Army Guy

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...

Black dog: It's funny that the creation of Jordan is not mentioned as a stain ,Just Israel... As for the best solution, you have two enthic groups that are continuily fighting what is your solution if not to separate them.... Let me ask you this question ? if Britain had not divided the areas of Trans Jordan and today,it was still under British mandate do you think that the Jewish people would be there today.... So who is going to pay those that moved...Israel, Britian , the world concil... And if you conquor a nation through war. does that mean you have to pay all those who's land you've siezed...Makes one good case for ethnic cleansing does it not... Again you are extremly confused...you are looking at the UN mandate....you need to look at the 1923 agreement.. Geographical Distribution of the Mandate In 1920, following the defeat of the Turks, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and the peace conferences after World War I, the British Mandate for Palestine was created by the League of Nations. The Mandate was international recognition for the stated purpose of "establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people." (See What was the British Mandate?.) The area of the Mandate was originally 118,000 square kilometers (about 45,000 square miles). In 1921, Britain took the 91,000 square kilometers of the Palestine Mandate east of the Jordan River, and created Trans-Jordan (later the Arab country of Jordan) as a new Arab protectorate. Jews were barred by law from living or owning property east of the Jordan river, even though that land was over three-fourths of the original Mandate. In 1923, Britain ceded the Golan Heights (another 1,176 square kilometers of the Palestine Mandate) to the French Mandate of Syria. Jews were also barred from living there. Jewish settlers on the Golan Heights were forced to abandon their homes and relocate inside the westerb area of the British Mandate. The total remaining area of the Mandate for Palestine, after these land deductions, was just under 26,000 square kilometers (about 10,000 square miles). The southern part of the Mandate – the desert of the Negev – was also closed by the British to Jewish settlement. The area was inhabited by 15,000 roaming Bedouins, and had no Jewish or Arab settlements in it. The balance of the Mandate, the inhabited part of Palestine, and only the part west of the Jordan, was just 14,000 square kilometers. Jewish immigration was limited by the British from time to time, especially after the periods of Arab riots and severely restricted after 1939. At the same time, Arab immigration was not restricted or even recorded. By 1948, when the State of Israel was founded, 1.8 million people lived the western area of the Mandate, estimated to be 600,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs. Following the war between the Jews and the Arabs in 1948, the inhabited areas of the 14,000 square kilometers were divided along cease-fire lines between Israel and Jordan/Egypt. 8,000 square kilometers, or 57% of the reduced area (which is only 6.7% of the original Mandate territory), became Israel. The rest of the area of western Palestine, 5,700 square kilometers of historic Judea and Samaria, was annexed by Jordan – and renamed the West Bank - while 360 square kilometers were occupied by Egypt and called the Gaza Strip. Breaking this down into a table: Zone Size in Sq. Km. Percent of Total Control in 1948 Original Mandate 118,000 100% ----- Jordan 91,000 77% Jordan Negev Desert 11,750 9.9% Israel Israel (inhabited) 8,000 6.7% Israel West Bank 5,700 4.8% Jordan Golan Heights 1,176 0.99% Syria Gaza Strip 360 0.3% Egypt And i already know how you feel about annex land through unjust seizure. So by alrights that land according to you should be given back to Israel. And those Palestinians should have 2 options stay and live in Israel as Israelis or move as thier forefathers did to Jordan. The highly respected Enciclopedia Italiana (Vol. 26, "Palestina"; ca. 1930) tells us that the name "Palestine" came "to prevail in modern times" over other names. This change apparently took place out of the "scientific" motive to avoid the religious connotations of Holy Land. Thus Palestine was again a Western name as it had been in ancient times. "Palestine" was first officially applied to the country in modern times in 1920 when the peace negotiators at the San Remo Conference juridically established the country as the Jewish National Home. Before World War I it was an administratively indistinct area of the Ottoman Empire and was shared among various Ottoman administrative departments. Because you are failing to see both sides and why this is such a big deal to Israelis...they see it as another land grab by the Arabs ...and the world see the poor palestinain and thier plight. When dealing with a large group of people your not going to make everyone happy...it's impossable...Had the Arabs all gone to Jordan as per the agreement then the Palestine problem would not exist today... No it does not, but in this case the orginal agreement gave that land to the Israelis, and after the Arab revolt land that was siezed by the Arabs was then given to them by the UN...and in 48 most of that land was taken back by Israel through conflict started by the Arabs ....it only sounds fair to give all that back to the Arabs to have a shakey peace at best....where does it stop...if the PA can not live in peace after Israel grants them all there land back... ARTICLE 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. OK i agree that you are right they are not the owner of the land out right, however that being said they did have the authority to make those decissions as to who lives where, and who did what...with the powers that the mandate gave them.

How long do we have to look and study the issues...Our PM handled thier leader not like an equal but one of a third world country ...telling him he would send Canada's military down to assist....instead of asking if he could help...did not help matters either... My Webpage

Black dog: Thats a good question, the same could be asked why jews that had immigrated and lived in Syria, Trans jorden,and the rest of the surrounding Muslim countries why were they forced to leave, pack -up and move into lands that the wprld concil had giving them ...Why... it was the best solution at the time even back then the Jews were not wanted both sides could not get along...i believe it also gave the muslim countries an excuse to move thier jews out of thier countries... Mout piont, If the rest of the Muslims had actually followed the UN decission it would have all been a jewish state... Yes it was, It was taken off Turkey, at the end of WWI...Britain did not have to give it to anyone, but instead had used it to solve the problem of these two people and to give them each a state of thier own... Look at a map, compare the size of the state of Jorden....to the state of Israel... That was the first agreement ....Now how could you think the Arabs got ripped off...they were all suppose to move to Jorden....instead they refused ,revolted and in 1947 the UN granted the Arabs additional lands...not in Jordan but out of the piece of what is now called Israel...Note that those lands that were giving were taken by the arabs in combat during the revolt.... Agreed, your use of the Palestinian people is disingenous as it orginally refed to the jews in the area... I would not think so, as it is my house however the UN solution was to fix a bigger problem, and in that context i would say it is right....Your right is not the UN's land to give it was Britains, and they had asked the UN to find a solution...And if the UN decisson is not valued here in this case...why is it that we value their decissions now or for that matter on anything......in Ref to Iraq...or is it that we only decide when we agree with the decissions...Also remember that the UN was alot more powerful then than it is today... Then we must also recoginze that the State of Jordan was also founded on the same....And Yes i am defending colonialism, it is what most of the free world was built on... But it is not theft...the people on the land did not own the land persay, the British goverment owned it out right... Just as in Canada today, how many examples do you know off ...that the goverment be it federal or provincal have asked people to move for things such as highways, airports, dams, etc,etc..

Black dog: There was an earlier partion plan,and it is outlined in the first two maps of the link i gave you... In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River"). This territory east of the Jordan River was given to Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia) who was not even an Arab-"Palestinian!" This portion of Palestine was renamed Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now. The Palestinian Jews were forced to form an organized defense against the Arabs Palestinians.... thus was formed the Hagana, the beginnings of the Israeli Defense Forces [iDF]. There was also a Jewish underground called the Irgun led by Menachem Begin (who later became Prime Minister of Israel). Besides fighting the Arabs, the Irgun was instrumental in driving out the pro-Arab British. Finally in 1947 the British had enough and turned the Palestine matter over to the United Nations. The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River. How can you say that Israelis got the large chunk when the Arabs recieved what is now known as Jodan, as thier piece of the land that was divided by the british in 1923...it was after the Arab revolt which Britian walked away from the problem and the UN made another decission in 1947 to carve up more of the Israelis side to give to the Arabs... yes if you looked at the last map in the link i gave you Israel did get the big piece...but that piece is what was left of the 25 % they were orginally given by the British and what was approved by the league of nations in 1923...As for the Arabs having to move It was the league of nations (a world body) that made the first decission .... then the UN carved that territory up again...note they were mandated to move twice by world body....and they choose not to move....i say again they choose not to move from the land that the UN said legally now belonged to Israel....And now You and want them to carve up another portion of Israel to give to the PA....Does this mean if i camp out on your front lawn long enough that i can legally one day call it mine....those territories in the 1947 act were also taken after a war in which was started by guess who...yes the Arabs only after one day of Israel declaring itself a nation... i guess that only counts if your not Israel Why the 1967 line why not give all the territory that was siezed in combat back to the arabs...And i would agree if it meant that the arabs would cease all actions agais'nt Israel and if they did not then they would face the NATO or a similar coalition.... But we both know that is not going to happen, and regardless of what Israel does there will always be fighting ...because this problem is to old and to much blood shed....

Mcqueen : Ok, now i'm confused,We no longer call them terrorist, but insurgents,and now we just call them nutcases....that are attempting to use the Koran to jutisfy thier existance.... Thier believes in the Koran are very real, and they do believe or have interputed from the Koran that thier actions are justified and will be granted full access into heaven through their actions of killing infidels...... I think that qualifies them as a religious fanatic/ Terrorist.. McVey although religious carry out his act because of his hate for goverment, making him just a plain terrorist....

Black dog: Most of the occupied territories remains under de facto Israeli control. Under Sharon's Gaza "disengagement" plan, Israel will maintain control over Gaza’s airspace, its territorial sea, and all border crossings and the Israeli army and security services will continue to have a free hand to operate there. In other words, Gaza will become a prison state for Palestinians, while Israel continue sto use the wall to effectively annex large portions of the West Bank. You're incorrect. The original 1947 partition plan gave the Arabs 43 percent of the land and the Jews 57 percent. Moreover, at the time, Jews made up less than one-third of the population of Palestine. I think you have some of your dates mixed-up The orginal plan was in 1917 the Balfour agreement....and was accepted or incorporated by britain and the league of nations in 1922...it was under this agreement that i got my numbers from. See map below. The British found their promises to the Jews and Arab Palestinians difficult to reconcile. After 1928, when Jewish immigration increased, British policy on the subject seesawed under conflicting pressures. Immigration rose sharply after the installation of the Nazi regime in Germany in 1933, and fear of Jewish domination was the principal cause of an Arab revolt (1936-1939). It was after the Arab revolt that things changed again for the state of Israel Britain finally turned the problem over to the United Nations (UN) in 1947. When the UN proposed partition in 1947, the Palestinians rejected the plan, while the Jews accepted it. A military struggle followed, and the Palestinians were defeated. The state of Israel was established in 1948, and Arab armies immediately attacked it. Israeli forces defeated them, enlarging Israel's territory. See map below Israel 1947. The map below shows Israel after the war in 48 You can plainly see by the maps above that the state Israel is clearly not gaining anything in the way of land mass but giving more to the Arabs....the Orginal plan in 1922 was agreed by Britain, and at the time the league of nations...Including the already establish Arab countries....Even after the new division in 47 by the UN the arabs were not happy... Israel was carved up even smaller..and one day after Israel declared it self a nation the Arabs attacked again.... So my question is how many times is Israel going to have to carve up it's lands...how much is going to be enough for the arabs....And do you really think that the Arabs are going to stop if the grant the PA what it wants... Sorry my Images did not work the maops are located in this link...My Webpage

Black dog: No they are blowing themselfs up in crowded markets,or school busses....Both sides have shed much blood...it will take more than a few generations to fix this problem. Correct me if i'm wrong but most of the land that Israel "Occupies" has been given back to the Palestine authority has it not....Again i ask you to read the below links...as a man who enjoys the LAW... the league of nations had agreed on the division of land for not only the ARABS but for the Jews with the ARABS or decendants of the palestinians... getting over 75 % of the slice to start with and the jews left with 25 % of that slice....it was under british rule that the 25 % shrank to 23 % then to even less...given to the Palestinians...Those Palestinians on those contested lands now want even more of the Jewish slice....History is and will repeat itself...when are the palestinians going to be satisified .....And why can you not see that perhaps the Israelis don't want to give any more.... history. BBC Are you saying that the league of nations or the UN's decission should be ingored...as a law abiding man such as yourself...Israel did not make those decissions nor did they decide that the arabs had to leave the jewish zone or the jews had to leave the arab zones ...that was the league of nations... Yes, the state of palestine as it stands today has been around for how long...it's thriving, it's doing so well in fact as hobbies the send bombers into Israel...the last news special i seen it had quoted that a large number of palestinians are unemployed and the majority that areworking are working in Israel.... Can you give me a link on this I've read a palestinian and Isrealis history of palestine site...and that is harrmony then US and Canada relations must be Bliss.... Correct me if i'm wrong but did i say that 75% of that land was given to the Arabs...and only 25 % to the Jews ....it was not a zionest experiment..well before the first war... Thats a typical Canadian answer...Shhh don't talk to them they'll go away... Responsable leadership is to provide security to all it's citizens...By doing nothing will allow them to do as they please when they please if they know that there will not be any circumstances... Because you such a good teacher....Or maybe it's because i'm more open minded than you... A few Arab leaders, Egypt, Jordan,Syria, and a few terrorist groups to include the PLO now PA....leaders of nations, leaders that have influence over millions...it is a big deal ....the sources are using quotes from the bible to illistrate another piont... Are you saying that is justifaction for sadam to do as he wanted....that we as Canadains should turn our heads and allow this type of things to happen.... Just like we did in Rwanda....It does not make it right...Sadam was a brute now he spends his days in his underwear in a cell.... If we had this attitude when the Nazi's were take in over the world we would be typing in german today...if all the world stood up and said this type of behavior is no longer tolerable what would happen....

Black dog: I will agree to disagree. Your quit right just Sadam and his killing to report ...thats ok because it does not effect Canadians and the US was not involved... I'm trying to understand why you and others on this board blame the US for all the problems in Afgan and Iraq...and Israel got thrown in there some how...when there is always two sides of the story....atleast i have admitted from the start there is alot i do not agree with on US and Israelis matters...but you seem to defend only those actions taken from the US opposite...

Black dog: And yet you continuely blame the Israelis for the palestinians problems... If you truely acknowledge the problem they you must agree that Israel does have the right to take safety precauations in regards to protecting it's people....The check pionts ,curfews,.or the building of the wall...as for the dozing of homes i agree with you but again what chioce do they have when the bombing continue... No it is not the only course, of action,they all could move back into Jordan, as part of the British mandate of palestine. But lets just say that Israel gives them a state of thier own how are the Palstinians going to support such a state...unless you are asking Israel to support them as well....as they do now... Of course the other course of action to give them there state and to complete the wall and to deny palestinians access to Israel... Nothing can stop a determined person from killing anyone...it does not matter how large your nations might...Twin towers taught us that...They maintain military forces in the gaza strip because the Palestinian authority can not control it's all of its people ....they must be able to provide security for it's own people first. Really...Have they every enforced it, as the former Yugo is comprised of little countries that have thier borders changed through war...Cyprus and example...there are many more... Your right, all rephrase my statement in say a large number of muslims leaders and ordinary muslims dislike most Israelis...hows that... That of course had nothing to do with presure from the outside world...and signing papers of any kind does not mean that these same leaders have not publicly in there own countries quoted that there nation or group will not rest until the state of Israel and it's people are pushed into the sea... You cannot be serious these to races have been at each other throats long before western imperialism steped on the stage....one of the reason that Israel came into being is because of the hatred of Jews.... How many did Canada except after the war...compared to other races, we accepted in more german soldiers than we did Jews...Nobody wanted them ...hard to say it's not about race...

Black dog: there's a difference. You may not get it, but they are not the same thing at all. Anyone fighting for the Taliban (again: the de facto national government of Afghanistan at the time) should be accorded P.O.W. status. Why has the international court then filed charges again'st the US and other coalition members in breaking an important convention violation.... I believe the abuse and torture have stopped....and those that are coming out are ones that are being investagating with new charges being brought forward...As for charges being laid i know that some charges have been laid...if more are going to be laid i don't know.... I have made it clear that i do not believe in any mistreatment of prisoners or what ever we are calling them. However there are times when info could save lives and mild forms of torture or punishment should be used...I know what the convention says... City of Ghosts Reconstructiom I read your articles....Yes they show that Fallujuh is heavily damaged...But the interviews done a majority are glad that the insurgents are gone...some blame both sides but none have said that they blame the US totally for the damage done...Here is people who have lost almost everything and yet you sitting in your chair here can only blame the US for everything that has happened...Why is that... To rid the world of one more scum bag, Your not going to tell me that the world would have been a better place with Sadam still in charge...Have you rerad any of those interviews from your links....I feel safe now...was mentioned more than once ...yes there pissed off at losing thier homes Your quote to my statement that the insurgents are undimished ...lossing 1200 in the battle of Fallujuh did not hurt them? Also from your link the Same guy quoted Your last link mentions that in one day 79 Iraqi's are killed and 120 are wounded in Insurgent attacks why is it you only count those killed by the US and what is the total count that have been killed by those loveable insurgents... I forgot the US is the Invader....your posts are one sided