Palestine Liberation Front bomb-making camp found in Iraq

[cerulean]

Anyone who keeps up even slightly with the Middle East knows that Saddam pays off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. As I posted on another thread, a Palestinian terrorist was killed in one of the US bombings in Iraq.

Now it appears US marines have found a Palestine Liberation Front bomb-making facility.
http://www.ptd.net/webnews/wed/ch/Qiraq-war-plf-training.R8Sh_DA7.html

US marines discover "PLF faction's bomb-making facility" in Iraq Monday, 07-Apr-2003 9:20AM Story from AFP
Copyright 2003 by Agence France-Presse (via ClariNet)

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


NEAR BAGHDAD, April 7 (AFP) - US Marines in Iraq have discovered bomb-making facilities at a facility described as a training camp operated by the a faction of the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), a military spokesman said Monday.

Bomb-making facilities, chemicals, mortars, gas masks and AK-47s were found inside the 20-building complex to the east of Baghdad, said Public Affairs Officer Corporal John Hoellwarth.

The complex, which was the size of a battalion headquarters, featured pictures of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, PLF faction leader Abu Abbas and the PLF's flag, Hoellwarth added.

Other photos included pictures of Abu Abbas posing with a brigadier general from Saddam's Republican Guard inside the camp.

Boxes of documents with PLF letterheads were also seized.

Stores of fresh food including fresh tomatos and potatos were seen, indicating that the complex had recently been vacated.

Followers of Abu Abbas carried the deadly attack in 1985 on the cruise ship Achille Lauro, but renounced terrorism after the 1993 Oslo peace accords between Israel and Palestinians.

Abbas had been based in Tunisia but was more recently thought to be based in Baghdad.

lh-co/dab

Iraq-war-PLF-training

[NewsGuy]

It's time that the American people start to realize that Palestinians are enemies of the U.S., just like Saddam's regime.

I can't believe that Bush is still having visions of an independent Palestinian state at this point.

The chemical weapons made by the Palestinians in Iraq are just a small hint of the scope of the weapons of mass destruction planned by the Palestinians in their own state, of they ever get one.

[mimil]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
It's time that the American people start to realize that Palestinians are enemies of the U.S., just like Saddam's regime.

I can't believe that Bush is still having visions of an independent Palestinian state at this point.

The chemical weapons made by the Palestinians in Iraq are just a small hint of the scope of the weapons of mass destruction planned by the Palestinians in their own state, of they ever get one.

Do you really believe that the US leaders see Israel as a friend? An ally maybe. Beside they have the bomb!!! How stupid will it be to oppose Israel. Do you think Mr Bush really bother about the fact that Israel will be the one along with turkey, pakistan and the rest of the middle east to suffer from the consequences of this war. No, of course not, they will soon go back to their peacefull life and will enter a new cycle of "The world can vanish we don't give a " and Israel could cry all their tears out that it will not move them a bit.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
Do you really believe that the US leaders see Israel as a friend?
Yes.

An ally maybe. Beside they have the bomb!!!
What's your point?

How stupid will it be to oppose Israel.
Ask every braindead arab army that ever tried.

Do you think Mr Bush really bother about the fact that Israel will be the one along with turkey, pakistan and the rest of the middle east to suffer from the consequences of this war.
Specious argument. A short term bummer is preferable to the concept that arabs will continue to rely upon a longtime jihadist mentality. The counter argument that war in iraq will create more jihadists is fairly meaningless. The hatred of jihadists against the West is no longer some great secret. We can see them coming now. And they can see we're already THERE .

No, of course not, they will soon go back to their peacefull life and will enter a new cycle of "The world can vanish we don't give a " and Israel could cry all their tears out that it will not move them a bit
All your faulty premises lead to a faulty conclusion.

[elke]

Originally posted by mimil
Do you really believe that the US leaders see Israel as a friend? An ally maybe. Beside they have the bomb!!! How stupid will it be to oppose Israel. Do you think Mr Bush really bother about the fact that Israel will be the one along with turkey, pakistan and the rest of the middle east to suffer from the consequences of this war. No, of course not, they will soon go back to their peacefull life and will enter a new cycle of "The world can vanish we don't give a " and Israel could cry all their tears out that it will not move them a bit.

Mimil, from "the spot", so to speak: yes, I do believe that Americans - and consequently, the leadership of the US, - sees Israel as a friend, as well as an ally. This has to do with a number of factors, not the least of which is that Israelis seem to genuinely like Americans, unlike people in many other countries.

This is not to say that US will ever do something directly against its own interests to help Israel. That's not how international diplomacy works. However, the friendship is there, as much as friendships between political entities are possible.

[cerulean]

More info about this camp here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31939

The camp was recently in use and there are signs weapons were sold to Palestinians quite recently.

This article is based on an LA Times article, which I can't find.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
Do you really believe that the US leaders see Israel as a friend? An ally maybe. Beside they have the bomb!!! How stupid will it be to oppose Israel. Do you think Mr Bush really bother about the fact that Israel will be the one along with turkey, pakistan and the rest of the middle east to suffer from the consequences of this war. No, of course not, they will soon go back to their peacefull life and will enter a new cycle of "The world can vanish we don't give a " and Israel could cry all their tears out that it will not move them a bit.

I remember hearing Colin Powell say, at the Israel America PAC meeting, that "Israel was America's "best" ally and friend." And.... we just gave them another billion dollars (for free) to help upgrade their military, and, seven billion in loan guarantees. I'd say they're a darned good friend.... Besides, do you realize how many Israelis are from America, or those that have families in America?

And as far as them having "the bomb", where do you think they got the plutonium? :rolleyes:

[Mediocrates]

The Israeli nuclear materials came initially from the French under agreement that developed the Dimona reactor in exchange for supplying aerospace technology that made the French airforce nuclear capable. The raw materials, commonly called 'redcake' probably were sourced from South Africa. The RSA also codeveloped nuclear weapons with Israel before aborting their own program. There is some evidence to suggest that the RSA and Israel tested a weapon in the Indian Ocean, in the 70's.

After 1965 the Israelis pioneered their own nuclear separation technology that has allowed them to develop weapons which use very small amounts of material - probably on the order of 3-5Kg per device. On its own this is probably Nobel quality work that pushes the envelope of nuclear chemistry and nuclear engineering. There is some evidence to suggest that the Israelis developed the initial theory of laser excitation for nuclear enrichment. If this is correct then it is probably safe to assume that the Israelis have also developed a practical fast-fission-fusion enhanced yield cobalt wrapper device aka the 'neutron bomb' and stuffed it into a package as small as an artillery shell.

This information is summarized in several articles posted at the Federation of American Scientists (fas.org)

[mimil]

Mediocrates was faster than me on this one. Anyway, I am getting too emotional over this all story and sometimes am not too sure what I think or what I write. Sorry to the people I have offended so far.

[richcrassus]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
If this is correct then it is probably safe to assume that the Israelis have also developed a practical fast-fission-fusion enhanced yield cobalt wrapper device aka the 'neutron bomb' and stuffed it into a package as small as an artillery shell.

This information is summarized in several articles posted at the Federation of American Scientists (fas.org)

Neutron Bombs are horific weapons, israel actually has used chemical weapons in Southern Lebanon during the 82 war, it dropped Phosforous(probably wrong spelling), bombs in civiliam areas and many people died slow agonising deaths.

Neutron bombs are worse, they dont actually produce an explosion as such, what they do is realease gamma rays in large amounts. Gamma rays kill living flesh, they are like invisible bullets penetrating your body, and nothing stops them, not chemical suits, nothing, not even tank armour. And once a victim is exposed you die in a horrific way, slowly, screaming for someone to put a bullet in your pathetic skull to stop the pain.
It causes severe nausea, if you cant imagine that, think of the last time u got food poisionng and multiply it by 100. Not even anti nausea pills help much. Eventually afetr hours or maybe even days(if you got exposed to little of it) of torture, you die.

Israel would only use neutron bombs in the most worst case, say if there were 10,000 tanks and APC's ready to attack from jordan and 5,000 ready to attack from the north. Than they should be used. I cant imagine any other justification for using a weapon like that, unless of course we get a US president or israeli PM who is mentally sick and paranoid and they order it to be used.

[L@mplighterM]

Send the bloody Palestinians into Iraq and to hell with world opinion.
Another couple of million more Arabs in Iraq won’t matter one way or the other. It’ll most likely be cheaper for the world to pour their money into one state versus two.

[Mediocrates]

Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, in fact it's not clear how phosphorous could be used as a weapon by itself. I suppose it could be deployed like napalm but I've never seen any evidence to even suggest that. Please provide some intel

Neutron bombs are weapons that leave the buildings standing but kill people. President Jimmy Carter staked out a position that these were 'evil' or immoral.

BTW I am a radiation LD50 survivor or something pretty close to that (3000 rems) as well as a Superfund chemical pollutant case. I know about this stuff.

[tandem]

Originally posted by mimil
Do you really believe that the US leaders see Israel as a friend? An ally maybe.
i might get flamed for this (bring it on ay!) but i agree with you on this. america has a history of turning their back on what they call "allies" (i.e. the kurds in iraq after the gulf war). in fact, they're turning their back on israel right now by pressuring them to make peace with terrorists, and actually assuring the europeans that they will "take care of it". don't forget people, america has the mossad on top of their "most dangerous" list, right after the chinese intelligence service. the US obviously tries to control israel so that american interests in the area are protected. i mean, it is the americans who pressured israel to practice restraint when responding to arab aggression. i believe that's why the US is giving israel 3$ billion every year. the defense aid package has very strict limit on how the money can be used and where, which most of the time the money ends up right back in the US economy. not that israel needs this 3$ billion of aid. israel's GDP is about 120$ billion, which means the israelis are capable of sustaining themselves. i think the american aid is there to prevent israel from getting their weapons elsewhere, like from russia. the russians will sell anything to anybody just as long as you have the cash

[Batman]

Originally posted by richcrassus
...israel actually has used chemical weapons in Southern Lebanon during the 82 war, it dropped Phosforous(probably wrong spelling), bombs in civiliam areas and many people died slow agonising deaths.



I don't believe this. Can you prove this?

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I am a radiation LD50 survivor or something pretty close to that (3000 rems) as well as a Superfund chemical pollutant case. I know about this stuff. Gosh.

Some US Army exercise years and year ago?

[eyl]

Phospherus is used in military incendiary weapons (e.g. incendiery grenades). Technically, it IS a chemical weapon (though not a WMD), which doesn't stop most of the world's armies from using it.


Originally posted by Mediocrates
Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, in fact it's not clear how phosphorous could be used as a weapon by itself. I suppose it could be deployed like napalm but I've never seen any evidence to even suggest that. Please provide some intel

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by eyl
Phospherus is used in military incendiary weapons (e.g. incendiery grenades). Technically, it IS a chemical weapon (though not a WMD), which doesn't stop most of the world's armies from using it.
Phosphorus is listed #15 on the Table of the Elements. It is not a chemical and it does not spread in the commonly understood manner of any chemical weapon. It has an extremely "localized" application, and, in my experience, is generally to be found in a particular type of hand grenade.

http://www.thevietnam-database.co.uk/USarmy/Grenades.htm

White Phosphorus Smoke Hand Grenades
M15 White Phosphorus Smoke Hand Grenade
Description: This grenade is made of smooth sheet metal and is cylindrical in shape with slightly rounded ends. It weighs 31 ounces and contains 15 ounces of white phosphorus filler, employing a detonator type fuse. The body of the grenade is grey with yellow markings. The detonator spreads small particles of white phosphorus that when come into contact with the air burn at high temperatures giving off a dense white smoke. It burns for around 60 seconds and will ignite any flammable substance it comes into contact with

[richcrassus]

umm no i cant provve it since i read it in a book written by a self hating jew probably, and i cant remeber the name of the book or the author.

[eyl]

Actually, phosphorus is a chemical (the definition in Miriam-Webster's is "a substance produced by or used in a chemical reaction", and phosphorus definately falls under the second part of the definition). However, I checked again, and it seems you're right on the main point; the Geneva Conventions define chemical weapons as "asphixiating or toxic", which does not include phosphorus (or napalm, for that matter).


Originally posted by MichaelC
Phosphorus is listed #15 on the Table of the Elements. It is not a chemical and it does not spread in the commonly understood manner of any chemical weapon. It has an extremely "localized" application, and, in my experience, is generally to be found in a particular type of hand grenade.

[Batman]

Originally posted by richcrassus
umm no i cant provve it since i read it in a book written by a self hating jew probably, and i cant remeber the name of the book or the author.

But you wrote it as if it's fact. you wrote this in your post #10:


"Neutron Bombs are horific weapons, israel actually has used chemical weapons in Southern Lebanon during the 82 war, it dropped Phosforous(probably wrong spelling), bombs in civiliam areas and many people died slow agonising deaths."

why didn't you specify that this is a false assumption made by a self hating Jew in a book you can't recall?

This is false info presented as if factual. Shouldn't be

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by eyl
Actually, phosphorus is a chemical (the definition in Miriam-Webster's is "a substance produced by or used in a chemical reaction", and phosphorus definately falls under the second part of the definition). However, I checked again, and it seems you're right on the main point; the Geneva Conventions define chemical weapons as "asphixiating or toxic", which does not include phosphorus (or napalm, for that matter).
Look, I don't want to get into an argument that has no particular value. The bandying about of the word "chemical" as in "Israel has used chemical weapons in Lebanon", put forth by richcrassus, is inflammatory and misleading. However YOU might wish to characterize it, phosphorous as most people accept it, is not commonly considered to be a chemical.

HENCE:

Merriam-Webster's and Cambridge's online definitions:

(1) MERRIAM-WEBSTER
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?Phosphorus

One entry found for phosphorus.
Main Entry: phos·pho·rus 
Pronunciation: 'fäs-f(&-)r&s
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: New Latin, from Greek phOsphoros light-bearing -- more at PHOSPHOR
Date: 1645
1 : a phosphorescent substance or body; especially : one that shines or glows in the dark
2 : a nonmetallic element of the nitrogen family that occurs widely especially as phosphates -- see ELEMENT table

(2) CAMBRIDGE ADVANCED LEARNER'S DICTIONARY

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=59460&dict=CALD

phosphorus noun [U]
a poisonous yellowish white or (more rarely) red or black element that shines in the dark and burns when in the air

[richcrassus]

Originally posted by Batman
But you wrote it as if it's fact. you wrote this in your post #10:



why didn't you specify that this is a false assumption made by a self hating Jew in a book you can't recall?

This is false info presented as if factual. Shouldn't be

Actually is it fact, when i was reading the book, it was before i knew about israelforum, and i didnt think to write the name or the author of the book to use it later as evidence.
I do reacall the book being non-fiction, and the author was a woman who is an israeli citizen, it was paperback and about 5cms thick.

[richcrassus]

Go to yahoo.com
type
Israel used phosphorus bombs
its the first story.
it dosent talk about 1982, but there other articles on the page, most anti israel though.

[mimil]

Hello MichaelC,

Can I also play with words?

Main Entry: chemical
Function: noun
Date: 1747
: a substance obtained by a chemical process or used for producing a chemical effect

Main Entry: chemical weapon
Function: noun
Date: 1980
: a weapon used in chemical warfare

Main Entry: chemical warfare
Function: noun
Date: 1917
: tactical warfare using incendiary mixtures, smokes, or irritant, burning, poisonous, or asphyxiating gases

Phosphorus is used to produce a chemical effect: Burn everything around. Burning you would agree is a chemical reaction. Looking at the definition of chemical warfare, I see burning in the middle. I have to agree that Phosphorus is not a mixture, but consider that oxygen is the other element that trigger the reaction, and you have your mixture. Therefore phosphorus can be considered as a "chemical" used in the production of "chemical weapons" for the purpose of "chemical warfare" .

Never the less, I have no further opinion about the issue, I am just annoyed by your will to always sound superior and smarter.
Regards.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
Hello MichaelC,

Can I also play with words?

Main Entry: chemical
Function: noun
Date: 1747
: a substance obtained by a chemical process or used for producing a chemical effect

Main Entry: chemical weapon
Function: noun
Date: 1980
: a weapon used in chemical warfare

Main Entry: chemical warfare
Function: noun
Date: 1917
: tactical warfare using incendiary mixtures, smokes, or irritant, burning, poisonous, or asphyxiating gases

Phosphorus is used to produce a chemical effect: Burn everything around. Burning you would agree is a chemical reaction. Looking at the definition of chemical warfare, I see burning in the middle. I have to agree that Phosphorus is not a mixture, but consider that oxygen is the other element that trigger the reaction, and you have your mixture. Therefore phosphorus can be considered as a "chemical" used in the production of "chemical weapons" for the purpose of "chemical warfare" .

Never the less, I have no further opinion about the issue, I am just annoyed by your will to always sound superior and smarter.
Regards.
Whew!! You certainly did twist and bend that explanation to squeeze a meaning out of it that suited your agenda.

Funny that you felt so demeaned by my post that you just had to jump into the thread and accuse me of playing with words. That juggling act you just did to conjure up a definition from what I must assume is your "own" personal dictionary certainly fits the "playing with words" description much better than anything I did.

As for me, when Merrian-Webster was quoted by Eyl as the source for the definition of phosphorous, I just went to their website, read the definition of "phosphorous", reposted it with the URL, and highlighted the word "element", as I thought he must have "missed" it when he read the definition. Merriam-Webster didn't use the word "chemical" in their definition.

Same with the Cambridge Dictionary. Read, cite, highlight the word "element", include URL.

No need to make up my own definition in order to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

Pretty basic stuff. Not all that smart. Only superior to the efforts of anyone trying to B.S. others with phony information.

You appear to be feeling miffed at the way I post, with that not so subtle slam at my "superior" attitude. Well, don't make it so easy for me. You jumped in to defend eyl's phoney quote of Merriam-Webster and decided making up your own definitions was cool since he'd already done it. All just to slam me for a superior attitude? Tut, Tut, Mimil.....I think you are feeling some sort of lack of self esteem there. Is this really how you mean to get it back?

Regards.

[mimil]

Originally posted by MichaelC

Funny that you felt so demeaned by my post that you just had to jump into the thread and accuse me of playing with words. That juggling act you just did to conjure up a definition from what I must assume is your "own" personal dictionary certainly fits the "playing with words" description much better than anything I did.

[…]

No need to make up my own definition in order to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.


The definitions come from the very same web site you used: Merrian-Webster ;)
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?chemical
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?chemicalweapon
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?chemicalwarfare


Originally posted by MichaelC
I think you are feeling some sort of lack of self esteem there

Maybe you could lend me a little of yours, you surely have a lot to spare.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, in fact it's not clear how phosphorous could be used as a weapon by itself. I suppose it could be deployed like napalm but I've never seen any evidence to even suggest that. Please provide some intel


White phosphorus munitions have been used by the US military for years, and is well documented. Nasty stuff. Almost impossible to extinguish. During WWII, they were dropped on Japan and other areas in the theater. MK47 was the common designation. They were, also, used extensively during the Viet Nam war.

About White Phosporus (http://author.emedicine.com/emerg/topic918.htm) :eek:

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil

Never the less, I have no further opinion about the issue, I am just annoyed by your will to always sound superior and smarter.
Regards.

Folks, this is precisely what we mean when we say, "The pot can't call the kettle black." Bravo, Mimil. You've outdone yourself!

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Folks, this is precisely what we mean when we say, "The pot can't call the kettle black." Bravo, Mimil. You've outdone yourself!

Thanks Johnny, it's the first time I get a compliment from you :)
Too bad it is nothing sincere.
Anyway, forget about it this is going nowhere, you will never give up. I am glad to anounce you that you have won !!!

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by MichaelC
Tut, Tut, Mimil.....I think you are feeling some sort of lack of self esteem there. Is this really how you mean to get it back?



Originally posted by mimil
Maybe you could lend me a little of yours, you surely have a lot to spare.
Here, I'll show you how you get it: Always read the pertinent thread for context and especially the particular post that you leap in to defend, always post accurately, and most of all, as Johnny Yuma has been heard to say, "Don't let your mouth write checks that your ass can't cash."

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
Thanks Johnny, it's the first time I get a compliment from you :)
Too bad it is nothing sincere.
Anyway, forget about it this is going nowhere, you will never give up. I am glad to anounce you that you have won !!!

You may keep your sword and your sidearm.

[eyl]

Phoney?

Go back to the website and look up the definition of "chemical". And the fact that it's an element DOES NOT MEAN it is not a chemical (the classifications are element, molecule, compound; a chemical can be any of them).


Originally posted by MichaelC
You appear to be feeling miffed at the way I post, with that not so subtle slam at my "superior" attitude. Well, don't make it so easy for me. You jumped in to defend eyl's phoney quote of Merriam-Webster and decided making up your own definitions was cool since he'd already done it. All just to slam me for a superior attitude? Tut, Tut, Mimil.....I think you are feeling some sort of lack of self esteem there. Is this really how you mean to get it back?

Regards.

[Mediocrates]

I'm guessing that atomic bombs are really chemical weapons because one of the building blocks is uranium hexaflouride and you apply a straightforward chemical process to isolate the relevant isotopes.


Look folks, words are what they are:

antisemite
pornography
chemical weapon

for example. Chemical weapons are those devices or delivery modalities that inflict nonspecific injuries and death in a way that circumvents traditional military explosives, projectiles, fire in ways that are dificiult to protect against and cover a wide area or long length of time.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
Thanks Johnny, it's the first time I get a compliment from you :)
Too bad it is nothing sincere.

Oh I was being sincere alright. But....uh...er...um....anyway, you're welcome? :confused:


Anyway, forget about it this is going nowhere, you will never give up. I am glad to anounce you that you have won !!!

Uh huh... I said that you could keep your sword and your sidearm. What? An explanation? If I tried to explain it to you, Mimil, you'd probably try and argue about the explanation. You and I would both be better served if you asked someone else. Perhaps MichaelC? You seem to respect his knowlege base about as much as mine.

I also want to tell you that I do not like you or your politics. I find your view of the world immature, at best; your arguments to be emotional and without substance; and you, personally, tedius. In short, you make me tired... However, having said that, I do want to make a public apology for a comment I made to you about the desire for you to contract SARS. That was not true. I wish no harm on you; not really.

Best of luck, in the future. I hope we never cross paths.

[mimil]

Mediocrates: I agree that this discussion on the meaning of words is ridiculous. That was specifically the reason why I argued on it also. It is an easy task to question every word, and to find a sentence to discredit the whole. The same way you can prove pretty anything you want.

Johnny: I do respect your knowledge, I do not agree with your conclusion or your vision. I do not like some of my colleagues on a professional level, I am fine with them as persons and are really fun drinking pals. You can not mix everything together, which is what I don’t like also about your vision, Moslem are not all terrorist, actually its pretty far from the reality, and I could go on with a lot of other easy comparison: you don’t like my politics so you don’t like me. You don’t like me, so you do not like Singapore, you don’t like terrorists so you hate the entire Moslem community.

I wish we could meet, around a good whisky, disagreements could be overcome, and would be most pleased to bring you around and show you a little bit the world from a different angle than CNN or Fox news. From a different perspective than the big capitalist, colonialist, interests oriented politics, from a different angle than a PC screen an just words on a post, but from the perspective of people from everywhere that are in the end very little different from each other if you care to take the extra step to find it out.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
Mediocrates: I agree that this discussion on the meaning of words is ridiculous. That was specifically the reason why I argued on it also. It is an easy task to question every word, and to find a sentence to discredit the whole. The same way you can prove pretty anything you want.

Johnny: I do respect your knowledge, I do not agree with your conclusion or your vision. I do not like some of my colleagues on a professional level, I am fine with them as persons and are really fun drinking pals. You can not mix everything together, which is what I don’t like also about your vision, Moslem are not all terrorist, actually its pretty far from the reality, and I could go on with a lot of other easy comparison: you don’t like my politics so you don’t like me. You don’t like me, so you do not like Singapore, you don’t like terrorists so you hate the entire Moslem community.

I wish we could meet, around a good whisky, disagreements could be overcome, and would be most pleased to bring you around and show you a little bit the world from a different angle than CNN or Fox news. From a different perspective than the big capitalist, colonialist, interests oriented politics, from a different angle than a PC screen an just words on a post, but from the perspective of people from everywhere that are in the end very little different from each other if you care to take the extra step to find it out.

I never made a universal claim about "all moslems are terrorists". I'm not sure where you picked that up from but please point out the post. All I have said is that the Koran calls on them to put the people of the book to the sword if they don't convert, and, if they were "good" moslems, they would follow the precepts of the the Koran. Simply that. Not that all do.

As far as Singapore. It has nothing at all to do with you. No. Any country that canes its people can't be a good place. A clean one, perhaps, since they have outlawed chewing gum, but no. I definitely don't like the "city-state" of Singapore.

The reason I dislike you is not simply because of your politics. I can separate you from them. It's the thinly disguised tone of your posts and your having been on the opposite side of the fence throughout this war; there is no doubt which side you were on.. Frankly, I am completely justified in having and continuing to view you as my enemy, just as much as the Baa'th party Saddamites.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
Mediocrates: I agree that this discussion on the meaning of words is ridiculous. That was specifically the reason why I argued on it also. It is an easy task to question every word, and to find a sentence to discredit the whole. The same way you can prove pretty anything you want.
I view your entry into this particular discussion in a very different light.

Richcrassus accused Israel of engaging in chemical warefare. His contention was based on the use of phosphorous.

When he was challenged on this, Eyl stepped in to support his claim.

You then stepped in and snidely challenged my information.

So, as far as I read this thread, you and eyl and richcrassus would like to think that Israel engages in chemical warefare and will grasp at any straw to make the argument. I take exception to anyone making any suggestion at all that Israel is even remotely involved in such things.

By the way, I don't think you really understood what Mediocrates said. He was mocking people who redefine terms to further their own agendas, not questining the clarification of terms.

[mimil]

Believe as you will. Make me against Israel if you will. Define my friends as you will.

When I read you speak MichaelC, I better understand how one can hate. Sad discovery.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
Believe as you will. Make me against Israel if you will. Define my friends as you will.

When I read you speak MichaelC, I better understand how one can hate. Sad discovery.
How you have managed to deduce hatred from my position of clarifying what is and is not a chemical weapon leaves me baffled.

I am led to believe that your agenda is to instigate something or, more likely, you lack competence in conversational English, thus participating in these conversations at a disadvantage, often making guesses as to the actual meaning of the exchanges.

You are certainly free to draw any inference you so desire as to what a person might mean in their posts, but don't be surprised as you continue guessing at it, if people begin to react to your misunderstandings.

[eyl]

Next time, try reading what I actually post, will you?

First off, I later retracted that comment about chemical weapons after rechecking. Besides, my point was that they were technicaly chemical weapons, in a way that says more about the definition than about the weapons; my understanding is that tear gas also falls under the definition.




Originally posted by MichaelC
I view your entry into this particular discussion in a very different light.

Richcrassus accused Israel of engaging in chemical warefare. His contention was based on the use of phosphorous.

When he was challenged on this, Eyl stepped in to support his claim.

You then stepped in and snidely challenged my information.

So, as far as I read this thread, you and eyl and richcrassus would like to think that Israel engages in chemical warefare and will grasp at any straw to make the argument. I take exception to anyone making any suggestion at all that Israel is even remotely involved in such things.

By the way, I don't think you really understood what Mediocrates said. He was mocking people who redefine terms to further their own agendas, not questining the clarification of terms.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by eyl
Next time, try reading what I actually post, will you?
It seems to me that you may have lost track of who is talking to whom in this thread. As far as I have been able to tell, you took your ball and went home a while back, while others continued. Perhaps a careful re-reading of the thread might assure you that you are not being picked on.

[eyl]

Well,

So, as far as I read this thread, you and eyl and richcrassus would like to think that Israel engages in chemical warefare and will grasp at any straw to make the argument.
seems pointed at me (among others).







Originally posted by MichaelC
It seems to me that you may have lost track of who is talking to whom in this thread. As far as I have been able to tell, you took your ball and went home a while back, while others continued. Perhaps a careful re-reading of the thread might assure you that you are not being picked on.

[ibrodsky]

OK, I deleted mimil's last post and two replies that quoted it. Try to get back to the issues. Personal attacks and obscenity are not permitted.

[Batman]

Originally posted by richcrassus
Go to yahoo.com
type
Israel used phosphorus bombs
its the first story.
it dosent talk about 1982, but there other articles on the page, most anti israel though.

I did that and found out that the only sources who printed these lies are (guess who?) Arab papers such as written by the LEbanese who had to excuse their defeat by Israel with such Propaganda.

And (guess who?) Socialist Communist papers who obviously can't stand to see a Democracy like Israel not be accused of what the Communist -Socialist regimes are guilty of.

So are you looking for these sort of unreputable biased reports in order to spread lies about Israel? Why don't you have reputable sources to hang your claim on?