Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Muslims declare sovereignty over U.S., UK
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Bill Clinton peace plan included 30 Billion dollars in compensation for the Palestinians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
contrarian



Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wonder where adventurer got Bill Clinton's flavoured cigar?

Clsong the Gulf of Aqaba, whout more was justification for the 67 war. Throwing the UN out and putting tanks on the Israeli border was abother reason as was the Syrian ahelling from the Golan.

According to the strict wording or the 1949 Palestinian Refugee Resolution the only ones with"a right of return are those who were actually alive at the time. The US and Israel intentionally worded it that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AbbeFaria



Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason nothing is done about the Palestinian refugees is that it is an excellent propaganda tool against Israel. The same reason that Arafat died a billionaire while his people lived in squalor.

-S-
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
postfundie



Joined: 28 May 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The term "Nakba" was coined by Constantin Zureiq, a professor of history at the American University of Beirut, in his 1948 book Ma'na al-Nakba (The Meaning of the Disaster). After the Six Day War in 1967 Zureiq wrote another book, The New Meaning of the Disaster, but the term Nakba is reserved for the 1948 war.

Are you aware that Muslims use this term to refer to the founding of Israel as being a great disaster.???





Quote:
And it is always quite clear, my silly friend, that your first interest in addressing me is not thrashing out an interesting debate, but rather to insult and ridicule. Don't worry, I feel neither insulted or ridiculed by someone so petty as yourself, so you need not lay awake at night on my account



Now have you noticed that you are complaining about Insults, yet you throw them around quite often??? I think you feel insulted. Actually your posts and the things that you complain about seem so full of contradictions to me that I find myself having to make comments....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
igotthisguitar



Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Adventurer wrote:
Pakistanis who have those views should be stripped of their citizenship and simply deported. If they don't view themselves as British subjects then they can go and make a living in Pakistan. They should remember one thing -the British intelligence people are watching and some people in the crowd who are of your ethnicity work for them so keep talking. What fools...


Who's the fool?

Radickal agitators such as these people are play a key role in the NEW WORLD ORDER.

You don't think they could be thrown out of the country? Of course they could.

Unfortunately most corrupt globalist politicians lack the will & genuine national leadership.

Think DIALECTICS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Big_Bird



Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

postfundie wrote:
The term "Nakba" was coined by Constantin Zureiq, a professor of history at the American University of Beirut, in his 1948 book Ma'na al-Nakba (The Meaning of the Disaster). After the Six Day War in 1967 Zureiq wrote another book, The New Meaning of the Disaster, but the term Nakba is reserved for the 1948 war.

Are you aware that Muslims use this term to refer to the founding of Israel as being a great disaster.???


I am well aware of the meaning of this term, and have been for many years. Are you implying I have used it improperly? If so, please bring my attention to where/how. Then I may explain to you how you have misunderstood.

For the refugees and those killed or who had loved ones killed in the founding of Israel, yes it was a great disaster. Why wouldn't it be?


Quote:
Quote:
And it is always quite clear, my silly friend, that your first interest in addressing me is not thrashing out an interesting debate, but rather to insult and ridicule. Don't worry, I feel neither insulted or ridiculed by someone so petty as yourself, so you need not lay awake at night on my account



Now have you noticed that you are complaining about Insults, yet you throw them around quite often??? I think you feel insulted. Actually your posts and the things that you complain about seem so full of contradictions to me that I find myself having to make comments....


No, I'm not insulted. You soon develop a thick skin here - if you've got any sense, that is. Just frightfully bored of you postfundie. Truly I enjoy hurling insults around. Yes, I admit it. It's good fun. But I reserve them purely for those who innitiate that kind of nonsense. Be civil with me and I will always reciprocate in kind.

I just think you are a tiresome prat, and was in the mood for letting you know of it. The other day I was really lamenting the ratio of idiotic baiters versus intelligent and thoughtful debaters - and who should come along, but you - speaking of the Devil and whatnot. Gave you a little piece of mind. There is a difference between you and I. I come here because I enjoy discussion. You come here for pettier reasons. Time you admitted it.


Edited for ambiguity and a bit of grammar.


Last edited by Big_Bird on Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:14 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adventurer



Joined: 28 Jan 2006

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

contrarian wrote:
I wonder where adventurer got Bill Clinton's flavoured cigar?

Clsong the Gulf of Aqaba, whout more was justification for the 67 war. Throwing the UN out and putting tanks on the Israeli border was abother reason as was the Syrian ahelling from the Golan.

According to the strict wording or the 1949 Palestinian Refugee Resolution the only ones with"a right of return are those who were actually alive at the time. The US and Israel intentionally worded it that way.



I would love to smoke the cigars Bill Clinton smoked. And I would love it if you would connect the proper war to the proper events. The 1948 war is what led to people being refugees in Lebanon after the Palestinians were ethnic cleansed to the tune of 700,000 and not allowed to return home. That was not done during the 1967 war.

The 1967 war was not a defensive war since Israel took the Sinai and Golan Heights and West Bank. It was an offensive war and can only be painted as such if someone wants to be honest about it. The Straits of Tiran is not justification for seizing all that territory. It was a fig leaf for that. As far as Syria, Moshe Dayan actually stated that in most cases the Syrians were provoked by Israel. That was printed in the Boston Globe.
The Israeli side kept crossing the DMZ and the Syrians kept firing.
You are making it seem as if the Syrians instigated the hostilities with Israel; the Syrians did not. It was the other way around.

In a 1976 interview by Israeli journalist Rami Tal, Dayan claimed that 80 percent of the cross-border clashes between Israel and Syria in the years before the war were a result of Israeli provocation. He said, "I made a mistake in allowing the [Israeli] conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time."[1][2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
contrarian



Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am truly impressed that you like *beep* flavored cigars - Bill would be proud.

You should have read my other posts on here. All of the Israel / Arab wars generated refugeees. !948/49 and 1967 6he largest number. But the Balck September by Jordon produced a pretty fair number as did the other Middle Eastern countried, including Iraq, that booted the Palestinians out.

!948/49 the "so called regugees" were likeli in about equal numbers, ones that were eencouraged out by the Jews and the others who ran like rabbits from Jewish movements. One of the3 classic examples was near Haifa, where a homemade Jewish mortar, shot garbage can sized prjectiles that made smoke and noise but little real damage. The Jews spread the word that it was an atomic weapon and the ignprant peasants took a powder.

Dier Yassin itself had been used as a staging area for the Arab Legion.

One of the great ironies of the 1948/49 war was the Arabs flying British supplied Spitfires, flown by ex Luftwafe pilots, against ME 109s that the Jews had bought in Czacholsovakia and were flown by American, South African, Canadian and British pilots.

American Jewish citizens suppled a lot of the Israeli money but practically none was supplied by the US government (actually until 1973).

The 1967 borders of Israel were to small anf vlunerable to take a chance on letting the Arabs have the first strike. Hwn it became clear that Nasser was going to strike the Israelis' got him first. And yes, closing the Gulf of Aqaba and the Suez Canal (Efypt had promised in 1956 to keep it open) is a proper motive to go to was and to grab territory. That is what happens in wars.

I'll make another post in a bit and include the UN Resoltion fro 1948/49 and 1967 to demonstrate how few real refugees thera are now.

Your revisionist history is a good chuckle, maybe you can revise the holocaust figures as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ddeubel



Joined: 20 Jul 2005

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Contrarian,

You remind me of so many in life..... you know just enough to think you have some illusion of touching the godhead. God forbid that those of such tunnel vision would ever actually be in a position of authority (yet too often have).

All i have to say. Your arguement is so full of holes, I'll just let the truth flow through it.

DD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
contrarian



Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I said I would return with the 1948 Resolition on refugees, here it is.

�the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for the loss of or damage to property which, under the principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.�

Let'a have a look at this. It states "the" refugees. Specific people denoted by a definate article. It simply means those who existed in 1948/49. According to most sources the inclusion of the definate article rather then the general word refugees, was an intentional inclusion at the behest of the US.

It also contains the caveata "earliest possib;e time" and "live in peace". One of the is totally beyond recall and the other has never been met.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee



Joined: 25 May 2003

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I would love to smoke the cigars Bill Clinton smoked. And I would love it if you would connect the proper war to the proper events. The 1948 war is what led to people being refugees in Lebanon after the Palestinians were ethnic cleansed to the tune of 700,000 and not allowed to return home. That was not done during the 1967 war.

The 1967 war was not a defensive war since Israel took the Sinai and Golan Heights and West Bank. It was an offensive war and can only be painted as such if someone wants to be honest about it. The Straits of Tiran is not justification for seizing all that territory. It was a fig leaf for that. As far as Syria, Moshe Dayan actually stated that in most cases the Syrians were provoked by Israel. That was printed in the Boston Globe.
The Israeli side kept crossing the DMZ and the Syrians kept firing.
You are making it seem as if the Syrians instigated the hostilities with Israel; the Syrians did not. It was the other way around.

In a 1976 interview by Israeli journalist Rami Tal, Dayan claimed that 80 percent of the cross-border clashes between Israel and Syria in the years before the war were a result of Israeli provocation. He said, "I made a mistake in allowing the [Israeli] conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time."[1][2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan
[/quote]




Was too a defensive war.


Quote:
In the months before June 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, and called for unified Arab action against Israel. In June 1967,



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War







So while it was not clear that Egypt intended to attack Israel it was serious enough that Israel would have to keep its forces on alert while Egypt was massing soldiers.

If you think that Israel didn't have to please remember that Israel paid a high price in 1973 for not doing so.

So since Egypt (and Syria too ) had a much greater population than Israel it could keep its forces ready for an invasion while Israel with a much smaller population could not.

Remember if Israel kept it forces on alert all the time it would have been a terrible strategic situation for Israel that Isreal could not sustain. After all soldiers would not be able to do their regular jobs while they were on alert.

So it was akin to someone waving their hands in your face but not really intending to hit. Nevertheless one can not live that way.

I would say if someone is always waving their hands in someones face in a threatening way they ought not complain if they get decked hard for doing so.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Junior



Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ddeubel wrote:

All i have to say. Your arguement is so full of holes, I'll just let the truth flow through it.

DD


Double D you have gotten ridiclious in your old age.

You have gone too far to the left that your almost in danger of being right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChimpumCallao



Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ddeubel wrote:
Contrarian,

You remind me of so many in life..... you know just enough to think you have some illusion of touching the godhead. God forbid that those of such tunnel vision would ever actually be in a position of authority (yet too often have).

All i have to say. Your arguement is so full of holes, I'll just let the truth flow through it.

DD


Let's all die of shock. DD states someone's argument is absolutely ridiculous, but does not actually argue against it or provide evidence. How pinche convenient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adventurer



Joined: 28 Jan 2006

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:
Quote:
I would love to smoke the cigars Bill Clinton smoked. And I would love it if you would connect the proper war to the proper events. The 1948 war is what led to people being refugees in Lebanon after the Palestinians were ethnic cleansed to the tune of 700,000 and not allowed to return home. That was not done during the 1967 war.

The 1967 war was not a defensive war since Israel took the Sinai and Golan Heights and West Bank. It was an offensive war and can only be painted as such if someone wants to be honest about it. The Straits of Tiran is not justification for seizing all that territory. It was a fig leaf for that. As far as Syria, Moshe Dayan actually stated that in most cases the Syrians were provoked by Israel. That was printed in the Boston Globe.
The Israeli side kept crossing the DMZ and the Syrians kept firing.
You are making it seem as if the Syrians instigated the hostilities with Israel; the Syrians did not. It was the other way around.

In a 1976 interview by Israeli journalist Rami Tal, Dayan claimed that 80 percent of the cross-border clashes between Israel and Syria in the years before the war were a result of Israeli provocation. He said, "I made a mistake in allowing the [Israeli] conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time."[1][2]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Dayan





Was too a defensive war.


Quote:
In the months before June 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force from the Sinai Peninsula, increased its military activity near the border, blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships, and called for unified Arab action against Israel. In June 1967,



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War







So while it was not clear that Egypt intended to attack Israel it was serious enough that Israel would have to keep its forces on alert while Egypt was massing soldiers.

If you think that Israel didn't have to please remember that Israel paid a high price in 1973 for not doing so.

So since Egypt (and Syria too ) had a much greater population than Israel it could keep its forces ready for an invasion while Israel with a much smaller population could not.

Remember if Israel kept it forces on alert all the time it would have been a terrible strategic situation for Israel that Isreal could not sustain. After all soldiers would not be able to do their regular jobs while they were on alert.

So it was akin to someone waving their hands in your face but not really intending to hit. Nevertheless one can not live that way.

I would say if someone is always waving their hands in someones face in a threatening way they ought not complain if they get decked hard for doing so.[/quote]


You ignored the fact that Israel provoked Syria constantly and thus was waving its hands at Syria so to speak. Second, you did not mention that a lot of the Egyptian Army was in Yemen helping Yemenis fighting a crazy Imam, and Israel knew part of the Egyptian army was helping in that war and Egypt was not in a position to be fighting two wars.

1973 was after 1967 when Israel took territory from Egypt in an offensive war called the Six Day War. Egypt was not prepared for a war; Israel was prepared for one. Nasser provided the pretext for war because of what he did, but Israel was not attacked first even if some historians classify it as a defensive war. You mention 1973 when in that case Egypt was prepared and attacked. Obviously, in that case Israel was fighting a defensive war without a shadow of a doubt. Actually, that war was unecessary. Sadat didn't even want to fight that war. He was trying to contact the Israelis but diplomacy was not baring any fruit before 1973, so he coaxed the Syrias not join him in a war. Did Israel feel threatened by having neighbours who hated it? Yes, somewhat. Was Israel much more powerful than its neighbours and shrewder? In general, yes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
contrarian



Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Location: Nearly in NK

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The adventurers revisionist history is quite stunning and more than a little ant-Semetic.

A well, the world is full of his "some of my good frieds ares Jews" types.

adventurer: Waht about Haj Amin al Husseini abd his realtionship to Arafat and the Nazis?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 9 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International