Israeli Dies As Retribution For Israel's Terrorism

[Az]

out of what was already an independent nation.

what nation that might be ?

Israel occpying palestine => Israel aggressor => PA+Fatah encouraging and engaging in terror against Israel is justified.

I think superpopanz has covered this issue.



CyberGnu , don't shove at me books that I can't afford . All I asked you to do was to describe in a relatively detailed manner what was the chronology around here in your opinion , from the beginning of the century.

[Superpopanz]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by MOBIUS

What changed in the 20's was the rise in popularity of extreme nationalism in Zionism who wanted to carve their own living space for Jews out of what was already an independent nation.

Where did you learn that, in "Stormfront? "The daily leftist"? There was no such thing as a palestinian nation!

The whole premise of Zionism is an invasion and take over of another nation's land! Is it any wonder that some of the local population reacted angrily to hundreds of thousands of the these invaders especially when their express purpose was to set up a Jewish State!!?

BS

Now the Jews were...

Blabla, the jews have a right to live there as much as the arabs.
The arabs didnt want the resolution and splitting theirs apart (understandable), so they waged war and lost. GET OVER IT! ITS DONE ALREADY!

WTC: Israel is consistently the US' largest recipient of financial and military aid every year! The reason the US was attacked in this manner and not Israel is that the US is a 'soft target' - Al-Qaeda would never have been able to pull off the same stuff with Israeli airliners! Besides, you want to cut off the support at the source, hence the US is the militant Arab world's no.1 enemy!

Israel wiped the arabs butt without ANY US help the first years, they fought with german Pz III and IV, tchech Spitfire and so on, they will be able to do so in the future too. Infact the US involvement is the very only reason that Syria and Egypt havent been crushed yet! The US is the enemy anyway, for they try to secure their resources by political and military means.

Fine, keep your head in the sand - there's plenty in this post alone to challenge your assumptions on who the aggressors are, the reasons behind why a good number of Israeli PM's past and present could be considered guilty of war crimes and why as the dominant power and occupying force in this conflict, it behooves Israel to be the one that stops the killings and the 'pre-emptive' assassinations...

YOU are the one who keeps his head in the sand! If the israeli policy would be half as aggressive as you claim, your poor underdog friends would be back in CIS Jordan!

While these are clearly 'bad guys' that are dying in the majority of cases, the fact that Eli should derive joy from their deaths is a little troubling to say the least...

It is such a wonderfull day when one of the "heroic martyrs", a slaughterer of women and children meets his faith and goes to hell!

If someone killed someone in your family and you knew that your only chance of 'justice' was to fight back, would you - or would you just meekly accept it?

Then fight and die...

Yeah, it's called stopping killing them and giving their country back (the occupied territories). Easy really, still can't figure out why you haven't worked that out for yourself...

Give back the USA to the indians, Australia to the Aboriginies and East Prussia to Germany...

I'd say those leaders are being replaced as fast as Israel's assassinating them actually - you still haven't figured out that Martyrdom itself is a powerful weapon in the Palestinian arsenal.

You still havent figured out that giving into the threat of terror is equal to suicide! On the other hand, you surely would like to see the state of Israel doing this, wouldnt you!

So you're admitting that Camp David was unfair to the PALS, that's what I like about you - eventually you actually admit these things, that's what keeps me posting!

Camp David tried to give back rights to the arabs wich they lost by fighting instead of accepting the 1948 resolution.

How would you like it if one day your next door neighbour decided to extend his property by bulldozing your house and stealing your land!!?

Nobody says the israelis dont error, but building illegaly is also an error.

No, as I've mentioned earlier, Israel has already bombed prisons it knows to contain militants - to lock these people up would be giving them the death sentence in the face of Israeli assassinations! I don't think so!

Better bomb them instead of waiting for the next PA amnesty.

Um, most of the dead Palestinians are actually civilians - like those 5 boys last week for example...
How can you condemn Palestinian atrocities without condemning your own!!?

Though **** eh? The IDF has surely assasinated the 5 boys. Talking about propaganda of the worst kind...

Fact: More than 4 times as many Palestinians have died as Israelis - most of those civilian!

I`m soo sorry! Why dont you ask the IDF to give half of their tanks, jets and gunships to the PA? Gee, would it make more equal....

Sharon etc...

One incident, two sides of the story. Sharon surely is a though piece, a hardliner per se. But i dont know what really happend and neither do you. If he had a direct share on the massacres he should be judged. But then, it was war, and Arafat had to be judged too.

Perhaps you should tell Israel about stopping killing children? I'm willing to bet that Israel has killed more women and children than the terrorists since this conflict started...

Q: Who sends young boys with stones against tanks?
Q: Who sends FATAH fighter with AK 47 and Molotov cocktails to attack from inbetween the kids?
Q: Who released terrorists and bombbuilders, HAMAS and JIHAD fighters from prison?
Q: Who praises suicide bombers as heroes and martyrs on tv?
Q: Who makes it possible that 6 year old children learn in public school how good it is to become a martyr?
Q: Who tolerates (or worse) the use of refugee camps, family kitchen/bedroom/garden as a nice spot for sniper and mortar attacks on israeli forces/settlements/civilians?
Q: Who has started to prepare Intifada II long before fat Ariel went on the rock?


The answer, my blind friend, has exactly 2 letters...



2 hours to post this message! POS SERVER

[Eli]

Originally posted by Superpopanz
The answer, my blind friend, has exactly 2 letters...

2 letters? Who could that be?

[Superpopanz]

Originally posted by Eli




2 letters? Who could that be?

PA (Palestinian Authority)

[Chris 62]

LaRusso is intent on proving his stupidity...

Originally posted by LaRusso
it's all good. this is a trolling thread, after all. but chris62's level of infantileness is right there with the thread starter. you gotta love the 'coffee' line...pretty much sums up the sad chris62 character . such command of subject! such depth! hahahah

Another personal attack?

What a pathetic loser you truly are.

In yet another thread where you can contribute zero (which covers 99.9999% of Apolyton threads) you again manage to show your the dimmest bulb in the bunch.

So if I look up imbecile in the dictionary I will see your picture?

BTW, is there ANYTHING you know something about?

Anything?

Guess not.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by LaRusso

it's all good. this is a trolling thread, after all. but chris62's level of infantileness is right there with the thread starter. you gotta love the 'coffee' line...pretty much sums up the sad chris62 character . such command of subject! such depth! hahahah

LaRusso - did you post in this thread to make some contribution to the thread, or solely to make personal snipes at Chris62 because you don't like his opinions?

I'm giving you three days off to think about the answer to that. The next time you're similarly confused about the reason for replying in a thread and respond with a gratuitous personal attack instead of a response to the thread topic, I'll give you a week to figure it out.

Chris62 - drop it. Moderators will handle the situation, you don't need to fire back in kind.

[Superpopanz]

Originally posted by Natan

War of destruction. nicht=not, krieg=war, vernichtungskrieg=war of making not. Hitler's term for the war in the east.

Vernichtung= Extermination/Annihilation
Vernichtungskrieg was the word for the extermination war against the slavic people in Eastern Europe, also called Untermenschen/subhumans.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Chris62 - drop it. Moderators will handle the situation, you don't need to fire back in kind.

Roger that, throttling down.

[Natan]

How is that a non-sequiter?

Because you try to use the fact that you have not proved your argument to show why I have to accept its conclusions.

If you think the killing of children is wrong, you should be striving for ending the conflict, not perpetuating it.

Exactly, and the way to end the conflict is to crush terrorism.

Not comparable. Regardless of rulership, both you and me know that the quwaitis did not want to belong to Iraq.

Firstly, most people in Kuwait were not given citizenship, which was only open to the descendants of citizens. Many of these "guest workers" especially the Palestinians, supported the Iraqi annexation as some Kuwaits probably did as well. Secondly, you rejected the desire of the populace as an argument for an independent state when it came to Israel in 1947.

Ahh, so we've established that civilian casualties for the enemy is justified if it spares civilians casualties for your own people.

Actually, I was talking about cases of genocide as I think I made clear.

The five children killed last week thus more than justifies palestinian violence against Israel in any way, shape or form.

No, because Palestinian violence is in no way aimed at or likely to achieve a reduction in Palestinian civillian casualties. On the contrary, no Palestinians were dying before Fatah and Hamas started the violence a year ago. It took several monthes for Palestinian casualties to match those of all the Israelis killed, with Arafat's tacit approval, during the peace process.

Well, AFAIK, Iraq wasn't involved in the WTC incident, was it?

No, but the actions of Al-Qaeda could be viewed as a defense of the Iraqi children, according to your doctrine which views the combined Arab attack on Israel in 1948 and against in 1967 as legitimate defense.

Furthermore, half of the hijackers as well as bin laden himself came from Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest oil producer.

I think we both know that the Arab states already tried an oil embargo on the west, and that it did not affect American support for Israel. Bin-Laden is of Yemeni origin and though raised in Saudi Arabia, lives (well, we think he does) in Afghanistan and is IIRC no longer a Saudi citizen.

Praising terrorists, a product of the failed negotiations.

'Free right to operate' - Not true

So his praise was false and the incitement and cooperation of his police forces played no role? I think we both know that he refused to arrest many terrorist leaders.

Failing to provide a single idea at the Camp David talks - a bizarre argument.

Seems to me that if he failed to offer a single counter-proposal at Camp David, he can't say that Israel is responsible for the talks failing.

I guess you meant that instead of being honest and stating what the palestinian people required to accept a deal, he should have required Palestine, Israel and little bit of Brazil, just for good measure, only so he could pare down his 'demands' in negotiations?

This doesn't make sense.

Unlike Israeli apologists, a realist acknowledges that how sincere someone is about compromising depends on how close to a just settlement it takes the parties, not how far from their arbitrarily stated starting positions they are willing to go.

Yes, indeed, and Arafat clearly made no effort to achieve a just settlement, as can be seen by his failure to make any proposals.

Ahh, I guess this is the root of the problem. I'm sorry to have to say this, but this shows you clearly are delusional... I'm sorry, but your perceptions of reality doesn't seem to fit with the rest of humanitys.

Trust me CyberGNU, if you shoot someone for punching you in the face, you may be quite surprised to hear what the jury has to say about it. . .
however, I think you would be spared finding this out for yourself if you bothered to note that I was disagreeing with the use of your statement as an analogy to the current situation in Israel.

[Natan]

I'm going to summarize and refutes Mobius's arguments now.

Israel is the sole agressor in the current struggle on the West Bank.
Firstly, your own articles disprove this - that settlement had to be fortified because there was constant shooting at it, a civillian neighborhood. Then there were the fifteen mortar shells which fell on civillian encampments in Gaza. I honestly suggest that you read local media if you want a deeper understanding of what's going on, the Jordan Times and the Jerusalem Post are both quite good, so is Palestine Report (although it costs money to subscribe) and Haaretz english edition. You have to read critically, but there's plenty of stuff on both sides which never gets reported in the western media for lack of space.

Israel does not want peace and is unwilling to abandon settlements.
Barak was willing to abandon almost all settlements at Camp David. Such settlements do not really constitute a major issue. More then 80% of settlers live in the greater Jerusalem area in territory contiguous to Israel. I urge you to compare the platforms of Labor and Likud to the Fatah constitution, which states quite clearly that "armed struggle is a strategy, not a tactic," and is also "the eventual means of liberating Palestine."

Israeli targetted killings encourage terrorism
Do you feel this way about American targetted killings of terrorist leaders like Mohammed Atef and Osama Bin-Laden? Weren't the American posters here flashing the thumbs-up when he got killed?

Zionism is a racist ideology of invasion which upset the status quo of tolerance for Jews through ilegal immigration
Actually, Jews in Arab countries and the Ottoman empire were dhimmi, a legal category of second class citizenship in which they faced discrimination in all walks of life. Christians in the Middle East still suffer from it today, as attempts to extort jizya (protection money paid to Muslims) and the ominous Hamas slogan "after the [Jewish sabbath of] saturday comes [the Christian sabbath of] sunday" which is broadcast from mosque loudspeakers as a warning to Christians. Your "ilegal Zionist immigrants" were refugees trying to flee persecution in Czarist Russia and Nazi Germany, and later other tyrannical regimes. Very few Israelis are descended from ideological immigrants, and even if they are - I didn't know it was okay to kill ilegal immigrants because you don't like their politics. If Israelis talked this way about palestinians to justify their murders, I and everyone else would be outraged.

[CyberGnu]

Superpopanz:

It is so pitiful to watch the arabs now cry for the UN. Had they accept the solution, everything would be entirely different. They wanted it all, they got nothing.

Yeah, they really should have accepted losing their land because the UN said so...

And England really shoulnd't have involved itself in WW2, it would have been much more peaceful if Hitler had been allowed to just grab whatever he wanted, right?


Furthermore, since the UN was responsible for the creation of Israel, why shouldn't the UN do something about the evil it created? How is that hypocrisy?

If you are unjustly sentenced to jail for a crime you didn;t commit, is it hypcritical of you to appeal, since the court system failed you before?

[quote]

All of you "good-human", pacifists, "friends of the underdog", left and right anti-jews and anti-americans, your all hipocrisy makes me SICK! Your utter one-eyedness and ideologic emotionality never let you see both sides of the story, your incapability to understand history and daily reality results ultimately in such a disgusting and flatout dumb-impertinence to ask a democratic country to commit suicid in favour of an archaic , brutal and corrupt society and THIS is what makes the line between your kind and any moderate, balanced and realistic person.

I assume you are talking about Germany vs. France, right?

My point has nothing to do with left/right, pacifism/warmongering or whatever categories you are setting up.

The land was stolen, it should be given back. Barring that, the original owners should be compensated.

If Israel insists on living on stolen land, they should be fought tooth and nail.

Dalgetti, you can check out many of those books at your local library. Of course, it helps if you have a university of major city close by...

And if you want a short chronology, look at the EB.

In the meantime, what about the other stuff?

Natan:

Because you try to use the fact that you have not proved your argument to show why I have to accept its conclusions.

? The arguemnt has been proven over and over again. That you have entered a few failed counters doesn't make my conclusion non-sequiters.

Exactly, and the way to end the conflict is to crush terrorism.

Yeah, that certainly seems to be working well.

A greasefire is not put out by water. Only starving the fire of oxygen or fuel can put it out.

Likewise with 'terrorism'. You still don't understand that you have taken the land and the future from these people. They think they have nothing more to lose, and to die fighting the invaders will only let them enter paradise.

Trying to crush them only makes them more eager to fight.

Only by taking away the CAUSES of their anger can you hope to reduce the attacks.

Any intelligent person can see that, which is why I keep saying that Israel does not want peace.

Firstly, most people in Kuwait were not given citizenship, which was only open to the descendants of citizens.

And this is a problem because _____? I live in the U.S., but I'm a swedish citizen. I don't have a say in whatever the U.S. does, and neither should I. I can point out the hypocrisy and stupidity of american actions, but I can't be part of the actual decision.

If someone is invited to work in quwait, he obviously doesn't have a say in what the citizens of quwait decides...

Man, I thought that was so obvious I can only conclude that it was yet another post to show that you don't really have any intelligent answers, but you still want me to waste time responding...

Secondly, you rejected the desire of the populace as an argument for an independent state when it came to Israel in 1947.

No I didn't. The population at the time was 70% palestinian, and they all wanted a state of their own. From the turn of the century they wanted a democratic state where each citizen would have equal rights, whether jew or arab. It wasn't until the zionists demanded their own state they turned violent.

Also, while I know you live in the U.S. where zoning laws are repeatedly used to thawrt democratic decisions, that still doesn't make the practice right.

Actually, I was talking about cases of genocide as I think I made clear.

Doesn't really make a difference. The Israeli treatment of palestinian falls under three out of five criteria of genocide. As I've said so many times, it is a question of degree, not in kind...

Besides, with your definition opposing germany in WW1 wasn't just either... I think it is time you revaluate your view of the world, and stop trying to fit that worldview into something that justifies the evil that is Israel.

No, because Palestinian violence is in no way aimed at or likely to achieve a reduction in Palestinian civillian casualties.

Logialy wrong... You really don't see that? Wow...

Let's spell it out:
Palestinian violence aimed at forcing Israel to end occupation of palestine => Israels occupation of Palestine ends => Palestinians live in peace => No more palestinan civilians killed.

Was that really so hard?

On the contrary, no Palestinians were dying before Fatah and Hamas started the violence a year ago.

And neither was the situation improving. The Germans didn't kill French civilians left and right, and still they fought to be free... Hmm, could it be cecause they wanted to rule themselves?

No, but the actions of Al-Qaeda could be viewed as a defense of the Iraqi children, according to your doctrine which views the combined Arab attack on Israel in 1948 and against in 1967 as legitimate defense.

Hmm, I'll try to type slowly this time:

I r a q a t t a c k e d Q u w a i t = > I r a q i s t h e a g g r e s s o r

Try reading out loud 200 times. I asked you to read it out loud 100 times last time, I think, so maybe 200 more times should do the trick.

I think we both know that the Arab states already tried an oil embargo on the west, and that it did not affect American support for Israel.

So? Fail once, try again.

Bin-Laden is of Yemeni origin and though raised in Saudi Arabia

He is one of the sons of the most powerful family in Saudi-Arabia... What you are saying doesn't make sense.

Furthermore, you enver commented on the fact that half of the hijackers were Saudi.

So his praise was false and the incitement and cooperation of his police forces played no role? I think we both know that he refused to arrest many terrorist leaders.

And I have explained this to you and Siro so, so many times... Until you have argued that point (As Siro tries), there really isn't anything constructive in rehashing the same flawed points again and again.

This doesn't make sense.

Actually, it does.

Arafat went in to the meeting decalring what the palestinian people would accept as the barest minimum.

Barak went in declaring what Israel wanted.

On a scale from 1 - 100, your simplified view on negotiation says that the parties should have gone in demanding 1 and 100, repsectively, to eventually reach ~50. Well, Palestine demanded 45 and Israel 100, and from that you conclude that Arafat wasn't being constructive because the settlement didn't end up at 75.

Trust me CyberGNU, if you shoot someone for punching you in the face, you may be quite surprised to hear what the jury has to say about it. . .

*Sigh*. It's lukcy that you can always count on someone that when they don't have a logical counter they can twist the situation to something absurd and argue it..

If I hit you in the face and you shoot me, I'm the aggressor and you shot me in self defense.

If I hit you in the face, we both go home, you find out where I live and go over to my place and shoot me then yes, that would make you guilty. But is not what I argued, was it?

And that is not how the current situation is, is it? Translating the second example would be for France to invade Germany because they occupied France 50 years ago. Translating the first example, however, is palestinians defending themselfes against an aggressive occupier, Israel.

however, I think you would be spared finding this out for yourself if you bothered to note that I was disagreeing with the use of your statement as an analogy to the current situation in Israel.

Of course you don't. If you did you would have to admit to yourself that you are defending a barbarous nation with evil intent... and even if you were duped into it by their propaganda, it takes a lot of moral courage for someone to admit that they have been wrong for such a long time.

[DinoDoc]

Small correction

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Hmm, I'll try to type slowly this time:

I r a q a t t a c k e d Q u w a i t = > I r a q i s t h e a g g r e s s o r

Quwait was stealing Iraqi oil.

[CyberGnu]

Dino: ?

[Natan]

Yeah, that certainly seems to be working well.

A greasefire is not put out by water. Only starving the fire of oxygen or fuel can put it out.

Likewise with 'terrorism'. You still don't understand that you have taken the land and the future from these people. They think they have nothing more to lose, and to die fighting the invaders will only let them enter paradise.

The fact that they never attack their hosts in other countries, like Lebanon and Syria, despite the discrimination they face there, suggests to me that their terrorism isn't born of desperation. We can see similar movements all over the Arab world. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the FIS in Algeria, the Mojahadeen Khalq in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan. These nations have no refugee camps. They just have a problem with Islamic and nationalist extremists.

Trying to crush them only makes them more eager to fight.

Only by taking away the CAUSES of their anger can you hope to reduce the attacks.

Any intelligent person can see that, which is why I keep saying that Israel does not want peace.

That's absurd, and by that logic, America does not want peace. What you are advocating is called "giving in to terrorism" and is generally considered a bad strategy. Examples of terrorist movements put down by force abound. The Muslim Brotherhood accross the Arab world, various nationalist militias in the USSR, the Communists in Malaya, the Boers in South Africa, and countless others.

And this is a problem because _____? I live in the U.S., but I'm a swedish citizen. I don't have a say in whatever the U.S. does, and neither should I. I can point out the hypocrisy and stupidity of american actions, but I can't be part of the actual decision.

You've done nothing to address my point that you reject the "the people wanted independence" argument when it comes to Israel, 1947. Or Gush Etzion, 2001

If someone is invited to work in quwait, he obviously doesn't have a say in what the citizens of quwait decides...

But even those born in kuwait were not given any rights. Citizenship was (and remains) hereditary.

No I didn't. The population at the time was 70% palestinian, and they all wanted a state of their own.

And because of this, the Jews couldn't have a state of their own? I mean, the population of Iraq and Kuwait combined was even more slanted towards the Iraqis favor . . .

From the turn of the century they wanted a democratic state where each citizen would have equal rights, whether jew or arab. It wasn't until the zionists demanded their own state they turned violent.

So if genocide is motivated by political rage, it's okay?

Also, while I know you live in the U.S. where zoning laws are repeatedly used to thawrt democratic decisions, that still doesn't make the practice right.

????

Doesn't really make a difference. The Israeli treatment of palestinian falls under three out of five criteria of genocide. As I've said so many times, it is a question of degree, not in kind...

What?

Besides, with your definition opposing germany in WW1 wasn't just either... I think it is time you revaluate your view of the world, and stop trying to fit that worldview into something that justifies the evil that is Israel.

Palestinian violence aimed at forcing Israel to end occupation of palestine

Palestinian violence aimed at killing as many Jews as possible and ending Israeli presence in region. See: Fatah constitution, Palestinian public opinion polls (bir zeit university) Hamas charter, etc.

Israels occupation of Palestine ends => Palestinians live in peace

If peace means Fatah oppression. The fatah constitution gives the movement's supporters the right to Palestinian land.

=> No more palestinan civilians killed. [/QUOTE
Except by Arafat. Besides, by this system of logic, settler violence is

Was that really so hard?

And neither was the situation improving. The Germans didn't kill French civilians left and right, and still they fought to be free... Hmm, could it be cecause they wanted to rule themselves?

So what? The South fought to be free in the Civil War, I guess they must be okay too. The French resistance wasn't great because it fought to establish the independence of one geographical area from a foriegn state - in that regard, it is no different from the Irgun, the IRA, and a million other organizations. It was great because it fought against the evil Nazis.

Hmm, I'll try to type slowly this time:

I r a q a t t a c k e d Q u w a i t = > I r a q i s t h e a g g r e s s o r

Try reading out loud 200 times. I asked you to read it out loud 100 times last time, I think, so maybe 200 more times should do the trick.

But somehow this never works with A r a b l e a g u e a t t a c k e d I s r a e l

So? Fail once, try again.

Just not with peace talks with Israel, right?

He is one of the sons of the most powerful family in Saudi-Arabia... What you are saying doesn't make sense.

But his family has already repudiated his actions and tried to convince him to give up.

Furthermore, you enver commented on the fact that half of the hijackers were Saudi.

Most of them were in a similar situation. By this logic, since many PLO terrorists are Lebanese (well, born in Lebanese refugee camps) or Israeli (born in Israeli refugee camps) they should work within their systems to try to create change. The average Arab has no capability to peacefully change the policies of his government, particularly foriegn policy.

And I have explained this to you and Siro so, so many times... Until you have argued that point (As Siro tries), there really isn't anything constructive in rehashing the same flawed points again and again.

The fac that he lies about who he has imprisoned and tries to protect terrorist leaders isn't really encouraging Israel to share its evidence with him . . . and besides, he is obligated to either turn over or arrest anyone Israel asks him to by the Oslo accords.

Arafat went in to the meeting decalring what the palestinian people would accept as the barest minimum.

Barak went in declaring what Israel wanted.

On a scale from 1 - 100, your simplified view on negotiation says that the parties should have gone in demanding 1 and 100, repsectively, to eventually reach ~50. Well, Palestine demanded 45 and Israel 100, and from that you conclude that Arafat wasn't being constructive because the settlement didn't end up at 75.

No, I'm saying Arafat wasn't being contructive because he made no effort to compromise on any issue or present a proposal of his own. For example, he would not accept anything short of full Palestinian or "Islamic" soveriegnty on the temple mount, even though Israel offered at least three neutral solutions. Similarly, he did nothing to try to solve the problem of the refugees.

Of course you don't. If you did you would have to admit to yourself that you are defending a barbarous nation with evil intent... and even if you were duped into it by their propaganda, it takes a lot of moral courage for someone to admit that they have been wrong for such a long time.

Please, the sermons are getting tiresome.

[Chris 62]

Re: Small correction

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Quwait was stealing Iraqi oil.

Iraq Claimed that the Kuwaitis were slant drilling (Drilling on an angle, from their territory into Iraq's, and this seems to have been the case! ).