Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/18/04 03:45 PM, TheShrike wrote: So you're saying we should let this situation sort itself out, Jim?

Sure, whatever.

At 4/18/04 03:38 PM, Jimsween wrote: First of all, they are happy bum, not everyone needs a pentium processor and has to be shoveling grease into thier mouth to be happy.

True. Just not having to trudge for an hour or four for a potful of filthy water, maybe. But they dont have that. They have to go trudging.

Second, I'm not saying we should all go out of our way to make conflict, I'm saying we shouldnt go way out of our way to stop it.

That'd be fine. When the western countries of the world (not just America, all Western Countries) stop installing dictators and exploiting people for cheap labour, I'd be happy.

Doesn't sound bad to me. I have no sympathy for either side.

At 4/18/04 03:50 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 4/18/04 03:45 PM, TheShrike wrote: So you're saying we should let this situation sort itself out, Jim?

Sure, whatever.

Oh, common, you dirty french whore, explain what you meant

I thought it was straightforward enough.

At 4/18/04 03:52 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 4/18/04 03:38 PM, Jimsween wrote: First of all, they are happy bum, not everyone needs a pentium processor and has to be shoveling grease into thier mouth to be happy.

True. Just not having to trudge for an hour or four for a potful of filthy water, maybe. But they dont have that. They have to go trudging.

And you have to walk all the way to the sink to get a glass of only 95% pure water. Sounds pretty bad to a filthy rich person who has a butler rush him a salene solution every time he blinks twice.

Second, I'm not saying we should all go out of our way to make conflict, I'm saying we shouldnt go way out of our way to stop it.

That'd be fine. When the western countries of the world (not just America, all Western Countries) stop installing dictators and exploiting people for cheap labour, I'd be happy.

At 4/18/04 03:54 PM, TheShrike wrote: I thought it was straightforward enough.

Yeah, my post was went right in between y'all posting =P

Second, I'm not saying we should all go out of our way to make conflict, I'm saying we shouldnt go way out of our way to stop it.

That'd be fine. When the western countries of the world (not just America, all Western Countries) stop installing dictators and exploiting people for cheap labour, I'd be happy.

You mean you aren't happy already? You've got a machine that does all your work for you, the foreign policy of your government is likely to not effect you ever, what do you have to not be happy about?

At 4/18/04 03:52 PM, TheShrike wrote: Doesn't sound bad to me. I have no sympathy for either side.

What? The one side who got their homeland taken from them, and got pushed into two tiny areas of land, and the other side that got thrown into Isreal and then got bombed?

I'm not talking about the activists on either side, I'm talking about the civilians in the middle of this. I have sympathy for them.

No, he set up a plan that said the Isreali's should give the land back. And none of those presidents got them to give the west bank back

Other Presidents, such as Clinton, have made important moves towards the peace process, Bush is undercutting all previous moves with his current views. The plan that Bush is supporting will not solve the "Palestinian Problem".

The only thing that makes it seem bad is not being able to cross the roads, other than that, it's all fine. People live there already, you can't take them out just to make it more convieneint for another group of people.

Those people are political settlers. They have been sent to the land for the expressed purpose of taking it over. Not only that, but they are illegal settlers. Things like this are the reason for international law.

At 4/18/04 04:10 PM, Slizor wrote:

No, he set up a plan that said the Isreali's should give the land back. And none of those presidents got them to give the west bank back

Other Presidents, such as Clinton, have made important moves towards the peace process, Bush is undercutting all previous moves with his current views. The plan that Bush is supporting will not solve the "Palestinian Problem".

"Important moves", yeah sure.. my ass.

The only thing that makes it seem bad is not being able to cross the roads, other than that, it's all fine. People live there already, you can't take them out just to make it more convieneint for another group of people.

Those people are political settlers. They have been sent to the land for the expressed purpose of taking it over. Not only that, but they are illegal settlers. Things like this are the reason for international law.

They are people nonetheless. And thats thier home. You can twist it around all you want, but thats thier home, and to take away thier hoime just because people don't like to live by them is bad, end of story, nothing more, check and mate.

At 4/18/04 03:57 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: What? The one side who got their homeland taken from them, and got pushed into two tiny areas of land, and the other side that got thrown into Israel and then got bombed?

Hmm... Nope. No sympathy. We could discuss morals and ethics all day, but the fact is I don't feel sorry for the Palestinians or the Israelis. Both sides have done more than enough to make me sick.

I'm not talking about the activists on either side, I'm talking about the civilians in the middle of this. I have sympathy for them.

Well, yes, the civilians, of course. I pity them. Well some of them. The hardliners on either side still garner nothing from me other than contempt.

At 4/18/04 04:21 PM, TheShrike wrote: Hmm... Nope. No sympathy. We could discuss morals and ethics all day, but the fact is I don't feel sorry for the Palestinians or the Israelis. Both sides have done more than enough to make me sick.

And then he said

Well, yes, the civilians, of course. I pity them. Well some of them. The hardliners on either side still garner nothing from me other than contempt.

That's the point, Shrikey me buddy. The hardliners are just nutters, and most deserve just to be shot, but I can empathise with why they're doing what they're doing. The civilians are caught in the middle. And there's a lot more civilians than hardliners, and we typecast everybody as an extremist.

Those people are political settlers. They have been sent to the land for the expressed purpose of taking it over. Not only that, but they are illegal settlers. Things like this are the reason for international law.

They are people nonetheless. And thats thier home.

And the Palestinians need a viable state, which they won't have if these people remain part of Israel. And again, I restate, their actions were illegal, just because they have been there for a "long" time, doesn't make it legal.

just because people don't like to live by them is bad

We have already discussed the issues and it is not a matter of "just because people don't like to live by them". That is not why the plan will fail. It is not a matter of either they live in the settlements under Israeli control, or they leave. That is not the issue. The issue is the political control of the land and it can not remain in Israeli hands.

At 4/18/04 04:42 PM, Slizor wrote:

Those people are political settlers. They have been sent to the land for the expressed purpose of taking it over. Not only that, but they are illegal settlers. Things like this are the reason for international law.

They are people nonetheless. And thats thier home.

And the Palestinians need a viable state, which they won't have if these people remain part of Israel. And again, I restate, their actions were illegal, just because they have been there for a "long" time, doesn't make it legal.

Thier actions 50 years ago were illegal, why should the people today pay for the mistakes of people who aren't even alive anymore? They shouldn't, and so now they are the legal owners of the land.

just because people don't like to live by them is bad

We have already discussed the issues and it is not a matter of "just because people don't like to live by them". That is not why the plan will fail. It is not a matter of either they live in the settlements under Israeli control, or they leave. That is not the issue. The issue is the political control of the land and it can not remain in Israeli hands.

And you have given no reason for such. The settelments can remain in Isreali hands.

I acknowledge that this is a totally idealistic view, but I think that the ideal situation would be to make Jerusalem and the surrounding areas an independent nation, like Vatican City. This conflict has raged on for hundreds of years, and won't be solved as long as one country has posession of that land. As an independant nation, the three religions that acknowledge that land as holy would be recognized. Maybe people just shouldn't live there. I think that the rest, the borders, etc. could be settled and to achieve a long term peace instead of treaties and "agreements".

Ya know, Jimmy-boy actually has a point here. What if we just agree that land is to holy to be walked on by humans, so that every jew or muslim or whatever won't be allowed to go there. Problem solved. It's just like punishing kids fighting over something: let them both not have it.

At 4/16/04 07:49 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: He also said he was totally cool with them building that new Iron Curtain.

Way to go, Mr. Bush. Where would you like your next plane to crash into?

Wow, the ignorance is so massive... remember the last time someone built an "iron curtain", walling yourself off from the rest of the world will never solve anything, and a static defense is... well... static, and never lasts. No Wall will be built, I can assure you that, the israelis are much more intellegent then that.

At 4/19/04 05:55 PM, Battl3Mast3r wrote:

:No Wall will be built, I can assure you that, the israelis are much more intellegent then that.

I hate to brake it to ya, but most of that wall is already built.

GWB has been reading his bible recently. if your a christian, like i am, and believe in the bible, then you should also believe that in revalations, it states that when the wars and attacks end in the middle east, the appocolipse will arrive. so if you believe this, like i, it is for the good of the world that they do not get peac.
btw, i hate all you democrats that thing Bush is stupid for doing this. you see that every day 2 or 3 peole die there, but how many are killed in new york every day? a hell of a lot more than that. and also, theyve been fighting there since the beginning of time, and you didnt care before bush was president. but when it has to do with your country all of a sudden, you are against the violence there. listen closely: there has always been violence there, and there will always be. our troops being over there isnt going to help that much, but it will bring a brighter tomorrow. think of it this way:
you have to get a tooth pulled, and the dentist has run out of novacaine. it hurts a tad now, but it will feel like your a whole new person later. but, during the operation or whatever you call it, you have to sit through some of the most extreme pain known to man.
it has to get worse before it gets better.

this is common sense, you should know. i am ashamed to share a country with such narrow-minded ninnipoops as liberals and democrats.

At 4/19/04 08:41 PM, snapper0505 wrote: theres always been fighting in the middle east.

i hate to brake it to you but there hasent always been wars and fighting in the middle east after the otomin (sp) empire came in and concured the area there was a period of peace in the Middle east. not till after WWII did the area that is now isreal in modern history been heavely populated eather it had been nomades before that who only fought amungst themselves over minor issues.

im sure the people there loved to be conquered by the ottomans. it filled them with joy. and then the ottomans fell in the "bloodyest battle ever fought" where no one was spaed in the middle east. men women and children were attacked and everything.

dammit, its still unrest and its still not peace. you, my friend, have failed to back up your facts once again.

You cant really fix all the shit that is happening all at once. But i think we should try to equalize it, instead of going onto isreal's side and fucking everyone else. Just becuase their not of christian belief doesnt mean their wrong.

And i also think we should stop putting crazy fucking dictators in place of the previous crazy fucking dictator and letting this stupid violent ass cycle continue. This by itself could stop half of the extremists becuase they need another extremist with power to follow.

Peace in the Middle East is possible (i mean look they got peace in north ireland). All it needs in time, patience, and peaceful negotiations. Even though it might not be

...continued

what America wants. Its certainly better for the occupants of the MIddle East.

Proof that the Israelis are nice, rational, peaceful people...

And the Palestinians need a viable state, which they won't have if these people remain part of Israel. And again, I restate, their actions were illegal, just because they have been there for a "long" time, doesn't make it legal.

Thier actions 50 years ago were illegal, why should the people today pay for the mistakes of people who aren't even alive anymore? They shouldn't, and so now they are the legal owners of the land.

As usual you don't understand. The settlers have not been there for 50 years. The oldest settlers will have been there for 37 years, tops (that is the absolute maximum, I doubt many settlements were made straight after Israel seized the West Bank.)

We have already discussed the issues and it is not a matter of "just because people don't like to live by them". That is not why the plan will fail. It is not a matter of either they live in the settlements under Israeli control, or they leave. That is not the issue. The issue is the political control of the land and it can not remain in Israeli hands.

And you have given no reason for such. The settelments can remain in Isreali hands.

The reason is that the Palestinians will reject it (and this is well known, it is a rejectionist move by the Israelis, not the Palestinians) because it does not give them a viable state. Is there any other country in the world which is independent that is split up by land controlled by another Government?

At 4/20/04 10:46 AM, D2KVirus wrote: Proof that the Israelis are nice, rational, peaceful people...

Because they arrested a traitor, or because they want nuclear weapons? For a country who is being threatened by nearly all it's neighbors, It would be crazy to not want nuclear weapons.

At 4/20/04 01:09 PM, Slizor wrote:

And the Palestinians need a viable state, which they won't have if these people remain part of Israel. And again, I restate, their actions were illegal, just because they have been there for a "long" time, doesn't make it legal.

Thier actions 50 years ago were illegal, why should the people today pay for the mistakes of people who aren't even alive anymore? They shouldn't, and so now they are the legal owners of the land.

As usual you don't understand. The settlers have not been there for 50 years. The oldest settlers will have been there for 37 years, tops (that is the absolute maximum, I doubt many settlements were made straight after Israel seized the West Bank.)

I was talking about all the residents of Isreal. And even living there for 10 years would be long enough, unless the Palestinians are willing to pay them for the land then it's just wrong to force them out.

We have already discussed the issues and it is not a matter of "just because people don't like to live by them". That is not why the plan will fail. It is not a matter of either they live in the settlements under Israeli control, or they leave. That is not the issue. The issue is the political control of the land and it can not remain in Israeli hands.

And you have given no reason for such. The settelments can remain in Isreali hands.

The reason is that the Palestinians will reject it (and this is well known, it is a rejectionist move by the Israelis, not the Palestinians) because it does not give them a viable state. Is there any other country in the world which is independent that is split up by land controlled by another Government?

The land in the settlements is only a small fraction of the entire land area of the west bank.

At 4/16/04 07:49 AM, Veggiemeal wrote: Where would you like your next plane to crash into?

Next Target? Statue of Liberty is my guess, just to throw our own shit in our faces. Terrorists love doing that.

We've been trying to get peace in the Middle East for God only know how long and nothing's worked. Palestinians are always gonna be PO'd at Israel for taking their land from them in 1948 to form Israel. As much as I hate to say it, I say we should just back off and let them kill each other