Israel's 'new approach'

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 106
    Yes I feel very powerful! HA HA HA HA HA **** YOU! My power grows!



    No realy dude you need to learn to read. There was NOTHING to back up that number of dead. We didn't learn how or why those kids dies and/or got killed. The PA will say anything to make the Jews look bad. Look at all the false crap that came out of Afghanistan during the bombing. Just because someone says 70 doesn't mean that 70 kids were killed by Israel for no reason. Learn to read.
  • Reply 62 of 106
    synsyn Posts: 329member
    <a href="http://afp.liberation.com/"; target="_blank">http://afp.liberation.com/</a>;



    here's something else you can deny ScottH



    A pregnant palestinian women was injured by Israeli fire while going to the hospital to give birth.



    IT's easy denying every thing. The fact is, things are FAR from being as unilateral and simple as you might think.



    Go ahead, call me anti-semite.
  • Reply 63 of 106
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>Yes, at least the Israeli people voted for him, rather than being appointed by Israel's Supreme Court. (Thats about the only positive thing that could be said about Sharon the war criminal).</strong><hr></blockquote>



    SJO, get real. Stupid comment, stupid point. Gore lost, get over it.
  • Reply 64 of 106
    [quote]SJO, get real. Stupid comment, stupid point. Gore lost, get over it.<hr></blockquote>



    Total and unadulterated Bullsh1t to the Nth degree, Noah. As long as I believe in that fundamental principle of American democracy, which is for the the voice of the American PEOPLE, to be heard at elections, then I shall NEVER accept the disgraceful events of Dec 9th 2000, when U.S. electoral system assumed the status of a banana republic.



    The Supreme Court's decision was political, not judicial. Right from the horse's mouth, the words of Justice Antonin Scalia when he explained why the count must be stopped:



    "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to the petitioner and to the country, by casting a a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election". (In other words, if we let all the votes be counted and Gore comes out ahead, that will hinder Bush's ability to govern after we appoint him President).



    If the recount had been allowed to be completed according to the law, and Bush had come out ahead, then fine. I also know many conservatives who, while happy that Bush is president, were most uneasy about the way it happened. And.....for the record, Al Gore did NOT get my vote.



    [ 02-25-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
  • Reply 65 of 106
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>



    Total and unadulterated Bullsh1t to the Nth degree, Noah. As long as I believe in that fundamental principle of American democracy, which is for the the voice of the American PEOPLE, to be heard at elections, then I shall NEVER accept the disgraceful events of Dec 9th 2000, when U.S. electoral system assumed the status of a banana republic.



    The Supreme Court's decision was political, not judicial. Right from the horse's mouth, the words of Justice Antonin Scalia when he explained why the count must be stopped:



    "The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does, in my view, threaten irreparable harm to the petitioner and to the country, by casting a a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election". (In other words, if we let all the votes be counted and Gore comes out ahead, that will hinder Bush's ability to govern after we appoint him President).



    If the recount had been allowed to be completed according to the law, and Bush had come out ahead, then fine. I also know many conservatives who, while happy that Bush is president, were most uneasy about the way it happened. And.....for the record, Al Gore did NOT get my vote.



    [ 02-25-2002: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't care who you voted for. Bush was not appointed by the Supreme Court. He won the appeal to the Supreme court that stopped the constant recounts. All of this is off topic however, and it is sounding a lot like sour grapes for you to bring it up here. It has absolutely no relvance to the topic at hand. None. Start a new thread and complain there.



    And there was a recount and a recount of the recount and a recount of that and another and another and every time they counted the results came out different. But in the majority of them, Bush won. So I have no qualms. I fyou want to continue this, really, start a new thread.
  • Reply 66 of 106
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>...



    The Supreme Court's decision was political, not judicial.



    ...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And I'm sure you think the FLSC was "judicial" and not "political", eh?
  • Reply 67 of 106
    steve666steve666 Posts: 2,600member
    Actually, I gotta agree with Samantha on the Gore-Bush vote. Something smelled. However, they were both sucky candidates.



    As for Sharon he only got elected because of the Palestinians' violence. When people are shot at and bombed they tend to vote for the toughest nut out there, and Barak was a complete and utter failure as a leader.................................
  • Reply 68 of 106
    And the FLSC didn't stink? They went outside the written law at every step. We may think they can make it up as they go along but they can't.
  • Reply 69 of 106
    Scott, do you really think that more of Israel's citizens are being killed or wounded than Palestinians??



    Or do you just don't think that that news story was any good. (I think it was poorly written my self. Fact or no it sounded like a drama)



    Tanks & F-16s = terror

    suicide bombers = terror
  • Reply 70 of 106
    [quote]Originally posted by thentro:

    <strong>Scott, do you really think that more of Israel's citizens are being killed or wounded than Palestinians??



    Or do you just don't think that that news story was any good. (I think it was poorly written my self. Fact or no it sounded like a drama)



    Tanks & F-16s = terror

    suicide bombers = terror</strong><hr></blockquote>





    I'm not saying either.



    Tanks & F-16s & Uniformed military != terrorist

    suicide bombers = jew hating terrorist
  • Reply 71 of 106
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member
    People relly love to throw around the word terrorist lately. Heck it worked for the US to use the word and get the world behind them, lets paste it on anyone we don't like and call them a terrorist. Like a recent thread I was involved in where it was posted that conservative Christians are just like the Taliban. Except me of course...



    But to be a bit less inflammatory. The miltary of Isreal is not a terrorist organization. The nation of Israel is not a terrorist nation. And no amount of posturing on these boards is going to change that fact. The miltary is there for what reason? Defense of a nation. The miltary of Israel is used for that reason.



    If a suicide bomber were to kill citizens of the US and to call for the death of our nation how would we respond? (Rhetorical question, we already know the answer.) Sure, the level of death was more at once in NY. But the method is the same. They killed citizens and some military. We responded by first calling for those guilty to be rounded up and turned over, and when they refused (or claimed to be unable) we went in with the necessary amount of force to ensure that they are aware that there is a penalty for their actions that is not going to be easy for them to swallow. Israel deals with this type of situation almost daily. Go over there and live with that day in and day out and tell me you think they are overreacting.



    And for those of you who say rocks are less likley to kill than guns. Your point? A rock can be, and has been used as, a murder weapon. People were killed by stoning in the middle east for a long time. If you don't want to get shot at, don't throw stones at the people with the guns. It is really easy. Do yout hink the guys with the guns should put them down and throw rocks back?



    Would you?
  • Reply 72 of 106
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    I should probably post my <a href="http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Al_Aqsa_Fatalities.asp"; target="_blank">LINK</a> here as well then...



  • Reply 73 of 106
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    NoahJ: many Isralis living in Israel think Sharon is overracting...
  • Reply 74 of 106
    [quote]Originally posted by New:

    <strong>NoahJ: many Isralis living in Israel think Sharon is overracting...</strong><hr></blockquote>





    And they have the freedom to say so. Not true on the otherside.
  • Reply 75 of 106
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:

    <strong>

    And they have the freedom to say so. Not true on the otherside.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So its okay for Israel to oppress people if they live in a land (or area or whatever we should call the palestinian refugee camps) without freedom of speech?



    BTW: I didn´t know palestinians wasn´t allowed to say what they want? Link please (and not to the usual Conservative spin)



    [ 02-26-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
  • Reply 76 of 106
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    It is true that not all internal critisism of the Arafat government is well recieved. But the palestinians have a decent degree of freedom to voice their opinions. It is a paradocs that a palestinan member of the Knesset has recently lost his parlamentaric (spelling?) immuity and is beeing prosecuted in Isreal for saying that any occupied people has the right to fight their occupiers... (mark: he also strongly condemnd any kind of terrorism against civilians)... Scott, you want a link here as well?
  • Reply 76 of 106
    Ha ha. Link? Link with your eyes. When was the last free election there? Hummm?
  • Reply 78 of 106
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member
    [quote]Originally posted by Anders:

    <strong>



    So its okay for Israel to oppress people if they live in a land (or area or whatever we should call the palestinian refugee camps) without freedom of speech?



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Umm, where in his statement did he say that exactly? Nowhere.
  • Reply 79 of 106
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member
    [quote]Originally posted by New:

    <strong>NoahJ: many Isralis living in Israel think Sharon is overracting...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And many in the US think Bush is Overreacting. Your point?
  • Reply 80 of 106
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    New: So thats what Scott mean: That Isreal have freedom of speech for the Israelis but not the palestinians.
Sign In or Register to comment.