Gaza militants fire rockets at Beersheba, Israel - Page 6

Oberon · 02-24-11, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsocialist

the nazis, not much different than zionists

Quote of the year?

Oberon · 02-24-11, 04:40 PM

I've got to agree with Schroeder here, I could do genocide better than that. Israel is doing it wrong.

Sailor Steve · 02-24-11, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

I've got to agree with Schroeder here, I could do genocide better than that. Israel is doing it wrong.

Yep, just like the epic failure of the American genocide against the natives. I guess I need to ask some of my native associates about that one.

Oh, and I said it first. Schroeder was parroting me.

Penguin · 02-24-11, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

I've got to agree with Schroeder here, I could do genocide better than that. Israel is doing it wrong.

You are right, Israel does a lousy job with their genocide. I can't understand why they release all the arab workers, doctors, judges, parliament members from their extermination camps during daytime...

Jimbuna · 02-24-11, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

$10 says herring is back.

Call your bookies.

I'll commence proxy checks....Neal will be inyterested if the checks prove worthwile.

TLAM Strike · 02-24-11, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Actually yes he did. He just wasn't with me on Constitution.

Oh that's right.

Didn't he serve with you on the Golden Hind as well?

frau kaleun · 02-24-11, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Oh that's right.

Didn't he serve with you on the Golden Hind as well?

I always thought it was the Argo... in fact he tried to sell me a "piece of the true Argo" once, but I turned him down. It looked fake and I was afraid I'd get fleeced.

Sailor Steve · 02-24-11, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Oh that's right.

Didn't he serve with you on the Golden Hind as well?

That was even beforer than the previous before.

I thought you knew yer history, boy!

Sailor Steve · 02-24-11, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

I always thought it was the Argo... in fact he tried to sell me a "piece of the true Argo" once, but I turned him down. It looked fake and I was afraid I'd get fleeced.

And I thought my offer was golden. I guess you have me between a rock and a hard place, Harpy.

frau kaleun · 02-24-11, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

And I thought my offer was golden. I guess you have me between a rock and a hard place, Harpy.

Very funny, plowboy. But I guess it's true what they say... a myth is as good as a smile.

The Harpy thing, though... that's a little too extreme for me. I like to think I'm more of a happy Medea.

Onkel Neal · 02-24-11, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsocialist

Lol that must suck for those who didn't post frequently but had a lot of posts on threads and it stayed up there until they came back to quickly post

Yeah, they usually make a freaked out post, followed by a confused post after that status.

Sailor Steve · 02-24-11, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

I like to think I'm more of a happy Medea.

Sowing the seeds of dissent? Hydra thought you knew better by now.

Hottentot · 02-25-11, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsocialist

Like i said "biased" is BS word to say you just don't agree with the source. Every source is biased. The best "source" is to go see it yourself either on video or in person.

Whoever told you that apparently forgot to tell you what "reference" means. What you just said is one of the most basic things that I think almost everyone here knows. It's called "source criticism" and I think you could practise that too. But that's not the point.

The point is what Raptor1 told you and I quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Citing (largely dubious) websites and telling us to search there does not constitute proof that the alleged genocide you say is being committed.

You are not using sources for an argument, you are making them do the arguing for you. That's a lazy man's solution. Or an ignorant man's solution, whichever one you prefer. If I said: "You are wrong, go read a book", even I would laugh myself out of the room. Instead the proper way would be to say: "X is like this, and it's based on that and that source" with direct links or references to pages.

Then we could argue about the sources if necessary without having to discuss whole websites. Just like it would be stupid if we had to prove that a whole book is bad if we wanted to argue about a certain point made by someone. It could be done after that, but it shouldn't be necessary. Vague links contribute to nothing, especially if you are just throwing them around.

02-25-11, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Yes it was...

No it wasn't TLAM.....
Been through all that before, read the quote you provided from Hansard and see the line which makes unilateral recognition of even that one part of occupied territirory null and void as terms and conditions apply.
It was all double speak. Britan acknowledges something and says it recognises it then quietly finishes by mentioning that actually it cannot acknowledge or recognise such things as there are agreed legal set ups involved which have to be followed.

So back to Steve with my "No it wasn't", it was occupied territory which Jordan held, it wasn't owned by Jordan.

Now we could go further and deal with the existance of Jordan itself as the creation of the Hashemite kingdom in mandated Palestine is another big joke by the British foriegn/colonial office.

MH · 02-25-11, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No it wasn't TLAM.....
Been through all that before, read the quote you provided from Hansard and see the line which makes unilateral recognition of even that one part of occupied territirory null and void as terms and conditions apply.
It was all double speak. Britan acknowledges something and says it recognises it then quietly finishes by mentioning that actually it cannot acknowledge or recognise such things as there are agreed legal set ups involved which have to be followed.

So back to Steve with my "No it wasn't", it was occupied territory which Jordan held, it wasn't owned by Jordan.

Now we could go further and deal with the existance of Jordan itself as the creation of the Hashemite kingdom in mandated Palestine is another big joke by the British foriegn/colonial office.

All this is pointless debate.
Question is what happens if tomorrow Israel withdraw from west bank and recognize Palestinian State.
For how long PA can hold on without Israeli help.
Who can guarantee that hammas will not take over west bank as well.

How long it will take before terrorist attacks start from Ramalah and Israel will get condemned for using force as it does right now in Gaza.
Any defensive action Israel took in Gaza or Lebanon is condemned by EU and knowledgeable citizens like you who know better what should be done.Or not done at all.
Israel is developing now billions $ systems to defend its cities from 100$ rockets and mortal shells.
Yes all major Israeli cities will be in range of cheap artillery because Israel is very small country.
.
Your plan is a perfect plan to weaken Israel even further by diplomatic means according to international law.
The thing is that when we comply to it we are screwed when we don't its the same.
Question is which is the list damaging from Israeli point of view not European.
You want to play Russian roulette do with your country.
Settling west bank is not an issue for a long long time so stop weaving this crap.

02-24-11, 04:40 PM	#77
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	I've got to agree with Schroeder here, I could do genocide better than that. Israel is doing it wrong.