what's your view on the planned burning of the koran in florida? (222)
Scamming up a dictatorship starts by scuttling the economy and stirring up hatred and suspicion between various factions of the population.
The division can then be hyped into turmoil and violence. That way most people will support the rising dictatorship in the name of "law and order".
The division can then be hyped into turmoil and violence. That way most people will support the rising dictatorship in the name of "law and order".
Well you can all relax.
Just been announced.
The burning is off!!!
Just been announced.
The burning is off!!!
bodleing: Well you can all relax.
Just been announced.
The burning is off!!!
Just been announced.
The burning is off!!!
Did Florida ban matches?
Caveatemptor: I think the official line was to destroy alleged weapons of mass destruction! Only having failed to find them was the secondary claim of ridding the World of Saddam introduced! And Israel are currently building on land they took by armed force in 1967 (West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights)...i don't condone violence of any kind however the western World needs to address this issue...how would you feel if Canada annexed Idaho or Michigan?
Caveat,
I personally feel that going in and trying to find the WMD and getting Saddam was very good. And getting the bulk of the rest of his henchman was even better. But I do feel that using the excuse we are in there to free the Afghan people was wrong. As far as the WMD, I do believe that they are underground deep somewhere and his followers remaining will eventually dig them up in time. As far as I'm concerned, the US and it's allies should have left there a long time ago.
Here is my answer on the 1967 Israel war issue. Now as for Israel building on the land they took in 1967....it is they who were attacked with armed force from all their borders at that time and nearly annihilated. Not one UN country anywhere sent in troops to help them out one bit sir during this time. These arab countries that attacked lost their land only because they attacked Israel. They started a war with Israel and didn't like what they had lost. Losers weepers....winners keepers. What did you expect? If the countries had successfully attacked Israel and pushed back Israel's borders or annihilated her, did you for one second every think that they would give back to Israel any of the land they took? They wouldn't be so kind as to push the Jews out, but would mass slaughter them to finish them off by following Koranic law.
Since the UN didn't step in to protect Israel while they were attacked, you can better believe that they weren't going to step in and make the attacking countries give back the land that was even partitioned for Israel to begin with.
As for relations between Canada and the U.S., we recognize each other's borders as there is no dispute. So you won't see Canada annexing Idaho or Michigan anytime soon in some sort of armed attack. If they want Idaho or Michigan, they will have to pay big $s for it to the US govt and then they can annex it. Perhaps it should be on a poll to vote on by the Idahoans and Michiganians.
Just think, the US winds up probably getting rid of it's national budget deficit by selling off Michigan and Idaho and rids itself of alot of the state welfare rolls. Our auto industry sends much of their vehicle parts to be mfg'd and assembled in Mexico, Japan, China and in Canada anyway. So to have the Detroit auto industry listed as Detroit, Michigan, Canada should come as no surprise.
Caveatemptor: So the Palestinians, Egyptians, Iranians etc should all take an active stance against who they see as agitators...or perhaps invaders is a better choice of words...surely the World powers that be need to sit down and sort things out.
And i don't think the invasion of Iraq is really the moral high ground here...soldiers die because they are sent there by politicians. politicians send them there because they want to create a legacy...Saddam was Regan's best pal for years!
Forget religion and just think about how the people that live in the Worlds 'hot spots' live...
It will never happen in my lifetime but maybe in my childrens...can but hope i suppose!
And i don't think the invasion of Iraq is really the moral high ground here...soldiers die because they are sent there by politicians. politicians send them there because they want to create a legacy...Saddam was Regan's best pal for years!
Forget religion and just think about how the people that live in the Worlds 'hot spots' live...
It will never happen in my lifetime but maybe in my childrens...can but hope i suppose!
Great topic for a new thread. Start one up
LILLYLADY: Caveat,
I personally feel that going in and trying to find the WMD and getting Saddam was very good. And getting the bulk of the rest of his henchman was even better. But I do feel that using the excuse we are in there to free the Afghan people was wrong. As far as the WMD, I do believe that they are underground deep somewhere and his followers remaining will eventually dig them up in time. As far as I'm concerned, the US and it's allies should have left there a long time ago.
Here is my answer on the 1967 Israel war issue. Now as for Israel building on the land they took in 1967....it is they who were attacked with armed force from all their borders at that time and nearly annihilated. Not one UN country anywhere sent in troops to help them out one bit sir during this time. These arab countries that attacked lost their land only because they attacked Israel. They started a war with Israel and didn't like what they had lost. Losers weepers....winners keepers. What did you expect? If the countries had successfully attacked Israel and pushed back Israel's borders or annihilated her, did you for one second every think that they would give back to Israel any of the land they took? They wouldn't be so kind as to push the Jews out, but would mass slaughter them to finish them off by following Koranic law.
Since the UN didn't step in to protect Israel while they were attacked, you can better believe that they weren't going to step in and make the attacking countries give back the land that was even partitioned for Israel to begin with.
As for relations between Canada and the U.S., we recognize each other's borders as there is no dispute. So you won't see Canada annexing Idaho or Michigan anytime soon in some sort of armed attack. If they want Idaho or Michigan, they will have to pay big $s for it to the US govt and then they can annex it. Perhaps it should be on a poll to vote on by the Idahoans and Michiganians.
Just think, the US winds up probably getting rid of it's national budget deficit by selling off Michigan and Idaho and rids itself of alot of the state welfare rolls. Our auto industry sends much of their vehicle parts to be mfg'd and assembled in Mexico, Japan, China and in Canada anyway. So to have the Detroit auto industry listed as Detroit, Michigan, Canada should come as no surprise.
I personally feel that going in and trying to find the WMD and getting Saddam was very good. And getting the bulk of the rest of his henchman was even better. But I do feel that using the excuse we are in there to free the Afghan people was wrong. As far as the WMD, I do believe that they are underground deep somewhere and his followers remaining will eventually dig them up in time. As far as I'm concerned, the US and it's allies should have left there a long time ago.
Here is my answer on the 1967 Israel war issue. Now as for Israel building on the land they took in 1967....it is they who were attacked with armed force from all their borders at that time and nearly annihilated. Not one UN country anywhere sent in troops to help them out one bit sir during this time. These arab countries that attacked lost their land only because they attacked Israel. They started a war with Israel and didn't like what they had lost. Losers weepers....winners keepers. What did you expect? If the countries had successfully attacked Israel and pushed back Israel's borders or annihilated her, did you for one second every think that they would give back to Israel any of the land they took? They wouldn't be so kind as to push the Jews out, but would mass slaughter them to finish them off by following Koranic law.
Since the UN didn't step in to protect Israel while they were attacked, you can better believe that they weren't going to step in and make the attacking countries give back the land that was even partitioned for Israel to begin with.
As for relations between Canada and the U.S., we recognize each other's borders as there is no dispute. So you won't see Canada annexing Idaho or Michigan anytime soon in some sort of armed attack. If they want Idaho or Michigan, they will have to pay big $s for it to the US govt and then they can annex it. Perhaps it should be on a poll to vote on by the Idahoans and Michiganians.
Just think, the US winds up probably getting rid of it's national budget deficit by selling off Michigan and Idaho and rids itself of alot of the state welfare rolls. Our auto industry sends much of their vehicle parts to be mfg'd and assembled in Mexico, Japan, China and in Canada anyway. So to have the Detroit auto industry listed as Detroit, Michigan, Canada should come as no surprise.
Caveat,
I personally feel that going in and trying to find the WMD and getting Saddam was very good. And getting the bulk of the rest of his henchman was even better. But I do feel that using the excuse we are in there to free the Afghan people was wrong. As far as the WMD, I do believe that they are underground deep somewhere and his followers remaining will eventually dig them up in time. As far as I'm concerned, the US and it's allies should have left there a long time ago.
Here is my answer on the 1967 Israel war issue. Now as for Israel building on the land they took in 1967....it is they who were attacked with armed force from all their borders at that time and nearly annihilated. Not one UN country anywhere sent in troops to help them out one bit sir during this time. These arab countries that attacked lost their land only because they attacked Israel. They started a war with Israel and didn't like what they had lost. Losers weepers....winners keepers. What did you expect? If the countries had successfully attacked Israel and pushed back Israel's borders or annihilated her, did you for one second every think that they would give back to Israel any of the land they took? They wouldn't be so kind as to push the Jews out, but would mass slaughter them to finish them off by following Koranic law.
Since the UN didn't step in to protect Israel while they were attacked, you can better believe that they weren't going to step in and make the attacking countries give back the land that was even partitioned for Israel to begin with.
The US and British forces spent 6 years looking for the alleged weapons. An inquiry in the UK showed that the 'intelligence dossier' produced to support the case for invasion was severely lacking in facts and evidence. I don't support Saddam (unlike uncle Ronnie) but i do believe in the law...more importantly that law should be SEEN to be upheld...!
Israel issued what it termed a 're-emptive strike' in 1967...they were not attacked! The UN to this day refuses to accept that Israel has sovereignty over the disputed lands and as such they are still legally 'occupied territories'. What's more the land was never partitioned for israel...perhaps it should have been (at least a part of it) but it wasn't, isn't and there is no legal claim to it! I'm not aware that the Arab nations have taken or hold any Israeli land but i may be mistaken in this....however everyone shouting 'no, its mine' all the time won't resolve anything!
I personally feel that going in and trying to find the WMD and getting Saddam was very good. And getting the bulk of the rest of his henchman was even better. But I do feel that using the excuse we are in there to free the Afghan people was wrong. As far as the WMD, I do believe that they are underground deep somewhere and his followers remaining will eventually dig them up in time. As far as I'm concerned, the US and it's allies should have left there a long time ago.
Here is my answer on the 1967 Israel war issue. Now as for Israel building on the land they took in 1967....it is they who were attacked with armed force from all their borders at that time and nearly annihilated. Not one UN country anywhere sent in troops to help them out one bit sir during this time. These arab countries that attacked lost their land only because they attacked Israel. They started a war with Israel and didn't like what they had lost. Losers weepers....winners keepers. What did you expect? If the countries had successfully attacked Israel and pushed back Israel's borders or annihilated her, did you for one second every think that they would give back to Israel any of the land they took? They wouldn't be so kind as to push the Jews out, but would mass slaughter them to finish them off by following Koranic law.
Since the UN didn't step in to protect Israel while they were attacked, you can better believe that they weren't going to step in and make the attacking countries give back the land that was even partitioned for Israel to begin with.
The US and British forces spent 6 years looking for the alleged weapons. An inquiry in the UK showed that the 'intelligence dossier' produced to support the case for invasion was severely lacking in facts and evidence. I don't support Saddam (unlike uncle Ronnie) but i do believe in the law...more importantly that law should be SEEN to be upheld...!
Israel issued what it termed a 're-emptive strike' in 1967...they were not attacked! The UN to this day refuses to accept that Israel has sovereignty over the disputed lands and as such they are still legally 'occupied territories'. What's more the land was never partitioned for israel...perhaps it should have been (at least a part of it) but it wasn't, isn't and there is no legal claim to it! I'm not aware that the Arab nations have taken or hold any Israeli land but i may be mistaken in this....however everyone shouting 'no, its mine' all the time won't resolve anything!
bodleing: No, god has ordered a thunderstorm.
Learn your geography/meteorology: HURRICANE!
bodleing: No, god has ordered a thunderstorm.
Maybe hurricane Earl did a U turn?!
Caveatemptor: Caveat,
I personally feel that going in and trying to find the WMD and getting Saddam was very good. And getting the bulk of the rest of his henchman was even better. But I do feel that using the excuse we are in there to free the Afghan people was wrong. As far as the WMD, I do believe that they are underground deep somewhere and his followers remaining will eventually dig them up in time. As far as I'm concerned, the US and it's allies should have left there a long time ago.
Here is my answer on the 1967 Israel war issue. Now as for Israel building on the land they took in 1967....it is they who were attacked with armed force from all their borders at that time and nearly annihilated. Not one UN country anywhere sent in troops to help them out one bit sir during this time. These arab countries that attacked lost their land only because they attacked Israel. They started a war with Israel and didn't like what they had lost. Losers weepers....winners keepers. What did you expect? If the countries had successfully attacked Israel and pushed back Israel's borders or annihilated her, did you for one second every think that they would give back to Israel any of the land they took? They wouldn't be so kind as to push the Jews out, but would mass slaughter them to finish them off by following Koranic law.
Since the UN didn't step in to protect Israel while they were attacked, you can better believe that they weren't going to step in and make the attacking countries give back the land that was even partitioned for Israel to begin with.
The US and British forces spent 6 years looking for the alleged weapons. An inquiry in the UK showed that the 'intelligence dossier' produced to support the case for invasion was severely lacking in facts and evidence. I don't support Saddam (unlike uncle Ronnie) but i do believe in the law...more importantly that law should be SEEN to be upheld...!
Israel issued what it termed a 're-emptive strike' in 1967...they were not attacked! The UN to this day refuses to accept that Israel has sovereignty over the disputed lands and as such they are still legally 'occupied territories'. What's more the land was never partitioned for israel...perhaps it should have been (at least a part of it) but it wasn't, isn't and there is no legal claim to it! I'm not aware that the Arab nations have taken or hold any Israeli land but i may be mistaken in this....however everyone shouting 'no, its mine' all the time won't resolve anything!
I personally feel that going in and trying to find the WMD and getting Saddam was very good. And getting the bulk of the rest of his henchman was even better. But I do feel that using the excuse we are in there to free the Afghan people was wrong. As far as the WMD, I do believe that they are underground deep somewhere and his followers remaining will eventually dig them up in time. As far as I'm concerned, the US and it's allies should have left there a long time ago.
Here is my answer on the 1967 Israel war issue. Now as for Israel building on the land they took in 1967....it is they who were attacked with armed force from all their borders at that time and nearly annihilated. Not one UN country anywhere sent in troops to help them out one bit sir during this time. These arab countries that attacked lost their land only because they attacked Israel. They started a war with Israel and didn't like what they had lost. Losers weepers....winners keepers. What did you expect? If the countries had successfully attacked Israel and pushed back Israel's borders or annihilated her, did you for one second every think that they would give back to Israel any of the land they took? They wouldn't be so kind as to push the Jews out, but would mass slaughter them to finish them off by following Koranic law.
Since the UN didn't step in to protect Israel while they were attacked, you can better believe that they weren't going to step in and make the attacking countries give back the land that was even partitioned for Israel to begin with.
The US and British forces spent 6 years looking for the alleged weapons. An inquiry in the UK showed that the 'intelligence dossier' produced to support the case for invasion was severely lacking in facts and evidence. I don't support Saddam (unlike uncle Ronnie) but i do believe in the law...more importantly that law should be SEEN to be upheld...!
Israel issued what it termed a 're-emptive strike' in 1967...they were not attacked! The UN to this day refuses to accept that Israel has sovereignty over the disputed lands and as such they are still legally 'occupied territories'. What's more the land was never partitioned for israel...perhaps it should have been (at least a part of it) but it wasn't, isn't and there is no legal claim to it! I'm not aware that the Arab nations have taken or hold any Israeli land but i may be mistaken in this....however everyone shouting 'no, its mine' all the time won't resolve anything!
What are you talking about in regard to "re-emptive" strike in 1967? Is that the same as meaning, "fighting back" as meaning to go back over Israel's borders into the other countries to force them further back from Israel's border and taking the captured land as a bargaining chip?
Sorry but the Jews had Jerusalem and Palestine some 600 yrs before Islam was established. Through wars, the Jews were expelled out of the land repeatedly and have now come back again. The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed 2x in history and that's when the Jews were expelled. A mosque was built on top of the ruins of the destroyed Temple. There can be no excavations done beneath the Dome of the Rock but excavations all around Jerusalem show the Jewish existence in excavations that predate the Mosque. You would have to go into the Israeli Antiquities website to learn more about these historical excavations going on in Israel that give a very detailed look at how Jerusalem was laid out prior to the Muslims rising to power. King David had some very creative architects for designing old world Jerusalem of his era.
To this day, there is no country that has gone in and helped the Israelis defend themselves by sending in troops. Just for the record, I don't recall even seeing arab countries sending in their troops to their fellow arab neighbors to protect them from marauding muslim neighbors. .
When I look at this man, (he is not a true pastor!) he shows nothing but ignorance and intolerance! I feel sorry for his congregation... I will forever refuse your god of hatred and death! Whereas my God is loving and just!
There is no real reason for this.
Peace
There is no real reason for this.
Peace
Caveatemptor: Caveat,
I personally feel that going in and trying to find the WMD and getting Saddam was very good. And getting the bulk of the rest of his henchman was even better. But I do feel that using the excuse we are in there to free the Afghan people was wrong. As far as the WMD, I do believe that they are underground deep somewhere and his followers remaining will eventually dig them up in time. As far as I'm concerned, the US and it's allies should have left there a long time ago.
Here is my answer on the 1967 Israel war issue. Now as for Israel building on the land they took in 1967....it is they who were attacked with armed force from all their borders at that time and nearly annihilated. Not one UN country anywhere sent in troops to help them out one bit sir during this time. These arab countries that attacked lost their land only because they attacked Israel. They started a war with Israel and didn't like what they had lost. Losers weepers....winners keepers. What did you expect? If the countries had successfully attacked Israel and pushed back Israel's borders or annihilated her, did you for one second every think that they would give back to Israel any of the land they took? They wouldn't be so kind as to push the Jews out, but would mass slaughter them to finish them off by following Koranic law.
Since the UN didn't step in to protect Israel while they were attacked, you can better believe that they weren't going to step in and make the attacking countries give back the land that was even partitioned for Israel to begin with.
The US and British forces spent 6 years looking for the alleged weapons. An inquiry in the UK showed that the 'intelligence dossier' produced to support the case for invasion was severely lacking in facts and evidence. I don't support Saddam (unlike uncle Ronnie) but i do believe in the law...more importantly that law should be SEEN to be upheld...!
Israel issued what it termed a 're-emptive strike' in 1967...they were not attacked! The UN to this day refuses to accept that Israel has sovereignty over the disputed lands and as such they are still legally 'occupied territories'. What's more the land was never partitioned for israel...perhaps it should have been (at least a part of it) but it wasn't, isn't and there is no legal claim to it! I'm not aware that the Arab nations have taken or hold any Israeli land but i may be mistaken in this....however everyone shouting 'no, its mine' all the time won't resolve anything!
So you wait until you're attacked by force massing on your Border?I personally feel that going in and trying to find the WMD and getting Saddam was very good. And getting the bulk of the rest of his henchman was even better. But I do feel that using the excuse we are in there to free the Afghan people was wrong. As far as the WMD, I do believe that they are underground deep somewhere and his followers remaining will eventually dig them up in time. As far as I'm concerned, the US and it's allies should have left there a long time ago.
Here is my answer on the 1967 Israel war issue. Now as for Israel building on the land they took in 1967....it is they who were attacked with armed force from all their borders at that time and nearly annihilated. Not one UN country anywhere sent in troops to help them out one bit sir during this time. These arab countries that attacked lost their land only because they attacked Israel. They started a war with Israel and didn't like what they had lost. Losers weepers....winners keepers. What did you expect? If the countries had successfully attacked Israel and pushed back Israel's borders or annihilated her, did you for one second every think that they would give back to Israel any of the land they took? They wouldn't be so kind as to push the Jews out, but would mass slaughter them to finish them off by following Koranic law.
Since the UN didn't step in to protect Israel while they were attacked, you can better believe that they weren't going to step in and make the attacking countries give back the land that was even partitioned for Israel to begin with.
The US and British forces spent 6 years looking for the alleged weapons. An inquiry in the UK showed that the 'intelligence dossier' produced to support the case for invasion was severely lacking in facts and evidence. I don't support Saddam (unlike uncle Ronnie) but i do believe in the law...more importantly that law should be SEEN to be upheld...!
Israel issued what it termed a 're-emptive strike' in 1967...they were not attacked! The UN to this day refuses to accept that Israel has sovereignty over the disputed lands and as such they are still legally 'occupied territories'. What's more the land was never partitioned for israel...perhaps it should have been (at least a part of it) but it wasn't, isn't and there is no legal claim to it! I'm not aware that the Arab nations have taken or hold any Israeli land but i may be mistaken in this....however everyone shouting 'no, its mine' all the time won't resolve anything!
Regardless of how narrow your Country is'
regarless tht it would be cut in half and then rolled up from the Flanks?
From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was ruled by Jordan. During this period, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military administration. Israeli troops captured Egypt's Sinai peninsula during the 1956 British, French and Israeli military campaign in response to the nationalisation of the Suez Canal. The Israelis subsequently withdrew and were replaced with a UN force. In 1967, Egypt ordered the UN troops out and blocked Israeli shipping routes - adding to already high levels of tension between Israel and its neighbours.
In a pre-emptive attack on Egypt that drew Syria and Jordan into a regional war in 1967, Israel made massive territorial gains capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Suez Canal. The principle of land-for-peace that has formed the basis of Arab-Israeli negotiations is based on Israel giving up land won in the 1967 war in return for peace deals recognising Israeli borders and its right to security. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace deal with Israel.
What do they teach instead of history in the US? And as for going back some 2000 years be prepared for some major changes to the current World map...wasn’t most of North America populated by the pre-Columbians? And that was only 1000 years ago!
In a pre-emptive attack on Egypt that drew Syria and Jordan into a regional war in 1967, Israel made massive territorial gains capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Suez Canal. The principle of land-for-peace that has formed the basis of Arab-Israeli negotiations is based on Israel giving up land won in the 1967 war in return for peace deals recognising Israeli borders and its right to security. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace deal with Israel.
What do they teach instead of history in the US? And as for going back some 2000 years be prepared for some major changes to the current World map...wasn’t most of North America populated by the pre-Columbians? And that was only 1000 years ago!
Egypt kicked the UN out of it's land and where were these alleged armies massing?
Besides some 40+ years later they still occupy the land...why? On your reconning Germany was right to strengthen it's borders in 1938/39 by invading lowland Europe and the USSR were quite justified in annexing East Germany, Poland, Czech Republic etc in 1945/46...where does it stop?
Besides some 40+ years later they still occupy the land...why? On your reconning Germany was right to strengthen it's borders in 1938/39 by invading lowland Europe and the USSR were quite justified in annexing East Germany, Poland, Czech Republic etc in 1945/46...where does it stop?
Caveatemptor: From 1948 to 1967, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was ruled by Jordan. During this period, the Gaza Strip was under Egyptian military administration. Israeli troops captured Egypt's Sinai peninsula during the 1956 British, French and Israeli military campaign in response to the nationalisation of the Suez Canal. The Israelis subsequently withdrew and were replaced with a UN force. In 1967, Egypt ordered the UN troops out and blocked Israeli shipping routes - adding to already high levels of tension between Israel and its neighbours.
In a pre-emptive attack on Egypt that drew Syria and Jordan into a regional war in 1967, Israel made massive territorial gains capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Suez Canal. The principle of land-for-peace that has formed the basis of Arab-Israeli negotiations is based on Israel giving up land won in the 1967 war in return for peace deals recognising Israeli borders and its right to security. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace deal with Israel.
What do they teach instead of history in the US? And as for going back some 2000 years be prepared for some major changes to the current World map...wasn’t most of North America populated by the pre-Columbians? And that was only 1000 years ago!
In a pre-emptive attack on Egypt that drew Syria and Jordan into a regional war in 1967, Israel made massive territorial gains capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Suez Canal. The principle of land-for-peace that has formed the basis of Arab-Israeli negotiations is based on Israel giving up land won in the 1967 war in return for peace deals recognising Israeli borders and its right to security. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace deal with Israel.
What do they teach instead of history in the US? And as for going back some 2000 years be prepared for some major changes to the current World map...wasn’t most of North America populated by the pre-Columbians? And that was only 1000 years ago!
Try looking at this website for an answer to your "re-emptive strike" answer. It explains it well. Let's just say that Israel's "re-emptive strike" was well justified and legal.
in response to Jvaski
i am joking only,
i am joking only,
Caveatemptor: Egypt kicked the UN out of it's land and where were these alleged armies massing?
Besides some 40+ years later they still occupy the land...why? On your reconning Germany was right to strengthen it's borders in 1938/39 by invading lowland Europe and the USSR were quite justified in annexing East Germany, Poland, Czech Republic etc in 1945/46...where does it stop?
Besides some 40+ years later they still occupy the land...why? On your reconning Germany was right to strengthen it's borders in 1938/39 by invading lowland Europe and the USSR were quite justified in annexing East Germany, Poland, Czech Republic etc in 1945/46...where does it stop?
You are now jumping from battle to battle. It is obvious that you are not really wanting to know any detail facts from any of the questions you ask to begin with before you jump immediately onto another battle or war and pump more questions to throw anyone off trying to politely answer you. I can see where this is already leading so I will bow out and not answer any more of your questions and rantings.
Conrad, if you are reading this, you know who I am talking about.
We have another CSer on here that does this question after question thing to baffle and buffoon his way. Can't help but wonder if you are related in some way.
There is a report online that the pastor has said he has cancelled.
bodleing: Well you can all relax.
Just been announced.
The burning is off!!!
Just been announced.
The burning is off!!!
Sorry just saw this post.
Just let him get on with and have him labelled as an idiot. Giving it publicity wasn't the best move.
LILLYLADY: Try looking at this website for an answer to your "re-emptive strike" answer. It explains it well. Let's just say that Israel's "re-emptive strike" was well justified and legal.
So are you now acceting that Israel was NOT attacked by Arab states and that it issued what a so called 'pre-emptive strike' in 1967?
The web site to which you direct me is very good although the authors are in the main Israeli's (very little comes from the many noted Arabic authors and historians) however much of the information is also mirrored by Churchill in some of his later writings. That said Churchill went to his grave with serious concerns about the plight of Palastine. You may wish to study UN Resolution 242 that states "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the application of both the following principles:
•Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
They haven't yet done so and, 43 years later, are still occupying land in direct contravention of a UN resolution! All i ask is why?
Hiboy: Just let him get on with and have him labelled as an idiot. Giving it publicity wasn't the best move.
And by having every politician in the adminstration call that "pastor" they are only feeding 100 more loones.
Caveatemptor: So are you now acceting that Israel was NOT attacked by Arab states and that it issued what a so called 'pre-emptive strike' in 1967?
The web site to which you direct me is very good although the authors are in the main Israeli's (very little comes from the many noted Arabic authors and historians) however much of the information is also mirrored by Churchill in some of his later writings. That said Churchill went to his grave with serious concerns about the plight of Palastine. You may wish to study UN Resolution 242 that states "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the application of both the following principles:
•Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
They haven't yet done so and, 43 years later, are still occupying land in direct contravention of a UN resolution! All i ask is why?
The web site to which you direct me is very good although the authors are in the main Israeli's (very little comes from the many noted Arabic authors and historians) however much of the information is also mirrored by Churchill in some of his later writings. That said Churchill went to his grave with serious concerns about the plight of Palastine. You may wish to study UN Resolution 242 that states "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the application of both the following principles:
•Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
They haven't yet done so and, 43 years later, are still occupying land in direct contravention of a UN resolution! All i ask is why?
SCREW the UN ! who cares what they want ! I want them OUT of the USA & OFF OUR PAY ROLL !
LILLYLADY: You are now jumping from battle to battle. It is obvious that you are not really wanting to know any detail facts from any of the questions you ask to begin with before you jump immediately onto another battle or war and pump more questions to throw anyone off trying to politely answer you. I can see where this is already leading so I will bow out and not answer any more of your questions and rantings.
Conrad, if you are reading this, you know who I am talking about.
We have another CSer on here that does this question after question thing to baffle and buffoon his way. Can't help but wonder if you are related in some way.
Conrad, if you are reading this, you know who I am talking about.
We have another CSer on here that does this question after question thing to baffle and buffoon his way. Can't help but wonder if you are related in some way.
Ignorance is bliss...and by whatever God you pray to you should know!
Mmmm hot out of the oven peanutbutter coco chip cookies...Numi numi numi 
Donald Trump is offering to buy out one of the major investors in the real estate partnership that controls the site near Ground Zero where a Muslim group wants to build a 13-story Islamic cultural center.
The proposed site of the Islamic community center near Ground Zero where a Muslim group wants to build a 13-story Islamic cultural center.
.In a letter released Thursday by Mr. Trump's publicist, the real estate investor informed Hisham Elzanaty, a major investor in the Islamic center, known as Park51, that he would buy his stake in the Lower Manhattan building for 25% more than whatever he paid. Mr. Trump wrote that he's making the offer not because he thinks the location is spectacular but because it would end "a very serious, inflammatory, and highly divisive situation."
We'll find out if there are capitalist Muslims.
The proposed site of the Islamic community center near Ground Zero where a Muslim group wants to build a 13-story Islamic cultural center.
.In a letter released Thursday by Mr. Trump's publicist, the real estate investor informed Hisham Elzanaty, a major investor in the Islamic center, known as Park51, that he would buy his stake in the Lower Manhattan building for 25% more than whatever he paid. Mr. Trump wrote that he's making the offer not because he thinks the location is spectacular but because it would end "a very serious, inflammatory, and highly divisive situation."
We'll find out if there are capitalist Muslims.
Caveatemptor: So are you now acceting that Israel was NOT attacked by Arab states and that it issued what a so called 'pre-emptive strike' in 1967?
You may wish to study UN Resolution 242 that states "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the application of both the following principles:
•Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
They haven't yet done so and, 43 years later, are still occupying land in direct contravention of a UN resolution! All i ask is why?
You may wish to study UN Resolution 242 that states "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the application of both the following principles:
•Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".
They haven't yet done so and, 43 years later, are still occupying land in direct contravention of a UN resolution! All i ask is why?
Caveat, I did go and study up on the UN Resolution as you suggested. You may not like to hear this but at least I will try to answer you the best I can as politely as possible as I hope you will be gentlemanly enough not to curse me out here for my reply.
So here is your answer to your question of "WHY?" Try googling in UN Security Resolution 242. Then go to some of the websites such as palestinefacts.org, jewishvirutual library and even mythsand facts.org. You will find that the withdrawal from all territories occupied was not required as ALL was deliberately left out as the Israeli borders were not recognized by the arab countries to begin with. So with Israel giving back the Sinai, that alone was already 91% of the territories conquered in the 1967 War. The Resolution never ever stipulated ALL the territories in that Resolution. Here is one of the articles:
No one realistically expects Israel to withdraw before its security is assured. UNSCR 242 emphatically does not put any preconditions on Israel (or the Palestinian Arabs for that matter). Israel is perfectly within its rights to remain in place until there is a negotiated peace agreement acceptable to Israel as well as to the Palestinian Arabs. Israel moved into the West Bank and Gaza Strip areas as part of a defensive war started by the Arab enemies of Israel. Israel does not have to move out of those areas unless and until there is a negotiated peace that offers Israel security guarantees that make it unnecessary to keep control of the areas. Every terrorist incident proves that the time to trust the Palestinian Arabs has not yet arrived.
Despite the very clear record on the purpose and meaning of UNSCR 242, misconceptions continue. For example, on January 23, 2001 the New York Times was forced to print this correction:
An article yesterday(June 22, 2001) about peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel to withdraw its armed forces "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israel to withdraw "to its pre-1967 borders.
I wish to thank you for directing me to research more about the term "Premptive Strike" and the Resolution 242 as they both pertained to the 1967 War.
Scubadiva: You know my daddy? and you know my voting record?
Who are you? God?
or just someone who has to get personal when logic fails. I pity you.
Who are you? God?
or just someone who has to get personal when logic fails. I pity you.
Awe thanks~
bodleing: Maybe I should have said,
26 And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN, but especially Florida.”
Hebrews 12:25-29 (NASB) I cant believe I just posted that!!!
26 And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “YET ONCE MORE I WILL SHAKE NOT ONLY THE EARTH, BUT ALSO THE HEAVEN, but especially Florida.”
Hebrews 12:25-29 (NASB) I cant believe I just posted that!!!
I'm running to check my
More Threads
Common Issues with the BMW X1
Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
Sleepy Don!
Feel Good Music
Nature
How far is too far?
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
The Best of the GOP
1830's Music
rarotonga
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
The idea of burning the Koran is one of complete hatred, ignorance, and fear. In this nation and elsewhere, many talk about the extremists and terrorists who are "out there."
Indeed, who are the extremists and terrorists? Where do they live? How are they dressed? What language do they speak? What religion do they practice?
I am sickened by this whole thing...
From today's NY Times "But American officials have said they could do little to prevent the congregation from exercising its constitutional right to free speech."
on "the freedom of speech" jargon! This act would be a hate crime if there ever was one! If my "freedom" is at someone else's expense, I am NOT free.
If "freedom" is at anyone's expense, who is truly free?
In almost every European nation and state such hate laws exist. The claim to a so-called freedom of speech in the US only applied to members of the Senate when is was introduced...only changed in 1920's!
And i'm not sure how burning a religious book is expressing his freedom of speech...unless the Qur'an in question self combusts rather than sit and listen to his preeching?
Not sure it is a genuine fear either....it's sad, nothing more to it...and Eid is the same as Christmas to muslims.