BF2S Forums Who start the "kids killing"...

mafia996630 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Lisik wrote:

reason to ban me?

derailment

Or being plain stupid, dum, and the only reason that count is for being uneducated.

Gentlemen please desist. Lisik is a forum member and entitled to his opinions as are we all. For one thing, he is entertaining. Don't degenerate this to a personal attack thread please.

CameronPoe wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

derailment

Or being plain stupid, dum, and the only reason that count is for being uneducated.

Gentlemen please desist. Lisik is a forum member and entitled to his opinions as are we all. For one thing, he is entertaining. Don't degenerate this to a personal attack thread please.

A conversation with Lisik will sound like this.

Lisik " You started killing kids"
------" No u started killing kids"
Lisik " No u started killing kids"
------" No u started killing kids"
Lisik "want to go watch some porn"
-----" Sure" ..

LOLOl. iam just joking lisik. i don't think a ban is required.

Last edited by mafia996630 (2006-08-09 03:46:01)

CameronPoe wrote:

Lisik wrote:

1881 - Zionism and Immigration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zio … mmigration

Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders. After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs.

1920 - Palestinians anti-British and anti-Zionist activism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab- … _aftermath

1928 - Arab riots against Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

1948 - War of Independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

...another anti-jews wars, terrats, guerillas attacks, etc etc etc... So as we can see it is Arabs who start the "kids killing!"

ps:any anti-israeli are welcome to disproof my post!

What's your point? They had a right to defend themselves from an invasion of their territory. Buying land didn't make immigration any less illegal.

Illegal?????? How the fuck is moving onto the land you bought Illegal? Please explain.

<[onex]>Headstone wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Lisik wrote:

1881 - Zionism and Immigration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Zio … mmigration


1920 - Palestinians anti-British and anti-Zionist activism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab- … _aftermath

1928 - Arab riots against Jews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

1948 - War of Independence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

...another anti-jews wars, terrats, guerillas attacks, etc etc etc... So as we can see it is Arabs who start the "kids killing!"

ps:any anti-israeli are welcome to disproof my post!

What's your point? They had a right to defend themselves from an invasion of their territory. Buying land didn't make immigration any less illegal.

Illegal?????? How the fuck is moving onto the land you bought Illegal? Please explain.

Moving in is fine, if you get permission to build.  As stated previously having your own laws on your land is very different... otherwise how could you carry out a raid for drugs, bombs, etc. without it qualifying as a full-blown invasion of another country?  And if you buy some coastal land in America and start shipping in thousands of people from overseas by boat, are they exempt from U.S. immigration law?  OBVIOUSLY not.

HM1{N} wrote:

So, like i've been saying all along, the Palestinian (Canaanites) were there first, then the Jews went in and murdered them, stole their land, etc...

I disagree. The Canaanites were there first sure, but i don't believe Palestinians are Canaanites. The Canaanites were invaded, which given the history of invading armies basically means that men and the older boys would have either been slaughtered or sold into slavery and the women would have been taken as slaves and possibly wives. In other words, the Canaanites would have been assimilated into the Israelite population (with the forced conversions to the "true" faith) and any Canaanite descendent's are far more likely to be Israelite descendent's than anything else.

Palestinians as i understand the term, are the descendent's of the Philistines (from who they get their name) and given the modern twist on the "who are the Palestinians" question, Arabs. Either way, Palestinians are not Canaanites. If you've got something that disproves that, lets see it.

And on a separate note, it is possible to apply to the hosting country to have your land that you have legally bought recognised as a state. It doesn't actually happen, but you can do it within the boundaries of the law. In your land you have the right to set your own laws, be declared king or whatever. However, i think we all know if the Israeli's applied to the Ottomans for their own country to be created...

Lisik wrote:

palestinians are not canaanites at all! they come from nowhere something like 300-400 years ago!

any Druze can say that! palestinians hate druzes!

Oh yeah - I read about that alright. Several million arabs materialized out of thin air about 400 years ago. It must have been quite a spectacle - they descended from the skies on golden chariots drawn by white unicorns apparently.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-09 05:36:01)

CameronPoe wrote:

Lisik wrote:

palestinians are not canaanites at all! they come from nowhere something like 300-400 years ago!

any Druze can say that! palestinians hate druzes!

Oh yeah - I read about that alright. Several million arabs materialized out of thin air about 400 years ago. It must have been quite a spectacle - they descended from the skies on golden chariots drawn by white unicorns apparently.

I can proudly say "i WAS THERE" . o and the unicorns  were GOLDEN, wtf i knww.

CameronPoe wrote:

Jainus wrote:

HM1{N} wrote:

So, like i've been saying all along, the Palestinian (Canaanites) were there first, then the Jews went in and murdered them, stole their land, etc...

I disagree. The Canaanites were there first sure, but i don't believe Palestinians are Canaanites. The Canaanites were invaded, which given the history of invading armies basically means that men and the older boys would have either been slaughtered or sold into slavery and the women would have been taken as slaves and possibly wives. In other words, the Canaanites would have been assimilated into the Israelite population (with the forced conversions to the "true" faith) and any Canaanite descendent's are far more likely to be Israelite descendent's than anything else.

Palestinians as i understand the term, are the descendent's of the Philistines (from who they get their name) and given the modern twist on the "who are the Palestinians" question, Arabs. Either way, Palestinians are not Canaanites. If you've got something that disproves that, lets see it.

And on a separate note, it is possible to apply to the hosting country to have your land that you have legally bought recognised as a state. It doesn't actually happen, but you can do it within the boundaries of the law. In your land you have the right to set your own laws, be declared king or whatever. However, i think we all know if the Israeli's applied to the Ottomans for their own country to be created...

No-one is saying that Canaanites specifically equal Palestinians. Palestinians are resident in that area of the world for as long as any Jew. It's just that they are now referred to as Palestinians, a relatively newish term coined by the Romans. Many Palestinians probably do come from Canaanite stock. Many Canaanites will have absorbed into the Jewish population over the years. The fact is that a tangled web of ethnicities have populated that region of the world since time began, no one exclusive people dominating it totally. The fact remains the vast majority of jews fled under Roman oppression and didn't return for millennia. Why didn't the Palestinians (or arabic inhabitants if you like) flee?

I second that. Before the concept of a "nation" with fixed borders was born, different tribes lived on each others land just like they wanted to, and if there was a conflict between them, the stronger would either kick the weaker out or kill them altogether. Middle Age foreign politics, if you will.
Of course, conflicts between different ethnic groups already existed back then, but without the UN being present, those conflicts were "resolved" pretty quickly.
The strap of land we call Israel or Palestine today has been inhabited by a number of different tribes / ethnic groups of the last 5.000 years or so, and certainly none of them has an exclusive right to it.

I have no idea who "started it". that's high school school yard terminology anyway. No one really knows. How far do you want to go back ? 10 years ? 25 years ? 50 years ? 100, 250, 500, 1000....( you get the idea ).

The idea that there is actually a fixed date in history when someone "started it" is a misconception, Lisik.

I have said it before, the jewish people weren't the first tribe in history to be displaced and forced off their land. It has happened to most likely hundreds of tribes all over the world over time. That's just the way politics worked back then.
Still, the jewish people were the only ones I can remember who actually demanded that they'd be given land which they had been forced to abandon literally hundreds of years ago, during times when this was perfectly normal.
I must say, that was some lobbying job by Rothschild...

anyway, this discussion is leading us nowhere. There is no way we can figure out who "started it". Today, the important question at hand is who stops it....

CameronPoe wrote:

Oh yeah - I read about that alright. Several million arabs materialized out of thin air about 400 years ago. It must have been quite a spectacle - they descended from the skies on golden chariots drawn by white unicorns apparently.

Good thing they didn't decend on CameronPoeLand....I just bought a time share there!  The place is great!  I was thinking of setting up my own TunaCommy State in Vermont....oh wait....they are already trying to secede, and have already been invaded by the unicorns....

Erkut.hv wrote:

I have the solution!

Lisik and Poe fight it out in a cage match! Winner gets to choose who lives where.

I'm up for it. If I win I get to create a new country - Ethniclashistan - where Israel is now. All minority groups from around the world will be welcome to come and set up shop there and fight for the various hilltops. It'll be great - Tutsis v Northern Irish Unionists, Tamil Tigers v Chechen Rebels, etc.

Wasder wrote:

Erkut.hv wrote:

I have the solution!

Lisik and Poe fight it out in a cage match! Winner gets to choose who lives where.

I put my money for Poe. Lisik (surprisingly slavic sounding name) will get his little zionist ass kicked.

Have you seen a picture of Poe? I might lean towards Lisik, but Poe is Irish, so he's got a fighting chance.

B.Schuss wrote:

Still, the jewish people were the only ones I can remember who actually demanded that they'd be given land which they had been forced to abandon literally hundreds of years ago, during times when this was perfectly normal.
I must say, that was some lobbying job by Rothschild...

anyway, this discussion is leading us nowhere. There is no way we can figure out who "started it". Today, the important question at hand is who stops it....

I take your point and agree. If, however, we are going to have people say that who started it is important and who did what to who, lets get it right. It is a childish way of debating when people are being blown to bits but the main claim i hear is how the land is 'rightly' Israel's or Palestinians' or whoever; lets address that and put some of the misconceptions to rest.