IBTG81 Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Did you read what I said? I said Arafat should burn in hell as well. Yes I know his history. He was a terrorist supporter no doubt about it. All I said is that I can't wait until Sharon is burning in hell with him. Care to research HIS history? 113026[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Did you read what I said? I said Arafat should burn in hell as well. Yes I know his history. He was a terrorist supporter no doubt about it. All I said is that I can't wait until Sharon is burning in hell with him. Care to research HIS history? 113026[/snapback] I know Sharon's history very well. I know it enough to recognize a tough ex-military man whose mission is to protect his people, whether as a general or a PM. I understand it well enough to put it in the proper context of the Mid East situation, where a dovish strategy against a terrorist did not and will not work. A higher % of Israeli population has died as a result of suicide attacks than % of US population in 9/11. By your reasoning, is Bush on the same level as Osama by going after him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 I know Sharon's history very well. I know it enough to recognize a tough ex-military man whose mission is to protect his people, whether as a general or a PM. I understand it well enough to put it in the proper context of the Mid East situation, where a dovish strategy against a terrorist did not and will not work. A higher % of Israeli population has died as a result of suicide attacks than % of US population in 9/11. By your reasoning, is Bush on the same level as Osama by going after him? 113046[/snapback] You know, you're actually thinking BF has some reasoning skills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Hopefully his Israeli counterpart is soon to follow. 112944[/snapback] Oooo...this will get ugly. It should be a fun afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Did you read what I said? I said Arafat should burn in hell as well. Yes I know his history. He was a terrorist supporter no doubt about it. All I said is that I can't wait until Sharon is burning in hell with him. Care to research HIS history? 113026[/snapback] Two threads in one day that you are officially an idiot. Go memorize some more baseball stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 I know Sharon's history very well. I know it enough to recognize a tough ex-military man whose mission is to protect his people, whether as a general or a PM. I understand it well enough to put it in the proper context of the Mid East situation, where a dovish strategy against a terrorist did not and will not work. A higher % of Israeli population has died as a result of suicide attacks than % of US population in 9/11. By your reasoning, is Bush on the same level as Osama by going after him? 113046[/snapback] Those instances are not the same. Not even close. George Bush (for as much as I dislike him) has used the United States Millitary in operations against Osama bin Laden with the utmost respect towards not injuring or killing Afghan civilians. Under Sharon the Israeli military has been involved in the large scale eradication of Palestinian civilians. What makes Sharon so different then the Palestinian "terrorists". When he was 14 he joined Haganah. That was a "terrorist" organization opposing British rule in case you didn't know this. What makes him any different than bin Laden in that regard or Arafat? It's all about public perception. In the eyes of the United States or any nation, a person is defined as a terrorist or a freedom fighter based on the target. If the target is you or one of your interests you call the opposition a terrorist. If the target is an enemy of the nation then you have a freedom fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bagel Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Arafat is dead, good riddance. But Sharon has been killing civilians since the early 50's -- see Unit 101 in Qibya. Even the Kahane Commission, an Israeli investigative body, found him complicit in the murder of civilians in Lebanon in the 80's. This isn't a competition. But Sharon is no choirboy. In my mind the only hero in the region was Rabin. I hope that peace didn't die with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Arafat is dead, good riddance. But Sharon has been killing civilians since the early 50's -- see Unit 101 in Qibya. Even the Kahane Commission, an Israeli investigative body, found him complicit in the murder of civilians in Lebanon in the 80's. This isn't a competition. But Sharon is no choirboy. In my mind the only hero in the region was Rabin. I hope that peace didn't die with him. 113079[/snapback] Oh let's not forget the forced exodous of 160,000 Palestinians. We don't want to leave that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 When he was 14 he joined Haganah. That was a "terrorist" organization opposing British rule in case you didn't know this. Actually, the Haganah was one of a multitude of militia in the region at the time, and its purpose was the defense of Jewish settlements and infrastructure. And not only did it actively avoid conflict with the British, it was actually formed with limited British assistance. It's all about public perception. In the eyes of the United States or any nation, a person is defined as a terrorist or a freedom fighter based on the target. If the target is you or one of your interests you call the opposition a terrorist. If the target is an enemy of the nation then you have a freedom fighter. 113074[/snapback] Well...not quite. But since your definition is already at the edge of your limited ability to understand complex concepts, I shan't elaborate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 This would be more difficult if your tripe wasn't so predictable. Those instances are not the same. Not even close. George Bush (for as much as I dislike him) has used the United States Millitary in operations against Osama bin Laden with the utmost respect towards not injuring or killing Afghan civilians. Under Sharon the Israeli military has been involved in the large scale eradication of Palestinian civilians. Care to expound on the large scale eradication of Palestinian civilians? (I'm waiting anxiously for you to bring up the Jenin massacre) Or do you equate the leveling of Palestinian homes of suicide bombers as indescriminate targeting of civilians? Have you done any research on IDF's tactics in the Palestinian lands that go far & beyond any civilized standards of urban warfare? Are you aware that IDF puts its soldiers at greater risk when entering terrorist strongholds, because they try to keep down civilian casualties? Or do you equate a killed civilian who's used as a human shield as a victim of a wanton aggression by IDF? The moral playing field that you are trying to equate is not even in the same universe. What makes Sharon so different then the Palestinian "terrorists". When he was 14 he joined Haganah. That was a "terrorist" organization opposing British rule in case you didn't know this. What makes him any different than bin Laden in that regard or Arafat? History is replete with former "terrorists" hanging up the gun when the need for violence ebbs. Newsflash, Menachem Begin is also deemed a terrorist, but that didn't stop him from signing a landmark peace pact with Egypt. It's obvious to you that the intervening years between the 1940's as Israel was born to 2004 are for naught. It's all about public perception. In the eyes of the United States or any nation, a person is defined as a terrorist or a freedom fighter based on the target. If the target is you or one of your interests you call the opposition a terrorist. If the target is an enemy of the nation then you have a freedom fighter. 113074[/snapback] Hey, you finally got one right. I'm amazed how a man who gave birth to modern terror, who killed more of his people than anyone else, who held his people to a promise he couldn't deliver while enriching his pockets is deemed as a freedom fighter and a Nobel laureate. And that anyone on the other side of the charlatan who takes a tough position against his duplicity is seen as a thug. No matter, I'm doing a double time happy dance today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Actually, the Haganah was one of a multitude of militia in the region at the time, and its purpose was the defense of Jewish settlements and infrastructure. And not only did it actively avoid conflict with the British, it was actually formed with limited British assistance. Well...not quite. But since your definition is already at the edge of your limited ability to understand complex concepts, I shan't elaborate... 113092[/snapback] Say what you want about the Haganah, but they were responsible for thousands of deaths in the region in the 1940's. Of course you won't. You know that I'm correct in this case so the easiest thing for you to do (just like you always do) is to call me an idiot and run away saying you are too smart to explain something to me. While I'm on a hit parade today, let's go over another great Sharon accomplishment. After being named the head of the IDF Southen Commande in 1969.......... "In August 1971 alone, troops under Mr Sharon's command destroyed some 2,000 homes in the Gaza Strip, uprooting 12,000 people [Palestinian refugees] for the second time in their lives. Hundreds of young Palestinian men were arrested and deported to Jordan and Lebanon. Six hundred relatives of suspected guerrillas were exiled to Sinai. In the second half of 1971, 104 guerrillas were assassinated." This guy is a SAINT I tell you. LOL I can't believe anyone with half a brain would try to defend this man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 This would be more difficult if your tripe wasn't so predictable.Care to expound on the large scale eradication of Palestinian civilians? (I'm waiting anxiously for you to bring up the Jenin massacre) Or do you equate the leveling of Palestinian homes of suicide bombers as indescriminate targeting of civilians? Have you done any research on IDF's tactics in the Palestinian lands that go far & beyond any civilized standards of urban warfare? Are you aware that IDF puts its soldiers at greater risk when entering terrorist strongholds, because they try to keep down civilian casualties? Or do you equate a killed civilian who's used as a human shield as a victim of a wanton aggression by IDF? The moral playing field that you are trying to equate is not even in the same universe. History is replete with former "terrorists" hanging up the gun when the need for violence ebbs. Newsflash, Menachem Begin is also deemed a terrorist, but that didn't stop him from signing a landmark peace pact with Egypt. It's obvious to you that the intervening years between the 1940's as Israel was born to 2004 are for naught. Hey, you finally got one right. I'm amazed how a man who gave birth to modern terror, who killed more of his people than anyone else, who held his people to a promise he couldn't deliver while enriching his pockets is deemed as a freedom fighter and a Nobel laureate. And that anyone on the other side of the charlatan who takes a tough position against his duplicity is seen as a thug. No matter, I'm doing a double time happy dance today. 113093[/snapback] Happy Dance. (Tip tip, tap tap) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 History is replete with former "terrorists" hanging up the gun when the need for violence ebbs. Newsflash, Menachem Begin is also deemed a terrorist, but that didn't stop him from signing a landmark peace pact with Egypt. It's obvious to you that the intervening years between the 1940's as Israel was born to 2004 are for naught. So what you are saying then is if that Osama puts down his gun tomorrow and signs a peace pact with Israel then he's no longer a terrorist? Is that what you are trying to say here? It sure sounds like it. No matter, I'm doing a double time happy dance today. So am I. I certainly am not a fan of Arafat either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Say what you want about the Haganah, but they were responsible for thousands of deaths in the region in the 1950's. The Haganah was disbanded in mid-48, you pasty-faced doughy buffoon. Of course you won't. You know that I'm correct in this case so the easiest thing for you to do (just like you always do) is to call me an idiot and run away saying you are too smart to explain something to me. Precisely. What, I'm supposed to be offended by the observation that I refuse to cast pearls before swine? While I'm on a hit parade today, let's go over another great Sharon accomplishment. After being named the head of the IDF Southen Commande in 1969.......... "In August 1971 alone, troops under Mr Sharon's command destroyed some 2,000 homes in the Gaza Strip, uprooting 12,000 people [Palestinian refugees] for the second time in their lives. Hundreds of young Palestinian men were arrested and deported to Jordan and Lebanon. Six hundred relatives of suspected guerrillas were exiled to Sinai. 113098[/snapback] Good thing there wasn't a war going on... In the second half of 1971, 104 guerrillas were assassinated. And that's a bad thing because...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_Coach_Tuesday Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 DC Tom is kicking ass and taking names! You da man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 The Haganah was disbanded in mid-48, you pasty-faced doughy buffoon.Precisely. What, I'm supposed to be offended by the observation that I refuse to cast pearls before swine? Good thing there wasn't a war going on... And that's a bad thing because...? 113114[/snapback] The first thing was a typo. I didn't even notice it. I wasn't trying to offend you, I'm just stating fact. You resufe to discuss that point because you know I'm right. Yes there was a war going on, however a little restraint is possible even in a time of war. I'm not sure the United States has destroyed that much civilian property in the two years they have been in Iraq. Finally, that is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. It was just part of the quote. You see, unlike some others, I don't skew facts. I will leave that in there because it's fact, they got rid of 140 terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 DC Tom is kicking ass and taking names! You da man. 113115[/snapback] No he isn't, he looks like an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 The first thing was a typo. I didn't even notice it. I wasn't trying to offend you, I'm just stating fact. You resufe to discuss that point because you know I'm right. Yes there was a war going on, however a little restraint is possible even in a time of war. I'm not sure the United States has destroyed that much civilian property in the two years they have been in Iraq. Finally, that is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. It was just part of the quote. You see, unlike some others, I don't skew facts. I will leave that in there because it's fact, they got rid of 140 terrorists. 113119[/snapback] Yeah, because technology hasn't had any effect on the nature of warfare over the last 55 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest_Coach_Tuesday Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 No he isn't, he looks like an idiot. 113122[/snapback] YOU'RE the one who looks like an idiot. You're just reading verbatim from the pamphlets handed out at a Free Palestine moonbat protest at any liberal arts school campus. Your so-called "facts" are so easily refutable that most of us don't take your arguments seriously enough to actually engage you. Do you realize how tired the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" crap has become? If you're too stupid to understand the categorical difference between defending your people from brutal Islamofacism and purposefully, PURPOSEFULLY, BF, exploding nail bombs on schoolbuses full of children, you aren't worth the oxygen you breathe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 11, 2004 Share Posted November 11, 2004 Yes there was a war going on, however a little restraint is possible even in a time of war. I'm not sure the United States has destroyed that much civilian property in the two years they have been in Iraq. 113119[/snapback] What everyone else said, plus: Maybe you can write the next military manual on restraint in time of war. I'm sure the US is destroying an equal number of locations that host or provide support to terrorist activities. BTW, why aren't you labeling Barak as a terrorist as well? Or are Labor leaders exempt from that label by your sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts