lol
Nevermind.
Nevermind.
ermm i have a question. Why do you think "your book" is better then "his world"?Braddock wrote:
Lol, in your world maybe. Israel have never had the moral high ground in my book
As for OP, killing infidels and being 3rd world have nothing to do with Israel.
Last edited by Lisik (2008-07-08 12:59:48)
but killing innocent people, stealing land, destroying homes, crying wolf, acting as victims, then stealing more land have ALOT to do with IsraelLisik wrote:
ermm i have a question. Why do you think "your book" is better then "his world"?Braddock wrote:
Lol, in your world maybe. Israel have never had the moral high ground in my book
As for OP, killing infidels and being 3rd world have nothing to do with Israel.
I enjoy how one-sided you make it sound. You are funny.rammunition wrote:
but killing innocent people, stealing land, destroying homes, crying wolf, acting as victims, then stealing more land have ALOT to do with IsraelLisik wrote:
ermm i have a question. Why do you think "your book" is better then "his world"?Braddock wrote:
Lol, in your world maybe. Israel have never had the moral high ground in my book
As for OP, killing infidels and being 3rd world have nothing to do with Israel.
Who? Israel, the Palestinians, or both?rammunition wrote:
but killing innocent people, stealing land, destroying homes, crying wolf, acting as victims, then stealing more land have ALOT to do with IsraelLisik wrote:
ermm i have a question. Why do you think "your book" is better then "his world"?Braddock wrote:
Lol, in your world maybe. Israel have never had the moral high ground in my book
As for OP, killing infidels and being 3rd world have nothing to do with Israel.
maybe, maybe not, but still it have noting to do with killing infidels and being 3rd world.rammunition wrote:
but killing innocent people, stealing land, destroying homes, crying wolf, acting as victims, then stealing more land have ALOT to do with IsraelLisik wrote:
ermm i have a question. Why do you think "your book" is better then "his world"?Braddock wrote:
Lol, in your world maybe. Israel have never had the moral high ground in my book
As for OP, killing infidels and being 3rd world have nothing to do with Israel.
infidel= non-believerLisik wrote:
maybe, maybe not, but still it have noting to do with killing infidels and being 3rd world.rammunition wrote:
but killing innocent people, stealing land, destroying homes, crying wolf, acting as victims, then stealing more land have ALOT to do with IsraelLisik wrote:
ermm i have a question. Why do you think "your book" is better then "his world"?
As for OP, killing infidels and being 3rd world have nothing to do with Israel.
technically Israel is killing "non-believers" (Muslims mainly with Christian minority) , stealing their land, demolishing their home etc
Muslims are the only religion group attacking them!rammunition wrote:
infidel= non-believerLisik wrote:
maybe, maybe not, but still it have noting to do with killing infidels and being 3rd world.rammunition wrote:
but killing innocent people, stealing land, destroying homes, crying wolf, acting as victims, then stealing more land have ALOT to do with Israel
technically Israel is killing "non-believers" (Muslims mainly with Christian minority) , stealing their land, demolishing their home etc
I think, don't read much on Israel...
eeerrrrrrrr hamas have some Christian members, 70-80% of Christians in Lebanon support Hezbollah!icecold2510 wrote:
Muslims are the only religion group attacking them!rammunition wrote:
infidel= non-believerLisik wrote:
maybe, maybe not, but still it have noting to do with killing infidels and being 3rd world.
technically Israel is killing "non-believers" (Muslims mainly with Christian minority) , stealing their land, demolishing their home etc
I think, don't read much on Israel...
i don't think you read much on the middle east
Didn't I confirm that I don't read much on Israel and it's problems?rammunition wrote:
eeerrrrrrrr hamas have some Christian members, 70-80% of Christians in Lebanon support Hezbollah!icecold2510 wrote:
Muslims are the only religion group attacking them!rammunition wrote:
infidel= non-believer
technically Israel is killing "non-believers" (Muslims mainly with Christian minority) , stealing their land, demolishing their home etc
I think, don't read much on Israel...
i don't think you read much on the middle east
they don't have to provide a rational reason, the majority of the populace in both America and abroad will readily swallow whatever the media throws at them, which consists largely of the atrocities committed by Palestinian militias.Braddock wrote:
Lol, in your world maybe. Israel have never had the moral high ground in my book, the general perspective in Europe would be that the Palestinians are the ones who have been wronged. Although the majority of the tactics used by Palestinian militants are uncondonable the Israeli's certainly don't cover themselves in glory with their heavy-handed forms of collective punishment...they draw as much ire here in Europe as the militants.S.Lythberg wrote:
if the Arabs abandoned their militias, explosives, kidnappings, torture, and assassinations, the state of Israel would lose it's moral high ground, which it has used for decades to justify displacing the Palestinians.
Israel plays the victim role well, and the Palestinians are too blinded by hatred to realize that the best way to remove their enemy is to stop trying.
The US are pretty much the only major power that swallows the whole 'Israel is the victim' line and that's largely thanks to very biased reporting by the likes of FOX and others.
And could you please explain exactly how have Israel justified displacing the Palestinians?
If the militias were to lie down their weapons, then the stories of demolished towns and unjust imprisonments at Israeli hands may come to light. The Palestinians hurt themselves and strengthen Israel with every attack.
Those stories come to light all the time in the major European media outlets as it is and guess what...nothing happens.S.Lythberg wrote:
they don't have to provide a rational reason, the majority of the populace in both America and abroad will readily swallow whatever the media throws at them, which consists largely of the atrocities committed by Palestinian militias.Braddock wrote:
Lol, in your world maybe. Israel have never had the moral high ground in my book, the general perspective in Europe would be that the Palestinians are the ones who have been wronged. Although the majority of the tactics used by Palestinian militants are uncondonable the Israeli's certainly don't cover themselves in glory with their heavy-handed forms of collective punishment...they draw as much ire here in Europe as the militants.S.Lythberg wrote:
if the Arabs abandoned their militias, explosives, kidnappings, torture, and assassinations, the state of Israel would lose it's moral high ground, which it has used for decades to justify displacing the Palestinians.
Israel plays the victim role well, and the Palestinians are too blinded by hatred to realize that the best way to remove their enemy is to stop trying.
The US are pretty much the only major power that swallows the whole 'Israel is the victim' line and that's largely thanks to very biased reporting by the likes of FOX and others.
And could you please explain exactly how have Israel justified displacing the Palestinians?
If the militias were to lie down their weapons, then the stories of demolished towns and unjust imprisonments at Israeli hands may come to light. The Palestinians hurt themselves and strengthen Israel with every attack.
Since Israel went behind everyone's back and developed nuclear capabilities illegally they don't care what anyone else thinks. I mean what possible threat could await them now...sanctions? Not with their bum buddies America on their side.
"Don't worry about American pressure; we control America"
Ariel Sharon
Ariel Sharon
Interesting post. In general poor governments need scapegoats and external bogeymen against which they can deflect criticism and channel the disgruntlement of the people, through the use of propaganda and whatnot. In an Ireland of yesteryear it was 'big bad Britain', in the US it was 'big bad Communists' and now 'big bad Muslims', in 1933 Germany it was 'big bad Jews', in Cuba it's 'big bad USA', in Russia it's 'big bad NATO', in China it was 'trotskyites and revisionists'.Pug wrote:
Quick background
Sunni Muslims: Largest group, they believe the other sects have departed from the teachings of the Qu'ran
Shi'a Muslims: 2nd largest group, believe their sect is very much apart of the Sunni caliphs, but put a different weighting on certain aspects of Islam.
The hardcore Sunnis and Shi'as hate each other. Because religion is very much a part of their lives, many Islamic governments are led by the hardcore followers of these sects. In addition, the Middle East's oil resources give access to wealth, but it is restricted to the upper classes within each country.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … jpg/800px-
Here's a thought:
The economic disparity between the classes puts undue stress on a religious-based dispute between the Sunni's and Shi'a's. Arguably a religious "civil war" has been fought in both open warfare and via unconventional means at several points in history, countries, and from different classes in the Muslim society. Unconventional warfare has been a direct result of innovations due to lack of resources from the lower castes in the societies - a good example of what I'm referring to is the invention of the IED.
So given the friction between religious sects, the inequity of wealth distribution, and influential leadership able to declare a jihad, what would the Middle East be without unifying against Israel? I believe that if Israel wasn't dropped on their front door, the Muslim opinion of the US would be much different. So if Israel & the US wasn't a catalyst for unification, would the Muslim society find another country fill that role? Does the Middle East need Israel to be the boogeyman to avoid a religious civil war? Does the Muslim society always need a boogeyman?
I believe that Israel is using this hatred for it's own benefit as well, so it's almost a sick kind of co-dependency.
Thoughts?
However, it has long been recognised that regional economic disparity breeds contempt, social unrest and other manifestations of frustration. Just look at the US-Mexico border. Tensions are running high. In order to avoid this one must give your neighbouring countries a helping hand up so that such issues do not arise - the EU's eastward expansion and nurturing of new members is a prime example of this in action. There is a massive disparity between the wealth of Israelis and that of surrounding Arabs. Partly because of the political structure of the Arab nations but also because Israel has stupendous amounts of aid ploughed into it. What makes resolving this disparity useless is the fact that sacred territory is concerned. You can't put a price on that. So no matter how much of an inroad is made into resolving the wealth gap you will still be left with a rather large elephant in the corner of the room: unlawful Israeli control of the Masjid-al-Sharif.
Ultimately if Israel was wiped from the map then no Arab would have any right to complain provided the west stayed out of their affairs and offered them parity of esteem. Unfortunately poor government and economic stagnation would still be rife and a new bogeyman would have to be developed by those seeking to stay in control. Israel's destruction would not end Arab misery and subjugation at the hands of Sheikhs, Emirates and unscrupulous rulers.
And yes, of course Israel benefits from this animosity. How else would they sound reasonable asking the US for massive amounts of aid and gargantuan loans that get written off?
PS 'Unconventional warfare' is not a new invention. It has been around since time immemorial.
Oh and in answer to your question: Islamic people do not need Israel one bit. Arab governments do. The most telling thing is the fact that Saudi Arabia has't lifted a finger to do anything about Israel. I wouldn't be surprised if they sold them oil on the fly.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-08 14:20:35)
Israel would be 3rd world too if you didnt receive all that money from the US.Lisik wrote:
maybe, maybe not, but still it have noting to do with killing infidels and being 3rd world.rammunition wrote:
but killing innocent people, stealing land, destroying homes, crying wolf, acting as victims, then stealing more land have ALOT to do with IsraelLisik wrote:
ermm i have a question. Why do you think "your book" is better then "his world"?
As for OP, killing infidels and being 3rd world have nothing to do with Israel.
And who cares if they want to live in a "shithole" and kill infidels.. its their lives and their land.. they do what they want.. Now you guys decided to set up your country in that area.. live with the hatred.
Texas would be a lot more peaceful.. c'mon
Fixed.Braddock wrote:
You mean the same way America needs a bogeyman like Communists, drugs or Muslims Muslim extremists/terrorists?
And if you don't think the Communists (specifically the USSR) were a threat during the Cold War, you need to read some history books.
I'll give you the drugs comment, though.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I would amend the OP to say that the Islamic Middle East needs oil to survive and progress, because as soon as they run out of it, they're truly fucked.
Well, from the archives. Opportunity or armageddon?Turquoise wrote:
I would amend the OP to say that the Islamic Middle East needs oil to survive and progress, because as soon as they run out of it, they're truly fucked.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=38495
Of course the timing of the article pretty much proved the NYTimes had their head in their ass: it was during the Lebanon thing.
Thanks for that. And, if ultimately the West has an opportunity to help the invest in their infrastructure to create an economy less dependent on oil. But when they get around to it is the issue.CameronPoe wrote:
Interesting post. In general poor governments need scapegoats and external bogeymen against which they can deflect criticism and channel the disgruntlement of the people, through the use of propaganda and whatnot. In an Ireland of yesteryear it was 'big bad Britain', in the US it was 'big bad Communists' and now 'big bad Muslims', in 1933 Germany it was 'big bad Jews', in Cuba it's 'big bad USA', in Russia it's 'big bad NATO', in China it was 'trotskyites and revisionists'.
However, it has long been recognised that regional economic disparity breeds contempt, social unrest and other manifestations of frustration. Just look at the US-Mexico border. Tensions are running high. In order to avoid this one must give your neighbouring countries a helping hand up so that such issues do not arise - the EU's eastward expansion and nurturing of new members is a prime example of this in action. There is a massive disparity between the wealth of Israelis and that of surrounding Arabs. Partly because of the political structure of the Arab nations but also because Israel has stupendous amounts of aid ploughed into it. What makes resolving this disparity useless is the fact that sacred territory is concerned. You can't put a price on that. So no matter how much of an inroad is made into resolving the wealth gap you will still be left with a rather large elephant in the corner of the room: unlawful Israeli control of the Masjid-al-Sharif.
Ultimately if Israel was wiped from the map then no Arab would have any right to complain provided the west stayed out of their affairs and offered them parity of esteem. Unfortunately poor government and economic stagnation would still be rife and a new bogeyman would have to be developed by those seeking to stay in control. Israel's destruction would not end Arab misery and subjugation at the hands of Sheikhs, Emirates and unscrupulous rulers.
And yes, of course Israel benefits from this animosity. How else would they sound reasonable asking the US for massive amounts of aid and gargantuan loans that get written off?
PS 'Unconventional warfare' is not a new invention. It has been around since time immemorial.
Oh and in answer to your question: Islamic people do not need Israel one bit. Arab governments do. The most telling thing is the fact that Saudi Arabia has't lifted a finger to do anything about Israel. I wouldn't be surprised if they sold them oil on the fly.
And to this:
"And yes, of course Israel benefits from this animosity. How else would they sound reasonable asking the US for massive amounts of aid and gargantuan loans that get written off?"
I'm referring to this:
But I think reparations must be made to show some public ass kissing so the Muslims can declare their victory, although clearly it's not the case.S.Lythberg wrote:
if the Arabs abandoned their militias, explosives, kidnappings, torture, and assassinations, the state of Israel would lose it's moral high ground, which it has used for decades to justify displacing the Palestinians.
Israel plays the victim role well, and the Palestinians are too blinded by hatred to realize that the best way to remove their enemy is to stop trying.
Are you mentally retarded or are your balls grating against your zipper? Muslims? No. Terrorists? Yes.Braddock wrote:
You mean the same way America needs a bogeyman like Communists, drugs or Muslims?
There are such things as Muslim terrorists, and they no like the West, and they try to blow the West up, so we blow them up.
Is that simple enough for your 2 year old mentality?