|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 3, 2004 7:28:18 GMT -5
I just realised that when you said this:
That you were referring to the Gush Shalom incident.
Firstly, Barak only made that offer because he was on his way out as a Prime Minister, he wanted to make a last ditch attempt to seem left wing. Thus it would be very unlikely that plan would have taken effect in the first place.
Sharon, who became PM less than a year later, was always more hardline than Barak, recently Sharon stated that settlements will remain in the West bank unto "eternity".
Seconldy the plan still left Isreal with at least 5% of land in the West Bank. This 5% was made up of the best famland and roads that would continue to divide the West Bank, into an unviable barely connected set of barren areas.
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 3, 2004 12:55:06 GMT -5
So what? It's their land! They were attacked and won it in war. Anyone who was displaced is not Israel's problem. What is sad is that its neighboring Arab nations hate Jews more than they love their own people.
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Jun 3, 2004 13:42:01 GMT -5
I just realised that when you said this: That you were referring to the Gush Shalom incident. Firstly, Barak only made that offer because he was on his way out as a Prime Minister, he wanted to make a last ditch attempt to seem left wing. Thus it would be very unlikely that plan would have taken effect in the first place. Sharon, who became PM less than a year later, was always more hardline than Barak, recently Sharon stated that settlements will remain in the West bank unto "eternity". Seconldy the plan still left Isreal with at least 5% of land in the West Bank. This 5% was made up of the best famland and roads that would continue to divide the West Bank, into an unviable barely connected set of barren areas. What difference does it make as to why the offer was made? The question should be, why was it refused. To answer that would be to also answer who Yassir Arrafat is. A terrorist. Yet he is treated like some diplomat to be reckoned with.
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 4, 2004 12:16:56 GMT -5
Arafat refused the offer because he knew Israel wouldn't follow through. He knew this because of the reasons the offer was made in the first place.
So military conquest gives any nation a right to treat those whom it conquered how it wants?
One could use the same argument to justify the horrific treatment of civilians behind the lines of the advancing Russian army in world war 2 on the eastern front.
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 6, 2004 0:48:09 GMT -5
Give me a break! That is a pathetic analogy! There were many displaced Jews from all over the middle east. They were tossed out of countries all over the area and forced to go to Israel. The Arabs living in Jerusalem have a better life and more freedom than any Jew or even any Arab living in an Arab state. The displaced that the Arab nations don't care about are not Israel's responsibility. The fact that they were left there and not welcomed into Jordan and other Arab nations is just another testament to their "culture."
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 6, 2004 5:20:08 GMT -5
Before I respond to your these points can I ask you two questions to clarify?
1. Do you beleive that Arab "culture" is inferior? 2. Why do you think this is?
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 6, 2004 13:19:10 GMT -5
I find it interesting that "enlightened" westerners think that a 120 woman should have equal opportunity to be a fireperson, yet turn a blind eye to things like the stoning of women, slavery, and female genital mutilation in the middle east. This is done under the left's ridiculous notion that all cultures are equal. They are not! To the left, multiculturalism trumps human rights! www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf16.html#a
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 6, 2004 13:51:07 GMT -5
Could you please answer the two questions?
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jun 6, 2004 15:30:10 GMT -5
1. yes 2. Oppressive, tyrannical dictatorships and adherence to archaic customs.
|
|
|
Post by frankiegoestostoke on Jun 7, 2004 2:06:35 GMT -5
Ah, so its a racism thing.
Just making sure.
|
|
|
Post by HotConservativeChk on Jul 28, 2004 2:04:22 GMT -5
Hi everybody! I'm brand new to this forum and this is my first post. I don't know if its customary around here to introduce yourself or if you're just supposed to jump right in, but I think I'll choose the latter. I'd like to put in my two cents about the Ann Coulter column. I believe that when she made the remark about only 32% of FNC viewers knowing that there have been more Palestinian deaths her point was that the amount of Palestinian deaths is completely irrelevant. Most FNC viewers, being conservative, could care less about how many deaths there have been, rather, they are concerned about the actual issues at hand. So no, this does not prove that FNC is biased. Also, I think the bucket thing was just put in there to show that buckets can be deadly but you hardly see "bucket control" laws being enforced to protect the kids. I think it was just supposed to be funny, not trying to say that more deaths are caused by buckets than by guns. But that was just my interpretation. Its pretty hilarious to cite a Los Angeles Times column bashing Ann Coulter! Like that's a big surprise! On to other things...the thing that drives me crazy about liberals more than anything else is that they immediately scream "racism" ( or something similar like "bigot", "intolerant", "fanatic", etc.) when a conservative makes a good point. MO is hardly "racist" for believing what she does about Arab culture. Its obviously very backward. Those people are being oppressed and abused and alot of them don't even know that it can be any better. I think the leaders try to keep them down by brainwashing them with fanatical "religious" beliefs. Anyway, all you libs should know that calling conservatives racists is the oldest trick in the book and most of us are so used to it by now that we just laugh it off. However, its one of my biggest pet peeves because I see my college professors using it every day to recruit new liberals. I see the looks on some of my mindless classmate's faces as my professors tell them all about the "intolerant, racist, bigoted" right and they eat it right up. Its disgusting. I think I do more eye-rolling in these liberal classrooms then I've ever done in my life! As an aside, is anyone else totally freaked out that Teresa Heinz Kerry could become our First Lady? (I doubt it will happen, but its always a possibility) She has got to be one of the strangest women I've ever seen in my life! I'm watching the Dem convention and she's speaking and its the most coherent I've ever seen her (not that that says much). She usually looks like she's messed up on Vicoden or something. Her hair is usually a mess and she looks like she'd work in one of those hemp stores where they sell lots of Jerry Garcia gear and bongs. lol. Does anyone else think so? Scary. ;D
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 28, 2004 11:04:26 GMT -5
Welcome HotConservativeChk I know what you mean about Teeerrrreeesssaaa. She usually looks like an unmade bed. About the palestinian deaths- how many of them are suicide bombers? How many of them were not real deaths, but deaths that were lied about, such as the false numbers reported with Jenna. Good to see you here! Make yourself at home.
|
|
|
Post by HotConservativeChk on Jul 28, 2004 14:43:56 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome MO!
"About the palestinian deaths- how many of them are suicide bombers? How many of them were not real deaths, but deaths that were lied about, such as the false numbers reported with Jenna."
Exactly! The number of deaths isn't important because they are suicide bombers and the like. The cause of the deaths and reason for the deaths is much more important.
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 28, 2004 16:22:10 GMT -5
Welcome aboard Hottie. John Kerry's "handler", Tereeza, reminds me a lot of Hillary. Not because she's outspoken, that's fine with me. Its just that she thinks her husband's power is somehow hers, also. I'll bet you there's not a more hen-pecked husband in America than John Kerry.
|
|
|
Post by Matter on Jul 29, 2004 9:38:05 GMT -5
Why is this: They want to make money. Media companies make money by selling audiences to their advertisers. To get more viewers, the media has become sensationalist and tabloid-like. This is perceived as a bias. Different from this: So, Fox doesn't report one iota of the truth? Is that the contention that this argument is based upon?
|
|