Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

It's time for another game of ONE SENTENCE ANSWERS!

At 9/5/10 07:31 AM, satanbrain wrote:

They are not rebelling against hamas, do they?

But UN is os determined to put all israeli politicians and soldiers in jail, so we need to explain our reactions.

Bullshit call #1. I have yet to see any serious action taken by the UN against Israel. And can I ask which jail the UN uses to store all these Israelis?

But palestinians always had the support of Terrorist countries, they are frightened they may lose it, and then they'll be hated as israel.

So everyone in the Middle East and North Africa but Israel are terrorists? I don't see how stoping this conflict would damage Palestine's stance, especialy when Iran and Egypt and the other Palestine "supporters" are present at this peace talk.

Hamas got rockets from Iran, Iran got pretty long and accurate rockets. Hamas is still shooting rockets.

Hamas have to self manufacture shitty, innacurate and ineffective rockets. Iran has some pretty good missles, yeah. But transport and installation of missles and launchers is not a discete process. If this was the case surely Israel's death toll would be much, much higher.

'misinformation' means news Al-Jazeera and their friends have been hiding from you.

Al Jazeera aren't too bad, actualy. They tend to try and be the flag raisers, which can make them seem a little alarmist. But the only reason you don't like Al-Jazeera is because it's Arabic, but to be honest they're far more pragmatic and interested in understanding the people behind each military force. Of course she's just a well published and recognized Political Science professor with a PhD, she isn't Israeli enough to trulyunderstand the situation.

how is taking you and using you as human shield promise you safety? How is embargo on israeli products promise prosperity? If they realized they made a bad decision, why wouldn't they rebel?

Again, this human sheild stuff is military tactics. You feel it's loathesome and cowardly. But since you guys fired white phosphorous at a school I don't really think you can say much. The only Israel embargo google could find me was the well documented embargo on goods to Gaza - but you're right, this does not bode well for the people of Gaza. It does nothing for prosperity or wellbeing.

Recognized? Like a little kid who wants attention so he's doing bad things? What hamas truly want is destruction of israel and zionists. They were offered recognition during Olmert's days, they refused.

They offered a complete stop to their campaign in the mig noughties if Israel would leave Gaza and the West End. Israel has Hamas' leader assisinated. So for some reason they don't really feel like playing Israel's game anymore.

I'm going to link again to that Al Jazeer peice for those who didnt read my post as it's an interesting read.

At 9/5/10 09:01 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: Bullshit call #1. I have yet to see any serious action taken by the UN against Israel. And can I ask which jail the UN uses to store all these Israelis?

UN never take any action against hamas, hezbollah or other terrorists. why?

So everyone in the Middle East and North Africa but Israel are terrorists? I don't see how stoping this conflict would damage Palestine's stance, especialy when Iran and Egypt and the other Palestine "supporters" are present at this peace talk.

Iran, Syrria, Part of the lebanon army who joined hezbollah.

Hamas have to self manufacture shitty, innacurate and ineffective rockets. Iran has some pretty good missles, yeah. But transport and installation of missles and launchers is not a discete process. If this was the case surely Israel's death toll would be much, much higher.

they still haven't because they can't pass it unchecked by sea.

Al Jazeera aren't too bad, actualy. They tend to try and be the flag raisers, which can make them seem a little alarmist. But the only reason you don't like Al-Jazeera is because it's Arabic, but to be honest they're far more pragmatic and interested in understanding the people behind each military force. Of course she's just a well published and recognized Political Science professor with a PhD, she isn't Israeli enough to trulyunderstand the situation.

IDF - 60 years. this? much less. the only reason they're trying to 'understanding the people behind each military force' is that they could say each one is individual and not an organization.

Again, this human sheild stuff is military tactics. You feel it's loathesome and cowardly. But since you guys fired white phosphorous at a school I don't really think you can say much. The only Israel embargo google could find me was the well documented embargo on goods to Gaza - but you're right, this does not bode well for the people of Gaza. It does nothing for prosperity or wellbeing.

Shooting rockets from schools is less loathesome and cowardly i assume? relevant documented embargo? no.

They offered a complete stop to their campaign in the mig noughties if Israel would leave Gaza and the West End. Israel has Hamas' leader assisinated. So for some reason they don't really feel like playing Israel's game anymore.

the west end is part of israel. it's not just a right, it's a necessary territory that israel needs to defend itself, the wars in there proved that.

I'm going to link again to that Al Jazeer peice for those who didnt read my post as it's an interesting read.

'That's a Dr Larbi Sadiki news - an opinion peice'

At 9/5/10 10:03 AM, satanbrain wrote:

Same shit again

If you bother to write a proper fucking answer and use coherent English, I will bother to reply. All I'm getting from this is that your English is not good enough for you to participate in the debate.

And it's an opinion peice somewhat, but moreso points you towards the history of Hamas which is totaly ignored. It's a fragmented group and while there are militant entites, it's known that they also do services for the public others wont. Asuch, the public might only support certain fragments of them. Consider it like an extremist political party with no whip - nothing to oblige anyone to conform to a party wide consenus.

She's a published and extremely well credentialed PhD that a newspaper were willing to publish but claim their views are not neccesarily the same, as opposed to the random zionist bloggers you were trying to use as evidence.

Herpa derp terrorists r bad

At 9/5/10 11:36 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: She's a published and extremely well credentialed PhD that a newspaper were willing to publish but claim their views are not neccesarily the same, as opposed to the random zionist bloggers you were trying to use as evidence.

you are denying israeli doctors' opinions, why is this doctor better than them?

At 9/5/10 01:58 PM, satanbrain wrote:

you are denying israeli doctors' opinions, why is this doctor better than them?

LOL, where did I say that?

At 9/5/10 11:36 AM, Chris-V2 wrote:

If you bother to write a proper fucking answer and use coherent English, I will bother to reply. All I'm getting from this is that your English is not good enough for you to participate in the debate.

And it's an opinion peice somewhat,

Herpa derp terrorists r bad

lolz ur english no good neither lozl

At 9/5/10 03:59 PM, Ranger2 wrote: lolz ur english no good neither lozl

He misspelled a word, and made an obvious joke and now that means his english is no good?

Wow...that's a pretty fucked up world you live in.

Also lol at the continued biased fail of satanbrain, you realize making claims like you did about the UN with no proof casts doubt on everything else you have to say and wrecks your credibility right?

I before E except after C.

At 9/5/10 03:54 PM, Chris-V2 wrote:

At 9/5/10 01:58 PM, satanbrain wrote:

you are denying israeli doctors' opinions, why is this doctor better than them?

LOL, where did I say that?

you're denying the IDF's opinion which is supported by some israeli doctors. Also, some are supporting hamas opinion so it's quite balanced.

That's still inferring things I never said with no basis or proof to support them.

At 9/6/10 01:51 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: That's still inferring things I never said with no basis or proof to support them.

You said it's propaganda and bullshit.

At 9/5/10 04:14 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Also lol at the continued biased fail of satanbrain, you realize making claims like you did about the UN with no proof casts doubt on everything else you have to say and wrecks your credibility right?

I find it ironic that you're defending Chris-V2, seeing as in one of his PMs to me he denied the Holocaust.
Just keep in mind the "credibility" of your allies, too, in this debate.

At 9/6/10 02:29 PM, Ranger2 wrote: I find it ironic that you're defending Chris-V2, seeing as in one of his PMs to me he denied the Holocaust.

I find two things wrong with this post:

1. Show me where I've said "Right on Chris-V2, all that stuff you're saying is so accurate!". I've been dealing with satanbrain in numerous other topics, and I've dealt with his type before. I don't like them because he's what I think is wrong with both sides, he's a biased and blind nationalist who always has an excuse for why everything his people do is right, because they're the white hats, or at least the guys just trying to defend themselves from the horrible fuckers on the other side. As I've maintained over and over, peace cannot come through one side being forced to submit to the other. From Palestine living at the pleasure of Israel on soil that's not recognized as sovereign and vice versa.

2. The PM argument cannot be used in a debate. I've never seen the PM's in question. All I have is your word that Chris-V2 denied the holocaust in a PM, and I imagine his version of things is going to be different. That's the problem with trying to bring PM's into a debate, nobody has seen them but the people who viewed them and since it's pretty obvious you have a personal animosity towards him, um, why exactly should I take your word for this as being unimpeachable?

Just keep in mind the "credibility" of your allies, too, in this debate.

I think you should as well. But honestly, I don't find Chris-V2 to be my "ally" he seems reasonably well informed on the subject, and we seem to be in general agreement about the road map that must be followed to peace. But I hardly think that makes us allies.

Or are you basing that off of the fact that I called bullshit on your specious and frankly idiotic argument that because he misspelled a couple words that somehow means he doesn't know English and shouldn't participate? Had he made that claim on you, I would have said the same. A ridiculous and stupid argument is ridiculous and stupid no matter who says it and no matter how many other points I may agree with the person on otherwise.

At 9/6/10 02:05 PM, satanbrain wrote:

At 9/6/10 01:51 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: That's still inferring things I never said with no basis or proof to support them.

You said it's propaganda and bullshit.

I still dont follow how that means I discredit any PhDs you've mentioned, unless you'd like to name them and shame me.

As for Ranger, please stop trying to play the Holocaust card. This is not about nazis, has never been about nazis and will never be about nazis. The fact that you used it as part of your reasoning is frankly insane, unless you want to use it in terms of Zionist paranoia and the general Terraphobia found in Israeli jews. Calling me a holocaust denier (I'm not, incidentaly, I studied the horrific thing repeatedly during school) does not gain you an inch of ground because it doesn't improve your arguement.

But I'm sure if you keep mud slinging you wont need to apply, Fox will just give you a job.

Just so that people know I'm not making shit up.
I'm denouncing Chris-V2's credibility, that's all. Is this slinging mud? Technically yes. But people should know what is said behind closed doors.

At 9/6/10 06:38 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Just so that people know I'm not making shit up.
I'm denouncing Chris-V2's credibility, that's all. Is this slinging mud? Technically yes. But people should know what is said behind closed doors.

You do know you could've hit print screen, right?

Also, that was a troll war which I might add you started and I very much finished. For anyone who thinks less of me for holocaust jokes, suck a dick. Again, I'm just saying like, gotta brind these things...close doors...

lolocaust

At 9/6/10 06:38 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Just so that people know I'm not making shit up.
I'm denouncing Chris-V2's credibility, that's all. Is this slinging mud? Technically yes. But people should know what is said behind closed doors.

It sounds like he was just trolling you as in he was just joking to piss you off.

Also, even if he was serious...this thread isn't about the Holocaust, it's about the Iraeli/Palestinian conflict...what does the Holocaust really and seriously have to do with that?

When told he was leaving cause I called him "a knoearse or something".

So yes, I think "trolling" is the correct term.

Palestinians say unwilling to compromise for peace.

At 9/7/10 09:57 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 9/7/10 09:50 AM, satanbrain wrote: Palestinians say unwilling to compromise for peace.

The Palestinians refuse to accept a Jewish state or a Jerusalem that is not theirs! Geeba geeba it's all the Israeli's fault!

Although I don't like the settlements...

Geeba...Geeba Geeba.

Oh? What? Sorry. Nothing to do with shit like this.

It's already looking like an excersize in futility. And the 20 ship floatilla heading to Gaza is only going to add to complications as it will probably result in the same sort of debacle as the last one. Considering these people will be talking face to face while these events go underwar this could lead to a worsening of the situation.

At 9/8/10 08:23 AM, Chris-V2 wrote: Geeba...Geeba Geeba.

Oh? What? Sorry. Nothing to do with shit like this.

If gaza can be built, so does Judea and Samaria.

All i know is it's gonna be a long time before they get anywhere...

hamas is using phosphorus, hmm....

The Israeli's don't want peace. If they did, they'd give the Palestinians (with the backing of nearly the entire world) what they want. Namely: sovereignty over the occupied territories (with minor and mutual adjustments to the borders, this includes east Jerusalem), complete withdrawal of Iraqi military forces from the occupied territories, the withdrawal of settlements from the occupied territories, the removal of the illegal 'security' walls from the occupied territories, and an end to the economic restrictions (ie, the illegal blockade of Gaza) placed on the occupied territories.

Right of return is a point of contention, but the Palestinians have shown their willingness to leave that out of an immediate peace agreement, as represented by the talks at Taba. The Israeli's refuse to accept any of this, preferring to continue expansion into the territories over their own national security. If they did accept them, they would be begging their big brother (the US) to keep vetoing UN peace settlements (big brother US protect us from the meanies! they want to actually make peace with the Palestinians!). These particular peace talks are doomed to fail for several reasons:

1. The Palestinians are not being properly represented. Hamas, has no representation at the talks whatsoever, and Israel refuses to acknowledge them. They prefer to do negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, who is a president out of term who faces significant opposition within his own party.

2. Even assuming Abbas as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, they've been forced into a very poor position by the US and Israel. Obama has threatened action against Palestine if the PNA doesn't comply with the negotiations. And these particular talks were announced publicly before the Palestinian authorities were even notified. Of course, this forced Abbas into a situation where he really couldn't refuse to enter the talks.

3a. The Israeli's refuse to compromise. They continue to demand things that are of little significance to a pragmatic solution, like a recognition of Israel as the 'legitimate state of the jewish people'. Right, well nobody in the Arab world wants to agree to that, and for good reason, because they would be legitimizing their slaughter, torture, and displacement at the hands of the Zionist movement. What they have agreed to is a peace settlement among mutually recognized borders, which is all that matters for a pragmatic solution. Recognizing another state's "right to exist" is something that's completely irrelevant and virtually unheard of in international politics.

3b. Aside from the unreasonable preconditions set on the debate ('right to exist' among others), The Israelis refuse to make even a temporary compromise on the construction of settlements in the West Bank. The current freeze is set to end later this month, and Netanyahu announced that the freeze will not be expanded. Abbas has repeatedly asserted that if the Israeli's did not extend the freeze he would withdraw. So it looks like that's how this is going to end.

And there are other areas where Israel and the US refuse to compromise with the rest of the world on a settlement. But there are so many points of contention that it's not even worth listing them all. Needless to say, the US and Israel didn't call these talks to try and resolve the conflict, but rather called the talks to create the illusion of progress in order to satiate the western world. It gives the media (both in the US and Israel) good propaganda material that they can use to make the Palestinians look like fiendish brutes unwilling to compromise on anything, unlike the vigilant and just leaders of the West (Israel and the US) who are bending over backwards to try and offer these monsters a compromise.

Of course, for those of us who have been following the actual events of the conflict know that this is completely untrue. The vast majority of 'terrorism' in this conflict has been directed at the Palestinians, who are still constantly bombed, starved, displaced, and otherwise humiliated and oppressed by the Israeli occupants. By far the worst war crimes have been committed by Israel, who continues to kidnap civilians from the occupied territories, including women and children; continues to jail and torture protesters (even peaceful protesters); continues to build security walls further segregate the palestinians; continues to block essential supplies (food, medical equipment, and construction materials among other things) from entering the Gaza strip; continues to seize control of valuable water resources and arable land for settlements; and continues to bulldoze civilian villages in order to make way for more Jewish settlements.

"Peace talks." What a joke. The US-Israeli interests here aren't invested in peace. They're invested, as always, in dominance and expansion. These talks may delay violence, but they will not prevent it. More Israeli aggression is on the horizon. And those of us who bother to be aware, can do nothing but protest fecklessly and watch these horrific events come to pass.

At 9/17/10 04:08 PM, Musician wrote: The Israeli's don't want peace. If they did, they'd give the Palestinians (with the backing of nearly the entire world) what they want. Namely: sovereignty over the occupied territories (with minor and mutual adjustments to the borders, this includes east Jerusalem), complete withdrawal of Iraqi military forces from the occupied territories, the withdrawal of settlements from the occupied territories, the removal of the illegal 'security' walls from the occupied territories, and an end to the economic restrictions (ie, the illegal blockade of Gaza) placed on the occupied territories.

i am sorry but 3000 years ago these territories weren't palastinian, they were israel. occupied is another name for reconquered.

Right of return is a point of contention, but the Palestinians have shown their willingness to leave that out of an immediate peace agreement, as represented by the talks at Taba. The Israeli's refuse to accept any of this, preferring to continue expansion into the territories over their own national security. If they did accept them, they would be begging their big brother (the US) to keep vetoing UN peace settlements (big brother US protect us from the meanies! they want to actually make peace with the Palestinians!). These particular peace talks are doomed to fail for several reasons:

why arabs who attack israel, ran away hiding can now return to israel? why jews that left arabian countires can't return to their 'territories'?

1. The Palestinians are not being properly represented. Hamas, has no representation at the talks whatsoever, and Israel refuses to acknowledge them. They prefer to do negotiations with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, who is a president out of term who faces significant opposition within his own party.

israel is refusing to acknowledge organization who is refusing to acknowledge israel.

2. Even assuming Abbas as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, they've been forced into a very poor position by the US and Israel. Obama has threatened action against Palestine if the PNA doesn't comply with the negotiations. And these particular talks were announced publicly before the Palestinian authorities were even notified. Of course, this forced Abbas into a situation where he really couldn't refuse to enter the talks.

action against terror acts are meant to stop the attacks, not to threaten.

3a. The Israeli's refuse to compromise. They continue to demand things that are of little significance to a pragmatic solution, like a recognition of Israel as the 'legitimate state of the jewish people'. Right, well nobody in the Arab world wants to agree to that, and for good reason, because they would be legitimizing their slaughter, torture, and displacement at the hands of the Zionist movement. What they have agreed to is a peace settlement among mutually recognized borders, which is all that matters for a pragmatic solution. Recognizing another state's "right to exist" is something that's completely irrelevant and virtually unheard of in international politics.

why don't you first prove why slaughter, torture, and displacement by arabs can be legitimate?

3b. Aside from the unreasonable preconditions set on the debate ('right to exist' among others), The Israelis refuse to make even a temporary compromise on the construction of settlements in the West Bank. The current freeze is set to end later this month, and Netanyahu announced that the freeze will not be expanded. Abbas has repeatedly asserted that if the Israeli's did not extend the freeze he would withdraw. So it looks like that's how this is going to end.

it's going to end because palestinians want it to end. they don't want any building in any part of israel, the settlements is just an excuse.

Of course, for those of us who have been following the actual events of the conflict know that this is completely untrue. The vast majority of 'terrorism' in this conflict has been directed at the Palestinians, who are still constantly bombed, starved, displaced, and otherwise humiliated and oppressed by the Israeli occupants.

can you stop the lies? please?

By far the worst war crimes have been committed by Israel, who continues to kidnap civilians from the occupied territories, including women and children; continues to jail and torture protesters (even peaceful protesters);

throwing stones, molotovs and ruining property isn't peaceful.

continues to build security walls further segregate the palestinians; continues to block essential supplies (food, medical equipment, and construction materials among other things) from entering the Gaza strip; continues to seize control of valuable water resources and arable land for settlements; and continues to bulldoze civilian villages in order to make way for more Jewish settlements.

again, lies. palsetininas are their resources from israel, not hamas.

"Peace talks." What a joke. The US-Israeli interests here aren't invested in peace. They're invested, as always, in dominance and expansion. These talks may delay violence, but they will not prevent it. More Israeli aggression is on the horizon. And those of us who bother to be aware, can do nothing but protest fecklessly and watch these horrific events come to pass.

shooting 12,000 rockets is never an agression. civilians are counted only if they are palestinians and horrific events can be done only by israelis.

salam fayyad, palestinian prime minister, refused to acknowledge the idea of two states for two peoples.