following line before all of their attacks:

"Mmmm look Ned, an Zionist soldier! Quick, thin out their numbers!"

And then it'll be collateral damage, right?

You're so full of shit. You condemn the killing of twenty Zionists but when they bomb a Palestinian refugee camp and kill twice that number you claim it's just collateral damage. Hamas is at least honest about the fact that the lives of their oppressors mean nothing to them. The Zionists pretend to give a damn and use words like collateral damage to fool people like you into thinking that they don't rejoice at every Palestinian civilian and freedom fighter they murder or torture. You have the same mentality that called the Native Americans "savages" because they did what they could to fight against the genocide of their people. Thankfully I don't. I say every Native American who killed a US soldier in battle was a hero, and so are all of those who fight the Zionist Entity!

4:Israel never existed until 1950. Until then it was Palestine. But of course that word that you think dosnt exist (imperialism) took over that area of the world and after WW2 they pushed all the Jews to move there to prevent more trouble, and made up their own country against the will of the people of Palestine, who were forced to flee their own nation in what is known as Al Noqba. But of course taking over land from its rightful inhabitants and installing your own government isn't an example of American imperialism. I'm sure you have some bullshit appologist term for it such as "nation building" or "democracy helping" or "fun country creation" and moving the Palestinians off their land and killing those who resisted isn't genocide, it's "a mistake"

5: How can you settle for 95% of what is yours? Palestine belongs to Palestinians. You think 95% is just a numnber? It's 5% of the refugees who can never see their homes again. It's five percent of the illegal settlements that will remain. It's five percent of the Zionist Entity's prisoners who will continue to be tortured and never see their families again. Would you settle and give up five percent of your own body? Would you settle and abandon five percent of your town? Would you submit, and surrender five percent of your posessions? Never. Never, never, never! A hundred percent or continued war. A hundred percent of what Palestinians deserve, or the war must continue!

And hey, call it what you will. Fine, it wasn't imperialism, it was just the US giving guns to two countries so they could kill eachother. The US helped murder people in Iraq and Iran. The US gave logistical support to Saddam that helped him when he gassed the kurds. The US helped Saddams weapons programs. Those are the facts. I call it imperialism, you call it a mistake. Perhaps if you admitted that the US is an imperialist, murderous, aggressive, genocidal nation you might be in a better mindset to change that. Until then you're just a mouthpiece for the Bush regime making excuses.

[Ham Salad]

If you think some Jews just arbitrarily showed up in 1950 and claimed Palestine (itself a creation of the UK only a few decades before) for a homeland, you are sorrily mistaken and (once again) proven to be a poor student of history.

Modern day Israel is the homeland of the Jews. Arabs (from the Arabian peninsula) are the newcomers, the invaders.

Using your line of thought, I'd take it you would complain bitterly if some Native Americans decided that Colorado and the remainder of the US was their birthright, and they subsequently pushed you back to Greenland? If not we are in total agreement friend.

[J m HofMarN]

Arab lived in and ruled Palestine ever since the fall of the Roman empire. They only lost rule of Palestine when Britain came in.

[Mnesymone]

Ham Salad - poor student of history? Palestine was peacefully Christianised and subsequently converted to Islam. It has been an Islamic nation since the Dark Ages. If you think the Jews have a homeland claim to a country they willingly left fifteen hundred years ago because they were unwilling to accept change (they weren't persecuted, tthey simply could not accept the cultural changes that were peacefully occuring) then you have got the wrong end of the stick.
There are still tapes of interviews with important Jewish intellectuals who said that the gravest possible mistake would be to form a Jewish state in Palestine.

[Slade]

Salad: That's not a proper analogy. We raped and pillaged and stole from the "Native Americans" as fairly as spreading chicken pox and using firearms could allow. The Palestinians got swept aside by a third party (the newly formed United Nations) under pressure by terrorists.

And anyone would complain bitterly if someone showed up at his/her house and said "I'm sorry, you have to leave because we're moving these people in instead."

[Ham Salad]

Ham Salad - poor student of history? Palestine was peacefully Christianised and subsequently converted to Islam. It has been an Islamic nation since the Dark Ages. If you think the Jews have a homeland claim to a country they willingly left fifteen hundred years ago because they were unwilling to accept change (they weren't persecuted, tthey simply could not accept the cultural changes that were peacefully occuring) then you have got the wrong end of the stick.
There are still tapes of interviews with important Jewish intellectuals who said that the gravest possible mistake would be to form a Jewish state in Palestine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Peacefully Christianized? This is how you describe the crusades. You are either joking or truly misinformed.

Willingly left? This is disturbing. The diaspora has its roots from the Romans onward, forced removal from the land of Israel, your description can only be described as anti-semitic propoganda.

JM- Since the fall of the Roman Empire? You have lost your right to even write the word "history", you simply have no idea.

Improper anology? You're supporting mine! The fact is that both were forcefully removed from their homelands in large numbers. The Native Americans have their Custer, the Jews have their Nero. You would not support the UN if they decided to give the Native Americans their lands back?

This place is an ant-semitic echo chamber.

[Renegade]

Quote

1: I suppose you'd refer to Bush simply as "George"?

I just call him by his name, Bush or his title, the president... I don't go running around calling him the Messiah or his SUPERIORNESS. I find it disgusting that you refer to a person as his "excellency" but that's just my opinion and that kind of statement really makes me think you believe the man is bigger than his cause (which nicely nuff proves the inherit flaw in communism) and reminds me of middle eastern mullas who think there gods and deserve praise on site.

Quote

2: The US blockade against Cuba is indeed internationally illegal, or close enough to it that it shouldn't be allowed.

I still haven't seen any reason why blockading Cuba is illegal... all you've proved is that it may be unfair, but how it violates any international laws is beyond me. America as a soverign entity has the right to say that it does not like a country and thus won't trade with it, as well as not trade with any who does trade with them. Realistically that is the right of any country. If Iran says it won't trade with Israel nor trade with anyone who does, is that violating international law? No, its every nations right to do what it wants in terms of its trade policy.

Quote

And yes, distributing pictures of Saddam Hussein, whether naked or clothed, is against the Geneva conventions which disallow making POWs into "public curiousities" you cannot drive POWs through the streets in cages, you cannot force them to renounce their government publicly, and you sure as hell can't distribute pictures of them in their underwear. That would be a violation of international law.

Amazing. So many accuracies to counter. First off, he's not just some random POW, he was a leader of a country who was yes captured but is standing trial. Obviously his picture will be on the news because hes STANDING TRIAL. Why would it be illegal to show pictures of him clothed? People in the United States standing trial are pictured on the news, is that too violating international laws? Also, we didn't DISTRIBUTE pictures of him in his underwear, a private soldier took them and then sold them to a tabloid magazine. This is entirely unpreventable by the US govt (this is all assuming anyone gives a rats ass that it actually happened, cause i don't give a shit what people say, he's not getting poor treatment ESPECIALLY considering who he is). Lastly, its so hellarious your sympathy for the guy. You justifiy Palestinian terrorism by saying Israeli terrorism is worst. However, when a known violater of international law and brutal dictator is captured, you cry in your sleep that ONE picture was released of him in his underwear. Oh booo hoo you hypocrite.

Quote

they're motivated by some bullshit ideology of democracy and not just greed and blood lust.

I've never said this, and I've repeadetly said i haven't said this .. dunno why you have the impression that I think the US motives are all noble.

Quote

You wouldn't say such things unless you hoped they would occur. And His Excellency's government would only be in danger of falling because of, you guessed it, American imperialism.

Not really.. I could care less what happens to Cuba. If it was up to me the blockade wouldn't be there but thats not the point. The point is that Castro has built a country based on him rather than an idea, and once he is dead the system will die with him because he failed to create a state that could exist without him.

Quote

So you're saying that it's terrorism to target civilians in a country with mandatory conscription?

No.. you said this (you said Palestinian suicide bombings are not terrorism unless its children being killed because all Israelis at one time will or did serve in the army) .. i merely was pointing out the stupidity in YOUR argument.

Quote

but when the freedom fighters blow up an Israeli army outpost in Gaza and give their lives in the heroic act, they're "terrorists"

I never said that.. suicide bombing against an army outpost = war and they are merely soldiers. Terrorism is a different story. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Quote

You're so full of shit. You condemn the killing of twenty Zionists but when they bomb a Palestinian refugee camp and kill twice that number you claim it's just collateral damage. Hamas is at least honest about the fact that the lives of their oppressors mean nothing to them.

Don't you understand HOW they are different? Israel doesn't BENEFIT from killing civilians. It doesn't help in anyway to their military objective or political objective. Palestines terrorism DOES because there objective is to invoke fear in Israel so much that Israel ceases to exist or coputulates. One gains nothing from more deaths, the other gains everything by increased death counts.

Quote

Israel never existed until 1950. Until then it was Palestine. But of course that word that you think dosnt exist (imperialism) took over that area of the world and after WW2 they pushed all the Jews to move there to prevent more trouble, and made up their own country against the will of the people of Palestine, who were forced to flee their own nation in what is known as Al Noqba. But of course taking over land from its rightful inhabitants and installing your own government isn't an example of American imperialism. I'm sure you have some bullshit appologist term for it such as "nation building" or "democracy helping" or "fun country creation" and moving the Palestinians off their land and killing those who resisted isn't genocide, it's "a mistake"

Just for reference:

Quote

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, known as the Israeli War of Independence or al-Nakba, 1948-1949, began after the British withdrawal and the declaration of the State of Israel on May 15, 1948. Arabs had formally rejected the United Nations Partition Plan of November 1947, which proposed establishment of an Arab and a Jewish state in Palestine. Jewish and Arab militias had begun a campaign to control territory both inside and beyond the partition-designated borders. Joint Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Iraqi troops invaded Palestine, and fought to destroy the nascent Jewish state. About 2/3 of Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled by Israeli forces from the territories which came under Jewish control (see Palestinian Exodus); Arabs also expelled Jews from the territories which came under their control. In addition, many Arab countries' Jewish populations fled due to anti-Jewish sentiment and, in some cases (e.g. Iraq) legal oppression (see Immigration to Israel from Arab lands). About 700,000 Palestinians (estimates vary from 520,000 to 957,000 [1]) and estimated 600,000 to 900,000 [2] Jews became refugees. In a few cases, (e.g. in Morocco) local Arab governments encouraged Jews to stay, and some Jewish leaders (e.g. in Haifa) encouraged Arabs to stay

5: How can you settle for 95% of what is yours? Palestine belongs to Palestinians. You think 95% is just a numnber?

Because the other side was making concessions too and Palestine may be Palestine, but Israel will also exist no matter what. And sure i'd sacrifice 5% if I knew it would mean a chance for peace and future prosperity but maybe thats because im realistic and not an idealogue.

And hey, call it what you will. Fine, it wasn't imperialism, it was just the US giving guns to two countries so they could kill eachother. The US helped murder people in Iraq and Iran. The US gave logistical support to Saddam that helped him when he gassed the kurds. The US helped Saddams weapons programs. Those are the facts. I call it imperialism, you call it a mistake. Perhaps if you admitted that the US is an imperialist, murderous, aggressive, genocidal nation you might be in a better mindset to change that. Until then you're just a mouthpiece for the Bush regime making excuses.

Basically we gave massive amounts of weapons to Iraq once he was losing to prevent the entire country from falling.. then later on we gave a lil bit of stuff to Iran (iran contra) but hardly anything to be considered major war changing. And I don't see how that would be imperialism, i'm not even sure how YOU think it is lol... your definition of imperialism is basically ANY form of funding given to ANY country even if its not to instill your own puppet regime or even increased influence there. Basically right now Russia is an imperialistic country by ur definition because it sells nucleur plants to Iran. Under your definiton, China/N Korea are also imperialistic for selling arms to Iran. France is imperialistic for selling arms to Iraq. America was imperialistic when giving resources to Churchill and Britain in 1940 (before we entered the war). And what does this even have to do with Bush? Me pointing out why Iran-Iraq war wasn't driven by America or imperialistic has no relation to Bush's policies at all, though I know your illogical arguing techniques will somehow try to pin a war 20 years before Bush's presidency on him as well somehow.

This post has been edited by Renegade: 28 July 2005 - 03:18 AM

[Renegade]

This place is an ant-semitic echo chamber.

Heh it really is. The hypocricy is the best part of it though. On one side they argue that terrorists are justified because they are being opresssed thus there only means is to use terrorism and any means necessary to get rid of the "zionists". Yet they don't ever mention the fact that the state itself was also created on that same idea, that they were being so oppressed that they needed their own land and sought any means to protect themselves.

Palestine and other Arab countries were vigorously pro Nazi Germany and many gave them their support so their can also be a case made that they got what they deserved as spoils of war to WWII. Not to mention the idea that Israeli's just came in out of no where to own the land is ridiculous as well, the Palestine that existed immidiately after WWII still had 33% israeli's and a decent amount of land ownership (yes its a minority but its not like 2 zionists came out of the blue and declared Palestine theirs with UN backing).

This post has been edited by Renegade: 28 July 2005 - 03:21 AM

[Jordan]

The reason nobody gives a shit about the Jew's being forced from their homeland is because it happened so long ago. Time white washes just about everything.

[Ham Salad]

Salad: That's not a proper analogy. We raped and pillaged and stole from the "Native Americans" as fairly as spreading chicken pox and using firearms could allow. The Palestinians got swept aside by a third party (the newly formed United Nations) under pressure by terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stop using the possessive form "we". I am not responsible for the acts of others who share my skin color and only my skin color. Again, you show yourelf to be just such a victim of the white male guilt conspiracy. Only whites, particularly white males, are allowed by PC doctrine to be blamed on a collective basis by virtue of their skin color and sex and nothing more.

I'm off to blame modern day ethnic Egyptians for the enslavement of Jews in the time of Ramses.
Your line of reasoning is very convenient for erroneously assigning blame... and nothing more.

[Ham Salad]

Arab lived in and ruled Palestine ever since the fall of the Roman empire. They only lost rule of Palestine when Britain came in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell that to the Ottoman Turks, they might beg to differ on two of your grossly incorrect points.

You can find this at a place called a library, check under a section labeled history.

[Jordan]

That's true, about the white guilt thing. Because hitler was white and slavery, it seems that white politicians have this tremendous guilt thing going on.


It's true JM, 1516-1918 Ottoman's controlled the lands.

I found this

8000 BC: Permanent agricultural settlements in Jericho.
2500 BC: Settlement of the Canaanites.
1250 BC: Israelite conquest of Canaan.
965-928 BC: Reign of King Solomon.
721 BC: Assyrian conquest of Israel.
586 BC: Judah defeated by Babylonians.
539 BC: Persians conquer Babylonia.
333 BC: Alexander's conquest of Persia brings Greek rule.
165 BC: Revolt of the Maccabees.
63 BC: Palestine incorporated into Roman Empire.
70 AD: Destruction of Jerusalem Temple by Romans.
135: Bar Kokhba revolt suppressed.
330: Palestine under Byzantine rule (to 638).
638: Muslims capture Palestine from Byzantines.
1099: Jerusalem under Crusader control (to 1187).
1291: Mamelukes capture final Crusader strongholds Acre and Caesarea.
1516: Ottomans capture Palestine (to 1917).
1776-1804: Ahmad Pasha Al Jazzar appointed Ottoman ruler of Acre; builds port, monopolizes trade.
1799: Napoleon attacks Acre; repulsed by Al Jazzar.
1832: Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt occupies Palestine (to 1840).
1840: Lord Palmerston advocates Jewish immigration to Palestine.
1869: Suez Canal opened.
1878: First Zionist settlement at Petach Tiqwa.
1882-1903: First wave of 25,000 Zionist immigrants.
1906-14: Second wave of 40,000 Zionist immigrants.
1909: Tel Aviv founded north of Jaffa.
1914: World War I starts; Ottoman Empire joins war on side of Germany, and attacks Russia.
1916: Sykes-Picot Agreement secretly divides Ottoman Empire.
1917: Balfour Declaration pledges UK support for "a Jewish national home in Palestine."
1918: Palestine occupied by UK forces under General Allenby; World War I ends.
1919-23: Third wave of over 35,000 Zionist immigrants.
1920: League of Nations mandates Palestine and Mesopotamia to UK.
1921: UK appoints Haj Amin al-Husseini as Mufti of Jerusalem
1922: UK excludes Transjordan from Jewish immigration; first UK census of Palestine shows 78% Muslim Arab, 11% Jewish, 9.6% Christian Arab.
1924-28: Fourth wave of 67,000 Zionist immigrants, raising Jewish population to 16%.
1929-39: Fifth wave of over 250,000 Zionist immigrants, raising Jewish population to 30%.
1936-39: Arab rebellion in Palestine.
1939-45: World War II in Europe.
1947: UN adopts plan to partition Palestine into two states; Israel declares independence, fights war against Arab forces.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 28 July 2005 - 07:53 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Ham Salad- Your presence here has added nothing to the debate except condescension and insults, and this is my last post to you.

Renegade-

1: Jeebus man it's just a title, I refer to His Excellency The President of Palestine in the same way. If honoring people who oppose imperialism bothers you it's probably because you're an imperialist.

2: The burden of proof lies upon you. Prove that it ISNT illegal to starve Cuban citizens for no good reason and against international wishes. I see no reason why it wouldnt be.

3: Yeah yeah what happened to Saddam was just an individual soldier. Just like all the torture was just individual soldiers. Just like all the dead Iraqis were killed by individual soldiers. Just like the war was begun by an individual mad man. At what point do you realize that the American policy of genocide and torture is no accident? It is ILLEGAL to distribute any photos of POWs at all, much less those where they're naked and being led around on a leash. The US has flagrantly violated the Geneva convention time and again.

4: So if the US motives aren't noble why do you blame people for fighting against them?

5: His Excellency's revolution will live on unless the US interferes. You try forming a stable government when an evil super power is trying to destroy it. It's a myracle he's done as well as he has.

[J m HofMarN]

6: Zionist soldiers are nearly impossible to kill since they have so many advantages that the freedom fighters do not. It only makes sense that the freedom fighters target them while they're not almost invulnerable.

7: How can you call it war when one side does not have an army to defend itself? The Zionist soldiers shoot Palestinian children or civilians as their main target. The freedom fighters are justified to fight back however they can.

8: Of course the Zionists benefit from murdering Palestinian civilians or else they wouldnt do it. They hope that killing enough Palestinian innocents will break the will of Palestine, but they are wrong. The will to gain freedom is always stronger than the will to oppress.

9: So my timing was off. I apologize. Most Zionists came to Israel just before ww2. That still dosnt justify them taking it over.

10: Would you settle for liberating only 95% of Nazi occupied territories in world war two?

11: Half of what you mentioned is just regular trade. However the US has a history of military intervention and propping up corrupt dictatorships. When the British had an imperialist system they let certain colonies have their own governments. For instance, Argentina was independent, but completely reliant on the British since they controlled most of its industries.

The US has a history of using economic means to sway or control foreign nations, and then influencing their elections, and when that fails paying people to wage war to overthrow the government, and when that fails straight up invading. The genocide that is inherent in american policy is shown through the oppression of blacks, native Americans, and now of Palestinians and Iraqis. It is shown by our willingness to write off the deaths of tens of thousands in South America as a "mistake" and never prosecute those in our government who are responsible.

The US is an imperialist power, the greatest imperialist power. The sooner you admit this the sooner you'll be able to join those who are trying to stop American aggression. Your argument is not that what we do is not evil, you're simply trying to put a less evil name to it. This is the same plan Bush uses and such doublespeak needs to end.

Jordan- That's definately a helpful time line, but the Ottomans were pretty much Muslims, and I believe Palestine had at least some form of self rule during that time. In any event it goes to show that Palestine has for most of history been occupied and ruled by its natives, and not Zionists.

[Ham Salad]

6: Zionist soldiers are nearly impossible to kill since they have so many advantages that the Jordan- That's definately a helpful time line, but the Ottomans were pretty much Muslims, and I believe Palestine had at least some form of self rule during that time. In any event it goes to show that Palestine has for most of history been occupied and ruled by its natives, and not Zionists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

JM you're so un-smart that it hurts.

Ottomans are Muslims, but they are not Arabs! Muslim does not equal Arab. Call a Turk an Arab, and you'll be picking up your teeth with broken fingers.

Do you at least know of Laurence of Arabia and his battling of the turks with allied arab tribes?

Jews are not natives? Palestine is a name given to the lands by the Romans. Jews have been there since recorded history you fool. They had been trying to re-establish their homeland, a state for ethnic jews for thousands of years.

Throw in the towel, your ignorance is unbecoming.
You won't reply because you know you're wrong and I'm shoving your face into the crap you toss all over these boards.