Pages: 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 63

Topic closed

2006-07-16 14:50:37
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6868|space command ur anus

rawls wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

rawls wrote:

"should have moral high ground after bieng suicide bombed so frequently" uh no. after bieng suicide bombed so frequently would cause anybody to respond with force. Stop crying for the ppl who wont contol there own kind. They cry about the attacks by Israel but dont blame the reason they are getting bombes. They say they are tired of hezbollah bieng in their country but do nothing, then blame Israel for trying to do it for them.
Do you think this is a recent thing? The terrorist attacks against Israel didn't start until 70s/80s, yet the Israelis have been oppressing the Arabs since 1948 - nearly 60 years! Maybe if you bothered to read up about the situation at all rather than spouting off the typical spiel of "They are suicide bombers so they must be worse" perhaps you would have a more enlightened opinion. Try reading a book on the subject, Finkelsteins Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict is quite informative.
The palestinians could have lived together with the israelis. They chose to fight instead. Still cant feel sorry for them.
the allies could also have lived together withe Nazi Germany but they fought instead, the fools.

Last edited by herrr_smity (2006-07-16 14:51:13)

2006-07-16 14:54:36
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6796

Jainus wrote:

So its ok for the arabs to react in a violent manner but not for the Israeli's? Do you remember the chat we had about double standards?

And what exactly is your point about Mexican immigration? That its ok to resort to violence for legal immigration but not ok for illegal? Does that strike anyone else as being suspect?
Different times man, different times. It was a poor analogy I suppose as you can't directly compare the well established nations of Mexico and USA with pre-1948 british mandate palestine and a bunch of people coming in from all over europe and the rest of the world. For a start Mexico is ruled by Mexicans.
Try this analogy - I agree with how the native americans responded to influxes of white people from Europe. Should they have sat there twiddling their thumbs while all their land was being taken? They lost their war but their cause was just.
2006-07-16 14:56:07
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6796

-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:

Ohh so its ok that muslims cant tolerate people who are not of the same faith? Thats like americans rioting and killing thousands of hispanics because they are flooding into our country. Its unresasonable and shows the mindset of the arab world.
Bananahands get a clue. The Palestine conflict is over territory not fucking religion. Get over your FOX news towelhead misconceptions.
2006-07-16 14:57:53
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6894

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't exactly think the arabs are the original or solitary example of responding to a perceived invasion using violence.
That hardly absolves them. It defines them clearly as instigators and agressors. Jews performed legal migration. Currently the US has been dealing with an illegal immigration and our tactic isnt to execute them. Factor in that it was state sponsored legal immigration that thier leaders agreed upon and that makes thier actions inexscusable.

In the late 1800's early 1900's there were large legal migrations of Irish that were oppposed by many Americans but they never sought out to execute them. The situation has evolved to one that after 100 years the Jews no longer tolerate acts of violence upon Israel.
What was that 'Gangs of New York' film about again? 

Do you know what your post made me think of?  Cowboys and Indians.  Suddenly America's unwavering support makes sense to me... that's how the west was won.  If America admits that it is not an acceptable way to run world affairs, then it could easily be construed as an admission of the debt it owes to the original native population.  Were the native Americans 'instigators and aggressors'?  Popular American culture seems to say so, but the evidence is very much to the contrary.  The phrase 'skeletons in the closet' springs to mind.

edit: looks like Cameron made a similar comparison while i was typing

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-07-16 14:59:23)

2006-07-16 15:03:53
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7077

ghettoperson wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:


. . . . sinicker. . . .
I think it was skiing Norwegian commandos that took out the main Nazi Nuclear research facility which was in Norway (at least I think it was Norway, somewhere scandanavian anyway). If they'd developed nukes before the end of the war in europe could've been a whole lot more messy (doubt they would've done anyway though).

But I'm sure the Norwegians did their bit.
You beat me to it. And you are indeed correct, it was Norway.
made a mean tuna casarole fo the D Day landings too !
2006-07-16 15:04:06
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6822|SE London

Jainus wrote:

Whether it was promised as a state or not is by the by, the central point remains: the land was promised to them. With conditions yes, and those conditions have been violated but they were still promised the land. Talk of stealing the land is laughable; if anyone stole the land, it was the people that promised it to the Israeli's.
I wouldn't say talk of stealing the land was laughable since the land they were 'given' is of a far smaller area than what they are claiming is Israel today. The 30ft tall wall around 'Israel' is far past the internationally recognised borders - how would you feel if the french built a wall around Kent and claimed it for themselves - bulldozing all British houses in the area and kicking out the occupants, shooting anyone who resisted (a bit like the English did with Calais a few hundred years ago) - I don't know about you, but I would be very pissed off.
It's just unacceptable - in this day and age more powerful nations can't just go around nicking territory of smaller ones. Thats what the UN was set up to prevent - what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Jainus wrote:

It is still a system none the less. In any democratic country, there is (meant to be) the rule of law; Israel is far from that position but the undeniable fact remains that they have trial by jury for the Israeli soldiers and sweet FA for the terrorists. Whilst the Israeli's feel that their military is acting on their behalf (and with their support) there won't be a conviction, but the system is still in place.
I would agree with you here, were it not for the fact that there not only haven't been any convictions, there haven't been any trials. Being from the UK yourself I'm suprised you are not familliar with the case of the British tourist who was shot in the head without provocation by an Israeli soldier, he was using a video camera at the time and the tape has been publicised. The soldier in question was identified, yet the Israeli government refused to put him on trial for his actions or even to issue an apology to the victims family.
Justice?

If Israels actions are so justifiable, why have they been universally (with the exception of the US) condemned?

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-07-16 15:08:56)

2006-07-16 15:09:29
Jainus
Member
+30|6817|Herts, UK

CameronPoe wrote:

Different times man, different times. It was a poor analogy I suppose as you can't directly compare the well established nations of Mexico and USA with pre-1948 british mandate palestine and a bunch of people coming in from all over europe and the rest of the world. For a start Mexico is ruled by Mexicans.
Try this analogy - I agree with how the native americans responded to influxes of white people from Europe. Should they have sat there twiddling their thumbs while all their land was being taken? They lost their war but their cause was just.
Different times it may well be, but still the point remains; by your own logic its ok for the arabs to use violence against lawful immigration but not ok for the Israeli's to try and defend its people?

I agree with what your about to say about heavy handedness; one the first day it could be understood (but not justified with regards to killing civi's) but after a few days of pretty much constant bombardment, during which time any terrorists will have long gone, it is now undeniabling heavy handed.
2006-07-16 15:11:54
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6894

herrr_smity wrote:

rawls wrote:

The palestinians could have lived together with the israelis. They chose to fight instead. Still cant feel sorry for them.
the allies could also have lived together withe Nazi Germany but they fought instead, the fools.
And Afghanistan could have lived with the Communists running the show, what was America thinking of helping them? 

Oh, and what the fuck was the U.N. doing intervening in Kuwait?  The Kuwaitis could have lived with Iraq annexing them, right?  What the hell were they thinking fighting back with the assistance of the U.N.?
2006-07-16 15:13:02
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6822|SE London

herrr_smity wrote:

rawls wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Do you think this is a recent thing? The terrorist attacks against Israel didn't start until 70s/80s, yet the Israelis have been oppressing the Arabs since 1948 - nearly 60 years! Maybe if you bothered to read up about the situation at all rather than spouting off the typical spiel of "They are suicide bombers so they must be worse" perhaps you would have a more enlightened opinion. Try reading a book on the subject, Finkelsteins Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict is quite informative.
The palestinians could have lived together with the israelis. They chose to fight instead. Still cant feel sorry for them.
the allies could also have lived together withe Nazi Germany but they fought instead, the fools.
lol

Damn and we could all be drinking beer and eating bratwurst in liederhosen - Why did we bother?

Nice analogy

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

And Afghanistan could have lived with the Communists running the show, what was America thinking of helping them?
Well that one could maybe have worked out better than it did with the US intervening.....

When the US intervenes it all tends to go a bit pear shaped - like when they supplied Iraq with loads of arms in the Iran/Iraq war and when they trained and supplied Osama in Afghanistan.

When will they learn?

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-07-16 15:21:24)

2006-07-16 15:16:30
rawls
Banned
+11|7055|California, USA

herrr_smity wrote:

rawls wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Do you think this is a recent thing? The terrorist attacks against Israel didn't start until 70s/80s, yet the Israelis have been oppressing the Arabs since 1948 - nearly 60 years! Maybe if you bothered to read up about the situation at all rather than spouting off the typical spiel of "They are suicide bombers so they must be worse" perhaps you would have a more enlightened opinion. Try reading a book on the subject, Finkelsteins Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict is quite informative.
The palestinians could have lived together with the israelis. They chose to fight instead. Still cant feel sorry for them.
the allies could also have lived together withe Nazi Germany but they fought instead, the fools.
Rediculous analogy. The nazi's were not looking for a place to settle. The allies did live with the nazi's. untill they couldnt live with them anymoer. the palestinians havent even really tried yet. They have been fighting ever since.
2006-07-16 15:16:44
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6796

Jainus wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Different times man, different times. It was a poor analogy I suppose as you can't directly compare the well established nations of Mexico and USA with pre-1948 british mandate palestine and a bunch of people coming in from all over europe and the rest of the world. For a start Mexico is ruled by Mexicans.
Try this analogy - I agree with how the native americans responded to influxes of white people from Europe. Should they have sat there twiddling their thumbs while all their land was being taken? They lost their war but their cause was just.
Different times it may well be, but still the point remains; by your own logic its ok for the arabs to use violence against lawful immigration but not ok for the Israeli's to try and defend its people?

I agree with what your about to say about heavy handedness; one the first day it could be understood (but not justified with regards to killing civi's) but after a few days of pretty much constant bombardment, during which time any terrorists will have long gone, it is now undeniabling heavy handed.
At that point in time, I do agree with how the Palestinians reacted as it was the only course of action available to them. We Irish didn't sit here picking our noses while the brits raped our country up the butt - we had rebellion after rebellion after rebellion and finally justice (partial justice) was served. The brits were in the position of power - the big empire people - the only response open to us was to fight for OUR FREEDOM. I think most Americans advocate fighting FOR FREEDOM.

I never said the current state of Israel wasn't entitled to use force to defend it's people. I have reiterated several times that the nature of their response this time is what I find way out of line.

PS You talk of 'lawful' immigration. My personal view is that this 'lawful' immigration was actually 'unjust' immigration. That will be a difference in opinion we won't be able to bridge.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-16 15:17:53)

2006-07-16 15:18:54
rawls
Banned
+11|7055|California, USA
All of you people defending the muslims are retarded. they would blow you away in a heartbeat for bieng a westerner.
2006-07-16 15:21:15
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6796

rawls wrote:

All of you people defending the muslims are retarded. they would blow you away in a heartbeat for bieng a westerner.
Rawls - I know muslims. I've met Palestinians and Jordanians. I'm still standing. People are beginning to sound very like what some Germans might have sounded like in the 30s and 40s. Media warped Germans views of a particular set of people, the same appears to be happening today.

Try comparing the number of muslims we 'westerners' have killed as compared against how many 'westerners' muslims have killed in the past 20 years. I think you'll find we've been quite efficient at dispatching those dastardly 'towelheads'.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-16 15:24:00)

2006-07-16 15:22:35
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7077

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I don't exactly think the arabs are the original or solitary example of responding to a perceived invasion using violence.
That hardly absolves them. It defines them clearly as instigators and agressors. Jews performed legal migration. Currently the US has been dealing with an illegal immigration and our tactic isnt to execute them. Factor in that it was state sponsored legal immigration that thier leaders agreed upon and that makes thier actions inexscusable.

In the late 1800's early 1900's there were large legal migrations of Irish that were oppposed by many Americans but they never sought out to execute them. The situation has evolved to one that after 100 years the Jews no longer tolerate acts of violence upon Israel.
What was that 'Gangs of New York' film about again? 

Do you know what your post made me think of?  Cowboys and Indians.  Suddenly America's unwavering support makes sense to me... that's how the west was won.  If America admits that it is not an acceptable way to run world affairs, then it could easily be construed as an admission of the debt it owes to the original native population.  Were the native Americans 'instigators and aggressors'?  Popular American culture seems to say so, but the evidence is very much to the contrary.  The phrase 'skeletons in the closet' springs to mind.

edit: looks like Cameron made a similar comparison while i was typing
I dont think that is quite what drives our policies on israel.

I am just speculating but I think Its that jewish Americans put the welfare of the jewish state
above their own homeland, The USA.
Infact when they say " The homeland " here, they mean israel not the country where they lived for generations.

They are few in numbers comparably speaking But they live predominantly in strictly jewish areas.
That means they can deliver Two U.S. Senators and many US Congressmen.
And they can be counted on to vote as one with out exception.
Most US Elections are close, a percentage point or two.  ( If a democrat wins you don't hear that )
A group that votes as one is vital to a national elections. " The NRA "
You can not be elected to office in the USA unless you pledge support for israel.
When you see a News cast in The USA look at all the jewish names in the credit role.


when running for the senate Hilary clinton met with an arab group in Brooklyn and had to publicly apologize for the act.

It was about then she found out,..... Surprise ! I am part jewish ! ........... Elected !

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-16 15:25:43)

2006-07-16 15:23:49
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6822|SE London

rawls wrote:

All of you people defending the muslims are retarded. they would blow you away in a heartbeat for bieng a westerner.
I know quite a few muslims I don't think any of them have tried to kill me - not yet anyway. In fact every Iraqi I've ever met have always seemed very mild mannered and polite.
2006-07-16 15:24:17
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6894

rawls wrote:

Rediculous analogy. The nazi's were not looking for a place to settle.
Actually, expansion to gain "living space" was fairly high on the agenda.
2006-07-16 15:24:36
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6868|space command ur anus

rawls wrote:

All of you people defending the muslims are retarded. they would blow you away in a heartbeat for bieng a westerner.
so would the blacks and the mongol hoards from Asia. they will kill everybody with blond hair and blue eyes.
we MUST stop the threat and putt all non desirable pepole in camps for there own good.
2006-07-16 15:29:29
Jainus
Member
+30|6817|Herts, UK

Bertster7 wrote:

I wouldn't say talk of stealing the land was laughable since the land they were 'given' is of a far smaller area than what they are claiming is Israel today. The 30ft tall wall around 'Israel' is far past the internationally recognised borders - how would you feel if the french built a wall around Kent and claimed it for themselves - bulldozing all British houses in the area and kicking out the occupants, shooting anyone who resisted (a bit like the English did with Calais a few hundred years ago) - I don't know about you, but I would be very pissed off.
It's just unacceptable - in this day and age more powerful nations can't just go around nicking territory of smaller ones. Thats what the UN was set up to prevent - what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait?
Now here we are in agreement, the land they are claiming is in excess of what was promised to them. Should they relinquish they're claim... imo yes they should but we both know damn well that they won't

As for the France and Kent, again i take your point and for the main i agree but (and I'm sure I've said this before) the central point remains that the only people who stole land was the people who promised it to the Israeli's in the first place. It is not the fault of the Israeli's for their fuck up.

Bertster7 wrote:

I would agree with you here, were it not for the fact that there not only haven't been any convictions, there haven't been any trials. Being from the UK yourself I'm surprised you are not familliar with the case of the British tourist who was shot in the head without provocation by an Israeli soldier, he was using a video camera at the time and the tape has been publicised. The soldier in question was identified, yet the Israeli government refused to put him on trial for his actions or even to issue an apology to the victims family.
Justice?
I know of the case that your referring to and as i recall the Brit was there as a human shield for the civilians (Palestinian civilians i think but I'm not sure). If your a human shield, you have to expect to get shot; thats why your there. As for the Israeli getting off... no not justice but wasn't the Israeli position that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with the trial? That happens all over the world, your cracking down on Israel for a universal problem. Was it fixed... well i couldn't possibly comment...

No, its not right and the soldier is guilty as sin but the system is in place and the soldiers are still in the position of being held accountable; again I've said this before, the terrorists aren't held accountable. Let me put it this way; if it was a terrorist, would we have even been able to identify the killer? Would the authorities have been able to arrest him the next day? As it was a soldier, we know it was him and i think (again not sure about this) he lost his job (definitely not justice!!).

Bertster7 wrote:

If Israels actions are so justifiable, why have they been universally (with the exception of the US) condemned?
I have never said that their actions are justifiable; understandable perhaps although the longer it goes on for the harder it becomes. On the first day when this thread was started i had no problem in understanding their actions. It wasn't, nor has ever been right but Israel is alone in the centre of historic enemies that would like nothing move than to "wipe them off the face of the map". They have been condemned and rightly so, my problem is not with the condemnation of Israel, its with the bias of several members of this forum that seem to think you can solely blame one side.
2006-07-16 15:32:19
ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ
Banned
+69|6741

CameronPoe wrote:

State sponsored legal migration? Were the Palestinians consulted?
Yes they were and their leaders agreed upon it

CameronPoe wrote:

What right had brits or whoever have to sanction immigration into the region.
*see arab involvement in the ottoman empire
*see british defeat of the ottomans

spastic bullet wrote:

Have Boston or New York ever tried to declare independence from the US as sovereign Irish mini-states?!
To folow a rational seqence the Irish would have had to endure numerous riots and terrorist attacks attempting to eradicate them and the Irish immigration would have to be sponsored by a greater power than the United States ..than your sceanrio would be relevant..

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

What was that 'Gangs of New York' film about again?

Do you know what your post made me think of?  Cowboys and Indians.  Suddenly America's unwavering support makes sense to me... that's how the west was won.  If America admits that it is not an acceptable way to run world affairs, then it could easily be construed as an admission of the debt it owes to the original native population.  Were the native Americans 'instigators and aggressors'?  Popular American culture seems to say so, but the evidence is very much to the contrary.  The phrase 'skeletons in the closet' springs to mind.
It was a fictional movie about gangs not a systematic killing of people in order to expel them. You obviously arent aware that America has long conceded wrongdoing to Native Americans. We give them reservations, live tax free, special grants and loans, they govern themselves, and they have have thier own laws.. plus we pay reparations to them.
2006-07-16 15:33:04
Jainus
Member
+30|6817|Herts, UK

CameronPoe wrote:

You talk of 'lawful' immigration. My personal view is that this 'lawful' immigration was actually 'unjust' immigration. That will be a difference in opinion we won't be able to bridge.
Justice is not the same as lawful. I agree it was wrong to promise the land, but thats not Israel's fault. It WAS lawful, was it just is a much bigger topic.
2006-07-16 15:36:38
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6822|SE London

Jainus wrote:

I know of the case that your referring to and as i recall the Brit was there as a human shield for the civilians (Palestinian civilians i think but I'm not sure). If your a human shield, you have to expect to get shot; thats why your there. As for the Israeli getting off... no not justice but wasn't the Israeli position that there wasn't enough evidence to proceed with the trial? That happens all over the world, your cracking down on Israel for a universal problem. Was it fixed... well i couldn't possibly comment...
Not the case - he was not acting as a human shield and was quietly walking down the street (as can be seen on the video footage). Also how do you justify the Israeli governments refusal to issue an apology to his family?

He was in a particularly dangerous area since he was trying to film the attrocities going on there (which many groups believe is why he was shot)

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-07-16 15:40:07)

2006-07-16 15:39:57
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6796

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

State sponsored legal migration? Were the Palestinians consulted?
Yes they were and their leaders agreed upon it
That is just a complete lie. Provide me with evidence of said 'agreement' and I will concede that I am incorrect.

ﻍﻏﺱﺖﻇﻸﮚ wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

What right had brits or whoever have to sanction immigration into the region.
*see arab involvement in the ottoman empire
*see british defeat of the ottomans
I would not recognise that as giving them the 'right' to dilly-dally with a territory put into their trust. I personally don't believe that they had the moral or ethical right to go promising that land to anybody.

PS The Palestinians were no fans of the Ottoman Empire.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-16 15:41:01)

2006-07-16 15:44:12
Jainus
Member
+30|6817|Herts, UK

Bertster7 wrote:

Not the case - he was not acting as a human shield and was quietly walking down the street (as can be seen on the video footage). Also how do you justify the Israeli governments refusal to issue an apology to his family?
Not the case - ok my bad. Which case was this then? Do you have a link to the story?

I'm sorry to say it but i'm getting pissed off repeating myself; i'm not trying to justify or defend Israel, i'm trying to balance the agreement out but pointing stuff out that people are skipping over. For the most part, that means 'chatting' with Poe (hey mate ) but i'm still not justifing Israel. I can understand their position but thats as far as it goes, if your looking for someone to justify it, your speaking to the wrong person.

You cannot justify killing civilians, end of story. If you go back through the pages, i've kept to this throughout.

Just seen your edit, don't remember this case at all, when did it happen?

Last edited by Jainus (2006-07-16 15:45:56)

2006-07-16 15:45:25
BVC
Member
+325|6936
I'm at uni right now in one of the computer rooms, this Muslim chick just got up and walked out of the room...DAMN fine arse she had on her!

Israel and the rest of the countries just aren't going to get along, nobody is going to compromise, and theres going to be a war real soon!
2006-07-16 15:46:53
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6796

Pubic wrote:

I'm at uni right now in one of the computer rooms, this Muslim chick just got up and walked out of the room...DAMN fine arse she had on her!

Israel and the rest of the countries just aren't going to get along, nobody is going to compromise, and theres going to be a war real soon!
That's weird to imagine it's actually Monday daytime right now in New Zealand.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 63

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard