At what point will air travel become unaffordable

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:53:16 +0300, "Markku Grönroos"
wrote:


"Tchiowa" kirjoitti
glegroups.com...

wrote:
mrtravel wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Hitler explained that was his reason for going into other countries.
However, Hitler wasn't being attacked at the time. This is not the
situation with Israel. Israel's occupation came after it was attacked.

Really? When?

Starting the day after it was created in 1948. There was a UN
resolution creating 2 (that's right, TWO) nations in that area: Israel
and Palestine. Israel accepted and recognized the existence of
Palestine. The Arab states rejected and declared war on Israel and
immediately attacked. Israel has not had a day of peace since.

Perhaps you bedouin didn't pay attention to which usenet groups you are
posting this filth. This camel **** has not substance whatsoever in groups
like rec.travel.air or rec.travel.europe.

Does the phrase "****ing upwind" have any meaning for you?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006 02:25:21 -0700, wrote:


mrtravel wrote:
wrote:


You missed the recent events, huh?
Israel withdraws
Israel is attacked from the area it withdrew from.

Maybe they should end all their occupations, then no-one would have a
motive for attacking them.

LOL!

Glad you're amused. Maybe you can share a joke with the parents of the
50 children killed by Israeli "Defence" Forces in the last ten weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3681938.stm

B;

On 13 Sep 2006 12:31:30 -0700, wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006 02:25:21 -0700, wrote:


mrtravel wrote:
wrote:


You missed the recent events, huh?
Israel withdraws
Israel is attacked from the area it withdrew from.

Maybe they should end all their occupations, then no-one would have a
motive for attacking them.

LOL!

Glad you're amused. Maybe you can share a joke with the parents of the
50 children killed by Israeli "Defence" Forces in the last ten weeks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3681938.stm

"A problem has occurred loading the BBC News Player
The BBC News Player is not able to load on your computer at the
moment.

This is probably because you have JavaScript turned off."

Nope, it isn't!
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
wrote:
mrtravel wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

Hitler explained that was his reason for going into other countries.
However, Hitler wasn't being attacked at the time. This is not the
situation with Israel. Israel's occupation came after it was attacked.

Really? When?

Starting the day after it was created in 1948. There was a UN
resolution creating 2 (that's right, TWO) nations in that area: Israel
and Palestine. Israel accepted and recognized the existence of
Palestine. The Arab states rejected and declared war on Israel and
immediately attacked. Israel has not had a day of peace since.

They should stop attacking their neighbours, then.

?

Back in the 60s there was a movie that was so bad it became a classic:
Billly Jack. The theme was racism in the US southwest. In one
particular scene the rednecks decided to kill a young indian boy who
had been dating a white girl. So they found him hunting in the woods
and shot at him. The boy shot back. The rednecks looked at each other
and with an incredulous look one said "that damn injun is shooting
back!!!"

That kind of matches your remarks. Israel didn't start the original war
and didn't start the latest incident. To say that they are "attacking"
their neighbors is ridiculous.

wrote:
mrtravel wrote:
wrote:
They should stop attacking their neighbours, then.

B;

You missed the recent events, huh?
Israel withdraws
Israel is attacked from the area it withdrew from.

Maybe they should end all their occupations, then no-one would have a
motive for attacking them.

Or maybe you should get a grip on reality. The problems there aren't
about Israel occupying anything. They are about the fact that Israel
exists. Whenever you hear Hamas or Hezbollah or any of the other groups
talking about "The Occupied Territories" they are not talking about the
West Bank or Gaza or any of the other areas we think about. They are
talking about the nation of Israel itself. They consider any square
inch in that area controlled by a Jew to be "occupied". They are sworn
to the destruction of Israel completely. It's even in Hamas' charter.

If Hamas and Hezbollah and the other Palestinian groups were disarmed
there would be peace in the Middle East. If Israel disarms there would
be another Holocaust.

I can't help but wonder when I hear Euros demanding that Israel quit
defending itself when attacked if that isn't what they really want. The
history of racism in Europe against Jews is well documented. And
apparently not dead.

wrote:
(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per :
then no-one would have a
motive for attacking them.

False premise.

Blx.

Pete is right. The motive for attacking Israel is the fact that it
exists. Everything else is an excuse.

Tchiowa wrote:
Or maybe you should get a grip on reality. The problems there aren't
about Israel occupying anything. They are about the fact that Israel
exists. Whenever you hear Hamas or Hezbollah or any of the other groups
talking about "The Occupied Territories" they are not talking about the


You are listening to american rethoric which doesn'ty provide the full
picture. This is a bit like believing that northern ireland's conflict
was based on religion. It wasn't. It was a conflict between people of
irish and british origins and/or a conflict between poor and rich etc
etc etc. Far more complex than just what the media mentioned.

Simularly, the conflict in the middle east is far more complex than just
accepting the existance of one or the other country. There are a lot of
postion taking and negotiating tactics.

Israel/USA insist that peace must first be acheived before it is even
willing to negotiate peace. (aka: make sure no peace accord is ever
reached). And some middle east factions refuse to acknowledge Israel's
right to exist until Peace has been reached. Again, making sure peace
isn't reached.

If the USA's request that country X stop supplying arms to neighbours of
israel, then the USA must also announce it has stopped supplying arms to
Israel. Starving only one side of arms/money will not allow mutually
agreed peace plan.

And with the USA's souble standards, it not only increases hatred
against the USA (hence terrorism against the USA), but also discredits
any attempt to reach peace in the middle east.

nobody wrote:

Tchiowa wrote:

Or maybe you should get a grip on reality. The problems there aren't
about Israel occupying anything. They are about the fact that Israel
exists. Whenever you hear Hamas or Hezbollah or any of the other groups
talking about "The Occupied Territories" they are not talking about the



You are listening to american rethoric which doesn'ty provide the full
picture. This is a bit like believing that northern ireland's conflict
was based on religion. It wasn't. It was a conflict between people of
irish and british origins and/or a conflict between poor and rich etc
etc etc. Far more complex than just what the media mentioned.

Do you mean the Protestants weren't fighting the Catholics?


Simularly, the conflict in the middle east is far more complex than just
accepting the existance of one or the other country. There are a lot of
postion taking and negotiating tactics.

Israel/USA insist that peace must first be acheived before it is even
willing to negotiate peace. (aka: make sure no peace accord is ever
reached). And some middle east factions refuse to acknowledge Israel's
right to exist until Peace has been reached. Again, making sure peace
isn't reached.

The problem is with the factions that want to destroy Israel.
It's not about making peace with Israel. They want to destroy the
country. It isn't about these middle east factions living with Israel
after peace is acheived.

If the USA's request that country X stop supplying arms to neighbours of
israel, then the USA must also announce it has stopped supplying arms to
Israel. Starving only one side of arms/money will not allow mutually
agreed peace plan.


Remind me again, who attacked who first?

"Tchiowa" kirjoitti
legroups.com...

Perhaps the oddball finds another forum for this insane filth on ragheads.
What about some American travel groups? Perhaps they are most delighted on
this babble on hebes and camel riders of other sort. It is funny that
american barmies populate groups whose scope is in air travelling and
travelling in Europe. Are you really so bored that you don't find anything
meaningful to do? Perhaps there is an employer somewhere who pities you much
enough to hire you.

"Markku Grönroos" wrote........

"Tchiowa" kirjoitti
legroups.com...

Perhaps the oddball finds another forum for this insane filth on ragheads.
What about some American travel groups? Perhaps they are most delighted on
this babble on hebes and camel riders of other sort. It is funny that
american barmies populate groups whose scope is in air travelling and
travelling in Europe. Are you really so bored that you don't find anything
meaningful to do? Perhaps there is an employer somewhere who pities you
much enough to hire you.

Gee, this guy's terminology certainly makes it clear which side his Daddy
(if he was identified and recorded as such) fought on in WWII. I suspect he
keeps Daddy's armband in the cupboard (along with the jackboots) and
practices saluting with elbow, wrist and finger joints stiffly locked. At
least he seems an equal oppotunity hater, when it comes to racist paranoia.
I'd hate to think what an inventory of his home library, briefl though it's
certain to be, would reveal aside from the coloring books and crayon stubs.

TMO