M
Munkey-
Guest
- Thread starter
- #2
the fucking idiot.
the bloody twat........
we're doomed.
the bloody twat........
we're doomed.
X
Xtro
Guest
- Thread starter
- #3
he's got the crest of the President's office on his cowboy boots ffs - need we say more?
Y
Yaka
Guest
- Thread starter
- #4
anyone ever wondered the 2DTV version of Bush is 100% real?
W
wolfeeh
Guest
- Thread starter
- #5
hehe
so true yaka
actually the cartoon is more believable than the real thing.
so true yaka
actually the cartoon is more believable than the real thing.
K
kungfoo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #6
could be a cardboard cutout
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #7
Just a bit of a tard.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #8
Arafat is not helping the situation tbh. I agree with Bush on that at least. It's not in Arafat's interest to have peace and he's rejected it before. His reputation is a fighting leader. If the Palestinians don't want to fight any more (unlikely, I know) then they may well look for a different kind of leader.
Just my ill-educated 2p. Feel free to flame.
Just my ill-educated 2p. Feel free to flame.
S
(Shovel)
Guest
- Thread starter
- #9
Maybe Wij.
Personally I think Sharon is as much of a problem. He was elected cause he was a military guy. It's quite likely that he doesn't want peace either.
They both need to go for there to be any progress.
Personally I think Sharon is as much of a problem. He was elected cause he was a military guy. It's quite likely that he doesn't want peace either.
They both need to go for there to be any progress.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #10
I think many see the problem that Bush keeps taking sides with strongly condoning the Palestinians yet seems to go rather soft on the Israelis when they commit aggressive acts. Also it isn't going to be ideal since such statements will only increase peoples support for Arafat thus making such a statement counterproductive.
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #11
M
mr.Blacky
Guest
- Thread starter
- #12
somehow I can believe that
S
(Shovel)
Guest
- Thread starter
- #13
Based on his resistance to terrorism yes?
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #14
Sharon is a butcher. No arguments there. He will be booted from office probably tho come next elections. Arafat won't. When the Isrealis had more moderate leadership no peace was reached. The common factor is Arafat's rejection of it.
M
Munkey-
Guest
- Thread starter
- #15
bush is quoted to have said that he prefers Sharon to Arafat
D
doh_boy
Guest
- Thread starter
- #16
thats probably cos he thought sharon was a girl!
S
stu
Guest
- Thread starter
- #17
When, exactly? And please don't rely on a Daily Mail special "he was offered 99% of what he wanted but chose violence instead" type statement.
S
Stazbumpa
Guest
- Thread starter
- #18
I personally think Sharon got in coz of Arafat's refusal to play ball. Sharon is ex military I think, so to the Israeli's he's more of an action man who won't bow to the terrorist bombs.
Arafat has to go I reckon, he has taken his people to the brink of destruction and could well take them over it still. He has no clue or even the will to stop the terrorists and is merely a jumped up little man desparate for power of some measure.
Arafat has to go I reckon, he has taken his people to the brink of destruction and could well take them over it still. He has no clue or even the will to stop the terrorists and is merely a jumped up little man desparate for power of some measure.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #19
Finally - a flame
And no I can't be arsed searching for links. My memory says I'm right. I'll stick with that until you prove otherwise
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #20
Sharon is an ex-defense minister and responsible for most of the bombing of Beiruit iirc.
S
Shocko
Guest
- Thread starter
- #21
I believe there have been 2 main peace treaties, in the past decade:Originally posted by Wij
And no I can't be arsed searching for links. My memory says I'm right. I'll stick with that until you prove otherwise
The CampDavid summet of 2000, and the "Declaration of Intentions"(Or something similar) in 1993.
CampDavid failed, because the Isrealis' offer was inadequet - Off hand, i believe it meant all Isreali settlements in the Palestine lands, remained, no right of rturn for Palestinean reffugees, Isreal retained ~10% of the WestBank, and Isreal got control of 70% of the water in the westbank.
The 1993 thing should have worked - A deal was agree that started the PA, and it would have meant a fully independant Palestinean state within 5 years... However it never progressed properly. I'm not totally sure why the intended events never happened, however that extremist(I forget his name), who killed 30Palestinean civilians in a mosque or something, in '94, started a small chain of violence, which stopped the progress, afaik.
So, where are these peace deals that Arafat has turned down?
M
mr.Blacky
Guest
- Thread starter
- #22
was Camp David not between Israel and Egypt?
S
Shocko
Guest
- Thread starter
- #23
The peace agreement between Isreal and Egypt may well have been held at CampDavid.
The CampDavid peace accords of July 2000, were reguarding a Palestinean state.
If you don't want to look like a retard, get educated on the subject.
The CampDavid peace accords of July 2000, were reguarding a Palestinean state.
If you don't want to look like a retard, get educated on the subject.
D
doh_boy
Guest
- Thread starter
- #24
no he was down canal street("famous gay villiage" street full of gay bars in manc) trying to pull
<tries to stop being purile>
what I find hard is that bush says that arafat needs to be replaced because he is not doing enough to stop the killing while sharon is directly responsible for a lot of it. I think the americans (and the rest of us) have dug ourselves into a hole with the sept 11th thing. We cannot, now, tell the israelis to not react when we so publicly have.
I don't see any solution
<tries to stop being purile>
what I find hard is that bush says that arafat needs to be replaced because he is not doing enough to stop the killing while sharon is directly responsible for a lot of it. I think the americans (and the rest of us) have dug ourselves into a hole with the sept 11th thing. We cannot, now, tell the israelis to not react when we so publicly have.
I don't see any solution
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #25
Originally posted by Shocko
The peace agreement between Isreal and Egypt may well have been held at CampDavid.
The CampDavid peace accords of July 2000, were reguarding a Palestinean state.
If you don't want to look like a retard, get educated on the subject.
I'm not choosing to be educated by that site thanks seeing as that is written by the PLO negotiating team.
Here's the first site I found which gives plain details of the proposals. http://www.mideastweb.org/CampDavid2.htm
I'm not about to trawl for any more info. I'm busy. Still at work.
Anyway. I'm not the one saying one side is shiny and lovely in this conflict. There are dicks on both sides and I include Sharon AND Arafat in that as I've plainly stated. My only argument was that I don't think Bush is wrong in saying that Arafat isn't doing the most he could to work towards peace.
Whether Bush should have actually said that in public or whether Palestinians have a right to be angry about certain events is a seperate issue.
etc...
S
Shocko
Guest
- Thread starter
- #26
Why? Facts are facts. If you dissagree with things that they state as facts, feel free to point out where they're wrong.
Your own source says:
The initial area of the Palestinian state would comprise about 73% of the land area of the West Bank and all of Gaza.
And then:
In later stages (10-25 years) Israel would cede additional areas, particularly in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, to bring the total area to slightly under 90% of the area of the West Bank
This is exactly what the PA negoatiating team said:
Isreal takes 10% of the WestBank, and controls 25% of it for an unstated period of time.
M
mr.Blacky
Guest
- Thread starter
- #27
yes should have read your post a bit better, lovely site though rofl.Originally posted by Shocko
The peace agreement between Isreal and Egypt may well have been held at CampDavid.
The CampDavid peace accords of July 2000, were reguarding a Palestinean state.
If you don't want to look like a retard, get educated on the subject.
hmmm
S
Shocko
Guest
- Thread starter
- #28
a) The respective article was written by the PA negotiating team present at CampDavid. it's just published on that paticular site.
b) I don't give a fuck how biased the oppinions on a site are, if the facts they provide are correct (which they are in this case).
Now either:
a) Tell me about Arafat rejeting all these peace deals.
b) Accept your wrong, and Arafat has never rejected peace.
3) Fuck off.
b) I don't give a fuck how biased the oppinions on a site are, if the facts they provide are correct (which they are in this case).
Now either:
a) Tell me about Arafat rejeting all these peace deals.
b) Accept your wrong, and Arafat has never rejected peace.
3) Fuck off.
W
Wij
Guest
- Thread starter
- #29
don't be so gh3y d00d.
i was stating my opinion that arafat is not exactly an ideal peace-maker. being the head of a terrorist organisation and that his popluarity soars whenever there is more conflict rather than less. the peace issue has not been solved by the people currently in positions of responsiblilty towards it. isreal changes its leaders every few years so they may get some fresh ideas. if the palestinians don't then it may well be an obstacle to peace. no new thinking, no ideas.
if you want to turn this into a 'who is in the right' argument then go ahead. i don't care. those arguments are exactly the ones that mean these things never get solved. i know you have well-rehearsed arguments about who did what and that you like to show them in public to show how much thought you've put into the issue but i'm simply not interested in it.
arafat condones murder.
sharon condones murder.
neither admits it but its there for all to see.
both = teh badd !!1
taking sides on crap like this helps noone. like anyone would ever admit they were wrong despite all the evidence. it's not human nature.
bah - i hate arguing
i was stating my opinion that arafat is not exactly an ideal peace-maker. being the head of a terrorist organisation and that his popluarity soars whenever there is more conflict rather than less. the peace issue has not been solved by the people currently in positions of responsiblilty towards it. isreal changes its leaders every few years so they may get some fresh ideas. if the palestinians don't then it may well be an obstacle to peace. no new thinking, no ideas.
if you want to turn this into a 'who is in the right' argument then go ahead. i don't care. those arguments are exactly the ones that mean these things never get solved. i know you have well-rehearsed arguments about who did what and that you like to show them in public to show how much thought you've put into the issue but i'm simply not interested in it.
arafat condones murder.
sharon condones murder.
neither admits it but its there for all to see.
both = teh badd !!1
taking sides on crap like this helps noone. like anyone would ever admit they were wrong despite all the evidence. it's not human nature.
bah - i hate arguing
X
xane
Guest
- Thread starter
- #30
The problem with Arafat is not the highly debateable topic of whether he supports violence, but the fact he is merely a cardboard cutout of a leader and ineffective in controlling the more violent factions, which is what he originally set himself out as.
If Arafat has no control, it matters nothing what his intentions are, but Sharon is no different, radical and fanatical elements in his government coalition disagree with him frequently and he has no more control over the violent parties on the Israeli side either.
Bush should call for both sides to vote in competant leaders, but the cynic inside me cannot see this happening "any day now".
As it stands, both sides are hungry for agreements that give them far more than what is realistically achievable, this drives people to consider violence as an option. Once people start to realise that no amount of war is going to get their goal forfilled then we can start talking peace, that stage is still a long way off, neither side wishes to show appeasement politics or consider compromise solutions.
If Arafat has no control, it matters nothing what his intentions are, but Sharon is no different, radical and fanatical elements in his government coalition disagree with him frequently and he has no more control over the violent parties on the Israeli side either.
Bush should call for both sides to vote in competant leaders, but the cynic inside me cannot see this happening "any day now".
As it stands, both sides are hungry for agreements that give them far more than what is realistically achievable, this drives people to consider violence as an option. Once people start to realise that no amount of war is going to get their goal forfilled then we can start talking peace, that stage is still a long way off, neither side wishes to show appeasement politics or consider compromise solutions.