|
On November 19 2012 05:44 calderon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:24 Feartheguru wrote:lol. Tried to take someone else's land, lost some of yours as a result. You sad? lol. The last time I checked it was Israel who made the preemptive strike in the six day war. lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again. The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> No you make the connection. I just proved your point wrong by using an exaggerated example. Think about it. By what you are saying if US did invade Canada and occupied it and built military outposts there you would think its fine.
So you admit it doesn't belong to the Arabs since they took it over 1500 years ago. Glad we have agreement then.
Again, I used YOUR logic, for the SOLE PURPOSE or showing your logic is bad. By proving what I said wrong (which is the point lol), you're proving yourself wrong.
|
On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:24 Feartheguru wrote:lol. Tried to take someone else's land, lost some of yours as a result. You sad? lol. The last time I checked it was Israel who made the preemptive strike in the six day war. lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again. The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>>
Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there.
|
On November 19 2012 05:40 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:25 m4inbrain wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Its actually not only hamas. There are alot of other terroristic "organisations" shooting rockets, even if you somehow could dismantle hamas for good, that won't stop the rockets. Maybe it will be a little less, but it won't stop. At least i guess, would've need to read up on that again. Ah, the Samson option, one of the biggest pieces of BS on the net that people quote without having a clue...
Look at the Wiki, there is no official source or any reason for Israel to do it. The closest the whole concept comes to the truth is the reasons Israel has nukes to begin with and that is M.A.D. Actually, i had my quotes directly from wiki, but thank you. I also don't know what M.A.D. means, other than "mad", which i would describe as dead on the money. Guess you need to tell me what it means. "The Samson Option is Israel's alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well.[1] The phrase also has been used more generally to describe Israel's nuclear program." I guess you are familiar with the wiki, so i don't need to quote all of it. There are israeli (or maybe jewish, i can't tell) extremists out there. The fear of a nuclear war "thanks" to israel is not irrational. M.A.D = mutually assured destruction. Israel feared that it was all over in the war of 73' and still didnt use nukes on those attacking it. "Alleged" says it all, there is 0 reason to nuke Europe and it will never happen, people who are that crazy will never be in power. Israel has had nukes for over 40 years now but the fear of nuclear war is mostly due to Iran. This isnt just a Israel vs. Iran thing, the fear is alot of other countries who are scared of Iran (such as UAE) will also get nukes.
You actually dodged something there. Do you agree that there are extremists in Israel (i can't tell if that's jewish or israeli extremism - excuse me)? That.. "some voices, somehow connected to israel" are voicing that opinion?
Oh, and just to be fair, i (i guess, we, as in europe) don't want to have Iran (or any other country there for that matter) armed with nukes. I would not even go so far to say that i would consider Israel on the same "step" as Iran, regarding threat to "worldpeace" (as if there was ever something like that even remotely). That does not change the fact that someone was insulted, because he said the world would be a safer place without Israel and Palestine right now. That's all. I don't even want to discuss how possible it would be for Israel to "destroy the world", it's pointless. I'm just saying, with voices like these, don't wonder if people just don't want to bother anymore with the situation you're in. And if you want it or not, it's actually more of a global matter than you (or i) would want.
Edit: it's a bit like the "islam-problem". People start to feel uneasy with Muslims around, just because some fuckers screw up and twist the religion to justify killing (and no, i don't want to discuss that either). Even though the muslims i know are, well, a bit weird (how can you not like pork?), but in no way dangerous or anything. Even the ones with long beards.
|
On November 19 2012 05:45 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:40 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:24 Feartheguru wrote:lol. Tried to take someone else's land, lost some of yours as a result. You sad? lol. The last time I checked it was Israel who made the preemptive strike in the six day war. lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again. So... you can use that same rationale to say that Israel started its invasion into Southern Lebanon and that Hezbollah was defending itself. What's your point. Ya! its not like it was done in the response to the killing of 2 soldiers and 3 taken hostage at all! Your posting shows your ignorance on all the issues you have posted on in this thread. Please do some basic homework and i hope no one responds to your "insightful" 1 liners until then.
Basic homework? There's been evidence also that Israel was planning that war for months in advance between the kidnapping of soldiers. The argument is that this was Hezbollah's pre-emptive strike to gain some grounds to prepare for the invasion. Which by your logic meant that Israel was the one declaring war. Was the strike on Pearl Harbour also a "preemptive strike" because Japan knew that America would declare war on it and hence the US was the one starting the war?
|
On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:24 Feartheguru wrote:lol. Tried to take someone else's land, lost some of yours as a result. You sad? lol. The last time I checked it was Israel who made the preemptive strike in the six day war. lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again. The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there.
Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk.
|
On November 19 2012 05:45 EtherealBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol. The difference is, the natives were expecting to finally gain independence after centuries of Ottoman and decades of British rule. If you look at some African borders, decolonisation happened without much care over ethnical borders, this is why so many border conflicts happen there to this day. Now in Palestine however, it's not just a border conflict, but an entire "state" was created over another one. If people had to guess who would rule Palestine after the British Mandate is over, it would have been the majority population obviously, and that would definitely create Israel over there...
2 States were offered (see partition plan), now you could argue that the British had no right to promise some of the land they owned, but they did. Had the arabs not decided to go "all in" it would be different today.
|
On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol.
So if you are looking at it from that perspective, Brits and Ottomans were sharing conflicts over the area of Palestine, I see you are leaving Ottomans right out of the subject. Brits won but without experiencing revolts every now and then, they grow tired of it. Afterwards they just say, hell let's just give it to the jews? All during that conflict, surprise surprise Palestinians were living there. So just because they had no super guns, they didn't exist?
|
On November 19 2012 05:47 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:40 Goozen wrote:On November 19 2012 05:25 m4inbrain wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Its actually not only hamas. There are alot of other terroristic "organisations" shooting rockets, even if you somehow could dismantle hamas for good, that won't stop the rockets. Maybe it will be a little less, but it won't stop. At least i guess, would've need to read up on that again. Ah, the Samson option, one of the biggest pieces of BS on the net that people quote without having a clue...
Look at the Wiki, there is no official source or any reason for Israel to do it. The closest the whole concept comes to the truth is the reasons Israel has nukes to begin with and that is M.A.D. Actually, i had my quotes directly from wiki, but thank you. I also don't know what M.A.D. means, other than "mad", which i would describe as dead on the money. Guess you need to tell me what it means. "The Samson Option is Israel's alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well.[1] The phrase also has been used more generally to describe Israel's nuclear program." I guess you are familiar with the wiki, so i don't need to quote all of it. There are israeli (or maybe jewish, i can't tell) extremists out there. The fear of a nuclear war "thanks" to israel is not irrational. M.A.D = mutually assured destruction. Israel feared that it was all over in the war of 73' and still didnt use nukes on those attacking it. "Alleged" says it all, there is 0 reason to nuke Europe and it will never happen, people who are that crazy will never be in power. Israel has had nukes for over 40 years now but the fear of nuclear war is mostly due to Iran. This isnt just a Israel vs. Iran thing, the fear is alot of other countries who are scared of Iran (such as UAE) will also get nukes. You actually dodged something there. Do you agree that there are extremists in Israel (i can't tell if that's jewish or israeli extremism - excuse me)? That.. "some voices, somehow connected to israel" are voicing that opinion? Oh, and just to be fair, i (i guess, we, as in europe) don't want to have Iran (or any other country there for that matter) armed with nukes. I would not even go so far to say that i would consider Israel on the same "step" as Iran, regarding threat to "worldpeace" (as if there was ever something like that even remotely). That does not change the fact that someone was insulted, because he said the world would be a safer place without Israel and Palestine right now. That's all. I don't even want to discuss how possible it would be for Israel to "destroy the world", it's pointless. I'm just saying, with voices like these, don't wonder if people just don't want to bother anymore with the situation you're in. And if you want it or not, it's actually more of a global matter than you (or i) would want.
No, what i meant is you have some nut jobs who may want to do that, but these are individuals, not people who have any power, connection or knowledge to Israel nuclear plan.
To be fair he got insulted by getting told: "if you weren't here the world would be a better place".
|
On November 19 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:45 Goozen wrote:On November 19 2012 05:40 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:24 Feartheguru wrote:lol. Tried to take someone else's land, lost some of yours as a result. You sad? lol. The last time I checked it was Israel who made the preemptive strike in the six day war. lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again. So... you can use that same rationale to say that Israel started its invasion into Southern Lebanon and that Hezbollah was defending itself. What's your point. Ya! its not like it was done in the response to the killing of 2 soldiers and 3 taken hostage at all! Your posting shows your ignorance on all the issues you have posted on in this thread. Please do some basic homework and i hope no one responds to your "insightful" 1 liners until then. Basic homework? There's been evidence also that Israel was planning that war for months in advance between the kidnapping of soldiers. The argument is that this was Hezbollah's pre-emptive strike to gain some grounds to prepare for the invasion. Which by your logic meant that Israel was the one declaring war. Was the strike on Pearl Harbour also a "preemptive strike" because Japan knew that America would declare war on it and hence the US was the one starting the war?
And im sure you will link me that "proof" right?
|
On November 19 2012 05:51 Pureh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol. So if you are looking at it from that perspective, Brits and Ottomans were sharing conflicts over the area of Palestine, I see you are leaving Ottomans right out of the subject. Brits won but without experiencing revolts every now and then, they grow tired of it. Afterwards they just say, hell let's just give it to the jews? All during that conflict, surprise surprise Palestinians were living there. So just because they had no super guns, they didn't exist?
Ottomans controlled it before the British and still had influence there true. I left it out because I don't find it relevant. Are you saying because the previous rulers have more cultural similarities to the Palestinians, they have a stronger claim to the land than the Jews?
|
On November 19 2012 05:52 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:47 m4inbrain wrote:On November 19 2012 05:40 Goozen wrote:On November 19 2012 05:25 m4inbrain wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Its actually not only hamas. There are alot of other terroristic "organisations" shooting rockets, even if you somehow could dismantle hamas for good, that won't stop the rockets. Maybe it will be a little less, but it won't stop. At least i guess, would've need to read up on that again. Ah, the Samson option, one of the biggest pieces of BS on the net that people quote without having a clue...
Look at the Wiki, there is no official source or any reason for Israel to do it. The closest the whole concept comes to the truth is the reasons Israel has nukes to begin with and that is M.A.D. Actually, i had my quotes directly from wiki, but thank you. I also don't know what M.A.D. means, other than "mad", which i would describe as dead on the money. Guess you need to tell me what it means. "The Samson Option is Israel's alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well.[1] The phrase also has been used more generally to describe Israel's nuclear program." I guess you are familiar with the wiki, so i don't need to quote all of it. There are israeli (or maybe jewish, i can't tell) extremists out there. The fear of a nuclear war "thanks" to israel is not irrational. M.A.D = mutually assured destruction. Israel feared that it was all over in the war of 73' and still didnt use nukes on those attacking it. "Alleged" says it all, there is 0 reason to nuke Europe and it will never happen, people who are that crazy will never be in power. Israel has had nukes for over 40 years now but the fear of nuclear war is mostly due to Iran. This isnt just a Israel vs. Iran thing, the fear is alot of other countries who are scared of Iran (such as UAE) will also get nukes. You actually dodged something there. Do you agree that there are extremists in Israel (i can't tell if that's jewish or israeli extremism - excuse me)? That.. "some voices, somehow connected to israel" are voicing that opinion? Oh, and just to be fair, i (i guess, we, as in europe) don't want to have Iran (or any other country there for that matter) armed with nukes. I would not even go so far to say that i would consider Israel on the same "step" as Iran, regarding threat to "worldpeace" (as if there was ever something like that even remotely). That does not change the fact that someone was insulted, because he said the world would be a safer place without Israel and Palestine right now. That's all. I don't even want to discuss how possible it would be for Israel to "destroy the world", it's pointless. I'm just saying, with voices like these, don't wonder if people just don't want to bother anymore with the situation you're in. And if you want it or not, it's actually more of a global matter than you (or i) would want. No, what i meant is you have some nut jobs who may want to do that, but these are individuals, not people who have any power, connection or knowledge to Israel nuclear plan. To be fair he got insulted by getting told: "if you weren't here the world would be a better place".
I edited something to that quote.
Actually, he was getting told "why dont we nuke you A-hole" by.. can't remember. Someone.
|
On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:24 Feartheguru wrote:lol. Tried to take someone else's land, lost some of yours as a result. You sad? lol. The last time I checked it was Israel who made the preemptive strike in the six day war. lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again. The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow:
Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation.
Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant.
|
On November 19 2012 05:51 Pureh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol. So if you are looking at it from that perspective, Brits and Ottomans were sharing conflicts over the area of Palestine, I see you are leaving Ottomans right out of the subject. Brits won but without experiencing revolts every now and then, they grow tired of it. Afterwards they just say, hell let's just give it to the jews? All during that conflict, surprise surprise Palestinians were living there. So just because they had no super guns, they didn't exist?
The original British plan (just after WW1) was Jordan for that Arabs, Israel for the jews. Later it it became a more or less 50-50 split, so no they were not ignored. Basic history for the conflict.
|
On November 19 2012 05:49 Goozen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:45 EtherealBlade wrote:On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol. The difference is, the natives were expecting to finally gain independence after centuries of Ottoman and decades of British rule. If you look at some African borders, decolonisation happened without much care over ethnical borders, this is why so many border conflicts happen there to this day. Now in Palestine however, it's not just a border conflict, but an entire "state" was created over another one. If people had to guess who would rule Palestine after the British Mandate is over, it would have been the majority population obviously, and that would definitely create Israel over there... 2 States were offered (see partition plan), now you could argue that the British had no right to promise some of the land they owned, but they did. Had the arabs not decided to go "all in" it would be different today.
This is exactly the problem, they had no right.
"We're putting an end to colonialism, but hey, here's one last deicision we'd liket to make:"
Can you blame them for going all in though? I'm not saying they should have, or that it was a smart deicision but the stakes were high, who wouldn't have wanted the entire land in their position.
|
On November 19 2012 05:53 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:51 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol. So if you are looking at it from that perspective, Brits and Ottomans were sharing conflicts over the area of Palestine, I see you are leaving Ottomans right out of the subject. Brits won but without experiencing revolts every now and then, they grow tired of it. Afterwards they just say, hell let's just give it to the jews? All during that conflict, surprise surprise Palestinians were living there. So just because they had no super guns, they didn't exist? Ottomans controlled it before the British and still had influence there true. I left it out because I don't find it relevant. Are you saying because the previous rulers have more cultural similarities to the Palestinians, they have a stronger claim to the land than the Jews?
they were living there. their home. thats what gives em a stronger claim. not some political/historical whatver crap. its that simple.
|
On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:24 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
lol. Tried to take someone else's land, lost some of yours as a result. You sad? lol. The last time I checked it was Israel who made the preemptive strike in the six day war. lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again. The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant.
You are saying my assertion that whoever control the land owns it for the moment is false. That historical claim is how we should view it because that's the civilized way to view land conflicts.
Aboriginals have a historical claim to all of the land in Canada, why does your land belong to you?
|
On November 19 2012 05:53 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:51 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:40 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:32 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:21 Pureh wrote:On November 19 2012 03:43 moskonia wrote:On November 19 2012 03:36 SlashCare wrote:
Why can´t they just set aside their differnces. That would be much better for the people in both countries. You seem confused, this is between a country, Israel, to a terrorism organization, Hamas, not a country. If it was a war between countries it would have been much simpler. You have got things mixed there. Israel was founded through terrorist actions, I see that being completely left out. So if we follow what you say, then Hamas turning itself into a Gaza-country will just abolish all terrorist actions they've done? Nice reasoning you got there mate. Alternate history is cool. Care to explain there? You're telling me that Palestinians came from nowhere or were dropped from UFOs? I mean there are so much made up stories coming from everyone, but let's just not be too extreme. Uh.... Palestinians never ruled over Palestine, there was a power vacuum after the British left, the Arabs tried to get the land for the Palestinians, the Jews there tried to form their own state, they won, they got their state. Please take your advice, you're the one making extreme claims lol. So if you are looking at it from that perspective, Brits and Ottomans were sharing conflicts over the area of Palestine, I see you are leaving Ottomans right out of the subject. Brits won but without experiencing revolts every now and then, they grow tired of it. Afterwards they just say, hell let's just give it to the jews? All during that conflict, surprise surprise Palestinians were living there. So just because they had no super guns, they didn't exist? Ottomans controlled it before the British and still had influence there true. I left it out because I don't find it relevant. Are you saying because the previous rulers have more cultural similarities to the Palestinians, they have a stronger claim to the land than the Jews?
Not at all, I'm pointing to the fact that during all the wars that happened, Palestinians were living in that area. Until Israel arrived and saw them incompetent of inhabiting their holy land.
|
|
|
On November 19 2012 04:35 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 04:31 Cuce wrote:On November 19 2012 04:29 zalz wrote:On November 19 2012 04:17 Cuce wrote:On November 19 2012 03:13 Goozen wrote:On November 19 2012 02:39 silynxer wrote:On November 19 2012 02:36 Goozen wrote:On November 19 2012 02:27 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 19 2012 02:24 Goozen wrote:On November 19 2012 02:21 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
[quote]
As Israel shouldn't support their government while they're bombing hospitals? I don't see how pointing the finger at one civilian population for the actions of the government equates but not the other. Either everyone's to blame, or they're all innocent shoved into this war by dictator like factions but there is not "one side is this and the other is this". Israel aims for terrorists and civilians get hurt by accident Hamas aims for civilians and civilians get hurt Clearly this is the exact same thing, without mentioning that we dont store ammunition in or fire from homes, hospitals, schools, places of worship etc. You're making a hard argument because it doesn't take into account the shells being used are white phosphorous on said hospitals. So Israel aims for terrorists, ends up killing more civilians than the faction aimed at killing civilians? So your argument is that Israel's so good they can kill more terrorists completing their objective AND kill more civilians than Hamas ever dreamed of doing while having some of the most technologically equipped killing machines ever created on earth. Sound argument to try and equate the IDF as something better. We had the morals and white phosphors debate several pages back, take a look. You also ignore that hamas makes full use of the population to shield itself while Israel dosnt, so of course a lot more Palestinians will die. Like i have said dozens of times its a win/win for them, 1)Israel cant target them as they use population to shield themselves. 2)civilians dies (going to heaven as martyrs) and Israel gets bad PR. Only when you are extremely cynical. Hamas members are living in Gaza and they are grieving over lost friends and families as well, surely it's not win/win for them when more people are killed and the rhetoric of human shields misses the reality of the situation in Gaza (look one page back). Hamas are zealously religious, and im sure they are sad when familiy members die, they dont mind as its for the cause, remember this group has no problem using suicide bombers. If Hamas wanted there could be a cease fire right now, but they dont. They even claimed that "cast led" was a victory for them.... I'm sorry but this is a really dehuminazing look at even military branch of hamas. To assume/accept/deduct that people do not feel sadness for their loss, or mourne. I'm a turk and not a muslim but, I live in a islamic country. concept of sehit(shadid as it is pronounced in arabic)(martydoom in islam) is a very common concept in turkey, I'm very well familiar with the idea. it is not something to chase, but result of a neccesitty. there is no just of just blowing yourself up to go to heaven. it is not practiced like that. it is not celebrated with joy, it is honored. their loss going to haven is only something that eases the pain. muslims are not a koolaid cult. Martyrdom is one of the most evil concepts in human history. The sacrifice of oneself, and (more often) others, for a cause, is the root of much evil in this world. It is the ultimate insanity, when one has so completely lost touch with reality, that they will even destroy themselves for some perverted ideology that demands it. Human sacrifice, just dressed up in fancier clothes. completely agreed. TBH it's really hard to follow your stance on this issue. You seem to agree with those opposing you but still argue against them at the same time.
No I just explained the point of view of the opposition. Which is critical to know correclty, if you gonna oppose.
|
On November 19 2012 05:54 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2012 05:48 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:46 Caihead wrote:On November 19 2012 05:42 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:39 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:36 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:31 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:30 Feartheguru wrote:On November 19 2012 05:27 calderon wrote:On November 19 2012 05:24 Feartheguru wrote:
[quote]
lol. Tried to take someone else's land, lost some of yours as a result. You sad? lol. The last time I checked it was Israel who made the preemptive strike in the six day war. lol. I assumed you have the intelligence to know that when you preemptively attack knowing the other side is about to invade, the other side is the one starting the war. Don't worry, won't make that mistake again. The area has been under rule by Arabs for the last 1500 years, is it Jewish land because they once occupied millenia ago? It's been ruled by the Jews for 60 years, is it Arab land because they once occupied it half a century ago? The land belongs to whoever is able to control it. You don't have some god given right to the land because you took it over and lived on it for a while. So if USA invaded Canada tomoro and took control of it its all fair game? sure. LOL I'm using YOUR logic in a similar example to show how stupid it is. I'm glad you realize it's awful logic Now make the connection ----->>>> Centering the argument on "who can hold the land" just removes any resemblance of civilization, we might as well not talk about it because it will just be a "whatever the most powerful says goes". We rebute the claims of historical precedence because we are forced to since it's a great portion of the Israeli rhetoric, not because we want to use that as a medium to argue that the Palestinians belong there. Get out of your house and give it to a descendant of whatever aboriginal group lived in your area, then we'll talk. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Here's the logic flow: Israel centers a great portion of its claim to the land not on political or diplomatic maneuvers, but by claims that they once belonged there according to religious text and scripture, and then began attempting to back it up with Archaeological evidence post occupation. Those who disagree with this occupation have to address the claims based on precedence from Israel, but their main focal point is not that the Palestinians had a "historical claim" to the land. The main focal point is how the occupation is taking place and the present situation. We would protest this regardless of whether or not either party had historical claims to the land, because the historical claims (dating back thousands of years) are not actually relevant.
Once gain your ignorance on the subject shows. History and religion was justification during Ottoman and British rule to move to Israel, Getting promised part of it by British and winning many wars of life or death for the rest of it is the justification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
