words when it comes to understanding the real value of the Palestinian rock-throwing youth in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict - it's a setup.

See the pic at[url]http://worldnetdaily.com/images/20001204_xndku_who_really_7.jpg[/url]

The Western Press cameramen are there (with their helmets securely fixed on their swollen little heads) to 'investigate' and 'get to the real story behind the story.'

(I can almost hear the enhanced 'machine gun' fire that their editors probably dubbed onto the tape, [i]a la[/i] Geraldo Rivera in Beirut, Lebanon, in the 80s)

The obligatory Palestinian youth, this time conveniently wrapped in the PLO flag, is busily challenging the evil Israeli Defense Force for simple justice and the Palestinian way of life.

Why is the youth not firing a Kalashnikov at the dreaded IDF?  Cause he probably wants to go home sometime that day, preferably not in a box carried by his friends.

Besides it wouldn't make for good anti-Zionist press for him to have anything more than a simple rock in his hand. Kalashnikovs will come later.

Eric The(ZionistPig)Hun[>]:)]

Is there a PLO national anthem that could be played along with this photo?  

[img]http://worldnetdaily.com/images/20001204_xndku_who_really_7.jpg[/img]

And he stage name is "ROCKCHUKER" ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha,

All seriousness aside, that part of the world will never stop fighting so get used to it.

While I am a Jew myself, I understand the reasons why the PLO is in existence.  If you were one day forced off of your land, that you have had for thousands of years and that land given to another people, your resentment of that people might cause you to throw a few rocks yourself.

"Their" land is NOT just Israel, but Lebannon and parts of Jordon.  I would think it's easier to take over Lebannon, with the army they have.  It's just not PC to take "their" land from arabs, and they get lots of money when attacking Israel.

One thing I would like to say on this topic.  When you are in space and look down on the earth, you do not see any dotted lines or borders of countries.  There is land and sea and that's it.  Nobody owns anything.  Just because somebody lives somewhere, doesn't mean they own it.  They only own it as long as they can defend it from people who want to take it from them.  This is pretty simple, but people tend not to even think this way.  It doesn't matter who lived where a thousand years ago because if a bigger, badder dude comes along and knocks you off the mountain, it ceases to be yours and it becomes theirs.  That's why we should be concerned with defense first...everything else second.  You can apply that to countries as well as individuals.  We are all responsible for protecting what we have from somebody who wants to take it away.  The only reason the Palestinians don't have a home is because they couldn't defend their home (land).  The only reasons the American Indians got boosted from their "land" is because they weren't strong enough to defend it from people who wanted to take it away.  And so on and so forth.  Read your history gentlemen and you will see that the human race has had this very same problem since the beginning of time.  Our guns, the ones we own, are the only way we have of protecting what is "ours".  That's why we have the second amendment and that's why we own guns.  We can defend what is ours and we will defend what as ours...as long as we have the means.

Post from hielo -

Hello. When's the last time any Algonquin, Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, Mohican, or Huron Indians threw any rocks at your head?

I bet you wouldn't put up with it either!

Eric The(HowFarDoWeWantToGoBack?)Hun[>]:)]

Yeah, reminds me of when the US was about to roll into Bosnia and CNN was reporting from outside Tuzla Airbase. To get the right feel the reporters had kids throwing firecrackers outside of the camera's view.

I might be harsh and cynical, but dont bring rocks to a gunfight.

Kuiper

AmericanPie

Maybe "the Bigger Badder Dude" is a good way of looking at it.
What if we are in the midst of a change and the new BBD is the Palestinians. Time will tell.
Remember the Jews used truck bombs 50ys ago to gain their independence.
Talk about the proverbial Full Circle.

Ouch!

Hey Eric(thegotitcompletelywrongbutnicetry)Hun, Idians don't count, we kicked their asses fair and square, the Israilies were handed another peoples land by a world governing body.

Meaning, we earned it and they didn't.

Also, I have to completely agree with Kuiper, never bring a rock to a gunfight.

Nobody kicked the indians asses they were turned into alcoholics by the white man. If we kicked there asses what happened to Custer?

One battle doesn't decide the outcome of the war, at least not in that case.  They got lucky once , in the end, who lives on the reservation?

Hi again Eric!  

Well, the United States hasnt moved any of those indians off of the land that was given to them for quite some time now, so I dont think they would still come throwing rocks (it has been a long time).  But in Israel, the palestinians are being moved off the land that was given to them.  And as someone mentioned earlier, the United Sates fought the Indians, where as what did the Israelis do?  They got land from the governing body and took over from there.  

Yes the indians haven't been moved off the land the government gave them. Why they are given money, homes,etc. aaalso here in the midwest they have big fancy casinos where they take all the white mans money tax free.

Damn, who really won the war?

No offense Eric, but in another thread you kept posting articlrs from this worldnetdaily.com too.  Are  you telling us to forget everything that we have heard on CNN, NPR, BBC, and all the other major news stations and websites, and only believe what is on that website?  On one article you posted from this site in the other thread, it talks about how the palestinians killed 2 israeli soldiers in Rammalah a few months ago.  Well on CNN i heard about the 2 Israeli soldiers, and in adition about some of the palestinians that were killed in Ramallah at the same time.  How come this news source only mentions the part about the israeli soldiers?  

Post from hielo -

Yes the Jews were 'given' their small slice of
Palestine by the United Nations and approved by Truman, and had to immediately fight off all of their Arab 'neighbors' (you know, the guys who were supporting Hitler in WWII) in the War of 1948 (which Israel WON).

The Israelis kicked booty out of the Arab League in the Suez War of 1956 (which Israel WON).

Then the incredible Six-Day War of 1967 (which Israel WON).

And, finally, following a coordinated sneak attack on Yom Kipur in October, 1983, the Israelis handed the Arabs their own heads on a stick (meaning Israel WON).

Let's see, in that war, the Israelis were within 20 kilometers of Damascus, Syria, with little Syrian opposition after their asses were kicked in the Golan Heights, when the US prevailed upon them to halt. Which they did!

The Israelis had not only penetrated into the Western side of the Suez Canal, but had completely encircled the entire Egyptian 3rd Army, WITH NO OTHER ORGANIZED EGYPTIAN MILITARY FORCE BETWEEN THE ISRAELIS AND CAIRO! They could have systematically reduced the Egyptian Army to a scrap heap with human remains, and then headed off to vacation at the Pyramids.  The US prevaled upon them to halt. Which they did!

Let's see, hmmmm, FOUR out of FOUR wars the state of Israel beat the sh|t out of its many enemies.

You STILL believe that the land was 'handed' to them? Bullsh|t, they have fought four major wars to keep a Middle Eastern Holocaust from occurring.

Now who is 'completely wrong' on this?

Post from CrazyMonkey-

Who gave any land to the Palestinians? The UN?
Well, whoever it was that 'gave' the land to the Palestinians, or the land to the American Indians for that matter, certain events have overtaken that 'giving' - it's called the right of conquest.

The UN did not intervene militarily to assist the Israelis in any of its wars.  If the Arab League had been successful in any of these wars, there may have been feeble protests made to the UN, irate letters may have been sent to Editors of certain Eastern newspapers, and a lot of gleeful hand wringing and toasts by fugitive Nazis in South America, but, as the Palestinian Charter carefully sets out, it would be the end of every man, woman and child of Jewish descent in Israel.

But now you wouldn't want that would you?[}:D]


In a word - Yep.[:D]

If you look carefully enough at the photo posted above you will most likely find that CNN, NPR, BBC, and all the other major news stations, are the ones who are taking the pictures and film of the flag-bedecked Palestinian youth.  Did you see this photo [b]anywhere else?[/b] No, well why not? Only on worldnetdaily.com. Yep.

Eric The(BringItOnBaby!)Hun[>]:)]

Hey Eric The (forgetstheinconvientpartsofhistory)Hun,

You remember the U.S.S. Liberty?

you mean a world governing body (like, say the u.n. wants to be) could just take your land and give it to someone else.....

Once upon a time Europe decided to erradicate it's Jewish population.

At the end of the conflict, and mostly by mutual consent,the Jews decided NOT to stay in Europe.

But nobody wanted them(including the U.S.)

The allied victors(primarily England)looked around and decided they could rely upon "religious" claim and found some "Liebenstraum" for the Jews in Palestine and renamed it Israel to give the plan further credibility.

The relocated Palestinians did not fully support the idea.

End of story and here we are.

Post from hielo -

Who could forget, meine kleine Knabe? You tell me the story from your stilted viewpoint, and I'll respond.[:D]

Eric The(You'reCertainYou'reAJew?)Hun[>]:)]

Damn right I am a Jew, sorry if I don't toe the party line though.  Wanna continue this discussion in yiddish?

Post from hielo -

Continue however you wish, but tell me of the USS Liberty.[>]:)]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the ship full of European Jewish refugees denied access into the US? If this is the same ship, it ultimately returned to Europe and many eventually found their way to Poland.

Despite "popular" history the US has not always been a friend of the "chosen people."

Anyone remember the American Bund at Madison Square Garden?

Post from SteyrAUG -

No, that ship may have been the [i]Sturma[/i], which, after being turned away by the British, was torpedoed in the Black Sea in the winter of 1942; of the 769 Jewish refugees on board only one survived.

Or you may be thinking of the 1976 English movie [i]Voyage of the Damned[/i], a fictional account of the S.S.St.Louis, a luxury liner taking 900 Jews from Nazi Germany to Cuba, starring Faye Dunaway, Orson Wells, Lee Grant, Max Von Sydow, and a very young Katherine Ross!

The U.S.S.Liberty was a surveillance support ship (AGTR-5) that was attacked by Israeli planes and torpedo boats while off the coast of the Sinai on the fourth day of the Six Day War in 1967.  There were 34 sailors killed and 171 wounded during the seventy-five minute attack,
which left the ship so badly damaged that it was later scrapped.

Talk about 'fog of war' or deliberate action by the Israelis has been hotly debated over the
last thirty-four years.  The Israelis' actions are inexplicable in some respects, but so are the motives that are given the Israelis by their enemies.

Needless to say, the whole story is quite strange.  Captain Joseph Tully of the aircraft carrier USS Saratoga, upon hearing the distress calls from the USS Liberty, immediately launches a squadron of naval fighters to go to the aid of that ship.  BUT THESE PLANES ARE RECALLED BY ORDERS FROM THE PENTAGON, APPROVED BY BOTH PRES. JOHNSON AND THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF!!!

Israel's defense of its action - 'fog of war'

Israel's enemies reply - 'b.s.'

The problem is finding a motive for the State of Israel to act so rashly or recklessly at a time when they were absolutely dependant upon continued US military assistance.

Eric The(IStillWantToHearFromHielo)Hun[>]:)]  

Say what?  We got their land fair and square?  You need a 101 History refresher course.

If the various Tribes of the MidEast ever forge a true peace, where will we & the Russians sell Armaments?  These people have been warring for Thousands of years.  Outside forces might like the situation to continue.  Where there is strife in the world, look back to involvement of the British Empire.

Mom used to say, "It's all fun and games until someone puts their eye out."

Ticonderoga says, "It's all fun and games until the PLO gets a nuke..."

[b]acually[/b], Hitler offered (early in the war) to have ALL of the Jews deported to Palestine and Churchill would have nothing of it.  Churchill was (by the PC definition of the term) an anti-semite, and so too was most of the US.

If I recall, the majority of pre 67 "occupied" territory was purchased legitamately from willing Palestinian land owners...more than was ever "taken".  

Anyone got more info on this?  

Regardless of how or why, when you start killing innocents (either side) the line is crossed and it's on.  I don't blame either of them for wanting to kill each other, they've both committed acts of cowardice against one another.  

So, basically what you're saying, is that if the person (people) that sold you your home, or the land to build it on, and all of a sudden they wanted it back, they can use their "right of conquest" to come and take it from if they manage to, as you say in another post, "kick your booty"  




While worldnetdaily might show some things about the palestinians, it turns a blind eye to the Israelis.  I prefer a news source that covers both sides of a conflict.  No other news source had that picture?  Well at least they talked about the people that[b] both [/b] sides have killed and the actions of [b] both [/b] sides.  

Post by CrazyMonkey -

Disregarding your use of the term 'people' for a moment, if someone sold me a home or land and then changed their mind and came to take it away from my by force or violence, all I would have to do is to refer the matter to the Courts for a determination of who had lawful title to the property.

If the folks who sold me the property were the ones who dispossessed or tried to disposses me of the house or land, they would be 'Sh|t out of luck' because the Court would uphold that part of the contract of sale that required the Grantors (the folks who sold me the property in the first place) to 'warrant and forever defend' the Grantee's (that's me) right, title and interest to the property. They would be estopped to deny that I had the right, title and interest in this property. Someone else might have better title to the property, but these folks would not be able to stay on the property.

If I won at Court and the Grantors refused to remove themselves from my property, I would simply go back to the same Court and obtain a Writ of Possession.  Any peace officer (here in Texas, it's ordinarily the Constable) would be able to use any and all sufficient force to remove these folks and their belongings from my property.

There is simply no such 'right of conquest' among private parties to a private dispute regarding private property. The law in the United States takes a pretty dim view of the violent taking of private property by another person.  Most likely, after the police cuff the miscreants, I would simply move back into my home.  

Now if I failed to pursue my claim for my recovery of the property against these folks for a certain number of years, the law in most states is that my right of recovery might be lost irretrievably.  This is known as being barred by a Statute of Limitations, or by a legal theory referred to as 'acquisitive prescription', meaning that by so delaying my demand of recovery of the property that I have lost my right to ever recover the property.

When it comes to the actions of sovereign nations, the same laws simply do not apply, no matter how many World Courts the United Nations might want to establish.

How much money did the United States pay the Indians for their lands?  Save and except the $24.00 allegedly paid by the Dutch for Manhatten Island, I simply can't remember any Indian tribe being paid for their lands. The usual way such things were handled was that the US Government would 'pay' for the lands being taken by offering these Indians the lands of other Indians somewhere further West.

Maybe it's wrong, but if Caddo Indians suddenly appeared at my front door and requested that I leave because my house was located on tribal lands that their ancestors 'owned' (a concept quite foreign to most Indians), I would simply call the cops.  My right, title, and interest would be defended, as above, and the Caddoans' only claims might be against the US government for some breach of a treaty between those two sovereign nations.

Eric The(ClassDismissed)Hun[>]:)]

Post by CrazyMonkey -

Yeah, right. I can't imagine more fair and balanced reporting on world events than that provided by CNN, BBC, NPR and the other news services![:D]

Eric The(GetAGrip)Hun[>]:)]

A little something about the USS Liberty:

[url]http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/liberty.html[/url]

[url]http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/[/url]


Interesting thread here......

Thanks, WhoMe?, I'd quite forgotten that LBJ had taken such a direct hand in the situation until reminded of his 'six-minute attack' announcement that was mentioned in the second thread.  The attack lasted more like seventy-five minutes, considering both the air attack and the torpedo boat attack.

I've heard various theories over the years on why Israel might purposefully attack that ship, but none have held much water.  Two of the most popular was that (1) Israel didn't want the US to catch onto the fact that they were producing fake 'plane to plane' chatter in Egyptian language, with the fake pilots claiming success in destroying Israeli aircraft, broadcasting the chatter for the purpose of encouraging the remaining Jordanian and Syrian forces to hold on longer, with the result that the Israelis could continue their advance into Egypt and Syria without US opposition to their drives, and (2) that the USS Liberty may have witnessed the cold-blooded murder of Egyptian POWs by their Israeli captors in Mediterranean coastal villages!

The first theory is undercut by the fact that the US [b]knew[/b] that the Egyptian Air Force was pretty much destroyed on the ground in the first two days of the war, and would have known that there were no Egyptian air combat successes against the Israelis on the 4th day of this six day war. So why attack the US ship?
The Americans weren't feeding the truth to the Jordanians and Syrians, nor to their Soviet masters.

The second theory is just pure poppycock, but it still lives on in the fevered brains of the anti-semites.

Yes, I agree, it is an interesting thread.

Eric The(ElderOfZion)Hun[>]:)]

Eric,
Like you, I'm inclined to beleive the attack on the USS Liberty was an accident.  It would serve Israel absolutely no good to intentionally attack a US ship.  Here's another link that has some pics of the ship:

[url]http://www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty/[/url]