New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Yanik on 4 Aug 2006 20:51 John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:pWKspSaCaz0EFw+x(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <44D32FCF.21FB5C99(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 Aug > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > >>Just seen on Channel 4 news. A poll indicates that a mere 16% of the UK >>population backs His Blairness's pro-Israel stance. > > That doesn't mean that he is wrong. I expect 84% of people believe > something that you KNOW is wrong. what people believe is dependent on what they get from the media,and that is more often biased and inaccurate. The stuff about the anti pro-Israel stance only demonstrates anti- Semitism,still prevalent(GROWING?) in Europe. They overlook what the Islamics plan for Western society,ALL of it. I note the Islamics are still bombing (or attempting to bomb)European countries that have backed out of support for the Western side. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 4 Aug 2006 21:18 Jim Yanik wrote: > John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in > news:pWKspSaCaz0EFw+x(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > >> In message <44D32FCF.21FB5C99(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 Aug >> 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes >> >>> Just seen on Channel 4 news. A poll indicates that a mere 16% of the UK >>> population backs His Blairness's pro-Israel stance. >> That doesn't mean that he is wrong. I expect 84% of people believe >> something that you KNOW is wrong. > > what people believe is dependent on what they get from the media,and that > is more often biased and inaccurate. > > The stuff about the anti pro-Israel stance only demonstrates anti- > Semitism,still prevalent(GROWING?) in Europe. You read about that in the US press, I assume... > They overlook what the Islamics plan for Western society,ALL of it. > I note the Islamics are still bombing (or attempting to bomb)European > countries that have backed out of support for the Western side. I note that the US is keen to get 60 million Muslims into the EU, against the wishes of the vast majority of its people. Dirk
From: Jim Yanik on 4 Aug 2006 21:03 John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:j3m+hx4w460EFws4(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <44D3A7A2.8AFB84D3(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 > Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> > writes >> >> >>John Woodgate wrote: >> >>> In message <44D390B7.75A4B9D1(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 >>> Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> >>> writes >>> >>> >The UN plan didn't give Israel all the territory. >>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1 >>> >947. png >>> >>> That was never going to work, was it. Three bits, two joined by a >>> narrow corridor and the third completely separate. And huge long >>> borders with, at least, unfriendly people, if not actively hostile. >>> >>> A real 'horse designed by a committee'. >> >>Presumably done by taking into account the local population >>distribution. Seems you can't win. It was a British plan btw ! >> > This is VERY relevant to the present situation. The UN 'solution' was > clearly unworkable. So have been the long succession of 'solutions' > since then. What C Rice said is completely correct - that yet another > unworkable 'solution' is unacceptable. > > An 'immediate cease-fire' is just a sound bite; everyone with even a > glimmer of intelligence knows that it would just give Hisbollah the > opportunity to re-group and re-supply. It's actually more than just that;a ceasefire gives Hezbllah a victory,they would have shown they attacked and stood up to mighty Israel,it would bolster their position with other Islamics,and it serves Iran very well,too.It may allow Hezbollah/Syria/Iran to retake control of ALL of Lebanon. > > The only long-term stable solution is a strong, democratic Lebanese > government, with a loyal armed service strong enough to disarm and > disband Hisbollah and deter Syria and Iran, who are Lebanon's real > enemies. Israel won't attack Lebanon if not provoked. Why should it? > It has nothing to gain by doing so. It doesn't attack Jordan or Egypt. It actually ceded captured territory to Egypt(Sinai) and resultingly,Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel,which has held up fairly well.Jordan never owned the West Bank(it only ruled it for <30 years),but signed a peace treaty,too,it was to their benefit.Israel -tried- to cede territory to the Palestine Authority,but they decided to wage war anyways,and subsequently suffered great losses as a result. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 4 Aug 2006 21:28 Jim Yanik wrote: > John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in > news:j3m+hx4w460EFws4(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > >> In message <44D3A7A2.8AFB84D3(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 >> Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> >> writes >>> >>> John Woodgate wrote: >>> >>>> In message <44D390B7.75A4B9D1(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 >>>> Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> >>>> writes >>>> >>>>> The UN plan didn't give Israel all the territory. >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UN_Partition_Plan_For_Palestine_1 >>>>> 947. png >>>> That was never going to work, was it. Three bits, two joined by a >>>> narrow corridor and the third completely separate. And huge long >>>> borders with, at least, unfriendly people, if not actively hostile. >>>> >>>> A real 'horse designed by a committee'. >>> Presumably done by taking into account the local population >>> distribution. Seems you can't win. It was a British plan btw ! >>> >> This is VERY relevant to the present situation. The UN 'solution' was >> clearly unworkable. So have been the long succession of 'solutions' >> since then. What C Rice said is completely correct - that yet another >> unworkable 'solution' is unacceptable. >> >> An 'immediate cease-fire' is just a sound bite; everyone with even a >> glimmer of intelligence knows that it would just give Hisbollah the >> opportunity to re-group and re-supply. > > It's actually more than just that;a ceasefire gives Hezbllah a victory,they > would have shown they attacked and stood up to mighty Israel,it would > bolster their position with other Islamics,and it serves Iran very > well,too.It may allow Hezbollah/Syria/Iran to retake control of ALL of > Lebanon. As long as Hezbollah doesn't officially surrender it will not be defeated. It cannot be defeated any more than AQ can be - because all it requires for its continued existence is some people calling themselves Hezbollah, some explosives and one or two AKMs. Those missiles will continue to fall on Israel until the latter does a prisoner swap (as they have done before). Dirk
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 4 Aug 2006 21:33
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > Jim Yanik wrote: >> John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in >> news:pWKspSaCaz0EFw+x(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: >> >>> In message <44D32FCF.21FB5C99(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Fri, 4 >>> Aug 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> >>> writes >>> >>>> Just seen on Channel 4 news. A poll indicates that a mere 16% of the >>>> UK population backs His Blairness's pro-Israel stance. >>> That doesn't mean that he is wrong. I expect 84% of people believe >>> something that you KNOW is wrong. >> >> what people believe is dependent on what they get from the media,and >> that is more often biased and inaccurate. >> >> The stuff about the anti pro-Israel stance only demonstrates anti- >> Semitism,still prevalent(GROWING?) in Europe. > > You read about that in the US press, I assume... > >> They overlook what the Islamics plan for Western society,ALL of it. >> I note the Islamics are still bombing (or attempting to bomb)European >> countries that have backed out of support for the Western side. > > I note that the US is keen to get 60 million Muslims into the EU, > against the wishes of the vast majority of its people. And just in case you don't get it: http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/15924.htm "As President Bush said to Mr. Erdogan just two days ago, the U.S., although not part of the EU, supports Turkey's bid for accession. " And you think the US has the best interests of Europe at heart eh? Why don't you let in 70 million Muslims to the US (not 60m as I said above). Or might that cause some problems longterm? Dirk |