scout

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pardon me... who did you say was the aggressor? <span id='postcolor'> thats for free: in 29/11/1947 the UN decided on a partition plan: two countries for two people. the Arabs and Palestinians declared thats un acceptable. the "Yeshuv" agreed. since that day, there was a "de-facto" war in Israel, where israeli villages were attacked and sieged BY PALESTINIAN MILITIA! this war went on until the Brits left. and then 5 more states jopined the fray. they lost. period. THEY decided to fight, THEY lost. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Please don't try to tell the survivors, or any other Palestinians forced to flee, that you did not decide to fight in 1948. <span id='postcolor'> i understand that in your opinion we should have sat and waited them to slaughter us like they did in Gush-Etzion? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course by 1948, those unwelcome settlers were preparing to take half of the land they'd invaded to create an entirely new country without consulting with the native population.<span id='postcolor'> which most of it came with the first waves of jews from russia in the late 19th century. are we begining again? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Many of those who eventually became refugees started to fight back in the 1920's, when hundreds of thousands of immigrants started settling in their country without their permission<span id='postcolor'> every piece of land was paid for. fair and square. tell me, if we tried to throw away the palestinian population why did they stay in Jaffa, Haifa, Akko, Um-el-Phahem, Taibe, Baka-el-Garbia and many more villages, and not fled from the "massacaring" army? why didnt they flee in '67? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why was Jerusalem not the capital before 1950?<span id='postcolor'> very smart move, to move your whole parlimant to a mortar shell range, before knowing the situation is stable. did the russians remain in moscow when the germans approached? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Why do most countries still refuse to move their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?<span id='postcolor'> until '67 it was matter of safety, most countries feared the ongoing clashes between the IDF and the Jordanian army. most consulates in eastern jerusalem were built far from the front line. after '67 it became matter of politics. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> LOL... Including a strip of desert next to the Gaza strip where Israel currently dumps its toxic waste. <span id='postcolor'> Ramat Hovav is even close to the gaza strip. the area offered is actually consists of fields owned by villages. so much for your ability to read maps.............

talking guns, this is my weapon while im on ToD

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WAKF ? <span id='postcolor'> an islamic-palestinian organizatio that effectivly controls the temple mount since 1967. actually maintaining an autonomous area of control. they pretty much decide what happens there. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well the deal was only 90% of the land<span id='postcolor'> and compensating with another 5% in other areas. but yes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did Britain rob over half the German population of their land, homes and businesses, leaving them exiled in refugee camps for generations? <span id='postcolor'> not we decided to fight in 1948 they did! and they lost! i wont take the responsebility to the actions of agrresors! you are day dreaming! and Jerusalem was Israeli PRIOR '67. it was split to half. the Kenneset resided in Jerusalem PRIOR '67. get your fact for real! edit: bogo: same offer as barak. Eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods under PA control. the old city stay ours. Temple mount stays under the "wakf". if you are asking about the settlement, take a look on the map offered in Camp-David.

essentially, Barak's plan, including the disarmanment of any faction except the Palestinian police. Removal of the PLO from the territories. BTW. seems that there is an agreement to give away positions within the Gaza strip to the PA, conditioned with keeping the peace. lets see how that'll hold...........

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here is a report on what affect the corfues posed by Israel in the palestinan land is doing to them. <span id='postcolor'> actually its the fact that they cant go to work in Israel and thus cant make money. in the west bank most Pals have fields and most villages are self sustained. as the article said, Gaza was hit mostly because, ulike the west bank they cant smuggle into Israel to find work. Bernadotte: where in eastern europe?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But whenever we explain to you the difficulties and holes in Israel's policies then we are pointing fingers... right? <span id='postcolor'> er........ did i say our policy was the best course? errrrr...... let me quote myself "I cant think a viable solution right now" unlike you, im not willing to gamble away my country for some wild card that proved to be an extreme. Nevill Chemberline (spelling?) negotiated with Nazi Germany "cause that the govt. there is". well, im not willing to make that mistake. its so easy to give away others...........as long it doesnt hurt yourself. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So how can such oil-rich nations continue to keep their people so poor and uneducated? By focusing their attention on what Israel is doing to Palestinians. That's exactly why the government controlled Arab media is so full of hate towards Israel.<span id='postcolor'> does Egypt is "oil rich"? maybe Syria? but the reason you gave is the correct:</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">where they want to keep the corrupt leadership in power <span id='postcolor'> its not the oil companies, its the governments themselves, its a great way to distract people of the corruption in theiri countries by flaming religion.

a deeper explanation: flashlight - entering dark areas, work both on illuminating a large area and blinding the other side. draw back: you are anouncing your presence world wide. to be used in absence of NVG's. red point- its essensially a sight, that points LOS of the barrel, good up to 50 meters, and your signature is much smaller, although you have to be very careful with it, since it still can give you position away. IR laser pointer - same as above but is unvisible to the naked eye, thus demanding the user to be equiped with NVGs. a major plus is that in order to detect you the opponent have to have a NVG' a major minus, is that ppl tend to be over confident in that plus, and if the bad guy has NVG, they are up to a nasty surprise. i've myself used this kind of equipment both with MG and M16A1, and it a very good sight, though you need to be extra careful not to use it too much.

visible light = flashlight. visible laser = red point AN/PEQ-2 = IR laser pointer, visible only with NVG thus retaining a certain degree of invisiblity.

i held for a short time this gun. i was compensating for lack of machine gun....... but only 7 bullets....... but now, since ive became a poor bugger, i hold a rusty FN 9mm, and only because of my work. argggggggghhhhhhhhh........what a fucked-up piece of equipment. edit: well, if we're talking guns.......here is my cutie

i have to correct couple of mistakes here: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However, it's pretty well-established that America had broken the Japanese naval code and had advance warning of the attack,<span id='postcolor'> wrong, at this time they broke only the diplomatic code. they didnt break the Naval code for another half a year. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">therefore it seems likely to me that those carriers were deliberately moved out beforehand... the US government was eager for an excuse to join the war, and the US navy could afford to lose a few battleships, but not carriers.<span id='postcolor'> wrong. the US navy, Just as the IJN didnt think at the time that AC's would become major fighting platforms. in War Plan Orange, the carrier force should have been split and take Recon roles, while the Battleship line would engage in "the Decisive Battle" while in the IJN the common belief was that the AC's are good for atrittion and long-range bombing, but the main battle would be fought with batleships. as the IJN put the USN battleline out of work the USN had to make do with what it had. which were carriers. if you'll examine engagement prior Midway you'll see that there was a great deal of indecisiveness in Carrier battles, especially the Coral sea, on both sides. the Americans got the trick faster and thats what gave them victory. i'll remind you that only in Midway did the USN consentrate its Carrier force.

if you'd like to know the difference between western and eastern bloc philosphy of arms: eastern bloc: this weapon would fit your blind, half deaf, peasant mother-in-law of yours western bloc: talk to me after you've finished your degree. thats why americans build very good weapon systems but their Infantry weapons suck and vice versa.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please tell me what I've written that you consider to be propaganda. <span id='postcolor'> the same one you consider. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps you should have said instead that you don't excuse the settlements. *period* <span id='postcolor'> ok. I dont excuse settlements PERIOD. clear? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I posted my proposal 3 weeks ago, all you did was point fingers. It is you who has failed to respond with any viable course. <span id='postcolor'> first of all, i've said i dont see any solution here. secondly, you've failed to administer to the problem of Jerusalem and your solution to Palestinian right of return is TOTALLY unacceptable by ANY israeli. thirdly, i've pointed on holes in your suggestions. i wasnt pointing fingers, i was explaining the difficulties in your suggestion. if you cant understand what is taboo to the common Israeli, thats your problem. and you still dont offer anyone to negotiate with. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FYI... The West Bank was never Jordanian and Gaza was never Egyptian. Those nations only agreed to administer those territories until the Palestinian crisis could be resolved. The land which you settle has been stolen from the Palestinians<span id='postcolor'> oh, please, get real. administer. uh-huh and there are green martians amongst us.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">now tell me. with whom should we negotiate on peace?<span id='postcolor'> pssstt. guys, i still waiting for these REAl-Politik words of wisdom. i hardly hold my breath.......

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not even the palestinians belive that. <span id='postcolor'> now do they? ive posted so many links here, saying that the ultimate goal is whole palestine. try the bull twice links. do you even read 'em? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm ocupuing Palestina that will lead to ARABS= LOVING ISRAEL FOR THAT<span id='postcolor'> ohh, and they loved us so very much before '67 right? DOH!