Katrina1211

ok your link doesn't work, and honestly, I can't be assed to watch a retarded 20 minute video that's not even legitimate. now why in the HELL would you post a video taken from a clearly pro-Israeli site and parade it around as some sort of godly masterpiece? are we supposed to applaud your "objectivity" and selection of a video that is, quite frankly, glorified propaganda? I mean, WHY should we take seriously or even tell ourselves that we want to learn the "truth" from a site that admits it's made up of mostly ISRAELI JEWS. yes, what a great idea. Let's try to get the "truth" based on an account from a clearly biased source. FROM A PARTY INVOLVED IN THE CONFLICT. riiiiiiight. and, in case you didn't realize it, the video is not a full 60 minutes segment. it has been edited.

hm a JEWISH newspaper BASED IN ISRAEL making allegations about evil Palestinians indoctrinating their evil, bomb-loving toddlers? doesn't sound phony at all to me.

most of you in this thread don't really have a clue what you're talking about, and I'm directing this at people on BOTH sides. a few corrections: +the Palestinian Authority is NOT a puppet group of Hamas. If it were, the two groups would not both be vying for prime control of Gaza. +Hamas is NOT Saudi funded. +Hamas IS a terrorist organization, but some Palestinians tolerate it because the organization has done a lot for education, food, and clothing for children, not because they're some warped cowards who enjoy seeing others die. If you're poor and starving and some group gives out food and water and clothing to you as a donation, you're bound to not mind the group's existence.

bomb blasts are not really rare for Egypt, although it is certainly rare for one of this scale. the egyptian gov't has a lot of problems and doesn't exactly do a great job of helping pull the country out of the hole it's in, so yeah....easy target, I guess.

I've been to all the Middle Eastern ones, and they're all pretty nice, I guess. Cairo is fun and interesting, but it's really, really dirty. If you go, DON'T bring any white clothes because they will be BLACK within a few hours. The city itself is fun, and it's foreigner-friendly, from my experience. Egypt has lots of great sights to see, and every single one of them is worth it. I have gorgeous pics of the pyramids, etc.. There's also some pretty good shopping in Cairo, but I don't know if you'd be into that. Dubai is gorgeous, and it's very western. It's expensive (to live there for sure), but the beach is nice. There are tons of Americans and Brits there, and the people are friendly and helpful. Lots of great shopping (but more expensive than Cairo), and Dubai has a great jewelry market. You can get a lot of beautiful gold for considerably cheaper than anywhere in the US or Europe. Jerusalem is good, I guess, but I wouldn't really suggest going there unless you have some real drive to, like for religious reasons. I mean, I never really felt unsafe, but I just don't think it's worth the hassle unless you have some strong conviction to visit there. Out of those that I've been to, choose whatever you're looking for. Egypt has great resorts and scenery, Dubai has beautiful beaches, and Jerusalem has sacred connections. It all depends on what you're wanting to do.

I've been to Dubai. It's really nice and fun, and if you go in the winter, it's not too hot. Winter is the high season, though. It's gorgeous, and I was tempted to spend all of my time in the jewelry/watch markets. They have beautiful jewels for relatively good deals. I'd suggest it. It's very western and friendly, too, so there's nothing to worry about. I've always had a good time.

I seriously doubt we'll attack Iran in the near future. It'd be a disaster to convince the public to go along with it. I'm a little confused as to why Syria and Lebanon are being brought up. As mentioned before, Assad is no fool, and he's not going to jeopardize himself. I think if we have to worry about anyone, it's the Saudis, considering the monarchy is crumbling and no one can control anyone in that country.

I don't want to turn this into a religion thread, but Islam is intended to be peaceful. Islam teaches to respect the other peoples "of the book," and it is actually very fair to women, if you choose to interpret it that way. I can't help what the whacko Saudis do, but it doesn't mean that their interpretation of Islam should serve to represent the entire religion. If you can't see some of the peaceful sides of Islam, then you don't know enough about the religion. Sure, there are some crazed out fundies that go overboard, but don't let that taint your perception of the entire religion. The problem here is that 24 is representing the Araz family as a typical, normal Arab-American family, and it implies that that's what could really be going on behind the doors of many Arab families. It's clearly not, and it only serves to further the public's already offbase interpretation of Muslims.

I'm a 24 lover, but even I thought the season premiere was a little unfair. I wouldn't object to having a Muslim terrorist family, but some of the comments the characters were making were absolutely outrageous. Stuff like, "oh Bairouz, we are the CHOSEN family. We must do this for Allah," and "you cannot date that non-believer" is just absurd. Not only does that go against the very principles of Islam, but also only serves to fuel the Islamophobia that's taking over this nation. It is very possible to show a terrorist that is not Muslim, as there are many non-Muslim terrorist groups. It is also not the first time that 24 has put a Muslim terrorist on the show. I think in season 2 there was one. I don't recall many of the details since I was in Guatemala when the show aired (fast-paced show + Spanish = major problem), but I'm positive that Jack Bauer went into a mosque looking for a suspect with a bomb of some sort. I wouldn't care about a Muslim terrorist and no disclaimer as long as the writers toned down some of the stuff the "true Muslims" say. Some of the garbage is just ridiculous.

If you're looking for tolerance of terrorists, you'll probably be disappointed here... 615198[/snapback] Who is this directed to?

That's a huge shame. I really like Colin Powell. I've never heard him imply he was looking to run for president (as a matter of fact, I think I've read somewhere that he was not interested in it), but if he was a candidate, I'd vote for him in a flash. Likewise with Obama. Neither Hillary nor Dean have any chance, although I don't mind either of them. Kerry, thankfully, is done with presidential politics. I'd vote Republican before voting Kerry.

When you're looking for an objective account of an issue, a source that doesn't clearly sway to one side or support one side more than the other is a better source than one that clearly has previous interests. Whatever about the name thing. It's not a huge deal, but just realize, that it's not very tolerant to laugh about different names. I'm sure you wouldn't particularly find it funny if I said, "OMG that guy is named Andres Mar?a Ramirez!!!!! har har har, he has a girls' name! har har har." I don't particularly care about where Arafat was born. However, realize that in the era and place in the world when he was born, there's a very good chance that any record (one of marriage, birth, or death) could be inaccurate or forged.

Sites that support Israel are not accurate according to you. And that makes no sense. Just assume that someone is wrong just because they're not on your side or they don't believe in the samething you believe in. That doesn't make sense. You have no reason to say that. What the hell? In a conflict that involves the Palestinians and the ISRAELIS, a source that clearly vouches support for Israel is NOT accurate and clearly biased. Get your head out of your ass. And I think there is something funny about Arafats name because us(people who live mostly in Miami and if not then live in the rest of the U.S. and very few don't)So in the U.S. we are not farmilar with those types of names. And his name is huge and none of the words include "Yassir"...so where does Yassir come from? lol His name is so long and what he call him isn't even in his real name. Don't try to use the fact that you live in Miami to make up for your ignorance and lack of cultural respect. And there are documents and many things that say where and when Arafat was born. We know for sure he was born in Cairo. They have a lot of proof. Reporters just don't know what they're reporting when they report it a lot of times. They hear Arafat say he was born in Israel (because he wishes he was)so they report that he was born in Israel and before you know it everyone thinks he was born in Israel. That's what happens. 614506[/snapback] Yeah, because it's not hard to forge a document in the Middle East at all...

That source is bull. First off, any site reporting on Arafat's death that is affiliated with two sites that are petitions for people to support Israel and speak out against the Palestinians is NOT unbiased and NOT accurate. I don't think there's anything particularly funny about Arafat's name. Many Arabs are named Abdelrahman or the like, and 99% of them go by some nickname. Arafat did not singlehandedly start the Lebanese civil war. The Syrians had a large part in it, as well as angry factions within the country. Middle Eastern records in the 1920's are absolutely horrible. There are many elder people now who have no clue where they were born or even in what year. see, people in the Middle East in that time would say that someone was born in "the year of the severe flood" and leave it at that. Likewise, it's quite easy to not know whether someone born in that time was really born in Hebron or Amman. I don't know much about Arafat's birth certificate (nor do I give a s***), but one could easily dispute the validity of any claim of the day/month/year/place of someone as old as Arafat.

Ours is 8:05-3:05, but since everyone is required to do either a sport or an art, most people don't leave school until 5:00-5:30 because there are always practices after school from 3:30 on.

english and arabic. I take Spanish and Latin in school (not that Latin is too useful, except for roots). I'm hoping to pick up some Finnish soon, since that's where my dad's from, but the language is crazy impossible.

They're masking it as a political statement, and I really don't think he did it out of fear of losing and being punished. Although if he had fought and lost, he would have "shamed" himself and his family (or so the Persian mindset would have been). Any heat that he would have felt would have been mostly brought on by himself. I don't think anyone would kill him for losing; he's a two-time world champ and probably one of the best Iran will ever have. He's too valuable. Anyway, who knows? I think it's a shame that politics had to be factored into the games. Like someone else said, it was refreshing that N/S Korea held hands, etc.

worst "political statement" ever. if he really wanted to "represent" or whatever bull he's saying, he should have just gone out there and kicked the Israeli guy's ass rather than just refusing to compete. the olympics are no place for politics.

He was just doing a job. The kingdom relies on thousands and thousands of outside workers. Part of this is due to cultural reasons that they've been trying to work on for a while now. Americans have been working in the kingdom for a very long time. I have a friend who father worked for ARAMCO. He was born in Saudi Arabia and lived 18 years of his life there on the gulf coast near Dammam, then spent 3 years in Lebanon doing salvage diving (this was before the PLO turned Lebanon into a moonscape) Granted he was doing his job, but with the recent rash of attacks (not only on westerners but also on the Saudi monarchy, who are really your only source of protection over there), he should have known better than to stay. I do not intend to advocate outsourcing, but it's no secret that American companies have lead to the enormous immigration of Indian and Pakistani nationals to the Persian Gulf. I'm sure that no American company would deny a request for a temporary transfer at the risk of something happening to the employee and then being held responsible for forcing him to stay. Poor guy. I guess his love for life and Saudi culture ended up becoming his downfall.

what a shame. God bless the poor guy's family. However, I do have one thing to say: what the hell was that guy still doing in the Gulf? I know he considers it "home," but Americans will stick out like a sore thumb over there, and it's basically like asking for trouble. someone will target you. Anyway, I used to be pretty anti-Saudi royal family (SRF), but I've gotten a little better. Mind you, the gov't in Saudi Arabia is pretty f***ed up as it is now, but if any of these little coups that people are trying to stage actually worked, the new gov't would be MUCH worse. So at least the SRF is cooperating. However, I do believe that they used to play both sides of the game (kiss up to Arabs and Americans), but now, they're pretty much on the US side since they're under the spotlight. That said, they're not taking too many preventative measures, and the SRF is so corrupt and terrible, anyways. Fighting the war on terror is dumb because you'll never win it, get rid of it all, or stop new people from joining. the change has to be made with foreign policy, mainly the US support for Israel and now the Iraq war. AND to whoever (gah, now I can't find the post) was saying that the Arabs should stop whining about Abu Ghraib? Well didja ever think that the soldiers forced the prisoners into the sodomizing acts for a REASON? Do you think they just decided one day, "oh, I'm gonna make this f***ing Arab suck some other guy's dick just for the hell of it!" NO. They did it for a reason. The reason being that in Islam, many consider gay oral and anal sex a punishment WORSE than death. So the prisoners would probably rather be dead now. And as Americans, we should just shut the f*** up about what WE think is worse and look at the ones who have to endure it. I don't mean it to sound as mean as it does, but it had to be said.

yeah, I agree with the whole issue of making sure the convicted is really guilty. assuming there was a way to determine for sure, i'd be in favor of killing them rather than letting them live. however, it's really hard to be sure (especially here in houston where we've had issues with the DNA/crime labs in police departments.) so yes, i see where you're coming from.

I'm in support of it. then again, I do live in texas... basically, I believe it's the state's right to protect its citizens. that means, if you can assure that whoever is convicted is really guilty, the state has the right to avenge an innocent person's murder. i once knew a girl whose best friend and her mother's house was broken into. the guy murdered the girl and her mother and chopped them into pieces. he does NOT deserve to even have his life when he took 2 innocent ones. the death penalty will not deter people from committing crimes (other than maybe they'll think twice knowing that if caught, they'll be killed), but it DOES give peace of mind to the victim's family. i would be enraged to know that someone who murdered a loved one of mine is alive. and the death penalty doesn't always have to be "more expensive" than life in prison. for example, in china, the person to be killed's family pays for the bullet, and they're shot in the back of the head. of course, china isn't an ideal model for a lot of stuff, but still. people should be held accountable for their actions. i don't want my tax dollars supporting some lowlife murderer.

mmkay, a few points: -ariel sharon is an awful leader for the Israeli cause, and yasser arafat is even worse. honestly, if it wasn't for the fact that it'd cause a hellish uprising in the middle east, i wish someone would just assasinate arafat because he's a dirty liar who just wants to stir s*** up. the palestinians could not have gotten any worse of a figure/leader to represent them. that said, sharon is definitely no angel, and the israelis don't have a great leader representing them, either. but arafat is worse. -the refugee camps ARE refugee camps, but countries like jordan, lebanon, etc. don't want to take in any more palestinian refugees because there are already so many (about 1.5 million in jordan alone), and both countries already have enough problems taking care of their citizens, let alone more refugees. plus, a lot of people are scared to bring in the refugees so that the israelis won't invade the country on the basis of "guerilla fighting" (refer to the entire lebanese civil war if you don't believe me). -there is no way to justify demolishing the homes of women and children and leaving them with nothing. -israel has repeatedly ignored UN resolutions; however, they can still do whatever they want because the US will not ever flat out condone their actions. -palestinians are not "muslim extremists" considering the fact that there are significant numbers of palestinian chrisitans has anyone stopped to think that if an "entire generation of child killers" is being raised over there, the israeli government sure as hell must be doing something to provoke it? have you ever considered the living conditions, regulations, second class treatment, etc. the palestinians endure? honestly, i wish both sides would just get leaders who really want to achieve peace. they're all humans and they all have the right to exist freely within that space without getting shot at by the other side. yes. [fyi: any response by me might be slightly delayed because i have final exams this week]

Oops, sorry for neglecting this thread for so long (easter vacation...I went up to austin) AND for bumping this thread up to the top again well, I love debating and politics. I really do, but there's one thing that's certain about me (and probably you too, sorianofan): I hold very strong opinions, and there's not much that anyone can really say to sway me. I will always be in favor of gay marriage, in support of abortion, the death penalty, etc., etc. Nothing is gonna change that. That said, I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you now. We'll always hold different opinions, and that's fine. I don't know if I'll be around much with AP exams and other stuff coming up, and quite frankly, this thread has given new meaning to the term "beating the dead horse." we've said what we want to say, and now we're just starting to repeat ourselves. no one is gonna change anyone's mind or let this issue settle. although I do disagree with you (and have called you some not-so-nice things), I do respect you as a person that tries to stay up on world news/politics. good for you. perhaps in a few months when the situation has progressed a little more, we can bring up this issue again.

what the f*** are you still rambling on about the "second intifadah" for? you're acting like there's some huge palestinian conspiracy theory. get over that. you say you bring in "credible" sources for estimates on Sabra and Shatila death tolls, but do you really expect me to believe the Jewish-American library. yeah, really unbiased. what the f*** is wrong with you? cnn CNN says more than 1,000 link 2 2,800 at each place Hobeika worked with Israel. they both killed the people, but it was Israeli guards that let LF into the camps in the first place. Hobeika is no saint, but the Israeli soldiers deserve a lot of the blame. regardless, that still does not change the fact that those camps were UNARMED and had no chances of plotting any attacks. you say they're plotting to make bombs? what the f*** are they going to make bombs out of, jackass? teapots? frying pans? oh wait, all the refugees are too poor to even AFFORD that stuff. they're just trying to survive. About lebanon's occupation, yeah, they did take half the country. and they split beirut in half. you don't watch fox news? Christ, could have fooled me. I have came up with commission reports, sound historical timelines, and a firm understanding of military history (and strategy mind you) and you have come up with nada! BWAHAHAHAHA. sweetheart, you won't even look at the bare facts of the Suez Canal Crisis as history. IT HAPPENED. i'm not talking about 1967. Egypt hadn't even joined with syria in the mid 1950's yet. this is directly after nasser's nationalization of the suez. I suggest you check your "sound historical timelines" a little more carefully. and if you call all the pro-israel bulls*** you've been pulling out of your ass "sources" then sure, you've certainly backed yourself up with "sources." Let me explain something to you about Arab news sources: arab newspapers in arabic and arab newspapers translated to english are not remotely similar. no one will translate half the s*** they say in arab newspapers, so the english version is a piece of garbage. you DON'T get the pro-palestinian arab point because no one has the balls to translate it. i don't give a flying f*** about an israeli paper being pro-palestinian because the issue at hand here is you claiming that no arab newspaper gives the palestinian viewpoint when you don't know s*** about arabic. now i'm gonna be like you, sorianofan: "if i amassed all the sugar packets in the world my incredibly accurate historical knowledge of everything that happens on both sides (from reading my very unbiased sources) would still be larger than your knowledge!!!!11111" "me:200304393 bajillion you: negative 20343504958 bajillion" Oh, what wisdom. and you say I can't hold an intelligent conversation?