Yasser Arafat dies at age 75

[Kanehdian]

Still no chance for peace in the Middle East! :hmph:

[f|uke]

Fox just interrupted That 70's show for this bulliten.

Hope power is transitioned smoothy. It doesn't sound like he really prepared for it.

[ailevation]

:dozey: Damn 75 years old... what's the average age people die at these days? 75 to me seems a bit early.

[f|uke]

:dozey: Damn 75 years old... what's the average age people die at these days? 75 to me seems a bit early.Average is much less. Average of old age depends on the region, but 75 really isn't that early.

[jaguar_987]

There will never be peace in the middle east. Has he actually died yet then? Last I saw he was on the life support machine.

[_JZL_]

Here is the article:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/obit_arafat (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/obit_arafat)
hopes he has a good day in hell!

[fuzzy_aus]

I agree witht that jaguar. That region has no clue how to live in peace.

[Revisedsoul]

sad to see him go

[Revisedsoul]

like i said in the other one, sad to see him go

[Kamakiri]

Yep. He died.

[DiSTuRbEd]

Yeah this was posted in the off-topic section.

[eyesore]

this has todo with halflife, how?

[Beazil]

woah. I wonder what this will mean for Palestine?

[Dr. Freeman]

Yep. He died.

and?
how is his death related to HL2?
clearly this belongs in the Off Topic section.

/me sighs

[Kamakiri]

Oh. Hehehe.

[el Chi]

and?
how is his death related to HL2?
clearly this belongs in the Off Topic section.

/me sighs
I imagine he was trying to get people's attention more heavily on a matter that has more far-reaching consequences than whether or not we'll wait to play HL2 after HL: S.
This is horribly important.

[mrxskinny]

Yeah, Dr. Breen took him in and found him to be a traitor to Big Brother. So...they had him eliminated.

[Kamakiri]

We have to be nice about this or terroist may track us down and bomb us. :(

[rrm]

I really don't give a damn

[rrm]

We have to be nice about this or terroist may track us down and bomb us.
wtf are you talking about

[Dr. Freeman]

I imagine he was trying to get people's attention more heavily on a matter that has more far-reaching consequences than whether or not we'll wait to play HL2 after HL: S.
This is horribly important.

sure.. but it still doesn't belong in this section.
if pple wanted to know about things other than HL2 then obviously they'd go explore these other sections of the site.

sorry im kinda tired of misplaced threads.. its been happening alot over the last 2-3 days.

[el Chi]

I agree witht that jaguar. That region has no clue how to live in peace.
That's such a condescending way to look at things. It's unfair and shows an arrogance and ignorance to the complex situation there.

That said, I wil say that these will be uncertain times for the region. More uncertain than usual. It's very sad to see him go.

[BHC]

I dont really know what to think...

[sublidieminal]

wtf are you talking about

I'm saying....

[MilkMan12]

woah. I wonder what this will mean for Palestine?


Theres no such thing as Palestine. Its Israel, the whole conflict is over where the Palistinians can get some land to have a country of their own, probably Palestine.. I dont know what this will mean, but i sure hope that we dont get another leader as bad as him in it. I hope that the good Palestinians will have a bigger say in who gets to take over Arafats spot, rather than the ****heads i mean terroists, sometimes get em confused, putting some extremist dickhead in and just trying his best to make unpeace, if there is such a thing.

[el Chi]

Sorry.... Messed up.

[BHC]

Sorry.... Messed up.

I changed my post, sorry :|

[jaguar_987]

Camels like chickens more than goats :O

[Tr0n]

Rest in peace Arafat.

[BHC]

I cant say im overly sympathetic, he was old, and not the best person on earth. As much as people say he strived for peace I find that hard to believe, then again what the **** do I know. I just feel bad for the thousands of palistinians who looked to him for guidance and leadership.

[Tr0n]

sad to see him goDitto.

[jaguar_987]

I cant say im overly sympathetic, he was old, and not the best person on earth. As much as people say he strived for peace I find that hard to believe, then again what the **** do I know. I just feel bad for the thousands of palistinians who looked to him for guidance and leadership.

Looked for peace my ass, that man was loaded. If he was so desperate for peace he could have thrown more money to the cause.

[el Chi]

He was no saint, but he was a more positive figure for Pallestinians to rally round than many others. What's sad is what may happen next.

EDIT:
Jaguar - money alone cannot help that cause. It's infinitely more difficult than that.

gh0st - Stop it. Way too simplistic. Seriously.

[peoplesuc]

Woah I was just thinking that he would die and now he is dead. So does this mean that the price of HL2 in China will drop a yen or whatever? I doubt it but lets hope that his assination by the French doctors will finally bring peace to wherever place he thinks his home is. In conclusion thank allah, god, budda, mosus and that scientology trash that he is finally dead.

Next I wish that all warzers that play HL2 gets ass cancer and dies. Painfully.

[el Chi]

Theres no such thing as Palestine. Its Israel, the whole conflict is over where the Palistinians can get some land to have a country of their own, probably Palestine.. I dont know what this will mean, but i sure hope that we dont get another leader as bad as him in it. I hope that the good Palestinians will have a bigger say in who gets to take over Arafats spot, rather than the ****heads i mean terroists, sometimes get em confused, putting some extremist dickhead in and just trying his best to make unpeace, if there is such a thing.
You're either horrendously biased or you have no idea what you're talking about.

[gh0st]

one less terrorist

[BHC]

one less terrorist

I would say the same thing if Bush died right now.

[A True Canadian]

Could someone please sum up who this guy is and what his relevence is with world events? I'm rather ignorant about this topic.

[Revisedsoul]

he was the leader of palistine(sp). trying to get back the land that was taken from them

[Tr0n]

id say the same thing if your mom died right now.How about both of you dumbasses shut the hell up?This ain't a damn politics thread...A human beind died and as such you respect his death.

[gh0st]

How about both of you dumbasses shut the hell up?This ain't a damn politics thread...
maybe it should be. im not going to post my condolences for this asshat, why should i?

[Beazil]

Theres no such thing as Palestine. Its Israel, the whole conflict is over where the Palistinians can get some land to have a country of their own, probably Palestine.. I dont know what this will mean, but i sure hope that we dont get another leader as bad as him in it. I hope that the good Palestinians will have a bigger say in who gets to take over Arafats spot, rather than the ****heads i mean terroists, sometimes get em confused, putting some extremist dickhead in and just trying his best to make unpeace, if there is such a thing.

If you were to ask any Palestinian, there IS such a thing as Palestine, hence the conflict. Was Arafat the best thing for peace? Probably not. Was he the worst? I think that remains to be seen, unfortunately.

[Tr0n]

he was the leader of palistine(sp). trying to get back the land that was taken from themWell also many other things then that...get an encyclopedia and read up on him.

[BHC]

id say the same thing if your mom died right now.

Ok.. no harm done, I dont know you. Both men have lead men to they're deaths whilst remaining unscatched and protected, both men consider themselves fighters for they're people yet never seem to do anything but lead to more violence. My mom on the other hand has never sent a man to his death, she happens to be a quaker and a pacafist, not to mention that was just an immature retortion.

[Tr0n]

maybe it should be. im not going to post my condolences for this asshat, why should i?Well don't make a flame about someones mom you dumbass...grow up.How old are you?13?

[BHC]

Well don't make a flame about someones mom you dumbass...grow up.How old are you?13?

exactly, that was just uncalled for, you pretty much ruined any credibility or legibility you might have had in this political thread gh0st.

Thank-you Tr0n, you're right.

[gh0st]

Well don't make a flame about someones mom you dumbass...grow up.How old are you?13?
haha.. a flame. dont be so uptight, its not like i was seriously insulting his mom. i was just matching immaturity with immaturity.

waahh.. waahh.. i dont like being called a dumbass, im a quaker leave me alone.

exactly, that was just uncalled for, you pretty much ruined any credibility or legibility you might have had in this political thread gh0st.

whatEVER will i do.. at least you admit its a political thread.

[A True Canadian]

he was the leader of palistine(sp). trying to get back the land that was taken from them

From what I hear in this thread, he was not a good man. But that's all subjective.

Seeing as I don't really know the guy, I'll just pay my respects and not judge the man for what he's done.

R.I.P.

[BHC]

haha.. a flame. dont be so uptight, its not like i was seriously insulting his mom. i was just matching immaturity with immaturity.

waahh.. waahh.. i dont like being called a dumbass, im a quaker leave me alone.


whatEVER will i do.. at least you admit its a political thread.

This post is not even readable, if it was maybe I could reply in a feasible matter. You seem to be matching your own immaturity with more immaturity pretty well though, so i'l just let you continue to do so.

[Tr0n]

From what I hear in this thread, he was not a good man. But that's all subjective.

Seeing as I don't really know the guy, I'll just pay my respects and not judge the man for what he's done.

R.I.P.See ^

That gh0st...is what you call respect.Go learn it and grow up.

[johnnypoopoopant]

what does this have to do with half life ?

[Kamakiri]

wtf are you talking about

You see my friend in his early days he hijacked a few planes etc etc. Alot said he changed. But did he really?

[BHC]

See ^

That gh0st...is what you call respect.Go learn it and grow up.

Amen, leave this thread if your going to post more BS gh0st.

[Shrink]

Theres no such thing as Palestine. Its Israel, the whole conflict is over where the Palistinians can get some land to have a country of their own, probably Palestine.. I dont know what this will mean, but i sure hope that we dont get another leader as bad as him in it. I hope that the good Palestinians will have a bigger say in who gets to take over Arafats spot, rather than the ****heads i mean terroists, sometimes get em confused, putting some extremist dickhead in and just trying his best to make unpeace, if there is such a thing.

It was land the Israelis held in biblical times and the only reason they are there now is via treaty after WWII. The Palestinians were forced out of their homes and off their land by Israeli "settlers". Check your history books before you flaunt your ignorance in this manner.

[RakuraiTenjin]

This is a moment to be happy that a murderer is gone from our world. I'm glad the terrorist won't breathe again.

[gh0st]

See ^

That gh0st...is what you call respect.Go learn it and grow up.
arafat doesnt deserve any respect, i will not "grow up", since growing up to you means paying respect to him and other evil people, which i will not. im just bitter because i know 2 people who died in terrorist attacks in israel, which are all offshoots of fatah.

Amen, leave this thread if your going to post more BS gh0st.
if you dont like what i say dont reply to it, or ignore me. no one is forcing or even asking you to read what i write. if you think i will take orders from you youre mistaken.

[Revisedsoul]

How about both of you dumbasses shut the hell up?This ain't a damn politics thread...A human beind died and as such you respect his death.


i know theres more, i hate writing long paragraphs unless really needed.

[Apos]

Hello? Half-life?

[bam23]

Maybe it's the ending to HL2 that's been praised high and low?

Mr. Arafat dies.

[Raziaar]

He died? Oh damnit, you need to post spoiler tags! GRRRR!

[jaguar_987]

Life Goes On.

Palestinian people are really nice though, I've known a few in my time and they certainly aren't shy to pay for drinks and feed you up.
Good laugh too, or maybe I just get on better with foreigners lol

London rocks.

[roofles!!1]

who cares?

[Abdi]

Gordon accidentally killed him, in one of his hospital missions. He thought its one of those black mesa zombies :D

[Glo]

long last
dont put israel a bad name. we want to make peace with palestines, just some leaders get in our way.

[Adrien C]

Damn, he was good for the cause of peace.

I hope all goes well up there, and let's hope Israel dosn't do nothing stupid like taking over.

[MilkMan12]

If you were to ask any Palestinian, there IS such a thing as Palestine, hence the conflict. Was Arafat the best thing for peace? Probably not. Was he the worst? I think that remains to be seen, unfortunately.

I completely agree, there is a great possibility there could be someone worse, and for the person who said I dont know what Im talking about, trust me I guarantee I know more about this conflict than anybody here. I assure you all of that lol. If you misunderstood my post, i will admit im not the best writer then say so and tell me what you think i meant otherwise, dont critisize me by saying i dont know what I am talking about. I know both sides of the story and do believe that both sides are not doing all they can do to gain peace, even though peace does not seem at all possible, neither side is helping. Of course I do think that one side is making more of an effort than the other, and that is just because the innocent good palistinians arent getting their voices heard, so I do think that the palistinians have a lot of good and some bad, unfortuanately the evil is overcoming good in this case.

[Adrien C]

Give a breack at Gh0st, he has been brain washed by the American media.

We know he was a terrorist before, but hey, is not because Israel has tanks that you can't call them terrorist, they also kill inocent people, I call that terrorism.

And what about Mandela ? Because he was in the guerilla you will insult him at his death ? Look what the man has done.

[DreamThrall]

That's such a condescending way to look at things. It's unfair and shows an arrogance and ignorance to the complex situation there.

Not really... there hasn't been steady peace in that region for how many millenium now? What is it, 4000 years? 5000?

[Glo]

I completely agree, there is a great possibility there could be someone worse, and for the person who said I dont know what Im talking about, trust me I guarantee I know more about this conflict than anybody here. I assure you all of that lol. If you misunderstood my post, i will admit im not the best writer then say so and tell me what you think i meant otherwise, dont critisize me by saying i dont know what I am talking about. I know both sides of the story and do believe that both sides are not doing all they can do to gain peace, even though peace does not seem at all possible, neither side is helping. Of course I do think that one side is making more of an effort than the other, and that is just because the innocent good palistinians arent getting their voices heard, so I do think that the palistinians have a lot of good and some bad, unfortuanately the evil is overcoming good in this case.

about israel's side not doing enough. arafat used to finance terrorist activities, so we couldnt make peace with palestine, while having suicide bombers every week killing us. now that hes gone, his money wont go to terrorists. we can hope for good now.

[gh0st]

Give a breack at Gh0st, he has been brain washed by the American media.

please give a breack at me, the zionist devil entity has me thoroughly brainwashed.

the mission of the PLO?
... to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.

the PLO has always used terrorism (aptly called commando raids) to further their agenda. they have used and abused it since 75. they would achieve peace by attempting to provoke an all out war against israel, and by using terrorist actions against them. he ignored the oslo peace agreements, and simply left camp david summits. the biggest mistake the US has made was supporting him, it pains me. he claims to be a man of peace, yet lets known criminals and terrorist leaders out of PA jails, and arms them illegally.


And what about Mandela ? Because he was in the guerilla you will insult him at his death ? Look what the man has done.
nelson mandela is an entirely different bag of beans.

[peoplesuc]

"It was land the Israelis held in biblical times and the only reason they are there now is via treaty after WWII. The Palestinians were forced out of their homes and off their land by Israeli "settlers". Check your history books before you flaunt your ignorance in this manner."

Wow that is pretty arrogant of you to say.
By the way for some reason a lot of arabs have a thing about arrogance. Just bias personal opinion.

[PunisherUSA]

You're not alone gh0st ;)

It's not very christian, but FINALLY!

Sorry, truth is, Arafat supported terrorism to the end.

btw, I like it when people say "you've been brainwashed by the media", esp. when they most likely learned such a position from the media as well...

[Abdi]

wow some people here are so racist... :\

[Glo]

You're not alone gh0st ;)

It's not very christian, but FINALLY!

Sorry, truth is, Arafat supported terrorism to the end.

btw, I like it when people say "you've been brainwashed by the media", esp. when they most likely learned such a position from the media as well...

truth.

[Llama]

Yep. He died.

Proof please.

[Rocketman9mm]

will he still have that picnic table cloth on his head at the funeral?

[Tr0n]

will he still have that picnic table cloth on his head at the funeral?More than likely.....yes.

[sublidieminal]

You're not alone gh0st ;)

It's not very christian, but FINALLY!

Sorry, truth is, Arafat supported terrorism to the end.

btw, I like it when people say "you've been brainwashed by the media", esp. when they most likely learned such a position from the media as well...

= Bush Voter

Why the label? Because of his ignorance on terrorism.

[Danimal]

I wasn't sure who Arafat was until I heard about his illness...

[johnnypoopoopant]

im the only one who picked yes :eek:

[Robinhood_01]

What i find strange is that his wife is a christian.....
Well.....now let's hope that the fighting ends and Israel can take back what is theirs.
This is what Yasser Arafat had to say about Isreal "It's ours, it's ours, it's our" and "we need to push our enemy (meaning Israel) into the sea".
There wasn't any chance of peace while this guy was still alive, and there won't ever be peace in the area until the world ends.

Oh and by the way, the only way we get any news from overseas is by the media unless a family member is involved so we have to base all our opinions on what they have portrayed (unless we know someone who can tell us their version of the truth).

[Neutrino]

I don't particularly like taking joy in another human being's death.

[fuzzy_aus]

I agree Neutrino. I'm never happy to see anyone died, no matter the life they lived.

[Maxi]

This will make the whole israeli/palestine thing alot more violent...

[[[LuCkY]]]

Yep. He died.

Do you even watch the news? He's only in a coma.

[Maxi]

The whole situation over there in israel can be blamed on christianity, without it, they would not fight over that land.

[The Dark Elf]

Merged all three clone threads..

[Gunner]

Good riddance.

[Maxi]

]']Do you even watch the news? He's only in a coma.

Apparently he is brain dead, he suffered a severe hemmaredge in the head that caused it.

[Gunner]

]']Do you even watch the news? He's only in a coma.

No, he's dead.

[J0shuaC]

Daddy!!!

*Crys* ;(

[Tropico]

All depends who takes his seat now.

[Wicked Spider]

woah. I wonder what this will mean for Palestine?

what his leadership meant for the palastine ppl was death and destruction while his own bank account had over 200 million $ money he took from his ppl.

the terrorist is dead now i hope for the palastine ppl that there will be a leader who realy wants peace for the whole region

[Homer]

We aren't going to stop 1400 years of war with a little land deal in Israel. The middle east will be at war until some single power takes it decisively.

And yes I'm glad hes dead. He was a terrorist.

[[[LuCkY]]]

No, he's dead.

He's dead as of today NOW, but he was NOT dead before.

[The Monkey]

He was a fine man. He even received the Nobel Piece Prize.

[gh0st]

He was a fine man. He even received the Nobel Piece Prize.
ha.. hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhahaa. for backing out of the vaunted oslo accords? the guy didnt do shit, its all for show.

[Burn]

I have no idea who he was.

[el Chi]

maybe it should be. im not going to post my condolences for this asshat, why should i?
It's fine if you don't post your condolences, but that's no reason to post your uninformed, ignorantly biased view followed by a shoddy insult at someone's mum. What a great political debater you are "asshat".

We aren't going to stop 1400 years of war with a little land deal in Israel. The middle east will be at war until some single power takes it decisively.

And yes I'm glad hes dead. He was a terrorist.
You're wrong, he wasn't a terrorist. Hamas was a terrorist group and he wasn't part of that, but perhaps you're grouping him in with that because he's also from Palestine? How open-minded of you.
And that "single power" taking it decisively is the exact scary neo-Imperialist view that too many Americans adopt. It's sickening.

long last
dont put israel a bad name. we want to make peace with palestines, just some leaders get in our way.
Leaders like Ariel Sharon.

[CptStern]

ha.. hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhahaa. for backing out of the vaunted oslo accords? the guy didnt do shit, its all for show.

no, get your facts straight. The assination of Itzhak rabin in 95 by a right wing israeli was the downfall of the oslo accords. His successor Netanyahu (Peres lasted only a short while) kept pushing the israeli settlements into contested land (which were in direct violation of the accords, which further escalated the violence and undermined Arafat's work in getting the israelis and palestinians to the peace table ...exactly what the Israeli hardliners wanted) and eventually they fell out of favour

[jaguar_987]

I have no idea who he was.

He was the queen of Sheba

[Fat Tony!]

Ok I really need to watch the news more often, well I dont know much about him, but I have "heard" he promotes "terrorism". Palistine "terrorists" are probably the only terrorists I can actually agree with, they are resistance fighters, their country is occupied and Israil (spelling bad) ignores the U.N.

[gh0st]

in the 90s (before and after oslo) i think it was obvious to anyone with a pulse that arafat was not committed to peace. he simply left camp david in 00, arafat would not say yes to the US/Israeli proposals and failed to offer his own, directly before he launched the intifada. is what what you call peaceful?

Clinton said: "What the hell is this? Why is she turning the mistakes we [ie, the US and Israel] made into the essence? The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism."

Arafat said no. Enraged, Clinton banged on the table and said: "You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe." A formal Palestinian rejection of the proposals reached the Americans the next day. The summit sputtered on for a few days more but to all intents and purposes it was over.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4419440-103680,00.html

i know how you love to defend terror but read this and quit lying to people.

[The Monkey]

ha.. hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhahaa. for backing out of the vaunted oslo accords? the guy didnt do shit, its all for show.

No, but he got it beacouse at that time (the mid 90s) he was thought to be a great leader and a peace-bringer to the mid-east. But remeber, we don't deal out the nobel peace-prize, the norwiegans do.

[jaguar_987]

lol Im surprised to see you lot really give a shite, they could blow each other into oblivion for all I care.

[el Chi]

lol Im surprised to see you lot really give a shite, they could blow each other into oblivion for all I care.
That's very sad that you care about the fate of so many other human beings so much. You do realise that the situation in Palestine is just one of the many causes of the problems with Islamic extremist terrorism that so much of the world is being forced to fear.
I'd say that's pretty f*cking important.

[CptStern]

in the 90s (before and after oslo) i think it was obvious to anyone with a pulse that arafat was not committed to peace. he simply left camp david in 00, arafat would not say yes to the US/Israeli proposals and failed to offer his own, directly before he launched the intifada. is what what you call peaceful?





http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4419440-103680,00.html

i know how you love to defend terror but read this and quit lying to people.

no, you're using selective sources ..the accords negotiations began in 93, rabin was assinated in 95 and the accords crumbled from there. the camp david summit on the oslo accords had so canged the tenor of the accords that Arafat refused to sign. The agreement at the time was nothing like the one Rabin and arafat hammered out in 93

btw when Arafat was given the noble peace prize he said he was honoured but they shouldnt give the peace prize to people like him

[jaguar_987]

That's very sad that you care about the fate of so many other human beings so much. You do realise that the situation in Palestine is just one of the many causes of the problems with Islamic extremist terrorism that so much of the world is being forced to fear.
I'd say that's pretty f*cking important.

Shoot em all down, shouldn't have let em in the country.

[el Chi]

Shoot em all down, shouldn't have let em in the country.
Well done! You're a racist! Have a cookie :hmph:

[The Monkey]

Shoot em all down, shouldn't have let em in the country.

By saying that you lose all your respect. You are no better than the terrorists you are blaming.

[Adrien C]

The bad thing, is that that Israel is taking over Palestine, I'd like to see what you do when some contry takes half of your country then kills your people and asks for more land....

[CptStern]

Shoot em all down, shouldn't have let em in the country.

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain

let who into what country? palestinians? they were there before the jews

[jaguar_987]

lol Good luck in life boys ;) You take this crap way too seriously

EDIT: Love you guys too. Im glad you can call me all these big macho names online :)

[gh0st]

no, you're using selective sources ..the infantada was in 93, rabin was assinated in 95 and the accords crumbled from there. the camp david summit on the oslo accords had so canged the tenor of the accords that Arafat refused to sign. The agreement at the time was nothing like the one Rabin and arafat hammered out in 93

btw when Arafat was given the noble peace prize he said he was honoured but they shouldnt give the peace prize to people like him
im not using selective sources. clinton knew that the man was a buffoon, im not sure what the "infantada" is but the intifada started in 2000, im not sure where you're getting this 93 number. the whole thing was over by 92. arafat was directly responsible for the most deadly period of violence in israels history (outside all out warfare). how do you defend this idiot? he killed 427 civilians during this period in 6665 seperate attacks. how is that justifiable?

In an article this week in the international Arab daily Al Hayat, Amer blasted the Palestinians for rejecting former U.S. president Bill Clinton's proposals, saying the Palestinians had lost everything they had achieved in the political process.

Entitled "An open letter to President Yasser Arafat," Amer accused Arafat of turning his back on both the government and partisan institutions and organizations such as Fatah and the Palestine Liberation Organization. Amer complained that in the last two years, the Palestinians had turned from a people with institutions and frameworks to "warrior groups in forests and climbing mountains."

lol Good luck in life boys ;) You take this crap way too seriously
you are hella dumb.

[el Chi]

lol Good luck in life boys ;) You take this crap way too seriously
Good luck in life jaguar, you're clearly too ignorant to understand the workings of the world.

[Absinthe]

lol Good luck in life boys ;) You take this crap way too seriously

This is life, you ****ing retard. :rolleyes:

[Adrien C]

jaguar for once please STFU

[jaguar_987]

This is life, you ****ing retard. :rolleyes:

EASY, wouldn't wanna burst a blood vessel.

[colson]

Here is the article:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/obit_arafat (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/obit_arafat)
hopes he has a good day in hell!

Finally! That sonova bitch deserves to go to hell. I hope he has a tormented, brutal afterlife!

[The Monkey]

EASY, wouldn't wanna burst a blood vessel.

The arrogance, and the disrespect you show to other people, disgusts me.

[jaguar_987]

The arrogance, and the disrespect you show to other people, disgusts me.

Thank you

[CptStern]

im not using selective sources. clinton knew that the man was a buffoon, im not sure what the "infantada" is but the intifada started in 2000, im not sure where you're getting this 93 number. the whole thing was over by 92. arafat was directly responsible for the most deadly period of violence in israels history (outside all out warfare). how do you defend this idiot? he killed 427 civilians during this period in 6665 seperate attacks. how is that justifiable?

.

here read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords)

btw arafat had little or no control over the extremists that were responsible for the deaths of civilians

also there are more than one infantadas ..the one you're referring to is the Al-Aqsa Intifada. The one I'm talking about was in 1987 and lasted till the signing of the oslo accords in 1993. BTW the infantada loosely means "ebb and tide of violence" ...but it was used to talk about the period of civil disobedience that spiraled into violence on both sides by the time the accords were signed in 1993

[The Monkey]

Thankyou

Maybe I was a bit cruel...no I wasn't

[jaguar_987]

Maybe I was a bit cruel...no I wasn't

Pretty timid actually, could have thought up a lot more cruel things.

[The Monkey]

Pretty timid actually, could have thought up a lot more cruel things.

This is all just a big game, isn't it?

[jaguar_987]

This is all just a big game, isn't it?

NAW, what gives you that idea?

Did someone just twig???

[Absinthe]

Monkey, the buffoon apparently doesn't have a right idea as to what's important and what isn't.

[Adrien C]

I vot a ban on Jaguar, who is with me ?

[Murray_H]

Thankyou

"Thank you" - it never has been and never will be a single word

ROAR

[jaguar_987]

"Thank you" - it never has been and never will be a single word

ROAR

Merci beaucoup

EDIT: A ban for what? making you cry?

[Absinthe]

A ban for what? making you cry?

No, for being a moronic jackass.

[jaguar_987]

No, for being a moronic jackass.

I think you should be banned for offensive behaviour.

[The Monkey]

I think you should shut up.

[Adrien C]

Damn, troller, where were we ?

[Absinthe]

I think you should be banned for offensive behaviour.

Good for you. But I doubt that any reprimand I recieve will be that harsh, seeing as how such offenses were directed at a blatant troll.

[el Chi]

Finally! That sonova bitch deserves to go to hell. I hope he has a tormented, brutal afterlife!
Are you serious? That's absolutely horrible.

And jaguar, if you're not interested in the topic then just f*ck off out of the debate. Stop acting like a child.

I'd just like to make the following point. Regardless of whether you liked Yasser Arafat or not, his death is sad because the Palestinian movement have lost the figure they have rallied round for decades. As such, things have been thrown into chaos and as such, one of the following may happen:
1. a) The Palestinian authoritites, thrown into disarray, will not be able to decide unanimously on one leader, and it breaks down into petty factions. Violence escalates.
b) Amidst the chaos, the Israelis take the opportunity they have been waiting for to completely crush resistance aggravating the situation and much of the world community. Violence escalates.
c) Either happens, antagonising Palestinians and Islamic extremists, and "world terrorism" gets a bit more violent.
d) All of the above.

2. a) The Palestinian authorities decide on one successor who is worse than Arafat either in terms of diplomacy, as a figurehead, dissuading people from violence, etc. or all of the above.
b) The Palestinian authorities decide on someone better who brings instant and ever-lasting peace to the region which spreads throughout the world. Not going to happen.

Can't people, rather than pissing on his grave, accept the gravity of what has just happened and concentrate on the momentous repercussions it's going to cause?

[Adrien C]

Israel will surelly take over now, I call that an ivasion, the world, how ever, calls it war on terrorism.

[Tr0n]

Are you serious? That's absolutely horrible.

And jaguar, if you're not interested in the topic then just f*ck off out of the debate. Stop acting like a child.

I'd just like to make the following point. Regardless of whether you liked Yasser Arafat or not, his death is sad because the Palestinian movement have lost the figure they have rallied round for decades. As such, things have been thrown into chaos and as such, one of the following may happen:
1. a) The Palestinian authoritites, thrown into disarray, will not be able to decide unanimously on one leader, and it breaks down into petty factions. Violence escalates.
b) Amidst the chaos, the Israelis take the opportunity they have been waiting for to completely crush resistance aggravating the situation and much of the world community. Violence escalates.
c) Either happens, antagonising Palestinians and Islamic extremists, and "world terrorism" gets a bit more violent.
d) All of the above.

2. a) The Palestinian authorities decide on one successor who is worse than Arafat either in terms of diplomacy, as a figurehead, dissuading people from violence, etc. or all of the above.
b) The Palestinian authorities decide on someone better who brings instant and ever-lasting peace to the region which spreads throughout the world. Not going to happen.

Can't people, rather than pissing on his grave, accept the gravity of what has just happened and concentrate on the momentous repercussions it's going to cause?Cherish life...mourn death.

btw, Well written Mr.Chi chi. :P

[Bait]

Israel will surelly take over now, I call that an ivasion, the world, how ever, calls it war on terrorism.

Exactly, except for I wouldn't say Isreal would completely take over.

I want to ask a question to all members of this board a question. Explain to me the difference between a fanatic blowing a bomb in the middle of a busy street and Israeli soldiers firing at an unarmed 12 year old boy and his father for 45 minutes.

Both acts in my mind are terrorism, and both are heinous. The death of a civilian life is wrong, no matter how you cut it. But the Palestinians are fighting against an opponent who is not capable of doing any wrong in the world's eye, thus giving them a free pass to assult civilian targets under the pretext they thought it harboured "Radicals that posed a threat to Israeli civilians", while Palestinians are labelled as terrorists for attempting to fight in any way possible against a force that occupies their home country. The sheer hypocracy is so blatant that anyone who dares to argue this point is so utterly biased that there is little hope of saving him.

If everyone want to know the secret to peace in Palestine, I will tell you all now. Send the message to Bush, Cheney, or even your grandma, I don't care. Bottom line is: Remove the Israeli occupation forces from Palestine, you remove all need for violent actions. Bingo bango, you're done.

As for Arafat, no man can control the date of his death. It was his time to go. People who label him as a "terrorist" need to stop and think a little before they speak.

[el Chi]

Bait, I agree with you to an extent, but I wouldn't say that Israel can do no wrong in the world's eyes far far from it. A lot of people sympathise with the Palestinian cause and DON'T make the mistake of branding them all "terrorists" (how convenient is that phrase, Mr. Sharon?) and are pissed off at the extreme reaction the Israeli army has taken in so many occasions. I think many people realise that, whilst they may be more official, the army's retalliations are grossly disproportianate to the attacks. Sympathy also must be with the Israelis to an extent, though. It's such an incredibly difficult situation.

The solution to the problems in the Middle East cannot be resolved as simply as you propose, but I do see where you're going. The US government must withdraw a lot of support for Israel or at least use its influence to keep Israel on a tighter leesh. The continued support - both economically and politically - for Israel from the US is bad for both the Middle East and for the US, but it won't stop any time soon, sadly.

[Homer]

You're wrong, he wasn't a terrorist. Hamas was a terrorist group and he wasn't part of that, but perhaps you're grouping him in with that because he's also from Palestine? How open-minded of you.
And that "single power" taking it decisively is the exact scary neo-Imperialist view that too many Americans adopt. It's sickening.


You sir, are a moron. Take a look back at his life. The man not only financed terrorism, but on several occasions smuggled terrorists and their weapons into Israel.

Specifically in 1994 when Arafat entered the gaza strip he smuggled 2 PLO operatives in his Mercedes.

[el Chi]

You sir, are a moron. Take a look back at his life. The man not only financed terrorism, but on several occasions smuggled terrorists and their weapons into Israel.

Specifically in 1994 when Arafat entered the gaza strip he smuggled 2 PLO operatives in his Mercedes.
No, you made it sound as if he was directly responsible for financing terrorism in the same way Osama bin Laden is. This is not true.
I'd like a link to your source of his weapons smuggling.
I imagine he did travel with PLO operatives. He was, after all, the chairman of the PLO.The main Palestinian terrorist organisation is Hamas. The PLO was not quite as bad.

Once again I would like to mention that what is more important at this time are the repercussions. The following is taken from here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4005027.stm).
Some militants accused Israel of causing his death and a leader of al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Raid al-Aidi, swore to avenge it:
"We hold Israel fully responsible for the assassination of our mentor and father... It was caused by the siege imposed on him."
I highlighted militants for a reason. Not all Palestinians are thinking along those lines.

[CptStern]

canada's parliament building had the palestinian flag at half mast ...not everyone saw him as a terrorist

[Kazuki_Fuse]

i did'nt see him as a terrorist. I think that Israel are more to blame than Palestine for the conflict anyway.

[SidewinderX]

First Off: Every should disregard Adrien C's comments on Israel, Palestine, whatever. He's an anti-semite, and that *kinda* influences everything he says.

A force of peace? He is responisible for the killing of thousands of Israeli citizens!

Talk about helping the Palestinian people? He's been giving millions and millions of dollars by countires and organizations to help the Palestinian people. Did the people ever see that money? No. It has all been depositied into personal accoutn of Arafat.


He was responisible for the murder of the Israeli olympic athletes as well.

I, for one, am glad to see him go. And I hope the PLO chooses someone that will actually make an effort towards peace.

[Homer]

^^ thank you.

[Adrien C]

First Off: Every should disregard Adrien C's comments on Israel, Palestine, whatever. He's an anti-semite, and that *kinda* influences everything he says.


First off, this thread is exactly how I feel actually, is not that I dislike your religion or anything, is just that, what you are doing in Palestine is unacceptable, I call it Terrorism myself, and the bad thing, is that no one moves a finger about it, why ? So many reasons that you wouldn’t understand anyway.

A bad example : Some ones leaves your house, and 2000 years later, you come back and claim it, the world helped the Jews in WWII by seteling them in now Israel, witch was supposed to be your old house according to history. First off, I find that kind of an un-proper decision, what would you say if the UK claimed backs half of the US, just because they use to live there? Stupid, you would say, that was 300 years ago, so talk about 2000 years ago when the Jews owned Israel back then.

Now, If I was given a chance to have a country for us, at least I would help the guys that gave us half of it, what did Israel do ?
Attack them, and take more of Palestine. What would you do if your country was invaded and you didn't have any means to defend it ? Well, guerrilla warfare is the only way out, unfortunately.

My main point, is that, I dislike the way Israel handle things, and why the international community doesn’t do a thing about it, and please don't tell me the media isn’t controlled , because it is.

Another point, when ever we mention a single thing about you guys, you IMEDIATLY start calling people anti-Semite, Nazi lover, neo Nazi etc etc. It always the same, when ever some politician has some balls to speak, the media attacks with this kind of BS.

So yeah, I’d like to see some one speak about it for once.

Thanks for your opinion any way.

[Adrien C]

Exactly, except for I wouldn't say Isreal would completely take over.

I want to ask a question to all members of this board a question. Explain to me the difference between a fanatic blowing a bomb in the middle of a busy street and Israeli soldiers firing at an unarmed 12 year old boy and his father for 45 minutes.

Both acts in my mind are terrorism, and both are heinous. The death of a civilian life is wrong, no matter how you cut it. But the Palestinians are fighting against an opponent who is not capable of doing any wrong in the world's eye, thus giving them a free pass to assult civilian targets under the pretext they thought it harboured "Radicals that posed a threat to Israeli civilians", while Palestinians are labelled as terrorists for attempting to fight in any way possible against a force that occupies their home country. The sheer hypocracy is so blatant that anyone who dares to argue this point is so utterly biased that there is little hope of saving him.

If everyone want to know the secret to peace in Palestine, I will tell you all now. Send the message to Bush, Cheney, or even your grandma, I don't care. Bottom line is: Remove the Israeli occupation forces from Palestine, you remove all need for violent actions. Bingo bango, you're done.

As for Arafat, no man can control the date of his death. It was his time to go. People who label him as a "terrorist" need to stop and think a little before they speak.


Arafat wasn't a good man, but he did keep faith in the Palestine people, and above all, he gave them hope.

Edit: Bah, was hoping for some debate before going to bed :(

[The Dark Elf]

Exactly, except for I wouldn't say Isreal would completely take over.

I want to ask a question to all members of this board a question. Explain to me the difference between a frantic blowing a bomb in the middle of a busy street and Israeli soldiers farting at an unarmed 12 year old boy and his father for 45 minutes.

Both acts in my mind are terrorism, and both are hernias. The death of a civilian life is wrong, no matter how you cut it. But the Palestinians are fighting against an opponent who is not capable of doing any wrong in the world's eye, thus giving them a free pass to assult civilian targets under the pretext they thought it harboured "Radicals that posed a threat to Israeli civilians", while Palestinians are labelled as terrorists for attempting to fight in any way possible against a force that occupies their home country. The sheer hypocracy is so blatant that anyone who dares to argue this point is so utterly biased that there is little hope of saving him.

If everyone want to know the secret to peace in Palestine, I will tell you all now. Send the message to Bush, Cheney, or even your grandma, I don't care. Bottom line is: Remove the Israeli occupation forces from Palestine, you remove all need for violent actions. Bingo bango, you're done.

As for Arafat, no man can control the date of his death. It was his time to go. People who label him as a "terrorist" need to stop and think a little before they speak.


I think its about time this thread got moved to the political section


*moved n stuff*

[Jackal hit]

it all depends on who takes power next. i am pretty apothetic about this in general.

[Tropico]

Was does apothetic mean? Cant find it in dictionary.
Anyway i agree with you it all depends who will be in control next.
But judging by the funeral images chaos is isntalled everyone is in charge.
I hope they pull themselves together to begin the peace process.
Peace bieng the key word.
i would like to know what his will says about his money who will it go to.

[The Monkey]

The freedom fighters in France during WWII was terrorists too, wren't they?

[Tropico]

Yeah freedom fighters rebel fighters terrorists all the same depends on whos side you are on.

[Tropico]

i mean almost every country was born of some kind of belic outcome.
Obviously there are some exceptions.

[SidewinderX]

Another point, when ever we mention a single thing about you guys, you IMEDIATLY start calling people anti-Semite, Nazi lover, neo Nazi etc etc. It always the same, when ever some politician has some balls to speak, the media attacks with this kind of BS.
No, I called you an anti-semite because you have repeataly made degragatory comments towards Jews. Multiple times.

A bad example : Some ones leaves your house, and 2000 years later, you come back and claim it, the world helped the Jews in WWII by seteling them in now Israel, witch was supposed to be your old house according to history. First off, I find that kind of an un-proper decision, what would you say if the UK claimed backs half of the US, just because they use to live there? Stupid, you would say, that was 300 years ago, so talk about 2000 years ago when the Jews owned Israel back then.

Now, If I was given a chance to have a country for us, at least I would help the guys that gave us half of it, what did Israel do ?
Attack them, and take more of Palestine. What would you do if your country was invaded and you didn't have any means to defend it ? Well, guerrilla warfare is the only way out, unfortunately.

My main point, is that, I dislike the way Israel handle things, and why the international community doesn’t do a thing about it, and please don't tell me the media isn’t controlled , because it is.

Yes, you're right, that is a bad example. The English didn't originally live here, and those that did had a thing called a "revolution." You might have heard of it.... It was what founded America.

But the reason why they were given a country was because they have been oppressed for 2000 years. Name a single other group of people that have been outlawed, oppressed, and had multiple attempts to systematically kill them in nearly every country they've settled in.

Yes, Israel hasn't done everything "right" with the Palestinians. But consider this. They're finally given a country where they AREN'T oppressed, and they want to keep it. From the moment they formed the nation, they've been under attack.

I don't mean this as a "get out of Israel in every way" type thing, but there are many other Islamic countries in the area; there is NO other Jewish country. And yes, the other Islamic countries aren't letting them settle in thier country. That's part of the problem. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc., want conflict in Israel. If they let Palestinians settle in thier country, that will remove some of the tension. That's why the Palestinians have to live in refugee camps on the borders.



And, in the end, I think the whole situation will come down to who wants it more. And, if the past 3 wars have been any indication, it looks like Israel does.

[Eg.]

i dont think thats a good argument, that just makes peopel like adrian c angrier. but yes, he is a dumbass. heres a good one; the british had colonized palastine, an dth arabs had no problem. the jews came in, and what? ...kill them! JIhad!! if anything the "palastinians" are reacist. they only called themselves palastinians in the 1970'z

[K e r b e r o s]

Good point Eg. Although, I dont know the point of trying to kill jews--their behavior of "Settleing" came in with the placement of the British, who knew Jews fleeing from Europe during or after WWII, would'nt be accepted in Countries like France, Spain, Britain, Italy, Greece, West Germany, East Germany, Poland, or Russia.

The Contingent of suvivors was infact forced south, and now its appeared to be a quagmire for an approach to peace.

I still dont know how the whole scheme got started, but people like Sharone or Arafat, I believe perpetrait such things as this to occur, because without it, their positions hold no purpose.

[Eg.]

that was the firts time someone agreed with me on this board...ahhhh.

but anyway, i think the biggest threat to isreal right now are those 6 yearolds making grenades, cnat shoot them cause their cute and all.

[CptStern]

what an idiotic statement

[Eg.]

what an idiotic statement


if a little kid with a bomb came up to u yelling allah ackbar, would u hesitate to shoot them?

[K e r b e r o s]

Oh, he'd shoot him.

[CptStern]

if a little kid with a bomb came up to u yelling allah ackbar, would u hesitate to shoot them?

link me with even one 6 year old suicide bomber

[Eg.]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12499

biotch, also, they mostly just take a bag full of grenades and chuck iit at the isrealis, the arabs know that the soldeirs wont shoot back

[CptStern]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12499

biotch, also, they mostly just take a bag full of grenades and chuck iit at the isrealis, the arabs know that the soldeirs wont shoot back


I asked for 6 year olds. Btw that's not exactly a reputable link. David Horowitz is a right wing nutjob. Any site that's written by the author of books like "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left" and ...damn it gets better:


The Hate America Left
This book blows the lid off the network of academics, lawyers, fundraisers and professional agitators providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Hating Whitey
David Horowitz shows that the anti-white racism of the Left remains one of the few taboo subjects in America.

The Politics of Bad Faith
Behind the facade of liberalism the Left has continued to advance its socialist schemes: to redistribute resources according to race, gender, and class and to turn Big Government into Big Brother.


:upstare:

[K e r b e r o s]

Awe, CptStern has no outlet for his political discussions, so he has to word it out in a lengthly post that...<drumroll> has no purpose! You get a cookie, MrStern!

Go ahead, enjoy it! That warm, fresh out of the oven feel--with grandma's wholesome baked taste...

... wait a moment? Grandma was in the cookie?!

[Eg.]

and another thing, why is everyone comparing taking pics of arabs in a prison to arabs beheadding people, there is no real common ground. the two are sooo radically different

[CptStern]

and another thing, why is everyone comparing taking pics of arabs in a prison to arabs beheadding people, there is no real common ground. the two are sooo radically different

that's the least of their crimes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24620-2004Jul2.html)

at least beheading is a clean death compared to being terrorized then thrown into a river with your hands tied behind your back

btw the the iraqis who drowned were caught breaking curfew. The last thing they probably heard was the sound of the american soldiers laughter

[Eg.]

are we drowning iraqis everyday, airing videos, and yelling ALLAH ACKBAR just before we do? i never said our troops are completely innocent, its just that comparing them to the terrorists (not the mujhadeem, not there name) is completely insane. what are u, non american?

[CptStern]

are we drowning iraqis everyday, airing videos, and yelling ALLAH ACKBAR just before we do? i never said our troops are completely innocent, its just that comparing them to the terrorists (not the mujhadeem, not there name) is completely insane. what are u, non american?

there are over 300 cases of reported abuse, and over 1000 estimated that went unreported ..there are over 14,000 iraqi civilians dead, over 30,000 wounded. Their methods may be crude and barbaric but they are nothing compared to the bodycount caused by the US invasion

"what are u, non american"

wtf is that supposed to mean? do only americans see the "truth" or are you the only ones still fooled by this "war"?

[Eg.]

really, are u non american, any way, ware has civilian deaths, for gods sakes man, the french are now started to say the cost of their dead was too high in WWII, TO BE LIBERATED FROM THE NAZIS, if people take that attitude, then that nation is a good as dead in 20 years.


i have no problem with a bomb acccidently hit a deli instead of a iraqi tank 20 feet away. there, i said it.

[Ecthe|ioN]

Too bad he died before seeing the arrival of piece. At least he put up a good fight.

[CptStern]

really, are u non american, any way, ware has civilian deaths, for gods sakes man, the french are now started to say the cost of their dead was too high in WWII, TO BE LIBERATED FROM THE NAZIS, if people take that attitude, then that nation is a good as dead in 20 years.


i have no problem with a bomb acccidently hit a deli instead of a iraqi tank 20 feet away. there, i said it.


7000 accidents seems a bit high dont you think?

[Eg.]

not at all.

[Absinthe]

7000 accidents seems a bit high dont you think?

It most certainly does when one considers how much the US had been bragging about its accurate and flawless technology right before the war.

[The Monkey]

Eg.: What if China(for example) attacked the US, and killed 100 000 civilians, killing children on thier way to school. Would that have been alright?

[Eg.]

nuke em.

thats the thing, i care much more about americans more than i do other people. people try to put their ideals and morals when disscussing wars. that doesnt work. the other side doesnt give a damn, and nor do i. its war people, not a debate, be happy that ur on the winning side (even though it would be a cold day in hell before iraq invades the US)

my grandfather was in a concentration camp in WWII, it was bombed by american planes since it was aslo a slave-run munitions plant. he saw a shit load of inncoent people die becasue of american bombs, but didnt give a dman cause as long as he was alive he was happy, as long as the nazis were deing, he was happy

[Absinthe]

nuke em.

thats the thing, i care much more about americans more than i do other people. people try to put their ideals and morals when disscussing wars. that doesnt work. the other side doesnt give a damn, and nor do i. its war people, not a debate, be happy that ur on the winning side (even though it would be a cold day in hell before iraq invades the US)

Okay... You see, that kind of argument doesn't work seeing as how the war in Iraq is not retaliatory. It's supposed to be an attempt to "liberate" the Iraqi people.

Your view on this matter is flawed on a very base level.

[Eg.]

well if u want to get technical, the germans didnt attack us, the japanese did. so we should never have had anything to do with europe, let hitler go off and kill off as many as possible.

also, during WWII, Roosvelt spoke of "liberation Europe form facism" same thing, different name

[Absinthe]

well if u want to get technical, the germans didnt attack us, the japanese did. so we should never have had anything to do with europe, let hitler go off and kill off as many as possible.

also, during WWII, Roosvelt spoke of "liberation Europe form facism" same thing, different name

So would we have "liberated" Europe if we nuked them?

[Eg.]

i didnt say nuke europe, oh wait, the nuke was made for that, the abomb was originally made to bomb germany, since they started their nuke program in 1934, and most of the american nuke designers were jewish, nothing against jews, but why would the jews want to nuke germany?

[Adrien C]

No, I called you an anti-semite because you have repeataly made degragatory comments towards Jews. Multiple times.

Perhaps, but my statment is still true.



But the reason why they were given a country was because they have been oppressed for 2000 years. Name a single other group of people that have been outlawed, oppressed, and had multiple attempts to systematically kill them in nearly every country they've settled in.

I really can't find a source that says, why have the Jews been allways opressed like this, there must be a reason. Any comments on that one ? I'd like to know

Yes, Israel hasn't done everything "right" with the Palestinians. But consider this. They're finally given a country where they AREN'T oppressed, and they want to keep it. From the moment they formed the nation, they've been under attack.

Wouldn't you do the same if a nation took half of your country ?




And, in the end, I think the whole situation will come down to who wants it more. And, if the past 3 wars have been any indication, it looks like Israel does.

On my opinion, they are not handeling things very well, the International community is making more and more coments about the conflict, I mean, lunching a missile on a crowd is wrong, the UN won't take long to arrive.

[Eg.]

ok, lets go over somethings

your sir, are an ignorant bastard

now, they have been opressed on and off for 2k years, beacuse they were there and eveyone likes having a guy tp pick on, there never was a large amount of jews, so they really couldnt fight bacl


the palastinians never had a country, they only called themselves palastinians in the 1970's, before then they were just arabs, they no problems under british rule, but when the jews came in, they were like "OMG WTF!"

the UN does shit, in the 90's they had three seperate conflicts in africa where they did shit and got shot. look what happens in seirria leone,

the government was dealing with rebel forces who were chopping of the limbs of villagers that werent agreeing with them. the government hired a mercenary group of less than a hundred to take on 3k rebels, the mercs stopped the rebels for half a year. less than 80 South African Mercenaries stopped a large rebel army.

the UN got scared that this may cause mroe mercenary groups to arrive, and started spreadong rumors that the mercs were controlled by white people that wanted to retake africa for the crown, yes thats what the UN did.

the mercs were kicked out,the UN sent in 17K in troops, and they UN retreated 4 weeks later, because the security council couldnt decide whether or not to give their own troops the power to shoot back.

do u wnat me to talk about rwanda or the congo?

[Absinthe]

i didnt say nuke europe, oh wait, the nuke was made for that, the abomb was originally made to bomb germany, since they started their nuke program in 1934, and most of the american nuke designers were jewish, nothing against jews, but why would the jews want to nuke germany?

Eg, I really can't see any point that you might be making.

You said that you didn't mind if civilians died, so long as the enemy was destroyed. The thing is, the reason we went into Iraq (at least, the only reason we had left after claims of WMD's and Al Qaeda connections turned out to be bogus) was to liberate the people.

Last I checked, you can't liberate people when they're dead.

[Adrien C]

ok, lets go over somethings

your sir, are an ignorant bastard

now, they have been opressed on and off for 2k years, beacuse they were there and eveyone likes having a guy tp pick on, there never was a large amount of jews, so they really couldnt fight bacl


the palastinians never had a country, they only called themselves palastinians in the 1970's, before then they were just arabs, they no problems under british rule, but when the jews came in, they were like "OMG WTF!"

the UN does shit, in the 90's they had three seperate conflicts in africa where they did shit and got shot. look what happens in seirria leone,

the government was dealing with rebel forces who were chopping of the limbs of villagers that werent agreeing with them. the government hired a mercenary group of less than a hundred to take on 3k rebels, the mercs stopped the rebels for half a year. less than 80 South African Mercenaries stopped a large rebel army.

the UN got scared that this may cause mroe mercenary groups to arrive, and started spreadong rumors that the mercs were controlled by white people that wanted to retake africa for the crown, yes thats what the UN did.

the mercs were kicked out,the UN sent in 17K in troops, and they UN retreated 4 weeks later, because the security council couldnt decide whether or not to give their own troops the power to shoot back.

do u wnat me to talk about rwanda or the congo?

You obiosly don't know shit why the UN won't intervine, or the US in a matter of fact, and I can't be pissed to tell you why.

[Eg.]

You obiosly don't know shit why the UN won't intervine, or the US in a matter of fact, and I can't be pissed to tell you why.

pissed=i dont know what im talking about, my rebuttle sucks

[Eg.]

Eg, I really can't see any point that you might be making.

You said that you didn't mind if civilians died, so long as the enemy was destroyed. The thing is, the reason we went into Iraq (at least, the only reason we had left after claims of WMD's and Al Qaeda connections turned out to be bogus) was to liberate the people.

Last I checked, you can't liberate people when they're dead.


bad thought, bad thought, thats what the frenchies are saying now.

damnitt people, would u rather die knowing ur children would be free or would u live know they will grow up in a tryannical regime?

[Adrien C]

Oh dear, plase no more.

[othello]

Fox just interrupted That 70's show for this bulliten.

Hope power is transitioned smoothy. It doesn't sound like he really prepared for it.

lol, some producer at CBS was fired for interrupting some crime drama (CSI, methinks) to bring this bulletin to everyone. hahaha.

personally i'm glad the old dirty bastard is gone (arafat, not the rapper :laugh: ). he was a waste of life. oddly enough, the chances for 'peace' in the middle east is increased with his death, though it will never be acheived.

btw Eg., you are absolutely correct. the whole concept of 'the palestinians' is a complete fallicy. they've never had a country. they have no heritage. they have no culture. they have no language. all they have is hate-filled ignorance.

Okay... You see, that kind of argument doesn't work seeing as how the war in Iraq is not retaliatory. It's supposed to be an attempt to "liberate" the Iraqi people.

no it isn't. where the hell did you pull that from?

Your view on this matter is flawed on a very base level.

pot... kettle. kettle... pot.

[Mechagodzilla]

bad thought, bad thought, thats what the frenchies are saying now. Frenchies? Man, you're annoying. Are you trying to come across as a negative american stereotype?
damnitt people, would u rather die knowing ur children would be free or would u live know they will grow up in a tryannical regime?That's the line of thinking that gives us suicide bombers.

Only in Iraq, the people weren't giving up their lives to fight Saddam. They died because US missiles missed, and gunfights broke out with them in the middle.
You're not saying: "you should die for your ideals."

You're saying: "you should die for my ideals."

I find that reprehensible.

Okay... You see, that kind of argument doesn't work seeing as how the war in Iraq is not retaliatory. It's supposed to be an attempt to "liberate" the Iraqi people. no it isn't. where the hell did you pull that from?He pulled it from George W. Bush.

Are you trying to say that he has never mentioned liberating the iraqi people as a motivation?

With the lack of terror ties, the lack of WMDs, and the lack of any threatening action Saddam has taken in the last decade, liberation is the only motive he has left.

So yes, Eg's view is flawed.

[Sprafa]

Hey kids, I'm really tired of saying this, so please listen carefully.

Despite the large number of contributors, the greatest burden continues to be borne by a core group of developing countries. The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of June 2004 were Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ghana, India, Ethiopia, South Africa, Uruguay, Jordan and Kenya. About 10 per cent of the troops and civilian police deployed in UN peacekeeping missions come from the European Union and one per cent from the United States.

The largest contributers were from Pakistan (8,652), Bangladesh (8,211) and Nigeria (3,577). The biggest contributer from a western country is Poland with 739 peacekeepers on a 19th place. The USA ranks 26th with 430 peacekeepers. The EU combined have 4,532 peacekeepers.

The head of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Under-Secretary- General Jean-Marie Guéhenno, has reminded Member States that “the provision of well-equipped,well-trained and disciplined military and police personnel to UN peacekeeping operations is a collective responsibility of Member States. Countries from the South should not and must not be expected to shoulder this burden alone”.

As of May 2004, in addition to military and police personnel, more than 3,400 international civilian personnel, 1,500 UN Volunteers and nearly 6,500 local civilian personnel worked in UN peacekeeping missions.

A total of almost 2000 soldiers, hailing from over 100 countries, have been killed while serving on peacekeeping missions. 30% of the fatalities in the first 55 years of UN peacekeeping occurred in the years 1993-1995.

That it is mostly developing nations that participate in peacekeeping is largely explained by the fact that such countries more readily appear neutral in conflict situations. Soldiers from these countries look far less threatening to a nation than ones from the United States or Russia would. There is also an economic incentive, as countries are reimbursed by the UN at the rate of US$1000 per soldier per month, plus equipment, which can be a significant source of revenue for a developing country.

So, please. the USA can't expect it to work without them perfectly. They are the biggest military power in the World afterall.

[Eg.]

but they do nothing, they havent done anything

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3573229.stm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Africa/SierraLeone.asp

hell in Sudan, they decided to sanction them, sudan as u may remember, is going through something called genocide, they want to make a country going through genocide poorer, instead of going in.

the U.N has not doen shit, looka the oil for food scam, the U.N has no power, noo sway, and not enough back bone to stay in Sierria Leone or Rwanda for more than 3 seconds

[Mechagodzilla]

hell in Sudan, they decided to sanction them, sudan as u may remember, is going through something called genocide, they want to make a country going through genocide poorer, instead of going in.

the U.N has not doen shit, looka the oil for food scam, the U.N has no power, noo sway, and not enough back bone to stay in Sierria Leone or Rwanda for more than 3 seconds

Of course, you have a solution to this problem, don't you?

Right?

Here's my solution: Have the US and the UN work together.
I know it's a radical idea, but bear with me.
In another thread you were going on about how the US had enough big shiny tanks to impose itself into any diplomatic or military effort.

So why didn't the US do anything to stop the genocide in Sudan?
Why, as a member of the UN, didn't the US petition the UN to take military action, and then send it's own troops?

My guess: it's because the US military was over-extended in a country that the UN told them not to go into, in a fight against weapons that the UN successfully removed ten years earlier.

Was Iraq more immediately important than Sudan somehow?
Their genocides ended ten or twenty years ago, after all. So why the urgent need to invade them?

Clinton demonstrated how the US's intervention is appreciated in times of dire need, like in cases of ongoing genocide. Not in "pre-emptive strikes".
The US acting as it did in Bosnia and the UN acting as it did in Iraq would be a powerful 2X Combo for peace.
And trust me, no-one would have opposed an invasion of Sudan under these circumstances.

The moral? Stay out of Iraq, get your ass to Sudan, and then complain about the UN.

[Absinthe]

no it isn't. where the hell did you pull that from?

From your President.


pot... kettle. kettle... pot.

How is my view on this flawed? You can't claim that your mission is to liberate the Iraqis and then simultaneously bomb a city, label the civilian casualties as collateral damage, and then say "Hey, this shit just happens". Well, you could do that. But it undermines the credibility of your just cause for war.

So please, tell me how I'm being hypocritical about this. Just look at what Eg is saying and tell me that I'm somehow misunderstanding something. Otherwise, I just look at this as an attempt to toss sour grapes my way.

[othello]

Are you trying to say that he has never mentioned liberating the iraqi people as a motivation?

With the lack of terror ties, the lack of WMDs, and the lack of any threatening action Saddam has taken in the last decade, liberation is the only motive he has left.

absolutely... has bush mentioned liberating the iraqi people? of course. as motivation for the war on terror? absolutely not.

as for your second paragraph, which is completely false, lets see... there were absolute ties between al-qaeda and iraq (whether these ties had anything to do with 9/11 is another story). i mean come on, if you were an islamic radical, would you be constantly defending a country you had absolutely no ties to? :dozey: WMDs have most certainly been found... just not to the extent we were told (which, before you say it, is not to be chalked up to a bush failure or 'lie'). remember that fake story about the missing explosives in iraq 2 weeks before the election? remember how it was infallibly shown that over 400,000 tons of explosives and weapons have been destroyed in 3 years? and that the 'missing explosives' were actually detonators from nuclear weapons, and there were 9 trucks full? the bush-hating chant of 'no WMDs have been found!' is about as ridiculous and easily debunked as 'no more blood for oil, wah wah wah!'

with the slew of reasons to invade iraq, liberation seems to be on the backburner, imo.

You can't claim that your mission is to liberate the Iraqis

no one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that. the mission all along has been to disarm/remove saddam. "mission accomplished". now, we are facing a resistance and other problems we did not calculate, and it is hindering our ability to, essentially, clean up and move out.

[what!?]

I am glad that Arafat is dead. He was a terrorist plain and simple. The PLO is a terrorist organization. I mourn his death as Americans mourned Hitler's in WW2.

The Middle East situation is amazingly simple. Saying it is too complex for the common man to understand is a smokescreen. It is about religion. The arab states want Israel razed to the ground. Israel tries to defend their state, and face criticism from the vaunted "world community."

If your nation suffered the constant sucide bombings on innocent civillians, you would fight back. Hell, if this happened to the U.S.A., "Palenstine" would be a smoking crater.

P.S. The U.N has recently appointed Sudan to the Human Rights commision (fairly old news). The same Sudan that has a genocide going on now. So much for the U.N.

The U.N. members seek power. That is what motivates them. Power for powers sake.

[gh0st]

there are over 300 cases of reported abuse, and over 1000 estimated that went unreported ..there are over 14,000 iraqi civilians dead, over 30,000 wounded. Their methods may be crude and barbaric but they are nothing compared to the bodycount caused by the US invasion

"what are u, non american"

wtf is that supposed to mean? do only americans see the "truth" or are you the only ones still fooled by this "war"?
300 cases of reported abuse? how much abuse do you think saddam did... im willing to get it was a couple more than that measly number. 14k iraqis dead? what ever happened to that 100 thousand number? oh thats right, theres no reputable source that indicates the body count, and you wont for some time. all ~120 thousand american and coalition soldiers in iraq are angels :dork: get real, in a city that large, how many murders, rape, etc, do you have? add in the stress of war, of being shot at by insurgents using civilians and hospitals as cover and youve got one tense situation. youve never been in combat stern, unless its with a freakin polar bear. i volunteer at a VA hospital so maybe I have a better view of what its like for soldiers over there, and these counts are MINISCULE to what civ casualties were in vietnam, korea, ww2, ww1, shit even places like colombia.

[Ryjalon5k]

you said it

[Mechagodzilla]

absolutely... has bush mentioned liberating the iraqi people? of course. as motivation for the war on terror? absolutely not.

So all that stuff about 'freedom on the march" and overthrowing Saddam's oppressive dictatorship, the new democratic elections, and etc. That didn't happen? Just becuase he didn't specifically say: "This is our motive" doesn't mean it wasn't one.

...unless you are saying that Bush never gave a damn about iraqi people, in which case I might be inclined to agree, based on the number of civilian deaths deemed acceptable.

as for your second paragraph, which is completely false, lets see...
That's a rather stout claim, calling what I wrote entirely false. Let's see indeed, whether you have the evidence to back it up.

there were absolute ties between al-qaeda and iraq (whether these ties had anything to do with 9/11 is another story). i mean come on, if you were an islamic radical, would you be constantly defending a country you had absolutely no ties to? :dozey:

I didn't mean that there were no terror ties at all, because it's common knowledge that that is not the case.
However, there were simply no terror links to the extent that was publicised. Saddam had let some Al-Queda train there for a while back in 1995 or something, but that's pretty much the extent of things.
Sure, having any ties to Al-queda is bad, but when Al-queda is operating out of something like 50 countries across the world, with many far more active than Iraq, it makes one wonder what the specific need for a pre-emptive strike in Iraq was.

Speaking of which, terror ties were far surpassed as a motivation by the assertion that Saddam was a clear and present full-blown terrorist threat to the US and western culture as a whole.
Of course, Saddam hadn't even attempted, nor was he planning, anything against any western country since a slapdash assassination attempt on President Bush (the first one) in 1993.

Now, because of the war, there are far more terrorists in Iraq than ever before. Which leads to your point here:
"i mean come on, if you were an islamic radical, would you be constantly defending a country you had absolutely no ties to? :dozey:"

Well, simply put, the terrorists aren't defending Iraq. They're attacking the US.
Al-Queda has one mission: make western culture look bad so that people will see radical islam as preferable.
That was one of the main points behind 9/11, and all that other stuff. It's half making the US look weak, and half making radicals look like powerful martyrs.

So, the Iraqi people, having led a fearful but mostly safe existance under Saddam, are suddenly confronted with the equivalent of over 11 world trade center attacks hitting their neighbourhoods. Obviously, it's a not surprising that huge amounts of them opposed this.

Neutrino had some links he posted a while back that showed the majority of polled iraqis resent the US occupation. So, of course, many of them have turned to rebellion and, consequently, Al-Queda. After all, Al-Queda had said all along that the US was planning to attack the mideast, invade it's countries and kill the muslim people. And the war in Iraq validated everything they said.

So, with Saddam's army mostly gone and the borders ill-defended, terrorists rushed in. Iraq had become the perfect vehicle for recruitment after all. The terrorists were and still are, extremely well-funded and well armed. Their motivation is two things: Look like the real heroes, and make the US appear weak.

And how better to do that than by giving the insurgency aid, cash and supplies, not to mention fighting the US alongside them?

Al-Queda's goal is to make the fighting last as long as it possibly can. to show the mid-east that the US version of peace causes nothing but a warzone the size of a nation.

So no, they aren't defending their ties to Iraq. There's no Iraq left to be tied to.
They are creating ties, and they are doing a very effective job of it.

WMDs have most certainly been found... just not to the extent we were told (which, before you say it, is not to be chalked up to a bush failure or 'lie').
You said it. Like the terrorism, Saddam's clear and present WMD threat was neither clear nor present. Insignifigant best describes what has been found.
What was it again? A few shells that could have at one time contained mustard gas?

Whether it was a lie or not important (although aluminium tubes come to mind).
The official reports have shown it clearly enough. Saddam hasn't had a WMD since 1992. He hasn't even tried to get more since 1998.
Sanctions and routine inspections made him give up on that dream. Hence, recently, the WMD threat Saddam posed was summarized as something to the extent of "Well, he has nothing, but once the sanctions are lifted he might very well have started to procure and maybe re-start the process of building a WMD program, eventually build a weapon, and then give it to some terrorists somewhere."

remember that fake story about the missing explosives in iraq 2 weeks before the election? remember how it was infallibly shown that over 400,000 tons of explosives and weapons have been destroyed in 3 years? and that the 'missing explosives' were actually detonators from nuclear weapons, and there were 9 trucks full?
Eh? You're paraphrasing a fake story as your argument?
And conventional explosives are not WMDs. They're WDs, and not illegal.

And since when were they declared to be nuclear detonators? How would anyone know that they were nuke detonators if they were destroyed/lost? And why is there absolutely no evidence of the 18 trucks worth of nukes that would go with them, let alone a plan to build a single nuke?
And I thought you said that it's fake?

I'm going to have to ask for your fake source here, I'm afraid.

the bush-hating chant of 'no WMDs have been found!' is about as ridiculous and easily debunked as 'no more blood for oil, wah wah wah!' When have I ever purported to hate Bush? I think he's misguided, yes, but what I really hate is a war that is fundamentally putting my society at risk. Whether it was Kerry, Bush, or Ross friggin' Perot, this war is a pile of blunders and mistakes done in the name of the ideas fundamental to my culture and my country.

And you're for "blood for oil?" Because I hadn't even mentioned that either. Ever, actually.
You're jumping to some sort of conclusion without a harness.
Your first error was the conviction that I am nothing more than some pro-Kerry ultra jerk. What you missed is that, now that the elections are over, I have nocandidate, no partisan agenda to support. I'm only in this out of some hope for some greater good.
That's where we differ.
Your opinions are based on your conviction that I am wrong.
My opinions are based on the conviction that I am right.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong for no reason.
I'm just explaining my point of view to someone who apparently doesn't like me very much for whatever reason.

with the slew of reasons to invade iraq, liberation seems to be on the backburner, imo.
Actually, it's now on the forefront.
How many times do you hear of the spiffy new elections, or the freedom for the Iraqi people?
On the contrary, where is any mention of conclusive WMD evidence, or of Osama and Saddam being bedfellows, despite being ideological opposites?

no one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that. the mission all along has been to disarm/remove saddam. "mission accomplished". This just confuses me, because other conservatives I've encountered on the board, like Eg, are adamant that the WMDs and the terror are nothing compared to the moral obligation of rescuing the iraqi people from their oppressive leader.

Although removing all the WMDs was certainly easy, I'm sure. A kid on a big-wheel probably could have removed them all himself. Yes, the mission was announced to be "accomplished". But the criticism for that announcement popped up for a reason:

now, we are facing a resistance and other problems we did not calculate, and it is hindering our ability to, essentially, clean up and move out.

You see, the pretense for the war was that America would go in, kick ass, topple Saddam, find the huge stockpiles of WMDs, and the iraqi people would parade through the streets while democracy fell from the heavens like so much candy.

But then what's this? Resistance? No-one planned for the iraqi people to be unhappy with all the bombing!

So, the mission isn't completed, for one key reason: The iraqi people haven't been liberated yet! Keeping the iraqis from reaching democracy is exactly what the resistance is trying to do. That's why they're called a resistance in the first place.


Also, I just realised that your whole argument against 'massive civilian casualties being a detriment to the process of creating freedom for the iraqi people' is that the US never really cared about creating freedom for iraqis in the first place.
B'oh.

[Mechagodzilla]

300 cases of reported abuse? how much abuse do you think saddam did... im willing to get it was a couple more than that measly number. 14k iraqis dead? what ever happened to that 100 thousand number? oh thats right, theres no reputable source that indicates the body count, and you wont for some time.

Right, so it's okay because Saddam did it. To modify the old cliche about peer pressure: If Saddam threw a prisoner off a bridge, would you throw your prisoner off a smaller bridge as well?

Yes, there is no absolute count. But no source I've seen has ever put the numer at lower than 15 000. All estimates are between 15 000 and 250 000 dead.
So Stern's assertion that it is over 14 000 dead is actually a very, very conservative estimate.

all ~120 thousand american and coalition soldiers in iraq are angels :dork: get real, in a city that large, how many murders, rape, etc, do you have?
I lived in Regina, Saskatchewan, which has a population of around 175 000. Every murder made the front page. There were around three a year, if memory serves. Certainly not the 14 000 that makes up the lowest realistic estimate.

Under your theory, that leaves at least 13 997 murders unaccounted for.


add in the stress of war, of being shot at by insurgents using civilians and hospitals as cover and youve got one tense situation. youve never been in combat stern, unless its with a freakin polar bear. i volunteer at a VA hospital so maybe I have a better view of what its like for soldiers over there, and these counts are MINISCULE to what civ casualties were in vietnam, korea, ww2, ww1, shit even places like colombia.

Again, it's a case of "it's okay because someone else did it too. Don't you think things have progressed just a little since 1944?

Ignore the fact that korea, and both world wars were far, far larger in scale, and that in addition to vietnam, they all continued for years longer longer than this conflict has gone so far.

Ignoring the fact that you're justifying at least 13 997 casulaties with the mere argument that they were going to happen anyways.

That brings up eternal the question of why you're in Iraq in the first place. The US brought the combat to Iraq, remember. The Iraqi people did not ask for combat. Polls show that the majority do not appreciate the combat.

The point of the war: to prevent death and stop terrorism.
The result of the war: death and terrorism.

The question is, are these deaths worth it? You're saying they definitely are worth it because they're not so bad. . But what was gained?

What required that the war be rushed, and that this death must result? Half of you say it was to protect the US. Half of you say it was to liberate the oppressed people. Which is it? Which is worth up to 250 000 dead?

Also, I think I read somewhere that Stern actually was in the military at some point. So I'd bite my tongue, nursey.

[CptStern]

ARGGGHHHH!!!! STERN in the military!!! nein, nyet, no, jamas, nunca, no ****ing way jose

can you imagine me in the army?

Sgt Hardass: Stern drop and give me 50

Stern: well according to the laws that govern humane treatment of soldiers I refuse on the grounds that it is demoralizing and inhumane

Sgt Hardass: yer a liberal commie arent you?

[gh0st]

i never said civilians deaths were right, mech. they are far from it, and i would hope that our government is taking all steps possiblet o prevent it. unfortunatly they are unavoidable, we shouldent even be int his shitty war but we are so we have to do the best possible. sorry i admit im about halfway through this shitty "popov" vodka do give me the benefit of the doubt.

[Mechagodzilla]

ARGGGHHHH!!!! STERN in the military!!! nein, nyet, no, jamas, nunca, no ****ing way jose
If it wasn't you, then who am I thinking of?
I swear someone with a similar avatar said something along those lines somewheres. :eek:

Either way, a non-soldier criticising a random person because they aren't a soldier is dumb.

"I'm opposed to killing people"

"Well, just try and kill some people, and then we'll see how much you don't like it!"

"What?"

i never said civilians deaths were right, mech. they are far from it, and i would hope that our government is taking all steps possiblet o prevent it. unfortunatly they are unavoidable, we shouldent even be int his shitty war but we are so we have to do the best possible. sorry i admit im about halfway through this shitty "popov" vodka do give me the benefit of the doubt.
Ah, well now I see what you're getting at. You sounded a bit excusey there.

My main point was that the war shouldn't have happened in the first place,because the ends don't justify the means. But you apparently agree, so I guess that ends it.

Actually, you're surprisingly easy to understand for being tipsy. :P

[gh0st]

a nurse? a VA hostpital full of iraq veterans actually.

[CptStern]

If it wasn't you, then who am I thinking of?
I swear someone with a similar avatar said something along those lines somewheres. :eek:

Either way, a nurse criticising a random person because they aren't a soldier is dumb.

"I'm opposed to killing people"

"Well, just try and kill some people, and then we'll see how much you don't like it!"

"What?"

heh that's alright ...maybe it was Sgt Shellback or Hapless, they're both former US soldiers.

I personally would never join the army ...a last stand militia repelling the invaders from my house, sure but a soldiers life? no I couldnt stomach losing my individuality

[Mechagodzilla]

a nurse? a VA hostpital full of iraq veterans actually.
I missed that bit. Edited!

[gh0st]

heh that's alright ...maybe it was Sgt Shellback or Hapless, they're both former US soldiers.

I personally would never join the army ...a last stand militia repelling the invaders from my house, sure but a soldiers life? no I couldnt stomach losing my individuality
at least in the canadian army youd know you could go on peacekeeping missions to some dustbowl in who-the-hell-knows-where. i bet youd find those more worthy of your attention.