Go to first unread
Back
to top
Israel
WatchThis discussion is closed.
Report
#521
(Original post by gemgems89)
Well if you don't care why are you on this thread?
Well if you don't care why are you on this thread?
0
Report
#522
(Original post by gemgems89)
Why should that be? And yes, Israel are trying to anyway.
Why should that be? And yes, Israel are trying to anyway.
0
Report
#523
(Original post by adelz)
OH just shut the **** up.
OH just shut the **** up.
I see you are being very peaceful, notice the irony.
0
Report
#524
(Original post by thefish_uk)
Well, they should set the good pacifist example if they are supposed to be more civilised and modern.
Well, they should set the good pacifist example if they are supposed to be more civilised and modern.
..for about the fourth time.
0
Report
#525
(Original post by thefish_uk)
AH, he's only making a point that he doesn't care. Probably to stop people getting too carried away.
AH, he's only making a point that he doesn't care. Probably to stop people getting too carried away.
Never mind.
0
Report
#526
(Original post by gemgems89)
Errr, what?! I was agreeing with what fish said and you agreed with him too. Ughhh.
I see you are being very peaceful, notice the irony.
Errr, what?! I was agreeing with what fish said and you agreed with him too. Ughhh.
I see you are being very peaceful, notice the irony.
0
Report
#527
(Original post by gemgems89)
And they are doing, by offering treaties and land.. ..for about the fourth time.
And they are doing, by offering treaties and land..
..for about the fourth time.
So is it the Palestinian government or terrorists that arrange the suicide bombings?
In other words, are many Palestinians wanting peace while the terrorists carry out these attacks?
Are the terrorists representitive of the views of the Palestinian administration?
0
Report
#528
(Original post by Speciez99)
did u actually read the article that adelz posted?
did u actually read the article that adelz posted?
0
Report
#529
Ah well, I think the anti-pacifists have cleared off now.
A great job by all!
**puts away submachine gun**
A great job by all!
**puts away submachine gun**
0
Report
#530
(Original post by thefish_uk)
Ah well, I think the anti-pacifists have cleared off now.
A great job by all!
**puts away submachine gun**
Ah well, I think the anti-pacifists have cleared off now.
A great job by all!
**puts away submachine gun**
0
Report
#531
(Original post by gemgems89)
Aren't we ironic people, eh?
Aren't we ironic people, eh?
0
Report
#532
hamas and arafat dont. their 'security forces', which ones would they be?
Yes they do. Have you not read the articles I posted ? Hamas announced they would stop attacks if israel withdraws to pre1967 borders. By security forces I mean the crippled palestinian police force.
so why turn down Bahrak and Sharon when they make these offers? why did Hamas leaders continue to plot and remain active when their part of the deal was to disarm and to be arrested?
both have never offered a return to pre1967 borders, both dont want to give palestinians jerusalem which is a key deciding factor - palestinians want east jerusalem - the arab sector. Their part of the deal was NOT to disarm and to be arrested - do you really think they would agree to be arrested lol ? Their part of the deal was a ceasefire, in return israel would stop targeting them and it was for confidence building so both sides could work on peace. Hamas and the other militant groups agreed on it and implemented it, israel didnt.
they targeted A Hamas leader who posed an immeadiate threat to the security of its people. ISraeli force is visible, Palestinian terror is not. as such, blaming the IDF is substantially easier, and something the Arafat enjoys doing.
An agreement is an agreement - if hamas said there would be a cease fire this leader did not pose an immediate threat. And so what if the israel force is visible ? How is that relevant ? Ofcourse Arafat would blame the IDF, look at the deathtoll !
erm, not on this point no.
okay then
they did nothing. and a quote from a very brief Guardian summary of the conflict, come on. its hardly conclusive to the argument.
read the other articles I posted then, its all there.. And even if it was brief so what - it states a fact."
youd believe Osama Bin-Laden if he said he was sorry?
The Al Aqsa responded to an attack on them - it was revenge for an israeli attack that wasnt supposed to happen as they agreed they wouldnt attack. The Al Aqsa then said that this was a one off event by a renegade faction and they still wish to stick to the ceasefire to give negotiations a chance
Abu Mazen was fully supported by the US and Israel as he promised to try and end terrorism. it was futile as he had no power of the cells that Arafat clearly ran. he resigned as a result. the latest PM has NEVER said that he will try and end terrorism.
Abu Mazin never said he would end terrorism by force - he wanted to stop it by negotiations and a ceasefire - which he managed to suceed doing yet was undermined by israel. the latest PM HAS said he will try and end terrorism and is trying, quote from yahoo news "Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, backed by Egypt, has been trying unsuccessfully for months to secure a pledge from the militants to stop attacks."
if you can perceive the practical difficulties in withdrawing people and erecting a border control without consistent protection this should answer ur question.
thats just ********. They can announce that they will withdraw within 3 months and start creating a border control and withdrawing. Border control doesnt seem to be a problem when they are coming further into Palestine. Also, if you think that then you should also try and perceive the "practical difficulties in disarming thousands of militants".. All ********.
Kofi Annan called Saddam Hussein "a man he could do business with" and told the Iraqi Governing Council that "they should be quiet, now wasnt the time for criticism"(following the Iraqis attack on the UN for letting Saddam ruin their country for so long). Kofi Annan is a joke.
No, you are a joke. Kofi Annan is the head of the UN but countries such as the US undermine him by doing whatever they want to and bypassing the UN. Kofi Annan is a good person, tries to work for world peace, helps disaster stricken countries and is trying to resolve the mid east conflict.
hat do you mean by what timeframe - ever since they are in palestine they've been building settlements.
i mean during the ceasefire, which is what you were alluding to. i was interested to know how ISrael could build new settlements in 7 weeks.
They just continued building settlements under construction
yes and it was a joke.
No it wasnt, it was official actually he wento the ceremony, shook hands and got it. It was even televised on CNN. That doesnt seem like much of a joke to me.
Bush is the only president to recognise the 2-state proposals.
his criticisms of Israel and peace efforts are relatively unparalled among former US heads of state.
The IMF report "Economic Performance and Reforms under Conflict Conditions," released last September in Abu Dhabi, was based on the same PA documents that the Israeli government had earlier provided to Patten and the European Parliament. The report concludes that at least 8 percent ($135 million) of the PA's annual budget of $1.08 billion is being spent by Arafat at his sole discretion — and does not even take into account Arafat's control of 60 percent of the security-apparatus budget, which leaves him with at least $360 million per year to spend as he chooses. In addition, the report states that $900 million in PA revenues "disappeared" between 1995 and 2000, and that the 2003 budget for Arafat's office, which totaled $74 million, was missing $34 million that Arafat had transferred to pay unidentified "organizations" and "individuals."
What you say about bush is partly true I suppose, but I havent read the IMF report, care to post a link ?
im trying to say that the Palestinians have been ruled for as long as their history cares to exist. yet they never showed so much hatred as when the Israelis were given land that they never controlled.
Palestinians may have been ruled over but the land was always theirs, theyve always had a say, and they lived peacefully .. now they dont.
Yes they do. Have you not read the articles I posted ? Hamas announced they would stop attacks if israel withdraws to pre1967 borders. By security forces I mean the crippled palestinian police force.
so why turn down Bahrak and Sharon when they make these offers? why did Hamas leaders continue to plot and remain active when their part of the deal was to disarm and to be arrested?
both have never offered a return to pre1967 borders, both dont want to give palestinians jerusalem which is a key deciding factor - palestinians want east jerusalem - the arab sector. Their part of the deal was NOT to disarm and to be arrested - do you really think they would agree to be arrested lol ? Their part of the deal was a ceasefire, in return israel would stop targeting them and it was for confidence building so both sides could work on peace. Hamas and the other militant groups agreed on it and implemented it, israel didnt.
they targeted A Hamas leader who posed an immeadiate threat to the security of its people. ISraeli force is visible, Palestinian terror is not. as such, blaming the IDF is substantially easier, and something the Arafat enjoys doing.
An agreement is an agreement - if hamas said there would be a cease fire this leader did not pose an immediate threat. And so what if the israel force is visible ? How is that relevant ? Ofcourse Arafat would blame the IDF, look at the deathtoll !
erm, not on this point no.
okay then
they did nothing. and a quote from a very brief Guardian summary of the conflict, come on. its hardly conclusive to the argument.
read the other articles I posted then, its all there.. And even if it was brief so what - it states a fact."
youd believe Osama Bin-Laden if he said he was sorry?
The Al Aqsa responded to an attack on them - it was revenge for an israeli attack that wasnt supposed to happen as they agreed they wouldnt attack. The Al Aqsa then said that this was a one off event by a renegade faction and they still wish to stick to the ceasefire to give negotiations a chance
Abu Mazen was fully supported by the US and Israel as he promised to try and end terrorism. it was futile as he had no power of the cells that Arafat clearly ran. he resigned as a result. the latest PM has NEVER said that he will try and end terrorism.
Abu Mazin never said he would end terrorism by force - he wanted to stop it by negotiations and a ceasefire - which he managed to suceed doing yet was undermined by israel. the latest PM HAS said he will try and end terrorism and is trying, quote from yahoo news "Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia, backed by Egypt, has been trying unsuccessfully for months to secure a pledge from the militants to stop attacks."
if you can perceive the practical difficulties in withdrawing people and erecting a border control without consistent protection this should answer ur question.
thats just ********. They can announce that they will withdraw within 3 months and start creating a border control and withdrawing. Border control doesnt seem to be a problem when they are coming further into Palestine. Also, if you think that then you should also try and perceive the "practical difficulties in disarming thousands of militants".. All ********.
Kofi Annan called Saddam Hussein "a man he could do business with" and told the Iraqi Governing Council that "they should be quiet, now wasnt the time for criticism"(following the Iraqis attack on the UN for letting Saddam ruin their country for so long). Kofi Annan is a joke.
No, you are a joke. Kofi Annan is the head of the UN but countries such as the US undermine him by doing whatever they want to and bypassing the UN. Kofi Annan is a good person, tries to work for world peace, helps disaster stricken countries and is trying to resolve the mid east conflict.
hat do you mean by what timeframe - ever since they are in palestine they've been building settlements.
i mean during the ceasefire, which is what you were alluding to. i was interested to know how ISrael could build new settlements in 7 weeks.
They just continued building settlements under construction
yes and it was a joke.
No it wasnt, it was official actually he wento the ceremony, shook hands and got it. It was even televised on CNN. That doesnt seem like much of a joke to me.
Bush is the only president to recognise the 2-state proposals.
his criticisms of Israel and peace efforts are relatively unparalled among former US heads of state.
The IMF report "Economic Performance and Reforms under Conflict Conditions," released last September in Abu Dhabi, was based on the same PA documents that the Israeli government had earlier provided to Patten and the European Parliament. The report concludes that at least 8 percent ($135 million) of the PA's annual budget of $1.08 billion is being spent by Arafat at his sole discretion — and does not even take into account Arafat's control of 60 percent of the security-apparatus budget, which leaves him with at least $360 million per year to spend as he chooses. In addition, the report states that $900 million in PA revenues "disappeared" between 1995 and 2000, and that the 2003 budget for Arafat's office, which totaled $74 million, was missing $34 million that Arafat had transferred to pay unidentified "organizations" and "individuals."
What you say about bush is partly true I suppose, but I havent read the IMF report, care to post a link ?
im trying to say that the Palestinians have been ruled for as long as their history cares to exist. yet they never showed so much hatred as when the Israelis were given land that they never controlled.
Palestinians may have been ruled over but the land was always theirs, theyve always had a say, and they lived peacefully .. now they dont.
0
Report
#533
Adelz,
Please, where are you quoting from?
Quotes are best placed between quote tags so we can see which bits are quoted and which are your own comments. Or at least italicized so we can see you're quoting.
Or do you have split personality and are therefore arguing with yourself?
Please, where are you quoting from?
Quotes are best placed between quote tags so we can see which bits are quoted and which are your own comments. Or at least italicized so we can see you're quoting.
Or do you have split personality and are therefore arguing with yourself?
0
Report
#534
(Original post by thefish_uk)
Adelz,
Please, where are you quoting from?
Or do you have split personality and are therefore arguing with yourself?
Adelz,
Please, where are you quoting from?
Or do you have split personality and are therefore arguing with yourself?
0
Report
#535
(Original post by thefish_uk)
Adelz,
Please, where are you quoting from?
Quotes are best placed between quote tags so we can see which bits are quoted and which are your own comments. Or at least italicized so we can see you're quoting.
Or do you have split personality and are therefore arguing with yourself?
Adelz,
Please, where are you quoting from?
Quotes are best placed between quote tags so we can see which bits are quoted and which are your own comments. Or at least italicized so we can see you're quoting.
Or do you have split personality and are therefore arguing with yourself?
0
Report
#536
(Original post by adelz)
errr .. im quoting from yahoo news, from theguardian etc. ... why ?!
errr .. im quoting from yahoo news, from theguardian etc. ... why ?!
0
Report
#537
(Original post by adelz)
errr .. im quoting from yahoo news, from theguardian etc. ... why ?!
errr .. im quoting from yahoo news, from theguardian etc. ... why ?!
As this is a civilised debate, it also helps to mention somewhere in your post the source webpage of your quotes so we can check it out for ourselves.
0
Report
#538
(Original post by gemgems89)
Because it's clearly not your own words and you're copy and pasting lectures and lectures which are all from media sources!
Because it's clearly not your own words and you're copy and pasting lectures and lectures which are all from media sources!
0
Report
#539
umm most of the stuff ive posted is my own, whatever Ive quoted from other sources is in brackets. Ill post my sources from now on since you need verification.
0
Report
#540
(Original post by thefish_uk)
It's difficult to tell which bits are quotes and which are your own comments.
As this is a civilised debate, it also helps to mention somewhere in your post the source webpage of your quotes so we can check it out for ourselves.
It's difficult to tell which bits are quotes and which are your own comments.
As this is a civilised debate, it also helps to mention somewhere in your post the source webpage of your quotes so we can check it out for ourselves.
0
X
new posts
