NationStates Jolt Archive

Earlier this week, John Bolton made a strong statement (http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2005/08/18&ID=Ar00102) that condemned the funding of Palestinian propaganda by the United Nations Development Program. In part, he said it was “inappropriate and unacceptable” for the United Nations Development Program to finance materials bearing the slogan “Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem.”

Good for him. This is the kind of nonsense that the UN needs to quit doing. I, for one, am glad that we have Mr. Bolton on hand to 'blow a fuse' or two while trying to correct the shortcomings of the UN.

Yup.

Bolton is THE MAN to be our rep in the UN.

I think most people will be tuning him out before long. He'll be as effective as a sieve used for bailing water.

I think most people will be tuning him out before long. He'll be as effective as a sieve used for bailing water.
So do you support the UN funding of propaganda or not?
I for one, think that that is the most pressing issue and it shouldn’t matter who it came from. I’d care just as much if the Canadian ambassador condemned it.

Wait a minute...we ACTUALLY let Bolton into the UN?

Crap...

So do you support the UN funding of propaganda or not?
I for one, think that that is the most pressing issue and it shouldn’t matter who it came from. I’d care just as much if the Canadian ambassador condemned it.
The phrase “Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem” is pretty innocuous, guys. Besides, Gaza is Palestine. the West Bank is Palestine, and Jerusalem was always an international city, not an exclusively Judaic one - at any point in history. Palestine has a legitimate claim to partial ownership of Jerusalem.

So, jump up and down and holler if it pleases you, but I gotta say I think there's waaaaaaaaay more important shit to be dealing with than this. And so now I'm getting the picture of John Bolton - personal UN fart-catcher for Bush and PNAC. The guy they can count on to make headlines when they don't want to. More crapola to keep people talking about anything other than what's really going down in Washington these days.

Kudos to Mr. Rove on this. Well-played, you soulless weasel. Well-played.

Anything that Bolton says must be sifted three times and then searched for lies. He might have a point.

The phrase “Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem” is pretty innocuous, guys. Besides, Gaza is Palestine. the West Bank is Palestine, and Jerusalem was always an international city, not an exclusively Judaic one - at any point in history. Palestine has a legitimate claim to partial ownership of Jerusalem.

So, jump up and down and holler if it pleases you, but I gotta say I think there's waaaaaaaaay more important shit to be dealing with than this. And so now I'm getting the picture of John Bolton - personal UN fart-catcher for Bush and PNAC. The guy they can count on to make headlines when they don't want to. More crapola to keep people talking about anything other than what's really going down in Washington these days.

Kudos to Mr. Rove on this. Well-played, you soulless weasel. Well-played.UN propaganda? Far as I can remember, those three claims are what was granted to Palestine in the beginning. Sheesh. It's about as credible as the claim of the NPD that the UN charter grants every country the right to occupy Germany...

The phrase “Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem” is pretty innocuous, guys. Besides, Gaza is Palestine. the West Bank is Palestine, and Jerusalem was always an international city, not an exclusively Judaic one - at any point in history. Palestine has a legitimate claim to partial ownership of Jerusalem.

So, jump up and down and holler if it pleases you, but I gotta say I think there's waaaaaaaaay more important shit to be dealing with than this. And so now I'm getting the picture of John Bolton - personal UN fart-catcher for Bush and PNAC. The guy they can count on to make headlines when they don't want to. More crapola to keep people talking about anything other than what's really going down in Washington these days.

Kudos to Mr. Rove on this. Well-played, you soulless weasel. Well-played.
That’s the point, though. There is more important stuff to be worrying about. Why are they wasting money on that? You think I care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? I care about the fact that the dues, paid for through the taxes of the people of all member nations, are being wasted on garbage.

UN propaganda? Far as I can remember, those three claims are what was granted to Palestine in the beginning. Sheesh. It's about as credible as the claim of the NPD that the UN charter grants every country the right to occupy Germany...
The UN has had a long history with propaganda. Even its policy of national self determination can be defined as propaganda, even though it is a central principle of the UN. There biggest offense, however, was with UNESCO, as it promoted Marxist ideaology for decades before the US realized that it needed to leave it. It's funny how they just rejoined it considering UNESCO's track record.

The UN has had a long history with propaganda. Even its policy of national self determination can be defined as propaganda, even though it is a central principle of the UN. There biggest offense, however, was with UNESCO, as it promoted Marxist ideaology for decades before the US realized that it needed to leave it. It's funny how they just rejoined it considering UNESCO's track record.You hate the UNESCO? Something's wrong with you, seriously. "Marxist"? Cite some examples please.

You hate the UNESCO? Something's wrong with you, seriously. "Marxist"? Cite some examples please.
I would, but something tells me no. Why? Because no one would believe it, and make every effort to refute it. You're just too ingrained in your thought, and quite frankly, I'm sick of it.

I would, but something tells me no. Why? Because no one would believe it, and make every effort to refute it. You're just too ingrained in your thought, and quite frankly, I'm sick of it.Muahahahaha! If that was my logic, I'd stop talking to a lot of people here. :D

Muahahahaha! If that was my logic, I'd stop talking to a lot of people here. :D
I'm just like you. I don't like debating so much as to be heard.

I'm just like you. I don't like debating so much as to be heard.Ach. I like the bringing up evidence part and refuting bogus sources part. And learning as well as staying on top of events... :D
I'll actually change my mind on something if it turns out I'm wrong.

Wait a minute...we ACTUALLY let Bolton into the UN?

Crap...

nah no one let him

recess appointment

Earlier this week, John Bolton made a strong statement (http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2005/08/18&ID=Ar00102) that condemned the funding of Palestinian propaganda by the United Nations Development Program. In part, he said it was “inappropriate and unacceptable” for the United Nations Development Program to finance materials bearing the slogan “Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem.”

Good for him. This is the kind of nonsense that the UN needs to quit doing. I, for one, am glad that we have Mr. Bolton on hand to 'blow a fuse' or two while trying to correct the shortcomings of the UN.


U.N. Security Council resolution 242 emphasizes the inadmissibility of acquisitions by war and calls on Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied during the 1967 war.

AS we all know Israel and its friends argued strongly for that ambiguous wording and so Israel and its supporters will always argue that if they
give back so much as 1 cm of territory they have fulfilled their obligations.

Reasonable people do think otherwise.

Israel is occupying all 3 of those areas and it is completely in accord
with the UN that palestinians can rightfully expect Israel to withdraw
from those 3 occupied areas.

Israel has no intention of ever giving up control of any of them
and the US will use its veto to ensure the UN cannot act against
Israeli activity. Bolton is doing exactly the job he is supposed to be doing
and yet again the US administration shows its contempt for the ideals
and purposes of the UN.

One can't help but wonder why the rest of the nations still bother turning up/

Relative Power, haven't the Israelis just evacuated the Gaza Strip?

I also think that it is wrong for the UN to fund political propaganda of any kind.

Relative Power, haven't the Israelis just evacuated the Gaza Strip?

I also think that it is wrong for the UN to fund political propaganda of any kind.


They have removed their illegal settlers from the gaza strip
but as they continue to control all the borders of gaza and its airspace
I would feel it reasonable to say it remains under the control of Israel
and so not a lot of actual difference in any meaningful way from being occupied.

It's just a lot less expensive for Israel as they don't have to provide
security to the settlers there anymore.

Its hardly propaganda though for the the palestinians to think that maybe
just maybe Israel might withdraw from non Israeli territories.
And it can hardly be propaganda for the UN to sponsor signs that remind people what the UN resolutions call for

It's completely at odds with what Israel will do,
so you might criticise it for being naive.

The text of the palestinian propaganda claimed not only Gaza and the West Bank, but also Jerusalem. If the UN is really concerned with having it's rulings followed why are they encouraging the Palestinians to claim Jerusalem when the UN says it should be an "international city"? It seems they're encouraging the Palestinians to violate UN resolutions, but chastizing the Israelis for doing it. Clearly there's a huge double standard here.

Earlier this week, John Bolton made a strong statement (http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2005/08/18&ID=Ar00102) that condemned the funding of Palestinian propaganda by the United Nations Development Program. In part, he said it was “inappropriate and unacceptable” for the United Nations Development Program to finance materials bearing the slogan “Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem.”

Good for him. This is the kind of nonsense that the UN needs to quit doing. I, for one, am glad that we have Mr. Bolton on hand to 'blow a fuse' or two while trying to correct the shortcomings of the UN.

Hey maybe Bolton while he serves his recess appointment at the UN can get Israel to stop breaking UN resolutions too. That would be so kewl!

They have removed their illegal settlers from the gaza strip
but as they continue to control all the borders of gaza and its airspace
I would feel it reasonable to say it remains under the control of Israel
and so not a lot of actual difference in any meaningful way from being occupied.

It's just a lot less expensive for Israel as they don't have to provide
security to the settlers there anymore.
Israel is going to leave the Philadelphi corridor... What do you mean by 'control'? The Gaza Strip is self-governing, there will be no Israeli patrols in it... Maybe an occasional helicopter attack or two is going to eventuate, I grant you that.

The decision of the Israeli government to save money in such a way is commendable. :)

Its hardly propaganda though for the the palestinians to think that maybe
just maybe Israel might withdraw from non Israeli territories.
And it can hardly be propaganda for the UN to sponsor signs that remind people what the UN resolutions call for

It's completely at odds with what Israel will do,
so you might criticise it for being naive.
The UN resolutions do not call for giving Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

Israel is going to leave the Philadelphi corridor... What do you mean by 'control'? The Gaza Strip is self-governing, there will be no Israeli patrols in it... Maybe an occasional helicopter attack or two is going to eventuate, I grant you that.

The decision of the Israeli government to save money in such a way is commendable. :)


The UN resolutions do not call for giving Jerusalem to the Palestinians.


It calls for Israel to give up territories captured
one of those is East Jerusalem

I ask you if another country controlled all access and egress to and from
the US while allowing freedom of movement within it with of course
as you say, the occasional helicopter attack or two.
Would you consider that freedom or simply a situation where your
country was completely under the control of occupiers.

A bit like a self governing prison.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:2_fqDp9d3moJ:news.yahoo.com/news%3Ftmpl%3Dstory%26u%3D/ap/20050808/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians+israel+control+gaza+borders+ap&hl=en

Hey maybe Bolton while he serves his recess appointment at the UN can get Israel to stop breaking UN resolutions too. That would be so kewl!


We can be pretty sure that will not be something he spends anytime on doing.

I imagine he will find lots of ways both old and new to justify them though.

It calls for the Israelis to give up territories captured
one of those is East Jerusalem

I ask you if another country controlled all access and egress to and from
the US while allowing freedom of movement within it with of course
as you say, the occasional helicopter attack or two.
Would you consider that freedom or simply a situation where your
country was completely under the control of occupiers.

A bit like a self governing prison.
Considering that Hamas has repeatedly attacked Israeli civilians, advocated the extermination of Israel's population, and Hamas won many seats in the Gaza municipal elections thus demonstrating that a majority of Gaza Palestinians are terrorist supporters, maybe Israel has a reason to try to contain them.

It calls for Israel to give up territories captured
one of those is East Jerusalem
Hey, not so fast... No UN resolution names East Jerusalem as being 'Israeli' or 'Arab'. Jerusalem should've been a corpus separatum under the UN administration. The occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank by Jordan, as well as that of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, did not cause any kind of outcry and the adoption of anti-Jordan resolutions back in the 1950s.

I ask you if another country controlled all access and egress to and from
the US while allowing freedom of movement within it with of course
as you say, the occasional helicopter attack or two.
Would you consider that freedom or simply a situation where your
country was completely under the control of occupiers.

A bit like a self governing prison.
The Gaza Strip is not a country. It is not a constituent part of any state. So, the security arrangements are somewhat unconventional.

Considering that Hamas has repeatedly attacked Israeli civilians, advocated the extermination of Israel's population, and Hamas won many seats in the Gaza municipal elections thus demonstrating that a majority of Gaza Palestinians are terrorist supporters, maybe Israel has a reason to try to contain them.


Maybe Israel has its own reasons to try to wipe them out or drive them out

just don't try to convince people that

1 Israel is doing anything other than that

2 That it is somehow inappropriate for UN funds to be used to remind people that the resolutions
call for Israel to give up the occupied territories
Gaza, WestBank and East Jerusalem

3 That America will do anything other than support Israel regardless of what it does

It takes a very special person to call Sharon a man of peace
and that very special person needs a very special type of UN ambassador.

As I said, the UN cannot do anything to prevent the US doing whatever it likes so its a mystery why the other nations bother turning up at all.

Earlier this week, John Bolton made a strong statement (http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2005/08/18&ID=Ar00102) that condemned the funding of Palestinian propaganda by the United Nations Development Program. In part, he said it was “inappropriate and unacceptable” for the United Nations Development Program to finance materials bearing the slogan “Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem.”

Good for him. This is the kind of nonsense that the UN needs to quit doing. I, for one, am glad that we have Mr. Bolton on hand to 'blow a fuse' or two while trying to correct the shortcomings of the UN.

No offence, but did you actually READ that article?


UNDP officials yesterday said financial support from the agency was intended to help the Palestinian Authority communicate with Palestinian Arabs during Israel’s evacuation of Jewish settlers from Gaza.

In a letter to the American Jewish Congress, which had decried the funding of the propaganda materials, a UNDP administrator, Kemal Dervis, said it was “not at all acceptable” that the agency’s logo was placed on the propaganda.


In other words, the UNDP gave some money to the Palestinian Authority for one reason, and some of it got funnelled into these propoganda items. Once this was discovered, the UNDP objected to this inappropriate use of funds. Bolton, however, has to use his traditional over-the-top dishonest rhetoric and accusses the UNDP of "funnel[ing] money to the Palestinian Authority to back the production of banners, bumper stickers, mugs, and T-shirts bearing the provocative slogan as well as UNDP logos." This statement implies foreknowledge when there is no evidence of that, but he makes it anyway knowing full well that these funds were in no way intended for such purposes.

Gosh, do you think that any program funds in the US ever get misspent on political pet projects by it's recipients?

Nahhhh, that could never happen right? But if it did it would be all Congresses fault for not specifically managing and approving each line-item cost from each and every project?


So, what does this show?

1) That disbursed funds sometimes get misused. (No shit)
2) That such occurences need to be monitered and rectified. (Duh)
and
3) That Bolton's sole purpose in this new job really is just to attempt to discredit the organization he is supposed to working with - and that he's not going to let pesky little things like facts get in the way of that mission.

...
In other words, the UNDP gave some money to the Palestinian Authority for one reason, and some of it got funnelled into these propoganda items. Once this was discovered, the UNDP objected to this inappropriate use of funds. Bolton, however, has to use his traditional over-the-top dishonest rhetoric and accusses the UNDP of "funnel[ing] money to the Palestinian Authority to back the production of banners, bumper stickers, mugs, and T-shirts bearing the provocative slogan as well as UNDP logos." This statement implies foreknowledge when there is no evidence of that, but he makes it anyway knowing full well that these funds were in no way intended for such purposes.

...

Hm... Praise the UN, then--it seems that the Organization didn't approve such partisan use of its money.


3) That Bolton's sole purpose in this new job really is just to attempt to discredit the organization he is supposed to working with - and that he's not going to let pesky little things like facts get in the way of that mission.
Indeed.

Earlier this week, John Bolton made a strong statement (http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2005/08/18&ID=Ar00102) that condemned the funding of Palestinian propaganda by the United Nations Development Program. In part, he said it was “inappropriate and unacceptable” for the United Nations Development Program to finance materials bearing the slogan “Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem.”

Good for him. This is the kind of nonsense that the UN needs to quit doing. I, for one, am glad that we have Mr. Bolton on hand to 'blow a fuse' or two while trying to correct the shortcomings of the UN.

Here here. Way to Go Bolton. Tell it like it is dude. :cool:

Relative Power, haven't the Israelis just evacuated the Gaza Strip?

And the West Bank too!

I also think that it is wrong for the UN to fund political propaganda of any kind.

I agree 100%

And the West Bank too!



No they haven't evacuated the West bank

They have cleared some of the smaller illegal settlements that were there
while expanding others.

Maybe Israel has its own reasons to try to wipe them out or drive them out

just don't try to convince people that

1 Israel is doing anything other than that

2 That it is somehow inappropriate for UN funds to be used to remind people that the resolutions
call for Israel to give up the occupied territories
Gaza, WestBank and East Jerusalem

3 That America will do anything other than support Israel regardless of what it does

It takes a very special person to call Sharon a man of peace
and that very special person needs a very special type of UN ambassador.

As I said, the UN cannot do anything to prevent the US doing whatever it likes so its a mystery why the other nations bother turning up at all.
There's no evidence to show that Israel wants to wipe out the palestinians. The palestinians, on the other hand, have stated that they want to eradicate Israel.

No UN resolution grants Jerusalem to the Palestinians, but the UN is apparently paying for propaganda that claims that Jerusalem will be owned by the palestinians.

The US had better support Israel or the UN will appease the arabs by destroying it.

There's no evidence to show that Israel wants to wipe out the palestinians. The palestinians, on the other hand, have stated that they want to eradicate Israel.

No UN resolution grants Jerusalem to the Palestinians, but the UN is apparently paying for propaganda that claims that Jerusalem will be owned by the palestinians.

The US had better support Israel or the UN will appease the arabs by destroying it.

And one thing I saw that if things are going to get better at the UN is that they need to stop being anti-Israeli. The UN has got to stand up to the Palestinian terrorists and they aren't doing it. They constently condemn Israel's right to self defense and that isn't how it should be. They should start condemning Palestinian Terrorists through UN Security Council Resolutions (something the arabs have a habit of ignoring) and force the issue. They aren't doing that.

And, your right. According to a UN Resolution, Jeruselem is supposed to be an International City. Owned by no one.

There's no evidence to show that Israel wants to wipe out the palestinians. The palestinians, on the other hand, have stated that they want to eradicate Israel.

No UN resolution grants Jerusalem to the Palestinians, but the UN is apparently paying for propaganda that claims that Jerusalem will be owned by the palestinians.

The US had better support Israel or the UN will appease the arabs by destroying it.


The palestinians did indeed in the past speak exactly like that
but why not compare like with like and all the israelis calling for greater israel etc

Not to mention the "facts on the ground" that indicate exactly what Israels
plan for the westbank is

Break the palestinian settlements up into little bantustans with Israel controlling movement between them while taking over more territories
to provide "security" for their illegal settlements.
Destroying more palestinian houses farms etc.

Taking yet more territory with the "security wall"
and with that dispossesing even more palestinians.

You may believe the propaganda but try and get it through your head
that plenty of people don't.


The most interesting statistics about Gaza where we got to see
the Israeli army removing the illegal settlers peacefully and carefully.
Praying and crying with them on occasion.
As many as 13,350 Palestinians were made homeless in the Gaza Strip in the first 10 months of last year by Israel's giant armour-plated Caterpillar bulldozers - a total that easily exceeds the 8,500 leaving Israeli settlements this week. In Rafah alone, according to figures from the UN relief agency Unrwa, the rate of house demolitions rose from 15 per month in 2002 to 77 per month between January and October 2004.


Of course the palestinians did not get compensation
they often did not get more than 5 minutes warning.

If you were one of them, what would you think or do.

The palestinians did indeed in the past speak exactly like that
but why not compare like with like and all the israelis calling for greater israel etc

Not to mention the "facts on the ground" that indicate exactly what Israels
plan for the westbank is

Break the palestinian settlements up into little bantustans with Israel controlling movement between them while taking over more territories
to provide "security" for their illegal settlements.
Destroying more palestinian houses farms etc.

Taking yet more territory with the "security wall"
and with that dispossesing even more palestinians.

You may believe the propaganda but try and get it through your head
that plenty of people don't.


The most interesting statistics about Gaza where we got to see
the Israeli army removing the illegal settlers peacefully and carefully.
Praying and crying with them on occasion.
As many as 13,350 Palestinians were made homeless in the Gaza Strip in the first 10 months of last year by Israel's giant armour-plated Caterpillar bulldozers - a total that easily exceeds the 8,500 leaving Israeli settlements this week. In Rafah alone, according to figures from the UN relief agency Unrwa, the rate of house demolitions rose from 15 per month in 2002 to 77 per month between January and October 2004.


Of course the palestinians did not get compensation
they often did not get more than 5 minutes warning.

If you were one of them, what would you think or do.
The Israelis need the security fence to keep from having their women and children slaughtered by palestinian terrorists.

The Palestinians who had their homes destroyed in Gaza deserved it. They were involved in terrorism or smuggling weapons in from Egypt.

I have no sympathy for the Palestinians because of their attacks against Israeli civilians and their vow to wipe out Israel. You should see some of the Palestinian propaganda that's out there. They have children's shows that teach Palestinian kids to hate Jews and now they're using the supposedly neutral UN to fund propaganda saying that they will own Jerusalem, which the UN has said should be an international city.

It calls for Israel to give up territories captured
one of those is East Jerusalem

I ask you if another country controlled all access and egress to and from
the US while allowing freedom of movement within it with of course
as you say, the occasional helicopter attack or two.
Would you consider that freedom or simply a situation where your
country was completely under the control of occupiers.

A bit like a self governing prison.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:2_fqDp9d3moJ:news.yahoo.com/news%3Ftmpl%3Dstory%26u%3D/ap/20050808/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians+israel+control+gaza+borders+ap&hl=en

in all fairness to this comment... If the US lose control of these areas because of a failed invasion in which we were seeking to take out that neighbor that was obviously superior then us. I would not be whining about the injustice of it all

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Jerusalem supposed to be held by both the Palestinians and Israel?

Also, I have heard that Israel did a few inroads in the palestinian part of Jerusalem. Going so far as to put their security wall inside the palestinian part in order to control as much as 3/4 of Jerusalem.

In short, can someone point me to a place with the current situation on this city?

The Israelis need the security fence to keep from having their women and children slaughtered by palestinian terrorists.

The Palestinians who had their homes destroyed in Gaza deserved it. They were involved in terrorism or smuggling weapons in from Egypt.

I have no sympathy for the Palestinians because of their attacks against Israeli civilians and their vow to wipe out Israel. You should see some of the Palestinian propaganda that's out there. They have children's shows that teach Palestinian kids to hate Jews and now they're using the supposedly neutral UN to fund propaganda saying that they will own Jerusalem, which the UN has said should be an international city.


They should hardly need them, the day to day impact of Israeli soldiers
on their lives, preventing them from getting to schools and hospitals,
curfews for the majority of the day, accidentally slaughtering them while
"targetting militants" are more than enough to make anyone hate.

The security wall has been ruled illegal
the settlements are illegal
the collective punishment of palestinians is both immoral and illegal

If you could conceive of justice you would not be supporting them in this manner.
Israel is a terrorist state and one with nuclear weapons
perhaps it is the similarities to the US that makes you feel the need to support their crimes.

in all fairness to this comment... If the US lose control of these areas because of a failed invasion in which we were seeking to take out that neighbor that was obviously superior then us. I would not be whining about the injustice of it all
Exactly. The Palestinians are being used by the other arab nations as a proxy army to strike at Israel. They lost territory because of an attempt by Arabs to wipe Israel out. They keep killing Israeli civilians too. Why should Israel have any sympathy for them? Why should Israel treat their enemies well?

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Jerusalem supposed to be held by both the Palestinians and Israel?

No. Its supposed to be an International City which means owned by no one.

The palestinians did indeed in the past speak exactly like that
but why not compare like with like and all the israelis calling for greater israel etc

Not to mention the "facts on the ground" that indicate exactly what Israels
plan for the westbank is

Break the palestinian settlements up into little bantustans with Israel controlling movement between them while taking over more territories
to provide "security" for their illegal settlements.
Destroying more palestinian houses farms etc.

Taking yet more territory with the "security wall"
and with that dispossesing even more palestinians.

You may believe the propaganda but try and get it through your head
that plenty of people don't.


The most interesting statistics about Gaza where we got to see
the Israeli army removing the illegal settlers peacefully and carefully.
Praying and crying with them on occasion.
As many as 13,350 Palestinians were made homeless in the Gaza Strip in the first 10 months of last year by Israel's giant armour-plated Caterpillar bulldozers - a total that easily exceeds the 8,500 leaving Israeli settlements this week. In Rafah alone, according to figures from the UN relief agency Unrwa, the rate of house demolitions rose from 15 per month in 2002 to 77 per month between January and October 2004.


Of course the palestinians did not get compensation
they often did not get more than 5 minutes warning.

If you were one of them, what would you think or do.


given there is some creedence to this argument... it seems quite close minded to the reality of the situation on the ground. Quite frankly, if buldozzing someones house was an effective meathod to stop a bomber from killing 20 people on a bus in my neighborhood.. you best belive that house would be rubble. I would assume life is more important to you then property.

If that fence and those buldozers are saving lives, whatever the cost, which ever the side... then so be it! Who are you to place a higher value on the home of a palesitinean then the life of an israeli citizen.

And the evidence is clear as day. Terrorist attacks since the employment of these tactics have plumited in Israel. Its clear they work and they save lives

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Jerusalem supposed to be held by both the Palestinians and Israel?
No one has bothered to repeal the part of the 1947 UN resolution which made Jerusalem and Bethlehem international cities. To be fair, that's the best option--theoretically.

In practice, Jerusalem is claimed by the both sides in the Middle Eastern conflict.

Also, I have heard that Israel did a few inroads in the palestinian part of Jerusalem. Going so far as to put their security wall inside the palestinian part in order to control as much as 3/4 of Jerusalem.

In short, can someone point me to a place with the current situation on this city?
Erm... According to an Israeli law, Jerusalem as a whole is the capital of Israel. As for the inroads--I really don't know... You're going to need a detailed map of Jerusalem.

I would, but something tells me no. Why? Because no one would believe it, and make every effort to refute it. You're just too ingrained in your thought, and quite frankly, I'm sick of it.
Post of the week.

They should hardly need them, the day to day impact of Israeli soldiers
on their lives, preventing them from getting to schools and hospitals,
curfews for the majority of the day, accidentally slaughtering them while
"targetting militants" are more than enough to make anyone hate.

The security wall has been ruled illegal
the settlements are illegal
the collective punishment of palestinians is both immoral and illegal

If you could conceive of justice you would not be supporting them in this manner.
Israel is a terrorist state and one with nuclear weapons
perhaps it is the similarities to the US that makes you feel the need to support their crimes.
Targeting militants is done as humanely as possible by Israel. A hellfire missile hitting a car is much less dangerous than the alternative. If Israel went in with ground troops they'd need to kill thousands of Palestinians like the US troops did when trying to arrest Habr Gidr clan members in Mogadishu.

The fence is illegal?
So what? If Israel followed the UN's legal advice more Israelis would be dying right now from Palestinian terrorists.

The collective punishment of Palestinians is immoral? Not when most of them back terrorism.

given there is some creedence to this argument... it seems quite close minded to the reality of the situation on the ground. Quite frankly, if buldozzing someones house was an effective meathod to stop a bomber from killing 20 people on a bus in my neighborhood.. you best belive that house would be rubble. I would assume life is more important to you then property.

If that fence and those buldozers are saving lives, whatever the cost, which ever the side... then so be it! Who are you to place a higher value on the home of a palesitinean then the life of an israeli citizen.

And the evidence is clear as day. Terrorist attacks since the employment of these tactics have plumited in Israel. Its clear they work and they save lives

Indeed, the fence can be torn down, the homes can be built again. The people cannot be born anew.

Erm... According to an Israeli law, Jerusalem as a whole is the capital of Israel. As for the inroads--I really don't know... You're going to need a detailed map of Jerusalem.
and according to the Palestinian authority, it is also the Palestinian capital. So I thought they had agreed to share it's day-to-day governing. Just because Israel says it is their capital doesn't give them the right to control it if someone else claims it as it's capital too. Especially if it is an internationnal city.

in all fairness to this comment... If the US lose control of these areas because of a failed invasion in which we were seeking to take out that neighbor that was obviously superior then us. I would not be whining about the injustice of it all


I think you should be careful Israelis do not like to be compared to nazis
and it is possible to read your comment as them having the right to do what
they want by virtue of being superior, which is pretty darn close to nazi thinking.


Now of course I am not suggesting that you were
just that Israelis can be sensitive to it.

Now I would indeed say that that is exactly how they treat palestinians
for to me the Israelis of today are not outside the league headed up
by Nazi Germany.

They have more subtlety and of course much more support from the states
than the Nazis had but their treatment of people that they have the power of
life or death over is shot through with the cruelty the Nazis showed to the
Jews, which as we all know eventually led to concentration camps and gas chambers.

We have yet to see if Israel will stop at concentration camps or proceed
at some point to gas chambers or their equivelant.

If they do though, they can rest assured that many in the US
along with whichever administration is in power at the time will
support it as necessary for their security.

and according to the Palestinian authority, it is also the Palestinian capital. So I thought they had agreed to share it's day-to-day governing. Just because Israel says it is their capital doesn't give them the right to control it if someone else claims it as it's capital too. Especially if it is an internationnal city.
Well, they haven't agreed on the future status of Jerusalem, and presently it is ruled by the Israeli authorities... It is a political hot potato, nay, potato that is aflame.

Indeed, the fence can be torn down, the homes can be built again. The people cannot be born anew.


I think GW would disagree.


Now Im surprised that hasn't been his solution to it
end the divide with both Israelis and Palestinians all becoming born again
christians.

Originally Posted by Relative Power
They should hardly need them, the day to day impact of Israeli soldiers
on their lives, preventing them from getting to schools and hospitals,
curfews for the majority of the day, accidentally slaughtering them while
"targetting militants" are more than enough to make anyone hate.

The security wall has been ruled illegal
the settlements are illegal
the collective punishment of palestinians is both immoral and illegal

If you could conceive of justice you would not be supporting them in this manner.
Israel is a terrorist state and one with nuclear weapons
perhaps it is the similarities to the US that makes you feel the need to support their crimes.

Since you smear israel with one color.. i wonder if that color is also used with Palestine... Terrorist organizations strike reguardless of agreement or diplomacy, bombing as many and as often as possible. Citizens were murdered almost daily for thier own political ambitions.. and these terrorist best of all are directly related to and now in some cases represented in the Palestinean authority itself. Is it not then legitimate to say PALESTINE is a terrorist state as well.. Instead of focusing on the in justice of one.. you should be concerned with the saving of lives. If the inconvience of Palestineans brings about the saving of lives on either side (less terrorist attacks requiring fewer military incursions) then i would think you as a "humanitarian" should be most supportive.

Indeed, the fence can be torn down, the homes can be built again. The people cannot be born anew.


Well demolishing the twin towers did nothing to stop American terrorism
and the American response did nothing to diminish terrorism in the world.

Perhaps committing crimes is not how to achieve peace

just a thought

I think you should be careful Israelis do not like to be compared to nazis
and it is possible to read your comment as them having the right to do what
they want by virtue of being superior, which is pretty darn close to nazi thinking.


Now of course I am not suggesting that you were
just that Israelis can be sensitive to it.

Now I would indeed say that that is exactly how they treat palestinians
for to me the Israelis of today are not outside the league headed up
by Nazi Germany.

They have more subtlety and of course much more support from the states
than the Nazis had but their treatment of people that they have the power of
life or death over is shot through with the cruelty the Nazis showed to the
Jews, which as we all know eventually led to concentration camps and gas chambers.

We have yet to see if Israel will stop at concentration camps or proceed
at some point to gas chambers or their equivelant.

If they do though, they can rest assured that many in the US
along with whichever administration is in power at the time will
support it as necessary for their security.
Congratulations, not only have you voiced an absurd opinion that the Israelis want to exterminate the Palestinians or at least keep an unstable and angry population on their border (presumably so that the conflict will never end, because wastin money and lives is in Israel's best interest, right) but you've also managed to godwin the thread.

...

We have yet to see if Israel will stop at concentration camps or proceed
at some point to gas chambers or their equivelant.

...
There have already been mass public hangings, racial laws... Oh wait, all this happened in the Arab states, and it were the Jews who were hanging from the crossbeams. (Iraq, 1969)

Well demolishing the twin towers did nothing to stop American terrorism
and the American response did nothing to diminish terrorism in the world.

Perhaps committing crimes is not how to achieve peace

just a thought
Maybe you should foreward this post to your murderous pals in Hamas and PIJ.

Well demolishing the twin towers did nothing to stop American terrorism

I suggest you learn a little bit of history. We don't try to hit civilians on purpose. The terrorists that we are fighting hit mostly civilians on purpose.

and the American response did nothing to diminish terrorism in the world.

At least we are defending the rights of men from terrorist thugs that want to take away the rights of men.l

Perhaps committing crimes is not how to achieve peace

just a thought

What crimes are you refering too?

Since you smear israel with one color.. i wonder if that color is also used with Palestine... Terrorist organizations strike reguardless of agreement or diplomacy, bombing as many and as often as possible. Citizens were murdered almost daily for thier own political ambitions.. and these terrorist best of all are directly related to and now in some cases represented in the Palestinean authority itself. Is it not then legitimate to say PALESTINE is a terrorist state as well.. Instead of focusing on the in justice of one.. you should be concerned with the saving of lives. If the inconvience of Palestineans brings about the saving of lives on either side (less terrorist attacks requiring fewer military incursions) then i would think you as a "humanitarian" should be most supportive.

As Israelis would be the first to declare that Palestine is not a state
your argument is already a little shaky.

Israel took great efforts to ensure that the Palestinian Authority could
not exercise control and then blamed it for not doing so.

What state in the world could arrest people for any activity
and hold them in cells for their neighbouring power to destroy with
missile strikes.
What authority in the world could retain any credibility with its people if it did so.

I think you should be careful Israelis do not like to be compared to nazis
and it is possible to read your comment as them having the right to do what
they want by virtue of being superior, which is pretty darn close to nazi thinking.


Now of course I am not suggesting that you were
just that Israelis can be sensitive to it.

Now I would indeed say that that is exactly how they treat palestinians
for to me the Israelis of today are not outside the league headed up
by Nazi Germany.

They have more subtlety and of course much more support from the states
than the Nazis had but their treatment of people that they have the power of
life or death over is shot through with the cruelty the Nazis showed to the
Jews, which as we all know eventually led to concentration camps and gas chambers.

We have yet to see if Israel will stop at concentration camps or proceed
at some point to gas chambers or their equivelant.

If they do though, they can rest assured that many in the US
along with whichever administration is in power at the time will
support it as necessary for their security.

I think that is a pretty poor manner in which to twist my words when its so clear what they meant.. superiority in military and tactical force. That is nothing less the clear from the many wars Palestine has lost against Israel and we now look at those consequences. It is clear to me Israel has its best intentions in mind, and taking into account the hostile history Palestine started off with.... it is not suprising to me Israel works for its interests before those of palestine.. But do you put the value of a palestine home and ability to get to work over the life of an Israeli who would otherwise die in a bus from a palestine bomb... a bomb that comes from an organization directly represented in the Palestiean authority ??

I think your being far too bias in this debate and far to close minded to be able to grasp the complexity on the ground. Your as bad as Bush .. "they are evil we are good" argumen just holds so little creedance. Palestine is just as guilty as Israel in every way possible!

As Israelis would be the first to declare that Palestine is not a state
your argument is already a little shaky.

Isreal wouldn't mind 2 states otherwise, they wouldn't be doing what they are doing now.

Israel took great efforts to ensure that the Palestinian Authority could
not exercise control and then blamed it for not doing so.

Since the PA was responsible for many terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, do you blame them?

What state in the world could arrest people for any activity
and hold them in cells for their neighbouring power to destroy with
missile strikes.
What authority in the world could retain any credibility with its people if it did so.

I want proof of this.

I suggest you learn a little bit of history. We don't try to hit civilians on purpose. The terrorists that we are fighting hit mostly civilians on purpose.


Actually your famous for being nearly as dangerous to your allies as
to your enemies.

British and Canadian troops know to expect your friendly fire
but expecting it and avoiding it are two different things.

I know y'all claim to not try to hit civilians but its really hard to believe
when you kill so damn many of them.



At least we are defending the rights of men from terrorist thugs that want to take away the rights of men.l


No you aren't
Your taking control of the middle east.


What crimes are you refering too?
[/quote]

The attack on the twin towers, americas attack on iraq etc etc etc

As Israelis would be the first to declare that Palestine is not a state
your argument is already a little shaky.

Israel took great efforts to ensure that the Palestinian Authority could
not exercise control and then blamed it for not doing so.

What state in the world could arrest people for any activity
and hold them in cells for their neighbouring power to destroy with
missile strikes.
What authority in the world could retain any credibility with its people if it did so.
If the Palestinian Authority didn't just release terrorists the same day that they're arrested, if the PA didn't sell their weapons to terrorist groups, if the PA actually went about the business of governing and policing their territory there would be no need for missile strikes.

As Israelis would be the first to declare that Palestine is not a state
your argument is already a little shaky.

Israel took great efforts to ensure that the Palestinian Authority could
not exercise control and then blamed it for not doing so.

What state in the world could arrest people for any activity
and hold them in cells for their neighbouring power to destroy with
missile strikes.
What authority in the world could retain any credibility with its people if it did so.

What authority could claim any willingness to arrest terrorist when those terrorist themselves have direct links to that authority ??? And does Israel belive Palestine not to be a state.. ive yet to hear these words from Israeli officals.. meanwhile i hear simliar words from Palestine Daily from people directly within the government... soo which argument is shaky ?

I would whole heardtly disagree that the Palestinean authority has no ability to deal with terrorist because soley of Israel.. and most experts would disagree as well. They have the man power.. but most authority police officers themselves are corrupt... the leadership of thea uthority being Arafat has up until this point been nothing more then a puppet... only now they try to exert power.. and what has become prevalent... the terrorist sects of their organization now fight against them not just Israel

Actually your famous for being nearly as dangerous to your allies as
to your enemies.

OMG! You know nothing of war do you? Friendly fire accidents happen all the time. Lack of communications causes most of them.

British and Canadian troops know to expect your friendly fire
but expecting it and avoiding it are two different things.

Your right, they are two different things and if communications and planning was done better, the number of ffa's would decrease.

I know y'all claim to not try to hit civilians but its really hard to believe
when you kill so damn many of them.

Welcome to war Relative Power. Civilians die in it no matter how hard you try to avoid it.

No you aren't
Your taking control of the middle east.

No we aren't.

The attack on the twin towers, americas attack on iraq etc etc etc

Twin Towers was a crime however attacking Iraq wasn't.

Well demolishing the twin towers did nothing to stop American terrorism
and the American response did nothing to diminish terrorism in the world.

Perhaps committing crimes is not how to achieve peace

just a thought

If by terroristm you mean removing the TAliban ... or the loss of the oh holy Saddam in Iraq.. then perhaps i would not be so uncomfortable with the idea of terrorism.

You may call Americans terrorist.. but the terrorist themselves have killed (with the intent to kill them) more Iraqi children then any American bomb ever did. If you throw that term around so lightly.. then there is nation on this planet who is not a terrorist.. Your arugment is nothing more then sensationalism... i could just turn and call everyone nazi's and it would have the same credibility

If anyone actally belived America didnt' care about the lives of cilivians I would then ask you to reconcile the reality that America not just carpet bomb all of Iraq every city every home. We could have leveled Iraq leaving nothing but oil fields without ever needed to lose a single american life.

Its not like the obsolete UN would have mattered. Those unable to even carry out their own will from 1441 played activily opposed the US to begin with. World opinion already stands in opposition. We could have destroyed every living soul within that nation and walk in.

Yet we use laser guided bombs (whatever small percentage is inaccurate) and risk our own ground troops ... and bring a democratic process by which we have no control over (evidence by the large role Islam now will play in the new constitution) the new government.

What is reality.. and what is the sensationalism . Let us not forget. Saddam killed more Iraqi children and women then any amount of American soldiers ever did

If anyone actally belived America didnt' care about the lives of cilivians I would then ask you to reconcile the reality that America not just carpet bomb all of Iraq every city every home. We could have leveled Iraq leaving nothing but oil fields without ever needed to lose a single american life.

Its not like the obsolete UN would have mattered. Those unable to even carry out their own will from 1441 played activily opposed the US to begin with. World opinion already stands in opposition. We could have destroyed every living soul within that nation and walk in.

Yet we use laser guided bombs (whatever small percentage is inaccurate) and risk our own ground troops ... and bring a democratic process by which we have no control over (evidence by the large role Islam now will play in the new constitution) the new government.

What is reality.. and what is the sensationalism . Let us not forget. Saddam killed more Iraqi children and women then any amount of American soldiers ever did
I've brought up similar points before, but I think many of those who claim that the US intentionally kills civilians won't know how humane our style of warfare is until we once again make an example of a city like we once did to Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. It would take something like that to give them some perspective.

Isreal wouldn't mind 2 states otherwise, they wouldn't be doing what they are doing now.


You are kidding right?

They wouldn't be taking unilateral action and never ever reaching any
agreement with Palestinians

Israel is pursuing a one state solution
a one Israeli state solution comprising as much land as it can possibly grab.


Since the PA was responsible for many terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, do you blame them?


I wan't proof of that

You are kidding right?

They wouldn't be taking unilateral action and never ever reaching any
agreement with Palestinians

Israel is pursuing a one state solution
a one Israeli state solution comprising as much land as it can possibly grab.

Then apparently you don't realize that Yassar Arafat turned down about 90% of all lands that Israel occupied. They do want to live in peace with their neighbors. When they formed their state, they immediately recognized ALL the arab states but the arabs attacked them in return.

I wan't proof of that

I'm not even going to bother since apparently, logic is lost on you.

If by terroristm you mean removing the TAliban ... or the loss of the oh holy Saddam in Iraq.. then perhaps i would not be so uncomfortable with the idea of terrorism.

You may call Americans terrorist.. but the terrorist themselves have killed (with the intent to kill them) more Iraqi children then any American bomb ever did. If you throw that term around so lightly.. then there is nation on this planet who is not a terrorist.. Your arugment is nothing more then sensationalism... i could just turn and call everyone nazi's and it would have the same credibility


No by terrorism I mean using violence to achieve political aims
and tends to involve the murder of men women and children

over 100,000 in Iraq alone

Studies have been published that have demonstrated the majority of children
killed in Iraq have been killed by American bombs and bullets.

But there was no terrorism in Iraq before your attack so while directly
responsible for the deaths of the majority the US is indirectly responsible
for the deaths of all the children killed in Iraq
which by no means lets off the people who under cover of the resistance
to the US occupation are so careless with the lives of Iraqi children.

I'm sure there are many people who would find you credible,
the same who believe Israels treatment of palestinians is reasonable

But then some people will find anything credible.

What will be most interesting is once US has full control in Iraq and
no longer needs Israel as its proxy in the middle east
the geni will not go back in the bottle at that stage
and the US will be experiencing tensions
with yet another country that it has armed and supported
but which has nuclear weapons.

Israelis should remember that the US turns on its friends when they
don't act as the US wishes

The US should remember that Israel does the same

Then apparently you don't realize that Yassar Arafat turned down about 90% of all lands that Israel occupied. They do want to live in peace with their neighbors. When they formed their state, they immediately recognized ALL the arab states but the arabs attacked them in return.



I'm not even going to bother since apparently, logic is lost on you.

I will have to support you on both fronts.... Israel is the one persuing a one state solution ???? he obviously has them confused.. he talks as though Israel couldnt walk into Palestine any time it wanted and seize control. It almost shames me to have to actually suggest its the Arabs who want Israel gone.

And the PA not responsible for attacks ? Comon... if he dosn't know that Hezbola and the Jihadist dont have direct ties with the PA... then its no wonder he is in such staunch support of Palestine

Then apparently you don't realize that Yassar Arafat turned down about 90% of all lands that Israel occupied. They do want to live in peace with their neighbors. When they formed their state, they immediately recognized ALL the arab states but the arabs attacked them in return.



I'm not even going to bother since apparently, logic is lost on you.


I take all your money and offer you 90% of it back

you'll be happy Im sure

but the right to return was the biggest problem there
so thats of all your money Ive held for the last 40 yrs I get to keep the interest.

No by terrorism I mean using violence to achieve political aims
and tends to involve the murder of men women and children

over 100,000 in Iraq alone

Studies have been published that have demonstrated the majority of children
killed in Iraq have been killed by American bombs and bullets.

But there was no terrorism in Iraq before your attack so while directly
responsible for the deaths of the majority the US is indirectly responsible
for the deaths of all the children killed in Iraq
which by no means lets off the people who under cover of the resistance
to the US occupation are so careless with the lives of Iraqi children.

I'm sure there are many people who would find you credible,
the same who believe Israels treatment of palestinians is reasonable

But then some people will find anything credible.

What will be most interesting is once US has full control in Iraq and
no longer needs Israel as its proxy in the middle east
the geni will not go back in the bottle at that stage
and the US will be experiencing tensions
with yet another country that it has armed and supported
but which has nuclear weapons.

Israelis should remember that the US turns on its friends when they
don't act as the US wishes

The US should remember that Israel does the same
You don't even try to pick a reasonable count of Iraqi deaths, do you? You went straight for the highest, most inflated figure. I guess that shows how impartial you are. Just be a man and say what you really mean. You hate the US and Israel.

I will have to support you on both fronts.... Israel is the one persuing a one state solution ???? he obviously has them confused.. he talks as though Israel couldnt walk into Palestine any time it wanted and seize control. It almost shames me to have to actually suggest its the Arabs who want Israel gone.

And the PA not responsible for attacks ? Comon... if he dosn't know that Hezbola and the Jihadist dont have direct ties with the PA... then its no wonder he is in such staunch support of Palestine


Israel could declare it all theirs

but even the US couldnt endorse it if they did
and no one else would

gradually eliminating the palestinians by making life simply unlivable for them
in the occupied territories
will simply lead to well no1 else is using it and the US will support that

I take all your money and offer you 90% of it back

you'll be happy Im sure

but the right to return was the biggest problem there
so thats of all your money Ive held for the last 40 yrs I get to keep the interest.

just wondering.. how was Israel able to take all their "money" ohhhh thats right.... Palestine attacked and lost it when they got whooped. I think 90% was extremely generous quite frankly considering the act of war commiteed against Israel

No by terrorism I mean using violence to achieve political aims
and tends to involve the murder of men women and children

over 100,000 in Iraq alone

Actually, that number is also inaccurate. According to reliable sources, it is only at 12,000. Most of those killed were done by the terrorist thugs who want to drive us out. Not going to win points that way, especially if you kill the very citizens of the nation you are in.

Studies have been published that have demonstrated the majority of children
killed in Iraq have been killed by American bombs and bullets.

HAHAHA! Oh this is rich. Very very rich.

But there was no terrorism in Iraq before your attack so while directly
responsible for the deaths of the majority the US is indirectly responsible
for the deaths of all the children killed in Iraq

Hmmm no, we aren't responsible indirectly for anything.

which by no means lets off the people who under cover of the resistance
to the US occupation are so careless with the lives of Iraqi children.

By blowing them up intentionally while we have gone out of our way to avoid civilian casualties.

But then some people will find anything credible.

Your living proof of that!

What will be most interesting is once US has full control in Iraq and
no longer needs Israel as its proxy in the middle east
the geni will not go back in the bottle at that stage
and the US will be experiencing tensions
with yet another country that it has armed and supported
but which has nuclear weapons.

1) Iraq is in control of Iraq. The United States is no longer in control once we gave soveriegnty back to Iraq.

2) Israel will always need allies since the ME is bound and determined to eliminate them off the map. Who is going to defend them? The UN? Hardly.

Israelis should remember that the US turns on its friends when they
don't act as the US wishes

In some cases, yes but only when they declare themselves enemies of the United States. BTW: Saddam did that so....

You don't even try to pick a reasonable count of Iraqi deaths, do you? You went straight for the highest, most inflated figure. I guess that shows how impartial you are. Just be a man and say what you really mean. You hate the US and Israel.

That wasnt the highest

That was the one published in the Lancet

It was one arrived at by eliminating areas with particularly high death tolls
as their results would have sent it up considerably higher.

You don't like it because it isn't the absolute lowest.

You would have preferred if I had used to one that only counted
deaths that were both reported by the press or us forces and confirmed by the us authorities.

That is not sold as accurate that one is sold as the very base line
the absolute minimum you could attempt to claim without being recognized
as an arrant liar.

From Iraqi Body Counts own website explaining this

We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war

I take all your money and offer you 90% of it back

you'll be happy Im sure

but the right to return was the biggest problem there
so thats of all your money Ive held for the last 40 yrs I get to keep the interest.
If it's a choice between taking the 90% or facing the prospect of getting nothing I and every other reasonable person would take the 90%.

Israel could declare it all theirs

but even the US couldnt endorse it if they did
and no one else would

gradually eliminating the palestinians by making life simply unlivable for them
in the occupied territories
will simply lead to well no1 else is using it and the US will support that

Land for peace
the 1995 peace accord....
now the pull out of gaza...

yess i can see how Israel is trying to take over Palestine :confused:

to suggest it is Israel and not Palestine searching for the one nation solution is pure obsurdity.. and the fact that you persue this ignorance is almost intolerabe... its not even worth my effort any longer. Take a history class before you continue this dribble. You may learn Palestine is just as guilty as Israel (not to shatter your glass house)

I take all your money and offer you 90% of it back

you'll be happy Im sure

but the right to return was the biggest problem there
so thats of all your money Ive held for the last 40 yrs I get to keep the interest.

It was the greatest offer ever by an ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER! The world was stunned when that terrorist Arafat turned it down. If he had accepted it, I would promise you that there would've been a Palestinian state and an Israeli state right now.

That wasnt the highest

That was the one published in the Lancet

It was one arrived at by eliminating areas with particularly high death tolls
as their results would have sent it up considerably higher.

You don't like it because it isn't the absolute lowest.

You would have preferred if I had used to one that only counted
deaths that were both reported by the press or us forces and confirmed by the us authorities.

That is not sold as accurate that one is sold as the very base line
the absolute minimum you could attempt to claim without being recognized
as an arrant liar.
I don't trust the lowest. I think Iraqbodycount.org probably has the most accurate count at about 26,000. There's simply no way 100,000 civilians were killed and absolutely no way that most were killed by coalition forces.

If it's a choice between taking the 90% or facing the prospect of getting nothing I and every other reasonable person would take the 90%.

No you darn well wouldn't

You'd be demanding the court enforced its order of all the money back
with interest
and damages on top of it

Lie to us by all means but don't lie to yourself too

I don't trust the lowest. I think Iraqbodycount.org probably has the most accurate count at about 26,000. There's simply no way 100,000 civilians were killed and absolutely no way that most were killed by coalition forces.

From Iraqi Body Counts own website explaining this

We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war

No you darn well wouldn't

You'd be demanding the court enforced its order of all the money back
with interest
and damages on top of it

Lie to us by all means but don't lie to yourself too

should israel then be demanding reparations for the damages caused by the Palestinean invasion which caused the loss of gaza and the westbank in Israels favor ?

who is lying to who here ? You know what.. they would have never lost that land if they didn't think they could have taken out all of israel... :rolleyes:

Dont be so naive..

The phrase “Today Gaza, Tomorrow the West Bank and Jerusalem” is pretty innocuous, guys. Besides, Gaza is Palestine. the West Bank is Palestine, and Jerusalem was always an international city, not an exclusively Judaic one - at any point in history. Palestine has a legitimate claim to partial ownership of Jerusalem.

So, jump up and down and holler if it pleases you, but I gotta say I think there's waaaaaaaaay more important shit to be dealing with than this. And so now I'm getting the picture of John Bolton - personal UN fart-catcher for Bush and PNAC. The guy they can count on to make headlines when they don't want to. More crapola to keep people talking about anything other than what's really going down in Washington these days.

Kudos to Mr. Rove on this. Well-played, you soulless weasel. Well-played.

weren't Gaza/West Bank once parts of Judah/Israel (forget where they are in relation to the split kingdom of 3000-5000 years ago or whatever) or simply israel (when the promised land was one nation)?

It was the greatest offer ever by an ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER! The world was stunned when that terrorist Arafat turned it down. If he had accepted it, I would promise you that there would've been a Palestinian state and an Israeli state right now.

And still didnt approach the UN rulings

if it had been Iraq
the US would have invaded a long time ago
if the reasons it gave for invading Iraq were in any way honest

should israel then be demanding reparations for the damages caused by the Palestinean invasion which caused the loss of gaza and the westbank in Israels favor ?

who is lying to who here ? You know what.. they would have never lost that land if they didn't think they could have taken out all of israel... :rolleyes:

Dont be so naive..

Actually, that would be the Arab's invasion. Also the Palestinian problem is really the Arabs falt and the Arabs have even stated that it was their falt but they aren't doing anything about it.

Your right though, he really does need a history lesson. Who started all of those Israeli/Arab Wars? Not the Israelis. How many of those wars has Israel won? All of them.

And still didnt approach the UN rulings

if it had been Iraq
the US would have invaded a long time ago
if the reasons it gave for invading Iraq were in any way honest

It was still the best offer that they put up. Even the UN liked it and if they liked something then it had to be good and Arafat still turned them done. Come on, stop being a naive individual!

From Iraqi Body Counts own website explaining this

We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war

welllll its a good thing your source was able to account for all the unreported deaths huh.... and its a good thing they were able to identify who killed them and when .... man... we should all have such accurate sources of information :rolleyes:

Israel could declare it all theirs

but even the US couldnt endorse it if they did
and no one else would

gradually eliminating the palestinians by making life simply unlivable for them
in the occupied territories
will simply lead to well no1 else is using it and the US will support that
The Palestinian's problems are caused by the Palestinians. If they'd learn to behave themselves Israel wouldn't need to restrict their travel into Israeli territory, Israel wouldn't need a security fence, Israel wouldn't need targeted killings to be safe, so the Palestinians would be safe too.

And still didnt approach the UN rulings

if it had been Iraq
the US would have invaded a long time ago
if the reasons it gave for invading Iraq were in any way honest

so by your accoutns.. the US lied to go into iraq.. well its a good thing all the countries of the world are so stupid to belive everything Bush says without merit.. and signed resolution 1441 unanimously only on Bush's word there were weapons there.

considering the worlds opinion of bush being one of the dumbest men on the planet.. who is more foolish... the fool, or the person who follows him :confused:

No you darn well wouldn't

You'd be demanding the court enforced its order of all the money back
with interest
and damages on top of it

Lie to us by all means but don't lie to yourself too
You made the analogy, now you're twisting it so it doesn't resemble the original situation that it was supposed to describe so you can call me a liar. Really fucking honest of you.

The fact is that in interpersonal disputes among citizens of the same country a court has power, and is usually impartial. In the realm of nations there is no court with the power to make Israel give the Palestinians anything, not that they deserve anything. Also the only court that exists, impotent as it may be, is biased against Israel.

The Palestinian's problems are caused by the Palestinians. If they'd learn to behave themselves Israel wouldn't need to restrict their travel into Israeli territory, Israel wouldn't need a security fence, Israel wouldn't need targeted killings to be safe, so the Palestinians would be safe too.

Pssssh what r u TALKING about.. didn't you know restricting palestinean travel is just an effort to make life "unlivable" and a consipracy to take over palestine ? it has nothing to do with the daily bus bombings and sucicide bombings in citizen centers killing as many children and women as possible.

comon man.. Palestine are the vicitims in all this

[/sarcasim]

so its okay for america to fund israeli propaganda?

also I think america should only get a voice in how the un spends its money when it give it some (USA is billions out from what is should be paying (it claims as it hosts it it doesn't have to...))

viva palestine, its true they will eventually get rid of israel its more or less inevitable (it might take a very long time but still)

and on that day I will dance and laugh at all the zionists around the world

hahahahaha

by the way i'm jewish enough to be a citizen and member of an anti israel organisation founded by a palestinian jew........ (so don't pull the anti semite crap on me)

weren't Gaza/West Bank once parts of Judah/Israel (forget where they are in relation to the split kingdom of 3000-5000 years ago or whatever) or simply israel (when the promised land was one nation)?

Ah yes, also once known as Canaan and lived in by the Canaanites. I remember that from Exodus I'm sure I do...

You made the analogy, now you're twisting it so it doesn't resemble the original situation that it was supposed to describe so you can call me a liar. Really fucking honest of you.

The fact is that in interpersonal disputes among citizens of the same country a court has power, and is usually impartial. In the realm of nations there is no court with the power to make Israel give the Palestinians anything, not that they deserve anything. Also the only court that exists, impotent as it may be, is biased against Israel.

see a better analogy would be.. he is a mugger.. trys to mug you.. you beat the sht out of him and steal his money.... then you make a deal saying "ok ok i forgive you and will give you back 90% of the money i took" .. he is saying he would say no... demand all his money back plus interest..


what... that dosn't make sense ? :confused:

From Iraqi Body Counts own website explaining this

We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war
How did the Lancet determine the number of deaths?


Also, even if the number of unreported deaths is twice the number in Iraq body count it still is roughly 25,000 deaths short of the Lancet's numbers. Large numbers of dead people in one day tend to get reported by the media. For that reason I'd wager that the number of unreported deaths is significantly lower than twice the number reported. You just can't kill that many people at the rate of one or two per day in the time we've been in Iraq.

so its okay for america to fund israeli propaganda?

We're not the UN!

also I think america should only get a voice in how the un spends its money when it give it some (USA is billions out from what is should be paying (it claims as it hosts it it doesn't have to...))

When the UN straightens up and actually does something constructive for once, then we'll start paying more of our dues. Until then, NOT A CHANCE!

viva palestine, its true they will eventually get rid of israel its more or less inevitable (it might take a very long time but still)

Highly doubtful.

and on that day I will dance and laugh at all the zionists around the world

hahahahaha

:rolleyes:

by the way i'm jewish enough to be a citizen and member of an anti israel organisation founded by a palestinian jew........ (so don't pull the anti semite crap on me)

Well you got me there however, I think you've been brainwashed almost as bad as Relative Power has been.

so its okay for america to fund israeli propaganda?

also I think america should only get a voice in how the un spends its money when it give it some (USA is billions out from what is should be paying (it claims as it hosts it it doesn't have to...))

viva palestine, its true they will eventually get rid of israel its more or less inevitable (it might take a very long time but still)

and on that day I will dance and laugh at all the zionists around the world

hahahahaha

by the way i'm jewish enough to be a citizen and member of an anti israel organisation founded by a palestinian jew........ (so don't pull the anti semite crap on me)

because palestine has been so successful thus far :rolleyes:

they will be lucky not to fall into civil war with such an inability to maintain control over their own terrirotry ... Gaza may just be an excellent example of what the real struggle here is.. not Palestine vs Israel but the PA vs the PA (hezbolah)

see a better analogy would be.. he is a mugger.. trys to mug you.. you beat the sht out of him and steal his money.... then you make a deal saying "ok ok i forgive you and will give you back 90% of the money i took" .. he is saying he would say no... demand all his money back plus interest..


what... that dosn't make sense ? :confused:

Actually it's more like pursuing a vendetta against that whole mugger's family until they are all on life-support then punching them every time they show signs of resistance.

And then claiming they are evil terrorists for fighting the only way they can. And getting your biggest friend to allow them to get away with it.

Actually it's more like pursuing a vendetta against that whole mugger's family until they are all on life-support then punching them every time they show signs of resistance.

And then claiming they are evil terrorists for fighting the only way they can. And getting your biggest friend to allow them to get away with it.

i can see how the 1995 peace accord shows their vendetta to go after palestinean people.. my god... offering them all of gaza and (if im not correct) all of the west bank.. those animals.. savages even... and the only way they can fight back.. yes.. killing the innocent civilians fueling even more anger against Palestine.. i can see how that works toward their goal.

[/sarcasim]

And still didnt approach the UN rulings

if it had been Iraq
the US would have invaded a long time ago
if the reasons it gave for invading Iraq were in any way honest
The Palestinians lost control over their territory because they and the other arabs tried to wipe out Israel. Why the fuck would Israel go out of it's way to give them back everything they lost? They would have been wise to take what was offered.

so its okay for america to fund israeli propaganda?

also I think america should only get a voice in how the un spends its money when it give it some (USA is billions out from what is should be paying (it claims as it hosts it it doesn't have to...))

viva palestine, its true they will eventually get rid of israel its more or less inevitable (it might take a very long time but still)

and on that day I will dance and laugh at all the zionists around the world

hahahahaha

by the way i'm jewish enough to be a citizen and member of an anti israel organisation founded by a palestinian jew........ (so don't pull the anti semite crap on me)
You'd be my kind of Jew, if my name was Adolph Hitler.

Actually it's more like pursuing a vendetta against that whole mugger's family until they are all on life-support then punching them every time they show signs of resistance.

And then claiming they are evil terrorists for fighting the only way they can. And getting your biggest friend to allow them to get away with it.
Not even close. The "mugger's family" overwhelmingly supports killing your family. They've invaded your home to exterminate you and your kids, but you fought them off. You build a wall to keep them off your property, and when they shoot at you you shoot back with a bigger gun. That is a much better example.

http://globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/einstein.htm

LOL

Everyone that doesn't support Israel is an anti-semite!

LOL

Bolton is OK, hemay actually turn out to be good, or will fade into insignifigance. Anyway, the UN is too stagnant.

so by your accoutns.. the US lied to go into iraq.. well its a good thing all the countries of the world are so stupid to belive everything Bush says without merit.. and signed resolution 1441 unanimously only on Bush's word there were weapons there.

considering the worlds opinion of bush being one of the dumbest men on the planet.. who is more foolish... the fool, or the person who follows him :confused:


1441 did not give authorisation to go to war

as I am sure you darn well know.

and the UN did not vote him into office.

Pssssh what r u TALKING about.. didn't you know restricting palestinean travel is just an effort to make life "unlivable" and a consipracy to take over palestine ? it has nothing to do with the daily bus bombings and sucicide bombings in citizen centers killing as many children and women as possible.

comon man.. Palestine are the vicitims in all this

[/sarcasim]


yes restricting palestinian travel between different areas of the west bank
does a lot to prevent bombings in Israel
and it should never be a numbers game but compare the figures between
Israeli and Palestinian deaths of any age or gender and tell me the palestinians are the principals in this

How did the Lancet determine the number of deaths?


Also, even if the number of unreported deaths is twice the number in Iraq body count it still is roughly 25,000 deaths short of the Lancet's numbers. Large numbers of dead people in one day tend to get reported by the media. For that reason I'd wager that the number of unreported deaths is significantly lower than twice the number reported. You just can't kill that many people at the rate of one or two per day in the time we've been in Iraq.

You base that assumption on what exactly?

Given that the media are pretty much all sitting in hotel rooms within the
green zone

How exactly would they report on deaths elsewhere?

Add to that killings just as with the Israelis are invariably claimed to be
of terrorists when they are acknowledged at all and that claim kept going
until definite proof that they were not is given again difficult to do when
most of the reporters in Iraq sit in their hotel rooms the whole time.

The text of the palestinian propaganda claimed not only Gaza and the West Bank, but also Jerusalem. If the UN is really concerned with having it's rulings followed why are they encouraging the Palestinians to claim Jerusalem when the UN says it should be an "international city"? It seems they're encouraging the Palestinians to violate UN resolutions, but chastizing the Israelis for doing it. Clearly there's a huge double standard here.

Jerusalem, along with the Golan Hights, has been an occupied territory since the 1967 wars mate. And please, before talking about propaganda, remember that the un let the israelis and their Phallangite cronies slay a lot of palaistinians during their 1982 attack in Lebanon (aptly called peace in Gallillea)

And please dont give me the usual " Israelis have suffered a lot" reason, because here in Europe we can not buy this reasoning any more.

yes restricting palestinian travel between different areas of the west bank
does a lot to prevent bombings in Israel
and it should never be a numbers game but compare the figures between
Israeli and Palestinian deaths of any age or gender and tell me the palestinians are the principals in this
The Palestinians are the principals in this because they initiated the situation and their continued pledge to destroy Israel, the support of their people for terrorists, and their continued terrorist attacks against Israel force Israel to fight back.

The Palestinians are also known to exaggerate the number of their dead in order to smear Israel. Look at the Jenin "massacre".

The Palestinian's problems are caused by the Palestinians. If they'd learn to behave themselves Israel wouldn't need to restrict their travel into Israeli territory, Israel wouldn't need a security fence, Israel wouldn't need targeted killings to be safe, so the Palestinians would be safe too.


So by your reasoning illegal killings and illegal actions such as the building
of the so called security fence are justified.

As long you identify yourself as being opposed to law and a supporter
of criminality in general then thats fine.

The creation of the Israeli state in the first place was obviously an error
in judgement at the very least.
The western countries attempting to absolve themselves from what the Nazi's
did to the Jews (as well as the long history of the wests antipathy to and hatred of the Jews) by giving land completely over to them that while it was in their power to do was certainly not their right to do.

Having done it, who would have expected the arabs to respond differently.
That era is past now,
with massive financial aid from the US in particular, Israel is a state
with armaments massively superior to any of their neighbours
and nuclear weaponry that doesn't bother its supporters in the slightest
regardless of the fact that they are not signatories to the non proliferation
treaty.

They treat the palestinians like dogs and then justify continuing to do so
when they get bitten.


The Palestinians lost control over their territory because they and the other arabs tried to wipe out Israel. Why the fuck would Israel go out of it's way to give them back everything they lost? They would have been wise to take what was offered.


Why?
So they could justifiably claim to be a civilized country.


Also, even if the number of unreported deaths is twice the number in Iraq body count it still is roughly 25,000 deaths short of the Lancet's numbers. Large numbers of dead people in one day tend to get reported by the media. For that reason I'd wager that the number of unreported deaths is significantly lower than twice the number reported. You just can't kill that many people at the rate of one or two per day in the time we've been in Iraq.


and just why do you think you guys have been killing them at a rate of only
1 or 2 per day



see a better analogy would be.. he is a mugger.. trys to mug you.. you beat the sht out of him and steal his money.... then you make a deal saying "ok ok i forgive you and will give you back 90% of the money i took" .. he is saying he would say no... demand all his money back plus interest..


to be strictly a reasonable analogy
the mugger would have to have been the powers that created the state of israel

So a mugger robs you, gives what was yours to someone else.
The someone else won't give it back, the police won't help you
so you and some of your friends try to take it back.

You fail in doing so and this time get robbed again.

The law this time says that you should be given that back

But the same person continues to hold onto it with claims of how violent you are as proven by trying to get back the first lot.

The law says they have to give it back and that you have the right to interest on it
and they offer 90% without the interest


and quoting John Pilger in relation to this
In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, led by Yasser Arafat, recognised Israel's right to exist and Israeli sovereignty over 78% of Palestine. It was an historic compromise. And in the early '90s, a breakthrough for peace seemed possible.

It was in a room in a Jerusalem hotel that the first direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian officials took place in 1991. These led to further meetings and an agreement in the Norwegian capital, Oslo, that set up an autonomous mini-state in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967.

For Yasser Arafat and his people, it was seen as a beginning. But the reality was different. What the majority of Palestinians got was a classic colonial fix. Arafat and his elite got the trappings and privileges of power, while the mass of the people got what one Israeli journalist called "the autonomy of a prisoner of war camp".

In July 2000, the two sides met in America to reach a final agreement. But among the issues they discussed was a profound disagreement about just how much land was on offer.

Israel's Prime Minister at the time, Ehud Barak, claimed he'd offered the Palestinians almost all the occupied territories back and said that Arafat had rejected this. In reality, the Israelis were expanding more and more illegal settlements on Palestinian land, even during the negotiations. Add to that the special access roads with their checkpoints, and the Palestinians say that all that was left was a group of colonies with their borders patrolled by military bases.

Israeli historian Ilan Pappe explains how, despite Barak's claims to the contrary, the proposal was deeply flawed:

"It's very important to understand that from a Palestinian point of view, they were asked - to sign? a document which did not relate even to one of the central issues for which they had been struggling for more than 100 years. They are left eventually with an offer of 10% of what used to be Palestine.

"The Israelis who dictated this offer in the summer of 2000 are not even talking about a proper state. We are talking? of a stateless state, I would call it. A Bantustan with no genuine sovereignty. With no independent foreign, economic or political policies, with no proper capital and at the mercy of the Israeli security services and Israeli policy."

Not only that, but there is now documented evidence that the Palestinians had made an extraordinary offer to the Israelis, conceding even more of their land. But this was not news at the time.

Actually, that would be the Arab's invasion. Also the Palestinian problem is really the Arabs falt and the Arabs have even stated that it was their falt but they aren't doing anything about it.

Your right though, he really does need a history lesson. Who started all of those Israeli/Arab Wars? Not the Israelis. How many of those wars has Israel won? All of them.
And who went to the land where mostly palaistinian people lived, and declared an almost apartheidian state? Ben Gurion, and a bunch of Jewish fundamentalists from Europe, the States and some countries in North Africa, with the consent of some countries. Now that could be interpreted as an open provocation for any Arab with his right mind on, let alone the feeling that the palaistinians where under attack. Next time you go to Israel, ask some old people (of both communities), what happened in Bit Zeit and a huge string of other palaistinian villages, back in the late forties.....

and just why do you think you guys have been killing them at a rate of only
1 or 2 per day

.
snipped because I'm logging off in three minutes and don't have time to address the rest of your post.

I didn't say that people are being killed at the rate of 1 or 2 a day. I was saying that incidents that kill only a couple of people don't make the news and wouldn't be counted, but they don't add up quickly. Major incidents where dozens die do make the news and were counted. I merely worded it poorly.

snipped because I'm logging off in three minutes and don't have time to address the rest of your post.

I didn't say that people are being killed at the rate of 1 or 2 a day. I was saying that incidents that kill only a couple of people don't make the news and wouldn't be counted, but they don't add up quickly. Major incidents where dozens die do make the news and were counted. I merely worded it poorly.


Well the "insurgents" mount 60-70 attacks daily

are you saying US forces couldn't also have at least 60-70 incidents
where they open fire and kill 1 or 2 people.
However, again only things reporters know about get
reported for rather obvious reasons and as we were being told before
the war Iraq is rather big and the journalists are all in Baghdad
so they wouldn't necessarily be told of incidents where 5 10 15 or 20 people
are killed and Im pretty sure the US army isnt going to trumpet killing
20 children.

Though obviously you have a lot of faith in the truthfulness of your army
and your president and his staff, it is not shared by all that many people
in the world.

Well the "insurgents" mount 60-70 attacks daily

Good, we're starting to get a handle on it since they were at 90 per day. Ok now that we sliced it by a third (going with the 60 figure), that's good to know.

are you saying US forces couldn't also have at least 60-70 incidents
where they open fire and kill 1 or 2 people.

Most likely in that regard, those 1 or 2 people would be terrorists.

However, again only things reporters know about get
reported for rather obvious reasons and as we were being told before
the war Iraq is rather big and the journalists are all in Baghdad
so they wouldn't necessarily be told of incidents where 5 10 15 or 20 people
are killed and Im pretty sure the US army isnt going to trumpet killing
20 children.

Actually, all journalists aren't in Baghdad. I've seen reports from all over Iraq and 2, the media WOULD trumpet killing 20 children. They do all the time when Israeli kids get blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber.

Though obviously you have a lot of faith in the truthfulness of your army
and your president and his staff, it is not shared by all that many people
in the world.

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks! I trust our military more than I trust the rest of the world. I trust our leaders more than I trust the rest of the world (with the possible exception to Great Britain and Australia)

Good, we're starting to get a handle on it since they were at 90 per day. Ok now that we sliced it by a third (going with the 60 figure), that's good to know.

There are periods when the number falls off but it is always followed up by
increased numbers again, just as there must be periods when Americans
kill fewer Iraqis but it is sure that you arent getting a handle on it
back in April it was appx that figure too
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_attacks_042705,00.html
400 a week in that article dived by 7 gives 57.14 per day.
As you will see in that article that was at appx the same level as 2004.
and before that?
A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said post-invasion attacks in Iraq were at lower levels - 150 to 200 per week - until April 2004, when uprisings occurred in Najaf and Anbar province. The first pictures of tortured prisoners from the Abu Ghraib prison were also made public that month.

Mind you your administration has been advising that you've been turning
the corner appx every 3 months for the last 2 years now.

But no worries as you say below , you find your military which presumably
includes action man gw himself trustworthy.

Don't let the fact that you are far from getting a handle on it dishearten you?

If you believe the lies enough they will certainly become true by magic.



Most likely in that regard, those 1 or 2 people would be terrorists.

Most likely based on what?

When your guys have all kinds of good reasons for shooting up a car
carrying a freed Italian hostage, killing the agent who freed her.
Whats the betting if it had been yet another car carrying an Iraqi family
then the story would have been that they drove at full speed towards
a checkpoint and did not respond to instructions to stop.

Instead of us finding out that there were no instructions to stop.

Your guys are trigger happy and everyone they kill means an entire family
that have good cause to hate you and oppose you.
Unless of course you've managed to wipe out the entire family.





Actually, all journalists aren't in Baghdad. I've seen reports from all over Iraq and 2, the media WOULD trumpet killing 20 children. They do all the time when Israeli kids get blown up by a Palestinian suicide bomber.


Yes they do, when it is Israeli kids being blown up.
Very rarely when it is Palestinian children and for much the same reason
that they aren't in a position to be where these things happen.
Israel keeps very tight restrictions on who it allows into gaza or the westbank
and when.


As an example
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/nyt-report.html

reporting of every Israeli death - some more than once
Underreporting of palestinian deaths - less than half of the
number of deaths in the above survey


Who cares what the rest of the world thinks! I trust our military more than I trust the rest of the world. I trust our leaders more than I trust the rest of the world (with the possible exception to Great Britain and Australia)

The only thing to be said to that I am afraid is that you are an idiot.

The only thing to be said to that I am afraid is that you are an idiot.

Since the rest of your post is mostly jibberish and since I am unable to decipher where one point ends and another begins, I'll ignore it. If you fix it, then, I'll respond to it.

However, I will respond to this little gem.

How am I an idiot when I will trust those in our government over those in another?

Since the rest of your post is mostly jibberish and since I am unable to decipher where one point ends and another begins, I'll ignore it. If you fix it, then, I'll respond to it.

However, I will respond to this little gem.

How am I an idiot when I will trust those in our government over those in another?

Well as you cannot understand my posting

What would be the point in me attempting to explain it to you again

Well as you cannot understand my posting

What would be the point in me attempting to explain it to you again

No I asked you to fix it so that I can properly respond to it. I didn't ask you to explain it to me. Unlike you, I need no explaination into the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict.

No I asked you to fix it so that I can properly respond to it. I didn't ask you to explain it to me. Unlike you, I need no explaination into the Palestinian/Israeli Conflict.


You don't need one alright.

Understanding is certainly the very last thing you seek.

If any american every asks again why do they hate us so.

Try owning up.

You don't need one alright.

Understanding is certainly the very last thing you seek.

If any american every asks again why do they hate us so.

Try owning up.

Try reading what I wrote:

Since the rest of your post is mostly jibberish and since I am unable to decipher where one point ends and another begins, I'll ignore it. If you fix it, then, I'll respond to it.

That is what I asked. Now your dodging it.

How am I an idiot when I will trust those in our government over those in another?

You still haven't answered this!

Cornelieu

What part didnt you understand

1 that attacks are no less now than they were in April this year
and that figure is pretty much the same as it was after April 2004 the year before

Before April 2004 it was about half the level it is now.

Can you not understand that at all even when it is your own military saying so,
is that because it contradicts what your commander in chief and his administration say

Or more likely is it because you prefer to live in fantasy land
with the administration and imagine your turning the corner every
few months.

2 Is it that your claim that any 1 or 2 people being killed by american forces
must be terrorists is based on nothing but the Israeli type stance
that if your guys kill people then the people they kill must be the baddies.

The same military you trust so explicitly who everytime they shoot up a car
that we know of (so only the ones reported) always claim that it drove
at a checkpoint and refused to stop.

The same excuse they used for shooting up the Italian car with the freed
Italian Hostage killing the agent who freed her.
Only because it was Italians and not Iraqis the world takes seriously that
they were not requested to slow down or stop and your boys just opened
fire on them.


3 Is it that you cannot understand that in the Israeli Palestinian deal
only the Israeli deaths get reported in full
that fewer than half of all palestinian deaths are reported
demonstrating that reporting tends to suit American propaganda purposes
rather than reflecting the truth.

4 If you then trust the murderers and torturers more than anyone else,
that makes you an idiot.

The simple truth is you do both know and understand these things
but you choose to ignore them or talk over them and try to drown them out.
The fact that you think that will cover the facts makes you an idiot.

You don't need one alright.

Understanding is certainly the very last thing you seek.

If any american every asks again why do they hate us so.

Try owning up.


You've never heard an Amercian ask "why do they hate us so?" You assume we think that.

We dont really care what all the self-important smug folks think.

Cornelieu

What part didnt you understand

Don't be condesending since I asked you to FIX YOUR POST FOR ME TO REPLY PROPERLY TO IT! What part of THAT didn't you understand?

1 that attacks are no less now than they were in April this year
and that figure is pretty much the same as it was after April 2004 the year before

WRONG! Terrror attacks in Iraq have been slowly decreasing. There have been less attacks in recent months. Now they could be building up for another assault or that the money used to fund these attacks are starting to dry up.

Before April 2004 it was about half the level it is now.

Can you not understand that at all even when it is your own military saying so,
is that because it contradicts what your commander in chief and his administration say

Apparently, you are using old data since the current data (data this MONTH and not last month) indicate that attacks are down. This is what the generals inside Iraq are saying. Can you not understand that?

Or more likely is it because you prefer to live in fantasy land
with the administration and imagine your turning the corner every
few months.

I live in the real world. I listen to real facts and not those perported by uncredible sources. The Washington Post (one of the more credible newspapers I can think of) have been reporting a drop in terror attacks since they have been asking the generals. My own father who just recently returned from the region, also stated that attacks are down. Now who am I going to believe, our generals or you?

2 Is it that your claim that any 1 or 2 people being killed by american forces
must be terrorists is based on nothing but the Israeli type stance
that if your guys kill people then the people they kill must be the baddies.

Nope. However, we do go out of our way to prevent civilian casualties. Since we have only been attacking where the terrorists are, and this is assuming that 1 or 2 are dying per day, odds are they are terrorists. Unless of course, the terrorists detonate a bomb in the middle of a plaza, then more would be killed and the terrorists would've made more enemies.

The same military you trust so explicitly who everytime they shoot up a car
that we know of (so only the ones reported) always claim that it drove
at a checkpoint and refused to stop.

Since our forces are instructed only to shoot if they refuse to slow down or stop...then I have to blame those driving the car. Its sad yes but everytime something like that happens, it is investigated. If necessary, charges would be filed if the investigation found them to be at fault. And believe me, it is investigated and if necessary, they will bring charges.

The same excuse they used for shooting up the Italian car with the freed
Italian Hostage killing the agent who freed her.
Only because it was Italians and not Iraqis the world takes seriously that
they were not requested to slow down or stop and your boys just opened
fire on them.

And it was investigated and the intel agent was found not to have slowed down. Also, there was very bad communication between the Italians and the Americans (also stated in the report)

3 Is it that you cannot understand that in the Israeli Palestinian deal
only the Israeli deaths get reported in full
that fewer than half of all palestinian deaths are reported
demonstrating that reporting tends to suit American propaganda purposes
rather than reflecting the truth.

Dude, could it be that Palestinian terrorists cause more deaths with one bomber than the Israelis do with one missile? Yea that it. Keep telling yourself these lies that you have come to believe as factual. Also, did you know that Palestinian terrorist big wigs hide among civilians? Talk about human shields. At least the Israelis do their best to limit civilian casualties. However, it is unavoidable most of the time.

4 If you then trust the murderers and torturers more than anyone else,
that makes you an idiot.

I don't trust murderers or torturers. Those that torture are both discharged and tossed in the brig. Right now, murder charges have been brought to a few people in regards to deaths in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you bother to follow the news, you would know the facts of both of these cases. I suggest you look them up.

The simple truth is you do both know and understand these things
but you choose to ignore them or talk over them and try to drown them out.
The fact that you think that will cover the facts makes you an idiot.

The only idiot I'm seeing is the person I'm responding too. You have no facts to back up your case and I can pull links in regards to the decrease in terrorism inside the nation of Iraq.

In other words, the UNDP gave some money to the Palestinian Authority for one reason, and some of it got funnelled into these propoganda items. Once this was discovered, the UNDP objected to this inappropriate use of funds.
No, once it was protested and they had to respond the UNDP objected to the inappropriate use of funds. For as long as Arafat was alive muchg of the money was going to various terrorist groups and his own personal coffers, to believe otherwise is truly naive. We never had an ambassador that complained about the funds situation there before however, so it was ignored.

Since this has become an argument of fanatics.. perhaps i can shed some light of truth on all of this

Cornelieu
1 that attacks are no less now than they were in April this year
and that figure is pretty much the same as it was after April 2004 the year before

True... Insurgent attacks are today at the level at which they were April 2004..

Before April 2004 it was about half the level it is now.

false... From the militaries own accounts .. these numbers are FAR off the peak
"Where they are right now is where they were almost a year ago, and it's nowhere near the peak," said Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a Pentagon press conference
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_attacks_042705,00.html

Can you not understand that at all even when it is your own military saying so,
is that because it contradicts what your commander in chief and his administration say

Bush and the administration never said attacks are on the decilne.. but that it is not an indicator of null progress... on the otherhand.. if you look at the rate of deaths the American forces are incurring you will see a dramatic drop off in the death rate over the past 4 years

Or more likely is it because you prefer to live in fantasy land
with the administration and imagine your turning the corner every
few months.

It seems you too live in a fantasy land.. only with the die hard liberals where the belif is America has no hope of success and all the world will come down on us.

2 Is it that your claim that any 1 or 2 people being killed by american forces
must be terrorists is based on nothing but the Israeli type stance
that if your guys kill people then the people they kill must be the baddies.

And is it not your stance that all those killed who dont look like a terrorist must be an innocent civilian murdered on purpose by the evil american ? Neverminding the fact that terrorist purposfully disguise themselves as civilians for this explicit purpose.. Its not too hard to identify them though when they are firing an AK in your direction.


The same excuse they used for shooting up the Italian car with the freed
Italian Hostage killing the agent who freed her.
Only because it was Italians and not Iraqis the world takes seriously that
they were not requested to slow down or stop and your boys just opened
fire on them.

This is pure ignorance.. do you even know the accounts of what happend in this event ? Not to shatter your glass house (again) but that car was only shot up (by reports) after soldiers fired warning shots as it approached a checkpoint at an increasing speed disreguarding warnings. (btw.. it was found to be the fault of the driver of the car.. not the soldiers... trigger happy.. please!)

Now.. this is the information given to us by reports.. anything you say contrary is pure speculation with no creedance or supportive evidence.. when reports start showing cars shot up just for the hell of it.. then perhaps we can really consider any point to the contrary. Otherwise we can just be saying.. Democracynow.org helps terrorists with no evidence at all..

3 Is it that you cannot understand that in the Israeli Palestinian deal
only the Israeli deaths get reported in full
that fewer than half of all palestinian deaths are reported
demonstrating that reporting tends to suit American propaganda purposes
rather than reflecting the truth.

Who ever suggested that more israelis die then Palestineans is a fool... however, to suggest Israeli forces purposfully target civilians to kill (LIKE THE PALESTINEAN TERRORIST DO) is also a fool.

4 If you then trust the murderers and torturers more than anyone else,
that makes you an idiot.

sooo the murderers and torturers are the americans.. and not the insurgents or the suicide bombers killing innocent civilians ?

The simple truth is you do both know and understand these things
but you choose to ignore them or talk over them and try to drown them out.
The fact that you think that will cover the facts makes you an idiot.

To be quite honest.. you are doing the exact same thing he is doing.. just on the opposite spectrum.. you fail to accept the other side of the argument and the reality on the ground.. so you are both idiots!

Don't be condesending since I asked you to FIX YOUR POST FOR ME TO REPLY PROPERLY TO IT! What part of THAT didn't you understand?


It is hard to be anything other than condescending to someone who
cannot understand a perfectly reasonable post, with some punctuation
and minor spelling errors.
You haven't responded to anything properly yet, what you
do is make assertions without anything to back them up.



WRONG! Terrror attacks in Iraq have been slowly decreasing. There have been less attacks in recent months. Now they could be building up for another assault or that the money used to fund these attacks are starting to dry up.


Not unless your defintion of slowly decreasing means staying constant or
increasing.
Also the source was of course those you trust the most
the american military who said that attacks since april 2004
had doubled on those before april 2004
and that in april 2005 they were at the same level as post april 2004.
You fail to present any of those figures but I will remind you that when
I stated 60-70 per day you were happy with that figure
told us that they had been 90 a day and so they had been cut by a third.

Now either you were wrong or you were lying
which is it?


Apparently, you are using old data since the current data (data this MONTH and not last month) indicate that attacks are down. This is what the generals inside Iraq are saying. Can you not understand that?


Again you present no figures at all just an amorphous claim
cbs news story for 24th gives no figures either but the headline is

Insurgents Step up Attacks

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:C1Rjg5Tx6TYJ:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml+july+2005+insurgent+attacks&hl=en


I live in the real world. I listen to real facts and not those perported by uncredible sources. The Washington Post (one of the more credible newspapers I can think of) have been reporting a drop in terror attacks since they have been asking the generals. My own father who just recently returned from the region, also stated that attacks are down. Now who am I going to believe, our generals or you?



http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/24/iraq.main/

reporting on the situation in baghdad
30- 40 insurgents in broad daylight launching rocket propelled grenades and
engagine in a firefight lasting 90 minutes
would really make it credible that attacks are decreasing?



Nope. However, we do go out of our way to prevent civilian casualties. Since we have only been attacking where the terrorists are, and this is assuming that 1 or 2 are dying per day, odds are they are terrorists. Unless of course, the terrorists detonate a bomb in the middle of a plaza, then more would be killed and the terrorists would've made more enemies.


Truly there are none so blind as those who will not see.
I understand that you desperately want to believe that you
go out of your way to prevent civilian casualties.

But you haven't got a thing to back that up.

But its the washington post you like
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081000289.html

so where it says that insurgent attacks will increase
do you turn that in your head into meaning a decrease
or do you just write letters to them telling them you cannot understand
what they've written and telling them to fix it.


Since our forces are instructed only to shoot if they refuse to slow down or stop...then I have to blame those driving the car. Its sad yes but everytime something like that happens, it is investigated. If necessary, charges would be filed if the investigation found them to be at fault. And believe me, it is investigated and if necessary, they will bring charges.


Why on earth should I believe you on that?



And it was investigated and the intel agent was found not to have slowed down. Also, there was very bad communication between the Italians and the Americans (also stated in the report)


Yes your right your investigation said that.
But the people left alive in the car did not agree, now gosh who the heck
am I going to believe the people who shot up the car
or the people who aren't either US forces or insurgents but 3rd parties.

When there are drive by shootings in your country do you normally
have the accused gangs conduct their own frickin investigations?



Dude, could it be that Palestinian terrorists cause more deaths with one bomber than the Israelis do with one missile? Yea that it. Keep telling yourself these lies that you have come to believe as factual. Also, did you know that Palestinian terrorist big wigs hide among civilians? Talk about human shields. At least the Israelis do their best to limit civilian casualties. However, it is unavoidable most of the time.


A much greater number of palestinians are killed in relation to Israelis killed.
So what exactly is your point are you saying that each individual Israeli
missile kills fewer Palestinians?
In which case the Israelis would be firing
far more missiles at the palestinians than any suicide bombers are letting off
bombs, in your mind does that make the Israelis somehow better in that
they use more explosives to kill more palestinians?

Studies show that while all Israeli deaths are reported in your newspapers,
sometimes with follow up stories bringing the coverage of Israeli deaths
to over 100%
However of Palestinian deaths less than half are reported in your newspapers.
Presumably you would feel that that in no way represents bias.

Palestinians living in the west bank and gaza live in the westbank and gaza
Your argument is like saying that any resistance in any occupied territory
are cheating by living among the population , where the heck to you
think they would live.
I understand that Ariel Sharon hides out in Israel and your president
mostly stays in the States?

Or are you now going to trot out the idea that as the cia had an office
in the twin towers that they were justifiable targets?
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/04/inv.newyork.cia.office/

Because if its okay for Israel and the US then its okay for anyone else
too you know, you might wish dual standards to apply but wishing
does not make things real.

I for one do not believe it was justified , I believe it was criminal
and because I do I have to consider similar Israeli or US actions
criminal too.


I don't trust murderers or torturers. Those that torture are both discharged and tossed in the brig. Right now, murder charges have been brought to a few people in regards to deaths in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you bother to follow the news, you would know the facts of both of these cases. I suggest you look them up.

Yup those that were caught on videotape surely did and their immediate
officers but no one of senior rank despite each and every one of those
caught testifying that they were acting under orders.

Not to mention the background of the AG and GW et all
passing memos to each other where they redefine the word torture
to mean nothing that the US might do.

But of course that was just so GW could practice his writing skills
or whatever other cockamamie excuse has been tendered most recently.


The only idiot I'm seeing is the person I'm responding too. You have no facts to back up your case and I can pull links in regards to the decrease in terrorism inside the nation of Iraq.

Again you are the one that presents no facts and in the face of being presented with documentation of any kind find it so confusing that
you cannot cope. Now I cannot "fix" the truth for you
so that it tallies with your imaginations but I know you can trust
your administration to attempt just that.

And no doubt they will find light at the end of the tunnel
or that the insurgency is in its last throes
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/23/cheney.interview/
June 24 2005
or that
Iraq has reached a tipping point
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/International/story?id=548240&page=1
March 2005
they've turned the corner
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2386473
all the way back in Feb 2004
2 months before your military say that attacks doubled


But sure you keep trusting the people who just regurgitate the same old
story with a different catchphrase every few months for years on end.

Turning corners, tipping points, light at the end of the tunnel
or the insurgencies last throes.

Probably still don't get why I call you an idiot to your face
but I promise you, your administration is calling idiots like you
trusting gullible fools behind your back.

Relative Power? Life lesson number 1:

News only exists to sell things. In other words, they'll color a story and spin it way out of proportion so that they can drag in viewers as well as readers.

Number 2: An attack on a fire engine is what I hardly call an increase in attacks.

Also, your first link really can't be used to disprove me because it didn't disprove a damn thing. In fact, it said that attacks in broad daylight are remarkably DOWN!

Link Number 2 is saying nothing new. I already knew about this attack! However, again, you really aren't disproving me at all.

Your third link is rather worthless to use on me since I've been saying that our troops won't begin to be pulling out till middle of next year. This seems to confirm that theory. Thank you for proving my theory correct.

The rest of your commments I'm just going to ignore because 1) It is late here and 2) I don't feel like going point by point debunking half of it.

Since this has become an argument of fanatics.. perhaps i can shed some light of truth on all of this


[quote]
True... Insurgent attacks are today at the level at which they were April 2004..


Which was a doubling on months prior to April 2004
and is also the same as in April 2005


false... From the militaries own accounts .. these numbers are FAR off the peak


It is acknowledged that the level of attacks fluctuate, but if you cannot
figure out that if they doubled on pre april 2004 figures and have remained
doubled unless higher for over a year then there is no corner being
turned here and a handle is not being got on them.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_attacks_042705,00.html



Bush and the administration never said attacks are on the decilne.. but that it is not an indicator of null progress... on the otherhand.. if you look at the rate of deaths the American forces are incurring you will see a dramatic drop off in the death rate over the past 4 years



Yes and an increase in so called Iraqi "Police" and "Soldiers",
taking up the job so they can feed their families but targetted
as they are abetting the occupying country


It seems you too live in a fantasy land.. only with the die hard liberals where the belif is America has no hope of success and all the world will come down on us.


To be honest I only wish you had no hope of success.
If you do succeed then Americans will never be safe from terrorism.
Whereas you might learn a lesson if you lose.


And is it not your stance that all those killed who dont look like a terrorist must be an innocent civilian murdered on purpose by the evil american ? Neverminding the fact that terrorist purposfully disguise themselves as civilians for this explicit purpose.. Its not too hard to identify them though when they are firing an AK in your direction.


It is my stance that everytime the US army kills people they always
start of being terrorists unless they happen to be in british or canadian
uniforms in which case it was friendly fire.

Time and time again when some of these claims are followed up it turns
out to have been people at a wedding or some other innocuous
situation.

"U.S. officials have repeatedly declined requests to disclose the number of civilians killed in such incidents. Police in Baghdad say they have received reports that U.S. forces killed 33 unarmed civilians and injured 45 in the capital between May 1 and July 12 — an average of nearly one fatality every two days. This does not include incidents that occurred elsewhere in the country or were not reported to the police. "

But don't get the wrong idea, just because your guys sometimes
kill innocents doesn't mean when they kill other people it is okay.
You are an occupying army after an illegal invasion, it is anyones right
to fight an occupying army.

You guys fought the british when they tried to subdue you
and you were their colonies, kind of a Palestinian situation there, but
you fought for your own state and you got it.
For some reason though you think other people do not have that right.




This is pure ignorance.. do you even know the accounts of what happend in this event ? Not to shatter your glass house (again) but that car was only shot up (by reports) after soldiers fired warning shots as it approached a checkpoint at an increasing speed disreguarding warnings. (btw.. it was found to be the fault of the driver of the car.. not the soldiers... trigger happy.. please!)


Yes because the Italians had every reason to ignore warnings to slow
down from American soldiers.
Naturally they would disobey and get themselves shot up.
Probably engineered the whole thing just to make you look bad.
Grow up please.


Now.. this is the information given to us by reports.. anything you say contrary is pure speculation with no creedance or supportive evidence.. when reports start showing cars shot up just for the hell of it.. then perhaps we can really consider any point to the contrary. Otherwise we can just be saying.. Democracynow.org helps terrorists with no evidence at all..


Patrick Cockburn reporter
This is the road that the BBC’s chief correspondent, John Simpson, has called ‘probably the most dangerous stretch of ground on earth’. But who creates the danger there: the occupation forces, brigands, the resistance?



They cover all the roads around Baghdad. It’s a mixture of insurgents, bandits, and Americans who will fire at anything they don’t like; anything that seems suspicious to them.


You see people being killed merely because they don’t understand American hand signals for directing traffic, which look like somebody giving signals to the deaf. But it’s not obvious to Iraqis, nor is it obvious to someone like me what the American soldiers are directing you to do. But you get it wrong and you get shot. In the case of the Italian journalist it got publicised, but horrendous shootings happen at checkpoints all the time.

Robert Fisk - reporter
Over and over again this happens. We had case about six weeks ago which I personally investigated, in which two men got too close, drove up to a U.S. checkpoint, it wasn't a usual check point, just a piece of barbed wire thrown across the road in a very poor suburb of Baghdad. The Americans opened fire at the car. When the car was burned out, I counted around 23 bullet holes in it. The bullets caught fire to the petrol, and I don't know if they were still alive or not, but the two passengers, both males were burned alive. They were burned to death anyway. I assume one of them or two may have survived as the car was burning.

As the car was on fire, according to those who saw it happen, the Americans packed up and abandoned their checkpoint. I went to the mortuary again afterwards and found these two skeletons with burned flesh, their identity papers long ago consumed by the fire. The car itself, and the registration plate had melted into the road. So again, two Iraqis families were waiting that night for loved ones who would never come home.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12507-2005Mar6.html
which says that many times us troops have fired on and killed civilians
approaching checkpoints

but it does go on to say that this was okay under the armies rules of
engagement and that the army does investigate these things.



Who ever suggested that more israelis die then Palestineans is a fool... however, to suggest Israeli forces purposfully target civilians to kill (LIKE THE PALESTINEAN TERRORIST DO) is also a fool.


This is clearly an opinion with nothing to back it up.



sooo the murderers and torturers are the americans.. and not the insurgents or the suicide bombers killing innocent civilians ?



Im always amazed by this particular tack

Are you an American an insurgent or a suicide bomber.

If you are an American then what your forces do in your name should
be your primary concern.
The US is in occupation of Iraq after an illegal invasion,
after having to give up the lie that there were wmd there
your GW tried to justify on the basis that saddam killed and tortured his own
people
Americans then proceed to kill and torture Iraqis.
Now the Iraqis had been claiming there was torture going on in Abu Ghraib
for a very long time before the news broke and we first got a look
at how prisoners were being treated and you seriously think
that it was just a few lower ranks and a superior who didn't pay enough
attention?


Now other than in as far as the US supported Saddam during the 80's
you weren't particularly responsible for torturing and murdering he did.

But see he is not American, so in general terms there is no need for you
to take responsibility for his actions.

The americans in occupation of Iraq and those controlling them however
are a different matter, the US is a democracy and you are responsible for them.




To be quite honest.. you are doing the exact same thing he is doing.. just on the opposite spectrum.. you fail to accept the other side of the argument and the reality on the ground.. so you are both idiots!

Reality on the ground?

I think it is you guys fail to accept it.
America needs to withdraw its troops,
they are the cause not the solution
of Iraqs current problems.

Relative Power? Life lesson number 1:

News only exists to sell things. In other words, they'll color a story and spin it way out of proportion so that they can drag in viewers as well as readers.

Number 2: An attack on a fire engine is what I hardly call an increase in attacks.

Also, your first link really can't be used to disprove me because it didn't disprove a damn thing. In fact, it said that attacks in broad daylight are remarkably DOWN!

Link Number 2 is saying nothing new. I already knew about this attack! However, again, you really aren't disproving me at all.

Your third link is rather worthless to use on me since I've been saying that our troops won't begin to be pulling out till middle of next year. This seems to confirm that theory. Thank you for proving my theory correct.

The rest of your commments I'm just going to ignore because 1) It is late here and 2) I don't feel like going point by point debunking half of it.


I think your response will prove my previously made comment about
you being an idiot, so I will just quote it to give it as much visibility as posisble

U.N. Security Council resolution 242 emphasizes the inadmissibility of acquisitions by war and calls on Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied during the 1967 war.

AS we all know Israel and its friends argued strongly for that ambiguous wording and so Israel and its supporters will always argue that if they
give back so much as 1 cm of territory they have fulfilled their obligations.

Reasonable people do think otherwise.

Israel is occupying all 3 of those areas and it is completely in accord
with the UN that palestinians can rightfully expect Israel to withdraw
from those 3 occupied areas.

Israel has no intention of ever giving up control of any of them
and the US will use its veto to ensure the UN cannot act against
Israeli activity. Bolton is doing exactly the job he is supposed to be doing
and yet again the US administration shows its contempt for the ideals
and purposes of the UN.

One can't help but wonder why the rest of the nations still bother turning up/

What's amazing is that Israel got the land in the '67 war when they were attacked - they kicked the ass of the attackers and took the land used to launch the attacks, but they are somehow judged as being the invaders and in the wrong - go figure - Liberalism, it's a mental disorder.

What's amazing is that Israel got the land in the '67 war when they were attacked - they kicked the ass of the attackers and took the land used to launch the attacks, but they are somehow judged as being the invaders and in the wrong - go figure - Liberalism, it's a mental disorder.

Yes
Obeying the law
something non liberals would never do
is that your point?

U.N. Security Council resolution 242 emphasizes the inadmissibility of acquisitions by war and calls on Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied during the 1967 war.

its a security council resolution and presumably your argument is
that they should not be obeyed?

Interesting ground you're on there

The US is in occupation of Iraq after an illegal invasion,
You mean the one the U.S. Congress authorized?

after having to give up the lie that there were wmd there You mean the lie that Bill Clinton and John Kerry acknowledged as the truth and supported as accurate?
your GW tried to justify on the basis that saddam killed and tortured his own people, Americans then proceed to kill and torture Iraqis.

What, are you claiming Sadam did not kill and torture his own people? If so, you are a fool. On the other hand, if you are claiming we're no better because we "kill and torture Iraqis," I'd ask for your evidence that we have tortured anyone and that we have deliberately killed innocents. Show me a single prisoner that has suffered anything worse than humiliation and sleep deprivation at the hands of the U.S. or find me a single innocent Iraqi that was murdered (not killed out of a reasonable, but mistaken, belief the person was intent on killing the American first, but actually murdered for no reason other than being an Iraqi).

Liberalism, it's a mental disorder for which the truth has no cure.

Yes
Obeying the law
something non liberals would never do
is that your point?

U.N. Security Council resolution 242 emphasizes the inadmissibility of acquisitions by war and calls on Israel to withdraw from territories it occupied during the 1967 war.

its a security council resolution and presumably your argument is
that they should not be obeyed?

Interesting ground you're on there

Wrong. My argument is that the U.N. is anti-semetic, Israel is attacked, defends itself, wins the war, takes control of the attacker's territory and is declared to be in the wrong for having done so. I say U.N. resolution 242 is wrong. I do not claim it shouldn't be obeyed - even stupid laws must be obeyed until they are overturned via the legal system. I'm merely saying this decision by the U.N. is stupid and reveals a bias.

What's amazing is that Israel got the land in the '67 war when they were attacked - they kicked the ass of the attackers and took the land used to launch the attacks, but they are somehow judged as being the invaders and in the wrong - go figure - Liberalism, it's a mental disorder.
Actually, Israel attacked the Arab countries first in June 1967...

You mean the one the U.S. Congress authorized?


As the argument is that the actions of your nation were unlawful
by international law, it doesn't matter one jot whether your congress
or your aunty maude authorised them.


You mean the lie that Bill Clinton and John Kerry acknowledged as the truth and supported as accurate?


Are you under the impression that Bill Clinton and John Kerry are
such fine impartial statesmen that if they have agreed with something
then it must be true.

The evidence such as was shown was not convincing
which is why so many people opposed the war on the basis of wmd
and why there was the complete failure to get a specific
authorisation for war from the UN.



What, are you claiming Sadam did not kill and torture his own people? If so, you are a fool. On the other hand, if you are claiming we're no better because we "kill and torture Iraqis," I'd ask for your evidence that we have tortured anyone and that we have deliberately killed innocents. Show me a single prisoner that has suffered anything worse than humiliation and sleep deprivation at the hands of the U.S. or find me a single innocent Iraqi that was murdered (not killed out of a reasonable, but mistaken, belief the person was intent on killing the American first, but actually murdered for no reason other than being an Iraqi).


Why would I claim he did not?
We know he did, although admittedly we have not had the photos and
video evidence of his crimes to
the same extent that we have had the evidence of American torture.

Never the less we are as certain that such terrible things occured in his
time in control as we are that they have occured in the US period of control.

That torture has occured has been admitted by your side so why are
you seeking evidence as if this were a disputed fact.

The only thing that is disputed
is how far up the chain of command
the orders to commit these actions came from.

Soldiers tried for these crimes have testified that they were
following orders.
With GW insisting he is totally opposed despite having traded memos
where the attempt seems to be define torture as anything other
than whatever americans do to their prisoners.

However his administration has come up with absolutely marvelous reasons
for why he would be doing that.
It is definitely nothing to do with the administration attempting to find
legal justifications for torture, as I've said before it was probably just
a writing exercise for GW.


With your current administration the buck very much stops
as far away from el presidente as it possibly can.


Liberalism, it's a mental disorder for which the truth has no cure.
[/quote]
Ignorance , what far too many americans have.

Wrong. My argument is that the U.N. is anti-semetic, Israel is attacked, defends itself, wins the war, takes control of the attacker's territory and is declared to be in the wrong for having done so. I say U.N. resolution 242 is wrong. I do not claim it shouldn't be obeyed - even stupid laws must be obeyed until they are overturned via the legal system. I'm merely saying this decision by the U.N. is stupid and reveals a bias.


How can any decision or point of view regarding any kind of conflict
between Jews and Arabs be anti semitic.
They are both semitic peoples.

This isn't about Jews however or Arabs for that matter.

It is about Israel and the occupied territories.

The only bias shown towards Israel in the UN is the one in favour
with the number of vetoes that the US has applied to the vast majority
of resolutions that Israel would not like.

If Israel had complied with 242 back when it was passed, they might
well have spent a great many years since in peace with their Palestinian neighbours

Wow. I think I can say with some confidence that all of the major contributors to this farce of a debate have done nothing but spout ideological propaganda and nonsense at each other. Is it any wonder that Israel-Palestine is such a mess? People with absolutely no stake in it whatsoever can't even maintain a pretence at a reasonable discussion.

God, how depressing.

Wow. I think I can say with some confidence that all of the major contributors to this farce of a debate have done nothing but spout ideological propaganda and nonsense at each other. Is it any wonder that Israel-Palestine is such a mess? People with absolutely no stake in it whatsoever can't even maintain a pretence at a reasonable discussion.

God, how depressing.

A well made point backed up with examples
What more could anyone ask of you