Looters beware!!!!!!!!!!!!

[s13sr20chris]

If your democrats are so for the minorities, why do so few of them actually have minorities working with them(outside of Bill Clinton).

And since when did Affirmative Action ever do anything for the black culture? How about your democrats who support reperations? That will do nothing but make things worse between blacks and the rest of America.

The fact that the 3rd most powerful man in America is black doesn't mean anything to you, shows to me where your thinking is. Colin Powell and Condi are both powerful spokesmen for the black community, if they chose to listen. They are not lapdogs for the Republican party as you so believe.

The democrats of today, are nothing but shadows, of the democrats of 40-50 years ago.

an excellent point. instead of racial "free enterprise" if you will, we have "income redistribution". that is so lib its not even funny. that is a major sticking point for minorities. you could even say "the man is keeping you down", the difference is that the minorities think its just a handout and that they really are moving on up. its offensive the policies the dems have. jesse jackson, al sharpton, carol mosley braun(sp?), etc. dont get me started on popular black heros from the movies and music. im sorry, but conservatives are not the problem here.

[JustinStrife]

an excellent point. instead of racial "free enterprise" if you will, we have "income redistribution". that is so lib its not even funny. that is a major sticking point for minorities. you could even say "the man is keeping you down", the difference is that the minorities think its just a handout and that they really are moving on up. its offensive the policies the dems have. jesse jackson, al sharpton, carol mosley braun(sp?), etc. dont get me started on popular black heros from the movies and music. im sorry, but conservatives are not the problem here.

Martin Luther King Jr. would be very sad if he knew what kind of Black Leaders the community follows in today's world. They are a far cry from his original ideals, which were the correct ones. He never asked for a hand-out, or special benefits. He just wanted a chance to be like everyone else.

Unfortunetly now, the black leaders like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, are more racist then their counter-parts.

[s13sr20chris]

Oh you disagree with me? Suppose you supply some facts to support your premise.

ill bring up one thing, though i cant quote it perfectly. democrat woodrow wilson(the progressive) watched "birth of a nation" and said that it was unfortunately true and something had to be done.

[JustinStrife]

NY: The blacks would be on par with whites in education and financial standings, if they held the same morals and family structure that whites have. It is a fact, that more children are born out of wedlock in the black community, then in any other racial group. Tell me how that can't be a contributing factor to their educational and financial position? They are not being taught by their peers and parents proper work/moral ethics and end up growing up on the street. Hence why they are more likely to commit crimes per capita.

I'm not anti-black as I've be-friended every black person I met(as sparcely populated as they are in my part of the community) and they were wonderful people. Unfortunetly in cities like NY, LA, and other places, there is a big distinction between white and black communities.

If Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson spent more time trying to get the Black Family re-structured and brought back their morals of old, any disadvantages they might have, would quickly disappear.

edit: My 666'th post... What a topic to get that on. *sigh*

[s13sr20chris]

The Republicans today are a mere shadow of their founding fathers of the second half of the 19th C.

this is so true. we started off so well and look where progress has taken us. :help i would vote for pat robertson but he wont run again and could never win anyway:(

[s13sr20chris]

my pastor is black. we have a very diverse church. i think the secular world could learn a lot from my church. the church in general really. wont happen. lets face it, we just want to be bad.

[NY94J30]

This thread has digressed in opinion and unsupported assertions. I hate to wade into the realm of politics as it is more opinion and perspective than anything else. I have waded too far as it is, I prefer to confine my comments to the facts. We've passed that, so I am going to bow out. Justin and Chris, take care.

We've come a long way from Baghdad, where the fact remains that the actions portrayed in the initial video were violations of Geneva IV.

[NY94J30]

i see and hear of the israelis being the aggressor too much. its their land and i wish the un would allow them to just take it. their military shurely could at any time. they have been raked over the coals and played too kindly to the un.

This is a fact: It is abundantly clear that you have no grasp of the I-P situation.

[s13sr20chris]

ok, your out. ok, but i just glanced at geneva and its all about prisoners of war. maybe you quote the part about citizens of iraq looting from each other. then we can look at it in context.

[s13sr20chris]

This is a fact: It is abundantly clear that you have no grasp of the I-P situation.

ok, not trying to draw you back in or anything because your out and all...

...but what part of "i[God] give this land to you[abraham] and your descendants[the jews] forever" dont you understand. now thats not actually a direct quote ok. i just put it in quotes to make it clear.

[s13sr20chris]

you may wish to retract that statement as1)i am very familiar with it2)palestinians(thats the p right?) dont existthats right there are no palestinians. palestine was an ancient country that was wiped out(defensively) by israel way back when samson was alive. the people who now call themselves palesinians are just arabs with an agenda. they have their state and its called jordan. syria would not be a bad place for them either.

[NY94J30]

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

Art. 147. Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons orproperty protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

As to your second comment, I will not address it as it does not deal with fact but faith. One cannot debate faith. Nor do 19th and 20th century historical facts support you assertion.

[NY94J30]

"The time of Sampson" is irrelevant to the modern international legal order and the map of the modern Middle East which is a post-WWI creation. And no, I do not think that you are familiar with the relevant facts - as you have not cited anything remotely relevant to the current situation.

[s13sr20chris]

well, it appears you got me on the geneva thing. ill say it, you got me.

israel-you are a college type arent you?(no offense, i am fairly uneducated) why must i cite history? i guess i could dig up a reference about israels military and how they could wipe out the surrounding nations if they tried. "the time of sampson" would be irrelevant to our modern situation in israel, but its not. the fact is palestine ceased to exist a long time ago. so hears your unconventional reference. the book of judges. no history can refute that. josephus the historian agrees with it, though i dont have chapter and verse in front of me. israel was on the defensive in 1948 and again in 1967. both times she won, took land, and gave it back. both times the arabs living in israel fled because the 5 arab nations that were attacking told them to leave. they thought if they left they could avoid bloodshed. when the jews were all dead the plan was to come back and get their stuff. now for some of that irrefutable religious stuff. dont mess with the jews. they are gods chosen people. they will never be wiped out. they have been taken into captivity, occupied, and scattered abroad. thats when God chooses to do it. He will never let them go. for gosh sakes, they make the uzi that the secret service uses. they are dedicated and will fight to the death.

[s13sr20chris]

As to your second comment, I will not address it as it does not deal with fact but faith. One cannot debate faith. Nor do 19th and 20th century historical facts support you assertion.

now do me the service of pointing out my fallacy as before. if you do, i will admit it again.

this may be kind of cheesy, but i was just having fun with the first one. now we are dealing with the straight poop.

[Omar]

i see and hear of the israelis being the aggressor too much. its their land and i wish the un would allow them to just take it. their military shurely could at any time. they have been raked over the coals and played too kindly to the un.

Its their land? What are you talking about? Israel is an illegitimate country. It doesnt even exist. They Jews came and took the land away from the Palestinians in '48 to be exact.

What would you do if some one came to your house and said this is my home and you move out? This is the same situation with the Palestinians.

So dont believe what the biased media tells you and avoid being brainwashed.

[JustinStrife]

Its their land? What are you talking about? Israel is an illegitimate country. It doesnt even exist. They Jews came and took the land away from the Palestinians in '48 to be exact.

What would you do if some one came to your house and said this is my home and you move out? This is the same situation with the Palestinians.

So dont believe what the biased media tells you and avoid being brainwashed.

Actually brotha i have to correct you on this... Palestine didn't exist in 48'. Palestinians are actually refugees from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and other areas. There was no sovereign nation called Palestine 60 years ago.

And the Jews didn't come and take their land away. The United Nations(League of Nations whatever) gave them the land at the end of World War 2.

How is it, that in 60 years, the Israelis could build a home, while the Palestinians can't get out of their own refugee camps? It's a difference in culture my friend. And now more then ever. One of those cultures values life, and the other values death. Care to take a gamble which is which?

[NY94J30]

you are a college type arent you?(no offense, i am fairly uneducated)

I have spent years studying history, political science, international affairs and the law

Quote »why must i cite history?[/quote]

You need not cite history, but facts - which tend to be history - because w/o facts your assertions are unsupported.

Quote » i guess i could dig up a reference about israels military and how they could wipe out the surrounding nations if they tried[/quote]

Yes, I don't disagree, the $5B that the US gives Israel in US taxpayers money every year goes a long way. As a fiscal conservative, you'd be stunned at the details of the aid package they receive.

Quote » "the time of sampson" would be irrelevant to our modern situation in israel, but its not. the fact is palestine ceased to exist a long time ago. [/quote]

??? and Iraq never existed, nor did Turkey - that's moot, as they exist today. The world order was born of the World War period.

Quote » so hears your unconventional reference. the book of judges. no history can refute that. josephus the historian agrees with it, though i dont have chapter and verse in front of me. [/quote]

Again, I won't comment on matters of faith.

Quote » israel was on the defensive in 1948 and again in 1967. both times she won, took land, and gave it back. both times the arabs living in israel fled because the 5 arab nations that were attacking told them to leave. they thought if they left they could avoid bloodshed. when the jews were all dead the plan was to come back and get their stuff. [/quote]

Israel was on the defensive because there was no reason for the Palestinians to accept the partition plan laid out in UNSCR 181.

As to some grand Arab plan to flee the land, that is wholly untrue, these are the types of unsupported conclusions that should not be perpetuated. Sources must be qualified.

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"

-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

If you know who Yitzhak Rabin. David Ben-Gurrion and Yigal Allon are, you will understand the significance of this.

Did some leave on their own yes, it was war; were many forced to leave, yes. But to penalize those who left - planned or not - by forfeiture of their land and possessions would be no different than to say that the Jews forfeit their lands and possessions when fleeing the Holocaust. They were civilians caught in the midst of war.

[NY94J30]

Come on, seriously. You're going to have to tell me where you learned so much about the I-P conflict. You're knowledge is staggering.:rolleyes

Actually brotha i have to correct you on this... Palestine didn't exist in 48'.

Neither did Israel, what's your point?

Palestinians are actually refugees from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and other areas.

What??? You just make things up as you go along, huh? Look at the Ottoman census data for the Pre-WW I period.

And the Jews didn't come and take their land away. The United Nations(League of Nations whatever) gave them the land at the end of World War 2.

I have to wonder how you have deemed yourself qualified to make statements about the situation when you cannot draw distinction between the LON and UN.

How did the LON or UN give them the land? Were the Palestinians given land too? how much did they give them? did the accept it? did the Arabs? You need to read more before you assert facts, and even more before you form opinions.

How is it, that in 60 years, the Israelis could build a home, while the Palestinians can't get out of their own refugee camps? It's a difference in culture my friend. And now more then ever. One of those cultures values life, and the other values death. Care to take a gamble which is which?

I won't even comment on that because that is a monumentally stupid comment, fueled by ignorance that in no way takes into account the situation.

[s13sr20chris]

Yes, I don't disagree, the $5B that the US gives Israel in US taxpayers money every year goes a long way. As a fiscal conservative, you'd be stunned at the details of the aid package they receive.

crud man, i get busy for a few days and then this. not much would suprise me. i am for helping israel. they are the only "democracy" in the middle east.



??? and Iraq never existed, nor did Turkey - that's moot, as they exist today. The world order was born of the World War period.

then why are we arguing about israel? is your thinking that isolationist?

Again, I won't comment on matters of faith. yeah, that would be smart of you. what you need to do is realize the stuff you are saying takes more faith. i know what i believe and why. you REALLY need faith in that stuff.

Israel was on the defensive because there was no reason for the Palestinians to accept the partition plan laid out in UNSCR 181.

ok i have to admit that all those fancy numbers and letters are exciting. especially since i dont know what they mean. you cant distract me though. the fact is, you keep refering to palestinians. they were wiped out! if you dont want to believe the bible then read josephus. yeah, he was a jew, but the history books believe him(and thats a feat).

As to some grand Arab plan to flee the land, that is wholly untrue, these are the types of unsupported conclusions that should not be perpetuated. Sources must be qualified.

grand arab plan...ok that might be talking it up a bit. i didnt say grand arab plan(hereafter refered to as the G.A.P.) as the acronym shows, that is impossible. it was a disorganized thing. it was a generalization. so shoot me.

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!"

-- Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

If you know who Yitzhak Rabin. David Ben-Gurrion and Yigal Allon are, you will understand the significance of this.

Did some leave on their own yes, it was war; were many forced to leave, yes. But to penalize those who left - planned or not - by forfeiture of their land and possessions would be no different than to say that the Jews forfeit their lands and possessions when fleeing the Holocaust. They were civilians caught in the midst of war.

i have not heard that quote. yes i know who rabin is. i have no prob with that statement. it does not contradict me because you have not given the surrounding context. it has no timeframe whatsoever. you could make one up and i would not know any better. you would know and thats what counts.

[s13sr20chris]

Come on, seriously. You're going to have to tell me where you learned so much about the I-P conflict. You're knowledge is staggering.:rolleyes

thats lovely. :bash



Neither did Israel, what's your point?

i believe his point is that israel did not take the land away as omar pointed out(wrongly). context context context. you must learn this. its my word of the day. i believe this shows just how partisan you are in this matter. you saw what omar posted. it was loosely in agreement with you and you said nothing. dont claim to be about the truth if you are really not.

What??? You just make things up as you go along, huh? Look at the Ottoman census data for the Pre-WW I period.

for someone so bent on citing stuff you sure didnt pop up a link or something. i have no idea what census you are talking about. i dont care if you dont cite it, just leave me alone about that too eh?

I have to wonder how you have deemed yourself qualified to make statements about the situation when you cannot draw distinction between the LON and UN.

is that required in internet forums not? school me. is the lon not just the original name of the un?

How did the LON or UN give them the land? Were the Palestinians given land too? how much did they give them? did the accept it? did the Arabs? You need to read more before you assert facts, and even more before you form opinions.

ok, so the un didnt give it to them. it may as well have been. the brits gave it to them. before they did that they created palestine as the territory that is now israel and jordan. THAT MEANS THAT JORDAN IS THE PALESTINIAN STATE. in 1923 they split it up to be "trans-jordan" and "palestine". palestine(in addition to being a dumb name) was for the jews(why its a dumb name). trans jordan was for arabs(like they did not already have countries). the funny thing is that the jews were a separate ethnic group and the palestinians were just arabs that lived in that area. the real palesinians all died long ago. i dont care if you dont believe that. you can just insert "" around any use of the word palestinian as they are not a true ethnic group.

I won't even comment on that because that is a monumentally stupid comment, fueled by ignorance that in no way takes into account the situation.

why not?1) thats true. its just a culture thing2) so he generalized a little. look at the koran. it proves that his generalization is just.

[s13sr20chris]

Israel was on the defensive because there was no reason for the Palestinians to accept the partition plan laid out in UNSCR 181.

wrong, israel was on the defensive because FIVE other nations ganged up on her. israels military posture was not political at all.

[s13sr20chris]

you know, i cant fault your reasoning too much bro. you clearly know a lot about this stuff ok? i just think you should take a few steps back and look at it again. stop working so hard for that agenda.

[NY94J30]

Its their land? What are you talking about? Israel is an illegitimate country. It doesnt even exist. They Jews came and took the land away from the Palestinians in '48 to be exact.

What would you do if some one came to your house and said this is my home and you move out? This is the same situation with the Palestinians.

So dont believe what the biased media tells you and avoid being brainwashed.

Quote »i believe his point is that israel did not take the land away as omar pointed out(wrongly). context context context. you must learn this. its my word of the day. i believe this shows just how partisan you are in this matter. you saw what omar posted. it was loosely in agreement with you and you said nothing. dont claim to be about the truth if you are really not.[/quote]

I didn't comment on this post b/c I hadn't seen it until you pointed it out. Having now seen it, let me say that this type of sentiment is wholly unconstructive, and fails to recognize the facts on the ground which must be considered.

[NY94J30]

Finally let me say this as regards my agenda. My agenda is the futherance of international law, justice and equity. As you have made manifestly clear in your posts, you are not in possession of the relavant facts to adequately consider the situation. As I pointed out above, you cannot not know the distinction between the United Nations and League of Nations as to their roles in the matter, nor not recognize 181 and purport to understand the conflict - these are bedrocks. There are myriad issues involved, and to understand the conflict you must see it as a whole. Though your enthusiasm is to be applauded, your conclusions are ill-drawn and (in your own words) fairly uneducated. I do not say this to insult you, but to qualify. Many of your assertions are laughable in academic circles. Much of what you have put forth is propaganda and spin interspersed with fact as has been promulgated since the beginning of the conflict by both sides. I have not pushed any agenda, as I only hope for an equitable settlement of the dispute - or at the least, an evenhanded relation of the facts. I care to correct mistatements and propagnda because they go to the heart of the problem. This is likely my final post in this thread as I am quite busy with other matters. If you would like me to qualify myself, I would more than happy to, though suffice it to say, I have years of studying these matters behind me, as well as practical experience in international conflict resolution.

I may, at some point in the future, take the time to point out some of your futher factual errors and omission - for the benefit of you and anyone else who cares to take something from this thread - and also point in the direction of some good materials. For now I do not have the time, but to begin with why dont you look to Avi Shlaim's "The Iron Wall." - a good balanced history of the state of Israel.

[s13sr20chris]

well thanks ill see if i can look up that reference. its been pretty fun arguing with you. im glad we got to take it all the way till we both were ready to stop. i never start political or religous threads but whenever i get involved they get shut down. im very happy that we got to see it through. i have to complement you in your knowlege of the subject. i also would like to say that very little of what you said appeared to be propaganda and spin. i cant say that about very many people when on this subject. maybe you get some time and pop a few more references out for me.

God bless,chris

[s13sr20chris]

I didn't comment on this post b/c I hadn't seen it until you pointed it out. Having now seen it, let me say that this type of sentiment is wholly unconstructive, and fails to recognize the facts on the ground which must be considered.

good, then i retract the statement about you intentionally overlooking it.