.....and I believe that. history dictates it. Which Islamic or Arab nation will come to the aid of Israel in any conflict at all.? There is a reason Saddam launched rockets into Israel during the Gulf War, and that was to try and lure an attack from Israel, knowing any such attack would immediately band the Islamic and Arab nations into war with Israel.Dilbert_X wrote:
However your argument was that "no neighbouring islamic nation will make peace with Israel".lowing wrote:
Uhhhhh correct me if I am wrong, it IS the conflict between PALESTINIANS and Israel we are talking about........right?
I doubt the Palestinians ever will, but thats not what you're claiming.
No "Islamic or Arab nation will come to the aid of Israel in any conflict at all".
Still doesn't mean they won't make peace with them.
You're mixing up "making peace" and "becoming allies".
Still doesn't mean they won't make peace with them.
You're mixing up "making peace" and "becoming allies".
Fuck Israel
no I am talking about any opportunity at all to attack Israel, and get away with it. Here is another thought, how long do you suppose any peace treaty will remain intact, if Israel goes to war with any Arab or Islamic nation? Saddam knew that answer, do you?Dilbert_X wrote:
No "Islamic or Arab nation will come to the aid of Israel in any conflict at all".
Still doesn't mean they won't make peace with them.
You're mixing up "making peace" and "becoming allies".
Well if Israel goes to war I'd say that would nullify any peace treaty wouldn't you?
Arab nations would be allowed to sign treaties with each other wouldn't they?
What you're asking for is for neighbouring nations to agree never to attack Israel - whatever Israel does to the Palestinians, never to defend themselves and never to defend their neighbours from Israeli aggression.
And you're surprised non-one wants to 'make peace' according to your definition of it
Arab nations would be allowed to sign treaties with each other wouldn't they?
What you're asking for is for neighbouring nations to agree never to attack Israel - whatever Israel does to the Palestinians, never to defend themselves and never to defend their neighbours from Israeli aggression.
And you're surprised non-one wants to 'make peace' according to your definition of it
Fuck Israel
and can you see why Israel would not want a peace treaty so thin, that any Arab or Islamic nation that provokes Israel, that Israel reacts to, would be nullified.?Dilbert_X wrote:
Well if Israel goes to war I'd say that would nullify any peace treaty wouldn't you?
Arab nations would be allowed to sign treaties with each other wouldn't they?
What you're asking for is for neighbouring nations to agree never to attack Israel - whatever Israel does to the Palestinians, never to defend themselves and never to defend their neighbours from Israeli aggression.
And you're surprised non-one wants to 'make peace' according to your definition of it
Is that your idea of a peace treaty?
So you think the neighbouring nations should sign a treaty which give Israel a free pass to attack them if they decide they've been 'provoked', and a free pass to continue wiping out the Palestinians and seizing more land?
All treaties are as thin as the paper they're written on, they require the parties to the treaties to act on them - something Israel never does especially concerning settlements. Israel already signed an agreement not to build more settlements or expand the existing ones, and yet the US jumps in to protect them from criticism when they endlessly renege on the deal.
Can you see why the arabs see no point in signing treaties with Israel?
All treaties are as thin as the paper they're written on, they require the parties to the treaties to act on them - something Israel never does especially concerning settlements. Israel already signed an agreement not to build more settlements or expand the existing ones, and yet the US jumps in to protect them from criticism when they endlessly renege on the deal.
Can you see why the arabs see no point in signing treaties with Israel?
Fuck Israel
It's not one-sided, Dilbert. You have to recognize that.
“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
If it were not one sided, you wouldn't be seeing thisFEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided, Dilbert. You have to recognize that.
And that map just goes up to 2005...
why don't you blow that map up to the entire ME and show us all just how much land we are really talking about that the Arabs and Muslims can't stand having Jews live in.AussieReaper wrote:
If it were not one sided, you wouldn't be seeing thisFEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided, Dilbert. You have to recognize that.
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7728 … estine.jpg
And that map just goes up to 2005...
round and round we go Dilbert.Dilbert_X wrote:
So you think the neighbouring nations should sign a treaty which give Israel a free pass to attack them if they decide they've been 'provoked', and a free pass to continue wiping out the Palestinians and seizing more land?
All treaties are as thin as the paper they're written on, they require the parties to the treaties to act on them - something Israel never does especially concerning settlements. Israel already signed an agreement not to build more settlements or expand the existing ones, and yet the US jumps in to protect them from criticism when they endlessly renege on the deal.
Can you see why the arabs see no point in signing treaties with Israel?
And that's just the Israeli/Palestinian part of it. This issue has more facets than a diamond. And you all know it.AussieReaper wrote:
If it were not one sided, you wouldn't be seeing thisFEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided, Dilbert. You have to recognize that.
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7728 … estine.jpg
And that map just goes up to 2005...
“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
TBH, Both Israel and Palastine should just become one country. It would take a lot of effort and might be bloodshed, but a combined Palastinian/Israli government that actually worked together towards a common goal would be a giant slap in the face to Israel's opponents.AussieReaper wrote:
If it were not one sided, you wouldn't be seeing thisFEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided, Dilbert. You have to recognize that.
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7728 … estine.jpg
And that map just goes up to 2005...
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
Its entirely one sided, and lowing wants to make it more so.FEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided, Dilbert. You have to recognize that.
Fuck Israel
That was the original UN plan, the Israelis didn't want Palestinians in the regions they controlled and here we are now.UnkleRukus wrote:
TBH, Both Israel and Palastine should just become one country. It would take a lot of effort and might be bloodshed, but a combined Palastinian/Israli government that actually worked together towards a common goal would be a giant slap in the face to Israel's opponents.AussieReaper wrote:
If it were not one sided, you wouldn't be seeing thisFEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided, Dilbert. You have to recognize that.
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7728 … estine.jpg
And that map just goes up to 2005...
Fuck Israel
you make a comment like that and call ME closed minded??? ooooooooooooooookDilbert_X wrote:
Its entirely one sided, and lowing wants to make it more so.FEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided, Dilbert. You have to recognize that.
It isn't Islam vs Israel and you know it.FEOS wrote:
And that's just the Israeli/Palestinian part of it. This issue has more facets than a diamond. And you all know it.AussieReaper wrote:
If it were not one sided, you wouldn't be seeing thisFEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided, Dilbert. You have to recognize that.
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7728 … estine.jpg
And that map just goes up to 2005...
None of that is a defense to the genocide the Palestinians are facing.
So if Mexico decided to take a huge chunk of land off the US, you'd be cool with that because since we're all Christians, you guys could move to the UK?lowing wrote:
why don't you blow that map up to the entire ME and show us all just how much land we are really talking about that the Arabs and Muslims can't stand having Jews live in.AussieReaper wrote:
If it were not one sided, you wouldn't be seeing thisFEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided, Dilbert. You have to recognize that.
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7728 … estine.jpg
And that map just goes up to 2005...
Does that mean you are not going to show a map of the Middle East, so we can see just how much land is too much for the Jews according to the Arabs and Muslims?ghettoperson wrote:
So if Mexico decided to take a huge chunk of land off the US, you'd be cool with that because since we're all Christians, you guys could move to the UK?lowing wrote:
why don't you blow that map up to the entire ME and show us all just how much land we are really talking about that the Arabs and Muslims can't stand having Jews live in.AussieReaper wrote:
If it were not one sided, you wouldn't be seeing this
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7728 … estine.jpg
And that map just goes up to 2005...
Then maybe we can talk about just how much of THAT land, that is worthless wasteland, and never was developed into anything, yet is far too valuable to allow the Jews do something with it, for no other reason than, they don't want to live around a people with a different belief as them.
Last edited by lowing (2011-03-19 19:33:05)
Of course it isn't. But to call what the Palestinians are facing "genocide" is hyperbolic.AussieReaper wrote:
It isn't Islam vs Israel and you know it.FEOS wrote:
And that's just the Israeli/Palestinian part of it. This issue has more facets than a diamond. And you all know it.AussieReaper wrote:
If it were not one sided, you wouldn't be seeing this
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/7728 … estine.jpg
And that map just goes up to 2005...
None of that is a defense to the genocide the Palestinians are facing.
It's not one-sided at all, Dilbert. There's the Israeli/Palestinian aspect. The Israeli/Arab aspect. The Iranian/Palestinian/Hizbollah/Hamas aspect. The Iranian/Israeli aspect. The Palestinian/Arab aspect. The US/Palestinian aspect. The US/Israeli aspect. The US/Arab aspect. Then there's Europe...who unfortunately, after the 50s became bit players in all of this, except to bitch about it. Where's the "one side" above...considering I probably missed an aspect?
“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
Ethnic cleansing then?FEOS wrote:
Of course it isn't. But to call what the Palestinians are facing "genocide" is hyperbolic.
How would you describe the Palestinian homes being bulldozed and replaced by Israeli settlements for decades?
America is pretty big, I think you could afford to give California to the Jews, its not like they don't have most of it already.lowing wrote:
Does that mean you are not going to show a map of the Middle East, so we can see just how much land is too much for the Jews according to the Arabs and Muslims?
Just plant a few bombs in hotels, supermarkets etc, machine gun a few old people I'm sure the Californians will leave soon enough.
It is from the Palestinian perspective, on the one side they have a nuclear armed enemy with a modern military and an ally with the most powerful military in the world which dominates the UNSC - preventing even the mildest constructive criticism get through.FEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided at all, Dilbert.
On the other they have a few arab states which don't really care and couldn't do anything if they did.
They've been forced out of their own country on pain of death, its not far off really.Of course it isn't. But to call what the Palestinians are facing "genocide" is hyperbolic.
Fuck Israel
Neither.AussieReaper wrote:
Ethnic cleansing then?FEOS wrote:
Of course it isn't. But to call what the Palestinians are facing "genocide" is hyperbolic.
How would you describe the Palestinian homes being bulldozed and replaced by Israeli settlements for decades?
One involves the mass killing of people based on their ethnicity (genocide).
The other involves the displacement out of a given area of a people based on their ethnicity (ethnic cleansing).
While what Israel is doing is close to the latter, it's not the same. The Pals are still there. They just don't have a homeland.
You've just shown, in your own words, that it's not one-sided (fixed for accuracy).Dilbert_X wrote:
It is from the Palestinian perspective, on the one side they have a nuclear armed enemy with a modern military and an ally with the most powerful military in the world which dominates the UNSC - preventing even the mildest constructive criticism get through.FEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided at all, Dilbert.
On the other they have a few arab states which don't really care and couldn'twouldn't do anything if they did.
No, they haven't. They're still there, they just don't have a nation of their own. Many want to leave (due in large part to their treatment at the hands of the Israelis), but their "Arab brothers" who profess to care so much for their plight, won't let them immigrate (again showing it's not a one-dimensional problem).Dilbert_X wrote:
They've been forced out of their own country on pain of death, its not far off really.FEOS wrote:
Of course it isn't. But to call what the Palestinians are facing "genocide" is hyperbolic.
"on pain of death" is again hyperbolic. Israel's not running through Palestinian villages, killing people just for being Palestinian. Yes, they are making life a living hell for them, no doubt. Arguably out of proportion to what is deserved in response to actions against the Israelis. But they aren't killing them to get them out of Israel. That's just pure hyperbole.
“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
One involves the mass killing of people based on their ethnicity (genocide).FEOS wrote:
Neither.AussieReaper wrote:
Ethnic cleansing then?FEOS wrote:
Of course it isn't. But to call what the Palestinians are facing "genocide" is hyperbolic.
How would you describe the Palestinian homes being bulldozed and replaced by Israeli settlements for decades?
One involves the mass killing of people based on their ethnicity (genocide).
The other involves the displacement out of a given area of a people based on their ethnicity (ethnic cleansing).
While what Israel is doing is close to the latter, it's not the same. The Pals are still there. They just don't have a homeland.
Yes, Palestinian.
The other involves the displacement out of a given area of a people based on their ethnicity (ethnic cleansing).
Palestinians are displaced. Take a look at the map. Read up on the number of Palestinian refugees.
How can you say that it is close? It isn't ethnic cleansing until they are all gone?
They've attacked Israel a few times, and imposed oil embargoes in protest.FEOS wrote:
On the other they have a few arab states which don't really care and twouldn't do anything if they did.
You really should stop making stuff up.
They have been forced out of the parts of Palestine now known as Israel, something the UN resolutions which set up Israel specifically prohibited.No, they haven't. They're still there, they just don't have a nation of their own.
Israel has done both in good measure.One involves the mass killing of people based on their ethnicity (genocide).
The other involves the displacement out of a given area of a people based on their ethnicity (ethnic cleansing).
Historically thats exactly what they have done to clear what is now Israel, now they don't 'run through', they drive tanks and bulldozers, and drop bombs from F16s."on pain of death" is again hyperbolic. Israel's not running through Palestinian villages, killing people just for being Palestinian.
Fuck Israel
Why would we give up land already developed into something?Dilbert_X wrote:
America is pretty big, I think you could afford to give California to the Jews, its not like they don't have most of it already.lowing wrote:
Does that mean you are not going to show a map of the Middle East, so we can see just how much land is too much for the Jews according to the Arabs and Muslims?
Just plant a few bombs in hotels, supermarkets etc, machine gun a few old people I'm sure the Californians will leave soon enough.It is from the Palestinian perspective, on the one side they have a nuclear armed enemy with a modern military and an ally with the most powerful military in the world which dominates the UNSC - preventing even the mildest constructive criticism get through.FEOS wrote:
It's not one-sided at all, Dilbert.
On the other they have a few arab states which don't really care and couldn't do anything if they did.They've been forced out of their own country on pain of death, its not far off really.Of course it isn't. But to call what the Palestinians are facing "genocide" is hyperbolic.
The land everyone is so up in arms about is a sliver of land that, before the Jews got there, was mostly desolate waste land.
Now how about we take a look at that map and see just how much previous wasteland of the ME the Jews live in, then lets discuss how it is too much for the Muslims to tolerate. As if there is not enough wasteland in the ME to accommodate them all.