It would be nice to end Syria's occupation of Lebanon.
But really, Israel should attack from their own country and keep the hell out of lebanon. but, while they are at it,maybe they could send the palestinians back to Jordan.
Agree.
The history of Arafat makes things a little bit different, you do realize this don't you? He is..the agressor, from Jordan to Lebanon to the West bank...his entire history can be summed up with one word "terror". Maybe the West bank should be returned to Jordan to, although when the king decides to take the upper hand with Arafat a second time...I am sure Lebanon will not be so welcoming to the Palestinians as they were the first foolish time.
Hmmm...the truth comes out, huh? Israel should attack its neighbors, and drive out the Palestinians? Am I reading this right? Tell me, so I know whether or not to respond to this in the manner it deserves.
No Zero, with you the truth never F-in comes out. It's always a convaluted mess that ignores anything but your own little tunnel vision, that ignores any other possible victimized population in the region but your very own precious victim projects. IF ISRAEL IS GOING TO ATTACK SYRIA THEY SHOULD STAY OUT OF LEBANON WHILE DOING SO. Clear? BUT IF THERE IS A FOCUS ON GETTING SYRIA OUT OF LEBANON ...BECAUSE THEY HAVE OCCUPIED IT FOR YEARS AND USURPED THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE LEBANESE>>THEN THEY MIGHT ALSO CONSIDER TRANSFERING THE PALESTINIAN MILITANT TERRORIST 'REFUGEES' who have and DO terrorize the LEBANESE population. ...SO, respond to it however you like, ARAFAT and HIS palestinians have MURDERED/SLAUGHTERED over 100,000 LEBANESE..including my brother in law who they LEFT twitching in the street in front of my mother in laws home with his penis STUCK IN HIS MOUTH and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS LIMBS CHOPPED OFF. ...GET IT? So screw you and your PC and your COMPASSION for terrorist who have the BLOOD of THOUSANDS of INNOCENT Lebanese on THEIR HANDS!
I'm sorry for your family's loss.
Hmm... Do you have any idea what you're talking about
I have a university degree on this. You also?
You prefer a world without rules, don't you ...? And the strongest is the 'good guy', isn't it?
That is precisely your problem. You THINK, that
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !
That is precisely your problem. You THINK, that
BECAUSE you have a university degree you know things
without actually witnessing and studying them firsthand.
*EDITED FOR BEING THE NORMAL "DRAG VIOLATION OF PF GUIDELINES"* YET AGAIN*
Then again, if you have a degree one would think
you'd know how to study things.
As for the rest of your posts, some links :
(They're as "relevant" as what you've wrote.)
http://europeanhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geographia.com%2Fbelgium%2Fbxhis03.htm
http://europeanhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geographia.com%2Fbelgium%2Fbxhis03.htm
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Peace and long life.
*Edited because Drag still hasn't read the PF Guuidelines, and apparently wants to get banned*
Not at all, as you can see.
You had 2 points. As you can see I've provided more
Been reading the PNAC website?
Sorry Sir Drag Superman, I believe I had some more:
It seems to be the source of your opinion on the Middle East. I'm sure the contributors to that group have directly or indirectly influenced you, with their pro-Israel, anti-Arab, American imperialist desires.
you'll have to show me where I'm anti-arab and imperialistic. There's nothing wrong with being pro-israel, but that's not really accurate. You just confuse my correcting your mis-information as being something greater then it is. As for where my opinion comes from and what I am influenced by, I think I've clarified that for you numerous times. There's a whole society of people who agree that Syria should not be allowed to continue to occupy Lebanon. That Syria should not be allowed to finance terror in the middle east. That Syria should not be allowed to use Lebanon as a launching pad for war against Israel. That the Palestinians should be returned..to somewhere..and out of Lebanon. I believe they still hold Jordanian citizenship and Jordan has offered to take them back.
Well, my dearest sir I kindly accept your due appologies,
Hmm... Why should I google on something I know.
Yes.
No, they did not fight civilians.
Yes to the first two, yes to the first part of 3,
Murder of civilians.
Yes.
Indeed. But on one side they are mostly
Yes, as long as the majority and leadership of one
And I thought that was because, unlike Zero,
Nope, I am at peace... wooshoo...
Now that I find aspecialy amusing. Kin'na
\
Thanks Drag,Originally posted by drag
Tell me pelastration, scientificly - is a the
yellow colour of an apple, for example, good or bad ?
You should be proud of me.
What, you mean you haven't? They publish a press release every time they commit an act of terrorism. Read one some time. This is the same as in the other thread where you (I think it was you) said we couldn't really know their motivations. We can and do. They tell us every chance they get.
No one here has ever claimed otherwise, pelastration. It is however, simply a FACT that the majority of terrorism affecting the western world right now is perpetrated by people calling themselves Muslims and committing those acts in the name of their religion. Thats a problem that most countries dominated by Islamic populations/governments have as of yet been unwilling to address.
Yes. Ironically, I'd never heard of them and apparently they aren't active now. Is that an attempt to draw a parallel between a Jewish terrorist organization and the Islamic ones that are active now? If you can't see the obvious discconect in time and influence... Ironic.
Not even close. For the fighting itself, the colonial soldiers were uniformed and fighting against other uniformed soldiers. They did not target civilians. If you mean the political situation, the colonies were semi-autonomous before they broke away and they published a written, internationally recognized declaration of independence. None of that can be said by the Arabs attacking Israel.
The settlers were not terrorists. Does that make them RIGHT? Thats not an easy thing to generalize. It is however, still WRONG to kill women and children for the sake of killing women and children. Is there a right to use any means necessary to defend yourself? NO. You will not find such an absurdity in any recognized moral/ethical/political writing. Even the worst of the worst (people like Stalin and Hitler) still recognized limits.
See the thread where this is defined, but in general, its the targeting of non-combatants by people who claim to be fighting a war.
Sp what is your scientific conclusion on the
Technicly, those of the settlers and the indians that did
Actually, I wouldn't say that - I'd say that they balanced
Science must be as much as possible neutral. Facts must be judged on the correct value. There must be repeatability, and independent testing. A number of the definitions are based on conventions (to speak the same language and to compare results). Good and bad have no place it such an excercise. Good and bad are subjective values in relation to the outcome or in relation to the initial start.Originally posted by drag
Sp what is your scientific conclusion on the good/bad issue ?Or maybe, the scientific way, like you did, provides
you with the facts, while the interpretation is up to you.
.
Nope, they are only in relation to that who judges the facts.
O.K. what are they ?
You means who interprets the results?
Every country should have a number of rules which warrants juridical rights to it's citizens or guests/visitors. They must include rights like the possibility to defend yourself against allegations, nobody is guilty without a fair trial, etc.