[vmarks]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, good thing the fence is working so well. Walter Ulbricht must be smiling in his grave that someone continues the proud tradition with such success.

Ulbricht's fence is completely different.

And I would say that one terrorist attack in the past three years is pretty darn successful. Yes, the fence at Gaza has proven itself well.

[skio]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Ulbricht's fence is completely different.

And I would say that one terrorist attack in the past three years is pretty darn successful. Yes, the fence at Gaza has proven itself well.

Yes, the ghettos in Nazi germany worked quite well too, except for those occasions when the 'Jewish terrorists' would burst out and cause mayhem with homemade bombs.

You defend that wall in Israel, you are also defending the atrocities in Nazi germany.

[John F. Smith]

Originally posted by skio:
Yes, the ghettos in Nazi germany worked quite well too, except for those occasions when the 'Jewish terrorists' would burst out and cause mayhem with homemade bombs.

You defend that wall in Israel, you are also defending the atrocities in Nazi germany.

Bo' Selecta

[vmarks]

Defending the use of a security fence is not defending the practises of Nazi Germany. Remember, it is the PA that are the true descendants of Nazi Germany.

The fence is a uniquely effective way to stop suicide bombing. We know that because until yesterday, not a single Palestinian suicide bomber has come out of Gaza in three years, where there already is a fence.


The fence not only will save lives by preventing suicide attacks, it will change the strategic equation by neutralizing the terror weapon. Without that card to play, the Palestinians will have an incentive to rethink the Abbas option and to renew the tentative step that he represented of settling with the Jews by dividing the land.


If the fence is built, yes, some Palestinians will be cut off from their fields. On the other hand, if the fence is not built, innocent people on the other side will be blown to bits. Which of these two misfortunes is the more morally compelling?


When the Palestinians finally retire Arafat and find their new Abbas, the fence can come down. In the meantime, a barrier to terror is not just a strategic but a moral imperative.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Ulbricht's fence is completely different.

And I would say that one terrorist attack in the past three years is pretty darn successful. Yes, the fence at Gaza has proven itself well.

fence (STRUCTURE) [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
a structure which divides two areas of land, similar to a wall but made of wood or wire and supported with posts

quit the denial, its a freakin wall.

[skio]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Defending the use of a security fence is not defending the practises of Nazi Germany. Remember, it is the PA that are the true descendants of Nazi Germany.
y compelling?

That's right, they are, silly me. Now remind me who the Stern gang was? rememeber the hotel? The British soldiers killed by those Jewish terrorists?

It is the Israeli goevernment who are the descendants of Nazis, god, even some of your nations Jewish writers say this.

[skio]

Originally posted by John F. Smith:
Bo' Selecta

Think outside the box, johnny boy.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
More exploding Palistinians.

Are you referring to those Palestinians blown up by Palestinian bombs or by Israeli air strikes?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Are you referring to those Palestinians blown up by Palestinian bombs or by Israeli air strikes?

heh. Good point.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by skio:
That's right, they are, silly me. Now remind me who the Stern gang was? rememeber the hotel? The British soldiers killed by those Jewish terrorists?

It is the Israeli goevernment who are the descendants of Nazis, god, even some of your nations Jewish writers say this.

Hi.

I won't waste your time. I have repeatedly proven in these forums how the PA is the direct descendant of the Nazi party, how it began with it's roots with direct affiliation in Nazi Germany, and how it still holds policies of extermination today. I advise you to read http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post1859233 for starters on the topic

Supporters of the PLO often claim that the Irgun, in its later years led by Menachem Begin, was a terrorist organization. This is an attempt to create a moral equivalence between the Israeli Jews on the one hand, and the Nazi-trained Palestinian fascists on the other. This has been helped along by slanders emanating from the leftist movements which dominated Jewish political life at the time of the founding of Israel, and which did everything they could to discredit their rivals, the Revisionists, of whom Begin was the most prominent leader after Jabotinsky's death.


It is true that Begin was an armed revolutionary, but this in itself does not make him a terrorist. A terrorist deliberately targets innocent civilians. Did the Irgun? No. Quite the contrary.


The Irgun was formed to retaliate against Arab terrorists because the Revisionists were disgusted with the policy of self-restraint advocated by the dominant leaders in the Yishuv (the Palestinian Jewish community), which policy called for no reprisals despite the serious loss of Jewish civilian life. Retaliation against one's attackers is self-defense, not terrorism.


When the Irgun later proclaimed a Revolt against the British they went to great lengths in order to protect civilian lives. Their strategy was designed to affect only property.


From The Strategy Of Terrorism; Foreign Affairs, July 1975; by David Fromkin.

...[This] was explained to me and to others at a meeting in New York City sometime in 1945 by one of the founders of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, a tiny group of Jewish militants in what was then the British-mandated territory of Palestine. His organization had no more than 1,000 or 1,500 members, and it was at odds with the Palestinian Jewish community almost as much as it was with the mandatory regime. Yet he proposed to combat Great Britain, then a global power whose armed forces in the Second World War numbered in the millions, and to expel Great Britain from Palestine.


How could such a thousand-to-one struggle be won? *To do so, as he explained it, his organization would attack property interests. After giving advance warning to evacuate them, his small band of followers would blow up buildings*. This, he said, would lead the British to overreact. . .

---


In order to prevent loss of life (even military loss of life whenever possible!), every time the Irgun targeted British government buildings in Palestine, they would plaster notices all over and make anonymous phone calls to the British well in advance. *This cost the Irgun its element of surprise and endangered its troops, which is the best measure of their concern.*


It is this singularly moral underground army, the Irgun, that you call "terrorist," comparing them to the murderers of the PLO (i.e. Fatah and its appendages such as Tanzim and Al Aqsa Martyrs). The latter send even women and children to be human bombs which slaughter other children.


How can the moral bravery of the Irgun be compared to the PLO's unspeakable cowardice?


But there is a reason for this. By pretending that Begin and the Irgun have been forgiven for their supposed terrorism, one can say that Arafat and the PLO should similarly be forgiven! This of course requires suggesting further that the PLO has shed its Nazi baggage, as people here have intimated by aruging that "Holding the PLO and the Palestinian leadership hostages to their history is unfair."

[skio]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Hi.

I won't waste your time. I have repeatedly proven in these forums how the PA is the direct descendant of the Nazi party, how it began with it's roots with direct affiliation in Nazi Germany, and how it still holds policies of extermination today. I advise you to read http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...=1#post1859233 for starters on the topic

That's ok. I understand all that, but it glosses over so much of the reality. In essence, Irgun attacked Palestinians on whose land the Jewish terrorosts were on. It;' the same thing, exceot the justification is just swapped over, one cause is just, the other isn't. Irgun killed innocent Palestinians in those days, of coursse, this was done to counter the so-called Palestinian terrorists, but how could they be? The Jews were the incoming invaders, not the Palestinians, it wasd their land, they wer defending it by any means necceasary.

[Zimphire]

I don't remember the Jews blowing themselves up to kill handfuls of Nazis one after one.

No, I am sure they didn't.

Horrible comparison.

It's either the Race card, or the Nazi card.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by skio:
That's ok. I understand all that, but it glosses over so much of the reality. In essence, Irgun attacked Palestinians on whose land the Jewish terrorosts were on. It;' the same thing, exceot the justification is just swapped over, one cause is just, the other isn't. Irgun killed innocent Palestinians in those days, of coursse, this was done to counter the so-called Palestinian terrorists, but how could they be? The Jews were the incoming invaders, not the Palestinians, it wasd their land, they wer defending it by any means necceasary.

The war hasn't been fought that was free from innocent death. However your assertion that the Irgun was equivalent and is forgiven is flat out wrong. There were Jews who lived there, and it was their land. There were Palestinians who sold their land. There were Palestinians put to death for selling their land by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who sold his land (he didn't like other people making a profit when he could instead.)

Keep reading that thread I linked to. Israel is not the European Colonist state that you think it is.

[bstone]

Originally posted by voodoo:
er how the heck do you know what was the last thing Moshe did?

From those who wittnessed the murderous terrorist attack.

[John F. Smith]

Originally posted by skio:
Think outside the box, johnny boy.

You don't know me; I used to live in a consulate state, and look at me now. He's Proper Bo' Selecta I tell thee

[Zimphire]

Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah
'We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.'"

[voodoo]

Kinda like the Bush administration against AQ.

[skio]

Originally posted by John F. Smith:
You don't know me; I used to live in a consulate state, and look at me now. He's Proper Bo' Selecta I tell thee

I think you should go back there.

[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
[/B]

Zim, I'll tell you again, you are way off on that quote, you're little xenophopbic eye is blinking in the wrong direction this time. I remember a while back you would 'hiss n honk' (zim quote)when people posted mis-quotes of Bush. You're fairnews only goes in one direction?

I ask you to read my reply to you in the gibson thread. I know Hizbollah, well, you don't, so give up the predudice.

[John F. Smith]

Originally posted by skio:
I think you should go back there.

Inter Selecta

[John F. Smith]

Originally posted by skio:
your little xenophopbic eye is blinking in the wrong direction this time.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Kinda like the Bush administration against AQ.

No, not even related.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
Zim, I'll tell you again, you are way off on that quote, you're little xenophopbic eye is blinking in the wrong direction this time. I remember a while back you would 'hiss n honk' (zim quote)when people posted mis-quotes of Bush. You're fairnews only goes in one direction?

I ask you to read my reply to you in the gibson thread. I know Hizbollah, well, you don't, so give up the predudice.

Again, prove to me he did not say such a thing. PROVE IT.

Lots of Hizbollah shizballah members were fooled.

[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, not even related.

In your opinion, but thankfully a hell of a lot of people would disagree with you,and would say they are very similar, maybe even worse on the part of Bush. Good thing that, freedom to make up one's own mind, isn't it?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by skio:
In your opinion, but thankfully a hell of a lot of people would disagree with you,and would say they are very similar, maybe even worse on the part of Bush. Good thing that, freedom to make up one's own mind, isn't it?

nah. the freedom to vote for Dubya again is a good thing.

billions of people can make up their mind - only about 150million can vote for the US president.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
In your opinion, but thankfully a hell of a lot of people would disagree with you,and would say they are very similar, maybe even worse on the part of Bush. Good thing that, freedom to make up one's own mind, isn't it?

A hell of even more lot of people think your nuts for agreeing with such a asinine comparison.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by gadster:
A good question. There are deeper religious scenarios (delusions) being played out behind the scenes here. The Temple Mount is the key. The Third Temple to be built on the site of the Dome of the Rock is supposed to herald the coming of the true Messiah. And the End Times�. Google is your friend. I just hope they would get it over with, (and over it), without too much bloodshed. Because at the end of the day it ain't going to amount to a hill of beans. In the mean time, we got a lot of yelling and exploding going on. Yeee-haw, it's a religious WWF.

I think this is what it ultimately comes down to. I don't see how Israel's creation (in the manner such that it was), or the outrageous policies it's government sees fit to execute can be justified using secular logic. The point that some of the most violent, right-wing, Zionist, Israelis seem to dance around is that they believe that the land of Israel is some sort of divine gift to them, therefore, anything they do to obtain and hold on to this land is inherently justified morally, ethically and even spiritually. This 'chosen ones' mentality is probably a big contributing factor towards their sub-human treatment of the Palestinian people who happen to be 'in their way'.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, not even related.

Would you say that the Bush administration would rather destroy AQ rather than negotiate with AQ?

[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, prove to me he did not say such a thing. PROVE IT.

Lots of Hizbollah shizballah members were fooled.

Want to come with me and meet them? Then you can here it from the horses mouth. Look, what don;t tou comprehend. The whole ideology of Hizbullah is NOT based on overthrowing the West, or their values, it's just not, and your insistance on this is highly erroneous, and it shows in your views of many a topic on Islam. The whole quote is taken widfely out of context, I am TELLING you that, I know, do you speak Arabic? No, you don't, and I know what he meant. Try looking to Israel, andtheir illegal incursion intro Lebanon for why the quote was used.

P.s. How do you know many of us were misguided by being in Hizbullah? I think after spending more than 7 years in them I knew what it was about. One other thing you might not realise, I wrote extensively on them, before, anbd after, from an objective point of view, for the media. So before laying down your highly skewed views, I really suggest you go read some history on them, abd what they are about.

Mind you, I guess it's like American soldiers, in the army for seceral years and still no clue as to why they are fighting in Iraq

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Are you referring to those Palestinians blown up by Palestinian bombs or by Israeli air strikes?

Good question.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Would you say that the Bush administration would rather destroy AQ rather than negotiate with AQ?

I would say that they would rather get them to stop all together than to kill them all off indeed.

But since they have said they aren't going to stop AT ANY COST. it kinda makes it hard to do it right?

And the difference is, Bush isn't trying to KILL EVERYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH HIM.

If that was the case, you'd be DEAD.

Thanks for that exaggeration.

[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
A hell of even more lot of people think your nuts for agreeing with such a asinine comparison.

Really? Like who? or is that another generalisation by you? Do you read the papers outside your country? watch the news? see the views of those who think differently to you?

[skio]

Originally posted by John F. Smith:

lol,, hehe

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I would say that they would rather get them to stop all together than to kill them all off indeed.

But since they have said they aren't going to stop AT ANY COST. it kinda makes it hard to do it right?

And the difference is, Bush isn't trying to KILL EVERYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH HIM.

If that was the case, you'd be DEAD.

Thanks for that exaggeration.

So you admit that there is no difference between Bush administration, Al-Qaida and Adolf Hitler?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by skio:
Really? Like who? or is that another generalisation by you? Do you read the papers outside your country? watch the news? see the views of those who think differently to you?

sure do.

I just don't agree with their viewpoint.

and my country doesn't either.

hence, Dubya.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
Really? Like who? or is that another generalisation by you?

You obviously didn't get the irony. You claim a whole lot of people as well. A generalization by you?

Do you read the papers outside your country? watch the news? see the views of those who think differently to you?

Of course.

Again, prove that he didn't say what is in my quotes. Disprove it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
So you admit that there is no difference between Bush administration, Al-Qaida and Adolf Hitler?

Wow how you pulled that from what I said is beyond me.

[Spliffdaddy]

Translation provided for US households:


They want us to "understand terrorists".

I reckon that's not a lot to ask, huh?

In the future we should understand them before (edit: or after) we kill them.

carry on.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wow how you pulled that from what I said is beyond me.

That was the point I was trying to get across to you

Glad I succeeded.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Translation provided for US households:


They want us to "understand terrorists".

I reckon that's not a lot to ask, huh?

In the future we should understand them before we kill them.

carry on.

Understanding them helps finding and killing them.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
That was the point I was trying to get across to you

That you pull responses out of your butt?

Glad I succeeded.

Sure did.

[skio]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I would say that they would rather get them to stop all together than to kill them all off indeed.

But since they have said they aren't going to stop AT ANY COST. it kinda makes it hard to do it right?

And the difference is, Bush isn't trying to KILL EVERYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH HIM.

If that was the case, you'd be DEAD.

Thanks for that exaggeration.

Do you even know what the mission statemens form Al-Qaeeda even are? no, I didn't think so. Here's the main ones for you, and what the yactually want, not what you are spouting here, adn what your beloved Bush, adn FOX news is telling you.

1. the US out of Saudi Arabia
2. Israel to pull out of the Occupied Territories in Palestine.
3. To pull out of Iraq
4. to stop any further interfernce in ISLAMIC nations.

Of course, you wouldn;t klnow that since you don't give the time to read what they ACTUALLY say, rather than what you wan to believ, and what your Governmnets rants on about. Maybe, just maybe you are being told this, as acover story to allow the US Gov. to basically dominate these nations, to control their asets, to never allow them to put the US at their beck and call. Do you remeber the oil crisis in the seventies? Do you remember the threats made to the Saudi Royal Family, and why it ended the way it did. Why the US would never allwo that to happen agai? Nah, I didnt think so.

Bush is killing a hell of a lot more than any Islamic group has, more civilians, more people, so tell me, who is the aggressor here?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Understanding them helps finding and killing them.

i love you, man.

[skio]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Translation provided for US households:


They want us to "understand terrorists".

I reckon that's not a lot to ask, huh?

In the future we should understand them before (edit: or after) we kill them.

carry on.

And you expect Eastern countries to 'understand' the US' intentions in their nations, when they see their families, and nation being destroyed.

[skio]

Zim's view is pretty typical today though, in the US, it's liek the communist era, the big bad Soviets want to take over your country, adn turn you all into Commies, em, yeah right. Same thing with the Muslims, and all these roups,. it's just another bogeyman to help justify the interests of the US. Thing is though, inevitibly, it does cause terrorism, since these Muslim people are subjected to the crud from the US, and hence they wil lturn to terrorism.

You want terrorism to stop then leave these countries alone.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
Do you even know what the mission statemens form Al-Qaeeda even are? no, I didn't think so.

Well you'd be wrong again. That is what, 3x now.

Here's the main ones for you, and what the yactually want, not what you are spouting here, adn what your beloved Bush, adn FOX news is telling you.

I don't watch Fox news. 4x

Of course, you wouldn;t klnow that since you don't give the time to read what they ACTUALLY say, rather than what you wan to believ, and what your Governmnets rants on about.

[/b]
Wrong x5. You shouldn't assume so much.

Maybe, just maybe you are being told this, as acover story to allow the US Gov. to basically dominate these nations, to control their asets, to never allow them to put the US at their beck and call. Do you remeber the oil crisis in the seventies? Do you remember the threats made to the Saudi Royal Family, and why it ended the way it did. Why the US would never allwo that to happen agai? Nah, I didnt think so.

Yes, I remember it well. Wrong x7

Bush is killing a hell of a lot more than any Islamic group has, more civilians, more people, so tell me, who is the aggressor here?

LOL the old "More dead = worse" mentality.

So if one guys kills one innocent woman he is more just than another guy killing 10 evil men.

Nonsense.

Again, I ask you to DISPROVE the quote. Something you keep skirting around. Why can't you do it?

Prove that he did not indeed say that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, prove to me he did not say such a thing. PROVE IT.

Easily resolved. Prove that he did say such a thing. PROVE IT.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by skio:
And you expect Eastern countries to 'understand' the US' intentions in their nations, when they see their families, and nation being destroyed.

I don't give a rat's left nut what drives somebody to want to kill my family. You can call them fanatics, but you ain't seen nuthin fanatical until you see the reaction of Americans being threatened.

Feel free to investigate and research the terrorists' innermost feelings while I oil the action on my nine.


It's up to the rest of the world to handle the terrorists as they see fit. We'll just keep killing the ones you miss.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by skio:
You want terrorism to stop then leave these countries alone.

No, that wont do it. Sorry.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

That you pull responses out of your butt?[/B]

LOL you *would* go anal on a person before anything else

Don't you think you twist other people's words into something entirely different from what they really meant sometimes? Perhaps you could just read the posts slower. It helps sometimes..

Dyslexia is nothing to be ashamed of