Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: I thought this was a DIFFERENT mark??? Author: Pam [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 15:01:02 07/24/01 Tue In reply to: Pam 's message, "This is bugging me, anyone know the answer?" on 01:00:06 07/24/01 Tue I know there was a Mark7 around a long time ago (I've been at DP since about 3 months after Paula started it), but I'm positive that when this mark started posting, someone asked if he was the original Mark, and he said no, but the name mark was already taken so he stuck on the 7 since there were other 7's on board. I thought the original mark7 hadn't been around in a while which is why his name was available (he hadn't signed up again after Paula redid the board and we had to reregister). It's very hard to believe that after over three years on DP, the original Mark changed his style so much that he ended up getting banned over it. Pam [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Subject: No, it's the same one Author: Meghan [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 15:08:09 07/24/01 Tue His style was always the same, he was just worse and seemed more angry and insistent some of the time. I still remember the old days when he'd get away with alot, and some posters would think he was a favorite of Paula.:-)

[> [> [> Subject: If your memory is soooo damn good Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 22:50:51 07/25/01 Wed Since you seem to know so much, you might remember the countless times when people came back to the board and tell me I was right in what I told them. People like Louise who never believed my telling her about the broken love in her house, and Ami (my memory is fading) who didn't believe in either contraception or sex before marriage, and found contraception very useful after 3 kids. Maybe if your head wouldn't be so stuffed with your own little ideas, you might get a clue now and then. But honestly, after reading many years of your posts, I doubt there's room in your head for anything new, except fashion. Everything was fine until Paula started obsessing about Clinton, and you and some other a$$kissers joined the chorus. I think I didn't answer the posts for about 3 months, to let you guys blow your stupid steem, but it did get old after a while. Paula was acting like her own husband was having the BJ from MOnica (I believe he must have cheated on her to produce this kind of obsession), and you guys joined in like a pack of mad hyenas on a dead body. When I tried to offer a differing view, all of you guys, and Paula up front started the "one trick pony" mudslinging. When I replied in kind you guys went nuts. Go kiss Paula's behind and check your own posts on the subject.

[> [> [> [> Subject: Mark, I'm sensing some bitterness here Author: Melody [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:48:20 07/25/01 Wed I don't know..I could be wrong...But have you some childhood issues that aren't resolved yet? Chill boy! Who the FUCK cares about what happened so many months ago.....As for what happened between Bill Clinton and Monica and Hillary (or Paula and Paula's husband, as you speculate), I would say that it those couple's business...I personally think U.S. lost a good president when Clinton was ousted... Politics should have nothing to do with anyone's bedroom... But this issue is as dead as OJ and the murder trial of the century... Get OVER IT ALREADY!!!

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Seems to me Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:34:12 07/26/01 Thu I'm not the one angry here. Bitter? Maybe. I did enjoy DP for a while, and I wish it would have stayed the same. About sex and relationships, and without politics. Changing it into a forum about the political fashion of the day was not my idea, but that would have been OK also, if it was a political board open to all political views. But Paula's fault, in my opinion, was that she built credibility by having a forum on relationships and than used that influence to advance her own political views, distroying the spirit of the forum in between. From a forum of issues like sex and relationships it became about Paula's views on conservative issues, Paula's ski trips and Paula's hair style. Was it her right? Yes. Was it moraly right (to quote conservatives)? I think no. Am I bitter about it? Somewhat. Am I angry about it? No. Seems to me other people here are far angrier than I am.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Too funny Mark Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:16:39 08/01/01 Wed Do you honestly not remember that most topics on Clinton were started by you? I certainly never started one, but I always replied because you can't post on a message board and expect your comments to stay unchallenged and because you insisted on bringing up every irrelevant thing you could think of in an attempt to cloud the issue. As for Clinton himself, I repeat what I've said on DP at other times as far as Monica goes. Why couldn't he, instead of lying and insulting our intelligence have just said to Ken Starr, "You were hired to investigate Whitewater. Monica has nothing to do with it, so it's not of your damn business and that' my only comment."?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Too funny Jeff Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 22:59:10 08/01/01 Wed For the same reason you will never see an article written in the US about 12 year old killed Palestinians with names, mothers, fathers and brothers who cry for them. Because it is politically convenient to bend the "objective" morality that "doesn't exist without God" when it comes to human weakness. In case of Clinton, weakness for sex with a willing young woman. In case of Israel, greed for land that blinds them to the spilled blood of children they condemn to live in bondage, same as those in South African bantustans. In both cases, it takes lots of "spiritual leaders" who claim that "morality is objective" and "comes from God".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Wrong again Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:22:05 08/02/01 Thu OK, I see you're playing your favorite game -throwing in things that have nothing to do with the subject at hand since we weren't discussing the Middle East at the minute. The only thing the Middle East has to do with your hero, Bill Clinton is that he is more responsible than any other person for the current situation, since he tried to force a settlement neither side accepted and broke promises to both sides and that touched off a lot of the current violence. But all right, I'll play your way and answer your incorrect point about the Palestinians being nameless. Here is the start of the first page Washington Post article today: "The Abu Khadr brothers, age 10 and 7, were so scrawny that both their corpses fit on one narrow slab in the hospital morgue's refrigerator. Bundled together in a flag of green and white, the colors of Islam, their bodies were torn by shrapnel and their handsome faces frozen in death." That's the first paragpraph, Mark and it's everything you keep falsely claiming doesn't exist. The Palestinian children are named, they are cleary shown as innocent and horrifying victims and the article is on the first page and not buried in the paper.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Who's morality is wrong Jeff? Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:28:01 08/02/01 Thu All the US media does is focus on Arafat while ignoring the true problems in the middle east. The true problem is not Arafat. The true problem is that an entire nation is kept in bondage by another, it's people deprived of rights in the land they were born. The true problem Jeff is that Israel, in order to make room for it's Russian Jews is building settlements in lands they took by the sword (paid for with US tax money). The hundreds of Palestinian "terrorists" have no choice but to grow up terrorists. And speaking of terror, what is "selective assassination"? Could I be "selected" for writing this? I think people should look at morality and have some discerning regarding the focus of their moral criticism. Having sex with a 22 year old willing woman is far less immoral than "selective assassination". The examples I give you prove that our morality is neither comming from God, nor objective, and it's often paid for by the political lobby that has more to offer. If Israel didn't have the political Jewish lobby in the US they do, we would not aid Israel with guns, on the contrary, we would see Israeli leaders together with Milosevich, tried for ethnic cleansing. You chose not to see this because to you it seems perfectly "moral". The big "immorality" you see in this world is Clinton's sexual weekness.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Try and stick to a point Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:19:29 08/02/01 Thu You brought up morality. I didn't comment on that. That was one of your subjects. The original subject was your ridiculous comment that it was other people and not you who usually started threads about Clinton. I let that go though and answered your point that the media was biased in Israels direction which I have continuously proven is false every time you brought it up. You said the Palestinian children have no names in the media, so I gave you the acutal facts - a front page article in a major paper from this morning that names the children and shows them as victims. That's just one example. I'm not talking about morality, Mark. I'm talking about self defense. Israel has overall shown incredible restraint that few other countries would show. Do you think the other Arab countries genuinely care about the Palestinians? They were driven out of Jordan by King Hussein. They were severly limited by Syria. The speeches of the Arab dictators now are pure hypocricy and the so-called Israeli Palestinian conflict is a part of a much larger conflict between Israel and her neighbors. Let's also not forget that Jews had no access to Jerusalem under Jordanian rule. And how convenient that we forget how many of their own people have been murdered by Syria(at Hama) and Jordan and Iraq. Having said all that, I think Israel should grant full independance to the West Bank. Let's see if the Palestinians can really govern a peaceful territory. Israel is making a mistake in not accepting observers. It's an understandable mistake since the UN observers in Lebanon were biased, but it's still a mistake. As for selective assasination, it targets terrorists instead of civilians, which would be a good idea except it's unrealistic as shown by the death of the children. It's very unlikely to kill your target without getting other people. Now, if you want to talk about the mideast, I'll talk about it. If you want to talk about Clinton, I'll talk about him and if you want to talk about media bias, I'll talk about it, but try to see if you can actually stick to a topic.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I was talking about Morality Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 19:13:07 08/02/01 Thu I always believed morality is subjective and comes from social power. You believe morality is objective and comes from God. You believe Clinton is immoral. I agree, yet I point out that there are far greater immoralities in politics, that you don't seem to have moral objections too. You say Arafat, and Arab nations justify Israel's immoral politics. I didn't ask about Arafat, nor about Assad. I asked you what "moral" right from Which God does Israel have to take away the lives of 12 year olds who throw stones at the tanks that buldoze their houses. And how does that "morality" from God compare in scope with the moral issues you prefer to talk about. I don't think much about Arafat, but I do know enough about international law to say that Irael is breaking all norms of international laws in the occupied territories. It treats Palestinians like South Africa treated the Bantustans, and it's doing it with US money. It breaks the Geneva convention with regards to modern war, and it is not part of any arms agreements. Let's talk about moral things that really matter. Why are we Americans paying for this crime? If Israelis and Palestinians want to kill each other, why do it with my money? Because Jewish lobbies have bribed our politicians and our media, and I believe because our media is so controlled by the same lobbies that the Palestian story cannot be told. The reporter who would tell it would be banned just as I was banned. Is that the Morality you said comes from God? Or is that greed and selfishness?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Stop putting words in my mouth Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:37:35 08/03/01 Fri Mark, you have the right to post muddled messages, but you don't have the right to put words in my mouth. As you say, YOU were talking about morality. I was not. The issue in the middle east isn't morality, it's self defense. Golda Meir said years ago that Israel won't die so that the world will speak well of it and nothing has changed since then. Israel is still one country, looking to live within secure borders that is surrounded by hostile nations and the world is asking her to create another one. Nevertheless, the Palestinians in the West Bank should be made an independant country. Let's call the bluff and see what happens. Let me now answer some of your specific points, if I can unravel them. "You believe morality is objective and comes from God." Actually, I don't believe God belongs in a discussion of Middle East issues, because both sides claim to have God on their side, so it's a nonstarter. Most countries, with any religious base claim to have God on their side when they go to war. The point remains that the Middle East is mostly a land war. "You believe Clinton is immoral" True, but this mostly doesn't have anything to do with Monica. Let's not forget Waco, and the file break in and a host of other things I could name, not to mention that the man is a compulsive liar. Have you forgotten that he bombed two countries as a distraction from his scandal? "Yet I point out that there are far greater immoralities in politics" Never said there weren't. Clinton was just better at insulting our intelligence. There are many things I find more immoral than Clinton. Worst is how we turn a blind eye to countries that we pretend are our friends when we know some of the horrors they are involved in(China for example). We need to be a little more careful in choosing our friends. "You say Arafat and Arab nations justify immoral policies" No, I say every nation has the inalienable right to stand up for itself and that the world is generally hypocritical in putting pressure on the victim. "I asked you what moral riight from which God does Isreal have to take away the lives of 12 year olds who throw stones at tanks" It's not about God. It's about the fact that rocks kill. People say stones like they are talking about pebbles. Most of these rocks are being fired with slingshots and have a long trajectory. They are good at hitting targets. They aren't just being fired at tanks. They are being fired at soldiers in the tanks. I repeat - Israel is showing incredbile restraint in not taking a lot of retaliation after innocent people are killed and trying the assasination policy so that they attempt to get at terrorists and not civilians.' Let's also not forget that most of these kids are being incited by the newspapers and schools into anti-israel violence. "I don't think much about Arafat" It's not just Arafat. It's a good chunk of the leadership including the media which keeps inflaming things and the schools. This is what needs to change if there is ever going to be peace. The Arab and Palestinian papers have to stop fanning flames of war and hate. "But I do not enough about international law to say that Israel is breaking all norms of international laws in the occupied territories." Generally, I don't think much of international law because it's always one sided. They've done pretty well in the Balkans though, actually arresting people from all sides who committed atrocities. This is new and if it could always happen this way, I'd be a bigger supporter of international law. There are some steps that I'll admit Israel should take immediately. Stop arresting people without charging them. Ban torture of suspects. Stop demolishing houses of the families of arrested people. These are steps that should be taken because they are the right thing to do and because they will help build confidence for the difficult negotiations ahead. (that is if there is anybody on the other side seriously interested in negotiating.) One more comment - lobbying is a good thing. It has an unfair reputation in this country. It's how people make sure that politicians are listening to them and Jews learned after nobody paid attention in World War II that they had better know how to speak for themself. Arab American organizations such as the Arab Anti Discrimination League have been catching on in recent years and are doing their own share of lobbying. As the Arab American population grows and their fundraising ability increases, the lobbying will equal out a bit.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Jeff, a question Author: Gary [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 02:48:17 08/04/01 Sat Why bother? He makes asinine claim after asinine claim, all of which you counter with reason and actual fact, and yet he doesn't even concede an inch or at least acknowledge your point. Punch out, Maverick! But then again, perhaps it's best that he feels someone is listening. You may very well be the only thing standing between him and a Ryder truck.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sometimes, I wonder too Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 06:28:01 08/06/01 Mon Gary, I've been considering the possibility of six canned answers. This works on a musical board I post on with people who always miss the same points. You pull them out and cut and paste them every time the same nonesense is repeated - as for example when Mark suggests that his support of the Palestinians got him banned or that it was necessary to check email addresses to figure out Alice was Mark. I know I'm banging my head against a closed wall, but it's been hard to help myself, ever since once on DP when nobody responded to him and he concluded that this meant everybody agreed with him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Right, right Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:51:37 08/06/01 Mon You're right Jeff, Israel is always right, all Palestinians are terrorists so they must be shot in self defense when they throw stones. Starting with the 12 year olds, because Palestinian 12 year olds are inferior to Ana Frank. Don't worry, I am the exception. The jurry made up of good American citizens, all sworn on the Bible which commandment's they claim to obey will find the defendant, Israel, not guilty. More so, they will supply the guns, the amo to shoot the little bastards, they will disallow any public display of emotion on part of Palestinians, and will provide the cash, the buldozers to create new settlements for the Russian Jews who will take over the territory. Like many Israelis I talked to told me, the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank should go to Jordan. Or to Egipt. They don't give a damn. And they don't give a damn about international laws either, except when it comes to confiscated Jewish wealth in Europe. Don't worry about the international laws. As long as the US is the judge and the jurry of international law, no Jewish leader would face the fate of Milosevich. Oh, I forgot Arafat. Thousands of Palestinians risk their lives throwing rocks at Israeli tanks because Arafat tells them so. He is the bad guy. Just kill Arafat and everything will be fine. You know what I think? I think Arafat is alive only because he is the convinient "partner" in negociations. If he was the only obstcle to peace he would be dead long time ago. You and I know what the obstacle to peace is. The obstacle to peace is the dream of a great Israel, home to all Jews in Russian and East Europe, and the only place for that is Palestine. Until that home has been found, Israel doesn't want peace, and the Palestinians simply cannot afford one. They have seen the fate of the North American Native and the fate of those in Shatilla and Chabra and they know they cannot afford this peace.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Still misquoting Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:22:17 08/07/01 Tue It's not just Arafat. Arafat is a coward afraid to take bold action because of the assasinations of Sadat and Rabin. In a way, I can't blame him. The problem is that there is almost nobody in the Palestinian leadership interested in actual peace and few leaders in the Arab countries. The Palestinian problem is just a larger part of the whole problem. "Israel is always right." Don't play dumb, Mark. You know very well I didn't say any such thing. There are many things Israel is wrong about from the arrest without trial of suspected terrorists to the destruction of houses of families of those arrested to the use of torture at times to exact confessions. A great many things on Israels side need to be changed. "All Palestinians are terrorists" No but the media and schools in the Palestinian territories do their best to try and make all Palestinians terrorists. "You and I know what the obstacle to peace is." I do. You don't seem to. The major obstacle to peace is that Israel doesn't have a partner that is seriously interested and willing to negotiate to get peace. Have you forgotten Barak's generous offer at Camp David so fast? We found out then that the leadership on the other side wasn't ready to truly talk about peace. Your hero Bill Clinton is in large part responsible for the present situation by trying to force a peace treaty when the Palestinians weren't interested. He also broke his word to Arafat. Clinton promised if the talks weren't successful, he wouldn't blame Arafat and then he did just that. For once, I was sympathetic to Arafat. Bush doesn't help either by doing nothing and leaving it to the sides to solve their own problems. When there is no trust, you need an intermediary and we should stop sitting on the sidelines doing nothing and insist the sides keep talking.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Partner for Peace? Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:20:38 08/07/01 Tue Israel seem to try to make peace with the wrong guy. It is not Arafat Israel should make peace with. It's the Palestinian nation. Those in the occupied territories, those in Israel, those in Jordan, Lebanon, Siria, Saudi Arabia, the US and worldwide. And that means Intenational law, the one Israel likes only when it comes to reparations owed to Jews, not when it comes to reparations owed by Jews. I realize that many of the East European Jews are not going back to Russia, Poland, Hungary or Romania. But Palestinians who's land has been confiscated are owed reparations under International Law. Arafat has a house in the West Bank or Gaza, I'm not sure where, but million others have lost theirs. Israel owes them reparations, so their 12 year olds have enough hope to chose other things than throwing rocks at tanks. I didn't see that offer. I don't see why Clinton, America or I should have anything to do with all this. I am not arguing with you hoping to change your views. I hope enough people may hear the alternative story that a different pressure would be brought to the US government. I think the alliance the US has with Israel is a sham, where US has nothing to gain. I would hope that we would withdraw all support to ALL sides of this conflict - Israel, Palestine, Egipt, Jordan and all others and let them kill each other with rocks if they want to. I believe Israel is bent on conquest by force and on ethnic clensing, with no respect for International Law, and no desire to be part of an international community and I do not want their blood on my hands as an American citizen. Just because Jewish groups in the US lobby hard and bribe greedy politicians, we, American citizens have no right to use our power to rob a nation, Palestine, of it's future and it's way of life. More so, it is sad that most Americans are dennied the truth about the Middle East and are fed a constant bombardment of historic and political junk that sooner or later will give them indigestion. Americans wonder why they are targets of Palestinian terrorism, without being told the terror our military and financial aid has brought upon the Palestinians. I wish we would stop the aid and I am convinced that when the casualties would be balanced, the combatants will make peace. Why make peace when you are winning at war?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Partner for Peace? Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:19:22 08/07/01 Tue You can only make peace with the leadership of a nation negotiating with the leadership of another nation, unless you seriously know a way you can negotiate with a whole people. Arafat and the rest of the Palestinian leadership are what we have available to negotiate with. The fact is Israel has continuously shown that it wants peace at almost any price. Let's not forget that the peace treaty with Egypt gave them back virtually all captured land in exchange for nothing but a promise of peace. The peace with Egypt has been cold, but it has been peace and it was worth giving back every inch of land to have safety and security. As for a different kind of pressure being brought on the US government, don't forget that I work a block away from the White House and the demonstrations on behalf of the Palestinians since the situation started have been increasing in both volume and number. Obviously, the Palestinians and their sympathizers have the same rights to make their views known as Jews and they have the same right to lobby. "Why make peace when you are winning at war?" For one reason, becuase the demographics are not on Isreals side. Even accounting for the Russian Jews, Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel if she keeps all of the occupied territories. For another, constant war and adminsitration of the territories are economically draining. Israel's inflation is still incredibly high and a lot of this is from the constant need for a war economy. There's also a lot to gain in relations with Europe by making the West Bank an independant political nation, but as Golda Meir said years ago "The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Where is the Sadat on the Palestinian side who understands that they can win only through negotiations? Egypt never got back any territory by fighting with a militarily stronger Israel but got back almost all of Egyptian territory after serious negotiations. There's a lesson for the Palestinians here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Asinine c laim????!!! Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:37:31 08/06/01 Mon Asinine claim? Hundreds of stone throwing Palestinian children have been shot dead this year. Is that asinine claim? They want to grow in the country of their fathers as free and equal men under the law. Is that asinine? Milions of Palestinians have had their lands and homes confiscated. Many live in the occuppied territories, many in refugee camps. International law requires that land can be annexed, in which case citizenship and rights should be given to the subjects, or returned. Israel is displaicing the natives to bring millions of East European Jews as colonists, much like the US displaced the native Americans (maybe that's why the sympathy Americans have for this ethnic cleansing). Just as a Native American was seen good only when dead, a Palestinian is a terrorist suspect from birth. I think you must be making a mockery of Bible, truth and right and wrong by calling my post asinine. What are your facts?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Self Defense????? Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 23:30:17 08/06/01 Mon Let me see... I take a tank, buldoze my neighbour's house to make room for a new house for my Russian cousin, I take away his rights and when his 12 year old throws rocks at me I shoot him from the tank with a machine gun. Then I claim self-defense. Now, you tell me what jurry in the US would give me a self-defense case for shooting a 12 year old who trows rocks? Actually they do. The jurry is the US, and this jurry has decided to give guns and money to those doing exactly this. I talked with many Jews, some in the US, most from Israel about the Palestinians. Each time I am shocked by the insensitivity they show to the fate of those people they displaced. It makes me think that those 10 commandments are just a Jewish joke played on stupid gentiles. You say Israel shouldn't care about international laws? Well, it seems to me it is international laws Jews claim when they ask for reparations from Germany or other countries that stole their valuables. Same international laws is just garbage when it comes to the values (land) confiscated by Jews from Palestinians. YOu know what is the problem with your thinking? It makes Saddam Husein look like he was doing the right thing. If interantional laws doesn't count, and Israel can refuse to define it's borders, and refuse rights to millions of conquered people simply because of their ethnicity and religion, this makes Hitler and Saddam right. Because all it counts is who has the bigger gun. Right now, Israel has the bigger gun, because it is paid for by American taxpayers because our politicians both Dem and Reps are bribed by Jewish lobbies. And because most Americans are too ignorant of international politics and history to know they are part of a huge and horrible crime. But if international laws don't count when it comes to Palestinians why would they count when it comes to Jews? It's sick to see that the same American who sheds tears for Ana Frank, doesn't give a damn about the 12 year old Palestinian shot today. If all that matters is power, Hitler won. Because it means the Nuremberg trials are nothing but the vengeace of the winner over the loser. And Saddam is right in wanting the nuclear weapon, or the chemical or whatever would make sure that some "biblical scholars" won't claim his country as the next Israel.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Nuremberg Trials Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:10:58 08/07/01 Tue While I have no sympathy for most of the Nazis that were hung or incarcerated, the Nuremberg Trials WERE the justice(vengence too) of winner over loser. That is one of the main problems with the whole concept of International Law. The Nazi Admiral Doenitz was partly charged with shooting unarmed men in the water. When his attorneys tried to show times when America and Britain did the same thing, the judges ruled that out as a defense. Now, if you can't defend yourself by claiming that people on the other side did the same thing and were not charged, what is a trial except the celebration of victory by the winner. That's why the Balkans trial is better. Notice that people from all sides are being charged with crimes. We may hold Milosevic primarily responsible but that's not an excuse for the crimes committed by those on the Croation or Bosnian side. International law should count only when it's not blatantly one sided. Because the UN has been biased against Israel for years, Israel cannot pay any attention to it. If it wants to take a more objective stance, than Israel can listen. As for rocks, you may not understand that the purpose is to injure and kill people but I do. I almost lost an eye as a kid, so don't act like rocks are some harmless weapon. I know Gary's right, since you insist on always misquoting and distorting what people are saying and I should ignore you, but I can't bring myself to let your rants just stand there unchallenged.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Except for the US Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:05:16 08/07/01 Tue The Balcan trials may have brought people to justice, it failed to bring any US crimes to light. Many reports indicated that the operator of the missile that distroyed a bridge and a train full of Serbian women and children had plenty of time to divert the missle. MOre so, the Army lied about the incident and showed a film where they were fast forwarding in order to defend the officer (unnamed). The fact is that this officer had more than a minute to decide, and he decided that a million dollar missile is worth more than the lives of few Serbian peasant women and children. He probably was an officer and a gentlemen, not a terrorist. What exactly am I distorting?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: If that's true Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:12:34 08/07/01 Tue and it was a delibarate action, then he should come to trial. If International law and trials are going to have any meaning,then any crimes committed by any sides should be tried. If there's nothing to it,there can be an acquital. Some of those charged in the Balkans have been acquited. Even at Nuremberg, three people were found not guilty. The one thing to be careful about here though is whether it was all his decision or whether there were orders. One of the problems when Lt. Calley was charged with crimes in the Vietnam error, was that those above him who issued orders were not charged. It is not right to charge just the person carrying out orders without charging those who issued them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Distortions Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:16:46 08/07/01 Tue It's your habit of putting words in people's mouth, first trying to claim that I was saying Israel was acting on behalf of God and morality when I hadn't mentioned either one and then claiming that I was saying all Israelis were perfect and all Palestinians were terrorists. It's the usual way you jump to extreme conclusions like deciding when you decided I liked Ronald Reagan because I didn't like Clinton, which was not a logical conclusion and not based on anything I actually said.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: putting words in people's mouths Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:29:57 08/07/01 Tue In the tread that got me banned in IS, as Alice you suggested just that. That Israel wants peace, and the Palestinians don't. This is a constant theme in American media, and it is a big lie. Israel doesn't want peace, it wants to extend the settlements. You can't be serious about expecting peace when you slowly take away by force land that is not yours. And nobody in the US seems to be able to articulate the Palestinian side of the story. Are all journalists stupid? NO, they just get banned, like I do. Hope this is a Canadian site, so I get a chance to stay.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: putting words in people's mouths Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 10:27:10 08/07/01 Tue It is true that I've said the Palestinian leadership needs to show that they are serious about peace. You say it's a lie that the Palestinians don't want peace. Fine. What steps are they taking to show that they are seriously interested in peace? Many people in the US can articulate the Palestinian side. James Zogby of the Arab American anti-discrimination league does a good job, so does former Senator Abzorek. The political columnist Anthony Lewis always has sympathetic articles to the Palestinians and against the settlements in the New York Times. A Canadian site? There are a lot of Canadians here, but I think Pam is from Oklahoma.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I said Palestinians cannot afford this peace Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:08:19 08/08/01 Wed I never said Palestinians WANT peace. I said they cannot afford THIS peace. This peace means Palestinians have to be second hand humans either in Israel, or in Jordan, or in Lebanon or in a refugee camp. Would you accept a peace where you had to wear the yellow star on your jacket? I wouldn't. I am honest enough to admit that I would do exactly what the Palestinians are doing. Fight to the end. You are not honest to admit you would do the same. I also said Israelis LIE when they say they want peace, because they cannot afford this peace either. I believe you are dishonest when you say Israel wants peace, I believe you are smart enough to know they can't afford it. They have to put the million Russian Jews somewhere, and where would a better place be, than in a settlement among Palestinians with a Uzi in their hand? What I say is this: I want my country the US of A to stay out of this conflict. I want the US to withdraw it's support to either side, financial and military. I don't want any alliance with Israel, because it brings me nothing, except makes me a killer of Palestinian children so my politicians can take bribes from Jewish lobbies. I want the US to enforce International Law on Israel like they did on Yugoslavia. I want all trade, aid stopped, until Israel abides by International Law, withdraws the settlements, defines it's borders, and offers compensation to ALL Palestinians who had land or wealth confiscated, whether they are in Palestine or not. Oh, I want to stop all war reparations owed Jews stopped also until they offer Palestinians war reparations also. I believe if we did this, there would be peace, and if Russian Jews want to kill Arab children for their land, then they should do it on their own money, not mine.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: My last comments here Author: JeffF [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:31:45 08/08/01 Wed Since you were kind enough to give me the last word, the last time we debated the Arab-Israeli conflict, I will return the favor. This will be my last post in this thread regardless of what you say in reply. Israel can't afford peace? No, you could need be more wrong, though some Isralis make the same mistake. It is the constant state of war that Israel cannot afford. They cannot war either economically or in terms of the emotional drain that it causes. If they could afford the constant need for war in economic terms, they would not need US aid. No, Mark if I was a Palestinian who had been offered my own state, I would not fight. Do you have any idea what Barak offered them? It was almost everything in exchange for nothing. Too late, he found out that they weren't interested in peace. At any rate, that's what negotiations are for. If they can't accept the peace that has been proposed, let them come back to the table and make their own proposal. Nobody can dictate the terms of peace if peace will last, but unless they are seriously interested in talking instead of shooting, there is no chance for peace. You say "this peace" like the shape of peace is a foregone conclusion. Israel proved consistently in negotiations with Egypt and Jordan that she is always willing to have peace with security guarantees in exchange for land. That's been consistent. As for reparations, personally, I'm not particularly in favor of them any more. I mean, there has to be a statute of limitations and the present government of Germany has nothing to do with the Nazi period. Except for Jews in truly dire economic straits, I would accept ending them alltogether. Germany has done a lot to restore relations with the Jewish community and I think it's time we accept the good will of the current German leadership and return the favor by not making economic demands. Of course, the Jews who were sent to camps are far different than the Arabs who voluntarily left their houses in 1947 and 1948 at the urging of Arab leaders. As for International law, I repeat, if you want it to have any validity, it has to be even handed. The problem with international law is that it's often as blatantly one sided as your post. I can accept Israelis being charged for any crimes against civilians in the current situation, if and only if all Palestinians who participated in terror against Israeli civilians are also charged. If it works like the Balkans and anybody from any side who committed atrocities is charged, I'll accept that, but if it's just biased against Jews, forget it. Now, I'll let you have the last word if you want it. Obviously, neither your opinion nor mine will have much effect on the policy of the US, Israel or the Arabs.

[> [> [> [> Subject: mark Author: Forest [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 07:52:47 07/26/01 Thu your comments about the political stuff is interesting. It does seem as though Paula has strong and unresolved negative feelings about Clinton. It must spill over into her overall feelings about liberals.

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: What I think Paula has is this Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 08:39:18 07/26/01 Thu Frankly, I think Paula has some unresolved issues about cheating in her own life. Nobody could be so angry with Clinton for a little BJ except if it was personal. Unless Paula is somehow acquinted with the Clintons or the Lewinskis, which I don't think she is, it has to be an association with some hurt in her own life. My first guess would be that she was cheated on in a similar fashion. All people function like that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: What I think Paula has is this Author: joel [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 11:39:21 08/01/01 Wed Oh man... this is getting really deep, Mark. You have inside information?