So we still talk about how Arab countries don't want peace with Israel....

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Wait John, isn?t Israel just the kind that kicks little arabic kids in the face and runs? Don?t you despise them and those like them? Aren?t Israelis going to grow up to become home grown terrorists? I have a difficult time finding you removed from the argument you used last week.

The truth you?ve spoken here wasn?t expected. Must have been why my image of you was initially positive before you condemned me for calling on us to use moderate Muslims to cut out the cancer that has grown in Islam. The sort of disease Israel faces in Palestine and surrounding territories. The sort we need to beware the preaching of on our soil.

Make no mistake Sir, the likes of Hamas won?t be satisfied with just Israel slain. That?s part of the reason why we can never let them have it.

One last thing to say here. Wouldn't it be nice if the Islamic groups on our soil, who are considered prominent such as CAIR would condemn the likes of Hamas instead of support them?

What you don't get, and never will get is that it is the likes of YOU that are the problem, the simple ideas you subscribe to (eradicate Islam and all will be fine) are the ramblings of a madman.

We are not the same and we never will be, i am HOPING that you'll one day understand but i doubt it, the thing that is wrong in those Muslims heads is the same thing that is wrong in your head and your thoughts are like theirs, you are much closer to them than you'll ever be to me.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.

What a complete historically inaccurate view. The casus belli for the 67 war was the closure of the Strait of Tiran. You claim Israel attacked first, but conveniently ignore the fact that Syria was bombing Israel from the Golans from 1965 on. The Israeli's didn't respond until 67 (the Syrian's lost 6 migs). The soviets then told Syria (falsley) that Israel was building up for an attack. Syria invoked its defense treaty with Egypt. Egypt massed troops on in the Sinai and the Israel border. Syria massed troops in the Golans. Egypt ordered the UN out of the Sinai, and then PUBLICALLY STATED via radio:

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence'

That my friend is a declaration of war. The Israeli smartly attacked first, and won an amazing victory by doing so. But to sit here and suggest they were the agressors in that war is complete rubbish.

Thank you.

You'd think this is well known, but apparently, it's not, it always surprises me how people debate things they have no knowledge of and make shit up as they go, as if they won't get called on it, on this forum we have the likes of you, knowledgeable people who knows enough to set the record straight.

There were several acts of aggression and amassing troops at the border considering what had happened in the past were also contributing factors that gave Israel (unlike the US in Iraq) the right to act.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Wait John, isn?t Israel just the kind that kicks little arabic kids in the face and runs? Don?t you despise them and those like them? Aren?t Israelis going to grow up to become home grown terrorists? I have a difficult time finding you removed from the argument you used last week.

The truth you?ve spoken here wasn?t expected. Must have been why my image of you was initially positive before you condemned me for calling on us to use moderate Muslims to cut out the cancer that has grown in Islam. The sort of disease Israel faces in Palestine and surrounding territories. The sort we need to beware the preaching of on our soil.

Make no mistake Sir, the likes of Hamas won?t be satisfied with just Israel slain. That?s part of the reason why we can never let them have it.

One last thing to say here. Wouldn't it be nice if the Islamic groups on our soil, who are considered prominent such as CAIR would condemn the likes of Hamas instead of support them?

What you don't get, and never will get is that it is the likes of YOU that are the problem, the simple ideas you subscribe to (eradicate Islam and all will be fine) are the ramblings of a madman.

We are not the same and we never will be, i am HOPING that you'll one day understand but i doubt it, the thing that is wrong in those Muslims heads is the same thing that is wrong in your head and your thoughts are like theirs, you are much closer to them than you'll ever be to me.

Then you take the left wing ploy that any assault on violent supremacy is a genocide on 1.4 billion people. THAT is rambling of a madman, to twist what should be an ally into your enemy. My stance isn?t changing. You cannot protect the likes of Hamas and pretend those who would assault Hamas are instead assaulting everyone.

Clearly whenever Israel responds to acts of war by Hamas they are eradicating all of Islam. Since you leave no distinction between Islam's cancer and the rest of it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Wait John, isn?t Israel just the kind that kicks little arabic kids in the face and runs? Don?t you despise them and those like them? Aren?t Israelis going to grow up to become home grown terrorists? I have a difficult time finding you removed from the argument you used last week.

The truth you?ve spoken here wasn?t expected. Must have been why my image of you was initially positive before you condemned me for calling on us to use moderate Muslims to cut out the cancer that has grown in Islam. The sort of disease Israel faces in Palestine and surrounding territories. The sort we need to beware the preaching of on our soil.

Make no mistake Sir, the likes of Hamas won?t be satisfied with just Israel slain. That?s part of the reason why we can never let them have it.

One last thing to say here. Wouldn't it be nice if the Islamic groups on our soil, who are considered prominent such as CAIR would condemn the likes of Hamas instead of support them?

What you don't get, and never will get is that it is the likes of YOU that are the problem, the simple ideas you subscribe to (eradicate Islam and all will be fine) are the ramblings of a madman.

We are not the same and we never will be, i am HOPING that you'll one day understand but i doubt it, the thing that is wrong in those Muslims heads is the same thing that is wrong in your head and your thoughts are like theirs, you are much closer to them than you'll ever be to me.

Then you take the left wing ploy that any assault on violent supremacy is a genocide on 1.4 billion people. THAT is rambling of a madman, to twist what should be an ally into your enemy. My stance isn?t changing. You cannot protect the likes of Hamas and pretend those who would assault Hamas are instead assaulting everyone.

Clearly whenever Israel responds to acts of war by Hamas they are eradicating all of Islam. Since you leave no distinction between Islam's cancer and the rest of it.

WTH are you talking about, i'd eradicate Hamas if i had a choice to do so, i'd take the Taliban with them, probably start with the Taliban though because if you think blowing up civilians is bad, you don't know shit about the Taliban, death isn't the worst thing that can happen to a teenage girl, even though it's always too late when we get there so they get to die too.

I am not going to discuss this further with you, you don't understand my position, i defend Muslims against Muslims and so do all the US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of this is about anything but that now.

I would never protect the likes of Hamas, i'd rather have them lined up and killed, each and every one of them, all the people who have that ideology that they have, you'd be in that line, it's not about Islam, it's about the will to harm innocent people because of what they believe in (which you are obviously for) because som fucked up moron leads you to believe that is the right thing to do (who taught you all that bullshit and did he rape you a lot or a little while pounding it into your head?)

And thank god for the French, at least they take the war on terror seriously, as the US withdraws, the French send more troops.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
WTH are you talking about, i'd eradicate Hamas if i had a choice to do so

That's what I f'ing say when you condemn me as your enemy.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
WTH are you talking about, i'd eradicate Hamas if i had a choice to do so

That's what I f'ing say when you condemn me as your enemy.

My problem with you is that you say Islam and Muslims, not terrorists.

You don't make the distinction that i do, the US best friends in the ME are all Muslims (sad part is that the powerful friends are extremists too, but let's forget that for a moment).

I don't mind their religion, and when you've been to one of the three where peace is constant in Afghanistan, you'd know what i was talking about.

I guess i'm just tired.

Terrorists need to all die, but i see you making no distinction between terrorists and Islam, and that is just... i know you know it's wrong, i know you are not stupid so i can only assume you do so to provoke a response, well, congrats then... i guess.

To the lot of you, i've got to go, it's early morning here now and i have some things to do before it's time to get moving.

I wish you all the best, the lot of you.

See you on the flip side.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: orangat

Originally posted by: palehorse74
.......
........
Anyone who believes that Israel is driven by "expansionist" ideals, or has expansionist goals, is a complete idiot.
period.

In your post, you have stated your position 2 times without stating your reasons why except to say it is absurd/what idiots believe.

Its quite well known (at least outside the US) that Israel is using its occupied territories as a colonial settlement. Resources like land for farming, water are taken at the expense of the Palestinians. Palestine is a market for Israeli goods and Palestinians are taxed but receive relatively less social benefits compared to Israelis.

http://www.btselem.org/english.../International_Law.asp
http://www.btselem.org/english...er/Consumption_Gap.asp
Water crisis in Gaza

There is also a religious right in Israel that is driven by a messianic vision of redeeming the entire land of Eretz Israel. This entails Israeli settlers occupying every inch of Palestinian WB/Gaza of course and so it is an expansionist vision.

I'm sorry, but you are NOT describing an "expansionist" regime. What you're describing is essentially the state of New Jersey wishing to control all of Atlantic City, a location already well within its internationally-recognized borders!

True "expansionism" would be a demonstration of Israel's desire to overrun and control neighboring countries, such as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt -- or colonial conquest through force in areas well beyond their own borders. Instead, Israel has given back the land taken during the various conflicts -- with the exception of a few miles of buffer zones -- and wants nothing to do with physically expanding the current borders.

Controlling all of the land within your own borders - the area you mistakenly call "Palestine" - is NOT expansionism.

Your Zionist conspiracies are a joke.

Your continuing denial of reality is the farce here, and a sick one at that. Even Bush has long since condemned Israel's expansionist policies:

...

"I told the prime minister not to undertake any activity that contravenes" the "road map" for peace supported by the United States, much of Europe and key leaders in the Middle East, Bush told reporters at the ranch, with Sharon standing by his side. "Israel has obligations under the road map. The road map clearly says no expansion of settlements."

...

Here is a map detailing the expansion Israel engaged in thoughout the West Bank since 1967, current to feburary of this year:

http://www.btselem.org/Downloa...on_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf

Those dark blue areas are Israeli settlements filled with hundreds of thousands of Israeli civilians, that is expansion, not the "few miles of buffer zones" you absurdly claimed.

once again, it is not genuine "expansionism" when it's conducted well within the already internationally-recognized borders.

Is it possible for the state of Virginia to "expand" into more areas of Richmond? Can New York City "expand" into more of Manhattan? Can England "expand" into more areas of London?

The Gaza Strip and West Bank are within Israel's internationally-recognized borders. Therefore, the term "expansion" does not apply.

Let me know when they try to take over the Sinai, Damascus, or Beirut -- or when they land ships on the shores of Central America with hopes of conquering and converting the Aztecs... :roll:

As Orangat expained, you are mistaken. Israel's internationally recongised boarders can be seen here, hence the reason Bush correctly notes that Israelis expansion of those settlements is contravenes the roadmap to peace. Again, the map I presented depicts Isarelis explanation beyond it's internationally recognized boarder, marked on the map as a green line, into the Palestinian territory known as the West Bank.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: bsobel

Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.

What a complete historically inaccurate view. The casus belli for the 67 war was the closure of the Strait of Tiran. You claim Israel attacked first, but conveniently ignore the fact that Syria was bombing Israel from the Golans from 1965 on. The Israeli's didn't respond until 67 (the Syrian's lost 6 migs). The soviets then told Syria (falsley) that Israel was building up for an attack. Syria invoked its defense treaty with Egypt. Egypt massed troops on in the Sinai and the Israel border. Syria massed troops in the Golans. Egypt ordered the UN out of the Sinai, and then PUBLICALLY STATED via radio:

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence'

That my friend is a declaration of war. The Israeli smartly attacked first, and won an amazing victory by doing so. But to sit here and suggest they were the agressors in that war is complete rubbish.

Thank you.

You'd think this is well known, but apparently, it's not, it always surprises me how people debate things they have no knowledge of and make shit up as they go, as if they won't get called on it, on this forum we have the likes of you, knowledgeable people who knows enough to set the record straight.

There were several acts of aggression and amassing troops at the border considering what had happened in the past were also contributing factors that gave Israel (unlike the US in Iraq) the right to act.

How about the two of you trying keeping up with this thread and note that I have already responded to the majority of the arguments quoted above? You are going to have to at least acknowledge the sources and facts I've presented if you intend to have a rational discussion of the conflict.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.

What a complete historically inaccurate view. The casus belli for the 67 war was the closure of the Strait of Tiran. You claim Israel attacked first, but conveniently ignore the fact that Syria was bombing Israel from the Golans from 1965 on. The Israeli's didn't respond until 67 (the Syrian's lost 6 migs). The soviets then told Syria (falsley) that Israel was building up for an attack. Syria invoked its defense treaty with Egypt. Egypt massed troops on in the Sinai and the Israel border. Syria massed troops in the Golans. Egypt ordered the UN out of the Sinai, and then PUBLICALLY STATED via radio:

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence'

That my friend is a declaration of war. The Israeli smartly attacked first, and won an amazing victory by doing so. But to sit here and suggest they were the agressors in that war is complete rubbish.

Very well said.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
WTH are you talking about, i'd eradicate Hamas if i had a choice to do so

That's what I f'ing say when you condemn me as your enemy.

My problem with you is that you say Islam and Muslims, not terrorists.

You don't make the distinction that i do, the US best friends in the ME are all Muslims (sad part is that the powerful friends are extremists too, but let's forget that for a moment).

pssst, JoS, just an FYI: more often than not, Jaskalas does, in fact, make that very distinction -- the problem is that people like you continue to ignore it whenever he does.

there are others here who believe all of Islam to be "the problem," but Jaskalas is one of the few who seems to recognize, and admit, that it's the "cancer" of terrorism, within Islam, that is the real problem. (The Taliban, Hezbollah, and Hamas are all great examples of the cancer).

I believe it's only that 0.1% that Jaskalas wants to get rid of; and, all too often, folks like you don't recognize that he is making the correct distinctions... I know because I've been there. there are a few idiots around here who still think I don't know the difference, even though I've gone out of my way here, for years, to make that distinction very clear.

It all stems from a tendency for most posters on the internet to go to extremes and label their adversaries with polarized brushes...

Anyways, I really do think you and Jaskalas (and I) are on the same side of THIS issue, but you just dont realize it...

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

pssst, JoS, just an FYI: more often than not, Jaskalas does, in fact, make that very distinction -- the problem is that people like you continue to ignore it whenever he does.

there are others here who believe all of Islam to be "the problem," but Jaskalas is one of the few who seems to recognize, and admit, that it's the "cancer" of terrorism, within Islam, that is the real problem. (The Taliban, Hezbollah, and Hamas are all great examples of the cancer).

I believe it's only that 0.1% that Jaskalas wants to get rid of; and, all too often, folks like you don't recognize that he is making the correct distinctions... I know because I've been there. there are a few idiots around here who still think I don't know the difference, even though I've gone out of my way here, for years, to make that distinction very clear.

It all stems from a tendency for most posters on the internet to go to extremes and label their adversaries with polarized brushes...

Anyways, I really do think you and Jaskalas (and I) are on the same side of THIS issue, but you just dont realize it...

Which means that on occasion ? he DOESN?T make that distinction! Its hard to take someone serious when he screams ?Just get rid of the radicals? 3 times, and follows up later with ?Banish the entire ideology!?

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

No, it's a religious war to the core, the ONLY thing that would be acceptable to the Palestinians would be for Israel to give up the eastern parts of Jerusalem and it will never be acceptable for the Jews to do so, both for the same reason, religion.

There is no yearly UN resolution regarding this issue either, you must be thinking about the protest that is not sanctioned and therefore never brought before the council, it happens roughly every three months and support has no meaning, even if every country would agree, it's just a condemnation of past actions.

I'd love to discuss this with someone who actually knew his head from his arse so you'll have to excuse me while i ignore you from now on.

I?m going to have to disagree. Religion can become the huge argument by which war is perpetuated ? but at its core this is NOT a religious war. East Jerusalem is more about regaining portions of the lost territory ? if it was truly a religious conflict then the entirety of Jerusalem would be demanded.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

A RACIAL clash? ok, i'm not going to read more of your post after having read that, first of all, they are ALL pretty much Semites, second, there is no such thing as different races amongst humans, we do not differ enough to distinguish races you daft twat.

I shouldn't have read more, it gets worse from there on, you know NOTHING about the situation what so ever, Hamas task is and has always been to eradicate Israel, they see Jews as invaders of their holy land.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation, they have a militant branch that carries out their orders and are responsible for each and every one of the deaths that have come when the Israelis have had to strike back to defend themselves against the rockets that are lobbed by the hundreds every single week.

You really don't know the difference between a resistance group and a terrorist organisation, do you? It's sad that the heroes name now are entwined with the murder of innocent civilians as people such as yourself defend them.

One mans terrorists are another mans freedom fighters, it's said, like they really don't know the difference, and apparently they do not know the difference, which is very sad.

Hamas?s official charter maybe the non existence of Israel, but at the same time to deny the fact that they have (MANY TIMES) discussed peace [ironically Israel won?t meet with them so its hard to get peace going] , going back to 1967 lines [of which they had no problem with the Arab League Peace plan which itself is significantly more muted when it comes to the right of return as compared with previous papers], use backwater channels to contact Israel points to the fact that they are a lot more pragmatic than that.

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: orangat
Israel has a colonial appetite for land, water, markets, economic hegemony in the WB.

Sure they do. I hear they have their sites set on Indonesia, South Africa, and Guam next...

What country do the lands of the West Bank and Gaza belong to?

There is no "Palestine."

Riiight... =-= So let me guess, those Arabs should just get off Israel?s land! Funny how you say Palestine doesn?t exist, the lands belong to Israel, but are entirely mute about what to do about the Palestinians. Your denial of Palestine only hurts the situation.
And it is also ridiculous to talk about taking over Indonesia, South Africa and Guam?unless you think about taking the land NEXT TO IT is the same as stealing land half way across the world.

Originally posted by: Genx87

afaik this is nearly what Isreal was willing to give when Clinton got arafat and isreali leaders to sit down. At the end of the day arafat balked and Clinton in his book talks about what a disappointment it was.

No. Watch this:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf