The Palestinians should have hold their fire.
Posted on 11/04/2001 5:35:53 AM PST by IcommGen
A Palestinian gunman has opened fire on an Israeli bus while it was travelling in Jerusalem on Sunday, wounding seven people, police and witnesses said.
"We saw a Palestinian terrorist shoot at us from the outside. He didn't stop shooting," a woman passenger on the bus told Israel radio.
The bus was travelling in Jerusalem's French Hill neighbourhood.
Police sources quoted by the French news agency AFP said the gunman was shot dead by police.
LOL!. Yeah, the same poster would then cry foul if Israel brought rough justice to the terrorists.
In the last year 200 Israeli deaths, 800 (claimed) Pali dead.
If you accept the (probably inflated) claim; Only 4 times as many, mostly justified (not murder).
"Ignorant and ideological is no way to go though life, son"
--my apologies to Dean Wormer
Extremely well put. It's WAY past time for Sharon to do what he was elected for.
These Palestinians cheered and celebrated while my countrymen were murdered. We can see what side you're on.
Political reasons. If we didn't support Israel, they might just have to rely on their own "devices" to defend themselves. What would that do to the price of oil?
(...only aspect of this story that is pleasing in a story that is otherwise a total tragedy/atrocity.)
Either way, it proves the point of having an armed citizenry. :)
These terrorists need to be killed.
Not quite. If it were not for the oil, the Israelis would have launched nuclear attacks on the Arabs in 1973 after the Arab surprise attack in the Yom Kippur War. Who knows what would have happened after that. The US didn't want that to happen. That's the reason we support Israel - to prevent them from nuking the oil fields.
I agree with you. One of the benefits of being the only ones who sell Israel arms is that we can exert an enormous amount of influence on their decisions to defend themselves. Of course, when we use that influence it doesn't exactly make us look like the guys in the white hats....but then, maybe we aren't.
Since there was no "Palestine" in 1967, who was it stolen from? The French? No, wait, it must have been the French who stole it.
On a recent trip to Israel, French prime minister Lionel Jospin urged Israel to make concessions for peace. More interesting yet, in documents relating to his visit, Jerusalem was called the "capital of the Palestinian Authority." And what does he consider the capital of Israel? Tel Aviv, of course.1 This trip followed by a few years one made by President Jacques Chirac, who used the occasion of his visit in 1996 to announce that "Syria has a moral right to demand return of the Golan Heights."2
These French politicians may be on to something important. Never one to back down from a challenge, I have prepared a set of proposals for consideration by the French people, so they too can achieve a full, lasting, and just peace with their historic opponents.
First, we all agree that territory must not be annexed by force. Therefore, we can also agree that Germany has a moral right to demand the return of Alsace-Lorraine, for the French aggression in 1945 and its consequent occupation must not be rewarded. "A full withdrawal for full peace" should operate here. Further, France must agree to the return and rehabilitation of all ethnic Germans expelled from Alsace-Lorraine after World Wars I and II, as well as all those they define as their descendents.
But this, of course, is just the first step toward a solution, as no aggression can be rewarded—and France has much other stolen territory to return. It took Corsica from Genoa, Nice and Savoy from Piedmont; as the successor state, Italy must get back all these lands. By similar token, territories grabbed from the Habsburgs go back to Austria, including Franche-Comté, Artois, and historic Burgundy. The Roussillon area (along the Pyrenées) must be returned to Spain, its rightful owner. And Normandy, Anjou, Aquitaine, and Gascony must be returned to their rightful owners, the British royal family.
Not even this not enough for the sake of peace. Brittany and Languedoc must be granted autonomy at once, recognizing the Breton and Occitan Liberation organizations as their legal rulers. This leaves the French government in control over the Île de France (the area around Paris).
That, however, still does not solve the problem of the Holy City of Paris, sacred to artists, gourmets, and adulterers. The Corsicans obviously have a historic claim to the Tomb of the Emperor Napoleon, their famed son, as well as the Invalides complex and beyond. For the sake of peace, is it not too much to ask that Paris be the capital for two peoples? The French authorities must agree to prevent French Parisians from even entering the sacred tomb area, lest this upset the Corsicans.
The Saint Chapelle and the Church of Notre Dame of course will be internationalized, under joint Vatican-art historical auspices. Indeed, the French should consider it a compliment of the highest order that so many people see Paris as an international city.
The French have nothing to complain of. They will enjoy the benefits of peace and retain control of the Champs Elysées.
Actually, come to think of it, even the Champs Elysées may be too much. Recalling the French position that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel, perhaps the true French capital is not Paris at all, but Vichy.
Steven Plaut teaches at the University of Haifa.1 The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 24, 2000.
You are right. The massacres that the Jews have perpetrated against the Arabs in Palestine are numerous and documented, but you have to dig around further than the Wall Street Journal, NYT, or Washington Post. And speaking of innocent ones being victimized in war what are your thoughts of the over 1 million Iraqi children that have died in the last ten years of allied sanctions against that country? Remember how Germany was treated after WW1. The sanctions imposed upon them, and how that eventually lead to WW2.
I really love a story with a HAPPY ending!
Excuse me? I seem to remember watching a Palestinian child get shot to death in his father's arms on international television. What about last week's Palestinian Christian murdered by Isreali snipers? He wasn't yet a teen, nor was he throwing rocks. Is it violence when a group of people with superior political connections and wealth, invade a country, provoke a war, terrorize the inhabitants forcing them into refugee camps, never paying any compensation, what kind of child abuse it that?
In Israel the Jews accuse each other of being anti-Semites. Since I am a proud gentile, straight, unreconstructed nationalist of the whitest kind I won't be running to the ACLU anytime soon. LOL.
I stand corrected.
The Palestinians should have hold their fire.
Unreconstructed white nationalist
And since we know that white/black nationalists are invariably racist...(and anti-Jewish) then can we reasonably infer that your stance is similar to other race-based nationalist movements?
As if you do not cheer when the Zionist blow them to smithereens. Get a grip man and be realistic. You can cheer their deaths but they can't ours? There is no evidence implicating the Palestinians in WTC and you know it.
Yeah, the Jews are pretty good at massacres too. You want the list?
No pal, I just disagree with you.
Yes you did and all the available evidence points to him having been shot by a Palestinian.
>What about last week's Palestinian Christian murdered by Isreali snipers? He wasn't yet a teen, nor was he throwing rocks.
What evidence do you have to substantiate that? - none, he might have been killed by a Palestinian who thought it a good opportunity to kill a Christian and get away with it.
Is that so? - numerous? - don't think so.
The first documented massacre of modern times was the Arabs slaughtering the Jews of Hebron in 1929. If you want to go back to the 5th century you can start with Mohameds massacre of the Jews as documented in the Koran.
If you want to start a scoresheet I'll play.
What's your first nomination for a documented massacre of Arabs by Jews?
but you have to dig around further than the Wall Street Journal, NYT, or Washington Post.
Ok, but you have to come up with more reliable sources other than Palestinian lies and propaganda.
And speaking of innocent ones being victimized in war what are your thoughts of the over 1 million Iraqi children that have died in the last ten years of allied sanctions against that country?
I agree that whatever the number (and its not >1M) these children are innocents. But their death has nothing to do with the sanctions because the oil for food program would work if Saddam wanted it to and not use the wellbeing of children as a propaganda tool to ease the sanctions. There are no sanctions on food or medicines - period. And BTW have you any thoughts of why there are sanctions in the first place.
Yes, innocent Palestinians have died, but ISRAEL NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER INTENTIONALLY TARGETS CIVILIANS. If you believe they do, surely you also believe America intentionally targets Afghan civilians right? How else would you explain the fact that they killed a bunch of civilians, right?
The Palestinians are the only ones who go out and say, "I am going to kill innoncent civilians. That is my specific and sole goal." The Israels target terrorists, and like everyone else, and less often then anyone else, also accidently hit civilians from time to time. Israeli soldiers are educated in a modern, western country and just want to go home. They have very specific and harsh orders to avoid civilian casualties, even at a risk to their own lives! I know this personally. Palestinians, on the other hand, are bred from birth to hate Jews and glorify martydom by taking as many jews with them when they die, and it doesn't matter who, kids, children, just as long as they are jews.
Only Palestinians intentionally plot to blow up kindergardens. I advise you look into laser surgery to remove that swastika from your forehead.
No, that was the second documented Mideast massacre of the 20th century. The first was the genocide of Armenian Christians by Muslim Turks.
"Available evidence." That is a laugh. The bullet-hole riddled wall that the boy and his father crouched against was removed by the IDF.
And what would be the grounds for attacking an ally?
That's right, I don't.
Get a grip man and be realistic. You can cheer their deaths but they can't ours?
I don't cheer their deaths. And, if you knew me, you would know that I have expressed my regrets at the loss of human life....even the lives of these Arabs. Of course, that was before September 11.
There is no evidence implicating the Palestinians in WTC and you know it.
There was and is photographic evidence of them cheering and celebrating the murders of my countrymen. That's all I need to know what type of people the Palestinians are, and what type of culture they have.
You have been processed by the media. In the first place, the children who throw rocks at tanks are civilians. These kids are shot by snipers. Do I need to spell this out for you? A trained marksman uses a scoped rifle to sight in on a head, then he lets his breath out, and then slowly squeezes the trigger, all the while looking through his scope. This is not colateral damage as in a bombing campaign.
Like Zionism? Oh but that is okay, because it is your race-based nationalist movement.
Yep, that's exactly what the Palestinian "police" are trained to do to the rock throwing kids, because they can always count on fools like you to blame it on the Israelis.
A kid throwing a rock at you can ruin your whole day. Especially a teenager.
I would submit that if I threw a rock at the head of a cop here in the States, I'd get shot to.
Suicide by cop. Anyone stupid enough to attack a cop or a soldier deserves what they get.
"Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in President Clinton's administration, defended the mass killings. During a 1996 interview she was asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima...Is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "...We think the price is worth it." ("60 Minutes," May 12, 1996)."
What about invading occupying soldiers? The Palestinians have a duty, as patriots, to riot and cause trouble against occupying soldiers. The typical American consumer of television is clueless as to what the West Bank actually is.
Unfortunately the world has forgotten the Armenians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.