1 Israeli = 155 Palestinians

TOMASJ

horseflesh wrote: »

"Massacre", "genocide", "slaughter"......all those emotive words about the Israeli response to being attacked. (not to mention the fact that you felt compelled to use a capital "M" for murder)
What do you think about Hamas's actual stated desire for genocide against the Israeli population?

Israel are victims of Muslim terrorists, what sort of cracked worldview tells you they're not??

Have you been watching the video footage and reports "that are being allowed to get broadcast from Gazza" God knows what kind of Rape and Pillage is really being carried out to those poor people by the Israeli Army and their Pin point accurate artillery shells,
Murdered another family today pregnant woman and four children,

Tell me do you think the IDF would use these weapons if these Hamas fighters were in one of the Israeli settlers community, and among their own,
I think not, but Palestinian children and women, well they are expendable

conceited

The isrealis broke the truce on november the 5th not the palestinians.
Why doesn't everyone just say it and nuke isreal and get it over with. Or piss off to and island away from everyone else.

horseflesh

The Saint wrote: »

The charter also states that:

I'm not saying that this has any validity but it contradicts what you quote (which is a quote from the Koran, not Hamas's words. I've yet to see a quote that states Hamas wish to commit gemocide against the Israeli population. Maybe they do but tho say it has been explicitly stated is to my knowlege untrue.

So unless it's stated in the exact words/punctuation that suit you, you'll consider it some sort of grey area?

The Saint wrote:

Trying to associate the Palestinians with the Nazi's eh? So what one Palestinian did means that all Palestinians are Nazi's? Classy. Funnily enough there was no great hatred between Muslims and Jews before the mass immigration to the area by people who explicitly stated their intention to establish a Jewish state in Palestine.

You mean the UN mandated state of Israel?

youcrazyjesus!

Trying to associate the Palestinians with the Nazi's eh? So what one Palestinian did means that all Palestinians are Nazi's? Classy. Funnily enough there was no great hatred between Muslims and Jews before the mass immigration to the area by people who explicitly stated their intention to establish a Jewish state in Palestine.

Jews lived (and still do today, in Iran for example) all over the Muslim world, in relative peace and in some surprising places until as late as 1967. Indeed, I remember a passage from a book on Saddam Hussein, "The Politics of Revenge", in which he saves a Jewish street vendor from the police (the Jewish man had not been arrested for any sectarian reason) as he was a personal friend from his childhood. In fact, Israel could almost be described as an Arab-Jewish state, given the number of Arab-Jews and Arab-Muslims or their descendents living there.

It seems Barack Obama agrees with this 1967 thing too. Link.

horseflesh

TOMASJ wrote: »

Have you been watching the video footage and reports "that are being allowed to get broadcast from Gazza" God knows what kind of Rape and Pillage is really being carried out to those poor people by the Israeli Army and their Pin point accurate artillery shells,
Murdered another family today pregnant woman and four children,

Tell me do you think the IDF would use these weapons if these Hamas fighters were in one of the Israeli settlers community, and among their own,
I think not, but Palestinian children and women, well they are expendable

Oh, you're on to Rape and Pillage now.......
you're coming out with all the cliches tonight aren't you??

And to answer you presumed question (it's pretty incoherent and rambling, with no question mark, but I think it's a question); I think the IDF would do whatever they deemed necessary to protect their own citizens first and foremost, same as the defence force of any other country would.

The Saint

horseflesh wrote: »

So unless it's stated in the exact words/punctuation that suit you, you'll consider it some sort of grey area?

Well you said that Hamas have explicitly stated that they want to commit genocide against the population of Israel. I've asked you to provide evidence and you provided a quote from the Koran thats in Hamas' charter. I'm still waiting for this still by the way. In the same document there is also a statement in the words of Hamas saying something different. Therefore it is a gray area. I'm not saying that genocide is or is not their intention. I've just stated that this has not been stated to the best of my knowledge.

horseflesh wrote: »

You mean the UN mandated state of Israel?

Israel didn't exist at the time so it's irrelivant to the arguement.

Sand

The actions of a religious leader almsot 70 years ago should not be used as an excuse to continue occupation or justification for anything really.

But actions 60 years ago, or 40 years ago are a justification for literally anything though arent they?

Is there some sort of statute of limitations on "Being total assholes, justifying terrorism against you!" card?

I'm not saying that this has any validity

Good. Saves me some time. At BEST the scenario you reference implies Yellow Star status for non muslims.

Trying to associate the Palestinians with the Nazi's eh? So what one Palestinian did means that all Palestinians are Nazi's? Classy. Funnily enough there was no great hatred between Muslims and Jews before the mass immigration to the area by people who explicitly stated their intention to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Some Zionists also apparently colllaborated with the Nazi's. Does that make Zionists Nazi's? Now there's a noodle scratcher.

Hey, I am just trying to keep up with the high brow intellectual "ISRAELIS ARE NAZI BASTARDS!!!!" debate going on here. Sometimes I get confused by the long words used.

As it stands, Muslim religious leaders arent appointed - its a fairly anarchic religion. Standing is earned by respect from the community for your knowledge of the Koran. You dont get to be Grand Mufti, especially Grand Mufti of a region as important as the holy land without widespread support. Its not the actions of one individual. Its the actions of a religious leader supported by his community, reflecting wide opinion of his time. A pro nazi opinion that has continued from the 1940s onwards, reflected in sales of Mein Kampf in the Arab world to this day. A pro nazi opinion that complemented the hatred of Jews that existed prior to the rise of the Nazis [ who themselves were simply an inheritor of a long tradition of European hatred of Jews].

Ironically, it was the holocaust that the Palestinians and their Grand Mufti encouraged that decisively won the argument for the Zionists, who until then were simply a minority political group opposing the might of the British Empire which was against any disturbance of the political scene in their middle east possesions.

TOMASJ

horseflesh wrote: »

Oh, you're on to Rape and Pillage now.......
you're coming out with all the cliches tonight aren't you??

And to answer you presumed question (it's pretty incoherent and rambling, with no question mark, but I think it's a question); I think the IDF would do whatever they deemed necessary to protect their own citizens first and foremost, same as the defence force of any other country would.

(A lot of rambling and blabbering going on tonight)
If you understood the question then why not answer it, would the IDF Murder their own woman and children with their smart artillery if, their was a Hamas member sitting in that Israeli home.

sHnaCk

anti semitism is not exactly inherited. it is a spirit called haman that causes. anti semitism is almost always illogical

horseflesh

The Saint wrote: »

Well you said that Hamas have explicitly stated that they want to commit genocide against the population of Israel. I've asked you to provide evidence and you provided a quote from the Koran thats in Hamas' charter. I'm still waiting for this still by the way. In the same document there is also a statement in the words of Hamas saying something different. Therefore it is a gray area. I'm not saying that genocide is or is not their intention. I've just stated that this has not been stated to the best of my knowledge.

It is in their charter, which is a meandering mess, but it is in it.
Also, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find a press release/statement from them calling for the destruction/dismantling of Israel.
And no, I've no inclination to do the donkey work for you

The Saint wrote:

Israel didn't exist at the time so it's irrelivant to the arguement.

Presuming that you're talking about the 1950s when the Israeli population almost trebled, the state of Israel did exist

sHnaCk

think of it this way, if your next door neighbours children lobbed 6,000 eggs INDISCRIM INATELY at your home, cars etc. etc. over a 2 year period; would you really care that the eggs you threw back hit the parents?

sceptre

The Saint wrote: »

See above. This is not an explicit statement of their intention to commit genocide against the Jewish population of Israel.

Indeed. Khalid Mish'al has specifically said that Hamas is not seeking an Israeli genocide here. A few months later Mahmoud Zahar talked of wiping out Israel but specifically not wiping out the Jews (or driving them as individuals into the sea). There are obviously far more hard-line Israeli newspapers than the Jerusalem Post but given that they published the second article, it's a source that even those who won't accept sources that don't reflect their own views merely because they don't reflect their own views might have some difficulty in discounting.

Having said that, Hamas are completely committed to wiping out the Israeli state in either the short-term or the long-term, which I have as much a problem with as I would with anyone who wanted to wipe out the fledgling Palestinian one.

The interesting question is whether Hamas would be happy enough to regard genocide as a necessary evil if it became an unavoidable part of wiping out Israel but that question hasn't arisen yet and no-one can give empirical evidence to an answer one way or another. And in any case this isn't what was being discussed up the page.

sHnaCk wrote: »

anti semitism is not exactly inherited. it is a spirit called haman that causes. anti semitism is almost always illogical

Rabbinic biblical exegesis isn't really something you want to base an argument on in this thread I'm afraid. Not relevant.

horseflesh

TOMASJ wrote: »

(A lot of rambling and blabbering going on tonight)
If you understood the question then why not answer it, would the IDF Murder their own woman and children with their smart artillery if, their was a Hamas member sitting in that Israeli home.

Of course they wouldn't, I thought you would have been able to garner that from my previous post.
Would you expect them to?
Why would the Israelis act any differently to any other country in trying to protect their own citizens?

sHnaCk

the territory of Israel was mapped out by God himself with an irrevocable covenant in the time of abraham. so it did exist.

youcrazyjesus!

Sand wrote: »

But actions 60 years ago, or 40 years ago are a justification for literally anything though arent they?

If they are continuing right through until today, they are. Obviously. If the occupation has continued for 40 or 60 years until today then yes, you can take that as justification for something that's happening today. I've already said it was wrong then and it's wrong now but it's finished with. There are more pressing issues.

Is there some sort of statute of limitations on "Being total assholes, justifying terrorism against you!" card?

Again, it was 70 years ago, it was the long dead Grand Mufti, practically every living Palestinian today was born long after WWII ended.

Avram Stern's tactics would be familiar to Hamas. They amounted to pure terrorism, without a doubt. Maybe the Palestinians should fold their arms, stamp their feet and look up and wail about the Stern Gang and ignore all and any attempts to move on too? Again, we're back to this thing of there being an implicity assumption that Israel is right and Palestine is wrong. You can throw mud back and forwards all day long. I'd prefer to look at facts and how they are today.

Hey, I am just trying to keep up with the high brow intellectual "ISRAELIS ARE NAZI BASTARDS!!!!" debate going on here. Sometimes I get confused by the long words used.

I never said that. You're the one who introduced Nazism.

As it stands, Muslim religious leaders arent appointed - its a fairly anarchic religion.

It's just a pity secular Arab groups have been long targetted by the US and UK, sometimes even when democratically elected, you might not have to deal with Muslim fanatics. Iran's democratic government, the PLO have been long since bought off and compromised, Saddam, Sadat. When the Muslims fanatics do run and win elections, we teach them a very valuable lesson about democracy and impose sanctions and refuse to acknowledge the result, what hope is there then?

Standing is earned by respect from the community for your knowledge of the Koran. You dont get to be Grand Mufti, especially Grand Mufti of a region as important as the holy land without widespread support. Its not the actions of one individual. Its the actions of a religious leader supported by his community, reflecting wide opinion of his time. A pro nazi opinion that has continued from the 1940s onwards, reflected in sales of Mein Kampf in the Arab world to this day. A pro nazi opinion that complemented the hatred of Jews that existed prior to the rise of the Nazis [ who themselves were simply an inheritor of a long tradition of European hatred of Jews].

Now THAT's a rant.

Ironically, it was the holocaust that the Palestinians and their Grand Mufti encouraged that decisively won the argument for the Zionists, who until then were simply a minority political group opposing the might of the British Empire which was against any disturbance of the political scene in their middle east possesions.

Yes it's ironic that the Zionists viewed the Brits as more of a threat than Germany, the most extreme Zionist groups even attempted to do business with Germany in order to get the Brits-out.

The Saint

Sand wrote: »

But actions 60 years ago, or 40 years ago are a justification for literally anything though arent they?

Is there some sort of statute of limitations on "Being total assholes, justifying terrorism against you!" card?[/QUOTE]
I never said that. When I ague about the situation there I use contemporary international law to back up my arguements. You are the one who brought up the history. Oh, and I've never justified terrorism.

Sand wrote: »

Good. Saves me some time. At BEST the scenario you reference implies Yellow Star status for non muslims.

Well I never sought to determine the validity of the comments. As I said, someone said something, I asked them to back it up and they couldn't. As for the yellow star status, you might be right but that's speculation and has no basis in literature.

Sand wrote: »

Hey, I am just trying to keep up with the high brow intellectual "ISRAELIS ARE NAZI BASTARDS!!!!" debate going on here. Sometimes I get confused by the long words used.

I agree there's some pretty uninformed dull crap being posted by both sides of the arguement. However I never stated that Israeli's are Nazi's and have actually posted against posters who have made that comparison.

Sand wrote: »

As it stands, Muslim religious leaders arent appointed - its a fairly anarchic religion. Standing is earned by respect from the community for your knowledge of the Koran. You dont get to be Grand Mufti, especially Grand Mufti of a region as important as the holy land without widespread support. Its not the actions of one individual. Its the actions of a religious leader supported by his community, reflecting wide opinion of his time. A pro nazi opinion that has continued from the 1940s onwards, reflected in sales of Mein Kampf in the Arab world to this day. A pro nazi opinion that complemented the hatred of Jews that existed prior to the rise of the Nazis [ who themselves were simply an inheritor of a long tradition of European hatred of Jews].

What this has to do with the arguement is beyond me. I have already explained why such anti-Jewish feeling would have existed in the region at the time. Jewish immigration to Palestine and the intention to establish a Jewish state in Palestine existed before the Nazi's. Was there widespead hatred between Jews and Muslims before mass immigration?

Sand wrote: »

Ironically, it was the holocaust that the Palestinians and their Grand Mufti encouraged that decisively won the argument for the Zionists, who until then were simply a minority political group opposing the might of the British Empire which was against any disturbance of the political scene in their middle east possesions.

Can you cite any evidence that the Palestinians encouraged the Holocaust? So in your logic if their leader supports something then the whole population supports it? While the grand mufti might have collaborated with the Nazi's does that mean he had any knowledge of the Holocaust? Did the Palestinians know what was happening to the Jews in Europe. It would be amazing if they did since most in Europe didn't knwo about it at the time. Any evidence is welcome.

Also you didn't address my point about Zionist collaboration with the Nazi's but you were probably writing a reply when I edited my post to include it.

The Saint

horseflesh wrote: »

It is in their charter, which is a meandering mess, but it is in it.
Also, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find a press release/statement from them calling for the destruction/dismantling of Israel.
And no, I've no inclination to do the donkey work for you

I've read their charter and nowhere in it does it state the intention to commit genocide on the population of Israel. You're not going to do the donkey work for me? Are you joking? I've backed up all my points with evidence. I've sourced this evidence myself. If you want your post to be taken seriously then back up your points. It's not my job to make your arguement for you.

horseflesh wrote: »

Presuming that you're talking about the 1950s when the Israeli population almost trebled, the state of Israel did exist

Did you read the context of the conversation being had. We were talking about the WWII period. Israel didn't exist until after the war.

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You mean, if I find a link which states that Hamas has offered a ceasefire, you'll agree that Hamas has offered a ceasefire? Wow. Thanks dude!

http://news.iafrica.com/worldnews/1402221.htm

Israeli and Palestinian media have reported that Hamas is seeking a ceasefire.

Hamas has said it would be open to a ceasefire with Israel if the Jewish state would lift its blockade on Gaza and open the crossings

The rejection came as Hamas said it would send a delegation to Egypt for ceasefire negotiations and several other countries

Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises.

Why not give talks a chance when Hamas has offered negotiations ?

"First, the Zionist aggression must end without any conditions...Second the siege must be lifted and all the crossings must be opened because the siege is the source of all of Gaza's problems After that it will be possible to talk on all issues without any exception"

"No truce initiative has been sent to us. If such a proposition is made to us, we will examine it as we are favorable to any initiative that will put an end to the aggression and totally lift the blockade,"

Need any more?

When the facts don't fit your arguments, ignore them! It's a great tactic.

Well, I bet you didn’t think I would, but I actually sat and read all the articles you submitted.

Let me sum all of them up, so anyone who reads this gets the picture without having to read all of them like I had to, and I really don’t see any way for you to step out of this one… I mean, seriously, article numbers 5, 6, 7 – you shot yourself in the foot so bad with these ones…

Anyway, let’s begin, this will be fun.

Article 1 (from 12 days ago):
“The Islamists and other armed factions in Gaza have accepted "a calm for a 24-hour period following Egyptian mediation in exchange for the delivery of aid from Egypt,"”
Israeli foreign ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor declined to comment on the Hamas statement, saying "we have not received any announcement, neither directly or indirectly, nor via Egypt".

My comment: As much as this is a tempting offer for Israel, excluding the option that Hamas wants Israel to give them 24 hours to smuggle some more weapons & explosives through the tunnels they have remaining, before Israel destroys those too, this never seemed to happen.

According to Israel, and with no mentioning of any other party’s objection to what Israel says – they never received such an offer from Hamas by any means.
I wonder how that happened. Israel could be lying (although no one seems to say that in the article), or maybe someone else is lying? Who knows?

Article 2 (6 days ago):
Besides describing how various political figures were working on a proposal to a possible ceasefire in the future,

the most optimistic statement is this:
“Israeli and Palestinian media have reported that Hamas is seeking a ceasefire. The Jerusalem Arabic newspaper Al-Quds carried a report that Hamas's political leader in Damascus, Khaled Meshal, was ready to accept a truce - although the newspaper said the Hamas leadership in Gaza denied this”

My comment: They seem to be having a few difficulties there. Damascus agrees, Gaza denies. And even that – according to media reports. Meaningless.

Article 3 (21 hours ago):
“Hamas has said it would be open to a ceasefire with Israel if the Jewish state would lift its blockade on Gaza and open the crossings into the densely populated, impoverished coastal strip.”

My comment: Oh, something new from 21 hours ago. Hamas is sending a delegation to Egypt on Monday. The Israeli response seems favourable of negotiations, so now it remains to see what happens next. Doesn't really prove your point though.

Article 4 (seems from today also, from Al Jazeera, and I am mentioning it for a reason you will see if you read my comment):
basically repeating article 3, except for an interesting opening paragraph:
“Israel has rejected European proposals for a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and the deployment of international observers following talks with a high-level European Union delegation in Jerusalem"

My comment: What European proposals? Hamas has actually managed already to talk to European bodies (who exactly?), already agreed with them on ceasefire terms, these terms have already been delivered to the Israelis, The Israelis have already read the terms, had time to discuss them and have already rejected them? And all that before they travel to Egypt to, and I quote:
"answer an Egyptian invitation to hold discussions"
Wow things work fast, and kind of twisted in the middle east… Stay tuned…

According to other sources, not Al Jazeera, there was a European offer to send observers, to which the Israelis responded by “What good that will do?”
Nobody really had an answer, probably because of the recent Hezbollah example. No truce offers from Hamas.

Article 5 (6 days ago):
This is a good one…:D
An opinion article, by someone who also wrote the following masterpieces (I kid you not – check the link, bottom of page):
• Johann Hari: You are being lied to about pirates
• Johann Hari: My New Year resolution is to lose my bottle – and quit Coke
• Johann Hari: Why do we betray our grandparents so often?

Article 6 (who cares what date it is):
A letter to the Herald in the letters section, from, well… from someone from Beanshields, Braidwood, Carluke, where ever that may be - god bless their good intentions, I seriously doubt they have strong affiliations to Hamas…

Article 7 (31-dec):
Almost didn’t bother reading this one, I mean, come on… “Zionist” in the link itself… A little finesse…
But then I said to myself, what the hell… Maybe you actually read this one?
What did I find?

"GAZA, Dec 31 (Reuters) - Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said on Wednesday Israeli attacks on Gaza had to stop before any truce proposals could be considered.
First, the Zionist aggression must end without any conditions...Second the siege must be lifted and all the crossings must be opened because the siege is the source of all of Gaza's problems," he said in a televised speech to Palestinians."

"After that it will be possible to talk on all issues without any exception," Haniyeh said, referring to recent truce proposals raised by all parties, including Israel.”

So, what have we learned here kids?
The Hamas leader talked to the Palestinians(!).
A truce proposal was raised by all parties, including Israel!!!

My friend, I think you should actually read what you are posting before you post…

Article 8 (31-dec):
The headline:
“Hamas Says Ready To Consider Truce Offers, Hasn't Received Any”

My comment: So, Hamas seems to be waiting for an Israeli truce offer. Why would the Israelis do that? Is the Hamas winning in this fight and I haven’t heard about it?
Seriously now, it is a custom for the kicked ass side to ask for truce, not for the ass kicker…



Peace & Good night.

GuanYin

sHnaCk wrote: »

the territory of Israel was mapped out by God himself with an irrevocable covenant in the time of abraham. so it did exist.

So the Israelis are entitled to the territory because the book that they wrote says they are?

That seems like great justification for the deaths of thousands of innocents. I I didn't realize the Hebrew God was appeased by the blood sacrifice.

Seriously and Mod Hat On let us leave religious scripture out of this.
[edit - Sceptre got there first]

munchester29

TOMASJ wrote: »

Have you been watching the video footage and reports "that are being allowed to get broadcast from Gazza" God knows what kind of Rape and Pillage is really being carried out to those poor people by the Israeli Army and their Pin point accurate artillery shells,
Murdered another family today pregnant woman and four children,

Tell me do you think the IDF would use these weapons if these Hamas fighters were in one of the Israeli settlers community, and among their own,
I think not, but Palestinian children and women, well they are expendable

Actually, it is well known that there have never been cases of rape perpetrated by IDF soldiers on Palestinian women.

dresden8

GuanYin wrote: »

Seriously and Mod Hat On let us leave religious scripture out of this.
[edit - Sceptre got there first]

Guanyin

You can't leave this out of the modern political context. They Israeli's are doing what they are doing because God has given them permission. (Allegedly)

This is not to argue the right or wrong of the "religious" arguement.

But it's still out there.

We get the secular Israel presented on television. But it's backed up by a whole load of religious nuts.

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

Peace & Good night.

I think you've proved just how ridiculous your arguments have now become. Utterly, utterly ridiculous. Good night.

Here are some more, these are all from mainstream, corporate news outlets by the way:


Hamas offers ceasefire, states conditions

Hamas had respected the previously negotiated ceasefire except when Israel used it as cover to make assassination raids. Hamas argued that these raids were hardly a manifestation of a ceasefire, and so as symbolic protest it would allow the release of rocket fire (usually hitting no targets). But when the issue of continuing the ceasefire came up, Hamas wanted a guarantee that these assassination raids would stop.

And I found another one which I find interesting:

Former head of Mossad says talking to the enemy is the only answer. "As a strategic approach to Hamas, the offer to talk and recognise is another viable option which we have not taken."

So one side of the debate we have Barack Obama, Ehud Olmert, Hamas, the Saudis, world opinion, the former head of Mossad, Jimmy Carter, the PLO and 80% of Palestinians, on the other side we have a "pro-Israelis" who fly in the face of established facts reported repeatedly in mainstream corporate media outlets. I find it both astounding and humorous.

And Johann Hari is a highly respected journalist btw, though I don't always agree with him. I think you've really proved something there, the fact you've never heard of him.

The Saint

munchester29 wrote: »

Actually, it is well known that there have never been cases of rape perpetrated by IDF soldiers on Palestinian women.

Some say that Palestinian women were raped during the war in 1948.

youcrazyjesus!

munchester29 wrote: »

Actually, it is well known that there have never been cases of rape perpetrated by IDF soldiers on Palestinian women.

You know that there have been no recorded cases of rape, but don't know that they've committed murder? You must really use selective sourecs.

sceptre

dresden8 wrote: »

You can't leave this out of the modern political context. They Israeli's are doing what they are doing because God has given them permission. (Allegedly)

"Allegedly" means I ignore everything that went before it. And lawyers ignore the "allegedly" and take note of everything that came before it. If at any point it's relevant to mention that people are saying that they're right because their godhead friend said so, it may be relevant to include the comment. I would hope that we're rather beyond that in the thread though.

However, as a moderator I won't permit anyone to make an argument on this forum that begins "My God said <x>, therefore <y>, it should be as it was written because God said so" without pointing out as a moderator that it's irrelevant. If anyone comes back and does it after being warned, I don't have a problem smiting them.

kraggy

Apologies if this is the wrong thread for this but I'd like to enlighten myself about the middle-east.

Firstly, is it true that the Jews left modern day Israel/Palestine thousands of years ago but only sought to return in a Zionist movement in the 19th century and that this was later fast-tracked after WW2?

Secondly, anyone have a link to a simple history/timeline of the Israeli/Palestine conflict? (non-biased of course!)

Thanks,

K.

GuanYin

dresden8 wrote: »

Guanyin

You can't leave this out of the modern political context. They Israeli's are doing what they are doing because God has given them permission. (Allegedly)
.

What Sceptre said.

There is a difference between discussing what may or may not motivate a faction to act in a certain way and justifying their actions based on religious scripture.

One is acceptable here, the other isn't. You can choose which one as a matter of faith

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I think you've proved just how ridiculous your arguments have now become. Utterly, utterly ridiculous. Good night.

Seriously man, you have already embarrassed yourself with that post. You can’t fix that now, so I’m not even bothering to read your links.
Your opinions are based on sensational headlines, half truths and blatant lies. You have shown that you don’t bother to really learn about the issues and you follow the oldest Palestinian propaganda trick in the book – if you say something plenty of times, people will eventually start believing.

munchester29

The Saint wrote: »

Some say that Palestinian women were raped during the war in 1948.

Good point, might be worth mentioning that some say Jews drink christian baby blood.

munchester29

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

You know that there have been no recorded cases of rape, but don't know that they've committed murder? You must really use selective sourecs.

I'm sorry, you are talking about the Palestinians here, right?