It pretty much drug on since the 19th....
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 23, 2003 06:43 PMwell uh, a lot of, uh, fights or something. i havent even been paying attention to this stuff anymore. did this all happen on the 19th or was it just all spread out?
Posted by: kristy at May 23, 2003 03:37 PMBefore I begin, here is a list of questions you've ignored at least a few times:
1. So... how is Germany anti-Israel?
2. Give one example (of the alleged thousands) of a world body taking land and giving it to another group.
3.Are you saying that Isreal doesn't have to cooperate with the UN regulations because a small minority of the countries on the UN with little to no power might have an anti-Isreal bias?
"oh dear god. i wont be replying to these anymore. i never lied about anything. youre clearly mixing up what i said. the reason i wont be replying is...well, youre both ridiculous-"
-I'm not perfect man. Maybe I am mixing up what you said. But why can't you explain yourself then? I've practically begged you to reply to my accusations. To defend yourself. To hear "your side of the story". Give me one reason to believe you aren't a liar. Give me one shred of evidence that I've "mixed" things up. If you don't, I think you know what conclusions I'll come to.
"lol. was that before or after you called me an idiot? like i said...keep defending terrorists all you want guys, i wont be joining in..."
-Calling you an idiot was disrespectful. That's why I said "at least a LITTLE respect". Because name calling is nothing compared outright ignoring someone while they're talking/writing to you.
-As far as defending terrorism.. You defend the U.S. all the time. Did you know that they were found by the World Court to be guilty of "unlawful use of force and violation of treaties" for the Reagan administration's intervention in Nicaragua? According to both the World Court and the CIA's definition, that was international terrorism. So in that sense, you "defend terrorists" too.
(Here are some links for more information: http://www.sfsu.edu/~mclicfc/media.html
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i058.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2001/1113ij.htm
"ONE of the of you said that you couldnt spell his name correctly because you didnt watch the show...that's where the came from..."
-No. You are mistaken. NEITHER OF US ever said that. The longer you refuse to admit your mistake, the less credible you look. At least offer some kind of evidence to back your accusations.
"one of you guys ALSO said that bill was lying about "millions of people" being pissed at the canadian govt. if i was mistaken on who said that- which i mentioned in the comments youre referring to, thats clearly not a lie...its an accident"
You are mistaken again. This must be embarrasing! I never said it was a lie. Hoodlum never said it was a lie. As a matter a fact, I said "for all I know, millions of Americans are pissed..." Neither of us used that example to prove Bill's a liar. I brought it up to show that he doesn't provide evidence to support his claims. Like you.
"but, thats exactly why im not replying again- you dont like to take what really happened and debate it...you like to call names then try to say i lied when i already explained what happened..."
That's not the reason you're not replying. You stopped replying to our posts a long time ago. You ignored (and continue to ignore) any inquiry or fact that contradicts your argument. Instead, you waste our time pretending we said things we didn't. You can't reply. You've lied about our statements ("you said Bill lied", "you said Bill was wrong","you defend terrorism"), you've been proven wrong several times(the mexican girl story, for one), you've completely ignored questions and, in some cases, refused to provide evidence when asked (see above), and you've lacked the maturity to admit any of your mistakes. You're too embarassed to argue. It's understandable, so at least be honest about it.
Posted by: lowdown at May 22, 2003 09:15 AM"keep defending terrorists all you want guys"
Please quote me in ANY of my comments where I say what the Palistinian terror groups are doing is ok....I dare you, you idiot. I don't like calling names, but under the current circumstances, I dont really don't have much of a choice.
I can however, quote myself on where I say what they do is sick....I guess you missed that.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 22, 2003 07:37 AMas for lowdown- ONE of the of you said that you couldnt spell his name correctly because you didnt watch the show...that's where the came from...and one of you guys ALSO said that bill was lying about "millions of people" being pissed at the canadian govt. if i was mistaken on who said that- which i mentioned in the comments youre referring to, thats clearly not a lie...its an accident. but, thats exactly why im not replying again- you dont like to take what really happened and debate it...you like to call names then try to say i lied when i already explained what happened...
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 21, 2003 09:25 PMoh dear god. i wont be replying to these anymore. i never lied about anything. youre clearly mixing up what i said. the reason i wont be replying is...well, youre both ridiculous-
================
LOWDOWN: he best I can tell, the answer to all those questions is "no". That's because, as much as I disagree with your opinions, I take the time to treat you with at least a little respect.
================
lol. was that before or after you called me an idiot? like i said...keep defending terrorists all you want guys, i wont be joining in...
"and your knowledge of history is clearly as bad as hoodlums."
ROFLMMFAO!...."said the pot to the kettle"
"one member? germany. done. you exposed me as a liar? youre insane clearly. you keep ranting nonsense about bill oreilly controlling the way i think or something...and your knowledge of history is clearly as bad as hoodlums. i guess you didnt read the link i posted myself. too bad."
1. How is Germany anti-Israel? More importantly, why do I have to even ask you this? Wouldn't it be logical to follow up the answer with an explanation of WHY you consider them anti-israel?
2. I have exposed you as a liar. Check the link I gave you again. (http://www.thebluesite.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=150
)
I give numerous examples of you flat out making things up.
For example, you said I admitted to never watching Bill's show. I did no such thing.
You also said I accused Bill of lying by quoting from that "Bill O'Reilly exposed" page. Again, I didn't. There are a few other examples that can be found in that link.
3. I mentioned Bill O'Reilly in this thread all of ONCE. And I only mentioned him after you and hoodlum brought him up. Furthermore, I already agreed that Bill has nothing to do with the argument. You're the one who seems fixated with him.
4. What did your link have to do with anything I said? You said it was for anyone who said Israel is an "artificial entity". If it has anything to do with my arguments, you should have said so.
5. Do you consider any country that does not recognize Israel to be "anti-Israel"? Because then the term is misleading. A country can refuse to recognize Israel's borders without actively wanting to hurt the Israeli people through UN resolutions. To prove that the UN regulations that Israel constantly breaks are the products of biased "anti-Israel" nations, you'd have to offer a lot more proof of their bias then just "they don't recognize Israel". Doing otherwise is silly and unrealistic.
Josh, remember this?
"o other world body has taken land and given it another group? you need to beef up on your history...it's happened thousands of times thru history...
-For the FOURTH TIME, name one example. You'd think with the "thousands" you claimed to have happened, you could come up with one.
-For the SECOND TIME:
Are you saying that Isreal doesn't have to cooperate with the UN regulations because a small minority of the countries on the UN with little to no power might have an anti-Isreal bias? If you only answer one of my questions, please answer this one. I'm really curious about this.
-For the SECOND TIME:
And finally, why have you stopped posting on this page:
http://www.thebluesite.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=150
Let me ask you this, when you asked either me or hoodlum a question, did we not respond? Have you had to ask either of us for proof of any of our claims? Have you had to ask us for a link? Have you had to ask us to provide a fact to support our opinion?
The best I can tell, the answer to all those questions is "no". That's because, as much as I disagree with your opinions, I take the time to treat you with at least a little respect. I don't ignore your posts. I don't ignore your questions. I explain my opinion with facts. It isn't difficult, so why can't you do the same?
Posted by: lowdown at May 21, 2003 06:25 PMOh, your "one" link you posted? I am still waiting for you back up all the other points you made, and all the ones I made you said were wrong...
Dont worry...I'll get to that link when I have some free time. I couldnt help but laugh at even the very first "point" on the site by DOnald Runsfield...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 21, 2003 06:04 PMone member? germany. done. you exposed me as a liar? youre insane clearly. you keep ranting nonsense about bill oreilly controlling the way i think or something...and your knowledge of history is clearly as bad as hoodlums. i guess you didnt read the link i posted myself. too bad.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 21, 2003 04:21 PMBy the way, you mentioned this a while back:
"again, hoodlum...what you dont understand is, the UN is anti- israel for the most part...many on the sec. council are anti israel...its been this way for decades"
Now then, name one. Just one. Name one member of the security council who is "anti-israel". I'll be waiting.
Posted by: Lowdown at May 21, 2003 03:14 PMFirst, you were right about O'Reilly having nothing to do with the argument. I only brought him up because you did in the post preceeding ming. And that last post was more of a rant then an argument. Your ignorance and ill-mannered behavior can be very fustrating.
"o other world body has taken land and given it another group? you need to beef up on your history...it's happened thousands of times thru history..."
- WHEN???? That's all I'm asking. Name ONE! You claim it's happened thousands of times yet you can't name one? Is it really so much to ask? You've been asked 3 or 4 times to provide ONE example, this is the last time I'm gonna ask. If you can't answer I'll just come to my own conclusions about you and your argument.
"that's just it hoodlum- israel "breaks" UN sanctions according to who? everyone knows there is a huge anti-israeli grouping within the UN. again- the only arab country thats part of the UN that truly recognizes israel is egypt...and maybe jordan. they dont recognize israel, yet theres no anti-israeli bias among them? hardly."
-"Everyone knows" about this alleged anti-Isrealism in the UN? Would you provide a link to just ONE article explaining this?
-Are you saying that Isreal doesn't have to cooperate with the UN regulations because a small minority of the countries on the UN with little to no power might have an anti-Isreal bias? If you only answer one of my questions, please answer this one. I'm really curious about this.
And finally, why have you stopped posting on this page:
http://www.thebluesite.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=150
There were quite a few questions there I would have wanted to answer if I was you. I mean, I pretty much exposed you as a liar. I find it peculiar that you wouldn't take the time to defend yourself. But that's just me...
"they agreed to the peace plan. the palestinians wanted more than israel (backed by the US) was willing to give...they were willing to give A LOT, but the palestinians wanted more."
Actually, the Palistinians agreed...then the deal was taken off of the tabel.
"you forget to mention that arafat himself is a terrorist leader-"
I didn't "forget" to mention it no more than you forgot to mention that Sharone is a war criminal...
Arafat is an idiot and I'm glad he's gone. Hopefully Mahmoud Abbas will bring an actual strain of peace to the area.
"but you claim they havent done enough? thats absurd!"
I never said they havn't done enough....where are you pulling these things from? If you remember back from our very first debate on this matter, I had mentioned how Arafat was an asshole and getting rid of him would be a step closer to peace
"look..youre defending terrorism, whether you want to admit that point or not."
Can you please explain to me how I am defending terrorism? Be warned...if its not a good response, Im gonna have to flame you for it...because if you read through my posts I never justified anything the palistinian terror groups did, but rather pointed out the fact that Israel is not as innocent as you seem to think.
"you can keep claiming israel is on the offense (your ridiculous clain that the IDF purposefully kills innocent men women and children was quite a laugh!) but thats clearly not the case either..."
First of all, I never said Israel is ALWAYS on the offense...where did I say that? Perhaps you can quote me on it?
ANd Israel doesnt kill innocent people?
Tell that to them:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2082/2_63/72435149/print.jhtml
http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/04/13987.php
http://www.mediamonitors.net/francis7.html
Now I will wait for your links that prove they are "un-true" and how Israel respects their human rights.
"israel "breaks" UN sanctions according to who? everyone knows there is a huge anti-israeli grouping within the UN."
Well why is it ok for Israel to break UN sanctions, but in your mind when Iraq does it it's a justification for war?
Why is it that when other countries do it they are hit with sanctions and attacks but when Israel does it they are hit with aid, money and weapons?
Weather you want to admit it or not, the pulling power in the UN is pro-Israel, otherwise they wouldnt be getting so much and able to get away with such things.
And you cant mention a handfull of arab countries and determine the entire world body "anti-Israel"
There are hundreds of nations that make up the UN....and to say that a few are against one country in turn makes the whole body against one country is simply idiotic.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 21, 2003 10:21 AMthat's just it hoodlum- israel "breaks" UN sanctions according to who? everyone knows there is a huge anti-israeli grouping within the UN. again- the only arab country thats part of the UN that truly recognizes israel is egypt...and maybe jordan. they dont recognize israel, yet theres no anti-israeli bias among them? hardly.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 20, 2003 07:18 PMok. lol. i just have to ask what youre smoking. the IDF purposely goes in and neglects to protect innocent people and they all everyone at will with no problem? thats a great claim...i guess youve been there to see it for yourself, huh? that claim is just outrageous.
secondly- this.
=================
Here is a snip from it that totally disproves your claim:
======Clinton presented the plan after a July summit meeting between Arafat and
then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak broke down without an agreement. According to
the plan, the Palestinians would set up a state in 95% of the West Bank and all of
Gaza and would gain sovereignty over Arab quarters in Jerusalem and a hotly disputed
holy site.
The plan also called on the Palestinians to drastically scale back their demand for
all refugees and their descendants from the 1948-49 war that followed Israel's
creation, about 4 million people, to have the right to return to their original
homes.
After Clinton presented his plan, the Palestinians said they accepted it with "deep
reservations," asking for clarifications about all the key points.
Talks continued until late January 2001 but ended without agreement just before a
special election, in which Barak was soundly defeated by hawkish Ariel Sharon. At
that point, both Israel and the United States said their proposals were off the
table.======
So as you can see, you were totally wrong about the Clinton peace deal. It was the
US and Israeli change of administration that turned the deal sour, not the
Palistinians. Please...I am begging you...do your research before you post things.
You are starting to sound really stupid (I have tried to refrain from personal
insults as much as possible, but this is getting rediculous)
=================
this is also very funny. the deal didnt turn sour because of israel OR the US. reread your article there...i remember it clearly. israel was all ready for the concessions...they agreed to the peace plan. the palestinians wanted more than israel (backed by the US) was willing to give...they were willing to give A LOT, but the palestinians wanted more.
your article said this-
=================
the Palestinians said they accepted it with "deep
reservations," asking for clarifications about all the key points.
=================
they asked for more than "clarification." they turned the plan down until israel would give them more land in terms of the percentage...israel stood their ground and said the deal on the table was the last best and final offer...arafat wouldnt take it. he dragged it out...and out...and out, and israel, fed up left the table altogether- which is what they SHOULD have done. you forget to mention that arafat himself is a terrorist leader- israel sat down and dealt with a terrorist to try to form a peace plan...but you claim they havent done enough? thats absurd!
look..youre defending terrorism, whether you want to admit that point or not. arafat himself is a terrorist, and the palestinian people are, in large numbers, part of terrorist groups or they support said terrorists groups. you can keep claiming israel is on the offense (your ridiculous clain that the IDF purposefully kills innocent men women and children was quite a laugh!) but thats clearly not the case either...
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 20, 2003 07:16 PMLowdown made a very good point. Perhaps you can answer it.
===If the U.N. is anti-Isreal as you claim, then why do Arab countries who break U.N. regulations face war, while Isreal recieves financial aid from one of the U.N.'s permanent members?===
Perhaps you have the answer....perhaps not...
"no other world body has taken land and given it another group? you need to beef up on your history...it's happened thousands of times thru history..."
The only other world body that has ever existed besides the UN was the LoN, and the only thing I can think up is when Britain and France gave up parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler before World War 2.....berhaps you could share a handfull of these "thousands of times" with us....or perhaps you were just talking out of your ass again (with all due respect).
"...i will not attempt to refute the link you posted...it's clearly extremely biased. the paragraph i listed says that much."
Actually, the paragraph you listed was an opinion based on fact. You can't latch on to an opinion and ignore the facts and claim it's bias....that very way of thinking is a clear from of bias behaviour...
"plus, you keep saying stop watching bill o'reilly, (continually spelled incorrectly), which shows your own extreme bias in general..."
Perhaps you could explain how me telling you to stop watching Bill is being bias? I thought of it as good advice. YOu are begining to adopt his way of debating which is not a good thing on your part.
"i could give you a million links that tell the exact opposite history of the land of israel."
I don't ask for much from you, but what I do want is one of these "millions of links"....and make sure they go back before 3000BC, or they will not be able to refure my link on the territorial claims on the land.
"read biblical archeaology review, theyve published a number of articles in regards to detailed excavations that indeed show that the jewish people have a right to the land. that's pointless either way...it's israel...it was sanctioned by the UN...you cannot rewrite history."
You're right. I cant, but please refer to the following link:
http://www.stanford.edu/~bgiddens/settlements.htm
It talks about Israel and the "UN sanctioned land" your argument so thinly relies on, and how the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is, and I quote, "an obstacle to peace."
I read your link, and allow me to quote something from it:
======US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shocked the world last week when he referred to Israel's "so-called occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza. By implying that he does not consider Israel's presence in these territories to be an illegal occupation, Rumsfeld defied one of the modern world's most widely accepted dogmas. Yet the very fact that his statement was received as little short of heretical begs an obvious question: How did a label with not a shred of basis in international law turn into such a universally accepted truth? ============
Donald Rumsfield is the defence secretairy of the USA, not a foreign polotician. His very comment alone shows he is being bias to the situation when according the the UN itself, Israel should not be occupying the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
Now one of your main arguments is based on the fact that the UN is Israeli sanctioned, but this proves Israel is over stepping their bounds and in violation of international law despite what Rumsfield wants to say in front of the press.
The fact remains, his comment has nothing to do with international law, and therefore is comeletely irrelivant, so why even bother bringing it up?
Lets go on about your "evidence" shall we?
=========The standard definition of an occupation under international law is found in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies explicitly to "partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" (Article 2, emphasis added). In other words, "occupation" for the purposes of the convention means the presence of one country's troops in territory that belongs to another sovereign state the only type of entity that can be a contracting party to the convention.
But when territory that does not clearly belong to another sovereign state is captured by one of the possible legitimate claimants as, for instance, in Kashmir, which is claimed by India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiris the term generally used is "disputed," not "occupied." ========
I don;'t know if you see it or not, but your very evidence against me is further proving my point. Israel is in fact occupying these lands, but the argument here is the term "occupied" is in wrong context. It never says what they are doing is right.
I think I have made my point on your only link you have ever given since I began debating with you months ago, so allow me to go on with what you said shall we?
"like michael savage said today...there are numerous bombings in area that aren't even disputed- areas that are clearly under israeli control...which proves, the terrorists don't want peace...they don't even want to sit at the table to BEGIN to discuss the issue."
First of all, why do you keep talking about the terrorists coming to the tables to talk? That will never happen...it's not in the nature of terrorists to do such things...especially not when Israel kills a few more women and children in their "search for terrorists"
"but you're defense of terrorism will never stand up to reason."
I never stood up for terrorism....I pointed out how Israel is just as bad as the Palistinians in terms of the current situation.
"the idf will continue to go into palestinian areas and searching out terrorists and their families. this, as a defensive measure, cannot be knocked until you come up with a better solution."
There is no better solution. I support that very tactic, but Israel takes it too far. When the US went into Afghsnistan, civilian death was avoided AT ALL COSTS...and the same as Iraq. The difference with the way the IDF is doing it is that they have no regard for civilian life, and if babies, children, women and men are killed while looking for terrorists, the IDF just brush it off and go on. This causes rage within the Palistinian community and revenge for these deaths come to mind. This is one way how Israel is provoking most of these attacks.
"israel was all for a peace deal with clinton...the palestinians refused."
Did they? Perhaps a link to prove that...because after a little research I did, it proves that it wasn't the Palistinians who didnt want peace. You really have to do your research dude...you are becoming a farce to deal with.
Please refer to the following article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/06/21/arafat-full.htm#more
Here is a snip from it that totally disproves your claim:
======Clinton presented the plan after a July summit meeting between Arafat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak broke down without an agreement. According to the plan, the Palestinians would set up a state in 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza and would gain sovereignty over Arab quarters in Jerusalem and a hotly disputed holy site.
The plan also called on the Palestinians to drastically scale back their demand for all refugees and their descendants from the 1948-49 war that followed Israel's creation, about 4 million people, to have the right to return to their original homes.
After Clinton presented his plan, the Palestinians said they accepted it with "deep reservations," asking for clarifications about all the key points.
Talks continued until late January 2001 but ended without agreement just before a special election, in which Barak was soundly defeated by hawkish Ariel Sharon. At that point, both Israel and the United States said their proposals were off the table.======
So as you can see, you were totally wrong about the Clinton peace deal. It was the US and Israeli change of administration that turned the deal sour, not the Palistinians. Please...I am begging you...do your research before you post things. You are starting to sound really stupid (I have tried to refrain from personal insults as much as possible, but this is getting rediculous)
"what's your reply to that? the events at camp david during clinton- if the palestinians really wanted peace...things would have ended back then."
Wrong...And I proved it above. Please refer to the news article.
"i exposed the clear bias in hoodlums so called evidence.."
There was no bias, there was documented history you apparently don't agree with.
"if you think the UN is for israel, youre crazy. name one arab nation that truly recognizes israel, besides egypt...hell, forget the middle east...look into asia and africa and find the many nations that dont truly recognize israel."
No arab nations with the exception of Pakistan and Syrian Arab Republic currently reside on the Sec Council. All nations that actually hold power in the UN are pro Israel. You are still basing your arguments on the sentiments of a few small nations with no reall pull in the UN, while ignoring the fact that the real power in the world body is pro-Israel...
"as for supporting my arguments...did you not read the piece i linked to?"
I sure did, and allow me to make a few more quotes on it for the road:
=====And that is precisely the situation in the West Bank and Gaza. Neither of these territories belonged to any sovereign state when Israel captured them in 1967; they were essentially stateless territory. Both had originally been part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and, according to the UN partition plan of 1947, they should have become part of a new Arab state when Britain abandoned the Mandate in 1948.=====
It clearly states the land was supposed to be turned into an Arab state, but was abandoned by Britain. Then here comes Israel with their tanks and guns, killing the people there, destroying their homes and taking their land. I guess they have no right to be pissed off about that huh? Maybe I should make a stop at your place with a gun, kill your parents, and force you out of your home. You shouldn't be upset with me in your point of logic....otherwise you are depicting a clear bias and double standard (Jewish rights are more important than Arab rights).
"you keep defending the terrorists all you want. it's rather digusting and it makes very little sense, but go ahead."
I never defended terrorists....I simple showed you Israel is not as innocent as you seem to think.....I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
Both sides are sick. Thats my stance.
I will be waiting patiently for your reply on my points.
lol. thank you lowdown for proving me right. you called me an idiot and you keep mentioning bill oreilly like he has ANYTHING to do with this issue. i havent watched oreilly in a month...the bombings took place days ago. i exposed the clear bias in hoodlums so called evidence...the artificial entity that is israel? lol. thats a source to be trusted, huh? i gave you a source that shows the history of the region...there was no soverign nation there...israel took land in a defensive war. if you think the UN is for israel, youre crazy. name one arab nation that truly recognizes israel, besides egypt...hell, forget the middle east...look into asia and africa and find the many nations that dont truly recognize israel. no anti-israel sentiments in the UN? hilarious. truly.
as for supporting my arguments...did you not read the piece i linked to? that's history..you cannot deny what happened. you keep defending the terrorists all you want. it's rather digusting and it makes very little sense, but go ahead...thank god we live in a world where most reasonable people disagree with your and the terrorists opinion.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 20, 2003 03:39 PM"no other world body has taken land and given it another group? you need to beef up on your history...it's happened thousands of times thru history..."
LIKE WHEN!!!???? DEAR GOD MAN, WHEN??!!! THAT WAS THE QUESTION! HE ASKED YOU FOR AN EXAMPLE AND YOU REPLY BY RESTATING YOUR OPINION!?
I think I'm gonna start arguing like you.
Saddam Hussein is a saint. The U.S. was wrong to remove his regime. Don't expect me to back that statement up. Why should I when you don't support your arguments?
You sir, are an idiot. The fact that you have the right to vote scares the shit out of me. If there was ever a reason to doubt the effectiveness of democracy, it's you. You can't even explain why you believe the things you do. Keep watching Bill O'Reilly, keep thinking the UN is anti-isreal, keep calling the Palestinians a "murdering tribe of barbarians", and keep stating your bigoted, ill-informed opinions without providing any evidence to support them.
Clearly "arguing" with you is a waste of time. You are incapable of any kind of intelligent debate. I know it, Hoodlum knows it, and anyone with a post elementary education reading your posts know it. And that's good enough for me.
Posted by: lowdown at May 20, 2003 02:56 PMJosh, you have a right to your opinion, but it's really hard to understand why you believe the things you do. Go through hoodlum's posts and count the number of facts and references he uses and then count yours. I could disagree with Hoodlum's opinions, but at least I know how he comes to his conlcusions. I have absolutely no idea why you believe the U.N. is anti-isreal. They commmit more U.N. violations then any other country in the world and recieve more financial/military aid from the U.S. then anybody else. (Here's a partial list of their violations http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2417). If the U.N. is anti-Isreal as you claim, then why do Arab countries who break U.N. regulations face war, while Isreal recieves financial aid from one of the U.N.'s permanent members?
Posted by: Lowdown at May 20, 2003 02:41 PMhere's a piece of history for you from someone who doesn;t claim nonsense like israel is an "artificial entity"
http://www.io.com/~freeman/updates/620.htm
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 20, 2003 02:26 PMno other world body has taken land and given it another group? you need to beef up on your history...it's happened thousands of times thru history...i will not attempt to refute the link you posted...it's clearly extremely biased. the paragraph i listed says that much. plus, you keep saying stop watching bill o'reilly, (continually spelled incorrectly), which shows your own extreme bias in general...i could give you a million links that tell the exact opposite history of the land of israel. read biblical archeaology review, theyve published a number of articles in regards to detailed excavations that indeed show that the jewish people have a right to the land. that's pointless either way...it's israel...it was sanctioned by the UN...you cannot rewrite history. israel was attacked soon after their very existence...they have been on the defensive ever since. you can keep defending hamas and similiar groups...but you're defense of terrorism will never stand up to reason. like michael savage said today...there are numerous bombings in area that aren't even disputed- areas that are clearly under israeli control...which proves, the terrorists don't want peace...they don't even want to sit at the table to BEGIN to discuss the issue. the idf will continue to go into palestinian areas and searching out terrorists and their families. this, as a defensive measure, cannot be knocked until you come up with a better solution. israel was all for a peace deal with clinton...the palestinians refused. israel was willing to make huge concessions...the palestinians are never happy...enough is never enough for them. what's your reply to that? the events at camp david during clinton- if the palestinians really wanted peace...things would have ended back then. they do not want any peace...thus, this cycle will not end until the US becomes involved (many think we soon will), and we start destroying the numerous palestinian terror groups.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 20, 2003 02:18 PM"an "artificial entity?" hmmm...like every other nation on earth?"
No other world body (UN) on earth ever took land forcefully from one group of people and gave it to another.
".i'd like to see you say that to any other country on earth."
Find me a country created under the circumstances Israel was created under and I will....otherwise that remark was about as pointless as your arguments..
"now, if you're done with the nonsense you call "evidence...""
I said it once and I'll say it again.....stop watching Bill Orielly..
It's destroying your ability to have a normal debate. You take a small bit of evidence I brought up, dont fully understand it, and then try to refute it with word manipulation.
Why don't you comment on this part of the article:
===What emerges is, that around 3,000 BC, a people called the Canaanites migrated from the Arabian Peninsula and settled in Palestine. They established several major cities including Ore-Salem or Yaboos (today known as a Al Quds or Jerusalem). It was not until 1250 BC that the Israelites invaded Canaan. They became known as Herbrews, a word derived from an older word Hiberu meaning ‘outsider’ which was found in writings sent to Egypt at that time, recording the entry of the Israelites into the land of Canaan. About the same time, a number of tribes were forced to leave the island of Crete because of invasion by the Greeks; they invaded the Palestinian coast and gained control of several cities such as Gaza, Haifa and Asqalan. The most renowned tribe was the Balastia, from which, the name Palestine would eventually be given to the whole country.====
Why havn't you commented on that part? I'll tell you why. You know you're wrong but trying to save face by latching on to a paragraph who's meaning you have twisted.
Go do some research before you comment any further.....this is really getting annoying.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 20, 2003 01:35 PMYou have still yet to refute anything I have said with any form of fact or reference....
Put your personal feelings aside and debate your end with some sort of hard proof instead of taking facts you apparently dont like and twisting them around to give the appearence you are "proving a point"...
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 20, 2003 01:24 PMlol. you want me to read an article that contains this paragraph?
====================
All this brings us back to our main point. That the State of Israel is an artificial entity, which has no legitimacy other than that given to it in 1948 by a United Nations Mandate. That in itself was merely a product of Europe and America’s bad conscience over the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis, during the 1930’s and the Second World War.
====================
an "artificial entity?" hmmm...like every other nation on earth? because i forgot about all the nations that god himself sanctioned as states! lol. ok then...so, israel is a product of bad conscience...i'd like to see you say that to any other country on earth. you don't really exist...you really have no right to be the nation you are, 'cause you're just a product of america's bad conscience...now, if you're done with the nonsense you call "evidence..."
"lol. you neglect to mention that the tanks only roll in to search for terrorists...which are many in the palestinian areas"
Simply not true. Had you read through my entire reply instead of chosing to ignore the facts, you would know that.
IDF tanks also roll into Palistinian towns to make way for Israeli settlements. They basically force the people off the land, and those who resist are labled "terrorist gunmen" and open season breaks out in the streets which usually ends in civilian loss of life...
All for an Israeli settlement about to be opened up.
"as for the land thats rightfully theirs...youre wrong. the jews have a clear historical root in the land..."
Again, perhaps some facts to back that claim up?
I proved you wrong and backed my points with facts and URL's pertaining to this. Allow me to give you the URL concerning rights to the land again...you obviously dont want to see the truth..
http://www.habtoor.com/thinkingclearly/html/issue37.htm
Please read that article. If you have anything to say against it, be sure to use facts to back them up including URL's or else don't bother.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 20, 2003 06:58 AMlol. you neglect to mention that the tanks only roll in to search for terrorists...which are many in the palestinian areas. as for the land thats rightfully theirs...youre wrong. the jews have a clear historical root in the land...and by your logic, the US shouldnt be allowed to exist, nor should any other country on earth. the UN sanctioned land...it was a done deal...its theirs. they won more land in a war that was a DEFENSIVE war...thats theirs. does the us have to give back land we won from the spanish? the italians? the french? no? then why is israel the only country on the planet that has to live up to different rules? get real.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 20, 2003 01:10 AM"theyve been willing to give up obscene amts of land (land that no other country would be asked to give up), yet the palestinians wanted more...and more...and more"
Of course the Palistinians want more land, considering that it was rightfully theirs to begin with...
Posted by: anony mous at May 20, 2003 12:07 AMhomocide tanks
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 19, 2003 07:56 PMhomicide bombings.
Posted by: Lisa at May 19, 2003 07:30 PM"again, hoodlum...what you dont understand is, the UN is anti- israel for the most part...many on the sec. council are anti israel..."
Do you know what you are saying? Of all the current members of the security council, the only ones being anti-Israel would be Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic both of which are not perminant members and will be gone within the next year, so again, what are you talking about? Perhaps some facts to back up that claim?. None of the perminant members (besides maybe Russia to a small extent) are anti-Israel.
The countries that hold the most power within the Security Council (UK/USA/France/Germany) as well as being perminant members have openly tried for peace and have given aid to Israel in many forms.
That is hardly the way you seem to think it is. Perhaps some facts to back your points instead of your usual "bla bla, thats wrong, bla bla".....
It's growing painfully debating with someone who never uses any form of reference or facts to back up their opinions.
"these "violations" are nothing. "
The following are a few of these violations that appear to be nothing to you.
They are from the 4th Geneva convention, resolution 672 (1990):
=2. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces resulting in injuries and loss of human life;=
=3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the territories occupied by Israel since=
Taken from resolution 673 (1990):
=Expressing alarm at the rejection of Security Council resolution 672 (1990) by the Israeli Government, and its refusal to accept the mission of the Secretary- General,=
Why would they refuse the UN proposed mission? Perhaps they have something to hide? Are you blind or just don't want to believe Israel is as much to blame as the Israelis?
MORE OF RES 673:
=1. Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region;
2. Urges the Israeli Government to reconsider its decision and insists that it comply fully with resolution 672 (1990) and to permit the mission of the Secretary-General to proceed in keeping with its purpose;
3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the Council the report requested in resolution 672 (1990);
4. Affirms its determination to give full and expeditious consideration to the report.=
Have a read over resolution 672..It's noting that hurts Israel in any way...but they would still reject it. Who is the one who is blocking any kind of peace now?
Lets go on shall we?
This is from resolution 649 (1991)
=Having learned with deep concern and consternation that Israel has, in violation of its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and acting in opposition to relevant Security Council resolutions, and to the detriment of efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East, deported four Palestinian civilians on 18 May 1991,
1. Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem;
2. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the save and immediate return of all those deported;
3. Decides to keep the situation under review.=
So basically Israel is doing what Hitler did in Nazi Germany before world war 2. Rounding up groups and deporting them. This is the action you apparently support. So I guess what Hitler did was a good thing with your logic right? If not, that would make you a hipocrite....you encourage it in one situation and not the next...unless you have no idea what really goes on there. I'm leaning for the latter.
This is a little snip from resolution 1073 (1996):
=1. Calls for the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts which have resulted in the aggravation of the situation, and which have negative implications for the Middle East peace process;
2. Calls for the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured;
3. Calls for the immediate resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis and the timely implementation of the agreements reached;
4. Decides to follow closely the situation and to remain seized of the matter.=
If you read and understand that, you can clearly see Israel is just as much to blame for the blocking of peace talks, and aggrivation of the situation as the Palistinians are....or do these facts still remain nothing to you? Perhaps you have some facts of your own to refute mine? I'm guessing not....you never do. You just have your one sided, un-informed opinions.
Now lets get back to what you were saying...
"israel has been willing to live in peace...theyve been willing to give up obscene amts of land (land that no other country would be asked to give up)"
The following snip was taken from an article written by Kenneth W. Stein, Professor of Contemporary Middle Eastern History, Political Science, and Israeli Studies at Emory University.
====Arab states and Palestinians refuse, clearly and unambiguously, to give up the goal of allowing Palestinians to move back to Israel proper, to the pre-1967 war Israel. Israelis refuse to give up all or virtually all the land and settlements created in the West Bank and Gaza Strip since then. ====
http://www.emory.edu/COLLEGE/JewishStudies/stein/Articles/powell.html
If anything, he knows what he's talking about. He knows Israel isn't willing to give up any of their land. There are many other sources that report the same, but all you can bring to me is your "theyve been willing to give up obscene amts of land" which if you had done your research, would know thats simply not true....(and I emphasize, "done your research" because all your comments point towards not doing so)
"yet the palestinians wanted more...and more...and more."
Perhaps some examples? Israel seems to be the same way too.
"hamas and the many other terrorist groups want nothing BUT the destruction of israel and the jewish people."
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0365.htm
As you can see from that site, many Jews within Israel and around the world disagree with the stance and actions taken against the Palistinians by the Israeli government. It's no secret Sharone wants to see the end of the Palistinian people..so how is he any different from the terrorist group who wants to see the end of Israel? The only difference I can see is that one side appears in a suite on TV and the other doesn't...
"you cannot compare the two as you frequently try to do..."
I sure can....please read above.
"also...the country is israel. the palestinians have no historical right to the land."
The following was taken from the following web site concerning your un-researched comment:
====What emerges is, that around 3,000 BC, a people called the Canaanites migrated from the Arabian Peninsula and settled in Palestine. They established several major cities including Ore-Salem or Yaboos (today known as a Al Quds or Jerusalem). It was not until 1250 BC that the Israelites invaded Canaan. They became known as Herbrews, a word derived from an older word Hiberu meaning ‘outsider’ which was found in writings sent to Egypt at that time, recording the entry of the Israelites into the land of Canaan. About the same time, a number of tribes were forced to leave the island of Crete because of invasion by the Greeks; they invaded the Palestinian coast and gained control of several cities such as Gaza, Haifa and Asqalan. The most renowned tribe was the Balastia, from which, the name Palestine would eventually be given to the whole country.===
Please read the whole article for all the information:
http://www.habtoor.com/thinkingclearly/html/issue37.htm
"there were wars...israel won more land. they cant just be forced to give it back."
Noone is forcing them to do anything. It is called compromise....and it's something Israel has been un-willing to do for a long time now. But the same can be said about the Palistinian authority...
"the palestinians get no state...because they dont want peace."
Neither does the Israeli government. Sharone made several speeches over his career and said many thing depicting how he wants to see the total destruction of the Palistinian people.
"israel DEFENDS...you cannot claim that they attack. the israeli forces go into ISRAELI towns where palestinians live and root out terrorists...they have every right to do so."
Here's a real kicker for you that totally disproves that comment....please read the following article:
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/settlements/palestinian_homes_to_be_demolished.htm
So the IDF goes in and destroys innocent Palistinian civilians homes just to make a road? What would you say if Palistinian people went into Israeli territory and gave them a notice that their homes were going to be destroyed to make room for a road linking two Palistinian refugee camps? Please answer this question. I'm curious to see what you will say, but with your track record, you will probably just ignore my facts and go on with your closed minded point of views.
So as you can see, the IDF provokes these attacks and hatred towards the Israelis. I can show you many more situations, but I don't want to do your homework for you.
"they have every right to do so. they have tried peaceful means for decades"
What are these "peacefull means" you talk about, and how do they answer for the above situation?
The Israeli government has always been a master of deception when it comes to "peace talks" to get public sympathy. You see Sharone shaking hands with Bush on TV, talking about wanting peace, but back home, innocent Palistinians are being shot in the street for being out past curfew...and you never hear about those things...
How is peace ever going to be reached if Israel keeps doing things like this? And vice versa too. It's not a one sided deal.
"peace talks with the palestinians are as fruitless as talks with hitler."
And vice versa. Read above.
"theyve never worked because the terror groups are headed by madmen who refuse to sit down at the table to talk peace"
I dont think you knw exactly what your point is supposed to be here. Since when does the US want to sit down for peace talks with terrorist groups? Why even bother mentioning that?
"its always, well stop killing all of the innocent people IF you give us this...israel agrees"
Please back up your claims with facts. What are you refering to? From all reference I have ever read, Israel has not given in to terrorist demands. So until you prove this point, I will chose to bypass it and leave it off the record for your sake.
"we changed our minds...well keep killing until we get this...and this...and this..."
Again, perhaps a URL to back up that fruitless claim?
"you seem to not know the history of the situation,"
By the sheer number of facts I use to back up my points, I know more about than you and your un-proven opinions on the situation will ever know. I don't mean to be insulting, but like I mentioned above, it;s become frustrating debating with someone who uses absolutely no facts to prove their points....so perhaps you can throw a few URLs my way the next time you say something...it would help you look more credible in the future.
"israel is the only democratic nation in the middle of an obscene number of crazies"
That doesn't mean a thing. They are democratic in Israel, so what? It's democratic in Bosnia right now, but that country is still in shambles, so I fail to see the point in saying something like that.
"the violence started WITH the palestinians...israel is always on the DEFENSIVE"
Thats not true, and I proved that above.
"so, dont give me crap about the govt' brutal treatment of terrorists"
You watch too much Bill Orielly. You are starting to adopt his way of manipulating peoples words to try to prove a point. I never said anything about the gov't brutal treatment of terrorists. Perhaps you could try to quote me, but I doubt you will be able to. What I did say however is the Israelis brutal treatment of Arabs...mainly the Palistinians. I have proved my points with examples and facts, so I encourage you to do the same when trying to refute mine....otherwise don't bother replying as it will be useless.....I will not take you seriously if you do no research and provide facts that back up your comments.
"if thats how you see it, then the U.S. is as guilty with al qaeda! im sure you wouldnt agree with that...or maybe you would..."
I'm leaning towards not, but a chunk of it has to do with US foreign policy...not the US in general.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 19, 2003 07:25 PMalso...the country is israel. the palestinians have no historical right to the land...the UN sanctioned the land to the jewish people...there were wars...israel won more land. they cant just be forced to give it back. the palestinians get no state...because they dont want peace. israel DEFENDS...you cannot claim that they attack. the israeli forces go into ISRAELI towns where palestinians live and root out terrorists...they have every right to do so. they have tried peaceful means for decades...theyve never worked because the terror groups are headed by madmen who refuse to sit down at the table to talk peace...its always, well stop killing all of the innocent people IF you give us this...israel agrees (which i dont agree with itself), then they come back and say...we changed our minds...well keep killing until we get this...and this...and this...
peace talks with the palestinians are as fruitless as talks with hitler.
you seem to not know the history of the situation, because you claim that the terrorists attacks are to be blamed on israels "brutal" stance against arabs...which is so untrue. israel is the only democratic nation in the middle of an obscene number of crazies..the violence started WITH the palestinians...israel is always on the DEFENSIVE...because of the ATTACKS/OFFENSE of terrorist groups who openly express their desire to rid the world of all zionists...so, dont give me crap about the govt' brutal treatment of terrorists...if thats how you see it, then the U.S. is as guilty with al qaeda! im sure you wouldnt agree with that...or maybe you would...
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 19, 2003 06:07 PMagain, hoodlum...what you dont understand is, the UN is anti- israel for the most part...many on the sec. council are anti israel...its been this way for decades. these "violations" are nothing. israel has been willing to live in peace...theyve been willing to give up obscene amts of land (land that no other country would be asked to give up), yet the palestinians wanted more...and more...and more. hamas and the many other terrorist groups want nothing BUT the destruction of israel and the jewish people. you cannot compare the two as you frequently try to do...
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman at May 19, 2003 06:01 PMAs sick as those attacks are, you still don't understand the root of why these attacks take place.
Perhaps this link can help you understand...but probably not.
http://www.againstisraeliwarcrimes.org/un_sc_excerpts.htm
As you can see, the oppression from 1967 to the present day, and the start of the 2000 Palistinian uprising...
I could easily say "Israel has no right to any land they have, and the US should go in to stop the Israeli terrorists from their long acts of terror and murder against the Palistinian people causing them to form groups of terrorists to fight back" but I wont. Israel is now on the recieving end of their government and military's bad decisions over the course of the past 35 years.
Let me ask you this before you come with the usual "they are killing innocent civilians etc etc (which Israel has been doing for so long as well), have you ever heard of any of these violations in the news or TV?
I can honestly say I havn't. Take a shot at why...
Both sides are equally responsible for all the chaos in the region. Both sides have a deep rooted hatred for eachother. Both sides have been killing eachother...
Instead of having them live in the same country, why are you opposed to having separate states?
Should they have separate states, these Palistinian terror groups would have to think twice before they attack Israel as such an attack would be considered an act of war from one soverign state against another, and Palistinian people don't want war, so they might start taking a tougher stance against these groups.
Also, the Israeli military will no longer be able to roll into Palistinian towns, bulldowze a home and shoot a kid who is out after curfew....because that also would be an act of war.
If Bush is smart, he will create separate states and send in peace keepers to keep both sides back until the situation calms down and the Palistinians will no longer live in fear of Israeli oppression, and the Israeli people will no longer live in fear of terror attacks brought on by their governments brutal stance against arabs.
Posted by: HOODLUMinc at May 19, 2003 05:20 PM
Action Alert Against Palestinian Terrorists
5 suicide bombings in two days...killing innocent men, women, and children. The Palestinians (as a whole) have expressed their unwillingness to work towarda peace...they have, time and time again, proven that they are not to be trusted...they have proven they are a murdering tribe of barbarians who have no right to ANY land in the middle east. I urge all of you to contact your representative in Congress and demand that the U.S. stop supporting any peace plan that gives the Palestinian people anything. You should also tell your rep. that you demand that the U.S. either capture or execute every member of Hamas and any other terror group within Israel. I will be writing to my Congressman and to President Bush, demanding that we NOT try to establish a Palestinian state, and that the U.S. send forces into Israel to put an end to the Palestinian terror. It's always been U.S. policy not to deal with terrorists...that shouldn't change now. .
Posted by Josh at May 19, 2003 01:35 PM