It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HAMAS to Form Palestinian Army

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky



GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Following their resounding election victory, the Islamic militants of Hamas met the question of whether they will change their stripes with a loud "no": no recognition of Israel, no negotiations, no renunciation of terror.

Business (terror) as usual


Emphasis added
They have made their intentions openly public. You can choose to ignore it if you want; I don't know how much clearer they could be.

Source originally posted by Seekerof.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by jsobecky]



The part of this article that you quoted is not an actual statement from any actual person, and isn't even really substantiated in the body of the article itself. All that it really "makes clear" is that some will use whatever propagandistic contortions are necessary to ascribe sinister motives to the new Palestinian government.

As I already pointed out when Seekerof first posted this link to support the contention that Hamas was continuing to advocate violence, the ONLY source that the article actually lists for any sentiment similar to that is "an up-and-coming young Hamas leader." I sincerely doubt that he speaks for all of Hamas, and I would go so far as to say that it would be incredibly and frighteningly stupid to base international policy on his statements.

From the linked article, the ONLY mention, other than the unascribed non-quote which you reprinted from the lead, of Hamas' nominal "intentions."


An interview with an up-and-coming young Hamas leader in a dusty Gaza Strip field revealed how the organization's slant could shift.

Mushir al-Masri said renouncing the "armed struggle" and negotiating with Israel are "not on Hamas' agenda" because a decade of talking won the Palestinians nothing.

"We cannot waste 10 more years when the last 10 years failed to realize even the minimum amount of Palestinian hopes," he said.

But when an aide tried to put a green Hamas sash over al-Masri's shoulder before a TV interview, the 29-year-old newly elected lawmaker shooed him away. "You should bring me the Palestinian flag," he said, reflecting his movement's stated desire to represent all Palestinians.


Surely you aren't sincerely advocating the establishment of international policy based solely on the words of one "up and coming young Hamas leader in a dusty Gaza Strip field?"




posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I am so sick and tire of the "Terrorism" this " Terrorism" that, fight "Terror" and now the new Bush administration issue "war on terror"

Now is nice to talk about "Terror" as an "Entity" but please stop the propaganda.

Before "Terror" the fight between ethnics and religious groups were called, ethnic cleansing and the most well known as "religious crusades".

The attacks between difference factions and groups in the middle east is not new and didn't started with "Bush giving them a name" they have been part of the middle east struggles for power and struggles for identity since the beginning of time.

Tagging an entire "Nation", "Ethnic groups" or "religious groups" in the middle east "Terrorist" is nothing more that American politics to target groups of people and justifying "Collateral damage".

So When a Palestine retaliate against Israel is a "Terrorist act" but when Israel retaliate against Palestine is called "self defense" in the US dictionary.


What the "War on terror" ideologist believe that should be done with a legally elected group in a country that is not well view by the "righteous west"?

The obvious answer Denied Terrorism, funny but that is not what the answer should be, it should be to bring stability and let the people decided what should be best for their nation.

But already their fate has been written, the righteous west will given them the back, announced them as "Terrorist" and then let the people in the lands suffer from hunger.

Why big, powerful countries are so hypocrites . . . is beyond me.

The reality is . . . years of talks with Israel has brought nothing to the Palestine people, and that is the truth.

[edit on 29-1-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
I'm sorry-- maybe I misread my own post, but I just can't find the word "impossible" anywhere other than in your response.


So what? The very tone of your post makes it sound like the west is putting an unfair and unjust burden on Hamas.


First, I believe that the west is doing exactly that, and second, I resent anyone misconstruing my statements. Either respond to what I said or find somebody else who said that to which you wish to respond. Do NOT put words in my mouth.






They can achieve this by


  1. Formally renouncing their charter which calls for the elimination of Israel, and sticking with their new committment
  2. Formally condemning any violence by individuals or factions, and seriously working to track them down and eliminate them




How long do they have to formally renounce their charter and track down and eliminate violent individuals? I mean, it's been all of five days now,and the sabre rattlers hereabouts are set to go to war already. Do they get another couple of days? Hours? Minutes? Is it already too late? And how long do they have to stick with their new commitment before it counts?

They can do the first item immediately.



Immediately? Are you kidding?

First, one would think that their first priority should be to quell the Fatah unrest. Second, it seems obvious that they can ONLY bring the militants under control if they command their respect, and they're certainly not going to command their respect by immediately bowing to US pressure. If they were to, as you demand, IMMEDIATELY denounce their longstanding policies, all they would accomplish would be to earn the derision of the militants and guarantee that they would NOT be able to bring them under control.

They have to step very carefully if they're to stop the terrorism AND maintain the respect of their followers. Making an immediate and unqualified statement denouncing their longstanding policies absolutely will NOT achieve the result you claim to desire.




They can take care of the second by announcing that terror will not be tolerated, and then react on a case-by-case basis. As far as how long they are required to behave, well that's kind of a silly question, isn't it?


No, that's not a silly question at all. If they're expected to not only stop terrorism but to continue to prevent it, for how long will they have to do so in order to convince you, and more importantly, the western governments who are threatening them, that they have actually succeeded in doing just that?





Actually, they won't be entirely cut off from foreign aid.

(snip)

This is good news. Then the Saudis can foot the bill for once, instead of it being the US paying the tab. They can afford it.


Your short-sighted testiness aside, the point is that this will increase resentment among the Palestinians toward the west, and ally them more closely with fundamentalist Islam. If peace in the region really is your goal, this is exactly how NOT to achieve it.





We're not only going to further alienate the Palestinians-- we're going to give them even more reason to ally themselves with the Wahabbists? We could have an opportunity to strengthen relationships with the Palestinians and with Hamas, and we're going to refuse to take that opportunity and instead FORCE them even further toward Islamic fundamentalism, and all this in the name of fighting terrorism?

Bad behavior should not be rewarded. When Hamas renounces terrorism then they will be rewarded. Until then, no. And the aid should be doled out on a monthly basis.


This bit of ham-handed jingoism completely evades the point I made here. If our purpose really is to foster peace in the region, we are NOT going to accomplish that by alienating the Palestinian people based on what some of their leaders advocated in the past and what some rigid, would-be Nostradamus ideologues insist they will continue to do in the future.





My God, man, how much plainer does it have to be for you? Throughout this thread there have been numerous examples of Hamas' vow to continue terrorism and refusal to negotiate with Israel. You choose to ignore those vows, and to blame the US and Israel while apologizing for Hamas.


No. Throughout this thread there has been ONE example posted that's consisted of a wholly unsubstantiated and unattributed statement in the lead paragraph of ONE news story, and a later reference to the statements of ONE "up and coming young Hamas leader in a dusty Gaza Strip field."

And, I have apologized for no one. ALL I've said is that it's obviously counter-productive to treat the Palestinian people as enemies based solely on the past statements and actions of some of their leaders, since to do so will certainly further alienate them, drive them further toward Islamic fundamentalism, and heighten, rather than lessen, tensions in the region. If peace really is our desire there, then treating them as enemies is specifically the thing that we should NOT be doing, as doing so will only guarantee that they will indeed be just that.

Of course a Hamas-led Palestine might refuse to make peace. Of course they might continue to attack Israel. But making pariahs of an entire population based on what MIGHT happen only makes it certain that it WILL happen.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Surely you aren't sincerely advocating the establishment of international policy based solely on the words of one "up and coming young Hamas leader in a dusty Gaza Strip field?"

History is replete with examples of power being seized by "up and coming young leaders" in places more unlikely than a dusty field. But just for you, how about some words from their political leader?


Hamas Is Resolute On Fighting Israel
Militants to Form Army, Leader Says

By Rhonda Roumani and Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, January 29, 2006; Page A21

DAMASCUS, Syria, Jan. 28 -- Days after Hamas's victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections, the group's exiled political leader vowed Saturday to continue its confrontation with Israel and suggested that the radical Islamic movement would turn its military wing into a national army for defensive reasons "like any other country."

"As long as we are under occupation then it is our right to resist," Khaled Meshal, who lives here in Syria's capital, said at a news conference. He was seated before images of Jerusalem's al-Aqsa mosque, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Sheik Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi, assassinated leaders of Hamas.
Hamas



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
It's very pathetic really to expect that a country like Palestine that most of the population is poor, will be expected to rise against the mighty Israel while every body knows how well backed by the US Israel is.

Hams leaders and so call leaders can say anything they want just like Iran is.

But they have nothing to defend themselves from the arsenal of weapon and nuclear power that thanks to the US Israel have.

Is so pathetic is inspired pity.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

First, I believe that the west is doing exactly that, and second, I resent anyone misconstruing my statements. Either respond to what I said or find somebody else who said that to which you wish to respond. Do NOT put words in my mouth.

Well...


Hamas is expected to not only stop promoting violence, but to stop the violence altogether. They're not only to stop sponsoring violence, but to somehow prevent individuals from engaging in violence. What do you think the odds are that they'll be able to do so in light of the complete elimination of foreign aid and diplomatic relations? What are the chances that there will be anything BUT unrest and violence when Palestine, due solely to the PAST rhetoric and PAST actions of their new ruling party, becomes a pariah? Hell-- the unrest has already started, and meanwhile, while the new government has to deal with that, the foreign aid is already scheduled to stop.

These are your words, Bob. Are you going to deny them? Where did I put words in your mouth? I said your tone makes it sound like. There is a difference.


They can do the first item immediately.




Immediately? Are you kidding?

First, one would think that their first priority should be to quell the Fatah unrest. Second, it seems obvious that they can ONLY bring the militants under control if they command their respect, and they're certainly not going to command their respect by immediately bowing to US pressure. If they were to, as you demand, IMMEDIATELY denounce their longstanding policies, all they would accomplish would be to earn the derision of the militants and guarantee that they would NOT be able to bring them under control.

It's tough being the leader, Bob. You have to make tough decisions. Not kiss the terrorists butt because you're afraid of them and what they'll think of you.

If Hamas isn't up to the job, they shouldn't have run for election. And they are not bowing to US pressure. They are making a decision to stop terrorism. It just so happens that decent, peace-loving nations also renounce terrorism. But what you're saying is that Hamas needs to associate with terrorists. Remember the old adage: If you lay down with dogs, you're bound to get fleas.


Making an immediate and unqualified statement denouncing their longstanding policies absolutely will NOT achieve the result you claim to desire.

How do you know it won't? Which is preferable, to have the respect and backing of the peace-loving elements of our planet, or to be the best buddy of the terrorists?




They can take care of the second by announcing that terror will not be tolerated, and then react on a case-by-case basis. As far as how long they are required to behave, well that's kind of a silly question, isn't it?



No, that's not a silly question at all. If they're expected to not only stop terrorism but to continue to prevent it, for how long will they have to do so in order to convince you, and more importantly, the western governments who are threatening them, that they have actually succeeded in doing just that?

How about we judge it on a month-by-month basis, aid to be paid at the end of another month that Hamas has behaved itself? Sort of like getting a paycheck; you don't get paid unless you work.


Your short-sighted testiness aside, the point is that this will increase resentment among the Palestinians toward the west, and ally them more closely with fundamentalist Islam.

Bad behavior is not to be rewarded, Bob. It's a jingo to you, a truism to the rest of the world. And I'm not being testy. I'm being very patient, as when an adult tries to explain to a child why the child cannot have dessert before he/she finishes their meal.


No. Throughout this thread there has been ONE example posted that's consisted of a wholly unsubstantiated and unattributed statement in the lead paragraph of ONE news story, and a later reference to the statements of ONE "up and coming young Hamas leader in a dusty Gaza Strip field."

You can't use that excuse any longer, Bob.


And, I have apologized for no one. ALL I've said is that it's obviously counter-productive to treat the Palestinian people as enemies based solely on the past statements and actions of some of their leaders, since to do so will certainly further alienate them, drive them further toward Islamic fundamentalism, and heighten, rather than lessen, tensions in the region. If peace really is our desire there, then treating them as enemies is specifically the thing that we should NOT be doing, as doing so will only guarantee that they will indeed be just that.

How about we put it like this: We love the sinner but we hate the sin.

I don't see anyone threatening Palestine; this is something cooked up as a red herring to give Hamas an excuse to continue to sponsor terrorism. What the US and others are saying, is, go ahead and misbehave. Just don't expect us to pay for it.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

First, I believe that the west is doing exactly that, and second, I resent anyone misconstruing my statements. Either respond to what I said or find somebody else who said that to which you wish to respond. Do NOT put words in my mouth.

Well...


Hamas is expected to not only stop promoting violence, but to stop the violence altogether. They're not only to stop sponsoring violence, but to somehow prevent individuals from engaging in violence. What do you think the odds are that they'll be able to do so in light of the complete elimination of foreign aid and diplomatic relations? What are the chances that there will be anything BUT unrest and violence when Palestine, due solely to the PAST rhetoric and PAST actions of their new ruling party, becomes a pariah? Hell-- the unrest has already started, and meanwhile, while the new government has to deal with that, the foreign aid is already scheduled to stop.

These are your words, Bob. Are you going to deny them? Where did I put words in your mouth? I said your tone makes it sound like. There is a difference.



From your earlier post:


Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse
Hamas is expected to not only stop promoting violence, but to stop the violence altogether. They're not only to stop sponsoring violence, but to somehow prevent individuals from engaging in violence. What do you think the odds are that they'll be able to do so in light of the complete elimination of foreign aid and diplomatic relations?

Why is this impossible?

(emphasis mine)


My response:


Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

I'm sorry-- maybe I misread my own post, but I just can't find the word "impossible" anywhere other than in your response.



My objection was CLEARLY to you placing the word impossible in my mouth, and then and only then did you fall back to "your tone makes it sound like." The latter is NOT the phrase to which I originally objected.

I'm done. I don't debate with liars.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   

from Bob LaoTse
My objection was CLEARLY to you placing the word impossible in my mouth, and then and only then did you fall back to "your tone makes it sound like." The latter is NOT the phrase to which I originally objected.

I'm done. I don't debate with liars.

You should quit, if this is all you can find fault with.:shk:

Maybe I should have said, "Why is this not possible?"

And you take this as putting words in your mouth, and call me a liar? You're grasping at straws, when you should be stepping back and seeing the error of your logic.

But whatever works for you, is fine, Bob. If feigning insult helps, then by all means, go for it.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
It's very pathetic really to expect that a country like Palestine that most of the population is poor, will be expected to rise against the mighty Israel while every body knows how well backed by the US Israel is.

Hams leaders and so call leaders can say anything they want just like Iran is.

But they have nothing to defend themselves from the arsenal of weapon and nuclear power that thanks to the US Israel have.

Is so pathetic is inspired pity.


Marg, what is a pity is that you think there is a country to which you refer. There is no country called "palestine", nor has there been. These people are Arabs, they had the opportunity to live in a good, prosperous nation but preferred to get out of the way while the other Arabs tried to destroy Israel, but failed. After they removed themselves from their homes, gambling that their brethren would kill all the Jews and then they would have everything. They lost. They, by the way, left their homes that were squarely in Israel; they were not living in the "West Bank (properly known as Judea and Samaria). They lost! Understand? According to the same people from a few decades ago, there is no such thing as Palestine or Palestinians, they are Arabs and it, according to them, is merely a part of Syria.
So, this being the case, why do the Syrians not take them in, rather than using them as pawns? Seriously.

They don't need an army, they need buses to Syria



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I know you to be a rational man-- let's have a dialogue about this.

Most simply, and on topic-- do you agree or disagree with the contention that the surest method available to the new Palestinian government to bring the militias under control and to stop them from engaging in terrorist attacks is to combine them into a regular army and to place them directly under government control?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Here you go. And this can be done in the form of a picture:




posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   


There is no country called "palestine", nor has there been.


The "no such country as Palestine" canard ignores the fact that prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, nation-states as we now know them really didn't exist in the Middle East.

Second of all the picture of Israel's founding you paint is absurdly one sided - ever hear of Deir Yasin for instance, where the Irgun slaughtered more than a hundred men, women and children? The Dahmash mosque massacre?
The King David Hotel bombing?

Whether "Palestine" existed as a formal nation state or not, there were plenty of mostly Muslim Arabs living in what is now Israel prior to 1948. Most of them fled their homes in fear for their lives. While I recongize that Israel exists, and has a right to continue to exist, that doesn't change the fact that it's founding was essentially a massive act of what we'd now call "ethnic cleansing", accompanied by terrorism and mass murder, capping a tit-for-tat struggle where both sides massacred innocents by the score. But the fact is the Arabs were living there for centuries before they were forced out by European Jewish immigrants seeking to create a Jewish state.

700,000+ Palestinian (for lack of a better word) refugees lost their homes in the creation of Israel - where they had constituted a vast majority before the influx of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe. 600,000 Middle Eastern Jews, who prior to 1948 had lived largely peacefully in Arab lands, were forced to flee to Israel.

No party in the situation is free of bloodied hands.
And Israel's troubles today are the inevitable result of the circumstances of it's founding.

I've asked you this before, and I am going to ask again. What should happen to the millions of Arabs living in the Weat Bank and Gaza? Should they go back to living under Israeli military rule? Should they be forced out of their homes en masse once again? Should they simply be slaughtered, perhaps in nice efficient gas chambers? Really, other than a two-state solution, these are the only options.

Frankly from your expressed attitute towards Muslims I suspect you would be quite comfortable with the second option, and probably wouldn't complain too much about the third either. As we've learned (or should have anyway) from recent Middle Eastern history, it is quite easy to commit unholy atrocities when you are certain God is on your side.

[edit on 1/30/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   
jsobecky:

You extracted a comment about how Hamas made a "comment", however that comment was probably from some gun-weilding Hamas supporter who said "no" after a leading question from a repoter. This is standard reporting "sensationalism" - I've experienced this first hand on NUMEROUS occassions, thus why I never believe the papers or the news. Isn't it funny how all the news sations carrry the same stories? Funny that isn't it
Ever questioned why this is so?

From reading your posts, it seems you are young as you want everything to happen"now"...now there's nothing wrong with that at all I believe. I know there are many things that I want, but unfortunately I have to be patient.

In the real world, as I have explained to numerous young employees - things take time. Yes, it would be great for everything to happen immediately, however this is not reality.

I'd also suggest you do a bit of research on politics, factions and International relations as it seems you need a boost in these areas of learning - they have a large impact when politics come into play and, as I have saif on numerous occassions, learning is always a good thing.

Cheers

JS



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:17 AM
link   
If I recall, senior Hamas leaders stated the day after the elections that they would continue to observe the peace if Israel did so. How long they might do so is anyones guess, probably as long as it takes them to gear up for renewed violence. However, fractures within the Hamas organization appear to be starting already and I expect them to continue and grow more widespread. Fatah will no doubt do their best to stir the pot within Hamas as well. What should not be downplayed is that if Hamas renews attacks on Israel, those attacks will amount to state sponsored terrorism and will be tantamount to a declaration of war by the Palestinian government.

I'm sure the Hamas leadership is acutely aware of the reality of the situation they are in. They now have to make a fairly clear cut choice; work for the good of the Palestinian people, or work for the destruction of Israel. They must be very uncomfortable right now--and for good reason. If they do not renounce violence and concede Israels right to exist then thousands of the people they represent are going to sink from the poverty they are currently in to a really desperate situation. It will not take long to see which way they intend to jump.

P.S.,
As far as an army goes--no way in hell.


[edit on 30-1-2006 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Astronomer68:

I agree with you totally.

Hamas have to be very very careful at the moment as it can swing either way - in a very extreme fashion to boot.

Cheers

JS



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I laugh evertime I see that picture that started this thread. I look like a light skinned eddie murphy portraying buckwheat say "otay!".



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jumpspace
jsobecky:

You extracted a comment about how Hamas made a "comment", however that comment was probably from some gun-weilding Hamas supporter who said "no" after a leading question from a repoter. This is standard reporting "sensationalism" - I've experienced this first hand on NUMEROUS occassions, thus why I never believe the papers or the news. Isn't it funny how all the news sations carrry the same stories? Funny that isn't it
Ever questioned why this is so?

You need to work on your reading comprehension, jumpspace, because I later cited the political leader of Hamas as a source.



From reading your posts, it seems you are young as you want everything to happen"now"...now there's nothing wrong with that at all I believe. I know there are many things that I want, but unfortunately I have to be patient.

I was asked point blank "When? How long?" and I said that Hamas could renounce terror immediately. Is there a reason why that could not happen, jumpspace? I can understand why you wouldn't want the violence to stop- it would weaken your ability to blame the US for everything wrong with the world - but your "wants" don't really matter here.

Also, I am probably old enough to be your father; however, that would give me no pride at all, believe me. To think that I raised a terrorist sympathizer would be a great disappointment.


I'd also suggest you do a bit of research on politics, factions and International relations as it seems you need a boost in these areas of learning - they have a large impact when politics come into play and, as I have saif on numerous occassions, learning is always a good thing.

And I'd suggest that you drop the condescending tone, jumpspace. As far as learning, you are far behind the curve since you've contributed nothing but silly attempts to quiet debate through intimidation. Won't work, so I suggest you take it back to the playground.



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Marg, what is a pity is that you think there is a country to which you refer. There is no country called "palestine", nor has there been.


You are wrong The land of the Palestines has always been the land of Palestine.

Thomas since biblical times the entire region that of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea including modern Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan and Egypt is known as the holy land

Palestine has always been Palestine..

The word came from the meaning of “Land of the Philistines” Palestine is called Canaan before Joshua the Hebrew name is Eretz Israel after the land Was promised to the Jews by God the God of the Christians.

Its equally important not only for Christians but also Muslin they consider Islam part of Judaism and Christianity.

Jerusalem in the Muslin tradition was the place was Muhammad ascended to haven just like Jesus in Christian believes.

The fight for the land is as ancient as the people that live in those lands and will always be a fight for the land.

Occurs in 1947 UN took over the Palestine problem.




In 1919 there were about 568,000 Muslims, 74,000 Christians, and 58,000 Jews in Palestine. The first Arab anti-Zionist riots occurred in Palestine in 1920.



The biggest migration of Jews came during the time of Nazi rule in Germany, after that the migration of Jews kept steadily thanks to Truman and other European nations, including Britain then in control of the area.



(Feb., 1947). At that time there were about 1,091,000 Muslims, 614,000 Jews, and 146,000 Christians in Palestine.


I don’t know about you TC but Palestine has always been known as the Land of the Palestines.

It was Israel for the Jews that became a nation.

www.bartleby.com...





[edit on 30-1-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OneGodJesus
I laugh evertime I see that picture that started this thread. I look like a light skinned eddie murphy portraying buckwheat say "otay!".


Sorry I don't want to end up like Denmark and get put on the most hated list of all of Islam. I better quit as this is just another example of the worlds what third largest religion being foolish. We have many who do it in Christianity too but these guys crack me up, burning flags and blowing themselves up. It's like watching a trainwreck you know will happen yet you cannot take your eyes off the spot it will happen out of morbid curiosity. We all need help I guess for not stopping this thing somehow. I know the way but ain't no one gonna like it as it onvolves MY faith, so I keep quiet.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   


Marg, what is a pity is that you think there is a country to which you refer. There is no country called "palestine", nor has there been.


What is that place called in the bible then during Jesus's time? it wasn't Israel.

What was that place that was apart of the British Empire? what was that place before the creation of Israel?

Ignorance is a killer these days.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by infinite]




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join