Army Guy

Black dog: He also said in the same movie...A soldiers job not to die for his country but to make the other SOB die for his.... Soldiers are not stupid people , and you give them no credit ..don't you think after the had everything they had lost in the WWI and started to invade France don't you think they would have known that they were no longer defending anything but instead invading europe... There is no allegely, they will and have been defending all your rights and projecting Canada's values around the globe....Like it or not....as for the blokes, i'll leave that up to them....and your imagination...I would say i don't think they'd be happy ....and if you were looking to start a bar fight that would probablily do it... I think the historical answer was Canada wanted to fight in europe so it could keep the fighting as far from Canada as possiable...WWI, the majority of Candians wanted the country to assit Britain or the mother land....WWII the same reason only more on Canada's terms and you can't tell me that Canada suffered economically during WWII

Black dog: I am familar with the War measures act, just as most Canadains. It's an act that provides the goverment with the powers to act in the best interest of the country....and it does temporily suspends some of the citizens rights that are grant to them key words are temporily and goverment ...you know the one that we all voted in...the one that can change the act if there was enough support by the people ...And it is the military that is general the instrument of implimentation...but that is not an example of soldiers taking away or destroying any rights that have been given to them ....it's an example of the Goverment ordering a temporily limitation...I'M not familar with the winnipeg general strike so i will not comment on it .....However the NW rebellion was an RCMP operation and again they were acting on the goverments orders as they were dealing with a threat... And they are instrments of the state to a piont...there has been cases were the military has acted agains'nt the state for the better of the country...Cuban missle crisses...prime example....Canadain military deployed against the wish of our goverment....I also believe that to be true today...Our military leaders will not obey orders that are unlawful or not in the publics best interest.... Yes , you are in fact correct but that would be impossiable without the freedom to do so....IE it was extremly hard for thinkers to make any changes in the Nazi regime .... I think it is a medical picture, that some how the insurgents got a hold off... It is geared more towards the installations and equipment ...but if said journalist was in the struture they would be collatoral dammage...To answer your question...Yes,terrorism or murder depending on why the killing was done...again journalists are not a form of communication... Does this mean now we are bringing in town cryers...everyday at noon everyone can gather at the town center and listen to the news....I believe there are enough forms of media today that if one wants one can stay informed....or are we going to force them to watch or listen...... How many times have you used a search engine looking for a certain topic and your search comes up with unrelated topics ...I once looked up dog food and ended up with 3 porno sites how the two are related i don't know but it happens ...my piont is family and friends of this soldier may accidently find these pictures or have them sent to them...we both have agreed they are extremly graphic and would cause them undo grief....so why have them at all...i know that anything and everything is available on the net....but there is a need for some controls ...as they have put on child porn etc etc...Censorship is a slippery slope and common sense must prevail... The problem with estimates is they are just that estimates, Unfortunatly accurate counts are not kept...even if we both agree that 100,000 is correct over 4 years those figures for Canadain traffic deaths are pretty close...and our popualtion base are very similar...

Black dog: The above is your quote is it not....how do you get the below meaning out what you wrote above.... No, if you read my quopte again, you'll see I said the majority joined up for reasons other than "the cause". Maybe it was financial, or maybe it was educational, but I wonder how many fighting in Iraq actually belive their leade's rhetoric. Hence why i asked you do you think there is a problem, that US service men are joining just to kill Arabs... as your comment suggests if you did not mean to suggest it why did you mention it. Do you honestly believe that there is a problem ...that American service persons are joining up only to kill Arabs....is that the reason the are having recruiting problems because everyone wants to sign up and kill Arabs... There is alot more to it than just believing in a cause, their goverment, Thier Country, thier patriotism, thier moral values, and thier up bringing all plays a big role on thier decision to join up and serve thier country. And it does make them a better person.... How does that make them a better person, Because they are willing to fight or defend all the rights and freedoms that you enjoy today, to ensure that you have them tommorrow....And they are willing to lay thier lives down to accomplish that...But hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion and if you don't see that as an unselfish act and one that is honorable then that is your opinion....I just would not express those views in front of vets or currently serving soldiers... What interest did our country have in defeating the germans in WWI and WWII what interest did we have in korea....are you saying that those wars Canada should not have gotten involved...that those that died in them were wasted... Care to prove that, and provide me a link...Explain to me how Canadian soldiers have held back or destroyed any of your rights that you have today....If it not been for the acts of Canada's soldiers on the battlefields just what rights do you think the Nazi's would have gave you....The unions, civil rights advocates, etc were made up of alot of ex service men who fought for those very rights...and to ensure me and you held on to the rights we have now....Don't give me that crap that scholars, intelects gave you everything we have today....without freedom you would have nothing.... Is it tell me how the showing of this picture in question can be good for said soldier or his family and friends....if that was your son lying on that table would you want to see this picture...would you want it on the net .... Lets try to debate about something you know about....any and all media outlets are prime military targets,TV, Radio,and Print...as they are means of communication without them the enemy is limited to military communication which can easily jammed... plus has no means of cummunicating with the civilians to cause unrest, or unwanted attacks... And really, I make an effort to make myself informed of the "other" side: how many others do that and how many more simply accept the dominant narratives of the western media? Who cares what the other people are doing if they are not going to take the effort and inform themselfs then they deserve to be misled...but that does not give us the right to use this soldiers dead body to educate those that are to lazy to educate themselfs. Explain to an old army guy how you can do both....and explain to me what censorship means to Canadains and why we have it.... Like I said before that is your opinion, In my opinion ,it means support those that are doing the fighting and dying ...it does not mean that you support your goverments decision to go to war....those soldiers need that support as well as thier families... Like i said before, everyone has his or her own reasons why they join the military or why the sign up to fight....but they do... Please go to that site again, this time read the bottom portion it includes Civ cas and deaths...And i think you miss the piont of all those stats "more Canadains are killed in traffic accidents in one year than all the cas in Iraq....it also goes to show you that the US suffers more murders than all those killed in Iraq.... Why did i show you these ...to disbute why we do not publish extremly graphic photos of those events when it is clear that more people die here on our roads or are murdered ....if there ever was a cause that people need to be educated on it would be one of those two.... I also want to make it clear that i am not trying to negate any of those deaths that are happening in Iraq due to conflict...but to piont out that we do not use those type of pictures to educate a clearly larger problem , and why we should not use them to dishonour or cause undo harm to those family members or friends of this young soldier who has paid with his life....

Black dog: It was disbuting your claim below. Like i said before those numbers are taken from a palestinian web site, it's ironic they don't mention any additional numbers or support your claims that would be to thier benifit. I'm not saying they are not true just they are not mentioned... Again according the this PA site they cliam they are the adminstrative authority...they are in control of the goverment,police forces and thier security forces ....sounds like control to me... Yes they do, that is not disbuted...but Israel claims that the PA authority can not control the Terrorists ,or it's citizens Just what is Israel to do turn the other check...I do agree with you that these incursions do nothing but provide excuses for more violence....that said the PA has to also control it's own people... They may not conduct the raids, but they have condoned them and have encouraged them....They have done nothing in routing these groups out of thier lands. You have a funny way of showing that. a majority of your post place blame on Isreal and say very little of the PA and thier reponsabilty in all this... I believe if you re read my posts i have repeatly admitted that Israel is not pure good or that i agree with everything that Israel has done....but instead tried to show you that the palestinians are just as much to blame for thier current plight. It has been my experiance that constructive engagement is not going to work, it has not worked in any peace keeping mission i've been on....total separation is the way you have to start....if the palestinian claims are true all want is there land back....It is going to take great effort to accomplish just that one objective...your not going to get the State of Israel to pay welfare for a hostile state as well.... The other Arab countries are going to have to take on that role...until peace stabizes and the people are given a cooling off period... Israel has every legal right to shut its borders to any state or group....and how would that chock the life out of the last palestinian if the truely want peace ,to have thier own state, to build thier own nation then why would it matter....They have a sea port, access to the out side world...

shakeyhands: What is the big difference ?, do those families not greive the same way,over thier lost one.... or do you believe that soldier does not have the right or for that matter earned the right to peace...to be buried by his family so they may carry on with thier lives...

Eureka: How is it different, we are talking about needless death and destruction are we not....then why is it we do not see extremly graphic pictures on these deaths below...we are talking about making the public more aware....making the world a safer place.... Below are a few statistics on death here in Canada and the US. It should be noted that these are for "ONE" year only In Canada: There were 2,778 deaths due to motor vehicle traffic collisions in the year 2001 - a rate of 8.9 deaths per 100,000 population.1,2 In 2000-2001 there were 24,403 hospital admissions for traffic-related injuries, corresponding to a rate of 79 hospitalizations per 100,000 population.3 Many victims are young and traffic collisions are a leading cause of premature death and long term disability. Motor veh accidents. Violent crimes causing death in Canada. Murders in Canada. ---The murder count for 1995 totaled 21,597, a total 7 percent lower than 1994 and 13 percent lower than 1991. The murder rate was 8 per 100,000 inhabitants. ---Based on supplemental data received, 77 percent of murder victims in 1995 were males, and 88 percent were persons 18 years or older. By race, 49 percent of victims were black and 48 percent were white. ---Data based on a total of 22,434 murder offenders showed that 91 percent of the assailants were males, and 85 percent were 18 years of age or older. Fifty-three percent of the offenders were black and 45 percent were white. ---Fifty-five percent of murder victims were slain by strangers or persons unknown. Among all female murder victims in 1995, 26 percent were slain by husbands or boyfriends, while 3 percent of the male victims were slain by wives or girlfriends. ---By circumstance, 28 percent of the murders resulted from arguments and 18 percent from felonious activities such as robbery, arson, etc. ---In approximately 7 out of every 10 murders reported during 1995, firearms were the weapons used FBI murder rates. American Deaths Since war began (3/19/03): 1714 1346 Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 1577 1238 Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 1247 1042 Since Handover (6/29/04): 848 713 Since Election (1/31/05): 282 241 American Wounded Official Estimated Total Wounded: 12896 15000 - 38000 My Webpage Judging by the above stats it seems that you guys picked the wrong cause ...figures seem to sugest that it is alittle safer in Iraq than on our own streets....and forget about the US....

Black dog: Do you honestly believe that there is a problem ...that American service persons are joining up only to kill Arabs....is that the reason the are having recruiting problems because everyone wants to sign up and kill Arabs... There is alot more to it than just believing in a cause, their goverment, Thier Country, thier patriotism, thier moral values, and thier up bringing all plays a big role on thier decision to join up and serve thier country. And it does make them a better person.... How about asking yourself who gave you your rights to ask those questions...Soldiers gave you those rights Men and women that fought and risked thier lives to enusre our way of live remained as it is today....And yes it is not only your right to ask those questions but your responsabilty as a citizen to ask those questions of our goverment to ensure it is the right decision. With all that said what is your right to dishonour this soldiers death, by causing undo harm to his famly and friends. Threaten by whom ? and yes all media centers are legitimate targets during any military operation....BD your a smart guy, you can not tell me that you believe everything you see on the media....you and i know that if you want to get the full truth about what is going on in the world then you have to go to other sources...Arab TV shows another slant watch both and take the average... My question is WHY does the public need to be exposed to highly graphic pictures like the one in question...The majority of the public does not want to see those pictures...nither does those vets returning from combat, or the families of the dead....Do we not show "them" any compasion or do we just tell them thanks for coming out oh by the way here is pictures of your husbands boots because that is all that we could find as he was blown up by an RPG....why are we doing this because the public has the right to know....we need to see those pictures so "we" know what wars effects are....When did we become so cold... They are showing you the results, Just not in extremly graphic pictures. And it's to late to decide anything once the death and destruction is started, you've made a commitment ,soldiers are paying for that commitment with thier lives , changing ones mind after the fact is telling those soldiers that their lives meant nothing. As for The public deciding ...If they don't already know that war has terriable effects before the decision to send troops over then something is wrong....then perhaps the public needs to get off it's a$$ and do something about that situation. They don't need extremly graphic pictures to do that... Soldiers already know the risks of war, slogans like "support the troops" are used to rally the people to show those that have agreed to fight for thier country that they are being supported and thier families are being looked after....you live in a nation that gives you the right to freedom of speach,ETC you can use that freedom any way you choose...but you do not have the right to judge "ANY" of those that have taken up arms to defend thier nation, or its ideals.... I don't believe that statement, everyone can be motivated to bear arms and fight for thier country..... That was part of it, ask a recruit at the recruiting center (why are you joining ) Number one answer is (to serve my country, and for the adventure and to see the world) Ask a trained soldier why he is fighting Number one answer is (to protect is buddies, his section,his platoon,to ensure they make it back in one piece) They'll tell you out right it's not for his country or out of Patriotism.... When they get back home they will tell you the standard answer....I answered the call of my country and fought for my buddies...

eureka: I will agree with you that pictures are a more powerful media than script...a tasteful picture can also tell a powerful story...IE when the allieds liberated the concentration camps there were thousands of pictures taken, pictures of the dead piled high, pictures showing the conditions of those that survived.those told a very powerful story all without showing graphic pictures of bodies that were mutalated by guards, half eaten by prisoners, bodies that were 1/2 decomposed from waiting to be burned or buried.... They told a story, that needed to be told, all with showing as much respect to those that were photoed. These photos are in most history books and can be viewed by ANYONE at any age.... If you think that you have found the Holy grail that will stop wars by showing it's effects...your sadly mistaken....The only thing that is going to stop wars is by changing the way man settles disagreements....war has been around since man learned to use a club, and is here to stay long after we are gone....you really want to make a difference then send your politions to fight.... And these pictures are going to change that ? the people will stand up and revolt.... how much civil unrest did Vietnam cause the US goverment and how long did that war go on for....These pictures will not stop our goverment from sending soldiers to war, niether will it's citizens .... lets not forget one thing Pictures did not bring you peace, Soldiers and thier sacrafice brought you peace...Soldiers made up of ordinary people from all walks of life, citizens that answer a call from thier country and served ,risking thier lives and spilling thier blood thats what brought you peace....Pictures told thier story but that is all they did.... As for relative peacefulness you are talking about Canada and the sense that Canada is not involved in a major conflict. Because at this time in the world there are 36 conflict zones of every size people are dying every second from war and conflict....but hey maybe those people never got to see those pictures... They get to see it every day How is it that Iraq and the war is being sanitized, I've seen plenty of news footage of the war, and the dead from both sides have been shown, the conditions of war have been shown, the effects of war have been shown....they have shown american soldiers dead laying in a pool of blood, however you can not make out who the soldier is, or who the person is....out of respect for the dead....they show American soldiers who have been wounded and being worked on by medics... How much more does the public need. This Soldier in the picture has volenteered to answer the call of his country,He is made aware of the risks and consquences of the job he is being asked to do...and yet he still serves, he pays the ultimate price while carrying out his duty...all they ask in return is his country's respect, and to be properly buried....Not to become someone else's cause.... We don't do this for any other job, such as policemen or fire fighters, who are asked to risk thier lives carrying out thier duties...we don't show medical pictures of shot policemen or badly burned fire fighters because we want them to continue doing their jobs. it's not the same thing BS, every country needs an army, and it needs soldiers....it is a fact of our times....so why is it exceptable to show medical photos of a badly mangled soldier... Soldiers don't start Wars, they have no control over anything in war...Our goverments start wars, and decide when to end wars....lets show some respect to those that have died in the service of thier country whether or not you agree with the cause or not ...You want to use your freedom of rights to end the war by reasonable means give'er....But remember those that have paid the ultimate price have paid enough.... If you can't drive your piont home with out these type of photos then your case is pretty weak...

Shakeyhands: The American public are very aware that they are losing soldiers in this conflict, Those cas figures are published every night in most if not all media stations across North America....How is it that not showing a graphic picture is lying ....they've told the public of the deaths...they informed the family... What good does it do anyone to see those grapic pictures... The American people are not stupid, they don't need pictures to form an educated opinion on this conflict....These pictures do nothing but cause undo harm to the family and relatives of this soldier...and diminish moral of those serving now... Perhaps you would feel different if that was your wife,husband, brother,sister, or child...and someone sent those pictures to you...thier is a reason censorship works in this country and this is one reason why we have censorship...it is why we have a rating system in this country....and yes there are things that go beyond what anyone should have access to those graphic pictures of a soldier with half his head blown off are a case and piont.... Ya right again how is this lying....have you seen those photos ...can you honestly say that the public needs to see those graphic images to really let them know what can happen on a battle field .... would you show them to your kids...your wife...And why is the reason we don't do that with vehicle accidents to promote safe driving ,or drinking and driving ...Or airplane crashes to promote flight safety...to let the people know this is what happens to a human body when it falls from 40,000 ft...You need a reality check on this one ...and think of the harm or pain that could be cause by those pictures why do you think the insurgents put them on the net..... Did they release any pictures of those killed in Afgan by that american pilot with a 500 LB bomb...NO....was it not enough to know that we lost 4 good soldiers in a tragic mistake ...Now you say you want pictures....

Gosthacked: History books are full of pictures of the dead and dying, (they are not as graphic as the ones shown on this insurgent site).... and they do have a shock value, they do show the price of war. You need to change the chanel, the media does cover all that you mentioned, Those pictures are much to graphic to be shown period.... and if its shock value you want why do we not show pictures of horrific traffic accidents put them on prime time so the families can really get a good image on what there spouse, father, mother, kids, looked like when they died...maybe we will all stop driving saving our resouces, and all those that die in traffic accidents.. They to are available on the on the intra net,and those that are to graphic should also be banned...and censored for the same reason... And you can...handle real violence....those soldiers will be honored given a military funeral, and buried by thier families....that is all that should happen they have paid the ultimate price and should not be asked to be used to further your cause.... Are you American or Canadian? reason i ask is you use "Tell them (we) are doing all (we) can to help Iraq." We as Canadians have a past time of throwing rocks at glass houses (what are Canadains doing to help the people of Iraq)

Black dog: They are worth a thousand words, and they do have an impact on the moral of a entire nation, but out of respect for the dead they should be censored ,these men and women have served thier country and have paid the ultimate price, They did so voluntarily as chimera pionted out because they believed in that cause...What right do we as the living by using thier deaths thier sacrifice to step on thier believes... to further another cause that these soldiers don't support...The coffin issue is not as large as the other issue of showing American soldiers mangled bodies ....where is the pay out for doing that, where is the respect for that soldiers ultimate sacrifice for his country, the respect for his grieving family.... Was it there was footage from the Iraqi side, during the first Gulf war...the Iraqi's decided that they did not want thier people to witness thier defeat...during the 2 and Iraqi war they had a problem with finding journalists that were willing to risk everything and traval with the insurgents something about they like excuting them...that being said there was some reporting going on by the Arab side ...you actually have to change the channel or have sat TV... Thats exactly what I'm saying, Have you been in a war zone...To a small degree they have but war is a thousand times more graphic....and if you think by watching some TV and playing some video games will prepare you for war your seriously mistaken....Can you honestly say that you would be prepared to see that guy in those images die, render first aid, haul him back to the aid station....then get back in combat soaked in his blood... No, i don't ...do you think there is a need for the general public to be aware? and where do we draw the line...The battle field is full of wpns far more deadly than the assault rifle...do we show them the results of getting hit with a 25 mm cannon shell, 40 mm HE round , or perhaps a anti personal tank round. we could take vidio on what happens to the human body as a 70 ton tank runs over it... All to what... show the public what it is like on the battle field so that man will stand up and proclaim the end to violence against each other to end war... Have you read a history book, has there been a time without it...mid evil warfare was alot more gruesume than it is today, with the families cleaning up the battlefields in which thousands died did that make a difference....NO we just got better at killing .... NO, it does not in any form make a difference,as a soldier seeing to much death and violence turns off those feelings it makes you cold, unfeeling, it makes those involved better killers as they don't want to end up like those they've seen...and it takes along time to re generate those normal emotions expected by every day society....

Black dog: Below is from a palestinian site, It should be noted that Begin was acting independently from the formed Goverment of Israel it also disagrees with your numbers " of many many more were driven out" as it quotes 10,000 were driven out ( a few compared to the entire population)... although his acts were acts of terrorism, it goes to further the piont that both sides are guility of terrible things, was Arafat not a terrorist..... It also goes on to say that the Arab countries attack Israel in 1948 with the intention of wiping them out...and at the end of that conflict those areas that were left was annex by Jordanian and Egyptian administrations.which answers another one of your questions should the Palestinians be held responsiable for thier actions "yes" As palestinians were themselfs involved in those attacks over 5000 of them in formed palestinian units....again making them responsiable for thier actions.... When the United Nations (UN) General Assembly approved in 1947 a new partition plan, 749,000 Arabs and 9,250 Jews lived in the territory where the proposed Arab state would be set up, while 497,000 Arabs and 498,000 Jews lived in the part which was to become the Jewish state. To drive the Palestinians from their land, a detachment of the Jewish terrorist organization Irgun, commanded by former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, raided the village of Deir Yasin on the 9th of April 1948, killing 254 civilians. The wave of terror drove 10,000 Palestinians from their land. Israel unilaterally proclaimed itself an independent country on the 14th of May 1948. Armies from the neighboring Arab states attacked immediately, but failed to stop the consolidation of the newly-proclaimed Jewish State. The new Jewish state had, in fact, emerged from the 1949 war against the Arab armies with a land area larger than one proposed by the United Nations. More than half of the Palestinians had to abandon their homes and headed towards the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where they lived as refugees. The West bank had been annexed by the then Hashemite kingdom of Tran-Jordan , a territory which had been annexed by the Hashemite kingdom of Transjordan; the Gaza Strip was then under the Egyptian administration. To the United Nations and, consequently, in the eyes of the international law, the Palestinians were not a people but simply refugees, i.e. a “problem” to be solved, although the 780000 Palestinian refugees were a direct result of war and forcible displacement to accommodate Jewish immigrants from Europe and the Arab world. palestinian web page ( here it mentions that over half the population left in fear and panick because of the war...while the remaining stayed ) As a result of the war, 780,000 Palestinians became refugees. About half that number left in fear and panic while those remaining were compelled to make room for Jewish immigrants from both European and Arab countries. The refugees spread into neighboring countries where they have maintained their Palestinian identity plus the desire to return to their homeland. With the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964, they had a governing authority. In 1967 during the war between Israel and the Arabs, Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and other previously Arab-controlled areas. Ghaza Strip and the West Bank have been returned to Palestinian control as has been provided for between the Israelis and the Palestinians following the Oslo Accords. And above they say those areas have been giving back to PA authority... If the PA has authority of those lands, why do they continue to launch attacks in Israel..... My Webpage What was the activity of the PLO from 1964 to the Six Day War in 1967? PLO Emblem Since Jordan controlled Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) including East Jerusalem, and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip at the time the PLO was founded, the PLO was committed to the dissolution of Israel, mainly through the use of armed force. Their emblem includes a map -- Israel is part of their concept of Palestine. True to the Palestinian National Covenant, since its founding, the organization has sponsored innumerable guerrilla raids on Israeli civilian and military targets and has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians -- Israeli, Palestinian Arab, and citizens of every country where the PLO has resided. From early 1965 to the Six-Day War in June 1967, the PLO through Fatah pursued a consistent policy of border attacks, particularly along the Jordanian and Lebanese borders. Criticism of these activities by the Arab governments and by local public opinion persuaded Fatah leaders to adopt a new approach known as "the entanglement theory." This involved using sabotage to force Israel to adopt an offensive position, which in turn would force the Arabs to step up their military preparedness. This cycle of action-retaliation-reaction would lead to a gradual escalation of tension on the borders, and eventually to war. The Syrian military offensive against Israel, with Fatah’s help, among other things, did indeed trigger the Six Day War in 1967, but with disastrous consequences for the Arab armies and governments. The PLO managed to launch significant terrorist attacks against Israel throughout its existence, with a particularly horrific record in the 1970s and during the al-Aqsa intifada following the collapse of the Oslo peace process. Formed palestinian units indicate that the PA authority did take action against Israel and lost again....how many times does Israel have to defeat them in battle...how many times to they have to give those lands back before the PA decides it is not worth the risk.... Below are from a Israelis web site....so what part is true which portion I'm i to believe... What about Israeli atrocities against Arabs? Pro-Arab sources cite examples of Israeli massacres and other atrocities during the 1948 War of Independence. Some Israeli revisionist historians support the atrocity claims as part of their political agenda, but mainstream historians do not think the claims are credible. The crux of the issue is whether the Jewish forces acted in a manner which goes beyond the normal course of warfare or if, on the contrary, any casualties were either opposing Arab armed forces or civilians who were accidently killed due to battle. The weight of evidence from eyewitnesses and sparse documentation is that: The Jewish population came under attack from Palestinian Arabs in the latter days of the British Mandate and, after independence was declared, from the armies of Arab nations. The heavily outnumbered and under-supplied Jews fought both conventional and unconventional battles against their foes, but did not engage in atrocities, massacres, or other improper acts. Arab casualties that did occur were either Arab armed forces in battle, or civilians caught in battle areas. Since Arabs often attacked from civilian areas, most of these casualties were the result of such Arab attacks. The most often mentioned location is Dir Yassin, one of the bases of the Arab forces maintaining pressure on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road. For the full story on this battle, see the Dir Yassin page. Other atrocities attributed to Jewish forces in the War of Independence timeframe include this list and more: Yehida: 13 December 1947 Khisas: 18 December 1947 Qazaza: 19 December 1947 Al-Sheikh Village: 1 January 1948 Naser Al-Din: 13-14 April 1948 Abu Shusha: 14 May 1948 Beit Daras: 21 May 1948 Tantura: May 22-23, 1948 Dahmash Mosque: 11 July 1948 Dawayma: 29 October 1948 Certainly claims of massacres and atrocities should not go without investigation. The problem is that, like the case of Dir Yassin, even when the claim is shown to be unfounded, the legend persists. It is convenient for the enemies of Israel to portray her armed forces as ruthless savages, but that propagandistic position cannot be supported by any facts. For example, Tantura. A Haifa University revisionist historian, Theodor Katz, claimed in his M.A. thesis (released January 2000) that an IDF unit had massacred over 200 Arab residents of the village of Tantura in the 1948 War of Independence. He was brought to court in 2001 by surviving officers and men of the unit who presented contrary evidence including review of Katz's tape recordings showing how he had manipulated the testimony of survivors. Katz admitted finally that he had selectively used reports from Arab sources, taking only those that supported his thesis. The lawsuit was dropped after Katz signed a renunciation of his own work and Haifa University pulled the thesis from library shelves. [it was revealed in September 2002 that tormer Palestinian Authority minister Feisal Husseini paid $8,000 for the legal defense of Teddy Katz.] The University conducted its own review of the evidence. After six months of work, the committee had managed to review only a little more than one-fourth of Katz's tapes, mostly in Arabic, which bore direct relation to the question of whether any massacre took place. Yet even in that limited selection, 14 major discrepancies - in which the tapes didn't accord with the written text - came to light. No pro-Palestinian Arab source had ever pointed to a massacre at Tantura before Katz's thesis appeared in 2000. The thesis has been completely debunked. Nonetheless, there are now hundreds of web sites that cite the "Tantura massacre" as historical fact. And while Arab sources rushed into print to trumpet the news of Katz's thesis, none has mentioned the retraction save a few who cite it as an example of a massive coverup My Webpage What about Arab atrocities against Jews? Rosh Zurim Settlement, Gush Etzion Violence by Arabs against the Jewish civilian population of Palestine was a periodic reality. During the Mandate period, whenever Arab dissatisfaction reached a peak, or when anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic Arab leaders needed to provoke the British authorities, rioting and Jewish casualties were created. Major rioting flared in Palestine during 1920-21, in 1929, and during the Arab Revolt of 1936-39. This was not so different from the experience of Jews all over Europe and was part of the motivation for creating a Jewish state where Jews could control their own security. The day after the UN partition resolution of November 29, 1947, violence against Jewish civilians began to escalate. The Arabs declared a protest strike and instigated riots that claimed the lives of 62 Jews and 32 Arabs. By the end of the second week, 93 Arabs, 84 Jews and 7 Englishmen had been killed and scores injured. From November 30, 1947 to February 1, 1948 427 Arabs, 381 Jews and 46 British were killed and 1,035 Arabs, 725 Jews and 135 British were wounded. In March alone, 271 Jews and 257 Arabs died in Arab attacks and Jewish counter­attacks. These were not military operations, but terrorism against civilian targets intended to achieve political aims for the Arabs who were dissatisfied with the United Nations partition plan. In February 1948 there was a bombing on the 1st in Jerusalem against the Palestine Post building (later renamed the The Jerusalem Post) which killed six people and injured dozens. Then on February 22nd, three booby-trapped trucks positioned in Ben-Yehuda Street exploded, destroying four large buildings, killing 50 and injuring more than 100. On March 11, a car bomb exploded in the courtyard of the Jewish Agency building, killing 12 people, injuring 44, and causing extensive damage. Arab acts of hostility prior to statehood reached their peak in March. Arabs controlled all the inter-urban routes. The road to Jerusalem was blocked, settlements in the Galilee and the Negev were also cut off and daily attacks were perpetrated on convoys. In the four months after the UN resolution, some 850 Jews were killed throughout the country, most of them in Jerusalem or on the road to the city. On April 13, 1948, Arabs set mines in the road in the Sheik Jarrah area to block a convoy of 10 vehicles -- trucks, buses and ambulances -- carrying supplies, nurses, doctors, scientists, and patients to Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus. In the attack, 78 were killed and their bodies mutilated. Dozens are wounded. British soldiers delayed intervention in the attack for 6 hours while the killing continued. The hospital was cut off from Israel until it was recovered after the Six Day War in June 1967. The largest Arab atrocity of the war was on May 13, 1948, the massacre of dozens of surrendering defenders, including some twenty women, at Kfar Etzion in the Etzion Bloc of settlements (Gush Etzion) just north of Hebron, in the territory allocated to the Arabs under the UN partition plan. The Etzion Bloc had already seen a massacre in January 1947 when a Haganah platoon of 35 soldiers sent to help them with medical supplies and ammunition was massacred by hundreds of Arab militants. Their stripped, mutilated bodies were found the next day by a British patrol. The final battle for Gush Etzion took place between May 12-14, 1948. Massive, heavily armed enemy forces overran the Jewish positions. A handful of exhausted defenders, equipped only with light arms and very little ammunition could not withstand the attacking forces. On Thursday, May 13th, Kfar Etzion fell, its defenders killed, most of them slaughtered by Arab rioters after the collapse of the defense. Gush Etzion was destroyed in the aftermath -- everything of value was removed, then the buildings were reduced to rubble. Hundreds of thousands of trees in the orchards -- individually planted by the Jewish farmers -- were uprooted Whats all this prove ? that both sides like to go out on long walks on the beach together holding hands, singing comb ba ya....i think not it proves that they where at war and will continue to be for years to come....there is deep seated hatrad and it will take generations of peace to get rid of that...Both sides need to get a firm cease fire in place...both sides need to agree on pull backs of settlements and portions of the wall that are on palestinian land...they also need to finsh the wall legally and seal thier border, close it to all palestinians....complete separation until both sides can live together....

Black dog: The first UN partion was in 1947, The figures are alittle confusing if only 10 % of the lands were under jewish control why are they stating that in 1929... 30 % of the Arabs had sold thier lands and were landless, making up the majority of the population that has got to mean the Jews owned more than 10%....Atleast when i went to school... The other major transformation in Palestinian Arab society during the Mandate concerned the issue of land ownership. During the years of Ottoman rule, the question of private property rights was never fully articulated. The tenuous nature of private property rights enabled the Zionist movement to acquire large tracts of land that had been Arab owned. The sale of land to Jewish settlers, which occurred even during the most intense phases of the Palestinian Revolt, reflected the lack of national cohesion and institutional structure that might have enabled the Palestinian Arabs to withstand the lure of quick profits. Instead, when increased Jewish land purchases caused property prices to spiral, both the Arab landowning class and absentee landlords, many of whom resided outside Palestine, were quick to sell for unprecedented profits. In the 1930s, when Palestine was beset by a severe economic depression, large numbers of Arab peasants, unable to pay either their Arab landlords or taxes to the government, sold their land. The British did not intervene in the land purchases mainly because they needed the influx of Jewish capital to pay for Jewish social services and to maintain the Jewish economy. Another development resulting from the 1929 riots was the growing animosity between the British Mandate Authority and the Yishuv. The inactivity of the British while Arab bands were attacking Jewish settlers strengthened Zionist anti-British forces. Following the riots, the British set up the Shaw Commission to determine the cause of the disturbances. The commission report, dated March 30, 1930, refrained from blaming either community but focused on Arab apprehensions about Jewish labor practices and land purchases. The commission's allegations were investigated by an agrarian expert, Sir John Hope Simpson, who concluded that about 30 percent of the Arab population was already landless and that the amount of land remaining in Arab hands would be insufficient to divide among their offspring. This led to the Passfield White Paper (October 1930), which recommended that Jewish immigration be stopped if it prevented Arabs from obtaining employment and that Jewish land purchases be curtailed. Although the Passfield White Paper was publicly repudiated by Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald in 1931, it served to alienate further the Yishuv from the British I have not been able to find a neutral web site that can back your claims or for that matter to support mine......I've read both sides recall of the events each proclaims the same propaganda.... Under the Oslo Accords, the "peace process" started in 1991 at the Madrid Conference, Israel agreed to withdraw from the disputed territories and Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) was given control over land chosen so that more than ninety-nine percent of the Palestinian population lived under the jurisdiction of the PA. But the committment to Israel's security that was the backbone of the Oslo agreements was never honored by the PA and Israel was forced to periodically re-enter the ceded territory to quell terrorism. In 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected sweeping concessions by Israel at Camp David -- promoted by US Pres. Clinton in an attempt to reach a final peace agreement -- and the Palestinian Arabs turned again to violence with the Al Aqsa Intifada. That is, after the PA was governing nearly all Palestinian Arabs and a generous peace offer with international backing was on the table, the only response Israel got was increased violence. This is the sole reason Isreal continues to have a military presence in the disputed territories. Yes the Above actions clearly describe a people who only want a state. to live side by side with the Israelis.... Becaus ethier forefathers took a gamble and attacked Israel and they lost...and now they have nothing... I was refering to the allege racist remarks i made....and you pionted out... plus i was refering to your discrimatory remarks against the US... Sure they did and the Arab nations had nothing to do with that...see link below.... My Webpage And i guess, living in a high state of military readiness, terrorist attacks...daily humiliation, and wide spread death is'nt enough for living beside the largest terrorist group in the world.....just trying to survive agains't the odd's ...some life for the average Israelis.... i firmly believe that the average joe wants peace....does the average palestinian... I think we beat this subject to death...lets agree to disagree

Black dog: Tell me what possiable good would the release of pictures of airplanes full of caskets do. Show the people that war has a price...how slow do you think we all are ...everyone can read a history book, the numbers are all in there what good would a picture of 20 caskets on a plane do...when the history books mention numbers in the millions .... As for the other photos...would it be great for that guys wife or for that matter his kids to find that on the intra net ...good idea .... There is a time and place for censorship and those pictures are an excellant time ... BS, both Gulf wars had inbedded journalists right with the front line combat units.reporting live feeds, so many that there was times where they put the lives around them in danger or got in the way of combat operations "all for getting the story"sure they had restictions as they could not tell where they were exactly because they were live....but other than that censorship was laughable ...compared to other conflicts..Korea, WWII everything had to be censored by the military first....NO live feeds, Again BS, you can pick up everything you want to know about death with out showing graphic pictures above...In our history books they show plenty of pictures dipicting death, without being to graphic...If they can't learn it from them there is a problem.. Graphic pictures are used in the military to desensitise troops to much of it has the opposite effect....want to know the true cost ask a veteran he will tell you....

X

Black dog: One would hope that all those involed give it some thought and make decissions that was best for the greater good. 1) Not all the lands were owned by the palestinians As describe below Jewish settlers were buying up huge tracks of land....The same land that the Palestinians claim as thier home land..... The other major transformation in Palestinian Arab society during the Mandate concerned the issue of land ownership. During the years of Ottoman rule, the question of private property rights was never fully articulated. The tenuous nature of private property rights enabled the Zionist movement to acquire large tracts of land that had been Arab owned. The sale of land to Jewish settlers, which occurred even during the most intense phases of the Palestinian Revolt, reflected the lack of national cohesion and institutional structure that might have enabled the Palestinian Arabs to withstand the lure of quick profits. Instead, when increased Jewish land purchases caused property prices to spiral, both the Arab landowning class and absentee landlords, many of whom resided outside Palestine, were quick to sell for unprecedented profits. In the 1930s, when Palestine was beset by a severe economic depression, large numbers of Arab peasants, unable to pay either their Arab landlords or taxes to the government, sold their land. The British did not intervene in the land purchases mainly because they needed the influx of Jewish capital to pay for Jewish social services and to maintain the Jewish economy. Another development resulting from the 1929 riots was the growing animosity between the British Mandate Authority and the Yishuv. The inactivity of the British while Arab bands were attacking Jewish settlers strengthened Zionist anti-British forces. Following the riots, the British set up the Shaw Commission to determine the cause of the disturbances. The commission report, dated March 30, 1930, refrained from blaming either community but focused on Arab apprehensions about Jewish labor practices and land purchases. The commission's allegations were investigated by an agrarian expert, Sir John Hope Simpson, who concluded that about 30 percent of the Arab population was already landless and that the amount of land remaining in Arab hands would be insufficient to divide among their offspring. This led to the Passfield White Paper (October 1930), which recommended that Jewish immigration be stopped if it prevented Arabs from obtaining employment and that Jewish land purchases be curtailed. Although the Passfield White Paper was publicly repudiated by Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald in 1931, it served to alienate further the Yishuv from the British. More Palestinian history Below proves that the Palestinians did put together a military force with the intention of invading Israel... Meanwhile, Arab military forces began their invasion of Israel on May 15. Initially these forces consisted of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 Egyptians, 2,000 to 4,000 Iraqis, 4,000 to 5,000 Transjordanians, 3,000 to 4,000 Syrians, 1,000 to 2,000 Lebanese, and smaller numbers of Saudi Arabian and Yemeni troops, about 25,000 in all. Israeli forces composed of the Haganah, such irregular units as the Irgun and the Stern Gang, and women's auxiliaries numbered 35,000 or more. By October 14, Arab forces deployed in the war zones had increased to about 55,000, including not more than 5,000 irregulars of Hajj Amin al Husayni's Palestine Liberation Force. The Israeli military forces had increased to approximately 100,000. Except for the British-trained Arab Legion of Transjordan, Arab units were largely ill-trained and inexperienced. Israeli forces, usually operating with interior lines of communication, included an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 European World War II veterans. This goes to show you another side of the coin ... that they were not driven from thier homes but urged to leave by thier own countrymen to avoid war... Events immediately before and during the War of Independence and during the first years of independence remain, so far as those events involved the Arab residents of Palestine, matters of bitter and emotional dispute. Palestinian Arab refugees insist that they were driven out of their homeland by Jewish terrorists and regular Jewish military forces; the government of Israel asserts that the invading Arab forces urged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their houses temporarily to avoid the perils of the war that would end the Jewish intrusion into Arab lands. Forty years after the event, advocates of Arabs or Jews continue to present and believe diametrically opposed descriptions of those events. They left to avoid war...The lands now occupied by Israelis troops are of those captured in combat, or legally purchased by Israelis, either way they are now part of Israel, Israel has already given most of that land that was captured during the war...And still the PA is not happy as they want the return of all of it including those lands sold to the jews....does this sound fair to you.... According to British Mandate Authority population figures in 1947, there were about 1.3 million Arabs in all of Palestine. Between 700,000 and 900,000 of the Arabs lived in the region eventually bounded by the 1949 Armistice line, the so-called Green Line. By the time the fighting stopped, there were only about 170,000 Arabs left in the new State of Israel. By the summer of 1949, about 750,000 Palestinian Arabs were living in squalid refugee camps, set up virtually overnight in territories adjacent to Israel's borders. About 300,000 lived in the Gaza Strip, which was occupied by the Egyptian army. Another 450,000 became unwelcome residents of the West Bank of the Jordan, recently occupied by the Arab Legion of Transjordan. It go's to show that even the other Arabs are not willing to solve this problem...that they are not willing to give any of they're own land to the palestinians ... And you forget that it was not only Israel that was created by these mandates ...to erased Isreal would mean erasing those other countries created by the same agreement....I may also remind you that they were sanctioned by the world concil, and the UN made up of just more than imperial countries....and are legal under international law.... Israel's Arabs are guaranteed equal religious and civil rights with Jews under the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. They have voted in national elections and sent members to the Knesset since 1949; following the 1984 elections, seven Arabs sat in the Knesset. Nevertheless, until the end of 1966, Israel's Arabs lived under a military jurisdiction that severely limited their physical mobility and ranges of permissible political expression. They have also lost much land to the Israeli government, a good deal of it expropriated by the army for "security purposes," but much more turned over to Jewish settlements in attempts to increase the Jewish presence in northern and western Galilee, the centers of Arab population. Things are not perfect, but they are alot better....better than say Jordan, Syrai, Iran, Iraq, and many other muslim countries.... and if they don't like it tell them to move.....do you think any of the Muslim countries would allow in a jew..... My Webpage It's all about perception is it ...like racists remarks, Again Israel did not invade any one ....and has not stolen anything They get changed legally in the courts ...not by picking which law don't i like today...and breaking it....You have yet to prove that any of the decissions made by the UN in this case are illigal, so the PA does not have a leg to stand on ....Is their decissions morally right i say yes ,...you say no....until you can prove that they are you have no case...NONE..... nithier does the PA and until they stop the bombings or attacks they will continue to rot in thier Refugee camps and impoverished towns until they piss the Israelis off enough and they finish the job and forceable move them all into Arab territory....then they will have something to complain about....

Black dog; The Web site is an Arab web site being used by the Iraqi insurgents to promote thier cause. It is telling, It's telling me that the US goverment does not want the families of these servicemen and women to see thier husbands or wifes actual shape of thier remains....It's called censorship and yes we have it here in north america....for a good reason.. What reason could we possiable want to see these pictures? and what reason would we want to allow the families of the dead access to them , or for that matter to the famlies of those still alive or going overseas. Is it not enough just knowing that their dead...

Black dog: Because the plan is flawed does not make it illigal, or for that matter wrong....these decissions were made in 1922 when the world was a much simplier place....and i'm sure a great deal of thought went into the mandate....I'm sure if there was another way they would have taken it into consideration.... If the palestinians had obeyed the orginal mandate then there would be no problem we have today. you disagree with the mandate, your opinion ...it does not make it illigal or wrong as i stated before....If the UN or British had moved those Arabs to thier new homeland and enforced the mandate then again we would not be having these posts.... You have consistantly have taken the PA's side during this debate and yet what have the other arab countries done for the palestinians and why? And if the PA's are legal then why has the UN not stepped in and demanded that Israel return the land....for that matter what of the rest of the world done to correct this injustice.... Why is that, because the Arabs bit off more than they could chew and bargined by trying to push Israel into the sea and take thier lands by force...they lost and are now crying foul.....and want thier lands back....most of those so called lands were given to the Israelis in the orginal mandate and taken by the Arabs during conflict...and the UN and the british declared it legal....and then in addtional conflicts Israel takes those lands back in conflict...and everyone says the Israelis are brutes mistreating those poor palestinians....you truck with the bull and you get the horns...They don't like the way the Israelis are treating them MOVE.... Yes they do... just as Canada identifies itself as a bilingual country we don't take into account the other minorities such as chinese,or others Your statement is untrue Israelis ( which includes 1.5 million NON jews )enjoy more benifits than the palestinians because it is thier country...Palestinian people are not part of Israel or citizens ...they are just a homeless people without a country because they were defeated in conflict.... No it does not ,but you should practice what you preach...you and many others have on many occasions discriminated against the US and its people. Show me were any of those decissions are illigal ? You can not pick and choose which you are going to follow....you can through the courts have them changed but you can not simply say i don't want to follow that law or decission because i think it's dumb.... Thats the problem both sides believe there rights were violated and are not going to give this up...

Technocrat: You hit the nail on the head... well said..

Black dog: Both of US can tell by reading the Agreements, and decissions that the final decissions had nothing really to do with what the population concentrations where. And there primary goal was to give each thier own homeland....not based on lines on a map,population concentrations, but race and to divide the two....by giving them thier own homelands... Is it funny that you only see reports that are one sided ....you do not report any jewish settlers evicted or killed by Arabs... What do you base this arguement on, bible refs....or historical fact....Jews have as much claim to this land as the Arabs. You yourself have said many times that any land that was siezed or captured during war or conflict was stolen...but how far back in history do we have to go to prove that piont ... What rights does the UN have to do anything...What right did they have to tell the US they could not invade Iraq....What right did they have to recogize any of those states that were created in the same agreement ...Why is there a UN ? your first staement is BS, there are many people NON Jewish people living in Israel as Israelis 1.5 million was the lastest estimate....out of 6 million thats a fair chunk...How many Jews are living in Jordan...Eygpt..Syria. How about S Arabia ... Iran or Iraq.... No one race has experianced more institutionalized discrimination than the Jewish race faced world wide... Which Arabs Israelis Arabs or Palestinian Arabs are facing discrimation those running around with explosive packed on thier bodys... Am i really, you have on occasions quoted UN decissions that proclaim the US invasion of Iraq illigal....and to reverse this one decission would mean that most deccisions involving the World concil, UN to be invalid..IE the split -up of the former Yugoslavia is one that comes to mind...another After WWI the break-up of Germany...the list goes on and on...you can not pick and choose which agreements are right or wrong I'll follow that one but not this one.... I agree 100 % Canada's role in that crisis was not our finest hour....But the "world" choose to solve this problem in another way....by creating homelands for everyone....for favours owed by the British during the war...Plus the creation of a Jewish homeland well before the WWII had even started... That depends on yous side your on does it not...for example groups against Abortion firmly believe that our current laws in regards to abortion are immoral and unjust does that give them the right to murder doctors and torch clinics or even to harass people visting those clinics....because it it a fundamental right to human freedom ...what about those you believe the opposite...that abortion is OK what of thier rights...and your right it is a form of Authoritarianism or is it part of democratic process.

Black dog: So we agree that those decissions are legal ? And i will agree that they may not have been just to everyone, to both Israelis jews and Arabs, However when dealing with this amount of people one would hope that the majority rules...and in the case of the palestinians the majority of thier people left for Trans-jordan and thier own Arab state.... The links i'm refering to show the history of Palestine ,all the mandates and agreements, Maps of the area from the earliey 1900's to after 1949... And if you check the early history Jewish people have just as much claim ...as history has shown the jews have been defeated several times my question was how far do we go back...and Yes there was jews in the area during the Turkish rule as well...although the majority of them were displaced during the war years. My Webpage Again that depends on how far you go back into history. But what makes Israel any different than say Syria, Jordan, who transfered out jews to make room for thier immigrant population....It was not the perfect solution, but one made to protect the jews and to give them a homeland.... for that matter it was to separate the jews from the arabs who have repeatly shown they can not live together....And i agree with you it was not fair to every last person but it was the only way to give each their own homeland....Another note even with there own homelands that are mostly inclusive to thier own race...they still can not live together. Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. but why are you making an exception with these lands... because the palestinans refuse to move to Trans-Jordan, or any of the surrounding countries. They were not the only ones asked to move, and we have both agreed that the mandates were legal.... And do you honestly believe even if that territory had been alloted to the Arabs that thos revolts would not have happened...because they Have stated that they wanted it all and it was thier right .... Where were they going to put them:The rest of the free world did not want great numbers of jews... Compared to the United States and Australia, Canada also had the worst record for accepting Jews. The anti-Semitic views of bureaucrats such as Frederick Blair, departmental secretary of the Department of Immigration and Colonisation, and Prime Minister Mackenzie King, in office to 1948, partly explain this situation. Between 1947 and 1952 less than 10 per cent of immigrants to Canada were Jewish. My Webpage The revolts prior to the first UN agreement,but you can include the war of independance as well. Okay, look at it this way: Suppose the United Nations decided that Canada's aboriginal population has too long been deprived of their rightful homeland and have mandated, without the consent of the non-native population, to partition Canada accordingly. How would you react to the news that the land you have lived on for your entire life is being given to somebody else without your consent? What if, subsequentially, armed gangs of aboriginals started forcibly evicting you and your neighbours from the land and claimed it as their own? Would you be particularily tickled at the prospect? I get your piont and have stated if it was me i would be pissed...but we both agree that those mandates and decissions by the UN are legal...you don't have to like them just obey them...You mentioned armed gangs evicting Arabs yes that did happen everyone else was playing nice and moving except those in what is now called palestine, they refused to move...UN would not do anything about this situation ,so they took matters into thier hands...was it legal NO but what chioce did they have...

Black dog: I do believe that the World concil (in it's day) the UN plus most if not all of the worlds leaders have accepted that Israel as a nation..And it's right to exist...you quote: are you saying that the world concil and UN decissions in this matter is illigal, if so you have not provided any proof of that just your opinion...and if they are illigal then what other decissions that they have made are illigal or for that matter why do these organizations even exist...I have provided you with links and info in regards to this supposed siezure from the rightfull inhabitants and you either disregard it or dismiss it... So i ask what makes them the legal inhabitants, as this land has changed hands and nations dozens of times through out history, including jewish hands..how far do we go back in time to find out who was the orginal owners because it is clear that you firmly believe that claiming captured lands as your own is not legal. The Arab Legion of Transjordan was a British-organized, British-equipped, and British-led force seving the British-installed King Abdullah. On April 14, 1948 Abdullah of Transjordan announced that his legion would fight the Jews in Palestine "in real battles". A few days later the British brought additional contingents of the Transjordan Arab Legion to Palestine, ostensibably "for police duty". It was less than a month before the expiration of the Mandate and the British gave their solemn promise -- in Jerusalem and in the Parliament in London -- that the Arab Legion would be returned to Transjordan before the expiration of the mandate on May 15, 1948. On May 18, 1948 the New York Post wrote of this action: The outrageous act of bringing the Arab Legion of Abdullah for policing duties a few days after Abdullah had declared that his Legion would fight the Jews in Palestine is probably unequalled in the annals of hypocrisy. The British did not return the Legion to Transjordan. They considered that they had absolved themselves when they announced that upon the end of the mandate in Palestine, British officers would withdraw from leadership of the Legion for the period of fighting in Palestine. The Transjordan Arab Legion was involved in fighting against the Jews starting before the termination of the Mandate, including the infamous massacre of the defenders of Kfar-Etzion, south of Jerusalem. There the poorly armed Jewish settler-defenders tried to survive against the Legion with its British-supplied tanks, field guns and flame-throwers. They all perished in the attempt, either in the battle or in the slaughter that followed their surrender. By the end of the fighting in 1948, the Transjordan Legion had seen more action than the forces of any other Arab state. Abdullah, backed by the British whose eyes were on Arab oil and the Suez Canal, hoped to have the entire country for himself. But Israel successfully defended its territory, so he could only annex to Transjordan the part of the country that was intended for the Palestinian Arabs and which was outside the cease-fire lines of Israel's War for Independence. Other Arab countries had other ideas and Egypt ended up with the Gaza Strip area. If you do not agree on this mandate then do you agree on other mandates that were created at the same time and seen the creation of Iraq, syria, lebanon, etc etc...all created from terrortory captured after WWI from the Turks... I don't recall saying the Arabs stole any land, i believe i said that they had captured jewish lands during the revolts...To counter your claim that you did not believe that captured lands to be within the law...thus proving that the PA really does not have "much" of a case in claiming those lands today as theirs ... They did have legal authority, if we honour those decissions done by the world concil or UN...even though they did not have ownership... Although who did at the time the Turkish or how far do we go back in history?

Melanie: Sorry, I'm frustrated at the way our goverment has handled this situation, and thought you were advocating that we should study it some more. 1000 troops is a drop in the bucket but hopefully in inspires other western countries to get involved. that being said 1000 Canadain troops on the ground could save countless lives and bring order to some of the country... Every mission starts out with simple,and clear mandates unfortunatly if it is not the situation on the ground that changes, it is our political masters that change it. sometimes for the good, sometimes more than not for the worse.

Argus : And what gives Mr Martin the right to dictate anything to anyone....What does he have to back up anything he might say or do, in regards to foriegn policy is my piont... I would hope that the leader of Canada would treat all the leaders of all nations with respect.

No it was not, the orginal agreement was for some the lands that was under British mandate to be set aside for the Jews and a creation of a jewish homeland., this included Trans-Jordan....and alot of other territory...It was after the 1921 revolt that the belfour agreement was changed.... and 76% of those lands given to the Arabs...the area now known as Jordan...this was done to palcate the arabs and to promote peace in the area... How did the Arab territory of Transjordan come into being? The 1922 White Paper (also called the Churchill White Paper) was the first official manifesto interpreting the Balfour Declaration. It was issued on June 3, 1922, after investigation of the 1921 disturbances. Although the White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right, it partitioned the area of the Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish settlement. That land, 76% of the original Palestine Mandate land, was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British. The White Paper included the statement that the British Government: ... does not want Palestine to become "as Jewish as England is English", rather should become "a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride." After the partition, Transjordan remained part of the Palestine Mandate and its legal system applied to all residents, both East and West of the Jordan River, who all carried Palestine Mandate passports. Palestine Mandate currency was the legal tender in Transjordan as well as the area West of the river. This was the consistent situation until 1946, 24 years later, when Britain completed the action by unilaterally granting Transjordan its independence. Thus the British subverted the purpose of the Palestine Mandate, partitioned Palestine and created an independent Palestine-Arab state with no regard for the rights and needs of the Jewish population. According to Sir Alec Kirkbride, the British representative in the area, Transjordan was: ... intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jews in Palestine, which [britain was] pledged to support, became an accomplished fact. There was no intention at that stage of forming the territory east of the River Jordan into an independent Arab state. In 1925, the British added 60,000 sq. km. of desert to eastern Transjordan forming an "arm" of land to connect Transjordan with Iraq and to cut Syria off from the Arabian Peninsula. The British continued to favor exclusive Arab development east of the Jordan River by enacting restrictive regulations against the Jews, even when Arab leaders sought Jewish involvement in the development of Transjordan. This was changed again after the Arab revolt and the UN agreement. You mean like those mentioned in the link below. That are Arab Israelis.. Muslim status Or are you talking about the PA, that want nothing to do with Israel or becoming an Israelis..And want thier own land to govern themselfs...Land that the UN allowed them to keep after it was seized in combat after Israel declared itself a nation. Correct me if i'm wrong but a bulk of the immigation was done right after WWII was it not, with most of the world refusing large numbers of Jewish refugees from entering thier countries where else where they supposed to go...Yes the Zionist movement had a large role in it but so did racism, those countries did not want the jews period ...that includes Canada...in fact Canada allowed more german prisoners to immigrate than jewish people...But Canada is not alone in this many of those allieds were also guilty of acting the same way...so world opinion was a major factor in where the jews ended up. My piont was that most of the land that the UN agreed to give the Palestineians? Jodanians in 1948 was siezed from the Jews in the arab revolt....so according to your statement it is land that belongs to Israel not the PA or Jordan.... the same land was retaken after the Arabs attack the state of Israel one day after it declared itself a nation....... You are peicemealing history to suit your needs...the jewish home land was created well before 1947....and the belfore mandate was just one of many mandates that verify this....Israel proclaimed itself a state or nation in 1947...that does not mean that the world did not recongise the jewish homeland as belonging to the jews.... Jordan was orginally Trans-jordan, and part of the land that was given to create a jewish homeland, because of unrest the British gave that land to the Arabs that would be moved / relocated from the jewish homeland. Hence giving the Arabs a homeland of thier own....Both are tied together in the same agreement... Again your not reading all the history attached to this conflict ...I've read the PA web site even they agree with the datesand the history behind it... what they disagree on is who started what... I agree with you ,but both sides are claiming the same thing ...it does have a factor in the problem.... Because those groups had proven over many years of history that they could not live together in harmony....The British decided to create a jewish homeland ...it was the arabs that became violent then and only then did the British changed the agreement to reflect the creation of two separate homelands....It was the best solution at the time...it was what both wanted well most of them any ways. So if you have read any of the links that i gave you what land was stolen and by whom...