REAMOND
|
posted on February 25, 2003 12:46:23 PM new
Arab vandals desecrate Joseph's Tomb.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31203
|
neonmania
|
posted on February 25, 2003 02:35:17 PM new
In line behind the outrage that Isreali military is razes the home of "suspected terrorists" and those "Believed to be responsible for last nights actions". The areas are bound and determined to destroy each other and after numberous years of hearing about it I think people are numb to it. They are like the neighborhood drunks. After awhile everyone gets tired of trying to help them settle thier problems and decide to just let them beat the hell out of each other and be dome with it.
If express my whole opinion I'll be labeled anti-semetic. Maybe if they wanted to preserve the foundations of their belief they should have respected that of others. How many people were turned away from their Haj?
[ edited by neonmania on Feb 25, 2003 03:22 PM ]
|
colin
|
posted on February 25, 2003 03:26:58 PM new
neonmania,
I believe you've hit the nail on the head. That's the way the world feels to the plight of the entire middle east.
I was going to write much more but I would sound like a bigot too.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
|
gravid
|
posted on February 25, 2003 05:33:11 PM new
This conflict is no more about holiness than rape is about sex.
|
NearTheSea
|
posted on February 25, 2003 06:38:47 PM new
Israel wouldn't need to just 'beat the hell out of them and be done with them' they could certainly get 'rid' of them easily, but they haven't. And don't forget, the Palestinians have made their homes in 'camps' that were set up for them to stay until they would leave, or quit the damn terrorizing, but they don't so they stay.
Why Israel puts up with it all, someone else go find out. It belongs to Israel, and the other middle eastern countries just use the Palestinians as pawns in their game against Israel.
Ok jump the hell all over me... its my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
|
reamond
|
posted on February 25, 2003 08:42:48 PM new
i won't jump on you because you are correct.
If Israel desecrated or destroyed an Islamic religious shrine, the world would be outraged.
Muslims do it whenever they get a chance.
Israel should force all arabs out of Israel as soon as possible.
|
neonmania
|
posted on February 25, 2003 08:48:22 PM new
:::painting large target on chest:::
The only reason "it belongs to them" is because a guilty world gave them another nations land to appease their own conscience in 1948.
"They" decided that the best place to be after surviving Hitler was smack dab in the middle of thier historical enemies.
Please don't get me wrong - I am not by any means condoning the acts of terrorism on the parts of Palestinians but I am also not about to condone reciprocal acts of terrorism cloaked in military garb on the part of the Isrealis.
If the UN gave Utah to the Shoshone Indians do you think that Utah residents would just go quietly on their way or might they fight for their land and homes back?
By the way those are not brick and mortor tents that you see footage of Isreali tanks destroying the day after an attack. And isn't it quite amazing that within 16 hours of a suicide bombing Isreali officials have determined who all co-conspiritors were and killed them in gun battle or destroyed half the city block that they lived on?
If ANY other government pulled that the world would be all over them but because it's Isreal and there is an inherent sense of guilt . turn a blind eye... oh, and send money.
I don't hate Jews and I don't hate Isrealis but the acts of their Government are abhorent and at this polnt I (and it appears that of many others) are just tired of it all.
BTW - Yes, they could nuke the Palestinians if they wanted, but that would successfully abolish the worlds guilt and then what would they play on?
[ edited by neonmania on Feb 25, 2003 11:58 PM ]
|
Borillar
|
posted on February 25, 2003 10:36:46 PM new
Perhaps what needs to be done is to REMOVE all religious sites in that arrea and to transport them to a neutral haven, such as Swtizerland. We could move all of the churches, gravesites, homes, et. al. in toto and en masse and then arabs could no longer destroy relgious artifacts.
OR . . .
We could go into Mecca and plant a live nuclear device on the Stone. Should another religious attrocity occur, we'd set off the bomb and vaporize their Holy Rock (and the pilgrims with it).
Which plan do you think has a better chance of succeeding?
|
neonmania
|
posted on February 25, 2003 11:55:48 PM new
::in toto::
not nitpicking - just informing...
In Toto would mean you wanted to transport the items in a little dog from Kansas
En Todo is what you were looking for : )
|
REAMOND
|
posted on February 26, 2003 12:07:34 AM new
Not to be even more nitpicky, but "in toto" is correct usage - if one meant in the whole, altogether, entirely.
It may mean Dorothy's little dog if capitalized and for those ignorant of the Latin lexicon.
|
Borillar
|
posted on February 26, 2003 12:13:07 AM new
>En Todo is what you were looking for : )
Nada Problemo! 
Actually, I did mispell it. It is not "in toto" but rather, en toto.
|
Borillar
|
posted on February 26, 2003 12:15:16 AM new
Looking at that dictionary, I would say that in totus would be the most exact. I should have put the first statement "in toto" in italics to show that it was a foreign phrase. Sorry.
[ edited by Borillar on Feb 26, 2003 12:17 AM ]
|
neonmania
|
posted on February 26, 2003 12:21:21 AM new
My apologies. Both are actually correct
BTW - I was trying to use a little humor but shockingly it has been lost. What was I thinking?
|
REAMOND
|
posted on February 26, 2003 12:54:17 AM new
My dictionary lists it as "in toto" with the definition I provided above.
|
Borillar
|
posted on February 26, 2003 01:39:42 AM new
Bartleby's has it as in toto just like REAMOND's does. I looked up to see if 'in' would be better than 'en' and discovered this etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German in, Latin in, Greek en Date: before 12th century
So, actually, I was wrong in the sense that I should not be mixing up foreign phrases; that in toto would be proper usage, whereas 'en toto' would not be. It is amazing how many published writers are grammatically wrong in that case.
|
austbounty
|
posted on February 26, 2003 06:41:11 AM new
The Middle East Situation is a threat to us all.
There is no doubt they have WOMD, including stockpile of biological, chemical and I fear even nuclear.
The region has proven to be dominated by religious zealots, and all to quick to kill any that oppose them, which adds more turmoil to the region.
We should disarm them before its too late.
NOT INCLUDING ISRAEL, naturally.
Now that's outrageous!! Sounds exactly LIKE Israel.
Sharon found GUILTY of atrocities by Belgian court.
And you think I should be more outraged over the crumbling of some rocks.
A recent ABC documentary reported recent archaeological evidence to show that the walls of Jericho came down 100 years before Joseph.
You would instantly dismiss that, right REAMOND. I thought so.
|
neonmania
|
posted on February 26, 2003 07:54:57 AM new
Bor - na - "en todo " is just the Spatin version
Spanish + English = Spanglish
Spanish + Latin = Spatin
BTW - Reamond - I'm not saying that the Latin version is not correct- I admitted my mistake. I simply say saying that the phrae "en todo" is also correct, it's just the spanish version.
[ edited by neonmania on Feb 26, 2003 07:58 AM ]
|
reamond
|
posted on February 26, 2003 10:37:06 AM new
Well buenos tacos amigo.
|
