What are you upset about? That palestinians don't kill more people? Is it for lack of trying or inability? This site reflects a clear bias, that you obviously didn't notice. Here's some links to suicide bombings by palestinians for you: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-05-29-israel-palestinians_x.htm Here's a pregnant woman wanting to blow up jews (you'd appreciate this) http://wap.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L13877653.htm Two more dead by a shopping mall. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/13/africa/web.mideast.php Yep, Israel retaliates against Hamas/Fatah for these attacks. Can you blame them? And then you chastise them for the deaths? I thought you said millions were dying each year and you point to 650? Surely you can do better. You hate jews sooo much. Justify your anger.
can you justify israel shooting innocent kids? ^ can you awnser that question without changing the subject or awnsering my question with another question
Since Hamas is known to use kids as human shields while they attack Israel, yep, I can justify self defense. When kids die, while being used as human shields by Hamas, do you blame Hamas or Israel? Can you justify the blowing up of busses and shopping centers?
I read the link, it doesn't explain the circumstances of these deaths, in fact it just says Israel killed more people than those terrorists groups who want to kill Jews. Israel killing more people just means the terrorists had their ass kicked not that they are innocent.
Here is why Palestinians kids sometimes get killed: “We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate usâ€
I suspect he probably doesn't see it as a bad thing in the first place. He's already admitted he wanted to see as many Jews and Americans killed as possible. Been doing some searching on this nut. He has a history of ripping people off. Not just here either.
Sure...Sure... you're quite right.. I feel the same way after smoking crack....Please pass me the pot..
I do. He has a few names as well. He really should take out his msn and aim ids from his profile here.
It's true that Jews lived in the region, however pre-Christ era Jews were nomadic. At least that is what the anthropologists believe. Jews really have no more claim to that land based upon historical precedent than any other race from the region.
The jews were the first to fertilize the land (remove the swamps) and make it more livable, which led to the permanent arab residents who moved in later.
And who lived there while the Jews were enslaved in Egypt? They managed to seize control of the country, as has happened many times before in history. Obviously some folks won't like that. But it is what it is. I just don't buy flawed theories about them being their first, or earlier than the Muslims. It's a weak argument, admittedly for a weak opponent.
You, seriously, wanna go back that far? Let's be slightly reasonable here. I don't debate who were there first; it's impossible to know, and frankly who cares. We do know that this was a nomadic area, essentially, for much of history. And wasn't really populated until jews made the area more friendly to permanent settlements. There has always been a jewish presence there. The romans tried to remove it. the ottomans tried to remove it. The british even tried to remove it. There was no government, no state, no nothing in the area. Just land that was controlled by one group or another. Either the ottomans, the romans, the british or someone else. The claim that jews stole someone's land is a joke. If you want to go back to who was first in a spot all over the planet; I bet no contemporary people have a right to live anywhere. British/French/Spanish are all there because of the roman conquests, julius caesar and people after him. If you want to continue down that silly line of conversation.