BF2S Forums Israel 8 Canada 0

this time all people of israel is staying aftery any word of our goverment! watch the pols on israel webs! Hezbolah shal DIE!

Ehud Olmer is a Hezbolah nightmare! GO OLMERT!

Point me to one of these 'polls'.

CameronPoe wrote:

Lisik wrote:

Ehud Olmer is a Hezbolah nightmare! GO OLMERT!

Any sign of those kidnapped soldiers yet?

Pwned.

DogGunn wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Lisik wrote:

Ehud Olmer is a Hezbolah nightmare! GO OLMERT!

Any sign of those kidnapped soldiers yet?

Pwned.

its makes u happy??? thanks for showing your real face!

Oh my.

kr@cker wrote:

that picture is just coincidence, that's not a nazi style salute, they were all just waving

Actually I heard that they were going for the "Tomahawk Chop", just had the hand turned the wrong way.

Scotch

Yes, I see how that works...  Hate arabs?  You must love jews.  Don't hate arabs?  You must hate jews.  Uh, no.

I just hate bigots, and I don't need to go to a site called jewwatch.com to know it's full of them.  Thanks for yr input, though.

Back on topic, the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a fucking disgrace and does not represent the Canada I know. In the last election, Harper's party did not win a single seat in the three biggest cities in the country (Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver).  Not one fucking seat anywhere in those cities.

So how did he become PM of one of the most heavily urbanized countries on the planet?  Simple.  Canadian democracy is a sham.  Look at the % of popular vote for the top 5 parties (Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc Quebecois, Greens) versus the % of seats they got.  We need some kind of proportional representation in a big way.

Canadian citizens are killed in an airstrike on a civilian area, and he calls it a "measured" response.  Granted, his canned comments were probably formulated before things hit a little closer to home than anticipated, but it just goes to show how determined he is to take Israel's side no matter what.  How many other countries can kill our people and be praised by our PM for their restraint?

Fuck off, Harper.  You are trying to ruin my country and its reputation, and I don't like it.  You are a disgrace, and I am honestly embarrassed when I see you fronting our country at the G8 and to the world.  Your one-sided view of this conflict does not represent Canada or its people.

Lisik wrote:

u kiding? in 1948 when israel was crated they chice to go on way of terror! they got exactly the same chance to get theyr country! why they didnt it... ask them by yourself! and like u see u out of arguments again!

So why did they move into refugee camps?

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-07-19 18:29:00)

Shahter wrote:

dubbs wrote:

First, read my first post, the land is rightfully Israel's and Palestinians, all of it not just current borders of Israel.  Abram claimed all of the land for himself, and his offspring.

well, i'd say so called "historical evidence" isn't the best thing to justify all the carnage that happened after israel was allowed to become a state. it's "practical consequenses" that should have been the deciding factor, not some "Abram"-dude, don't you think so?

If you read my post, you would see that I said that it was equally both of their's.  Their forefather claimed the land for his offsprings.

Shahter wrote:

dubbs wrote:

Second, it was the British, not the US, that supported and allowed for Israel to become a state.  You can trace the migration of Jew back to their homeland as far back as 1896, unlike the 1940's as you stated.   Between 1896 to about 1933 there are five major migration periods for the Jewish people.  Also, about 1940,  28% of the land was bought legitimately by Zionist organizations and private land owned by Jews.  In 1939, Britian limited the about of Jews migrating to the area, and by 1947 the UN approves a partition of Palestine for Jewish and Arab states.  The Jew accept this partition, but the Arabs reject it.  Let me say that again, the Arabs rejected a partition to create both a Jewish and Arab states in the Middle East.  (In my book, at that time, they gave up their rights to the land.)

yeah, yeah, that's right. but what if tomorrow <incert a name of people here> "legitimately buy" a portion of your homeland and and then some <insert a name of international political organisation> decide to split your own country just because "those poor bastards suffered enough under nazzis and need a place to live" - c'mon, will you accept that scenario?

Actually this occurred where I live, all the time.  But you do not see people blowing themselves up, or having a war about it.  Being in the US, I can tell you of two of the same type of situations within the last year.  One of them occurred with the Minutemen foundation, a group of private citizens that are trying to protest the US-Mexico border from illegal aliens crossing the boarder.  We do not see that group blowing themselves up or starting a war because of it.  I personally would fight back, but not with weapons.  There are other ways to show that you do not like the situation that you are in.  Referring back the US history, during the 60's African-Americans protested for their rights.  There was violence, but most of it was caused by whites, not the blacks. 

Lets also turn the situation around.  If someone came into your house and kidnapped and killed some of your family, would you not attack them?  What if one of you nations enemy came into your nation and kidnapped and killed some of your soliders and citizens.  Would you want your nation to defend itself?  What if this occurs over and over again, but you are told not to do anything about it?  Would you want your nation to attack them?  What if the enemy nation did nothing to stop this from occuring, would you want your nation to attack?  That is the state that Israel is in. 

Sea_JayUK wrote:

Now thats terrorism. 'We're going to bomb this location, even though it's not our land and we have no reason to suspect that those bombing our country live here'.

At the end of the day which side would you feel safer living in... No wonder you have rockets fired at you.

Considering that Israelis knew that the Hellezboh were located there, they were protecting the citizens.  Were the Allies in WWII considered terrorist when they carpet bombed Germany, without releasing flyer first? 

Sea_JayUK wrote:

oh and before we have more of this Israels historic right and how the arab nations are ganging up on you, your religious texts do not have enough substantial evidence to be proclaimed True and certainly dont give you justification to be in the land you currently occupy. This is a case of Religious beliefs (With some historical backing in terms of location) versus modern law and that is why my opinion, and others, are starting to shift towards 'what right does Israel have to do these things'.

I was using the Bible as a reference that everyone knows about.  Have you ever heard of Josephus?  He was a historian for the Jews during the time of the Roman Empire, he is the same person that we get our information about the Romans setting Jerusalem on fire in 70 AD.  He also recorded the Maccabees rebellion.  He stated the same thing. 

Also, I was taking the Torah, first five books of the Bible, from it's historical source not religious source.  Most historical text have religion views in them.  Ever heard of the Iliad?  People believe that the Trojan War took place because of this book.  There is no physical evidence that the war took, but historians believe that it did.  This book spoke about a lot about the gods, and fables of Achilles. 

http://www.archaeology.org/0405/etc/troy.html wrote:

On the basis of my years of experience and knowledge of Troy, I feel the question ought to be: "Why should the scholars who won't rule out a possible degree of historicity in the basic events in the Iliad have to defend their position?" In light of the remarkable amount of discovery that has taken place over the last ten to fifteen years, the onus to defend positions should now be on those who believe there is absolutely no historical association between what happened at Late Bronze Age Troy and the events in the Iliad. On what basis, for instance, are claims made that Troy in the thirteenth and twelfth centuries B.C. was a third-class city, unworthy of foreign invasion and ultimately of Homer's attention? We expect that doubters will finally take note of the new archaeological facts of the case and the findings of a really interdisciplinary approach to Troy research.

According to the archaeological and historical findings of the past decade especially, it is now more likely than not that there were several armed conflicts in and around Troy at the end of the Late Bronze Age. At present we do not know whether all or some of these conflicts were distilled in later memory into the "Trojan War" or whether among them there was an especially memorable, single "Trojan War." However, everything currently suggests that Homer should be taken seriously, that his story of a military conflict between Greeks and the inhabitants of Troy is based on a memory of historical events--whatever these may have been. If someone came up to me at the excavation one day and expressed his or her belief that the Trojan War did indeed happen here, my response as an archaeologist working at Troy would be: Why not?

The Torah has more historical proof then the Iliad does.  There is archaeological that some of the stories in the Bible took place.  For example, some of the cities that are mentioned in the Bible/Torah have been found.  Ever heard of Jericho?  There is archaeological proof that the wall of the city were destroyed about the time that the Bible/Torah states it should have occurred.

BTW: I am not Jewish.

Edit: I am trying to get other people to look at both sides of the issue.  Most people take what they hear or see on TV, and believe that.  We do not hear about how the Hezbollah are firing on non-military targets.  They also fire the missles wait for rescue workers to arrive then fire more missiles into the same spot.  Unlike Israel, they are not warning the citizens that this is going to occur, but Israel is the "bad guys".  They are the ones that are taking a lot of heat from the media, because they killed "innocent" citizens.  To me some of them are not that innocent since the elected known terrorist into their government (fyi 18% of the Lebonese parliament is part of Hezbollah), and do not do anything to make for sure they are not abusing their powers. 

After further thinking about Shahter's question, what if someone takes your homeland what would you do?  Most people see this as Israel taking Arabic land, but if we go back to 70 AD, Arabics took over Israel's homeland after the Romans forced them to give it up.  Basically, one of the most powerful nations told Israelis to leave the land.  They then allowed the Arabics to take over the land.  The oppisite occured in 1940's.  A group of powerful nations told the Arabics to leave so Israel can live there.  You condemn Israel for taking the land, when it was orgianally taken from them.  In the same sentence you defend the Arabics, but attack Israel for the same actions.

Last edited by dubbs (2006-07-19 20:48:35)

DogGunn wrote:

I don't think they have killed any of the Hezbollah, instead, over 200 civilians who weren't even meant to be part of the battle.

I've been hearing a lot fo this. Nobodies proved that no Hezbollah have been killed. The official word is "over 200 people, inclduing civilians"

-=NHB=- Bananahands wrote:

Im HIGHLY doubtful that not even a single Hezbollah member has been killed. Dont underestimate Israel. They are a tough bunch and have had plenty of experiance with this.

I'm almost sure they have, (Although it says otherwise in my other post, it was used for effect) however, does that justify for every one Israeli killed approximately 12 Lebonese civilians must die?