China saves Raptor project

Enjoy – but don’t have more than 10 pints otherwise you’ll lose the weekend, again!;)

Flood.

Oh… my Friday afternoon (bored at work) wit is again blown out of the water.

Anyway, I shall be departing now, for a public house, serving the best in beverages of an alcholic substance.

Have a good weekend 😀

Well, if you are going to be like that then I believe there is no such word as havent, but it could be haven‘t, or even have not…;)

Flood.

Originally posted by pluto77189

from the latin word for “theif” or “plunderer”– while not a good translation for the F-22, it describes birds of prey to a tee.

Havent done Latin for a while but I believe it translates as ‘thief’

So it is not a modern military hack and slay forum thread, but is indeed a discussion forum thread! Didn’t think so…:eek:

Flood.

Originally posted by Flood
How come this has arrived here?

It is a verbal flame and moan forum thread if ever there was one.
Isn’t a raptor a classification for a variety of dinosaur?

Flood.

only because of it’s use in jurassic park…the whole world does what hollywood does…that TICKS me off as a biologist!! Hehe.

Velociraptor was shortened in the book to raptor, cause it sounds cool, like what people would call a velociraptor, if they were around today.

The F-22 is NOT named after velociraptor!

It is using the proper english use of the word raptor, as a classification of birds of prey. Hawks, Eagles, falcons, they’re all raptors. It follows the rcent Air force trend of naaming it’s fighters after birds of prey.

from the latin word for “theif” or “plunderer”– while not a good translation for the F-22, it describes birds of prey to a tee.

How come this has arrived here?

It is a verbal flame and moan forum thread if ever there was one.
Isn’t a raptor a classification for a variety of dinosaur?

Flood.

Originally posted by GoldenDragon
France will become an even bigger whipping boy in the US if it attempts to engage China.

http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200404/73b1bfe5-f047-4642-a010-42deea3e6739.htm

Now I think THIS has the potential to become a bigger mess than anything DIRECTLY between the US and China.

If things stay stagnant, Taiwan being Taiwan, and China WANTING Taiwan, things will EVENTUALLY cool down. If China decides to TAKE Taiwan, then it’s a problem. I don’t see China trying to do so, unless Taiwan does something stupid.

Bush has tried to not definativly restate”If China attacks, the US will fight for Taiwan.” because the ABSOLUTE LAST THING the Us needs, is Taiwan playing the little guy with the big friend.

in school, there was always this little guy with an attitude. His friend was the biggest guy in school. He knew he could say WHATEVER he wanted, because his friend would back him up. So, he picked fights with people BIGGER than him, knowing his friend would fight them.

If Taiwan decides that now, with the backing of the US, they can go ahead and declare independance–total, independance–from China, we have a problem.

Taiwan doing what is possibly the only thing that would get China to militarily intervene–kinda like what happened in the 1860’s over here…. And WE would be stuck. If Taiwan does such a thing because of OUR backing them, I’m kinda thinking that we should let them go, and not get in trouble because of our little friend’s BIG mouth.

Originally posted by glitter
Really ?

I don’t speak of local officals who asked to make come back all american soldiers buried in france.

Local officials? You have any idea how many “LOCAL OffICIALS” there are in this country? You see a news report of some off-hand remark and you think that it;’s relavant?
…………..
How naïve.
And don’t you think that lies such like
“France helped Saddam hussein to escape”
“France gave weapons during GW2”
and so on haven’t push people to think in a particular way ?

We have people in this country that believe they’re going to be a GOD when they die. there’s people that think Elvis is still alive. there’s people that were SO messed up as a child they worship HITLER! And you’re surprised some idiots think of saying something like that?!?!
………………..
Funny, you see a few examples of people saying something totally unfounded, and you take that as evidence of the government’s crusade against France. And you think I AM naive?

We see video of people burning the American flag, mutilating our people, and openly wishing to kill all americans, as it is the duty “of all muslims”. We seem to have the common sense to not ascribe this behavior to all muslims.
………………………………..

but you seem to don’t know the own strategy of your country.
Sad.

You see me, as well as other Americans, as ignorant, and unable to “see the truth”, that you, the “enlightened” people, see so clearly. That comes across as quite the elitist statement.

When Americans see Germany elect their leader based on his strong views against our Country’s stance, we take offense.
When Americans see the graves of their relatives defaced, by the people they died trying to save from Nazi occupation, we take offense.

All of these “crusades” undertaken, such as the “boycott’ of french products, were started at the grassroots level. People spoke out, people listened. Buisnesses took part, their customers followed.
Of course, you feel we americans are unabl;e to actually see that we ARE being manipulated, by george bush himself, and are but puppets at the hands of our government.

What is Sad, is that you are spouting all this stuff, as if you are immune to the “brainwashing” that you assume I am recieving at the hands of our government, when you, in effect, are clearly spouting views that have been instilled onto you by others, or, by the careful mainpulation of your media/government.

Or, you could be simply a US college professor/graduate student…hehe
…………………………………….
Sound more plausible that they were frnch people than russian.

Well, have you seen the pictures of what actually happened?
The writing was IN French.

And could you tell me, if Mr bush had wanted to do that, waht mecanism could have prevent him ??

HAd wanted to manipulate the media? How? by having the media only broadcast what he wanted? By forcing the media to portray France and Germany as our enemies?

Couldn’t happen. The Media, for the most part, slants left, and usually portrays the president in a negative light. right wing media, mostly radio, is much more conservative than Bush, and is against Bush in all but a few issues, Tax Cuts and national security. Those two issues trump all others, so they support him, as far as his reelection, but bush’s BIGGEST critics are those who support him. They criticize his every move, because they wish him to change certain things. The left, simply makes fun of EVERYTHING he does, because they want to see him fail.

Bush could put out ads, or have some of his supporters in media(murdoch) plant propaganda. However, there would be to great a backlash for both parties. Murdoch’s foxnews has it’s share of bush supporters. they also criticize him.
The News media runs Bush’s election ads, but they run ALL election ads.
The Democrats have even started a liberal left wing radio station to try to compete with the right wing radio. The Sad truth is that it needed THE DEMOCRATS help to get going, while conservative radio is succeding on its own, as a private, highly profitable venture by individual radio hosts, local and nationwide.

It seems that much of the world overestimates the president’s power and influence on the people of the US.

Ask yourself, “Do I think I’m SMARTER than Americans?”
“Do I think I have a better understanding of the world than Americans?”
“Am I more COMPASSIONATE than Americans”
“Is the US government brainwashing its people, while MY government does nothing of the sort?”
“Am I morally superior to americans, because I chose peace over war?”

Originally posted by aCiDHg
i’m sorry but that is just abit unworldly of u. china ain’t what it used to be in the mao days where ppl sleep w/ the little red books under their pillow. i was there last yr (shanghai) & it felt more western & cosmopilitan than tokyo or seoul. (pollution & traffic abit bad tho) guess there is still legacies of communism in bureacracy but u can practically do more than u can do in the states & get away w/ it. booze all nite, good clubs, women, entertainment & stimulations. feel quite safe & free 2 me. lotz more westerners than 1 would think 2 (including yanks)…. but especially euros(which i don’t think the average chinese can tell apart from yanks)…. lotz of french & german “foreign experts” infact… & don’t ask which fields…. please open ur mind abit & experience a place before u pass judgement from what u learn off biased & special interest sources.

i personally would like to see f22 fly but what top of the line migs & sukois are even in the pipeline? russian aviation is basically in tatters after yrs of neglect & lack of funding after the fall of USSR. mig won’t be here long if current trend continues.

Well, I have seen many undercover news stories in China, with hidden cameras. the Chinese government went through incredible lenghts to mislead the news agency on human rights issues. It was very interesting.
I know things are not quite so bad, as far as foreigners are concerned, surely the Chinese want to encourage buisnessess from around the world to come to china.

It’s not the human rights thing that bothered me, it was the way the newspeople were followed, mislead, and intimidated by chinese officials. I’m no fan of reporters, but this was not a huge news company, it was a youth news channel, that had some really risky methods of getting footage.
I shold have rephrased my statement. It should have read” until I feel comfortable gong there. Which currently, I don’t.

China and India are fielding Su-30’s/Su-3X’s. India has flown against US F-15’s recently–less than two months ago–and supposedly, when within visual range, the Sukoi’s totally outclassed the eagles.

France will become an even bigger whipping boy in the US if it attempts to engage China.

http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200404/73b1bfe5-f047-4642-a010-42deea3e6739.htm

US aims to block lift on China arms ban

The US has launched a diplomatic campaign to block the lifting of an EU arms ban on China.

According to the Financial Times, Washington has demanded a series of formal talks with European capitals on the issue.

An arms embargo was slapped on China by the EU following the brutal crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen square in 1989.

The Bush administration is reported to believe the French-led drive to lift the embargo is an attempt by President Jacques Chirac to reopen commercial ties with Beijing.

It is also concerned Chirac may be making a geopolitical play to China at a time when the US is at pains to publicly back Taiwan.

Originally posted by pluto77189 Launched a crusade against France? Where, in all the nine hells, did you come up with bush launching a Crusade against FRANCE?

Really ?

Originally posted by pluto77189
There WAS a backlash against France, for not supporting us, but nothing “Launched” by any US official.

Of course that would be a huge mistake.
That’s strange that two tycoons (Mr Conrad black and Murdoch) very closed to Mr Bush launched several lies using press, televisions etc .. without any officials trying to defend an ally.
Of course, I’m sure that the very fact that the USA is opposing France on ALL subject hasn’t anything to do with that.

I don’t speak of local officals who asked to make come back all american soldiers buried in france.

Originally posted by pluto77189
IF you think Bush was behind it, you’re way ignorant of American society–WE are in control, and WE decide what we want, not the president, not Congress, nobody but ourselves.

How naïve.
And don’t you think that lies such like
“Farnce helped Saddam hussein to escape”
“France gave weapons during GW2”
and so on haven’t push people to think in a particular way ?

but you seem to don’t know the own strategy of your country.
Sad.

Originally posted by pluto77189
How do you think WE felt seeing the memorial to our WWII dead –WHO DIED at Normandy to SAVE France– desicrated by French people?????

Sound more plausible that they were frnch people than russian.

Originally posted by pluto77189
Again, all due to the free will of american people, expressing themselves to buisnesses, who acted accordingly.

Quite the opposite indeed.
You cannot go in the “wrong” direction, otherwise ……..

Originally posted by pluto77189
Any thought that it was “orchestrated” by Bush or the white house is a GROSS overestimation of the powers and influence of the US government on its people.

And could you tell me, if Mr bush had wanted to do that, waht mecanism could have prevent him ??

Originally posted by pluto77189
I think ANY big military project is in danger if Kerry is elected. TheF-22 is here, but the JSF has a potentially huge overseas market, and could be saved by Britain, and other export sales.

If the USA buy less JSF, it’s more or less dead since foreign sales shouldn’t be that important (at first) in comaprison of the american sales.

Just one thing..hasnt more quantity of Palestinians have been living longer than jews on the land?? jsut asking a question ok..not commenting….

On a side note, do you believe the US should shrink to it’s original size and that all land stolen from the Natives and Mexicans et al should be returned?

thats the point…and the point sways both ways..

Arabs offered Israel peace to Israel few years ago..they rejected it..so its one-all.

And the hope of establishing a Jewish state would not have been eliminated, they just would rightfully not have formed one in the middle of a bunch of people already occupying the land they want.

Jews did not arrive in Palestine from outer space and capture in the land in some blitzkrieg fashion out of the hands of the poor helpless Palestinians. This land had not less Jewish history to it than Arab one, and had always been home to Jews, who had in fact constituted the majority of the population of Jerusalem long before Zionism even existed. Early Zionists (avowed socialists, even communists) had no illusion that a future state would not be both Arab and Jewish, Israel (or rather Palestine) would have become an Arab majority country if not for the complete rejection of any Jewish rights in this land.

Do you support the idea of a withdrawl to 1947 borders and giving back stolen land?

The 1947 parition plan? Don’t make me laugh. The Arabs rejected the partition, they never intended there to be one. Palestinian representatives didn’t show up for the discussions prior to the plan’s formulation, all Arab members of the UN voted against it, and when it went through, they launched a war. They neither intended to set up a Palestinian state in the land allocated to them, nor did they intend to let an Israel exist in any borders. In 1949, after the war ended, no one in his right mind even thought of asking Israel to keep to the partition lines the Arabs had rejected out of hand and had tried to erase through their failed war. Any land the feel deprived of was solely through their unwillingness to compromise and their complete rejectionism.

I don’t dispute the intelligence vacuum involved in trying to pursue this route when others are available. I do dispute the logic in condemning them for using terrorism to achieve their goals when you already admitted that without terrorism it’s possible Israel would never have been formed.

That’s just the point, if not for the Irgun and Stern Gang there would not be an Israel today. On the other hand, if the Arabs had accepted the 1949 cease fire lines (not to mention the 1947 partition lines), not only would they have had a country 50 years ago, they would have actually gone away with a deal far better than the one present conditions offer them. 50 years of terrorism, and what have they got to show for it? Nothing, their adoption of that tactic was not only useless, but downright counterproductive!

Zionist terrorism:

1920-Formation of the HAGANA, the Jewish militia, which became the military backbone of the Zionist movement in Palestine and later, of the Israeli Defense Forces.

So, Hagana in 1920, anti-Zionist attacks in 1937. Which is earlier?

You should really do some better reasearch. The Haganah (“The Defence”) was set up in June 1920 precisely because Jewish settlements were repeatedly attacked by Palestinians. Attacks in the north of the country escalated in Easter 1920 to Arab riots in Jerusalem where 46 Jews were murdered. The Haganah did not appear out of thin air.

1948, April 9-The Dayr Yasin Massacre, in which Jewish terrorists killed 254 Palestinian villagers. Fearing similar incidents, thousands of Palestinians began streaming out of areas under Zionist control.

Deir Yassin was a village overlooking the road to Jerusalem. In 1948 it housed forces which maintained the siege on Jerusalem, starving its Jewish sections. On April 6 1948 Jewish forces launched operation “Nachson” to break the siege, and on April 9 they fought a battle in the village of Deir Yassin against irregular Arab forces which ended in a Palestinain rout. While among the dead were indeed many villagers, and there is very little to be proud of in the events of that day, the stories of the premeditated massacre of “254 Palestinian Villagers” (even contemporary Palestinian researches admit the number is closer to 100 fatalities) by “Zionist terrorists” (of course, neglecting to mention the very savage war waged by both sides at the time) is a figment of the imagination, Palestinian propaganda which backfired with disastrous results. Instead of stiffening Arab resolve, it scared the Palestinian population sh#tless, causing thousands to leave despite no real necessity to do so.

Originally posted by JJ
Mind you, Jews have been living in Palestine like forever. There has always been a Jewish presence in Palestine. Besides, there was this partition plan I just mentioned…

Actually the original plan for the establishment of an independant Jewish state was proposed in 1903, and rejected in 1907 by guess who?

Originally posted by JJ
I never claimed to be intellectually infallible. My comment was not so much directed at you admitting a mistake but the “it is still obvious that the original terrorists were the Zionists”-part, for which you provide no basis whatsoever.

Zionist terrorism:

1920-Formation of the HAGANA, the Jewish militia, which became the military backbone of the Zionist movement in Palestine and later, of the Israeli Defense Forces.

1938-Appearance of the Irgun, a militant Zionist organization that began a terrorist campaign in response to anti-Jewish attacks.

1940, Nov. 25-Sinking of the Patria, a ship carrying Jewish immigrants, in the harbor of Haifa. Jewish agents secretly carried out the operation to publicize the Zionist cause around the world.

1944, Nov. 6-Assassination of Lord Moyne, Britain’s minister resident in the Middle East, by Zionist terrorists.

1948, April 9-The Dayr Yasin Massacre, in which Jewish terrorists killed 254 Palestinian villagers. Fearing similar incidents, thousands of Palestinians began streaming out of areas under Zionist control.

Earliest mention of anti-Zionist terrorism I’ve found so far:

Sept. 26, 1937-Assassination of Yelland Andrews, British district commissioner for Galilee. The British responded by outlawing the Arab High Committee and arresting many of its members. The chairman of the committee, Hajj Amin al-Husayni, eluded capture and eventually made his way to Syria, which became the committee’s new base of operations. In the absence of the established leadership, more radical politicians assumed control of the resistance movement within Palestine itself. Anti-Zionist and anti-British attacks rapidly increased.

So, Hagana in 1920, anti-Zionist attacks in 1937. Which is earlier?

Originally posted by SOC
.Pardon me for admitting a mistake in front of one who is obviously intellectually infallible :rolleyes:

I never claimed to be intellectually infallible. My comment was not so much directed at you admitting a mistake but the “it is still obvious that the original terrorists were the Zionists”-part, for which you provide no basis whatsoever.

Palestinians want to destroy Israel-why not? Israel after all effectively destroyed what was then Palestine with it’s creation, did it not? Or does turnabout not equal fair play here?

Yeah, but then, Palestine was a British mandate, not a sovereign Palestinian state as you obviously imply. Besides, there was this partition plan where Arabs and Jews would each get half Palestine (or actually what remained thereof after the British gave away what is now known as Jordan, but was until 1923 part of the Mandate of Palestine). Areas where Jews constituted a majority would go to the Jewish state, areas where Arabs constituted a majority would be part of the Arab state. Guess which side rejected the compromize?

Let’s see, do I either a) Ignore this and move on, or b) admit you are right about the Palestinian issue of warning others? After your first response, I’ll avoid another verbal dressing-down and go with a. :rolleyes:

Well, whatever you want. :rolleyes:

You think they wanted to kill all the British people in the hotel?

No, I don’t.

Why the religious labels all of a sudden? I blamed nothing whatsoever on the Jews, I made it clear I was talking about the Zionists. All this looks like is an attempt to make me appear to be some sort of anti-Semite, which I am not.

No, I’m not trying to piant you as an anti-semite. First of, Jews are not necessarily religious men and women. Jews are, first of all a people, like the Dutch, French or American people. Religion has got quite little to do woth it. The reason why, in this specific case I say Jews is, because at the time of the bombing of the King David hotel the State of Israel didn’t exist yet, so obviously I couldn’t say Israelis. Jews seemed to me to be the appropriate label. After all, Jewish people carried out the attack.

As for the Brits not leaving the hotel, the fault is still at the feet of those who blew up the building. You say the Brit’s didn’t evacuate, I say the Zionists didn’t have to blow the building up.

Whether they had to or not I’m not going to argue about here right now. What matters to me is, that you first claimed this act was illegitimate and an act of terrorism because civilians were targetted, while in fact the target was the British military HQ, and thus a legitimate military target.

Again, if that’s what they want where’s the fault in that specific desire (not necessarily the means, but the goal)-Israel was formed at the expense of the territory originally known as Palestine. Granted, Palestine wasn’t an independent state at that point, but lets see how you like it if your landlord comes over one day, kicks you out of half of your house so someone else can live there, and then they proceed to run you out of most of the rest of the house as well.

Sigh, once again, a large majority of Palestinians were not kicked out but left of their own volition. Either because they believed Arab propaganda about massacres and atrocities being committed on a large scale (not arguing there weren’t any), or because they believed the propaganda that said they had to move to make way for the advancing Arab armies. Not Israel’s fault they gambled and lost.

You are right that suicide bombing is not the answer, but if they choose terrorism they still are no better or no worse than the Zionists who helped create Israel.

Yes, they are, for all the reasons Skythe summed up.

Besides, they caused all their own problems from a certain standpoint. Had they not chosen an already inhabited land to claim as their own the Arabs wouldn’t have been so irritated.

Mind you, Jews have been living in Palestine like forever. There has always been a Jewish presence in Palestine. Besides, there was this partition plan I just mentioned…

Do you support the idea of a withdrawl to 1947 borders and giving back stolen land?

I don’t. There must be some corrections. Israel’s 1947 borders (never existed, but I assume you mean the UN partition plan) are indefensible. They gambled, they lost, tough ****. I also do not agree to withdrawing to the 1967 borders, for the same reasons, but do believe that the Palestinians in some ways need to be compensated for land of the West Bank and Gaza Strip they’ll not get.

On a side note, do you believe the US should shrink to it’s original size and that all land stolen from the Natives and Mexicans et al should be returned?

Originally posted by pluto77189
If US / China relations could imporve, to the point where Us citizens could go to China and not feel “nervous,” then I’ll be happy.

i’m sorry but that is just abit unworldly of u. china ain’t what it used to be in the mao days where ppl sleep w/ the little red books under their pillow. i was there last yr (shanghai) & it felt more western & cosmopilitan than tokyo or seoul. (pollution & traffic abit bad tho) guess there is still legacies of communism in bureacracy but u can practically do more than u can do in the states & get away w/ it. booze all nite, good clubs, women, entertainment & stimulations. feel quite safe & free 2 me. lotz more westerners than 1 would think 2 (including yanks)…. but especially euros(which i don’t think the average chinese can tell apart from yanks)…. lotz of french & german “foreign experts” infact… & don’t ask which fields…. please open ur mind abit & experience a place before u pass judgement from what u learn off biased & special interest sources.

t’s gotten to the point where you almost can’t tell who was retaliating for what!

For YEARS I have always felt that while Isreal MUST exist, the palestinians(as a group) DID have the moral high ground, and were the one’s who should get the better end of the “deal”.

well although most of the time i still think the likes of hamas should be still stamped out like a bug.. it does only attack israel & targets no1 else…. not exactly directly threatening like the global jihad movement… least for now

& i in no way condone violence against civilians & think those who do lack cajones but at the same time there is just no way for them to have a fighting chance against the overwhelming military dominance of israel. u can’t exactly go against merkavas & apaches w/ assault rifles.
(really i think even the american armed forces cannot expect invade israel sucessfully without heavyheavy casualties. their arab neighbours certainly has no chance.)

the likes of arafat are selfish, self serving, idiotic leaders who put themselves above what is best for their ppl. which breeds more need to rely upon the like of hamas to take over social & political order. but also there r abunch of hardline israeli who take advantage of the situation & chaos to grab more land where they think they r divinely destined. which even more violence, backlash & political difficulties.

as to past jewish & palistinian “terrorism” let bygones be bygones… i know easier said than done but we need ppl w/ vision to get beyond the cycle of hatred & violence… now if we could only get rid of arafat & get barak in power again!!

the F-22 and F-35 are cut, in 15 years we’ll be flying against top of the line Migs and sukoi’s and their Indian/Chinese equivalents–with near FIFTY YEAR OLD designs!

i personally would like to see f22 fly but what top of the line migs & sukois are even in the pipeline? russian aviation is basically in tatters after yrs of neglect & lack of funding after the fall of USSR. mig won’t be here long if current trend continues. the chinese aviation industry is basically still taking baby steps. & their present birds are at most equals in manuverability & far behind in electronics, advanced missles, radars & engines. taken in2 account the develpoment cycle for a modern 5th gen fighter, no1 is there to challenge american dominance. their force integration, doctrine, intelligence, training & overall electronic advantage is just so insurmountable. with or without f22…

i understand the airforce boys need their toys & i support them in it but still not fair to point to suppoxed threats where there are none….

Originally posted by skythe
No, what’s obvious is that Zionists used these tactics in the past, but you’ve nothing to show that Arab forces learned this tactic from the Zionists or that the Arabs never endulged in it prior to its adoption by the Zionists. The sad fact of the matter is that the Arabs didn’t need to immitate the Zionists, they were quite adept at it all by themselves.

You’re missing the point-the Zionists were using terrorism to achieve their goals, and now Israel condemns Palestinian terrorism.

Because if not for the Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang, the British would never have left and even if they had, the Arabs would have succeeded in wiping out any hope of an independent Jewish state, not to mention the very real possibility of wiping out the Jews of Palestine.

The British would still have left eventually as Imperialism was pretty much at an end at that point in history. And the hope of establishing a Jewish state would not have been eliminated, they just would rightfully not have formed one in the middle of a bunch of people already occupying the land they want.

Let’s just take a look at some of the Israelis on this forum : Me, JJ, Barak, Erez, to name a few. Have any of us ever expressed a refusal to accept a Palestinian state? Have we rejected their right to one? No, we havn’t.

Do you support the idea of a withdrawl to 1947 borders and giving back stolen land?

What the Palestinians are doing is nothing short of sheer stupidity, and those who wish to see an indepedent Palestinian state should be the first to see this!

I don’t dispute the intelligence vacuum involved in trying to pursue this route when others are available. I do dispute the logic in condemning them for using terrorism to achieve their goals when you already admitted that without terrorism it’s possible Israel would never have been formed.

Originally posted by JJ
So obvious that you took an example which you now admit don’t know all the ‘details’ about. As if the fact that it was a British military HQ was an unimportant detail. :rolleyes:

Pardon me for admitting a mistake in front of one who is obviously intellectually infallible :rolleyes:

Israelis fought for their freedom against Arab people and Arab nations that wanted the Jewish nation destroyed, while Palestinian terrorist fight to destroy that nation, not for their freedom. They could have had that freedom already in 1948, and on other occasions after that, the latest being at Taba in 2001. They chose to fight to continue to attempt to destroy Israel, and their means are targetting civilians.

Palestinians want to destroy Israel-why not? Israel after all effectively destroyed what was then Palestine with it’s creation, did it not? Or does turnabout not equal fair play here?

It was a British military HQ, thus a legitimate military target. Besides, it also proves that Jews were trying to avoid loss of innocent life. When was the last time Palestinian terrorist phoned Israeli police to inform them that a pizza parlor was about to be blown up, and should therefor evacuate the place. Let me make it easy for you, when was the first time Palestinian terrorists warned Israeli police about a place that was about to be blown up?

Let’s see, do I either a) Ignore this and move on, or b) admit you are right about the Palestinian issue of warning others? After your first response, I’ll avoid another verbal dressing-down and go with a. :rolleyes:

They could have told the Brits afterwards if they wanted them to know who was behind the act. As for the second part of the statement: you’re just second guessing and have no proof whatsoever to back up that claim.

You think they wanted to kill all the British people in the hotel?

The Brits did not evacuate, is that the fault of the Jews now too?

Why the religious labels all of a sudden? I blamed nothing whatsoever on the Jews, I made it clear I was talking about the Zionists. All this looks like is an attempt to make me appear to be some sort of anti-Semite, which I am not.

As for the Brits not leaving the hotel, the fault is still at the feet of those who blew up the building. You say the Brit’s didn’t evacuate, I say the Zionists didn’t have to blow the building up.

Perhaps ypu should tell them that suicide bombing is not going to make Israel disappear ;). Seriously, they could have achieved what you understand to be their goal (a Palestinian state next to Israel) a long time ago. Unfortunately, their goal is a Palestinian state instead of Israel.

Again, if that’s what they want where’s the fault in that specific desire (not necessarily the means, but the goal)-Israel was formed at the expense of the territory originally known as Palestine. Granted, Palestine wasn’t an independent state at that point, but lets see how you like it if your landlord comes over one day, kicks you out of half of your house so someone else can live there, and then they proceed to run you out of most of the rest of the house as well.

You are right that suicide bombing is not the answer, but if they choose terrorism they still are no better or no worse than the Zionists who helped create Israel.

Besides, they caused all their own problems from a certain standpoint. Had they not chosen an already inhabited land to claim as their own the Arabs wouldn’t have been so irritated.