RIP: They died in Iraq

[southsider2k5]

Just for s***s and giggles and to prove a point...

 

2) I implied that you are a racist because in the short time I've been posting on Soxtalk, you have never said one positive thing about Israel, nor have you supported any pro-Israel ideas. You have also personally attacked me (unprovoked) on many occasions, and have not once agreed with any of my opinions, (is it because I'm a Jew/Zionist?).

 

These are all from Tex.

 

I'm certain I4E will agree we need to stop Israels weapons program along with the Arabs.

 

I do not hate Israel. I see Israel as being in a difficult situation, with enemies all around. They will and have made mistakes. They are HUMANS. You don't seem to grasp that. You have zero objectivity. I see Palestinians sending 10 year old suicide bombers and it pisses me off to no end. These kids do not have the capacity to grasp what they are doing.

 

I would be the biggest hypocrit in the world if I was racist against Jews. Half my friends are Jewish.

 

Israel has been targeted throughout their history and have been justified in most of their actions.

 

I sympathize with Israel, I do not sympathize with the concept of destroying Palestine in the process. I do not sympathize with killing innocent people. I do not believe sympathizing with innocent people over their fate, at the hands of leaders who cannot compromise because of fear or ignorance or whatever

 

3) I never resorted to name calling or obscenities; I only hoped to have an intelligent debate on an issue, (totally different from the one for which this thread was started, YOU BROUGHT ISRAEL INTO THIS DEBATE!). To refresh your memory (AGAIN!!!) I asked why people who ONLY find fault in America wwould continue to live here...what the f**k does that have to do with Israel, Tex?

 

This was in your very first post in this thread.

I may agree with Apu that Bush is a f***ing moron, but, G-d Bless the U.S. Troops.

I'd call that an obsenity.

 

You are a hater!

And I would call that an insult.

 

As far as I can tell, the memory hole is one of those, ultra-liberal, anti-American, anti-Israel websites that Sideshow loves! I don't put much credence into his (BIASED) opinions or his recommended readings

 

And insults to a guy who hadn't even been talking to him...

 

 

 

 

Just because you say it loud and often doesn't make it true. Hate me all you want, but Tex tried to have an intellegent discussion. Everything you accused him of is a bald-faced lie, and the proof is in his and your own words. Hate is wrong on all accounts...

[israel4ever]

My use of obscene language was not aimed at a fellow poster. It was used as an adjective to emphasize how I feel about our current President.

 

Just because one says he sympathizes with Israel doesn't mean he has positive thoughts towards Israel. When I see "palis" children killed or maimed via collateral damage, I feel sorry for them too...it doesn't mean I have postive thoughts towards the plight of their people.

 

All of Tex's quotes from your posting read like he might be pro-Israel, or even neutral, but that's because they are taken out of context. (BTW, for years when a person was accused of prejudice against African Americans, and their response was, "some of my best friends are black.", that was considered a racist comment.)

 

Any 5 year old can read, comprehension is a skill!!!

 

I do not hate you, or anyone else who posts in this site. I reserve my hate for those people who would love to see Israel and the Jewish people destroyed. I don't begrudge you, or anyone else, your opinions. I have only sought to maybe inform and/or educate the posters on certain topics of which I feel I have a strong knowledge.

 

This thread was originally about Iraq, and our military presence therein. Nuke Cleveland was defending the military presence in Iraq, and Sideshow Apu was (typically) bashing the US and it's policies. I said that while I definitely don't support our Administration, I support our troops, and said that Hussein had to go, whether or not he had WMD. I then questioned (without mentioning names!) why there are so many people here who cannot say one positive thing about the USA, but continue to live here. That is when TexSox brought "Israel" into the debate and began his unproked attack on me!

 

Re-read from the beginning and tell me where I am not telling the truth!

[southsider2k5]

Re-read from the beginning and tell me where I am not telling the truth!

That is easy. Tex, Apu, and basically everyone else on this site are not racists. I know you missed the old days, but there was a true antisemite, who posted on this site. He also advocated violence against gays, and just about everything else in between. There is a big difference between arguing against someones actions and being an a racist. I have yet to see ANYONE advocate Palestine AT THE EXPENSE of the destruction of Israel or its people. That would be anti-semite. The targeting of a race, for the simple fact of a race, is racism. Not agreeing with the actions of a government does not make one a racist (by your very definition of an anti-semite). If that is the case when you bash Bush, you have made yourself anti-American. Bashing Bush for the killing of innocent Iraqis and bashing Sharon for the killing of innocent Muslims is the same thing. One doesn't make you racist, while the other makes you a good citizen. And to even insinuate that one race is worth more than another is exactly what the very definition of racism is! It is hypocritical to state otherwise.

 

That my friend is where you are wrong. The worth of Human life is not based on race. And the posters who you argue with consistantly are not racists.

[israel4ever]

By advocating "Palestine" at all, you are advocating the destruction of Israel; the two go hand in hand. The Palestinians have consistently rejected the "two-state solution", their creed translates to, "Palestine - from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea". That means they want to eliminate Israel.

 

In essence then, to be pro-Palestine = pro destruction of Israel; thus, I am personally insulted by the concept of one being pro-Palestine.

 

Can you see where I'm coming from?

[southsider2k5]

By advocating "Palestine" at all, you are advocating the destruction of Israel; the two go hand in hand. The Palestinians have consistently rejected the "two-state solution", their creed translates to, "Palestine - from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea". That means they want to eliminate Israel.

 

In essence then, to be pro-Palestine = pro destruction of Israel; thus, I am personally insulted by the concept of one being pro-Palestine.

 

Can you see where I'm coming from?

The radicals have derailed the peace process on both sides. The great majority of people living there now just want something to call their own. They are sick of their sons and husbands being killed and sacrificed. Even Arafat is trying to negotiate the Road Map. He knows they aren't going to have all of Israel back, or even the right of return. The best possible solution for both sides is to give Palestine something to call their own, and opportunity for them to be able to earn a living. And the majority of people know it.

 

It is the groups who will only accept the destruction of Israel who are in the great great minority. But because of their headline grabbing willingness to resort to violence, their opinion is heard much louder. Think about it, one person screaming is much much louder than 10 people talking. And such is the nature of mideast politics.

 

I don't consider being for a Palestinian state and well-being, anti-Israel. Even a majority of people IN Israel want Palestinians to have a country. Why? Because they see it is a way to reduce the violence. If they have jobs and food, odds are they are much less likely to become suicide bombers. That desperation is gone.

[israel4ever]

The major difference is, the people of Israel want the Palestinians to have it's own State, outside of Israel proper (i.e. Gaza, or, as a part of Jordan, as was their historical homeland). The Palestinians want all of Israel!

 

Arafat has shown (and continues to show) no willingness to follow the Road Map, NONE! The first step for the Palestinians was to disarm all of the militant groups. He has said, and continues to say that he won't do that for fear of a "civil war". So he remains at "Step Zero". Additionally, the last few "successful" terrorist attacks were done by members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which is an organization controlled and funded by Arafat himself!

[southsider2k5]

The major difference is, the people of Israel want the Palestinians to have it's own State, outside of Israel proper (i.e. Gaza, or, as a part of Jordan, as was their historical homeland). The Palestinians want all of Israel!

 

Arafat has shown (and continues to show) no willingness to follow the Road Map, NONE! The first step for the Palestinians was to disarm all of the militant groups. He has said, and continues to say that he won't do that for fear of a "civil war". So he remains at "Step Zero". Additionally, the last few "successful" terrorist attacks were done by members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which is an organization controlled and funded by Arafat himself!

Both sides have been guilty of not following the road map. It wasn't supposed to be you do something then I do something agreement. They both had responisbilities unilaterally, and neither side lived up to them. Israel was supposed to stop expanding settlements, and stop targeted assassinations, they have not done so. So now the radicals have an excuse to keep up terror bombings.

 

See how it works both ways?

 

And once again, the average Palestian who is living in squaler and starvation because they can't work, is to the point of being acceptive to their own state. It is the militant wings who insist on all of old Palestine. The great majority of Palestinians just want the violence to end, and to have some semblance of a normal life. The basic Israelis want the exact same thing- Peace and a normal life. It is the radicals that are dictating policy on both sides. It is wrong to assume that the majority is represented by groups like Hamas and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

[israel4ever]

Then how come 68% of Palestinians surveyed said they'd want continued violence against Israel, even if they got their own state?

 

Sharon endorsed the building of more settlements AFTER Arafat said he wouldn't disarm the militant factions (most of which are funded by Arafat himself!!!).

[southsider2k5]

Then how come 68% of Palestinians surveyed said they'd want continued violence against Israel, even if they got their own state?

 

Sharon endorsed the building of more settlements AFTER Arafat said he wouldn't disarm the militant factions (most of which are funded by Arafat himself!!!).

And that is exactly why the roadmap is doomed to fail. Both sides are too busy pointing fingers instead of doing what the road map dictated.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

By advocating "Palestine" at all, you are advocating the destruction of Israel; the two go hand in hand. The Palestinians have consistently rejected the "two-state solution", their creed translates to, "Palestine - from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea". That means they want to eliminate Israel.

 

In essence then, to be pro-Palestine = pro destruction of Israel; thus, I am personally insulted by the concept of one being pro-Palestine.

 

Can you see where I'm coming from?

One of the most powerful myths propagated in the US media today is that at the Camp David summit in July 2000, then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak made an amazingly generous offer to the Palestinians that Yasir Arafat wantonly spurned, broke off negotiations and then launched a violent uprising against Israel. No element of this, the most cherished of media myths is true. In fact, Barak's offer was anything but generous. It was Israel that broke off the negotiations, and the committee headed by former US Senator George Mitchell found no evidence to back the Israeli claim that the Palestinian Authority had planned or launched the Intifada.

 

This myth was given life in large part by President Clinton who immediately after the Camp David summit broke his promise to Arafat that no side would be blamed for failure, and went on Israeli television declaring that while Barak made bold compromises for peace, Arafat has missed yet another opportunity. Let's go through the evidence bit by bit.

 

 

Barak's "generous" offer

 

What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state."

 

The proposal would have meant:

 

 

 

no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state,

no control of its external borders,

limited control of its own water resources, and

no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law.

 

 

 

In addition, the Barak plan would have:

 

 

 

included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley;

codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice;

meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and

required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community."

 

 

 

At best, Palestinians could expect a kind of super-autonomy within a "Greater Israel", rather than independence, and the devolution of some municipal functions in the parts of Jerusalem inhabited by Palestinians, under continued overall Israeli control.

 

See maps showing what the Israeli proposals would have looked like in reality at www.electronicIntifada.net/coveragetrends/generous.html.

 

John Mearsheimer, professor in the department of political science at the University of Chicago, recognized the limitations of what Palestinians were being asked to accept as a final settlement, concluding that: "it is hard to imagine the Palestinians accepting such a state. Certainly no other nation in the world has such curtailed sovereignty."

[source: "The Impossible Partition," New York Times, January 11, 2001]

 

The reality was far from the wild claims routinely made on the editorial pages of American papers that Barak had offered the Palestinians, 95, 97 or even 100% of the occupied West Bank. Barak himself wrote in a New York Times Op-ed on 24 May 2001 that his vision was for

 

"a gradual process of establishing secure, defensible borders, demarcated so as to encompass more than 80 percent of the Jewish settlers in several settlement blocs over about 15 percent of Judea and Samaria, and to ensure a wide security zone in the Jordan Valley."

[source: "Building a Wall Against Terror," New York Times, 24 May 2001].

 

In other words, if Barak intended to keep 15 percent of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), he could not have offered the Palestinians more than 85 percent.

 

No one can seriously talk about Israel being willing to end its settlement policy if 80 percent of its settlers would have remained in place.

 

Robert Malley who was Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, participated in the Camp David negotiations. In an important article entitled "Fictions About the Failure At Camp David " published in the New York Times on July 8, 2001, Malley added his own, insider's challenge to the Camp David myth. Not only did he agree that Barak's offer was far from ideal, but made the additional point that Arafat had made far more concessions than anyone gave him credit for. Malley wrote:

 

"Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el-Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises."

 

Malley rightly concluded that, "If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality."

 

The negotiations continued.

 

While it is true that the July 2000 Camp David summit ended without agreement, the negotiations did not end. They restarted and continued until Barak broke them off in January 2001. Since then Israel has refused to enter political negotiations with the Palestinians.

 

On 19 December 2000, six months after Camp David, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators returned to Washington and continued with negotiations. These negotiations were based on a set of proposals by President Clinton which went beyond Barak's offer of July 2000, but still fell short of minimum Palestinian expecations. Nevertheless, the Palestinians went on with the talks.

 

By some accounts these were proving fruitful. The Los Angeles Times reported on 22 December 2000, that: "Amid signs that the two sides appear to be edging toward some sort of compromise on the emotional issue of Jerusalem, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators worked through the start of the Jewish Hanukkah holiday Thursday expressing a rare shared optimism."

 

[source: Los Angeles Times, December 22, 2000. "Hopeful mood fuels talks on Mideast peace; Negotiations: Israelis, Palestinians work through Jewish holiday as signs surface of a compromise."]

 

In January 2001, the talks moved to Taba, Egypt, where they reportedly continued to make progress. They broke off at the end of January, and were due to resume but Barak canceled a planned meeting with Arafat. Shortly thereafter, Barak lost the election to Ariel Sharon, and the talks have never resumed.

 

The New York Times reported on January 28, 2001:

"Senior Israeli and Palestinian officials concluded nearly a week of stop-and-start negotiations in Taba, Egypt, tonight by saying jointly that they have "never been closer to reaching" a final peace accord but lacked sufficient time to conclude one before the Israeli elections on Feb. 6..... At a joint news conference in Taba, Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami of Israel called the two-way talks, from which the Americans were conspicuously absent, "the most fruitful, constructive, profound negotiations in this phase of the peace process." He said the two sides hoped to pick up where they left off after the elections -- although his boss, Mr. Barak, is expected to lose."

Source: New York Times, January 28, 2001, "Mideast Talks End With Gain But No Accord."

 

So how is it then that all these commentators and Israeli officials continue to deny that talks which the Israeli foreign minister at the time called "the most fruitful, constructive, profound negotiations," never took place? How is it that so many continue to claim that it was the Palestinians who walked away from the bargaining table when it was Israel that stopped the talks and refuses to resume them?

[israel4ever]

Where do you get your bulls***, Apu?

 

Forget it...I don't want to know!

[israel4ever]

The entire, normal, intelligent thinking world knows that Barak offerred Arafat 99% of his demands...even your boy Clinton will admit that!

 

Arafat wants all of Israel...he has stated that hundreds of times.

 

But Apu knows better. What a joke!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The entire, normal, intelligent thinking world knows that Barak offerred Arafat 99% of his demands...even your boy Clinton will admit that!

 

Arafat wants all of Israel...he has stated that hundreds of times.

 

But Apu knows better. What a joke!

Where's your proof. I have well documented evidence. You've got reactionary ravings. Gee, I wonder whose argument is stronger.

[israel4ever]

Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, NY Times, need I go on.

 

I might suggest you look for your "information" in sources OTHER THAN Al Jazeera, Harpers, BBC, etc

[israel4ever]

If Arafat doesn't want ALL of Israel, why has his mantra always been "Palestine - from the River to the Sea"?

 

What do your "well documented sources" say about that?

 

(Get a copy of Bard's "Myths and Facts About the Arab-Israeli Conflict", you can get it on Amazon. Read that.)

[israel4ever]

Apu...please answer this too...why does Arafat wear the "rag" on his headed purposely "pleated" in the shape of Israel. He has stated it is so he always has Israel in his (black) heart and on his mind as the Palestinian state.

[Rex Kickass]

Dude. He quoted the NY Times, several times.

 

He quoted John Mearsheimer. This guy is one of the brightest political thinkers of our time. He is from the University of Chicago.

 

But if it will settle this argument - I can compromise I guess...

 

Girls, you're both pretty.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Dude. He quoted the NY Times, several times.

 

He quoted John Mearsheimer. This guy is one of the brightest political thinkers of our time. He is from the University of Chicago.

 

But if it will settle this argument - I can compromise I guess...

 

Girls, you're both pretty.

Growing up with Israel 4 ever, I can actually say that he is the prettiest girl around.

[cwsox]

Growing up with Israel 4 ever, I can actually say that he is the prettiest girl around.

now that's funny!

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

now that's funny! 

Thanks, I'm in town all week.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, NY Times, need I go on.

 

I might suggest you look for your "information" in sources OTHER THAN Al Jazeera, Harpers, BBC, etc

If you've got specific sources, cite them. Just claiming there are newspapers out there, that does nothing. C'mon build your case. I'm waiting...

 

I'm not defending Arafat. I'm fighting Likud-nik Zionist right wing bulls***. There's a difference.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

By advocating "Palestine" at all, you are advocating the destruction of Israel; the two go hand in hand. The Palestinians have consistently rejected the "two-state solution", their creed translates to, "Palestine - from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea". That means they want to eliminate Israel.

 

In essence then, to be pro-Palestine = pro destruction of Israel; thus, I am personally insulted by the concept of one being pro-Palestine.

 

Can you see where I'm coming from?

i may be correct because i am not positive here. but wasnt the Balfour Declaration and the creation of Israel also like a destruction of Palestine??? Didnt England help with the formation of Israel (at the expense of Palestine) as a favor to the Jews for their support in WWI and for a Jewish scientist helping with the development of mustard gas??? I may be wrong, but it sounds vaguely correct i cant remember. I focus on pre 1800 history. But, if thats the case, you are arguing for something not to happen that happened less than a hundred years ago but the other way around.

 

Again, if my facts are incorrect i apologize. But, i'm pretty sure most are correct

[ChiSox_Sonix]

I believe the isuue was "Taxation without representation."

thats weak though. Do you realize that at this time less than a third of males in England had voting rights? Most couldnt even participate in parliament. The Hannoverian Kings still had quite a bit of power. The citizens in England were paying MANY more taxes than were being proposed in the colonies. We were told in school "no taxation without representation" but that is just a small reason we went to war. A lot of it was they felt the taxes levied upon them were too harsh. All my point is, is that history has many sides, and its often not told as it should be.

[Texsox]

1) Pollard "stole" secrets that were supposed to have been shared with Israel. For the third time, I said that I believe he should have been punished for what he did. Does that sound like I support spying on the US?

 

2) I implied that you are a racist because in the short time I've been posting on Soxtalk, you have never said one positive thing about Israel, nor have you supported any pro-Israel ideas. You have also personally attacked me (unprovoked) on many occasions, and have not once agreed with any of my opinions, (is it because I'm a Jew/Zionist?).

 

3) I never resorted to name calling or obscenities; I only hoped to have an intelligent debate on an issue, (totally different from the one for which this thread was started, YOU BROUGHT ISRAEL INTO THIS DEBATE!). To refresh your memory (AGAIN!!!) I asked why people who ONLY find fault in America wwould continue to live here...what the f**k does that have to do with Israel, Tex?

 

4) Since you brought up Israel, let me just say this; I resent the fact that you (and others) put Israel and the "palestinians" on the same moral ground. The evidence is overwhelming/conclusive that the "palis" reject peace with Israel; the destruction of the "Jewish State" is still in the PA mandate. They are the "Nazis", they are the ones who reject Judaism and would summarily destroy it if given the chance. They are terrorist scum! Israel, on the other hand, is probably the best country in the Middle East for the average Arab to live in. Israeli Arabs are offerred the same freedoms as are Israeli Jews; they even serve in Knesset. So tell me, how are these two peoples morally equivalent?

 

(See if you can do so without using obscenities and/or name calling.)

Your view of a debate is everyone agree that Israel is perfect or they are racist. I believe Israel is 80% right in their actions, you said 99.5%. I'm supposedly a racist, you are not. What is the percentage that gets me labeled?

 

I've condemed suicide bombers, you've advocated the assasination of Arafat.

 

And you talk about debate. A debate has to have two sides. There are not two sides with you.

 

I do not agree with most that APU posts on the subject. I think his retoric is as one sided as yours. I will not condem an entire group of people over the actions of a few.

 

And by the way, Israel is a nation, not a religion. But since you seem to link them, how can you rationalize your 100% devotion to Israel. You're willingness to defend the slightest criticism, yet you do not practice your faith? Is there some guilt complex working here?

 

Have a pleasant evening. And would you please post my quotes that you feel are racist? I've been through three threads and cannot see where you get the idea. I think the persona you have created on-line is as an idiot. Not because you are supposedly Jewish, but because your posts are assanine.

[soxfan420]

And Iraq being a major threat to the US wasn't a huge Chicken Little instillation of fear into the American public so we could get oil?  Jeebus H. Christpunchers...Hey Nuke, where are all those tons of WMD that according to Powell and Rumsfeld, we knew they had and knew exactly where they were at?

 

 

That's a war crime Nuke.  What WMD did she have?

 

 

I see a dead civilian but no WMD.

 

 

Here's some WMD -- no wait, that's just another dead civilian.

 

Nuke, read the Nuremburg Tribunal results...PRE-EMPTIVE WARFARE IS A WAR CRIME.  The US has now endorsed a Nazi doctrine of warfare.  Slaughtering civilians is a war crime.

 

Loyalty to the country always.  Loyalty to the government when it deserves it.

--Mark Twain

idk about you but i dont see our oil prices dropping i doubt the war was about that.