No. of Recommendations: 2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
One can smell Israeli desperation. Why else would a 67-year- old, quadriplegic who was nearly blind be such a threat that Israelis would kill him without benefit of a trial? Is this democracy in action? Is this the standard for democracies in the Middle East that the US wishes to set up?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Is desperation also defined by a group sending an eleven year old boy with a backpack full of explosives to die unknowingly? Is desperation that same group sending a sixteen year old boy to die today without the knowledge of his parents?

I think that Hamas and that idiot founder are part of the reason for all this. They will not settle on any form of peace regardless of what Isreal offers and they are hurting the cause for any possibility of reasonable Palestinians getting peace in their time. How do you forge peace with someone who's motto is "don't negotiate, kill".

2828
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 53
One can smell Israeli desperation. Why else would a 67-year- old, quadriplegic who was nearly blind be such a threat that Israelis would kill him without benefit of a trial? Is this democracy in action? Is this the standard for democracies in the Middle East that the US wishes to set up?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's funny too, because this fearless leader who is 67, nearly blind, and a quadriplegic still values his life more than an 11 year old boys' life. Why wouldn't he strap a bomb to himself and die like a martyr instead of sending a friggin kid who doesn't know what's happening to die instead of himself. People are mourning this coward, what losers.

2828
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
It's funny too, because this fearless leader who is 67, nearly blind, and a quadriplegic still values his life more than an 11 year old boys' life. Why wouldn't he strap a bomb to himself and die like a martyr instead of sending a friggin kid who doesn't know what's happening to die instead of himself. People are mourning this coward, what losers.

Err... Yassin's dead. (Good riddance.) I think he wanted to be a "martyr." He didn't bother to hide even though he knew he was a likely target for assassination so he wasn't exactly a coward. He was a blind quadraplegic so it'd have been a bit difficult for him to stap on a bomb.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hamas should hit back--and hard--very hard. Sharon, Bush, or Cheney would make splendid targets--IMHO <grin>. I need to party.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Hamas should hit back--and hard--very hard. Sharon, Bush, or Cheney would make splendid targets--IMHO <grin>. I need to party.



+++
+++

From your post, I'd say you would be a Perfect volunteer for a suicide bommber mission. Hope you miss your target.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hamas should hit back--and hard--very hard. Sharon, Bush, or Cheney would make splendid targets--IMHO <grin>. I need to party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No one can say we don't have diversity of opinion here.

2828
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
sunrayman writes:
From your post, I'd say you would be a Perfect volunteer for a suicide bommber mission. Hope you miss your target.

Nah. I´m just a 46 year old 9 year FIRE veteran who´s idea US First Amendment fun is to dance in the streets with the rest of the world the next time <grin>.

Like I said before. I need to party!


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
sazani: Hamas should hit back--and hard--very hard

with bigots like this, the battles that have been going on for 5000 years will continue another couple thousand. Maybe we can hope they wipe each other out completely, so we don't have to read about it day after day? All the arabs and all the Israelis gone.....and no residue left behind for anyone else to clean up.

THen we'd have all the oil we need for a few years. And peace and quiet in the middle east. As of now, you're just raising the next generation to continue to 5000 year war.

Turn back the clock 3000 years over there...let 'em fight it out with spears in hand to hand combat...wars of attrition. Let 'em starve to death, die of plagues and famines. Let 'em wipe out 100 million.

Seems like few of them really want to end it, and there are enough idiots among them to continue this forever.

Then we could allow those who really need a homeland to migrate there and re-settle it with people who aren't going to continue 5000 year old battles over turf.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
sazani posted:
Hamas should hit back--and hard--very hard. Sharon, Bush, or Cheney would make splendid targets--IMHO <grin>. I need to party.

No need to worry about many future Sazani posts because I think the Feds will have him on his way to the Gitmo lockup by sundown. I don't think they will treat his rants re killing Bush / Cheney to be comical...RAV
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No need to worry about many future Sazani posts because I think the Feds will have him on his way to the Gitmo lockup by sundown. I don't think they will treat his rants re killing Bush / Cheney to be comical...RAV
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a feeling finding sazani in Carson City, NV may be harder than finding Bin Laden in Waristan or Wana. Just a hunch, but judging from his beach going escapades (which i'm jealous of)i think he is in the tribal region of Costa Rica.

2828
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=58&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0


sazani

*********************

Once again, sazani posted a link to an interesting article. So, I read it. What struck me as particularly interesting was the following excerpt:


"How long will the Arab people allow their leadership to represent interests in opposition to their own people? On Friday (3/19/04), King Abdullah of Jordan visited Ariel Sharon. The meeting was supposed to be secret. It was there that the King was told of Sharon's plan to assassinate Yassin. King Abdullah never knew that Sharon planned to leak the "secret" visit. The leak was made to embarrass this boy king who has not yet learned the game of power.

Is it the case that Sharon leaked Abdullah's visit to destabilize Jordan while laying the groundwork for Yassin's assassination? Sharon wants to destabilize the region to "save" Israel. In a destabilized Middle East, the fog of war might allow Sharon to expel Palestinians from their homeland. He full well knows that the assassination will not go unanswered. Israel is desperate and this is certain to create chaos."


--In other words, apparently, Sharon TOLD the king of Jordan that Yassin (the Hamas leader) was going to be assasinated by Israel, prior to when it occurred. I would also surmise that Sharon was getting "clearance" from King Abdullah as well as advising him.

So, the King of Jordan was awright with this assasination.

Why would that be?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hamas should hit back--and hard--very hard. Sharon, Bush, or Cheney would make splendid targets--IMHO <grin>. I need to party.

Reminds me of the U.S. Civil War.

After the first disastrous day [at Shiloh, 1862], Grant said that you could walk across the field of battle and never touch ground, so thick were the corpses, whole or shot to pieces, and sunk in the mud. In the evening, Sherman, who had been badly wounded and had two horses shot from under him, said to Grant, "Well, Grant, we've had the Devil's own day, haven't we?" "Yes," said Grant. "Lick 'em tomorrow."

We'll lick 'em tomorrow, sazani. It is inevitable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We'll lick 'em tomorrow, sazani. It is inevitable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

You aren't going to lick em tomorrow with such a stupid strategy.

2828
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
No one can say we don't have diversity of opinion here.


Actually, someone could. Because, except for about 5 of us sensible, informed folk, the rest of you seem content with kidding yourself. Have you more than 'perused' the links I posted, 2828? If you had, you would note that:

There is no doubt what the source of Palestinian antipathy is. They were bum rushed into surrendering their land. The two superpowers and an acquisitive, conniving group of political opportunists levered it out of their hands through manipulation, bribery and intimidation.

Had you read the links I provided, you would note that there is no disputing, contrary to what telegraph just said, that, prior to 1918 and the British Mandate (in reality they turned over management of immigration to the Jewish Agency), the reports are unanimous in noting no strife between the indigenous Palestinians and Jews.

2828, you can kid yourself that I didn't offer fact and citation for every idiotic 'but...' that Poopchute threw my way. Einstein unamored of Zionism? See the Time 'Man of the Century' series. Source of the problem? See un.org on the Question of Palestine. Jewish terrorists? See Churchill's reference to 'gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany' (and he was an acknowledged zionist).

Then there were Poopies' 'Arafat wipes out his political opposition' and platitudes about 'democracy' as practised by the Jewish terrorist racists. Hopefully you read the findings of the various human rights inquiries - at least, those that were permitted to be performed unfettered by Jewish terrorist interference, 2828. And the execution of a dozen folks the other day, including Sheikh Yassin, certainly lends credence to 'due process' Zionist style. While some of that political zapping undoubtedly takes place, consider that Poopie says that in the context of a country that has had its original inhabitants removed from the political process. If you believe Poopie, one man one vote will yield a mandate that the Palestinians accept the 10% crumb being offered by the thieves who stole 100% of their land. His arguments are basically preposterous. Don't kid yourself, 2828.

intercst gets it: there is nothing noble about using an Apache attack helicopter vs. plastic explosives and auto parts: the people are just as dead. You use Apache helicopters because you have a low birth rate, worship technology and have lots of money. We use suicide bombers because we have different characteristics. If you fool yourself into thinking it is somehow more noble the way you blood let, you are kidding yourself.

**

From a strategic perspective, 2828, how can you guys possibly win? There's too much area to cover. There are too many soft targets. There are too many willing people who hate American policy (not Americans). Not those imbeciles who tried to steal some engineer's grog at a cafe in Yemen the other day. Not the 'infidel' b.s. that is a necessary part of the rhetoric to get the Muslims working together. That's a 10% piece of the problem. At most. But the main line Arab/Muslim doesn't hate Americans. they actually workship much of USian culture.

The only way to hold your ground is to squander your treasure in money and blood. To be willing to kill a mind numbing amount of people. And for what? To back up a fraudulent land grab, by a bunch of real unappealing guys, that has been clothed in self-righteousness and guilt. To top it all off, they have no oil. And the rest of the world sees things from the Palestinians point of view. If you can't see that, you really are kidding yourself.

Or...

You could reverse a failed policy (sounds like Viet Nam). Cut the Jewish terrorists loose. Politically difficult but there will be no end to the carnage, otherwise. There are tons of soft targets. And don't feel too snug in the States. America is a harder target, but fortress America won't work for those folks who prefer to think flexibly and creatively about the world. Plus you need to leave to do business as capitalism is your ultimate weapon. I predict USians will get weirder and more 'out of touch' the more they isolate themselves. It's happening with the Jews, too. They can't go party in kenya anymore (too many exosets flying around there). Can't visit us (when we lived in the Middle East) even though they had the money (too much fear). Now the formerly greatest debaters in the world trot out farcical arguments that even an idiot like me can rebut.

...

Then again you could continue kidding yourself.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I said before i don't know about the palestinian/Isreal conflict, as to who is right and who is wrong. What i'm saying is Yassin was a leader of Hamas. Hamas' goal is not to negotiate peace or more land it is to kill all Jews. Think about that from a Jew perspective and what would you do? You'd attempt to kill as many Hamas members as possible unless you are a moron and think they will change their mind. If Palestinians just make peace and negotiate as big a piece of land as they can for now, in 25 years they are going to dwarf the Isreali population anyway. Why send 11 year olds to their death. I see the strategy but they are fighting with inferior weapons and when push comes to shove (and it will) Isreal will kill large numbers of Palestinians if they continue to feel threatened. If you make peace you have the entire worlds sympathy on your side and Isreal can have no reason to roll tanks into Gaza and kill people and slowly you will take over through population growth. Think of how it plays to the world when Palestinians send a 16 year old yesterday with a bomb belt on to die without his parents knowledge (they were pissed) and the Isreali's don't shoot the kid they have him cut the belt off and send him home. Isreali's look like the heroes, caring more about a Palestinians life than the Palestinians do. Just wait til all the walls are up and it gets harder for you to bomb innocents and you get more desperate. You're using stupid strategy and you know it.

2828
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
inhanyt writes:
Hamas should hit back--and hard--very hard. Sharon, Bush, or Cheney would make splendid targets--IMHO <grin>. I need to party.

Reminds me of the U.S. Civil War.

After the first disastrous day [at Shiloh, 1862], Grant said that you could walk across the field of battle and never touch ground, so thick were the corpses, whole or shot to pieces, and sunk in the mud. In the evening, Sherman, who had been badly wounded and had two horses shot from under him, said to Grant, "Well, Grant, we've had the Devil's own day, haven't we?" "Yes," said Grant. "Lick 'em tomorrow."

We'll lick 'em tomorrow, sazani. It is inevitable.


I agree inhanyt. Time is definately on our side as long as the Palestinians stick to strategy which is and shall remain NO NEGOTIATION WITH THE ZIONISTS.

Isolate them. Blow them up. And breed. That´s all the Palestinians need to do to beat the Zionists and take back their country inside of five or ten years.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
ravvt wrote:
No need to worry about many future Sazani posts because I think the Feds will have him on his way to the Gitmo lockup by sundown. I don't think they will treat his rants re killing Bush / Cheney to be comical...RAV

I think Dumbya, Cheney and the rest of their NeoCon criminal partners need to worry far more about lock-up than I do--if Paul O´Neil and Dick Clarke are even 10% correct <grin>.

We are talking TREASON against the USA and international WAR CRIMES here.

If we get a Democratic president, house and senate in November, those guys and gals are going to lock-up in 2005.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
No need to worry about many future Sazani posts because I think the Feds will have him on his way to the Gitmo lockup by sundown. I don't think they will treat his rants re killing Bush / Cheney to be comical...RAV

I've been wondering myself about The Motley Fool turning a blind eye to posts that promote terrorism. I'd have thought they'd be concerned about trouble, given the current climate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2

....in the context of a country that has had its original inhabitants removed from the political process.


Considering that there are now no Canaanites living, the above is unavoidable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
2828 makes an excellent post: "It's funny too, because this fearless leader who is 67, nearly blind, and a quadriplegic still values his life more than an 11 year old boys' life. Why wouldn't he strap a bomb to himself and die like a martyr instead of sending a friggin kid who doesn't know what's happening to die instead of himself. People are mourning this coward, what losers."

Now I add. The Hamas organization and others should send one leader as a suicide bomber for every 5 - 10 soldiers they send forth to show their conviction to the cause. Why not show the officers as willing to die as the foot soldiers.

venny
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If we get a Democratic president, house and senate in November, those guys and gals are going to lock-up in 2005.

Wasn't the last time this occured under Carter?

tngirl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I agree inhanyt. Time is definately on our side as long as the Palestinians stick to strategy which is and shall remain NO NEGOTIATION WITH THE ZIONISTS.

Isolate them. Blow them up. And breed. That´s all the Palestinians need to do to beat the Zionists and take back their country inside of five or ten years.

salami

*******************

No, you're living in a fantasy world.

Even if Israel was pushed into the sea tomorrow, the totalitarian Arab states in the region would immediately invade and take over "Palestine."

Of course, they might say they're doing it for Palestinians' protection...

But, you still haven't explained why the King of Jordan, when advised of the planned assassination of Yanni or whatever the Hamas leader's name is, did nothing to stop it; not even, apparently, "dropping a dime" and notifying Hamas about it.

You and others like you want to reduce the issue to "Jews/Zionists" vs. "Palestinians", simply because you think the Jews are an easy target, and you can beat them by crazy self-destructive tactics.

You don't want to face the obvious reality that the rest of the Arab and Muslim world couldn't care less about the Palestinians, and the only reason they pretend to is to use the issue against Israel/and the West.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think Dumbya, Cheney and the rest of their NeoCon criminal partners need to worry far more about lock-up than I do--if Paul O´Neil and Dick Clarke are even 10% correct <grin>.

We are talking TREASON against the USA and international WAR CRIMES here.

If we get a Democratic president, house and senate in November, those guys and gals are going to lock-up in 2005.


Salami

******************

If the Dems sweep, I'll be ducking to avoid low-flying aircraft.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
MunkeeNutz writes:
I think Dumbya, Cheney and the rest of their NeoCon criminal partners need to worry far more about lock-up than I do--if Paul O´Neil and Dick Clarke are even 10% correct <grin>.

We are talking TREASON against the USA and international WAR CRIMES here.

If we get a Democratic president, house and senate in November, those guys and gals are going to lock-up in 2005.


Salami

******************

If the Dems sweep, I'll be ducking to avoid low-flying aircraft.


Start doing yoga. You´ll need the increased limberness and flexibility <grin>!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
2828 makes an excellent post: "It's funny too, because this fearless leader who is 67, nearly blind, and a quadriplegic still values his life more than an 11 year old boys' life. Why wouldn't he strap a bomb to himself and die like a martyr instead of sending a friggin kid who doesn't know what's happening to die instead of himself. People are mourning this coward, what losers."

Now I add. The Hamas organization and others should send one leader as a suicide bomber for every 5 - 10 soldiers they send forth to show their conviction to the cause. Why not show the officers as willing to die as the foot soldiers.

venny
*************

Actually, I think it's because organizations like Hamas are really more comparable to the Mafia, or perhaps the Crips or Bloods, than to a military-type organization.

With Hamas, you're basically dealing with a bunch of self-centered criminals, who happen to be using the issue of Palestinian rights as their hobby horse to gain power among their own community.

A legitimate military-type organization would NOT emphasize "suicide attacks," (other than perhaps out of utter desparation) simply because their best--most able, most intelligent, most psychologically stable--members would not wish to participate; and further, it would be an unnecessary waste of their human resources.

Thus, "suicide attacks" are not really part of a well-thought out military-type strategy.

I think if anyone was ever able to do a financial audit of Hamas, what would probably be revealed is a huge flow of money and personal benefits to its leadership (i.e. rather than disbursal to Palestinian folk). This is the same thing as Arafat and his corrupt Palestinian Authority.

Thus, Hamas leadership doesn't have a second thought about sending "true believers" to die, and they certainly are not about to go on such missions themselves.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
One can smell Israeli desperation. Why else would a 67-year- old, quadriplegic who was nearly blind be such a threat that Israelis would kill him without benefit of a trial? Is this democracy in action? Is this the standard for democracies in the Middle East that the US wishes to set up?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's funny too, because this fearless leader who is 67, nearly blind, and a quadriplegic still values his life more than an 11 year old boys' life. Why wouldn't he strap a bomb to himself and die like a martyr instead of sending a friggin kid who doesn't know what's happening to die instead of himself. People are mourning this coward, what losers.

2828

==========================

Don't forget Omar Abdul Rahman -- the Egyptian Islamic spiritual leader who was jailed in the U.S. because his followers bombed the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993. He has been blind since childhood. He was a militant political activist since the 1970's and was a prime suspect in the assassination of Anwar Sadat but was acquitted. He has been in the United States since 1990 and has been running a mosque in the metropolitan Northeast where he probably recruited Arabs for the bombing. He is suspected of masterminding the bombing plus planning to blow up two Hudson River tunnels and trying to assassinate Mubarak back in Egypt.

Don't equate physical disability or advanced age with lack of wherewithal or intent!

Diane
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Don't forget Omar Abdul Rahman -- the Egyptian Islamic spiritual leader who was jailed in the U.S. because his followers bombed the World Trade Center in New York City in 1993.

"On February 26, 1993, a massive bomb
exploded in the parking garage of the north tower
of the World Trade Center building in New York
City, killing six people and leaving a crater six
stories deep in the building's basement floors. The
mastermind of the bombing, Ramzi Yousef, later
boasted that he had hoped to kill 250,000 people.
Two years later, Yousef was involved in a plot to
bomb a dozen US airplanes flying over the
Pacific."

http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm

It is thought he later went to Iraq.

tngirl
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Think of how it plays to the world when Palestinians send a 16 year old yesterday with a bomb belt on to die without his parents knowledge (they were pissed) and the Isreali's don't shoot the kid they have him cut the belt off and send him home.

Newsflash: The "world" doesn't care, it just wants Israel gone. I don't doubt that the leadership of France, upon hearing of this story, was sad that the kid didn't make it through.

It's been said that the radical right and the radical left eventually meet around back and are indistinguishable from each other. One difference I've noted is that the radical right, as manifested by white supremacists and Islamofascists, is outspoken in their desire to get rid of the Jews while the radical left, as manifested by European intellectuals, is too dishonest to admit it, while being happy to let the fascists do the job for them.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
MunkeeNutz writes:
Actually, I think it's because organizations like Hamas are really more comparable to the Mafia, or perhaps the Crips or Bloods, than to a military-type organization.

With Hamas, you're basically dealing with a bunch of self-centered criminals, who happen to be using the issue of Palestinian rights as their hobby horse to gain power among their own community.

A legitimate military-type organization would NOT emphasize "suicide attacks," (other than perhaps out of utter desparation) simply because their best--most able, most intelligent, most psychologically stable--members would not wish to participate; and further, it would be an unnecessary waste of their human resources.

Thus, "suicide attacks" are not really part of a well-thought out military-type strategy.

I think if anyone was ever able to do a financial audit of Hamas, what would probably be revealed is a huge flow of money and personal benefits to its leadership (i.e. rather than disbursal to Palestinian folk). This is the same thing as Arafat and his corrupt Palestinian Authority.

Thus, Hamas leadership doesn't have a second thought about sending "true believers" to die, and they certainly are not about to go on such missions themselves.


The exact same Mafia-like comparisons can be made regarding GWB and his NeoCon mafia associates <grin>.

And if "suicide attacks" are not really part of a well-thought out military-type strategy, why is the USA and Israel freaking out over it <grin>? From my viewpoint, the strategy is working great.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I've been wondering myself about The Motley Fool turning a blind eye to posts that promote terrorism. I'd have thought they'd be concerned about trouble, given the current climate.


Apparently you are in agreement with the Jewish terrorists that it is 'OK' to run indigenous peoples off their land using terrorism, weaponry from a friendly superpower, denial of human and political rights, etc. You say po-tah-to, I say po-tay-to.

At least you can't now say that you don't know the source of this problem. It's there in black and white at un.org.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Apparently you are in agreement with the Jewish terrorists that it is 'OK' to run indigenous peoples off their land using terrorism, weaponry from a friendly superpower, denial of human and political rights, etc. You say po-tah-to, I say po-tay-to.

I haven't said that.

And the Arabs are NOT the indigenous people, as I keep repeating. The Canaanites were. The Jews ran the Canaanites off, true, but since there are no Canaanites left alive, there is no one now who can press a claim to be the indigenous people of Palestine. In fact, the country shouldn't even be called EITHER Palestine or Israel if we are talking about indigenous people - it should be called Canaan.

At least you can't now say that you don't know the source of this problem. It's there in black and white at un.org.


Like most ordinary Brits, I don't give a fig for the UN. You will have to find a more credible source for your statements as far as I am concerned. The UN is corrupt and diseased and should be wound up summarily.

I pay more attention to history books, myself. History books that explore deep time, and ancient history such as that of the Mesopotamian era. The whole Israel/Arab thing is only a recent happening.

And, you have no idea how radical my solution would be were I in any position of power to propose it...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
And the Arabs are NOT the indigenous people, as I keep repeating.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

The Canaanites were.

Even the Canaanites came from somewhere else at some point in time. (You could say Native Americans weren't indigenous since they came from Asia. It all depends on your starting point.) When people say Palestinian Arabs were the indigenous people, what they mean is simply that they had an esablished society there for quite some time, for centuries. There were "indigenous" Jews in Palestine too. Just not very many.


The Jews ran the Canaanites off, true...

Well, maybe, maybe not. According to some archeological historians, the Jews were Canaanites. Others think the Jews, or Hebrews as they were called, (actually something like Habiru) migrated to Canaan and the "indigenous" Canaanites and itinerant Hebrews ended up assimilating with one another. One thing is almost certain: it didn't happen the way it's described in the OT.

...but since there are no Canaanites left alive...

Their descendants are probably Jews and Palestinian Arabs, i.e. Semites.


...there is no one now who can press a claim to be the indigenous people of Palestine.

I don't think claims can be based on that. However, the fact is that Palestinian Arabs and a few Jews were living in Palestine before the relatively recent immigration of Jewish colonists from Europe. They owned stuff. They owned land. (In other words they weren't like "uncivilized" Native Americans and Palestine wasn't "unclaimed" wilderness.)

... you have no idea how radical my solution would be were I in any position of power to propose it...

What would that be?



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You aren't going to lick em tomorrow with such a stupid strategy.

Based on the evidence planted by the Jewish tewwowists, it looks like we licked 'em on March 11.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
aranknitter -

Considering that there are now no Canaanites living, the above is unavoidable.

Congratulations. You've just done away with the main argument for settling the Jews in Palestine as opposed to some of the other places considered (Brazil). So, since you agree that 'historical connection' is no basis for exproriating Palestinian lands and denying them basic human rights, can we expect your support at the next Anti-Jewish tewwowist meeting?<g>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
And the Arabs are NOT the indigenous people, as I keep repeating.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

The Canaanites were.

Even the Canaanites came from somewhere else at some point in time. (You could say Native Americans weren't indigenous since they came from Asia. It all depends on your starting point.) When people say Palestinian Arabs were the indigenous people, what they mean is simply that they had an esablished society there for quite some time, for centuries. There were "indigenous" Jews in Palestine too. Just not very many.


The Jews ran the Canaanites off, true...

Well, maybe, maybe not. According to some archeological historians, the Jews were Canaanites. Others think the Jews, or Hebrews as they were called, (actually something like Habiru) migrated to Canaan and the "indigenous" Canaanites and itinerant Hebrews ended up assimilating with one another. One thing is almost certain: it didn't happen the way it's described in the OT.

...but since there are no Canaanites left alive...

Their descendants are probably Jews and Palestinian Arabs, i.e. Semites.


...there is no one now who can press a claim to be the indigenous people of Palestine.

I don't think claims can be based on that. However, the fact is that Palestinian Arabs and a few Jews were living in Palestine before the relatively recent immigration of Jewish colonists from Europe. They owned stuff. They owned land. (In other words they weren't like "uncivilized" Native Americans and Palestine wasn't "unclaimed" wilderness.)

... you have no idea how radical my solution would be were I in any position of power to propose it...

What would that be?


******************

Now, wait a minute.

According to sazani or inhanyt or someone like that, the region was under the control of the Ottoman (Turkish) empire--a Muslim empire that did not see fit to recognize the individuality or independence of a "Palestinian" state.

(I still haven't heard anyone complain about the Ottoman Empire or the Turks.)

The next conquerors were the British Empire, which agreed that a Jewish state--Israel--should be established in the region.

The area of Jordan or "TransJordan" was to be the Palestinian state in that mandate. Jordan still exists, but the Jordanians expelled the Palestinians from their rightful state.

The West Bank was under the control of the Jordanians until 1967.

There was no criticism of Jordan.

So, based on the "historical" record, there does not seem to be ANY basis for an independent Palestinian state, other than as granted by the sovereign entities governing that region.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Now, wait a minute.

According to sazani or inhanyt or someone like that, the region was under the control of the Ottoman (Turkish) empire--a Muslim empire that did not see fit to recognize the individuality or independence of a "Palestinian" state.


Who are sazani and inhanyt and why should I care what they think about the Ottoman Empire?

(I still haven't heard anyone complain about the Ottoman Empire or the Turks.)

The Ottomans were jerks. Happy now?


The next conquerors were the British Empire, which agreed that a Jewish state--Israel--should be established in the region.

Actually, a "homeland," not a state. There's a big difference. The state thing came later when the British were running things there under a "mandate" from the United Nations.


The area of Jordan or "TransJordan" was to be the Palestinian state in that mandate. Jordan still exists, but the Jordanians expelled the Palestinians from their rightful state.

That's wrong. The Israel for the Jews, Jordan for the Arabs thing was just one of several different British plans. The British gave Jordan to a Saudi Prince not to Jordanians. The Jordanians didn't expell Palestinians. The large number, maybe a majority, of Jordanians are Palestinian refugees or their descendants.

The West Bank was under the control of the Jordanians until 1967.

You got one right.

There was no criticism of Jordan.

Not even from Israel, oddly enough. Did you know that prior to the '48 war, Ben Gurion cut a deal with King Abdullah promising him the West Bank if he'd stay out of the war?

So, based on the "historical" record, there does not seem to be ANY basis for an independent Palestinian state, other than as granted by the sovereign entities governing that region.

Then there's no basis for an indepedent Israeli state either. The balfour Declaration envisioned only a "homeland." The same subsequent historical record which provides a basis for an Israeli state also provides a basis for a Palestinian state.

You're forgetting any number of partition plans culminating in the U.N. Partition which divided the land in question into Israel and Palestine. You're also forgetting the Oslo Agreements and President Bush's Roadmap, both of which Israel has agreed to and both of which posit a Palestinian state.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The next conquerors were the British Empire, which agreed that a Jewish state--Israel--should be established in the region.

Actually, a "homeland," not a state. There's a big difference. The state thing came later when the British were running things there under a "mandate" from the United Nations.

***************

Exactly. The modern State of Israel was endorsed expressly by the British who ruled the area under the auspices of the U.N.--i.e. the international community. Thus, there can be no doubt concerning the historical or political legitimacy of the State of Israel.

***********
So, based on the "historical" record, there does not seem to be ANY basis for an independent Palestinian state, other than as granted by the sovereign entities governing that region.

Then there's no basis for an indepedent Israeli state either. The balfour Declaration envisioned only a "homeland." The same subsequent historical record which provides a basis for an Israeli state also provides a basis for a Palestinian state.

*****

You just contradicted yourself. The international community expressly endorsed a modern State of Israel in the mandate when under the rule of the British. You said so yourself.

The "Palestinian state" you are talking about--as you also said so, yourself--is Jordan. You said Palestinians still live there. If they would only stop trying to destroy Jews and Israel, the Palestinians could also have the West Bank back.

*********************
You're forgetting any number of partition plans culminating in the U.N. Partition which divided the land in question into Israel and Palestine. You're also forgetting the Oslo Agreements and President Bush's Roadmap, both of which Israel has agreed to and both of which posit a Palestinian state.


No, the Palestinian state contemplated by that mandate is Jordan. Palestinians live there. In order to get the West Bank back, they have to stop trying to destroy Israel and all Jews.

It's really very simple.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The modern State of Israel was endorsed expressly by the British who ruled the area under the auspices of the U.N.--i.e. the international community. Thus, there can be no doubt concerning the historical or political legitimacy of the State of Israel.

You're confused. The British abstained from the U.N. vote on U.N. Resolution 181 calling for Palestine to be divided into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

http://www.ariga.com/treaties/part181.shtml


You just contradicted yourself. The international community expressly endorsed a modern State of Israel in the mandate when under the rule of the British. You said so yourself.

I know. There's no contradiction. The U.N. resolution called for a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine. You said there's no basis for an Arab state in Palestine. My point is that both the Jewish state and the Arab state have exactly the same basis.


The "Palestinian state" you are talking about--as you also said so, yourself--is Jordan.

Well, tell that to the Palestinians living in Jerusalem or in Nazareth, for that matter. Sure, there are a lot of Palestinian Arab refugees living in Jordan. More Jews live in the U.S. than in Israel. So what?


If they would only stop trying to destroy Jews and Israel, the Palestinians could also have the West Bank back.

That's contradicted by the historical record. Israel had absolutely no intention of ever relenquishing any of the Occupied Territories until after the first intifada. (Israel agreed to withdraw from the Sinai only after the 1973 war. It withdrew from Lebanon only after a punishing guerrilla campaign by Hezbollah.) Israel entrenched it's occupation and doubled it settlement effort during the Oslo period. Even now, Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza is the direct result of Palestinian violence. The Israelis have taught the Palestinians a terrible lesson: that Israel only understands force. When the Palestinians attempt to achieve their political objectives peacefully, say through the U.N. or World Court, they are always ridiculed and rebuffed. They are only taken seriously when they use violence.


No, the Palestinian state contemplated by that mandate is Jordan.

You are wrong. There were several partion plans. The last and only relevant one was the 1947 U.N. Partition which divided Palestine roughly 50-50.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/cf02d057b04d356385256ddb006dc02f/164333b501ca09e785256cc5005470c3!OpenDocument


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...but since there are no Canaanites left alive...

Their descendants are probably Jews and Palestinian Arabs, i.e. Semites.

=================

So what? There are still no Canaanites living. Britain was colonized 2,000 years ago by Romans in some parts, Vikings in other parts, Saxons in yet other parts, Celts were widespread before the Romans too. Do introduce me to ANY modern-day British person who is a Viking, now, please? Of course you can't. There's no Vikings in Britain any more.

Same difference with Canaanites.

Of course, America isn't that old, yet. You still have Mexican-Americans, Japanese-Americans, African-Americans, etc. Give it another 2,000 years and then maybe you'll understand my point...

... you have no idea how radical my solution would be were I in any position of power to propose it...

What would that be?


It would only start a quarrel. :) Suffice it to say that neither the Jews nor the Arabs would like it. (And no, before you ask, I am NOT advocating any countries - America, Europe, whoever - going in there and blowing them all up together.)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

The "Palestinian state" you are talking about--as you also said so, yourself--is Jordan.
=======
Well, tell that to the Palestinians living in Jerusalem or in Nazareth, for that matter. Sure, there are a lot of Palestinian Arab refugees living in Jordan. More Jews live in the U.S. than in Israel. So what?

Actually, I can go one better. There's a Palestinian family living next door to me. They emigrated from Palestine to the USA a few years ago.

The father once told me that since Palestine was not viable as an independant state, many Palestinians would like to be "taken over" by Jordan.

I have no reason to doubt he knows what he is talking about since he didn't emigrate THAT long ago, and he also lost family there.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It would only start a quarrel. :) Suffice it to say that neither the Jews nor the Arabs would like it. (And no, before you ask, I am NOT advocating any countries - America, Europe, whoever - going in there and blowing them all up together.)

Islam and Judaeism are not races, they're religions. It's a religious war that we don't have business being in.

There are Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia and the Phillipines who are Asians, and Muslims in the United States who are African American and Caucasian. Heck, there are Jews in China who look 100% Chinese! I read a book by Pearl S. Buch about it. Some European Jews had blue eyes and blond hair, and some Jews from Ethiopia who look just like any other African. They are fighting about religion, pure and simple. It's absolutely stupid and moronic and we need to get the heck out of there. - Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So what? There are still no Canaanites living.

Exactly. So what?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Islam and Judaeism are not races, they're religions. It's a religious war...

Actually, it's a war over land. Religion is just the "uniform" the two sides wear to tell each other apart.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

So what? There are still no Canaanites living.

Exactly. So what?


Sighhhhh...... do try and remember, the original point was "indigenous inhabitants".

No Canaanites left = no indigenous inhabitants. That WAS my point all along. Which you have just agreed with since you replied "Exacly" to my statement that there are no Canaanites living.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

It's absolutely stupid and moronic and we need to get the heck out of there. - Art

I'd go even further than that. :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Sighhhhh...... do try and remember, the original point was "indigenous inhabitants".

Right. My point is that the term "indigenous" is somewhat relative. It basically means the people who lived someplace before the conquerors or immigrants showed up.

Before the Canaanites, there was somebody else. Before that somebody else, there was still sombody else. You can't just pick an arbitrary point and say "the Canaanites were the indigenous people" in general.

When European Zionists began immigrating to Palestine the late 19th century the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine were mostly Muslim and Christian Arabs and a few Jews.


No Canaanites left = no indigenous inhabitants.

There are no Israelites left either. "Canaanite" and "Israelite" are ancient labels. Modern-day Jews have adopted the label "Israeli" but that doesn't make them any more or less "indigenous" than were Palestinians to suddenly adopt the name "Canaanite."


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So what? There are still no Canaanites living.

Exactly. So what?


This discussion reminds me of a controversy that's going on up here in the PNW. There is a skeleton called "Kennewick Man" named after the town it was found near in south-central WA. It has non-Native American features. In fact, it looks like it belongs to a human group unrelated to Native Americans at all. And yet it's around 9000 years old, when Native Americans' ancestors were supposed to be the only folks here.

If this is confirmed scientifically with more study, it will loosen the Native Americans' claim to be the first people here, at least the exclusive first people.

They are trying to take the remains away from the scientists by invoking a law or regulation which lets them claim remains of their own people for tribal burial. That this skeleton is probably not of their own people has not slowed them down at all. It's still in the courts.

History can be inconvenient.

--fleg
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Before the Canaanites, there was somebody else. Before that somebody else, there was still sombody else. You can't just pick an arbitrary point and say "the Canaanites were the indigenous people" in general.


Oaky, but even so, my point is still the same. "There are no indigenous peoples left." Nobody at this time qualifies as an indigenous person... the Canaanites don't, and the Jewish and Arab populations certainly don't - they were BOTH johhny-come-latelies.


When European Zionists began immigrating to Palestine the late 19th century the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine were mostly Muslim and Christian Arabs and a few Jews.

And when the Assyrians invaded, the indigenous people at that time were the ancient Hebrews. Again, my point is the same - that there are no indigenous people left. Neither the "indigenous" inhabitants in the 19th century nor the "indigenous" inhabitants of the Assyrian invasion period were REALLY indigenous.

It's basically the same argument for the Native Americans isn't it? It's okay for you to displace them, because they displaced somebody in their turn when they migrated here beforehand.

A clarification of my point is, NO place on the face of the planet - not even Israel/Palestine/Canaan - harbors that place's *indigenous* people. This whole "indigenous people" argument is basically a joke. Humankind's history is invasion/conquest/wipeout or assimilation/successive waves of changes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Oaky, but even so, my point is still the same. "There are no indigenous peoples left." Nobody at this time qualifies as an indigenous person... the Canaanites don't, and the Jewish and Arab populations certainly don't - they were BOTH johhny-come-latelies.

Okay. I see your point. I think it's a question of semantics, though, a quibble over the definition of "indigenous."

Forget "indigenous."

In the late 19th century the population of Palestine was predominantly and overwhelmingly Arab, Christian and Mulsim. European Jews, Zionists, began to immigrate to Palestine, both legally and illegally, with the expressed intention of taking over and forcing out the local inhabitants. It doesn't matter whether those local inhabitants were "indigenous" in your definitional sense. They were there. They lived there and in most cases their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents, etc. lived there before them.


It's basically the same argument for the Native Americans isn't it? It's okay for you to displace them, because they displaced somebody in their turn when they migrated here beforehand.

I think that's the Zionist argument, not my argument. I don't buy it and neither should they, frankly, because it's a "might makes right" argument from which the lesson to the Arabs is, if you can take it by force, it's rightfully yours."




A clarification of my point is, NO place on the face of the planet - not even Israel/Palestine/Canaan - harbors that place's *indigenous* people.

By your definition, that's absolutely correct. I just don't think your definition is the the commonly accepted one.


I think the commonly understood definition of "indigenous people" is more akin to "native." In other words the people who lived someplace for a long, long time before the new folks showed up and tried to kill them or chase them out.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

I think that's the Zionist argument, not my argument.


No actually, it's the Northern Irish argument. I just remembered it because there seemed to be some similarities. It does make more sense in the context of Northern Ireland than of Palestine, though.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So what? There are still no Canaanites living.

Exactly. So what?


Actually I imagine there are. The DNA from "canaanites" more than likely is mixed in chromosones of many people living in the Mid-East, especially "Lebanese and Syrians" and more than likely some Turks and Greeks too. The people that are alive today had to come from somewhere. Let's face it, with as horny as most men are, and more than willing to have intercourse with as many women as are willing to let him, we probably all have a few "canaanite" genes in all of us.
- Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Before the Canaanites, there was somebody else. Before that somebody else, there was still sombody else.

I seem to remember from a couple of Anthropology courses that I had at in college, under Dr. Fred Smith, world reknowned expert on Neandertals, that there are some pretty good Neandertal sites in the Mid-East. Maybe we should give the land back to the Neandertals?
- Art

Features
... with Fred Smith, distinguished research ... Fred Smith. " The Shanidar sample from Iraq, for example, which Erik studied in the 1970s and '80s, was crucial to how we view Neandertals ...
magazine.wustl.edu/Winter00/trinkaus.html

Scientists document most recent date for Neandertals
An international team of scientists has documented through new radiocarbon dating that Neandertals roamed central Europe as recently as 28,000 years ago, representing the latest date ever recorded... Fred H. Smith, a research team member and chairman of the Anthropology Department at Northern Illinois University. " The new radiocarbon dates suggest Neandertals ... Fred Smith and Erik ...
www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/1999-10/WUiS-Sdmr-241099.php
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oaky, but even so, my point is still the same. "There are no indigenous peoples left." Nobody at this time qualifies as an indigenous person... the Canaanites don't, and the Jewish and Arab populations certainly don't - they were BOTH johhny-come-latelies.

Quite a few Jews in Europe looked like Europeans. Some even had blond hair and blue eyes. Those genes had to come from somewhere. Ethiopian Jews look like Africans, Chinese Jews look Chinese. Whereever humans go they quickly interebreed. Many Aryans in India look like the native inhabitants. That purity stuff is a bunch of bunk. I met a woman in the Cherokee Indian Reservation in N.C. who was runing a store. She had light brown hair and green eyes, yet she had a certificate authenticating her as having enough American Indian blood in her to be classified as Indian. I bet my wife is more Indian than she was. Humans are horny as goats. They'll breed with anyone anytime. I read a study they did in some hospital in Portland Oregon where 37% of the babies were NOT the genetic children of the guy who was listed on the birth certificate. There were a LOT of women who pulled fast one on the daddys.

There's indigenous people's DNA, and it's all mixed in with everyone's DNA. My grand father lived in Prussia on a farm, and I noticed on the Ellis Island website that quite a few of the people with the same last name as my grandfather, who came from the same village as him (in what is now Poland) had very Jewish sounding names. I have no doubt that I probably have some not too distant "Jewish" genes in me, and thusly, more than likely some Canaanite and Phoenician, and Egyptian genes. When Attilla and his Mongol horde rode into Europe they left quite a bit of Mongol DNA in Europe, so much so that many babies born today in Hungary have that "mongol (blue) spot" on their butts. My mother's mother was olive skinned and had brown eyes and hair, as did my mother, which says to me that more than likely that they more than likely carry some of those "Hun" genes in them. - Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<It's basically the same argument for the Native Americans isn't it? It's okay for you to displace them, because they displaced somebody in their turn when they migrated here beforehand.>>

I think that's the Zionist argument, not my argument. I don't buy it and neither should they, frankly, because it's a "might makes right" argument from which the lesson to the Arabs is, if you can take it by force, it's rightfully yours."


Then, perhaps you could explain to us why you differentiate between land captured in 1948 and land captured in 1967 ?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I seem to remember from a couple of Anthropology courses that I had at in college, under Dr. Fred Smith, world reknowned expert on Neandertals, that there are some pretty good Neandertal sites in the Mid-East. Maybe we should give the land back to the Neandertals?

Maybe. Are there any Neandertals living in refugee camps with land titles and house keys?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe. Are there any Neandertals living in refugee camps with land titles and house keys?

I don't know about that, but there are definitely two of them married to my sisters. What's funny is that Dr. Fred Smith looks like a Neandertal. - Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Like most ordinary Brits, I don't give a fig for the UN. You will have to find a more credible source for your statements as far as I am concerned. The UN is corrupt and diseased and should be wound up summarily.

You better tell arch-Zionist and uber Brit Winston Churchill. He called some of these guys 'gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany'. Perhaps you dispute that he said that in the House of Commons? There must be a transcript. Would that satisfy you?

I pay more attention to history books, myself. History books that explore deep time, and ancient history such as that of the Mesopotamian era. The whole Israel/Arab thing is only a recent happening.

Maybe before you offer an opinion that one side is guilty of engaging in or encouraging terrorism, you should read the easily verifiable UN transcript. Of course, you haven't said the Jewish terrorists are not engaging in terrorism Here's your chance. <g>

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
ak -

Actually, I can go one better. There's a Palestinian family living next door to me. They emigrated from Palestine to the USA a few years ago.

The father once told me that since Palestine was not viable as an independant state, many Palestinians would like to be "taken over" by Jordan.

I have no reason to doubt he knows what he is talking about since he didn't emigrate THAT long ago, and he also lost family there.


With such a reputable and verifiable source and no context, I can see why you would think the UN version was lacking. LOL.

Have you told us your 'Plan'?

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Islam and Judaeism are not races, they're religions. It's a religious war that we don't have business being in.

art - most of the Jews I know in the States are what I would term 'ethnically Jewish'. Very few of them believe in a Supreme Being. They identify with the Holocaust and the need for a state of Israel.

There are Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia and the Phillipines who are Asians, and Muslims in the United States who are African American and Caucasian.

IINM, the majority of Muslims are Asian. (Anyone have a source?)

Heck, there are Jews in China who look 100% Chinese! I read a book by Pearl S. Buch about it. Some European Jews had blue eyes and blond hair, and some Jews from Ethiopia who look just like any other African.

How many CHinese Jews are there? 6?

They are fighting about religion, pure and simple. It's absolutely stupid and moronic and we need to get the heck out of there. - Art

You're making sense with that last line.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
inhanyt writes,

<<Like most ordinary Brits, I don't give a fig for the UN. You will have to find a more credible source for your statements as far as I am concerned. The UN is corrupt and diseased and should be wound up summarily. >>

You better tell arch-Zionist and uber Brit Winston Churchill. He called some of these guys 'gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany'. Perhaps you dispute that he said that in the House of Commons? There must be a transcript. Would that satisfy you?

I pay more attention to history books, myself. History books that explore deep time, and ancient history such as that of the Mesopotamian era. The whole Israel/Arab thing is only a recent happening.

Maybe before you offer an opinion that one side is guilty of engaging in or encouraging terrorism, you should read the easily verifiable UN transcript. Of course, you haven't said the Jewish terrorists are not engaging in terrorism Here's your chance.


Maybe someone who knows the history of the era can fill in the details, but wasn't Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Began the "Father of Modern Terrorism" when he led a team of Jewish thugs that bombed a Jerusalem hotel full of British diplomats after World War II?

Perhaps 30 years from now Libya's Quadaffi and Osama bid Laden will have a similiar opportunity to write history in their favor and win accolades as well. <LOL>

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'd go even further than that.

Guess we'll never know how far .. (whistling)...

Where oh where is the 'Plan'...?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
History can be inconvenient.


The Jewish terrorists are finding that out. Their main argument for locating in Palestine was their 'historical connection', regrettably non-existent for 2,000 years.

"A land with no people for a people with not land." Anyone who's looked at Annex VI knows how laughable that is.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think that's the Zionist argument, not my argument. I don't buy it and neither should they, frankly, because it's a "might makes right" argument from which the lesson to the Arabs is, if you can take it by force, it's rightfully yours."

You'd think fire-breathing zionists would understand this.<g>

The lesson isn't bargain like a pauper. the lesson is kill like a Jewish terrorist/American-sponsored proxy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No actually, it's the Northern Irish argument. I just remembered it because there seemed to be some similarities. It does make more sense in the context of Northern Ireland than of Palestine, though.

Why isn't it also the Zionist argument? Oh, there's that 'deep history' thing of yours... You might find it helpful to 'peruse' the sources on the Israeli-Palestine question at un.org when talking about ... well, Palestine.

Have you read the UN links provided? Is there some specific fact you take issue with.

Since you distrust or reject its authority, can we agree that it was not their place to unilaterally decide the fate of the primary inhabitants of Palestine?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Then, perhaps you could explain to us why you differentiate between land captured in 1948 and land captured in 1967 ?

Did the OP so differentiate?

I wouldn't.

I sure hope April 11th is as eventful as March 11th.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
My point is that both the Jewish state and the Arab state have exactly the same basis.

Only if you agree that the UN and the League of Nations, the Brits and the US had the authority to apportion the place. I reject the latter two as hopelessly biased arbiters of good taste in this matter.

One thing I have gathered from this thread is how willing MunkeePoopee is to take the slimmest of potential factoids and run with it. <g>

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Maybe someone who knows the history of the era can fill in the details, but wasn't Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Began the "Father of Modern Terrorism" when he led a team of Jewish thugs that bombed a Jerusalem hotel full of British diplomats after World War II?

Perhaps 30 years from now Libya's Quadaffi and Osama bid Laden will have a similiar opportunity to write history in their favor and win accolades as well. <LOL>


I believe he was a member of the notorious 'Irgun'. I believe AD has posted links to this group on a recent thread.

For the record, I find Menachem Begin more physically attractive than Condi Rice (at least, based on the most recent photo). <g>
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Since you distrust or reject its authority, can we agree that it was not their place to unilaterally decide the fate of the primary inhabitants of Palestine?

Definitely. IMO, it is not the UN's place to do anything.

And I think Winston Churchill was one of the greatest British statesmen of this century.

Beyond that, there's not a lot of point in talking to you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Inhanyt:

Perhaps you could tell us when the country "Palestine" EVER existed.

The answer is, "never."

Please find any historical reference to a people called "Palestinians" prior to 1900.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
My point is that both the Jewish state and the Arab state have exactly the same basis.

Only if you agree that the UN and the League of Nations, the Brits and the US had the authority to apportion the place. I reject the latter two as hopelessly biased arbiters of good taste in this matter.

One thing I have gathered from this thread is how willing MunkeePoopee is to take the slimmest of potential factoids and run with it. <g>


inhanyt

*************************

Inhanyt: Please provide a historical reference to an Arab or Islamic nation called "Palestine" prior to 1900. Please cite to a primary historical source.

Please indicate when an Islamic or Arabic state or nation called "Palestine" was ever recognized in world history.

You haven't done so yet.

You keep talking about an Arabic or Islamic "Palestine" as if it is some independent historical entity that pre-dates the 20th century.

As near as I can determine from the various posts here, the region was controlled by the British immediately prior to 1948. Prior to British control, the region was under the control of the Ottoman (Turkish) empire, I assume for a period of hundreds of years.

You can go all the way back to the Roman Empire and there was never a state nor a people known as "Palestine". The term "Palestine" historically was always used as a reference to the "Holy Land".

The term was appropriated by Arab/Islamic radicals relatively recently in order to make a claim on the territory.

There was no pre-exising historical Arabic or Islamic state or nation designated as "Palestine."



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Definitely. IMO, it is not the UN's place to do anything.

How realistic of you. You clearly have 'deep' sense of history.

And I think Winston Churchill was one of the greatest British statesmen of this century.

So, when you were referring to 'terrorists', you were including the Jewish variety, too, like good ole Winnie. Excellent progress.

Beyond that, there's not a lot of point in talking to you.

Your respect for the property 'rights' of folks absent for 2,000 years is impressive.

Print the post Back To Top