Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

zen jihad · Sep 16, 2004, 09:31 AM

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E2703,00.html

Looks like the voodoo is out on Sharon, giving rise to the notion that civil war in Israel might happen sooner than we thought.

voodoo · Sep 16, 2004, 09:33 AM

Maybe he'll die from obesity? That man is up for cardiac arrest if anyone is!

Millennium · Sep 16, 2004, 09:45 AM

I in no way advocate political assassinations. However, I am forced to admit that the world would be a better, safer place with that monster out of power.

I don't think anyone will assassinate him, though. People will probably try, but I doubt they'll succeed.

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 11:53 AM

This is coming from Sharon saying they were going to oust Mr Terrorism himself.

lil'babykitten · Sep 16, 2004, 11:54 AM

With any luck....yeah maybe. The world would be better off.

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
With any luck....yeah maybe. The world would be better off.

You mean the terrorists and their sympathizers would be better off.

What if someone worse takes his place?

The world would be a lot better off if Yassir was gone. Lots of Sharon's troubles would go away.

voodoo · Sep 16, 2004, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
**edit**

I can't imagine Israel has many more that are worse than Sharon. I'd be very concerned if I suspected so.

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 12:17 PM

Yeah Sharon is such a bad guy!

voodoo · Sep 16, 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
***

yeah I really rather think he is gosh darn it.

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 12:19 PM

Compared to Yassir, he is a angel.

voodoo · Sep 16, 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
***

compared to me he's not.

Millennium · Sep 16, 2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Compared to Yassir, he is a angel.

We've been over Sharon's atrocities in the past. I can show you proof that his goal is nothing short of genocide. Arafat is no better -not anymore, at any rate- but it was Sharon himself who goaded Arafat into his current state, not long after Arafat's tragic mistake of not accepting Barak's offer of basically everything he ever wanted.

I still think the best thing to do would be to ship Arafat and Sharon off to a desert island and let them kill each other, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield-style. A fitting end for two old rivals.

voodoo · Sep 16, 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
We've been over Sharon's atrocities in the past. I can show you proof that his goal is nothing short of genocide. Arafat is no better -not anymore, at any rate- but it was Sharon himself who goaded Arafat into his current state, not long after Arafat's tragic mistake of not accepting Barak's offer of basically everything he ever wanted.

I still think the best thing to do would be to ship Arafat and Sharon off to a desert island and let them kill each other, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield-style. A fitting end for two old rivals.

Good call!

OreoCookie · Sep 16, 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You mean the terrorists and their sympathizers would be better off.

What if someone worse takes his place?

The world would be a lot better off if Yassir was gone. Lots of Sharon's troubles would go away.

Well, don't forget that Rabin was murdered by a Jewish extremist. AFAIK Sharon's security is more concerned about him being assassinated by a Jewish extremist (terrorist) rather than a Palestinian extremist. Especially now when Sharon's plan (he seems to have tied his political career to it) about Gaza is in discussion, a plan that a considerable part of Likud (his own fellas) disapprove, he'll be endangered.

Although I don't believe it would make much difference in the end (`who shot him'), just see what happened after Rabin's assassination, it is an important point to note. Israel right now is split about what to do, so no matter who succeeds, he will have a formidable opposition.

OreoCookie · Sep 16, 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
We've been over Sharon's atrocities in the past. I can show you proof that his goal is nothing short of genocide. Arafat is no better -not anymore, at any rate- but it was Sharon himself who goaded Arafat into his current state, not long after Arafat's tragic mistake of not accepting Barak's offer of basically everything he ever wanted.

I still think the best thing to do would be to ship Arafat and Sharon off to a desert island and let them kill each other, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield-style. A fitting end for two old rivals.

Well, Sharon would roll over poor Arafat. Ok, that one was bitter.

lil'babykitten · Sep 16, 2004, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Well, Sharon would roll over poor Arafat.

Yup, or Arafat would strangle Sharon with his head-dress.

Sharon looks and walks like an overweight penguin.

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
We've been over Sharon's atrocities in the past. I can show you proof that his goal is nothing short of genocide. Arafat is no better -not anymore, at any rate- but it was Sharon himself who goaded Arafat into his current state, not long after Arafat's tragic mistake of not accepting Barak's offer of basically everything he ever wanted.

Yes awhile back Sharon did some bad things. I am talking NOW. Arafat is still doing them.

Sharon has offered the hand of peace to Arafat many times only to get it slapped back.

They don't want peace. They want the joooooz gone!

Sharon is no angel, but he isn't the evil man Arafat is. Not by far.

macvillage.net · Sep 16, 2004, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
We've been over Sharon's atrocities in the past. I can show you proof that his goal is nothing short of genocide. Arafat is no better -not anymore, at any rate- but it was Sharon himself who goaded Arafat into his current state, not long after Arafat's tragic mistake of not accepting Barak's offer of basically everything he ever wanted.

I still think the best thing to do would be to ship Arafat and Sharon off to a desert island and let them kill each other, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield-style. A fitting end for two old rivals.

I'll pitch in for arranging for that cruise.

Lets not waste an island. Putting them on a cuban-refugee style raft would be good enough. Too good.

Barak's problem was he couldn't deliver. He personally may have been legitimate, but Israel would have never made those concessisons. Not in a million years. Israel wouldn't have let him deliver that offer should Arafat had accepted that.

Arafat would have been smarter to take it in front of the UN... and let Israel deal with the civil war that would irrupt.

Though the end result would have been no progress. It would have just made Arafat come off as the better man.

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 03:03 PM

It would take A LOT MORE than that to make Arafat look like the better man.

OreoCookie · Sep 16, 2004, 03:53 PM

There's only one thing many people forget, and it's the same question that would be raised when Sharon would be `eliminated' by some extremists: do you have a suggestion for a replacement for Arafat, someone with power and backing?

CreepingDeth · Sep 16, 2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes awhile back Sharon did some bad things. I am talking NOW. Arafat is still doing them.

Sharon has offered the hand of peace to Arafat many times only to get it slapped back.

They don't want peace. They want the joooooz gone!

Sharon is no angel, but he isn't the evil man Arafat is. Not by far.

I still fail to see how Yassir Arafat is better than Sharon. Compare. LBK, would you rather Sharon get a heart attack or Yassir get an infectious boo boo? Who's side are you on?

[Note: Zimph, I think I was the first one to imitate the kooks by spelling Jews that way. Correct me if I'm wrong.]

Splinter · Sep 16, 2004, 04:00 PM

I dobut sharon will be "off"ed, They may call for re-elections many people are angry by the way he had promised to do one thing and now he is doing the opposite by moving forward with the gaza pullout.

lil'babykitten · Sep 16, 2004, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Who's side are you on?

Neither.

CreepingDeth · Sep 16, 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Neither.

Palestinians have a simple message to most Israelis and Zionists: 8.5 million Palestinians are going no where. The sooner the majority of Israelis and Zionists understand this simple message, the faster they shall wake up from their delusional coma.

Uh-huh.

lil'babykitten · Sep 16, 2004, 04:22 PM

You asked me the question in relation to the leaders. I think both of them are complete ****wits. Just because I support the Palestinian's right to their land, doesn't mean I support their leaders or their methods of attacking Israeli civilian areas.

PacHead · Sep 16, 2004, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You asked me the question in relation to the leaders. I think both of them are complete ****wits. Just because I support the Palestinian's right to their land, doesn't mean I support their leaders or their methods of attacking Israeli civilian areas.

I support the KKK in their quest for racial freedom. I don't support them burning people on
wooden crosses though.

Logic · Sep 16, 2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
We've been over Sharon's atrocities in the past. I can show you proof that his goal is nothing short of genocide. Arafat is no better -not anymore, at any rate- but it was Sharon himself who goaded Arafat into his current state, not long after Arafat's tragic mistake of not accepting Barak's offer of basically everything he ever wanted.

I still think the best thing to do would be to ship Arafat and Sharon off to a desert island and let them kill each other, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield-style. A fitting end for two old rivals.

Just about the Barak offer.

For some reason it's been called his "generous offer"

Oh, and yes I really hope Sharon gets killed. One way or the other. I don't care. He deserves whatever punishment that will be handed.

voodoo · Sep 16, 2004, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
I support the KKK in their quest for racial freedom. I don't support them burning people on
wooden crosses though.

I'd support neither.

lil'babykitten · Sep 16, 2004, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
I support the KKK in their quest for racial freedom. I don't support them burning people on
wooden crosses though.

I don't know wtf you're talking about.

PacHead · Sep 16, 2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I don't know wtf you're talking about.

Hamas = huge support of palestinian population

You support palestinians = you support people who are no better than the KKK. Actually they're much worse.

macvillage.net · Sep 16, 2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It would take A LOT MORE than that to make Arafat look like the better man.

Well I know in your mind you have to be a strict christian or jew, or your evil.

But I'm talking about humanity, not theology.

lil'babykitten · Sep 16, 2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Hamas = huge support of palestinian population

You support palestinians = you support people who are no better than the KKK. Actually they're much worse.

CreepingDeth · Sep 16, 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Well I know in your mind you have to be a strict christian or jew, or your evil.

But I'm talking about humanity, not theology.

You guys think any Jew or Christian is bad. The only one of the big three in America you don't question is Islam. You guys openly hate Christains, claiming your reasons from everything between the stupid ****s in the KKK to the Crusades. Can't be that open with Jews.
I don't care what religion you are. Actually, I really am neither of the above but I know there's a God. Just don't go blowing people in the name of God.

I know where Logic stands at least�

I don't see how Arafat deserves life over Sharon. Why do you libs like Arafat? Must be the little cloth.

Alot of the protesters like to dress up like him.

Busemann · Sep 16, 2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
You support palestinians = you support people who are no better than the KKK. Actually they're much worse.

I believe Sir, that you qualify as a racist

PacHead · Sep 16, 2004, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Busemann:
I believe Sir, that you qualify as a racist

You forgot neonazicon, fascist etc. etc.

CreepingDeth · Sep 16, 2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by PacHead:
You forgot neonazicon, fascist etc. etc.

Don't forget: We're not nazis, we're Hitler in disguise.

Well, since the KKK has simmered down since the 20th century, and the Palestinina terrorists continue to kill Jews because they're Jews [and even kill their own to do it sometimes]. And the KKK is resented like Hell. The Palestinian terrorists are given favor above Israel. Odd.

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Uh-huh.

Glad you didn't fall for it either.

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Well I know in your mind you have to be a strict christian or jew, or your evil.

No you mean you projected that. I believe no such thing.

CreepingDeth · Sep 16, 2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Glad you didn't fall for it either.

I'm not the brightest bulb, but someone talking about an Israeli coma claiming to be on neither side of the conflict is bs.
Did you think I wouldn't notice that?

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 06:12 PM

Perfect.

CreepingDeth · Sep 16, 2004, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
*clipped*

Perfect.

I bookmarked an ass load of those awhile ago. Future reference.

I don't have the web space to make my own graphics, so I guess I have to rely on a cartoon to illustrate my point where necessary. How do you post your stuff?

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 06:32 PM

Depends, sometimes I use the server the image is on if it's a site like that and not a "personal" server.

Most of the time however I use my own.

aberdeenwriter · Sep 16, 2004, 07:18 PM

To address the initial thread question;

When two sides are blinded by their passionate hatred for the other and their belief that more violence is the answer ANYONE getting between them is in danger from either or both sides.

Think of a cop going on a domestic dispute call. It's the most dangerous common police call.

Sadat's people killed him when he tried making peace.

So did Rabin's.

Any peace maker in the middle of that fight is courageously trying to lead both sides to a new place, one of peace.

That's why Bush's New American Century plan might be a good thing. SMACKDOWN any country and EVERY country who causes problems. Then establish a peaceful, prosperous new world order.

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
That's why Bush's New American Century plan might be a good thing. SMACKDOWN any country and EVERY country who causes problems. Then establish a peaceful, prosperous new world order.

World Order? Naw. Just a world that doesn't commit terrorist attacks.

CreepingDeth · Sep 16, 2004, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
That's why Bush's New American Century plan might be a good thing. SMACKDOWN any country and EVERY country who causes problems. Then establish a peaceful, prosperous new world order.

You are one strange beast, writer. You're confusing me.

aberdeenwriter · Sep 16, 2004, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
World Order? Naw. Just a world that doesn't commit terrorist attacks.

Forget any pre-conceived ideas as to what a NWO would be like; if the New American Century plan were to quell violence and we all lived in peace as a result, would it not be a New World Order?

CreepingDeth · Sep 16, 2004, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Forget any pre-conceived ideas as to what a NWO would be like; if the New American Century plan were to quell violence and we all lived in peace as a result, would it not be a New World Order?

How you talk great about neo-conservative foreign policies and still stay a liberal is beyond me.

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 07:38 PM

Yeah.. but I was just commenting on how I don't like the thought of a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

aberdeenwriter · Sep 16, 2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:

You are one strange beast, writer. You're confusing me.

Sorry for the confusion.

If Kerry wants peace using his plan...

If Bush wants peace by way of his plan...

I want peace and look for the best hope for peace from either plan. Who's gonna deliver what I want?

Zimphire · Sep 16, 2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
How you talk great about neo-conservative foreign policies and still stay a liberal is beyond me.

From what I have read from aberdeenwriter, he isn't too "sided" about things. It might throw you off because of all the partisan posts in here.

While I don't always agree what he has said... I enjoy his posts because of this.