Quote :

"Displacing native americans wasn't even an issue until politicians like Andrew Jackson launched aggressive campaigns to royally fuck them over. Otherwise they all would have peacefully integrated into our society as many of them did."

Wait wait wait

Are you fucking serious?

You think we weren't killing Indians in carload lots before Andrew Jackson? I mean, the shooting of them aside, would this whole situation be OK in your eyes if the first Jews to move to Palestine all had some disease that killed all the Arabs? I'm sure Israeli scientists can arrange that, if it would make you feel better about the whole thing.

Quote :

"Rolling in the tanks, sending in troops, or dropping bombs is defending oneself from an enemy."

So HUR, I can put you on record as saying that if the Israelis bombed all these people to death, it would not be genocide, but rather self-defense?

Quote :

"i think the strategy is starve them and let them kill each other for food"

The Israelis might be many terrible things, but I don't think they are stupid enough to believe that they can really get Palestinians to wipe themselves rather than throw the bulk of their weight at Israel.

Quote :

"oh wait, isn't that the strategy for every dictator that commits mass genocide"

I'm struggling to think of one single dictator that has ever used this strategy. Generally they directly kill the population or starve it just for the purposes of starving it. I mean, there may be dictators that have tried to use food to get their enemies to turn on themselves, but none of the biggies, really.

Quote :

"when the Soviets blockaded Berlin, we brought it our own supplies with air-drops."

This brings up an excellent point as to why the Arab countries who act oh-so-concerned for the plight of the Palestinians don't handle their feeding and care, as it were. I can see why they don't rely on airlifts, as to my knowledge Israel has no air corridors over its territory for flights inbound to Gaza. But Gaza is on the damn Mediterranean Sea, and last I checked you could get ships there pretty good.

Quote :

"oh i'm not picking sides. Both sides are terrorists. I'm picking the side against you that points the finger at the little guy and says "be like us or die!""

Really? Really???

We can get into a very long discussion of what it means to be a "terrorist nation." Pretty much every nation that has been involved in a conflict has used fear in some capacity or another to try to cow its enemy, both in offensive and defensive capacities. The concept is as old as Sun Tzu. Scaring the enemy makes him easier to fight, or, if it works right, makes him avoid the fight altogether.

What you're doing is playing fast and loose with the definition of "terrorist," using it in a way that is literally accurate ("one that employs terror"), but which falls short in the context of history, military science, and politics.

Quote :

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...i think someone was sleeping during the last invasion of Lebanon."

Even if Israel is only making the feeblest efforts at minimizing civilian deaths, that's more than we can say for Hamas.

Quote :

"Christians may be figure heads but the men behind those figure heads are mostly Jewish. The men behind those Jewish are even richer jews. Money is power and money is what controls the world. Guess who's good at making money?"

....aaaaaand Golovko takes a trip to salisburyland!

I'm not denying that there is a powerful Israeli lobby in the United States, but to claim that they run the world through this elaborate system of puppets is . . . well, I can't really come up with a word that describes the inanity better than "salisburyland"

----

Now, stepping back for a moment from any attempt at assessing right or wrong in this, let's ask a question: What would either side have to do to get the other to stop being an ass?

If certain elements in Palestine and abroad stopped attacking or threatening to attack Israel, would it stop violent military action? I think so, in relatively short order, after the sincerity of the ceasefire was apparent. Would it stop generally restricting the freedom and autonomy of Gaza and the West Bank? Again, I think so, although over a longer timeframe. Perhaps unacceptably long. And I'm not sure that there's anything that could be done to get Israel to give back various other territories in the forseeable future.

Now, what about the Israelis? What would they have to do to stop the attacks and threats? Would a total cessation of violent military action suffice? I doubt it. Would complete withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank, accompanied by official recognition of an independent Palestine, suffice? Possibly. Would complete withdrawal from all the territory not expressly granted Israel at the beginning suffice? Probably, at least over an extended time frame.

My thinking is that the Palestinian factions have a more immediate ability to halt all of the violence than do the Israelis, and that nothing on God's green Earth would convince them of that.

I'm not suggesting that they just lay down and take it, either, but that their only real chance to get anything is in a dialogue, and that the only real chance at meaningful dialogue is after everyone takes a breather from killing each other.

1/24/2008 1:42:15 AM

Quote :

"A "few militants" fire upwards of 150 rockets into Isreal EVERY DAY? This is coming from a territory that Israel left voluntarily. Do you think they will leave the West Bank anytime soon given how the Gazans have reacted to Israel's unilateral consessions?"

Where are you getting this every day thing for the 150 rockets?

A few articles I read, which weren't too clear, seemed to have it as there was relative peace, the Israeli gestapo kills some people they think are baddies, the palestinians flip out and start rocketing things, the Israelis cut power and gas.

But the rockets seemed to start in response to the killings.

1/24/2008 1:52:47 AM

^could be the case of 2 people reading stories about a conflict and placing the blame on different sides. Or it could be that you are reading stories slanted towards the Palestinians, while I'm reading stories slanted towards the Isreelis. Who knows.

Everything I've read indicates that the rocket attacks have been daily and incessant since Israel pulled out of the area, and the "gestapo" as you put it is arresting and killing militants only in response to the rocket attacks. If the rocket fire stopped, most likely Israel would just leave the Gazans alone and not restrict trade / aid from coming in.

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 2:05 AM. Reason : 2]

1/24/2008 1:57:39 AM

^,^^It's fuzzy just who started what... if this were public high school they'd both be suspended... so you might as well agree that regardless of who began a conflict, both groups are overly hostile and in the wrong.

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 2:05 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2008 2:05:09 AM

One oversimplified version of the conflict that has some merit is this:

If all the Palestinians were to lay down their arms, there would be peace in the area immediately.

If the Jews in Israel were to lay down their arms, they would all be dead within 48 hours and the Palestinians would get to work fighting each other for control.

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 2:08 AM. Reason : 2]

1/24/2008 2:07:14 AM

jajajaja

Quote :

"Wait wait wait Are you fucking serious? You think we weren't killing Indians in carload lots before Andrew Jackson? I mean, the shooting of them aside, would this whole situation be OK in your eyes if the first Jews to move to Palestine all had some disease that killed all the Arabs? I'm sure Israeli scientists can arrange that, if it would make you feel better about the whole thing."

Andrew Jackson policy towards indians << policy before that

The differences between this an Israel are obvious even to you. You'll have better luck comparing the gaza situation to the slaves or something for Christ's sake.

1.) disease wasn't intentional. duh.
2.) at that time, European settlers killed Indians, Indians killed Indians. Settlers fought wars with other settlers, with various sides allying with Indians.
3.) there are more Native Americans today than there were before colonization. Their lifestyle is different, but they're integrated into society and more prosperous than they've ever been.
4.) most importantly, there is not now, and there never has been a defining religious or cultural rift between indian and settler cultures that caused conflict. i.e. different religions battling over some "holy" ground.

--
And you seemed to have proposed a solution! HOMG! get in line.

1/24/2008 2:11:15 AM

Quote :

"Their lifestyle is different, but they're integrated into society and more prosperous than they've ever been."

Nice job, cracker. It's so good that they were forced to integrate into what you consider society. And I am just going to chalk up the "more prosperous than they're ever been" as a joke for your sake.

Quote :

"most importantly, there is not now, and there never has been a defining religious or cultural rift between indian and settler cultures that caused conflict. i.e. different religions battling over some "holy" ground."

I am not sure where you get this notion but to many Native American cultures the land itself was sacred along with everything that shared it. White man decided they would rather have it for material gain so they did as they have always done.

1/24/2008 2:35:14 AM

oh noes, they can't hunt the buffaloes now, they must be sadder than ever



They don't have rockets blowing up in their faces alrights.

considered land sacred? And that means oh so much. Their concept of land was completely inherently different. Land was bought from them on many occasions at ridiculously low prices because they just didn't understand - people couldn't own land.

"holy land" sort of then looses meaning when you broaden it to say all land everywhere is holy. You're not FIGHTING over a specific area as a matter of religious/national pride. Regardless, this issue has no relevance to the Gaza strip and should have never been brought up.

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 2:51 AM. Reason : ]

1/24/2008 2:50:11 AM

Quote :

"1.) disease wasn't intentional. duh."

Ahaha, did you have some kind of "white-power" revisionist US history textbook or something? Look up "smallpox blankets" in google before talking out of your ass. Disease spreading wasn't always intentional, but as soon as the settlers and government figured out how effective it was at getting rid of all those brown people they jumped on it.

1/24/2008 5:54:51 AM

Quote :

"A common reaction to this story is that it has to be folklore. Giving infected blankets to the Indians--why, that's awful! That's disgusting! That's . . . ethnic cleansing. Hmm. Maybe this story bears a closer look. Fact is, on at least one occasion a high-ranking European considered infecting the Indians with smallpox as a tactic of war. I'm talking about Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63). Amherst and a subordinate discussed, apparently seriously, sending infected blankets to hostile tribes. What's more, we've got the documents to prove it, thanks to the enterprising research of Peter d'Errico, legal studies professor at the University of Massachusetts at (fittingly) Amherst. D'Errico slogged through hundreds of reels of microfilmed correspondence looking for the smoking gun, and he found it. The exchange took place during Pontiac's Rebellion, which broke out after the war, in 1763. Forces led by Pontiac, a chief of the Ottawa who had been allied with the French, laid siege to the English at Fort Pitt. According to historian Francis Parkman, Amherst first raised the possibility of giving the Indians infected blankets in a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who would lead reinforcements to Fort Pitt. No copy of this letter has come to light, but we do know that Bouquet discussed the matter in a postscript to a letter to Amherst on July 13, 1763: P.S. I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself. As it is pity to oppose good men against them, I wish we could make use of the Spaniard's Method, and hunt them with English Dogs. Supported by Rangers, and some Light Horse, who would I think effectively extirpate or remove that Vermine. On July 16 Amherst replied, also in a postscript: P.S. You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race. I should be very glad your Scheme for Hunting them Down by Dogs could take Effect, but England is at too great a Distance to think of that at present. On July 26 Bouquet wrote back: I received yesterday your Excellency's letters of 16th with their Inclosures. The signal for Indian Messengers, and all your directions will be observed. We don't know if Bouquet actually put the plan into effect, or if so with what result. We do know that a supply of smallpox-infected blankets was available, since the disease had broken out at Fort Pitt some weeks previously. We also know that the following spring smallpox was reported to be raging among the Indians in the vicinity."

history class was real decisive on that one...

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 7:30 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2008 7:25:32 AM

Quote :

"Christians may be figure heads but the men behind those figure heads are mostly Jewish. The men behind those Jewish are even richer jews. Money is power and money is what controls the world. Guess who's good at making money?"

Wow i really have heard it all know. Not another jews behind the black hand conspiracy theory again.

Their money and power sure saved them during the holocaust. I think its funny that probably one of the weakest and probably the most push-around religious group in modern times is "supposedly" the one controlling all the strings in world politics according to certain people.

I won't argue thought that their are powerful and very rich jews in the US esp in places like hollywood and the financials.

1/24/2008 9:43:03 AM

Quote :

"One oversimplified version of the conflict that has some merit is this: If all the Palestinians were to lay down their arms, there would be peace in the area immediately. If the Jews in Israel were to lay down their arms, they would all be dead within 48 hours and the Palestinians would get to work fighting each other for control. "

1/24/2008 10:29:23 AM

Quote :

"So HUR, I can put you on record as saying that if the Israelis bombed all these people to death, it would not be genocide, but rather self-defense?"

Don't be a fucking dweeb by strawmanning me. By using the force i mentioned the Israeli military could tactically select its targets
and hit Hamas where it hurts. Administrative buildings, leaders properties, munitions dumps, communication/commands posts, munition dumps, etc
Where as their current policy is strategic and hurting those regardless of their relation to hamas.

In an alternative universe lets say you voted Patrick Valentine for governor in 2004 instead of the radical anti-federalist Mike Easley.
Mike wins, however, and takes a hostile position towards Washington DC. You did not vote for Easley but b.c of his actions while in office
the federal gov't decides to close the borders surrounding NC cutting off fuel shipments, food imports, and trade. How would this effect
your attitude toward the federal gov't.

Quote :

"his brings up an excellent point as to why the Arab countries who act oh-so-concerned for the plight of the Palestinians don't handle their feeding and care, as it were. I can see why they don't rely on airlifts, as to my knowledge Israel has no air corridors over its territory for flights inbound to Gaza. B"

i guess you missed the whole part where Egypt allowed 50,000 Palestinians cross the border for supplies.

mrfrog's comments on Native Americans btw is completely ignorant and lacks any true understanding. Hopefully your comments were just a joke

Quote :

"1.) disease wasn't intentional. duh."

lol there are MANY cases where the friendly US gov't introduced disease on PURPOSE as an early form of biological warfare. I guess
in history class you missed the whole providing blankets infected with measles on intentionally to kill resistive native Americans.

Quote :

"at that time, European settlers killed Indians, Indians killed Indians. Settlers fought wars with other settlers, with various sides allying with Indians."

you are fighting a pretty up hill battle to claim that Europeans settlers were just "opportunistic" in coming to possess all of the current
US territory. The native Americans fought wars against each other for 1000s of years just like any other nations in the old war. European
settlers straight up killed, forcibly removed, or "heavily encouraged" native Americans to submit. Keep telling yourself all the
patriotic idealistic stories of American colonization from your 5th grade history book if it makes you sleep better at night.

Quote :

"there are more Native Americans today than there were before colonization. Their lifestyle is different, but they're integrated into society and more prosperous than they've ever been."

wow just wow. Native Americans made up 100% of the population 1000 years ago and today amount to <1%. I guess it is possible
that quantitatively they have a higher population but I do not feel like putting in the research. This is kinda like saying stock
XYZ is at its highest price ever! Yet if you look at the market company XYZ has only gone up 10% since 1960 yet all the other companies
in its industry have risen in price by 200%.

You view of prosperity is extremely 1 dimensional too. I think you need to go visit an indian reservation before you claim that native
Americans are "better off" now then they were pre-Colonial America.

Quote :

"most importantly, there is not now, and there never has been a defining religious or cultural rift between Indian and settler cultures that caused conflict. i.e. different religions battling over some "holy" ground."

yeah you are right. It was just "hey there may be gold near that Indian village. Alright savages GTFO all your villages are belong to us."
Kicking people off their land for gold, oil, and fertile tobacco land definitely earns a moral high ground versus fighting over a
religious holy sight.

mrfrog plz refrain from ever posting in TSB until you advance past a middle school US propaganda based history comprehension level.

1/24/2008 10:30:27 AM

Quote :

"....aaaaaand Golovko takes a trip to salisburyland! I'm not denying that there is a powerful Israeli lobby in the United States, but to claim that they run the world through this elaborate system of puppets is . . . well, I can't really come up with a word that describes the inanity better than "salisburyland""

so are you disagreeing that money is power? Sure as hell sounds like it. OMG SALISBURYLAND!

1/24/2008 10:37:05 AM

Quote :

"their only real chance to get anything is in a dialogue, and that the only real chance at meaningful dialogue is after everyone takes a breather from killing each other"

totally agree, but I would add that we, as a country need to stop funding said conflicts and let them sort their own shit out.....open ended offer to sponsor neutral talks, sure. Directly funding military purposes for either, no.

1/24/2008 10:57:21 AM

Quote :

"1.) disease wasn't intentional. duh."

No, it probably wasn't. But I didn't see whitey going out of his way to protect the Indians from it, and I do see whitey happily taking advantage of the massive die-off.

Quote :

"2.) at that time, European settlers killed Indians, Indians killed Indians. Settlers fought wars with other settlers, with various sides allying with Indians."

We played the Indians off of one another, yeah. Absolutely. And we used them to get an upper hand in our various colonial wars. And then we told our allies to get the fuck off our land.

Quote :

"3.) there are more Native Americans today than there were before colonization. Their lifestyle is different, but they're integrated into society and more prosperous than they've ever been."

Are you serious??? Do you realize that Indian reservations are by and large the poorest, unhealthiest, overall shittiest ungodly hellholes in the country, right? That Indians have (or at least, had up until recently) the highest suicide rate of any ethnic group in the US?

Quote :

"4.) most importantly, there is not now, and there never has been a defining religious or cultural rift between indian and settler cultures that caused conflict. i.e. different religions battling over some "holy" ground"

There was a very clear rift that caused the conflict. Native Americans are not white people. White people are white people. You may not have noticed, but for a big chunk of human history -- arguably up until today -- that was pretty much the only rift that white people needed to start killing or enslaving everybody they could get their hands on.

Quote :

"By using the force i mentioned the Israeli military could tactically select its targets and hit Hamas where it hurts. Administrative buildings, leaders properties, munitions dumps, communication/commands posts, munition dumps, etc"

Unfortunately this isn't the case. There's not a hell of a lot in Gaza that qualifies as an "administrative building," the leaders have more sense than to live on/give much of a shit about their property, and this isn't World War fucking Two where there were big ol' depots behind the lines with all the guns and bombs in them. GG on sa ying "munition dumps" twice, by the way.

If Israel could hit surgical targets and cripple Hamas, I can't help but think they would have done it by now.

I'm willing to bet that far fewer Palestinians have died as a result of this cut-off (which, by what I'm reading, was temporary and came with a built-in relief mechanism) than would have died from direct military action.

Quote :

"In an alternative universe lets say you voted Patrick Valentine for governor in 2004 instead of the radical anti-federalist Mike Easley..."

Oversimplification ftw. Let's leave out all the prior history of violence on both sides, shall we?

Quote :

"i guess you missed the whole part where Egypt allowed 50,000 Palestinians cross the border for supplies."

Right, right. So they'll let people come into their country and spend money on their goods. But only now that the situation is desperate. How goddamned humanitarian of them.

What I want to know is, why does everybody expect Israel to be responsible for supplying a bunch of people who hate them with all the necessities of life? This, especially when the Gaza Strip has coastal access to the rest of the world. There's nothing stopping Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, etc. from sending convoys of aid to their oppressed Palestinian brothers.

Quote :

"so are you disagreeing that money is power?"

Money is a big element of power, although not the only element. What I'm disagreeing with is your proto-hitlerite assertion that the Jews have so much money they can secretly control the world.

Quote :

"totally agree, but I would add that we, as a country need to stop funding said conflicts and let them sort their own shit out.....open ended offer to sponsor neutral talks, sure."

I'm on the fence about this. One, like I said, I don't think Israel playing nice will stop the violence with any speed. Two, I don't think our withdrawing support would get Israel to play nice -- they're independent-minded, and I think a complete withdrawal of support would at best have no effect and at worst prompt them to act out to demonstrate that they are capable without our help.

And, just in general, I think a weak Israel is an invite to some even more unpleasant things in the Middle East.

1/24/2008 12:02:49 PM

Quote :

"What I want to know is, why does everybody expect Israel to be responsible for supplying a bunch of people who hate them with all the necessities of life? This, especially when the Gaza Strip has coastal access to the rest of the world. There's nothing stopping Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, etc. from sending convoys of aid to their oppressed Palestinian brothers."

Egypt in general is fed up with the Palestinians and their cause.

1/24/2008 12:21:00 PM

Egypt and the rest of the predominantly Arab countries were fed up with the Palestinians when this whole thing started. That's the fucked up thing. They're willing to use solidarity with Palestine right up until the moment that solidarity means having to do something other than hate Israel.

1/24/2008 12:26:18 PM

The citizens of these countries demand their governments do something to assist their 'muslim brothers'...in order to keep them from revolting they have to appear to be doing something. In reality the government would rather just forget the whole thing all together.

But I guess you don't see that kind of stuff on TV here in the US.

[Edited on January 24, 2008 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/24/2008 12:30:12 PM

Quote :

"The citizens of these countries demand their governments do something to assist their 'muslim brothers'...in order to keep them from revolting they have to appear to be doing something."

Right, exactly. But I still want to get to why in the hell these citizens, even, are more concerned with hating the Israelis than they are with feeding their brothers.

1/24/2008 12:38:32 PM

^religion ruins everything....It's gonna be the root cause of the end of civilization.

1/24/2008 1:38:41 PM

Kinda like how the US was more concerned about invading Iraq then making sure Afghanistan was stable and complete irradiating the Taliban

1/24/2008 1:47:11 PM

Quote :

"Right, exactly. But I still want to get to why in the hell these citizens, even, are more concerned with hating the Israelis than they are with feeding their brothers."

personally i'd rather no other Arab country help out because that could trigger an accidental all out war. If you have a country like Egypt trying to get Aid to palestine and the trigger happy Israeli's fire at them thinking they're terrorists (since they think all Muslims are terrorists) then you'll have a much bigger problem to deal with than a group of people throwing rocks and rockets at another group of people throwing air strikes and smart bombs.

1/24/2008 1:57:44 PM

Quote :

"If you have a country like Egypt trying to get Aid to palestine and the trigger happy Israeli's fire at them thinking they're terrorists..."

I think it would be fairly easy to convince the Israelis of the purely civilian nature of this convoy. On the one end you could simply permit Israeli inspections of the incoming ships. On the other, preferable end, the convoy could be run in conjunction with state sponsors that have meaningful peace with Israel -- Egypt leaps to mind. They don't like each other, but neither country wants to do anything that might lead to a fight, because they both stand to lose far too much foreign aid from doing so.

The exact reason that Israel hasn't taken real action to prevent Palestinians from crossing into Egypt is that it knows Egypt isn't going send rockets back with them.

1/24/2008 5:22:13 PM

if israel fucks up the peace deal they have with egypt cause of this i am seriously going to be pissed

1/24/2008 5:25:16 PM

Quote :

"yeah you are right. It was just "hey there may be gold near that Indian village. Alright savages GTFO all your villages are belong to us." Kicking people off their land for gold, oil, and fertile tobacco land definitely earns a moral high ground versus fighting over a religious holy sight."

Okay you fucking dipshit. The point, which you forgot long ago, was that the Indian-settlers example had absolutely goddam nothing in common with the Gaza situation beyond any other conflict in history.

I don't give a shit if these facts make the USA look good or bad - it seems that you do. Ethically, what we did in the 1800s to them was the worst. Yeah many explorers were happy when smallpox killed so many Indians, that wasn't nice, but pales in comparison to direct abuse of power that so much of the world was subject to at the time (or that happened to them as the continent developed). And the thing that killed so many at the outset was the original, unintentional spread, not some small, isolated, never confirmed distribution of smallpox pillows.

"Regardless, this issue has no relevance to the Gaza strip and should have never been brought up."

1/24/2008 9:23:26 PM

But I'm confused

It seems that you're saying it's OK to stay on someone's land if we kill them all one way, but not if we kill them all the other way

1/25/2008 2:31:14 AM

Quote :

"Egypt leaps to mind. They don't like each other, but neither country wants to do anything that might lead to a fight, because they both stand to lose far too much foreign aid from doing so."

considering Egypt is the only Arab nation to sign a peace agreement with Israel to this day. Sadat paid for it with his life.

Quote :

"if israel fucks up the peace deal they have with egypt cause of this i am seriously going to be pissed"

you are a fucking idiot.

[Edited on January 25, 2008 at 8:29 AM. Reason : ...]

1/25/2008 8:28:32 AM

Quote :

"considering Egypt is the only Arab nation to sign a peace agreement with Israel to this day. Sadat paid for it with his life."

I know you find this hard to believe, but there are Americans who know these things, myself included. That peace arrangement is why Egypt gets a metric fuckton of US money each year. If memory serves, they're something like the number two recipient of our foreign aid (or at least were a couple of years back).

So that's what I'm saying. We've got Egypt as a possible conduit for supplies to Gaza from the Arab world. But those supplies won't come, because leaders in the Arab world placate their people with hatred for Israel rather than love of Palestinians.

1/25/2008 1:10:29 PM

nothing new here...

oh, and fuck'em.

1/25/2008 1:16:51 PM

Quote :

"considering Egypt is the only Arab nation to sign a peace agreement with Israel to this day."

No it is not.

It is one of two Arab nations to sign a peace treaty with Israel.

1/25/2008 1:48:53 PM

yeah we need another democrat in office so we can get a few others on board

1/25/2008 1:50:50 PM

Obama is what the world needs.

1/25/2008 2:02:06 PM

for real

1/25/2008 2:02:25 PM

We need a man who grew up on the hard streets of Hawaii to lead us all!11!!

1/25/2008 2:06:27 PM

Quote :

"No it is not. It is one of two Arab nations to sign a peace treaty with Israel."

my mistake. forgot about the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in '94

1/25/2008 3:52:38 PM

how can you be an arab and not know that?


even i fucking knew that


to quote someone earlier in this thread,

Quote :

"you are a fucking idiot."

1/25/2008 4:39:52 PM

^simple. I'm not Arab. And no, you did not know that. There is really nothing knocking about in that brain of yours so don't act like you knew something.

1/26/2008 12:07:55 PM

haha what makes you think i didnt know that?

1/26/2008 12:14:13 PM

clearly you've never read any of your own posts.

1/26/2008 7:46:26 PM

all i know is i definitely knew jordan signed the deal in 94 and egypt signed the deal in the 70s



hell i even know that wolf blitzer is the one that jumpstarted peace talks in the 70's...with a ? he asked anwar sadat

1/27/2008 5:50:54 PM