|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#61
July 14th 03, 05:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Which Came First - Terrorism or "Occupation"?
There were 3000 terrorist attempts before the '67 war. The following is a partial list of documented acts of Arab errorism, all occurring prior to the beginning of the Israeli administration of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967: snip for brevity Uhmmm...you seem to have left out: "The Massacre of Baldat al-Shaikh (Dec. 31, 1947) in which over 600 unarmed Palestinian men, women and children were slaughtered; Never heard of it; never happened. When, where, proof. evidence of any kind??? Never happened? Do a Google on it and you will come up with an amazing number of hits for this "never happened" event. One sample: Well, since there are over 50 ARabs for every Israeli Jew so I would expect to see their stories more represented than the ISraeli side of them. I saw no Jewish or Israeli references so the following is one of the many dozens of Palestinian claims I found regarding this alleged "massac" "This massacre took place] following an argument which broke out between Palestinian workers and Zionists in the Haifa Petroleum Refinery, leading to the deaths of a number of Palestinians and wounding and killing approximately sixty Zionists." [My comment: Up to this point in the narrative, I read about an argument and sixty "zionists" being killed.] "... A large number of the Palestinian Arab workers were living in Baldat al-Shaikh and Hawasa, located in the southeast of Haifa. Consequently, the Zionists planned to take revenge on behalf of fellow Zionists who had been killed in the refinery by attacking Baldat al-Shaikh and Hawasa.1 On the night of January 30-31, 1947, a mixed force composed of the First Battalion of Palmakh and the Carmelie brigade (estimated at approximately 150 to 200 Zionist terrorists) launched a raid against the two towns under the leadership of Hayim Afinu'am.]2 They focused their attack on the outskirts of Baldat al-Shaikh and Hawasa. Taking the outlying homes by surprise as their inhabitants slept, they pelted them with hand grenades, then went inside, firing their machine guns.3 The terrorist attack led to the deaths of approximately sixty citizens inside their homes, most of them women, elderly and children.4 The attack lasted for an hour, after which the Zionists withdrew at 2:00 a.m., having attacked a large number of noncombatant homes.5 According to a report written by the leader of the terrorist operation, "the attacking units slipped into the town and began working on the houses. And due to the fact that gunfire was directed inside the rooms, it was not possible to avoid injuring women and children."6} [My comment: They say here that the resultant retaliatory strike COULD NOT POSSIBLY AVOID hitting women and children. So they admit the attack was not specifically UPON women and children, but that they were collateral damage.] injuring women and children. "The massacres started early: Major General R. Dare Wilson, who served with the British troops trying to keep peace in Palestine before the end of the British Mandate, reported that on Dec. 18, 1947, the Haganah murdered 10, mostly women and children, in the Arab village of al-Khisas with grenades and machine gun fire. Wilson also described how on Dec. 31 the Haganah slaughtered another 14, again mostly women and children, again using machine guns and throwing grenades into occupied homes, this time in Balad Esh-Sheikh. [12] Throughout 1948, the massacres continued: 60 at Sa'sa' on Feb. 15; 100 murdered in Acre after its May 18 seizure by the Haganah; several hundred at Lydda on July 12, including 80 machine-gunned inside the Dahmash Mosque; 100 at Dawayma on Oct. 29, with an Israeli eye-witness reporting that "the children were killed by smashing their skulls with clubs"; 13 young men mowed down by machine guns in open fields outside Eilabun on Oct. 30; another 70 young men blindfolded and shot to death, one after another, at Safsaf the same day; 12 killed at Majd al-Kurum, also on Oct. 30, with a Belgian U.N. observer writing that "there is no doubt about these murders"; an unknown number killed the next day at al-Bi'na and Deir al-Assad, described by a U.N. official as "wanton slaying without provocation"; 14 "liquidated," according to the Israeli military's report, at Khirbet al-Wa'ra as-Sauda on Nov. 2. [13] Most of the above is bull, and upon closer examination of the facts, it is found that JEws were attacked FIRST, and in the retaliatory strikes, civilians caught up were collateral damage, often the immediate relatives of the original Arab attackers. It's all the usual Arab claims, that its okay for them to attack, but if the JEws hit back it's criminal. A particularly repugnant method of killing employed by the Jewish militias was the blowing up of houses with their occupants still inside, often at night. The militia would place explosive charges around the stone houses, drench the wooden window and door frames with gasoline, and then open fire, simultaneously dynamiting and burning the sleeping inhabitants to death. [14]" That's only AFTER the hagana would order them to come out and surrender, and they refused. As everyone knows, the Arabs gleefully put up their own wives, children and aged as shields, and often dress up as women (literally) to try to fool the Israelis who are usually loathe to shoot women and children, and will often either escape or strike using such lowlife ruses. I do feel sorry for Arab children and wives to have such "men" as their heads of households. Source: http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller3.html His number at Baldat al-Shaikh (which he refers to by the alternative Balad Esh-Sheikh) is quite different from that "five hundred" used in the other report, but then that is just haggling over the *degree* of guilt, not that it exists. No, it is the *USUAL* Arab form of doing business: first exaggerate the price or story by a factor of 5 or 10 and then you can haggle down to a more believable figure. The Arabs are shameless in this and see nothing wrong with it. At least the Leftist Jew who lied about the extend of Deir Yassin only DOUBLED the number actually killed. The Arabs always start their exaggerations or outright lies by an exaggeration factor of 5 to tenfold. You might also do a Google on "Stern Gang" and "Irgun" if you are interested in reading *the other side* of the story... the Israelis (collective) are hardly innocent lambs when it comes to terrorism and murder. First of all, they came into being LONG after Arab terrorism began, indeed well into the late 1940s, long after the first Palestinian leader, Haj Amin El Husseini helped the SS murder thousands of Jews in the Balkans, and after his planning a concentration camp that he was ready to set up outside Nablus as soon as Rommel broke through. At any rate, Jewish terrorism, which was really lightweight stuff for the most part compared to the Arabs, was late in coming and was condemned by BenGurion's Left-wing Jewish Agency which helped the Brits to round them up. the Massacre of Dair Yasin (Apr. 10, 1948) in which a whole village of 500 unarmed Palestinian civilians were slaughtered by Israelis; EVen the Palestinians themselves don't use this lie anymore. I have a BBC tape where the villagers were interviewed, and altogether, perhaps 114 died, including possibly 25 which indeed were executed ("massacred'). The original figure of 254 was made up by Jewish leftist in order to discredit Begin and the Irgun which was a rival of the Ben Gurion and the mainstreat leftists who controlled the zionist movement. And even the old villagers affirm there were no rapes or mutilations as was originally alleged and circulated for decade. Gee, only 114? I guess that makes it OK then (sarcasm switch to "on" position). By the way, at what point does an atrocity become an atrocity, in your opinion? If 114 is good-to-go, then all of those recent Palestinian suicide bombings don't count either? Most were killed when they fired from the homes, and naturally, having been given an offer to surrender (though it is said the sound truck got caught in a ditch and so the offer may not have been heard by the Arabs), the Irgun irregulars returned fire and lobbed grenades into the homes from which the men were firing from behind their women and children, as usual. Many men tried to escape dressed as women, and fired on the IRgun irregulars, who admittedly were not well trained being most recently arrived concentration camp survivors, who indeed went overboard in rounding up some of these snivelling Arab dogs who would dress as women and fire from behind their own children, and had them shot and thrown down wells. There were about 25 such, with the rest having died in normal battle which they could have avoided had they surrendered. BTW, I did not mention the massacres by Arabs of hundreds of Jews that occured in the 1920s and '30s, not to mention during the '48 war. Check out the founding date for the Irgun, if you want to be completely fair about this issue. How about the killing of Bernadotte? Was that OK as well? When was the Irgun founded? I should think after 1939, certainly long after such atrocities as the cold blooded murder of 64 yeshiva students in Hebron in 1929 who weren't even zionists. As for Bernadotte, that is a tough one. He was using his "Jew savior" status from WWII to try to reverse the Partition vote of NOvember 1947, which would have reversed the vote and quashed the idea of a Jewish state after the UN vote had been voted on and passed. Should the Stern group have assassinated him for that? I can't say. I know the Arabs assassinated people left and right for much less than that and I don't see why the JEws have to be THAT much better than the Arabs. If your opponent is a ruthless, soulless and bloodthirsty, how goody-goody can you be? I mean, the US bombed Japanese and German cities to rubble even though no US cities were bombed during WWII. Does that mean that Americans are more ruthless and bloodthirsty than the Germans or Japanese? THe answer is, that when you are dealing with ruthless creatures you cannot be pristine and expect to win with the help of angels. Even in the bible that's relatively rare. (some more Arab fabrications and wild exaggerations deleted for brevity). Listen Kevin, most of the stuff you listed either never happened or were WILDLY exaggerated, Given that you think 114 is an OK amount of dead, or for that matter the 25 that you acknowledge were executed, I am not surprised that you find this all rather inconsequential. In battle people get killed. If our troops are being fired upon from houses in Baghdad, I should hope our troops will not overly risk their lives. Of course they ought to throw grenades into the houses and not overly risk their own lives trying to sneak inside and overly exposing themselves. And if some women and children that their fathers chose to hide behind are killed, well whose fault is that? It's the fault of those shooting from their houses, of course. I mean, what are our troops supposed to do, stage month-long Waco siege around every house they are being fired upon from? As for the 25 actually "massacred" afterwards, their craven manner,using women's clothing to disguise themselves, and fire on the Jews, and the like, warrant their summary removal from the gene pool. Now, even though you acknowledge at least one incident of cold-blooded executions, can you tell me how many Israelis, in the entire history of the nation, have been arrested, tried, and/or convicted of terrorist-type attacks on Palestinians? Given that the Stern Gang and Irgun did really exist, and did really do some rather nasty things, one would think that some number of Israelis have been held accountable for acts which occured over the last 50-plus years...but to my knowledge, the answer would be along the lines of the Bernadotte murder, where the case remains "unsolved"...but hey, that's OK, right? Israelis are to be applauded for committing murders and executions, but by-golly-those-Palestinians-better-cough-up-every-terrorist-RIGHT NOW...? Where are the Arab condemnations of Haj Amin El Husseini, Arafat's uncle, who worked with Hitler in Berlin in helping him with the Holocaust? A declared war criminal, no less than any major Nazi SS bigwig, he ultimately escaped justice and died peacefully in Cairo in 1974. As a declared war criminal at the Nuremberg trials, no one in the Arab world seem to do much to help extradite him to justice. But ISrael is not asking that every terrorist be "coughed up." Israel is demanding that the PA disband Hamas and all other terror groups in the same way that the IRgun, Stern group and others were disbanded and became part of the singular IDF after 1949. There can only be ONE Palestinian militia and not a myriad of them operating independently, just as there is one ISraeli army and not a dozen Israeli militias. just like "Comical ALi's" assertions of no US marines in Baghdad. Massive lying is an old ARab tradition. And apparently a new Israeli one. At any rate, if we want to go back to determine who spilled blood first, Arabs or Jews, I can confidently assert that Muhammad the Prophet committed a massacre of 600 Jews near Medina (Yathrib originally founded by Jews in Arabia), enslaving their women and children, robbing them of their wealth, and ethnically cleansing the remainder out of the Hijaz (northern Arabia and what is now Jordan), an edict which stands to this day. ARabs drew FIRST blood, both in the seventh century and in the 20th century. They put their mosques on Jewish soil, not the other way round. THere are no synagogues on ARabian soil. Arabs are the aggressors; Jews are the defenders. No, it is not about who was first--it is about realizing that the violence has gone *both* ways, instead of trying to portray all Muslims as evil murderers and all Israelis as White Knights. But you can't admit to that, because it would tarnish your "Israel is good/Arabs are evil" foundation for this entire discussion. I don't tarnish Americans by calling them evil just because they killed more German and Japanese civilians. I still maintain that in WWII, the Japanese and Germans were more evil than the Americans despite the latter. .... Uhmmm...do you have anything a bit more concrete? And just how did these Pakistanis manage to go 10-0 during a war where most Arab airpower was destroyed on the ground or never got into the fight? Lastly, why bother? Your point regarding alleged Pakistani pilots involved in the 67 War would be germane to the present issues exactly *how*? I don't know how true it is, but the Israeiis did lose 50 planes in that war, and Pakis have long proudly claimed that their pilots were among the few Muslim pilots that downed ISraeli jets. They make the claim, and I have no verification of it, one way or the other. Is it germane? Well, it might have something to do with why the US is hesitating to supply Pakistan with the F-16s it paid for long ago. That, and the fact that I suppose they can carry nuclear weapons. The first is a non-issue as regards the F-16's; they were embargoed because of the nuclear program. The US frowns on proliferation...but Israel? Different view, apparently, as backed up by their cooperation with the former South African nuclear weapons program... That was way back in the 1970s, and only because the Arabs had bought virtually all the black African states into going against Israel. This despite the fact that in 1958 Israel was the first country in the UN to condemn apartheid, and had the largest technical aid assistance program in Africa, proportionately speaking. SO it was the perfidy of the black states that forced Israel to go over to doing business with SA. .... First of all, as I have often stated before, nukes are a Jewish invention and that fact alone gives ISrael the right to have them. Now that is perverted logic if I have ever heard it. Nerve gas was a German invention--does that give Germany the right to posses it? Was it? Or was it a British invention? At any rate, there is an international ban against anyone having nerve gas, whereas there is no such ban against nukes. What there is is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty where countries that disavow making nukes are allowed to purchase nuclear materials on the world market. Since Israel is NOT a signatory, it may not purchase nuclear materials, such as reactors, on the world market. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, the NPT and the IAEA do not make it illegal for countries to make nuclear weapons, PROVIDED they do not obtain any materials abroad. But if a country has EVERYTHING it needs to make nukes within its own borders, it has the sovereign right to make nukes. And all of the other states in the region are recognized and no one is threatening to wipe them off the map. Except Israel, with its nukes, right? Israel has not officially declared itself a nuclear state, and had not officially threatened anyone. But Israel has always claimed the right to preempt, just as the US now officially does. I don't think there is a nation on earth, including the US, that has a greater right to nukes than does Israel. And Israel has the right to preemptively strike at any state in the region that is hostile to ISrael and seeking WMD to destroy Israel. More perverted logic. The way you portray it, Israel is a purely Machiavellian Institution, and whatever it chooses to do defines "right", instead of having policies that follow "right". In fact, i believe the main reason the US went to war in Iraq was to avoid a possible nuclear strike by Israel on Iraq. You are joking, right? No, I am not. I agree that Iraq did not really pose a direct threat to the US. Saddam did pose a threat to ISrael, and if the US did not get rid of him using its mighty conventional power, ISrael would have had to do so eventually using nukes if it thought Saddam was developing them again. At any rate, no Arab or Muslim had anything to do with inventing nukes as did Jewish scientists. More warped reasoning. Israel had nothing to do with the invention of either the motorcar or the airplane--so they have no right to them? ISrael has failed as a major manufacturer of planes and automobiles  If Iran or any state in the region threatens Israel with WMD it can expect a nuclear attack by Israel at any time. Israel is too small to wait to absorb a first strike. Puhlease...get real. That's a REAL as I can get. ANd trust me,that's the MAIN reason why Bush is involved in the Middle East. It has little to do with oil or any direct threat to the US. It has mainly to do with avoiding an eventual nuclear war in the ME, if at all possible. The reality is, that Israel is a tiny state comprised of mostly 5 million Jews, most of the male population of whom serves for weeks annually in the reserves for most of their adult lives, and which faces not only 4 million Arab enemies internally, Nope. I like the Taiwanese. WE defend the Taiwanese more than we defend Israel. LOL! Harken back to 73 and the DEFCON status that Nixon placed us at in response to Soviet rumblings vis-a-vis the Yom Kippur War. Rumblings? That was AFTER the war had already started and the Soviet resupply of the Egyptians was already going on for days! Nixon didn't want to be seen as not backing ISrael while the Russians were pumping in resupplies to the Egyptians, and threatening direct intervention if Sharon destroyed the Egyptian army! The US STOPPED Sharon from killing the surrounded Egyptian armies in Sinai from thirst. Obviously, the US could not allow the Soviets to unilaterally intervene, but it did pressure Sharon to let up. If not, SHaron would gone to Cairo and forced a surrender of Egypt. Rcall that US Patriots and crews went to Israel during ODS. And remember that we are not giving Taiwan billions of bucks each and every year. Consider those FACTS, and then you might begin to get a clue... The Patriots were always of symbolic importance, and only recently of some limited value, though they did shoot down a few friendly planes. As for not giving Taiwan a few billion bucks, we actually gave Taiwan a HELLUVA LOT more INDIRECT aid than to Israel. How? After the Vietnam war we looked the other way as Taiwan and the other "Asian Tigers" knocked off US goods left and right, such as clothing, Apple Computers, software in Singapore, etc., to the tune of possibly TRILLIONS of dollars! And despite outcries by Apple and scores of other domestic companies, we did nothing about the cloning, knockoffs, and intellectual property ripoffs! Why not? Because after our defeat in Vietnam, we WANTED the Asian countries surrounding China to get rich as quickly as possible, to immunize them against communist influence. Our domestic producers took a trillion dollar hit, or more. These countries didn't just go from rice paddies to chip fabrication plants like that, ya know! And this strategy of turning a blind eye in the '70s to Asian ripoffs of US goods worked like a charm! It's not by a pure fluke that Taiwan, with only 20 million people has a foreign reserve SURPLUS of something like $90 billion dollars, the largest in the world! It has more foreign reserves than all the aid the US has given to ISrael in 50 years combined! It and it didn't get that way purely from hard work and good luck either! .... At any rate, I reiterate, if the US sells Egypt and Saudi Arabia modern equipment, why shouldn't Israel sell to China, Cuba or anyone who can pay for it? Israel also sells to the US. So ISrael ought to do the same as the US, and arms BOTH sides. Why is this wrong? Because we are footing the bill. Can the aid to Israel, and they can sell to whomever they darned well choose--but they should not be allowed to have it both ways. Kind of like what my father used to tell me--"As long as I pay the bills, you live by *my* rules." We are paying the bills. You've got that ass-backwards! We give ISrael aid in order to CONTROL its arms sales and its foreign policy, as well as competition with US companies. WE'd much rather give Israel $3 billion in aid than have it freely sell to whomever it wanted to just as the US does,in order to earn its own keep by itself. 
|
|
#63
July 14th 03, 07:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message om... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (JGB) wrote in message . com... (Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com... (phil hunt) wrote in message ... Which Came First - Terrorism or "Occupation"? There were 3000 terrorist attempts before the '67 war. The following is a partial list of documented acts of Arab errorism, all occurring prior to the beginning of the Israeli administration of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967: snip for brevity Uhmmm...you seem to have left out: "The Massacre of Baldat al-Shaikh (Dec. 31, 1947) in which over 600 unarmed Palestinian men, women and children were slaughtered; Never heard of it; never happened. When, where, proof. evidence of any kind??? Never happened? Do a Google on it and you will come up with an amazing number of hits for this "never happened" event. One sample: "The massacres started early: Major General R. Dare Wilson, who served with the British troops trying to keep peace in Palestine before the end of the British Mandate, reported that on Dec. 18, 1947, the Haganah murdered 10, mostly women and children, in the Arab village of al-Khisas with grenades and machine gun fire. Wilson also described how on Dec. 31 the Haganah slaughtered another 14, again mostly women and children, again using machine guns and throwing grenades into occupied homes, this time in Balad Esh-Sheikh. [12] Throughout 1948, the massacres continued: 60 at Sa'sa' on Feb. 15; 100 murdered in Acre after its May 18 seizure by the Haganah; several hundred at Lydda on July 12, including 80 machine-gunned inside the Dahmash Mosque; 100 at Dawayma on Oct. 29, with an Israeli eye-witness reporting that "the children were killed by smashing their skulls with clubs"; 13 young men mowed down by machine guns in open fields outside Eilabun on Oct. 30; another 70 young men blindfolded and shot to death, one after another, at Safsaf the same day; 12 killed at Majd al-Kurum, also on Oct. 30, with a Belgian U.N. observer writing that "there is no doubt about these murders"; an unknown number killed the next day at al-Bi'na and Deir al-Assad, described by a U.N. official as "wanton slaying without provocation"; 14 "liquidated," according to the Israeli military's report, at Khirbet al-Wa'ra as-Sauda on Nov. 2. [13] A particularly repugnant method of killing employed by the Jewish militias was the blowing up of houses with their occupants still inside, often at night. The militia would place explosive charges around the stone houses, drench the wooden window and door frames with gasoline, and then open fire, simultaneously dynamiting and burning the sleeping inhabitants to death. [14]" Source: http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller3.html His number at Baldat al-Shaikh (which he refers to by the alternative Balad Esh-Sheikh) is quite different from that "five hundred" used in the other report, but then that is just haggling over the *degree* of guilt, not that it exists. You might also do a Google on "Stern Gang" and "Irgun" if you are interested in reading *the other side* of the story... the Israelis (collective) are hardly innocent lambs when it comes to terrorism and murder. Israelis never perpetrate terror for a purpose of terror. Not even once in the history of Israel, not even by one organization. For example, before the Battle of Dir Yasin : (taken from: http://www.etzel.org.il/ac17.htm) Strict orders were given to the fighters not to harm children and elders. Strict orders were given about treatment of captives. It was specifically ordered to take captive every Arab that will surrender. On an armored car a loudspeaker was installed and the Israelis announced when they approached that anyone who will leave the village will not be hurt. Israel lost 1% of its population in this war and that the fightings were done by several different organizations and by untrained civilians (we didn't have one organised army then). The measures taken before the battle are something you won't find in other places in history in similar situations. This battle is the only known battle were Arab were murdered, or massacred if you want to, and still the stories about rapes etc. are lies. Urban legends were born on 2002 too, for example on the battle in Jenin. Strict measures not to harm citizens were enacted by the IDF, and still we all know the Urban legends of Jenin. On 2002 for a change, Israel had the technology to prove the Arab lies and photographed a fake funeral of Arabs in Jenin. the Massacre of Dair Yasin (Apr. 10, 1948) in which a whole village of 500 unarmed Palestinian civilians were slaughtered by Israelis; EVen the Palestinians themselves don't use this lie anymore. I have a BBC tape where the villagers were interviewed, and altogether, perhaps 114 died, including possibly 25 which indeed were executed ("massacred'). The original figure of 254 was made up by Jewish leftist in order to discredit Begin and the Irgun which was a rival of the Ben Gurion and the mainstreat leftists who controlled the zionist movement. And even the old villagers affirm there were no rapes or mutilations as was originally alleged and circulated for decade. Gee, only 114? I guess that makes it OK then (sarcasm switch to "on" position). By the way, at what point does an atrocity become an atrocity, in your opinion? If 114 is good-to-go, then all of those recent Palestinian suicide bombings don't count either? BTW, I did not mention the massacres by Arabs of hundreds of Jews that occured in the 1920s and '30s, not to mention during the '48 war. Check out the founding date for the Irgun, if you want to be completely fair about this issue. How about the killing of Bernadotte? Was that OK as well? the Massacre of Lid (July 11, 1948) in which about 426 unarmed Palestinians were slaughtered; More fabricated myths of events that never occurred. You'd call it Lod, and the number of dead, and their status as combatants/non-combatants, receives different treatment in various sources. There was reference to the forced eviction of the Arab civilians by Rabin, who was present when it happened and commented about the need to use "warning shots" as they herded them down the road. the Massacre of Kufr Qasim (Oct. 29, 1956) in which 50 Palestinian men, women and children were killed; the Massacre of Khan Younis refugee camp (Nov. 3, 1956) in which 250 Palestinians were killed and nine days later, another 275 Palestinians were killed..." (Source: www.bsudailynews.com/vnews/display.v/ ART/2002/12/03/3dec367c1b9df That too is only a partial list. Rememeber that bit about shades of gray? Listen Kevin, most of the stuff you listed either never happened or were WILDLY exaggerated, Given that you think 114 is an OK amount of dead, or for that matter the 25 that you acknowledge were executed, I am not surprised that you find this all rather inconsequential. Now, even though you acknowledge at least one incident of cold-blooded executions, can you tell me how many Israelis, in the entire history of the nation, have been arrested, tried, and/or convicted of terrorist-type attacks on Palestinians? Given that the Stern Gang and Irgun did really exist, and did really do some rather nasty things, one would think that some number of Israelis have been held accountable for acts which occured over the last 50-plus years...but to my knowledge, the answer would be along the lines of the Bernadotte murder, where the case remains "unsolved"...but hey, that's OK, right? Israelis are to be applauded for committing murders and executions, but by-golly-those-Palestinians-better-cough-up-every-terrorist-RIGHT NOW...? just like "Comical ALi's" assertions of no US marines in Baghdad. Massive lying is an old ARab tradition. And apparently a new Israeli one. At any rate, if we want to go back to determine who spilled blood first, Arabs or Jews, I can confidently assert that Muhammad the Prophet committed a massacre of 600 Jews near Medina (Yathrib originally founded by Jews in Arabia), enslaving their women and children, robbing them of their wealth, and ethnically cleansing the remainder out of the Hijaz (northern Arabia and what is now Jordan), an edict which stands to this day. ARabs drew FIRST blood, both in the seventh century and in the 20th century. They put their mosques on Jewish soil, not the other way round. THere are no synagogues on ARabian soil. Arabs are the aggressors; Jews are the defenders. No, it is not about who was first--it is about realizing that the violence has gone *both* ways, instead of trying to portray all Muslims as evil murderers and all Israelis as White Knights. But you can't admit to that, because it would tarnish your "Israel is good/Arabs are evil" foundation for this entire discussion. BTW, did you know that Pakistani pilots downed a number of Israeli planes in '67? I don't dismiss either the Jordanians or the Pakistanis if Israel had to face them. Odd, but Michael Oren's recent book, "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of a Modern Middle East" (Presidio, 2002), seems to have missed that little factoid (and Oren, being a former Israeli governmental official, would have presumably picked up on that, as he was rather careful to address how all of the regional nations reacted--yet he never *once* mentions Pakistan...). I hate to be repetitive, but any real evidence of this? Given your distinct aversion to providing *any* evidence, that is... http://www.scramble.nl/pk.htm "The Six-Day War between Israel and a number of Arab countries in 1967. During this conflict the PAF sent personnel to Egypt, Jordan and Syria to support the Arabs in their battle against the Israelis. PAF pilots managed to shoot down ten Israeli aircraft, including Mirages, Mystères and Vautours, without losses on their own side. The PAF pilots operated with Egyptian, Jordanese and Iraqi combat aircraft. " Uhmmm...do you have anything a bit more concrete? And just how did these Pakistanis manage to go 10-0 during a war where most Arab airpower was destroyed on the ground or never got into the fight? Lastly, why bother? Your point regarding alleged Pakistani pilots involved in the 67 War would be germane to the present issues exactly *how*? I don't know how true it is, but the Israeiis did lose 50 planes in that war, and Pakis have long proudly claimed that their pilots were among the few Muslim pilots that downed ISraeli jets. They make the claim, and I have no verification of it, one way or the other. Is it germane? Well, it might have something to do with why the US is hesitating to supply Pakistan with the F-16s it paid for long ago. That, and the fact that I suppose they can carry nuclear weapons. The first is a non-issue as regards the F-16's; they were embargoed because of the nuclear program. The US frowns on proliferation...but Israel? Different view, apparently, as backed up by their cooperation with the former South African nuclear weapons program... We do face a potential threat, on a regional basis, from the PRC in the not-too-distant future; denying the obvious in that regard will not do you any good. We are following a policy of cautious constructive engagement at present, but that is only going to be successful for as long as we are prepared to be more forceful (and having the PRC realize that) when/if required. Israel's continued provision of late-generation military products and technology to the PRC can hardly be considered a *good* thing by USians, now can it? In fact, the presumed challenge of the PRC to the US is as nothing compared to the challenge of the Muslims to ISrael. So now it is all Muslims who are the enemy of Israel? Are you racist much? Uhmmm...what about those *Turkish* Muslims that Israel is selling so much combat power to these days? Pakistan is a nuclear state with at least 150 nukes, and Iran soon will be. When you add in Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and all the vast numbers enemies of ISrael's very existence, the PRC threat to the US is less than a gnat to a whale compared to the Muslim threat to Israel. Oh, nooo, Mr. Bill! Nations in the outlying region may become nuclear powers, or already are?! How dare they! That is obviously the sole purview of Israel (which is a nuclear power as well, predating those you mention by a period of decades)... Come on, get real--you are condemning other nations for the very same course of action that Israel has taken? First of all, as I have often stated before, nukes are a Jewish invention and that fact alone gives ISrael the right to have them. Now that is perverted logic if I have ever heard it. Nerve gas was a German invention--does that give Germany the right to posses it? And all of the other states in the region are recognized and no one is threatening to wipe them off the map. Except Israel, with its nukes, right? I don't think there is a nation on earth, including the US, that has a greater right to nukes than does Israel. And Israel has the right to preemptively strike at any state in the region that is hostile to ISrael and seeking WMD to destroy Israel. More perverted logic. The way you portray it, Israel is a purely Machiavellian Institution, and whatever it chooses to do defines "right", instead of having policies that follow "right". In fact, i believe the main reason the US went to war in Iraq was to avoid a possible nuclear strike by Israel on Iraq. You are joking, right? At any rate, no Arab or Muslim had anything to do with inventing nukes as did Jewish scientists. More warped reasoning. Israel had nothing to do with the invention of either the motorcar or the airplane--so they have no right to them? If Iran or any state in the region threatens Israel with WMD it can expect a nuclear attack by Israel at any time. Israel is too small to wait to absorb a first strike. Puhlease...get real. The reality is, that Israel is a tiny state comprised of mostly 5 million Jews, most of the male population of whom serves for weeks annually in the reserves for most of their adult lives, and which faces not only 4 million Arab enemies internally, Ah, so all of the Palestinians are enemies of Israel, even those that are Israeli citizens? Every Muslim is ipso facto an enemy of ISrael, Yup, racist. And not a very original one at that. unless he is of that very small minority that accepts that the Israelites mentioned in the Koran and today's Jews have some historic connection. Look, is every Chinese an enemy of America? Nope. I like the Taiwanese. WE defend the Taiwanese more than we defend Israel. LOL! Harken back to 73 and the DEFCON status that Nixon placed us at in response to Soviet rumblings vis-a-vis the Yom Kippur War. Recall that US Patriots and crews went to Israel during ODS. And remember that we are not giving Taiwan billions of bucks each and every year. Consider those FACTS, and then you might begin to get a clue... WE sell Israel's enemies military equipment but the US does not sell the PRC military equipment to use against Taiwan. You keep saying that, and then you never can come up with any real evidence that Egypt or Jordan are really still "enemies" of Israel... ANd yet you hold up the sale of a few antiquated weapons by ISrael to the PRC as some big deal while you arm the Arabs and other Muslims to the teeth. Antiquated weapons? I guess I should expect that kind of laughable description from a guy who couldn't tell the difference beween AMRAAM and Python, and who was quite convinced that not only the US but also the RAAF had deployed the latter. Phalcon sure as heck is/was not "antiquated", nor is the radar that the Israelis are marketing to the PRC for the J-10, nor is the HMSS that they are also trying (if they have not already done so--sort of murky) to sell to the PLAAF. You have been singing the praises of Python, which the PRC produces under license (-3 variant), and we have numerous reports that later models have been, or are being, marketed to the PLAAF as well, but now all of a sudden in order to suit your argument you want to call them "antiquated" as well? Flip-flop much? IN terms of OFFENSIVE weaponry, the equipment sold to China was no match for US equipment. But you said we were foolish for not buying Python ourselves, and now you claim it is an inferior product. Want it both ways, don't you? And how are Python, Phalcon, that Elbit/Elta radar for the J-10, and that HMSS all lumped together as purely "defensive" weapons? You are as far off the mark here as you were when you classified Python (now apparently a piece of worthless junk, in your opinion) as "AMRAAM"... At any rate, I reiterate, if the US sells Egypt and Saudi Arabia modern equipment, why shouldn't Israel sell to China, Cuba or anyone who can pay for it? Israel also sells to the US. So ISrael ought to do the same as the US, and arms BOTH sides. Why is this wrong? Because we are footing the bill. Can the aid to Israel, and they can sell to whomever they darned well choose--but they should not be allowed to have it both ways. Kind of like what my father used to tell me--"As long as I pay the bills, you live by *my* rules." We are paying the bills. Israel was better off with inferior Soviet equipment in ARab hands. The evidence does not support that theory. While Egypt was being armed by the Soviets they fought two major wars (67 and 73) with israel, while since the US has taken over as a major security partner with Egypt they have fought...nada, zip, none. The US already forced Israel to give them back every inch of the Sinai already. AND gives Egypt $2.8 billion in annual aid. SO what could they gain from attacking ISrael NOW? Unless they felt they could destroy it and get away with it. Exactly. Which proves they are no longer a serious threat to Israel. Now that was not that hard to admit, was it? While the argument that the US has better control over its more sophisticated equipment in Arab hands has some merit, I wouldn't be totally dismissive of Arab capabilities to eventually master this technology. I'm not that racist. Yep, you are if you like to use that "all Muslims" brushstroke that you are so quick with. All Muslims who say that the Temple MOunt does not belong to the Jews at all, and that they have the right to Jerusalem, and that ISrael is sitting on Arab/Muslim land is anti-Jewish and hence a mortal enemy, just like the Nazis. They deny the right of Jewish existence. BZZZ! Sorry, you automatically lose this debate by virtue of trying to use a backhanded delivery of the Nazi Card. Can't win without it, huh? The US can always leave the area; Israel has to live there. Which is why they should learn to be a decent neighbor. Israel is living amidst criminals and looters just the same as were seen n Iraq, whose only desire is to destroy and LOOT what the Jews built there over the last century. Not unlike the looting of former Arab villages by...Israelis. It's why the Palestinians left,figuring that the Jews would be crushed in a matter of weeks and that they would then be able to loot everything the Jews had built over 30 or more years prior to 1948. They gambled wrong, and lost, but refused to give up their quest. I don't think they ever will. Time will tell. read a bit and you will find that a lot of them left under duress, with folks like the Stern Gang and Irgun pushing from behind while the Palmach did its own share of forced evictions (like Lod). UN Res 242. What about it? It clearly stated that that Israel was to give up those settlements and that land. Does not. It says Israel must return occupied territories. It returned 90% of them already, but will not "return" disputed lands without peace treaties. There is a peace treaty with Jordan. There is no country called Palestine to make a treaty with. Syria refuses to negotiate unless it is promised everything back in advance. Utter insanity. Why should aggressors be allowed to get ALL of the land back, especally when it is disputed land? Golan is first mentioned in the bible. Israel does not have to return Jewish land, only occupied Arab land. Yeah, sure. First the nazi Card, now the Bible defense... Supporting evidence of WHAT??? All of your assertions, i.e., "Egypt remains a grave threat to Israel", "Israel only sells antiquated military goods to the PRC", "Begin and Bentov were left-wing radicals whose statements regarding the 67 War are inconsequential", and maybe "All Muslims are rabid Israel-haters (except for Turkey, which is OK because they pay for things from Israel, right?)". Some Egyptian parliamentarians have called for Egypt to build nuclear weapons. Sorry, you already agreed that you were wrong about Egypt being a serious threat. I go along with the Bush-Sharon policy that any state now seeking to acquire nukes has to be attacked before it gets them. That is NOT the Bush policy. Turkey is not an Arab state, though it is Muslim. The ARab muslims are the craziest of the lot. They started the whole mess in the first place. Sorry, you quite clearly said all Muslims. Now you want to say that Muslims who happen to live in a nation providing payments to Israel for weapons are OK folks... double standard much? Brooks
|
|
#64
July 14th 03, 10:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#65
July 15th 03, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , JGB writes If AIM-9X were better than Python then Israel would buy it in preference to its domestic product. Yeah, right. No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument. In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like. When it comes to equipment of secondary importance that are not pivotal to the winning or losing of a WAR, that may be true. But not when the very EXISTENCE of your country DEPENDS on your pilots winning every dogfight! I don't think Americans can understand that because the only existential wars the US ever fought were the War of independence, the Civil War, and probably WWII, though we did have British and Russian allies. ISrael generally has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country. ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly lose the country, no matter who manufactures it.
|
|
#66
July 15th 03, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , JGB
writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument. In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like. Which explains why Israel flew the Mirage III (whose entire close air combat repertoire consists of "bleed speed so fast the enemy overshoots") equipped with the 'Helen Keller' Cyrano radar, and armed it with the Matra R.530? Your argument fails to match the facts... Examining their procurement history, they've bought (or been given) whatever they could acquire, depending on who their ally de jour was; and relied on superior training to get a winning performance. (Not a bad formula, either). Their home-grown development work tends to be politically motivated rather than military-driven - for instance, maintaining an indigenous AAM capability (and hence local control of supply and development) is seen as more important than the notionally greater capability of foreign purchase. I don't think Americans can understand that because the only existential wars the US ever fought were the War of independence, the Civil War, and probably WWII, though we did have British and Russian allies. Who's 'we'? I'm British. ISrael generally has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country. ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly lose the country, no matter who manufactures it. By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam
|
|
#67
July 15th 03, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Kevin Brooks) wrote in message . com...
(JGB) wrote in message . com... snip Most of the above is bull, and upon closer examination of the facts, it is found that JEws were attacked FIRST, and in the retaliatory strikes, civilians caught up were collateral damage, often the immediate relatives of the original Arab attackers. It's all the usual Arab claims, that its okay for them to attack, but if the JEws hit back it's criminal. Gee, it seems you have been parroting exactly the opposite; any atrocity committed against Palestinians by Israelis is OK, but golly, heaven forbid the Palestinians do likewise... Again! Arabs, starting with Muhammad, drew first BLOOD! Capice? THey killed Jews first! Unless you can prove to me from ANY source that JEws killed an Arab first! Even from Islamic literature! He who kills first should not complain when he gets his desserts last. A particularly repugnant method of killing employed by the Jewish militias was the blowing up of houses with their occupants still inside, often at night. The militia would place explosive charges around the stone houses, drench the wooden window and door frames with gasoline, and then open fire, simultaneously dynamiting and burning the sleeping inhabitants to death. [14]" That's only AFTER the hagana would order them to come out and surrender, and they refused. As everyone knows, the Arabs gleefully put up their own wives, children and aged as shields, and often dress up as women (literally) to try to fool the Israelis who are usually loathe to shoot women and children, and will often either escape or strike using such lowlife ruses. I do feel sorry for Arab children and wives to have such "men" as their heads of households. LOL! No, "everybody" does not know any such thing. And wasn't there a rather famous case in Lebanon back in the eighties where an Israeli commando was dressed up as a woman in order to make a hit on a terrorist target? Which means you would be condemning the Israelis as well...? Yes, former Prime Minister Barak himself did so in his attack in Lebanon. We do learn, ya know. We learned from the Nazis, the ARabs and everyone else their ruses used to kill us. The Jews had to learn from their enemies as we had no experience in such things since Roman times. Naturally we learn from our enemies. We'd be dead or crazy not to. Source: http://www.mediamonitors.net/robinmiller3.html So you are saying it was OK for the israelis to execute those folks, right? But the Palestinians are evil for merely exaggerating the scope of the tragedy? Odd sense of values you have there... Do unto thy enemies as they are doing unto you. America bombed civilians to death in the hundreds of thousands to win WWII. But America did not start with bombing of civilian targets. The Nazis and Japs started it, and the US finished it. Why not? You might also do a Google on "Stern Gang" and "Irgun" if you are interested in reading *the other side* of the story... the Israelis (collective) are hardly innocent lambs when it comes to terrorism and murder. First of all, they came into being LONG after Arab terrorism began, indeed well into the late 1940s, Nope, try the late 30's, IIRC (1936 in the case of the IZL). Still well after Arab gangs were killing Jews by the score. long after the first Palestinian leader, Haj Amin El Husseini helped the SS murder thousands of Jews in the Balkans, and after his planning a concentration camp that he was ready to set up outside Nablus as soon as Rommel broke through. At any rate, Jewish terrorism, which was really lightweight stuff for the most part compared to the Arabs, was late in coming and was condemned by BenGurion's Left-wing Jewish Agency which helped the Brits to round them up. Uhmmm...and how did the Israeli government help in rounding up the murders of Bernadotte? How many of those murderers were convicted for the atrocity at Deir Yassin? I don't know, but if your enemy has no scruples, why should you have more? Total war is total war. They started it. Don't expect Israel to be Boy SCouts while they are using every underhanded trick imaginable. the Massacre of Dair Yasin (Apr. 10, 1948) in which a whole village of 500 unarmed Palestinian civilians were slaughtered by Israelis; EVen the Palestinians themselves don't use this lie anymore. I have a BBC tape where the villagers were interviewed, and altogether, perhaps 114 died, including possibly 25 which indeed were executed ("massacred'). The original figure of 254 was made up by Jewish leftist in order to discredit Begin and the Irgun which was a rival of the Ben Gurion and the mainstreat leftists who controlled the zionist movement. And even the old villagers affirm there were no rapes or mutilations as was originally alleged and circulated for decade. Gee, only 114? I guess that makes it OK then (sarcasm switch to "on" position). By the way, at what point does an atrocity become an atrocity, in your opinion? If 114 is good-to-go, then all of those recent Palestinian suicide bombings don't count either? Most were killed when they fired from the homes, and naturally, having been given an offer to surrender (though it is said the sound truck got caught in a ditch and so the offer may not have been heard by the Arabs), the Irgun irregulars returned fire and lobbed grenades into the homes from which the men were firing from behind their women and children, as usual. You ought to take up writing really bad B-movie scripts, the way you manage to get that "as usual" in. They're still doing the same kind of thing in Iraq. Terrorism IS Arab warfare!!! They've never had any other kind in their history, starting with Muhammad. They've never been able to fight in organized units the way western armies learned to do in Greek times or earlier. WEre that not the case, Israel would never have survived from day one. Arabs appear incapable of the cohesion necessary to fight in organized units, except in terrorist type organizations. The English trained Bedouins of the Jordanian army fared somewhat better, for a while, but even so they seem to lack the kind of cohesiveness and discipline under fire absolutely essential to fight in the "modern" ways of warfare, unless, of course, you consider terrorism to BE the most "modern" form of warfare. Many men tried to escape dressed as women, and fired on the IRgun irregulars, who admittedly were not well trained being most recently arrived concentration camp survivors, who indeed went overboard in rounding up some of these snivelling Arab dogs Yep, real sense of equitable treatment you exhibit here; dehumanizing the other side, eh? When they act like humans, I'll attribute it to them accordingly. The Jordanians acted somewhat better, because they were English trained and led. who would dress as women and fire from behind their own children, and had them shot and thrown down wells. There were about 25 such, with the rest having died in normal battle which they could have avoided had they surrendered. Your tale is truly spellbinding...but unfortunately, it is only a tale. It's the truth, unless you have a more convincing story. As for Bernadotte, that is a tough one. He was using his "Jew savior" status from WWII to try to reverse the Partition vote of NOvember 1947, which would have reversed the vote and quashed the idea of a Jewish state after the UN vote had been voted on and passed. Bull****. He was trying to come up with a compromise that would allow for both a Jewish State and a Palestinian Sate in what is now Israel and the Occupied Territories. WRONG!!! The Partition was already voted on! An Arab state was already authorized, as well as a Jewish state!!! But due to the civil war that immediately erupted (i.e., terror attacks on the Jews) after the Partition vote in 1947, there was backpedaling. Bernadotte thought he was trying to avoid bloodshed by trying to gather and file a report that would have in effect reversed the Partition decision, and possibly put all of Palestine under UN administration - something the Arabs wanted, and the JEws certainly did not! The Arabs wanted to reverse the Partition vote as they wanted an Arab state where the Jews would AT BEST be a minority AGAIN! That's why the tough decision to "off him" was made by the underground. Once again, the JEws were to be cheated, this time by a supposed "Jew lover." They're the worst! His last proposal was for the Israelis to give up the Negev to the Arabs, while the Arabs would give up all of Galilee to Israel. *Both* sides rejected the proposal. As one contemporary author has noted, Bernadotte was the target of a "smear" campaign orchestrated by those who realized that, while he would be sympathetic to the jewish cause, he would also not roll-over completely to their every demand and desire. For that, he was condemned to die. I'm not aware of it. Should the Stern group have assassinated him for that? I can't say. I am not surprised. Your selective moral stance (all things Jewish are "good", all things Arab "bad", no matter how distasteful the acts of *either* party are) is already well in evidence. If the Nazis kill you, you're in your rights to kill them. In the Bible, the Prophet Samuel berates and indeed takes away the kingdom from Saul and gives it to David because Saul did not annihilate totally Amalek as he was ordered, whereas David was called a "man of God" for having stood up to GOliath and cut his head off! THere is nothing in the OT Hebrew bible that says that the Jews are to fight with velvet gloves when they are fighting a mortal enemy who wants to annihilate us. I know the Arabs assassinated people left and right for much less than that and I don't see why the JEws have to be THAT much better than the Arabs. The Israelis have always *demanded* retribution or conviction of those that harmed Jews, but they have a strange history of not applying that in the reverse case. Double standard at its best! Demanded but hardly got it. How many Nazis died for the murder of 6 million Jews? A few hundred at most? Where is the eye for an eye? If your opponent is a ruthless, soulless and bloodthirsty, Dehumanizing again, I see. How do those adjectives apply to the IZL or Stern Gang members? They were retaliating, not initiating. how goody-goody can you be? I mean, the US bombed Japanese and German cities to rubble even though no US cities were bombed during WWII. That's war, and conducted within the context of the laws of warfare. Bull****. What laws? We also held Calley accountable for his actions (or lack thereof) at My Lai. Was he executed? We convicted a US Army sergeant of rape and murder in Kosovo. How many Israelis have been held accountable for bad acts? Oh, that's right, I forgot: they *aren't* accountable, only the Arabs are... How many Arabs were executed for terrorism? Answer: NONE. THERE is no death penalty in Israel, except for genocide. ONly Eichmann was executed in Israel. Oh, sure, Israel will target terrorists, and kill them on the battlefield before they surrender, but once they surrender, they only get a jail sentence. And often they've been allowed to go in exchange for something or other, as Hamas is now demanding. I have grown tired of what has become a completely off-topic discussion, and one that you apply such selective moral standards to. What's good for the goose is good for the gander; Israel has sown as well as reaped. If you can't bring yourself to face that fact, I am sorry for you. Hopefully you at least learned in this set of exchanges that the Python is not AMRAAM, Israel does indeed sell advanced weapons to the PRC, and neither the US nor RAAF have adopted Python. I am afraid the deeper moral issues are too far over your head. Adios. There is nothing over my head except roof, sky,space, galaxies and God. I don't claim Israel is necessarily MORE moral than its mortal enemies, nor do I know why she should be. But overall Israel has little to be ashamed of when compared to the actions of others who've had much less provocation. After all, 9/11 was the FIRST time a US city was bombed by its foreign enemies, at least since WWII that I know of. The US has not suffered even a minute fraction what Israelis have had to suffer since 1920, and even earlier. As I said, I think Israel's overall record has little, if anything in it to be ashamed of.
|
|
#68
July 16th 03, 01:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
If you think the Aim-9 series of missiles is second rate you ought to change your choice of recreational drug. I'm a great fan of both ASRAAM and Python but lets not get silly here. It's just that it's an old 5" airframe. With increasing needs for agility, you require better kinematics (a bigger engine with more fuel), and the airframe is getting long in the tooth. The more modern IR AAMS have a 6" airframe, with about 50% more internal volume. -- --Matthew Saroff _____ * For a succesful technology, * / o o \ * reality must take precedence over * ______|_____|_____ * public relations, for Nature * uuu U uuu * cannot be fooled." * * - Richard P. Feynman *
|
|
#69
July 16th 03, 03:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#70
July 16th 03, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 15 Jul 2003 11:12:59 -0700, JGB wrote:
[...] Gee, it seems you have been parroting exactly the opposite; any atrocity committed against Palestinians by Israelis is OK, but golly, heaven forbid the Palestinians do likewise... Again! Arabs, starting with Muhammad, drew first BLOOD! Capice? THey killed Jews first! Unless you can prove to me from ANY source that JEws killed an Arab first! Even from Islamic literature! He who kills first should not complain when he gets his desserts last. Just out of interest, JGB, have you ever read Orwell's _Notes On Nationalism_? -- Phil "If only sarcasm could overturn bureaucracies" -- NTK, commenting on www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_29.html
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| how to force jeppview charts with flitestar? | rexwind | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | January 19th 05 11:13 AM |
| USA - Air Force one | franck jeamourra | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | June 11th 04 11:40 AM |
| 100 Air Force Overviews online !! | Frank Noort | Aerobatics | 0 | May 17th 04 06:47 PM |
| Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | April 29th 04 03:08 PM |
| RV-7a baggage area | David Smith | Home Built | 32 | December 15th 03 04:08 AM |
Linear Mode
