ExiledInIllinois Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Sorry about your plight NoJustice. Give it 30 years. It will either be like apartheid or TYTT's acceptance of the "victor getting the spoils." See the Native American plight. That is, go the South African route or Tel Aviv have a a team named the Raging Ragheads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 What in the hell are you talking about? Every single news outlet was horrified by the burning murder. Yet again you deflect to the zero tolerance standard. i'm talking about the fact that you linked to an editorial written by "a passionate moderate" (as described by the publication) who also happens to be a professor at mcgill! not exactly your everyday zionist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 What in the hell are you talking about? Every single news outlet was horrified by the burning murder. Yet again you deflect to the zero tolerance standard. If only he'd pay a dollar. Times must be tough for doctors these days with the implementation of the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) If we couldn't beat them, we'd surrender. That's what most countries do. Honestly, your bias really shines through in this situation. It's absurd. The fact that you hand-wave your "countrymen" who are launching rockets, and somehow say that all Israel needs to do is give you back the land they took the first time you started acting up, is insane. Honest to goodness insane. The ones who deserve your ire are the ones shooting the rockets. They don't give a chit about you, or your women, or your children. They are causing the soldiers to come in at 4 am. And they get a pass? Laughable. Here we go again with that BS. Please try to utilize a little common sense here. If country "A" claims they had no choice but to launch a preemptive strike on MULTIPLE countries because of an impending doom and take all of 6 days to win that war then it really wasn't a threat after all. Country "A" then takes more land in the process, which anybody with an IQ over 10 can see, was their real agenda all along. Edited July 11, 2014 by NoJustice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Here we go again with that BS. Please try to utilize a little common sense here. If country "A" claims they had no choice but to launch a preemptive strike on MULTIPLE countries because of an impending doom and take all of 6 days to win that war then it really wasn't a threat after all. Country "A" then takes more land in the process, which anybody with an IQ over 10 can see, was their real agenda all along. And then gives most of it back in exchange for a peace treaty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 You missed the part where he said that the people launching the rockets into Israel are actually Israeli Jews opperating a false flag opperation. In 1946 100% of the land was owned by the British Empire. 90% of it was covered in Arab squatters. In 1947 the British Empire decided to repurpose their land, and gave it to the Jews for the creation of Israel, while carving out portions of it for Palestinians as well. The Palestinians and other surrounding hostile Arabs immediately waged war against the Israeli Jews, and forfiet portions of their land to capture when the Israeli Jews won. They were occupied. The land wasn't owned and if it weren't for outside intervention Palestine would still be 100% Palestine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Here we go again with that BS. Please try to utilize a little common sense here. If country "A" claims they had no choice but to launch a preemptive strike on MULTIPLE countries because of an impending doom and take all of 6 days to win that war then it really wasn't a threat after all. Country "A" then takes more land in the process, which anybody with an IQ over 10 can see, was their real agenda all along. You should read OC's post. Your lack of empathy/hatred for the Israeli's is really blinding you here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 In 1946 100% of the land was owned by the British Empire. 90% of it was covered in Arab squatters. In 1947 the British Empire decided to repurpose their land, and gave it to the Jews for the creation of Israel, while carving out portions of it for Palestinians as well. The Palestinians and other surrounding hostile Arabs immediately waged war against the Israeli Jews, and forfiet portions of their land to capture when the Israeli Jews won. hmmm...perhaps this is why so many UK news outlets are sympathetic to the palestinians. conscience is a B word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 They were occupied. The land wasn't owned and if it weren't for outside intervention Palestine would still be 100% Palestine. You just said it was "owned by 90% Palestinians." So which is it? Occupied or owned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 And then gives most of it back in exchange for a peace treaty. Occupation of land is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 They were occupied. The land wasn't owned and if it weren't for outside intervention Palestine would still be 100% Palestine. Again, the British Empire owned the land and allowed Arabs to squat on it. The British then decided to evict the squatters and give the land to the Jews, making the Jews the rightful owners. The British also gave a portion of the land to the Palestinians. The Palestinians, however, decided to make war against the Jews, and lost some of their land during the war. If you take issue with this, blame Egypt, Syria, and the PLO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 You just said it was "owned by 90% Palestinians." So which is it? Occupied or owned? You can still own land while you're being occupied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 You can still own land while you're being occupied. Why do you keep insisting that land you lost in a war was only "occupied"? That's not how conquest works, and you have no rights to that land. Unless you can win it back in a war, which is incredibly unlikely. You're far more likely to be driven into the sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) You can still own land while you're being occupied. It was British-mandated land. Even if the Jews "invaded" (even though I don't think that), your ancestors lost. They attacked the Jews who took a little part of your land 70 years ago and lost more. And then attacked again and lost more. You can claim an "expansionist" agenda, or say the Jews were the original aggressors. And neither of those things matter. You lost and keep losing. Either accept what comes with losing, namely losing more territory and people, or decide the conflict isn't worth it and submit. If the Israelis have a change of heart and want to gift back some territory, fine. If not, too bad. Might is still right, no matter how civilized we pretend to be. You're on the Native American side of things. And that sucks. But they didn't put the sticks away until they were almost exterminated. Your people shouldn't make the same mistake. Edited July 11, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 Why do you keep insisting that land you lost in a war was only "occupied"? That's not how conquest works, and you have no rights to that land. Unless you can win it back in a war, which is incredibly unlikely. You're far more likely to be driven into the sea. How else do you occupy someone's land then? By asking for it nicely? It was British-mandated land. Even if the Jews "invaded" (even though I don't think that), your ancestors lost. They attacked the Jews who took a little part of your land 70 years ago and lost more. And then attacked again and lost more. You can claim an "expansionist" agenda, or say the Jews were the original aggressors. And neither of those things matter. You lost and keep losing. Either accept what comes with losing, namely losing more territory and people, or decide the conflict isn't worth it and submit. If the Israelis have a change of heart and want to gift back some territory, fine. If not, too bad. Might is still right, no matter how civilized we pretend to be. You're on the Native American side of things. And that sucks. But they didn't put the sticks away until they were almost exterminated. Your people shouldn't make the same mistake. That's fine. Trust me. I accept it. I just don't like the present-day narrative of how it all unfolded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 How else do you occupy someone's land then? By asking for it nicely? That's fine. Trust me. I accept it. I just don't like the present-day narrative of how it all unfolded. The land wasn't owned by you and occupied by them. It was owned by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 hmmm...perhaps this is why so many UK news outlets are sympathetic to the palestinians. conscience is a B word. Like this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 How else do you occupy someone's land then? By asking for it nicely? That's fine. Trust me. I accept it. I just don't like the present-day narrative of how it all unfolded. Of course. I can see how you think "moral high-ground" Israel supporters sound a bit foolish. But still, they won, and I'm okay with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Like this one? Good read. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Like this one? the one sentence on palestine here is accurate. it is far from statehood and peace. recent event do threaten a continuing cycle. i wouldn't characterize those points as either sympathetic or not. unlike the other countries critiqued in this article, palestine is occupied and does not control it's own destiny. it's a pretty important point to the topic. Of course. I can see how you think "moral high-ground" Israel supporters sound a bit foolish. But still, they won, and I'm okay with that. well, as long you're ok with it...."they" in this case includes a great deal of material assistance from secondary parties. these historic conflicts were not decided in a vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts