SAT's BUSH-1206/ KERRY-1190/ CLINTON-1032



Steve wrote:
> On 11/6/04 2:35 AM, in article
> [email protected], "Kurgan
Gringioni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>

> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > Do your research.
> >
> > Sharon is doing that so he can consolidate the larger settlements
on
> > the West Bank.
> >
> > And, it's not an 'agreement'. It's a unilateral move. The
Palestinians
> > have no say in the matter.
> >
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
> >
>
> Quit glossing over the point! It is a well known fact that most want
Israel
> removed, gone, ZIP.....................
>
> Arafat refused a peace agreement based on them receiving 95% of their
> demands..



Dumbass -

It's not glossing the point. Do your research on the Gaza withdrawal,
what I wrote is the plain truth.

As for the Palestinians: most of them want peace and prosperity just
like most of the Israelis do. The problem is the extremists on both
sides.

As for Arafat rejecting Barak's generous offer: Arafat is an extremist
too. There should have been peace long ago if it weren't for him.
Another problem: Sharon is an extremist also.


K. Gringioni.
 
On 11/6/04 1:51 PM, in article
[email protected], "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Steve wrote:
>> On 11/6/04 2:35 AM, in article
>> [email protected], "Kurgan
> Gringioni"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> Dumbass -
>>>
>>> Do your research.
>>>
>>> Sharon is doing that so he can consolidate the larger settlements
> on
>>> the West Bank.
>>>
>>> And, it's not an 'agreement'. It's a unilateral move. The
> Palestinians
>>> have no say in the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>> K. Gringioni.
>>>
>>
>> Quit glossing over the point! It is a well known fact that most want
> Israel
>> removed, gone, ZIP.....................
>>
>> Arafat refused a peace agreement based on them receiving 95% of their
>> demands..
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> It's not glossing the point. Do your research on the Gaza withdrawal,
> what I wrote is the plain truth.
>
> As for the Palestinians: most of them want peace and prosperity just
> like most of the Israelis do. The problem is the extremists on both
> sides.
>
> As for Arafat rejecting Barak's generous offer: Arafat is an extremist
> too. There should have been peace long ago if it weren't for him.
> Another problem: Sharon is an extremist also.
>
>
> K. Gringioni.
>

Dumbass-

You cannot have it both ways! Unless you are a switch-hitter.......
Arafat is a known terrorist with multiple terrorist ties. Sharon is a duly
elected representative of a democratic nation. Sharon and Israel, like I
said had offered Arafat etal. 95% of their TOTAL demands!

Your argument about both being extremists is unfounded..........
Don't be a wimp, pick a side and show your true colors..........
 
>From: Steve [email protected]

>Your argument about both being extremists is unfounded..........
>Don't be a wimp, pick a side and show your true colors..........
>

Hey Steve
In the little scrap between ****** and Stalin which was the rational one, and
which was the extremist?
It is entirely possible for all parties to something to be rotten to the core.
Some info on Sharon:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/sharon.html
Note he was a member of Haganah.
Now note what happened in the bombing of the King David Hotel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
There is a whole lot more that shows Sharon is as willing as Arafat to take
the low road.
You'd have a hell of a time attempting to paint me, as anti-Israel, or
anti-semitic, but I am pro truth because that's the only way we're going to get
anywhere.
PS I'm still waiting for Israel with a US nod and wink to take out Iran's nuke
plants again. I think that this is being politically prepositioned to happen.
The Brits in Major's cabinet are saying it's unthinkable and would be terrible.
This gives them plausable deniability when it happens and protects our best
ally from the repercussions.
Bill C
 
"Philip W. Moore, Jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> This is a fictitious website. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar. Bush was not
> accepted to UT Law School. Sorry, but you'll never convince me that Bush is
> playing with a full deck of cards.
>
> "Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:BDB03369.C76CA%[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/List of people by SAT sc
> > ore
> >

Did Clinton finish his obligations to become a full Rhodes Scholar or
did he just sttend Oxford for awhile?
 
"psycholist" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> they do, too). Then he said he's sure Palestinians want peace, too. No
> they don't. They want the annihilation of Israel. That's all they want.
> There will never be a peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine.
> There may be ceasefires, but there will never be real peace.
>
> Bob C.

Ceasefire = Reloading
 
"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Steve wrote:
>
> >
> > Dumbass-
> >> Do your research......
> > And, it's not an 'agreement'. It's a unilateral move. The Palestinians
> have no say in the matter.> >
> K. Gringioni.

Mr. D.A.

There are no "Palastinians", but there are a hell of alot of homeless
Jordanian refugees in Israel. Ask your good friend and fellow
peacenik Mr. Arafat exactly why he and his band of merry fellows got
their butts kicked one very black September in the early seventies by
a Mr. Assad and how they bareley made it to Israel before being
annihilated by their fellow muslim peacenik buddies. That is why they
ended up in refugee camps, not because the Israelis rounded them up
Nazi fashion from their population and put them there. They came FROM
Jordan and ned to return there. Arafat is from Egypt, but it's OK we
know where he is going now.

Phillip
 
Steve wrote:

> >
>
> Dumbass-
>
> You cannot have it both ways! Unless you are a switch-hitter.......
> Arafat is a known terrorist with multiple terrorist ties. Sharon is a
duly
> elected representative of a democratic nation. Sharon and Israel,
like I
> said had offered Arafat etal. 95% of their TOTAL demands!
>
> Your argument about both being extremists is unfounded..........
> Don't be a wimp, pick a side and show your true colors..........



Dumbass -

Do your goddamm research.

Ehud Barak, not Ariel Sharon, made, by far, the most generous offer to
Arafat, at the negotiating session brokered by then-US President
Clinton. The extremist in Arafat turned it down.

Ehud Barak (former Israeli PM) is/was not an extremist. Neither was
Yitzak Rabin (former Israeli PM). Ariel Sharon is. He has been elected
to power in a reflexive action of a nation under attack (by the
intifada).

Do your research. Ask an Israeli. Anything but this ignorance which
spews forth from you.


K. Gringioni.
 
TritonRider wrote:
> >From: Steve [email protected]
>
> >Your argument about both being extremists is unfounded..........
> >Don't be a wimp, pick a side and show your true colors..........
> >
>
> Hey Steve
> In the little scrap between ****** and Stalin which was the rational
one, and
> which was the extremist?
> It is entirely possible for all parties to something to be rotten to
the core.
> Some info on Sharon:
> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/sharon.html
> Note he was a member of Haganah.
> Now note what happened in the bombing of the King David Hotel:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
> There is a whole lot more that shows Sharon is as willing as Arafat
to take
> the low road.
> You'd have a hell of a time attempting to paint me, as anti-Israel,
or
> anti-semitic, but I am pro truth because that's the only way we're
going to get
> anywhere.
> PS I'm still waiting for Israel with a US nod and wink to take out
Iran's nuke
> plants again. I think that this is being politically prepositioned to
happen.
> The Brits in Major's cabinet are saying it's unthinkable and would be
terrible.
> This gives them plausable deniability when it happens and protects
our best
> ally from the repercussions.



Dumbass -

The problem with Steve (and most of our fellow citizens, he is far from
unique in this regard) is that he attempts to see the political world
in black and white, good and evil, thereby missing the many hues that
color the political landscape.

It is the greatest weakness of this country, IMO. Right now we are so
big and so powerful that misguided actions based upon this skewed
worldview don't threaten the short-term viability of this
culture/system. Of course, that won't always be the case, and I'll make
a guess that when our system does come crashing down (as all great
Empires eventually do), it will be the collective
ignorance/self-centered worldview that does us in.

Hopefully whenever that happens, we'll all be long dead.

As for the Iranian situation: it seems as if few consider whom Iran and
Saddam Hussein were really making their WMDs for. My view is that they
were doing it for each other, after all, there were 1 million KIA in
the 1980s Iran/Iraq War. We did Iran a big favor, took out their #1
enemy (we're their #2). So now that Saddam is out of the picture, I
suppose Israel may have something to fear w/ the Iran nuke.

OTOH, is it really in our best interest to take Israel's side in this
matter? Israel has several dozen nukes of her own. And she's let the
Arab countries know about "The Sampson Option", so it's not like Iran's
going to be enthusiastic about nuking Tel Aviv.


K. Gringioni.
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Of course, that won't always be the case, and I'll make
> a guess that when our system does come crashing down (as all great
> Empires eventually do) [...]
>
> Hopefully whenever that happens, we'll all be long dead.

Dumbass,

Most empires don't come crashing down, they slowly decline. Slowly enough
that it's often hard for its citizens to realize they've jumped the shark.
 
>From: "Kurgan Gringioni" [email protected]

>OTOH, is it really in our best interest to take Israel's side in this
>matter? Israel has several dozen nukes of her own. And she's let the
>Arab countries know about "The Sampson Option", so it's not like Iran's
>going to be enthusiastic about nuking Tel Aviv.
>
>
>K. Gringioni.
>
>

I don't see the Israelis using nukes except when they are going under. I just
can't see them using nukes for any other purpose, conventional weapons yes, but
I think they realize that they are barely controlloing the territory they have
now. They would be overextended with anymore to protect.
Religious fanatics who are taught from birth that the greatest thing you can
do in life is to die fighting Islam having control of nukes worries me. I don't
think that the government itself would use one in a conventional manner, but I
could see them getting one to Hamas or Islamic Jihad for a single surprise in
Tel-Aiv. I'm not sure that they wouldn't be convinced it was worth the risk. It
would be pretty easy to claim that the got their hands some of the missing
Soviet stuff. Last I knew a lot of interesting goodies went missing after they
stopped paying the military. They were missing six portable nuclear powered
radar trailer set-ups that were documanted as missing. These things may have
been stuck in the middle of nowhere by the people who used to run them because
to make them light enough for truck transport they had very little radiation
sheilding is my understanding. Not something to have in your neighborhood.

Bill C
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Steve wrote:
>
>
>>Dumbass-
>>
>>You cannot have it both ways! Unless you are a switch-hitter.......
>>Arafat is a known terrorist with multiple terrorist ties. Sharon is a
>
> duly
>
>>elected representative of a democratic nation. Sharon and Israel,
>
> like I
>
>>said had offered Arafat etal. 95% of their TOTAL demands!
>>
>>Your argument about both being extremists is unfounded..........
>>Don't be a wimp, pick a side and show your true colors..........
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Do your goddamm research.
>
> Ehud Barak, not Ariel Sharon, made, by far, the most generous offer to
> Arafat, at the negotiating session brokered by then-US President
> Clinton. The extremist in Arafat turned it down.

This also might be to simple as an explanation. Ignoring Arafat's
motives for now, there was also the issue of the palestinian refugees.
UN General Assembly Resolution 194 states clearly that they have a right
to return to Israel to live there peacefully or to choose to get paid
compensation. I would think that Arafat (or any palestinean political
leader) can not take this issue lightly. People easily get fanatic when
it comes to what they see as right to their real estate and homeland
(see Rabin), and anyone being thought of betraying this cause is in
serious danger of being removed from power by assassination.
Arafat even agreed on dropping that fundamental right of the refugees,
last but not least because Israel can never allow the now around 4
million refugees to return. One of the reasons for the negotiations to
break down was the size of the compensation.

In summary, even if Arafat weren't an extremist, he would have had to
solve the issue of staying in power and surviving long enough to be able
to execute the results of the Camp David II negotiations.
 
Phillip wrote:

> There are no "Palastinians", but there are a hell of alot of homeless
> Jordanian refugees in Israel. Ask your good friend and fellow
> peacenik Mr. Arafat exactly why he and his band of merry fellows got
> their butts kicked one very black September in the early seventies by
> a Mr. Assad and how they bareley made it to Israel before being
> annihilated by their fellow muslim peacenik buddies. That is why they
> ended up in refugee camps, not because the Israelis rounded them up
> Nazi fashion from their population and put them there. They came FROM
> Jordan and ned to return there. Arafat is from Egypt, but it's OK we
> know where he is going now.
>
> Phillip

Dude, we are talking about the now 4 Million palestinian refugees who
(or whose parents) were being misplaced in 1948 who live in camps in
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the Gaza Strip etc., and are not allowed to go
anywhere.

No need to thank for the free history lesson.

Cheers,
Ernst
 
Ernst Noch wrote:
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > Do your goddamm research.
> >
> > Ehud Barak, not Ariel Sharon, made, by far, the most generous offer
to
> > Arafat, at the negotiating session brokered by then-US President
> > Clinton. The extremist in Arafat turned it down.
>
> This also might be to simple as an explanation. Ignoring Arafat's
> motives for now, there was also the issue of the palestinian
refugees.
> UN General Assembly Resolution 194 states clearly that they have a
right
> to return to Israel to live there peacefully or to choose to get paid

> compensation. I would think that Arafat (or any palestinean political

> leader) can not take this issue lightly. People easily get fanatic
when
> it comes to what they see as right to their real estate and homeland
> (see Rabin), and anyone being thought of betraying this cause is in
> serious danger of being removed from power by assassination.
> Arafat even agreed on dropping that fundamental right of the
refugees,
> last but not least because Israel can never allow the now around 4
> million refugees to return. One of the reasons for the negotiations
to
> break down was the size of the compensation.
>
> In summary, even if Arafat weren't an extremist, he would have had to

> solve the issue of staying in power and surviving long enough to be
able
> to execute the results of the Camp David II negotiations.


Dumbass -

Arafat is an extremist. He didn't have to start the intifada in
response to the failed negotiations with Barak.

Barak had offered things that no other Israeli PM had dared mention.
Look what he got in return.

K. Gringioni.
 
TritonRider wrote:
> >From: "Kurgan Gringioni" [email protected]
>
> >OTOH, is it really in our best interest to take Israel's side in
this
> >matter? Israel has several dozen nukes of her own. And she's let the
> >Arab countries know about "The Sampson Option", so it's not like
Iran's
> >going to be enthusiastic about nuking Tel Aviv.
> >
> >
> >K. Gringioni.
> >
> >
>
> I don't see the Israelis using nukes except when they are going
under. I just
> can't see them using nukes for any other purpose, conventional
weapons yes, but
> I think they realize that they are barely controlloing the territory
they have
> now. They would be overextended with anymore to protect.


<snip>


Dumbass -

Do some research on "The Sampson Option" and exactly what it is (other
than a book).


K. Gringioni.
 
Robert Chung wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > Of course, that won't always be the case, and I'll make
> > a guess that when our system does come crashing down (as all great
> > Empires eventually do) [...]
> >
> > Hopefully whenever that happens, we'll all be long dead.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> Most empires don't come crashing down, they slowly decline. Slowly
enough
> that it's often hard for its citizens to realize they've jumped the
shark.



Dumbass -

Ya, but we're in the nuclear age now. In the future, when the 1940s
nuclear technology inevitably percolates down to the most
technologically challenged nations, my guess is that we'll get into one
unecessary war too many.

BOOM! The end will be sudden.


K. Gringioni.
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:


> Dumbass -
>
> Arafat is an extremist.

DA -

He is an extremist who is surrounded by other extremists. He wasn't
free to change, even if he'd wanted to. A move towards peace by Arafat
would have resulted in new leadership for the Palestinians. That is all.

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply
 
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:


> Do some research on "The Sampson Option" and exactly what it is (other
> than a book).

Alexandre,

Samson was the guy that brought down the temple and crushed the
Philistines. The policy is named after him for the same reason.

He lost his strength after being seduced by a woman. There is a lesson
for all of us in terms of race preparation.
 
On 11/7/04 1:46 AM, in article
[email protected], "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Steve wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> Dumbass-
>>
>> You cannot have it both ways! Unless you are a switch-hitter.......
>> Arafat is a known terrorist with multiple terrorist ties. Sharon is a
> duly
>> elected representative of a democratic nation. Sharon and Israel,
> like I
>> said had offered Arafat etal. 95% of their TOTAL demands!
>>
>> Your argument about both being extremists is unfounded..........
>> Don't be a wimp, pick a side and show your true colors..........
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Do your goddamm research.
>
> Ehud Barak, not Ariel Sharon, made, by far, the most generous offer to
> Arafat, at the negotiating session brokered by then-US President
> Clinton. The extremist in Arafat turned it down.

My mistake. I know that.

>
> Ehud Barak (former Israeli PM) is/was not an extremist. Neither was
> Yitzak Rabin (former Israeli PM). Ariel Sharon is. He has been elected
> to power in a reflexive action of a nation under attack (by the
> intifada).

I agree with this but not that Sharon is an extremist. Standing up for
principles is not an extremist! Although, using the dictionary definition,
his views are "beyond the norm" based on numerous left wing ideals and NOT
beyond the norm or rational, principled viewpoints.


>
> Do your research. Ask an Israeli. Anything but this ignorance which
> spews forth from you.

Face it............... You suck!


>
>
> K. Gringioni.
>
 
>From: Steve [email protected]

>I agree with this but not that Sharon is an extremist. Standing up for
>principles is not an extremist! Although, using the dictionary definition,
>his views are "beyond the norm" based on numerous left wing ideals and NOT
>beyond the norm or rational, principled viewpoints.
>

Steve I don't even know where to start, except that you haven't done any
homework on Sharon or you are choosing to ignore his crimes.
I am a staunch supporter of Israel's right to exist, free from terror. There
is no way in hell that I can say that the Haganah, Irgun, Stern Gang etc... did
not commit terrorist acts. Sharon is tied into all of them, and his personal
record is questionable at best.
I can not believe that you are saying that he has not been an extremist. Even
for you that's a stretch.
Bill C
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Trips for Kids Bike Thrift Shop Sale Sat 4/12
Replies
0
Views
396
Road Cycling
Marilyn Price
M
M
Trips for Kids Bike Thrift Shop Sale Sat 4/12
Replies
0
Views
323
Road Cycling
Marilyn Price
M
M
TRIPS FOR KIDS RE-CYCLERY BIKE THRIFT HUGE BLOW-OUT SALE SAT 10/610 - 4
Replies
0
Views
311
Road Cycling
Marilyn Price
M
M
TRIPS FOR KIDS RE-CYCLERY BIKE THRIFT HUGE BLOW-OUT SALE SAT 10/610 - 4
Replies
0
Views
336
Road Cycling
Marilyn Price
M
R
Ruidoso NM Hospice Century Sat., Sept 29
Replies
1
Views
281
Road Cycling
catzz66
C
Top Bottom Back