I don't think Iraq has any banned weapons.

[DGB454]

Educating Palestinian school children on terrorism


The website of the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade , the military wing of the Fatah movement, which is headed by Yassir Arafat, published photographs of armed terrorists next to children.

These photos further illustrate the education of Palestinian children towards terrorism, which helps Fatah in its "Armed Intifada," against Israel that has been spurred by the Palestinian Authority since September 2000.

The Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade website can be found at: http://www.kataebalaqsa.org

 

[DGB454]

Educating Palestinian school children on terrorism


The website of the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade , the military wing of the Fatah movement, which is headed by Yassir Arafat, published photographs of armed terrorists next to children.

These photos further illustrate the education of Palestinian children towards terrorism, which helps Fatah in its "Armed Intifada," against Israel that has been spurred by the Palestinian Authority since September 2000.

The Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade website can be found at: http://www.kataebalaqsa.org

 

[DGB454]

Just a few of many articles on the Palastine Terrorist.
I thought you might be interested.

 

[B Campbell]

You sir, are a moron. Good job at dodging the real issue.

I didn't say Palestineans are not terrorists. No, I agree with you on that point. However, the Isrealites are also terrosists. Terrible things are happening on both sides. I do not support anyone who resorts to bloody murder of children and families.

No, I do not support the attacks in Afghanistan. More inncoents died in our bombings and raids in Afghanistan than did in the attacks on our World Trade Center. Several times more, in fact. And now, what do we want to do except build a gas pipeline... THROUGH a country we are still BOMBING.

You don't have to answer your faith to me, but if you believe in God you're going to have to tell him why you paid for bullets that killed children and innocents.

Why don't you actually pick upa few newspapers instead of only repeating the single biased view you've heard. You see, there is more than one side to any conflict, so to understand it you need to serach for information from both sides.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by B Campbell
You sir, are a moron. Good job at dodging the real issue.

I didn't say Palestineans are not terrorists. No, I agree with you on that point. However, the Isrealites are also terrosists. Terrible things are happening on both sides. I do not support anyone who resorts to bloody murder of children and families.

No, I do not support the attacks in Afghanistan. More inncoents died in our bombings and raids in Afghanistan than did in the attacks on our World Trade Center. Several times more, in fact. And now, what do we want to do except build a gas pipeline... THROUGH a country we are still BOMBING.

You don't have to answer your faith to me, but if you believe in God you're going to have to tell him why you paid for bullets that killed children and innocents.

Why don't you actually pick upa few newspapers instead of only repeating the single biased view you've heard. You see, there is more than one side to any conflict, so to understand it you need to serach for information from both sides.

Understanding that there is more than one side to any conflict doesn't preclude being decisive and taking a side. Do you expect people to remain in some limbo, favoring nothing? I disagree with DGB on this issue, personally. But I also realize that it is a complex, ongoing, historical problem.

The real issue? Spare me. Unless you have lived in daily fear of your favorite cafe being blown to smithereens with you in it, or your nieghborhood being occupied by enemy forces, you don't know the real issue either. We are all spectators to the Israel/Palestine war.

Pick up a newspaper? He provided plenty of factual information which is more than can be said for you.

And please don't resort to name calling. It contributes nothing, engenders resentment, and resembles a certain Israeli/Al Aqsa mentality toward conflict resolution.

 

[TAFJonathan]

No one ever said that the Palestinians terrorists weren't terrorists. They are. They are evil, despicable, hateful murderers. The fact that I present is simply that the issue isn't as simple as "The peace-loving Israelis fight for their homeland from the bloodthirsty Palestinian murderers". It's far more complex than that. Both sides have commited horrendous acts that are completely unjustifiable.

 

[Talentless]

Justification depends on what position one comes from. Militarily, if an army can spare the lives of many of its soldiers and have only a few possible civilian deaths it will. While there may be such things as suicide missions, armies are not simply meant to be road blocks and bowling pins. Also, because death is so unpopular (unless it is the enemy who is dying), any time an army can put more risk on locals and less on itself, it probaby will if it can pass it off as not too unethical, or if it can simply cover it up. A likely reason for arming those whom become our enemies tomorrow is that their deaths would not weaken support as much as the death of a member of the army of that thug arming government might.

If Israel were to drastically reduce its missile strikes and go to an all street battle strategy of going in with machine guns and whatever else, it puts itself at greater risk of losing support because soldiers of the IDF are in greater danger. Around the corner smart bullets are not in in use yet, as far as I know, so house fighting is still very dangerous. If the Israeli government believes that public support would weaken if they changed toward a more dangerous policy of all street fighting but also believes that the goal is correct and must be fulfilled, it probably won't change to a strategy likely to be unpopular.

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by B Campbell
You sir, are a moron. Good job at dodging the real issue.

I didn't say Palestineans are not terrorists. No, I agree with you on that point. However, the Isrealites are also terrosists. Terrible things are happening on both sides. I do not support anyone who resorts to bloody murder of children and families.

No, I do not support the attacks in Afghanistan. More inncoents died in our bombings and raids in Afghanistan than did in the attacks on our World Trade Center. Several times more, in fact. And now, what do we want to do except build a gas pipeline... THROUGH a country we are still BOMBING.

You don't have to answer your faith to me, but if you believe in God you're going to have to tell him why you paid for bullets that killed children and innocents.

Why don't you actually pick upa few newspapers instead of only repeating the single biased view you've heard. You see, there is more than one side to any conflict, so to understand it you need to serach for information from both sides.

You guys always resort to that don't you?(name calling)
The fact is that you don't agree with me and I could really care less. You see the conflict there with blinders on and I can't change that nor do I care to. I at least get involved with my beliefs instead of sitting on my butt and call names and talk about things I have no clue on.

What would you suggest we should have done in Afghanistan.
Go over there and negotiate a peace agreement? Their leaders aren't looking for peace. I don't like the fact that innocent people died there. I would have liked to see us send in a team to kill the ones in charge of 9-11 attacks. That didn't happen. I don't even know if it was a possibility. I can't change what is happening there but I do support our Government in it's efforts to stop terrorism. You don't have to. I don't mind if you prefer a more passive stance on the issue.

I do read the papers and watch the news and search the internet for news about the conflict. (both sides) I don't only get my info from people in Israel or from traveling there.

About my faith: I have no worries. I personally know who I will be standing before to answer for myself. Do you?

Final point. I don't agree with you that Israel is a terrorist nation.

It's usless and frankly a waste of my time to argue with you further on this .

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by TAFJonathan
No one ever said that the Palestinians terrorists weren't terrorists. They are. They are evil, despicable, hateful murderers. The fact that I present is simply that the issue isn't as simple as "The peace-loving Israelis fight for their homeland from the bloodthirsty Palestinian murderers". It's far more complex than that. Both sides have commited horrendous acts that are completely unjustifiable.

I don't disagree that both sides have comitted horrendous acts.
I simply Sympathize with the Israelis plight.
So instead of resorting to calling me names like "a narrow minded fool" Just accept that I have a different view than you and leave it at that. Just because someone has a different view than you doesn't automatically mean he isn't informed or is a fool.
Possibly he is just looking at it from a different place.

Enough. I'm done with this.

 

[B Campbell]

Originally posted by DGB454
The fact is that you don't agree with me and I could really care less.

Final point. I don't agree with you that Isreal is a terrorist nation.

The point wasn't whether we agreed, the point was you were dodging the issue I had presented and not answering the questions I was asking.

However, thanks for finally getting to it. Though I would like to know your definition of terrorist if you don't think Israel is a terroist state.

edit: Thanks Talentless, though I'm curious as to why you never corrected DGB in his several typos of that same word earlier.

 

[Talentless]

*Israel.

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by B Campbell
The point wasn't whether we agreed, the point was you were dodging the issue I had presented and not answering the questions I was asking.

However, thanks for finally getting to it. Though I would like to know your definition of terrorist if you don't think Israel is a terroist state.

edit: Thanks Talentless, though I'm curious as to why you never corrected DGB in his several typos of that same word earlier.

To quote your buddy without lowering myself to his or your level by calling you ignorant and narrow minded or a moron.

"I don't have the time or the energy to refute your various nonsensical claims."

By the way, Have either of you guys read the Acceptable use Policy for GTP? Here is the part you should concentrate on.

"You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner,"

 

[rjensen11]

Originally posted by Cobraboy
Why did it take them sooo long to agree to let the inspectors in? One can only assume that during that time they were hiding their 'weapons of mass destruction'

Maybe Saddam is really a Christian or something, and had to hide all the evidence...

 

[B Campbell]

Originally posted by DGB454
"I don't have the time or the energy to refute your various nonsensical claims."

Huh? I didn't make any claims in the message you quoted. I just asked you a question. Maybe you're not reading very thoroughly; in fact, that would explain quite a bit.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by B Campbell
Huh? I didn't make any claims in the message you quoted. I just asked you a question. Maybe you're not reading very thoroughly; in fact, that would explain quite a bit.

Yet another quasi-intellectual retort from someone who thinks he's pretty special.

 

[vat_man]

Gee - this is a high quality debate - do either of you actually have any more points to make, or are you simply going to continue with the name-calling?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man
Gee - this is a high quality debate - do either of you actually have any more points to make, or are you simply going to continue with the name-calling?

Yeah, really.

vat_man, say something controversial and let's have a go over it. I'm sick of not debating with people.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by M5Power
Yeah, really.

vat_man, say something controversial and let's have a go over it. I'm sick of not debating with people.

Well - I withdrew from this debate when I figured out it didn't actually matter if Iraq had weapons or not - there was going to be a war anyway.

How's that?

 

[Concept]

I think Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. So what if they do though? Why don't we attack a country like Germany or Japan? Both of them have weapons of mass destruction. I don't see why we are just focusing on Iraq. Why does it matter anyway? I wish Bush would just leave everyone alone and worry about his own country and quit trying to govern others.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by Concept
Why don't we attack a country like Germany or Japan? Both of them have weapons of mass destruction.

Do they?

 

[Concept]

Yes, to my knowledge they do. Either Germany or Russia. The United States of America has over 17,000 weapons of mass destruction. Why are other countires not attacking us? I know why, because their leaders are not stupid like Bush is.

 

[vat_man]

Russia certainly has - but I think you'll find that after the 'unpleasantness' 60 years ago Germany and Japan are pretty restricted as to what weaponry they can hold.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man
Well - I withdrew from this debate when I figured out it didn't actually matter if Iraq had weapons or not - there was going to be a war anyway.

How's that?

Here's what I hear about the media in Iraq. "The media portrays Saddam Hussein as a hero"... "The media says the United States is evil" ... "The media says Saddam hides nothing."

So what do I hear from my own media? CNN, FNC, etc? "George W Bush is a hero to the American community" ... "Iraq is evil" ... "President Bush spares nothing in pursuing Hussein, who obviously has the weapons."

Both sides are so obviously biased, it's hard to get past the crappy spin that goes on constantly. President Bush, though, has made it clear that no matter what Hussein does, he believes that Hussein has weapons and refuses to show them to him. Where, then, are they? I'm sick of the deceiving!

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man
Russia certainly has - but I think you'll find that after the 'unpleasantness' 60 years ago Germany and Japan are pretty restricted as to what weaponry they can hold.

The only countries stupid enough to provoke the world community are North Korea (on South Korea) and Iraq (they did it in 1991 and they could always do it again, but to Israel).

 

[Concept]

Again, I wish Bush would just leave Iraq alone. Did they do anything to us? No. To be honest, I am sort of scared about going to war with Iraq. They have weapons of mass destruction, no doubt about it, whose to say they won't use them in the war?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Concept
Again, I wish Bush would just leave Iraq alone. Did they do anything to us? No. To be honest, I am sort of scared about going to war with Iraq. They have weapons of mass destruction, no doubt about it, whose to say they won't use them in the war?

If Saddam was really smart, when he got attacked "unilaterally," he'd immediately turn around and use his weapons on, not Israel, not the US, but instead countries like France, Great Britain, and (sorry vat_man) Australia. What this would do is cause these nation's people to fall into two categories:

- A: "We got attacked, so let's fight back harder"
- B: "We got attacked. We should have never gone in in the first place. Let's pull out before more citizens die."

Maybe I underestimated Aussies, the French, and Brits, but I have a feeling most would fall into group B. Scary, isn't it?

 

[Concept]

Wow, I never thought aboutt hat Doug. Scary though, it's amazing how some people can be so evil.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Concept
Wow, I never thought aboutt hat Doug.

I don't think Saddam will, either -- he's real reactive.

 

[vat_man]

Originally posted by M5Power
If Saddam was really smart, when he got attacked "unilaterally," he'd immediately turn around and use his weapons on, not Israel, not the US, but instead countries like France, Great Britain, and (sorry vat_man) Australia. What this would do is cause these nation's people to fall into two categories:

- A: "We got attacked, so let's fight back harder"
- B: "We got attacked. We should have never gone in in the first place. Let's pull out before more citizens die."

Maybe I underestimated Aussies, the French, and Brits, but I have a feeling most would fall into group B. Scary, isn't it?

Firstly I don't think US will go in without UN backing - simply because it's not going to be worth the heartache in Europe and the Middle East. Well, that and the US shouldn't, really.

That said, I think you'll find that if there are WMDs (when did that become a 3 letter acronym?!?) in Iraq's position they'll be heading for Israel - as a symbol of Arab nationalism, and also I don't think they have weaponry capable of delivering payloads significant distances - although if I was anywhere within range I'd be concerned.

You're probably right on our response - public response here is already wavering on this issue (and is adamantly opposed to any action without UN backing). The Bali bombing has focussed Australian attention to South East Asia (where, frankly, it should have been in the first place except for our Prime Minister's dog-like devotion to following US foreign policy).

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by vat_man
Firstly I don't think US will go in without UN backing - simply because it's not going to be worth the heartache in Europe and the Middle East. Well, that and the US shouldn't, really.

The US won't - they'll wait for UN backing. That doesn't stop the scenario I've suggested, though.

That said, I think you'll find that if there are WMDs (when did that become a 3 letter acronym?!?) in Iraq's position they'll be heading for Israel - as a symbol of Arab nationalism, and also I don't think they have weaponry capable of delivering payloads significant distances - although if I was anywhere within range I'd be concerned.

They will be heading for Israel, but they probably shouldn't. When they attack Israel, it'll provoke America more, and it will surely draw some of the leaning attack/not attack countries like France into battle. No-one likes an innocent country being slaughtered. Remember the countries -- even the Arab neighbors -- that came to Kuwait's defence in 1991?

You're probably right on our response - public response here is already wavering on this issue (and is adamantly opposed to any action without UN backing).

As it should be. It's the logical Colin Powell-type reaction. But it doesn't matter anyway -- even 'wavering' countries like China, France, and Russia supported the inspection resolution in the end. The situation is so that no country could, in good conscience, not support.

The Bali bombing has focussed Australian attention to South East Asia (where, frankly, it should have been in the first place except for our Prime Minister's dog-like devotion to following US foreign policy).

Only because your Prime Minister is sensible. He knows the world will eventually come around and support the United States and Britain, so why not jump on the bandwagon now and look like a true friend? It'll probably help down the line.