Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 May 2002 07:59:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
779 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > > > 18 months of suicide bombings will have that effect. I guess Israel never
> > > > > should have withdrew in 1997.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps they should never have invaded in '67?
> > >
> > > Well if 5 Arab armies had not attacked them they probably would not have.
> >
> > You should have paid more attention in history class. This is not quite true.
> >
> > > >
> > > > *If* it meant a lasting piece, do you think Israel should hand back the West
> > > > Bank, or do you think they should get to keep what god gave them ~3000 years
> > > > ago?
> > >
> > > *If* it meant peace then yes I do think Israel would hand back the West Bank.
> > > That was why Barak was elected and offered peace to Arafat in the first • place.
> > > (Because the people supported it and thought it would mean peace.) The • current
> > > political atmoshere in Israel was a direct result of offering peace and • getting
> > > a terror war instead. That is why Sharon was elected. (Despite his poor
> > > record) That is the whole mid-east problem in a nutshell. (Maybe you disagree
> > > but I do not understand why once you study the history of the past few years,
> > > let alone the whole 54 years.)
> >
> > Has all the land taken in '67 ever been offered back... I don't think so.
>
> Odd? The Arab countries that controled the land (and forced the Arab refugees
> now called Palastinians into the refuge camps in the first place) have not
> requested the land back.
That is a notion which is quite wrong.
> Dispite this 97% of that land has been under direct
> palastinian control since 1993. (I mistyped 1997 earlier in the thread)
You have *not* answered my question have you? The answer is no!
> >
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > How free is a society if its leaders are in the pocket of an overseas
> > > > pressure group? I would worry if it were my country. AIPAC supports
> > > > candidates from your main parties, and even those from groups like the LP.
> > >
> > > Therein lies a seperate problem. The people in Washinton are supposed to be
> > > representatives of the people not politicans. 99% of the United States • social
> > > problems would practically disapper if the Constitution were reinstated as • its
> > > basis of government.
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > > Of course not. If all your information was based on State Controlled media • you
> > > > > unquestionably trusted, how would that affect your beliefs.
> > > >
> > > > That is not the situation though is it? In the occupied territories, the
> > > > media may not be "free" but the news is all around them - tanks,
> > > > checkpoints, air raids etc.
> > >
> > > Right, but the people are not told that it is because of the suicide • bombings,
> > > they are told it is because Israelies are evil oppressors.
> >
> > To a certain extent they are "oppressors". Check their human rights record!
>
> Who forced the Palastinians into refugee camps in the first place? Not Israel.
Who made them refugee's? I accept it would have been more convenient for
Israel if the Arab states had accepted them into their population more. But
why should they? Why should Israel be allowed to steal their land? Would you
let them steal yours? Really?
Let's get back to my question; does any of that excuse Israel’s shocking
(excuse the pun) human rights record?
> >
> > > The Saudi-Arabia
> > > state controled newspaper printed an article durring the Jewish holiday of
> > > passover. It told the Arab public how "[Jewish Vampires kidnap Arab • Children,
> > > put them in barrels with hundreds of needles and drain their blood for their
> > > evil rituals.]" Why this sort of blatant Arab propaganda did not recieve a
> > > huge outcry like anything Israel does is quite baffling to me.
> >
> > I've not read it, but it sounds rather pathetic. What about the words of
> > the late Rehavam Zeevi, were his views any more acceptable to you?
> >
> > > My local
> > > newspaper had a small article about it at the time, but it was buried in some
> > > obscure place toward the back.
> > > >
> > > > > They keep the
> > > > > masses discontent and have a scapegoat to blame it on. That strengthens • their
> > > > > power base and gives them lots of mindless volunteers. Heck, if I was • naive
> > > > > enough to believe innocent women and children were evil and that by blowing
> > > > > them up I would go to heaven, I just might sign up.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think Sharon thinks about "innocent women and children". Do you
> > > > think he feels he has a place in heaven? Or does he know what he is doing
> > > > (and has done) is wrong? What about the Israeli electorate? They voted for
> > > > him knowing his history.
> > >
> > > I never said I supported Sharon.
> >
> > I did not ask that.
> >
> > > I do support Israel's right to fight back
> > > though.
> >
> > Do the Palestinians not have the “right to fight back”?
>
> From Israel offering peace?!
No, fight back against Israeli agrression!
> What the heck?! Arafat formed the PLO in 1964
> with the intention of destroying Israel. Note the date, 3 years before Israel
> invaded. Up to that point the only thing Israel had done was exist.
lol
> Arabs do
> not want the "infidels" in their midst its as simple as that. Everything else
> is smoke and mirors.
2 examples of "smoke and mirrors":
Where did the refugees come from?
What was Israel's role in Suez?
<snip>
> > > > The Constitution gave you the Government you (the US electorate) did *not*
> > > > vote for... ;)
> > >
> > > Well that is a common fallacy. Gore's supposed popular vote majority was a
> > > smaller percentage than Bush's percentage win in the recounted Florida vote.
> >
> > There is also the small matter of those who did vote but their votes were
> > not counted... ... and those who should have been able to vote but could
> > not! ;)
>
> Hence the whole margin of error. Most of the time the people vote for a
> canidate by a wide enough margin to overcome it. There is no way of knowing
> who really won the popular vote. That is why the electorate is there.
I can tell you preferred Bush!? ;)
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) never (...) true. (...) West (...) years (...) Bank. (...) disagree (...) years, (...) refugees (...) be (...) media (...) Israel. (...) This excerpt from one of Mona Charen's articles conters your argument far better than I can and includes (...) (22 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) place. (...) current (...) getting (...) Odd? The Arab countries that controled the land (and forced the Arab refugees now called Palastinians into the refuge camps in the first place) have not requested the land back. Dispite this 97% of that (...) (22 years ago, 15-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
