Love America More than Israel!

[SAYIT]

give it a rest, marg, and learn how to read...

Pbel was right.
saigon was right.

and i said the only people that i had seen who appear happy over what is going on sre the jewish posters, not all the ewish posters. MJB and iRose can hardly contain themselves and roudy and say it have offered their cyber high fives. the demonising of mid-eastern muslims far outweighs the tragedy of dead americans in their eyes. it makes me sick...

Blah, blah, blah. You are in hyperspin, Princess, first blaming Israel and now the outraged posters who believe, as any normal person should, that there is something so foul and perverse at the core of Islamic culture that unless peace-seeking Muslims vocally and physically stand and repudiate their vicious culture that next week and next month and next year we will be confronted by more of these senseless acts of Islamist "Arab Street" rage which will take the lives of more "infidels" just because they are "infidels."
Oh, and fuck you.

you wish you could...but no way, babe. i ain't gonna put your gerbil out of work.

As always when your mindless gibberish is challenged, you punt.

 

[sealadaigh]

Yea Irose, your Ilk just sacrificed them for Israel!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's all the fault of Israel or the Great Satan or the posters here.
You just don't get, PBrain.
All the lying and twisting and squirming, and excuse-making you do in defense of your Jihadist brethren only emboldens and enables (perhaps that is your purpose here) them to fearlessly brush aside armed guards, scale 10 foot high walls and SLAUGHTER "infidels" in the name of Allah and/or their prophet. I'm have no patience left for the Islamists and absolutely no respect or regard for those who sit at a keyboard and attempt with their words to empower them.
You are cut from the same slimey cloth those murderous scumbags are and for you there will be no forgiveness.
Go to hell you slimey dog.

your feigned outrage, i have to admit, is amusing.

Pbel...i am impressed...youhave 1.4 billion muslim readers of your posts on this board. no wonder say it is so freaked out by you.

 

[SAYIT]

Yea Irose, your Ilk just sacrificed them for Israel!

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's all the fault of Israel or the Great Satan or the posters here.
You just don't get, PBrain.
All the lying and twisting and squirming, and excuse-making you do in defense of your Jihadist brethren only emboldens and enables (perhaps that is your purpose here) them to fearlessly brush aside armed guards, scale 10 foot high walls and SLAUGHTER "infidels" in the name of Allah and/or their prophet. I'm have no patience left for the Islamists and absolutely no respect or regard for those who sit at a keyboard and attempt with their words to empower them.
You are cut from the same slimey cloth those murderous scumbags are and for you there will be no forgiveness.
Go to hell you slimey dog.

your feigned outrage, i have to admit, is amusing.

Pbel...i am impressed...youhave 1.4 billion muslim readers of your posts on this board. no wonder say it is so freaked out by you.

Given your three day long rage over two words posted by Hoss (and aimed at Skit's eyeball) - a rage that was eerily similar to that of your Jihadi brethren - you are hardly in a position to throw stones, Princess, but I don't find it surprising that you find this situation to be "amusing."

 

[Saigon]

Forever ---the people to worry about now are the COPTS The civilized world should not stand by and LET IT HAPPEN-----

It's funny isn't - the lives of Copts count, but the lives of Palestinians don't.

That makes no sense to me at all.

Do you honestly believe it's the same?
Do you honestly believe that "Palestinians" are being slaughtered while the "civilized world" stands by and does nothing?
Do you honestly believe that Egypt's religious minorities (you must know the carnage won't be limited to the Copts) aren't at heightened risk of a vicious pogrom at the hands of their Muslim "brethren?"

The situations are clearly vastly different, but I do think the west could have done a lot more to safeguard Palestinian lives.

Likewise in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Paraguay the west has yanwed while people died.

I believe all human lives are sacred - not only those who go to the same church as I do.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's funny isn't - the lives of Copts count, but the lives of Palestinians don't.

That makes no sense to me at all.

Do you honestly believe it's the same?
Do you honestly believe that "Palestinians" are being slaughtered while the "civilized world" stands by and does nothing?
Do you honestly believe that Egypt's religious minorities (you must know the carnage won't be limited to the Copts) aren't at heightened risk of a vicious pogrom at the hands of their Muslim "brethren?"

The situations are clearly vastly different, but I do think the west could have done a lot more to safeguard Palestinian lives.

Likewise in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Paraguay the west has yanwed while people died.

I believe all human lives are sacred - not only those who go to the same church as I do.

What do you imagine "the West" could have done to safeguard the lives of Palestinian Arabs? Insert a military force to separate Israel from the territories to prevent Israeli actions in the territories to stop Palestinian Arab terrorists from reaching Israel? Wouldn't the "the West", meaning of course the US, then be obligated to stop those Palestinian Arab terrorists? And how would they they do that without using the same harsh tactics of roadblocks and checkpoints and house searches the IDF was forced to use.

At all times and in all places the suppression of terrorism has imposed hardships on the general population, and this is true everywhere in the world today, not just in the ME, but without concrete suggestions on how else to do it, the only alternative to these harsh measures is surrender to the terrorists, and that is not a policy most countries would support even for the Jewish state of Israel.

And from whom do you think "the West" should have protected these lives. The Palestinian Arab terrorists have killed more Palestinian Arabs than Israel has over the years, so should the West have protected the people from these groups, too, or just from Israel? In other words, are you interested in protecting people or just in protecting a political cause?

 

[Saigon]

What do you imagine "the West" could have done to safeguard the lives of Palestinian Arabs?

Warn Israel (privately) that they would not see a cent of aid money until a realistic peace proposal was on the table and signed.

Confirm publicaly that Israel would be defended militarily, but pressure them behind closed doors to accept an agreement.

And yes, similar pressure could have been applied to Palestinian leaders, but it often has been applied in the past while Israel was soft-pedaled.

 

[Hossfly]

What do you imagine "the West" could have done to safeguard the lives of Palestinian Arabs?

Warn Israel (privately) that they would not see a cent of aid money until a realistic peace proposal was on the table and signed.

Confirm publicaly that Israel would be defended militarily, but pressure them behind closed doors to accept an agreement.

And yes, similar pressure could have been applied to Palestinian leaders, but it often has been applied in the past while Israel was soft-pedaled.

Never happen as long as ZOG is alive and kickin'.

 

[sealadaigh]

what do you imagine "the west" could have done to safeguard the lives of palestinian arabs?

warn israel (privately) that they would not see a cent of aid money until a realistic peace proposal was on the table and signed.

Confirm publicaly that israel would be defended militarily, but pressure them behind closed doors to accept an agreement.

And yes, similar pressure could have been applied to palestinian leaders, but it often has been applied in the past while israel was soft-pedaled.

never happen as long as zog is alive and kickin'.

fuck you!!!

 

[Hossfly]

your feigned outrage, i have to admit, is amusing.

Pbel...i am impressed...youhave 1.4 billion muslim readers of your posts on this board. no wonder say it is so freaked out by you.

Given your three day long rage over two words posted by Hoss (and aimed at Skit's eyeball) - a rage that was eerily similar to that of your Jihadi brethren - you are hardly in a position to throw stones, Princess, but I don't find it surprising that you find this situation to be "amusing."

learn how to read. i find your whine amusing, as well as your fucking lie that you wouldn't bring it up again.

one vet should never call another vet "baby killer." maybe hoss would like to tell the widow of my friend and his daughter that her husband and father was a baby killer. hell ain't hot enough nor eternity long enough for hoss for his calling another vet a "baby killer."

maybe i can score some photos from the crime scene clean up people of johnny sittin' in his living room in his old class As and medals with blood all over the fucking place. ya think he would like that. bet you and hoss would get a big laugh out of the pics.

no rage anymore, fuck. just a cold blooded, smoldering anger now. don't mean a fucking thing to me, motherfucker. johnny was weak.

Get your butt to the VA ASAP and see the Patient Advocate. That's not a suggestion but a lawful order. I am serious now.

 

[toomuchtime_]

What do you imagine "the West" could have done to safeguard the lives of Palestinian Arabs?

Warn Israel (privately) that they would not see a cent of aid money until a realistic peace proposal was on the table and signed.

Confirm publicaly that Israel would be defended militarily, but pressure them behind closed doors to accept an agreement.

And yes, similar pressure could have been applied to Palestinian leaders, but it often has been applied in the past while Israel was soft-pedaled.

In 2000, Barak and then Clinton made "realistic" peace proposals that gave the Palestinian Arabs all of Gaza, approximately 95% of the West Bank, along with some pre 1967 Israeli land, an elevated highway to connect the West Bank and Gaza, shared sovereignty over East Jerusalem and an international funded that would provide assistance to the people the UN designated as refugees to settle anywhere in the world other than Israel. The Palestinian Arab response to these "realistic" peace proposals was the second intifada and the Israeli counter terrorism measures that led to the loss of both Palestinian Arab and Israeli life we were talking about. So your idea that lives could be saved by presenting the Palestinian Arabs with a "realistic" peace proposal was tried in 2000 and led to an even greater loss of life on both sides and much greater suffering for both peoples.

Nonetheless, in 2008, only shortly after Israel finally put a stop to Palestinian Arab terror attacks, another Israeli PM, Ehud Olmert, coaxed a reluctant Abbas back to the negotiating table by removing roadblocks and checkpoints that had been made necessary by the second intifada, and releasing large numbers of security prisoners, and Olmert offered Abbas everything Barak and Clinton had offered Arafat with the added incentive of less West Bank land that the 5% Barak and Clinton had offered for West Bank Israeli communities, and more and better quality pre 1967 Israeli land. The Palestinian Arab response was to break off negotiations and refuse to come back to the table.

Today, of course, it is absurd to suggest a peaceful two state solution can be negotiated since the Palestinian Arabs are divided into two distinct governments that are almost equally hostile to Israel and each other, and the government in Gaza has been emphatic in stating the only long term peace agreement with Israel it would accept is Israel's unconditional surrender.

So other than punishing Israel for the Palestinian Arabs' rejection of "realistic" peace proposals, what practical measures would you take to try to protect lives in the region?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

What do you imagine "the West" could have done to safeguard the lives of Palestinian Arabs?

Warn Israel (privately) that they would not see a cent of aid money until a realistic peace proposal was on the table and signed.

Confirm publicaly that Israel would be defended militarily, but pressure them behind closed doors to accept an agreement.

And yes, similar pressure could have been applied to Palestinian leaders, but it often has been applied in the past while Israel was soft-pedaled.

In 2000, Barak and then Clinton made "realistic" peace proposals that gave the Palestinian Arabs all of Gaza, approximately 95% of the West Bank, along with some pre 1967 Israeli land, an elevated highway to connect the West Bank and Gaza, shared sovereignty over East Jerusalem and an international funded that would provide assistance to the people the UN designated as refugees to settle anywhere in the world other than Israel. The Palestinian Arab response to these "realistic" peace proposals was the second intifada and the Israeli counter terrorism measures that led to the loss of both Palestinian Arab and Israeli life we were talking about. So your idea that lives could be saved by presenting the Palestinian Arabs with a "realistic" peace proposal was tried in 2000 and led to an even greater loss of life on both sides and much greater suffering for both peoples.

Nonetheless, in 2008, only shortly after Israel finally put a stop to Palestinian Arab terror attacks, another Israeli PM, Ehud Olmert, coaxed a reluctant Abbas back to the negotiating table by removing roadblocks and checkpoints that had been made necessary by the second intifada, and releasing large numbers of security prisoners, and Olmert offered Abbas everything Barak and Clinton had offered Arafat with the added incentive of less West Bank land that the 5% Barak and Clinton had offered for West Bank Israeli communities, and more and better quality pre 1967 Israeli land. The Palestinian Arab response was to break off negotiations and refuse to come back to the table.

Today, of course, it is absurd to suggest a peaceful two state solution can be negotiated since the Palestinian Arabs are divided into two distinct governments that are almost equally hostile to Israel and each other, and the government in Gaza has been emphatic in stating the only long term peace agreement with Israel it would accept is Israel's unconditional surrender.

So other than punishing Israel for the Palestinian Arabs' rejection of "realistic" peace proposals, what practical measures would you take to try to protect lives in the region?

Don't be too hard on Saigon. He's a righteous Gentile who worked very hard in the fields of Israel, on behalf of the Jewish people. Kinda like Ruth the Moabite.

 

[Saigon]

In 2000, Barak and then Clinton made "realistic" peace proposals that gave the Palestinian Arabs all of Gaza, approximately 95% of the West Bank, along with some pre 1967 Israeli land, an elevated highway to connect the West Bank and Gaza, shared sovereignty over East Jerusalem and an international funded that would provide assistance to the people the UN designated as refugees to settle anywhere in the world other than Israel. The Palestinian Arab response to these "realistic" peace proposals was the second intifada and the Israeli counter terrorism measures that led to the loss of both Palestinian Arab and Israeli life we were talking about. So your idea that lives could be saved by presenting the Palestinian Arabs with a "realistic" peace proposal was tried in 2000 and led to an even greater loss of life on both sides and much greater suffering for both peoples.

That isn't at all an accurate account of the facts.

Firstly, you neglect to mention that what was offered was not a contigious state, but 4 separate islands.

Secondly, your '95% of the West Bank' INLCUDED free-fire zones, highways, border zones and security zones to which Palestnian access was denied.

Thirdly, the offer explicity denied airspace, control over borders, ports or airports.

Fourthly, the Palestinians were uncomfortable with the caps on Right of Return, which were hardly generous.

Lastly, the Intifada did not begin as a result of the failure of Camp David specifically, but as a result of a number of other macro and local factors.

I'm not saying that the Palestinian SHOULD have turned down the offer, because history tells us it is the best offer they would ever get, but I understand why they declined.

Don't try and bluff me on this stuff, dude - I was there at the time!

 

[ForeverYoung436]

To be honest, I think I read the offer was 89% of the West Bank.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In 2000, Barak and then Clinton made "realistic" peace proposals that gave the Palestinian Arabs all of Gaza, approximately 95% of the West Bank, along with some pre 1967 Israeli land, an elevated highway to connect the West Bank and Gaza, shared sovereignty over East Jerusalem and an international funded that would provide assistance to the people the UN designated as refugees to settle anywhere in the world other than Israel. The Palestinian Arab response to these "realistic" peace proposals was the second intifada and the Israeli counter terrorism measures that led to the loss of both Palestinian Arab and Israeli life we were talking about. So your idea that lives could be saved by presenting the Palestinian Arabs with a "realistic" peace proposal was tried in 2000 and led to an even greater loss of life on both sides and much greater suffering for both peoples.

That isn't at all an accurate account of the facts.

Firstly, you neglect to mention that what was offered was not a contigious state, but 4 separate islands.

Secondly, your '95% of the West Bank' INLCUDED free-fire zones, highways, border zones and security zones to which Palestnian access was denied.

Thirdly, the offer explicity denied airspace, control over borders, ports or airports.

Fourthly, the Palestinians were uncomfortable with the caps on Right of Return, which were hardly generous.

Lastly, the Intifada did not begin as a result of the failure of Camp David specifically, but as a result of a number of other macro and local factors.

I'm not saying that the Palestinian SHOULD have turned down the offer, because history tells us it is the best offer they would ever get, but I understand why they declined.

Don't try and bluff me on this stuff, dude - I was there at the time!

Thirdly, the offer explicity denied airspace, control over borders, ports or airports.

This is a point that is not mentioned. Everything and everybody entering or leaving the West Bank would have to go through Israel with Israel's permission. Travel, tourism, and trade would be completely under Israeli control.

 

[voltron]

simply put 9/11. Its a shame that they, the right, take advantage of the event to further involvement in the eastern world but something like 9/11 can never happen again.

 

[Hossfly]

simply put 9/11. Its a shame that they, the right, take advantage of the event to further involvement in the eastern world but something like 9/11 can never happen again.

You got a problem? 'Splain yourself. And quote the person you answer.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In 2000, Barak and then Clinton made "realistic" peace proposals that gave the Palestinian Arabs all of Gaza, approximately 95% of the West Bank, along with some pre 1967 Israeli land, an elevated highway to connect the West Bank and Gaza, shared sovereignty over East Jerusalem and an international funded that would provide assistance to the people the UN designated as refugees to settle anywhere in the world other than Israel. The Palestinian Arab response to these "realistic" peace proposals was the second intifada and the Israeli counter terrorism measures that led to the loss of both Palestinian Arab and Israeli life we were talking about. So your idea that lives could be saved by presenting the Palestinian Arabs with a "realistic" peace proposal was tried in 2000 and led to an even greater loss of life on both sides and much greater suffering for both peoples.

That isn't at all an accurate account of the facts.

Firstly, you neglect to mention that what was offered was not a contigious state, but 4 separate islands.

Secondly, your '95% of the West Bank' INLCUDED free-fire zones, highways, border zones and security zones to which Palestnian access was denied.

Thirdly, the offer explicity denied airspace, control over borders, ports or airports.

Fourthly, the Palestinians were uncomfortable with the caps on Right of Return, which were hardly generous.

Lastly, the Intifada did not begin as a result of the failure of Camp David specifically, but as a result of a number of other macro and local factors.

I'm not saying that the Palestinian SHOULD have turned down the offer, because history tells us it is the best offer they would ever get, but I understand why they declined.

Don't try and bluff me on this stuff, dude - I was there at the time!

I did give an accurate account of the facts. The Barak/Clinton offer was a staged agreement which would have led to a Palestinian Arab state in all of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank that would have not only been contiguous in the West Bank but which would have made the West Bank contiguous with Gaza because it allowed an elevated highway under Palestinian Arab control that would have connected the two. Many of the things you describe were true of the intermediate stages of the offer, but not of the final stage. Movement from one stage to the next was contingent on the Palestinian Arab government not only maintaining peace with the state of Israel but taking responsibility for actively preventing terror attacks against Israelis, something that Arafat had never done.

Getting back to your original statement that the way "the West" could protect Palestinian Arab lives in the ME was to force Israel to make a "realistic" peace proposal, the consensus in "the West" was that the Barak/Clinton offer was a "realistic" proposal, so your suggestion was tried and failed to save lives.

Moreover, it is fair to say that the Palestinian response to the Barak/Clinton offer was the second intifada. At the time, Arafat claimed the time was not right for a final status agreement because, in effect, he could not sell any offer that was acceptable to Israel and the West to his people and he was probably right, but after the big push towards a final status agreement failed to lead to any substantial agreement, the confidence of the Palestinian Arabs in the possibility of a negotiated peace was all but destroyed, and while there were, as you say, many causes of the tensions that existed between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, it was the failure of the big push for a final status agreement that was the proximate cause of the second intifada, which seen rightly, was just a continuation of the first intifada that had been interrupted for a few years by the bubble of unrealistic expectations produced by the Oslo agreements.

 

[sealadaigh]

Forever ---the people to worry about now are the COPTS The civilized world should not stand by and LET IT HAPPEN-----

It's funny isn't - the lives of Copts count, but the lives of Palestinians don't.

That makes no sense to me at all.

no it makes no sense----so why did you say it? I have no idea why so many VERY WEALTHY arab countries with lots of room----lots of land -----and lots of OIL WEALTH ---leave their ummah bretheren in THE CONCENTRATION CAMP where they are being tortured and starved and murdered----to wit GAZA CONCENTRATION CAMP Obviously they care nothing for the LIVES of the their muslim brethern who lately call themselves "palestinians" In my childhood----I heard stories of the DESPERATION my grandfather experienced in trying to get his brothers and their families out of Austria-----he has no wealth to support them-----he was a functonally illiterate baker ----with a tiny apartment housing his family of four------but he would have managed if he could have gotten them out. I have a wonderful idea Lets face it----the COPTS AND THE EGYPTIAN MUSLIMS have not been getting along for a very long time----but the gazans and the egyptians are both SUNNIS I say----move the COPTS to Gaza-----and let the Gazans take over their areas in egypt----and EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY am I not brilliant?

lot of rich jews in the USA in the 1930s and 1940s. he should have tried harder. why the hell did you all let other jews go to their deaths in hitler's camps by the millions.

when the irish were being starved by the english a hundred years earlier, millions died but more millions escaped, many to the USA, where they helped others to escape...millions, without a penny to their names.

which brings up another question. everytime i ask why the jews got on the boxcars and didn't fight back, i am told that they didn't know they were going to the camps or had any idea of what was going on, right up until the camps were liberated. then, we have other stories like yours above, about jews trying to escape from the nazis etc. to avoid the death camps. sort of confusing.

 

[pbel]

Seal, are you or are you not cured of your poochie problem? Send me a reply or everyone will see that you still piss your pants & run & hide whenever I call for you. Thanks Seal.

Persons of peeballs ilk are responsble for the genocide of more than 100 million just in the past single century and for the death of Christ Stevens-----Persons of peeballs ilk --- TYPICALLY seek scapegoats to explain away their own filth Persons of peeball's ilk LOVE FILTH more than ----any land or any people and more than people, in general-----they are DEPRAVED and contribute NOTHING to the welfare of any people or any nation

the people of my ilk are not posting with unabashed and unrestraained glee at the death of americans. that would be the people of your ilk...you know...the same people of your ilk who were rescued from the death camps of europe by the people of my ilk.

some of you can barely conceal your joy. incredibly, i actually think jewish americans are more happy about these events than the maority off the muslims in the countries which they occurred.

MJ, why not be the cordial idiot with malicious leanings and go back to your marathon broken record of a thread.

Have you hit the 1000 post mark by you to keep on going yet?

God, you're so simple.

 

[irosie91]

deach you do not understand because you rely on what which you learned from the "catechism sister" now try to focus------All of this stuff took place before Al Gore invented the computer and at a time when lots of people did not own even a radio----Your hero adolf abu ali published his book in 1928. Lots of jews know how to read german and did so-------most people did not read the book which is why jews IN THE USA sounded the alarm regarding your hero ADOLF ABU ALI altar boy That alarm was derided and trivialized by on overwhelming majority of people in the USA ---one of the most influential being one FATHER CHARLES COUGHLIN who broadcast his VEHEMENT OBJECTION TO JEWISH MIGRATION TO THE USA over his weekly radio programs to an audience of MILLIONS ---including lots of adoring fellow Irisnmen He depicted jews who wanted to buy their relatives out of Germany and Austria as TRAITORS TO THE USA sound familiar?-----now have a nice pint of ale with your fellow PEEBALLS As to the Iriah migrants to the USA---from the famine------the british did not LOCK then in Ireland----they were glad to see them go Your comparison is----as is expected ----truly idiotic BTW ----the gazans are not locked in Gaza-------either they like it there As to the jews in european VILLAGES ---living without computers, TV, radios and telephones communication being ---letters-----of course they were easy victims of whatever the local priests decided to let them know OK ? got that ? Austria and Poland were CATHOLIC COUNTRIES google father charles coughlin his life work answers lots of your questions